Applied Energy 86 (2009) 941948

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Exergy analyses and parametric optimizations for different cogeneration power plants in cement industry
Jiangfeng Wang, Yiping Dai *, Lin Gao
Institute of Turbomachinery, Xian Jiaotong University, No. 28, Xianning West Road, Xian 710049, PR China

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
The cement production is an energy intensive industry with energy typically accounting for 5060% of the production costs. In order to recover waste heat from the preheater exhaust and clinker cooler exhaust gases in cement plant, single ash steam cycle, dual-pressure steam cycle, organic Rankine cycle (ORC) and the Kalina cycle are used for cogeneration in cement plant. The exergy analysis for each cogeneration system is examined, and a parameter optimization for each cogeneration system is achieved by means of genetic algorithm (GA) to reach the maximum exergy efciency. The optimum performances for different cogeneration systems are compared under the same condition. The results show that the exergy losses in turbine, condenser, and heat recovery vapor generator are relatively large, and reducing the exergy losses of these components could improve the performance of the cogeneration system. Compared with other systems, the Kalina cycle could achieve the best performance in cement plant. 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 5 April 2008 Received in revised form 27 July 2008 Accepted 4 September 2008 Available online 17 October 2008 Keywords: Waste heat recovery Optimization Exergy analysis Cement

1. Introduction The cement production ranks among the most energy intensive industrial processes. In many world regions, energy expenditure accounts for 5060% of the direct production cost of cement. Although new cement plants almost uses dry process with lower energy consumption than that in a wet process, the cement production process still require large amounts of energy. The calcinations and drying processes, as well as the kiln, require large quantities of thermal heat. The grinding mills, fans, and other motor driven equipment rely on electric energy. Although cement burning process has been optimized [1], signicant heat loss, mainly caused by the waste gases, still occurs. It was found that about 40% of the total input energy was being lost through hot ue gases, cooler stack and kiln shell [2]. In order to reduce energy consumption in cement production process, the cogeneration power plant can recover the waste heats to generate electrical energy with no additional fuel consumption and thus reduce the high cost of electrical energy and CO2 emissions for cement production. Since the waste heats in cement plant are classied as middle and low temperature waste heat, several power plants are particularly well suited for these waste heats available, such as single ash steam cycle, dual-pressure steam cycle, ORC and the Kalina cycle. For the ORC, much research has been carried out on it to utilize middle and low temperature heat sources. Madhawa Hettiarachchi
* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +86 029 82668704. E-mail address: freego810211@gmail.com (Y. Dai). 0306-2619/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.09.001

et al. [3] presented a cost-effective optimum design criterion for ORC utilizing low temperature geothermal heat sources. Wei et al. [4] considered the system performance analysis and optimization of an ORC using R245fa as working uid, and analyzed the thermodynamic performances of an ORC system under disturbances. Saleh et al. [5] studied the thermodynamic screening of 31 pure working uids for ORCs on the basis of BACKONE equation of state. Chen et al. [6] examined the performance of the CO2 transcritical power cycle utilizing low-grade waste heat in comparison to an ORC using R123 as working uid. They found that the carbon dioxide trans-critical power cycle had a slightly higher power output than that of the ORC under the given condition. Liu et al. [7] discussed an ORC performance subjected to the inuence of working uids. They investigated the effects of various working uids on the thermal efciency and on the total heat recovery efciency. Tamamoto et al. [8] investigated the performance and characteristics of ORC using R123 and water theoretically and experimentally. It was demonstrated that R123 improved the cycle performance drastically. Hung [9] explored the working uids for ORC to recover waste heat, including benzene, toluene, p-xylene, R113 and R123. Hung et al. [10] analyzed parametrically and compared the efciencies of ORCs using cryogens such as benzene, ammonia, R11, R12, R134a and R113 as working uids. Lee et al. [11] performed a systematic analysis on an ORC using R113 as working uid. It is found that the recovering low pressure waste heat by this ORC provide a high potential for moderate capacity plants. Legmann [12] used ORC supplied to the cement industry to recover the heat available from clinker cooler and generate electricity on a continuous basis without interfering with the cement production process.

942

J. Wang et al. / Applied Energy 86 (2009) 941948

Nomenclature E h I m p s t T x exergy (kW) enthalpy (kJ/kg) exergy loss (kW) mass ow rate (kg/s) pressure (MPa) entropy (kJ/kg K) temperature (C) temperature (K) mass fraction CND ex FSH HE i in MIX out PUMP SP TBN 0 condenser exergy asher heat exchanger each state point inlet mixture process outlet pump SP boiler turbine environment state

Greek symbol g efciency Subscripts AQC AQC boiler

Although many studied have been devoted to the ORC, a little attention has been focused on performance evaluation and optimization using the ORC in cement plant for waste heat recovery. For the Kalina cycle, which was originally conceived by Kalina [13], many studies have been found to investigate it. El-Sayed and Tribus [14] made a theoretical comparison of the Kalina cycle with Rankine cycle. The congurations developed by them were very much complicated because several heat exchangers had more than two steams. Marston [15] considered the parametric analysis of the Kalina cycle. He developed a method of balancing the Kalina cycle and identied the key parameters for optimizing the Kalina cycle. Rogdakis [16] developed correlations describing the optimum operation of the Kalina cycle. Marston [17] compared the Kalina cycle with triple pressure. He observed that Kalina cycle was more efcient than the triple pressure steam cycle. Nag and Gupta [18] studied exergy analysis of the Kalina cycle. Olsson et al. [19] investigated the Kalina cycle to recover industrial waste heat. It was shown that the Kalina cycle could generate more power from iron and steel industry waste heat than a steam cycle. Bisio [20] investigated the Kalina cycle for power generation from waste heat in ironworks and steelworks. Dejfors and Svedberg [21] used exergy analysis to evaluate the Kalina cycle and the Rankine cycle in the biomass-fueled cogeneration plants. Jonsson and Yan [22,23] and Jonsson [24] examined the Kalina cycle as the bottoming cycle with gas engines and gas diesel engines as prime movers to recover waste heat available from the exhaust gas. Mirolli [25,26] discussed the Kalina cycle for waste heat recovery in the cement industry from view of economics, operation, maintenances and CO2 emission benets. Although much work has been done on the Kalina cycle, a little attention has been focused on waste heat recovery in cement plant to evaluate cycle performance evaluation and conduct the optimization design. In addition, the single ash steam cycle, which is widely applied to geothermal source [2729], can also used to utilize middle and low temperature waste heat. The cycles above could have different performances and features for waste heat recovery, so it is necessary to conduct performance optimization and performance comparison for different cogeneration systems in cement plant. The main objective of the present study is to examine the performances of the cogeneration power plants in cement, including the single ash steam cycle, the dual-pressure steam cycle, the ORC and the Kalina cycle. The exergy analysis for each cogeneration power plants is achieved and the parametric optimization with exergy efciency as the objective function is conducted by means of genetic algorithm. In addition, the optimum performances of different cogeneration power plants

are compared under the same condition of a typical kiln line of 5000 t/d capacity. 2. Waste heat source in the cement plant Waste heat source in the cement plant includes the suspension preheater (SP) exhaust gas and the hot air from the clinker cooler discharge. These heat sources may be used separately or in combination for cogeneration power generation. These two heat sources have different temperature levels. Two heat recovery vapor generators are provided to recover the two waste heat sources, respectively. One for the preheater exhaust is called SP boiler, and the other for the clinker cooler exhaust is called air quenching cooler (AQC) boiler. Frequently, the SP exhaust gas is used in the cement plant for drying raw materials, which limits the available heat for power generation. Typical exhaust gas conditions for a kiln line of 5000 t/d capacity with a four-stage suspension preheater and clinker cooler are listed in Table 1. 3. Cogeneration system conguration descriptions 3.1. Single ash steam cycle The single ash steam power cycle is based on the property that a certain mass of steam can be separated from water at saturated state if the pressure is lowered. The amount of ashed steam depends on the pressure before the ash tank and the nal pressure in the ashing tank. The lower the pressure in the ashing tank the higher is the amount of steam, but on the other side, low pressure steam generates less power. Fig. 1 shows the conguration of single ash steam cycle in the cement plant. The working uid passed through feed pump is sent into AQC boiler and preheated rstly. One part of preheated working uid is vaporized and superheated in AQC boiler, and one part of preheated working uid is sent to SP boiler to be vaporized and superheated. The two stream of superheated vapor from AQC boiler and SP boiler are mixed and expended through turbine to generate power. The rest of preheated

Table 1 Cement plant typical exhaust gas conditions Preheater exhaust temperature (C) SP boiler exhaust temperature (C) Clinker cooler exhaust temperature (C) Preheater exhaust mass ow (kg/s) Clinker cooler exhaust mass ow (kg/s) 340 210 320 126.56 86.2

J. Wang et al. / Applied Energy 86 (2009) 941948

943

Preheater exhaust

II
3 2

11

Preheater exhaust Drum

1 3

Turbine Generator
7

Turbine Generator Clinker cooler exhaust

12
2 7

SP boiler Clinker cooler exhaust

Flasher
6

Condenser

SP boiler AQC boiler

Condenser

AQC boiler
4

!` Pump 2
8 9 10

Pump 1

Pump

Fig. 1. The single ash steam cycle in cement plant.

Fig. 3. The ORC in cement plant.

working uid is expand in the asher and is separated into saturated vapor and saturated water. The saturated vapor is sent into turbine to generate power. The turbine exhaust is condensed in the condenser, and passes through condensing pump to be mixed with saturated water from the asher. 3.2. Dual-pressure steam cycle The dual-pressure steam cycle is superior to the single pressure steam cycle to make the best of middle and low temperature waste heats from preheater exhaust and clinker cooler exhaust gases. Fig. 2 illustrates the dual-pressure steam cycle in cement plant. The working uid passing through low pressure feed pump is sent into AQC boiler and preheated rstly. One part of preheated working uid is vaporized and superheated in AQC boiler, and the produced low pressure vapor is sent to turbine to generate a part of power. One part of preheated working uid passes through high pressure pump and is vaporized and superheated in AQC boiler. The rest of preheated working uid passes through high pressure pump and is sent to SP boiler to be vaporized and superheated. The two stream of high pressure superheated vapor from AQC boiler and SP boiler are mixed and expended through turbine to generate power. The turbine exhaust is condensed in the condenser and sent to low pressure feed pump.

3.3. Organic Rankine cycle The ORC is superior to the conventional Rankine cycle in recovering low-grade waste heat. In the present study, R123 as the working uid is used to simulate the ORC. Fig. 3 shows the ORC in cement plant. The organic working uid passing through feed pump is separated into two steams. One stream is sent into AQC boiler and to be preheated, vaporized and superheated. The other stream is sent to SP boiler to be preheated, vaporized and superheated. These two streams of superheated vapor from AQC boiler and SP boiler are mixed and expended through turbine to generate power. The turbine exhaust is condensed in the condenser and sent to pump. 3.4. Kalina cycle Kalina cycle uses ammoniawater mixture as the working uid which exhibits variable boiling temperatures during the boiling process. This allows a small temperature difference for a good thermal match between the variable temperature heat sources and the working uid, and consequently reduces irreversibility loss in the heat addition process. Fig. 4 illustrates the Kalina cycle in the cement plant. An ammoniawater working uid is preheated in the AQC boiler, and vaporized in both SP boiler and AQC boiler, and superheated in SP boiler. Superheated ammoniawater vapor is then expanded through a back pressure turbine to generate work. The turbine exhaust is recuperatively cooled, diluted with

Preheater exhaust

12

Preheater exhaust

Turbine Generator
2
5 4

Separator
15

Turbine Generator
14 7

SP boiler
3 14

Clinker cooler exhaust

5

11

SP boiler

Clinker cooler exhaust

Drum

Drum Pump 2
2 3 16

Preheater
13

Reheater II
19 17 11 12

AQC boiler
4 6 7

Condenser

1 Pump 2
20

Pump 3
8

Throttle valve
18

Pump 1 !`

AQC boiler

10

21

10

Pump 1

Condenser

Absorber

Fig. 2. The dual-pressure steam cycle in cement plant.

Fig. 4. The Kalina cycle in cement plant.

944

J. Wang et al. / Applied Energy 86 (2009) 941948

ammoniapoor liquid, and condensed in the absorber by cooling water. The saturated liquid leaving the absorber is compressed to an intermediate pressure, and most of the diluted liquid is partially boiled in the reheater and sent to the vapor separator. The saturated mixture is separated into an ammoniapoor liquid and an ammoniarich vapor in the vapor separator. The ammoniapoor liquid is cooled and depressurized in a throttle valve, and the ammoniarich vapor is mixed with some of the diluted liquid to obtain the working uid. The working uid is the condensed in the condenser and pump to AQC boiler. 4. Exergy analysis for cogeneration systems Exergy is dened as maximum amount of work which can be produced by a system when it comes to equilibrium with a reference environment. An exergy analysis has proven to be a powerful tool in the thermodynamic analyses of energy systems. It is employed to evaluate quantitatively the causes of thermodynamic imperfection of the process under consideration. Exergy analysis usually aims to determine the maximum performance of the system and identify the equipment in which exergy loss occurs, and indicates the possibilities of thermodynamic improvement of the process under consideration. Exergy analysis of a complex system can be performed by analyzing each component of the system separately. Identifying the equipment in which the main exergy loss occurs, shows the direction for potential improvements. The exergy efciency for waste heat recovery system in cement plant can be expressed by

The exergy loss in the turbine can be given as

ITBN Ein W TBN Eout

The exergy loss in the condenser can be given as

ICND Ein Eout

The exergy loss in the asher can be given as

IFSH Ein Eout;1 Eout;2

The exergy loss in the pump can be given as

IPUMP W PUMP Ein Eout

The exergy loss in the heat exchanger is given as

IHE Ein;1 Ein;2 Eout;1 Eout;2

For a mixture process, the exergy loss is given as

10

IMIX Ein;1 Ein;2 Eout

11

gex

P Ein i Ii Ein
P

The main assumptions for the calculations of the cogeneration systems are summarized in Table 2. The properties of water and steam were calculated by IAPWSIF97. The properties of the working uid R123 were calculated by REFROP 6.01 [30] developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology of the United States. Thermodynamic properties of ammoniawater mixture were calculated by a convenient semiempirical method, which combines the Gibbs free energy method for mixtures and bubble and dew point temperature correlations for phase equilibrium; the differences between calculated data and experimental data were less than 0.3% with good agreement [31]. The simulations of the cogeneration systems were carried out using a simulation program written by authors. Iterative relative convergence error tolerance was 0.02%. 5. Performance optimization For practical operation in the cement production, each cogeneration power plant has many parameters that are varied together, presenting a multi-dimensional surface on which an optimum can be found. In the present study, the exergy efciency, which can evaluate the performance of cogeneration system, is selected as objective function for parameter optimization in each cogeneration power plant. Parameter optimization is achieved by means of genetic algorithm to reach the maximum exergy efciency. The GA, which is presented rstly by Holland [32], is a stochastic global search method that simulates natural biological evolution. Based on the Darwinian survival-of-ttest principle, the genetic algorithm operates on a population of potential solutions to produce better and better approximations to the optimal solution. The GA differs from more traditional optimization techniques because it involves a search from a population of solutions and not from a single point. The GA encodes a potential solution to a specic domain problem on a simple chromosome-like data structure (which constitutes an individual), where genes are parameters of the problem to be solved. In the present study, the oat-point coding is used in parameter optimization for cogeneration systems. Each
Table 2 Main assumptions for the cogeneration systems Environment temperature (C) Environment pressure (MPa) Turbine isentropic efciency (%) Minimum degree of dryness of turbine exhaust (%) Pump isentropic efciency (%) Pinch point temperature difference (C) Approach point temperature difference (C) 15 0.10135 85 88 70 10.0 5.0

where Ein is the inlet exergy and i Ii is the sum of the exergy losses of processes. In the cogeneration system for cement industry, the exergy input comes from the preheater exhaust and clinker cooler exhaust gases, and the exergy losses occur in main components, such as AQC boiler, SP boiler, turbine, pumps, the condensers, the heat exchangers, asher. It is assumed that the system reaches a steady state, and pressure drop and heat loss in pipe lines are neglected. Consider P0 and T0 to be the reference environment pressure and temperature as the specied dead state with the assumption that the heat rejecting into environment is neglect. The following assumptions are made to calculate the exergy of each state point: (a) It is assumed that only physical exergy is used for ue gas and steam ows. (b) Chemical exergies of the substances are neglected. (c) Kinetic and potential exergies of materials are ignored. The exergy of each state point can be considered as

Ei m hi h0 T 0 si s0

For a general steady state, steady-ow process, the exergy balance can be expressed as

Ein

Eout I

The exergy loss of each component for the cogeneration power plant can be found as follows. For a SP boiler, the exergy loss can be estimated by

ISP

Ein;SP

Eout;SP

The exergy loss in the AQC boiler can be estimated by

IAQC

Ein;AQC

Eout;AQC

J. Wang et al. / Applied Energy 86 (2009) 941948

945

chromosome vector is coded as a vector of oating point numbers of the same length as the dimension of the search space. Chromosome is dened as a real number vector, X = (x1, x2, . . ., xn), xi 2 R, i = 1, 2, . . ., n, where i is ith parameter for cogeneration system, n is the number of optimizing parameters. The GA uses tness function to evaluate adaptability of individual without external information in the evolution search. The adaptability is expressed by the tness value. A bigger tness value means a better adaptability subjected to constraints and a better viability of the individual. Fitness function which is not constrained by denition domain, continuity and differentiability, requires that the objective function is dened as the form of non-negative maximum. In this optimization, the exergy efciency is selected as the tness function. The GA operators include selection operator, crossover operator and mutation operator. Selection operator is responsible for selecting the parents to create the next generation of solutions. The parent is chosen with a probability based on its tness. The higher the tness, the higher is the probability of selection. The rank-based model is selected for this optimization in the cogeneration systems. Crossover operator is the basic operator for producing new chromosomes. It produces new individuals that have some parts of both parents genetic material. The simple arithmetic crossover is applied to this optimization problem due to very simple operation, which is presented as follows:

(5) If generation reaches the stop generation, stop the optimization. Otherwise go back to step 3.

6. Results and discussion For the single ash steam cycle, the simulation results of each point and performance are summarized in Tables 3 and 4. Exergy analysis has been performed to evaluate the exergy losses in the system as shown in Table 5. It is found that 57.9% of the total input exergy is lost: 28.1% due to the irreversibilities in the components, 3.7% to the environment in the AQC boiler exhaust, and 26.1% in the SP boiler exhaust. The biggest exergy loss due to the irreversibilities occurs in the turbine expansion process, and the condensation process causes the next largest exergy loss. In addition, heat addition processes in SP boiler and AQC boiler also cause 5.1% and 4.5% exergy losses, respectively.

Table 3 Results of simulation for single ash cycle State 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 t (C) 330.00 199.32 310.00 63.57 199.32 140.82 140.82 63.162 32.22 32.16 322.76 36.16 p (MPa) 1.700 1.700 1.700 1.700 1.700 0.370 0.370 0.370 0.370 0.006 1.700 0.006 Dryness 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.900 h (kJ/kg) 3099.81 849.37 3055.25 267.47 849.37 592.74 2734.51 264.66 135.28 134.78 3083.75 2307.94 s (kJ/kg K) 6.9689 2.3241 6.8938 0.8749 2.3241 1.7478 6.9215 0.8705 0.4672 0.4665 6.9421 7.4927 m (kg/s) 8.25 8.25 4.65 19.01 6.11 5.38 0.73 19.01 13.64 13.64 12.91 12.91

c1 af1 1 af2 c2 af2 1 af1

12

where a is a random number between 0 and 1, f1 and f2 are parents individuals which are selected to crossover each other, c1 and c2 are children individuals which are produced by crossover. Mutation is needed because even if selection and crossover together search new solutions, they tend to cause rapid convergence and there is the danger of loosing potentially useful genetic material. The role of mutation in GA has been that of restoring lost or unexplored genetic material into the population to prevent the premature convergence of the GA to suboptimal solutions. Random mutation is adopted to optimize the parameters for these cogeneration systems. It is achieved by selecting individuals from the range of the parameter according to mutation probability. The parametric optimization is carried out based on the typical exhaust gas conditions of the 5000 t/d capacity kiln line and main assumptions are summarized in Table 2. The parameters chosen for optimizing the single ash steam cycle are turbine inlet pressure and ash pressure in turn. The parameters for the dual-pressure steam cycle are selected as turbine inlet pressure, turbine supplying pressure and turbine supplying temperature in turn. The parameters for the ORC are selected as turbine inlet pressure. The parameters for the Kalina cycle are turbine inlet pressure, basic solution ammoniawater concentration, turbine back pressure and separator temperature in turn. The steps of GA are made as follows: (1) Initialize the population size, crossover probability, mutation probability, stop generation, and generate the initial population randomly. (2) Calculate the tness of each individual for parent generation, and order the tness. (3) Select the individuals from parent generation, and create the children generation using crossover and mutation operators. (4) Calculate the tness of each individual for children generation. If the maximum tness of children generation is less than that of parent generation, substitute the maximum tness of parent generation for that of children generation.

Table 4 The performance of single ash cycle Turbine work (kW) Pump 1 work (kW) Pump 2 work (kW) AQC boiler exhaust temperature (C) SP boiler heat input (kW) AQC boiler heat input (kW) Heat input (kW) Net power output (kW) Thermal efciency (%) Exergy efciency (%) 10,324.7 6.9 53.4 97.00 18,573.8 21,327.8 39,901.6 10,264.4 25.7 42.1

Table 5 The cycle exergy inputs, outputs and losses for single ash cycle Amount (kW) Exergy input SP boiler AQC boiler Sum Net power SP boiler AQC boiler Turbine Condenser Pump 1 Pump 2 Flasher Mixture I Mixture II SP boiler exhaust AQC boiler exhaust 15,126.5 9271.0 24,397.5 10,264.4 1243.3 1101.2 2278.2 1915.9 2.9 23.6 76.9 225.5 1.1 6355.9 908.9 Percentage (%) 62.0 38.0 100.0 42.1 5.1 4.5 9.3 7.9 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.9 0.0 26.1 3.7

Exergy output Exergy loss

946

J. Wang et al. / Applied Energy 86 (2009) 941948

The exergy analysis results can be used to guide system performance improvement. Although the SP boiler exhaust causes the largest exergy loss in the cogeneration system, exhaust exergy can be used to dry raw materials in cement drying system, thus exhaust exergy is not lost completely. The condensation exergy loss could be reduced if the heat transfer temperature difference could be reduced further. To reduce the exergy loss in the turbine expansion process, it is necessary to improve the turbine isentropic efciency using advanced design technique. In addition, the exergy losses in SP boiler and AQC boiler could be reduced by reducing the heat transfer temperature difference. So, it needs to reduce the AQC boiler exhaust temperature and increase the temperature of working uid sent to SP boiler. But it would be at the expense of more costly heat exchangers. For the dual-pressure steam cycle, Tables 6 and 7 list the simulation results and performance, and Table 8 lists the results of exergy analysis. It can be seen in Table 8 that 59.3% of the total input exergy is lost: 29.5% due to the irreversibilities in the components, 3.7% to the environment in the AQC boiler exhaust, and 26.1% in
Table 6 Results of simulation for dual-pressure steam cycle State 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 t (C) 330.00 166.92 310.00 166.92 189.00 166.03 166.03 166.03 32.28 32.16 36.16 322.00 p (MPa) 4.500 4.500 4.500 4.500 0.812 0.812 0.812 0.812 0.812 0.006 0.006 4.500 Dryness 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.881 1.000 h (kJ/kg) 3028.84 707.75 2973.34 707.75 2813.34 701.91 701.91 701.91 135.92 134.78 2279.58 3007.04 s (kJ/kg K) 6.4294 2.0069 6.3358 2.0069 6.7545 2.0027 2.0027 2.0027 0.4678 0.4665 7.4010 6.3930 m (kg/s) 8.00 8.00 5.18 5.18 0.81 0.81 8.00 5.18 13.99 13.99 13.99 13.18

the SP boiler exhaust. The biggest exergy loss due to the irreversibilities also occurs in the turbine expansion process, and the condensation process causes the next largest exergy loss. In addition, Heat addition processes in SP boiler and AQC boiler also cause 1.7% and 3.1% exergy losses, respectively. For the ORC, Tables 9 and 10 list the simulation results and performance and Table 11 lists the results of exergy analysis. It is found that except the exergy loss of the SP boiler exhaust, the condensation process causes the largest exergy loss which accounts for 16.5% of the total exergy input. The reason for such a high exergy loss lies in the fact that the turbine exhaust temperature is too high, due to high turbine inlet temperature. Heat addition process in SP boiler causes the second largest exergy loss which accounts for 10.6% of the total exergy input, owing to high heat transfer temperature difference. In addition, the exergy losses in AQC boiler and turbine are 4.9% and 4.0%, respectively. The simulation results of each point and performances for the Kalina cycle are summarized in Tables 12 and 13. Table 14 lists the results of exergy analysis for the Kalina cycle. It is found in Table 14 that 57.0% of the total input exergy is lost: 29.8% due to the irreversibilities in the components, 1.1% to the environment in the AQC boiler exhaust, and 26.1% in the SP boiler exhaust. Except the exergy loss of the SP boiler exhaust which is used to dry raw materials, the absorption process causes the largest exergy loss which

Table 9 Results of simulation for the ORC State 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 t (C) 330.00 21.81 310.00 21.81 21.81 20.00 206.38 318.62 p (MPa) 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 0.076 0.076 3.000 Dryness 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 h (kJ/kg) 634.2 222.9 614.3 222.9 222.9 220.1 537.6 622.9 s (kJ/kg K) 2.026 1.074 1.993 1.074 1.074 1.071 2.039 2.007 m (kg/s) 45.15 45.15 59.68 59.68 104.83 104.83 104.83 104.83

Table 7 The performance of the dual-pressure steam cycle Turbine work (kW) Pump 1 work (kW) Pump 2 work (kW) Pump 3 work (kW) AQC boiler exhaust temperature (C) SP boiler heat input (kW) AQC boiler heat input (kW) Heat input (kW) Net power output (kW) Thermal efciency (%) Exergy efciency (%) 10,018.4 16.0 46.8 30.3 96.75 18,573.8 21,351.4 39,925.2 9925.4 24.9 40.7 Table 10 The performance of the ORC Turbine work (kW) Pump work (kW) AQC boiler exhaust temperature (C) SP boiler heat input (kW) AQC boiler heat input (kW) Heat input (kW) Net power output (kW) Thermal efciency (%) Exergy efciency (%) 8948.06 296.04 75.06 18,573.811 23,362.279 41,936.09 8652.02 20.6 35.5

Table 8 The cycle exergy inputs, outputs and losses for dual-pressure steam cycle Amount (kW) Exergy input SP boiler AQC boiler Sum Net power SP boiler AQC boiler Turbine Condenser Pump 1 Pump 2 Pump 3 Mixture SP boiler exhaust AQC boiler exhaust 15,126.5 9271.0 24,397.5 9925.4 418.5 742.3 3978.1 2050.8 5.4 9.7 6.3 1.5 6355.9 903.7 Percentage (%) 62.0 38.0 100.0 40.7 1.7 3.1 16.3 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.1 3.7 Exergy output Exergy loss Table 11 The cycle exergy inputs, outputs and losses for the ORC Amount (kW) Exergy input SP boiler AQC boiler Sum Net power SP boiler AQC boiler Turbine Condenser Pump Mixture point SP boiler exhaust AQC boiler exhaust 15,126.5 9271.0 24,397.5 8652.0 2592.1 1207.8 966.9 4024.9 86.9 4.2 6355.9 507.0 Percentage (%) 62.0 38.0 100.0 35.4 10.6 4.9 4.0 16.5 0.4 0.0 26.1 2.1

Exergy output Exergy loss

J. Wang et al. / Applied Energy 86 (2009) 941948 Table 12 Results of simulation for the Kalina cycle State 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 t (C) 21.57 168.12 168.12 245.86 245.86 330.00 81.50 65.76 55.04 20.00 20.03 20.03 50.01 76.50 76.50 76.50 25.03 25.04 20.03 50.35 20.00 p (MPa) 8.680 8.680 8.680 8.680 8.680 8.680 0.130 0.130 0.130 0.130 0.340 0.340 0.340 0.340 0.340 0.340 0.340 0.130 0.340 0.340 0.340 Dryness 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.892 0.618 0.272 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.226 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.300 0.000 h (kJ/kg) 134.287 589.548 589.548 2152.350 2152.350 2433.500 1766.570 1107.030 500.020 130.201 129.921 129.921 39.841 494.607 1576.720 178.593 40.745 40.745 129.921 429.526 148.910 s (kJ/kg K) 0.1547 2.1294 2.1294 5.2880 5.2880 5.7871 6.0903 4.2185 2.1928 0.1851 0.1855 0.1855 0.7304 2.0654 5.6248 1.0259 0.3474 0.3476 0.1855 1.9999 0.1394 m (kg/s) 16.10 7.63 8.47 8.47 7.63 16.10 16.10 16.10 34.17 34.17 34.17 23.35 23.35 23.35 5.28 18.07 18.07 18.07 10.82 16.10 16.10 x

947

0.550 0.550 0.550 0.550 0.550 0.550 0.550 0.550 0.381 0.381 0.381 0.381 0.381 0.381 0.820 0.231 0.231 0.231 0.381 0.550 0.550

Table 13 The performance of the Kalina cycle Turbine work (kW) Pump 1 work (kW) Pump 2 work (kW) AQC boiler exhaust temperature(C) SP boiler heat input (kW) AQC boiler heat input (kW) Heat input (kW) Net power output (kW) Thermal efciency (%) Exergy efciency (%) 10,737.4 9.6 70.7 58.5 18,573.8 24,890.2 43,464.0 10,492.4 24.1 43.0

Table 15 Optimization results for different cogeneration systems Single ash Population size Crossover probability Mutation probability Stop generation Range of parameter 1 (MPa) Range of parameter 2 Range of parameter 3 Range of parameter 4 (C) Optimum parameter 1 (MPa) Optimum parameter 2 Optimum parameter 3 Optimum parameter 4 Net power output (kW) Exergy efciency (%) Dualpressure 50 0.95 0.05 150 1.28.0 0.21.0 MPa 130210 C 4.557 0.759 MPa 183.29 C 9982.8 40.9 8931.2 36.6 3.493 ORC Kalina

1.22.0 0.21.0 MPa

2.03.5

6.018.0 5075% 0.10.3 MPa 60.080.0 8.953 54.0% 0.102 MPa 70.87 C 10,957.5 44.9

1.717 0.534 MPa

Table 14 The cycle exergy inputs, outputs and losses for the Kalina cycle Amount (kW) Exergy input SP boiler AQC boiler Sum Net power SP boiler AQC boiler Turbine Absorber Condenser Preheater Reheater Valve Pump 1 Pump 2 Mixture I Mixture II SP boiler exhaust AQC boiler exhaust 15,126.5 9271.0 24,397.5 10,492.4 1580.5 975.6 1406.4 1766.4 681.7 298.8 133.2 1.0 3.7 70.7 211.2 145.8 6355.9 274.5 Percentage (%) 62.0 38.0 100.0 43.0 6.5 4.0 5.8 7.2 2.8 1.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.9 0.6 26.1 1.1

10,320.0 42.3

Exergy output Exergy loss

accounts for 7.2% of the total exergy input, and heat addition process causes the second largest exergy loss which accounts for 6.5% of the total exergy input. In a word, it is obtained that the methods must be employed to improve the components in which exergy loss account for larger percentage of the total exergy input. For a turbine, improving the turbine efciency can reduce the exergy loss. For SP boiler and AQC boiler, reducing the heat transfer temperature difference can

reduce the exergy loss. For condenser and heat exchanger, reducing the heat transfer temperature difference can also reduce the exergy loss. Table 15 lists the optimization results for different cogeneration systems. The ranges are selected according to working range of the various parameters for the cogeneration systems. It is found that the optimum parameters can achieve the highest exergy efciency for each cogeneration system. In addition, the Kalina cycle can achieve the best performance from the view point of exergy efciency, and the ORC shows the lowest exergy efciency, while single ash steam cycle and dual-pressure steam cycle have a better performance in recovering waste heats of cement plant. It is inferred that the ORC, which is superior in recovering low-grade waste heat, may be not suitable for waste heat recovery in cement plant, due to relatively high temperature of waste heat sources. Compared with other systems, the Kalina cycle could generate more electricity. These cogeneration power plants can automatically follow the heat source deviation by a sliding pressure operation mode, and cannot inuence the cement production in the event the cogeneration power plant is shut down or trips ofine. The SP boiler and AQC boiler must have dust removal systems to control the fouling of the heat transfer tubing, thus performance of the heat transfer in

948

J. Wang et al. / Applied Energy 86 (2009) 941948 [5] Saleh B, Koglbauer G, Wendland M, Fischer J. Working uids for lowtemperature organic Rankine cycles. Energy 2007;32:121021. [6] Chen Y, Lundqvist P, Johansson, Platell P. A comparative study of the carbon dioxide transcritical power cycle compared with an organic Rankine cycle with R123 as working uid in waste heat recovery. Appl Therm Eng 2006;26:21427. [7] Liu BT, Chien K, Wang C. Effect of working uids on organic Rankine cycle for waste heat recovery. Energy 2004;29:120717. [8] Tamamoto T, Furuhata T, Arai N, Mori K. Design and testing of the organic Rankine cycle. Energy 2001;26:23951. [9] Hung TC. Waste heat recovery of organic Rankine cycle using dry uids. Energy Convers Manage 2001;42:53953. [10] Hung TC, Shai TY, Wang SK. A review of organic Rankine cycles (ORCs) for the recovery of low-grade waste heat. Energy 1997;22:6617. [11] Lee KM, Kuo SF, Chien ML, Shih YS. Parameters analysis on organic Rankine cycle energy recovery system. Energy Convers Manage 1988; 28:40918. [12] Legmann H. Recovery of industrial heat in the cement industry by means of the ORC process. In: Cement industry technical conference, IEEE-IAS/PCA 44th; 2002. p. 2935. [13] Kalina AI. Combined cycle system with novel bottoming cycle. ASME J Eng Gas Turb Power 1984;106:73742. [14] El-Sayed YM, Tribus M. Theoretical comparison of Rankine and Kalina cycles. ASME Adv Energy Syst Div 1985:97102. [15] Marston CH. Parametric analysis of the Kalina cycle. ASME J Eng Gas Turb Power 1990;112:10716. [16] Rogdakis ED. Thermodynamic analysis, parametric study and optimum operation of the Kalina cycle. Int J Energy Res 1994;20:35970. [17] Marston CH. Gas turbine bottoming cycles: triple-pressure steam versus Kalina. ASME J Eng Gas Turb Power 1995;117:105. [18] Nag PK, Gupta A. Exergy analysis of the Kalina cycle. Appl Therm Eng 1998;18:42739. [19] Olsson EK, Thorin EB, Dejfors CAS, Svedberg G. Kalina cycles for power generation from industrial waste heat. In: Proceedings of the Florence world energy research symposium; 1994. p. 3949. [20] Bisio G. Industrial waste heat recovery: the ideal thermodynamic cycle. In: Proceedings of the Florence world energy research symposium; 1992. p. 503 19. [21] Dejfors C, Svedberg G. Second law analysis of ammonia-water power cycle for direct-red cogeneration application. Int J Appl Thermodynam 1999;2(3): 12531. [22] Jonsson M, Yan J. Exergy and pinch analysis of diesel engine bottoming cycles with ammoniawater mixtures as working uid. Int J Appl Thermodynam 2000;3(2):5771. [23] Jonsson M, Yan J. Ammoniawater bottoming cycles: a comparison between gas engines and gas diesel engines as prime movers. Energy 2001;26:3144. [24] Jonsson M. Advanced power cycles with mixtures as the working uid. Doctoral thesis, Department of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden; 2003. [25] Mirolli MD. The Kalina cycle for cement kiln waste heat recovery power plants. In: IEEE cement industry technical conference record; 2005. p. 330 6. [26] Mirolli MD. Ammoniawater based thermal conversion technology: applications in waste heat recovery for the cement industry. In: IEEE cement industry technical conference record; 2007. p. 23441. [27] Kanoglu M, Cengel YA, Turner RH. Thermodynamic evaluation of a single-ash geothermal power plant in Nevada. In: Proceedings of the ASME advanced energy systems division; 1996. p. 34754. [28] Cerci Y. Performance evaluation of a single-ash geothermal power plant in Denizli, Turkey. Energy 2003;28:2735. [29] Bertani R. World geothermal power generation in the period 20012005. Geothermics 2005;34:65190. [30] PEFPROP Version 6.01, NIST Standard Reference Database 23, the US Secretary of Commerce, America; 1998. [31] Xu F, Goswami DY. Thermodynamic properties of ammonia water mixtures for use in power cycles. Energy 1999;24:52536. [32] Holland JH. Adaptation in nature and articial systems: an introductory analysis with applications to biology, control and articial intelligence. Massachusetts: MIT Press; 1992.

the boilers and the life of the tubing could be improved. The investment cost for the Kalina cycle is higher than that for a steam cycle or ORC; however, the Kalina cycle could generate more power than the other cycle, and achieve greater savings in the energy cost, thus a higher investment cost can be tolerated. In addition, for alleviating environment pollution, ORC and the Kalina cycle, especially in ORC, must have excellent seal systems which present the working uid from leaking out. It should be noted that the present study has conducted parametric optimization only from the viewpoint of thermodynamics, and dose not consider the required cost under the condition of the optimum performance for cogeneration system. However, the problem could be solved if the thermoeconomic life-cycle optimization is conducted, that will be carried out in the coming research. 7. Conclusions The cogeneration power plants in cement plant can recover the waste heat available from the preheater exhaust and clinker cooler exhaust gases and generates electricity on a continuous basis without interfering with the core, clinker production process. The objective of the present study is to focus on examining the exergy analysis for each cogeneration power plant. Furthermore, the parameter optimization for each cogeneration power plant is conducted with exergy efciency as objective function by mean of genetic algorithm. The optimum performances of different cogeneration systems are compared under the same condition. The main conclusions drawn from present study may be summarized as follows: (1) Exergy analysis is a powerful tool, which has been successfully used in the design and performance evaluation of energy-related systems. (2) Since the amounts of exergy loss in the turbine, condenser, SP boiler and AQC boiler account for large percentage, it is signicant to employ methods for reducing exergy losses of these components. Thus, the performance for cogeneration system can be improved greatly. (3) Compared with other cogeneration systems in cement plant, the Kalina cycle can achieve the best performance from the view point of exergy efciency, and the ORC shows the lowest exergy efciency under the same condition.

References
[1] Wilson J, Clay IH. Optimizing energy utilization in cement plant operations. IEEE Trans Ind Appl 1976;12:52935. [2] Engin T, Ari V. Energy auditing and recovery for dry type cement rotary kiln systems a case study. Energy Convers Manage 2005;46:55162. [3] Madhawa Hettiarachchi HD, Golubovic M, Worek WM, Ikegami Y. Optimum design criteria for an organic Rankine cycle using low-temperature geothermal heat sources. Energy 2007;32:1698706. [4] Wei D, Lu X, Lu Z, Gu J. Performance analysis and optimization of organic Rankine cycle (ORC) for waste heat recovery. Energy Convers Manage 2007;48:11139.