You are on page 1of 15

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCH Int. J. Energy Res. (2010) Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/er.

1715

Multi-objective exergoeconomic optimization of an Integrated Solar Combined Cycle System using evolutionary algorithms
A. Baghernejad1, and M. Yaghoubi1,2
1 2

Engineering School, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran Academy of Sciences, Islamic Republic of Iran

SUMMARY
In this study, a multi-objective optimization scheme is developed and applied for an Integrated Solar Combined Cycle System that produces 400 MW of electricity to nd solutions that simultaneously satisfy exergetic as well as economic objectives. This corresponds to a search for the set of Pareto optimal solutions with respect to the two competing objectives. The optimization process is carried out by a particular class of search algorithms known as multi-objective evolutionary algorithms. An example of decision-making has been presented and a nal optimal solution has been introduced. The analysis shows that optimization process leads to 3.2% increasing in the exergetic efciency and 3.82% decreasing of the rate of product cost. Finally, sensitivity analysis is carried out to study the effect of changes in the Pareto optimal solutions to the system important parameters, such as interest rate, fuel cost, solar operation period, and system construction period. Copyright r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS multi-objective optimization; evolutionary algorithms; Integrated Solar Combined Cycle System; cost Correspondence *A. Baghernejad, Engineering School, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran. y E-mail: abaghernezhad@gmail.com Received 20 October 2009; Revised 25 March 2010; Accepted 31 March 2010

1. INTRODUCTION
The optimization of an energy system design consists of modifying the system structure and component design parameters according to one or more specied design objectives [1]. In general, multiple objectives are involved in the design process [2]: thermodynamic cycle (e.g. maximum efciency and minimum fuel consumption), economic consideration (e.g. minimum cost per unit of time and maximum prot per unit of production) and environmental impact (e.g. limited emissions and minimum environmental impact). However, most of the analyses performed in the past consider either only the thermodynamic objective or only the economic one. In the eld of thermoeconomics [37], design optimization aims to minimize total cost of the system products, which implicitly includes thermodynamic information in the fuel cost rate through the fuel exergy ow rate. Various methodologies have been
Copyright r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

suggested in the literature as ways to pursue this objective and those are based on different approaches [6,7]. An example of comparison of four different thermoeconomic methodologies to the design optimization of a cogeneration plant has been presented as a test case, known as the CGAM problem [812]: this represents a paradigmatic application of a singleobjective optimization. They utilized mathematical approaches in their optimization in which these methods suffer from the difculty to nd the nal global optimum. The mathematical approaches are unsuccessful in nding the global optimum and most of them terminate at local optimum in a multi-modal optimization problem. The shortcoming of the conventional mathematical optimization approaches for nding the global optimum are relatively maintained in a work performed by Toffolo and Lazzaretto [13] through the use of an evolutionary algorithm. Moreover, they used a multi-objective approach, in which they considered both thermoeconomic objective (to be

A. Baghernejad and M. Yaghoubi

Multi-objective exergoeconomic optimization

minimized) and the exergetic objective (to be maximized), simultaneously. Single-objective analyses, either energetic or economic, which search for only one of the two extremes. In particular, the economic minimum coincides with the optimum of the thermoeconomic approach [58], which results from a trade-off, between minimum fuel and investment cost rates. Cihan et al. [14] carried out energy and exergy analysis for a combined-cycle power plant to analyze and identify the potential for improving efciency of the system. Their results show that combustion chambers, gas turbines and heat recovery steam generators (HRSG) are the main sources of irreversibilities representing more than 85% of the overall exergy losses. Colpan and Yesin [15] analyzed the energetic, exergetic and thermoeconomic aspects of the Bilkent combined cycle cogeneration plant. The electrical power unit exergy cost was accounted to be 18.89 US$W1 by them. The aim of this study is thermoeconomic analysis, by applying a multi-objective approach to determine the complete spectrum of solutions that satises the economic objective as well as the energetic one. These objectives usually compete with each other, so that it is impossible to nd a solution that simultaneously satises both of them. Therefore, it is necessary to nd the set of optimal solutions that lead to the highest values of the efciency at xed costs, or to the lowest costs of production at xed efciencies. Note that the same spectrum of optimal solutions could be obtained by a single-objective approach weighting explicitly or implicitly the two objectives into an overall singleobjective function and varying the weight coefcients. This procedure, however, would require a much higher computational effort because an optimization run is needed per each combination of the weight coefcients, whereas a multi-objective approach gets the nal solution in a single run of the optimization algorithm. Moreover, a pure single-objective approach that considers only the economic objective or only the thermodynamic one would search just for one of the two extreme points on the spectrum of optimal solutions: one corresponds to the minimum of the cost objective function and the other to the maximum of the efciency objective function. Using a multiobjective approach, the decision maker is able to choose from the entire set of solutions having the lowest costs at higher efciencies. This also means taking into account higher technology plants that save more fuel than those with minimum costs or, from the other viewpoint, plants that involve minimum expenditures at a given efciency. The Pareto approach to multi-objective optimization is used in this study to nd the optimal set of design variables, as the concepts of Pareto dominance and optimality are straightforward tools for determining the best trade-off solutions among conicting objectives. An evolutionary algorithm is then chosen to
Int. J. Energy Res. (2010) r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/er

carry out the search for the Pareto optimal solution because evolutionary optimization techniques already deal with a set of solutions (a population) to pursue their task, so a multi-objective Pareto-based evolutionary algorithm is able to make the population converge to the entire set of optimal solutions in a single run. Benali et al. [16] emphasized the critical review of optimization methods of large-scale industrial production systems and presented of a novel systematic multi-objective and multi-scale optimization methodology mainly based on a combined local optimality search with global optima determination, and advanced system decomposition and constraint handling. For power plants with solar technologies, cost optimization is the primary criteria to compare with conventional plants. In this regards, nine commercial Solar Electric Generating Systems power plants that are operating in the California Mojave desert are proven solar technologies. These plants utilize parabolic trough collectors with steam Rankine cycle system. Of particular interest of solar plants is the integration of parabolic trough solar technology with combined cycle power plant technology. This conguration is referred to as integrated solar combined cycle systems (ISCCS). As it is obvious, in the eld of exergoeconomic analysis and optimization of solar combined cycle systems, there is a lack of investigation and research. However, some studies performed on conventional power generation can be pointed out in References [17,18]. In 2009, the present authors used thermoeconomic concept for a single-objective optimization of an ISCCS [19]. It is shown that with 13.3% increase in the capital investment, unit cost of electricity produced by the system was reduced by about 7.1%. To perform a multi-objective optimization of this solar combined cycle system, the algorithms routines are interfaced with a MATLAB code in which the thermodynamic and economic equations of this system are implemented and solved simultaneously, returning the values of the objectives for a given set of decision variables.

2. EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHMS IN MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION


2.1. Pareto approach to multi-objective optimization
A function optimization problem may be of different types, depending on the desired goal of the optimization task. The optimization problem may have only one objective function (known as a single-objective optimization problem), or it may have multiple conicting objective functions (known as a multiobjective optimization problem). Some problems may

Multi-objective exergoeconomic optimization

A. Baghernejad and M. Yaghoubi

have only one local optimum, thereby requiring the task of nding the sole optimum of the function. Other problems may contain more than one local optima in the search space, thereby requiring the task of nding multiple such locally optimal solutions. Mathematically, a multi-objective optimization problem [20] having m objectives and n decision variables requires the minimization of the components of the vector F(x) 5 (f1(x),f2(x),y,fm(x)), where F is the evaluation function that maps the points of the decision variable space, such as x 5 (x1,y,xn), to the points of the objective function space Minimize Ff1 x; f2 x; . . . ; fm x Subject to gj xX0; hk x 0; j 1; 2; . . . ; J k 1; 2; . . . ; K i 1; 2; . . . ; n 1

the objective function space is called the Pareto frontier.

2.2. Multi-objective evolutionary algorithms


The two issues in multi-objective optimization are: (1) nd solutions close to the true Pareto optimal set and (2) nd solutions that are widely different from each other, to cover the entire Pareto optimal set as well as not to introduce bias toward any particular objective. Classical search and optimization methods are not efcient in following the Pareto approach to multiobjective optimization for three main reasons [22]:

xiL pxi pxiU ;

A multi-objective optimization problem requires the simultaneous satisfaction of a number of different and often conicting objectives. These objectives are characterized by distinct measures of performance that may be (in) dependent and/or incommensurable. For thermal system design, for example, the energetic efciency and the money spent per unit of time may have little dependence on each other. A global optimal solution to a multi-objective optimization problem is unlikely to exist: this means that there is no combination of decision variable values that minimizes all the components of vector F simultaneously. Multiobjective optimization problems generally show a possibly uncountable set of solutions, whose evaluated vectors represent the best possible trade-offs in the objective function space. Pareto optimality [21] is the key concept to establish a hierarchy among the solutions of a multi-objective optimization problem, to determine whether or not a solution is really one of the best possible trades-off. Let us rst introduce the denition of Pareto dominance: a solution x(1) is said to dominate the other solution x(2), if both conditions 1 and 2 are true. 1. The solution x(1) is no worse than x(2) in all objectives. 2. The solution x(1) is strictly better than x(2) in at least one objective. If any of the above conditions is violated, the solution x(1) does not dominate the solution x(2). Then a solution x 5 (x1,y,xn) of a multi-objective optimization problem is said to be Pareto optimal with respect to the entire decision variable space if and only if there is no other solution x0 for which F(x0 ) 5 (f1(x0 ),y,fm(x0 )) dominates F(x) 5 (f1(x),y,fm(x)). The set of Pareto optimal solutions is also called the Pareto optimal set and the set of the corresponding evaluated vectors in

1. Most of them are unable to nd multiple solutions in a single run, so they have to be applied as many times as the number of Pareto-optimal solutions required. 2. The solutions found through the repeated application of these methods are not guaranteed to be widely different from each other. 3. Most of them are unable to handle problems having multiple optimal solutions; for example, difculties arise using the linear objective function aggregation technique, in which an objective function is built by weighting the original objective functions through priority coefcients, or searching the optimal solutions by treating all the objective functions, except one, as constraints. The class of search algorithms that implement the Pareto approach for multiobjective optimization in the most straightforward way is the class of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs). MOEAs have been developed over the past decade [23]; several tests on complex mathematical problems and on real-world engineering problems have shown that they can eliminate the above-cited difculties of classical methods. An evolutionary algorithm is an optimization tool that imitates the natural evolution of biological organisms, i.e. a randomly initialized population of individuals (a set of points in the search space) evolves following the Darwinian principle of survival of the ttest. New individuals are created using some simulated evolutionary operators, such as crossover and mutation, and the probability of survival for these newly generated solutions depends on their tness, that is on how well they perform with respect to the objective(s) of the optimization problem.

2.3. Description of the algorithm


The structure of the MOEA used in this study is illustrated in [25]. A new diversity-preserving method, the Genetic Diversity Evaluation Method (GeDEM), was developed by Toffolo and Benini [25]. GeDEM performs an additional evaluation step by considering a measure of genetic diversity as an objective of a
Int. J. Energy Res. (2010) r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/er

A. Baghernejad and M. Yaghoubi

Multi-objective exergoeconomic optimization

two-criteria optimization problem, the other objective being the Pareto rank scored in the objectives of the original optimization problem. GeDEM ranks the solutions according to Pareto optimality, with slight modications that are introduced to consider the special case of solutions having the same rank in the objectives of the original optimization problem [13]. As a rst step, parent selection is performed with each individual having the same probability of being chosen. Suppose m is the size of generated population. Then m numbers of parents enter the reproduction step, generating m offspring through a crossover strategy in which the decision variable values of the offspring fall in a range dened by the decision variable values of the parents. Some decision variable values of the offspring are also randomly mutated with a probability pm. The whole population of m1m individuals is now checked for possible clones. Clones are then destroyed and replaced with new randomly generated individuals to encourage the exploration of the search space and to give GeDEM a clearer picture of diversity within the population. The objective function values of the m offspring are then evaluated (a Pareto ranking of the m1m individuals according to Goldbergs scheme [26] is performed in multi-objective optimization problems), and the whole population of m1m individuals is processed to determine the genetic diversity of each individual. In this algorithm, the chosen measure of genetic diversity for an individual is the minimum normalized Euclidean distance from another individual in the decision variable space. The m best ranked solutions are then selected to survive, whereas the remaining

m are eliminated. Finally, the number of generations elapsed is compared with the established maximum number of generations. If the termination condition is met, the process stops, otherwise the surviving solutions become the starting population for the next generation.

3. EXAMPLE OF APPLICATION
3.1. Integrated Solar Combined Cycle System (ISCCS)
Figure 1 shows a schematic diagram of the system under consideration. This power plant, which is located in Yazd, Iran, contains two installed 125-MW gas turbines, an installed 150-MW steam turbine, and a 17-MW solar plant, which is not yet constructed. In this system, a combined cycle unit with the following equipments is used:  Two V94.2 gas turbine units with natural gas fuel (Table I).  Two HRSG with two pressure lines. The highand low-pressure steam conditions are: 84.8 bar and 5061C and 9.1 bar and 231.61C, respectively. A design stack temperature of 1131C is selected to recover as much energy from the turbine exhaust as possible.  A no reheat two-pressure steam turbine. The solar eld considered in this site is comprised of 42 loops and for each loop six collectors from type of

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the ISCCS.

Int. J. Energy Res. (2010) r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/er

Multi-objective exergoeconomic optimization

A. Baghernejad and M. Yaghoubi

LS-3 [27], which are single axis tracking and aligned on a northsouth line, thus tracking the sun from east to west. Various design parameters of these collectors are given in Table II. In this study, numerical results are based on site design condition with ambient temperature of 191C and a relative humidity of 32% and wind speed of 3 m s1. The analysis is carried out on 21 June in Yazd, IRAN at 12:00 noon (LAT). At this hour, solar radiation intensity at the plant site is about 800 W m2. Therminol VP-1 is used as heat transfer uid in the solar eld. The state properties for the system of Figure 1 are given in Table III. In this table, states 0, 00 and 000 are the dead states for air, water and oil, respectively. 3.1.1. Economic model. The economic model takes into account the cost of the components, including amortization and maintenance and the cost of fuel consumption. To dene a cost function, which depends on the optimization parameters of interest, component costs have to be expressed as functions of thermodynamic variables. These relationships can be obtained by statistical correlations between costs and the main thermodynamic parameters of the component performed on real data series. In this system, the purchase cost functions for each plant component can be found in the Appendix A [1]. 3.1.2. Thermoeconomic model. The governing equation of thermoeconomic model for the cost balancing of a component of an energy system is as follows [1]:
N X e

exiting exergy streams equals the sum of cost rates of all entering exergy streams plus the appropriate charges (cost rate) due to capital investment and operating and maintenance expenses. The sum of the last two _. terms is denoted by Z _ k fIk j=H, where f and Ik In the above equation, Z are the annuity factor and investment cost, which are calculated from those given in Appendix A. j is maintenance factor and H is operation period. In

Table III. State properties of the system corresponding to Figure 1. State 0 00 000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 _ (kg s1) m 421.81 421.81 429.56 429.56 429.56 429.56 429.56 429.56 429.56 429.56 144.32 144.32 144.32 72.16 9.25 9.25 9.25 62.91 62.91 53.66 53.66 62.91 62.91 14.06 14.06 218.42 218.42 218.42 2575 2575 7.75 T (K) 292.15 292.15 292.15 292.15 630.35 1404.80 821.46 729.67 536.86 479.67 477.12 431.1 386.15 321.19 321.19 321.55 390.02 390.15 449.9 504.74 391.71 488.15 488.15 578.66 578.66 779.15 488.15 578.66 571.15 573.82 666.5 292.15 320.35 292.15 P (bar) 1.013 1.013 1.013 1.013 11.14 10.58 1.05 1.07 1.04 1.04 1.02 1.02 1.013 0.112 0.112 25.5 1.8 9.3 9.3 9.1 119 118 118 92.77 92.77 84.8 118 92.77 11 16 26 1.013 1.013 20 h (kJ kg1) 292.43 79.82 12 292.43 631.8 1409 823.6 468.15 261.64 200.65 197.92 148.67 100.58 2304.5 201.15 204.36 490.52 491.52 2774.3 2906 506 923.8 923.8 2738.2 2738.2 3408.6 923.8 2738.2 550.34 552.63 790 79.82 197.71 292.43 _ (MW) E 0 132.86 388.29 105.8 80.24 31.75 20.59 19.39 11.87 6 28.25 0.80 1.09 4.09 0.53 7.82 8.27 4.39 13.17 10.22 53.1 68.38 91.22 2.94 15.28 36.54 36.83 73.16 0 13.77 401.89

_ e k 1cw;k W _ k cq;k E _ q;k 1 ce E

N X i

_ i k 1Z _k ci E

This cost balance applied to the kth component shows that the sum of cost rates associated with all
Table I. Natural gas compositionCOMGAS. Component CH4 C2H6 C3H8 C4H10 C5H12 CO2 N2 Total Volume (%) 89.35 8.03 0.78 0.07 0.01 0.48 1.28 100 Mass (%) 80.92 13.64 1.94 0.23 0.04 1.20 2.03 100 LHV (kJ kg1) 50 000 47 525 46 390 45 775 45 400 47 966

Table II. LS-3 collector specications [27]. Aperture area per SCA (m ) Mirror segments Aperture (m) HCE diameter (m) Average focal distance (m) HCE absorptivity HCE emittance
2

545 224 5.76 0.07 0.94 0.96 0.17

HCE transmittance Mirror reectivity Length Concentration ratio Peak collector efciency (%) Annual thermal efciency (%) Optical efciency (%)

0.96 0.94 99 82 68 53 80

Int. J. Energy Res. (2010) r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/er

A. Baghernejad and M. Yaghoubi

Multi-objective exergoeconomic optimization

general, if there are Ne exergy streams exiting the component being considered, we have Ne unknowns and only one equation, the cost balance. Therefore, we need to formulate Ne1 auxiliary equations. This is accomplished with the aid of the fuel and product principles in the SPECO approach [28]. The system used in this study consists of 16 components and has 38 streams (32 for mass and 6 for work). Therefore, 22 boundary conditions and auxiliary equations are necessary. Developing equation for each component of ISCCS along with auxiliary costing equations (according to P and F rules that dened at the end of Appendix A) leads to the following system of equations: Air compressor: _2 C _ 1 1C _ 36 1Z _ AC C Combustion chamber _ 2 1C _ 31 1Z _3 C _ CC C Gas turbine: _ 37 C _ 3 1Z _ 4 1C _ C HRSG super heater (HP): _5 C _ 4 1C _ 22 1Z _ 23 1C _ SH;HP C _4 C _5 C c4 c5 or _ _ E4 E5 6 c3 c4 or _3 C _4 C _ _ E3 E4 5 4 3

Condenser: _ 12 1C _ 30 C _ 11 1C _ 29 1Z _ COND C c11 c12 or Condensate extraction pump: _ 12 1C _ 34 1Z _ 13 C _ CEP C Dearator: _ 10 C _ 9 1C _ 13 1Z _ 14 1C _ DEA C c9 c10 or _9 C _ 10 C _9 E _ 10 E 14 _ 15 C _ 18 C _ _ E15 E18 15 _ 26 C _ 28 C _ _ 28 E26 E 16 13 _ 11 C _ 12 C _ 11 E _ 12 E 12

Boiler feed water pump: _ 18 C _ 14 1C _ 35 1Z _ 15 1C _ BFP C c15 c18 or

Solar heat exchanger: _ 26 C _ 24 1C _ 28 1Z _ 25 1C _ SHE C c26 c28 or

Oil pump: _ 26 1C _ 33 1Z _ 27 C _ OILP C Collector: _ 27 1C _ 32 1Z _ 28 C _ COLL C Separation point: _ 20 C _ 24 C _ 20 E _ 24 E 18 17

HRSG evaporator (HP): _6 C _ 5 1C _ 20 1Z _ 21 1C _ EVA;HP C _5 C _6 C c5 c6 or _ _6 E5 E 7

_ 24 C _ 19 _ 20 1C C Mixing point:

c20 c24 or

19

HRSG economizer (HP): _7 C _ 6 1C _ 18 1Z _ 19 1C _ ECO;HP C c6 c7 or _6 C _7 C _6 E _7 E 8

_ 21 1C _ 25 _ 22 C C

20

HRSG super heater (LP): _ 17 1C _8 C _ 7 1C _ 16 1Z _ SH;LP C c7 c8 or _7 C _8 C _7 E _8 E 9

In the above equations, the cost of incoming air _ 1 ), cost of solar stream (C _ 32 ) and cost of stream (C _ 29 ) are incoming water stream in the condenser (C assumed to be zero. The cost of fuel stream to the _ 31 ) is taken as 1.61 $ kg1 of natural gas. system (C Additional auxiliary equations are formulated as follows: c36 c37 or _ 36 C _ 37 C _ _ 37 E36 E _ 33 C _ 38 C _ 33 E _ 38 E _ 34 C _ 38 C _ 34 E _ 38 E _ 35 C _ 38 C _ _ 38 E35 E 21

HRSG evaporator (LP): _9 C _ 8 1C _ 15 1Z _ 16 1C _ EVA;LP C _8 C _9 C c8 c9 or _8 E _9 E 10 c33 c38 or 22

Steam turbine: _ 38 2 C _ 17 1C _ 23 1Z _ 11 1C _ ST C c17 1c23 c11 or _ 17 1C _ 11 _ 23 C C _ _ _ E17 1E23 E11 11

c34 c38 or

23

c35 c38 or

24

Int. J. Energy Res. (2010) r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/er

Multi-objective exergoeconomic optimization

A. Baghernejad and M. Yaghoubi

3.2. Objective functions, decision variables


3.2.1. Denition of the objectives. The two objective functions of this multi-objective optimization problem, i.e. the exergetic efciency of the plant (to be maximized) and the total cost rate of operation (to be minimized), are dened as follows [29]: eTot _ Tot C _W E _F E _k Z 25 26

X
k

3.2.2. Choice of decision variables. In this model, the following decision variables are selected for the optimization: The compressor pressure ratio Pr P2 =P1 , isentropic efciency of the compressor ZAC , temperature of
Table IV. The turning parameters in MOEA optimization program. Turning parameters Population size Maximum number of generations Pc (probability of crossover) (%) Pm (probability of mutation) (%) Selection process Tournament size Value 100 100 50 1 Tournament 2

the combustion products entering the turbine T3, isentropic efciency of the gas turbine ZGT in the gas cycle, isentropic efciency of the oil pump ZOILP , and oil outlet temperature in the collectors T28 in the solar eld. Temperature and pressure of the steams leaving the HRSG T23, P23,17, isentropic efciency of the condensed extraction pump ZCEP and isentropic efciency of the boiler feed water pump ZBFP in the steam cycle. This model is treated as the base case and the following nominal values of the decision variables are selected based on the operation program of the constructed site. Pr 5 11, ZAC 0:85, T3 5 1404.8 K, ZGT 0:875, ZOILP 0:8, T28 5 666.5 K T23 5 779.15 K, P23 5 84.8 bar, P17 5 9.1 bar, ZST 0:85, ZCEP 0:8, ZBFP 0:8. Although the decision variables may be varied in optimization procedure, each decision variable is normally required to be within a given practical range of operation as follows [29]: 9pPrp16 640pT28p670 K 0.75pZAC p0.9 80pP23p100 bar 1350pT3p1500 K 0.75pZBFP p0.9 0.75pZST p0.9 7pP17p10 bar 0.75p ZCEP p0.9 723.15pT23p823.15 K 0.75pZGT p0.9 0.75pZOILP p0.9.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


The tuning of MOEA is performed according to the values indicated in Table IV. The values of the economic parameters and xed parameters for the optimization of system are given in Table V. Figure 2 presents the Pareto optimum solutions for solar combined cycle system with the objective functions indicated in Equations (25) and (26). As shown in this gure, although the total exergetic efciency of the plant is increased to about 44%, the total cost rate of products increases very slightly. Increasing the total exergetic efciency from 44 to 47% corresponds to the moderate increase in the cost rate of

Table V. Fixed parameters for the system. ZCC j in (%) k (years) H (hour) for solar eld 0.99 1.06 10 25 2000 LHV (kJ kg1) ri (%) CP (year) _ out MW W H (hour) for combined cycle 47 966 8 3 400 7500

Figure 2. Pareto optimal solutions for solar combined cycle system.

Int. J. Energy Res. (2010) r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/er

A. Baghernejad and M. Yaghoubi

Multi-objective exergoeconomic optimization

product. Further increasing of exergetic efciency from 47% to the higher value leads to a drastic increasing of the total cost rate. In multi-objective optimization, a process of decisionmaking for selection of the nal optimal solution from the available solutions is required. The process of decision-making is usually performed with the aid of a hypothetical point in Figure 2 named as equilibrium point that both objectives have their optimal values independent to the other objective. It is clear that it is impossible to have both objectives at their optimum point, simultaneously and as shown in Figure 3, the equilibrium point is not a solution located on the Pareto frontier. The closest point of Pareto frontier to the equilibrium point might be considered as a desirable nal solution. In selection of the nal optimum point, it is desired to achieve the better magnitude for each objective than its initial value of the base case problem. On the other hand, the stability of the selected point when one of objective varies is highly

important. Therefore, a part of Pareto frontier is selected in Figure 4 for decision-making and coincided with domain between horizontal and vertical lines. A nal optimum solution with 45.19% exergetic efciency and the total cost rate of product equal to 10920.43 $ h1 as indicated in Figure 4 is selected. It should be noted that the selection of an optimum solution depends on the preferences and criteria of each decision maker. Therefore, each decision maker may select a different point as optimum solution to better suits with his/her desires. The related values of decision variables and two objective functions including the total cost of product and the total exergy efciency are listed in Table VI. Table VI indicates that the optimization process leads to 3.2% increase in the exergetic efciency and 3.82% decrease for the rate of product cost. Therefore, improvement for all objectives has been achieved using optimization process. Cost of the intermediate streams and nal products of the system in the base case and optimum case are

Figure 3. Pareto frontier: best trade-off values for the objective functions (total exergetic efciency and total cost rate of products).

Figure 4. Selecting procedure for optimal solution from Pareto frontier.

Int. J. Energy Res. (2010) r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/er

Multi-objective exergoeconomic optimization

A. Baghernejad and M. Yaghoubi

Table VI. Comparison of values in base case design with those obtained at optimum solution. Base case Optimum case

Table VII. Cost of the intermediate streams and nal products of the system in the base case and optimum case. Base case State points (Figure 2) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 c (cents kWh1) 0 24.44 20.88 20.88 20.88 20.88 20.88 20.88 20.88 20.88 25.99 25.99 31.49 34.77 35.59 22.98 25.07 35.59 30.07 30.07 24.99 26.88 26.07 30.07 33.44 22.92 23.14 22.92 0 51.90 12.09 0 29.57 29.57 29.57 22.18 22.18 29.57 _ C ($ h1) 0 32 474 81 093 22 097 16 758 6632 4301 4050 2480 1254 7343 209 346 1422 189 1799 2074 1564 3960 3075 13 272 18 383 23 785 885 5111 8378 8526 16 773 0 7145 48 593 0 148 137 331 31 760 59 484 44 384 Optimum case c (cents kWh1) 0 24.24 20.68 20.68 20.68 20.68 20.68 20.68 20.68 20.68 25.44 25.44 30.27 34.45 35.05 22.64 24.61 35.05 29.94 29.94 24.70 26.43 25.51 29.94 31.70 21.78 21.97 21.78 0 50.80 12.09 0 27.63 27.63 27.63 21.92 21.92 27.63 _ C ($ h1) 0 30 219 77 156 21 474 15 675 6337 4091 3856 2337 1159 6798 198 321 1361 180 1736 1994 1517 3826 2879 12 281 17 465 23 325 947 5184 10 234 10 399 18 647 0 6611 46 908 0 165 124 337 29 754 56 214 43 850

Result of multi-objective optimization Objective functions Total cost of product ($ h1) Total exergy efciency (%) Decision variables Compressor efciency (%) Compressor pressure ratio Inlet temperature of gas turbine (K) Gas turbine efciency (%) Oil outlet temperature (K) Inlet pressure to HP steam turbine (bar) Inlet temperature to HP steam turbine (K) Inlet pressure to LP steam turbine (bar) Steam turbine efciency (%) Condensate extraction pump efciency (%) Boiler feed water pump efciency (%) Oil pump efciency (%)

11 354.02 43.79

10 920.43 45.19

85 11 1404.8 87.5 666.5 84.8 779.15 9.1 85 80 80 80

82.98 10.86 1437.8 87.98 650.28 96.24 808.66 9.95 89.99 80 77.84 86.16

provided in Table VII. Unit cost of the electricity produced by steam turbine and gas turbine is reduced from 29.57 and 22.18 cents kWh1 in the base case to 27.63 and 21.92 cents kWh1 in the optimum case, respectively. Table VIII compares the fuel exergy, total exergy destruction, fuel cost rate and the cost rate of exergy destruction in the base case and optimal solution. According to Table VIII, the optimization leads to the 2.73% reduction on the fuel exergy, 5.71% reduction in the total exergy destruction and also 3.46 and 7.32% reduction in the fuel cost rate and cost rate relating to the exergy destruction, respectively. Tables IX and X represent important exergoeconomic parameters for the components of system including the exergy destruction, ratio of exergy destruction to the total exergy destruction of the system, the related cost of the exergy destruction for each component, capital investment plus the operating cost of components and nally the exergoeconomic factor of each component. The exergoeconomic factor is important thermoeconomic parameter that shows the relative importance of a component cost to the associated cost of the exergy destruction in that component [1]. The higher value of exergoeconomic factor implies that the major source of cost for the component under consideration is related to the capital investment and operating and maintenance costs. The lower value of exergoeconomic factor reveals that the associated costs of thermodynamic inefciencies are more

Table VIII. Comparative results of the optimum and the base case. Properties Fuel exergy (MW) Exergy destruction (MW) Fuel cost ($ h1) Exergy destruction cost ($ h1) Base case 511.02 456.39 48 593 79 255.75 Optimum case 497.07 430.31 46 908 73 454.3 % Variation 2.73 5.71 3.46 7.32

Int. J. Energy Res. (2010) r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/er

A. Baghernejad and M. Yaghoubi

Multi-objective exergoeconomic optimization

Table IX. Comparison of exergy destruction and destructed cost of system for the base case and nal selected optimum solution. _ D k E (%) _ D Tot E Base case 4.51 64.18 6.3 1.19 2.46 1.04 0.33 0.1 4.54 0.03 3 1.02 0.13 0.04 8.5 2.62 100 Optimum case 5.13 64.9 5.95 1.24 2.34 1.12 0.32 0.08 3.18 0.04 3 1.06 0.16 0.06 8.57 2.85 100

_ D;k MW E Component Air compressor Combustor Gas turbine Super heater (HP) Evaporator (HP) Economizer Super heater (LP) Evaporator (LP) Steam turbine Condensate extraction Pump condenser Dearator Boiler feed pump Oil pump Collector Solar heat exchanger Total system Base case 20.58 292.93 28.73 5.44 11.24 4.77 1.51 0.45 20.73 0.16 13.67 4.66 0.56 0.2 38.82 11.94 456.39 Optimum case 22.1 279.23 25.63 5.35 10.08 4.82 1.4 0.38 13.64 0.16 12.92 4.55 0.65 0.25 36.84 12.24 430.24

_ D;k 1C _ L;k ($ h1) C Base case 4566.3 44 407 6000.4 1137.7 2345.4 996.13 315.59 94.22 5369.6 49.9 7099.2 973.78 167.1 61.75 5503.67 2737.7 79 255.75 Optimum case 4846 42 015 5303.5 1108.7 2086.4 997.05 291.07 78.58 3470.9 44.96 6568.8 942.66 179.55 70.33 5354.1 2667.3 76 024.9

Table X. Comparison of thermoeconomic parameters of the different component of system for the base case and nal selected optimum solution. _ k ($ h1) Z Component Air compressor Combustor Gas turbine Super heater (HP) Evaporator (HP) Economizer Super heater (LP) Evaporator (LP) Steam Turbine Condensate Extraction Pump Condenser Dearator Boiler feed pump Oil pump Collector Solar heat exchanger Total system Base case 1429.58 51.84 976.18 127.5 139.92 131.6 48.92 77.52 9.03 0.09 11.56 45.72 0.34 0.36 8247.2 56.66 11 354.02 Optimum case 931.62 57.98 1062.38 121.82 129.06 125.48 45.52 73.22 9.4 0.09 11.16 42.8 0.36 0.41 8247.2 62.26 10 920.76 _ D;k 1C _ L;k ($ h1) _ k 1C Z Base case 5995.88 44 458.84 6976.58 1262.2 2485.32 1127.73 364.51 171.74 5378.63 49.99 7110.76 1019.5 167.44 62.11 13 750.87 2794.36 93 179.46 Optimum case 5777.62 42 072.98 6365.88 1230.52 2215.46 1122.26 336.59 151.8 3480.3 45.05 6579.96 985.46 179.91 70.74 13 601.3 2729.56 86 945.66 Base case 23.8 0.12 14 10 5.6 11.6 13.3 45.4 0.17 0.19 0.16 4.4 0.2 0.58 59.9 2 12.18 fk (%) Optimum case 16.12 0.14 16.7 9.9 5.83 11.18 13.52 48.24 0.27 0.2 0.17 4.34 0.2 0.59 60.64 2.28 12.56

signicant than the capital investment and operating and maintenance costs for the component under consideration. In this regard, it can be found out from Table IX that for combustion chamber, the related cost of exergy destruction is signicantly higher than the owning and operating cost of this component and the inefciency cost for this component is dominant for both base case and optimized systems. This is due to very high exergy destruction in the combustion process of combustion chamber. The highest owning and
Int. J. Energy Res. (2010) r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/er

operation cost is associated with the collector, air compressor and gas turbine for the base case and optimized system. The collectors after the combustors have the second highest value of the sum of _ D 1C _ L , because their exergy destruction and ex_ 1C Z ergy loss are very high. The cause of exergy destruction in the collector is that solar energy with high quality (95%) heats a uid with low temperature. In this process, the irreversibility created due to heat transfer between two large temperature differences that solar

Multi-objective exergoeconomic optimization

A. Baghernejad and M. Yaghoubi

energy with high quality is converted to heat in the absorber with low quality. Therefore, the cost rate of exergy destruction and exergy loss are dominant and effort has to be made to reduce this exergy losses. However, material constraints play an important role. Moreover, it can be found from Table X that the optimization increases the overall exergoeconomic factor of the system from 12.18 to 12.56 (3.1% increases) implying that optimization process mostly improved the capital investment and operating and maintenance cost of the system components rather than reducing the associated cost of thermodynamic inefciencies. Furthermore, Table IX denotes that the highest cost _ D 1C _ L and the highest cost of exergy destruction _ 1C Z for the base case and optimized system belong to the combustion chamber.

4.1. Sensitivity analyses


Additional runs of the optimization algorithm were performed on the system to investigate the inuence of

the unit cost of fuel, the interest rate, the construction period and solar operation period on the Pareto optimal set of solutions. Figure 5 shows the sensitivity of the Pareto optimal Frontier to the variation of specic fuel cost. A comparison of the Pareto frontiers for the three optimizations shows that the economic minimum at higher unit costs of fuel is shifted upwards as expected. Similar behavior is observed for sensitivity of Pareto optimal solution to the interest rate and construction period in Figures 6 and 7. In fact the exergetic objective has no sensitivity to the economic parameters, such as the fuel cost, interest rate and construction period. In addition, the sensitivity of the Pareto optimal Frontier to the variation of solar operation period is illustrated in Figure 8. This gure shows that the Pareto frontier not only shifts downward as the solar operation period increases but it is also shifted toward higher exergetic efciencies. The nal optimal solution that was selected in this research belongs to the region of Pareto frontier with

Figure 5. Sensitivity of Pareto optimum solutions to the specic fuel cost.

Figure 6. Sensitivity of Pareto optimum solutions to the interest rate.

Int. J. Energy Res. (2010) r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/er

A. Baghernejad and M. Yaghoubi

Multi-objective exergoeconomic optimization

Figure 7. Sensitivity of Pareto optimum solutions to the construction period.

Figure 8. Sensitivity of Pareto optimum solutions to the solar operation period.

signicant sensitivity to the costing parameters. However, the region with the lower sensitivity to the costing parameter is not reasonable for the nal optimum solution. In addition, a small change in exergetic efciency of the plant (exergetic efciency from 47% to the higher value) due to the variation of operating parameters may lead to the danger of increasing the cost rate of product, drastically.

compared with the base case design and discussed. The analysis shows that: 1. Optimization process leads to 3.2% increase in the exergetic efciency and 3.82% decrease of the rate of product cost. 2. Optimization leads to the 2.73% reduction on the fuel exergy, 5.71% reduction in the total exergy destruction and also 3.46 and 7.32% reductions in the fuel cost rate and cost rate relating to the exergy destruction, respectively. 3. The algorithm can easily be used to study the sensitivity of the obtained Pareto solutions to the fuel cost, interest rate, construction period and solar operation period. 4. It is found that multi-criteria optimization approach, which is a general form of single-objective

5. CONCLUSIONS
The analysis presented in this study demonstrates the application of multi-objective optimization for an ISCCS. An example of decision-making process for selection of the nal optimal solution from the Pareto frontier is presented. The nal optimum solution is
Int. J. Energy Res. (2010) r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/er

Multi-objective exergoeconomic optimization

A. Baghernejad and M. Yaghoubi

optimization, enables us to consider various and ever competitive objectives. 5. The nal optimum solution from the Pareto frontier requires a process of decision making, which depends on the preferences and criteria of each decision maker. Each decision maker may select different points as optimum solution, which better suits with their desires.

A.1.1. F Rule. The F principle refers to the removal of exergy from an exergy stream within the component being considered when for this stream the exergy difference between inlet and outlet is considered in the denition of the fuel. The F principle states that the specic cost (cost per exergy unit) associated with this removal of exergy from a fuel stream must be equal to the average specic cost at which the removed exergy was supplied to the same stream in upstream components. A.1.2. P Rule. The P principle refers to the supply of exergy to an exergy stream within the component being considered. The P principle states that each exergy unit is supplied to any stream associated with the product at the same average cost, which is denoted with cP.

APPENDIX A
A.1. Economic model [1]
Air compressor IAC  _ air c11 m c12 ZAC
1

    Pe Pe ln Pi Pi s c12 0:9

A1

c11 75 $ kg Combustion chamber

NOMENCLATURE
1 0:995 Pe Pi c23 26:4 A2 AC BFP c _ C CC CEP COLL COND CP DEA _ E ECO EVA f GT h hs H HCE HP HRSG HTF in I ISCCS k LHV LP _ m OILP P Pr ri s SCA SH SHE 5 air compressor 5 boiler feed pump 5 cost per exergy unit, $ kWh1 5 cost rate, $ h1 5 combustion chamber 5 condensate extraction pump 5 collector 5 condenser 5 construction period, year 5 dearator 5 exergy rate, MW 5 economizer 5 evaporator 5 exergoeconomic factor/annuity factor 5 gas turbine 5 specic enthalpy, kJ kg1 5 enthalpy transferred to steam, kJ kg1 5 operation period, h 5 heat collection element 5 high pressure 5 heat recovery steam generator 5 heat transfer uid 5 interest rate 5 equipment investment, $ 5 integrated solar combined cycle system 5 plant lifetime, year 5 lower heat value, kJ kg1 5 low pressure 5 mass ow rate, kg s1 5 oil pump 5 pressure, bar 5 pressure ratio 5 rate of ination 5 specic entropy, kJ kg1 K1 5 solar collector assembly 5 superheater 5 solar heat exchanger
Int. J. Energy Res. (2010) r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/er

_ air :11expc22 Te 1c23 : ICC c21 :m c21 84:64 $ kg1 s c22 0:018 K1

Gas turbine     _G c31 m Pi IGT ln 11expc33 Ti c34 c32 ZGT Pe


c31 1536 $ kg1 s c32 0:92 c33 0:036 K1 c34 54:4

A3 Heat recovery steam generator  0:8 _ s mh _ s 1c43 m _g IHRSG c41 1c42 m logTi Te c41 4745 $ kW1 K0:8 c42 11820 $ kg1 s c43 658 $ kg1 s Condenser _s ICOND c5 m Steam turbine _ 0:7 IST c6 W ST Pump _ 0:71 Ip c7 W p  f c7 3540 $ kW0:71 1 1 A8 A9 A7 c6 6000 $ kW0:7 1 A6 c5 1773 $ kg1 s A5 A4

qk1cp 1 qcp 1 k 1 cp q 1q q 1qcp    in ri 11 q 11 100 100

In addition, it should be noted, that in this study, total investment cost of collectors (include of heat collection elements, reectors, sun trackers, mirrors, etc.) is assumed 355 $ per square meter of aperture area based on LS-3 technology.

A. Baghernejad and M. Yaghoubi

Multi-objective exergoeconomic optimization

ST T _ W _ Z Greek symbols e j Subscripts 1,2,3,y,38 D e i k L sys tot

5 steam turbine 5 temperature, K 5 power, MW 5 investment cost rate, $ h1

5 exergetic efciency 5 maintenance factor

5 state points 5 destruction 5 outlet 5 inlet/ith ow stream 5 kth component 5 loss 5 system 5 total

REFERENCES
1. Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran M. Thermal and Design Optimization. Wiley: New York, 1996. 2. Peters MS, Timmerhaus KD. Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers. McGraw-Hill: Singapore, 1991. 3. El-Sayed YM, Evans RB. Thermoeconomics and the design of heat systems. Journal of Engineering for Power 1970; 92:2735. 4. Gaggioli RA, Wepfer WJ. Exergy economics. Energy 1980; 5:823837. 5. Tsatsaronis G, Winhold M. Exergoeconomic analysis and evaluation of energy-conversion plants. I: A new general methodology. II: Analysis of a coalred steam power plant. Energy 1985; 10:8194. 6. Frangopoulos CA. Thermoeconomic functional analysis and optimization. Energy 1987; 12: 563571. 7. von Spakovsky MR, Evans RB. The design and performance optimization of thermal systems. Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power 1990; 112:8693. 8. Valero A, Lozano MA, Serra L, Tsatsaronis G, Pisa J, Frangopoulos CA, von Spakovsky MR. CGAM problem: denition and conventional solution. Energy 1994; 19:279286. 9. Tsatsaronis G, Pisa J. Exergoeconomic evaluation and optimization of energy systems: application to the CGAM problem. Energy 1994; 19:287321. 10. Frangopoulos CA. Application of thermoeconomic optimization methods to the CGAM problem. Energy 1994; 19:323342.
Int. J. Energy Res. (2010) r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/er

11. von Spakovsky MR. Application of engineering functional analysis and optimization of the CGAM problem. Energy 1994; 19:343364. 12. Valero A, Serra L, Lozano MA, Torres C. Application of the exergetic cost theory to the CGAM problem. Energy 1994; 19:365381. 13. Toffolo A, Lazzaretto A. Evolutionary algorithms for multi-objective energetic and economic optimization in thermal system design. Energy 2002; 27: 549567. 14. Cihan A, Hacy ` hafy ` zoglu O, Kahveci K. Energy exergy analysis and modernization suggestions for a combined-cycle power plant. International Journal of Energy Research 2006; 30:115126. 15. Colpan CO, Yesin T. Energetic, exergetic and thermoeconomic analysis of Bilkent combined cycle cogeneration plant. International Journal of Energy Research 2006; 30:875894. 16. Benali M, Hammache A, Aube F, Dipama J, Cantave R. Dynamic multiobjective optimization of large-scale industrial production systems: an emerging strategy. International Journal of Energy Research 2007; 31:12021225. 17. Moran A, Mago PJ, Chamra LM. Thermoeconomic modeling of micro-CHP (micro-cooling, heating, and power) for small commercial applications. International Journal of Energy Research 2008; 32(9):808823. 18. Balli O, Aras H, Hepbasli A. Exergoeconomic analysis of a combined heat and power (CHP) system. International Journal of Energy Research 2008; 32(4):273289. 19. Baghernjad A, Yaghobi M. Thermoeconomic analysis of parabolic trough collector integration into combined cycle system (ISCCS). Proceeding of SolarPACES 2009, Berlin, Germany, September 2009. 20. Rao SS. Engineering Optimization: Theory and Practice. Wiley: New York, 1996. 21. Pareto V. Cours deconomie politique. Rouge: Lausanne, Switzerland, 1896. 22. Fonseca CM, Fleming PJ. Multi-objective optimization. In Handbook of Evolutionary Computation, Back T, Fogel DB, Michalewicz Z (eds). Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1997. 23. Van Veldhuizen DA, Lamont GB. Multi-objective evolutionary algorithms: analyzing the state-ofthe-art. Evolutionary Computation 2000; 8:125147. 24. Schwefel HP. Evolution and Optimum Seeking. Wiley: New York, 1995. 25. Toffolo A, Benini E. Genetic diversity as an objective in multi-objective evolutionary algorithms. Evolutionary Computation 2003; 11:151167.

Multi-objective exergoeconomic optimization

A. Baghernejad and M. Yaghoubi

26. Goldberg DE. Genetic Algorithms for Search, Optimization and Machine Learning. Addison Wesley: Reading, MA, 1989. 27. Kearney D. Parabolic-Trough Technology Roadmap a Pathway for Sustained Commercial Development and Deployment of Parabolic-Trough Technology. SunLab NREL: Colorado, January 1999. 28. Lazzaretto A, Tsatsaronis G. SPECO: a systematic and general methodology for calculating efciencies

and costs in thermal systems. Energy 2006; 31: 12571289. 29. Baghernejad A, Yaghoubi M. Genetic algorithm for multi-objective exergetic and economic optimization of parabolic trough collectors integration into combined cycle system (ISCCS). Accepted for presentation in the ASME 2010 Conference (ESDA2010), Istanbul, Turkey, 1214 July 2010.

Int. J. Energy Res. (2010) r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/er