INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCH

Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:175–183

Published online 9 July 2007 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/er.1351

SHORT COMMUNICATION

Exergy analysis of a 420 MW combined cycle power plant

M. Ameri*,y, P. Ahmadi and S. Khanmohammadi

Combined Heat & Power Specialized Unit (CHP), Power Plant Engineering Department, Power & Water University of Technology,
P.O. Box 16765-1719, Tehran, Iran

SUMMARY

Combined cycle power plants (CCPPs) have an important role in power generation. The objective of this paper is to
evaluate irreversibility of each part of Neka CCPP using the exergy analysis. The results show that the combustion
chamber, gas turbine, duct burner and heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) are the main sources of irreversibility
representing more than 83% of the overall exergy losses. The results show that the greatest exergy loss in the gas turbine
occurs in the combustion chamber due to its high irreversibility. As the second major exergy loss is in HRSG, the
optimization of HRSG has an important role in reducing the exergy loss of total combined cycle. In this case, LP-SH
has the worst heat transfer process.
The first law efficiency and the exergy efficiency of CCPP are calculated. Thermal and exergy efficiencies of Neka
CCPP are 47 and 45.5% without duct burner, respectively. The results show that if the duct burner is added to HRSG,
these efficiencies are reduced to 46 and 44%. Nevertheless, the results show that the CCPP output power increases by
7.38% when the duct burner is used. Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEY WORDS: exergy; combined cycle power plant; heat recovery steam generator; efficiency

1. INTRODUCTION steam and gas turbine cycle power plants. Exergy

The optimization of power generation systems is
one of the most important subjects in the energy
engineering field. Due to the high prices of energy
and the decreasing fossil fuel resources, the
optimum application of energy and the energy
consumption management methods are very cri-
tical. The combined cycle power plants (CCPPs)
have higher thermal efficiency than the separate
analysis based on the first and second thermody-
namic laws is a significant tool to analyze the energy
systems. It also reveals the inefficient thermodynamic
processes. On the other hand, the second law of
thermodynamics deals with the quality of energy and
determines the maximum amount of work obtain-
able from an energy resource.
Exergy analysis is performed in two main parts
[1]. The first one is devoted to evaluating the

*Correspondence to: M. Ameri, Combined Heat & Power Specialized Unit (CHP), Power Plant Engineering Department, Power &
Water University of Technology P.O. Box 16765-1719, Tehran, Iran.
y
E-mail: ameri m@yahoo.com

Received 6 March 2007

Revised 23 May 2007
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 30 May 2007
176 M. AMERI, P. AHMADI AND S. KHANMOHAMMADI
system and determining inefficient processes based
on exergy destruction calculations. The second one
is based on making some changes and corrections
in the processes based on the avoidable and
unavoidable exergy destructions.
Exergy is defined as the maximum theoretical
useful work that can be obtained as a system
interacts with an equilibrium state. The exergy is
not generally conserved like energy but is de-
stroyed in the system. Exergy calculation shows
the place in the system where losses occur and the
magnitude of these losses. Exergy efficiency of a
CCPP will usually be less than thermal efficiency at
the same plant.
There are many researchers such as Kotas [1]
and Moran and Shapiro [2] who carried out the
exergy analysis for the combined cycles. They
found out the exergy losses in each part. Facchini
et al. [3] have calculated the exergy losses in
combined cycle and found out that combustion
chamber and heat recovery steam generator
(HRSG) are the main sources of losses. An exergy
analysis was carried out by Habib and Al-Bagawi
[4] for the Ghazlan power plant to specify the
irreversibility in the system. Casarosa et al. [5]
have presented the optimization of HRSGs by
using two or more water streams, exchanging with
the exhaust gas stream. This method will decrease
the exergy losses due to temperature difference
between the hot and cold streams.
The modeling, numerical optimization and
irreversibility reduction of a triple-pressure reheat
combined cycle was investigated by Bassily [6]. He
considered the HRSG configuration that had
seven pinch points and analyzed the effect of TIT
on the temperature differences for pinch points.
His goal was to minimize the temperature differ-
ence for the pinch points. In recent years, many
engineers and scientists have suggested that the
thermodynamic performance of a process is best
evaluated by performing an exergy analysis in
addition to or in place of the conventional energy
analysis because the exergy analysis appears to
provide more insights and it is more useful in
efficiency improvement efforts than the sole energy
analysis [7].
The CCCPs are widely used in Iran grid
network. Therefore, it is very important to
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
evaluate the design and operation of these power
plants. The objective of this research is to evaluate
irreversibility for each part of the Neka CCPP
(420 MW) through exergy analysis and to reveal
the most irreversible components of CCPP. Also,
the effects of using duct burner on the steam turbo-
generator output power and the CCPP energy and
exergy efficiencies are presented. Although there
are some papers in the literatures regarding the
exergy analysis of CCPP, however, a comprehen-
sive exergy evaluation of all the components of
CCPP is not available.
2. NEKA POWER PLANT SPECIFICATION
In 2003, one of the notable power plant projects in
Iran was inaugurated. This project, which includes
22 CCPP, has not been completed yet. One of
these power plants, i.e. Neka CCPP, is located
near the Neka city beside the Caspian Sea. As
shown in the process flow diagram (Figure 1), this
power plant has two gas turbines, two compres-
sors, two HRSGs, two deaerators, one steam
turbine and one surface condenser with a cooling
system that uses seawater as cooling media. The
Siemens V94.2 gas turbines of this combined cycle
have been installed in 1982. Since these gas
turbines are in operation for more than 20 years
the flue gas parameters are different from new gas
turbines. Therefore, it was necessary to run the
performance tests at the beginning of project in
order to design the steam cycle properly. It should
be noted that the ambient temperature design
condition is 17:38C: In the gas turbine cycle, the air
is compressed to 10.1 bar by an axial compressor.
The compressed air enters into the two combus-
tion chambers, each one equipped with eight
burners. The flue gas from the combustion
chambers enters the turbine at 9718C: The turbine
is of reaction type with four stages. The first two
stages are aircooled. The exhaust gas at 5088C
enters the HRSG through the supplementary
firing. Each dual pressure HRSG generates HP
and LP at 520 and 2308C; respectively. The rated
steam turbine power output is 160.8 MW (at 100%
load). The expanded steam in the M-type steam
turbine enters a surface contact condenser and
Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:175–183
DOI: 10.1002/er
 EXERGY ANALYSIS OF A 420 MW CCPP 177

Figure 1. Process flow diagram of the Neka combined power plant.

gives out its heat to seawater that flows through and potential parts of exergy are negligible. Exergy
the condenser tubes. is defined as the maximum theoretical useful work
Condensate water drops to the hot well at the that can be obtained as a system interacts with an
bottom of condenser and it is pumped to the equilibrium state. The chemical exergy is asso-
deaerator by means of condensate extraction ciated with the departure of the chemical composi-
pumps, through polishing plant, ejector condenser, tion of a system from its chemical equilibrium. The
gland steam condenser and condensate preheater chemical exergy is an important part of exergy in
(CPH). Feed water to LP evaporator and HP 1st combustion process.
and 2nd economizers is fed by a common two If one applies the first and second laws of
pressure HP/LP pump, which take their suction thermodynamics, one can find the formula for
from the feed water storage tank. As it has been exergy balance as
shown in the flow diagram (Figure 1), HP water X X
’Q þ
E m’ i ei ¼ m ’ W þ I’
’ e ee þ E ð1Þ
discharge of pump passing through the HP i e
economizers goes to the HP drum and after
evaporation, the separated saturated steam in In this formula (e) is the total specific exergy and I’
drum passes through the superheaters 1, 2 and 3. is the exergy loss rate:


Finally, this steam goes to steam turbine HP ’ T0 ’
EQ ¼ 1
Qi ð2Þ
section and completes the cycle. Ti

E ’
’W ¼ W ð3Þ
3. EXERGY ANALYSIS
eph ¼ ðh
h0 Þ
T0 ðS
S0 Þ ð4Þ
Exergy is composed of two important parts. The
first one is the physical exergy and the second one where T is the absolute temperature (K) and
is the chemical exergy. In this study, the kinetic subscripts (i) and (0) refer to ambient conditions.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:175–183
DOI: 10.1002/er
178 M. AMERI, P. AHMADI AND S. KHANMOHAMMADI

The mixture chemical exergy is defined as follows: where Q’ f and E’ f are the energy and exergy of the
" #
X
n Xn natural gas.
ch chi E
exmix ¼ Xi ex þ RT0 Xi Ln Xi þ G ð5Þ
i¼1 i¼1
E 4. CALCULATION METHOD
The last term, G ; which is the excess free Gibbs
energy is negligible at low pressure at a gas
mixture. One can generalize the chemical exergy The main fuel for the Neka combined power plant
concept of fuel to every Ca Hb Ng Od component [8]. is the natural gas. Therefore, the exergy analysis is
The molar chemical exergy exch c of such a performed for this type of fuel. The fuel composi-
component will be tion is given in Table I. The reference ambient
exch e model [9] for air that is used in the current analysis
c ¼ ðmc;0
mc Þ ð6Þ
is given in Table II.
where mec refers to the chemical potential of the In this study, we have divided the exergy
component at the restricted dead state: analysis into two sections. The first one is the gas
mec ¼ am% eco2 þ ðb=2Þm% eH2 O þ ðg=2Þm% eN2 turbine exergy analysis which has been done for
different output powers. The second one is the
þ ð
a
b=4 þ d=2Þm% eO2 ð7Þ exergy analysis of all major components of steam
where mc;0 represents the chemical potential of the cycle.
components at their thermo-mechanical equili-
brium state with the standard ambient.
For the evaluation of the fuel exergy, the above 5. THE EXERGY LOSS FOR THE GAS
formula cannot be used. Thus, the corresponding TURBINE
ratio of simplified exergy is defined as the
following: In this section, the exergy analysis is done for the
gas turbine cycle. Each gas turbine at Neka
x ¼ exf =LHVf ð8Þ
Due to the fact that for the most of usual gaseous
Table I. Volume fraction of the natural gas components.
fuels, the ratio of chemical exergy to the lower
heating value (LHV) is usually close to 1, one may Component of natural gas Volume fraction (%)
write [1]: Methane (CH4 ) 98.57
xCH4 ¼ 1:06 Ethane (C2 H6 ) 0.63
Propane (C3 H8 ) 0.1
ð9Þ Butane (C4 H10 ) 0.05
xH2 ¼ 0:985 Pentane (C5 H12 ) 0.04
Nitrogen (N2 ) 0.6
Carbon dioxide (CO2 ) 0.01
For gaseous fuel with Cx Hy ; the following experi-
mental equation is used to calculate x [1]:
y 0:0698
x ¼ 1:033 þ 0:0169
ð10Þ Table II. Reference ambient model of air.
x x
Thermal and exergy efficiencies of the CCPP are Air components Molar fraction (%)
defined as N2 75.67
P
W ’n O2 20.35
Zt ¼ n ð11Þ H2 O 3.03
’f
Q CO2 0.0345
CO 0.0007
P SO2 0.0002
W’n
n H2 0.00005
Zex ¼ ð12Þ
’
Ef Others 0.91455

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:175–183
DOI: 10.1002/er
 EXERGY ANALYSIS OF A 420 MW CCPP 179

combined power plant equally produces find the exergetic efficiency and exergy destruction
132.15 MW. ratio for gas turbine cycle.
The specific exergy for these points is deter- The exergetic efficiencies for the gas turbine and
mined by using the equations that were introduced its components are defined as
in the previous section. The mass fraction and ’ out
E
E ’ in
other important data of combustion products are Ecomp ¼ ð14Þ
W ’ comp
given in Table III. The thermodynamic properties
of gas turbine points are given in Table IV. Point
A is the compressor inlet. Therefore, the physical E’ comp
out
ECC ¼ ð15Þ
exergy is zero. However, due to the ambient ’ CC þ E
E ’f
in
conditions, the chemical exergy is not zero.
The exergy loss for the combustion chamber W’ GT
EGT ¼ ð16Þ
should be calculated. The mass flow rate of fuel EGT ’ GT
in
Eout
entering combustion chamber is 30 394:8 kg h
1 :
The LHV of fuel is 49 433:96 kJ kg
1 : Therefore,
one may rewrite Equation (1) to calculate the
exergy losses: 6. THE EXERGY LOSS FOR THE STEAM
CYCLE
I’ CC ¼ m
’ F eF þ m
’ 2 e2
m
’ 3 e3 ð13Þ
The specific exergy of fuel is taken from Equation Calculations for the steam cycle are composed of
(8). exergy losses in duct burners, HRSGs, stacks,
If one substitutes these data in formulas (1)–(4) steam turbine and condenser. The Neka HRSG is
the irreversibility for each part of gas turbine is equipped with duct burners that cause irreversi-
determined. bility. Thus, one can evaluate the exergy losses for
There are two important criteria in the exergy them. The exergy loss is obtained for the duct
analysis: exergetic efficiency and exergy destruc- burner as
tion ratio. An important application of exergetic I’DB ¼ m
’ g eg
m
i
’ g eg þ m
i
’ f ef0
ð17Þ
0
efficiency is the assessment of thermodynamic
performance of component or system relative to where m ’ f is the natural gas fuel mass flow rate into
the performance of a similar one. Now one may the duct burner, which is 2880 kg h
1 : m ’ gi is the
mass flow rate of gas turbine flue gas at the HRSG
Table III. Combustion product properties. inlet (i.e. 1 800 000 kg h
1 ) and m ’ g0 is the flue gas
mass flow rate after the duct burner (i.e.
Combustion products Volume fraction (%) 1 802 881:37 kg h
1 ) as given in Table VI. By
O2 16.55 substituting these data in Equation (17), the
CO2 4.42 irreversibility of duct burner is calculated.
H2 O 3.34 In Neka CCPP, there are two HRSGs that
N2 75.6
provide steam for a steam turbine. In order to
analyze the exergy losses in HRSG, one may refer
to Table V, which contains the thermodynamic
Table IV. Air thermodynamic properties in gas
turbine [10]. properties of water and steam. In Table VI, the
thermodynamic properties of exhaust gas are
100% Load Tamb ¼ 17:38C given. Using these two tables, one may find the

1
Point m ðkg s Þ T ð8KÞ P (bar) e ðkJ kg
1 Þ exergy losses for HRSG from Equation (1).
A 491.55 293.15 Patm
0.51
By simplifying the exergy balance for HRSG,
B 491.55 594.14 10.1 269.5 the HRSG exergy loss is calculated as follows:
X X
C 500 1244.15 10.1 846 I’ ¼ ’ i ei

m m’ e ee ð18Þ
D 500 773.15 Patm 220
i e

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:175–183
DOI: 10.1002/er
180 M. AMERI, P. AHMADI AND S. KHANMOHAMMADI

Table V. Water and steam thermodynamic properties in fired and unfired cases [10].
Fired case 100% load Tamb ¼ 17:38C Unfired case 100% load Tamb ¼ 17:38C

1
1
1
1
Point m ðkg s Þ P (bar) T ð8CÞ h ðkJ kg Þ e ðkJ kg Þ m ðkg s Þ P (bar) T ð8CÞ h ðkJ kg
1 Þ e ðkJ kg
1 Þ
1 76.11 11.28 44.1 185.6 7.23 64.17 15.28 44.1 185.9 7.27
2 76.11 10.79 126.67 532.7 67.19 64.17 14.91 141.62 596.8 138.58
3 3.777 4.91 151.2 637.4 96.88 3.11 6.99 164.91 696.9 172.2
4 3.777 4.91 151.2 2746.8 749.78 3.11 6.99 164.91 2761.9 799.72
5 9.039 10.49 151.12 637.4 96.88 9.965 10.59 164.87 696.9 135.55
6 9.039 10.49 181.99 2777.9 856.77 9.965 10.59 182.41 2778.3 857.43
7 9.039 10 236.55 2912.7 903.08 9.965 10.1 2920.6 2920.6 907.73
8 65.92 110.46 149.67 637.4 104.14 54.21 119.32 163.41 696.9 123.85
9 65.92 109.97 180.45 770 147.86 54.21 118.93 190.88 816.4 166.96
10 65.92 108.27 299.66 1340.3 401.28 54.21 117.78 292.02 1297.5 381.14
11 65.92 98.97 310.2 2729.5 1083.8 54.21 79.73 294.73 2760.3 1074.4
12 67.08 96 523 3437.1 1477.9 54.21 77.09 500 3361.7 1402.5

Table VI. Exhaust gases thermodynamic properties in fired and unfired cases [10].
Fired case 100% load Tamb ¼ 17:38C Unfired case 100% load Tamb ¼ 17:38C
m T h s e m T h s e
Point (kg s
1) ð8CÞ (kJ kg
1) (kJ kg
1 K
1) (kJ kg
1) (kg s
1) ð8CÞ ðkJ kg
1 Þ ðkJ kg
1 K
1 Þ ðkJ kg
1 Þ
E 500.8 552.57 723.048 1.2007 288.33 500 500.00 651.24 1.1270 247.90
F 500.8 478.28 637.457 1.092 234.31 500 442.11 585.11 1.0381 207.59
G 500.8 313.99 453.441 0.816 130.46 500 298.35 424.79 0.7880 119.91
H 500.8 244.85 378.106 0.6795 94.77 500 250.06 372.14 0.6917 95.23
I 500.8 242.58 375.653 0.6748 93.68 500 247.42 369.27 0.6863 93.94
J 500.8 206.52 336.833 0.5967 77.55 500 208.60 327.37 0.6026 76.35
K 500.8 190.08 319.11 0.5593 70.78 500 196.40 314.27 0.5751 71.24
L 500.8 175.07 303.209 0.5242 64.98 500 184.27 301.28 0.5470 66.40
M 500.8 124.89 249.963 0.3983 48.3 500 134.06 247.81 0.4232 48.89

To calculate the exergy losses for steam turbine
and condenser, one may refer to Table V, which
consists of thermodynamic properties of inlet and
outlet flow of the steam turbine. By using exergy
balance equation for steam turbine, we can find
the exergy losses for these parts.
7. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Figures 2 and 3 present the exergy loss and
efficiency for the components of the Neka gas
turbine cycle. The total exergy loss and exergy
efficiency of the gas turbine plant are also shown.
The results show that the greatest exergy loss in
the gas turbine cycle takes place at the combustion
chamber because of chemical reaction and the
large temperature difference between the burners
and working fluid. In fact, its exergetic efficiency is
less than other components. Also, the results
reveal that the turbine of the gas turbine has the
largest exergy efficiency compared with the other
GT components. However, its exergy loss is only
the second one due to its large value of work
production (Figure 3). Figure 4 shows the exergy
losses for all CCPP components. The exergy
analysis of Neka steam cycle shows that the
HRSG has the largest exergy loss after the GT
combustion chambers in the CCPP. Duct burners
have the second largest exergy loss in the steam
cycle. The other exergy losses occur at stacks,
condenser and cooling system as shown in Figure 4.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:175–183
DOI: 10.1002/er
 EXERGY ANALYSIS OF A 420 MW CCPP 181

180 600

Exergy Loss(MW)
160 500
140
Exergy Loss(MW)

400
120
300
100
200
80
100
60
40
0

rs
)

m
)

Co ine
T)

al
+B

+B

+B

se
er
20

be

ste

t
G

To
n

en
rb
(A

am

(A
e(

ur

sy
tu

nd
s(
in

tb

ks
0

ch
bu ors

g
m
rb

in
ac
uc

RS

ea
on
s

Tu
Compressor Combustion Turbine(G.T) Total Gas Turbine

ol
es

St
D

St
H
sti

Co
pr
chamber Cycle

m
Co

m
Co
Figure 2. Exergy loss for one gas turbine
and its components. Figure 4. Exergy losses for combined cycle power plant
components.

40
Gas Turbine Plant Components
35
100 Exergy Loss(MW)
90
30
Exergy Efficiency(%)

80 Exergy Loss(%)
70
Exergy Loss
25
60
50 20
40
30 15
20
10 10
0
compressor combustion Turbine(G.T) Total Gas Turbine
5
chamber Cycle 0

Figure 3. Exergetic efficiency of the gas turbines

k

EV

SH
ac

-E

-S
-E

-E
CP

P-
-E

P-
St

LP
and its components.

LP
P

P
A

H
-H

H
DE

d-
t
1S

2n
Figure 5. Exergy losses in HRSG components.

The thermal and exergy efficiencies of the CCPP

were determined using Equations (9) and (10) for is shown in Figure 5. According to this figure,
the fired case. They are Zt ¼ 46% and Zex ¼ 44%; stack, HP evaporator (HP-EV), LP superheater
respectively. The output power of the steam (LP-SH), and CPH are the most irreversible parts
turbine, when duct burner is used is 160:85 MW: in the HRSG. However, it does not mean that the
The steam turbine output power without the duct heat transfer process in these parts is inefficient as
burner is 131:614 MW: well. In the other words, if one wishes to find the
For the unfired case, the CCPP thermal and most irreversible heat transfer processes in the
exergy efficiencies are Zt ¼ 47%; Zex ¼ 45:5%; HRSG, one should also consider the amount of
respectively. It is evident that the effect of the heat transfer that occurs in each part. The amount
duct burner is to increase the output power of the of heat transfer is presented in Figure 6. In this
steam turbine. Nevertheless, it decreases the total figure, the absorbed heat by water/steam is
CCPP exergy and thermal efficiencies. As one may presented for each component of the HRSG. It is
note, HRSG has the largest exergy loss. Therefore, evident that the largest amount of heat transfer
it is necessary to calculate the exergy loss for each occurs in the HP evaporator, which has the largest
part of HRSG using Equation (18). For each irreversibility in HRSG.
element of HRSG, there are two inputs and two Now if we divide the exergy loss in Figure 5 by
outputs. Inputs are hot flue gas and cold water and the heat transfer in Figure 6, a parameter is
outputs are cold flue gas and hot water. The result obtained to evaluate the heat transfer processes at

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:175–183
DOI: 10.1002/er
182 M. AMERI, P. AHMADI AND S. KHANMOHAMMADI

100 thermal energy storage, can be used [11]. The

90
application of these methods will reduce the exergy
Absorbed Heat (MW)

80
70 loss of CCPP. The optimization of the HRSG
60
50
operating parameters can increase the perfor-
40 mance of the plant. Also, the pinch analysis can
30
20
maximize the CCPP efficiency [12].
10
0
H

EC

EV

SH

EC

EV

SH
8. CONCLUSIONS
V
CP

-E

P-

P-

P-
-

P-
LP
LP
t-H

H
EA

H
d-
1S
D

2n

Figure 6. Absorbed heat in HRSG components. Combined power plant is one of the major power
generators in Iran and special attention must be
given to optimize these systems.
In this paper, we have studied the irreversibility
of each part of Neka combined power plant
through the exergy analysis by using the perfor-
mance data of this plant.
The results show that the exergy efficiency of the
combustion chamber is much lower than the
efficiency of other gas turbine components due to
its high irreversibility. The second major exergy
loss is in HRSG. Optimization of HRSG has an
important role in reducing the exergy loss of total
Figure 7. Specific exergy loss in HRSG components. combined cycle. In this case, LP-SH has the worst
heat transfer process.
Finally, we conclude that using duct burner in
the different parts of the HRSG. This parameter, HRSG can increase the power output of steam
which is called specific exergy loss, is defined by turbine. However, the duct burner has a negative
following equation: effect on the total CCPP thermal and exergy cycle
I’ efficiencies.
z¼ ð19Þ
’
Qi
The results are shown in Figure 7. It is interesting NOMENCLATURE
to note that all devices have almost the same
specific exergy loss except for LP-SH. Its specific amb =ambient
exergy loss is much greater than the other BFP =boiler feed pump
components ones. This means that heat transfer CC =combustion chamber
process in LP-SH is not efficient enough. The CCPP =combined cycle power plant
exergy loss in combustion chamber is associated CPH =condensate preheater
with the large temperature difference between the Cp =specific heat at constant pressure
flame and the working fluid. Reducing the DEA-EVP =dearator-evaporator
temperature difference that causes higher inlet e =specific exergy ðkJ kg
1 )
temperature to the turbine will reduce the exergy E =exergy (kJ)
loss. The application of compressor inlet air EC =economizer
cooling to compress more air per cycle increases EV =evaporator
the output capacity of gas turbine. Different gas G =generator
turbine power augmentation options, such as GT =gas turbine
evaporative cooling, absorption chiller and GE =excess free Gibbs energy (kJ)

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:175–183
DOI: 10.1002/er
 EXERGY ANALYSIS OF A 420 MW CCPP 183

h =specific enthalpy ðkJ kg
1 Þ tot =total

HRSG =heat recovery steam generator 0 =reference ambient condition
HT =high temperature  =rate
I =exergy loss (kJ)
LHV =lower heating value ðkJ kg
1 Þ
LP =low pressure
m =mass flow rate ðkg h
1 Þ REFERENCES
P =pressure (bar) 1. Kotas TJ. The Exergy Method of Thermal Plant Analysis.
Q =heat transfer (kJ) Butterworths: London, 1985.
R =gas constant ðkJ kg
1 K
1 Þ 2. Moran MJ, Shapiro HN. Fundamentals of Engineering
Thermodynamics (4th edn). Wiley: New York, 2000.
S =specific entropy ðkJ kg
1 K
1 Þ 3. Facchini B, Fiaschi D, Manfrida G. Exergy analysis of
SH =superheater combined cycles using latest generation gas turbines.
T =temperature Journal of Gas Turbine and Power (ASME) 2000; 233–238.
4. Habib MA, Al-Bagawi S. Thermodynamic performance
TIT =turbine inlet temperature analysis of the Ghazlan power plant. Energy 1995;
W =work (kJ) 20(11):1121–1130.
x =molar fraction 5. Casarosa C, Donatini F, Franco A. Thermo-economic
optimization of heat recovery steam generators operating
parameters for combined plants. Energy 2004; 29:389–414.
Greek symbols 6. Bassily AM. Modeling, Numerical optimization, and
irreversibility reduction of triple-pressure reheat combined
cycle. International Journal of Energy 2005; 32(5):778–794.
z =specific exergy loss 7. Dincer I. The role of exergy in energy policy making.
Zt =thermal efficiency Energy Policy 2002; 30(2):137–149.
Zex =exergy efficiency 8. Moran M. Availability analysis. A Guide to Efficient Energy
Use. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1989.
9. Cihan A, Hacihafizoglu O, Kahveci K. Energy–exergy
Subscripts and superscripts analysis and modernization suggestions for a combined-
cycle power plant. International Journal of Energy 2006;
30:115–126.
ch =chemical 10. Ahmadi P, Khanmohammadi S. Exergy concept and exergy
e =exit condition analysis of combined cycle power plant (a case study). B.S.
f =fuel Thesis, PWUT, 2006.
11. Ameri M, Shahbazian HR, Nabizadeh M. Comparison of
gi =gas inlet evaporative inlet air cooling systems to enhance the gas
ge =gas outlet turbine generated power. International Journal of Energy
i =inlet condition Research 2007, in press. DOI: 10.1002/er.1315.
12. Liszka M, Manfrida G, Ziebik A. Parametric study of
k =component HRSG in case of repowered industrial CHP plant. Energy
ph =physical Conversion and Management 2003; 44(7):995–1012.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:175–183
DOI: 10.1002/er