A comprehensive review on the exergy analysis of combined cycle power plants

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 90 (2018) 835–850

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

A comprehensive review on the exergy analysis of combined cycle power plants

T

⁎

Thamir K. Ibrahima, , Mohammed Kamil Mohammedb, Omar I. Awadc, Ahmed N. Abdallad, Firdaus Basrawic, Marwah N. Mohammede, G. Najafif, Rizalman Mamatc a

College of Applied Engineering, Tikrit University, Iraq Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates c Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Pekan, Pahang 26600, Malaysia d Huaiyin Institute of Technology, Jiangsu, P. R. China e Faculty of Chemical Engineering and Natural Resources Engineering Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Lebuhraya Tun Razak, 23600 Kuantan Pahang, Malaysia f Faculty of Elect. Infor. Eng, Tarbiat Modares University, P.O.Box: 14115 111, Tehran, Iran b

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Combined cycle power plant Energy Exergy Exergy destruction

The arriving optimum improvement of a thermodynamic system of energy conversion such as a combined cycle power plant (CCPP) is complicated due to the existence of different factors. Energy and exergy analysis is utilized as effective methods to determine both the quantity and quality of the energy sources. This paper reviews the latest thermodynamics analysis on each system components of a CCPP independently and determine the exergy destruction of the plant. A few layouts of the CCPP plant from different locations considered as case studies. In fact, the most energy losses occurred in the condenser compared with the plant components. It found that in the combustion chamber (CC) the highest exergy destruction occurred. The ambient temperature causes an evident decrement in the power production by the gas turbine (GT). The result has proved that besides energy, exergy analysis is an efficient way to the assessment of the performance of the CCPP by recommending a more advantageous configuration of the CCPP plant, which would lead to reductions in fuel required and emissions of air pollutants.

1. Introduction World’s population growth and substantial global economic development are causing the increase in demand for energy dramatically. The energy supply has undergone a shock due to the economic crisis that has inflicted the global market. The gap between energy supply and demand has risen continuously. Studies have determined that there was an approximate 6% average annual growth in the electricity demand for the world [1]. Further, increase in demand for the energy expected for the next few years. In general, there are many resources from which energy can be generated, including the conventional resources of fossil fuels, nuclear and renewable energy resources. The most common fuels used to generate energy are natural gas, coal and petroleum. Among the fossil fuels, coal has been one of the most abundant resources used for generating the electricity worldwide. In fact, the world energy demand

greatly sustained by the combustion of fossil fuel [2]. According to International Energy Agency (2010), by the year 2030 the coal consumption rate will be more than 6000 million tonnes of carbon equivalents, and across the globe, 42% of electricity supply mainly comes from the coal power plants. Technically, the operation of a thermal plant that generates electricity using combustion of fossil fuel is much more complicated as compared to a hydroelectric plant. It required flowing fluids to work under extremely high temperature and pressure [3]. Moreover, continuous supervision and maintenance on the complex automatic control units and operating conditions of the thermal power plants are necessary to ensure the power plant operating efficiently and produce maximum power [3–5]. To protection the mother nature and reduce the energy wasted, growing awareness was focused recently to the on more-efficient power generation system and generates power depend on the renewable

Abbreviations: BFW, Boiler feed water; CC, Combustion chamber; GT, Gas turbine; LHV, Low heating value; HHV, High heating value; HP, High pressure; LP, Low pressure; IP, Intermediate pressure; HRSG, Heat recovery steam generator; ST, Steam turbine; CCPP, Combined cycle power plant; BFP, Boiler feed water pump; SH, Superheater; RH, Reheater; DeSH, Desuperheater; Eco, Economizer; Eva, Evaporator; CEP, Condensate Extraction Pump; N2, Nitrogen; O2, Oxygen; CO2, Carbon dioxide; H2O, Water ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (T.K. Ibrahim). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.072 Received 25 July 2016; Received in revised form 22 March 2018; Accepted 22 March 2018 1364-0321/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 90 (2018) 835–850

T.K. Ibrahim et al.

List of symbols e Ex Eẋ h ṁ P Q̇ R s T y Ẇ Ė İ c r k

i T in out P a c g x w 0 AC Cond

Specific exergy [kJ/kg] Exergy [kJ] Exergy flow rate [kW] Specific enthalpy [kJ/kg] Mass flow rate [kg/s] Pressure [kPa] Heat rate [kW] Gas constant [kJ/kmol K] Specific entropy [kJ/kg K] Temperature [°C] Molar fraction Work [kW] Energy [kW] Exergy Destruction Rate [kW] Specific heat capacity [kJ/kg K] Pressure ratio Heat ratio

List of superscripts & greek letter T P ch ph η λ ξ

List of subscripts f Dest

Initial Turbine Inlet Outlet Pump Air Compressor Combustion gas Exergy Work Ambient condition Air compressor Condenser

Fuel Destruction

Temperature Pressure Chemical exergy Physical exergy Efficiency Air-fuel ratio Ratio of chemical exergy to LHV of fuel

plant. A summary of the most important findings of the works related to the present study given. These include comparison of an ideal and actual cycle, energy and exergy analysis of the advanced combined cycle systems. The third part discusses three case studies and shows how they performed the exergy analysis. The last part states the conclusions of the literature work and provides recommendations for future work.

resources energy [6,7]. Many latest policies of the energy encourage researchers to boost the dependent on the sources of the renewable energy, to help in reducing environmental issues and enhance the energy security of the regions which depend on the use the fossil fuel [8–10]. . Numerous thermodynamic power cycles have been established and studied for the past few years [11,12]. Some of these new cycles are found to handle the system that utilizes the heat sources with low or medium temperatures, as well as, the theoretical and experiments investigations have confirmed their capabilities [13–15]. The combined cycle consist from the Brayton and Rankine thermodynamic cycle as shown in Fig. 1 [16]. The increase in the CCPP efficiency required to implement the suitable working fluid such as binary mixture [17,18]. The increase of the boiling temperature in the Heat recovery steam generator (HRSG), gives the ability to produce a high thermal exchange between the working fluid and the sources of the heat under variable temperature [19,20]. Therefore, the more heat exchange will decrease the losses of irreversibility in the process of heat addition [21,22]. Fig. 2 shows studies that have been conducted on energy and exergy of the CCPP most of them during the last forty years. At the same time, by the use of power output of the plant, researchers can improve thermodynamics performance. Thus, CCPP performance can be maintained to operate at an optimum level. For this reason, this paper takes a review of the energy and exergy analysis of CCPP. Fig. 2 included the published articles from the year 1976 to the year 2017, it is clear to note that, the number of the published article was increased to arrive the maximum number in 2017. These increases show the interested of the researcher to use the exergy analysis of the CCPP. This paper reviews the combination of an available literature in the area of the combined cycle power plant. The general aspects of the different configuration of the combined cycle power plant, its improvement, modelling, and simulation are discussed. Additionally, the analysis of the each component is carried out based on the energy, exergy and exergy destruction and made suggestions improvement. Finally, one can make a decision to use current combined cycle power plant to produce innovative more effective outputs. This study divided into four main parts including the introduction. Thermodynamics analysis of the combined cycle power plant deals with a literature review of the thermodynamics analysis of the combined cycle power

2. Thermodynamics analysis of the combined cycle power plant: a review The CCPP plant introduced with the cogeneration technology that utilizes both power and heat from one single primary fuel or energy source simultaneously, able to provide a more efficient power generation system [23,24]. Heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) detain the heat rejected from GT and make use of it to increase the temperature of the steam (working fluid) in Rankine cycle (steam cycle) [25,26]. The improvement the exploitation of the energy resources required efficient methods to the analysis of the performance of power generation cycles. Commonly, to analysis, the process of energy conversion, the first law of thermodynamics is applied in the methodology for

Fig. 1. Entropy-temperature of the CCPP cycle [16]. 836

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 90 (2018) 835–850

T.K. Ibrahim et al. 70

compared with energy can likewise identify preferable in the energy technologies from the side of the economics and environmental benefits view [47–49]. Exergy is hypothetically not rationed as energy, yet destructed in the thermal system. The assessment of irreversibility that is the losses source of the performance is known as the exergy destruction. As a matter of fact, the analysis of an exergy assessing the quantity of exergy destruction identifies the location, the magnitude and the inefficiencies thermodynamic component in a thermal energy system [50,51]. The identification of the thermal system component where exergy destruction happens can demonstrate the road towards potential enhancement [52]. Hence an exergy investigation may serve as a valuable apparatus regarding enhancing the energy efficiency of vast scale of the thermal energy system. According to [53], Exergy Analysis is a method that permits to identify and quantify inefficient component in a system involving heat and power, not just as far as heat loads (quantity of energy), yet as far as pressure and temperature gradients (energy quality) respect to the ambient conditions. Nevertheless, the analysis using the exergy method does not set up clear functional guidelines to optimum energy use. Yong and Lei [54], state that exergy denotes the maximum valuable work a system can attain within ambient conditions (25 °C, 1 atm). Sengupta et al. [55] study the performance of thermal power plant working on the coal based on exergy analysis, then they presented the entire plant by three splitting zones for the analysis. Wang et al. [56] implemented the exergy analysis of various cogeneration system in cement industry, accomplishing an optimum parameter enhancement for every cogeneration system. Saidi et al. [57] perform optimization study using the second law of thermodynamics for the polymer electrolyte fuel cell with cogeneration to get the optimum power generation based on exergy analysis. Kamate and Gangavati, [58] they study the performance of the cogeneration plant of a typical sugar factory based on an exergy analysis of a heat matched bagasse-based cogeneration plant. In the modern power industry, engineer approach to utilizing the process through the exergy analysis, which gives a more practical view of the procedure and a helpful device for designing assessment [59–61]. In fact, the thermodynamics analysis based on exergy has become a crucial feature in determining sources of inefficiency, providing a better understanding of the process, and to measure the quality of energy used [62,63]. There are some investigators even devoted their studies to exergy analysis and efficiency improvement for the system component [64,65]; while others concentrated on design and analysis of the systems [66–70]. The CCPP cycle has greater overall thermal efficiency due to the smaller exergy losses of the combustion process in the power generation system [71,72]. A rise in pressure ratio of the GT cycle will results of exergy destruction in a lower rate of the power plant. Meanwhile, rate of exergy destruction increase with an increase both ambient temperature and turbine inlet temperature [73]. It has been found that higher thermal efficiencies based on energy and exergy analysis can achieve by using the methane as an energy source when to compare with the coal and natural gas [45,74].

Number of Articles

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Years

Fig. 2. Number of published research on energy and exergy analysis with search subjects CCPP.

system energy analysis [27]. It considered as the most economical and useful analysis for the performance of power system. However, there is increasing interest in the advanced thermodynamics topic which combined the first and second laws of thermodynamics to carry out the cycle analysis by energy and exergy [28]. Exergy analysis (destruction and efficiency) introduced to evaluate the thermal efficiency of the cycle based on energy consumption. The analysis by using exergy method, act as a tool for a clear variation between losses of energy to the surrounding and irreversibilities in the internal process [29,30]. Analysis of the power plant is a broad concept involving the proficient use of energy resources. In earlier days, the energy efficiency of the plant was measured up to the first law of thermodynamics [31,32]. In fact, the design and analysis of most of the thermal system based on the first law of thermodynamics are not sufficient [33,34]. The typical approaches by the industry for the power plant efficiency analysis depend on the principle of conservation of energy as stated in the first law of thermodynamics [35,36]. However, this methodology is defective basically as a result of the fuel and heat input regarding energy cannot be added to power output and irreversibilities disregarded. In latest, Taillon et al. [37], have discussed that exergy investigation given the first and second law of thermodynamics must be involved to get the correct approach for performance analysis of power plant. Frankly, the second law of thermodynamics has been extensively used to determine exergy losses because it is related directly to the quality of energy produced within the system [38,39]. Through exergy analysis on the whole plant, irreversible loss distribution of each component can obtain. Thus, the vulnerable spot in power generation system can be determined and solved to gain better performance. Energy equilibrium method has stranded in most of the energy engineering industry due to an inherent flaw which only energy conservation principle involved qualitatively [40]. Daud et al. [41], conducted an analysis of the performance of coal-fired thermal power plants in Turkey based on a comparison between energetic and exergetic. Unusual exergy parameter of the corresponding components can determine in actual thermal power plant operation. Therefore, it is undeniable that loss and exergy efficiency analysis of power plant contribution a lot in gaining information about the malfunction recognition and detection of power plant [42]. Exergy analysis is a strategy for the review of the mechanical devices performance and thermal system processes. It includes more valuable data than energy analysis in determination of exergy at particular focuses in a progression of conversion energy steps. The steps that contribute the greater thermodynamic losses (i.e., the greatest edge for enhancement) can be identified by evaluating their efficiencies [43,44]. Exergy investigation of every component gives better comprehension of losses at different conditions of the framework [45,46]. Exergy

2.1. Energy analysis An energy diagnosis is one of the methodologies to improve the efficiency of the power system and to reduce the cost of fuel consumed, cooling water of cooling system and emissions from the combustion of fuel into the atmosphere [75–77]. First law of thermodynamics deals with the amount of energy with the various form being transferred within the system and its surrounding, causing changes in energy stored in the system. Based on the first law of thermodynamics, power output and thermal efficiency are commonly the main performance criteria [41,78]. Work and heat interaction is treated as equivalent forms of energy in transit and offers no indication about the possibility of a 837

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 90 (2018) 835–850

T.K. Ibrahim et al.

The heat loss factor is denoted by h1f commonly lying in the range 0.98–0.99 [98]. The approach points (Tap ) and the designed pinch point (Tpp ) are the basis for the thermal analysis of the HRSG. Eq. (2) expresses the temperature of the gas being emitted from the evaporator:

spontaneous process proceeding in a certain direction [79]. Basic thermodynamics is applied to power system to find mass flow rate of steam generated at drums, thermodynamics properties of each equipment and state, the electrical output of the system and thermal energy of process [53,80]. Effect of different parameters involved has been discussed in articles and journals including steam properties, the pressure of high-pressure drum, pinch point, etc. Commonly, processes are considered to be steady state steady flow. Moreover, kinetic and potential energy effects are ignored. The input and output values of every plant components can define as the measure of thermodynamic variables such as enthalpy, pressure, temperature, entropy, mass flow rate, etc. [41,81]. Pinch Technology has developed as a tool for energy engineering industries to carry out thermodynamic analysis that mainly uses for energy optimization [82–84]. Its application has allowed the improvement of the energetic efficiency in chemical plant and refineries, by implementing an optimum use of heat loads of the process streams and thermal gradients between Pinch Analysis and Process Integration [53,85]. Each component of the system in the models assumed as an individual control volume. Thus in orders to conduct the analysis, principle of first and second laws of thermodynamics, and mass conservation are applied to the component with negligible kinetic and potential energy changes [86–89]. Throughout the whole system process, the steady state assumed for the operations. The thermodynamic property relations with corresponding equations are solved by the energy balance of the cycle performance according to [90–92]. A schematic of the CCGT and bottoming cycle using a single-pressure heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) without reheating is illustrated in Fig. 1. To enable burning of natural gas for expansion in the GT, a combustor and a single stage axial flow compressor are included in the GT (topping cycle). For combining with fuel in order to produce high temperature flue gas, the principle of GT states that the air is compressed by the air compressor before being transferred to the combustion chamber (CC). Next, the GT which is linked to the generator’s shaft for producing electricity becomes the recipient of temperature flue gas [82]. In flowing into the HRSG, a decrease becomes imminent in the effluent exhaust gas temperature. The superheater, economizer and evaporator exist in the HRSG. Electricity is produced with the transmission of steam by the HRSG to the ST. The effluent condensate flows from the ST into a condenser. Over here, waste heat is transferred by the cooling water to the cooling tower [93]. In the last stage, the output from the condenser namely the feed water is suctioned by the feed water pump before transference to the HRSG [94]. The assumption that ηst andηp represent steam turbine and pump efficiencies respectively is taken here. The solid and dashed lines represent the ideal and actual processes on the temperature entropy diagram illustrated by Fig. 3 [84]. For the CCGT plant, a single pressure HRSG is classified as a common type. The temperature profile for a single pressure HRSG case containing a superheater, economizer and evaporator is shown in Fig. 4. Feed water temperature and blow down are the terminologies used for superheated steam temperature and pressure. Conditions of GT exhaust like temperature exhaust gases, flow rate and compositions are known as well. In the design mode, the aim is also to obtain the steam flow, gas and steam temperature profile. For calculating the HRSG temperature profile, the main parameters are pinch point (Tpp ) and approach points (Tap ). Fig. 4 defines them which include steam flow fall, the complete gas and steam temperature profiles [91]. The values for (Tg3) and (Tw2) can be calculated while assumptions are made for the pinch and approach. Hence, as shown in Fig. 3, the gas and water properties can be calculated by applying the energy balance for gas and water in every part. The following equations have been solved for obtaining the result: Eq. (1) expresses the superheater duty [95–97]:

Qsh = ms. (hsh − hs ) = mg × Cpg × (Tg1 − Tg 2) × h1f

Tg3 = Ts + Tpp

(2)

At superheated pressure, the saturation steam temperature is denoted by Ts. Moreover, Eq. (3) defines the temperature of the water entering the evaporator.

Tw2 = Ts − Tap

(3)

Eq. (4) is used for calculating the mass flow rate of the generation steam [81].

ms. =

mg. (Cpg1 Tg1 − Cpg3 Tg3) × h1f (hss − h w2)

(4)

As defined in Eq. (5), the energy balance is used for calculating the temperature of the gases that leave the superheater:

Tg 2 =

Cpg1 Tg1 Cpg 2

−

ms. (hss − hs ) mg. Cpg 2 × h1f

(5)

The trial and error method on Eq. (5) is performed for calculating the specific heat (Cpg2 ) and Tg2. As shown in Fig. 4, the energy balance of the economizer could be considered for calculating the temperature of the exhaust hot gases emitting the HRSG. Eq. (6) is another way of demonstrating the heat available from the exhaust gases:

Qav = mg × Cpg × (Tg1 − Tg 4 ) × h1f

(6)

where the exhaust temperature of the HRSG is represented by Tg4 . The energy balance between states 4 and 5 can be considered for calculating the temperature of the hot gases leaving the HRSG. This is shown in Fig. 4.

Tg 4 =

Cpg3 Tg3 Cpg 4

−

ms. (h w2 − h w1) mg. Cpg 4 × h1f

(7)

The ST becomes the recipient of the high pressure and high temperature steam obtained from the HRSG [86,99], Fig. 3 shows the energy balance.

Wst = ms. (h6 − h7)

(8)

Eq. (9) expresses the heat rejected from the condenser [100]:

Qcond = m w. (h7 − h8)

(9)

The pump extracts the condensate from the condenser which is then

(1)

Fig. 3. Temperature-entropy diagram for steam turbine plant. 838

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 90 (2018) 835–850

T.K. Ibrahim et al.

exergy analysis of a coal based thermal power plant by splitting up the entire plant cycle into three zones for the analysis. Wang et al. [56], performed exergy analysis of different cogeneration system in cement industry, achieving a parameter optimization for each cogeneration system. Kamate et al. [58], conducted an exergy analysis of a heat matched bagasse-based cogeneration plant of a typical sugar factory. Exergetic analysis acts as a tool for a clear variation between energy losses to the environment and internal irreversibilities in the process [107–109]. The steps that contribute the greater thermodynamic losses (i.e., the greatest margin for improvement) can be identified by evaluating their efficiencies [43,110]. Exergy analysis of each component provides a better understanding of losses at various states of the system [45,111]. Exergy can also identify better than the energy the environmental benefits and economics of energy technologies [47,112]. Exergy is theoretically not conserved as energy, yet destructed in the system. The evaluation of irreversibility that is the source of performance loss is known as the exergy destruction [113,114]. As a matter of fact, an exergy analysis assessing the quantity of exergy destruction identifies the location, the magnitude and the source of thermodynamic inefficiencies in a thermal system [50]. In the modern power industry, engineer approach to process analysis utilizes the exergy, which provides a more practical view of the process and a handy tool for engineering evaluation [59]. In fact, exergy analysis has become a crucial aspect in determining sources of inefficiency, providing a better understanding of the process, and to measure the quality of energy used [62]. There are some researchers even devoted their studies to component exergy analysis and efficiency improvement [64,65]; while others focused on systems design and analysis [66–70]. In thermodynamics, energy transfer and conversion processes of a thermal system or equipment are the main consideration to determine the efficiency of the system. The ratio between exergy used or gained and consumptive exergy is defined d as the exergy efficiency of the system or equipment [115]. The exergetic efficiency of the thermal equipment is defined by the ratio of exergy to heat absorbed [116,117]. For a thermodynamic system that interacts with a reference ambient giving or absorbing energy in the form of heat, energy can be expressed in the form of exergy defined by:

Fig. 4. A typical temperature heat transfer diagram for single-pressure HRSG combined cycle.

elevated to the economizer pressure. Eq. (10) presents the corresponding work:

Wp = m w. × vf 9 (psh − pc )

(10)

Hence, the ST power plant’s net work is :

Wsnet = Wst − Wp

(11)

The ST power plant’s efficiency is [95]:

ηstc =

Wsnet Qav

(12)

Eq. (13) represents the overall thermal efficiency of the CCGT power plant [101,102]:

ηall =

WGnet + Wsnet Qadd

(13)

Exergy = Q (1− 2.2. Exergy analysis

T0 ) T

(14)

Exergy analysis of power plant is mostly involved with enthalpy exergy whose exergy calculation formula:

Exergy is defined as the maximum amount of work that can be obtained from any disequilibrium or gradient between a physical system and surrounding environment. In simpler words, it determines the availability of a system to produce work. Utilization of exergy has spread to various fields of physics and engineering as a useful decisionmaking tool in recent decades. Despite the name of terms, exergy is directly related to energy. However, unlike energy, exergy is not conserved and destroyed by irreversibilities within a system, internally and externally [103]. The identification of parts of a system where the destruction of exergy takes place can provide guidance towards potential improvements [52,104]. As a combination property of a system and its environment, exergy depended on both the state of the system and surrounding. The ration of energy to exergy in a system can be considered as a measure of energy quality that indicates the improvement of energy efficiency. According to Arriola et al. [53], exergy analysis is a tool that allows us to identify and quantify inefficient of equipment in a system that involving heat and power. This analysis is conducted not only regarding heat loads or the measure of the quantity of energy but also regarding temperature and pressure gradient (energy quality) concerning the ambient conditions [53]. However, exergy analysis does not establish clear, practical design guidelines to optimize the use of energy [105,106]. Saidi et al. [57], optimized the power output of a polymer electrolyte fuel cell with cogeneration using the second law of thermodynamics, based on an exergy analysis. Sengupta et al. [55], presented

e = (h − h 0) − T0 (s − s0)

(15)

Where h, s and T represent enthalpy, the entropy of working system under environment condition and thermodynamics temperature of environment respectively. Exergy efficiency is the exergy utilization ratio; however, it cannot reflect the situation of exergy loss distribution. To achieve that, exergy loss rate, d and exergy loss coefficient is calculated as indicators that can find the inefficient part of the power system. Unlike exergy loss rate, exergy loss coefficient, εi is the ratio of local exergy loss rate to total fuel entered into the thermal system. The balance of the exergy rate can be expressed for every component of the thermal system as shown in Eq. (16) [118,119]:

∑ Eẋ i + Eẋ heat = ∑ Eẋ e + Ẇ

+I

(16)

Subscripts of i and e in Eqs. (1)–(16) indicate inlet and exit states of the stream flow. Meanwhile ṁ and h donate the mass flow rate and enthalpy respectively. Furthermore, exergy rate and exergy destruction is represented by Eẋ and I . Net exergy transfer rate by heat at temperate T is given by [120–122]:

Eẋ heat =

T

∑ ⎛1− T0 ⎞ Q̇ ⎝

⎠

(17)

In Eq. (17), subscript 0 refers to the ambient environmental conditions and T0 is referred to the ambient temperature. Exergy rate of the 839

Year

2001 2001 2007

2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2014 2014

2014 2015 2015

2015

2016 2017

2017

2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 2018

References

[82] [146] [147]

[148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156]

[157] [158] [159]

840

[71]

[119] [160]

[67]

[161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166]

180 250 430.54 315 2.33 0.033

232.6

200 660

50

500 150 110

315 7.7 32 348.5 300 435 107 660 300

850 1100 500

Capacity (MW)

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Energy analysis

Table 1 Energy and exergy analysis of the CCPP.

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Exergy analysis

This study focus on the developed simulation and optimization code to select optimum operation parameters. A thermodynamics optimization of large-scale coal-fired power plant was done. The results show the lower energy efficiency due to higher energy rejection and poor exergy efficiency is due to higher exergy destruction relative to net output at part load operation. The condenser show maximum energy losses. In terms of exergy destruction, the major loss was found in the boiler and turbine. Energy and exergy analysis have been done and predicted that fluidized bed combustor has the largest exergy destruction The irreversibilities yield of the boiler and turbine represent the highest exergy losses in the power plant. Energy losses, mainly occur in the condenser while the exergy destruction of the boiler is higher than the other components of the power plant. Exergy loss mainly takes place in boiler and in condenser energy loss takes place at most Optimum design parameter was selected based on multi-objective optimization The lower exergy efficiency of plant components was occurred in the combustion chamber. The results show that minimum energy losses maximum rate of exergy destruction were occurred in the boiler. The results produced from compared two power plant work at same capacity show that the most energy losses was occurred in the condenser and the boiler represent the major exergy destruction between the power plant components. Perform energy and exergy analysis was done to compare between coal-fired power plant and nuclear power plant at same capacity and condition. A less exergy loss takes place in the condenser while boiler has a major exergy loss in comparison to other components. The energy loss was insignificant in the condenser due to its low quality and that the greatest process irreversibility and possibility for efficiency improvement is found in the boiler Among the system components in the combustion chamber most exergy destruction was occurred after applied the first and second law of thermodynamics analysis. The energy and exergy efficiencies of the CCPP are found as 56% and 50.04% respectively. The main wasting exergy equipment was the boiler while the be most wasting energy equipment was the condenser. Development efficient methodology for Thermodynamic optimization of the power plant has been done using coupled artificial neural network (ANN) and genetic algorithm (GA) and found the optimum parameters. The reduce of the exergy destruction in the cycle can be achieve by reducing the temperature differences of the net heaters and increasing the amount of supplied working fluid to the turbine. Due to their high irreversibility the combustion chambers are the main sources of exergy destruction The results show that the energy efficiency was 32.4% while the exergy efficiency was 34.3% of the plant. The energy and exergy analysis are assessment of an integrated steam generation CCPP The simulator model can predict the exergy destruction in the cycle with relative errors of less than 1.5% for different operating conditions. Energy and exergy assessments are proposed of the cogeneration system. The combustion chamber had half of the total exergy destruction of the plants.

Remarks

T.K. Ibrahim et al.

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 90 (2018) 835–850

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 90 (2018) 835–850

T.K. Ibrahim et al.

fluid flow is the summation of physical and chemical exergy rate, disregarding the kinetic and potential exergies of the flow [123,124].

Eẋ = Eẋ ph + Eẋ ch

coal-fired steam power plant. In 2011, Kaushik et al. [141] presented a brief review of various studies and comparison between the energy and exergy analyses of thermal power plants stimulated by coal and gas. Based on the exergy analysis presented in this study, main exergy loss in coal based power plants is in the boiler. While for gas fired combined cycle thermal power plant, combustion chamber has the largest exergy loss distribution among the other parts of the systems [141]. Introducing exergoeconomic analysis, Ameri et al. [5] performed the analysis together with energy and exergy for a steam power plant. Ghaebi et al. [142] conducted energy, exergy and thermo-economic analysis on a combined cooling, heating and power system. Wei et al. [143] presented an exergy analysis and an exergoeconomic evaluation to identify potential energy savings in distillation processes. Comparison between energy and exergy analysis has been made by Li et al. [144] using sub-critical, super-critical, ultra-supercritical steam conditions of power systems. In 2014, Chen et al. carried out energy and exergy analysis of the combined cooling, heating and power system driven by gas turbine [145]. Combined method of energy and exergy analysis is a useful tool for decision making because it allows optimizing the operation of the power plant, as well as recommending actions in rehabilitation and modernization programs [111]. Besides that, it also optimizes the use of energy in a process of industrial power plant that guarantees the efficient use of energy resources [53,106]. In this study, a number of research articles based on thermodynamic analysis in the CCPP have been reviewed. A lot of research articles, including energy and exergy analysis. Therefore more, these studies have been also taken into investigation. It is also noted that, most energy losses was occurred in the condenser but the major exergy destruction occurred in the combustion chamber as shown in Table 1.

(18)

The term of physical exergy is calculated as [125–127]:

Eẋ ph = ṁ [(h − h 0 ) − T0 (s − s0 )]

(19)

To determine the chemical exergy of the blend, it is essential to know the molar structure, x of the gases of the combustion after combustion process by the chemical balance equation [128,129]. n

n

Eẋ ch = ṁ ⎡∑ x i Ex ich + RT0 ∑ x i ln(x i ) ⎤ ⎥ ⎢ i=1 i=1 ⎦ ⎣

(20)

Calculation of exergy destructions and exergy efficiency for each component of the system are included in exergy analysis and also the overall system. The formula of exergy efficiency is mathematically expressed as below [125,130,131]:

ηex , GT =

̇ , GT Wnet Eẋ ch

(21)

ηex , ST =

̇ , ST Wnet Eẋ ch

(22)

ηex , overall

=

̇ , Wnet

̇ , + Wnet ̇ ch Ex

GT

ST

(23)

Eq. (24) shows the calculation for the fuel specific exergy [132,133]: ch Eẋ fuel = ξ

× LHVfuel

(24)

where c = 1.06, is indicated as the factor of exergy based on the lower heating value [134,135]. Exergy of an energy-conversion system can be quantified by specifying both the system and its surroundings. It is concluded that any process does not remarkably vary the concentrated thermodynamic properties of the ambient environment. The case, when considered the system, is at equilibrium with the surroundings called the dead state [136,137]. There are no potential variances occur when a system is at equivalent pressure, temperature, velocity, chemical composition, and elevation as its surroundings, that would extract the useful work of the system [43,138].

3. Case studies of the energy and exergy analysis of the combined cycle In calculating the variation in a thermodynamic property analysis (first law of the thermodynamics), the reference ambient state is insignificant. However, it is supposed that the dead state will influence the results of exergy analysis (second law of the thermodynamics) [167,168]. So as to determine the significant of the dead state towards the exergy analysis, the case studied was analyzed using the corresponding equations; with the reference of the environment temperature varies from 283.15 to 318.15 K while keeping the pressure at 101.3 kPa [50,169]. REFPROP 8 software was utilized to calculate the thermodynamic properties of air and water at various nodes of case studied [170,171]. In this part will discuss three previous case studies of the combined cycle based on the energy and exergy analysis.

2.3. Combined energy and exergy analysis The combination of both energy and exergy analysis in a single methodology could provide a right solution for the analysis of heat and power systems. The combined approach in analyzing the operation and design of a typical combined cycle power plant not only quantifies total exergy loss for the equipment, but also the energy and exergy efficiency, potentially improves the power systems towards efficient use of energy resources. Analysis of cross pinch heat transfer in a combined cycle power system identifies additional losses of energy due to the inefficient design of the heat recovery steam generation system (HRSG). Arriola et al. [53], stated that elimination of cross pinch heat transfer in process operating conditions would allow an increment of 0.81% on the cycle efficiency and a reduction of 2.4% in the cooling water required. Plant efficiency can be improved by implementing new or rehabilitated equipment. However, some energy losses could remain due to an inefficient thermal integration [53]. It has been found that higher energy and exergy efficiencies can achieved when methane is used as an energy source when compared to natural gas and coal [45]. Esen et al. [139] investigated energetic and exergetic efficiencies of a ground-coupled heat pump system. Rosen et al. [140], examined energy and exergy efficiencies in a

3.1. Externally fired biomass CCPP In the study of externally fired biomass CCPP as shown in Fig. 5, a thermodynamic mathematical model is developed for the gasification process assuming that the producer gas is in chemical equilibrium [172]. Regarding the lower heating value of the biomass fuel, the overall energy efficiency can be expressed as:

ηoverall

=

̇ , GT + Wnet ̇ , ST Wnet ṁ biomass LHVbiomass

(25)

̇ , ST = WST ̇ − Wair ̇ − comp . ̇ , GT = WGT ̇ − Ẇ pump and Wnet where Wnet In previous studies, a few researchers have conducted conventional exergy analysis towards externally fired biomass CCPP to define the efficiency as “exergy of product/exergy of fuel” [125,134,174–179]. Soltani, Yari et al. [173] has reported the explanation of product and fuel exergy, as well as exergy destruction and exergy efficiency for the case studied. Fig. 6 shows that the influence of pressure ratio and two gas turbine 841

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 90 (2018) 835–850

T.K. Ibrahim et al.

= 50,145 kJ/kg) of fuel is utilized to determine the energy efficiency of combustion chamber are consider in this study. Meanwhile, its exergy efficiency is calculated from the net work output of chemical exergy of fuel at it is standard value (52,275 kJ/kg). Chemical equation of the combustion process occurs in combustion chamber (CC) of the GT is:

CH4 + x (O2+3.76N2) → CO2+2H2 O + (x −2) O2+3.76xN2

(26)

where x represent the amount of air required to complete the combustion process. Table 2 was developed to summarize the exergetic losses calculation based on determine the exergetic losses for each components of the CCPP for the study [180]. Entropy change for air in isentropic compression and expansion process is zero, Δs = 0 [180].

∆s = 0 = s32 − s 33′

(27)

= [sCO2+2s H2 O + (x −2) sO2+3.76xs N2]32 / − R [log

s32

+2log

P32 mpcc

(x −2) P32 2P32 3.76xP32 +3.76x log + (x −2)log ] mpcc mpcc mpcc

(28)

s 33′ = [sCO2+2s H2 O + (x −2) sO2+3.76xs N2]33′

Fig. 5. Schematic diagram of case study (externally fired biomass CCPP) [173].

− R [log

(x −2) P33′ 2P ′ 3.76xP 33′ P 33′ ] +2log 33 +3.76x log + (x −2)log mpcc mpcc mpcc mpcc (29)

where mpcc indicate the total mass of chemical contains in combustion product. Heat balanced equation is used to determine the steam flow rates and local outlet temperature in heating devices at low, medium and high pressure. Eqs. (30 and 31) are expressed to calculate saturation temperature of LP and IP evaporator.

TIP sat = TIP ex − TTDIP − DSHIP

(30)

TLP sat = TLP ex − TTDLP − DSHLP

(31)

TTD is defined as the terminal temperature difference between flue gas and reheated/superheated steam; DSH is the degree of superheat in superheater. Exhaust gas temperature is determined from:

Fig. 6. Effect of the pressure ratio and the turbine inlet temperature on the energy and exergy efficiency of the CCPP [173].

THP ex = THP sat + PPHP

(32)

TIP ex = TIP sat + PPIP

(33)

TLP ex = TLP sat + PPLP

(34)

In exergy analysis, chemical exergy and physical exergy associated in each component is estimated by:

inlet temperatures values on the energy and exergy efficiencies variations. For a constant turbine inlet temperature of the GT cycle, it is obvious that there is no significant on the both the efficiencies variation. However, at the specific value of the pressure ratio, the energy and exergy efficiencies are boosted in their values. Thus we can conclude that the rise of the turbine inlet temperature of GT will leads to greater thermal efficiencies at all pressure ratios [173].

e ch =

∑k nk εk0

e ph = h −

+ RT0 ∑ nk ln(Pxk )

(35)

k

∑k T0 sk

(36) th

where xk donate to mole fraction of k components. In all HRSG configurations, the deaerator is located to help the CCPP to remove dissolved gases in feed water as well as gain higher efficiency. As last heat transfers surface the condensate preheater (CPH) is placed in HRSG to enhance the heat recovery from the hot gases. The pressure and temperature of the steam in each pressure level are determined based on the local flue gas temperature in the HRSG. The minimum temperature difference between saturation steam temperatures in the evaporators and the exhaust gases leaving the evaporator from the gas turbine called as pinch point (PP). On the other hand the temperature difference between steam in the super heaters and the exhaust entry are called terminal temperature difference (TTD) and it Thus, the total exergetic losses of the CCPP cycle is

3.2. Combined cycle with pressure level of HRSG Srinivas et al. [180] optimized different types of the HRSG such as: single pressure (SP), dual pressure (DP) and triple pressure (TP) on the performa.nce off the combined cycle power plant (CCPP) as shown in Fig. 7. The exergy efficiency variations in the CCPP are plotted with the pressure ratio of the, compressor; inlet temperature of the gas turbine, HRSG superheated pressure (HP), the pressure of reheated steam, pinch point (PP) and deaerator pressure. The optimized of the HRSG configuration led to improve the generation of the steam and therefore, the output of the steam turbine. Assumptions for analysis of the CCPP are tabulated . Energy efficiency of the CCPP is determined based on the law heating value (LHV

itot = iC + iCC + iGT + iHRSG + iex + iST + iCO + iw + iDE Exergy efficiency of the CCPP cycle can determine from 842

(37)

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 90 (2018) 835–850

T.K. Ibrahim et al.

Fig. 7. Schematic diagram of CCPP cycle with HRSG: a) single pressure ;b) dual pressure; and c) triple pressure [180].

843

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 90 (2018) 835–850

T.K. Ibrahim et al.

Table 2 Components exergetic losses. Components

Exergetic loss (Irreversibility)

Compressor CC GT HRSG

iC = e30 + wC − e31 iCC = eCH4 + e31 − e32 iGT = e32 + e33 − wGT iHRSG = (eHRSG in − eHRSG out ) + ∑ (ewater in − estream out ) i ex = eex iST = T0 ∑ m (sout − sin)

HRSG (Exhaust) ST Cond. Cond. (Hot water) Deaerator

ηex =

wnet ε 0CH4

×

100

Tw, out ⎞ iCO = T0 ⎛mCO ST (sout − sin)+mw ×4.18×log Tw, in ⎠ ⎝

iw = mw ×4.18×(Tw, out − Tw, in) − T0 mw ×4.18×log

Tw, out Tw, in

iDE = T0 [mDE steam (safter mix − sbefore mix ) + mfeedwater (safter mix − sbefore mix )

physical and thermal design, based on used the Matlab software program for optimization is developed. To study the optimization of the CCPP, the temperature profile of the gases and steam in the CCPP, estimated the enthalpy and exergy of each line in plant. The energy balance equations for various parts of the CCPP (Fig. 9) are as follows [153]:

(38)

Clearly, exergy efficiency is not in view of the particular heat input to the steam; rather, the LHV of the fuel is used to include the losses from the furnace of the boiler system which mainly due to energy lost with incomplete combustion, hot gases, and etc. Fig. 8(a) clearly shows that optimum pressure ratio increase from single pressure to triple pressure in HRSG. According to the isentropic expansion equation, the increase of pressure ratio will reduce the exhaust temperature of the GT cycle, thus the total cycle efficiency was decreases. The HRSG is better in triple pressure configuration. At turbine inlet temperature 1200 °C value of the GT cycle, the optimum pressure ratio is observed as 8, 10 and 12 for SP, DP and TP HRSG respectively. The Exergy efficiency of the CCPP cycle was raised with the increased of the turbine inlet temperature of the GT, at a constant pressure ratio of 12 (Fig. 8b). By increasing the inlet pressure of the steam turbine, the overall efficiency of cycle will increase as well (Fig. 8c). A remarkable rise in efficiency is observed from DP to TP with the present of high pressure. In Fig. 8(d), at 200 bar of inlet pressure of the steam turbine, exergy efficiency of CC increase gradually with steam reheat pressure for single pressure configuration HRSG. However, dual and triple pressure HRSG shows a different graph due to the existence of reheater in the configurations. Reheater is implemented to reduce the moisture contain in the steam in order to prevent the erosion of turbine blades during expansion process. Exergy efficiency is optimum at 100 bar steam reheat pressure with HP pressure at 200 bar. By maintaining HP pressure and steam reheat pressure at 200 bar and 100 bar respectively, we observed from Fig. 8(e) that peak deaerator pressure is approximately 1, 3 and 5 bar for distinct level of HRSG. Greater temperature difference between exhaust and steam (PP) will cause increase of irreversibility losses in heat transfer. Consequently, combined cycle achieve higher exergy efficiency at low temperature different (Fig. 8f). Practically, the CCPP cycle has a constant pressure ratio of the compressor and turbine inlet temperature of the GT designed by the manufacturer. Thus, it is not ideal to reduce the exergetic losses in the gas cycle components such as compressor, combustion chamber and gas turbine. From SP to TP, exergetic loss associated to heat transfer increase with rate of steam generation by HRSG. Hence, causing exhaust exergetic loss to reduce. In the isentropic expansion of steam turbine, exergetic loss is affected by the amount of steam flow. As higher pressure level of HRSG produce greater steam flow, exergetic flow rises with the pressure level, which indirectly increases the condenser exergetic loss as well. Overall, total exergetic losses show a decreasing pattern from SP to TP of the HRSG.

• Air compressor: γ −1

⎧ 1 ⎡ aγa ⎤⎫ TB = TA 1+ rc −1⎥ ⎨ ηAC ⎢ ⎬ ⎣ ⎦⎭ ⎩

(39)

Ẇ AC = ma cp,

(40)

a (TB

− TA)

where cp, a is assumed as a temperature variable function:

c p, a =

1.0481−⎛ ⎝

3.8371T 9.4537T 2 ⎞ ⎛ 5.49031T 3 ⎞ ⎛ 7.9298T 4 ⎞ ⎞+⎛ − + 10 4 ⎠ ⎝ 107 ⎠ ⎝ 1010 ⎠ ⎝ 1014 ⎠ (41) ⎜

⎟

⎜

⎟

⎜

⎟

• Combustion chamber: ṁ a hB + ṁ f LHV = ṁ g hc +(1−ηcc ) ṁ f LHV

(42)

PC = (1 − ΔPCC ) PB

(43)

• Gas turbine: ⎧ ⎡ ⎪ P TD = TC 1+ηGT ⎢1−⎛ C ⎞ ⎨ ⎢ ⎝ PD ⎠ ⎪ ⎣ ⎩ ⎜

̇ = m g c p, WGT

g (TC

⎟

1 − γg γg ⎤ ⎫ ⎪

⎥ ⎥⎬ ⎪ ⎦⎭

(44)

− TD )

(45)

̇ − Ẇ AC ẆNet = WGT

(46)

ṁ g = ṁ f + ṁ a

(47)

where cp, g is assumed as a temperature variable function:

c p, g =

3.3. Dual pressure (DP) combined cycle power plant

0.991615+⎛ ⎝

• Duct burner:

6.99703T 2.7129T 2 ⎞ ⎛ 1.22442T 3 ⎞ ⎞+⎛ − 5 10 ⎠ ⎝ 107 ⎠ ⎝ 1010 ⎠ ⎜

⎟

⎜

⎟

(48)

To rise the exhaust gas temperature of the GT that entering the

To find the optimum parameters of the system from the view of the 844

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 90 (2018) 835–850

T.K. Ibrahim et al.

Fig. 8. Exergy efficiency of the CCPP cycle with: a) single pressure HRSG; b) dual pressure HRSG; and c) triple pressure HRSG [180].

845

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 90 (2018) 835–850

T.K. Ibrahim et al.

Fig. 9. Schematic representation of a dual pressure (DP) CCPP cycle [153].

ṁ g cp (T13 − T14 ) = ṁ S, HP (h8 − h7)

Table 3 Exergy destruction and exergy efficiency of the CCPP components.

LP superheater:

Components

Exergy destruction

Exergy efficiency

HRSG

EḊ , HRSG = ∑i, E ̇ − ∑o E ̇

ηHRSG =

ST

EḊ , ST = ∑i, E ̇ − ∑o E ̇ − Ẇ

ηST =

Pump

EḊ , P = Ei̇ − Eȯ + ẆP

ηP =

Comp.

EḊ , AC = EȦ − EḂ − Ẇ AC

ηAC =

E2̇ − E1̇ Ẇ AC

CC

EḊ , CC = EḂ − EĊ + Eḟ , CC

ηCC =

̇ EC ̇ − Eḟ , CC EB

GT

̇ EḊ , GT = EĊ − EḊ − WGT

ηGT =

Duct burner

̇ + Eḟ , DB EḊ , DB = EḊ − E11

ηDB =

Cond.

EḊ , C = ∑i, E ̇ − ∑o E ̇

ηCond = 1−

ṁ g cp (T14 − T15) = ṁ S, LP (h6 − h5)

̇ + E6̇ − E1̇ E10 ̇ − E18 ̇ E11

DB LHV

= (ṁ g + ṁ f ,

DB ) h11+ (1−ηDB ) ṁ f ,

ṁ g cp (T15 − T16) = ṁ S, LP (h5 − h4 )

ṁ g cp (T16 − T17) = ṁ S, LP (h3 − h2)

ṁ g cp (T17 − T18) = ṁ S, LP (h2 − h1)

• Steam turbine: ̇ = ṁ w, HP h10 + ṁ w, HP h6 − ṁ w h19 WST

DB LHV

̇ ,a WST ̇ ,s WST

(57)

(58)

In order to determine the performance of the CCPP, overall thermal efficiency must include the efficiency of the GT cycle and the ST cycle.

In this case studied, configuration of HRSG is dual pressure. Energy balance equations for the exhaust gases and water in each point are used to calculate gases temperature and water properties. HP superheater: (50)

ηGT =

̇ − WAC WGT ̇ Qin

(59)

ηST =

̇ − WP WST ̇ Qin

(60)

HP evaporator:

ṁ g cp (T12 − T13) = ṁ S, HP (h9 − h8)

(56)

After solving the numerical mass balance and energy equations, temperature-transferred heat diagram of HRSG in term of gas and water/steam flow is produced.

̇ , Cond ED ∑in Cond E ̇

• Heat recovery steam generator (HRSG):

̇ − ṁ w h19 = WST

(55)

Condensate pre-heater:

̇ WGT ̇ − ED ̇ EC ̇ E11 ̇ ̇ ED − Ef , DB

ηST =

LP h6

(54)

Deaerator evaporator:

(49)

ṁ w, HP h10 + ṁ w,

(53)

LP evaporator:

̇ WST Ei̇ − Eȯ Ei̇ − Eȯ EṖ

HRSG, additional fuel is burnt in supplementary combustor.

ṁ g hD + ṁ f ,

(52)

ηCCPP =

(51)

HP economizer:

̇ − WAC + WST ̇ − WP WGT ̇ Qin

(61)

There are a few assumptions made in conducting this analysis 846

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 90 (2018) 835–850

T.K. Ibrahim et al.

the hot exhaust gas and working fluid. Table 3 summarized the exergy destruction rate and the exergy efficiency for each component of the CCPP with effect dual pressure HRSG [153]. Therefore, the calculation of exergy destruction and exergy efficiency will be very sample and help to develop the mathematical model for the effect of dual pressure HRSG on the performance of CCPP.

[181,182]: a) All the flows are in steady flow. b) In this study the researcher consider the air and combustion products as an ideal-gas mixture. c) Natural gas is used as the fuel. d) In combustion chamber, heat loss is deduced to be 3% of the LHV of the fuel [183]. However, all other components are assumed adiabatic. e) The ambient conditions are T0 = 293.15 K and P0 = 1.01 bar.

4. Conclusion In this study, a comprehensive investigation of modelling and performance assessment has been conducted on the CCPP plant. Review of the technical methods of energy and exergy analysis from previous published journals and articles has permit a significant comparison of various configurations of the CCPP plant, specifically in term of heat recovery steam generator. The fact is combination of energy and exergy analysis has been widely used for improvement not attainable by energy methods. The results obtained from exergy analysis seem to be similar with the actual practice of the CCPP generation system. As the matter of fact, exergy efficiency has successfully provided a more practical comparison between distinct configurations of cogeneration systems. Energy efficiencies can be non-intuitive or even deceptive [190]. Part of it is because it does not demonstrate a measure of ideality. Moreover, energy losses during operation process can be large amount of quantity, yet it is thermodynamically negligible due to its low quality. On the other hand, exergy efficiencies and destruction provide measures of approach to ideality. Such results provide great opportunities for improvement. Nonetheless, unavoidable irreversibility or losses are present due to technological, physical, and economic constraints [50]. Among the system of the CCPP, HRSG system has the mainly remarkable source of exergy destruction due to the chemical reaction between compressed air and fuel input. The main factors that affecting are the excess air fraction exist in the combustion and air inlet temperature. Improvement can achieve by reducing the air-fuel ratio and preheating the combustion air. In overall, exergy methods able to guarantee the tremendous benefits reasonably attainable, which will likely be beneficial to manufacturers, engineers and designers of the CCPP generation systems in plant design, manufacturing, analysis, and optimization formula, and most importantly, determine the suitable type of system for different conditions and applications.

The previous studies divided the exergy to four main groups as: physical, chemical, kinetic and potential exergy. Most studies assumed the kinetic and potential exergy to be insignificant components through the analysis. On the other hand, the physical and chemical exergy consider being the significant components of the exergy through the analysis [113,161,184,185]. The chemical exergy of a substance is the most extreme work that can be gotten from it by taking it to the equilibrium of chemical composite with the standard conditions at constant pressure and temperature (1 atm and 298.15 K respectively) [162,186,187]. Therefore in the combustion process the chemical exergy represent the most important part. The deviation of the pressure and temperature of any system compared to the standard conditions led to generate the physical exergy. Physical exergy shows maximum work potential of system at initial conditions [162]. By applying the first and second law of thermodynamics, the exergy balance can be obtained.

Eẋ Q +

∑ ṁ i exi = ∑ ṁ e exe + Eẋ W + Eẋ D i

e

(62)

Subscript i and e are indicating the inlet and outlet of process flow. Exergy destruction is defined as Eẋ D .

T Eẋ Q = ⎛1− 0 ⎞ Qi̇ ⎝ Ti ⎠

(63)

Eẋ W = Ẇ

(64)

ex ph = (h − h 0) − T0 (s − s0)

(65)

n n ch ex mix = ⎡∑ Xi ex ich + RT0 ∑ Xi ln Xi + G E⎤ ⎥ ⎢ i=1 i=1 ⎦ ⎣

(66)

⎜

⎟

Acknowledgements

where Eẋ Q and Eẋ W is the exergy of heat transfer and work respectively. G E is the excess free Gibbs energy which is negligible at low pressure in a gas mixture. Subscripts 0 represent the dead-state conditions. In order to analyze exergetic performance, equation of total exergy rate is utilized.

Eẋ = Eẋ ph + Eẋ ch

The authors would like to thank Tikrit University for providing laboratory facilities and financial. References

(67) [1] Jonathan GK. Worldwide electricity used in data centers. Environmental Research Letters 2008;3:034008. [2] Noor M, Wandel AP, Yusaf T. A review of MILD combustion and open furnace design consideration. International Journal of Automotive and Mechanical Engineering. 2012;6:730–54. [3] Arrieta FRP, Lora EES. Influence of ambient temperature on combined-cycle power-plant performance. Applied Energy. 2005;80:261–72. [4] Kim T, Hwang S. Part load performance analysis of recuperated gas turbines considering engine configuration and operation strategy. Energy. 2006;31:260–77. [5] Ameri M, Ahmadi P, Hamidi A. Energy, exergy and exergoeconomic analysis of a steam power plant: a case study. International Journal of Energy Research. 2009;33:499–512. [6] Urzúa IA, Olmedo JC, Sauma EE. Impact of intermittent non-conventional renewable generation in the costs of the Chilean main power system. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2016;60:810–21. [7] Izadyar N, Ong HC, Chong WT, Leong KY. Resource assessment of the renewable energy potential for a remote area: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2016;62:908–23. [8] Arbon I. Worldwide use of biomass in power generation and combined heat and power schemes. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part A: Journal of Power and Energy 2002;216:41–57. [9] Sorrell S. Reducing energy demand: A review of issues, challenges and approaches. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2015;47:74–82. [10] Valdés Lucas JN, Escribano Francés G, San Martín González E. Energy security and

Fuel exergy, ex f is determine by the ratio of simplified exergy as below [62,134,188]:

ξ=

ex f LHVf

(68)

Since most of fuel is in gaseous form, the ratio is normally close to unity [134,181].

ξCH4 = 1.060 ξ H2 = 0.985 Exergy analysis of the plant is done by calculating the exergy rate at all states of the process for each components. The change in the exergy is considered as the exergy losses. In previous studies, combustion chamber is determined to be the component with maximum exergy destruction (or irreversibility). This is mainly due to fuel combustion process and thermal losses [181,189]. On the other hand, the exergy destruction in HRSG is due to the large temperature difference between 847

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 90 (2018) 835–850

T.K. Ibrahim et al.

[11]

[12]

[13] [14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19] [20]

[21] [22] [23] [24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29] [30] [31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37] [38] [39]

[40]

[41] Daud R, Hasfa N, Tomadi S, Hassan M, Kadirgama K, Noor M, et al. Prediction of chatter in CNC machining based on dynamic cutting force for ball end milling. Proceedings of the International Multi-Conference of Engineers and Computer Scientists2009. [42] BoroumandJazi G, Rismanchi B, Saidur R. A review on exergy analysis of industrial sector. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2013;27:198–203. [43] Rosen MA, Dincer I. Effect of varying dead-state properties on energy and exergy analyses of thermal systems. International Journal of Thermal Sciences. 2004;43:121–33. [44] Edwards J, Bindra H, Sabharwall P. Exergy analysis of thermal energy storage options with nuclear power plants. Annals of Nuclear Energy. 2016;96:104–11. [45] Sreeramulu M, Gupta A, Srinivas T. Energy and Exergy Analysis of Gas Turbine–Fuel Cell Based Combined Cycle Power Plant. ASME 2011 9th International Conference on Fuel Cell Science, Engineering and Technology collocated with ASME 2011 5th International Conference on Energy Sustainability: American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2011. p. 85-94. [46] Li C, Gillum C, Toupin K, Donaldson B. Biomass boiler energy conversion system analysis with the aid of exergy-based methods. Energy Conversion and Management. 2015;103:665–73. [47] Rosen MA, Dincer I, Kanoglu M. Role of exergy in increasing efficiency and sustainability and reducing environmental impact. Energy policy. 2008;36:128–37. [48] Ezzat MF, Dincer I. Energy and exergy analyses of a new geothermal–solar energy based system. Solar Energy. 2016;134:95–106. [49] Romero JC, Linares P. Exergy as a global energy sustainability indicator. A review of the state of the art. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2014;33:427–42. [50] Aljundi IH. Energy and exergy analysis of a steam power plant in Jordan. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2009;29:324–8. [51] Gupta MK, Kaushik SC, Ranjan KR, Panwar NL, Reddy VS, Tyagi SK. Thermodynamic performance evaluation of solar and other thermal power generation systems: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2015;50:567–82. [52] Kanogˇlu M, Kazım Işık S, Abuşogˇlu A. Performance characteristics of a Diesel engine power plant. Energy Conversion and Management. 2005;46:1692–702. [53] Arriola-Medellín A, Manzanares-Papayanopoulos E, Romo-Millares C. Diagnosis and redesign of power plants using combined Pinch and Exergy Analysis. Energy. 2014;72:643–51. [54] Li Y, Liu L. Exergy analysis of 300MW coal-fired power plant. Energy Procedia. 2012;17:926–32. [55] Sengupta S, Datta A, Duttagupta S. Exergy analysis of a coal‐based 210 MW thermal power plant. International Journal of Energy Research 2007;31:14–28. [56] Wang J, Dai Y, Gao L. Exergy analyses and parametric optimizations for different cogeneration power plants in cement industry. Applied Energy. 2009;86:941–8. [57] Saidi MH, Ehyaei MA, Abbasi A. Optimization of a combined heat and power PEFC by exergy analysis. Journal of Power Sources. 2005;143:179–84. [58] Kamate SC, Gangavati PB. Exergy analysis of cogeneration power plants in sugar industries. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2009;29:1187–94. [59] Utlu Z, Hepbasli A. A review on analyzing and evaluating the energy utilization efficiency of countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2007;11:1–29. [60] Yingjian L, Abakr YA, Qi Q, Xinkui Y, Jiping Z. Energy efficiency assessment of fixed asset investment projects – A case study of a Shenzhen combined-cycle power plant. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2016;59:1195–208. [61] Liu M, Steven Tay NH, Bell S, Belusko M, Jacob R, Will G, et al. Review on concentrating solar power plants and new developments in high temperature thermal energy storage technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2016;53:1411–32. [62] Dincer I, Al‐Muslim H. Thermodynamic analysis of reheat cycle steam power plants. International Journal of Energy Research 2001;25:727–39. [63] Karatayev M, Clarke ML. A review of current energy systems and green energy potential in Kazakhstan. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2016;55:491–504. [64] Badran OO. Gas-turbine performance improvements. Applied Energy. 1999;64:263–73. [65] Carcasci C, Facchini B. Comparison between two gas turbine solutions to increase combined power plant efficiency. Energy Conversion and Management. 2000;41:757–73. [66] Huang F. Performance evaluation of selected combustion gas turbine cogeneration systems based on first and second-law analysis. Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power 1990;112:117–21. [67] Verkhivker G, Kosoy B. On the exergy analysis of power plants. Energy Conversion and Management. 2001;42:2053–9. [68] Marrero I, Lefsaker A, Razani A, Kim K. Second law analysis and optimization of a combined triple power cycle. Energy Conversion and Management. 2002;43:557–73. [69] Bilgen E. Exergetic and engineering analyses of gas turbine based cogeneration systems. Energy. 2000;25:1215–29. [70] Sue D-C, Chuang C-C. Engineering design and exergy analyses for combustion gas turbine based power generation system. Energy. 2004;29:1183–205. [71] Ersayin E, Ozgener L. Performance analysis of combined cycle power plants: A case study. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2015;43:832–42. [72] Yan B, Xue S, Li Y, Duan J, Zeng M. Gas-fired combined cooling, heating and power (CCHP) in Beijing: A techno-economic analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2016;63:118–31. [73] Athari H, Soltani S, Rosen MA, Gavifekr MK, Morosuk T. Exergoeconomic study of gas turbine steam injection and combined power cycles using fog inlet cooling and biomass fuel. Renewable Energy. 2016;96(Part A):715–26.

renewable energy deployment in the EU: Liaisons Dangereuses or Virtuous Circle? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2016;62:1032–46. Wang K, Sanders SR, Dubey S, Choo FH, Duan F. Stirling cycle engines for recovering low and moderate temperature heat: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2016;62:89–108. Spitler JD, Gehlin SEA. Thermal response testing for ground source heat pump systems—An historical review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2015;50:1125–37. Vidal A, Best R, Rivero R, Cervantes J. Analysis of a combined power and refrigeration cycle by the exergy method. Energy. 2006;31:3401–14. Carotenuto A, Ciccolella M, Massarotti N, Mauro A. Models for thermo-fluid dynamic phenomena in low enthalpy geothermal energy systems: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2016;60:330–55. Murugan S, Horák B. A review of micro combined heat and power systems for residential applications. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2016;64:144–62. Ibrahim TK, Rahman M. Thermal impact of operating conditions on the performance of a combined cycle gas turbine. Journal of applied research and technology. 2012;10:567–77. Padilla RV, Demirkaya G, Goswami DY, Stefanakos E, Rahman MM. Analysis of power and cooling cogeneration using ammonia-water mixture. Energy. 2010;35:4649–57. Erdinc O, Paterakis NG, Catalão JPS. Overview of insular power systems under increasing penetration of renewable energy sources: Opportunities and challenges. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2015;52:333–46. Bao J, Zhao L. A review of working fluid and expander selections for organic Rankine cycle. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2013;24:325–42. Wang T, Zhang Y, Peng Z, Shu G. A review of researches on thermal exhaust heat recovery with Rankine cycle. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2011;15:2862–71. Wang J, Dai Y, Zhang T, Ma S. Parametric analysis for a new combined power and ejector–absorption refrigeration cycle. Energy. 2009;34:1587–93. Manjunath K, Kaushik SC. Second law thermodynamic study of heat exchangers: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2014;40:348–74. Raj NT, Iniyan S, Goic R. A review of renewable energy based cogeneration technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2011;15:3640–8. Arshad M, Ahmed S. Cogeneration through bagasse: A renewable strategy to meet the future energy needs. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2016;54:732–7. Antonanzas J, Jimenez E, Blanco J, Antonanzas-Torres F. Potential solar thermal integration in Spanish combined cycle gas turbines. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2014;37:36–46. Corsini A, Rispoli F, Santoli Ld, Pantaleo AM, Camporeale S, Fortunato B. 70th Conference of the Italian Thermal Machines Engineering Association, ATI2015Small scale biomass CHP: Techno-economic performance of steam vs gas turbines with bottoming ORC. Energy Procedia. 2015;82:825-32. Park SR, Pandey AK, Tyagi VV, Tyagi SK. Energy and exergy analysis of typical renewable energy systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2014;30:105–23. Fallah M, Mahmoudi SMS, Yari M, Akbarpour Ghiasi R. Advanced exergy analysis of the Kalina cycle applied for low temperature enhanced geothermal system. Energy Conversion and Management. 2016;108:190–201. Som SK, Datta A. Thermodynamic irreversibilities and exergy balance in combustion processes. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science. 2008;34:351–76. Meng F, Chen L, Sun F. A numerical model and comparative investigation of a thermoelectric generator with multi-irreversibilities. Energy. 2011;36:3513–22. Si M, Thompson S, Calder K. Energy efficiency assessment by process heating assessment and survey tool (PHAST) and feasibility analysis of waste heat recovery in the reheat furnace at a steel company. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2011;15:2904–8. Dunham MT, Iverson BD. High-efficiency thermodynamic power cycles for concentrated solar power systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2014;30:758–70. Talbi M, Agnew B. Exergy analysis: an absorption refrigerator using lithium bromide and water as the working fluids. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2000;20:619–30. Selwynraj AI, Iniyan S, Polonsky G, Suganthi L, Kribus A. Exergy analysis and annual exergetic performance evaluation of solar hybrid STIG (steam injected gas turbine) cycle for Indian conditions. Energy. 2015;80:414–27. Mehrpooya M. Conceptual design and energy analysis of novel integrated liquefied natural gas and fuel cell electrochemical power plant processes. Energy. 2016;111:468–83. Ahmadi MH, Ahmadi MA, Pourfayaz F, Hosseinzade H, Acıkkalp E, Tlili I, et al. Designing a powered combined Otto and Stirling cycle power plant through multiobjective optimization approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2016;62:585–95. Taillon J, Blanchard RE. Exergy efficiency graphs for thermal power plants. Energy. 2015;88:57–66. Hasti S, Aroonwilas A, Veawab A. Exergy Analysis of Ultra Super-critical Power Plant. Energy Procedia. 2013;37:2544–51. Gakkhar N, Soni MS, Jakhar S. Second law thermodynamic study of solar assisted distillation system: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2016;56:519–35. Makhanlall D, Liu LH. Second law analysis of coupled conduction–radiation heat transfer with phase change. International Journal of Thermal Sciences. 2010;49:1829–36.

848

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 90 (2018) 835–850

T.K. Ibrahim et al.

Plants. Energy. [105] Aali A, Pourmahmoud N, Zare V. Exergoeconomic analysis and multi-objective optimization of a novel combined flash-binary cycle for Sabalan geothermal power plant in Iran. Energy Conversion and Management. 2017;143:377–90. [106] Zare V, Hasanzadeh M. Energy and exergy analysis of a closed Brayton cycle-based combined cycle for solar power tower plants. Energy Conversion and Management. 2016;128:227–37. [107] Kopac M, Hilalci A. Effect of ambient temperature on the efficiency of the regenerative and reheat Çatalağzı power plant in Turkey. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2007;27:1377–85. [108] Qureshi BA. Thermoeconomic considerations in the allocation of heat transfer inventory for irreversible power systems. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2015;90:305–11. [109] Gadalla M, Saghafifar M. Energy and exergy analyses of pulse combustor integration in air bottoming cycle power plants. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2017;121:674–87. [110] Gürtürk M, Oztop HF. Exergy analysis of a circulating fluidized bed boiler cogeneration power plant. Energy Conversion and Management. 2016;120:346–57. [111] Noroozian A, Mohammadi A, Bidi M, Ahmadi MH. Energy, exergy and economic analyses of a novel system to recover waste heat and water in steam power plants. Energy Conversion and Management. 2017;144:351–60. [112] Adibhatla S, Kaushik SC. Exergy and thermoeconomic analyses of 500MWe sub critical thermal power plant with solar aided feed water heating. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2017;123:340–52. [113] Rostamzadeh H, Ebadollahi M, Ghaebi H, Amidpour M, Kheiri R. Energy and exergy analysis of novel combined cooling and power (CCP) cycles. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2017;124:152–69. [114] Kalina J. Techno-economic assessment of small-scale integrated biomass gasification dual fuel combined cycle power plant. Energy. 2017. [115] Atif M, Al-Sulaiman FA. Energy and exergy analyses of solar tower power plant driven supercritical carbon dioxide recompression cycles for six different locations. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2017;68:153–67. [116] Terzi R, Tükenmez İ, Kurt E. Energy and exergy analyses of a VVER type nuclear power plant. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 2016;41:12465–76. [117] Blanco-Marigorta AM, Lozano-Medina A, Marcos JD. A critical review of definitions for exergetic efficiency in reverse osmosis desalination plants. Energy. 2017. [118] Bai T, Yu J, Yan G. Advanced exergy analysis on a modified auto-cascade freezer cycle with an ejector. Energy. 2016;113:385–98. [119] Ahmadi GR, Toghraie D. Energy and exergy analysis of Montazeri steam power plant in Iran. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2016;56:454–63. [120] Boyaghchi FA, Molaie H. Investigating the effect of duct burner fuel mass flow rate on exergy destruction of a real combined cycle power plant components based on advanced exergy analysis. Energy Conversion and Management. 2015;103:827–35. [121] Zhang T, Liu X, Jiang Y. Performance investigation and exergy analysis of enthalpy recovery device using liquid desiccant. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2016;106:76–86. [122] Tu R, Liu X-H, Hwang Y, Ma F. Performance analysis of ventilation systems with desiccant wheel cooling based on exergy destruction. Energy Conversion and Management. 2016;123:265–79. [123] Madlool NA, Saidur R, Rahim NA, Islam MR, Hossian MS. An exergy analysis for cement industries: An overview. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2012;16:921–32. [124] Hinderink A, Kerkhof F, Lie A, Arons JDS, Van Der Kooi H. Exergy analysis with a flowsheeting simulator—I. Theory; calculating exergies of material streams. Chemical Engineering Science. 1996;51:4693–700. [125] Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G. Thermal design and optimization. John Wiley & Sons; 1996. [126] Li G. Organic Rankine cycle performance evaluation and thermoeconomic assessment with various applications part I: Energy and exergy performance evaluation. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2016;53:477–99. [127] Yazici H. Energy and exergy based evaluation of the renovated Afyon geothermal district heating system. Energy and Buildings. 2016;127:794–804. [128] Mukherjee S, Kumar P, Yang A, Fennell P. Energy and exergy analysis of chemical looping combustion technology and comparison with pre-combustion and oxy-fuel combustion technologies for CO2 capture. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering. 2015;3:2104–14. [129] Bilgen S, Sarıkaya İ. Exergy for environment, ecology and sustainable development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2015;51:1115–31. [130] Santo DBdE. An energy and exergy analysis of a high-efficiency engine trigeneration system for a hospital: A case study methodology based on annual energy demand profiles. Energy and Buildings. 2014;76:185–98. [131] Nguyen T-V, Voldsund M, Elmegaard B, Ertesvåg IS, Kjelstrup S. On the definition of exergy efficiencies for petroleum systems: Application to offshore oil and gas processing. Energy. 2014;73:264–81. [132] Li G. Sensible heat thermal storage energy and exergy performance evaluations. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2016;53:897–923. [133] Yucer CT. Thermodynamic analysis of the part load performance for a small scale gas turbine jet engine by using exergy analysis method. Energy. 2016;111:251–9. [134] Kotas TJ. The exergy method of thermal plant analysis. Elsevier; 2013. [135] Sharma M, Singh O. Exergy analysis of dual pressure HRSG for different dead states and varying steam generation states in gas/steam combined cycle power plant. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2016;93:614–22. [136] Anvari S, Jafarmadar S, Khalilarya S. Proposal of a combined heat and power plant hybridized with regeneration organic Rankine cycle: Energy-Exergy evaluation. Energy Conversion and Management. 2016;122:357–65.

[74] Yağlı H, Koç Y, Koç A, Görgülü A, Tandiroğlu A. Parametric optimization and exergetic analysis comparison of subcritical and supercritical organic Rankine cycle (ORC) for biogas fuelled combined heat and power (CHP) engine exhaust gas waste heat. Energy. 2016;111:923–32. [75] Ibrahim TK, Rahman M. Optimum performance improvements of the combined cycle based on an intercooler–reheated gas turbine. Journal of Energy Resources Technology. 2015;137:061601. [76] Ibrahim TK, Rahman M. EFFECTS OF ISENTROPIC EFFICIENCY AND ENHANCING STRATEGIES ON GAS TURBINE PERFORMANCE. Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Sciences (JMES). 2013;4:14. [77] Ibrahim TK, Rahman M. Effect of compression ratio on the performance of different strategies for the gas turbine. International Journal of Automotive and Mechanical Engineering 2014;9:1747. [78] Basrawi F, Ibrahim TK, Habib K, Yamada T. Effect of operation strategies on the economic and environmental performance of a micro gas turbine trigeneration system in a tropical region. Energy. 2016;97:262–72. [79] Vundela Siva R, Subash Chndra K, Sudhir Kumar T, Narayanlal P. An approach to analyse energy and exergy analysis of thermal power plants: a review. Smart Grid and Renewable Energy 2010;2010. [80] Ibrahim TK, Rahman M. Parametric study of a two-shaft gas turbine cycle model of power plant IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering IOP Publishing; 2012. p. 012024. [81] Ibrahim TK, Mohammed MN. Thermodynamic Evaluation of the Performance of a Combined Cycle Power Plant. International Journal of Energy Science and Engineering. 2015;1:10. [82] Ibrahim Tk, Mohammed MK, Awad OI, Rahman MM, Najafi G, Basrawi F, et al. The optimum performance of the combined cycle power plant: A comprehensive review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2017;79:459–74. [83] Ibrahim TK, Rahman M, Sharma K. International Conference on Mechanical and Electrical Technology, 3rd,(ICMET-China 2011). Influence of operation conditions on performance of combined cycle gas turbine Volumes 1–3. ASME Press; 2011. [84] Ibrahim TK, Rahman M, Abdalla AN. Gas turbine configuration for improving the performance of combined cycle power plant. Procedia Engineering. 2011;15:4216–23. [85] Ibrahim TK, Rahman M. Effects of isentropic efficiencies on the performance of combined cycle power plants. International Journal of Automotive & Mechanical Engineering. 2015:12. [86] Ibrahim TK, Rahman MM. Study on effective parameter of the triple-pressure reheat combined cycle performance. Therm Sci. 2013;17:497–508. [87] Ibrahim TK, Rahman M, Mohammed M, Basrawi F. Statistical analysis and optimum performance of the gas turbine power plant International Journal of Automotive and Mechanical Engineering (IJAME). 2016;13:11. [88] Ibrahim TK, Rahman M, Ali OM, Basrawi F, Mamat R. Optimum Performance Enhancing Strategies of the Gas Turbine Based on the Effective Temperatures. MATEC Web of Conferences: EDP Sciences; 2016. [89] Ibrahim TK. the Life Cycle Assessments of Gas Turbine using Inlet Air Cooling System. Tikrit Journal of Engineering Science (TJES). 2015;22:69–75. [90] Klein S. Engineering equation solver (EES), F-Chart Software (2006). [91] Ibrahim TK, Rahman M. Effective Parameters on Performance of Multipressure Combined Cycle Power Plants. Advances in Mechanical Engineering. 2014;6:781503. [92] Ibrahim TK, Rahman MM. Thermal Impact of Operating Conditions on the Performance of a Combined Cycle Gas Turbine. Journal of applied research and technology. 2012;10:567–77. [93] Varma GVP, Srinivas T. Power generation from low temperature heat recovery. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2017;75:402–14. [94] Zeb K, Ali SM, Khan B, Mehmood CA, Tareen N, Din W, et al. A survey on waste heat recovery: Electric power generation and potential prospects within Pakistan. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2017;75:1142–55. [95] Yari M. Exergetic analysis of various types of geothermal power plants. Renewable Energy. 2010;35:112–21. [96] Nag P, Gupta A. Exergy analysis of the Kalina cycle. Applied Thermal Engineering. 1998;18:427–39. [97] DiPippo R. Second law assessment of binary plants generating power from lowtemperature geothermal fluids. Geothermics. 2004;33:565–86. [98] Ibrahim TK, Rahman M. Effects of cycle peak temperature ratio on the performance of combined cycle power plant. International Journal of Automotive and Mechanical Engineering 2016;13:3389. [99] Rahbar K, Mahmoud S, Al-Dadah RK, Moazami N, Mirhadizadeh SA. Review of organic Rankine cycle for small-scale applications. Energy Conversion and Management. 2017;134:135–55. [100] Iglesias Garcia S, Ferreiro Garcia R, Carbia Carril J, Iglesias Garcia D. Critical review of the first-law efficiency in different power combined cycle architectures. Energy Conversion and Management. 2017;148:844–59. [101] Zhang G, Zheng J, Yang Y, Liu W. Thermodynamic performance simulation and concise formulas for triple-pressure reheat HRSG of gas–steam combined cycle under off-design condition. Energy Conversion and Management. 2016;122:372–85. [102] Aminov Z, Nakagoshi N, Xuan TD, Higashi O, Alikulov K. Evaluation of the energy efficiency of combined cycle gas turbine. Case study of Tashkent thermal power plant, Uzbekistan. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2016;103:501–9. [103] Mohtaram S, Chen W, Zargar T, Lin J. Energy-exergy analysis of compressor pressure ratio effects on thermodynamic performance of ammonia water combined cycle. Energy Conversion and Management. 2017;134:77–87. [104] Lara Y, Petrakopoulou F, Morosuk T, Boyano A, Tsatsaronis G. An Exergy-Based Study on the Relationship between Costs and Environmental Impacts in Power

849

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 90 (2018) 835–850

T.K. Ibrahim et al.

[163] Adibhatla S, Kaushik SC. Energy, exergy and economic (3E) analysis of integrated solar direct steam generation combined cycle power plant. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments. 2017;20:88–97. [164] Khoshgoftar Manesh M, Rosen M. Combined Cycle and Steam Gas-Fired Power Plant Analysis through Exergoeconomic and Extended Combined Pinch and Exergy Methods. Journal of Energy Engineering. 2018;144:04018010. [165] Parikhani T, Ghaebi H, Rostamzadeh H. A novel geothermal combined cooling and power cycle based on the absorption power cycle: Energy, exergy and exergoeconomic analysis. Energy. 2018. [166] Sadreddini A, Fani M, Ashjari Aghdam M, Mohammadi A. Exergy analysis and optimization of a CCHP system composed of compressed air energy storage system and ORC cycle. Energy Conversion and Management. 2018;157:111–22. [167] Lucia U. Entropy and exergy in irreversible renewable energy systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2013;20:559–64. [168] Biserni C, Garai M. First and second law analysis applied to building envelope: A theoretical approach on the potentiality of Bejan’s theory. Energy Reports 2015;1:181–3. [169] Bassily AM. Numerical cost optimization and irreversibility analysis of the triplepressure reheat steam-air cooled GT commercial combined cycle power plants. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2012;40:145–60. [170] Lemmon EW, Huber ML, McLinden MO. NIST reference fluid thermodynamic and transport properties–REFPROP. version; 2002. [171] Chirico RD, Steele WV, Kazakov AF. Thermodynamic properties of indan: Experimental and computational results. The Journal of Chemical Thermodynamics. 2016;96:41–51. [172] Zainal Z, Ali R, Lean C, Seetharamu K. Prediction of performance of a downdraft gasifier using equilibrium modeling for different biomass materials. Energy conversion and management. 2001;42:1499–515. [173] Soltani S, Yari M, Mahmoudi S, Morosuk T, Rosen M. Advanced exergy analysis applied to an externally-fired combined-cycle power plant integrated with a biomass gasification unit. Energy. 2013;59:775–80. [174] Szargut J, Styrylska T. Approximate evaluation of the exergy of fuels. Brennst Wärme Kraft. 1964;16:589–96. [175] Moran MJ, Shapiro HN, Boettner DD, Bailey MB. Fundamentals of engineering thermodynamics. John Wiley & Sons; 2010. [176] Jarungthammachote S, Dutta A. Thermodynamic equilibrium model and second law analysis of a downdraft waste gasifier. Energy. 2007;32:1660–9. [177] Rakopoulos C, Giakoumis E. Second-law analyses applied to internal combustion engines operation. Progress in Energy and Combustion science. 2006;32:2–47. [178] Dincer I, Rosen MA. Exergy: energy, environment and sustainable development. Newnes; 2012. [179] Som S, Datta A. Thermodynamic irreversibilities and exergy balance in combustion processes. Progress in energy and combustion science. 2008;34:351–76. [180] Srinivas T, Gupta A, Reddy B. Thermodynamic Modeling and Optimization of MultiPressure Heat Recovery Steam Generator in Combined Power Cycle. J Sci Ind Res. 2008;67:827–34. [181] Ahmadi P, Najafi A, Ganjehei A. Thermodynamic modeling and exergy analysis of a gas turbine plant (case study in Iran). Proceedings of the 16th International Conference of Mechanical Engineering2008. [182] Avval H, Ahmadi P. Thermodynamic modeling of combined cycle power plant with gas turbine blade cooling. Proc of the second Iranian thermodynamic congress, Isfahan, Iran2007. [183] Meigounpoory MR, Ahmadi P, Ghaffarizadeh AR, Khanmohammadi S. Optimization of combined cycle power plant using sequential quadratic programming. ASME 2008 Heat Transfer Summer Conference collocated with the Fluids Engineering, Energy Sustainability, and 3rd Energy Nanotechnology Conferences: American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2008. p. 109-114. [184] Li Q, Lin Y. Exergy analysis of the LFC process. Energy Conversion and Management. 2016;108:348–54. [185] Maheshwari M, Singh O. Exergy analysis of intercooled reheat combined cycle with ammonia water mixture based bottoming cycle. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2017;121:820–7. [186] Lee W-S, Lee J-C, Oh H-T, Baek S-W, Oh M, Lee C-H. Performance, economic and exergy analyses of carbon capture processes for a 300 MW class integrated gasification combined cycle power plant. Energy. 2017;134:731–42. [187] Kumar R. A critical review on energy, exergy, exergoeconomic and economic (4-E) analysis of thermal power plants. Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal. 2017;20:283–92. [188] Ameri M, Ahmadi P, Khanmohammadi S. Exergy analysis of a 420 MW combined cycle power plant. International Journal of Energy Research. 2008;32:175–83. [189] Ameri M, Ahmadi P. The study of ambient temperature effects on exergy losses of a heat recovery steam generator. Challenges of Power Engineering and Environment: Springer 2007:55–60. [190] Rosen MA. Clarifying thermodynamic efficiencies and losses via exergy. Exergy, an International Journal. 2002;2:3–5.

[137] Boyaghchi FA, Molaie H. Advanced exergy and environmental analyses and multi objective optimization of a real combined cycle power plant with supplementary firing using evolutionary algorithm. Energy. 2015;93(Part2):2267–79. [138] Mohammadi Khoshkar Vandani A, Joda F, Bozorgmehry Boozarjomehry R. Exergic, economic and environmental impacts of natural gas and diesel in operation of combined cycle power plants. Energy Conversion and Management. 2016;109:103–12. [139] Esen H, Inalli M, Esen M, Pihtili K. Energy and exergy analysis of a ground-coupled heat pump system with two horizontal ground heat exchangers. Building and Environment. 2007;42:3606–15. [140] Rosen MA, Tang R. Improving steam power plant efficiency through exergy analysis: effects of altering excess combustion air and stack-gas temperature. International Journal of Exergy. 2008;5:31–51. [141] Kaushik S, Reddy VS, Tyagi S. Energy and exergy analyses of thermal power plants: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2011;15:1857–72. [142] Ghaebi H, Amidpour M, Karimkashi S, Rezayan O. Energy, exergy and thermoeconomic analysis of a combined cooling, heating and power (CCHP) system with gas turbine prime mover. International Journal of Energy Research. 2011;35:697–709. [143] Wei Z, Zhang B, Wu S, Chen Q, Tsatsaronis G. Energy-use analysis and evaluation of distillation systems through avoidable exergy destruction and investment costs. Energy. 2012;42:424–33. [144] Li Z, Li ZM, Yan ZL. Energy and Exergy Analysis for Three Type 500MW Steam Power Plants. Applied Mechanics and Materials: Trans Tech Publ 2012:1131–6. [145] Chen Q, Han W, Zheng J-j, Sui J, Jin H-g. The exergy and energy level analysis of a combined cooling, heating and power system driven by a small scale gas turbine at off design condition. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2014;66:590–602. [146] Wang N, Wu D, Yang Y, Yang Z, Fu P. Exergy Evaluation of a 600MWe Supercritical Coal-fired Power Plant Considering Pollution Emissions. Energy Procedia. 2014;61:1860–3. [147] Ray TK, Ganguly R, Gupta A. Exergy analysis for performance optimization of a steam turbine cycle. Power Engineering Society Conference and Exposition in Africa, 2007 PowerAfrica'07 IEEE: IEEE; 2007. p. 1-8. [148] Rashad A, El-Maihy A. Energy and Energy Analysis of a Steam Power Plant in Egypt. 13th International Conference on Aerospace Science and Aviation Technology (ASAT-13), Cairo, Egypt, May2009. p. 26-8. [149] Eskin N, Gungor A, Özdemir K. Thermodynamic analysis of a FBCC steam power plant. Energy Conversion and Management. 2009;50:2428–38. [150] Regulagadda P, Dincer I, Naterer G. Exergy analysis of a thermal power plant with measured boiler and turbine losses. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2010;30:970–6. [151] Mitrović D, Zivkovic D, Laković M. Energy and exergy analysis of a 348.5 MW steam power plant. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects. 2010;32:1016–27. [152] Guoqiang L, Hua W, Wenhui M, Chunwei Y. Energy and exergy analysis for 300MW thermal system of Xiaolongtan power plant. Computer Distributed Control and Intelligent Environmental Monitoring (CDCIEM), 2011 International Conference on: IEEE; 2011. p. 180-4. [153] Ahmadi P, Dincer I. Thermodynamic analysis and thermoeconomic optimization of a dual pressure combined cycle power plant with a supplementary firing unit. Energy Conversion and Management. 2011;52:2296–308. [154] Kaviri AG, Jaafar MNM. Thermodynamic modeling and exergy optimization of a gas turbine power plant. Communication Software and Networks (ICCSN), 2011 IEEE 3rd International Conference on: IEEE; 2011. p. 366-370. [155] Adibhatla S, Kaushik S. Energy and exergy analysis of a super critical thermal power plant at various load conditions under constant and pure sliding pressure operation. Applied thermal engineering. 2014;73:51–65. [156] Đorđević M, Mančić M, Mitrović D. Energy and exergy analysis of coal fired power plant. Facta universitatis-series: Working and Living Enviromental Protection. 2014;11:163–75. [157] Rosen MA. Energy-and exergy-based comparison of coal-fired and nuclear steam power plants. Exergy, An International Journal. 2001;1:180–92. [158] Bolatturk A, Coskun A, Geredelioglu C. Thermodynamic and exergoeconomic analysis of Cayırhan thermal power plant. Energy Conversion and Management. 2015;101:371–8. [159] Djordjevic M, Mančić M, Mitrović D. ENERGY AND EXERGY ANALYSIS OF COAL FIRED POWER PLANT. Facta Universitatis, Series: Working and Living Environmental Protection. 2015:163–75. [160] Suresh M, Reddy K, Kolar AK. ANN-GA based optimization of a high ash coal-fired supercritical power plant. Applied energy. 2011;88:4867–73. [161] Abuelnuor AAA, Saqr KM, Mohieldein SAA, Dafallah KA, Abdullah MM, Nogoud YAM. Exergy analysis of Garri “2” 180MW combined cycle power plant. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2017;79:960–9. [162] Ibrahim TK, Basrawi F, Awad OI, Abdullah AN, Najafi G, Mamat R, et al. Thermal performance of gas turbine power plant based on exergy analysis. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2017;115:977–85.

850