Applied Energy 239 (2019) 1322–1342

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Heat integration and heat recovery steam cycle optimization for a low- T
carbon lignite/biomass-to-jet fuel demonstration project
Cristina Elsidoa, Emanuele Martellia, , Thomas Kreutzb
⁎

a
Politecnico di Milano, Department of Energy, Via Lambruschini 4, 20156 Milano, Italy
b
Princeton University, Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment, 86 Olden Street, 08544 Princeton, NJ, USA

HIGHLIGHTS

• The heat integration study for CBTLE plants is presented.

• The heat recovery cycle and HEN are optimized with three methodologies.
• The optimal HRSC for the demo plant is separate and has 13.6% efficiency.
• The optimal HRSC for the NOAK plant is integrated with 18.4% efficiency.
• For NOAK plants energy targeting provides cost-optimal HRSC designs.

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This paper reports the heat integration study for a demonstration plant to co-process lignite and woody biomass
Heat recovery steam cycle into jet fuel with CO2 capture and storage. Since all the main process reactions are exothermic and convert
Heat exchanger network approximately 65% of the feedstock chemical energy into heat, designing an efficient heat recovery steam cycle
Polygeneration and heat exchanger network is essential for the overall thermo-economic performance. Different integration
Mixed-integer nonlinear programming
options for the plant’s heat recovery steam cycle are analyzed and compared, considering costs and the key
Utility
Fischer-Tropsch
technical limitations. The design of the heat recovery steam cycle and heat exchanger network is optimized with
an energy targeting methodology, a sequential synthesis method and a recently proposed simultaneous meth-
odology. Given the high specific costs of the units caused by the novelty and small size and of the demonstration
plant, the techno-economic optimization returns solutions with considerably lower efficiency (up to −5%
percentage points) and power output (up to −18%) compared to the energy targeting methodology. The dif-
ference in optimal HRSC designs and performance are minor (less than −2% power output) for full-scale plants
based on mature technologies.

1. Introduction transportation, power production and heating needs [2]. Compared to

Coal- and biomass-to-liquid fuels and electricity (CBTLE) plants are
polygeneration energy systems that produce both low-carbon liquid
transportation fuels and electric power in an energy-efficient and en-
vironmentally friendly manner [1]. CBTLE plants first convert coal and
biomass into synthetic gas (“syngas”) through gasification. Excess CO2
contained in the syngas can be captured while CO and H2 are sent to
catalytic synthesis processes to produce liquid fuels (so-called “syn-
fuels”). Regarding the overall carbon balance, if all the coal-derived
CO2 is captured and permanently stored (“Carbon Capture and Sto-
rage”, CCS), the liquid synfuels can be considered as clean renewable
fuels that can be used as alternatives to fossil fuels for satisfying
plants using only biomass, coal and coal + biomass co-gasification
systems can more readily exploit economies of scale for equipment
costs, resulting in appreciably lower specific investment costs [3] while
preserving carbon neutrality via CCS. In addition, excess process heat
made available from exothermic reactions and synthesis off-gases can
be efficiently converted into electricity using a heat recovery steam
cycle (HRSC) and a gas turbine (GT).
Several types of synfuels process configurations have been studied
in literature (see the review by Floudas et al. [4]). Liu et al. [1,2,5]
studied the co-production of Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) liquid fuels and
electricity with CCS, presenting the results of process simulations and
performance/cost analyses for numerous different process

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: emanuele.martelli@polimi.it (E. Martelli).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.01.221
Received 2 August 2018; Received in revised form 29 December 2018; Accepted 26 January 2019
Available online 14 February 2019
0306-2619/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Elsido, et al. Applied Energy 239 (2019) 1322–1342

Nomenclature MILP mixed-integer linear program

MINLP mixed-integer nonlinear program
AGR acid gas removal MP medium pressure
ASU air separation unit MT medium temperature
CBGTL coal, biomass and natural gas to transportation fuel plant NG natural gas
CBTLE coal and biomass to liquid fuels and electricity plant NLP nonlinear program
C cold process stream ORC organic Rankine cycle
CCS Carbon Capture and Storage PSA pressure swing adsorption
CR cold refinery stream SNG synthetic natural gas
EOR enhanced oil recovery SPK synthetic paraffinic kerosene
F-T Fischer-Tropsch SQP sequential quadratic programming
GT gas turbine SWS sour water stripping
GTCC gas turbine combined cycle TAC total annual cost
H hot process stream TBM total bare module
HEN heat exchanger network TPC total plant cost
HP high pressure TSA temperature swing adsorption
HR hot refinery stream VNS variable neighborhood search
HRAT heat recovery approach temperature WGS water gas shift
HRSC heat recovery steam cycle WSA wet sulfuric acid
HRSG heat recovery steam generator ZLD zero liquid discharge
HT high temperature
IGCC integrated gasification combined cycle Subscripts
LHV lower heating value
LLP low-low pressure HX heat exchanger
LLT low-low temperature i index for hot streams
LP low pressure j index for cold streams
LT low temperature ref reference

configurations. In [6] and [7], Haro and coauthors assessed the techno-
economic potential of producing multiple products from biomass based
on dimethyl ether as an intermediate product. Chen et al. [8] studied
flexible polygeneration systems using coal and biomass to coproduce
power, liquid fuels, and chemicals, and optimized their design and
operation under different economic and policy scenarios.
The context and origin of this research is a 30-month design study,
funded in 2015 by the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy
Technology Laboratory (NETL), of a first-of-a-kind (FOAK) demon-
stration plant to be built near Meridian, Mississippi that would convert
lignite + woody biomass into jet fuel and electricity with CCS. Its pri-
mary objective was to demonstrate the technical and economic viability
of the CBTLE process before investing in larger commercial-scale plants.
The plant design was developed by researchers at Princeton University
and University of Queensland, and validated by engineers at the
WorleyParsons Group (WPG). The results of the project are reported in
[9] and a forthcoming paper [10].
In the CBTLE plant, all the main process reactions (oxygen-blown
gasification, water-gas shift and liquid fuel synthesis) are exothermic,
and ∼65% of the input feedstock’s chemical energy (LHV basis) is
available as thermal energy from reactors, syngas coolers and the GT
exhaust. Although some of this heat is used to satisfy endothermic re-
actions and to raise the temperature of numerous cold process streams,
the remaining net waste heat is still considerable, ∼45% of the input
chemical energy. Consequently, the efficient recovery and conversion of
these energy streams into electricity is essential to make the overall
plant cost-effective and environmentally sustainable. Given the large
size of the plant and the medium/high temperatures of many of the
available heat sources (e.g. by cooling the raw syngas and GT exhaust),
the most advantageous option is to use a Rankine cycle-based HRSC
[11]. Compared to the “standard” HRSCs used in natural gas combined
cycles, HRSCs for polygeneration plants must be individually optimized
for each application because they recover heat from multiple heat
sources and must provide steam and heat to multiple users (or “sinks”)
within the plant. For this reason, HRSC design in polygeneration plants
is tightly connected with its process heat integration and heat
exchanger network (HEN) [12]. Due to the large number of hot and
cold streams, an extremely large number of possible HRSC and HEN
layouts are possible; hence, a systematic and efficient optimization
methodology is called for.
This paper reports the final results of the heat integration study
performed by researchers at Politecnico di Milano and Princeton
University for the abovementioned CBTLE demonstration plant study
within the framework of the NETL project. The complex conversion
process was designed and simulated using commercial chemical process
simulation software (Aspen Plus [13]) by Princeton University in col-
laboration with the project’s industrial partners. The detailed heat and
mass balances around each plant component were used as input to the
heat integration design study described in this paper.
This work has two primary goals:
• Determine the optimal heat integration solution for CBTLE plants of
this type, with sizes ranging from small FOAK demo-plants to full-
scale commercially available plants.
• Compare a widely used heat integration methodology, energy tar-
geting [14,15], with an advanced synthesis/optimization algorithm
[16], capable of considering all the main design constraints, energy
performance and cost, on a challenging real-world application.
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there are no previous studies
in literature in which heat integration, HRSC and HEN optimization are
performed simultaneously, explicitly considering both primary tech-
nical design constraints (esp. the “no stream splitting” constraints) and
heat integration equipment costs. Previous investigations have not been
formulated at such a high level of detail, and their optimization
methods are unable to handle such design constraints (as detailed
below). This research uses an ad-hoc implementation of a recently
proposed methodology [16] for the simultaneous optimization of the
design of both steam cycles and HENs while respecting numerous de-
sign constraints and technical limitations imposed by the technology
providers. With the aid of advanced optimization tools, different in-
tegration options for the plant’s HRSC are analyzed and compared here

1323
C. Elsido, et al.
in order to rigorously determine the best trade-off between energy ef-
ficiency, HEN complexity and capital costs. This paper addresses an-
other important question concerning the features of the heat integration
methodology required to deal with the design of CBTLE (and similar
integrated) plants.
Several approaches have been developed for optimizing the heat
integration, HENs, and utility systems of complex plants. These ap-
proaches can be classified into four main groups:
• Energy targeting methods
• HEN synthesis techniques
• Utility optimization techniques
• HEN + utility optimization techniques
Energy targeting methods. Examples of well-known energy tar-
geting methods are Pinch Analysis [17], the LP transshipment model
[18] and its extensions ([14,15]), and pinch location techniques [19].
These methods enable the determination of minimum utility require-
ments (i.e., maximum heat recovery) as well as the optimal selection
and design of utilities ([14,15,19]) while neglecting the detailed design
of the HEN (which would significantly increase the complexity of the
optimization problem by requiring a large number of binary variables
in order to determine the optimal match between hot and cold streams).
For polygeneration plants, Gassner and Marechal [20] developed a
methodology, based on decomposing the problem into several parts, to
evaluate the efficiency and economic performance of integrated biofuel
plants. Peduzzi et al. [21] applied the same methodology to a number of
gasification-based methanol production systems employing various
HRSC configurations. More recently, Peduzzi et al. [22] integrated the
energy targeting methodology [23] with a multi-objective algorithm to
optimize the design of a sugarcane biorefinery that produces methanol
and ethanol. Holmgren et al. [24] applied Pinch Analysis to estimate
power production targets using HRSCs in gasification-based bio-SNG
production systems.
HEN synthesis techniques. Two main approaches have been pro-
posed for HEN synthesis:
Sequential HEN techniques [18,25]: these techniques decompose the
HEN optimization problem into simpler subproblems which are
solved sequentially. First, the minimum utility requirement is de-
termined using an energy targeting method that solves a linear
program (corresponding to the heat cascade) [18]. Then, after fixing
the utility requirements, the minimum number of matches (i.e. heat
exchangers) between hot and cold streams is determined by solving
a Mixed-Integer Linear Program (MILP). Finally, for fixed matches
between streams, the solution (i.e., heat transfer area of the heat
exchangers and the inlet/outlet temperatures of the streams) and the
minimum heat transfer area are determined by solving a nonlinear
program (NLP) [25]. Due to its sequential nature, the methodology
is unable to determine the best trade-off between energy efficiency,
HEN complexity, and capital costs. Since the focus of the problem is
the HEN of process streams, the utility systems are not optimized;
instead, they are simplified as single hot or cold streams at very high
or very low temperatures, placed at the hot/cold end of the HEN
superstructure in order to provide/absorb the required heat. This
approach minimizes the number of required variables in each op-
timization subproblem.
Simultaneous HEN techniques [26]: the overall HEN optimization
problem, including the cost of the heat transfer area, matches be-
tween hot and cold streams, and utility requirements (energy con-
sumption), is formulated and tackled as a single problem. A super-
structure is used to reproduce a wide variety of potential HEN
configurations, and the corresponding mathematical problem is a
MINLP. To limit the complexity of this very challenging problem,
the utility systems (i.e., their configuration, design variables, and
flow rates) are not optimized within the same MINLP, but instead
1324
Applied Energy 239 (2019) 1322–1342
(as before) are simplified as single hot/cold streams at very high/
low temperatures. Note that the resulting MINLP optimization pro-
blem is extremely difficult to solve, and even employing state-of-the-
art MINLP algorithms [27], global optimality is achieved only for
small-scale problems (i.e., those with only a few hot and cold
streams). Problems featuring ten or more streams can be tackled, but
without any guarantee on the global optimality of the solution [27].
Due to the required simplifications in the utility systems, the above-
mentioned HEN synthesis techniques are not directly suitable for op-
timizing the design of the utility systems, nor do they allow for the
exploitation of all possible integration options between process streams
and “utility” streams (those from boilers, steam cycles, and the steam
network) [16].
Utility optimization techniques. A number of optimization ap-
proaches and models have been proposed to optimize the detailed de-
sign of complex utility systems such as steam cycles and steam networks
to recover excess heat, and to provide steam (or heat) and electric
power to complex plants (see e.g., [28,11]). The design of the utility
system is typically tackled after first optimizing the HEN, with the
objective of providing to the HEN the required hot utility (typically
saturated steam) and cold utility (typically cooling water and saturated
refrigerants). Such approaches over-constrain the design of the utility
system and the possible integration options between utility streams and
process streams because the HEN is fixed in a previous step (for ex-
ample by applying a HEN synthesis technique). Martelli et al. [11]
proposed a mathematical programming model, a linear approximation,
and a two-stage algorithm to optimize the design of HRSCs and their
integration with external heat/steam sources/users. The authors suc-
cessfully applied the proposed model and methodology to highly in-
tegrated plants: biomass to Fischer–Tropsch liquids plants, IGCCs with
and without CCS [11], integrated reforming combined cycles [29], and
coal-to-synthetic natural gas facilities [30]. Zhang et al. [31] proposed
an approach for the optimal design of HRSGs of polygeneration plants
with and without external heat stream integration, considering the net
power output of the HRSG as the objective function to be maximized.
The model does not consider the process HEN (as in [11]), assuming it
is already given. The superstructure of HRSG mimics that of real
HRSGs, with a fixed number of tube banks (i.e. portions of economizers,
superheaters) and one evaporator for each pressure level. Starting from
that work, Manassaldi et al. [32] extended the superstructure to include
a wider variety of possible HRSG configurations and studied two cases:
(i) the maximization of the total net power for a given total heat
transfer area, and (ii) the minimization of the total heat transfer area for
a given total net power.
HEN + utility optimization techniques. To the best of our
knowledge, only the methodologies of Marechal and Kalitventzeff
[14,15], Papoulias and Grossmann [18,33], Duran and Grossmann
[19], Hipólito-Valencia et al. [34], and Martelli et al. [16] allow for the
combined optimization of the HEN and utility systems, including se-
lection and design of the latter. Utility streams are treated as process
streams fully integrated within the HEN, and the utility selection and
configuration are simultaneously optimized with the process heat in-
tegration. Since the full HEN + utility optimization problem is ex-
tremely challenging [16], sequential solution approaches are typically
adopted. First, an energy targeting methodology is used to optimize the
utility system selection and design (pressures, temperatures and flow
rates). A linearized objective function, which accounts for the energy
cost but neglects the number and capital costs of the heat exchangers, is
optimized in the first step. Then, in the subsequent steps, for fixed
utility design and flow rates, the optimal HEN is determined by ap-
plying the well-known sequential HEN synthesis approach [18,25]. Due
to the sequential nature of the methodology, it is unable to determine
the best trade-off between energy efficiency, HEN complexity and ca-
pital costs. Elia et al. [35] developed a three-stage decomposition ap-
proach to sequentially determine the minimum utility requirement, the
C. Elsido, et al.
minimum number of heat exchangers, and the total annualized cost of
the HEN for a given process design. Baliban et al. [36] applied a sim-
plified sequential approach to embed the heat integration in the overall
process synthesis optimization. They included constraints related to the
minimum utility target for heat and power recovery networks, based on
the pinch point location method, in the model for process synthesis
optimization. Then, the obtained minimum utility requirements were
employed to determine the minimum number of heat exchangers and
the minimum total annualized cost of the HEN, as in [35]. Ng et al. [37]
proposed a methodology for the optimal design of processes converting
coal, biomass and natural gas to biorefinery processes, considering only
the integration through steam allocation in a steam network, while
direct heat recovery or exchange within process streams were not
considered (thus, HEN optimization was not attempted). Some re-
searchers have studied the optimal integration of the process streams
within industrial plants to an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) to recover
waste heat, using a sequential approach based on pinch analysis [38].
Hipólito-Valencia et al. [34] addressed the same problem with a si-
multaneous approach and successfully applied the method to simple
literature test cases.
Recently, a simultaneous approach for the combined synthesis of
HENs and utility systems has been proposed by Martelli et al. in
[16,39], and Elsido et al. in [40,41], that can rigorously take into ac-
count the trade-off between energy efficiency, network complexity, and
costs. It allows the user to: (1) select among several available utility
systems, (2) include complex superstructures of utility systems (such as
steam cycles, ORCs, and heat pump cycles), (3) generate all possible
matches between process streams and utility streams, (4) consider de-
sign constraints for the arrangement of the tube banks of steam cycles,
such as the “no stream splitting” constraint, and (5) configure and
optimally design the utility systems and HEN simultaneously while
considering energy efficiency, capital costs, and technical design/op-
erational constraints. The method has been applied to the simultaneous
heat integration and design optimization of ORCs [40], Combined
Fig. 1. Simplified block-flow scheme of the plant with the list of hot and cold streams. The hot and cold streams are respectively represented using red and blue
colors. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
1325
Applied Energy 239 (2019) 1322–1342
Cycles and IGCCs [16], considering all the main technical design con-
straints and the trade-off between efficiency and capital costs in a rig-
orous way (i.e., targeting the minimum total annual cost, rather than
just efficiency). For the IGCC test case, the methodology has found a
solution with a 12% total annual cost improvement and 50% fewer heat
exchangers compared to a previous utility optimization approach [16].
Similar to the IGCC plant, the CBTLE demo plant features multiple heat
sources (i.e., hot streams) and heat sinks (cold streams or steam users)
to be integrated with the HRSC, motivating the need of a HEN + utility
synthesis methodology. Given the very promising results obtained with
similar plants, the HEN + utility synthesis methodology proposed by
Martelli et al. [16] has been selected for this work.
The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 describes the demon-
stration plant and its main peculiarities. Section 3 shows the maximum
heat recovery target that could be ideally achieved. The sequential and
simultaneous synthesis methodologies used in this study and the results
are described in Sections 4.
2. Plant description
This section provides a broad overview of the CBTLE process and its
component sub-processes and technologies; substantially more detail
can be found in the companion paper [10]. A simplified block-flow
scheme of the demonstration plant, with its indicated hot and cold
streams, is shown in Fig. 1; stream descriptions and properties are listed
in the associated Table 1.
At the beginning of the CBTLE plant, 1551 ton/day of lignite (45.5%
moisture, 193.2 MW LHV basis) and 556 ton/day of wood logs (43.3%
moisture, 62.6 MW LHV basis) are separately subjected to sizing and
drying using hot pressurized water that is pre-heated to 121 °C (cold
stream C8). Dried feedstock particles are fed to a pressurized oxygen-
blown TRIG™ gasifier operating at roughly 45 bar and 1040 °C. Hot ash
(hot stream H1) extracted from the gasifier is quenched to near ambient
temperature prior to landfill disposal. Medium pressure “reaction”
C. Elsido, et al. Applied Energy 239 (2019) 1322–1342

Table 1 syngas using a chilled methanol solvent (Rectisol®). The Rectisol®

Heat and temperature data of the plant streams. process design selected for this study features a number of distillation
Hot process streams Tin [°C] Tout [°C] Thermal power [kW] columns whose total heat load is represented by two reboilers, one
operating at 140 °C (cold stream C2) and another at 160 °C (cold stream
H1 – ash cooler 150 50 2295 C3). The captured H2S is converted to wet sulfuric acid (WSA) via a
H2 – HT syngas cooler 1034 650 23,306
process, designed and licensed by Haldor Topsoe, based on incineration
H3 – MT syngas cooler 650 250 24,277
H4 – water cooler in SWS 107 49 2594
of sulfur-containing gases to SO2, catalytic conversion to SO3, hydration
H5 – WGS syngas cooler 416 189 7911 to H2SO4, and condensation to liquid sulfuric acid. The WSA boiler
H6 – LT syngas cooler 188.8 176 1732 generates approximately 6 MW of high temperature thermal power
H7 – LLT syngas cooler 176 38 21,045 (stream H11). Guard beds downstream of the AGR add a final layer of
H8 – SWS gas cooler 107 82 2583
protection for the cobalt-based F-T synthesis catalyst from trace levels
H9 – FT reactor 211.5 210.5 28,002
H10 – GT flue gases 524 100 41,135 of sulfur. CO2 captures in the Rectisol unit is dried, compressed to
H11 – WSA boiler 1717 120 6003 ∼150 bar, and delivered by pipeline to the plant gate.
Hot refinery streams The F-T synthesis and refinery island includes tubular fixed-bed
reactors containing a cobalt-based catalyst and uses the evaporation of
HR1 210 43 14,070 LP steam to cool (hot stream H9) the highly exothermic F-T reaction. F-
HR2 390 43 7460 T synthesis is followed by hydrocarbon recovery, which separates a
HR3 260 38 106
HR4 260 38 255
diverse mixture of liquid hydrocarbons (“syncrude”) from light gases
HR5 260 38 956 used to fuel a Siemens SGT-700 gas turbine (GT) that generates
HR6 260 38 1056 30.4 MW of electricity and discharges hot (524 °C) exhaust gas (stream
HR7 260 121 433 H10). Within the refinery unit (Fig. 1), the syncrude is first hydro-
Cold process streams treated/hydrocracked and then fractionated into synthetic paraffinic
kerosene (SPK) and naphtha. Hydrogen for the hydrocracker is supplied
C1 – WGS feedgas 239 250 198
via pressure swing adsorption (PSA) fed by: (1) a bleed from the hy-
C2 – LLP Rectisol reboiler 139 140 8105
C3 – LP Rectisol reboiler 160 161 9950 drocracker recycle loop, and (2) a slipstream from the syngas entering
C4 – SWS reboiler 111.8 111.8 3239 the F-T reactor. The PSA purge gases and the light ends from the F-T
C5 – ZLD system 139 139 3981 synthesis, hydrocracking, and fractionation processes comprise the GT
C6 – ASU TSA 174 174 355 fuel. In total, the F-T synthesis and refinery island produces 1252 bar-
C7 – FT feedgas heater 47 175 5441
rels per day of liquids (equivalent to 76.2 MW, LHV basis), of which
C8 – Dryer water loop 78 121 20,981
80% is SPK (1004 barrels per day) and 20% is naphtha (248 barrels per
Cold refinery streams
day).
CR1 43 260 1131 Heat and temperature data on the hot and cold process and refinery
CR2 32 122 110 streams are given in Table 1. The labels “H” and “C” denote respectively
CR3 107 371 6878 hot and cold process streams, “HR” and “CR” denote respectively hot
CR4 233 260 136
and cold refinery streams, and “RS” represents the reaction steam re-
Reaction steam required by the plant quired by the process chemical reactions. The reaction steam is ex-
RS1 to gasifier p = 55 bar T = 424.5 °C m = 5.55 kg/s tracted from the HRSC and injected into the gasifier, WGS reactor and
RS2 to WGS p = 55 bar T = 424.5 °C m = 4.32 kg/s
RS3 to refinery unit p = 55 bar T = 424.5 °C m = 0.34 kg/s
refinery columns. Refinery streams are distinguished/treated differ-
ently from the main process streams because it was deemed un-
economical/impractical to fully integrate the refinery island’s HEN with
steam (55 bar, 424.5 °C) is injected into the gasifier to serve as a tem- that of the remaining plant; this design choice limits the complexity of
perature moderator, fluidizing agent, and reactant in the fast transport the plant’s HEN and to allows the refinery to operate independently of
gasification process. High purity oxygen (99.5% purity) is provided by a the rest of the plant (see Section 2.1).
cryogenic air separation unit, designed by Air Products, which requires In addition to the cold streams given in Table 1, the process requires
heat above 175 °C to regenerate the temperature swing adsorption beds 10.21 kg/s of reaction steam at 424.5 °C and 55 bar that must be sup-
(cold stream C6) of the pre-purification unit. Syngas exits the gasifier at plied by the steam cycle/steam network. Two cold utility systems are
1034 °C and it is cooled down to 250 °C (hot streams H2 and H3), fil- used to absorb the waste heat from the process: first, the HRSC, and
tered, and scrubbed before a sour water-gas shift (WGS) adjusts the ultimately, the plant’s cooling water (inlet temperature 21 °C, outlet
composition of (a portion of) the syngas until the molar H2/CO ratio at temperature 31 °C) from its cooling tower. Stand-alone hot utility sys-
the inlet of the downstream F-T reactor is equal to its optimal value of tems (e.g. boilers and fired heaters) were not included in the plant’s
2.0. Syngas entering the WGS is mixed with medium pressure reaction design because the large excess of high temperature heat made avail-
steam and then heated to 250 °C (cold stream C1) before entering the able by the process can be used both directly and indirectly (through a
catalytic reactor; shifted syngas is combined with the unshifted syngas steam network with evaporators and condensers) to satisfy the heat
fraction and cooled to 38 °C in the LT and LLT coolers (and condensed requirements of the plant’s many cold streams.
water removed) prior to acid gas removal (AGR). The purge water from Of primary concern in the overall design of the HRSC is the choice
the syngas scrubber is sent to the Sour Water Stripping (SWS) unit, between an “integrated” or “separate” configuration:
which removes H2S and NH3 from the sour water streams by stripping
them in a column featuring a reboiler (cold stream C4). The stripped gas - “Integrated” HRSC (case “I-HRSC”): steam generated by the process
(hot stream H8) and sour water (hot stream H4) are cooled and the (syngas coolers, WSA boiler, FT reactor, etc.) and GT exhaust heat is
liquid is sent to the Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) wastewater treatment. recovered in a single, integrated HRSC, featuring a single steam
In the ZLD process, concentrated brine from a slurry cyclone is first turbine and condenser. Its design optimization must meet the
mixed with the feed, and then heated in an evaporator (cold stream C5) technical constraints listed in Section 2.1.
whose drum collects the two-phase brine and separates out pure water - “Separated” HRSC (case “S-HRSC”): process heat is recovered in a
vapor from the concentrated liquid solution. In the AGR island, CO2, specifically designed HRSC (called here the “process HRSC”) while
H2S, and trace impurities are removed from the shifted and cooled the heat of the GT exhaust is recovered in a standard HRSC com-
monly used for combined cycles (called “GT HRSC”). This separate

1326
C. Elsido, et al.
configuration entails two smaller, less efficient, and more costly
steam turbines and condensers but it enables the use of an “off-the-
shelf” combined cycle package (with cost savings compared to a
customized unit) and provides higher operational flexibility. Indeed
it significantly simplifies plant start-up (because the GT combined
cycle can run on natural gas and provide the steam required to start-
up the gasifier, WGS unit, process heaters, F-T synthesis reactor,
hydrocracker, AGR reboilers, SWS, refinery fractionator, etc.) and
enables operating the GTCC on natural gas when the gasification
island is down for maintenance. Since the availabilities of the ga-
sification and synthesis islands are expected to be limited (i.e., 40%
in the first year, thereafter increasing to 80% [9]), operating the
GTCC on natural gas may occur for an appreciable number of hours
per year, during which it could sell electricity into the wholesale
power market and earn capacity payments.
2.1. Technical design constraints
Following industrial practice, numerous constraints must be ex-
plicitly considered in the design optimization problem of the HEN and
HRSC:
1. Syngas and fuel streams cannot be directly heated in the GT HRSG
or WSA boiler in order to limit operational complexity and hazards
(these exhaust gases are very hot and contain O2);
2. HT syngas cooler (H2) must be matched with a steam evaporator
(HP, MP or LP) so that boiling steam can keep the tube metal
temperature below 400 °C, allowing the use of low/medium grade
steel;
3. The heat made available by the cooling system of the F-T synthesis
reactor must be used to evaporate LP steam, as specified by the
vendor (Emerging Fuels Technology);
4. The WSA boiler (H11) is not thermally integrated with the other
process streams but it is arranged by the vendor (Haldor-Topsoe) as
a conventional boiler generating MP steam for the MP steam header
(at 425 °C, 55 bar) from saturated MP feedwater.
5. The LP Rectisol reboiler (C3), the ASU TSA (C6) and the F-T syngas
preheater (C7) must be heated up by means of LP steam in con-
densing steam heaters, as specified by the technology provider (Air
Liquide);
6. The LLP Rectisol reboiler (C2), the SWS reboiler (C4) and the ZLD
system (C5) must be heated up by means of LLP steam in condensing
steam heaters, as specified by the technology provider;
7. To avoid the use of electric resistance or fired heaters during start-
up, a MP steam condenser must be used to heat up the feed stream of
the WGS reactor;
8. The refinery is not directly integrated with the process streams and
HRSC in order to limit the complexity of the HEN and to allow the
refinery to operate independently from the rest of the plant. Thus,
the heat requirements of the refinery are satisfied by MP, LP or LLP
steam in condensing steam heaters, while the excess heat is re-
covered by a circulating “tempered water loop” used to provide heat
to the feedstock dryers (stream C8). A simple HEN design was
chosen for the refinery in which: (i) all refinery cold streams were
heated with MP and LLP steam (∼4.9 and ∼0.5 MW, respectively;
see Table 2) generated outside the refinery, and (ii) heat from
Table 2
Comparison between the utility consumption of the ideally heat-integrated refinery and implemented HEN solution.
Cooling water, kW
MP steam in condensing steam heaters, kW
Tempered water loop for dryers, kW
LLP steam in condensing steam heaters, kW
Applied Energy 239 (2019) 1322–1342
Table 3
List of forced matches considered for the optimization of the
HEN and steam cycle (COND MP/LP/LLP represent re-
spectively MP/LP/LLP condensing steam heaters).
Hot stream Cold stream
H9 EVA LP
HR1 C8
HR2 CR3, C8
HR5 C8
HR6 C8
HR7 C8
COND MP C1, CR1, CR3, CR4
COND LP C3, C6, C7
COND LLP C2, C4, C5, CR1, CR2
refinery hot streams in the range 300–90 °C (∼16.1 MW) was re-
covered by the tempered water loop (78–121 °C). For comparison,
the energy target (i.e., minimum energy consumption required in
ideal heat integration) of the refinery is 1.7 MW of MP steam (no
LLP steam), and provides 12.4 MW to the tempered water loop (see
Table 2). In short, the refinery HEN employed here requires 3.7 MW
more external steam heat (i.e. 2.6 times larger) than is theoretically
required, heat that is then returned to the relatively low temperature
tempered water loop.
The forced matches between streams discussed above create parti-
cular heat exchange configurations, given in Table 3, that are imposed,
i.e. cannot be optimized. In addition, forbidden matches between
streams are also imposed, e.g., between hot stream H2 (HT syngas
cooler) and all the cold streams except for EVA HP and EVA MP.
In addition to these constraints, when designing the HRSC, a further
constraint forbidding stream splitting must be imposed on the hot gas
streams (i.e., hot syngas in this case), in order to generate technically
and economically feasible designs for the HRSG and syngas coolers.
Indeed, in modern HRSGs and syngas coolers, steam tube banks are
typically placed in series and not in parallel for both technical and
economic reasons. For example, the tube banks of the superheater and
reheater are typically placed in series with respect to the stream of flue
gas (i.e., the stream of flue gases is not split into parallel branches),
even though the parallel arrangement could enable a reduction in heat
transfer area. The series layout is adopted for two main reasons: (1)
given the large volumetric flow rate of gas, it is not worth splitting the
gas stream in two branches because this would imply the use of two
heat exchange shells/cases with a significant increase in investment
cost, (2) within the available cross-sectional area of the shell/case, tube
banks of different streams cannot be placed in parallel (e.g., super-
heater and reheater in parallel) because of the large number of parallel
tubes necessary for the large volumetric flow rate of each stream.
(Further details can be found in [16].)
3. Energy targeting
As first step, an “energy targeting” calculation is performed with the
aim of assessing the maximum energy efficiency that can be achieved
with the plant’s hot and cold streams. The energy targeting method of
Marechal and Kalitventzeff [14,15] was selected for this task and
Ideal (pinched) heat integration Implemented integration
5708 5381
1702 4853
12,445 16,109
0.2 521
1327
C. Elsido, et al. Applied Energy 239 (2019) 1322–1342

requires the following data:
- the set of hot and cold streams of the plant and their inlet/outlet
temperatures and flow heat capacities,
- the set of hot and cold utility systems (e.g., boilers, cooling water,
HRSC, etc.) and, for complex systems, their superstructure of pos-
sible configurations,
- the set of hot and cold streams of each utility system and their inlet/
outlet temperatures, specific heat capacities and specific energy
consumption/production,
- the heat recovery approach temperature contributions (HRAT) for
each hot/cold process and utility stream [16], and
- the set of forbidden and forced matches between hot and cold pro-
cess streams and utility streams.
The selected energy targeting method determines the optimal se-
lection of the utility systems, their configuration, and the flow rates of
each utility stream by minimizing either the total energy consumption
(i.e., maximum energy production or maximum energy efficiency, de-
pending on the application) or a linear approximation of the total net
annual utility cost (operation costs plus annualized investment costs
minus revenues). In this work, since no hot utilities are considered, the
objective function is the net electric power, defined as the difference
between the power generated by the HRSC and the power consumption
of the cooling water system. Maximizing this objective function is
equivalent to maximizing the net electric efficiency of the plant.
The energy targeting methodology assumes that hot and cold pro-
cess and utility streams can exchange heat with each other (by defini-
tion, hot streams can only release heat and cold streams can only re-
ceive heat); the only constraint is that the temperature difference
between streams must exceed a specified value. Indeed, utility and
process streams are included in the heat cascade model with the pe-
culiarity that the flow rates of the utility streams are decision variables
to be optimized. The heat cascade is mathematically formulated as a
MILP, similar to the “LP Transshipment” model originally proposed in
[18], with binary selection variables for the utility systems. Compared
to standard Pinch Analysis, the methodology allows for both: (1) the
inclusion of forced matches, and (2) the exclusion of forbidden matches
between hot and cold streams. Moreover, it is possible to define dif-
ferent heat recovery approach temperature contributions (HRAT) for
each stream [16] in order to account for its characteristic heat transfer
coefficient. (When defining the temperature intervals of the heat

O
N P R A
C D
M L
G F
I J
H

(B)
Fig. 2. (A) Scheme of the steam cycle superstructure considered for the maximum heat recovery, (B) p-h diagram corresponding to the steam cycle superstructure.
Abbreviations ECO, EVA, SH and RH respectively denote economizers, evaporators, superheaters, and reheaters, which are all cold streams integrated into the
general HEN superstructure; MP/LP/LLP CONDENSERS represent respectively MP/LP/LLP condensing steam heaters.

1328
C. Elsido, et al. Applied Energy 239 (2019) 1322–1342

Table 4 evaporation/extraction levels; their values are directly specified based on

Main assumptions made to estimate the performance of the steam cycle.
Parameter
HP evaporation level, bar
MP evaporation level, bar
LP evaporation level, bar
MP header, bar
LLP extraction header, bar
Condenser pressure, bar
HP superheat temperature, °C
MP superheat temperature, °C
LP superheat/reheat temperature, °C
ΔP in feedwater lines, % of evaporation pressure
ΔP in superheated steam lines, % of evaporation pressure
Isentropic efficiency of HP turbine section, % (initial estimate)
Isentropic efficiency of MP turbine section, % (initial estimate)
Isentropic effic. of LP, LLP turb. sections, % (initial estimates)
Mechanical - electrical efficiency of steam turbine, %
Hydraulic efficiency of pumps, %
Mechanical-electrical efficiency of pumps, %
cascade, the temperatures of the hot streams are shifted down of HRAT/
2 while those of the cold streams are shifted up of HRAT/2). HRAT
contributions were set here to 20/30 °C for low-/high-temperature gas
streams, 20 °C for superheated steam, and 10 °C for boiling steam or
condensing liquid water. Note that only preliminary guesses are needed
for these values because they are later corrected when considering the
actual heat exchanger areas and costs in the following synthesis step.
the needs of the process as well as techno-economic design constraints.
Assumed value The superheat temperature of HP steam was set to 500 °C, the maximum
value suitable for the exhaust gases of the GT (operating on natural gas,
100 the exhaust temperature is about 525 °C, and an approach temperature
61.1
difference of 25 °C is typically adopted). The pressure of the HP eva-
11.5
55
poration level was then adjusted so as to have an extraction temperature
5.5 of 425 °C at 55 bar (assuming 90% isentropic efficiency of the HP turbine
0.06 section), slightly above the minimum steam conditions required by the
500 gasifier. The MP evaporation pressure was set at 61 bar to yield sufficient
425
pressure at the exit of the superheater – in order to match the pressure of
340
20% the MP steam header. The LP level was set at 11.5 bar, as required by the
10% F-T reactor (whose cooling system uses boiling steam at 11.5 bar), and its
90% superheat temperature was set at 340 °C, the minimum value to have a
90%
sufficient (i.e., above 0.88–0.89) steam quality at the turbine exit [42].
90%
98%
The resulting steam quality at the LLP turbine exit is 89.5%. The LLP
80% turbine extraction was set at 5 bar (152 °C condensation temperature) to
95% accommodate the large heat requirement of the distillation column re-
boilers in the Rectisol AGR process.
The condenser pressure was set at 0.06 bar to guarantee a minimum
temperature difference of 5 °C with the cooling water. As first guess
(without knowing the actual steam turbine size, which is the result of
the optimization), the isentropic efficiency of the steam turbine sections
was set to 90%, a typical value for medium/large-size units (i.e., stages
having volumetric steam flow rates > 3 m3/s). The main input para-
meters of the steam cycle superstructure are summarized in Table 4.

3.1. Steam cycle superstructure 3.2. Maximum heat recovery cycle

The general p-h Rankine cycle superstructure recently proposed in The MILP resulting from the selected energy targeting methodology
[40,41] was used here. The key idea is to associate with each cycle integrated with the steam cycle superstructure has been solved with
stream a header having a fixed pressure and enthalpy. Equipment units CPLEX [43] and the results are reported in Table 5; the corresponding
consisting of pumps, turbine and heat exchangers (i.e., economizers, composite curves and Carnot composite curves [44] are shown re-
evaporators, superheaters, condensers, and desuperheaters/attempera- spectively in Fig. 3(A) and (B). In the Carnot curves, the Y axis reports
tors) are used to connect different headers depending on the required the efficiency of a Carnot cycle working between the stream tempera-
thermodynamic transformation. Pressures and temperatures of the ture T and the dead state temperature T0 (assumed to be 15 °C). As a
headers can be set in such a way that all steam cycle configurations of result, the area between the hot and the cold curves is directly pro-
interest can be reproduced by activating/deactivating headers and portional to the exergy wasted in the heat transfer process. It should be
equipment units. The steam cycle superstructure employed here (Fig. 2)
was derived by considering the process specifications and the plant’s Table 5
requirement for reaction steam and heat as well as the temperature of its Mass flow rates and performance of maximum heat recovery case.
waste heat. It features up to three pressure levels for steam evaporation, MHR
termed high, medium, and low pressure (HP, MP, and LP), and three Stream mass flow rates (see Fig. 2), kg/s
levels for steam extraction: medium, low and, “low-low” pressure (MP,
A (steam to HP turbine) 33.41
LP and LLP). The HP level and the MP level must deliver steam to a large B (extraction of reaction steam) 10.21
MP steam header which provides steam for both the process users (re- C (extraction of MP steam to condensing steam heaters) 0.42
action steam for the gasifier, WGS reactor, and refinery fractionator) and D (steam to MP turbine) 22.78
condensing steam heaters (or “condensers”). MP steam sent to the con- E (net MP steam generated) 0.00
F (steam to LP turbine) 33.16
densers (stream C) is first desuperheated by injecting cold feedwater into
G (extraction of LLP steam to condensing steam heaters) 9.72
an attemperator. The condensate can either be returned to the HP eva- H (steam to LLP turbine) 23.45
poration level (stream O) or to the MP level (stream P) depending on K (LP steam to condensing steam heaters) 0.00
which one of the two is selected during optimization/HEN synthesis. L (net LP steam generated) 10.39
Excess MP steam (stream D) expands in the MP turbine section down to HRSC power balance, MW MHR
the pressure of the LP evaporation level. Here steam is reheated, mixed Gross HP turbine el. power 4.56
with superheated LP steam (stream L), and expanded through the LP Gross MP turbine el. power 7.98
Gross LP turbine el. power 4.78
turbine section. LP saturated steam for LP condensers can be directly
Gross LLP turbine el. power 15.44
extracted from the LP drum of the evaporator (stream K). In addition, an Gross HRSC el. power 32.75
extraction of even lower pressure (LLP) steam from the turbine (stream FW pump el. Power 0.017
G) can be used to satisfy low temperature heat requirements of the LP pump el. Power 0.014
process or steam cycle itself. To this end, it is worth noting that, in MP pump el. Power 0.0
HP pump el. Power 0.53
theory, condensing steam heaters can be matched not only with cold Total pump el. Power 0.56
process streams but also with steam cycle economizers to automatically Net HRSC el. Power (P) 32.20
reproduce/model regenerative feedwater preheaters. Total heat available (hot streams, Q) 165.8
The large number of specifications and constraints imposed by the Net HRSC el. Efficiency (P/Q), % 19.42
process preclude optimizing the pressures and temperatures of the

1329
C. Elsido, et al.
Fig. 3. Hot (red) and cold (blue) composite curves (A) and Carnot composite curves (B) for the maximum heat recovery case (energy targeting). (For interpretation of
the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
noted that the extended energy targeting methodology optimizes also
the steam flow rates and other utility flow rates. Thus, the composite
and Carnot curves include the utility streams (steam and cooling
water). The pinch points are marked with black arrows in Fig. 3(A).
The composite curves show four pinch points, at 83 °C, 165 °C,
201.5 °C, and 272 °C (note that these are “shifted” temperatures, in-
creased by HRAT/2 for the cold streams and decreased by HRAT/2 for
the hot streams).
Key thermodynamic observations are:
(1) Surprisingly, the presence of pinch points at temperatures below
the HP evaporation temperature (311 °C) indicates that the flow
rate of HP steam is not limited by the amount of available heat
above 311 °C (suitable for steam superheating and evaporation),
but instead by the medium-low temperature heat required by the
HP economizers. In the optimized HRSC design reported in Table 5,
the MP and LLP steam extractions and LLP are used to provide
additional medium temperature heat for regenerative HP feedwater
preheating. Thanks to the optimized use of the LLP and MP steam
extractions, the recovery of medium-low temperature heat is quite
efficient, as indicated by the small temperature differences between
the hot and the cold composite curves below 300 °C. On the other
hand, regenerative extraction is found to increase the HRSC power
output by only 1% (compared to the case without extraction). In
summary, due to the presence of multiple pinch points ranging from
272 °C to 83 °C, the flow rate of high pressure steam which can be
1330
Applied Energy 239 (2019) 1322–1342
generated by the plant is not set by the amount of heat available for
steam evaporation and superheating (above 311 °C) but by the
available medium-low temperature heat. This result contrasts
sharply with that of a similar CBTLE plant (also with a “once
through” transit of syngas through the FT synthesis reactor and an
HRSC optimized by Martelli et al. [30] using an “energy target”
methodology) previously designed and analyzed by Princeton
University [1]. The primary cause of this difference is that: (i) this
plant consumes significantly more medium-low temperature heat in
the AGR (Rectisol) process (due to the need to remove trace tars
from the relatively low temperature TRIG™ syngas prior to F-T
synthesis), and (ii) this (significantly more extensive and detailed)
plant design/simulation requires considerably more low tempera-
ture heat for feedstock drying, SWS, and ZLD units (not considered
in previous studies).
(2) Since the relatively scarce medium temperature heat is most effi-
ciently utilized by increasing the flow of HP steam, the optimizer
selects a configuration that generates no MP steam whatsoever (i.e.
the flows of streams E, K, M, and P in Fig. 2 are equal to zero).
(3) The generation rate of LP steam reflects the availability of both
medium temperature heat for superheating LP steam (as indicated
by the 201.5 °C pinch point) and medium-low temperature heat for
economizing LP feedwater (as indicated by the 165 °C pinch point).
(4) The large amount of low temperature heat (below 150 °C) required
by the process streams, which has the potential to considerably
penalize the flow rates of HP and LP steam, is satisfied by the
C. Elsido, et al. Applied Energy 239 (2019) 1322–1342

Table 6 section of the cold composite curve could be improved by in-

Mass flow rates and performance of sequential HEN synthesis. creasing the pressure, this is not possible due to the constraint on
I-HRSC S-HRSC-2L S-HSRC-3L the minimum steam temperature requirement of the MP header (see
Stream mass flow rates (see Fig. 2) Section 3.1).

Stream A (constr. target steam to HP turbine), 34.12 – 21.85

The net electrical power of the HRSC (i.e. electricity produced by
kg/s
Stream D (constr. target steam to MP 21.41 10.83 9.93
the steam turbine minus that consumed by the pumps) is estimated to
turbine), kg/s be about 32.2 MWel, an optimistic figure since “forbidden matches” and
Stream F (constr. target steam to LP turbine), 27.23 16.36 15.46 other technical limitations (described in the next sections) have been
kg/s neglected. This is the maximum theoretical power which can be re-
Stream H (constr. target steam to LLP 19.73 8.86 7.96
covered from the combined waste heat from the process and GT exhaust
turbine), kg/s
gases. Note that the HEN that would be required to achieve this target is
HRSC power balance, MW I-HRSC S-HRSC-2L S-HSRC-3L
likely to be not only very expensive but also quite complex to operate.
Net process HRSC el. Power (P1), MW 28.5 11.1 12.2
Net GT HRSC el. Power (P2), MW – 14.3 14.3 The corresponding net electric efficiency turns out to be relatively
Total net HRSC el. Power (P1 + P2), MW 28.5 25.4 26.5 low (19.42%) compared to the typical bottoming cycles of combined
Total heat available (Q1 + Q2), MW 165.8 165.8 165.8 cycles. The main reasons are the considerable heat and steam extrac-
Total HRSC efficiency ((P1 + P2)/(Q1 + Q2), 17.2 15.3 16.0 tions required by the process, and the larger heat transfer temperature
%
differences between hot and cold streams. Indeed, the exergy analysis
shows that the maximum reversible power that can be recovered from
extraction of LLP steam, whose mass flow is essentially set by the the available process and refinery streams using a reversible cycle and
pinch point at 83 °C. reversible heat transfer processes is only 61.2 MW because penalized by
(5) Although the match between the hot composite curve and the HP the negative contribution of the cold streams (the maximum reversible
power is computed by summing the exergy of hot streams and

Fig. 4. Source [16]. General superstructure of HEN and utility systems considered in the optimization methodology. CU-END and HU-END denote respectively cold
and hot “END utilities”. In this example, the gas turbine, the cooling air and the heat recovery steam cycle are “HEN utilities” that are fully integrated with the HEN.
Two HRSC pressure levels are represented: level l (activated) and level l + 1 (not activated). Heat exchangers are labeled according to the nomenclature “Hot Stream
– Cold Stream, stage number”.

1331
C. Elsido, et al.
subtracting the exergy of the cold streams). Thus, the exergy efficiency
of the maximum heat recovery cycle is 52.6%. A considerable exergy
loss (39.3% of the maximum reversible power) is due to the large
temperature difference of the heat transfer process between hot streams
(GT flue gases, syngas, WSA boiler) and steam, as indicated by the
Carnot curve in Fig. 3B. The exergy loss associated with low-tempera-
ture heat unrecovered by the HRSC is only 3.3%, while the exergy loss
due to the fluid and mechanical friction occurring in the turbines and
pumps is only 4.7%.
3.3. “Constrained” energy targeting
The targeting methodology returns the target steam mass flow rates
and maximum net electric power that can be generated by the HRSC,
considering all the design constraints reported in Section 2.1, except for
the “no stream splitting” constraint. This sub-section discusses an im-
portant additional constraint that arises in the “separate” HRSC design
option (where two separate HRSCs are employed, the GT HRSC and the
process HRSC): forbidden heat integration between the two HRSCs.
This problem is termed “constrained” energy targeting.
In addition to the I-HRSC design option, for the “separate” S-HRSC
design option, two sub-cases are considered:
(1) S-HRSC-3L: the separate design with process HRSC having up to 3-
pressure levels;
(2) S-HRSC-2L: the separate design with process HRSC having only LP
and MP steam levels.
In the separate HRSC configuration, the isentropic efficiency of the
HP and MP turbines are expected to be considerably lower than in the
“integrated” (I-HRSC) configuration because of their limited size (note:
their volumetric steam flow rates, estimated by the energy targeting
method, are only 0.4–0.7 m3/s). According to an assessment made using
Thermoflex® [45], commercial software with well-proven efficiency
correlations for turbomachines, the isentropic efficiency of the HP and
MP turbines is 72–76% (assuming an optimized rotational speed).
For the S-HRSC cases, the steam flow rates and power output of the
GT HRSC are estimated using the same methodology (energy targeting)
and assumptions used with the process HRSC. The results are reported
in Table 6, whose values we refer to as “constrained” targets.
As seen in Table 6, the forbidden and forced matches between hot
and cold streams in the S-HRSC cases, as well as their lower HP and MP
steam turbine efficiencies, result in a 11–21% decrease in net HRSC
power relative to the maximum heat recovery cycle.
4. HEN + HRSC synthesis and optimization
Among the available HEN + utility synthesis techniques (see over-
view in Section 1), the methodology of Martelli et al. in [12,16] is
ideally suited for simultaneously optimizing the HEN and HRSC of
CBTLE plants. Given a set of hot and cold process streams, their mass
flow rates, and inlet and outlet temperatures, a set of available utility
systems (with given superstructures), cost models for the equipment
units (see Section 4.3), and the many technical design constraints (i.e.,
forced and forbidden matches, and “no stream splitting”), the metho-
dology determines:
- the optimal selection of utility systems and their design (selection of
pressure levels, arrangement of the heat exchangers within the uti-
lity systems, mass flow rates for each utility stream, etc.),
- the HEN between process-process as well as process-utility and
utility-utility streams,
that minimize the total annual cost (TAC) of both utility systems and
HEN.
The results are compared with those of a sequential synthesis
1332
Applied Energy 239 (2019) 1322–1342
methodology employing the constrained energy targeting for utility
optimization and the SYNHEAT superstructure [26] for HEN synthesis.
4.1. Simultaneous HRSC + HEN synthesis methodology
The HEN + utility synthesis methodology employs the SYNHEAT
temperature-stage superstructure [26] for the HEN which allows a wide
range of options for matching hot and cold streams. The HEN super-
structure is integrated with the steam cycle superstructure described in
Section 3, as shown in Fig. 4: economizers, evaporators, superheaters
and reheaters are cold streams of the HEN superstructure, while con-
densers are hot streams (potentially used as condensing steam heaters
that provide heat to cold process streams).
Following the general model described in [16], utility systems may
feature a single hot/cold stream (e.g., cooling water, cooling air, etc.) or
multiple streams (e.g., steam cycles, refrigeration cycles, etc.). More-
over, utility systems are divided into two main sets:
- “END utilities”: a set of hot/cold utility systems placed at the hot/
cold ends of the HEN (as in the original SYNHEAT superstructure);
- “HEN utilities”: a set of hot/cold utility systems included within the
temperature stages of the HEN superstructure as individual streams
with variable flow rate.
“END utilities” have limited matching options with other process
streams, but require many fewer variables than “HEN utility” streams
[16]. In this work, the steam cycle superstructure is considered as “HEN
utility” (since the flow rates of its streams are optimized and can be
integrated with the HEN stages) while the cooling water is treated as a
cold “END utility”.
The selection of the evaporation/extraction levels and the steam mass
flow rates are formulated as optimization variables. If a given evapora-
tion/extraction level is either unnecessary or yields reduced HRSC effi-
ciency, the optimization algorithm will return a solution with zero flow
rate of steam in that level. By selecting/deactivating pressure levels of
evaporation or extractions, the optimization algorithm method can, in
theory, automatically reproduce and evaluate the performance of several
steam cycle configurations (i.e., single pressure level, double pressure
level, triple pressure level, with/without extractions, with/without ex-
tractions for regenerators and/or process needs, with/without reheat).
The fact that the variable flow rates of the steam cycle (and of utility
systems in general) are included in the HEN superstructure as hot/cold
streams is the primary novelty of the synthesis methodology proposed
in [12,16] compared to the original SYNHEAT superstructure proposed
by Yee and Grossmann [26], where utility streams are simplified and
placed only at the external ends of the superstructure. Although this
makes the optimization problem more challenging (see [12,16] for
further mathematical details), it allows all possible integration options
between process and utility (e.g., steam cycle) streams to be considered,
overcoming the limitations of the classic HEN synthesis methods de-
tailed in Section 1.
The superstructures and models of the HEN and steam cycle define a
very challenging MINLP with nonconvex constraints. Due to the com-
putational challenges of the problem, caused by the large number of
variables and nonconvexity, general-purpose branch-and-bound MINLP
solvers (e.g., BARON, SCIP, etc.) are not well suited to the problem
because of the computational time required to reach convergence. For
this reason, Martelli et al. [16] proposed an ad hoc two-stage algorithm:
in the “upper level”, the Variable Neighbourhood Search (VNS) algo-
rithm of Egea et al. [46] optimizes the binary variables, while in the
“lower level”, the sequential quadratic programming (SQP) algorithm
of the commercial package SNOPT optimizes the real variables (mass
flow rates, exchanged thermal power and temperatures at the heat
exchanger inlets and outlets). In order to minimize the number of
variables and constraints used in the lower-level nonlinear program
(NLP), the adaptive reformulation strategy of Chen et al. [47] for HENs
C. Elsido, et al.
has been extended to also handle utility systems. Given the combination
of binary variables set by the VNS algorithm, when formulating the
NLP, the variables and constraints associated with the inactive utility
systems and heat exchangers are removed.
To provide a good starting solution to the VNS algorithm, the ad hoc
initialization procedure proposed in [16] and shown in Fig. 5 was
employed here:
• Step 1: the energy targeting method of Marechal and Kalitventzeff
[14,15] is applied to provide an initial estimate of the optimal utility
systems, their configuration, and flow rates by minimizing the total
energy consumption of the utilities (in this application it is
equivalent to maximizing the net power output of the HRSC). The
starting points are the constrained targeting solutions for the three
primary cases: I-HRSC, S-HRSC-3L, and S-HRSC-2L.
• Step 2: the optimized utility streams (mass flow rates) are included
the original SYNHEAT HEN superstructure [26] as process streams
with fixed flow rates, and the superstructure is determined by
minimizing the number of heat exchangers. Since the utility flow
rates are fixed and the objective function (the number of heat ex-
changers) contains no nonlinear terms, this optimization problem is
linear (i.e., a MILP) and thus considerably easier to solve compared
to the original MINLP. The MILP is solved with CPLEX [43].
The solution identified by this sequential initialization procedure is
used as the starting point for the two-stage MINLP algorithm described
above which optimizes the selection/configuration of utility systems,
their flow rates, and the heat exchangers.
It is important to note that the initialization strategy adopted here
assumes that the energy targeting methodology provides a good esti-
mate of the optimal utility selection, steam cycle configuration and
utility/steam flow rates. This assumption is in line with the design
criteria adopted for the CBTLE demo plant: that it has the same con-
figuration and similar performance to that of prospective large/com-
mercial-scale analogs.
4.2. Sequential HRSC – HEN synthesis algorithm
According to the classic sequential synthesis methodologies (see the
literature review), first the HRSC (i.e., utility) flow rates are optimized
using the energy targeting methodology [14,15] with forbidden and
forced matches, then the minimum number of heat exchangers is
computed and finally the heat transfer areas are optimized for the
minimum cost. Since the classic MILP transshipment model [18] cannot
directly handle the “no stream splitting” constraint, in this work the
“SYNHEAT” superstructure [26] is used. The sequential algorithm re-
sembles the initialization procedure of the simultaneous methodology.
It consists of three steps:
- Step 1: the energy targeting method of Marechal and Kalitventzeff
[14,15] is applied to provide an initial estimate of the optimal utility
systems, their configuration, and mass flow rates by minimizing the
Fig. 5. Block flow diagram of the two-stage algorithm with initialization procedure [16].
1333
Applied Energy 239 (2019) 1322–1342
total energy consumption of the utilities (i.e., maximum net HRSC
power output).
- Step 2: the optimized utility streams (steam flow rates) are included
in the original SYNHEAT HEN superstructure [26] as process
streams with fixed flow rates, and the superstructure is solved by
minimizing the number of heat exchangers (i.e., a MILP).
- Step 3: for fixed mass flow rates of utility streams (found in step 1)
and heat exchanger network configuration (found in step 2), the
areas of the heat exchangers are optimized so as to minimize the
total heat transfer area cost.
Compared to the simultaneous HRSC + HEN methodology, the so-
lutions found by the sequential methodology are expected to be sub-
optimal (and potentially infeasible), since the “no stream splitting”
constraint cannot be considered in Step 1 and efficiency vs. costs trade-
off is not taken into account explicitly.
4.3. Steam cycle superstructure and economic assumptions
Fig. 6 shows the steam cycle superstructure considered in the si-
multaneous HRSC + HEN synthesis methodology. Compared with the
superstructure used in energy targeting (Fig. 2), this has been modified
to force the WSA boiler integration and to reduce the number of heat
exchanger units by avoiding the LP superheater (instead, saturated LP
steam is mixed with steam exiting the MP turbine and superheated
within the reheater). Since non-isothermal steam mixing cannot be
handled in the sequential methodology [15], the HRSC superstructure
considered in the sequential synthesis algorithm features an inter-
mediate LP steam superheater, placed between the saturated LP steam
header and the MP turbine outlet header, that heats LP steam to the MP
turbine outlet temperature in order to avoid temperature (and en-
thalpy) differences in the mixing process upstream of the reheater.
For all HRSC designs considered here, in order for the facility to
generate enough electric power to qualify as a true “polygeneration”
plant, the existence of MP, LP, and LLP steam turbines was exogenously
imposed on the superstructure. However, depending on the relative
price of power and cost of capital, the least costly option might actually
be an “HRSC” with no steam turbines at all, i.e. a plant that imports
electric power, rather than generating it. This option is the subject of
future research.
The adopted methodology [12,16] enables the explicit inclusion of
disaggregated capital costs for the HRSC’s various components (e.g.,
pumps, heat exchangers, and steam turbine). The cost of each heat ex-
changer comprises a bare module (or material) cost that depends on the
types of the two fluids, as well as their temperatures and pressures. More
specifically, the bare module cost of the heat exchanger between hot
stream i and cold stream j is modeled with the following equation Eq. (1):
f
Aij
CHX = FM FP cref Aref
Aref (1)
where Aij is the heat exchanger area, FM is the material factor (i.e. the
ratio between the specific area cost of the material and that of carbon
C. Elsido, et al.
Fig. 6. Scheme of the steam cycle superstructure considered for the optimization of the HEN + steam cycle with the two-stage MINLP algorithm proposed in [12,16].
Abbreviations ECO, EVA, SH and RH respectively denote economizers, evaporators, superheaters, and reheaters, which are all cold streams integrated into the
general HEN superstructure; MP/LP/LLP CONDENSERS represent respectively MP/LP/LLP condensing steam heaters.
steel), which depends on the material employed (which in turn depends
on the nature of the fluids and the temperatures, as specified in the
material selection criteria described below), FP is the pressure factor,
which depends on the maximum pressure among the two fluids, cref is the
specific area cost at the reference area Aref , and f is the scaling law
exponent.
The heat exchanger materials and corresponding material factors
considered in this study are given below, together with the material
selection criteria (that are in accord with current industrial practice):
- carbon steel, without corrosive fluids and T < 350 °C (FM = 1);
- medium/high grade steel, without corrosive fluids (FM = 2 );
- stainless steel, for corrosive streams, such as syngas below the dew
point (FM = 2 ).
The specific area costs, reference areas and the scaling law ex-
ponents for different types of heat exchangers assumed in the study are
reported in Table 7. These values, as well as the pressure factors, were
derived by regressing cost data on shell-and-tube heat exchangers
provided by various companies and cost estimates for HRSGs performed
with Thermoflex(R) [45].
The steam turbine cost was determined, section-by-section (HP, MP,
LP, and LLP), using calculations made with Thermoflex®. Since the inlet
and outlet pressures and temperatures of the steam are fixed, the bare
module cost of each steam turbine section is assumed to depend mainly
on the output power, P , of each section with an economy-of-scale effect
given by:
fsection
P is executed with quite a large number (10,000) of iterations, and each
CST = cref , section
Pref , section
A similar cost correlation is used for the pumps.
The total bare module (TBM) cost of the components of the plant is
then obtained by summing the costs of the heat exchangers, turbine
sections and pumps. The total plant cost (TPC, i.e. total overnight in-
stalled cost of the HEN + HRSC) is obtained by multiplying TBM by a
multiplication factor (M), also called Lang factor, that accounts for the
installation costs, associated civil works, engineering and procurement,
contingencies during construction and owners’ costs.
The TPC is finally converted into a levelized annual cost via the
capital carrying charge rate (CCR) [16]. The Total Annual Cost (TAC) is
the sum of the annualized capital costs and the operating costs minus
Applied Energy 239 (2019) 1322–1342
the revenue from selling electricity.
The main economic assumptions are reported in Table 8. Operations
and management (O&M) costs have been neglected in the optimization
because they are difficult to assess for unconventional plants and are
expected to be negligible compared to the extremely high construction
costs and contingencies assumed for this FOAK plant (where the as-
sumed multiplication factor M is more than double that typically con-
sidered for conventional power plants, as motivated in [9]).
While the process HRSC is highly unconventional due to the mul-
tiplicity of heat sources/sinks and various technical constraints, the
design of the GT HRSC can be performed in accord with standard
practice for natural gas combined cycles. For this reason, a commer-
cially-available HRSC, manufactured by Siemens [48] and employing
two pressure levels without reheat, was considered here.
4.4. HRSC + HEN synthesis results for the demonstration plant
Both the simultaneous and the sequential synthesis methodologies
have been applied to the demonstration plant using the same set of
performance assumptions, technical design constraints and cost models.
The simultaneous methodology yields an MINLP optimization pro-
blem requiring 658 binary variables, 1540 real variables, and 3146
constraints (2698 linear constraints and 448 nonlinear nonconvex
constraints). Due to the large number of integer variables, the VNS al-
gorithm can only explore a subset of the possible solutions, with the risk
of finding only a local minimum. For this reason, the starting point is
expected to have a great influence on the configuration of the solution
found by the VNS algorithm. To alleviate this issue, the VNS algorithm
(2) optimization is repeated 10 times beginning with different starting
points generated by the initialization algorithm. The total
Table 7
Specific cost correlations for heat exchangers considered in the optimization of
the HEN and steam cycle.
Type of heat exchanger Specific area cost Reference area Scale factor
cref, $/m2 Aref, m2 f
Syngas cooler 400 500 0.6
GT HRSG economizer 89.81 500 0.684
GT HRSG evaporator 84.72 500 0.788
GT HRSG superheater 91.67 500 0.741
1334
C. Elsido, et al. Applied Energy 239 (2019) 1322–1342

Table 8
Economic assumptions considered for the optimization of the HEN and steam
cycle.
Parameter Value
M (multiplication factor accounting for installation costs, 4 available pressure levels, generating respectively 18.1 kg/s of HP steam,
construction, contingencies, etc.)
CCR (levelized annual capital carrying charge rate) 0.2
Wholesale electricity price 0.040 $/kWh
O&M costs neglected
Number of full-load equivalent operating hours 5256 h/year
(60%)
computational time required by each run is ∼100 min.
The sequential methodology, thanks to the problem decomposition,
takes only ∼5 min for each case. About 95% of the time is required by the
second step: finding the minimum number of heat exchangers.
The solutions found for the three cases (I-HRSC, S-HRSC-3L, S-HRSC-
2L) by the two synthesis methodologies are reported in Table 9. The most
relevant energy and economic performance indexes, the total power
output of the HRSC and the total annual cost, are reported in Fig. 7.
Even though the HEN and HRSC designs obtained with the se-
quential methodology are feasible and meet all the design constraints,
they exhibit suboptimal economics. This deficiency is particularly
egregious the I-HRSC case, where the final HEN’s heat transfer area is
more than 600% larger than in the simultaneous methodology’s HEN.
Compared to the simultaneous synthesis solutions, the difference in
TAC ranges from +1.7% (case S-HRSC-2L) to +95% (I-HRSC).
The simultaneous synthesis methodology returns a design for con-
figuration I-HRSC featuring all the three pressure levels, generating
respectively 28.8 kg/s of HP steam, 2.4 kg/s of MP steam (only in the
WSA boiler), and 13.4 kg/s of LP steam. A large part of this steam is
used by the endothermic process units. The net power output generated
by the I-HRSC is 23.5 MW, 27% lower than the maximum heat recovery
cycle and 18% lower than the constrained target estimate. The main
cause of the difference between the constrained targeting estimate and
the simultaneous synthesis solution is the high specific costs of the
equipment units (due to the small plant scale and high costs for con-
struction and contingency) and the HEN’s “no-stream splitting”
constraint. The optimized HEN features a total heat transfer area of
29,711 m2 (including the refinery) with a total investment cost of
∼37 M$. The total plant cost of the I-HRSC, including HEN, is 59.4 M$.
In configuration S-HRSC-3L, the optimal design of the process HRSC
(found with the simultaneous synthesis method) features the three
2.4 kg/s of MP steam (only in the WSA boiler), and 13.4 kg/s of LP
steam. The net electric power generated by the process HRSC is
10.1 MW (18% lower than the constrained target), and 12.5 MW by the
GT HRSC (12% lower than the constrained target).
The optimal process-HRSC design for configuration S-HRSC-2L
(found with the simultaneous synthesis method) employs a double
pressure level steam cycle, generating 22.7 kg/s of MP steam, and
13.4 kg/s of LP steam, with reheat. The scheme of the process HRSC is
shown in Fig. 8. Additional details can be found in Appendix A. The
standard GT HRSC generates ∼12.5 MW from the gas turbine flue gases
with a net electric efficiency of 28.4% and a specific investment cost of
1031 $/kW. The process HRSC is a custom cycle generating 10 MW from
the process coolers, with 8% net efficiency and a specific investment cost
of 5640 $/kW. The power output of the optimized S-HRSC-2L design is
10% lower than the corresponding constrained target estimate. The op-
timal S-HRSC designs (S-HRSC-2L and S-HRSC-3L) share very similar
energy performance; both designs have a total HRSC net power output
that is 30% lower than that of the maximum recovery cycle.
4.5. HRSC configuration selection for the demonstration plant
From the economic point of view, the two optimal S-HRSC config-
urations are very similar, with only minor differences in capital and
operational costs. The optimized HEN features a total heat transfer area
of 30,600 m2 (including the refinery) for the S-HRSC-2L and 29,700 m2
for the S-HRSC-3L case, with a total investment cost of 36.9 M$ and
36.5 M$, respectively. The total plant cost of the S-HRSC-2L, including
HEN, is 69.6 M$, and 70.3 M$ for S-HRSC-3L. Assuming an electricity
selling price of 40 $/MWh, and considering the revenues associated
with the sale of electricity during operation as a stand-alone GTCC (we
assumed an average natural gas price of 3 $/GJ HHV), the profits from
S-HRSC-2L and S-HRSC-3L are 7.66 and 7.79 M$/year, respectively.

Table 9
Energy performances of the optimized process HRSC configurations (with corrected turbine efficiencies and optimized HEN), and economic results of the integrated
and separate process HRSC configurations (including heat exchanger network necessary for the gasification process, synthesis island and refinery, and including the
GT HRSC for the separate cases).
I-HRSC S-HRSC-2L S-HSRC-3L

Sequential Simultaneous Sequential Simultaneous Sequential Simultaneous

Stream mass flow rates (see Fig. 6)

Stream A (steam to HP turbine), kg/s 34.12 28.8 – – 21.85 18.1
Stream H (steam to LLP turbine), kg/s 21.41 18.5 10.83 9.8 9.93 7.8
Stream D (steam to MP turbine), kg/s 27.23 24.0 16.36 15.4 15.46 13.3
Stream H (steam to LLP turbine), kg/s 19.73 16.5 8.86 7.9 7.96 5.8

HRSC Power balance

Net process HRSC el. Power (P1), MW 28.5 23.5 11.1 10.0 12.2 10.0
Net separate GT HRSC el. Power (P2), MW – – 14.3 12.5 14.3 12.5
Total HRSC el. Power (P1 + P2), MW 28.5 23.5 25.4 22.5 26.5 22.5
Process waste heat available (Q1), MW 165.8 165.8 124.7 124.7 124.7 124.7
GT flue gases waste heat available (Q2), MW – – 41.1 41.1 41.1 41.1
Total heat available (Q1 + Q2), MW 165.8 165.8 165.8 165.8 165.8 165.8
Total HRSC efficiency ((P1 + P2)/(Q1 + Q2)), % 17.2 14.2 15.3 13.6 16.0 13.6

Economic performances
Electricity revenue during gasifier + GT integrated operation, M$/year 5.96 5.03 5.05 4.82 5.40 4.83
Net electricity revenue during stand-alone GT operation, M$/year – – 1.89 1.89 1.89 1.89
Total installed heat transfer area (process HRSC + HEN + HRSG), m2 210,569 29,711 34,329 30,637 38,173 29,685
Total installed cost of heat exchangers (process HRSC + HEN + HRSG), M$ 44.65 36.9 33.64 36.8 37.06 36.5
Total installed cost of steam turbine and pumps for process HRSC + HRSG, M$ 50.46 22.4 34.49 32.8 38.13 33.9
Total Plant Cost (process HRSC + HEN + HRSG), M$ 95.10 59.4 68.13 69.6 75.19 70.3
Total Annual Cost (process HRSC + HEN + HRSG), M$/year 14.22 7.30 7.79 7.66 8.82 7.79

1335
C. Elsido, et al. Applied Energy 239 (2019) 1322–1342

Fig. 7. Comparison of the performance (i.e., TAC vs. Total HRSCs electric power output) of the optimized solutions.

Fig. 8. Scheme of the whole plant including HEN and process HRSC (COND MP/LP/LLP represent respectively MP/LP/LLP condensing steam heaters) for case S-
HRSC-2L. Purple lines indicate the MP level, green lines the LP and LLP levels. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)

Table 10
Comparison between energy targeting and simultaneous HEN + HRSC synthesis results for a full-scale NOAK plant.
I-HRSC S-HRSC
Constr. targeting HEN + HRSC synthesis Constr. targeting HEN + HRSC synthesis

Stream A (steam to HP turbine), kg/s 312.4 305.0 216.5 205.8

Stream D (steam to MP turbine), kg/s 203.7 200.7 90.5 90.2
Stream F (steam to LP turbine), kg/s 263.8 261.0 150.4 150.4
Stream H (steam to LLP turbine), kg/s 189.5 186.7 79.2 79.2
Net process HRSC el. Power (P1), MW 309.5 304.5 138.2 136.6
Net GT HRSC el. Power (P2), MW – – 178.2 165.5
Total HRSC el. Power (P1 + P2), MW 309.5 304.5 316.4 302.1
Total heat available (Q1 + Q2), MW 1658.4 1658.4 1658.4 1658.4
Net total HRSC efficiency ((P1 + P2)/(Q1 + Q2)), % 18.7 18.4 19.1 18.2

Total Annual Cost (process HRSC and HEN and HRSG), M$/year – −106.1 – −91.64

1336
C. Elsido, et al.
The largest difference in capital costs between the two cases comes from
the steam turbine, as the triple pressure level cycle needs an expensive
HP turbine section. In this analysis, the same turbine cost model has
been adopted for both the HP and MP turbine sections (non-condensing
turbine sections). However, according to information collected from
steam turbine manufacturers, the HP turbine should be designed se-
parately because of its relatively small size and high inlet pressure; this
would inevitably lead to a considerable increase in cost. In summary,
under the economic and technical assumptions considered in this study,
option S-HRSC-2L appears to have the best economics (i.e., minimum
TAC) of the two separate HRSC configurations.
Comparing designs S-HRSC-2L vs. I-HRSC, the former entails two
smaller, less efficient, and more costly steam turbines and condensers
compared to I-HRSC; thus, I-HRSC provides 6% more net power and a
10.3 M$ reduction in capital costs. On the other hand, the benefits of
decoupling the GTCC from the process HRSC include: the convenience
and certainty of an “off-the-shelf” GTCC package, and the ability to
operate the GTCC on natural gas during plant start-up and when the
gasification/synthesis islands are down for maintenance. In addition,
plant start-up requires HP steam for the gasifier; in the S-HRSC design,
it can be extracted from the GT-HRSG (which is started-up on natural
gas), while an auxiliary natural gas-fired boiler is necessary in the I-
HRSC case. The auxiliary boiler is estimated to increase TAC by ∼0.6 M
$/year, so the TAC of the I-HRSC design becomes 7.90 M$/year, about
1% higher than the S-HRSC solutions. Given the uncertainty in cost
estimates, the three options appear to all have comparable economics.
For the FOAK plant, the start-up and operational benefits of separate
HRSCs were deemed to outweigh the difference in TAC. For these
reasons, the S-HRSC-2L design was adopted for the detailed engineering
study of the CBTLE demo plant [9].
The exergy analysis of the chosen design S-HRSC-2L shows that its
second law efficiency (i.e. the combination of both the process and GT
HRSCs), defined as the ratio of the net electric power output to the
maximum reversible power, is 36.8%. The largest fraction (54.8%) of
the maximum reversible power is wasted by the irreversible heat
transfer processes between hot and cold streams, including those in the
steam cycles.
Additional details about the selected heat integration solution can
be found in the Appendix A.
4.6. HRSC + HEN synthesis results for full-scale plant
It is notable that the results of the techno-economic optimization
change completely when considering larger scale plants, such as full-
scale Nth-of-a-kind (NOAK) coal- & biomass-to-jet fuel plants. For ex-
ample, for a NOAK plant generating 12,520 barrels per day of liquid
fuels (10 times larger than the demonstration plant) the specific in-
vestment costs of the equipment units are expected to be considerably
lower due to improved economics offered at large scales. In addition,
the so-called “learning-by doing” (quantified by well-known “learning
curves” that, for many technologies, exhibit a relatively constant frac-
tional decline in unit cost per successive doubling of cumulative in-
stallation) will, with time and experience, yield considerably reduced
installation and contingency costs (e.g. M = 1.22 [9], less than half the
value assumed for the demonstration plant, M = 2.5) as well as higher
availability of the gasification process (approaching 80% [9]). Fur-
thermore, in the NOAK analysis [9], the market value of electricity
selling price was assumed to be 70 $/MWh.
For perspective, the entire optimization procedure was re-run as-
suming the economics (described above) of a full-scale NOAK plant.
Given the large size of the plant, for the GT-HRSC of the S-HRSC case,
the HP evaporation pressure was raised to 170 bar, and the superheat
temperature to 545 °C, both consonant with state-of-the-art HRSG de-
sign. The calculations indicate that no HEN configuration is capable of
generating the steam flow rates determined by the energy targeting
(i.e., sequential HEN + HRSC synthesis) method without violating the
1337
Applied Energy 239 (2019) 1322–1342
“no stream splitting” constraint. However, the solutions found by the
simultaneous methodology show that the optimal steam mass flow rates
are very close to those found using the constrained targeting metho-
dology, as shown in Table 10.
(Note that the number of full-load equivalent operating hours is as-
sumed to be 7008 h/year (80%), and that the revenues from the sale of
electricity during stand-alone GTCC operation are considered in the TAC
estimate for the S-HRSC design.) Despite the auxiliary boiler required for
plant start-up in the I-HRSC design (that increases TAC of the I-HRSC
option by ∼6 M$/year, to about −100 M$/year), its economics are
nevertheless seen to be marginally superior to those of the S-HRSC design.
This switch in optimal HRSC design (from S-HRSC in the FOAK plant to I-
HRSC in the NOAK plant) is driven primarily by the differing economic
assumptions and economies of scale exploited in the NOAK case.
It is instructive to compare the results of the constrained energy
targeting methodology with those of the much more complex and time
consuming simultaneous techno-economic synthesis methodology.
Compared with the former, the latter yields a HRSC power output
roughly 1.6% lower for the I-HRSC design, and in the S-HRSC design,
1.2% lower for the process HRSC and 1.5% lower in the GT HRSC.
Similarly, small differences are found in the steam flow rates. In sum-
mary, it appears that, for relatively large scale NOAK plants featuring
mature technologies, the relatively simple constrained energy targeting
methodology is likely to yield close-to-optimal HRSC designs and en-
ergy performance estimates that are quite close to those found with the
simultaneous techno-economic synthesis methodology. The reason is
because, at relatively large scales, low capital costs, and high capacity
factors and electricity values, HRSC efficiency and electricity revenues
more than make up for capital costs. While the HRSC power output and
efficiency can be performed with the energy targeting methodology
(accounting for forced/forbidden matches), the design of the HEN calls
for the simultaneous synthesis methodology since the sequential
methodology (based on the energy targeting estimate for the HRSC
design and steam mass flow rates) is not able to find a feasible HEN
which meets the “no stream splitting” constraint.
5. Conclusions
In the context of a detailed techno-economic analysis of a pro-
spective demonstration CBTLE plant, we performed a thorough heat
integration optimization comprising three methodologies, the well-
known energy targeting, a sequential synthesis approach and a more
complex and time consuming simultaneous techno-economic synthesis
methodology.
The comparison of different heat integration methodologies pro-
vided the following interesting results:
- It is important to consider the forced and forbidden matches when
applying the energy targeting methodology; otherwise the returned
solution (optimal HRSC design, steam flow rates and power output)
may be too optimistic (e.g., an estimated net power output that is
too high by as much as 27% in this analysis).
- We quantified the correlation between total net HRSC power output
and total net annual cost with different levels of accuracy allowed
by the optimization methodology. For the FOAK demonstration
plant, the selected economically optimal solution was one of the
least costly and least efficient options, mostly due to the small size of
the plant, and high construction/installation/contingency costs.
- In general terms, even if forced and forbidden matches are ac-
counted for, for plants with high specific investment costs (like in
the FOAK demonstration plant), the solution found with the energy
targeting methodology is not close to the economic optimum and a
simultaneous HRSC-HEN synthesis methodology is needed. The
synthesis method must account for all the technical design con-
straints, costs and the “no stream splitting” constraint on the heat
exchanger network layout. The performance of the optimized heat
C. Elsido, et al. Applied Energy 239 (2019) 1322–1342

recovery system may be considerably lower than the energy tar-
geting estimate (e.g., −18% in the FOAK plant analysis). For this
reason, the sequential synthesis methodology (based on the energy
targeting estimate of the HRSC design and flow rates) returns eco-
nomically suboptimal solutions. For such applications, the simulta-
neous synthesis methodology and efficient MINLP optimization al-
gorithms are needed.
- We investigated the possibility of splitting the plant's HRSC into two
smaller, separate HRSCs to analyze the techno-economic advantages
that come from using a commercial GTCC that can aid plant start-up
and operate on natural gas as a stand-alone power generator when
the plant's process train is down for maintenance. Surprisingly, al-
though this appears to make sense for the FOAK demonstration plant,
a larger-scale NOAK plant with higher capacity factor (and electricity
value) would be optimally be configured with a single HRSC that
integrates the process heat exchangers with the GT's HRSG.
- The significant disparity in techno-economic performance between
the FOAK and NOAK plants also appears to affect the relative im-
portance of the heat integration methodology. While the
simultaneous HRSC-HEN techno-economic synthesis is critical in
assessing the optimal HRSC design and efficiency/power output for
the FOAK demonstration plant, for commercial-scale plants em-
ploying mature technologies like the one considered in the NOAK
analysis, the energy targeting methodology predicts HRSC designs
and energy performance very close to the economic optimum with
differences in steam mass flow rates below 5% and in steam cycle
power output smaller than 2%. On the other hand, the design of the
HEN calls for the simultaneous synthesis methodology, since the
sequential methodology (based on the energy targeting estimate for
the HRSC design and steam mass flow rates) is not able to find a
feasible HEN which meets the “no stream splitting” constraint.
Acknowledgments
This work was undertaken with funding from the U.S. Department
of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory [award number
DE-FE0023697].

Appendix A

In this Section the details of the final optimized design solutions are presented. The best solutions found for the three cases (I-HRSC, S-HRSC-3L,
S-HRSC-2L), obtained with the simultaneous HEN + HRSC synthesis methodology, are reported in Table A1 with the most relevant energy

Table A1
Steam mass flow rates of the optimized process HRSC configurations (with corrected turbine efficiencies and optimized HEN) for minimum total
annual cost (i.e., maximum net present value).
I-HRSC S-HRSC-2L S-HSRC-3L
Stream mass flow rates (see Fig. 6), kg/s

A (steam to HP turbine) 28.8 0 18.1

B (extraction of reaction steam) 10.2 10.2 10.2
C (extraction of MP steam to condensing 2.5 2.5 2.5
steam heaters)
D (steam to MP turbine) 18.5 9.8 7.8
E (net MP steam generated outside the WSA 0 20.2 0
boiler)
F (steam to LP turbine) 24.0 15.4 13.3
G (extraction of LLP steam to condensing 7.5 7.5 7.5
steam heaters)
H (steam to LLP turbine) 16.5 7.9 5.8
I 26.7 18.1 16.0
J 5.53 5.53 5.53
K (LP steam to condensing steam heaters) 7.91 7.91 7.91
L (net LP steam generated) 5.53 5.53 5.53
M 2.37 20.1 2.37
N 26.3 0 15.6
O 2.49 0 2.49
P 0 2.49 0
Q (feedwater to WSA boiler) 2.37 2.37 2.37
R (MP superheated steam from WSA boiler) 2.37 2.37 2.37

Process HRSC Power balance, MW I-HRSC S-HRSC-2L S-HSRC-3L

Gross HP turbine el. Power 3.49 – 2.31

Gross MP turbine el. Power 6.15 2.80 2.21
Gross LP turbine el. Power 2.99 2.22 1.92
Gross LLP turbine el. Power 11.3 5.19 3.83
Gross HRSC el. Power 23.9 10.2 10.3
FW pump el. Power 0.014 0.009 0.008
LP pump el. Power 0.008 0.008 0.008
MP pump el. Power 0.018 0.150 0.077
HP pump el. Power 0.419 – 0.124
Total pump el. Power 0.46 0.17 0.22
Net process HRSC el. Power (P1) 23.5 10.0 10.0
Net separate GT HRSC el. Power (P2), kW – 12.5 12.5
Total HRSC el. Power (P1 + P2), kW 23.5 22.5 22.5
Process waste heat available (Q1), kW 165.8 124.7 124.7
GT flue gases waste heat available (Q2), kW – 41.1 41.1
Total heat available (Q1 + Q2), kW 165.8 165.8 165.8

Total HRSC efficiency 14.2 13.6 13.6

((P1 + P2)/(Q1 + Q2)), %

1338
C. Elsido, et al. Applied Energy 239 (2019) 1322–1342

Fig. A1. Carnot composite curves for the best solutions found for the three cases, respectively I-HRSC (A), S-HRSC-3L (B), and S-HRSC-2L (C).

performance indexes. Fig. A1(A), (B), and (C) respectively show the Carnot composite curves of the optimal solutions for each of the three cases.
The optimal process-HRSC design for configuration S-HRSC-2L employs a double pressure level steam cycle, generating 22.7 kg/s of MP steam,
and 13.4 kg/s of LP steam, with reheat. The HEN solution is shown in Fig. A2, and the temperature-entropy and pressure-enthalpy diagrams of the
process HRSC are represented in Fig. A3.

1339
C. Elsido, et al. Applied Energy 239 (2019) 1322–1342

Fig. A2. Optimal HEN configuration of the whole plant (including refinery). For the sake of clarity, forced matches are separated from optimized matches (COND
MP/LP/LLP represent respectively MP/LP/LLP condensing steam heaters).

1340
C. Elsido, et al.
Fig. A3. Temperature-entropy (A) and pressure-enthalpy (B) diagrams of the process HRSC of the optimal solution (purple lines indicate the MP level, green lines the
LP and LLP levels). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
References
[1] Liu G, Larson ED, Williams RH, Kreutz TG, Guo X. Making Fischer-Tropsch fuels and
electricity from coal and biomass: performance and cost analysis. Energy Fuels
2011;25(1):415–37.
[2] Larson ED, Fiorese G, Liu G, Williams RH, Kreutz TG, Consonni S. Co-production of
synfuels and electricity from coal + biomass with zero net carbon emissions: an
Illinois case study. Energy Proc 2009;1(1):4371–8.
[3] Liu G, Larson ED, Williams RH, Guo X. Gasoline from coal and/or biomass with CO2
capture and storage. 2. Economic analysis and strategic context. Energy Fuels
2015;29(3):1845–59.
[4] Floudas CA, Elia JA, Baliban RC. Hybrid and single feedstock energy processes for
liquid transportation fuels: a critical review. Comput Chem Eng 2012;41:24–51.
[5] Liu G, Larson ED, Williams RH, Guo X. Gasoline from coal and/or biomass with CO2
capture and storage. 1. Process designs and performance. Anal Energy Fuels
2015;29(3):1830–44.
[6] Haro P, Ollero P, Villanueva Perales AL, Gómez-Barea A. Thermochemical bior-
efinery based on dimethyl ether as intermediate: technoeconomic assessment. Appl
Energy 2013;102:950–61.
[7] Haro P, Trippe F, Stahl R, Henrich E. Bio-syngas to gasoline and olefins via DME – a
comprehensive techno-economic assessment. Appl Energy 2013;108:54–65.
[8] Chen Y, Adams II TA, Barton PI. Optimal design and operation of flexible energy
polygeneration systems. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011;50(8):4553–66.
[9] Greig C, Kreutz TG, Larson ED, Meerman JC, Williams RH. Lignite-plus-biomass to
synthetic jet fuel with CO2 capture and storage: design, cost, and greenhouse gas
emissions analysis for a near-term first-of-a-kind demonstration project and pro-
spective future commercial plants, final report under contract DE-FE0023697 to the
National Energy Technology Laboratory, US Department of Energy, 1 September
2017; 2017.
[10] Larson ED, Kreutz TG, Greig C, Williams RH, Rooney T, Gray E, Elsido C, Martelli E,
Meerman JC. Design and analysis of a low-carbon lignite/biomass-to-jet fuel de-
monstration project. Appl Energy; 2019 [in preparation].
[11] Martelli E, Amaldi E, Consonni S. Numerical optimization of heat recovery steam
1341
Applied Energy 239 (2019) 1322–1342
cycles: Mathematical model, two-stage algorithm and applications. Comput Chem
Eng 2011;35(12):2799–823.
[12] Martelli E, Mian A, Marechal F. MINLP model and two-level algorithm for the si-
multaneous synthesis of heat exchanger networks and utility systems. Comput
Aided Chem Eng 2015;37:1979–85.
[13] Aspen Plus. USA: Aspen Technology, Inc; 2016.
[14] Marechal F, Kalitventzeff B. Process integration: selection optimal utility system.
Comput Chem Eng 1998;22:S149–56.
[15] Marechal F, Kalitventzeff B. Targeting the optimal integration of steam networks:
mathematical tools and methodology. Chem. Eng 1999:5133–6.
[16] Martelli E, Elsido C, Mian A, Marechal F. MINLP model and two-stage algorithm for
the simultaneous synthesis of heat exchanger networks, utility systems and heat
recovery cycles. Comput Chem Eng 2017;106:663–89.
[17] Linnhoff B, Hindmarsh E. The pinch design method for heat exchanger networks.
Chem Eng Sci 1983;38(5):745–63.
[18] Papoulias SA, Grossmann IE. A structural optimization approach in process synth-
esis - II heat recovery networks. Comput Chem Eng 1983;7(6):707–21.
[19] Duran MA, Grossmann IE. Simultaneous optimization and heat integration of che-
mical processes. AIChE J 1986;32(1):123–38.
[20] Gassner M, Marechal F. Methodology for the optimal thermo-economic, multi-ob-
jective design of thermochemical fuel production from biomass. Comput Chem Eng
2009;33:769–81.
[21] Peduzzi E, Tock L, Boissonnet G, Marechal F. Thermo-economic evaluation and
optimization of the thermo-chemical conversion of biomass into methanol. Energy
2013;58:9–16.
[22] Peduzzi E, Boissonnet G, Maréchal F. Screening methodology for biorefinery and
power to chemicals concepts. Comput Aided Chem Eng 2016;38:1893–8.
[23] Maréchal F, Kalitventzeff B. Targeting the minimum cost of energy requirements: a
new graphical technique for evaluating the integration of utility systems. Comput
Chem Eng 1996;20:S225–30.
[24] Holmgren KM, Berntsson TS, Andersson E, Rydberg T. The influence of biomass
supply chains and by-products on the greenhouse gas emissions from gasification-
based bio-SNG production systems. Energy 2015;90:148–62.
[25] Floudas CA, Ciric A, Grossmann IE. Automatic synthesis of optimum heat exchanger
C. Elsido, et al.
network configurations. AIChE J 1986;32(2):276–90.
[26] Yee T, Grossmann IE. Simultaneous optimization models for heat integration—II.
Heat exchanger network synthesis. Comput Chem Eng 1990;14(10):1165–84.
[27] Bruno J, Fernandez F, Castells F, Grossmann IE. A rigorous MINLP model for the
optimal synthesis and operation of utility plants. Trans IChemE 1998;76(A):246–58.
[28] Marechal F, Kalitventzeff B. SYNEP1: a methodology for energy integration and
optimal heat exchanger network synthesis. Comput Chem Eng 1989;13:603–10.
[29] Martelli E, Nord LO, Bolland O. Design criteria and optimization of heat recovery
steam cycles for integrated reforming combined cycles with CO2 capture. Appl
Energy 2012;92:255–68.
[30] Martelli E, Kreutz TG, Gatti M, Chiesa P, Consonni S. Numerical optimization of
steam cycles and steam generators designs for coal to FT plants. Chem Eng Res Des
2013;91(8):1467–82.
[31] Zhang J, Liu P, Zhou Z, Ma L, Li Z, Ni W. A mixed-integer nonlinear programming
approach to the optimal design of heat network in a polygeneration energy system.
Appl Energy 2014;114:146–54.
[32] Manassaldi JI, Arias AM, Scenna NJ, Mussati MC, Mussati SF. A discrete and con-
tinuous mathematical model for the optimal synthesis and design of dual pressure
heat recovery steam generators coupled to two steam turbines. Energy
2016;103:807–23.
[33] Papoulias SA, Grossmann IE. A structural optimization approach in process synth-
esis - III total processing systems. Comput Chem Eng 1983;7(6):723–34.
[34] Hipólito-Valencia BJ, Rubio-Castro E, Ponce-Ortega JM, Serna-González M,
Nápoles-Rivera F, El-Halwagi MM. Optimal integration of organic Rankine cycles
with industrial processes. Energy Convers Manage 2013;73:285–302.
[35] Elia JA, Baliban RC, Floudas CA. Toward novel hybrid biomass, coal, and natural
gas processes for satisfying current transportation fuel demands, 2: simultaneous
heat and power integration. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2010;49(16):7371–88.
[36] Baliban RC, Elia JA, Weekman V, Floudas CA. Process synthesis of hybrid coal,
biomass, and natural gas to liquids via Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, ZSM-5 catalytic
conversion, methanol synthesis, methanol-to-gasoline, and methanol-to-olefins/
distillate technologies. Comput Chem Eng 2012;47:29–56.
1342
Applied Energy 239 (2019) 1322–1342
[37] Ng RTL, Tay DHS, Ng DKS. Simultaneous process synthesis, heat and power in-
tegration in a sustainable integrated biorefinery. Energy Fuels
2012;26(12):7316–30.
[38] Desai NB, Bandyopadhyay S. Process integration of organic Rankine cycle. Energy
2009;34(10):1674–86.
[39] Martelli E, Elsido C, Mian A, Marechal F. Synthesis of heat exchanger networks and
utility systems: sequential initialization procedure and simultaneous MINLP algo-
rithm. Comput Aided Chem Eng 2016;38:1450–4.
[40] Elsido C, Mian A, Marechal F, Martelli E. A general superstructure for the optimal
synthesis and design of power and inverse Rankine cycles. Comput Aided Chem Eng
2017;40:2407–12.
[41] Elsido C, Mian A, Martelli E. A systematic methodology for the techno-economic
optimization of Organic Rankine Cycles. Energy Proc 2017;129:26–33.
[42] Lozza G. Bottoming steam cycles for combined steam gas power plants: a theoretical
estimation of steam turbines performances and cycle analysis. In: Proceedings of the
1990 ASME Cogen-turbo symposium, New Orleans, USA; 1990. p. 81–90.
[43] CPLEX v.12.7, 2017. IBM ILOG CPLEX, MILP solver.
[44] Marechal F, Favrat D. Combined exergy and pinch analysis for optimal energy
conversion technologies integration. ECOS 2005, 18th international conference on
efficiency, cost, optimization, simulation and environmental impact of energy sys-
tems, vol. 1. 2005. p. 177–84.
[45] Thermoflow, Thermoflex v. 24; 2015. < http://www.thermoflow.com/
combinedcycle_TFX.html > [accessed 19/06/2016].
[46] Egea JA, Henriques D, Cokelaer T, Villaverde AF, MacNamara A, Danciu D, et al.
MEIGO: an open-source software suite based on metaheuristics for global optimi-
zation in systems biology and bioinformatics. BMC Bioinf 2014;15:136.
[47] Chen X, Li Z, Yang J, Shao Z. Nested Tabu search (TS) and sequential quadratic
programming (SQP) method, combined with adaptive model reformulation for heat
exchanger network synthesis (HENS). Ind Eng Chem. Res 2008;47(7):2320–30.
[48] Siemen. SGT-700 Industrial gas turbine brochure; 2016. [Online].
Available: < www.energy.siemens.com/nl/pool/hq/power-generation/gas-
turbines/SGT-700/Brochure_Siemens_Gas-Turbine_SGT-700_PG.pdf > .