Combined Cycle Cogeneration

Clayton Cooper, Alberto Gonzalez Campos, Chloe Lim

Case Western Reserve University

October 30th, 2017

EMAE 355: Design of Fluid and Thermal Elements
Abstract
A Brayton-Rankine cogeneration cycle for power production is analysed and evaluated against a
coal-fired power plant for its overall efficiency, environmental impact, and cost analysis. The
combined cycle was found to be 63.8% efficient, twice as efficient than coal-fired power plants
which have an average overall efficiency of 30%. The cycle was determined to produce 69.2%
and 47.4% less carbon dioxide from calculations based on theoretical assumptions and actual
data, respectively. In order to produce 1 kWh of energy, the combined cycle prices out at
$0.02405 while coal-fired plants price out at $0.00518. The combined cogeneration cycle using
natural gas is still a feasible alternative to coal-fired plants when considering how they excel in
overall efficiency and environmental impact.

1
Table of Contents
1. List of Tables 3
2. List of Figures 3
3. List of Symbols 3
4. Introduction 4
4.1: Project Scope Statement 4
5. Methods, Design Methodology 4
5.1: Outline of Ideal Brayton Cycle 4
5.2: Outline of Ideal Rankine Cycle 5
5.3: Combined Cycle Schematic 6
5.4: Theoretical Framework and Modeling Considerations 6
6. Results 8
6.1: Cycle Analysis 8
6.2: Net Work Output Per Cycle 8
6.3 Fuel-to-Air Ratio Determination 9
6.4: Mass Flow Rate Dependencies Rationale 9
6.5: Mass Flow Rate Determinations as Functions of Heat Exchanger Efficiency and
Required Cogeneration Cycle Power Output 9
7. Further Analysis and Discussion 11
7.1: Efficiency Analysis 11
7.2: Environmental Impact 12
7.3: Cost Effectiveness 13
8. Conclusion 14
References 15

2
1. List of Tables

Table 1: Results of State Point Analysis......8

Table 2. Rate of Coal Based on Location Around US...14

2. List of Figures

Figure 1: p-v and T-s Diagrams for the Ideal Brayton

Cycle...5
Figure 2: T-s Diagram for Brayton Cycle with Compressor and Turbine
Irreversibilities......5
Figure 3: T-s Diagram for Rankine Cycle with Turbine and Pump Irreversibilities...6
Figure 4: Combined Cycle Schematic with State Points Denoted...6

3. List of Symbols

Symbol Quantity Represented Value (if applicable)

f/a Needed Fuel-to-Air Ratio .0255
hn Specific Enthalpy at State n N/A
HHV High-heating value of methane gas 55,530 kJ/kg
LHV Low-heating value of methane gas 50,000 kJ/kg
mair Needed Mass Flow Rate of Fresh Air Into Brayton Cycle 368.732 (kg air)/s
Needed Mass Flow Rate of Exhaust Gases to get Wnet,
me 378.135 (kg exhaust)/s
= mair(1+f/a)
mf Needed Mass Flow Rate of Methane Fuel 9.403 (kg methane)/s
62.644 (kg Rankine
mRankine Needed Mass Flow Rate of Water in Rankine cycle
water)/s
Wc Work Input Required for Compressor* 604.75 kJ/(kg air)
Wgt Work Output from Gas Turbine* 1166.22 kJ/(kg exhaust)
WNet Required Net Power Output, WBrayton + WRankine 300 MW
Wp Work Input Required for Pump* 32.51 kJ/(kg water)
WRankine Net Work Output from Rankine Cycle 1309.03 kJ/(kg water)
Wst Work Output from Steam Turbine* 1341.54 kJ/(kg water)
Effectiveness of All Heat Exchangers 95%
Isentropic Efficiency of Turbine, Pump, and Compressor 92%

3
4. Introduction

As the worlds energy needs continue to grow, natural gas continues to be a fast, cheap, and
cleaner option for generating electricity as opposed to coal and oil. Thusly, many power plants
rely on a combined Brayton-Rankine cogeneration cycle to convert the energy released during
the combustion of natural gas into electric power. These power plants are intuitively more cost-
effective and environmentally friendly than those that burn coal, but in order to numerically
determine these benefits, one must conduct a thermodynamic analysis of the combined Brayton-
Rankine cycle.

This report conducts such an analysis and compares the cost and carbon dioxide output of a
methane-powered Brayton-Rankine cogeneration power plant with that of a coal-powered
Brayton-Rankine cogeneration plant.

4.1: Project Scope Statement

The purpose of this project is to thermodynamically analyze a combined Brayton-Rankine

cogeneration cycle based on select given parameters specified in the project statement. The cycle
will be analyzed both with respect to the combustion of methane as the heat input to the Brayton
cycle and with respect to combustion of coal (treated as pure carbon) as this heat input. This
project does NOT include designing or determining the turbomachinery, hydraulic circuitry, or
any other systems pertinent to operation of the power plant in question. For this project, air is the
working intake fluid used for the Brayton cycle and water is the working fluid used for the
Rankine cycle.

5. Methods, Design Methodology

5.1: Outline of Ideal Brayton Cycle

The ideal air-standard Brayton cycle is as follows:

Process 12: Isentropic compression (adiabatic/reversible) of fresh air through the compressor.

Process 23: Isobaric heat transfer (addition) to the air as it flows through the combustor.

Process 34: Isentropic expansion (adiabatic/reversible) of the air through the turbine.

Process 41: Isobaric heat transfer (rejection) to the atmosphere through the exhaust.

4
 Figure 1: p-v and T-s Diagrams for the Ideal Brayton Cycle

Figure 2: T-s Diagram for Brayton Cycle with Compressor and Turbine Irreversibilities

Processes 3-4 and 4-1 both utilize exhaust from the combustor. This distinction is important later
when determining the mass flow rates of fresh air and of methane required.

5.2: Outline of Ideal Rankine Cycle

The ideal Rankine cycle is as follows:

Process 12: Isentropic expansion (adiabatic/reversible) of the working fluid through the turbine
from saturated vapor at state 1 to the condenser pressure.

Process 23: Isobaric heat transfer from the working fluid as it flows through the condenser with
saturated liquid at state 3.

Process 34: Isentropic compression (adiabatic/reversible) in the pump to state 4 in the

compressed liquid region.

Process 41: Isobaric heat transfer to the working fluid as it flows through the boiler to complete
the cycle.

5
 Figure 3: T-s Diagram for Rankine Cycle with Turbine and Pump Irreversibilities
(Note that this diagrams state point 1 correlates with state point 5 in this report.)

In a combined Brayton-Rankine cogeneration cycle, the exhaust gases from the Brayton cycle
are used to heat the working fluid between state points 4 and 1 of the Rankine cycle.

5.3: Combined Cycle Schematic

Figure 4: Combined Cycle Schematic with State Points Denoted

5.4: Theoretical Framework and Modeling Considerations

Assigned Requirements:
Brayton Cycle
Intake air at 0.1 Mpa, 298 K
6
 Gas turbine entrance conditions: 4 MPa, 1800 K
Methane pushed into combustor at 4 MPa, 298 K
Rankine Cycle
Steam turbine entrance at gas turbine exhaust temp and 30 MPa
Condenser cooling water from lake Erie, assumed temp 300 K
Isentropic efficiencies of all pumps, compressors, and turbines: 92%
Effectiveness of all heat exchangers: 95%

In addition to the above requirements, instructor Joseph Prahl instructed us to make the
following assumptions:
That there is no stray heat loss (adiabatic) between components of each cycle.
To ignore potential and kinetic energy effects.
That there are no frictional interactions (reversible) between the working fluids and the
hydraulic circuitry through which they flow.
The condenser in the Rankine cycle is being flooded with water from Lake Erie, so the
condenser can continuously dump heat into the lake

As is typical in thermodynamic analysis of power cycles, heat inputs and rejections are
considered to be isobaric. Additionally, each real power cycle is not completely isentropic across
compressors, pumps, and turbines. This inefficiency is reflected in the isentropic compressor,
pump, and turbine efficiency provided in the project statement.

7
6. Results

6.1: Cycle Analysis

The following data was found using the NIST12 program and corresponding database:

State Temperature Pressure Enthalpy, h Entropy, s

Quality
Point (K) (MPa) (kJ/kg) (kJ/[kg*K])

BRAYTON CYCLE

1 298.00 0.1 424.39 3.8847 N/A

2s 827.70 4.0 980.67 3.8847 N/A

2 871.07 4.0 1029.04 3.9417 N/A

3 1800.00 4.0 2133.2 4.7993 N/A

4s 723.79 0.1 865.57 4.7993 N/A

4 816.67 0.1 966.98 4.9311 N/A

RANKINE CYCLE

5 816.67 30 3256.50 6.0119 Superheated

6s 300.00 0.00354 1798.30 6.0119 .69163

6 300.00 0.00354 1914.96 6.4008 .73949

7 300.00 0.00354 112.56 .3931 0

8s 300.63 30 142.47 .3931 Subcooled

8 301.27 30 145.07 .4017 Subcooled

Table 1: Results of State Point Analysis

6.2: Net Work Output Per Cycle

From the above enthalpies, we can find the net work in or out of each cycle component per unit
mass:

Wgt = (h3 - h4) = (h3 - h4s)(0.92) = 1166.22 kJ/kg (exhaust gas)

Wc = (h2 - h1) = (h2s - h1)/0.92 = 604.75 kJ/kg (air)

8
 Wst = (h5 - h6) = (h5 - h6s)(0.92) = 1341.54 kJ/kg (steam water)

Wp = (h8 - h7) = (h8s - h7)/0.92 = 32.51 kJ/kg (liquid water)

Since the components of the Rankine cycle have the same dimensions, we can find the total work
output of the Rankine cycle:

WRankine = Wst - Wp

WRankine = 1309.03 kJ/(kg water)

6.3 Fuel-to-Air Ratio Determination

From NASA-Glenns Chemical Equilibrium Program authored by Bonnie McBride and Sanford
Gordon[1], we find the air-to-fuel ratio for the combustion of methane to be 39.21 kg of air to one
kilogram of methane (in order to hold the temperature to 1800 K.) This leads to a fuel-to-air
ratio of f/a = 0.0255.

6.4: Mass Flow Rate Dependencies Rationale

The system variable that dictates all mass flow rates in the system is the efficiency of the heat
exchangers, particularly that of the boiler. The reasoning behind this is a necessary amount of
heat transfer into the Rankine cycles water required as it travels through the boiler. This amount
is mandatory due to the boiler exit conditions specified in the project assignment. This boiler has
a given heat-transfer effectiveness of 95%, so there must be enough exhaust flowing through the
boiler to transfer the required rate of heat to the water after accounting for a limited
effectiveness.

6.5: Mass Flow Rate Determinations as Functions of Heat Exchanger Efficiency and Required
Cogeneration Cycle Power Output

The effectiveness of a heat exchanger is defined as:

Using system variables for the Brayton cycles exhaust only, we can define Qactual and Qideal:

Qactual = h4 he
9
 Qideal = h4 h1

In the above equations, he is the real enthalpy of the exhausted gas. Since the heat exchanger is
not 100% effective, this enthalpy will be greater than the enthalpy of the surroundings, which
would be the enthalpy the air would take on if the exchanger were 100% effective. Combining
the above three equations:

(h4 h1) = h4 he

he = h4 (h4 h1)

he = 451.520 kJ/(kg exhaust) dumped to atmosphere

With he determined, we have a way to link the mass flow rates of air and of water. First we must
recognize that the mass flow rate of exhaust has the following relationship with the mass flow
rate of fresh air into the Brayton cycle:

me = mair(1 + f/a)

Next, we know that the real heat transferred from the air across the boiler must be equal to the
enthalpy increase between state points 8 and 5. They must be equal because state points 8 and 5
are hard numbers defined by the problem statement. Thusly,

(mass flow rate of exhaust)(real enthalpy change of air across boiler)

=
(mass flow rate of water)(real enthalpy change of water across boiler)

me(h4 he) = mRankine(h5 h8)

Substituting in the equation for me and solving for mRankine,

mair(1 + f/a)(h4 he) = mRankine(h5 h8)

mRankine = .16989mair

The above equation is one of two unknowns. Thusly, we need another equation. The other
equation that links the mass flow rates of Rankine water and fresh air is that of the total power
output of the cogeneration cycle:

meWgt mairWc + mRankineWRankine = WNet

10

mair(1 + f/a)Wgt mairWc + .16989mairWRankine = WNet

mair[(1 + f/a)Wgt Wc + .16989WRankine] = WNet

mair = 368.732 kg/s

Solving for me:

me = mair(1 + f/a)

me = 378.135 kg/s

Solving for mRankine:

mRankine = 62.644 kg/s

And for mf:

mf = me(1 [1 + f/a]-1)

mf = 9.403 kg/s

7. Further Analysis and Discussion

7.1: Efficiency Analysis

The overall efficiency of the cogeneration cycle is of the form:

In the cogeneration cycle at hand, we already know WNet from the project statement. Qin is the
rate at which heat is added to the cogeneration cycle. There is only one point of heat addition: the
combustor in the Brayton cycle. Thusly, Qin is the product of the mass flow rate of air through
the combustor, the fuel to air ratio, and the low heating value of methane, which is 50,000 kJ/(kg
methane). The low heating value is assumed in order to demonstrate the absolute maximum
efficiency of the cycle.

Accordingly,

11
 300
=
()

= 63.8%

7.2: Environmental Impact

Assuming coal is pure carbon, we have the following combustion equation for coal in a coal-
based power plant for x moles of air present.The general hydrocarbon fuel formula gives,

CxHy + a(O2 + 3.76N2) xCO2 + (x - 1)O2 + a(3.76N2) + (y/2)H2O; where a = x + y/4

Using this formula, we can see a 1:1 ratio between the number of moles of carbon reacted and
the number of moles of carbon dioxide produced, where x = 1 and y = 0, giving the following,

C + (O2 + 3.76N2) CO2 + (3.76N2)

The same observation can be said for the combustion reaction in methane gas where the ratio is
also 1:1 (re: equation below), where x = 1 and y = 4,

CH4 + 2(O2 + 3.76N2) CO2 + 2H2O + 2(3.76N2)

The molar mass of carbon, methane, and carbon dioxide is 12.01 g/mol, 16.04 g/mol, and 44.01
g/mol respectively. This provides us with the following mass ratios between carbon dioxide and
the type of fuel we use.

2 44.01 /
= = 2.7438
4 16.04 /
2 44.01 /
= = 3.6644
12.01 /

For our natural gas power generation system, using WNet = 300 MW and mf = 9.403 kg/s, we are
able to obtain the following ratio of fuel per power produced and consequently, the rate of
carbon dioxide produced.
9.403 / /
= = 0.03134 = 0.03134
300 /
2 2 2
0.03134 2.7438 = 0.0860 = 0.0860 = 11.629
4 2

Similarly, we may calculate the rate of carbon dioxide produced by a coal-based power plant. If
we assume an efficiency of coal-based power plants to be 40%, we will obtain a value of
12
approximately 0.279 kg of carbon dioxide per MJ. This is based on the fact that it coal produces
32.808 MJ/kg[2] [3] and the calculations to obtain this value may be seen below.

32.8 0.40 = 13.12

1 3.6644 2 2
(13.12 ) = 0.279 = 3.584
1 2

This means that a methane gas-based power plant will produce 69.18% less carbon dioxide per
MJ than a coal-based gas power plant. When considering real data by the U.S. Energy
Information Agency (U.S. EIA), however, we conclude that methane gas-based power plants
produce 47.4% less carbon dioxide. We were able to obtain this value based on the following
process:

The U.S. EIA indicates 9634 Btu/lb for coal in 2015[3]. This value is a reflection of what the
actual production rates are in reality and already account for their efficiencies, hence we would
not need to factor in the assumed 40% efficiency rate of coal-based power plants. We are then
able to convert this value as follows,

9634 0.293071 2.20462 3600

6 = 22.4087
10
1
(22.4087 ) = 0.04463 = 0.04463

2 2 2
0.04463 3.6644 = 0.1635 = 0.1635

No matter which scenario used, both numbers indicate that our combined cogeneration cycle
using methane gas is more the environmentally friendly option.

7.3: Cost Effectiveness

The price of fossil fuels vary based on location and time. In the United States, we can take the
average national price of methane gas (assumed equivalent to natural gas) to be $3.96/1000 ft3
based on the most recent U.S. Natural Gas Industrial Price provided by the U.S. EIA[5]. We may
then do the following calculations to determine the cost of producing 1 kWh using methane gas.
This value was found to be $0.02405/kWh.

$3.96 35.3147 3 1 3 0.03134 3600 1

3 = $0.02405/
1000 3 1 3 0.656 1 10

Taking the average price of coal based on the data found in the table below, we obtain the
national price of coal to be $29.27/short tonne. This is equivalent to $0.03226/kg.

13
 Location Rate ($/short tonne)

Northern Appalachia 45.40

Central Appalachia 55.50

Illinois Basin 32.60

Powder River Basin 11.75

Uinta Basin 41.10

Table 2. Rate of Coal Based on Location Around US[5]

Using the above value, we can determine the cost of producing 1 kWh using coal in a similar
manner as before. This was found to be $0.00518/kWh.

$0.03226 3600 1
0.04463 3 = $0.00518/
1 1 10

Comparing the two values, it can be seen that coal is 364.3% cheaper than coal per unit energy
produced. In other words, coal-based power production cost is just (21.5%) of that for a
natural gas-based production.

8. Conclusion

Our analysis of the Brayton-Rankine cogeneration cycle proves to be a feasible alternative to

coal power plants. The combined cycle was shown to have an overall efficiency of 63.8%, a
significantly higher value than that of coal-based power plants which have an efficiency of 30%
[3]
. In both types of theoretical calculations used in determining environmental impact, the
combined cycle was shown to produce less carbon dioxide per MJ of energy produced at 69.2%
(calculation based on assumptions) and 47.4% (calculation based on real data) less than coal-
based power plants. Although the combined cycle is superior in terms of efficiency and
environmental impact, it should be noted that where the combined cycle fails, coal-based power
generation succeeds. In this, we mean that the generation of power through coal is much more
affordable per kWh at 1/5th the cost of producing power using methane/natural gas
($0.00518/kWh for coal versus $0.02405/kWh for natural gas).

14
References

[1] McBride, B.J. and Gordon, S., 1996, Computer Program for Calculation of Complex
Chemical Equilibrium Compositions and Applications NASA Ref Publ. No. 1311, from
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/CEAWeb/.

[2] Prahl, J., 2017, Professor at Case Western Reserve University, private communication.

[3] Coal Industry Advisory Board., 2017, "Measuring and Reporting Efficiency Performance and
CO2 Emissions", International Energy Agency, Paris, France.

[4] U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)., 2015, Average Quality of Fossil Fuel
Receipts for the Electric Power Industry. From
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_07_03.html

[5] U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)., 2017, United States Natural Gas Industrial
Price (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) From
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3035us3m.htm

[6] C. Stevens., 2017. Coal Prices and Charts From

https://www.quandl.com/collections/markets/coal.

15