ARTICLE IN PRESS

Energy 32 (2007) 2038–2050

www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Exergetic comparison of efficiency indicators

for combined heat and power (CHP)
Ivar S. Ertesvåg
Department of Energy and Process Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway
Received 15 December 2006

Abstract

Legislative regulations in favor of combined heat and power (CHP) production have been implemented in many countries. Although
these regulations put different emphasis on power production vs. process heat production, they are based on energy quantities and not on
exergy. In order to analyze and compare the exergetic consequences of the various legislations, a relative avoided irreversibility (RAI) is
defined. This can be regarded as the exergy loss that is avoided when reference plants with separate production are replaced by an actual
CHP plant. Some series of industrial and district heating CHP plants, under varying operational conditions, are used as test cases. It is
seen that some, but not all, CHP cases are exergetically beneficial to separate generation. Comparison with the RAI allows a quantitative
assessment of the various performance indicators. It is seen that exergetic improvements were only captured to a limited degree
by the various energy-based efficiency indicators. Some legislatively defined indicators even appear to discourage thermodynamic
improvements.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Exergy; Cogeneration; CHP; Legislation; Efficiency

1. Introduction comparison with other plants. However, efficiencies

Cogeneration or combined heat and power (CHP) is
sometimes regarded as the materialization of the second
law of thermodynamics. First, electricity is produced from
the high-exergy heat, and second, thermal energy is
produced from heat at lower temperatures. On a first law
basis, CHPs provide a substantially higher efficiency than
plants for separate electricity generation. This aspect is
readily taken by public media and politicians. Several
countries have implemented legislation promoting CHP,
with the requirement to define and set performance limits
for these energy systems.
The increasing number of national definitions shows
considerable differences in how to evaluate CHP perfor-
mance. A common feature, though, is that they are based
on the first law only. A second law efficiency can be used
to measure the performance of a plant and make a
Tel.: +47 73 593839; fax: +47 73 593580.
E-mail address: Ivar.S.Ertesvag@ntnu.no
compare the actual ‘‘useful output’’ to the ‘‘input’’, without
considering alternative systems that can provide the same
services. This ratio often has a certain maximum within the
range of operation, which does not necessarily comply with
the required amounts of delivery. In certain cases a plant
may then be supplemented by separate production. Thus,
the optimum for the specific plant may not coincide with
the optimum for the total system of energy production and
use, and vice versa. Therefore, some of the indicators
include comparison with reference systems, i.e. plants for
separate production of heat and electricity.
The objective of this study was to develop a procedure
for quantitative comparison of different CHP systems
based on first and second law considerations that is also
related to separate production of the same amounts of
electricity and heat. In the following, a number of
performance indicators for CHP, including the exergy
efficiency, are briefly reviewed. Several of these are
discussed and compared for a series of industrial CHP
cases in [1,2]. These studies gave qualitative relations

0360-5442/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2007.05.005
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
I.S. Ertesvåg / Energy 32 (2007) 2038–2050
between the indicators. The present study also aims at
giving a quantitative comparison of such indicators.
One finding in [1,2] was that all indicators, except
the exergy efficiency, favored delivery of low-temperature
steam to high-temperature steam. However, only a
few indicators credited the thermodynamically better
utilization of a combined gas-turbine/steam-turbine
system to a boiler/steam-turbine system. Some of the
indicators are widely known and presented in textbooks,
while others are unique to certain national or regional
legislation.
Next, in Section 3 a procedure for quantitative exergetic
comparison of heat and electricity production is outlined.
This includes both the first and second laws and
comparison with the alternatives. For high-temperature
heat delivery, a separate boiler is the most relevant
alternative. However, for low-temperature heat delivery
such as district heating, a heat pump will be a more
relevant alternative. When a reference exergy-to-heat ratio
is defined, both high-temperature and low-temperature
heat can be included in the comparison.
This method can give a quantitative comparison and
assessment of the different CHP systems. On this basis, the
various concepts for CHP evaluation can also be compared
and the exergetic consequences of the various legislations
can be discussed. In Section 4, some test cases are specified.
These are realistic cases for industrial and district heating,
and will be used for the exergetic comparison and
assessment of the different indicators found in various
legislations and the literature. Data from the test cases are
used in Section 5 to evaluate each of the performance
indicators.
2. Comparison of systems for production of heat and
electricity
2.1. Efficiencies defined for heat and power
The ratio of delivered usable energy to the energy input
is called the total energy efficiency. For a system producing
heat and electricity this can be expressed by
Ztot ¼ ðW þ QÞ=H ¼ Zel þ ZQ .
Here, W is the mechanical work or electricity produced, Q
the thermal energy in delivered steam or other medium,
and H the input energy, usually the LHV of the fuel. For
specific use, the quantities of ‘‘heat’’ (usually an enthalpy
difference) and electricity (or work) have to be defined
precisely, cf. [2]. The ratios Zel ¼ W/H and ZQ ¼ Q/H are,
respectively, called electric efficiency and heat efficiency.
These ratios are useful when evaluating the different
methods of qualifying CHP and apply to separate
production as well.
The exergy efficiency can be defined to describe the
quality difference between electricity and heat. This is the
ratio of exergy in the products electricity and thermal
2039
energy to the exergy of the input:
c ¼ ðW þ E Q Þ=E F . (2)
Here, EQ and EF are, respectively, the exergy of the
delivered thermal energy and the input exergy, while the
exergy of electricity or mechanical energy is equal to its
energy W.
In most systems, the thermal energy is delivered by a
heating medium, e.g. steam, hot water, air, or hot oil. The
heat Q is then the enthalpy difference between the delivered
and the returned medium (or fresh medium when it is not
circulated). The exergy EQ is the corresponding difference
in thermomechanical exergy of the medium. The ratio of
these two quantities,
aQ ¼ E Q =Q, (3)
can be regarded as a ‘‘measure of the quality’’ of the
delivered thermal energy.
2.2. Combined and separate production
Heat and electricity are usually produced separately.
Heat, with steam or water as carrier, is produced in boilers
near the site of use. Electricity is often produced in large,
centralized power plants. Alternatively, heat can be
produced from a heat pump. Three schemes for providing
the same amounts of electricity and heat are sketched in
Fig. 1.
For the purposes of analysis and comparison, it is
convenient to define reference plants for separate produc-
tion. The electric and heat efficiencies for the reference
plants are denoted Zel,ref and ZQ,ref, respectively. The
reference amounts of fuel energy can then be defined
Hel,ref ¼ W/Zel,ref and HQ,ref ¼ Q/ZQ,ref, and the sum
Href ¼ Hel,ref+HQ,ref is the total reference fuel energy.
W
H CHP plant
Q
(1) Href Hel,ref
Power plant W
HQ,ref
Boiler Q
Hel,ref + HHP,ref
W
Power
plant
WHP Heat
pump Q
Fig. 1. Three schemes for production of the same amounts of electricity
(W) and heat (Q). The input amounts of fuel energy (H) are different.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2040 I.S. Ertesvåg / Energy 32 (2007) 2038–2050
These are the amounts required to produce the same
electricity and heat separately in the reference plants. The
ratio of the actual fuel energy to the reference fuel energy is
then expressed as
H=H ref ¼ ðZel =Zel;ref þ ZQ =ZQ;ref Þ1 . (4)
The values of the reference efficiencies can be determined
based on the notion of best available technology (BAT) or
based on an average of existing installations. In legislative
regulations, the choice of reference values may be based on
a compromise between existing installations and BAT. As
the choice will affect the regarded goodness of any CHP
plant, it is quite often an outcome of intense lobbying by
the involved parties.
When the heat is produced from a heat pump, the
electric energy required for it is denoted WHP and
the delivered exergy is expressed as EQ ¼ aQQ (Eq. (3)).
The exergy efficiency of a heat pump can then be defined as
cHP ¼ E Q =W HP ¼ aQ Q=W HP . (5)
The coefficient of performance can then be expressed as
COP ¼ Q=W HP ¼ cHP =aQ . (6)
The COP will depend on the temperature levels, while the
exergy efficiency will show less variation. The definition of
a reference heat pump will be discussed below.
2.3. Energy-based efficiencies of heat and electricity
production
Thermodynamically, technically and economically, elec-
tric energy differs from thermal energy. Several parameters
have been defined to account for this difference.
While electricity generation can be conducted nearly
anywhere, heat has to be produced near the user, and it has
to be scaled according to the local consumption. Thus, it
may be useful to regard a CHP as a heat generator with
surplus electricity generation. This is expressed by defining
an equivalent electrical efficiency (EEE) [3] as
EEE ¼ Zeel ¼ W =ðH  Q=ZQ;ref Þ. (7)
Here, the fuel energy to the CHP plant is supposed to be
reduced by the fuel needed to produce the heat in a
separate boiler with efficiency ZQ,ref. Hence, the remaining
fuel Heel ¼ HHQ,ref is regarded as the input to electricity
generation and Zel,ref becomes the reference for Zeel. In the
legislation of Spain [4] and (with a slight modification)
Portugal [5], this concept is used (cf. [1,2]).
In the efficiency defined by the US legislation PURPA
[6], a fraction of the heat is added to the work in the
numerator:
ZUS ¼ ðW þ 0:5QÞ=H ¼ Zel þ 0:5ZQ . (8)
An efficiency close to this is used in Brazil [7]:
ZBrz ¼ ðW þ Zel;ref Q=ZQ;ref Þ=H. (9)
Here, the quantity added to the electric energy in the
numerator is the electric energy generated in a reference
power plant consuming the reference fuel for heat, HQ,ref.
The efficiency can be rewritten as ZBrz ¼ Zel,refHref/H.
Hence, the ‘‘output’’ here is the electricity produced when
the total reference fuel is used in a reference electric plant.
The reference electric efficiency, Zel,ref, becomes the
reference for the Brazil efficiency, ZBrz, as well.
The US and Brazil efficiencies are sometimes presented
as simplified exergy efficiencies, without really taking
into account the actual exergy content of the heat. Feng
et al. [8] suggested an adjusted exergy efficiency with the
definition
Zadex ¼ ðW þ E Q þ xðQ  E Q ÞÞ=H, (10)
where x ¼ 0.12 is an adjusted exergy factor.
A seemingly different parameter for CHP has been
established in the UK, the quality index (QI) [9]:
QI ¼ X Zel þ Y ZQ ¼ X ðZel þ ðY =X ÞZQ Þ. (11)
Here, X is a coefficient related to alternative electricity
supply options, and Y is a coefficient for heat generation
related to alternative heat supply options. The values of X
and Y vary for different sizes and types of scheme. For
natural-gas based CHP, Y equals 114 while X varies from
200 to 168 depending on the (increasing) size of the electric
power. From Eq. (11) it is readily seen that the quantity
QI/X can be regarded as an efficiency similar to the
PURPA efficiency, Eq. (8), only with a different weighting
factor for heat.
2.4. Energy and emissions savings indicators
The efficiencies reviewed above are, basically, ratios of
some desirable output to some input. Other indicators may
focus on the savings of energy or emissions in comparison
with the separate generation in reference plants. The
primary energy savings (PES) [1–3] can be written as
PES ¼ HrefH. This is the fuel energy that is saved when
using the CHP instead of separate generation. This
quantity divided by the reference fuel is the relative
primary energy savings, RPES:
RPES ¼ 1  H=H ref ¼ 1  H=ðW =Zel;ref  Q=ZQ;ref Þ.
(12)
This is used as an indicator for the goodness of CHP
systems in the Flemish legislation (Belgium) [10], in Italy
and France [11], and also included in the EU Directive on
CHP [12].
If the saved energy is attributed to electricity generation,
it can be expressed as the fuel-free electricity. As in the
EEE, Eq. (7), heat is attributed to the reference amount of
fuel for heat. Then the remaining part of the fuel actually
used is attributed to electricity generation in a reference
power plant to generate some of the electricity. The rest of
the generated electricity is then called fuel-free electricity,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
I.S. Ertesvåg / Energy 32 (2007) 2038–2050
which can be expressed as
W free ¼ RPESðZel;ref H ref Þ ¼ PESZel;ref . (13)
This indicator is used in the legislation of the Netherlands
[10].
A different approach is followed in the Danish legisla-
tion [13]. There, only a part of the fuel LHV used in the
CHP is taxed:
 
Q W
H tax ¼ min ; H . (14)
1:25 0:65
For comparison with other indicators, this can be
expressed as the nontaxed fraction of the fuel energy:
H notax H tax Z Z 
Q All these indicators are based on energy considerations.
¼1 ¼ 1  min ; 1  el
H H 1:25 0:65
 ZQ Zel 
¼ max 1  ; . ð15Þ
1:25 0:65
Alternatively, it can be expressed as a fraction of the
reference amount of fuel energy for separate electricity
production, Hel,ref. That is, multiply Eq. (15) by (Zel,ref/Zel).
The notion behind this concept is that fuel for heating
should be taxed, while fuel for electricity is not. However,
there is a high tax on electricity when it is consumed. The
Danish policy also includes a ban on the use of electricity
for heating and extensive promotion of CHP for district
heating. In the present context, it is interesting to note that
the high tax also applies to electricity used in heat pumps
but not to mechanical work directly transferred to heat
pumps [14].
When certain amounts of emissions are assigned to the
fuel of the actual plant and of the reference plants,
indicators of emissions savings can be defined. Such
indicators are [1,2,10] the relative CO2 emissions savings
(RCES) of the Walloon and Brussels-region legislation.
In the Brussels region, the emission savings are taken
relative to the emissions of the reference plants for both
heat and electricity generation. Thus, the Brussels RCES is
expressed as [10]
gF H
RCES ¼ 1  . (16)
ðgel W þ gQ QÞ
Here, gF is the CO2 emission per unit of fuel energy,
while gQ and gel are the CO2 emission per unit of heat and
electric energy, respectively. This is supposed to include
emissions during transportation, preparation, handling,
and combustion. If the fuels for the actual CHP plant and
the reference plants have the same emissions, i.e. gQ ¼ gF/
ZQ,ref and gel ¼ gF/Zel,ref, the factor gF cancels from Eq. (16)
and the Brussels RCES becomes equal to the RPES above.
This is the case for natural-gas fired plants. However, if
desired, different emission factors can be used for the
actual and reference plants.
In the Walloon region, the CO2 emission savings
are taken relative to the emissions of the reference
electricity generation. Thus, the Walloon RCES is
2041
expressed as [1,2,10]
ðgQ Q  gF HÞ
RCES ¼ 1 þ . (17)
gel W
When the emission factors are equal for fuel to both the
actual and the reference plants, they cancel from this
expression. As in the Brussels region, this is the case for
natural-gas fired CHPs in the Walloon. Then, it is
convenient to re-express the RCES as
RCES ¼ PES=ðW =Zel;ref Þ
¼ RPESðZel;ref =Zel ÞH ref =H. ð18Þ
For comparison, it can also be noted that this indicator is
related to the EEE of Eq. (7) by (1RCES) ¼ Zel,ref/Zeel.
At first sight the RPES, for example, seems to represent the
mass of fuel and thus the energy and the exergy of the fuel
as well. However, when the ‘‘saved’’ energy is evaluated, all
forms of usable energy are accounted for equally. That is,
electric energy, fuel energy, and thermal energy in medium-
pressure (MP) and low-pressure (LP) steam are considered
equivalent. Similarly, the avoided emissions in Eqs. (16)
and (17) are weighted on the basis of energy. From a
thermodynamic consideration, a system delivering an
amount of heat in LP steam has higher losses than a
system delivering heat in MP steam at a higher tempera-
ture. And actually, the system has a lower first law capacity
when producing MP steam.
3. Comparison of CHP based on exergy
3.1. Relative avoided irreversibility (RAI)
As noted above, the energy-based efficiencies and
indicators do not consider the thermodynamic value of
heat. On the other hand, the exergy efficiency is determined
only on the basis of the specific plant and does not take
alternatives into account. A combination of the notions
behind the exergy efficiency and the energy savings (PES,
RPES) will be outlined in the following.
The exergy loss (irreversibility) of a certain case can be
expressed as (1c)Ein, where c is the exergy efficiency, that
is, the ratio of usable exergy output to exergy input, and Ein
is the exergy input (usually the fuel exergy).
A case or process can be compared to a specified
reference case. The irreversibility that is avoided by
replacing the reference case by the actual case will be
ð1  cref ÞE in;ref  ð1  cÞE in , (19)
where the subscript ‘‘ref’’ denotes a reference case. The
term ‘‘avoided’’ presumes that the case is an improvement
from the reference case. However, the quantity will be
negative if the utilization is worsened. The term can be
made dimensionless by the input to the reference case, and
the RAI is expressed as
RAI ¼ ð1  cref Þ  ð1  cÞE in =E in;ref . (20)
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2042 I.S. Ertesvåg / Energy 32 (2007) 2038–2050
In a general notion, this quantity can be regarded as the
irreversibility of the specific case or system, subtracted
from the irreversibility that would have been there if the
case or system was not applied.
The exergy-weighted relative avoided carbon emissions
(RACE) can be expressed similar to Eq. (16), although on
an exergy basis,
gEF E F
RACE ¼ 1  . (21)
ðgel W þ gEQ E Q Þ
Here, gEF and gEQ are the CO2 emission per unit of fuel
exergy and per unit of exergy in heat, respectively. To
account for CO2 neutral fuels, e.g. sustainably produced
biomass, this expression has to be modified. One possibility is
to add the emissions from reference plants fired by fossil fuel.
The expression will then account for both the substitution of
fossil fuels and for the benefit of cogeneration.
3.2. Exergy-based definition of reference plants for separate
production
The reference plants defined as referred in Section 2.2 do
not recognize the exergetic value or ‘‘quality’’ of thermal
energy. The reference amount of fuel for separate heat
generation is taken as the same value regardless of the
temperature of the steam (or other heating media: water,
oil, air, etc.). It can be argued that a conventional boiler
has about the same efficiency for HP steam and LP steam,
and even for hot water. Actually, this efficiency is
determined more by the state of the effluent flue gas than
by the state of the heating medium. However, it can be
observed that for a CHP producing LP steam, the
electricity generation is relatively lower than for a similar
CHP producing MP or HP steam.
Low-temperature thermal energy can be produced by
heat pumps. A system of separate electricity generation and
a heat pump can supply an amount of heat that is larger
than the fuel LHV used. Thus, for a proper exergetic
comparison, the reference heat efficiency has to depend on
the exergy of the heat. This corresponds to defining a
reference heat-pump exergy efficiency.
Similar to energy above, the reference fuel exergy for
separate electricity generation can be expressed:
E F;el;ref ¼ aF H el;ref ¼ aF W =Zel;ref , (22)
where aF is a constant, usually close to unity (e.g. 1.04 for
natural gas at standard state).
To determine the reference fuel exergy for heat genera-
tion, two alternative approaches can be followed: (1) specify
a reference exergy-to-heat ratio, aQ,ref (cf. Eq. (3)) for heat
generation, or (2) specify a reference exergy efficiency or a
heat pump providing the heat. In the first approach, the
reference exergy efficiency for separate heat generation in a
boiler (subscript ‘‘B’’) can be expressed as
aQ;ref Q aQ;ref ZQ;ref
cQ;ref;B ¼ ¼ . (23)
aF Q=ZQ;ref aF
Here, the reference is separate generation of the same
amount of heat at the specified exergy-to-heat ratio and
with a specified heat efficiency. For cases with an actual aQ,
this approach will give a reference amount of fuel
exergy:
aQ Q aF aQ Q
E F;Q;ref;B ¼ ¼ . (24)
cQ;ref;B aQ;ref ZQ;ref
Now, the reference amounts of fuel exergy for separate heat
and electricity production are defined, and the reference
efficiency can be expressed:
W þ EQ
cref ¼
E F;el;ref þ E F;Q;ref;B
Zel þ aQ ZQ
¼ . ð25Þ
aF ðZel =Zel;ref þ aQ ZQ =ðaQ;ref ZQ;ref ÞÞ
Here, the expressions in Eqs. (3), (22) and (24) are used
together with the definitions of electric and heat efficiencies
(Section 2.1). This procedure allows a comparison of
different systems and recognizes the quality of the thermal
energy. The ratio of actual fuel exergy input to the reference
input is
E F =E F;ref ¼ ðZel =Zel;ref þ aQ ZQ =ðaQ;ref ZQ;ref ÞÞ1 . (26)
The expressions in Eqs. (25) and (26) can alternatively
be developed from an approach defining a reference heat
pump for the heat production. When the heat Q with
exergy EQ ¼ aQQ is provided by a heat pump, an amount of
work WHP is required. These quantities can be related
by the exergy efficiency of the heat pump, Eq. (5).
Furthermore, the heat-pump work can be assumed to be
generated in a reference power plant as described above.
Hence, the amount of fuel for separate generation of heat
varies with the exergy of the steam (or other heating
medium). It also depends on the exergy efficiency of the heat
pump.
If the heat is provided by a reference heat pump
(subscript ‘‘HP’’) using electricity (or work) from a
reference plant for separate power generation, the heat-
generation exergy efficiency for the combined system of
power plant and heat pump is expressed as
aQ Q Z c
cQ;ref;HP ¼ ¼ el;ref HP;ref . (27)
aF ðW HP;ref =Zel;ref Þ aF
The reference fuel exergy for separate production of heat at
exergy-to-heat ratio aQ in the heat-pump approach can be
expressed as
aF W HP;ref aF aQ Q
E F;Q;ref;HP ¼ ¼ . (28)
Zel;ref Zel;ref cHP;ref
This approach can be joined with the boiler approach
above by setting the efficiencies of Eqs. (23) and (27)
equal. This implies that aQ,ref ZQ,ref ¼ Zel,refcHP,ref and that
the expressions of EF,Q,ref from Eqs. (24) and (28) become
equal.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
I.S. Ertesvåg / Energy 32 (2007) 2038–2050
The heat-pump approach also leads to an expression for
the coefficient of performance (Eq. (6)) of a heat pump
with the reference exergy efficiency, cHP,ref:
COPref ¼ Q=W HP;ref ¼ cHP;ref =aQ
¼ ðZQ;ref aQ;ref =Zel;ref Þ=aQ .
The lower the temperature level of the delivered heat, the
higher the reference COP will be. Yet this will have the
same exergetic performance. It is readily seen that for a
heating medium with aQ ¼ aQ,ref, the fuel-exergy ratio of
Eq. (26) is equal to the fuel-energy ratio of Eq. (4). The
reference exergy-to-heat ratio, aQ,ref, or, alternatively, the
reference heat-pump exergy efficiency, cHP,ref, has to be
specified. This will be discussed below.
4. Test cases of CHP
4.1. Industrial CHP fired with natural gas
Two different configurations for industrial CHP have
been considered, Fig. 2: A boiler with back-pressure steam
turbine (ST, BST plant) and condensing ST, and a plant
with gas-turbine, flue-gas heat-recovery steam generator
(HRSG) and condensing ST. These are a selection from the
cases studied in [1,2]. The fuel for all cases is natural gas.
Within each of the series of cases, the steam delivery load
HP
BOILER
PROCESS
GAS HEAT
GAS SF
HP
GT
Fig. 2. Configuration flow sheets of boiler (upper) and gas-turbine with HRSG and supplementary duct firing (SF) (lower) systems, both with back-
pressure steam turbine (BPST), optional condensation tail steam turbine (CTST) and process heat delivery. From [2].
2043
increases from 40 to 100 tonnes per hour (t/h) with the
nominal load at 70 t/h. Both configurations are considered
with LP and MP steam delivery. The LP steam is delivered
at a state of 2.5 bar and 140 1C, while the MP steam is
delivered at 21 bar and 330 1C. The ambient state is 1 bar
ð29Þ and 11 1C, which is assumed both for air and for make-up
and cooling water. The ‘‘heat’’ is calculated as the enthalpy
difference between delivered steam and the mixture of
return and make-up water. The associated exergy is the
corresponding difference in thermomechanical exergy. The
exergy-to-energy ratio aQ of the delivered thermal energy is
0.28 for LP steam and 0.39 for MP steam.
The BST cases selected from [1,2] are operational mode
III, here denoted B3-LP and B3-MP. In these series, the
firing is maintained and the condensing ST load is reduced
to increase the steam delivery load. Operational mode III is
chosen here because it shows a range of variation in electric
and heat efficiencies. It should be noted that the last
case (100 t/h) in each of these series also represents the
operational mode I in [1,2].
For the GT/HRSG/ST plant, the cases of operational
mode II are selected, denoted GT2-LP and GT2-MP. Here,
the nominal steam delivery (70 t/h) was achieved by a
nominal GT firing load and no use of condensing ST. This
GT load was held constant. Supplementary firing in the
HRSG was used to increase the steam delivery load from
70 to 100 t/h while load reduction from 70 to 40 t/h was
BPST
OPTIONAL
CTST
BPST
OPTIONAL
CTST
LP
PROCESS
HEAT
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2044 I.S. Ertesvåg / Energy 32 (2007) 2038–2050

Table 1 Table 2
Cases of industrial CHP, boiler/steam-turbine (B3-) and gas-turbine with Cases of natural-gas fired reciprocating engines, with district heating
HRSG (GT2-) series with low-pressure (LP) and medium-pressure (MP) (aQ ¼ 0.19)
steam delivery
Case RR1 RR2 RR3 RR4 RR5 RR6
Steam delivery load (t/h)
W/H 0.419 0.416 0.397 0.407 0.413 0.450
40 55 70 85 100 Q/H 0.341 0.445 0.531 0.521 0.515 0.450
RAI 0.010 0.049 0.068 0.077 0.083 0.102
B3-LP (aQ ¼ 0.28)
W/H 0.240 0.224 0.207 0.191 0.174 Rolls Royce Marine Diesel, Bergen K-type or Bergen B-type engines, data
Q/H 0.281 0.386 0.491 0.597 0.702 from [15].
RAI 0.336 0.197 0.084 0.010 0.088 Location and installed electric power:
RR1: Vengazi, Latvia, 1  2.3 MWel.
B3-MP (aQ ¼ 0.39) RR2: Verona, Italy, 9  2.2 MWel.
W/H 0.144 0.128 0.111 0.095 0.079
RR3: El Grado, Spain, 8  3.0 MWel.
Q/H 0.319 0.439 0.559 0.678 0.798 RR4: Brønderslev, Denmark, 7  3.1 MWel.
RAI 0.275 0.044 0.120 0.243 0.337 RR5: Leon, Spain, 2  2.75 MWel.
GT2-LP (aQ ¼ 0.28) RR6: Tørring, Denmark, 1  5.1 MWel (B-type).
W/H 0.462 0.449 0.438 0.423 0.409
Q/H 0.241 0.332 0.418 0.452 0.483
RAI 0.098 0.156 0.207 0.213 0.219
4.3. Cases of CHP with district heating
GT2-MP (aQ ¼ 0.39)
W/H 0.410 0.396 0.373 0.351 0.332
Q/H 0.274 0.377 0.464 0.512 0.545 In some countries, particularly Denmark, the legislation
RAI 0.171 0.264 0.320 0.340 0.350 has been designed to promote small-scale CHP for district
heating. This has brought forth a substantial number of
BioB3-LP (aQ ¼ 0.28)
W/H 0.213 0.199 0.184 0.170 0.155 natural-gas fired power-plants in the range 3–30 MW
Q/H 0.250 0.343 0.437 0.530 0.624 electric power, supplying their neighborhood with space
RAI 0.209 0.110 0.026 0.046 0.108 heating. Often, such plants only operate during the heating
BioB3-MP (aQ ¼ 0.39) season. A number of such cases are specified in Table 2.
W/H 0.128 0.114 0.099 0.084 0.070 These data were taken from [15] and the specific cases were
Q/H 0.284 0.390 0.496 0.603 0.709 chosen because both the electric and heat (or total energy)
RAI 0.233 0.036 0.109 0.221 0.310 efficiencies were given. The efficiencies are ratios of long-
From [1,2]. term average energy quantities for plants in operation. The
cases of this series are individual plants, whereas each of
the series described above represent one plant at different
obtained by increasing the steam flow to the condensing loads.
ST. The fuel-energy (LHV) consumption rate was 101 MW The plants in this series (denoted RR) are based on the K
for the BST and from 117 to 147 MW for the GT plant. type (one B type) of natural-gas fired engine from Rolls
As the issue here is to investigate the efficiency indicators, Royce Marine Diesel of Bergen, Norway. We will regard
most details of the plants and simulations will be left these as being representative for a number of existing
out and can be found in [1,2]. The key data are shown in plants. For such plants, the water supply and return
Table 1. temperatures, respectively, are typically 95 and 50 1C. Here,
All these cases are simulated as steady-state steady-flow aQ ¼ 0.19 is assumed, although the value may be lower
cases and the efficiencies are calculated as ratios of rate during parts of the heating season.
quantities.
4.4. Reference plants for separate production
4.2. Industrial CHP fired with biomass
In the present study, the chosen values for the reference
Although gasification and combustion in gas turbines efficiencies of natural-gas fired plants are 0.55 and 0.90,
will be the future, biomass-fired CHP plants today are respectively, for electricity and heat. These values represent
boilers like the BST cases just described. The energy- modern technology. In the legislation referred to, the
conversion efficiency of a biomass-fired boiler is, however, chosen values show some variation. For instance, Dutch,
somewhat lower than for natural gas. The biomass cases French and Flemish legislation prescribe lower reference
evaluated here are taken to be identical to the BST cases heat efficiencies for steam production than for hot water,
above, except that the boiler efficiency is reduced from while in Italy it is lower for industrial heat than for district
90% to 80%. Thus, the actual electric and heat efficiencies heating. This can be regarded as an attempt to account for
are scaled by the factor 80/90. This gives the series denoted the exergy difference. Furthermore, different values are
BioB-LP and BioB-MP. Table 1 also shows key data for used for various fuels. This reflects the fact that coal or
these series. biomass-fired plants have considerably lower electricity
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
I.S. Ertesvåg / Energy 32 (2007) 2038–2050
production compared to natural-gas fired plants, and a
somewhat lower total energy production as well. Thus, for
the biomass-fired cases here, the reference efficiencies for
heat and electricity are set to 0.40 and 0.80, respectively.
The effects of these choices will be investigated.
For the reference exergy-to-energy ratio aQ,ref, a value of
0.28 will be adopted. This is the ratio of exergy to enthalpy
differences for instance of steam at 2.5 bar and 140 1C
(LP steam), a return water temperature of 53 1C, and an
ambient temperature of 11 1C. In combination with
reference electric and heat efficiencies of 0.55 and 0.90,
respectively, this corresponds to a heat-pump exergy
efficiency cHP,ref of 0.46. With this choice, the three values
of exergy-to-thermal energy assumed above, aQ ¼ 0.39
(MP steam, 21 bar, 330 1C), aQ ¼ 0.28 (LP steam), and
aQ ¼ 0.19 (hot water) give COP values of 1.18, 1.64 and
2.4, respectively, for the reference heat pump, Eq. (29). The
first value shows that the heat pump is only of theoretical
interest for these cases while the value for LP steam is
technically achievable. The hot-water COP of 2.4 is a
reasonable value for space heating in the relevant areas.
This indicates that the chosen reference values are reason-
able for a quantitative analysis, although this choice of
‘‘quality’’ for the reference is modest.
An alternative choice of aQ,ref ¼ 0.39 (MP steam, 21 bar,
330 1C) corresponds to a reference heat pump exergy
efficiency cHP,ref of 0.64. Even at this level, the reference
COP of 1.64 is technically feasible although very demand-
ing. On the other hand, a low-exergy reference, e.g. hot
water with aQ,ref ¼ 0.19, would be an alternative with a
thermodynamically very modest requirement upon the
reference system. This would mean a reference COP of 1.64
for space heating, which is less than that achieved by simple
air-to-air heat pumps. It can be argued that for space
heating, separate production should give more than 90% of
the LHV. In fact, more than 105% can be achieved by
using furnaces that condense some of the flue-gas water
vapor. This figure corresponds to the combination of a
separate electric plant with 55% efficiency and a heat pump
with COP of 1.91. Hence, also this alternative gives less
output than the chosen reference.
Nevertheless, the choice of reference for exergy is to
some extent a matter of taste, at least within the technically
possible range. One issue is whether a medium-exergy
thermal system should be accounted ‘‘positive’’, ‘‘neutral’’,
or ‘‘negative’’ compared to the reference system. From a
pedagogical viewpoint, it is preferred to have both
‘‘negative’’ and ‘‘positive’’ categories, as the choice made
here implies.
5. Results and discussion
This section will give a quantitative exergetic evaluation
of the various indicators for CHP. Here one should keep in
mind that all indicators are defined or chosen with the
purpose of promoting CHP. Moreover, thermodynamics is
more or less an underlying motivation for promoting CHP.
2045
0.40
0.20
0.00
RAI
-0.20
B3-LP
B3-MP
-0.40
GT2-LP
GT2-MP
biB3LP
-0.60
40 55 70 85 100
Steam delivery (t/h)
Fig. 3. Relative avoided irreversibility (RAI), Eq. (20), as a function of
steam delivery load for the five series of cases shown in Table 1.
5.1. RAI
Some of the indicators reviewed above have been
calculated and presented in [1,2] for ten series of cases.
Fig. 3 shows the RAI, Eq. (20), for five of the BST and GT
series described above in a graph similar to those for the
other indicators presented in [2]. The RAI is used as
the abscissa in the figures below, and the relation between
the results and the specified cases can be found from Tables
1 and 2. For all series, the RAI is increasing from left to
right, both in the tables and in the figures.
From Fig. 3, it is noted that cases with low steam
delivery from BST plants have a negative RAI. This means
that the alternative, i.e. separate production, gives a lower
irreversibility than the CHP plant. It is seen that MP steam
delivery gives a higher RAI than LP steam. It is also
observed that the GT systems give a higher RAI than the
boiler/ST systems with condensing ST. The GT plants
show positive RAI values. The decreasing values towards
the low steam delivery load are due to the increasing use of
steam in the condensing ST. Furthermore, it is seen that
MP steam delivery gave higher RAI than LP steam, and
that the GT systems gave higher RAI than the BST
systems.
One may keep in mind that separate boilers have lower
irreversibilities with MP steam delivery than with LP-steam
delivery, while the energy efficiencies are similar. On the
other hand, MP-steam delivery CHP systems typically have
a lower electricity-to-heat ratio, W/Q. As heat production
has a higher irreversibility than electricity production, the
shift towards more heat gives a larger specific irreversibility
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2046 I.S. Ertesvåg / Energy 32 (2007) 2038–2050
(1cref) for separate generation in MP systems compared
to LP systems. In spite of this, the avoided irreversibility
(RAI) for combined production with MP steam is larger
than for the corresponding LP-steam delivery system
(cf. Table 1). Apparently, the beneficial effect of combined
production is stronger for MP than for LP steam delivery.
A notable result is the series B3-MP, where the last cases
have high RAI values. The reason for this is that the
electricity is produced in HP to MP expansion turbine only.
The efficiency of this marginal electric production is
considerably higher than for separate production. On the
other hand, it requires that the amount of electric energy is
much lower than the amount of thermal energy produced.
The variation with choices of reference plants are shown
in Fig. 4 for the series B3-LP. The legend shows (in %) the
values of the reference electric efficiency (55%, 45%), the
reference heat efficiency (90%, 80%), and the reference
exergy-to-heat ratio (32%, 28%, 24%). The main effect of
a lower reference electric or heat efficiency is to shift the
RAI to a higher value. It is seen that changing the reference
exergy-to-heat ratio has an effect similar to changing the
reference heat efficiency.
The RAI of the gas engines (RR series) are shown in
Table 2. The cases of this series are arranged in the
sequence of increasing RAI. The relatively modest RAI
values indicate that the benefits of CHP for district heating
compared to use of heat pumps with electricity from
separate power plants are fairly small, if present at all. The
reason for this is that the low exergy-to-energy ratio of
district heating is not sufficiently compensated by the
0.40
0.20
0.00
RAI
-0.20
55/90/28
55/80/28
45/90/28
-0.40 45/80/28
55/90/24
55/90/32
-0.60
40 55 70 85 100
Steam delivery (t/h)
Fig. 4. Variation of RAI, Eq. (20), for series B3-LP (boiler/steam turbine/
LP steam delivery) calculated for different reference values. The legend
shows (in %) the reference electric efficiency, the reference heat efficiency
and the reference exergy-to-heat ratio.
higher electricity production. The possible benefits of these
CHP plants will depend on other factors, such as the losses
due to the transport of fuel, district heating water and
electricity. It should also be noted that for space heating,
heat pumps available on the market are more efficient than
the reference heat pumps chosen here.
Figs. 5 and 6 show the other indicators as functions of
the RAI for the six investigated series. In particular, two
aspects are interesting to look for. The first is the change
from one case to the next within a series. When the change
represents an increase in RAI, the issue is whether and to
which degree this improvement is captured and made
visible by the indicator in question. The second is the
relative evaluation between the different series, i.e. between
the different technologies and between different steam-
delivery conditions. When a series has higher RAI values
than another, the issue is whether and to which degree this
better performance is shown by the investigated indicator.
The biomass-fired series BioB3-MP is not shown in the
figures. The results from this series are related to the
corresponding natural-gas fired series B3-MP very much in
the same way as the series BioB3-LP is related to B3-LP.
5.2. Exergy efficiency
As the RAI is based on the exergy efficiency, Fig. 5(a)
essentially shows a comparison of the actual plant with the
reference separate production. Here we see that within each
series, a higher RAI usually corresponds to higher exergy
efficiency. This is in particular seen when comparing the low
steam load cases (far left in the graph) of the BST and GT
plants. However, a general observation is that the two
indicators may give different guidance. A high level of exergy
efficiency does not necessarily correspond to a high RAI.
One interesting result is seen for the GT plants.
Although the RAI is increasing, the exergy efficiency is
reduced for the cases to the right. In these cases, the steam
delivery load is increased by supplementary duct firing.
Compared with the nominal load with no duct firing, this
has a higher irreversibility per unit of fuel. However,
compared to separate production of the additional heat
and electricity, the steam production by supplementary
firing is beneficial.
When a larger fraction of the produced steam is used for
condensing ST, the irreversibilities associated with its use
are moved from the outside to the inside of the system
boundaries. However, while the exergy efficiency is
marginally reduced for the CHP, it is increased for the
reference system of separate generation. Hence, the RAI
decreases in increased condensing ST while the exergy
efficiency is nearly maintained.
It is also seen that the exergy efficiencies are relatively
high for the gas engines, while the RAI is close to zero.
These engines have high electric efficiencies, which are
combined with high heat efficiencies. Although the exergy
of the delivered heat is low, the total amount is high. Thus,
high exergy efficiency can be achieved. On the other hand,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
I.S. Ertesvåg / Energy 32 (2007) 2038–2050 2047

0.6 B3-LP 1.0

B3-MP

Total energy efficiency

0.9
GT2-LP
0.5

Exergy efficiency
GT2-MP 0.8
bioB3LP
0.4 RRengine 0.7

0.6
0.3
0.5

0.2 0.4
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
RAI RAI

1.0 0.7
Equivalent electric efficiency

0.9

US PURPA efficiency
0.8 0.6
0.7
0.6 0.5
0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3
0.2 0.3
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
RAI RAI

0.8 0.6

0.7
Feng et al efficiency

0.5
Brazil efficiency

0.6
0.4
0.5

0.3
0.4

0.3 0.2
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
RAI RAI

Fig. 5. Efficiencies as functions of RAI, Eq. (20), for the six series of CHP, including boiler/steam-turbine (B3-) and gas-turbine with HRSG (GT2-) series
with low-pressure (LP) and medium-pressure (MP) steam delivery, and the series (RRengine) of gas engines with district heating. (a) Exergy efficiency,
Eq. (2). (b) Total energy efficiency, Eq. (1). (c) Equivalent electric efficiency, Eq. (7). (d) US PURPA efficiency, Eq. (8). (e) Brazil efficiency, Eq. (9).
(f) Feng et al. adjusted exergy efficiency, Eq. (10).

the alternative production with heat pumps also has high total energy efficiency. However, for cases with the
exergy efficiency. Hence, in comparison, the avoided loss is same RAI, the total energy efficiency can have a
modest. wide variation. Moreover, cases with a lower RAI
Above it was observed that the BST plant with a high may have higher energy efficiencies. This is seen when
delivery load of MP steam has a high RAI. This is not comparing LP steam delivery to MP steam delivery.
captured by the exergy efficiency. On the contrary, it is at Both conditions deliver approximately the same energy,
the level of the BST plant with LP steam (much lower while the electricity production in combination with
RAI), and much lower than the GT plant (same or lower MP steam delivery gives less irreversibility and hence a
RAI). higher RAI.
Energy is conserved, and all the input will become some
5.3. Total energy efficiency kind of output or effluent. As pointed out above, this
efficiency is determined more by the state of the outflow
The total energy efficiency is shown in Fig. 5(b). flue gas than by the state of the heating medium and the
For each series, a higher RAI corresponds to higher energy production.

2048
0.4
0.2
0.0
RPES
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
160.0
UK Quality Index (QI)
140.0
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Fig. 6. Energy-based performance indicators as functions of RAI. (a) Relative primary energy savings. (b) Walloon relative carbon emissions savings, Eq. (17).
(c) UK quality index, Eq. (11). (d) Danish nontaxed fuel energy divided by reference fuel for separate electricity production. For legend, see Fig. 5.
5.4. Equivalent electric efficiency (EEE)
For the present cases, the efficiency of the Portuguese
legislation becomes equal to the EEE, which is also used in
Spain. This efficiency is shown in Fig. 5(c), and represents
the marginal electricity production from a heat-producing
system. Thus, to some extent it includes comparison with
the reference production. As the gain is expressed in terms
of electricity production, it may seem to include an
exergetic evaluation as well. However, this is a false
impression as the heat still is evaluated on an energy basis.
Accordingly, the EEE does not acknowledge the higher
thermodynamic value of MP steam compared with LP
steam and hot water. Actually, the contrary is observed.
In general for the series investigated, increased RAI
values correspond to larger EEE values. However, large
increases in RAI may give moderate increase in EEE. And
for some series, very small increases in RAI values
correspond to large increases in EEE.
5.5. US PURPA efficiency, Brazil efficiency, Feng et al.
efficiency
The three efficiencies presented in Figs. 5(d)–(f) show
similar patterns. The observations made for the EEE are to
a large extent made here as well. The difference is that the
gradients of the curves in these graphs are less than for the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
I.S. Ertesvåg / Energy 32 (2007) 2038–2050
0.6
0.4
0.2
Walloon RCES
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
-1.2
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
RAI RAI
3.0
2.5
Hnotax/Helref (DK)
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
RAI RAI
EEE. Heat is included in these efficiencies, however
without considering its exergy. The Feng et al. efficiency
includes part of the actual exergy of heat, and the results to
some degree approach the results of the exergy efficiency.
The weighting factor given to heat is, however, larger than
the exergy content.
5.6. RPES
The RAI was conceived as an exergy version of the
RPES, which is shown in Fig. 6(a). While the comparison
between RAI and exergy efficiency shows the exergetic
effects of comparison with the reference separate produc-
tion, a comparison between RPES and the total energy
efficiency shows the energetic effects.
As for the total energy efficiency, it is seen that for each
series, a higher RAI corresponds to a higher RPES. It is also
seen that cases with the same RAI show a wide variation of
RPES. The difference between RPES and RAI is primarily
the shift towards higher RAI for higher exergy-to-heat ratios.
The RPES provides comparison with the alternatives, but
does not account for the fact that the alternatives can be
energetically more efficient for lower exergy-to-heat ratios.
As the reference exergy-to-enthalpy ratio is chosen equal
to that of the LP steam, the LP cases lie on the line
RPES ¼ RAI. Improving a plant by replacing the boiler
with a GT/HRSG is encouraged by this indicator.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
I.S. Ertesvåg / Energy 32 (2007) 2038–2050
However, it is seen that steam delivery at a higher
temperature and exergy (MP steam) is punished by the
energy indicator, giving a lower RPES in spite of an
increased RAI. The higher B3-MP cases are even found in
the fourth quadrant, as the RPES takes negative values for
positive RAI.
The Dutch fuel-free electricity, Eq. (13), normalized with
the reference amount of fuel energy, is proportional to the
RPES and exhibits the corresponding behavior.
5.7. Walloon RCES
Fig. 6(b) shows the RCES of the Walloon legislation. This
is similar to the RPES above, except that the points are
moved clockwise such that the impact of improvements are
enhanced and several cases are raised above the
RCES ¼ RAI line in the first quadrant and below on the
negative side. The relative positions of the cases in this graph
are similar to those of the EEE of Fig. 5(c). This results from
the relation shown above between the two indicators.
5.8. UK QI
As shown above in Eq. (11), the QI is proportional to an
efficiency similar to the US and Brazil efficiencies. Hence, the
relations to the RAI (Fig. 6(c)) are similar and the comments
above apply here as well. The curves in the diagram are
relatively steeper than for the US efficiency, due to the larger
weight given to the heat production (Y/X in Eq. (11) is larger
than 0.5 in Eq. (8)). Moreover, the parameter X is increased
for lower electric power capacity. This causes higher values of
QI for the gas engines (RR series), which have low RAI
values. It may be noted that when calculated for a
combination of separate production, the QI is larger than
for the actual CHP for all the investigated cases.
5.9. Danish nontaxed fuel
In the Danish legislation, CHP is supposed to be promoted
by tax exemption for part of the fuel. As fuel for separate
electricity production is not taxed, it is reasonable to compare
the nontaxed CHP fuel to the reference fuel for electricity
production. This ratio, (Hnotax/Hel,ref), is shown in Fig. 6(d).
However, the pictures are similar when using the total
reference fuel or the actual fuel as the denominators, although
they are less exposed. In all cases, except the three last cases of
GT2-LP and the cases RR3 to RR6, the first term of the
minimum expression of Eq. (14) is invoked.
The results for this indicator differ from the others. It
should be noted that for enterprises in Denmark, virtually
all energy tax is refunded when the energy is used for
industrial production. Thus, in practice, the tax exemption
formula mainly applies to low-temperature heat (district
heating, space and tap-water heating) and a few instances
of steam production for hospitals and other public service.
The results for the gas engines (RR series) are interest-
ing. All the other energy-based indicators give high values
2049
for these cases. The Danish formula, on the contrary, gives
a close to neutral evaluation, which is nearly in accordance
with the close-to-zero RAI values.
5.10. Other possible, more general indicators of conversion
and emissions
This study focuses on exergy and on existing criteria for
performance. All the legislative indicators are based on
energy, although the Brussels and Walloon regions of
Belgium have defined indicators that focus on CO2
emissions as well. Exergy, energy and CO2 emissions are
directly related to the amount of fuel and the efficiency of
conversion. Emissions of NOx, SOx, soot, particles, heavy
metals, etc. are important aspects of CHP. Their relations
to conversion efficiency and performance are, however,
much more complex. Also ‘‘upstream’’ and indirectly
caused energy consumption and emissions could be
included as ‘‘embodied’’, ‘‘extended’’ or ‘‘life cycle’’
quantities. Such joint indicators including conversion and
emissions in general would require other and additional
methodology, with tracking of consumption, conversion
and emissions and ‘‘transformities’’, weighting rules or
similar expressions. This is beyond the scope of the present
study but may call for further investigations.
6. Concluding remarks
The purpose of this study was to assess various
efficiencies and indicators for evaluating CHP systems.
An expression for relative avoided irreversibility (RAI) was
developed to enable exergetic evaluation of CHP plants,
including comparison with separate production of the same
electricity and heat. The relative performance according to
various technically or legislatively defined efficiency in-
dicators was then expressed and compared to the RAI.
Each efficiency alone, also the exergy efficiency, only
measures the performance of the specified system. They do
not consider alternative production in separate plants for
heat and electricity production. All first law based
indicators evaluate electric and thermal energy on an equal
basis. Contrary to this, the RAI pays respect to the second
law and includes comparison with separate production in
reference systems.
The results for the investigated test cases show that
industrial CHP systems with gas turbines, back-pressure
steam turbines and steam delivery clearly are exergetically
beneficial to separate production. Variation of steam
delivery load is better obtained by variation in supplemen-
tary firing rather than variation in condensing steam
turbines. Also back-pressure steam-turbines used with
steam-delivery boilers show good performance. Then,
steam delivery should be varied by varying the firing load
rather than using condensing steam turbines. On the
contrary, the results indicate that CHPs with low-
temperature heat delivery have marginal or no benefits
compared to separate generation of heat and electricity.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2050 I.S. Ertesvåg / Energy 32 (2007) 2038–2050
It was seen that exergetic improvement (or impairment)
only to a limited degree was captured by the various
energy-based efficiency indicators. The differences in
exergetic performance for different configurations were
not acknowledged, that is, boiler/steam-turbine plants
versus gas turbine plants and low-pressure steam delivery
versus medium-pressure delivery. Most of the indicators
give higher values when a given configuration is improved.
It is observed that several indicators overstate the relative
improvement of systems that already have a positive RAI,
while they underestimate improvements of systems that
have a negative exergetic evaluation. Some legislatively
defined indicators appear to discourage thermodynamically
based improvements and favor exergetically poor systems.
Acknowledgment
The author is grateful to Dr. S.J. Nesheim of Statoil,
Norway, for several discussions on this issue, and for data
provided for the industrial CHP test cases.
References
[1] Nesheim SJ. Combined heat and power fired with natural gas.
Thermodynamical, industrial, and societal considerations. PhD thesis
no 2005:167. Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and
Technology; 2005.
[2] Nesheim SJ, Ertesvåg IS. Efficiencies and indicators defined to
promote combined heat and power (CHP). Energy Convers Manage
2007;48:1004–15.
[3] Horlock JH. Cogeneration—combined heat and power (CHP). 2nd
ed. Malabar, FL: Krieger; 1997.
[4] Royal Decree No. 436, 12 March 2004, Spain.
[5] Establishment of the governing co-generation activity. Decree-Law
No. 538/99, Diário da República Serie I-A No. 288/99, 13 December
1999; 8801-9 [In Portuguese], /http://dre.pt/pdfgratis/1999/12/
288a00.pdfS.
[6] US Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act 18CFR292.205.
[7] Szklo AS, Tolmasquim MT. Analysis of Brazil’s cogeneration legal
framework. Energy Convers Manage 2003;44:369–80.
[8] Feng X, Cai Y-N, Qian L-L. A new performance criterion
for cogeneration system. Energy Convers Manage 1998;39(15):
1607–9.
[9] CHPQA quality assurance for combined heat and power: introducing
CHPQA. Guidance notes Nos. 0, 10, and 24, /http://www.chpqa.
comS.
[10] Mertens D. Certificates, an engine for growth in Belgium. In:
Proceedings of the annual conference at COGEN Europe, 26
February 2004, Brussels.
[11] Cardona E, Piacentino A. Cogeneration: a regulatory framework
toward growth. Energy Policy 2005;33:2100–11.
[12] EU CHP Directive 2004/8/EC 11 Feb 2004.
[13] Heat supply in Denmark. Copenhagen: Danish Energy Authority;
2005. /http://www.ens.dk/graphics/Publikationer/Forsyning_UK/
Heat_supply_in_Denmark/pdf/varmeforsyning_uk.pdfS.
[14] Jacobsen SH. CO2 heat pump can give plants large gas savings.
Energinyt 2004(2):24–5 [In Danish].
[15] Rolls-Royce. Power Generation. /http://www.rolls-royce.com/S.