Proceedings of ENCIT 2014 15th Brazilian Congress of Thermal Sciences and Engineering

Copyright © 2014 by ABCM November 10-13, 2014, Belém, PA, Brazil

THERMODYNAMICS ANALYSIS AND ECOLOGICAL EFFICIENCY OF A

COMBINED CYCLE POWER PLANT

Caio Felipe de Paula Santos, cfps89@gmail.com

Regina Francielle Silva Paulino, repaulino28@yahoo.com.br
Celso Eduardo Tuna, celso.tuna@feg.unesp.br
Jose luz Silveira, joseluz@feg.unesp.br
Fernando Henrique Mayworm de Araújo, fernandoaraujo@feg.unesp.br

UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista, Engineering College, Energy Department

Abstract. The purpose of this article is to through the analysis of the first law of thermodynamics for a combined cycle
and determine the ecological coefficient of the same. This system consists of two gas turbines, two heat recovery
boilers and a steam turbine, having a total installed capacity of power generation of 500MW.This plant will be
installed in a small town located 180 km from São Paulo. This place was chosen based on technical aspects by
present proximity to the pipeline and transmission line, water availability and other favorable environmental aspects of
the project. The natural gas that will serve as the plant's fuel will come from the Field of Mexilhão, from the base of
Caraguatatuba, and the water used for cooling will come from the Paraíba do Sul River.

Keywords: combined cycle plant, thermodynamics, power plants, ecological efficiency.

1. INTRODUCTION

While the efficiency of modern gas turbines varies between 25 and 43%, the efficiency of combined cycle units is
generally near 50%. This makes this technology particularly more attractive from the standpoint of efficiency, since it is
possible to generate more power from the energy recycling of the exhaust gases of the turbine.
Natural gas is a fossil fuel and its main component is methane (CH4). In addition, natural gas is the fossil fuel with
more efficient burning and produces less waste.
Advances in natural gas consumption can be seen as positive from the environmental point of view, since it reduces
oil consumption and it is less pollution. Natural gas is richer in hydrogen compared with other fossil fuels; the
proportion of carbon dioxide generated by burning is significantly lower.
Natural gas is also considered one of the safest fuels that exist, given its lower density than air, dissipating easily
into the atmosphere - unlike, for example liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), which accumulates near the ground in case of
leaks. The gas composition used in this study is shown in Table 1.

Table 1 - Composition of Gas

Component Mass (%) Volume (%) PCI (kg/kJ)

CO2 3,75 1,50 -
N2 1,11 0,70 -
Methane (CH4) 80,60 89,00 50.000
Ethane (C2H6) 10,19 6,00 47.525
Propane (C3H8) 4,48 1,80 46.390
Butane (C4H10) 3,28 1,00 45.775
Total 100 100 48.722

The primary air pollutants emitted by thermoelectric units are nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur oxides (SOX), volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), particulate materials, carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and
nitrogen dioxide (N2O). Small amounts of organic compounds (hydrocarbons) are released into the atmosphere when
the combustion process of the fuel is not completed. Emissions are directly influenced by the type of fuel, combustion
technology, size and age of the installation, maintenance procedures and operation. Thus emission rates increase several
orders of magnitude for facilities that are operated with reduced efficiency of the combustion process or unsuitable
maintenance (EPA, 1998)

2. THERMODYNAMICS ANALYSIS

The analysis on the topic 2.1 demonstrates through the first law of thermodynamics the amount of heat and
electricity generated by the thermoelectric plant investigated as well as its final electrical efficiency, this quantitative
analysis is thus not be considered power quality. The first law analysis need to be divided into two stages, first the
Proceedings of ENCIT 2014 15th Brazilian Congress of Thermal Sciences and Engineering
Copyright © 2014 by ABCM November 10-13, 2014, Belém, PA, Brazil

analysis of the Brayton cycle and then the analysis of the Rankine cycle is performed. In the first cycle, will be analyzed
two gas turbines considered identical.

2.1 First law of thermodynamics analysis

Figure 1 shows a simplified thermoelectric plant cycle proposed for analysis and the Tables 2 and 3 shows the
points that will be studied in this work.

A – Compressor
B – Gas Turbine
C – Combustor
D – Heat Recovery Steam Boiler
E – High Pressure Steam Turbine
F – Low Pressure Steam Turbine
G – Condenser
H – Pump

Figure 1 – Simplified plant diagram and equipment

Table 2 - Points of the Brayton cycle Table 3 - Points of the Rankine cycle

Point P (MPa) T (°C) m (kg/s) Point P (MPa) T (°C) m (kg/s) h (kJ/kg) s (kJ/kg.K)
1 0,099 22 18,26 8 13,1 566 96,36 3511 6,652
2 0,099 185 18,26 9 2,413 566 110,44 3610 7,523
3 0,094 22 787,88 10 0,3351 292 13,67 3052 7,621
4 1,381 379 787,88 11 2,701 340 96,36 3098 6,702
5 1,312 1320 806,14 12 0,00728 40 124,11 2358 7,565
6 0,099 612 806,14 13 0,38 40 124,11 167,9 0,5723
7 0,1 86 806,14 14 14,01 42 124,11 188,2 0,5933

The energy provided by the fuel to the cycle can be defined by the Equation 1
& 2 × PCIGN = 889.663,4 [kW ]
ECOMB = m (1)

The energy consumed by the compressor can be defined by the Equation 2.

m& 4 × ( T4 − T3 ) × c p
3W4 = = 334.273,4 [kW ] (2)
ηC

The mechanical energy generated by the gas turbine can be defined by the Equation 3.
5W6 = [( m& 5 ×T5 ) − ( m& 6 ×T6 )] × c p = 690.033,3 [kW ]
(3)
The electrical energy generated by the gas turbine cycle can be defined by the Equation 4.
WGTC =5W6 ×ηg −3W4 = 311.258,2 [kW ] (4)

The mechanical energy generated by the steam turbine can be defined by the Equation 5.
8,9,10 W11,12 = [(m& 8 × h8 ) + (m& 9 × h9 ) + (m& 10 × h10 ) − (m& 11 × h11 ) − (m& 12 × h12 ) [kW ] (5)

The electrical energy generated by the steam turbine cycle can be defined by the Equation 6.
WSTC =8 ,9 ,10W11,12 ×ηg = 178.176,8 [kW ] (6)
Proceedings of ENCIT 2014 15th Brazilian Congress of Thermal Sciences and Engineering
Copyright © 2014 by ABCM November 10-13, 2014, Belém, PA, Brazil

2.2 Electrical Efficiency of the Plant

The electrical efficiency of the plant can be defined by the Equation 7.

WGTC + WSTC
ηele = = 55,01% [kW ] (7)
ECOMB

2. PULLUTANT EMISSIONS AND ECO-EFFICIENCE

The purpose of this item is to determine the rates of emissions in tons / year of CO2, NOX, SO2 and PM of the
thermoelectric plant selected. In the second stage, is to determine how these pollutants affect the environment by
calculating the ecological efficiency. The ecological efficiency assesses how polluter is a thermoelectric plant,
considering the combustion of one kg of fuel, and not the amount of gases released per unit of energy generated.

3.1 Pollutant emissions

The general chemical formula for combustion of natural gas is described below in Equation 8 (Villela and Silveira,
2007). This equation determines the emission of CO2, NOX, Particulate Matter (PM) and SO2 .

a1CH 4 + b1C2 H 6 + c1C3 H 8 + d1C4 H 10 + e1C5 H 12+ f 1CO2 + g1 N 2 + h1αO2 + i1αN 2 →

(8)
→ w1CO2 + y1 H 2O + z1αN 2 + k1 ( α − 1 )O2

Equation 9 can determine the value of the molar mass of the natural gas to be considered in this study:

M = 16 × a1 + 30 × b1 + 44 × c1 + 58 × d1 + 72 × e1 + 44 × f1 + 28 × g1 (9)

The values of the resulting products of combustion of 1 kg of natural gas can be calculated considering the
following emissions shown below in equations 10, 11 and 12 (Villela and Silveira 2007; Carvalho Jr and Lacava, 2003):

3.2.1 CO2 Emissions:

( w1 × 44 × 1 )
M CO2 = [kgCO2 / kgGN ] (10)
M
3.2.2 NOX Emissions:
2.270 × 22 ,4 × 10 −3
M NOX = [kgNOX / kgGN ] (11)
M × 10 3
3.2.3 Particulate matter emission:

240 × 22 ,4 × 10 −3
M PM = [kgPM / kgGN ] (12)
M × 10 3
3.2.4 SO2 emission:

In this fuel, natural gas, the sulfur concentration is very low and only exists because sulfur is added to the gas so
that in case of leaks in gas transmission lines or any plant, leakage can be perceived through the sense of smell.
Therefore, its rate of emissions should be invalid.

3.2.4 Carbon dioxide equivalent:

From these data, the emission of carbon equivalent can be obtained by equation 13.

( CO2 )e = ( CO2 ) + 80 × ( SO2 ) + 50 × ( NOX ) + 67 × ( PM ) (13)

The following Table 4 shows the estimated mass in tones of pollutant gases, which are issued annually by the
thermoelectric plant investigated in steady state.
Proceedings of ENCIT 2014 15th Brazilian Congress of Thermal Sciences and Engineering
Copyright © 2014 by ABCM November 10-13, 2014, Belém, PA, Brazil

Table 4 - Estimated mass of pollutant gases per year considering 7200h/year operation

Pollutant Emission Mass (ton/year)

CO2 1.051.761,41
NOX 1.317,18
Particulate Matter 139,24

3.2 Determination of eco-efficiency

The best fuel from an ecological perspective is the one submitting a minimal amount of carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO2)e obtained from burning of it. To quantify this environmental impact defines as "pollution indicator" (Πg).
Eco-efficiency (ε) is a dimensionless indicator to assess the environmental impact of exhaust emissions from a
thermal power plant, by comparing emissions of pollutants integrated hypothetically (equivalent CO2) with existing
standards of air quality. It is considered the conversion efficiency as a determining factor on the specific, express
emissions by a fractional number (Cardu and Baica, 2001). Pollution indicator by (Cardu and Baica, 1999; Villela and
Silveira, 2006) and eco-efficiency by (Cardu and Baica, 2001; Villela and Silveira, 2007) are defined by the Equations
14 and 15.
( CO2 )e
Πg = = 0 ,06 [ kg / MJ ] (14)
PCIGN

 0 ,204 ×η p 
ε=  ln( 135 − Π g ) ≅ 95,07% (15)
 η p + Π g 

According Villela and Silveira (2007) natural gas has values for ecological efficiency between 91,6% and 95,4%
for systems with and without supplementary firing systems, respectively. In the case of diesel engines efficiencies are
between 89,4% and 94,1%.

4. REFERENCES

CARDU, M.; BAICA, M., 1999. “Regarding a global methodology to estimative the energy-ecologic efficiency of
thermopowerplants”. Energy Conversion and Management, v.40, p.71-87.
CARDU, M.; BAICA, M. A., 2001. “A seismic vision regarding a methodology to estimative globally the energy-
ecologic efficiency of thermopower plants”, Energy Conversion and Management, v.42, p.1317-1325.
CARVALHO JR, J. A.; LACAVA, P. T., 2003. “Emissões em Processos de Combustão”., São Paulo – Brasil: Editora
UNESP, USBN 85-7139-484-9, 135p.
EPA, 1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “AP-42: Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Volume I:
Stationary Point and Area Sources. Chapter 1: External Combustion Sources”, 5th Edition, USEPA.
SILVEIRA, J. L.; TUNA, C. E., 2003. “Thermoeconomic Analysis Method for Optimization of Combined Heat and
Power Systems. Part. I.”., Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, Vol.29, n.1, p.479-485.
SILVEIRA, J. L.,1998. Uma contribuição para a Modelagem termoeconômica: Otimização da Operação e do projeto de
sistemas energéticos. 58f. Free Job Teaching, Faculdade de Engenharia de Guaratinguetá, Universidade Estadual
Paulista, Guaratinguetá.
SILVEIRA, J. L.; CARVALHO JR, J. A.; VILLELA, I. A. C.,2007. “Combined cycle versus one thousand diesel
Power plants: pollutant emissions, ecological efficiency and economic analysis”. Renewable & Sustainable Energy
Reviews, v.11, p524-535.
VILLELA, I. A. C., SILVEIRA, J. L., 2006. “Determinação da eficiência ecológica de plantas térmicas”. In: ENCIT
2006 – 11th Brazilian Congress of Thermal Sciences and Engineering. Curitiba – Brazil..
VILLELA, I. A. C., SILVEIRA, J. L., 2007. “Ecological efficiency in thermoelectric power plants”. Applied Thermal
Engineering, v. 27, p. 840-847.

5. RESPONSIBILITY NOTICE

The authors are the only responsible for the printed material included in this paper.