8.

6 Case Study: Exergy Accounting of a Vapor Power Plant 481

TABLE 8.4

Vapor Power Plant Exergy Accountinga

Outputs
Net power outb 30%
Losses
Condenser cooling water c 1%
Stack gases (assumed) 1%
Exergy destruction
Boiler
Combustion unit (assumed) 30%
Heat exchanger unit d 30%
Turbinee 5%
Pump f —
Condenser g 3%
Total 100%

a b
All values are expressed as a percentage of Example 8.8.
c
the exergy carried into the plant with the Example 8.9.
d
fuel. Values are rounded to the nearest full Example 8.7.
e
percent. Exergy losses associated with stray Example 8.8.
f
heat transfer from plant components are Example 8.8.
g
ignored. Example 8.9.

For purposes of illustration, let us assume that 30% of the exergy entering the com-
bustion unit with the fuel is destroyed by the combustion irreversibility and 1% of the
fuel exergy exits the heat exchanger unit with the stack gases. The corresponding values
for an actual power plant might differ from these nominal values. However, they provide
characteristic values for discussion. (Means for evaluating the combustion exergy destruc-
tion and the exergy accompanying the exiting stack gases are introduced in Chap. 13.)
Using the foregoing values for the combustion exergy destruction and stack gas loss,
it follows that a maximum of 69% of the fuel exergy remains for transfer from the hot
combustion gases to the cycle working fluid. It is from this portion of the fuel exergy
that the net work developed by the plant is obtained. In Examples 8.7 through 8.9, we
account for the exergy supplied by the hot combustion gases passing through the heat
exchanger unit. The principal results of this series of examples are reported in Table 8.4.
Carefully note that the values of Table 8.4 are keyed to the vapor power plant of Exam-
ple 8.2 and thus have only qualitative significance for vapor power plants in general.

Case Study Conclusions

The entries of Table 8.4 suggest some general observations about vapor power plant
performance. First, the table shows that the exergy destructions are more significant
than the plant losses. The largest portion of the exergy entering the plant with the fuel
is destroyed, with exergy destruction in the boiler overshadowing all others. By contrast,
the loss associated with heat transfer to the cooling water is relatively unimportant. The
cycle thermal efficiency (calculated in the solution to Example 8.2) is 31.4%, so over
two-thirds (68.6%) of the energy supplied to the cycle working fluid is subsequently
carried out by the condenser cooling water. By comparison, the amount of exergy car-
ried out is virtually negligible because the temperature of the cooling water is raised
only a few degrees over that of the surroundings and thus has limited utility. The loss
amounts to only 1% of the exergy entering the plant with the fuel. Similarly, losses
accompanying unavoidable heat transfer with the surroundings and the exiting stack
gases typically amount only to a few percent of the exergy entering the plant with the
fuel and are generally overstated when considered from the perspective of energy alone.
An exergy analysis allows the sites where destructions or losses occur to be identified
and rank ordered for significance. This knowledge is useful in directing attention to
aspects of plant performance that offer the greatest opportunities for improvement
through the application of practical engineering measures. However, the decision to