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

net/publication/311885672

Performance and Economic Analysis of Gas Turbine Subsystems for Power

Generation in the Niger Delta

Article  in  International Journal of Engineering and Technologies · December 2016

DOI: 10.18052/www.scipress.com/IJET.9.29

CITATION READS

1 496

3 authors:

Sidum Adumene Anthony Le-Ol

Memorial University of Newfoundland Rivers State University of Science and Technology
31 PUBLICATIONS   58 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   13 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Thaddeus Lebele-Alawa
Rivers State University of Science and Technology
45 PUBLICATIONS   133 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Smart systems' design and operation for integrity management of marine and offshore structures in harsh environments View project

niche selection in parasitism View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sidum Adumene on 24 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Engineering and Technologies Submitted: 2016-10-03
ISSN: 2297-623X, Vol. 9, pp 29-41 Revised: 2016-11-08
doi:10.18052/www.scipress.com/IJET.9.29 Accepted: 2016-11-16
© 2016 SciPress Ltd., Switzerland Online: 2016-12-23

Performance and Economic Analysis of Gas Turbine Subsystems

for Power Generation in the Niger Delta
Sidum Adumene1,a*, Anthony Kpegele Le-ol2,b,
Barinaadaa Thaddeus Lebele-Alawa2
1
Department of Marine Engineering, Rivers State University of Science and Technology,
Port Harcourt, Nigeria
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Rivers State University of Science and Technology,
Port Harcourt, Nigeria
a
[email protected], [email protected]

Keywords: Performance, Energy, Exergy, gas turbine and Cost Evaluation

Abstract: In this research work, performance and economic analysis of three units’ gas turbine
plants in the Niger Delta, Nigeria has been carried out for the period of 18 months. The aim of this
study is to assess the energy, exergy and economic behavior of the plants’ subsystems. The
methodology adopted was the splitting of the system into control volumes to show the inflow and
outflow of energy and exergy at different operating conditions. A parametric study was also
conducted to evaluate the influence of key decision variables like the load on the plant’s subsystem
performance. The analysis was done in MATLAB 7.3 ® environment and the results reveals that
between the 40%-86% loading of the plant, the energy loss was optimum due to outages and
exhaust gas energy waste, with revenue worth of $14,611,642 cumulatively, while the irreversibility
in the exhaust gas progressively increase as the load increases with an exergy destruction cost rate
of $234.98 per hour per unit. The combustor shows maximum exergy loss at 44% load with an
exergy destruction cost rate of $127.87 per hour per unit, while the power turbine highest exergy
destruction cost rate occurred at 73% load. These key performance indicators provide relevant
information on the technical state of the plant for decision-making.

Introduction
Gas turbine performance has improved over the years through technological advancement in
solving critical energy need of the society. Gas turbine power plant utilizes the chemical energy
from the fuel and air combustion to form mechanical energy. This generated mechanical energy can
be utilized to drive rotor dynamic systems such as pumps, compressors, etc. Nigeria as a nation has
benefited greatly from the technological advancement in the gas turbine for electricity generation. It
was reported by the international energy agency that fossil fuels is the largest world’s commercial
energy source, which accounts for 65% of energy supply for the world’s electricity and 95% for the
world’s transportation system [1]. This trend shows that fossil fuel still provides the higher
percentage of the world’s energy need.
The concept of energy evaluation of a power plant is on account of the energy generation and
consumption of the plant over a given period of time including losses. This considered the
procedure for collecting, collating and analyzing available energy-related data, in order to establish
the most accurate breakdown of energy consumption for a particular plant operation. It thus
provides for a qualitative facility (sub-system) examination to identify opportunities for energy
saving or wastage. Energy saving or conservation, help in the process of optimizing system
performance in any given power plant. Therefore for a holistic performance improvement, the first
and second thermodynamic approach will provide a means of measuring losses in energy processes.
Energy based approach is silent in the degradation of energy occurring in the thermodynamic
system and does not quantify the usefulness or quality of the heat content in various streams of
matter leaving the process as products or waste. The Exergy approach is therefore applied to
overcome these shortcomings [2].

SciPress applies the CC-BY 4.0 license to works we publish: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

30 Volume 9

Sureh et al. [3], reviewed the operating conditions of power plants, and advised that plant
optimization will enhance efficient performance against the rate of fossil fuel depletion in recent
times. They further suggested the use of energy and exergoeconomic techniques for periodic
performance evaluation. Energy audit and feasibility study of Oltchim petrochemical plant in
Romania has been done by Watts [4]. The audit established that there was high energy consumption
at the plant which could lead to high greenhouse gas emission and operational cost. In Oyedepo et
al. [5], an economic based performance evaluation was presented. Their result showed that energy
generated within the period have a shortfall range from 4.18% to 14.53% as against the acceptance
value of 5-10%. They further revealed that 35.7% energy loss (worth M$251) was recorded for the
period. Emovon et al. [6] presented performance evaluation based on outage cost due to system
failure (downtime). Their analysis showed that 46% power generation loss was recorded, and the
plant performed at an average of 54% of its installed capacity.
Different researchers viewed exergy as available energy which is a quantitative measure of
the mechanical work loss in any real thermodynamic system as a result of irreversibility in the
system [3]. Ayres et al. [2] define exergy as the maximum amount of work that can be done by a
subsystem as it approaches thermodynamic equilibrium with its surroundings by a sequence of
reversible processes. Exergy therefore measures the extent to which a system deviates from
equilibrium with its environment. Kotas [7] defined exergy of a steady stream as the measure of the
maximum amount of work obtainable when the stream is brought from its initial state to the dead
state by processes during which the stream may interact only with the environment. Exergy is an
expression of the “useful” part of the energy in a stream [7]. The first and second laws of
thermodynamic are utilized in the expression of steady stream energy and exergy measurement
respectively. The description of the exergy in a stream helps us to locate the waste associated with
an energy conversion system.
Lebele-Alawa and Asuo [8] in their work showed the performance trend of a 21.6MW gas
turbine based on exergy phenomenon. The result of their analysis revealed that the highest exergy
destruction occurs in the combustion chamber, which amounts to about 22.18MW from
measurement on a gas turbine within the tropical zone. Ertesvag et al. [9] showed that gas turbine
pressure ratio, gas turbine inlet temperature, steam turbine inlet temperature demonstrated great
influence on the exergy performance of a gas turbine combined cycle with pre-combustion CO2
capture system. The analysis further revealed that higher exergy loss occurred in the natural gas-
fired turbine system when compare with hydrogen-rich fuel fired turbine [9]. Kwambai [10]
identified subsystems where substantial exergy loss occurred. They include steam transmission
units, turbine unit, condenser, and gas ejector unit. The loss in the condenser was rated highest in
their analysis, and this was due to the limitation of the wetness of the exhaust system [10].
Verkhivker and Kosoy [11] showed that three fundamental processes that cause exergy destruction
in power generation system include combustion process, heating of working fluid and heat
exchange process in the heat exchanger unit. Anheden [12] investigated the possibilities of exergy
loss reduction in the combustor using chemical looping combustion technique. The result of the
investigation showed that the use of nickel oxide in place of oxygen decreases the combustion
exergy loss and increase power generation efficiency [12].
Yildirim and Gungor [13] studied the exergoeconomic analysis of cogeneration systems by
using cost-based information. They were able to locate areas that needed improvement. They used
the specific exergy costing method to carry out their analysis. Ebadi and Gorgi –Bandy [14] found
that increasing the turbine inlet temperature increases the exergetic efficiency of a case study
116MW gas turbine plant at Mahshahr-Iran. Sue and Chuang [15] investigated combined cycle
power plant exergy efficiency at partial load and variable compressor inlet temperature and fuel
temperature. The analysis revealed that the plant power output increases as the inlet air temperature
decrease and at 50% load, the combined cycle power plant exergy load was three times that of
100% load due to lower steam pressure in the heat recovery steam generator [15].
Adumene [16] conducted a load based exergy analysis of an offshore gas turbine power plant
in Nigeria. The result shows that the plant thermal efficiency and exergy efficiency drop by 0.17%
 International Journal of Engineering and Technologies Vol. 9 31

and 0.25%, for every 1% drop in the operational load. It further indicated that the exhaust gas has
the highest exergy destruction. According to Adumene et al. [17] showed that decrease in the
ambient temperature of a gas turbine plant within the tropical zone from 31oC to 18oC improved
energy performance of the plant by about 0.78%. Kanoglu et al. [18] did an extensive review of
works on exergoeconomic analysis as applied to various engineering systems. They concluded that
application of the various exergoeconomic methods reviewed could ensure effective utilization of
energy resources in thermal systems for sustainable development.
In spite of the fact that energy losses are inevitable in any energy transformation process,
every producer, engineer, investor, and decision maker would like to maintain the desired efficiency
in the operation of power plant. In the light of the foregoing, this research provides methodologies
to assess the performance trend of an energy conversions system, such as the gas turbine plant and
its utilization, to promote energy efficient and ways to optimize performance. It considered an
evaluation of a 64.8MW natural gas-fired thermal plant by an economic based energy and exergy
assessment of the plant subsystems. An Energy-based performance and an exergetic degradation
or loss rate for the subsystems at different plant load and operating conditions were used for the
analysis. The economic model based on losses and the respective costs associated with the
operational performance of the plant based on the key performance indices were investigated.
This is aimed to provide a holistic decision-making framework for energy decision and policy
makers. The assessment was carried out between 40% - 86% loading of the plant at units A to C,
considering the prevailing operating environment. The study area is the South-South zone of
Nigeria which lies between latitudes 40N and 60N, and longitude 50E and 80E [19]. The vegetation
of the area is an equatorial rain forest. There are basically two seasons- the wet (April to September)
and the dry (October to March) [19]. However, rain falls throughout the year. The mean annual
rainfall in the area is between 200mm in the North and 400mm in the South of the region and the
mean daily temperature of the region varies slightly from 270C to 300C all year round [19]. The
maximum and minimum temperatures are 400C and 200C respectively. The relative humidity varies
between a minimum of 50% and a maximum of 90% [8, 19].

Methods and numerical models

MS5001 gas turbine plant of three 21.6MW (that is 64.8MW) capacity operating on an open
cycle was used as the test engine for about 18 months. The plant was monitored and data collected
from the human machine interface (HMI). Design values were collected from the installation
document of the plant. The thermodynamic relations and equations were used for the
phenomenon that could not be directly measured and analysis was done in MATLAB 7.3 ®
environment. For the purpose of this analysis, we used the mean values of daily operating
parameters of the plants. The methodology adopted was designed to produce facts about the
behavior of the plant and to determine key factors that influence the energy and exergy based
analysis of the plant aimed at evaluating its performance. Economic models were used to
evaluate the cost based optimization of the plant.

Energy Balance for Gas Turbine System

The analytical technique used to perform energy balance on an engineering system is the
conservation of energy principle which is expressed as:
Total Energy Entering the System –Total Energy Leaving the System = Change in the Total Energy
of the System
− =∆ (1)
The mechanism of energy transfer to or from the system should be well understood before
performing the analysis since three forms of energy transfer exist (heat, works and mass flow).
32 Volume 9

Therefore we have
− =( − )+( − )+ , − , =∆ (2)
The energy balance for the compressor is

− = (3)

For steady flow system − = 0.

The energy balance for the combustor is given by
= (ℎ − ℎ ) = + × ( − )= × (4)
where is the mass flow rate of air, is the mass flow rate of fuel, is the specific heat
capacity of air, and is the calorific value of the fuel. To get for a different fixed amount of
fuel supply at each , it was therefore necessary to extrapolate.
For steady flow- steady state condition, the extrapolated function is given by [19],
= +( − )( ⁄ ) (5)
where is the extrapolated temperature, K, is the compressor exit temperature, K, is
the actual temperature at turbine inlet for actual fuel supply, K, is fixed fuel supply, ,

is actual fuel supply, .

The performance of the plant was therefore assessed by the determination of its thermal efficiency.
That is

= = (6)

where = − .
Similarly, the performance of the plant can also be assessed by the use of energy efficiency
which is defined as

= = (7)
× ( )
Back Work Ratio is another performance indicator for a power plant. It is defined as the ratio of the
compressor work input to turbine work output [20]
,
= (8)
,

Energoeconomic Analysis
The energy based economic indices used in this work include:
Plant Generating Capacity (PGO): This refers to both the total amount of power (GW) and energy
(GWh) the plant is capable of producing on site, where the energy generating capacity (EGC)
equals the power generating capacity (PGO) multiplied by the actual running hours
= × (9)
where EGC is the energy generating capacity and PGC is the power generating capacity.
 International Journal of Engineering and Technologies Vol. 9 33

Capacity Factor (CF): The extent of use of the generating plant is measured by the capacity factor,
which is the ratio of the average energy output of the plant for a given period of time to the plant
capacity. This gives the ratio of the average load to the rated capacity of the plant

= (10)
×
where Eg is the total energy generated (GWh) in a given period, Cin is the installed capacity of the
plant, and Th is the total hours of the year.
Plant Use Factor: This is the ratio of actual energy generated during a given period to the design
capacity of the plant and the number of hours the plant has been in operation during the period. This
is a modification of plant capacity factor in that only the actual number of hours that the plant was
in operation is used.

= (11)
×
where Toh is the total number of operating hours for the given period.

Exergy Balance for Gas Turbine System

Real natural gas-fired power plants are steady flow open circuit systems in which fuel and
oxidant (usually air) are supplied to the combustor of the plant and the products of combustion are
exhausted to the atmosphere. The general control volume for such thermodynamic system is shown
below [21].
The first law of thermodynamic for the control volume can be written as

= ℎ + + − ℎ + + + + − (12)
2 2
The second law of thermodynamic for the control volume [21] is

= − + + + (13)

For a steady state flow process at constant kinetic and gravitational potential energy, we have

= ( − )+ ℎ − ℎ − + − (14)

The term of exergy transfer by heat may be difficult to evaluate the values of and are not
known at every position on the boundary of the control volume [22]. To cushion the ensuing
deficiency, Wark and Richard [22] suggest that the variable surface temperature should be
replaced by a constant boundary temperature .

Exergoeconomic Analysis
Kwak et al [23] levelized cost method is applied to the plant component. The amortization
cost for such components is given as
= − × ( , ) (15)
where ($) is the investment cost which is solely the , ($) is the salvage value at the nth
year taken as zero. The present worth of the component may be converted to the annualized cost by
using the capital recovery factor, ( , ), given as
($⁄ )= × ( , ) (16)
34 Volume 9

The period of consideration is 18months with operating hours of 6000; therefore, the leveled
capital cost rate for the kth component of the plant gives
∅
= (17)

where = 3600 × 6000 = 21600000( ) ∅ is the maintenance factor.

Hence for both costs and the associated exergy of streams and components gives

+ , , + = + , (18)

The last equation shows that the sum of cost rates associated with all entering streams plus the
financial charge associated with owning and operating the kth plant component equals the sum of all
exergy of the exiting streams. The specific cost of fuel and product per unit exergy of any
component k are respectively given as
,
, = (19 )
,

and

, = ,
(19 )
,

The cost rate of exergy destroyed in any component k [13] is

, = , , (20)

Results and Discussion

The plant has 3 units of 21.6MW. The analysis takes an overview of the entire systems for the
3 units of the power plant. Tables 2-4 show the result of the energy analysis of the plant, while
Tables 5-7 indicate the exergy analysis.
 International Journal of Engineering and Technologies Vol. 9 35

Table 1. Design, Economic, and Average Operational Data.

Parameters Units Design Value Unit A Unit B Unit C
Installed capacity MW 21.6
Power generated MW - 11 12 12.2
Inlet temperature K - 300.5 300.6 300.8
Discharge temperature K - 580.2 576.5 585.4
Turbine inlet temperature K - 1004.97 1053.88 1061.66
Exhaust temperature K - 644 646 582.2
Lube oil temperature C - 52 52 51
Drain temperature C - 92.8 90.4 92.4
Inlet pressure bar - 1.013 1.013 1.013
Discharge pressure bar - 7.1 7 7.2
Fuel inlet pressure bar - 11.41 11.42 11.44
Turbine inlet pressure bar - 7.1 7 7.2
Exhaust pressure bar - 1.013 1.013 1.013
Air flow rate kg/s 109.7 96.17 102.38 102.38
Fuel flow rate kg/s 1.7 0.83 0.61 0.88
Exhaust flow rate kg/s 111.4 97 102.99 103.99
Inlet guide vane % 100 88 93 93
Stop ratio valve % - 36.56 43.5 39.24
Gas control valve % - 48.71 35.81 51.54
Energy Cost per kWh $ 0.076 - - -
Exergy Cost per GJ $ 3.58 - - -
Plant Analysis Period months 18 - - -
Plant Operating Hours hr 6000 - - -
36 Volume 9

Table 2. Energoeconomic Characteristics of the Power Plant at unit A.

% Components Rate of Plant Thermal Energy Cost Rate

Loading Energy Generated Efficiency Generated of Energy
Losses Output (EGC)/Losses Wastage
(MW) (PGO) (MW) (GWh) ($/hr)
40% Energy input 9.42MW - 9.50 24.10% 57.00 -
Gearbox and generator 0.15 - - 0.90 67,905
Gas turbine cooling 10.69 - - 64.14 4,839,363
Exhaust gas 19.08 - - 114.50 8,639,025

51% Energy input 41.42MW - 11.00 26.56% 66.00 -

Gearbox and Generator 0.17 - - 1.00 75,450
Gas turbine cooling 7.45 - - 44.70 3,372,615
Exhaust gas 22.80 - - 136.80 10,321,560

Table 3. Energoeconomic Characteristics of the Power Plant at Unit B.

% Components Rate of Plant Thermal Energy Cost Rate

Loading Energy Generated Efficiency Generated of Energy
Losses Output (EGC)/ Wastage
(MW) (PGO) (MW) Losses ($/hr)
(GWh)
44% Energy input 26.95MW - 9.6 35.62% 57.6 -
Gearbox and Generator 0.15 - - 0.9 67,905
Gas turbine cooling 7.41 - - 44.5 3,357,525
Exhaust gas 9.79 - - 58.7 4,428,915

73% Energy input 36.08MW - 15.7 43.51% 94.2 -

Gearbox and Generator 0.25 - - 1.5 113,175
Gas turbine cooling 6.76 - - 40.56 3,060,252
Exhaust gas 13.13 - - 78.78 5,943,951

85% Energy input 36.13MW - 15.9 44.01% 95.4 -

Gearbox and Generator 0.25 - - 1.5 113,175
Gas turbine cooling 6.25 - - 37.5 2,829,375
Exhaust gas 13.44 - - 80.64 6,084,288
 International Journal of Engineering and Technologies Vol. 9 37

Table 4. Energoeconomic Characteristics of Power Plant at Unit C.

% Components Rate of Plant Thermal Energy Cost Rate
Loading Energy Generated Efficiency Generated of Energy
Losses Output(PGO) (EGC)/ Wastage
(MW) (MW) Losses ($/hr)
(GWh)

46% Energy input 39.42MW - 10.4 26.38% 62.4 -

Gearbox and Generator 0.16 - - 0.96 72,432
Gas turbine cooling 7.60 - - 45.6 3,440,520
Exhaust gas 21.26 - - 127.56 9,624,402

56% Energy input 43.91MW - 12.2 27.78% 73.2 -

Gearbox and Generator 0.19 - - 1.14 86,013
Gas turbine cooling 7.56 - - 45.36 3,422,412
Exhaust gas 23.96 - - 143.76 10,846,692

86% Energy input 57.84MW - 18.5 31.99% 111 -

Gearbox and Generator 0.29 - - 1.74 131,283
Gas turbine cooling 6.94 - - 41.64 3,141,738
Exhaust gas 32.11 - - 193.66 14,611,647

The expected full load installed capacity of the plant for the period under study is 129.6GW
per unit, but the generated capacity for the period on an average is 82.4GW. This shows a reduction
in the installed capacity and the actual operational capacity. Factors like environment, age, losses
and poor maintenance culture may be responsible for the shortfall. The result in Table 4 indicates
the trending of the plant performance at different loading conditions. The plant production capacity
and power drop for the period were analyzed. The result show that as the production capacity
increases the power drop decreases and the plant load increases. It means that as the production
capacity increases by 1%, the power drop decreases by about 0.22%, with a proportional increase in
loading. Further analysis shows that the cost rate of energy wasted reduces by $97,775.34 for the
plant under review. This is an indication that the plant can be economically optimized by reducing
energy drop for the period through sustainable energy generation. The full capacity operation of the
plant under favorable conditions brings in an optimum investment returns and energy production.
38 Volume 9

Table 5. Exergoeconomic Characteristics of the Power Plant at Unit A.

% Components Rate of Useful Exergetic Exergy Cost Rate
Loading Exergy Exergy Efficiency Utilized/ destroyed
Losses (MW) Destroyed ($/hr)
(MW) (GWh)
44% Exergy input 44.04MW - 9.50 21.57% 57.00 -
Compressor 2.14 - - 12.84 45.97
Combustor 20.54 - - 123.24 441.20
Power turbine 1.59 - - 9.24 33.08
Gearbox and generator 0.15 - - 0.90 3.22
Exhaust gas 10.12 - - 60.72 217.38

52% Exergy input 46.26MW - 11.20 24.21% 67.20 -

Compressor 3.1 - - 18.60 66.59
Combustor 18.37 - - 110.22 398.17
Power turbine 2.12 - - 12.72 45.54
Gearbox and generator 0.18 - - 1.08 3.87
Exhaust gas 11.29 - - 67.74 242.51

Table 6. Exergoeconomic Characteristics of the Power Plant at Unit.

% Components Rate of Useful Exergetic Exergy Cost Rate
Loading Exergy Exergy Efficiency Utilised/ Destroyed
Loss (MW) Destroyed ($/hr)
(MW) (GWh)
56% Exergy input 34.00MW - 12 35.29% 72 -
Compressor 3.34 - - 20.04 71.74
Combustor 4.12 - - 24.72 88.50
Power turbine 2.05 - - 12.30 44.03
Gearbox and generator 0.19 - - 1.14 4.08
Exhaust gas 12.3 - - 73.80 264.20

74% Exergy input 40.36MW - 15.9 38.95% 95.4 -

Compressor 3.47 - - 20.82 74.54
Combustor 2.94 - - 17.64 63.15
Power turbine 2.16 - - 12.96 46.40
Gearbox and generator 0.25 - - 1.50 5.37
Exhaust gas 15.64 - - 93.84 335.95
 International Journal of Engineering and Technologies Vol. 9 39

Table 7. Exergoeconomic Characteristics of the Power Plant at Unit C.

% Components Rate of Useful Exergetic Exergy Cost Rate
Loading Exergy Exergy Efficiency Utilized/ Destroyed
Loss (MW) Destroyed ($/hr)
(MW) (GWh)
46% Exergy input 49.04MW - 10 20.39% 60.00 -
Compressor 2.92 - - 17.52 62.72
Combustor 17.31 - - 103.86 371.82
Power turbine 1.50 - - 9.00 32.22
Gearbox and generator 0.16 - - 0.96 3.44
Exhaust gas 12.15 - - 72.90 260.98

85% Exergy input 64.46MW - 18.3 28.39% 109.20 -

Compressor 3.47 - - 20.82 74.54
Combustor 19.2 - - 115.20 412.42
Power turbine 3.12 - - 18.72 67.02
Gearbox and generator 0.29 - - 1.74 6.23
Exhaust gas 20.08 - - 120.48 431.32
The investigation also revealed the energy generated and their percentage losses in the plant
sub-systems. It indicates that the exhaust gas energy losses progressively increased between 44-
56% loading, with maximum loss occurring at the 86%load. The cost implication of the energy loss
was about $14,611,642 when the plant is operating at 86% load. The energy wasted in the exhaust
gas can be utilized for effective work or heating process. Optimizing this plant may consider the
reduction of energy in the exhaust gas. The exergy analysis as indicated in Tables 5-7 shows the
trend of exergy destruction and utilization within the plant sub-systems. The exergy wasted in the
various components of the plant at different loading conditions and its cost implications were
evaluated. The result shows that the irreversibility in the exhaust gas progressively increased as the
load increases. The cost rate of the exergy destroyed in the exhaust per hour gives about $234.98
economic waste. This can be effectively reduced to enhance the plant better investment return. The
combustor shows a maximum cost rate of exergy loss of $127.87 at 44% operational load. The
exergy destroyed in the power turbine have the highest cost rate of about $40.59 per hour at 73%
operational load.
The performance and efficiencies of the plant at various units were combined to evaluate the
overall state of the plant. For unit B at 73% loading and unit C at 85% loading, the overall
performances is 37.6%. In the combination analysis, the maximum energy based efficiencies
occurred when unit B operates at 74% loading and unit C at 86%loading. Similarly, the maximum
overall power output occurs when unit A, B, C operates at 51%, 55.5%, and 56% loading
respectively. The maximum overall exergy efficiency is recorded when unit A, B, C operates at
52%, 52%, and 50% loading respectively. It therefore revealed that these performance indicators are
dependent on the loading condition of the plant. It is necessary as energy professionals to carry out
load variation tactically in order to optimize the plant output. The economic implications show a
great benefit to the investor when the overall power output is optimum. More so, the incorporation
of the HRSG enhances the utilization of the energy in the exhaust gas and reduction in exergy
destruction in the exhaust gas. The analysis revealed that about 42.45MW of heat flow which is
usually rejected in the exhaust gas of the thermal power plant could be converted to 12.9 MW of
electric power per unit. Therefore the performance optimization revealed the amount of waste
energy recovered, which is about 12.9 MW (77.4GWh) with a corresponding increase in the
revenue of energy generated by $5,882,400 for the period under consideration.
40 Volume 9

Conclusion
In this study, performance evaluation and economic analysis of gas turbine subsystems for
three 21.6MW units have been investigated. Emphasis has been on key performance indices in
terms of energy, exergy and cost evaluation. The study revealed that about 82.4GW per unit of the
plant’s capacity was available for the period of analysis. Also, the percentage shortfall of energy
generated within the period under review was 36.4%. The load factor varied from 40% to 86% with
an average of 63% as against the international best practices of 80% and above. As the energy
production increases by 1%, the power drop decreases by about 0.22% with a proportional increase
in load. At an optimum loading of 86%, the plant efficiency was 37.6% with an enormous energy
loss due to outrages and exhaust gas wastages. The average exergy destroyed in the exhaust per
hour gives about $234.98 economic waste. The performance of the subsystems aggregates to the
overall efficiency of the entire plant. The analysis further revealed the cost implication of the energy
and exergy wastages and outages in all the subsystems. From the analysis, incorporation of the heat
recovery system enhances the utilization of the energy in the exhaust gas and reduces global
warming. The wasted energy can be converted into an electrical energy industrial and domestic
utilization. However, augmenting the plant with intercooling to an initial operating temperature of
18oC increased the power output by 2.096MW. This study shows that the performance of the plant
can be greatly improved, and economic waste reduced drastically. This can be sustained by an
improved operational, maintenance and management practices. The benefit of using energy and
exergy economic tools to understand the efficiencies of thermal plant subsystems and to provide
improvement methods to minimize waste has been demonstrated. These performance indicators
show a significant role in evaluating the technical and economy state of the thermal power system.
They prove useful in such activities to engineer, scientist, investor, decision and policy makers
within the energy subsector.

References
[1] S. Rao, B.B. Parulekar, Energy technology: non-conventional, renewable, and conventional,
Third Revised and Updated Edition, Khanna Publishers, Delhi, India, 2007, pp. 13-14
[2] R.U. Ayres, L.W. Ayres, B. Warr, Exergy, power and work in the US economy (1900-1998),
Energy. 28(3) (2003) 219-273.
[3] M.V.J.J. Suresh, R.S. Reddy, A. J. Kolar, Energy and exergy based thermodynamic analysis
of a 62.5MW Coal-based thermal power plant- A case study, Indian Institute of Technology,
Madras, 2006.
[4] Energy Audit at a Romanian Petrochemical Plant, 2001. Available:
http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnada709.pdf.
[5] S.O. Oyedepo et al., Performance evaluation and economic analysis of a gas turbine plant in
Nigeria, Energy Conservation and Management. 79 (2014) 431-440.
[6] I. Emovon, B. Kareem, M. K. Adeyeri, Performance evaluation of Egbin Thermal Power
Station Nigeria, In: Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer
Science, 2011, San Francisco, USA.
[7] T.J. Kotas, The exergy method of thermal plant analysis, Butterworth, London, 1995.
[8] B.T. Lebele-Alawa, J.M. Asuo, Exergy analysis of Kolo Creek Gas Turbine Plant, Canadian
Journal of Mechanical Science and Engineering 2 (2011) 172-184.
[9] I.S. Ertesvag, M.H. Kvamsdah, O. Bollard, Exergy analysis of a gas turbine combined cycle
power plant with precombustion CO2 capture, Energy. 30(1) (2005) 5-39.
[10] B.C. Kwambai, Exergy analysis of OIkaria I Geothermal Power Plant, Kenya, A Report on
the Geothermal Training Program, United Nation University, 2005.
 International Journal of Engineering and Technologies Vol. 9 41

[11] G.P. Verkhiver, B.V. Kosoy, On the exergy analysis of power plants, Energy Conversion and
Management. 42(18) (2001) 2053-2059.
[12] M. Anheden, Analysis of gas turbine systems for sustainable energy conversion, Ph.D. Thesis,
Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden, 2002.
[13] U. Yildirim, A. Gungor, An application of exergoeconomic analysis for a CHP system,
International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems. 42(1) (2012) 250-256.
[14] M.J. Ebadi, M. Gorgi-Bandy, Exergetic analysis of gas turbine plants, International Journal of
Exergy. 2(1) (2005) 31-39.
[15] D. Sue, C. Chuang, Engineering design and exergy analysis of combustion gas turbine based
power generation system, Energy. 29 (2002) 1183-1205.
[16] S. Adumene, Load-based Exergetic Assessment of an offshore thermal power plant in an
equatorial environment, Studies in Engineering and Technology. 3(1) (2015) 19-27.
[17] S. Adumene, A.K. Le-ol, R.K.C. Amadi, Modeling Compressor’s initial operating conditions
effect on turbine performance in the tropical rainforest, American Journal of Engineering
Research. 4(6) (2015) 80-88.
[18] M. Kanoglu, I. Dincer, M.A. Rosen, Understanding energy and exergy efficiencies for
improved energy management in power plants, Energy Policy. 35(7) (2007) 3967-3978.
[19] B.T. Lebele-Alawa, V. Jo-Appah, Thermodynamic performance analysis of a gas turbine in
an equatorial rain forest environment, Journal of Power and Energy Engineering, 3(01) (2015)
11-23.
[20] Y.A. Cengel, M.A. Boles, Thermodynamics - An engineering approach, 5th Ed, McGraw-Hill
Companies, New York, 2006.
[21] I. Dincer, Y.A. Cengel, Energy, Entropy and exergy concepts and their roles in thermal
engineering, Entropy. 3(3) (2001) 116-149.
[22] K. Wark, D.E. Richard, Thermodynamics, 6th Ed. McGraw-Hill Companies, USA, 1999.
[23] H.Y. Kwak, D.J. Kim, J.S. Joen, Exergetic and thermoeconomic analysis of power plants,
Energy. 28(4) (2003) 343-360.

View publication stats