You are on page 1of 400

THERMOECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND

SIMULATION OF A COMBINED POWER
AND DESALINATION PLANT

Departamento de Ingeniería Mecánica

Ph. D. Thesis
Francisco Javier Uche Marcuello

Universidad de Zaragoza

THERMOECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND
SIMULATION OF A COMBINED POWER
AND DESALINATION PLANT

Departamento de Ingeniería Mecánica

Universidad de Zaragoza

Ph. D. Tesis

Francisco Javier Uche Marcuello

Zaragoza, Mars 2000

D. Antonio Valero Capilla, Catedrático del Departamento de Ingeniería Mecánica
de la Universidad de Zaragoza, y D. Luis Serra De Renobales, Profesor Titular del
Área de Máquinas y Motores Térmicos de la Universidad de Zaragoza

CERTIFICAN

que la memoria titulada Thermoeconomic Analysis and Simulation of a Com-
bined Power and Desalination Plant presentada por el Ingeniero Industrial
D. Francisco Javier Uche Marcuello para optar al grado de Doctor en el programa de
Optimización Energética del Departamento de Ingeniería Mecánica, ha sido realiza-
da bajo su dirección.

Zaragoza, 20 de Marzo de 2000

Fdo: Antonio Valero Capilla Fdo: Luis Serra de Renobales

a Sonia

Agradecimientos
Quiero agradecer especialmente la realización de esta tesis doctoral a mis padres Luis
y Pilar, y a mi hermano José Luis por su paciencia y ánimos para realizarla, a pesar de
no entender a veces muy claramente la finalidad de la misma.
Por supuesto, Natalia es la que más me ha tenido que aguantar y animar en los malos
momentos que a veces he tenido. Además, ella ha tenido siempre un interés especial
para que yo la realizara.
Los directores de mi tesis, Antonio y Luis, han estado siempre a mi lado disponibles
para cualquier duda o sugerencia en su realización. Nuestras reuniones periódicas han
servido para enriquecerme personalmente. Esta tesis también ha servido para estable-
cer una relación especial de amistad y confianza con Luis, que para mí es fundamental
en el trabajo diario.
También quiero agradecer al personal de la Central Térmica Teruel (ENDESA) por su
flexibilidad de horarios, que me ha permitido desarrollar gran parte de mi tesis docto-
ral durante mi estancia en Andorra. Y a mis compañeros de piso durante dicha estan-
cia, que me dejaron trabajar en todo momento sin impedimento alguno.
Finalmente, quiero agradecer a Rosa y a Morris su ayuda en la edición. Y a esa gran
familia que es CIRCE, y al gran ambiente que existe dentro de ella.

Acknowledgements
The financial support provided by ICWES (International Center for Water and Energy
Systems, United Arab Emirates) is gratefully acknowledged. Sincere appreciation is
expressed to D. M. K. Al-Gobaisi, Director of ICWES, for his continued support and
encouragement during the course of this thesis. The discussions that the author and
my directors had with him and Ali El-Nashar and Asghar Husain were very helpful.
Thanks are also extended to Hanif Sultan and John Nynam who provided the technical
information essential to the design of my simulator.

Resumen

La desalación de aguas de mar o salobres es una de las formas más utilizadas para
dotar con la calidad suficiente a la población de los recursos hídricos necesarios para
su manutención y desarrollo. En un sector industrial en constante crecimiento, ya que
el consumo humano per cápita sigue aumentando constantemente con el incremento
del nivel de vida, a pesar de las campañas buscando el ahorro y la racionalidad en el
consumo, sobre todo en la agricultura intensiva.

España es país que cuenta con un claro déficit de agua en las zonas costeras del
Levante y Sur, así como en los dos archipiélagos principales (Baleares y Canarias),
dichas zonas coinciden con ser las más turísticas del país, lo que significa que la
demanda se multiplica en verano. Sin tener en cuenta la posibilidad de efectuar tras-
vases de otras cuencas hidrográficas no deficitarias, el problema está siendo resuelto
principalmente por plantas de Osmosis Inversa, plantas cuyas dimensiones y produc-
ción se adecuan mucho mejor a las necesidades de los diferentes tamaños de los
núcleos ó asentamientos estables de población. El coste del agua producida sigue
siendo muy alto en comparación con la obtención por medios naturales, pero sin
embargo es menor que otros métodos de desalación.

Sin embargo, la situación de España no es extrapolable a las zonas con verdaderos
problemas de escasez de agua: los países desérticos del Golfo Pérsico. Su escasísima
pluviometría, sus elevadas temperaturas durante todo el año y la casi nula imper-
meabilidad de sus suelos disparan su consumo de agua. Son además países de relati-
vamente reciente creación, por lo que la demanda de energía eléctrica también debe
ser resuelta. La instalación de grandes plantas de cogeneración permite a la vez resol-
ver los dos problemas, con la utilización de los inmensos recursos petrolíferos y gas
de la zona. Las plantas duales de generación de potencia acopladas con las unidades
de desalación por destilación flash multietapa producen el 80% del agua desalada en
el mundo. Pero ello no significa que sea el método más eficiente de producir esos dos
productos necesarios para toda sociedad.

El análisis termoeconómico permite conocer el funcionamiento interno de dichas
plantas de generación de electricidad y agua dulce, las posibilidades de ahorro que
ofrece este modo combinado de producción. Es esencial realizar dicho análisis de

Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant

Resumen

forma conjunta, cosa que normalmente no se hace en este tipo de instalaciones: cada
planta es gestionada independientemente.

Esta Tesis Doctoral desarrolla el análisis termoeconómico completo de la planta de
cogeneración más grande que actualmente existe (en cuanto a la producción de agua
por unidad desaladora), que consta de una planta con una turbina de vapor para la
generación de electricidad y una desaladora por destilación flash de un único efecto
por cada una de sus etapas. Es una tesis eminentemente práctica, es decir, trata de
aplicar las metodologías que la Termoeconomía actualmente está aplicando a otros
sistemas tales como plantas de potencia a un sistema muy complejo en el cual los
procesos químicos también son importantes en el balance de la instalación, no sólo
los procesos mecánicos y térmicos.

El análisis termoeconómico comprende cuatro partes principales que se detallan a
continuación:
• En primer lugar, el análisis de costes permite conocer los costes físicos de los flu-
jos más importantes de las dos plantas, así como los costes finales de producción
de agua y energía, teniendo en cuenta los costes de operación y de adquisición y
mantenimiento de los equipos de la planta. Dicho análisis se basa en la creación
de un modelo termoeconómico que representa de una forma funcional los proce-
sos que ocurren dentro de la planta de potencia y de agua. Los resultados obteni-
dos son comparados con métodos tradicionales de contabilidad de costes que se
han usado para asignar costes a los productos industriales.
• Después, el análisis desarrolla el diagnóstico de la planta combinada, es decir,
analiza los efectos provocados por una o varias ineficiencias simuladas dentro de
la planta. Para ello, se ha construido un simulador de los dos procesos a partir de
un modelo matemático y datos reales de una planta de cogeneración, que permite
conocer los estados termodinámicos de referencia y con la ineficiencia con una
precisión suficiente para nuestro análisis. Dichos efectos se traducen a un consu-
mo adicional de fuel, incremento en la irreversibilidad de los diferentes procesos
y una menor eficiencia en los mismos, además de ayudar a conocer las relaciones
de los diferentes componentes de una instalación. En este análisis se demuestra
que la planta de potencia los parámetros guía de funcionamiento de cada compo-
nente son locales, es decir, una variación de ellos no significa prácticamente al
resto de componentes del sistema. Sin embargo, en la unidad MSF todos elemen-
tos principales están interconectados a través de los flujos principales que circu-
lan por los destiladores, y por lo tanto los fallos ó mejoras sufridas en el
funcionamiento de la planta afectan a toda ella, no sólo al equipo en el que están
ocurriendo.
• La tercera parte del análisis termodinámico es la optimización de la planta de po-
tencia a partir de la optimización local de sus componentes. En la planta destila-
dora de agua la optimización local no es posible al no estar sus componentes

12 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant

Resumen

termodinámicamente aislados, como ya se vió en la diagnosis de la planta. Esta
metodología es muy valida para el diseño de nuevas plantas o la readaptación de
plantas existentes hacia un mayor ahorro en las mismas.
• Finalmente, un nuevo apartado conteniendo los conceptos de coste, precio y bene-
ficio obtenidos se desarrolla brevemente, para aclarar errores que normalmente se
cometen en la contabilización de los costes de una instalación.

La Tesis Doctoral también incluye dos partes introductorias, la primera contiene la
situación en los países con escasez de agua y los métodos de desalación más comunes
utilizados actualmente. La segunda parte introductoria incluye el estado actual de la
teoría termoeconómica necesaria para el análisis termoeconómico de la planta.

Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 13

The combination of steam turbine plants and MSF (Multi-stage Flash) units is one of the most common schemes to meet water and energy requirements. • Assess alternatives to save energy. especially when all the available configurations of both sub-systems are considered. • Locally optimize subsystems. The results demonstrate the effect of different conditions or inefficiencies in terms of water and energy costs and additional fuel consumption during an inefficiency. Special emphasis was made on the interactions between the plant components of both subsystems: new concepts such as induced or intrinsic malfunction. neglecting component interactions and possible savings from the combined systems. because they can: • Calculate the costs of the flows and products of a plant based on physical criteria (Second Law of Thermodynamics). providing almost 80% of all desalinated water in the world. dysfunction or the malfunction matrix were included. D. • Perform energy audits and assess the fuel impact of malfunctions (operation diagnosis) This Ph. Desalination consumes a lot of energy and. including cost analysis. Its behaviour is difficult to model. Usually plant performance is analysed separately. Cost analysis provides the physical costs of the main flows of the dual plant depending on operating conditions. A dual-purpose plant is a very complex system. diagnosis and local optimization of the plant. Co-generation plants providing freshwater and electricity are used in the arid areas. Thermoeconomic analysis techniques are the most convenient tools to analyze these systems. Thesis develops the complete thermoeconomic analysis applied in an existing steam power plant and MSF desalination unit. • Optimize operations. unfortunately. Abstract Desalination is the most important source of drinking water in arid zones. especially in the Gulf Area. mostly from oil or natural gas. Operation recommendations were also included Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .

Thermoeconomic analysis was developed using a validated model (simulator) of the plant to determine the thermodynamic reference state at design conditions for any load point. The simulator also obtained the thermodynamic state of the plant when an inefficiency is estimated in the plant diagnosis. operating mode etc. Abstract in the analysis. Local optimization of the dual plant locates the optimum point for each operating condition and is a very powerful tool for the design analysis. Plant data from a dual-plant in the Gulf were used to adapt the mathematical models. ambient condition. 16 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .

This thesis considers the behavior of one of the most developed systems for providing water within the following framework: • Increasing human consumption and its consequences. In these areas the water problem may also be solved by using desalting plants. • How Thermoeconomic techniques as the most useful to study complex systems. • The reasons for studying the steam turbine power plant + Multi-Stage Flash (MSF) desalination unit from thermodynamic point of view. part of this problem may be alleviated by desalting seawater. • The interactions among the methods required to provide energy to desalt water. although this process consumes a lot of energy and may be difficult to use in non-developed countries. Several studies and international organizations focus on energy and others on water. Fortunately. The main objective is to determine the validity of the thermoeconomic analysis in very complex systems like a dual-purpose power and desalination plant. especially considering the rapidly increasing world population and water consumption per capita. Thesis contributes to searching for a way to reduce the energy required by desalting plants and provides tools to improve desalination technology. Thesis.CHAPTER 1 Introduction Water scarcity will soon be a serious problem. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . The interaction between water production and energy is the main topic in this thesis. but there seems to be a marked lack of attention on combined water and energy issues. • Water quality and the uses derived from its quality. D. • The world water crisis is mostly focused on water stressed areas. This Ph. The final section of this chapter includes the structure of this Ph. D.

depend on fresh or non-saline water. 1997). renewable ground water and reclaimed wastewater are insufficient to meet the demand.500 million people do not have drinking water (Intermón. and water losses in the network have led to even higher per capita water consumption. On the basis of the past experiences in arid zones. washing and sanitation. Introduction 1. Water also makes up more than half of the human body.500 liters per day. This makes it unsuitable for humans. Less than 3% of the earth's water is non-saline. 1.000 cubic meters per capita per year.75 liters a day just to stay alive. including salt-water intrusion. it contains a high concentration of dissolved salts (more than the 3% of its weight). cooking. including humans. can it be used by humans. while the Atlantic 18 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . and the vast majority of it is locked up in glaciers and ice sheets. with the resultant increase of living standards. 1999). The available water resources from perennial surface water. especially in arid areas like the Arabian Gulf or Northern Africa.5 liters of water per day and needs 0.000 cubic meters per capita per year have been considered the limit for a chronic water scarcity that will impede development and harm human health. Rapidly rising incomes in some countries. An average adult drinks about 2. all life depends on water and all terrestrial species. For example. According to the World Health Organization. Water is moved around the earth in global cycles (evaporation-cloud formation-rain-percolation).000 ppm.2 Water quality and uses Water use depends on its quality. Although the oceans represent the largest water reservoir on earth (covering three-quarters of its surface). 1999). but only when it is non-saline and in the liquid state. But in the South more than 1. All the countries of the Arabian World suffer from water stress (Al-Gobaisi. Furthermore.000 and 50. about 150 liters of water are needed per day for a satisfactory hygienic life (Al-Gobaisi. 1998).1 Water requirements According to Al-Gobaisi (1999). The imbalance between the available water resources and demand is clear. Intensive agriculture under arid conditions increases this demand. industry and even irrigation. industry consumes on average 200 tons of water per ton of manufactured product (Al-Gobaisi. the total dissolved solids (TDS) in Arabian Gulf seawater is between 43. Overexploitation of ground-water decreases ground-water levels and deteriorates water quality. In terms of resources deficiency. The salinity of average seawater is 34. Human development and indeed civilization requires a reliable supply of even greater volumes of fresh water for drinking.800 ppm. agricultural and industrial uses) ranging from 300 to 1. renewable freshwater resources of 1. Human water consumption per capita in this region is very high (including domestic. water stress is defined as an annual renewable resource less than 1. although it may vary between oceans.

the Caribbean islands. Korea and China). brackish waters with a moderate salinity (about 2. salt-water rejection for drinking water does not present a serious economic problem in the future. World water resources and demand Ocean has an average TDS of 36. In arid areas irrigation consumes enormous amounts of water.600 ppm for the Pacific Ocean water (Abu Qdais. The highest limit for human consumption is 1. the north of Africa and the Canary islands. The amount of water for industry is several times human water consumption which is why we need more research on saving water in industrial processes and reusing waste water. 1999). the Pacific region (Australia. if compared with the water demand for agricultural or industrial purposes. irrigation method and additional treatments (fertilizers). and 33. and the south and east of Spain. For example. The purity of water for industry strongly depends on the use. but ultrapure water is needed for specific processes like cooling power generation plants. The tolerance limits of each plant must be examined as a function of the soil. Japan.000 ppm) are acceptable for some crops. The fast growing population and increasing Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 19 .000 ppm. On average humans consume 2-8 liters per day. climate.. Iran and Iraq are excluded in the study) are very scarce. 1. Thus. Desalination processes are so expensive that they are not feasibly introduced to irrigate land. the total daily water consumption and the climate (e. Non-natural irrigation (that is. Oman. Bahrain. in China agriculture uses up 87% of the total water demand. not provided by rainfall) consumes the most amount of the world's water. However.3.000 ppm (Spiegler and El-Sayed. excess salt can even be beneficial to the human body). as well as various locations in the American south-west and Florida.g. although the maximum permissible salt concentration in drinking water depends on the type of salt. 1994).1 Gulf Region The annual per capita annual water resources of countries in the Gulf region (United Arab Emirates. saltwater composition. if the climate is hot and the salt is mainly sodium chloride. Sometimes brackish water (water with less than 5. The following is a brief explanation of water demand and disposal in these areas in order to introduce the reader to the world’s water scarcity problem. Saudi Arabia.000 ppm) is enough for industrial purposes. Qatar and Kuwait.3 World water resources and demand Seawater desalination is most common in the countries bordering the Persian- Arabian gulf. 1.

All these factors classify these countries as arid to semi-arid because of their limited conventional water resources and generally absent reliable surface water. temperature and evaporation explain the gradually increasing salinity (from 36. Qatar. Average water depth is 35 meters. Arabian Gulf seawater is quite different from other oceans: • The Arabian Gulf is roughly rectangular. Water temperature varies seasonally from 18 ºC to 33 ºC.300 to 50. Table 1.1 informs that the water stress in the Gulf countries is one of the main problems that needs to be solved. The effect of the river runoff.2. exceeding the total river runoff by approximately a factor of 10. The total current water demand is about 20. and 4. Abdel-Jawad and Al- Tabtabaei. with a surface area of 2.000 ppm). These countries are characterized by scanty rainfall and high evaporation and consumption which leads to deficits in their water budget. Table 1. United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Oman on the west and south and by Iran on the east. so its volume is 8. • The Gulf Region has an arid sub-tropical climate with very limited annual rainfall. The serious environmental impact of large desalination units should be considered. evaporation is very high most of the year. 75% with the rest supplied by renewable conventional sources. • The Gulf ecosystem is seriously endangered and it is located in a region with political conflicts (two major wars in the last 15 years). The Gulf is approximately 100 Km long and 300 Km wide. Therefore. 1999) to meet the huge socio-economic developments since the 70s have recently magnified the problem.000 Mm3/y. Introduction per capita water demand (over 500 l per capita per day. surrounded by Iraq and Kuwait on the northwest. Water stores are gradually depleting since it is extracted faster than refilled: approximately 17.000 million cubic meters are used per year and 3. with non renewable resources satisfying approx.63×103 Km3.39×105 Km2. It is also the largest oil route in the world. Water circulates very slowly between the Arabian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman via the Strait of Hormuz: the average residence time of water is 2-5 years. 20 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .1 shows the ground water resources and the amount of renewable water resources in 1994 per year in the Gulf Countries.000 million cubic meters recharged. agricultural and industrial uses. desalination plants and recycled wastewater. The total demand is divided in domestic. 20% of the total world production of oil passes through the Gulf.000 million cubic meters are available from surface water. Water withdrawal or water demand is shown in table 1. Saudi Arabia.

55 190 90 75 32 Oman 2.430 4.300 1.150 5 Total 19. World water resources and demand TABLE 1. 1999).550 874 217 UAE 2.995 492 TABLE 1.270 1. The number of desalination plants in the Gulf Council Countries (GCC) states increases daily.08 16. Renewable water resources (Mm3/y) Ground water Country Population resources (millions) Non conventional (Mm3/y) Conventional Desalination Wastewater Saudi Arabia 18.508 14.05 728 1.3 summarizes the production and capacity of the Middle East countries. Total demand Withdrawal in various sectors (Mm3/y) Country (Mm3/y) Domestic Agricultural Industrial Saudi Arabia 16.62 114 161 514 83 Qatar 0. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 21 .826 2.236 81 1.009 258 Desalination is a means of augmenting fresh water resources to remove or at least reduce water stress.559 17.18 14.53 185 50 108 25 Bahrain 0.2 Water demand for the Gulf Countries in 1990 (ESCWA. 1994).490 513 950 27 Kuwait 383 295 80 8 Qatar 194 76 109 9 Bahrain 223 86 120 17 Oman 1.15 1.000 490 385 110 Kuwait 1. Table 1.1 Ground water disposal and renewable water resources in the Gulf Countries in 1994 (Alawadhi.929 39 25 Total 25.647 7.600 192 UAE 1.

1999).000 108 Bahrain 220.179.275. respectively. Desalted seawater per capita per day is very high in some countries such as UAE and Qatar: 1. Table 1. Data collected in 1996 (Alawadhi.6 39.7 cubic meters per person and day.2 UAE 2.9 Gulf countries actually recycle no more than 35% of their total treated wastewater.3 0.6 10.6 1.000 514 Qatar 295.409.6 0. As seen in the table. 1999. There are a total of 105 sewage water treatment plants in the Gulf countries with 22 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .4 Contracted capacity of freshwater production from seawater and all waters with the existing process.066.0 % VC 4. The total capacity is 12.882 874.340 385 Kuwait 1. Country Total capacity (m3/d) Total production (Mm3/y) Saudi Arabia 4. Treated seawater is currently used mainly for landscaping.3 4.2 and 1.8 million cubic meters per day and 21 million cubic meters per day.7 38.5 % RO 13.995 Water production in Gulf countries represented the majority of the worldwide capacity.000 m3/d. TABLE 1. fodder crop irrigation and some very specific industrial uses.571 75 Oman 105.793 1.4 shows representative values of freshwater produced in different processes.3 Total installed capacity and production in the seawater desalination plant of the Gulf Area in year 1994 (Alawadi.3 64. large-scale Multi-stage Flash (MSF) plants installed in the Gulf produce the maximum quantity of freshwater and are the most competitive with more than 20.7 4. Seawater All waters World Gulf World Gulf % MSF 77.000 39 Total 8. Introduction TABLE 1.2 1.5 Total 100 71. 1999).2% to the total water supply.5 4.3 1.9 % ED — — 5. which contributes about 2. Al-Gobaisi.7 100 52.0 % ME 4.8 47.

However.1 100 5.5 shows the water resources in these four countries. for example. Industrial water consumption is increased by industrial development but can be decreased by efforts such as recycling. Australia and China also have their own technology and the rest of countries import plants from overseas. TABLE 1. Table 1.500 Agricultural use occupies the largest portion in the region.5 Natural resources in the pacific region in the year 1998 (Goto et al. 1. Australia. More of these plants are needed make better use of this water source and minimize the serious impact on the environment as a result of its uncontrolled and unsafe disposal. Japan has the most precipitation but also the largest population. In China water availability is irregular due to the climate and population distribution.7 1.340 Japan 1.3. Water resource per capita is one of the fundamental indexes of water abundance. Japan and Korea have developed their own desalination technology which competes on the world market. Salt intrusion. Korea has the least water per capita despite of a lot of precipitation. whereas the consumption for living is dependent of the area (standard of living. Precipitation Population Available water Water per capita Country (mm/y) (millions) (Mm3/y) (m3/y) Australia 465 18.6 422 3.274 46.714 125.520 China 648 1. 1999)..6 summarizes the fresh water consumption in the four countries.4 69. Table 1.2 Pacific Region and India The Pacific Region is diverse in terms of desalination. There is no doubt that this water source is underused due to the lack of wastewater plants. World water resources and demand a total capacity of about 2 Mm3/d. Here we will consider the first two categories.224 2.360 Korea 1. ground water quality and the saline interface between sea and ground water are some of the problems that could be avoided with these plants.813 2. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 23 . has the highest water value per capita because it has a small population with rather little and irregular precipitation. and high evaporation. life-style and climate determine the water consumption). they only express part of the potential availability since in some cases the transportation cost is too high.

18% wastewater 12% MSF + ME 15% Municipal 10% seawater 55% Industry 50% brackish 85% RO China 182.700 58. water shortage will increase with the development of industry and an improved standard of living in the coming century. Approximately one third of these villages are acutely affected by salinity levels above 4. Table 1. Country (year) Total (Mm3/y) % Agriculture % Living % Industry Australia (1995) 18.8% ME > 90% RO 100% Industry including Pure > brackish > Korea 180. Provision of safe drinking water to the villages inland has been given high priority in recent years.5% MSF 47% Water supply systems 1.8 Korea (1996) 23.600 82.35 7. wastewater 88% RO 6.. use and feed water of the desalination plants in the Pacific area. Villages with an average population of about 500 to 1.7 explains the capacity. Introduction TABLE 1.500 are mostly separated either by mountainous terrain or long stretches of barren land and can be broadly categorized into inland and coastal. TABLE 1.6 Water use trends in the Pacific region (Goto et al.23 10.91 Desalination in the Pacific region is not as important as in the Gulf region.000 40% Power gen.000 18% VC 33% Power gen.000 Rest ED power generation wastewater > river water In conclusion.000 villages in India with inadequate drinking water. Capacity Country Process Use Feed water (m3/d) 64% RO 45% Industry 70% brackish Australia 84. 20% pure water 15% MSF + ME 5% Living 30% river.2 14.5% ED 53% Industry Japan 129.668 62.17 10.885 Seawater and brackish mainly 3. especially in the more populated areas like China. with 24 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Data from 1998 (Goto et al..000 suffer from brackishness problems affecting a population of about 60 million.85 26. There are more than 200. 1999).7 Desalination installations in the Pacific region.7 17. out of which about 50.000 ppm. 1999). process.47 China — 87 11 2 Japan (1995) 90.

1 923 Libya — — Morocco 30.3 North Africa In this region..000 m3/d were installed to supply process water in their industrial complex by seawater desalination (Prabhakar et al.9. TABLE 1.110 Tunisia 3.9 443 Water extracted from the ground is very high in some of these countries. unequally distributed and remote with respect to centers suffering from a continuous increase in demand. 1997). The annual renewable water resources in this region are shown in table 1. TABLE 1.9 Water withdrawal in North African countries.0 1. 1997). as seen in table 1. Annual renewable water resources Country Total (Mm3/y) Per capita (m3/y) Algeria 14. Data collected in 1990 for Algeria and Tunisia.8 528 Egypt 58. Annual withdrawal Country % water resources Per capita (m3/y) % Agriculture % Industrial % Living Algeria 30 180 60 15 25 Egypt 97 956 85 9 6 Libya — — — — — Morocco 36 427 92 3 5 Tunisia 78 381 89 3 9 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 25 . 1. for Egypt and Morocco data from 1992 (Al-Gobaisi.3.8 (Al-Gobaisi. World water resources and demand hundreds of small Reverse Osmosis and Electrodialysis (RO/ED) plants (10-30 m3/d) installed in the affected villages. 1997). Only two Multi-Effect Distillation (MED) plants of more than 10.8 Water disposal in the African region in 1995. water resources seem to be limited in time and space.

1 10. The total water use in the US has fallen since the 80’s since water is now used more efficiently. and in the south of Tunisia there are two brackish RO plants with a capacity of 12. the three states considered as the most arid and coastal areas of the country.000 and 10. although the water production there is almost negligible with respect to the Middle East Countries. but the total capacity contracted is now reported to be 95. In this regard. TABLE 1. Total use (Mm3/y) % Public % Irrigation % Thermo-industrial 552. 1999). The use of desalination plants is steadily growing in the 26 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . 1. They are already experiencing the highest overall water deficit and droughts are also very common. Desalination in Egypt is the most important in the region.10 shows the total water consumption and the use by each sector. The MSF desalination technology switched to reverse osmosis for large plants over 5. will account for more than 45% percent of the nation’s total population growth between now and 2025. 1999). Tunisia. five North African countries (Morocco.4 US experience and the Caribbean Islands California. Algeria. 1999).000 m3/d (Cadagua. Texas and Florida. RO technology has been successfully introduced in several plants. 1999). beginning in the 60’s with two MSF plants in Southern California and Florida.10 Water use in the U.000 m3/d (VA Tech.3. desalination should be the alternative saving solution when the mobilization of non-conventional water resources is impossible or very costly (essentially in coastal zones). in 1995 (Gleick.000 m3/d (Hassan and Florido.9 39. Table 1.9 Thermal technologies were used in the early years of desalination prior to development of RO. progressive approaches to meet water demands will be necessary (Ponce and Jankel. Libya and Egypt) requested in 1989 technical assistance from the International Agency of Atomic Energy (IAAE) to study the feasibility of desalination using nuclear power.000 m3/d of freshwater (NOPW.000 m3/d: the Laayoune Seawater Reverse Osmosis (SWRO) plant produces 7. Morocco has only one RO plant with an installed capacity of more than 1. 1998). 1996).2 49.S. There is little information about desalination plants in Northern Africa. After that experience. 40% for the MSF plants and the rest in Vapor Compression (VC).000 m3/d in the last few years The proportion is 55% for the RO plants. The aim was to reuse the treated water in wastewater plants and provide an important resource to agriculture. As the population will continue growing in these areas. Introduction In the future. Libya has two MSF plants of 24.

Canary Islands.3. and new projects for another 400. World water resources and demand US. Ceuta and the Costa del Sol.0 The desalination industry is located in dry Spain.4 5. about 50% of the total drinking water requirements are supplied by a SWRO plant of 9. Major economic growth is inhibited since the island’s population cannot enhance its agriculture and stimulate the tourist trade without a suitable and consistent supply of useable water. Total (Mm3/y) % Urban & Tourism % Agriculture % Industry Seawater 95. Table 1. The desalination growth rated based on increased contracted capacity was the highest in the world from 1996-1997. TABLE 1.500 m3/d which substitutes an old MED plant (Barendsen and Moch.000 m3/d and the Virgin Islands with 9 MED units and a combined production of 30. (Wangnick.3 94. Here it was the only way to supplement natural water resources needed for domestic uses in highly populated isolated territories. This implies a rate of growth between 10-20% per year. a SWRO plant in Curaçao producing 9.000 m3/d (Elovic and Willocks.000 m3/d of new freshwater.000 m3/d for urban uses are being developed and should be in operation in two years. Other examples are a 10. Many of the island nations of the world are in warm sunny environments and have two significant items in common: beautiful beaches and a pernicious lack of potable water. that is. with a total installed capacity of more than 900. The Caribbean sea is a good example. the southern part of the country: Balearic Islands.6 — Brackish 126.57 20.4 47. 1998).5 Mediterranean area and Europe Desalination in Spain started in the early 70’s in places with little water and near the coast.11 Desalinated water in Spain during the year 1998 (Torres and Medina. 1999).6 32. and small vapor compression units (VC) were the water supply in public delivery systems and private Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 27 .000 m3/d.000 m3/d SWRO plant in Nassau (Bahamas) (Andrews and Shumway. The total capacity of Spanish desalination plants is now above 600. 1999). Much of the potable supplies utilize brackish water. In Antigua.000 m3/d. 1999).11 shows the seawater desalinated in Spain in 1998. Three MSF plants were installed in Ceuta (1) and Las Palmas (2) in the 70’s. with about 120. 1999). The current and future development of the tourism industry is assured by the seawater desalination plants in those areas. 1.

Torres et al.12 resumes the biggest desalination plants in Spain. A new RO plant with a capacity of 40.. 1999. reverse osmosis process (RO) is being used in big plants. Seawater desalination is the most important of the non-conventional ways of producing water and several processes have been developed in the last few years to produce fresh water for human consumption. a MED plant and a RO plant with a capacity of 20.000 Sea Bahía de Palma Mallorca 42. They do not produce drinking water. Germany and Austria have several desalination plants to recycle wastewater or produce pure water for industrial processes including power generation (VA Tech. 1999). Not in operation The use of wastewater in agriculture irrigation. Seawater desalination has been the main solution. Arab countries). 1997. Yet desalinated water makes up only one part in a thousand of the fresh water used worldwide. It has two little MSF plants. 28 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Humanity has developed non-conventional sources of potable water in order to remove or at least reduce water stress. Table 1. TABLE 1. Since then. Greece.000 Sea Arrecife Lanzarote 32. 1999. Turkey. 1999. The Republic of Cyprus is an island at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea plagued by draught and water shortages in recent years. Fayas and Novoa. Plant Location Capacity (m3/d) Feed water Son Tugores Mallorca 35.e.000 Brackish/Sea Marbellaa Málaga 56.000 Sea a. 1997.000 Sea Alicantea Alicante 50. Introduction tourist resorts in the 80’s.000 m3/d (Echaniz et al. 1999).. 1997). landscape improvement. leisure needs and aquifer recharge is another way to supply the increasing water demand in Spain. Israel and Lebanon (VA Tech.12 Some of the RO desalination plants installed in Spain (Cadagua.. 1999). Sánchez et al.000 m3/d will be built by the year 2000.000 Brackish Maspalomas Las Palmas 35. Desalination costs several times more than conventional means and is therefore mostly used in developed countries with water scarcity (i. There are small old MSF plants and VC units in the south of Italy to cover the local demand (Ophir and Gendel. AECYR.500 Sea Las Palmas III Las Palmas 38. 1999) also have small desalination RO plants. Desalination in the rest of Mediterranean countries is less important. Italimpianti. Jordan.

Process MSF MED VCa ROa Specific consumption 400-500 350-400 70-90 (kJfuel/kgwater) 100-200 200-300b 200-250b 30-50c a.13 Specific consumption of desalination processes. and Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 29 ..E. Including combined cycles in new MSF/ MED plants considerably reduces consumption and also provides electricity in areas with energy demand. Table 1. The energy-water interaction should be investigated further and improved in order to provide water to water stressed areas at minimum cost. Up until recently power plant technology has developed separately from the technology used to desalt sea or brackish water. Note that the specific consumption has strongly decreased as desalting technology has developed. 1999). b. The Arab World desalinates using their large fossil fuel reserves. the consumption of the desalination process can be reduced more than 50%. 1999.4 Desalination and energy Desalination is highly energy intensive and should not be considered in isolation from energy. Desalination process in a co-generation plant. As seen in the previous table.13 shows the primary energy or fuel consumed in most desalination methods in the world. Data obtained from several sources (Fisia- Italimpianti. There is a theoretical minimum power needed to desalt water but much more power is required in practice (El-Sayed and Silver. In the previous table. c. However. specific consumption strongly depends on way the required energy is obtained (converting the primary energy from the fossil fuels into thermal or electrical energy to supply the plant). the specific consumption of a desalination process must be accounted in fuel not electrical consumption as usually given when measuring plant efficiency. thermal distillation consumes more than other methods and more or less recovers (in the worst case) 80% of the latent heat of boiling water at atmospheric conditions (about 2. Co-generation fuels could be substituted by biomass or refuse fuels (Tadros and Tadros. most of the energy used is obtained from oil and natural gas.D. Electrical energy produced in a conventional power plant at 30% efficiency. Desalination is almost entirely powered by the combustion of fossil fuels. TABLE 1. Including energy recovery system in the RO process. 1997). 1980). when the co-generation concept is applied to combine the two processes. Unfortunately. Desalination and energy 1. Their finite supply is rapidly being depleted and they also pollute the air and contribute to global climate change. I.257 kJ/kg). Consequently. The power requirements of seawater desalination plants is also increasing. Assuming that all desalinated water in the world (total installed capacity of 13 Mm3/d) is produced at an average fuel consumption of 200 kJ/kg.

The development of renewable-driven desalination is still severely impeded (if not stopped) by the pressure from contemporary economic factors and political inertia. If our technology continues along the present unsustainable path. 1997). In those cases. One of the most important configurations of dual-purpose desalination plants is the multi-stage flash desalination unit (MSF) coupled with a steam turbine power plant fuelled by natural gas (fuel is also available in exceptional conditions and startups). To underline how important energy is in desalination. see table 1. Al-Gobaisi.13). In short.5 Why a MSF and power plant? The demand for electricity increases every day in arid and warm areas where air conditioning is used to improve living standards. The concept of industrial ecology considers an industrial system together with its surrounding systems. desalination and power generation can be studied separately although the way of producing electricity is the same. 0. gas turbine plants. As the nuclear or coal power plants are not very common in the Gulf Area. Energy. not only it is essential to have an orderly transition in the energy used for desalination (from fossil fuels to renewable resources) but the whole industry needs to gear itself towards enhanced efficiency. This type of configuration is used in a plant containing the 30 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . A dual-purpose plant is one of the best solutions to supply water and energy demands (although is not the most efficient method to produce fresh water. Al-Gobaisi. the philosophy of industrial ecology needs to be applied for desalination. Some desalination processes only require electrical power (not exhaust gas or steam) and co-generation is not possible. Solar powered desalination is an insignificant proportion because of the costs of using renewable energy are very dependent on the scale of the infrastructure. Introduction that the current annual global consumption of oil is 25 billion barrels (rising 2% per annum. 1997). waste minimization and less environmental impact (Menéndez. resources and capital are the factors that have to be optimized. Several power generation configurations can be coupled with a desalination unit: steam turbine plants. combined cycle power plant (gas turbine. This systems view of industrial operations seeks to optimize the total materials cycle from raw material to manufactured material. 1. the more abundant fossil fuels like natural gas or fuel oil are consumed in new co-generation plants.17% of world oil consumption is consumed in desalination. from component to product and waste to ultimate disposal. if all the water consumed in the world came from desalination plants (remember that it is actually only one part in a thousand. 1999) the required oil would surpass the current yearly oil consumption. heat recovery steam generator and steam turbine). This thesis aims to demonstrate the scope of Thermoeconomic Analysis when applied to a very complex system.

but were most developed in the eighties and nineties when Thermoeconomics was applied in power plants. MSF desalination is energy intensive and inefficient especially if the steam turbine plant does not include a reheater in the boiler. So. It is therefore a good example to study from the thermodynamic point of view. 1970. performed by imperfect devices. Al-Sulaiman and Ismail. the power requirement is electrical energy produced in external power plants. the minimum power requirement is higher for all desalination processes. Thesis. MSF units provide almost 77% of all desalinated seawater and nearly 82% of that production is from the Gulf Area (Alawadhi. However. Al-Najem and Al-Ahmad. MSF plants with unit capacity up to the unit studied here are likely to dominate the scene in the Gulf countries for at least another 10 years. 1962. following the Second Law perspective. Several exergy analyses of MSF plants have already been made (Hamed et al.Why a MSF and power plant? largest single desalination units in the world. All practical processes are non-ideal. 1963. 1996). Tribus and Evans. The reason for studying an MSF plant is not only its dominant position in the world desalination market. 1993). Darwish. But when a thermal desalination plant like a MSF unit is combined with a power plant. El-Nashar. normally rejected to the environment (through the steam cycle condenser). The minimum power requirement (or thermodynamic limit) to desalt water is consumed in rejecting the difference of the equilibrium vapor pressure between saltwater and freshwater (this difference depends on the process temperature). is not in favor due to the high salinity and temperatures of Gulf seawater. MSF is the worst desalination process (see table 1. The other predominant method of obtaining freshwater. 1999). In terms of energy consumption. In this Ph. 1999. MSF technology can be oriented to improve the thermal efficiency of vertical tube evaporators (VTE) that allow the use of low temperature heat sources such as turbine reject steam (Sephton. In the limit. 1999.13). and the optimization of thermal desalting systems has also been considered (El-Sayed. 1970). El-Sayed and Evans. 1995. Sephton and Salomon. Thermoeconomic analysis connects the Second Law of Thermodynamic and Economics and is especially recommended for these two combined processes. Interestingly the first thermoeconomic ideas were applied to desalination processes in the sixties and early seventies (Evans. 1997). from a thermodynamic point of view it offers many more possibilities to reduce energy consumption in the process. This is the first time an in depth thermoeconomic study has been made of a desalination plant. Tribus et al. In RO or VC processes. in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). thermoeconomic techniques previously applied only to power plants were successfully used for a combined power generation Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 31 . 1993. D. the cooling tower of a conventional power plant can be substituted by a low-temperature MSF unit to highly improve the efficiency of the steam cycle.. a system combining thermal and chemical processes. and are accompanied by auxiliary non- ideal processes. Reducing the energy consumption of the process is only possible in the desalination process. 1960. reverse osmosis (RO). The conventional energy analysis methods based on the First Law of Thermodynamics are implicitly compared here.. El-Sayed and Aplenc.

D. Data from a dual plant in Abu Dhabi were used to adapt the models to reproduce the 32 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Introduction and desalination process. additional fuel consumption. cost of irreversibilities. Thermoeconomic analysis techniques are the most convenient tools to analyze these systems. in the global exergy balance. generation of products. neglecting component interactions and the energy savings possible from the combined analysis. ambient conditions. exergy savings. malfunction and others. Usually the plants are analyzed separately. thermoeconomic analysis requires a validated model (simulator) of the plant to determine the thermodynamic reference state at design conditions for any load point. no thermodynamic analysis has been done for a dual-purpose plant with two different products: water and electricity. etc. • Optimize operation. Chemical exergy was successfully introduced in a most complex installation. When applied to analyze an existing dual plant. When two different products are obtained in a co-generation plant.6 Thermoeconomic analysis A dual-purpose plant is a very complex system that is difficult to analyze. The interactions between the two processes were analyzed in this Ph. A better understanding of the actual plant performance increases the potential for improvements in operation and/or design. productive structure. New methodologies are introduced in this complex system. because they can: • Calculate the costs of the flows and products of a plant based on physical criteria (Second Law of Thermodynamics). 1. operating mode. plant/system malfunction. especially when all the available configurations of both sub-systems are considered. specific unit consumption and cost. The degradation mechanisms of the energy quality in each component require a comprehensive approach that encompasses resources. impact on fuel consumption. etc. • Locally optimize subsystems. • Assess alternatives for energy savings. it is very difficult to quantify the real cost of each product and redistribute the costs over the rest of upstream flows inside the dual- purpose plant by applying conventional energy analysis techniques based on the First Law of Thermodynamics. Furthermore. allowing a better understanding of the real relationships between the plant equipment. Thesis. • Perform energy audits and assess fuel impact of malfunctions (operation diagnosis) Thermoeconomic analysis uses the First and Second law of Thermodynamics in combination with economic data and introduces new concepts such as Fuel-Product.

7 Ph. The simulator (Chapter 5) supplied the main part of this Ph. First. the data acquisition. Those costs allow cost assessment of the plant products based on physical criteria. • Assessment of the extra-operating cost due to malfunctions with respect to the most feasible operation and the cost impact of appropriate maintenance actions. Then. The steady-state diagnosis of the dual-purpose plant helped us obtain a more cost-effective operation and a better understanding of plant performance. These inefficiencies were simulated. as if the results were real plant data. D. Ph. The simulator can obtain the thermodynamic state of the plant when an inefficiency is detected or estimated. D. When the desalination unit follows a thermal principle it is usually coupled with a power generation plant. processing and storage system is not operative to be used in the thermoeconomic analysis. and the performance degradation of sub-systems or components. The mathematical model was applied for a given operating condition characterized by operational data (previously validated and processed) to quantitatively analyze the following steps: • Comparison with a reference case (target) with the same operating conditions. • Identification of inefficiencies. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 33 . The previous cost analysis is therefore essential to perform the diagnosis of the system. Thesis development states of the plant (therefore. 1. • Evaluation of the causes of cost generation and component inefficiencies. world water resources and demand are reviewed. The most convenient productive structure was chosen for the power and desalination plant. D. The results are compared and readapted with operational data from the data acquisition system of the plant. The mathematical model was validated as a tool that widely reproduces the real state of the plant under different operating conditions. the first step was to build the thermoeconomic model. the data obtained by the simulator are considered measured data). the thermoeconomic diagnosis was applied. An interactive steady-state simulator was made that can be used on a personal computer to help obtain output data. D. Thesis is summarized as follows. In Chapters 3 and 4 the mathematical models applied to the power and desalination plant are developed. Water quality and uses are also included to inform the non-specialist readers. As in this case. Thesis development The structure of the Ph. After explaining the fundamental concepts of Thermoeconomics (Chapter 6). A brief description is then made of the most important desalination methods (Chapter 2). The thermodynamic operation and economic costs of every flowstream of the plant were calculated and analyzed. Thesis: the complete thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant (Chapter 7). especially for the Gulf area.

and dysfunction. taking into account the experience from the analysis (assessment of alternatives). D. The local optimization of a unit consists in finding the minimum cost of the product of each component. a global optimization of the plant was performed from locally optimizing the system units. including the matrix formulation and some new concepts like induced and intrinsic malfunction. Finally. 34 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . The thermoeconomic model was also used in this process. A new method is introduced to develop the thermoeconomic diagnosis. the idea of maximum benefit in water and electricity production was analyzed using practical examples. Thesis and future lines of research. The last chapter (Chapter 8) contains the conclusions of the Ph. The contribution of the price policy applied in the final benefit is considered by separating the methods of assessing product price and cost. Introduction • Operation recommendations for the plant managers. Once the diagnosis was completed.

• Reverse Osmosis (RO). The importance of the MSF with respect to the other methods is also argued in this chapter. • Vapor Compression (VC). there are several processes technologically developed providing water in arid areas. related to energy consumption and/or to the high investments required. which have not been developed in the field of desalination due to problems generally. the great problem of water scarcity and desalination as the way to solve it is remarked. • Processes acting on chemical bonds: Ion exchange. This chapter includes a general review of desalination methods. Among the processes above. we develop the following processes in detail: • Multi-Stage Flash (MSF). Next. We also mentioned the other techniques. The most reliable techniques of seawater desalination are rated into three categories depending on the principle applied: • Processes involving a change of phase: Freezing or distillation. thus they are the most marketable in the world.CHAPTER 2 Desalination processes In chapter 1. • Processes using membranes: Reverse osmosis or electrodialysis. in order to have an overall perspective of the state of the art in desalination technology. Desalination is the process that convert brackish or seawater in water for human consumption. These techniques are: Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . • Multi-Effect Distillation (MED). distillation and reverse osmosis processes show high performances in seawater desalination.

biological activity or pollution level of raw water is high. as in the Middle East. at a different pressure. 1998). Pure water is collected by condensing the vapor inside or on the outside of tubes which may be arranged horizontally or vertically depending on the installation. 2. Final heating is performed by steam in a final heater. Desalination processes • Solar Distillation.1 Multi-stage flash process (MSF) Multi-Stage Flash is the most widely used evaporation process (Wangnick. salt content. The multi-flash distillation unit contains cells assembled in series. from gas turbine effluents). Desalination by distillation involves boiling water seawater to release water vapor and dissolved gasses. Part of the brine flashes into vapor and after passing a demister. Flash evaporation takes place when a fluid is heated to a certain temperature and evaporates both above and below the atmospheric pressure: under gradual decreasing pressure. 36 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . In multi-stage flash plants seawater (pumped through heat exchanger tubes installed in the various evaporator stages) is heated to a certain temperature. 2. • Freezing. These widely used units perform recycle brine (50% to 70% of the brine quantity within the last stage is collected and discharged through the seawater feeding pipe of the unit) in order to reduce the quantity of the make-up seawater needed to produce fresh water. leaving behind the salts (which are only volatile above 300 ºC). Figure 2. although their specific consumption may be higher than other methods (12-24 kWh/m3). In general.g.1. It is especially common wherever the temperature.1 shows a general scheme of a conventional MSF unit. • Ion Exchange. flashing by pressure reduction is called flash evaporation. and a vacuum pump or steam ejector is required when the evaporator- condenser system is at lower than atmospheric pressure. The hot seawater then goes into flash chambers where the pressure is maintained below the equilibrium pressure corresponding to the temperature at which the brine enters. The concentrated seawater is also removed from the last stage by a pump or by gravity. The water produced in each stage is collected in a trough mounted below the tube bundle which collects the fresh water end product. it condenses outside the tubes while heating the seawater flowing through the tubes. MSF also be used if the desalination plant is coupled to a power station or if waste heat is present (e.1 Phase change processes: distillation and freezing More than 85% of the world’s desalted water is obtained by distillation. Every distillation system must also be ventilated to extract air and non-condensable gases in the seawater. • Electrodialysis. MSF plants are more common because they are simple and robust.

Phase change processes: distillation and freezing FIGURE 2. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 37 .1 General outlay of MSF distillation with brine recycling.

stage number increases at increasing gain ratios but also depends on the plant’s capacity. the number of stages determines the total exchange area required for heat recuperation. Obviously the boiling temperatures (and pressures) in the different evaporators cannot be the same.O. in Multi-Effect Distillation (MED) evaporation takes place on surfaces. the actual number of stages is not important for a given ratio. The number of stages is generally about 20 and sized to keep the temperature difference constant between stages (the temperature difference is estimated to be about 3 ºC).1. the production rate is a direct function of the flashing brine flow and the flash range (brine top temperature-last stage temperature). MSF plants are designed for various gain outputs ratios (GOR. In practice. However.000 to 50. Desalination processes Seawater with 40.2). 2. or TBT) and the last stage temperature. where it condenses inside the tubes.000 ppm dissolved solids is converted into distillate and fresh water with a few ppm of solids. The MED plant also has several stages. in theory. c) Brine concentration and nature of dissolved salts The last stage temperature depends on: a) Cooling water inlet temperature. b) Scale prevention technique. The condensate is the water product. The specific consumption depends on the steam conditions supplied to the first stage. 2. Obviously. More stages will decrease the total exchange area required thereby limiting the maximum number of stages per plant. In practice. by exchanging the latent heat through the heat transfer surface between condensing vapor on one side and evaporating brine on the other.R of 12:1 being the upper limit. The steam produced is used as heating steam in the next stage. tons of fresh water produced per tons of steam supplied to the brine heater). An MSF type plant operates between two temperatures: the top brine temperature (brine heater outlet temperature. however. a G. Also. 38 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Seawater is sprayed onto the tubes and the condensing heating steam inside the tubes evaporates part of the seawater on the outside. but is usually lower than in MSF (10-15 kWh/m3). In practice. b) Absolute pressure maintained in the last stage by the ejector system. each with a heat exchanger tube bundle (see fig. The top brine temperature depends on: a) Available steam quality.2 Multi-effect distillation (MED) Contrary to MSF.

Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 39 . Phase change processes: distillation and freezing FIGURE 2.2 Flow diagram of Multi-Effect Distillation (MED) with thermal vapor compression (TVC).

3 MED process with vertical tube evaporators (VTE). Desalination processes FIGURE 2. 40 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .

The steam produced in the last stage is condensed on the outside of exchanger tubes in a separate condenser. Most MED plants have horizontal evaporators. and directing the compressed vapor to the other side of the heat transfer surface to be condensed (see flow diagram. figure 2.18 bar). This heat exchange converts some of the salt water in the tubes into steam and some of the steam around the tubes into fresh water (condensate). But in most cases. where it condenses and provide its latent heat energy to the boiling seawater inside the tubes. The vapor.1. Note that the process is very efficient thermodynamically. MED plants are equipped with thermal vapor compressors for better efficiency. because most of the shaft work required by the compressor is used to avoid the boiling point elevation of seaweater (BPE). 2. The generated vapor then passes through a mist separator to remove any entrained salt-water droplets. and condenses on the tubes there. it is heated by steam that condenses on the outer surface of the tubes. In the specific design described here as an example.5 ºC and 1 psig for a compressed steam temperature of 106 ºC and 3. which is cooled by incoming seawater.6 psig (the pressure is therefore increased 0. and because a thin film of water falls down the inside surface of the tubes. The process is repeated in several chambers and is sometimes called “multiple-effect falling-film” distillation. The compressor is a centrifugal. Vertical tube evaporators are most cost-effective in large plants requiring high efficiency. Vertical tube evaporators (VTE) are also available: In vertical tube evaporation. This higher-energy compressed steam is discharged into the evaporator onto the outside of the enhanced surface tubes. because each bundle of tubes is an “effect”. Phase change processes: distillation and freezing The first stage is heated by external steam from a heat recovery system or a back-pressure steam turbine. In a vertical tube evaporator. the pure vapor enters the compressor at 101.3 Vapor compression (VC) Thermocompression (TVC) or vapor compression distillation (VC) involves boiling a liquid (seawater in this case) on one side of the heat transfer surface. a single-stage VTE type seawater is boiled inside a bank of enhanced surface tubes. Steam generated inside the tubes in the first chamber flows to the second chamber. As it falls.3). A steam ejector driven by medium- pressure steam removes a part of the steam produced in the last stage and compresses it to use as the heating steam. which condenses on the outside of the tubes. Part of the heated seawater is then used as feedwater. and drawn off by Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 41 . salt water falls in a thin film through vertical tubes in a large chamber (figure 2. is collected. They have an improvement over older systems since less heat transfer surface is required and the water need only be circulated once. Additional vapor is generated and the process continues.4). Product water and concentrated seawater are then pumped out from the last stage of the evaporator. single-stage type designed for high-volumetric flows.

The excess feed water. in a VC system the specific electric consumption is lower than 10 kWh/m3. Desalination processes the distillate pump and pumped through a three-stream heat exchanger. This heat exchanger helps to minimize energy consumption of the system. called blowdown. 42 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . FIGURE 2.4 Flow diagram of a vapor compression system with vertical tube evaporators (VTE). is also pumped through the same heat exchanger. The distillate and blowdown are cooled therein while preheating the incoming feedwater. which is concentrated.

Palmero and Gómez. wind velocity has a negative effect on the cooling of the heating surface. Several different configurations can be used to recycle the recuperated heat from the vapor condensation in solar stills. The distillate must be sterilized to meet Health Service requirements and may also be chlorinated for storage purposes. A small amount of make-up heat is required for continuous operation to replace the heat lost to radiation and venting and the portion not reclaimed in the three-stream heat exchanger. The water does not boil but vaporizes slowly through a layer of water-saturated air and reaches the cooler glass by convection. for small stand-alone units in rural and isolated areas (India).5). Water vapor rises to the glass where it condenses. forming a film which runs off into a collecting trough and is stored. Solar energy has a definite advantage over fossil energy. 1999). depending on conventional energy costs. The principle of the thermal energy extraction from a solar pond or other methods could be used as the energy source for seawater desalination processes. isolated zones. MED.4 Solar distillation Solar stills use can be an ideal source of fresh water for drinking and agriculture in arid. solar distillation is not widely used since installation costs are high and only a few liters can be produced per day. García and Gómez. Phase change processes: distillation and freezing Distilled water is made by condensing above atmospheric pressure at 106 ºC. 1999. 2. The sun heats salt water in a black pan covered with a sloping glass roof. The rate of evaporation is primarily controlled by the intensity of the incoming solar radiation which creates both temperature and water vapor concentration differences between the water and glass surface. but also heat losses increase when the temperature inside the solar still change. Finally. and the solar fraction SF that determines the percentage of the day in which the desalination plant consumes solar energy. the use of parabolic trough collectors (PTC) could make competitive the use of solar energy for desalination processes (MSF. a steam coil. But we will only consider the conventional solar still (figure 2. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 43 . Of course any economic or energetic comparison should not be considered. mirrors and other focusing devices. Electric immersion heaters. or heat recovery exchangers to recover waste heat from engine jacket water or exhaust gas when available can provide this make-up heat. Additional solar radiation can be obtained using lenses. García. per square meter of pan area in the stills.1. For example. the solar collectors cost and the climatic conditions that determine the attainable fresh water production per m2 of solar collector (the PTC collectors provide on average 10 m3 of fresh water per m2 of solar collector). However.

and ice needs to be transported and purified. Ice formation is analogous to distillation in this respect since salt-free vapor is produced while the liquid may have a high salt concentration. which is somewhat more complex than handling fluids alone. we still have to rely on experiments in relatively small and medium-sized plants and extrapolation to larger plants. Freezing methods are not widely used in the desalination industry. The ice is melted to obtain fresh water (the fusion temperature is less than that of salts contained in the ice). refrigeration technology may be adapted. So that water is the first or secondary refrigerant. and to calculate their power consumption. Desalination processes FIGURE 2.1. Although the low operating temperature of freezing processes greatly reduces scale and corrosion problems. Glass Solar energy Condensed vapor Vapor Salt water Insulation Distilled water Distilled water 2. also based on phase change. the system must be protected against heat gains or cold losses.5 Freezing process This process. 44 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .5 Diagram model of a solar still. In freezing methods. is independent of the water salt content. The freezing process is different from distillation since the latter is carried out well above ambient temperature and the equipment is designed for minimal heat losses. Seawater is cooled and the ice is collected (ice crystals are essentially salt free). This secondary refrigerant system could be mixed or separated from water by a heat transfer surface.

The excess height at the saline solution over the fresh water is a measure of the osmotic pressure of the solution. and the concentrated seawater (at high pressure) is sent via an energy recovery system back into the sea. RO can be used to demineralize brackish water with 1-10 gr/l salinity. Osmotic pressure is measured using a recipient divided into 2 compartments by a semi-impermeable membrane.7) seawater is pretreated to avoid membrane fouling. RO seawater plants in the Gulf Area need an intensive water pre-treatment process with a lower product quality. Processes using membranes 2. The osmotic pressure of a solution is directly proportional to the solute concentration. pure water permeates through the membranes and the seawater is concentrated. In RO desalination (figure 2. Saline solution is poured into one half and freshwater into the other. leaving behind a more highly concentrated salt solution. The four main parts of the RO installation are: Preliminary treatment unit The treatment has the following steps: • Chlorination: To reduce bacteriological and organic loads found in raw water. The water product flows directly from the permeators into a storage tank. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 45 . • Acidification: Acid is added to clarified raw water to lower its pH and limit the formation of calcareous deposits. space requirements and maintenance than other processes. This process is called reverse osmosis (RO). If external pressure greater than osmotic pressure is applied to the saline solution. Part of the fresh water will flow through the membrane into the saline solution. It is also used for seawater desalination and has lower energy consumption. investment cost.2. Because of the high pressure. and are not often used.2 Processes using membranes 2. and the permeated water flow is proportional to the difference between the applied pressure and the osmotic pressure of the concentrated solution.1 Reverse osmosis Osmosis is a physical process which occurs naturally in animals and plants (figure 2. the water will flow through the membrane in the other direction. It then passes through filter cartridges (a safety device) and is sent by a high-pressure pump through the membrane modules (permeators). • Dechlorination: To remove the residual chlorine from the pre-treatment. However.6). • Inhibition by polyphosphates: Polyphosphates delay the formation of precipitates such as calcium and barium sulfate. • Filtration on a sand bed: To reduce raw water turbidity.

Desalination processes FIGURE 2.6 Reverse osmosis process. 46 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .

7 Reverse osmosis (RO) desalination with Pelton turbine. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 47 . Processes using membranes FIGURE 2.

The hollow fibers are made by methods similar to those developed in the textile fiber industry. Saline water flows through separate channels in one direction. • Pressure exchangers (PE): The PE unit uses the principle of positive displacement to pressurize low-pressure raw seawater by direct contact with the concentrate stream from a seawater membrane system. Pressurized saline water circulates on the outside of the fibers while the hyperfiltrate flows within the fibers toward the open ends of the fibers held in position by the epoxy resin. Sometimes acid is added to prevent the scaling problem. Note that distillation methods only need a light chlorination process and some scale inhibitors (addition of polyphosphates). The hollow fiber units have a very large number of hollow fibers. Separate modules can readily be connected in series or in parallel. investigators have tried to reduce the energy requirements (6-8 kWh/m3) of RO seawater desalination using two main devices: • Pelton turbines: The high-pressure concentrate from membranes pushes on the Pelton blades to provoke a pair in a common shaft. are held in a pressure vessel. the membrane elements are typically 30-120 cm long and 10-30 cm in diameter. Energy recovery for RO plants results in energy savings of 40% (Calder. These units pack more membrane surface per unit volume than spiral- wound unit and are extensively used for seawater RO. A cylindrical rotor with longitudinal ducts parallel to its rotational axis is used to transfer the pressure 48 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . High-pressure pumping system This stage is the least problematic and normally involves centrifugal pumps. 1999). Desalination processes • Cartridge filtering: To catch the particles obtained by oxidation of dissolved ions (Fe++) in raw water. In spiral-wound elements membranes and backing are wound similar to a jelly roll around a central perforated tube which collects the product. The brine energy recovery system In the last years. RO modules The main modules used for RO seawater desalination are made out of hollow fibers and spiral fibers provided by several manufacturers. Desalted water emerging from millions of open fiber ends is collected there. thinner than human air. The spiral-wound and hollow fiber designs were developed to contain the high-pressure fluid in the lowest possible volume for a given membrane surface. with their ends potted in epoxy resin. They can be mounted in series with anti- telescoping devices between adjacent elements to form modules.

which raises the cost and makes it unpractical for seawater desalination. and for softening water with excessive calcium and magnesium.8) is suitable for desalinating brackish waters with an average salt content between 1 to 3 g/l with a very low power consumption (about 1 kWh/m3) and a salt rejection of 75% (data obtained from De Armas. 2. The resins and chemicals must be substituted regularly. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 49 . 1999). Ion exchange demineralization provides high purity water if the salt concentration does not exceed 1 g/l. they exchange some ions with the dissolved salt. the cations are attracted by the anode and the anions by the cathode. 2. Two types of resins can be used: anionic resins that substitute water anions by OH-. It is often used for water preparation of boilers from water of streams or aquifers.ions (hydroxil permutation). 1999). The energy recovery with PE is in the range of 50-65% (Hauge and Ludvigsen.2. while this concentration increases in the other compartments where salt water becomes even more concentrated. In contact with a solution. This process (shown in fig.3 Processes acting on chemical bounds 2. Resins must be regenerated regularly with chemical reagents to substitute its original ions and those fixed by the resin. characterized by their low salt content.3. In return. salt concentration decreases in some compartments of the cell where water is desalinated. Above this it becomes more costly than competitive processes (its energy consumption for seawater desalination is much higher). these ions discharge on the electrodes of opposite sign. and cationic resins substitute cations by H+ ions (acidic permutation). Torrent and Von Gottberg.2 Electrodialysis (ED) This process is used to demineralize brackish water by making different ions migrate through selective membranes in electric field made by the dirct difference of voltage potential between two electrodes connected at the boundaries of the membranes. If not constrained. Processes acting on chemical bounds energy from the concentrate stream to the feed stream. if a set of selective and permeable membranes is placed between the electrodes. 2. Whenever salt water is flowing in a cell.1 Ion exchange Ion-exchanging resins are insoluble substances.

8 Electrodialysis process. Desalination processes FIGURE 2. 50 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .

So. combined cycles. Summary 2.4 Summary A general review of desalination technology has been written in this chapter. Thesis develops one of those techniques. based on 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 51 . The review includes the principle of operation. MSF is not only the most dominant process in desalination. characteristic parameters (including specific consumption) and application range of each desalination method that is now available in desalination market. advantages/disadvantages. D. gas turbines. solar storage. It offers the possibility to be connected to several heat sources: steam turbines. This Ph. description of the necessary installation. it allows applying techniques oriented to produce the MSF product with the lowest cost.

to simulate a MSF plant under different operating conditions. This is particularly the case where power generation is linked to water production to use the process steam. in order to analyze plant efficiency and cost savings. a description of the solution algorithm of the system of model equations.CHAPTER 3 MSF desalination steady-state model The daily world production of drinkable water from Multi-Stage Flash plants (MSF) far exceeds that of other desalination methods. which is not oriented for design analysis. i. fouling factors and more variables explained below.e. • Second. This model provides information to perform the exergy and thermoeconomic analysis of the whole dual-purpose plant. • Third. Several operating variables can be modified by the user to observe changes in plant behavior. • Finally an explanation of the simulation options and the design data. In this chapter I will describe a mathematical model used in the SIMTAW program. such as consumed steam. an explanation of the mathematical model. MSF plant design data were included in the mathematical model. water mass flow rates. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . brief descriptions of the physical processes in a MSF plant. TBT value. including the equations used to solve the model. The structure of this section is as follows: • First. power generation plant and MSF plant. The inverse calculation procedure option can evaluate the fouling factor of the stages instead of the distillate temperature profile. inlet water temperature.

the ‘heat recovery section’. The combined stream R passes through the heat exchangers of the recovery section. The plant feed. which rejects the excess thermal energy from the plant and cools the product and brine to the lowest possible temperature when it comes from the last recovery section stage. Each stage has a flash chamber and a heat exchanger/condenser.1 Process description Many multi-stage flash plant arrangements and operational techniques are available. reject seawater CW (which is returned back to the sea) and a make up stream F (which is then combined with the recycle stream). The recovery and rejection sections both have a series of stages. It has six 20-stage condensing lines which deliver up to 14. the brine temperature is raised from TF. The flash chamber is separated from the condenser by a demister.1).1 to a maximum value TB. Recycled brine plants contain three main sections from left to right: the ‘heat input section’ (or brine heater). Each evaporator is usually described by defining the three main plant characteristics: the flashing flow system.400 m3/h of water with a steam turbine cycle to provide electrical power. FIGURE 3. A brief description of the MSF desalination flow process follows (see figure 3. the chemical treatment and the tube configuration. the most typical of the MSF plant types. In the brine heater. The MSF Plant studied here is a brine recirculation flow. and cross tube configuration. is allowed to pass through the heat rejection section.1 Schematic diagram of a single effect MSF evaporator with recycled brine. and the ‘heat rejection section’. where vapor (flashed off in the flash chamber) is condensed. SR.o (=Top Brine Temperature TBT) 54 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . and a distillate trough catches the condensate from the condenser above. where entrained brine droplets are removed from the flashing vapor. high-temperature (HT) antiscale treatment. At the output of the first (warmest) rejection stage the feed stream splits into two parts. The plant has a single effect MSF evaporator with recycled brine (see figure 3. MSF desalination steady-state model 3.1). where its temperature increases as it proceeds towards the heat input section of the plant.

The concentrated brine is divided into two parts as it leaves the plant. which returns to the recovery section. superheated water vapor is generated in the throttling process. approximately an order of magnitude greater than the steam supply mass flow rate. in turn. Furthermore. The process is repeated all the way down the plant as both brine and distillate enter the next stage at a lower pressure. The latter is. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 55 . The brine then enters the first heat recovery stage where it is flashed by reducing the pressure in a throttling valve. the once-through design (with no reject section). The condensed vapor drips onto a distillate tray.2). From a mathematical point of view. FIGURE 3. the temper system takes part of the cooling reject seawater. the blowdown BD. which is pumped back to the sea. to remove any entrained brine droplets before condensing onto a heat exchanger where cold brine passes through and recovers the latent heat (as shown in figure 3.2 Cross-section of a stage in a typical MSF plant. This vapor passes through a wire mesh (demister). Process description approximately equal to the saturation temperature at the system pressure. there is no distinction between heat recovery and heat rejection sections in the once-through plant. Roof Vapor Tube bundle Demister Distillated Flashing brine Flash box For the recycled brine plants. If the seawater temperature is lower than 25 ºC. and the recycle design can be represented by the same model if the zero value is set to the mass flow rates of the recycle R and the reject seawater CW streams. the mass flow rates of the recycled brine and cooling water loops are typically 10 times greater than the distillate production rate. so that the distiller feed temperature is at least the above mentioned temperature. and a recycle stream R. As the brine was already at its saturation temperature for a higher pressure.

3 Temperature profile of a recycle brine MSF plant. The first obvious parameter is the temperature range. material. Specifically.o) of the incoming feed and cooling water. all the fluids of an MSF plant have the same interstage temperature difference. The total temperature drop in each stage may have a number of causes. As a first assumption. Another important parameter is the temperature rise in the brine heater. the interstage temperature differences in the recovery and reject sections may differ considerably. but this does not imply a different design for each stage.e.). which is the difference between the top temperature (TB. 56 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . ∆T. FIGURE 3. This value strongly depends on the heat exchanger type (design. fouling effect. including: a) Interstage temperature difference (δT): the drop temperature of all fluids at each stage. etc. MSF desalination steady-state model MSF plant operation can be better analyzed by temperature profiles and sorting out the main parameters. Tsea. The resulting saturation temperature drop can be estimated either using the Clausius-Clayperon relationship or the steam tables. Brine heater Heat recovery TS TBo Heat rejection TF1 Brine recirculation Blowdown + distillate Flashing brine Make-up Distillate Cooling Feedwater Tsea reject A non-uniform temperature difference is assumed over the entire flash range. results in a further decrease in saturation temperature. i. c) Demister pressure losses (δTP): the frictional pressure loss when the vapor is passed through the demister. This means that the interstage temperature differences will vary slightly down the plant and may vary significantly between stages of different designs.1). to remove any entrained brine droplets. (= TB. b) Condenser terminal difference (δTC): the temperature difference between the recycled brine flow being heated inside the evaporator tubes (being heated) and the flashed vapor temperature at each stage.o – TF. seawater. A high heat transfer coefficient value means a lower δTC value.3. The temperature profiles of a recycled brine plant are illustrated in figure 3.

The only way to increase flash range is by raising the top temperature. 1973. f) Non equilibrium allowance (NEA): When the flashing brine stream enters a stage. sometimes also called Gained Output Ratio. The cleaning ball system is not normally installed in MSF plants but helps to avoid fouling in heat exchanger tubes. 1971. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 57 . Mathematical model of MSF unit d) Condenser pressure losses: vapor undergoes a frictional pressure loss in the condenser tube bundle as when passing through the demisters. raise its boiling point. Since the performance ratio improves as flash range increases. so the PR is also increased. as defined above. often called the specific energy consumption (NC). The recycled ratio is also reduced as the flash range increases. it undergoes a pressure reduction. GOR defined previously. Al Owais. If this brine had an infinite residence time in the stage. 1971.2 Mathematical model of MSF unit Several models of a single effect MSF plant are available (Barba. 1968. Beamer and Wilde. sodium chloride) dissolved in water. Coleman. 3. the whole lot would cool down to the saturation temperature corresponding to the flash chamber pressure and a maximum amount of distillate would flashed off. A large flash range as possible is desirable. 1989. Itahara and Stiel. either for a fixed performance ratio (the operational efficiency increases due to a reduction in the required heat transfer surface area) or for a constant surface area. The energy consumption of an MSF plant is usually expressed in terms of the performance ratio PR. Nijhawan and Budhijara. The BPE value is most often less than 1 ºC. Liuzzo and Tagliaferri. e) Boiling point elevation (BPE): Non-volatile solutes (i.e. 1989. by providing the steam condensing temperature in the brine heater. and the increasing costs of additional stages. Helal. whose value is a function of the brine temperature and salinity. which results in a larger temperature rise in the heat input section for a fixed heat input. MSF plants normally have a PR value of 8 in the nominal case. and a larger logarithmic mean temperature differences in the recovery section. This is limited by the onset of calcium sulphate scaling. PR is commonly defined as kg of distillate per kg of dry saturated heating steam condensed in the brine heater without condensate subcooling. The size of this raise may be predicted by considering the equilibrium between the solution and the water vapor. Darwish and Arazzini. Another measure of the energy consumption in MSF plants is sometimes expressed as the energy input to the brine heater per unit mass of distillate produced. with the corresponding reduction in the required heat transfer surface area. Seawater temperature limits the lowest temperature value in the plant. This can be converted into a performance ratio.

1979. R R TF. inlet steam to the brine heater is assumed to be saturated vapor.4) and brine heater model (figure 3. flow rate TB. Husain et al.j. Glueck and Bradshaw. the following equations can be written for stage number j at steady state. 1997. even though it can be slightly superheated. Apart from assumptions considered in the next two sections. the following assumptions were introduced in the SIMTAW model: a) The product leaving any stage is salt free (distillate concentration = 0 ppm). Hayakawa. c) There is no interstage model in SIMTAW. 1993. the effect of the flashing brine level per stage is not taken into account. 1970. although all of it with significant modifications. mass. 1989.j+1 CR CR Cooling brine Dj–1 Dj TD.j. Husain et al.j TF. Hence the mathematical equations —i. 1994.e. MSF desalination steady-state model Medani and Soliman.4.e. i. 1986..4 A general stage in a MSF plant. In the SIMTAW model presented here. Furthermore.. Rautenbach and Buchel. temperature CB. concentration jth Stage 58 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant ..2. desuperheater model in the brine heater was not considered.j–1 CB.j Bj–1 Flashing brine Bj. b) No subcooling of condensate leaving the brine heater is considered. Al-Mutaz. So.j–1 Distillate TD. FIGURE 3. (1986). 1997).j–1 TB. Alhumaizi.5) are basically as follows: 3. Falcetta and Sciuba. the energy and mass balances are applied to each stage of the MSF plant and guidelines and nomenclature following Helal et al. No mist is entrained with the flashing vapor. 1973. energy and heat transfer equations— for a single stage (figure 3.1 Stage model Referring to figure 3. Satori and Konishi..

which is a function of temperature and concentration. Salt balance: Bj–1 CB.15 K).j (TD. this property is calculated as if cooling brine were saturated liquid.j–1 (TB. Hvj is the saturated vapor enthalpy of water in jth stage. CPB.j–1 (TD.j – T*) – Bj CPB. Hbj is the flashing brine enthalpy.1) where Bj is the flashing brine flowstream in jth flash chamber (stage j). but in the Reject Section the value corresponds to feed water supply (SR). Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 59 . This property is calculated as a saturated liquid. Although cooling brine is under high pressure.j is the salt concentration in the jth stage. passing through the heat exchanger tubes.j is the distillate temperature in the jth stage. R depends on the required distillate and seawater temperature.j (3.j (TB. which is assumed to be saturated liquid at flash chamber pressure in each stage.4) where R is the recycled brine mass flow rate. in this case.3) where CB. TF.Mathematical model of MSF unit Enthalpy balance on flashing brine: Bj–1 Hbj–1 = Bj Hbj + (Bj–1 – Bj) Hvj (3. This property is calculated in a similar way to the cooling brine.j–1 = Bj CB. T* is the temperature reference (273. this property is a function of temperature and concentration. TD.j (TF.j – TF.j is the heat capacity of distillate. Overall enthalpy balance: R CPR. CPD. (to allow circulation inside the tubes). In the Recovery Section.j – T*) (3.j+1) = Dj CPD.2) where Dj is the distillate in the jth stage.j is the cooling brine temperature in the jth stage.j is the flashing brine temperature in the jth stage. it is considered to be saturated liquid water.j–1 – T*) + Bj–1 CPB. and TB. Total material balance (water + salt): Bj–1 + Dj–1 = Bj + Dj (3.j is the heat capacity of cooling brine. CPR.j–1 – T*) – Dj CPD.j is the heat capacity of flashing brine.

5) T D.10) OD ln --------- ID kw is the thermal conductivity of the wall and t is the wall thickness. j + 1  Uj ⋅ Aj  ---------------------------------. Note that the tube wall resistance can be reduced.7) h bi ID where OD and ID are the outside and inside tube diameters respectively and hi is the convective heat transfer coefficient for fully-developed turbulent flow inside a tube. (3.0. (3. Re is the Reynolds number of the tube flow. Pr is the Prandtl number of the tube flow. (3.⋅ Re Pr (3. defined as: OD – ID d lm = --------------------. Uj is the overall heat transfer coefficient of the evaporator in each stage. j  where Aj is the total evaporator/condenser heat exchange area. Assuming a small temperature difference between the wall surface and the bulk of the fluid. Its value depends on the various heat transfer resistance in the plant. but is much greater for enhanced tubes). j – T F. by either reducing the wall thickness or increasing the thermal conductivity of the wall.6) R bi + R w + R c + R f where Rbi is the inside tube heat transfer resistance. 60 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . (3.9) k w ⋅ d lm where dlm is the logarithmic mean diameter of the tube.⋅ --------. The overall heat transfer coefficient is then: 1 U j = ---------------------------------------------. k 0. j – T F.= exp  ----------------------. Rw is the tube wall resistance.8 0. given by 1 OD R bi = ------. MSF desalination steady-state model Heat transfer equation (condenser): T D.8) ID where E is the ‘Enhancement factor’ (for smooth tubes this is 1. j  R ⋅ CP R.023 -----. (3.4 h bi = E ⋅ 0. given by t ⋅ OD R w = ------------------.

14) where BPE is the boiling point elevation of brine with respect to pure water. which includes the inside and outside fouling resistance and the non-condensable gas resistance. NEA represents the non equilibrium allowance. (3. j + BPE + NEA + PL (3.Mathematical model of MSF unit Rc is the resistance from the condensate film on the vapor-side.12)  n µ OD ∆T fm where k is the condensate thermal conductivity. It is usually provided by the heat exchanger designer and depends on the material and acid treatment applied to both sides of the tube walls and the cleaning ball system.11) hc where hc is the condensing film heat transfer coefficient obtained from the well- known Nusselt equation: 3 2 0. which is the temperature drop due to the non infinite residence time of flashing brine in the flash chamber. j = T D.25  k ρ g λ fg  h c = 0.5 (Ts – Tw) (3. given by 1 R c = ----. µ refers to the condensate viscosity. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 61 . g is the acceleration due to gravity.729  --------------------------------- (3. ρ is the condensate density. ∆Tfm is the temperature difference across the film (=Ts --Tw) where Ts and Tw are the saturated vapor and outside wall temperatures. Distillate and flashing brine temperatures correlation: T B. it is a function of brine temperature and concentration. The condensate properties are usually evaluated at the film temperature Tfm given by Tfm = Ts – 0. As explained below. λfg is the latent heat of evaporation. PL refers to the pressure losses and includes demister and condenser pressure losses.13) Rf is the overall fouling resistance. n represents the number of tubes in a vertical row.

o  R ⋅ CP H  where AH is the total heat exchange area of the brine heater. CPH is the mean heat capacity of brine flowing inside the brine heater.o CB. as the overall heat transfer coefficient of the evaporator in the jth stage. UH is the overall heat transfer coefficient of the brine heater. TS is the saturation temperature of the vapor entering to the brine heater.o – T F.1 m ST CR Brine heater T S Stage 1 Saturated liquid Bo TB.2 Brine Heater Model Brine heater performance (figure 3. It contains the same terms (explained in section 3. 1 ) = m ST λ ST (3.1). mST is the steam mass flow rate to the brine heater leaving the power generation plant. and C B.2. CR is the salt concentration in recovery section.= exp -------------------.o Mass and salt balance (brine): B 0 = R .17) T S – T B.o is the salt concentration in the Brine Heater outlet.5 Heat input section. (3. MSF desalination steady-state model 3.5) can be described by the following equations: FIGURE 3.o is the brine temperature in the Brine Heater outlet. Heat recovery section Saturated steam R TF. 62 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Heat transfer equation in the brine heater evaporator: T S – T F. CB.15) where Bo is the mass flow in the Brine Heater outlet. 1 U H ⋅ A H  ----------------------. o = C R (3.2. Overall enthalpy balance: R CP H ( T B. λST is the latent heat of steam to the brine heater.16) where TB.

the SIMTAW model contains an explicit mixer and splitter model.6) which can be modeled with the equations below. Recycle brine CW BD Reject seawater Blowdown Mass balance on mixer: R = F + BN – BD (3. Distillate F. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 63 .18) where BN is the flashing brine flow in the last stage of the reject section. Mathematical model of MSF unit 3. 18 19 20 SR Seawater inlet D. (1986). HbDR are respectively the enthalpy of brine leaving the reject section. Make-up Rejection section Deareator R.6 Mixing and splitting points in the MSF desalination plant. FIGURE 3.3 Mixer and splitter model This model takes into account the MSF Plant configuration and the model proposed by Helal et al. recycle stream and deaerator. In the SIMTAW model the mixing process is considered after the last stage of the reject section. the results are accurate enough. Note that even though it does not exactly reflect the real physical conditions in the plant.2. Mass balance (salt + water) on mixer: ( B N – BD ) C B. As a result this last stage is considered another distillation stage with exactly the same model as the other MSF stages.20) where HbN.19) Enthalpy balance on mixer: R · HbR = (BN – BD) HbN + F · HbDR (3. BD is the blowdown mass flow rate. N + F C F = R C R (3. completely separate from the desalination stages (see figure 3. HbR. For this reason.

1978).43955304 ⋅ 10 Tb –4 2 – 0. Other correlations can be found in Leyendekkers (1979). MSF desalination steady-state model Mass balance on reject seawater splitter: CW = SR – F (3.1 Density The expression for the brine density ρb (lb/ft3) given here is valid for the range of 0-26% Cb concentration and 40-300 ºF temperature.3. Spence and Tudhope (1971). 1961) for a given concentration Cb and temperature Tb are extrapolated between the range 0 < Cb < 20%. 1986). but most properties can be found in technical handbooks (Fabuss and Korosi.707172 + 49.364088 C b – 0.63240299 ⋅ 10 Cb Tb Another correlation can be found in Chen et al. 3. 64 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .2 Viscosity Tabulated and interpolated data (Lewis and Randal.22) –4 2 + 0. Correlations for calculating the brine and seawater properties in the SIMTAW model are described below.46076921 ⋅ 10 Tb (3. Most of thermodynamic and transport properties of pure water and steam are calculated with the same correlations used in the steam power plant model.3. to obtain brine viscosity µ b (N·s/m2). 0 ºC < Tb < 120 ºC. –2 ρ b = 62. Hömig. Isdale. 1966) from the equation below with Cb = 0.3 Auxiliary equations Correlations of various properties used to solve the MSF SIMTAW model are included in this section. 3. (1973). The correlations used in the simulator are accepted here because results that they gave are reasonable when other mathematical models have been developed (Helal et al.21) where SR is the inlet seawater into the reject section..032554667 C b T b – 0. described in Chapter 4. Pure water density was calculated (Mothershed. 1968. 3. The temper water is neglected here.

26) –9 3 + 1..24) Yusufova et al.1666652 ⋅ 10 T + 1.3.3.26 + 4C b ) 10 Tb (3.3999989 ⋅ 10 T (3. 20% weight) at different temperatures Tb (up to 120 ºC).00184086 T b – 7.0 – C b ( 0.5C b ) 10 – ( 5.26).3 Thermal conductivity Tabulated data (Lewis and Randal.2 C b ) (3. 1986) by applying a factor dependent upon the solid concentrations and temperature to the heat capacity of pure water CPd at the desired temperature (Bromley et al. integration of the heat capacity from the reference temperature T* = 273.745 + 2. Cb the percentage of salt concentration. brine thermal conductivity kb (W/mK) is close to pure water conductivity (brine is about 2% less than pure water). interpolating with three concentrations Cb (0%. 1970): CP b = 1.3. Auxiliary equations –3 –5 µ b = ( 1. (1978) also provides a correlation for thermal conductivity of brine. al.569118 + 0. –6 2 k b = ( 0. 1961) are used.4 Heat capacity Specific water heat capacity CPd is the equation (3.289 ⋅ 10 T b ) ( 1 – 0. 10%.23) –7 2 –9 3 – 11 4 + 9 ⋅ 10 T b – 8 ⋅ 10 T b + 3 ⋅ 10 Tb 3.3333336 ⋅ 10 T where Tb is the brine temperature (50 ºF < Tb < 200 ºF).25) where –5 –7 2 CP d = 1. The correlation of brine specific heat (BTU/lb ºF) is obtained (Helal et.15 K gives the specific enthalpy (BTU/lb) of brine solution Hb at Tb: Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 65 .0000146 T b ) CP d (3.011311 – 0.5 Enthalpy For a given concentration Cb. As we can see in the formula. 3.0011833 – 6. 3.

– 5. 1977): 3816.0011833 –5 –5 1. the Harlacher & Braun vapor-pressure correlation is used. 68695 –3 p s ln p s = 60.228852 – --------------. (3.115 ln T + 7. No correlation is used to calculate the vapor pressure of brine solutions. Reid.1666652 ⋅ 10 ⋅ a a 2 = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 –7 – 10 1. SI units must be used. 66 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . (3.29) needs an iteration algorithm.28) T – 46.3333336 ⋅ 10 – 1. (1977). for example a Newton-Raphson method. Prausnitz and Sherwood.27) 4 5 + a 4 ( T b – T* ) + a 5 ( T b – T* ) where a = 1 – Cb · 0.29) T T Equation (3.0669983 ⋅ 10 ⋅ a a 3 = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 –9 – 12 1.875 ⋅ 10 -----2. with the coefficients proposed by Reid et al.44 ln p s = 23.13 Equation (3.3.196452 – ----------------------. MSF desalination steady-state model 3 H b = a 1 ( T b – T* ) + a 2 ( T b – T* ) + a 3 ( T b – T* ) (3.6 Vapor pressure The following equation (Antoine correlation) describes how the vapor pressure ps of saturated steam is dependant on temperature T (using the water coefficients.011311 a1 = a · 1. Above this temperature (and the critical point).3999989 ⋅ 10 – 7.28) is used until 441 K.5296 ⋅ 10 a 5 = ---------------------------------- 5 3.1473561 ⋅ 10 – 6.6043987 ⋅ 10 ⋅ a a 4 = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 – 14 1.

1 – 0.54739 ln T K Tk  337. expressed in ºF. j ) (3. j ) (3.681 2 +  ---------------.8 (K). j ) ( ω j ⋅ 10 ) ( T D.334169  ⋅ 1.25 – 3 0.922753 ln T K C  TK  (3. 1971) to represent the boiling point rise BPE (ºF) as a function of temperature TK and salt concentration C: 565.079022 ln T K C   TK   C   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------. – ------------------ .– 0.819 Cb)/(1 – Cb).j is the distillate temperature (ºF) in stage j.). 1981) reported the following empirical equation for the non-equilibrium allowance (NEA). j is the flash down per stage (TB. Auxiliary equations 3.0263T D.j). + 0. ωj the chamber load per unit width (lb·h/ft).9 Demister and other losses Omar (1981) suggests the following empirical equation to calculate the temperature loss due to the pressure drop in the demister and condenser tubes. C = (19.32) where ∆TL is expressed in ºF.  --------------------- 266919.81559 + 1.3.6 379.– 9.8 Non-equilibrium allowance Burns and Roe correlation (Omar. del Re. Brandoni. ∆T L = exp ( 1.669 . ∆T B. expressed as temperature loss (ºF): 1. 3.757 BPE = ------------------. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 67 .55368 + 0.3.8  2 TK   TK  where TK = (Tb + 460)/1.3.j–1 – TB.5 NEA = ( 352 ) ( H j ) ( ∆T B.30)  32.31) where Hj is the height of brine pool in each stage (in.5 – 2. 3.7 Boiling point elevation Data from Stoughton and Lietzke (1965) were correlated (Friedrich and Hafford. and TD.178  –  ------------------. and Di Giacomo (1985) include correlations for BPE and other seawater properties.41981 + 0.885 – 0.– 6.

e.. The procedure to simulate a MSF plant with the SIMTAW model is a global one.g. 1999). b) Global methods. 68 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . c) Linear methods (Helal et al. such as relaxation methods or a combination of several methods.e. d) Other mathematical procedures. i.e.. FIGURE 3. The methods usually applied to solve the multistage countercurrent separation problems encompassing large systems of non-linear equations are: a) Stage by stage calculations. A wide variety of iterative solution procedures for solving non-linear algebraic equations exist in the literature. In such procedures the equations are usually split into groups and then ordered by carefully choosing the iteration variables so that the large system of equations is decomposed into simpler subsystems..7 Solution algorithm of a MSF desalination plant model. 1999). The subroutines implemented for this method are available in internet (UTK and ORNL. which was also used to solve the power plant model in Chapter 4. MSF desalination steady-state model 3. 1986). the Powell hybrid method (Powell.4 Solution algorithm MSF can be classified as a steady-state and lumped parameter model (Husain. i. Newton and quasi-Newton methods. 1964). iterative methods.

Solution algorithm Figure 3. the process is finished.j). see Section 3. x is the variable array. In the TBT option this variable is not considered (see Chapter 5).j). • Flashing brine flow rate in each stage (Bj). Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 69 . the Jacobian matrix is calculated using the differences of the array function. containing the dependent variables needed to perform the MSF plant simulation.7 shows how the Powell hybrid model is applied to solve the MSF model. The simulation is completed when the relative error between two consecutive iterations satisfies the specified tolerance:  ∆x j  –3 max  -------- m  ≤ 10 (3. the variable array is updated by multiplying the Jacobian and the array function.j) (it is not a variable in the inverse problem. • Top brine temperature (TB. the variable array is built with the initial values included in SIMTAW. or new updates are made until a new value of the Jacobian matrix is needed. taking into account the chosen program options. • Distillate flow rate in each stage (Dj). • Deaerator temperature (TDR). Usually the Jacobian matrix is calculated when the variable array is updated five times.o). included in the above sections. 1964).3). If the values do not vary with respect to the latest iteration (that is. • Cooling brine temperature in each stage (TF. • Flashing brine concentration in each stage (CB. which contains the equations that perform the MSF model. Finally. • Recovery section concentration (CR). they are lower than the specified tolerance).33)  xj  where m m–1 ∆x j = x j – x j m m–1 x j is the calculated value of the variable j in the iteration m. The variable array contains the following terms: • Flashing brine temperature in each stage (TB. • Distillate temperature in each stage (TD. First.j). x j is the calculated value of the variable j in the iteration m–1. Then. The criteria for convergence applied in SIMTAW has been imposed by the Powell method (Powell.6. The condition leading to a new calculation of the Jacobian matrix depends on the convergence of the iterations.

CW. Furthermore. F. Each set (different case) has four specifications. this will result in (NRC + NRJ+1) more specifications. For example. and e) inside diameter IDj (or tube thickness t). and IDH) are also known. The defined variables mentioned above sum up to 5 · (NRC + NRJ) + 6 specifications. In this case the following operating variables are specified: R. if the brine levels in the different stages are defined (NRC + NRJ variables). MSF desalination steady-state model 3. only four remaining variables will have to be specified to solve the problem. The following five variables (design data) are fixed for each stage (assuming the number and arrangement of tubes): a) heat transfer area of evaporators Aj. depending on the objective of the simulation study. TS. steam 70 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . three cases are explained below: a) The first is called performance calculation. Tsea. The four brine heater variables (AH. LH.34) = 7 ( NRC + NRJ ) + 7 The above specifications limit the degrees of freedom to only 6. Csea. • Number of rejection stages NRJ (3 stages).1) has 7 (NRC + NRJ) + 13 degrees of freedom as demonstrated by the number of independent equations and unknowns. if the fouling factor is also fixed in every different stage as well as the brine heater. Since the feed temperature Tsea and concentration Csea will be known. d) outside diameter ODj. distillate production. ODH. Different combinations of variables can be chosen to simulate the MSF plant. The following variables are defined for an existing plant: • Number of recovery stages NRC (=17 in our case). b) tube length Lj. obtained by subtracting 7 (NRC + NRJ) + 7 from 7 (NRC + NRJ) + 13. c) stage width wj. Thus. then the total number of specifications is 5 ( NRC + NRJ ) + 6 + ( NRC + NRJ + 1 ) + ( NRC + NRJ ) (3.5 Simulation cases The MSF brine recycle flowchart (figure 3.

distillate output is close to the initial value. This case is most useful for sensitivity analysis studies. 3. the results obtained in the brine heater are less accurate than in other simulation modes. Csea.5.1 and 3. U. e. when solving the inverse problem because the user should provide the distillate profile. This option reduces the number of equations. In this simulation option the distillation temperature profile is a user variable.o and the plant capacity DN are specified. The behavior of the whole plant is analyzed when a specified amount of steam is supplied to the desalination plant by a coupled power plant. CW/R. Tsea. c) In the third case. The heat transfer equations used to calculate the distillate temperature in each stage of the recovery and reject section are omitted. This is the only equation removed from the MSF plant model.5. Csea.2. were also included in the SIMTAW program: TBT option and the inverse problem option. to avoid the tube scaling. steam consumption. Two new simulation options. due to the TBT/distillate correspondence (initial curves).g. explained in Section 3.2 Inverse problem This problem involves calculating the global heat transfer coefficient. mST and Tsea are specified.1 TBT control The MSF Plant has a TBT control (from 84 to 112 ºC).5. As a consequence.. b) In the second case. The equation governing heat transfer in the heater is rejected because the TBT is not a constraint in this equation. the operating parameters F. which was included in the simulator option with a fixed TBT value. the parameters F. TB. taking into account the control implemented in the combined power and MSF plant. it is the simulation case implemented in SIMTAW. This case it is not considered in the SIMTAW program because the recycle brine is determined by the MSF plant (design curves). The other equations included in the MSF model remain unchanged. 3. Simulation cases consumption and Top Brine Temperature are solved. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 71 . a new system of equations is obtained. where the fouling factors were obtained by substituting in the distillate temperature profile.5. CW. This case may be used to investigate the possibility of maintaining a specified plant capacity when the feed temperature is modified. As a result. This case is not included in the SIMTAW program. The rest of the variables can be affected by this option. steam temperature and recycle brine are solved. and the fouling factor of all distillation stages of the MSF plant.

10). • Recycle brine R as a function of seawater temperature Tsea and distillate D (figure 3. using some design curves provided by the manufacturers (Fisia-Italimpianti.6 Initial data and simulation Internal parameters of the MSF plant were calculated in the simulation model. FIGURE 3. • Feedwater (make-up F) as a function of distillate D and seawater concentration (figure 3. 3. 1996): • Top Brine Temperature (TBT) as a function of seawater temperature (SWT in figure 3.8) and distillate D. 115 TBT 112 º C 110 105 Top Brine Temperature (º C) SWT 25º C 100 95 SWT 28º C SWT 32º C 100 % 125 % 90 65 % 85 TBT 84 ºC 80 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 Distillate output (T/h) 72 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . there are four mathematical models implemented in SIMTAW.8 Correspondence between the Top Brine Temperature and distillate output. inverse problem.9). both or none options). MSF desalination steady-state model Taking into account the four possibilities in the simulation of the MSF process (TBT control. • Seawater to reject section as a function of distillate D and seawater temperature Tsea (≡ SWT) (figure 3.11).

Initial data and simulation FIGURE 3.10 Make-up feed water as a function of the distillate output.11 Seawater to reject section as a function of the distillate output. 8500 8000 7500 7000 Make-up feed (t/h) 6500 6000 5500 Sea water inlet TDS: 45. 20000 19500 19000 SWT 32º C Brine recirculation (T/h) 18500 125 % 18000 SWT 28º C 17500 100 % 17000 65 % SWT 25º C 16500 16000 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 Distillate output (T/h) FIGURE 3. 18000 17500 17000 SWT 32º C Sea Water to Reject (T/h) 16500 SWT 28º C 16000 15500 125 % 15000 SWT 25º C 100 % 14500 65 % 14000 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 Distillate output (T/h) Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 73 .000 5000 4500 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 Distillate output (t/h) FIGURE 3.9 Brine recirculation as a function of the distillate output.

This possibility is available in SIMTAW with the option ‘Sim.12 to 3. and the temper system takes into account the seawater intake temperature and flow rate. MSF desalination steady-state model These curves contain the limits and the feasible operation ranges in the MSF plant. Real data collected in the MSF distillers during 1997. only three input parameters are needed to run the program (note that the model has only 6 degrees of freedom): distillate or Top Brine Temperature. Data collected during the year 1997.12 Top brine temperature depending on the seawater temperature and distillate production. 1997). with real data’. 20000 19500 19000 R 26ºC R (T/h) R 28ºC 18500 R 30ºC R 32ºC 18000 R 34ºC R 36ºC 17500 1350 1550 1750 1950 2150 D (T/h) 2350 Therefore. Steam to brine heater conditions is also requested by SIMTAW. FIGURE 3.000 TDS).15 show how the correlations have been made using regression lines in a range of 2 ºC of seawater temperature. 74 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .13 Recycle brine flow as a function of the seawater temperature and production. Figures 3. seawater temperature and concentration (the seawater salinity concentration Csea in Arabian Gulf area is 45. 112 108 104 TBT 26ºC TBT (ºC) 100 TBT 28ºC TBT 30ºC 96 TBT 32ºC TBT 34ºC 92 TBT 36ºC 88 1350 1550 1750 1950 2150 D (T/h) 2350 FIGURE 3. But those graphics also could be correlated by using the real data obtained from the plant managers in 1997 (WED.

without a cleaning ball system. they are input data in the program. Overall heat transfer coefficient of Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 75 . 6600 F 26ºC 5600 F (T/h) F 28ºC F 30ºC F 32ºC 4600 F 34ºC F 36ºC 3600 1350 1550 1750 1950 2150 D (T/h) 2350 FIGURE 3. Although the fouling values are very difficult to evaluate. 17900 17700 SR (T/h) SR 26ºC 17500 SR 28ºC SR 30ºC SR 32ºC SR 34ºC SR 36ºC 17300 1350 1550 1750 1950 2150 D (T/h) 2350 3.15 Seawater to reject flow correlations for different seawater temperatures entering the MSF plant. 1996). Data collected during the year 1997.14 Make-up feed flow obtained for each range of seawater temperature when real data are computed. depending on the tube material. Average data of 1997. Initial data and simulation FIGURE 3.1 Fouling effect Design curves account for the fouling inside and outside of the tubes.6. The cleaning ball system can reduce the design fouling factor by five (Barthelmes and Bolmer.

Tube material Fouling factor (m2 K/W) Cooper alloys 0. so it is not necessary to apply additional equations to obtain a reasonable agreement in the model results. Finally. If the data acquisition system of the plant does not provide those data or the system is not an existing plant. in order to respond the design but also the real behavior of the MSF plant. TABLE 3. then the Performance Ratio and the steam consumption are also improved. the state of the steam power plant is also demanded if the thermoeconomic analysis is going to be performed. the model has been adjusted as much as possible.7 Summary Thermoeconomic analysis of a system requires knowledge of thermodynamic states of the system under different operating conditions and circumstances of the plant. Thus. MSF desalination steady-state model the evaporator is increased from ≈2.1 Fouling factors of the heat sections in MSF Plants. 76 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .00003 Without On-Load Cleaning System 0.00005 Titanium or Stainless Steels 0. Mathematical method differs form the original if some important parameters of the plant are introduced. the state of the plant could be achieved below different perspectives.00020 3. Energy and mass balance.500 to ≈3.500 W/m2·K. The model is solved using conventional methods and software. When the thermodynamic state of the MSF plant is obtained. and heat transfer equations compose the mathematical model of the MSF process. the state of the system could be obtained by using a mathematical model describing system behavior. It will be obtained by using equations described in Chapter 4. Correlations providing thermodynamic properties of seawater are essential for accurate results.

The co-generation concept considers the varying demands for power generation and process steam in the production of drinking water. such as temperature. which is implemented in the SIMTAW program (the simulator included in Chapter 5). together with operating parameters of different plant units. the mathematical model together with the most significant formulae and the solution algorithm of the system of equations are explained. viscosity. are calculated for the most significant mass and energy flow streams.CHAPTER 4 Steam power plant steady-state model In this chapter the mathematical model of the power generation system of a dual- purpose plant is described. Different operating scenarios can be simulated by varying the input data and the simulation options to analyze plant behavior and the interactions among equipment. The operating modes of the co-generation plant lead to different models that are also described in the last section of this chapter. Finally. In the first part of this Chapter I will describe the power plant. Thermophysical properties. This model can perform both a conventional energy analysis and a thermoeconomic analysis of a power plant. whereas the generation of electricity will be higher in summer than in winter. the model solution is given in the third section. specific exergy. pressure.. isoentropic efficiencies. heat transfer coefficients.g. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . e. etc. and so on. Power plants produce both electricity and process steam used in the MSF plant to produce desalted water from seawater. Later. specific enthalpy. Continuous water production is required throughout the year.

the steam flows through the LP section and is returned (via a damper and bypass line).4. If there is no steam supply for the MSF plant.1 Schematic diagram of the power generation plant. a single flow HP section and a single flow low-pressure (LP) section.1) are available on both turbine sections.600 m3 of drinking water per day. Extraction/condensing turbines in each unit operated under constant pressure (that is. Steam extraction outlets for the seawater desalination plant and extraction points for the feedwater heaters (points 3.5. Main HP steam flows from the steam generator —point 1 in figure 4. Steam power plant steady-state model 4. Each of the turbines has two sections. A maximum of 6×146 MW can be delivered in generator terminals in pure condensing mode. The selected power plant had six turbojets. The steam from the valve casings to the valve chests welded onto the HP inner casing is supplied by the 78 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Main significant flows are numbered for later descriptions and equations. each of them at the co-generation design point produced 122 MW of electricity and 198 MJ/s of process heat to provide 57.6 and 8 in figure 4.1 Model description The power generation plant is a co-generation plant providing both electrical power and the steam required by the seawater desalination plant (MSF plant).1— through the steam supply lines to the main steam emergency and control valves. Steam flow is an important variable determining the behavior of the power plant. pressure at the high-pressure (HP) turbine inlet is always constant). FIGURE 4. which are flange-mounted onto the lower section of the HP outer casing.

5— feeds the deaerator.Model description lower section. In this way. The first HP extraction goes to the vacuum system of the MSF plant. via the HP feed flow to the boiler. All the components of the HP section are secured so that concentric alignment and unrestricted movement is maintained under all operating conditions. The steam expands through the reaction blading and enters the exhaust steam chamber of the HP section. and finally a smaller quantity of the lowest extraction is sent to the first LP heater (the main part is sent to the desalination plant). It then flows via the control wheel of the HP rotor into the impulse chamber of the turbine casing. 8— feeds the second LP heater. A rupture disc is fitted in the outer casing as a safeguard against over pressure. a new extraction E3 is needed to feed the vacuum system of the MSF units. The Power Generation Plant also contains a live steam reduction pressure station. the steam is directed to the first blade carrier via a vertically mounted inlet steam nozzle —point no. The simple design of the high-pressure casing is based on a single shell construction with perfect rotational symmetry.1. enters the condenser at the exhaust nozzles. Afterward. after expansion. where it is mixed with the condensate returned to the MSF units.1. 7— and led to the second blade carrier via a bypass. The steam required for the seawater desalination plant is extracted via the extraction outlets in the lower exhaust section —point 6 in figure 4. First and second HP turbine extractions —points 3 and 4 in figure 4. Depending on the operating mode of the turbojet.1). when the amount of steam to the LP turbine is large enough. to reach the optimum pressure for the MSF plant. and a fourth one. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 79 . the steam enters the valve chests which house the nozzle segments. The third HP extraction —point no. and is condensed in the condenser. LP extraction —point no. called E4 in figure 4.1—. the steam cycle is closed.1— are fed to the HP heaters. The LP section is a standard single-flow design with an upstream inlet section. As seen in figure 4. and via bypass lines between the valve and turbine casing in the upper section. A certain percentage of the steam flows through the exhaust nozzles in the upper exhaust section and then through the downstream damper and bypass line to the LP section. The reduction pressure station mixes the live steam with water feed from the feed pump (S1 to S4 in figure 4. It then flows into the LP reaction blading via the steam inlet nozzles and. When the turbine does not work. The automatically controlled water injection system in the upper section of the casing provides the cooling required in specific operating modes. to extract the steam flow to desalination in case of turbine system failure. E1 and E2 are the live steam extractions to the two connected desalination units. feeds the deaerator.

1974) is based on the determination of the mass flow coefficient.2 Schematic diagram of a turbine section.1 Steam turbines Simulation of admission properties (Salisbury. ---------. This model cannot be applied to the first section.1) p p ------. Therefore.or φ = -------. Steam power plant steady-state model 4. pi mi Ti p0 T0 The admission properties of the steam turbine are evaluated using a model in which the mass flow coefficient is a function of the pressure ratio in each turbine section. (4. Cooke. which was defined according to the Cooke’s model (Cotton. p is the pressure (bar).--------------------. Spencer.2): pi FIGURE 4. 1985). (4.= ---------.is the pressure ratio at each turbine section (see figure 4. 80 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . The mass flow coefficient under operating conditions can be calculated as a function of the design parameters (subscript d). T is the temperature (K) and v is the specific volume (m3/kg). the admission values can be solved: 2 m m d 1 – rp d φ = -------. --- T v where m is the mass flow rate (kg/s).1 – rp T Td p where rp = ----0. and is a characteristic value for each type of turbine. due to the fixed pressure mode which controls the steam turbine operation.2) p pd 2 ------. Thus. Cotton and Cannon. 1993. 1927.2 Mathematical model 4. 1974) and the Stodola’s Ellipse model (Stodola.2. The mass flow coefficient φ is defined as: m m φ = -------.

s Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 81 .6) h i – h i + l. temperature and flow of the performance data cases in the 2nd section of the high-pressure turbine: η 2 = f ( φ 2d ) = 0.= K 4 ⋅ 1 – rp 4d (4.4) p 4d ------------ T 4d where the subscript ‘4d’ refers to the steam properties at the 3rd extraction of the high pressure turbine.5) FIGURE 4. the thermodynamic properties of the steam at each turbine section are calculated as follows (see figure 4. taken from a performance data case (ABB. For example.013985 ⋅ φ 2d + 0. Polynomial formulae were obtained for each section of the turbine.3) Values of the constant K are obtained using the turbine admission properties for the design conditions supplied by the manufacturer. obtained from the pressure.3 Isoentropic and real expansion of the steam in a turbine section. A correlation was proposed to obtain the isoentropic efficiency of a turbine section as a function of this coefficient. h h1 p1 p2 h2s h2 s Finally. The design mass flow coefficients were used to solve this correlation for the different operation loads of the plant.1002 (4. The efficiency model is also based on the mass flow coefficient. Mathematical model 2 φ = K ⋅ 1 – rp (4. (4.3): hi – hi + 1 η i = ------------------------ . 1996b). The formula corresponding to the 2nd section of the high- pressure turbine is a linear function of the mass flow coefficient φ2d. the value of K4 for the 4th section of the high-pressure turbine can be obtained as follows: m 4d 2 φ 4d = ------------ .

The model of the HP heat exchangers is based on a correlation of the terminal temperature differences (TTD) for the different existing loads. even though some sub-cooling may occur. HP and LP turbines can be considered two different pieces of equipment. The overall heat balances are used to calculate the amount of extracted steam from the HP turbine. and hi+1. hi+1 is the enthalpy of the outlet section. except for the heat transfer coefficient in the condensing zone. due to the pressure control applied to the desalination units.4 TTD differences in an HP heater.4.2 HP heat exchangers HP heat exchangers have desuperheating. see figure 4. The overall heat transfer coefficient in each section cannot be used because of the lack of design data. 4. 1989) were used to solve the terminal temperature differences TTD (inlet/outlet) in HP heaters: x y z ∆T  m  T  p ----------i =  ------. 1996c). Thus. Steam power plant steady-state model where hi is the enthalpy of the inlet section. condensation. and subcooling sections (ABB. ⋅  -----.s is the enthalpy of the outlet section in an isoentropic process. T TTDo TTD i Condensation section L Desuperheating section Subcooling section Numerical correlations proposed by Erbes (Erbes and Gay. Moreover.2. (4. The steam pressure in the lowest section of the high-pressure turbine was a fixed value. Hence.7) ∆T d  md   Td   pd  82 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . FIGURE 4. ⋅  ----. which is a design data that varies with the requested load. feed water is heated by exchanging the maximum quantity of heat with the steam bled from the HP extractions. it is assumed that the condensate is a saturated liquid.

 (4.3 LP heat exchangers LP heat exchangers in the Steam Power Plant only have a condensation and a subcooling section (ABB.8) ∆T d  m d   T d   p d   m ex. and m.2 Typical x. The d subscript refers to the design conditions. d   p ex.  -----. z.=  ------. The x.  ----.9) ∆p d  md   Td   pd  4.584 0 The Erbes and Gay model (Erbes and Gay.1 Typical x.2. y and z exponents were obtained from the heat balances for different loads supplied by the manufacturer (ABB.407 –0.52 The outlet TTD (∆To) (or simply called TTD) correlation contains more factors. d  TABLE 4.713 0. a and b coefficient values for the outlet TTD’s in an HP heater. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 83 . ⋅  -----------. ⋅  ------------. Usually the steam flow is saturated vapor or contains a humidity fraction.1: TABLE 4.8  T   p  --------. in order to model the correct behavior in all cases.2. T and P are the feedwater properties at the HP inlet. ⋅  -----. x y z A b –2.64 –0. the mass flow rate and steam pressure of the turbine extraction are also needed. (4.395 4. Mathematical model where ∆Ti is the inlet TTD in an HP exchanger (usually called Drain Cooling Advantage (DCA)). x y z 0. 1996b). Thus.29 0. Typical values for the five coefficients needed in a HP heater are shown in table 4. Typical x. Thus the feedwater is heated by extracting the maximum quantity of steam heat from the LP extraction and the lowest HP extraction. y. x y z a d ∆T 0  m   T   p   m ex   p ex  ---------. 1989) also provides the pressure losses in the feed waterside of the HP heat exchangers: –1 ∆p m 1. ⋅  ----. y and z values are shown in table 4. 1996c). y and z coefficient values for the inlet TTD’s in an HP heater.=  ------.

The proposed correlation is: 84 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .11 4.04 18.33 4.2.02 0. Several parameters were included to calculate the 3rd HP extraction mass flow rate. 1996c).12 1. to cover the operating range designed by the manufacturer (ABB. y and z coefficient values for the inlet TTD’s in an LP heater.5) and the pressure losses were also used to model the LP heater behavior. x y z z b –0.5 TTD differences in an LP heater.4.97 –0. The mass flow leaving the extraction must be correlated to assure some saturated liquid is entering the feed pump. The exponent values were also obtained from the heat balances for different loads supplied by the manufacturer (ABB. x y z 0.3 and 4. but the operating pressure is controlled by the 3rd HP extraction. FIGURE 4.10 TABLE 4.3 Typical x. condensate from the desalination units and cooled drain from the HP heaters enter the feedwater tank. they are shown in tables 4. Feedwater from the LP heaters. y. T TTDo TTDi Condensation Subcooling section section L TABLE 4. a and b coefficient values for the outlet TTD’s in a LP heater.4 Typical x. 1996b).43 –0. 1996b). Steam power plant steady-state model Correlations similar to those used in the HP heaters to calculate the TTD’s (see figure 4. z.4 Deaerator A whole plant energy balance is included when modeling the deaerator and feedwater tank behavior (ABB.

which is why they were included in the above-proposed correlation. --------------.=  ------. 4. a.  -----.5 x.588 –0.206 2.des m1 minus desalination and live steam (to the reduction pressure station).LS. Table 4. m1.=  --------. The energy needed to heat the feedwater leaving the high-pressure heater No. and m1. Pressure losses on the waterside of the boiler were computed using the following equation: 0. The condensate presumably discharges at the saturation temperature (ABB. (ii) condensate from the MSF vacuum system and (iii) discharge from the ejectors. 1996a) for different operating conditions.des is the difference between m1 and desalination mass flow rate mdes. LS. ⋅  -------. 1996d). d   m 1. LS.5 Condenser A global energy balance was applied to develop the condenser model.LS is the difference between m1 and Live Steam extraction sent to the reducing pressure station mLS. T5 and P5 are the admission properties leaving the 3rd section.6 Boiler A model was used including the heat balance of the waterside of the boiler to simulate performance of the boiler (figure 4. The maximum cooling seawater flow rate is at the seawater temperature. y.5 shows the coefficients calculated in the last correlation. The last three variables have a strong influence on the rest of the plant process units.121 1. Boiler efficiency was introduced using the design data provided by the contractors (ABB. d  where m1 is the live steam mass flow rate generated in the boiler. ⋅  --------------. d   m LS.091 1.917 ∆P m T  pd  --------.11) ∆P d  md   Td  p Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 85 . 1 to the fixed conditions of the steam leaving the boiler was used to calculate the natural gas consumption of the boiler (LHV of natural gas is 8026 kcal/Nm3). b and c coefficient values in deaerator. Three streams enter the vapor side of the condenser: (i) exhaust steam from the low-pressure turbine. (4. 3  m 1   T5   p5   m des   m LS   m 1.2. (4.211 4. des  . ⋅  -------. ⋅  -------------.463 – 0.1). x y z a b c Deaerator 0.905 0. ⋅  ---------------------------. Mathematical model x y z a b c m ex. 3d  m 1d   T 5d   p 5d   m des.2. TABLE 4.436 – 3. z. des.  ----.10) m ex. m1.

 (4. α the sonic area (m2).= Z  ----------2. 4.12) p  DV  where p is the pressure of the flow entering the valve. The main steam mass flow in the boiler is equally divided into four parts. A detailed boiler model clearly surpasses the scope of this Ph.2.7. 4. α.38. with v. DV. e. Z is the pressure drop v coefficient (constant value).. 4.7. and m the mass flow inside the inside the valve. each flowing through one of the valves. had a pressure drop coefficient Z of 1. and a non reheat process inside the boiler).7.g. Thesis and is not necessary to perform a thermoeconomic analysis of a whole plant.2.31.1 Turbine control valves The inlet of the HP turbine has four control valves with some pressure losses (about 4-5 bars). 4.2 Boiler outlet stop valve The security valve fixed at the boiler outlet had a pressure drop coefficient Z of 2. pipes to the deaerator.8 Pipes Significant pressure losses occur in the pipelines. 1979): 2 ∆p  Sa  ------. D.2. extraction pipes or pipes to the boiler.7 Valves Pressure losses in valves were calculated using the BBC Thermal kit correlations (BBC. used to control the pressure entering the boiler. is the main stop valve seat diameter (m) Sa = m --. sonic velocity (m/s).2.2.3 Boiler inlet control valve This valve.30. The pressure drop coefficient value (Z) was taken to be 0. specific volume (m3/kg). 4. These are calculated by applying the correlation proposed by Erbes and Gay (1989): 86 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Steam power plant steady-state model A more detailed model could calculate the intermediate properties inside the boiler (the boiler in study has two economizers and three superheaters..

(4.6 lists the values of the applied a coefficient.14) hi + 1 – hi Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 87 . 1996f). 1 to Boiler 1.5 Waterside of LPH No. 1 1.13) ∆p d  md   Td   pd  The value of the a coefficient depends on the type of pipe and operating conditions. ⋅  ----. Table 4.95 Waterside of LPH No.5 Feed pump to HPH No.=  ------. Mathematical model –1 ∆p m a T p --------. 1 1.2.8 LP extraction 1. when the conditions of the water entering and leaving the pump are known. 2 1.95 4th HP extraction 1.9 Pumps The pump model is based on the efficiency versus mass flow rate curves provided by the power plant manufacturers (ABB.6 Values of the a coefficient for each pipe of the power model. 2 1. Energy consumption is derived from the energy balance applied to the pump.95 4. s – h i η i = ------------------------- .95 2nd HP extraction 1.5 LPH2 to deaerator 1.8 LPH No. TABLE 4. 2 1. The thermodynamic properties of the water at the inlet/outlet of the feedwater and condenser pump can be calculated using the isoentropic efficiency (see figure 4. Pipe description a 1st HP extraction 1.85 1st HP extraction 1. (4.95 3rd HP extraction (to deaerator) 1.6): h i + 1.8 Waterside of LPH No.8 Waterside of LPH No. ⋅  -----.

FIGURE 4.16) 273. hi+1 is the enthalpy of the outlet water.15 + T 1 88 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .7 Gland and seal steam system.15) 273. and hi+1.2.s is the outlet water enthalpy in an isoentropic pumping process. Steam power plant steady-state model where hi is the enthalpy of the inlet water.10 Gland and seal steam system All steam flow leakages are considered and accounted for in the heat balance calculations. (4.7.8): ( pt – pl ) pt m1 + m2 = Kd --------------------------- . Gland steam system of the power plant is described in figure 4.6 Isoentropic and real compression process in a pump. (4. Live steam HP LP Ejector Martin’s formula (Martin. 1919) for steam leakage through labyrinth seals was used to calculate the leakage flows for representative designs with normal running clearances (figure 4. h p2 h2 h2s p1 h1 s 4.15 + T t ( p 1 – p 2 )p 1 m 2 = K′d ---------------------------- . FIGURE 4.

701 · 10–4 · MW + 7.11 Generator Generator losses were accounted for in the model to more precisely calculate the plant’s output power.17) as a function of the output power in MW: ηgen (%) = (0. the energy balances in the high and low pressure lines of the gland steam system are used.071 · 10–6 · MW2 + 1. Mathematical model where Kd and K′d are constants. 1996e).8 Leakage flows and seals of a steam turbine.7 shows the Kd and K′d values obtained for the four parts of the turbine interacting with the gland and seal steam system.448 LP Turbine. when the turbine is working without desalination flow and only producing electricity. i.7) is only opened in the condensing operation mode. to evaluate the properties of the steam flowing to the ejector.962 LP Turbine.2. FIGURE 4.941 + 9.7 Kd and Kd’ constants of the gland and seal steam system. Inlet 1. 2 and t subscripts refer to the first and second seal in a leakage and the steam conditions inside the turbine. Kd Kd’ HP Turbine. obtained from the design data (ABB.962 4. 1996b). Tt p2 p1 mt shaft The valve connecting the high and low pressure lines of the gland steam system (see figure 4. Outlet 0. due to the high amount of steam lost in the HP leakage. m2 m1 turbine pt.e.4288 2. Finally. and 1.17) Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 89 .02 1.771 · 10–8 · MW3) · 100 (4. TABLE 4.4288 2. Inlet 0. Table 4. Generator efficiency is therefore included in equation (4. Outlet 1.392 HP Turbine. using manufacturer design data (ABB.83 1.

3 Auxiliary equations The thermodynamic and transport properties in a steam power plant simulation involve pure water and steam.1 Thermodynamic properties The thermodynamic properties of water can be calculated by a group of functions using equations from the IFC-1967 formulae for industrial applications. Detailed numerical methods used to solve the inverse functions can be found in Pina (1979).4 Solution algorithm The mathematical model of the power plant is also a set of non-linear algebraic equations. (also see ASME.3. It is a derivation of the 90 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . 4. and numerical interpolation methods were used to complete them at the proper conditions. There are a wide variety of iterative procedures to solve this kind of problem.18) Therefore. Those formulae was accepted in the Sixth International Conference about Water Properties (1967). 1964).00152 * kW – 5. they have become the standard for ASME. Our model was not portioned into subsystems. also used by SIMTAW simulator to solve the MSF plant model. splitting the equations into subgroups and then solving each subsystem to create an iteration loop. etc. 4.01645 (4. 4. 4. The excitation system losses (ESL) are calculated by a formula that depends on the output power in kW: ESL = 0. Since then. Vargaftik (1978) covers the entire range of the properties. JSME. Formulae used to calculate the thermal conductivity and dynamic viscosity were taken from Sangers and Watson (1986) and Yata and Minamiyama (1979). the simulator can calculate the electrical and net output power produced in the power plant. using plant performance data.2 Transport properties Specific heat at constant pressure was obtained by numerical integrating the enthalpy function. Steam power plant steady-state model The excitation system was also included. The power plant model is solved using the Powell hybrid method (Powell. 1968).3. JSME. 1967.

• Boiler parameters (m. the number of equations is much higher than the system developed to solve the desalination unit: the variable array. such as variable products and properties. in turn. and uses a relaxation technique to update the values in a new iteration. are set to constant values from the latest iteration.e. T. • HP and LP heaters properties (mex. Live Steam properties are kept constant to take into account the plant operation strategy (sliding pressure control is avoided). ≤ 10 (4. 1999). p. • Pressure losses in pipes and heat exchangers (∆p).Solution algorithm Newton method supported by an iterative technique where non-linear terms. which are. T). T). does not provide a better convergence of the whole system of equations. In the power plant. η. T). p. i. It requires a considerable programming effort and computer storage. the Jacobian does not need to be calculated in each iteration. • Gland and seal steam system properties (m. T). Despite this. (with the dependant variables needed for the power plant simulation) includes the following terms corresponding to the main flowstreams of the model: • Admission properties (m. h. The Powell hybrid method calculates the Jacobian by a forward-difference formula. or linearally (where some variables are considered a linear combinations of others). Solving the whole system sequentially (where it is decomposed in a set of subsystems). K. in the NETLIB mathematical libraries (UTK and ORNL. p.20) Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 91 . The user should provide a subroutine containing the model functions. the functions needed in the subroutine HYBRID to calculate the Jacobian applying the forward-difference approximation. h. p. h. h. • Condenser and deaerator values (m. Usually. The Powell hybrid method is applied to the whole set of equations.19)  xj m where m m–1 ∆x j = x j – x j (4. The applied solution algorithm is available in the Subroutine HYBRID. φ) in each section of the HP and LP tur- bine. a global method provides the best solution. h. The applied convergence criterion was the same as in the SIMTAW model to solve the MSF plant: the relative error of each variable included in the variable array between two consecutive iterations must be lower than the specified tolerance. X. this value is set to 10-3 but it could be considerably reduced:  ∆x j  –3 max  -------.

m–1 xj is the calculated value of the variable j in the iteration m-1. 4.9.9 Algorithm to solve the power plant model using the Powell hybrid method. Moreover. The most common operation mode where the plant produces electricity and also supplies steam to the MSF unit. depending on the amount of required steam for the MSF desalination units. (either via the live steam reduction pressure station or via the fourth extraction of the HP turbine). the system live steam-deaerator-boiler can be used to obtain the required steam for one or two desalination units. if it is not necessary to produce electricity. 92 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . The operating modes of the steam power plant are as follows: a) Extraction mode. The solution algorithm adopted to solve the mathematical model by using the Powell hybrid method is shown in figure 4. FIGURE 4. Steam power plant steady-state model m x j represents the calculated value of the variable j in the iteration m. c) Condensing mode: In this case no distilled water is produced and the plant oper- ates as a conventional steam power plant (the power output is maximum). b) Parallel mode: When the power output is less than 75 MW.5 Operating modes and mathematical models A wide variety of operating modes are available in the power plant. the live steam reduc- tion pressure station supplies steam with enough pressure to the MSF unit.

there is a compressor action at high exhaust pressures and low loads. but the boiler also pro- vides steam for a second MSF desalination unit using a portion of the live steam derived from the live steam reduction pressure station. f) Twin extraction mode: Similar to the extraction mode. The plant only pro- duces distilled water and the steam turbine does not work. This mode is unusual and the steam tur- bine plant does not operate either. This model is more complex. Three different mathematical models were implemented to simulate all the different operating modes included in the boiler performance data (ABB. Thus the boiler pro- vides the required steam to the MSF units via the steam reduction pressure station. The amount of steam required via the live steam reducting pressure station is not important if the mass flow to LP turbine is more than the specified lower limit. (ii) Low Turbine Load Model (LTL MODEL): Mass flow entering the LP turbine is less than the lower limit imposed previously. The models included in the power plant simulation program were the following: (i) Normal Turbine Load Model (NTL MODEL): Mass flow entering the LP turbine is between 3-125 kg/s. 1996a). The Stodola´s model cannot be applied to the LP turbine. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 93 . e) Twin desalination mode: Here the boiler is in full load operation and produces steam for two MSF desalination units. and has the maximum number of equations. then the Stodola’s model is applied to simulate the LP turbine. Operating modes and mathematical models d) Desalination mode: The opposite of the condensing mode.10 Last stage of LP turbine acting as a compressor.10: FIGURE 4. illustrated by the stream lines in figure 4.

1996a) are: 1. HP heaters are bypassed. the model has a poor stability because negative mass flows could appear during the iteration process and the program must be aborted. 4. Some flowstreams are renumbered with respect fig. live steam reduction pressure station and deaerator. without the bypass system in operation and without extraction heat flow to desalination and pressure reduction station. Therefore. Thus. (iii)Non Turbine Working Model (NTW MODEL): The Power Plant is only used to supply steam to the MSF desalination units. Operating conditions should be classified in one of the three simulation models outlined above (see table 4.1. and the HP and LP turbines are off. This final scheme is shown in figure 4.11: FIGURE 4. The third model is the simplest one used to describe the power plant as the number of equations is considerably reduced. MSL1 (Minimum stable load at 20% boiler MCR) Load at which the boiler is still able to operate continuously with rated steam properties.11 Power plant scheme in the NTW Model. 94 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Steam power plant steady-state model This model determines entry conditions at the condenser. the number of equations in the LTL model is reduced when the LP values are solved differently. composed of the boiler. A parametric model based on the thermal balances is then used to solve the admission properties in the LP turbine. the power plant scheme is reduced to a very simple model. Performance data cases included in the Design Data of the Boiler (ABB. and pressure losses are neglected.8). However.

Boiler peak load (COC) Boiler peak load at least 5% more than boiler MCR. MR (Maximum Rating) The turbine generator at rated steam parameters. 12. 6. nominal control valve spindle position and no extraction heat flow to desalination. PL115 The turbine generator at 115 MW and an extraction heat flow of 145 Gcal/h. 7. PL85 The turbine generator is at 85 MW and an extraction heat flow of 145 Gcal/h. The extraction heat flow is 170 Gcal/h to desalination and 50. 9. MSL3 (Minimum stable load with two distillers) The turbine is at minimum stable load and the extraction heat flow is 145 Gcal/h plus 150 Gcal/h through HP pressure reduction station. MSL2 (Minimum stable load) Load corresponding to unit operation at 45 MW and with combined heat flow of 145 Gcal/h from parallel operation of turbine extraction and live steam reducing pressure station (118. 3. 4. 8. 5. 10.Operating modes and mathematical models 2. VWO Turbine swallowing capacity (all control valves open) with extraction heat flow of 170 Gcal/h. PL65 The turbine generator load is 65 MW and the extraction heat flow is 145 Gcal/h. MSL4 (Winter operation) The turbine is at minimum stable load with an extraction heat flow of 170 Gcal/h to desalination unit.66 and 26.34 Gcal/h respectively). Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 95 . MCR (Maximum Continuous Rating) The turbine generator at rated steam parameters with a power output of 115 MW and an extraction heat flow of 170 Gcal/h.8 Gcal/h to live steam reduction pressure station. Boiler MCR Maximum continuous rating of boiler to be 10% above the requirement of unit MCR test mentioned in item 8. 11.

Steam power plant steady-state model 13. 4. ODOB (One desalination and one boiler only) 170 Gcal/h extracted through the HP reduction pressure station (a desalination unit). Table 4. turbine is not in use. 96 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . The mathematical model of the steam turbine plant is in some cases very unstable.6 Summary The thermodynamic states of the co-generation plant with the steam turbine plant and the MSF unit are now permissible thanks to the mathematical models described in the previous and this chapter. TDOB (Two desalination and one boiler only) 340 Gcal/h extracted through the HP reduction pressure station (two desalination units). 14.8 shows the type of model applied to simulate each operating mode in the performance data: TABLE 4. turbine is not in use. Live steam temperature is 460 ºC. Performance data case Mathematical Model Operating mode MSL1 LTLa Condensing MSL2 LTL Parallel MSL3 LTL Twin Extraction MSL4 LTL Extraction PL65 NTL Extraction PL85 NTL Extraction PL115 NTL Extraction MCR NTL Extraction VWO NTL Extraction MR NTL Condensing MCR NTL Extraction COC NTL Twin Extraction ODOB NTW Desalination TDOB NTW Twin Desalination a.8 Operating mode and mathematical model corresponding to the performance data cases. especially when the operating conditions provoke the deviation of the steam to the MSF unit and LP turbine is forced to work in unexpected conditions.

Summary The set of equations composing the mathematical model depending on the operation mode of the plant is solved with a global method in which the variables are simultaneously calculated. These two chapters contain the mathematical models introduced in the simulator. which is the tool that allows the use of the model’s results in the thermoeconomic analysis of the dual-purpose plant. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 97 .

Thermodynamic properties of the flowstreams in the plant are needed to apply the exergy balance. Simulation of the thermodynamic processes in a dual-purpose plant is the first step to develop the Thermoeconomic Analysis of the Plant. It is the result of a complex project with several model developments of different complexity. SIMTAW was built following those stages: 1. the SIMTAW program has been built in such way that only a few input data are essential to simulate the power and desalination plants in order to analyze plant performance. the complete analysis of the irreversibilities and malfunctions can be done. and independent blocks of equations were found. Hence. To solve the mathematical models using an Equation Solver. Relationships between variables. so a solid basis is needed to solve them. Mathematical models were solved in blocks.CHAPTER 5 Simulator Mathematical models used to simulate a dual-purpose plant are quite complex (see Chapters 3 and 4). In this case the EES program was used (Klein and Alvarado. and the causes that generate these faults can be detected. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . SIMTAW is the thermoeconomic software that can provide these results. 1999). A Visual Basic coded program is the user friendly interface. then the whole model was connected. Despite this. In this way. and to calculate the exergy costs of these flows. no highly qualified background is needed to use the program. then the mathemati- cal model was translated to a high-level programming language such as Fortran. although we only recommend its use to obtain a correct understanding of the results to technicians and plant managers that have an in depth knowledge of the dual plant.

Seawater to reject temperature (25-36 ºC). A user guide explaining how to manage the program has been implemented (Villalon. Distillate mass flow rate (1. a new version only useful for 32 bits. In general. 5.1. The window that manages the MSF simulation is shown in figure 5. usually named ‘DLL’s’. But in Chapters 3 and 4 the accuracy of the mathematical models is not analyzed. This program has several files including the design data. 1995). and requires at least Windows’95. 1997). subroutines to solve the system of equations. Seven ‘DLL’s’ were built to develop four mathematical models included in the MSF Plant and three Power Plant models - all these mathematical models correspond to the operating modes explained in the previous chapters-. The two processes can be simulated independently and are driven by two different windows. SIMTAW has a user- friendly interface that (through a set of more than 20 windows) allows the user to proceed by clicking the specified buttons. steam and brine properties.200-2. when the data flowsheets obtained from plant designers are compared with the results given by the simulator.400 T/h) or Top Brine Temperature (84-112 ºC) in the MSF plant. Finally. Model validation is therefore included in this section. 100 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Simulator 2. containing the MSF unit scheme. and includes a very strict control over the input data introduction in order to avoid inconsistencies in the mathematical models. subroutines to initialize and calculate the variables. The dual-plant was simulated with a Fortran coded program (Microsoft Corpora- tion. the user must introduce an allowed value for the following variables: 1. The first section of the chapter describes how to use the simulator when the thermoeconomic state of the MSF or the steam power plant is requested. 1997) was built to make the program more user friendly. 4.1 SIMTAW structure SIMTAW is the program that simulates the two processes involved in a well-known dual-purpose plant: the MSF and the Power Generation units. a Visual Basic coded program (Microsoft Corporation. simulator calculates the properties of the main flowstreams of the dual-plant.0. In the text boxes. This program is described in the follow- ing section. are the interface between the Fortran and Visual Basic programs. 2. 3. the associated error in the calculations is very low. The Dynamic Link Libraries. SIMTAW is built in Visual Basic 5. and the algorithm which controls the whole program. and seven text boxes and control buttons.

The window that manages the power plant (figure 5. Sea water temperature (18-36 ºC) 7. Steam to brine heater pressure (0. 5. 1997). Steam to brine heater temperature (80-150 ºC).000-50.500 T/h).000 TDS). The third option. Seawater concentration at the seawater inlet (40.1 SIMTAW MSF process window. After these values are correctly introduced. 6. With real data. the user must choose the TBT control option—clicking the corresponding box—. includes a correlation with real data of the main mass flow rates of the MSF unit collected during the year 1997 (WED. SIMTAW structure 3. The inverse problem option also calculates the fouling factor in each stage. called Sim.8-3. to fix the Top Brine Temperature value during the simulation. 4.000-20.0 bar).2) contains the plant scheme and four text boxes where the user introduces input variables needed to perform the power plant simulation: Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 101 . Seawater inlet flow (12. FIGURE 5.

4. The properties are: – Temperature.02-0. the user must choose one of the six operating modes in the dual-plant. 102 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . – Steam quality. – Specific entropy. • Condensing mode. 2. Generator output (including generator losses.1 and 5. • Parallel mode. • Desalination mode. the operation modes are (see section 4. Simulator 1. depending on the power and steam demanded to the MSF unit(s). – Specific enthalpy. E2) —see figure 4. Taking into account for the two extraction units (E1. The simulation results of both processes are also presented in several windows. 1. 50-147 MW). etc). plant efficiency. The four input variables must be consistent with the selected operating mode. – Pressure. Then. • Twin extraction mode. Live Steam extractions to the reduction station1 (0-340 Gcal/h). steam consumption. In the power plant process the values of the gland steam leakage system are also available (see section 4. Condenser pressure (0. anyway the program will inform you which variable is out of the range specified for each operating mode.3. • Thermophysical properties of the mass flowstreams considered in the simulation (the flowstreams are numbered in figures 5. – Mass flow rate.6 relating the operating and mathematical models of the process): • Extraction mode. 3. performance ratio. • Twin desalination mode.2 respectively).1— with the same thermodynamic properties.10 for specifications). specific consumption. Steam mass flow rate to the desalination units (0-189 kg/s).14 bar). and are resumed here: • Relevant parameters corresponding to the whole plant and to different components (fuel consumption.

– Dynamic viscosity. – Density.2 SIMTAW power plant window. mechanical and chemical contributions). All these results can be saved in a text file than can be accessed by conventional applications (MS Office). • Some charts of different variables plotted by using a graphic server in SIMTAW: temperature profiles in the MSF stages. expansion line of the steam turbine. • The exergy costs of the main components of the power plant and water are shown in a window. – Thermal conductivity. if the fuel cost is introduced (in dollars per unit of energy) the exergoeconomic costs are also included. – Specific heat. The file also includes the input values and some interesting design values introduced in the simulator (tube characteristics and fouling factor in Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 103 . – Specific exergy (thermal. distillation per stage. SIMTAW structure FIGURE 5.

Consequently. The first table of each comparative study shows (in different rows) the inputs of the simulation (output power W. live steam conditions and feedwater temperature in some heaters. using the correlated internal parameters based on real experience. The model validation is separately applied to the power and desalination plant. therefore an indeterminate error is structurally included in the comparative analysis (or model validation).1 Power plant Most of the performance data cases are simulated and compared with the data provided by the plant contractors (ABB. but that the recording system is limited by the plant managers): temperature and pressure of some turbine extractions. Furthermore.2. a good simulator could substitute the acquisition system. that is. The data acquisition system of the MSF plant only provides a few data of the main controlling variables of the process every four hours (temperatures and flow rates entering and leaving the heater. condenser pressure Pc and Live steam extraction LS). This is 104 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . and the exergy cost of the products of each component. following the productive structure that will be explained in Chapter 7. also called model validation of the simulator. and the data collected is every four hours. with real data’ option. steam to MSF unit Md. note that the way to calculate the thermodynamic properties in the design flowsheets is unknown. for example). 5. Only a few values calculated in the simulator are also available in the data acquisition system of the power plant (this does not means that there are more signals than the system can measure. Furthermore. no adjustment has been made to the simulator in order to achieve a more realistic set of values of the main flowstreams of the power plant. Simulator distillers in the MSF plant. 1996b). Therefore no comparison is included between the real data and the results obtained when the simulator operates with the ‘Sim. 5. recovery and reject section.2 Model validation The simulator should predict the most important values of the main flowstreams of the power and desalination plant with an accuracy that allows reproducing the operating conditions of the plant without using a data flowsheet for each situation. The accuracy of the simulator is tested with the data flowsheets provided by the plant managers. and the internal parameters mentioned above). the live steam properties are not maintained under operating conditions. when the data acquisition system of a plant is not enough to provide the data necessary for the diagnosis of the plant. note that the output power is not exactly the same as that proposed by the contractors.

the highest relative error is detected in the LP extraction (< 3% in any case). The feed pump consumption is also included in this table (W FP). However. T′ and m′ ) obtained by the simulator.e. the last one is the most usual in winter operation in the Gulf Area. PL85 performance data cases).Model validation because the input power value inserted in the simulator window is only a first step to calculate the main steam flow to the boiler. the output results try to find out the minimum difference in both live steam mass flow and the final output power for each performance case. although in those limit cases the absolute difference detected is very low. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 105 . The third row shows the relative error observed in the input process. the third part introduces the relative error of each property of the flowstreams (εp. The meaning of each performance data case is described in section 4. temperature T and mass flow rate m of the main flowstreams of the power plant. It is clear that the mathematical model applied when the steam to LP turbine is close to zero (NTW model) is more unstable than other mathematical models applied when some amount of steam passes through the LP turbine (LTW model). Therefore. MR. i.2. The second part includes the values ( p′ . when the water demand is always high but the energy consumption decrease to the 30% of the plant capacity). COC. the relative error could reach to a 10% in the LP extraction and the steam derived to the condenser. Analyzing the model results. that is. The second table shows in its first part the pressure p. εT. εm). Finally. PL115. when the NTW mathematical model is applied. VWO.6. but the absolute difference between the simulator and data flowsheet is minimum. in performance data cases which represent partial or full load in extraction or twin extraction mode (MCR. Each flow is numbered according to the scheme followed in figure 5. when the steam to LP turbine is not close to zero. a minimum amount of steam passes through the LP turbine (this situation correspond to MSL3 and MSL4 cases. Only the values that are provided by the contractors have been compared in the table.

45 33 2.2 Model validation for the MCR case.989 6.09 0.187 230 156.000 0. error (%) 0.21 0.04 0.59 –0.482 80.187 164.677 3.9 156.08 8.00 –0.187 93 535 156.76 130.631 0.355 162.467 2.5 29.278 0.00 0.26 0.5 29.2 36.6 156.545 128.611 –2.1 156.99 9 0.18 10.839 28.1 8.278 0.7 3.4 2.12 24 5.7 3.06 21 198.072 39.36 4 14.016 0.04 0.8 156.41 1.839 27.76 32 6.1 Input variables for the MCR (maximum continous rating.09 0.24 0.2 10.99 106 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .4 156.00 0.8 36.142 168.03 15 128.00 0.76 5 7.59 –0.8 0.53 1.2 36.75 0.482 80.00 0.213 198.4 3.677 3.989 7.6 36.303 14.072 0 Simulation 122.467 2.28 0.8 0.45 6 2.39 363.303 14.27 0.545 39.94 0.4 10. p (bar) T (ºC) m (kg/s) p' (bar) T' (ºC) m' (kg/s) εp (%) εT (%) εm (%) 1 93 535 156.68 0.23 14 78.599 5.4 10.634 10.06 3 28.321 2.42 0.2.6 10.12 12 41 36.8 19.4 2.106 10.00 2.1.32 0.32 0.79 282.51 –0.76 130.00 2.59 0.06 0.12 8.6 10.03 8 0.1 8.75 2262.072 0 Rel.24 0. Simulator 5.46 365.94 0.3 36.545 78. producing both electricity and water) case.072 39.00 –0.30 2.10 0.8 156.4 89.7 19. No.06 0.545 41.06 22 168.2 36.21 0.59 –0. W (MW) W FP (kW) Md (kg/s) Pc (bar) LS (Gcal/h) Design 122 2308 89.06 30 27.40 11 39.1 MCR case TABLE 5.5 10.321 2.00 0.09 0.2 3.08 –0.36 31 14.25 0.000 0.187 194.235 203.00 0.12 23 84.03 34 0.00 0.655 10.07 18 164.09 0.25 0.321 84.53 19 194.49 –0.32 –0.7 156.32 0.52 0.73 278.839 198.36 20 230.24 0.000 TABLE 5.06 0.10 0.12 16 162.8 0.68 0.2 36.

674 13.291 7.22 0.22 0.21 –1.08 1.44 8 1.693 2.232 218.187 186.6 5.19 –0.19 –0.61 298.291 8.8 156.53 6 8.11 12 53. producing only electricity) performance case.429 53.187 184.135 51.6 135.291 117.13 0.35 0.038 5.2 MR case TABLE 5.37 –0.01 21 209.58 0.3 Input variables for the MR (maximum rating.45 5.349 5.62 9.16 –0.04 32 11.778 1. No.135 0 Simulation 146. p (bar) T (ºC) m (kg/s) p' (bar) T' (ºC) m' (kg/s) εp (%) εT (%) εm (%) 1 93 535 156.913 118.28 14 108 135.012 11.51 1.676 13.916 118.135 0 Rel.10 -0.187 93 535 156.58 374.26 0.8 13.49 0.92 0.778 1.00 –0.254 30.5 156.069 25 0.65 1.135 51.232 213.00 0.49 0.2 0.11 6.53 33 7.492 17.06 –0.30 0.37 4 17.17 –0.71 9.11 24 25.476 190.55 19 205.17 243.331.2.1.53 2.429 52 135.11 23 118 13.9 6.025 –2.429 107.012 11.11 16 184.187 234.187 205.58 0.44 34 1.492 17.429 162.7 302.5 9. Model validation 5.2 0.14 0.58 0.524 0.37 31 17.00 –0.35 0.06 1.65 –0.8 5.38 –0. error (%) –0.6 14.000 0.16 –0.03 -0.04 5 11.20 11 52 135.58 0.78 11.000 0.1 156.8 11.92 0.2 156.09 -0.3 156.01 18 186.16 –0.23 248.39 0.01 3 30.7 0.01 22 190.6 156.09 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 107 .4 Model validation for the MR case.3 135.3 5.000 TABLE 5.6 135. W (MW) W FP (kW) Md (kg/s) Pc (bar) LS (Gcal/h) Design 146.4 0 0.8 110.00 2.2 0.6 13.274 0 0.3 9.58 0.8 13.00 0.5 135.25 1.254 209 9.9 110.2 14.20 0.09 9 0.37 20 235 156.4 135.799 11.65 1.44 15 162.3 156.043 0.35 0.22 0.73 2.2 0.52 374 9.01 30 29.2 0.254 29.9 11.

65 2.07 12 38.2.10 2.237 0.00 –0.32 8.317 88.588 85.27 1.4 10.9 148.8 10.3 10.7 43.18 0.6 Model validation for the PL115 performance data case.1 75.55 22 165.3 148.252 25.562 3.553 6.000 0.000 0.00 1.31 9 0.55 18 161.03 13.13 0.3 10.6 43.17 0.923 93 535 148.065 37.96 0.282 164.80 31 13. Simulator 5.03 13.8 43.26 0.12 2063.96 0.17 0.5 10.00 0.74 0.897 6.50 5 6.37 2.949 37.9 3.79 10. No.31 108 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .949 123.083 0.39 126 3.97 277.17 0.4 8.29 –0.55 21 195.087 158.317 2.5 18.51 –0.4 3.4 43.48 0.9 148.2 43.60 0.923 226.11 0.53 0.39 126 3.74 0.2 43.00 0.27 0.81 8 0.99 –0.237 0.299 3.59 0.81 34 0.252 195.563 3.949 37.791 358.07 24 6.2 8.17 0.897 6.705 193.11 0.17 0.4 3.7 35.66 14 82.26 0. W (MW) W FP (kW) Md (kg/s) Pc (bar) LS (Gcal/h) Design 122 2162 75.574 0.07 0.7 149.07 23 88.295 3.81 15 123.188 8.48 –0.587 85.11 0.949 82.82 6 2.58 0.29 0.00 0.5 18.6 148.23 19 191.141 10.6 148.23 0.80 4 13.48 –0.135 10.84 1.000 TABLE 5.99 360.4 148.065 37.75 0.24 0.50 0.598 10.51 0.1.55 30 25.7 43.5 Input variables for the PL115 performance case (partial load with 115 MW of electricity and a heat extraction to MSF of 145 Gcal/h).18 3.87 1.48 2.00 0.62 0.13 0.9 148.00 3.252 26.065 0 Simulation 122.82 33 2.5 36. p (bar) T (ºC) m (kg/s) p' (bar) T' (ºC) m' (kg/s) εp (%) εT (%) εm (%) 1 93 535 148.80 20 227.92 11 37.50 32 6.2 43.7 3.3 PL115 case TABLE 5.065 0 Rel.59 0.07 16 159.29 –0.923 160.749 198 10.317 2.098 4.923 191. Error (%) –0.16 1.848 273.11 0.07 0.55 3 26.

4 20.36 8 0.05 0 Rel.94 32 5.39 126 2.1 20.9 7.95 –0.46 0.39 4.83 0.62 5.203 3.331 185.347 2.63 0.6 20.391 154.993 37.11 16 153.58 0.31 7.11 24 3.6 16.62 0.12 2.4 75.53 19 182.00 0.5 117.29 0.31 18 155 117.7 2.62 0.1.00 0.21 2.185 7.540.00 0.95 –0.92 11 34.33 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 109 .7 5.055 34.31 21 185.36 15 124.331 21.31 30 20. p (bar) T (ºC) m (kg/s) p' (bar) T' (ºC) m' (kg/s) εp (%) εT (%) εm (%) 1 93 535 117.68 0.261 66 0.586 0.12 0.39 7.21 2.00 1.38 –0.31 22 158.064 340.875 5.993 34.57 -0.3 117.719 11.1 2.5 13.04 1.75 –1.56 4 11.348 2.15 340.993 0.000 TABLE 5.993 65 20.7 7.29 1.11 12 37 20.11 23 69.48 33 2.2.264 6.18 0.33 9 0.48 6 2.18 -0.56 31 10.2 117.875 5.051 157.96 –1.83 0.1 0.391 93 535 117.94 5 5.719 10.036 259.055 0 Simulation 91.5 20.29 0.6 13.00 1.000 0.478 0.57 1.4 117. No.65 2.56 187.08 1.76 –0.00 0.03 0.2 5 .258 0.7 7.36 34 0.055 34.58 0.21 70.00 0.6 16.391 182.8 7.03 0.18 0.4 7.76 -0.15 4.59 14 65 20.31 3 21.4 PL85 case TABLE 5.27 1.1 117.29 0.649 75.05 0.1 261.993 124.391 215 117.24 1.02 2.539 152.7 Input variables for the PL85 performance case (partial load with 85 MW of electricity and 145 Gcal/h of extraction heat flow).09 0. Model validation 5.39 126 2.8 Model validation for the PL85 performance case.000 0.05 0.331 20.76 0.00 –0.18 0.76 –0.39 0.41 0. W (MW) W FP (kW) Md (kg/s) Pc (bar) LS (Gcal/h) Design 91 1.56 20 215 117.6 7.262 66.7 5. error (%) –0.993 0.538 184.68 0.03 0.7 20.40 1.257 0.03 0.186 7.

4 0 0.00 0.3 86.63 6 2.49 0.56 24 0.9 0.03 18 144.32 34 0.75 5 4.75 324.454 2.62 –2.3 3.9 3.9 4.442 251.85 –1.75 32 3.1 86.466 32.466 47.52 –0.00 0.864 4.6 4.87 0.411 247.55 0.2 0.62 –0.000 TABLE 5.32 15 125.9 MSL2 performance case (minimum stable load with 45 MW of electricity and a combined heat extraction flow of 145 Gcal/h).49 0.061 182.29 31 7.19 0.250.477 13.56 16 142.108 0 0.971 3.01 3 13.1.18 0.2.5 86.4 0.38 0. Simulator 5.048 80 1.305 60.4 86.466 47.7 3.235 3.355 7.000 0.4 3.7 60.751 0.388 0.39 135.9 4.288 4.355 7.4 7.5 194.4 3.714 322.477 169.42 0.51 –0.454 0.4 3.63 33 2.46 0.01 30 13.40 –0.05 0.49 0.56 23 49. Note that the simulator does not suppose a pressure loss in the 5th extraction if any vapor is extracted.01 22 147.18 1.24 –0.49 0.161 0.47 –0. 110 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .2 3. No. error (%) –1.8 4.28 0.477 13.89 0.49 0.49 0.054 34.7 3.000 0.7 3.454 50.055a 0 49.26 0.25 1.4 86.048 80 1.2 4.38 0.46 –1.49 19 166.85 –0.32 8 0.00 1.4 0.06 11 32.01 21 169. Main input data.00 9 0.49 0.387 0.29 4 7.00 0.29 20 194.52 –1.8 0.055 34.34 Rel.18 –0.7 0 –1.46 0.57 1.87 0.5 166.5 143.871 4.42 12 46.048 26.6 0.75 0.32 14 47.42 1.52 0.118 4.206 3.39 137. W (MW) W FP (kW) Md (kg/s) Pc (bar) LS (Gcal/h) Design 51 1.2 3.07 0.32 4.21 –1.46 –1.52 –1.7 86.466 125.34 Simulation 51.32 2.10 Model validation for the MSL2 performance case.4 90.7 7. p (bar) T (ºC) m (kg/s) p' (bar) T' (ºC) m' (kg/s) εp (%) εT (%) εm (%) 1 93 535 86.074 186.454 2.5 4.00 a.5 93 535 86.00 0.971 4.5 MSL2 case TABLE 5.832 146.07 –1.04 –1.218 142 90.89 0.00 –1.048 26.

72 1.1 0. Model validation 5.39 126 0.60 11 32.06 30 16.72 0.98 2.093 0.20 –0.04 –8.462 46.5 0.388 0.02 –3.055 34.048 150 Simulation 73.4 7.46 34 0.85 –1.13 0.344 252.2 3. error (%) –1.45 24 0.054 34.000 TABLE 5.06 21 175.461 49.00 –8.883 9.94 –0.28 –0.45 5 4.32 12 47 3.00 –0.461 0.122.00 9 0.2 0.28 –7.6 3.176 329.35 32 3.2 163.3 163.12 –0.94 0.026 10.63 0.891 179.6 10.32 1.514 148.66 19 171.727 0.00 0.4 3.6 9.6 9.69 0.8 183.000 0.907 10.07 0.06 –0.46 15 125.6 0.5 0.048 80 1.61 0.6 10.5 0.851 175.975 75.601 –4.45 23 49. p (bar) T (ºC) m (kg/s) p' (bar) T' (ºC) m' (kg/s) εp (%) εT (%) εm (%) 1 93 535 163 93 535 163.22 333 9.02 18 144.46 8 0.505 7.27 –7.00 a.11 Input data of the MSL3 performance case (minimum stable load with two extractions of 150 and 145 Gcal/h to MSF units).72 1.462 32.8 9.4 3.44 2.94 0.05 –0.567 142 183.461 2.56 –0.17 –0.46 14 47.45 16 142.7 3.048 150 Rel.00 0. W (MW) W FP (kW) Md (kg/s) Pc (bar) LS (Gcal/h) Design 72.06 22 148.69 –0.00 –7.4 17.663 8.6 163 171.687 174.45 6 2.462 125.1 0.00 0. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 111 .00 –10.851 18. The same argumentation of the MSL2 case.3 0 0.2 75.7 0 –1.1 0.60 –8.5 9.1 –0.6 MSL3 case TABLE 5.62 –8.24 0.7 3.465 7.62 9.17 0.7 17.39 126 0.272 4. No.06 3 18.3 3.108 0 0.048 80 1.02 4.1.851 16.461 2.7 3.75 0.17 2.2.948 –0.47 –0.462 46.90 20 204 163 204.45 33 2.055a 0 49.12 Model validation for the MSL3 performance case.3 0.272 4.387 0.314 247.6 163 144.78 2.90 31 8.4 7.05 2.90 4 9.91 0.5 –8.1 163.96 –0.

9 2.76 131.956 10.537 184. W (MW) W FP (kW) Md (kg/s) Pc (bar) LS (Gcal/h) Design 75.7 MSL4 case TABLE 5.7 109.021 0 Simulation 76.00 –0.1.13 8 0.1 6.424 39.65 –0.45 12 36.52 1.759 0.76 19 180.45 –6.736 36.20 4 10.58 262.821 338.69 32 5.8 1.2 11.28 –0.5 88.99 23 39. Model validation.2.000 0.05 –0.52 –1.2 0.45 0.207 5.5 93 535 109.55 11 18.00 –5.004 0.63 0.92 0.14 MSL4 performance case.90 0.13 Input data of the MSL4 performance case (minimum stable load with the maximum heat flow extraction to MSF unit: 170 Gcal/h).06 –0.13 15 130.36 1.112 2.43 1.501.024a 0 61. No pressure losses are associated to the final extraction 112 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .1 0.1 6.20 31 10.5 212.736 130.00 –0.493 158.025 20.91 0.7 0.233 6.424 2.64 0.23 6.495 188.27 –6.39 –0.25 1.9 4.000 TABLE 5.1 0.25 –13.024 20.55 0.34 2.6 0.13 18 155.00 0.690 0.2 6.61 6 2.6 109.9 0.04 0.26 –6.55 0.424 2.04 –6.2 109.61 33 2.68 0.04 0.13 34 0.2 109.8 109.537 19.789 5.64 0.13 21 184.5 0 4.20 20 212.7 109.758 0.29 1. p (bar) T (ºC) m (kg/s) p' (bar) T' (ºC) m' (kg/s) εp (%) εT (%) εm (%) 1 93 535 109.55 0.1 6.63 0.649 153 109.7 2.99 16 153.00 –6.5 2.5 2.14 0.3 2.45 0.6 2.13 3 19.789 5.38 –0.956 10.3 2.534 258.9 0.58 0.063 0 0.13 14 37.00 a.021 80 1.743 18.79 0.021 79.3 6.5 154.00 9 0.743 36.87 340.92 0.31 –6.09 30 19.5 6.021 0 Rel.69 5 5. error (%) –1.00 1.22 6.514 192.76 130.00 –0.39 –0.1 2.64 0.52 –1.68 0.45 0.176 6.54 –5.9 5.13 22 158.00 0.8 11. Simulator 5.25 0.543 88.424 0.26 4.000 0. No.537 19.45 24 0.3 109.5 180.9 0 0.

5 70. p (bar) T (ºC) m (kg/s) p' (bar) T' (ºC) m' (kg/s) εp (%) εT (%) εm (%) 1 93 535 70.000 0. Model validation 5.00 0.17 18 140.383 140.000 0.00 21 0 0 0 0 20 140. No. W (MW) W FP (kW) Md (kg/s) Pc (bar) LS (Gcal/h) Design 0 ? 88.14 0.222.94 0.2.383 140. error (%) 0.6 88.45 0 170 Rel.00 –1.7 70.00 22 0 0 0 0 19 140.14 0.7 70.9 93.000 ? 0.16 Model validation of the ODOB case.00 30 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 113 .5 70.00 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 16 138.5 70.8 ODOB case TABLE 5.000 TABLE 5.15 Main input data of the ODOB case (one desalination-one boiler).45 0 170 Simulation 0 1.9 94.841 138.38 0.1.38 0.14 0.00 0.383 140.38 0.38 0.383 93 535 70.7 70.

8 140.76 0.00 22 0 0 0 0 19 140.9 187.1.9 TDOB case TABLE 5.00 0.17 Main input data of the TDOB case (two desalination-one boiler).766 139.00 0.000 0.9 187.76 0.8 140.000 TABLE 5.76 0 340 Rel. Simulator 5.2.766 139.16 18 140.78 0.76 0.766 139.7 140.00 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 16 138.76 0.18 Model validation data for the TDOB case.000 ? 0.7 140.00 30 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 114 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .38 0. error (%) 0.78 0.8 140.00 0.682 138.7 140. p (bar) T (ºC) m (kg/s) p' (bar) T' (ºC) m' (kg/s) εp (%) εT (%) εm (%) 1 93 535 140. W (MW) W FP (kW) Md (kg/s) Pc (bar) LS (Gcal/h) Design 0 ? 140. No.78 0.004 0.8 140.766 93 535 140.766 0 340 Simulation 0 764.00 21 0 0 0 0 20 140.

7 11.473 6.5 11.759 130.623 0.25 6 2.20 Model validation data for the VWO case.16 23 86.29 34 0.16 24 6.5 160.17 0.485 86.69 0.9 89.00 1.12 0.59 0.623 0.36 368.7 3.25 0.12 1.33 0.85 4.038 195.665 15.51 3 29.4 0.64 0. No.30 20 231.10 VWO case TABLE 5.7 3.317 199.074 40.9 2.78 2.3 40. error (%) –0.419 204.667 3.1 39.10 0.011 0.44 –0.6 –0.152 –0.87 5 7.109 5.51 22 169.65 0.12 1.76 0.6 8.68 0.209 163.30 4 15.038 231.5 160.473 7.038 165.69 2.51 18 165.6 3.19 Main input data of the VWO performance case (maximum capacity of the steam turbine with and extraction heat flow of 170 Gcal/h to MSF).317 29.528 82.074 40 32.587 2.24 8.29 15 128 40.53 8.485 2.38 0.23 284.21 0.6 11.4 11.317 27.4 40.62 1.94 0.30 31 14.1 32.7 19.04 0.000 0.50 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 115 .83 0.6 160.5 19.8 3.17 0.29 8 0.4 160.6 –2.50 9 0.817 11.412 89.21 0. W (MW) W FP (kW) Md (kg/s) Pc (bar) LS (Gcal/h) Design 126.18 0.00 0.425.515 2.9 11.11 279.7 2.54 1.576 0.3 8.51 30 28.8 161.000 TABLE 5.15 1.08 1.59 0.61 11 40.69 1.44 0.21 0. Model validation 5.4 0.21 0.064 80.00 0.63 0.1 39.064 40.15 1.44 –0.074 0 Rel.2.51 21 199.758 11.064 42.1.533 82.6 0.064 128.665 14.79 1.2 39.8 11.1 40.1 11.18 1.3 39.17 0.485 2.8 161.7 161.512 2.41 8.158 365.87 32 6.58 8.08 12 41. p (bar) T (ºC) m (kg/s) p' (bar) T' (ºC) m' (kg/s) εp (%) εT (%) εm (%) 1 93 535 161.17 0.16 16 163.24 14 80.69 0.00 1.671 3.074 0 Simulation 126.8 161.982 169.11 19 195.038 93 535 160.00 –0.25 33 2.23 1.33 0.73 1.01 11.76 130.44 –0.368 199.

3 9.888 9.17 0.5 29.82 4 14.000 TABLE 5.704 197.4 187.7 3.58 0.72 0.314 2.02 9.28 12.449 0.43 0.22 Model validation data for the COC case.29 0. p (bar) T (ºC) m (kg/s) p' (bar) T' (ºC) m' (kg/s) εp (%) εT (%) εm (%) 1 93 535 180.94 0.1 36.67 0.7 0.3 179.677 3.350 89.14 24 5.26 0.00 0.55 0.14 16 161.16 6 2.53 18 163.72 34 0.94 0.17 196.42 0.6 0.7 12.90 9 0.24 32 6.314 83.90 116 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .3 186.92 0.2.87 0.58 0.82 20 230 180.77 363.3 2.16 33 2.57 19 193.76 130. error (%) –0.471 79.427 167 22. Simulator 5.58 0.24 5 7.5 180.76 130.6 35.14 12 41 36.193 –7.7 3.88 0.54 21 198 12.335 77.67 3.9 12.8 179.55 –0.3 0.65 3.92 0.556 193.258 0.072 50.02 366.000 0.72 15 128.05 11 39.072 39.86 0.8 180.786 277 9.479 80.556 229.335 40.9 3.314 2.29 –0.7 35.54 22 167.556 93 535 179.54 3 29.81 0.723 13.27 3.2 36.17 1.6 0.29 0.6 179.00 1.072 50.415 12.25 0.3 35.258 0.572 5.6 36.7 35.50 3.58 0.46 2.92 –0.678 3.5 29.08 1.2 12.17 1.68 0.000 0.1.103 89.5 12.12 0.219 202.14 23 84 3.8 Rel.21 Input data of the COC performance case (boiler peak load at least 5% more than the MCR case).06 12.73 1.464 2.00 0.72 8 0.942 160.04 0.960 0.00 0.335 39.335 128.072 39. No.11 COC case TABLE 5.8 12.00 0.82 31 14.7 22.704 27.96 1.92 0.9 2.457 2.398 12.556 162.96 7.96 6.68 2.54 30 27. W (MW) W FP (kW) Md (kg/s) Pc (bar) LS (Gcal/h) Design 124.01 14 78.7 0.51 3.6 0.723 14.8 Simulation 124.41 3.704 28.14 0.51 1.93 282.00 1.72 0.00 0.

Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 117 . distillate TD and flashing brine TB) and distillate flow rate (D) of each stage of the MSF plant. 1997). The distillate produced in the two cases is maintained in the same quantity too. T D′ . the highest error is in the steam consumed. εD). Finally. seawater enters at 32 ºC. Each stage is numbered according to the scheme followed in figure 5. NTOS): 1. and the error introduced when the steam properties (the latent heat of vaporization) below two different perspectives are calculated. HTOS): distillation of 2. The third row shows the relative error observed in the table. The first table of each comparative study shows some inputs of design data and simulation in the first and second rows respectively (seawater intake flow SW and temperature Tsea). HTOW): distillation of 2. • Maximum production in winter (high-temperature operation in winter. Seawater to reject section enters at 25 ºC by using the temper system by the way of deviating a quantity of cooling seawater rejected to the sea. the third part introduces the relative error of the stage values (εp.2 MSF Plant Distiller design data in the most characteristic operating conditions have been provided by the plant manufacturers (Italimpianti. They correspond to the guarantied conditions of the contractors: • Nominal production in summer (normal-temperature operation in summer. temperature profile (cooling brine TF. This error can be due to the absence of a desuperheater before the brine heater in the mathematical model applied to the MSF distillers.400 T/h (112 ºC TBT) with a seawater entering at 18 ºC. εTF. Model validation 5. • Minimum production in summer (low-temperature operation in summer. εTB. Only a few cases contain the temperature profile of the three flows inside each stage of the distiller.232 T/h (84 ºC TBT). seawater intake temperature) needed for the simulator are not included because they must be the same quantity as the proposed design value.900 T/h of freshwater produced (or a TBT of 100 ºC) and a seawater temperature of 32 ºC. Top Brine Temperature (TBT). εTD. Other operating parameters that are obtained in the simulation are also compared in the table: seawater to reject and recycle brine flows (SR and R). The second part includes the values ( p′ . T F′ .258 T/h (112 ºC TBT) with a seawater entering at 32 ºC. LTOS): distillation of 1. The second table shows in its first part the chamber pressure p.1.2. T B′ and D′ ) obtained by the simulator. Some other inputs (steam to heater conditions. Performance Ratio (PR) and steam consumption (mST). • Maximum production in summer (high-temperature operation in summer.

therefore the error associated to the numeric presentation could be important. Simulator In Gulf Area the water demand in summer is the 100% of the plant capacity. The contractors for absolute pressure of the MSF chambers give an accuracy of two decimals. The distillate produced in the first stages of the recovery section has a maximum relative error of 5%. This error is due to the correlations for calculating both brine and steam properties and the global heat transfer coefficient of each condenser. The error analysis is going to be underlined in these two cases. The main error source in HTOS case is detected in the pressure of the reject stages and the last stage of the recovery section (a maximum of 9% of relative error). the most realistic performance data cases are (in this order) HTOS and HTOW. The temperatures of the three main flows of each distiller do not exceed in any case a relative error of 1. So. 118 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . and covers the 80% in winter. The correlation to calculate the absolute pressure of a flash chamber also should improve the error detected in those values.5%.

5 1826 0.00 TABLE 5.2 87.8 19.8 1347 0.2 328 0.1 449.45 –0.5 86 86.3 49.7 83.00 –1.4 1260.2 56.4 –6.4 57.5 64.23 –2.57 –1.77 90 92.605 83.309 67 69.75 0.51 12 0.59 –0.4 46.37 –0.3 –1.00 18 0.27 –0.8 70.46 76.8 1437 0.9 –2.60 –0.59 83.11 –0.26 63.16 9 0.99 –0.105 45 47.84 5 0.5 80.6 63.4 61.2 –11.5 100.5 42.465 76.355 70.1 95.203 57.91 –0.9 437 0.6 8 32 Simulator 19.2 768.7 1761 0.7 –3.42 14 0.25 –1.9 93.4 73.28 –0.21 –0.33 –0.00 –0.1 1829.2 39.22 –3.5 76.3 90.4 –3.87 –0.407 73.531 80 82.5 –7.85 32 Rel.1 53.43 –0.27 –1.19 57.5 70.4 76.8 1527 0.1 NTOS case TABLE 5.9 60.00 0.09 17 0.18 0.88 –0.584.3 1530.1 40.5 1165.46 –0.086 39.9 –1.8 861 0.9 1255 0.1 114.9 92.2.900 17.79 –1.12 –0.57 0.3 1064 0.33 1.7 54.07 37.01 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 119 .82 –0.152 51.7 89.7 79.25 –1.23 –0.6 42.5 60.9 7.781 89.7 96.7 37.6 89.3 96.45 –0.4 63 64 1160 0.2 72.83 –0.17 –0. Error (%) –0.16 –0.7 –1.5 664.77 2 0.3 59.36 –0.7 45.88 0.32 4 0.269 63.35 –0.4 247.5 93.09 42.13 –0.3 652 0.26 –0.26 –1.52 80.12 –0.78 –0.94 –0.3 86.68 86.7 1896.12 48 50.14 51.3 1442.78 –0.7 66.37 6 0.55 8 0.7 –8.71 0. SW (T/h) SR (T/h) R (T/h) TBT (ºC) mST (T/h) PR Tsea (ºC) Design 19.97 –0.4 80.700 19.4 338.067 34.4 51.24 –0.23 –0.95 –1.20 20 0.965 17.3 77.5 45.7 557.2.39 15 0.93 –0.9 39.3 1352.83 –0.1 77 757 0.2 97.2 41.62 –0.8 57.097 42.35 70.1 44.57 –0.9 1698 0.883 93.234 60.46 1.1 40.14 –0.6 43 44.23 Input data and performance parameters of the NTOS case (normal-temperature operation in summer).4 –2.12 –0.3 –9.22 60.33 3 0.5 219 0.00 –1.29 –0. p TF TD TB D p’ TF’ TD’ TB’ D’ εP εTF εTD εTB εD Stage (bar) (ºC) (ºC) (ºC) (T/h) (bar) (ºC) (ºC) (ºC) (T/h) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 1 0.09 0.8 66.89 –1.076 37.3 –1.4 54.24 Model validation of the NTOS performance case.4 48.4 –7.12 –2.3 58.8 1614 0.6 1069.50 –0.08 39.17 54.7 48.79 –0.6 1698 –7.6 –8.5 43.5 963 0.3 67.89 7 0.2 1896 0.53 0.3 67 69.52 –0.175 54.650 100 239.00 –0.7 109 0.45 –0.6 –2.43 –0.6 67.396.43 –0.2 –1. Model validation 5.8 73.43 0.14 19 0.2 73 74 871 –1.8 83.12 0.54 11 0.6 545 0.688 86.22 16 0.8 226.4 1615.54 0.26 –1.84 –0.8 79.22 –0.87 10 0.43 13 0.2 52.41 –4.49 –0.67 0.4 1763.5 90.113 45.2 55.9 –6.06 34.87 93.43 0.13 –0.7 51.1 82.40 –3.6 38.8 971.131 48.18 –1.32 –3.33 –0.

42 0.93 –0.00 14 0.21 –0.3 91.62 0.12 13 0.5 44.3 61.18 5 0.7 –8.27 –1.08 38.61 0.700 19.21 58.28 –0.2 108.2 43.7 100.4 1166.20 12 0.9 52 1920 0.14 100.3 0.5 81.2 40.2 103.7 1619.6 0.5 409.182 54.9 –1.311 103.00 –0.21 0.8 80.2 HTOS case TABLE 5.4 66.30 0.7 –1.6 55.11 0.15 51.13 47.54 8 0.1 44 47.2 1725.109 44.20 0.3 72.7 390 0. Simulator 5.7 –2.6 72.7 62.2 47.7 –3.215 58.68 6 0.00 –0.18 –5.41 73 76.5 1025 0.19 –0.2 –5.00 –1.38 18 0.2 1047 0.20 –5.70 16 0.43 0.37 0.75 88.1 54.2 1930.45 1.65 –0.2 2173 0.3 0.4 99.75 0.154 51.4 138.42 –0.27 –2.7 73.2 89.56 0.36 –0.33 0.85 –0.8 0.33 –0.1 19.18 54.1 39.37 11 0.9 2028.38 0.254 61.25 Input data and performance parameters of the HTOS case (high-temperature operation in summer).39 –0.748 88.1 54.095 40.43 0.9 73.00 TABLE 5.5 –0.9 0.09 40.39 –1.4 76.1 –2.8 107.86 32 Rel. p TF TD TB D p’ TF’ TD’ TB’ D’ εP εTF εTD εTB εD Stage (bar) (ºC) (ºC) (ºC) (T/h) (bar) (ºC) (ºC) (ºC) (T/h) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 1 1.62 0.900 17.13 7 0.5 2258 0.1 41.54 0.56 17 0.5 274.38 –0.17 –0.7 1603 0.7 92.6 45.35 –2.34 0.48 77.865 92.2 81.00 –1.71 0.071 35 39.86 15 0.5 100.1 52.12 47.8 92 93 649 0.18 –0.17 0.35 20 0.7 672.8 69 70 1381 0.1 –0.57 0.6 84 85 924.6 –9.56 –0.00 120 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .7 58.3 103.38 1.00 –0.850 112 294.4 1493 0.27 0.10 4 0.083 38 42.15 –1.5 87.45 –0.975 17.00 0.67 0.1 8 32 Simulator 19.25 62 65. Error (%) –0.8 –1.26 Model validation of the HTOS performance case.6 542.1 1711 0.5 1817 0.9 0.9 2096 0.1 59.37 –2.9 44.1 84.850 112.5 104.35 69.27 0.9 0.3 66.47 0.9 43.478 76.07 35.00 0.39 19 0.15 0.9 521 0.299 65.00 –0.45 –3.15 9 0.6 2180.3 40.20 0.00 0.7 62.31 0.77 10 0.4 108.9 107.00 0.3 65.2 776 0.02 3 1 96.147 100 103.4 85.9 1266 0.33 0.2 95.26 –0.4 61.7 1829.997 96.30 0.8 800.2.82 –0.60 0.7 95.54 0. SW (T/h) SR (T/h) R (T/h) TBT (ºC) mST (T/h) PR Tsea (ºC) Design 19.87 92.1 59.9 46.52 0.7 77.16 0.3 1509.2 2104.6 96.7 1146 0.99 –0.2 131 1.6 51.65 85 88.5 50.3 0.73 2 1.6 48.2 80.7 58.08 0.72 –0.35 69.6 69 70 1397.4 77.00 0.4 48.32 –3.8 2257.31 –4.2 99.9 96.5 261 1.7 1283.5 2021 0.9 65.5 104.3 902 0.5 55.67 –0.509.2.59 0.3 301.3 7.9 88.56 81.39 0.556 80.26 –0.74 0.00 0.75 0.00 –5.10 –0.41 73.646 84.

3 –3.2 16.445 76.24 –0.65 –0.138 50.41 –1.8 566.9 696.127 48.27 –0.91 48. Model validation 5.52 –1.2 876 0.399 74 75.50 –0.23 51.2 –3.7 219.2 81.8 76.9 73.154 53.800 16.3 –3.08 66 494 0.79 73.2 –3.9 39.32 –1.51 –2.109 46.7 80.19 4 0.181 56.64 –0.077 39.09 –1.96 –0.21 –0.9 45.17 19 0.2 53.71 –1.059 33.000 14.309 68.450 84 148.9 55.255 63.4 1048 0.98 –0.44 –0.8 37.17 –1.9 67.09 42 43.1 291.35 –0.6 75.7 51.03 18 0.8 52.47 –0.000 14.286 66.56 53.61 –2.58 13 0.44 40.25 –0.55 –0.94 37.32 68.00 –0.48 81.71 –0.45 –1.6 992 0.66 –0.9 –1.1 47.49 58.50 –1.247 63. SW (T/h) SR (T/h) R (T/h) TBT (ºC) mST (T/h) PR Tsea (ºC) Design 17.5 –3.00 –0.6 150.14 32 Rel.64 2 0.55 –0.35 –0.59 –0.495 79.42 –0.25 –0.4 939.8 –3.6 71.3 LTOS case TABLE 5.49 –0.5 56.4 759.9 50.81 –1.1 57.3 632.345 71 72.7 –3.6 60.2 74.5 562 0.64 –0.97 –0.62 –0.4 72 0.9 58.8 756 0. LTOS performance case in MSF distillers.46 –0.6 –3.1 356 0.21 20 0.4 66.31 17 0.52 –0.11 42.7 –3.475 78.1 54.7 57.1 –3.79 –1.97 78.277 65.5 50.9 84.7 –3.49 0.68 –0.52 3 0.1 –3.42 12 0.37 76.69 –0.68 –0.67 –0.36 44.21 71.31 7 0.47 –0.13 0.7 286 0.79 –1.54 –1.57 –0.00 –0.3 49.49 10 0.175 55.19 11 0.8 1104.123 48.2 46 47.7 –3.385 73.3 816 0.4 695 0.6 78.9 –1.7 880.101 44.5 362.357 71.71 38.54 –0.41 16 0.3 65.3 73.01 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 121 .86 –0.2 77.48 –0.064 35.62 –0.476.9 35.08 39.087 41.2.90 –1.3 41.9 –4.1 62.9 63.49 –0.7 41.56 –0.9 934 0.94 –0.5 8.6 –3.113 46.4 70.57 –0.43 –0.52 –2.7 62.22 60.1 820.1 32 Simulator 17.9 143 0.77 –0.56 –0.066 35.53 63.058 33.3 499.66 –1.16 –0.6 55.428 76.5 1145 0. Error (%) –0.08 –0.4 1189.68 –0.95 –1.6 –3.1 8.92 5 0.03 –1.74 6 0.203 58.161 53.072 37.28 Model validation.87 –0.56 –0.3 146.7 1231.5 42. p TF TD TB D p’ TF’ TD’ TB’ D’ εP εTF εTD εTB εD Stage (bar) (ºC) (ºC) (ºC) (T/h) (bar) (ºC) (ºC) (ºC) (T/h) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 1 0.1 1146.8 41.55 14 0.82 –0.64 –0.228 61.8 1187 0.61 15 0.82 9 0.143 51.2 996.06 –0.2 –4.2 60.27 Some input data and performance parameters of the LTOS case (low-temperature operation in summer).9 431.42 –0.01 61 629 0.48 –0.5 79.6 65.64 46.2 68 68.2.2 1104 0.72 –0.75 –1.196 58.62 0.2 54.900.02 –0.7 45 1051.29 –0.1 81.6 39.9 36 37.56 –1.5 –3.15 8 0.65 68 426 0.3 215 0.45 –0.72 0.78 –1.00 TABLE 5.8 37.5 48.4 61.098 43.071 37.1 39.1 1232 0.6 43.7 70.

85 0.67 1.8 65.05 28.7 74.97 95.93 0.29 17 0.1 2.4 2049 0.80 0.2 73 73.35 1.9 90.29 Some input data and performance parameters of the HTOW case (high-temperature operation in winter).66 0.2 102 103 294.25 0.8 78.1 1943 0.21 57.8 98.400 19.42 13 0.03 1.5 16.5 58.86 0.8 1107 0.38 15 0.97 –0.33 18 0.1 45.5 1605 0.00 1.3 721 3.91 1.7 1237 0.52 0.87 0.29 0.1 62.2 2400 0.68 –0.26 –2.3 43.38 14 0.8 51.354 69.00 0.583 81.60 –0.231 17.36 70.10 1.42 73.1 2055 0.684 85.3 703 0.51 78.9 47.00 1.73 –0.4 37.00 –3.71 0.06 31.68 4 0.7 439.4 1487 0.9 3.5 95.5 41.41 12 0.83 1.10 –2.3 34.77 –3.1 0.6 35.2 –0.088 98.9 57.28 103.07 –0.43 0.8 1833 0.2 86.40 1.00 0.25 61.3 61.9 0.9 1247.33 1.20 9 0.6 1365 0.6 50.2 87.58 2 1.00 0.9 2317.3 77.5 85.61 0.02 –1.49 0.78 0.33 2.1 1611.1 42.5 82 83 975 0.16 0.6 3.37 0.4 320.2 39.000 19.4 106.2 106.00 TABLE 5.1 73.14 50 53.49 11 0.49 1.7 89.5 –2.8 –1.5 2157 –3.801 89.81 0.83 0.78 0.258 102.25 61.2 840 0.56 0.55 8 0.85 0.2 69 69.8 49.2 58.4 90.78 –0.95 1.20 –1.1 47.4 62.5 94.1 2.3 2.43 74.298 65.12 99.7 36.6 7.35 19 0.21 0.12 46.5 42.61 1.39 0.6 70.27 0.00 0.32 1.63 –0.72 0.45 1.94 1.8 284 1.16 1.00 1.1 2229 0.8 2150 0.2 107.06 32.00 122 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .04 7 0.56 6 0.3 36.5 1.2 43.850 112 313.1 97.8 103. p TF TD TB D p’ TF’ TD’ TB’ D’ εP εTF εTD εTB εD Stage (bar) (ºC) (ºC) (ºC) (T/h) (bar) (ºC) (ºC) (ºC) (T/h) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 1 1.43 0.34 20 0.1 148.83 91 94.850 111.94 0.071 34.66 1.4 1840 –4.86 0.051 28.87 0.1 2.28 0.4 66.84 18 Rel.3 91.495 77.8 107.40 0.5 1.21 57.85 10 0.2.9 2400 –2.79 –0.89 0.6 53.6 54.2.3 66 69.2 49.4 54.06 1.231.9 1371.67 1.8 61.7 86.4 HTOW case TABLE 5.7 2236.2 98.71 86.146 49.7 1949.64 –0.38 1.1 42.6 82.32 16 0.935 94.9 142 1.52 0.9 39.7 42.121 45.6 1721 0.08 38.74 –4.00 –3.54 –2.4 40.1 82 990.86 1.8 93.24 0.7 424 0.7 0.083 38.07 35.3 65 66 1493.4 46.2 1727. Error (%) 0.05 –2.8 33.30 Model validation of HTOW case of the MSF plant.4 33. Simulator 5.17 53.5 565 0.3 77 78 1120.4 57.5 581.5 38.3 8 18 Simulator 11.7 99.2 2310 0. SW (T/h) SR (T/h) R (T/h) TBT (ºC) mST (T/h) PR Tsea (ºC) Design 11.4 81.00 0.99 –0.8 0.56 3 0.175 53.68 –0.99 5 0.75 0.1 857.3 102.11 0.

operation and maintenance for the whole plant but provides no means to evaluate the single processes taking place in the subsystems nor how to distribute the costs among them. On the other hand. Gaggioli and El-Sayed. Most analysts agree that exergy is the most adequate thermodynamic property to associate with cost since it contains information from the second law of thermodynamics and accounts for energy quality (Tsatsaronis. 1987. Exergetic efficiency compares a real process to a reversible one. Thermoeconomic analysis combines economic and thermodynamic analysis by applying the concept of cost (originally an economic property) to exergy (an energetic property). We must conserve them in order to survive and Thermoeconomics plays a key role in this endeavor. a dual-purpose power and desalination plant) can be analyzed in terms of its economic profitability and efficiency with respect to resource consumption. how to improve designs to reduce consumption and prevent residues from damaging the environment. 1998. We should find out how energy and resources degrade.CHAPTER 6 Thermoeconomics Fundamentals. An exergy analysis locates and Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Thermoeco- nomics and its application to engineering energy systems can help to answer these questions.e. 1990). our finite world is becoming smaller and natural resources are more and more scarce. which systems work better. investment. a thermodynamic analysis calculates the efficiencies of the subsystems and locates and quantifies the irreversibilities but cannot evaluate their significance in terms of the overall production process. Moran. an ideal process of the same type). applications of thermoeconomic diagnosis and optimization of complex energy systems As the human population grows. An economic analysis can calculate the cost of fuel.g. 1987. The production process of a complex energy system (e. (i..

we can provide an objective economic basis using the cost concept. Detection of inefficiencies and calculation of their economic effects in operating plants. money and system irreversibilities in terms of the overall production process. plant operation thermoeconomic diagnosis. i. 3. thermoeconomics assesses the cost of consumed resources. Evaluation of various design alternatives or operation decisions and profitability maximization.. This represents the “useful” or available energy lost or destroyed (exergy destruction) in all physical processes. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. as a consequence. locating and quantifying the causes of inefficiencies in real processes. Rational price assessment of plant products based on physical criteria.e. from the input resource(s) to the final product(s). All natural resources have an economic cost: the more irreversible a process. more specifically. irreversibility. namely. i. All real processes in a plant are non-reversible and. In his seminal book.e. 124 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Money costs express the economic effect of inefficiencies and are used to improve the cost effectiveness of production processes. Optimization of specific component variables to minimize final product costs and save resource energy. 1985). which creates cost. Energy audits. If we can measure this thermodynamic cost by identifying. some exergy is destroyed and some natural resources are consumed and lost forever. Thermoeconomics quantifies irreversibilities in a process. Hence.. 5. global and local optimization. Exergy based thermoeconomic methods are also referred to as “exergoeconomics” (Tsatsaronis and Winhold. The Entropy Law itself emerges as the most economic in nature of all natural laws… the economic process and the Entropy Law is only an aspect of a more general fact. basically. that this law is the basis of the economy of life at all levels…”. This process can solve problems in complex energy systems that cannot normally be solved using conventional energy analysis based on the First Law of Thermo- dynamics (mass and energy balances only). Thus. the more natural resources are consumed (higher energetic cost) and the higher the required investment (higher thermoeconomic cost). 4. Assessing the cost of the various streams and processes in a plant helps to understand the process of cost formation. the physical magnitude connecting physics (thermodynamics) and economics is entropy generation or. Consumed resource cost involves resources destroyed by inefficiencies and helps to point out how resources may be used more effectively to save energy. 2. for instance: 1. can still be regarded as such. Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen (1971) pointed out that “…the science of thermodynamics began as physics of economic value and.

This chapter on the fundamentals of thermoeconomics is divided into three parts. 1987. 1993) provides a general mathematical formulation using a linear model which encompasses all thermoeconomic methodologies. Many reports also provide specific information about thermoeconomic applications (Lozano and Valero. Bejan. all concepts and procedures explained here are based on the general and common mathematical formalism of the Structural Theory. Special attention has been paid to explaining the thermoeconomic cost concept. Bejan et al. Serra and Torres.g. Exergetic Cost Theory. in the second part their meaning. 1994). First the basic concepts needed to perform and understand the thermoeconomic analysis of complex energy systems are presented.. For this reason. complicates method comparison and impedes the development of Thermoeconomics in general (Tsatsaronis. 1997) and those based on optimization techniques (e. 1993. 1992. Engineering Functional Analysis. relationship and calculation procedures are fully explained with examples. 1987. there are almost as many nomenclatures as theories. 1998. Serra and Lozano. El-Sayed. 1990). Lazzareto and Tsatsaronis.Specific examples of these applications will be given here and applied to a real dual- purpose power and desalination plant. 1996. Last-In-First-Out Approach. Unfortunately. 1993. while optimization methods are used to find the optimum design or operating conditions. Valero and Lozano. Thermoeconomic methods can generally be subdivided into two categories (Tsatsaronis. 1983. Valero et al. Finally. Lozano et al. the third part describes some applications of thermoeconomic analysis as applied to operation diagnosis and optimization of complex energy systems. 1994.. Pisa. 1999. The Structural Theory of Thermoeconomics (Valero. The most systematic and widespread methodologies (see above) use exergy to linearly apportion costs when two or more coproducts appear. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 125 .. 1987).g. Erlach. and their results can be reproduced using the Structural Theory (Erlach. Cost accounting methods help to determine actual product cost and provide a rational basis for pricing. Von Spakovsky and Evans. Serra and Valero. Valero. 1997. 1994. Lozano. Frangopoulos. 1997). those based on cost accounting (e. Tsatsaronis and Moran 1997. von Spakovsky and Evans. This causes confusion. Average-Cost-Approach. Intelligent Functional Approach. 1994. Correas and Serra. Valero. 1997. Tsatsaronis. Thermoeconomic Functional Analysis. Lozano et al. 1993. Frangopoulos. 1993. 1988. El-Sayed and Tribus. Frangopoulos.. Once the average and marginal costs are defined. 1999). Valero and Serra.

The monetary cost takes into account the economic cost of the consumed fuel (i.. FIGURE 6.e.g.1.1 Physical structure of the co-generation plant. Thermoeconomics 6. 1 Combustor 1 2 3 5 6 Compressor Turbine 2 3 0 4 Air HRSG 7 Gases 4 Natural gas Work 8 Water/Steam 6. The exergetic cost of a mass and/or energy flow is the units of exergy used to produce it. These costs are a measure of the economic efficiency of a process. Similarly. the cost concept is explained together with all the new basic concepts. In this section. the unit 126 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . its market price) as well as the cost of the installation and the operation of the plant and defines the amount of money consumed to generate a mass and/or energy flow. if the unit exergetic cost of the electricity is three.1 Basic concepts All thermoeconomic theories use costs based on the Second Law of thermodynamics when solving engineering problems. three units of plant exergy resources (natural gas in the case of the cogeneration plant) are consumed to obtain one exergy unit of electrical power.1). These costs are a measure of the thermodynamic efficiency of the production process generating these flows. Thermoeconomic analysis distinguishes between exergetic costs and monetary costs. the exergetic cost of the net power is the exergy provided by the natural gas to generate the electrical power delivered to the net by the cogeneration plant (see figure 6. including fuel. The unit exergetic cost of a mass and/or energy flow represents the amount of resources required to obtain one unit. e. product and thermoeconomic models needed to perform a thermoeconomic analysis of a plant.1 The concept of cost The cost of a flow in a plant represents the external resources that have to be supplied to the overall system to produce this flow. Thus.

which are a derivation and indicate the additional resources required to generate one more unit of the product under specified conditions. A productive purpose expressing component function in an overall production process can be defined for each component. Thermoeconomic cost accounting theories calculate average costs and use them as a basis for a rational price assessment. of the internal flows and the products of the plant. In order to generate this product. when we know how many resources were used and the production obtained. The flow of exergy which is consumed in the component during the generation of its product is called fuel (s).2 Fuel.3. some resources have to be supplied to the plant and are consumed in the process. can be defined for every plant. We can further distinguish between average costs. under physical criteria. 1990. product and unit exergetic consumption A productive purpose.1) Bi )   ∂B unit marginal cost k =  o  * (6.2)  ∂Bi    conditions The average costs are only known after production. 6. Basic concepts monetary cost (also called unit exergoeconomic cost or unit thermoeconomic cost) of a mass and/or energy flow is the amount of monetary units required to obtain one unit. For example. Knowing the average unit cost of a product does not provide the cost of a production process P + ∆P. Von Spakovsky and Evans. which are ratios and express the average amount of resources per unit of product. The productive purpose of a component measured in terms of exergy is called product. and marginal costs. To create this product. The relationship between average and marginal costs will be analyzed in more detail in section 6. (6. 1993) are based on marginal costs when solving optimization problems. in the co-generation plant. a certain good or service to be produced. The average cost is not predictive. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 127 . 1997. another exergy flow(s) is consumed. Thermoeconomic optimization methods (Frangopoulos. Marginal costs can be used to calculate additional fuel consumption when the operating conditions are modified. natural gas is supplied to the plant to generate electric power and process steam.1.1. Mathematically they are defined as: * B unit average cost k = -----0.

6) F F Fuel and product definitions for some typical components in a dual-purpose power and desalination plant are shown in table 6. Using the definitions of fuel and product. The fuel-product definition for the components of the cogeneration plant (figure 6. Thermoeconomics Real process exergy is destroyed in any process. The more irreversible a process. the fuel required to generate a certain amount of a product depends on the amount of irreversibility (exergy destroyed). (6.1) are shown in table 6. part of the fuel exergy is destroyed during product generation. 128 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .3).3) Therefore.= 1 – --.5) P The reciprocal of the unit exergy consumption is defined as the exergetic efficiency η. (6. P I η = --.2. It is equal to one for reversible processes and is less than one for all real processes. the higher the value of the unit exergetic consumption. the exergy balance for a component can be formulated as: F=P+I (6. That is. the unit exergetic consumption k can also be formulated as: I k = 1 + --.4) with the exergy balance on a fuel/product basis (Equation 6.1. (6. Combining equation (6.4) P It is a measure of the thermodynamic efficiency of the process and equals one for reversible processes and is greater than one for all real processes. The fuel exergy required to generate one exergy unit of product is defined as unit exergetic consumption k: F k = --.

1 Fuel and product definitions for typical dual-purpose power and desalination plant units. Basic concepts TABLE 6. Component Fuel Product B2 water Exergy difference between the B1 Natural gas generated steam flow and the Boiler fuel B1 entering water flow B3 B3 – B 2 steam W Work to drive pump/compressor Exergy supplied to the working fluid Pump B1 B2 W B2 – B 1 B1 Turbine Exergy removed from working Generated work without W fluid during the expansion extraction B1 – B 2 W B2 B1 Turbine Exergy removed from working Generated work with W fluid during the expansion extraction W B2 B1 – B 2 – B 3 B3 Wmech Wel Mechanical work Electric Work Generator Wmech Wel B1 B4 cold Heat stream B2 Exergy removed from the hot Exergy supplied to the cold flow exchanger/ flow B2 – B 1 brine heater B3 – B 4 B3 hot stream B4 B3 Exergy removed from the D flashing brine (B1 – B2) minus Distilled water in the stage MSF stage exergy provided to the cooling D B1 B2 brine (B4 – B3) Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 129 .

It calculates parameters such as temperatures.1. the definitions of fuels and products and the distribution of the resources throughout the plant. pressures. a decision has to be taken on the detail required i. when pricing all mass and energy flows in the thermoeconomic analysis. it is absolutely necessary to define a thermoeconomic model of the plant which considers the productive purpose of the components.2 Productive structure of the cogeneration plant. i. mass and connecting energy flows considered in the physical model. Usually all this information is fully or partially obtained from the physical model of the plant. It is important to chose an appropriate aggregation level that properly defines the behavior of each component and its purpose in the overall production process. But it is not strictly indispensable if all the required data are measured plant data. efficiencies. which flows and components are to be considered. mass flow rates and compositions of all mass flows together with the heat and power rates of the energy flows considered. The components for the analysis do not necessarily correspond to physical units. F2 = B5 = WCp Compressor F3 = B3 – B4 P3 W net = B 6 Turbine b2 P2 = B2 – B0 Pj1 = B3 j1 b1 P1 = B3 – B2 HRSG F4 = B4 P4 = B7 = Bheat F1 = B1 Combustor Nevertheless. power generated etc. collected directly from the plant data acquisition system. The productive model can be graphically depicted by the productive structure diagram (figure 6.. pressures. Depending on the analysis. 130 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . to describe the physical state of the plant.e.3 Physical and thermoeconomic plant models A plant is analyzed using a physical model with a group of equations to describe the physical behavior of the components. Various parts of the installation can be combined into one component and physical units can be further disaggregated. The minimum physical data required in a thermoeconomic analysis are temperatures. FIGURE 6.2).e.1) depicts the components. Thermoeconomics 6. The physical structure (see figure 6.

the explanation of the fundamentals of thermoeconomics will be made using the productive structure depicted in figure 6. Sometimes the productive structure can be simplified (with the same results) by merging the junctions and branches in a new fictitious component called junction-branching point. its flows are fictitious and are not necessarily physical flows.2 Fuels and Products of the components of the co-generation plant. In a branching point. various productive structures can be defined Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 131 .2). where the junction j1 and the branching point b1 have been merged in a junction-branching point. The capital cost of the units is also considered as an external plant resource and is represented as inlet flows coming directly from the environment (not considered in figure 6. Since the fuel of a process unit can be the product of another and the product of a process unit can be the fuel of several subsystems.3. Technical No Subsystem Fuel Product production coefficients 1 Combustor F1 = B1 P1 = B3 – B2 kcb = F1/P1 2 Compressor F2 = B5 = Wcp P2 = B2 – B0 kcp = F2/P2 3 Turbine F3 = B3 – B4 P3 = B5 + B6 = Wcp + Wnet kgt = F3/P3 4 HRSG F4 = B4 P4 = B7 = Bheat kHRSG = F4/P4 P1 = B3 – B2 r1 = P1/Pj1 5 Junction Pj1 = B3 P2 = B2 – B0 r2 = P2/Pj1 F3 = B3 – B4 6 Branching 1 Pj1 = B3 F4 = B4 F2 = B5 = Wcp 7 Branching 2 P3 = B5 + B6 = Wcp + Wnet B6 = Wnet The productive structure is a graphical representation of resource distribution throughout the plant. Figure 6.1 shows a similar productive structure as figure 6.5 in section 6. For the sake of simplicity. two types of fictitious devices are introduced: junctions (rhombs) and branching points or branches (circles). While each plant has only one physical structure to describe the physical relations between the components.2. an exergy flow (fuel or product in the productive structure –see figure 6. Basic concepts In this scheme.2-) is distributed between two or more components. In a junction. the flows (lines connecting the equipment) are the fuel and the product of each subsystem.2. Thus. TABLE 6. the products of two or more components are joined to form the fuel of another component. Each “real“ piece of equipment in the plant has an outlet flow (product) and an inlet flow (fuel).

P3) = kgt P3 F4 = gF4 (x4. Valero and Torres. corresponding to the PF repre- sentation (Torres. 132 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Pj1) = r1 Pj1 = r1 (F3 + F4) 5 Junction 1 P1. i. Pj1) = r2 Pj1 = r2 (F3 + F4) 6 Branching 1 Pj1 F3. Variables in these characteristic equations are from the Exergetic Cost Theory. F2. Thesis. F4 Pj1 = gPj1 (x6. ω3) = F2 + ω3 7 Branching 2 P3 F2.…. F3.2. P2) = kcp P2 3 Turbine F3 P3 = Wgt F3 = gF3 (x3. Note that the Exergetic Cost Theory is a particular case (Serra. which express each inlet flow as a mathematical function of the outlet flows for all the productive structure components and a set of internal parameters xl: Bi = gi (xl. and ωi is the total system product. D. F4) = (F3 + F4) P3 = gP3 (x7.. P4) = kHRSG P4 = kHRSG ω4 4 HRSG F4 P4 = Bheat = ω4 = kHRSG Bheat P1 = gP1 (x5. 1994) of the Structural Theory which is the thermoeconomic mathematical formalism presented in this Ph. and m is the number of flows considered in the productive structure. an external variable which determines the total product.7) where the index i refers to the input flows of the component l. P1) = kcb P1 2 Compressor F2 = Wcp P2 F2 = gF2 (x2. Bj) i = 1.8) where s is the number of system outputs.…. are shown in table 6. the index j refers to the output flows of the component l. No Component Entry Outlet Equation 1 Combustor F1 P1 F1 = gF1 (x1. 1990). Every flow is an input flow of a component and an output flow of another component or the environment. For the flows interacting with the environment. 1991. The characteristic equations for the system in figure 6. P2 Pj1 P2 = gP2 (x5. we define: Bm–s+1 = ωi i = 1. the thermoeconomic model (mathematical representation of the productive structure) is a set of mathematical functions called characteristic equations. s (6. m–s (6. Thus. Thermoeconomics depending on the fuel and product definitions as well as decisions on how the plant resources are distributed among the components.e.3 Characteristic equationsa of the cogeneration plant. Wnet = Wcp + Wnet a.3: TABLE 6.

Basic concepts The inlet and outlet flows of the productive structure units are extensive magnitudes. separately if possible. The magnitudes applied by most thermoeconomic methodologies are exergy (Tsatsaronis. mechanical and chemical irreversibility occurring in the plant. thermoeconomics evaluates the process of cost formation. It is out of the scope of thermoeconomics to model the behavior of the components. i.. which in turn provide the energy conversion efficiency of each subsystem. thermoeconomics always performs a systemic analysis. 1983) and money. 1987). no matter how complex the system is. This is the reason. which is made by the mathematical equations of the physical model. If the objective consists on analyzing a macro-system composed of several plants. which are the product of a quantity (usually mass flow rate) and a quality (specific magnitude). Thus. consists on sorting the thermodynamic magnitudes related to the physical mass and energy flow-streams connecting the plant subsystems. as already explained. each thermal. probably in this case the more convenient approach is consider each separate plant as a subsystem. That is. can also be used. Other magnitudes. to identify each subsystem with a separate physical process (heat transfer. which is a phenomenological (black box analysis) science. in order to explicitly determine for each subsystem its energy conversion efficiency.e. Even though (it is out of the scope of thermoeconomics simulate the behavior of the subsystems). It is important take in mind that. negentropy (Frangopoulos. This implies that relations like efficiencies or pressure and temperature ratios — which are mainly independent of the quantity of the exiting flows— can be used as internal parameters. several process units or even the whole plant. In this case it is advisable. thermoeconomics connects thermodynamics. Depending on the analysis scope each subsystem can be identified with a separate piece of equipment. thermoeconomics analyzes the degradation process of energy quality through an installation. Note. that the main objective of the productive structure. The internal variables appearing in the thermoeconomic model depend on the behavior of the subsystem and they are presumably independent of mass flow rates. by sorting the thermodynamic properties of the physical mass and energy flow-streams of a plant. basically oriented to locate and quantify the energy conversion efficiency. a part of a device. Sometimes the objective consists on analyzing a plant in a deep detail. of defining different Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 133 . it is very important build the thermoeconomic model with physical meaning. with economics. if possible. pressure increase or decrease and chemical mixture or reaction) in order to locate and quantify. in a different way that the equations modeling the physical plant behavior do. like enthalpy or entropy. and hence of the thermoeconomic model. as it was already explained.

.11b) j ∈S l This property means that the input of a component varies at the same rate as its outputs. Note that this property does not imply that the function must be linear. probably will be useless.…. Torres and Lerch. because they present practical (the model is simpler and for this reason much more powerful when applied to very complex energy systems) and conceptual advantages. is also a homogeneous first order function. ∂g i κ ij = (6.… λ Bj.. This is also the case of the dual power and desalination plant analyzed in this work. that is: λ Bi = gi (λ B1. κij are the technical production coefficients and represent the portion of the i-th component production: ∂g i κ ij = (6. For instance.11a) ∂B j Bi = ∑κ B ij j i = 1. Moreover. of independent variables (as linear equations do).ls in Sl (6.... +   B l1. xl) λ∈ℜ (6. Serra and Valero. Thus... 1999. as it will be explained before. 2000). in many real plants it is possible to find an aggregation level where the system and subsystems linearly behave with accuracy enough.. Depending on the aggregation level and on the nature of the thermoeconomic equations the model will content physical information about the actual system behavior with different accuracy degrees. (6..n. without any physical sensitivity related with the actual behavior of the plant. Martínez. as it is proved in next chapter. if the characteristic equations are first grade homogeneous functions with respect to the subset B.9) Euler’s Theorem states that the homogeneous function of first order verify:       ∂g i ∂g i ∂g i Bi =   B +  B + . Thermoeconomics thermoeconomic models for the same plant.12a) ∂B j 134 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . under an engineering point of view (Valero.m l = 1. a Cobb-Douglas function z = a xα y(1–α).. The more extended thermoeconomic methodologies use linear equations in their thermoeconomic models.10)  ∂Bl1  l1  ∂Bl 2  l 2  ∂Bl s  l s       or using the marginal consumption notation. The obtained results from a very rough thermoeconomic model.

1 for details: Z = 0. i. 1999) because in most cases the lines connecting the pieces of equipment represent the fuels and products of the different units.13c) The diagram of the productive structure is also called a Fuel/Product diagram (Torres et al. because they can be linearized for different operation intervals.Basic concepts The sum of κij coefficients of a unit is the unit exergy consumption of that unit: n n ∑ Fi Fj k j = ∑ κ ij = i= 0 = (6. and – the thermodynamic efficiency of the process in the component 2. its production (product) – what the component needs (fuel) to develop its productive purpose. When the capital cost of the equipment is also considered in the analysis. Those connecting each fuel of a component to its corresponding product: Fi = κij Pj as for instance F1 = gF1 (x1. They relate the investment cost of the component with thermodynamic variables and its product. They show how the process units are con- nected from a productive point of view.3..: P1 = gP1 (x 5.13b) 3.3) using the Fuel–Product notation can also be written as: n Pi = Bi 0 + ∑ Bij i = 0.14) j =1 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 135 . They express the amount of resources needed to build.75 ⋅ ∆Tt−0.3.g.) a component. maintain (etc.12b) i= 0 Pj Pj In thermoeconomics there are three types of characteristic equations. the characteristic equations (see table 6. e. Pj1) = r1 Pj1 = r1 (F3+F4) (6. Structural equations are characteristic equations to describe the productive model of junctions and branches. n (6. see section 7. which are linear: 1. Thus. a third type of characteristic equation is required. but in the case of these equations this is a minor problem. Structural equations model how the resources consumed by the plant are distrib- uted through the plant components. costing equations.1.13a) There is one such equation for each component’s fuel. For example.1 (6. install. These types of equations are generated in the pieces of equipment and they inform about: – the productive function of each component. These equations are very often not linear..e.02 ⋅ 10 ⋅ Q ⋅ ∆Tn−0. a costing equation proposed by El-Sayed (1996).5 ⋅ ∆Pt−0. P1) = kcb P1 (6.….

2).2 Calculating thermoeconomic costs Once the thermoeconomic model has been defined and the characteristic equations corresponding to the productive structure of the system are known.…. which is considered another process unit interacting with the plant). In the above expression. we can express the irreversibility of each component as: ( I = I Ps where I ≡ K D − U D P ) (6. and Bi0 represents the production portion of the component i leading to the final plant product (the subscript 0 refers to the environment. It is important to note that (as discussed below) the 136 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . is a (n×1) vector whose elements contain the unit consumption of the system-input resources. Thermoeconomics This equation shows how the production of a process unit is used as fuel by another unit or as a part of the total plant production.1 and 6. Bij is the production portion of the i-th component that fuels the j-th component. 6. This expression helps to relate the production of each component as a function of the final production and the unit consumption of each component: −1   P = P Ps where P ≡  U D − KP  (6. …. whose elements are the unit exergy consumption κij.14) can be expressed in terms of the unit exergetic consumptions as: n Pi = Bi 0 + ∑ κ ij Pj i = 0.19) t where κe ≡ ( κ 01. n (6.18) while the total resources of the system may be obtained as: FT = tκ e P Ps (6.15) j =1 In matrix notation it can also be expressed as: P = Ps + KP P (6.16) where Ps is a (n×1) vector whose elements contain the contribution to the final production of the system Pi0 obtained in each component.17)   In the same way. κ 0n ) . There are two different types of thermoeconomic costs: average costs and marginal costs (equations 6. Equation (6.1. the costs of all flows in the productive structure can be easily calculated. and 〈KP〉 is a (n×n) matrix.

i is the unit cost of the –i– external resource. average costs can also be obtained from the rules of the mathematical derivation applied to the thermoeconomic model when the characteristic equations are first grade homogeneous functions. ∂g We can denote these marginal costs as k*i . When calculating the variation of the resources consumed in the plant concerning a flow. e (6. as a component input.= ∂B i ∑ --------.…. is the number of system inputs.i i = 1. the chain rule can be applied: ∂B0 = k *0.21a) ∂Bi ∂B 0 m ∂B 0 ∂g j --------. Marginal costs are a derivative (see equation 6. is a function (defined by the characteristic equation) of a set of internal variables.Calculating thermoeconomic costs average and marginal costs coincide when the characteristic equations of the thermoeconomic model are first grade homogeneous functions.2) and can be calculated by applying the chain rule of the mathematical derivation. x. when an additional unit of the flow –i– is produced. ω).21b) j=1 ∂B 0 The expression --------. as: k *i = k *0. x. the cost of the plant resources can be defined as: e B0 = ∑ k *0. This result is very important since both costs can be calculated using the same procedure.8). The cost of the plant resources is then a function of each flow. m (6. external variables ω and the output flows of the component. and k*0. Each flow. According to the previous premises. then we can rewrite the previous expressions. e (6.represents the marginal costs which evaluate the additional ∂B i consumption of the resources. x.7) and (6. and κ ij = ---------i the marginal consumption ∂B j of flow –i– to produce the flow –j–.….i Bi (6.…. according the relations (6. the set of internal variables of each component and the final product of the plant B0 = B0 (Bi. do not vary throughout this process.-------- ∂B j ∂B i i = e + 1. Similarly.i i = 1.22a) Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 137 .20) i =1 where e. under the conditions that the internal variables.

21b can be written as: ∂B1 k *F1 = ∂F1 ∂B1 ∂B1 ∂P3 k *F2 = = = k *P3 ∂F2 ∂P3 ∂F2 ∂B1 ∂B1 ∂Pj1 k *F3 = = = k *Pj1 ∂F3 ∂Pj1 ∂F3 138 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . if the characteristic equations and the marginal consumptions for each component are known.i = κ 0 i + ∑ κ ji k *P . 6. Thermoeconomics m k*i = ∑ κ ji k *j i = e + 1. * It can easily be proved that the cost of each flow P ij of the productive structure using the Fuel/Product notation is: Pij* = k *P . n (6. m (6. n (6. the amount of exergy consumed to obtain each plant’s fuel is its own exergy content and therefore its unit exergetic cost equals one.22b) j = 1 j≠i Note that the unit exergetic cost of each fuel entering the plant is unity because there is no energy quality degradation nor exergy destruction at the very beginning of the productive process.….23) And the exergetic cost of the product of each component is the same as the cost of the resources needed to obtain it. the marginal cost k* for each flow can be obtained by solving the system of linear equations (6. Example 1 For the example of a co-generation plant (figure 6.24) j= 0 This cost equation can also be expressed in terms of the unit exergetic consumptions: n k *P . hence: n Pi* = Fi* = ∑ k *P . Then.…. j B ji i = 1. equations 6.25) j =1 which can be used to obtain the unit exergetic cost of the flows appearing in the productive structure diagram as a function of the unit exergetic consumption of each process unit. Hence.…. j i = 1.2).21a.25).i Bij (6.

Calculating thermoeconomic costs ∂B1 ∂B1 ∂Pj1 k *F4 = = = k *Pj1 ∂F4 ∂Pj1 ∂F4 ∂B1 ∂B1 ∂F1 k *P1 = = = k *F1 k cb ∂P1 ∂F1 ∂P1 ∂B1 ∂B1 ∂F2 k *P2 = = = k *F2 k cp ∂P2 ∂F2 ∂P2 ∂B1 ∂B1 ∂F3 k *P3 = = = k *F3 k gt ∂P3 ∂F3 ∂P3 ∂B1 ∂B1 ∂F4 k *P4 = = = k *F4 k HRSG ∂P4 ∂F4 ∂P4 ∂B1 ∂B1 ∂P2 ∂B1 ∂P1 k *Pj1 = = + = k *P2 r2 + k *P1 r1 ∂Pj1 ∂P2 ∂Pj1 ∂P1 ∂Pj1 ∂B1 ∂B ∂P3 k *Wnet = = 1 = k *P3 ∂Wnet ∂P3 ∂Wnet The thermoeconomic model (characteristic equations) of an energy system contains the mathematical dependence between the resources consumed and plant flows (products and internal flows). applying the chain rule. To determine the physical model of the system. we get: ∂B0 m * ∂g j = ∑ kj (6.26) ∂x i j =1 ∂x i This equation expresses the effect on additional resource consumption when an internal parameter xi is modified and is the basis for the thermoeconomic diagnosis (explained in detail below). a set of equations must be defined which relate the internal and external variables to the thermodynamic laws: mass. Just as k* was defined as a marginal cost when production is modified. Note that these equations show the process of cost formation on the productive structure. we can also obtain the marginal cost when the internal variables x are modified. Similarly. energy and entropy balances. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 139 . The proposed procedure to calculate the marginal cost of all the flows of a plant is general and valid for any thermoeconomic formulation that uses equations connecting inlet and outlet flows of each component. It is therefore possible to define a set of linear equations to calculate the costs of every flow of the plant's productive structure.

. and Thermoeconomic Functional Analysis (Frangopoulos.3 Generic component scheme. 1983. 1987). Thermoeconomics The most developed thermoeconomic optimization methodologies (Frangopoulos.2. 3 B3 B1 B1 4 3 B1 B2 B2 B4 4 B2 140 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . are particular cases of the Structural Theory... g.3). As an illustration.. e. This is a very important result since the marginal and average costs can be calculated using the same procedure. 1993). As a result of the integration of different approaches.27) ∂Bi This multiplier represents the variation of the objective function B0 concerning the state variable Bi. we will show that the marginal and average costs coincide when the characteristic equations of the system are first grade homogeneous functions concerning the extensive magnitude B. FIGURE 6.2). 6. For the sake of simplicity we will use a general subsystem with two inlet flows and two outlet flows (figure 6. 1986a). use the Lagrange multipliers optimization method to calculate the marginal costs defined in the previous section.1 Marginal and average thermoeconomic costs Now. an optimization methodology which provides marginal costs.e: ∂B0 λi = i = 1. Lozano and Muñoz. 1987. The most important advantage is that variables and costs with different conceptual significance can be compared and better understood. Thus. 1994) that the Lagrange multipliers are the marginal costs defined in equation (6. Von Spakovsky et al. a cost accounting methodology which provides average costs. Reini. consider a generic component or subsystem with several inlet and outlet flows.. i. It can easily be proved (Serra. diagnosis operation and thermoeconomic optimization using the same mathematical formalism. some useful thermoeconomic applications have been developed. This unifies accounting and optimization theories in a common mathematical formulation. m (6. the Exergetic Cost Theory (Valero. 1994. 1990.

6. 6. the average and marginal costs of B3 and B4 coincide. B2) consumed to obtain each one of the outlet flows (B3.30b) B23 = κ23 B3 (6.= κ 13 + κ 23 k 3 = ------------------------------------.34a) B3 * κ 14 B 4 + κ 24 B 4 .31b) Equations (6.1) the average cost of the outlet flows are: * κ 13 B 3 + κ 23 B 3 . Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 141 .35).31a) represent the resources needed to produce B3 and Equations (6.35a) ∂B3 ∂B3 ∂g1 * ∂g 2 * k *4 = k1 + k 2 = k14 + k 24 (6.30a. The total amount of resources required to obtain B3 is thus: B13 + B23= κ13 B3 + κ23 B3 (6. The equations modeling each subsystem are: B13 = κ13 B3 (6. B4). This idea is easily understood if the component is made up of two subsystems.35b) ∂B4 ∂B4 considering that the value of the marginal cost of the input flows (B1.31a) B24 = κ24 B4 (6.33) According to Equation (6.30a) B14 = κ14 B4 (6.= κ 14 + κ 24 k 4 = ------------------------------------. B2) is equal to one.32) and to obtain B4: B14 + B24 = κ14 B4 + κ24 B4 (6.30b. Both kinds of costs coincide because the equations modeling the component are homogeneous functions of first order concerning the extensive magnitudes characterizing the outlet flows.29) These equations provide the amount of inlet resources (B1.31b) are the resources consumed to produce B4.28) B2 = k23 B3 + κ24 B4 (6.34) are the same as equations (6. Since equations (6. (6.34b) B4 And the marginal cost of the outlet flows are: ∂g1 * ∂g 2 * k *3 = k1 + k 2 = k13 + k 23 (6. (6.Calculating thermoeconomic costs The characteristic equations that describe component behavior are: B1 = k13 B3 + κ14 B4 (6.

. The capital cost of each component Z can be considered an external flow of plant resources from the environment to the component (see figure 6.2 Economic resources and thermoeconomic costs Thermoeconomic cost calculation considering the component capital cost Z. FIGURE 6. The mass is the property determining whether a magnitude is extensive or not. This is equivalent to considering that the subsystem was at the beginning of the productive process. If all equations modeling a system are first grade homogeneous functions concerning the mass.4 Economic resources scheme. Some authors (Brodyansky et al. The general mathematical formulation of the cost generated in a component is the same for each one and is not dependent on the position in the productive process. 1993. Thermoeconomics In this proof. Z represents an environmental resource and can be handled in the same mathematical way as energy resources. in fact. Thus. Economic resources Z1 = Z1 (B1.2. 142 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . The amount of resources consumed when manufacturing a device are. 1979) have developed methodologies to evaluate the total amount of resources consumed when building a process unit. Thus. Then the marginal unit cost ∂Z/∂B. Bh) Bj x1 Bh B0 Bi According to marginal cost analysis. a simple substitution can transform those equations in homogeneous functions with respect to any extensive property. the marginal and average costs coincide if all equations modeling the behavior of the system are first grade homogeneous functions concerning the mass flow rate. 6. The average and marginal costs coincide because the equations modeling the components are first grade homogeneous functions concerning the extensive magnitude characterizing the outlet flows. can be considered a marginal consumption κZj. the results obtained are general. maintenance cost and so on. resources consumed to obtain the plant products. the cost of the inlet flows was unity.4). Le Goff. is similar to the above method but should be explained in more detail. of the component. Bj. This will represent the monetary units per second needed to compensate the depreciation.

the marginal cost is equal to the average cost. how and which part of the consumed resources can be saved by keeping the quantity and quality of the final products constant? To answer these questions. κij) (6. 6. some applications to thermoeconomic diagnosis and optimization can be presented. The methodology is presented together with a simple application.1 Operation thermoeconomic diagnosis Diagnosis is the art of discovering and understanding signs of malfunction and quantifying their effects. κZj) (6. Thermoeconomic applications to thermoeconomic operation diagnosis and the optimization of For the component depicted in figure 6. 6.3 Thermoeconomic applications to thermoeconomic operation diagnosis and the optimization of complex energy systems Having defined the tools needed for a thermoeconomic analysis of a complex system.3.36b) And the cost of the product is: ∂Bi * ∂Z j k *j = ki + = k *i κ ij + κ Zj ∂B j ∂B j If Zj is proportional to the production of the unit. the effect of a malfunction is quantified in terms of additional resources consumed to obtain the same production. unfortunately Zj is a non-linear function of the production in most cases. The methodology presented in this paper applies Structural Theory to provide the tools to investigate the causes of the irreversibilities and the cost formation process. or in other words its characteristic function is first order homogeneous.36a) Z j = Z (Bj. In the case of Thermoeconomics. • A theory to provide the concepts and tools to understand and explain the causes of this state.4 the characteristic equations are: Bi = f (Bj. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 143 . The main problem in energy system diagnosis can be summarized in the following question: Where. both in quality and in quantity. we need: • Procedures that accurately determine the state of the plant. But.

In fact. 1999). From this perspective. whose design and operational exergy flow values are shown in table 6.06 MW of total irreversibilities can be saved with respect to design conditions.37a) and it can be broken up into the sum of the irreversibilities of each component: n n ∆FT = ∆I T = ∑  I j − I 0j  = ∑ ∆I j (6. of the 7. we see that only 133 kW. Royo and Serra.1. the potential exergy saving is limited by technical and/or economic constraints. TABLE 6. they fail when trying to identify the real causes of the additional resources consumption. The plant has a co-generation gas turbine cycle and uses the turbine outlet gases as thermal energy in a heat recovery steam generator that produces steam (flow #7) together with the electric energy produced in the turbo- generator (flow #6). even though the methods based on Second Law Analysis (Kotas.1). the co-generation plant depicted in figure 6.37b) j =1 j =1 However. in the plant of figure 6.4.1 Technical exergy saving Once the exergy flows have been supplied by an appropriate performance test or a model simulator. 1985) and Technical Exergy Saving are useful to quantify the additional fuel consumption. Therefore. In contrast to conventional thermodynamic analysis.3. But not all exergy losses can be saved in practice.1. Flow (kW) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Design 11781 2704 9614 3831 2977 2500 2355 388 Operation 11914 2758 9753 3887 3056 2500 2355 424 6. Thermoeconomics In order to clarify the explanation of the proposed method we use a simple example (a more complex one can be found in Lerch. It also depends on the decision level that limits the actions to be undertaken. the irreversibilities in each productive unit can be obtained from the exergy balance.4 Design and operation exergy flow values of the cogeneration plant (figure 6.1. Thermoeconomics assumes a reference situation of the plant operating under design conditions. the additional fuel consumption can be expressed as the difference between the resource consumption of the operating plant and the resource consumption for a reference or design condition with the same production objectives: ∆FT = FT − FT0 (6. 144 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .

produced in part in the combustor and in the compressor. also leaves the system as a residue. which correspond to the part of the fuel of the turbine and HRSG coming from the combustor and the compressor respectively. This new productive structure is slightly different than figure 6.5). and is more compact. Thermoeconomic applications to thermoeconomic operation diagnosis and the optimization of 6.2.1. Two auxiliary variables also appear r1 = (B3 – B2)/B3 and r2 = B3/B2.2. Flow #8.15) P = Ps + KP P FIGURE 6.1. The characteristic equations of this new productive structure are obtained as in the previous section applying equation (6. 5 2 3-4 6 3 2 3-2 4-8 7 4 1 8 1 F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 Total P0 0 11781 0 0 0 11781 P1 0 0 0 4156 2474 6631 P2 0 0 0 1627 968 2595 P3 2500 0 2977 0 0 5477 P4 2355 0 0 0 0 2355 Total 4855 11781 2977 5783 3443 For the sake of simplicity we did not consider thermal and mechanical exergies as separate entities.5 Fuel / Product diagram and fuel and product exergy flows (kW) in design conditions for the co- generation plant shown in figure 6. This diagram can be simplified by merging junction 1 and branching point 1 in a new fictitious component called junction–branching point (see figure 6.3. Only a part of Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 145 .2 Impact on resources consumption The Fuel/Product diagram of the cogeneration plant is shown in figure 6.

Accordingly.3857 0.0000 0.0000 0.1.4636 ∆ KP 0. A performance test or a simulator provides the real values of the unit consumptions which are then compared with the design values.0000 0. (100 ∆κij).0000 0. figure 6.0074 0. Table 6.0000 0.0000 –0.1147 -0.1593 0. TABLE 6.8493 The values of the unit exergetic consumption increase are found as: ∆κij = κij (x) – κij (x0).0000 0. Component Fuel Product Residue 1 Combustor B1 B3 – B 2 2 Compressor B5 B2 3 Turbine B3 – B 4 B6 4 HRSG B4 – B 8 B7 B8 In order to bring together the problem of the impact of resources consumption with thermoeconomic diagnosis we need to know the increase of the unit exergy consumption of each component of the plant. ∆κe 0.0000 0.0000 0.4006 0.1147 0.5 shows the chosen disaggregation scheme of the system and the Fuel/Product values for the design conditions.6 shows the ∆κij values for the plant in figure 6.19) is used to obtain the increment of the total resources of an operating plant regarding the reference conditions: ∆FT = ∆ t κ e P 0 + t κ e ∆P (6.0000 0.6 Increase of unit consumption.0000 ∆k 0. Therefore. Thermoeconomics the entering gases to the turbine: B3 – B8 are used as a fuel of other components of the system.0000 0. Equation (6.4006 1.38) 146 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . only a part of the combustor’s and compressor’s product is used as a fuel for other components (useful product).0000 1. TABLE 6.0000 0.1667 0.5 No.5 Fuel/Product definition corresponding to figure 6.

42b). Other methods. only provide an approximate predictive value.41) If no change in the total production of the plant is assumed. 1996)..Thermoeconomic applications to thermoeconomic operation diagnosis and the optimization of The increase of the component production from equation (6. Consequently. the total fuel impact can be written as the sum of the fuel impact or malfunction cost of each component. The proposed method provides the exact values of the additional resource consumption of each component malfunction for any operational state.42b)  i =1  j = 0   Using the above equation.42a)   or in scalar format: n  n  ∆FT = ∑  ∑ k *P. this implies an additional consumption of external resources given by k *P. which is also named the malfunction cost.17). The variation of the exergetic unit consumption of each component increases its resources consumption and its irreversibilities in a quantity ∆κ ji Pi0 . equation (6. j ∆κ ji  Pi0 (6.38) could be written as: ∆FT = ∆ t κ e P 0 + t κ *P ∆ KP P 0 + t κ *P ∆Ps (6. which we call. then:   ∆FT =  ∆ t κ e + t κ *P ∆ KP  P 0 (6.16) may be expressed in terms of the unit exergy consumption as: ∆P = ∆Ps + ∆ KP P 0 + KP ∆P (6. 1994) can be expressed as the sum of the contributions of each component. applying equation (6. Reini. we obtain: ∆P = | P 〉  ∆P s + ∆ 〈 KP〉 P  0 (6. as shown in equation (6. the additional resource consumption ∆FT (also called Fuel Impact. based on marginal costs (Lagrange multipliers) which is valid for an operating state close to the reference conditions. malfunction. Therefore.39) hence.40)   If we want to analyze the fuel impact due to an increment of the exergy unit consumption of the components. such as the Theory of Perturbations (Lozano et al. j ∆κ ji Pi0 . Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 147 .

FIGURE 6.6 Fuel impact and technical saving. The largest irreversibilities increase is in the combustor. ∆I1 ∆F1 I1 ∆P1 ∆F2 ∆I2 F1 I2 P1 F2 P2 148 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .7 shows how an increase of the unit consumption of a component will not only increase the irreversibilities on it but also the irreversibilities of the previous component. Furthermore. Thermoeconomics FIGURE 6. 80 Fuel Impact Malfunction 60 Technical Saving 40 20 0 Combustor Compressor Turbine HRSG Figure 6. The more advanced the production process is. the greater the cost of the irreversibility malfunction and. and how are they related? 6.7 Malfunction and fuel impact. as a consequence. Figure 6. the compressor and the HRSG.1. Three malfunctions in the plant are shown in the combustor. The question that arises is: What causes the irreversibilities increase and the fuel impact. the degradation of a component will force other components to adapt their behavior in order to maintain their production conditions and modify their irreversibilities.3.3 Malfunction and dysfunction analysis We have shown that there is no direct relationship between the increase of the irreversibilities and fuel impact.6 compares the fuel impact and the increase of irreversibilities or the technical exergy saving of each component and also compares (first column) the malfunction and the fuel impact for each component. the greater its fuel impact. but the largest fuel impact is in the compressor.

which forces it to consume more local resources to obtain the additional production required by the other components: DFi = ( k i − 1) ∆Pi The malfunction only affects the behavior of the components.45) j =1 j.…. h =1 The first part of the previous expression corresponds to the component malfunction.Thermoeconomic applications to thermoeconomic operation diagnosis and the optimization of The irreversibility increase of a generic system’s component is given by: ∆I = ∆KD P0 + (KD – UD) ∆P (6.46) h =1 DFij represents the part of i–th component dysfunction generated by component –j–.40) then the irreversibility increase of each component. The coefficient φih Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 149 . Now we will consider the causes and effects of the irreversibilities systems and introduce a new method to compute the fuel impact of a malfunction and its effect. generates a dysfunction on the i–th component proportional to the φih coefficients. If we denote: n DFij = ∑ φ ih ∆κ hj Pj0 (6. which represent the weight of the malfunction effect. on the j-th component.43) is written in terms of the unit consumption as:   ∆I =  ∆K D + I ∆ KP  P 0 (6. and the last part to the dysfunction. equation (6. If we substitute ∆P from equation (6. the dysfunction is a result of how the components adapt themselves to maintain the total production.44)   or in scalar format: n n ∆I i = ∑ Pi ∆κ ji + ∑ φ ih ∆κ hj Pj0 i = 1. In other words.43) From the above expression. n (6. how to compute the dysfunction on the rest of the system components. The above expression shows how a malfunction Pj ∆κhj. we can distinguish two types of irreversibilities: Endogenous irreversibility or malfunction produced by an increase of the unit consumption of the component itself: n M Fi = Pi0 ∆k i = ∑ Pi0 ∆κ ji j =0 Exogenous irreversibility or dysfunction induced in the component by the malfunction of other subsystems. where φih are the coefficients of the irreversibility matrix operator | I 〉 for the actual operation values.

8 Analysis of the irreversibility causes (kW). the fuel impact (6. 80 HRSG Turbine 60 Compressor Combustor 40 Malfunction 20 0 ∆I1 ∆I2 ∆I3 ∆I4 Fuel impact and dysfunction For a specified constant quality and quantity of total production. equation (6. the dysfunction cannot be corrected by itself but decreases the malfunction which generated it. grouping by component production.48)  i =1   i =1 j =1  If we rearrange the previous expression.…. n (6. but only on the unit consumption of the components in the operating state. Thermoeconomics does not depend on the malfunction amount.47) j =1 The graph in figure 6. Therefore.8 describes the cause of the irreversibilities increase in the gas turbine cycle (of the example) as the sum of the malfunctions and the dysfunction generated by the rest of the components FIGURE 6. we obtain: 150 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .45) can be written as the sum of its malfunction and the dysfunction generated by other components of the system: n ∆I i = MFi + ∑ DFij i = 1.42b) could be written as the sum of the malfunctions and dysfunctions of all the plant components: n n  n  ∆FT = ∑ ∆I i = ∑  MFi + ∑ DFij  (6. The technical exergy saving of component –i–.

0000 0.49)  i =1   j. Note that the dysfunction becomes even greater than its own malfunction as the production process proceeds. j = 1 + ∑ φ ij j = 1.0000 0. for the most part. in the combustor. n (6.0469 0.52a) j=1 n could be written as: DI i = ∑  k *P . 0. n (6.3880 2.9.0000 0.….7807 1. j − 1 ∆κ ji Pi0 (6.52b) j =1 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 151 .0000 0.7 shows the irreversibility matrix operator coefficients and unit cost of the component product for an operating gas turbine plant. we find a relationship between the unit cost of production and the irreversibility dysfunction coefficients.4704 k *P 1.…. TABLE 6.0000 0. the fuel impact or the malfunction cost of each component is given by the sum of the malfunction and the dysfunction: n MFi* = MFi + ∑ DFhi i = 1. given by: n k *P .0411 0.7807 2. Table 6.0853 0.….50) h =1 If we compare the previous equations with the fuel impact equation (6. h = 1  Therefore.1007 |I〉 0.9037 1.51) i =1 The above expression is an alternative method to compute the unit cost of the product as the sum of the contribution of the irreversibilities of each component. Thermoeconomic applications to thermoeconomic operation diagnosis and the optimization of n  n  ∆FT = ∑  ∆k i + ∑ φ jh ∆κ hi  Pi0 (6. The cost of the malfunction in the compressor and HRSG includes the dysfunction generated.8708 A graph of the fuel impact for each component is shown in figure 6. n (6.7 Irreversibility matrix and unit cost of product.0723 0. The sum of the dysfunctions generated by a component: n DI i = ∑ DFji i = 1.0614 2.2422 0.42b).0988 0.2586 0.

849 28.520 46.000 DI 0.000 26.644 6.000 0.000 30.571 42.862 1.664 26. The dysfunction table containing the DFij elements can be computed in a compact matrix form using the expression: [DF] = I ∆ KP PD0 TABLE 6.226 ∆I2 0.079 4.004 18.562 59.921 Malfunction 26.079 Total 26. characterized by the unit cost of the resources required by the component.9 Analysis of fuel impact (kW). the dysfunction generated by a component (as with the fuel impact) depends on the malfunction and the position of the component in the productive process. in turn. Thermoeconomics FIGURE 6.000 75.8).8 Malfunction and dysfunction table in (kW).140 2.000 152 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .979 22.000 20.000 2.000 20. 80 ∆ I4 ∆ I3 60 ∆ I2 ∆ I1 40 MF 20 0 Combustor Compressor Turbine HRSG Therefore.408 –0.000 2.000 0.408 4.408 20. Combustor Compressor Turbine HRSG DF Malfunction Total ∆I1 0.925 35.000 0.113 2.243 133.000 ∆I4 0.774 ∆I3 0.562 73.467 0.243 57. The relationship between irreversibility increase and fuel impact can be represented by a double input table (see table 6.624 4.699 4.000 0.562 28. which is.092 2.925 –0.

The total sum by columns represents the Fuel Impact of each component. This analysis is. environmental parameters and the production load or fuel quality. In this thesis we will focus our analysis on local variables and how they affect additional fuel consumption and the other plant components. its malfunction and the cost of its malfunction.1. We must identify them as operating set points.1): one each in the combustor. the isoentropic efficiency of a turbine. the efficiencies of those components would be independent variables (Lozano et al. This means that HRSG and combustor efficiencies can be changed by varying compressor efficiency. in fact. also indirectly affecting the efficiencies of the other plant process units.4 correspond to a 1% decrease in compressor isoentropic efficiency. What are the causes of the malfunctions? In fact. Once the relationship between unit exergy consumption and the operating parameters is known. i. and the total sum by rows is the irreversibility increase. How do we approach this problem? The relationship between operation and efficiency of the components could be analyzed using a simulator. Thermoeconomic applications to thermoeconomic operation diagnosis and the optimization of Each cell represents the DFij dysfunction. Global and/or zonal variables: This is the case when an operating parameter cannot be associated with a specific component.3.. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 153 . It is a powerful tool to find the causes and effects of variations from the design conditions of a plant and to study. 1996). But. we found three malfunctions in the gas turbine cycle (figure 6. in most cases.g.e. Plant operating parameters could be classified according to their effect on the efficiency of the components of the system: Local variables: They mainly affect the behavior of the component related to the variable. So we will assume that there is an operating parameter xr affecting the efficiency of the i-th component of the plant and thus. The DI column represents the sum of the dysfunctions generated by each component. 6. From a practical point of view. The total fuel impact due to its perturbation is basically located in this component. e. the above methodology can be applied to distinguish the effect of an operating parameter on the internal economy of a component.4 Intrinsic and induced malfunctions Using the above method we can identify and quantify malfunction effects. a variable is considered local and therefore related to a subsystem. compressor and HRSG. the actual operation values shown in table 6. For example. and the DF row is the sum of the dysfunctions generated in each component. classify and assign the role of each system unit. the next step in the thermoeconomic diagnosis. The methodology proposed in this section is summarized in the table mentioned above. If all the pant components were isolated.

due to the variation of an operating parameter xr.54) r ∈L i j =1 A system malfunction or improvement does not only have consequences upstream (by trying to see the variation in consumption of used resources) but also downstream. which is. It is due to the degradation of other plant components which provoke a variation in the unit consumption of that component: MFiG = MFi − MFiL (6. the difference between total component malfunction and intrinsic malfunction is called induced malfunction. Thermoeconomics Unfortunately the problem of locating causality of losses in a structure is rather more complex than locating malfunctions and dysfunctions. For example.55) This phenomenon is not foreseen in classic linear thermoeconomic theory. the intrinsic malfunction is that part of the component malfunction due to the degradation/improvement of the component itself. that can decisively affect the system's behavior. it will be possible to approximate the malfunction of a component as the sum of the contributions of each operating parameter: n MFi ≅ ∑ ∑ ∆κ rji Pi0 (6. in turn. 154 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Not only are there dysfunctions when there is an intrinsic malfunction. Thus. The average cost obtained from the most rigorous disaggregation analysis can never predict induced malfunctions and dysfunctions will only be predicted in cases where the hypothesis of linearity and continuity holds. using the throttle valve in a power plant can destroy a small additional amount of exergy but the downstream effects on turbine efficiencies can be quite serious. When a plant unit deteriorates (when its behavior is degraded) its physical variables are modified. This will modify the production and affect the next component. due to variation of local operating parameters: n MFiL ≡ ∑∑ ∆κ rji Pi0 (6.53) r j=1 According to the classification of operating parameters. The unit exergy consumption increase of each component. There are also induced malfunctions. is: ∆κ ijr = κ ij ( x 0 + ∆x r ) − κ ij ( x 0 ) Therefore. its efficiency is decreased and its unit exergy consumption increases. Clearly the degradation or improvement of a system’s flow entry conditions will affect its efficiency to a greater or lesser extent.

In a real power plant. It is basically contained in the so called malfunction matrix.2 Thermoeconomic optimization Here we describe strategies for optimizing complex systems as proposed by Lozano et al. If a unit of a thermal system is thermoeconomically isolated.56) r ∈L i j = 0 r ∉L i j = 0 Where the first term is the fuel impact associated with the intrinsic malfunction and the last term is the fuel impact associated with the induced malfunctions and ∆κij are elements of the ∆ 〈KP〉 matrix. A component of a thermal system is thermoeconomically isolated from the rest of the system if the product of the component and the unit cost of its resources (internal product and/or external resources) are constant and known quantities. j ∆κ rji Pi0 (6. (1996). The fuel impact of an operating parameter on the whole plant can be calculated using the simulator but the latter does not provide information about the effects on other plant components. A deterioration in a component (intrinsic malfunction) can modify the efficiencies of other plant components. Note that the overall impact on resources (fuel impact) can be written as: n n ∆FT ≡ ∑∑ k *P . 6. j ∆κ rji Pi0 + ∑∑ k *P . Thus. the malfunction matrix has a very important engineering application and also introduces new theoretical ideas in Thermoeconomics (see Chapter 7). The ∆ 〈KP〉 matrix has been built for each parameter (see Chapter 7) in a variational analysis. or 〈∆KP〉 matrix. This operation is completely new in Thermoeconomics or in any energy analysis technique. This matrix can relate any operating parameter with all the possible malfunctions. Thermoeconomic applications to thermoeconomic operation diagnosis and the optimization of Malfunction matrix It is important to know the fuel impact associated with the variation of each physical parameter when a malfunction occurs. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 155 . 1980). The total fuel impact can be calculated from the ∆ 〈KP〉 matrix associated with each physical parameter and its causes can be explained and quantified component by component. the most general case is when several plant components suffer simultaneous efficiency deviations. Information about interactions among different plant components can be obtained with the methodology presented here.3. the unit may be optimized by itself (without considering the modifications of other variables of the rest of the system) and the optimun solution obtained for the unit coincides with the optimum solution for the whole system. They are based on sequential optimization from component to component using the Thermoeconomic Isolation Principle (Evans.

TI (Thermoeconomic Isolation) is an ideal condition which cannot be achieved in most of the real systems: Pj and k*P.58) i = 0 ∂x ∂x  156 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .+ ------------- x ∆C 0.i are.i change when design variables of other components change. But the more constant Pj and k*P. i and the production Pj are known and constant. which include: 1. Thermoeconomics Of course. In real world optimization problems. i --------. the cost resource impact of the design variables to each component can be computed: * ∂κ ij ∂κ Z P. the goal is not to achieve TI but to approach it as much as possible in order to obtain maximum advantages. Thus. To optimize individual units. the closer to TI conditions and the fewer iteration loops needed to achieve the optimal solution for the whole system. as well as of whole systems. 3. j  n  =  ∑ k P.57) κ   i=0 * where the unit cost of the input resources k P. To determine whether a design free variable is local or not and which components are involved. The designers can be specialized and their efforts concentrated on designing the variables of single units. Improvements and optimal design of individual units in highly interdependent complex systems are greatly facilitated. due to feedback. The convergence of the solution is faster. the design free variables do not necessarily coincide with the technical production coefficients. P ∆x (6. In practice there will be a function of the actual design free variables which can be named –x–. 2. We say that a free variable x is a local variable of a subsystem –j– when the production coefficients κij of this subsystem only depend on x. the previous expression must be extended to all concerned subsystems. i  P j (6. When a design variable is attached to several subsystems. while resting assured that these efforts yield optimum design and/or improve the overall system. the objective function of the cost of product of the component –j– could be defined as:  n *  Min  ∑ κ ij k P. j .

Thermoeconomic applications to thermoeconomic operation diagnosis and the optimization of

and the ratio calculated:
x
x ∆ C 0, j
εj = ------------------------- (6.59)
n

x
∆ C 0, i
i=1

If this ratio is equal (or close) to 1, the design variable is local for component –j–, if it
is equal (or close) to zero, the design variable is independent of the referred j
component. In other cases the design variable involves several components.

These ideas could be used to design a strategy for global optimization problems:
1. Determine which variables are local and which are regional (involve several com-
ponents)
2. Determine a sequence for local optimization of each component
3. Take an initial value of the design variables
4. Calculate technical production coefficients and unit product cost
5. Find optimum values for local variables
6. Find optimum values for global variables
7. Iterate from (3) to convergence when design variables or unit product cost do not
vary in the next iteration. In each iteration the unit cost of total product must
decrease.

Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 157

CHAPTER 7

Thermoeconomic analysis of
a dual-purpose power and
desalination plant

The basic concepts and fundamentals of Thermoeconomics were explained in
Chapter 6 and will now be applied to a dual-purpose power and desalination plant; the
most important contribution of this Ph. D. Thesis. During the 60’s and early 70’s
Evans (1962), Tribus (Tribus et al., 1960; Tribus and Evans, 1963) and El-Sayed (El-
Sayed and Aplenc, 1970; El-Sayed and Evans, 1970) laid down the seminal ideas of
Thermoeconomics and applied them to the desalination processes. Tribus first
proposed the term ‘Thermoeconomics’. Since then, Thermoeconomic techniques have
been developed and applied mostly to power plants. This thesis represents the most
complete and rigorous thermoeconomic analysis ever made on a complex energy
system and more specifically on a dual-purpose power and desalination plant. It
encompasses the whole range between an energy audit based on a detailed cost
analysis, up to a thermoeconomic optimization, via a thermoeconomic diagnosis of
several plant component failures.

The first section of this chapter includes the resolution of the thermoeconomic model
for the power and desalination plant. The steps to build and solve the thermoeconomic
model are described in detail.

The second section contains an in depth cost analysis of the most significant operating
modes governing the power and desalination plant (including operational and
investment capital costs) in order to quantify the efficiency of each operation mode.
This is used to calculate the physical (and therefore more realistic) value of the
resources consumed to produce every flowstream inside the plant, which is the key to
an energy audit. An inefficient process can be located and quantified in terms of fuel
plant consumption. Eight different operating modes were considered in the dual-
purpose plant, covering the whole range of the diverse combinations:

Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant

Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant

• In the first case, the plant only produced electricity. The second case was the
opposite: the plant was like a pure distillation unit, producing only desalted
water.

• The third to sixth cases studied the effect of partial load operation on the
efficiency of the installation, starting from maximum production to the minimum
load of water and electricity demand.

• The seventh and eighth cases considered the effect of the cleaning ball system on
the MSF evaporators. In both cases, some live steam was throttled in the HP
reduction station corresponding to the maximum load of extracting live steam to
a second MSF unit.

Non-operating costs were added to the calculated exergy costs. We compared our
thermoeconomic method with other indirect methods that calculate product costs as
the accounting of expenses in plant exploitation: fuel, maintenance, amortization,
etc., divided by the total plant production.

The third section of this chapter describes a complete thermoeconomic diagnosis of
the inefficiencies in the units of the power and desalination plant. Not only was the
additional fuel consumption due to the inefficiency calculated (impact on fuel
analysis), but also the effect on the behavior of other plant units. This effect was
separated in different contributions over the rest of devices: malfunctions (induced
and intrinsic malfunctions) and dysfunctions. Four different loads in the power plant
were considered and two distillate productions in the MSF plant. These examples
encompass the most significant operating conditions. Each study considered five
inefficiencies corresponding to five components of the power plant and three
inefficiencies in the MSF plant.

The fourth section applies the thermoeconomic technique based on local
optimization. The local optimization of energy systems is very valuable to find the
optimum operating conditions. The plant can be optimized by minimizing the cost of
the product of each unit, starting from real operating conditions.

The fifth section analyzes the concepts of price and cost. They were distinguished in
order to obtain the maximum benefit in plant exploitation.

Finally, the last section contains the conclusions and some ‘operation recommenda-
tions’ from the thermoeconomic analysis. These are very useful to guide managers in
saving energy and achieving a more cost-effective operation of a dual-purpose plant
operation.

160 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant

Thermoeconomic model

7.1 Thermoeconomic model
A thermoeconomic model mathematically represents the productive structure of a
plant. This structure is a graphical representation of the resource distribution. Its
flows describe the productive relationship among components based on the physical
structure, although they are not forced to coincide with the existing physical flows of
the plant.

The thermoeconomic model should logically be defined after the physical structure
(section 7.1.2). Then the productive structure is built (section 7.1.3) along with the
system of characteristic equations that mathematically describe the productive
structure of the plant (section 7.1.4). Before considering the complex thermoeco-
nomic model of the dual plant, a very simple thermoeconomic model of a co-
generation system is included in section 7.1.1. It is a simple example of how to build
a thermoeconomic model and calculate the cost of live steam, water and electricity.
These can be compared with other methodologies that only account for the cost of the
final products (water and electricity) with external information or other
simplifications (see section 7.2.5).

7.1.1 A simple co-generation system
A steam generator (boiler), a steam turbine and the MSF plant can represent a very
simple dual-purpose desalination plant. Auxiliary non-producer elements like heaters,
pumps or condensers are not included in the scheme. The productive structure in
figure 7.1 can be built using the F-P definitions in table 7.1. The availability of the
steam generated in the boiler is sent to the two productive units (steam turbine and
MSF desalination unit). The fuel and product definition and the characteristic and
exergy cost equations of every component of the system are included in table 7.1.

FIGURE 7.1 Productive structure of the simple co-generation system.

2 W
Steam turbine
B1 – B2

C1 1 B1
Boiler A

B2
3 D
MSF unit

Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 161

Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant

TABLE 7.1 Fuel, product, characteristic equation and exergy cost balance in the simple co-generation
system.

Fuel Product Ch. Equation Cost equation

1 Boiler C1 B1 C1 = k1 B1 k1* = k 1 cf

A Branching kA* = k*1

2 Turbine B1 – B2 W B1 – B2 = k2 W k2* = k2 kA*

3 MSF B2 D B2 = k3 D k3* = k3 kA*

The results of the model (table 7.2) were obtained under maximum continuous rating
(MCR). The cost of fuel cf was 2.23×10–6 $/kJ, and the cost of water and electricity
was also expressed in the most commercial units.

TABLE 7.2 Results of the simple co-generation system model, MCR case.

Fuel or product (kW) Unit consumption Exergy cost

C1 = 455,000 k1 = 2.244 k*1 = 2.244

B1 = 202,800 k2 = 1.293
k*2 = 2.902 (= 0.0233 ($/kWh)
B2 = 45,000 k3 = 6.553

W = 122,000
k*3 =14.7 (=151.4 kJ/kg, 0.3377 $/m3)
D = 6,867

The values are very similar to the results of the thermoeconomic model explained
below. This simple model can easily calculate the cost of the two main products using
thermoeconomic principles. The only requirement is to introduce the quality of the
steam derived to the MSF unit (from the simulator or an owner’s data sheet).

7.1.2 Physical structure
The physical structure of a plant is similar to a set of subsystems or units linked
among themselves and to the environment by another set of matter, heat, and work
that express plant behavior more or less accurately, or, in general:

energy system = subsystems or units + matter and/or energy flows (7.1)

162 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant

Thermoeconomic model

The relationship between the flows and subsystems can be set up in a matrix
formulation (Lozano and Valero, 1993; Valero et al., 1993), that describes the
balances of matter, energy and exergy in a very compact form.

The more detailed the definition of the physical structure, the better the possibilities
of analyzing the installation. However, a more detailed physical structure implies
increasing both the number of measurements to be taken in a performance test
(temperatures, pressures, mass flow rates…) and the complexity of calculations. The
goal is to find an optimum level of aggregation, i.e. level of detailed description in the
physical structure corresponding to the depth of analysis.

The physical structure of the power plant analyzed thermoeconomically is very
similar to the mathematical model in the simulator (chapter 5). The thermophysical
properties of the main flowstreams calculated in a simulation can be used as
reasonable initial values for a thermoeconomic analysis in an operating condition.
Only the gland steam leakage flow is neglected, which is not significant. Figure 7.2
shows the physical structure of the power plant. If the power plant is working in
parallel or twin-extraction mode (that is, the reducing pressure extraction is working),
the pressure reduction station is included in the physical model. Table 7.3 describes
the nomenclature adopted in the previous figure.

FIGURE 7.2 Physical structure of the power plant considered for the thermoeconomic model.

Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 163

Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant

TABLE 7.3 Description of components appearing in figure 7.2.

Component no. Initials Description

1 CP Condenser Pump
2 LPH2 Low Pressure Heater No. 2
3 LPH1 Low Pressure Heater No. 1
4 DRT Deaerator
5 FP Feed Pump
6 HPH2 High Pressure Heater No. 2
7 HPH1 High Pressure Heater No. 1

8 VEX4 4th extraction valve

9 VEX3 3rd extraction valve
10 VEXD Extraction valve to deaerator

11 VEX2 2nd extraction valve

12 VEX1 1st extraction valve
13 VF Feed valve
14 BOI Boiler
15 VB Boiler valve
16 VST Stop valve
17 BHP Brine heater pump

18 HPT1 High pressure turbine (1st section)

19 HPT2 High pressure turbine (2nd section)

20 HPT3 High pressure turbine (3rd section)

21 HPT4 High pressure turbine (4th section)

22 LPT1 High pressure turbine (1st section)

23 LPT2 High pressure turbine (2nd section)
24 CND Condenser
25 GEN Generator
26 MSF Desalination unit (multistage flash)

27 VS1 1st Reducing pressure valve (steam)

28 VS2 2nd Reducing pressure valve (vac.)

29 VS3 3rd Reducing pressure valve (FP)

164 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant

Thermoeconomic model

However, the physical model considered for the thermoeconomic analysis of the
MSF unit (figure 7.3) differs from the mathematical model implemented in the
simulator. The physical model treats the recovery and reject sections as a unique
component. If these sections are divided into stages, a huge productive structure is
generated in the plant. Since the functionality of each stage is identical, this
possibility of plant dissagregation is not considered. Consequently, the input/output
values of the recovery and reject sections in the simulator can be used as the basis of
the analysis (their operating data are also available). The pump system of the
distillation unit is also considered. Exit conditions of these pumps are calculated in
the thermoeconomic model with their characteristic charts.

FIGURE 7.3 Physical structure of the MSF plant considered for the thermoeconomic analysis.

Table 7.4 further describes the meaning of figure 7.3.

TABLE 7.4 Components description from figure 7.3. Note that component no. 1 is not described in physical
model but is included in other schemes.

Component no. Initials Description

2 BH Brine heater
3 RP Recycle brine pump
4 BDP Blowdown pump
5 RCS Recovery section
6 MIX Mixer
7 RJS Reject section
8 SWP Seawater pump
9 DP Distillate pump
10 MXT Mixer (temper water)
11 TP Tempering pump

Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 165

The productive structure can be explained in a diagram with squares representing physical plant units (productive and dissipative physical processes). the MSF plant is considered a single plant unit in the productive structure. The inlet arrows going into squares are the fuels of the corresponding components and outlet arrows represent products.3 Productive structure A plant is more than a set of flows and units. and circles and rhombuses that are not physical components of the plant. The data acquisition system of the plant is clearly insufficient to provide the data required by the productive structure defined in section 7. For instance. a significant exergy resource is obtained by the addition of others of the same nature but different origin.1. i. We will clearly indicate which flow or combination of flows constitute the product of the unit (P). which is equivalent to defining efficiency. 7.3. For this reason all required data were provided by the model presented in chapters 3 to 5. The productive structure also includes the distribution of consumed resources in the different units and how plant products are obtained. Using the F-P-L definition and the data from the design and operation. The minimum aggregation level is considered for the MSF plant in the productive structure of the power plant. the thermoeconomic model should be disaggregated to a deep enough decision level to make use of the most important data provided by the data acquisition system. The lines connecting the different productive units are exergy resources (fuels and products).e. a productive structure can be designed in different detail or aggregation levels. The productive structure contains the mathematical definition of the function of each component.1 Steam power plant Depending on the analysis. Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant 7. those that leave the unit and plant and are not subsequently used. The difference between thermal.1 for the power and desalination plant. it is possible to carry out the energy and exergy analysis of the plant. The circles are branching points where the exergy resource is distributed to other components. In every junction (rhombus). which ones are the resources or fuel consumed (F) and which flows are the losses (L). The production objective (product) and the resources needed (fuel) to develop its function are defined for each device. The best F-P-L definition to represent unit productive function is obtained by simultaneously examining their own energy transformation. The F-P definition used for the power plant follows the trend adopted in conventional steam power plants. Each unit has a particular productive function which contributes to final production. as if they were measured data provided by the plant acquisition system.1. 166 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . To apply an on-line thermoeconomic analysis (as presented in Chapter 7) to the dual plant. in a thermoeconomic analysis of a power plant.

DB is the exergy flow of fresh water leaving the MSF. therefore. where B is the exergy flow of a stream (its mass flow rate m multiplied by its specific exergy b). A pump has the inverse functionality: it uses work (W) as the fuel to increase the pressure of a fluid (B2 – B1). the fuel is the primary (mechanical) energy (W1) and the product is secondary (electrical) (W2). A valve is a Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 167 . Thermoeconomic model mechanical and chemical exergy was not considered in the power and desalination plant when the productive structure of the system was built. the heater is a component installed to heat feedwater (B4 – B1) in a Rankine cycle. which is condensed inside the heater (B2 – B5). Exergy losses (L) are considered but do not explicitly appear in the productive structure. S is the entropy flow of a stream (mass flow m multiplied by the specific entropy s). The F-P-L definition of the steam power plant components is presented in figure 7. W is the work consumed or generated in a component. 1990).4 F-P description in steam power plant. a lower aggregation level was used in the thermoeconomic analysis of the MSF unit with several plant units. with extracted steam supplied by the turbine. The job of a steam turbine is to produce work (W) by exhausting the steam from a boiler (B1 – B2). Thus.4. the fuel also incorporates its exergy flow (B3). However. If the heater has a drain from another heater. The fuel and product of each device is defined depending on the functionality of the component (Frangopoulos. FIGURE 7. A generator is an energy converter.

deaerator and pumps. Von Spakovsky. heaters. From a thermodynamic point of view. Benelmir. The water/steam entropy is increased in other plant components. The condenser is a dissipative unit which condensates the steam coming from the steam turbines to produce liquid water. The productive structure is made up of components with exergy added to the working fluid of the power plant (steam/water). the exergy losses of the different flows entering the condenser are the fuel of the device (B1 + B2 + B3 – B4). the condenser function allows the working fluid (water) to reach the physical conditions to perform a new thermodynamic cycle. The amount of negentropy consumed in a component is proportional to its entropy increase. As the steam (B3) is condensed in the heater of the distillation unit. As a result. Finally. The heat released (Q) has a low temperature and is thus rejected to the atmosphere without any further application. The product is the heating of the colder streams ((m1 + m2) b3 – m1 b1 – m2 b2) and the fuel is the heat released by hotter streams (m4 b4 + m5 b5 – (m4 + m5) b3). the MSF is treated as a component whose main purpose is to produce freshwater (DB) using different flows of steam and electricity (B1 + B2 – B3 + W). 1989) propose negentropy as the condenser product. 1999). Finally. their negentropy consumption is primarily produced in the condenser. The deaerator is a heater with a mixing process of several flows. the components of the exergy addition are the boiler. the selected productive structure is independent of the final results (Valero et al.B1).. A boiler uses primary energy like natural gas (Bgas) to boil and superheat the feedwater in a steam cycle (B2 -. The fuel and product in a boiler are very clear. It undergoes exergy losses when the fuel (B2) passes through the valve (B1). In summary. several authors (Frangopoulos. 1986. the condenser. it provides the best information to understand the behavior of the individual components of a power plant. the MSF unit and the pressure losses in tubes. The negentropy produced is the condenser product (T0 (S4 – S3 – S2 – S1)). The components of exergy removal in the steam cycle with co-generation are the turbine sections. The maximum aggregation level provides the product and fuel formation cost of each component in the steam plant. The amount of exergy supplied to the working fluid is added in a junction and then redistributed (using branching points) to the components where the exergy is removed from the working fluid to be mixed with another flow or used as fuel of a component. a junction is settled to pick up the work produced in the turbine sections and. after passing the generator. Although it is complicated to construct a productive structure with a maximum aggregation level. 1983. The negentropy is a thermodynamic function (Frangopoulos. In this case. Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant dissipative component. For this reason. is redistributed to the components that need the electrical consumption as fuel (pump or 168 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . From the point of view of the diagnosis. some negentropy is generated in this process (S) which is a secondary product of the MSF (auxiliary product or byproduct). 1983) with exergy or energy dimensions but with entropy reduction of water/steam in the condenser.

7 shows the changes applied to this operating mode with respect to the first structure (figure 7. generating power and fresh water (extraction mode. Different productive structures were defined for each operating mode because different plant units depend on it. Thermoeconomic model MSF unit). FIGURE 7.5) does not use the live steam reducing pressure station. brine heater pump and MSF components must be removed.6 shows the small changes needed to perform the productive structure of the condensing mode.5 Productive structure of the power plant in extraction mode. the condenser and 2nd section of the low-pressure turbine are treated as a component with two fuels: work needed to move the turbine and the exergy flow lost in the condenser. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 169 . As a result. the F-P formulation applied to the productive structure generated for the more realistic mode. the low-pressure turbine is acting as a compressor. When the power plant is working in condensing mode (only electricity is produced). Figure 7. For instance. When the power plant is working in extraction mode at low loads. see figure 7. Only two streams leave the plant: distillate flow (DB) and net output power. the J3 junction. Figure 7.5). and one stream enters (the exergy flow of fuel). and consequently.

Changes with respect to figure 7.7 includes the reduction pressure valve. i. the productive structure is quite simple because only six components need to be considered to perform the productive structure (see figure 7. Figure 7. Steam to MSF J3 MSF 26 BHP 17 Vacuum When the power production is less than a minimum (the outlet pressure of the fourth section of the high-pressure turbine is very low).6 Changes applied to extraction mode productive structure (figure 7. 170 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . those operating in this mode.5. which is also valid for the twin extraction mode.9). in desalination or twin desalination mode (steam power plant not working). the reduction pressure station is automatically opened to maintain steam conditions to the MSF heater (this is the parallel mode).e.5) when the plant operates in condensing mode. FIGURE 7.7 Productive structure corresponding to extraction mode with low energy production in a dual- purpose plant.8 shows the additional structure added to figure 7. Finally.5. The productive structure in figure 7. Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant FIGURE 7..

8 Productive structure of the steam power plant in parallel and twin extraction mode.9 Productive structure of the steam power plant in desalination or twin desalination mode. depending on the aggregation level used to solve the thermoeconomic model.5. In this case. following the physical model Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 171 .2 MSF unit The F-P-L definition of the MSF components is the first step in building the productive structure.3. Changes with respect to figure 7. FIGURE 7. recovery and reject sections are considered one component. 7. independently of the number of their stages. This case could be considered an intermediate aggregation level. Thermoeconomic model FIGURE 7.1.

172 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Figure 7. and the steam consumed to hold the distillers below atmospheric pressure (vacuum). For more information of brine exergy calculation see Annex 2. The brine heater gives the final heating to the brine (B4 – B3) by condensing vapor bled from the turbine (B1 – B2). The mixer device produces an outlet stream (B3) by merging two or more inlet streams (B1 + B2).3. The recovery and reject sections are complex devices. Distillate from the recovery section (DB1) is also a fuel component of the reject section. The resources consumed are the exergy released by the flashing brine. Their products are very clear: the distillate produced (DB or DB2 – DB1) in each distiller.10 resumes the F-P-L definition applied to the MSF plant units.10 F-P definition in the MSF unit. FIGURE 7. Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant previously defined in figure 7. which is partially recovered by the cooling brine ((B1 – B2) – (F2 – F1)).

The fuel of these sections is the exergy released by the flashing brine (B1 – B2) and the product is the two effects obtained in the sections (F2 – F1) + DB. (several times the value of distilled water in these sections) gives nonsense values for the calculated exergy costs.. This is a higher aggregation level than adopted in this thesis. • The system recovery-reject section could be considered a component.F1) is a component of the product of these components. the analysis of a thermal inefficiency in a distiller cannot be performed with the F-P definition adopted in this hypothetical assumption. 1986a). • It would not be adequate to consider the chemical exergy of the distillate leaving the reject section as the final product of the MSF plant. Furthermore. This avoids introducing the fictitious device in the productive structure of the distillation plant. in order to explain and study the exergy cost of each flow. This scenario only varies the cost of reject section. The only consequence of a thermal inefficiency is a thermal exergy variation. • One possibility is to consider that the exergy recovered in the cooling brine (F2 -. The most important point is to find out the physical sense of the flowstreams in the productive structure.Thermoeconomic model Some other interpretations of the F-P definitions were considered to select the appropriate productive structure. The cost of the rejected cooling seawater and blowdown is not charged over the rest of the MSF plant flowstreams. • The distilled water in the recovery section may not be considered a fuel of the reject section. The product of the reject section should only be the quantity of distilled water produced in that section. The high value of the subproduct (F2 – F1). Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 173 . Valero et al. Its low value would imply huge exergy operating costs of the rest of the flowstreams inside the distillers. Several productive structures were studied in this thesis. in order to avoid the effect of recycling flows in the MSF plant and the modeling of a fictitious mixer in the final stage of the distillation plant. But the exergy cost of the intermediate flowstreams is obviously different when the fuel and product definition of each component and/or the aggregation level is changed. The chemical exergy of freshwater only depends on salt concentration and does not vary under thermal inefficiency. • Consider a zero exergy cost of the MSF plant residues (fourth proposition of the exergy cost theory. This results of this definition are similar to the final F-P definition chosen but it contradicts the functionality of the components. not the total amount of freshwater produced. • The heated cooling brine could be considered a subproduct of the recovery and reject sections while maintaining the fuel as in the previous case. This consideration is a price allocation because the residues are final products external to the system and have zero cost. The objective was to obtain the exact value of the exergy cost of the final product (whose value is independent of the productive structure) and the F-P definition.

Figure 7. But the most amazing situation of this structure is the non-physical component or fictitious device (FD). unless the condensing mode is selected (in this case there is no freshwater production). As the flows circulating by the MSF unit are pumped.11 Productive structure of the MSF unit.10). The first one is the cooling brine heated in the brine heater. the number of junctions and branches are a result of the F-P definition adopted for the recovery and reject sections. The most significant branching points of the MSF plant redistribute their product as a fuel for some components of the MSF unit. FIGURE 7. The exergy costs of the blowdown and discharged cooling brine are used and conveniently incorporated into the rest of the internal costs and the final product of the MSF unit. Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant The formation of the productive structure of the MSF unit is not easily explained with the F-P definition considered in the thermoeconomic model (several junctions are needed to obtain component fuel and product). It was included at the beginning of the structure to account for residue costs (blowdown and reject cooling seawater) in the thermoeconomic model. The cost of steam to brine heater (considered to be the main fuel of the plant) is overcharged by the effect of the two useless flows sent to sea. 174 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .11 shows the productive structure of the MSF plant corresponding to the F-P definition explained above (figure 7. The operating modes of the power plant do not affect the productive structure of the desalination unit. the main flows of the plant are added to a junction in which the exergy added by the pump is incorporated to the flow. the second branching has the cooling seawater to reject.

and • the thermodynamic efficiency (κ) of the process taking place in the component. i.1. There are 19 characteristic equations in the MSF unit model and seven and three equations corresponding to the junctions and branching points. Equation (7.e.5 includes the equations that describe the thermoeconomic model of the steam power plant.2- type equation for each fuel entering a component (57 equations in total). how the components are interconnected from a productive viewpoint. its production (P). The structural equations (7. i.4) where κ is the technical production coefficient of the unit and r is a structural parameter in the junctions or exergy ratio.3) Branching point j: Fj = ∑ Pi (7.2) provides information about: • the productive function of each commoponent. four equations for the four junctions and four equations derived from the four branching points in the productive structure (figure 7. The characteristic equations (equations 7. Table 7. i. Thermoeconomic model 7.3) and (7.4) can easily be written using the productive structure diagram.2–7.4 Thermoeconomic model The thermoeconomic model is the mathematical representation of the productive structure.: Unit j: Fi = κij · Pj (7. The subscript numbers of the fuel and products correspond to the flow diagram of Chapter 4 (power plant scheme) and Chapter 3 (diagram of the MSF plant).e.e.4) contain the distribution of the resources consumed by the plant components.2) Junction j: Fi = rij · Pj (7. • what the component needs (F) to develop its productive purpose.5). Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 175 . The Thermoeconomic model of the steam power plant (extraction mode) has one 7. It consists of a group "characteristic equations" which express (for all components in the productive structure) each inlet flow as a function of the outlet flows and a set of internal parameters.

Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant TABLE 7. Exergy Flows Characteristic equation(s) PCP = m12 (b12–b11) WCP = kBCP * PCP CP FSCP = m12 T0 (s12–s11) FSCP = kSCP * PCP PLPH2 = m12 (b14–b12) FB1LPH2 = m34 (b34–b25)+ mci (bci–b25) FB1LPH2 = kB1LPH2 * PLPH2 LPH2 FB2LPH2 = m33 (b23–b25) FB2LPH2 = kB2LPH2 * PLPH2 FSLPH2 = T0 {m12 (s14–s12) – m34 (s34–s25) FSLPH2 = kSLPH2 * PLPH2 – m33 (s33–s25)– mci (sci–s25)} PLPH1 = m12 (b15–b14) FBLPH1 = kBLPH1 * PLPH1 LPH1 FBLPH1 = m33 (b33–b23) FSLPH1 = kSLPH1 * PLPH1 FSLPH1 = T0 {m12 (s15–s14)– m33 (s33–s23)} PDRT = m12 (b16–b15)+ mdes (b16–brdes) FB1DRT = m32 (b32–b16) FB1DRT = kB1DRT * PDRT FB2DRT = (m30 + m31) (b22–b16) DRT FB2DRT = kB2DRT * PDRT FSDRT = T0 {m20 s16 –(m30 + m31) s22 –m12 FSDRT = kSDRT * PDRT s15 – m32 s32 – mdes srdes} PFP = m20 (b17–b16) WFP = kBFP * PFP FP FSCP = m20 T0 (s17–s16) FSFP = kSFP * PFP PHPH2 = m20 (b19–b17) FB1HPH2 = m31 (b31–b22) FB1HPH2 = kB1HPH2 *PHPH2 HPH2 FB2HPH2 = m30 (b21–b22) FB2HPH2 = kB2HPH2 * PHPH2 FSHPH2 = T0 {m20 (s19–s17)–m31 (s31–s22) FSHPH2 = kSHPH2 * PHPH2 – m30 (s21–s22)} PHPH1 = m20 (b20–b19) FBHPH1 = kBHPH1 * PHPH1 HPH1 FBHPH1 = m30 (b30–b21) FSHPH1 = kSHPH1 * PHPH1 FSHPH1 = T0 {m20 (s20–s19)–m30 (s30–s21)} PVEX4 = m34 (b34–b25) + mci (bci–b25) FBVEX4 = kBVEX4 * PVEX4 VEX4 FBVEX4 = m34 (b8–b25) + mci (bci–b25) FSVEX4 = kSVEX4 * PVEX4 FSVEX4 = T0 m34 (s34–s8) PVEX3 = m33 (b33–b23) FBVEX3 = kBVEX3 * PVEX3 VEX3 FBVEX3 = m33 (b6–b23) FSVEX3 = kSVEX3 * PVEX3 FSVEX3 = T0 m33 (s33–s6) PVEXD = m32 (b32–b16) FBVEXD = kBVEXD * PVEXD VEXD FBVEXD = m32 (b5–b16) FSVEXD = kSVEXD * PVEXD FSVEXD = T0 m32 (s32–s5) 176 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Dev.5 Exergy flows and characteristic equations of components in the steam power plant (extraction mode).

Thermoeconomic model TABLE 7. Exergy Flows Characteristic equation(s) PVEX2 = m31 (b31–b22) FBVEX2 = kBVEX2 * PVEX2 VEX2 FBVEX2 = m31 (b4–b22) FSVEX2 = kSVEX2 * PVEX2 FSVEX2 = T0 m31 (s31–s4) PVEX1 = m30 (b30–b21) FBVEX1 = kBVEX1 * PVEX1 VEX1 FBVEX1 = m30 (b3–b21) FSVEX1 = kSVEX1 * PVEX1 FSVEX1 = T0 m30 (s30–s3) PVF = m12 (b28–b11) + (m20–m12) (b28–b16) FBVF = kBVF * PVF VF FBVF = m12 (b20–b11) + (m20–m12) (b20–b16) FSVF = kSVF * PVF FSVF = T0 m20 (s28–s20) PBOI = m20 (b29–b28) C1 = kBBOI * PBOI BOI FSBOI = T0 m20 (s29–s28) FSBOI = kSBOI * PBOI PVB = m12 (b1–b11) + (m20–m12) (b1–b16) FBVB = kBVB * PVB VB FBVB = m12 (b29–b11) + (m20–m12) (b29–b16) FSVB = kSVB * PVB FSVB = T0 m20 (s1–s29) PVST = m12 (b1’–b11) + (m20–m12) (b1’–b16) FBVST = kBVST * PVST VST FBVST = PVB FSVST = kSVST * PVST FSVB = T0 m20 (s1’–s1) PBHP = mdes (brdes–bdes) WBHP = kBBHP * PBHP BHP FSBHP = T0 mdes (srdes–sdes) FSBHP = kSBHP * PBHP FBHPT1 = m20 (b1’–b3) FBHPT1 = kBHPT1 * WHPT1 HPT1 FSHPT1 = T0 m20 (s3–s1’) FSHPT1 = kSHPT1 * WHPT1 FBHPT2 = (m20–m30–mva) (b3–b4) FBHPT2 = kBHPT2 * WHPT2 HPT2 FSHPT2 = T0 (m20–m30–mva) (s4–s3) FSHPT2 = kSHPT2 * WHPT2 FBHPT3 = (m20–m30–mva–m31) (b4–b5) FBHPT3 = kBHPT3 * WHPT3 HPT3 FSHPT3 = T0 (m20–m30–mva–m31) (s5–s4) FSHPT3 = kSHPT3 * WHPT3 FBHPT4 = (m20–m30–mva–m31–m32) (b5–b6) FBHPT4 = kBHPT4 * WHPT4 HPT4 FSHPT4 = T0 (m20–m30–mva–m31–m32) (s6–s5) FSHPT4 = kSHPT4 * WHPT4 FBLPT1 = (m9 + m34) (b6–b8) FBLPT1 = kBLPT1 * WLPT1 LPT1 FSLPT1 = T0 (m9 + m34) (s8–s6) FSLPT1 = kSLPT1 * WLPT1 FBLPT2 = m9 (b8–b9) FBLPT2 = kBLPT2 * WLPT2 LPT2 FSLPT2 = T0 m9 (s9–s8) FSLPT2 = kSLPT2 * WLPT2 PCND = T0 {m9 s9 + (m34 + m33 + mci) s25 + mva sva –m12 s11} CND FBCND = kBCND * PCND FBCND = m9 b9 + (m34 + m33 + mci) b25 + mva bva – m12 b11 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 177 . Dev.5 Exergy flows and characteristic equations of components in the steam power plant (extraction mode).

6). Figure 7. We used the flow nomenclature adopted in Chapter 3.5 Exergy flows and characteristic equations of components in the steam power plant (extraction mode).12 Physical model considered in the thermoeconomic analysis of the MSF plant.12 shows the exergy flows considered in the thermoeconomic model of the MSF plant (which also appear in the characteristic equations in table 7. Exergy Flows Characteristic equation(s) WT = WHPT1 + WHPT2 + WHPT3 GEN WT = kGEN * PGEN + WHPT4 + WLPT1 + WLPT2 WMSF = kB3MSF * PD FB1MSF = mdes (b6–bdes) FB1MSF = kB1MSF * PD MSF FB2MSF = mva (b3–bva) FB2MSF = kB2MSF * PD FSMSF = T0 {mdes (sdes–s6)+ mva (sva–s3)} FSMSF = kSMSF * PD PVST = FBVEX4 + FBVEX3 + FBVEX2 + FBVEX1 + FBVEXD + FB2LPH2 + FB2DRT + FB2HPH2 A FBJ3 = mdes (b6–b16) + FBHPT1 + FBHPT2 + FBHPT3 + FBHPT4 + FBLPT1 + FBLPT2 + FBJ3 + FBCND+FB2MSF B PDRT = m12 (b16–b15) + mdes (b16–brdes) C PGEN = WTN + WFP + WCP +WMSF +WBHP FVF = rFP * PFP + rLPH2 * PLPH2 + rLPH1 J1 * PLPH1 + rDRTj1* m12 (b16–b15) + rCP * PCP + rHPH2 * PHPH2 + rHPH1 * PHPH1 J2 FVB = rVF * PVF + rBOI * PBOI FB1MSF = rJ3 * FBJ3 + rDRTj3* mdes J3 (b16–brdes) + rBHP * PBHP WT = rHPT1 * WHPT1 + rHPT2 * WHPT2 J4 + rHPT3 * WHPT3 + rHPT4 * WHPT4 + rLPT1 * WLPT1 + rLPT2 * WLPT2 The physical model of the thermoeconomic analysis differs from the mathematical model presented in Chapter 3. Dev. FIGURE 7. 178 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant TABLE 7.

5 FB2MSF F3RJS = k3RJS * PRJS F3RJS = 0.5 FB2MSF F3RCS = k3RCS * PRCS F3RCS = 0.5 mvent b15 PMIX = R b8 F1MIX = k1MIX * PMIX MIX F1MIX = (R – D – BD) b9 F2MIX = k2MIX * PMIX F2MIX = F b13 PRJS = D b11 F1RJS = (R – Drcs) b6 – (R – D) b9 + Drcs b5 F1RJS = k1RJS * PRJS RJS – SR (b13 – b17) F2RJS = k2RJS * PRJS F2RJS = 0.6 Exergy flows and characteristic equations for the components of the MSF plant.5 mvent b15 SWP PSWP = SW (b15 – b16) WSWP = kSWP * PSWP DP PDP = D (b12 – b11) WDP = kDP * PDP PMXT = SR b17 F1MXT = k1MXT * PMXT MXT F1MXT = TP b14 F2MXT = k2MXT * PMXT F2MXT = (SW – mvent) b15 TP PTP = TP (b14 – b13) WTP = kTP * PTP PJA = F2FD JA F1JA = PBDP PJA = r1JA * F1JA + r2JA * F2JA F2JA = BD b8 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 179 . Thermoeconomic model TABLE 7. Devices Exergy flows Characteristic equation(s) PFD = mdes (b6 – bdes) ≡ FB1MSF F1FD = k1FD * PFD F1FD = PFD FD F2FD = k2FD * PFD F2FD = BD b10 F3FD = k3FD * PFD F3FD = CW b13 PBH = R (b4 – b3) BH PBH = kBH * PBH FBH = PFD RP PRP = R (b7 – b8) WRP = kRP * PRP BDP PBDP = BD (b10 – b8) WBDP = kBDP * PBDP PRCS = Drcs b5 F1RCS = k1RCS * PRCS F1RCS = R b4 – (R – Drcs) b6 – R (b3 – b7) RCS F2RCS = k2RCS * PRCS F2RCS ≡ 0.

2 Cost analysis Thermoeconomic analysis combines the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics along with monetary cost balances at the system component level. mass flow rates. fuel consumption. The cost accounting method can calculate costs using rough data from an energy system control room (pressures. Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant TABLE 7. and the economic data). Devices Exergy flows Characteristic equation(s) PJB = R b4 – R (b3 – b7) F1JB = PBH PJB = r1JB * F1JB + r2JB * F2JB JB F2JB = PRP + r3JB * F3JB F3JB = PMIX F1JD = (R – Drcs) b6 – (R – D) b8 – SR (b13 – b17) PJB = F2JA + F1JD + F1RCS + F1JI C F1JI = SR (b13 – b17) + F1MIX PJD = F1RJS JD PJD = r1JD * F1JD + r2JD * F2JD F2JD = PRCS E F1JK = TP b13 PJI = F3FD + F1JK + F2MIX PJG = SR b15 JG F1JG = PSWP PJG = r1JG * F1JG + r2JG * F2JG F2JG = SR b16 H PJG = F3RCS + F3RJS + F2MXT PJI = SR b13 JI PJI = r1JI * F1JI + r2JI * F2JI F2JI = PMXT PJJ = PD = D b12 JJ F1JJ = PRJS PJJ = r1JJ* F1JJ + r2JJ * F2JJ F2JJ = PDP PJK = F1MXT JK PJK = r1JK * F1JK + r2JK * F2JK F2JK = PTP 7. excess of oxygen etc.6 Exergy flows and characteristic equations for the components of the MSF plant. It helps to understand the process of cost formation. minimize overall product costs and assess costs of the different products obtained in the processes. The costs of all significant mass and energy flowstreams is a very powerful and interesting piece of information about the amount of resources used to obtain each 180 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . temperatures. electrical production.

Serra (1994) demonstrated that the rest of the required equations are obtained from the productive structure of the plant through the F-P-L definition of its units and the subsequent application of the Theory of exergetic cost. Note that negentropy is included in the cost equation of each component as a second fuel.5) is shown in table 7. The first consequence is price assessment of the products based on physical criteria. 7. 1993) based on the rules of mathematical derivation provides exactly the same system of cost equations. The origin of every cost lies in the irreversibility of the processes. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 181 . The negentropy generated in the condenser must be allocated to the rest of the plant components as a function of their entropy increase. Consequently. this theory can calculate flow cost of the above four propositions by simply applying the chain rule of derivatives to the characteristic equations of the thermoeconomic model (as explained in Chapter 6). But how do we link the variation in the local irreversibility (∆Ii) to the increase of resources consumed (∆FT)? Two factors are added to consider the economic: market prices (cf).7. The exergy costs calculated in this section only take into account the fuel consumed to produce each flowstream.2. Valero et al (1986a) also propose a rational procedure to determine the cost of all mass and energy flowstreams based on four propositions presented in the ‘Theory of exergetic cost’.3). This is a cornerstone in thermoeconomics. Consider a plant with n units and m flows with known exergy flows. Knowing the costs of the mass and energy flowstreams is the key to thermoeconomic analysis. The system of equations providing the exergy costs of the steam power plant (cost of the flows appearing in the productive structure depicted in figure 7. (1986a) present the fundamental problem of cost allocation as follows: Given a system whose limits have been defined and a level of aggregation that specifies the subsystems which constitute it. The set of balances of exergy costs (P1 proposition) of the n units provides a system of n equations.1 Exergy costs allocation Valero et al. The number of flows will be higher than the number of units. al. Cost analysis significant mass and energy flowstream. how to obtain the cost of all the flows that become interrelated in this structure. The thermoeconomic cost of a flow can be calculated after the second factor is introduced (section 7. which are not necessarily linked to the exergy of the processed resources and depreciation. and (m – n) auxiliary equations will be needed to determine flow cost.2. and maintenance costs of the productive process (Z). The Structural Theory of Thermoeconomics (Valero et.

Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant TABLE 7. Device Exergy cost balance * * * CP k CP = kBCP k CPw + kSCP k CPs * * * * LPH2 k LPH2 = kB1LPH2 k VEX4 + kB2LPH2 k LPH2v + kSLPH2 k LPH2s * * * LPH1 k LPH1 = kBLPH1 k VEX3 + kSLPH1 k LPH1s * * * * DRT k DRT = kB1DRT k VEXD + kB2DRT k DRTv + kSDRT k DRTs * * * FP k FP = kBFP k FPw + kSFP k FPs * * * * HPH2 k HPH2 = kB1HPH2 k VEX2 + kB2HPH2 k HPH2v + kSHPH2 k HPH2s * * * HPH1 k HPH1 = kBHPH1 k VEX1 + kSHPH1 k HPH1s * * * VEX4 k VEX4 = kBVEX4 k VEX4v + kSVEX4 k VEX4s * * * VEX3 k VEX3 = kBVEX3 k VEX3v + kSVEX3 k VEX3s * * * VEXD k VEXD = kBVEXD k VEXDv + kSVEXD k VEXDs * * * VEX2 k VEX2 = kBVEX2 k VEX2v + kSVEX2 k VEX2s * * * VEX1 k VEX1 = kBVEX1 k VEX1v + kSVEX1 k VEX1s * * * VF k VF = kBVF k J1 + kSVF k VFs * * * BOI k BOI = kBBOI k FUEL + kSBOI k BOIs * * * VB k VB = kBVB k J2 + kSVB k VBs * * * VST k VST = kBVST k VB + kSVST k VSTs * * * BHP k BHP = kBBHP k BHPw + kSBHP k BHPs * * * HPT1 k HPT1 = kBHPT1 k HPT1v + kSHPT1 k HPT1s * * * HPT2 k HPT2 = kBHPT2 k HPT2v + kSHPT2 k HPT2s * * * HPT3 k HPT3 = kBHPT3 k HPT3v + kSHPT3 k HPT3s * * * HPT4 k HPT4 = kBHPT4 k HPT4v + kSHPT4 k HPT4s 182 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .7 System of equations providing the unit exergy costs of the steam power plant (extraction mode).

the negentropy does not appear. The negentropy decreases energy waste in the condenser and improves the power plant efficiency. although the brine heater is acting as a plant condenser.8). Cost analysis TABLE 7.7 System of equations providing the unit exergy costs of the steam power plant (extraction mode). Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 183 . Device Exergy cost balance * * * LPT1 k LPT1 = kBLPT1 k LPT1v + kSLPT1 k LPT1s * * * LPT2 k LPT2 = kBLPT2 k LPT2v + kSLPT2 k LPT2s * * CND k CND = kBCND k CNDv * * GEN k GEN = kBGEN k J4 * * * * * MSF k MSF = kB3MSF k MSFw + kB1MSF k J3 + kB2MSF k MSFv + kSMSF k MSFs * * * * * * k J1 = rFP k FP + rLPH2 k LPH2 + rLPH1 k LPH1 + rDRTj1 k DRTJ1 + rHPH2 k HPH2 J1 * * + rHPH1 k HPH1 + rCP k CP * * * J2 k J2 = rVF k VF + rBOI k BOI * * * * J3 k J3 = rDRTj3 k DRTJ3 + rVA k J3v + rBHP k BHP * * * * * * k J4 = rHPT1 k HPT1 + rHPT2 k HPT2 + rHPT3 k HPT3 + rHPT4 k HPT4 + rLPT1 k LPT1 J4 * + rLPT2 k LPT2 * * * * * * * * k VST = k LPH2v = k DRTv = k HPH2v = k VEX4v = k VEX3v = k VEX2v = k VEX1v * * * * * * * A = k HPT1v = k HPT2v = k HPT3v = k HPT4v = k LPT1v = k HPT2v = k CNDv * * = k MSFv = k J3v * * * * * B k GEN = k FPw = k CPw = k MSFw = k BHPw * * * C k DRT = k DRTJ1 = k DRTJ3 * * * * * * * * k CND = k CPs = k LPH1s = k LPH2s = k DRTs = k FPs = k HPH1s = k HPH2s * * * * * * * = k VEX4s = k VEX3s = k VEXDs = k VEX2s = k VEX1s = k VFs = k BOIs D * * * * * * * = k VBs = k VSTs = k BHPs = k HPT1s = k HPT2s = k HPT3s = k HPT4s * * * = k LPT1s = k LPT2s = k MSFs In the system of equations providing the exergy costs of the MSF plant (table 7.

11). Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant TABLE 7.8 System of equations providing the exergy costs of the MSF plant (figure 7. Components Exergy cost equations * * * * FD k FD = k1FD k ST + k2FD k JA + k3FD k FDf 3 * * BH k BH = kBH k FD * * RP k RP = kRP k W * * BDP k BDP = kBDP k W * * * * RCS k RCS = k1RCS k RCSf 1 + k2RCS k VA + k3RCS k RCSf 3 * * * MIX k MIX = k1MIX k MIXf 1 + k2MIX k MIXf 2 * * * * RJS k RJS = k1RJS k JD + k2RJS k VA + k3RJS k RCSf 3 * * SWP k SWP = kSWP k W * * DP k DP = kDP k W * * * MXT k MXT = k1MXT k JK + k2MXT k MXTf 2 * * TP k TP = kTP k W * * * JA k JA = r1JA k BDP + r2JA k JAf 2 * * * * JB k JB = r1JB k BH + r2JB k RP + r3JB k MIX * * * JD k JD = r1JD k JDf 1 + r2JD k RCS * * * JG k JG = r1JG k SWP + r2JG k SW * * * JI k JI = r1JI k JIf 1 + r2JI k MXT * * * JJ k JJ = r1JJ k RJS + r2JJ k DP * * * Jk k JK = r1JK k JKf 1 + r2JK k TP * * * * * * C k JB = k JAf 2 = k JDf 1 = k RCSf 1 = k JIf 1 = k MIXf 1 * * * * E k JI = k MIXf 2 = k FDf 3 = k JKf 1 * * * * F k JG = k RCSf 3 = k RJSf 3 = k MXTf 2 184 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .

3) were obtained by the simulator. CBS: Cleaning Ball System was used).021 0.090 22.693 — 122.418.0 1. Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8 PTC MR ODOB MCR MSL4 PL85 — MSL3 — W (kW) 146.216.0 25.5 and analyzed them under eight different operating conditions with equations in table 7.0 mdes (kg/s) 0.5 Pc (bar) 0. The plant was working as a pure distillation unit.7.187 109.000 75.309.850 49.0 0.780 43.2.62 41.0 CBS NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES Most case studies corresponded to the limited operating conditions. producing only fresh water (desalination mode).0 32.0 2.000 53.0 160. The operating mode in each study was as follows: Case 1 The plant was only working as a full load power plant with no distilled water production (condensing mode).9 Case studies of the exergy cost analysis (PTC: Performance Test Case of the dual plant.440 91. These only represent the operation costs (they do not include the cost of each plant device) in terms of energy.5 TBT (º C) — 112.5 117.0 84.0 25.0 150. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 185 .0 0.39 70.0 25.2 and 7.0 32. Gc: Natural gas consumed. They are expressed in energy units and represent the amount of resources (usually natural gas) consumed to obtain each significant mass and energy flowstream.048 0.055 0.260. TABLE 7.048 D (T/h) — 2.0 2. already described in Chapter 4.0 SW (º C) — 25.0 2.060.418.38 156.048 0.000 mls (kg/s) 156.7 83.340 49. The thermodynamic properties of the mass and energy flowstreams (figures 7.5 89.0 112.0 112.0 150.460 31.0 Gc (Nm3/h) 43. Case 2 The opposite of case 1.9. Case 3 The nominal case: the plant was working at full load producing the maximum distilled water and maximum power (extraction mode). Most of them correspond to a performance data case of the power plant.0 0.68 88.560 33.650 20.0 170.3 2.0 112. Case 4 The more usual operating conditions in winter (parallel mode).0 100.0 32.2 Exergy cost analysis We calculated the exergy costs for the productive structure in figure 7.0 88. Cost analysis 7.187 70.63 75.135 — 0. The main features of each case are shown in table 7.0 0.418.0 112.0 73.5 2.500 71.0 150.072 0.500 76.390 LS (GCal/h) 0.

733 2.29 12.604 2.693 2.576 2.657 2.559 k *VST 2.02 549. the amount (exergy or $) of the fuel plant consumed to obtain a flow.955 2.650 3.7 kJ respectively) are based on an energy analysis of the dual-plant products and are quantitatively similar. Afgan.149 3.147 2. The calculated costs are operating costs.600 k *MSF — 3.935 k *D a — 416.35 10. discounting investment capital costs. Cases 7&8 The effect of the cleaning ball system was analyzed.714 2.38 bD (kJ/kg) — 10.938 3. k* Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8 k *BOI 2.. The exergy and exergoeconomic costs of the most significant mass and energy * flowstreams (live steam generated in the boiler k BOI . steam to MSF brine heater k MSF . These values (445 kJ and 225.35 9. Darwish and Carvalho (1999) quantified the primary energy or fuel needed to produce 1 kg of freshwater in a single purpose MSF desalination plant (case 2 in our analysis) and a dual purpose MSF desalination plant (case 3).871 2.10 Exergy (kW fuel/kW product) unit costs k* of most significant flows of the dual plant.667 2.042 2.590 2. In both cases some live steam was throttled in the reducing pressure station: the maximum load extracting live steam to a second MSF unit (twin extraction mode).644 2.e. Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant Case 5 Partial load operating conditions (extraction mode).615 k *GEN 3.620 2. TABLE 7. electric power k GEN and distilled water * k D ) appear in tables 7. i.67 224.35 10.99 227.35 ($/ MBTU). Case 6 Minimum load operating conditions (parallel mode). in kJ/kg).677 2.81 11.938 2.511 221.611 2. steam to MSF vacuum system * * * k VST .616 2. Both tables provide the same information expressed in different units.10 and 7.286 — 2. The unit costs in this section (the cost per unit exergy of the considered flow) only refer to the operating costs since they do not take into account the capital cost investment of the plant units.842 3.67 261.11 respectively.48 526. No other energy analysis based on the First Law of Thermodynamics can provide this information.650 3. 186 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .62 13. therefore is included the exergy of water leaving the MSF unit (bD.371 2. The exergoeconomic costs c* were obtained by considering the natural gas market price (cf) of 2.572 2.98 * a. Exergy of water k D measured in a more realistic unit: (kJ fuel/kg water).

172 These values only contain the irreversibilities. The cleaning ball system directly decreases distilled water cost by decreasing the irreversibility in the MSF plant (see table 7.964 5.4937 0. the destruction of exergy or useful energy in the productive process.0235 GEN c *D — 0. the final products had the highest costs.014 6.997 5. The amount of exergy required to obtain a flow (exergy cost) also increased.14). Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 187 .537 c* * 0. Flowstreams further down the productive process were more costly.0244 0.799 5.545 7.0252 0. but live steam cost is lower than distilled water cost.9277 0.888 5.770 5.902 8.12) and the total exergy destroyed continuously increased throughout the productive process.5011 0.5071 0. Modifying the operating conditions of the MSF affects the electrical cost.223 1.087 5.281 5.11 Exergoeconomic (monetary) unit costs ($/GJ) of most significant flows of a dual power and desalination plant.583 6.816 6.621 5.738 5.12) may have different costs.827 5.699 c *VST 6.010 5.331 7.052 c *GEN 7. Irreversibilities (table 7.319 — 6. boiler irreversibilities (IBOI) are much higher than MSF plant irreversibilities (IMSF). The irreversibilities during natural gas combustion and heat transfer inside the boiler increase the cost of this steam. The effect of irreversibilities in the cost generation process is clearly shown by comparing studies 7 and 8.12) and increasing efficiency (table 7.0235 0.0263 — 0. c* Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8 c *BOI 6.940 5. The live steam cost is always lower because it is generated at the very beginning of the production process.775 6. Cost analysis TABLE 7.0235 0.728 5. This benefit in the MSF plant also affects the power plant.046 5.130 8. increasing the steam mass flow rate expanded in the LP turbine and the electrical power produced.543 6.0237 0.5814 1. For example.9).835 5. and electricity cost of is also expressed in $/kW·h (c*GEN* ). For this reason. Cost of water c*D is expressed in $/m3. The amount of steam needed in the MSF plant brine heater decreases (see table 7.792 c *MSF — 8. All processes in the plant were irreversible (see table 7.913 5.

The energy and exergetic cost balance must be fulfilled (Valero.5 — 1.1 — 277.3 ITOT-MSF — 67.908.26 58.6 4.9 35.0 — 2.9 — 1.596.94 16.489.0 945.4 IHPT2 250.85 279.6 204. Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant TABLE 7.6 IHPH1 513. I Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8 ICP 89.6 IBOI 265.2 394.698.0 117.4 IHPT4 955.954.5 1.1 512.339.7 4.7 — — — — 3.1 329.0 130.6 195. considering the high fuel value of the MSF unit (steam exhausted in brine heater and ejectors.9 The reasons for the impressive cost of distilled water are: • The large amount of exergy destruction (irreversibility) in the MSF plant.0 1.750.1 ILPT2 9. 1986c).6 306.451.6 240.77 ILPH1 1.265.1 — — — — 33.598.0 912.3 ILPT1 4.3 566.0 — 212.7 IHPT1 2.014.921.3 — 230.62 — 1.7 5.4 206.44 13.4 544.843.7 821.7 123.4 4. MSF unit is considered a component.870.53 13.7 IFP 265.8 IHPH2 243.206.198.2 35.4 595.923.880.2 145.041.501.054.5 1.0 268.1 479.0 423.1 358.9 508.9 226.260.1 208.5 990.464.0 442.2 185.379.8 IHPT3 303.816.2 451.1 ICND 37.9 351.983.6 1.734.7 105.097.061.888.2 131.40 118.1 489.362.2 28. 188 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .749.097. Muñoz and Lozano.8 — 688.482.255.9 306.372.7 IDRT 306.3 124.94 7.4 229.52 ILPH2 2.8 26.7 — — — — 1.254.5 — 637.8 — 363.254.34 42.0 292.9 — — — — 732.769.8 IVST 89.4 — — — — — — IVS3 — 1.8 112.4 — 2.4 106.84 4.0 148.2 661.1 2.369.61 454.317.157.350.12 Irreversibilities (exergy destruction.3 IGEN 2.4 638.8 4.7 77.9 — 268.5 601.892.139.1 1.206.5 56.2 430.2 — 505.0 470.8 467.7 368.8 493.0 — 1.6 38.924. electrical consumption) and the low value of the product (freshwater exergy flow).195.687.042.2 — — — — — — ITOT-PP 329.8 539.5 IVS1 — 38.9 549.0 80.125. kW) in the different components of the dual plant.5 — 813.5 66.6 67.9 737.1 1.4 IVS2 — 314.93 16.97 219.4 274.734.0 583.0 655.605.

752 <0 0.778 — 0.377 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 189 . η (%) Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8 HPT1 0.560 HPT2 0.950 0.546 0.588 0.870 0.847 0. TABLE 7.857 0.861 0.940 0.864 LPT1 0. the more efficient a process the lower cost generated. Only primary energy has an exergy cost equal to one (as natural gas entering the boiler).861 0. IVS2 and IVS3 (table 7.978 — 0. The electricity and steam produced to the distiller were produced in the power plant and the cost of the fuels of the MSF do not have a unit exergy cost. etc).922 HPT3 0. Regarding component efficiencies.947 0.13 Isoentropic efficiencies of pumps and turbine sections of the power plant.941 0.12).950 0. turbine efficiencies (table 7.864 0.430 0.939 0.746 <0 0. the final exergy cost is very low but the intermediate flows inside the distiller can be extremely high (the flashing brine. The exergy destruction in the pressure reduction station correspond to IVS1.756 FP 0. its energy content remains stable while its exergy decreases (pressure is dramatically reduced in the reduction pressure station).938 HPT5 0.949 0.738 — 0.921 0.802 LPT2 0. Cost analysis • The low distillate exergy flow is due to the low freshwater temperature leaving the MSF unit (see the last row in table 7.719 0. • The resources consumed in the MSF units are not primary energy.13). The exergy unit consumption k propagates the exergy cost of the final product increasing the cost of water from the exergetic point of view. The contribution of chemical and mechanical exergy to the global exergy flow of seawater flows is minimum.950 0.938 0.812 — 0.885 0. When the live steam expands through a throttle valve.873 — 0.773 0. for example. The relationship between the inlet/outlet exergy flows which determine the exergy unit consumption k in the characteristic equations that model MSF thermoeconomics.919 0.865 0.581 0.077 0.729 <0 0.733 — 0.950 HPT4 0. Consequently. cooling brine.737 0. Consider.113 0.820 0. This has a physical explanation related with energy quality degradation.807 0. 7 and 8). is quite elevated in this example.735 0.950 0.968 — 0.978 0.857 0.692 0.913 0.737 CP 0.939 — 0.627 0.558 0. The different values stem from the different distilled water temperatures in different operating conditions (which strongly depends on the seawater temperature entering the desalination unit). Another important result was the significantly higher water cost when the live steam was throttled through the HP reduction station (cases 2.10.070 0.855 0.815 0.

In the analysis. the low-pressure turbine efficiencies also influenced the observed differences.4 3.4 Finally.994. The inefficiencies of the pumps increase the exergy cost of the electricity. As the steam passes through the turbine section.326.4 73. product costs of different plant components were also calculated (see table 7. Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8 PPP 144.157.906.712.4 9. 1999). TABLE 7.6 250. Thus. For example.456.3 191.78 6.260.3 9. Note: The efficiency of the boiler is not included in the final efficiency. The exergetic efficiency we obtained for the MSF plant is similar to other estimate (Hamed et.613. the difference between the cost of steam to brine heater and the cost of live steam for the analyzed cases is directly related to the HP turbines efficiencies.78 5.966.3 62. its energy quality gradually degrades: the exergy cost increases from the first to the last turbine section.951.289. in cases 7 and 8 the cleaning ball system clearly increases the exergy efficiency of the MSF plant and the whole plant.923.5 14.9 478.3 87. The distilled water and power cost decrease as a result.269.9 40.4 0. and exergetic efficiency (%) values for the power and MSF plants.113.6 7.3 13.9 186.925.4 38. As in the device analysis.592.9 184.951.0 38.0 543.369.8 140.9 8.6 21.275. 190 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . the higher the HP turbine efficiency.434.168.9 FPP 473.6 39.951.2 ηTOT 30.15).9 36.333. before being extracted to the brine heater of the MSF plant.994.5 229.78 6.1 23.6 144. Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant The live steam generated in the boiler is expanded in the HP turbines.9 21.791.7 24. the lower the cost of the final product.344.9 8.0 6.0 PMSF — 6. The exergy cost of the electricity is a weighted sum of the exergy costs of the turbine sections.0 10.7 35.3 114.4 9. For this reason.4 64.244.024.9 126.096. the more efficient the global process.2 347.2 542.067. A similar result is obtained for the cost difference between live steam and power generated.3 FMSF — 74.0 ηMSF — 9.2 34. The steam leaving the boiler has a lower exergy cost since the fuel plant exergy only degraded in the boiler tubes (the combustion and heat transfer process is non-ideal).4 73.8 ηPP 30. al. Table 7. the lower the cost difference in brine heater and live steam.14 Product and fuel (kW).5 370.14 contains global efficiency parameters for the whole plant and for the power and MSF plants.4 2.

778 2.505 — 3.992 — 2.664 5.853 2. its exergoeconomic cost (Valero.576 2.67 4.473 k *FP 3. The reduction pressure station is more inefficient than the set of components turbine-heaters-condenser.45 8.926 2. TABLE 7.465 3. Cost analysis The energy quality of the steam extracted for the heaters is degraded in this heating process.735 2.910 — 2.106 3.2.797 2.822 k *HPH1 3.393 3.373 — 3.3 Thermoeconomic costs The thermoeconomic cost of a flow has two parts.261 3.988 2.389 — 3.527 — — — — — — 7.177 3.729 2.944 3.020 k *LPH2 3.813 k *BOI 2.706 2.686 k *HPT3 2.559 k *VST 2.371 2.272 3.796 2.771 3.e.616 2.881 — 2.396 16.223 4.733 2.283 3. maintenance.935 2.925 3.600 k *HPT1 3.719 k *HPT4 3.059 3. the exergy cost of the steam to the MSF unit has a higher cost than the steam provided when the plant is producing electricity.706 2. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 191 .282 3.918 k *LPT1 3.476 8. one from the monetary cost of the fuel (natural gas) exergy needed to produce this flow.952 3..350 15.572 2.841 2.034 — 2.040 4.851 — 3.701 2.858 — 3.306 3.15 Unit exergy costs k* (kW/kW) of component products in the steam power plant coupled with a MSF unit.592 3. etc).794 2.793 2.648 2.604 2.021 2.280 3.590 2.363 3.591 k *VS2 — 3.001 — 2.611 2.714 2.930 2.824 k *LPH1 3.850 2.029 2.842 — 2.951 2.711 4.074 2.657 2.191 3.282 — 3.533 10.230 3.807 2.506 k *VS1 — 3.764 3. Muñoz and Lozano. i.942 — 3.249 3.926 k *HPT2 2.739 2.560 k *HPH2 2. Although the live steam is the cheapest in desalination mode (case 2).796 2.677 2. 1986b) and the other from the rest of the costs generated in the productive process (capital.789 2.957 20. k* Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8 k *CP 4.960 3.735 2.434 3.400 k *DRT 3.577 3.164 k *LPT2 3.049 2.660 — 3.151 3.620 2.017 — — — — — — k *VS3 — 3.077 3.851 — — — — — 4.

The balance of thermoeconomic cost ($/s) is expressed in equation 7.3. build all the necessary facilities and purchase and install the required machinery and equipment. electrical equipment and materials. costs of licensing. 1987. instrumentation and controls. Boehm. an investment cost is a one-time cost. Investment costs are treated differently than fuel and O&M expenses in an economic analysis. This is due to the magnitude of the components considered in the dual plant. erection. • Indirect costs. startup costs..e.. not a permanent part of the facilities but required for the orderly completion of the project: engineering and supervision. 1996.2. working capital.1 Investment costs According to Bejan et al. contingencies. 1991. i. Some concepts are necessary to understand these costs: • Fixed capital investment. The term Z/ϕ represents the contribution of the non-energetic production factors (investment capital costs). piping. The amortization factor takes into account the economic life period of the plant and is also called the capital cost of an installation (see section 7.7 and 7. In our case. in contrast to fuel costs and O&M costs which are continuous or repetitive in nature. • Total capital investment.e. research and development. 192 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant The balance of thermoeconomic costs for any individual unit has one more term than the exergy cost balances (tables 7. the sum of the fixed-capital investment and other outlays. the total system capital cost assuming a zero-time design and construction period. materials.. and allowance for funds used during construction.5: cf F + Z/ϕ = cp P (7. The fixed capital investment is the sum of direct and indirect costs. 1996). • Direct costs. Several authors propose costing equations for most of the components used in our analysis. civil and structural work and service facilities.2 for more information on capital costs). land. (1997). but the main parameters used in the proposed correlations are outside the specified range (our power plant and desalination units were very large). 7. purchased-equipment costs provided by the plant managers are quite different from other studies (El-Sayed.5) where cf and cp are the unit thermoeconomic costs ($/kJ) of the fuel (F) and product (P) respectively. Lozano et al. construction costs. Other costs not included in the capital costs of the components (but that also constitute a part of the direct costs of the fixed-capital investment) include the purchased-equipment installation.2.8). the costs of all permanent equipment. As the term Z is usually calculated in US dollars ($) it must be divided by a temporary factor. called amortization factor (ϕ). labor and other resources involved in the fabrication. and installation of the permanent facilities. the capital to purchase the land. Frangopoulos.3. i.

0025 M ∆P e — 1 0. S.1 0. e.: n1 n2 n3 n4 A = k x1 x2 x3 x4 (7.08 –0.18). a complete tabulation of data for a particular piece of equipment could contain reference cost and size (Zr and Sr). e = η/1– η.3 Q ∆Tt dPt dPs 1 –0. ∆T F. m. M lb/s. exit. Table 7.16.1 Boehm (1987) introduces the size effect of the units into a simple cost equation that only depends on a variable.16 Costing equation parameters for an MSF and power plant (El-Sayed. Thus.8) In the cost equation.7 — Economizer 0.45 M Ti/Pi Pe e 1 0.015 340 Q ∆Tm dPt dPs 1 –1 –0. the more accurate equations. Ti R.02 10 Q ∆Tn ∆Tt dPt 1 –0. ∆P.5-1.0063 M ∆P e — 1 0. t. They are usually a correlation with three or four main parameters and correction factors depending on the device (see table 7. Sometimes m is greater than 1. which produces unexpected results.015 310 Q ∆Tm dPt dPs 1 –1 –0.14 Heater 0. heaters…).75 0. s.7 –0.33 –0.55 1. Subscripts: i. tube. inlet. in comparison with the cost estimation provided by the plant managers.5 –0. Z = Zr (S/Sr)m (7. Q kW. Cost analysis El-Sayed (1996) calculates the cost (in thousands of dollars.17 includes the main parameters of the above mentioned equation. i. Finally.015 310 Q ∆Tm dPt dPs 1 –1 –0.0 (boilers.02 3.05 — C. are those proposed by Frangopoulos (1991). dP psi. k$) of the main components of the equipment used in a MSF and steam power plant using the following equation: Z = ca A. Component ca k x1 x2 x3 x4 n1 n2 n3 n4 Steam turbine 50 0. Pi.16 –0.04 MSF 0. mean (LTMD).9 Feed pump 3 0. pump 3 0.6) where the area A is calculated using an exponential formula as a function of four parameters. shell. Units: ca k$/ft2.0. A ft2. TABLE 7. Pe psia.12 Boiler 0. Boehm normally uses a range of 0. (7. and the factor m responsible for the economies of scale.W.7) These parameters are shown in table 7.e.75 –0.05 –0.15 –0.26 Superheater 0. 1996). Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 193 .

1552224 * exp (0. ∆Pt pressure losses in tubes and shell.10/(TTD–5)) FDN FDN = 1 + ((1 – 0.75) FCR FCR = (P3 * ((1/∆Ps) – 1)/14.75) FB1 FB1 = 0.1102109 * T2 * ln (P1/P2) FBN FBN = 1 + ((1 – ηr)/(1 – η))3 FBT FBT = 1. Chrien and Evans.8955 + 0.11 FCPW FCPW = (∆Pt/14.7718795 * ln (M1)) * FAR * FAN * FAT Steam Turbine 5240.4144 + 0. 194 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . P1.11 * A * 426. Component Zr S Sr m Pump 47 M 10 0.17 Component parameters in Boehm (1987) equations.38 2 FCP FCP = 0.378 * exp (0.083 * LN (A)) FP FP = 0.67 TABLE 7.0014110546 * P1) * exp (0. Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant TABLE 7.23296 * LN (A) a.0 + ((1 – η1r)/(1– η1))7 FAT FAT = 1.03 Steam turbine 25 W 1000 0.04981 * LN (A) FM FM = 1.279088e – 5 * M1 * 0.7)–0.569323 * ln (FB1 * (F2T + F2P))) * FBN * FBT Condenser 1. P2 the exit conditions.68 Heater 21 A 100 0. A area. Component Cost equation Boiler 20.71 Condenser 3 Q 10 0.2632633 * exp (–0. 1982).7)–0.55 * (T1 – T2 – T2 * ln (T1/T2)) F2P F2P = 0.18 Costing equations proposed by Frangopoulos (1991). η and η1 efficiency and First principle efficiency. ∆Ps.01506 * ln (A) + 0.4838546 * ln (7.55 Boiler 340 M 12 0.202 + 0.06811 * (ln (A))2) * FD * FP * FM Factor Correction factor FAR 8 FAR = 1.2325 * exp (0.0 + 5 * exp ((T1 – 1100)/18.0 + 5 * exp ((T1 – 1100)/18. T1 and M1 are the inlet conditions.8)/(1 – η))3 FD FD = exp (–0.93 + 2.018 * (P2–P1) * FDN Heatera Exp (8.4556513 * ln (A)) * FCR * FCPW * FCP * FCB Pump 1969.7844 + 0.0 + ((1–∆Pr)/(1–∆P)) FAN FAN = 1.6380952 e–4 * P2 + 1. From Chemical Engineering (Corripio. TTD terminal temperature difference.0003929119 * η * M1 F2T F2T = 0.352381 e–6 * P2 FCB FCB = exp (0. T2.

Component Cost equation Boiler 740 * exp ((P1–28)/150) * (1 + 5 * exp ((T1–866)/10. (1996) also propose a set of equations for a wide range of values to obtain a reasonable equipment cost (see table 7.20 includes a list with the percentages of each unit or subsystem with respect the total purchase cost (direct cost) of a power and desalination plant. the economic investment cost and the thermoeconomic cost of the products.808)/(1–η))3) * B0. It includes the price breakdown per section of each unit. knowing the exergy cost of the electricity and distillate.42)) * (1 + ((1–0.19): TABLE 7. W power.45–η))7) * B0.20 does not contain the cost of each component in the productive structure.405)/(0.19 Cost equations proposed by Lozano et al. an inflation indicator from technical journals (e. η exergetic efficiency.24 * vw0. We did not apply the cost index since the purchase costs of our installation were updated in 1997.71 Purchase cost provided by the plant managers is much more complete than the individual components. Table 7. Turbine 3000 * (1 + 5 * exp ((T1–866)/10.7 Condenser (1/(T0 * e)) (217 * (0. All cost data must have the same reference year as a basis for calculations. B exergy flow of product. Chemical Engineering) that corrects the cost of equipment. S negentropy. As a result.247 + 1/(3.8 St.g. and the direct costs of the installation.953)/(1–η))3) * W0. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 195 .45–0. Land cost is neglected in the Gulf Area.42)) * (1 + ((0. The thermoeconomic cost can be expressed in units of money per unit of time ($/s). the thermoeconomic cost can only be calculated for the final products in the power and desalination plant. e eficiency of the condenser (= T0 (s2–s1)/ (h2–h1)). (1996). vw velocity of tubes . Cost analysis Lozano et al. This is done with an appropriate cost index. The price breakdown in table 7. or units of money per unit of product: $/kW·h or $/m3.8)) * ln (1/(1–e)) + 138) * (1/(1–η)) * S Pump 378 * (1 + ((1–0.

buildings. chemicals and chlorination system. busbars. antifoaming and sodiumsulfite systems. lighting system. switchboards. power transformers. blowdown and distillate pipeline. make-up water strainers. complete 0. switchgear. on-load tube 9.07 Others: Protective coating.13 storage tank Steam generating plant 13. LP heater. 14. cables. instrumentation and control. transformer. instrumentation and control.08 service water and drainage system.12 LP feeding system 0. complete 0. bus duct systems.63 Others: Transformers. Total for the steam power plant 45. seawater. cranes.29 2 Brine recirculating pump sets. non-return valves 0. cold condensate 1. town water storage.01 cleaning system. Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant TABLE 7.30 Boiling feed pump sets with hydraulic coupling 1.22 2 Brine heater condensate pump sets. chemical storage. Total for the desalination unit 32. switchboards.63 Cooling water recircul. seawater cleaning plant. pump set including isolating. feedwater storage tank with deaerator.79 General services: Circulating water and seawater supply system. antiscaling. lifts. brine recirculation. cabling and cable laying. fuel oil and gas system.15 HP feeding system 0.66 Generator complete with air cooling and excitation systems 2. Total for the dual plant 100 196 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .22 2 Distillate pump units 0. electrical control equipment. HP. water treatment. DPS system.32 MSF unit: Evaporator shell and tube bundles 20.89 and control.87 Blow down pump set. complete 0. Component system Portion Steam Turbine Plant 12.25 HP heater.04 Vacuum system 0. MP and LP reducing stations. batteries. lighting and power outlets. fire fighting systems. rectifiers.06 Deaerator 0. earthing system.20 Price breakdown per section in a dual-purpose plant. common instrumentation 21.38 Brine heater 1.

0388 0 0.2.045 $/kW·h. It was calculated based on 8% capital recovery per calendar year (8. • Water: 1.9 for details).0479 0. Cost analysis 7.1088 TABLE 7. This cost also includes the effect of escalation (resource depletion.5798 0. The average capital cost takes into account the effect of inflation: price increases associated with increase in available currency and credit without a proportional increase in available goods and services of the same quality.2.6471 0.21 and 7.0030 1.0482 0. TABLE 7.21 Thermoeconomic costs of distilled water and electricity of the analyzed dual-purpose plant. land costs and total capital investment were placed at the beginning of the design and construction period so that the end of this period is considered the beginning of commercial operation (economic-life period).5534 1.0436 0.9798 0. and depreciation (decrease in equipment value due to physical deterioration. Tables 7.8456 1. Cost ($/s) Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8 Electricity 1.000 hours operation a year) and 15% allowance for the fixed part of O&M (El-Sayed.0385 0.1251 1.9706 Water 0.1648 1. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 197 . For example.3046 1.3 $/m3.6885 0. 1996).0248 0.3.6935 0.8818 1.0635 1.0593 0.6871 1. 7.4 Thermoeconomic cost analysis The exergy and economic costs of a system provide the real plant operating costs.0558 1.0492 Water 0 1. technological advances and replacement).3571 0.22 Thermoeconomic cost of electricity ($/kW·h) and water ($/m3) for the cases studied in the exergetic cost analysis.1019 0.5068 1.22 show the thermoeconomic cost in the eight cases (see table 7.5026 1. increased demand and technological advances).2 Capital costs The average capital cost for the system was assumed to be 3.7802 El-Sayed (1996) proposes the following costs for the products of a typical dual- purpose power and desalination plant: • Electricity: 0. Cost Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8 Electricity 0.47×10–9 $/s·$. Some assumptions were made to assess the average capital cost.

The price imposed on a product is independent of the efficiency of the formation process of that product. Case 3 is the most interesting case to maintain the best operation mode. The use of the reduction pressure station to produce freshwater is not recommended even with a high freshwater demand (see cases 2. fuel costs and O&M costs. Other methods allocate the main factory costs (e. This was due to the effect of amortization of the purchase costs in the first table. 7. For example. Note that the thermoeconomic cost was not zero in case 1 for water nor for electricity in case 2 (see table 7.2. although this is the worst case if we analyze exergy costs).1 WEA method The method proposed by El-Nashar (1999) and the Water and Electricity Department of the UAE (WEA method) is indirect and allocates all cost components among water and electricity according to functional considerations. Some criterion is usually needed to help in cost allocation.22). The effect on quantity production is clear in table 7.g. manpower. In Case 6 (with partial load) the investment costs overcharge the cost per unit of production.5 Cost allocation: Indirect methods Some cost allocation methods allocate the total cost of owning and operating the plant among two products. personnel. maintenance contracts. 7 and 8 in table 7. costs for heat production and common costs to both products.22 (the cost of electricity per unit of energy is reduced in case 1 and is lower than other costs. Although cost allocation methods are a rational basis for pricing the two products. the cost is the amount of resources needed to obtain these products. material.21) despite the lack of production. especially in the most representative cases (in hours of operation per year. the exergy cost method is an indirect method that allocates the cost of producing the two products in terms of fuel consumption. Personnel costs are divided among those directly involved in the co-generation plant (such as operation and maintenance work). 7. The annual cost for a co- generation plant can usually be separated into three cost components: fixed capital charges. without having to split the total cost in two products (direct methods). fuel and capital depreciation) among the two products (indirect methods). The total costs are divided into five cost departments: fuel. or those that serve several plants.2. The cost of fuel consumed by the steam turbines is split between electricity and water since the steam derived to the MSF unit has the potential to generate a certain amount of electrical 198 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . spares and consumables and depreciation of fixed capital. Each one can be separated into costs for electricity production. Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant The results of the thermoeconomic analysis were very close to the values given by El- Sayed.5. The methods differ in how they separate annual costs into the three components and in allocating common costs between electricity and heat. cases 3. 4 and 5).

depending on the case. Those data are confidential and cannot be presented here. Since this steam is used for desalination instead of additional power generation. It is not valid for calculating an instantaneous cost of water and electricity. Depreciation of capital cost between electricity and water is allocated according to the function of the equipment in operation.g. as done for the common personnel costs.10) Gcw = Gc WCT /(WCT + WCT) (7. operating and maintenance staff) and indirect or common service personnel. • Applied fuel and capital costs (which are unknown). Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 199 . The depreciation cost is allocated to electricity in the steam turbine power plant and water in the desalination plant.Cost analysis power if allowed to expand through a hypothetical condensing turbine. The directly assessable portions are charged to either electricity or water. the fuel consumed for this amount of non-produced electrical power should be charged to water. The WEA method is widely used in the UAE to allocate the cost of producing water and electricity in co-generation plants (starting from the yearly electrical and water production) and the cumulative number of operating hours of power and desalination plants. The amount of additional power (WCT) which could have been generated by this hypothetical turbine (in our case is the low pressure turbine) may be expressed as: WCT = Q ηB ηCT (7. Depreciation costs of common equipment and facilities are allocated according to the capital cost of equipment related to electricity and water. taking into account the power generated in the real steam turbine (WST): Gce = Gc WST /(WST + WCT) (7. Maintenance contracts for specialized maintenance work is priced and electricity and water are finally allocated. The cost of common service personnel is allocated to electricity and water according to the ratio of the capital cost of the plant and equipment associated with electricity production and desalination.9) where Q is the amount of heat supplied to the hypothetical steam turbine. The fuel consumption Gc could be allocated to electricity and water according to the following equations. The MR (no desalination) and MCR (co-generation) cases are a good example. ηB is the efficiency of boiler and ηCT is the thermal efficiency of the condensing steam turbine cycle.11) The fuel allocation problem could also be solved using the difference in output power produced when the amount of fuel consumed is the same in both cases. The total personnel cost consists of directly assessable costs (e. Other characteristics include: • Average yearly cost (with a wide range of operating modes) of the co-generation plants (with several configurations of dual plants) operating in the country.

The assumptions could cause fluctuations in the resulting cost of electricity and water. 1997).2. 1987. 1997. 1986). 1999) developed a model based on exergy analysis to predict the final costs of the two products.2 Fuel cost of water in dual plants Fuel energy for desalting depends on fuel allocation rules between the power and desalted water produced in a dual-purpose plant (Darwish. As a result of the above. Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant Compared with exergy cost methodology. (7. The difference in production between operating modes could partially avoid this problem (see next section). and is calculated as: 3 ( W 1 – W 2 ) HR 1 cf FCW ( $ ⁄ m ) = ---------------------------------------------. El-Saie and El-Saie. The fuel cost of water largely depends on the overall efficiency of the power plant. Kronenberg and Dvornikov (1999) argues that the steam cost of desalting should be calculated by defining the heat rate difference between the power plant coupled and uncoupled to the desalination plant (also called the Lost Kilowatts Method. The energy efficiency of the dual-purpose plant is also used to allocate the fuels to power and desalination and the relevant specific fuel costs for power generation and water production (Saeed. Slesarenko and Shtim. Therefore. Breidenbach. Rautenbach and Tusel. see Gaggioli and El-Sayed. the trend of water and electricity costs is the following: • The WEA method tends to overvalue electricity and undervalue water by charging all the capital and O&M costs of the steam turbine (except fuel) to electricity. 1992). • The exergy/thermoeconomic method charges each product of a multi-product unit to the appropriate portion of capital and O&M costs involved in operating the unit. 7. • The WEA costing methodology only allocates fuel cost to steam turbines.5. • The exergy/thermoeconomic method is based on a solid accounting and thermodynamics. 1989). Yousef and Al-Najem. • The WEA method suffers from a certain degree of arbitrariness with regard to the efficiency of a hypothetical condensing steam turbine. it will be used in our studies. 1980. Crellin and Tribus. Other authors propose cost redistribution using the exergy analysis of the dual-purpose plant (Evans.12) Qf D 200 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . El-Nashar (1993. This heat rate difference is defined by the Fuel Cost of Water (FCW) in a dual-purpose installation.

500 · 4.000 kW HR1 = 43. the FCW of the MCR case was calculated using natural gas with a high heating value (HHV = 9. HR1 is the heat rate of the uncoupled power plant (the inverse of the efficiency. The final values to be introduced in formula (7. The difference is mainly due to several factors: The exergoeconomic cost also includes the cost of electricity needed to pump the MSF flows and the steam derived to the vacuum system of the distillers.493 $/m3).e. For instance.1868)/0.Cost analysis where W1 and W2 are the electric power output of the uncoupled and coupled plant (kW). Qf is the heat value of fuel (kJ/kg) and D is the water production (m3/h).8 kJ/kg D = 2. The gas consumption in the MR case (the uncoupled power plant in our case) was 43.794 ·1 kJ/kW·h cf = 2.032. a density of 0. the FCW is more or less 55% of the thermoeconomic cost (0.23 ·10–6 (9.1. with a higher efficiency. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 201 . If the FCW is compared with the exergoeconomic cost of case 3 in table 7. cf is the fuel cost ($/kg).500 kcal/m3). kJ/kW·h).500 · 4.1182 $/kg Q = (9. Fuel cost of water can be calculated in the dual-purpose plant.12) for our example are also introduced after the FCW value: FCW = 0. The FCW assumes a constant efficiency in the power plant (the heat rate of the plant in condensing mode). Therefore. the amount of additional electricity generated in the condensing mode is not a valid index to calculate the fuel cost in co-generation mode. the exergoeconomic cost of the MCR case).700 kW W2 = 122. although the latter uses the energy analysis to calculate the cost of fuel consumed in the co-generation plant.1868)/146.75 = 53.75 = 0. The overall efficiency of the dual-purpose plant is lower when the plant is only generating electricity (see table 7.1868)/0.500 Nm3/h.11 (i.500 · 4.271 $/m3 W1 = 146. The resulting cost of water is very similar in both methods.14 for the exergetic efficiency of the whole plant).500 · (9.1 for the exergy analysis of the simple co-generation plant).700 = 11.400 m3/h Note that the exergy analysis and the lost kilowatts method are similar (see section 7..75 kg/m3 and an energy cost of 2.23×10–6 $/kJ (applied in the cost analysis).

we analyze a power and desalination plant according to the principles outlined in the previous chapter. The entire diagnosis is presented using the Structural Theory of Thermoeconomics (Valero et al. the local exergy savings in different units or processes are not equivalent. while distinguishing between efficiency deterioration (intrinsic and induced malfunctions) and component dysfunction (generated by the malfunction). The final objective of Thermoeconomic diagnosis is to describe how malfunctions affect additional resource consumption (see Chapter 6 for a review of Thermoeconomic theory and its applications). It provides information about component fuel consumption during equipment degradation (inefficiency). The technical possibilities for saving energy are always lower than the theoretical limit of thermodynamic energy losses. One of the main difficulties with the inverse problem is recognizing and separating effects not intimately related with the inefficiencies of the plant components. how each component increases fuel consumption and how a component's inefficiency affects the behavior of other plant units. In this section. The impact on fuel predicted by the simulator is exactly the same as that calculated by the Structural Theory of Thermoeconomics. It uses the exergy balance of an installation to allocate and calculate irreversibilities in the production process and identify the equipment affecting overall efficiency. set points or ambient conditions.3 Thermoeconomic diagnosis Diagnosis is the identification of something that is not working properly. this useful information is not sufficient since some irreversibilities cannot be avoided. although an effort is made to detect and stop malfunctions. Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant 7. The same local irreversibility decrease in two different components generally produces different variations in the total energy consumption. The inverse problem is to identify and quantify malfunctions (the origin of new irreversibilities). In practice. This plant diagnosis reproduces the deviation of the physical values when one or more inefficiencies are detected. The inverse problem finds the cause of the deviation between two states of the plant (actual and reference conditions). We will only consider the direct problem of thermoeconomic diagnosis (Valero. The inefficiencies were previously simulated and the causes of the behavior deviation provoked by this inefficiency are not searched here. a simulator (to provide the reference state for the same operating conditions) and conventional methods of the thermoeconomic diagnosis (the direct problem). Torres and Lerch. such as load variation.. Moreover. 1999). Thermoeconomic diagnosis is the only operation analysis based on the Second Law. 1993). It requires a data acquisition system (for the reference conditions). where inefficiencies are quantified in terms of irreversibility increase. Classical thermoeconomic analysis does not elucidate the cause of irreversibilities. however. 202 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .

and the total impact on fuel. 5.3. The exergetic cost of each component's product. The dysfunction induced in the component due to the malfunction or inefficiency of other subsystems. 7. Torres et al. the efficiency decrease of a component due to inefficiencies in other components). Then. one or several inefficiencies in a component of the system). 1999) based on Structural Theory and Symbolic Thermoeconomics to provide a huge quantity of information.g. The analysis involves a new technique (see Chapter 6. including: 1. the isoentropic efficiency of a turbine). The intrinsic malfunction in each component (i.e.1 Thermoeconomic diagnosis of a power and desalination plant: case studies System operating parameters can be classified according to their effect on component efficiency: • Local variables. the ‘direct problem’ of diagnosing one or several inefficiencies is analyzed for a defined load (corresponding to an operating mode) in the power and/or desalination plant. which forces it to consume more local resources to attain the additional production required by the other components. • Global or zonal variables. it might not be able to respond as well to unexpected non-linear inefficiencies.. 2. The simulator could be avoided in the diagnosis if the data acquisition system of the dual plant were available. 6.e. We will first summarize the different inefficiencies. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 203 . The induced malfunction in each component (i. live steam conditions of a steam power plant). the efficiency decrease of a component due to its own inefficiency). 7. 4. Thermoeconomic diagnosis Although the simulator calculates the thermodynamic state of the dual plant with reasonable accuracy under different operating conditions.g. A compact and easy to understand malfunction matrix containing the cost of inefficiencies and the effect of a component inefficiency on all other components. which mainly affect the behavior of the component related to the variable (e. 3. The irreversibility generated in each component. The diagnosis involves a sensitivity analysis of the mathematical model of the dual-purpose plant (simulator) with respect to a parameter (in this case. The fuel impact or malfunction cost of each component due to an inefficiency. where the operating parameter cannot be associated with a specific component (e. loads and operating modes simulated in the plant diagnosis.

• the irreversibility increase of each unit. As we will see in later sections. Thermoeconomic analysis should cover as much of the maximum range of electricity and water production as possible so that intermediate demands can be predicted from 204 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant A variable is considered local if the total impact on fuel associated with a subsystem is basically located in this component. • Heat transfer problems in HP heaters were analyzed by varying the Terminal Temperature Difference TTD (temperature difference between the saturation temperature of the steam extracted from the turbine and feedwater leaving the heater). and • reject section Neither the MSF pumping process nor the brine level in each flash chamber were diagnosed since they were not simulated in the mathematical model. We simulated the device inefficiencies and considered the different simulation data as plant data under different conditions (including inefficiencies). • additional fuel plant consumption (impact on fuel). and 4th section HPT4). • recovery section. • Degradation of the isoentropic efficiency of the low-pressure turbine (1st section. The effect of a global variable such as live steam temperature can be studied if the simulator supports a non-fixed condition in the live steam leaving the boiler. operating inefficiencies were simulated in the feed pump. LPT1). the analyzed inefficiencies refer to fouling at different stages: • brine heater. HPT1. fouling in distillers was considered a global variable if it affected other distillers. In the case of the MSF unit. • the thermoeconomic cost of electricity and distilled water. Only the HP heater no. The analysis could be performed with respect to thermal problems inside the distillers. The effect of these eight inefficiencies was measured on: • the behavior of the rest of the plant devices (intrinsic/induced malfunction and dysfunction analysis). • By varying the feed pump isoentropic efficiency. All the analyzed inefficiencies were associated with local plant variables and were chosen in terms of their effect on energy: • Degradation of the isoentropic efficiency of the high-pressure turbine (1st section. 1 (HPH1) was treated. vapor conditions to the brine heater or the TBT/distillate.

so the temper system uses a part of the reject cooling brine and stay secure in the last stage of the reject section.2. The first situation is a high-electricity demand when the distiller has been stopped for repair. • Parallel mode (the reduction pressure station is opened to maintain the pressure to the MSF unit): 60 MW of output power (50 kg/s extraction to desalination). We subsequently considered the ‘upstream’ effect of fouling in the recovery section of the MSF plant on the steam power plant.2 Analysis of individual inefficiencies 7. the two intermediate productions are the most common and the fourth is typical in winter. • Partial load in extraction mode at 90 MW output power (60 kg/s steam extracted to the MSF unit).e.3.1 Inefficiency in the fourth section of the high-pressure turbine As defined by Royo (1994).4.900 T/h distillate with 32 ºC seawater (the nominal production under Gulf seawater conditions in spring or autumn). We analyzed all of these possibilities but only present two: an inefficiency in the fourth section of the high- pressure turbine and an inefficiency in the MSF unit (with the cleaning ball system in the heater) at a prefixed load.68 kg/s of steam extracted to the desalination unit). an intrinsic malfunction in a steam turbine is expressed as the damage in the steam expansion process and energy transmission to the shaft Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 205 . Two freshwater productions were analyzed under the following specific conditions: • 1. the most general situation was analyzed when several inefficiencies in the power or desalination plant occurred together. The rest of the combinations (i.3.3. the analysis of the individual inefficiencies presented above) are presented in Annex 1 for a 122 MW load in the power plant and the NTOS case of the MSF plant. Finally. Four loads were considered under the most usual operating situations: • Full load in condensing mode (no extraction to MSF unit): 140 MW of power generated. including figures and matrices calculated in the analysis of each inefficiency.400 T/h distillate with 25 ºC feedwater to the reject section (the maximum winter production). Thermoeconomic diagnosis acquired experience. The effect of the load in the above inefficiencies is summarized in section 7. • Full load in extraction mode (electricity and water production): 122 MW of output power (89. Loads and inefficiencies may be combined in many ways. Seawater can be less than 25 ºC (the minimum temperature operation for the reject section). These examples represent a local and global variable in two separate systems. 7. • 2.

fractures. First the target conditions and the 206 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . exhaust pressure or extraction mass flows of a steam turbine (Zaleta. Therefore. steam path. additional live steam was needed to maintain final production. but 6. A lower isoentropic efficiency means that the outlet steam vapor conditions have a higher enthalpy. The three upstream turbine sections are insensitive to and incapable of responding to this inefficiency and the vapor conditions entering the inefficient section were maintained with respect to the design condition. seals and diaphragm deterioration. Consequently. surface finish. as a result. the steam conditions entering the MSF plant were changed by an inefficiency (or intrinsic malfunction) in the fourth section of the high-pressure turbine. The steam pressure entering the low-pressure turbine was maintained and the exhaust pressure must be the same as in the design (we assumed that the ambient conditions remained unchanged and constant condenser pressure). Thus. the effect of the inefficiency could be considered local to the component with the intrinsic malfunction. the first induced malfunction in the MSF unit was due to the variation of external factors. friction. control valve and heat losses. the isoentropic efficiency decreased by 10% (at 122 MW total output power). no significant induced malfunctions were provoked by the inefficiency in the high-pressure turbine. The output power of this section was also considerably lower because of the reduction in the enthalpy drop. We simulated that the fourth section of the high-pressure turbine underwent behavior degradation and. The additional live steam affected the whole system. These external factors include changes in admission temperature. if the exhaust pressure of the high-pressure turbine is controlled by the MSF system. Thesis (see Chapter 6 for nomenclature).035 MW. The three sections of the high-pressure turbine maintained their power production. but the latter generally readapts to maintain design values: design feedwater system values were maintained by increasing the extraction mass flows. The same methodology was used for each example.015 MW in the inefficient component. The total impact on the fuel was 6. Pump consumption increased in proportion to the additional mass flow required by the boiler. 1997). Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant due to several factors including erosion. sediments. ruptures. Thus. The physical consequences of inefficiencies will be reviewed using the symbolic diagnosis notation of this Ph. An inefficiency can also be an induced malfunction due to the variation of external factors apart from component damage. Next we considered the contribution of each component. D. the efficiency of the low-pressure turbine should not vary considerably and the two sections of the low-pressure turbine do not produce additional power to maintain the final production. The three sections of the high-pressure turbine and the two sections of the low-pressure turbine provided the extra power not supplied by the inefficient section. As a result.

we obtain the irreversibility matrix |I〉 (table 7. where KD is the array containing the sum (by columns) of the 〈KP〉 matrix and UD is the unitary matrix.29). Following the F-P definitions adopted for the thermoeconomic model (section 7. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 207 . The first factor is the diagonal matrix KD–UD. The column sum is the fuel impact of a component. table 7.23 MW). The fuel impact due to the inefficient component was 6. the fuel and product table was prepared. Thus.23 corresponds to the design and table 7. and the resources required to produce the same output power increased as well as the unit exergy consumption of the component ∆k (∆k = 0.28).29).24) decreased but the section's steam conditions were maintained..13 shows the impact on fuel analysis from the malfunction/ dysfunction table (included in table 7. the output power (P in the F-P table 7.14 includes the irreversibility increase of each component of the power plant.2144.01 MW (see also the table 7.29). the dysfunction matrix [DF] needed to build the malfunction and dysfunction table is calculated by multiplying the |I〉 matrix by ∆ 〈KP〉 P. Finally.24 to the inefficient condition. When the fourth section of the high-pressure turbine was working at 10% less isoentropic efficiency than normal.270 kW.29).25) and the 〈KP〉 matrix (table 7. The ∆ 〈KP〉 matrix is the basis for calculating the endogenous irreversibility or malfunction. The irreversibility increased (the turbine section increased its irreversibility to 3. If these two matrices are subtracted. The unit exergy consumption κ of each component is very easy to calculate using the F-P tables (by dividing the fuels entering the plant by their product). Then the reference 〈KP〉 matrix (table 7.. The second factor is the inverse of the unitary matrix minus the 〈KP〉 matrix. i. Multiplying by the product in this section (19.12 MW (see table 7. the irreversibility increase in each unit is connected to the increase in unit exergy consumption of each component. where P is the array containing the product of each component.e. which are the basis of the thermoeconomic analysis. (UD–KP)–1. the malfunction was 4.1).28) with the irreversibility increase (or dysfunction coefficients) of each component. The intrinsic malfunction is the easiest to explain.27). i. see table 7. we obtain the ∆ 〈KP〉 matrix with the unit exergy consumption increase of each component (table 7. The design and inefficient situation include the most significant flowstreams.27). The unit exergy cost of a product is the column sum of the dysfunction coefficients in the |I〉 matrix plus one (table 7. table 7.26) are made for the inefficient mode. Figure 7.Thermoeconomic diagnosis inefficient situations were simulated (see Chapter 5). If the two matrices are multiplied. we will now consider the results and explain the values using physical reasons.29) and figure 7.e. the additional fuel plant consumption provoked by the considered unit and the row sum is the irreversibility increase of a component (see table 7. After having explained the most relevant matrices to analyze a plant inefficiency (table 7. The malfunction of each component MF is the product ∆ 〈KP〉 P and is located at the end of the table.29).

14 Irreversibility increase analysis with the inefficiency in the HPT4.13 Impact on fuel analysis when the efficiency of the HPT4 is decreased 10%. Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .208 FIGURE 7. FIGURE 7.

output power of 122 MW . TABLE 7. Thermoeconomic diagnosis F-P diagram in design.23 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 209 .

24 Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant 210 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . F-P values with inefficiency in HPT4 (10% lower efficiency). TABLE 7.

TABLE 7.25 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 211 . Thermoeconomic diagnosis KP matrix in design (122 MW).

KP matrix with inefficiency in HPT4 (10%). TABLE 7.26 Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant 212 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .

27 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 213 . TABLE 7. Thermoeconomic diagnosis Variation de KP with inefficiency in HPT4.

TABLE 7. Irreversibility matrix I with an inefficiency in HPT4.28 Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant 214 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .

29 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 215 .). TABLE 7. Thermoeconomic diagnosis Dysfunction/malfunction matrix with inefficiency in HPT4 (10% isoentropic eff.

TABLE 7.30 Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant 216 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Malfunction matrix with inefficiency in HPT4 (1% isoentropic eff. is varied).

the boiler dysfunction was the highest. the inefficiency also affected MSF unit behavior.154.5). The physical analysis of the inefficiency did not detect any more induced malfunctions in the system. but the cause was again the three components undergoing the malfunction.24. The irreversibility increase in each component (table 7.27). the two products generated by these two components (the availability of the steam generated in the boiler and the negentropy generated in the steam cycle) were easily apportioned to the rest of the plant Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 217 . provoking –537 kW induced malfunction. the most important ones detected in this case.23 and 7. In our example. The dysfunction generated in the condenser was also important. the increase in unit exergy consumption in the MSF was negative. as seen in the variation of the unit exergy consumption (∆k = 0. Balancing the two terms. This induced malfunction was expected because the steam leaving the HPT4 section is consumed in the MSF unit.29).075. the variation of the steam conditions entering the MSF unit directly affects its behavior (we assumed that the condensate returned to the deaerator maintains its properties independent of inlet conditions). A higher enthalpy in the exhaust vapor of the high-pressure turbine should imply a higher specific consumption per freshwater unit produced. see table 7. In other words. or by adding the unit malfunction to the unit dysfunction generated by the malfunction of the rest of units in the system. HPT4 and MSF (see table 7. the negentropy generated in the MSF unit reduced the cost of water because the negentropy generated in the MSF unit reduced the cost of the condenser. see the corresponding value in table 7. mainly due to the malfunctions in HPT1.27). Its increase implies a decrease in unit exergy consumption of the component (the ∆k variation due to negentropy generation is –0. the value of the induced malfunction in this component was due to the thermoeconomic model. In conclusion. The inefficiency in the fourth section of the high-pressure turbine generated a higher negentropy in the MSF unit (the entropy of exhaust vapor from the turbine increases with a lower isoentropic efficiency). Since the MSF product (exergy flow of distilled water) is constant. In the productive structure (figure 7. But the thermoeconomic model gives an important function to the MSF unit: the negentropy generated in the MSF heater. These values are the consequence of a very high component product since unit exergy consumption increase was almost zero in both cases.29) was calculated by subtracting the fuel-product differences in tables 7. This negentropy is a secondary product of the MSF unit. Boiler and condenser production increased by about 3 MW (this additional production was required by the rest of components to maintain the final production of the steam power plant with the inefficiency simulated in the fourth section of the HPT).Thermoeconomic diagnosis As mentioned. It did not correspond to the expected response to an intrinsic malfunction in the fourth section of the high-pressure turbine. This consumption varied only slightly because the steam needed to produce the required power increased with the simulated inefficiency. although two components had a higher induced malfunction than the accuracy of the simulator: the boiler (–128 kW) and the first section of the HPT (–331 kW).

Figure 7.14).46). Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant components. a junction can generate a dysfunction in other system components (see equation 6. junctions and branches show how the resources are distributed among the plant devices. We want to predict the additional fuel consumption with an inefficiency and maintain the equations that model the physical behavior of the plant in the simulator (performing each individual analysis for an operating condition). i. HPT4 and MSF in the boiler and the condenser were the most important. –445 kW). All the boiler φ coefficients were non- negative (the dysfunction generated by the junction in the boiler was not zero. The impact on fuel analysis is similar to the previous analysis. However. etc. The malfunction and the dysfunction generated in a junction must be zero: in equation (6. the product of the units that enter the junction) but the components that have non-zero values in all their φ coefficients also suffer from the junction dysfunction. similar to that of branching points.13 shows the irreversibility increase analysis of this inefficiency.. associated malfunctions.e. depending on the ratio of the real inefficiency and the inefficiency defined in the malfunction matrix. To calculate the fuel impact of a known inefficiency. At least two premises are required to create the malfunction matrix: The response of the system must be proportional to the degree of inefficiency (impact on fuel. It is a very valuable tool to predict system behavior without using the simulator (recall that the same results were obtained using either the diagnosis or simulator). It provides information about the malfunction associated with each component during an inefficiency.5). the unit exergy consumption k of junction J4 varies with a change in the unit exergy consumption of its exergy ratios r (the electricity produced in the turbine sections). Its function.45) the unit exergy consumption increase in a junction is zero and the dysfunction coefficients φ responsible for the dysfunction generated by other components are also zero (remember that the dysfunction coefficients φ only depend on the unit exergy consumption k of the component in operating conditions). which are interrelated with the rest of components in the productive structure of the power plant (see figure 7. The junction usually generates dysfunctions due to the variation in the fuels (i. 218 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Logically. The value of the dysfunction strongly depends on the dysfunction coefficients φ of each component where the dysfunction is generated. A junction is a non- physical device and is fictitious in the productive structure.e. For example. These special components are the boiler and condenser. is structural. the corresponding malfunction matrix need only be multiplied or divided. Some explanations are required regarding the malfunction and dysfunction values of the non-physical components of our thermoeconomic model.). but here the impact on fuel consumption is the sum of the malfunction and the dysfunction generated by each component in all others (see figure 7. the dysfunctions generated by HPT1. One of the most useful applications of the thermoeconomic diagnosis is the malfunction matrix.

Electricity increases 0.000033 $/kWh per 1% variation in efficiency (figure 7. Thermoeconomic diagnosis To predict the effect of several malfunctions. in HT4 0 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -2000 -4000 -6000 Plant behavior was linear when we varied this inefficiency (figure 7. the inefficient components must be local to their subsystems. In these two cases. Figure 7. FIGURE 7.15). The total impact on fuel can then be calculated as the sum of the malfunction matrices associated with the individual inefficiencies. The malfunction matrix in table 7.400 T/h freshwater production). 2). Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 219 .15 Additional fuel consumption when varying the isoentropic efficiency in HPT4. fuel consumption 6000 kW 4000 2000 % eff. Inc. which is especially illustrative for plant managers. The first premise could be checked by analyzing the graphic impact on fuel analysis versus the degree of inefficiency applied. the fourth section had the highest value.200 $/y.16) or a yearly savings of 35. as expected. The values of the first section of the high and low-pressure turbine were also considerable since they had to readapt their products to maintain final production. the isoentropic efficiency of the fourth section of HPT was varied from –10% to +10% with respect to the design efficiency (around 85%). The high unit exergy consumption of the condenser pump was the result of the mathematical model (as were the high values of the low-pressure heater no. All sections of the high-pressure turbine were affected by the inefficiency but. In this case.15 shows how the linearity of the sensitivity analysis varies while the plant load is kept constant (122 MW of output power in extraction mode and 2. The second assumption is not necessary here because we only analyzed an individual inefficiency.30 is very useful to calculate the malfunctions associated with each inefficiency (by summing the columns and multiplying each component by its product). the low product values minimized the previously mentioned effect in the malfunction analysis. The effect of the inefficiency can be quantified as the total cost (including capital cost of devices) of electricity and water. The MSF components of this matrix were very high but the low exergy value of its product (freshwater) induced a low malfunction.

than for electricity (0.266 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 The main conclusions of our analysis of an inefficiency in the final section of the high-pressure turbine are: • The isoentropic efficiency only affected the behavior of the inefficient component and provoked a small malfunction in the MSF plant by changing exhaust vapor conditions leaving the HPT.000 $/y.17). Water cost 1.270 % eff.0381 0. mainly due to the high exergetic cost associated with water (see table 7.0383 $/kWh 0.0375 % eff.0373 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 Surprisingly. the effect on the cost of water was even greater –in absolute terms.16 Unit electricity cost when the isoentropic HPT4 efficiency is modified.00047 $/m3 per 1% inefficiency.278 $/m3 1. figure 7. in HT4 0.28). This is because the apparently local inefficiency changes the steam conditions sent to MSF unit. or almost 10. Electricity cost 0.17 Unit distilled water cost when the isoentropic HPT4 efficiency is modified.0379 0. which implies an additional cost. in HT4 1.0377 0. Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant FIGURE 7. FIGURE 7. 220 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . although the relative cost of electricity varied more.274 1.

In general. producing the additional power not supplied by the inefficient section of the turbine. taking into account several factors including repair time.2. Sometimes the physical consequences of an inefficiency cannot be translated into a table of expected values for fuel impact or irreversibility increase of a process or component.2. personnel costs and the price of the components if they need to be replaced to avoid extra natural gas consumption.200 $/y in both products).00047 $/m3 and 0. fouling occurs when deposits are laid down on the heat transfer surfaces (Hanbury.3. Thus. plant conditions. • The value of the induced MSF unit malfunction demonstrates that plant diagnosis strongly depends on the thermoeconomic model. Hodgkiess and Morris. chemical additives to the feed and the type of cleaning. Thermoeconomic diagnosis • The steam power plant could not readapt its behavior to maintain the final production. Additional live steam was required to produce the electricity demanded. the malfunction matrix can substitute new simulations with this inefficiency and predict its effect on a real plant. per unit of efficiency (or 45.035 kW). The latter only occurs in the rejection section and can be controlled by feed chlorination. • Resistance due to the accumulation of non-condensable gases in the vapor. The cleaning ball system can only reduce tube fouling or scale in a heat exchanger. • Resistance due to fouling outside the tube. • The effect of this inefficiency was quite significant and represented an additional water and electricity cost of 0. 1993). Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 221 . The dysfunction analysis was useful to observe how the components that provide the energy quality to the steam cycle (boiler and condenser) have to increase their productions that are distributed to the rest of plant components.000033 $/kWh respectively. • The sensitivity analysis applied in a reasonable range revealed a linear response by the simulator mathematical model. The scale type depends on the brine chemistry. 7. dirt from corrosion products or biological growths on the surface. calcium carbonate and calcium sulfate are the most common forms of scale. The nature of the inefficiency should be studied carefully. These deposits can be due to scale from the reverse solubility of salts in the brine.2 Using the cleaning ball system in the brine heater The fouling resistance Rf (for definition see section 3.1) involves three resistances: • Resistance due to fouling or scale inside the tube. In general. consuming more fuel (6. one of the main causes of performance loss in MSF plants in the high-temperature sections.

TABLE 7.31 Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant 222 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Nominal production in summer. F-P values (design) for the MSF plant.

TABLE 7. Thermoeconomic diagnosis F-P values without fouling in heater.32 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 223 . 32 ºC seawater. Nominal production.

KP matrix in design.33 Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant 224 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . TABLE 7.

34 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 225 . TABLE 7. NTOS data case. Thermoeconomic diagnosis KP matrix without fouling in heater.

35 Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant 226 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Variation of the KP matrix without fouling in heater. NTOS case. TABLE 7.

900 T/h and 32 ºC seawater temp. Thermoeconomic diagnosis Irreversibility matrix without fouling in heater. TABLE 7.36 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 227 . 1.

NTOS case.37 Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant 228 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . TABLE 7. Malfunction/dysfunction matrix without fouling in heater.

00001 m2 K/W in NTOS case.38 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 229 . Thermoeconomic diagnosis Malfunction matrix varying fouling in heater 0. TABLE 7.

900 T/h water production with 32 ºC seawater (the first of the two examples). R. SR and F must be decreased. Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant The fouling effect in the MSF plant was simulated. Less steam was consumed. the F and P values are included in tables 7.900 T/h water production. Brine fouling is a global variable in the MSF unit since it affects the rest of the system. using the nomenclature in table 7. The temperature profile of the recovery and reject section is altered if the temperatures entering and leaving the recovery section are increased. i. The cleaning ball system was assumed to be working at maximum and fouling in brine heater was set to zero (fouling factor in heater at design conditions was 0. About 1. To explain how fouling in the brine heater affects MSF behavior.. The simulator in Chapter 5 was used to obtain the F and P values for the reference conditions and inefficient situation. SR. they save fuel. Water production was constant although but this does not imply a constant product exergy flow.34) corresponding to an inefficient 230 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Following the productive structure of the MSF unit (see figure 7.00025 m2·K/W). For this reason.1 reach higher than design temperatures (and therefore the temperatures profile in recovery and reject sections). i. The malfunction analysis was performed at 1.11) with 1.O) the heater were increased. The condensation temperature of the steam provided by the steam power plant also remained constant.31 and 7. The ∆ 〈KP〉 matrix (table 7. as in the next example. although this is impossible in practice since outside fouling and non-condensable gas phenomena cannot be avoided. • The temperature rise of the cooling brine in the heater was also increased. Inefficiency was diagnosed using the symbolic notation explained in Chapter 6. A lower fouling inside the brine heater improved the overall heat transfer coefficient. But even the TBT and TF.33) and the 〈KP〉 matrix (table 7. F) were maintained at designed levels.32 respectively. In this case.e. seawater to reject and make-up flows (R.35) was built by subtracting the 〈KP〉 reference matrix (table 7. first the recycle brine. affecting the behavior of the steam power plant when less steam is required for this extraction. The reference case had the same operating conditions without the cleaning ball system. quantified and analyzed for the brine heater.1) and leaving (TBT = TB. If the final production is to be maintained. the matrix was 18×18 (11 components and 7 junctions) whereas the matrix was 30×30 (26 components and 4 junctions) in the power plant analysis. most malfunctions associated with the cleaning ball system are negative (they should be called ‘benefunctions’). the cooling brine temperatures entering (TF.e.411 kW of fuel was saved with the benefunction in different plant components (not only in the heater).4 for the components. which implied that: • The interstage temperature difference in the heater was reduced. A higher Top Brine Temperature (TBT) implies a higher flash range ∆T and more freshwater production.

each malfunction should be analyzed separately. the dysfunction table (table 7. The irreversibility matrix |I〉 (table 7.19 includes the irreversibility increase of each component of the power plant. Assuming that the distillate quantity and quality is maintained.419. or the change in unit exergy consumption ∆k decreased with respect to the reference state. we analyzed the malfunctions in the desalination plant components. Figure 7.18 shows the impact on fuel analysis in the malfunction/dysfunction table.35). Finally. The malfunction induced in other components was more important than the intrinsic malfunction provoked by heater inefficiency. The reference unit exergy consumption was reduced with respect to the inefficient condition (respectively 1. The latter were obtained by dividing the F-P tables.37). The decrease of the unit exergy consumption (–0. assuming that the mechanical and chemical irreversibility is maintained. The intrinsic malfunction is quite easy to explain. an uncontrolled TBT increases due to the effect of the cleaning ball system in the brine heater.Thermoeconomic diagnosis operation.33 or 7.37) contains the dysfunction coefficients φ and the malfunction array MF. The irreversibility was reduced by 865 kW in this component (see table 7. the temperature rise was lower than the TBT (because of the two effects of fouling in the brine heater). The induced malfunction in the recovery section was positive (203 kW) and the irreversibility increase was 247 kW in the process (see both values in table 7.096 and 1. The first important conclusion is that the malfunction generated in the brine heater was not the highest. The impact on fuel saved in this component was 2.36) contains the irreversibility and unit exergy costs of each component.34). Although cooling brine was also increased. increasing its exergetic efficiency. Using the cleaning ball system in the heater improves the heat transfer process in the tubes. The physical variations in the MSF plant with the benefunction were translated into malfunctions.075 in tables 7. the process was more inefficient in this section. the variation in unit energy consumption in this component with heater fouling was positive (∆k = 0. Consequently.37).37). Thus. see table 7. The column sum is the fuel impact of a component and the row sum is the irreversibility increase of a component. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 231 . Therefore. Having obtained the dysfunction matrix (which provides information about the state of a given plant with an inefficiency). The product of the heater is the cooling brine heated to the TBT (42. i.6 kW (both values are in table 7.025.02) is included in the ∆ 〈KP〉 matrix (table 7.e. This reduces the thermal irreversibility.35). The efficiency of the component decreased and provoked an additional fuel consumption of 494 kW. the amount of energy needed to produce the distillate in the recovery section was higher than in the design situation. Figure 7.021 kW). then the intrinsic malfunction of –875 kW.

Impact on fuel analysis when the fouling in BH is neglected. Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant Irreversibility increase in the MSF with BH=0.19 232 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . NTOS case.18 FIGURE 7. FIGURE 7.

37). ∆I = –912 kW. The same MSF residues are sent out to sea at a higher cost to the distiller when less fuel is consumed to produce water. There is no physical explanation for malfunction of this device but the thermoeconomic model suggests two causes: • The exergy flow of the residues is higher (the fuel of this unit). In conclusion. resulting in a negative malfunction of 91 kW (see tables 7.37) of fuel was saved. see tables 7. Less energy was needed to produce freshwater. The specific energy or mass flow rate of one of the two streams must be increased by an inefficiency in the MSF unit. the temperature profile in the reject section remained almost unchanged because the effect of the heater fouling is far away from the reject section.31 and 7.0. The fictitious device is a non-physical component intercalated at the beginning of the productive structure of the MSF unit (see figure 7. A higher TBT also implies lower recycled brine R flowing toward the reject section to maintain final production.37) and 1. Only the fictitious device had a considerable dysfunction value (–764 kW).37) and 725 kW in fuel savings.32).37). mixer and several junctions (see table 7. The induced malfunction associated with the mixer was quite substantial (-.360 kW (table 7. dysfunction analysis is clearly unrelated to the physical behavior of the Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 233 . This flow is the main contribution of the reject section to produce distilled water. The dysfunction depends on the φ coefficients of the component.222 kW of extra fuel consumption (table 7.35 and 7. It charges the exergy costs of the distiller flows with the plant residues: brine blowdown and reject cooling seawater. recovery and reject sections. The mechanical and thermal irreversibility of the mixing process is logically reduced if the two flows entering the mixing chamber are reduced. • The steam to the brine heater decreases (here the unit product corresponds to the fuel of the brine heater). The make-up F and recirculation R flows were decreased by the cleaning ball system in the heater under constant final production of freshwater.35 and 7. The unit exergy consumption of the process or the irreversibility increase was reduced (∆k = -.942 kW). The second cause provoked a positive malfunction of 938 kW in the FD and 1.Thermoeconomic diagnosis On the other hand. the product of the fictitious device decreased more than 700 kW to readapt the use of the cleaning ball system in the brine heater under constant freshwater production. The efficiency was increased and the variation of the unit exergy consumption and irreversibility generated were reduced in the inefficient case (∆k = – 0. Since the fictitious device is at the beginning of the productive structure. generated by malfunctions in the brine heater.11).013. which was maintained constant (the reject section product is practically the final product of the MSF unit). The amount of irreversibility in each component is the sum of its own malfunction plus the dysfunctions generated by the malfunction of other components. As above (tables 7. ∆I = –91 kW.0159. most of its φ coefficients were non-zero values.

Changing the design fouling factor in the brine heater (25×10–5 m2·K/W) gradually to zero saves fuel when the plant was operating to produce the same quantity of water as in the example. the dysfunction generated by the brine heater. Having explained the most important results of MSF plant diagnosis without heater fouling. Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant plant. However. Table 7. at least for nominal production conditions in summer. brine heater. In our example. at maximum operation. etc. we can consider one of the most useful applications. since the simulator can control the power output. As expected.00001 m2 K/W.38 shows the malfunction matrix associated with each component when the fouling factor in the brine heater was changed by 0. As expected. The most important terms of the matrix are associated with the above mentioned components: fictitious device. The latter temperature depends on the operating conditions of the MSF unit: seawater temperature and concentration. recovery and reject sections and the mixer. The impact on fuel analysis was similar to the previous analysis. fouling in each section.e.. Figure 7. since the simulator was validated using data collected from a physical plant) to validate the malfunction matrix. the impact on fuel associated with the change in total production is k*∆P. However. In this case. The model was reasonably linear when heater fouling was varied. the MSF components do not vary production to maintain the final distillate due to the malfunctions. These values can also be explained by analyzing the malfunctions associated with this inefficiency.20 can be used to study the linearity of the simulator (and a real plant.. 1993). The impact on fuel associated with the variation of the final product can be more important than the impact on fuel associated with the variation of the unit exergy consumption ∆k in each component (the total contribution due to both variations is also shown at the end of the DF/MF table). some internal flows like the recirculation flow R.37). the exergy flow of freshwater as the final product has two terms: the mass flow and the specific exergy of water leaving the distiller unit (quantity * quality. If the temperature changed. the water temperature leaving the distillate pump did not vary with the brine heater fouling. see Structural Theory. Valero et al. the impact on fuel consumption was the sum of the malfunction and dysfunction generated by each component on others (table 7. This is quite easy when the product is electricity. i. The mass flow must be controlled in the simulator but the specific distillate exergy is a function of the distiller temperature. pumps were not affected by brine heater fouling. The impact on fuel due 234 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . make-up F or seawater to reject SR reached a maximum and the effect of the cleaning ball system was lower than expected for that load. recovery and reject section and the mixer are important. where k* is the exergy cost of the product and ∆P is the variation of the total production (the value is shown in the right-bottom corner of the DF/MF table). Note that the malfunction/dysfunction analysis considers an unchanged final product.

650 $/y). FIGURE 7.460 0 5 10 15 20 25 In the nominal case.465 fouling*10-5 in BH 1. Sometimes the malfunction matrix has components with high values. 0. Note that the cost of water decreased when heater fouling was decreased (figure 7. 0 fouling*10-5 in BH 0 5 10 15 20 25 -500 -1000 -1500 -2000 -2500 kW Inc.470 1.21).21 Monetary cost of distillate when the fouling in heater is varied. the system reduced the fouling Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 235 . operating costs and energy saved. Water cost 1. but the low product or low exergy cost associated with this component results in a lower impact on fuel. FIGURE 7.475 $/m3 1. fue l cons u mption -3000 Knowing the monetary cost of fresh water as a function of an inefficiency helps plant managers take decisions on using the cleaning ball system.00045 $/m3 was saved when fouling was decreased by 10--5 m2·K/W (or 7. Although the effect of the cleaning ball system was very difficult to translate into a constant fouling variation.20 Impact on fuel analysis when the fouling in heater is varied. Thermoeconomic diagnosis to changes in brine heater fouling can be calculated by multiplying the components of the malfunction matrix by the product of each component and their unit exergy cost (obtained from the irreversibility matrix). depending on the compromise between consumption.

However. At maximum production. scale formation will reduce the effectiveness of the condenser and the whole MSF unit. The sensitivity analysis of the monetary cost and fuel impact takes into account that the exergy costs k* of the steam to the brine heater and the electricity for the MSF pumps are different from unity (unit exergy cost of steam to heater and vacuum system was 2. Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant factor several times over (see section 3. the cost decreases due to the effect of purchase costs and because the increase in exergy cost is lower than in the nominal case (remember that the internal flows reach a maximum during maximum winter production). But if an inefficiency in the MSF unit provokes an increase/decrease in steam consumption by the brine heater. If the electricity and water production are kept constant. In summary.1) when the cleaning system was periodically connected (for example in a four-hour cycle). the induced malfunctions in the rest of components were higher than the intrinsic malfunction in the heater. So.3 The effect of recovery section fouling on steam power plant behavior An inefficiency in a power plant or desalination unit will provoke additional fuel consumption. using the cleaning ball system in the heater had the following consequences: • It changed the temperature profiles of the cooling. taking into account the dimensions of each component. Consequently. • The cleaning ball system in heater increased the TBT of the unit. This implies a lower consumption to produce the same amount of freshwater. • The model was linear under changes in heater fouling. 7. how does the steam power plant readapt?. the dysfunction analysis did not provide any interesting information on how the components readapted their production to maintain the final production of freshwater. the cleaning ball system should be continuously maintained in the heater to keep the fouling factor low. This parameter is the amount of steam 236 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . the inefficiency in the MSF unit is an inlet parameter that seriously affects power plant behavior. the temperatures of the recycle brine before and after the heater were affected. As the brine heater is settled at the beginning of the process. • As a consequence of the last point.5 respectively and exergy cost of electricity was 2.55 and 2. If the system is not operating. the real cost of producing water and the consequences of an inefficiency can be dealt with correctly.3. flashing brine and distillate in the MSF unit. As those temperatures enter and leave the recovery section. So. The analysis was performed separately for both plants. The non-physical components cannot be explained from a physical viewpoint. but also provokes scale formation due to the high-operation temperatures.2. the whole system was influenced by this inefficiency. the malfunction matrix can be used to predict the fuel saved with the cleaning ball system or component malfunctions.6.85).

6 kg/s. respectively. So. the low-pressure turbine produces the electricity that the high-pressure turbine cannot. In this example. that is. If the steam leaving the high-pressure turbine is not diverted to the MSF unit when some of it is saved with the cleaning ball system. at least the efficiency of the first section of the low- pressure turbine is improved with a higher entering mass flow rate (remember that the low-pressure turbine is designed to work in condensing mode. The dysfunction matrix [DF] including the malfunction array MF is shown in table 7. Our analysis considered an inefficiency detected ‘downstream’ and the MSF unit can induce the malfunctions. the maximum distillated in a MSF unit).43).1 kg/s (corresponding to a freshwater production of 2.39 and 7. an inefficiency detected downstream should also be quantified upstream. The redistribution of the flows inside the steam cycle was similar to the previous analysis.42 for the design and inefficient case. an extra quantity of steam goes to the low-pressure turbine. Extraction to the MSF unit is at the end of the high-pressure turbine. we considered the ‘co-lateral’ effects of a co-generation plant with this example. Finally. the steam conditions leaving the high-pressure turbine are slightly varied (recall that the exhaust pressure is controlled by the MSF unit). the amount of steam leaving the boiler must decrease from 156. Figures 7. when no steam is derived to the MSF unit).1 to 71. so the latter was not affected by the different uses of the exhaust steam from this turbine. The first physical consequence (the effects of the cleaning ball system in the recovery section are explained in section 6 of Annex 1) of an inefficiency was a reduction in steam consumption from 89.44 contains the |I〉 matrix and the exergy cost array.400 T/h. Table 7. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 237 .23 include the impact on fuel analysis and irreversibility increase. passing through the condenser and not through the MSF heater).22 and 7. The fouling in the recovery section was reduced to zero by the cleaning ball system and the live steam leaving the boiler was maintained. Tables 7. This produces a negative impact when more steam is forced to flow in the low-pressure cycle (that is. Although the final section of the turbine has to maintain the exhaust pressure (we maintain the external parameters of the plant).41 and 7. The feedwater system cools and additional fuel is required to reach the set point conditions of live steam in the boiler. The ∆ 〈KP〉 matrix is the key to analyze the system with this inefficiency (table 7.1 to 146. But the electricity production increases since the amount of steam and the efficiency of the low-pressure turbine have been improved.Thermoeconomic diagnosis diverted to the MSF unit.40 show the F-P values for the steam power plant in design and operation (when the inefficiency occurs in the recovery section of the MSF unit). The 〈KP〉 matrix is shown in tables 7. electricity production was held at 122 MW in MCR operating conditions. To maintain the final production.45.

39 Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant 238 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . TABLE 7. F-P values in design. 122 MW output power.

TABLE 7. Thermoeconomic diagnosis F-P values without fouling in recovery section.40 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 239 . MCR case.

KP matrix in design. TABLE 7.41 Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant 240 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . MCR case.

Thermoeconomic diagnosis KP matrix without fouling in recovery section. MCR case. TABLE 7.42 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 241 .

Variation of KP without fouling in recovery section.43 Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant 242 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . TABLE 7. MCR case.

Thermoeconomic diagnosis Irreversibility matrix without fouling in recovery section (MCR case). TABLE 7.44 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 243 .

45 Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant 244 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . TABLE 7. Malfunction/dysfunction matrix without fouling in recovery section (MCR case).

Thermoeconomic diagnosis Malfunction matrix when the fouling in recovery is varied 0. TABLE 7.46 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 245 .00001 m2·K/W in MCR case.

3. MCR case.22 FIGURE 7.23 246 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .4. Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant Irreversibility increase analysis of section 7. FIGURE 7.2. Impact on fuel analysis without fouling in RCS.

This means that the steam power plant is forced to work under less-efficient operating conditions. The efficiency of the component should thereby increase.43). implying an induced malfunction of –682 kW.43 was positive (∆k = 0. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 247 . Thermal irreversibility was lower because the cold flow entering the mixer was increased and its irreversibility was reduced by 828 kW (see table 7. The deaerator component mixes and preheats the feedwater from the condenser. allowing the output power (produced in the section) to increase.320 kW induced malfunction as a consequence of the mathematical model. with the fuel saved in the MSF1 unit (26. see the ∆ 〈KP〉 table 7.025 (see table 7.0267) with a 1.45) and 1. We will now explain the most significant values in the malfunction array of table 7. The feedwater temperature entering the boiler was reduced because the low-pressure cycle increased its contribution to the whole system. see table 7. ∆ 〈KP〉 in table 7. 535 ºC).e.Thermoeconomic diagnosis The first analysis compared the fuel impact associated with the whole plant (a fuel savings of 24.004. i.45). the variation of the unit exergy consumption was negative in the component (∆k = –0. the fourth section of the high-pressure turbine had a decreased isoentropic efficiency but a negative induced malfunction (–484 kW. relating the physical consequences to the matrix values. This abnormal behavior is explained by the exhaust pressure of the high-pressure turbine which decreased with the amount of live steam. as in this case this amount has been decreased considerably. and the malfunction associated with the component was finally 858 kW (see tables 7. Surprisingly.43 respectively). In this case the MSF unit is the component inserted in the structure productive of the steam power plant.45. the unit exergy consumption was lower during the inefficiency. the isoentropic efficiency in the section decreases (and consequently the exergy and entropy properties of steam leaving the section). Exergy product of the MSF unit is kept constant.00 MW). The first section of the high-pressure turbine had a 1. Irreversibility in the mixing process is lower because the mass flows entering the deaerator are lower during operation (where the live steam mass flow rate is reduced to maintain the final production) than in the design.085. resulting in a ∆k value of –0.954 kW fuel impact. The efficiency of the Curtis blade was correlated as a function of the live steam from the boiler under different operating conditions.. Since the product of this component is the output power (according to the thermoeconomic model).43 with the ∆ 〈KP〉 components). 1.320 kW malfunction and a 1. with an associated fuel impact of 576 kW.45 and 7. The increased exergy unit consumption in the boiler was ∆k = 0. The boiler consumed additional resources to reach the set point of the steam turbine (93 bar. Consequently.47 MW).500 kW fuel was saved.

and –38.43). –22. the efficiency of the first section of the low-pressure turbine increased because the amount of entering steam increases considerably and its ∆ 〈KP〉 component was negative (∆k = –0. The high φ coefficients promote high dysfunction since they are related to the position of the components in the productive structure of the system. Figure 7.24 shows the total impact on fuel associated with the inefficiency variation in the recovery section (the effect of fouling in the recovery section when fouling is varied). This negentropy is a subproduct in the productive structure. This is the additional fuel consumed due to the change in the operation of each unit with respect to the operating conditions and no inefficiency. the DI array is the column sum of the dysfunctions.965 kW. 1.55 MW and --13. The most important dysfunctions in the boiler and condenser were caused by the components with the most important malfunctions (figure 7.43 MW for the deaerator. The reason for the 12.837.45) was obtained by adding the malfunction array MF.620 kW and 752 kW from the deaerator. The dysfunction generated by this component achieved the desired fuel savings (a large negative value). some internal flows of the distiller are forced to keep a constant value).970 kW fuel savings. The irreversibility of the process was reduced by 1.215 kW from the first section of the high pressure turbine. The values of the main components are described in the previous paragraph (2.24). with a –2.319. -. Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant As mentioned above. The final product in the boiler was reduced by more than 10 MW to maintain the total production at a lower steam consumption (total boiler dysfunction. table 7. the MSF model behaved linearly at nominal production.71 MW). The impact on fuel associated with each component (table 7. The unit exergy consumption of the unit increased (∆k = 1. However. 634 kW for the HPT1. Here the malfunction matrix did not exactly predict the malfunctions because the response of the mathematical model was not perfectly linear when varying the steam to the MSF unit (under maximum production.177 kW induced malfunction and 2.1. The malfunction associated with the MSF was positive. –13.812 kW and –1. although the fuel impact saved was very high in this component. The boiler and condenser suffered dysfunctions of 1.68 MW from the MSF unit.43).45. table 7. the malfunction matrix can be used as a predictive tool to diagnose the effects of the inefficiency.391 kW and 404 kW from the fourth section of this turbine and –24. Following the methodology in Chapter 6 for the diagnosis of complex systems. which coincides with the irreversibility increase of the process in this case) was the drastic reduction in negentropy (which was introduced in the thermoeconomic model of the steam cycles to account for the heat rejected in the condenser). respectively.491 kW induced malfunction (table 7. 248 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Having obtained the most relevant results in the inefficiency analysis. The condenser also increased production by 16 MW (total condenser dysfunction.9 MW for the MSF unit!).65 MW).

26) involves the cost of electricity and water as a function of recovery section fouling during maximum production in winter (which was the load requested in the example).00001 m2·K/W. The cost of electricity increased a bit (4×10–6 $/kW·h) when the fouling was decreased.46 provides the ‘linearized’ malfunction induced in each component when the fouling in the recovery section is changed by 0. the MSF coefficients were the highest and the HPT1 and HPT4 were also elevated.03788 0 3 6 9 12 15 The ‘monetary diagnosis’ (figures 7.24 Impact on fuel depending on fouling in recovery section. although the low product did not induce an important malfunction. The malfunction analysis proved Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 249 .25 and 7.25 Monetary cost of electricity depending on the fouling in recovery section. As expected. FIGURE 7. The condenser pump and low-pressure heater coefficients were again high (as are the brine heater and feed pump values). Thermoeconomic diagnosis FIGURE 7. Electricity cost 0. 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 -6000 -12000 -18000 kW Inc.03792 0. fuel consumption -24000 Since the model responded in a non-linear way to the efficiency.03794 0. the most rigorous diagnosis should separate simulate each case (avoiding the malfunction matrix). The malfunction matrix in table 7.03790 fouling*10-5 in RCS 0.03796 $/kW·h 0.

250 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .26 Cost in $ per cubic meter of water when recovery section fouling is varied. Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant that the steam power plant decreases its global efficiency with an inefficiency in the recovery section of the MSF unit (as explained at the beginning of this section). The cost of water was drastically reduced (see figure 7. because the optimum point of the performance in the dual plant is seriously affected by the use of this system. deaerator. • An inefficiency in the MSF unit provokes induced malfunctions in several components of the steam power plant (boiler. But a reduction in the derived steam did not imply improved plant performance (for this particular case.26) when the cleaning ball system operates in the recovery section of the MSF distillers.00001 m2 K/W decrease in recovery section fouling (see figure 7. the electricity cost was even higher).99 0.97 0. 0. Water cost followed the expected results. Therefore. FIGURE 7.01 0.26) or 120.05 $/m3 1.000 $/y.95 0 3 6 9 12 15 In summary: • The results of the inefficiency diagnosis imply that fouling in the recovery section considerably reduces the amount of steam needed to produce freshwater. • A consequence of this example is that the co-generation plant should operate at an optimum ratio between the steam to MSF and the live steam produced in the boiler. this type of inefficiency detected ‘downstream’ has a more global effect than an inefficiency local to a component in the steam power plant. The installation of the cleaning ball system in the MSF distillers should be taken into account in the design in the co-generation plant.03 1. Water cost 1. some turbine sections…).0057 $/m3 was saved with a 0.

The pump responds by consuming more power and the feedwater temperature increases. Thermoeconomic diagnosis 7. although the system demands more live steam. The boiler is also affected because feedwater enters the economizers at a lower-than-design temperature. We simulated the physical effect of these inefficiencies (changing main flowstreams) and describe related malfunctions. and additional fuel consumption in the steam power plant (the direct problem). This exercise reinforces the concept of local and intrinsic malfunctions. the extraction mass flow should be reduced. dysfunctions. the steam conditions are not significantly affected by inefficiencies in other sections.3. If the heater does not need to preheat the feedwater the same amount. • Isoentropic efficiency of the first section of the high-pressure turbine decreases 5%.3.3. The exhaust conditions of the high and low-pressure turbine are more or less maintained with the MSF unit and ambient conditions. the feedwater leaves the heater at a lower temperature and the turbine extraction temperature increases. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 251 . • Isoentropic efficiency of the first section of the low-pressure turbine decreases 15%. Thus. The output power in each inefficient section is not enough to maintain final production but other sections cannot produce this extra power since their efficiency was maintained constant. If the TTD of the HPH1 increases.3 Analysis of several inefficiencies 7. The analyzed inefficiencies were: • TTD in high-pressure heater no. the efficiency of the boiler does not necessarily decrease. • Isoentropic efficiency of the fourth section of the high-pressure turbine decreases 10%.1 Analysis of several simultaneous inefficiencies in the steam power plant We will now consider the combined effect of several simultaneous inefficiencies in different components and the effect of induced malfunctions. 1 increases 5 ºC • Isoentropic efficiency of the feed pump decreases 10%. When the isoentropic efficiency of several sections of the steam turbine decreases. The mechanical irreversibility of the feed pump increases if the isoentropic efficiency is lower than expected.

47 Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant 252 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . 122 MW output power. TABLE 7. F-P values in design.

Thermoeconomic diagnosis F-P values with inefficiencies in five components (MCR case).48 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 253 . TABLE 7.

KP matrix in design (MCR Case).49 Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant 254 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . TABLE 7.

Thermoeconomic diagnosis KP matrix with several inefficiencies in MCR case. TABLE 7.50 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 255 .

Variation of KP matrix with several inefficiencies in MCR case.51 Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant 256 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . TABLE 7.

TABLE 7. Thermoeconomic diagnosis Irreversibility matrix with five inefficiencies in power plant (MCR case).52 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 257 .

TABLE 7.53 Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant 258 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Malfunction/dysfunction matrix with five inefficiencies in MCR case.

Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 259 . Thermoeconomic diagnosis FIGURE 7.3.1.28 Irreversibility increase in section 7.3.3.1.3.27 Impact on fuel analysis in section 7. FIGURE 7.

It is very energy intensive and should not be isolated from energy production processes. • Energy consumed in desalination. • Desalination processes. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . The current trend is to separate the two processes. Water resources are being depleted by excessive consumption and polluted by human development. Chapter 2 summarizes the most common methods to produce freshwater for human consumption. Fortunately. Desalination designers normally present the energy consumption of different desalination processes in terms of electrical consumption (kW·h/m3) even if they consume thermal energy.1 Synthesis This Ph. Chapter 1 describes the current situation in arid countries and how to solve some water shortages. This thesis demonstrates that energy and water suppliers interact in a co-generation installation to provide both products and that both systems should not be analyzed separately. the problem can be solved by desalting seawater or reusing wastewater. The detailed description of desalination processes in Chapter 2 including the consumption and energy producing process in desalination. D. contributions and perspectives 8. The existence of big companies that only produce electricity or only water widens the gap between desalination and energy communities. Water scarcity is a serious problem for humanity now and in the future.CHAPTER 8 Synthesis. Thesis brings together three topics that have never been thoroughly interrelated.

4. 3. However. The cost analysis is very useful to find the enormous possibilities of energy savings under different configurations of the co-generation plant. 324 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Synthesis. contributions and perspectives • Thermoeconomic analysis of the most common desalting and power installations. we took advantage of everything that thermoeconomics provides to obtain an in depth knowledge of a very complex system. It is very valuable to design new co- generation plants or to readapt existing ones. The thermoeconomic analysis of the dual plant included cost analysis. the diagnosis cannot be used as a predictive tool in the control systems because the theory cannot yet recognize the origin of the inefficiencies. The interaction can also be separated by varying component efficiency (malfunction) and the subsequent additional component production (dysfunction). The energy supplier was also analyzed since the desalting plant is coupled with the power plant. We analyzed one of the most common processes used in arid regions with important water scarcity problems: multi-stage flash desalting plants that use fossil fuels to also produce electricity with the help of a conventional power plant. Product cost and price must be calculated from their origin. A detailed analysis of the internal costs pin-points the component responsible for irreversibilities. diagnosis. and optimization. 2. The different relationships and effects of component inefficiencies on other subsystems can be successfully quantified by considering both plants together. Plant diagnosis helps to elucidate component interaction. New processes can also be combined to produce minimum water and electricity costs. The results of the different thermoeconomic techniques applied in each case are as follows: 1. Cost is the resources consumed to produce something and price is the value obtained when this product is sold. Benefit is the difference between both concepts. The thermoeconomic analysis was also applied to a steam power plant providing steam to the MSF unit. In this way. Once the price is known. This thesis includes one example of a thermodynamically isolated (power plant) and non-isolated (MSF unit) system. the cost must be minimized to obtain the maximum benefit (plant operating conditions of the plant can be changed intentionally depending on demand and price). Local optimization optimizes the operating conditions by calculating the minimum product cost of each plant unit. The main contribution of the thesis is contained in Chapter 7. We used thermoeconomic techniques normally applied to power plants.

The mathematical model applied under different operating modes accurately reproduces (for engineering purposes) the real state of the plant. the input conditions of the mathematical model have to be continuously restricted in order to preserve the stability of the model.2 State of the art in Thermoeconomics An effort was made in Chapter 6 to review and summarize Thermoeconomic methodologies. The thermoeconomic analysis of the dual plant was based on this theory and its latest improvements. The mathematical models of the MSF and steam turbine power plant were solved using a solution algorithm that simultaneously handles the whole set of model equations. Ettouney and El-Dessouky. The most difficult case is when the amount of steam entering the low-pressure turbine is so low that the system has to consume mechanical energy to move the blades. A combined state can be modelled by introducing the same quantity of steam sent to the MSF unit. Thermal desalination processes have been simulated by chemical engineers (Jernqvist. including the matrix formulation and new terms like induced malfunction. Thesis applies the most recent thermoeconomic techniques (normally only applied to power generation systems) to a power and desalination plant. Main contributions 8. It can model the effect of inefficiencies in the two systems for diagnosis.2.2. 1999). procedures and applications of these techniques. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 325 . 1999. although this threatens model stability under different operating conditions. The main contributions of the thesis are listed here: 8.2 Main contributions This Ph. Jernqvist and Aly. The simulator was validated using performance data cases and real operating data for the dual-plant with a MSF unit and a steam power plant.1 Simulator of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant A simulator was used to provide the thermodynamic states of desalination and power generation process. The Structural Theory was finally adopted to explain the concepts. The two processes were separately introduced in the simulator to independently analyze each process. The packages containing the sequential scheme to solve the flowsheeting of a plant are discarded here. In this case. 8. D. intrinsic malfunction and dysfunction. despite the scarcity of data for each operating mode. but the steam producing system is not considered.

the MSF did not fulfil this requirement 326 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . 1999) that do not use the thermoeconomic model and provide much less information.).. 1999. Whether it is intrinsic or induced depends on user knowledge. The physical (or formation) costs of the main components were calculated.3. The relationships between components are rapidly found with in terms of efficiency variation (intrinsic or induced malfunction) or additional production (dysfunction)..2. This method does not find the nature of the malfunction. 8. 1999). individual matrices of different inefficiencies may be added to make one large malfunction matrix with the same effect.2).5 Diagnosis of a complex system The thermoeconomic diagnosis in section 7. Kronenberg et al. However.2. most analyzed systems demonstrate additivity of diagnosis: several inefficiencies can be disaggregated. The symbolic notation and Structural Theory also helps to formulate the malfunction matrix to find the quantity of additional resources consumed due to an inefficiency (without using the simulator). Usually the matrix formulation is only used to study simpler systems like the gas turbine co-generation plant in Chapter 6. contributions and perspectives 8.4 Cost analysis of a dual-plant A detailed cost analysis of the power and desalination plant was carried out under different operating modes (see section 7. If the inefficiency is local to the component. This matrix is used when the system responds linearly to the applied inefficiencies.3 was based on Structural Theory and Symbolic Thermoeconomics (Torres et al.3 F-P definition for a MSF unit The F-P definition of the thermoeconomic analysis of the MSF unit (see section 7. To date. Exergy operating costs are available for each component as well as the thermoeconomic costs of water and electricity. The malfunction/ dysfunction table provides a lot of information that should be carefully analyzed when an inefficiency is simulated in the plant (exergy costs.2. This is the first time that a malfunction/dysfunction analysis is applied to a complex energy system (26 components and 4 junctions for the power plant and 11 components and 7 junctions for the MSF plant). impact on fuel. taking into account the thermodynamic processes in the plant. irreversibility increase in each component. These latter costs were successfully compared with other methodologies (EL-Nashar.2) highlights the cost of water production in the recovery and reject section. Synthesis. Several F-P definitions solved the model but none gave appropriate costs of device functionality nor for the main flow degradation in the MSF plant.1.. 8..

5) has never been applied to a set of 14 free-design variables that govern plant behavior. some areas were found lacking. 8.2. which does not always imply minimum cost. Our objective was to find the most efficient process at the lowest energy consumption. a new methodology is included to assign product cost. but processes also involve other costs that should be taken into Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 327 . heat absorption pumps) will possibly be the trend in the next decades. price and benefit Finally. price and benefit using examples to demonstrate that cost and price are independent. i. 8. Perspectives in the diagnosis of complex systems. air pollution and climate change.7 Cost. • Thermoeconomics only considers the costs of operation. • Applying our methodology to other desalination processes. installation and maintenance. The main objective of an investment is to obtain maximum benefit.2. the integration of other processes to produce energy (wind. even nuclear) and water (MSF/RO or MED/RO units. see section 7. The importance of hybrid configurations. Our suggestions include: • Promoting the simulation of both processes (water and energy production) integrated in specific simulators.3 Perspectives 8.3.e. tides. i. the best way to produce both energy and water and not contribute to fossil fuel depletion. this fulfilment strongly depends on the physical structure of the system. As seen above. After analyzing one of the most developed methods to produce freshwater and electricity. Process integration One of the immediate consequences of this work is to increase the ways existing plants may reduce energy consumption. Global optimization of the steam power plant (based on local optimization. solar.e.6 Local optimization of the steam power plant Local optimization of the main components of the steam power plant also provides a global minimum final cost of electricity and water. 8.1 Improving existing plants. local perturbations only affect one component (demonstrated in the diagnosis of the steam power plant). Local optimization can be applied to the steam power plant because it is thermodynamically isolated. 'Building-block’ software will be required to thermoeconomically analyze any process producing water or electricity.

3. We should consider the way to isolate the system from these boundary conditions or their effects. a big effort is needed to improve thermoeconomic techniques related to plant diagnosis (the ‘inverse problem’) when the data acquisition system (DAS) finds deviations from the target conditions for each operating mode and load. ambient conditions. fuel quality. Diagnosis is directly oriented to an on-line implementation in the control system.e. they should be introduced in the global theory when they are more or less available. it can be used for all units.. The units respond as a whole unit when a deviation is detected. In this regard.. We could consider performing the analysis under a constant final production (of the complex system). The on-line system can also be installed higher up in the control system. Synthesis. All these are less developed than the costs evaluated in the thermoeconomic analysis. The non-additivity of the diagnosis in these interrelated systems opens an interesting new line of investigation. biological costs. • Clarifying the application and interpretation of dysfunctions generated in/by plant components. Some previous steps may be needed to solve the inverse problem of the thermoeconomic diagnosis: • Analyze the problem of ‘noise’ provoked by the real boundary conditions in an installation: set points. It is very useful to quantify the efficiency of plant processes. building costs. contributions and perspectives account including environmental (pollution. etc. 328 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Since thermoeconomic techniques can consider any type of costs. Once the problem is solved. different loads and operating modes. Regarding maximizing benefit. New communication technologies (Internet) allow remote control of the on-line implementation of system diagnosis. i. costs of producing materials. the higher level of hierarchy can help decide the most profitable configuration and the possibility of connecting the hybrid systems installed in the plants for additional water or energy in peak or low-demand periods. brine discharges. 8. so plant managers can also see the benefits of the implementation.). The diagnosis should detect the inefficiency from the data collected by the DAS to take corrective actions. the diagnosis finds the real causes of the deviations.2 Improvements in thermoeconomic diagnosis Cost analysis provides a lot of information about how processes degrade and the energy quality of fluids in a plant. depending on the finality of the analysis. • Thermoeconomics should be used to investigate the development of new techniques to study component interdependence during induced malfunctions in a complex system.

a different kind of information should go to each level in the plant staff hierarchy. Research on desalination using solar energy for existing or new methods. etc) is also necessary to provide an overall perspective of desalination processes. Promoting the installation of simple devices to provide water in acceptable conditions at a very low (or zero) cost in non-developed/isolated areas (Africa. As solar technology develops. should be encouraged. including additional aspects (residues.3 Integrating attitudes Thermoeconomic analysis provides enormous amounts of information about plant functioning and possible savings. This information should be clearly integrated in a vertical structure. i. Training seminars are necessary for all levels to inform staff about the “thermoeconomic culture” and its benefits for humanity. is another Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 329 . we have: Operator level The information derived from the diagnosis is the most important at this level.4 Sustainable desalination Desalination is one of the most promising means of producing drinkable water with a low impact on the environment. Cost. materials. price and benefit must be clearly differentiated at this level. Managers level Cost analysis must be the main tool used by the plant managers since they manage the whole plant (assuming there are many units per plant). This tendency should be followed in all areas that influence our future. product use. The tendency of the desalination scientific community is to reduce energy consumption and substitute primary energy sources by renewable sources on a large scale. 8. and new control systems to handle inefficiencies. the cost of producing water (on a large scale) will decrease as will the strong dependence on energy. Technician level This field includes optimizing existing systems and investigating and developing more efficient systems.e. India).3.3. Perspectives 8. For example. like the Life Cycle Analysis (LCA). if we divide the organization of the plant in three levels. The physical and economic effects of the inefficiencies and the control strategies (security versus economy) are the main issues for operators. A more global analysis.

5 Promote energy and water interactions Water and energy are both limited resources. D. settled at the University of Zaragoza) to promote the interchange of ideas. This Ph. A multi-disciplinary group of water and energy specialists has been formed (International Study Group for Water and Energy Systems (ISGWES). 330 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . The rapidly growing human population increases the demand for these resources every day. scientific knowledge and sustainable development of water and energy systems. vital to the quality of the human life. but there is a marked lack of attention to combined water and energy issues. Several international organizations are dedicated to energy and several others to water.3. 8. Thesis demonstrates that energy and water cannot be studied separately. Some of the investigation lines commented above will be promoted by ISGWES. Synthesis. contributions and perspectives means of redistributing world resources and promoting a more equal development in the world community.

The analysis was performed under different operating conditions but is only presented for one load. The following individual inefficiencies (described but not analyzed in section 7. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Thus. Each inefficiency requires many tables and figures. • Inefficiency in the high-pressure turbine: efficiency analysis in the first section. • Inefficiency in the low-pressure turbine: efficiency variation in first section.3.ANNEX 1 Thermoeconomic diagnosis The thermoeconomic diagnosis of the dual plant in section 7.3. this annex is an overall view of the effects provoked by one or more inefficiencies in the power and desalination plant. • Inefficiency in the reject section: effect of the fouling factor.4 and 7. all of which are included in this annex. • Inefficiency in the feed pump: reduced efficiency.3) were applied: • Inefficiency in the HPH1: variation in terminal temperature difference of heater. the MCR case for the power plant and NTOS performance case for the MSF unit. • Inefficiency in the recovery section: effect of reduced fouling in MSF.3 considered several inefficiencies described at the beginning of the chapter. The effect of the different loads in the two systems is summarized in sections 7.5.

HPH1 (the inefficient component) and HPT1. The heater TTD is the difference between the temperature of saturated vapor extracted from the turbine and the feedwater leaving the heater.2 include the F-P definition of the steam power plant in design and operation with an inefficiency in the HPH1: the TTD increases 5 ºC. and table A1. Tables A1.3.4 include the 〈KP〉 tables corresponding to the design and inefficient operation. Finally. Tables A1. Thermoeconomic diagnosis A1. The mathematical explanation of varying TTD involves the malfunction and dysfunction matrices detailed in section 7. The highest malfunctions in table A1. The consequences are very difficult to evaluate with conventional component analysis since the model does not incorporate the security system layout of the power plants.6 contains the φ coefficients of the irreversibility matrix |I〉 with exergy cost of components. Table A1. Since the conditions of the steam extracted in the turbine are maintained.3. 90 and 140 MW. The output power used was 122 MW.6. but other examples were at 60. An excessive change in heater TTD may also sharply vary the levels inside the heater. Figures A1. Varying the heater TTD only affected the components interacting with the heater. respectively (section 7. leading to dangerous problems or even drains in the heaters.5 is the ∆ 〈KP〉 matrix. the extraction mass flow to this heater decreases and the boiler produces less live steam. Although the live steam needed for the electricity demand is reduced. Table A1. This inefficiency did not induce malfunctions in other components.8 is the malfunction matrix when we vary the TTD of the HPH1 1 ºC.1 Effect of an inefficiency in the high-pressure heater no. the boiler heats the feedwater from a lower temperature and natural gas consumption increases. corresponding to the parallel mode.1 and A1. 332 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . These are the most important operating modes (the most operating hours per year) in the power and desalination plant.4).2 show the impact on fuel analysis and the irreversibility increase per component. The feedwater therefore leaves the heater at a lower temperature than expected.1 (HPH1) The TTD of the HPH1 was varied to analyze the effect on the steam power plant.7 is the malfunction/dysfunction table built using table A1. table A1. The rest of the components were within simulator accuracy (< 100 kW).7 corresponded to the boiler.3 and A1. a higher TTD implies a poorer heat transfer inside the heater tubes.1 and A1. Consequently. extraction mode with partial load and condensing mode.

1 (HPH1) F-P values in design (MCR case). TABLE A1.1 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 333 . Effect of an inefficiency in the high-pressure heater no.

2 Thermoeconomic diagnosis 334 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . F-P values in operation with 5º C TTD respect to design . TABLE A1.

1 (HPH1) KP matrix in design (MCR case).3 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 335 . TABLE A1. Effect of an inefficiency in the high-pressure heater no.

KP matrix with inefficiency in HPH1 (MCR case).4 Thermoeconomic diagnosis 336 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . TABLE A1.

1 (HPH1) Variation of KP matrix when TTD in the HPH1 is 5 ºC higher than the expected.5 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 337 . Effect of an inefficiency in the high-pressure heater no. TABLE A1.

6 Thermoeconomic diagnosis 338 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . TABLE A1. Irreversibility matrix with the inefficiency in HPH1.

1 (HPH1) Malfunction/Dysfunction matrix when the TTD in HPH1 is 5º C higher. TABLE A1. Effect of an inefficiency in the high-pressure heater no.7 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 339 .

Malfunction matrix when TTD in HPH1 is varied 1 ºC TABLE A1.8 Thermoeconomic diagnosis 340 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .

1 (HPH1) Irreversibility analysis when the TTD in HPH1 is increased 5 ºC.2 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 341 . Impact on fuel analysis with an inefficiency in HPH1. Effect of an inefficiency in the high-pressure heater no. FIGURE A1.1 FIGURE A1.

5 kW.020 (see table A1. As the boiler product was very high (the heat transferred to the feedwater was about 210 MW). provoking a negative dysfunction.005. but the efficiency in this section is lightly decreased (the efficiency of the Curtis blade is higher as the live steam flow grows). i. the inefficiency increases the irreversibility in the heater (∆I = 16. The energy production in this section is maintained. The result of the inefficiency was a 223. the malfunction was 1. The extraction flow to this heater also decreases (to meet the energy balance of the heater).7 ºC).7) when the temperature difference in the water tubes increases. see table A1.5): feedwater heated in the boiler in one of the inlets of that junction.3 shows this effect for electricity production in the extraction mode of the example (122 MW).6 kW intrinsic malfunction (or an associated 272 kW impact on fuel). This variation is explained by the productive structure of the steam power plant (see figure 7. the boiler consumes additional fuel to maintain the live steam conditions (which are fixed in the simulator and the real plant). The amount of steam flowing in HPT1 was lower than in design. The effect induced in the boiler is clear: if the feedwater leaves the heater at a lower temperature. increasing the TTD of the HPH1 by 5 ºC (which could be interpreted as a problem in the heat transfer mechanism of the heater). The steam flowing through the second section of the HPH is maintained. The dysfunctions due to the HPH1 inefficiency emphasizes the results of other inefficiencies in the steam power plant: only the boiler and the condenser suffer dysfunctions generated by component malfunctions (HPH1. The total impact on fuel associated with this inefficiency was 1.5). Thermoeconomic diagnosis In the simulated intrinsic malfunction.048 kW. the malfunction induced in the boiler was more important than the intrinsic malfunction in the heater. Figure A1.e. The φ coefficients were positive but negative for the condenser.179 kW with an associated 830 kW impact on fuel. The dysfunction generated in the boiler was positive.0026. The effect is non-linear when TTD is negative and close to zero (the design TTD for this operating condition is –1. In this case. decreases more than expected the feedwater temperature leaving the heater. The analysis could be performed avoiding this range 342 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . and an impact on fuel associated of 209 kW. then the variation of the unit exergy consumption of the section is ∆k = 0. In any case.5) was ∆k = 0. Unit exergy consumption varied by ∆k = 0. The junction J2 produced a –393 kW dysfunction in the boiler associated with its exergy unit consumption variation. then we have a little malfunction induced in this section of 130 kW. boiler or HPT1). the variation of component unit exergy consumption (table A1. The power plant model varied linearly to a one degree change in the heater TTD when comparing the amount of fuel saved. The first effect (a lower heating process in the heater) is more important than the second (a lower extraction flow). although this effect disappears when HPH1 extraction was reduced. The ∆ 〈KP〉 component.

Effect of an inefficiency in the high-pressure heater no.1 (HPH1)

of temperature differences since the impact on fuel associated with the whole plant
can be less than 200 kW and the mathematical model cannot diagnose the
inefficiency with less than 100 kW accuracy.

FIGURE A1.3 Impact on fuel associated with a variation in the TTD of HPH1. 122 MW power plant production.

Inc. fuel consumption
1200
kW

800

400
TTD (º C) in HPH1
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-400

-800

-1200

In any case, the observed trend could be used to apply the malfunction matrix to this
inefficiency. Some matrix components had large values. The condenser pump and
low-pressure heater No.2 were high due to the behavior of the mathematical model
at the condenser exit area (see section 4, mathematical model of the power plant).
The feed pump and deaerator also had considerable values due to the decrease in
feed water flow in the high-pressure zone (provoked by the HPH1 inefficiency).

FIGURE A1.4 Cost of electricity when varying TTD in HPH1 (MCR performance case).

Electricity cost
0,03790

$/kwh
0,03785

0,03780

0,03775
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
TTD (º C) in HPH1

The effect on the cost of electricity and water was not as important as the impact on
fuel associated with the inefficiency in the turbine section. It implied an additional
0.000009 $/kW·h in electricity and 0.00017 $/m3 in freshwater per degree Celsius in
the TTD of the HPH1. This could save 9,600 $ and 3,570 $ if the plant were

Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 343

Thermoeconomic diagnosis

operating yearlong at these loads. Figures A1.4 and A1.5 refer to this assumption,
emphasizing the linearity of the model (except from –2 to 0 ºC).

FIGURE A1.5 Cost of water when varying TTD in the first HPH (MCR performance case).

Water cost
1,2730
$/m3

1,2725

1,2720

1,2715

1,2710
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
TTD (º C) in HPH1

In summary:

• the heater TTD affects heater behavior and components receiving feedwater
heated by the inefficient heater (the boiler). The inefficiency did not result only
local to its component, and the associated malfunctions were higher in other
components than the intrinsic one. The rest of the components were not
considerably affected compared to an inefficiency in the steam turbine sections.

• The impact on fuel associated with the additional cost of water or energy due to
the inefficiency was not important when compared with other inefficiencies (the
total saving of 14,000 $/y in both products could be obtained by decreasing the
TTD of the HPH1 by 1 ºC). This only refers to the range where the model
responds linearly to TTD variation (the variational analysis was assumed to be
linear). If the TTD is abnormally high, an excess heater level or excessive
heating in the economizers can lead to extreme induced malfunctions that can
not be calculated in the diagnosis (Valero, Torres and Lerch, 1999). Therefore,
heater TTD should be carefully controlled. A by-pass in one of the HPHs is a
very good example of heater inefficiency, but it is very difficult to simulate. The
model needs to be modified considerably to consider this inefficiency.

• The results of the HPH1 inefficiency could be extrapolated to HPH2, taking into
account the amount of heat transferred in the two heaters (usually the HPH2 uses
less steam to heat the feedwater). The effect on the boiler should also be
reduced.

344 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant

Effect of feed pump isoentropic efficiency

A1.2 Effect of feed pump isoentropic efficiency
The feed pump pressurizes the feedwater before it enters the boiler. An inefficiency
inside the pump mechanism (assuming that the pump can supply the specified
pressure) only slightly increases feedwater temperature since the temperature rise in
pumping a liquid is also low. Therefore, this inefficiency should not induce
important malfunctions in other components. The most important consequence is
the significant increase in feed pump power consumption. Additional live steam is
required to maintain the net output power.

If the feed pump is coupled with an auxiliary turbine providing energy, an
inefficiency should affect other components because an abnormally functioning
auxiliary turbine would redistribute the flows in the steam/water cycle of the power
plant.

Feed pump behavior can be studied considering an isoentropic efficiency, a variable
that appears in our mathematical model. Pump efficiency decreased 12% with
respect to its characteristic curve at 122 MW (MCR performance case). The
inefficiency was also analyzed under different operating conditions (see
section 7.3.4). Tables A1.9 and A1.10 show the F-P values for design and operating
conditions. The 〈KP〉 matrices are written dividing fuels and the product of each
component (tables A1.11 and A1.12). After these matrices are built, the ∆ 〈KP〉
matrix and irreversibility matrix I are immediately processed, containing the unit
exergy costs of the components (tables A1.13 and A1.14). The malfunction/
dysfunction matrix with the dysfunction coefficients is included in table A1.15. The
malfunction matrix with the extra consumption when the pump isoentropic
efficiency increases 1% is finally included (table A1.16). Figures A1.6 and A1.7
show the impact on fuel and the irreversibility increase in all components for this
simulated inefficiency.

We will now explain the physical analysis using results from the inefficiency
diagnosis. The malfunction array demonstrates that the feed pump does not induce
any malfunction in the rest of the components. Only the boiler and the inefficient
component have a malfunction greater than 30 kW. The mechanical irreversibility
increases when the pump has serious problems to reach the demanded pressure.
These internal frictions also increase the temperature of the pressurized feedwater
leaving the pump. So, the thermal irreversibility also appears in the inefficiency and
the final reversibility increase was ∆I = 475 kW (see table A1.15). The unit exergy
consumption increase was obvious (∆k = 0.200, see table A1.13). The intrinsic
malfunction was therefore 409 kW, and the impact on fuel associated with the
inefficiency is 608 kW (the total impact on fuel taking for the whole system is
750 kW).

Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 345

F-P design values.
TABLE A1.9 Thermoeconomic diagnosis

346 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant

Effect of feed pump isoentropic efficiency

F-P values with inefficiency in FP: -12% in its efficiciency.
TABLE A1.10

Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 347

KP matrix in design (MCR case).
TABLE A1.11 Thermoeconomic diagnosis

348 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant

Effect of feed pump isoentropic efficiency

KP matrix when the inefficiency in FP is detected.
TABLE A1.12

Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 349

Variation of the KP matrix when the FP is working improperly.
TABLE A1.13 Thermoeconomic diagnosis

350 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant

Effect of feed pump isoentropic efficiency Irreversibility matrix with -12% in the FP efficiency. TABLE A1.14 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 351 .

15 Thermoeconomic diagnosis 352 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . TABLE A1. Dysfunction table and malfunction array when the FP is working with 12% lower efficiency.

Effect of feed pump isoentropic efficiency Malfunction matrix when the efficiency of the FP varies 1%. TABLE A1.16 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 353 .

6 Impact on fuel analysis when a inefficiency in FP is detected.354 FIGURE A1.7 Irreversibility analysis with the irreversibility in FP. Thermoeconomic diagnosis FIGURE A1. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .

Figure A1. fuel consumption 800 kW 600 400 200 % eff.9 and A1.14) were quite high in the rows corresponding to boiler and condenser (the unit consumption was changed in this case because the final products of these components had to increase 370 and 550 kW respectively to maintain the net output power). the boiler and the condenser).10). since its efficiency and unit exergy consumption are not varied (the ∆k component is close to zero. FIGURE A1.13). in FP 0 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -200 -400 -600 The cost of electricity and water as a function of feed pump inefficiency was very clear and linear (see figures A1.00006 $/m3 in electricity and freshwater production with a 1% increase in pump efficiency.. This provokes a malfunction of –80 kW and an impact on fuel of only –69 kW.8 Effect of feed pump efficiency on fuel consumption.530 $/y in electricity and 1. the pump inefficiency dysfunction was provoked by varying the unit exergy consumption of components more related to other components (i. Since the feed pump does not induce malfunctions and the model reacts linearly to variations in pump efficiency.e. The relative effect on electricity (the effect per unit produced) is supposedly greater than the effect on water. In these rows.000003 $/kW·h and 0.8 demonstrates this linear behavior at the extraction mode load (122 MW). Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 355 . For a constant yearly production. We can save 0. a 1% isoentropic efficiency implies a savings of 3. The irreversibility analysis shows that the dysfunctions associated with the boiler and condenser were the highest (754 and –472 kW respectively) and were generated by the feed pump. Effect of feed pump isoentropic efficiency The malfunction induced in the boiler was mainly due to the large amount of product it generates (210 MW). The weight coefficients φij (see table A1. Inc.260 $/y in water. the malfunction matrix is an exact tool to quantify additional fuel consumption for this inefficiency. Variational study in the MCR performance case. see the ∆ 〈KP〉 matrix in table A1.

the linearity of the variational analysis is not valid). The increase in feedwater temperature leaving the pump was almost insignificant. such as the steam turbine sections (less than 5.2720 1.03780 0.2715 % eff. The effect of this inefficiency is not as important as inefficiencies in other components.03784 $/kWh 0.e. Electricity cost 0. in FP 0.03778 % eff.2710 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 The main results of the inefficiency analysis were: • As expected. The additional electrical consumption of the pump did not change the steam cycle behavior. the effect of the feed pump inefficiency was only local. in FP 1. The effect of this inefficiency is not clearly noted in the system if gross output power is maintained.000 $/y in the combined production of water and electricity). Water cost 1. Thermoeconomic diagnosis FIGURE A1. Its effects need only be considered if an inefficiency stops the plant because of a broken pump component (i.2725 1. • The feed pump is not strategic in a power plant.9 Effect of pump inefficiency on electricity cost (MCR performance case).2730 $/m3 1.03782 0. The additional fuel supplied the extra electrical consumption of the feed pump.10 Water cost when the efficiency of the feed pump is varied. 356 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . • The product of the steam power plant must be the net output power.03776 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 FIGURE A1.

2.21 and A1.3.24 show.18 are the F-P definition tables of the design and inefficient situation. etc). Other components have to readapt the turbine section to maintain electricity production and improve their efficiency (turbine sections) or consume more resources (boiler).12 show the impact on fuel and irreversibility increase analysis of the inefficiency. an intrinsic malfunction in the Curtis blade or wheels induces malfunctions downstream (see section 7. Figures A1.17-A1. 90 MW (extraction mode) and 140 MW (condensing mode). We considered a production of 122 MW in extraction mode with a 5% decrease in isoentropic efficiency. Conditions of low-pressure steam are slightly varied as the HPT exhaust values are sent to the MSF unit.24. An inefficiency in an component producing an important part of the final product should have important consequences.11 and A1. The non- inefficient turbine sections produce the power that the inefficient section cannot produce. and the [DF] matrix and the malfunction matrix are shown in tables A1.3. The diagnosis was also developed at a similar degree of inefficiency for 60 MW (parallel mode). Tables A1.20 are the 〈KP〉 matrices. although their isoentropic efficiencies remain almost constant due to a constant pressure ratio. HPT1 efficiency was varied to observe its effect on other plant components and additional consumption.19 and A1.23 and A1. even though the HPT exhaust pressure remains constant. Tables A1. The exhaust pressure remains constant by definition. Although the steam power plant always works at constant pressure. step by step. the methodology applied in the previous sections.3 Effect of an inefficiency in the first section of the high-pressure turbine (HPT1) The physical effects of an inefficiency in a turbine section are described in section 7. The system can only respond to the inefficiency by producing additional live steam to maintain output power. HPT1 contains the governing section which is also affected by the control valves. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 357 .17 and A1.1 as intrinsic malfunctions (steam path degradation.2. As this steam passes through the rest of turbine sections.1). tables A1. A inefficiency diagnosis will explain these ideas. Effect of an inefficiency in the first section of the high-pressure turbine (HPT1) A1. The ∆ 〈KP〉 matrix and the irreversibility matrix are depicted in tables A1. This varies steam conditions downstream because the steam conditions exiting HPT1 are changed. they should also be affected. This extra steam is proportionally spread over the steam cycle so no new induced malfunctions (in pre-heaters or pumps) arise.22.

17 Thermoeconomic diagnosis 358 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . TABLE A1. MCR case. F-P values without any inefficiency.

18 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 359 . Effect of an inefficiency in the first section of the high-pressure turbine (HPT1) F-P values when the HPT1 decreases 5% its efficiency (MCR case). TABLE A1.

KP matrix in design (MCR case). TABLE A1.19 Thermoeconomic diagnosis 360 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .

TABLE A1.20 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 361 . Effect of an inefficiency in the first section of the high-pressure turbine (HPT1) KP matrix when the inefficiency in HPT1 is 5% in its efficiency.

Variation of the KP with the inefficiency in HPT1 (MCR case). TABLE A1.21 Thermoeconomic diagnosis 362 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .

TABLE A1. Effect of an inefficiency in the first section of the high-pressure turbine (HPT1) Irreversibility matrix with the inefficiency in HPT1 (MCR case).22 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 363 .

23 Thermoeconomic diagnosis 364 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . TABLE A1. Dysfunction/malfunction table when the efficiency of the HPT1 is decreased 5%.

TABLE A1.24 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 365 . Effect of an inefficiency in the first section of the high-pressure turbine (HPT1) Malfunction matrix when the efficiency of the HPT1 is varied 1%.

366 FIGURE A1. Thermoeconomic diagnosis FIGURE A1.11 Impact on fuel analysis when the HPT1efficiency is 5% less than the expected. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .12 Irreversibility analysis with the inefficiency in HPT1.

Since the turbine exhaust has a higher enthalpy (see the h-s diagram).23. the output power strongly decreases with respect to the design situation (2. but the irreversibility in the component increases 3. although its unit exergy consumption did not change very much (∆k = –0. The malfunction associated with the boiler is also negative.948 kW.220 kW).Effect of an inefficiency in the first section of the high-pressure turbine (HPT1) The malfunctions of this inefficiency will be analyzed using table A1. The components with a malfunction that surpasses a non-negligible quantity are the inefficient component (HPT1). so the final variation of the unit exergy consumption is negative (∆k = –0. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 367 .667 kW.041). The generated negentropy in the MSF unit is considered a secondary product of the component and is beneficial (see section 7.825 kW. This means that unit exergy consumption increases and the product decreases. The is because the end point of the expansion line is located in HPT. If the isoentropic efficiency of a turbine section decreases.616 kW for the boiler and –1. In both components the highest dysfunction is provoked by the inefficient component (2. The sum of the dysfunctions generated by the other components is the irreversibility increase associated with each component. The additional fuel consumed is not used for the same temperature rise in the boiler with respect to the design conditions.21).790 kW to maintain the final production of the power plant.1). the component with the intrinsic and greatest malfunction.3. For example. see table A1.795 kW for the condenser). The reason is the increased feedwater temperature entering the boiler due to the additional steam required by the steam power plant to maintain the electricity production in the inefficient situation. The intrinsic malfunction was 1. the boiler and the MSF unit. However. the total dysfunction generated in the boiler is 3. Once again. that is. The impact on fuel associated with the boiler is –175 kW. The dysfunction analysis is quite similar to when other components suffer inefficiencies. and the impact on fuel due to the inefficiency was 2. the two components suffering from the dysfunctions generated by the components with an inefficiency are the boiler and the condenser. the induced malfunction is –242 kW. the malfunction associated with the MSF unit is negative (MF = --280 kW).341 kW. The energy needed by the MSF unit also increases.583 kW and its production is increased by 1. decreasing efficiency. this parameter could be considered local to the system. The irreversibility in the section increases by 1. Since the total impact on fuel in the plant was 3. Steam leaving HPT has a higher enthalpy but also a higher entropy. the expansion line is moved away from the reversible process.21).0011. if we assume that the water produced and the condensate returned to the deaerator are constant.2. As its product exergy flow is huge. First we will explain the inefficient component.732 kW.039 (see table A1. The last assumption is a consequence of the dysfunction analysis explained below. The ∆ 〈KP〉 component of HPT1 was ∆k = 0.

FIGURE A1.14 and A1. FIGURE A1. Thermoeconomic diagnosis Figure A1.14 Cost of electricity depending on the degree of inefficiency applied to HPT1 (MCR case).13 shows the linearity of the model when the isoentropic efficiency is varied from –5 to +5 %. Thus.0381 $/kWh 0.0376 % eff. in this figure the total impact on fuel associated to this inefficiency is analyzed.15). Inc.0379 0. fuel consumption 4000 kW 3000 2000 1000 % eff.0377 0. the malfunction matrix could also be used when several inefficiencies are occurring in different components. in extraction mode under MCR (122 MW). in HPT1 0 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -1000 -2000 -3000 -4000 The model behaved more of less linearly to variations of the inefficiency using the simulator. Since the inefficiency does not provoke any important induced malfunctions in other components.0380 0. Electricity cost 0.900 $/y) in electricity and 0.0378 0.00004 $/kW·h (44.13 Model linearity with respect to an inefficiency in HPT1. the malfunction matrix can be used to predict the impact on fuel.0375 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 The cost of electricity and water as a function of the isoentropic efficiency of HPT1 illustrates its effect (see figures A1.0005 $/m3 in water (11. A 1% decrease in the isoentropic efficiency in HTP1 means an additional cost of 0. Clearly the inefficiency should be 368 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .800 $/y). in HPT1 0.

because the first section is responsible for a high percentage of the total electricity produced in the steam power plant. since the savings would be quickly recovered.270 1.000 $/y savings in the two products when the inefficiency is improved by only 1%).274 1.4 Effect of inefficiency in the first section of the low- pressure turbine (LPT1) The low-pressure turbine has only two sections in the power plant configuration. Unless the plant is working at condensing mode. the amount of steam sent to this turbine is very low.268 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 The most important results derived from the analysis of this inefficiency include: • HPT1 is very important in terms of additional fuel consumption and cost of water and electricity (more than 55. the inefficiency could be considered local to the turbine section. Water cost 1.15 Cost of water when the isoentropic efficiency is varied from –5% to 5% with respect to design efficiency (MCR case). i. Effect of inefficiency in the first section of the low-pressure turbine (LPT1) corrected to avoid additional costs. • The steam conditions exiting HPT1 also affect (to a lesser degree) some other components receiving that steam. A1. an inefficiency in this section should have less effect than other inefficiencies in the turbine sections.272 1.275 $/m3 1. The induced malfunctions should be detected in the second section of the low-pressure turbine. in HPT1 1. The degradation process could be accelerated if the last section of the low-pressure turbine has to work as a compressor when the amount of steam diverted to this section is so low that the steam cannot overcome the mechanical losses of the turbine.269 % eff.e. In any case.273 1. But this section also Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 369 . even if the turbine needs repair to prevent against inefficiencies or failures. FIGURE A1. Thus. • The HPT1 inefficiency should be avoided. the MSF unit.271 1.

370 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .29 is the ∆ 〈KP〉 matrix composed by the subtraction of the two last matrices. and its variation of unit exergy consumption is ∆k = 0. The conditions of the steam downstream the inefficient component do vary but the exhaust pressure is controlled by the external temperature and does not vary. the malfunction created in the inefficient component of a system) of 3. and table A1.260 kW.25 and A1. the productive structure changes (see section 7. The amount of steam to the MSF unit gives the pressure of the steam leaving the high-pressure turbine. An inefficiency in LPT1 is less important than in HPT1 in a co-generation plant.408 kW.062 kW. This inefficiency analysis was performed for the MCR case (122 MW power production with an extraction to the MSF unit of 89.68 kg/s). The electricity production of the component reduces by 1. when the isoentropic efficiency decreases. Table A1. table A1.31 is the dysfunction/malfunction table. Tables A1. The total malfunction associated with the whole plant is 3. Finally. Some part of this steam is also introduced in the low-pressure turbine. Figures A1. Tables A1. If we apply the analysis for other operating modes (condensing or parallel mode.32 is the malfunction matrix associated with the inefficiency in LPT1. or 140 and 60 MW of output power. as their efficiencies do not vary when some amount of extra live steam is demanded to the boiler.17 include the impact on fuel and the increase of irreversibility. the atmospheric conditions control the exhaust pressure of the turbine making the behavior of this section strongly dependent the ambient temperature. The last assumptions result in an intrinsic malfunction (that is. The irreversibility of the steam expansion increases in the inefficient component of LTP1 (∆I = 2. Finally.30 is the irreversibility matrix |I〉.16 and A1. see table A1. The physical interpretation of these malfunctions will be connected.26 show the F-P values of the simulation corresponding to the design and inefficient cases.31). and the F-P definitions and the rest of matrices are different than in these examples. The isoentropic efficiency of this section was 15% lower than the design efficiency (about the 76%). and table A1. The HPT does not detect an inefficiency. Thermoeconomic diagnosis suffers from induced malfunctions form HPT (according to the definition of induced and intrinsic malfunctions by Royo (1994) for a steam turbine).28 include the 〈KP〉 matrices dividing the fuels and products of each component. although the exhausted vapor to the condenser can vary its humidity. The physical effects of these inefficiencies were translated into malfunctions and additional fuel consumption. Some other turbine sections have to readapt their production to produce the electricity required.230 kW.29). In the malfunction array of this inefficiency. respectively). Clearly this inefficiency does not provoke any induced malfunctions in the rest of the plant components.522 (see table A1.27 and A1.1). the inefficient component (LPT1) and the first section of the high-pressure turbine have a higher malfunction than the minimum accuracy of the simulator.

25 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 371 . Effect of inefficiency in the first section of the low-pressure turbine (LPT1) F-P values in design (MCR case). TABLE A1.

F-P values with the inefficiency in LPT1. TABLE A1.26 Thermoeconomic diagnosis 372 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . MCR case.

Effect of inefficiency in the first section of the low-pressure turbine (LPT1) KP matrix in design. MCR case. TABLE A1.27 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 373 .

KP matrix when the efficiency in the LPT1 is decreased 15%. TABLE A1. MCR case.28 Thermoeconomic diagnosis 374 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .

TABLE A1. MCR case. Effect of inefficiency in the first section of the low-pressure turbine (LPT1) Variation of the KP matrix with an inefficiency in LPT1.29 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 375 .

TABLE A1. Irreversibility matrix with the efficiency of the LPT1 decreased 15%. MCR case.30 Thermoeconomic diagnosis 376 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .

MCR case. TABLE A1.31 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 377 . Effect of inefficiency in the first section of the low-pressure turbine (LPT1) Dysfunction/malfunction table for an inefficiency in the LPT1 (15%).

32 Thermoeconomic diagnosis 378 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . MCR case. TABLE A1. Malfunction matrix when the efficiency of the LPT1 is varied 1%.

Effect of inefficiency in the first section of the low-pressure turbine (LPT1) Impact on fuel analysis. Irreversibility analysis in section A1. FIGURE A1.4. section A1.16 FIGURE A1.4.17 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 379 .

Only the boiler and condenser suffer dysfunctions generated by the components with malfunctions: HPT1 and LTP1. FIGURE A1. The total impact on fuel associated with this effect was –281 kW. The dysfunction analysis applied to this inefficiency is very illustrative. Thermoeconomic diagnosis HPT1 has a negative malfunction of 215 kW and ∆k = –0. in LPT1 0 -15 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15 -2000 -4000 The monetary cost (including the capital cost and device maintenance) of water and electricity is one of the consequences of the diagnosis of the plant with respect to an component inefficiency. making the malfunction matrix an exact guide to predict the increment on fuel consumption.19 and A1. Figures A1.29).18 Effect on the fuel consumption when the degree of inefficiency in the LPT1 is varied from the design point (MCR case). the malfunction matrix (table A1. Inc. If there is a ∆kij coefficient whose value is not zero. to maintain the additional production required by the first section of the low-pressure turbine.32) can be used to quantify the additional fuel consumption by multiplying this matrix by the product and the unit exergy cost of every component. In both cases these components have to readapt production by 1.20 show how the cost in electricity 380 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . their φij coefficients are not zero. the dysfunction generated by the last component in the first two components is significant.470 and 2. The amount of steam entering the Curtis blade is higher than expected and the section operates more efficiently when the steam leaving this section is slightly increased.18 shows the effect of varying the efficiency in this turbine section around the design point. Since the model was linear with respect to the inefficiency. Figure A1. With this inefficiency there were no induced malfunctions (isolated component).430 kW respectively. The efficiency was varied from –15 to +15% with respect to this point. fuel consumption 4000 kW 2000 % eff.004 (see table A1. This negative value is explained in the mathematical model of the steam turbine. Since these two components redistribute their products over the rest of the components. The rest of components do not have any important dysfunction worth mentioning in our analysis.

000 $ and 1.000015 $/kWh and the water increases 0.2720 1. 15.400 T/h. • As predicted in the first paragraph of this section.280 $ are saved in electricity and water costs.2710 % eff. It does not induce any significant malfunctions in other plant components. in LPT1 1.2715 1. in LPT1 0.300 $/ y are saved in both products if the isoentropic efficiency is improved 1%).0379 0. the effect of an inefficiency in the turbine is proportional to the amount of steam entering the turbine section. FIGURE A1.0375 -15 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15 FIGURE A1. following the trend in other examples.2705 -15 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15 This section demonstrated that: • The behavior of LPT1 is linear when its efficiency is varied within allowable limits.00006 $/m3 when the LTP1 isoentropic efficiency decreases by 1%. Electricity cost 0. the cost of water and electricity were not affected as much as by inefficiencies in HPT (only 16. Therefore. at 122 MW and 2. Effect of inefficiency in the first section of the low-pressure turbine (LPT1) increases 0.0381 $/kWh 0. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 381 . In a year.20 Water cost per cubic meter for inefficiencies in LPT1.19 Cost of electricity for inefficiencies in LPT1 (MCR case).0377 % eff.2725 1. Water cost 1.2730 $/m3 1. 122 MW in extraction mode (MCR case).

35 and A1. Tables A1. The irreversibility matrix |I〉 (table A1. the 〈KP〉 matrices from the last two matrices (tables A1. recycle brine R or make-up feed F) must be reduced if the distillate product is to be maintained (although the distillate temperature leaving the unit could be reduced) and. 382 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . an analysis was done keeping the control parameters constant (SR.33 and A1. In the final stages of the recovery section.37) is obtained by subtracting tables A1.21 and A1. If the fouling is decreased in the recovery section. Figures A1.1. This raises the temperature of cooling brine and decreases the flashing brine and released vapor.22 show the impact on fuel analysis and the increase of the irreversibility in the MSF components.38) and the malfunction/dysfunction table is shown in table A1. The control parameters of the MSF unit (seawater to reject SR. The flash range of the distillers is increased in the two limits and the distillate produced in the MSF unit is higher than in design. Thermoeconomic diagnosis • The most dangerous problem associated with inefficiencies in LPT is the steam quality when the efficiency is increased.36) are shown. Low quality steam can damage the wheels of the condensing turbine. The variational analysis can also be broken when the inefficiency provokes a non-linear system response. R. both distillate and flashing temperatures are reduced by the effect of the fouling inside the recovery tubes. the cooling brine flow enters the recovery section at a higher temperature than expected. The benefits of reducing fouling in the reject section can be translated into the physical response of the MSF unit. Therefore.5 Effect of the cleaning ball system in the recovery section The recovery section is the most important component of the MSF unit.36. the cleaning ball system inside the distiller tubes could provoke several malfunctions in other plant components.900 T/h with 32 ºC seawater (nominal-temperature operation of the MSF distillers in summer). Then. But the cooling brine goes to the brine heater since it is hotter than in design. First.35 and A1. Finally. indirectly. The example analyzed produced 1. heat transfer inside the tubes is increased and the inter-stage temperature difference between the vapor and cooling brine decreases. In this section we analyze the fouling reduction effect. the amount of steam consumed in the heater.34 show the F-P definition matrices following the productive structure in section 7. A1.39. The ∆ 〈KP〉 matrix (table A1. The diagnosis mathematically explains the physical effects. F).

33 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 383 . NTOS case. Effect of the cleaning ball system in the recovery section F-P values in design. TABLE A1.

F-P values with fouling in RCS=0. TABLE A1. NTOS case.34 Thermoeconomic diagnosis 384 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .

35 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 385 . Effect of the cleaning ball system in the recovery section KP matrix in design. NTOS case. TABLE A1.

NTOS case.36 Thermoeconomic diagnosis 386 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . TABLE A1. KP matrix with an inefficiency in RCS.

5.22 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 387 .5. Irreversibility increase in section A1.21 FIGURE A1. Effect of the cleaning ball system in the recovery section Impact on fuel analysis in section A1. FIGURE A1.

131 kW.279 kW.570 kW. The inefficiency in the recovery induces a –540 kW malfunction in the reject section. included in the productive structure to quantify the flows sent to sea: blowdown and reject cooling seawater. The increase in unit exergy consumption is ∆k = 0.850 kW. reducing the thermal irreversibility (∆I = –2. The brine heater needs less steam to heat the cooling brine. only the inefficient component has an intrinsic malfunction of –1.39). 388 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .37.e.408 kW of fuel was saved with this induced malfunction. The brine entering the heater has a higher temperature due to improved heat transmission in the recovery section. see table A1.3 ºC. The distillate flow leaving the section depends on the temperature of the flashing brine and distillate entering the plant (both temperatures decrease 2. see table A1. The impact on fuel associated with the inefficient component is –4. 5.250 kW.39) can only be explained by the thermoeconomic model. The malfunction associated with this component (7.249 kW.38 for the exergy cost of each component). The exergy flow of the steam to the MSF unit decreases 9.39) and also the flows recirculating in the recovery section in order to maintain final production.37).0149. Thermoeconomic diagnosis In the malfunction analysis. As the distillate is produced at a considerable exergy cost (see the last row of table A1. This means that the irreversibility generated in the heater is also reduced by ∆I = –1. i. the steam coming from the steam power plant) is obviously decreased with the use of the cleaning ball system.37). and therefore the variation of the unit exergy consumption (the ∆ 〈KP〉 coefficient is ∆k = –0. This means that the variation of the unit exergy consumption is ∆k = --0. The unit exergy consumption of the reject is reduced because the amount of resources to distillate the freshwater is lower (∆k = –0. see table A1. see table A1. The component suffering the highest malfunction is the fictitious device (FD). The brine heater has an induced malfunction of –626 kW. The energy required to produce the distillate is lower than the design value and the irreversibility generated in this section (∆I = –554 kW. see table A1. see table A1.6 ºC) and the recycle brine to the distiller (which is reduced 263 T/h).132 kW. This low value can be explained physically.170 and the impact on fuel associated with this component is 13. The fouling reduction inside the recovery tubes improves the heat transfer coefficient in those stages. considering that the recycle brine flow is also reduced to maintain distillate production. but the temperature entering the distiller is reduced by 0. It is clearly not convenient to use non-physical components in the productive structure of the system because their associated malfunctions and dysfunctions are quite difficult to explain physically. Its product (the fuel consumed in the MSF unit to produce freshwater.194.079.

TABLE A1. Effect of the cleaning ball system in the recovery section Variation of the KP matrix when the fouling in RCS is neglected.37 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 389 .

38 Thermoeconomic diagnosis 390 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Irreversibility matrix without fouling in RCS. TABLE A1.

Effect of the cleaning ball system in the recovery section Dysfunction/malfunction table without fouling in RCS.39 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 391 . TABLE A1. NTOS case.

013 (see table A1.00001 m2·K/W. the temperature of distillate leaving the MSF unit is reduced by 1.0069 $ when the fouling in this section decreased 0. Now the dysfunction analysis will be introduced.022 kW).37). the main dysfunctions in the fictitious device are generated by itself (5. 392 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . The impact on fuel associated with the ‘benefunction’ in the mixer is –996 kW. the mixer (--212 kW) and the reject section (–3. The previous analysis kept the final product of the system constant (distillate water).336 kW). –230 kW for the mixer and finally –4. For example. the recovery section (–2. The impact on fuel associated with the variation of the final product is an astonishing –4. as in the figure A1.900 T/h) with 32 ºC seawater and the typical exergy costs of electricity and steam obtained in the power plant analysis.534 kW).3 ºC.23.708 kW for the recovery section. The temperature profile change in the distillers provokes differences in the exergy of products leaving each component to readapt the final production of distilled water. In this section we analyzed nominal production (1. The inefficiency diagnosis can also be quantified in monetary terms.24) the cost of a cubic meter of water decreased 0. The cost of water depending on fouling helps plant managers develop a maintenance plan to operate under the best conditions.263 kW for the heater. In this case (see figure A1.016 kW). –1. The total dysfunctions generated by each component were 5. see table A1. The value of the dysfunction is proportional to the malfunction in each component. Thermoeconomic diagnosis The mixer is also a non-physical device in the last stage of the reject section.398 kW for the FD. Components suffering a important malfunction clearly induce a large dysfunction in the rest of components. The dysfunction in a component due to the junctions of the productive structure must be distributed to the components supplying the junction. the heater (–1.39) in the mixing process (the two mixed flows are reduced in quantity and energy). The efficiency of the process is therefore improved. As in this case. the simulator can maintain the mass flow rate in the distiller but it cannot maintain the exergy of this flow. As mentioned in previous sections. where the total impact on fuel saved (including the final product variation) with decreased fouling is depicted from the design value to total absence.337 kW! This value is similar to the total impact on fuel associated with the unit exergy consumption variation inside the MSF unit (–5.867 kW for the reject section. This value is very high (115. –2.000 $ a year) and implies that the cleaning ball system should always operate in the recovery section. It models the mixing process between the make-up feed and the brine flashing in the last stage of the reject section. with a unit exergy consumption variation of ∆k = –0. The variational analysis of this inefficiency involves the linear behavior of the model. It has a negative induced malfunction of 765 kW due to the reduction of irreversibility generated (∆I = –735 kW.226 kW).

42 1.40) of the MSF unit with this inefficiency is a good tool to calculate the effect on natural gas. Effect of the cleaning ball system in the recovery section FIGURE A1. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 393 . fouling*10-5 in RC 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 -4000 -8000 -12000 -16000 -20000 kW Inc.23 Effect on fuel consumption when the fouling in recovery section is gradually decreased. fuel consumption -24000 FIGURE A1. But the induced malfunctions produced by this inefficiency imply that the malfunction matrix can only be used for individual malfunctions.45 1.900 T/ h and 32º C seawater. The malfunction matrix can be used because the model is linear with respect to the fouling in recovery.39 fouling*10-5 in RC 1. Water cost 1.48 $/m3 1.24 Cost of a cubic meter of water depending on the fouling in the recovery section. 1.36 0 3 6 9 12 15 The malfunction matrix (table A1.

40 Thermoeconomic diagnosis 394 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .00001 m2 K/W. TABLE A1. Malfunction matrix when the fouling in RCS is varied 0.

the flash range of the plant ∆T is higher because the lower limit of this range is decreased. If the control parameters of the plant are maintained. In this case. A1. the temperature profiles of the cooling brine entering and leaving the heater do not vary considerably. this effect should not be considered during the analysis. The dysfunctions generated in the different components are also very important. It reduces the interstage difference because the distillate temperature decreases and the cooling brine is heated to a higher temperature. although that temperature has a direct relationship with the other distiller temperatures. The performance indexes or steam consumption of the plant are not expected to greatly improve. the distillate temperature is forced to decrease when the heat transfer coefficient of each stage is increased. each malfunction should be dealt individually. The effect of installing a cleaning ball system here is similar to the recovery section. This system should not be used for several reasons based on thermoeconomic criteria. the distillate temperature is now irrelevant (unless this energy is used by another process).000 $/y). Thus. A higher flash range implies a higher distillation per stage. This reduces the amount of resources to produce the same distillate. • A large part of fuel saved with this inefficiency is due to the lower temperature of the distillate leaving the plant.6 Effect of reject section fouling Usually the cleaning ball system is not installed in the reject section since its seawater operating temperatures do not produce any scaling problems. A lower recycle (R). As the brine heater is so far from the reject section. The values of the induced malfunctions surpass the intrinsic malfunction because the flows leaving and entering the recovery section also pass through the reject or brine heater. So. seawater to reject (SR) and make-up feed (F) flow are needed to maintain the distillate production. But. But the biological activity of seawater intake can lead to dangerous bio-fouling in this section. because the fouling inside the tubes is neglected. • The increased heat transfer increases the production rate per stage in the distiller. The example is the same as in previous sections: a water production of Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 395 . it should operate continuously. Since the cleaning ball system obviously saves fuel (115. in fact. Effect of reject section fouling Summarizing the results: • The change of the temperature profile by the fouling in the main flows of the MSF plant is responsible for the induced malfunctions in the distillers. Since the seawater temperature is imposed by the environment. it can only produce additional freshwater with the help of the cleaning ball system.

45). The inefficient component analysis considers the cleaning ball system installed in the reject section. the effect of fouling should be identical to the effect observed in the recovery section (17 stages).42 show the F-P definition applied to the design and inefficient case. Thermoeconomic diagnosis 1.44 are the ∆ 〈KP〉 matrix made by using the previous tables. But the steam and brine needed for maintaining the vacuum inside the chambers is more or less independent from the distillate produced (i. table A1. The part of the unit exergy consumption corresponding to the efficiency of the process (or the heat transfer improvement) is logically lower than the design situation (∆k1 = –0. The most significant malfunctions are yet again located in the fictitious device. Suprisingly.47). 396 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .45 is the ∆ 〈KP〉 matrix and table A1.45). see table A1.43 and A1. is a constant value). In this case. the unit exergy consumption due to the vacuum system is ∆k2 = 0.1 ºC. The effect of the inefficiency in the reject section also affects this component because the recycled brine heated in the brine heater comes from the reject section.e. Tables A1. So. Clearly the general services of the MSF unit are not affected by an intrinsic inefficiency but they have to consider product variation in order to account for its contribution to the final cost of water. recovery and reject sections and the mixer. heater efficiency decreases and the variation of the unit exergy consumption is positive (∆k = 0. The recycle brine flowing in the recovery section is reduced by 195 T/h and the cooling brine heating is reduced by 227 kW. the associated malfunction with no fouling in the reject is positive (49 kW). The malfunction is MF = 185 kW and an irreversibility increase in the heater of ∆I = 468 kW (see table A1.25 and A1. the temperature of cooling brine entering the distiller is given by the ambient conditions.46 is the irreversibility matrix I containing the dysfunction coefficients and the exergy cost array. The brine heater is located on the other side of the MSF plant.900 T/h with 32 ºC seawater and a fouling factor reduced to zero. The ∆ 〈KP〉 component corresponding to its exergy unit consumption is ∆k = 0.0044.024). The symbolic formulation of thermoeconomics will give us the effects provoked by this inefficiency in the MSF unit. tables A1. The flashing and distillate temperatures would try to reach the cooling temperature flowing inside the tubes if the heat transfer were an ideal process. But this result is provoked by the assumptions adopted in the thermoeconomic model of the reject section. Although the reject section has three stages. As the product of the reject section decreases (the distillate temperature leaves the section at a lower temperature).007 (see table A1. The impact on fuel and the increase of irreversibility per component are shown in figures A1.031.41 and A1. The temperature difference in the first stage of the recovery section is improved by 0. The dysfunction/malfunction matrix [DF]/MF is the table that resumes the final results of the thermoeconomic diagnosis applied to this inefficiency (table A1.26 respectively. heater.47).

TABLE A1. NTOS case. Effect of reject section fouling F-P values in design.41 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 397 .

42 Thermoeconomic diagnosis 398 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . NTOS case. TABLE A1. F-P values when the fouling in RJS=0.

Effect of reject section fouling

KP matrix in design, NTOS case.
TABLE A1.43

Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 399

KP matrix with the inefficiency in RJS, NTOS case.
TABLE A1.44 Thermoeconomic diagnosis

400 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant

Effect of reject section fouling

Variation of the KP matrix when the inefficiency in RJS is detected.
TABLE A1.45

Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 401

Irreversibility matrix corresponding to reject fouling in RJS, NTOS case.
TABLE A1.46 Thermoeconomic diagnosis

402 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant

Effect of reject section fouling

Dysfunction/malfunction table when the fouling in RJS=0.
TABLE A1.47

Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 403

Thermoeconomic diagnosis

Increase of irreversibility in section A1.6.
Impact on fuel analysis, section A1.6.
FIGURE A1.25

FIGURE A1.26

404 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant

Effect of reject section fouling

As seen for the brine heater, the cleaning ball system in the reject section induces an
unexpected 1,800 kW positive malfunction in the recovery section. This result will
be described analytically. The temperature of water leaving the distiller is reduced
by 1.7 ºC (remember that the cleaning ball system in the reject decreases the
distillate profile in the reject section and, therefore, in the last section of the recovery
distiller). In general, since the heat transfer coefficient is higher at high
temperatures, the thermal irreversibility increases in the recovery section
(∆I = 2,079 kW, see table A1.47). As the product of the section decreases, the
variation of the unit exergy consumption is positive (∆k = 0.223, see table A1.45).
The impact on fuel associated with this induced malfunction is 4,248 kW.

The malfunction associated with the fictitious device is –788 kW. Two fuels enter
this component in the productive structure of the MSF unit, one is the exergy of the
blowdown leaving the recovery section. This exergy is reduced because the
temperature of the flashing brine decreases 1.8 ºC when leaving the reject section.
So, the unit exergy consumption of the component is lower than in design
(∆k = --0.017, see table A1.47). As demonstrated, a lower temperature of the
blowdown rejected to the sea at least implies a lower cost in the water production.

Finally, the mixer has an induced malfunction of 1,208 kW, with a very clear
physical explanation. The temperatures of the make-up and flashing brine to
blowdown are similar in the reference case but these temperatures are separated with
the cleaning ball system in the reject section. The irreversibility generated in the
mixing process is higher although those two flows are reduced to maintain the final
production in the MSF plant (∆I = 1,191 kW, see table A1.47). The variation of the
unit exergy consumption in the idealized component was ∆k = 0.0204 (see table
A1.45). The additional fuel necessary for this component provoked by the cleaning
ball system in RJS was 1,868 kW.

In the dysfunction analysis, only the fictitious device had an important dysfunction
generated by the inefficient components (total dysfunction was 3,283 kW). This
component reduces its product by only 64 kW, however the final reduction in the
distillate exergy flow is 482 kW.

Although the plant diagnosis suggests that the MSF unit is working at a poorer
efficiency (the impact on fuel associated with the unit exergy consumption variation
was 6,394 kW), this analysis considered a constant total production. The
temperature of the distillate leaving the MSF unit is 1.8 ºC lower than expected in
design. This means that total production is not constant and the last term in equation
(6.41) cannot be neglected. The impact on fuel associated with this variation is
calculated by multiplying the total product variation by the exergy unit cost of the
product. In this case 6,768 kW of fuel were saved (in the case of the power plant, the
term of the product variation can usually be neglected because it is normally less
than 20 kW). The total amount of fuel saved with this inefficiency is 374 kW, by

Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 405

Thermoeconomic diagnosis

combining the two effects. Therefore, the cleaning ball system also benefits the MSF
unit, as well as the heater and recovery section.

Figure A1.26 shows the effect of fouling in the reject section when we gradually
decrease to zero the design value (0.000018 m2 K/W). If the thermoeconomic model
is linear with respect the variational analysis of the fouling, the malfunction matrix
could be used to predict the impact on fuel associated with the desired variation of
the fouling of this component (if known).

If the model responds linearly, the total cost of water (includes capital and
maintenance costs) must also increase linearly depending on the degree of
inefficiency (see figure A1.27). Each cubic meter of water increases 0.00012 $ when
the fouling factor in the reject distiller increases 0.00001 m2 K/W. Yearly freshwater
production would involve an additional cost of 2,000 $ with this small variation in
reject fouling.

FIGURE A1.27 Effect on fuel consumption when the fouling in reject is varied. Nominal-temperature operation in
summer (NTOS, i.e., 1,900 T/h and 32 ºC seawater temperature).

fouling*10-5 in RJ
0
kW
0 3 6 9 12 15 18
-100

-200

-300

-400
Inc. fuel consumption
-500

The linearity of the model with respect to fouling variation is shown in figure A1.28.
The malfunction matrix (table A1.48) can be used to predict the impact on fuel
consumed with the inefficiency. But the induced malfunctions provoked by
temperature variation in the rest of components implies that the analysis for several
inefficiencies has different results than the individual analysis of those inefficiencies.
So, the malfunction matrix can only be used to predict specific inefficiencies.
Important errors may arise if it is used for several inefficiencies.

The most important results derived from the analysis of the fouling in recovery
section are :

• Fouling increases the flash range of the plant and, therefore, the distillate
production if the same control parameters of the plant are maintained. Input
conditions must be relaxed to maintain the final production of freshwater.

406 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant

Feed chlorination is a simpler solution to avoid possible biological fouling (which depends on seawater intake conditions). Furthermore. Water cost 1.473 1.472 fouling*10-5 in RJ 1. but in the desalination plant the main units of the system are connected by the cooling brine. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 407 .7 Summary Thermoeconomic diagnosis of the dual-purpose plant for the inefficiencies in section 7. and the low temperatures do not provoke serious scaling problems in this section. where any inefficiency is easily distributed over the rest of the plant components. • The cleaning ball system is not recommended for the reject section. The cost of water is not reduced very much with the cleaning ball system. the benefit is due to the lower temperature of the freshwater produced.471 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 • The inefficiency negatively affects the rest of the MSF components (see the malfunctions induced in other components in table A1.28 Variation of the water cost when fouling in the reject section is decreased from the design value to zero.3 was completed in this annex for the most representative load in the power and desalination plant.474 $/m3 1. It is very difficult to install there (it is an open circuit in which some of the cooling brine is rejected to the sea). although the plant is not working more efficiently (the impact on fuel associated with the unit exergy consumption variation is positive). flashing brine and distillate. Inefficiencies studied in steam power plant are local to the components suffering the inefficiency. Summary FIGURE A1. A1.47). The symbolic formulation of the Structural Theory of Thermoeconomics provides a lot of information and explains the physical consequences expected with the inefficiency.

48 Thermoeconomic diagnosis 408 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . TABLE A1. Malfunction matrix when the fouling in RJS is varied 0.00001 m2 K/W.

ANNEX 2 Thermodynamic properties of seawater Below are the models and correlations of the thermodynamic properties needed to simulate the MSF desalination plant. 1969) and conveniently expressed for computer calculation (Schnakel.1 Specific enthalpy h of superheated or saturated vapor We used equations from Badr. Units: International System  B0  ------------------------- 2 - p p h = F + 101.+ ------  101325.( B4 – B5 )   101325T  101325T 2    Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . A2.   101325. The temperature and pressure range was valid below the critical point.0T   101325.31558 F 0  ---------------------. except for the properties previously described by the auxiliary equations (Chapter 3).B 2 – B 3 + ---------------------. 1958).0T  where    B0 p  B0 p  2  B – B 0  1 + -----------------------. from formulations by Keenan and Keyes (1955. Probert and O’Callaghan (1990).0 2 2  p  – B 6 + B 0  B 2 – B 3 + B 0 B 7 -------------------------.

137 ln T.3 + 1472. The specific entropy s of superheated vapor was: s = 1472. ---------------------.265 T + 0.7557174 T + 3830.89 – B 1  -----------------.62 80870 ⁄ T2 B 1 = ------------------.+ 2  372420  2  T F = 1804036. Thermodynamic properties of seawater B0 = 1.2 Specific entropy of superheated or saturated vapor Term ß was added to those in section A2.37789824 T2 + 47845. A2.076 – ------------------------.4065 47845.89 – B1 2641.  p p 1 T  101325 2  101325T   2  101325T    B 0 ( B 4 – B 5 ) – 2B 7   410 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .+ -----. ( B 0 – F 0 ) -----------------.  B 6 + --. ---------------------.4874 ln p + 0.– 101.31344 β T where 1  B0 2 B0 p 2 β = --.546 162470 B 3 = ------------------ T B4 = 0.626 ln T – 461.1.10 T B2 = 82.21828 T 126970 B 5 = ------------------ T B6 = B0 B3 – 2 F0 (B2 – B3) B7 = 2 F0 (B4 – B5) – B0 B5 F 0 = 1.

1977) was used for 450 < T < 647.3 Specific volume of superheated or saturated vapor Using B from section A2. latent heat of vaporization λs was (SI units): ( ) ( λ s = h T.3  Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 411 .15 < T < 450 K:  ℵ + ℵ 0.35298  λ s = 6051.456 λ s = 2115173.15 K). the specific volume v of pure water was:  461539. + 1125343.  647.3..9  1 – ------------. T  1 + ℵ 0.1 and ps in section 3. Specific volume of superheated or saturated vapor A2. The Fish & Lielmezs correlation (Reid.6.3   647.15 ) where h was solved in section A2.3 – T  T  The Carruth & Kobayashi correlation (Reid et al. Prausnitz and Sherwood. ps ( T ) − 4.3  1 – ------------.00035 ⋅ 10 −3  + B  p  A2.3 K: T 0.186 T − 273.13856  where ℵ = 1.1. 1977) was used in the range 373.453T  v = 1.4 Latent heat vaporization of water as a function of boiling temperature Below the atmospheric boiling point (373.3615467  ----------------------- 647.354 T 0.1583  ------------------------------.

thermal. the resulting AR composition is very similar to the real physical ambient. 412 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . temperature. therefore.5. Ranz and Valero. altitude. When we impose restrictions on the method (excluding HNO3 formation and its products). On the other hand. kinetic and chemical. Liquid AR is mainly seawater with more than 99% of the system's total mass. Szargut (1980) proposes an AR that is more similar to the real physical ambient in nature and independent of the process or system under consideration. Authors sometimes call this the ‘dead state’. velocity and composition (Zaleta.5 Seawater exergy A2. AR may be chosen in different ways to establish thermodynamic equilibrium. The information provided by the exergy method also clarifies concepts related to the seawater availability. These components help to quantify some quality and quantity aspects of seawater. This is more convenient to exegetically analyze systems classified as natural resources. The exergy method associates each parameter with its exergetic component: mechanical. The thermodynamic equilibrium conditions of AR must resemble a closed system. The seawater composition for the AR proposed by Szargut (1989) is shown in the next table. because it is a zero exergy state (although its energy is different than zero). Ambient reference The first step in developing the analytic exergy methodology is to establish the ambient reference (AR) for seawater comparison. respectively.1 Theory Mass flow and five parameter measurements characterize the different stages of seawater: pressure. 1998). The AR must be relatively abundant with respect to the rest of the systems or subsystems. Ahrendts (1980) proposes an approximation of the “dead” ambient of Earth if it were thermodynamically isolated from the rest of the universe. The AR in the liquid phase corresponded to seawater composition at main ambient temperature and sea level atmospheric pressure. the system brought to AR conditions will undergo a series of physical-chemical changes. potential. We used the AR proposed by Szargut to analyze seawater. Thermodynamic properties of seawater A2.

8 × 10–11 B (s) 3.6 × 10–3 Cd (s) 6.474 Ni (s) 1.04 × 10–2 Li (s) 2. Chemical element Molality (mol/kg) Ag (s) 2.6 × 10–10 Zn (s) 1. 1989.9 × 10–11 Cl2 (g) 0.7 × 10–4 Ca (s) 9. and Szargut.42 × 10–6 S (s) 1. 1986).5 × 10–5 Mg (s) 4.5657 Co (s) 6.96 × 10–2 Mn (s) 7.4 × 10–4 Ba (s) 1.2 × 10–11 Rb (s) 1.1 Liquid phase composition of Reference Ambient (Szargut.9 × 10–7 Pb (s) 4.8 × 10–9 Cs (s) 2.2 × 10–9 Sr (s) 8.87 × 10–5 Hg (l) 3. Seawater exergy TABLE A2.7 × 10–5 W (s) 5.5 × 10–9 Mo (s) 1.4 × 10–10 I2 (s) 5.1 × 10–8 Au (s) 5.1 × 10–7 Na (s) 0.17 × 10–2 Se (s) 1.0 × 10–10 Br2 (l) 8.3 × 10–10 F2 (g) 3.2 × 10–7 K (s) 1.7 × 10–8 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 413 .4 × 10–7 Bi (s) 1.7 × 10–9 As (s) 2.2 × 10–7 P (s) 4. Morris.3 × 10–9 Cu (s) 7.

1980) in terms of temperature. It may be broken down into the following components: (i) the chemical exergy of the water. Its mean velocity must be calculated. The kinetic exergy component is of relatively little exergetic importance in comparison with other exergetic components (taking into account the low velocity ca of brine inside the tubes or in the flash chambers). and assuming seawater is an incompressible liquid and dilute substance. r = CP H2 O T a – T r – T r Ln ----. height. The mechanical exergy component is calculated from the specific volume of the solution (seawater) and the pressure difference between the sea and the SRE. respectively): Ta b a. mechanical. be purified and sent to end users). We used the correlations described in Chapter 4. the exergy method is useful to quantify the ‘availability’ of a sea. r ) --. which depends on flow and operation conditions. for human consumption. In the case of seawater. The chemical exergy component is the most complex to calculate. (ii) the chemical exergy of the dissolved inorganic substances.1) 1 2 2 + ∑ x i. a – µ i. The potential exergy component requires the altitude z above sea level (almost negligible in a MSF plant). Thermodynamic properties of seawater Seawater availability: exergy function The availability of a renewable resource can be understood as ‘how accessible is it’. 414 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . pressure. velocity and composition. kinetic and potential components. By applying the exergy model (Gaggioli.g. In order to be used. It is used to calculate the maximum mechanical work obtained from a waterfall. water must be extracted from a river or sea. chemical.1). such as a hydroelectric station. a resource must be changed chemically and physically to the required conditions (e. 1984). the specific exergy can be used in terms of its components for each seawater property (thermal. with respect to the defined SRE. As the exergy method is conditioned by a Stable Reference Environment (SRE) —dead state conditions— the SRE proposed by Szargut (1980) is the most convenient (the most similar to the real physical environment of Earth). the thermal exergy component depends on the heat capacity of the aqueous solution and its absolute temperature Ta. The analogy between the availability of a natural resource and exergy helps relate each resource parameter with its exergy components. The specific heating value CPH2O and the specific volume vH2O of the solution can be calculated without serious error if it is considered pure water (Perry and Chilton. r ( µ i.. (iii) the chemical exergy of the organic substances.+ v H2 O ( P a – P r ) Tr (A2.( c a – c r ) + g ( z a – z r ) 2 i According to equation (A2.

). ii) The chemical exergy of the dissolved inorganic substance is determined by the well-known procedure for an electrolytic solution (equation A2. r where the activity for each chemical substance i in the sea and in the SRE can be expressed in terms of the activity coefficient.3) v v where π is obtained by measuring the Electrical Conductivity (EC) of seawater and considering that the osmotic pressure is a function of the salt concentration (binary) in solution (without any serious errors. The magnitude of the exergetic compo- nent µ can be calculated from its activity as a pure substance in a solution equa- tion (equation A2. πH2O = 0.Ln ( a H2 O ) and π H2 O. In the case of seawater. m: ai = γi mi (A2.5)  a i. r ) = x i RT r Ln  ------- (A2.3. aH2O. γ. Medina (2000)) of ionized electrolytic components in a solution.36 EC (A2.2):  a H2 O  b q.r can be estimated from measuring coligative properties. r ) (A2. organic material. i = x i ( µ i – µ i.7). r = – --------.6) The activity coefficient.Ln ( a H2 O. etc. RT r RT r π H2 O = – --------. as in the case of a very diluted substance. pure water availability under different conditions such as pollution (the presence of substances other than pure water like salts. and its molality.Seawater exergy i) The chemical exergy of pure water in the sea. π.4) where π is the osmotic pressure (atmospheres) and EC the electrical conductivity in dS/m (1 dS/m = 640 ppm. of each of the electrolytic species is determined using the equation obtained by Debye-Hückel (equation A2. such as seawater). r ) = x H2 O RT r Ln  -------------- - (A2.2)  a H2 O. This component provides informa- tion about the thermodynamic degradation process. γ. and aH2O. such as osmotic pressure.5): ai b q. H2 O = x H2 O ( µ H2 O – µ H2 O. the osmotic pressure of a diluted solution with respect to its pure solvent is typically calculated using equation A2. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 415 . r  where xH2O is the molar fraction of pure water in seawater.

8) The activity coefficient of non-electrolytic inorganic substances is always γ =1.9) 2 The laboratory measurement of Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD. This enabled us to calculate the order of magnitude of the exergy organic component to be determined qualitatively. The exergy of the organic substance was obtained from the definition of exergy reaction in the standard state. di is the ionic diameter of specie i and I is the ionic dissolution force.7) 1⁄2 1 + Bd i I where A. our representative substance was a fat molecule.10) o o where ∆h f . zi is the ionic charge. 416 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . This process may be slow or fast depending on the substance. 115 C 39 H 80 O 3 + --------. organic substances are not present in the Szargut (1980) definition of SRE. according to the expression in equation A2. as shown in equation A2.O 2 ↔ 39 CO 2 + 40 H 2 O (A2. iii) The chemical exergy of organic substances. so and µ j are well known for industrial substances. Thermodynamic properties of seawater 1⁄2 Az i I Log ( γ i ) = – ----------------------------. (A2. but are purified naturally in rivers.10. For diluted solutions (seawater is a good example). This means that the oxygen (from photosynthesis or atmospheric) dissolved in water oxidizes the organic substances. this equation can 2 I = i be expressed as: 1⁄2 Log ( γ i ) = – [ Az i I ] (A2. For practical sea analysis.9. However. mg. One way to quantify the exergetic content of an organic substance is by proposing a single organic molecule to represent the “organic substance mean”. ∑ mi zi . of O2/lt of seawater consumed in the reaction is estimated) was used to obtain the amount of moles of mean organic substance per liter of water. B are constants depending on the solvent and temperature. b = ∆h f – T s – ∑ x j µ j o o o o o (A2. It is difficult to determine the pre- sence of organic substances in seawater due to the diversity of species involved (including biological organisms).

000 TDS (average seawater concentration in the Arabian Gulf). Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 417 . This means that the chemical energy of the organic compounds is not considered and the contribution of inorganic substances is only calculated for Na+ and Cl– ions. Chemical exergy of pure water depends on the osmotic pressure difference with respect to reference seawater. The results were similar to other studies (Zaleta et al. For more detailed information about how to calculate these terms. Newman (1980) and Marín and Turégano (1985). chemical and mechanical terms (kinetic and potential terms are neglected.. see Barner and Scheuerman (1978).1). Although it is impossible to know the chemical analysis of seawater entering the MSF unit. see equation A2.2 Practice: Brine exergy as a function of temperature.5. Seawater exergy A2. The AR used was 0 ºC and 45. 1998). pressure and salt concentration Brine exergy only includes thermal. the chemical term only considers seawater concentration due to sodium chloride.

5 (bar) Distillate purity expressed as TDS 10 (ppm) pH value of distillate before caustic soda injection 5. A3. but they cannot be changed unless requested by the author. 25 ºC SWT) Seawater temperature (Tsea) 25 (ºC) Distillate production per hour (D) 2.ANNEX 3 Technical data This annex includes the most important design and constructive values provided by the contractors.05 (ppm) Cu content in distillate 0.1 MSF plant MSF: Guarantee figures (112 ºC TBT.400 (T/h) Distillate temperature at pump suction 38 (ºC) Distillate density at production temperature 994 (kg/m3) Discharge pressure at distillate pump 3.0 Fe content in distillate 0.05 (ppm) Vapor velocity at the smallest path in last stage 14 (m/s) Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Most of those values are introduced in the simulator.5-6.

5 (ºC) Vapor temperature in first stage 106. máx. Technical data Performance ratio (PR) not less than 8 Quantity of heating steam at reducing valve before brine heater (mST) 313.D.S in brine blow down 71.000 (ppm.04 (ppm) Conductivity of heater condensate 5 (µs/cm) Temperature of ejector condensate 40 (ºC) PH of ejector condensate 5.S in recirculated brine in the heater tubes 62.5 (ºC) Absolute pressure in first stage 1.1 (m/s) Brine velocity inside tubes of brine heater 2.8 (bar) Brine pressure after the heater 1.75 (kJ/t distillate) Total specific heat consumption 295 (kJ/kg distillate) Specific electric power consumption 4.5 (ºC) Vapor temperature in last stage 34.0 (m/s) Brine velocity inside tubes of heat recovery section 2.000 (ppm) Temperature of the sea water outlet from heat rejection section 36 (ºC) Sea water velocity inside tubes of heat rejection section 2.1 (m/s) Pressure inside the heater space 1.055 (bar) 420 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .) T. x 10–3) O2 content in heater condensate (at 20 ºC) 0.8 (bar) Steam temperature at heater inlet 120 (ºC) Heater condensate temperature at pump suction 117 (ºC) Net specific heat consumption (NC) 290.305 (bar) Absolute pressure in last stage 0.D.400 (kg/h) Steam pressure at heater inlet 1.0 (kWh/kg dist.5-6.04 (ppm) Cu content in heater condensate 0.9 (bar) Brine temperature in first stage (TBT) 108 (ºC) Brine temperature in last stage 35.03 (ppm) Fe content in heater condensate 0.0 T.

00018 (m2 K/W) Brine heater: Fouling factor (design) 0.25 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 421 .) 0.00025 (m2 K/W) Recovery section: Heat transfer coefficient (design) 2.150 (m2) Brine heater: heat exchange surface 10.147 (W/m2 K) Demisters: Total area 640 (m2) Total width 19 (m) Total length 87 (m) Total height 17 (m) Total weight-empty 3.) 27.) 0. venting or other losses 5 x 107 (kJ/h) Evaporators GENERAL Recovery section: heat exchange surface 110.MSF plant Temperature of make-up feed entering deaerator 36 (ºC) Temperature of make-up feed leaving deaerator 36 (ºC) Absolute pressure in deaerator space 0.03 (ppm) O2 content in feed make-up leaving deaerator (with sulphite inject.2 (kg/kg dist.05 (bar) O2 content in feed make-up leaving deaerator (without sulphite inj.04 (ppm) Specific chemical consumption (antiscale with sponge ball cleaning) 12 (kg/kg dist.00015 (m2 K/W) Reject section: Fouling factor (design) 0.272 (m2) Recovery section: Fouling factor (design) 0.000.200 (m2) Reject section: heat exchange surface 15. x 10–6) Specific chemical consumption (antiscale without sponge ball clean.211 (W/m2 K) Brine heater: Heat transfer coefficient (design) 2. x 10–6) Heat losses due to radiation.000 (kg) Tube Pitch (pattern: triangular) 1.673 (W/m2 K) Reject section: Heat transfer coefficient (design) 2.

0 (mm) Tube effective length 19.2 (m) Tube material CuNi 70/30 ASTM B107 Tube conductivity 31. Technical data BRINE HEATER Number of tubes 3060 (2 passes) Tube internal diameter 33 (mm) Tube thickness 1.2 (m) Tube material CuNi 90/10 ASTM B111 Tube conductivity 51.2 (mm) Tube effective length 15.1 (W/m K) RECOVERY SECTION: Stages 3-11 Number of tubes 3060 Tube internal diameter 33 (mm) Tube thickness 1.5 (mm) Tube effective length 19.9 (W/m K) RECOVERY SECTION: Stages 12-17 Number of tubes 3185 Tube internal diameter 33 (mm) Tube thickness 0.2 (mm) Tube effective length 19.1 (m) Tube material CuNi 66/30 2 Fe 2 Mn Tube conductivity 28.2 (m) Tube material Titanium B338Gr2 Tube conductivity 22.0 (W/m K) RECOVERY SECTION: Stages 1-2 Number of tubes 3060 Tube internal diameter 33 (mm) Tube thickness 1.0 (W/m K) 422 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .

500 15 4.500 16 4.500 18 4.000 2 3.000 19.500 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 423 .500 14 4.) Tube thickness 0.500 12 4.000 10 4.000 11 4.200 19.400 17.800 17.0 (W/m K) EFFECTIVE STAGE LENGTHS AND WIDTHS FOR BRINE FLOW Stage no.000 6 4.000 4 3.100 17.800 17.500 17.400 17.000 8 4.000 17.800 19.300 17.500 17 4.000 9 4.800 19.500 20 5.800 17.800 19.MSF plant REJECT SECTION: Stages 18-20 Number of tubes 2390 Tube internal diameter 33.6 (mm.000 3 3.2 Tube material Titanium B338Gr2 Tube conductivity 22.800 19.500 19 4.000 19.200 19.800 19.500 17.000 19. Length (m) Width (m) 1 3.000 5 3.500 13 4.7 Tube effective length 19.000 7 4.

Area (m2) Height (m) 1 26.75 2.00 2.20 2.8 6 25.30 2.50 2.89 2.8 2 22.8 14 35. Technical data DEMISTERS Stage no.10 2.8 4 22.75 2.8 424 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .8 11 33.8 7 25.80 2.8 8 25.8 15 40.00 2.8 17 40.75 2.8 18 35.8 19 38.30 2.8 5 22.20 2.8 20 52.50 2.33 2.8 13 35.80 2.8 10 29.8 16 40.00 2.8 12 33.8 9 29.00 2.8 3 22.80 2.80 2.

420 17.500 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 425 .500 16 163 14.500 20 200 14.000 10 113 16.134 19.500 13 144 14.420 17.500 17 169 14.000 7 99 16.134 19.134 19.000 9 108 16.134 19.420 17.420 17.500 19 182 14.134 19.MSF plant BRINE ORIFICES (112 ºC TBT.000 3 83 16.000 11 131 14.000 6 95 16.500 12 137 14.134 19.500 14 150 14.420 17.134 19.420 17.134 19.134 19.420 17.420 17.420 17.000 4 87 16.000 5 91 16.500 18 175 14.000 8 104 16. Height (mm) Width (mm) Area (m3) 1 77 16. 25 ºC SW) Stage no.420 17.500 15 156 14.134 19.000 2 80 16.

555 (mm) Pitch across the gas flow (ECO 1/ ECO 2) 65/75 (mm) Pitch parallel to the gas flow 75/110 (mm) 426 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .825 x 10.9 (m) Length x width x height (steel structure) 23.2 Power Plant Boiler GENERAL Length x width x height (furnace) 9.890/4.875 x 19.5 x 45.5 (m) Total weight of boiler unit 3.500 (T) Shipping volume of largest item 120 (m3) Total gross weight of the largest item to be shipped 80 (T) Weight of the largest item to be dismantled during maintenance 15 (T) ECONOMIZERS Effective heating surface (ECO 1/ ECO 2) 10.390 (m2) Number of stages in line (ECO 1/ ECO 2) 7/3 Number of parallel streams (ECO 1/ ECO 2) 1/1 Location (ECO 1/ ECO 2) 3rd/3rd-2nd pass Design pressure 129 (bar) Design temperature (ECO 1/ ECO 2) 260/355 (ºC) Effective height of one stage 1. Technical data A3.0 x 15.

Power Plant AIR WATER HEATER Number of heaters per boiler 2 Design pressure (airside) 1.920 (m2) Fouling factor considered (air/water side) 5/2 % STEAM WATER DRUM Type 48 (m3) Water content 24 (m3/h) Steam space rating 470 (m3/m3·h) Design pressure 129 (bar) Design temperature 330 (º C) Total length 14.800 (mm) Shell thickness 82 (mm) Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 427 .740 (Nm3/h) Design water throughput 211 (t/h) Effective surface heating 20.000 (mm) Shell length 12.300 (mm WG) Design pressure (waterside) 129 (bar) Design temperature (airside) 250 (º C) Design temperature (waterside) 260 (º C) Design air throughput 463.

875 (m) Nominal depth 9.000 (mm) Shell length 12. 40º C air temperature) 422.454 (m2) Total length 14.800 (mm) Shell thickness 82 (mm) Heat input (natural gas at MCR.825 (m) Volume 2.123 (m3) Total effective heat absorbing surface of the combustion chamber 1. Technical data WALL HEATING SURFACES Combustion chamber Nominal height 19.000 (kcal/m2·h) Evaporator headers Number 40 Design pressure 129 (bar) Design temperature 330 (ºC) 428 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .9 (m) Nominal width 10.22 × 106 (kcal/h) Evaporators Total effective heat absorbing surface 2.740 (m2) Design pressure 129 (bar) Design temperature 375 (ºC) Maximum local heat flux 290.

Power Plant SUPERHEATERS Number of stages in line 3 Number of parallel streams 2 Number of spray attemperators 4 Design pressure 129 (bar) Design temperature (máx.) (SH1/SH2/SH3) 580/590/590 (ºC) Effective heating surface (SH1/SH2/SH3) 3.090/860/360 (m2) Number of elements over the width (SH1/SH2/SH3) 144/72/72 SPRAY ATTEMPERATORS Number 2 Design steam flow (inlet/outlet) (AT1/AT2) 270-295/295-310 (t/h) Calculated spray water flow (AT1/AT2) 27/18 (t/h) Design spray water flow (AT1/AT2) 41/27 (t/h) Design pressure 129 (bar) Design temperature (AT1/AT2) 500/550 (ºC) DOWNCOMERS Number 2 Outside diameter 508 (mm) Wall thickness 16 (mm) Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 429 .

Technical data

Condensing Plant

Condenser surface (between tube sheets and related to steam side) 6,725 (m2)

Condenser vacuum at MCR 0.072 (bar abs)

Specific condenser surface demand at MCR 67.5 (m2·h/t)

Condenser hotwell useful capacity 25 (m3)

Circulating water velocity within tube bundle 2.2 (m/s)

Associated hydraulic loss of CW 0.37 (bar)

Basic heat transfer coefficient at MCR 2,732 (kcal/m2·h·K)

Applied cleanliness factor 90 %

Associated maximum temperature difference 6.7 (ºC)

Thermal conductivity 14 (kcal/m·h·K)

Number of tubes per total cond. for one turbine 7124

Condensate Pumps

Number of pumps 2+2

Specific gravity of fluid (MCR) 992.5 (kg/m3)

Suction pressure (MCR) 0.071 (bar)

Suction temperature (MCR) 39.2 (ºC)

Discharge pressure (MCR) 18 (bar abs.)

Discharge temperature (MCR) 39.2 (ºC)

Flow at discharge nozzle (MCR) 2 x 131 (T/h)

Overall efficiency according to DIN 1944 of equiv. (MCR) 71.6 %

Pump speed 1485 (l/min)

Critical speeds of pump and motor unit > 1800 (rpm)

Nameplate rating (MCR) 130 (kW)

430 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant

Power Plant

HP1 Heater

Overall dimensions of feed heater 1,300 x 8,600 (mm)
Main steam flow (feedwater side, MCR) 562.9 (t/h)
Inlet pressure (feedwater side, MCR) 119.05 (bar)
Inlet/outlet temperature (feedwater side, MCR) 194.6/230.1 (ºC)
Heating steam flow 39.0 (t/h)
Pressure incl. vacuum if appl. 27.2 (bar)
Temperature (heating side, MCR) 369 (ºC)
Applied cleanliness factor 80 %
Overall heat transfer coefficient (condensing zone) 3,280 (kcal/m2·h·K)
LMTD (condensing zone) 11.6 (ºC)
Heat transfer surface (desuperheating section) 65.3 (m2)
Heat transfer surface (condensing section) 531.6 (m2)
Heat transfer surface (condensate cooling section) 64.4 (m2)
Velocity of main condensate or feed water inside tubes 1.54 (m/s)

HP2 Heater
Overall dimensions of feed heater 1,300 x 8,600 (mm)
Main steam flow (feedwater side, MCR) 562.3 (t/h)
Inlet pressure (feedwater side, MCR) 119.4 (bar)
Inlet/outlet temperature (feedwater side, MCR) 164.8/194.6 (ºC)
Heating steam flow 29.9 (t/h)
Pressure incl. vacuum if appl. 14.12 (bar)
Temperature (heating side, MCR) 282 (ºC)
Applied cleanliness factor 80 %
Overall heat transfer coefficient (condensing zone) 3,200 (kcal/m2·h·K)
LMTD (condensing zone) 10.54 (ºC)
Heat transfer surface (desuperheating section) 37.8 (m2)
Heat transfer surface (condensing section) 525.2 (m2)
Heat transfer surface (condensate cooling section) 101.3 (m2)
Velocity of main condensate or feed water inside tubes 1.48 (m/s)

Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 431

Technical data

LP1 Heater

Overall dimensions of feed heater 1,124 x 8,800 (mm)
Main steam flow (feedwater side MCR) 131.6 (t/h)
Inlet pressure (feedwater side, MCR) 11.622 (bar)
Inlet/outlet temperature (feedwater side, MCR) 78.2/128.2 (ºC)
Heating steam flow 12.0 (t/h)
Pressure incl. vacuum if appl. 2.7 (bar)
Temperature (heating side, MCR) 129.7 (ºC)
Applied cleanliness factor 80 %
Overall heat transfer coefficient (condensing zone) 3,200 (kcal/m2·h·K)
LMTD (condensing zone) 23.856 (ºC)
Heat transfer surface (condensing section) 341.4 (m2)
Heat transfer surface (condensate cooling section) 54.1 (m2)
Velocity of main condensate or feed water inside tubes 1.76 (m/s)

LP2 Heater

Overall dimensions of feed heater 1,124 x 9,900 (mm)
Main steam flow (feedwater side MCR) 131.6 (t/h)
Inlet pressure (feedwater side, MCR) 12.072 (bar)
Inlet/outlet temperature (feedwater side, MCR) 41.0/78.2 (ºC)
Heating steam flow 8.2 (t/h)
Pressure incl. vacuum if appl. 0.47 (bar)
Temperature (heating side, MCR) 79.7 (ºC)
Applied cleanliness factor 80 %

Overall heat transfer coefficient (condensing zone) 2,840 (kcal/m2·h·K)
LMTD (condensing zone) 22.89 (ºC)

Heat transfer surface (condensing section) 316.4 (m2)

Heat transfer surface (condensate cooling section) 124.8 (m2)
Velocity of main condensate or feed water inside tubes 1.61 (m/s)

432 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant

Nomenclature

Abbreviatures/ Symbols/Acronyms
a Cost parameter, activity, or constant of Cobb-Douglass equation.
A Exchange area of the evaporator/condenser or constant of Debye-Hückel
equation.
AR Reference Ambient.
AT Atemperator.
b Specific exergy.
B Flashing brine flow in j-th flash chamber, exergy flow, constant of Debye-
Hückel equation, or constant for calculating vapor enthalpy.
BD Brine Blowdown.
BDP Blowdown Pump.
BH Brine Heater.
BHP Brine Heater Pump.
BOI Boiler.
BPE Boiling Point Elevation of brine with respect the pure water.
c Velocity.
C Salt concentration, or total monetary cost.
c* Exergoeconomic cost.
ca Cost per unit of area.
CBS Cleaning Ball System.
cf Fuel cost.
CND Condenser.
COC Boiler Peak Load.
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand.
CP Condensate Pump or Heat Capacity.
cp Product cost.
CW Cooling rejected Water.
d Ionic diameter.
D Distillate flow.

Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant

Nomenclature

DAS Data Acquisition System.
DB Exergy flow of distillate.
DCA Drain Cooling Advantage.
DF Dysfunction generated in a component.
DI Dysfunction generated by a component.
DLL Dynamic Link Library.
DP Distillate Pump.
DRT Deaerator.
DV Main stop valve seat diameter.
e Condenser efficiency.
E Enhancement factor.
EC Electrical Conductivity.
ECO Economizer.
ED Electrodyalisis.
EDS European Desalination Society.
EES Engineering Equation Solver.
ESL Excitation System Losses.
f Generic function.
F Fuel, Make-up feed or constant for calculating vapor enthalpy.
FCW Fuel Cost of Water.
FD Fictitious Device.
FP Feed Pump.
g Acceleration due to gravity, or characteristic equation.
Gc Gas consumption.
GCC Gulf Council Countries.
GEN Generator.
GOR Gain Output Ratio.
h Heat transfer coefficient or enthalpy.
H Height.
Hb Flashing brine (seawater) enthalpy.
HHV High Heating Value.
HT High-Temperature.
HP High-Pressure.
HPH High-Pressure Heater.
HPT High-Pressure Turbine.
HR Heat Rate of a power plant.
HRSG Heat Recovery Steam Generator.
HTOS High-Temperature Operation in Summer.
HTOW High-Temperature Operation in Winter.
Hv Saturated vapor enthalpy of water.

434 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant

Nomenclature

I Irreversibility or Ionic dissolution force.
IAAE International Agency of Atomic Energy.
ID Inside Diameter.
IDA International Desalination Association.
k Thermal conductivity or unit exergy consumption.
K Constant for mass flow coefficient or gland steam system.
k* Exergy unit cost.
L Length or Exergy Losses.
LP Low-Pressure.
LPH Low-Pressure Heater.
LPT Low-Pressure Turbine.
LS Live Steam Extraction.
LTL Low Turbine Load.
LTMD Logarithmic Temperature Mean Difference.
LTOS Low-Temperature Operation in Summer.
m Mass flow or molality.
MCR Maximum Continuous Rating.
Md Steam flow to MSF unit.
MED Multi-Effect Distillation.
MF Malfunction of a component.
MF* Malfunction cost (impact on fuel).
MFl Intrinsic malfunction.
MFg Induced malfunction.
MIX Mixer.
MR Maximum Rating.
MSL Minimum Stable Load.
MSF Multistage Flash.
MXT Mixer Temper water.
n number of tubes in a vertical row.
NC Net energy Consumption.
NEA Non Equilibrium Allowance.
NRC Number of Recovery Stages.
NRJ Number of Reject Stages.
NTL Normal Turbine Load.
NTOS Nominal-Temperature Operation in Summer.
NTW Non Turbine Working.
OD Outside Diameter.
ODOB One Desalination One Boiler.
O&M Operating and Maintenance
p Pressure.

Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 435

Nomenclature

P Product.
Pc Condenser pressure.
Pr Prandtl number.
PE Pressure Exchanger.
PL Pressure losses, or Partial Load.
PR Performance Ratio.
PTC Performance Test Case or Parabolic Trough Collector.
Q Heat flow.
Qf Heat value of fuel.
r Exergy ratio.
R Thermal resistance or recycle brine.
RCS Recovery Section.
Re Reynolds number.
RJS Reject Section.
RO Reverse Osmosis.
rp Pressure ratio in a turbine section.
RP Recycle Pump.
s Specific entropy.
S Entropy flow or size.
Sa Sonic area.
SF Solar Factor.
SH Superheater.
SR Seawater to Reject section flow.
SRE Stable Reference Environment
SW Seawater feed flow.
SWP Seawater Pump.
SWRO Seawater Reverse Osmosis.
t Thickness.
T Temperature.
T* Temperature reference, 273.15 K.
TBT Top Brine Temperature.
TDOB Two Desalination One Boiler.
TDS Total Dissolved Solids.
To Ambient Temperature.
TP Temper water Pump (also TPP).
TTD Terminal Temperature Difference.
TVC Thermal Vapor Compression.
UAE United Arab Emirates.
U Overall heat transfer coefficient.
US, USA United States of America.

436 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant

Nomenclature

VC Vapor Compression.
VEX Extraction valve (pressure loss simulation).
VF Feed valve.
vw Tube velocity.
VS Reducing pressure station valve.
VST Stop valve.
VTE Vertical Tube Evaporator.
VWO Valve Wide Open.
x Variable or molar fraction.
X Steam quality.
w Width.
W Power.
z Ionic charge.
Z Pressure drop coefficient or Capital Cost of a component.

Greeks
α Sonic velocity or constant of Cobb-Douglass equation.
β Constant for calculating vapor entropy.
γ Activity coefficient.
δ Interstage (temperature) difference.
∆ Difference, increment, variation (or loss).
ε Relative error or ratio.
η Efficiency.
κ Technical production coefficient.
λ Latent heat, real number or Lagrange multiplier.
µ Viscosity or chemical exergy component.
ν Specific volume.
π Osmotic pressure.
ρ Density.
φ Mass flow coefficient of a turbine section, or dysfunction coefficient.
ℵ Constant for calculating latent heat of vapor.
ϕ Amortization factor.
ϖ Chamber load or total final product.

Arrays/Matrices
B Exergy flows set.
[DF] Dysfunction matrix.
DF Array of dysfunctions generated in the components.
DI Array of dysfunctions generated by the components.
∆FT Impact on fuel array.

Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 437

C Condenser. H2O Pure water. ci Steam to Ejector from leakage system. i-section or array index. D Distillate. H Brine Heater. 〈KP〉 Unit exergy consumption matrix. variable or specie. UD Unitary matrix. CT Condensing Turbine. DR Deaerator. b Exergy flow or brine. gen Generator. LS Live Steam Extraction from reduction pressure station. B Brine. es Interstage. MF Malfunction array. i Inlet. |I〉 Irreversibility matrix operator. I Irreversibility array. design. ex Extraction. P Product array. index. c Condensate. d Distillate. fg Evaporation. |P〉 Product matrix operator. F Cooling brine. bi Brine inside the tubes. L Loss. f Fouling. fm Film. des Low-Pressure Steam to MSF unit. K Kelvin. 438 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . j j-Stage. e Exit or electricity. KD Diagonal matrix of the unit exergy consumption. PS Final product array. Nomenclature κe Unit exergy consumption array of the system input resources. ls Live Steam Flow. Subscripts a Absolute. formation or fuel relative.

m m-Iteration or scaling factor. n4 Exponents for capital costing equation. o Outlet. n1.Nomenclature lm Logaritmic mean. sea Seawater. NRC Last stage of recovery section. or product. vent Venting system. b. m Mean. 0 Reference or design (matrix notation). y. S Saturated. 0 To the environment. t Turbine or tube. z Exponents for calculations of TTDs in heaters or deaerator. ´ Extraction mass flow rate. N Last stage of MSF unit. q Chemical. s Isoentropic. n3. w Wall or water. P Demister pressure losses. T Total. o Standard state. t Transpose (matrix notation). x. G Induced. Z Capital cost. Superscripts a. –1 Inverse (matrix notation). va Steam to vacuum system of MSF unit (condensate returning to condenser). L Local. n2. ST Steam or Steam Turbine. after passing brine heater pump. r Operating parameter. rdes Condensate returned from the MSF unit (heater). pressure losses or gland steam system. msf MSF plant. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 439 . shell or entropy flow. rcs Recovery section (exit). r Reference. c.

Asea Brown Bovery (ABB) (1996d). HP and LP Heaters. Las Palmas. Environmental Impacts of Desalination Plants on the Arabian Gulf. Al-Tabtabaei. Private communication. USA. H. M. H. Cold Storage Tank. Carvalho. Construction Details. (1999). Asea Brown Bovery (ABB) (1996c).References Asea Brown Bovery (ABB) (1996a). Asea Brown Bovery (ABB) (1996e). (1999). N. Private Communication. San Diego.. USA. Sustainability Assessment of Desalination Plants for Water Production. pp. Private Communication. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Darwish. Afgan. 19-32. Asea Brown Bovery (ABB) (1996f). G. Diagram Charts. Presented at the European Conference on Desalination and the Environment. M.. M. Spain. Impact on Current Power Generation and Water Desalination Activities on Kuwait Marine Environment. M. Abdel-Jawad. Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse. A. Private Communication. Asea Brown Bovery (ABB) (1997). Private Communication. Condensate and Feedwater Piping System. Asea Brown Bovery (ABB) (1996b). Private Communication. Pump Curves. Feedwater Storage Tank. Steam. (1999). Generator System.. San Diego. Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse. Private Communication. Abu Qdais. and Heat Balance of Al Taweelah B Power Generation Unit. Desalination 124. Boiler Performance Data.

Desalination 73. Al-Sulaiman. 8. D. Desalination 103.. Nijhawan. 265-270. 1. D. pp.000 m3/day Seawater Reverse Osmosis Work Exchanger Energy Recovery System. Al-Owais. D. Simulation and Control of Multistage Flash Desalination Plant.. Design Study of a 20. Al-Mutaz. Al-Gobaisi... (1999). pp. S. (1973). USA. Badr. 327-340. J.. (1997). R. V. Vol. Exergy Analysis of Major Recirculating Multi-stage Flash Desalting Plants in Saudi Arabia.. Shumway. 442 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . A. A. References Alawadhi. Modeling. USA.. K. pp. III.. 191-231. 667-677. Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse. Barba. Madrid. Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse. Moch. A. New York. (1978). K. 4th International Symposium on Fresh Water from the Sea. O’Callaghan. Tagliaferri.. (1989). A. Barendsen. 317-326. Spain. pp. pp. Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse. I. G. Soliman. (1989). pp. K. Al-Gobaisi. W. A. 153-168. (1999). San Diego. Barner. E. P. Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse. (1999). Ahrendts. Simulation of MSF Desalination Plants. Ismail. 111-130. San Diego. Alhumaizi. pp. Regional Report on Desalination. A.. Liuzzo. T. Reference States. Budhiraja. R. Probert. 1967 ASME Steam Tables. Madrid. H. (1999). Handbook of Thermochemical Data for Compounds and Acqueous Species. Water for Sustainable Development of the Arab World. G. (1995). Private Communication. American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) (1967). (1997). O. USA.. M. Andrews. M. Vol. Energy 5. D. (1990). Desalination 74. San Diego. Mathematical Model for Multiflash Desalting Plant Control. K. P. Privatization of Seawater Reverse Osmosis Plants in Antigua. Applied Energy 36. Sustainable Augmentation of Fresh Water Resources through Appropriate Energy and Desalination Technologies. C. I. John Wiley and Sons Inc. S. Rankyne Cycles for Steam Power- Plants. S. B. K. Operational Experience of Once Through MSF Desalination Units. Vol. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. M. Scheuerman. F. USA. A. (1980). Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse. Spain.

. Vol. A New Model for Predicting Thermodynamic Properties of Sea Salt Solutions. (1996). Brown Boveri Co. (1989). 596-606. Viscosity of Sea Water Solutions.. (1973). Ed. 37-51.. Benelmir.. The Prognosis for Macroeconomical Development and Exergy. Desalination 9. IV. H. Wilde. Chen. 153-161. C. Simplified Instructions for the Thermal Calculation of the Antikokan Units. Wilkins. S. Beamer. K. 246.. Thermoeconomic Assessment of Fossil Fuel Fired Dual Purpose Power/Water Plants. V. Coleman. Bromley.. A. Fouling and Scaling Control in MSF Desalination Units by “On-Load” Tube Cleaning. 259-275. Salam. Transactions of the ASME. (1985). (BBC) (1979). Thermal Kit. Cadagua (1999). Georgia Institute of Technology. M. (1985). Boehm. Data 15. Diamond. pp. R. L. F. A. Tusel.. Cracow. S. Ph. Design Analysis of Thermal Systems. Del Re. Read. D. Di Giacomo... no. Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power. 167-180. Eng. Thesis. On prediction of Off-Design Multistage Turbine Pressures by Stodola’s Ellipse. J. Vol. Bandura. Poland. pp. (1971). A. R. 315-331. H.. John Wiley and Sons Inc. G. The Simulation and Optimization of a Single Effect Multi-Stage Flash Desalination Plant. F. 299-313. V. Thermal Design and Optimization. (1997). pp. Chem. Desalination 56.. Bromley. J. R. Desalination 13. Desalination and Water Reuse. 107. Proceedings of the International Symposium on energy systems and ecology ENSEC’93. Brandani.. G. John Wiley and Sons. Tsatsaronis. Bolmer. E. D. M. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 443 . (1993). (1997). G. Rautenbach. A. J. Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse. G. Brodyansky. Calder (1999). Pelton Wheel Energy Recovery Turbines. G. A.. Moran. Desalination 9..References Barthelmes. Private Communication. HTGD 12246 E.. J. 7/2. D. Spain. pp. pp. H. Madrid. D. 4. E. (1970). A. R. pp. pp. (1971). Chan. Vol. pp. L. pp.. Optimization of a Single Effect. Private Communication. Second Law Analysis of a Co-generation Cycle. F. (1987). Breidenbach. Multi-Stage Flash Distillation Desalination System. 27-33. New York. Cooke. Bejan. L. New York.

(1970). Von Gottberg. San Diego. (1999). K. Evans. M. M. M. H. Journal of Engineering and Power. B. Desalination 109. (1982). M. Sallangos. Dhekelia (Cyprus) Seawater Desalination Plant Design. A. Desalination 76.S. Private Communication. 17-26. Madrid. (1997). M.. (1999). pp. (1999). Cost Allocation in a Cogeneration Plant for the Production of Power and Desalted Water – Comparison of the Exergy Cost Accounting Method with the WEA Method. S. Santamaria F. Aplenc. Description and Mathematical Model of a Large MSF Desalination Plant in Scada Configuration. K. Al-Najem. M.... Plant. USA. Application of the Thermoeconomic Approach in the Analysis and Optimization of Vapor-Compression Desalting System. 92 no.. De Armas. B. 289-309. Desalination of Municipal Sewage Effluent with Electrodialysis Reversal in Tenerife. pp. pp. El-Saie. Echaniz. A. Darwish. K. J. El-Saie. A. Darwish. 155-175. 371-392.. Y.. Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse. J. A.. A. References Corripio. 323-342.. 1. Transactions of the ASME. San Diego. (1989). 91-106. Willocks. Al-Ahmad. (1993). Cotton. II. Construction and Commissioning of the 20. El-Sayed. P. J. Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse.. N. Desalination 89. 125-127. 285-302. Desalination 93. Cotton Factory Inc. pp.. (1993). pp. USA.. Yousef.. M.. pp. Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse. (1989). J. C. Estimate Costs of Heat Exchangers and Storage Tanks Via Correlations. S. pp. G. L. H. Darwish. A. A. M. C. Al-Najem. Energy Consumption and Costs with a Multi-stage Flashing (MSF) Desalting System. J. Y. M. USA. Optimization of Dual-Purpose Steam Power and MSF Desalination Plant. Chrien. A. El-Nashar. Evaluating and Improving Steam Turbines Performance. O. Elovic. Optimal Performance of MSF Distillers for UANW 9 and 10 Power Plant: A Thermoeconomic Study. Rodero. (1997). Pérez. N. F. El-Nashar. Case Study of Operating Experience of 9 Low Temperature MED plants in the U.. J. Arazzini. Spain. Second-Law Analysis of Recirculating Multi-stage Flash System. pp. (1993). A.O. M. 444 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Vol. M. Vol. M. Virgin Islands. New York.. A. Private Communication. Chemical Engineering. L. A. Edit. S.000 m3/day R. Qamhiyeh. January 1982.

92 no. Strategic use of Thermoeconomics for Systems Improvement. M. Evans.. (1980). 1. Transactions of the ASME. A Contribution to the Theory of Thermo-Economics. B. University of California. W. Chapter 2. University of Zaragoza. Sea Water Research Project S. of Mechanical Engineering. pp. Comparison of Thermoeconomic Methodologies: Structural Theory. (1988). 1627-1649. R. (1996). B. R. Tribus. Vol. Principles of Desalination. pp. 215-238. B. M... Thermoeconomics and the Design of Heat Systems. Erlach. R. Department of Engineering. Y. Properties of Sea Water and Solutions Containing Sodium Chloride.. Valero. Journal of Engineering and Power. no. El-Sayed.. A. USA. M. Las Palmas. Ettouney. USA.. 805-822. Academic Press Inc.. ASME. R. (1999). Evans. M. L. A Decomposition Strategy for Thermoeconomics Optimization of a Given New Configuration. Sodium Sulfate and Magnesium Sulfate. Erbes. (1968). pp. Silver. AVCO and LIFO. Evans. El-Sayed. B. Y. A. M. 5. 235. El-Sayed. 277-292. Report no. pp. Y. Energy. Structural Theory as Standard for Thermoeconomics. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 445 . R. Fundamentals of Distillation.. New York. H. pp. R. 62-36. M. Y. R. (1983). 41-47. no. L. Y.C. Potassium Chloride. Academic Press Inc. Evans. 604. (1998).. Application to a Combined Cycle. Fabuss. Private Communication. G. Thermoeconomic Isolation and Essergy Analysis. Serra.. Spain. Erlach. Dept. Gay. M. (1999). (1980). Korosi. Thermoeconomic Considerations of Sea Water Demineralization. (1989). Tribus. (1970). ENTER Software. Principles of Desalination. (1980). H. Energy Conversion and Management 40. Gate/cycle Predictions of the Off-Design Performance of Combined Cycle Power Plants. El-Sayed. Chapter 1. El-Dessouky. Wepfer and Moran eds. Inc. A Simulator for Thermal Desalination Processes. 8-9. S. Second-Law-Based Analysis and Optimization of Seawater Desalting Systems. B. B. Crellin. pp.References El-Sayed. Vol. Approaches to the Design and Optimization of Thermal Systems. Washington D. M. M. ASME 1989 WAM. Presented at the European Conference on Desalination and the Environment. T. ACS Symposium Series. Desalination 125. M. 27-35. B. B. (1962)..

Proceedings of the International Symposium: A future for energy. (1987). R. Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse. Application of the Thermoeconomic Functional Approach to the CGAM Problem. (1987). A. U. Thesis. Y. 12. A. 13. Energy Vol. A Critical Review of Second Law Costing Methods. ASME COGEN-TURBO.. R.. Frangopoulos. Proceedings of the IV International Symposium on Second Law Analysis of Thermal Systems (ASME Book I00236). Vol I. A. J. Florence. American Chemical Society. Gaggioli. 446 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Fisia Italimpianti (1996). The Desalination Process in the Balearic Islands.. (1971). (1991). Frangopoulos. R. Novoa. Private Communication. 41-54. C. C. References Research and Development Progress Report no. USA. O. 563-571.. Energy Vol. (1990). Friedrich. A. C. (1997). 59-73. M. Private Report. A. Thermodynamics: Second Law Analysis. Falceta. New York. USA. (1983). no. no. Georgia Institute of Technology. Frangopoulos. Thermoeconomic Functional Analysis: A method for the Optimal Design or Improvement of Complex Thermal Systems. Private Communication. Spain. Private Communication. Washington D. (1997). Fisia Italimpianti (1997). 563-571. Madrid. Water Desalination Plants. pp. Gaggioli. A.S. 19. Diagram charts of the MSF Plant. D. 805-815. Frangopoulos. Pergamon Press. Department of the Interior. USA. 384. El-Sayed. A. Italy. (1994). E. Fisia-Italimpianti (1999). pp. Frangopoulos. Sciubba.C. Fayas. pp. pp. Report ORNL-TM-3489.. 7. Ph. C. Private Communication. Frangopoulos. pp. ASME. (1988). ACS Symposium Series 122. Thermoeconomic Functional Analysis and Optimization. New York. Intelligent Functional Approach: A Method for Analysis and Optimal Synthesis-Design-Operation of Complex Systems. J. J. Modelling and Simulation of Multi-Stage Flash Desalination Plants. A. ASME. F. C. Hafford. (1980). Optimal Design of a Gas Turbine Plant by a Thermoeconomic Approach. C.

K. (1971). L. Bradshaw. The World’s Water – The Biennial Report on Freshwater Resources. Palmero.. A. USA. T.. M. Overview of Desalination in the Pacific Region. I. Al-Sofi. 10. Gómez. P. S. Easter Auchinloch. Gómez. Medani. Chung Y. San Diego. Guoling. Hanbury. Florido. R. H. Spain. Application of Direct Steam Generation into a Solar Parabolic Trough Collector to Multieffect Distillation. Washington DC. P. Satori. J. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. R. Glueck. 1.. USA. R. (1999). (1998). Helal. Porthan Ltd. Desalination 125. A.. USA. A.. Glasgow. Congjie. pp. M. Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse. G. T. K.. USA.. Process Simulation on a Multi-Stage Flash Distillation Plant.. Al- Washmi. (1973). Vol. (1999). (1970). T. T. pp. pp. pp. Hayakawa... 303-312.. (1986). Ludvigsen.. Presented at the European Conference on Desalination and the Environment. Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse. F. Vol. (1999). N. S. Hauge. Desalination 125. C. A Mathematical Model for a Multistage Flash Distillation Plant. A. Georgescu-Roegen. 1998/1999.. 133-138.. pp. USA. Cambridge MA. (1993). Morris. Ba-Mardouf. UK. M. (1999). A. Iman. W. Conditions for Economical Benefits of the Use of Solar Energy in Multi-stage Flash Distillation. Field Installation of Pressure Exchanger in a 80 m3/d SWRO Plant.. Feasibility of Nuclear Desalination Costs in Egypt. 4th International Symposium on Fresh Water from the Sea. Soliman. Island Press. R. Las Palmas. Las Palmas. A. L. L. San Diego. C. Harvard University Press.. Desalination Technology 93..References García. 95-108. M. M.. Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse. Thermal Performance of Multistage Flash Distillation Plants in Saudi Arabia. Hamed. Lenzie. Mustafa. M. 1. C. Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse. K. 3rd International Symposium on Fresh Water from the Sea. 139-145. H.. (1999). G. San Diego. Gleick. Goto. An Intensive Course. Spain. San Diego. (1999).. MacCormick. Hassan. Computers & Chemical Engineering Vol.-T. W. García. USA. H. 95-108. Konishi. Presented at the European Conference on Desalination and the Environment. A... K. A Tridiagonal Matrix Model for MultiStage Flash Desalination Plants. O. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 447 . Hodgkiess.

E. Middleton.. Al-Radif. The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers.. Modelling. Desalination 4. Ed. H. pp.. H. F.. Desalination 10. S.D. Alvarado. London. A. EES Engineering Equation Solver. Kronenberg. A. 147-152. 248-257. Private Communication. Simulation of Thermal Desalination Processes. Steam Tables (SI Units). T. Itahara. R. pp. F. P. Husain. Intermón (1998). The Exergy Method of Thermal Plant Analysis. B. Kesou. M. References Hömig. A. Modelling. G. Isdale. Computational Aspects in Process Simulation. 319-328.. A. Y. Presented at the European Conference on Desalination and the Environment. (1999). G. H. Essen. 21-41. John Wiley and Sons Inc. pp. (1978). UK. Desalination 92. A. Conceptos Clave. Deshpandey.. Las Palmas. Dvornikov. F-Chart Software. I. Husain.. 555-586. (1972). S. Sultan. Borsani. pp. Japan. Kotas. Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse. C. (1994). Optimization and Control of Multistage Flashing (MSF) Desalination Plants. J. 448 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . The Optimal Design of Multi-Stage Flash Evaporators by Dynamic programming. International Center for Water and Energy Systems (ICWES). A.. Klein. Thermodynamic Properties of Steam. J. L. Hill. Butteerworth eds. V.. Germany. Spain. (1955). Octaedro.. J. (1999). H. (1985). E. Hassan. Husain. Al-Radif. Part I: Modelling and Simulation. C. S. Tudhope. Keyes.. (1999).. F. New York. A. Technologies ltd. Woldai.. F. Relaciones Norte-Sur. Stiel. USA.. New York. (1999). Desalination 126... L. Keenan.. Physical Properties of Sea Water Solutions: Viscosity. Spence. M. M. Jernqvist. G. 1968 JSME Steam Tables. A. (1992). (1968). K. Sommariva. Moore. Keyes. and Simulation of a Multistage Flash (MSF) Desalination Plant. G. K. Woldai. USA. Simulation. Dossiers para entender el mundo. D. Seawater and Seawater Distillation (Fichtner Handbook). Desalination 97. Fuel Cost of Water (FCW) in Dual Plants. Jernqvist. USA. (1955). Vulkan-Verlag. Aly.. D.. Al-Gobaisi. (1993).. Keenan.. A. Private Communication.. John Wiley and Sons Inc. JSME (1968). A. San Diego. USA. Tokyo.... A. J. pp.

L. Medina. 36. J. J.. Las Energías Renovables. Articles on Leakage of Steam Through Dummy Pistons. Lerch. Contribution to the Calculation of Chemical Exergy in Industrial Processes (Electrolyte Solutions). A. On the Quest for Objective Equations in Exergy Costing. Thermodynamics. (1997). Netherlands. Lozano. Valero. UK. L. pp. L. H. A. France.. Microsoft Fortran Developer Studio. (1961). Enschede. Thermoeconomic Diagnosis of Energy Systems. Marín. M.References Lazzaretto.. N. Engineering Jan 3. Spain. Lozano. 374-379. Valero. Elsevier Science Ltd. Osmosis Inversa. Theory of the Exergetic Cost. Vol. J. L. G. A. V.. (1985). Cracow. Madrid. Energy Vol. M. Energetique Industrièlle. Theory of the Exergetic Cost and Thermoeconomics Optimization. (1979). Lozano. 11. A. (2000). Serra. no. Microsoft Corporation (1997).. Leyendekkers. pp. pp. (1999).. Menéndez. 939-960. P. 241-250. Local Optimization of Energy Systems. (1993). Energy. A. Proceedings of the ASME Advanced Energy System Division. G. M. Florence World Energy Research Symposium. (2000). A. Serra. Mundi-Prensa Eds.. M. Flowers 94. AES-Vol. Cost Assessing in Entrained Flow Gasifiers Based on Physical Models. Tokyo. A. Tecnique et Documentation. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 449 . A. 3. pp. AES-Vol. ASME. Randal. Reini. A. Proceedings of the ECOS’99 Conference. pp. M. M. Lewis.. Los Libros de la Catarata Eds.. 37.. (1993). (1979). Paper accepted to ECOS’2000 Conference. Serra. Tsatsaronis. J. J. Serra.... A. Proceedings of the ASME Advanced Energy Systems Division. Bartolomé. 231-236. Florence. Le Goff. 18. Proceedings of the International Symposium ENSEC’93. Part II: Application to an Actual Power Plant. pp. (1997). A. 197-210. Valero. F. Lozano. Structural Theory and Thermoeconomic Diagnosis. L. Martin. Valero. Valero. J. Italy. Japan.. Royo. E. Desalación de Aguas Salobres y de Mar.. A. (1994). Martínez.. 263-274. Desalination 29. (1919). Georgia. pp. M. Atlanta. Prediction of the Density and Viscosity of Seawater its Concentrates and other Multicomponents Solutions Using the Tamman-Tait-Gibson (TTG) Model. (1996). Mc-Graw Hill Company. 149-156. Turégano. Polland. Paris. A. ASME. M.

The Value of Water in the 21st Century – Impact on U. (1999). pp. National Office of Potable Water (NPOW) (1996). Computer J. Gendel. pp. Florence (Italy). 7.. (1966).0. Non Conventional Waters Use for Drinking Water Supply/Seawater Desalination. I. (1981).V. McGraw-Hill. Spain. Moran. J. R. Thermoeconomic Analysis of IGCC plants. M. Microsoft Visual Basic Version 5. Pergamon Press. 733-749. San Diego. (1999). S. H. Jankel. Private Communication. (1984). Manual del Ingeniero Químico. Report ORNL-TM-1560. UPM Dharan (Saudi Arabia). (1997). no. Sc. (1986). What is the State of the Art? International Symposium: A future for energy. August 1966. T. L. Ed. San Diego. M. pp. J. 446. H. M. Department of Mechanical Engineering.S. 155-162. R. Vol. (1979). Misra. pp. Hanra. Newman. Ponce. Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse. Thesis. Szargut. (1980).. S. Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse. Energy Vol. Kingdom of Morocco. 450 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Revue Generale de Thermique. An Efficient Method for Finding the Minimun of a Function of Several Variables without Calculate Derivatives. 11. (1990).. I. A. (1997). Small Desalination Units to Provide Safe Drinking Water in Remote Rural Areas in India. H. (1997). Mothersed. C.M. Vol. USA. pp. L. D. G. M. B. A. Pisa. D.) Desalination Plants. A. American Chemical Society. A. Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse.. Washington DC. Ph. Development of the World’s Largest Multi-Effect Mechanical Vapor Compression (M. 5th edition. C. 215.E. M. Morris.. Sadhukan. Omar. Powell. USA. D. Ophir. L. University of Zaragoza.C. Perry. A Computer Program for the Calculation of the Thermodynamic Properties of Water. Thesis. J. 689-693. Chilton. M. pp.. Thermodynamics of Acqueous Systems with Industrial Applications. Pina. Desalination. H. (1964). 3-16. K. References Microsoft Corporation and Cooper Software Inc. Second Law Analysis. Standard Chemical Exergy of some Elements and Compounds on the Planet Earth. S. 249-260. Prabhakar.. USA. J. Madrid. Vol.

New York. Sephton. T... (1977). USA. Sephton. (1987). 71-83. (1958). (1992). Improved International Formulations for the Viscosity and Thermal Conductivity of Water Substance.References Rautenbach. New York. J. L. C.. Slesarenko. Solomon.. Desalination 61. Vol. 463-478. R. Analisi e Sviluppo dei Metodi Termoeconomi per lo Studio degli Impianti di Conversione dell’Energia.. M. (1986). V. K.. H. Spain. J. Velasco. T. Royo. Shtim. IV. Reid. (1974). J. Università di Padova. Vol. H. Krieger Publishing Company. 1291-1314. Kindelan. Journal of Physical & Chemical Reference Data. USA. H.. (1997). ASME 80. pp. (1994). H. Prausnitz. V. Sánchez. 299-308. J. J. Allocation of Fuels and Fuel Cost for Power and Desalination in Dual Purpose Plants: A Novel Methodology. Watson. 1-5. N. USA. Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse. Madrid. Madrid. Salisbury. Spain. Sherwood. D. S. University of Zaragoza. (1997). Turbine Exhaust Steam Driven Desalination. Dept. San Diego. Steam Turbines and their Cycles. pp. Reini. Desalination 85.. (1994). J.. pp. Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse. Thesis. Optimización Exergoeconómica de Sistemas Térmicos. Sengers. The Properties of Gases and Liquids. R. Marbella Seawater Desalination Plant: Construction and Start-up Experience. D. V. 959-966. Thesis. Modular Program for Design and Simulation of Desalination Plants. pp. Formulations for the Thermodynamic Properties of Steam and Water. 4. Ph. M. 15. J. J. Exergy Analysis of Multi-Stage Desalination Plants. H. Schnakel. C. J. H. pp. (1994). A. Saeed. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 451 . no. La energía Libre Relativa. Buchel. Fuel Efficiencies. Andreu. 213-229. of Mechanical Engineering. Department of Mechanical Engineering. Vol. Use of Power Plant Turbine Reject Steam to Drive Desalination with Enhanced Heat Transfer Performance. F. McGraw-Hill. K. M. Trans. Ph. G. R. (1979). Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse. pp. Desalination 31. M. N. Las Ecuaciones Características de los Sistemas Térmicos. M. Serra. (1999). University of Zaragoza. Ph. pp. D. Thesis. L. R.

(1980). Spanish Desalination and Water Reuse Association (AEDyR) (1999). Engng. (1997). J.. (1989). (1999). San Diego. Balaban Desalination Publications. S. pp. C. Proceedings of the ECOS’99. C. Royo. A Method of Predicting the Performance of Steam Turbine Generators 16.. N. Szargut. 316.. Torres. M.. Applied Energy 32. New York.. Chemical Exergies of the Elements. 368-373. Ph. pp. B. University of Zaragoza. A. (1960).. Tribus. N. pp. (1974). L. General Electric Corp. C. USA. Spain.. Y. Thermodynamic and Economic Considerations in the Preparation of Fresh Water from the Sea. Vol. R. Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse. a Race for Lowering Power Consumption.. C. Madrid. N. 254. J. Exergoeconomía Simbólica. 59-34. Desalination Plant with Absorption Heat Pump for Power Station. Presented at the European Conference on Desalination and the Environment. Energy Vol. International Progress in Second Law Analysis. M. Stodola. Tadros. Vol. Lietzke. Tadros. Publication GER-2007C. Department of Engineering. K. (1999). V. N. Elliot. C. R. Cannon.. Steam and Gas Turbines. Stoughton. Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse. pp. Part I: On Malfunction and Dysfunction Analysis. (1965). J. Desalination in Spain. pp. K. 1.. Structural Theory and Thermoeconomic Diagnosis. Spain. Las Palmas. Metodología para el Análisis Termoeconómico de los Sistemas Energéticos. 452 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Medina.. Report no. A. R. Torres.. pp. M. Tokyo. Private Communication.. W. M. Cotton. Szargut.. References Slesarenko. Thesis. 281-286.. Chambers. Data 10. chem. Power and Seawater Distillation From Biomass and Refuse Fuels. Department of Mechanical Engineering. pp.500 kW and Larger. S. Asimow. Desalination 126. J. USA. (1999). J. 309-332 Torres. 5. A Desalination Primer. 709-718. Serra. University of California. Italy. C. McGraw Hill Company. Gustaldo. R. (1991). A. Evans.. Valero. Japan. (1994). ASME. 269- 286. Spiegler. Richardson. K. Spencer. (1927). IV. J. El-Sayed. D. H.

Spain. Tsatsaronis. Muñoz.. The Thermo-Economics of Sea Water Conversion. 37-38..org. Vol. Part II: Symbolic exergoeconomics. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 453 . M. WAM 1986. ASME Book H0341A. I. C. pp. Muñoz. L. A. Part I: A New General Methodology. ASME Book H0341A. 2-3. Nancy. Private communication. M. 10. pp. 81-94. A... AES-Vol 2-3. A. 81-87. B. G. Florence. Invited Papers of Exergoeconomics. Valero. R. G. Torres. ASME Book H0341A. University of California. 279. C. G. A. pp. M. Lozano. Winhold. 19. (1985b). 9-16. 10. ASME. A General Theory of Thermoeconomics: Part I: Structural Analysis. Valero. (1992). (1990). G. A General Theory of Exergy Saving. Lozano. Part II: On the Thermoeconomic Cost. (1986a). On Causality in Organized Energy Systems.. pp.netlib. Part II: Analysis of a Coal Fired Steam Power Plant. pp. 17-22. 393-401. Rome (ASME Book I00236). Exergoeconomic Analysis and Evaluation of Energy Conversion Plants. Valero. Tsatsaronis. M. (1963). Energy Vol. A Review of Exergoeconomic Methodologies.. (1985a). A. A. Serra. Part III: Energy Saving and Thermoeconomics. Energy Vol.References Tribus. International Symposium on Second Law Analysis of Thermal Systems. 1-8. (1987). AES-Vol 2-3. Exergoeconomic Analysis and Evaluation of Energy Conversion Plants. Recent Development in Energy Economics. USA. M. ASME Book I00331. 69-80. WAM 1986. M. (1998).. AES- Vol. 1985.. Italy. M. Web page: http://www. (1986b). M. pp. France.. Zaragoza. New York.. Torres. Tsatsaronis. pp. 62-53. A General Theory of Exergy Saving. Muñoz. University of Tennessee and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) (1999). Valero. pp. M. Lozano. International Symposium: A future for energy. A Collection of Mathematical Software. Part I: On the Exergetic Cost. A. A. Report no. Evans.. Tsatsaronis. pp. Department of Engineering. 1994 and 1995. Tsatsaronis. International Symposium ECOS’92.. Energy Vol. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ECSWA). Winhold. Valero. pp. A General Theory of Exergy Saving. 137-145. Proceedings of ECOS’98. G. WAM 1986. Pergamon Press. (1994). Netlib Repository. (1986c).

pp. Energy Vol. 189-198. A. pp.. no. Part III: Intrinsic and Induced Malfunctions. List of References. J. Lozano. Proceedings of the ECOS’99 Conference (ASME).. no. 13. Von Spakovsky. Private Communication. Ph. (1995). Energy Vol. M. ASME Book no. (1999). Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. 13. Cambridge University Press. Wangnick. Evans. ASME Journal of energy resources technology... Villalon. Torres.. Lozano. H00874. R. Published in Developments in the design of thermal systems (Boehm Editor). A Practical Generalized Analysis Approach to the Optimal Thermoeconomic Design and Improvement of Real-World Thermal Systems. 19. References Valero. D. Lerch. T. 35-41. Private Communication. (1994). B.. J. Valero. A. (1993). Thermodynamics and Optimization of Complex Energy Systems. Yata. M. VA Tech Wabag (1999). Valero. B. (1986). An Introduction of Thermoeconomics. Georgia Institute of Technology. JSME Vol. USA. (1999). International Symposium on Thermodynamics and the Design. Serra. (1979). Engineering Functional Analysis.. An Equation for Thermal Conductivity of Water and Steam... Handbook of Physical Properties of Liquids and Gases. R. Japan. R. Lozano. (1993).. Water and Electricity Department (WED) of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) (1997). 1998 IDA Worldwide Desalting Plants Inventory Report no. Vol. VB Automatic Help Author Version 1. On-Line Thermoeconomic Diagnosis of Thermal Power Plants. Valero.25. Structural Theory of Thermoeconomics. 454 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . 115.). Torres. L. eds. pp. (1978). M.. L. Von Spakovsky. M. C. A. Application of the Exergy Cost Theory to the CGAM problem. Klumer Academic Publishers (Bejan and Mamut eds. (1994). F. N. Thermal Desalination Plants and Reverse Osmosis Desalination. M. Von Spakovsky. L. no. New Orleans. C. Serra. A. Structural Theory and Thermoeconomic Diagnosis. Application of Engineering Functional Analysis to the Analysis and Optimization of the CGAM Problem. A. (1997). Analysis and Improvement of Energy Systems. 117-136. Thesis.. Tokyo. A. pp. pp. 22. C. Vargaftik. M. Serra. Part I. (1998). Valero. A. 203-233. Richter H. pp 365-381. R. 86-92. A. 171. Minamiyama. L. 15. K. Correas. pp. 1234-1242. 19.

References Yusufova. V. N. L. Ph. (1998). University of Zaragoza. Towards an Unified Measure of the Renewable Resources Availability: The Exergy Method Applied to the Water of a River. Thermophysical Properties of Softened Seawater and Salt Solutions Over a Wide Temperature and Pressure Range. Department of Mechanical Engineering... T. Tuayev. 1911-1917.. (1978). G. U. 269-280. Zaleta. Nicolayev. Zaleta. pp. Energy Conversion and Management 39.. D. A. 16-18. Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 455 . R. (1997). A.. Ranz. Zokhrabbekova. V. D. I. pp... Pepinov. Conceptos sobre el Diagnóstico y la Evaluación Termoecónomica de Turbinas de Vapor. Desalination 25. D. Valero. A. V. A. Thesis. Lobcova.

..............................13 Recycle brine flow as a function of the seawater temperature and production............................ 47 FIGURE 2...........2 Flow diagram of Multi-Effect Distillation (MED) with thermal vapor compression (TVC) 39 FIGURE 2..................6 Mixing and splitting points in the MSF desalination plant.10 Make-up feed water as a function of the distillate output ...............7 Solution algorithm of a MSF desalination plant model ............................................. 40 FIGURE 2....................................4 Flow diagram of a vapor compression system with vertical tube evaporators (VTE) ...... 75 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant ....................................... 73 FIGURE 3.2 Cross-section of a stage in a typical MSF plant ........15 Seawater to reject flow correlations for different seawater temperatures entering the MSF plant.. 54 FIGURE 3..............................7 Reverse osmosis (RO) desalination with Pelton turbine .................. 62 FIGURE 3................. 50 FIGURE 3................................. 44 FIGURE 2............................................3 MED process with vertical tube evaporators (VTE) .........3 Temperature profile of a recycle brine MSF plant ..........5 Diagram model of a solar still .......................12 Top brine temperature depending on the seawater temperature and distillate production...............................1 Schematic diagram of a single effect MSF evaporator with recycled brine .........................................................................................................11 Seawater to reject section as a function of the distillate output........................................... 58 FIGURE 3........ 63 FIGURE 3..................... 74 FIGURE 3............................... 73 FIGURE 3. Average data of 1997 ................................8 Correspondence between the Top Brine Temperature and distillate output...................................................................................................... 73 FIGURE 3.............................8 Electrodialysis process..........14 Make-up feed flow obtained for each range of seawater temperature when real data are computed......List of figures FIGURE 2..........6 Reverse osmosis process.......................... Data collected during the year 1997 ........ 56 FIGURE 3......... 68 FIGURE 3... 74 FIGURE 3................................................. 75 FIGURE 3.. 42 FIGURE 2................ 72 FIGURE 3......................................................................................................... 55 FIGURE 3.............. Data collected during the year 1997 ..........................................................4 A general stage in a MSF plant....................9 Brine recirculation as a function of the distillate output.....................5 Heat input section .......................... 37 FIGURE 2.............................. Real data collected in the MSF distillers during 1997.......1 General outlay of MSF distillation with brine recycling ............................................................................. 46 FIGURE 2............................................

................1...........5 Fuel / Product diagram and fuel and product exergy flows (kW) in design conditions for the co-generation plant shown in figure 6.................6 Fuel impact and technical saving ................. 126 FIGURE 6......4 Economic resources scheme ........................8 Analysis of the irreversibility causes (kW)......7 Malfunction and fuel impact .............................. Some flowstreams are renumbered with respect fig..........4 TTD differences in an HP heater ............ 130 FIGURE 6.............................................................. 78 FIGURE 4.1 Productive structure of the simple co-generation system ............................................................... 167 FIGURE 7.................................2 Schematic diagram of a turbine section ......................................................................... 88 FIGURE 4.......1 .................................................................................................................................. 170 458 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant ........................2 Productive structure of the cogeneration plant ......................8 Leakage flows and seals of a steam turbine ........................... 150 FIGURE 6........................................................................... 101 FIGURE 5.................................................... 82 FIGURE 4..............................4 F-P description in steam power plant..................1 Physical structure of the co-generation plant ...........................................3 Isoentropic and real expansion of the steam in a turbine section.....2 Physical structure of the power plant considered for the thermoeconomic model ................... 152 FIGURE 7.....................................1 SIMTAW MSF process window .. 145 FIGURE 6............................................................................ 140 FIGURE 6.10 Last stage of LP turbine acting as a compressor .... 84 FIGURE 4............5) when the plant operates in condensing mode ............9 Analysis of fuel impact (kW)...... 93 FIGURE 4...........................9 Algorithm to solve the power plant model using the Powell hybrid method ..........6 Changes applied to extraction mode productive structure (figure 7..................................................... 165 FIGURE 7............... Main significant flows are numbered for later descriptions and equations ...................... 103 FIGURE 6......................................................3 Physical structure of the MSF plant considered for the thermoeconomic analysis ...................................................................... 4................... 80 FIGURE 4...7 Gland and seal steam system ................................11 Power plant scheme in the NTW Model.................................................................................... 169 FIGURE 7......... 161 FIGURE 7................................................................................................................... 92 FIGURE 4......3 Generic component scheme .............................................. 89 FIGURE 4............6 Isoentropic and real compression process in a pump......................... 148 FIGURE 6..... List of figures FIGURE 4...................... 94 FIGURE 5....................................................5 TTD differences in an LP heater.........................5 Productive structure of the power plant in extraction mode .. 166 FIGURE 6..........................1 Schematic diagram of the power generation plant.......................... 81 FIGURE 4....... 142 FIGURE 6..................................................2 SIMTAW power plant window .......................................................................................................................... 88 FIGURE 4.................................................. 163 FIGURE 7................................

.......................35 Water cost when the fouling in three distillers is varied ................ 174 FIGURE 7....................................... 277 FIGURE 7........ 259 FIGURE 7...27 Impact on fuel analysis in section 7..................................................... 171 FIGURE 7.............. 235 FIGURE 7........................85 respectively.... Changes with respect to figure 7................................................... 280 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 459 ......................................4...3....28 Irreversibility increase in section 7.................... 246 FIGURE 7.........................32 Impact on fuel analysis without fouling in distillers ..................................... 172 FIGURE 7................... NTOS case ...................... 220 FIGURE 7...4 ........17 Unit distilled water cost when the isoentropic HPT4 efficiency is modified ..........55 and 2.......3.........21 Monetary cost of distillate when the fouling in heater is varied.............................................19 Irreversibility increase in the MSF with BH = 0........22 Impact on fuel analysis without fouling in RCS..13 Impact on fuel analysis when the efficiency of the HPT4 is decreased 10% ...... 249 FIGURE 7........ 235 FIGURE 7.......................................18 Impact on fuel analysis when the fouling in BH is neglected .......................................... 232 FIGURE 7........... Unit exergy cost of steam and electricity is 2..............31 Water cost under different degrees of inefficiency in five components .....10 F-P definition in the MSF unit..........2.....20 Impact on fuel analysis when the fouling in heater is varied ..............................................................15 Additional fuel consumption when varying the isoentropic efficiency in HPT4 ................................3................2...................3 ..... 264 FIGURE 7.............................................. 279 FIGURE 7........23 Irreversibility increase analysis of section 7..................... 246 FIGURE 7......11 Productive structure of the MSF unit................................................................... 259 FIGURE 7...................... 220 FIGURE 7.................... 232 FIGURE 7............9 Productive structure of the steam power plant in desalination or twin desalination mode 171 FIGURE 7.................... 274 FIGURE 7............30 Electricity cost with five inefficiencies in the power plant .. MCR case ......26 Cost in $ per cubic meter of water when recovery section fouling is varied................... 249 FIGURE 7....29 Additional fuel consumption due to inefficiencies in several components of the power plant ....8 Productive structure of the steam power plant in parallel and twin extraction mode......................................34 Impact on fuel due to several inefficiencies in the MSF plant................... 264 FIGURE 7..........2......25 Monetary cost of electricity depending on the fouling in recovery section .........7 Productive structure corresponding to extraction mode with low energy production in a dual-purpose plant... 250 FIGURE 7........................... 274 FIGURE 7.........................24 Impact on fuel depending on fouling in recovery section ..............14 Irreversibility increase analysis with the inefficiency in the HPT4........................... Changes with respect to figure 7.. 208 FIGURE 7..............33 Increase of irreversibility when fouling is neglected in MSF plant ....................................................5......... 178 FIGURE 7..........16 Unit electricity cost when the isoentropic HPT4 efficiency is modified ......................... 219 FIGURE 7...... 265 FIGURE 7....36 Malfunctions with an inefficiency of 5 ºC in the TTD of HPH1 heater under varying loads in the steam power plant .....................5 .........12 Physical model considered in the thermoeconomic analysis of the MSF plant .................................................. 170 FIGURE 7.... List of figures FIGURE 7. 208 FIGURE 7..........

....................8608) ..............6 Impact on fuel analysis when a inefficiency in F in detected ..................... List of figures FIGURE 7.......49 Evolution of the local variables that are TTD in heaters ..... 283 FIGURE 7.............. and distillate temperature at different loads at 32 ºC seawater ......................... 122 MW power plant production ......... 341 FIGURE A1...... 304 FIGURE 7...................................... 281 FIGURE 7.................................. 344 FIGURE A1.................. 281 FIGURE 7....................................................................................................44 Impact on fuel in the MSF plant when the fouling is neglected in the three distillers..41 Malfunctions provoked by the fouling reduction in heater at different loads.............. Three loads at 32 ºC seawater are included .............................. 284 FIGURE 7...924)...................................................... 315 FIGURE A1.......3 Impact on fuel associated with a variation in the TTD of HPH1...........4 Cost of electricity when varying TTD in HPH1 (MCR performance case)................................................37 Malfunctions generated when the FP is working with an isoentropic efficiency 12% lower than the expected under four different loads in the steam power plant ..... 354 460 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant ...................................... 341 FIGURE A1.... 282 FIGURE 7................................ 306 FIGURE 7...............................................................................52 Sensitivity analysis of the efficiency of the first section of the high-pressure turbine around the optimum point (η2 = 0...............46 Productive structure of the thermoeconomic model applied to the thermoeconomic optimization ...............43 Malfunctions generated in the MSF plant when the fouling in reject section is neglected for the two analyzed loads ..................................................................................................................................................... 305 FIGURE 7.......................48 Speed of convergence of the local variables that are efficiencies...........................45 Physical model applied to the thermoeconomic optimization ..... 309 FIGURE 7......................... 354 FIGURE A1...51 Sensitivity analysis of the energetic efficiency of the boiler around the optimum point (η1 = 0................................................. 309 FIGURE 7...... 284 FIGURE 7.......................38 Malfunctions generated by an inefficiency of 5% in the isoentropic efficiency of the HPT1 under varying loads in the steam power plant................................................................................ 305 FIGURE 7............................ 297 FIGURE 7... 343 FIGURE A1..............2 Irreversibility analysis when the TTD in HPH1 is increased 5 ºC .....53 Exergy cost of water (k* of steam and electricity entering the MSF is the unity)...... 343 FIGURE A1..47 Optimization algorithm to find the minimum cost of the plant using local optimization......50 Minimization of the global cost of the system ............................................................................. 297 FIGURE 7.......42 Malfunctions generated in the MSF plant at different loads with no fouling in the recovery section .................7 Irreversibility analysis with the irreversibility in FP ...........................5 Cost of water when varying TTD in the first HPH (MCR performance case) ................................... 282 FIGURE 7....................1 Impact on fuel analysis with an inefficiency in HPH1 .39 Malfunctions generated in the fourth section of the HPT under a 10% decrease in its isoentropic efficiency ....................................40 Malfunctions in LPT1 under varying loads in the steam power plant and a 15% decrease in isoentropic efficiency ...... 283 FIGURE 7.......

................................................ 356 FIGURE A1.........................8 Effect of feed pump efficiency on fuel consumption.................................... List of figures FIGURE A1.................... 1................19 Cost of electricity for inefficiencies in LPT1 (MCR case) .................... 379 FIGURE A1... 122 MW in extraction mode (MCR case) .................. Nominal-temperature operation in summer (NTOS.............. 404 FIGURE A1.............5 .........................................................6 .. 369 FIGURE A1.......................................................................... 1........13 Model linearity with respect to an inefficiency in HPT1 ......................................................................15 Cost of water when the isoentropic efficiency is varied from –5% to 5% with respect to design efficiency (MCR case) ..........4 .................... 381 FIGURE A1.... i........5 ... 387 FIGURE A1.. 356 FIGURE A1.................................................................. 407 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 461 ...........16 Impact on fuel analysis. 381 FIGURE A1....................... 387 FIGURE A1................18 Effect on the fuel consumption when the degree of inefficiency in the LPT is varied from the design point (MCR case) ...............21 Impact on fuel analysis in section A1............................................ Variational study in the MCR performance case ...........6 .................................23 Effect on fuel consumption when the fouling in recovery section is gradually decreased.e... 368 FIGURE A1............................................................................. 366 FIGURE A1...17 Irreversibility analysis in section A1.....9 Effect of pump inefficiency on electricity cost (MCR performance case) ................................11 Impact on fuel analysis when the HPT1 efficiency is 5% less than the expected ...................... 393 FIGURE A1......................................................900 T/h and 32 ºC seawater temperature) ......12 Irreversibility analysis with the inefficiency in HPT1 .....25 Impact on fuel analysis.................. 380 FIGURE A1.................................... 404 FIGURE A1.................22 Irreversibility increase in section A1.... section A1......24 Cost of a cubic meter of water depending on the fouling in the recovery section ...........27 Effect on fuel consumption when the fouling in reject is varied.................................. 406 FIGURE A1.20 Water cost per cubic meter for inefficiencies in LPT1....... 366 FIGURE A1.........28 Variation of the water cost when fouling in the reject section is decreased from the design value to zero ..........900 T/h and 32º C seawater ....... section A1.....................................................................14 Cost of electricity depending on the degree of inefficiency applied to HPT1 (MCR case) 368 FIGURE A1....................................4 .....................10 Water cost when the efficiency of the feed pump is varied...........26 Increase of irreversibility in section A1..................................................... 393 FIGURE A1........... 355 FIGURE A1............. 379 FIGURE A1..

............ 1999).................... 26 TABLE 1.. 83 TABLE 4.......6 Values of the a coefficient for each pipe of the power model ............. 85 TABLE 4..... 1999)...... 29 TABLE 3.D........ 1998)..3 Total installed capacity and production in the seawater desalination plant of the Gulf Area in year 1994 (Alawadi..................... 22 TABLE 1................. 21 TABLE 1................ 1999) ......... and z coefficient values for the inlet TTD’s in an HP heater ............ 1999...............11 Desalinated water in Spain during the year 1998 (Torres and Medina. Al-Gobaisi.........E.....3 Typical x.......5 x...... 1999. 1999) ........1 Typical x.......... 84 TABLE 4..........4 Contracted capacity of freshwater production from seawater and all waters with the existing process................ 1994).........List of tables TABLE 1...... 87 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant . Data collected in 1990 for Algeria and Tunisia.. in 1995 (Gleick..... 23 TABLE 1................... and b coefficient values for the outlet TTD’s in an HP heater ..........S............... for Egypt and Morocco data from 1992 (Al-Gobaisi. 1999.. 1997.......................... y.12 Some of the RO desalination plants installed in Spain (Cadagua... y........ and z coefficient values for the inlet TTD’s in an LP heater ................13 Specific consumption of the thermal desalination processes........ and c coefficient values in deaerator...... The total capacity is 12..... 21 TABLE 1................ 28 TABLE 1..................2 Typical x......... 76 TABLE 4............. 25 TABLE 1.. 1999) .6 Water use trends in the Pacific region (Goto et al..4 Typical x.. 25 TABLE 1.. a......... 1999) ............................. Data obtained from several sources (Fisia-Italimpianti... y... y...... Data from 1998 (Goto et al... z............. b. a.. 1999. z.......................................... 23 TABLE 1.......... AECYR...............................7 Desalination installations in the Pacific region..................... Fayas and Novoa...5 Natural resources in the pacific region in the year 1998 (Goto et al...... a... 83 TABLE 4....... 24 TABLE 1.................. respectively..... 84 TABLE 4........... Sánchez et al..9 Water withdrawal in North African countries...... z. 1999) .2 Water demand for the Gulf Countries in 1990 (ESCWA....8 Water disposal in the African region in 1995....... y.. 1999).......... 1999).......... Torres et al...... Data collected in 1996 (Alawadhi................ 1997......1 Ground water disposal and renewable water resources in the Gulf Countries in 1994 (Alawadhi........... 24 TABLE 1.........8 million cubic meters per day and 21 million cubic meters per day.. 27 TABLE 1............................10 Water use in the U...1 Fouling factors of the heat reject section in MSF Plants .. 1997) ............ I......... and b coefficient values for the outlet TTD’s in a LP heater.........

............4 Model validation for the MR case ........................................................................................................................ 114 TABLE 5........................................................................................................... 115 TABLE 5..........................19 Main input data of the VWO performance case (maximum capacity of the steam turbine with and extraction heat flow of 170 Gcal/h to MSF) ........... 106 TABLE 5........................................... 109 TABLE 5................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................14 MSL4 performance case..10 Model validation for the MSL2 performance case ............................................1 Input variables for the MCR (maximum continous rating......... producing both electricity and water) case.............................................8 Model validation for the PL85 performance case.................... producing only electricity) performance case ......................................................................................... 108 TABLE 5............. 113 TABLE 5....................................................................................................... 110 TABLE 5............................................ 108 TABLE 5..21 Input data of the COC performance case (boiler peak load at least 5% more than the MCR case) .............12 Model validation for the MSL3 performance case .................................................................... 107 TABLE 5. 106 TABLE 5................ 110 TABLE 5........... 89 TABLE 4...........................13 Input data of the MSL4 performance case (minimum stable load with the maximum heat flow extraction to MSF unit: 170 Gcal/h) ........22 Model validation data for the COC case....... 116 464 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant ... Main input data ..... 107 TABLE 5................................... 111 TABLE 5............... 114 TABLE 5..................................... 113 TABLE 5...... 112 TABLE 5..........................3 Input variables for the MR (maximum rating..... 111 TABLE 5............................9 MSL2 performance case (minimum stable load with 45 MW of electricity and a combined heat extraction flow of 145 Gcal/h)..................2 Model validation for the MCR case...................................17 Main input data of the TDOB case (two desalination-one boiler)......... 116 TABLE 5...................... 115 TABLE 5.................................................. Model validation....6 Model validation for the PL115 performance data case ............................................... List of tables TABLE 4..............................16 Model validation of the ODOB case.......18 Model validation data for the TDOB case ........................................ 112 TABLE 5.......... 109 TABLE 5....7 Input variables for the PL85 performance case (partial load with 85 MW of electricity and 145 Gcal/h of extraction heat flow) ......................5 Input variables for the PL115 performance case (partial load with 115 MW of electricity and a heat extraction to MSF of 145 Gcal/h) ..............7 Kd and Kd’ constants of the gland and seal steam system ...... 96 TABLE 5..........20 Model validation data for the VWO case .................................................8 Operating mode and mathematical model corresponding to the performance data cases ..............................15 Main input data of the ODOB case (one desalination-one boiler) ..11 Input data of the MSL3 performance case (minimum stable load with two extractions of 150 and 145 Gcal/h to MSF units) ....................

..................................... 179 TABLE 7........................................... Note that component no.........8 Malfunction and dysfunction table in (kW) . 121 TABLE 5...................................... 165 TABLE 7.. 119 TABLE 5..............................................................................5 Fuel/Product definition corresponding to figure 6.............3 Characteristic equations of the cogeneration plant........................................28 Model validation.... 184 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 465 .............................. 122 TABLE 5... 120 TABLE 5.................................3....................................................................... 131 TABLE 6.1 Fuel and product definitions for typical dual-purpose power and desalination plant units ............................26 Model validation of the HTOS performance case ....5 Exergy flows and characteristic equations of components in the steam power plant (extraction mode)...........................2 Results of the simple co-generation system model.....................23 Input data and performance parameters of the NTOS case (normal-temperature operation in summer).....................................................27 Some input data and performance parameters of the LTOS case (low-temperature operation in summer)... 152 TABLE 7............................ 122 TABLE 6........................................................ 162 TABLE 7......29 Some input data and performance parameters of the HTOW case (high-temperature operation in winter) ............... characteristic equation and exergy cost balance in the simple co-generation system .......... 120 TABLE 5............. (100 ∆κij) ........6 Exergy flows and characteristic equations for the components of the MSF plant .......7 Irreversibility matrix and unit cost of product..... 164 TABLE 7.....30 Model validation of HTOW case of the MSF plant .................. 121 TABLE 5............................. LTOS performance case in MSF distillers............................................ 119 TABLE 5.................................4 Design and operation exergy flow values of the cogeneration plant (figure 6......24 Model validation of the NTOS performance case ..........................................................................1) ............ 182 TABLE 7......................... 144 TABLE 6..........................25 Input data and performance parameters of the HTOS case (high-temperature operation in summer)................................................................................................ 162 TABLE 7........................................................................ 1 is not described in physical model but is included in other schemes ..........................................4 Components description from figure 7....... product.......... 129 TABLE 6...........................................11) . List of tables TABLE 5........................................................................................................5 ....................................................3 Description of components appearing in figure 7........................... 146 TABLE 6......... 132 TABLE 6.................................. MCR case......2 Fuels and Products of the components of the co-generation plant ..8 System of equations providing the exergy costs of the MSF plant (figure 7.............................2 ............ 176 TABLE 7...................................6 Increase of unit consumption.................. 146 TABLE 6...... 151 TABLE 6....................................1 Fuel..................7 System of equations providing the exergy cost of the steam power plant (extraction mode).............................................

........................................ 210 TABLE 7.. m................. 216 TABLE 7..... 32 ºC seawater ... 188 TABLE 7.............20 Price breakdown per section in a dual-purpose plant ................31 F-P values (design) for the MSF plant.... MSF unit is considered a component.......13 Isoentropic efficiencies of pumps and turbine sections of the power plant .............................. List of tables TABLE 7.. t.21 Thermoeconomic costs of distilled water and electricity of the analyzed dual-purpose plant................... Note: The efficiency of the boiler is not included in the final efficiency.............14 Product and fuel (kW).. s..........................24 F-P values with inefficiency in HPT4 (10% lower efficiency) .................................................. and electricity cost of is also expressed in $/kW·h (c*GEN*) ....19 Cost equations proposed by Lozano et al........................... is varied) . 186 TABLE 7.......................................32 F-P values without fouling in heater............ 194 TABLE 7...... CBS: Cleaning Ball System was used) ......22 Thermoeconomic cost of electricity ($/kW·h) and water ($/m 3) for the cases studied in the exergetic cost analysis ... inlet............. kW) in the different components of the dual plant................ 193 TABLE 7.28 Irreversibility matrix I with an inefficiency in HPT4 ...................... Ti R... S negentropy................................................................ Units: ca k$/ft2.10 Exergy (kW fuel/kW product) unit costs k* of most significant flows of the dual plant .. ∆T F. dP psi........... 185 TABLE 7... Pi.......... (1996)........... output power of 122 MW ..................... Pe psia.......23 F-P diagram in design..... 197 TABLE 7.. tube.. 195 TABLE 7............................................30 Malfunction matrix with inefficiency in HPT4 (1% isoentropic eff............. Nominal production in summer.............. ..11 Exergoeconomic (monetary) unit costs ($/GJ) of most significant flows of a dual power and desalination plant...........27 Variation de KP with inefficiency in HPT4.................................................. 194 TABLE 7................29 Dysfunction/malfunction matrix with inefficiency in HPT4 (10% isoentropic eff.. 190 TABLE 7. Nominal production.... exit.................. 1996)........... 211 TABLE 7......... and exergy efficiency (%) values for the power and MS plants................) ....... M lb/s...... η exergetic efficiency.... e eficiency of the condenser (= T0 (s2 – s1)/(h2 – h1)) ........................25 KP matrix in design (122 MW) ............12 Irreversibilities (exergy destruction... 197 TABLE 7...................... 187 TABLE 7. 196 TABLE 7..............17 Component parameters in Boehm (1987) equations....................... Gc: Natural gas consumed..... B exergy flow of product............................................ 191 TABLE 7......................... Cost of water c*D is expressed in $/m3......... 212 TABLE 7....... 213 TABLE 7............... 189 TABLE 7........ mean (LTMD) .................... vw velocity of tubes . 215 TABLE 7.......... 214 TABLE 7.... 222 TABLE 7................................ Subscripts: i..............26 KP matrix with inefficiency in HPT4 (10%) .......... shell...... A ft2.18 Costing equations proposed by Frangopoulos (1991) ........ Q kW.........15 Unit exergy costs k* (kW/kW) of component products in the steam power plant coupled with a MSF unit................................. 223 466 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant ......... 209 TABLE 7....................................................... ∆P..... W power.................... e = η/1– η.......................16 Costing equation parameters for an MSF and power plant (El-Sayed... e.....9 Case studies of the exergy cost analysis (PTC: Performance Test Case of the dual plant...........

....................................................................................37 Malfunction/dysfunction matrix without fouling in heater..................... recovery and reject section....... 228 TABLE 7........... 269 TABLE 7.................... corresponding to the inefficiency associated with each component ......... 1.52 Irreversibility matrix with five inefficiencies in power plant (MCR case ......................................44 Irreversibility matrix without fouling in recovery section (MCR case) ... 267 TABLE 7. 242 TABLE 7........................... 263 TABLE 7............................ 239 TABLE 7..................48 F-P values with inefficiencies in five components (MCR case) .. 268 TABLE 7..................39 F-P values in design......................... 262 TABLE 7.......... 225 TABLE 7........900 T/h and 32 ºC seawater temp ........................... 241 TABLE 7................... The first five columns are individual inefficiencies.... 226 TABLE 7..........53 Malfunction/dysfunction matrix with five inefficiencies in MCR case ............35 Variation of the KP matrix without fouling in heater.................................................................... 238 TABLE 7. 122 MW output power ................ 243 TABLE 7..............54 Comparison of individual inefficiencies and combined inefficiencies in the power plant. 227 TABLE 7.... 240 TABLE 7........................................47 F-P values in design..................................................... 255 TABLE 7........... MCR case ...... NTOS case ............50 KP matrix with several inefficiencies in MCR case ...................57 F-P values in design.......................................................56 The first column represents the X-axis in charts......... NTOS case ............42 KP matrix without fouling in recovery section............38 Malfunction matrix varying fouling in heater 0. MCR case ........51 Variation of KP matrix with several inefficiencies in MCR case .. 261 TABLE 7....46 Malfunction matrix when the fouling in recovery is varied 0.. 256 TABLE 7.....................................................................................................................33 KP matrix in design ................ 258 TABLE 7.................................................... List of tables TABLE 7.......................... MCR case ........40 F-P values without fouling in recovery section.................. 122 MW load ............ 253 TABLE 7.............................. 229 TABLE 7.................... the sixth is the sum of the five inefficiencies and the seventh is the malfunctions generated with the five combined inefficiencies.......55 Intrinsic and induced malfunctions (MF) and impact on fuel (MF*) of the power plant...58 F-P values without fouling in heater.... NTOS case .................................... 122 MW output power ... 270 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 467 .. 254 TABLE 7.................................34 KP matrix without fouling in heater.......................................................................00001 m 2 K/W in MCR case ..........36 Irreversibility matrix without fouling in heater............00001 m 2 K/W in NTOS case ................................45 Malfunction/dysfunction matrix without fouling in recovery section (MCR case) .....................................59 KP matrix in design (NTOS case) ........ nominal production with 32 ºC seawater ....... 257 TABLE 7..... MCR case ............. MCR conditions ...43 Variation of KP without fouling in recovery section..... 224 TABLE 7................ 245 TABLE 7. 244 TABLE 7.......... NTOS data case .....................49 KP matrix in design (MCR Case) ...60 KP matrix with three inefficiencies in distillers (NTOS case) ..... 252 TABLE 7..........41 KP matrix in design.................

277 TABLE 7................................................. List of tables TABLE 7...... The superscript (´) is extraction mass flow rate.. NTOS case .......76 Intrinsic and induced malfunctions at 60 MW .........................71 Impact on fuel associated with the inefficiencies in the MSF plant (coupled with the power plant) ..............................62 Irreversibility matrix with three inefficiencies in distillers.....77 Intrinsic and induced malfunctions at 1.. 287 TABLE 7................................................ the fourth is the sum of the three inefficiencies and the fifth is the malfunctions generated with the three combined inefficiencies...................................................................................81 Values of parameter a in the capital cost equation of a heater ......................70 Additional cost associated with the inefficiencies in the MSF plant (isolated from the power plant).......... .....69 Impact on fuel associated with the inefficiencies in the MSF plant (isolated from the power plant).............................................................78 Intrinsic and induced malfunctions at 2.. 273 TABLE 7....80 Equations of the thermoeconomic model applied in the local optimization.......61 Variation of KP when the fouling in distillers is zero (NTOS case)...................... 286 TABLE 7..... Nominal production with 32 ºC seawater (NTOS case) .................................................................. 295 TABLE 7........................................... 278 TABLE 7........400 T/h ......... MF*) under nominal production (32 ºC seawater temperature)........... 306 468 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant ..............79 Resources and products in the productive structure of the thermoeconomic model............................. 286 TABLE 7................................83 Main physical variables after the optimization process.........900 T/h ........................... The first three columns are individual inefficiencies................................64 Correspondence between the X-label and fouling .............. 272 TABLE 7............................66 Intrinsic (MFl) and induced (MFg) malfunctions of the MSF plant and their costs (impact on fuel............... 285 TABLE 7.................................. 298 TABLE 7........................ D is the distilled water mass flow (2000 T/h) and b w is the exergy of water leaving the MSF plant (7 kJ/kg·K)................ 290 TABLE 7..... 32 ºC Seawater (NTOS case).............. 292 TABLE 7......... .....................................................75 Intrinsic and induced malfunctions at 90 MW ................................................................82 Results of the local variables in the optimization process ....65 Comparison between the sum of individual inefficiencies and three combined inefficiencies in the MSF unit......................... 299 TABLE 7...............67 Impact on fuel associated with the inefficiencies in the power plant in extraction mode (MCR case) . 276 TABLE 7..............................72 Additional cost associated with the inefficiencies in the MSF plant (coupled with the power plant) ......................................74 Intrinsic and induced malfunctions at 140 MW .......... 287 TABLE 7........................................68 Cost variation associated with the inefficiencies in the power plant in co-generation mode (MCR) ...................... 32 ºC Seawater.......... 293 TABLE 7............................ 291 TABLE 7........................................... mdes is the steam flow to MSF unit (89....................................... 303 TABLE 7...7 kg/s)................... 304 TABLE 7.... 271 TABLE 7..............................................................................63 Malfunction/dysfunction matrix when fouling in distillers is zero (NTOS case)...... 294 TABLE 7............................................................................ 287 TABLE 7.73 Intrinsic and induced malfunctions at 122 MW ..................................

........................................ 333 TABLE A1............................................. 312 TABLE 7.............................. 348 TABLE A1................................................................................ c is the cost (10 –6 $/kJ)........... 351 TABLE A1................ 338 TABLE A1............ 340 TABLE A1..........................................6 Irreversibility matrix with the inefficiency in HPH1 ..........45........................................................................23 Dysfunction/malfunction table when the efficiency of the HPT1 is decreased 5% ....18 F-P values when the HPT1 decreases 5% its efficiency (MCR case) ..................... 334 TABLE A1.................................................................................... List of tables TABLE 7........................ 336 TABLE A1.............................. 362 TABLE A1.........86 Price for water and electricity depending on the policy applied ..........................11 KP matrix in design (MCR case) ..............3 KP matrix in design (MCR case) ...2 F-P values in operation with 5 ºC TTD respect to design ......................................................................5 Variation of KP matrix when TTD in the HPH1 is 5 ºC higher than the expected ............................................. applied to two different power and water demands .....16 Malfunction matrix when the efficiency of the FP varies 1% ..........................................12 KP matrix when the inefficiency in FP is detected .... with a fuel cost cf of 2×10–6 $/kJ and includes the capital cost factor kZ (kZ = ϕ·Z/P).................... 361 TABLE A1........... 349 TABLE A1...................... 311 TABLE 7...... Exergy flows are described in figure 7............. 312 TABLE A1...................................................................................... 360 TABLE A1.... 359 TABLE A1. 358 TABLE A1..................... 346 TABLE A1...... 337 TABLE A1................................................ 335 TABLE A1....................................................... 350 TABLE A1...... 307 TABLE 7...... 339 TABLE A1..22 Irreversibility matrix with the inefficiency in HPT1 (MCR case) .........1 F-P values in design (MCR case) ...........8 Malfunction matrix when TTD in HPH1 is varied 1 ºC .............................19 KP matrix in design (MCR case) ....... 347 TABLE A1.............................................................17 F-P values without any inefficiency......................84 Results for the optimization of the dual-purpose plant in the MCR performance case.........7 Malfunction/Dysfunction matrix when the TTD in HPH1 is 5 ºC higher....................85 Different configurations in a dual power plant with 6 co-generation units..............................20 KP matrix when the inefficiency in HPT1 is 5% in its efficiency ............................ 364 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 469 ............................... 363 TABLE A1..10 F-P values with inefficiency in FP: –12% in its efficiciency ........15 Dysfunction table and malfunction array when the FP is working with 12% lower efficiency .9 F-P design values ................................. 353 TABLE A1............................. MCR case .........14 Irreversibility matrix with –12% in the FP efficiency ..... 352 TABLE A1.13 Variation of the KP matrix when the FP is working improperly...............................21 Variation of the KP with the inefficiency in HPT1 (MCR case) .....87 Benefit obtained in the two examples with five different price policies see previous table) ............................. Z (106 $) is the capital cost of the component..............................4 KP matrix with inefficiency in HPH1 (MCR case) ...................

..41 F-P values in design........ NTOS case .....29 Variation of the KP matrix with an inefficiency in LPT1........ 377 TABLE A1.................................... MCR case ........................... 394 TABLE A1... 371 TABLE A1..... 374 TABLE A1..................... 403 TABLE A1..................................30 Irreversibility matrix with the efficiency of the LPT1 decreased 15%..... 400 TABLE A1...........................................................................33 F-P values in design...............................................47 Dysfunction/malfunction table when the fouling in RJS = 0 .. NTOS case ........... 372 TABLE A1........................................... MCR case ................................................................................... 383 TABLE A1.......... 378 TABLE A1.............. Morris........................40 Malfunction matrix when the fouling in RCS is varied 0.. 373 TABLE A1........ NTOS case ... MCR case ... 402 TABLE A1......................46 Irreversibility matrix corresponding to reject fouling in RJS...........36 KP matrix with an inefficiency in RCS.............. MCR case ......................39 Dysfunction/malfunction table without fouling in RCS........................ 398 TABLE A1....................................42 F-P values when the fouling in RJS = 0.................................................48 Malfunction matrix when the fouling in RJS is varied 0..................... 376 TABLE A1.... 408 TABLE A2..32 Malfunction matrix when the efficiency of the LPT1 is varied 1%.....................37 Variation of the KP matrix when the fouling in RCS is neglected ................. MCR case . NTOS case .............. 390 TABLE A1........... 384 TABLE A1..............27 KP matrix in design..........45 Variation of the KP matrix when the inefficiency in RJS is detected ...................00001 m 2 K/W ............. 385 TABLE A1.............. 391 TABLE A1....... MCR case .............. MCR case . 386 TABLE A1........................... List of tables TABLE A1..................................... 1986).................. NTOS case ................ 389 TABLE A1..... 413 470 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant ..... NTOS case ......................24 Malfunction matrix when the efficiency of the HPT1 is varied 1% .. 1989...... NTOS case .....43 KP matrix in design................. NTOS case ....................... 365 TABLE A1..............31 Dysfunction/malfunction table for an inefficiency in the LPT1 (15%)... and Szargut........ 375 TABLE A1................... 397 TABLE A1............................26 F-P values with the inefficiency in LPT1.......35 KP matrix in design................. 399 TABLE A1......... NTOS case ........ NTOS case ...............................................................28 KP matrix when the efficiency in the LPT1 is decreased 15%.....38 Irreversibility matrix without fouling in RCS .................................................................00001 m 2 K/W .....................44 KP matrix with the inefficiency in RJS...............1 Liquid phase composition of Reference Ambient (Szargut...... 401 TABLE A1.25 F-P values in design (MCR case) ...................34 F-P values with fouling in RCS=0......

....................4 Desalination and energy ..................................................4 Summary ........2 Electrodialysis (ED) ................................ 36 2......................... 45 2.................. 15 CHAPTER 1....................... Introduction ...... 41 2......................................1...................................... 26 1..................................3 North Africa ........................Índex Resumen ................................ 43 2...................... 32 1............. Thesis development ..............5 Mediterranean area and Europe .........................................................3.....................5 Freezing process ....................................................................... 45 2...................1 Gulf Region ..................................................................................................................................... 49 2.................................................................................................1 Multi-stage flash process (MSF) ...............................................3 Vapor compression (VC) ................................................................................................................... 19 1....................................................................3........ 51 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant ................................................. 11 Abstract .................................. D..........3 World water resources and demand .............................. 25 1.....1........................................... 36 2....................................................................3 Processes acting on chemical bounds ................................. 33 CHAPTER 2..... 29 1....4 Solar distillation ....................................................................... 49 2................................ 35 2............................................................................................................. 44 2.......4 US experience and the Caribbean Islands ................................1......................3...2............................... 30 1.............................................1.............. 38 2....................................................................................7 Ph....................................2 Water quality and uses ......................... 23 1............................................................................................ 18 1.....................2 Processes using membranes ............2 Pacific Region and India .....................................3.............................................. 19 1.......1 Ion exchange ...................................................1 Phase change processes: distillation and freezing ................................................... 17 1................................................6 Thermoeconomic analysis ..........................1 Reverse osmosis ....................................................2........................ 49 2..................5 Why a MSF and power plant? .................................1 Water requirements .....................................................................3.........................................................................................................................................3......................................................................................................................................................... 18 1......2 Multi-effect distillation (MED) ........................................................... Desalination processes ..... 27 1.........................................................................................1.....................................................

......... Índex CHAPTER 3................................................................. 62 3............. 86 4.................................7........ 85 4...6.......................7................................................ 57 3.....................................................2.......................... 71 3.......................................................................................................................................... 68 3.................. 70 3... 78 4............................................ 90 472 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant ................. 67 3.....................8 Pipes ..............4 Solution algorithm ........................................................... 58 3.......... 64 3....3.7 Summary .......................................................................................................................................................................................................1 Fouling effect ........................................................................... MSF desalination steady-state model ........1 Thermodynamic properties ..........2....... 80 4.................... 67 3...........................10 Gland and seal steam system ....................................................................................................2................2...................................................... 71 3.................................................................2 Boiler outlet stop valve ................1 Density .....................................................2 Mathematical model ..........6 Vapor pressure .................... 53 3.................................................................................... 86 4.4 Heat capacity .....................3.......2 Mathematical model of MSF unit ............................................ 80 4............................................................................ 85 4............... 77 4................. 86 4....................................................3 Auxiliary equations ........3.......................................... 63 3........6 Initial data and simulation ...2 HP heat exchangers .....................................................................1 Stage model ......................2...................................... 90 4....................................... 89 4.............. 75 3..............................2.....3 Thermal conductivity ........................................2.......................................3 Mixer and splitter model ..........................................7 Boiling point elevation ............1 Model description ....................................................................................... 84 4........................3................2............................................... 76 CHAPTER 4.........................................1 Steam turbines .......2..............................3..............................................................5 Condenser ........................................................................3 Boiler inlet control valve .................................................................... 90 4...... 64 3.......4 Deaerator ....................................1 Process description ..................9 Demister and other losses ......... 83 4........................................................... 65 3.............2 Brine Heater Model ................................................................................................. 66 3..............................5 Simulation cases ...................3 Auxiliary equations .....................................................................................7 Valves ..............5.....................1 Turbine control valves ....... 54 3......................................................................................................................................................3........ 86 4............................................ 65 3.............................................................................3................................................................ 67 3................................................5.....................2.....................................................................................3.................................................................3..............................5 Enthalpy ............................................ 72 3...2.......................................................................2.......................................................................................................................................... 65 3................ 82 4.................................2.....3 LP heat exchangers ........2 Inverse problem ....................................3.................................................................. 87 4....................................................................................................................2............................................................................................................................................9 Pumps ......8 Non-equilibrium allowance .........6 Boiler ....................................................2..2....3...................1 TBT control ................................................................................................. Steam power plant steady-state model .............................................................................................................................................. 86 4................2 Viscosity ....................................11 Generator ................................................ 88 4........................................2 Transport properties ...............................2........................................7......................... 64 3......................

..............................2.....4 HTOW case ...2 MSF Plant ....2..............................................................................................2........................................................................................2 Model validation .................... 104 5...............................2......................................... 113 5... 123 6.............................................1....... 130 6................................................................2............................ 108 5............ 117 5...............................................................2 HTOS case ...............2...........................3 Physical and thermoeconomic plant models ...............1.........................................................6 Summary ....................................3 LTOS case .............2.............................................................................................. 90 4.....................1 MCR case .........................8 ODOB case ...................................2............................2..........................................1 The concept of cost ..................................2............ Simulator ....................1.......................................................... Índex 4...... product and unit exergetic consumption .. 109 5.........1.............................2.......................................1....................................... 145 6....................................................................................3......2 Calculating thermoeconomic costs ........... 92 4....................................... 104 5...................................3.... 120 5...........................................................................................2 Fuel........................ 99 5................1 NTOS case ...............1........................................10 VWO case ......................................2......................... 142 6.................4 PL85 case ........................................................ 110 5................ Fundamentals..................................3 PL115 case .......3..2......................................... 114 5..................... 116 5..1................................................................ applications of thermoeconomic diagnosis and optimization of complex energy systems ..7 MSL4 case ....................... 106 5..1......4 Intrinsic and induced malfunctions ...........2..2............9 TDOB case ........1 Basic concepts ......................................................6 MSL3 case ..............................................................................................2........................................................1 Operation thermoeconomic diagnosis ................2.......3 Malfunction and dysfunction analysis .........2 Thermoeconomic optimization .......................... 107 5............................................................ 112 5......................1 SIMTAW structure ........................................2............3.....1...........................................................................................................................2 MR case ..........1................................................................................................................................2...... 96 CHAPTER 5.......................... 140 6................................................1.1.............................. Thermoeconomics.........................................................................................2.. 115 5................................................................................................5 MSL2 case ............1 Technical exergy saving ..................................2............ 143 6................... 100 5............. 155 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 473 ......................................11 COC case ............................................... 122 CHAPTER 6.... 143 6.......... 121 5.2.. 119 5.............................................................. 111 5...1......1............................................ 153 6........1..........2 Economic resources and thermoeconomic costs .......3................. 148 6............................................................................................................1.............2.. 136 6............... 126 6.......................1 Power plant ..................3............................1 Marginal and average thermoeconomic costs .......1..........................................................1....4 Solution algorithm ........... 127 6............................................................................ 144 6....................5 Operating modes and mathematical models .........................3 Thermoeconomic applications to thermoeconomic operation diagnosis and the optimization of complex energy systems ..................2 Impact on resources consumption ................................... 126 6.................................

....6.....2...................... 166 7.............. 162 7....3........................................................ 205 7..3..3.2 Exergy cost analysis .............................. 192 7..1........... price and benefit .............1 Exergy costs allocation .............1.........1...3........... 251 7........................ 161 7.................. 203 7...5 Cost allocation: Indirect methods ........................ 198 7.. 197 7......................................................................................1 Case study ....................................3 Thermoeconomic costs ............................ 288 7.... 181 7..................................................................4..2 Physical structure ...............................................................1 Steam power plant ................. 285 7...............................................2.........4 Thermoeconomic cost analysis .................4 Thermoeconomic optimization ....................................3 The effect of recovery section fouling on steam power plant behavior .........................2 Analysis of individual inefficiencies .1 Analysis of several simultaneous inefficiencies in the steam power plant .................................. 197 7............................1............................5 Summary of applying thermoeconomic diagnosis to power and desalination plants .....4.............2...............2 Capital costs ... 251 7........................2........ 200 7..4............ 316 474 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant ........... 185 7................................3...............................................3...........3....2 Analysis of several inefficiencies in the MSF plant ...............2......................... 265 7............... 236 7.................................................3....4 Thermoeconomic diagnosis and load influence in the dual plant .................................. Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant .......................................................................5 Local and global variables ............3.........3..........................................6............................................... 299 7...............................................................................2................................................3...................................................................1...........3......... 313 7.........3 Physical model ................6 Conclusions and operation recommendations ....2 Conclusions and operation recommendations ................................................... 279 7........4......................................6.............2 Effect of MSF unit inefficiencies under different loads .........................5. 221 7........ 288 7....................................2........... 161 7...............3...5................................4............2.....1 Results ............................................1 Introduction .....1 Thermoeconomic model ................................................................... 175 7....... 198 7.. 296 7...........7 Local optimization results .........4..3 Analysis of several inefficiencies .................................... 159 7..1 Effect of inefficiencies in the power plant for different loads ...................4.....2 Cost analysis ................................................3......6 Local optimization of subsystems .....................................................................2.......... 280 7..................................................................................................... 283 7.................................................................................2 MSF unit ......................2.............. 313 7......................... 202 7...5......................................2 Fuel cost of water in dual plants ............................2........................................................................................3.....2 Using the cleaning ball system in the brine heater .............................1 Inefficiency in the fourth section of the high-pressure turbine ....................... 205 7......... 311 7...3 Productive structure ...... 309 7.. 303 7...............................................3.. 180 7................................................1 Thermoeconomic diagnosis of a power and desalination plant: case studies .4 Thermoeconomic model ............................4..1 Cost analysis .................. 313 7........................... 296 7............................................ 171 7..2............................. 288 7.. 301 7.....................1..................................................1 A simple co-generation system .3 Thermoeconomic diagnosis .....3. 191 7.............................................................................................................................3... Cost.....4...............................4 Thermoeconomic model .....................................................................................................................................1...................5 Economic analysis..2 Thermoeconomic isolation .................... 166 7............................................................1 Investment costs ................................................................................................................................ Índex CHAPTER 7...............1........................................................1 WEA method ......................................................................

.................................................................................................. 327 8......................... 329 8.......... 317 7....................... 345 A1... Índex 7................. 321 7........... 327 8....................................... 326 8........................3 Effect of an inefficiency in the first section of the high-pressure turbine (HPT1) ............................................ 325 8..............4 Effect of inefficiency in the first section of the low-pressure turbine (LPT1) .......6...............................................................................................................3.............................. 410 A2.......................... 411 A2..................................................................................4 Operating management ...................................... 323 8.......................... 323 8..............................6 Local optimization of the steam power plant ...5....................................................................................1 Theory ..6................................. 382 A1.........1 Specific enthalpy h of superheated or saturated vapor ...............................................5..............................................................................................1 Results ...............................2........2 Practice: Brine exergy as a function of temperature... Synthesis............4 Latent heat vaporisation of water as a function of boiling temperature .......................... 328 8..5 Promote energy and water interactions ...................................... 318 7......................................................2 Effect of feed pump isoentropic efficiency ................................... 327 8...........................................................2 Conclusions and final considerations ...........2 Thermoeconomic diagnosis ................................ contributions and perspectives ......................................3..........3 Specific volume of superheated or saturated vapor .............4 Cost analysis of a dual-plant .................1 Effect of an inefficiency in the high-pressure heater no.......6....................................................................................................7 Summary .........2.............................. 329 8.................................................1 Simulator of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant ................................................1 Synthesis ...................................................................3......... 325 8................................................3 Local optimization ........................ 326 8...............................................................2.......................................3 F-P definition for a MSF unit ..............................2.... 330 ANNEX 1.............................................3 Integrating attitudes .................................................................... 327 8.............................6 Effect of reject section fouling ........1 Improving existing plants................................................3 Perspectives .................................. Thermodynamic properties of seawater ..........5 Seawater exergy ................3................7 Cost............... 409 A2...............2 Specific entropy of superheated or saturated vapor ................. pressure and salt concentration 417 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 475 ............ 322 CHAPTER 8........2.................................... 332 A1........6........... 317 7...................6... 411 A2...........2.............. Thermoeconomic diagnosis .................................................1 (HPH1) ....................................................................2. price and benefit .........4 Sustainable desalination .................................5 Effect of the cleaning ball system in the recovery section ..........................3...................................... 430 A2..................2............. 407 ANNEX 2..................................... Process integration ......2 State of the art in Thermoeconomics ...............................................................................................2........ 412 A2... 369 A1. 419 A2........... 325 8....................................................................................................2 Main contributions .....................................2 Improvements in thermoeconomic diagnosis ............................... 326 8................................ 357 A1..............................................................5 Diagnosis of a complex system ............................. 395 A1................ 331 A1............................

....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 419 A3.................................................................... 457 LIST OF TABLES ........................ 441 LIST OF FIGURES........................... 463 476 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant .............................................................................. Índex ANNEX 3.2 Power Plant ............. Technical data ............................................................................................................... 433 REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 426 NOMENCLATURE ..................................................................................................1 MSF plant ....... 419 A3......................................................................................................................................................................................