See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264135719

Performance Evaluation of Combined Heat and Power Plant

Configurations -Thermodynamic Performance and Simplified Cost
Analysis

Article · September 2013

DOI: 10.15231/jksc.2013.18.3.001

CITATIONS READS

0 920

2 authors, including:

Sangmin Choi
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
114 PUBLICATIONS   1,372 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sangmin Choi on 12 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

한국연소학회지, Vol.18, No.3, pp.1-8(2013)

열병합 발전소의 구성안별 성능 평가 방안

- 플랜트 열성능 및 단순화 발전단가 분석
김승진*․최상민*†

Performance Evaluation of Combined Heat

and Power Plant Configurations
-Thermodynamic Performance and Simplified Cost Analysis
Seungjin Kim and Sangmin Choi

ABSTRACT

Thermodynamic and economic analyses of various types of gas turbine combined cycle power plants have
been performed to establish criteria for optimization of power plants. The concept of efficiency, in terms of
the difference in energy levels of electricity and heat, was introduced. The efficiency of power and heat
generation by power plants with other purposes was estimated, and power generation costs were figured out
for various types of combined heat and power plants(i.e., fired and unfired, condensing and non-condensing
modes, single or double pressure HRSG).

Key Words : Gas turbine combined cycle power plants, Combined heat and power, Thermal efficiency, Utili-
zation factor, Generation costs

기호설명
Alphabets   : Annual cost of heat generation
 : Capacity factor
 : Total construction costs
Greeks
 : Construction costs per kW
 : Heat  : Heat generation rate
 : Work  : Fixed cost ratio
 : Annual cost of electricity generation  : Efficiency of electricity generation

1. Introduction from a high power to heat ratio, gas turbine cogeneration

systems have become prime movers in many applica-
For many industries, combined heat and power(CHP) tions. Such systems, combined heat and power with
systems offer higher efficiency than separate generation gas engines and heat recovery boilers, can also be used
of heat and power using boilers and turbine generators. for generating the heat used in buildings. The combined
Prior to 1960, most combined heat and power systems cycle power plant(CCPP), has drawn keen interest as
were based on steam turbine cogeneration systems. Re-
an effective measure of energy utilization. The recent
cently, however, because of the availability of high tem-
growth of the CCPP market has been caused by policies
perature exhaust gases caused by high operating tempe-
for regulation of emission gasses in the United States
ratures in industry, and of the economic benefits resulting
and Europe[1]. The combined cycle system(i.e., a com-
bination of Brayton and Rankine cycles), can achieve
* Department of Mechanical Engineering, Korea Advanced high efficiency by utilizing hot flue gasses exhausted
Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon, Korea
from gas turbines as the energy source for power genera-
† 연락저자, [email protected]
2 김승진․최상민

tion by steam turbines. A CCPP is composed of a gas evaluation of the various configurations of plants[8,9]
turbine, a steam turbine, and a heat-recovery steam ge- and design optimization focused on gas turbine cycles
nerator(HRSG) for generating high temperature steam. [10,11].
The HRSG is the key component of the CCPP, the role Considering the characteristic of CCPPs having not
of which is to be a nexus of the Brayton and Rankine only power but also heat generation, the simple evalu-
cycles. Until now, the focus of the CCPP design has ation methods used before are insufficient to evaluate
been on steam cycle called bottoming cycle deciding the performance of CCPPs properly. Especially, to com-
the design of the steam turbine and HRSG, according pare different types of CCPPs having different objec-
to the operating conditions of the gas turbine, including tives, it is necessary to suggest a performance evaluation
such as capacity, gas turbine outlet temperature, and method that would accommodate the different uses in-
flue gas flow rate. tended for CCPPs. The objective of this study was to
However, both power output and costs become impor- suggest a methodology to evaluate different types of
tant when considering the gas turbine performance and CCPPs and select the best one corresponding to the use
the HRSG design as elements influencing the total ef- purpose of a plant, through the proper performance
ficiency of CCPPs, because of the trade-offs among evaluation. To determine the important design conside-
various purposes such as combined heat and power pro- rations, this study focused on thermodynamic perfor-
duction or desalination[2]. Therefore, ways to optimize mance of subject CCPPs having mixed purposes. The
design of CCPPs are needed, considering the competing heat and electricity generation costs were derived from
design criteria related to both efficiency and scale. Also, different combinations of system configurations with
a set of evaluation criteria to determine whether a plant fixed gas and steam turbines.
design has been optimized is needed. In this study, to
suggest the performance evaluation criteria for CCPPs, 2. Methodology
various evaluation factors including thermal efficiency
were applied to three different commercial power plants. 2.1. Target Plant Selection
Then, thermodynamic and economic analyses were con- 2.1.1. Target Power Plants
ducted on six different cycle configurations of plants In this study, three types of plants selected for case
with fixed gas turbines and steam turbines. study were subjected to analyses of efficiency, based on
Most of the previous studies on optimization of CCPPs the first law of thermodynamics(see Fig. 1 and Table
st
have focused on HRSG design optimization with 1 and 1). Fig. 1 represents the schematic capacity and steam
nd
2 thermodynamic efficiencies for entire power plants (or heat) use of the selected plants. Table 1 presents the
[3-5]. In addition to this, some progress has occurred purpose, steam condition, specific electricity and heat
in the form of studies on the thermoeconomic optimi- output and efficiency of power plants. The purposes and
zation of HRSGs[6], and the determination of design compositions of the case plants were varied: Type 1
according to steam generation rate and stack tempera- plant generates electricity and steam for desalination
ture of HRSGs[7]. There were also studies on economic plants, Type 2 plant generates electricity and heat for

(a) Type 1: Desalination plant (b) Type 2: Urban combined (c) Type 3: Power generation plant
heat and power plant
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of subject power plants.
 열병합 발전소의 구성안별 성능 평가 방안- 플랜트 열성능 및 단순화 발전단가 분석 3

Table 1. Examples of combined cycle power plants for heat and electricity energy. The operation modes can
cases be divided into back pressure mode(generating both
Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 electricity and heat; equipped with heat exchangers at
Firing Fired Unfired Unfired the steam turbine outlet) and condensing mode(genera-
Combined ting electricity only equipped with condensers instead
Power and Electricity
Use purpose heat and of heat exchangers). These modes of operation are se-
steam only
power lected according to seasonal, regional, and customer
Year commer- demands. Since the operation mode of Type 2 is related
2007 1992 1997
cialized to the cycle configurations, for a detailed analysis of
HP steam this study, analysis in various operation modes(back pre-
temp. (℃)/ 544/9.04 492.3/6.15 523.7/5.39 ssure mode and condensing mode) should be additio-
press. (MPa) nally considered. Therefore, the analysis will include
GT capacity not only the three different types of power plants, but
166.0×3 85.9×4 161.2×2
(MW) also different configuration cycles of the target CCPPs.
ST capacity To figure out the effect of HRSG types and conden-
322.0 160.8 191.0
(MW) sers, on total electricity and heat outputs in power plants
Gross plant with fixed gas and steam turbine models(Type 2 power
735.3 427.7 511.3
output (MW) plants in Fig. 1), combined heat and power plants, will
Heat output 564.1 342.5 be analyzed in six different cycle configurations. As
-
(MW) (year-around) (winter only) shown in Fig. 2, various cycle configurations involve
Electricity different equipment. Cycle A consists of a gas turbine,
generation 49.2 43.6 52.9 single-pressure HRSG, and heat exchangers. Cycle C
efficiency (%) consists of a gas turbine, steam turbine, double-pressure
Utilization HRSG and heat exchangers. Cycle E consists of a gas
86.9 78.5 52.9
factor (%) turbine, steam turbine, double-pressure HRSG and con-
denser. In addition, to figure out the effect of duct bur-
district heating, and Type 3 plant generates electricity ners supplying additional heat to exhaust gas from gas
only. The demand and usage of heat and steam by Type turbines, in order to increase the steam generation rate,
1 and Type 2 plant are different. Type 1 plant uses steam heat and electricity generation rates are derived for cy-
year-around, but Type 2 plant uses heat in the winter cles B, D, and F, which are configurations like A, C and
only. E, but with additional duct burners(Fig. 2). Furthermore,
However, this method for evaluating performance by the simple electricity and heat generation costs which
comparing the rates of power and heat generation of could provide criteria for cycle selection, were also de-
different types of CCPPs, is limited because of their rived and evaluated.
different operating purposes and turbine models. Com-
parisons of electricity output alone cannot suggest op- (a) Cycle A - Unfired HRSG LP process steam(0.685
timal solutions for dealing with use demand. Also, the MPa)
thermodynamic efficiency of the plants in Fig. 1 cannot (b) Cycle B - Supplementary fired(gas temperature at
be the criterion for evaluation of performance coincident gas turbine outlet : 922 K) HRSG, LP process
with the demands of customers. To figure out specific steam
impacts from selection of different equipment in plants, (c) Cycle C - Combined cycle, unfired, double-pressure
simple configurations of fixed gas and steam turbines level HRSG, HP at 6.149 MPa, 765 K(steam
were suggested in the next part. pressure and temperature), LP at 0.685 MPa, 437 K
(saturated), noncondensing steam turbine-generator
2.1.2. System Configuration (d) Cycle D - Combined cycle, supplementary fired
Unlike Type 1 and Type 3, as a combined heat and HRSG, HP at 6.149 MPa, 765 K. LP at 0.685
power plant, Type 2 has various modes of operation MPa, 437 K(saturated), noncondensing steam tur-
because of regional and seasonal differences in demand bine-generator
4 김승진․최상민

Fig. 2. System configurations.

(e) Cycle E - Same as Cycle C, but with admission  ×      ×   
   (3)
condensing steam turbine-generator  
(f) Cycle F - Same as Cycle D, but with condensing
steam turbine-generator Eq. (1) represents electrical efficiency, and is gene-
* LP: Low pressure level, HP: High pressure level rally used in performance evaluation of power plants
** Fired/unfired: with/without supplementary firing by creating a ratio of the rates of electricity generation
at duct burner with fixed gas and steam turbines. to heat consumption. Eq. (2) represents the fuel utiliza-
tion factor, and creates a ratio of the rates of total heat
2.2. Simulation and electricity generation, to heat consumption; in fuel
units. Eq. (3) represents R1 energy efficiency, which is
2.2.1. Thermodynamic Evaluation
used to compare combined generation of heat and power,
One of the most representative of the performance with divided generation[12,13]. In R1 energy efficiency,
evaluation criteria, is thermodynamic efficiency, repre- equivalence factors are multiplied to work and heat
senting the ratio of output energy to input energy. In output which are derived from efficiency of divided ge-
this study, three efficiencies, shown as Eqs. (1)-(3), are neration of heat and power, respectively. The factor 2.6
used to evaluate performance of the different types of for electricity can be calculated as the inverse number
power plants in Fig. 1 and Table 1. of electricity generation efficiency and an average Eu-
ropean coefficient of coal plants, 38%, is used. Similarly,
   the factor 1.1 for generated heat can be obtained from
  (1)
  the inverse number of heat generation efficiency and an
average European coefficient of heat plants, 91%, is
       used. By multiplying these equivalence factors, R1 ener-
   (2)
  gy efficiency represents ratio of heat consumption rate
 열병합 발전소의 구성안별 성능 평가 방안- 플랜트 열성능 및 단순화 발전단가 분석 5

between divided generation and combined generation by analyzing cycle. Using TPX in Excel[15], the ther-
of heat and power. modynamic properties of steam, such as enthalpy and
entropy, can be obtained from pressure and temperature
2.2.2. Economic Evaluation - Heat and Electricity conditions. From the T-s diagram of each cycle, the po-
Generation Costs per kWh wer generation rate of the turbine, and the heat genera-
A balance between economic factors and design ef- tion rate of the heat exchanger can be figured out.
ficiency should be considered for power plant optimiza-
tion. In general, when power plants are designed, if cost 3. Results
factor is the limiting condition among several designs,
the optimized design is the plant with the highest effi- 3.1. Efficiency
ciency, which does not go over the project budget. This Fig. 3 represents the efficiency of three different types
study was focused on electricity and heat generation of gas turbine combined cycle power plants. The elec-
costs of six different cycle configurations of combined tricity generation efficiency was determined for each
heat and power plants(Type 2) consuming relatively subject plant type(Type 1 54.74%, Type 2 44.92%, and
large amounts of steam, with fixed gas and steam tur- Type 3 49.80%). Utilization factors considering both
bines as shown in Fig. 2. The cost for generation of electricity and heat generation for each plant type were
1 kWh of electricity was figured out using Eq. (4), and also calculated(Type 1 93.55%, Type 2 83.21%, and
the cost for heat generation was figured out using Eq. Type 3 with condensing steam turbine, does not gene-
(5). Eq. (6) represents the possible revenue of power rate heat). Last, equalized, or R1, energy efficiency re-
plant when electricity and heat are sold in generating presenting the effect of gas turbine-CCPPs comparing
their generating cost. to divided generation was calculated for each type
(Type 1 185.0%, Type 2 158.9%, and Type 3 129.5%).
 ×   ×  The Type 3 plant had the lowest, and the Type 1 had
     (4)
   the highest equalized efficiency. Because Type 1 plants
had highest value in three points of view of perfor-
    ×  ×  mance efficiency, Type 2 plants and Type 3 plants can
    ×       (5)
   be compared to suggest the need of various efficiency
factors. Type 2 plants can be interpreted as having a
 more effective combined cycle, because Type 3 plants,
    ×   ×

    (6) whose purpose is electricity generation had higher elec-
    × ×
tricity generation efficiency, but lower equalized effici-
ency than did Type 2 plants. Therefore, it was showed
The unit generating cost as shown in Eq. (4) and Eq. that equalized efficiency, considering generation of
(6) are sum of fixed cost and fuel cost. Ic, Ψ, and If electricity and heat separately, can usefully compare the
represents construction cost, fixed cost rate, and fuel effects of combined cycle configurations.
cost at each. The operating hour of power plant is assumed
as 8,760 hours and capacity factor C is assumed as
90%. In Eq. (5), the construction cost is subtracted to
avoid the double counting, and also, the difference of
efficiency and generation rate of heat and power is
considered. In Eq. (6), the operating cost is considered
with assumptions that operating cost is 25% of fuel
cost in general.
Every power generation cycle in this study used na-
tural gas as a fuel in gas turbines. The three subject po-
wer plants and six system configurations were simulated
using Gate Cycle, a commercial software[14]. The pro-
perties needed in Eq. (1)-(6), such as fuel consumption Fig. 3. Efficiency of various gas turbine combined cycle
rate, temperature and pressure profile, can be attained power plants.
6 김승진․최상민

Fig. 3 represents the efficiency of three different types

of gas turbine combined cycle power plants. The elec-
tricity generation efficiency was determined for each
subject plant type(Type 1 54.74%, Type 2 44.92%, and
Type 3 49.80%). Utilization factors considering both
electricity and heat generation for each plant type were
also calculated(Type 1 93.55%, Type 2 83.21%, and
Type 3 with condensing steam turbine, does not generate
heat). Last, equalized, or R1, energy efficiency repre-
senting the effect of gas turbine-CCPPs comparing to
divided generation was calculated for each type(Type
1 185.0%, Type 2 158.9%, and Type 3 129.5%). The
Type 3 plant had the lowest, and the Type 1 had the Fig. 4. Performance envelope for gas turbine combined
highest equalized efficiency. Type 2 plants can be in- heat and power system.
terpreted as having a more effective combined cycle,
because Type 3 plants, whose purpose is electricity ge- 100% capacity use rate, and with operating and manage-
neration had higher electricity generation efficiency, but ment costs included in fixed costs. As shown in Table
lower equalized efficiency than did Type 2 plants. There- 2, comparing A, C, and E configurations, although the
fore, it was showed that equalized efficiency, considering construction costs increased when using double-pressure
generation of electricity and heat separately, can use- HRSG, the electricity generation costs decreased as the
fully compare the effects of combined cycle configu- efficiency of the power plant increased. However, the
rations. heat generation costs increased because of a decline in
the total heat generation rate. In addition, comparing the
3.2. System Configuration C and D configurations, the efficiency of the power
Fig. 4 represents the electricity and heat generation plants increased as fuel was added to the boilers, and
rates of six different cycle configurations of Type 2 heat generation costs decreased as the total heat gene-
combined heat and power plants. This result is similar ration rate increased. The electricity generation cost
to that of a technical report about gas turbine cogene- increased because of increasing construction and fuel
ration system[16]. costs. Compared to unfired configurations(A, C, E)
Fig. 4 displays the options available using a gas having same conditions, except fuel consumption, the
turbine in a combined heat and power system. In this electricity generation cost of every fired configurations
study, the area of the heat exchanger units in the HRSG, (B, D, F) are increased. On the other hand, compared
gas turbine and steam turbine were fixed, and at the to unfired configuration(A, C), the heat generation cost
same time, the efficiency of each component was con- of fired configurations(B, D) are decreased. Especially,
sidered. Table 2 represents the electricity and heat ge- in the case of the comparison of the A and B configu-
neration cost of six cycle-configurations of combined rations, the additional combustion have only influence
heat and power plants with a 14% fixed charge rate, on net heat output. There are no steam turbine in the

Table 2. Economic Analysis of Various System Configurations

A B C D E F
Net power output (MW) 335.8 335.9 437.9 499.7 452.2 517.4
Net heat output (MW) 437.2 605.2 373.2 492.0 0 0
Electricity efficiency (%) 34.45 29.08 44.92 43.26 46.39 44.80
Fuel consumption (kg/s) 20.5 24.3 20.5 24.3 20.5 24.3
Electricity generation costs (￦/kWh) 234.5 287.5 191.0 199.7 189.4 197.5
Heat generation costs (￦/kWh) 154.6 124.9 193.4 169.5 0 0
Possible revenue (￦/￦) 1.86 1.91 1.37 1.31 0.67 0.65
 열병합 발전소의 구성안별 성능 평가 방안- 플랜트 열성능 및 단순화 발전단가 분석 7

in the form of graphs. As shown in Fig. 5 displaying the

heat to power ratio, E and F cycles have zero value
because they generate electricity only using condensing
steam turbines. Fig. 6 displays the total generation costs,
including heat and electricity generation. Also shown in
Fig. 6, E and F cycles indicate the costs of electricity
generation only.

4. Conclusion
The thermodynamic analysis of different types of gas
turbine combined cycle power plants was executed.
Power and heat generation rates, and the generation
Fig. 5. Heat to power ratio
costs of various cycle configurations were derived in
order to determine a set of optimization criteria for de-
sign of gas turbine combined cycle power plants. The
results including economic evaluation were derived for
simpler models than real combined cycle power plants.
The conclusions from this study are as follows.

1) The R1 efficiency can be interpreted as a crite-

rion to compare the effect of combined cycle plants
with other power plants having different objectives.
2) Thermodynamic efficiency cannot be an absolute
criterion for comparing the performance of com-
bined cycle power plants with different purpose
and configurations.
Fig. 6. Heat and electricity generation costs. 3) The different type of performance evaluation fac-
tors should be applied considering objectives of
both configurations. It explains that the additional fuel power plants.
in the B configuration can not generate additional el- 4) The suggested method for design of combined cycle
ectricity from supplementary firing and make more el- power plants is regarded as reasonable for appli-
ectricity generation than the case A. Looking at the cation to commercial power plants.
possible revenue, supplementary firing of the double-
pressure HRSG(D and F) has cost merit but there is To decide the optimal power plant configuration, pro-
no cost merit in supplementary firing of the single- ject-planners of a power plant must know exactly what
pressure HRSG(B). customers need. Depending on the requirements of cus-
To figure out the effect of the different operation tomers, such as the amount of heat and power genera-
modes which are back pressure mode and condensing tion, project-planners have to select the proper evaluation
mode, comparison between the C and E, and also those methods, compare the performance of power plants,
between D and F, are necessary. As shown in the Table and then decide the optimal power plant satisfying the
2, regardless of supplementary firing, since the net power demands of customers. However, considering only the
generation of condensing mode are slightly more than power plant efficiency is not sufficient to decide the
those of back pressure mode, electricity generation cost cycle configuration. In this case, the cost factor can be
of condensing mode is slightly cheaper than the cost one of the boundary factors in the final selection of the
in the back pressure mode. However, considering the po- cycle. Parametric studies on these plants of interest, must
ssible revenue, the possible revenue of the condensing proceed before optimization criteria can be suggested.
mode is half the value of the back pressure mode. Consequently, the results of this study can be used
Figs. 5 and 6 represent the result of cost estimation as a first step to suggest performance evaluation method
 8 김승진․최상민

of new type of power system. Also, it can be extended [7] A. Pasha and S. Jolly, “Combined cycle heat re-
by being applied to new type of power plant such as covery steam generators optimum capabilities and
power generation with carbon capture unit. This study selection criteria”, Heat Recovery Systems & CHP,
suggested the need of different point of view to evaluate Vol. 15, Issue 2, 1995, pp. 147-154.
performance of power plant, and further study will pro- [8] R. Kehlhofer, “Comparison of power plants for
ceed about suggestion of integrated process in power cogeneration of heat and electricity”, The Brown
plant design considering objectives of system. Bovery Review, Vol. 67, Issue 8, 1980, pp. 504-
511.
Acknowledgement [9] R. Kehlhofer, B. Rukes, F. Hannemann, F. Stirni-
mann, “Combined-Cycle Gas & Steam Turbine Power
This work was supported by Brain Korea 21. Plants (3rd ed.)”, PennWell Corporation, Oklahoma,
2009.
Reference [10] A. Polyzakis, C. Koroneos, G. Xydis, “Optimum
gas turbine cycle for combined cycle power plant”,
[1] H. Nusseler, Reinhard Preiss, Peter Eisenkolb, “De- Energy Conversion and Management, Vol. 49, Issue
velopments in HRSG technology”, in 7th Annual 4, 2008, pp. 551-563.
Industrial & Power Gas Turbine O&M Confe- [11] T. Srinivas, B. V. Reddy, A. V. S. S. K. S. Gupta.,
rence, Birmingham, UK, 2001. “Parametric simulation of combined cycle power
[2] M. Valdés and J. L. Rupún, “Optimization of heat plant: A case study”, Int. J. Thermodynamics, Vol.
recovery steam generators for combined cycle gas 14, No. 1, 2011, pp. 29-36.
turbine power plants”, Applied Thermal Engineering, [12] EURELECTRIC, “European combined heat &
Vol. 21, Issue 11 2001, pp. 1149-1159. power: a technical analysis of possible definition
[3] N. Ravi Kumar, Dr. K. Rama Krishna & Dr. A. of the concept of “Quality CHP” ”, Union of the
V. Sita Rama Raju, “Performance simulation of Electricity Industry-EURELECTRIC, 2002.
dual pressure HRSG in combined cycle”, Energy [13] European Commision, “Guidelines on the interac-
Engineering, Vol. 104, Issue 1, 2007, pp. 64-78. tion of the R1 energy efficiency formula for in-
[4] N. Enadi and K. Roshandel, “Thermodynamic mo- cineration facilities dedicated to the processing of
deling and parametric study and exergy optimiza- municipal solid waste according to ANNEX II of
tion of single, dual and triple pressure combined directive 2008/98/EC on waste”, European Com-
cycle power plants(CCPP)”, Communication Soft- mision-Directive-general environment, 2011.
ware and Networks(ICCSN), 2011 IEEE 3rd Inter- [14] GE Energy, “GateCycle getting started and ins-
national Conference on, IEEE, 2011, pp. 361-365. tallation guide”, GE Enter Software LLC., Califor-
[5] J. In and S. Lee, “Optimization of heat recovery nia, 2006.
steam generator through exergy analysis for com- [15] D. G. Goodwin, TPX : Thermodynamic properties
bined cycle gas turbine power plants”, Int. J. of En- for excel, Version 1.0 beta 2, URL <http://www.
ergy Research, Vol. 32, Issue 9, 2008, pp. 859-869. tecnun.es/asignaturas/termo/SOFTWARE/TPX/ind
[6] C. Casarosa, F. Donatini, A. Franco, “Thermoeco- ex.html>. (1998).
nomic optimization of heat recovery steam genera- [16] R. W. Fisk and R. L. VanHousen, “Cogeneration
tors operating parameters for combined plants”, application considerations”, Technical Report GER-
Energy, Vol. 29, Issue 3, 2004, pp. 389-414. 3430F, GE Power Systems, Newyork, 1996.

논문접수일 : 2013. 08. 22

심사완료일 : 2013. 09. 23

View publication stats