Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927 

www.elsevier.com/locate/energy 

Exergy and exergoeconomic analysis of a crude oil combined 

distillation unit 
Ricardo Rivero Ã, Consuelo Rendo ́n, Salvador Gallegos 
Grupo de Exergia, Instituto Mexicano del Petro ́leo, Eje Central La ́zaro Ca ́rdenas 152, Me ́xico D.F. 07730, Me ́xico 

Abstract 
The combined distillation unit is the first plant in a crude oil refinery, in which several intermediate products, i.e. 
liquid petroleum gas (LPG), naphtha, jet fuel, kerosene, diesel fuel, gas oils and reduced crude, are obtained through 
atmospheric and vacuum distillation of the crude oil mixture. It is important to determine the critical points in the 
unit from the exergy view point and to properly allocate the total production cost to the different simultaneously 
produced streams, to determine the monetary flows all through the plant, and to state the relevance in economic 
terms of the exergy losses of each individual equipment item. The results of the exergy and exergoeconomic 
analyses are presented in this paper. The most important factor affecting the transformation, operation and 
production costs of the products is the cost of the crude oil raw material; utilities, salaries, maintenance and even 
capital investment costs are less important. Also the critical points of the plant are presented which provide the basis 
for the opti- mization of the unit showing additional opportunities for process integration. © 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All 
rights reserved. 
1. Introduction 
Exergoeconomic analyses consider the quality of energy (exergy) in allocating the production costs of a 
process  to  the  different  products  it  produces.  A  general  methodology  for  this  kind  of  analysis  was 
presented  by  Tsatsaronis  in  1985  [1],  which  has  later  been  called  the  exer-  goeconomic  accounting 
technique  [2].  Normally,  in  conducting  an  exergoeconomic  balance,  a  system  of  simultaneous  equations 
with  a  higher  number  of  unknowns  than  equations  is  obtained,  thus  the  main  problem  to  solve  is  the 
statement  of  the  additional  equations  required.  Several  approaches  to  solve  this  problem  in  cogeneration 
systems  have  been  presented  [3,4],  but  in  the  case  of  crude  oil  refining  processes  the  problem  is  much 
more  complex  due  to  the  high  number  of  simultaneous  products,  compared  to  cogeneration  systems 
producing only heat and 
à Corresponding author. Tel.: +52-55-91-75-8427; fax: +52-55-91-75-8067. 
E-mail address: rrivero@imp.mx (R. Rivero). 
0360-5442/$ - see front matter © 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2004.03.094 
 
R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927 1910 

Nomenclature 
Ex exergy Efl effluent exergy losses F additional cost H enthalpy Irr irreversible exergy losses N number 
of blocks/equations NHV net heating potential P pressure Pex total exergy losses Pot exergy improvement 
potential Potec exergoeconomic Improvement potential S entropy T temperature X composition x mol 
fraction z mass fraction 
Greek b chemical exergy correction factor c activity coefficient e effectiveness U cost ̄ / average exergy 
unit cost / cost of a stream 
Subscripts b block efl effluent exergy losses f physical i input stream irr irreversible exergy losses j output 
stream k component m component ntp net produced nts net supplied o operation cost p production cost q 
chemical r block 
 
t transformation cost tte total input tts total output 0 dead state 
power. The use of average unit costs has then been proposed and applied to solve this problem [5] 
replacing other approaches used in the past [6,7]. 
The  objective  of  this  paper  is  to  present  the exergy analysis of the crude combined distillation unit and 
the  production  costs  of  this  as  a  function  of  the  amount  and  quality  of  the  energy  used  for  separating  a 
crude  oil  stream,  as  well  as  the  costs  of  the  exergy  losses  and  the  exer-  goeconomic  improvement 
potential of all equipment items of the process. 
1.1. Process description 
The combined distillation unit scheme corresponds to the Cadereyta refinery in northern Mexico (Fig. 
1). This scheme is used to process 120,000 barrels per day of a mixture of Maya 
1911 R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927 
Fig. 1. Combined distillation unit. 
 
R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927 1912 

and  Isthmus  crude  oil  50/50%  vol.  (stream  No.  1)  The  objective  of  this unit is the separation of crude oil 
in  several  products  by  distillation.  This  process  is  divided  into  five  sections:  preheating  and  desalting, 
topping, stabilization, atmospheric distillation and vacuum distillation. 
The  desalting  and  preheating  section  is  used  to  remove  salts  from  the  crude  oil  and  heating  it to drive 
off  the  light  fractions  in  the  topping  section.  In  this  section,  the  light  phase  is  sent  to  the  stabilization 
section  for  obtaining  fuel  gas  (stream  No.  2),  liquid  petroleum  gas  (LPG,  stream  No.  3)  and  stabilized 
naphtha  (stream  No.  4).  The  topped  crude  oil  (stream  No.  5)  is  fractionated  in  the  atmospheric  section 
producing  atmospheric  naphtha  (stream  No.  6),  jet  fuel  (stream  No.  7),  kerosene  (stream  No.  8),  diesel 
(stream  No.  9),  atmospheric  gas  oil  (ATGO,  stream  No.  10)  and  atmospheric  residue  (stream  No.  11), 
which  is  separated  into  light  vacuum  gas  oil  (LVGO,  stream  No.  12),  heavy  vacuum  gas  oil  (HVGO, 
stream No. 13) and vacuum residue (stream No. 14) in the vacuum section. 
2. Exergy analysis 
A  complete  exergy  analysis  of  the  combined  distillation  unit  has  been  conducted  in  the  frame  of  a 
research project [8] using the general methodology presented in previous papers [9]. The simulation of the 
plant  has  been  conducted  using  the  AspenPlus  simulation  code,  and  the  exergy  analysis  subroutines 
developed by the IMP Exergy Group. The dead state conditions in all calculations are a temperature T 
0 

1⁄4 25 vC, a pressure P 

0 

1⁄4 1 atm and a composition X 

0 
equal to the composition used by the Szargut model for the standard chemical exergy of sub- stances [10]. 
2.1. Exergy calculation 
Physical  exergy  of  a  stream  of  matter can be defined as the maximum work (useful energy) that can be 
obtained  from  it  in  taking  it  to  physical  equilibrium  (of  temperature  and  pressure)  with  the  environment 
[3,10]. 
Ex 
f 

1⁄4 ðH À H 
0 

Þj 
X 

ÀT 
0 

ðS À S 
0 
Þj 
X 

(1) 
where the enthalpy and the entropy of the substance have to be evaluated at its temperature and pressure 
conditions (T, P) and at the temperature and pressure of the environment (T 
0 

, P 
0 

). 
Enthalpy  and  entropy  at  the  stream  and  reference  conditions  are  evaluated  for  the  same  chemi-  cal 
composition  (X)  of  the  stream of matter and considering all mixing effects if the stream con- tains several 
components.  This  evaluation  has  to  be  conducted  using  the  most  suitable  method  for  predicting 
thermodynamic  properties  for the substance at its temperature and pressure con- ditions. There are several 
thermodynamic  option  sets  available  in  AspenPlus  for  evaluating  the  properties  of  petroleum  mixtures 
[11]. 
No matter the thermodynamic option set used in the simulation of a process with AspenPlus, enthalpy 
and entropy at reference conditions (T 
0 

, P 
0 

)  are  evaluated with two fortran sub- routines, 
USRHXO  and  USRSXO  [8];  these  subroutines  are  linked  to  the  main  simulation  code  and  execute  an 
internal  Aspen  subroutine  called  FLASH  which  calculates  the  equilibrium  at  the  dead  state  reference 
conditions established. 
 
1913 R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927 

The values of the enthalpy and entropy at the stream conditions (P, T) and at the reference conditions 
(T 
0 

, P 
0 

) are then retrieved from the results file of the simulation run using the Aspen- Plus 
Toolkit. Physical exergy is calculated inside the fortran code described later. 
2.2. Chemical exergy 
Chemical exergy of a stream of matter can be defined as the maximum work (useful energy) that can be 
obtained from it in taking it to chemical equilibrium (of composition) with the environment [3,10]. 
Ex 
q 

1⁄4 ðH À H 
0 

Þj 
T 
0 
,P 
0 

ÀT 
0 

ðS À S 
0 

Þj 
T 
0 
,P 
0 

(2) 
where the enthalpy and the entropy have to be evaluated for the chemical composition of the substance 
(X) and for the composition of the environment (X 
0 

).  Enthalpy  and  entropy  for  the 

stream  and  environment  compositions  are  evaluated  for  the  same  temperature  and pressure, normally the 
environment conditions (T 
0 

, P 
0 

). For many identified substances, the standard chemical exergy (i.e. at T 

0 

and P 
0 

)  can  be  found  in 

the  literature,  however  for  the  pseudo-components  (unidentified  compounds  of  a  crude  oil  and  derived 
streams),  the  chemical  exergy  can  be  determined  from  heuristic  empirical  expres-  sions  as  a  function  of 
the  elementary composition and the heating value of each pseudo-compo- nent [10]. The standard specific 
chemical exergy (e.g. in kJ 
e 

/kg) of each pseudo-component is 

calculated Ex qk 
1⁄4 with NHV the k 
b following k 
þ 
X 
z 
m modified Ex qm 
expression [12]: 
(3) 
where z 
m 

are the mass fractions of metals, Fe, Ni, V, and water in the pseudo-component k and Ex 
qm 

are their corresponding specific standard chemical exergies, obtained from the standard chemical 
exergy values of the Szargut reference model. NHV 
k 

is the net heating value of the 

pseudo-component k and b 
k 

is the chemical exergy correction factor as a function of its C, H 

2 

, O 
2 

, S, and N 
2 

, mass fractions [12]: 

b 1⁄4 1.0401 þ 0.1728 
z 
H 
2 z 
C 

þ 0.0432 
z z 
O 
C 2 

þ 0.2169 
z z 
C S 

1 À 2.0628 
z z 
H 
C 
2 
 

þ 0.0428 
z z 
N 
C 
2 

(4) 
The standard molar chemical exergy (e.g. in kJ 
e 

/kmol)  of  the  crude  oil  stream  can  be  calcu-  lated 
from  the  standard  molar  chemical  exergies  of all identified components (obtained from the Szargut tables 
[10])  and  pseudo-components  (converting  their  standard  specific  chemical  exergies  to a molar basis) and 
the molar fractions of all identified components and pseudo- components. 
Ex 
q 

1⁄4 
X 
x 
k 

Ex 
qk 

þ RT 
0 

X 
x 
k 

lnx 
k 

c 
k 

(5) 
The  second  term  in the right hand side of Eq. (5) is called the compositional exergy [13]. The details of 
the  calculation  for  physical  and  chemical  exergy  of  crude  oil  and  its  fractions  can  be  found  in  the 
literature [12]. 
 
R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927 1914 

2.2.1. Exergy performance parameters 

The  different  performance  parameters  are  determined;  they  can  be  classified  in  three  catego-  ries: 
quantitative  parameters,  qualitative  parameters  and  combined  parameters,  such  as  the  exergy  losses,  the 
effectiveness and the exergy improvement potential, respectively. 
2.2.2. Exergy losses 
The  exergy  losses  of  a  system  can  be  split  in  two  [14].  On  one  side  are  those  resulting  from  the 
irreversibility  of  the  processes  taking  place  in  the  system  (internal  losses),  and  on  the  other  side,  those 
resulting from an exergy discharge to the environment (external losses). 
The irreversible exergy losses are the difference between the total input exergy (Ex 
tte 

) and the 
total Irr output 1⁄4 
X 
exergy Ex 
input 

(Ex 
À 
tts 

X 
). These Ex 
output 

losses 1⁄4 Ex 

can tte 

À also Ex 
tts be 1⁄4 calculated T 0 
DS using the Gouy–Stodola theorem: (6) 
The  irreversible  exergy  losses  can  also  be  expressed  considering  the  system  as  a  couple  (source–sink, 
donor–acceptor, fuel–product), obtained from the difference between the net sup- plied exergy Ex 
nts 

(by the source(s), donor(s) or fuel(s)) and the net produced exergy Ex 
ntp 

(to 
the sink(s), Irr 1⁄4 
X acceptor(s) DEx 
sources 

or À 
product(s)): 
X 
DEx 
sinks 

1⁄4 T 
0 

DS (7) 
Irr 1⁄4 Ex 
nts 

À Ex 
ntp 

(8) 
The effluent exergy losses represent the ecological effects of rejecting streams to the environ- ment; Efl 
they 1⁄4 
X are Ex 
simply rejected the to the sum environment 

of all exergy streams rejected to the environment: 

(9) 
The total exergy losses in any system are then equal to the sum of irreversible and effluent losses: 
Pex 1⁄4 Irr þ Efl (10) 
For any system composed by N blocks, the Gouy–Stodola theorem states that the overall exergy losses 
are the sum of the exergy losses of the N blocks. 
2.2.3. Effectiveness 
In order to determine how well the desired effect of the system is accomplished, the effective- ness is 
calculated as the ratio of the net produced exergy to the net supplied exergy: 
e 1⁄4 Ex 
ntp 

/Ex 
nts 

(11) 
The effectiveness can also be expressed as a function of the irreversible exergy losses since these are 
equal to the difference between both net exergies [2,12]: 
e 1⁄4 1 À Irr/Ex 
nts 

(12) 
The  effectiveness  is  then  the  measure  of  the  system’s  capacity  to  produce  the  desired  effect.  In  other 
words, it is the fraction of the net supplied exergy used by the system to perform its function. 
 
1915 R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927 

2.2.4. Exergy improvement potential [9] 

Total  exergy  losses  and  effectiveness  are  the  quantitative  and  qualitative  measures  of  energy 
degradation,  respectively,  and  they  can  be  combined  to  have  a  more  complete  parameter  of  the 
performance  of  the  system,  this  parameter  is  called  the  exergy  improvement  potential  [2,9,14].  The 
exergy  improvement  potential  of  the  system  is  a  measure  of  how  much  and  how  easily the system could 
be  improved  for  optimization  purposes.  This  parameter  is  based  on  the  definition  of  thermodynamic 
potential  for  improvement  proposed  by  Reistad  [15],  but  incorporating  an  additional  term  to  explicitly 
consider  the  effluent  exergy  losses.  It  is  obtained  from  the  exergy  losses  and  the  effectiveness  of  the 
system: 
Pot 1⁄4 Irrð1 À eÞ þ Efl (13) 
It  is  formed  by  three  contributions:  the  absolute  potential  (Irr),  the  relative  potential  (1  À  e)  and  the 
environmental  potential  (Efl).  The  relative  potential  (1  À  e)  is  a  measure  of  the  facility  to  improve  a 
system;  if  the  effectiveness  is  very  low  the  relative  potential  approaches  its  maximum  value,  so  in 
principle  the  system  should  be  improved  easily;  the  absolute  potential  Irr  is  a  measure  of  how  much  the 
system  could  be  improved  from  inside  itself  by  attacking  its  entropy  production  or  irreversibility;  the 
environmental  potential  Efl is a measure of how much the system could be improved from outside itself if 
the exergy of the effluents is used instead of rejected to the environment. 
The  exergy  improvement  potential  makes  it  possible  to  determine  the  critical  points  of  the  system 
stating  a  hierarchy  on  its  components  in  such  a  way  that  the  measure be applied in the places where they 
will  be  most  effective.  In  order  to  optimize  a  system  it  is  necessary  to  increase  the  effectiveness  of  the 
blocks  with  the  higher  irreversible  exergy  losses  and  to  reduce  the  effluent  exergy  losses  of  the  blocks 
where their utilization could be profitable. 
In order to optimize a system it is necessary to attack preferably the blocks with the higher exergy 
improvement potential. 
For the exergy analysis of this unit, the process was divided into 93 blocks which receive, pro- duce or 
are interconnected by 283 exergy streams. Some of the results obtained follow. 
2.3. Combined distillation unit results 
Total exergy losses of and 88.68% are irreversible the plant are exergy losses 111.08 MW 
e , as shown in 11.32% of Fig. 2.1 
which are effluent exergy losses 
The  plant  has  a  total  effectiveness  of  13.56%,  which  is  the  ratio  of  the  net  exergy  produced  to the net 
exergy  supplied.  In  this  case  the  net  exergy  supplied  is  calculated  as  the  fuel  exergy  sup-  plied  to 
combustion  equipment  and  electricity  supplied  to  pumps  and  compressors  minus  the  exergy  rejected  by 
flue  gases  to  the  atmosphere.  The  net  exergy  produced  is  the  exergy  gained  by  the  process  streams 
(distilled products minus crude oil) and the exergy gained by cooling streams (water and air). 
The total exergy improvement potential of the plant is 97.72 MW 
e 
 , which represents 88% of the 
total exergy losses. However if the exergy gained by cooling streams (water and air) is sub- 
1 These values are different to the ones presented in the ECOS 2002 Conference due to a change in the pressure of the air 
supplied to fired heaters [16]. 
 
tracted from the net exergy supplied instead of added to the net exergy produced, the process 
effectiveness becomes 11.78% and the total exergy improvement potential is 99.47 MW 
e 

. Fig. 3 shows 
the specific exergy profile of the process streams. The small numbers in the dia- gram correspond to the 
feed and product streams of the unit. As shown in Fig. 3, the thermo- dynamic value of the petroleum 
fractions obtained in the combined distillation unit can be clearly quantified by their specific exergy. The 
small changes in specific exergy are mainly due to the physical exergy change since the chemical exergy 
remains constant for a stream that does not change its composition. 
A  diagram  widely  used  to  represent  graphically  the  exergy  balance  of  a  process  is  the  Grass-  mann 
diagram  (Fig.  4).  In  this  case  the  chemical  exergy  of  the  process  streams  is  so  high  com-  pared  to  their 
physical  exergy  that  it  is  not  possible  to  visualize  the  contribution  of  utility  streams  used  to  perform  the 
separation  of  the  crude  oil, nor the relevance of the irreversible exergy losses of each section. However, it 
can  be  seen  that  crude  oil  chemical  exergy  is  more  or  less  split  into  the  different  products  through  the 
separation  process,  but  without  any  combus-  tion,  i.e.  through  physical  changes  (composition),  but 
without chemical reactions. 
R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927 1916 
Fig. 2. Total exergy losses of the combined distillation unit. 
Fig. 3. Specific total exergy. 
 
In  order  to  have  a  better  view  of  the  exergy  balance,  a  modified  Grassmann  diagram  can  be  constructed 
considering  only  physical  exergies  for  all  streams  except  fuels.  In  this  way  the  ther-  mal  integration 
between  sections,  the  utilities  contributions  to  achieve  the  separation,  the  rel-  evance  of  the 
irreversibilities and the physical exergy increase of cooling water and air can be observed (Fig. 5). 
2.4. Section results 
Figs. 6 and 7 show total exergy losses, effectiveness and improvement potential for each sec- tion of 
this unit. 
The  atmospheric  section  has  the  highest  total  exergy  losses  (60.54%)  and  it  is  due  to  its  low 
effectiveness  (24.48%)  that  this  section  also  has  the  highest  improvement  potential  (68.89%).  In  this 
section  the  effectiveness  is  the  result  of the net exergy supplied: fuel exergy to the fired heater minus flue 
gases  exergy  rejected  to  the  atmosphere  and  electricity  to  pumps  and  com-  pressors;  and  the  net  exergy 
produced:  exergy  gained  by  process  streams (both physical and chemical exergy), heat exergy transferred 
to  the  crude  oil  preheating  section,  and  physical  exergy  gained  by  cooling  streams  (water  and  air).  The 
final products water and air coolers are also included in this section. 
Fig. 4. Grassmann diagram of the combined distillation unit (total exergies). 
1917 R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927 
 
In  the  vacuum section the net exergy supplied has the same components as in the atmospheric section, but 
in  this  case  the  physical  exergy  of  process  streams  decreases  whereas  their  chemical  exergy  increases, 
thus,  the  first  term  is  included  in  the  net  exergy  supplied  and  the  second  included  in  the  net  exergy 
produced.  This  gives  an  effectiveness  of  44.69%  for  the  section.  These two sections represent 90.21% of 
the  total  exergy  losses.  It  is  important  to  note  that  the  most  effective  section  is  the  preheating  and 
desalting  section,  that  is,  of  the  total  exergy  supplied  to  the  section  (heat  from the process streams of the 
atmospheric  and  vacuum  sections,  electricity  to  pumps  and  a  chemical  exergy  decrease  in  the  desalting 
process)  82.47%  is  mainly  used  to  increase  the  physical  exergy  of crude oil. Another important aspect of 
this section is that it 
R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927 1918 
Fig. 5. Grassmann diagram of the combined distillation unit (physical exergies, except for fuel streams). 
 
includes  only  the  cold  side  of  the  heat  exchangers  with  streams  coming  from  and  going  back  to  the 
atmospheric  and  vacuum  sections.  The  hot  sides  of  these  exchangers are included in the atmospheric and 
vacuum  sections.  As mentioned before, all final products coolers were also included in the atmospheric or 
vacuum sections, not in the preheating and desalting section. 
2.5. Block results 
The  total  exergy  losses  of  the  plant  are  equal  to  the sum of the exergy losses of the 93 blocks in which 
it  is  divided  but  the  sum  of  the  exergy  improvement  potentials  of  the  blocks  is  different  from  the  total 
exergy  improvement  potential  since  the  effectiveness  of  the  blocks  are  not  addi-  tive.  The  sum  of  the 
exergy  improvement  potentials  of  the  blocks  could  be  used  for  opti-  mization  purposes.  The  block  with 
the  highest  exergy  losses  is  the  atmospheric  fired  heater  (block  A),  followed  by  the  vacuum  fired  heater 
(block B), the atmospheric tower (block C), the ejector (block D), the atmospheric tower condenser (block 
E),  the  vacuum  tower  (block  F),  the  topping  tower  condenser  (block  G),  the  naphtha-crude  oil  preheater 
(block H), the stabilization tower reboiler (block I) and the desalting system (block J) (see Figs. 1 and 8). 
Fig. 6. Total exergy losses and improvement potential per section. 
1919 R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927 
Fig. 7. Effectiveness per section. 
 
In  terms  of  the  exergy  improvement  potential,  the  top  ten  blocks  are  almost  the  same  as  the  ones  with 
highest  exergy  losses  but  in  a slightly different order: the atmospheric fired heater (block A), followed by 
the  vacuum  fired  heater  (block  B),  the  atmospheric  tower  (block  C),  the  ejector  (block  D),  the  vacuum 
tower  (block  F),  the  atmospheric  tower  condenser  (block  E),  the  topping  tower  condenser  (block  G), the 
desalting  system  (block  J),  the  stabilization  tower  reboiler  (block  I),  and  the  naphtha-crude  oil  preheater 
(block H) (see Figs. 1 and 9). 
With  regard  to  the  obtained  results, in the distillation systems (integrated by fired heaters, columns and 
condensers)  the  highest  total  exergy  losses  are  found.  For  this  reason,  the  follow-  ing research work will 
be  focused  on  the  application  of  diabatic  distillation  through  the  pro- gressive distillation concept, which 
consists in using a series of distillation columns separating 
R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927 1920 
Fig. 9. Exergy improvement potential of the combined distillation unit. 
Fig. 8. Total exergy losses of the combined distillation unit. 
 
1921 R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927 

two  products  in  each  one,  instead  of  obtaining  all  products  simultaneously  as  in  the  atmos-  pheric  and 
vacuum  distillation  towers  of  the  present  process  scheme,  i.e.  it  will  be  proposed  to  use  a  diabatic 
distillation column for each product obtained from the crude oil. 
3. Exergoeconomic analysis 
3.1. Production costs 
In  this  paper  the  following  definitions  are  used.  The  production  cost  of  each  of  the  products  of  a 
process  is  formed  by  two  contributions:  the  capital  cost  and  the  operation  cost.  Capital  cost  includes 
levelized  capital  investment,  construction,  depreciation,  and  financing  costs;  oper-  ation  cost  includes 
transformation  cost,  salaries,  maintenance  and  administration  and other expenses. Finally, transformation 
cost is formed only by raw materials and utilities (fuel, steam, cooling water, service water, etc.) [5]. 
Transformation cost 1⁄4 raw materials þ utilities 
Operation cost 1⁄4 transformation cost 
þ salaries, maintenance and administration and other expenses 
Capital cost 1⁄4 capital investment, construction, depreciation, and financing costs Production cost 1⁄4 
operating cost þ capital cost 
3.2. Average exergy unit costs 
The  exergoeconomic  balance  is  written  for  each  block  considering  the  exergy  of  each  input  stream 
multiplied  by  its  corresponding  unit  costs  plus  the  additional  costs  considered  in  the  analysis;  the 
monetary  flow  obtained  by  summing  up  these  terms  is  then  equated  to  the  exergy  of  each  output  stream 
multiplied by the average exergy unit cost, i.e.: 
XIN 
i1⁄41 

Ex 
bi 

U 
i 

þ F 
b 

1⁄4 
XOUT 

Ex 
bj 

/ ̄ 
b 
 8 b 1⁄4 1,...,N (14) j1⁄41 
where U 
i 

is either the cost of a stream entering the block, or the average exergy unit cost of the preceding 
block, i.e.: 
U 
i 

1⁄4 / 
i or 
U 
i 

1⁄4 
/ ̄ 
r 

j r 61⁄4 b The transformation costs are obtained when no additional costs are considered: 
F 
b 

1⁄4 F 
t 

1⁄4 0 
 
R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927 1922 

The operating costs are obtained when salaries, maintenance and administration and other expenses are 
considered: 
F 
b 

1⁄4 F 
o 

The production costs are obtained when in addition to salaries, maintenance and chemicals, also capital 
investment, construction, depreciation, and financing costs are considered: 
F 
b 

1⁄4 F 
p 

In  any  of  the  F  values  considered,  in  writing  Eq.  (14)  for  each  one  of  the  N  blocks  composing  the 
process,  a  system  of  N  simultaneous  equations  with  N  unknowns  is  obtained  which  is  solved  obtaining 
the  output  average  exergy  unit  costs  for each block. The F values in each equation of the equation system 
were estimated with the Icarus Process Evaluator code of AspenTech. 
3.3. Exergoeconomic parameters 
The costs of the irreversible, effluent and total exergy losses of each block and the exer- goeconomic 
improvement potential for them is then calculated with the following expressions: 
U 
irr 
b 

1⁄4 Irr 
/ ̄ 
tte 
b 

(15) 
U 
efl 
b 

1⁄4 Efl 
/ ̄ 
tte 

b Potec 
b 

1⁄4 U 
irr 
b 

ð1 À eÞ þ U 
efl 

b where: 
/ ̄ 
tte 
b 

1⁄4 
P 
IN i1⁄41 

Ex 
bi 

U 
i Ex 
tte 

b For the exergoeconomic analysis of this unit, a system of 93 simultaneous 

equations was solved. Some of the results obtained follow. 
3.4. Exergoeconomic analysis results 
The  results  of  the  exergoeconomic analysis of the combined distillation unit in terms of the costs of the 
exergy  losses  and  the  exergoeconomic  improvement  potential,  are  very  similar  to  the  results  in  terms  of 
total exergy losses and exergy improvement potential obtained from the exergy (without costs) analysis. 
The  production  cost  of  the  plant  is  28.87  US$/s,  i.e.  823  million  dollars  per  year.  Table  1  shows  the 
relative  contribution  of  the  different  concepts  to  the  production  costs.  The  block  with  the  highest cost of 
exergy  losses  is  the  atmospheric  fired  heater  (block  A),  followed  by  the  vac- uum fired heater (block B), 
the  atmospheric  tower  (block  C),  the  ejector  (block  D),  the  atmos-  pheric  tower condenser (block E), the 
vacuum  tower  (block  F),  the  topping  tower  condenser  (block  G),  the  naphtha-crude  oil  preheater  (block 
H),  the  stabilization  tower  reboiler  (block  I)  and  the  desalting  system  (block  J).  These  costs reduce from 
580 to 11 US$/h for the top ten blocks with an average cost for the blocks in the plant of 13.87 US$/h (see 
Figs. 1 and 10). 
 
In  terms  of the exergoeconomic improvement potential, the top ten blocks are almost the same as the ones 
with  highest  costs  of  exergy  losses  but  in  a  slightly  different  order:  the  atmos-  pheric  fired heater (block 
A),  followed  by  the  vacuum  fired  heater  (block  B),  the  ejector  (block  D),  the  atmospheric  tower  (block 
C),  the  vacuum  tower  (block  F),  the  atmospheric  tower  con-  denser  (block  E),  the  topping  tower 
condenser  (block  G),  the  desalting  system  (block  J),  the  sta-  bilization  tower  reboiler  (block  I),  and  the 
naphtha-crude  oil  preheater  (block  H).  These  potentials  reduce  from  367  to  9  US$/h  with  an  average 
exergoeconomic improvement potential for the blocks in the plant of 9.4 US$/h (see Figs. 1 and 11). 
The  production  costs  are  mainly  affected  by  the  transformation  costs,  since  salaries,  mainte-  nance, 
administration  and  other  expenses  (0.0646  US$/s)  and  levelized  capital  costs (0.5458 US$/s) have a very 
small contribution (see Fig. 12). 
Table 1 Production costs 
% Million US$ per year 
Fuel  gas  0.82  6.75  Electricity  0.14  1.13  Cooling water 0.25 2.06 Treated water 0.02 0.18 Medium pressure steam 0.30 2.43 Low 
pressure steam 0.15 1.23 Crude oil 96.21 792.00 Transformation costs 805.78 
Salaries, maintenance, administration and other expenses 
0.22 1.84 
Operation costs 807.78 
Levelized capital costs 1.89 15.56 Production costs 100.00 823.18 
Fig. 10. Total exergy losses costs of the combined distillation unit. 
1923 R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927 
 
3.5. Parametric analysis 
Since  the  production  cost  is  mainly  affected  by  the  transformation  costs,  a  parametric  analysis  was 
done,  varying  the  crude  oil,  fuel,  electricity  and  cooling  water  costs  in order to know how they affect the 
transformation costs. 
Fig. 13 shows that transformation costs increase proportionally to the variation of crude oil cost, which 
goes from 0 to 2.5 times the base cost (20 US$ per barrel). 
Fig. 14 shows the effect of the costs of electricity (0.0447 US$/(kWh)) from 1 to 100 times its base cost 
on  the  transformation  cost; for the highest electricity cost, the jet fuel cost is 9% higher than with the base 
cost  and  the  LPG  cost is 33% higher than with the base cost, with variations between these two values for 
the other products. 
Fig.  15  shows  the  effect  of  the  costs  of  cooling  water  (0.0938  US$/m3)  from  1  to  100  times  its  base 
cost  on  the  transformation  costs;  for  the  highest  cooling  water  cost,  the  atmospheric  gas  oil  cost  is  14% 
higher  than  with  the  base  cost  and  the  naphtha cost is 42% higher than with the base cost, with variations 
between these two values for the other products. 
R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927 1924 
Fig. 11. Exergoeconomic improvement potential of the combined distillation unit. 
Fig. 12. Production costs. 
 
Fig. 15. Transformation costs vs cooling water cost. 
Fig. 14. Transformation costs vs electricity cost. 
Fig. 13. Transformation costs vs crude oil cost. 
1925 R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927 
 
Finally,  the  variation  in  transformation  cost  when  the  fuel  cost  is  100  times  greater  than  its  base  cost 
(0.0021  US$/MJ)  is  50%  higher  for  the  jet  fuel  and  123%  higher  for  the  gas  fuel with values in between 
for the rest of the products (Fig. 16). 
4. Conclusions 
The  results  of  the  exergy  and  exergoeconomic  analyses  are  very  similar.  The  blocks  presenting  the 
highest  exergy  losses,  exergy  improvement  potential  and  exergoeconomic  improvement  potential  are the 
distillation  systems,  integrated  by  fired  heaters,  columns  and  condensers.  The  application  of  crude  oil 
progressive  diabatic  distillation  could  be  an  option  to solve this prob- lem. Since the transformation costs 
are  the  most  important  part  of  the  total  production  costs  of  the  products  of  this  refinery  unit,  the  most 
important cost of the plant is that of crude oil fed to the plant. 
References 
[1] Tsatsaronis G, Winhold M. Exergoeconomic analysis and evaluation of energy-conversion plants. 1. A new gen- 
eral methodology. Energy 1985;10(1):69–80. [2] Rivero R. L’Analyse d’Exergie: Application a` la Distillation Diabatique et 
aux Pompes a` Chaleur a` Absorption. 
The`se Doctorale. Institut National Polytechnique de Lorraine, Nancy, 1993. [3] Kotas TJ. The exergy method of thermal 
plant analysis. London: Butterworths; 1985. [4] Erlach B, Tsatsaronis G, Cziesla FA. New approach for assigning costs and fuels 
to cogeneration products. In: 
O ̈ 
ztu ̈rk A, Go ̈gu ̈s Y, editors. Efficiency, costs, optimization, simulation and environmental impact of energy systems. 
Istanbul: International Centre for Applied Thermodynamics; 2001, p. 759–70. [5] Rivero R, Rendo ́n C, Monroy L, Garcıa M, 
Urquiza J, Go ́mez A, et al. Simulacio ́n, Ana ́lisis Exérgico y Ana ́lisis Exergoecono ́mico de la Unidad de Destilacio ́n 
Combinada, Informe DSC v. 1. Project: Optimizacio ́n Exérgica de un Esquema de Refinacio ́n. Me ́xico: Grupo de 
Exergia—Instituto Mexicano del Petro ́leo; 2001. [6] Rivero R, Esca ́rcega C, Nu ́n ̃ez A, Terreros P, Ledo ́n F. Ana ́lisis 
Exergoecono ́mico de una Unidad Reformadora 
de Naftas. IV Pacific Area Chemical Engineering Congress, PACHEC ’88, Acapulco, Me ́xico. 1988. [7] Rivero R. Ana 
́lisis Exergoecono ́mico de Procesos. Revista del IMIQ 1995;36(7–8):19–24. 
R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927 1926 
Fig. 16. Transformation costs vs fuel cost. 
 
1927 R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927 
[8] Rivero R. Investigador en Jefe, Proyecto D.00018 Investigacio ́n y Desarrollo Tecnolo ́gico de Procesos de Desti- 
lacio ́n Diaba ́tica. Grupo de Exergia—PIMAS, Instituto Mexicano del Petro ́leo. Me ́xico, 2000–2003. [9] Rivero R, 
Gonza ́lez G, Garcıa V, Pulido R, Esca ́rcega C. Exergy analysis of a crude oil atmospheric distillation unit. In: Cai RX, Moran 
MJ, editors. Thermodynamic analysis and improvement of energy systems. Beijing: International Academy Publishers, Pergamon 
Press; 1989, p. 506–11. [10] Szargut J, Morris DR, Steward FR. Exergy analysis of thermal, chemical and metallurgical 
processes. 
New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation; 1988. [11] AspenTech. Physical property methods and models. AspenPlus 
Reference Manual, Vol. 2, Release 9.3. 
Cambridge: Aspen Technology Inc.; 1996. [12] Rivero R, Rendo ́n C, Monroy L. The exergy of crude oil mixtures and 
petroleum fractions: calculation and 
application. International Journal of Applied Thermodynamics 1999;2(3):115–23. [13] Rivero R. Tridimensional exergy 
diagram. In: Szargut J, Kolenda Z, Tsatsaronis G, Ziebik A, editors. Energy systems a ecology. Cracow: Polish Ministry of 
National Education American Society of Mechanical Engineering; 1993, p. 305–12. [14] Rivero R, Anaya A. Exergy analysis of 
industrial processes, energy–economy–ecology. Latin American Applied 
Research 1997;27(4):191–205. [15] Reistad GM. Availability: concepts and applications. Ph.D. Thesis. The University of 
Wisconsin, University 
Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, 1970. [16] Rivero R, Rendo ́n C. Exergoeconomic analysis of a crude oil combined 
distillation unit. In: Tsatsaronis G, Moran MJ, Cziesla F, Buckner T, editors. Efficiency, cost, optimization, simulation and 
environmental impact of energy systems. Berlin: Technische Universita ̈t; 2002, p. 177–84.