UCHE - Thermoeconomic Analysis and Simulation of A Combined Power and Desalination Plant

THERMOECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND
SIMULATION OF A COMBINED POWER

AND DESALINATION PLANT
Departamento de Ingeniería Mecánica
Ph. D. Thesis
Francisco Javier Uche Marcuello
Universidad de Zaragoza
THERMOECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND
SIMULATION OF A COMBINED POWER
AND DESALINATION PLANT
Departamento de Ingeniería Mecánica
Universidad de Zaragoza
Ph. D. Tesis
Francisco Javier Uche Marcuello
Zaragoza, Mars 2000

D. Antonio Valero Capilla, Catedrático del Departamento de Ingeniería Mecánica
de la Universidad de Zaragoza, y D. Luis Serra De Renobales, Profesor Titular del
Área de Máquinas y Motores Térmicos de la Universidad de Zaragoza
CERTIFICAN
que la memoria titulada Thermoeconomic Analysis and Simulation of a Com-

bined Power and Desalination Plant presentada por el Ingeniero Industrial
D. Francisco Javier Uche Marcuello para optar al grado de Doctor en el programa de
Optimización Energética del Departamento de Ingeniería Mecánica, ha sido realiza-
da bajo su dirección.
Zaragoza, 20 de Marzo de 2000
Fdo: Antonio Valero Capilla Fdo: Luis Serra de Renobales

a Sonia
Agradecimientos
Quiero agradecer especialmente la realización de esta tesis doctoral a mis padres Luis
y Pilar, y a mi hermano José Luis por su paciencia y ánimos para realizarla, a pesar de
no entender a veces muy claramente la finalidad de la misma.
Por supuesto, Natalia es la que más me ha tenido que aguantar y animar en los malos
momentos que a veces he tenido. Además, ella ha tenido siempre un interés especial
para que yo la realizara.
Los directores de mi tesis, Antonio y Luis, han estado siempre a mi lado disponibles
para cualquier duda o sugerencia en su realización. Nuestras reuniones periódicas han
servido para enriquecerme personalmente. Esta tesis también ha servido para estable-
cer una relación especial de amistad y confianza con Luis, que para mí es fundamental
en el trabajo diario.
También quiero agradecer al personal de la Central Térmica Teruel (ENDESA) por su
flexibilidad de horarios, que me ha permitido desarrollar gran parte de mi tesis docto-
ral durante mi estancia en Andorra. Y a mis compañeros de piso durante dicha estan-
cia, que me dejaron trabajar en todo momento sin impedimento alguno.
Finalmente, quiero agradecer a Rosa y a Morris su ayuda en la edición. Y a esa gran
familia que es CIRCE, y al gran ambiente que existe dentro de ella.
Acknowledgements
The financial support provided by ICWES (International Center for Water and Energy
Systems, United Arab Emirates) is gratefully acknowledged. Sincere appreciation is
expressed to D. M. K. Al-Gobaisi, Director of ICWES, for his continued support and
encouragement during the course of this thesis. The discussions that the author and
my directors had with him and Ali El-Nashar and Asghar Husain were very helpful.
Thanks are also extended to Hanif Sultan and John Nynam who provided the technical
information essential to the design of my simulator.
Resumen
La desalación de aguas de mar o salobres es una de las formas más utilizadas para
dotar con la calidad suficiente a la población de los recursos hídricos necesarios para
su manutención y desarrollo. En un sector industrial en constante crecimiento, ya que
el consumo humano per cápita sigue aumentando constantemente con el incremento
del nivel de vida, a pesar de las campañas buscando el ahorro y la racionalidad en el
consumo, sobre todo en la agricultura intensiva.
España es país que cuenta con un claro déficit de agua en las zonas costeras del
Levante y Sur, así como en los dos archipiélagos principales (Baleares y Canarias),
dichas zonas coinciden con ser las más turísticas del país, lo que significa que la
demanda se multiplica en verano. Sin tener en cuenta la posibilidad de efectuar tras-
vases de otras cuencas hidrográficas no deficitarias, el problema está siendo resuelto
principalmente por plantas de Osmosis Inversa, plantas cuyas dimensiones y produc-
ción se adecuan mucho mejor a las necesidades de los diferentes tamaños de los
núcleos ó asentamientos estables de población. El coste del agua producida sigue
siendo muy alto en comparación con la obtención por medios naturales, pero sin
embargo es menor que otros métodos de desalación.
Sin embargo, la situación de España no es extrapolable a las zonas con verdaderos

problemas de escasez de agua: los países desérticos del Golfo Pérsico. Su escasísima
pluviometría, sus elevadas temperaturas durante todo el año y la casi nula imper-
meabilidad de sus suelos disparan su consumo de agua. Son además países de relati-
vamente reciente creación, por lo que la demanda de energía eléctrica también debe
ser resuelta. La instalación de grandes plantas de cogeneración permite a la vez resol-
ver los dos problemas, con la utilización de los inmensos recursos petrolíferos y gas
de la zona. Las plantas duales de generación de potencia acopladas con las unidades
de desalación por destilación flash multietapa producen el 80% del agua desalada en
el mundo. Pero ello no significa que sea el método más eficiente de producir esos dos
productos necesarios para toda sociedad.
El análisis termoeconómico permite conocer el funcionamiento interno de dichas

plantas de generación de electricidad y agua dulce, las posibilidades de ahorro que
ofrece este modo combinado de producción. Es esencial realizar dicho análisis de
Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant

Resumen
forma conjunta, cosa que normalmente no se hace en este tipo de instalaciones: cada
planta es gestionada independientemente.
Esta Tesis Doctoral desarrolla el análisis termoeconómico completo de la planta de

cogeneración más grande que actualmente existe (en cuanto a la producción de agua
por unidad desaladora), que consta de una planta con una turbina de vapor para la
generación de electricidad y una desaladora por destilación flash de un único efecto
por cada una de sus etapas. Es una tesis eminentemente práctica, es decir, trata de
aplicar las metodologías que la Termoeconomía actualmente está aplicando a otros
sistemas tales como plantas de potencia a un sistema muy complejo en el cual los
procesos químicos también son importantes en el balance de la instalación, no sólo
los procesos mecánicos y térmicos.
El análisis termoeconómico comprende cuatro partes principales que se detallan a

continuación:
• En primer lugar, el análisis de costes permite conocer los costes físicos de los flu-
jos más importantes de las dos plantas, así como los costes finales de producción
de agua y energía, teniendo en cuenta los costes de operación y de adquisición y
mantenimiento de los equipos de la planta. Dicho análisis se basa en la creación
de un modelo termoeconómico que representa de una forma funcional los proce-
sos que ocurren dentro de la planta de potencia y de agua. Los resultados obteni-
dos son comparados con métodos tradicionales de contabilidad de costes que se
han usado para asignar costes a los productos industriales.
• Después, el análisis desarrolla el diagnóstico de la planta combinada, es decir,
analiza los efectos provocados por una o varias ineficiencias simuladas dentro de
la planta. Para ello, se ha construido un simulador de los dos procesos a partir de
un modelo matemático y datos reales de una planta de cogeneración, que permite
conocer los estados termodinámicos de referencia y con la ineficiencia con una
precisión suficiente para nuestro análisis. Dichos efectos se traducen a un consu-
mo adicional de fuel, incremento en la irreversibilidad de los diferentes procesos
y una menor eficiencia en los mismos, además de ayudar a conocer las relaciones
de los diferentes componentes de una instalación. En este análisis se demuestra
que la planta de potencia los parámetros guía de funcionamiento de cada compo-
nente son locales, es decir, una variación de ellos no significa prácticamente al
resto de componentes del sistema. Sin embargo, en la unidad MSF todos elemen-
tos principales están interconectados a través de los flujos principales que circu-
lan por los destiladores, y por lo tanto los fallos ó mejoras sufridas en el
funcionamiento de la planta afectan a toda ella, no sólo al equipo en el que están
ocurriendo.
• La tercera parte del análisis termodinámico es la optimización de la planta de po-
tencia a partir de la optimización local de sus componentes. En la planta destila-
dora de agua la optimización local no es posible al no estar sus componentes
12 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant

Resumen
termodinámicamente aislados, como ya se vió en la diagnosis de la planta. Esta

metodología es muy valida para el diseño de nuevas plantas o la readaptación de
plantas existentes hacia un mayor ahorro en las mismas.
• Finalmente, un nuevo apartado conteniendo los conceptos de coste, precio y bene-
ficio obtenidos se desarrolla brevemente, para aclarar errores que normalmente se
cometen en la contabilización de los costes de una instalación.
La Tesis Doctoral también incluye dos partes introductorias, la primera contiene la

situación en los países con escasez de agua y los métodos de desalación más comunes
utilizados actualmente. La segunda parte introductoria incluye el estado actual de la
teoría termoeconómica necesaria para el análisis termoeconómico de la planta.
Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 13

Abstract
Desalination is the most important source of drinking water in arid zones, especially
in the Gulf Area. Desalination consumes a lot of energy and, unfortunately, mostly
from oil or natural gas. Co-generation plants providing freshwater and electricity are
used in the arid areas. The combination of steam turbine plants and MSF (Multi-stage
Flash) units is one of the most common schemes to meet water and energy
requirements, providing almost 80% of all desalinated water in the world.
A dual-purpose plant is a very complex system. Its behaviour is difficult to model,

especially when all the available configurations of both sub-systems are considered.
Usually plant performance is analysed separately, neglecting component interactions
and possible savings from the combined systems.
Thermoeconomic analysis techniques are the most convenient tools to analyze these
systems, because they can:
• Calculate the costs of the flows and products of a plant based on physical criteria
(Second Law of Thermodynamics).
• Assess alternatives to save energy.
• Optimize operations.
• Locally optimize subsystems.
• Perform energy audits and assess the fuel impact of malfunctions (operation
diagnosis)
This Ph. D. Thesis develops the complete thermoeconomic analysis applied in an

existing steam power plant and MSF desalination unit, including cost analysis,
diagnosis and local optimization of the plant. Cost analysis provides the physical
costs of the main flows of the dual plant depending on operating conditions. Special
emphasis was made on the interactions between the plant components of both
subsystems: new concepts such as induced or intrinsic malfunction, dysfunction or
the malfunction matrix were included. The results demonstrate the effect of different
conditions or inefficiencies in terms of water and energy costs and additional fuel
consumption during an inefficiency. Operation recommendations were also included

Abstract
in the analysis. Local optimization of the dual plant locates the optimum point for
each operating condition and is a very powerful tool for the design analysis.
Thermoeconomic analysis was developed using a validated model (simulator) of the

plant to determine the thermodynamic reference state at design conditions for any
load point, ambient condition, operating mode etc. Plant data from a dual-plant in the
Gulf were used to adapt the mathematical models. The simulator also obtained the
thermodynamic state of the plant when an inefficiency is estimated in the plant
diagnosis.

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Water scarcity will soon be a serious problem, especially considering the rapidly
increasing world population and water consumption per capita. Fortunately, part of
this problem may be alleviated by desalting seawater, although this process consumes
a lot of energy and may be difficult to use in non-developed countries. This Ph. D.
Thesis contributes to searching for a way to reduce the energy required by desalting
plants and provides tools to improve desalination technology.
Several studies and international organizations focus on energy and others on water,
but there seems to be a marked lack of attention on combined water and energy issues.
The interaction between water production and energy is the main topic in this thesis.
The main objective is to determine the validity of the thermoeconomic analysis in
very complex systems like a dual-purpose power and desalination plant.
This thesis considers the behavior of one of the most developed systems for providing
water within the following framework:
• Increasing human consumption and its consequences.
• Water quality and the uses derived from its quality.
• The world water crisis is mostly focused on water stressed areas. In these areas
the water problem may also be solved by using desalting plants.
• The interactions among the methods required to provide energy to desalt water.
• The reasons for studying the steam turbine power plant + Multi-Stage Flash
(MSF) desalination unit from thermodynamic point of view.
• How Thermoeconomic techniques as the most useful to study complex systems.
The final section of this chapter includes the structure of this Ph. D. Thesis.

Introduction
1.1 Water requirements

According to Al-Gobaisi (1999), all life depends on water and all terrestrial species,
including humans, depend on fresh or non-saline water. Although the oceans
represent the largest water reservoir on earth (covering three-quarters of its surface),
it contains a high concentration of dissolved salts (more than the 3% of its weight).
This makes it unsuitable for humans, industry and even irrigation. Less than 3% of
the earth's water is non-saline, and the vast majority of it is locked up in glaciers and
ice sheets. Water is moved around the earth in global cycles (evaporation-cloud
formation-rain-percolation), but only when it is non-saline and in the liquid state, can
it be used by humans. Human development and indeed civilization requires a reliable
supply of even greater volumes of fresh water for drinking, cooking, washing and
sanitation. Furthermore, industry consumes on average 200 tons of water per ton of
manufactured product (Al-Gobaisi, 1997). Water also makes up more than half of the
human body. An average adult drinks about 2.5 liters of water per day and needs
0.75 liters a day just to stay alive. According to the World Health Organization, about
150 liters of water are needed per day for a satisfactory hygienic life (Al-Gobaisi,
1999). But in the South more than 1,500 million people do not have drinking water
(Intermón, 1998).
The imbalance between the available water resources and demand is clear, especially
in arid areas like the Arabian Gulf or Northern Africa. Human water consumption per
capita in this region is very high (including domestic, agricultural and industrial uses)
ranging from 300 to 1,500 liters per day. Rapidly rising incomes in some countries,
with the resultant increase of living standards, and water losses in the network have
led to even higher per capita water consumption. Intensive agriculture under arid
conditions increases this demand. The available water resources from perennial
surface water, renewable ground water and reclaimed wastewater are insufficient to
meet the demand. Overexploitation of ground-water decreases ground-water levels
and deteriorates water quality, including salt-water intrusion. On the basis of the past
experiences in arid zones, renewable freshwater resources of 1,000 cubic meters per
capita per year have been considered the limit for a chronic water scarcity that will
impede development and harm human health. In terms of resources deficiency, water
stress is defined as an annual renewable resource less than 1,000 cubic meters per
capita per year. All the countries of the Arabian World suffer from water stress
(Al-Gobaisi, 1999).
1.2 Water quality and uses

Water use depends on its quality. The salinity of average seawater is 34,800 ppm,
although it may vary between oceans. For example, the total dissolved solids (TDS)
in Arabian Gulf seawater is between 43,000 and 50,000 ppm, while the Atlantic

World water resources and demand
Ocean has an average TDS of 36,000 ppm, and 33,600 ppm for the Pacific Ocean
water (Abu Qdais, 1999).
The highest limit for human consumption is 1,000 ppm (Spiegler and El-Sayed,
1994), although the maximum permissible salt concentration in drinking water
depends on the type of salt, the total daily water consumption and the climate (e.g., if
the climate is hot and the salt is mainly sodium chloride, excess salt can even be
beneficial to the human body). On average humans consume 2-8 liters per day. Thus,
salt-water rejection for drinking water does not present a serious economic problem
in the future, if compared with the water demand for agricultural or industrial
purposes.
The purity of water for industry strongly depends on the use. Sometimes brackish
water (water with less than 5,000 ppm) is enough for industrial purposes, but
ultrapure water is needed for specific processes like cooling power generation plants.
The amount of water for industry is several times human water consumption which
is why we need more research on saving water in industrial processes and reusing
waste water.
Non-natural irrigation (that is, not provided by rainfall) consumes the most amount of
the world's water. For example, in China agriculture uses up 87% of the total water
demand. In arid areas irrigation consumes enormous amounts of water. Desalination
processes are so expensive that they are not feasibly introduced to irrigate land.
However, brackish waters with a moderate salinity (about 2,000 ppm) are acceptable
for some crops. The tolerance limits of each plant must be examined as a function of
the soil, climate, saltwater composition, irrigation method and additional treatments
(fertilizers).
1.3 World water resources and demand

Seawater desalination is most common in the countries bordering the Persian-
Arabian gulf, the north of Africa and the Canary islands, the Caribbean islands, the
Pacific region (Australia, Japan, Korea and China), and the south and east of Spain, as
well as various locations in the American south-west and Florida. The following is a
brief explanation of water demand and disposal in these areas in order to introduce
the reader to the world’s water scarcity problem.
1.3.1 Gulf Region

The annual per capita annual water resources of countries in the Gulf region (United
Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and Kuwait. Iran and Iraq are
excluded in the study) are very scarce. The fast growing population and increasing

Introduction
per capita water demand (over 500 l per capita per day, Abdel-Jawad and Al-
Tabtabaei, 1999) to meet the huge socio-economic developments since the 70s have
recently magnified the problem. These countries are characterized by scanty rainfall
and high evaporation and consumption which leads to deficits in their water budget.
All these factors classify these countries as arid to semi-arid because of their limited
conventional water resources and generally absent reliable surface water.
Arabian Gulf seawater is quite different from other oceans:
• The Arabian Gulf is roughly rectangular, surrounded by Iraq and Kuwait on the
northwest, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Oman on the
west and south and by Iran on the east. The Gulf is approximately 100 Km long
and 300 Km wide, with a surface area of 2.39×105 Km2. Average water depth is
35 meters, so its volume is 8.63×103 Km3. Water circulates very slowly between
the Arabian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman via the Strait of Hormuz: the average
residence time of water is 2-5 years.
• The Gulf Region has an arid sub-tropical climate with very limited annual rainfall.
Water temperature varies seasonally from 18 ºC to 33 ºC. Therefore, evaporation is
very high most of the year, exceeding the total river runoff by approximately a
factor of 10. The effect of the river runoff, temperature and evaporation explain the
gradually increasing salinity (from 36,300 to 50,000 ppm).
• The Gulf ecosystem is seriously endangered and it is located in a region with

political conflicts (two major wars in the last 15 years). It is also the largest oil
route in the world; 20% of the total world production of oil passes through the
Gulf. The serious environmental impact of large desalination units should be
considered.
Water stores are gradually depleting since it is extracted faster than refilled:
approximately 17,000 million cubic meters are used per year and 3,000 million cubic
meters recharged, and 4,000 million cubic meters are available from surface water. The
total current water demand is about 20,000 Mm3/y, with non renewable resources
satisfying approx. 75% with the rest supplied by renewable conventional sources,
desalination plants and recycled wastewater. Table 1.1 shows the ground water
resources and the amount of renewable water resources in 1994 per year in the Gulf
Countries.
Table 1.1 informs that the water stress in the Gulf countries is one of the main
problems that needs to be solved. Water withdrawal or water demand is shown in
table 1.2. The total demand is divided in domestic, agricultural and industrial uses.

TABLE 1.1 Ground water disposal and renewable water resources in the Gulf Countries in 1994 (Alawadhi,
1999).
Renewable water resources (Mm3/y)

Ground water
Country Population resources
(millions) Non conventional
(Mm3/y) Conventional
Desalination Wastewater
Saudi Arabia 18.18 14,430 4,550 874 217

UAE 2.15 1,000 490 385 110
Kuwait 1.62 114 161 514 83
Qatar 0.53 185 50 108 25
Bahrain 0.55 190 90 75 32
Oman 2.05 728 1,929 39 25
Total 25.08 16,647 7,270 1,995 492
TABLE 1.2 Water demand for the Gulf Countries in 1990 (ESCWA, 1994).
Total demand Withdrawal in various sectors (Mm3/y)

Country
(Mm3/y)
Domestic Agricultural Industrial
Saudi Arabia 16,300 1,508 14,600 192

UAE 1,490 513 950 27
Kuwait 383 295 80 8
Qatar 194 76 109 9
Bahrain 223 86 120 17
Oman 1,236 81 1,150 5
Total 19,826 2,559 17,009 258
Desalination is a means of augmenting fresh water resources to remove or at least

reduce water stress. The number of desalination plants in the Gulf Council Countries
(GCC) states increases daily. Table 1.3 summarizes the production and capacity of
the Middle East countries.

Introduction
TABLE 1.3 Total installed capacity and production in the seawater desalination plant of the Gulf Area in year
1994 (Alawadi, 1999; Al-Gobaisi, 1999).
Country Total capacity (m3/d) Total production (Mm3/y)

Saudi Arabia 4,179,882 874.2
UAE 2,066.340 385
Kuwait 1,409,000 514
Qatar 295,000 108
Bahrain 220,571 75
Oman 105,000 39
Total 8,275,793 1,995
Water production in Gulf countries represented the majority of the worldwide

capacity. Table 1.4 shows representative values of freshwater produced in different
processes. As seen in the table, large-scale Multi-stage Flash (MSF) plants installed
in the Gulf produce the maximum quantity of freshwater and are the most
competitive with more than 20,000 m3/d. Desalted seawater per capita per day is very
high in some countries such as UAE and Qatar: 1.2 and 1.7 cubic meters per person
and day.
TABLE 1.4 Contracted capacity of freshwater production from seawater and all waters with the existing
process. The total capacity is 12.8 million cubic meters per day and 21 million cubic meters per
day, respectively. Data collected in 1996 (Alawadhi, 1999).
Seawater All waters

World Gulf World Gulf
% MSF 77.3 64.8 47.6 39.5
% RO 13.3 4.7 38.6 10.9
% ED — — 5.2 1.0
% VC 4.6 1.5 4.3 1.0
% ME 4.6 0.7 4.3 0.5
Total 100 71.7 100 52.9
Gulf countries actually recycle no more than 35% of their total treated wastewater,
which contributes about 2.2% to the total water supply. Treated seawater is currently
used mainly for landscaping, fodder crop irrigation and some very specific industrial
uses. There are a total of 105 sewage water treatment plants in the Gulf countries with

a total capacity of about 2 Mm3/d. There is no doubt that this water source is
underused due to the lack of wastewater plants. More of these plants are needed make
better use of this water source and minimize the serious impact on the environment as
a result of its uncontrolled and unsafe disposal. Salt intrusion, ground water quality
and the saline interface between sea and ground water are some of the problems that
could be avoided with these plants.
1.3.2 Pacific Region and India

The Pacific Region is diverse in terms of desalination. Japan and Korea have
developed their own desalination technology which competes on the world market.
Australia and China also have their own technology and the rest of countries import
plants from overseas. Here we will consider the first two categories.
Table 1.5 shows the water resources in these four countries. Water resource per capita
is one of the fundamental indexes of water abundance. However, they only express
part of the potential availability since in some cases the transportation cost is too
high. Australia, for example, has the highest water value per capita because it has a
small population with rather little and irregular precipitation, and high evaporation.
Japan has the most precipitation but also the largest population. In China water
availability is irregular due to the climate and population distribution. Korea has the
least water per capita despite of a lot of precipitation.
TABLE 1.5 Natural resources in the pacific region in the year 1998 (Goto et al., 1999).
Precipitation Population Available water Water per capita

Country (mm/y) (millions) (Mm3/y) (m3/y)
Australia 465 18.1 100 5,520
China 648 1,224 2,813 2,340
Japan 1,714 125.6 422 3,360
Korea 1,274 46.4 69.7 1,500
Agricultural use occupies the largest portion in the region, whereas the consumption
for living is dependent of the area (standard of living, life-style and climate determine
the water consumption). Industrial water consumption is increased by industrial
development but can be decreased by efforts such as recycling. Table 1.6 summarizes
the fresh water consumption in the four countries.

Introduction
TABLE 1.6 Water use trends in the Pacific region (Goto et al., 1999).
Country (year) Total (Mm3/y) % Agriculture % Living % Industry

Australia (1995) 18,600 82.17 10,35 7.47
China — 87 11 2
Japan (1995) 90,700 58.7 17.2 14.8
Korea (1996) 23,668 62.85 26.23 10.91
Desalination in the Pacific region is not as important as in the Gulf region. Table 1.7
explains the capacity, process, use and feed water of the desalination plants in the
Pacific area.
TABLE 1.7 Desalination installations in the Pacific region. Data from 1998 (Goto et al., 1999).
Capacity
Country Process Use Feed water
(m3/d)
64% RO 45% Industry 70% brackish
Australia 84,000 18% VC 33% Power gen. 18% wastewater
12% MSF + ME 15% Municipal 10% seawater
55% Industry 50% brackish
85% RO
China 182,000 40% Power gen. 20% pure water
15% MSF + ME
5% Living 30% river, wastewater
88% RO
6.5% ED 53% Industry
Japan 129,885 Seawater and brackish mainly
3.5% MSF 47% Water supply systems
1.8% ME
> 90% RO 100% Industry including Pure > brackish >
Korea 180,000
Rest ED power generation wastewater > river water
In conclusion, water shortage will increase with the development of industry and an
improved standard of living in the coming century, especially in the more populated
areas like China.
There are more than 200,000 villages in India with inadequate drinking water, out of
which about 50,000 suffer from brackishness problems affecting a population of
about 60 million. Approximately one third of these villages are acutely affected by
salinity levels above 4,000 ppm. Villages with an average population of about 500 to
1,500 are mostly separated either by mountainous terrain or long stretches of barren
land and can be broadly categorized into inland and coastal. Provision of safe
drinking water to the villages inland has been given high priority in recent years, with

hundreds of small Reverse Osmosis and Electrodialysis (RO/ED) plants (10-30 m3/d)
installed in the affected villages. Only two Multi-Effect Distillation (MED) plants of
more than 10,000 m3/d were installed to supply process water in their industrial
complex by seawater desalination (Prabhakar et al., 1997).
1.3.3 North Africa

In this region, water resources seem to be limited in time and space, unequally
distributed and remote with respect to centers suffering from a continuous increase in
demand. The annual renewable water resources in this region are shown in table 1.8
(Al-Gobaisi, 1997).
TABLE 1.8 Water disposal in the African region in 1995.
Annual renewable water resources

Country
Total (Mm3/y) Per capita (m3/y)
Algeria 14.8 528

Egypt 58.1 923
Libya — —
Morocco 30.0 1,110
Tunisia 3.9 443
Water extracted from the ground is very high in some of these countries, as seen in
table 1.9.
TABLE 1.9 Water withdrawal in North African countries. Data collected in 1990 for Algeria and Tunisia; for
Egypt and Morocco data from 1992 (Al-Gobaisi, 1997).
Annual withdrawal
Country
% water resources Per capita (m3/y) % Agriculture % Industrial % Living
Algeria 30 180 60 15 25
Egypt 97 956 85 9 6
Libya — — — — —
Morocco 36 427 92 3 5
Tunisia 78 381 89 3 9

Introduction
In the future, desalination should be the alternative saving solution when the
mobilization of non-conventional water resources is impossible or very costly
(essentially in coastal zones). In this regard, five North African countries (Morocco,
Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt) requested in 1989 technical assistance from the
International Agency of Atomic Energy (IAAE) to study the feasibility of
desalination using nuclear power. The aim was to reuse the treated water in
wastewater plants and provide an important resource to agriculture.
There is little information about desalination plants in Northern Africa, although the
water production there is almost negligible with respect to the Middle East Countries.
Desalination in Egypt is the most important in the region, but the total capacity
contracted is now reported to be 95,000 m3/d (Hassan and Florido, 1999). The MSF
desalination technology switched to reverse osmosis for large plants over 5,000 m3/d
in the last few years The proportion is 55% for the RO plants, 40% for the MSF plants
and the rest in Vapor Compression (VC). Libya has two MSF plants of 24,000 and
10,000 m3/d (VA Tech, 1999), and in the south of Tunisia there are two brackish RO
plants with a capacity of 12,000 m3/d (Cadagua, 1999). Morocco has only one RO
plant with an installed capacity of more than 1,000 m3/d: the Laayoune Seawater
Reverse Osmosis (SWRO) plant produces 7,000 m3/d of freshwater (NOPW, 1996).
1.3.4 US experience and the Caribbean Islands

California, Texas and Florida, the three states considered as the most arid and coastal
areas of the country, will account for more than 45% percent of the nation’s total
population growth between now and 2025. They are already experiencing the highest
overall water deficit and droughts are also very common. As the population will
continue growing in these areas, progressive approaches to meet water demands will
be necessary (Ponce and Jankel, 1999).
The total water use in the US has fallen since the 80’s since water is now used more
efficiently. Table 1.10 shows the total water consumption and the use by each sector.
TABLE 1.10 Water use in the U.S. in 1995 (Gleick, 1998).
Total use (Mm3/y) % Public % Irrigation % Thermo-industrial
552,1 10.9 39.2 49.9
Thermal technologies were used in the early years of desalination prior to

development of RO, beginning in the 60’s with two MSF plants in Southern
California and Florida. After that experience, RO technology has been successfully
introduced in several plants. The use of desalination plants is steadily growing in the

US. The desalination growth rated based on increased contracted capacity was the
highest in the world from 1996-1997, with about 120,000 m3/d of new freshwater.
This implies a rate of growth between 10-20% per year, with a total installed capacity
of more than 900,000 m3/d. (Wangnick, 1998). Much of the potable supplies utilize
brackish water.
Many of the island nations of the world are in warm sunny environments and have
two significant items in common: beautiful beaches and a pernicious lack of potable
water. Major economic growth is inhibited since the island’s population cannot
enhance its agriculture and stimulate the tourist trade without a suitable and
consistent supply of useable water. The Caribbean sea is a good example. In Antigua,
about 50% of the total drinking water requirements are supplied by a SWRO plant of
9,500 m3/d which substitutes an old MED plant (Barendsen and Moch, 1999). Other
examples are a 10,000 m3/d SWRO plant in Nassau (Bahamas) (Andrews and
Shumway, 1999), a SWRO plant in Curaçao producing 9,000 m3/d and the Virgin
Islands with 9 MED units and a combined production of 30,000 m3/d (Elovic and
Willocks, 1999).
1.3.5 Mediterranean area and Europe

Desalination in Spain started in the early 70’s in places with little water and near the
coast. Here it was the only way to supplement natural water resources needed for
domestic uses in highly populated isolated territories. The current and future
development of the tourism industry is assured by the seawater desalination plants in
those areas.
The total capacity of Spanish desalination plants is now above 600,000 m3/d, and new
projects for another 400,000 m3/d for urban uses are being developed and should be
in operation in two years. Table 1.11 shows the seawater desalinated in Spain in 1998.
TABLE 1.11 Desalinated water in Spain during the year 1998 (Torres and Medina, 1999).
Total (Mm3/y) % Urban & Tourism % Agriculture % Industry

Seawater 95.3 94.4 5.6 —
Brackish 126.57 20.4 47.6 32.0
The desalination industry is located in dry Spain, that is, the southern part of the
country: Balearic Islands, Canary Islands, Ceuta and the Costa del Sol. Three MSF
plants were installed in Ceuta (1) and Las Palmas (2) in the 70’s, and small vapor
compression units (VC) were the water supply in public delivery systems and private

Introduction
tourist resorts in the 80’s. Since then, reverse osmosis process (RO) is being used in
big plants. Table 1.12 resumes the biggest desalination plants in Spain.
TABLE 1.12 Some of the RO desalination plants installed in Spain (Cadagua, 1999; Sánchez et al., 1997;
Fayas and Novoa, 1997; Torres et al., 1999; AECYR, 1999).
Plant Location Capacity (m3/d) Feed water

Son Tugores Mallorca 35,000 Brackish
Maspalomas Las Palmas 35,000 Brackish/Sea
Marbellaa Málaga 56,000 Sea
Bahía de Palma Mallorca 42,000 Sea
Arrecife Lanzarote 32,500 Sea
Las Palmas III Las Palmas 38,000 Sea
Alicantea Alicante 50,000 Sea
a. Not in operation
The use of wastewater in agriculture irrigation, landscape improvement, leisure needs

and aquifer recharge is another way to supply the increasing water demand in Spain.
The Republic of Cyprus is an island at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea
plagued by draught and water shortages in recent years. Seawater desalination has
been the main solution. It has two little MSF plants, a MED plant and a RO plant with
a capacity of 20,000 m3/d (Echaniz et al., 1997). A new RO plant with a capacity of
40,000 m3/d will be built by the year 2000.
Desalination in the rest of Mediterranean countries is less important. There are small
old MSF plants and VC units in the south of Italy to cover the local demand (Ophir
and Gendel, 1999; Italimpianti, 1999). Greece, Turkey, Jordan, Israel and Lebanon
(VA Tech, 1999) also have small desalination RO plants.
Germany and Austria have several desalination plants to recycle wastewater or

produce pure water for industrial processes including power generation (VA Tech,
1999). They do not produce drinking water.
Humanity has developed non-conventional sources of potable water in order to

remove or at least reduce water stress. Seawater desalination is the most important of
the non-conventional ways of producing water and several processes have been
developed in the last few years to produce fresh water for human consumption. Yet
desalinated water makes up only one part in a thousand of the fresh water used
worldwide. Desalination costs several times more than conventional means and is
therefore mostly used in developed countries with water scarcity (i.e. Arab countries).

Desalination and energy
1.4 Desalination and energy

Desalination is highly energy intensive and should not be considered in isolation
from energy. The power requirements of seawater desalination plants is also
increasing. There is a theoretical minimum power needed to desalt water but much
more power is required in practice (El-Sayed and Silver, 1980). Unfortunately, most
of the energy used is obtained from oil and natural gas. The Arab World desalinates
using their large fossil fuel reserves. Consequently, the specific consumption of a
desalination process must be accounted in fuel not electrical consumption as usually
given when measuring plant efficiency. Table 1.13 shows the primary energy or fuel
consumed in most desalination methods in the world. Note that the specific
consumption has strongly decreased as desalting technology has developed.
TABLE 1.13 Specific consumption of desalination processes. Data obtained from several sources (Fisia-
Italimpianti, 1999; I.D.E., 1999).
Process MSF MED VCa ROa

Specific consumption 400-500 350-400 70-90
(kJfuel/kgwater) 100-200
200-300b 200-250b 30-50c
a. Electrical energy produced in a conventional power plant at 30% efficiency.
b. Desalination process in a co-generation plant.
c. Including energy recovery system in the RO process.
As seen in the previous table, thermal distillation consumes more than other methods
and more or less recovers (in the worst case) 80% of the latent heat of boiling water at
atmospheric conditions (about 2,257 kJ/kg). In the previous table, specific
consumption strongly depends on way the required energy is obtained (converting the
primary energy from the fossil fuels into thermal or electrical energy to supply the
plant). Up until recently power plant technology has developed separately from the
technology used to desalt sea or brackish water. However, when the co-generation
concept is applied to combine the two processes, the consumption of the desalination
process can be reduced more than 50%. Including combined cycles in new MSF/
MED plants considerably reduces consumption and also provides electricity in areas
with energy demand. Co-generation fuels could be substituted by biomass or refuse
fuels (Tadros and Tadros, 1997). The energy-water interaction should be investigated
further and improved in order to provide water to water stressed areas at minimum
cost.
Desalination is almost entirely powered by the combustion of fossil fuels. Their finite
supply is rapidly being depleted and they also pollute the air and contribute to global
climate change. Assuming that all desalinated water in the world (total installed
capacity of 13 Mm3/d) is produced at an average fuel consumption of 200 kJ/kg, and

Introduction
that the current annual global consumption of oil is 25 billion barrels (rising 2% per
annum, Al-Gobaisi, 1997), 0.17% of world oil consumption is consumed in
desalination. To underline how important energy is in desalination, if all the water
consumed in the world came from desalination plants (remember that it is actually
only one part in a thousand, Al-Gobaisi, 1999) the required oil would surpass the
current yearly oil consumption.
The development of renewable-driven desalination is still severely impeded (if not

stopped) by the pressure from contemporary economic factors and political inertia. If
our technology continues along the present unsustainable path, not only it is essential
to have an orderly transition in the energy used for desalination (from fossil fuels to
renewable resources) but the whole industry needs to gear itself towards enhanced
efficiency, waste minimization and less environmental impact (Menéndez, 1997). In
short, the philosophy of industrial ecology needs to be applied for desalination. The
concept of industrial ecology considers an industrial system together with its
surrounding systems. This systems view of industrial operations seeks to optimize the
total materials cycle from raw material to manufactured material, from component to
product and waste to ultimate disposal. Energy, resources and capital are the factors
that have to be optimized.
1.5 Why a MSF and power plant?

The demand for electricity increases every day in arid and warm areas where air
conditioning is used to improve living standards. A dual-purpose plant is one of the
best solutions to supply water and energy demands (although is not the most efficient
method to produce fresh water, see table 1.13). As the nuclear or coal power plants
are not very common in the Gulf Area, the more abundant fossil fuels like natural gas
or fuel oil are consumed in new co-generation plants. Solar powered desalination is
an insignificant proportion because of the costs of using renewable energy are very
dependent on the scale of the infrastructure.
Several power generation configurations can be coupled with a desalination unit:

steam turbine plants, gas turbine plants, combined cycle power plant (gas turbine,
heat recovery steam generator and steam turbine). Some desalination processes only
require electrical power (not exhaust gas or steam) and co-generation is not possible.
In those cases, desalination and power generation can be studied separately although
the way of producing electricity is the same.
This thesis aims to demonstrate the scope of Thermoeconomic Analysis when applied
to a very complex system. One of the most important configurations of dual-purpose
desalination plants is the multi-stage flash desalination unit (MSF) coupled with a
steam turbine power plant fuelled by natural gas (fuel is also available in exceptional
conditions and startups). This type of configuration is used in a plant containing the

Why a MSF and power plant?
largest single desalination units in the world, in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
MSF units provide almost 77% of all desalinated seawater and nearly 82% of that
production is from the Gulf Area (Alawadhi, 1999). MSF plants with unit capacity up
to the unit studied here are likely to dominate the scene in the Gulf countries for at
least another 10 years. The other predominant method of obtaining freshwater,
reverse osmosis (RO), is not in favor due to the high salinity and temperatures of Gulf
seawater. MSF desalination is energy intensive and inefficient especially if the steam
turbine plant does not include a reheater in the boiler. It is therefore a good example
to study from the thermodynamic point of view, following the Second Law
perspective. The conventional energy analysis methods based on the First Law of
Thermodynamics are implicitly compared here.
The reason for studying an MSF plant is not only its dominant position in the world
desalination market. In terms of energy consumption, MSF is the worst desalination
process (see table 1.13). However, from a thermodynamic point of view it offers
many more possibilities to reduce energy consumption in the process. The minimum
power requirement (or thermodynamic limit) to desalt water is consumed in rejecting
the difference of the equilibrium vapor pressure between saltwater and freshwater
(this difference depends on the process temperature). All practical processes are
non-ideal, performed by imperfect devices, and are accompanied by auxiliary non-
ideal processes. So, the minimum power requirement is higher for all desalination
processes. In RO or VC processes, the power requirement is electrical energy
produced in external power plants. Reducing the energy consumption of the process
is only possible in the desalination process. But when a thermal desalination plant
like a MSF unit is combined with a power plant, MSF technology can be oriented to
improve the thermal efficiency of vertical tube evaporators (VTE) that allow the use
of low temperature heat sources such as turbine reject steam (Sephton, 1999; Sephton
and Salomon, 1997), normally rejected to the environment (through the steam cycle
condenser). In the limit, the cooling tower of a conventional power plant can be
substituted by a low-temperature MSF unit to highly improve the efficiency of the
steam cycle. Thermoeconomic analysis connects the Second Law of Thermodynamic
and Economics and is especially recommended for these two combined processes.
This is the first time an in depth thermoeconomic study has been made of a
desalination plant, a system combining thermal and chemical processes. Interestingly
the first thermoeconomic ideas were applied to desalination processes in the sixties
and early seventies (Evans, 1962; Tribus et al., 1960; Tribus and Evans, 1963;
El-Sayed and Aplenc, 1970; El-Sayed and Evans, 1970), but were most developed in
the eighties and nineties when Thermoeconomics was applied in power plants.
Several exergy analyses of MSF plants have already been made (Hamed et al., 1999;
Darwish, Al-Najem and Al-Ahmad, 1993; Al-Sulaiman and Ismail, 1995; El-Nashar,
1993), and the optimization of thermal desalting systems has also been considered
(El-Sayed, 1996). In this Ph. D. Thesis, thermoeconomic techniques previously
applied only to power plants were successfully used for a combined power generation

Introduction
and desalination process. Chemical exergy was successfully introduced in a most

complex installation, in the global exergy balance. Furthermore, no thermodynamic
analysis has been done for a dual-purpose plant with two different products: water
and electricity. The interactions between the two processes were analyzed in this
Ph. D. Thesis. New methodologies are introduced in this complex system, allowing a
better understanding of the real relationships between the plant equipment.
1.6 Thermoeconomic analysis

A dual-purpose plant is a very complex system that is difficult to analyze, especially
when all the available configurations of both sub-systems are considered. Usually the
plants are analyzed separately, neglecting component interactions and the energy
savings possible from the combined analysis. When two different products are
obtained in a co-generation plant, it is very difficult to quantify the real cost of each
product and redistribute the costs over the rest of upstream flows inside the dual-
purpose plant by applying conventional energy analysis techniques based on the First
Law of Thermodynamics.
Thermoeconomic analysis techniques are the most convenient tools to analyze these
systems, because they can:
• Calculate the costs of the flows and products of a plant based on physical criteria
(Second Law of Thermodynamics).
• Assess alternatives for energy savings.
• Optimize operation.
• Locally optimize subsystems.
• Perform energy audits and assess fuel impact of malfunctions (operation
diagnosis)
Thermoeconomic analysis uses the First and Second law of Thermodynamics in

combination with economic data and introduces new concepts such as Fuel-Product,
productive structure, exergy savings, cost of irreversibilities, additional fuel
consumption, malfunction and others. The degradation mechanisms of the energy
quality in each component require a comprehensive approach that encompasses
resources, generation of products, specific unit consumption and cost, plant/system
malfunction, impact on fuel consumption, etc. A better understanding of the actual
plant performance increases the potential for improvements in operation and/or
design.
When applied to analyze an existing dual plant, thermoeconomic analysis requires a

validated model (simulator) of the plant to determine the thermodynamic reference
state at design conditions for any load point, ambient conditions, operating mode, etc.
Data from a dual plant in Abu Dhabi were used to adapt the models to reproduce the

Ph. D. Thesis development
states of the plant (therefore, the data obtained by the simulator are considered
measured data). As in this case, the data acquisition, processing and storage system is
not operative to be used in the thermoeconomic analysis. The simulator can obtain the
thermodynamic state of the plant when an inefficiency is detected or estimated.
1.7 Ph. D. Thesis development

The structure of the Ph. D. Thesis is summarized as follows. First, world water
resources and demand are reviewed, especially for the Gulf area. Water quality and
uses are also included to inform the non-specialist readers. A brief description is then
made of the most important desalination methods (Chapter 2). When the desalination
unit follows a thermal principle it is usually coupled with a power generation plant.
In Chapters 3 and 4 the mathematical models applied to the power and desalination
plant are developed. The results are compared and readapted with operational data
from the data acquisition system of the plant. The mathematical model was validated
as a tool that widely reproduces the real state of the plant under different operating
conditions, as if the results were real plant data. An interactive steady-state simulator
was made that can be used on a personal computer to help obtain output data.
The simulator (Chapter 5) supplied the main part of this Ph. D. Thesis: the complete
thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant (Chapter 7).
After explaining the fundamental concepts of Thermoeconomics (Chapter 6), the first
step was to build the thermoeconomic model. The most convenient productive
structure was chosen for the power and desalination plant. The thermodynamic
operation and economic costs of every flowstream of the plant were calculated and
analyzed. Those costs allow cost assessment of the plant products based on physical
criteria. Then, the thermoeconomic diagnosis was applied. The steady-state diagnosis
of the dual-purpose plant helped us obtain a more cost-effective operation and a better
understanding of plant performance. The mathematical model was applied for a given
operating condition characterized by operational data (previously validated and
processed) to quantitatively analyze the following steps:
• Comparison with a reference case (target) with the same operating conditions.
• Identification of inefficiencies, and the performance degradation of sub-systems
or components. These inefficiencies were simulated.
• Evaluation of the causes of cost generation and component inefficiencies.
• Assessment of the extra-operating cost due to malfunctions with respect to the
most feasible operation and the cost impact of appropriate maintenance actions.
The previous cost analysis is therefore essential to perform the diagnosis of the
system.

Introduction
• Operation recommendations for the plant managers, taking into account the
experience from the analysis (assessment of alternatives).
A new method is introduced to develop the thermoeconomic diagnosis, including the

matrix formulation and some new concepts like induced and intrinsic malfunction,
and dysfunction.
Once the diagnosis was completed, a global optimization of the plant was performed
from locally optimizing the system units. The local optimization of a unit consists in
finding the minimum cost of the product of each component. The thermoeconomic
model was also used in this process.
Finally, the idea of maximum benefit in water and electricity production was
analyzed using practical examples. The contribution of the price policy applied in the
final benefit is considered by separating the methods of assessing product price and
cost.
The last chapter (Chapter 8) contains the conclusions of the Ph. D. Thesis and future
lines of research.

CHAPTER 2
Desalination processes
In chapter 1, the great problem of water scarcity and desalination as the way to solve
it is remarked. Desalination is the process that convert brackish or seawater in water
for human consumption, there are several processes technologically developed
providing water in arid areas.
This chapter includes a general review of desalination methods, in order to have an

overall perspective of the state of the art in desalination technology. The importance
of the MSF with respect to the other methods is also argued in this chapter.
The most reliable techniques of seawater desalination are rated into three categories
depending on the principle applied:
• Processes involving a change of phase: Freezing or distillation.
• Processes using membranes: Reverse osmosis or electrodialysis.
• Processes acting on chemical bonds: Ion exchange.
Among the processes above, distillation and reverse osmosis processes show high
performances in seawater desalination; thus they are the most marketable in the
world. Next, we develop the following processes in detail:
• Multi-Stage Flash (MSF).
• Multi-Effect Distillation (MED).
• Reverse Osmosis (RO).
• Vapor Compression (VC).
We also mentioned the other techniques, which have not been developed in the field
of desalination due to problems generally, related to energy consumption and/or to the
high investments required. These techniques are:

• Solar Distillation.
• Freezing.
• Electrodialysis.
• Ion Exchange.
2.1 Phase change processes: distillation and freezing

More than 85% of the world’s desalted water is obtained by distillation. Desalination
by distillation involves boiling water seawater to release water vapor and dissolved
gasses, leaving behind the salts (which are only volatile above 300 ºC). Pure water is
collected by condensing the vapor inside or on the outside of tubes which may be
arranged horizontally or vertically depending on the installation. Every distillation
system must also be ventilated to extract air and non-condensable gases in the
seawater, and a vacuum pump or steam ejector is required when the evaporator-
condenser system is at lower than atmospheric pressure.
2.1.1 Multi-stage flash process (MSF)

Multi-Stage Flash is the most widely used evaporation process (Wangnick, 1998).
It is especially common wherever the temperature, salt content, biological activity or
pollution level of raw water is high, as in the Middle East. MSF also be used if the
desalination plant is coupled to a power station or if waste heat is present (e.g. from
gas turbine effluents). In general, MSF plants are more common because they are
simple and robust, although their specific consumption may be higher than other
methods (12-24 kWh/m3).
Flash evaporation takes place when a fluid is heated to a certain temperature and
evaporates both above and below the atmospheric pressure: under gradual decreasing
pressure, flashing by pressure reduction is called flash evaporation. In multi-stage
flash plants seawater (pumped through heat exchanger tubes installed in the various
evaporator stages) is heated to a certain temperature. Final heating is performed by
steam in a final heater. The hot seawater then goes into flash chambers where the
pressure is maintained below the equilibrium pressure corresponding to the
temperature at which the brine enters. Part of the brine flashes into vapor and after
passing a demister, it condenses outside the tubes while heating the seawater flowing
through the tubes. The multi-flash distillation unit contains cells assembled in series,
at a different pressure. The water produced in each stage is collected in a trough
mounted below the tube bundle which collects the fresh water end product. These
widely used units perform recycle brine (50% to 70% of the brine quantity within the
last stage is collected and discharged through the seawater feeding pipe of the unit) in
order to reduce the quantity of the make-up seawater needed to produce fresh water.
The concentrated seawater is also removed from the last stage by a pump or by
gravity. Figure 2.1 shows a general scheme of a conventional MSF unit.

Phase change processes: distillation and freezing
FIGURE 2.1 General outlay of MSF distillation with brine recycling.

Seawater with 40,000 to 50,000 ppm dissolved solids is converted into distillate and
fresh water with a few ppm of solids. An MSF type plant operates between two
temperatures: the top brine temperature (brine heater outlet temperature, or TBT) and
the last stage temperature. The top brine temperature depends on:
a) Available steam quality.

b) Scale prevention technique.
c) Brine concentration and nature of dissolved salts
The last stage temperature depends on:
a) Cooling water inlet temperature.

b) Absolute pressure maintained in the last stage by the ejector system.
In practice, MSF plants are designed for various gain outputs ratios (GOR, tons of
fresh water produced per tons of steam supplied to the brine heater). In practice, a
G.O.R of 12:1 being the upper limit. Obviously, the production rate is a direct
function of the flashing brine flow and the flash range (brine top temperature-last
stage temperature). Also, in theory, the actual number of stages is not important for a
given ratio.
However, the number of stages determines the total exchange area required for heat
recuperation. More stages will decrease the total exchange area required thereby
limiting the maximum number of stages per plant. In practice, however, stage number
increases at increasing gain ratios but also depends on the plant’s capacity. The
number of stages is generally about 20 and sized to keep the temperature difference
constant between stages (the temperature difference is estimated to be about 3 ºC).
2.1.2 Multi-effect distillation (MED)

Contrary to MSF, in Multi-Effect Distillation (MED) evaporation takes place on
surfaces, by exchanging the latent heat through the heat transfer surface between
condensing vapor on one side and evaporating brine on the other. The MED plant
also has several stages, each with a heat exchanger tube bundle (see fig. 2.2).
Seawater is sprayed onto the tubes and the condensing heating steam inside the
tubes evaporates part of the seawater on the outside. The steam produced is used as
heating steam in the next stage, where it condenses inside the tubes. The condensate
is the water product. Obviously the boiling temperatures (and pressures) in the
different evaporators cannot be the same. The specific consumption depends on the
steam conditions supplied to the first stage, but is usually lower than in MSF
(10-15 kWh/m3).

FIGURE 2.2 Flow diagram of Multi-Effect Distillation (MED) with thermal vapor compression (TVC).

FIGURE 2.3 MED process with vertical tube evaporators (VTE).

The first stage is heated by external steam from a heat recovery system or a
back-pressure steam turbine. But in most cases, MED plants are equipped with
thermal vapor compressors for better efficiency. A steam ejector driven by medium-
pressure steam removes a part of the steam produced in the last stage and compresses
it to use as the heating steam. The steam produced in the last stage is condensed on
the outside of exchanger tubes in a separate condenser, which is cooled by incoming
seawater. Part of the heated seawater is then used as feedwater. Product water and
concentrated seawater are then pumped out from the last stage of the evaporator.
Most MED plants have horizontal evaporators. Vertical tube evaporators (VTE) are
also available: In vertical tube evaporation, salt water falls in a thin film through
vertical tubes in a large chamber (figure 2.3). As it falls, it is heated by steam that
condenses on the outer surface of the tubes. This heat exchange converts some of the
salt water in the tubes into steam and some of the steam around the tubes into fresh
water (condensate).
Steam generated inside the tubes in the first chamber flows to the second chamber,
and condenses on the tubes there. The process is repeated in several chambers and is
sometimes called “multiple-effect falling-film” distillation, because each bundle of
tubes is an “effect”, and because a thin film of water falls down the inside surface of
the tubes. Vertical tube evaporators are most cost-effective in large plants requiring
high efficiency. They have an improvement over older systems since less heat transfer
surface is required and the water need only be circulated once.
2.1.3 Vapor compression (VC)

Thermocompression (TVC) or vapor compression distillation (VC) involves boiling a
liquid (seawater in this case) on one side of the heat transfer surface, and directing the
compressed vapor to the other side of the heat transfer surface to be condensed (see
flow diagram, figure 2.4).
In the specific design described here as an example, a single-stage VTE type seawater
is boiled inside a bank of enhanced surface tubes. The generated vapor then passes
through a mist separator to remove any entrained salt-water droplets. In a vertical
tube evaporator, the pure vapor enters the compressor at 101,5 ºC and 1 psig for a
compressed steam temperature of 106 ºC and 3.6 psig (the pressure is therefore
increased 0.18 bar). The compressor is a centrifugal, single-stage type designed for
high-volumetric flows. This higher-energy compressed steam is discharged into the
evaporator onto the outside of the enhanced surface tubes, where it condenses and
provide its latent heat energy to the boiling seawater inside the tubes.
Note that the process is very efficient thermodynamically, because most of the shaft
work required by the compressor is used to avoid the boiling point elevation of
seaweater (BPE). Additional vapor is generated and the process continues. The
vapor, which condenses on the outside of the tubes, is collected, and drawn off by

the distillate pump and pumped through a three-stream heat exchanger. The excess
feed water, called blowdown, which is concentrated, is also pumped through the
same heat exchanger. The distillate and blowdown are cooled therein while
preheating the incoming feedwater. This heat exchanger helps to minimize energy
consumption of the system, in a VC system the specific electric consumption is
lower than 10 kWh/m3.
FIGURE 2.4 Flow diagram of a vapor compression system with vertical tube evaporators (VTE).

Distilled water is made by condensing above atmospheric pressure at 106 ºC. A small
amount of make-up heat is required for continuous operation to replace the heat lost
to radiation and venting and the portion not reclaimed in the three-stream heat
exchanger. Electric immersion heaters, a steam coil, or heat recovery exchangers to
recover waste heat from engine jacket water or exhaust gas when available can
provide this make-up heat. The distillate must be sterilized to meet Health Service
requirements and may also be chlorinated for storage purposes.
2.1.4 Solar distillation

Solar stills use can be an ideal source of fresh water for drinking and agriculture in
arid, isolated zones. Solar energy has a definite advantage over fossil energy, for
small stand-alone units in rural and isolated areas (India). However, solar distillation
is not widely used since installation costs are high and only a few liters can be
produced per day, per square meter of pan area in the stills. Of course any economic
or energetic comparison should not be considered.
Several different configurations can be used to recycle the recuperated heat from the
vapor condensation in solar stills. But we will only consider the conventional solar
still (figure 2.5). The sun heats salt water in a black pan covered with a sloping glass
roof. Water vapor rises to the glass where it condenses, forming a film which runs off
into a collecting trough and is stored. The water does not boil but vaporizes slowly
through a layer of water-saturated air and reaches the cooler glass by convection. The
rate of evaporation is primarily controlled by the intensity of the incoming solar
radiation which creates both temperature and water vapor concentration differences
between the water and glass surface. Additional solar radiation can be obtained using
lenses, mirrors and other focusing devices, but also heat losses increase when the
temperature inside the solar still change. Finally, wind velocity has a negative effect
on the cooling of the heating surface.
The principle of the thermal energy extraction from a solar pond or other methods
could be used as the energy source for seawater desalination processes. For example,
the use of parabolic trough collectors (PTC) could make competitive the use of solar
energy for desalination processes (MSF, García and Gómez, 1999; MED, García,
Palmero and Gómez, 1999), depending on conventional energy costs, the solar
collectors cost and the climatic conditions that determine the attainable fresh water
production per m2 of solar collector (the PTC collectors provide on average 10 m3 of
fresh water per m2 of solar collector), and the solar fraction SF that determines the
percentage of the day in which the desalination plant consumes solar energy.

FIGURE 2.5 Diagram model of a solar still.
Glass
Solar energy
Condensed vapor
Vapor
Salt water
Insulation
Distilled water Distilled water
2.1.5 Freezing process

This process, also based on phase change, is independent of the water salt content.
Seawater is cooled and the ice is collected (ice crystals are essentially salt free). Ice
formation is analogous to distillation in this respect since salt-free vapor is produced
while the liquid may have a high salt concentration. The ice is melted to obtain fresh
water (the fusion temperature is less than that of salts contained in the ice).
The freezing process is different from distillation since the latter is carried out well
above ambient temperature and the equipment is designed for minimal heat losses.
In freezing methods, the system must be protected against heat gains or cold losses,
and ice needs to be transported and purified, which is somewhat more complex than
handling fluids alone. Although the low operating temperature of freezing processes
greatly reduces scale and corrosion problems, refrigeration technology may be
adapted. So that water is the first or secondary refrigerant. This secondary refrigerant
system could be mixed or separated from water by a heat transfer surface.
Freezing methods are not widely used in the desalination industry, and to calculate
their power consumption, we still have to rely on experiments in relatively small and
medium-sized plants and extrapolation to larger plants.

Processes using membranes
2.2 Processes using membranes
2.2.1 Reverse osmosis

Osmosis is a physical process which occurs naturally in animals and plants
(figure 2.6). Osmotic pressure is measured using a recipient divided into 2
compartments by a semi-impermeable membrane. Saline solution is poured into one
half and freshwater into the other. Part of the fresh water will flow through the
membrane into the saline solution. The excess height at the saline solution over the
fresh water is a measure of the osmotic pressure of the solution.
If external pressure greater than osmotic pressure is applied to the saline solution, the
water will flow through the membrane in the other direction, leaving behind a more
highly concentrated salt solution. This process is called reverse osmosis (RO). The
osmotic pressure of a solution is directly proportional to the solute concentration, and
the permeated water flow is proportional to the difference between the applied
pressure and the osmotic pressure of the concentrated solution.
RO can be used to demineralize brackish water with 1-10 gr/l salinity. It is also used
for seawater desalination and has lower energy consumption, investment cost, space
requirements and maintenance than other processes. However, RO seawater plants in
the Gulf Area need an intensive water pre-treatment process with a lower product
quality, and are not often used.
In RO desalination (figure 2.7) seawater is pretreated to avoid membrane fouling.

It then passes through filter cartridges (a safety device) and is sent by a high-pressure
pump through the membrane modules (permeators). Because of the high pressure,
pure water permeates through the membranes and the seawater is concentrated. The
water product flows directly from the permeators into a storage tank, and the
concentrated seawater (at high pressure) is sent via an energy recovery system back
into the sea. The four main parts of the RO installation are:
Preliminary treatment unit
The treatment has the following steps:

• Chlorination: To reduce bacteriological and organic loads found in raw water.
• Filtration on a sand bed: To reduce raw water turbidity.
• Acidification: Acid is added to clarified raw water to lower its pH and limit the
formation of calcareous deposits.
• Inhibition by polyphosphates: Polyphosphates delay the formation of precipitates
such as calcium and barium sulfate.
• Dechlorination: To remove the residual chlorine from the pre-treatment.

FIGURE 2.6 Reverse osmosis process.

Processes using membranes
FIGURE 2.7 Reverse osmosis (RO) desalination with Pelton turbine.

• Cartridge filtering: To catch the particles obtained by oxidation of dissolved ions

(Fe++) in raw water.
Note that distillation methods only need a light chlorination process and some scale
inhibitors (addition of polyphosphates). Sometimes acid is added to prevent the
scaling problem.
High-pressure pumping system

This stage is the least problematic and normally involves centrifugal pumps.
RO modules
The main modules used for RO seawater desalination are made out of hollow fibers
and spiral fibers provided by several manufacturers. The spiral-wound and hollow
fiber designs were developed to contain the high-pressure fluid in the lowest possible
volume for a given membrane surface.
In spiral-wound elements membranes and backing are wound similar to a jelly roll
around a central perforated tube which collects the product. Saline water flows
through separate channels in one direction; the membrane elements are typically
30-120 cm long and 10-30 cm in diameter. They can be mounted in series with anti-
telescoping devices between adjacent elements to form modules. Separate modules
can readily be connected in series or in parallel.
The hollow fiber units have a very large number of hollow fibers, thinner than human
air, with their ends potted in epoxy resin, are held in a pressure vessel. Pressurized
saline water circulates on the outside of the fibers while the hyperfiltrate flows within
the fibers toward the open ends of the fibers held in position by the epoxy resin.
Desalted water emerging from millions of open fiber ends is collected there. The
hollow fibers are made by methods similar to those developed in the textile fiber
industry. These units pack more membrane surface per unit volume than spiral-
wound unit and are extensively used for seawater RO.
The brine energy recovery system

In the last years, investigators have tried to reduce the energy requirements
(6-8 kWh/m3) of RO seawater desalination using two main devices:
• Pelton turbines: The high-pressure concentrate from membranes pushes on the
Pelton blades to provoke a pair in a common shaft. Energy recovery for RO plants
results in energy savings of 40% (Calder, 1999).
• Pressure exchangers (PE): The PE unit uses the principle of positive
displacement to pressurize low-pressure raw seawater by direct contact with the
concentrate stream from a seawater membrane system. A cylindrical rotor with
longitudinal ducts parallel to its rotational axis is used to transfer the pressure

Processes acting on chemical bounds
energy from the concentrate stream to the feed stream. The energy recovery with
PE is in the range of 50-65% (Hauge and Ludvigsen, 1999).
2.2.2 Electrodialysis (ED)

This process is used to demineralize brackish water by making different ions
migrate through selective membranes in electric field made by the dirct difference of
voltage potential between two electrodes connected at the boundaries of the
membranes.
Whenever salt water is flowing in a cell, the cations are attracted by the anode and the
anions by the cathode. If not constrained, these ions discharge on the electrodes of
opposite sign. In return, if a set of selective and permeable membranes is placed
between the electrodes, salt concentration decreases in some compartments of the cell
where water is desalinated, while this concentration increases in the other
compartments where salt water becomes even more concentrated. This process
(shown in fig. 2.8) is suitable for desalinating brackish waters with an average salt
content between 1 to 3 g/l with a very low power consumption (about 1 kWh/m3) and
a salt rejection of 75% (data obtained from De Armas, Torrent and Von Gottberg,
1999). Above this it becomes more costly than competitive processes (its energy
consumption for seawater desalination is much higher).
2.3 Processes acting on chemical bounds
2.3.1 Ion exchange

Ion-exchanging resins are insoluble substances. In contact with a solution, they
exchange some ions with the dissolved salt.
Two types of resins can be used: anionic resins that substitute water anions by
OH-- ions (hydroxil permutation); and cationic resins substitute cations by H+ ions
(acidic permutation).
Ion exchange demineralization provides high purity water if the salt concentration
does not exceed 1 g/l. It is often used for water preparation of boilers from water of
streams or aquifers, characterized by their low salt content, and for softening water
with excessive calcium and magnesium. Resins must be regenerated regularly with
chemical reagents to substitute its original ions and those fixed by the resin.
The resins and chemicals must be substituted regularly, which raises the cost and
makes it unpractical for seawater desalination.

FIGURE 2.8 Electrodialysis process.

Summary
2.4 Summary
A general review of desalination technology has been written in this chapter. The
review includes the principle of operation, description of the necessary installation,
advantages/disadvantages, characteristic parameters (including specific consumption)
and application range of each desalination method that is now available in
desalination market.
MSF is not only the most dominant process in desalination. It offers the possibility to
be connected to several heat sources: steam turbines, gas turbines, solar storage,
combined cycles. So, it allows applying techniques oriented to produce the MSF
product with the lowest cost. This Ph. D. Thesis develops one of those techniques,
based on 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

CHAPTER 3
MSF desalination
steady-state model
The daily world production of drinkable water from Multi-Stage Flash plants (MSF)
far exceeds that of other desalination methods. This is particularly the case where
power generation is linked to water production to use the process steam.
In this chapter I will describe a mathematical model used in the SIMTAW program, to
simulate a MSF plant under different operating conditions.
MSF plant design data were included in the mathematical model, which is not
oriented for design analysis. Several operating variables can be modified by the user
to observe changes in plant behavior, such as consumed steam, inlet water
temperature, water mass flow rates, TBT value, fouling factors and more variables
explained below. The inverse calculation procedure option can evaluate the fouling
factor of the stages instead of the distillate temperature profile.
This model provides information to perform the exergy and thermoeconomic analysis
of the whole dual-purpose plant, i.e. power generation plant and MSF plant, in order
to analyze plant efficiency and cost savings.
The structure of this section is as follows:

• First, brief descriptions of the physical processes in a MSF plant.
• Second, an explanation of the mathematical model, including the equations used
to solve the model.
• Third, a description of the solution algorithm of the system of model equations.
• Finally an explanation of the simulation options and the design data.

MSF desalination steady-state model
3.1 Process description

Many multi-stage flash plant arrangements and operational techniques are available.
Each evaporator is usually described by defining the three main plant characteristics:
the flashing flow system, the chemical treatment and the tube configuration. The MSF
Plant studied here is a brine recirculation flow, high-temperature (HT) antiscale
treatment, and cross tube configuration, the most typical of the MSF plant types. It
has six 20-stage condensing lines which deliver up to 14,400 m3/h of water with a
steam turbine cycle to provide electrical power.
The plant has a single effect MSF evaporator with recycled brine (see figure 3.1).
Recycled brine plants contain three main sections from left to right: the ‘heat input
section’ (or brine heater), the ‘heat recovery section’, and the ‘heat rejection section’.
The recovery and rejection sections both have a series of stages. Each stage has a
flash chamber and a heat exchanger/condenser, where vapor (flashed off in the flash
chamber) is condensed. The flash chamber is separated from the condenser by a
demister, where entrained brine droplets are removed from the flashing vapor, and a
distillate trough catches the condensate from the condenser above.
FIGURE 3.1 Schematic diagram of a single effect MSF evaporator with recycled brine.
A brief description of the MSF desalination flow process follows (see figure 3.1). The
plant feed, SR, is allowed to pass through the heat rejection section, which rejects the
excess thermal energy from the plant and cools the product and brine to the lowest
possible temperature when it comes from the last recovery section stage.
At the output of the first (warmest) rejection stage the feed stream splits into two parts,
reject seawater CW (which is returned back to the sea) and a make up stream F (which
is then combined with the recycle stream). The combined stream R passes through the
heat exchangers of the recovery section, where its temperature increases as it proceeds
towards the heat input section of the plant. In the brine heater, the brine temperature is
raised from TF,1 to a maximum value TB,o (=Top Brine Temperature TBT)

Process description
approximately equal to the saturation temperature at the system pressure. If the

seawater temperature is lower than 25 ºC, the temper system takes part of the cooling
reject seawater, so that the distiller feed temperature is at least the above mentioned
temperature.
The brine then enters the first heat recovery stage where it is flashed by reducing the
pressure in a throttling valve. As the brine was already at its saturation temperature
for a higher pressure, superheated water vapor is generated in the throttling process.
This vapor passes through a wire mesh (demister), to remove any entrained brine
droplets before condensing onto a heat exchanger where cold brine passes through
and recovers the latent heat (as shown in figure 3.2). The condensed vapor drips onto
a distillate tray.
The process is repeated all the way down the plant as both brine and distillate enter
the next stage at a lower pressure. The concentrated brine is divided into two parts as
it leaves the plant, the blowdown BD, which is pumped back to the sea, and a recycle
stream R, which returns to the recovery section.
From a mathematical point of view, the once-through design (with no reject section),
and the recycle design can be represented by the same model if the zero value is set to
the mass flow rates of the recycle R and the reject seawater CW streams.
Furthermore, there is no distinction between heat recovery and heat rejection sections
in the once-through plant.
FIGURE 3.2 Cross-section of a stage in a typical MSF plant.
Roof
Vapor
Tube bundle Demister
Distillated
Flashing brine Flash box
For the recycled brine plants, the mass flow rates of the recycled brine and cooling
water loops are typically 10 times greater than the distillate production rate. The latter
is, in turn, approximately an order of magnitude greater than the steam supply mass
flow rate.

MSF plant operation can be better analyzed by temperature profiles and sorting out
the main parameters. The temperature profiles of a recycled brine plant are illustrated
in figure 3.3. The first obvious parameter is the temperature range, ∆T, which is the
difference between the top temperature (TB,o) of the incoming feed and cooling
water, i.e. seawater, Tsea. Another important parameter is the temperature rise in the
brine heater, (= TB,o – TF,1).
FIGURE 3.3 Temperature profile of a recycle brine MSF plant.
Brine
heater Heat recovery
TS TBo
Heat rejection
TF1
Brine recirculation
Blowdown + distillate
Flashing brine Make-up
Distillate Cooling Feedwater Tsea
reject
A non-uniform temperature difference is assumed over the entire flash range, but this
does not imply a different design for each stage. This means that the interstage
temperature differences will vary slightly down the plant and may vary significantly
between stages of different designs. Specifically, the interstage temperature
differences in the recovery and reject sections may differ considerably.
The total temperature drop in each stage may have a number of causes, including:
a) Interstage temperature difference (δT): the drop temperature of all fluids at each
stage. As a first assumption, all the fluids of an MSF plant have the same
interstage temperature difference.
b) Condenser terminal difference (δTC): the temperature difference between the

recycled brine flow being heated inside the evaporator tubes (being heated) and
the flashed vapor temperature at each stage. This value strongly depends on the
heat exchanger type (design, material, fouling effect, etc.). A high heat transfer
coefficient value means a lower δTC value.
c) Demister pressure losses (δTP): the frictional pressure loss when the vapor is
passed through the demister, to remove any entrained brine droplets, results in a
further decrease in saturation temperature. The resulting saturation temperature
drop can be estimated either using the Clausius-Clayperon relationship or the
steam tables.

Mathematical model of MSF unit
d) Condenser pressure losses: vapor undergoes a frictional pressure loss in the

condenser tube bundle as when passing through the demisters.
e) Boiling point elevation (BPE): Non-volatile solutes (i.e. sodium chloride)
dissolved in water, raise its boiling point. The size of this raise may be predicted
by considering the equilibrium between the solution and the water vapor, whose
value is a function of the brine temperature and salinity. The BPE value is most
often less than 1 ºC.
f) Non equilibrium allowance (NEA): When the flashing brine stream enters a
stage, it undergoes a pressure reduction. If this brine had an infinite residence
time in the stage, the whole lot would cool down to the saturation temperature
corresponding to the flash chamber pressure and a maximum amount of distillate
would flashed off.
The energy consumption of an MSF plant is usually expressed in terms of the
performance ratio PR, sometimes also called Gained Output Ratio, GOR defined
previously. PR is commonly defined as kg of distillate per kg of dry saturated heating
steam condensed in the brine heater without condensate subcooling. MSF plants
normally have a PR value of 8 in the nominal case. The cleaning ball system is not
normally installed in MSF plants but helps to avoid fouling in heat exchanger tubes,
so the PR is also increased.
Another measure of the energy consumption in MSF plants is sometimes expressed
as the energy input to the brine heater per unit mass of distillate produced, often
called the specific energy consumption (NC). This can be converted into a
performance ratio, as defined above, by providing the steam condensing temperature
in the brine heater.
A large flash range as possible is desirable. Since the performance ratio improves as
flash range increases, either for a fixed performance ratio (the operational efficiency
increases due to a reduction in the required heat transfer surface area) or for a
constant surface area. The recycled ratio is also reduced as the flash range increases,
which results in a larger temperature rise in the heat input section for a fixed heat
input, and a larger logarithmic mean temperature differences in the recovery section,
with the corresponding reduction in the required heat transfer surface area.
Seawater temperature limits the lowest temperature value in the plant. The only way
to increase flash range is by raising the top temperature. This is limited by the onset
of calcium sulphate scaling, and the increasing costs of additional stages.
3.2 Mathematical model of MSF unit

Several models of a single effect MSF plant are available (Barba, Liuzzo and
Tagliaferri, 1973; Darwish and Arazzini, 1989; Itahara and Stiel, 1968; Beamer and
Wilde, 1971; Coleman, 1971; Al Owais, Nijhawan and Budhijara, 1989; Helal,

Medani and Soliman, 1986; Al-Mutaz, 1989; Alhumaizi, 1997; Hayakawa, Satori and
Konishi, 1973; Glueck and Bradshaw, 1970; Rautenbach and Buchel, 1979; Husain et
al., 1993; Husain et al., 1994; Falcetta and Sciuba, 1997). In the SIMTAW model
presented here, the energy and mass balances are applied to each stage of the MSF
plant and guidelines and nomenclature following Helal et al. (1986), although all of it
with significant modifications.
Apart from assumptions considered in the next two sections, the following
assumptions were introduced in the SIMTAW model:
a) The product leaving any stage is salt free (distillate concentration = 0 ppm). No
mist is entrained with the flashing vapor.
b) No subcooling of condensate leaving the brine heater is considered. Furthermore,
inlet steam to the brine heater is assumed to be saturated vapor, even though it
can be slightly superheated, i.e., desuperheater model in the brine heater was not
considered.
c) There is no interstage model in SIMTAW. So, the effect of the flashing brine level
per stage is not taken into account.
Hence the mathematical equations —i.e., mass, energy and heat transfer equations—
for a single stage (figure 3.4) and brine heater model (figure 3.5) are basically as
follows:
3.2.1 Stage model

Referring to figure 3.4, the following equations can be written for stage number j at
steady state.
FIGURE 3.4 A general stage in a MSF plant.
R R
TF,j TF,j+1
CR CR
Cooling brine
Dj–1 Dj
TD,j–1 Distillate TD,j
Bj–1 Flashing brine Bj, flow rate

TB,j–1 TB,j, temperature
CB,j–1 CB,j, concentration
jth Stage

Enthalpy balance on flashing brine:
Bj–1 Hbj–1 = Bj Hbj + (Bj–1 – Bj) Hvj (3.1)
where Bj is the flashing brine flowstream in jth flash chamber (stage j), Hbj is the
flashing brine enthalpy, which is a function of temperature and concentration. This
property is calculated as a saturated liquid, Hvj is the saturated vapor enthalpy of
water in jth stage.
Total material balance (water + salt):
Bj–1 + Dj–1 = Bj + Dj (3.2)
where Dj is the distillate in the jth stage.
Salt balance:
Bj–1 CB,j–1 = Bj CB,j (3.3)
where CB,j is the salt concentration in the jth stage.
Overall enthalpy balance:
R CPR,j (TF,j – TF,j+1) = Dj CPD,j–1 (TD,j–1 – T*)
+ Bj–1 CPB,j–1 (TB,j–1 – T*) – Dj CPD,j (TD,j – T*)
– Bj CPB,j (TB,j – T*) (3.4)
where R is the recycled brine mass flow rate. In the Recovery Section, R depends on
the required distillate and seawater temperature, but in the Reject Section the value
corresponds to feed water supply (SR). CPR,j is the heat capacity of cooling brine,
passing through the heat exchanger tubes, this property is a function of temperature
and concentration. Although cooling brine is under high pressure, (to allow
circulation inside the tubes), this property is calculated as if cooling brine were
saturated liquid. CPD,j is the heat capacity of distillate, in this case, it is considered to
be saturated liquid water; CPB,j is the heat capacity of flashing brine, which is
assumed to be saturated liquid at flash chamber pressure in each stage. This property
is calculated in a similar way to the cooling brine. T* is the temperature reference
(273.15 K); TF,j is the cooling brine temperature in the jth stage; TD,j is the distillate
temperature in the jth stage, and TB.j is the flashing brine temperature in the jth stage.

Heat transfer equation (condenser):
T D, j – T F, j + 1  Uj ⋅ Aj 
---------------------------------- = exp  -----------------------  (3.5)
T D, j – T F, j  R ⋅ CP R, j 
where Aj is the total evaporator/condenser heat exchange area; Uj is the overall heat
transfer coefficient of the evaporator in each stage. Its value depends on the various
heat transfer resistance in the plant. The overall heat transfer coefficient is then:
1
U j = ---------------------------------------------- (3.6)
R bi + R w + R c + R f
where Rbi is the inside tube heat transfer resistance, given by
1 OD
R bi = ------- ⋅ --------- (3.7)
h bi ID
where OD and ID are the outside and inside tube diameters respectively and hi is the
convective heat transfer coefficient for fully-developed turbulent flow inside a tube.
Assuming a small temperature difference between the wall surface and the bulk of the
fluid,
k 0.8 0.4
h bi = E ⋅ 0.023 ------ ⋅ Re Pr (3.8)
ID
where E is the ‘Enhancement factor’ (for smooth tubes this is 1.0, but is much greater
for enhanced tubes); Re is the Reynolds number of the tube flow, Pr is the Prandtl
number of the tube flow.
Rw is the tube wall resistance, given by
t ⋅ OD
R w = ------------------- (3.9)
k w ⋅ d lm
where dlm is the logarithmic mean diameter of the tube, defined as:
OD – ID
d lm = --------------------- (3.10)
OD
ln ---------
ID
kw is the thermal conductivity of the wall and t is the wall thickness. Note that the
tube wall resistance can be reduced, by either reducing the wall thickness or
increasing the thermal conductivity of the wall.

Rc is the resistance from the condensate film on the vapor-side, given by
1
R c = ----- (3.11)
hc
where hc is the condensing film heat transfer coefficient obtained from the well-
known Nusselt equation:
3 2 0.25
 k ρ g λ fg 
h c = 0.729  --------------------------------- (3.12)
 n µ OD ∆T fm
where k is the condensate thermal conductivity; ρ is the condensate density; λfg is the
latent heat of evaporation; n represents the number of tubes in a vertical row; µ refers
to the condensate viscosity; ∆Tfm is the temperature difference across the film
(=Ts --Tw) where Ts and Tw are the saturated vapor and outside wall temperatures; g is
the acceleration due to gravity.
The condensate properties are usually evaluated at the film temperature Tfm given by
Tfm = Ts – 0.5 (Ts – Tw) (3.13)
Rf is the overall fouling resistance, which includes the inside and outside fouling
resistance and the non-condensable gas resistance. It is usually provided by the heat
exchanger designer and depends on the material and acid treatment applied to both
sides of the tube walls and the cleaning ball system.
Distillate and flashing brine temperatures correlation:
T B, j = T D, j + BPE + NEA + PL (3.14)
where BPE is the boiling point elevation of brine with respect to pure water. As
explained below, it is a function of brine temperature and concentration; NEA
represents the non equilibrium allowance, which is the temperature drop due to the
non infinite residence time of flashing brine in the flash chamber. PL refers to the
pressure losses and includes demister and condenser pressure losses.

3.2.2 Brine Heater Model

Brine heater performance (figure 3.5) can be described by the following equations:
FIGURE 3.5 Heat input section.
Heat recovery section
Saturated steam R
TF,1
m ST CR
Brine heater T
S Stage 1
Saturated liquid
Bo
TB,o
CB,o
Mass and salt balance (brine):
B 0 = R , and C B, o = C R (3.15)
where Bo is the mass flow in the Brine Heater outlet; CB,o is the salt concentration in
the Brine Heater outlet; CR is the salt concentration in recovery section.
Overall enthalpy balance:
R CP H ( T B,o – T F, 1 ) = m ST λ ST (3.16)
where TB,o is the brine temperature in the Brine Heater outlet; CPH is the mean heat
capacity of brine flowing inside the brine heater; mST is the steam mass flow rate to
the brine heater leaving the power generation plant; λST is the latent heat of steam to
the brine heater.
Heat transfer equation in the brine heater evaporator:
T S – T F, 1 U H ⋅ A H 
----------------------- = exp --------------------  (3.17)
T S – T B, o  R ⋅ CP H 
where AH is the total heat exchange area of the brine heater; UH is the overall heat
transfer coefficient of the brine heater. It contains the same terms (explained in
section 3.2.1), as the overall heat transfer coefficient of the evaporator in the jth stage;
TS is the saturation temperature of the vapor entering to the brine heater.

3.2.3 Mixer and splitter model

This model takes into account the MSF Plant configuration and the model proposed
by Helal et al. (1986). In the SIMTAW model the mixing process is considered after
the last stage of the reject section. As a result this last stage is considered another
distillation stage with exactly the same model as the other MSF stages. For this
reason, the SIMTAW model contains an explicit mixer and splitter model, completely
separate from the desalination stages (see figure 3.6) which can be modeled with the
equations below. Note that even though it does not exactly reflect the real physical
conditions in the plant, the results are accurate enough.
Mass balance (salt + water) on mixer:
( B N – BD ) C B, N + F C F = R C R (3.18)
where BN is the flashing brine flow in the last stage of the reject section; BD is the
blowdown mass flow rate.
FIGURE 3.6 Mixing and splitting points in the MSF desalination plant.
18 19 20 SR
Seawater inlet
D, Distillate
F, Make-up
Rejection section
Deareator
R, Recycle brine
CW
BD Reject seawater
Blowdown
Mass balance on mixer:
R = F + BN – BD (3.19)
Enthalpy balance on mixer:
R · HbR = (BN – BD) HbN + F · HbDR (3.20)
where HbN, HbR, HbDR are respectively the enthalpy of brine leaving the reject
section, recycle stream and deaerator.

Mass balance on reject seawater splitter:
CW = SR – F (3.21)
where SR is the inlet seawater into the reject section. The temper water is neglected
here.
3.3 Auxiliary equations
Correlations of various properties used to solve the MSF SIMTAW model are
included in this section. Most of thermodynamic and transport properties of pure
water and steam are calculated with the same correlations used in the steam power
plant model, described in Chapter 4. Correlations for calculating the brine and
seawater properties in the SIMTAW model are described below, but most properties
can be found in technical handbooks (Fabuss and Korosi, 1968; Hömig, 1978). The
correlations used in the simulator are accepted here because results that they gave are
reasonable when other mathematical models have been developed (Helal et al.,
1986).
3.3.1 Density
The expression for the brine density ρb (lb/ft3) given here is valid for the range of
0-26% Cb concentration and 40-300 ºF temperature. Pure water density was
calculated (Mothershed, 1966) from the equation below with Cb = 0.
–2
ρ b = 62.707172 + 49.364088 C b – 0.43955304 ⋅ 10 Tb
–4 2
– 0.032554667 C b T b – 0.46076921 ⋅ 10 Tb (3.22)
–4 2
+ 0.63240299 ⋅ 10 Cb Tb
Another correlation can be found in Chen et al. (1973).
3.3.2 Viscosity
Tabulated and interpolated data (Lewis and Randal, 1961) for a given concentration
Cb and temperature Tb are extrapolated between the range 0 < Cb < 20%,
0 ºC < Tb < 120 ºC, to obtain brine viscosity µ b (N·s/m2). Other correlations can be
found in Leyendekkers (1979); Isdale, Spence and Tudhope (1971).

Auxiliary equations
–3 –5
µ b = ( 1.745 + 2.5C b ) 10 – ( 5.26 + 4C b ) 10 Tb
(3.23)
–7 2 –9 3 – 11 4
+ 9 ⋅ 10 T b – 8 ⋅ 10 T b + 3 ⋅ 10 Tb
3.3.3 Thermal conductivity

Tabulated data (Lewis and Randal, 1961) are used, interpolating with three
concentrations Cb (0%, 10%, 20% weight) at different temperatures Tb (up to
120 ºC). As we can see in the formula, brine thermal conductivity kb (W/mK) is close
to pure water conductivity (brine is about 2% less than pure water).
–6 2
k b = ( 0.569118 + 0.00184086 T b – 7.289 ⋅ 10 T b ) ( 1 – 0.2 C b ) (3.24)
Yusufova et al. (1978) also provides a correlation for thermal conductivity of brine.
3.3.4 Heat capacity

Specific water heat capacity CPd is the equation (3.26). The correlation of brine
specific heat (BTU/lb ºF) is obtained (Helal et. al, 1986) by applying a factor
dependent upon the solid concentrations and temperature to the heat capacity of pure
water CPd at the desired temperature (Bromley et al., 1970):
CP b = 1.0 – C b ( 0.011311 – 0.0000146 T b ) CP d (3.25)
where
–5 –7 2
CP d = 1.0011833 – 6.1666652 ⋅ 10 T + 1.3999989 ⋅ 10 T
(3.26)
–9 3
+ 1.3333336 ⋅ 10 T
where Tb is the brine temperature (50 ºF < Tb < 200 ºF); Cb the percentage of salt
concentration.
3.3.5 Enthalpy
For a given concentration Cb, integration of the heat capacity from the reference
temperature T* = 273.15 K gives the specific enthalpy (BTU/lb) of brine solution Hb
at Tb:

3
H b = a 1 ( T b – T* ) + a 2 ( T b – T* ) + a 3 ( T b – T* )
(3.27)
4 5
+ a 4 ( T b – T* ) + a 5 ( T b – T* )
where
a = 1 – Cb · 0.011311
a1 = a · 1.0011833
–5 –5
1.1473561 ⋅ 10 – 6.1666652 ⋅ 10 ⋅ a
a 2 = -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
–7 – 10
1.3999989 ⋅ 10 – 7.0669983 ⋅ 10 ⋅ a
a 3 = -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
–9 – 12
1.3333336 ⋅ 10 – 1.6043987 ⋅ 10 ⋅ a
a 4 = -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
– 14
1.5296 ⋅ 10
a 5 = ----------------------------------
5
3.3.6 Vapor pressure

The following equation (Antoine correlation) describes how the vapor pressure ps of
saturated steam is dependant on temperature T (using the water coefficients, Reid,
Prausnitz and Sherwood, 1977):
3816.44
ln p s = 23.196452 – ----------------------- (3.28)
T – 46.13
Equation (3.28) is used until 441 K. Above this temperature (and the critical point),
the Harlacher & Braun vapor-pressure correlation is used, with the coefficients
proposed by Reid et al. (1977).
68695 –3 p s
ln p s = 60.228852 – --------------- – 5.115 ln T + 7.875 ⋅ 10 -----2- (3.29)
T T
Equation (3.29) needs an iteration algorithm, for example a Newton-Raphson

method. SI units must be used. No correlation is used to calculate the vapor pressure
of brine solutions.

Auxiliary equations
3.3.7 Boiling point elevation

Data from Stoughton and Lietzke (1965) were correlated (Friedrich and Hafford,
1971) to represent the boiling point rise BPE (ºF) as a function of temperature TK and
salt concentration C:
565.757
BPE = ------------------- – 9.81559 + 1.54739 ln T K
Tk
 337.178 
–  ------------------- – 6.41981 + 0.922753 ln T K C
 TK 
(3.30)
 32.681 2
+  ---------------- – 0.55368 + 0.079022 ln T K C 
 TK 
 C 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 ---------------------
266919.6 379.669
- – ------------------
- + 0.334169  ⋅ 1.8
 2 TK 
 TK 
where TK = (Tb + 460)/1.8 (K); C = (19.819 Cb)/(1 – Cb).
Brandoni, del Re, and Di Giacomo (1985) include correlations for BPE and other
seawater properties.
3.3.8 Non-equilibrium allowance

Burns and Roe correlation (Omar, 1981) reported the following empirical equation
for the non-equilibrium allowance (NEA), expressed as temperature loss (ºF):
1.1 – 0.25 – 3 0.5 – 2.5

NEA = ( 352 ) ( H j ) ( ∆T B, j ) ( ω j ⋅ 10 ) ( T D, j ) (3.31)
where Hj is the height of brine pool in each stage (in.); ∆T B, j is the flash down per
stage (TB,j–1 – TB,j), expressed in ºF; ωj the chamber load per unit width (lb·h/ft).
3.3.9 Demister and other losses

Omar (1981) suggests the following empirical equation to calculate the temperature
loss due to the pressure drop in the demister and condenser tubes.
∆T L = exp ( 1.885 – 0.0263T D, j ) (3.32)
where ∆TL is expressed in ºF, and TD,j is the distillate temperature (ºF) in stage j.

3.4 Solution algorithm

MSF can be classified as a steady-state and lumped parameter model (Husain, 1999).
A wide variety of iterative solution procedures for solving non-linear algebraic
equations exist in the literature. In such procedures the equations are usually split into
groups and then ordered by carefully choosing the iteration variables so that the large
system of equations is decomposed into simpler subsystems.
The methods usually applied to solve the multistage countercurrent separation

problems encompassing large systems of non-linear equations are:
a) Stage by stage calculations, i.e., iterative methods,
b) Global methods, e.g. Newton and quasi-Newton methods,

c) Linear methods (Helal et al., 1986),
d) Other mathematical procedures, such as relaxation methods or a combination of
several methods.
The procedure to simulate a MSF plant with the SIMTAW model is a global one, i.e.,
the Powell hybrid method (Powell, 1964), which was also used to solve the power
plant model in Chapter 4. The subroutines implemented for this method are available
in internet (UTK and ORNL, 1999).
FIGURE 3.7 Solution algorithm of a MSF desalination plant model.

Solution algorithm
Figure 3.7 shows how the Powell hybrid model is applied to solve the MSF model.
First, the variable array is built with the initial values included in SIMTAW, taking
into account the chosen program options. Then, the Jacobian matrix is calculated
using the differences of the array function, which contains the equations that perform
the MSF model, included in the above sections. Finally, the variable array is updated
by multiplying the Jacobian and the array function. If the values do not vary with
respect to the latest iteration (that is, they are lower than the specified tolerance), the
process is finished, or new updates are made until a new value of the Jacobian matrix
is needed. The condition leading to a new calculation of the Jacobian matrix depends
on the convergence of the iterations. Usually the Jacobian matrix is calculated when
the variable array is updated five times.
The criteria for convergence applied in SIMTAW has been imposed by the Powell
method (Powell, 1964). The simulation is completed when the relative error between
two consecutive iterations satisfies the specified tolerance:
 ∆x j  –3
max  --------
m 
≤ 10 (3.33)
 xj 
where
m m–1
∆x j = x j – x j
m m–1
x j is the calculated value of the variable j in the iteration m; x j is the calculated
value of the variable j in the iteration m–1; x is the variable array, containing the
dependent variables needed to perform the MSF plant simulation. The variable array
contains the following terms:
• Flashing brine temperature in each stage (TB,j).
• Cooling brine temperature in each stage (TF,j).
• Distillate temperature in each stage (TD,j) (it is not a variable in the inverse
problem, see Section 3.6.3).
• Flashing brine concentration in each stage (CB,j).
• Flashing brine flow rate in each stage (Bj).
• Distillate flow rate in each stage (Dj).
• Top brine temperature (TB,o). In the TBT option this variable is not considered
(see Chapter 5).
• Recovery section concentration (CR).
• Deaerator temperature (TDR).

3.5 Simulation cases

The MSF brine recycle flowchart (figure 3.1) has 7 (NRC + NRJ) + 13 degrees of
freedom as demonstrated by the number of independent equations and unknowns.
The following variables are defined for an existing plant:

• Number of recovery stages NRC (=17 in our case).
• Number of rejection stages NRJ (3 stages).
The following five variables (design data) are fixed for each stage (assuming the
number and arrangement of tubes):
a) heat transfer area of evaporators Aj,

b) tube length Lj,
c) stage width wj,
d) outside diameter ODj; and
e) inside diameter IDj (or tube thickness t).
The four brine heater variables (AH, LH, ODH, and IDH) are also known. The defined
variables mentioned above sum up to 5 · (NRC + NRJ) + 6 specifications. Thus, if the
fouling factor is also fixed in every different stage as well as the brine heater, this will
result in (NRC + NRJ+1) more specifications. Furthermore, if the brine levels in the
different stages are defined (NRC + NRJ variables), then the total number of
specifications is
5 ( NRC + NRJ ) + 6 + ( NRC + NRJ + 1 ) + ( NRC + NRJ )

(3.34)
= 7 ( NRC + NRJ ) + 7
The above specifications limit the degrees of freedom to only 6; obtained by

subtracting 7 (NRC + NRJ) + 7 from 7 (NRC + NRJ) + 13. Since the feed
temperature Tsea and concentration Csea will be known, only four remaining
variables will have to be specified to solve the problem.
Different combinations of variables can be chosen to simulate the MSF plant,

depending on the objective of the simulation study. Each set (different case) has four
specifications. For example, three cases are explained below:
a) The first is called performance calculation. In this case the following operating
variables are specified: R, CW, F, TS, Tsea, Csea; distillate production, steam

Simulation cases
consumption and Top Brine Temperature are solved. This case is most useful for
sensitivity analysis studies, it is the simulation case implemented in SIMTAW.
Two new simulation options, explained in Section 3.5.1 and 3.5.2, were also
included in the SIMTAW program: TBT option and the inverse problem option,
where the fouling factors were obtained by substituting in the distillate
temperature profile.
b) In the second case, the operating parameters F, CW, Tsea, Csea, TB,o and the plant
capacity DN are specified; steam consumption, steam temperature and recycle
brine are solved. This case may be used to investigate the possibility of
maintaining a specified plant capacity when the feed temperature is modified.
This case it is not considered in the SIMTAW program because the recycle brine
is determined by the MSF plant (design curves).
c) In the third case, the parameters F, Csea, CW/R, mST and Tsea are specified. The
behavior of the whole plant is analyzed when a specified amount of steam is
supplied to the desalination plant by a coupled power plant. This case is not
included in the SIMTAW program, taking into account the control implemented
in the combined power and MSF plant.
3.5.1 TBT control

The MSF Plant has a TBT control (from 84 to 112 ºC), to avoid the tube scaling,
which was included in the simulator option with a fixed TBT value. The rest of the
variables can be affected by this option, e.g., distillate output is close to the initial
value, due to the TBT/distillate correspondence (initial curves).
This option reduces the number of equations. The equation governing heat transfer in
the heater is rejected because the TBT is not a constraint in this equation. This is the
only equation removed from the MSF plant model. As a result, a new system of
equations is obtained.
3.5.2 Inverse problem

This problem involves calculating the global heat transfer coefficient, U, and the
fouling factor of all distillation stages of the MSF plant. In this simulation option the
distillation temperature profile is a user variable. As a consequence, the results
obtained in the brine heater are less accurate than in other simulation modes.
The heat transfer equations used to calculate the distillate temperature in each stage
of the recovery and reject section are omitted, when solving the inverse problem
because the user should provide the distillate profile. The other equations included in
the MSF model remain unchanged.

Taking into account the four possibilities in the simulation of the MSF process (TBT
control, inverse problem, both or none options), there are four mathematical models
implemented in SIMTAW.
3.6 Initial data and simulation

Internal parameters of the MSF plant were calculated in the simulation model, using
some design curves provided by the manufacturers (Fisia-Italimpianti, 1996):
• Top Brine Temperature (TBT) as a function of seawater temperature (SWT in

figure 3.8) and distillate D.
• Recycle brine R as a function of seawater temperature Tsea and distillate D
(figure 3.9).
• Feedwater (make-up F) as a function of distillate D and seawater concentration
(figure 3.10).
• Seawater to reject section as a function of distillate D and seawater temperature
Tsea (≡ SWT) (figure 3.11).
FIGURE 3.8 Correspondence between the Top Brine Temperature and distillate output.
115
TBT 112 º C
110
105
Top Brine Temperature (º C)
SWT 25º C
100
95 SWT 28º C
SWT 32º C 100 % 125 %
90
65 %
85 TBT 84 ºC
80
1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
Distillate output (T/h)

Initial data and simulation
FIGURE 3.9 Brine recirculation as a function of the distillate output.

20000
19500
19000
SWT 32º C
Brine recirculation (T/h)
18500
125 %
18000
SWT 28º C
17500
100 %
17000
65 %
SWT 25º C
16500
16000
1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
FIGURE 3.10 Make-up feed water as a function of the distillate output.
8500
8000
7500
7000
Make-up feed (t/h)
6500
6000
5500
Sea water inlet TDS: 45,000
5000
4500
1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
Distillate output (t/h)
FIGURE 3.11 Seawater to reject section as a function of the distillate output.

18000
17500
17000 SWT 32º C

Sea Water to Reject (T/h)
16500
SWT 28º C
16000
15500 125 %
15000
SWT 25º C
100 %
14500 65 %
14000
1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

These curves contain the limits and the feasible operation ranges in the MSF plant.
But those graphics also could be correlated by using the real data obtained from the
plant managers in 1997 (WED, 1997). Figures 3.12 to 3.15 show how the correlations
have been made using regression lines in a range of 2 ºC of seawater temperature.
This possibility is available in SIMTAW with the option ‘Sim. with real data’.
FIGURE 3.12 Top brine temperature depending on the seawater temperature and distillate production. Data
collected during the year 1997.
112
108
104
TBT 26ºC
TBT (ºC)
100 TBT 28ºC

TBT 30ºC
96
TBT 32ºC
TBT 34ºC
92
TBT 36ºC
88
1350 1550 1750 1950 2150 D (T/h) 2350
FIGURE 3.13 Recycle brine flow as a function of the seawater temperature and production. Real data collected
in the MSF distillers during 1997.
20000
19500
19000
R 26ºC
R (T/h)
R 28ºC
18500
R 30ºC
R 32ºC
18000
R 34ºC
R 36ºC
17500
1350 1550 1750 1950 2150 D (T/h) 2350
Therefore, only three input parameters are needed to run the program (note that the
model has only 6 degrees of freedom): distillate or Top Brine Temperature, seawater
temperature and concentration (the seawater salinity concentration Csea in Arabian
Gulf area is 45,000 TDS). Steam to brine heater conditions is also requested by
SIMTAW, and the temper system takes into account the seawater intake temperature
and flow rate.

Initial data and simulation
FIGURE 3.14 Make-up feed flow obtained for each range of seawater temperature when real data are
computed. Average data of 1997.
6600
F 26ºC
5600
F (T/h)
F 28ºC
F 30ºC
F 32ºC
4600
F 34ºC
F 36ºC
3600
1350 1550 1750 1950 2150 D (T/h) 2350
FIGURE 3.15 Seawater to reject flow correlations for different seawater temperatures entering the MSF plant.
Data collected during the year 1997.
17900
17700
SR (T/h)
SR 26ºC
17500 SR 28ºC
SR 30ºC
SR 32ºC
SR 34ºC
SR 36ºC
17300
1350 1550 1750 1950 2150 D (T/h) 2350
3.6.1 Fouling effect

Design curves account for the fouling inside and outside of the tubes, without a
cleaning ball system. Although the fouling values are very difficult to evaluate, they
are input data in the program.
The cleaning ball system can reduce the design fouling factor by five (Barthelmes and
Bolmer, 1996), depending on the tube material. Overall heat transfer coefficient of

the evaporator is increased from ≈2,500 to ≈3,500 W/m2·K, then the Performance
Ratio and the steam consumption are also improved.
TABLE 3.1 Fouling factors of the heat sections in MSF Plants.
Tube material Fouling factor (m2 K/W)
Cooper alloys 0.00005

Titanium or Stainless Steels 0.00003
Without On-Load Cleaning System 0.00020
3.7 Summary
Thermoeconomic analysis of a system requires knowledge of thermodynamic states
of the system under different operating conditions and circumstances of the plant.
If the data acquisition system of the plant does not provide those data or the system is
not an existing plant, the state of the system could be obtained by using a
mathematical model describing system behavior.
Energy and mass balance, and heat transfer equations compose the mathematical
model of the MSF process, so it is not necessary to apply additional equations to
obtain a reasonable agreement in the model results. Correlations providing
thermodynamic properties of seawater are essential for accurate results. The model is
solved using conventional methods and software. Mathematical method differs form
the original if some important parameters of the plant are introduced. Thus, the state
of the plant could be achieved below different perspectives. Finally, the model has
been adjusted as much as possible, in order to respond the design but also the real
behavior of the MSF plant.
When the thermodynamic state of the MSF plant is obtained, the state of the steam
power plant is also demanded if the thermoeconomic analysis is going to be
performed. It will be obtained by using equations described in Chapter 4.

CHAPTER 4
Steam power plant

steady-state model
In this chapter the mathematical model of the power generation system of a dual-
purpose plant is described, which is implemented in the SIMTAW program (the
simulator included in Chapter 5). This model can perform both a conventional energy
analysis and a thermoeconomic analysis of a power plant. Thermophysical properties,
such as temperature, pressure, viscosity, specific enthalpy, specific exergy, and so on,
are calculated for the most significant mass and energy flow streams, together with
operating parameters of different plant units, e.g., isoentropic efficiencies, heat
transfer coefficients, etc. Different operating scenarios can be simulated by varying
the input data and the simulation options to analyze plant behavior and the
interactions among equipment.
Power plants produce both electricity and process steam used in the MSF plant to
produce desalted water from seawater. The co-generation concept considers the
varying demands for power generation and process steam in the production of
drinking water. Continuous water production is required throughout the year, whereas
the generation of electricity will be higher in summer than in winter.
In the first part of this Chapter I will describe the power plant. Later, the mathematical
model together with the most significant formulae and the solution algorithm of the
system of equations are explained. Finally, the model solution is given in the third
section. The operating modes of the co-generation plant lead to different models that
are also described in the last section of this chapter.

Steam power plant steady-state model
4.1 Model description

The power generation plant is a co-generation plant providing both electrical power
and the steam required by the seawater desalination plant (MSF plant). The selected
power plant had six turbojets, each of them at the co-generation design point
produced 122 MW of electricity and 198 MJ/s of process heat to provide 57,600 m3
of drinking water per day. A maximum of 6×146 MW can be delivered in generator
terminals in pure condensing mode.
Extraction/condensing turbines in each unit operated under constant pressure (that is,
pressure at the high-pressure (HP) turbine inlet is always constant). Each of the
turbines has two sections, a single flow HP section and a single flow low-pressure
(LP) section. Steam extraction outlets for the seawater desalination plant and
extraction points for the feedwater heaters (points 3,4,5,6 and 8 in figure 4.1) are
available on both turbine sections.
Steam flow is an important variable determining the behavior of the power plant. If
there is no steam supply for the MSF plant, the steam flows through the LP section
and is returned (via a damper and bypass line).
FIGURE 4.1 Schematic diagram of the power generation plant. Main significant flows are numbered for later
descriptions and equations.
Main HP steam flows from the steam generator —point 1 in figure 4.1— through the
steam supply lines to the main steam emergency and control valves, which are
flange-mounted onto the lower section of the HP outer casing. The steam from the
valve casings to the valve chests welded onto the HP inner casing is supplied by the

Model description
lower section, and via bypass lines between the valve and turbine casing in the upper
section.
Afterward, the steam enters the valve chests which house the nozzle segments. It then
flows via the control wheel of the HP rotor into the impulse chamber of the turbine
casing. The steam expands through the reaction blading and enters the exhaust steam
chamber of the HP section. The steam required for the seawater desalination plant is
extracted via the extraction outlets in the lower exhaust section —point 6 in
figure 4.1—.
A certain percentage of the steam flows through the exhaust nozzles in the upper
exhaust section and then through the downstream damper and bypass line to the LP
section. It then flows into the LP reaction blading via the steam inlet nozzles and,
after expansion, enters the condenser at the exhaust nozzles.
The simple design of the high-pressure casing is based on a single shell construction
with perfect rotational symmetry. All the components of the HP section are secured
so that concentric alignment and unrestricted movement is maintained under all
operating conditions.
First and second HP turbine extractions —points 3 and 4 in figure 4.1— are fed to the
HP heaters. The first HP extraction goes to the vacuum system of the MSF plant, and
is condensed in the condenser. The third HP extraction —point no. 5— feeds the
deaerator; and finally a smaller quantity of the lowest extraction is sent to the first LP
heater (the main part is sent to the desalination plant).
The LP section is a standard single-flow design with an upstream inlet section.

Depending on the operating mode of the turbojet, the steam is directed to the first
blade carrier via a vertically mounted inlet steam nozzle —point no. 7— and led to
the second blade carrier via a bypass, when the amount of steam to the LP turbine is
large enough. The automatically controlled water injection system in the upper
section of the casing provides the cooling required in specific operating modes. A
rupture disc is fitted in the outer casing as a safeguard against over pressure. LP
extraction —point no. 8— feeds the second LP heater.
The Power Generation Plant also contains a live steam reduction pressure station, to
extract the steam flow to desalination in case of turbine system failure. As seen in
figure 4.1, E1 and E2 are the live steam extractions to the two connected desalination
units. The reduction pressure station mixes the live steam with water feed from the
feed pump (S1 to S4 in figure 4.1), to reach the optimum pressure for the MSF plant.
When the turbine does not work, a new extraction E3 is needed to feed the vacuum
system of the MSF units, and a fourth one, called E4 in figure 4.1, feeds the deaerator,
where it is mixed with the condensate returned to the MSF units. In this way, the
steam cycle is closed, via the HP feed flow to the boiler.

4.2 Mathematical model
4.2.1 Steam turbines

Simulation of admission properties (Salisbury, 1974) is based on the determination of
the mass flow coefficient, which was defined according to the Cooke’s model
(Cotton, 1993; Spencer, Cotton and Cannon, 1974) and the Stodola’s Ellipse model
(Stodola, 1927; Cooke, 1985). The mass flow coefficient φ is defined as:
m m
φ = -------- or φ = -------- (4.1)
p p
------- ---
T v
where m is the mass flow rate (kg/s), p is the pressure (bar), T is the temperature (K)
and v is the specific volume (m3/kg). The mass flow coefficient under operating
conditions can be calculated as a function of the design parameters (subscript d).
Thus, the admission values can be solved:
2
m m d 1 – rp d
φ = -------- = ---------- --------------------- (4.2)
p pd 2
------- ---------- 1 – rp
T Td
p
where rp = ----0- is the pressure ratio at each turbine section (see figure 4.2):
pi
FIGURE 4.2 Schematic diagram of a turbine section.
pi mi
Ti
p0
T0
The admission properties of the steam turbine are evaluated using a model in which
the mass flow coefficient is a function of the pressure ratio in each turbine section,
and is a characteristic value for each type of turbine. This model cannot be applied to
the first section, due to the fixed pressure mode which controls the steam turbine
operation. Therefore,

Mathematical model
2
φ = K ⋅ 1 – rp (4.3)
Values of the constant K are obtained using the turbine admission properties for the
design conditions supplied by the manufacturer. For example, the value of K4 for the
4th section of the high-pressure turbine can be obtained as follows:
m 4d 2
φ 4d = ------------
- = K 4 ⋅ 1 – rp 4d (4.4)
p 4d
------------
T 4d
where the subscript ‘4d’ refers to the steam properties at the 3rd extraction of the high
pressure turbine, taken from a performance data case (ABB, 1996b).
The efficiency model is also based on the mass flow coefficient. A correlation was
proposed to obtain the isoentropic efficiency of a turbine section as a function of this
coefficient. The design mass flow coefficients were used to solve this correlation for
the different operation loads of the plant. Polynomial formulae were obtained for
each section of the turbine. The formula corresponding to the 2nd section of the high-
pressure turbine is a linear function of the mass flow coefficient φ2d, obtained from
the pressure, temperature and flow of the performance data cases in the 2nd section of
the high-pressure turbine:
η 2 = f ( φ 2d ) = 0.013985 ⋅ φ 2d + 0.1002 (4.5)
FIGURE 4.3 Isoentropic and real expansion of the steam in a turbine section.
h
h1 p1
p2
h2s h2
Finally, the thermodynamic properties of the steam at each turbine section are
calculated as follows (see figure 4.3):
hi – hi + 1
η i = ------------------------
- (4.6)
h i – h i + l, s

where hi is the enthalpy of the inlet section, hi+1 is the enthalpy of the outlet section,
and hi+1,s is the enthalpy of the outlet section in an isoentropic process.
The steam pressure in the lowest section of the high-pressure turbine was a fixed
value, due to the pressure control applied to the desalination units. Hence, HP and LP
turbines can be considered two different pieces of equipment.
4.2.2 HP heat exchangers

HP heat exchangers have desuperheating, condensation, and subcooling sections
(ABB, 1996c). Thus, feed water is heated by exchanging the maximum quantity of
heat with the steam bled from the HP extractions.
The model of the HP heat exchangers is based on a correlation of the terminal

temperature differences (TTD) for the different existing loads, see figure 4.4. The
overall heat balances are used to calculate the amount of extracted steam from the HP
turbine. The overall heat transfer coefficient in each section cannot be used because
of the lack of design data, except for the heat transfer coefficient in the condensing
zone, which is a design data that varies with the requested load. Moreover, it is
assumed that the condensate is a saturated liquid, even though some sub-cooling may
occur.
FIGURE 4.4 TTD differences in an HP heater.
TTDo
TTD i
Condensation section
L
Desuperheating section Subcooling section
Numerical correlations proposed by Erbes (Erbes and Gay, 1989) were used to solve
the terminal temperature differences TTD (inlet/outlet) in HP heaters:
x y z
∆T  m  T  p
----------i =  -------  ⋅  ------  ⋅  -----  (4.7)
∆T d  md   Td   pd 

Mathematical model
where ∆Ti is the inlet TTD in an HP exchanger (usually called Drain Cooling
Advantage (DCA)), and m, T and P are the feedwater properties at the HP inlet. The d
subscript refers to the design conditions. The x, y and z exponents were obtained
from the heat balances for different loads supplied by the manufacturer (ABB,
1996b). Typical x, y and z values are shown in table 4.1:
TABLE 4.1 Typical x, y and z coefficient values for the inlet TTD’s in an HP heater.
x y z
0.64 –0.29 0.52
The outlet TTD (∆To) (or simply called TTD) correlation contains more factors.
Thus, the mass flow rate and steam pressure of the turbine extraction are also needed,
in order to model the correct behavior in all cases. Typical values for the five
coefficients needed in a HP heater are shown in table 4.2.
x y z a d
∆T 0  m   T   p   m ex   p ex 
---------- =  -------  ⋅  ------  ⋅  -----  ⋅  -------------  ⋅  ------------  (4.8)
∆T d  m d   T d   p d   m ex, d   p ex, d 
TABLE 4.2 Typical x, y, z, a and b coefficient values for the outlet TTD’s in an HP heater.
x y z A b
–2.395 4.407 –0.713 0.584 0
The Erbes and Gay model (Erbes and Gay, 1989) also provides the pressure losses in
the feed waterside of the HP heat exchangers:
–1
∆p m 1.8  T   p 
--------- =  -------   ------   -----  (4.9)
∆p d  md   Td   pd 
4.2.3 LP heat exchangers

LP heat exchangers in the Steam Power Plant only have a condensation and a
subcooling section (ABB, 1996c). Usually the steam flow is saturated vapor or
contains a humidity fraction. Thus the feedwater is heated by extracting the maximum
quantity of steam heat from the LP extraction and the lowest HP extraction.

Correlations similar to those used in the HP heaters to calculate the TTD’s (see
figure 4.5) and the pressure losses were also used to model the LP heater behavior.
The exponent values were also obtained from the heat balances for different loads
supplied by the manufacturer (ABB, 1996b), they are shown in tables 4.3 and 4.4.
FIGURE 4.5 TTD differences in an LP heater.
TTDo
TTDi
Condensation Subcooling
section section
L
TABLE 4.3 Typical x, y and z coefficient values for the inlet TTD’s in an LP heater.
x y z
0.43 –0.02 0.10
TABLE 4.4 Typical x, y, z, a and b coefficient values for the outlet TTD’s in a LP heater.
x y z z b
–0.04 18.97 –0.12 1.11 4.33
4.2.4 Deaerator
A whole plant energy balance is included when modeling the deaerator and feedwater
tank behavior (ABB, 1996c). Feedwater from the LP heaters, condensate from the
desalination units and cooled drain from the HP heaters enter the feedwater tank, but
the operating pressure is controlled by the 3rd HP extraction.
The mass flow leaving the extraction must be correlated to assure some saturated
liquid is entering the feed pump. Several parameters were included to calculate the
3rd HP extraction mass flow rate, to cover the operating range designed by the
manufacturer (ABB, 1996b). The proposed correlation is:

Mathematical model
x y z a b c
m ex, 3  m 1   T5   p5   m des   m LS   m 1, LS, des 
- =  --------- 
--------------- ⋅  --------  ⋅  --------  ⋅  ---------------  ⋅  --------------  ⋅  ----------------------------  (4.10)
m ex, 3d  m 1d   T 5d   p 5d   m des, d   m LS, d   m 1, LS, des, d 
where m1 is the live steam mass flow rate generated in the boiler; T5 and P5 are the
admission properties leaving the 3rd section, m1,des is the difference between m1 and
desalination mass flow rate mdes, m1,LS is the difference between m1 and Live Steam
extraction sent to the reducing pressure station mLS, and m1,LS,des m1 minus
desalination and live steam (to the reduction pressure station). The last three variables
have a strong influence on the rest of the plant process units, which is why they were
included in the above-proposed correlation. Table 4.5 shows the coefficients
calculated in the last correlation.
TABLE 4.5 x, y, z, a, b and c coefficient values in deaerator.
x y z a b c
Deaerator 0.121 1.091 1.905 0.206 2.588 –0.211
4.2.5 Condenser
A global energy balance was applied to develop the condenser model. Three streams
enter the vapor side of the condenser: (i) exhaust steam from the low-pressure
turbine, (ii) condensate from the MSF vacuum system and (iii) discharge from the
ejectors. The maximum cooling seawater flow rate is at the seawater temperature.
The condensate presumably discharges at the saturation temperature (ABB, 1996d).
4.2.6 Boiler
A model was used including the heat balance of the waterside of the boiler to
simulate performance of the boiler (figure 4.1). The energy needed to heat the
feedwater leaving the high-pressure heater No. 1 to the fixed conditions of the steam
leaving the boiler was used to calculate the natural gas consumption of the boiler
(LHV of natural gas is 8026 kcal/Nm3). Boiler efficiency was introduced using the
design data provided by the contractors (ABB, 1996a) for different operating
conditions. Pressure losses on the waterside of the boiler were computed using the
following equation:
0.463 – 0.436 – 3.917
∆P m T  pd 
--------- =  -------   ------   -----  (4.11)
∆P d  md   Td  p

A more detailed model could calculate the intermediate properties inside the boiler
(the boiler in study has two economizers and three superheaters, and a non reheat
process inside the boiler). A detailed boiler model clearly surpasses the scope of this
Ph. D. Thesis and is not necessary to perform a thermoeconomic analysis of a whole
plant.
4.2.7 Valves
Pressure losses in valves were calculated using the BBC Thermal kit correlations
(BBC, 1979):
2
∆p  Sa 
------- = Z  ----------2-  (4.12)
p  DV 
where p is the pressure of the flow entering the valve; Z is the pressure drop
v
coefficient (constant value); DV, is the main stop valve seat diameter (m) Sa = m --- ,
α
the sonic area (m2), with v, specific volume (m3/kg), α, sonic velocity (m/s), and m
the mass flow inside the inside the valve.
4.2.7.1 Turbine control valves
The inlet of the HP turbine has four control valves with some pressure losses (about
4-5 bars). The main steam mass flow in the boiler is equally divided into four parts,
each flowing through one of the valves. The pressure drop coefficient value (Z) was
taken to be 0.38.
4.2.7.2 Boiler outlet stop valve
The security valve fixed at the boiler outlet had a pressure drop coefficient Z of 2.31.
4.2.7.3 Boiler inlet control valve
This valve, used to control the pressure entering the boiler, had a pressure drop
coefficient Z of 1.30.
4.2.8 Pipes
Significant pressure losses occur in the pipelines, e.g., pipes to the deaerator,
extraction pipes or pipes to the boiler. These are calculated by applying the
correlation proposed by Erbes and Gay (1989):

Mathematical model
–1
∆p m a T p
--------- =  -------  ⋅  ------  ⋅  -----  (4.13)
∆p d  md   Td   pd 
The value of the a coefficient depends on the type of pipe and operating conditions.
Table 4.6 lists the values of the applied a coefficient.
TABLE 4.6 Values of the a coefficient for each pipe of the power model.
Pipe description a
1st HP extraction 1.95
2nd HP extraction 1.95
3rd HP extraction (to deaerator) 1.95
4th HP extraction 1.8
LP extraction 1.95
Waterside of LPH No. 2 1.5
LPH2 to deaerator 1.5
Feed pump to HPH No. 2 1.8
LPH No. 1 to Boiler 1.85
1st HP extraction 1.95
4.2.9 Pumps
The pump model is based on the efficiency versus mass flow rate curves provided by
the power plant manufacturers (ABB, 1996f). Energy consumption is derived from
the energy balance applied to the pump, when the conditions of the water entering
and leaving the pump are known.
The thermodynamic properties of the water at the inlet/outlet of the feedwater and
condenser pump can be calculated using the isoentropic efficiency (see figure 4.6):
h i + 1, s – h i
η i = -------------------------
- (4.14)
hi + 1 – hi

where hi is the enthalpy of the inlet water, hi+1 is the enthalpy of the outlet water, and
hi+1,s is the outlet water enthalpy in an isoentropic pumping process.
FIGURE 4.6 Isoentropic and real compression process in a pump.

h p2
h2
h2s
p1
h1
4.2.10 Gland and seal steam system

All steam flow leakages are considered and accounted for in the heat balance
calculations. Gland steam system of the power plant is described in figure 4.7.
FIGURE 4.7 Gland and seal steam system.
Live steam
HP LP
Ejector
Martin’s formula (Martin, 1919) for steam leakage through labyrinth seals was used
to calculate the leakage flows for representative designs with normal running
clearances (figure 4.8):
( pt – pl ) pt
m1 + m2 = Kd ---------------------------
- (4.15)
273.15 + T t
( p 1 – p 2 )p 1
m 2 = K′d ----------------------------
- (4.16)
273.15 + T 1

Mathematical model
where Kd and K′d are constants, obtained from the design data (ABB, 1996b), and
1, 2 and t subscripts refer to the first and second seal in a leakage and the steam
conditions inside the turbine.
FIGURE 4.8 Leakage flows and seals of a steam turbine.
m2 m1
turbine
pt, Tt
p2 p1
mt
shaft
The valve connecting the high and low pressure lines of the gland steam system (see
figure 4.7) is only opened in the condensing operation mode, i.e. when the turbine is
working without desalination flow and only producing electricity, due to the high
amount of steam lost in the HP leakage.
Finally, the energy balances in the high and low pressure lines of the gland steam
system are used, to evaluate the properties of the steam flowing to the ejector.
Table 4.7 shows the Kd and K′d values obtained for the four parts of the turbine
interacting with the gland and seal steam system.
TABLE 4.7 Kd and Kd’ constants of the gland and seal steam system.
Kd Kd’
HP Turbine. Inlet 0.02 1.392
HP Turbine. Outlet 0.83 1.448
LP Turbine. Inlet 1.4288 2.962
LP Turbine. Outlet 1.4288 2.962
4.2.11 Generator
Generator losses were accounted for in the model to more precisely calculate the
plant’s output power, using manufacturer design data (ABB, 1996e). Generator
efficiency is therefore included in equation (4.17) as a function of the output power
in MW:
ηgen (%) = (0.941 + 9.701 · 10–4 · MW + 7.071 · 10–6 · MW2
+ 1.771 · 10–8 · MW3) · 100 (4.17)

The excitation system was also included, using plant performance data. The
excitation system losses (ESL) are calculated by a formula that depends on the output
power in kW:
ESL = 0.00152 * kW – 5.01645 (4.18)
Therefore, the simulator can calculate the electrical and net output power produced in
the power plant.
4.3 Auxiliary equations

The thermodynamic and transport properties in a steam power plant simulation
involve pure water and steam.
4.3.1 Thermodynamic properties

The thermodynamic properties of water can be calculated by a group of functions
using equations from the IFC-1967 formulae for industrial applications. Those
formulae was accepted in the Sixth International Conference about Water Properties
(1967). Since then, they have become the standard for ASME, JSME, etc. (also see
ASME, 1967; JSME, 1968).
Detailed numerical methods used to solve the inverse functions can be found in Pina
(1979).
4.3.2 Transport properties

Specific heat at constant pressure was obtained by numerical integrating the enthalpy
function. Formulae used to calculate the thermal conductivity and dynamic viscosity
were taken from Sangers and Watson (1986) and Yata and Minamiyama (1979).
Vargaftik (1978) covers the entire range of the properties, and numerical interpolation
methods were used to complete them at the proper conditions.
4.4 Solution algorithm

The mathematical model of the power plant is also a set of non-linear algebraic
equations. There are a wide variety of iterative procedures to solve this kind of
problem; splitting the equations into subgroups and then solving each subsystem to
create an iteration loop. Our model was not portioned into subsystems.
The power plant model is solved using the Powell hybrid method (Powell, 1964), also
used by SIMTAW simulator to solve the MSF plant model. It is a derivation of the

Solution algorithm
Newton method supported by an iterative technique where non-linear terms, such as

variable products and properties, are set to constant values from the latest iteration.
The Powell hybrid method is applied to the whole set of equations. It requires a
considerable programming effort and computer storage. Despite this, a global method
provides the best solution. Solving the whole system sequentially (where it is
decomposed in a set of subsystems), or linearally (where some variables are
considered a linear combinations of others), does not provide a better convergence of
the whole system of equations.
The Powell hybrid method calculates the Jacobian by a forward-difference formula,

and uses a relaxation technique to update the values in a new iteration, i.e. the
Jacobian does not need to be calculated in each iteration. The applied solution
algorithm is available in the Subroutine HYBRID, in the NETLIB mathematical
libraries (UTK and ORNL, 1999). The user should provide a subroutine containing
the model functions, which are, in turn, the functions needed in the subroutine
HYBRID to calculate the Jacobian applying the forward-difference approximation.
In the power plant, the number of equations is much higher than the system
developed to solve the desalination unit: the variable array, (with the dependant
variables needed for the power plant simulation) includes the following terms
corresponding to the main flowstreams of the model:
• Admission properties (m, p, h, T, η, K, φ) in each section of the HP and LP tur-
bine.
• Gland and seal steam system properties (m, h, T).
• HP and LP heaters properties (mex, p, h, T).
• Condenser and deaerator values (m, X, p, h, T).
• Boiler parameters (m, p, h, T).
• Pressure losses in pipes and heat exchangers (∆p).
Live Steam properties are kept constant to take into account the plant operation
strategy (sliding pressure control is avoided). The applied convergence criterion was
the same as in the SIMTAW model to solve the MSF plant: the relative error of each
variable included in the variable array between two consecutive iterations must be
lower than the specified tolerance. Usually, this value is set to 10-3 but it could be
considerably reduced:
 ∆x j  –3
max  --------  ≤ 10 (4.19)
 xj m
where
m m–1
∆x j = x j – x j (4.20)

m
x j represents the calculated value of the variable j in the iteration m.
m–1
xj is the calculated value of the variable j in the iteration m-1.
The solution algorithm adopted to solve the mathematical model by using the Powell
hybrid method is shown in figure 4.9.
FIGURE 4.9 Algorithm to solve the power plant model using the Powell hybrid method.
4.5 Operating modes and mathematical models

A wide variety of operating modes are available in the power plant, depending on the
amount of required steam for the MSF desalination units, (either via the live steam
reduction pressure station or via the fourth extraction of the HP turbine). Moreover, if
it is not necessary to produce electricity, the system live steam-deaerator-boiler can
be used to obtain the required steam for one or two desalination units.
The operating modes of the steam power plant are as follows:
a) Extraction mode. The most common operation mode where the plant produces
electricity and also supplies steam to the MSF unit.
b) Parallel mode: When the power output is less than 75 MW, the live steam reduc-
tion pressure station supplies steam with enough pressure to the MSF unit.
c) Condensing mode: In this case no distilled water is produced and the plant oper-
ates as a conventional steam power plant (the power output is maximum).

Operating modes and mathematical models
d) Desalination mode: The opposite of the condensing mode. The plant only pro-
duces distilled water and the steam turbine does not work. Thus the boiler pro-
vides the required steam to the MSF units via the steam reduction pressure
station.
e) Twin desalination mode: Here the boiler is in full load operation and produces
steam for two MSF desalination units. This mode is unusual and the steam tur-
bine plant does not operate either.
f) Twin extraction mode: Similar to the extraction mode, but the boiler also pro-
vides steam for a second MSF desalination unit using a portion of the live steam
derived from the live steam reduction pressure station.
Three different mathematical models were implemented to simulate all the different
operating modes included in the boiler performance data (ABB, 1996a).
The models included in the power plant simulation program were the following:
(i) Normal Turbine Load Model (NTL MODEL): Mass flow entering the LP turbine
is between 3-125 kg/s; then the Stodola’s model is applied to simulate the LP
turbine. The amount of steam required via the live steam reducting pressure
station is not important if the mass flow to LP turbine is more than the
specified lower limit. This model is more complex, and has the maximum
number of equations.
(ii) Low Turbine Load Model (LTL MODEL): Mass flow entering the LP turbine is
less than the lower limit imposed previously. The Stodola´s model cannot be
applied to the LP turbine, there is a compressor action at high exhaust
pressures and low loads, illustrated by the stream lines in figure 4.10:
FIGURE 4.10 Last stage of LP turbine acting as a compressor.

This model determines entry conditions at the condenser. A parametric model

based on the thermal balances is then used to solve the admission properties in
the LP turbine. Thus, the number of equations in the LTL model is reduced
when the LP values are solved differently. However, the model has a poor
stability because negative mass flows could appear during the iteration process
and the program must be aborted.
(iii)Non Turbine Working Model (NTW MODEL): The Power Plant is only used to
supply steam to the MSF desalination units, and the HP and LP turbines are
off. Therefore, the power plant scheme is reduced to a very simple model,
composed of the boiler, live steam reduction pressure station and deaerator.
HP heaters are bypassed, and pressure losses are neglected. This final scheme
is shown in figure 4.11:
FIGURE 4.11 Power plant scheme in the NTW Model. Some flowstreams are renumbered with respect fig. 4.1.
The third model is the simplest one used to describe the power plant as the number of
equations is considerably reduced.
Operating conditions should be classified in one of the three simulation models

outlined above (see table 4.8). Performance data cases included in the Design Data of
the Boiler (ABB, 1996a) are:
1. MSL1 (Minimum stable load at 20% boiler MCR)

Load at which the boiler is still able to operate continuously with rated steam
properties, without the bypass system in operation and without extraction heat
flow to desalination and pressure reduction station.

Operating modes and mathematical models
2. MSL2 (Minimum stable load)

Load corresponding to unit operation at 45 MW and with combined heat flow of
145 Gcal/h from parallel operation of turbine extraction and live steam reducing
pressure station (118.66 and 26.34 Gcal/h respectively).
3. MSL3 (Minimum stable load with two distillers)

The turbine is at minimum stable load and the extraction heat flow is 145 Gcal/h
plus 150 Gcal/h through HP pressure reduction station.
4. MSL4 (Winter operation)

The turbine is at minimum stable load with an extraction heat flow of 170 Gcal/h
to desalination unit.
5. PL65
The turbine generator load is 65 MW and the extraction heat flow is 145 Gcal/h.
6. PL85
The turbine generator is at 85 MW and an extraction heat flow of 145 Gcal/h.
7. PL115
The turbine generator at 115 MW and an extraction heat flow of 145 Gcal/h.
8. MCR (Maximum Continuous Rating)

The turbine generator at rated steam parameters with a power output of 115 MW
and an extraction heat flow of 170 Gcal/h.
9. VWO
Turbine swallowing capacity (all control valves open) with extraction heat flow
of 170 Gcal/h.
10. MR (Maximum Rating)

The turbine generator at rated steam parameters, nominal control valve spindle
position and no extraction heat flow to desalination.
11. Boiler MCR

Maximum continuous rating of boiler to be 10% above the requirement of unit
MCR test mentioned in item 8.
12. Boiler peak load (COC)

Boiler peak load at least 5% more than boiler MCR. The extraction heat flow is
170 Gcal/h to desalination and 50.8 Gcal/h to live steam reduction pressure
station.

13. ODOB (One desalination and one boiler only)

170 Gcal/h extracted through the HP reduction pressure station (a desalination
unit), turbine is not in use.
14. TDOB (Two desalination and one boiler only)

340 Gcal/h extracted through the HP reduction pressure station (two desalination
units), turbine is not in use.
Table 4.8 shows the type of model applied to simulate each operating mode in the
performance data:
TABLE 4.8 Operating mode and mathematical model corresponding to the performance data cases.
Performance data case Mathematical Model Operating mode

MSL1 LTLa Condensing
MSL2 LTL Parallel
MSL3 LTL Twin Extraction
MSL4 LTL Extraction
PL65 NTL Extraction
PL85 NTL Extraction
PL115 NTL Extraction
MCR NTL Extraction
VWO NTL Extraction
MR NTL Condensing
MCR NTL Extraction
COC NTL Twin Extraction
ODOB NTW Desalination
TDOB NTW Twin Desalination
a. Live steam temperature is 460 ºC.
4.6 Summary
The thermodynamic states of the co-generation plant with the steam turbine plant and
the MSF unit are now permissible thanks to the mathematical models described in the
previous and this chapter. The mathematical model of the steam turbine plant is in
some cases very unstable, especially when the operating conditions provoke the
deviation of the steam to the MSF unit and LP turbine is forced to work in unexpected
conditions.

Summary
The set of equations composing the mathematical model depending on the operation
mode of the plant is solved with a global method in which the variables are
simultaneously calculated.
These two chapters contain the mathematical models introduced in the simulator,
which is the tool that allows the use of the model’s results in the thermoeconomic
analysis of the dual-purpose plant.

CHAPTER 5
Simulator
Mathematical models used to simulate a dual-purpose plant are quite complex (see
Chapters 3 and 4), so a solid basis is needed to solve them. Despite this, the SIMTAW
program has been built in such way that only a few input data are essential to simulate
the power and desalination plants in order to analyze plant performance. Hence, no
highly qualified background is needed to use the program, although we only
recommend its use to obtain a correct understanding of the results to technicians and
plant managers that have an in depth knowledge of the dual plant.
Simulation of the thermodynamic processes in a dual-purpose plant is the first step to

develop the Thermoeconomic Analysis of the Plant. Thermodynamic properties of the
flowstreams in the plant are needed to apply the exergy balance, and to calculate the
exergy costs of these flows. In this way, the complete analysis of the irreversibilities
and malfunctions can be done, and the causes that generate these faults can be
detected.
SIMTAW is the thermoeconomic software that can provide these results. It is the
result of a complex project with several model developments of different complexity.
A Visual Basic coded program is the user friendly interface. SIMTAW was built
following those stages:
1. To solve the mathematical models using an Equation Solver. In this case the EES
program was used (Klein and Alvarado, 1999). Mathematical models were
solved in blocks, then the whole model was connected. Relationships between
variables, and independent blocks of equations were found, then the mathemati-
cal model was translated to a high-level programming language such as Fortran.

Simulator
2. The dual-plant was simulated with a Fortran coded program (Microsoft Corpora-
tion, 1997). This program has several files including the design data, steam and
brine properties, subroutines to initialize and calculate the variables, subroutines
to solve the system of equations, and the algorithm which controls the whole
program.
3. The Dynamic Link Libraries, usually named ‘DLL’s’, are the interface between
the Fortran and Visual Basic programs. Seven ‘DLL’s’ were built to develop four
mathematical models included in the MSF Plant and three Power Plant models -
all these mathematical models correspond to the operating modes explained in
the previous chapters-.
4. Finally, a Visual Basic coded program (Microsoft Corporation, 1997) was built
to make the program more user friendly. This program is described in the follow-
ing section.
The first section of the chapter describes how to use the simulator when the
thermoeconomic state of the MSF or the steam power plant is requested. But in
Chapters 3 and 4 the accuracy of the mathematical models is not analyzed. Model
validation is therefore included in this section, when the data flowsheets obtained
from plant designers are compared with the results given by the simulator. In general,
simulator calculates the properties of the main flowstreams of the dual-plant, the
associated error in the calculations is very low.
5.1 SIMTAW structure

SIMTAW is the program that simulates the two processes involved in a well-known
dual-purpose plant: the MSF and the Power Generation units. SIMTAW has a user-
friendly interface that (through a set of more than 20 windows) allows the user to
proceed by clicking the specified buttons. SIMTAW is built in Visual Basic 5.0, a new
version only useful for 32 bits, and requires at least Windows’95. A user guide
explaining how to manage the program has been implemented (Villalon, 1995), and
includes a very strict control over the input data introduction in order to avoid
inconsistencies in the mathematical models.
The two processes can be simulated independently and are driven by two different
windows. The window that manages the MSF simulation is shown in figure 5.1,
containing the MSF unit scheme, and seven text boxes and control buttons. In the text
boxes, the user must introduce an allowed value for the following variables:
1. Distillate mass flow rate (1,200-2,400 T/h) or Top Brine Temperature (84-112 ºC)
in the MSF plant.
2. Seawater to reject temperature (25-36 ºC).
SIMTAW structure
3. Seawater concentration at the seawater inlet (40,000-50,000 TDS).

4. Steam to brine heater temperature (80-150 ºC).
5. Steam to brine heater pressure (0.8-3.0 bar).
6. Sea water temperature (18-36 ºC)
7. Seawater inlet flow (12,000-20,500 T/h).
FIGURE 5.1 SIMTAW MSF process window.
After these values are correctly introduced, the user must choose the TBT control
option—clicking the corresponding box—, to fix the Top Brine Temperature value
during the simulation. The inverse problem option also calculates the fouling factor in
each stage. The third option, called Sim. With real data, includes a correlation with
real data of the main mass flow rates of the MSF unit collected during the year 1997
(WED, 1997).
The window that manages the power plant (figure 5.2) contains the plant scheme and
four text boxes where the user introduces input variables needed to perform the power
plant simulation:
Simulator
1. Generator output (including generator losses, 50-147 MW).
2. Live Steam extractions to the reduction station1 (0-340 Gcal/h).

3. Steam mass flow rate to the desalination units (0-189 kg/s).
4. Condenser pressure (0.02-0.14 bar).
Then, the user must choose one of the six operating modes in the dual-plant,
depending on the power and steam demanded to the MSF unit(s), the operation
modes are (see section 4.6 relating the operating and mathematical models of the
process):
• Extraction mode.
• Parallel mode.
• Condensing mode.
• Desalination mode.
• Twin desalination mode.
• Twin extraction mode.
The four input variables must be consistent with the selected operating mode, anyway
the program will inform you which variable is out of the range specified for each
operating mode.
The simulation results of both processes are also presented in several windows, and
are resumed here:
• Relevant parameters corresponding to the whole plant and to different
components (fuel consumption, performance ratio, plant efficiency, specific
consumption, steam consumption, etc).
• Thermophysical properties of the mass flowstreams considered in the simulation
(the flowstreams are numbered in figures 5.1 and 5.2 respectively). In the power
plant process the values of the gland steam leakage system are also available (see
section 4.3.10 for specifications). The properties are:
– Temperature.
– Pressure.
– Mass flow rate.
– Steam quality.
– Specific enthalpy.
– Specific entropy.
1. Taking into account for the two extraction units (E1, E2) —see figure 4.1— with the same thermodynamic
properties.
SIMTAW structure
FIGURE 5.2 SIMTAW power plant window.
– Specific exergy (thermal, mechanical and chemical contributions).

– Dynamic viscosity.
– Thermal conductivity.
– Specific heat.
– Density.
• Some charts of different variables plotted by using a graphic server in SIMTAW:

temperature profiles in the MSF stages, distillation per stage, expansion line of
the steam turbine.
• The exergy costs of the main components of the power plant and water are shown
in a window, if the fuel cost is introduced (in dollars per unit of energy) the
exergoeconomic costs are also included.
All these results can be saved in a text file than can be accessed by conventional
applications (MS Office). The file also includes the input values and some interesting
design values introduced in the simulator (tube characteristics and fouling factor in
Simulator
distillers in the MSF plant, for example), and the exergy cost of the products of each
component, following the productive structure that will be explained in Chapter 7.
5.2 Model validation

The simulator should predict the most important values of the main flowstreams of
the power and desalination plant with an accuracy that allows reproducing the
operating conditions of the plant without using a data flowsheet for each situation.
The accuracy of the simulator is tested with the data flowsheets provided by the plant
managers, also called model validation of the simulator. Furthermore, when the data
acquisition system of a plant is not enough to provide the data necessary for the
diagnosis of the plant, a good simulator could substitute the acquisition system.
The model validation is separately applied to the power and desalination plant, note
that the way to calculate the thermodynamic properties in the design flowsheets is
unknown, therefore an indeterminate error is structurally included in the comparative
analysis (or model validation).
Only a few values calculated in the simulator are also available in the data acquisition
system of the power plant (this does not means that there are more signals than the
system can measure, but that the recording system is limited by the plant managers):
temperature and pressure of some turbine extractions, live steam conditions and
feedwater temperature in some heaters. Furthermore, the live steam properties are not
maintained under operating conditions, and the data collected is every four hours.
Consequently, no adjustment has been made to the simulator in order to achieve a
more realistic set of values of the main flowstreams of the power plant.
The data acquisition system of the MSF plant only provides a few data of the main
controlling variables of the process every four hours (temperatures and flow rates
entering and leaving the heater, recovery and reject section, and the internal
parameters mentioned above). Therefore no comparison is included between the real
data and the results obtained when the simulator operates with the ‘Sim. with real
data’ option, that is, using the correlated internal parameters based on real
experience.
5.2.1 Power plant

Most of the performance data cases are simulated and compared with the data
provided by the plant contractors (ABB, 1996b). The first table of each comparative
study shows (in different rows) the inputs of the simulation (output power W, steam to
MSF unit Md, condenser pressure Pc and Live steam extraction LS); note that the
output power is not exactly the same as that proposed by the contractors. This is
Model validation
because the input power value inserted in the simulator window is only a first step to
calculate the main steam flow to the boiler. Therefore, the output results try to find out
the minimum difference in both live steam mass flow and the final output power for
each performance case. The feed pump consumption is also included in this table
(W FP). The third row shows the relative error observed in the input process.
The second table shows in its first part the pressure p, temperature T and mass flow
rate m of the main flowstreams of the power plant. The second part includes the
values ( p′ , T′ and m′ ) obtained by the simulator. Finally, the third part introduces
the relative error of each property of the flowstreams (εp, εT, εm). Each flow is
numbered according to the scheme followed in figure 5.2. The meaning of each
performance data case is described in section 4.6. Only the values that are provided
by the contractors have been compared in the table.
Analyzing the model results, when the steam to LP turbine is not close to zero, that is,
in performance data cases which represent partial or full load in extraction or twin
extraction mode (MCR, MR, VWO, COC, PL115, PL85 performance data cases), the
highest relative error is detected in the LP extraction (< 3% in any case), but the
absolute difference between the simulator and data flowsheet is minimum.
However, when the NTW mathematical model is applied, i.e. a minimum amount of
steam passes through the LP turbine (this situation correspond to MSL3 and MSL4
cases, the last one is the most usual in winter operation in the Gulf Area, when the
water demand is always high but the energy consumption decrease to the 30% of the
plant capacity), the relative error could reach to a 10% in the LP extraction and the
steam derived to the condenser, although in those limit cases the absolute difference
detected is very low. It is clear that the mathematical model applied when the steam
to LP turbine is close to zero (NTW model) is more unstable than other
mathematical models applied when some amount of steam passes through the LP
turbine (LTW model).
Simulator
5.2.1.1 MCR case
TABLE 5.1 Input variables for the MCR (maximum continous rating, producing both electricity and water)
case.
W (MW) W FP (kW) Md (kg/s) Pc (bar) LS (Gcal/h)
Design 122 2308 89.68 0.072 0

Simulation 122.75 2262.4 89.68 0.072 0
Rel. error (%) 0.611 –2.016 0.000 0.000 0.000
TABLE 5.2 Model validation for the MCR case.
No. p (bar) T (ºC) m (kg/s) p' (bar) T' (ºC) m' (kg/s) εp (%) εT (%) εm (%)
1 93 535 156.187 93 535 156.09 0.00 0.00 0.06
3 28.46 365.4 10.839 28.39 363.5 10.8 0.25 0.52 0.36
4 14.79 282.1 8.303 14.73 278.1 8.24 0.41 1.42 0.76
5 7.235 203.2 10.989 7.213 198.6 10.94 0.30 2.26 0.45
6 2.76 130.7 3.321 2.76 130.7 3.32 0.00 0.00 0.03
8 0.482 80.4 2.278 0.482 80.4 2.21 0.00 0.00 2.99
9 0.072 39.5 29.631 0.072 39.5 29.75 0.00 0.00 –0.40
11 39.6 36.545 39.8 36.59 –0.51 –0.12
12 41 36.545 41.2 36.59 –0.49 –0.12
24 5.599 5.53 1.23
14 78.2 36.545 78.2 36.59 0.00 –0.12
23 84.2 3.321 84.4 3.32 –0.24 0.03
15 128.2 36.545 128.3 36.59 –0.08 –0.12
16 162.9 156.355 162.8 156.25 0.06 0.07
18 164.8 156.187 164.7 156.09 0.06 0.06
22 168.8 19.142 168.7 19.04 0.06 0.53
19 194.6 156.187 194.4 156.09 0.10 0.06
21 198.6 10.839 198.4 10.8 0.10 0.36
20 230.1 156.187 230 156.09 0.04 0.06
30 27.18 10.839 27.106 10.8 0.27 0.36
31 14.12 8.303 14.08 8.24 0.28 0.76
32 6.655 10.989 6.634 10.94 0.32 0.45
33 2.677 3.321 2.677 3.32 0.00 0.03
34 0.467 2.278 0.467 2.21 0.00 2.99
Model validation
5.2.1.2 MR case
TABLE 5.3 Input variables for the MR (maximum rating, producing only electricity) performance case.

Design 146.693 2,274 0 0,135 0
Simulation 146.73 2,331.4 0 0.135 0
Rel. error (%) –0.025 –2.524 0.000 0.000 0.000
TABLE 5.4 Model validation for the MR case.
1 93 535 156.187 93 535 156.2 0.00 0.00 –0.01
3 30.58 374.5 9.254 30.52 374 9.22 0.20 0.13 0.37
4 17.7 302.8 5.492 17.61 298.6 5.49 0.51 1.39 0.04
5 11.23 248.9 6.012 11.17 243.3 5.92 0.53 2.25 1.53
6 8.232 218.8 13.291 8.232 213.6 13.35 0.00 2.38 –0.44
8 1.913 118.8 11.778 1.916 118.9 11.65 –0.16 –0.08 1.09
9 0.135 51.9 110.043 0.135 51.8 110.26 0.00 0.19 –0.20
11 52 135.429 52 135.58 0.00 –0.11
12 53.6 135.429 53.5 135.58 0.19 –0.11
24 25.069 25 0.28
14 108 135.429 107.6 135.58 0.37 –0.11
23 118 13.291 117.8 13.35 0.17 –0.44
15 162.4 135.429 162.3 135.58 0.06 –0.11
16 184.5 156.187 184.2 156.2 0.16 –0.01
18 186.6 156.187 186.3 156.2 0.16 –0.01
22 190.6 14.476 190.2 14.7 0.21 –1.55
19 205.3 156.187 205.1 156.2 0.10 -0.01
21 209.3 9.254 209 9.22 0.14 0.37
20 235 156.187 234.8 156.2 0.09 -0.01
30 29.71 9.254 29.62 9.22 0.30 0.37
31 17.45 5.492 17.349 5.49 0.58 0.04
32 11.11 6.012 11.038 5.92 0.65 1.53
33 7.676 13.291 7.674 13.35 0.03 -0.44
34 1.799 11.778 1.78 11.65 1.06 1.09
Simulator
5.2.1.3 PL115 case
TABLE 5.5 Input variables for the PL115 performance case (partial load with 115 MW of electricity and a
heat extraction to MSF of 145 Gcal/h).

Design 122 2162 75.96 0.065 0
Simulation 122.12 2063.1 75.96 0.065 0
Rel. Error (%) –0.098 4.574 0.000 0.000 0.000
TABLE 5.6 Model validation for the PL115 performance data case.
1 93 535 148.923 93 535 148.11 0.00 0.00 0.55
3 26.99 360.5 10.252 26.791 358.4 10.17 0.74 0.58 0.80
4 13.97 277.4 8.03 13.848 273.2 8.07 0.87 1.51 –0.50
5 6.749 198 10.897 6.705 193.3 10.59 0.65 2.37 2.82
6 2.39 126 3.317 2.39 126 3.29 0.00 0.00 0.81
8 0.588 85.4 3.237 0.587 85.4 3.13 0.17 0.00 3.31
9 0.065 37.5 36.083 0.065 37.7 35.75 0.00 –0.53 0.92
11 37.6 43.949 37.7 43.48 –0.27 1.07
12 38.8 43.949 37.7 43.48 2.84 1.07
24 6.553 6.51 0.66
14 82.2 43.949 82.2 43.48 0.00 1.07
23 88.7 3.317 88.9 3.29 –0.23 0.81
15 123.2 43.949 123.4 43.48 –0.16 1.07
16 159.7 149.087 158.9 148.27 0.50 0.55
18 161.6 148.923 160.6 148.11 0.62 0.55
22 165.5 18.282 164.5 18.24 0.60 0.23
19 191.9 148.923 191.4 148.11 0.26 0.55
21 195.8 10.252 195.3 10.17 0.26 0.80
20 227.3 148.923 226.9 148.11 0.18 0.55
30 25.79 10.252 25.598 10.17 0.74 0.80
31 13.32 8.03 13.188 8.07 0.99 –0.50
32 6.141 10.897 6.135 10.59 0.10 2.82
33 2.295 3.317 2.299 3.29 –0.17 0.81
34 0.563 3.237 0.562 3.13 0.18 3.31
Model validation
5.2.1.4 PL85 case
TABLE 5.7 Input variables for the PL85 performance case (partial load with 85 MW of electricity and 145
Gcal/h of extraction heat flow).

Design 91 1,649 75.62 0.055 0
Simulation 91.24 1,540.4 75.62 0.05 0
Rel. error (%) –0.264 6.586 0.000 0.000 0.000
TABLE 5.8 Model validation for the PL85 performance case.
1 93 535 117.391 93 535 117.03 0.00 0.00 0.31
3 21.15 340.7 7.331 21.064 340.4 7.29 0.41 0.09 0.56
4 11.1 261.7 5.719 11.036 259.2 5 .83 0.58 0.96 –1.94
5 5.56 187.7 7.875 5.538 184.6 7.68 0.40 1.65 2.48
6 2.39 126 2.21 2.39 126 2.18 0.00 0.00 1.36
8 0.261 66 0.993 0.262 66.1 0.95 –0.38 –0.15 4.33
9 0.055 34.6 16.478 0.055 34.6 16.63 0.00 0.00 –0.92
11 34.6 20.993 34.7 20.76 –0.29 1.11
12 37 20.993 37.1 20.76 –0.27 1.11
24 3.203 3.12 2.59
14 65 20.993 65 20.76 0.00 1.11
23 69.7 2.21 70.1 2.18 -0.57 1.36
15 124.4 20.993 124.5 20.76 -0.08 1.11
16 153.2 117.539 152.5 117.18 0.46 0.31
18 155 117.391 154.1 117.03 0.58 0.31
22 158.5 13.051 157.6 13.12 0.57 -0.53
19 182.4 117.391 182.3 117.03 0.05 0.31
21 185.9 7.331 185.8 7.29 0.05 0.56
20 215 117.391 215 117.03 0.00 0.31
30 20.39 7.331 20.31 7.29 0.39 0.56
31 10.7 5.719 10.62 5.83 0.75 –1.94
32 5.186 7.875 5.185 7.68 0.02 2.48
33 2.348 2.21 2.347 2.18 0.04 1.36
34 0.257 0.993 0.258 0.95 –0.39 4.33
Simulator
5.2.1.5 MSL2 case
TABLE 5.9 MSL2 performance case (minimum stable load with 45 MW of electricity and a combined heat
extraction flow of 145 Gcal/h). Main input data.

Design 51 1,305 60.4 0.048 26.34
Simulation 51.57 1,250.7 60.4 0.048 26.34
Rel. error (%) –1.118 4.161 0.000 0.000 0.000
TABLE 5.10 Model validation for the MSL2 performance case.
1 93 535 86.5 93 535 86.49 0.00 0.00 0.01
3 13.75 324.9 4.477 13.714 322.9 4.49 0.26 0.62 –0.29
4 7.442 251.2 3.355 7.411 247.4 3.38 0.42 1.51 –0.75
5 4.074 186.8 4.971 4.061 182.6 4.89 0.32 2.25 1.63
6 2.39 137.9 0.454 2.39 135.8 0.46 0.00 1.52 –1.32
8 0.054 34.4 0 0.055 34.7 0 –1.85 –0.87 0.00
9 0.048 80 1.751 0.048 80 1.75 0.00 0.00 0.06
11 32.4 3.466 32.2 3.55 0.62 –2.42
12 46.9 3.466 47.4 3.52 –1.07 –1.56
24 0.454 0.46 –1.32
14 47.3 3.466 47.7 3.52 –0.85 –1.56
23 49.6 0.454 50.2 0.46 –1.21 –1.32
15 125.7 3.466 125.7 3.52 0.00 –1.56
16 142.4 90.218 142 90.19 0.28 0.03
18 144.3 86.5 143.7 86.49 0.42 0.01
22 147.4 7.832 146.7 7.87 0.47 –0.49
19 166.4 86.5 166.1 86.49 0.18 0.01
21 169.5 4.477 169.2 4.49 0.18 –0.29
20 194.5 86.5 194.4 86.49 0.05 0.01
30 13.32 4.477 13.288 4.49 0.24 –0.29
31 7.235 3.355 7.206 3.38 0.40 –0.75
32 3.871 4.971 3.864 4.89 0.18 1.63
33 2.388 0.454 2.387 0.46 0.04 –1.32
34 0.108 0 0.055a 0 49.07 0.00
a. Note that the simulator does not suppose a pressure loss in the 5th extraction if any vapor is extracted.
Model validation
5.2.1.6 MSL3 case
TABLE 5.11 Input data of the MSL3 performance case (minimum stable load with two extractions of 150 and
145 Gcal/h to MSF units).

Design 72.44 2,975 75.13 0.048 150
Simulation 73.6 3,122.2 75.2 0.048 150
Rel. error (%) –1.601 –4.948 –0.093 0.000 0.000
TABLE 5.12 Model validation for the MSL3 performance case.
1 93 535 163 93 535 163.1 0.00 0.00 –0.06
3 18.22 333 9.851 18.176 329.8 9.94 0.24 0.96 –0.90
4 9.344 252.4 7.883 9.314 247.4 7.69 0.32 1.98 2.45
5 4.891 179.6 10.272 4.687 174.6 10.02 4.17 2.78 2.45
6 2.39 126 0.461 2.39 126 0.5 0.00 0.00 –8.46
8 0.054 34.3 0 0.055 34.7 0 –1.85 –1.17 0.00
9 0.048 80 1.727 0.048 80 1.91 0.00 0.00 –10.60
11 32.4 3.462 32.2 3.75 0.62 –8.32
12 47 3.462 46.4 3.72 1.28 –7.45
24 0.461 0.5 –8.46
14 47.3 3.462 46.7 3.72 1.27 –7.45
23 49.6 0.461 49.3 0.5 0.60 –8.46
15 125.7 3.462 125.7 3.72 0.00 –7.45
16 142.8 183.567 142 183.61 0.56 –0.02
18 144.6 163 144.2 163.1 0.28 –0.06
22 148.7 17.514 148.4 17.63 0.20 –0.66
19 171.6 163 171.3 163.1 0.17 –0.06
21 175.6 9.851 175.5 9.94 0.06 –0.90
20 204 163 204.1 163.1 –0.05 –0.06
30 16.6 9.851 16.62 9.94 –0.12 –0.90
31 8.465 7.663 8.505 7.69 –0.47 –0.35
32 3.907 10.272 4.026 10.02 –3.05 2.45
33 2.388 0.461 2.387 0.5 0.04 –8.46
34 0.108 0 0.055a 0 49.07 0.00
a. The same argumentation of the MSL2 case.
Simulator
5.2.1.7 MSL4 case
TABLE 5.13 Input data of the MSL4 performance case (minimum stable load with the maximum heat flow
extraction to MSF unit: 170 Gcal/h).

Design 75.52 1,543 88.63 0.021 0
Simulation 76.36 1,501.5 88.63 0.021 0
Rel. error (%) –1.112 2.690 0.000 0.000 0.000
TABLE 5.14 MSL4 performance case. Model validation.
1 93 535 109.5 93 535 109.64 0.00 0.00 –0.13
3 19.87 340.3 6.537 19.821 338.1 6.55 0.25 0.65 –0.20
4 10.58 262.9 4.956 10.534 258.9 5.04 0.43 1.52 –1.69
5 5.514 192.5 6.789 5.495 188.1 6.68 0.34 2.29 1.61
6 2.76 130.7 0.424 2.76 131.1 0.45 0.00 –0.31 –6.13
8 0.025 20.9 0 0.024 20.5 0 4.00 1.91 0.00
9 0.021 80 1.004 0.021 79.8 1.14 0.00 0.25 –13.55
11 18.3 2.743 18.3 2.92 0.00 –6.45
12 36.7 2.743 36.6 2.92 0.27 –6.45
24 0.424 0.45 –6.13
14 37.1 2.736 36.9 2.9 0.54 –5.99
23 39.2 0.424 39.1 0.45 0.26 –6.13
15 130.5 2.736 130.5 2.9 0.00 –5.99
16 153.6 109.649 153 109.79 0.39 –0.13
18 155.3 109.5 154.7 109.64 0.39 –0.13
22 158.8 11.493 158.2 11.58 0.38 –0.76
19 180.8 109.5 180.7 109.64 0.06 –0.13
21 184.2 6.537 184.1 6.55 0.05 –0.20
20 212.2 109.5 212.2 109.6 0.00 –0.09
30 19.23 6.537 19.176 6.55 0.28 –0.20
31 10.26 4.956 10.207 5.04 0.52 –1.69
32 5.233 6.789 5.22 6.68 0.25 1.61
33 2.759 0.424 2.758 0.45 0.04 –6.13
34 0.063 0 0.024a 0 61.90 0.00
a. No pressure losses are associated to the final extraction
Model validation
5.2.1.8 ODOB case
TABLE 5.15 Main input data of the ODOB case (one desalination-one boiler).

Design 0 ? 88.45 0 170
Simulation 0 1,222.6 88.45 0 170
Rel. error (%) 0.000 ? 0.000 0.000 0.000
TABLE 5.16 Model validation of the ODOB case.
1 93 535 70.383 93 535 70.38 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 0 0 0 0
12 0 0 0 0
24 0 0
14 0 0 0 0
23 0 0 0 0
15 0 0 0 0
16 138.9 93.841 138.9 94.94 0.00 –1.17
18 140.7 70.383 140.5 70.38 0.14 0.00
22 0 0 0 0
19 140.7 70.383 140.5 70.38 0.14 0.00
21 0 0 0 0
20 140.7 70.383 140.5 70.38 0.14 0.00
30 0 0 0 0
31 0 0 0 0
32 0 0 0 0
33 0 0 0 0
34 0 0 0 0
Simulator
5.2.1.9 TDOB case
TABLE 5.17 Main input data of the TDOB case (two desalination-one boiler).

Design 0 ? 140.766 0 340
Simulation 0 764.8 140.76 0 340
Rel. error (%) 0.000 ? 0.004 0.000 0.000
TABLE 5.18 Model validation data for the TDOB case.
1 93 535 140.766 93 535 140.76 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 0 0 0 0
12 0 0 0 0
24 0 0
14 0 0 0 0
23 0 0 0 0
15 0 0 0 0
16 138.9 187.682 138.9 187.38 0.00 0.16
18 140.8 140.766 139.7 140.76 0.78 0.00
22 0 0 0 0
19 140.8 140.766 139.7 140.76 0.78 0.00
21 0 0 0 0
20 140.8 140.766 139.7 140.76 0.78 0.00
30 0 0 0 0
31 0 0 0 0
32 0 0 0 0
33 0 0 0 0
34 0 0 0 0
Model validation
5.2.1.10 VWO case
TABLE 5.19 Main input data of the VWO performance case (maximum capacity of the steam turbine with and
extraction heat flow of 170 Gcal/h to MSF).

Design 126.587 2,412 89.69 0.074 0
Simulation 126.78 2,425.9 89.68 0.074 0
Rel. error (%) –0.152 –0.576 0.011 0.000 0.000
TABLE 5.20 Model validation data for the VWO case.
1 93 535 161.038 93 535 160.21 0.00 0.00 0.51
3 29.36 368.1 11.317 29.158 365.4 11.17 0.69 0.73 1.30
4 15.23 284.3 8.665 15.11 279.6 8.59 0.79 1.65 0.87
5 7.419 204.7 11.473 7.368 199.5 11.33 0.69 2.54 1.25
6 2.759 130.7 3.485 2.76 130.7 3.44 –0.04 0.00 1.29
8 0.533 82.9 2.623 0.528 82.7 2.4 0.94 0.24 8.50
9 0.074 40 32.64 0.074 40.1 32.44 0.00 –0.25 0.61
11 40.1 40.064 40.1 39.63 0.00 1.08
12 41.3 40.064 42.2 39.6 –2.18 1.16
24 6.109 5.85 4.24
14 80.4 40.064 80.3 39.6 0.12 1.16
23 86.6 3.485 86.8 3.44 –0.23 1.29
15 128 40.064 128.1 39.6 –0.08 1.16
16 163.8 161.209 163.5 160.38 0.18 0.51
18 165.7 161.038 165.5 160.21 0.12 0.51
22 169.7 19.982 169.5 19.76 0.12 1.11
19 195.8 161.038 195.6 160.21 0.10 0.51
21 199.9 11.317 199.6 11.17 0.15 1.30
20 231.8 161.038 231.4 160.21 0.17 0.51
30 28.01 11.317 27.817 11.17 0.69 1.30
31 14.53 8.665 14.41 8.59 0.83 0.87
32 6.8 11.473 6.758 11.33 0.62 1.25
33 2.667 3.485 2.671 3.44 –0.15 1.29
34 0.515 2.623 0.512 2.4 0.58 8.50
Simulator
5.2.1.11 COC case
TABLE 5.21 Input data of the COC performance case (boiler peak load at least 5% more than the MCR case).

Design 124.41 3,103 89.72 0.072 50.8
Simulation 124.65 3,350 89.72 0.072 50.8
Rel. error (%) –0.193 –7.960 0.000 0.000 0.000
TABLE 5.22 Model validation data for the COC case.
1 93 535 180.556 93 535 179.58 0.00 0.00 0.54
3 29.02 366.9 12.704 28.77 363.7 12.6 0.86 0.87 0.82
4 14.93 282.3 9.723 14.786 277 9.7 0.96 1.88 0.24
5 7.219 202.2 12.96 7.17 196.8 12.55 0.68 2.67 3.16
6 2.76 130.7 3.314 2.76 130.7 3.29 0.00 0.00 0.72
8 0.479 80.3 2.258 0.471 79.9 2.17 1.67 0.50 3.90
9 0.072 39.5 29.449 0.072 39.5 29.14 0.00 0.00 1.05
11 39.6 36.335 39.6 35.92 0.00 1.14
12 41 36.335 40.7 35.92 0.73 1.14
24 5.572 5.46 2.01
14 78.1 36.335 77.7 35.92 0.51 1.14
23 84 3.314 83.9 3.29 0.12 0.72
15 128.2 36.335 128.3 35.92 –0.08 1.14
16 161.4 187.942 160.3 186.94 0.68 0.53
18 163.5 180.556 162.8 179.58 0.43 0.54
22 167.7 22.427 167 22.3 0.42 0.57
19 193.8 180.556 193.3 179.58 0.26 0.54
21 198 12.704 197.5 12.6 0.25 0.82
20 230 180.556 229.6 179.58 0.17 0.54
30 27.28 12.704 27.06 12.6 0.81 0.82
31 14.02 9.723 13.888 9.7 0.94 0.24
32 6.398 12.96 6.415 12.55 –0.27 3.16
33 2.677 3.314 2.678 3.29 –0.04 0.72
34 0.464 2.258 0.457 2.17 1.51 3.90
Model validation
5.2.2 MSF Plant

Distiller design data in the most characteristic operating conditions have been
provided by the plant manufacturers (Italimpianti, 1997). Only a few cases contain
the temperature profile of the three flows inside each stage of the distiller. They
correspond to the guarantied conditions of the contractors:
• Nominal production in summer (normal-temperature operation in summer,

NTOS): 1,900 T/h of freshwater produced (or a TBT of 100 ºC) and a seawater
temperature of 32 ºC.
• Maximum production in summer (high-temperature operation in summer,

HTOS): distillation of 2,258 T/h (112 ºC TBT) with a seawater entering at 32 ºC.
• Minimum production in summer (low-temperature operation in summer, LTOS):

distillation of 1,232 T/h (84 ºC TBT), seawater enters at 32 ºC.
• Maximum production in winter (high-temperature operation in winter, HTOW):

distillation of 2,400 T/h (112 ºC TBT) with a seawater entering at 18 ºC. Seawater
to reject section enters at 25 ºC by using the temper system by the way of
deviating a quantity of cooling seawater rejected to the sea.
The first table of each comparative study shows some inputs of design data and
simulation in the first and second rows respectively (seawater intake flow SW and
temperature Tsea). Some other inputs (steam to heater conditions, seawater intake
temperature) needed for the simulator are not included because they must be the same
quantity as the proposed design value. The distillate produced in the two cases is
maintained in the same quantity too. Other operating parameters that are obtained in
the simulation are also compared in the table: seawater to reject and recycle brine
flows (SR and R), Top Brine Temperature (TBT), Performance Ratio (PR) and steam
consumption (mST). The third row shows the relative error observed in the table, the
highest error is in the steam consumed. This error can be due to the absence of a
desuperheater before the brine heater in the mathematical model applied to the MSF
distillers, and the error introduced when the steam properties (the latent heat of
vaporization) below two different perspectives are calculated.
The second table shows in its first part the chamber pressure p, temperature profile
(cooling brine TF, distillate TD and flashing brine TB) and distillate flow rate (D) of
each stage of the MSF plant. The second part includes the values ( p′ , T F′ , T D′ , T B′
and D′ ) obtained by the simulator. Finally, the third part introduces the relative error
of the stage values (εp, εTF, εTD, εTB, εD). Each stage is numbered according to the
scheme followed in figure 5.1.
Simulator
In Gulf Area the water demand in summer is the 100% of the plant capacity, and
covers the 80% in winter. So, the most realistic performance data cases are (in this
order) HTOS and HTOW. The error analysis is going to be underlined in these two
cases.
The main error source in HTOS case is detected in the pressure of the reject stages
and the last stage of the recovery section (a maximum of 9% of relative error). The
contractors for absolute pressure of the MSF chambers give an accuracy of two
decimals, therefore the error associated to the numeric presentation could be
important. The correlation to calculate the absolute pressure of a flash chamber also
should improve the error detected in those values.
The distillate produced in the first stages of the recovery section has a maximum
relative error of 5%. This error is due to the correlations for calculating both brine and
steam properties and the global heat transfer coefficient of each condenser. The
temperatures of the three main flows of each distiller do not exceed in any case a
relative error of 1.5%.
Model validation
5.2.2.1 NTOS case
TABLE 5.23 Input data and performance parameters of the NTOS case (normal-temperature operation in
summer).
SW (T/h) SR (T/h) R (T/h) TBT (ºC) mST (T/h) PR Tsea (ºC)
Design 19,900 17,700 19,650 100 239.6 8 32

Simulator 19,965 17,396.8 19,584.5 100.4 247.9 7.85 32
Rel. Error (%) –0.33 1.71 0.33 –0.40 –3.46 1.88 0.00
TABLE 5.24 Model validation of the NTOS performance case.
p TF TD TB D p’ TF’ TD’ TB’ D’ εP εTF εTD εTB εD

Stage (bar) (ºC) (ºC) (ºC) (T/h) (bar) (ºC) (ºC) (ºC) (T/h) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
1 0.87 93.1 95.7 96.7 109 0.883 93.3 96.2 97.1 114.2 –1.49 –0.21 –0.52 –0.41 –4.77
2 0.77 90 92.5 93.5 219 0.781 89.9 92.9 93.8 226.3 –1.43 0.11 –0.43 –0.32 –3.33
3 0.68 86.7 89.3 90.2 328 0.688 86.6 89.5 90.4 338.9 –1.18 0.12 –0.22 –0.22 –3.32
4 0.59 83.5 86 86.9 437 0.605 83.3 86.2 87.1 449.4 –2.54 0.24 –0.23 –0.23 –2.84
5 0.52 80.1 82.7 83.6 545 0.531 80 82.8 83.7 557.9 –2.12 0.12 –0.12 –0.12 –2.37
6 0.46 76.8 79.4 80.3 652 0.465 76.7 79.5 80.5 664.3 –1.09 0.13 –0.13 –0.25 –1.89
7 0.4 73.5 76.1 77 757 0.407 73.4 76.3 77.2 768.7 –1.75 0.14 –0.26 –0.26 –1.55
8 0.35 70.2 72.8 73.8 861 0.355 70.2 73 74 871 –1.43 0.00 –0.27 –0.27 –1.16
9 0.3 67 69.5 70.5 963 0.309 67 69.8 70.8 971.4 –3.00 0.00 –0.43 –0.43 –0.87
10 0.26 63.7 66.3 67.3 1064 0.269 63.8 66.6 67.6 1069.7 –3.46 –0.16 –0.45 –0.45 –0.54
11 0.22 60.4 63 64 1160 0.234 60.6 63.5 64.5 1165.9 –6.36 –0.33 –0.79 –0.78 –0.51
12 0.19 57.3 59.9 60.9 1255 0.203 57.5 60.4 61.4 1260.4 –6.84 –0.35 –0.83 –0.82 –0.43
13 0.17 54.2 56.8 57.8 1347 0.175 54.4 57.3 58.3 1352.6 –2.94 –0.37 –0.88 –0.87 –0.42
14 0.14 51.1 53.7 54.8 1437 0.152 51.4 54.2 55.3 1442.6 –8.57 –0.59 –0.93 –0.91 –0.39
15 0.12 48 50.7 51.8 1527 0.131 48.4 51.2 52.3 1530.3 –9.17 –0.83 –0.99 –0.97 –0.22
16 0.105 45 47.7 48.8 1614 0.113 45.4 48.3 49.4 1615.4 –7.62 –0.89 –1.26 –1.23 –0.09
17 0.09 42.1 44.7 45.9 1698 0.097 42.5 45.4 46.6 1698 –7.78 –0.95 –1.57 –1.53 0.00
18 0.08 39.5 42.5 43.7 1761 0.086 39.6 43 44.4 1763.5 –7.50 –0.25 –1.18 –1.60 –0.14
19 0.07 37.1 40.2 41.5 1826 0.076 37.1 40.6 42.1 1829.7 –8.57 0.00 –1.00 –1.45 –0.20
20 0.06 34.7 37.9 39.2 1896 0.067 34.6 38.2 39.7 1896.2 –11.67 0.29 –0.79 –1.28 –0.01
Simulator
5.2.2.2 HTOS case
TABLE 5.25 Input data and performance parameters of the HTOS case (high-temperature operation in
summer).
Design 19,900 17,700 19,850 112 294.1 8 32

Simulator 19,975 17,509.1 19,850 112.3 301.3 7.86 32
Rel. Error (%) –0.38 1.08 0.00 –0.27 –2.45 1.75 0.00
TABLE 5.26 Model validation of the HTOS performance case.

1 1.3 103.8 107.2 108.2 131 1.311 103.9 107.4 108.4 138.5 –0.85 –0.10 –0.19 –0.18 –5.73
2 1.14 100.2 103.5 104.5 261 1.147 100 103.5 104.5 274.1 –0.61 0.20 0.00 0.00 –5.02
3 1 96.4 99.7 100.7 390 0.997 96.2 99.5 100.5 409.9 0.30 0.21 0.20 0.20 –5.10
4 0.87 92.7 95.9 96.9 521 0.865 92.2 95.6 96.6 542.8 0.57 0.54 0.31 0.31 –4.18
5 0.75 88.8 92 93 649 0.748 88.3 91.7 92.7 672.9 0.27 0.56 0.33 0.32 –3.68
6 0.65 85 88.2 89.2 776 0.646 84.5 87.9 88.8 800.3 0.62 0.59 0.34 0.45 –3.13
7 0.56 81.1 84.4 85.3 902 0.556 80.6 84 85 924.9 0.71 0.62 0.47 0.35 –2.54
8 0.48 77.2 80.5 81.5 1025 0.478 76.8 80.2 81.2 1047 0.42 0.52 0.37 0.37 –2.15
9 0.41 73.4 76.7 77.7 1146 0.41 73 76.4 77.4 1166.3 0.00 0.54 0.39 0.39 –1.77
10 0.35 69.6 72.9 73.9 1266 0.35 69.3 72.7 73.7 1283.3 0.00 0.43 0.27 0.27 –1.37
11 0.3 65.8 69 70 1381 0.299 65.6 69 70 1397.6 0.33 0.30 0.00 0.00 –1.20
12 0.25 62 65.4 66.4 1493 0.254 61.9 65.3 66.3 1509.7 –1.60 0.16 0.15 0.15 –1.12
13 0.21 58.4 61.7 62.7 1603 0.215 58.3 61.7 62.7 1619.1 –2.38 0.17 0.00 0.00 –1.00
14 0.18 54.7 58.1 59.1 1711 0.182 54.7 58.1 59.2 1725.8 –1.11 0.00 0.00 –0.17 –0.86
15 0.15 51.1 54.5 55.5 1817 0.154 51.1 54.6 55.7 1829.7 –2.67 0.00 –0.18 –0.36 –0.70
16 0.12 47.5 50.9 52 1920 0.13 47.6 51.1 52.2 1930.7 –8.33 –0.21 –0.39 –0.38 –0.56
17 0.1 44 47.4 48.5 2021 0.109 44.2 47.6 48.9 2028.6 –9.00 –0.45 –0.42 –0.82 –0.38
18 0.09 40.5 44.6 45.9 2096 0.095 40.9 44.9 46.2 2104.2 –5.56 –0.99 –0.67 –0.65 –0.39
19 0.08 38.1 41.9 43.2 2173 0.083 38 42.2 43.6 2180.7 –3.75 0.26 –0.72 –0.93 –0.35
20 0.07 35.1 39.2 40.5 2258 0.071 35 39.3 40.8 2257.9 –1.43 0.28 –0.26 –0.74 0.00
Model validation
5.2.2.3 LTOS case
TABLE 5.27 Some input data and performance parameters of the LTOS case (low-temperature operation in
summer).
Design 17,000 14,800 16,450 84 148.1 8.1 32

Simulator 17,000 14,900.2 16,476.9 84.6 150.5 8.14 32
Rel. Error (%) –0.00 –0.68 –0.16 –0.71 –1.62 –0.49 0.00
TABLE 5.28 Model validation. LTOS performance case in MSF distillers.

1 0.475 78.7 80.48 81.4 72 0.495 79.2 81.1 81.9 73.9 –4.21 –0.64 –0.77 –0.61 –2.64
2 0.428 76.2 77.97 78.9 143 0.445 76.6 78.5 79.3 146.6 –3.97 –0.52 –0.68 –0.51 –2.52
3 0.385 73.6 75.37 76.3 215 0.399 74 75.8 76.7 219.7 –3.64 –0.54 –0.57 –0.52 –2.19
4 0.345 71 72.79 73.7 286 0.357 71.3 73.2 74.1 291.5 –3.48 –0.42 –0.56 –0.54 –1.92
5 0.309 68.4 70.21 71.1 356 0.32 68.7 70.6 71.5 362.2 –3.56 –0.44 –0.56 –0.56 –1.74
6 0.277 65.9 67.65 68 426 0.286 66.2 68 68.9 431.6 –3.25 –0.46 –0.52 –1.32 –1.31
7 0.247 63.3 65.08 66 494 0.255 63.6 65.4 66.3 499.7 –3.24 –0.47 –0.49 –0.45 –1.15
8 0.22 60.7 62.53 63.5 562 0.228 61.1 62.9 63.8 566.6 –3.64 –0.66 –0.59 –0.47 –0.82
9 0.196 58.2 60.01 61 629 0.203 58.6 60.4 61.3 632.1 –3.57 –0.69 –0.65 –0.49 –0.49
10 0.175 55.7 57.49 58.4 695 0.181 56.1 57.9 58.9 696.3 –3.43 –0.72 –0.71 –0.86 –0.19
11 0.154 53.2 54.9 55.8 756 0.161 53.6 55.5 56.4 759.2 –4.55 –0.75 –1.09 –1.08 –0.42
12 0.138 50.8 52.56 53.3 816 0.143 51.2 53.1 54.1 820.7 –3.62 –0.79 –1.03 –1.50 –0.58
13 0.123 48.5 50.23 51.2 876 0.127 48.9 50.7 51.7 880.8 –3.25 –0.82 –0.94 –0.98 –0.55
14 0.109 46.1 47.91 48.9 934 0.113 46.5 48.3 49.4 939.7 –3.67 –0.87 –0.81 –1.02 –0.61
15 0.098 43.9 45.64 46.6 992 0.101 44.2 46 47.2 996.1 –3.06 –0.68 –0.79 –1.29 –0.41
16 0.087 41.6 43.36 44.4 1048 0.09 42 43.7 45 1051.2 –3.45 –0.96 –0.78 –1.35 –0.31
17 0.077 39.3 41.11 42.2 1104 0.08 39.8 41.5 42.8 1104.3 –3.90 –1.27 –0.95 –1.42 –0.03
18 0.071 37.1 39.44 40.5 1145 0.072 37.6 39.7 41.1 1146.9 –1.41 –1.35 –0.66 –1.48 –0.17
19 0.064 35.8 37.71 38.8 1187 0.066 35.8 37.9 39.4 1189.5 –3.13 0.00 –0.50 –1.55 –0.21
20 0.058 33.9 35.94 37.1 1232 0.059 33.9 36 37.7 1231.9 –1.72 0.00 –0.17 –1.62 0.01
Simulator
5.2.2.4 HTOW case
TABLE 5.29 Some input data and performance parameters of the HTOW case (high-temperature operation in
winter).
Design 11,231.5 16,400 19,850 112 313.3 8 18

Simulator 11,231 17,000 19,850 111.4 320.6 7.84 18
Rel. Error (%) 0.00 –3.66 0.00 0.54 –2.33 2.00 0.00
TABLE 5.30 Model validation of HTOW case of the MSF plant.

1 1.28 103.2 106.8 107.9 142 1.258 102.4 106.2 107.1 148.5 1.72 0.78 0.56 0.74 –4.58
2 1.12 99.3 102.8 103.8 284 1.088 98.2 102 103 294.1 2.86 1.11 0.78 0.77 –3.56
3 0.97 95.2 98.7 99.7 424 0.935 94.1 97.8 98.7 439.6 3.61 1.16 0.91 1.00 –3.68
4 0.83 91 94.5 95.5 565 0.801 89.8 93.5 94.5 581.9 3.49 1.32 1.06 1.05 –2.99
5 0.71 86.9 90.3 91.3 703 0.684 85.7 89.4 90.3 721 3.66 1.38 1.00 1.10 –2.56
6 0.6 82.7 86.2 87.2 840 0.583 81.5 85.2 86.1 857.1 2.83 1.45 1.16 1.26 –2.04
7 0.51 78.5 82 83 975 0.495 77.4 81.1 82 990.1 2.94 1.40 1.10 1.20 –1.55
8 0.43 74.3 77.8 78.8 1107 0.42 73.3 77 78 1120.3 2.33 1.35 1.03 1.02 –1.20
9 0.36 70.1 73.7 74.7 1237 0.354 69.2 73 73.9 1247.5 1.67 1.28 0.95 1.07 –0.85
10 0.3 66 69.6 70.6 1365 0.298 65.2 69 69.9 1371.7 0.67 1.21 0.86 0.99 –0.49
11 0.25 61.8 65.4 66.4 1487 0.25 61.3 65 66 1493.1 0.00 0.81 0.61 0.60 –0.41
12 0.21 57.8 61.4 62.5 1605 0.21 57.3 61.1 62.1 1611.8 0.00 0.87 0.49 0.64 –0.42
13 0.17 53.9 57.5 58.6 1721 0.175 53.4 57.2 58.2 1727.5 –2.94 0.93 0.52 0.68 –0.38
14 0.14 50 53.6 54.8 1833 0.146 49.6 53.4 54.4 1840 –4.29 0.80 0.37 0.73 –0.38
15 0.12 46.2 49.8 51.1 1943 0.121 45.8 49.6 50.7 1949.2 –0.83 0.87 0.40 0.78 –0.32
16 0.1 42.4 46.1 47.4 2049 0.1 42.1 45.9 47.1 2055 0.00 0.71 0.43 0.63 –0.29
17 0.08 38.7 42.3 43.8 2150 0.083 38.5 42.2 43.5 2157 –3.75 0.52 0.24 0.68 –0.33
18 0.07 35.2 39.5 41.1 2229 0.071 34.9 39.4 40.7 2236.8 –1.43 0.85 0.25 0.97 –0.35
19 0.06 32.3 36.5 38.2 2310 0.06 31.7 36.4 37.9 2317.9 0.00 1.86 0.27 0.79 –0.34
20 0.05 28.8 33.6 35.2 2400 0.051 28.4 33.3 34.9 2400 –2.00 1.39 0.89 0.85 0.00
CHAPTER 6
Thermoeconomics
Fundamentals, applications of thermoeconomic diagnosis
and optimization of complex energy systems
As the human population grows, our finite world is becoming smaller and natural
resources are more and more scarce. We must conserve them in order to survive and
Thermoeconomics plays a key role in this endeavor. We should find out how energy
and resources degrade, which systems work better, how to improve designs to reduce
consumption and prevent residues from damaging the environment. Thermoeco-
nomics and its application to engineering energy systems can help to answer these
questions.
The production process of a complex energy system (e.g., a dual-purpose power and
desalination plant) can be analyzed in terms of its economic profitability and
efficiency with respect to resource consumption.
An economic analysis can calculate the cost of fuel, investment, operation and
maintenance for the whole plant but provides no means to evaluate the single
processes taking place in the subsystems nor how to distribute the costs among them.
On the other hand, a thermodynamic analysis calculates the efficiencies of the

subsystems and locates and quantifies the irreversibilities but cannot evaluate their
significance in terms of the overall production process.
Thermoeconomic analysis combines economic and thermodynamic analysis by

applying the concept of cost (originally an economic property) to exergy (an energetic
property). Most analysts agree that exergy is the most adequate thermodynamic
property to associate with cost since it contains information from the second law of
thermodynamics and accounts for energy quality (Tsatsaronis, 1987, 1998; Gaggioli
and El-Sayed, 1987; Moran, 1990). Exergetic efficiency compares a real process to a
reversible one, (i.e. an ideal process of the same type). An exergy analysis locates and

Thermoeconomics
quantifies irreversibilities in a process. Exergy based thermoeconomic methods are

also referred to as “exergoeconomics” (Tsatsaronis and Winhold, 1985).
In his seminal book, The Entropy Law and the Economic Process, Nicholas
Georgescu-Roegen (1971) pointed out that “…the science of thermodynamics began
as physics of economic value and, basically, can still be regarded as such. The
Entropy Law itself emerges as the most economic in nature of all natural laws… the
economic process and the Entropy Law is only an aspect of a more general fact,
namely, that this law is the basis of the economy of life at all levels…”.
Hence, the physical magnitude connecting physics (thermodynamics) and economics

is entropy generation or, more specifically, irreversibility. This represents the “useful”
or available energy lost or destroyed (exergy destruction) in all physical processes.
All real processes in a plant are non-reversible and, as a consequence, some exergy is
destroyed and some natural resources are consumed and lost forever, which creates
cost. All natural resources have an economic cost: the more irreversible a process, the
more natural resources are consumed (higher energetic cost) and the higher the
required investment (higher thermoeconomic cost). If we can measure this
thermodynamic cost by identifying, locating and quantifying the causes of
inefficiencies in real processes, we can provide an objective economic basis using the
cost concept.
Thus, thermoeconomics assesses the cost of consumed resources, money and system
irreversibilities in terms of the overall production process. Consumed resource cost
involves resources destroyed by inefficiencies and helps to point out how resources
may be used more effectively to save energy. Money costs express the economic
effect of inefficiencies and are used to improve the cost effectiveness of production
processes.
Assessing the cost of the various streams and processes in a plant helps to understand
the process of cost formation, from the input resource(s) to the final product(s). This
process can solve problems in complex energy systems that cannot normally be
solved using conventional energy analysis based on the First Law of Thermo-
dynamics (mass and energy balances only), for instance:
1. Rational price assessment of plant products based on physical criteria.

2. Optimization of specific component variables to minimize final product costs and
save resource energy, i.e., global and local optimization.
3. Detection of inefficiencies and calculation of their economic effects in operating
plants, i.e., plant operation thermoeconomic diagnosis.
4. Evaluation of various design alternatives or operation decisions and profitability
maximization.
5. Energy audits.
Specific examples of these applications will be given here and applied to a real dual-
purpose power and desalination plant. Many reports also provide specific information
about thermoeconomic applications (Lozano and Valero, 1993; Tsatsaronis, 1994;
Lozano, Valero and Serra, 1996; Valero et al., 1994; Bejan, Tsatsaronis and Moran
1997, Valero and Lozano, 1997; Valero, Correas and Serra, 1999; Lozano et al., 1994;
Frangopoulos, 1987; Von Spakovsky and Evans, 1993; El-Sayed and Tribus, 1983;
El-Sayed, 1988; Pisa, 1997).
Thermoeconomic methods can generally be subdivided into two categories

(Tsatsaronis, 1987), those based on cost accounting (e.g. Exergetic Cost Theory,
Lozano et al., 1993; Average-Cost-Approach, Bejan et al., 1997; Last-In-First-Out
Approach; Lazzareto and Tsatsaronis, 1997) and those based on optimization
techniques (e.g. Thermoeconomic Functional Analysis, Frangopoulos, 1987;
Engineering Functional Analysis, von Spakovsky and Evans, 1993; Intelligent
Functional Approach, Frangopoulos, 1990). Cost accounting methods help to
determine actual product cost and provide a rational basis for pricing, while
optimization methods are used to find the optimum design or operating conditions.
Unfortunately, there are almost as many nomenclatures as theories. This causes

confusion, complicates method comparison and impedes the development of
Thermoeconomics in general (Tsatsaronis, 1994). The Structural Theory of
Thermoeconomics (Valero, Serra and Torres, 1992; Valero, Serra and Lozano, 1993)
provides a general mathematical formulation using a linear model which
encompasses all thermoeconomic methodologies. The most systematic and
widespread methodologies (see above) use exergy to linearly apportion costs when
two or more coproducts appear, and their results can be reproduced using the
Structural Theory (Erlach, 1998; Erlach, Serra and Valero, 1999). For this reason, all
concepts and procedures explained here are based on the general and common
mathematical formalism of the Structural Theory.
This chapter on the fundamentals of thermoeconomics is divided into three parts.

First the basic concepts needed to perform and understand the thermoeconomic
analysis of complex energy systems are presented. Special attention has been paid to
explaining the thermoeconomic cost concept. Once the average and marginal costs
are defined, in the second part their meaning, relationship and calculation procedures
are fully explained with examples. Finally, the third part describes some applications
of thermoeconomic analysis as applied to operation diagnosis and optimization of
complex energy systems.
Thermoeconomics
6.1 Basic concepts

All thermoeconomic theories use costs based on the Second Law of thermodynamics
when solving engineering problems. In this section, the cost concept is explained
together with all the new basic concepts, including fuel, product and thermoeconomic
models needed to perform a thermoeconomic analysis of a plant.
FIGURE 6.1 Physical structure of the co-generation plant.

1
Combustor
1
2 3
5 6
Compressor Turbine
2 3
0 4
Air HRSG 7
Gases 4
Natural gas
Work 8
Water/Steam
6.1.1 The concept of cost

The cost of a flow in a plant represents the external resources that have to be supplied
to the overall system to produce this flow. Thermoeconomic analysis distinguishes
between exergetic costs and monetary costs.
The exergetic cost of a mass and/or energy flow is the units of exergy used to produce
it, e.g. the exergetic cost of the net power is the exergy provided by the natural gas to
generate the electrical power delivered to the net by the cogeneration plant (see figure
6.1). These costs are a measure of the thermodynamic efficiency of the production
process generating these flows. The unit exergetic cost of a mass and/or energy flow
represents the amount of resources required to obtain one unit. Thus, if the unit
exergetic cost of the electricity is three, three units of plant exergy resources (natural
gas in the case of the cogeneration plant) are consumed to obtain one exergy unit of
electrical power.
The monetary cost takes into account the economic cost of the consumed fuel (i.e., its
market price) as well as the cost of the installation and the operation of the plant and
defines the amount of money consumed to generate a mass and/or energy flow. These
costs are a measure of the economic efficiency of a process. Similarly, the unit
Basic concepts
monetary cost (also called unit exergoeconomic cost or unit thermoeconomic cost) of a
mass and/or energy flow is the amount of monetary units required to obtain one unit.
We can further distinguish between average costs, which are ratios and express the
average amount of resources per unit of product, and marginal costs, which are a
derivation and indicate the additional resources required to generate one more unit of
the product under specified conditions. Mathematically they are defined as:
* B
unit average cost k = -----0- (6.1)
Bi
) 
 ∂B
unit marginal cost k =  o 
*
(6.2)
 ∂Bi 
  conditions
The average costs are only known after production, when we know how many
resources were used and the production obtained. The average cost is not predictive.
Knowing the average unit cost of a product does not provide the cost of a production
process P + ∆P. Thermoeconomic cost accounting theories calculate average costs
and use them as a basis for a rational price assessment, under physical criteria, of the
internal flows and the products of the plant.
Marginal costs can be used to calculate additional fuel consumption when the
operating conditions are modified. Thermoeconomic optimization methods
(Frangopoulos, 1997, 1990; Von Spakovsky and Evans, 1993) are based on marginal
costs when solving optimization problems.
The relationship between average and marginal costs will be analyzed in more detail
in section 6.3.1.
6.1.2 Fuel, product and unit exergetic consumption

A productive purpose, a certain good or service to be produced, can be defined for
every plant. In order to generate this product, some resources have to be supplied to
the plant and are consumed in the process. For example, in the co-generation plant,
natural gas is supplied to the plant to generate electric power and process steam.
A productive purpose expressing component function in an overall production

process can be defined for each component. The productive purpose of a component
measured in terms of exergy is called product. To create this product, another exergy
flow(s) is consumed. The flow of exergy which is consumed in the component during
the generation of its product is called fuel (s).
Thermoeconomics
Real process exergy is destroyed in any process. That is, part of the fuel exergy is
destroyed during product generation. Using the definitions of fuel and product, the
exergy balance for a component can be formulated as:
F=P+I (6.3)
Therefore, the fuel required to generate a certain amount of a product depends on the
amount of irreversibility (exergy destroyed).
The fuel exergy required to generate one exergy unit of product is defined as unit
exergetic consumption k:
F
k = --- (6.4)
P
It is a measure of the thermodynamic efficiency of the process and equals one for
reversible processes and is greater than one for all real processes. The more
irreversible a process, the higher the value of the unit exergetic consumption.
Combining equation (6.4) with the exergy balance on a fuel/product basis (Equation
6.3), the unit exergetic consumption k can also be formulated as:
I
k = 1 + --- (6.5)
P
The reciprocal of the unit exergy consumption is defined as the exergetic efficiency η.
It is equal to one for reversible processes and is less than one for all real processes.
P I
η = --- = 1 – --- (6.6)
F F
Fuel and product definitions for some typical components in a dual-purpose power
and desalination plant are shown in table 6.1. The fuel-product definition for the
components of the cogeneration plant (figure 6.1) are shown in table 6.2.
Basic concepts
TABLE 6.1 Fuel and product definitions for typical dual-purpose power and desalination plant units.
Component Fuel Product
B2
water
Exergy difference between the
B1
Natural gas generated steam flow and the
Boiler fuel B1 entering water flow
B3
B3 – B 2
steam
W
Work to drive pump/compressor Exergy supplied to the working fluid
Pump B1 B2 W B2 – B 1
B1
Turbine Exergy removed from working
Generated work
without W fluid during the expansion
extraction B1 – B 2 W
B2
B1
Turbine Exergy removed from working
Generated work
with W fluid during the expansion
extraction W
B2 B1 – B 2 – B 3
B3
Wmech Wel Mechanical work Electric Work

Generator
Wmech Wel
B1
B4
cold
Heat stream B2 Exergy removed from the hot
Exergy supplied to the cold flow
exchanger/ flow
B2 – B 1
brine heater B3 – B 4
B3
hot stream
B4 B3 Exergy removed from the

D flashing brine (B1 – B2) minus Distilled water in the stage
MSF stage
exergy provided to the cooling D
B1 B2 brine (B4 – B3)
Thermoeconomics
6.1.3 Physical and thermoeconomic plant models

A plant is analyzed using a physical model with a group of equations to describe the
physical behavior of the components. It calculates parameters such as temperatures,
pressures, efficiencies, power generated etc. to describe the physical state of the plant.
Depending on the analysis, a decision has to be taken on the detail required i.e.,
which flows and components are to be considered. The components for the analysis
do not necessarily correspond to physical units. Various parts of the installation can
be combined into one component and physical units can be further disaggregated. It
is important to chose an appropriate aggregation level that properly defines the
behavior of each component and its purpose in the overall production process. The
physical structure (see figure 6.1) depicts the components, mass and connecting
energy flows considered in the physical model.
The minimum physical data required in a thermoeconomic analysis are temperatures,

pressures, mass flow rates and compositions of all mass flows together with the heat
and power rates of the energy flows considered. Usually all this information is fully
or partially obtained from the physical model of the plant. But it is not strictly
indispensable if all the required data are measured plant data, collected directly from
the plant data acquisition system.
FIGURE 6.2 Productive structure of the cogeneration plant.
F2 = B5 = WCp
Compressor
F3 = B3 – B4 P3 W net = B 6
Turbine b2
P2 = B2 – B0
Pj1 = B3
j1 b1
P1 = B3 – B2
HRSG
F4 = B4 P4 = B7 = Bheat
F1 = B1
Combustor
Nevertheless, when pricing all mass and energy flows in the thermoeconomic
analysis, it is absolutely necessary to define a thermoeconomic model of the plant
which considers the productive purpose of the components, i.e. the definitions of
fuels and products and the distribution of the resources throughout the plant. The
productive model can be graphically depicted by the productive structure diagram
(figure 6.2).
Basic concepts
In this scheme, the flows (lines connecting the equipment) are the fuel and the
product of each subsystem. Each “real“ piece of equipment in the plant has an outlet
flow (product) and an inlet flow (fuel). The capital cost of the units is also considered
as an external plant resource and is represented as inlet flows coming directly from
the environment (not considered in figure 6.2). Since the fuel of a process unit can be
the product of another and the product of a process unit can be the fuel of several
subsystems, two types of fictitious devices are introduced: junctions (rhombs) and
branching points or branches (circles). In a junction, the products of two or more
components are joined to form the fuel of another component. In a branching point,
an exergy flow (fuel or product in the productive structure –see figure 6.2-) is
distributed between two or more components. Sometimes the productive structure
can be simplified (with the same results) by merging the junctions and branches in a
new fictitious component called junction-branching point. Figure 6.5 in section 6.3.1
shows a similar productive structure as figure 6.2, where the junction j1 and the
branching point b1 have been merged in a junction-branching point. For the sake of
simplicity, the explanation of the fundamentals of thermoeconomics will be made
using the productive structure depicted in figure 6.2.
TABLE 6.2 Fuels and Products of the components of the co-generation plant.
Technical
No Subsystem Fuel Product production
coefficients
1 Combustor F1 = B1 P1 = B3 – B2 kcb = F1/P1
2 Compressor F2 = B5 = Wcp P2 = B2 – B0 kcp = F2/P2
3 Turbine F3 = B3 – B4 P3 = B5 + B6 = Wcp + Wnet kgt = F3/P3
4 HRSG F4 = B4 P4 = B7 = Bheat kHRSG = F4/P4
P1 = B3 – B2 r1 = P1/Pj1
5 Junction Pj1 = B3
P2 = B2 – B0 r2 = P2/Pj1
F3 = B3 – B4
6 Branching 1 Pj1 = B3
F4 = B4
F2 = B5 = Wcp
7 Branching 2 P3 = B5 + B6 = Wcp + Wnet
B6 = Wnet
The productive structure is a graphical representation of resource distribution

throughout the plant. Thus, its flows are fictitious and are not necessarily physical
flows. While each plant has only one physical structure to describe the physical
relations between the components, various productive structures can be defined
Thermoeconomics
depending on the fuel and product definitions as well as decisions on how the plant
resources are distributed among the components.
Thus, the thermoeconomic model (mathematical representation of the productive

structure) is a set of mathematical functions called characteristic equations, which
express each inlet flow as a mathematical function of the outlet flows for all the
productive structure components and a set of internal parameters xl:
Bi = gi (xl, Bj) i = 1,…, m–s (6.7)
where the index i refers to the input flows of the component l, the index j refers to the
output flows of the component l, and m is the number of flows considered in the
productive structure. Every flow is an input flow of a component and an output flow
of another component or the environment. For the flows interacting with the
environment, we define:
Bm–s+1 = ωi i = 1,…, s (6.8)
where s is the number of system outputs, and ωi is the total system product, i.e., an
external variable which determines the total product. The characteristic equations for
the system in figure 6.2, are shown in table 6.3:
TABLE 6.3 Characteristic equationsa of the cogeneration plant.
No Component Entry Outlet Equation
1 Combustor F1 P1 F1 = gF1 (x1, P1) = kcb P1
2 Compressor F2 = Wcp P2 F2 = gF2 (x2, P2) = kcp P2
3 Turbine F3 P3 = Wgt F3 = gF3 (x3, P3) = kgt P3
F4 = gF4 (x4, P4) = kHRSG P4 = kHRSG ω4

4 HRSG F4 P4 = Bheat = ω4
= kHRSG Bheat
P1 = gP1 (x5, Pj1) = r1 Pj1 = r1 (F3 + F4)

5 Junction 1 P1, P2 Pj1
P2 = gP2 (x5, Pj1) = r2 Pj1 = r2 (F3 + F4)
6 Branching 1 Pj1 F3, F4 Pj1 = gPj1 (x6, F3, F4) = (F3 + F4)
P3 = gP3 (x7, F2, ω3) = F2 + ω3

7 Branching 2 P3 F2, Wnet
= Wcp + Wnet
a. Variables in these characteristic equations are from the Exergetic Cost Theory, corresponding to the PF repre-
sentation (Torres, 1991, Valero and Torres, 1990). Note that the Exergetic Cost Theory is a particular case
(Serra, 1994) of the Structural Theory which is the thermoeconomic mathematical formalism presented in
this Ph. D. Thesis.
Basic concepts
The inlet and outlet flows of the productive structure units are extensive magnitudes,
which are the product of a quantity (usually mass flow rate) and a quality (specific
magnitude). The magnitudes applied by most thermoeconomic methodologies are
exergy (Tsatsaronis, 1987), negentropy (Frangopoulos, 1983) and money. Other
magnitudes, like enthalpy or entropy, can also be used.
The internal variables appearing in the thermoeconomic model depend on the

behavior of the subsystem and they are presumably independent of mass flow rates.
This implies that relations like efficiencies or pressure and temperature ratios —
which are mainly independent of the quantity of the exiting flows— can be used as
internal parameters.
Note, that the main objective of the productive structure, and hence of the
thermoeconomic model, consists on sorting the thermodynamic magnitudes related
to the physical mass and energy flow-streams connecting the plant subsystems, in a
different way that the equations modeling the physical plant behavior do, in order to
explicitly determine for each subsystem its energy conversion efficiency.
It is important take in mind that, as it was already explained, thermoeconomics

connects thermodynamics, which is a phenomenological (black box analysis)
science, with economics. That is, by sorting the thermodynamic properties of the
physical mass and energy flow-streams of a plant, which in turn provide the energy
conversion efficiency of each subsystem, thermoeconomics analyzes the degradation
process of energy quality through an installation, i.e., thermoeconomics evaluates the
process of cost formation.
Depending on the analysis scope each subsystem can be identified with a separate
piece of equipment, a part of a device, several process units or even the whole plant.
Sometimes the objective consists on analyzing a plant in a deep detail. In this case it
is advisable, if possible, to identify each subsystem with a separate physical process
(heat transfer, pressure increase or decrease and chemical mixture or reaction) in
order to locate and quantify, separately if possible, each thermal, mechanical and
chemical irreversibility occurring in the plant. If the objective consists on analyzing a
macro-system composed of several plants, probably in this case the more convenient
approach is consider each separate plant as a subsystem.
Thus, thermoeconomics always performs a systemic analysis, no matter how

complex the system is, basically oriented to locate and quantify the energy
conversion efficiency. It is out of the scope of thermoeconomics to model the
behavior of the components, which is made by the mathematical equations of the
physical model.
Even though (it is out of the scope of thermoeconomics simulate the behavior of the
subsystems), it is very important build the thermoeconomic model with physical
meaning. This is the reason, as already explained, of defining different
Thermoeconomics
thermoeconomic models for the same plant. Depending on the aggregation level and
on the nature of the thermoeconomic equations the model will content physical
information about the actual system behavior with different accuracy degrees. The
obtained results from a very rough thermoeconomic model, without any physical
sensitivity related with the actual behavior of the plant, probably will be useless.
The more extended thermoeconomic methodologies use linear equations in their

thermoeconomic models, because they present practical (the model is simpler and for
this reason much more powerful when applied to very complex energy systems) and
conceptual advantages, as it will be explained before. Moreover, in many real plants it
is possible to find an aggregation level where the system and subsystems linearly
behave with accuracy enough, under an engineering point of view (Valero, Torres and
Lerch, 1999; Martínez, Serra and Valero, 2000). This is also the case of the dual
power and desalination plant analyzed in this work, as it is proved in next chapter.
Thus, if the characteristic equations are first grade homogeneous functions with
respect to the subset B, of independent variables (as linear equations do), that is:
λ Bi = gi (λ B1,… λ Bj, xl) λ∈ℜ (6.9)
Euler’s Theorem states that the homogeneous function of first order verify:
     
∂g i ∂g i ∂g i
Bi =   B +  B + ... +   B l1,…,ls in Sl (6.10)
 ∂Bl1  l1  ∂Bl 2  l 2  ∂Bl s  l s
     
or using the marginal consumption notation,
∂g i
κ ij = (6.11a)
∂B j
Bi = ∑κ B ij j
i = 1,...,m l = 1,...,n. (6.11b)
j ∈S l
This property means that the input of a component varies at the same rate as its
outputs. Note that this property does not imply that the function must be linear. For
instance, a Cobb-Douglas function z = a xα y(1–α), is also a homogeneous first order
function.
κij are the technical production coefficients and represent the portion of the i-th
component production:
∂g i
κ ij = (6.12a)
∂B j
Basic concepts
The sum of κij coefficients of a unit is the unit exergy consumption of that unit:
n
n
∑ Fi Fj
k j = ∑ κ ij =
i= 0
= (6.12b)
i= 0 Pj Pj
In thermoeconomics there are three types of characteristic equations, which are

linear:
1. Those connecting each fuel of a component to its corresponding product:

Fi = κij Pj as for instance F1 = gF1 (x1, P1) = kcb P1 (6.13a)
There is one such equation for each component’s fuel. These types of equations
are generated in the pieces of equipment and they inform about:
– the productive function of each component, i.e., its production (product)
– what the component needs (fuel) to develop its productive purpose, and
– the thermodynamic efficiency of the process in the component
2. Structural equations model how the resources consumed by the plant are distrib-
uted through the plant components. They show how the process units are con-
nected from a productive point of view. Structural equations are characteristic
equations to describe the productive model of junctions and branches, e.g.:
P1 = gP1 (x 5, Pj1) = r1 Pj1 = r1 (F3+F4) (6.13b)
3. When the capital cost of the equipment is also considered in the analysis, a third
type of characteristic equation is required; costing equations. These equations are
very often not linear, but in the case of these equations this is a minor problem,
because they can be linearized for different operation intervals. They relate the
investment cost of the component with thermodynamic variables and its product.
They express the amount of resources needed to build, install, maintain (etc.) a
component. For example, a costing equation proposed by El-Sayed (1996), see
section 7.3.3.1 for details:
Z = 0.02 ⋅ 10 ⋅ Q ⋅ ∆Tn−0.75 ⋅ ∆Tt−0.5 ⋅ ∆Pt−0.1 (6.13c)
The diagram of the productive structure is also called a Fuel/Product diagram (Torres
et al., 1999) because in most cases the lines connecting the pieces of equipment
represent the fuels and products of the different units. Thus, the characteristic
equations (see table 6.3) using the Fuel–Product notation can also be written as:
n
Pi = Bi 0 + ∑ Bij i = 0,1,…, n (6.14)
j =1
Thermoeconomics
This equation shows how the production of a process unit is used as fuel by another
unit or as a part of the total plant production. In the above expression, Bij is the
production portion of the i-th component that fuels the j-th component, and Bi0
represents the production portion of the component i leading to the final plant product
(the subscript 0 refers to the environment, which is considered another process unit
interacting with the plant).
Equation (6.14) can be expressed in terms of the unit exergetic consumptions as:
n
Pi = Bi 0 + ∑ κ ij Pj i = 0,1,…, n (6.15)
j =1
In matrix notation it can also be expressed as:
P = Ps + KP P (6.16)
where Ps is a (n×1) vector whose elements contain the contribution to the final
production of the system Pi0 obtained in each component, and 〈KP〉 is a (n×n) matrix,
whose elements are the unit exergy consumption κij. This expression helps to relate
the production of each component as a function of the final production and the unit
consumption of each component:
−1
 
P = P Ps where P ≡  U D − KP  (6.17)
 
In the same way, we can express the irreversibility of each component as:
(
I = I Ps where I ≡ K D − U D P ) (6.18)
while the total resources of the system may be obtained as:
FT = tκ e P Ps (6.19)
t
where κe ≡ ( κ 01, …, κ 0n ) , is a (n×1) vector whose elements contain the unit
consumption of the system-input resources.
6.2 Calculating thermoeconomic costs

Once the thermoeconomic model has been defined and the characteristic equations
corresponding to the productive structure of the system are known, the costs of all
flows in the productive structure can be easily calculated.
There are two different types of thermoeconomic costs: average costs and marginal
costs (equations 6.1 and 6.2). It is important to note that (as discussed below) the
Calculating thermoeconomic costs
average and marginal costs coincide when the characteristic equations of the
thermoeconomic model are first grade homogeneous functions.
This result is very important since both costs can be calculated using the same
procedure. Marginal costs are a derivative (see equation 6.2) and can be calculated by
applying the chain rule of the mathematical derivation. Similarly, average costs can
also be obtained from the rules of the mathematical derivation applied to the
thermoeconomic model when the characteristic equations are first grade
homogeneous functions.
According to the previous premises, the cost of the plant resources can be defined as:
e
B0 = ∑ k *0,i Bi (6.20)
i =1
where e, is the number of system inputs, and k*0,i is the unit cost of the –i– external
resource.
Each flow, as a component input, is a function (defined by the characteristic equation) of a

set of internal variables, x, external variables ω and the output flows of the component.
The cost of the plant resources is then a function of each flow, the set of internal
variables of each component and the final product of the plant B0 = B0 (Bi, x, ω),
according the relations (6.7) and (6.8).
When calculating the variation of the resources consumed in the plant concerning a
flow, the chain rule can be applied:
∂B0
= k *0,i i = 1,…, e (6.21a)
∂Bi
∂B 0
m
∂B 0 ∂g j
--------- =
∂B i ∑ --------- --------
∂B j ∂B i
i = e + 1,…, m (6.21b)
j=1
∂B 0
The expression --------- represents the marginal costs which evaluate the additional
∂B i
consumption of the resources, when an additional unit of the flow –i– is produced,
under the conditions that the internal variables, x, do not vary throughout this process.
∂g
We can denote these marginal costs as k*i , and κ ij = ---------i the marginal consumption
∂B j
of flow –i– to produce the flow –j–, then we can rewrite the previous expressions, as:
k *i = k *0,i i = 1,…, e (6.22a)
Thermoeconomics
m
k*i = ∑ κ ji k *j i = e + 1,…, m (6.22b)
j = 1
j≠i
Note that the unit exergetic cost of each fuel entering the plant is unity because there
is no energy quality degradation nor exergy destruction at the very beginning of the
productive process. Hence, the amount of exergy consumed to obtain each plant’s
fuel is its own exergy content and therefore its unit exergetic cost equals one.
*
It can easily be proved that the cost of each flow P ij of the productive structure using
the Fuel/Product notation is:
Pij* = k *P ,i Bij (6.23)
And the exergetic cost of the product of each component is the same as the cost of the
resources needed to obtain it, hence:
n
Pi* = Fi* = ∑ k *P , j B ji i = 1,…, n (6.24)
j= 0
This cost equation can also be expressed in terms of the unit exergetic consumptions:
n
k *P ,i = κ 0 i + ∑ κ ji k *P , j i = 1,…, n (6.25)
j =1
which can be used to obtain the unit exergetic cost of the flows appearing in the
productive structure diagram as a function of the unit exergetic consumption of each
process unit.
Then, if the characteristic equations and the marginal consumptions for each
component are known, the marginal cost k* for each flow can be obtained by solving
the system of linear equations (6.25).
Example 1
For the example of a co-generation plant (figure 6.2), equations 6.21a, 6.21b can be
written as:
∂B1
k *F1 =
∂F1
∂B1 ∂B1 ∂P3

k *F2 = = = k *P3
∂F2 ∂P3 ∂F2
∂B1 ∂B1 ∂Pj1

k *F3 = = = k *Pj1
∂F3 ∂Pj1 ∂F3
∂B1 ∂B1 ∂Pj1

k *F4 = = = k *Pj1
∂F4 ∂Pj1 ∂F4
∂B1 ∂B1 ∂F1

k *P1 = = = k *F1 k cb
∂P1 ∂F1 ∂P1
∂B1 ∂B1 ∂F2

k *P2 = = = k *F2 k cp
∂P2 ∂F2 ∂P2
∂B1 ∂B1 ∂F3

k *P3 = = = k *F3 k gt
∂P3 ∂F3 ∂P3
∂B1 ∂B1 ∂F4

k *P4 = = = k *F4 k HRSG
∂P4 ∂F4 ∂P4
∂B1 ∂B1 ∂P2 ∂B1 ∂P1

k *Pj1 = = + = k *P2 r2 + k *P1 r1
∂Pj1 ∂P2 ∂Pj1 ∂P1 ∂Pj1
∂B1 ∂B ∂P3
k *Wnet = = 1 = k *P3
∂Wnet ∂P3 ∂Wnet
The thermoeconomic model (characteristic equations) of an energy system contains

the mathematical dependence between the resources consumed and plant flows
(products and internal flows). It is therefore possible to define a set of linear equations
to calculate the costs of every flow of the plant's productive structure. Note that these
equations show the process of cost formation on the productive structure.
The proposed procedure to calculate the marginal cost of all the flows of a plant is
general and valid for any thermoeconomic formulation that uses equations
connecting inlet and outlet flows of each component.
Just as k* was defined as a marginal cost when production is modified, we can also
obtain the marginal cost when the internal variables x are modified. Similarly,
applying the chain rule, we get:
∂B0 m * ∂g j
= ∑ kj (6.26)
∂x i j =1 ∂x i
This equation expresses the effect on additional resource consumption when an

internal parameter xi is modified and is the basis for the thermoeconomic diagnosis
(explained in detail below).
To determine the physical model of the system, a set of equations must be defined
which relate the internal and external variables to the thermodynamic laws: mass,
energy and entropy balances.
Thermoeconomics
The most developed thermoeconomic optimization methodologies (Frangopoulos,

1987, 1990; Von Spakovsky et al., 1993), use the Lagrange multipliers optimization
method to calculate the marginal costs defined in the previous section. It can easily be
proved (Serra, 1994; Reini, 1994) that the Lagrange multipliers are the marginal costs
defined in equation (6.2), i.e:
∂B0
λi = i = 1,..., m (6.27)
∂Bi
This multiplier represents the variation of the objective function B0 concerning the
state variable Bi.
6.2.1 Marginal and average thermoeconomic costs

Now, we will show that the marginal and average costs coincide when the
characteristic equations of the system are first grade homogeneous functions
concerning the extensive magnitude B. This is a very important result since the
marginal and average costs can be calculated using the same procedure. This unifies
accounting and optimization theories in a common mathematical formulation. The
most important advantage is that variables and costs with different conceptual
significance can be compared and better understood. Thus, the Exergetic Cost Theory
(Valero, Lozano and Muñoz, 1986a), a cost accounting methodology which provides
average costs, and Thermoeconomic Functional Analysis (Frangopoulos, 1983,
1987), an optimization methodology which provides marginal costs, are particular
cases of the Structural Theory. As a result of the integration of different approaches,
some useful thermoeconomic applications have been developed, e. g. diagnosis
operation and thermoeconomic optimization using the same mathematical formalism.
As an illustration, consider a generic component or subsystem with several inlet and

outlet flows. For the sake of simplicity we will use a general subsystem with two inlet
flows and two outlet flows (figure 6.3).
FIGURE 6.3 Generic component scheme.
3 B3
B1 B1
4 3
B1 B2
B2 B4
4
B2
The characteristic equations that describe component behavior are:

B1 = k13 B3 + κ14 B4 (6.28)
B2 = k23 B3 + κ24 B4 (6.29)
These equations provide the amount of inlet resources (B1, B2) consumed to obtain
each one of the outlet flows (B3, B4). This idea is easily understood if the component
is made up of two subsystems. The equations modeling each subsystem are:
B13 = κ13 B3 (6.30a)
B14 = κ14 B4 (6.30b)
B23 = κ23 B3 (6.31a)
B24 = κ24 B4 (6.31b)
Equations (6.30a, 6.31a) represent the resources needed to produce B3 and Equations
(6.30b, 6.31b) are the resources consumed to produce B4. The total amount of
resources required to obtain B3 is thus:
B13 + B23= κ13 B3 + κ23 B3 (6.32)
and to obtain B4:

B14 + B24 = κ14 B4 + κ24 B4 (6.33)
According to Equation (6.1) the average cost of the outlet flows are:
* κ 13 B 3 + κ 23 B 3
- = κ 13 + κ 23
k 3 = ------------------------------------- (6.34a)
B3
* κ 14 B 4 + κ 24 B 4
- = κ 14 + κ 24
k 4 = ------------------------------------- (6.34b)
B4
And the marginal cost of the outlet flows are:
∂g1 * ∂g 2 *
k *3 = k1 + k 2 = k13 + k 23 (6.35a)
∂B3 ∂B3
∂g1 * ∂g 2 *
k *4 = k1 + k 2 = k14 + k 24 (6.35b)
∂B4 ∂B4
considering that the value of the marginal cost of the input flows (B1, B2) is equal to
one. Since equations (6.34) are the same as equations (6.35), the average and
marginal costs of B3 and B4 coincide. Both kinds of costs coincide because the
equations modeling the component are homogeneous functions of first order
concerning the extensive magnitudes characterizing the outlet flows.
Thermoeconomics
In this proof, the cost of the inlet flows was unity. This is equivalent to considering
that the subsystem was at the beginning of the productive process. The general
mathematical formulation of the cost generated in a component is the same for each
one and is not dependent on the position in the productive process. Thus, the results
obtained are general.
The average and marginal costs coincide because the equations modeling the
components are first grade homogeneous functions concerning the extensive
magnitude characterizing the outlet flows. The mass is the property determining
whether a magnitude is extensive or not. If all equations modeling a system are first
grade homogeneous functions concerning the mass, a simple substitution can
transform those equations in homogeneous functions with respect to any extensive
property. Thus, the marginal and average costs coincide if all equations modeling the
behavior of the system are first grade homogeneous functions concerning the mass
flow rate.
6.2.2 Economic resources and thermoeconomic costs

Thermoeconomic cost calculation considering the component capital cost Z, is
similar to the above method but should be explained in more detail. The capital cost
of each component Z can be considered an external flow of plant resources from the
environment to the component (see figure 6.4). This will represent the monetary units
per second needed to compensate the depreciation, maintenance cost and so on, of the
component.
FIGURE 6.4 Economic resources scheme.
Economic resources
Z1 = Z1 (B1, Bj, Bh)
Bj
x1 Bh
B0 Bi
According to marginal cost analysis, Z represents an environmental resource and can

be handled in the same mathematical way as energy resources. The amount of
resources consumed when manufacturing a device are, in fact, resources consumed to
obtain the plant products. Some authors (Brodyansky et al., 1993; Le Goff, 1979)
have developed methodologies to evaluate the total amount of resources consumed
when building a process unit. Then the marginal unit cost ∂Z/∂B, can be considered a
marginal consumption κZj.
Thermoeconomic applications to thermoeconomic operation diagnosis and the optimization of
For the component depicted in figure 6.4 the characteristic equations are:
Bi = f (Bj, κij) (6.36a)
Z j = Z (Bj, κZj) (6.36b)
And the cost of the product is:
∂Bi * ∂Z j
k *j = ki + = k *i κ ij + κ Zj
∂B j ∂B j
If Zj is proportional to the production of the unit, or in other words its characteristic

function is first order homogeneous, the marginal cost is equal to the average cost.
But, unfortunately Zj is a non-linear function of the production in most cases.
6.3 Thermoeconomic applications to thermoeconomic

operation diagnosis and the optimization of complex
energy systems
Having defined the tools needed for a thermoeconomic analysis of a complex system,
some applications to thermoeconomic diagnosis and optimization can be presented.
The methodology is presented together with a simple application.
6.3.1 Operation thermoeconomic diagnosis

Diagnosis is the art of discovering and understanding signs of malfunction and
quantifying their effects. In the case of Thermoeconomics, the effect of a malfunction
is quantified in terms of additional resources consumed to obtain the same
production, both in quality and in quantity.
The main problem in energy system diagnosis can be summarized in the following
question: Where, how and which part of the consumed resources can be saved by
keeping the quantity and quality of the final products constant? To answer these
questions, we need:
• Procedures that accurately determine the state of the plant.

• A theory to provide the concepts and tools to understand and explain the causes
of this state.
The methodology presented in this paper applies Structural Theory to provide the
tools to investigate the causes of the irreversibilities and the cost formation process.
Thermoeconomics
In order to clarify the explanation of the proposed method we use a simple example (a
more complex one can be found in Lerch, Royo and Serra, 1999), the co-generation
plant depicted in figure 6.1, whose design and operational exergy flow values are
shown in table 6.4. The plant has a co-generation gas turbine cycle and uses the
turbine outlet gases as thermal energy in a heat recovery steam generator that
produces steam (flow #7) together with the electric energy produced in the turbo-
generator (flow #6).
TABLE 6.4 Design and operation exergy flow values of the cogeneration plant (figure 6.1).
Flow (kW) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Design 11781 2704 9614 3831 2977 2500 2355 388

Operation 11914 2758 9753 3887 3056 2500 2355 424
6.3.1.1 Technical exergy saving
Once the exergy flows have been supplied by an appropriate performance test or a
model simulator, the irreversibilities in each productive unit can be obtained from the
exergy balance. But not all exergy losses can be saved in practice. In fact, the
potential exergy saving is limited by technical and/or economic constraints. It also
depends on the decision level that limits the actions to be undertaken. In contrast to
conventional thermodynamic analysis, Thermoeconomics assumes a reference
situation of the plant operating under design conditions. From this perspective, in the
plant of figure 6.1, we see that only 133 kW, of the 7.06 MW of total irreversibilities
can be saved with respect to design conditions.
Therefore, the additional fuel consumption can be expressed as the difference

between the resource consumption of the operating plant and the resource
consumption for a reference or design condition with the same production objectives:
∆FT = FT − FT0 (6.37a)
and it can be broken up into the sum of the irreversibilities of each component:
n n
∆FT = ∆I T = ∑  I j − I 0j  = ∑ ∆I j (6.37b)
j =1 j =1
However, even though the methods based on Second Law Analysis (Kotas, 1985) and
Technical Exergy Saving are useful to quantify the additional fuel consumption, they
fail when trying to identify the real causes of the additional resources consumption.
6.3.1.2 Impact on resources consumption
The Fuel/Product diagram of the cogeneration plant is shown in figure 6.2. This
diagram can be simplified by merging junction 1 and branching point 1 in a new
fictitious component called junction–branching point (see figure 6.5). This new
productive structure is slightly different than figure 6.2, and is more compact.
The characteristic equations of this new productive structure are obtained as in the
previous section applying equation (6.15)
P = Ps + KP P
FIGURE 6.5 Fuel / Product diagram and fuel and product exergy flows (kW) in design conditions for the co-
generation plant shown in figure 6.1.
5
2
3-4 6
3
2
3-2
4-8 7
4
1 8
1
F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 Total
P0 0 11781 0 0 0 11781
P1 0 0 0 4156 2474 6631
P2 0 0 0 1627 968 2595
P3 2500 0 2977 0 0 5477
P4 2355 0 0 0 0 2355
Total 4855 11781 2977 5783 3443
For the sake of simplicity we did not consider thermal and mechanical exergies as
separate entities. Two auxiliary variables also appear r1 = (B3 – B2)/B3 and r2 = B3/B2,
which correspond to the part of the fuel of the turbine and HRSG coming from the
combustor and the compressor respectively. Flow #8, produced in part in the
combustor and in the compressor, also leaves the system as a residue. Only a part of
Thermoeconomics
the entering gases to the turbine: B3 – B8 are used as a fuel of other components of the
system. Therefore, only a part of the combustor’s and compressor’s product is used as
a fuel for other components (useful product). Accordingly, figure 6.5 shows the chosen
disaggregation scheme of the system and the Fuel/Product values for the design
conditions.
TABLE 6.5 Fuel/Product definition corresponding to figure 6.5
No. Component Fuel Product Residue
1 Combustor B1 B3 – B 2
2 Compressor B5 B2
3 Turbine B3 – B 4 B6
4 HRSG B4 – B 8 B7 B8
In order to bring together the problem of the impact of resources consumption with
thermoeconomic diagnosis we need to know the increase of the unit exergy
consumption of each component of the plant. A performance test or a simulator
provides the real values of the unit consumptions which are then compared with the
design values.
TABLE 6.6 Increase of unit consumption. (100 ∆κij).
∆κe 0.4006 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 –0.1667 0.3857

0.0000 0.0000 0.1593 0.4636
∆ KP
0.0000 1.1147 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
∆k 0.4006 1.1147 -0.0074 0.8493
The values of the unit exergetic consumption increase are found as: ∆κij = κij (x) – κij
(x0). Table 6.6 shows the ∆κij values for the plant in figure 6.1.
Equation (6.19) is used to obtain the increment of the total resources of an operating
plant regarding the reference conditions:
∆FT = ∆ t κ e P 0 + t κ e ∆P (6.38)
The increase of the component production from equation (6.16) may be expressed in
terms of the unit exergy consumption as:
∆P = ∆Ps + ∆ KP P 0 + KP ∆P (6.39)
hence, applying equation (6.17), we obtain:
∆P = | P 〉  ∆P s + ∆ 〈 KP〉 P 
0
(6.40)
 
If we want to analyze the fuel impact due to an increment of the exergy unit
consumption of the components, equation (6.38) could be written as:
∆FT = ∆ t κ e P 0 + t κ *P ∆ KP P 0 + t κ *P ∆Ps (6.41)
If no change in the total production of the plant is assumed, then:
 
∆FT =  ∆ t κ e + t κ *P ∆ KP  P 0 (6.42a)
 
or in scalar format:
n  n 
∆FT = ∑  ∑ k *P, j ∆κ ji  Pi0 (6.42b)

i =1  j = 0


Using the above equation, the additional resource consumption ∆FT (also called Fuel
Impact; Reini, 1994) can be expressed as the sum of the contributions of each
component.
The variation of the exergetic unit consumption of each component increases its
resources consumption and its irreversibilities in a quantity ∆κ ji Pi0 , which we call,
malfunction. Consequently, this implies an additional consumption of external
resources given by k *P, j ∆κ ji Pi0 , which is also named the malfunction cost.
Therefore, the total fuel impact can be written as the sum of the fuel impact or
malfunction cost of each component, as shown in equation (6.42b).
The proposed method provides the exact values of the additional resource
consumption of each component malfunction for any operational state. Other
methods, such as the Theory of Perturbations (Lozano et al., 1996), only provide an
approximate predictive value, based on marginal costs (Lagrange multipliers) which
is valid for an operating state close to the reference conditions.
Thermoeconomics
FIGURE 6.6 Fuel impact and technical saving.
80
Fuel Impact
Malfunction
60
Technical Saving
40
20
0
Combustor Compressor Turbine HRSG
Figure 6.6 compares the fuel impact and the increase of irreversibilities or the
technical exergy saving of each component and also compares (first column) the
malfunction and the fuel impact for each component. Three malfunctions in the plant
are shown in the combustor, the compressor and the HRSG. The largest
irreversibilities increase is in the combustor, but the largest fuel impact is in the
compressor. The question that arises is: What causes the irreversibilities increase and
the fuel impact, and how are they related?
6.3.1.3 Malfunction and dysfunction analysis
We have shown that there is no direct relationship between the increase of the
irreversibilities and fuel impact. The more advanced the production process is, the
greater the cost of the irreversibility malfunction and, as a consequence, the greater
its fuel impact.
Furthermore, the degradation of a component will force other components to adapt

their behavior in order to maintain their production conditions and modify their
irreversibilities. Figure 6.7 shows how an increase of the unit consumption of a
component will not only increase the irreversibilities on it but also the irreversibilities
of the previous component.
FIGURE 6.7 Malfunction and fuel impact.
∆I1
∆F1
I1
∆P1 ∆F2 ∆I2

F1 I2
P1 F2
P2
The irreversibility increase of a generic system’s component is given by:
∆I = ∆KD P0 + (KD – UD) ∆P (6.43)
From the above expression, we can distinguish two types of irreversibilities:
Endogenous irreversibility or malfunction produced by an increase of the unit

consumption of the component itself:
n
M Fi = Pi0 ∆k i = ∑ Pi0 ∆κ ji
j =0
Exogenous irreversibility or dysfunction induced in the component by the

malfunction of other subsystems, which forces it to consume more local resources to
obtain the additional production required by the other components:
DFi = ( k i − 1) ∆Pi
The malfunction only affects the behavior of the components; the dysfunction is a
result of how the components adapt themselves to maintain the total production.
Now we will consider the causes and effects of the irreversibilities systems and
introduce a new method to compute the fuel impact of a malfunction and its effect. In
other words, how to compute the dysfunction on the rest of the system components.
If we substitute ∆P from equation (6.40) then the irreversibility increase of each

component, equation (6.43) is written in terms of the unit consumption as:
 
∆I =  ∆K D + I ∆ KP  P 0 (6.44)
 
or in scalar format:
n n
∆I i = ∑ Pi ∆κ ji + ∑ φ ih ∆κ hj Pj0 i = 1,…, n (6.45)
j =1 j, h =1
The first part of the previous expression corresponds to the component malfunction,
and the last part to the dysfunction. If we denote:
n
DFij = ∑ φ ih ∆κ hj Pj0 (6.46)
h =1
DFij represents the part of i–th component dysfunction generated by component –j–,
where φih are the coefficients of the irreversibility matrix operator | I 〉 for the actual
operation values. The above expression shows how a malfunction Pj ∆κhj, on the j-th
component, generates a dysfunction on the i–th component proportional to the φih
coefficients, which represent the weight of the malfunction effect. The coefficient φih
Thermoeconomics
does not depend on the malfunction amount, but only on the unit consumption of the
components in the operating state. Therefore, the dysfunction cannot be corrected by
itself but decreases the malfunction which generated it.
The technical exergy saving of component –i–, equation (6.45) can be written as the
sum of its malfunction and the dysfunction generated by other components of the
system:
n
∆I i = MFi + ∑ DFij i = 1,…, n (6.47)
j =1
The graph in figure 6.8 describes the cause of the irreversibilities increase in the gas
turbine cycle (of the example) as the sum of the malfunctions and the dysfunction
generated by the rest of the components
FIGURE 6.8 Analysis of the irreversibility causes (kW).
80
HRSG
Turbine
60 Compressor
Combustor
40 Malfunction
20
0
∆I1 ∆I2 ∆I3 ∆I4
Fuel impact and dysfunction
For a specified constant quality and quantity of total production, the fuel impact
(6.42b) could be written as the sum of the malfunctions and dysfunctions of all the
plant components:
n n  n 
∆FT = ∑ ∆I i = ∑  MFi + ∑ DFij  (6.48)

i =1 

i =1 j =1 
If we rearrange the previous expression, grouping by component production, we

obtain:
n  n 
∆FT = ∑  ∆k i + ∑ φ jh ∆κ hi  Pi0 (6.49)

i =1 

j, h = 1 
Therefore, the fuel impact or the malfunction cost of each component is given by the
sum of the malfunction and the dysfunction:
n
MFi* = MFi + ∑ DFhi i = 1,…, n (6.50)
h =1
If we compare the previous equations with the fuel impact equation (6.42b), we find a
relationship between the unit cost of production and the irreversibility dysfunction
coefficients, given by:
n
k *P , j = 1 + ∑ φ ij j = 1,…, n (6.51)
i =1
The above expression is an alternative method to compute the unit cost of the product
as the sum of the contribution of the irreversibilities of each component. Table 6.7
shows the irreversibility matrix operator coefficients and unit cost of the component
product for an operating gas turbine plant.
TABLE 6.7 Irreversibility matrix and unit cost of product.
0.7807 1.0469 0.9037 1.2586

0.0000 0.2422 0.0723 0.1007
|I〉
0.0000 0.0988 0.0853 0.0411
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4704
k *P 1.7807 2.3880 2.0614 2.8708
A graph of the fuel impact for each component is shown in figure 6.9. Note that the
dysfunction becomes even greater than its own malfunction as the production process
proceeds. The cost of the malfunction in the compressor and HRSG includes the
dysfunction generated, for the most part, in the combustor.
The sum of the dysfunctions generated by a component:

n
DI i = ∑ DFji i = 1,…, n (6.52a)
j=1
n
could be written as: DI i = ∑  k *P , j − 1 ∆κ ji Pi0 (6.52b)
j =1
Thermoeconomics
FIGURE 6.9 Analysis of fuel impact (kW).
80
∆ I4
∆ I3
60
∆ I2
∆ I1
40
MF
20
0
Combustor Compressor Turbine HRSG
Therefore, the dysfunction generated by a component (as with the fuel impact)
depends on the malfunction and the position of the component in the productive
process, which is, in turn, characterized by the unit cost of the resources required by
the component.
The relationship between irreversibility increase and fuel impact can be represented
by a double input table (see table 6.8). The dysfunction table containing the DFij
elements can be computed in a compact matrix form using the expression:
[DF] = I ∆ KP PD0
TABLE 6.8 Malfunction and dysfunction table in (kW).
Combustor Compressor Turbine HRSG DF Malfunction Total
∆I1 0.000 26.140 2.004 18.520 46.664 26.562 73.226
∆I2 0.000 2.092 2.113 2.644 6.849 28.925 35.774
∆I3 0.000 2.467 0.862 1.079 4.408 –0.408 4.000
∆I4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 20.000 20.000
DI 0.000 30.699 4.979 22.243 57.921
Malfunction 26.562 28.925 –0.408 20.000 75.079
Total 26.562 59.624 4.571 42.243 133.000
Each cell represents the DFij dysfunction. The DI column represents the sum of the
dysfunctions generated by each component, and the DF row is the sum of the
dysfunctions generated in each component. The total sum by columns represents the
Fuel Impact of each component, and the total sum by rows is the irreversibility
increase. The methodology proposed in this section is summarized in the table
mentioned above. It is a powerful tool to find the causes and effects of variations from
the design conditions of a plant and to study, classify and assign the role of each
system unit.
6.3.1.4 Intrinsic and induced malfunctions
Using the above method we can identify and quantify malfunction effects. For
example, we found three malfunctions in the gas turbine cycle (figure 6.1): one each
in the combustor, compressor and HRSG. But, What are the causes of the
malfunctions? In fact, the actual operation values shown in table 6.4 correspond to a
1% decrease in compressor isoentropic efficiency. This means that HRSG and
combustor efficiencies can be changed by varying compressor efficiency.
How do we approach this problem? The relationship between operation and

efficiency of the components could be analyzed using a simulator. If all the pant
components were isolated, the efficiencies of those components would be
independent variables (Lozano et al., 1996). So we will assume that there is an
operating parameter xr affecting the efficiency of the i-th component of the plant and
thus, in most cases, also indirectly affecting the efficiencies of the other plant process
units.
Once the relationship between unit exergy consumption and the operating parameters
is known, the above methodology can be applied to distinguish the effect of an
operating parameter on the internal economy of a component, i.e. its malfunction and
the cost of its malfunction.
Plant operating parameters could be classified according to their effect on the

efficiency of the components of the system:
Local variables: They mainly affect the behavior of the component related to the
variable, e.g, the isoentropic efficiency of a turbine. From a practical point of view, a
variable is considered local and therefore related to a subsystem. The total fuel impact
due to its perturbation is basically located in this component.
Global and/or zonal variables: This is the case when an operating parameter cannot
be associated with a specific component. We must identify them as operating set
points, environmental parameters and the production load or fuel quality.
In this thesis we will focus our analysis on local variables and how they affect
additional fuel consumption and the other plant components. This analysis is, in fact,
the next step in the thermoeconomic diagnosis.
Thermoeconomics
Unfortunately the problem of locating causality of losses in a structure is rather more

complex than locating malfunctions and dysfunctions.
When a plant unit deteriorates (when its behavior is degraded) its physical variables
are modified, its efficiency is decreased and its unit exergy consumption increases.
The unit exergy consumption increase of each component, due to the variation of an
operating parameter xr, is:
∆κ ijr = κ ij ( x 0 + ∆x r ) − κ ij ( x 0 )
Therefore, it will be possible to approximate the malfunction of a component as the

sum of the contributions of each operating parameter:
n
MFi ≅ ∑ ∑ ∆κ rji Pi0 (6.53)
r j=1
According to the classification of operating parameters, the intrinsic malfunction is

that part of the component malfunction due to the degradation/improvement of the
component itself, which is, in turn, due to variation of local operating parameters:
n
MFiL ≡ ∑∑ ∆κ rji Pi0 (6.54)
r ∈L i j =1
A system malfunction or improvement does not only have consequences upstream

(by trying to see the variation in consumption of used resources) but also
downstream. Clearly the degradation or improvement of a system’s flow entry
conditions will affect its efficiency to a greater or lesser extent. This will modify the
production and affect the next component.
Not only are there dysfunctions when there is an intrinsic malfunction. There are also
induced malfunctions, that can decisively affect the system's behavior. For example,
using the throttle valve in a power plant can destroy a small additional amount of
exergy but the downstream effects on turbine efficiencies can be quite serious.
Thus, the difference between total component malfunction and intrinsic malfunction
is called induced malfunction. It is due to the degradation of other plant components
which provoke a variation in the unit consumption of that component:
MFiG = MFi − MFiL (6.55)
This phenomenon is not foreseen in classic linear thermoeconomic theory. The

average cost obtained from the most rigorous disaggregation analysis can never
predict induced malfunctions and dysfunctions will only be predicted in cases where
the hypothesis of linearity and continuity holds.
Malfunction matrix
It is important to know the fuel impact associated with the variation of each physical
parameter when a malfunction occurs.
The fuel impact of an operating parameter on the whole plant can be calculated using
the simulator but the latter does not provide information about the effects on other
plant components. A deterioration in a component (intrinsic malfunction) can modify
the efficiencies of other plant components.
Information about interactions among different plant components can be obtained

with the methodology presented here. It is basically contained in the so called
malfunction matrix, or 〈∆KP〉 matrix. This matrix can relate any operating parameter
with all the possible malfunctions. Note that the overall impact on resources (fuel
impact) can be written as:
n n
∆FT ≡ ∑∑ k *P , j ∆κ rji Pi0 + ∑∑ k *P , j ∆κ rji Pi0 (6.56)
r ∈L i j = 0 r ∉L i j = 0
Where the first term is the fuel impact associated with the intrinsic malfunction and
the last term is the fuel impact associated with the induced malfunctions and ∆κij are
elements of the ∆ 〈KP〉 matrix. The ∆ 〈KP〉 matrix has been built for each parameter
(see Chapter 7) in a variational analysis.
In a real power plant, the most general case is when several plant components suffer
simultaneous efficiency deviations. The total fuel impact can be calculated from the
∆ 〈KP〉 matrix associated with each physical parameter and its causes can be
explained and quantified component by component.
This operation is completely new in Thermoeconomics or in any energy analysis

technique. Thus, the malfunction matrix has a very important engineering application
and also introduces new theoretical ideas in Thermoeconomics (see Chapter 7).
6.3.2 Thermoeconomic optimization

Here we describe strategies for optimizing complex systems as proposed by Lozano
et al. (1996). They are based on sequential optimization from component to
component using the Thermoeconomic Isolation Principle (Evans, 1980).
A component of a thermal system is thermoeconomically isolated from the rest of the

system if the product of the component and the unit cost of its resources (internal
product and/or external resources) are constant and known quantities. If a unit of a
thermal system is thermoeconomically isolated, the unit may be optimized by itself
(without considering the modifications of other variables of the rest of the system)
and the optimun solution obtained for the unit coincides with the optimum solution
for the whole system.
Thermoeconomics
Of course, TI (Thermoeconomic Isolation) is an ideal condition which cannot be

achieved in most of the real systems: Pj and k*P,i change when design variables of
other components change, due to feedback. But the more constant Pj and k*P,i are, the
closer to TI conditions and the fewer iteration loops needed to achieve the optimal
solution for the whole system. Thus, the goal is not to achieve TI but to approach it as
much as possible in order to obtain maximum advantages, which include:
1. Improvements and optimal design of individual units in highly interdependent

complex systems are greatly facilitated, as well as of whole systems.
2. The designers can be specialized and their efforts concentrated on designing the
variables of single units, while resting assured that these efforts yield optimum
design and/or improve the overall system.
3. The convergence of the solution is faster.
To optimize individual units, the objective function of the cost of product of the
component –j– could be defined as:
 n * 
Min  ∑ κ ij k P, i  P j (6.57)
κ  
i=0
*
where the unit cost of the input resources k P, i and the production Pj are known and
constant.
In real world optimization problems, the design free variables do not necessarily
coincide with the technical production coefficients. In practice there will be a
function of the actual design free variables which can be named –x–.
We say that a free variable x is a local variable of a subsystem –j– when the
production coefficients κij of this subsystem only depend on x. When a design
variable is attached to several subsystems, the previous expression must be extended
to all concerned subsystems.
To determine whether a design free variable is local or not and which components are
involved, the cost resource impact of the design variables to each component can be
computed:
* ∂κ ij ∂κ Z P, j 
n

=  ∑ k P, i --------- + -------------
x
∆C 0, j -  P ∆x (6.58)
i = 0 ∂x ∂x 
and the ratio calculated:

x
x ∆ C 0, j
εj = ------------------------- (6.59)
n
∑
x
∆ C 0, i
i=1
If this ratio is equal (or close) to 1, the design variable is local for component –j–, if it
is equal (or close) to zero, the design variable is independent of the referred j
component. In other cases the design variable involves several components.
These ideas could be used to design a strategy for global optimization problems:
1. Determine which variables are local and which are regional (involve several com-
ponents)
2. Determine a sequence for local optimization of each component
3. Take an initial value of the design variables
4. Calculate technical production coefficients and unit product cost
5. Find optimum values for local variables
6. Find optimum values for global variables
7. Iterate from (3) to convergence when design variables or unit product cost do not
vary in the next iteration. In each iteration the unit cost of total product must
decrease.
CHAPTER 7
Thermoeconomic analysis of
a dual-purpose power and
desalination plant
The basic concepts and fundamentals of Thermoeconomics were explained in

Chapter 6 and will now be applied to a dual-purpose power and desalination plant; the
most important contribution of this Ph. D. Thesis. During the 60’s and early 70’s
Evans (1962), Tribus (Tribus et al., 1960; Tribus and Evans, 1963) and El-Sayed (El-
Sayed and Aplenc, 1970; El-Sayed and Evans, 1970) laid down the seminal ideas of
Thermoeconomics and applied them to the desalination processes. Tribus first
proposed the term ‘Thermoeconomics’. Since then, Thermoeconomic techniques have
been developed and applied mostly to power plants. This thesis represents the most
complete and rigorous thermoeconomic analysis ever made on a complex energy
system and more specifically on a dual-purpose power and desalination plant. It
encompasses the whole range between an energy audit based on a detailed cost
analysis, up to a thermoeconomic optimization, via a thermoeconomic diagnosis of
several plant component failures.
The first section of this chapter includes the resolution of the thermoeconomic model
for the power and desalination plant. The steps to build and solve the thermoeconomic
model are described in detail.
The second section contains an in depth cost analysis of the most significant operating
modes governing the power and desalination plant (including operational and
investment capital costs) in order to quantify the efficiency of each operation mode.
This is used to calculate the physical (and therefore more realistic) value of the
resources consumed to produce every flowstream inside the plant, which is the key to
an energy audit. An inefficient process can be located and quantified in terms of fuel
plant consumption. Eight different operating modes were considered in the dual-
purpose plant, covering the whole range of the diverse combinations:

Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant
• In the first case, the plant only produced electricity. The second case was the
opposite: the plant was like a pure distillation unit, producing only desalted
water.
• The third to sixth cases studied the effect of partial load operation on the
efficiency of the installation, starting from maximum production to the minimum
load of water and electricity demand.
• The seventh and eighth cases considered the effect of the cleaning ball system on
the MSF evaporators. In both cases, some live steam was throttled in the HP
reduction station corresponding to the maximum load of extracting live steam to
a second MSF unit.
Non-operating costs were added to the calculated exergy costs. We compared our
thermoeconomic method with other indirect methods that calculate product costs as
the accounting of expenses in plant exploitation: fuel, maintenance, amortization,
etc., divided by the total plant production.
The third section of this chapter describes a complete thermoeconomic diagnosis of

the inefficiencies in the units of the power and desalination plant. Not only was the
additional fuel consumption due to the inefficiency calculated (impact on fuel
analysis), but also the effect on the behavior of other plant units. This effect was
separated in different contributions over the rest of devices: malfunctions (induced
and intrinsic malfunctions) and dysfunctions. Four different loads in the power plant
were considered and two distillate productions in the MSF plant. These examples
encompass the most significant operating conditions. Each study considered five
inefficiencies corresponding to five components of the power plant and three
inefficiencies in the MSF plant.
The fourth section applies the thermoeconomic technique based on local

optimization. The local optimization of energy systems is very valuable to find the
optimum operating conditions. The plant can be optimized by minimizing the cost of
the product of each unit, starting from real operating conditions.
The fifth section analyzes the concepts of price and cost. They were distinguished in
order to obtain the maximum benefit in plant exploitation.
Finally, the last section contains the conclusions and some ‘operation recommenda-
tions’ from the thermoeconomic analysis. These are very useful to guide managers in
saving energy and achieving a more cost-effective operation of a dual-purpose plant
operation.
Thermoeconomic model
7.1 Thermoeconomic model

A thermoeconomic model mathematically represents the productive structure of a
plant. This structure is a graphical representation of the resource distribution. Its
flows describe the productive relationship among components based on the physical
structure, although they are not forced to coincide with the existing physical flows of
the plant.
The thermoeconomic model should logically be defined after the physical structure
(section 7.1.2). Then the productive structure is built (section 7.1.3) along with the
system of characteristic equations that mathematically describe the productive
structure of the plant (section 7.1.4). Before considering the complex thermoeco-
nomic model of the dual plant, a very simple thermoeconomic model of a co-
generation system is included in section 7.1.1. It is a simple example of how to build
a thermoeconomic model and calculate the cost of live steam, water and electricity.
These can be compared with other methodologies that only account for the cost of the
final products (water and electricity) with external information or other
simplifications (see section 7.2.5).
7.1.1 A simple co-generation system

A steam generator (boiler), a steam turbine and the MSF plant can represent a very
simple dual-purpose desalination plant. Auxiliary non-producer elements like heaters,
pumps or condensers are not included in the scheme. The productive structure in
figure 7.1 can be built using the F-P definitions in table 7.1. The availability of the
steam generated in the boiler is sent to the two productive units (steam turbine and
MSF desalination unit). The fuel and product definition and the characteristic and
exergy cost equations of every component of the system are included in table 7.1.
FIGURE 7.1 Productive structure of the simple co-generation system.
2 W
Steam turbine
B1 – B2
C1 1 B1
Boiler A
B2
3 D
MSF unit
TABLE 7.1 Fuel, product, characteristic equation and exergy cost balance in the simple co-generation
system.
Fuel Product Ch. Equation Cost equation
1 Boiler C1 B1 C1 = k1 B1 k1* = k 1 cf
A Branching kA* = k*1
2 Turbine B1 – B2 W B1 – B2 = k2 W k2* = k2 kA*
3 MSF B2 D B2 = k3 D k3* = k3 kA*
The results of the model (table 7.2) were obtained under maximum continuous rating
(MCR). The cost of fuel cf was 2.23×10–6 $/kJ, and the cost of water and electricity
was also expressed in the most commercial units.
TABLE 7.2 Results of the simple co-generation system model, MCR case.
Fuel or product (kW) Unit consumption Exergy cost
C1 = 455,000 k1 = 2.244 k*1 = 2.244
B1 = 202,800 k2 = 1.293
k*2 = 2.902 (= 0.0233 ($/kWh)
B2 = 45,000 k3 = 6.553
W = 122,000
k*3 =14.7 (=151.4 kJ/kg, 0.3377 $/m3)
D = 6,867
The values are very similar to the results of the thermoeconomic model explained
below. This simple model can easily calculate the cost of the two main products using
thermoeconomic principles. The only requirement is to introduce the quality of the
steam derived to the MSF unit (from the simulator or an owner’s data sheet).
7.1.2 Physical structure

The physical structure of a plant is similar to a set of subsystems or units linked
among themselves and to the environment by another set of matter, heat, and work
that express plant behavior more or less accurately, or, in general:
energy system = subsystems or units + matter and/or energy flows (7.1)
The relationship between the flows and subsystems can be set up in a matrix
formulation (Lozano and Valero, 1993; Valero et al., 1993), that describes the
balances of matter, energy and exergy in a very compact form.
The more detailed the definition of the physical structure, the better the possibilities
of analyzing the installation. However, a more detailed physical structure implies
increasing both the number of measurements to be taken in a performance test
(temperatures, pressures, mass flow rates…) and the complexity of calculations. The
goal is to find an optimum level of aggregation, i.e. level of detailed description in the
physical structure corresponding to the depth of analysis.
The physical structure of the power plant analyzed thermoeconomically is very

similar to the mathematical model in the simulator (chapter 5). The thermophysical
properties of the main flowstreams calculated in a simulation can be used as
reasonable initial values for a thermoeconomic analysis in an operating condition.
Only the gland steam leakage flow is neglected, which is not significant. Figure 7.2
shows the physical structure of the power plant. If the power plant is working in
parallel or twin-extraction mode (that is, the reducing pressure extraction is working),
the pressure reduction station is included in the physical model. Table 7.3 describes
the nomenclature adopted in the previous figure.
FIGURE 7.2 Physical structure of the power plant considered for the thermoeconomic model.
TABLE 7.3 Description of components appearing in figure 7.2.
Component no. Initials Description
1 CP Condenser Pump
2 LPH2 Low Pressure Heater No. 2
3 LPH1 Low Pressure Heater No. 1
4 DRT Deaerator
5 FP Feed Pump
6 HPH2 High Pressure Heater No. 2
7 HPH1 High Pressure Heater No. 1
8 VEX4 4th extraction valve
9 VEX3 3rd extraction valve

10 VEXD Extraction valve to deaerator
11 VEX2 2nd extraction valve
12 VEX1 1st extraction valve

13 VF Feed valve
14 BOI Boiler
15 VB Boiler valve
16 VST Stop valve
17 BHP Brine heater pump
18 HPT1 High pressure turbine (1st section)
19 HPT2 High pressure turbine (2nd section)
20 HPT3 High pressure turbine (3rd section)
21 HPT4 High pressure turbine (4th section)
22 LPT1 High pressure turbine (1st section)
23 LPT2 High pressure turbine (2nd section)

24 CND Condenser
25 GEN Generator
26 MSF Desalination unit (multistage flash)
27 VS1 1st Reducing pressure valve (steam)
28 VS2 2nd Reducing pressure valve (vac.)
29 VS3 3rd Reducing pressure valve (FP)
However, the physical model considered for the thermoeconomic analysis of the
MSF unit (figure 7.3) differs from the mathematical model implemented in the
simulator. The physical model treats the recovery and reject sections as a unique
component. If these sections are divided into stages, a huge productive structure is
generated in the plant. Since the functionality of each stage is identical, this
possibility of plant dissagregation is not considered. Consequently, the input/output
values of the recovery and reject sections in the simulator can be used as the basis of
the analysis (their operating data are also available). The pump system of the
distillation unit is also considered. Exit conditions of these pumps are calculated in
the thermoeconomic model with their characteristic charts.
FIGURE 7.3 Physical structure of the MSF plant considered for the thermoeconomic analysis.
Table 7.4 further describes the meaning of figure 7.3.
TABLE 7.4 Components description from figure 7.3. Note that component no. 1 is not described in physical
model but is included in other schemes.
Component no. Initials Description
2 BH Brine heater
3 RP Recycle brine pump
4 BDP Blowdown pump
5 RCS Recovery section
6 MIX Mixer
7 RJS Reject section
8 SWP Seawater pump
9 DP Distillate pump
10 MXT Mixer (temper water)
11 TP Tempering pump
7.1.3 Productive structure

A plant is more than a set of flows and units. Each unit has a particular productive
function which contributes to final production. We will clearly indicate which flow or
combination of flows constitute the product of the unit (P), which ones are the
resources or fuel consumed (F) and which flows are the losses (L), i.e. those that
leave the unit and plant and are not subsequently used.
The productive structure contains the mathematical definition of the function of each
component. The production objective (product) and the resources needed (fuel) to
develop its function are defined for each device, which is equivalent to defining
efficiency. The productive structure also includes the distribution of consumed
resources in the different units and how plant products are obtained.
The best F-P-L definition to represent unit productive function is obtained by

simultaneously examining their own energy transformation. Using the F-P-L
definition and the data from the design and operation, it is possible to carry out the
energy and exergy analysis of the plant.
The productive structure can be explained in a diagram with squares representing

physical plant units (productive and dissipative physical processes), and circles and
rhombuses that are not physical components of the plant. The lines connecting the
different productive units are exergy resources (fuels and products). The inlet arrows
going into squares are the fuels of the corresponding components and outlet arrows
represent products. The circles are branching points where the exergy resource is
distributed to other components. In every junction (rhombus), a significant exergy
resource is obtained by the addition of others of the same nature but different origin.
To apply an on-line thermoeconomic analysis (as presented in Chapter 7) to the dual

plant, the thermoeconomic model should be disaggregated to a deep enough decision
level to make use of the most important data provided by the data acquisition system.
The data acquisition system of the plant is clearly insufficient to provide the data
required by the productive structure defined in section 7.1 for the power and
desalination plant. For this reason all required data were provided by the model
presented in chapters 3 to 5, as if they were measured data provided by the plant
acquisition system.
7.1.3.1 Steam power plant
Depending on the analysis, a productive structure can be designed in different detail

or aggregation levels. For instance, in a thermoeconomic analysis of a power plant,
the MSF plant is considered a single plant unit in the productive structure.
The minimum aggregation level is considered for the MSF plant in the productive
structure of the power plant. The F-P definition used for the power plant follows the
trend adopted in conventional steam power plants. The difference between thermal,
mechanical and chemical exergy was not considered in the power and desalination
plant when the productive structure of the system was built. However, a lower
aggregation level was used in the thermoeconomic analysis of the MSF unit with
several plant units. The F-P-L definition of the steam power plant components is
presented in figure 7.4, where B is the exergy flow of a stream (its mass flow rate m
multiplied by its specific exergy b), W is the work consumed or generated in a
component, DB is the exergy flow of fresh water leaving the MSF, S is the entropy
flow of a stream (mass flow m multiplied by the specific entropy s). Exergy losses (L)
are considered but do not explicitly appear in the productive structure.
FIGURE 7.4 F-P description in steam power plant.
The fuel and product of each device is defined depending on the functionality of the
component (Frangopoulos, 1990). Thus, the heater is a component installed to heat
feedwater (B4 – B1) in a Rankine cycle, with extracted steam supplied by the turbine,
which is condensed inside the heater (B2 – B5). If the heater has a drain from another
heater, the fuel also incorporates its exergy flow (B3). The job of a steam turbine is to
produce work (W) by exhausting the steam from a boiler (B1 – B2). A pump has the
inverse functionality: it uses work (W) as the fuel to increase the pressure of a fluid
(B2 – B1). A generator is an energy converter, therefore, the fuel is the primary
(mechanical) energy (W1) and the product is secondary (electrical) (W2). A valve is a
dissipative component. It undergoes exergy losses when the fuel (B2) passes through
the valve (B1). The fuel and product in a boiler are very clear. A boiler uses primary
energy like natural gas (Bgas) to boil and superheat the feedwater in a steam cycle
(B2 -- B1). The deaerator is a heater with a mixing process of several flows. The
product is the heating of the colder streams ((m1 + m2) b3 – m1 b1 – m2 b2) and the
fuel is the heat released by hotter streams (m4 b4 + m5 b5 – (m4 + m5) b3).
The condenser is a dissipative unit which condensates the steam coming from the
steam turbines to produce liquid water. The heat released (Q) has a low temperature
and is thus rejected to the atmosphere without any further application. From a
thermodynamic point of view, the condenser function allows the working fluid
(water) to reach the physical conditions to perform a new thermodynamic cycle. For
this reason, several authors (Frangopoulos, 1983; Von Spakovsky, 1986; Benelmir,
1989) propose negentropy as the condenser product. The negentropy is a
thermodynamic function (Frangopoulos, 1983) with exergy or energy dimensions but
with entropy reduction of water/steam in the condenser. The water/steam entropy is
increased in other plant components. As a result, their negentropy consumption is
primarily produced in the condenser. The amount of negentropy consumed in a
component is proportional to its entropy increase. In summary, the exergy losses of
the different flows entering the condenser are the fuel of the device (B1 + B2 + B3 –
B4). The negentropy produced is the condenser product (T0 (S4 – S3 – S2 – S1)).
Finally, the MSF is treated as a component whose main purpose is to produce
freshwater (DB) using different flows of steam and electricity (B1 + B2 – B3 + W). As
the steam (B3) is condensed in the heater of the distillation unit, some negentropy is
generated in this process (S) which is a secondary product of the MSF (auxiliary
product or byproduct).
From the point of view of the diagnosis, the selected productive structure is
independent of the final results (Valero et al., 1999). The maximum aggregation level
provides the product and fuel formation cost of each component in the steam plant.
Although it is complicated to construct a productive structure with a maximum
aggregation level, it provides the best information to understand the behavior of the
individual components of a power plant.
The productive structure is made up of components with exergy added to the working
fluid of the power plant (steam/water). In this case, the components of the exergy
addition are the boiler, heaters, deaerator and pumps. The amount of exergy supplied
to the working fluid is added in a junction and then redistributed (using branching
points) to the components where the exergy is removed from the working fluid to be
mixed with another flow or used as fuel of a component. The components of exergy
removal in the steam cycle with co-generation are the turbine sections, the condenser,
the MSF unit and the pressure losses in tubes. Finally, a junction is settled to pick up
the work produced in the turbine sections and, after passing the generator, is
redistributed to the components that need the electrical consumption as fuel (pump or
MSF unit). Only two streams leave the plant: distillate flow (DB) and net output
power, and one stream enters (the exergy flow of fuel).
Different productive structures were defined for each operating mode because
different plant units depend on it. For instance, the F-P formulation applied to the
productive structure generated for the more realistic mode, generating power and
fresh water (extraction mode, see figure 7.5) does not use the live steam reducing
pressure station.
FIGURE 7.5 Productive structure of the power plant in extraction mode.
When the power plant is working in condensing mode (only electricity is produced),
brine heater pump and MSF components must be removed, and consequently, the J3
junction. Figure 7.6 shows the small changes needed to perform the productive
structure of the condensing mode.
When the power plant is working in extraction mode at low loads, the low-pressure
turbine is acting as a compressor. As a result, the condenser and 2nd section of the
low-pressure turbine are treated as a component with two fuels: work needed to move
the turbine and the exergy flow lost in the condenser. Figure 7.7 shows the changes
applied to this operating mode with respect to the first structure (figure 7.5).
FIGURE 7.6 Changes applied to extraction mode productive structure (figure 7.5) when the plant operates in
condensing mode.
Steam to MSF
J3
MSF
26
BHP
17
Vacuum
When the power production is less than a minimum (the outlet pressure of the fourth
section of the high-pressure turbine is very low), the reduction pressure station is
automatically opened to maintain steam conditions to the MSF heater (this is the
parallel mode). The productive structure in figure 7.7 includes the reduction pressure
valve. Figure 7.8 shows the additional structure added to figure 7.5, which is also
valid for the twin extraction mode.
FIGURE 7.7 Productive structure corresponding to extraction mode with low energy production in a dual-
purpose plant. Changes with respect to figure 7.5.
Finally, in desalination or twin desalination mode (steam power plant not working),
the productive structure is quite simple because only six components need to be
considered to perform the productive structure (see figure 7.9), i.e., those operating in
this mode.
FIGURE 7.8 Productive structure of the steam power plant in parallel and twin extraction mode. Changes with
respect to figure 7.5.
FIGURE 7.9 Productive structure of the steam power plant in desalination or twin desalination mode.
7.1.3.2 MSF unit
The F-P-L definition of the MSF components is the first step in building the
productive structure, depending on the aggregation level used to solve the
thermoeconomic model. In this case, recovery and reject sections are considered one
component, independently of the number of their stages. This case could be
considered an intermediate aggregation level, following the physical model
previously defined in figure 7.3. Figure 7.10 resumes the F-P-L definition applied to
the MSF plant units. For more information of brine exergy calculation see Annex 2.
The recovery and reject sections are complex devices. Their products are very clear:
the distillate produced (DB or DB2 – DB1) in each distiller. The resources consumed
are the exergy released by the flashing brine, which is partially recovered by the
cooling brine ((B1 – B2) – (F2 – F1)), and the steam consumed to hold the distillers
below atmospheric pressure (vacuum). Distillate from the recovery section (DB1) is
also a fuel component of the reject section. The brine heater gives the final heating to
the brine (B4 – B3) by condensing vapor bled from the turbine (B1 – B2). The mixer
device produces an outlet stream (B3) by merging two or more inlet streams
(B1 + B2).
FIGURE 7.10 F-P definition in the MSF unit.
Some other interpretations of the F-P definitions were considered to select the
appropriate productive structure. The objective was to obtain the exact value of the
exergy cost of the final product (whose value is independent of the productive
structure) and the F-P definition. But the exergy cost of the intermediate flowstreams
is obviously different when the fuel and product definition of each component and/or
the aggregation level is changed. The most important point is to find out the physical
sense of the flowstreams in the productive structure, in order to explain and study the
exergy cost of each flow. Several productive structures were studied in this thesis.
• One possibility is to consider that the exergy recovered in the cooling brine
(F2 -- F1) is a component of the product of these components. The fuel of these
sections is the exergy released by the flashing brine (B1 – B2) and the product is
the two effects obtained in the sections (F2 – F1) + DB. This results of this
definition are similar to the final F-P definition chosen but it contradicts the
functionality of the components.
• The heated cooling brine could be considered a subproduct of the recovery and
reject sections while maintaining the fuel as in the previous case. The high value
of the subproduct (F2 – F1), (several times the value of distilled water in these
sections) gives nonsense values for the calculated exergy costs.
• Consider a zero exergy cost of the MSF plant residues (fourth proposition of the
exergy cost theory, Valero et al., 1986a). The cost of the rejected cooling
seawater and blowdown is not charged over the rest of the MSF plant
flowstreams. This avoids introducing the fictitious device in the productive
structure of the distillation plant. This consideration is a price allocation because
the residues are final products external to the system and have zero cost.
• The distilled water in the recovery section may not be considered a fuel of the
reject section. The product of the reject section should only be the quantity of
distilled water produced in that section, not the total amount of freshwater
produced. This scenario only varies the cost of reject section.
• The system recovery-reject section could be considered a component, in order to
avoid the effect of recycling flows in the MSF plant and the modeling of a
fictitious mixer in the final stage of the distillation plant. This is a higher
aggregation level than adopted in this thesis.
• It would not be adequate to consider the chemical exergy of the distillate leaving
the reject section as the final product of the MSF plant. Its low value would
imply huge exergy operating costs of the rest of the flowstreams inside the
distillers. Furthermore, the analysis of a thermal inefficiency in a distiller cannot
be performed with the F-P definition adopted in this hypothetical assumption.
The chemical exergy of freshwater only depends on salt concentration and does
not vary under thermal inefficiency. The only consequence of a thermal
inefficiency is a thermal exergy variation.
The formation of the productive structure of the MSF unit is not easily explained with
the F-P definition considered in the thermoeconomic model (several junctions are
needed to obtain component fuel and product). As the flows circulating by the MSF
unit are pumped, the main flows of the plant are added to a junction in which the
exergy added by the pump is incorporated to the flow. The most significant branching
points of the MSF plant redistribute their product as a fuel for some components of
the MSF unit. The first one is the cooling brine heated in the brine heater, the second
branching has the cooling seawater to reject. But the most amazing situation of this
structure is the non-physical component or fictitious device (FD). It was included at
the beginning of the structure to account for residue costs (blowdown and reject
cooling seawater) in the thermoeconomic model. The cost of steam to brine heater
(considered to be the main fuel of the plant) is overcharged by the effect of the two
useless flows sent to sea. The exergy costs of the blowdown and discharged cooling
brine are used and conveniently incorporated into the rest of the internal costs and the
final product of the MSF unit.
Figure 7.11 shows the productive structure of the MSF plant corresponding to the F-P
definition explained above (figure 7.10), the number of junctions and branches are a
result of the F-P definition adopted for the recovery and reject sections. The operating
modes of the power plant do not affect the productive structure of the desalination
unit, unless the condensing mode is selected (in this case there is no freshwater
production).
FIGURE 7.11 Productive structure of the MSF unit.
7.1.4 Thermoeconomic model

The thermoeconomic model is the mathematical representation of the productive
structure. It consists of a group "characteristic equations" which express (for all
components in the productive structure) each inlet flow as a function of the outlet
flows and a set of internal parameters, i.e.:
Unit j: Fi = κij · Pj (7.2)

Junction j: Fi = rij · Pj (7.3)
Branching point j: Fj = ∑ Pi (7.4)
where κ is the technical production coefficient of the unit and r is a structural

parameter in the junctions or exergy ratio. Equation (7.2) provides information about:
• the productive function of each commoponent, i.e. its production (P),

• what the component needs (F) to develop its productive purpose, and
• the thermodynamic efficiency (κ) of the process taking place in the component.
The structural equations (7.3) and (7.4) contain the distribution of the resources
consumed by the plant components, i.e. how the components are interconnected from
a productive viewpoint.
The Thermoeconomic model of the steam power plant (extraction mode) has one 7.2-
type equation for each fuel entering a component (57 equations in total), four
equations for the four junctions and four equations derived from the four branching
points in the productive structure (figure 7.5). There are 19 characteristic equations in
the MSF unit model and seven and three equations corresponding to the junctions and
branching points.
The characteristic equations (equations 7.2–7.4) can easily be written using the
productive structure diagram. The subscript numbers of the fuel and products
correspond to the flow diagram of Chapter 4 (power plant scheme) and Chapter 3
(diagram of the MSF plant). Table 7.5 includes the equations that describe the
thermoeconomic model of the steam power plant.
TABLE 7.5 Exergy flows and characteristic equations of components in the steam power plant (extraction
mode).
Dev. Exergy Flows Characteristic equation(s)

PCP = m12 (b12–b11) WCP = kBCP * PCP
CP
FSCP = m12 T0 (s12–s11) FSCP = kSCP * PCP
PLPH2 = m12 (b14–b12)
FB1LPH2 = m34 (b34–b25)+ mci (bci–b25) FB1LPH2 = kB1LPH2 * PLPH2
LPH2 FB2LPH2 = m33 (b23–b25) FB2LPH2 = kB2LPH2 * PLPH2
FSLPH2 = T0 {m12 (s14–s12) – m34 (s34–s25) FSLPH2 = kSLPH2 * PLPH2
– m33 (s33–s25)– mci (sci–s25)}
PLPH1 = m12 (b15–b14)
FBLPH1 = kBLPH1 * PLPH1
LPH1 FBLPH1 = m33 (b33–b23)
FSLPH1 = kSLPH1 * PLPH1
FSLPH1 = T0 {m12 (s15–s14)– m33 (s33–s23)}
PDRT = m12 (b16–b15)+ mdes (b16–brdes)
FB1DRT = m32 (b32–b16)
FB1DRT = kB1DRT * PDRT
FB2DRT = (m30 + m31) (b22–b16)
DRT FB2DRT = kB2DRT * PDRT
FSDRT = T0 {m20 s16 –(m30 + m31) s22 –m12
FSDRT = kSDRT * PDRT
s15
– m32 s32 – mdes srdes}
PFP = m20 (b17–b16) WFP = kBFP * PFP
FP
FSCP = m20 T0 (s17–s16) FSFP = kSFP * PFP
PHPH2 = m20 (b19–b17)
FB1HPH2 = m31 (b31–b22) FB1HPH2 = kB1HPH2 *PHPH2
HPH2 FB2HPH2 = m30 (b21–b22) FB2HPH2 = kB2HPH2 * PHPH2
FSHPH2 = T0 {m20 (s19–s17)–m31 (s31–s22) FSHPH2 = kSHPH2 * PHPH2
– m30 (s21–s22)}
PHPH1 = m20 (b20–b19)
FBHPH1 = kBHPH1 * PHPH1
HPH1 FBHPH1 = m30 (b30–b21)
FSHPH1 = kSHPH1 * PHPH1
FSHPH1 = T0 {m20 (s20–s19)–m30 (s30–s21)}
PVEX4 = m34 (b34–b25) + mci (bci–b25)
FBVEX4 = kBVEX4 * PVEX4
VEX4 FBVEX4 = m34 (b8–b25) + mci (bci–b25)
FSVEX4 = kSVEX4 * PVEX4
FSVEX4 = T0 m34 (s34–s8)
PVEX3 = m33 (b33–b23)
VEX3 FBVEX3 = m33 (b6–b23)
FSVEX3 = T0 m33 (s33–s6)
PVEXD = m32 (b32–b16)
FBVEXD = kBVEXD * PVEXD
VEXD FBVEXD = m32 (b5–b16)
FSVEXD = kSVEXD * PVEXD
FSVEXD = T0 m32 (s32–s5)
mode).

PVEX2 = m31 (b31–b22)
FSVEX2 = T0 m31 (s31–s4)
PVEX1 = m30 (b30–b21)
FSVEX1 = T0 m30 (s30–s3)
PVF = m12 (b28–b11) + (m20–m12) (b28–b16)
FBVF = kBVF * PVF
VF FBVF = m12 (b20–b11) + (m20–m12) (b20–b16)
FSVF = kSVF * PVF
FSVF = T0 m20 (s28–s20)
PBOI = m20 (b29–b28) C1 = kBBOI * PBOI
BOI
FSBOI = T0 m20 (s29–s28) FSBOI = kSBOI * PBOI
PVB = m12 (b1–b11) + (m20–m12) (b1–b16)
FBVB = kBVB * PVB
VB FBVB = m12 (b29–b11) + (m20–m12) (b29–b16)
FSVB = kSVB * PVB
FSVB = T0 m20 (s1–s29)
PVST = m12 (b1’–b11) + (m20–m12) (b1’–b16)
FBVST = kBVST * PVST
VST FBVST = PVB
FSVST = kSVST * PVST
FSVB = T0 m20 (s1’–s1)
PBHP = mdes (brdes–bdes) WBHP = kBBHP * PBHP
BHP
FSBHP = T0 mdes (srdes–sdes) FSBHP = kSBHP * PBHP
FBHPT1 = m20 (b1’–b3) FBHPT1 = kBHPT1 * WHPT1
HPT1
FSHPT1 = T0 m20 (s3–s1’) FSHPT1 = kSHPT1 * WHPT1
FBHPT2 = (m20–m30–mva) (b3–b4) FBHPT2 = kBHPT2 * WHPT2
HPT2
FSHPT2 = T0 (m20–m30–mva) (s4–s3) FSHPT2 = kSHPT2 * WHPT2
FBHPT3 = (m20–m30–mva–m31) (b4–b5) FBHPT3 = kBHPT3 * WHPT3
HPT3
FSHPT3 = T0 (m20–m30–mva–m31) (s5–s4) FSHPT3 = kSHPT3 * WHPT3
FBHPT4 = (m20–m30–mva–m31–m32) (b5–b6) FBHPT4 = kBHPT4 * WHPT4
HPT4
FSHPT4 = T0 (m20–m30–mva–m31–m32) (s6–s5) FSHPT4 = kSHPT4 * WHPT4
FBLPT1 = (m9 + m34) (b6–b8) FBLPT1 = kBLPT1 * WLPT1
LPT1
FSLPT1 = T0 (m9 + m34) (s8–s6) FSLPT1 = kSLPT1 * WLPT1
FBLPT2 = m9 (b8–b9) FBLPT2 = kBLPT2 * WLPT2
LPT2
FSLPT2 = T0 m9 (s9–s8) FSLPT2 = kSLPT2 * WLPT2
PCND = T0 {m9 s9 + (m34 + m33 + mci) s25
+ mva sva –m12 s11}
CND FBCND = kBCND * PCND
FBCND = m9 b9 + (m34 + m33 + mci) b25
+ mva bva – m12 b11
mode).

WT = WHPT1 + WHPT2 + WHPT3
GEN WT = kGEN * PGEN
+ WHPT4 + WLPT1 + WLPT2
WMSF = kB3MSF * PD
FB1MSF = mdes (b6–bdes)
FB1MSF = kB1MSF * PD
MSF FB2MSF = mva (b3–bva)
FB2MSF = kB2MSF * PD
FSMSF = T0 {mdes (sdes–s6)+ mva (sva–s3)}
FSMSF = kSMSF * PD
PVST = FBVEX4 + FBVEX3 + FBVEX2 + FBVEX1
+ FBVEXD + FB2LPH2 + FB2DRT + FB2HPH2
A FBJ3 = mdes (b6–b16)
+ FBHPT1 + FBHPT2 + FBHPT3 + FBHPT4
+ FBLPT1 + FBLPT2 + FBJ3 + FBCND+FB2MSF
B PDRT = m12 (b16–b15) + mdes (b16–brdes)
C PGEN = WTN + WFP + WCP +WMSF +WBHP
FVF = rFP * PFP + rLPH2 * PLPH2 + rLPH1
J1 * PLPH1 + rDRTj1* m12 (b16–b15)
+ rCP * PCP + rHPH2 * PHPH2 + rHPH1 * PHPH1
J2 FVB = rVF * PVF + rBOI * PBOI
FB1MSF = rJ3 * FBJ3 + rDRTj3* mdes
J3
(b16–brdes) + rBHP * PBHP
WT = rHPT1 * WHPT1 + rHPT2 * WHPT2
J4 + rHPT3 * WHPT3 + rHPT4 * WHPT4
+ rLPT1 * WLPT1 + rLPT2 * WLPT2
The physical model of the thermoeconomic analysis differs from the mathematical
model presented in Chapter 3. Figure 7.12 shows the exergy flows considered in the
thermoeconomic model of the MSF plant (which also appear in the characteristic
equations in table 7.6). We used the flow nomenclature adopted in Chapter 3.
FIGURE 7.12 Physical model considered in the thermoeconomic analysis of the MSF plant.
TABLE 7.6 Exergy flows and characteristic equations for the components of the MSF plant.
Devices Exergy flows Characteristic equation(s)
PFD = mdes (b6 – bdes) ≡ FB1MSF

F1FD = k1FD * PFD
F1FD = PFD
FD F2FD = k2FD * PFD
F2FD = BD b10
F3FD = k3FD * PFD
F3FD = CW b13
PBH = R (b4 – b3)

BH PBH = kBH * PBH
FBH = PFD
RP PRP = R (b7 – b8) WRP = kRP * PRP
BDP PBDP = BD (b10 – b8) WBDP = kBDP * PBDP
PRCS = Drcs b5
F1RCS = k1RCS * PRCS
F1RCS = R b4 – (R – Drcs) b6 – R (b3 – b7)
RCS F2RCS = k2RCS * PRCS
F2RCS ≡ 0.5 FB2MSF
F3RCS = k3RCS * PRCS
F3RCS = 0.5 mvent b15
PMIX = R b8
F1MIX = k1MIX * PMIX
MIX F1MIX = (R – D – BD) b9
F2MIX = k2MIX * PMIX
F2MIX = F b13
PRJS = D b11
F1RJS = (R – Drcs) b6 – (R – D) b9 + Drcs b5 F1RJS = k1RJS * PRJS
RJS – SR (b13 – b17) F2RJS = k2RJS * PRJS
F2RJS = 0.5 FB2MSF F3RJS = k3RJS * PRJS
F3RJS = 0.5 mvent b15
SWP PSWP = SW (b15 – b16) WSWP = kSWP * PSWP
DP PDP = D (b12 – b11) WDP = kDP * PDP
PMXT = SR b17
F1MXT = k1MXT * PMXT
MXT F1MXT = TP b14
F2MXT = k2MXT * PMXT
F2MXT = (SW – mvent) b15
TP PTP = TP (b14 – b13) WTP = kTP * PTP
PJA = F2FD
JA F1JA = PBDP PJA = r1JA * F1JA + r2JA * F2JA
F2JA = BD b8
TABLE 7.6 Exergy flows and characteristic equations for the components of the MSF plant.
Devices Exergy flows Characteristic equation(s)
PJB = R b4 – R (b3 – b7)

F1JB = PBH PJB = r1JB * F1JB + r2JB * F2JB
JB
F2JB = PRP + r3JB * F3JB
F3JB = PMIX
F1JD = (R – Drcs) b6 – (R – D) b8 – SR (b13 – b17) PJB = F2JA + F1JD + F1RCS + F1JI

C
F1JI = SR (b13 – b17) + F1MIX
PJD = F1RJS
JD PJD = r1JD * F1JD + r2JD * F2JD
F2JD = PRCS
E F1JK = TP b13 PJI = F3FD + F1JK + F2MIX
PJG = SR b15
JG F1JG = PSWP PJG = r1JG * F1JG + r2JG * F2JG
F2JG = SR b16
H PJG = F3RCS + F3RJS + F2MXT
PJI = SR b13
JI PJI = r1JI * F1JI + r2JI * F2JI
F2JI = PMXT
PJJ = PD = D b12
JJ F1JJ = PRJS PJJ = r1JJ* F1JJ + r2JJ * F2JJ
F2JJ = PDP
PJK = F1MXT
JK PJK = r1JK * F1JK + r2JK * F2JK
F2JK = PTP
7.2 Cost analysis

Thermoeconomic analysis combines the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics
along with monetary cost balances at the system component level. It helps to
understand the process of cost formation, minimize overall product costs and assess
costs of the different products obtained in the processes. The cost accounting method
can calculate costs using rough data from an energy system control room (pressures,
temperatures, mass flow rates, electrical production, fuel consumption, excess of
oxygen etc. and the economic data).
The costs of all significant mass and energy flowstreams is a very powerful and
interesting piece of information about the amount of resources used to obtain each
Cost analysis
significant mass and energy flowstream. Knowing the costs of the mass and energy
flowstreams is the key to thermoeconomic analysis. The first consequence is price
assessment of the products based on physical criteria.
7.2.1 Exergy costs allocation

Valero et al. (1986a) present the fundamental problem of cost allocation as follows:
Given a system whose limits have been defined and a level of aggregation that
specifies the subsystems which constitute it, how to obtain the cost of all the flows that
become interrelated in this structure.
The origin of every cost lies in the irreversibility of the processes. This is a
cornerstone in thermoeconomics. But how do we link the variation in the local
irreversibility (∆Ii) to the increase of resources consumed (∆FT)?
Two factors are added to consider the economic: market prices (cf), which are not
necessarily linked to the exergy of the processed resources and depreciation, and
maintenance costs of the productive process (Z). The thermoeconomic cost of a flow
can be calculated after the second factor is introduced (section 7.2.3). The exergy
costs calculated in this section only take into account the fuel consumed to produce
each flowstream.
Valero et al (1986a) also propose a rational procedure to determine the cost of all
mass and energy flowstreams based on four propositions presented in the ‘Theory
of exergetic cost’. Consider a plant with n units and m flows with known exergy
flows. The set of balances of exergy costs (P1 proposition) of the n units provides a
system of n equations. The number of flows will be higher than the number of
units, and (m – n) auxiliary equations will be needed to determine flow cost. Serra
(1994) demonstrated that the rest of the required equations are obtained from the
productive structure of the plant through the F-P-L definition of its units and the
subsequent application of the Theory of exergetic cost.
The Structural Theory of Thermoeconomics (Valero et. al, 1993) based on the rules of
mathematical derivation provides exactly the same system of cost equations.
Consequently, this theory can calculate flow cost of the above four propositions by
simply applying the chain rule of derivatives to the characteristic equations of the
thermoeconomic model (as explained in Chapter 6). The system of equations
providing the exergy costs of the steam power plant (cost of the flows appearing in
the productive structure depicted in figure 7.5) is shown in table 7.7. Note that
negentropy is included in the cost equation of each component as a second fuel. The
negentropy generated in the condenser must be allocated to the rest of the plant
components as a function of their entropy increase.
TABLE 7.7 System of equations providing the unit exergy costs of the steam power plant (extraction mode).
Device Exergy cost balance
* * *
CP k CP = kBCP k CPw + kSCP k CPs
* * * *
LPH2 k LPH2 = kB1LPH2 k VEX4 + kB2LPH2 k LPH2v + kSLPH2 k LPH2s
* * *
LPH1 k LPH1 = kBLPH1 k VEX3 + kSLPH1 k LPH1s
* * * *
DRT k DRT = kB1DRT k VEXD + kB2DRT k DRTv + kSDRT k DRTs
* * *
FP k FP = kBFP k FPw + kSFP k FPs
* * * *
HPH2 k HPH2 = kB1HPH2 k VEX2 + kB2HPH2 k HPH2v + kSHPH2 k HPH2s
* * *
HPH1 k HPH1 = kBHPH1 k VEX1 + kSHPH1 k HPH1s
* * *
VEX4 k VEX4 = kBVEX4 k VEX4v + kSVEX4 k VEX4s
* * *
* * *
VEXD k VEXD = kBVEXD k VEXDv + kSVEXD k VEXDs
* * *
* * *
* * *
VF k VF = kBVF k J1 + kSVF k VFs
* * *
BOI k BOI = kBBOI k FUEL + kSBOI k BOIs
* * *
VB k VB = kBVB k J2 + kSVB k VBs
* * *
VST k VST = kBVST k VB + kSVST k VSTs
* * *
BHP k BHP = kBBHP k BHPw + kSBHP k BHPs
* * *
HPT1 k HPT1 = kBHPT1 k HPT1v + kSHPT1 k HPT1s
* * *
* * *
* * *
Cost analysis
TABLE 7.7 System of equations providing the unit exergy costs of the steam power plant (extraction mode).
Device Exergy cost balance
* * *
LPT1 k LPT1 = kBLPT1 k LPT1v + kSLPT1 k LPT1s
* * *
LPT2 k LPT2 = kBLPT2 k LPT2v + kSLPT2 k LPT2s
* *
CND k CND = kBCND k CNDv
* *
GEN k GEN = kBGEN k J4
* * * * *
MSF k MSF = kB3MSF k MSFw + kB1MSF k J3 + kB2MSF k MSFv + kSMSF k MSFs
* * * * * *
k J1 = rFP k FP + rLPH2 k LPH2 + rLPH1 k LPH1 + rDRTj1 k DRTJ1 + rHPH2 k HPH2
J1
* *
+ rHPH1 k HPH1 + rCP k CP
* * *
J2 k J2 = rVF k VF + rBOI k BOI
* * * *
J3 k J3 = rDRTj3 k DRTJ3 + rVA k J3v + rBHP k BHP
* * * * * *
k J4 = rHPT1 k HPT1 + rHPT2 k HPT2 + rHPT3 k HPT3 + rHPT4 k HPT4 + rLPT1 k LPT1
J4
*
+ rLPT2 k LPT2
* * * * * * * *
k VST = k LPH2v = k DRTv = k HPH2v = k VEX4v = k VEX3v = k VEX2v = k VEX1v
* * * * * * *
A = k HPT1v = k HPT2v = k HPT3v = k HPT4v = k LPT1v = k HPT2v = k CNDv
* *
= k MSFv = k J3v
* * * * *
B k GEN = k FPw = k CPw = k MSFw = k BHPw
* * *
C k DRT = k DRTJ1 = k DRTJ3
* * * * * * * *
k CND = k CPs = k LPH1s = k LPH2s = k DRTs = k FPs = k HPH1s = k HPH2s
* * * * * * *
= k VEX4s = k VEX3s = k VEXDs = k VEX2s = k VEX1s = k VFs = k BOIs
D
* * * * * * *
= k VBs = k VSTs = k BHPs = k HPT1s = k HPT2s = k HPT3s = k HPT4s
* * *
= k LPT1s = k LPT2s = k MSFs
In the system of equations providing the exergy costs of the MSF plant (table 7.8), the
negentropy does not appear, although the brine heater is acting as a plant condenser.
The negentropy decreases energy waste in the condenser and improves the power
plant efficiency.
TABLE 7.8 System of equations providing the exergy costs of the MSF plant (figure 7.11).
Components Exergy cost equations

* * * *
FD k FD = k1FD k ST + k2FD k JA + k3FD k FDf 3
* *
BH k BH = kBH k FD
* *
RP k RP = kRP k W
* *
BDP k BDP = kBDP k W
* * * *
RCS k RCS = k1RCS k RCSf 1 + k2RCS k VA + k3RCS k RCSf 3
* * *
MIX k MIX = k1MIX k MIXf 1 + k2MIX k MIXf 2
* * * *
RJS k RJS = k1RJS k JD + k2RJS k VA + k3RJS k RCSf 3
* *
SWP k SWP = kSWP k W
* *
DP k DP = kDP k W
* * *
MXT k MXT = k1MXT k JK + k2MXT k MXTf 2
* *
TP k TP = kTP k W
* * *
JA k JA = r1JA k BDP + r2JA k JAf 2
* * * *
JB k JB = r1JB k BH + r2JB k RP + r3JB k MIX
* * *
JD k JD = r1JD k JDf 1 + r2JD k RCS
* * *
JG k JG = r1JG k SWP + r2JG k SW
* * *
JI k JI = r1JI k JIf 1 + r2JI k MXT
* * *
JJ k JJ = r1JJ k RJS + r2JJ k DP
* * *
Jk k JK = r1JK k JKf 1 + r2JK k TP
* * * * * *
C k JB = k JAf 2 = k JDf 1 = k RCSf 1 = k JIf 1 = k MIXf 1
* * * *
E k JI = k MIXf 2 = k FDf 3 = k JKf 1
* * * *
F k JG = k RCSf 3 = k RJSf 3 = k MXTf 2
Cost analysis
7.2.2 Exergy cost analysis

We calculated the exergy costs for the productive structure in figure 7.5 and analyzed
them under eight different operating conditions with equations in table 7.7. They are
expressed in energy units and represent the amount of resources (usually natural gas)
consumed to obtain each significant mass and energy flowstream. These only
represent the operation costs (they do not include the cost of each plant device) in
terms of energy.
The thermodynamic properties of the mass and energy flowstreams (figures 7.2
and 7.3) were obtained by the simulator. The main features of each case are shown in
table 7.9. Most of them correspond to a performance data case of the power plant,
already described in Chapter 4.
TABLE 7.9 Case studies of the exergy cost analysis (PTC: Performance Test Case of the dual plant; Gc:
Natural gas consumed; CBS: Cleaning Ball System was used).
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8

PTC MR ODOB MCR MSL4 PL85 — MSL3 —
W (kW) 146,693 — 122,000 75,440 91,000 53,500 76,500 71,000
mls (kg/s) 156.187 70.38 156.187 109.5 117.39 70.0 170.0 160.0
Gc (Nm3/h) 43,090 22,780 43,460 31,560 33,650 20,850 49,340 49,390

LS (GCal/h) 0.0 150.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 150.0 150.0
mdes (kg/s) 0.0 88.5 89.68 88.63 75.62 41.7 83.0 73.5
Pc (bar) 0.135 — 0.072 0.021 0.055 0.048 0.048 0.048
D (T/h) — 2,418.0 2,418.0 2,418.0 2,060.0 1,216.3 2,260.5 2,309.5
TBT (º C) — 112.0 112.0 112.0 100.0 84.0 112.0 112.0
SW (º C) — 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 32.0 32.0 32.0
CBS NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES
Most case studies corresponded to the limited operating conditions. The operating
mode in each study was as follows:
Case 1 The plant was only working as a full load power plant with no distilled
water production (condensing mode).
Case 2 The opposite of case 1. The plant was working as a pure distillation
unit, producing only fresh water (desalination mode).
Case 3 The nominal case: the plant was working at full load producing the
maximum distilled water and maximum power (extraction mode).
Case 4 The more usual operating conditions in winter (parallel mode).
Case 5 Partial load operating conditions (extraction mode).

Case 6 Minimum load operating conditions (parallel mode).
Cases 7&8 The effect of the cleaning ball system was analyzed. In both cases some
live steam was throttled in the reducing pressure station: the maximum
load extracting live steam to a second MSF unit (twin extraction mode).
The exergy and exergoeconomic costs of the most significant mass and energy
*
flowstreams (live steam generated in the boiler k BOI , steam to MSF vacuum system
* * *
k VST , steam to MSF brine heater k MSF , electric power k GEN and distilled water
*
k D ) appear in tables 7.10 and 7.11 respectively. No other energy analysis based on
the First Law of Thermodynamics can provide this information, i.e., the amount
(exergy or $) of the fuel plant consumed to obtain a flow.
The unit costs in this section (the cost per unit exergy of the considered flow) only
refer to the operating costs since they do not take into account the capital cost
investment of the plant units.
Afgan, Darwish and Carvalho (1999) quantified the primary energy or fuel needed to
produce 1 kg of freshwater in a single purpose MSF desalination plant (case 2 in our
analysis) and a dual purpose MSF desalination plant (case 3). These values (445 kJ
and 225.7 kJ respectively) are based on an energy analysis of the dual-plant products
and are quantitatively similar.
Both tables provide the same information expressed in different units. The calculated
costs are operating costs, discounting investment capital costs. The exergoeconomic
costs c* were obtained by considering the natural gas market price (cf) of 2.35 ($/
MBTU).
TABLE 7.10 Exergy (kW fuel/kW product) unit costs k* of most significant flows of the dual plant.
k* Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8
k *BOI 2.733 2.371 2.604 2.590 2.576 2.572 2.677 2.559
k *VST 2.842 3.147 2.657 2.620 2.616 2.611 2.714 2.600
k *MSF — 3.871 2.693 2.644 2.667 2.650 3.650 3.615
k *GEN 3.286 — 2.938 2.955 2.938 3.149 3.042 2.935
k *D a — 416.511 221.67 224.99 227.67 261.02 549.48 526.38
bD (kJ/kg) — 10.35 10.35 10.35 9.81 11.62 13.29 12.98

*
a. Exergy of water k D measured in a more realistic unit: (kJ fuel/kg water), therefore is included the exergy of water leaving the MSF
unit (bD, in kJ/kg).
Cost analysis
TABLE 7.11 Exergoeconomic (monetary) unit costs ($/GJ) of most significant flows of a dual power and
desalination plant. Cost of water c*D is expressed in $/m3, and electricity cost of is also
expressed in $/kW·h (c*GEN* ).
c* Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8
c *BOI 6.087 5.281 5.799 5.770 5.738 5.728 5.964 5.699
c *VST 6.331 7.010 5.913 5.835 5.827 5.816 6.046 5.792
c *MSF — 8.621 5.997 5.888 5.940 5.902 8.130 8.052
c *GEN 7.319 — 6.543 6.583 6.545 7.014 6.775 6.537
c* * 0.0263 — 0.0235 0.0237 0.0235 0.0252 0.0244 0.0235

GEN
c *D — 0.9277 0.4937 0.5011 0.5071 0.5814 1.223 1.172
These values only contain the irreversibilities, the destruction of exergy or useful
energy in the productive process. The live steam cost is always lower because it is
generated at the very beginning of the production process. The irreversibilities during
natural gas combustion and heat transfer inside the boiler increase the cost of this
steam.
Flowstreams further down the productive process were more costly. All processes in
the plant were irreversible (see table 7.12) and the total exergy destroyed
continuously increased throughout the productive process. The amount of exergy
required to obtain a flow (exergy cost) also increased. For this reason, the final
products had the highest costs.
The effect of irreversibilities in the cost generation process is clearly shown by

comparing studies 7 and 8. The cleaning ball system directly decreases distilled water
cost by decreasing the irreversibility in the MSF plant (see table 7.12) and increasing
efficiency (table 7.14). This benefit in the MSF plant also affects the power plant. The
amount of steam needed in the MSF plant brine heater decreases (see table 7.9),
increasing the steam mass flow rate expanded in the LP turbine and the electrical
power produced. Modifying the operating conditions of the MSF affects the electrical
cost.
Irreversibilities (table 7.12) may have different costs. For example, boiler
irreversibilities (IBOI) are much higher than MSF plant irreversibilities (IMSF), but live
steam cost is lower than distilled water cost.
TABLE 7.12 Irreversibilities (exergy destruction, kW) in the different components of the dual plant. MSF unit is
considered a component.
I Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8
ICP 89.26 58.44 13.93 16.53 13.84 4.94 7.94 16.52

ILPH2 2,125.1 — 277.6 38.40 118.0 148.8 26.34 42.77
ILPH1 1,687.8 — 363.0 80.85 279.0 268.2 28.97 219.7
IDRT 306.0 655.5 990.4 544.1 1,362.4 638.7 821.1 2,317.7
IFP 265.0 — 212.3 124.7 123.4 229.5 601.9 549.8
IHPH2 243.2 — 505.4 274.1 329.7 77.61 454.3 566.6
IHPH1 513.8 — 688.7 368.2 430.6 204.2 661.9 737.6
IBOI 265,908.9 — 268,206.6 195,921.1 208,749.0 130,195.6 306,254.9 306,605.8
IVST 89.62 — 1,157.2 394.8 493.7 105.0 423.0 442.7
IHPT1 2,206.0 — 2,254.8 4,870.4 4,379.7 5,983.7 4,734.6 4,698.4
IHPT2 250.5 — 637.2 451.1 489.8 112.8 467.1 479.8
IHPT3 303.5 — 813.9 508.4 595.6 240.1 512.8 539.4
IHPT4 955.4 — 2,369.5 1,097.1 1,464.0 583.0 912.5 1,054.3
ILPT1 4,265.0 — 1,888.0 470.0 945.6 1,097.2 131.0 1,139.1
ILPT2 9,598.9 — — — — 732.3 — 230.1
ICND 37,816.7 — — — — 3,260.5 — 1,769.3
IGEN 2,041.7 — — — — 1,372.9 — 1,489.5
IVS1 — 38,198.1 — — — — 33,892.9 35,451.4
IVS2 — 314.4 — — — — — —
IVS3 — 1,750.2 — — — — — —
ITOT-PP 329,734.2 185,880.0 292,042.4 206,923.9 226,061.2 145,255.9 351,501.1 358,339.3
ITOT-MSF — 67,482.6 67,014.5 66,954.5 56,843.2 35,350.0 117,924.4 106,596.9
The reasons for the impressive cost of distilled water are:

• The large amount of exergy destruction (irreversibility) in the MSF plant,
considering the high fuel value of the MSF unit (steam exhausted in brine heater
and ejectors, electrical consumption) and the low value of the product
(freshwater exergy flow). The energy and exergetic cost balance must be fulfilled
(Valero, Muñoz and Lozano, 1986c).
Cost analysis
• The low distillate exergy flow is due to the low freshwater temperature leaving
the MSF unit (see the last row in table 7.10. The different values stem from the
different distilled water temperatures in different operating conditions (which
strongly depends on the seawater temperature entering the desalination unit).
The contribution of chemical and mechanical exergy to the global exergy flow of
seawater flows is minimum. Consequently, the final exergy cost is very low but
the intermediate flows inside the distiller can be extremely high (the flashing
brine, cooling brine, etc). The relationship between the inlet/outlet exergy flows
which determine the exergy unit consumption k in the characteristic equations
that model MSF thermoeconomics, is quite elevated in this example. The exergy
unit consumption k propagates the exergy cost of the final product increasing the
cost of water from the exergetic point of view.
• The resources consumed in the MSF units are not primary energy. The electricity
and steam produced to the distiller were produced in the power plant and the cost
of the fuels of the MSF do not have a unit exergy cost. Only primary energy has
an exergy cost equal to one (as natural gas entering the boiler).
Another important result was the significantly higher water cost when the live steam
was throttled through the HP reduction station (cases 2, 7 and 8). This has a physical
explanation related with energy quality degradation. When the live steam expands
through a throttle valve, its energy content remains stable while its exergy decreases
(pressure is dramatically reduced in the reduction pressure station). The exergy
destruction in the pressure reduction station correspond to IVS1, IVS2 and IVS3
(table 7.12).
Regarding component efficiencies, the more efficient a process the lower cost
generated. Consider, for example, turbine efficiencies (table 7.13).
TABLE 7.13 Isoentropic efficiencies of pumps and turbine sections of the power plant.
η (%) Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8
HPT1 0.733 — 0.719 0.546 0.581 0.430 0.558 0.560

HPT2 0.939 — 0.949 0.913 0.919 0.885 0.921 0.922
HPT3 0.978 — 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.978 0.950 0.950
HPT4 0.968 — 0.938 0.941 0.939 0.947 0.940 0.938
HPT5 0.812 — 0.847 0.865 0.857 0.857 0.864 0.864
LPT1 0.873 — 0.752 <0 0.820 0.815 0.070 0.802
LPT2 0.738 — 0.729 <0 0.737 0.746 <0 0.756
FP 0.861 0.807 0.861 0.855 0.870 0.692 0.735 0.737
CP 0.778 — 0.773 0.113 0.627 0.588 0.077 0.377
The live steam generated in the boiler is expanded in the HP turbines, before being
extracted to the brine heater of the MSF plant. For this reason, the difference between
the cost of steam to brine heater and the cost of live steam for the analyzed cases is
directly related to the HP turbines efficiencies. Thus, the higher the HP turbine
efficiency, the lower the cost difference in brine heater and live steam.
A similar result is obtained for the cost difference between live steam and power
generated. In the analysis, the low-pressure turbine efficiencies also influenced the
observed differences.
Table 7.14 contains global efficiency parameters for the whole plant and for the
power and MSF plants. As in the device analysis, the more efficient the global
process, the lower the cost of the final product. For example, in cases 7 and 8 the
cleaning ball system clearly increases the exergy efficiency of the MSF plant and the
whole plant. The distilled water and power cost decrease as a result. The exergetic
efficiency we obtained for the MSF plant is similar to other estimate (Hamed
et. al, 1999).
TABLE 7.14 Product and fuel (kW), and exergetic efficiency (%) values for the power and MSF plants. Note:
The efficiency of the boiler is not included in the final efficiency.
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8
PPP 144,260.4 64,712.9 186,024.8 140,244.6 144,096.3 87,113.3 191,289.9 184,994.0
PMSF — 6,951.78 6,951.78 6,951.78 5,613.4 3,925.9 8,344.9 8,326.9
FPP 473,994.6 250,592.9 478,067.2 347,168.5 370,157.5 229,369.2 542,791.0 543,333.3
FMSF — 74,434.4 73,966.4 73,906.3 62,456.6 39,275.9 126,269.3 114,923.8
ηPP 30.4 0.0 38.9 40.4 38.9 36.7 35.2 34.0
ηMSF — 9.3 9.4 9.4 9.0 10.0 6.6 7.2
ηTOT 30.4 2.7 24.9 21.1 23.6 21.3 13.5 14.4
Finally, product costs of different plant components were also calculated (see
table 7.15).
The steam leaving the boiler has a lower exergy cost since the fuel plant exergy only
degraded in the boiler tubes (the combustion and heat transfer process is non-ideal).
As the steam passes through the turbine section, its energy quality gradually
degrades: the exergy cost increases from the first to the last turbine section. The
exergy cost of the electricity is a weighted sum of the exergy costs of the turbine
sections. The inefficiencies of the pumps increase the exergy cost of the electricity.
Cost analysis
The energy quality of the steam extracted for the heaters is degraded in this heating
process. Although the live steam is the cheapest in desalination mode (case 2), the
exergy cost of the steam to the MSF unit has a higher cost than the steam provided
when the plant is producing electricity. The reduction pressure station is more
inefficient than the set of components turbine-heaters-condenser.
TABLE 7.15 Unit exergy costs k* (kW/kW) of component products in the steam power plant coupled with a
MSF unit.
k* Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8

k *CP 4.942 — 3.957 20.67 4.960 3.396 16.45 8.020
k *LPH2 3.851 — 3.476 8.106 3.465 3.664 5.363 3.824
k *LPH1 3.389 — 3.177 3.592 3.230 3.249 3.393 3.400
k *DRT 3.040 4.306 3.021 2.944 3.283 3.280 3.059 3.473
k *FP 3.764 3.151 3.282 3.272 3.223 4.077 3.771 3.560
k *HPH2 2.992 — 2.850 2.793 2.796 2.729 2.926 2.822
k *HPH1 3.034 — 2.853 2.796 2.797 2.789 2.930 2.813
k *BOI 2.733 2.371 2.604 2.590 2.576 2.572 2.677 2.559
k *VST 2.842 — 2.657 2.620 2.616 2.611 2.714 2.600
k *HPT1 3.001 — 2.794 2.988 2.925 3.261 3.074 2.926
k *HPT2 2.881 — 2.739 2.706 2.701 2.648 2.807 2.686
k *HPT3 2.910 — 2.778 2.735 2.735 2.706 2.841 2.719
k *HPT4 3.282 — 3.029 2.935 2.951 2.952 3.049 2.918
k *LPT1 3.373 — 3.533 10.434 3.191 3.350 15.711 4.164
k *LPT2 3.858 — 3.660 — 3.577 3.505 — 3.506
k *VS1 — 3.851 — — — — — 4.591
k *VS2 — 3.017 — — — — — —
k *VS3 — 3.527 — — — — — —
7.2.3 Thermoeconomic costs

The thermoeconomic cost of a flow has two parts, one from the monetary cost of the
fuel (natural gas) exergy needed to produce this flow, i.e., its exergoeconomic cost
(Valero, Muñoz and Lozano, 1986b) and the other from the rest of the costs generated
in the productive process (capital, maintenance, etc).
The balance of thermoeconomic costs for any individual unit has one more term than
the exergy cost balances (tables 7.7 and 7.8). The term Z/ϕ represents the contribution
of the non-energetic production factors (investment capital costs). The balance of
thermoeconomic cost ($/s) is expressed in equation 7.5:
cf F + Z/ϕ = cp P (7.5)
where cf and cp are the unit thermoeconomic costs ($/kJ) of the fuel (F) and product
(P) respectively. As the term Z is usually calculated in US dollars ($) it must be
divided by a temporary factor, called amortization factor (ϕ). The amortization factor
takes into account the economic life period of the plant and is also called the capital
cost of an installation (see section 7.2.3.2 for more information on capital costs).
7.2.3.1 Investment costs
According to Bejan et al. (1997), an investment cost is a one-time cost, in contrast to

fuel costs and O&M costs which are continuous or repetitive in nature. Investment
costs are treated differently than fuel and O&M expenses in an economic analysis.
Some concepts are necessary to understand these costs:
• Fixed capital investment, the total system capital cost assuming a zero-time
design and construction period, i.e., the capital to purchase the land, build all the
necessary facilities and purchase and install the required machinery and
equipment.
• Total capital investment, the sum of the fixed-capital investment and other
outlays, i.e., startup costs, working capital, costs of licensing, research and
development, and allowance for funds used during construction.
• Direct costs, the costs of all permanent equipment, materials, labor and other
resources involved in the fabrication, erection, and installation of the permanent
facilities.
• Indirect costs, not a permanent part of the facilities but required for the orderly
completion of the project: engineering and supervision, construction costs,
contingencies. The fixed capital investment is the sum of direct and indirect costs.
In our case, purchased-equipment costs provided by the plant managers are quite
different from other studies (El-Sayed, 1996; Boehm, 1987; Frangopoulos, 1991;
Lozano et al., 1996). This is due to the magnitude of the components considered in
the dual plant. Several authors propose costing equations for most of the components
used in our analysis, but the main parameters used in the proposed correlations are
outside the specified range (our power plant and desalination units were very large).
Other costs not included in the capital costs of the components (but that also
constitute a part of the direct costs of the fixed-capital investment) include the
purchased-equipment installation, piping, instrumentation and controls, electrical
equipment and materials, land, civil and structural work and service facilities.
Cost analysis
El-Sayed (1996) calculates the cost (in thousands of dollars, k$) of the main
components of the equipment used in a MSF and steam power plant using the
following equation:
Z = ca A, (7.6)
where the area A is calculated using an exponential formula as a function of four

parameters, i.e.:
n1 n2 n3 n4
A = k x1 x2 x3 x4 (7.7)
These parameters are shown in table 7.16.
TABLE 7.16 Costing equation parameters for an MSF and power plant (El-Sayed, 1996). Units: ca k$/ft2,
A ft2, M lb/s, Q kW, Pi, Pe psia, Ti R, ∆T F, ∆P, dP psi, e = η/1– η. Subscripts: i, inlet; e, exit; t,
tube; s, shell; m, mean (LTMD).
Component ca k x1 x2 x3 x4 n1 n2 n3 n4
Steam turbine 50 0.45 M Ti/Pi Pe e 1 0.05 –0.75 0.9

Feed pump 3 0.0025 M ∆P e — 1 0.55 1.05 —
C.W. pump 3 0.0063 M ∆P e — 1 0.1 0.7 —
Economizer 0.015 310 Q ∆Tm dPt dPs 1 –1 –0.16 –0.12
Boiler 0.015 340 Q ∆Tm dPt dPs 1 –1 –0.33 –0.26
Superheater 0.015 310 Q ∆Tm dPt dPs 1 –1 –0.15 –0.14
Heater 0.02 3.3 Q ∆Tt dPt dPs 1 –0.7 –0.08 –0.04
MSF 0.02 10 Q ∆Tn ∆Tt dPt 1 –0.75 –0.5 –0.1
Boehm (1987) introduces the size effect of the units into a simple cost equation that
only depends on a variable, S. Thus, a complete tabulation of data for a particular
piece of equipment could contain reference cost and size (Zr and Sr), and the factor m
responsible for the economies of scale.
Z = Zr (S/Sr)m (7.8)
In the cost equation, Boehm normally uses a range of 0.5-1.0. Sometimes m is greater
than 1.0 (boilers, heaters…), which produces unexpected results. Table 7.17 includes
the main parameters of the above mentioned equation.
Finally, the more accurate equations, in comparison with the cost estimation provided
by the plant managers, are those proposed by Frangopoulos (1991). They are usually
a correlation with three or four main parameters and correction factors depending on
the device (see table 7.18).
TABLE 7.17 Component parameters in Boehm (1987) equations.
Component Zr S Sr m
Pump 47 M 10 0.03
Steam turbine 25 W 1000 0.68
Heater 21 A 100 0.71
Condenser 3 Q 10 0.55
Boiler 340 M 12 0.67
TABLE 7.18 Costing equations proposed by Frangopoulos (1991).
Component Cost equation

Boiler 20.1552224 * exp (0.0014110546 * P1) * exp (0.7718795 * ln (M1)) * FAR * FAN * FAT
Steam Turbine 5240.378 * exp (0.569323 * ln (FB1 * (F2T + F2P))) * FBN * FBT
Condenser 1.11 * A * 426.2632633 * exp (–0.4556513 * ln (A)) * FCR * FCPW * FCP * FCB
Pump 1969.2325 * exp (0.4838546 * ln (7.279088e – 5 * M1 * 0.018 * (P2–P1) * FDN
Heatera Exp (8.202 + 0.01506 * ln (A) + 0.06811 * (ln (A))2) * FD * FP * FM

Factor Correction factor
FAR 8
FAR = 1.0 + ((1–∆Pr)/(1–∆P))
FAN FAN = 1.0 + ((1 – η1r)/(1– η1))7
FAT FAT = 1.0 + 5 * exp ((T1 – 1100)/18.75)
FB1 FB1 = 0.0003929119 * η * M1
F2T F2T = 0.55 * (T1 – T2 – T2 * ln (T1/T2))
F2P F2P = 0.1102109 * T2 * ln (P1/P2)
FBN FBN = 1 + ((1 – ηr)/(1 – η))3
FBT FBT = 1.0 + 5 * exp ((T1 – 1100)/18.75)
FCR FCR = (P3 * ((1/∆Ps) – 1)/14.7)–0.11
FCPW FCPW = (∆Pt/14.7)–0.38
2
FCP FCP = 0.93 + 2.6380952 e–4 * P2 + 1.352381 e–6 * P2
FCB FCB = exp (0.10/(TTD–5))
FDN FDN = 1 + ((1 – 0.8)/(1 – η))3
FD FD = exp (–0.7844 + 0.083 * LN (A))
FP FP = 0.8955 + 0.04981 * LN (A)
FM FM = 1.4144 + 0.23296 * LN (A)
a. From Chemical Engineering (Corripio, Chrien and Evans, 1982). P1, T1 and M1 are the inlet conditions, T2, P2 the exit conditions,
A area, η and η1 efficiency and First principle efficiency, TTD terminal temperature difference, ∆Ps, ∆Pt pressure losses in tubes and
shell.
Cost analysis
Lozano et al. (1996) also propose a set of equations for a wide range of values to
obtain a reasonable equipment cost (see table 7.19):
TABLE 7.19 Cost equations proposed by Lozano et al. (1996). η exergetic efficiency, B exergy flow of
product, S negentropy, vw velocity of tubes , W power, e eficiency of the condenser (= T0 (s2–s1)/
(h2–h1)).
Component Cost equation
Boiler 740 * exp ((P1–28)/150) * (1 + 5 * exp ((T1–866)/10.42)) * (1 + ((0.45–0.405)/(0.45–η))7) * B0.8
St. Turbine 3000 * (1 + 5 * exp ((T1–866)/10.42)) * (1 + ((1–0.953)/(1–η))3) * W0.7
Condenser (1/(T0 * e)) (217 * (0.247 + 1/(3.24 * vw0.8)) * ln (1/(1–e)) + 138) * (1/(1–η)) * S
Pump 378 * (1 + ((1–0.808)/(1–η))3) * B0.71
Purchase cost provided by the plant managers is much more complete than the
individual components. It includes the price breakdown per section of each unit, and
the direct costs of the installation. Table 7.20 includes a list with the percentages of
each unit or subsystem with respect the total purchase cost (direct cost) of a power
and desalination plant. Land cost is neglected in the Gulf Area.
The price breakdown in table 7.20 does not contain the cost of each component in the
productive structure. As a result, the thermoeconomic cost can only be calculated for
the final products in the power and desalination plant, knowing the exergy cost of the
electricity and distillate, the economic investment cost and the thermoeconomic cost
of the products. The thermoeconomic cost can be expressed in units of money per
unit of time ($/s), or units of money per unit of product: $/kW·h or $/m3. All cost data
must have the same reference year as a basis for calculations. This is done with an
appropriate cost index, an inflation indicator from technical journals (e.g. Chemical
Engineering) that corrects the cost of equipment. We did not apply the cost index
since the purchase costs of our installation were updated in 1997.
TABLE 7.20 Price breakdown per section in a dual-purpose plant.
Component system Portion
Steam Turbine Plant 12,25

HP heater, LP heater, feedwater storage tank with deaerator, cold condensate
1,13
storage tank
Steam generating plant 13,15
HP feeding system 0,12
LP feeding system 0,30
Boiling feed pump sets with hydraulic coupling 1,66
Generator complete with air cooling and excitation systems 2,63
Others: Transformers, busbars, switchboards, cabling and cable laying,
rectifiers, batteries, electrical control equipment, instrumentation and control, 14,08
service water and drainage system.
Total for the steam power plant 45,32
MSF unit: Evaporator shell and tube bundles 20,38

Brine heater 1,06
Deaerator 0,04
Vacuum system 0,63
Cooling water recircul. pump set including isolating, non-return valves 0,29
2 Brine recirculating pump sets, complete 0,87
Blow down pump set, complete 0,22
2 Distillate pump units 0,22
2 Brine heater condensate pump sets, complete 0,07
Others: Protective coating, make-up water strainers, cranes, seawater, brine
recirculation, blowdown and distillate pipeline, HP, MP and LP reducing
stations, antiscaling, antifoaming and sodiumsulfite systems, on-load tube 9,01
cleaning system, lighting system, instrumentation and control, switchgear,
switchboards, transformer.
Total for the desalination unit 32,79
General services: Circulating water and seawater supply system, seawater

cleaning plant, fuel oil and gas system, power transformers, bus duct systems,
cables, lighting and power outlets, earthing system, common instrumentation 21,89
and control, water treatment, lifts, buildings, fire fighting systems, chemicals
and chlorination system, town water storage, DPS system, chemical storage.
Total for the dual plant 100
Cost analysis
7.2.3.2 Capital costs
The average capital cost for the system was assumed to be 3.47×10–9 $/s·$. It was
calculated based on 8% capital recovery per calendar year (8,000 hours operation a
year) and 15% allowance for the fixed part of O&M (El-Sayed, 1996). The average
capital cost takes into account the effect of inflation: price increases associated with
increase in available currency and credit without a proportional increase in available
goods and services of the same quality. This cost also includes the effect of escalation
(resource depletion, increased demand and technological advances); and depreciation
(decrease in equipment value due to physical deterioration, technological advances
and replacement). Some assumptions were made to assess the average capital cost.
For example, land costs and total capital investment were placed at the beginning of
the design and construction period so that the end of this period is considered the
beginning of commercial operation (economic-life period).
7.2.4 Thermoeconomic cost analysis

The exergy and economic costs of a system provide the real plant operating costs.
Tables 7.21 and 7.22 show the thermoeconomic cost in the eight cases (see table 7.9
for details).
TABLE 7.21 Thermoeconomic costs of distilled water and electricity of the analyzed dual-purpose plant.
Cost ($/s) Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8
Electricity 1.5798 0.5068 1.3046 1.0030 1.1019 0.8818 1.0248 0.9706
Water 0.3571 0.9798 0.6885 0.6935 0.6471 0.5534 1.1251 1.1088
TABLE 7.22 Thermoeconomic cost of electricity ($/kW·h) and water ($/m3) for the cases studied in the
exergetic cost analysis.
Cost Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8
Electricity 0.0388 0 0.0385 0.0479 0.0436 0.0593 0.0482 0.0492
Water 0 1.5026 1.0558 1.0635 1.1648 1.6871 1.8456 1.7802
El-Sayed (1996) proposes the following costs for the products of a typical dual-
purpose power and desalination plant:
• Electricity: 0.045 $/kW·h.
• Water: 1.3 $/m3.
The results of the thermoeconomic analysis were very close to the values given by El-
Sayed, especially in the most representative cases (in hours of operation per year,
cases 3, 4 and 5). Note that the thermoeconomic cost was not zero in case 1 for water
nor for electricity in case 2 (see table 7.21) despite the lack of production. This was
due to the effect of amortization of the purchase costs in the first table. The effect on
quantity production is clear in table 7.22 (the cost of electricity per unit of energy is
reduced in case 1 and is lower than other costs, although this is the worst case if we
analyze exergy costs). In Case 6 (with partial load) the investment costs overcharge
the cost per unit of production. The use of the reduction pressure station to produce
freshwater is not recommended even with a high freshwater demand (see cases 2, 7
and 8 in table 7.22). Case 3 is the most interesting case to maintain the best operation
mode.
7.2.5 Cost allocation: Indirect methods

Some cost allocation methods allocate the total cost of owning and operating the
plant among two products, without having to split the total cost in two products
(direct methods). Other methods allocate the main factory costs (e.g. manpower,
material, fuel and capital depreciation) among the two products (indirect methods).
Some criterion is usually needed to help in cost allocation. For example, the exergy
cost method is an indirect method that allocates the cost of producing the two
products in terms of fuel consumption.
Although cost allocation methods are a rational basis for pricing the two products, the
cost is the amount of resources needed to obtain these products. The price imposed on
a product is independent of the efficiency of the formation process of that product.
7.2.5.1 WEA method
The method proposed by El-Nashar (1999) and the Water and Electricity Department
of the UAE (WEA method) is indirect and allocates all cost components among water
and electricity according to functional considerations. The annual cost for a co-
generation plant can usually be separated into three cost components: fixed capital
charges, fuel costs and O&M costs. Each one can be separated into costs for
electricity production, costs for heat production and common costs to both products.
The methods differ in how they separate annual costs into the three components and
in allocating common costs between electricity and heat.
The total costs are divided into five cost departments: fuel, personnel, maintenance
contracts, spares and consumables and depreciation of fixed capital. Personnel costs
are divided among those directly involved in the co-generation plant (such as
operation and maintenance work), or those that serve several plants. The cost of fuel
consumed by the steam turbines is split between electricity and water since the steam
derived to the MSF unit has the potential to generate a certain amount of electrical
Cost analysis
power if allowed to expand through a hypothetical condensing turbine. Since this

steam is used for desalination instead of additional power generation, the fuel
consumed for this amount of non-produced electrical power should be charged to
water. The amount of additional power (WCT) which could have been generated by
this hypothetical turbine (in our case is the low pressure turbine) may be expressed
as:
WCT = Q ηB ηCT (7.9)
where Q is the amount of heat supplied to the hypothetical steam turbine, ηB is the
efficiency of boiler and ηCT is the thermal efficiency of the condensing steam turbine
cycle. The fuel consumption Gc could be allocated to electricity and water according
to the following equations, taking into account the power generated in the real steam
turbine (WST):
Gce = Gc WST /(WST + WCT) (7.10)
Gcw = Gc WCT /(WCT + WCT) (7.11)
The fuel allocation problem could also be solved using the difference in output power
produced when the amount of fuel consumed is the same in both cases. The MR (no
desalination) and MCR (co-generation) cases are a good example. The total
personnel cost consists of directly assessable costs (e.g. operating and maintenance
staff) and indirect or common service personnel. The directly assessable portions are
charged to either electricity or water, depending on the case. The cost of common
service personnel is allocated to electricity and water according to the ratio of the
capital cost of the plant and equipment associated with electricity production and
desalination. Maintenance contracts for specialized maintenance work is priced and
electricity and water are finally allocated. Depreciation of capital cost between
electricity and water is allocated according to the function of the equipment in
operation. The depreciation cost is allocated to electricity in the steam turbine power
plant and water in the desalination plant. Depreciation costs of common equipment
and facilities are allocated according to the capital cost of equipment related to
electricity and water, as done for the common personnel costs.
The WEA method is widely used in the UAE to allocate the cost of producing water
and electricity in co-generation plants (starting from the yearly electrical and water
production) and the cumulative number of operating hours of power and desalination
plants. Those data are confidential and cannot be presented here. Other characteristics
include:
• Average yearly cost (with a wide range of operating modes) of the co-generation
plants (with several configurations of dual plants) operating in the country. It is
not valid for calculating an instantaneous cost of water and electricity.
• Applied fuel and capital costs (which are unknown).
Compared with exergy cost methodology, the trend of water and electricity costs is
the following:
• The WEA method tends to overvalue electricity and undervalue water by
charging all the capital and O&M costs of the steam turbine (except fuel) to
electricity.
• The WEA costing methodology only allocates fuel cost to steam turbines.
• The WEA method suffers from a certain degree of arbitrariness with regard to
the efficiency of a hypothetical condensing steam turbine. The assumptions
could cause fluctuations in the resulting cost of electricity and water. The
difference in production between operating modes could partially avoid this
problem (see next section).
• The exergy/thermoeconomic method charges each product of a multi-product
unit to the appropriate portion of capital and O&M costs involved in operating
the unit.
• The exergy/thermoeconomic method is based on a solid accounting and
thermodynamics. Therefore, it will be used in our studies.
As a result of the above, El-Nashar (1993; 1999) developed a model based on exergy
analysis to predict the final costs of the two products. Other authors propose cost
redistribution using the exergy analysis of the dual-purpose plant (Evans, Crellin and
Tribus, 1980; Breidenbach, Rautenbach and Tusel, 1997; Slesarenko and Shtim,
1986). The energy efficiency of the dual-purpose plant is also used to allocate the
fuels to power and desalination and the relevant specific fuel costs for power
generation and water production (Saeed, 1992).
7.2.5.2 Fuel cost of water in dual plants
Fuel energy for desalting depends on fuel allocation rules between the power and
desalted water produced in a dual-purpose plant (Darwish, Yousef and Al-Najem,
1997). Kronenberg and Dvornikov (1999) argues that the steam cost of desalting
should be calculated by defining the heat rate difference between the power plant
coupled and uncoupled to the desalination plant (also called the Lost Kilowatts
Method, see Gaggioli and El-Sayed, 1987; El-Saie and El-Saie, 1989). This heat rate
difference is defined by the Fuel Cost of Water (FCW) in a dual-purpose installation.
The fuel cost of water largely depends on the overall efficiency of the power plant,
and is calculated as:
3 ( W 1 – W 2 ) HR 1 cf
FCW ( $ ⁄ m ) = ---------------------------------------------- (7.12)
Qf D
Cost analysis
where W1 and W2 are the electric power output of the uncoupled and coupled plant
(kW), HR1 is the heat rate of the uncoupled power plant (the inverse of the efficiency,
kJ/kW·h), cf is the fuel cost ($/kg), Qf is the heat value of fuel (kJ/kg) and D is the
water production (m3/h).
Fuel cost of water can be calculated in the dual-purpose plant. For instance, the FCW
of the MCR case was calculated using natural gas with a high heating value
(HHV = 9,500 kcal/m3), a density of 0.75 kg/m3 and an energy cost of 2.23×10–6 $/kJ
(applied in the cost analysis). The gas consumption in the MR case (the uncoupled
power plant in our case) was 43,500 Nm3/h. The final values to be introduced in
formula (7.12) for our example are also introduced after the FCW value:
FCW = 0.271 $/m3
W1 = 146,700 kW
W2 = 122,000 kW
HR1 = 43,500 · (9,500 · 4.1868)/146,700 = 11,794 ·1 kJ/kW·h
cf = 2.23 ·10–6 (9,500 · 4.1868)/0.75 = 0.1182 $/kg
Q = (9,500 · 4.1868)/0.75 = 53,032.8 kJ/kg
D = 2,400 m3/h
Note that the exergy analysis and the lost kilowatts method are similar (see section
7.1.1 for the exergy analysis of the simple co-generation plant), although the latter
uses the energy analysis to calculate the cost of fuel consumed in the co-generation
plant. The resulting cost of water is very similar in both methods.
If the FCW is compared with the exergoeconomic cost of case 3 in table 7.11 (i.e., the
exergoeconomic cost of the MCR case), the FCW is more or less 55% of the
thermoeconomic cost (0.493 $/m3). The difference is mainly due to several factors:
The exergoeconomic cost also includes the cost of electricity needed to pump the
MSF flows and the steam derived to the vacuum system of the distillers.
The FCW assumes a constant efficiency in the power plant (the heat rate of the plant
in condensing mode). The overall efficiency of the dual-purpose plant is lower when
the plant is only generating electricity (see table 7.14 for the exergetic efficiency of
the whole plant). Therefore, the amount of additional electricity generated in the
condensing mode is not a valid index to calculate the fuel cost in co-generation mode,
with a higher efficiency.
7.3 Thermoeconomic diagnosis

Diagnosis is the identification of something that is not working properly.
Thermoeconomic diagnosis is the only operation analysis based on the Second Law.
It uses the exergy balance of an installation to allocate and calculate irreversibilities
in the production process and identify the equipment affecting overall efficiency. In
practice, however, this useful information is not sufficient since some irreversibilities
cannot be avoided. The technical possibilities for saving energy are always lower than
the theoretical limit of thermodynamic energy losses. Moreover, the local exergy
savings in different units or processes are not equivalent. The same local
irreversibility decrease in two different components generally produces different
variations in the total energy consumption.
The final objective of Thermoeconomic diagnosis is to describe how malfunctions

affect additional resource consumption (see Chapter 6 for a review of
Thermoeconomic theory and its applications). In this section, we analyze a power and
desalination plant according to the principles outlined in the previous chapter. The
entire diagnosis is presented using the Structural Theory of Thermoeconomics
(Valero et al., 1993). It provides information about component fuel consumption
during equipment degradation (inefficiency), how each component increases fuel
consumption and how a component's inefficiency affects the behavior of other plant
units.
We will only consider the direct problem of thermoeconomic diagnosis (Valero,

Torres and Lerch, 1999), where inefficiencies are quantified in terms of irreversibility
increase, while distinguishing between efficiency deterioration (intrinsic and induced
malfunctions) and component dysfunction (generated by the malfunction). The
inefficiencies were previously simulated and the causes of the behavior deviation
provoked by this inefficiency are not searched here.
The inverse problem is to identify and quantify malfunctions (the origin of new
irreversibilities). Classical thermoeconomic analysis does not elucidate the cause of
irreversibilities, although an effort is made to detect and stop malfunctions. The
inverse problem finds the cause of the deviation between two states of the plant
(actual and reference conditions). It requires a data acquisition system (for the
reference conditions), a simulator (to provide the reference state for the same
operating conditions) and conventional methods of the thermoeconomic diagnosis
(the direct problem). One of the main difficulties with the inverse problem is
recognizing and separating effects not intimately related with the inefficiencies of the
plant components, such as load variation, set points or ambient conditions.
The impact on fuel predicted by the simulator is exactly the same as that calculated
by the Structural Theory of Thermoeconomics. This plant diagnosis reproduces the
deviation of the physical values when one or more inefficiencies are detected.
Thermoeconomic diagnosis
Although the simulator calculates the thermodynamic state of the dual plant with
reasonable accuracy under different operating conditions, it might not be able to
respond as well to unexpected non-linear inefficiencies. The diagnosis involves a
sensitivity analysis of the mathematical model of the dual-purpose plant (simulator)
with respect to a parameter (in this case, one or several inefficiencies in a component
of the system). The simulator could be avoided in the diagnosis if the data acquisition
system of the dual plant were available.
We will first summarize the different inefficiencies, loads and operating modes
simulated in the plant diagnosis. Then, the ‘direct problem’ of diagnosing one or
several inefficiencies is analyzed for a defined load (corresponding to an operating
mode) in the power and/or desalination plant. The analysis involves a new technique
(see Chapter 6, Torres et al., 1999) based on Structural Theory and Symbolic
Thermoeconomics to provide a huge quantity of information, including:
1. The irreversibility generated in each component.

2. The exergetic cost of each component's product.
3. The intrinsic malfunction in each component (i.e. the efficiency decrease of a
component due to its own inefficiency).
4. The induced malfunction in each component (i.e. the efficiency decrease of a
component due to inefficiencies in other components).
5. The dysfunction induced in the component due to the malfunction or
inefficiency of other subsystems, which forces it to consume more local
resources to attain the additional production required by the other components.
6. The fuel impact or malfunction cost of each component due to an inefficiency,
and the total impact on fuel.
7. A compact and easy to understand malfunction matrix containing the cost of
inefficiencies and the effect of a component inefficiency on all other
components.
7.3.1 Thermoeconomic diagnosis of a power and desalination

plant: case studies
System operating parameters can be classified according to their effect on component
efficiency:
• Local variables, which mainly affect the behavior of the component related to
the variable (e.g. the isoentropic efficiency of a turbine).
• Global or zonal variables, where the operating parameter cannot be associated
with a specific component (e.g. live steam conditions of a steam power plant).
A variable is considered local if the total impact on fuel associated with a subsystem
is basically located in this component.
We simulated the device inefficiencies and considered the different simulation data as
plant data under different conditions (including inefficiencies). All the analyzed
inefficiencies were associated with local plant variables and were chosen in terms of
their effect on energy:
• Degradation of the isoentropic efficiency of the high-pressure turbine (1st section,
HPT1, and 4th section HPT4).
• Degradation of the isoentropic efficiency of the low-pressure turbine (1st section,
LPT1).
• Heat transfer problems in HP heaters were analyzed by varying the Terminal
Temperature Difference TTD (temperature difference between the saturation
temperature of the steam extracted from the turbine and feedwater leaving the
heater). Only the HP heater no. 1 (HPH1) was treated.
• By varying the feed pump isoentropic efficiency, operating inefficiencies were
simulated in the feed pump.
The effect of a global variable such as live steam temperature can be studied if the
simulator supports a non-fixed condition in the live steam leaving the boiler. In the
case of the MSF unit, the analyzed inefficiencies refer to fouling at different stages:
• brine heater,
• recovery section, and
• reject section
Neither the MSF pumping process nor the brine level in each flash chamber were
diagnosed since they were not simulated in the mathematical model. The analysis
could be performed with respect to thermal problems inside the distillers, vapor
conditions to the brine heater or the TBT/distillate.
As we will see in later sections, fouling in distillers was considered a global variable
if it affected other distillers.
The effect of these eight inefficiencies was measured on:

• the behavior of the rest of the plant devices (intrinsic/induced malfunction and
dysfunction analysis),
• additional fuel plant consumption (impact on fuel),
• the thermoeconomic cost of electricity and distilled water,
• the irreversibility increase of each unit.
Thermoeconomic analysis should cover as much of the maximum range of electricity

and water production as possible so that intermediate demands can be predicted from
acquired experience. Four loads were considered under the most usual operating
situations:
• Full load in condensing mode (no extraction to MSF unit): 140 MW of power
generated.
• Full load in extraction mode (electricity and water production): 122 MW of
output power (89.68 kg/s of steam extracted to the desalination unit).
• Partial load in extraction mode at 90 MW output power (60 kg/s steam extracted
to the MSF unit).
• Parallel mode (the reduction pressure station is opened to maintain the pressure
to the MSF unit): 60 MW of output power (50 kg/s extraction to desalination).
The first situation is a high-electricity demand when the distiller has been stopped for
repair, the two intermediate productions are the most common and the fourth is
typical in winter.
Two freshwater productions were analyzed under the following specific conditions:
• 1,900 T/h distillate with 32 ºC seawater (the nominal production under Gulf
seawater conditions in spring or autumn).
• 2,400 T/h distillate with 25 ºC feedwater to the reject section (the maximum
winter production). Seawater can be less than 25 ºC (the minimum temperature
operation for the reject section), so the temper system uses a part of the reject
cooling brine and stay secure in the last stage of the reject section.
Loads and inefficiencies may be combined in many ways. We analyzed all of these
possibilities but only present two: an inefficiency in the fourth section of the high-
pressure turbine and an inefficiency in the MSF unit (with the cleaning ball system in
the heater) at a prefixed load. These examples represent a local and global variable in
two separate systems. We subsequently considered the ‘upstream’ effect of fouling in
the recovery section of the MSF plant on the steam power plant. Finally, the most
general situation was analyzed when several inefficiencies in the power or
desalination plant occurred together. The rest of the combinations (i.e. the analysis of
the individual inefficiencies presented above) are presented in Annex 1 for a 122 MW
load in the power plant and the NTOS case of the MSF plant, including figures and
matrices calculated in the analysis of each inefficiency. The effect of the load in the
above inefficiencies is summarized in section 7.3.4.
7.3.2 Analysis of individual inefficiencies

7.3.2.1 Inefficiency in the fourth section of the high-pressure turbine
As defined by Royo (1994), an intrinsic malfunction in a steam turbine is expressed

as the damage in the steam expansion process and energy transmission to the shaft
due to several factors including erosion, fractures, ruptures, sediments, surface finish,
friction, steam path, seals and diaphragm deterioration, control valve and heat losses.
An inefficiency can also be an induced malfunction due to the variation of external
factors apart from component damage. These external factors include changes in
admission temperature, exhaust pressure or extraction mass flows of a steam turbine
(Zaleta, 1997).
We simulated that the fourth section of the high-pressure turbine underwent behavior
degradation and, as a result, the isoentropic efficiency decreased by 10% (at 122 MW
total output power). The three upstream turbine sections are insensitive to and
incapable of responding to this inefficiency and the vapor conditions entering the
inefficient section were maintained with respect to the design condition. A lower
isoentropic efficiency means that the outlet steam vapor conditions have a higher
enthalpy, if the exhaust pressure of the high-pressure turbine is controlled by the MSF
system. Thus, the first induced malfunction in the MSF unit was due to the variation
of external factors; the steam conditions entering the MSF plant were changed by an
inefficiency (or intrinsic malfunction) in the fourth section of the high-pressure
turbine.
The output power of this section was also considerably lower because of the
reduction in the enthalpy drop. The three sections of the high-pressure turbine
maintained their power production. The steam pressure entering the low-pressure
turbine was maintained and the exhaust pressure must be the same as in the design
(we assumed that the ambient conditions remained unchanged and constant
condenser pressure). Therefore, the efficiency of the low-pressure turbine should not
vary considerably and the two sections of the low-pressure turbine do not produce
additional power to maintain the final production.
Consequently, additional live steam was needed to maintain final production. The
three sections of the high-pressure turbine and the two sections of the low-pressure
turbine provided the extra power not supplied by the inefficient section. The
additional live steam affected the whole system, but the latter generally readapts to
maintain design values: design feedwater system values were maintained by
increasing the extraction mass flows. Pump consumption increased in proportion to
the additional mass flow required by the boiler. As a result, no significant induced
malfunctions were provoked by the inefficiency in the high-pressure turbine.
The total impact on the fuel was 6.035 MW, but 6.015 MW in the inefficient
component. Thus, the effect of the inefficiency could be considered local to the
component with the intrinsic malfunction. Next we considered the contribution of
each component.
The physical consequences of inefficiencies will be reviewed using the symbolic

diagnosis notation of this Ph. D. Thesis (see Chapter 6 for nomenclature). The same
methodology was used for each example. First the target conditions and the
inefficient situations were simulated (see Chapter 5). The design and inefficient
situation include the most significant flowstreams, which are the basis of the
thermoeconomic analysis. Following the F-P definitions adopted for the
thermoeconomic model (section 7.1), the fuel and product table was prepared.
table 7.23 corresponds to the design and table 7.24 to the inefficient condition. The
unit exergy consumption κ of each component is very easy to calculate using the F-P
tables (by dividing the fuels entering the plant by their product). Then the reference
〈KP〉 matrix (table 7.25) and the 〈KP〉 matrix (table 7.26) are made for the inefficient
mode. If these two matrices are subtracted, we obtain the ∆ 〈KP〉 matrix with the unit
exergy consumption increase of each component (table 7.27). The ∆ 〈KP〉 matrix is
the basis for calculating the endogenous irreversibility or malfunction. If the two
matrices are multiplied, we obtain the irreversibility matrix |I〉 (table 7.28) with the
irreversibility increase (or dysfunction coefficients) of each component. The first
factor is the diagonal matrix KD–UD, where KD is the array containing the sum (by
columns) of the 〈KP〉 matrix and UD is the unitary matrix. The second factor is the
inverse of the unitary matrix minus the 〈KP〉 matrix, i.e., (UD–KP)–1. The unit exergy
cost of a product is the column sum of the dysfunction coefficients in the |I〉 matrix
plus one (table 7.28). Finally, the dysfunction matrix [DF] needed to build the
malfunction and dysfunction table is calculated by multiplying the |I〉 matrix by
∆ 〈KP〉 P, where P is the array containing the product of each component. Thus, the
irreversibility increase in each unit is connected to the increase in unit exergy
consumption of each component. The malfunction of each component MF is the
product ∆ 〈KP〉 P and is located at the end of the table. The column sum is the fuel
impact of a component, i.e., the additional fuel plant consumption provoked by the
considered unit and the row sum is the irreversibility increase of a component (see
table 7.29).
After having explained the most relevant matrices to analyze a plant inefficiency
(table 7.29), we will now consider the results and explain the values using physical
reasons. Figure 7.13 shows the impact on fuel analysis from the malfunction/
dysfunction table (included in table 7.29) and figure 7.14 includes the irreversibility
increase of each component of the power plant.
The intrinsic malfunction is the easiest to explain. When the fourth section of the
high-pressure turbine was working at 10% less isoentropic efficiency than normal, the
output power (P in the F-P table 7.24) decreased but the section's steam conditions
were maintained. The irreversibility increased (the turbine section increased its
irreversibility to 3,270 kW, table 7.29), and the resources required to produce the
same output power increased as well as the unit exergy consumption of the
component ∆k (∆k = 0.2144, see table 7.27). Multiplying by the product in this
section (19.23 MW), the malfunction was 4.12 MW (see table 7.29). The fuel impact
due to the inefficient component was 6.01 MW (see also the table 7.29).
208
FIGURE 7.13 Impact on fuel analysis when the efficiency of the HPT4 is decreased 10%.
FIGURE 7.14 Irreversibility increase analysis with the inefficiency in the HPT4.

F-P diagram in design, output power of 122 MW .

TABLE 7.23
F-P values with inefficiency in HPT4 (10% lower efficiency).
TABLE 7.24 Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant
KP matrix in design (122 MW).

TABLE 7.25
KP matrix with inefficiency in HPT4 (10%).
Variation de KP with inefficiency in HPT4.

TABLE 7.27
Irreversibility matrix I with an inefficiency in HPT4.
Dysfunction/malfunction matrix with inefficiency in HPT4 (10% isoentropic eff.).

TABLE 7.29
Malfunction matrix with inefficiency in HPT4 (1% isoentropic eff. is varied).
As mentioned, the inefficiency also affected MSF unit behavior. This induced
malfunction was expected because the steam leaving the HPT4 section is consumed
in the MSF unit. Since the MSF product (exergy flow of distilled water) is constant,
the variation of the steam conditions entering the MSF unit directly affects its
behavior (we assumed that the condensate returned to the deaerator maintains its
properties independent of inlet conditions). A higher enthalpy in the exhaust vapor of
the high-pressure turbine should imply a higher specific consumption per freshwater
unit produced, as seen in the variation of the unit exergy consumption (∆k = 0.075,
see the corresponding value in table 7.27). But the thermoeconomic model gives an
important function to the MSF unit: the negentropy generated in the MSF heater. The
inefficiency in the fourth section of the high-pressure turbine generated a higher
negentropy in the MSF unit (the entropy of exhaust vapor from the turbine increases
with a lower isoentropic efficiency). This negentropy is a secondary product of the
MSF unit. Its increase implies a decrease in unit exergy consumption of the
component (the ∆k variation due to negentropy generation is –0.154, see table 7.27).
Balancing the two terms, the increase in unit exergy consumption in the MSF was
negative, provoking –537 kW induced malfunction. In conclusion, the value of the
induced malfunction in this component was due to the thermoeconomic model. It did
not correspond to the expected response to an intrinsic malfunction in the fourth
section of the high-pressure turbine. In other words, the negentropy generated in the
MSF unit reduced the cost of water because the negentropy generated in the MSF unit
reduced the cost of the condenser.
The physical analysis of the inefficiency did not detect any more induced
malfunctions in the system, although two components had a higher induced
malfunction than the accuracy of the simulator: the boiler (–128 kW) and the first
section of the HPT (–331 kW). These values are the consequence of a very high
component product since unit exergy consumption increase was almost zero in both
cases. This consumption varied only slightly because the steam needed to produce the
required power increased with the simulated inefficiency.
The irreversibility increase in each component (table 7.29) was calculated by

subtracting the fuel-product differences in tables 7.23 and 7.24, or by adding the unit
malfunction to the unit dysfunction generated by the malfunction of the rest of units
in the system. In our example, the boiler dysfunction was the highest, mainly due to
the malfunctions in HPT1, HPT4 and MSF (see table 7.29), the most important ones
detected in this case. The dysfunction generated in the condenser was also important,
but the cause was again the three components undergoing the malfunction. Boiler and
condenser production increased by about 3 MW (this additional production was
required by the rest of components to maintain the final production of the steam
power plant with the inefficiency simulated in the fourth section of the HPT). In the
productive structure (figure 7.5), the two products generated by these two
components (the availability of the steam generated in the boiler and the negentropy
generated in the steam cycle) were easily apportioned to the rest of the plant
components. Figure 7.13 shows the irreversibility increase analysis of this

inefficiency.
Some explanations are required regarding the malfunction and dysfunction values of
the non-physical components of our thermoeconomic model. A junction is a non-
physical device and is fictitious in the productive structure. Its function, similar to that
of branching points, is structural, i.e. junctions and branches show how the resources
are distributed among the plant devices. The malfunction and the dysfunction
generated in a junction must be zero: in equation (6.45) the unit exergy consumption
increase in a junction is zero and the dysfunction coefficients φ responsible for the
dysfunction generated by other components are also zero (remember that the
dysfunction coefficients φ only depend on the unit exergy consumption k of the
component in operating conditions). However, a junction can generate a dysfunction
in other system components (see equation 6.46). The value of the dysfunction
strongly depends on the dysfunction coefficients φ of each component where the
dysfunction is generated. For example, the unit exergy consumption k of junction J4
varies with a change in the unit exergy consumption of its exergy ratios r (the
electricity produced in the turbine sections). All the boiler φ coefficients were non-
negative (the dysfunction generated by the junction in the boiler was not zero, –445
kW). The junction usually generates dysfunctions due to the variation in the fuels
(i.e., the product of the units that enter the junction) but the components that have
non-zero values in all their φ coefficients also suffer from the junction dysfunction.
These special components are the boiler and condenser, which are interrelated with
the rest of components in the productive structure of the power plant (see figure 7.5).
The impact on fuel analysis is similar to the previous analysis, but here the impact on
fuel consumption is the sum of the malfunction and the dysfunction generated by
each component in all others (see figure 7.14). Logically, the dysfunctions generated
by HPT1, HPT4 and MSF in the boiler and the condenser were the most important.
One of the most useful applications of the thermoeconomic diagnosis is the

malfunction matrix. It provides information about the malfunction associated with
each component during an inefficiency. It is a very valuable tool to predict system
behavior without using the simulator (recall that the same results were obtained using
either the diagnosis or simulator). We want to predict the additional fuel consumption
with an inefficiency and maintain the equations that model the physical behavior of
the plant in the simulator (performing each individual analysis for an operating
condition). At least two premises are required to create the malfunction matrix:
The response of the system must be proportional to the degree of inefficiency (impact
on fuel, associated malfunctions, etc.). To calculate the fuel impact of a known
inefficiency, the corresponding malfunction matrix need only be multiplied or
divided, depending on the ratio of the real inefficiency and the inefficiency defined in
the malfunction matrix.
To predict the effect of several malfunctions, the inefficient components must be local
to their subsystems. The total impact on fuel can then be calculated as the sum of the
malfunction matrices associated with the individual inefficiencies.
The second assumption is not necessary here because we only analyzed an individual
inefficiency. The first premise could be checked by analyzing the graphic impact on
fuel analysis versus the degree of inefficiency applied. In this case, the isoentropic
efficiency of the fourth section of HPT was varied from –10% to +10% with respect
to the design efficiency (around 85%). Figure 7.15 shows how the linearity of the
sensitivity analysis varies while the plant load is kept constant (122 MW of output
power in extraction mode and 2,400 T/h freshwater production).
FIGURE 7.15 Additional fuel consumption when varying the isoentropic efficiency in HPT4.
Inc. fuel consumption

6000
kW
4000
2000
% eff. in HT4
0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
-2000
-4000
-6000
Plant behavior was linear when we varied this inefficiency (figure 7.15). The
malfunction matrix in table 7.30 is very useful to calculate the malfunctions
associated with each inefficiency (by summing the columns and multiplying each
component by its product). The high unit exergy consumption of the condenser pump
was the result of the mathematical model (as were the high values of the low-pressure
heater no. 2). In these two cases, the low product values minimized the previously
mentioned effect in the malfunction analysis. The MSF components of this matrix
were very high but the low exergy value of its product (freshwater) induced a low
malfunction. All sections of the high-pressure turbine were affected by the
inefficiency but, as expected, the fourth section had the highest value. The values of
the first section of the high and low-pressure turbine were also considerable since
they had to readapt their products to maintain final production.
The effect of the inefficiency can be quantified as the total cost (including capital cost
of devices) of electricity and water, which is especially illustrative for plant
managers. Electricity increases 0.000033 $/kWh per 1% variation in efficiency
(figure 7.16) or a yearly savings of 35,200 $/y.
FIGURE 7.16 Unit electricity cost when the isoentropic HPT4 efficiency is modified.
Electricity cost
0,0383
$/kWh
0,0381
0,0379
0,0377
0,0375
% eff. in HT4
0,0373
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Surprisingly, the effect on the cost of water was even greater –in absolute terms- than
for electricity (0.00047 $/m3 per 1% inefficiency, or almost 10,000 $/y; figure 7.17),
although the relative cost of electricity varied more. This is because the apparently
local inefficiency changes the steam conditions sent to MSF unit, which implies an
additional cost, mainly due to the high exergetic cost associated with water (see
table 7.28).
FIGURE 7.17 Unit distilled water cost when the isoentropic HPT4 efficiency is modified.
Water cost
1,278
$/m3
1,274
1,270
% eff. in HT4
1,266
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
The main conclusions of our analysis of an inefficiency in the final section of the
high-pressure turbine are:
• The isoentropic efficiency only affected the behavior of the inefficient

component and provoked a small malfunction in the MSF plant by changing
exhaust vapor conditions leaving the HPT.
• The steam power plant could not readapt its behavior to maintain the final
production. Additional live steam was required to produce the electricity
demanded, consuming more fuel (6,035 kW). The dysfunction analysis was
useful to observe how the components that provide the energy quality to the
steam cycle (boiler and condenser) have to increase their productions that are
distributed to the rest of plant components, producing the additional power not
supplied by the inefficient section of the turbine.
• The effect of this inefficiency was quite significant and represented an additional
water and electricity cost of 0.00047 $/m3 and 0.000033 $/kWh respectively, per
unit of efficiency (or 45,200 $/y in both products). The nature of the inefficiency
should be studied carefully, taking into account several factors including repair
time, personnel costs and the price of the components if they need to be replaced
to avoid extra natural gas consumption.
• The sensitivity analysis applied in a reasonable range revealed a linear response

by the simulator mathematical model. Thus, the malfunction matrix can substitute
new simulations with this inefficiency and predict its effect on a real plant.
• The value of the induced MSF unit malfunction demonstrates that plant
diagnosis strongly depends on the thermoeconomic model. Sometimes the
physical consequences of an inefficiency cannot be translated into a table of
expected values for fuel impact or irreversibility increase of a process or
component.
7.3.2.2 Using the cleaning ball system in the brine heater
The fouling resistance Rf (for definition see section 3.2.1) involves three resistances:
• Resistance due to fouling or scale inside the tube.

• Resistance due to fouling outside the tube.
• Resistance due to the accumulation of non-condensable gases in the vapor.
The cleaning ball system can only reduce tube fouling or scale in a heat exchanger,
one of the main causes of performance loss in MSF plants in the high-temperature
sections. In general, fouling occurs when deposits are laid down on the heat transfer
surfaces (Hanbury, Hodgkiess and Morris, 1993). These deposits can be due to scale
from the reverse solubility of salts in the brine, dirt from corrosion products or
biological growths on the surface. The latter only occurs in the rejection section and
can be controlled by feed chlorination. The scale type depends on the brine chemistry,
plant conditions, chemical additives to the feed and the type of cleaning. In general,
calcium carbonate and calcium sulfate are the most common forms of scale.
F-P values (design) for the MSF plant. Nominal production in summer.
F-P values without fouling in heater. Nominal production, 32 ºC seawater.

TABLE 7.32
KP matrix in design.
KP matrix without fouling in heater. NTOS data case.

TABLE 7.34
Variation of the KP matrix without fouling in heater. NTOS case.
Irreversibility matrix without fouling in heater. 1,900 T/h and 32 ºC seawater temp.
TABLE 7.36
Malfunction/dysfunction matrix without fouling in heater. NTOS case.
Malfunction matrix varying fouling in heater 0,00001 m2 K/W in NTOS case.

TABLE 7.38
The fouling effect in the MSF plant was simulated, quantified and analyzed for the
brine heater. The cleaning ball system was assumed to be working at maximum and
fouling in brine heater was set to zero (fouling factor in heater at design conditions
was 0.00025 m2·K/W), although this is impossible in practice since outside fouling
and non-condensable gas phenomena cannot be avoided. The reference case had the
same operating conditions without the cleaning ball system. For this reason, most
malfunctions associated with the cleaning ball system are negative (they should be
called ‘benefunctions’), i.e., they save fuel. The malfunction analysis was performed
at 1,900 T/h water production with 32 ºC seawater (the first of the two examples).
Water production was constant although but this does not imply a constant product
exergy flow.
To explain how fouling in the brine heater affects MSF behavior, first the recycle
brine, seawater to reject and make-up flows (R, SR, F) were maintained at designed
levels. The condensation temperature of the steam provided by the steam power plant
also remained constant. A lower fouling inside the brine heater improved the overall
heat transfer coefficient, which implied that:
• The interstage temperature difference in the heater was reduced, i.e. the cooling
brine temperatures entering (TF,1) and leaving (TBT = TB,O) the heater were
increased.
• The temperature rise of the cooling brine in the heater was also increased.
A higher Top Brine Temperature (TBT) implies a higher flash range ∆T and more
freshwater production. The temperature profile of the recovery and reject section is
altered if the temperatures entering and leaving the recovery section are increased. If
the final production is to be maintained, R, SR and F must be decreased. But even the
TBT and TF,1 reach higher than design temperatures (and therefore the temperatures
profile in recovery and reject sections). Brine fouling is a global variable in the MSF
unit since it affects the rest of the system.
About 1,411 kW of fuel was saved with the benefunction in different plant
components (not only in the heater). Less steam was consumed, affecting the
behavior of the steam power plant when less steam is required for this extraction, as
in the next example.
Inefficiency was diagnosed using the symbolic notation explained in Chapter 6. The
simulator in Chapter 5 was used to obtain the F and P values for the reference
conditions and inefficient situation. Following the productive structure of the MSF
unit (see figure 7.11) with 1,900 T/h water production, the F and P values are
included in tables 7.31 and 7.32 respectively, using the nomenclature in table 7.4 for
the components. In this case, the matrix was 18×18 (11 components and 7 junctions)
whereas the matrix was 30×30 (26 components and 4 junctions) in the power plant
analysis. The ∆ 〈KP〉 matrix (table 7.35) was built by subtracting the 〈KP〉 reference
matrix (table 7.33) and the 〈KP〉 matrix (table 7.34) corresponding to an inefficient
operation. The latter were obtained by dividing the F-P tables. The irreversibility
matrix |I〉 (table 7.36) contains the irreversibility and unit exergy costs of each
component. Finally, the dysfunction table (table 7.37) contains the dysfunction
coefficients φ and the malfunction array MF. The column sum is the fuel impact of a
component and the row sum is the irreversibility increase of a component. Figure
7.18 shows the impact on fuel analysis in the malfunction/dysfunction table. Figure
7.19 includes the irreversibility increase of each component of the power plant.
Having obtained the dysfunction matrix (which provides information about the state
of a given plant with an inefficiency), we analyzed the malfunctions in the
desalination plant components. The physical variations in the MSF plant with the
benefunction were translated into malfunctions. The first important conclusion is that
the malfunction generated in the brine heater was not the highest. The malfunction
induced in other components was more important than the intrinsic malfunction
provoked by heater inefficiency. Therefore, each malfunction should be analyzed
separately.
The intrinsic malfunction is quite easy to explain. Using the cleaning ball system in
the heater improves the heat transfer process in the tubes. This reduces the thermal
irreversibility, assuming that the mechanical and chemical irreversibility is
maintained. The irreversibility was reduced by 865 kW in this component (see table
7.37), increasing its exergetic efficiency. The reference unit exergy consumption was
reduced with respect to the inefficient condition (respectively 1.096 and 1.075 in
tables 7.33 or 7.34), or the change in unit exergy consumption ∆k decreased with
respect to the reference state. The decrease of the unit exergy consumption (–0.02) is
included in the ∆ 〈KP〉 matrix (table 7.35). The product of the heater is the cooling
brine heated to the TBT (42,021 kW), then the intrinsic malfunction of –875 kW. The
impact on fuel saved in this component was 2,419.6 kW (both values are in
table 7.37).
The induced malfunction in the recovery section was positive (203 kW) and the
irreversibility increase was 247 kW in the process (see both values in table 7.37).
Consequently, the variation in unit energy consumption in this component with heater
fouling was positive (∆k = 0.025, see table 7.35), i.e. the process was more inefficient
in this section. Assuming that the distillate quantity and quality is maintained, an
uncontrolled TBT increases due to the effect of the cleaning ball system in the brine
heater. Although cooling brine was also increased, the temperature rise was lower
than the TBT (because of the two effects of fouling in the brine heater). Thus, the
amount of energy needed to produce the distillate in the recovery section was higher
than in the design situation. The efficiency of the component decreased and provoked
an additional fuel consumption of 494 kW.
Impact on fuel analysis when the fouling in BH is neglected. Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant
Irreversibility increase in the MSF with BH=0. NTOS case.

FIGURE 7.18
FIGURE 7.19
On the other hand, the temperature profile in the reject section remained almost
unchanged because the effect of the heater fouling is far away from the reject section.
A higher TBT also implies lower recycled brine R flowing toward the reject section to
maintain final production. This flow is the main contribution of the reject section to
produce distilled water, which was maintained constant (the reject section product is
practically the final product of the MSF unit). Less energy was needed to produce
freshwater. The efficiency was increased and the variation of the unit exergy
consumption and irreversibility generated were reduced in the inefficient case (∆k = –
0.013, ∆I = –91 kW, resulting in a negative malfunction of 91 kW (see tables 7.35 and
7.37) and 725 kW in fuel savings.
The induced malfunction associated with the mixer was quite substantial (-- 942 kW).
The make-up F and recirculation R flows were decreased by the cleaning ball system
in the heater under constant final production of freshwater. The mechanical and
thermal irreversibility of the mixing process is logically reduced if the two flows
entering the mixing chamber are reduced. The unit exergy consumption of the
process or the irreversibility increase was reduced (∆k = -- 0.0159, ∆I = –912 kW, see
tables 7.35 and 7.37) and 1,360 kW (table 7.37) of fuel was saved.
The fictitious device is a non-physical component intercalated at the beginning of the

productive structure of the MSF unit (see figure 7.11). It charges the exergy costs of
the distiller flows with the plant residues: brine blowdown and reject cooling
seawater. There is no physical explanation for malfunction of this device but the
thermoeconomic model suggests two causes:
• The exergy flow of the residues is higher (the fuel of this unit). The specific
energy or mass flow rate of one of the two streams must be increased by an
inefficiency in the MSF unit.
• The steam to the brine heater decreases (here the unit product corresponds to the
fuel of the brine heater).
The second cause provoked a positive malfunction of 938 kW in the FD and

1,222 kW of extra fuel consumption (table 7.37). The same MSF residues are sent out
to sea at a higher cost to the distiller when less fuel is consumed to produce water.
The amount of irreversibility in each component is the sum of its own malfunction
plus the dysfunctions generated by the malfunction of other components. Only the
fictitious device had a considerable dysfunction value (–764 kW), generated by
malfunctions in the brine heater, recovery and reject sections, mixer and several
junctions (see table 7.37). As above (tables 7.31 and 7.32), the product of the
fictitious device decreased more than 700 kW to readapt the use of the cleaning ball
system in the brine heater under constant freshwater production. The dysfunction
depends on the φ coefficients of the component. Since the fictitious device is at the
beginning of the productive structure, most of its φ coefficients were non-zero values.
In conclusion, dysfunction analysis is clearly unrelated to the physical behavior of the
plant, i.e., the MSF components do not vary production to maintain the final distillate
due to the malfunctions.
The impact on fuel analysis was similar to the previous analysis. In this case, the
impact on fuel consumption was the sum of the malfunction and dysfunction
generated by each component on others (table 7.37). As expected, the dysfunction
generated by the brine heater, recovery and reject section and the mixer are important.
Note that the malfunction/dysfunction analysis considers an unchanged final product.

This is quite easy when the product is electricity, since the simulator can control the
power output. However, the exergy flow of freshwater as the final product has two
terms: the mass flow and the specific exergy of water leaving the distiller unit
(quantity * quality, see Structural Theory, Valero et al., 1993). The mass flow must be
controlled in the simulator but the specific distillate exergy is a function of the
distiller temperature. The latter temperature depends on the operating conditions of
the MSF unit: seawater temperature and concentration, fouling in each section, etc. In
our example, the water temperature leaving the distillate pump did not vary with the
brine heater fouling. If the temperature changed, the impact on fuel associated with
the change in total production is k*∆P, where k* is the exergy cost of the product and
∆P is the variation of the total production (the value is shown in the right-bottom
corner of the DF/MF table). The impact on fuel associated with the variation of the
final product can be more important than the impact on fuel associated with the
variation of the unit exergy consumption ∆k in each component (the total contribution
due to both variations is also shown at the end of the DF/MF table).
Having explained the most important results of MSF plant diagnosis without heater
fouling, we can consider one of the most useful applications. Figure 7.20 can be used
to study the linearity of the simulator (and a real plant, since the simulator was
validated using data collected from a physical plant) to validate the malfunction
matrix. Changing the design fouling factor in the brine heater (25×10–5 m2·K/W)
gradually to zero saves fuel when the plant was operating to produce the same
quantity of water as in the example.
The model was reasonably linear when heater fouling was varied, at least for nominal
production conditions in summer. However, at maximum operation, some internal
flows like the recirculation flow R, make-up F or seawater to reject SR reached a
maximum and the effect of the cleaning ball system was lower than expected for that
load.
Table 7.38 shows the malfunction matrix associated with each component when the
fouling factor in the brine heater was changed by 0.00001 m2 K/W. The most
important terms of the matrix are associated with the above mentioned components:
fictitious device, brine heater, recovery and reject sections and the mixer. These values
can also be explained by analyzing the malfunctions associated with this inefficiency.
As expected, pumps were not affected by brine heater fouling. The impact on fuel due
to changes in brine heater fouling can be calculated by multiplying the components of

the malfunction matrix by the product of each component and their unit exergy cost
(obtained from the irreversibility matrix). Sometimes the malfunction matrix has
components with high values, but the low product or low exergy cost associated with
this component results in a lower impact on fuel.
FIGURE 7.20 Impact on fuel analysis when the fouling in heater is varied.
0
fouling*10-5 in BH
0 5 10 15 20 25
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
kW Inc. fue l cons u mption
-3000
Knowing the monetary cost of fresh water as a function of an inefficiency helps plant
managers take decisions on using the cleaning ball system, depending on the
compromise between consumption, operating costs and energy saved. Note that the
cost of water decreased when heater fouling was decreased (figure 7.21).
FIGURE 7.21 Monetary cost of distillate when the fouling in heater is varied.
Water cost
1,475
$/m3
1,470
1,465
fouling*10-5 in BH
1,460
0 5 10 15 20 25
In the nominal case, 0.00045 $/m3 was saved when fouling was decreased by
10--5 m2·K/W (or 7,650 $/y). Although the effect of the cleaning ball system was very
difficult to translate into a constant fouling variation, the system reduced the fouling
factor several times over (see section 3.6.1) when the cleaning system was
periodically connected (for example in a four-hour cycle). At maximum production,
the cost decreases due to the effect of purchase costs and because the increase in
exergy cost is lower than in the nominal case (remember that the internal flows reach
a maximum during maximum winter production).
The sensitivity analysis of the monetary cost and fuel impact takes into account that
the exergy costs k* of the steam to the brine heater and the electricity for the MSF
pumps are different from unity (unit exergy cost of steam to heater and vacuum system
was 2.55 and 2.5 respectively and exergy cost of electricity was 2.85). So, the real cost
of producing water and the consequences of an inefficiency can be dealt with correctly.
In summary, using the cleaning ball system in the heater had the following
consequences:
• It changed the temperature profiles of the cooling, flashing brine and distillate in
the MSF unit. As the brine heater is settled at the beginning of the process, the
temperatures of the recycle brine before and after the heater were affected. As
those temperatures enter and leave the recovery section, the whole system was
influenced by this inefficiency.
• As a consequence of the last point, the induced malfunctions in the rest of
components were higher than the intrinsic malfunction in the heater, taking into
account the dimensions of each component. However, the dysfunction analysis
did not provide any interesting information on how the components readapted
their production to maintain the final production of freshwater. The non-physical
components cannot be explained from a physical viewpoint.
• The model was linear under changes in heater fouling. So, the malfunction
matrix can be used to predict the fuel saved with the cleaning ball system or
component malfunctions.
• The cleaning ball system in heater increased the TBT of the unit. This implies a
lower consumption to produce the same amount of freshwater, but also provokes
scale formation due to the high-operation temperatures. Consequently, the
cleaning ball system should be continuously maintained in the heater to keep the
fouling factor low. If the system is not operating, scale formation will reduce the
effectiveness of the condenser and the whole MSF unit.
7.3.2.3 The effect of recovery section fouling on steam power plant behavior
An inefficiency in a power plant or desalination unit will provoke additional fuel

consumption. The analysis was performed separately for both plants. But if an
inefficiency in the MSF unit provokes an increase/decrease in steam consumption by
the brine heater, how does the steam power plant readapt?. If the electricity and water
production are kept constant, the inefficiency in the MSF unit is an inlet parameter
that seriously affects power plant behavior. This parameter is the amount of steam
diverted to the MSF unit. Our analysis considered an inefficiency detected

‘downstream’ and the MSF unit can induce the malfunctions; an inefficiency detected
downstream should also be quantified upstream. So, we considered the ‘co-lateral’
effects of a co-generation plant with this example.
In this example, electricity production was held at 122 MW in MCR operating

conditions. The fouling in the recovery section was reduced to zero by the cleaning
ball system and the live steam leaving the boiler was maintained. The first physical
consequence (the effects of the cleaning ball system in the recovery section are
explained in section 6 of Annex 1) of an inefficiency was a reduction in steam
consumption from 89.1 to 71.1 kg/s (corresponding to a freshwater production of
2,400 T/h, the maximum distillated in a MSF unit). Extraction to the MSF unit is at
the end of the high-pressure turbine, so the latter was not affected by the different
uses of the exhaust steam from this turbine. If the steam leaving the high-pressure
turbine is not diverted to the MSF unit when some of it is saved with the cleaning ball
system, an extra quantity of steam goes to the low-pressure turbine. Although the
final section of the turbine has to maintain the exhaust pressure (we maintain the
external parameters of the plant), at least the efficiency of the first section of the low-
pressure turbine is improved with a higher entering mass flow rate (remember that the
low-pressure turbine is designed to work in condensing mode, that is, when no steam
is derived to the MSF unit).
But the electricity production increases since the amount of steam and the efficiency
of the low-pressure turbine have been improved. To maintain the final production, the
amount of steam leaving the boiler must decrease from 156.1 to 146.6 kg/s. The
redistribution of the flows inside the steam cycle was similar to the previous analysis;
the low-pressure turbine produces the electricity that the high-pressure turbine
cannot. This produces a negative impact when more steam is forced to flow in the
low-pressure cycle (that is, passing through the condenser and not through the MSF
heater). The feedwater system cools and additional fuel is required to reach the set
point conditions of live steam in the boiler. Finally, the steam conditions leaving the
high-pressure turbine are slightly varied (recall that the exhaust pressure is controlled
by the MSF unit).
Tables 7.39 and 7.40 show the F-P values for the steam power plant in design and
operation (when the inefficiency occurs in the recovery section of the MSF unit). The
〈KP〉 matrix is shown in tables 7.41 and 7.42 for the design and inefficient case,
respectively. The ∆ 〈KP〉 matrix is the key to analyze the system with this inefficiency
(table 7.43). Table 7.44 contains the |I〉 matrix and the exergy cost array. The
dysfunction matrix [DF] including the malfunction array MF is shown in table 7.45.
Figures 7.22 and 7.23 include the impact on fuel analysis and irreversibility increase.
F-P values in design, 122 MW output power.
F-P values without fouling in recovery section. MCR case.

TABLE 7.40
KP matrix in design. MCR case.
KP matrix without fouling in recovery section. MCR case.

TABLE 7.42
Variation of KP without fouling in recovery section. MCR case.
Irreversibility matrix without fouling in recovery section (MCR case).

TABLE 7.44
Malfunction/dysfunction matrix without fouling in recovery section (MCR case).
Malfunction matrix when the fouling in recovery is varied 0,00001 m2·K/W in MCR case.
TABLE 7.46
Impact on fuel analysis without fouling in RCS, MCR case. Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant
Irreversibility increase analysis of section 7.4.2.3.

FIGURE 7.22
FIGURE 7.23
The first analysis compared the fuel impact associated with the whole plant (a fuel
savings of 24.00 MW), with the fuel saved in the MSF1 unit (26.47 MW). This means
that the steam power plant is forced to work under less-efficient operating conditions.
We will now explain the most significant values in the malfunction array of table
7.45, relating the physical consequences to the matrix values.
The deaerator component mixes and preheats the feedwater from the condenser.
Irreversibility in the mixing process is lower because the mass flows entering the
deaerator are lower during operation (where the live steam mass flow rate is reduced
to maintain the final production) than in the design. Thermal irreversibility was lower
because the cold flow entering the mixer was increased and its irreversibility was
reduced by 828 kW (see table 7.45). The efficiency of the component should thereby
increase, i.e., the variation of the unit exergy consumption was negative in the
component (∆k = –0.085, see the ∆ 〈KP〉 table 7.43), implying an induced
malfunction of –682 kW.
The feedwater temperature entering the boiler was reduced because the low-pressure
cycle increased its contribution to the whole system. The boiler consumed additional
resources to reach the set point of the steam turbine (93 bar, 535 ºC). The increased
exergy unit consumption in the boiler was ∆k = 0.004, and the malfunction associated
with the component was finally 858 kW (see tables 7.45 and 7.43 respectively), with
an associated fuel impact of 576 kW.
The first section of the high-pressure turbine had a 1,320 kW induced malfunction as
a consequence of the mathematical model. The efficiency of the Curtis blade was
correlated as a function of the live steam from the boiler under different operating
conditions, as in this case this amount has been decreased considerably, the
isoentropic efficiency in the section decreases (and consequently the exergy and
entropy properties of steam leaving the section). Consequently, ∆ 〈KP〉 in table 7.43
was positive (∆k = 0.0267) with a 1,320 kW malfunction and a 1,954 kW fuel impact.
Surprisingly, the fourth section of the high-pressure turbine had a decreased

isoentropic efficiency but a negative induced malfunction (–484 kW, see table 7.45)
and 1,500 kW fuel was saved. This abnormal behavior is explained by the exhaust
pressure of the high-pressure turbine which decreased with the amount of live steam,
allowing the output power (produced in the section) to increase. Since the product of
this component is the output power (according to the thermoeconomic model), the
unit exergy consumption was lower during the inefficiency, resulting in a ∆k value of
–0.025 (see table 7.43 with the ∆ 〈KP〉 components).
1. In this case the MSF unit is the component inserted in the structure productive of the steam power plant.
Exergy product of the MSF unit is kept constant.
As mentioned above, the efficiency of the first section of the low-pressure turbine
increased because the amount of entering steam increases considerably and its
∆ 〈KP〉 component was negative (∆k = –0.319, table 7.43). The irreversibility of the
process was reduced by 1,965 kW, with a –2,177 kW induced malfunction and 2,970
kW fuel savings.
The malfunction associated with the MSF was positive, although the fuel impact
saved was very high in this component. The dysfunction generated by this component
achieved the desired fuel savings (a large negative value). The reason for the 12,491
kW induced malfunction (table 7.45, which coincides with the irreversibility increase
of the process in this case) was the drastic reduction in negentropy (which was
introduced in the thermoeconomic model of the steam cycles to account for the heat
rejected in the condenser). This negentropy is a subproduct in the productive
structure. The unit exergy consumption of the unit increased (∆k = 1.837, table 7.43).
The most important dysfunctions in the boiler and condenser were caused by the
components with the most important malfunctions (figure 7.24). The boiler and
condenser suffered dysfunctions of 1,620 kW and 752 kW from the deaerator;
1,812 kW and –1,215 kW from the first section of the high pressure turbine,
-- 1,391 kW and 404 kW from the fourth section of this turbine and –24.55 MW and
--13.68 MW from the MSF unit, respectively. The final product in the boiler was
reduced by more than 10 MW to maintain the total production at a lower steam
consumption (total boiler dysfunction, –22.65 MW). The condenser also increased
production by 16 MW (total condenser dysfunction, –13.71 MW). The high φ
coefficients promote high dysfunction since they are related to the position of the
components in the productive structure of the system.
Following the methodology in Chapter 6 for the diagnosis of complex systems, the
DI array is the column sum of the dysfunctions. The values of the main components
are described in the previous paragraph (2.43 MW for the deaerator, 634 kW for the
HPT1, and –38.9 MW for the MSF unit!). The impact on fuel associated with each
component (table 7.45) was obtained by adding the malfunction array MF. This is the
additional fuel consumed due to the change in the operation of each unit with respect
to the operating conditions and no inefficiency.
Having obtained the most relevant results in the inefficiency analysis, the malfunction
matrix can be used as a predictive tool to diagnose the effects of the inefficiency.
Figure 7.24 shows the total impact on fuel associated with the inefficiency variation
in the recovery section (the effect of fouling in the recovery section when fouling is
varied). Here the malfunction matrix did not exactly predict the malfunctions because
the response of the mathematical model was not perfectly linear when varying the
steam to the MSF unit (under maximum production, some internal flows of the
distiller are forced to keep a constant value). However, the MSF model behaved
linearly at nominal production.
FIGURE 7.24 Impact on fuel depending on fouling in recovery section.
0
0 3 6 9 12 15
-6000
-12000
-18000
kW
-24000
Since the model responded in a non-linear way to the efficiency, the most rigorous
diagnosis should separate simulate each case (avoiding the malfunction matrix). The
malfunction matrix in table 7.46 provides the ‘linearized’ malfunction induced in
each component when the fouling in the recovery section is changed by
0.00001 m2·K/W. The condenser pump and low-pressure heater coefficients were
again high (as are the brine heater and feed pump values), although the low product
did not induce an important malfunction. As expected, the MSF coefficients were the
highest and the HPT1 and HPT4 were also elevated.
FIGURE 7.25 Monetary cost of electricity depending on the fouling in recovery section.
Electricity cost
0,03796
$/kW·h
0,03794
0,03792
0,03790
fouling*10-5 in RCS
0,03788
0 3 6 9 12 15
The ‘monetary diagnosis’ (figures 7.25 and 7.26) involves the cost of electricity and
water as a function of recovery section fouling during maximum production in winter
(which was the load requested in the example). The cost of electricity increased a bit
(4×10–6 $/kW·h) when the fouling was decreased. The malfunction analysis proved
that the steam power plant decreases its global efficiency with an inefficiency in the
recovery section of the MSF unit (as explained at the beginning of this section).
Water cost followed the expected results, 0.0057 $/m3 was saved with a 0.00001 m2
K/W decrease in recovery section fouling (see figure 7.26) or 120,000 $/y.
FIGURE 7.26 Cost in $ per cubic meter of water when recovery section fouling is varied.
Water cost
1,05
$/m3
1,03
1,01
0,99
0,97
0,95
0 3 6 9 12 15
In summary:
• The results of the inefficiency diagnosis imply that fouling in the recovery
section considerably reduces the amount of steam needed to produce freshwater.
The cost of water was drastically reduced (see figure 7.26) when the cleaning
ball system operates in the recovery section of the MSF distillers. But a
reduction in the derived steam did not imply improved plant performance (for
this particular case, the electricity cost was even higher).
• A consequence of this example is that the co-generation plant should operate at
an optimum ratio between the steam to MSF and the live steam produced in the
boiler. The installation of the cleaning ball system in the MSF distillers should
be taken into account in the design in the co-generation plant, because the
optimum point of the performance in the dual plant is seriously affected by the
use of this system.
• An inefficiency in the MSF unit provokes induced malfunctions in several
components of the steam power plant (boiler, deaerator, some turbine
sections…). Therefore, this type of inefficiency detected ‘downstream’ has a
more global effect than an inefficiency local to a component in the steam power
plant.
7.3.3 Analysis of several inefficiencies

7.3.3.1 Analysis of several simultaneous inefficiencies in the steam power plant
We will now consider the combined effect of several simultaneous inefficiencies in

different components and the effect of induced malfunctions. This exercise reinforces
the concept of local and intrinsic malfunctions. We simulated the physical effect of
these inefficiencies (changing main flowstreams) and describe related malfunctions,
dysfunctions, and additional fuel consumption in the steam power plant (the direct
problem).
The analyzed inefficiencies were:

• TTD in high-pressure heater no. 1 increases 5 ºC
• Isoentropic efficiency of the feed pump decreases 10%.
• Isoentropic efficiency of the first section of the high-pressure turbine
decreases 5%.
• Isoentropic efficiency of the first section of the low-pressure turbine decreases
15%.
• Isoentropic efficiency of the fourth section of the high-pressure turbine
decreases 10%.
If the TTD of the HPH1 increases, the feedwater leaves the heater at a lower
temperature and the turbine extraction temperature increases. If the heater does not
need to preheat the feedwater the same amount, the extraction mass flow should be
reduced. The boiler is also affected because feedwater enters the economizers at a
lower-than-design temperature.
The mechanical irreversibility of the feed pump increases if the isoentropic efficiency
is lower than expected. The pump responds by consuming more power and the
feedwater temperature increases.
The exhaust conditions of the high and low-pressure turbine are more or less
maintained with the MSF unit and ambient conditions. When the isoentropic
efficiency of several sections of the steam turbine decreases, the steam conditions are
not significantly affected by inefficiencies in other sections. The output power in each
inefficient section is not enough to maintain final production but other sections cannot
produce this extra power since their efficiency was maintained constant. Thus,
although the system demands more live steam, the efficiency of the boiler does not
necessarily decrease.
F-P values in design, 122 MW output power.
F-P values with inefficiencies in five components (MCR case).

TABLE 7.48
KP matrix in design (MCR Case).
KP matrix with several inefficiencies in MCR case.

TABLE 7.50
Variation of KP matrix with several inefficiencies in MCR case.
Irreversibility matrix with five inefficiencies in power plant (MCR case).

TABLE 7.52
Malfunction/dysfunction matrix with five inefficiencies in MCR case.
FIGURE 7.27 Impact on fuel analysis in section 7.3.3.1.
FIGURE 7.28 Irreversibility increase in section 7.3.3.1.

259
CHAPTER 8
Synthesis, contributions and

perspectives
8.1 Synthesis
This Ph. D. Thesis brings together three topics that have never been thoroughly
interrelated.
• Desalination processes.
Water scarcity is a serious problem for humanity now and in the future. Water
resources are being depleted by excessive consumption and polluted by human
development. Fortunately, the problem can be solved by desalting seawater or
reusing wastewater. Chapter 1 describes the current situation in arid countries and
how to solve some water shortages. Chapter 2 summarizes the most common
methods to produce freshwater for human consumption.
• Energy consumed in desalination.

The detailed description of desalination processes in Chapter 2 including the
consumption and energy producing process in desalination. It is very energy
intensive and should not be isolated from energy production processes.
Desalination designers normally present the energy consumption of different
desalination processes in terms of electrical consumption (kW·h/m3) even if they
consume thermal energy. The current trend is to separate the two processes. The
existence of big companies that only produce electricity or only water widens the
gap between desalination and energy communities. This thesis demonstrates that
energy and water suppliers interact in a co-generation installation to provide both
products and that both systems should not be analyzed separately.

Synthesis, contributions and perspectives
• Thermoeconomic analysis of the most common desalting and power installations.

We used thermoeconomic techniques normally applied to power plants. In this
way, we took advantage of everything that thermoeconomics provides to obtain
an in depth knowledge of a very complex system. The energy supplier was also
analyzed since the desalting plant is coupled with the power plant. We analyzed
one of the most common processes used in arid regions with important water
scarcity problems: multi-stage flash desalting plants that use fossil fuels to also
produce electricity with the help of a conventional power plant. The
thermoeconomic analysis was also applied to a steam power plant providing
steam to the MSF unit.
The main contribution of the thesis is contained in Chapter 7. The thermoeconomic

analysis of the dual plant included cost analysis, diagnosis, and optimization. The
results of the different thermoeconomic techniques applied in each case are as
follows:
1. The cost analysis is very useful to find the enormous possibilities of energy
savings under different configurations of the co-generation plant. A detailed
analysis of the internal costs pin-points the component responsible for
irreversibilities. New processes can also be combined to produce minimum water
and electricity costs.
2. Plant diagnosis helps to elucidate component interaction. The different

relationships and effects of component inefficiencies on other subsystems can be
successfully quantified by considering both plants together. The interaction can
also be separated by varying component efficiency (malfunction) and the
subsequent additional component production (dysfunction). This thesis includes
one example of a thermodynamically isolated (power plant) and non-isolated
(MSF unit) system. However, the diagnosis cannot be used as a predictive tool in
the control systems because the theory cannot yet recognize the origin of the
inefficiencies.
3. Local optimization optimizes the operating conditions by calculating the

minimum product cost of each plant unit. It is very valuable to design new co-
generation plants or to readapt existing ones.
4. Product cost and price must be calculated from their origin. Cost is the resources
consumed to produce something and price is the value obtained when this product
is sold. Benefit is the difference between both concepts. Once the price is known,
the cost must be minimized to obtain the maximum benefit (plant operating
conditions of the plant can be changed intentionally depending on demand and
price).
Main contributions
8.2 Main contributions
This Ph. D. Thesis applies the most recent thermoeconomic techniques (normally
only applied to power generation systems) to a power and desalination plant. The
main contributions of the thesis are listed here:
8.2.1 Simulator of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant

A simulator was used to provide the thermodynamic states of desalination and power
generation process. Thermal desalination processes have been simulated by chemical
engineers (Jernqvist, Jernqvist and Aly, 1999; Ettouney and El-Dessouky, 1999), but
the steam producing system is not considered. The two processes were separately
introduced in the simulator to independently analyze each process. A combined state
can be modelled by introducing the same quantity of steam sent to the MSF unit. The
simulator was validated using performance data cases and real operating data for the
dual-plant with a MSF unit and a steam power plant. It can model the effect of
inefficiencies in the two systems for diagnosis.
The mathematical model applied under different operating modes accurately

reproduces (for engineering purposes) the real state of the plant, despite the scarcity
of data for each operating mode. The most difficult case is when the amount of steam
entering the low-pressure turbine is so low that the system has to consume
mechanical energy to move the blades. In this case, the input conditions of the
mathematical model have to be continuously restricted in order to preserve the
stability of the model. The mathematical models of the MSF and steam turbine power
plant were solved using a solution algorithm that simultaneously handles the whole
set of model equations. The packages containing the sequential scheme to solve the
flowsheeting of a plant are discarded here, although this threatens model stability
under different operating conditions.
8.2.2 State of the art in Thermoeconomics

An effort was made in Chapter 6 to review and summarize Thermoeconomic
methodologies. The Structural Theory was finally adopted to explain the concepts,
procedures and applications of these techniques, including the matrix formulation
and new terms like induced malfunction, intrinsic malfunction and dysfunction. The
thermoeconomic analysis of the dual plant was based on this theory and its latest
improvements.
8.2.3 F-P definition for a MSF unit

The F-P definition of the thermoeconomic analysis of the MSF unit (see section
7.1.3.2) highlights the cost of water production in the recovery and reject section,
taking into account the thermodynamic processes in the plant. Several F-P definitions
solved the model but none gave appropriate costs of device functionality nor for the
main flow degradation in the MSF plant.
8.2.4 Cost analysis of a dual-plant

A detailed cost analysis of the power and desalination plant was carried out under
different operating modes (see section 7.2). The physical (or formation) costs of the
main components were calculated. Exergy operating costs are available for each
component as well as the thermoeconomic costs of water and electricity. These latter
costs were successfully compared with other methodologies (EL-Nashar, 1999;
Kronenberg et al., 1999) that do not use the thermoeconomic model and provide
much less information.
8.2.5 Diagnosis of a complex system

The thermoeconomic diagnosis in section 7.3 was based on Structural Theory and
Symbolic Thermoeconomics (Torres et al., 1999). This is the first time that a
malfunction/dysfunction analysis is applied to a complex energy system (26
components and 4 junctions for the power plant and 11 components and 7 junctions
for the MSF plant). Usually the matrix formulation is only used to study simpler
systems like the gas turbine co-generation plant in Chapter 6. The malfunction/
dysfunction table provides a lot of information that should be carefully analyzed
when an inefficiency is simulated in the plant (exergy costs, impact on fuel,
irreversibility increase in each component...). The relationships between components
are rapidly found with in terms of efficiency variation (intrinsic or induced
malfunction) or additional production (dysfunction). This method does not find the
nature of the malfunction. Whether it is intrinsic or induced depends on user
knowledge.
The symbolic notation and Structural Theory also helps to formulate the malfunction
matrix to find the quantity of additional resources consumed due to an inefficiency
(without using the simulator). This matrix is used when the system responds linearly
to the applied inefficiencies. If the inefficiency is local to the component, individual
matrices of different inefficiencies may be added to make one large malfunction
matrix with the same effect.
To date, most analyzed systems demonstrate additivity of diagnosis: several

inefficiencies can be disaggregated. However, the MSF did not fulfil this requirement
Perspectives
in the diagnosis of complex systems. As seen above, this fulfilment strongly depends
on the physical structure of the system.
8.2.6 Local optimization of the steam power plant

Local optimization of the main components of the steam power plant also provides a
global minimum final cost of electricity and water. Global optimization of the steam
power plant (based on local optimization, see section 7.5) has never been applied to a
set of 14 free-design variables that govern plant behavior. Local optimization can be
applied to the steam power plant because it is thermodynamically isolated, i.e. local
perturbations only affect one component (demonstrated in the diagnosis of the steam
power plant).
8.2.7 Cost, price and benefit

Finally, a new methodology is included to assign product cost, price and benefit using
examples to demonstrate that cost and price are independent. The main objective of
an investment is to obtain maximum benefit, which does not always imply minimum
cost.
8.3 Perspectives
8.3.1 Improving existing plants. Process integration

One of the immediate consequences of this work is to increase the ways existing
plants may reduce energy consumption. After analyzing one of the most developed
methods to produce freshwater and electricity, some areas were found lacking. Our
suggestions include:
• Promoting the simulation of both processes (water and energy production)
integrated in specific simulators.
• Applying our methodology to other desalination processes. Our objective was to
find the most efficient process at the lowest energy consumption, the best way to
produce both energy and water and not contribute to fossil fuel depletion, air
pollution and climate change. The importance of hybrid configurations, i.e. the
integration of other processes to produce energy (wind, solar, tides, even nuclear)
and water (MSF/RO or MED/RO units, heat absorption pumps) will possibly be
the trend in the next decades. 'Building-block’ software will be required to
thermoeconomically analyze any process producing water or electricity.
• Thermoeconomics only considers the costs of operation, installation and
maintenance, but processes also involve other costs that should be taken into
account including environmental (pollution, brine discharges...), costs of

producing materials, biological costs, building costs, etc. All these are less
developed than the costs evaluated in the thermoeconomic analysis. Since
thermoeconomic techniques can consider any type of costs, they should be
introduced in the global theory when they are more or less available.
8.3.2 Improvements in thermoeconomic diagnosis

Cost analysis provides a lot of information about how processes degrade and the
energy quality of fluids in a plant. It is very useful to quantify the efficiency of plant
processes. Diagnosis is directly oriented to an on-line implementation in the control
system. In this regard, a big effort is needed to improve thermoeconomic techniques
related to plant diagnosis (the ‘inverse problem’) when the data acquisition system
(DAS) finds deviations from the target conditions for each operating mode and load.
The diagnosis should detect the inefficiency from the data collected by the DAS to
take corrective actions. New communication technologies (Internet) allow remote
control of the on-line implementation of system diagnosis, so plant managers can also
see the benefits of the implementation. The on-line system can also be installed
higher up in the control system, i.e. it can be used for all units. The units respond as a
whole unit when a deviation is detected. Regarding maximizing benefit, the higher
level of hierarchy can help decide the most profitable configuration and the
possibility of connecting the hybrid systems installed in the plants for additional
water or energy in peak or low-demand periods.
Some previous steps may be needed to solve the inverse problem of the
thermoeconomic diagnosis:
• Analyze the problem of ‘noise’ provoked by the real boundary conditions in an

installation: set points, ambient conditions, fuel quality, different loads and
operating modes. We should consider the way to isolate the system from these
boundary conditions or their effects. Once the problem is solved, the diagnosis
finds the real causes of the deviations.
• Thermoeconomics should be used to investigate the development of new

techniques to study component interdependence during induced malfunctions in a
complex system. The non-additivity of the diagnosis in these interrelated systems
opens an interesting new line of investigation.
• Clarifying the application and interpretation of dysfunctions generated in/by plant

components. We could consider performing the analysis under a constant final
production (of the complex system), depending on the finality of the analysis.
Perspectives
8.3.3 Integrating attitudes

Thermoeconomic analysis provides enormous amounts of information about plant
functioning and possible savings. This information should be clearly integrated in a
vertical structure, i.e. a different kind of information should go to each level in the
plant staff hierarchy. For example, if we divide the organization of the plant in three
levels, we have:
Operator level
The information derived from the diagnosis is the most important at this level. The
physical and economic effects of the inefficiencies and the control strategies (security
versus economy) are the main issues for operators.
Technician level
This field includes optimizing existing systems and investigating and developing
more efficient systems, and new control systems to handle inefficiencies.
Managers level
Cost analysis must be the main tool used by the plant managers since they manage
the whole plant (assuming there are many units per plant). Cost, price and benefit
must be clearly differentiated at this level.
Training seminars are necessary for all levels to inform staff about the
“thermoeconomic culture” and its benefits for humanity.
8.3.4 Sustainable desalination

Desalination is one of the most promising means of producing drinkable water with a
low impact on the environment. The tendency of the desalination scientific
community is to reduce energy consumption and substitute primary energy sources
by renewable sources on a large scale. This tendency should be followed in all areas
that influence our future. A more global analysis, like the Life Cycle Analysis (LCA),
including additional aspects (residues, product use, materials, etc) is also necessary to
provide an overall perspective of desalination processes.
Research on desalination using solar energy for existing or new methods, should be
encouraged. As solar technology develops, the cost of producing water (on a large
scale) will decrease as will the strong dependence on energy.
Promoting the installation of simple devices to provide water in acceptable conditions

at a very low (or zero) cost in non-developed/isolated areas (Africa, India), is another
means of redistributing world resources and promoting a more equal development in

the world community.
8.3.5 Promote energy and water interactions

Water and energy are both limited resources, vital to the quality of the human life.
The rapidly growing human population increases the demand for these resources
every day. Several international organizations are dedicated to energy and several
others to water, but there is a marked lack of attention to combined water and energy
issues.
This Ph. D. Thesis demonstrates that energy and water cannot be studied separately.
A multi-disciplinary group of water and energy specialists has been formed
(International Study Group for Water and Energy Systems (ISGWES), settled at the
University of Zaragoza) to promote the interchange of ideas, scientific knowledge
and sustainable development of water and energy systems. Some of the investigation
lines commented above will be promoted by ISGWES.
ANNEX 1
The thermoeconomic diagnosis of the dual plant in section 7.3 considered several
inefficiencies described at the beginning of the chapter. Each inefficiency requires
many tables and figures, all of which are included in this annex. Thus, this annex is
an overall view of the effects provoked by one or more inefficiencies in the power
and desalination plant.
The following individual inefficiencies (described but not analyzed in section 7.3)
were applied:
• Inefficiency in the HPH1: variation in terminal temperature difference of heater.
• Inefficiency in the feed pump: reduced efficiency.
• Inefficiency in the high-pressure turbine: efficiency analysis in the first section.
• Inefficiency in the low-pressure turbine: efficiency variation in first section.
• Inefficiency in the recovery section: effect of reduced fouling in MSF.
• Inefficiency in the reject section: effect of the fouling factor.
The analysis was performed under different operating conditions but is only
presented for one load, the MCR case for the power plant and NTOS performance
case for the MSF unit. The effect of the different loads in the two systems is
summarized in sections 7.3.4 and 7.3.5.

A1.1 Effect of an inefficiency in the high-pressure heater

no.1 (HPH1)
The TTD of the HPH1 was varied to analyze the effect on the steam power plant.
The heater TTD is the difference between the temperature of saturated vapor
extracted from the turbine and the feedwater leaving the heater. Since the conditions
of the steam extracted in the turbine are maintained, a higher TTD implies a poorer
heat transfer inside the heater tubes. The feedwater therefore leaves the heater at a
lower temperature than expected. Consequently, the extraction mass flow to this
heater decreases and the boiler produces less live steam. Although the live steam
needed for the electricity demand is reduced, the boiler heats the feedwater from a
lower temperature and natural gas consumption increases. An excessive change in
heater TTD may also sharply vary the levels inside the heater, leading to dangerous
problems or even drains in the heaters. The consequences are very difficult to
evaluate with conventional component analysis since the model does not incorporate
the security system layout of the power plants.
The mathematical explanation of varying TTD involves the malfunction and

dysfunction matrices detailed in section 7.3. Tables A1.1 and A1.2 include the F-P
definition of the steam power plant in design and operation with an inefficiency in
the HPH1: the TTD increases 5 ºC. The output power used was 122 MW, but other
examples were at 60, 90 and 140 MW, corresponding to the parallel mode,
extraction mode with partial load and condensing mode, respectively (section 7.3.4).
These are the most important operating modes (the most operating hours per year) in
the power and desalination plant. Tables A1.3 and A1.4 include the 〈KP〉 tables
corresponding to the design and inefficient operation, and table A1.5 is the ∆ 〈KP〉
matrix. Table A1.6 contains the φ coefficients of the irreversibility matrix |I〉 with
exergy cost of components. Finally, table A1.7 is the malfunction/dysfunction table
built using table A1.6. Table A1.8 is the malfunction matrix when we vary the TTD
of the HPH1 1 ºC. Figures A1.1 and A1.2 show the impact on fuel analysis and the
irreversibility increase per component.
The highest malfunctions in table A1.7 corresponded to the boiler, HPH1 (the
inefficient component) and HPT1. The rest of the components were within simulator
accuracy (< 100 kW). Varying the heater TTD only affected the components
interacting with the heater. This inefficiency did not induce malfunctions in other
components.
Effect of an inefficiency in the high-pressure heater no.1 (HPH1)
F-P values in design (MCR case).

TABLE A1.1
F-P values in operation with 5º C TTD respect to design .
TABLE A1.2 Thermoeconomic diagnosis
KP matrix in design (MCR case).

TABLE A1.3
KP matrix with inefficiency in HPH1 (MCR case).
Variation of KP matrix when TTD in the HPH1 is 5 ºC higher than the expected.
TABLE A1.5
Irreversibility matrix with the inefficiency in HPH1.
Malfunction/Dysfunction matrix when the TTD in HPH1 is 5º C higher.

TABLE A1.7
Malfunction matrix when TTD in HPH1 is varied 1 ºC
Irreversibility analysis when the TTD in HPH1 is increased 5 ºC.

Impact on fuel analysis with an inefficiency in HPH1.
FIGURE A1.1
FIGURE A1.2
In the simulated intrinsic malfunction, increasing the TTD of the HPH1 by 5 ºC

(which could be interpreted as a problem in the heat transfer mechanism of the
heater), decreases more than expected the feedwater temperature leaving the heater.
The extraction flow to this heater also decreases (to meet the energy balance of the
heater). In any case, the inefficiency increases the irreversibility in the heater
(∆I = 16.5 kW, see table A1.7) when the temperature difference in the water tubes
increases. The first effect (a lower heating process in the heater) is more important
than the second (a lower extraction flow). Unit exergy consumption varied by
∆k = 0.020 (see table A1.5). The result of the inefficiency was a 223.6 kW intrinsic
malfunction (or an associated 272 kW impact on fuel).
The effect induced in the boiler is clear: if the feedwater leaves the heater at a lower
temperature, the boiler consumes additional fuel to maintain the live steam
conditions (which are fixed in the simulator and the real plant). The ∆ 〈KP〉
component, i.e. the variation of component unit exergy consumption (table A1.5)
was ∆k = 0.005. As the boiler product was very high (the heat transferred to the
feedwater was about 210 MW), the malfunction was 1,179 kW with an associated
830 kW impact on fuel. The total impact on fuel associated with this inefficiency
was 1,048 kW. In this case, the malfunction induced in the boiler was more
important than the intrinsic malfunction in the heater.
The amount of steam flowing in HPT1 was lower than in design, although this effect
disappears when HPH1 extraction was reduced. The steam flowing through the
second section of the HPH is maintained. The energy production in this section is
maintained, but the efficiency in this section is lightly decreased (the efficiency of
the Curtis blade is higher as the live steam flow grows), then the variation of the unit
exergy consumption of the section is ∆k = 0.0026, then we have a little malfunction
induced in this section of 130 kW, and an impact on fuel associated of 209 kW.
The dysfunctions due to the HPH1 inefficiency emphasizes the results of other
inefficiencies in the steam power plant: only the boiler and the condenser suffer
dysfunctions generated by component malfunctions (HPH1, boiler or HPT1). The
dysfunction generated in the boiler was positive. The φ coefficients were positive but
negative for the condenser, provoking a negative dysfunction. The junction J2
produced a –393 kW dysfunction in the boiler associated with its exergy unit
consumption variation. This variation is explained by the productive structure of the
steam power plant (see figure 7.5): feedwater heated in the boiler in one of the inlets
of that junction.
The power plant model varied linearly to a one degree change in the heater TTD
when comparing the amount of fuel saved. Figure A1.3 shows this effect for
electricity production in the extraction mode of the example (122 MW). The effect is
non-linear when TTD is negative and close to zero (the design TTD for this
operating condition is –1.7 ºC). The analysis could be performed avoiding this range
of temperature differences since the impact on fuel associated with the whole plant
can be less than 200 kW and the mathematical model cannot diagnose the
inefficiency with less than 100 kW accuracy.
FIGURE A1.3 Impact on fuel associated with a variation in the TTD of HPH1. 122 MW power plant production.

1200
kW
800
400
TTD (º C) in HPH1
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-400
-800
-1200
In any case, the observed trend could be used to apply the malfunction matrix to this
inefficiency. Some matrix components had large values. The condenser pump and
low-pressure heater No.2 were high due to the behavior of the mathematical model
at the condenser exit area (see section 4, mathematical model of the power plant).
The feed pump and deaerator also had considerable values due to the decrease in
feed water flow in the high-pressure zone (provoked by the HPH1 inefficiency).
FIGURE A1.4 Cost of electricity when varying TTD in HPH1 (MCR performance case).
Electricity cost
0,03790
$/kwh
0,03785
0,03780
0,03775
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
TTD (º C) in HPH1
The effect on the cost of electricity and water was not as important as the impact on
fuel associated with the inefficiency in the turbine section. It implied an additional
0.000009 $/kW·h in electricity and 0.00017 $/m3 in freshwater per degree Celsius in
the TTD of the HPH1. This could save 9,600 $ and 3,570 $ if the plant were
operating yearlong at these loads. Figures A1.4 and A1.5 refer to this assumption,
emphasizing the linearity of the model (except from –2 to 0 ºC).
FIGURE A1.5 Cost of water when varying TTD in the first HPH (MCR performance case).
Water cost
1,2730
$/m3
1,2725
1,2720
1,2715
1,2710
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
TTD (º C) in HPH1
In summary:
• the heater TTD affects heater behavior and components receiving feedwater
heated by the inefficient heater (the boiler). The inefficiency did not result only
local to its component, and the associated malfunctions were higher in other
components than the intrinsic one. The rest of the components were not
considerably affected compared to an inefficiency in the steam turbine sections.
• The impact on fuel associated with the additional cost of water or energy due to
the inefficiency was not important when compared with other inefficiencies (the
total saving of 14,000 $/y in both products could be obtained by decreasing the
TTD of the HPH1 by 1 ºC). This only refers to the range where the model
responds linearly to TTD variation (the variational analysis was assumed to be
linear). If the TTD is abnormally high, an excess heater level or excessive
heating in the economizers can lead to extreme induced malfunctions that can
not be calculated in the diagnosis (Valero, Torres and Lerch, 1999). Therefore,
heater TTD should be carefully controlled. A by-pass in one of the HPHs is a
very good example of heater inefficiency, but it is very difficult to simulate. The
model needs to be modified considerably to consider this inefficiency.
• The results of the HPH1 inefficiency could be extrapolated to HPH2, taking into
account the amount of heat transferred in the two heaters (usually the HPH2 uses
less steam to heat the feedwater). The effect on the boiler should also be
reduced.
Effect of feed pump isoentropic efficiency
A1.2 Effect of feed pump isoentropic efficiency

The feed pump pressurizes the feedwater before it enters the boiler. An inefficiency
inside the pump mechanism (assuming that the pump can supply the specified
pressure) only slightly increases feedwater temperature since the temperature rise in
pumping a liquid is also low. Therefore, this inefficiency should not induce
important malfunctions in other components. The most important consequence is
the significant increase in feed pump power consumption. Additional live steam is
required to maintain the net output power.
If the feed pump is coupled with an auxiliary turbine providing energy, an

inefficiency should affect other components because an abnormally functioning
auxiliary turbine would redistribute the flows in the steam/water cycle of the power
plant.
Feed pump behavior can be studied considering an isoentropic efficiency, a variable

that appears in our mathematical model. Pump efficiency decreased 12% with
respect to its characteristic curve at 122 MW (MCR performance case). The
inefficiency was also analyzed under different operating conditions (see
section 7.3.4). Tables A1.9 and A1.10 show the F-P values for design and operating
conditions. The 〈KP〉 matrices are written dividing fuels and the product of each
component (tables A1.11 and A1.12). After these matrices are built, the ∆ 〈KP〉
matrix and irreversibility matrix I are immediately processed, containing the unit
exergy costs of the components (tables A1.13 and A1.14). The malfunction/
dysfunction matrix with the dysfunction coefficients is included in table A1.15. The
malfunction matrix with the extra consumption when the pump isoentropic
efficiency increases 1% is finally included (table A1.16). Figures A1.6 and A1.7
show the impact on fuel and the irreversibility increase in all components for this
simulated inefficiency.
We will now explain the physical analysis using results from the inefficiency
diagnosis. The malfunction array demonstrates that the feed pump does not induce
any malfunction in the rest of the components. Only the boiler and the inefficient
component have a malfunction greater than 30 kW. The mechanical irreversibility
increases when the pump has serious problems to reach the demanded pressure.
These internal frictions also increase the temperature of the pressurized feedwater
leaving the pump. So, the thermal irreversibility also appears in the inefficiency and
the final reversibility increase was ∆I = 475 kW (see table A1.15). The unit exergy
consumption increase was obvious (∆k = 0.200, see table A1.13). The intrinsic
malfunction was therefore 409 kW, and the impact on fuel associated with the
inefficiency is 608 kW (the total impact on fuel taking for the whole system is
750 kW).
F-P design values.
F-P values with inefficiency in FP: -12% in its efficiciency.

TABLE A1.10
KP matrix when the inefficiency in FP is detected.

TABLE A1.12
Variation of the KP matrix when the FP is working improperly.
Irreversibility matrix with -12% in the FP efficiency.

TABLE A1.14
Dysfunction table and malfunction array when the FP is working with 12% lower efficiency.
Malfunction matrix when the efficiency of the FP varies 1%.

TABLE A1.16
354
FIGURE A1.6 Impact on fuel analysis when a inefficiency in FP is detected. Thermoeconomic diagnosis
FIGURE A1.7 Irreversibility analysis with the irreversibility in FP.

The malfunction induced in the boiler was mainly due to the large amount of
product it generates (210 MW), since its efficiency and unit exergy consumption are
not varied (the ∆k component is close to zero, see the ∆ 〈KP〉 matrix in table A1.13).
This provokes a malfunction of –80 kW and an impact on fuel of only –69 kW.
The irreversibility analysis shows that the dysfunctions associated with the boiler
and condenser were the highest (754 and –472 kW respectively) and were generated
by the feed pump. The weight coefficients φij (see table A1.14) were quite high in the
rows corresponding to boiler and condenser (the unit consumption was changed in
this case because the final products of these components had to increase 370 and
550 kW respectively to maintain the net output power). In these rows, the pump
inefficiency dysfunction was provoked by varying the unit exergy consumption of
components more related to other components (i.e., the boiler and the condenser).
Since the feed pump does not induce malfunctions and the model reacts linearly to
variations in pump efficiency, the malfunction matrix is an exact tool to quantify
additional fuel consumption for this inefficiency. Figure A1.8 demonstrates this
linear behavior at the extraction mode load (122 MW).
FIGURE A1.8 Effect of feed pump efficiency on fuel consumption. Variational study in the MCR performance
case.

800
kW
600
400
200
% eff. in FP
0
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-200
-400
-600
The cost of electricity and water as a function of feed pump inefficiency was very
clear and linear (see figures A1.9 and A1.10). We can save 0.000003 $/kW·h and
0.00006 $/m3 in electricity and freshwater production with a 1% increase in pump
efficiency. The relative effect on electricity (the effect per unit produced) is
supposedly greater than the effect on water. For a constant yearly production, a 1%
isoentropic efficiency implies a savings of 3,530 $/y in electricity and 1,260 $/y in
water.
FIGURE A1.9 Effect of pump inefficiency on electricity cost (MCR performance case).
Electricity cost
0,03784
$/kWh
0,03782
0,03780
0,03778
% eff. in FP
0,03776
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
FIGURE A1.10 Water cost when the efficiency of the feed pump is varied.
Water cost
1,2730
$/m3
1,2725
1,2720
1,2715
% eff. in FP
1,2710
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
The main results of the inefficiency analysis were:
• As expected, the effect of the feed pump inefficiency was only local. The
increase in feedwater temperature leaving the pump was almost insignificant.
The additional electrical consumption of the pump did not change the steam
cycle behavior. The additional fuel supplied the extra electrical consumption of
the feed pump. The effect of this inefficiency is not as important as inefficiencies
in other components, such as the steam turbine sections (less than 5,000 $/y in
the combined production of water and electricity).
• The feed pump is not strategic in a power plant. Its effects need only be
considered if an inefficiency stops the plant because of a broken pump
component (i.e. the linearity of the variational analysis is not valid).
• The product of the steam power plant must be the net output power. The effect of
this inefficiency is not clearly noted in the system if gross output power is
maintained.
Effect of an inefficiency in the first section of the high-pressure turbine (HPT1)
A1.3 Effect of an inefficiency in the first section of the

high-pressure turbine (HPT1)
The physical effects of an inefficiency in a turbine section are described in section
7.3.2.1 as intrinsic malfunctions (steam path degradation, etc). HPT1 contains the
governing section which is also affected by the control valves. Although the steam
power plant always works at constant pressure, an intrinsic malfunction in the Curtis
blade or wheels induces malfunctions downstream (see section 7.3.2.1). This varies
steam conditions downstream because the steam conditions exiting HPT1 are
changed, even though the HPT exhaust pressure remains constant. As this steam
passes through the rest of turbine sections, they should also be affected, although
their isoentropic efficiencies remain almost constant due to a constant pressure ratio.
Conditions of low-pressure steam are slightly varied as the HPT exhaust values are
sent to the MSF unit. The exhaust pressure remains constant by definition. The
system can only respond to the inefficiency by producing additional live steam to
maintain output power. This extra steam is proportionally spread over the steam
cycle so no new induced malfunctions (in pre-heaters or pumps) arise. The non-
inefficient turbine sections produce the power that the inefficient section cannot
produce.
HPT1 efficiency was varied to observe its effect on other plant components and
additional consumption. We considered a production of 122 MW in extraction mode
with a 5% decrease in isoentropic efficiency. The diagnosis was also developed at a
similar degree of inefficiency for 60 MW (parallel mode), 90 MW (extraction mode)
and 140 MW (condensing mode).
Tables A1.17-A1.24 show, step by step, the methodology applied in the previous
sections. Tables A1.17 and A1.18 are the F-P definition tables of the design and
inefficient situation, tables A1.19 and A1.20 are the 〈KP〉 matrices. The ∆ 〈KP〉
matrix and the irreversibility matrix are depicted in tables A1.21 and A1.22, and the
[DF] matrix and the malfunction matrix are shown in tables A1.23 and A1.24.
Figures A1.11 and A1.12 show the impact on fuel and irreversibility increase
analysis of the inefficiency.
An inefficiency in an component producing an important part of the final product

should have important consequences. Other components have to readapt the turbine
section to maintain electricity production and improve their efficiency (turbine
sections) or consume more resources (boiler). A inefficiency diagnosis will explain
these ideas.
F-P values without any inefficiency. MCR case.
F-P values when the HPT1 decreases 5% its efficiency (MCR case).
TABLE A1.18
KP matrix when the inefficiency in HPT1 is 5% in its efficiency.

TABLE A1.20
Variation of the KP with the inefficiency in HPT1 (MCR case).
Irreversibility matrix with the inefficiency in HPT1 (MCR case).

TABLE A1.22
Dysfunction/malfunction table when the efficiency of the HPT1 is decreased 5%.
Malfunction matrix when the efficiency of the HPT1 is varied 1%.

TABLE A1.24
366
FIGURE A1.11 Impact on fuel analysis when the HPT1efficiency is 5% less than the expected. Thermoeconomic diagnosis
FIGURE A1.12 Irreversibility analysis with the inefficiency in HPT1.

The malfunctions of this inefficiency will be analyzed using table A1.23. The
components with a malfunction that surpasses a non-negligible quantity are the
inefficient component (HPT1), the boiler and the MSF unit. First we will explain the
inefficient component. If the isoentropic efficiency of a turbine section decreases,
the expansion line is moved away from the reversible process. The irreversibility in
the section increases by 1,667 kW. Since the turbine exhaust has a higher enthalpy
(see the h-s diagram), the output power strongly decreases with respect to the design
situation (2,220 kW). This means that unit exergy consumption increases and the
product decreases. The ∆ 〈KP〉 component of HPT1 was ∆k = 0.039 (see table
A1.21). The intrinsic malfunction was 1,948 kW, and the impact on fuel due to the
inefficiency was 2,825 kW. Since the total impact on fuel in the plant was 3,732 kW,
this parameter could be considered local to the system.
However, the malfunction associated with the MSF unit is negative

(MF = --280 kW), if we assume that the water produced and the condensate returned
to the deaerator are constant. The is because the end point of the expansion line is
located in HPT. Steam leaving HPT has a higher enthalpy but also a higher entropy.
The energy needed by the MSF unit also increases, decreasing efficiency. The
generated negentropy in the MSF unit is considered a secondary product of the
component and is beneficial (see section 7.3.2.1), so the final variation of the unit
exergy consumption is negative (∆k = –0.041).
The malfunction associated with the boiler is also negative. As its product exergy
flow is huge, the induced malfunction is –242 kW, although its unit exergy
consumption did not change very much (∆k = –0.0011, see table A1.21). The reason
is the increased feedwater temperature entering the boiler due to the additional
steam required by the steam power plant to maintain the electricity production in the
inefficient situation. The additional fuel consumed is not used for the same
temperature rise in the boiler with respect to the design conditions. The impact on
fuel associated with the boiler is –175 kW, but the irreversibility in the component
increases 3,341 kW. The last assumption is a consequence of the dysfunction
analysis explained below.
The dysfunction analysis is quite similar to when other components suffer

inefficiencies. Once again, the two components suffering from the dysfunctions
generated by the components with an inefficiency are the boiler and the condenser.
In both components the highest dysfunction is provoked by the inefficient
component (2,616 kW for the boiler and –1,795 kW for the condenser), that is, the
component with the intrinsic and greatest malfunction. The sum of the dysfunctions
generated by the other components is the irreversibility increase associated with
each component. For example, the total dysfunction generated in the boiler is
3,583 kW and its production is increased by 1,790 kW to maintain the final
production of the power plant.
Figure A1.13 shows the linearity of the model when the isoentropic efficiency is
varied from –5 to +5 %, in extraction mode under MCR (122 MW), in this figure the
total impact on fuel associated to this inefficiency is analyzed.
FIGURE A1.13 Model linearity with respect to an inefficiency in HPT1.

4000
kW
3000
2000
1000
% eff. in HPT1
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
The model behaved more of less linearly to variations of the inefficiency using the
simulator. Thus, the malfunction matrix can be used to predict the impact on fuel.
Since the inefficiency does not provoke any important induced malfunctions in other
components, the malfunction matrix could also be used when several inefficiencies
are occurring in different components.
FIGURE A1.14 Cost of electricity depending on the degree of inefficiency applied to HPT1 (MCR case).
Electricity cost
0,0381
$/kWh
0,0380
0,0379
0,0378
0,0377
0,0376
% eff. in HPT1
0,0375
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
The cost of electricity and water as a function of the isoentropic efficiency of HPT1
illustrates its effect (see figures A1.14 and A1.15). A 1% decrease in the isoentropic
efficiency in HTP1 means an additional cost of 0.00004 $/kW·h (44,900 $/y) in
electricity and 0.0005 $/m3 in water (11,800 $/y). Clearly the inefficiency should be
Effect of inefficiency in the first section of the low-pressure turbine (LPT1)
corrected to avoid additional costs, because the first section is responsible for a high
percentage of the total electricity produced in the steam power plant.
FIGURE A1.15 Cost of water when the isoentropic efficiency is varied from –5% to 5% with respect to design
efficiency (MCR case).
Water cost
1,275
$/m3
1,274
1,273
1,272
1,271
1,270
1,269
% eff. in HPT1
1,268
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
The most important results derived from the analysis of this inefficiency include:
• HPT1 is very important in terms of additional fuel consumption and cost of

water and electricity (more than 55,000 $/y savings in the two products when the
inefficiency is improved by only 1%).
• The steam conditions exiting HPT1 also affect (to a lesser degree) some other
components receiving that steam, i.e. the MSF unit. In any case, the inefficiency
could be considered local to the turbine section.
• The HPT1 inefficiency should be avoided, even if the turbine needs repair to
prevent against inefficiencies or failures, since the savings would be quickly
recovered.
A1.4 Effect of inefficiency in the first section of the low-

pressure turbine (LPT1)
The low-pressure turbine has only two sections in the power plant configuration.
Unless the plant is working at condensing mode, the amount of steam sent to this
turbine is very low. Thus, an inefficiency in this section should have less effect than
other inefficiencies in the turbine sections. The induced malfunctions should be
detected in the second section of the low-pressure turbine. The degradation process
could be accelerated if the last section of the low-pressure turbine has to work as a
compressor when the amount of steam diverted to this section is so low that the
steam cannot overcome the mechanical losses of the turbine. But this section also
suffers from induced malfunctions form HPT (according to the definition of induced
and intrinsic malfunctions by Royo (1994) for a steam turbine). The amount of
steam to the MSF unit gives the pressure of the steam leaving the high-pressure
turbine. Some part of this steam is also introduced in the low-pressure turbine.
Finally, the atmospheric conditions control the exhaust pressure of the turbine
making the behavior of this section strongly dependent the ambient temperature.
This inefficiency analysis was performed for the MCR case (122 MW power
production with an extraction to the MSF unit of 89.68 kg/s). The physical effects of
these inefficiencies were translated into malfunctions and additional fuel
consumption. The isoentropic efficiency of this section was 15% lower than the
design efficiency (about the 76%).
Tables A1.25 and A1.26 show the F-P values of the simulation corresponding to the
design and inefficient cases. If we apply the analysis for other operating modes
(condensing or parallel mode, or 140 and 60 MW of output power, respectively), the
productive structure changes (see section 7.1), and the F-P definitions and the rest of
matrices are different than in these examples. Tables A1.27 and A1.28 include the
〈KP〉 matrices dividing the fuels and products of each component. Table A1.29 is the
∆ 〈KP〉 matrix composed by the subtraction of the two last matrices, and table A1.30
is the irreversibility matrix |I〉. Finally, table A1.31 is the dysfunction/malfunction
table, and table A1.32 is the malfunction matrix associated with the inefficiency in
LPT1. Figures A1.16 and A1.17 include the impact on fuel and the increase of
irreversibility.
An inefficiency in LPT1 is less important than in HPT1 in a co-generation plant. The

HPT does not detect an inefficiency. The conditions of the steam downstream the
inefficient component do vary but the exhaust pressure is controlled by the external
temperature and does not vary, although the exhausted vapor to the condenser can
vary its humidity. Some other turbine sections have to readapt their production to
produce the electricity required, as their efficiencies do not vary when some amount
of extra live steam is demanded to the boiler.
In the malfunction array of this inefficiency, the inefficient component (LPT1) and
the first section of the high-pressure turbine have a higher malfunction than the
minimum accuracy of the simulator. The physical interpretation of these
malfunctions will be connected. The irreversibility of the steam expansion increases
in the inefficient component of LTP1 (∆I = 2,062 kW, see table A1.31), when the
isoentropic efficiency decreases. The electricity production of the component
reduces by 1,230 kW, and its variation of unit exergy consumption is ∆k = 0.522
(see table A1.29). The last assumptions result in an intrinsic malfunction (that is, the
malfunction created in the inefficient component of a system) of 3,408 kW. The total
malfunction associated with the whole plant is 3,260 kW. Clearly this inefficiency
does not provoke any induced malfunctions in the rest of the plant components.
F-P values in design (MCR case).

TABLE A1.25
F-P values with the inefficiency in LPT1, MCR case.
KP matrix in design, MCR case.

TABLE A1.27
KP matrix when the efficiency in the LPT1 is decreased 15%, MCR case.
Variation of the KP matrix with an inefficiency in LPT1, MCR case.

TABLE A1.29
Irreversibility matrix with the efficiency of the LPT1 decreased 15%, MCR case.
Dysfunction/malfunction table for an inefficiency in the LPT1 (15%), MCR case.

TABLE A1.31
Malfunction matrix when the efficiency of the LPT1 is varied 1%, MCR case.
Impact on fuel analysis, section A1.4.
Irreversibility analysis in section A1.4.

FIGURE A1.16
FIGURE A1.17
HPT1 has a negative malfunction of 215 kW and ∆k = –0.004 (see table A1.29).
This negative value is explained in the mathematical model of the steam turbine. The
amount of steam entering the Curtis blade is higher than expected and the section
operates more efficiently when the steam leaving this section is slightly increased.
The total impact on fuel associated with this effect was –281 kW.
The dysfunction analysis applied to this inefficiency is very illustrative. Only the
boiler and condenser suffer dysfunctions generated by the components with
malfunctions: HPT1 and LTP1. In both cases these components have to readapt
production by 1,470 and 2,430 kW respectively, to maintain the additional
production required by the first section of the low-pressure turbine. Since these two
components redistribute their products over the rest of the components, their φij
coefficients are not zero. If there is a ∆kij coefficient whose value is not zero, the
dysfunction generated by the last component in the first two components is
significant. The rest of components do not have any important dysfunction worth
mentioning in our analysis.
Figure A1.18 shows the effect of varying the efficiency in this turbine section around
the design point. The efficiency was varied from –15 to +15% with respect to this
point. Since the model was linear with respect to the inefficiency, the malfunction
matrix (table A1.32) can be used to quantify the additional fuel consumption by
multiplying this matrix by the product and the unit exergy cost of every component.
With this inefficiency there were no induced malfunctions (isolated component),
making the malfunction matrix an exact guide to predict the increment on fuel
consumption.
FIGURE A1.18 Effect on the fuel consumption when the degree of inefficiency in the LPT1 is varied from the
design point (MCR case).

4000
kW
2000
% eff. in LPT1
0
-15 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15
-2000
-4000
The monetary cost (including the capital cost and device maintenance) of water and
electricity is one of the consequences of the diagnosis of the plant with respect to an
component inefficiency. Figures A1.19 and A1.20 show how the cost in electricity
increases 0.000015 $/kWh and the water increases 0.00006 $/m3 when the LTP1
isoentropic efficiency decreases by 1%. In a year, at 122 MW and 2,400 T/h,
15,000 $ and 1,280 $ are saved in electricity and water costs.
FIGURE A1.19 Cost of electricity for inefficiencies in LPT1 (MCR case).
Electricity cost
0,0381
$/kWh
0,0379
0,0377
% eff. in LPT1
0,0375
-15 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15
FIGURE A1.20 Water cost per cubic meter for inefficiencies in LPT1. 122 MW in extraction mode (MCR case).
Water cost
1,2730
$/m3
1,2725
1,2720
1,2715
1,2710
% eff. in LPT1
1,2705
-15 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15
This section demonstrated that:
• The behavior of LPT1 is linear when its efficiency is varied within allowable
limits. It does not induce any significant malfunctions in other plant components,
following the trend in other examples.
• As predicted in the first paragraph of this section, the cost of water and
electricity were not affected as much as by inefficiencies in HPT (only 16,300 $/
y are saved in both products if the isoentropic efficiency is improved 1%).
Therefore, the effect of an inefficiency in the turbine is proportional to the
amount of steam entering the turbine section.
• The most dangerous problem associated with inefficiencies in LPT is the steam
quality when the efficiency is increased. Low quality steam can damage the
wheels of the condensing turbine. The variational analysis can also be broken
when the inefficiency provokes a non-linear system response.
A1.5 Effect of the cleaning ball system in the recovery

section
The recovery section is the most important component of the MSF unit. Therefore,
the cleaning ball system inside the distiller tubes could provoke several malfunctions
in other plant components. In this section we analyze the fouling reduction effect.
The benefits of reducing fouling in the reject section can be translated into the
physical response of the MSF unit. First, an analysis was done keeping the control
parameters constant (SR, R, F). If the fouling is decreased in the recovery section,
heat transfer inside the tubes is increased and the inter-stage temperature difference
between the vapor and cooling brine decreases. This raises the temperature of
cooling brine and decreases the flashing brine and released vapor. But the cooling
brine goes to the brine heater since it is hotter than in design. Finally, the cooling
brine flow enters the recovery section at a higher temperature than expected. In the
final stages of the recovery section, both distillate and flashing temperatures are
reduced by the effect of the fouling inside the recovery tubes. The flash range of the
distillers is increased in the two limits and the distillate produced in the MSF unit is
higher than in design. The control parameters of the MSF unit (seawater to reject
SR, recycle brine R or make-up feed F) must be reduced if the distillate product is to
be maintained (although the distillate temperature leaving the unit could be reduced)
and, indirectly, the amount of steam consumed in the heater. The diagnosis
mathematically explains the physical effects.
Tables A1.33 and A1.34 show the F-P definition matrices following the productive
structure in section 7.1. Then, the 〈KP〉 matrices from the last two matrices (tables
A1.35 and A1.36) are shown. The ∆ 〈KP〉 matrix (table A1.37) is obtained by
subtracting tables A1.35 and A1.36. The irreversibility matrix |I〉 (table A1.38) and
the malfunction/dysfunction table is shown in table A1.39. The example analyzed
produced 1.900 T/h with 32 ºC seawater (nominal-temperature operation of the MSF
distillers in summer). Figures A1.21 and A1.22 show the impact on fuel analysis and
the increase of the irreversibility in the MSF components.
Effect of the cleaning ball system in the recovery section
F-P values in design, NTOS case.

TABLE A1.33
F-P values with fouling in RCS=0, NTOS case.
KP matrix in design, NTOS case.

TABLE A1.35
KP matrix with an inefficiency in RCS, NTOS case.
Impact on fuel analysis in section A1.5.
Irreversibility increase in section A1.5.

FIGURE A1.21
FIGURE A1.22
In the malfunction analysis, only the inefficient component has an intrinsic

malfunction of –1,570 kW. This low value can be explained physically. The fouling
reduction inside the recovery tubes improves the heat transfer coefficient in those
stages, reducing the thermal irreversibility (∆I = –2,132 kW, see table A1.39) and
also the flows recirculating in the recovery section in order to maintain final
production. This means that the variation of the unit exergy consumption is
∆k = --0.194, see table A1.37. The impact on fuel associated with the inefficient
component is –4,279 kW.
The brine heater has an induced malfunction of –626 kW. The brine entering the
heater has a higher temperature due to improved heat transmission in the recovery
section, but the temperature entering the distiller is reduced by 0.3 ºC. The brine
heater needs less steam to heat the cooling brine, considering that the recycle brine
flow is also reduced to maintain distillate production. This means that the
irreversibility generated in the heater is also reduced by ∆I = –1,131 kW, and
therefore the variation of the unit exergy consumption (the ∆ 〈KP〉 coefficient is
∆k = –0.0149, see table A1.37).
The inefficiency in the recovery induces a –540 kW malfunction in the reject

section. The distillate flow leaving the section depends on the temperature of the
flashing brine and distillate entering the plant (both temperatures decrease 2.6 ºC)
and the recycle brine to the distiller (which is reduced 263 T/h). The energy required
to produce the distillate is lower than the design value and the irreversibility
generated in this section (∆I = –554 kW, see table A1.39). The unit exergy
consumption of the reject is reduced because the amount of resources to distillate
the freshwater is lower (∆k = –0.079, see table A1.37). As the distillate is produced
at a considerable exergy cost (see the last row of table A1.38 for the exergy cost of
each component), 5,408 kW of fuel was saved with this induced malfunction.
The component suffering the highest malfunction is the fictitious device (FD),
included in the productive structure to quantify the flows sent to sea: blowdown and
reject cooling seawater. The malfunction associated with this component (7,850 kW,
see table A1.39) can only be explained by the thermoeconomic model. Its product
(the fuel consumed in the MSF unit to produce freshwater, i.e. the steam coming
from the steam power plant) is obviously decreased with the use of the cleaning ball
system. The exergy flow of the steam to the MSF unit decreases 9,250 kW. The
increase in unit exergy consumption is ∆k = 0.170 and the impact on fuel associated
with this component is 13,249 kW. It is clearly not convenient to use non-physical
components in the productive structure of the system because their associated
malfunctions and dysfunctions are quite difficult to explain physically.
Variation of the KP matrix when the fouling in RCS is neglected.

TABLE A1.37
Irreversibility matrix without fouling in RCS.
Dysfunction/malfunction table without fouling in RCS, NTOS case.

TABLE A1.39
The mixer is also a non-physical device in the last stage of the reject section. It
models the mixing process between the make-up feed and the brine flashing in the
last stage of the reject section. It has a negative induced malfunction of 765 kW due
to the reduction of irreversibility generated (∆I = –735 kW, see table A1.39) in the
mixing process (the two mixed flows are reduced in quantity and energy). The
efficiency of the process is therefore improved, with a unit exergy consumption
variation of ∆k = –0.013 (see table A1.37). The impact on fuel associated with the
‘benefunction’ in the mixer is –996 kW.
Now the dysfunction analysis will be introduced. Components suffering a important

malfunction clearly induce a large dysfunction in the rest of components. For
example, the main dysfunctions in the fictitious device are generated by itself
(5,016 kW), the heater (–1,226 kW), the recovery section (–2,534 kW), the mixer
(--212 kW) and the reject section (–3,022 kW). The value of the dysfunction is
proportional to the malfunction in each component. The dysfunction in a component
due to the junctions of the productive structure must be distributed to the
components supplying the junction. The total dysfunctions generated by each
component were 5,398 kW for the FD, –1,263 kW for the heater, –2,708 kW for the
recovery section, –230 kW for the mixer and finally –4,867 kW for the reject
section. The temperature profile change in the distillers provokes differences in the
exergy of products leaving each component to readapt the final production of
distilled water.
The previous analysis kept the final product of the system constant (distillate water).
As mentioned in previous sections, the simulator can maintain the mass flow rate in
the distiller but it cannot maintain the exergy of this flow. As in this case, the
temperature of distillate leaving the MSF unit is reduced by 1.3 ºC. The impact on
fuel associated with the variation of the final product is an astonishing –4,337 kW!
This value is similar to the total impact on fuel associated with the unit exergy
consumption variation inside the MSF unit (–5,336 kW).
The variational analysis of this inefficiency involves the linear behavior of the
model, as in the figure A1.23, where the total impact on fuel saved (including the
final product variation) with decreased fouling is depicted from the design value to
total absence. In this section we analyzed nominal production (1,900 T/h) with 32 ºC
seawater and the typical exergy costs of electricity and steam obtained in the power
plant analysis.
The inefficiency diagnosis can also be quantified in monetary terms. The cost of
water depending on fouling helps plant managers develop a maintenance plan to
operate under the best conditions. In this case (see figure A1.24) the cost of a cubic
meter of water decreased 0.0069 $ when the fouling in this section decreased
0.00001 m2·K/W. This value is very high (115,000 $ a year) and implies that the
cleaning ball system should always operate in the recovery section.
FIGURE A1.23 Effect on fuel consumption when the fouling in recovery section is gradually decreased. 1,900 T/
h and 32º C seawater.
fouling*10-5 in RC
0
0 3 6 9 12 15
-4000
-8000
-12000
-16000
-20000
kW Inc. fuel consumption
-24000
FIGURE A1.24 Cost of a cubic meter of water depending on the fouling in the recovery section.
Water cost
1,48
$/m3
1,45
1,42
1,39
fouling*10-5 in RC
1,36
0 3 6 9 12 15
The malfunction matrix (table A1.40) of the MSF unit with this inefficiency is a
good tool to calculate the effect on natural gas. The malfunction matrix can be used
because the model is linear with respect to the fouling in recovery. But the induced
malfunctions produced by this inefficiency imply that the malfunction matrix can
only be used for individual malfunctions.
Malfunction matrix when the fouling in RCS is varied 0.00001 m2 K/W.
Effect of reject section fouling
Summarizing the results:
• The change of the temperature profile by the fouling in the main flows of the
MSF plant is responsible for the induced malfunctions in the distillers. Thus,
each malfunction should be dealt individually. The values of the induced
malfunctions surpass the intrinsic malfunction because the flows leaving and
entering the recovery section also pass through the reject or brine heater. The
dysfunctions generated in the different components are also very important.
• The increased heat transfer increases the production rate per stage in the distiller.
This reduces the amount of resources to produce the same distillate. Since the
cleaning ball system obviously saves fuel (115,000 $/y), it should operate
continuously.
• A large part of fuel saved with this inefficiency is due to the lower temperature
of the distillate leaving the plant. But, in fact, the distillate temperature is now
irrelevant (unless this energy is used by another process). So, this effect should
not be considered during the analysis, although that temperature has a direct
relationship with the other distiller temperatures.
A1.6 Effect of reject section fouling

Usually the cleaning ball system is not installed in the reject section since its
seawater operating temperatures do not produce any scaling problems. But the
biological activity of seawater intake can lead to dangerous bio-fouling in this
section. The effect of installing a cleaning ball system here is similar to the recovery
section. It reduces the interstage difference because the distillate temperature
decreases and the cooling brine is heated to a higher temperature. Since the seawater
temperature is imposed by the environment, the distillate temperature is forced to
decrease when the heat transfer coefficient of each stage is increased, because the
fouling inside the tubes is neglected. In this case, the flash range of the plant ∆T is
higher because the lower limit of this range is decreased. A higher flash range
implies a higher distillation per stage. If the control parameters of the plant are
maintained, it can only produce additional freshwater with the help of the cleaning
ball system. A lower recycle (R), seawater to reject (SR) and make-up feed (F) flow
are needed to maintain the distillate production.
As the brine heater is so far from the reject section, the temperature profiles of the
cooling brine entering and leaving the heater do not vary considerably. The
performance indexes or steam consumption of the plant are not expected to greatly
improve.
This system should not be used for several reasons based on thermoeconomic
criteria. The example is the same as in previous sections: a water production of
1.900 T/h with 32 ºC seawater and a fouling factor reduced to zero. Tables A1.41
and A1.42 show the F-P definition applied to the design and inefficient case, tables
A1.43 and A1.44 are the ∆ 〈KP〉 matrix made by using the previous tables, table
A1.45 is the ∆ 〈KP〉 matrix and table A1.46 is the irreversibility matrix I containing
the dysfunction coefficients and the exergy cost array. The dysfunction/malfunction
matrix [DF]/MF is the table that resumes the final results of the thermoeconomic
diagnosis applied to this inefficiency (table A1.47). The impact on fuel and the
increase of irreversibility per component are shown in figures A1.25 and A1.26
respectively.
Although the reject section has three stages, the effect of fouling should be identical
to the effect observed in the recovery section (17 stages). In this case, the
temperature of cooling brine entering the distiller is given by the ambient
conditions. The flashing and distillate temperatures would try to reach the cooling
temperature flowing inside the tubes if the heat transfer were an ideal process. The
symbolic formulation of thermoeconomics will give us the effects provoked by this
inefficiency in the MSF unit.
The most significant malfunctions are yet again located in the fictitious device,
heater, recovery and reject sections and the mixer. The inefficient component
analysis considers the cleaning ball system installed in the reject section.
Suprisingly, the associated malfunction with no fouling in the reject is positive
(49 kW). The ∆ 〈KP〉 component corresponding to its exergy unit consumption is
∆k = 0.007 (see table A1.45). But this result is provoked by the assumptions adopted
in the thermoeconomic model of the reject section. The part of the unit exergy
consumption corresponding to the efficiency of the process (or the heat transfer
improvement) is logically lower than the design situation (∆k1 = –0.024). But the
steam and brine needed for maintaining the vacuum inside the chambers is more or
less independent from the distillate produced (i.e. is a constant value). As the
product of the reject section decreases (the distillate temperature leaves the section
at a lower temperature), the unit exergy consumption due to the vacuum system is
∆k2 = 0.031. Clearly the general services of the MSF unit are not affected by an
intrinsic inefficiency but they have to consider product variation in order to account
for its contribution to the final cost of water.
The brine heater is located on the other side of the MSF plant. The effect of the
inefficiency in the reject section also affects this component because the recycled
brine heated in the brine heater comes from the reject section. The recycle brine
flowing in the recovery section is reduced by 195 T/h and the cooling brine heating
is reduced by 227 kW. The temperature difference in the first stage of the recovery
section is improved by 0.1 ºC. So, heater efficiency decreases and the variation of
the unit exergy consumption is positive (∆k = 0.0044, see table A1.45). The
malfunction is MF = 185 kW and an irreversibility increase in the heater of
∆I = 468 kW (see table A1.47).
F-P values in design, NTOS case.

TABLE A1.41
F-P values when the fouling in RJS=0, NTOS case.
KP matrix in design, NTOS case.

TABLE A1.43
KP matrix with the inefficiency in RJS, NTOS case.
Variation of the KP matrix when the inefficiency in RJS is detected.

TABLE A1.45
Irreversibility matrix corresponding to reject fouling in RJS, NTOS case.
Dysfunction/malfunction table when the fouling in RJS=0.

TABLE A1.47
Increase of irreversibility in section A1.6.

Impact on fuel analysis, section A1.6.
FIGURE A1.25
FIGURE A1.26
As seen for the brine heater, the cleaning ball system in the reject section induces an
unexpected 1,800 kW positive malfunction in the recovery section. This result will
be described analytically. The temperature of water leaving the distiller is reduced
by 1.7 ºC (remember that the cleaning ball system in the reject decreases the
distillate profile in the reject section and, therefore, in the last section of the recovery
distiller). In general, since the heat transfer coefficient is higher at high
temperatures, the thermal irreversibility increases in the recovery section
(∆I = 2,079 kW, see table A1.47). As the product of the section decreases, the
variation of the unit exergy consumption is positive (∆k = 0.223, see table A1.45).
The impact on fuel associated with this induced malfunction is 4,248 kW.
The malfunction associated with the fictitious device is –788 kW. Two fuels enter
this component in the productive structure of the MSF unit, one is the exergy of the
blowdown leaving the recovery section. This exergy is reduced because the
temperature of the flashing brine decreases 1.8 ºC when leaving the reject section.
So, the unit exergy consumption of the component is lower than in design
(∆k = --0.017, see table A1.47). As demonstrated, a lower temperature of the
blowdown rejected to the sea at least implies a lower cost in the water production.
Finally, the mixer has an induced malfunction of 1,208 kW, with a very clear
physical explanation. The temperatures of the make-up and flashing brine to
blowdown are similar in the reference case but these temperatures are separated with
the cleaning ball system in the reject section. The irreversibility generated in the
mixing process is higher although those two flows are reduced to maintain the final
production in the MSF plant (∆I = 1,191 kW, see table A1.47). The variation of the
unit exergy consumption in the idealized component was ∆k = 0.0204 (see table
A1.45). The additional fuel necessary for this component provoked by the cleaning
ball system in RJS was 1,868 kW.
In the dysfunction analysis, only the fictitious device had an important dysfunction
generated by the inefficient components (total dysfunction was 3,283 kW). This
component reduces its product by only 64 kW, however the final reduction in the
distillate exergy flow is 482 kW.
Although the plant diagnosis suggests that the MSF unit is working at a poorer
efficiency (the impact on fuel associated with the unit exergy consumption variation
was 6,394 kW), this analysis considered a constant total production. The
temperature of the distillate leaving the MSF unit is 1.8 ºC lower than expected in
design. This means that total production is not constant and the last term in equation
(6.41) cannot be neglected. The impact on fuel associated with this variation is
calculated by multiplying the total product variation by the exergy unit cost of the
product. In this case 6,768 kW of fuel were saved (in the case of the power plant, the
term of the product variation can usually be neglected because it is normally less
than 20 kW). The total amount of fuel saved with this inefficiency is 374 kW, by
combining the two effects. Therefore, the cleaning ball system also benefits the MSF
unit, as well as the heater and recovery section.
Figure A1.26 shows the effect of fouling in the reject section when we gradually
decrease to zero the design value (0.000018 m2 K/W). If the thermoeconomic model
is linear with respect the variational analysis of the fouling, the malfunction matrix
could be used to predict the impact on fuel associated with the desired variation of
the fouling of this component (if known).
If the model responds linearly, the total cost of water (includes capital and
maintenance costs) must also increase linearly depending on the degree of
inefficiency (see figure A1.27). Each cubic meter of water increases 0.00012 $ when
the fouling factor in the reject distiller increases 0.00001 m2 K/W. Yearly freshwater
production would involve an additional cost of 2,000 $ with this small variation in
reject fouling.
FIGURE A1.27 Effect on fuel consumption when the fouling in reject is varied. Nominal-temperature operation in
summer (NTOS, i.e., 1,900 T/h and 32 ºC seawater temperature).
fouling*10-5 in RJ
0
kW
0 3 6 9 12 15 18
-100
-200
-300
-400
-500
The linearity of the model with respect to fouling variation is shown in figure A1.28.
The malfunction matrix (table A1.48) can be used to predict the impact on fuel
consumed with the inefficiency. But the induced malfunctions provoked by
temperature variation in the rest of components implies that the analysis for several
inefficiencies has different results than the individual analysis of those inefficiencies.
So, the malfunction matrix can only be used to predict specific inefficiencies.
Important errors may arise if it is used for several inefficiencies.
The most important results derived from the analysis of the fouling in recovery
section are :
• Fouling increases the flash range of the plant and, therefore, the distillate
production if the same control parameters of the plant are maintained. Input
conditions must be relaxed to maintain the final production of freshwater.
Summary
FIGURE A1.28 Variation of the water cost when fouling in the reject section is decreased from the design value
to zero.
Water cost
1,474
$/m3
1,473
1,472
fouling*10-5 in RJ
1,471
0 3 6 9 12 15 18
• The inefficiency negatively affects the rest of the MSF components (see the
malfunctions induced in other components in table A1.47). Furthermore, the
benefit is due to the lower temperature of the freshwater produced, although the
plant is not working more efficiently (the impact on fuel associated with the unit
exergy consumption variation is positive). The cost of water is not reduced very
much with the cleaning ball system.
• The cleaning ball system is not recommended for the reject section. It is very
difficult to install there (it is an open circuit in which some of the cooling brine is
rejected to the sea), and the low temperatures do not provoke serious scaling
problems in this section. Feed chlorination is a simpler solution to avoid possible
biological fouling (which depends on seawater intake conditions).
A1.7 Summary
Thermoeconomic diagnosis of the dual-purpose plant for the inefficiencies in
section 7.3 was completed in this annex for the most representative load in the
power and desalination plant. The symbolic formulation of the Structural Theory of
Thermoeconomics provides a lot of information and explains the physical
consequences expected with the inefficiency.
Inefficiencies studied in steam power plant are local to the components suffering the
inefficiency, but in the desalination plant the main units of the system are connected
by the cooling brine, flashing brine and distillate, where any inefficiency is easily
distributed over the rest of the plant components.
Malfunction matrix when the fouling in RJS is varied 0.00001 m2 K/W.
ANNEX 2
Thermodynamic properties
of seawater
Below are the models and correlations of the thermodynamic properties needed to
simulate the MSF desalination plant, except for the properties previously described
by the auxiliary equations (Chapter 3).
A2.1 Specific enthalpy h of superheated or saturated vapor

We used equations from Badr, Probert and O’Callaghan (1990), from formulations
by Keenan and Keyes (1955, 1969) and conveniently expressed for computer
calculation (Schnakel, 1958). The temperature and pressure range was valid below
the critical point.
Units: International System
 B0  -------------------------
2
-
p p
h = F + 101.31558 F 0  ---------------------- + ------
 101325.0T 
 101325.0 2
2
 p 
– B 6 + B 0  B 2 – B 3 + B 0 B 7 -------------------------- 
 101325.0T 
where
 
 B0 p  B0 p  2 
B – B 0  1 + ------------------------ B 2 – B 3 + ---------------------- ( B4 – B5 ) 
 101325T
 101325T 2 
 

Thermodynamic properties of seawater
B0 = 1.89 – B1
2641.62 80870 ⁄ T2
B 1 = ------------------- 10
T
B2 = 82.546
162470
B 3 = ------------------
T
B4 = 0.21828 T
126970
B 5 = ------------------
T
B6 = B0 B3 – 2 F0 (B2 – B3)
B7 = 2 F0 (B4 – B5) – B0 B5
F 0 = 1.89 – B 1  ------------------ + 2 
372420
 2 
T
F = 1804036.3 + 1472.265 T + 0.37789824 T2 + 47845.137 ln T.
A2.2 Specific entropy of superheated or saturated vapor

Term ß was added to those in section A2.1. The specific entropy s of superheated
vapor was:
s = 1472.626 ln T – 461.4874 ln p + 0.7557174 T + 3830.4065
47845.076
– ------------------------- – 101.31344 β
T
where
1  B0 2 B0 p 2
β = ---  ( B 0 – F 0 ) ------------------ + ------  ----------------------   B 6 + ---  ----------------------  
p p 1
T  101325 2  101325T   2  101325T  

B 0 ( B 4 – B 5 ) – 2B 7 

Specific volume of superheated or saturated vapor
A2.3 Specific volume of superheated or saturated vapor

Using B from section A2.1, the specific volume v of pure water was:
 461539.453T 
v = 1.00035 ⋅ 10 −3  + B
 p 
A2.4 Latent heat vaporization of water as a function of

boiling temperature
Below the atmospheric boiling point (373.15 K), latent heat of vaporization λs was
(SI units):
( ) (
λ s = h T, ps ( T ) − 4.186 T − 273.15 )
where h was solved in section A2.1 and ps in section 3.3.6.
The Fish & Lielmezs correlation (Reid, Prausnitz and Sherwood, 1977) was used in
the range 373.15 < T < 450 K:
 ℵ + ℵ 0.35298 
λ s = 6051.1583  -------------------------------  T
 1 + ℵ 0.13856 
where
ℵ = 1.3615467  -----------------------
647.3 – T
 T 
The Carruth & Kobayashi correlation (Reid et al., 1977) was used for
450 < T < 647.3 K:
T 0.354 T 0.456
λ s = 2115173.3  1 – -------------  + 1125343.9  1 – ------------- 
 647.3   647.3 
A2.5 Seawater exergy
A2.5.1 Theory
Mass flow and five parameter measurements characterize the different stages of
seawater: pressure, temperature, altitude, velocity and composition (Zaleta, Ranz
and Valero, 1998). The exergy method associates each parameter with its exergetic
component: mechanical, thermal, potential, kinetic and chemical, respectively.
These components help to quantify some quality and quantity aspects of seawater.
The information provided by the exergy method also clarifies concepts related to the
seawater availability.
Ambient reference
The first step in developing the analytic exergy methodology is to establish the
ambient reference (AR) for seawater comparison. The AR must be relatively
abundant with respect to the rest of the systems or subsystems. The thermodynamic
equilibrium conditions of AR must resemble a closed system; therefore, the system
brought to AR conditions will undergo a series of physical-chemical changes.
Authors sometimes call this the ‘dead state’, because it is a zero exergy state
(although its energy is different than zero).
AR may be chosen in different ways to establish thermodynamic equilibrium.

Ahrendts (1980) proposes an approximation of the “dead” ambient of Earth if it
were thermodynamically isolated from the rest of the universe. When we impose
restrictions on the method (excluding HNO3 formation and its products), the
resulting AR composition is very similar to the real physical ambient. Liquid AR is
mainly seawater with more than 99% of the system's total mass. On the other hand,
Szargut (1980) proposes an AR that is more similar to the real physical ambient in
nature and independent of the process or system under consideration. This is more
convenient to exegetically analyze systems classified as natural resources.
We used the AR proposed by Szargut to analyze seawater. The AR in the liquid

phase corresponded to seawater composition at main ambient temperature and sea
level atmospheric pressure. The seawater composition for the AR proposed by
Szargut (1989) is shown in the next table.
Seawater exergy
TABLE A2.1 Liquid phase composition of Reference Ambient (Szargut, 1989; Morris, and Szargut, 1986).
Chemical element Molality (mol/kg)

Ag (s) 2.7 × 10–9
As (s) 2.1 × 10–8
Au (s) 5.8 × 10–11
B (s) 3.4 × 10–4
Ba (s) 1.4 × 10–7
Bi (s) 1.0 × 10–10
Br2 (l) 8.7 × 10–4
Ca (s) 9.6 × 10–3
Cd (s) 6.9 × 10–11
Cl2 (g) 0.5657
Co (s) 6.8 × 10–9
Cs (s) 2.3 × 10–9
Cu (s) 7.3 × 10–10
F2 (g) 3.87 × 10–5
Hg (l) 3.4 × 10–10
I2 (s) 5.2 × 10–7
K (s) 1.04 × 10–2
Li (s) 2.5 × 10–5
Mg (s) 4.96 × 10–2
Mn (s) 7.5 × 10–9
Mo (s) 1.1 × 10–7
Na (s) 0.474
Ni (s) 1.2 × 10–7
P (s) 4.9 × 10–7
Pb (s) 4.2 × 10–11
Rb (s) 1.42 × 10–6
S (s) 1.17 × 10–2
Se (s) 1.2 × 10–9
Sr (s) 8.7 × 10–5
W (s) 5.6 × 10–10
Zn (s) 1.7 × 10–8
Seawater availability: exergy function
The availability of a renewable resource can be understood as ‘how accessible is it’.

In order to be used, a resource must be changed chemically and physically to the
required conditions (e.g., for human consumption, water must be extracted from a
river or sea, be purified and sent to end users).
The analogy between the availability of a natural resource and exergy helps relate
each resource parameter with its exergy components. As the exergy method is
conditioned by a Stable Reference Environment (SRE) —dead state conditions—
the SRE proposed by Szargut (1980) is the most convenient (the most similar to the
real physical environment of Earth).
In the case of seawater, the exergy method is useful to quantify the ‘availability’ of a
sea, with respect to the defined SRE. By applying the exergy model (Gaggioli, 1980)
in terms of temperature, pressure, height, velocity and composition, and assuming
seawater is an incompressible liquid and dilute substance, the specific exergy can be
used in terms of its components for each seawater property (thermal, mechanical,
chemical, kinetic and potential components, respectively):
Ta
b a, r = CP H2 O T a – T r – T r Ln ----- + v H2 O ( P a – P r )
Tr
(A2.1)
1 2 2
+ ∑ x i, r ( µ i, a – µ i, r ) --- ( c a – c r ) + g ( z a – z r )
2
i
According to equation (A2.1), the thermal exergy component depends on the heat
capacity of the aqueous solution and its absolute temperature Ta. The mechanical
exergy component is calculated from the specific volume of the solution (seawater)
and the pressure difference between the sea and the SRE. The specific heating value
CPH2O and the specific volume vH2O of the solution can be calculated without
serious error if it is considered pure water (Perry and Chilton, 1984). We used the
correlations described in Chapter 4. The potential exergy component requires the
altitude z above sea level (almost negligible in a MSF plant). It is used to calculate
the maximum mechanical work obtained from a waterfall, such as a hydroelectric
station. The kinetic exergy component is of relatively little exergetic importance in
comparison with other exergetic components (taking into account the low velocity ca
of brine inside the tubes or in the flash chambers). Its mean velocity must be
calculated, which depends on flow and operation conditions. The chemical exergy
component is the most complex to calculate. It may be broken down into the
following components: (i) the chemical exergy of the water, (ii) the chemical exergy
of the dissolved inorganic substances, (iii) the chemical exergy of the organic
substances.
Seawater exergy
i) The chemical exergy of pure water in the sea. This component provides informa-
tion about the thermodynamic degradation process; pure water availability under
different conditions such as pollution (the presence of substances other than pure
water like salts, organic material, etc.). The magnitude of the exergetic compo-
nent µ can be calculated from its activity as a pure substance in a solution equa-
tion (equation A2.2):
 a H2 O 
b q, H2 O = x H2 O ( µ H2 O – µ H2 O, r ) = x H2 O RT r Ln  --------------
- (A2.2)
 a H2 O, r 
where xH2O is the molar fraction of pure water in seawater, and aH2O, aH2O,r can
be estimated from measuring coligative properties, such as osmotic pressure, π.
In the case of seawater, the osmotic pressure of a diluted solution with respect to
its pure solvent is typically calculated using equation A2.3,
RT r RT r
π H2 O = – --------- Ln ( a H2 O ) and π H2 O, r = – --------- Ln ( a H2 O, r ) (A2.3)
v v
where π is obtained by measuring the Electrical Conductivity (EC) of seawater

and considering that the osmotic pressure is a function of the salt concentration
(binary) in solution (without any serious errors, as in the case of a very diluted
substance, such as seawater).
πH2O = 0.36 EC (A2.4)
where π is the osmotic pressure (atmospheres) and EC the electrical conductivity

in dS/m (1 dS/m = 640 ppm, Medina (2000)) of ionized electrolytic components
in a solution.
ii) The chemical exergy of the dissolved inorganic substance is determined by the
well-known procedure for an electrolytic solution (equation A2.5):
ai
b q, i = x i ( µ i – µ i, r ) = x i RT r Ln  ------- (A2.5)
 a i, r
where the activity for each chemical substance i in the sea and in the SRE can be
expressed in terms of the activity coefficient, γ, and its molality, m:
ai = γi mi (A2.6)
The activity coefficient, γ, of each of the electrolytic species is determined using

the equation obtained by Debye-Hückel (equation A2.7).
1⁄2
Az i I
Log ( γ i ) = – ----------------------------- (A2.7)
1⁄2
1 + Bd i I
where A, B are constants depending on the solvent and temperature, zi is the ionic
charge, di is the ionic diameter of specie i and I is the ionic dissolution force,
∑ mi zi . For diluted solutions (seawater is a good example), this equation can

2
I =
i
be expressed as:
1⁄2
Log ( γ i ) = – [ Az i I ] (A2.8)
The activity coefficient of non-electrolytic inorganic substances is always γ =1.
iii) The chemical exergy of organic substances. It is difficult to determine the pre-
sence of organic substances in seawater due to the diversity of species involved
(including biological organisms). However, organic substances are not present in
the Szargut (1980) definition of SRE, but are purified naturally in rivers. This
means that the oxygen (from photosynthesis or atmospheric) dissolved in water
oxidizes the organic substances. This process may be slow or fast depending on
the substance. One way to quantify the exergetic content of an organic substance
is by proposing a single organic molecule to represent the “organic substance
mean”.
For practical sea analysis, our representative substance was a fat molecule, as shown
in equation A2.9. This enabled us to calculate the order of magnitude of the exergy
organic component to be determined qualitatively.
115
C 39 H 80 O 3 + --------- O 2 ↔ 39 CO 2 + 40 H 2 O (A2.9)
2
The laboratory measurement of Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD, mg. of O2/lt of

seawater consumed in the reaction is estimated) was used to obtain the amount of
moles of mean organic substance per liter of water. The exergy of the organic
substance was obtained from the definition of exergy reaction in the standard state,
according to the expression in equation A2.10.
b = ∆h f – T s – ∑ x j µ j
o o o o o
(A2.10)
o o
where ∆h f , so and µ j are well known for industrial substances.
Seawater exergy
A2.5.2 Practice: Brine exergy as a function of temperature, pressure

and salt concentration
Brine exergy only includes thermal, chemical and mechanical terms (kinetic and
potential terms are neglected, see equation A2.1). Although it is impossible to know
the chemical analysis of seawater entering the MSF unit, the chemical term only
considers seawater concentration due to sodium chloride.
This means that the chemical energy of the organic compounds is not considered
and the contribution of inorganic substances is only calculated for Na+ and Cl– ions.
Chemical exergy of pure water depends on the osmotic pressure difference with
respect to reference seawater. The AR used was 0 ºC and 45,000 TDS (average
seawater concentration in the Arabian Gulf). The results were similar to other
studies (Zaleta et al., 1998). For more detailed information about how to calculate
these terms, see Barner and Scheuerman (1978), Newman (1980) and Marín and
Turégano (1985).
ANNEX 3
Technical data
This annex includes the most important design and constructive values provided by
the contractors. Most of those values are introduced in the simulator, but they cannot
be changed unless requested by the author.
A3.1 MSF plant
MSF: Guarantee figures (112 ºC TBT, 25 ºC SWT)
Seawater temperature (Tsea) 25 (ºC)
Distillate production per hour (D) 2,400 (T/h)
Distillate temperature at pump suction 38 (ºC)
Distillate density at production temperature 994 (kg/m3)
Discharge pressure at distillate pump 3.5 (bar)
Distillate purity expressed as TDS 10 (ppm)
pH value of distillate before caustic soda injection 5.5-6.0
Fe content in distillate 0.05 (ppm)
Cu content in distillate 0.05 (ppm)
Vapor velocity at the smallest path in last stage 14 (m/s)

Technical data
Performance ratio (PR) not less than 8
Quantity of heating steam at reducing valve before brine heater (mST) 313.400 (kg/h)
Steam pressure at heater inlet 1.8 (bar)
Steam temperature at heater inlet 120 (ºC)
Heater condensate temperature at pump suction 117 (ºC)
Net specific heat consumption (NC) 290.75 (kJ/t distillate)
Total specific heat consumption 295 (kJ/kg distillate)
Specific electric power consumption 4.0 (kWh/kg dist. x 10–3)
O2 content in heater condensate (at 20 ºC) 0.03 (ppm)
Fe content in heater condensate 0.04 (ppm)
Cu content in heater condensate 0.04 (ppm)
Conductivity of heater condensate 5 (µs/cm)
Temperature of ejector condensate 40 (ºC)
PH of ejector condensate 5.5-6.0
T.D.S in brine blow down 71,000 (ppm, máx.)
T.D.S in recirculated brine in the heater tubes 62,000 (ppm)
Temperature of the sea water outlet from heat rejection section 36 (ºC)
Sea water velocity inside tubes of heat rejection section 2.0 (m/s)
Brine velocity inside tubes of heat recovery section 2.1 (m/s)
Brine velocity inside tubes of brine heater 2.1 (m/s)
Pressure inside the heater space 1.8 (bar)
Brine pressure after the heater 1.9 (bar)
Brine temperature in first stage (TBT) 108 (ºC)
Brine temperature in last stage 35.5 (ºC)
Vapor temperature in first stage 106.5 (ºC)
Vapor temperature in last stage 34.5 (ºC)
Absolute pressure in first stage 1.305 (bar)
Absolute pressure in last stage 0.055 (bar)
MSF plant
Temperature of make-up feed entering deaerator 36 (ºC)
Temperature of make-up feed leaving deaerator 36 (ºC)
Absolute pressure in deaerator space 0.05 (bar)
O2 content in feed make-up leaving deaerator (without sulphite inj.) 0.03 (ppm)
O2 content in feed make-up leaving deaerator (with sulphite inject.) 0.04 (ppm)
Specific chemical consumption (antiscale with sponge ball cleaning) 12 (kg/kg dist. x 10–6)
Specific chemical consumption (antiscale without sponge ball clean.) 27.2 (kg/kg dist. x 10–6)
Heat losses due to radiation, venting or other losses 5 x 107 (kJ/h)
Evaporators
GENERAL
Recovery section: heat exchange surface 110,200 (m2)
Reject section: heat exchange surface 15,150 (m2)
Brine heater: heat exchange surface 10,272 (m2)
Recovery section: Fouling factor (design) 0.00015 (m2 K/W)
Reject section: Fouling factor (design) 0.00018 (m2 K/W)
Brine heater: Fouling factor (design) 0.00025 (m2 K/W)
Recovery section: Heat transfer coefficient (design) 2,673 (W/m2 K)
Reject section: Heat transfer coefficient (design) 2,211 (W/m2 K)
Brine heater: Heat transfer coefficient (design) 2,147 (W/m2 K)
Demisters: Total area 640 (m2)
Total width 19 (m)
Total length 87 (m)
Total height 17 (m)
Total weight-empty 3,000,000 (kg)
Tube Pitch (pattern: triangular) 1.25
Technical data
BRINE HEATER
Number of tubes 3060 (2 passes)
Tube internal diameter 33 (mm)
Tube thickness 1.2 (mm)
Tube effective length 15.1 (m)
Tube material CuNi 66/30 2 Fe 2 Mn
Tube conductivity 28.0 (W/m K)
RECOVERY SECTION: Stages 1-2
Number of tubes 3060
Tube material CuNi 70/30 ASTM B107

Tube material CuNi 90/10 ASTM B111

Tube material Titanium B338Gr2
MSF plant
REJECT SECTION: Stages 18-20

Tube internal diameter 33.6 (mm.)
Tube thickness 0.7
Tube effective length 19.2
Tube material Titanium B338Gr2
EFFECTIVE STAGE LENGTHS AND WIDTHS FOR BRINE FLOW

Stage no. Length (m) Width (m)
1 3.800 19.000
2 3.800 19.000
3 3.800 19.000
4 3.800 19.000
5 3.800 19.000
6 4.000 19.000
7 4.000 19.000
8 4.000 19.000
9 4.200 19.000
10 4.200 19.000
11 4.400 17.500
12 4.400 17.500
13 4.500 17.500
14 4.500 17.500
15 4.800 17.500
16 4.800 17.500
17 4.000 17.500
18 4.800 17.500
19 4.300 17.500
20 5.100 17.500
Technical data
DEMISTERS
Stage no. Area (m2) Height (m)
1 26.89 2.8
2 22.00 2.8
3 22.00 2.8
4 22.00 2.8
5 22.00 2.8
6 25.75 2.8
7 25.75 2.8
8 25.75 2.8
9 29.50 2.8
10 29.50 2.8
11 33.30 2.8
12 33.30 2.8
13 35.20 2.8
14 35.20 2.8
15 40.80 2.8
16 40.80 2.8
17 40.80 2.8
18 35.10 2.8
19 38.80 2.8
20 52.33 2.8
MSF plant
BRINE ORIFICES (112 ºC TBT, 25 ºC SW)
Stage no. Height (mm) Width (mm) Area (m3)
1 77 16.134 19.000
2 80 16.134 19.000
3 83 16.134 19.000
4 87 16.134 19.000
5 91 16.134 19.000
6 95 16.134 19.000
7 99 16.134 19.000
8 104 16.134 19.000
9 108 16.134 19.000
10 113 16.134 19.000
11 131 14.420 17.500
12 137 14.420 17.500
13 144 14.420 17.500
14 150 14.420 17.500
15 156 14.420 17.500
16 163 14.420 17.500
17 169 14.420 17.500
18 175 14.420 17.500
19 182 14.420 17.500
20 200 14.420 17.500
Technical data
A3.2 Power Plant
Boiler
GENERAL
Length x width x height (furnace) 9.825 x 10.875 x 19.9 (m)
Length x width x height (steel structure) 23.0 x 15.5 x 45.5 (m)
Total weight of boiler unit 3,500 (T)
Shipping volume of largest item 120 (m3)
Total gross weight of the largest item to be shipped 80 (T)
Weight of the largest item to be dismantled during maintenance 15 (T)
ECONOMIZERS
Effective heating surface (ECO 1/ ECO 2) 10,890/4,390 (m2)
Number of stages in line (ECO 1/ ECO 2) 7/3
Number of parallel streams (ECO 1/ ECO 2) 1/1
Location (ECO 1/ ECO 2) 3rd/3rd-2nd pass
Design pressure 129 (bar)
Design temperature (ECO 1/ ECO 2) 260/355 (ºC)
Effective height of one stage 1,555 (mm)
Pitch across the gas flow (ECO 1/ ECO 2) 65/75 (mm)
Pitch parallel to the gas flow 75/110 (mm)
Power Plant
AIR WATER HEATER
Number of heaters per boiler 2
Design pressure (airside) 1,300 (mm WG)
Design pressure (waterside) 129 (bar)
Design temperature (airside) 250 (º C)
Design temperature (waterside) 260 (º C)
Design air throughput 463,740 (Nm3/h)
Design water throughput 211 (t/h)
Effective surface heating 20,920 (m2)
Fouling factor considered (air/water side) 5/2 %
STEAM WATER DRUM
Type 48 (m3)
Water content 24 (m3/h)
Steam space rating 470 (m3/m3·h)
Design temperature 330 (º C)
Total length 14,000 (mm)
Shell length 12,800 (mm)
Shell thickness 82 (mm)
Technical data
WALL HEATING SURFACES
Combustion chamber
Nominal height 19.9 (m)
Nominal width 10.875 (m)
Nominal depth 9.825 (m)
Volume 2.123 (m3)
Total effective heat absorbing surface of the combustion chamber 1,454 (m2)
Total length 14,000 (mm)
Shell length 12,800 (mm)
Shell thickness 82 (mm)
Heat input (natural gas at MCR, 40º C air temperature) 422.22 × 106 (kcal/h)
Evaporators
Total effective heat absorbing surface 2,740 (m2)
Design temperature 375 (ºC)
Maximum local heat flux 290,000 (kcal/m2·h)
Evaporator headers
Number 40
Design temperature 330 (ºC)
Power Plant
SUPERHEATERS
Number of stages in line 3
Number of parallel streams 2
Number of spray attemperators 4
Design temperature (máx.) (SH1/SH2/SH3) 580/590/590 (ºC)
Effective heating surface (SH1/SH2/SH3) 3,090/860/360 (m2)
Number of elements over the width (SH1/SH2/SH3) 144/72/72
SPRAY ATTEMPERATORS
Number 2
Design steam flow (inlet/outlet) (AT1/AT2) 270-295/295-310 (t/h)
Calculated spray water flow (AT1/AT2) 27/18 (t/h)
Design spray water flow (AT1/AT2) 41/27 (t/h)
Design temperature (AT1/AT2) 500/550 (ºC)
DOWNCOMERS
Number 2
Outside diameter 508 (mm)
Wall thickness 16 (mm)
Technical data
Condensing Plant
Condenser surface (between tube sheets and related to steam side) 6,725 (m2)
Condenser vacuum at MCR 0.072 (bar abs)
Specific condenser surface demand at MCR 67.5 (m2·h/t)
Condenser hotwell useful capacity 25 (m3)
Circulating water velocity within tube bundle 2.2 (m/s)
Associated hydraulic loss of CW 0.37 (bar)
Basic heat transfer coefficient at MCR 2,732 (kcal/m2·h·K)
Applied cleanliness factor 90 %
Associated maximum temperature difference 6.7 (ºC)
Thermal conductivity 14 (kcal/m·h·K)
Number of tubes per total cond. for one turbine 7124
Condensate Pumps
Number of pumps 2+2
Specific gravity of fluid (MCR) 992.5 (kg/m3)
Suction pressure (MCR) 0.071 (bar)
Suction temperature (MCR) 39.2 (ºC)
Discharge pressure (MCR) 18 (bar abs.)
Discharge temperature (MCR) 39.2 (ºC)
Flow at discharge nozzle (MCR) 2 x 131 (T/h)
Overall efficiency according to DIN 1944 of equiv. (MCR) 71.6 %
Pump speed 1485 (l/min)
Critical speeds of pump and motor unit > 1800 (rpm)
Nameplate rating (MCR) 130 (kW)
Power Plant
HP1 Heater
Overall dimensions of feed heater 1,300 x 8,600 (mm)

Main steam flow (feedwater side, MCR) 562.9 (t/h)
Inlet pressure (feedwater side, MCR) 119.05 (bar)
Inlet/outlet temperature (feedwater side, MCR) 194.6/230.1 (ºC)
Heating steam flow 39.0 (t/h)
Pressure incl. vacuum if appl. 27.2 (bar)
Temperature (heating side, MCR) 369 (ºC)
Overall heat transfer coefficient (condensing zone) 3,280 (kcal/m2·h·K)
LMTD (condensing zone) 11.6 (ºC)
Heat transfer surface (desuperheating section) 65.3 (m2)
Heat transfer surface (condensing section) 531.6 (m2)
Heat transfer surface (condensate cooling section) 64.4 (m2)
Velocity of main condensate or feed water inside tubes 1.54 (m/s)
HP2 Heater
Main steam flow (feedwater side, MCR) 562.3 (t/h)
Temperature (heating side, MCR) 282 (ºC)
Heat transfer surface (desuperheating section) 37.8 (m2)
Technical data
LP1 Heater

Main steam flow (feedwater side MCR) 131.6 (t/h)
Temperature (heating side, MCR) 129.7 (ºC)
LP2 Heater

Main steam flow (feedwater side MCR) 131.6 (t/h)
Temperature (heating side, MCR) 79.7 (ºC)


Nomenclature
Abbreviatures/ Symbols/Acronyms
a Cost parameter, activity, or constant of Cobb-Douglass equation.
A Exchange area of the evaporator/condenser or constant of Debye-Hückel
equation.
AR Reference Ambient.
AT Atemperator.
b Specific exergy.
B Flashing brine flow in j-th flash chamber, exergy flow, constant of Debye-
Hückel equation, or constant for calculating vapor enthalpy.
BD Brine Blowdown.
BDP Blowdown Pump.
BH Brine Heater.
BHP Brine Heater Pump.
BOI Boiler.
BPE Boiling Point Elevation of brine with respect the pure water.
c Velocity.
C Salt concentration, or total monetary cost.
c* Exergoeconomic cost.
ca Cost per unit of area.
CBS Cleaning Ball System.
cf Fuel cost.
CND Condenser.
COC Boiler Peak Load.
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand.
CP Condensate Pump or Heat Capacity.
cp Product cost.
CW Cooling rejected Water.
d Ionic diameter.
D Distillate flow.

Nomenclature
DAS Data Acquisition System.

DB Exergy flow of distillate.
DCA Drain Cooling Advantage.
DF Dysfunction generated in a component.
DI Dysfunction generated by a component.
DLL Dynamic Link Library.
DP Distillate Pump.
DRT Deaerator.
DV Main stop valve seat diameter.
e Condenser efficiency.
E Enhancement factor.
EC Electrical Conductivity.
ECO Economizer.
ED Electrodyalisis.
EDS European Desalination Society.
EES Engineering Equation Solver.
ESL Excitation System Losses.
f Generic function.
F Fuel, Make-up feed or constant for calculating vapor enthalpy.
FCW Fuel Cost of Water.
FD Fictitious Device.
FP Feed Pump.
g Acceleration due to gravity, or characteristic equation.
Gc Gas consumption.
GCC Gulf Council Countries.
GEN Generator.
GOR Gain Output Ratio.
h Heat transfer coefficient or enthalpy.
H Height.
Hb Flashing brine (seawater) enthalpy.
HHV High Heating Value.
HT High-Temperature.
HP High-Pressure.
HPH High-Pressure Heater.
HPT High-Pressure Turbine.
HR Heat Rate of a power plant.
HRSG Heat Recovery Steam Generator.
HTOS High-Temperature Operation in Summer.
HTOW High-Temperature Operation in Winter.
Hv Saturated vapor enthalpy of water.
Nomenclature
I Irreversibility or Ionic dissolution force.

IAAE International Agency of Atomic Energy.
ID Inside Diameter.
IDA International Desalination Association.
k Thermal conductivity or unit exergy consumption.
K Constant for mass flow coefficient or gland steam system.
k* Exergy unit cost.
L Length or Exergy Losses.
LP Low-Pressure.
LPH Low-Pressure Heater.
LPT Low-Pressure Turbine.
LS Live Steam Extraction.
LTL Low Turbine Load.
LTMD Logarithmic Temperature Mean Difference.
LTOS Low-Temperature Operation in Summer.
m Mass flow or molality.
MCR Maximum Continuous Rating.
Md Steam flow to MSF unit.
MED Multi-Effect Distillation.
MF Malfunction of a component.
MF* Malfunction cost (impact on fuel).
MFl Intrinsic malfunction.
MFg Induced malfunction.
MIX Mixer.
MR Maximum Rating.
MSL Minimum Stable Load.
MSF Multistage Flash.
MXT Mixer Temper water.
n number of tubes in a vertical row.
NC Net energy Consumption.
NEA Non Equilibrium Allowance.
NRC Number of Recovery Stages.
NRJ Number of Reject Stages.
NTL Normal Turbine Load.
NTOS Nominal-Temperature Operation in Summer.
NTW Non Turbine Working.
OD Outside Diameter.
ODOB One Desalination One Boiler.
O&M Operating and Maintenance
p Pressure.
Nomenclature
P Product.
Pc Condenser pressure.
Pr Prandtl number.
PE Pressure Exchanger.
PL Pressure losses, or Partial Load.
PR Performance Ratio.
PTC Performance Test Case or Parabolic Trough Collector.
Q Heat flow.
Qf Heat value of fuel.
r Exergy ratio.
R Thermal resistance or recycle brine.
RCS Recovery Section.
Re Reynolds number.
RJS Reject Section.
RO Reverse Osmosis.
rp Pressure ratio in a turbine section.
RP Recycle Pump.
s Specific entropy.
S Entropy flow or size.
Sa Sonic area.
SF Solar Factor.
SH Superheater.
SR Seawater to Reject section flow.
SRE Stable Reference Environment
SW Seawater feed flow.
SWP Seawater Pump.
SWRO Seawater Reverse Osmosis.
t Thickness.
T Temperature.
T* Temperature reference, 273.15 K.
TBT Top Brine Temperature.
TDOB Two Desalination One Boiler.
TDS Total Dissolved Solids.
To Ambient Temperature.
TP Temper water Pump (also TPP).
TTD Terminal Temperature Difference.
TVC Thermal Vapor Compression.
UAE United Arab Emirates.
U Overall heat transfer coefficient.
US, USA United States of America.
Nomenclature
VC Vapor Compression.
VEX Extraction valve (pressure loss simulation).
VF Feed valve.
vw Tube velocity.
VS Reducing pressure station valve.
VST Stop valve.
VTE Vertical Tube Evaporator.
VWO Valve Wide Open.
x Variable or molar fraction.
X Steam quality.
w Width.
W Power.
z Ionic charge.
Z Pressure drop coefficient or Capital Cost of a component.
Greeks
α Sonic velocity or constant of Cobb-Douglass equation.
β Constant for calculating vapor entropy.
γ Activity coefficient.
δ Interstage (temperature) difference.
∆ Difference, increment, variation (or loss).
ε Relative error or ratio.
η Efficiency.
κ Technical production coefficient.
λ Latent heat, real number or Lagrange multiplier.
µ Viscosity or chemical exergy component.
ν Specific volume.
π Osmotic pressure.
ρ Density.
φ Mass flow coefficient of a turbine section, or dysfunction coefficient.
ℵ Constant for calculating latent heat of vapor.
ϕ Amortization factor.
ϖ Chamber load or total final product.
Arrays/Matrices
B Exergy flows set.
[DF] Dysfunction matrix.
DF Array of dysfunctions generated in the components.
DI Array of dysfunctions generated by the components.
∆FT Impact on fuel array.
Nomenclature
κe Unit exergy consumption array of the system input resources.

KD Diagonal matrix of the unit exergy consumption.
〈KP〉 Unit exergy consumption matrix.
MF Malfunction array.
I Irreversibility array.
|I〉 Irreversibility matrix operator.
P Product array.
PS Final product array.
|P〉 Product matrix operator.
UD Unitary matrix.
Subscripts
a Absolute.
b Exergy flow or brine.
B Brine.
bi Brine inside the tubes.
c Condensate.
C Condenser.
ci Steam to Ejector from leakage system.
CT Condensing Turbine.
d Distillate, design.
D Distillate.
des Low-Pressure Steam to MSF unit.
DR Deaerator.
e Exit or electricity.
es Interstage.
ex Extraction.
f Fouling, formation or fuel relative.
F Cooling brine.
fg Evaporation.
fm Film.
gen Generator.
H Brine Heater.
H2O Pure water.
i Inlet, i-section or array index.
j j-Stage, index, variable or specie.
K Kelvin.
L Loss.
ls Live Steam Flow.
LS Live Steam Extraction from reduction pressure station.
Nomenclature
lm Logaritmic mean.
m Mean.
msf MSF plant.
N Last stage of MSF unit.
NRC Last stage of recovery section.
o Outlet.
P Demister pressure losses, or product.
q Chemical.
r Reference.
rcs Recovery section (exit).
rdes Condensate returned from the MSF unit (heater), after passing brine heater
pump.
s Isoentropic, shell or entropy flow.
S Saturated.
sea Seawater.
ST Steam or Steam Turbine.
t Turbine or tube.
T Total.
va Steam to vacuum system of MSF unit (condensate returning to condenser).
vent Venting system.
w Wall or water.
Z Capital cost.
0 To the environment.
Superscripts
a, b, c, x, y, z Exponents for calculations of TTDs in heaters or deaerator, pressure losses or
gland steam system.
L Local.
G Induced.
m m-Iteration or scaling factor.
n1, n2, n3, n4 Exponents for capital costing equation.
´ Extraction mass flow rate.
o Standard state.
r Operating parameter.
t Transpose (matrix notation).
–1 Inverse (matrix notation).
0 Reference or design (matrix notation).
References
Asea Brown Bovery (ABB) (1996a). Boiler Performance Data. Construction

Details. Private Communication.
Asea Brown Bovery (ABB) (1996b). Diagram Charts, and Heat Balance of
Al Taweelah B Power Generation Unit. Private Communication.
Asea Brown Bovery (ABB) (1996c). HP and LP Heaters, Feedwater Storage Tank,
Cold Storage Tank. Private Communication.
Asea Brown Bovery (ABB) (1996d). Steam, Condensate and Feedwater Piping
System. Private Communication.
Asea Brown Bovery (ABB) (1996e). Generator System. Private Communication.
Asea Brown Bovery (ABB) (1996f). Pump Curves. Private Communication.
Asea Brown Bovery (ABB) (1997). Private communication.
Abdel-Jawad, M., Al-Tabtabaei, M. (1999). Impact on Current Power Generation

and Water Desalination Activities on Kuwait Marine Environment. Proceedings of
the IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse. San Diego, USA.
Abu Qdais, H. A. (1999). Environmental Impacts of Desalination Plants on the

Arabian Gulf. Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water
Reuse. San Diego, USA.
Afgan, N. H., Darwish, M., Carvalho, M. G. (1999). Sustainability Assessment of

Desalination Plants for Water Production. Desalination 124, pp. 19-32. Presented at
the European Conference on Desalination and the Environment. Las Palmas, Spain.

References
Alawadhi, A. A. (1999). Regional Report on Desalination. Proceedings of the IDA

World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse. San Diego, USA.
Al-Gobaisi, D. M. K. (1999). Water for Sustainable Development of the Arab World.

Private Communication.
Al-Gobaisi, D. M. K. (1997). Sustainable Augmentation of Fresh Water Resources

through Appropriate Energy and Desalination Technologies. Proceedings of the IDA
World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse. Madrid, Spain.
Alhumaizi, K. (1997). Modeling, Simulation and Control of Multistage Flash

Desalination Plant, Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and
Water Reuse. Madrid, Spain. Vol. III, pp. 111-130.
Al-Mutaz, I. S., Soliman, M. A. (1989). Simulation of MSF Desalination Plants.

Desalination 74, pp. 317-326.
Al-Owais, A. A., Nijhawan, R. K., Budhiraja, P. K. (1989). Operational Experience

of Once Through MSF Desalination Units. Desalination 73, pp. 327-340.
Al-Sulaiman, F. A., Ismail, B. (1995). Exergy Analysis of Major Recirculating

Multi-stage Flash Desalting Plants in Saudi Arabia. Desalination 103, pp. 265-270.
Andrews, T., Shumway, S. A. (1999). Design Study of a 20,000 m3/day Seawater

Reverse Osmosis Work Exchanger Energy Recovery System. Proceedings of the IDA
World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse. San Diego, USA.
Ahrendts, J. (1980). Reference States. Energy 5, Vol. 8, pp. 667-677.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) (1967). 1967 ASME Steam

Tables. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. New York, USA.
Badr, O., Probert, S. D., O’Callaghan, P. (1990). Rankyne Cycles for Steam Power-
Plants. Applied Energy 36, pp. 191-231.
Barba, D., Liuzzo, G., Tagliaferri, G. (1973). Mathematical Model for Multiflash
Desalting Plant Control. 4th International Symposium on Fresh Water from the Sea.
Vol. 1, pp. 153-168.
Barendsen, W. C., Moch, I. (1999). Privatization of Seawater Reverse Osmosis

Plants in Antigua. Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and
Water Reuse. San Diego, USA.
Barner, H. E., Scheuerman, R. V. (1978). Handbook of Thermochemical Data for

Compounds and Acqueous Species. John Wiley and Sons Inc.
References
Barthelmes, J., Bolmer, H. (1996). Fouling and Scaling Control in MSF

Desalination Units by “On-Load” Tube Cleaning. Desalination and Water Reuse,
Vol. 7/2, pp. 27-33.
Brown Boveri Co. (BBC) (1979). Thermal Kit, Simplified Instructions for the
Thermal Calculation of the Antikokan Units. HTGD 12246 E.
Beamer, J. H., Wilde, J. D. (1971). The Simulation and Optimization of a Single

Effect Multi-Stage Flash Desalination Plant. Desalination 9, pp. 259-275.
Bejan, A., Tsatsaronis, G., Moran, M. (1997). Thermal Design and Optimization.
John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York.
Benelmir, R. (1989). Second Law Analysis of a Co-generation Cycle. Ph. D. Thesis.

Georgia Institute of Technology.
Boehm, R. F. (1987). Design Analysis of Thermal Systems. Ed. John Wiley and
Sons. New York.
Brandani, V., Del Re, G., Di Giacomo, G. (1985). A New Model for Predicting
Thermodynamic Properties of Sea Salt Solutions. Desalination 56, pp. 299-313.
Breidenbach, L., Rautenbach, R., Tusel, G. F. (1997). Thermoeconomic Assessment

of Fossil Fuel Fired Dual Purpose Power/Water Plants. Proceedings of the IDA
World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse. Madrid, Spain. Vol. IV,
pp. 167-180.
Bromley, L. A., Diamond, A. E., Salam, E., Wilkins, D. G. (1970). J. Chem. Eng.
Data 15, pp. 246.
Brodyansky, V., Bandura, A. (1993). The Prognosis for Macroeconomical

Development and Exergy. Proceedings of the International Symposium on energy
systems and ecology ENSEC’93. Cracow, Poland. pp. 153-161.
Cadagua (1999). Private Communication.
Calder (1999). Pelton Wheel Energy Recovery Turbines. Private Communication.
Chen, S. F., Chan, R. C., Read, S. M., Bromley, L. A. (1973). Viscosity of Sea Water
Solutions. Desalination 13, pp. 37-51.
Coleman, A. K. (1971). Optimization of a Single Effect, Multi-Stage Flash

Distillation Desalination System. Desalination 9, no. 4, pp. 315-331.
Cooke, D. H. (1985). On prediction of Off-Design Multistage Turbine Pressures by

Stodola’s Ellipse. Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power. Transactions
of the ASME. Vol. 107, pp. 596-606.
References
Corripio, A. B., Chrien, K. S., Evans, L, B. (1982). Estimate Costs of Heat

Exchangers and Storage Tanks Via Correlations. Chemical Engineering, January
1982, pp. 125-127.
Cotton, K. C. (1993). Evaluating and Improving Steam Turbines Performance, Edit.

Cotton Factory Inc. New York, USA.
Darwish, M. A., Al-Najem, N. M., Al-Ahmad, M. S. (1993). Second-Law Analysis of

Recirculating Multi-stage Flash System. Desalination 89, pp. 289-309.
Darwish, M. A., Yousef, F. A., Al-Najem, N. M. (1997). Energy Consumption and

Costs with a Multi-stage Flashing (MSF) Desalting System. Desalination 109,
pp. 285-302.
Darwish, M. K., Arazzini, S. (1989). Description and Mathematical Model of a

Large MSF Desalination Plant in Scada Configuration. Private Communication,
pp. 91-106.
De Armas, J. C., Pérez, J. L., Von Gottberg, A. J. M. (1999). Desalination of

Municipal Sewage Effluent with Electrodialysis Reversal in Tenerife. Proceedings of
Echaniz, J., Rodero, A., Sallangos, O., Santamaria F. J. (1997). Dhekelia (Cyprus)
Seawater Desalination Plant Design, Construction and Commissioning of the
20,000 m3/day R.O. Plant. Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination
and Water Reuse. Madrid, Spain. Vol. II, pp. 371-392.
El-Nashar, A. M. (1999). Cost Allocation in a Cogeneration Plant for the

Production of Power and Desalted Water – Comparison of the Exergy Cost
Accounting Method with the WEA Method. Private Communication.
El-Nashar, A. M., Qamhiyeh, A. A. (1993). Optimal Performance of MSF Distillers

for UANW 9 and 10 Power Plant: A Thermoeconomic Study. Desalination 93,
pp. 323-342.
Elovic, P., Willocks, G. (1999). Case Study of Operating Experience of 9 Low

Temperature MED plants in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Proceedings of the IDA World
Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse. San Diego, USA.
El-Saie, M. H., El-Saie, Y. M. H. (1989). Optimization of Dual-Purpose Steam

Power and MSF Desalination Plant. Desalination 76, pp. 155-175.
El-Sayed, Y. M., Aplenc, A. J. (1970). Application of the Thermoeconomic Approach

in the Analysis and Optimization of Vapor-Compression Desalting System.
Transactions of the ASME. Journal of Engineering and Power, Vol. 92 no. 1,
pp. 17-26.
References
El-Sayed, Y. M., Evans, R. B. (1970). Thermoeconomics and the Design of Heat

Systems. Transactions of the ASME. Journal of Engineering and Power, Vol. 92
no. 1, pp. 27-35.
El-Sayed, Y. M., Silver, R. S. (1980). Fundamentals of Distillation. Principles of

Desalination, Chapter 2. Academic Press Inc.
El-Sayed, Y. M., Tribus, M. (1983). Strategic use of Thermoeconomics for Systems

Improvement. ACS Symposium Series, no. 235, pp. 215-238. Washington D.C.,
USA.
El-Sayed, Y. M. (1988). A Decomposition Strategy for Thermoeconomics

Optimization of a Given New Configuration, Approaches to the Design and
Optimization of Thermal Systems. Wepfer and Moran eds. ASME, pp. 41-47. New
York, USA.
El-Sayed, Y. M. (1996). Second-Law-Based Analysis and Optimization of Seawater

Desalting Systems. Private Communication.
Erbes, M. R., Gay, R. B. (1989). Gate/cycle Predictions of the Off-Design

Performance of Combined Cycle Power Plants. ENTER Software, Inc. ASME 1989
WAM.
Erlach, B. (1998). Comparison of Thermoeconomic Methodologies: Structural

Theory, AVCO and LIFO. Application to a Combined Cycle. University of Zaragoza.
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering.
Erlach, B., Serra, L., Valero, A. (1999). Structural Theory as Standard for
Thermoeconomics. Energy Conversion and Management 40, pp. 1627-1649.
Ettouney, H. M., El-Dessouky, H. T. (1999). A Simulator for Thermal Desalination

Processes. Desalination 125, pp. 277-292. Presented at the European Conference on
Desalination and the Environment. Las Palmas, Spain.
Evans, R. B. (1962). A Contribution to the Theory of Thermo-Economics. Sea Water

Research Project S. W. 604. Report no. 62-36. Department of Engineering.
University of California.
Evans, R. B., Crellin, G. L., Tribus, M. (1980). Thermoeconomic Considerations of

Sea Water Demineralization. Principles of Desalination, Chapter 1. Academic Press
Inc.
Evans, R. B. (1980). Thermoeconomic Isolation and Essergy Analysis. Energy,

Vol. 5, no. 8-9, pp. 805-822.
Fabuss, B. M., Korosi, A. (1968). Properties of Sea Water and Solutions Containing
Sodium Chloride, Potassium Chloride, Sodium Sulfate and Magnesium Sulfate.
References
Research and Development Progress Report no. 384. U.S. Department of the
Interior.
Falceta, F., Sciubba, E. (1997). Modelling and Simulation of Multi-Stage Flash

Desalination Plants. Private Report.
Fayas, J., Novoa, J. (1997). The Desalination Process in the Balearic Islands.
Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse. Madrid,
Spain. Vol I, pp. 41-54.
Fisia Italimpianti (1996). Private Communication.
Fisia Italimpianti (1997). Diagram charts of the MSF Plant. Private

Communication.
Fisia-Italimpianti (1999). Water Desalination Plants. Private Communication.
Frangopoulos, C. (1983). Thermoeconomic Functional Analysis: A method for the

Optimal Design or Improvement of Complex Thermal Systems. Ph. D. Thesis.
Georgia Institute of Technology.
Frangopoulos, C. A. (1987). Thermoeconomic Functional Analysis and

Optimization. Energy Vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 563-571.
Frangopoulos, C. A. (1988). Optimal Design of a Gas Turbine Plant by a

Thermoeconomic Approach. ASME COGEN-TURBO, pp. 563-571. ASME, New
York, USA.
Frangopoulos, C. A. (1990). Intelligent Functional Approach: A Method for Analysis

and Optimal Synthesis-Design-Operation of Complex Systems. Proceedings of the
International Symposium: A future for energy. Florence, Italy. Pergamon Press,
pp. 805-815.
Frangopoulos, C. A. (1991). Private Communication.
Frangopoulos, C. A. (1994). Application of the Thermoeconomic Functional

Approach to the CGAM Problem. Energy Vol. 19, no. 13.
Friedrich, R. O., Hafford, J. A. (1971). Report ORNL-TM-3489.
Gaggioli, R. A. (1980). Thermodynamics: Second Law Analysis. ACS Symposium

Series 122. American Chemical Society. Washington D.C., USA.
Gaggioli, R. A., El-Sayed, Y. M. (1987). A Critical Review of Second Law Costing

Methods. Proceedings of the IV International Symposium on Second Law Analysis
of Thermal Systems (ASME Book I00236). ASME, pp. 59-73. New York, USA.
References
García, L., Gómez, C. (1999). Conditions for Economical Benefits of the Use of
Solar Energy in Multi-stage Flash Distillation. Desalination 125, pp. 133-138.
Presented at the European Conference on Desalination and the Environment. Las
Palmas, Spain.
García, L., Palmero, A. I., Gómez, C. (1999). Application of Direct Steam

Generation into a Solar Parabolic Trough Collector to Multieffect Distillation.
Desalination 125, pp. 139-145. Presented at the European Conference on
Gleick, P. H. (1998). The World’s Water – The Biennial Report on Freshwater

Resources, 1998/1999. Island Press. Washington DC, USA.
Glueck, A. R., Bradshaw, R. W. (1970). A Mathematical Model for a Multistage

Flash Distillation Plant. 3rd International Symposium on Fresh Water from the Sea.
Vol. 1, pp. 95-108.
Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1971). The Entropy Law and the Economic Process.

Harvard University Press. Cambridge MA. USA.
Goto, T., MacCormick, T., Congjie, G., Guoling, R., Chung Y.-T. (1999). Overview
of Desalination in the Pacific Region. Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on
Desalination and Water Reuse. San Diego, USA.
Hamed, O. A., Al-Sofi, M. A. K., Iman, M., Mustafa, G. M., Ba-Mardouf, K., Al-
Washmi, H. (1999). Thermal Performance of Multistage Flash Distillation Plants in
Saudi Arabia. Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water
Hanbury, W. T., Hodgkiess, T., Morris, R. (1993). Desalination Technology 93. An

Intensive Course. Porthan Ltd., Easter Auchinloch. Lenzie, Glasgow, UK.
Hassan, A. S., Florido, P. C. (1999). Feasibility of Nuclear Desalination Costs in

Egypt. Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse.
San Diego, USA.
Hauge, L. J., Ludvigsen, F. (1999). Field Installation of Pressure Exchanger in a

80 m3/d SWRO Plant. Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and
Hayakawa, K., Satori, H., Konishi, K. (1973). Process Simulation on a Multi-Stage

Flash Distillation Plant. 4th International Symposium on Fresh Water from the Sea.
Vol. 1, pp. 303-312.
Helal, A. M., Medani, M. S., Soliman, M. A. (1986). A Tridiagonal Matrix Model

for MultiStage Flash Desalination Plants. Computers & Chemical Engineering Vol.
10, pp. 95-108.
References
Hömig, H. E. (1978). Seawater and Seawater Distillation (Fichtner Handbook).

Vulkan-Verlag. Essen, Germany.
Husain, A., Hassan, A., Al-Gobaisi, D. M. K., Al-Radif, A., Woldai, A., Sommariva,
C. (1993). Modelling, Simulation, Optimization and Control of Multistage Flashing
(MSF) Desalination Plants. Part I: Modelling and Simulation. Desalination 92,
pp. 21-41.
Husain, A., Woldai, A., Al-Radif, A., Kesou, A., Borsani, R., Sultan, H.,
Deshpandey, P. B. (1994). Modelling, and Simulation of a Multistage Flash (MSF)
Desalination Plant. Desalination 97, pp. 555-586.
Husain, A. (1999). Computational Aspects in Process Simulation. International

Center for Water and Energy Systems (ICWES). Private Communication.
I.D.E. Technologies ltd. (1999). Private Communication.
Intermón (1998). Relaciones Norte-Sur. Conceptos Clave. Dossiers para entender el

mundo. Ed. Octaedro.
Isdale, J. D., Spence, C. M., Tudhope, J. S. (1972). Physical Properties of Sea Water
Solutions: Viscosity. Desalination 10, pp. 319-328.
Itahara, S., Stiel, L. Y. (1968). The Optimal Design of Multi-Stage Flash

Evaporators by Dynamic programming. Desalination 4, pp. 248-257.
Jernqvist, A., Jernqvist, M., Aly, G. (1999). Simulation of Thermal Desalination

Processes. Desalination 126, pp. 147-152. Presented at the European Conference on
JSME (1968). 1968 JSME Steam Tables. The Japan Society of Mechanical
Engineers. Tokyo, Japan.
Keenan, J. H., Keyes, F. G. (1955). Thermodynamic Properties of Steam. John Wiley

and Sons Inc., New York, USA.
Keenan, J. H., Keyes, F. G., Hill, F., Moore, K. (1955). Steam Tables (SI Units). John
Wiley and Sons Inc., New York, USA.
Klein, S. A., Alvarado, F. L. (1992). EES Engineering Equation Solver. F-Chart

Software. Middleton, USA.
Kotas, T. (1985). The Exergy Method of Thermal Plant Analysis. Butteerworth eds.,
London, UK.
Kronenberg, G., Dvornikov, V. (1999). Fuel Cost of Water (FCW) in Dual Plants.
Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse. San
Diego, USA.
References
Lazzaretto, A., Tsatsaronis, G. (1997). On the Quest for Objective Equations in

Exergy Costing. Proceedings of the ASME Advanced Energy Systems Division.
ASME. AES-Vol. 37, pp. 197-210.
Le Goff, P. (1979). Energetique Industrièlle. Tecnique et Documentation. Paris,

France.
Lerch, F., Royo, J., Serra, L. (1999). Structural Theory and Thermoeconomic
Diagnosis. Part II: Application to an Actual Power Plant. Proceedings of the
ECOS’99 Conference. ASME, pp. 374-379. Tokyo, Japan.
Lewis, G. N., Randal, M. (1961). Thermodynamics. Mc-Graw Hill Company.
Leyendekkers, J. V. (1979). Prediction of the Density and Viscosity of Seawater its

Concentrates and other Multicomponents Solutions Using the Tamman-Tait-Gibson
(TTG) Model. Desalination 29, pp. 263-274.
Lozano, M. A., Valero, A. (1993). Theory of the Exergetic Cost. Energy, Vol. 18,
no. 3, pp. 939-960. Elsevier Science Ltd., UK.
Lozano, M. A., Valero, A., Serra, L. (1993). Theory of the Exergetic Cost and
Thermoeconomics Optimization. Proceedings of the International Symposium
ENSEC’93. Cracow, Polland.
Lozano, M. A., Bartolomé, J. L., Valero, A., Reini, M. (1994). Thermoeconomic

Diagnosis of Energy Systems. Flowers 94, Florence World Energy Research
Symposium, pp. 149-156. Florence, Italy.
Lozano, M. A., Valero, A., Serra, L. (1996). Local Optimization of Energy Systems.
Proceedings of the ASME Advanced Energy System Division. Atlanta, Georgia.
AES-Vol. 36, pp. 241-250.
Marín, J. M., Turégano, J. A. (1985). Contribution to the Calculation of Chemical

Exergy in Industrial Processes (Electrolyte Solutions). Energy Vol. 11, pp. 231-236.
Martin, M. H. (1919). Articles on Leakage of Steam Through Dummy Pistons.

Engineering Jan 3.
Martínez, A., Serra, L., Valero, A. (2000). Cost Assessing in Entrained Flow
Gasifiers Based on Physical Models. Paper accepted to ECOS’2000 Conference.
Enschede, Netherlands.
Menéndez, E. (1997). Las Energías Renovables. Los Libros de la Catarata Eds.
Medina, J. A. (2000). Desalación de Aguas Salobres y de Mar. Osmosis Inversa.

Mundi-Prensa Eds. Madrid, Spain.
Microsoft Corporation (1997). Microsoft Fortran Developer Studio.
References
Microsoft Corporation and Cooper Software Inc. (1997). Microsoft Visual Basic
Version 5.0.
Moran, M. J. (1990). Second Law Analysis. What is the State of the Art?
International Symposium: A future for energy. Florence (Italy). Pergamon Press,
pp. 249-260.
Morris, D. R., Szargut, J. (1986). Standard Chemical Exergy of some Elements and
Compounds on the Planet Earth. Energy Vol. 11, pp. 733-749.
Mothersed, C. T. (1966). Report ORNL-TM-1560, August 1966.
National Office of Potable Water (NPOW) (1996). Non Conventional Waters Use for
Drinking Water Supply/Seawater Desalination. Kingdom of Morocco. Private
Communication.
Newman, A. (1980). Thermodynamics of Acqueous Systems with Industrial

Applications. American Chemical Society. Washington DC, USA.
Omar, A. M. (1981). M. Sc. Thesis. UPM Dharan (Saudi Arabia).
Ophir, A., Gendel, A. (1999). Development of the World’s Largest Multi-Effect

Mechanical Vapor Compression (M.E.M.V.C.) Desalination Plants. Proceedings of
Perry, R. H., Chilton, C. (1984). Manual del Ingeniero Químico. Ed. McGraw-Hill,
5th edition. Vol. I, pp. 446.
Pina, H. L. G. (1979). A Computer Program for the Calculation of the

Thermodynamic Properties of Water. Revue Generale de Thermique, no. 215,
pp. 689-693.
Pisa, J. (1997). Thermoeconomic Analysis of IGCC plants. Ph. D. Thesis.

Department of Mechanical Engineering. University of Zaragoza.
Ponce, S. L., Jankel, L. H. (1999). The Value of Water in the 21st Century – Impact
on U.S. Desalination. Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and
Powell, M. J. D. (1964). An Efficient Method for Finding the Minimun of a Function

of Several Variables without Calculate Derivatives. Computer J. Vol. 7, pp. 155-162.
Prabhakar, S., Hanra, M. S., Misra, B. M., Sadhukan, H. K. (1997). Small

Desalination Units to Provide Safe Drinking Water in Remote Rural Areas in India.
Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse. Madrid,
Spain. Vol. I, pp. 3-16.
References
Rautenbach, R., Buchel, H. G. (1979). Modular Program for Design and Simulation
of Desalination Plants. Desalination 31, pp. 71-83.
Reid, R. C., Prausnitz, J. M., Sherwood, T. K. (1977). The Properties of Gases and
Liquids. McGraw-Hill. New York, USA.
Reini, M. (1994). Analisi e Sviluppo dei Metodi Termoeconomi per lo Studio degli
Impianti di Conversione dell’Energia. Ph. D. Thesis. Università di Padova.
Royo, F. J. (1994). Las Ecuaciones Características de los Sistemas Térmicos. La

energía Libre Relativa. Ph. D. Thesis. Dept. of Mechanical Engineering. University
of Zaragoza.
Saeed, M. N. (1992). Fuel Efficiencies, Allocation of Fuels and Fuel Cost for Power
and Desalination in Dual Purpose Plants: A Novel Methodology. Desalination 85,
pp. 213-229.
Salisbury, J. K. (1974). Steam Turbines and their Cycles. Krieger Publishing

Company. New York, USA.
Sánchez, J. M., Velasco, J., Kindelan, J. M., Andreu, J. (1997). Marbella Seawater
Desalination Plant: Construction and Start-up Experience. Proceedings of the IDA
World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse. Madrid, Spain. Vol. V,
pp. 463-478.
Schnakel, H. C. (1958). Formulations for the Thermodynamic Properties of Steam

and Water. Trans. ASME 80, pp. 959-966.
Sengers, J. V., Watson, J. T. R. (1986). Improved International Formulations for the

Viscosity and Thermal Conductivity of Water Substance. Journal of Physical &
Chemical Reference Data, Vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 1291-1314.
Sephton, H. H., Solomon, R. L. (1997). Use of Power Plant Turbine Reject Steam to
Drive Desalination with Enhanced Heat Transfer Performance. Proceedings of the
IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse. Madrid, Spain. Vol. IV, pp.
299-308.
Sephton, H. H. (1999). Turbine Exhaust Steam Driven Desalination. Proceedings of

Serra, L. (1994). Optimización Exergoeconómica de Sistemas Térmicos.

Ph. D. Thesis. Department of Mechanical Engineering. University of Zaragoza.
Slesarenko, V. N., Shtim, A. S. (1987). Exergy Analysis of Multi-Stage Desalination

Plants. Desalination 61, pp. 1-5.
References
Slesarenko, V. N. (1999). Desalination Plant with Absorption Heat Pump for Power
Station. Desalination 126, pp. 281-286. Presented at the European Conference on
Spanish Desalination and Water Reuse Association (AEDyR) (1999). Private

Communication.
Spencer, R. C., Cotton, K. C., Cannon, C. N. (1974). A Method of Predicting the

Performance of Steam Turbine Generators 16.500 kW and Larger. General Electric
Corp., Publication GER-2007C.
Spiegler, K. S., El-Sayed, Y. M. (1994). A Desalination Primer. Balaban

Desalination Publications. Italy.
Stodola, A. (1927). Steam and Gas Turbines. McGraw Hill Company, Vol. 1,
pp. 316. New York, USA.
Stoughton, R. W., Lietzke, M. H. (1965). J. chem. Engng. Data 10, pp. 254.
Szargut, J. (1980). International Progress in Second Law Analysis. Energy Vol. 5,

pp. 709-718.
Szargut, J. (1989). Chemical Exergies of the Elements. Applied Energy 32, pp. 269-
286.
Tadros, S., Tadros, N. (1997). Power and Seawater Distillation From Biomass and
Refuse Fuels. Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water
Reuse. Madrid, Spain. Vol. IV, pp. 309-332
Torres, C. (1991). Exergoeconomía Simbólica. Metodología para el Análisis

Termoeconómico de los Sistemas Energéticos. Ph. D. Thesis. Department of
Mechanical Engineering. University of Zaragoza.
Torres, C., Valero, A., Serra, L., Royo, J. (1999). Structural Theory and
Thermoeconomic Diagnosis. Part I: On Malfunction and Dysfunction Analysis.
Proceedings of the ECOS’99. ASME. Tokyo, Japan. pp. 368-373.
Torres, M., Medina, J. A. (1999). Desalination in Spain, a Race for Lowering Power
Consumption. Proceedings of the IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water
Tribus, M., Asimow, R., Richardson, N., Gustaldo, C., Elliot, K., Chambers, J.,
Evans, R. B. (1960). Thermodynamic and Economic Considerations in the
Preparation of Fresh Water from the Sea. Report no. 59-34. Department of
Engineering. University of California.
References
Tribus, M., Evans, R. B. (1963). The Thermo-Economics of Sea Water Conversion.

Report no. 62-53. Department of Engineering. University of California.
Tsatsaronis, G., Winhold, M. (1985a). Exergoeconomic Analysis and Evaluation of

Energy Conversion Plants, Part I: A New General Methodology. Energy Vol. 10, pp.
69-80.
Tsatsaronis, G., Winhold, M. (1985b). Exergoeconomic Analysis and Evaluation of

Energy Conversion Plants, Part II: Analysis of a Coal Fired Steam Power Plant.
Energy Vol. 10, pp. 81-94, 1985.
Tsatsaronis, G. (1987). A Review of Exergoeconomic Methodologies. International

Symposium on Second Law Analysis of Thermal Systems. Rome (ASME Book
I00236). ASME, pp. 81-87. New York, USA.
Tsatsaronis, G. (1994). Invited Papers of Exergoeconomics. Energy Vol. 19, pp. 279.
Tsatsaronis, G. (1998). Recent Development in Energy Economics. Proceedings of

ECOS’98. Nancy, France. Vol. I, pp. 37-38.
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ECSWA), 1994
and 1995. Private communication.
University of Tennessee and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) (1999). Netlib
Repository. A Collection of Mathematical Software. Web page: http://www.netlib.org.
Valero, A., Lozano, M. A., Muñoz, M. (1986a). A General Theory of Exergy Saving.
Part I: On the Exergetic Cost. ASME Book H0341A. WAM 1986. AES-Vol 2-3,
pp. 1-8.
Valero, A., Lozano, M. A., Muñoz, M. (1986b). A General Theory of Exergy Saving.
Part II: On the Thermoeconomic Cost. ASME Book H0341A. WAM 1986. AES-
Vol. 2-3, pp. 9-16.
Valero, A., Lozano, M. A., Muñoz, M. (1986c). A General Theory of Exergy Saving.
Part III: Energy Saving and Thermoeconomics. ASME Book H0341A. WAM 1986.
AES-Vol 2-3, pp. 17-22.
Valero, A., Torres, C. (1990). On Causality in Organized Energy Systems, Part II:
Symbolic exergoeconomics. International Symposium: A future for energy. Florence,
Italy. Pergamon Press, pp. 393-401.
Valero, A., Serra, L., Torres, C. (1992). A General Theory of Thermoeconomics: Part
I: Structural Analysis. International Symposium ECOS’92. Zaragoza, Spain. ASME
Book I00331, pp. 137-145.
References
Valero, A., Serra, L., Lozano, M. A. (1993). Structural Theory of Thermoeconomics.

International Symposium on Thermodynamics and the Design, Analysis and
Improvement of Energy Systems. Richter H. J. eds. ASME Book no. H00874. New
Orleans, USA. pp. 189-198.
Valero, A., Lozano, M. A., Serra, L., Torres, C. (1994). Application of the Exergy
Cost Theory to the CGAM problem. Energy Vol. 19, no. 13, pp 365-381.
Valero, A., Lozano, M. A. (1997). An Introduction of Thermoeconomics. Published

in Developments in the design of thermal systems (Boehm Editor). Cambridge
University Press. pp. 203-233.
Valero, A., Correas, L., Serra, L. (1999). On-Line Thermoeconomic Diagnosis of

Thermal Power Plants. Thermodynamics and Optimization of Complex Energy
Systems. Klumer Academic Publishers (Bejan and Mamut eds.), pp. 117-136.
Valero, A., Torres, C., Lerch, F. (1999). Structural Theory and Thermoeconomic
Diagnosis. Part III: Intrinsic and Induced Malfunctions. Proceedings of the
ECOS’99 Conference (ASME). Tokyo, Japan. pp. 35-41.
Vargaftik, N. B. (1978). Handbook of Physical Properties of Liquids and Gases.

Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
VA Tech Wabag (1999). List of References, Thermal Desalination Plants and

Reverse Osmosis Desalination. Private Communication.
Villalon, C. (1995). VB Automatic Help Author Version 1.25.
Von Spakovsky, M. R. (1986). A Practical Generalized Analysis Approach to the

Optimal Thermoeconomic Design and Improvement of Real-World Thermal
Systems. Ph. D. Thesis. Georgia Institute of Technology.
Von Spakovsky, M. R., Evans, R. B. (1993). Engineering Functional Analysis.

Part I. ASME Journal of energy resources technology, Vol. 115, pp. 86-92.
Von Spakovsky, M. R. (1994). Application of Engineering Functional Analysis to

the Analysis and Optimization of the CGAM Problem. Energy Vol. 19, no. 13.
Wangnick, K. (1998). 1998 IDA Worldwide Desalting Plants Inventory Report

no. 15.
Water and Electricity Department (WED) of the United Arab Emirates (UAE)
(1997). Private Communication.
Yata, J., Minamiyama, T. (1979). An Equation for Thermal Conductivity of Water

and Steam. JSME Vol. 22, no. 171, pp. 1234-1242.
References
Yusufova, V. D., Pepinov, R. I., Nicolayev, V. A., Zokhrabbekova, G. U., Lobcova,

N. V., Tuayev, T. D. (1978). Thermophysical Properties of Softened Seawater and
Salt Solutions Over a Wide Temperature and Pressure Range. Desalination 25,
pp. 269-280.
Zaleta, A., Ranz, L., Valero, A. (1998). Towards an Unified Measure of the
Renewable Resources Availability: The Exergy Method Applied to the Water of a
River. Energy Conversion and Management 39, 16-18, pp. 1911-1917.
Zaleta, A. (1997). Conceptos sobre el Diagnóstico y la Evaluación Termoecónomica

de Turbinas de Vapor. Ph. D. Thesis. Department of Mechanical Engineering.
University of Zaragoza.
List of figures
FIGURE 2.1 General outlay of MSF distillation with brine recycling .................................................... 37
FIGURE 2.2 Flow diagram of Multi-Effect Distillation (MED) with thermal vapor compression (TVC) 39
FIGURE 2.3 MED process with vertical tube evaporators (VTE) .......................................................... 40
FIGURE 2.4 Flow diagram of a vapor compression system with vertical tube evaporators (VTE) ....... 42
FIGURE 2.5 Diagram model of a solar still ............................................................................................ 44
FIGURE 2.6 Reverse osmosis process..................................................................................................... 46
FIGURE 2.7 Reverse osmosis (RO) desalination with Pelton turbine .................................................... 47
FIGURE 2.8 Electrodialysis process........................................................................................................ 50
FIGURE 3.1 Schematic diagram of a single effect MSF evaporator with recycled brine ....................... 54
FIGURE 3.2 Cross-section of a stage in a typical MSF plant ................................................................. 55
FIGURE 3.3 Temperature profile of a recycle brine MSF plant ............................................................. 56
FIGURE 3.4 A general stage in a MSF plant........................................................................................... 58
FIGURE 3.5 Heat input section ............................................................................................................... 62
FIGURE 3.6 Mixing and splitting points in the MSF desalination plant................................................. 63
FIGURE 3.7 Solution algorithm of a MSF desalination plant model ...................................................... 68
FIGURE 3.8 Correspondence between the Top Brine Temperature and distillate output....................... 72
FIGURE 3.9 Brine recirculation as a function of the distillate output..................................................... 73
FIGURE 3.10 Make-up feed water as a function of the distillate output .................................................. 73
FIGURE 3.11 Seawater to reject section as a function of the distillate output.......................................... 73
FIGURE 3.12 Top brine temperature depending on the seawater temperature and distillate
production. Data collected during the year 1997 ................................................................ 74
FIGURE 3.13 Recycle brine flow as a function of the seawater temperature and production.
Real data collected in the MSF distillers during 1997........................................................ 74
FIGURE 3.14 Make-up feed flow obtained for each range of seawater temperature when real
data are computed. Average data of 1997 .......................................................................... 75
FIGURE 3.15 Seawater to reject flow correlations for different seawater temperatures entering
the MSF plant. Data collected during the year 1997 .......................................................... 75

List of figures
FIGURE 4.1 Schematic diagram of the power generation plant. Main significant flows are
numbered for later descriptions and equations ................................................................... 78
FIGURE 4.2 Schematic diagram of a turbine section .............................................................................. 80
FIGURE 4.3 Isoentropic and real expansion of the steam in a turbine section........................................ 81
FIGURE 4.4 TTD differences in an HP heater ........................................................................................ 82
FIGURE 4.5 TTD differences in an LP heater......................................................................................... 84
FIGURE 4.6 Isoentropic and real compression process in a pump.......................................................... 88
FIGURE 4.7 Gland and seal steam system .............................................................................................. 88
FIGURE 4.8 Leakage flows and seals of a steam turbine ........................................................................ 89
FIGURE 4.9 Algorithm to solve the power plant model using the Powell hybrid method ..................... 92
FIGURE 4.10 Last stage of LP turbine acting as a compressor ................................................................. 93
FIGURE 4.11 Power plant scheme in the NTW Model. Some flowstreams are renumbered
with respect fig. 4.1............................................................................................................. 94
FIGURE 5.1 SIMTAW MSF process window ........................................................................................ 101

FIGURE 5.2 SIMTAW power plant window .......................................................................................... 103
FIGURE 6.1 Physical structure of the co-generation plant ...................................................................... 126

FIGURE 6.2 Productive structure of the cogeneration plant ................................................................... 130
FIGURE 6.3 Generic component scheme ................................................................................................ 140
FIGURE 6.4 Economic resources scheme ............................................................................................... 142
FIGURE 6.5 Fuel / Product diagram and fuel and product exergy flows (kW) in design
conditions for the co-generation plant shown in figure 6.1 ................................................ 145
FIGURE 6.6 Fuel impact and technical saving ........................................................................................ 148
FIGURE 6.7 Malfunction and fuel impact ............................................................................................... 166
FIGURE 6.8 Analysis of the irreversibility causes (kW)......................................................................... 150
FIGURE 6.9 Analysis of fuel impact (kW).............................................................................................. 152
FIGURE 7.1 Productive structure of the simple co-generation system ................................................... 161
FIGURE 7.2 Physical structure of the power plant considered for the thermoeconomic model ............. 163
FIGURE 7.3 Physical structure of the MSF plant considered for the thermoeconomic analysis ............ 165
FIGURE 7.4 F-P description in steam power plant.................................................................................. 167
FIGURE 7.5 Productive structure of the power plant in extraction mode ............................................... 169
FIGURE 7.6 Changes applied to extraction mode productive structure (figure 7.5) when
the plant operates in condensing mode ............................................................................... 170
List of figures
FIGURE 7.7 Productive structure corresponding to extraction mode with low energy production
in a dual-purpose plant. Changes with respect to figure 7.5............................................... 170
FIGURE 7.8 Productive structure of the steam power plant in parallel and twin extraction mode.
Changes with respect to figure 7.5 ..................................................................................... 171
FIGURE 7.9 Productive structure of the steam power plant in desalination or twin desalination mode 171
FIGURE 7.10 F-P definition in the MSF unit............................................................................................ 172
FIGURE 7.11 Productive structure of the MSF unit.................................................................................. 174
FIGURE 7.12 Physical model considered in the thermoeconomic analysis of the MSF plant ................. 178
FIGURE 7.13 Impact on fuel analysis when the efficiency of the HPT4 is decreased 10% ..................... 208
FIGURE 7.14 Irreversibility increase analysis with the inefficiency in the HPT4.................................... 208
FIGURE 7.15 Additional fuel consumption when varying the isoentropic efficiency in HPT4 ............... 219
FIGURE 7.16 Unit electricity cost when the isoentropic HPT4 efficiency is modified ............................ 220
FIGURE 7.17 Unit distilled water cost when the isoentropic HPT4 efficiency is modified ..................... 220
FIGURE 7.18 Impact on fuel analysis when the fouling in BH is neglected ........................................ 232
FIGURE 7.19 Irreversibility increase in the MSF with BH = 0. NTOS case ........................................ 232
FIGURE 7.20 Impact on fuel analysis when the fouling in heater is varied ............................................. 235
FIGURE 7.21 Monetary cost of distillate when the fouling in heater is varied......................................... 235
FIGURE 7.22 Impact on fuel analysis without fouling in RCS. MCR case .......................................... 246
FIGURE 7.23 Irreversibility increase analysis of section 7.3.2.3 .......................................................... 246
FIGURE 7.24 Impact on fuel depending on fouling in recovery section .................................................. 249
FIGURE 7.25 Monetary cost of electricity depending on the fouling in recovery section ....................... 249
FIGURE 7.26 Cost in $ per cubic meter of water when recovery section fouling is varied...................... 250
FIGURE 7.27 Impact on fuel analysis in section 7.3.2.4 ....................................................................... 259
FIGURE 7.28 Irreversibility increase in section 7.3.2.4............................................................................ 259
FIGURE 7.29 Additional fuel consumption due to inefficiencies in several components
of the power plant ............................................................................................................... 264
FIGURE 7.30 Electricity cost with five inefficiencies in the power plant ................................................ 264
FIGURE 7.31 Water cost under different degrees of inefficiency in five components ......................... 265
FIGURE 7.32 Impact on fuel analysis without fouling in distillers ......................................................... 274
FIGURE 7.33 Increase of irreversibility when fouling is neglected in MSF plant ................................ 274
FIGURE 7.34 Impact on fuel due to several inefficiencies in the MSF plant.
Unit exergy cost of steam and electricity is 2.55 and 2.85 respectively............................. 277
FIGURE 7.35 Water cost when the fouling in three distillers is varied .................................................... 279
FIGURE 7.36 Malfunctions with an inefficiency of 5 ºC in the TTD of HPH1 heater under
varying loads in the steam power plant .............................................................................. 280
List of figures
FIGURE 7.37 Malfunctions generated when the FP is working with an isoentropic efficiency
12% lower than the expected under four different loads in the steam power plant ............ 281
FIGURE 7.38 Malfunctions generated by an inefficiency of 5% in the isoentropic efficiency
of the HPT1 under varying loads in the steam power plant................................................ 281
FIGURE 7.39 Malfunctions generated in the fourth section of the HPT under a 10% decrease
in its isoentropic efficiency ................................................................................................. 282
FIGURE 7.40 Malfunctions in LPT1 under varying loads in the steam power plant and a 15%
decrease in isoentropic efficiency ....................................................................................... 282
FIGURE 7.41 Malfunctions provoked by the fouling reduction in heater at different loads..................... 283
FIGURE 7.42 Malfunctions generated in the MSF plant at different loads with no fouling
in the recovery section ........................................................................................................ 283
FIGURE 7.43 Malfunctions generated in the MSF plant when the fouling in reject section
is neglected for the two analyzed loads .............................................................................. 284
FIGURE 7.44 Impact on fuel in the MSF plant when the fouling is neglected in the three distillers.
Three loads at 32 ºC seawater are included ........................................................................ 284
FIGURE 7.45 Physical model applied to the thermoeconomic optimization ............................................ 297
FIGURE 7.46 Productive structure of the thermoeconomic model applied to the
thermoeconomic optimization ............................................................................................ 297
FIGURE 7.47 Optimization algorithm to find the minimum cost of the plant using local optimization... 304
FIGURE 7.48 Speed of convergence of the local variables that are efficiencies....................................... 305
FIGURE 7.49 Evolution of the local variables that are TTD in heaters .................................................... 305
FIGURE 7.50 Minimization of the global cost of the system .................................................................... 306
FIGURE 7.51 Sensitivity analysis of the energetic efficiency of the boiler around
the optimum point (η1 = 0.8608) ........................................................................................ 309
FIGURE 7.52 Sensitivity analysis of the efficiency of the first section of the high-pressure
turbine around the optimum point (η2 = 0.924).................................................................. 309
FIGURE 7.53 Exergy cost of water (k* of steam and electricity entering the MSF is the unity),
and distillate temperature at different loads at 32 ºC seawater ........................................... 315
FIGURE A1.1 Impact on fuel analysis with an inefficiency in HPH1 ................................................... 341
FIGURE A1.2 Irreversibility analysis when the TTD in HPH1 is increased 5 ºC .................................. 341
FIGURE A1.3 Impact on fuel associated with a variation in the TTD of HPH1.
122 MW power plant production ........................................................................................ 343
FIGURE A1.4 Cost of electricity when varying TTD in HPH1 (MCR performance case)........................ 343
FIGURE A1.5 Cost of water when varying TTD in the first HPH (MCR performance case) ................... 344
FIGURE A1.6 Impact on fuel analysis when a inefficiency in F in detected ......................................... 354
FIGURE A1.7 Irreversibility analysis with the irreversibility in FP ...................................................... 354
List of figures
FIGURE A1.8 Effect of feed pump efficiency on fuel consumption. Variational study in the
MCR performance case ...................................................................................................... 355
FIGURE A1.9 Effect of pump inefficiency on electricity cost (MCR performance case) ......................... 356
FIGURE A1.10 Water cost when the efficiency of the feed pump is varied................................................ 356
FIGURE A1.11 Impact on fuel analysis when the HPT1 efficiency is 5% less than the expected .......... 366
FIGURE A1.12 Irreversibility analysis with the inefficiency in HPT1 .................................................... 366
FIGURE A1.13 Model linearity with respect to an inefficiency in HPT1 ................................................... 368
FIGURE A1.14 Cost of electricity depending on the degree of inefficiency applied to HPT1 (MCR case) 368
FIGURE A1.15 Cost of water when the isoentropic efficiency is varied from –5% to 5% with
respect to design efficiency (MCR case) ............................................................................ 369
FIGURE A1.16 Impact on fuel analysis, section A1.4 ............................................................................. 379
FIGURE A1.17 Irreversibility analysis in section A1.4 ........................................................................... 379
FIGURE A1.18 Effect on the fuel consumption when the degree of inefficiency in the LPT
is varied from the design point (MCR case) ....................................................................... 380
FIGURE A1.19 Cost of electricity for inefficiencies in LPT1 (MCR case) ................................................. 381
FIGURE A1.20 Water cost per cubic meter for inefficiencies in LPT1. 122 MW in extraction
mode (MCR case) ............................................................................................................... 381
FIGURE A1.21 Impact on fuel analysis in section A1.5 .......................................................................... 387
FIGURE A1.22 Irreversibility increase in section A1.5 ........................................................................... 387
FIGURE A1.23 Effect on fuel consumption when the fouling in recovery section is
gradually decreased. 1,900 T/h and 32º C seawater ........................................................... 393
FIGURE A1.24 Cost of a cubic meter of water depending on the fouling in the recovery section ............. 393
FIGURE A1.25 Impact on fuel analysis, section A1.6 ............................................................................. 404
FIGURE A1.26 Increase of irreversibility in section A1.6 ....................................................................... 404
FIGURE A1.27 Effect on fuel consumption when the fouling in reject is varied. Nominal-temperature
operation in summer (NTOS, i.e., 1,900 T/h and 32 ºC seawater temperature) ................. 406
FIGURE A1.28 Variation of the water cost when fouling in the reject section is decreased from
the design value to zero ...................................................................................................... 407
List of tables
TABLE 1.1 Ground water disposal and renewable water resources in the Gulf Countries in 1994
(Alawadhi, 1999) .............................................................................................................. 21
TABLE 1.2 Water demand for the Gulf Countries in 1990 (ESCWA, 1994)...................................... 21
TABLE 1.3 Total installed capacity and production in the seawater desalination plant of the
Gulf Area in year 1994 (Alawadi, 1999; Al-Gobaisi, 1999) ............................................ 22
TABLE 1.4 Contracted capacity of freshwater production from seawater and all waters with the
existing process. The total capacity is 12.8 million cubic meters per day and 21 million
cubic meters per day, respectively. Data collected in 1996 (Alawadhi, 1999) ................ 23
TABLE 1.5 Natural resources in the pacific region in the year 1998 (Goto et al., 1999).................... 23
TABLE 1.6 Water use trends in the Pacific region (Goto et al., 1999)................................................ 24
TABLE 1.7 Desalination installations in the Pacific region. Data from 1998 (Goto et al., 1999)....... 24
TABLE 1.8 Water disposal in the African region in 1995................................................................... 25
TABLE 1.9 Water withdrawal in North African countries. Data collected in 1990 for Algeria
and Tunisia; for Egypt and Morocco data from 1992 (Al-Gobaisi, 1997) ....................... 25
TABLE 1.10 Water use in the U.S. in 1995 (Gleick, 1998)................................................................... 26
TABLE 1.11 Desalinated water in Spain during the year 1998 (Torres and Medina, 1999) ............. 27
TABLE 1.12 Some of the RO desalination plants installed in Spain (Cadagua, 1999; Sánchez
et al., 1997; Fayas and Novoa, 1997; Torres et al., 1999; AECYR, 1999) ...................... 28
TABLE 1.13 Specific consumption of the thermal desalination processes. Data obtained from
several sources (Fisia-Italimpianti, 1999; I.D.E., 1999)................................................... 29
TABLE 3.1 Fouling factors of the heat reject section in MSF Plants .................................................. 76
TABLE 4.1 Typical x, y, and z coefficient values for the inlet TTD’s in an HP heater ...................... 83
TABLE 4.2 Typical x, y, z, a, and b coefficient values for the outlet TTD’s in an HP heater ............ 83
TABLE 4.3 Typical x, y, and z coefficient values for the inlet TTD’s in an LP heater ...................... 84
TABLE 4.4 Typical x, y, z, a, and b coefficient values for the outlet TTD’s in a LP heater............... 84
TABLE 4.5 x, y, z, a, b, and c coefficient values in deaerator............................................................. 85
TABLE 4.6 Values of the a coefficient for each pipe of the power model .......................................... 87

List of tables
TABLE 4.7 Kd and Kd’ constants of the gland and seal steam system ............................................... 89
TABLE 4.8 Operating mode and mathematical model corresponding to the performance
data cases .......................................................................................................................... 96
TABLE 5.1 Input variables for the MCR (maximum continous rating, producing both electricity
and water) case.................................................................................................................. 106
TABLE 5.2 Model validation for the MCR case.................................................................................. 106
TABLE 5.3 Input variables for the MR (maximum rating, producing only electricity)
performance case .............................................................................................................. 107
TABLE 5.4 Model validation for the MR case .................................................................................... 107
TABLE 5.5 Input variables for the PL115 performance case (partial load with 115 MW
of electricity and a heat extraction to MSF of 145 Gcal/h) .............................................. 108
TABLE 5.6 Model validation for the PL115 performance data case ................................................... 108
TABLE 5.7 Input variables for the PL85 performance case (partial load with 85 MW
of electricity and 145 Gcal/h of extraction heat flow) ...................................................... 109
TABLE 5.8 Model validation for the PL85 performance case............................................................. 109
TABLE 5.9 MSL2 performance case (minimum stable load with 45 MW of electricity
and a combined heat extraction flow of 145 Gcal/h). Main input data ............................ 110
TABLE 5.10 Model validation for the MSL2 performance case ........................................................... 110
TABLE 5.11 Input data of the MSL3 performance case (minimum stable load with two
extractions of 150 and 145 Gcal/h to MSF units) ............................................................. 111
TABLE 5.12 Model validation for the MSL3 performance case ........................................................... 111
TABLE 5.13 Input data of the MSL4 performance case (minimum stable load with the maximum
heat flow extraction to MSF unit: 170 Gcal/h) ................................................................. 112
TABLE 5.14 MSL4 performance case. Model validation...................................................................... 112
TABLE 5.15 Main input data of the ODOB case (one desalination-one boiler) ................................... 113
TABLE 5.16 Model validation of the ODOB case................................................................................. 113
TABLE 5.17 Main input data of the TDOB case (two desalination-one boiler).................................... 114
TABLE 5.18 Model validation data for the TDOB case ........................................................................ 114
TABLE 5.19 Main input data of the VWO performance case (maximum capacity of the steam
turbine with and extraction heat flow of 170 Gcal/h to MSF) .......................................... 115
TABLE 5.20 Model validation data for the VWO case ......................................................................... 115
TABLE 5.21 Input data of the COC performance case (boiler peak load at least 5% more than
the MCR case) .................................................................................................................. 116
TABLE 5.22 Model validation data for the COC case........................................................................... 116
List of tables
TABLE 5.23 Input data and performance parameters of the NTOS case (normal-temperature
operation in summer)........................................................................................................ 119
TABLE 5.24 Model validation of the NTOS performance case ............................................................ 119
TABLE 5.25 Input data and performance parameters of the HTOS case (high-temperature
TABLE 5.26 Model validation of the HTOS performance case ............................................................ 120
TABLE 5.27 Some input data and performance parameters of the LTOS case (low-temperature
TABLE 5.28 Model validation. LTOS performance case in MSF distillers.......................................... 121
TABLE 5.29 Some input data and performance parameters of the HTOW case (high-temperature
operation in winter) .......................................................................................................... 122
TABLE 5.30 Model validation of HTOW case of the MSF plant ......................................................... 122
TABLE 6.1 Fuel and product definitions for typical dual-purpose power and desalination
plant units ..................................................................................................................... 129
TABLE 6.2 Fuels and Products of the components of the co-generation plant ................................... 131
TABLE 6.3 Characteristic equations of the cogeneration plant........................................................... 132
TABLE 6.4 Design and operation exergy flow values of the cogeneration plant (figure 6.1) ............ 144
TABLE 6.5 Fuel/Product definition corresponding to figure 6.5 ........................................................ 146
TABLE 6.6 Increase of unit consumption. (100 ∆κij) ......................................................................... 146
TABLE 6.7 Irreversibility matrix and unit cost of product.................................................................. 151
TABLE 6.8 Malfunction and dysfunction table in (kW) ..................................................................... 152
TABLE 7.1 Fuel, product, characteristic equation and exergy cost balance in the simple
co-generation system ........................................................................................................ 162
TABLE 7.2 Results of the simple co-generation system model, MCR case........................................ 162
TABLE 7.3 Description of components appearing in figure 7.2 ......................................................... 164
TABLE 7.4 Components description from figure 7.3. Note that component no. 1 is not described
in physical model but is included in other schemes ......................................................... 165
TABLE 7.5 Exergy flows and characteristic equations of components in the steam power plant
(extraction mode).............................................................................................................. 176
TABLE 7.6 Exergy flows and characteristic equations for the components of the MSF plant ........... 179
TABLE 7.7 System of equations providing the exergy cost of the steam power plant
(extraction mode).............................................................................................................. 182
TABLE 7.8 System of equations providing the exergy costs of the MSF plant (figure 7.11) ............. 184
List of tables
TABLE 7.9 Case studies of the exergy cost analysis (PTC: Performance Test Case of the dual
plant; Gc: Natural gas consumed; CBS: Cleaning Ball System was used) ...................... 185
TABLE 7.10 Exergy (kW fuel/kW product) unit costs k* of most significant flows of the dual plant . 186
TABLE 7.11 Exergoeconomic (monetary) unit costs ($/GJ) of most significant flows of a dual
power and desalination plant. Cost of water c*D is expressed in $/m3, and electricity
cost of is also expressed in $/kW·h (c*GEN*) ................................................................... 187
TABLE 7.12 Irreversibilities (exergy destruction, kW) in the different components of the dual
plant. MSF unit is considered a component...................................................................... 188
TABLE 7.13 Isoentropic efficiencies of pumps and turbine sections of the power plant ...................... 189
TABLE 7.14 Product and fuel (kW), and exergy efficiency (%) values for the power and
MS plants. Note: The efficiency of the boiler is not included in the final efficiency....... 190
TABLE 7.15 Unit exergy costs k* (kW/kW) of component products in the steam power plant
coupled with a MSF unit................................................................................................... 191
TABLE 7.16 Costing equation parameters for an MSF and power plant (El-Sayed, 1996).
Units: ca k$/ft2, A ft2, M lb/s, Q kW, Pi, Pe psia, Ti R, ∆T F, ∆P, dP psi, e = η/1– η.
Subscripts: i, inlet; e, exit; t, tube; s, shell; m, mean (LTMD) ........................................ 193
TABLE 7.17 Component parameters in Boehm (1987) equations......................................................... 194
TABLE 7.18 Costing equations proposed by Frangopoulos (1991) ...................................................... 194
TABLE 7.19 Cost equations proposed by Lozano et al. (1996). η exergetic efficiency, B exergy
flow of product, S negentropy, vw velocity of tubes , W power, e eficiency of the
condenser (= T0 (s2 – s1)/(h2 – h1)) ................................................................................... 195
TABLE 7.20 Price breakdown per section in a dual-purpose plant ....................................................... 196
TABLE 7.21 Thermoeconomic costs of distilled water and electricity of the analyzed
dual-purpose plant............................................................................................................. 197
TABLE 7.22 Thermoeconomic cost of electricity ($/kW·h) and water ($/m 3) for the cases
studied in the exergetic cost analysis ................................................................................ 197
TABLE 7.23 F-P diagram in design, output power of 122 MW ........................................................... 209
TABLE 7.24 F-P values with inefficiency in HPT4 (10% lower efficiency) .................................... 210
TABLE 7.25 KP matrix in design (122 MW) ....................................................................................... 211
TABLE 7.26 KP matrix with inefficiency in HPT4 (10%) ................................................................... 212
TABLE 7.27 Variation de KP with inefficiency in HPT4...................................................................... 213

TABLE 7.28 Irreversibility matrix I with an inefficiency in HPT4 ...................................................... 214
TABLE 7.29 Dysfunction/malfunction matrix with inefficiency in HPT4 (10% isoentropic eff.) ....... 215
TABLE 7.30 Malfunction matrix with inefficiency in HPT4 (1% isoentropic eff. is varied) ........... 216
TABLE 7.31 F-P values (design) for the MSF plant. Nominal production in summer. .................... 222
TABLE 7.32 F-P values without fouling in heater. Nominal production, 32 ºC seawater ................ 223
List of tables
TABLE 7.33 KP matrix in design ...................................................................................................... 224

TABLE 7.34 KP matrix without fouling in heater. NTOS data case .................................................... 225
TABLE 7.35 Variation of the KP matrix without fouling in heater. NTOS case .............................. 226
TABLE 7.36 Irreversibility matrix without fouling in heater. 1,900 T/h and 32 ºC seawater temp ..... 227
TABLE 7.37 Malfunction/dysfunction matrix without fouling in heater. NTOS case ..................... 228
TABLE 7.38 Malfunction matrix varying fouling in heater 0.00001 m 2 K/W in NTOS case .......... 229
TABLE 7.39 F-P values in design, 122 MW output power .................................................................. 238
TABLE 7.40 F-P values without fouling in recovery section. MCR case ............................................ 239
TABLE 7.41 KP matrix in design. MCR case ...................................................................................... 240
TABLE 7.42 KP matrix without fouling in recovery section. MCR case ............................................ 241
TABLE 7.43 Variation of KP without fouling in recovery section. MCR case .................................... 242
TABLE 7.44 Irreversibility matrix without fouling in recovery section (MCR case) .......................... 243
TABLE 7.45 Malfunction/dysfunction matrix without fouling in recovery section (MCR case) ......... 244
TABLE 7.46 Malfunction matrix when the fouling in recovery is varied 0.00001 m 2 K/W
in MCR case ................................................................................................................. 245
TABLE 7.47 F-P values in design, 122 MW output power ............................................................... 252
TABLE 7.48 F-P values with inefficiencies in five components (MCR case) ................................... 253
TABLE 7.49 KP matrix in design (MCR Case) ............................................................................... 254
TABLE 7.50 KP matrix with several inefficiencies in MCR case ..................................................... 255
TABLE 7.51 Variation of KP matrix with several inefficiencies in MCR case ................................. 256
TABLE 7.52 Irreversibility matrix with five inefficiencies in power plant (MCR case ............................ 257
TABLE 7.53 Malfunction/dysfunction matrix with five inefficiencies in MCR case ............................... 258
TABLE 7.54 Comparison of individual inefficiencies and combined inefficiencies in the
power plant. The first five columns are individual inefficiencies, the sixth is
the sum of the five inefficiencies and the seventh is the malfunctions generated
with the five combined inefficiencies. MCR conditions .................................................. 261
TABLE 7.55 Intrinsic and induced malfunctions (MF) and impact on fuel (MF*) of the power
plant. 122 MW load .......................................................................................................... 262
TABLE 7.56 The first column represents the X-axis in charts, corresponding to the inefficiency
associated with each component ...................................................................................... 263
TABLE 7.57 F-P values in design, nominal production with 32 ºC seawater ...................................... 267
TABLE 7.58 F-P values without fouling in heater, recovery and reject section. NTOS case ............. 268
TABLE 7.59 KP matrix in design (NTOS case) ............................................................................... 269
TABLE 7.60 KP matrix with three inefficiencies in distillers (NTOS case) ...................................... 270
List of tables
TABLE 7.61 Variation of KP when the fouling in distillers is zero (NTOS case). ........................... 271
TABLE 7.62 Irreversibility matrix with three inefficiencies in distillers. NTOS case ...................... 272
TABLE 7.63 Malfunction/dysfunction matrix when fouling in distillers is zero (NTOS case). ...... 273
TABLE 7.64 Correspondence between the X-label and fouling ............................................................ 276
TABLE 7.65 Comparison between the sum of individual inefficiencies and three combined
inefficiencies in the MSF unit. The first three columns are individual inefficiencies,
the fourth is the sum of the three inefficiencies and the fifth is the malfunctions
generated with the three combined inefficiencies. Nominal production with 32 ºC
seawater (NTOS case) ...................................................................................................... 277
TABLE 7.66 Intrinsic (MFl) and induced (MFg) malfunctions of the MSF plant and their costs
(impact on fuel, MF*) under nominal production (32 ºC seawater temperature)............. 278
TABLE 7.67 Impact on fuel associated with the inefficiencies in the power plant in extraction
mode (MCR case) ............................................................................................................. 285
TABLE 7.68 Cost variation associated with the inefficiencies in the power plant in co-generation
mode (MCR) ..................................................................................................................... 286
TABLE 7.69 Impact on fuel associated with the inefficiencies in the MSF plant (isolated from
the power plant). 32 ºC Seawater...................................................................................... 286
TABLE 7.70 Additional cost associated with the inefficiencies in the MSF plant (isolated from
the power plant). 32 ºC Seawater (NTOS case)................................................................ 287
TABLE 7.71 Impact on fuel associated with the inefficiencies in the MSF plant (coupled with
the power plant) ................................................................................................................ 287
TABLE 7.72 Additional cost associated with the inefficiencies in the MSF plant (coupled with
the power plant) ................................................................................................................ 287
TABLE 7.73 Intrinsic and induced malfunctions at 122 MW ............................................................... 290
TABLE 7.74 Intrinsic and induced malfunctions at 140 MW ............................................................... 291
TABLE 7.75 Intrinsic and induced malfunctions at 90 MW ................................................................. 292
TABLE 7.76 Intrinsic and induced malfunctions at 60 MW ................................................................. 293
TABLE 7.77 Intrinsic and induced malfunctions at 1,900 T/h ............................................................. 294
TABLE 7.78 Intrinsic and induced malfunctions at 2,400 T/h .......................................................... 295
TABLE 7.79 Resources and products in the productive structure of the thermoeconomic model.
The superscript (´) is extraction mass flow rate, mdes is the steam flow to MSF unit
(89.7 kg/s), D is the distilled water mass flow (2000 T/h) and b w is the exergy of
water leaving the MSF plant (7 kJ/kg·K).......................................................................... 298
TABLE 7.80 Equations of the thermoeconomic model applied in the local optimization..................... 299
TABLE 7.81 Values of parameter a in the capital cost equation of a heater ......................................... 303
TABLE 7.82 Results of the local variables in the optimization process ............................................. 304
TABLE 7.83 Main physical variables after the optimization process.................................................... 306
List of tables
TABLE 7.84 Results for the optimization of the dual-purpose plant in the MCR performance
case. Exergy flows are described in figure 7.45. c is the cost (10 –6 $/kJ), with a
fuel cost cf of 2×10–6 $/kJ and includes the capital cost factor kZ (kZ = ϕ·Z/P);
Z (106 $) is the capital cost of the component.................................................................. 307
TABLE 7.85 Different configurations in a dual power plant with 6 co-generation units, applied
to two different power and water demands ...................................................................... 311
TABLE 7.86 Price for water and electricity depending on the policy applied ...................................... 312
TABLE 7.87 Benefit obtained in the two examples with five different price policies see
previous table) .................................................................................................................. 312
TABLE A1.1 F-P values in design (MCR case) ................................................................................ 333

TABLE A1.2 F-P values in operation with 5 ºC TTD respect to design ............................................. 334
TABLE A1.3 KP matrix in design (MCR case) ................................................................................ 335
TABLE A1.4 KP matrix with inefficiency in HPH1 (MCR case) ...................................................... 336
TABLE A1.5 Variation of KP matrix when TTD in the HPH1 is 5 ºC higher than the expected ........ 337
TABLE A1.6 Irreversibility matrix with the inefficiency in HPH1 .................................................... 338
TABLE A1.7 Malfunction/Dysfunction matrix when the TTD in HPH1 is 5 ºC higher....................... 339
TABLE A1.8 Malfunction matrix when TTD in HPH1 is varied 1 ºC ................................................ 340
TABLE A1.9 F-P design values ........................................................................................................ 346
TABLE A1.10 F-P values with inefficiency in FP: –12% in its efficiciency ........................................... 347
TABLE A1.11 KP matrix in design (MCR case) ............................................................................. 348
TABLE A1.12 KP matrix when the inefficiency in FP is detected ...................................................... 349
TABLE A1.13 Variation of the KP matrix when the FP is working improperly.................................... 350
TABLE A1.14 Irreversibility matrix with –12% in the FP efficiency .................................................. 351
TABLE A1.15 Dysfunction table and malfunction array when the FP is working with 12%
lower efficiency ......................................................................................................... 352
TABLE A1.16 Malfunction matrix when the efficiency of the FP varies 1% ............................................ 353
TABLE A1.17 F-P values without any inefficiency. MCR case ......................................................... 358
TABLE A1.18 F-P values when the HPT1 decreases 5% its efficiency (MCR case) ............................ 359
TABLE A1.19 KP matrix in design (MCR case) ..................................................................................... 360
TABLE A1.20 KP matrix when the inefficiency in HPT1 is 5% in its efficiency ................................. 361
TABLE A1.21 Variation of the KP with the inefficiency in HPT1 (MCR case) ................................... 362
TABLE A1.22 Irreversibility matrix with the inefficiency in HPT1 (MCR case) ................................. 363
TABLE A1.23 Dysfunction/malfunction table when the efficiency of the HPT1 is decreased 5% ........ 364
List of tables
TABLE A1.24 Malfunction matrix when the efficiency of the HPT1 is varied 1% ................................ 365
TABLE A1.25 F-P values in design (MCR case) ..................................................................................... 371
TABLE A1.26 F-P values with the inefficiency in LPT1, MCR case ..................................................... 372
TABLE A1.27 KP matrix in design, MCR case ....................................................................................... 373
TABLE A1.28 KP matrix when the efficiency in the LPT1 is decreased 15%, MCR case ..................... 374
TABLE A1.29 Variation of the KP matrix with an inefficiency in LPT1, MCR case ............................. 375
TABLE A1.30 Irreversibility matrix with the efficiency of the LPT1 decreased 15%, MCR case ......... 376
TABLE A1.31 Dysfunction/malfunction table for an inefficiency in the LPT1 (15%), MCR case ......... 377
TABLE A1.32 Malfunction matrix when the efficiency of the LPT1 is varied 1%, MCR case .............. 378
TABLE A1.33 F-P values in design, NTOS case ..................................................................................... 383
TABLE A1.34 F-P values with fouling in RCS=0, NTOS case .............................................................. 384
TABLE A1.35 KP matrix in design, NTOS case ..................................................................................... 385
TABLE A1.36 KP matrix with an inefficiency in RCS, NTOS case ....................................................... 386
TABLE A1.37 Variation of the KP matrix when the fouling in RCS is neglected .................................. 389
TABLE A1.38 Irreversibility matrix without fouling in RCS .................................................................. 390
TABLE A1.39 Dysfunction/malfunction table without fouling in RCS, NTOS case .............................. 391
TABLE A1.40 Malfunction matrix when the fouling in RCS is varied 0.00001 m 2 K/W ...................... 394
TABLE A1.41 F-P values in design, NTOS case ..................................................................................... 397
TABLE A1.42 F-P values when the fouling in RJS = 0, NTOS case ...................................................... 398
TABLE A1.43 KP matrix in design, NTOS case ..................................................................................... 399
TABLE A1.44 KP matrix with the inefficiency in RJS, NTOS case ....................................................... 400
TABLE A1.45 Variation of the KP matrix when the inefficiency in RJS is detected ............................. 401
TABLE A1.46 Irreversibility matrix corresponding to reject fouling in RJS, NTOS case ...................... 402
TABLE A1.47 Dysfunction/malfunction table when the fouling in RJS = 0 ........................................... 403
TABLE A1.48 Malfunction matrix when the fouling in RJS is varied 0.00001 m 2 K/W ..................... 408
TABLE A2.1 Liquid phase composition of Reference Ambient (Szargut, 1989; Morris, and
Szargut, 1986)................................................................................................................... 413
Índex
Resumen ..................................................................................................................................................... 11
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................................... 15
CHAPTER 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 17

1.1 Water requirements ................................................................................................................. 18
1.2 Water quality and uses ............................................................................................................ 18
1.3 World water resources and demand ........................................................................................ 19
1.3.1 Gulf Region ................................................................................................................. 19
1.3.2 Pacific Region and India ............................................................................................. 23
1.3.3 North Africa ................................................................................................................. 25
1.3.4 US experience and the Caribbean Islands ................................................................... 26
1.3.5 Mediterranean area and Europe ................................................................................... 27
1.4 Desalination and energy .......................................................................................................... 29
1.5 Why a MSF and power plant? ................................................................................................. 30
1.6 Thermoeconomic analysis ....................................................................................................... 32
1.7 Ph. D. Thesis development ...................................................................................................... 33
CHAPTER 2. Desalination processes ..................................................................................................... 35

2.1 Phase change processes: distillation and freezing ................................................................... 36
2.1.1 Multi-stage flash process (MSF) ................................................................................. 36
2.1.2 Multi-effect distillation (MED) ................................................................................... 38
2.1.3 Vapor compression (VC) ............................................................................................. 41
2.1.4 Solar distillation ........................................................................................................... 43
2.1.5 Freezing process .......................................................................................................... 44
2.2 Processes using membranes .................................................................................................... 45
2.2.1 Reverse osmosis .......................................................................................................... 45
2.2.2 Electrodialysis (ED) .................................................................................................... 49
2.3 Processes acting on chemical bounds ...................................................................................... 49
2.3.1 Ion exchange ................................................................................................................ 49
2.4 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 51

Índex
CHAPTER 3. MSF desalination steady-state model ............................................................................ 53

3.1 Process description ..................................................................................................................... 54
3.2 Mathematical model of MSF unit ............................................................................................... 57
3.2.1 Stage model .................................................................................................................... 58
3.2.2 Brine Heater Model ........................................................................................................ 62
3.2.3 Mixer and splitter model ................................................................................................. 63
3.3 Auxiliary equations ..................................................................................................................... 64
3.3.1 Density ............................................................................................................................ 64
3.3.2 Viscosity ......................................................................................................................... 64
3.3.3 Thermal conductivity ...................................................................................................... 65
3.3.4 Heat capacity .................................................................................................................. 65
3.3.5 Enthalpy .......................................................................................................................... 65
3.3.6 Vapor pressure ................................................................................................................ 66
3.3.7 Boiling point elevation ................................................................................................... 67
3.3.8 Non-equilibrium allowance ............................................................................................ 67
3.3.9 Demister and other losses ............................................................................................... 67
3.4 Solution algorithm ...................................................................................................................... 68
3.5 Simulation cases ......................................................................................................................... 70
3.5.1 TBT control .................................................................................................................... 71
3.5.2 Inverse problem .............................................................................................................. 71
3.6 Initial data and simulation .......................................................................................................... 72
3.6.1 Fouling effect .................................................................................................................. 75
3.7 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 76
CHAPTER 4. Steam power plant steady-state model .......................................................................... 77

4.1 Model description ....................................................................................................................... 78
4.2 Mathematical model ................................................................................................................... 80
4.2.1 Steam turbines ................................................................................................................ 80
4.2.2 HP heat exchangers ......................................................................................................... 82
4.2.3 LP heat exchangers ......................................................................................................... 83
4.2.4 Deaerator ......................................................................................................................... 84
4.2.5 Condenser ....................................................................................................................... 85
4.2.6 Boiler .............................................................................................................................. 85
4.2.7 Valves ............................................................................................................................. 86
4.2.7.1 Turbine control valves ...................................................................................... 86
4.2.7.2 Boiler outlet stop valve ..................................................................................... 86
4.2.7.3 Boiler inlet control valve .................................................................................. 86
4.2.8 Pipes ................................................................................................................................ 86
4.2.9 Pumps ............................................................................................................................. 87
4.2.10 Gland and seal steam system .......................................................................................... 88
4.2.11 Generator ........................................................................................................................ 89
4.3 Auxiliary equations ..................................................................................................................... 90
4.3.1 Thermodynamic properties ............................................................................................. 90
4.3.2 Transport properties ........................................................................................................ 90
Índex
4.4 Solution algorithm ...................................................................................................................... 90

4.5 Operating modes and mathematical models ............................................................................... 92
4.6 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 96
CHAPTER 5. Simulator .......................................................................................................................... 99

5.1 SIMTAW structure ..................................................................................................................... 100
5.2 Model validation ......................................................................................................................... 104
5.2.1 Power plant ..................................................................................................................... 104
5.2.1.1 MCR case .......................................................................................................... 106
5.2.1.2 MR case ............................................................................................................ 107
5.2.1.3 PL115 case ........................................................................................................ 108
5.2.1.4 PL85 case .......................................................................................................... 109
5.2.1.5 MSL2 case ......................................................................................................... 110
5.2.1.6 MSL3 case ........................................................................................................ 111
5.2.1.7 MSL4 case ........................................................................................................ 112
5.2.1.8 ODOB case ....................................................................................................... 113
5.2.1.9 TDOB case ........................................................................................................ 114
5.2.1.10 VWO case ......................................................................................................... 115
5.2.1.11 COC case .......................................................................................................... 116
5.2.2 MSF Plant ....................................................................................................................... 117
5.2.2.1 NTOS case ........................................................................................................ 119
5.2.2.2 HTOS case ........................................................................................................ 120
5.2.2.3 LTOS case ........................................................................................................ 121
5.2.2.4 HTOW case ...................................................................................................... 122
CHAPTER 6. Thermoeconomics. Fundamentals, applications of thermoeconomic diagnosis

and optimization of complex energy systems .................................................................... 123
6.1 Basic concepts ............................................................................................................................ 126
6.1.1 The concept of cost ......................................................................................................... 126
6.1.2 Fuel, product and unit exergetic consumption ................................................................ 127
6.1.3 Physical and thermoeconomic plant models ................................................................... 130
6.2 Calculating thermoeconomic costs ............................................................................................. 136
6.2.1 Marginal and average thermoeconomic costs ................................................................. 140
6.2.2 Economic resources and thermoeconomic costs ............................................................ 142
6.3 Thermoeconomic applications to thermoeconomic operation diagnosis and
the optimization of complex energy systems .............................................................................. 143
6.3.1 Operation thermoeconomic diagnosis ............................................................................ 143
6.3.1.1 Technical exergy saving ................................................................................... 144
6.3.1.2 Impact on resources consumption .................................................................... 145
6.3.1.3 Malfunction and dysfunction analysis .............................................................. 148
6.3.1.4 Intrinsic and induced malfunctions ................................................................... 153
6.3.2 Thermoeconomic optimization ....................................................................................... 155
Índex
CHAPTER 7. Thermoeconomic analysis of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant ............. 159
7.1 Thermoeconomic model ............................................................................................................. 161
7.1.1 A simple co-generation system ....................................................................................... 161
7.1.2 Physical structure ......................................................................................................... 162
7.1.3 Productive structure ........................................................................................................ 166
7.1.3.1 Steam power plant ............................................................................................ 166
7.1.3.2 MSF unit ........................................................................................................... 171
7.1.4 Thermoeconomic model ................................................................................................. 175
7.2 Cost analysis ............................................................................................................................... 180
7.2.1 Exergy costs allocation ................................................................................................... 181
7.2.2 Exergy cost analysis ....................................................................................................... 185
7.2.3 Thermoeconomic costs ................................................................................................... 191
7.2.3.1 Investment costs ............................................................................................... 192
7.2.3.2 Capital costs ...................................................................................................... 197
7.2.4 Thermoeconomic cost analysis ....................................................................................... 197
7.2.5 Cost allocation: Indirect methods ................................................................................... 198
7.2.5.1 WEA method .................................................................................................... 198
7.2.5.2 Fuel cost of water in dual plants ....................................................................... 200
7.3 Thermoeconomic diagnosis ........................................................................................................ 202
7.3.1 Thermoeconomic diagnosis of a power and desalination plant: case studies .............. 203
7.3.2 Analysis of individual inefficiencies .............................................................................. 205
7.3.2.1 Inefficiency in the fourth section of the high-pressure turbine ......................... 205
7.3.2.2 Using the cleaning ball system in the brine heater ........................................... 221
7.3.2.3 The effect of recovery section fouling on steam power plant behavior ............ 236
7.3.3 Analysis of several inefficiencies ................................................................................... 251
7.3.3.1 Analysis of several simultaneous inefficiencies in the steam power plant ....... 251
7.3.3.2 Analysis of several inefficiencies in the MSF plant ......................................... 265
7.3.4 Thermoeconomic diagnosis and load influence in the dual plant ................................... 279
7.3.4.1 Effect of inefficiencies in the power plant for different loads .......................... 280
7.3.4.2 Effect of MSF unit inefficiencies under different loads ................................... 283
7.3.5 Summary of applying thermoeconomic diagnosis to power and desalination plants .. 285
7.4 Thermoeconomic optimization ................................................................................................... 288
7.4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 288
7.4.2 Thermoeconomic isolation ............................................................................................. 288
7.4.3 Physical model ................................................................................................................ 296
7.4.4 Thermoeconomic model ................................................................................................. 296
7.4.5 Local and global variables .............................................................................................. 299
7.4.6 Local optimization of subsystems .................................................................................. 301
7.4.7 Local optimization results ............................................................................................... 303
7.5 Economic analysis. Cost, price and benefit ................................................................................ 309
7.5.1 Case study ....................................................................................................................... 311
7.6 Conclusions and operation recommendations ............................................................................ 313
7.6.1 Cost analysis ................................................................................................................... 313
7.6.1.1 Results .............................................................................................................. 313
7.6.1.2 Conclusions and operation recommendations .................................................. 316
Índex
7.6.2 Thermoeconomic diagnosis ............................................................................................ 317

7.6.2.1 Results .............................................................................................................. 317
7.6.2.2 Conclusions and final considerations ............................................................... 318
7.6.3 Local optimization .......................................................................................................... 321
7.6.4 Operating management ................................................................................................... 322
CHAPTER 8. Synthesis, contributions and perspectives ..................................................................... 323

8.1 Synthesis ..................................................................................................................................... 323
8.2 Main contributions ..................................................................................................................... 325
8.2.1 Simulator of a dual-purpose power and desalination plant ............................................ 325
8.2.2 State of the art in Thermoeconomics .............................................................................. 325
8.2.3 F-P definition for a MSF unit ......................................................................................... 326
8.2.4 Cost analysis of a dual-plant ........................................................................................... 326
8.2.5 Diagnosis of a complex system ...................................................................................... 326
8.2.6 Local optimization of the steam power plant ................................................................. 327
8.2.7 Cost, price and benefit .................................................................................................... 327
8.3 Perspectives ................................................................................................................................ 327
8.3.1 Improving existing plants. Process integration .............................................................. 327
8.3.2 Improvements in thermoeconomic diagnosis ................................................................. 328
8.3.3 Integrating attitudes ........................................................................................................ 329
8.3.4 Sustainable desalination ................................................................................................. 329
8.3.5 Promote energy and water interactions .......................................................................... 330
ANNEX 1. Thermoeconomic diagnosis .................................................................................................. 331

A1.1 Effect of an inefficiency in the high-pressure heater no.1 (HPH1) ............................................ 332
A1.2 Effect of feed pump isoentropic efficiency ................................................................................ 345
A1.3 Effect of an inefficiency in the first section of the high-pressure turbine (HPT1) ..................... 357
A1.4 Effect of inefficiency in the first section of the low-pressure turbine (LPT1) ........................... 369
A1.5 Effect of the cleaning ball system in the recovery section ......................................................... 382
A1.6 Effect of reject section fouling ................................................................................................... 395
A1.7 Summary .................................................................................................................................... 407
ANNEX 2. Thermodynamic properties of seawater ............................................................................. 409

A2.1 Specific enthalpy h of superheated or saturated vapor ............................................................ 419
A2.2 Specific entropy of superheated or saturated vapor ................................................................ 410
A2.3 Specific volume of superheated or saturated vapor ................................................................. 411
A2.4 Latent heat vaporisation of water as a function of boiling temperature .................................. 411
A2.5 Seawater exergy ......................................................................................................................... 412
A2.5.1 Theory ............................................................................................................................. 430
A2.5.2 Practice: Brine exergy as a function of temperature, pressure and salt concentration 417
Índex
ANNEX 3. Technical data ....................................................................................................................... 419

A3.1 MSF plant ................................................................................................................................ 419
A3.2 Power Plant .............................................................................................................................. 426
NOMENCLATURE ........................................................................................................................................ 433
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 441
LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................................... 457
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................................... 463

UCHE - Thermoeconomic Analysis and Simulation of A Combined Power and Desalination Plant

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

UCHE - Thermoeconomic Analysis and Simulation of A Combined Power and Desalination Plant

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

THERMOECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND

SIMULATION OF A COMBINED POWER

Departamento de Ingeniería Mecánica

Departamento de Ingeniería Mecánica

Francisco Javier Uche Marcuello

Zaragoza, Mars 2000

que la memoria titulada Thermoeconomic Analysis and Simulation of a Com-

Zaragoza, 20 de Marzo de 2000

Fdo: Antonio Valero Capilla Fdo: Luis Serra de Renobales

Sin embargo, la situación de España no es extrapolable a las zonas con verdaderos

El análisis termoeconómico permite conocer el funcionamiento interno de dichas

Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant

Esta Tesis Doctoral desarrolla el análisis termoeconómico completo de la planta de

El análisis termoeconómico comprende cuatro partes principales que se detallan a

12 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant

termodinámicamente aislados, como ya se vió en la diagnosis de la planta. Esta

La Tesis Doctoral también incluye dos partes introductorias, la primera contiene la

Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 13

A dual-purpose plant is a very complex system. Its behaviour is difficult to model,

This Ph. D. Thesis develops the complete thermoeconomic analysis applied in an

Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant

Thermoeconomic analysis was developed using a validated model (simulator) of the

16 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant

Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant

1.1 Water requirements

1.2 Water quality and uses

18 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant

1.3 World water resources and demand

1.3.1 Gulf Region

Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 19

Arabian Gulf seawater is quite different from other oceans:

• The Gulf ecosystem is seriously endangered and it is located in a region with

20 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant

Renewable water resources (Mm3/y)

Saudi Arabia 18.18 14,430 4,550 874 217

Total demand Withdrawal in various sectors (Mm3/y)

Saudi Arabia 16,300 1,508 14,600 192

Desalination is a means of augmenting fresh water resources to remove or at least

Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 21

Country Total capacity (m3/d) Total production (Mm3/y)

Water production in Gulf countries represented the majority of the worldwide

Seawater All waters

22 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant

1.3.2 Pacific Region and India

Precipitation Population Available water Water per capita

Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 23

Country (year) Total (Mm3/y) % Agriculture % Living % Industry

24 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant

1.3.3 North Africa

TABLE 1.8 Water disposal in the African region in 1995.

Annual renewable water resources

Algeria 14.8 528

Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 25

1.3.4 US experience and the Caribbean Islands

TABLE 1.10 Water use in the U.S. in 1995 (Gleick, 1998).

Total use (Mm3/y) % Public % Irrigation % Thermo-industrial

552,1 10.9 39.2 49.9

Thermal technologies were used in the early years of desalination prior to

26 Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant

1.3.5 Mediterranean area and Europe

Total (Mm3/y) % Urban & Tourism % Agriculture % Industry

Thermoeconomic analysis and simulation of a combined power and desalination plant 27

Plant Location Capacity (m3/d) Feed water