You are on page 1of 20

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCH

Int. J. Energy Res. (2009)


Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/er.1593

3-E analysis of advanced power plants based on high ash coal


M. V. J. J. Suresh, K. S. Reddy,y and Ajit Kumar Kolar
Heat Transfer and Thermal Power Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai-600 036, India

SUMMARY
The objective of the study is to identify the best possible power plant conguration based on 3-E (namely energy,
exergy, and environmental) analysis of coal-based thermal power plants involving conventional (subcritical (SubC)) and
advanced steam parameters (supercritical (SupC) and ultrasupercritical (USC)) in Indian climatic conditions using high
ash (HA) coal. The analysis is made for unit congurations of three power plants, specically, an operating SubC steam
power plant, a SupC steam power plant, and the AD700 (advanced 7001C) power plant involving USC steam
conditions. In particular, the effect of HA Indian coal and low ash (LA) reference coal on the performance of these
power plants is studied. The environmental impact of the power plants is estimated in terms of specic emissions of
CO2, SOx, NOx, and particulates. From the study, it is concluded that the maximum possible plant energy efciency
under the Indian climatic conditions using HA Indian coal is about 42.3% with USC steam conditions. The results
disclose that the major energy loss is associated with the heat rejection in the cooling water, whereas the maximum
exergy destruction takes place in the combustor. Further, the sliding pressure control technique of load following results
in higher plant energy and exergy efciencies compared to throttle control in part-load operation. Copyright r 2009
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS:

coal; energy; exergy; emissions; subcritical; supercritical; ultrasupercritical

1. INTRODUCTION
India has substantial amounts of proven reserves
of coal of about 98.5 billion tonnes [1] and thus
coal-based thermal power plants dominate the
source-wise mix with 52.5% installed capacity of a
total of about 147.5 GWe [2]. The total electricity
generation in 20072008 from conventional power
resources like coal/lignite, large hydro, natural
gas, nuclear, and diesel was 705 billion units

(1 unit 5 1 kWh) and among these resources coal


alone contributed about two-thirds to the total [2].
Further, the coal-based power plants in India
operate on sub-critical steam conditions. However,
the Indian coal is of low grade with a very high
mineral matter content of 45% but it is also of
high quality with sulfur content of less than 0.6%.
In order to address increasing electricity demand
and concern for environmental safety, it is
imperative to install power plants based on

*Correspondence to: K. S. Reddy, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai-600 036,
India.
y
E-mail: ksreddy@iitm.ac.in

Copyright r 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 8 March 2009


Revised 26 May 2009
Accepted 11 June 2009

M. V. J. J. SURESH, K. S. REDDY AND A. K. KOLAR

advanced coal technologies that are (more) energy


efcient, environmentally acceptable, and economically viable.
Thermodynamic analysis based on energy and
exergy provides insight into losses in various components of a system [36]. Unlike energy, the exergy
is not generally conserved but is destroyed. So, the
majority of the causes of irreversibilities like heat
transfer through a nite temperature difference,
chemical reactions, friction, and mixing are accounted by exergy analysis [7]. The design and partload performance of a 400 MWe thermal power
plant based on energy and exergy analysis has been
studied by Habib et al. [8]. Dincer and Al-Muslim
[9] carried out the thermodynamic analysis of reheat
cycle steam power plant. Energy and exergy efciencies were analyzed by varying system parameters such as temperature and pressure at the
boiler outlet, and the work output. Rosen [10] reported energy- and exergy-based comparisons of
coal-red and nuclear power plant of unit size of
approximately 500 MWe. Sengupta et al. [11] carried out the exergy analysis of a 210 MWe coalbased thermal power plant. The major source of
irreversibility in the power plant cycle was identied
as the boiler. It was shown that the sliding pressure
mode improves the exergy efciencies in part-load
operation. During part-load operation, the power
plant is required to generate a lower output than the
design capacity to meet the reduced demand. The
power output is reduced using suitable pressure
control techniques. The two widely used pressure
control techniques during part-load operation are
sliding pressure control and throttling control. In
the case of sliding pressure control, the pressure in
the steam generator is reduced in order to get a
lower power output, whereas in the case of throttling control, a pressure-reducing valve is used in the
main steam line before the turbine. Rosen and Tang
[12] studied the effect of altering combustion air
ow on a steam power plant through energy and
exergy analysis. Kopac and Hilalci [13] reported the
effect of ambient temperature on the efciency of a
power plant using energy and exergy analysis.
Ameri et al. [14] performed the energy, exergy, and
exergoeconomic analysis of a steam power plant.
The effects of load variations and ambient temperature were calculated to obtain insight into the
Copyright r 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

analysis. Bugge et al. [15] presented the status and


perspectives for the AD700 (advanced 7001C)
technology that involves the development of a coalred power plant with steam temperature of 7001C.
Energy and exergy analysis of combined cycle
power plants has also been widely reported in the
literature [1618]. Over 60% of the installed thermal
power capacity in India is accounted by 200/210 and
500 MWe units based on pulverized coal-red boilers [19]. The plant energy efciencies of old power
plants in India are still around 30% and the modern
subcritical (SubC) cycles (500 MWe unit size) have
attained plant energy efciencies of about 3537%
based on higher heating value (HHV) of fuel [20].
Migrating to higher steam parameters is one of the
methods to improve the plant energy efciency and
reduce specic emissions (emissions/kWh). Making
a beginning in this direction, the rst power plant
based on supercritical (SupC) steam conditions in
India is being installed at Sipat by National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC) [20].
There is a dearth of literature dealing with the
thermodynamic analysis of power plants based on
high ash (HA) coal and advanced steam parameters in Indian climatic conditions where the design ambient temperature is taken as 331C. Such an
analysis attains utmost importance in selecting the
appropriate technologies for future capacity addition. The objective of this paper is to analyze the
3-E performance of the coal power plants based on
conventional and advanced steam parameters and
predict the improvement, if any, in plant energy
and exergy efciencies and specic emissions in
Indian climatic conditions for Indian HA coal
using the design data of the power plant congurations. The specic emissions of CO2, SOx, NOx,
and particulates were calculated to quantify the
environmental impact. The part-load performance
analysis has also been carried out to nd the variation of plant energy and exergy efciencies.

2. POWER PLANT CONFIGURATIONS AND


FUEL CHARACTERISTICS
2.1. SubC power plant
A 500 MWe pulverized coal combustion power
plant based on SubC steam parameters and run by
Int. J. Energy Res. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/er

3-E ANALYSIS OF ADVANCED POWER PLANTS

NTPC, India was chosen as a reference [20]. The


conguration of the SubC power plant with steam
parameters of 166.7 bar/5371C/5371C is shown in
Figure 1. It has one single-ow high-pressure
cylinder, one double-ow intermediate-pressure
cylinder, and one double-ow low-pressure cylinder. It has three low-pressure feed water heaters
(LPFWHs) and two high-pressure feed water
heaters (HPFWHs). The plant uses a single stage
reheating with the nal feed water temperature of
about 2531C.
2.2. SupC power plant
The rst SupC steam power plant being installed
in India by NTPC [20] has been considered to
investigate the performance of the plant based on
SupC steam conditions. The detailed conguration
of the SupC power plant is shown in Figure 2. The

gross power output of the plant is 660 MWe


having steam parameters of 242.2 bar/5371C/
5651C with a single stage reheating and nal feed
water temperature of about 2801C. This plant
has one single-ow high-pressure cylinder, one
double-ow intermediate-pressure cylinder, and
two double-ow low-pressure cylinders. It has
four LPFWHs and three HPFWHs.
2.3. Ultrasupercritical power plant
Further, the design conguration of a conceptual
430 MWe Ultrasupercritical (USC) power plant
also known as The AD700 cycle [15,21] has been
considered to study the effect of USC steam
parameters. Figure 3 shows the conguration of
the USC power plant. It involves steam parameters of 350 bar/7001C/7201C with a single stage
reheating and nal feed water temperature of

Figure 1. Schematic representation of 500 MWe Subcritical Power Plant (Numerics indicate stream numbers).
Copyright r 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Energy Res. (2009)


DOI: 10.1002/er

M. V. J. J. SURESH, K. S. REDDY AND A. K. KOLAR

Figure 2. Schematic representation of 660 MWe Supercritical Power Plant (Numerics indicate stream numbers).

3301C. The USC power plant consists of singleow high-pressure, intermediate-pressure cylinders, one each, and one double-ow low-pressure
cylinder. For this conguration, ve LPFWHs and
three HPFWHs have been considered. Steam
driven boiler feed pump (BFP) is used in the
SubC and SupC power plants, whereas an electric
driven BFP is used in the AD700 USC power plant
conguration.
2.4. Fuel characteristics
The characteristics of the HA Indian and low ash
(LA) imported (reference) coals are presented in
Table I. The composition of the HA coal (dry basis)
used for the present study represents that of the
typical Indian coal [20] with a lower heating value
Copyright r 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

(LHV) of 15.2 MJ kg1 and a specic exergy of


17.3 MJ kg1. In India, the normal practice in power
plant industry is to quote the plant efciency on
the basis of higher heating value (HHV) of fuel.
Hence, to reect the typical values of power plant
efciencies in India, HHV has been used instead of
LHV. The specic exergy (chemical) of coal (Excoal),
in MJ kg1, was estimated on the basis of following
empirical correlation [22,23]:
Excoal 0:9775 n LHVcoal 2:410
 0:0065 n LHVcoal 0:054 1
where LHVcoal (Lower Heating Value of coal) is
in MJ kg1. The second part of the correlation
represents the deviation to be expected.
Int. J. Energy Res. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/er

3-E ANALYSIS OF ADVANCED POWER PLANTS

Figure 3. Schematic representation of 430 MWe Ultrasupercritical Power Plant (Numerics indicate stream numbers).

Table I. Characteristics of coal.


Indian (high ashHA)

Proximate analysis
Fixed carbon
Volatile matter
Ash
Moisture
Ultimate analysis
Carbon
Hydrogen
Oxygen (by difference)
Nitrogen
Sulfur
Ash
Moisture
HHV (MJ kg1)
Exergy (MJ kg1)

Imported (low ashLA)

As-received (wt%)

Dry basis (wt%)

As-received (wt%)

Dry basis (wt%)

24.00
21.00
43.00
12.00

27.27
23.86
48.87

59.00
22.29
16.27
2.44

60.47
22.85
16.68

34.46
2.43
6.97
0.69
0.45
43.00
12.00
13.96
15.26

39.16
2.76
7.92
0.78
0.51
48.87

15.83
17.30

68.10
3.49
7.47
1.69
0.54
16.27
2.44
26.83
27.84

69.80
3.58
7.66
1.73
0.55
16.68

27.42
28.46

Copyright r 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Energy Res. (2009)


DOI: 10.1002/er

M. V. J. J. SURESH, K. S. REDDY AND A. K. KOLAR

Indigenous coals used in thermal power plants


in India have mineral matter as high as 4045%.
With a view to compare the performance of
the power plants using LA coal, a typical South
African coal was considered [24]. The LHV of the
LA coal (dry basis) is 26.6 MJ kg1 and its specic
exergy is 28.5 MJ kg1. Although the sulfur content of both the coals is comparable, the nitrogen
content of LA coal is about 1 percentage point
more than the HA coal.

3. MODELING OF POWER PLANT


CONFIGURATIONS
3.1. Assumptions
The following assumptions were made to carry out
the simulation:
 Ambient pressure (Po) and temperature (To) of
reference environment are 1.013 bar and 331C,
respectively (Indian climatic conditions).
 The chemical composition of reference-environment model constitutes (in mole fraction): N2:
75.62%, O2: 20.30%, H2O: 3.12%, CO2: 0.03%,
SO2: 0.01%, Others: 0.92%.
 The relative humidity of the ambient air
C60%.
 The excess air 20%.
 Energy loss in the boiler (due to the combustibles in ash, radiation and convection losses,
and unaccounted losses) C1.5% of energy in
input fuel.
 Ash constitutes 70% SiO2 and 30% Al2O3 (by
weight) and the bottom to y ash ratio is 20:80
[20].
 Condenser pressure is 10.3 kPa (Indian climatic
condition) and temperature gain across the
condenser C101C [20].
 The terminal temperature difference of all closed
feed water heaters C31C [25].
 Pressure drop in the pipes are neglected.
 An auxiliary power consumption of 7.5% was
assumed for HA coal-based SubC and SupC
power plant and 9.0% for HA coal-based USC
power plant [20].
 The power consumption by miscellaneous
balance of plant (like plant control systems,
Copyright r 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.









lighting, HVAC), steam turbine auxiliaries and


transformer losses for all the three power plants
has been considered as 5 MWe (included in the
auxiliary power consumption) [26].
Reduction in auxiliary power consumption of
coal and ash handling equipments as compared
to the reference case (rated gross power output
using HA coal) has been assumed to vary
directly with the coal consumption rate [27].
Isentropic efciency of fans and pumps C80
and 85%, respectively [20].
Generator efciency C98.7% [20].
Carbon and Sulfur in the fuel are completely
oxidized to CO2 and SO2, respectively [28].
50% of nitrogen in the fuel has been assumed
to oxidize to NO and it only constitutes NOx
[28,29].
NOx reduction using low NOx burners in the
furnace C40% [30].
Electro Static Precipitator (ESP) efciency
C99.8% [31].

3.2. Governing equations


Mass, energy, exergy, and chemical species balance
are applied to components in the power plant
congurations shown in Figures 13 considering
them as a control volume at steady state. The
governing equations are [8,32,33]:
Mass balance:
P
P
2
m_ i m_ e
e

Energy balance:
P
P
m_ i hi Q_ cv m_ e he W_ cv

Exergy balance:
P
P
m_ i ci X_ heat m_ e ce W_ cv I_

Chemical species balance:


P
P
N_ j N_ j N_ p

The equation for chemical species balance


accounts for input, output species ow, and the
Int. J. Energy Res. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/er

3-E ANALYSIS OF ADVANCED POWER PLANTS

rate of production of species due to chemical


reactions in a control volume. This equation is
applicable throughout the air/ue gas circuit, and
in particular, the combustor, where the chemical
reactions take place.
3.3. Simulation procedure
The power plant conguration constitutes various
interconnected circuits each of which consists of
different components. These components are in
turn connected by pipes involving appropriate
media, thus forming a complex network of mass
and energy ows. A comprehensive thermodynamic analysis of such system involves the solution
of a large number of equations necessitating the
need for an efcient code with an extensive
database of thermodynamic properties. Hence, a
ow-sheet computer program, Cycle-Tempo, a
software package for the steady-state thermodynamic modeling and analysis of systems for the
production of electricity, heat and refrigeration,
was used for this study [23,34]. Part-load performance can also be carried out as correlations
governing the equipment performance are included in the package. The performance of the
state-of-the-art power plants has been estimated
by a detailed component-wise modeling followed
by a system simulation. It involves the preparation of the process ow diagrams of the system
(power plant congurations) to be analyzed.
Then the required operating conditions for
individual components like one or more inlet or
outlet pressure, temperature, and efciencies of
pumps and motors are specied. Based on the
input data, the ow rates and state conditions of
streams, composition, and heat/work outputs are
calculated.

3.4. Performance parameters


The performance of the power plants is evaluated
in terms of plant energy efciency, Z, and exergy
efciency, e as follows [10,12]:
Plant energy efciency,
Net energy output with electricity
Z
6
Energy input
or
Z

Net work output rate


Mass flow rate of coal  HHV of the coal

Plant exergy efciency,


Net exergy output with electricity
e
Exergy input

or
e

Net work output rate


Mass flow rate of coalSpecific exergy of the coal

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


Pressure, temperature, mass ow rates of steam,
isentropic efciency of turbines, and the steam
quality at the exhaust of low-pressure (LP) turbine
obtained from the simulation of a SubC power
plant at the rated capacity of 500 MWe are shown
in Table II. Further, the stream data of a SubCHA coal-red power plant is shown in Table III.
As, the stream data of the steam cycle remains
same for power plants using both HA and LA
coals, only the data of streams that differ for a
SubC-LA coal-red power plant is shown in
Table IV. The same data sets for a 660 MWe
SupC power plant are shown in Tables VVII,
respectively. Further, Tables VIIIX, respectively

Table II. Steam cycle parameters of the SubC power plant at the rated capacity (500 MWe).
SubC parameters

HP turbine inlet
IP turbine inlet
LP turbine inlet
Steam quality (at LPT exhaust)
Condenser pressure (kPa)

Copyright r 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

P (bar)

T (1C)

m_ steam (kg s1)

Isentropic Z (%)

166.7
39.7
7.3

537.0
537.0
303.3

425.8
380.5
316.9
0.93
10.3

89.0
90.3
85.1

Int. J. Energy Res. (2009)


DOI: 10.1002/er

M. V. J. J. SURESH, K. S. REDDY AND A. K. KOLAR

Table III. Stream data of SubC HA coal-red power plant.


Stream no.
(as indicated in Figure 1)
Coal/bottom ash
1
11
Air/ue gas
2
3
4
5
50
6
7
8
9
10
Water/steam
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

Pressure
(bar)

Temperature (1C)

Mass ow rate
(kg s1)

Energy ow
rate (MWth)

Exergy ow
rate (MWth)

1.030
1.013

33.0
1050.0

81.3
7.9

1287.8
10.6

1407.4
6.4

1.013
1.040
1.030
1.010
1.010
1.005
1.005
1.000
1.000
1.060

33.0
35.9
297.2
1782.7
1344.9
842.3
579.8
335.0
117.8
125.0

480.9
480.9
480.9
554.3
554.3
554.3
554.3
554.3
554.3
554.3

21.8
23.3
153.7
1411.6
980.8
592.0
411.4
254.0
123.6
127.8

0
1.1
37.7
975.4
616.2
314.8
190.6
99.5
50.1
53.7

166.7
44.1
39.7
7.3
44.1
17.4
7.3
2.6
1.3
0.26
0.103
0.103
7.3
193.7
193.7
187.7
186.2
1.013
2.030
1.030

537.0
339.4
537.0
303.3
339.4
416.1
303.3
192.6
132.1
65.8
46.4
46.4
46.5
170.2
253.2
324.0
359.8
33.0
33.0
43.0

425.8
380.5
380.5
316.9
45.3
21.0
24.0
12.2
23.3
10.2
271.2
335.5
335.5
425.8
425.8
425.8
425.8
15614.7
15614.7
15614.7

1387.1
1110.3
1290.9
927.6
132.1
66.1
70.4
33.2
60.6
24.1
620.3
18.7
19.0
252.0
410.2
567.5
998.4
0
2.0
653.1

613.5
410.7
507.5
266.6
48.9
22.6
20.2
7.5
11.3
2.3
25.6
0.4
0.6
50.9
109.1
180.6
401.5
0
1.6
10.5

show the same data sets for a 430 MWe USC


power plant.
4.1. Energy and exergy efciency
The comparison of net plant energy and exergy
efciencies of the SubC, SupC, and USC power
plants using HA and LA coal is shown in
Table XI. It is observed that SupC power plant
results in an increase of about 1.6 percentage
points in plant energy efciency as compared to
the SubC power plant, whereas USC power plant
results in an increase of about 6.4 percentage
Copyright r 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

points using HA coal (based on HHV). In the case


of exergy efciency, the corresponding increase is
about 1.4 and 5.8 percentage points, respectively.
The increase in both the efciencies (i.e. plant
energy and exergy) of the SupC and USC power
plants over SubC power plant is due to the
increased steam parameters (pressure, temperature) at the inlet of HP turbine. The T-s diagrams
of the simulated coal-based power plants operating on SubC, SupC, and USC steam parameters
are shown in Figures 46, respectively. Increase in
steam parameters (pressure, temperature) results
in increase in the average temperature during the
Int. J. Energy Res. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/er

3-E ANALYSIS OF ADVANCED POWER PLANTS

Table IV. Stream data of SubC LA coal-red power plant.


Stream no.
(as indicated in Figure 1)

Pressure
(bar)

Temperature (1C)

Mass ow rate
(kg s1)

Energy ow
rate (MWth)

Exergy ow
rate (MWth)

1.030
1.013

33.0
1050.0

46.4
1.5

1272.2
2.0

1320.2
1.2

1.013
1.040
1.030
1.010
1.010
1.005
1.005
1.000
1.000
1.060

33.0
35.9
282.1
1934.7
1396.6
855.8
585.4
335.0
117.5
125.0

502.2
502.2
502.2
547.0
547.0
547.0
547.0
547.0
547.0
547.0

22.8
24.3
152.5
1403.5
972.7
583.9
403.3
245.9
117.7
122.1

0
1.2
35.7
986.1
623.5
320.4
195.6
104.3
55.8
59.4

Coal/bottom ash
1
11
Air/ue gas
2
3
4
5
50
6
7
8
9
10

Table V. Steam cycle parameters of the SupC power plant at the rated capacity (660 MWe).
SupC parameters

HP turbine inlet
IP turbine inlet
LP turbine inlet
Steam quality (at LPT exhaust)
Condenser pressure (kPa)

P (bar)

T (1C)

m_ steam (kg s1)

Isentropic Z (%)

242.2
42.0
2.9

537.0
565.0
215.6

550.7
466.2
173.0

89.6
91.7
85.7

heat addition, which in turn raises the thermal


efciency of the cycle, and thus, the plant energy
and exergy efciencies. The study shows an
increase of about 1.01.4 percentage points in the
plant energy efciency using LA coal as compared
to the HA coal. This is due to the lower mineral
matter that increases the boiler efciency (in this
study, boiler efciency of power plants using LA
coal is about 1 percentage points higher than the
one using HA coal) and also reduces the energy
consumption of the auxiliaries for the same gross
power output. There is a drop of 2, 2.2, and 1
percentage points in auxiliary power consumption
of LA coal-based SubC, SupC, and USC power
plants, respectively, as compared to the power
plants based on HA coal. It is to be noted that an
electric driven BFP is used in the USC power plant
conguration and hence, there is only 1 percentage
point reduction in auxiliary power consumption
using LA coal as compared to the HA coal.
Copyright r 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

0.93
10.3

A signicant increase of 2.93.1 percentage points


in exergy efciency is observed using LA coal as
compared to the HA coal. This is also due to the
presence of lower mineral matter, resulting in
reduced exergy loss in the combustor. Further, it
can be observed from Table XII that the use of LA
coal results in a substantial reduction of 43% in
specic fuel consumption as compared to the HA
coal for all the three power plants. Similarly, about
4 and 16.5% reduction in specic fuel consumption
is observed for the SupC and USC power plants,
respectively, as compared to the SubC power plant.
4.2. Energy balance
An energy balance was made for SubC, SupC, and
USC power plants to quantify the losses as shown
in Table XIII. The energy losses were calculated as
the ratio of heat rejected rate to the energy input
rate (through fuel). It is observed from Table XIII
Int. J. Energy Res. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/er

M. V. J. J. SURESH, K. S. REDDY AND A. K. KOLAR

Table VI. Stream data of SupC HA coal-red power plant.


Stream no.
(as indicated in Figure 2)
Coal/bottom ash
1
11
Air/ue gas
2
3
4
5
50
6
7
8
9
10
Water/steam
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

Pressure
(bar)

Temperature (1C)

Mass ow rate
(kg s1)

Energy ow
rate (MWth)

Exergy ow
rate (MWth)

1.030
1.013

33.0
1050.0

102.9
10.1

1628.3
13.4

1779.4
8.0

1.013
1.040
1.030
1.010
1.010
1.005
1.005
1.000
1.000
1.060

33.0
35.9
272.1
1771.9
1046.7
905.2
542.4
319.0
122.7
130.0

608.1
608.1
608.1
700.9
700.9
700.9
700.9
700.9
700.9
700.9

27.6
29.4
178.2
1768.7
937.3
805.1
488.4
308.3
159.5
164.8

0
1.4
40.4
1219.5
539.6
439.5
220.9
119.4
63.8
68.4

242.2
44.3
42.0
2.9
66.8
44.3
21.0
11.9
6.1
2.98
0.64
0.27
0.103
0.103
11.9
308.7
308.7
294.7
263.2
1.013
2.03
1.03

537.0
288.7
565.0
215.6
340.0
288.7
459.9
381.1
295.4
215.6
87.6
66.7
46.4
46.4
46.5
193.9
279.6
341.0
480.0
33.0
33.0
43.0

550.7
466.2
466.2
173.0
36.2
48.3
14.4
22.4
19.2
31.4
14.1
13.5
318.5
429.5
429.5
550.7
550.7
550.7
550.7
18992.8
18992.8
18992.8

1743.7
1293.0
1609.7
477.5
103.6
133.9
46.5
69.0
56.0
86.6
35.3
32.2
727.4
24.0
24.7
386.1
599.9
780.1
1611.5
0
2.4
794.3

786.9
471.4
643.0
111.7
39.9
48.8
16.6
22.1
15.6
20.3
5.1
3.1
30.1
0.5
1.0
90.3
175.6
260.8
711.7
0
1.9
12.7

that the energy losses are associated with the heat


rejection in cooling water and stack. Though the
energy rejected in cooling water is same for SubC,
SupC, and USC power plants using HA and LA
coals, the percentage loss in terms of energy
content of the input fuel into the combustor
appears slightly higher in the case of LA coal.
This is due to the slightly lower energy input
through the LA coal on account of reduced energy
loss through the bottom ash as compared to the
HA coal. However, the ratio of energy content in
the ue gas at the exit of the combustor to the
Copyright r 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

energy content in the coal remains the same for the


power plants using both HA and LA coals. The
heat rejected through the bottom ash is almost 0.6
percentage point lower in the case of LA coal as
compared to the HA coal.
4.3. Exergy balance
An exergy balance was also carried out for the
SubC, SupC and USC power plants using both
HA and LA coals as shown in Table XIV. The
exergy losses were calculated as the ratio of
Int. J. Energy Res. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/er

3-E ANALYSIS OF ADVANCED POWER PLANTS

Table VII. Stream data of SupC LA coal-red power plant.


Stream no.
(as indicated in Figure 2)

Pressure
(bar)

Temperature (1C)

Mass ow
rate (kg s1)

Energy ow
rate (MWth)

Exergy ow
rate (MWth)

1.030
1.013

33.0
1050.0

58.6
1.9

1607.4
2.6

1668.0
1.6

1.013
1.040
1.030
1.010
1.010
1.005
1.005
1.000
1.000
1.060

33.0
35.9
258.5
1921.4
1070.8
921.8
547.6
319.0
122.4
130.0

634.5
634.5
634.5
691.1
691.1
691.1
691.1
691.1
691.1
691.1

28.8
30.7
176.8
1757.5
926.2
793.9
477.3
297.1
151.0
156.5

0
1.5
38.2
1232.3
546.6
446.0
226.5
124.6
70.1
74.8

Coal/bottom ash
1
11
Air/ue gas
2
3
4
5
50
6
7
8
9
10

Table VIII. Steam cycle parameters of the USC power plant at the rated capacity (430 MWe).
USC parameters

HP turbine inlet
IP turbine inlet
LP turbine inlet
Steam quality (at LPT exhaust)
Condenser pressure (kPa)

P (bar)

T (1C)

m_ steam (kg s1)

Isentropic Z (%)

350.0
60.0
5.0

700.0
720.0
338.2

296.6
243.1
203.1

88.0
91.5
88.8

irreversibility rate to the exergy input rate


(through fuel). As observed from Table XIV,
exergy balance accounts for all the irreversibilities.
Energy balance leads to misapprehension because
the heat rejected in cooling water is of low grade
(the quality of energy being important rather than
its quantity). The exergy balance discloses that the
maximum exergy destruction takes place in the
steam generator dominated by irreversibilities
associated with coal combustion and heat transfer.
Thus, the design/process modications should be
focussed on the combustor/steam generator rather
than the condenser. It is also observed that the
reduced exergy losses in the steam generator of
SupC and USC power plants results in the increase
in exergy efciency. The increase in the steam
temperature in the case of SupC and USC power
plant reduces the temperature difference between
the ue gas and the steam, which in turn results in
the reduction of irreversibilities associated with
Copyright r 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

0.96
10.3

heat transfer in the steam generator. In contrast,


the heat transfer irreversibility in the steam
generator increases for the plants using LA coal
as compared to the HA coal. This is due to
relatively higher ue gas temperatures using LA
coal (higher reaction temperature) as compared to
the HA coal and hence higher temperature
difference between the ue gas and the steam
(steam parameters and excess air ratio being the
same for power plants using both the HA and LA
coals). The exergy loss in the case of steam
turbines also decreases with the increase in steam
parameters. This is due to the dryer steam exhaust
and hence, higher efciency of LP turbine.
4.4. Environmental performance
The comparison of specic emissions of the three
power plants is shown in Table XV. It is observed
that by migrating to the SupC and USC power
Int. J. Energy Res. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/er

M. V. J. J. SURESH, K. S. REDDY AND A. K. KOLAR

Table IX. Stream data of USC HA coal-red power plant.


Stream no.
(as indicated in Figure 3)
Coal/bottom ash
1
11
Air/ue gas
2
3
4
5
50
6
7
8
9
10
Water/steam
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

Pressure
(bar)

Temperature (1C)

Mass ow
rate (kg s1)

Energy ow
rate (MWth)

Exergy ow
rate (MWth)

1.030
1.013

33.0
1050.0

58.4
5.7

924.8
7.6

1010.6
4.6

1.013
1.040
1.030
1.010
1.010
1.005
1.005
1.000
1.000
1.060

33.0
35.9
309.8
1788.3
1033.7
825.5
480.4
350.0
122.7
130.0

345.4
345.4
345.4
398.1
398.1
398.1
398.1
398.1
398.1
398.1

15.7
16.7
115.0
1018.3
525.6
416.6
248.7
189.2
90.9
93.9

0
0.8
29.2
704.4
301.4
219.9
108.1
74.9
36.6
39.1

350.0
63.5
60.0
5.0
134.0
75.5
39.1
15.0
9.6
5.0
2.4
1.0
0.4
0.103
0.103
15.0
416.5
416.5
402.5
371.0
1.013
2.030
1.030

700.0
429.7
720.0
338.2
527.8
437.2
645.3
491.4
426.1
338.2
251.1
163.4
75.2
46.4
46.4
46.6
207.1
330.2
365.0
590.0
33.0
33.0
43.0

296.6
243.1
243.1
203.1
29.8
23.7
14.3
7.1
9.5
9.1
8.8
8.7
9.1
176.5
221.7
221.7
296.6
296.6
296.6
296.6
9852.8
9852.8
9852.8

1058.6
756.2
924.1
610.4
97.2
73.8
52.1
23.5
30.1
27.5
25.0
23.2
22.7
415.7
12.4
12.8
226.5
397.4
456.8
949.5
0
1.3
412.1

515.5
298.9
403.6
167.9
42.2
29.7
21.3
8.2
9.6
7.6
5.7
4.0
2.5
17.2
0.2
0.6
57.5
131.8
161.6
445.0
0
1.0
6.6

plants, specic emissions of CO2, SOx, NOx,


and particulates can be reduced by about 35%
and 1517%, respectively, as compared to the
SubC power plant. Thus, installing power plants
based on advanced steam parameters seems to be
an efcient short-term measure to mitigate burgeoning emissions. There is no variation in the
specic emission of CO2 from the same power
plant using HA and LA coals as complete carbon
conversion is assumed in both the cases. It is also
observed that all the power plants result in very
Copyright r 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

low emission of SOx as both the coals (HA and


LA) have low sulfur content. Majority of Indian
coals have very low sulfur content (o0.6%) and
hence the coal-red power plants in India do not
have any SOx emission control systems; however,
it is mandatory for 500 MWe and above-sized
units to have space provision to accommodate
such systems in future [2]. There is about 43%
reduction in the specic emission of SOx using LA
coal as compared to the HA coal though both the
coals contain almost the same amount of sulfur.
Int. J. Energy Res. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/er

3-E ANALYSIS OF ADVANCED POWER PLANTS

Table X. Stream data of USC LA coal-red power plant.


Stream no.
(as indicated in Figure 3)
Coal/bottom ash
1
11
Air/ue gas
2
3
4
5
50
6
7
8
9
10

Pressure
(bar)

Temperature (1C)

Mass ow
rate (kg s1)

Energy ow
rate (MWth)

Exergy ow
rate (MWth)

1.030
1.013

33.0
1050.0

33.3
1.1

913.7
1.5

948.2
0.9

1.013
1.040
1.030
1.010
1.010
1.005
1.005
1.000
1.000
1.060

33.0
35.9
294.0
1941.7
1055.7
837.9
483.3
350.0
122.4
130.0

360.7
360.7
360.7
392.9
392.9
392.9
392.9
392.9
392.9
392.9

16.4
17.4
114.0
1012.7
520.0
411.0
243.1
183.6
87.0
90.2

0
0.9
27.7
712.3
305.9
224.1
111.8
78.6
40.9
43.6

Table XI. Comparison of efciencies.


Plant efciency (%)
Plant
Subcritical
Supercritical
Ultrasupercritical

Exergy efciency (%)

Capacity (MWe)

HA

LA

HA

LA

500
660
430

35.9
37.5
42.3

37.2
38.9
43.3

32.9
34.3
38.7

35.8
37.4
41.7

Figure 4. T-s diagram of a 500 MWe Subcritical Power


Plant (Numerics indicate stream numbers).

Figure 5. T-s diagram of a 660 MWe Supercritical


Power Plant (Numerics indicate stream numbers).

This can be attributed to the almost same


amount of reduction in specic fuel consumption
using LA coal as compared to the HA coal
(Table XII). In contrast, there is about 22%
increase in specic emission of NOx using LA coal
as compared to the HA coal, which is due to the

higher nitrogen content of the LA coal. There is


also a large increase of about 81% in specic
emission of particulates using HA coal as compared to the LA coal for the same ESP efciency
of 99.8%, which is due to the higher mineral
matter content.

Copyright r 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Energy Res. (2009)


DOI: 10.1002/er

M. V. J. J. SURESH, K. S. REDDY AND A. K. KOLAR

4.5. Part-load analysis

Figure 6. T-s diagram of a 430 MWe Ultrasupercritical


Power Plant (Numerics indicate stream numbers).

In order to assess the performance of the power


plants at part-load conditions, sliding pressure and
throttling control mode were simulated. The
variation of operating and performance parameters of HA and LA coal-based SubC power
plant at part-load conditions with sliding pressure
and throttling control are shown in Tables XVI
and XVII, respectively. Tables XVIIIXXI present
the same data sets for SupC and USC power
plants. Part-load performance was simulated up to
40% of the rated capacity as further lower loads
necessitate supplementary oil-ring [20]. The
variation of plant energy and exergy efciencies

Table XII. Comparison of specic fuel consumption.


Specic fuel consumption (kg kWh1)
Plant
Subcritical
Supercritical
Ultrasupercritical

HA

% reduction (w.r.t SubC)

LA

% reduction (w.r.t SubC)

0.586
0.561
0.489

4.3
16.6

0.334
0.320
0.279

4.2
16.5

Table XIII. Comparison of energy balance.


Subcritical

Supercritical

Ultrasupercritical

Components (%)

HA

LA

HA

LA

HA

LA

Power (efciency of the system)


Heat rejected in cooling water
Heat rejected through stack
Heat rejected through bottom ash
Other losses (by difference)

35.9
50.7
9.9
0.8
2.7

37.2
51.3
9.6
0.2
1.7

37.5
48.8
10.1
0.8
2.8

38.9
49.4
9.7
0.2
1.8

42.3
44.6
10.2
0.8
2.1

43.3
45.1
9.9
0.2
1.5

Table XIV. Comparison of exergy balance.


Subcritical

Supercritical

Ultrasupercritical

Components (%)

HA

LA

HA

LA

HA

LA

Power (efciency of the system)


Loss in combustor
Loss in steam generator (excluding combustor)
Loss in stack
Loss in turbine
Loss in condenser and cooling water
Loss in feed water heaters
Loss through bottom ash
Other losses (by difference)

32.9
32.9
20.3
3.8
3.7
2.1
0.9
0.5
2.9

35.8
27.9
22.2
4.5
4.0
2.2
1.0
0.1
2.3

34.3
33.3
18.9
3.8
3.5
2.0
0.9
0.5
2.8

37.4
28.3
20.7
4.5
3.7
2.1
1.0
0.1
2.2

38.7
32.7
14.9
3.9
3.1
1.8
1.2
0.5
3.2

41.7
27.7
16.5
4.6
3.3
1.9
1.3
0.1
2.9

Copyright r 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Energy Res. (2009)


DOI: 10.1002/er

3-E ANALYSIS OF ADVANCED POWER PLANTS

Table XV. Comparison of specic emissions.


1

CO2 (kg kWh )

SOx (g kWh1)

NOx (g kWh1)

Particulate matter (mg kWh1)

Plant

HA

LA

HA

LA

HA

LA

HA

LA

Subcritical
Supercritical
Ultrasupercritical

0.84
0.80
0.70

0.84
0.80
0.70

5.8
5.6
4.9

3.3
3.2
2.8

2.9
2.8
2.4

3.7
3.6
3.1

456.1
436.9
380.9

88.4
84.6
73.8

Table XVI. Operating and performance parameters of SubC HA and LA coal-red power plant at part-load conditions
with sliding pressure.
100% Load
P
(bar)

T
(1C)

80% Load

m_
P
(kg s1) (bar)

HP turbine inlet
166.7 537.0 425.8
IP turbine inlet
39.7 537.0 380.5
LP turbine inlet
7.3 303.3 316.9
Steam quality
0.934
(LPT exhaust)
Coal ow (t h1)
292.8 (167.0)
Final feed water
253.2
temp (1C)
Gross power
500.0
output (MWe)
Plant efciency (%)
35.9 (37.2)
Exergy efciency (%)
32.9 (35.8)

T
(1C)

60% Load

m_
P
(kg s1) (bar)

T
(1C)

40% Load

m_
P
(kg s1) (bar)
70.7
16.4
3.2

T
(1C)

m_
(kg s1)

132.6 537.0 334.7


31.6 530.5 303.0
5.9 301.1 256.6
0.938

101.2 537.0 251.9


23.9 519.0 230.0
4.5 295.0 197.9
0.946

537.0 173.4
500.3 159.6
283.2 139.6
0.963

235.9 (134.4)
239.8

180.3 (102.7)
226.5

125.7 (71.5)
210.2

400.0

300.0

200.0

35.5 (36.7)
32.5 (35.4)

34.7 (35.9)
31.7 (34.6)

32.7 (34.0)
30.0 (32.7)

Values in brackets correspond to LA coal.

Table XVII. Operating and performance parameters of SubC HA and LA coal-red power plant at part-load
conditions with throttling control.
100% Load
P
(bar)
HP turbine inlet
IP turbine inlet
LP turbine inlet
Steam quality
(LPT exhaust)
Coal ow (t h1)
Final feed water
temp (1C)
Gross power
output (MWe)
Plant efciency (%)
Exergy efciency (%)

80% Load

m_
T
P
(1C) (kg s1) (bar)

60% Load

m_
T
P
(1C) (kg s1) (bar)

40% Load

m_
m_
T
P
T
(1C) (kg s1) (bar) (1C) (kg s1)

166.7 537.0 425.8


39.7 537.0 380.5
7.3 303.3 316.9
0.934

133.6 523.2 341.4


32.0 524.2 308.7
5.9 294.7 258.3
0.936

102.6 509.4 261.3


24.5 509.3 238.0
4.6 284.5 200.1
0.943

72.2 494.9 182.9


17.1 490.6 167.7
3.2 271.4 141.7
0.962

292.8 (167.0)
253.2

238.0 (135.6)
240.5

183.6 (104.6)
227.7

129.6 (73.7)
211.9

500.0

400.0

300.0

200.0

35.9 (37.2)
32.9 (35.8)

35.1 (36.4)
32.2 (35.1)

33.9 (35.2)
31.1 (33.9)

31.6 (32.9)
29.0 (31.7)

Values in brackets correspond to LA coal.


Copyright r 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Energy Res. (2009)


DOI: 10.1002/er

M. V. J. J. SURESH, K. S. REDDY AND A. K. KOLAR

Table XVIII. Operating and performance parameters of SupC HA and LA coal-red power plant at part-load
conditions with sliding pressure.
100% Load
P
(bar)
HP turbine inlet
IP turbine inlet
LP turbine inlet
Steam quality
(LPT exhaust)
Coal ow (t h1)
Final feed water
temp (1C)
Gross power
output (MWe)
Plant efciency (%)
Exergy efciency (%)

80% Load

m_
T
P
(1C) (kg s1) (bar)

60% Load

m_
T
P
(1C) (kg s1) (bar)

40% Load

m_
T
P
(1C) (kg s1) (bar)

m_
T
(1C) (kg s1)

242.2 537.0 550.7


42.0 565.0 466.2
2.9 215.6 173.0
0.932

195.7 537.0 435.1


33.8 563.8 373.4
2.5 218.4 142.2
0.946

149.6 537.0 325.9


25.7 556.9 284.2
1.9 217.4 111.1
0.966

104.5 537.0 223.1


17.8 542.8 197.7
1.4 211.9
79.4
0.994

370.3 (211.0)
279.6

300.5 (171.3)
268.1

231.5 (131.9)
253.2

162.5 (92.5)
234.5

660.0

528.0

396.0

264.0

37.5 (38.9)
34.3 (37.5)

36.8 (38.2)
33.7 (36.8)

35.7 (37.1)
32.6 (35.7)

33.5 (34.8)
30.7 (33.6)

Values in brackets correspond to LA coal.

Table XIX. Operating and performance parameters of SupC HA and LA coal-red power plant at part-load
conditions with throttling control.
100% Load
P
(bar)
HP turbine inlet
IP turbine inlet
LP turbine inlet
Steam quality
(LPT exhaust)
Coal ow (t h1)
Final feed water
temp (1C)
Gross power output
(MWe)
Plant efciency (%)
Exergy efciency (%)

80% Load

m_
T
P
(1C) (kg s1) (bar)

60% Load

m_
T
P
(1C) (kg s1) (bar)

40% Load

m_
T
P
(1C) (kg s1) (bar)

m_
T
(1C) (kg s1)

242.2 537.0 550.7


42.0 565.0 466.2
2.9 215.6 173.0
0.932

197.8 519.2 448.9


34.4 552.5 384.1
2.5 209.1 143.8
0.941

152.7 499.1 345.6


26.7 536.2 299.9
1.9 200.3 113.4
0.956

107.5 476.8 242.2


18.8 514.9 213.4
1.4 188.5
81.6
0.981

370.3 (211.1)
279.6

304.4 (173.4)
268.9

237.0 (135.1)
255.7

168.5 (95.9)
236.4

660.0

528.0

396.0

264.0

37.5 (38.9)
34.3 (37.5)

36.3 (37.7)
33.3 (36.3)

34.8 (36.1)
31.8 (34.8)

32.2 (33.6)
29.5 (32.4)

Values in brackets correspond to LA coal.

of a SupC power plant with load using HA and


LA coals and involving sliding pressure and
throttling control is shown in Figures 7 and 8,
respectively. Sliding pressure control results in
efciencies relatively higher than the throttling
control. At 40% of the rated capacity, sliding
pressure control resulted in 1.21.3 percentage
points increase in plant energy and exergy
efciencies as compared to the throttling control.
Copyright r 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

This is mainly due to the reduction of energy


consumption by the BFP at part-load operation,
which is one of the major consumer of parasitic
energy. A similar observation was made for SubC
and USC power plants using both the HA and LA
coals. There is about 1.01.2 percentage points
reduction in plant energy and exergy efciencies
using throttling control mode as compared to the
sliding pressure mode. In the case of throttling
Int. J. Energy Res. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/er

3-E ANALYSIS OF ADVANCED POWER PLANTS

Table XX. Operating and performance parameters of USC HA and LA coal-red power plant at part-load conditions
with sliding pressure.
100% Load
P
(bar)
HP turbine inlet
IP turbine inlet
LP turbine inlet
Steam quality
(LPT exhaust)
Coal ow (t h1)
Final feed water
temp (1C)
Gross power output
(MWe)
Plant efciency (%)
Exergy efciency (%)

80% Load

m_
T
P
(1C) (kg s1) (bar)

60% Load

m_
T
P
(1C) (kg s1) (bar)

40% Load

m_
T
P
(1C) (kg s1) (bar)

m_
T
(1C) (kg s1)

350.0 700.0 296.6


60.0 720.0 243.1
5.0 338.2 203.1
0.961

271.1 700.0 228.6


47.6 707.5 193.7
4.0 331.4 162.9
0.971

207.1 700.0 172.4


36.4 694.3 148.8
3.1 324.3 126.3
0.988

143.2 700.0 117.6


25.2 679.2 103.5
2.2 316.3
89.0
1.000

210.3 (119.9)
330.2

170.3 (97.1)
309.1

131.8 (75.1)
291.7

92.5 (52.7)
269.2

430.0

344.0

258.0

172.0

42.3 (43.3)
38.7 (41.7)

41.7 (42.6)
38.1 (41.0)

40.4 (41.3)
36.9 (39.8)

38.1 (39.0)
34.8 (37.6)

Values in brackets correspond to LA coal.

Table XXI. Operating and performance parameters of USC HA and LA coal-red power plant at part-load conditions
with throttling control.
100% Load
P
(bar)
HP turbine inlet
IP turbine inlet
LP turbine inlet
Steam quality
(LPT exhaust)
Coal ow (t h1)
Final feed water
temp (1C)
Gross power
output (MWe)
Plant efciency (%)
Exergy efciency (%)

80% Load

m_
T
P
(1C) (kg s1) (bar)

60% Load

m_
T
P
(1C) (kg s1) (bar)

40% Load

m_
T
P
(1C) (kg s1) (bar)

m_
T
(1C) (kg s1)

350.0 700.0 296.6


60.0 720.0 243.1
5.0 338.2 203.1
0.961

270.4 681.5 230.9


48.1 702.8 195.9
4.0 328.9 165.2
0.969

206.3 665.3 175.7


37.1 686.8 151.8
3.1 319.8 129.4
0.985

142.7 647.7 121.0


25.9 668.5 106.6
2.2 309.6
92.1
1.000

210.3 (119.9)
330.2

170.6 (97.2)
309.3

132.1 (75.3)
291.9

92.9 (52.9)
269.5

430.0

344.0

258.0

172.0

42.3 (43.3)
38.7 (41.7)

41.3 (42.2)
37.8 (40.7)

39.7 (40.6)
36.3 (39.1)

37.1 (38.0)
33.9 (36.6)

Values in brackets correspond to LA coal.

control, steam undergoes isenthalpic expansion in


the pressure-reducing valve without delivering any
work and the steam generator pressure stays
constant. Therefore, throttling control results in
signicant drop of pressure over the pressurereducing valves at part-load operation and thus,
results in lower turbine inlet temperatures as
compared to the sliding pressure. Figures 9 and 10
show the variation of plant energy and exergy
efciencies, respectively, for SubC, SupC, and
Copyright r 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

USC power plants using HA coal with sliding


pressure control. The decrease in efciency at
part-load operation can be attributed to the exergy
loss in the steam generator. This can be further
interpreted from Figure 11, which shows the
effect of loading on the nal feed water temperature. It is observed that the nal feed water
temperature reduces with the reduction in load,
which in turn increases the exergy loss in the
steam generator.
Int. J. Energy Res. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/er

M. V. J. J. SURESH, K. S. REDDY AND A. K. KOLAR

Figure 7. Variation of plant energy efciency with load


for different part-load control operation of a SupC
power plant.

Figure 10. Variation of exergy efciency with load for


HA coal.

Figure 11. Variation of feed water temperature with


load.
Figure 8. Variation of exergy efciency with load for
different part-load control operation of a SupC power plant.

5. CONCLUSIONS

Figure 9. Variation of plant energy efciency with load


for HA coal.
Copyright r 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The present study carried out to analyze the


energy, exergy, and environmental performance
of the coal power plants based on conventional
and advanced steam parameters and to nd
the effect of HA coal as compared to the LA coal
has resulted in many useful ndings. The maximum possible plant energy efciency in Indian
climatic conditions using HA coal appears to
be 42.3% for an USC power plant. There was
a substantial increase of about 43% in fuel
consumption and also a signicant decrease of
about 3% in plant exergy efciency using HA
coal as compared to the LA coal for all the
three power plants. The exergy balance discloses
Int. J. Energy Res. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/er

3-E ANALYSIS OF ADVANCED POWER PLANTS

that the maximum exergy destruction takes place


in the steam generator dominated by irreversibilities associated with coal combustion and
heat transfer. So, exergy analysis gives us insight
that the design/process modications should be
focussed on the combustor/steam generator
rather than the condenser. A reduction of about
35% and 1517% in specic emission of CO2,
SOx, NOx, and particulates was observed by
migrating to SupC and USC power plants,
respectively, as compared to the SubC power
plant. Therefore, installing power plants based
on advanced steam parameters seems to be an
efcient short-term measure to mitigate burgeoning emissions. The part-load performance shows
that the sliding pressure control results in higher
efciencies across the load as compared to the
throttling control. Thus, it is anticipated that 3-E
analysis will aid in decision-making through the
selection of appropriate technology for future
capacity addition.

NOMENCLATURE
h
I_
m_
N_
Q_
T
W_

5 specic enthalpy (kJ kg1)


5 irreversibility rate (kW)
5 mass ow rate (kg s1)
5 molar ow rate (kmol s1)
5 heat transfer rate (kW)
5 temperature (1C)
5 work rate (kW)

Greek symbols
Z
e
c

5 plant energy efciency (%)


5 plant exergy efciency (%)
5 specic exergy (kJ kg1)

Acronyms
3-E
HA
LA
SubC
SupC
USC

5 energy, exergy, and environment


5 high ash
5 low ash
5 subcritical
5 supercritical
5 ultrasupercritical

Copyright r 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Subscripts
cv
e
i
j
o
p

5 control volume
5 exit
5 inlet
5 boundary
5 reference/dead state
5 production

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Authors thank Ir. Theo Woudstra and Ir. Nico


Woudstra, Delft University of Technology for providing
the technical support for Cycle-Tempo.

REFERENCES
1. Ministry of Coal (MOC), Government of India, 2008.
Available from: http://www.coal.nic.in/. Accessed on
October 10, 2008.
2. Central Electricity Authority (CEA). Installed Generation
Capacity as on January 31, 2009, CEA, Government
of India, 2009. Available from: http://www.cea.nic.in/.
Accessed on March 4, 2009.
3. Gaggioli RA, Petit PJ. Use the second law rst. Chemtech
1977; 7:496506.
4. Moran MJ, Sciubba E. Exergy analysis: principles and
practice. Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power
1994; 116:285290.
5. Rosen MA. Second-law analysis: approaches and implications. International Journal of Energy Research 1999; 23:
415429.
6. Dincer I, Cengel YA. Energy, entropy and exergy concepts
and their roles in thermal engineering. Entropy 2001; 3(3):
116149.
7. Cengel YA, Boles MA. Thermodynamics: An Engineering
Approach (5th edn). Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing
Company Limited: New Delhi, 2006.
8. Habib MA, Said SAM, Al-Bagawi JJ. Thermodynamic
performance analysis of the Ghazlan power plant. Energy
1995; 20(11):11211130.
9. Dincer I, Al-Muslim H. Thermodynamic analysis of reheat
cycle steam power plants. International Journal of Energy
Research 2001; 25:727739. DOI: 10.1002/er.717.
10. Rosen MA. Energy- and exergy-based comparison of coalred and nuclear steam power plants. Exergy International
Journal 2001; 1(3):180192.
11. Sengupta S, Datta A, Duttagupta S. Exergy analysis of a
coal-based 210 MW thermal power plant. International
Journal of Energy Research 2007; 31:1428. DOI:
10.1002/er.1224.
12. Rosen MA, Tang R. Effect of altering combustion air ow
on a steam power plant: Energy and exergy analysis.
International Journal of Energy Research 2007; 31:219231.
DOI: 10.1002/er.1242.
Int. J. Energy Res. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/er

M. V. J. J. SURESH, K. S. REDDY AND A. K. KOLAR

13. Kopac M, Hilaci A. Effect of ambient temperature


on the efciency of the regenerative and reheat Catalagzi
power plant in Turkey. Applied Thermal Engineering 2007;
27:13771385. DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2006.10.029.
14. Ameri M, Ahmadi P, Hamidi A. Energy, exergy and
exergoeconomic analysis of a steam power plant: A case
study. International Journal of Energy Research 2009;
33:499512. DOI: 10.1002/er.1495.
15. Bugge J, Kjaer S, Blum R. High-efciency coal-red power
plants development and perspectives. Energy 2006; 31:
14371445.
16. Cihan A, Hachafzoglu O, Kahveci K. Energy-exergy
analysis and modernization suggestions for a combinedcycle power plant. International Journal of Energy Research
2006; 30:115126. DOI: 10.1002/er.1133.
17. Hammond GP, Akwe SSO. Thermodynamic and related
analysis of natural gas combined cycle combined cycle
power plants with and without carbon sequestration.
International Journal of Energy Research 2007; 31:
11801201. DOI: 10.1002/er.1328.
18. Reddy BV, Chui KF, Gnanapragasam NV, Prasad RC.
Energy and exergy analyses of a CFBbased indirectly
red combined cycle power generation system. International Journal of Energy Research 2009. DOI:
10.1002/er.1537.
19. Central Electricity Authority. Report of the Committee to
Recommend Next Higher Size of Coal Fired Thermal Power
Stations. Ministry of Power, Government of India,
November 2003. Available from: http://www.cea.nic.in/
thermal/Special_reports/index_special_reports_thermal.htm.
Accessed on August 25, 2008.
20. National Thermal Power Corporation LimitedEngineering Ofce Complex, Noida, India. Private communication,
2008.
21. DONG Energy Generation, Denmark. Private communication, 2008.
22. Baehr HD. Die Exergie von Kohle und Heizoel (the exergy
of coal and fuel oil). BWK Band 39, Nr.1/2, January/
February 1987; 4245.
23. Delft University of Technology. Cycle-Tempo Release 5.0,
Delft University of Technology, 2008. See also http://

Copyright r 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.
29.
30.

31.

32.
33.
34.

www.tudelft.nl/live/pagina.jsp?id 5 8c53f82e-a500-41f1971b-629e832bfbef&lang 5 en. Accessed on November


20, 2008.
Barroso J, Ballester J, Ferrer LM, Jimenez S. Study of coal
ash deposition in an entrained ow reactor: Inuence of
coal type, blend composition and operating conditions.
Fuel Processing Technology 2006; 87:737752.
Srinivas T, Gupta AVSSKS, Reddy BV. General thermodynamic analysis of steam power cycles with n number of
feedwater heaters. International Journal of Thermodynamics
2007; 10(4):177185.
U.S. Department of Energy. Market-based Advanced Coal
Power Systems, Washington, 1999. Available from: http://
www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/refshelf/market
based_systems_report.pdf. Accessed on September 11, 2008.
Frankland SC, Johar JMS. Technical and economic
feasibility of low ash power station fuel in India. Report
No.COAL R254 DTI/Pub URN 04/822, March, 2004.
Available from: http://www.berr.gov.uk/les/le20565.pdf.
Accessed on January 25, 2008.
Bellhouse GM, Whittington HW. Simulation of gaseous
emissions from electricity generating plant. Electrical Power
& Energy Systems 1996; 18(8):501507.
Phong-Anant D, Wibberley LJ, Wall TF. Nitrogen oxide
formation from Australian coals. Combustion and Flame
1985; 62:2130.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. External
Combustion Sources (5th edn), vol. I, Chapter 1, AP42,
2008. See also http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/
index.html. Accessed on November 20, 2008.
Bhanarkar AD, Gavane AG, Tajne DS, Tamhane SM,
Nema P. Composition and size distribution of particules
emissions from a coal-red power plant in India. Fuel 2008;
87:20952101.
Moran MJ, Shapiro HN. Fundamentals of Engineering
Thermodynamics (4th edn). Wiley: New York, 2000.
Dunbar WR, Lior N. Combining fuel cells with fuel-red
power plants for improved exergy efciency. Energy 1991;
16(10):12591274.
Delft University of Technology. Cycle-Tempo Reference
Manual, Delft University of Technology, 2008.

Int. J. Energy Res. (2009)


DOI: 10.1002/er