Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2157e2164

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Exergy analysis of an integrated solar combined cycle system

A. Baghernejad, M. Yaghoubi*
Engineering School, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Exergetic analysis has become an integral part of thermodynamic assessment of any power generation
Received 29 September 2008 system. Energy and exergy studies for power plants optimum design and for combined chemical
Accepted 23 February 2010 industries received much attention recently. An Integrated Solar Combined Cycle System (ISCCS) is
Available online 25 March 2010
proposed as a means of integrating a parabolic trough solar thermal plant with modern combined cycle
power plants. In this study attempt will be made to analyze the Integrated Solar Combined Cycle in Yazd,
Keywords:
Iran using design plant data. Energy and exergy analysis for the solar field and combined cycle is carried
Solar energy
out to assess the plant performance and pinpoint sites of primary exergy destruction. Exergy destruction
Thermal power plant
Parabolic collectors field
throughout the plant is quantified and illustrated using an exergy flow diagram, and compared to the
Thermal performance energy flow diagram. The causes of exergy destruction in the plant include: losses in combustor,
collector, heat exchangers, and pump & turbines which accounts for 29.62, 8.69, 9.11 and 8% of the total
exergy input to the plant, respectively. Exergetic efficiencies of the major plant components are deter-
mined in an attempt to assess their individual performances.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction the location, magnitude and source of thermodynamic inefficien-

During 1984e1990, a total of nine Solar Electric Generating Station
power plants were built in the Southern California desert. Each plant
used parabolic trough solar collectors to heat either a mineral oil or
synthetic heat transfer oil; thermal energy in the oil was used to
generate steam, and the steam drove a conventional Rankine cycle
power plant. To improve system cost and efficiency, Integrated Solar
Combined Cycle System (ISCCS) proposed as a means of integrating
a parabolic trough solar plant with modern combined cycle power
plants. An integrated plant consists of a conventional combined cycle
plant, a solar collector field, and a solar steam generator. During
sunny periods, feed water is withdrawn from combined cycle plant
heat recovery steam generator and converted to saturated steam in
the solar steam generator. The saturated steam is returned to the heat
recovery steam generator, and the combined fossil and solar steam
flows are superheated in the heat recovery steam generator. The
increase of steam flow rate provides an increase in the output of the
Rankine cycle. During the cloudy periods and at night, the integrated
plant operates as a conventional combined cycle facility.
For such systems exergy-based performance analysis is the
performance study of the system based on the second law of
thermodynamics that overcomes the limit of an energy-based
analysis. It assesses the magnitude of exergy destruction, identifies
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ98 711 2301672; fax: þ98 7116474614.
E-mail address: yaghoubi@shirazu.ac.ir (M. Yaghoubi).
cies in the thermal system. The application of an exergy-based
performance analysis extends from economic analysis by Tsatsar-
onis and Pisa [1], and life cycle assessment of power plants by
Bombardi [2]. It is also related to the understanding of the structure
in nature as a form of entropy generation minimization by Bejan
[3]. The exergy analysis for gas turbine based power plants was
motivated when Tsatsaronis and Pisa [1] referred to the overall
performance of the cogeneration system. Exergetic efficiency for
the system defined in their study was the only expression of the
overall performance of the cogeneration system, whose products
are both electricity and heat. Later, the applicability of an exergy-
based performance analysis is extended to the thermoeconomic
analysis of a gas turbine based combined cycle plants as described
by [4e6]. Yaghoubi et al. [7] simulated 250 kW solar thermal power
plants in Shiraz, Iran for an optimal assessment by entropy gener-
ation minimization method. For solar thermal power systems with
only solar heat exchangers, exergy analysis is applied by [8,9].
In the present study, the second law analysis (based on the
exergy concept) is performed on the Integrated Solar Combined
Cycle System located in Yazd, IRAN, using the design plant data.
Energy and exergy analysis of solar field using a parabolic trough
collector and combined cycle system have been carried out to
assess the plant performance, energy and exergy efficiencies which
are presented in tabular and flow diagram forms. Also, exergetic
efficiencies and exergy destructions of major plant components are
calculated to assess their individual performances.

0960-1481/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2010.02.021
2158 A. Baghernejad, M. Yaghoubi / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2157e2164

Nomenclature Greek symbols

a absorptivity of absorber
A area, m2 s transmissivity of cover
AC air compressor g intercept factor
GT gas turbine r reflectivity/density(m3/kg)
h specific enthalpy, kJ/kg h first law efficiency
IR exergy destruction, MW K(q) incidence angle modifier
m _ mass flow rate, kg/sec d fuel depletion rate, %
P pressure, bar x productivity lack, %
S specific entropy, kJ/kgK c relative irreversibility
T temperature, K 3 exergy efficiency
Q_ heat transfer rate, MW
f exergetic factor Subscripts
ISCCS integrated solar combined cycle system a ambient
HRSG heat recovery steam generator b beam
LP low pressure c collector
HP high pressure f fluid
SH super heater i inlet stream
EVA evaporator L loss
ECO economizer n normal
HCE heat collection element o optical/oil/outlet
HTF heat transfer fluid r receiver
L length, m s steam/absorber/solar
N number of collectors u useful
Rb geometric factor 0 dead state
V velocity, m/sec D destruction
Wo aperture, m P production
I solar intensity, W/m2 F fuel
f exergetic factor

2. System description
Yazd thermo-solar power plant is constructed on a 900-hectare
land and its full capacity estimated to be 467 MW. At this power
plant two 159 MW gas turbines, and a 132 MW steam turbine, and
a 17 MW solar plant is considered. Fig. 1 shows the plan of inte-
grated solar combined cycle in Yazd. Also its corresponding ther-
modynamic processes are shown in Fig. 2.
In this system a combined cycle unit with the following equip-
ments is used:
 Two V94.2 gas turbine units with natural gas fuel.
 Two pressure heat recovery steam generator. The high and low

pressure steam conditions were as follows: 89.6 bar and 509 C
 
and 9.6 bar and 236.3 C. A design stack temperature of 113 C
was selected to recover as much energy from the turbine
exhaust as possible.
 A no reheat two pressures steam turbine.
For the purpose of analysis it is assumed that: The Integrated
Solar Combined Cycle System operates at a steady state. Ideal-gas
mixture principles apply for the air and the combustion products.
The combustion is ideal and heat losses have been considered from
the collectors, solar heat exchangers and stacks. All other compo-
nents operate without heat loss. The exit temperature is above the
dew point temperature of the combustion product.
2.1. Plant operation
The most efficient method for converting solar thermal energy
to electric energy is to withdraw feed water from the heat recovery
steam generator downstream of the second stage (highest
temperature) feed water economizer, produce high pressure
saturated steam, and return the steam to the heat recovery steam
generator for superheating by the gas turbine exhaust. This method
is implemented for the Yazd integrated solar combined cycle
system such as illustrated in Fig. 1. During a typical operating
scheme the fossil fired power plant is assumed to operate in a 24 h
mode whereas the solar field can only deliver thermal input during
daylight hours provided that the direct normal irradiation (DNI) is
sufficient to produce considerable net heat. According to the
available heat balances, the thermal demand not satisfied by the
solar steam generator will be compensated by the duct burner
located at the HRSGs. In this present study, it is assumed that duct
burners are off and in turn solar field is used for heating working
fluid, consequences economize in fuel consumption. Also the solar
steam generator is only operated if the HTF temperature at the solar
field outlet is at its nominal temperature of 393  C. The heating of
the solar system up to its working temperature will be via bringing
the parabolic trough collectors from stow position into focus
when the sun is about 10 above the horizon and the DNI is above
a certain threshold value (e.g. >200 W/m2). To achieve normal
operation the main HTF circulation pumps are operated and the
system is heated up by solar irradiation. Water/steam valves
between solar steam generators and HRSGs are kept closed until
the HTF has reached to its normal working temperature.
Ones the HTF system reaches the start-up temperature of the
solar steam generator, the feed water control valve of the solar
steam generator is opened and the solar steam production starts. At
this time the steam pipes connecting the solar heat exchanger and
the HP steam drums of the HRSGs is opened. From the existing heat
balance diagrams, the feed water temperature and pressure for the
solar steam generator is 214  C and 117 bar and steam temperature
and pressure is 310.6  C and 96 bar, which corresponds to the
saturated steam without superheating. Therefore the solar steam
generators consist of four single heat exchangers: 2 identical
 A. Baghernejad, M. Yaghoubi / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2157e2164 2159

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of ISCCS in Yazd, Iran.

1200

4
Fuel

900 Gas Cycle

260
T [K]

320
32

Solar Field 2

600 340
30 25
31 24

120
22 330
23
Steam Cycle

160
14
300 15 1

0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.0 3.3 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.5 4.8 5.1 5.4 5.7 6.0 6.3 6.6 6.9 7.2 7.5 7.8 8.1
s [ kJ/kg-K ]

Fig. 2. T-S diagram for Integrated Solar Combined Cycle System, Yazd.
2160 A. Baghernejad, M. Yaghoubi / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2157e2164

Fig. 3. Heat transfer diagram of Yazd ISCCS with 63.6 kg/s steam flow rate.

branches with one pre-heater and one evaporator for each HRSG.
These heat exchangers are of the shell-and-tube type with water/
steam at the shell side and hot HTF at the tube side.
The heat exchange process between the exhaust gas turbine and
working fluid is shown in Fig. 3. The upper line in the figure is the
temperature of the exhaust gas turbine in the heat recovery steam
generator, and the lower lines are the temperatures in the low and
high pressure feed water and steam sections. In this figure, the long
horizontal line represents the latent heat transfer in the high
pressure evaporator. The largest temperature difference in the heat
recovery steam generator occurs in this part. Also, the dot hori-
zontal line represents the latent heat transfer in the evaporator of
solar heat exchanger. Solar heat exchanger carries a portion of the
saturated steam production duties. When saturated steam is
produced in a solar steam generator, the latent heat transfer duties
in the heat recovery steam generator are decreased and the sensible
heat transfer duties are increased. This figure represents day time
operation, with a steam flow rate of 63.6 kg/s. Of this flow rate,
50.5 kg/s is provided by thermal energy in the gas turbine exhaust
and the balance of 13.1 kg/s is provided by solar energy.
3. Analysis
3.1. Mass, energy and exergy balance equations
For a general steady state, steady-flow process, the three
balance equations, namely mass, energy and exergy balance
equations, are employed to find the heat input, the rate of exergy
decrease, the rate of irreversibility, and the energy and exergy
efficiencies. Unlike energy, exergy is not subject to a conservation
law (except for reversible processes). Rather exergy is consumed or
destroyed, due to irreversibilities in any real process. The procedure
of the energy and exergy analysis is discussed by Bejan et al. [10].
3.2. Exergy efficiencies
Whereas there is no standard set of definitions in the literature
for Exergy efficiency, two different approaches are generally used
one is called brute force, while the other is called functional.
A brute force exergy efficiency for any system is defined as the
ratio of the sum of all output exergy terms to the sum of all input
exergy terms.
A functional exergy efficiency for any system is defined as the
ratio of the exergy associated with the desired energy output to
the exergy associated with the energy expended to achieve the
desired output.
In this study, we used the functional form of exergy efficiency.
The functional definition, however, requires judgment and a clear
understanding of the purpose of the system under consideration
before the working equation for the efficiency can be formulated.
The product represents the desired result by the system. Accord-
ingly, the definition of the product must be consistent with the
purpose of purchasing and using the system. The fuel represents the
resources needed to generate the product and it is not necessarily
restricted to being an actual fuel such as natural gas, oil, and coal.
Both the product and the fuel are expressed in terms of exergy. The
losses represent the exergy loss from the system. The FePeL defi-
nitions of the system are obtained using the guidelines of Lozano and
Valero [11]. An exergy rate balance for the system reads:

Table 1 Table 2
LS-3 Collector specifications [13]. Energy analysis of the collectors field.

Aperture Area per SCA (m2) 545 HCE Transmittance 0.96 subsystem Energy Energy Energy Energy First law
Mirror Segments 224 Mirror Reflectivity 0.94 received delivered loss loss efficiency
Aperture (m) 5.76 Length 99 (MW) (MW) (MW) (%) (%)
HCE Diameter (m) 0.07 Concentration Ratio 82 Collector Qi ¼ 114.96 Qs ¼ 91.96 22.99 20 80
Average Focal Distance (m) 0.94 Peak Collector Efficiency (%) 68 Receiver Qs ¼ 91.96 Qu ¼ 51.23 39.67 43.14 56.8
HCE Absorptivity 0.96 Annual Thermal Efficiency (%) 53 Collector- Qi ¼ 114.96 Qu ¼ 51.23 62.67 54.5 45.4
HCE Emittance 0.17 Optical Efficiency (%) 0.8 receiver
 A. Baghernejad, M. Yaghoubi / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2157e2164 2161

Table 3 3.4.1.2. Receiver subsystem. Useful energy delivered to the fluid in

Exergy analysis of the collectors filed. the receiverðQu Þ:
subsystem Exergy Exergy Exergy Exergy Second law  
received delivered loss loss efficiency _ f $Cpf Tfo  Tfi
Qu ¼ N$m (7)
(MW) (MW) (MW) (%) (%)
Collector Exi ¼ 109.13 Exc ¼ 44.91 64.22 58.8 41.1
Receiver Exc ¼ 44.91 Exu ¼ 29.87 15.04 33.49 66.5 Energy loss ¼ Qs  Qu (8)
Collector- Exi ¼ 109.13 Exu ¼ 29.87 79.26 72.62 27.37
receiver % energy loss ¼ ½ðQs  Qu Þ=Qs $100 (9)
First law efficiency for receiver subsystem:
Ex_ F ¼ Ex_ P þ Ex_ D þ Ex_ L (1)
Qu
Where Ex_ D and Ex_ L denotes the rates of exergy destruction and h¼ (10)
Qs
exergy loss, respectively. Exergetic efficiency3 is the ratio between
product and fuel: Overall efficiency of the collector-receiver subsystem:

Qu
Ex_ P Ex_ þ Ex_ L h¼ (11)
3 ¼ ¼ 1 D (2) Qi
Ex_ F Ex_ F

3.3. Some thermodynamic parameters

3.4.2. Exergy analysis
Thermodynamics analysis of thermal systems may also be 3.4.2.1. Collector subsystem. Exergy received by the collector
performed using some other thermodynamic parameters subsystem is:
including Fuel depletion ratio, Relative irreversibility, Productivity   
Ta
lack, Exergetic factor [12]. Note that exergy is always evaluated Ex_ i ¼ Qi 1  (12)
Ts
with respect to a reference environment (i.e., dead state). When
a system is in equilibrium with the environment, the state of the Exergy absorbed by the collector absorber Ex_ c :
system is called the dead state due to the fact that the exergy is   
zero. Ta
Ex_ c ¼ Qs 1  (13)
Tr
3.4. Relations for analysis of collector's field
Exergy loss ¼ irreversibilityðIRÞ ¼ Ex_ i  Ex_ c (14)
Energy and exergy analyses for the solar collector-receiver  
subsystem are carried by following relations. IR
% exergy loss ¼ $100 (15)
Exc
3.4.1. Energy analysis
Second law efficiency:
3.4.1.1. Collector subsystem. Energy received by the collector
subsystem is: Ex_ c
3¼ (16)
Ex_ i
Qi ¼ I$N$A ¼ ðIb $Rb Þ$Wo $L (3)
where, A ¼ Wo $L
Optical efficiency for parabolic trough collectors is: 3.4.2.2. Receiver subsystem. Exergy absorbed by the collector Ex_ c :

   
ho ¼ KðqÞ rðsaÞn g (4) Ta
Ex_ c ¼ Qs 1  (17)
Ts
Energy absorbed by the absorber tube is:
 
Qs ¼ Qi ho (5) IR
% exergy loss ¼ $100 (18)
Exc
First law efficiency for collector subsystem:
Useful exergy delivered
Q h   i
h¼ s (6) _ f ðExo  Exi Þ ¼ N$m
Exu ¼ N$m _f hfo  hfi  Ta sfo  sfi (19)
Qi

Second law efficiency

Table 4
Ex_ u
Comparison of first and second law analysis on each subsystem of collectors field. 3¼ (20)
Ex_ c
subsystem Irreversibility Energy Exergy First law Second law
(MW) loss loss efficiency efficiency Hence, the overall second law efficiency of the collector-receiver
(%) (%) (%) (%) circuit is:
Collector 64.22 20 58.8 80 41.1
Receiver 15.04 43.14 33.49 56.8 66.5
Collector- 79.26 54.5 72.62 45.4 27.37 Ex_ u
3¼ (21)
receiver Ex_ i
2162 A. Baghernejad, M. Yaghoubi / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2157e2164

Table 5
Exergy rates and other properties at various locations of ISCCS. State numbers refer to Fig. 1.

state fluid phase m (kg/sec) T (k) P (bar) h (kj/kg) s (kj/kgK) Ex (Mw)

0 air dead state e 292.15 1.013 292.43 5.675 e
00 water dead state e 292.15 1.013 79.75 0.281 e
00 oil dead state e 292.15 1.013 12 0.283 e
1 air e 421.55 292.15 1.013 292.43 5.67 0.00
2 air e 421.55 630.35 11.14 339.38 5.75 132.78
3 gas e 429.30 1404.80 10.59 1190.5 6.63 388.05
4 Natural gas e 7.75 292.15 20.00 292.43 4.78 385.69
5 gas e 429.30 821.53 1.05 566.36 6.74 105.65
11 water superheated steam 127.20 504.47 8.50 2907.33 6.92 112.86
12 water superheated steam 9.34 509.45 9.60 2913.86 6.88 8.46
120 water superheated steam 18.68 504.47 8.50 2907.33 6.92 16.57
13 water superheated steam 145.88 504.47 8.50 2907.33 6.92 129.43
14 water saturated x ¼ 0.87 145.88 321.21 0.11 2293.40 7.19 28.41
dual phase
140 water compressed water 7944.20 320.35 1.01 197.31 0.67 43.86
15 water compressed water 145.88 320.35 0.11 197.55 0.67 0.81
150 water compressed water 7944.20 311.15 1.01 158.82 0.54 21.19
16 water compressed water 145.88 320.35 25.50 199.75 0.66 1.18
160 water compressed water 72.94 321.15 19.50 202.60 0.68 0.57
17 gas e 429.30 386.15 1.02 370.52 7.11 6.00
22 water compressed water 63.60 488.15 118.00 923.86 2.45 13.32
23 water compressed water 50.50 488.15 118.00 923.86 2.45 10.58
24 water saturated vapour 50.50 579.15 92.77 2743.27 5.65 55.19
25 water saturated vapour 63.60 579.15 92.77 2743.27 5.65 69.50
26 water superheated steam 63.60 782.15 89.60 3409.62 6.68 92.80
260 water superheated steam 127.20 779.17 84.80 3407.86 6.71 184.59
30 oil e 218.00 571.15 11.00 541.80 1.55 34.8
31 oil e 218.00 572.15 26.00 544.30 1.55 35.09
32 oil e 218.00 666.15 16.00 790.00 1.93 64.96
320 oil e 109 666.15 16.00 790 1.93 32.48
330 water compressed water 13.10 487.15 117.00 919.31 2.45 2.72
340 water saturated vapour 13.10 583.75 96.00 2751.20 5.66 14.40

4. Numerical results and discussion
Numerical results are based on the site design condition with
ambient temperature of 19  C, a relative humidity of 32 percent and
wind speed 3 m/s. The analysis is carried out for 21 Jun in Yazd at
12:00 noon (LAT). At this hour, solar radiation intensity at the plant
site is taken about 800 W/m2.
The solar field considered in this site is comprised of 42 loops
and for each loop, 6 collectors from type of LS-3 [13] which are
single axis tracking and aligned on a northesouth line, thus
tracking the sun from east to west. Various design parameters of
these collectors are given in Table 1. These parameters are
selected from manufacturer data base [13]. Changing any
parameter will affect optical and thermal efficiencies of the
collector which will make different solar fraction to power
generation.
Total solar radiation incident on the collector subsystem is
Qi ¼ I$N$A ¼ ðIb :Rb Þ$Wo $L ¼ 114:96 MW, total energy absorbed
by the absorbers is Qs ¼ 91.97 MW. The useful heat available per
collector is found to be 0.2 MW. Assuming the collector fluid
entering temperature at 298  C and the mass flow rate of fluid in
the collectors to be 218 kg/s, the outlet collector fluid temperature
is found to be 393  C. Also, from this analysis it is found that for
inlet working fluid temperature 214  C and mass flow rate of
13.1 kg/s, the outlet fluid temperature would be 310.6  C.
Table 2 shows the results of energy analysis and Table 3 shows
the results of exergy analysis for the solar field based on Eqs.
(3e21). A comparison of the exergy and energy analysis is shown in
Table 4. It is found from Tables 2-4 that the main energy loss in
collector's field takes place at collector-receiver subsystem.
The exergy flows (in percent) in each location of the integrated
solar combined cycle power plant are derived by dividing the exergy

Table 6
Calculated thermodynamic parameters of the system (Fig. 1).

subsystem Fuel ExF Product ExP Exergy Exergy loss Relative Exergetic
(Mw) (Mw) destruction ExL (Mw) irreversibility c (%) efficiency 3 (%)
ExD (Mw)
Air Compressors (AC) 286.13 265.57 20.56 0.00 4.8% 93%
Combustors 1036.95 776.10 260.86 0.00 61% 75%
Gas Turbines (GT) 564.80 535.85 28.94 0.00 6.7% 95%
Solar Pump 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.00 0.0164% 58%
Collector 109.14 29.87 46.2 33.06 5.7% 27%
Solar Heat Exchangers (SHE) 30.16 23.38 4.9 1.82 6% 77%
LP Steam Turbine 101.02 89.56 11.46 0.00 2.7% 89%
HP Steam Turbine 71.73 63.67 8.06 0.00 1.8% 89%
Condenser 22.67 27.60 27.60 0.00 6.4% 82%
Condensate Extraction Pump (CEP) 0.51 0.37 0.14 0.00 0.032% 72%
LP HRSGs 18.02 14.56 3.46 0.00 0.81% 81%
HP HRSGs 157.6 145.14 12.45 0.00 2.9% 92%
Stacks 0 0 0 21.02 0 0
System 880.52 392.37 432.25 55.90 e 44.56%
 A. Baghernejad, M. Yaghoubi / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2157e2164 2163

Table 7 energy converted to electric energy at a higher efficiency. Also, this

Results of ISCCS subsystem exergy analysis. integrated plant does not suffer from the thermal inefficiencies
subsystem Fuel Exergetic Productivity Improvement associated with the daily start-up and shutdown of the steam
depletion factor f lack x (%) potential IP turbine.
rate d (%) (%) (MW)
The highest exergy lost of 29.62% occurs in the combustor where
Air Compressors (AC) 0.85% 11.79% 1.03% 1.48 chemical reaction, heat transfer, and friction are three principal
Combustors 10.75% 42.72% 13.1% 65.62
irreversibilities; although chemical reaction is the most significant
Gas Turbines (GT) 1.19% 23.27% 1.45% 1.48
Solar Pump 0.01% 0.02% 0.01% 0.087 source of exergy destruction. The second largest exergy destruction
Collector 1.9% 4.50% 2.32% 57.56 occurs from collectors with 9% of the total exergy input. The cause
Solar Heat Exchangers 0.2% 1.24% 0.25% 1.53 of exergy destruction in the collector is that solar energy with high
(SHE) quality (95%) heating the fluid with low temperature. The third
LP Steam Turbine 0.47% 4.16% 0.58% 1.30
HP Steam Turbine 0.33% 2.96% 0.40% 0.9
largest exergy destruction occurs from pumps, compressors and
Condenser 1.14% 0.93% 1.39% 0.88 turbines amounts to be about 71.22 MW, which accounts for 8% of
Condensate Extraction 0.01% 0.02% 0.01% 0.04 the total exergy input. Exergy destruction in these components is
Pump (CEP) caused by friction. This is followed by the total exergy destruction
LP HRSGs 0.14% 0.74% 0.17% 0.66
associated with the heat exchangers (include of heat exchangers of
HP HRSGs 0.51% 6.49% 0.62% 0.98
heat recovery steam generators, solar heat exchangers, condenser
and stacks) with 7.78% (corresponding to about 68.57 MW) of the
at the outlet of each component with the sum of fuel and solar total exergy input. For the heat exchangers, heat transfer and friction
exergy and shown in Fig. 1. Each flow shows the exergy change due to are the sources of exergy destruction, where the most significant
heat, mass or work transfer, as well as the exergy destruction from irreversibility being related to the stream-to-stream heat transfer.
irreversibilities. As can be seen in this Figure, the largest source of Results of the calculations for exergetic parameters for each
exergy destruction is the combustion chamber, in which 14.8% of the component in Table 6 show that exergetic efficiencies Eq. (2) of HRSG
supplied fuel exergy is lost. The amount of 12% of the supplied exergy LP, HRSG HP, steam turbine and gas turbine are 81, 92, 89 and 95%
leaves the gas turbine and enters the HRSG while only 0.68% of the respectively. These percentages can be considered high, and indicate
supplied exergy is rejected as flue gas. In Table 5, temperature, the high performance of the heat exchange system and turbines.
pressure, and mass flow rate data for oil, water, and air are given The exergetic efficiency of combustors and solar heat
according to their state numbers specified in Fig. 1. For each state exchangers is 75, and 77%, respectively. Relatively low efficiency of
listed in Table 5, exergy rates are also calculated. Fuel, product, loss combustors and significant exergy loss associated with its opera-
and exergetic efficiencies of the major plant components and the tion, indicate that its inefficiency can be reduced by preheating the
entire plant, also some other thermodynamic parameters are combustion air and reducing the air-fuel ratio, consequently the
calculated and listed in Tables 6 and 7. To pinpoint the sites of exergy performance of the combustor can be improved. Also exergy effi-
destruction and quantify these losses, an exergy flow diagram is ciency of solar heat exchangers can be increased as the temperature
given in Fig. 4. Also an energy flow diagram is presented in Fig. 5 to difference between the streams reduced.
provide a comparison with the exergy flow diagram. The exergetic efficiency of the collector is around 27%, making it
Investigating the exergy flow diagram, Fig. 4 shows that 54.4% the least efficient components in the plant. This is primarily due to
(corresponding to about 480 MW) of the exergy entering the plant the irreversibility created by heat transfer between two large
is lost while the remaining 45.6% is utilized. The exergetic efficiency temperature differences. For solar collectors more effort has to be
of the plant is determined to be 45.6%. Comparing the present concentrated to reduce the exergy loss and to increase exergy
Rankine cycle with parabolic trough technology (such as SEGS efficiency. In this direction, material and physical constraints play
plants), this ISCCS has more efficiency because absorbed solar an important role.

Fig. 4. Exergy flow diagram, given as the percentage of total exergy input for the ISCCS.
2164 A. Baghernejad, M. Yaghoubi / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2157e2164
Fig. 5. Energy flow diagram, given as the percentage of total energy input for the ISCCS.
The energy flow diagram in Fig. 5 shows that 53.83% (corre-
sponding to about 458 MW) of the energy input of the plant is lost and
the remaining is converted to power. Also it is found from Fig. 5 that
the main energy losses take place at the condenser and stacks. Heat
dissipation of condenser and stack account for 35.94% (305.82 MW)
and 10.15% (86.36 MW) of the total energy input, respectively. Also,
the loss at the solar collectors is not so small. Although the solar col-
lector's loss is significant, the percentage energy loss in the condenser
(35.94%) is more than the collectors (7.36%), whereas the result of the
exergy analysis shows a different behavior for these two components.
It can be seen that the solar collectors is the part where the exergy loss
(9%) is more than condenser (3.13%). It is due to the fact that at the
collectors, high quality energy is lost; but the energy lost in the
condenser is of low quality.
5. Conclusions
In this study, a comprehensive energy and exergy analysis of the
Integrated Solar Combined Cycle System in Yazd, Iran is conducted
using the design plant data. Performance assessment of this ISCCS
is made through energy and exergy efficiencies, exergetic
improvement potential, as well as some other thermodynamic
parameters. The exergy destructions in the overall ISCCS are
quantified and illustrated using an exergy flow diagram along with
an energy flow diagram. Concluding remarks that can be made are:
1. Exergy destruction throughout the plant is quantified include:
losses in combustor, collector, stack and heat exchangers, and
pump & turbines are determined which accounts for 29.62, 9,
7.78 and 8% of the total exergy input to the plant, respectively.
2. The values of energy and exergy efficiencies for the ISCCS are
found to be 46.17% and 45.6%, respectively. These efficiencies
are higher than simple combined cycle power plant without
solar contribution and also Rankine cycle power plants with
parabolic trough technology.
3. It can be seen that the solar collectors is the part where the
exergy efficiency is 27%, making it the least efficient compo-
nents in the plant. It is due to the fact that at the collectors, high
quality energy is lost. In solar collector more effort has to be
concentrated to reduce the exergy loss and to increase exergy
efficiency but material and physical constraints play an
important role.
4. Because of combustors have maximum exergy loss in the
system, therefore their inefficiency can be reduced by pre-
heating the combustion air and reducing the air-fuel ratio,
consequently the performance of the combustors and total
system can be improved.
Further analysis by changing collector specifications such as
optical and physical characteristics would change the optical effi-
ciency Eq. (4) and thermal efficiencies Eqs. (10e11) as well as
exergy efficiencies Eqs.(16 and 20). Therefore collectors with better
optical parameters enhance solar fraction and efficiencies and
collectors with poor optical parameters will reduce solar contri-
bution and corresponding efficiencies.
Acknowledgements
Authors appreciate MOSHANIR for providing Yazd data.
References
[1] Tsatsaronis G, Pisa J. Exergoeconomic evaluation and optimization of energy
systemsdapplication to the CGAM problem. Energy 1944;19:287e321.
[2] Lombardi L. Life cycle assessment and exergetic life cycle assessment of
a semi-closed gas turbine cycle with CO2 chemical absorption. Energy Convers
Manag 2001;42:101e14.
[3] Bejan A. Shape and structure, from engineering to nature. Cambridge
University Press; 2000.
[4] Agazzani A, Massardo AF. A tool for thermoeconomic analysis and optimiza-
tion of gas, steam and combined plants. ASME J Eng Gas Turbines Power
1997;119:885e92.
[5] Facchini B, Fiaschi D, Manfrida G. Exergy analysis of combined cycles using
latest generation gas turbines. ASME J Eng Gas Turbines Power
2000;122:233e8.
[6] Horlock JH, Young JB, Manfrida G. Exergy analysis of modern fossil-fuel power
plant. ASME J Eng Gas Turbines Power 2000;122:1e7.
[7] Yaghoubi M, Azizian K, Kenary A. Simulation of Shiraz solar power plant for
optimal assessment. Renewable Energy 2003;28:1985e98.
[8] Singh N, Kaushik SC, Misra RD. Exergetic analysis of solar thermal power
system. Renewable Energy 2000;19(1e2):135e43.
[9] Yaghoubi M, Gadiri J. Exergy analysis of Shiraz solar power plant. Eco Energy;
2004 [Oromieh].
[10] Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran M. Thermal design and optimization. New York:
Wiley; 1996.
[11] Lozano M, Valero A. Theory of the exergetic cost. Energy 1993;18:939e60.
[12] Xiang J, Cali M, Santarelli M. Calculation for physical and chemical exergy of
flows in systems elaborating mixed-phase flows and a case study in an irsofc
plant. Int J Energy Res 2004;28:101e15.
[13] Cohen GE, Kearny DW, Gregory JK. Final report on the operation and main-
tenance improvement program for concentrating solar power plants; 1999,
SAND 99e1290.