Sie sind auf Seite 1von 17

Energy Conversion and Management 223 (2020) 113242

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Comparative performance analysis of four different combined power and T


cooling systems integrated with a topping gas turbine plant
J. Nondya, T.K. Gogoia,

a
Mechanical Engineering Department, Tezpur University, Napaam, Tezpur 784028, India

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: In this paper, the performances of four combined power and cooling systems are compared in which the exhaust
Exergy analysis heat of a topping gas turbine plant is utilized for further power and cooling generation. Steam turbines (STs) and
Combined power and cooling organic Rankine cycles (ORCs) are used for power generation by integrating those in a completely different
Gas turbine arrangement in the first two systems while the third and fourth systems use ST based power cycles. The first and
Steam turbine
the fourth configuration uses two absorption cooling systems (ACSs) driven respectively by steam and exhaust
Organic Rankine cycle
Absorption cooling system
heat. In the second and third systems, however, only one ACS is used. Energy and exergy based parametric
analyses are done, showing the performance variations with HRSG steam pressure from 89 to 94 bar for com­
paring the CPC systems. The fourth system was found to be the most appropriate from the energetic and ex­
ergetic performance viewpoint with the first system to follow. Despite an additional ACS, the total irreversibility
of the first and the fourth systems was found almost equivalent to that of the second system. Only in the third
system, the total plant irreversibility was relatively less compared to the first and the fourth. It was found that
the GT plant alone contributes more than 95% irreversibility in all the four systems.

1. Introduction the GT-RORC. Li et al. [4] compared thermodynamic and economic


performances of two combined GT-ORC plants, one with a single stage
The demand for global energy is increasing day by day due to po­ and the other with a two-stage series ORC (TSORC) where they found
pulation growth, rapid urbanization and industrialization. Large scale higher net power and exergy efficiency with the TSORC integrated
energy consumption all over the globe has escalated the problems of CCPP. Due to the installation of second-stage evaporation, the invest­
global warming, greenhouse gas emission, and climate change. ment cost and the cost of electricity production of the TSORC was
Continuous efforts are therefore being made by the research community however more. Oko et al. [5] performed an exergy analysis of a CCPP
to develop new and efficient energy systems. The combined cycle power integrated with a subcritical ORC. They found 1.95% and 1.93% in­
plant (CCPP) is one such development in this regard which is known for crease in the energy and the exergy efficiencies when the GT exhaust
its high efficiency and low greenhouse gas emission [1]. Gas turbine heat was utilized to drive an ORC for additional power generation.
(GT) plant combined with a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) and Singh et al. [6] presented an exergy analysis of a CCPP integrating a
steam turbine (ST) represents the state of the art CCPP technology. GT Brayton-Rankine cycle to a Kalina cycle. With the addition of the Kalina
exhaust heat can also be utilized for driving bottoming power cycle cycle, they observed 1.27% increase in the net power along with 0.54%
other than ST such as organic Rankine cycle (ORC) and Kalina cycle and 0.51% increase in the thermal and exergy efficiency, respectively.
(KC) etc. A lot of research studies have been carried out in the recent Apart from power and electricity, a whole lot of global energy is
past to propose new GT based CCPPs involving ST, ORC and KC etc. consumed by the air-conditioning and refrigeration industries.
Cao et al. [2] compared the thermodynamic performance of a Therefore, in recent times, combined power and cooling (CPC) systems
combined GT-ORC plant with that of a GT-ST plant for the same input are receiving significant research interest. In many industries, power
parameters. They observed higher thermal efficiency in the GT-ORC and cooling are produced simultaneously from a single plant through
plant while the net power output was little more in the GT-ST plant. efficient utilization of energy resources and use of CPC systems.
Anvari et al. [3] made a comparative performance analysis between a Absorption cooling system (ACS) can be integrated with GT plant/CCPP
combined GT-regenerative ORC (RORC) and a GT-reheat ORC where either for power and efficiency enhancement through compressor inlet
they observed higher thermal efficiency and lower irreversibility with air cooling or to produce cooling simultaneously in the cogeneration


Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tapan_g@tezu.ernet.in (T.K. Gogoi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113242
Received 22 March 2020; Received in revised form 2 June 2020; Accepted 18 July 2020
0196-8904/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Nondy and T.K. Gogoi Energy Conversion and Management 223 (2020) 113242

mode. The following are some research articles related to the thermo­ the working fluids, particularly in the ORC and ACS. Thus, the perfor­
dynamic analysis of combined GT-ACS/GT-ORC-ACS/GT based CCPP- mance of a thermal system may vary depending on how the system is
ACS/ORC-ACS plants etc. configured and the chosen operating parameters.
Shukla and Singh [7] studied the effect of inlet air cooling on the As far as the use of GT exhaust heat is concerned, in combined GT-
performance of steam injected GT plant. They observed 6.91% incre­ ST based power cycle, it is mainly used for producing steam and driving
ment in the thermal efficiency due to inlet air cooling which was ac­ ST. However, if cooling is also required from the same system in CPC
complished through the use of a GT exhaust-driven ACS. Ameri and mode, then several options may be considered. Certainly, the exhaust
Hejazi [8] also observed 11.3% increase in power with inlet air cooling gas heat at HRSG exit could be one option for cooling production
achieved through the use of a double effect ACS driven by GT exhaust through ACS integration. Additionally, another heat source option for
heat. Mohapatra and Sanjay [9] performed an exergy analysis of a CCPP cooling could be the steam from a back-pressure ST. In this case,
integrated with an ACS which was used for compressor inlet air cooling. however, the power output from the ST plant will be less. Without
The GT exhaust heat was first used for steam production in the HRSG compromising much on ST power output, alternately, depending upon
and next to drive the ACS. The steam produced in the HRSG was used the cooling load, a certain fixed amount of steam from the ST can be
for power production in the ST plant. They found higher exergy effi­ extracted at some desired pressure and temperature to provide the
ciency at lower compressor inlet temperature. They also observed that necessary heat required for vapour generation in the ACS generator.
except in the CC, the irreversibility at all other GT plant components Similarly, as found in some previous studies, a given amount of power
increases while the same at the bottoming ST cycle components reduces in a CCPP can be generated either by integrating an ST plant or an ORC
with increase in compressor pressure ratio. Mone et al. [10] in­ or the combination of both ST and ORC can also be explored.
vestigated three different CPC systems combining a commercial GT Particularly for the ORC, since they can be operated with a low-tem­
with the single, double and triple effect ACS configurations separately. perature heat source, either the steam from a back-pressure ST or al­
They calculated the available thermal energy for the chiller application ternately the extracted steam from the ST can be used to drive the ORC.
based on the GT size; exhaust gas flow rate and temperature and ob­ To explore all the above possibilities, in the present study, four new
tained approximately 300 MW of cooling from a large turbine. The GT based CPC system configurations are considered for comparison.
triple effect system showed the highest cooling capacity among the The CPC systems are configured based on the integration of the GT
three ACSs. Khaliq [11] performed energy and exergy analysis of a GT plant with the bottoming power cycles and the ACSs through different
plant combined with an HRSG and a single effect ACS for evaluating its integration schemes. The topping GT plant is the same in all system
energetic and exergetic performance as functions of compressor pres­ configurations and the bottoming cycles are considered with different
sure ratio, gas turbine inlet temperature (GTIT), HRSG pressure and arrangements. In the first configuration, for driving an R245fa operated
ACS evaporator temperature. He reported that more than 80% of the ORC, extracted steam from the ST is used while in the second config­
total exergy destruction is accounted by the combustion chamber (CC) uration; the entire steam from a back pressure ST is used as a heat
and the HRSG. Mohammedi et al. [12] considered a combined GT-ORC- source. Similarly, for the ACS, various heat source options such as
ACS based system where the GT exhaust was used first to drive a to­ HRSG exhaust heat, steam from back pressure ST and extracted steam
luene operated ORC and next an ammonia-water based ACS. Under the from ST are explored. As such, the first and second configurations are
design conditions, the plant could produce 30 kW of net power, 8 kW of GT-ST-ORC-ACS systems with two ACSs in the first and one ACS in the
cooling and 7.2 ton hot water with 67.6% efficiency. Anvari et al. [13] second configuration. The other two configurations are GT-ST-ACS
proposed a combined GT-ORC-ACS to produce a net power of systems, the ACS either driven by HRSG exhaust heat or by extracted
30.606 MW, heating of 40.78 MW in the HRSG and 1 MW cooling in the steam from ST. Each system is unique in terms of the system config­
ACS. In the proposed system, the GT exhaust was first passed through uration and is entirely different from some of the previous similar GT-
the HRSG, then through the RORC and finally through the water-LiBr ORC-ACS [12,13] and GT-ST-ACS systems [7,9] cited earlier. To the
based single effect ACS. Choosing R123 as a working fluid for the best of the knowledge of the present authors, the systems that are
RORC, they observed 2.5% and 0.75% increase in energy and exergy considered in this study for comparison were not analyzed earlier in
efficiency with ORC addition in the system. Sun et al. [14] analyzed the any previous study. Therefore, this research study is conducted with the
thermodynamic performance of an R113 operated ORC combined se­ following objectives.
parately with an ACS and an Ejector Refrigeration Cycle (ERC). They
found that the power output, cooling capacity and the exergy efficiency 1. To carry out a parametric study through HRSG steam pressure
of the combined ORC-ACS are all higher than those of the ORC-ERC at variation for identification of suitable HRSG steam pressure for each
ORC evaporation temperature above 153 °C. Sayyaadi et al. [15] re­ configuration.
cently examined the use of Kalina, organic Rankine, Goswami, and 2. To compare the energetic and exergetic performances of the four
trilateral flash cycles as second bottoming cycles in a GT plant in which CPC system configurations and finally to identify the most suitable
an absorption chiller was used as the first bottoming cycle. They opti­ configuration based on total energy output and system irreversi­
mized the entire secondary bottoming cycles using genetic algorithm in bility.
finding out the Goswami cycle as the best alternative among the four
with an additional 4.26 MW of power and 0.45 MW of auxiliary The CPC system configurations are described in the following sec­
cooling. They also identified the Kalina cycle as the least desired one. tion.
Thus, from the above review, it was seen that in energy research,
often new CCPPs and GT based CPC systems are proposed and ther­ 2. Description of CPC system configurations
modynamic performances are evaluated on the basis of energy and
exergy. This is done to fully utilize a given energy resource and to in­ Fig. 1 shows the schematic of the first configuration (Config.1). The
vestigate the system performance under a given set of operating con­ topping cycle is a natural gas-fired GT plant consisting of an air com­
ditions. Sometimes it is also done to evaluate the effects of operating pressor (AC), a combustion chamber (CC) and a GT. The GT exhaust is
parameters and to find out suitable parameters for minimizing the ir­ first utilized for producing superheated steam in the HRSG which
reversible losses and maximizing energy output and efficiencies. comprises of three sections viz., the economizer (ECO), evaporator
Further, the system schematics which were considered in the above (EVA) and superheater (SUP). The steam produced in the HRSG is used
studies were all different in some way or the other. The energy outputs for driving the ST from which some amount of steam is extracted to
obtained from the system schematics in the form of power and cooling drive the ORC and the remaining steam is further expanded such that
etc. were also not same due to the selected operating parameters and the steam temperature at ST exit is appropriate for running a water-LiBr

2
J. Nondy and T.K. Gogoi Energy Conversion and Management 223 (2020) 113242

Fig. 1. GT plant configuration 1 integrated with one HRSG, one ST, one ORC and two ACSs.

operated single effect ACS (ACS-I). The two streams of steam provide superheated steam from the HRSG drives the ST. After expansion in the
the required heat for vapour generation in the respective generators of ST, some amount of steam is extracted from the ST for feed water
the R245fa operated ORC and ACS-I. After condensation, the water preheating in the OFWH and remaining steam is expanded up to the
streams are pumped to the HRSG. The exhaust gas at HRSG exit is condenser pressure. The extracted steam from the ST mixes with the
further utilized to produce cooling through another water-LiBr operated feed water in the OFWH and the mixture at saturated state is pumped
single effect ACS (ACS-II). The ORC consists of the components like the back to the HRSG. The schematic of the fourth system configuration
vapour generator (VG), vapour turbine (VT), regenerator, condenser (Config.4) is shown in Fig. 4. In this system, there are two ACS con­
and the pump. The VG has three sections comprising of the economizer, figurations. ACS-I is driven by steam extracted from the ST at lower
evaporator and the superheater. The high-pressure vapour produced in pressure while for driving ACS-II, the HRSG exhaust gas heat is utilized.
the VG is expanded in the VT to low pressure for producing work. The
regenerator preheats the organic liquid by utilizing the heat of low- 3. Energy and exergy based system modelling
pressure organic vapour flowing in the reverse direction from the VT
outlet. In the condenser, the organic vapour gets condensed to liquid by In the system modelling, steady flow assumptions are made in
rejecting heat to cold water. The organic liquid is pumped back to the which the effects of kinetic and potential energy are neglected. Natural
VG via the regenerator to complete the ORC. The schematic of the gas is used as fuel in the CC of the GT plant. It has the following che­
second configuration (Config.2) is shown in Fig. 2. In this system, the mical composition: Methane (CH4) 93.06%, Ethane (C2H6) 4.09%,
superheated steam produced in the HRSG is first expanded in the ST Propane (C3H8) 0.99%, Butane (C4H10) 0.39%, Pentane (C5H12) 0.16%,
and then the entire steam from the ST is directly fed to the VG of the Nitrogen (N2) 0.4%, Carbon dioxide (CO2) 0.89%. The other assumed
ORC for additional power generation by the ORC. For cooling genera­ parameters are given in Table 1.
tion, the HRSG exhaust gas is utilized to drive the single effect ACS. For system modelling, steady flow energy equation (SFEE) is used to
The schematic of the third system configuration (Config.3) is shown calculate the work and heat transfer terms wherever applicable. The
in Fig. 3. It is comparatively a simple system comprising of the GT general exergy balance equation is used to calculate the exergy de­
plant, the HRSG and the ST plant where there is only one ACS which is struction rate in all individual components of the topping GT plant,
driven by HRSG exhaust gas heat. The ST plant consists of one open bottoming power cycles (ST and ORC) and the ACS/ACSs of the re­
feedwater heater (OFWH), a condenser and a feed pump. The spective system.

3
J. Nondy and T.K. Gogoi Energy Conversion and Management 223 (2020) 113242

Fig. 2. GT plant configuration 2 integrated with one HRSG, one ST, one ORC and one ACS.

To comes in thermal equilibrium with the reference environment.


Ex in Exout + Q 1 ±W Exd = 0
T (1) Chemical exergy, on the other hand, is the maximum useful work de­
rived from a system when it comes in chemical equilibrium with the
The total exergy rate (Ex ) at a given state of the system is actually
reference environment [16].
the sum of four components, viz., the chemical exergy, physical exergy,
kinetic exergy and potential exergy.
Ex = Ex ph + Ex ch + Exkn + Expt (2) 3.1. Modeling of GT plant components

The sum of physical, kinetic and potential exergy is also called


3.1.1. Air compressor (AC) modeling
thermomechanical exergy. Since the effects of kinetic and potential
The condition of atmospheric air at AC inlet is taken as:
energy are neglected, therefore, the kinetic and potential exergy which
P1 = 101.3 kPa , T1 = 298.15 K , RH = 60 %
are equivalent to their respective energy terms would be equal to zero
The air composition at the given atmospheric condition is calculated
i.e. Exkn = Ex pt = 0 . The thermomechanical exergy thus consists of only
[6]. Next, the air specific heat, enthalpy and entropy at AC inlet are
the physical exergy term which at a given state can be calculated by
calculated with the help of REFPROP 9.0 [17]. After this, the specific
using Eq. (3).
heat ratio ( ) at T1 is calculated. Next by assuming a suitable compressor
P outlet temperature (T2 ), the corresponding value at T2 is calculated in
Extm = ni h¯ i (T ) h¯ i (To ) To (¯sio (T ) s¯io (To)) Rln
Po (3) order to calculate the average av . This is followed by calculation of the
i
compressor outlet air temperature with isentropic compression as fol­
The physical exergy is defined as the maximum useful work that can lows.
be obtained from a system at a given pressure and temperature until it

4
J. Nondy and T.K. Gogoi Energy Conversion and Management 223 (2020) 113242

Fig. 3. GT plant configuration 3 integrated with one HRSG, one ST and one ACS.

T2, s av 1
where ma and h are the mass flow rate and enthalpy of air respectively.
= Rp, AC
av
The AC irreversibility is calculated as follows.
T1 (4)

where Rp, AC is the air compressor pressure ratio.


Exd, AC = IAC = Ex1 + WAC Ex2 (7)
The new actual compressor outlet air temperature (which is dif­
ferent from the previously assumed value) can thus be calculated as 3.1.2. Combustion chamber (CC) modeling
follows. From the known fuel and air flow rate, the molar based air flow rate
T2, s T1 is calculated and it is found to be 3.2671. The relative air fuel ratio is
T2, new = T1 + also determined for actual air which is 1.1623. The combustion equa­
AC (5)
tion for 1 kmol of natural gas is shown below.

0.9306CH 4 + 0.0411C2 H6 + 0.0099C3 H8 + 0.0039C4 H10 + 0.0016C5 H12 + 0.0089CO2 + 0.004N2 + 3.2671 × 1.1623O2 + 3.7271N2 + 0.0015
CO2 + 0.0905H2 O + 0.0447Ar) 1.0805CO2 + 2.3967H2 O + 1.7047O2 + 14.1567N2 + 0.1699Ar (8)

In every iteration, T2, new is updated and the calculation is repeated Fuel lower heating value (LHV) in kJ/kmol is calculated by using
until two successive values becomes exactly the same. After calculating Eq. 9 [6].
the final T2 , next, air specific heat and enthalpy of air at AC outlet are
calculated. The air compressor work is calculated using the Eq. (6). 0 0
LHV = nP h¯d, P nR h¯d, R
P R (9)
WAC = ma (h2 h1) (6)

5
J. Nondy and T.K. Gogoi Energy Conversion and Management 223 (2020) 113242

Fig. 4. GT plant configuration 4 integrated with one HRSG, one ST and two ACSs.

In Eq. 9, n corresponds to the molar coefficients of products (P) and combustion gas temperature at the CC outlet or the GT inlet tempera­
0
reactants (R) per kmol of fuel and h̄d is the standard molar specific ture (GTIT). Calculation of GTIT (T3 ) also involves iteration; first, it is
enthalpy of devaluation. LHV can be expressed in kJ/kg by multiplying assumed and then from the known composition, the mass and specific
the molar LHV with the molar fuel flow rate and then dividing by the heat of the combustion gas mixture is calculated. Next by applying
fuel mass flow rate. energy balance, a new GTIT value is calculated which is updated and
The temperature of combustion gases at CC outlet (T3) is calculated the iteration continues until the difference between two successive
from energy balance. First, T3 is assumed and from the known compo­ GTIT values become negligibly small. In this study, the chemical exergy
sition of combustion gases, the mass flow rate (mg ) and specific heat of air and the thermomechanical exergy of fuel are considered negli­
(Cp, g ) of the combustion gas mixture at the respective pressure and gible. The following standard equation is used to calculate chemical
temperature are calculated using REFPROP 9.0. Then from energy exergy of the combustion gas mixture.
balance, a new (T3) can be calculated as follows.
Exch = ni [ex ch, i + RT0ln (xi )]
ma Cpa T2 + mf LHV i (11)
comb
T3, new =
mg Cpg (10) where ni is the molar flow rate and x i is the mole fraction of the ith
component of the combustion gas mixture. The term ex ch, i in the above
T3 is updated in every iteration until the difference between two equation is the standard chemical exergy of the gaseous components in
successive T3 is negligibly small. Simultaneously, enthalpy of the com­ the combustion mixture and these are taken from standard chemical
bustion gas mixture at the respective pressure and temperature are exergy table of Ref. [19]. The CC irreversibility is calculated using the
calculated. comb in the Eq. 10 is the combustion efficiency. following equation.
Chemical exergy of natural gas (Ex f ) is calculated using equations
taken from Ref. [18]. The CC modelling helps in calculation of the Exd, CC = ICC = Ex2 + Ex f Ex3 (12)

6
J. Nondy and T.K. Gogoi Energy Conversion and Management 223 (2020) 113242

Table 1
Assumed parameters for the proposed CPC system configurations.
Parameters Value Parameters Value

GT cycle ORC
Fuel flow rate (kg/s) 2.646 VT inlet temperature (°C) 185.8
Air fuel ratio 30.46 Degree of superheating (°C) 22
Air flow rates (kg/s) 80.584 Regenerator effectiveness (%) 75
Compressor pressure ratio 10 Condenser temperature (°C) 30
Compressor isentropic efficiency (%) 85 Condenser inlet water temperature (°C) 22
GT isentropic efficiency (%) 90 Condenser outlet water temperature (°C) 27
Combustion efficiency (%) 95 VT isentropic efficiency (%) 90
Generator efficiency (%) 98 Pump isentropic efficiency (%) 90
Combustor pressure drop (%) 1.5 Gas pressure drop in the VG (%) 3
Generator efficiency (%) 98

HRSG and ST cycle ACS-I & ACS-II


Steam pressure at ST outlet (bar) 5 Absorber inlet water temperature (°C) 25
ST inlet temperature (°C) 550 Absorber outlet water temperature (°C) 30
Temperature at ST outlet (°C) 90 Evaporator inlet water temperature (°C) 15
ST isentropic efficiency (%) 90 Evaporator outlet water temperature (° C) 10
Generator efficiency (%) 98 Condenser inlet water temperature (°C) 25
Pump isentropic efficiency (%) 90 Condenser outlet water temperature (°C) 30
Motor efficiency (%) 75 Generator temperature (°C) 80
Gas pressure drop in the HRSG (%) 4 Absorber temperature (°C) 35
OFWH pressure (for Configs. 3 & 4) (bar) 2 Condenser temperature (°C) 35
Condenser pressure (for Configs. 3 & 4) (bar) 0.05 Evaporator temperature (°C) 5
SHE effectiveness (%) 75

temperature at HRSG evaporator outlet and saturation temperature of


3.1.3. Gas Turbine (GT) modeling water at the specified HRSG steam pressure. The average specific heat
The value of the combustion gas at T3 is calculated to evaluate the of the exhaust gas is calculated iteratively at every section of the HRSG.
average av . The GT outlet temperature with isentropic expansion is Next, from energy balance, the exhaust gas temperatures at outlets of
calculated is follows. the superheater, evaporator and finally at HRSG outlet are determined.
av
The properties of water and steam are calculated using International
T4, s 1 Associations for the properties of water and steam (IAPWS) formulation
= Rp,avGT
T3 (13) 1997 [20]. Specific enthalpy is evaluated respectively at the inlet and
The new actual GT outlet temperature is: outlet of the ST and the pumps. SFEE is applied to calculate the power
developed by the ST and the power required for driving the pumps. The
T4, new = T3 GT (T3 T4, s ) (14) net ST power is:
where Rp, GT in Eq. 13 is the GT expansion ratio and GT is the GT
Wpump / pumps
isentropic efficiency. Wnet , ST = WST × gen
In every iteration, T4, new is updated and the calculation is repeated motor (19)
until two successive values become exactly the same. After calculating
The generator and motor efficiency are taken 98% and 75%, re­
the final T4 , next the exhaust gas specific heat and enthalpy at GT outlet
spectively. HRSG irreversibility is the difference between the decrease
are calculated using REFPROP 9.0. Finally, the work produced by the
in the availability of the hot gas and the availability increase associated
GT and the net power output from the GT plant are calculated by using
with the conversion of water at HRSG inlet into superheated steam at
Eqs. (15) and (16), respectively.
HRSG outlet. HRSG irreversibility is calculated by using the following
WGT = mg (h3 h4 ) (15) equation.

where mg is the mass flow rate of combustion gas. Exd, HRSG = IHRSG = Ex 4 + Ex 7 Ex5 Ex 8 (20)
Wnet , GT = gen (WGT WAC ) (16) ST irreversibility is evaluated through the application of the general
exergy balance equation (Eq. 1). Say for example, by applying the ex­
where, gen is the generator efficiency. For calculating GT irreversibility,
ergy balance equation, the ST irreversibility of Configs.2, 3 and 4 can be
the following equation is used.
calculated as follows.
Exd, GT = IGT = Ex3 Ex 4 WGT (17)
Exd, ST , Config .2 = IST , Config .2 = Ex8 Ex 9 WST , Config .2 (21)
The exergy efficiency of the GT plant is:
Wnet , GT Exd, ST , Config .3 = IST , Config .3 = Ex8 Ex 9 Ex10 WST , Config .3 (22)
ex , GT =
Ex f (18)
Exd, ST , Config .4 = IST , Config .4 = Ex8 Ex 9 Ex10 Ex13 WST , Config .4
where, Wnet , GT = gen (WGT WAC ) and is the generator efficiency.
gen
(23)
3.2. HRSG and ST modeling Similarly, the irreversibility of the pump/pumps, OWH and the
condenser can also be calculated through application of exergy balance
The pressure, temperature, mass flow rate and composition of the in these devices. The ST plant exergy efficiency is defined as:
GT exhaust gas at HRSG inlet are known from GT modelling. The flow
Wnet , ST
rate of steam produced in the HRSG is adjusted such that a reasonably =
(24)
ex , ST
appropriate temperature difference is maintained between exhaust gas (Ex 4 Ex5)

7
J. Nondy and T.K. Gogoi Energy Conversion and Management 223 (2020) 113242

Table 2
Exergy balance equations used for irreversibility calculation of ORC components.
Components Exergy balance equation

Vapour turbine (VT) Ex d,VT = IVT = Ex 1 Ex 2 WVT


Regenerator (REG) Ex d,REG = IREG = Ex 2 + Ex 5 Ex 3 Ex 6
Condenser (COND) Ex d,COND = ICOND = Ex 3 + Ex 7 Ex 4 Ex 8

Vapour generator (VG) Ex d,VG,Config .1 = IVG,Config .1 = Ex 6 + Ex 9 Ex 1 Ex13


Ex d,VG,Config .2 = IVG, Config .2 = Ex 6 + Ex 9 Ex 1 Ex10

PUMP Ex d,PUMP 3, Config .1 = IPUMP 3, Config .1 = Ex 4 Ex 5 + WPUMP 3, Config .1


Ex d,PUMP 2, Config .2 = IPUMP 3, Config .2 = Ex 4 Ex 5 + WPUMP 2, Config .2

3.3. ORC modeling 3 and also in the components of ACS-I and ACS-II in Configs.4 were
calculated. The total ACS irreversibility (Itot , ACS ) is calculated by adding
The thermodynamic properties of R245fa at various states of the irreversibility of individual ACS components. The exergy efficiencies of
ORC are determined using REFPROP 9.0. From energy balance in the the ACS-I and ACS-II in Configs.1 and 4 and ACS in Configs.2 and 3 are
VG, first the organic vapour generation rate (mORC ) is calculated and calculated using following equations [22].
then the net power and efficiency are calculated using the following
Ex 4 Ex 3
equations. ex , ACS I =
Ex10 Ex11 + Wsp I (30)
(h5 h4 )
Wnet , ORC = mORC (h1 h2 ) gen Ex 4 Ex 3
motor (25) ex , ACS II / ACS =
Ex5 Ex 6 + Wsp II (31)
Wnet , ORC
= where Wsp stands for solution pump work. The total plant irreversibility
ORC
mORC (h1 h6 ) (26) (Itot ) is the sum of all individual system components.
Irreversibility or the exergy destruction rate in the VT, regenerator
(REG), condenser (COND), VG and ORC pump are calculated using the 4. Model validation
equations shown in Table 2.
The total ORC irreversibility (Itot , ORC ) is the sum of irreversibility of 4.1. GT and ORC model validation
all ORC components. The exergy efficiencies of the ORC in Configs.1
and 2 are calculated by using the following equations. The GT model validation is presented by comparing the present
model results with those of Singh and Kaushik [6]. The comparison is
Wnet , ORC shown in Table 4. Against an actual power output of 113 MW, Singh
=
(27)
ex , ORC , Config .1
mORC [(h9 h13) To (s9 s13)] and Kaushik [6] obtained 115.50 MW from the simulation. From the
present simulation, 113.17 MW of net power could be obtained with
Wnet , ORC
= 98% generator efficiency and 98% combustion efficiency under iden­
(28)
ex , ORC , Config .2
mORC [(h9 h10) To (s9 s10 )] tical conditions. The combustion and generator efficiencies were how­
ever not mentioned in Ref. [6].
3.4. ACS modeling In Table 4, the temperature at state points 2, 3 and 4 are different
from those of Ref. [6]. The temperature of air compressor outlet (T2 )
In ACS modelling, the thermodynamic properties of water-LiBr so­ was calculated iteratively in the present model by considering an
lution are calculated using model equations of Patek and Klomfar [21]. average value at T1 and T2 which was found to be 1.383. The value
For ACS-I generator, the condensing steam at 90 °C is the heat source for air was however taken as 1.4 in Ref. [6].
for vapour generation. Similarly, for ACS-II, the HRSG off exhaust gas is Singh and Kaushik [6] considered specific enthalpy of air at state 1
the heat source where the gas, after supplying heat, finally leaves the as zero and calculated specific heat and enthalpy of the combustion
generator at 90 °C. As such, the heat supplied in the generator of the gases using a specific set of equations. In the present model, Refrop 9.0
ACS/ACSs (QG, Sup) is known beforehand. Alternately, for the ACS, the [17] is used to calculate these properties. Even if the same modeling
generator heat load can be expressed in terms of enthalpy and mass procedure of Ref. [6] is followed, then also, the GT outlet temperature
flow rate. Say, for example, the heat load of ACS-I generator is: can never be equal to 851.95 K as stated in [6] and it would be 832.25 K
(refer Table 5) only. Further, the enthalpy values at state points 3 and 4
QG, ACS I = m ws h7 mss h8 mr h 1 (29) were different because of the mole fractions of the combustion gases
Similarly, the heat load for ACS-II generator can also be found out which were found to be slightly different from what was reported in
from the SFEE. Initially, the evaporator cooling load (QE ) is assumed. [6]. The same was the reason for slightly different molar flow rates of
Next, by incrementing QE by a small interval and through iteration, the combustion gases at state points 3 and 4. The enthalpy at state 4 was
refrigerant mass flow rate (mr ) and simultaneously the strong solution less due to lower GT outlet temperature and accordingly a net GT power
(mss ) and weak solution (m ws ) mass flow rate are calculated until QG of 125 MW was obtained by following the exact model procedure of
becomes equal to QG, sup . Thus QE is an output of the present analysis. Ref. [6]. However to satisfy the energy balance in the CC a combustion
The COP/COPs of the ACS/ACSs is/are calculated using the conven­ efficiency of 92.61% had to be used which was not mentioned in [6].
tional definition. The water mass flow rates through the ACS eva­ The ORC model validation was already discussed in a previous paper
porator, absorber and condenser are determined from heat balance in [22] and hence it is not repeated in this paper.
these devices. The irreversibility in ACS-I and ACS-II components of
Config.1 are calculated using the general exergy balance equation as 4.2. ST and ACS model validation
shown in Table 3.
Similarly, the irreversibility in the ACS components of Configs.2 and To validate the ST plant model, the simulation results were

8
J. Nondy and T.K. Gogoi Energy Conversion and Management 223 (2020) 113242

Table 3
Exergy balance equations used for irreversibility calculation of ACS-I and ACS-II components in Config.1.
Components ACS-I ACS-II

Evaporator (EVA) Ex d = Ex 3 + Ex 17 Ex 4 Ex 18 Ex d = Ex 3 + Ex 15 Ex 4 Ex 16
Condenser (COND) Ex d = Ex 1 + Ex 5 Ex 2 Ex 16 Ex d = Ex 1 + Ex 13 Ex 2 Ex 14
Absorber (ABS) Ex d = Ex 4 + Ex 10 + Ex 13 Ex 5 Ex 14 Ex d = Ex 4 + Ex 10 + Ex 11 Ex 5 Ex 12
Generator (GEN) Ex d = Ex 7 + Ex10 Ex 1 Ex 8 Ex11 Ex d = Ex5 + Ex 7 Ex 1 Ex 6 Ex 8
SHE Ex d = Ex 6 + Ex 8 Ex 7 Ex 9 Ex d = Ex 6 + Ex 8 Ex 7 Ex 9
SP Ex d = Ex 5 + WSP I Ex 6 Ex d = Ex 5 + WSP II Ex 6
ExV–I/III Exd, ExV I = Ex 9 Ex 10 Exd, ExV III = Ex 9 Ex 10
ExV–II/IV Exd, ExV II = Ex 2 Ex 3 Exd, ExV IV = Ex 2 Ex 3

compared with those of Ref. [23]. From the comparison shown in 89 to 94 bar to investigate its effect on net power and cooling outputs
Table 6, it is seen that the present model generates almost the same from all the configurations. The lower limit was chosen 89 bar because
results with those of Ref. [23] with little deviations. Similarly, to vali­ otherwise, it exceeds the critical temperature of R245fa in the ORC of
date the ACS model, the results obtained from simulation were com­ Configs.1 and 2. In case of Configs.3 and 4, although there was no such
pared with those of Lansing [24] under the identical operating condi­ lower limit but the steam pressure, if increased beyond 94 bar, the
tions. The comparison is shown in Table 7 and the results show a steam quality at ST exit falls below 85%. Therefore, the power and
satisfactory agreement. Slight deviations in the results is due to the fact cooling outputs of the four CPC systems were compared at 89 bar and
that the modeling equations used in the present study were taken from 94 bar which are shown in Table 8. In the HRSG, a fixed steam gen­
Patek and Klomfar [21] which are different from those of Lansing [24]. eration rate of 18.5 kg/s was considered by maintaining a pinch point
Since the results obtained from the ST plant and ACS models do not temperature difference (PPTD) that was varying from 14.65 °C at 89 bar
deviate much from those of Ref. [23,24], therefore, the models were to 16.15 °C at 94 bar. From the ST, 12.254 kg/s of steam was extracted
further modified to simulate the proposed cogeneration systems. at 5 bar for driving the ORC and the remaining (6.246 kg/s) was further
expanded to pass it through the ACS-I.
5. Results and discussion From the results in Table 8, it was seen that the net GT power output
is the same in all the CPC systems and it is also independent of HRSG
The total energy output and system irreversibility of all the four CPC steam pressure. In Config.1, the net ST power increases marginally from
systems are analyzed in the following section. While analyzing the 14.094 MW at 89 bar to 14.19 MW at 94 bar while the net ORC power
above, the performance of each individual system is also shown sepa­ decreases from 5.248 MW to 5.098 MW. But, compared to the increase
rately by showing their power/cooling outputs, energy efficiencies/ in net ST power (98 kW), the decrease in ORC net power was more
COPs, exergy efficiencies and component irreversibility etc. Actually, (150 kW) and therefore, the total power output was slightly more at
the performance of a combined system, consisting of several individual 89 bar. It was also seen that when the HRSG steam pressure is increased
systems, is governed by energy conversion efficiency of each individual from 89 to 94 bar, the cooling output from ACS-I decrease slightly by
system. Therefore, it is important to understand the contribution of 47 kW while the same in ACS-II, increases by 91 kW. This finally causes
each individual system to the overall system performance. Further, in an overall increase of 44 kW in the total cooling output. Overall, the
thermodynamic system analysis, it is quite common that often the total energy output of Config.1 was slightly more at 89 bar compared to
properties and mass flow rates are shown at various states. It not only its value at 94 bar. Mass flow rates and properties at various states of
shows the mass and property variation from point to point in a given Config.1 at 89 bar is shown in Table 9. These state-wise variations of
system, but also provides related information of a study that is complete mass flow rates and thermodynamic properties are ultimately re­
from all aspects. Thermodynamic properties at various states are im­ sponsible for the results that are shown in Table 8 for Config.1 at
portant key parameters associated with energy (heat/work) and exergy 89 bar.
transfer of a given system component. The state properties of ACS-II are same with those of ACS-I at the
corresponding states because the component operating temperatures
are same in both ACS-I and ACS-II. Hence these are not shown sepa­
5.1. Discussion on energy-based results
rately in Table 9. Only the mass flow rates of refrigerant and salt so­
lutions in ACS-II are different from those of ACS-I which are com­
The energy-based results obtained from simulation of the CPC
paratively less in ACS-II due to lower cooling output. This is because
system configurations are discussed in the following sections.
less heat is supplied by hot gas in the ACS-II generator compared to
what is supplied by condensing steam in the ACS-I generator.
5.1.1. Power, cooling and total energy output of each system configuration Similar to Config.1, in Config.2 also, with an increase in HRSG
The fuel and airflow rates in the GT plant were fixed and with other steam pressure, the net ORC power decreases by 223 kW while the net
fixed parameters shown in Table 1, a net 36.082 MW of power could be ST power increases by 111 kW with an overall decrease in net power of
obtained from the GT plant. The HRSG steam pressure was varied from

Table 4
Comparison of present GT model results with those of Ref. [6].
State points P (kPa) T (K) h (kJ/kmol) n (kmol/s)

Ref. [6] Present Ref. [6] Present Ref. [6] Present Ref. [6] Present

1 100.8 100.8 287.15 287.15 0 8684.967 15.5961 15.5961


2 1209.6 1209.6 636.44 621.34 10398 18671.88 15.5961 15.5961
3 1191.456 1191.456 1355.2 1257.71 34902 45281.28 16.0609 16.1017
4 104 104 851.95 779.30 17614 28436.42 16.0609 16.1017

9
J. Nondy and T.K. Gogoi Energy Conversion and Management 223 (2020) 113242

Table 5
Comparison of present GT model results with those of Ref. [6].
State points P (kPa) T (K) h (kJ/kmol) n (kmol/s)

Ref. [6] Present Ref. [6] Present Ref. [6] Present Ref. [6] Present

1 100.8 100.8 287.15 287.15 0 0 15.5961 15.5961


2 1209.6 1209.6 636.44 636.44 10398 10398.0 15.5961 15.5961
3 1191.456 1191.456 1355.2 1355.15 34902 34989.28 16.0609 16.1017
4 104 104 851.95 832.251 17614 16995.95 16.0609 16.1017

112 kW. With HRSG steam pressure, however, the cooling output from cooling outputs increase respectively by 23 kW and 45 kW. This in­
ACS-II increases marginally by 92.4 kW. Therefore, the total energy dicates a better system performance of Config.4 at 94 bar both in terms
output of Config.2 decreases by 19.6 kW with an increase in HRSG of power and cooling. Mass flow rates and properties at various states of
steam pressure from 89 to 94 bar. Compared to Config.1, although, the Config.4 at 94 bar is shown in Table 10 to represent the state-wise
net power output from Config.2 is slightly more, but the cooling output variation of these important parameters that govern the energy and
is significantly less due to the presence of only one ACS in the system. exergy transfer in each system component. The properties at state
In Config.3, ORC is not employed and only GT and ST plants are points of ACS-I and ACS-II are not shown in Table 10 because these
used but still, the maximum power was obtained from this system only. would be same with those presented in Table 9 except the mass flow
The regenerative ST plant with one OWH generates more power than rates of ACS-II due to different cooling outputs. In Table 9,10, the mass
those produced by the ORCs and the STs of Configs.1 and 2 because, in flow rates and properties at the state points from 1 to 4 and 6 are the
this system, steam in the ST is expanded to a low condenser pressure of same. Changes are distinct only at the state point 5, points from 7 to 14
0.05 bar. In Config.3, with an increase in HRSG steam pressure, the net in Table 9 and 7 to 17 in Table 10.
ST power increases marginally by 50 kW and the cooling output also Thus, it was seen that Configs.1 and 4 are comparable to each other
increases by 161 kW. Increase in net ST power at higher steam pressure in terms of total energy output. Config.1 performs better in terms of
is a known phenomenon. Similar to Config.2, Config.3 also consists of total energy output at 89 bar while for Config.4, 94 bar is the suitable
only one ACS; therefore, the cooling output is comparatively less. HRSG steam pressure. As far as Configs.2 and 3 are concerned, the
Among the two, Config.2 is superior in terms of cooling output while cooling outputs are less due to having only one ACS in their system
the Config.3 is superior in terms of net power output. Almost equal configurations, and accordingly, the total energy outputs were also less
amounts of total energy were obtained from Configs.2 and 3 at the two in these two configurations.
HRSG steam pressure with Config.2 producing slightly more total en­
ergy at 89 bar and Config.3 at 94 bar. However, compared to Config.1,
the total energy outputs of Configs.2 and 3 were significantly less, 5.1.2. Energy efficiency of individual systems in each configuration
particularly the cooling output due to having only one ACS in their Following the above, the energy conversion efficiency of all in­
system configurations. dividual systems as a function HRSG steam pressure is shown in
The total energy output obtained from Config.4 is comparable with Table 11 separately for all the configurations. The GT plant energy
that of Config.1. Almost the same total energy output could be obtained efficiency is the same 28.28% in all the four configurations and it is also
despite not having the ORC in this system. The cooling outputs, which independent of the HRSG steam pressure. The net ORC power of
were comparatively less in Configs.2 and 3 could be compensated by Config.1, although it was less compared to that of Config.2 (refer
integrating one more ACS in Config.4 which is driven by steam ex­ Table 8), the ORC efficiencies in these two configurations are however
tracted from the ST. Compared to Config.1, the net power output ob­ the same at a given HRSG steam pressure. This was due to the heat
tained from Config.4 was little more while the cooling output from ACS- supplied in the VGs of the respective ORCs of the two configurations,
II was slightly less at the two HRSG steam pressures. Further in which was proportionally converted to net power. In fact, due to higher
Config.4, with an increase in HRSG steam pressure, the net power and steam flow rate (18 kg/s in the ORC of Config.2 against 12.254 kg/s of
Config.1), the amount of heat supplied by condensing steam in the VG

Table 6
Validation of results obtained from simulation of a reheat ST plant with those of Ref. [23] at same operating conditions (Pump and turbine isentropic effi­
ciency = 90%).
State points T (°C) P (bar) h (kJ/kg) s (kJ/kgK)

Ref. [23] Present Ref. [23] Present Ref. [23] Present Ref. [23] Present

1 500 500 120 120 3348 3350 6.487 6.4902


2 – 277.54 24 24 2957 2957.5 6.569 6.5707
3 500 500 24 24 3463 3463.7 7.343 7.345
4 – 170.25 1.5 1.5 2813 2813.7 7.513 7.515
5 39 39 0.07 0.07 2399 2382.5 7.720 7.668
6 39 39 0.07 0.07 163.4 163.365 0.5591 0.5591
7 – 39.025 1.5 1.5 163.5 163.526 0.5592 0.5593
8 – 111.35 1.5 1.5 462.8 467.081 1.4225 1.4335
9 – 112.593 120 120 474.3 480.942 1.4254 1.4372

Ref. [23] Present

Steam extracted (kg/s) 0.113 0.1145


Net work (kJ/kg of steam) 1408 1410.3
Heat supplied (kJ/kg of steam) 3380 3375.2
Efficiency (%) 41.66 41.78

10
J. Nondy and T.K. Gogoi Energy Conversion and Management 223 (2020) 113242

Table 7 Table 9
Validation of results obtained from simulation of the single effect water-LiBr Properties and mass flow rates at various states of Config.1 at 89 bar HRSG
ACS with those of Ref. [24] at same operating conditions (Evaporator cooling steam pressure.
load, QE = 3.51 kW, TG = 90 °C, TE = 7 °C, TA = 40 °C and TC = 40 °C, SHE
State Point P (bar) T (°C) m (kg/s) h (kJ/kg) s (kJ/kg-k)
efficiency = 80%).
Parameter Ref. [24] Present study 1 1.013 25 80.584 341.64 6.908
2 10.13 333.16 80.584 663.55 6.976
4.5247 4.5999 3 9.98 1273.65 83.23 2174.58 8.15
Generator heat load, (QG kW)
4 1.074 718.46 83.23 1420.39 8.235
Condenser heat load, (QC kW) 3.7414 3.7432
5 1.042 158.3 83.23 743.74 7.247
Absorber, (Q A kW) 4.2945 4.368
6 1.013 90 83.23 663.11 7.058
Evaporator pressure (kPa) 0.9933 1.0021 7 89 132.19 18.5 561.50 1.649
Condenser pressure (kPa) 7.3821 7.3844 8 89 550 18.5 3512.90 6.822
Weak solution concentration ( Xws ) 0.6233 0.6233 9 5 185.54 18.5 2528.30 6.995
Strong solution concentration ( Xss ) 0.5672 0.5672 10 0.70 90 6.246 2518.30 7.089
Refrigerant mass flow rate (kg/s) 0.0015 0.0015 11 0.70 90 6.246 376.97 1.193
Weak solution mass flow rate (kg/s) 0.0151 0.0151 12 89 90.79 6.246 387.13 1.195
Strong solution mass flow rate (kg/s) 0.0166 0.0166 13 5 151.84 12.254 640.19 1.861
COP 0.776 0.763 14 89 153.02 12.254 650.38 1.863
1 30.35 165.83 107.03 530.72 1.891
2 1.77 82.70 107.03 477.42 1.900
of Config.2’s ORC was more; therefore, due to a higher mass flow rate of 3 1.77 30 107.03 426.43 1.135
working fluid, more power was obtained from the ORC of Config.2 4 1.77 30 107.03 239.10 1.753
(refer Table 8). Again in both Configs.1 and 2, the net ORC power was 5 30.35 31.19 107.03 241.49 1.136
30.35 142.85 107.03 418.03 1.628
less at higher HRSG steam pressure; therefore, as shown in Table 11, the 6
1 0.056 80 4.385 2650.04 8.610
ORC efficiency reduces slightly with the increase in HRSG steam pres­
2 0.056 35 4.385 146.64 0.505
sure. The ST plant efficiency, in all the four configurations, increases 3 0.0087 5 4.385 146.64 0.528
marginally with HRSG steam pressure and at a given pressure, it was 4 0.0087 5 52.85 2510.07 9.024
the highest for Config.3 followed by those of the Configs.4, 1 and 2. 5 0.0087 35 52.85 85.37 0.211
This is obvious because the highest net ST power was also obtained 6 0.056 35 52.85 85.37 0.211
from the Config.3 following the net ST powers of Configs.4, 1 and 2 7 0.056 64.92 48.46 146.38 0.400
(refer Table 8). Further, it was observed that compared to the ORCs, the 8 0.056 80 48.46 195.82 0.450
9 0.056 46.250 48.46 131.40 0.259
ST and GT plant efficiencies are more. This could be due to the dif­
10 0.0087 46.253 48.46 131.40 0.259
ference in the working fluid properties or also may be due to higher net
powers associated with the STs in comparison to those of the ORCs. The
ST plant efficiencies of Configs.1 and 2 are however less than the GT Table 10
plant efficiency. Properties and mass flow rates at various state points of Config. 4 at 94 bar
The COPs of ACS-I and ACS-II in Configs.1 and 4 and ACS in HRSG steam pressure.
Configs.2 and 3 are all equal to 0.775 because same components’ op­
State Point P (bar) T (°C) m (kg/s) h (kJ/kg) s (kJ/kg-k)
erating temperatures and SHE efficiency were maintained in all these
ACSs. 1 1.013 25 80.584 341.64 6.908
2 10.13 333.16 80.584 663.55 6.976
3 9.98 1273.65 83.23 2174.58 8.15
5.2. Discussion on exergy-based results
4 1.074 718.46 83.23 1420.39 8.235
5 1.042 150.14 83.23 734.07 7.225
In this section, the irreversibility of all individual system compo­ 6 1.013 90 83.23 663.11 7.058
nents in a given system and their contribution to total system irrever­ 7 94 121.24 18.50 515.52 1.533
sibility is discussed in detail. Further, the exergetic performance var­ 8 94 550 18.50 3507.90 6.793
9 2 120.21 1.8447 2668.00 7.030
iation with HRSG steam pressure, in terms of exergy efficiency,
10 1.654 90 6.1943 2638.70 7.039
component and total system irreversibility, is also presented. The ex­ 11 1.654 114.32 6.1943 479.65 1.466
ergetic performance comparison of the four CPC systems is important 12 2 114.33 6.1943 479.69 1.466
because, sometimes, system analysis done only with the help of energy 13 0.05 32.88 10.461 2198.30 7.209
may not provide a true performance measure and in that case, exergy 14 0.05 32.88 10.461 137.76 0.476
15 2 32.91 10.461 137.98 0.477
analysis is a more appropriate method for finding out the complete 16 2 63.29 16.655 265.06 0.872
performance details of a given system. Exergy analysis also helps 17 2 120.21 18.50 504.68 1.530
identifying system components that contribute higher irreversibility

Table 8
Comparison of power and cooling outputs of all the four CPC systems at HRSG steam pressures of 89 bar and 94 bar.
State points Config.1 Config.2 Config.3 Config.4

89 bar 94 bar 89 bar 94 bar 89 bar 94 bar 89 bar 94 bar

Net GT Power 36.082 36.082 36.082 36.082 36.082 36.082 36.082 36.082
Net ORC Power 5.248 5.098 7.920 7.697 – – – –
Net ST Power 14.094 14.192 12.215 12.326 22.22 22.27 19.927 19.951
Net Power 55.424 55.372 56.217 56.105 58.282 58.352 56.01 56.033
ACS-I Cooling 10.362 10.315 – – – – 10.362 10.315
ACS-II Cooling 5.20 5.291 6.578 6.6704 4.496 4.587 4.484 4.576
Net Cooling 15.482 15.606 6.578 6.6704 4.496 4.587 14.846 14.891
Net energy Output 70.986 70.978 62.795 62.775 62.778 62.939 70.856 70.924

11
J. Nondy and T.K. Gogoi Energy Conversion and Management 223 (2020) 113242

Table 11 and consequently, the total ORC irreversibility also increases by 4.3%.
Comparison of energy efficiency of the four CPC system configurations and Further, it was seen that among the ORC components, the VG con­
their variation with HRSG steam pressure. tributes the maximum irreversibility followed by the VT, condenser,
Configurations Energy HRSG steam pressure (bar) regenerator and the pump. In a previous study [22] also, a similar
Efficiencies chronology of ORC components’ irreversibility was observed. Irrever­
89 90 91 92 93 94 sibility in ACS-I components of Config.1 decreases with HRSG steam
pressure because it is proportional to the cooling load and earlier, less
Config.1 ORC (%) 19.60 19.51 19.42 19.33 19.24 19.14
ST Plant (%) 25.81 25.86 25.91 25.95 26.00 26.04 cooling was obtained from ACS-I at 94 bar. As a result, the total ACS-I
irreversibility reduces from 1742.52 kW at 89 bar to 1734.61 kW at
Config.2 ORC (%) 19.60 19.51 19.42 19.33 19.24 19.14 94 bar. Further, it was seen that in ACS-I, at a given pressure, the ab­
ST Plant (%) 23.07 23.12 23.17 23.22 23.27 23.32
sorber produces the maximum irreversibility followed by the generator,
Config.3 ST Plant (%) 40.06 40.10 40.14 40.17 40.21 40.24
evaporator, condenser, SHE and ExV-2. The ExV-1 irreversibility is al­
most negligible and so is the SP irreversibility, hence these are not
Config.4 ST Plant (%) 35.93 35.95 35.97 36.00 36.02 36.04 shown in Table 12. In ACS-II components of Config.1 however, the ir­
reversibility increases with HRSG steam pressure for the obvious reason
of higher cooling at 94 bar (hence mass flow rate) and therefore the
under a given set of operating conditions. The results are presented total ACS-II irreversibility increases by 2.31%. Since at a given HRSG
categorically in Section 5.2.1–5.2.3, for showing the irreversibility, steam pressure, less cooling was obtained from ACS-II compared to that
exergy efficiency and their variations with HRSG steam pressure. of ACS-I (5.20 MW against 10.362 MW of ACS-I at 89 bar and
5.291 MW against 10.32 MW of ACS-I at 94 bar), therefore, the irre­
5.2.1. Individual component and total system irreversibility of each versibility occurred in ACS-II components and the total ACS-II irrever­
configuration sibility are less compared to those of ACS-I. Further, it was observed
Since the topping GT plant and its operating conditions are the same that in ACS-II, the generator irreversibility is the highest and the ab­
in all the four schematics, therefore, the irreversible losses occurred in sorber, evaporator, condenser, SHE and ExV-2 are the other compo­
the GT plant components are also the same in all the four systems. The nents in chronological order in terms of their contributions to total ACS-
irreversibility occurred in the GT plant components is shown in Fig. 5. II irreversibility. As such, the absorber which was the major source of
The highest irreversibility occurs in the CC (141.52 MW) followed by a irreversibility in ACS-I with the generator being the next, in ACS-II,
GT irreversibility of 107.29 MW. The AC irreversibility (1.63 MW) is however, it was the second major component after the generator. A
minimal compared to the total GT plant irreversibility (250.44 MW). similar trend was observed in the study by Khaliq [11] where he pro­
Further, the GT plant components’ irreversibility is independent of the posed a CPC system in which a single effect water-LiBr ACS was oper­
HRSG steam pressure. ated by GT exhaust. Usually, in an ACS, the generator and the absorber
The irreversible losses occurred in Config.1 components and their are the most crucial components. In some previous studies [11,26]
variation with HRSG steam pressure is shown in Table 12. It was seen earlier, the generator was shown as the maximum irreversibility pro­
that with an increase in steam pressure from 89 to 94 bar, the HRSG ducing component while in some other studies [27], the absorber was
irreversibility decreases by 2.11%. Although the PPTD was slightly the major contributor to ACS irreversibility. It depends on the energy
more at 94 bar, but lower HRSG irreversibility at higher steam pressure quality of the heat source and the system operating conditions. The
is a common observation [25]. At higher steam pressure, the corre­ generator irreversibility is more in Config.1 ACS-II due to higher tem­
sponding saturation temperature increases reducing the temperature perature difference between the HRSG off exhaust gas and the water-
difference between the hot GT exhaust gas and the water vapour mix­ LiBr solution compared to that of the condensing steam at 90 °C and the
ture, and also the HRSG irreversibility. The ST irreversibility however working solution in the ACS-I generator. Further, it was seen that the
increases from 1128.91 kW at 89 bar to 1148.36 kW at 94 bar. This condenser and evaporator produce almost equal irreversibility in ACS-I
irreversibility change is related to the enthalpy and entropy change at and ACS-II of Config.1.
the corresponding states with respect to steam pressure variation be­ The irreversible losses occurred in the components of Configs.2 and
cause the steam temperature at ST inlet and mass flow rate through ST 3 at various HRSG steam pressures are shown in Table 13. In Config.2
was fixed. also, the HRSG irreversibility decreases with the increase in HRSG
The irreversibility in the ORC components shows a decreasing trend steam pressure, while the ST and Pump–1 irreversibility increases. For
due to change in properties at various ORC states. However the VG the reason as mentioned earlier in case of Config.1, the ORC
irreversibility increases with increase in HRSG steam pressure by 9.59%

Fig. 5. GT plant components’ irreversibility.

12
J. Nondy and T.K. Gogoi Energy Conversion and Management 223 (2020) 113242

Table 12
Irreversibility variation in system components of Config.1 variation with HRSG steam pressure.
HRSG & ST irreversibility (kW) of Config.1 ORC components’ irreversibility (kW) of Config.1

HRSG pressure (bar) HRSG ST VG VT REG COND Pump-3

89 4589.40 1128.91 1436.61 536.23 182.93 423.02 25.70


90 4569.39 1133.10 1463.84 532.97 181.85 422.73 25.16
91 4549.70 1137.09 1491.28 529.73 180.75 422.45 24.62
92 4530.31 1141.96 1518.84 526.49 179.62 422.17 24.11
93 4511.23 1144.71 1546.53 523.27 178.48 421.89 23.60
94 4492.44 1148.36 1574.33 520.07 177.32 421.62 23.12

ACS-I component Irreversibility (kW) of Config.1

HRSG pressure (bar) ABS SHE GEN ExV-1 COND ExV-2 EVA Total

89 550.51 103.69 478.07 0.33 289.39 29.71 290.80 1742.52


90 550.01 103.60 477.63 0.33 289.13 29.69 290.54 1740.92
91 549.50 103.50 477.20 0.33 288.86 29.66 290.27 1739.32
92 549.00 103.41 476.76 0.32 288.60 29.63 290.01 1737.74
93 548.51 103.32 476.33 0.32 288.34 29.61 289.74 1736.17
94 548.02 103.22 475.90 0.32 288.08 29.58 289.48 1734.61

ACS-II component Irreversibility (kW) of Config.1

HRSG pressure (bar) ABS SHE GEN ExV-1 COND ExV-2 EVA Total

89 276.38 0.07 51.96 700.88 145.21 14.91 145.92 1335.33


90 277.35 0.07 52.14 704.79 145.72 14.96 146.43 1341.47
91 278.32 0.07 52.32 708.71 146.23 15.01 146.94 1347.62
92 279.30 0.07 52.51 712.64 146.74 15.07 147.46 1353.78
93 280.27 0.07 52.69 716.58 147.25 15.12 147.97 1359.95
94 281.24 0.07 52.87 720.53 147.76 15.17 148.48 1366.14

components’ irreversibility decreases with HRSG steam pressure except Config.4 reduces by 1.493% during HRSG steam pressure change from
in the VG where the irreversibility is significantly high compared to the 89 to 94 bar.
other ORC components and hence, the total ORC irreversibility is more The same cooling outputs which were obtained from ACS-I of
at 94 bar (4.101 MW) compared to its value at 89 bar (3.932 MW). Due Config.1 at six different HRSG steam pressures were also considered for
to higher mass flow rate, earlier more power was obtained from the ACS-I of Config.4. This was done to compare the performances of the
ORC of Config.2; therefore proportionately, the total ORC irreversibility Configs.1 and 4 for the same ACS-I cooling output in both the config­
of Config.2 was more than that of Config.1. The irreversibility of ACS urations. The irreversibility variation of Config.4 ACS-I components
components are slightly more at 94 bar due to a higher amount of as­ with HRSG steam pressure is similar to that of Config.1 and the com­
sociated cooling and hence the total ACS irreversibility of Config.2 is ponent irreversibility values are also more or less the same with those of
also more by few kW at 94 bar compared to total ACS irreversibility at Config.1. Similar to Config.1, in Config.4 also, the irreversibility in the
89 bar. Among the cooling systems, since the highest cooling was ob­ ACS-II components increases and consequently, the total ACS-II irre­
tained from Config.2, therefore the total ACS irreversibility is also the versibility increases by 2.63% during HRSG steam pressure variation
maximum in this configuration. from 89 to 94 bar. Since the cooling output from ACS-II of Config.4 is
In Config.3 also, with the increase in HRSG steam pressure, the relatively less compared to that of Config.1 at a fixed pressure, there­
HRSG irreversibility reduces by 95.64 kW while in the other ST cycle fore, the total ACS-II irreversibility is also less in Config.4. Further, it
components, where the irreversibility values are relatively less, the was observed that the total ACS-II irreversibility of Config.4 is almost
change in irreversibility with HRSG steam pressure is not so significant. the same with the total ACS irreversibility of Config.3 because the
The irreversibility in the ST and the pump shows a slight increase while cooling loads were almost equal in the two with a slight difference.
in the OWH and the condenser, the irreversibility slightly reduces. In
the ACS, due to slightly higher cooling that was obtained earlier at
94 bar, the components’ irreversibility increases slightly with HRSG 5.2.2. Additional remarks on comparative performance based on total
steam pressure and this causes an overall increase of total ACS irre­ system irreversibility
versibility by 29 kW. Earlier, from energy analysis, it was found that Configs.1 and 4
The components’ irreversibility of Config.4 at various HRSG steam perform better in terms of total energy output respectively at 89 and
pressures are shown in Table 14. The irreversibility in the bottoming ST 94 bar. Now from total plant irreversibility point of view also, perfor­
cycle components including the HRSG irreversibility reduces gradually mances of Configs.1 and 4 are found to be superior at the respective
with increase in HRSG steam pressure except in the pumps where the pressures. This is evident from the total plant irreversibility presented
irreversibility is the minimum among the ST cycle components. Unlike in Fig. 6. The total plant irreversibility of Config.1 increases slightly
in the other configurations where the ST irreversibility was more at from 261.84 MW at 89 bar to 261.90 MW at 94 bar while in case of
94 bar, in Config.4 however, the ST irreversibility is little less at higher Config.4, the plant irreversibility marginally reduces from 260.63 MW
steam pressure. Further, at a given pressure, the HRSG irreversibility is at 89 bar to 260.55 MW at 94 bar. The total plant irreversibility of
the highest followed by that of the ST, condenser, OWH and the pumps. Config.1 increases with steam pressure mainly due to irreversibility
These are some of the most common observations regarding ST cycle increase in the VG of the ORC, ST and ACS-II generator and absorber
components’ irreversibility that tally with previous findings [28]. The (refer to Table 12). Similarly, in Config.4, for the slightly lower total
total irreversibility of the ST cycle components (including the HRSG) of irreversibility at 94 bar, the irreversibility reduction in the HRSG,
OWH, ST, the condenser of the ST cycle and the ACS-II components are

13
J. Nondy and T.K. Gogoi Energy Conversion and Management 223 (2020) 113242

Table 13
Irreversibility variation in system components of Configs.2 and 3 with HRSG steam pressures.
ST plant components’ irreversibility (kW) of Config.2 ORC components’ irreversibility (kW) of Config.2

HRSG pressure (bar) HRSG ST Pump-1 VG VT REG COND Pump-2

89 4520.26 954.02 14.37 2168.87 809.55 276.17 638.64 38.80


90 4499.77 958.47 14.53 2209.97 804.64 274.54 638.20 37.98
91 4479.58 962.71 14.69 2251.40 799.74 272.88 637.77 37.18
92 4459.71 966.83 14.85 2293.02 794.85 271.18 637.35 36.39
93 4440.14 970.83 15.07 2334.82 789.99 269.45 636.94 35.64
94 4420.86 974.72 15.17 2376.78 785.15 267.70 636.53 34.90

ACS components’ irreversibility (kW) of Config.2

HRSG pressure (bar) ABS SHE GEN ExV-1 COND ExV-2 EVA Total

89 349.51 65.83 1017.97 0.21 183.73 18.87 184.62 1820.74


90 350.48 66.02 1022.52 0.21 184.24 18.92 185.14 1827.52
91 351.45 66.20 1027.07 0.21 184.75 18.97 185.65 1834.31
92 352.43 66.38 1031.65 0.21 185.26 19.02 186.16 1841.12
93 353.40 66.57 1036.24 0.21 185.77 19.08 186.68 1847.94
94 354.37 66.75 1040.83 0.21 186.29 19.13 187.19 1854.77

ACS components’ irreversibility (kW) of Config.3

HRSG pressure (bar) ABS SHE GEN ExV-1 COND ExV-2 EVA Total

89 238.87 44.99 555.73 0.14 125.57 12.89 126.18 1104.37


90 239.83 45.17 559.28 0.14 126.07 12.95 126.69 1110.15
91 240.81 45.36 562.83 0.14 126.59 13.00 127.20 1115.93
92 241.78 45.54 566.41 0.14 127.09 13.05 127.72 1121.73
93 242.75 45.72 569.98 0.14 127.61 13.10 128.23 1127.55
94 243.72 45.91 573.58 0.14 128.12 13.16 128.74 1133.37

ST plant components’ irreversibility (kW) of Config.3


HRSG pressure (bar) HRSG ST COND OWH Pumps Total

89 4632.75 2112.16 843.04 572.43 16.34 8176.73


90 4613.01 2113.23 842.18 572.35 16.51 8157.28
91 4593.58 2114.28 841.32 572.26 16.67 8138.12
92 4574.46 2115.30 840.48 572.18 16.84 8119.26
93 4555.64 2116.30 839.64 572.09 17.00 8100.68
94 4537.12 2117.28 838.81 572.01 17.17 8082.39

mainly responsible. the irreversibility of the ST cycle components were more in Config.3
Now at this stage, a question arises regarding Configs.2 and 3 as to and this finally reduced the difference in total irreversibility of Cofig.3
how these configurations fare with Configs.1 and 4 in terms of total with those of Configs.1 and 4.
plant irreversibility because the cooling and the total energy output On the other hand, the total irreversibility of Config.2 is respectively
were significantly less in these two configurations. Fig. 7 shows the 0.16 MW and 0.09 MW less than those of Config.1 at 89 and 94 bar. But
total plant irreversibility of the four CPC systems at 89 and 94 bar. compared to Config.4, Config.2 total irreversibility is respectively
Although the cooling and total energy outputs from Configs.2 and 3 1.07 MW and 1.26 MW more at the two HRSG steam pressures. In
were significantly less, the corresponding total plant irreversibility is Config.2, the HRSG and ST irreversibility are less compared to those of
not so. Only in the Config.3, the plant irreversibility is a little less Configs.1 and 4 at all HRSG steam pressures. But the irreversibility of
compared to those of Configs.1 and 4. The total irreversibility values of the ORC and ACS components (ACS of Config.2 over ACS-II of Configs.1
Config.3 are respectively 2.12 MW and 2.24 MW less compared to those and 4) are significantly high in Config.2 compared to their counterparts
of Config.1 at 89 and 94 bar. These reductions in total irreversibility of in Configs.1 and 4. Irreversibility, particularly in the VG, VT and con­
Config.3 over Config.4 are however comparatively less (0.89 MW and denser of the ORC and ACS generator, shows a significant increase over
0.9 MW) at the two pressures. The fact that Config.3 provides relatively the corresponding components of Config.1 (refer to Table 12,). This
better exergetic performance at 94 bar compared to the other three irreversibility increase in the respective component of Config.2 over
configurations is now confirmed from the exergy based results. Actu­ Config.4 (refer to Tables 12–14) is, in fact, more than those over
ally, the HRSG and ST irreversibility of Config.3, particularly the ST Config.1. Therefore, despite the additional ACS-I in Configs.1 and 4,
irreversibility, is significantly higher than those of Config.1 at all HRSG ultimately the total Config.2 irreversibility was found almost the same
steam pressures (refer to Table 12,). Moreover, the OWH and condenser (slightly less) with Config.1 and marginally higher than that of
irreversibility are additional in Config.3. Compared to Config.4, the Config.4.
irreversibility of the ST cycle components in Config.3 is also more. The From the specific performance comparison between Configs.1 and
ACS components’ irreversibility values in Config.3 are however less 4, while considering the performance of Config.1 at 89 and Config.4 at
compared to those of ACS-II in Config.1. The total ACS irreversibility of 94 bar, it was found that total irreversibility of Config.4 at 94 bar is
Config.3 and total ACS-II irreversibility of Config.4 are almost equal at 1.29 MW less than that of Config.1 at 89 bar. Previously, the total en­
all HRSG steam pressures. The total plant irreversibility of Config.3 ergy outputs from Configs.1 and 4 were found to be almost equal
should actually have been significantly less than those of Configs.1 and (70.986 MW and 70.924 MW) at the two HRSG steam pressures. Just
4 due to only one ACS in the system but this was not the case because for a slightly lower total energy output, a reduction in total

14
J. Nondy and T.K. Gogoi Energy Conversion and Management 223 (2020) 113242

Table 14
Components irreversibility of Config.4 and their variation with HRSG steam pressure
ACS-I components’ irreversibility (kW) of Config.4

HRSG pressure (bar) ABS SP-1 SHE GEN COND ExV-2 EVA Total

89 550.81 0.14 103.55 477.83 289.39 29.71 290.80 1742.25


90 550.31 0.14 103.46 477.40 289.13 29.69 290.54 1740.66
91 549.80 0.14 103.36 476.96 288.86 29.66 290.27 1739.06
92 549.30 0.14 103.27 476.53 288.60 29.63 290.01 1737.48
93 548.81 0.14 103.17 476.09 288.34 29.61 289.74 1735.91
94 548.31 0.14 103.08 475.67 288.08 29.58 289.48 1734.35

ACS-II components’ irreversibility (kW) of Config.4

HRSG pressure (bar) ABS SHE GEN ExV-1 COND ExV-2 EVA Total

89 238.26 44.88 555.22 0.14 125.25 12.86 125.86 1102.47


90 239.23 45.06 558.76 0.14 125.76 12.91 126.37 1108.24
91 240.20 45.24 562.32 0.14 126.27 12.97 126.88 1114.03
92 241.18 45.43 565.89 0.14 126.78 13.02 127.40 1119.83
93 242.15 45.61 569.47 0.14 127.29 13.07 127.91 1125.64
94 243.12 45.79 573.06 0.14 127.80 13.12 128.42 1131.47

HRSG & ST plant components’ irreversibility (kW) of Config.4


HRSG pressure (bar) HRSG ST COND OWH Pumps Total

89 4633.16 1890.94 558.75 248.11 15.95 7346.90


90 4613.41 1889.88 558.07 246.81 16.12 7324.28
91 4593.98 1888.82 557.39 245.52 16.29 7302.00
92 4574.86 1887.79 556.72 244.25 16.46 7280.08
93 4556.04 1886.75 556.05 243.00 16.62 7258.47
94 4537.52 1885.75 555.39 241.77 16.79 7237.22

irreversibility at the level of 1.29 MW makes Config.4 certainly a better efficiency is the minimum among all the individual systems. Earlier, the
candidate over Config.1. From the capital and operating cost point of highest irreversibility was found in the GT plant components (CC and
view also, Config.4 would be more economical than Config.1 as it GT) and now it is found the GT plant’s exergy efficiency is also the
produces almost the same total energy output without the ORC in its lowest. Among the power cycles, the highest power was produced by
system configuration. Similarly, among Configs.2 and 3, Config.3 is the GT plant only and therefore, relatively higher plant irreversibility in
superior to Config.2 not only in terms of net energy output (net energy case of the GT plant is acceptable. However, as a measure to improve
output of Config.3 at 94 bar is 144 kW more than that of Config.2 at GT plant performance further, probably employing higher GTIT, higher
89 bar) but the total irreversibility of Config.3 at 94 bar is also 1.96 MW compressor pressure ratio and other combinations of fuel and airflow
less than that of Config.2 at 89 bar. rates may be explored. The exergy efficiencies of the other individual
plants are shown in Table 15. As obviously, the ORC exergy efficiencies
5.2.3. Exergy efficiency of individual systems in each configuration in Configs.1 and 2 reduce with HRSG steam pressure and at a given
From the above exergy based results and discussion, already some HRSG steam pressure, like the energy efficiencies, the ORC exergy ef­
ideas about the exergetic performances of the system configurations ficiencies are also the same. However, compared to energy efficiency,
have been gathered. Next, the exergy efficiency variation of the in­ the ORC exergy efficiency is much higher. This was due to steam exergy
dividual systems with HRSG steam pressure is discussed to find out if supplied to the VG which was comparatively less than the corre­
there is any difference with the previously reported energy efficiencies. sponding energy input. Previously, in a given configuration, the ORC
The GT plant exergy efficiency of all the four configurations is the energy efficiency was the lowest among all the sub-systems. But from
same 16.74% at all HRSG steam pressures. It is less compared to the GT exergy analysis, it is found that exergetically, the ORC performance,
plant energy efficiency reported earlier and in fact, GT plant exergy both in Configs.1 and 2, are better than the GT and ST plants of

Fig. 6. Total plant irreversibility variation of Configs.1 and 4 with HRSG steam pressure.

15
J. Nondy and T.K. Gogoi Energy Conversion and Management 223 (2020) 113242

Fig. 7. Total plant irreversibility of the CPC systems at 89 and 94 bar.

Table 15 • The HRSG steam pressure in Configs.1 and 2 could not be lowered
Exergy efficiency variation of individual systems with HRSG steam pressure. below 89 bar due to pressure of R245fa exceeding the critical limit
Configurations Exergy HRSG steam pressure (bar)
in the ORC. For Configs.3 and 4, although there was no such lower
Efficiencies (%) limit but the steam pressure could not be increased beyond 94 bar
89 90 91 92 93 94 due to steam quality at ST exit falling below 85%. In Config.2,
however, there was no such upper limit of HRSG steam pressure.
Config. 1 ORC
ST Plant
65.47
45.98
65.19
46.05
64.90
46.13
64.60
46.20
64.30
46.27
64.00
46.35 • In Config.1, with an increase in HRSG steam pressure from 89 to
ACS-I 18.95 18.95 18.95 18.95 18.95 18.95 94 bar, the ST power increases and the ORC power decreases leading
ACS-II 14.18 14.17 14.16 14.14 14.13 14.12 to a net decrease of power. Conversely, the cooling output from
Config. 2 ORC 65.47 65.19 64.90 64.60 64.30 64.00 ACS-I decrease while the same from ACS-II increases resulting in an
ST Plant 40.55 40.64 40.72 40.81 40.89 40.97
overall increase in cooling output.

ACS 12.89 12.88 12.87 12.86 12.85 12.84
Config. 3 ST Plant 71.87 71.92 71.97 72.02 72.08 72.13 The total energy outputs from Configs.2 and 3 are less compared to
ACS 14.19 14.18 14.17 14.15 14.14 14.13 Configs.1 and 4, particularly the cooling outputs due to having only
Config. 4 ST Plant 64.45 64.48 64.51 64.54 64.57 64.59 one ACS in these two configurations. The ACS of Config.2 produces
ACS-I 18.95 18.95 18.95 18.95 18.95 18.95 more cooling than that of the Config.3. On the other hand, the
ACS-II 14.18 14.17 14.16 14.14 14.13 14.12
power cycles of Config.3 produce more power compared to those of
Config.2.
Configs.1, 2, and 4. The ST plant of Config.3 for which previously the • The Config.4 produces almost the same total energy as that of
energy efficiency was the maximum and now the exergy efficiency is Config.1. At 94 bar HRSG steam pressure, the net power and cooling
also the highest for this configuration followed by those of Configs.4, 1, outputs from Config.4 are 56.033 MW and 14.938 MW respectively
and 2 (a trend similar to energy efficiency). As the energy efficiency, against 55.372 MW and 15.606 MW of Config.1. Further in Config.4,
the ST plant exergy efficiency is also slightly higher at 94 bar in all the the net ST power, ACS-II cooling and the net energy outputs increase
configurations. with HRSG steam pressure and hence these are higher at 94 bar
Unlike the COPs, which were same in all the cooling systems of the compared to their values at 89 bar.
four configurations, the exergy efficiencies are however different. The • Configs.2 and 3 may be considered in case if the cooling require­
ACS-I of Configs.1 and 4 were compared earlier for the same cooling ment is less. Config.2 is more cooling intensive while the Config.3
capacities at a given HRSG steam pressure and accordingly the total produces the maximum net power among all the four system con­
ACS-I irreversibility in these two configurations was almost the same. figurations. The cooling output is, however, the minimum in
Similarly now the exergy efficiency of ACS-I is also the same and it is Config.3. Further, Config.2 performs better at 89 bar while the
the highest among the cooling systems. The ACS-I exergy efficiency is performance of Config.3 is superior at 94 bar HRSG steam pressure.
also independent of HRSG steam pressure although earlier the cooling • The highest irreversibility occurs in the GT plant where the CC and
obtained from ACS-I was less at higher HRSG steam pressure. Similarly, the GT are the major contributors. The total GT plant irreversibility
the ACS exergy efficiency of Config.3 and ACS-II exergy efficiency of alone accounts for more than 95% of the total plant irreversibility in
Config.4 are the same at a given HRSG steam pressure and these reduce all the systems. After the CC and the GT, the HRSG is the next major
marginally with HRSG steam pressure. The ACS exergy efficiency of contributor of irreversibility. In fact, the HRSG irreversibility is
Config.2 also reduces slightly with steam pressure and it is the lowest higher than the total ORC irreversibility of Configs.1 and 2, total ST
amongst all cooling systems. Previously, however, higher cooling was plant components’ irreversibility of Configs.3 and 4 and total ACS-I
obtained from ACS of Configs.2 and 3 and ACS-II of Configs.1 and 4, at and ACS-II irreversibility of Configs.1 and 4.
94 bar. Thus from the above observations, it can be opined that the • The total ORC irreversibility is more in Config.2 compared to that of
exergy efficiency of the cooling systems has nothing to do with the Config.1. Further, the ORC irreversibility increases with HRSG
evaporator cooling load and actually the irreversibility is affected by steam pressure both in Configs.1 and 2.
cooling load variation. • The total ACS-I irreversibility is the same in Configs.1 and 4, but due
to more cooling effect, the total ACS-II irreversibility of Config.1 is
higher than that of Config.4. Similarly, due to more power pro­
6. Conclusions duction, the total ST plant irreversibility of Config.3 is higher than
that of Config.4.
The following conclusions are made from the energy and exergy
analyses conducted on the proposed CPC system configurations. Thus, Config.4 is found to be the most suitable configuration from

16
J. Nondy and T.K. Gogoi Energy Conversion and Management 223 (2020) 113242

the detailed analysis. It is also possible in Config.4 to take care of the vapor absorption inlet air cooling. Appl Therm Eng 2017;122:380–8.
variation in ACS-I cooling load through the extraction of the required [8] Ameri M, Hejazi S. The study of capacity enhancement of the Chabahar gas turbine
installation using an absorption chiller. Appl Therm Eng 2004;24(1):59–68.
amount of steam from the ST. Next to Config.4, Config.1 can be pre­ [9] Mohapatra AK, et al. Exergetic evaluation of gas-turbine based combined cycle
ferred because the maximum total energy is produced with almost si­ system with vapor absorption inlet cooling. Appl Therm Eng 2018;136:431–43.
milar total plant irreversibility by Config.4. However, it may not be [10] Mone C, Chau D, Phelan P. Economic feasibility of combined heat and power and
absorption refrigeration with commercially available gas turbines. Energy Convers
cost-competitive due to presence of the ORC which can be confirmed in Manage 2001;42(13):1559–73.
a future study by comparing all the schematics from an economic point [11] Khaliq A. Exergy analysis of gas turbine trigeneration system for combined pro­
of view. But certainly Configs.1 and 4 are better than Config.2 because, duction of power heat and refrigeration. Int J Refrig 2009;32(3):534–45.
[12] Mohammadi A, Kasaeian A, Pourfayaz F, Ahmadi MH. Thermodynamic analysis of a
despite having an additional ACS, the total plant irreversibility of the combined gas turbine, ORC cycle and absorption refrigeration for a CCHP system.
Configs.1 and 4 are almost the same with that of Config.2. In Config.3 Appl Therm Eng 2017;111:397–406.
however, the total plant irreversibility is relatively less compared to [13] Anvari S, Taghavifar H, Parvishi A. Thermo-economical consideration of re­
generative organic Rankine cycle coupling with the absorption chiller systems in­
those of Config.1 and Config.4. Config.3 may be suitable in case if the
corporated in the trigeneration system. Energy Convers Manage 2017;148:317–29.
cooling requirement is less because it produces the maximum power [14] Sun W, Yue X, Wang Y. Exergy efficiency analysis of ORC (organic Rankine cycle)
and the total plant irreversibility is also the minimum for this plant. and ORC-based combined cycles driven by low-temperature waste heat. Energy
Convers Manage 2017;135:63–73.
[15] Sayyaadi H, Khosravanifard Y, Sohani A. Solutions for thermal energy exploitation
CRediT authorship contribution statement from the exhaust of an industrial gas turbine using optimized bottoming cycles.
Energy Convers Manage 2020;207:112523.
J. Nondy: Writing - original draft, Software, Validation. T.K. [16] Khaljani M, Saray RK, Bahlouli K. Comprehensive analysis of energy, exergy and
exergo-economic of cogeneration of heat and power in a combined gas turbine and
Gogoi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review & editing, organic Rankine cycle. Energy Convers Manage 2015;97:154–65.
Software, Supervision. [17] Lemmon E, Huber M, McLinden M. NIST Standard Reference Database 23,
Reference Fluid Thermodynamic and Transport Properties (REFPROP), version 9.0,
National Institute of Standards and Technology, R1234yf. fld file dated December
Declaration of Competing Interest 22 (2010) 2010.
[18] Kaushik S, Singh OK. Estimation of chemical exergy of solid, liquid and gaseous
fuels used in thermal power plants. J Therm Anal Calorim 2014;115(1):903–8.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
[19] Kotas TJ. The exergy method of thermal plant analysis. Elsevier; 2013.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ­ [20] Wagner W, Kretzschmar H-J. IAPWS industrial formulation for the thermodynamic
ence the work reported in this paper. properties of water and steam. International Steam Tables: Properties of Water and
Steam Based on the Industrial Formulation IAPWS-IF 1997;97(2008):7–150.
[21] Patek J, Klomfar J. A computationally effective formulation of the thermodynamic
References properties of LiBr–H2O solutions from 273 to 500 K over full composition range. Int
J Refrig 2006;29(4):566–78.
[1] Poullikkas A. An overview of current and future sustainable gas turbine technolo­ [22] Gogoi T, Saikia S. Performance analysis of a solar heat driven organic Rankine cycle
gies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2005;9(5):409–43. and absorption cooling system. Therm Sci Eng Progr 2019:100372.
[2] Cao Y, Gao Y, Zheng Y, Dai Y. Optimum design and thermodynamic analysis of a gas [23] Dincer I, Al-Muslim H. Thermodynamic analysis of reheat cycle steam power plants.
turbine and ORC combined cycle with recuperators. Energy Convers Manage Int J Energy Res 2001;25(8):727–39.
2016;116:32–41. [24] Lansing F. Computer modeling of a single stage lithium bromide/water absorption
[3] Anvari S, Jafarmadar S, Khalilarya S. Proposal of a combined heat and power plant refrigeration unit. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology,
hybridized with regeneration organic Rankine cycle: energy-Exergy evaluation. Pasadena, CA, Deep Space Network Progress Report 1976;42:247–57.
Energy Convers Manage 2016;122:357–65. [25] Gogoi T, Sarmah P, Nath DD. Energy and exergy based performance analyses of a
[4] Li T, Meng N, Liu J, Zhu J, Kong X. Thermodynamic and economic evaluation of the solid oxide fuel cell integrated combined cycle power plant. Energy Convers
organic Rankine cycle (ORC) and two-stage series organic Rankine cycle (TSORC) Manage 2014;86:507–19.
for flue gas heat recovery. Energy Convers Manage 2019;183:816–29. [26] Gogoi T, Talukdar K. Exergy based parametric analysis of a combined reheat re­
[5] Oko C, Njoku I. Performance analysis of an integrated gas-, steam-and organic fluid- generative thermal power plant and water–libr vapor absorption refrigeration
cycle thermal power plant. Energy 2017;122:431–43. system. Energy Convers Manage 2014;83:119–32.
[6] Singh OK, Kaushik SC. Reducing CO2 emission and improving exergy based per­ [27] Talbi M, Agnew B. Exergy analysis: an absorption refrigerator using lithium bro­
formance of natural gas fired combined cycle power plants by coupling Kalina cycle. mide and water as the working fluids. Appl Therm Eng 2000;20(7):619–30.
Energy 2013;55:1002–13. [28] Sarmah P, Gogoi T. Performance comparison of SOFC integrated combined power
[7] Shukla AK, Singh O. Thermodynamic investigation of parameters affecting the ex­ systems with three different bottoming steam turbine cycles. Energy Convers
ecution of steam injected cooled gas turbine based combined cycle power plant with Manage 2017;132:91–101.

17

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen