Optimization of integrated cogeneration power plant and desalination plant systems for a range of power and water supply requirements

437

OPTIMIZATJON

OF

INTEGRATED

DESALINATION

PLANT

COGENERATION

SYSTEMS

FOR

A

PONRR

RANGE

OF

PLANT

AND

POF\7ER AND

VATER

SUPPLY

REQUIREMSNTS

LOUIS Gibbs

F. GIANNUZZI. & Hill, Inc.

OSCAR E, New York,

HORN. N.Y.

and MICHAEL (U.S.A.)

NAKHAMKIN

AHSTRWT Comparative of

economic

integrated

than

power

separate

units. -

This

paper

plant

Conceptual

-

Results

power

procedure for

and

a range

procedure.for

plant

system

of

which

shows

necessity

optimization

generating

and

rather

desalination

and

of

curves

power

and

for

steam

power

cogeneration

demands.

plant

and

desalina-

optimization.

plant

plant

resulting

integrated

comparative

desalination power

of

plants

rntroduces:

selection

-

is presented

desalination

optimization

Calculational

tion

analysis

and

economic

analysis

optimization

desalination

as

of

integrated

compared

plant

with

power/

separate

optimization.

INTRODUCTION With

current

increasing

optimization

of

source

which

provides

plant,

rather

desalination There

the

than

based

on

steam

the

energy In

Cost

of

system and

it

is

essential

consisting

steam

supply,

optimization

of

publications

where the

optimal present

essential

constituences

and

of

of and

the

the

power

to

ensure

energy

desalination

generating

and

for

power

the

dedicated

performance worth of

of

total

total

desalination

to ratio

is

defined

evaluated

evaluated

plant

desalination

which

cost are

costs. are

costs

supplied

by

source.

previous

evaluated

separate

minimizing

most

power

a number

optimization,

of

integrated

costs,

units.

are

plant

The

fuel

as power,

publications, a function $/kWh,

of and

steam

and

performance steam,

S/l000

power ratio lb,

cons_umption

have

and

po-wer,

were

cost

of

assumed

fixed

been

for

various Rut

performance

this is

true

sources

in which

chancres

in

In Middle

Flant, are

etc.

The

and

by

range

of

Gibbs

steam/power

COXPARATIVE

The tion based tion

new

desalination


Arabia)

requirements

industrial

com-

plants

various

overall

of

the

desalination

and

power

steam

extraction,

studies power

versus

and,

of

developed con-

plant

power

determines

efficiency,

plant

consumption

and

cogeneration

This

system

Gas

Turbine

zlhe power course,

total

costs. describe:

for

and

of

study

showing

cogeneration

steam

calculational plant

approach

selection

for

a

and

de-

demands.

procedure

system

for

integrated

ontimization

as

for

power

various

against

OF

of

the

POWER most

(steam-turbine-based cogeneration

of

total

evaluated

costs

desalination

plant- system

optimixation

of

power

plant

the

conceptual

definition

approaches

to

C~GENE~~TION

of

economical

{GTCP) most the

optimization

PLANT

ARRANGEMENTS

AS

REQUIREXENTS

cogeneration

plant

requirementslis

the

separate

VARIOUS

STEAL'1 AND

selection

worth

and

pow21

plant.

AMALYSIS OF

oresent

integrated

desalxnation

A FUNCTION

SWCC water

of

of

with

optimization

that

steam

costs,

comparative

optimization and

only

requirements.

and

analysrs

and

steam

Generator).

& frill's

plants

that

type

with

calculation

salination

Plant,

supply

show

the

curves

power

- Conceptual

- Results

power

Steam

resultrng

developing along

desalination

fa-_t

(GHI)

sections

of

follow

(in regions

the

qoes

power

different

production

following

and

and

plants

water

- Results

costs

rrhe surrounding

and

the

Turbine

desalination and

on

require

determine

(Steam

of

power

Inc.

Recovery

The

the

=team

selected,

and

steam

data.

energy

areas-

is based

with

power

often

their

consumption

of

rates

and

Asia)

America, general,

Power/Desalination

ratios

Heat

in

plants,

& Hill,

sumption

available

developed

ccuntries,

these

Recent

Gibbs

average with

power

Yanbu

necessity

rates.

in

as

optimization

by

the

developing

South

residential

performance

on

At

determined

plexes

the

sources,

such

plants,

changes

in

Africa,

supply

based

-r;hecountries

costs,

areas

East,

pcwer

ror

case

fuel

certain

ratios

only

far

of

plant VS.

special

important power

coqeneration plant

power

and

consideration

plant the

(STCP)

type.

cogeneration

There

combinagas-turbine-

heat

consump-

for

the

are

two

plant:

GIANNUZZI

AL

ET

439

Comparative

A.

thermodynamic

represents sive costs of

the

total

capital

of

tion

output

plant

performance

are

the

present

STCP

and

cost

of

a

cycle

in

regions

equipment

GTCP,

fuel

and

which

may

with

represents

analysis

worth

(steam

and

This

to

be

deci-

high

fuel

a small

for

always

easily

of

of

for

requires,

both

based

values

share

in

and

during

an

cogenera-

cogeneration

addition

to

plants,

other

the

on

the

two

cogeneration

equipment

available

is

supply)

analysis

costs

which

dollar

power

characteristics

relevant

not

of

economic

arrangements.

mation

the the

of

costs.

comparative

evaluation

of

cost

evaluated

plant

of

selection

where

Complete

B.

comparison

a

for

analysis

infor-

features

conceptual

which

design

phase. Conceptual mentioned cycle

on

of

as

the The

more

operational

plant

arrangement

the

power

The

can

ments, plant

be

rate

afore-

with

plant

plant

other

is

considerations

conditions,

and

experience

the

STCP

plants'

the

and

cycle

of

cycles,

optimizations

efficiency

ratio

GTCP

of

required

both heat

as well show

as

that

the

cogeneration output

(steam)

to

(Q/P)_

vs

Q/P

for

to

for

select

the

Q/P

for

STCP

1.

and

both

various

calculations

arepresentedinTable

procedure

curves

utilized

arrangement

Heat

of

calculation

(HR)

cogeneration

environmental

comparing

is

output

Rate

both

a cogeneration

personnel.

for

following

Heat

along

cogeneration

criteria

represent

of

calculaticns

analysis

main

which

selection of

availability,

conceptual of

the

Final. selection

detailed

water

a number

procedures

for

arepresented.

based such

calculation approaches

results,

presented

cogeneration most

plant

efficient

as

arrange-

cogeneration

requirements. and

T%s calcQlations

GTCP

for

various

forS.TCPweredone

ratiosandthe~~~heatbalancespJXsen

'4

Q/P

ratios

for-Q/P

on E'igures 1, 2, and 3_

The

calculations forGICP+8are&ne for-Q/P ratiosbecauseoftbeevidentlinear - -- - -: vtion Plant Cycle is shci+n on Figure 4. character0ftfusfunction.GasTLn-b~ Heat

rate

presented that

the

kJ/k-Xh, more

is

Q/P

is

for

Figure

break-even or

1.5

higher

both

(HR

and

4600

results GTCP

cogeneration

Analysis

point

than

these STCP

5.

for

for

STCP

kJ/kWh, are cycle

of

STCP

Where

kg/hr/kW,

economical

Although selected

curves

on

the

plant HR

Q/P

and

GTCP

is

is

less

than

Q/P less

than

GTCP

is more

based

arrangements

vs.

upon

parameters,

for

at

Q/P

GTCP),

are shows

= 4600

4600

k.J/kWh, and

STCP

where

economical.

evaluation the

curves

number

of of

certain calculations

91,700kW

4,500wkwn 1,140 kg/hr/kw

‘49x 109 kJ/llr

tie.ltbalances Fig. l&3,4 LlneU) x 2622,0,kJ/hr Line(3)/Linoi2) &x!$$.,$.,,,

Line(a)/&86

Pa%r(xlL~L

Ifcat cutprt

lJ&icnltplt/ ~outputratin

pI0cwsstecrmsuppl~

3,

4,

Ii?nt!x.lantce 1.25x lo9kJ/hc %3. 1,2,3,4

0.42x 109 kJ/hr

159,445kg/hr

rwnlrcd

MFo~g=@m

2.

62,520kl+

6,747kJ/kXh

1.25x lo9kJ&

.76x 109k~/hr

3.40 9,OlB kg/h&W w/Ml

5,406kJ/?&

1.25x 109 kJ/llK

.91x 109 kJ/?u-

4.0 12,600 kg/hr/kw kJ/k%

0,655x lo9kJ/hr 0.706x 10gW/hr

300,000kg/iu

72,630kw

Plant

250,000 kg/hr

stoamlwsiM Ed~Cqlzwatt~l

1,

Source

DoEined Item

fo.

ItIt?

IkzatlWeC3lculaticmfi forVaricuc+SlQandOlCPPlantn

TABIEl

0.72 x log kJ/hr 4289 kY/kWh 13,050kJ/kwl

.49 x IO9 kJ/hr

2.9 7636kg/hr/kW kJ/kHn

0.42 x log kJ/hr

55,500 kH

159,445 kg/hr

0.72x 109k&%r

0

0

0

55,500kw

0

Caa Turbine Based Cogeneration Ph!

ET

GIANMJZZI

441

AL

FIGURE showed

that

the

applicable and

GTCP

Q/P

ratio.

to

preliminary ment

of

the

evaluated The

final

the

costs

or

for

the GTCP

the

criteria

of

with

fuel

cost,

relatively

STCP

aforementioned

be

used

plant where

small

are

between

the

can

cogeneration

high a

of

results

the

accuracy

points

vicinity

these

represents

of

minimum plant

for arrange-

capital

share

of

total

Cost

the

of

the

of GHI

results

(interest

optimum and

minimum

power

and

selected

operational present

steam

cogeneration conditions

worth

generation

thermodynamic performed

(PWCEC)

same

the

design

of

the

costs

plant

is

total for

based evaluated

available

equipment.

results

analysis,

objective have

regions

special

criterion

compare

evaluated

in

confirmation

cogeneration

economic

selection

equipment

the

that

acceptable

break-even

costs.

arrangement upon

in

B_ALA.NCE

with

i-e.,

emphasized

conceptual

particularly

costs

To

is

HEXT

reached

cycles,

are located

and

It

STCP

conclusions

various

exist

1

analysis of

power rate

the and

analysis

comparative for

STCP

presented heat

and

GTCP.

calculations,

outputs,and

12 percent,

with present

general

the

results

of

worth

total

In

order

both same

to

STCP

economic

get and

GIANNUZZI

442

ET AL

, FIGURE

escalation for

rate

STCP

economic

equipment

of

with

years) will

and

values

of

In

GTCP

purchased of

total

inevitable are

and

to

upon GTCP,

where

the

Figure

5).

and

of

the

Calculations

plant

cient

for

the

Q/P

the

lower

cost

are

of

not

of

(cost

that

equipment,

costs

purchased

in

third

fuel)

taken

as

the

it

becau?e

of

for

Q/P for

=

of

to be has

more less

based

both

STCP

3810

kT/klfi,

GTCP

which

these

plants-

evaluation

number

GTCP

out

i-e_,

than

30

plants

power

the

the

turns

various

of

when

a

Nevertheless,

a cycle

less

for

Absolute

of

is

a HR

2500,

ratio,

and

rates.

ratio

is

be

VariOUS

capital

represen-tative

analysis

has

made

of

will

second

Of

respectively).

deficiency

show

cogeneration

(the

are

worth

second

economical

STCP

for

to

plants

difference

general

analysis

present

40 years,

output

expensive

lifetime

calculations the

analysis

heat/power

selected

comparative

(the

costs

hours

due

for

comparative

thermodynamic the

following

assumed

demonstrate

more

the

plants

eval.Jated

for

for

i.e.,

three

20

BALANCE

and

lifetimes,

two

for in

changes

meaningful order

only

for

HEAT

account

procedure

period,

accounts

be

To

GTCP

different

evaluation

SICPs

and

STCP

(20 years!,

percent)-

(30 years)

recommended

60-year

10

2

(see

operating is

less

effi-

economical power

FIGURD feneration

cost

than

Q/P>4600 kJ/kWh power generation CONCEPTUAL

3

STCP-

STCP

HEAT

BALANCE

It is evident

that

in the area

o"f

(see Figure S), where GTCP is more efficient, costs are much less than for STCP-

PROCEDURE

FOR OPTIMIZATION

POVi'ERAND

its

DESALINATION

PLANT

SYSTEMS The

foregcing

arqngement on

the

ratio

depends

results

and power of

power

on desalination

Thisnecessitatesthe systems

rather

desalination

that

selected

generation

and

steam

requirements,

plant

performance

optimization

than

cogeneration

steam

separate

costs

which.

to

cycle depend

some

extent,

and desalination

plant

ratio.

of power

optimization

plann

essentiaily

of power

generating

and

units.

The optimization mum

show

and

performance

and conceptually

procedure ratio

may

with

is

based

minimum

be described

value

Selection of various performance expected optimal values,

2, i

For each

ratio:

izhe selection

of total

of

the

eval.uated

opti-

costs

as follows:

1.

performance

on

ratios

presumably

covering

GlIA?JNUZZI ET AL

444

FIGURE -

Evaluation steam

2/P

of

the

as

total

cZw.alination

power

and

plant

cer-

and

5),

arrangement

as

a function

calculation

of

power

plant

of

desalination

plant

costs

asafunction

of

per-

ratio.

Calculation

of

power

-

Calculation

of

present

power/desalination drawing

costs

as well of

plant

(Figure

-

The

plant,

BALANCE

cost.

Evaluation formance

3.

HERT

a function

cogeneration

requirement!

equipment -

as

GTCP

ratio.

Selection of

desalination

requirements,

formance -

of

4

for

performance

of

and

steam

worth

generation

of

total

costs-

evaluated

cost

for

plant. the

curve

of

present

power/desalination ratio

and

plant

selection

of

worth

of

total

vs_

desalination

the

optimal

evaluated plant

performance

ratio. The

following

results

power/desalination optimization

of

Present

a small

tion

Middle

of

plant

of

system

desalination fragment East

comparative

of

cost

optimization

plant

performance

studies

developed

power/desalination

plant

analysis (Figure ratio by

GHI

projects.

for

total

6) vs. (Figure for

separate 7)

re-

optimizaCalculations

GIANWZZI

ET AL

HEAT

-

-

~ERH

TURBINE ---2

HEAT

OUTPUT/POUER

FIG. POWER

FIGURE

5

HEAT

based

on

RATE

(Figure

Q/F

curve

910

m3/h

cost

are

0” r

AND

for

OUTPUT/POWER

-

OUTPLB'

RATIOS

FOR

GTCP

6014~ power

current

==>

GTCP

optimization

water

fuel

on

cost

and

utilizing

requirements

the

averaged

economic

RR

7)

mization cost

analysis

shows

resulted

savings

Integrated in optimum

formance

20

of

ratio

the lower

optimization

and

desalina-

Vendor's

evaluation

approaches

power/desalination

- 75%)

factors

present as

worth

compared

(Figures

plant of

with

system

total

6 opti-

evaluated

separate

perforzzance.

gower/desalination ratio

desalination

no Optimum

showed

two

significant

performance

optimization

plant.

in

plant

of

integrated

(around

desalination

ratio

that

plant around plant

point

within

(between

6 and

12),

present

worth

total

system 7.5

performance

feasible

optimization

(Figure

i.e.. the evaluated

resulted

6) while ratio

desalination higher costs

vs-

and

Power

requirements-

based

are

procedure

supply

supply

used

#sY

used.

Comparative and

5)

data

also

information,

HEAT

VS.

developed

desal.inated

plants

tion

a GHI

RRTIO

RRTE VS. HEAT OUTPUT/ RATIOS FOR STCF RND

5 HEAT DUTPUT

STCP are

OUTPUT

separate

(Figure plant

7)

per-

performance of

desalination

CONCLUSIONS The -

results

of

fnis

Calcul.ation output

ratio

curve

cogeneration tion

plants-

Procedure system ated

has

cost

approach

ferent

been

analysis

proved

savings cycle

implemented tion.

the

separate

and

summarized rate

for

and

developed

of

for

the

total

East

turbine

based be

based

cogenera-

utilized

cogeneration

for plant

power/desalination

present

worth

of

optimization plant

approach cycle

parameters.

Middle

can

desalination

first

steam

a project.

aforementioned

different

output/power

trubine

efficient

Comparative

that

for

gas

follows:

heat

procedure

most

stages

and

as

vs-

developed as

the

early

of

in

been

of

power

design for

heat

curves

oprimization-

against

cost

These

in

be

and

as well

selection

arrangement

can

have

plants

conceptual

-

paper

prodcedure

savings

prGcedure

power/desalination

approach

plant evaluas

opti_mization

results

cost

This

total

in

significant

and had plant

in difbeen optimiza-