Int. J. Exergy, Vol. 27, No.

4, 2018 419

Energetic and exergetic analysis of a multi-stage

turbine, coal-fired 173 MW power plant

Joshua Clay and James Mathias*

Mechanical Engineering and Energy Processes Department,
Southern Illinois University Carbondale,
1230 Lincoln Dr., Carbondale,
IL 62901-6603, USA
Email: jclay@hurst-rosche.com
Email: mathias@siu.edu
*Corresponding author

Abstract: This paper reports the results of an energy and exergy audit of a
173 MW pulverised coal fired, subcritical steam power plant unit in the
Midwestern USA. Energy and exergy analysis determined the thermal
efficiency and identified the greatest sources of irreversibilities and also
mapped the flow of energy and exergy throughout the plant. The overall plant
energetic and exergetic efficiencies were found to be 32.8% and 33.7%,
respectively. The largest source of exergy destruction in the cycle was found to
be within the steam generator. Options explored to increase the exergetic
efficiency were to improve the steam turbines to operate with higher
temperature steam, to bring water into the condenser from the lake that is closer
to the ambient temperature, and to replace a valve after the boiler feedwater
pump with a hydro-turbine to produce some power.

Keywords: exergy; power generation; heat exchangers; turbines.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Clay, J. and Mathias, J.

(2018) ‘Energetic and exergetic analysis of a multi-stage turbine, coal-fired
173 MW power plant’, Int. J. Exergy, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp.419–436.

Biographical notes: Joshua Clay is a Mechanical Engineering Associate at the

Hurst-Rosche, Inc. in Marion, Illinois. He has over 13 years of engineering and
design experience in multiple disciplines, including structural, mechanical,
manufacturing and mining. He earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Civil
Engineering and Master of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from the
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. He is also a licensed Professional
Engineer in the State of Illinois.

James Mathias is an Associate Professor at the Southern Illinois University –

Carbondale. He has taught courses in thermodynamics, heat transfer,
introduction to engineering, and energy in our society. His research areas
include heat exchanger testing, power and heat pumping cycles, and improved
utilisation of energy. He earned his Mechanical Engineering degree from the
Brigham Young University (BS, MSME), and Ohio State University (PhD) and
is a licensed Professional Engineer in Illinois.

Copyright © 2018 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

420 J. Clay and J. Mathias

1 Introduction

In this age of climate change and economic volatility there is perhaps no greater concern
among certain sectors of the public than the need for cleaner and more economic
generation of electricity. Despite the reputation of coal as a key environmental pollutant
approximately 30.4% of electricity consumed in the USA continues to be generated from
its combustion (US Energy Information Administration, 2017). In addition to this,
consumer electrical demand is projected to increase by about 0.7% per year through 2040
(US Energy Information Administration, 2017). With this in mind some sources suggest
that the country’s coal reserves could be depleted in as little as 216 years according to the
2013 national production rates (US Energy Information Administration, 2017). These
assertions, among others, press the issue of developing efficiency measures which would
ensure increased output from decreased input both prolonging the lifetime of our
non-renewable energy supply as well as minimising the costs associated with its
utilisation.
Efficiency of a thermodynamic cycle can be optimised by energy analysis. A concept
coming out of the first law of thermodynamics, energy analysis applies the conservation
of energy law to a system to create an energy balance thus identifying losses within it.
However this approach is limited in that it does not account for degrading of the quality
of the energy as the cycle progresses. In order to incorporate the degrading of the energy,
one must include concepts of the second law of thermodynamics into the analysis. The
second law deals with irreversibilities which arise in systems where work is generated by
transfer of heat. Since coal power plants are giant heat engines, the application of second
law analysis opens a whole new arena of optimisation potentials for analysis.
This article reports on the energetic and exergetic modelling of a mid-sized,
pulverised coal-fired power plant located in the Midwestern USA. The plant studied
produces a maximum of 173 MW and the plant was modelled at steady-state, full-load
conditions. There is a scrubber at the flue gas outlet for pollution control. There is lake
water that thermally interacts with the condenser. The plant started operation in 1978 and
has had routine maintenance but no major changes.
Kanoglu et al. (2007) explained key differences between energy and exergy
efficiencies and pointed out that exergy analysis has increased in being used as a tool for
design, assessment, optimisation, and improvement of energy systems. Energy efficiency
has some inherent deficiencies such as it is unknown how much improvement can be
made, because this varies based on the usefulness of the energy to begin with. Exergy
analysis reveals whether or not it is possible to design a more efficient system and by
how much. Examples of exergy analysis were given for traditional power plant, a
cogeneration plant, and many geothermal power plants.
Kulkarni et al. (2013) conducted an energetic and exergetic study of a 32 MW
thermal power plant. The result of the study showed the boiler was the greatest source of
exergy destroyed within the plant followed by the condenser. However, the condenser
was found to have the greatest energy transferred away from it without being useful
(loss).
Erdem et al. (2009) studied nine thermal power plants from an energetic and exergetic
standpoint. Thermodynamic models were made using first and second law of
thermodynamics and the simulation results were compared with values in the power plant
for reliability. Then energetic and exergetic performances were determined and the data
were used to determine the main sources of inefficiencies as well as to compare the nine
 Energetic and exergetic analysis of a multi-stage turbine 421

plants to each other. A main conclusion from the study was the boiler had the highest
exergy destruction than other components in the cycle.
Rosen and Dincer (2003) developed several thermodynamic relations between energy
and exergy losses and capital costs for thermal systems and their equipment applicable to
coal fired power plants. The relations examined turbines, boilers, heat exchangers, and
condensers. The data suggested that an important parameter was the ratio of the
thermodynamic loss rate to capital cost. The variability of this ratio was large when the
ratio was based on energy loss and small when based on exergy loss. The study suggested
that modern coal fired power plants conform to a particular ratio of thermodynamic loss
to capital cost based on exergy.
Dincer and Al-Muslim (2001) performed a thermodynamic analysis of reheat cycle
steam power plants operating with one open feedwater heater using energy and exergy
analysis. The energy and exergy efficiencies were studied for 120 cases of different
system parameters such as boiler temperature, boiler pressure; mass fraction of steam
extracted, and work output. The temperature and pressure values chosen were in the
range of actual values used in industry. The energetic and exergetic efficiencies obtained
were compared to actual data and literature work and a good agreement was found. From
the work, the possibilities to further improve the cycle was identified.
Verkhivker and Kosoy (2001) reported using exergy analysis of power plant. They
showed the process that should be completed with the exergy analysis to determine where
power plants can be improved. Then they applied this process to a conventional Rankine
steam cycle that produced power and heat and determined exergy destroyed with each
component and the overall exergetic efficiency. They determined the greatest exergy
destroyed occurred in the steam generator.
Kumar (2017) provided a detailed review of the use of energy, exergy, and economic
analysis of many different cycles. They referenced many articles that used energy,
exergy, and economics to analyse gas, coal, combined cycle, and cogeneration power
plants. They also included references that studied chemical plants, absorption cycles, and
Kalina cycles. During the review of the power plant cycles they determined the exergy
destruction in the steam generator was the greatest source of exergy destruction.
Hanak et al. (2014) reported on using energy and exergy analysis of a supercritical
coal-fired power plant with a post-combustion carbon capture process. They determined
the greatest exergy destroyed was in the boiler followed by post-combustion capture unit.
The CO2 compression unit also had a significant amount of exergy destroyed, less than
steam turbine and about the same as the condenser.

2 Energy and exergy modelling

Energy modelling of each component was done assuming steady state conditions exist
and energy can enter or leave through heat, work, or with the mass in the terms of
enthalpy, kinetic energy, or potential energy. Kinetic and potential energy was neglected
for all components in the cycle because there were no significant changes in average
velocity and none of the components had nozzles or diffusers which are made to change
kinetic energy; there was also no significant change in elevation. The energy
conservation equation used is shown in equation (1).
422 J. Clay and J. Mathias

 vi2   vi2 
0 = Q cv − Wcv +  m  h + 2 + gz  −  m  h + 2 + gz 
i
i i i
e
e i i (1)

Exergy modelling of each component was completed by also assuming steady state
conditions exist and that exergy can be transferred by heat, work, entering or leaving with
mass, or being destroyed due to irreversibilities such as heat transfer over a finite
temperature difference, friction, and non-quasi-equilibrium expansion and compression.
Equation (2) shows the exergy balance equation used and equation (3) shows how exergy
is calculated at any state point.

 1 − T
T0  
0=
b
b 

 Qb − Wcv +  m e −  m e
i
i i
e
e e − E d (2)

einlet / exit = ( hinlet / exit − h0 ) − T0 ( sinlet / exit − s0 ) (3)

3 Case study overview

A thermodynamic model was created with available data. Each location that had a
different thermodynamic condition was given a separate state point number. Figure 1
shows the layout of the plant and the numbered thermodynamic state points.

3.1 Boiler
Neglecting any work output from the boiler, potential and kinetic energy changes across
the boiler, and heat loss to the surroundings, the energy and exergy equations for the
boiler are shown in equations (4) and (5), energetic (first-law) efficiency is shown in
equation (6), and exergetic efficiency is shown in equation (7).

Q in deal = m 1 ( h1 − h38 ) + m 3 ( h5 − h3 ) (4)

E d boiler = m coal ( ecoal ) + m 38 ( e38 ) + m air ( eair ) + m 3 ( e1 )

(5)
− m 5 ( e5 ) − m flue gas ( e flue gas )

 Q in deal 
ηboiler =   (6)

 Qin actual 
Usable Exergy Exiting Boiler
ε= (7)
Exergy Entering Boiler with Coal

The exergy of the air is neglected because it enters at ambient conditions, it is preheated
but within the boilers control boundary. The coal used in the power plant largely comes
from the Herrin, IL No. 6 coal seam, the approximate elemental makeup of the coal was
determined from data from the US Geological Survey (Affolter and Hatch, 2002).
Knowing the elemental makeup, the exergy of the coal was determined from a previous
study (Kaushik and Singh, 2013). The exergy of the flue gas was determined by using a
combustion program and from the knowledge that 12% excess air is added. The plant
provided the rationale for the value of excess air from the information that increasing
 Energetic and exergetic analysis of a multi-stage turbine 423

excess air increases combustion intensity, and decreases unburned carbon and carbon
monoxide, which are all positive aspects. However, increasing excess air also increases
power consumption of the fans, heat loss from the exhaust gases going up the stack,
erosion of boiler tubes that carry steam, and NOx production, which are all negative
aspects. The main operating principle the power plant uses is to abide by the regulation to
operate at a NOx removal rate of 95%. The power plant also has carbon monoxide sensors
at the exit of the flue gas and hence the control system of the plant delivers excess air to
meet the NOx removal rate and still watch for the formation of carbon monoxide.

3.2 Turbines
The entire mass flow goes through the high pressure turbine and then some is removed
for heater 4–6, the remaining mass flow goes to the reheat section and to the three stages
of the intermediate pressure turbine where some mass is removed after each stage for
heaters 4–5, 4–4, and 4–3. The remaining steam enters the low pressure turbine that is
divided into two halves, each half has two stages. It is assumed that the steam is equally
divided to both halves of the low pressure turbine. The mass, energy, exergy destruction,
and exergetic efficiency equations for the first stage of the low pressure turbine are
shown in equations (8), (9), (10), and (11). Equations for all turbine stages are similarly
derived and shown elsewhere (Clay, 2018).

m 10 − m 11
m 12 = m 16 = (8)
2

W LPT 1 = m 12 ( h12 − h13 ) + m 16 ( h16 − h17 ) (9)

Ed LPT 1 = m 12 ( e12 − e13 ) + m 16 ( e16 − e17 ) − W LPT 1 (10)

E dLPT 1
ε LPT 1 = 1 − (11)
m 12 ( e12 − e13 ) + m 16 ( e16 − e17 )

3.3 Condenser
The condenser thermally interacts with the lake water. Energy is conserved between the
two streams and the energy, exergy destruction, and exergetic efficiency of the condenser
are shown in equations (12), (13), and (14).

m 20 ( h20 − h21 ) + m 25 ( h25 − h21 ) = m cooling water ( hcooling water outlet − hcooling water inlet ) (12)

Ed condenser = ( m 20 e20 + m 25 e25 + m cooling water ecooling water inlet )

(13)
− ( m 21e21 + m cooling water ecooling water outlet ) + Wcw pumps

m 21e21 + m cooling water ecooling water outlet

ε condenser = (14)
m 20 e20 + m 25 e25 + m cooling water ecooling water inlet + Wcw pumps
424 J. Clay and J. Mathias

Figure 1 Diagram of the plant and the assigned state points (see online version for colours)
 Energetic and exergetic analysis of a multi-stage turbine 425

3.4 Pumps
There are two pumps in the plant. One pump, called the condensate pump, receives the
working fluid from the condenser and pressurises it to above atmospheric pressure. The
second pump receives working fluid after the open feedwater heater and pressurises it to
the high pressure of the cycle. The mass, energy, exergy destruction, and exergetic
efficiency equations of the condensate pump are shown in equations (15), (16), (17), and
(18).
m 21 = m 22 (15)

WCondensate Pump = m 21 ( h22 − h22 ) (16)

E d CPUMP = m 21 ( e21 − e22 ) + WCondensate Pump (17)

E d Condensate Pump
εCPUMP = 1 −  (18)
WCondensate Pump

3.5 Feedwater heaters

The feedwater heaters are analysed as heat exchangers similar to the condenser. For
closed feedwater heaters, the inlet and outlet flowrates are equal. The flowrate of the
extracted steam plus any condensate flow coming from a higher pressure feedwater
heater is equal to the mass flowrate of the condensate leaving. For the open feedwater
heater, the flowrate of the extracted steam, the condensate from the higher pressure
feedwater heater, and the flowrate from the condensate pump equal the outlet flowrate.
For all feedwater heaters it is assumed that there is no heat transferred outside of the
feedwater heater, only heat is transferred between streams. The heat exchanger
effectiveness was calculated by determining the actual heat transfer divided by the
maximum heat transfer which would be heating the incoming feedwater to the
temperature of the extracted steam. Equations (19), (20), (21), (22) and (23) show the
mass balance, energy balance, effectiveness, exergy destroyed, and exergetic efficiency
of feedwater heater 4–2.
m 26 = m 29 and m 13 + m 32 = m 27 (19)

m 13 h13 + m 26 h26 + m 32 h32 = m 27 h27 + m 29 h29 (20)

m 26 c p 26 (T29 − T26 )
Effectiveness4 − 2 = (21)
m 26 c p 26 (T13 − T26 )

E d 4 − 2 = ( m 13e13 + m 26 e26 + m 32 e32 ) − ( m 27 e27 + m 29 e29 ) (22)

E d 4 − 2
ε4−2 = 1 − (23)
m 13e13 +m 26 e26 + m 32 e32
The overall thermal efficiency and exergetic efficiency of the plant is shown in
equations (24), and (25).
426 J. Clay and J. Mathias

Wnet
ηcycle = (24)
Qin

Wnet
ε cycle = (25)
E fuel

4 Assumptions

As stated previously, steady state operation and no changes in kinetic or potential energy
was assumed throughout the study. The assumptions for the turbines are that no heat is
transferred to or from any turbine and that the flow equally divides when it reaches the
low pressure turbine. The assumptions for the feedwater heaters were that there was no
heat transfer to or from each feedwater heater and that the condensate exiting each
feedwater heater was a saturated liquid at the pressure of the extracted steam. From these
assumptions the flowrate of steam extracted for each feedwater heater was calculated
because these flowrates were not measured.
The condenser had assumptions that are related to the lake water that the condenser
thermally interacts with. The flow rate and exit temperature of lake water through the
condenser was reported to be 9,085 kg/s and 26.7°C. The dead state of the plant was
assumed to be the temperature of the incoming lake water, which was calculated from
knowing the heat transfer in the condenser and determined to be 20.3°C. The energy
analysis did not account for the pumps that flow lake water through the condenser. The
exergy analysis did account for the power consumed by these pumps; however no power
measurements were made. The power of the pumps was determined by knowing the
pressure drop of the lake water was 34.5 kPa and a flowrate of 9,100 kg/s and an assumed
pump efficiency of 80%, which is typical for pumps of that age.
The only assumption made by the condensate and boiler feedwater pumps was that
there was no heat transfer to or from the pumps. There was electrical current measured
for these pumps and the voltage was known and with this information the amount of
power used by the pumps was calculated.

5 Results and discussion

5.1 Model setup

Table 1 shows the properties reported by the power plant at various state points.
Other data needed for the boiler are as mentioned earlier. The coal used by the power
plant is Herrin, IL No. 6 coal seam. The rate of combustion and heating content of the
coal were reported to be 18.92 kg/s and 26,750 kJ/kg, respectively. Table 2 shows the
elemental makeup of Herrin, IL No. 6 coal (Affolter and Hatch, 2002). Assuming
complete combustion and knowing there is 12% excess air added, Table 3 shows the
composition of the exhaust gases, on a volumetric basis, and the mass flow rate of the
exhaust gases. Mass flow, instead of volumetric flow rate, was provided because all the
equations use the mass flow rate of the fluid.
 Energetic and exergetic analysis of a multi-stage turbine 427

The mass flowrates provided by the power plant have some uncertainty. The
flowrates at states 1, 34, and 41 should be the same because they are all measuring flow
of the same pipe without any connections. The highest and lowest of these flowrates are
about 23% different. These differences are likely from a combination of factors such as
adding some water to the plant due to leakage, and the difficulty in accurately measuring
the flow, especially steam flow. It was assumed that the liquid flowrate from the
condensate pump was more accurate than the steam flowrates, the measured power
output of the cycle was accurate, and the flowrate at state 10 is equal to the flowrate at
state 30 because all the fluid entering the low pressure turbine must return back to the
open feedwater heater at state 30. Table 4 shows the flowrates used in the model that
matches the power made by the cycle compared to the model within 2%, the flowrates at
states 10 and 30 agree within 2%, and the flowrates at states 1, 34, and 41 agree within
5%.
Table 1 Properties of the power plant

Temp. Press. Flow Quality Temp Press Flow

State point State point
(K) (kPa) (kg/s) (-) (K) (kPa) (kg/s)
0 595 14,203 21 311 7
1 811 12,514 207 22 313 1,372 115
2 639 3,640 23 315 731
3 639 3,640 24 339 28
4 608 3,551 25 311 7
5 806 3,316 26 339 752
6 641 1,069 27 343 76
7 641 1,069 28 341 28
8 548 538 29 361 731
9 548 538 30 396 565
10 522 296 31 372 276
11 516 276 32 365 76
12 522 296 33 427 538
13 403 76 34 432 16,651 178
14 403 76 35 419 1,069
15 311 7 0.964 36 416 538
16 522 296 37 450 15,479
17 341 28 38 503 14,300
18 341 28 39 433 3,551
19 311 7 0.964 40 433 1,069
20 311 7 0.964 41 522 14,251 168

The processing of the data was completed using engineering equation solver (EES). EES
has a library of thermodynamic data and also solves coupled, linear and nonlinear
algebraic and differential equations. The program also has optimisation and uncertainty
analysis capabilities. The results of each state point are shown in Table 5, the values with
428 J. Clay and J. Mathias

asterisks next to them are assumed values and these are usually assuming the condensate
from extracted steam of a feedwater heater is leaving as a saturated liquid.
Table 2 Elemental composition of coal used

Constituent Composition (mass %)

Water 10.7
Ash 10.9
Hydrogen 4.4
Carbon 61.5
Nitrogen 1.3
Oxygen 8.2
Sulphur 3.0

Table 3 Composition of flue gas

Constituent Composition (vol. %) Mass flow rate (kg/s)

CO2 14.1 40.2
SO2 0.2 1.2
H2O 7.7 8.9
N 76.0 137.9
O2 2.0 4.1

Table 4 Flowrates used in the model

State point Reported value (kg/s) Value used in model (kg/s)

1 207 146
22 115 122
34 178 139
41 168 139

Table 5 Calculated values of state points of the cycle

Temp. Press. Flowrate Enthalpy Entropy

State point Quality
(K) (kPa) (kg/s) kJ/kg kJ/kg-K
0 595 14,203 - 146 1,466 3.449
1 811 12,514 - 146 3,443 6.59
2 639 3,640 - 146 3,139 6.696
3 639 3,640 - 132 3,139 6.696
4 608 3,551 - 14 3,065 6.588
5 806 3,316 - 132 3,527 7.278
6 641 1,069 - 4 3,194 7.328
7 641 1,069 - 128 3,194 7.328
8 548 538 - 7 3,011 7.331
9 548 538 - 122 3,011 7.331
Notes: * means assumed value. 1* assumes saturated vapour. 0* assumes saturated
liquid.
 Energetic and exergetic analysis of a multi-stage turbine 429

Table 5 Calculated values of state points of the cycle (continued)

Temp. Press. Flowrate Enthalpy Entropy

State point Quality
(K) (kPa) (kg/s) kJ/kg kJ/kg-K
10 522 296 - 122 2,965 7.518
11 516 276 - 7 2,953 7.527
12 522 296 - 58 2,965 7.518
13 403 76 - 4 2,738 7.647
14 403 76 - 54 2,738 7.647
15 311 7 0.964 54 2,483 8.017
16 522 296 - 58 2,965 7.518
17 341 28 1* 5 2,622 7.791
18 341 28 1* 53 2,622 7.791
19 311 7 0.964 53 2,483 8.017
20 311 7 0.964 106 2,483 8.017
21 311 7 0* 122 158.5 0.5435
22 313 1,372 - 122 168.1 0.5697
23 315 731 - 115 175.9 0.5966
24 339 28 0* 16 275.6 0.904
25 311 7 - 16 275.6 0.9201
26 339 752 - 115 276.2 0.9036
27 343 76 0* 11 292.4 0.9531
28 341 28 - 11 292.4 0.9532
29 361 731 - 115 368.4 1.167
30 396 565 - 115 516.1 1.558
31 372 276 0* 7 414.2 1.294
32 365 76 - 7 414.2 1.295
33 427 538 - 139 649 1.881
34 432 16,651 - 139 680.3 1.913
35 419 1,069 0* 18 614.4 1.8
36 416 538 - 18 614.4 1.799
37 450 15,479 - 139 757.1 2.09
38 503 14,300 - 139 991.9 2.586
39 433 3,551 0* 14 675 1.941
40 433 1,069 - 14 675 1.94
41 522 14,251 - 139 1,080 2.758
Notes: * means assumed value. 1* assumes saturated vapour. 0* assumes saturated
liquid.
With the properties determined at every state point, the equations that were presented
earlier for energetic (first-law) efficiency, isentropic efficiency, feedwater heater
effectiveness, exergy destroyed, and exergetic (second-law) efficiency were solved.
These results are shown in Table 6.
430 J. Clay and J. Mathias

Examining the data in Table 6 it is seen that the greatest exergy destroyed is in the
boiler due to the chemical reaction occurring that produces only heat and no work. After
the boiler, the next component with the greatest exergy destruction is the condenser due
to the temperature difference from the steam and the lake water. The efficiency of the
second stage of the intermediate pressure turbine is unusually high, maybe due a
temperature reading that is incorrect and this likely also leads to the third stage of the
intermediate pressure turbine being unusually low.
Table 6 Energetic and exergetic results

efficiency feedwater heater

Pump/turbine isentropic

Exergy destroyed (kW)

% exergy destroyed

2nd law efficiency

1st law efficiency

effectiveness
Component

Boiler 80.8% - 269,940 84.4% 60.3%

Turbines High pressure - 82.1% 4,553 1.4% 90.7%
Intermediate
pressure
Stage 1 - 91.3% 1,939 0.6% 95.8%
Stage 2 - 99.3% 94 0.0% 99.6%
Stage 3 - 32.9% 6,668 2.1% 45.5%
Low pressure
Stage 1 - 80.2% 6,786 2.1% 83.8%
Stage 2 - 69.9% 9,297 2.9% 69.0%
Condenser - - 13,783 4.3% 7.5%
Cond. pump - 14.4% 938 0.3% 19.5%
Boiler feed pump - 56.1% 1,301 0.4% 70.1%
Feedwater heaters Heater 4-1 - 93.4% 418 0.1% 81.6%
Heater 4-2 - 34.4% 363 0.1% 90.7%
Heater 4-3 - 22.6% 955 0.3% 88.6%
Deaerator - - 565 0.2% 96.1%
Heater 4-5 - 8.6% 467 0.1% 97.9%
Heater 4-6 - 33.5% 1,606 0.5% 95.6%
Net power cycle 32.8% - 319,673 - 33.7%

Figure 2 shows the percent of exergy destroyed in a pie-graph and it shows the boiler has
largest amount of exergy destroyed with the condenser a distant second.
Figure 3 shows a mapping of exergy magnitudes as they flow through the plant
components, including their redirection and destruction patterns. The largest amount of
exergy leaving the system is in the flue gas.
 Energetic and exergetic analysis of a multi-stage turbine 431

It can be seen that, by far, the largest source of exergy destruction within the plant is
in the boiler due to two main reasons. The first reason is that there is chemical exergy in
the coal that goes underutilised and only produces heat and not work. One solution to this
would be to gasify the coal and use the syngas mixture in a solid oxide fuel cell to
produce electricity and then use the remaining heat to produce power with a Rankine
cycle. This would be an extremely large and expensive change. The second reason is that
the temperature difference between the source and end use is large. One remedy for this
would be to allow hotter steam to enter the turbines. Unfortunately, this is not possible to
be done easily or cheaply due to the limitations of the current material technology used to
produce the turbine blades.

Figure 2 Percentage exergy destruction of each component (see online version for colours)
 432

Figure 3

Turbines Gross Power Output 171.5 MW

Flue Gas
250.3 MW Exergy
5.2 MW
Destroyed
-29.3 MW
15.4 MW
Exergy flow diagram

Condenser
J. Clay and J. Mathias

19.6 MW 14.5 MW Exergy Waste Heat 1.0 MW

Destroyed
-13.8 MW

Boiler

Exergy Heaters 5-6 Boiler Pump Heaters 1-4 Cond. Pump

Destroyed
-269.9 MW 33.7 MW Exergy 16.2 MW Exergy 13.1 MW Exergy 0.9 MW Exergy 0.6 MW
Destroyed Destroyed Destroyed Destroyed
-2.1 MW -1.3 MW -2.3 MW -0.9 MW

4.4 MW 1.2 MW
Fuel
491.9
MW
 Energetic and exergetic analysis of a multi-stage turbine 433

As a result of the high temperatures and stresses associated with the operation of turbines,
creep and fatigue are the factors currently limiting the operating range of turbines. The
current temperature limit for new turbines is about 600°C. Superalloys and ceramic
coatings are now working toward increasing the temperature that modern steam turbines
can handle and thus offering the opportunity to increase cycle efficiencies by utilising
steam of higher temperature. The cost of new turbines is also a significant factor. The
estimated cost for a new steam turbine is approximately $670/kW (US Department of
Energy, 2016), hence the cost to replace the turbine for this power plant would be
$116,000,000. Given the fact that the plant is currently operating with an inlet steam
temperature of 538°C compared to the maximum of 600°C this would reduce the exergy
destroyed by 10,200 kW. The power plant sells the power at $0.04/kW-hr and if exergy
destruction is valued at the same rate this would save $3,574,080 annually.
The second largest loss of exergy is the condenser. The power plant has the inlet and
outlet of the lake water near each other with a neck of land sticking out between them.
However, this leads to water that is still warm being returned to the condenser, which
reduces heat transfer in the condenser due to the smaller temperature gradient. The
simulation of the cycle was recalculated with incoming water being 2.78 K cooler than
before and the exergetic efficiency of the condenser increased to 18%, more than double
of the current level. The challenge with this is there would be a major construction
project to lengthen the neck of land sticking out or reroute the inlet or outlet of the lake
water.
The last aspect examined to improve the cycle was there is a pressure drop of 1,172
kPa in the valve placed after state 34. This valve is used to control the flowrate. The first
examination performed was to put a variable frequency drive (VFD) on the boiler
feedwater pump, but as the pump is slowed down the pressure created by the pump
decreases quadratically. The operating principle of centrifugal pumps caused that the
pump speed could not be decreased much before the pump would not overcome the
needed pressure difference.
The other examination to improve the situation of the large pressure drop across the
valve involved placing a hydropower turbine to produce power while decreasing the
pressure. Exergetic analysis determined that the exergy destroyed across the valve was
130 kW. Upon contacting a national supplier of inline turbines, a quote was provided
stating the turbine would be guaranteed to produce 130 kW for the specified conditions
and total installed price of $250,000, which was a budgetary estimate. Assuming the
power made to be 130 kW and $0.04/kW-h the annual value of that electricity is $41,600.
Upon further communication with the turbine company, it was learned that the turbine
inlet pressure must be below 2,413 kPa to not damage the housing or seals of the inline
turbine. This working pressure is much lower than the pressure exiting the boiler feed
pump so a custom turbine would need to be manufactured that had stronger seals and
housing.

5.2 Comparison to others

The data of percent exergy destroyed was compared to the same data reported by others.
Bollatturk et al. (2015) did not include the exergy destroyed of feedwater heaters so this
data is omitted. Hanak et al. (2014) reported data of a supercritical power plant with and
without a post-combustion carbon capture process. The data of the power plant without
434 J. Clay and J. Mathias

any carbon capture process are reported here for proper comparison. The comparison of
the data all show that the largest percentage of exergy destroyed is in the steam generator,
this is largely due to the change of chemical exergy occurring during combustion but not
immediately producing work. The percent of exergy destroyed by the steam generator is
between 84% and 89% for all data that was compared. The turbines were component with
the second greatest exergy destroyed and this varied from 5.7% to 9.4%. High
temperature and high pressure steam, which has significant potential to produce work,
enter the turbines and it was determined that the exergetic efficiencies of the turbines
were typically between 70% to 95% and this created noticeable exergy destruction. The
condenser and feedwater heaters both had exergy destroyed of less than 4.4%. The
condenser has a lot of heat transfer but this heat transfer occurred at a low temperature
hence the heat had a small amount of exergy to begin with, which was destroyed in the
condenser. The feedwater heaters operated with higher temperature working fluid than
the condenser and had more exergy to begin with but also had fairly close approach
temperatures and relatively high exergetic efficiency, typically between 88% to 96%, this
created not much exergy destroyed. Figure 4 compares the percentage of exergy
destroyed for the steam generator, turbines, feedwater heaters, and condenser of this
study and of four other studies.

Figure 4 Comparison of percentage of exergy destruction (see online version for colours)
100

90
Current study
80
Percentage Exergy Destroyed

Eke et al. (2018)

70

60 Bolatturk et al. (2015)

50
Li and Liu (2012)
40
Hanak et al. (2014)
30

20

10

0
Steam Generator Turbines Heaters Condenser

6 Conclusions

In conclusion, an energetic and exergetic analysis of a mid-sized, Midwestern power

plant was completed. It was determined that the exergy destroyed in the steam generator
was the largest source of exergy destruction. Other areas were also examined to improve
the exergetic efficiency such as improving the steam turbines, lowering the water
 Energetic and exergetic analysis of a multi-stage turbine 435

temperature entering the condenser to be closer to the overall lake temperature, and
producing power by replacing a valve after the boiler feed water pump with a
hydro-turbine. These recommendations have significant economic limitations for
implementation.
Future work could focus on the exergy analysis of newer supercritical cycles that
have not had exergy analysis completed on them and compare to traditional cycles. Also,
the greatest exergy destroyed is in the steam generator and a large amount of exergy
destruction occurs because of the chemical reaction of coal that only produces heat and
no work. Exergy analysis could be performed of unique cycles that produce electrical
power, possibly in a fuel cell, and then mechanical power in a Rankine or gas power
cycle.

References
Affolter, R. and Hatch, J. (2002) Characterization of the Quality of Coals in the Illinois Basin,
USGS Professional Paper 1625-0.
Bollatturk, A., Coskun, A. and Geredelioglu, C. (2015) ‘Thermodynamic and exergoeconomic
analysis of Çayırhan thermal power plant’, Energy Conversion and Management, Vol. 101,
pp.371–378.
Clay, J. (2018) An Energetic and Exergetic Analysis of a Mid-Sized, Coal-Fired Power Plant in the
Midwestern United States, Unpublished MS thesis, Southern Illinois University Carbondale,
Carbondale, IL.
Dincer, I. and Al-Muslim, H. (2001) ‘Thermodynamic analysis of reheat cycle steam power plants’,
International Journal of Energy Research, Vol. 25, No. 8, pp.727–739.
Eke, M.N., Onyejekwe, D.C., Iloeje, O.C., Ezekwe, C.I. and Akpan, P.U. (2018) ‘Energy and
exergy evaluation of A 220 mw thermal power plant’, Nigerian Journal of Technology,
Vol. 37, No. 1, pp.115–123.
Erdem, H.H., Akkaya, A.V., Cetin, B., Dagdas, A., Sevilgen, S.H., Sahin, B., Teke, I., Gungor, C.
and Atas, S. (2009) ‘Comparative energetic and exergetic performance analyses for coal-fired
thermal power plants in Turkey’, International Journal of Thermal Sciences, Vol. 48, No. 11,
pp.2179–2186.
Hanak, D.P, Biliyok, C., Yeung, H. and Bialecki, R. (2014) ‘Heat integration and exergy analysis
for a supercritical high-ash coal-fired power plant integrated with a post-combustion carbon
capture process’, Fuel, Vol. 134, pp.126–139.
Kanoglu, M., Dincer, I. and Rosen M.A. (2007) ‘Understanding energy and exergy efficiencies for
improved energy management in power plants’, Energy Policy, Vol. 35, No. 7, pp.3967–3978.
Kaushik, S.C. and Singh, O.K. (2013) ‘Estimation of chemical exergy of solid, liquid and gaseous
fuels used in thermal power plants’, Journal of Thermal Science and Calorimetry, Vol. 115,
No. 1, pp.903–908.
Kulkarni, H., Revankar, P. and Hadagal, S. (2013) ‘Energy and Exergy analysis of a coal fired
power plant’, International Journal of Innovative Research in Technology and Science, Vol. 1,
No. 3, pp.53–57.
Kumar, R. (2017) ‘A critical review on energy, exergy, exergoeconomic and economic (4-E)
analysis of thermal power plants’, Engineering Science and Technology, an International
Journal, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.283–292.
Li, Y. and Liu, L. (2012) ‘Exergy analysis of 300MW coal-fired power plant’, Energy Procedia,
Vol. 17, pp.926–932.
Rosen, M.A. and Dincer, I. (2003) ‘Thermoeconomic analysis of power plants: an application to a
coal fired electrical generating station’, Energy Conversion and Management, Vol. 44, No. 17,
pp.2743–2761.
436 J. Clay and J. Mathias

U.S. Energy Information Administration (2017) [online] http://www.eia.gov (accessed 13

December 2017).
US Department of Energy (2016) Combined Heat and Power Technology Fact Sheet Series, Steam
Turbines, DOE/EE-1334.
Verkhivker, G.P. and Kosoy B.V. (2001) ‘On the exergy analysis of power plants’, Energy
Conversion and Management, Vol. 42, No. 18, pp.2053–2059.

Nomenclature

Q Heat transfer rate (W)

W Work transfer rate (W)

m Mass flow rate (kg/s)
h Enthalpy (kJ/kg)
V Velocity (m/s)
T Temperature
e Exergy at a location in the cycle (kJ/kg)
E d Exergy destruction rate (W)
s Entropy (J/kg-K)
η First law efficiency (-)
ε Exergetic (second law) efficiency (-)

Subscripts
o Dead state condition
b Boundary condition