Energy Conversion and Management 82 (2014) 146153

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

Advanced exergy analysis of an electricity-generating facility

using natural gas
Emin Akkalp a,, Haydar Aras b, Arif Hepbasli c
a

Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Engineering Faculty, Bilecik S.E. University, Bilecik, Turkey
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Engineering and Architecture Faculty, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, Turkey
c
Department of Energy Systems Engineering, Engineering Faculty, Yasar University, Izmir, Turkey
b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 5 December 2013
Accepted 1 March 2014
Available online 27 March 2014
Keywords:
Exergy analysis
Advanced exergetic analysis
Exergy destruction
Electricity generation facility

a b s t r a c t
This paper deals with the performance assessment of an electricity generation facility located in the Eskisehir Industry Estate Zone in Turkey using advanced exergy analysis method. The exergy efciency of the
system is determined to be 40.2% while the total exergy destruction rate of the system is calculated to be
78.242 MW. The exergy destruction rate within the facilitys components is divided into four parts,
namely endogenous, exogenous, avoidable and unavoidable exergy destruction rates. Through this analysis, the improvement potentials of both the components and the overall system along with the interactions between the components are deducted based on the actual operational data. The analysis indicates
that the combustion chamber, the high pressure steam turbine and the condenser have high improvement potentials. The relations between the components are weak because of the ratio of the endogenous
exergy rates of 70%. The improvement potential of the system is 38%. It may be concluded that one should
focus on the gas turbine and combustion chamber for improving the system, being the most important
components of the system.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Gas turbines consist of a compressor, a combustion chamber
and a turbine while they have been widely used in the industry
and transportation sectors. For example, they are used in energy
production facilities, aircrafts, transport ships, and even cars and
motorcycles. Gas turbines have some particular advantages, such
as low annual cost, fast activation, exible operation, and fast
and easy maintenance. In addition, the most important advantage
of gas turbines is that their efciency is high (approximately 40%).
Unfortunately, gas turbines also have disadvantages. Gas turbine
maintenance costs are high, they are sensitive to ambient conditions, and they are sensitive to electricity voltage change. Gas turbines are primarily used in combined heat and power (CHP)
generation facilities in industry. CHP facilities produce electricity
and heat energy from one type of fuel, generally natural gas. The
efciency of such a facility can reach 7080% [1]. In addition to
the economic and efciency benets, their environmental impact
is an important factor. Gas turbines have low greenhouse gas emissions compared to many other power generation systems.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 (228) 2160061; fax: +90 (228) 216 05 88.
E-mail
addresses:
(E. Akkalp).

eacikkalp@gmail.com,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.03.006
0196-8904/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

emin.acikkalp@bilecik.edu.tr

All energy conversion systems must be analyzed in terms of

energetic, economic, and environmental aspects for a proper management. Exergy-based analyses are very convenient methods for
assessing the performance of energy conversion systems. Exergy
is the maximum work that can be obtained from a system. Exergy-based analyses help determine the irreversibilities (entropy
generation) and how a source can be used effectively. However,
exergy-based analyses lack some information, which will be discussed in Section 3.2 in more detail. Basically, the results of an
exergy-based analysis cannot be used to consider the potential
improvement of the system or its components, and they do not
provide any information about how one component affects one another. This lack of information can be addressed through advanced
exergy-based methods [2,3].
There are a few studies on advanced exergy-based analyses of
power-generating systems in the open literature [315]. Tsatsaronis [3] discussed the weaknesses of conventional exergy-based
analyses in developing improvement strategies and presented advanced exergy, advanced exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental analyses as solutions to these weaknesses. Tsatsaronis and
Moung-Ho [4] were the rst to develop the concepts of avoidable
and unavoidable exergy destruction, which were used to determine the potential of improving the thermodynamic performance
and cost effectiveness of a system. Cziesla et al. [5] investigated

147

E. Akkalp et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 82 (2014) 146153

Nomenclature
E_
_
m
P
T
y

exergy rate (MW)

mass ow rate (kg/s)
pressure (kPa)
temperature (K)
exergy destruction ratio

Abbreviations
AC
air compressor
CC
combustion chamber
COND
condenser
GT
gas turbine
HPST
high pressure steam turbine
HRSG
heat recovery steam generator
LPST
low pressure steam generator

Subscripts
D
destruction
F
fuel
k
kth component
L
loss
P
product
tot
total
Superscripts
AV
available
EN
endogenous
EX
exogenous
UN
unavoidable
Greek letters
g
isentropic/energetic efciency (%)
u
exergetic efciency (%)

all of an externally red combined power plants components

according to both avoidable and unavoidable exergy destruction;
the associated costs were dened, and the results of their study
were discussed. Kelly et al. [6] dened the exogenous and endogenous exergy destructions that determine the interactions between
components, and they were the rst to submit the calculation
method they presented. The calculations were expressed using a
simple refrigeration cycle and a simple gas turbine cycle. Razmara
and Saray [7] investigated the destruction of exogenous and
endogenous exergy by the engineering method for a simple gas
turbine cycle operating using different fuels. The irreversibilities
observed in the components were described and compared for
these fuels. Morosuk and Tsatsaronis [8] applied advanced exergy
analysis to a simple gas turbine cycle to assess its performance
and discussed their calculation methods in detail. Tsatsaronis and
Morosuk [9] performed advanced exergy analysis of a natural gas
liquefaction plant using a three-stage refrigeration cycle. They dened the improvement potentials and interactions between the
components. Morosuk et al. [10] analyzed a natural gas degasication plant that produced electricity using advanced exergy and advanced exergoenvironmental methods. They concluded that the
expander II, the heat exchanger II and the pump deserved the most
attention in improving the thermodynamic efciency and reducing
the environmental impact of the plant. Wang et al. [11] analyzed a
power plant operating under supercritical conditions using advanced exergy analysis and proposed suitable optimization strategies. They recommend that the generator be improved rst,
followed by the turbines. Petrakopoulou et al. [12] studied a combined power plant using advanced exergy and conventional analyses and demonstrated the superiority of the former. They reported
that an advanced exergy analysis provided a wide range of optimization strategies and potential improvements. Petrakopoulou et al.
[13] applied advanced exergy and advanced exergoenvironmental
analysis methods to a combined power plant. They determined
that 68% of the environmental impact of the system was unavoidable. In Refs. [14,15], an advanced exergoeconomic analysis was
applied to a combined (CHP) system and oxy-fuel power plant with
CO2 capture, and the methodology employed to conduct advanced
exergoeconomic analysis was explained in a detailed manner.
In the present paper, an advanced exergy analysis method is applied to an electricity-generating facility using natural gas. Thus,
the actual potential improvements of the system and the relationships between the components are determined, and possible suggestions towards increasing the system efciency are provided.

2. System description
The electricity-generating facility using natural gas is shown in
Fig. 1. This system is located in the Eskisehir Industry Estate Zone,
Turkey. The system consists of a compressor (AC), a combustion
chamber (CC), a gas turbine (GT), a heat recovery steam generator
(HRSG), a high pressure steam turbine (HPST), a low pressure
steam turbine (LPST) and a condenser (COND). Approximately
37 MW of electricity is generated by the system, but the process
steam cannot be used because of the chemicals included in the
steam. A 45.07 air/fuel ratio combustion equation for natural gas
is as follows [1619]:

0:9334CH4 0:00211C2 H6 0:00029C3 H8 0:00012C4 H10

0:06408N2 26:51870:7748N2 0:2059O2
0:0003CO2 0:01H2 O
! 0:9469CO2 2:3800H2 O 3:5831O2 20:8671N2

The specic heat of the combustion gas and the air can be
calculated from Eqs. (2) and (3), respectively [1619]:

cP;gas T 0:935301


0:072386
109

0:010577
102

0:017218

5:49031
1010

T2

T3

cP;air T 1:04841  0:000383719T



105

T3

7:92981
1014

9:45378

T4

107

T2
3

The lower heating value of the natural gas, the gas constant of
the combustion gas and the gas constant of air are 44661 kJ/kg,
0.2947 kJ/kg K and 0.2870 kJ/kg K, respectively, and the specic
exergy of natural gas (CaHb) is calculated as follows [20]:

ech;F
b 0:0698
kF 1:033 0:0169 
a
a
LHV

where kF is 1.0308. The xed parameters of the system are listed in

Table 1.

148

E. Akkalp et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 82 (2014) 146153

Fig. 1. Schematic of the investigated system.

Table 1
Fixed parameters of the electricity facility using natural gas.

Table 2
Mass ow rates, pressures, temperatures, energy rates and exergy rates for the
electricity facility using natural gas.

Parameter

Unit

Value

_ AC
W
_ GT
W

MW

51.082

MW

85.183

_ HPST
W
_ LPST
W

MW

10.278

MW

4.394

gAC
gGT
gHPST
gLPST

0.790
0.730
0.890
0.370

3. Analyses done
3.1. Conventional exergy analysis
The main equations for the exergy analysis of the kth component and the overall system are the same [6,21], but there is one
difference associated with the treatment of the exergy losses: It
is assumed that the system boundaries used for all exergy balances
are at the temperature T0 of the reference environment, and therefore, there are no exergy loses associated with the kth component
[6,22]. Exergy losses appear only at the level of the overall system
[6]. The exergy destruction rate can be calculated as follows [21]:

E_ D E_ F  E_ P

The exergetic efciency is [21]:

E_ F
E_ D
or / 1 
_EP
E_ F

E_ D;k
_EF;tot

Fluid

_ (kg/s)
m

T (K)

P (kPa)

E_ (MW)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Air
Air
Fuel
Combustion gas
Combustion gas
Combustion gas
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

138.00
138.00
2.59
140.59
140.59
140.59
16.39
3.82
16.39
3.82
16.39
20.21
20.21
20.21
722.23
722.23

284.15
621.15
298.15
1311.15
811.15
398.15
353.15
351.15
772.15
468.15
438.15
443.15
315.65
309.15
298.15
309.15

101.32
1045.00
2292.00
992.75
112.00
103.20
6850.00
560.00
6500.00
510.00
395.00
420.00
8.50
8.20
300.00
285.00

0.046
42.648
121.302
125.142
34.300
2.162
0.420
0.069
22.634
2.879
11.469
14.367
2.753
0.015
0.130
1.206

Table 3
Exergetic parameters of the electricity facility using natural gas.
Component

E_ F (MW)

E_ P (MW)

E_ D (MW)

AC
GT
CC
HRSG
HPST
LPST
COND

51.082
90.846
121.302
32.034
11.165
11.614
2.738

42.602
85.183
73.982
25.024
10.278
4.394
1.076

8.480
5.663
47.32
7.010
0.887
7.220
1.662

0.840
0.940
0.610
0.780
0.920
0.380
0.390

0.030
0.020
0.150
0.020
0.003
0.020
0.005

The exergy destruction ratio is a ratio of the component exergy

destruction rate to the total exergetic fuel rate [21]:

yk

Point

various locations and the results of the conventional exergy analysis

of the system are described in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.

7
3.2. Advanced exergetic analysis

For the overall system [21]:

E_ F;tot E_ P

X
E_ D;k E_ L

where E_ L is the rate of exergy loss of the system or control volume

to the environment, which can no longer be used. The properties at

3.2.1. Unavoidable and avoidable exergy destructions

The inefciencies of a thermal cycle are caused by exergy
destruction (entropy generation or irreversibilities). Part of the
exergy destruction is avoidable, while part of it is not. The unavoidable exergy destruction rate E_ UN
D;k results from technological and

149

E. Akkalp et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 82 (2014) 146153

economic limitations and cannot be improved. The avoidable part

of the exergy destruction rate E_ AV
D;k is the remaining part of the
exergy destruction rate and represents the improvement potential
of the component.
For calculating the unavoidable exergy destruction, each component is considered in isolation and separated from the system.
TheUNratio of the exergy destruction per unit of product exergy
_
EE_ D is calculated assuming operation with high efciency and
P k
low losses. Equations used for calculating avoidable and unavoidable exergy destruction rates can be seen in Fig. 2. In addition,
these equations can be listed as follows:
Unavoidable exergy destruction rate is:

E_ D;k
_
E_ UN
D;k EP;k
E_ P;k

!UN
9

Avoidable exergy destruction rate is:

_
_ UN
E_ AV
D;k ED;k  ED;k

Fig. 3. Dividing exergy destruction rate into endogenous and exogenous parts [2].

10
Exogenous exergy destruction rate is:

3.2.2. Destruction of endogenous and exogenous exergy

_ EX
The destruction of endogenous E_ EN
D and exogenous ED exergy are used to determine relationships between the components of
the investigated system. Endogenous exergy destruction is the
exergy destruction that occurs in the component itself. Exogenous
exergy destruction is the exergy destruction caused by the other
components. The endogenous part of the exergy destruction is
associated only with the irreversibilities occurring within the kth
component when the following two conditions are simultaneously
fullled:
 All other components operate in an ideal manner.
 The component being considered operates with its current efciency [2,3].

_
_ EN
E_ EX
D;k ED;k  ED;k

11

Mexogenous exergy destruction rate is;

_ EX
E_ MEX
D;k ED;k 

j1
X
E_ EX;n

12

D;k

r1
rk

3.2.3. Splitting unavoidable and avoidable exergy destruction

The unavoidable endogenous exergy destruction rate E_ UN;EN
,
D;k
the unavoidable exogenous exergy destruction rate E_ UN;EX , the
D;k

avoidable endogenous exergy destruction rate E_ AV;EN

D;k and the
AV;EX
_
are can be
avoidable exogenous exergy destruction rate E
D;k

The exogenous part of the exergy destruction rate is calculated

by subtracting the endogenous exergy destruction rate from the
real exergy destruction rate. The exogenous exergy destruction of
a component can be divided as E_ EX;n
D;k , which represents the effects
of the nth component on the irreversibilities on the kth component. The difference between the sum of all the E_ EX;n
D;k terms and
the overall exogenous exergy destruction rate is described as mexogenous exergy destruction. Mexogenous exergy destruction reveals the effects of the system on the considered component
[23]. Equations used for calculating endogenous and exogenous
exergy destruction rates can be seen in Fig. 3.

seen in Fig. 2.
Unavoidable endogenous, unavoidable exogenous, avoidable
endogenous and avoidable exogenous destruction rates, respectively, are:

E_ D;k
E_ UN;EN
E_ EN
P;k
D;k
E_ P;k

!UN
13

_ UN;EN
E_ UN;EX
E_ UN
D;k  ED;k
D;k

14

_ UN;EN
E_ AV;EN
E_ EN
D;k  ED;k
D;k

15

_ AV;EN
E_ AV;EX
E_ AV
D;k  ED;k
D;k

16

4. Results and discussion

Fig. 2. Dividing exergy destruction rate to avoidable and unavoidable parts [2].

According to the conventional exergy analysis, thermodynamically, the most important component seems to be the combustion
chamber because of exhibiting the maximum exergy destruction
rate of the system components (47.32 MW). Exergy destruction is
measure for the irrevesibilities in a system. As expected, that the
highest exergy destruction rate is at the CC because chemical reactions cause irreversibilities highly. Therefore, one should focus on
the improvement of the CC. Increasing the airfuel mass ratio
can cause decreasing the exergy destruction rates. The minimum
exergy destruction rate is due to the HPST (0.887 MW). Similarly,
the maximum exergy efciency is due to the GT (0.92), while the
minimum efciency is obtained for the LPST (0.38). This means
that the efciency of the GT is the closest to the efciency of Car-

E. Akkalp et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 82 (2014) 146153

COND

COND

System Components

LPST

HPST

HRSG

CC

GT

AC
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Exergy Efficiencies of Components

Fig. 5. Exergy efciencies of the components in the system.

COND

LPST

System Components

not, while the LPST is far away from it. Exergy destruction ratio is
another parameter to evaluate the system performance. It represents the ratio of the exergy destruction rate to the total fuel exergy ratio. The exergy destruction rates of the other components, the
exergy efciencies and the exergy destruction ratios are listed in
Table 3. In addition, the magnitudes of the exergy destruction
rates, the exergy efciency, and the exergy destruction ratios of
the system are shown in Figs. 46, respectively.
The effect of the environment temperature values (273.15 K,
283.15 K and 298.15 K) on the exergy efciency, the exergy
destruction rates and the exergy destruction ratios is also investigated through a parametric study undertaken, as shown in Figs. 5
7. It is clear from Fig. 7 that the environment temperature has no
big effect on the components. Similar to the exergy destruction
rate, the dead state temperature has no important effect on the
components exergy efciencies and exergy destruction ratios, as
illustrated in Figs. 8 and 9.
Uncertainties in the measurement and total exergy values are
given as follows:
Uncertainties for temperature, mass ow rate and pressure are
0.5 C, 0.5% and 0.91%, respectively. Uncertainties associated
with the total fuel exergy rate, the product exergy rate and the
exergy efciency are calculated to be 4.537%, 3.171% and 4.254%,
respectively.
The details of the advanced exergy analysis of the system investigated are presented as follows while the assumptions for the advanced exergy analysis are listed in Table 4. The results for the
advanced exergy analysis are also listed in Tables 5 and 6. Assumptions for the advanced exergy analysis are divided into two parts.
Theoretical conditions are dened for determining the endogenous
and exogenous exergy destruction rates. For determining the
avoidable and unavoidable exergy destruction rates, assumptions
must represent limitations that cannot be reached at a decade.
The following results are based on the parameters given in Table 5.
The endogenous exergy destruction rates are greater than the
corresponding exogenous exergy destruction rates for the GT, CC,
HPST and LPST, i.e., the exergy destruction in each of these components resulted from the component itself. The maximum endogenous exergy destruction is in the CC, due to the great chemical
irreversibility caused by the combustion process in it. The exogenous exergy destruction rates were found to be greater than
endogenous exergy destruction rates for the AC, HRSG and COND,
i.e., these components were affected at higher levels by other components, and the exergy destruction within each of these components could be reduced by increasing the exergy destruction
within the other components. The negative values for the destruc-

HPST

HRSG

CC

GT

AC
0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

Exergy Destruction Ratios of Components

Fig. 6. Exergy destruction ratios of the components in the system.

298.15 K
283.15 K
273.15 K

50

Exergy destruction rate (MW)

150

40

30

20

10

LPST

System Components

HPST
AC

GT

CC

HRSG

HPST

LPST

COND

Components
HRSG

Fig. 7. Variation of exergy destruction rates with environmental temperature.

CC

GT

AC
0

10

20

30

40

Exergy Destruction Rates of Components (MW)

Fig. 4. Exergy destruction rates of the components in the system.

50

_ AV;EX and E_ UN;EX revealed that the

tion of exogenous exergy E_ EX
D;k , ED;k
D;k
exergy destruction within each of these components could be decreased by the increase in the exergy destruction within the other
components. Avoidable exergy destruction indicates the improvement potential for the components, while unavoidable exergy
destruction indicated the constraints. The unavoidable exergy
destruction was greater than the avoidable exergy destruction of
each of the system components, except for the HPST and COND.

151

E. Akkalp et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 82 (2014) 146153

298.15 K
283.15 K
273.15 K

1.0

Exergy efficiency

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
AC

GT

CC

HRSG

HPST

LPST

COND

Component
Fig. 8. Variation of exergy efciencies with environmental temperature.

0.16
298.15 K
283.15 K
273.15 K

0.14

Exergy destruction ratio

0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
AC

GT

CC

HRSG

HPST

LPST

COND

Components
Fig. 9. Variation of exergy destruction ratios with environmental temperature.

Table 4
Assumptions used in the advanced exergy analysis.
Component

Operating
Conditions

Theoretical
Conditions

Unavoidable
Conditions

AC
CC

g 0:79

g1

g 0:85

DP 52 kPa
k 2:91
g 0:73
DT min 200 K
DP %5
g 0:89
g 0:37
DT min 6:5 K
DP %5

DP 0
k 2:91
g1
DT min 0
DP 0
g1
g1
DT min 0
DP 0

DP 0
k 3:5
g 0:80
DT min 150 K
DP 0
g 0:95
g 0:50
DT min 5 K
DP 0

GT
HRSG
HPST
LPST
COND

This observation led to that the system had a low potential for
improvement. However, the maximum potential for improvement
was in the CC (23.350 MW), which could be realized by enhancing
the combustion efciency. The largest fraction of the avoidable
exergy destruction rate was endogenous (12.259 MW) and the
remaining part (11.091 MW) was exogenous. In addition, investigating the mexogenous exergy destruction of each component,
GT exhibited the maximum effect on the CCs exergy destruction,
and the ACs exergy destruction must be increased to decrease
the CCs exergy destruction. The mexogenous exergy destruction
of the COND had a negative value, i.e., the systems exergy destruction must be increased to decrease CONDs exergy destruction.
Using only the conventional exergy analysis, the AC and HRSG
were concluded to have high exergy destruction rates. However,
when evaluating these components using advanced exergy analysis, 7580% of these components exergy destruction rates were
determined to be associated with other components because they
have high exogenous exergy destruction rates. Exogenous exergy
destruction rates for AC and HRSG are (6.818 MW) and
(5.958 MW) respectively.
The mexogenous exergy destruction rates of the AC and HRSG
determined which components had signicant effects on them.
According to Table 6, the results of analyzing the mexogenous
exergy destruction indicated that CC and GT affected the AC
equally and that the HRSG was affected primarily by the CC. To decrease the exergy destruction of these components, both CC and GT
had to be improved. For the GT and LPST, the results of the conventional exergy analysis were misleading. Although the GT and LPST
had higher exergy destruction rates, their potentials for improvement were low and associated with the exergy destruction rates
of the other components. The results of the advanced exergy analysis of the HPST and COND concluded that one should focus on
improvements in each of the components themselves rather than
the effects of other components.
Figs. 1013 indicated the breakdown of the advanced exergetic
destruction parameters for the entire system. According to Fig. 10,
the endogenous exergy destruction apparently had the highest rate
(70.3%). This high rate led to that the relationships between the
system components were very weak for the system. A similar result was apparent in the data shown in Fig. 11. The potential
improvement of the exergy destruction cost rates of the entire system was only 37.3%. In addition, 76.5% of this improvement potential was based on the components themselves (Fig. 12). It is
apparent in Fig. 13, that the unavoidable parts of the exergy
destruction rate were primarily endogenous.
The following results are acquired when the considered plant is
compared to some systems in the literature [412]: In Ref. [4], the
authors dened the avoidable and the unavoidable exergetic parts
of a cogeneration system. They determined that avoidable part of
the exergy destruction consisted of 41% of the total exergy destruction. This means that the improvement potential of the system is
relatively low. In Ref. [5], a similar investigation was performed
for externally red combined-cycle power plant. The results
showed that the avoidable exergy destruction was equal to 33%.
Thus, the system had a lower improvement potential. Compressor

Table 5
Advanced exergy parameters of the system.
Component

E_ D;k (MW)

E_ EN
D;k (MW)

E_ EX
D;k (MW)

E_ AV
D;k (MW)

E_ UN
D;k (MW)

E_ AV;EN
(MW)
D;k

E_ AV;EX
(MW)
D;k

E_ UN;EN
(MW)
D;k

E_ UN;EX
(MW)
D;k

AC
GT
CC
HRSG
HPST
LPST
COND

8.48
5.663
47.320
7.010
0.887
7.220
1.662

1.662
10.283
24.989
1.052
0.538
15.703
0.753

6.818
4.620
22.331
5.958
0.349
8.483
0.909

0.982
1.489
23.350
0.376
0.496
1.481
1.007

7.498
4.174
23.970
6.634
0.391
5.739
0.655

0.530
7.625
12.259
0.915
0.308
2.945
0.627

1.512
6.136
11.091
1.291
0.188
1.464
0.380

2.192
2.658
12.730
1.967
0.230
12.758
0.126

5.306
1.516
11.240
4.667
0.161
7.019
0.529

152

E. Akkalp et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 82 (2014) 146153

Table 6
Mexogenous exergy parameters of the system.
Exogenous exergy destruction
of each component (MW)

Effects of the other components on the

exogenous exergy destruction (MW)

AC
6.818

CC 2.719
GT 2.689
MX 1.410

CC
22.331

GT 24.373
AC-4.732
MX 2.690

HRSG
5.958

AC 0.098
CC 2.174
GT 0.626
MX 3.060

HPST
0.349

AC 0.025
CC 0.022
GT-0.013
HRSG 0.035
MX 0.280

COND
0.909

AC 0.133
CC-0.048
GT 1.850
HRSG-0.140
HPST 0.420
LPST 3.178
MX-4.484

3 had the biggest improvement potential. In Ref. [6], refrigeration

and simple gas turbine systems were investigated. Their exergy
destructions were divided into endogenous and exogenous parts.
In the refrigeration system, the endogenous part of the exergy
destruction rate was 67.6%. So, the relations of the components at
the system were weak because of high endogenous exergy destruction rate. The endogenous exergy destruction part of the system

Fig. 10. Breakdown of the endogenous and exogenous exergy destruction rates of
the system.

Fig. 12. Breakdown of the avoidable destruction of rates the system.

Fig. 13. Breakdown of the unavoidable exergy destruction rates of the system.

was 68.9%, and similar to the refrigeration cycle, the relations of

the components were weak. In Ref. [7], one investigated a simple
gas turbine cycle and cogeneration system that operated with different fuels. For both system, endogenous exergy destruction rates
of the system was bigger than exogenous exergy destruction rates.
approximately 64% of total exergy destruction rate was endogenous
in simple gas turbine cycle and similarly, about 78% of the total
exergy destruction rate was endogenous in the cogeneration system. In Ref. [8], advanced exergy analysis for chemical reacting systems was performed using a simple open gas turbine cycle. It was
found that 77% of the exergy destruction rate was endogenous
and only 29% of the system had improvement potential. A system
generating electricity and vaporizing liqueed natural gas was
investigated with advanced exergy analysis [9]. 88% of the exergy
destruction rate was endogenous and its 57% was improvable. A
system that included liquid natural gas regasication and an electricity generation system was also analyzed using advanced exergy-based methods in Ref. [10]. One found that the system had
57% improvement potential. In Ref. [11], endogenous exergy rate
was 85% for the system and its improvement potential was only
8%. In Ref. [12],endogenous exergy rate consisted of 83% of the total
exergy destruction. In addition to that the improvement potential
of the system was 33%. When the considered system was compared
to others, endogenous exergy destruction rates of the systems were
higher, ranging from 65% to 85% generally as it was our considered
system. The improvement potentials of the other system also varied
from 30% to 40% while our system had 37.3% improvement potential. Based on the results listed above, our system represents a good
agreement with ones in the literature.
5. Conclusions

Fig. 11. Breakdown of the available and unavoidable exergy destruction rates of the
system.

In this paper, we have assessed the performance of an electricity generation facility using natural gas through advanced exergy
analysis based on the actual operational data. We have concluded

E. Akkalp et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 82 (2014) 146153

that conventional exergy analysis could lead to misinterpretations

that result in incorrect improvement strategies. In addition, one
was not able to provide any information about the relationships
between the components of the system through the conventional
exergy analysis only while these shortcomings could be addressed
using an advanced exergy analysis.
We have listed some concluding remarks as follows:
(a) The relations between the components are week because
total endogenous exergy destruction rate is 70% of the total
exergy destruction.
(b) The improvement potential of the system is 38%, meaning
that systems improvement potential is low.
(c) An advanced exergy analysis of the system determined that
one should focus on the GT and CC for possible improvement
of the system, which are the most important components of
the system.
(d) This paper also clearly indicates that conventional exergy
analyses are not enough to evaluate an energy conversion
system and it is recommended performing advanced based
exergoenvironmental analyses.

Acknowledgement
The authors are very grateful to the reviewers for their valuable
and constructive comments, which have been utilized to improve
the quality of the paper. They also would like to thank all the technical staff of the investigated facility, located in the Eskisehir
Industry Estate Zone in Turkey.
References
[1] EPA.
<http://www.epa.gov/chp/documents/catalog_chptech_gas_turbines.
pdf>; 2013 [accessed May 2013].
[2] Petrakopoulou F. Comparative evaluation of power plants with CO2 capture:
thermodynamic, economic and environmental performance, Ph.D. Thesis,
Berlin Technical University, Berlin; 2011.
[3] Tsatsaronis G. Recent developments in exergy analysis and exergoeconomic.
Int J Exergy 2008;5:48999.
[4] Tsatsaronis G, Moung-Ho P. On avoidable and unavoidable exergy destructions
and investment costs in thermal systems. Energy Convers Manage
2002;43:125970.
[5] Cziesla F, Tsatsaronis G, Gao Z. Avoidable thermodynamic inefciencies and
cost in an externally red combined cycle power plant. Energy
2006;31:147289.

153

[6] Kelly S, Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T. Advanced exergetic analysis: approaches for

splitting the exergy destruction into endogenous parts. Energy
2009;34:38491.
[7] Razmara N, Saray RK. A simple gas turbine system and co-generation power
plant improandment based on endogenous and exogenous exergy destruction.
PI Mech Eng A J Pow 2009;24:43347.
[8] Morosuk T, Tsatsaronis G. Advanced exergy analysis for chemically reaction
systems-application to a simple open gas-turbine system. Int J Thermodyn
2009;12:10511.
[9] Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T. Advanced exergetic analysis of a novel system for
generating electricity and vaporizing liqueed natural gas. Energy
2010;35:8209.
[10] Morosuk T, Tsatsaronis G, Boyano A, Gantiva C. Advanced exergy-based
analyses applied to a system including LNG regasication and electricity
generation. Int J Energy Environ Eng 2012;3:19.
[11] Wang L, Yang Y, Morosuk T, Tsatsaronis G. Advanced thermodynamic analysis
and evaluation of a supercritical power plant. Energies 2012;5:185063.
[12] Petrakopoulou F, Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T, Carassai A. Conventional and
advanced exergetic analysis applied to a combined power plant. Energy
2012;41:14652.
[13] Petrakopoulou F, Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T, Paitazoglou C. Environmental
evaluation of a power plant using conventional and advanced exergy-based
methods. Energy 2012;45:2330.
[14] Petrakopoulou F, Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T. Advanced exergoeconomic
analysis applied to a complex energy conversion system. In: Proceedings of
the ASME 2010 international mechanical engineering congress & exposition
(Imece2010), November 1218, 2010, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
[15] Petrakopoulou F, Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T. Cost reduction strategies for an
oxy-fuel power plant with co2 capture: application of an advanced
exergoeconomic analysis to an advanced zero emission plant. In:
Proceedings of the ASME 2011 international mechanical engineering
congress & exposition (Imece2011), November 1117, 2011, Denver,
Colorado, USA.
[16] Balli O. Performance assessments of cogenarition systems using the energy,
availability (exergy) and exergoeconomic analysis methods. Ph.d. Thesis,
Eskisehir OsmangaziUniversity, Eskisehir, Turkeyl; 2008.
[17] Balli O, Aras H. Energetic analysis of the combined heat and power (CHP)
system. Energy Explor Exploit 2007;25:3962.
[18] Balli O, Aras H, Hepbasli A. Exergetic performance evaluation of a combined
heat and power (CHP) system in Turkey. Int J Energy Res 2007;31:84966.
[19] Balli O, Aras H, Hepbasli A. Exergoeconomic analysis of a combined heat and
power (CHP) system. Int J Energy Res 2007;32:27389.
[20] Moran MJ, Shapiro HN. Fundamentals of engineering thermodynamics. New
York: John Wiley; 1995.
[21] Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran M. Thermal design and optimization. New
York: Wiley; 1996.
[22] Tsatsaronis G. Design optimization using exergoeconomics. In: Bejan A,
Mamut E, editors. Thermodynamic optimization of complex energy
systems. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1999. p. 10117.
[23] Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T. Advanced exergoeconomic evaluation and its
application to compression refrigeration machines. In: Proceedings of the
ASME international mechanical engineering congress and exposition, 2007,
Seattle, USA Cd-Rom, le 2007-41202.