Accepted Manuscript

Energy Benchmarking of Thermal Power Plants using Pinch Analysis

Saman Sabzchi Asl, Nassim Tahouni, M. Hassan Panjeshahi

PII: S0959-6526(17)32313-2

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.021

Reference: JCLP 10813

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 02 March 2017

Revised Date: 01 October 2017

Accepted Date: 03 October 2017

Please cite this article as: Saman Sabzchi Asl, Nassim Tahouni, M. Hassan Panjeshahi, Energy
Benchmarking of Thermal Power Plants using Pinch Analysis, Journal of Cleaner Production
(2017), doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.021

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights

 A new conceptual-mathematical model is developed for benchmarking of power plants.

 The functional parameters of combined cycle power plants are evaluated.
 The results of retrofit study on steam cycle power plants are predicted.
 Without doing a full retrofit study, we can save both engineering time and money.
 Another model is provided to estimate natural gas heating value and CO2 emission.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Energy Benchmarking of Thermal Power Plants using Pinch Analysis

Saman Sabzchi Asl, Nassim Tahouni*, M. Hassan Panjeshahi

School of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Benchmarking of process industries with respect to energy consumption has always been a

challenging issue for effective management of energy resources. Having developed a precise

model for estimating the energy consumption, we have a powerful tool to measure and

identify the opportunities for improvements through a plant. In this study, a mathematical-

conceptual model is presented for one-way benchmarking of thermal power plants using

Pinch concepts. Using the environmental variables of the ambient air and relative load of gas

turbine, the model presented for the combined cycle power plants provides a standard for the

functional parameters of the unit. Another model is presented for the conventional steam

cycle power plants enabling the prediction of the results of energy retrofit projects on these

power plants based on combined Pinch and Exergy Analysis. Using this model, the

relationships between minimum temperature difference in heat exchanger networks and the

enhanced efficiency, heat transfer area increment, and energy consumption decline are

specified. A mathematical model is also proposed for estimating the natural gas heating value

and CO2 emission based on natural gas composition. The proposed models have been

validated using data of other existing power plants and showed enough accuracy of given

targets.

Keywords: CO2 Emission, Combined Pinch and Exergy Analysis, Energy Benchmarking,

Modeling, Retrofit, Thermal Power Plants.

*Corresponding Author: ntahuni@ut.ac.ir

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Introduction

Energy consumption is increased by such factors as population increment, urbanization,

industrialization, and technological development (Kaushik et al., 2011). The abovementioned

growing trend creates critical environmental problems including contamination and

greenhouse effect (Siitonen et al., 2010). One of the most distinctive indicator showing the

development stages of countries and living standards of communities is “energy consumption

per capita”. Efficient energy use, as the aim to decrease the amount of energy required to

provide products and services without even reducing the quality of final products and

services, is one of the energy efficiency level indicators (Tanaka, 2008). Two approaches are

used to acquire the efficient processes: the first is the construction of new plants with new

technologies and energy efficient processes (Pons et al., 2013), and the second is to retrofit

the existing plants with respect to new energy consuming standards (Lund and Mathiesen,

2015). The first approach is not economical and requires a notable finance resources and new

licenses, while the second approach is applicable and appealing to industrialists. That is why

the researchers decrease the energy costs in existing plants through energy management

practices (Thollander and Ottosson, 2010).

To be strong enough in competitive market and maintain profit margin, it is necessary to have

a complete overview of plant and be aware of its strengths and weakness (Hughes, 2016).

Benchmarking specifies the reference points and as a tool, helps companies observe the

desired industry and compare the performance of their own plant with the best practice of that

industry. Knowing the gap between the existing plant and the best practice helps managers

setup a comprehensive program about energy-saving projects and make decision regarding

investment and payback period (Bunse et al., 2011).

Approximately 80 % of world electricity demand is produced from fossil fuels (coal,

petroleum, fuel-oil, natural gas) in fired thermal power plants, while the remaining 20 % is

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

supplied by hydraulic, nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal and biogas sources (Kaushik et al.,

2011). Power sector is highly energy-intensive, drawing the attention of researchers

worldwide due to technical problems (Farfan and Breyer, 2017). Nevertheless, power sector

retrofit has begun in many countries for three decades (Shrivastava et al., 2012).

This study is aimed at benchmarking the functional parameters of combined cycle power

plants and significant parameters in targeting the energy-area for the retrofit of conventional

steam cycle power plants based on Combined Pinch and Exergy Analysis (CPEA). A

mathematical model has also been proposed for estimating the natural gas (NG) heating value

and carbon dioxide (CO2) emission based on NG composition through the simulation of

combustion process. Next section looks at benchmarking concepts and methods, section 3 is

about retrofit of power plants, section 4 introduces a new approach for benchmarking of

power plants, section 5 deals with a benchmarking model for combined cycle power plants

functional parameters and also a benchmarking model for conventional steam cycle power

plants retrofit parameters, section 6 shows a benchmarking model for NG heating value and

CO2 emission based on NG composition, and the last section is conclusion.

2 Benchmarking Concepts and Methods

Benchmarking is a process that allows the companies to assess the status of plants compared

to others (Bogan and English, 1994). It means that to recognize the place of a company in an

industry, it is necessary to compare its substantial function with those of others. In this

comparison process, the last achievements of others can be recognized and the best one

chosen. It is a good practice that shows the path of development to leaders and also specifies

what must be done to improve (Harper, 1996). Benchmarking acts as a function, which

receives some input variables, compares these inputs with a base case and gives a number of

outputs (Jamasb and Pollitt, 2001). Inputs are the information that shall be received from

inspection of plants. Comparing the inputs is the process of comparing the main

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

characteristics of desired plant with the other one or may be the best practice, and the output

is the map of road for development (Keren et al., 2002).

There is a variety of benchmarking methods and procedures based on the nature of industry

or organization and available data. Based on a classification, actual performance of an

organization can be compared with the performance of all existing samples. This method is

usually time consuming and costly. Also there is more conventional kind of benchmarking

that can be defined according to base case specific property. This unique property can be

divided into two categories. The first one, called “best (frontier)”, is about a sample or

reference that is the best one in a statistical society. The second one that is more applied is

known as “mean (average)”, that is an average performance of statistical society. The details

of each form will be elaborated in next sections (Jamasb and Pollitt, 2000).

2.1 Frontier benchmarking methods

Frontier benchmarking methods are usually used for targeting specific efficiency

requirements (Sarıca and Or, 2007). This approach can be applicable at the initial stages of

organization when the priority objective is to reduce the performance gap among the firms.

The frontier-based benchmarking methods propose an applicable performance goal resulting

from the best practice in an industry or a host of firms (Lissitsa et al., 2005). The commonly

used mathematical method for this approach is data envelopment analysis (DEA). In DEA,

according to performance of each sample, a score is allocated to each sample, which is

indicative of the ranking of that sample among other firms. An advantage of this method is

that there is no need to define a particular production or cost function. This method can be

applied to both general and technical efficiency functions (Shrivastava et al., 2012). The

effect of each internal/ external or environmental item can be detected in this method. The

Norwegian regulator uses this method to build firm specific efficiency requirements and

revenue caps for regional electricity transmission and distribution utilities (Førsund and

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Kittelsen, 1998). Nevertheless, in DEA method, results of benchmarking might be sensitive

to model inputs and outputs, because DEA method utilizes a limited amount of available

information as reference data, specifically best practices, to deduct the efficiency scores.

Therefore, in this method the accuracy and credit of references play a remarkable role in

validity and performance of benchmarking function (Jamasb and Pollitt, 2000).

Several studies have been carried out on the performance of power plants using DEA. Thakur

et al. (2006) evaluated the performance of 26 state electricity boards and departments in India

using DEA, but efficiency of power plants has not been considered. The input variables in his

work were total cost and number of employees and output variables were number of

customers, length of distribution line and energy sold. Vaninsky (2006) predicted the

efficiency of power generations in USA using DEA with energy losses as input and

utilization of net capacity as output. Sarica (2007) studied the performance of 65 power

plants of Turkey using DEA. Barros (2008) analyzed 25 power plants of Portugl using DEA,

considering the labor, capital, operating cost and investment as input variables and energy

production energy sold, capacity as output variables. Nakano and Managi (2008) conducted a

research on 10 electrical; power generations companies in japan by DEA. Liu et al. (2010)

evaluated the performance of 12 power plants of Taiwan using DEA. In another research,

using a proposed meta-frontier DEA, the energy efficiency and saving potentials of China’s

regional industrial sectors were analyzed for the period of 2000 to 2014 considering

technology gap, management, and scale (Feng and Wang, 2017). Boyd et al. tried to identify

sets of energy performance indicators (EPI) for manufacturing plants to control energy

efficiency and energy consumption. EPI is a statistical benchmarking tool based on stochastic

frontier regression estimating the lowest energy consumption in plants (Benedetti et al., 2018)

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2.2 Mean and average benchmarking

Average benchmarking method is usually used when no egregious difference exists between

firms. This method is used for approximation of firms’ efficiencies in a general progress that

is done by a regulator. Unlike frontier methods, benchmarking can be in relation to average

performance of firms as the reference point. One simple mathematical method for mean

benchmarking is Ordinary Least Square (OLS) method that is a regression based on statistical

data of an industry. A version of this approach has been used by the National Energy

Commission (CNE) in Chile to calculate the value added for the electrical distribution

services (Rudnick and Donoso, 2000). A study for estimation the relationship between energy

consumption, economic growth and CO2 emission in China over the period 1970-2015 has

been carried out using OLS method (Riti et al., 2017). A fully modified OLS has been

applied to explore the relationship between greenhouse gas, financial development and

energy consumption in 34 countries from Asia, Europe, Africa and America using data from

2001 to 2014 (Khan et al., 2017).

3 Retrofit of Power Plants

Energetic performance criteria evaluate the performance of thermal power plants based on

first law of thermodynamics, including produced electrical power and fuel consumption in

term of thermal efficiency. The actual reason of energy degradation cannot be justified only

by fist law of thermodynamics, because it does not make any distinction between the quality

and quantity of energy (Aminov et al., 2016). In the last decades, the exergy base efficiency

retrieved from second law of thermodynamics has turned to a useful method in the study of

thermal power plants (Regulagadda et al., 2010). The exergy base performance analysis by

itself cannot complete the design and checking process, because it only checks the exergy

efficiency of equipment individually and not in an integrated way. To remove the weakness

of pure Pinch and Exergy Analysis, a combination of these two methods under the title of
6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

CPEA is needed. Strengths and weakness of each tool will be elaborated (Ganapathy et al.,

2009).

3.1 Pinch Analysis

The Pinch technology has been developed as an instrument for the thermodynamic analysis

of industrial processes by calculation of minimum heat loads (process hot and cold utility

demand) through the process streams thermal specifications and minimum temperature

difference (MTD) between them in heat exchanger networks (HEN). The technology

application has led to the improvement of the energetic efficiency in chemical plants (Smith,

2005). In the process analysis, the Pinch technology has two major stages: First stage makes

the energy targets for the process through the Composite Curves (CC) and Grand Composite

Curve (GCC), and the other, devises design patterns that lead to the accomplishment of these

targets (Jabbari et al., 2013). Mirzakhani et al. (2017) applied Pinch Analysis to cement

industry for energy benchmarking of pyro-process unit. The developed mathematical model,

targets the energy demand of the retrofitted process using a few process parameters with no

statistical data. But, to analyze the systems that involve heat and power, as the case of

thermal power plants, Pinch technology cannot completely analyze the process by itself,

because it does not make any distinction between heat and power (Sefidi and Arash, 2006).

3.2 Exergy analysis

The exergy analysis is an instrument that allows identification and quantification of

inefficient equipment in a system having heat and power, not only in terms of heat loads

(quantity of energy), but in terms of temperature and pressure gradients (quality of energy)

with respect to the ambient conditions. But, exergy analysis is not able to establish clear

practical design guidelines to optimize the energy usage by an integrated view of the entire

equipment (Aljundi, 2009).

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Aljundi (2009) has specified that the performance of a power plant can be subject to the

energy and exergy efficiency evaluation of each equipment. This study has been done on a

power plant in Jordan. An exergy analysis on a 32-MW coal-fired power plant indicated that

the boiler and turbine have the highest exergy losses in the power plant (Regulagadda et.al,

2010). An exergy analysis has been carried out on Garri “2” 180 MW combined cycle power

plant. The results proved that combustion chambers are the main sources of exergy

destruction due to their high irreversibility, which is 63% from the total exergy destruction

(Abuelnuor et al., 2017). A novel system has been proposed to recover the wasted heat and

water in a steam power plant and then exergy and economic analyses are applied to the

system to study its feasibility. The results show that by using this recovery system, the total

output power of system increases by 1.2% (Noroozian et al., 2017).

3.3 CPEA

As exergy analysis is only of a thermodynamic nature in which every part is analyzed

individually and as limitations exist in Pinch technology for systems involving heat and

power, CPEA has been conducted for solving such problems. In this method, the whole

system undergoes a comprehensive and complete analysis –including heat and work by

practical techniques and instructions (Ataei and Yoo, 2010). In CPEA, the exergy composite

curve (ECC) and the exergy grand composite curve (EGCC) are used, acquired only by

shifting the CC & GCC vertical axis from temperature to Carnot efficiency. Equations 1-5

indicate the Carnot efficiency, exergy of hot composite curve, exergy of cold composite

curve and exergy degradation in a heat exchanger. Fig. 1 shows the three types of diagrams.

The distinctive feature of the exergy base diagrams is that the area enclosed between the

curves has a thermodynamic concept and can be analyzed by exergy analysis (Arriola-

Medellín et al., 2014).

𝑇˳
ŋ = 1- 𝑇 (1)

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

𝑇˳
∆Ex HOT = ∆H HOT × (1- 𝑇 ) (2)

𝑇˳
∆Ex COLD = ∆H COLD × (1- 𝑇 ) (3)

𝑇˳
∆Ex H.EX = ∆H H.EX × (1- ∆𝑇 ) (4)
𝐿𝑀𝑇𝐷

∆𝑇𝐻𝑂𝑇 ‒ ∆𝑇𝐶𝑂𝐿𝐷
∆TLMTD = ∆𝑇𝐻𝑂𝑇 (5)
𝐿𝑛(∆𝑇 )
𝐶𝑂𝐿𝐷

Where:

ŋ = Carnot efficiency

T = process stream absolute temperature

T˳ = ambient absolute temperature

∆TCOLD = temperature difference in cold head of a heat exchanger

∆THOT = temperature difference in hot head of a heat exchanger

Fig. 1. a) composite curves – b) exergy composite curves – c) exergy grand composite curve [30]

Therefore, regarding the aforementioned equations, the area under each exergy composite

curve indicates the exergy level of hot and cold streams. If the system is above ambient

temperature, the area under the hot curve indicates the amount of exergy released by the hot

streams, and the area under the cold curve indicates the amount of exergy delivered to the

cold streams. The area between the two curves indicates the exergy difference between hot

and cold streams of the process. This area also shows the sum of produced axial work and

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

degraded exergy in HEN. Consequently, with respect to the given produced axial work, the

case with minimum enclosed area is the best case (Jabbari et al., 2013).

Sefidi and Arash (2006) have optimized the steam extraction mass flowrate in advanced

steam power plants using CPEA. Ahmadi and Toghraie (2016) have implemented the energy

and exergy analysis in Montazer Ghaem steam power plant in Iran. Sardarmehni et al. (2017)

presented a new model for benchmarking of shaft work consumption in olefin plant cold-end,

using process integration concepts. Effect of different licenses, feedstock, capacity and

products was investigated. By choosing appropriate refrigeration levels (using EGCC),

exergy loss can be reduced (Tahouni and Panjeshahi, 2017).

4 New approach for benchmarking of thermal power plants

In this study, a hybrid method, that is a combination of DEA and OLS method, has been

proposed for benchmarking thermal power plants. The presented model, is exactly the same

as OLS method, serves as a function, receives several inputs, and gives a number of outputs.

Like DEA method, it deals with dimensionless parameters to integrate the benchmarking of

similar power plants calculation. It also allows calculation of technical efficiencies and

allocative parameters, especially those related to energy field studies. It can also take into

account the effect of specific factors such as environmental variables. The most important

specification of this method is in selecting reference points. Unlike existing benchmarking

procedures, it uses the CPEA results as a reference point rather than an existing plant as the

best practice. It is evident that the best case that is calculated according to first and second

law of thermodynamic is the best possible case in the real world.

The model proposed for combined cycle power plants receives input parameters and specifies

the performance parameters of combined cycle power plant in specified condition. For

conventional steam cycle power plants, the proposed model calculates the targets of CPEA on

conventional cycle power plants without implementing typical calculation procedures on

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

these plants and without the need for routine spending of temporal and economic costs in the

process of engineering calculations. At the end, a model has been proposed for estimating NG

heating value and CO2 emission only based on NG molar composition.

5 Benchmarking of power plants

Thermal power plants using fossil fuel as the energy resource are classified in three types

according to the cycle of their processes: 1. gas cycle power plants, 2. combined cycle power

plants, 3. conventional steam cycle power plants. Figs. 2 and 3 show the schematics of gas

cycle power plants and combined cycle power plants.

Fig. 2. Block Flow Diagram (BFD) of Gas Cycle Power Plant

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 3. BFD of Combined Cycle Power Plant

Gas cycles usually consist of three main parts: air compressor, combustion chamber and

combustion flue gas turbine (Woudstra et al., 2010). The mechanism of gas turbines is in the

way that, first, ambient air enters air compressor so that to be compressed and pressurized. In

the second step, with injection of high pressure NG (or gasoil) mixed fluid is ignited and

combustion flue gas enters turbine to produce axial work. Outlet of turbine in open cycle is

connected to the stack in order to discharge stack flue gas to atmosphere (Fig.3). In combined

cycle power plants, outlet of turbine is connected to a Heat Recovery Steam Generator

(HRSG) until the residual heat content of flue gas is utilized for steam generation (Ziębik et

al., 2015). Steam produced in one, two or three levels (pressure) is routed to steam turbine to

generate electrical power (Hafdhi et al., 2015). Taking into account what was said above, and

comparing Figs. 3 and 4, it can be concluded that gas cycle, which only comprises of gas

turbine, is a part of combined cycle power plants. Thus, the model offered for the combined

cycle power plant covers the gas cycle power plant as well. As a result, there are two power

plants groups for benchmarking: combined cycle power plants and conventional steam cycle

power plants.

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The method for Benchmarking and modeling of each group of power plants will be explained

in the next section.

5.1 Benchmarking model for functional parameters of combined cycle power

plant

5.1.1 Method

Environmental conditions affect greatly and directly on the function of gas turbine and

consequently steam turbine in a combined cycle power plant (Sabzchi et al., 2016). That is

why the influence of environmental factors on combined cycle function have been

investigated and a model is offered for this type of power plants, to be used as an standard to

evaluate the similar cycles. It should be noted that gas turbine manufacturers record all

features of gas turbines in a standard condition known as International Organization for

Standardization (ISO) condition, as mentioned in Table 1.

Table 1. ISO condition for thermal power plants

Parameter A.T (K) Altitude (m) A.P (bar) RH (%) L (%)

Value 288.15 0 1.013 60 100

5.1.2 Case studies-Results

For this research, three similar combined cycles with nominal power of 100, 102.3 and 123.4

MW are selected for study and simulation. Since the process data of these units have little

deviations in different operational conditions, weight mean method is implemented to unify

the data of each unit.

Having prepared data, every combined cycle unit consisting of a gas and a steam cycle, is

simulated using ASPEN HYSYS V. 7.3 simulator software according to Fig. 3. First the

simulated cycle is checked in ISO environmental condition, and the output parameters

(functional parameters) are recorded, including electric power of gas and steam turbine,

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

electrical efficiency of gas turbine and the whole unit, and temperature and mass flow rate of

stack flue gas entering HRSG section. Then, each input parameter (environmental condition)

is changed considering the ISO value for other input parameters, in order to investigate the

effect of each single input parameter on the output parameters (functional parameters of

combined cycle power plant).

The amount of all input and output parameters are divided into their ISO condition values in

order to get the dimensionless values. Next, a regression is conducted between the

dimensionless input and output parameters. For every input parameter, this procedure is

separately applied. Having done the procedure on all three units, the regression coefficients

according to the three cases of the study are summed up, and a series of general coefficients

are proposed for any kind of regression. The amount of the R-square parameter in every level

of regression (above 0.99) indicates the high accuracy of the regressions.

Some nomenclatures have been defined for reporting the benchmarking model. Table 2

introduces these nomenclatures with their descriptions and Table 3 describes the symbols

added to nomenclatures.

Table 2. Nomenclature and description for benchmarking of combined cycle power plant

No. Status Symbol Description

1 Input A.T Ambient absolute temperature

2 Input A.P Ambient absolute pressure

3 Input RH Relative humidity

4 Input L Gas turbine load

5 Output GT Gas turbine electrical load

6 Output ST Steam turbine electrical load

7 Output GT.EF Gas turbine electrical efficiency

8 Output PL.EF Combined cycle plant electrical efficiency

9 Output E.M Gas turbine exhaust mass flow rate

10 Output E.F Gas turbine exhaust temperature

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 3. Other symbols for the nomenclatures of combined cycle power plant

No. Sign Description

1 X X parameter in desired condition

2 XISO X parameter in ISO condition

3 XY X output parameter in only deviation of Y input parameter from ISO condition

4 X ^Y Ratio of XY parameter to XISO parameter

5 X^ Ratio of X parameter to XISO parameter

The results of benchmarking model for three case studies have been presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Benchmarking of combined cycle power plants

Inputs

A.T^ A.P^ RH^ L^<0.5 L^>0.5

Outputs

-1.92179×A.T^ 1.027285×A.P^ 0.000122×RH^

GT^ L^ L^
+2.922728 -0.02748 +0.999876

-0.573×A.T^ 0.03×A.P^ -0.0015×RH^ 0.8175×L^ 0.2860×L^

GT.EF^
+1.575 +0.970171 +1.001424 +0.433927 +0.715

0.232×A.T^ -0.0062×A.P^ 0.000493×RH^ 0.480×L^ 0.55×L^

E.T^
+0.768 +1.004 +0.9995 +0.635 +0.600

-1.286×A.T^ 1.013×A.P^ -0.00372×RH^ 0.9015×L^

E.M^ 0.813
+2.287 -0.013 +1.0037 +0.096

-0.478×A.T^ 0.9971×A.P^ 0.00341×RH^ 1.064×L^ 1.130×L^

S.T^
+1.479 +0.0023 +0.997 -0.018 - 0.0271

-9.33×(A.T ^)3

+28.566×(A.T ^)2 0.0192×A.P^ -0.00057×RH^ 0.87×L^ 0.451×L^

PL.EF^
-29.088×(A.T^) +0.91 +1.00052 +0.410 +0.630

+10.851

As the extensive variables are changed into intensive variables by conducting the

dimensionless method, this model can be applicable in all similar turbines and cycles. It is
15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

worth mentioning here that to apply some input parameters effects simultaneously on an

output parameter, the effect of each input parameter on the output parameter is computed

separately, then the computed coefficients will be multiplied for creating an overall

coefficient for that output parameter, so that the effect of some input parameters on the output

parameters become specified through the produced dimensionless coefficient. To specify the

real amount of each output parameter, the created coefficient for that parameter must be

multiplied by ISO value of that cycle which has been reported by the manufacturer. Equation

6-7 show this procedure.

X^ = X ^A.T × X ^A.P × X ^R.H × X ^L (6)

X = X ^ × X ISO (7)

To evaluate the validity of the proposed model, operational data of another existing combined

cycle power plant has been used. Table 5 shows the environmental information of desired

power plant.

Table 5. Condition for a power plant - case study

Parameter A.T (K) Altitude (m) RH (%) L (%)

Value 292.15 1230 32 62

For calculating the corresponding ambient pressure related to reported altitude, the equation

(8) that is acquired from regression of geographical barometric pressure – altitude data, is

used:

A.P (bar) = -0.0001091636 × Altitude (m) + 1.0098588745 (8)

The equations (9-13) show procedure of preparation the input variables:

Inputs calculations:

A.T^ = (292.15)/ (288.15) = 1.0139 (9)

A.P = -0.0001091636 × 1230 + 1.0098588745 = 0.8756 bar (10)

A.P^ = 0.8756/1.013 = 0.864 (11)

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

RH^ = 32/60 = 0.5333 (12)

L^ = 62/100 = 0.6200 (13)

Calculated dimensionless input variables are substituted in related formulas (Table 4) to

specify the effect of each input parameter on the productive power of gas turbine. Here, the

gas turbine power has been proposed, as a sample to show the process of computation and it

has no primacy to the other parameters. In the last step, the generated coefficients are

multiplied in each other, so that the effect of all input parameters cloud be observed at the

same time. Then, this overall dimensionless coefficient of gas turbine power is multiplied by

the nominal ISO power reported by the manufacturer, in order to get the real gas turbine

power at that site condition. Equations (14–19) show the calculation steps of GT output. The

nominal gas turbine power of mentioned cycle is 123,200 kW reported by manufacturer

GT^A.T = 0.9743 (14)

GT^A.P = 0.8602 (15)

GT^ RH = 0.9999 (16)

GT^ L = 0.62 (17)

GT^ = GT^A.T × GT^A.P × GT^ RH ×GT^ L = 0.5196 (18)

GT = 0.5196×123,200=64,010 kW (19)

Table 6 shows the results of the model prediction, the manufacture report for desired

condition and the deviation value percent.

Table 6. Comparison of the benchmark model and the real data results

Parameters GT (kW) GT. EF (%) E.T (K) E.M (kg/s) S.T (kW) PL. EF (%)

Model 64,010 29.79 772.91 288.85 39,695 46.63

Real data 64,140 29.89 774 286.9 40,000 46.59

Deviation (%) 0.20 0.33 0.14 0.68 0.76 0.085

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

It is necessary to mention that the model proposed for combined cycle power plants can have

two applications:

1- Estimating the performance parameters of a combined cycle power plant in a desired

site (area or city) before construction.

2- Evaluating the performance of an existing combined cycle power plant for

implementing a probable overhaul operation.

5.2 Benchmarking model for retrofit parameters of conventional steam cycle

power plant based on CPEA

5.2.1 Method

As mentioned before, the process efficiency of conventional steam cycle power plants can be

enhanced by some changes in HEN. In this study, the retrofit targeting on these units are

conducted using CPEA (Peng et al., 2014).

Fig. 4. BFD of Conventional Steam Cycle Power Plant

As shown in Fig. 4, steam cycle usually comprises of three high-pressure, mid-pressure, and

low-pressure steam turbines. The bleeds taken from the turbines are used for pre-heating of

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

the working fluid in pre-heater HEN. The pressure levels of these bleeds affect the amount of

exergy degradation in pre-heater HEN. Therefore, there is an optimal amount for every bleed

pressure, so that the exergy degradation is minimized in this network and also to produce a

specified amount of power, the minimum fuel will be used (Chang, 2010). Also, from Pinch

technology point of view, the mass flow rates of the bleeds could be selected in a way that the

cycle's hot and cold composite curves have a MTD in each steps of condensation on the

composite curves. Fig. 5 shows schematically the relative position of hot and cold composite

curves(Smith, 2005).

Fig.5. Relative position of hot and cold composite curves

To compute the new values of bleeds' mass flow rates, the relative mass flow rate of stream

input to the condenser is assumed as 1. Then, the mass flow rate coefficients of all the bleeds

are calculated through the equation (20) until hot and cold composite curves have the same

MTD in each step of condensation on the composite curves (Fig 5). If the mass flow rates

coefficient of bleed i is demonstrated by mi, for applying the MTD in each condensation step,

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

the relation shown in equation 20 between mass flow rates of bleeds must satisfy (Ataei and

Yoo, 2010):

× (𝑇𝑐𝑝
𝑖 ‒ 𝑇𝑖 + 1) = 𝑚𝑖 × 𝜆𝑖 + 𝑗 𝑚𝑗 × 𝑐𝑝𝑗 × (𝑇 𝑖 ‒ 𝑇𝑖 + 1)
𝑐𝑝 𝑛 ℎ𝑝 ℎ𝑝
𝑚𝑓. 𝑤 × 𝑐𝑝𝑓. 𝑤
∑ (20)

Where:

𝑚: mass flow rate

𝑐𝑝 : specific heat capacity

𝑖 : counter of the bleeds

𝑇ℎ𝑝
𝑖 : hot temperature of the Pinch i

𝑇𝑐𝑝
𝑖 : cold temperature of the Pinch i

𝜆𝑖 : latent heat of vaporization for working fluid at 𝑇ℎ𝑝

𝑖 temperature

𝑗 : counter of every stream that has component between 𝑇ℎ𝑝 ℎ𝑝

𝑖 and 𝑇𝑖 + 1

𝑓.𝑤 : Feed water

Also based on Pinch technology rules that is obvious that:

𝑇ℎ𝑝 𝑐𝑝
𝑖 ‒ 𝑇 𝑖 = 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑖𝑛(𝑀𝑇𝐷) (21)

5.2.2 Case-studies - results

To implement the procedures mentioned in previous section, three cycles of conventional

steam cycle power plants with nominal power of 277, 305.7 and 354 MW are simulated.

Then pressure levels of bleeds are altered in allowable ranges (advised by the manufacturer),

so that the sum of exergy degradation terms in preheater exchangers gets minimized based on

equations (4-5). Table 7 shows the existing and optimized pressure levels in cycle.

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 7. Existing and optimized pressure levels in power plant with nominal power of 305.7 MW

Stream description Existing pressure value (bar) Optimized pressure value (bar)

HP turbine 1st bleed 63.2 69.52

HP turbine outlet 38.8 34.92

MP turbine 1st bleed 18.63 16.76

MP turbine outlet 8 7.2

LP turbine 1st bleed 5 5.5

LP turbine 2nd bleed 1.932 1.74

LP turbine 3rd bleed 1.085 0.98

LP turbine 4th bleed 0.483 0.44

LP turbine outlet 0.016 0.016

Bleeds’ mass flow rates are recalculated to apply equation 18 between bleeds’ mass flow

rates. Table 8 shows the existing and optimized mass flow rates in this cycle.

Table 8. Existing and optimized mass flow rates in power plant with nominal power of 305.7 MW

Stream description Existing mass flow rate (kg/h) Optimized mass flow rate (kg/h)

HP turbine 1st bleed 79,041 113,501

HP turbine outlet 84,399 79,845

MP turbine 1st bleed 48,279 65,014

MP turbine outlet 27,311 20,261

LP turbine 1st bleed 46,087 58,506

LP turbine 2nd bleed 23,487 22,546

LP turbine 3rd bleed 28,342 26,671

LP turbine 4th bleed 24,342 27,282

LP turbine outlet 709,580 663,521

The cycle with new optimized pressure levels and bleeds’ mass flow rates is redesigned to

produce the previous specified power. The cycle stream data are extracted for a range

targeting of energy and area, using PILOT software (Panjeshahi and Fallahi, 2014). Table 9

indicates the results for the case with nominal power of 305.7 MW in MTD ranges.

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 9. Results of retrofit targeting with nominal power of 305.7 MW in MTD ranges

Hot Cold AREA AREA Elec. Pumps

MTD No. of No. of
utility Utility 1-1 1-2 power power Efficiency
(ºC) Units Shells
(MW) (MW) (m2) (m2) (MW) (MW)

5 743.98 447.37 5,881 6,876 16 39 305.7 9.1 0.3987

7 746.80 450.19 5,290 6,200 16 35 305.7 9.1 0.3972

9 749.63 453.01 4,864 5,711 16 28 305.7 9.1 0.3957

11 752.45 455.83 4,534 5,332 16 29 305.7 9.1 0.3942

13 755.27 458.66 4,267 5,026 16 27 305.7 9.1 0.3928

15 758.09 461.48 4,045 4,771 16 24 305.7 9.1 0.3912

17 760.91 464.30 3,857 4,554 16 25 305.7 9.1 0.3898

19 763.73 467.12 3,702 4,376 16 24 305.7 9.1 0.3884

Existing 799.12 502.47 2,669 3,179 15 20 305.7 9.1 0.3713

Extensive parameters are converted to intensive parameters by applying dimensionless

concept so that the results of benchmarking are applicable in similar conventional steam

cycle power plants. The existing condition, this time, is selected as the base case, and the

ratio of the targeting results are calculated in relation to the existing condition. In this case,

the input variable in modeling is selected only the MTD. Necessary regressions to calculate

the relationships between all calculated dimensionless output parameters with MTD are

conducted. The linear regression is exerted to all parameters, while logarithmic regression is

exerted to the relationship between the area and MTD.

Some nomenclatures have been defined for reporting the benchmarking model. Table 10

introduces these nomenclatures with their descriptions and Table 11 describes the symbols

added to nomenclatures.

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 10. Nomenclatures and their descriptions for benchmarking of conventional steam cycle power plants

No. Status Symbol Description

1 Input MTD Minimum temperature difference

2 Output HU Minimum hot utility demand

3 Output CU Minimum cold utility demand

4 Output AREA1-1 Process to process heat transfer 1-1 area

5 Output AREA1-2 Process to process heat transfer 1-2 area

6 Output EF Plant electrical efficiency

Table 11. Other symbols to the nomenclatures of conventional steam cycle power plants

No. Sign Description

1 X^^ Ratio of X parameter after retrofitting to existing condition

The calculation results for the case with nominal power of 305.7 MW are shown in Table

12. In this step, the accuracy of regressions' results is approved by the high amount of R-

square (above 0.99).

Table 12. Dimensionless results of retrofit targeting for the case with nominal power of 305.7 MW

MTD (ºC) HU^^ CU^^ Area 1-1 ^^ Area 1-2 ^^ EF^^

5 0.9310 0.8903 2.2031 2.1629 1.0738

7 0.9345 0.8960 1.9818 1.9500 1.0698

9 0.9380 0.9016 1.8222 1.7965 1.0657

11 0.9416 0.9072 1.6985 1.6773 1.0618

13 0.9451 0.9128 1.5984 1.5810 1.05787

15 0.9487 0.9184 1.5153 1.5008 1.0538

17 0.9522 0.9240 1.4448 1.4325 1.0499

19 0.9557 0.9296 1.3868 1.3765 1.0460

Base 1 1 1 1 1

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Next, all the mentioned procedures are conducted in the three power plants, the

correspondent regression coefficients are summed up, and general regression coefficients are

specified for all output parameters and MTD. The results of benchmarking model for

conventional steam cycle power plants are indicated in Table 13. To use the model for a

desired unit, first a MTD is assumed, then all the output parameters are specified by means of

the relationships in Table 13.

Table 13. Benchmarking model results for retrofit targeting of conventional steam cycle power plants

Parameters Relationships

HU^^ 0.001726 × MTD + 0.919839

CU^^ 0.002772 × MTD + 0.871953

AREA 1-1^^ -0.513101 × Ln (MTD) + 2.975599

AREA 1-2^^ -0.502344 × Ln (MTD) + 2.947483

EF^^ -0.001933 × MTD + 1.087846

These output parameters specify the condition of area, efficiency, and energy demand at the

desired MTD after exerting the changes according to the CPEA in comparison with the

existing condition. This can be done in several different MTDs, and the results of investment

and the payback period have been calculated. In this condition, the client is able to pick out

an option based on condition. Another power plant is exercised as a case study on which all

the simulating levels and targeting have been exerted in order to evaluate the accuracy of the

model. Table 14 shows the results of the model as well as targeting results and error extent of

the model for each parameter at selected MTD of 8 ºC. The extent of error for model is less

than 2 % for all parameters.

24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 14. Comparison between the results of benchmarking model and retrofit targeting

Results HU^^ CU^^ AREA 1-1^^ AREA 1-2^^ EF^^

Model 0.933649 0.894133 1.908635 1.902888 1.072383

Simulation and retrofit 0.946127 0.910518 1.892897 1.928972 1.059724

Deviation (%) 1.318845 1.799563 0.831422 1.35223 1.194574

6 Benchmarking model for NG heating value and CO2 emission

It is difficult to compare the environmental performance between oil and gas industries owing

to different mentioned indicators used in their sustainability reports. An integrative

environmental performance index has been proposed showing nine environmental indicators

by a single index (Frank et al., 2016). A carbon oxidation factor regression model for Chinese

coal-fired power plants has been presented using 240 sets of operating data (Wu et al., 2017).

6.1 Method

As the energy resource of the mentioned case study plants is NG, it is necessary to propose a

model to state the relationship between energy and heating value and CO2 emission of NG.

To prepare this model, a simple stoichiometric combustion process has been simulated for

calculation of the Low Heating Value (LHV) and CO2 emission of an existing composition of

NG. After the simulating of this process, about 6400 different molar compositions of NG

have been examined and the mentioned parameters have been recorded. Next, some

regressions have been implemented to create a model that receives the molar composition of

NG as input and gives the LHV and CO2 emission of that composition in several different

dimension based on NG mass, molar and volume.

6.2 Case study-results

As mentioned in the method section, a statistical benchmarking model has been proposed for

NG. Table 15 indicates the coefficients of this model.

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 15. Benchmarking model for LHV and CO2 emission of NG

Coefficients
C0 C1 C2 C3 C4+ CO2 N2
Outputs

LHV Vol Basis

(Std)-(kJ/kg 3,273,500 -24,707.97 -18,449.9 -12,285.3 -6,139 -32,735 -32,735

mole)

LHV Vol Basis

219,487.71 -1,866.10 -1,606.48 -1,350.99 -1,095.74 -2,197.89 -2,198.79
(Std)-(kJ/m3)

LHV Mass Basis

408,95.34 87.70 70.20 47.60 24.01 -1062.96 -654.43
(Std)-(kJ/kg)

Specific CO2

emission
13.86 -0.12 -0.10 -0.084 -0.066 -0.12 -0.139
(kg CO2/Nm3

NG)

Specific CO2

emission 9.723e-05 -4.230e-07 -3.22e-07 -2.16e-07 -1.08e-07 1.04e-07 -4.07e-07

(kg CO2/kJ)

Specific CO2
-1.523 -1.16 -7.78 -3.9 3.74 -1.47
emission 3.500e-01
e-03 e-03 e-04 e-04 e-04 e-03
(kg CO2/kWh)

For calculation of each output parameter shown in Table 15, molar composition (percent) of

each component part of NG is multiplied by its coefficient reported in the model and then

summed to create the value of that output parameter. C0 is a constant coefficient and C1, C2,

C3, C4+, CO2 and N2 are the coefficients of the methane, ethane, propane, butane and heavier

hydrocarbons content, carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Table 16 shows molar composition of a

sample NG pipeline.

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 16. Molar composition of a sample of NG pipeline

Components Methane Ethane Propane Butane + Carbon dioxide Nitrogen

Molar (%) 84.81 9.5 3.61 1.21 0.37 0.5

This sample of NG has been used as a case study to evaluate and validate the NG model.

First, the LHV and CO2 emission of this sample is examined by GT Pro, commercial

software to estimate physical and chemical properties for different types of fuels. Then, these

parameters are predicted by the proposed model. Table 17 shows the comparison between

real and model results.

Table 17. Model validation of NG benchmark

Parameters Model Real Error (%)

LHV Vol Basis (Std)-(kJ/kg mole) 922,485.44 923,506.7 0.11

LHV Vol Basis (Std)-(kJ/m3) 37,846.93 37,866.6 0.052

LHV Mass Basis (Std)-(kJ/kg) 48,480.68 48,386.66 0.19

Specific CO2 emission (kg CO2/Nm3 NG) 2.16 2.16 0.08

Specific CO2 emission (kg CO2/kJ) 5.72e-05 5.72e-05 1.31e-02

Specific CO2 emission (kg CO2/kWh) 0.21 2.06e-01 1.32e-02

As the Table 17 indicates, the proposed model can estimate NG LHV and CO2 emission with

high accuracy. Having targeted the amount of energy consumption (NG) in combined cycle

power plants or energy reduction of conventional steam cycle power plants through

implementing the retrofit project, the corresponding NG quantity can be calculated. Next, the

NG model can be utilized to predict the CO2 emission.

27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

7 Conclusion

The first step to keep the continuous development in a plant is to evaluate the existing

condition and make the short-term and long-term targeting. It is necessary to have a tool to

evaluate the condition without spending regular time and costs, and measure the possibility of

different plans and their costs for meeting the target. To do so, bringing together the

managerial concept of benchmarking and the engineering concept of process design, a

conceptual-mathematical model is presented for benchmarking of thermal power plants. The

model presented for the combined cycle power plants, provides a standard for the functional

parameters of the unit (the extent of produced power of gas and steam turbines, the efficiency

of gas turbine and the whole unit, and the temperature and mass flow rate of stack flue gas

entering HRSG section) using the environmental variables (temperature, pressure and relative

humidity of the ambient air and relative power extent in part load condition). The model can

predict the performance parameters of a combined cycle power plant for a desired site before

construction as well as performance of an existing combined cycle power plant for

implementing a probable overhaul operation.

Another model is presented for the conventional steam cycle power plants allowing the

prediction of the results of energy retrofit projects on these power plants based on CPEA.

This means that, the relationship between MTD in retrofit projects and the enhanced

efficiency, heat transfer area increment, and energy consumption decline is specified. Thus,

the model enables engineers to target energy savings in similar retrofit projects without

carrying out a huge number of calculations, which saves both engineering time and costs.

A mathematical model is also proposed for estimating the NG heating value and CO2

emission based on the composition of NG. Having targeted the amount of energy

consumption (NG) in combined cycle power plants or energy reduction of conventional

steam cycle power plants, the NG model can be estimated the amount of CO2 emission.

28
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

As all parameters used in these models are dimensionless, consequently the results are

applicable in other similar power plants. In addition, all models have been validated by real

case studies and proved to be accurate enough.

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to express their gratitude for financial support from Iran National

Science Foundation throughout this research work.

Nomenclature

A. P ambient absolute pressure ISO international organization for standardization

the counter of every stream that has

A. T ambient absolute temperature j
component between Thpi and Thpi+1

process to process heat transfer 1-

AREA 1-1 L gas turbine load
1 area

process to process heat transfer 1-

AREA 1-2 LHV low heating value
2 area

BFD block flow diagram m mass flow rate

CC composite curves MTD minimum temperature difference

CNE national energy commission NG natural gas

cp specific heat capacity OLS ordinary least square

combined Pinch and exergy

CPEA PL. EF combined cycle plant efficiency
analysis

CU cold utility RH relative humidity

DEA data envelopment analysis ST steam turbine electrical load

E. M gas turbine exhaust mass flow rate 𝑇𝑐𝑝

𝑖 the cold temperature of the Pinch i

E. T gas turbine exhaust temperature 𝑇ℎ𝑝

𝑖 the hot temperature of the Pinch i

ECC exergy composite curves XISO X parameter in ISO condition

conventional steam power plant X parameter in only deviation of Y input

EF XY
efficiency parameter

29
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

EGCC exergy grand composite curve X X parameter in desired condition

EPI energy performance indicator X^Y ratio of XY parameter to XISO parameter

GCC grand composite curve X^ ratio of X parameter to XISO parameter

ratio of X parameter after retrofitting to

GT gas turbine electrical load X^^
existing condition

latent heat of vaporization for working fluid at

GT. EF gas turbine electrical efficiency 𝜆𝑖
𝑇ℎ𝑝
𝑖 temperature

temperature difference in cold end of a heat

HEN heat exchanger network ∆TCOLD
exchanger

temperature difference in hot end of a heat

HRSG hear recovery steam generator ∆THOT
exchanger

HU hot utility ∆TLMTD logarithmic mean temperature difference

i the counter of the bleeds

30
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

References

Abuelnuor, A.A.A., Saqr, K.M., Mohieldein, S.A.A., Dafallah, K.A., Abdullah, M.M.,

Nogoud, Y.A.M., 2017. Exergy analysis of Garri “2” 180MW combined cycle power

plant. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 79, 960–969.

Ahmadi, G.R., Toghraie, D., 2016. Energy and exergy analysis of Montazeri steam power

plant in Iran. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 56, 454–463.

Aljundi, I.H., 2009. Energy and exergy analysis of a steam power plant in Jordan. Appl.

Therm. Eng. 29, 324–328.

Aminov, Z., Nakagoshi, N., Xuan, T.D., Higashi, O., Alikulov, K., 2016. Evaluation of the

energy efficiency of combined cycle gas turbine. Case study of Tashkent thermal power

plant, Uzbekistan. Appl. Therm. Eng. 103, 501–509.

Arriola-Medellín, A., Manzanares-Papayanopoulos, E., Romo-Millares, C., 2014. Diagnosis

and redesign of power plants using combined pinch and exergy analysis. Energy 72,

643–651.

Ataei, A., Yoo, C., 2010. Combined pinch and exergy analysis for energy efficiency

optimization in a steam power plant. Int. J. Phys. Sci. 5, 1110–1123.

Barros, C.P., 2008. Efficiency analysis of hydroelectric generating plants: a case study for

Portugal. Energy Econ. 30, 59–75.

Benedetti, M., Cesarotti, V., Introna, V., 2018. From energy targets setting to energy-aware

operations control and back: An advanced methodology for energy efficient

manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 167, 1518–1533.

Bogan, C.E., English, M.J., 1994. Benchmarking for best practices: winning through

innovative adaptation.

Bunse, K., Vodicka, M., Schönsleben, P., Brülhart, M., Ernst, F.O., 2011. Integrating energy

efficiency performance in production management–gap analysis between industrial

31
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

needs and scientific literature. J. Clean. Prod. 19, 667–679.

Chang, C.-C., 2010. A multivariate causality test of carbon dioxide emissions, energy

consumption and economic growth in China. Appl. Energy 87, 3533–3537.

Farfan, J., Breyer, C., 2017. Structural changes of global power generation capacity towards

sustainability and the risk of stranded investments supported by a sustainability

indicator. J. Clean. Prod. 141, 370–384.

Feng, C., Wang, M., 2017. Analysis of energy efficiency and energy savings potential in

China’s provincial industrial sectors. J. Clean. Prod. 164, 1531–1541.

Førsund, F.R., Kittelsen, S.A.C., 1998. Productivity development of Norwegian electricity

distribution utilities. Resour. Energy Econ. 20, 207–224.

Frank, A.G., Dalle Molle, N., Gerstlberger, W., Bernardi, J.A.B., Pedrini, D.C., 2016. An

integrative environmental performance index for benchmarking in oil and gas industry.

J. Clean. Prod. 133, 1190–1203.

Ganapathy, T., Alagumurthi, N., Gakkhar, R.P., Murugesan, K., 2009. Exergy analysis of

operating lignite fired thermal power plant. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. Rev. 2, 123–130.

Hafdhi, F., Khir, T., Yahyia, A. Ben, Brahim, A. Ben, 2015. Energetic and exergetic analysis

of a steam turbine power plant in an existing phosphoric acid factory. Energy Convers.

Manag. 106, 1230–1241.

Harper, K., 1996. Benchmarking: international clearinghouse plays matchmaker for

companies that want to improve. Arkansas Bus. 9, 26–39.

Hughes, J.P., 2016. Regulatory treatment of uneconomic power plants. Electr. J. 29, 28–32.

Jabbari, B., Tahouni, N., Ataei, A., Panjeshahi, M.H., 2013. Design and optimization of

CCHP system incorporated into kraft process, using Pinch Analysis with pressure drop

consideration. Appl. Therm. Eng. 61, 88–97.

Jamasb, T., Pollitt, M., 2001. Benchmarking and regulation of electricity transmission and

32
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

distribution utilities: Lessons from international experience. Faculty of Economics,

University of Cambridge.

Jamasb, T., Pollitt, M., 2000. Benchmarking and regulation: international electricity

experience. Util. Policy 9, 107–130.

Kaushik, S.C., Reddy, V.S., Tyagi, S.K., 2011. Energy and exergy analyses of thermal power

plants: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15, 1857–1872.

Keren, N., West, H.H., Mannan, M.S., 2002. Benchmarking MOC practices in the process

industries. Process Saf. Prog. 21, 103–112.

Khan, M.T.I., Yaseen, M.R., Ali, Q., 2017. Dynamic relationship between financial

development, energy consumption, trade and greenhouse gas: Comparison of upper

middle income countries from Asia, Europe, Africa and America. J. Clean. Prod. 161,

567–580.

Lissitsa, A., Coelli, T., Rao, D.S.P., 2005. Agricultural economics education in Ukrainian

Agricultural Universities: An efficiency analysis using data envelopment analysis, in:

Proceedings 11th International Congress of European Association of Agricultural

Economists.

Liu, C.H., Lin, S.J., Lewis, C., 2010. Evaluation of thermal power plant operational

performance in Taiwan by data envelopment analysis. Energy Policy 38, 1049–1058.

Lund, R., Mathiesen, B.V., 2015. Large combined heat and power plants in sustainable

energy systems. Appl. Energy 142, 389–395.

Mirzakhani, M.A., Tahouni, N., Panjeshahi, M.H., 2017. Energy benchmarking of cement

industry, based on Process Integration concepts. Energy 130, 382–391.

Nakano, M., Managi, S., 2008. Regulatory reforms and productivity: an empirical analysis of

the Japanese electricity industry. Energy Policy 36, 201–209.

Noroozian, A., Mohammadi, A., Bidi, M., Ahmadi, M.H., 2017. Energy, exergy and

33
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

economic analyses of a novel system to recover waste heat and water in steam power

plants. Energy Convers. Manag. 144, 351–360.

Peng, S., Wang, Z., Hong, H., Xu, D., Jin, H., 2014. Exergy evaluation of a typical 330 MW

solar-hybrid coal-fired power plant in China. Energy Convers. Manag. 85. 848–855.

Pons, M., Bikfalvi, A., Llach, J., Palcic, I., 2013. Exploring the impact of energy efficiency

technologies on manufacturing firm performance. J. Clean. Prod. 52, 134–144.

Regulagadda, P., Dincer, I., Naterer, G.F., 2010. Exergy analysis of a thermal power plant

with measured boiler and turbine losses. Appl. Therm. Eng. 30, 970–976.

Riti, J.S., Song, D., Shu, Y., Kamah, M., 2017. Decoupling CO2 emission and economic

growth in China: Is there consistency in estimation results in analyzing environmental

Kuznets curve?. J. Clean. Prod. 166, 1448–1461.

Rudnick, H., Donoso, J., 2000. Integration of price cap and yardstick competition schemes in

electrical distribution regulation. Power Syst. IEEE Trans. 15, 1428–1433.

Sabzchi, S., Tahouni, N., Panjeshahi, M.H., 2016. Identification of Key Parameters for

Benchmarking of Combined Cycle Power Plants Retrofit. World Acad. Sci. Eng.

Technol. Int. J. Chem. Mol. Nucl. Mater. Metall. Eng. 10, 925–928.

Sardarmehni, M., Tahouni, N., Panjeshahi, M.H., 2017. Benchmarking of olefin plant cold-

end for shaft work consumption, using process integration concepts. Energy 127, 623–

633.

Sarıca, K., Or, I., 2007. Efficiency assessment of Turkish power plants using data

envelopment analysis. Energy 32, 1484–1499.

Sefidi, A., Arash, A., 2006. Optimization of steam extractions mass flowrate in advanced

steam power plant with using combined pinch and exergy analysis (CPEA), in: ASME

2006 Power Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp. 299–308.

Shrivastava, N., Sharma, S., Chauhan, K., 2012. Efficiency assessment and benchmarking of

34
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

thermal power plants in India. Energy Policy 40, 159–176.

Siitonen, S., Tuomaala, M., Ahtila, P., 2010. Variables affecting energy efficiency and CO 2

emissions in the steel industry. Energy Policy 38, 2477–2485.

Smith, R., 2016. Chemical Process: Design and Integration, second. ed. John Wiley & Sons.

Tahouni, N., Panjeshahi, M.H., 2017. Development of a Model for Benchmarking of Energy

Consumption and CO2 Emission in Cold-End of Olefin Plant. CET, 56, 1219-1224.

Tanaka, K., 2008. Assessment of energy efficiency performance measures in industry and

their application for policy. Energy Policy 36, 2887–2902.

Thakur, T., Deshmukh, S.G., Kaushik, S.C., 2006. Efficiency evaluation of the state owned

electric utilities in India. Energy Policy 34, 2788–2804.

Thollander, P., Ottosson, M., 2010. Energy management practices in Swedish energy-

intensive industries. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 1125–1133.

Vaninsky, A., 2006. Efficiency of electric power generation in the United States: analysis and

forecast based on data envelopment analysis. Energy Econ. 28, 326–338.

Woudstra, N., Woudstra, T., Pirone, A., Van Der Stelt, T., 2010. Thermodynamic evaluation

of combined cycle plants. Energy Convers. Manag. 51, 1099–1110.

Wu, H., Han, W., Wang, D., Gao, L., 2017. A carbon oxidation factor regression model of

coal-fired power plants in China. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 4403–4411.

Ziębik, A., Budnik, M., Liszka, M., 2015. Analysis of energy indices of a power plant

adapted for the production of heat integrated with the amine Carbon dioxide processing

unit. J. Clean. Prod. 88, 13–22.

35
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

List of Figures:

Fig. 1. a) Composite curves – b) exergy composite curves – c) exergy grand composite curve [29]

Fig. 2. Block Flow Diagram (BFD) of Gas Cycle Power Plant

Fig. 3. BFD of Combined Cycle Power Plant

Fig. 4. BFD of Conventional Steam Cycle Power Plant

Fig.5. Relative position of hot and cold composite curves

List of Tables:

Table 1. ISO condition for thermal power plants

Table 2. Nomenclature and description for benchmarking of combined cycle power plant

Table 3. Other symbols for the nomenclatures of combined cycle power plant

Table 4. Benchmarking of combined cycle power plants

Table 5. Condition for a power plant - case study

Table 6. Comparison of the benchmark model and the real data results

Table 7. Existing and optimized pressure levels in power plant with nominal power of 305.7MW

Table 8. Existing and optimized mass flow rates in power plant with nominal power of 305.7MW

Table 9. Results of retrofit targeting with nominal power of 305.7 MW in MTD ranges

Table 10. Nomenclatures and their descriptions for benchmarking of conventional steam cycle power plants

Table 11. Added symbols to the nomenclatures of conventional steam cycle power plants

Table 12. Dimensionless results of retrofit targeting for the case with nominal power of 305.7MW

Table 13. Benchmarking model results for retrofit targeting of conventional steam cycle power plants

Table 14. Comparison between the results of benchmarking model and retrofit targeting

Table 15. Benchmarking model for LHV and CO2 emission of NG

Table 16. Molar composition of a sample of NG pipeline

Table 17. Model validation of NG benchmark

36