Proceedings of the International Symposium E¢0S'92 ON EFFICIENCY, COSTS, OPTIMIZATION AND SIMULATION OF ENERGY SYSTEMS ZARAGOZA, SPAIN JUNE 15-18, 1992 sponsored by Spain: ENDESA —Empresa Nacional de Electricidad, S.A. INH —Instituto Nacional de Hidrocarburos ERZ, S.A. —Eléctricas Reunidas de Zaragoza, S.A. Ministerio de Educacién y Ciencia Universidad de Zaragoza U.S.A. Tennessee Technological University with the participation of ‘The American Society of Mechanical Engineers edited by Antonio Valero Universidad de Zaragoza (Spain) Georges Tsatsaronis Tennessee Technological University (USA) THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS United Engineering Center 945 East 47th Street ml New York, N.Y. 10017Intemational Symposium on Etfciency, Costs, Optimization and Simulation of Energy Systems, ECOS” 32, Zaragosa, Spain, June 15-18, 1982. AN INTR ODUCTION TO ENVIRONOMIC ANALYSIS AND OPTIMIZATION OF ENERGY-INTENSIVE SYSTEMS Christos ‘A. Frangopoulos National Technical University of Athens Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering P.O. Box 640 70, ABSTRACT ‘The depletion of energy (exergy) resources has been of primary concem in the ‘70s and 80s. In recent years, the decline of the environment due primarily to our energy-related activities has become severe and raises Serious concem too. For this reason, methods to analyze, improve and optimize energy-intensive ‘systems have to deal ‘not only with energy (exergy) consumption and economics, ‘but aso with the pollution and degradation of the environment. ‘The term environomics is coined in order to imply the systematic consideration of thermodynamic, economic and environmental aspects for the analysis and optimization of energy systems. A method developed for this purpose, the Environomic ‘Functional Approach is presented in. its general formulation. Each pollutant emitted by the system Js indicated in the functional diagram. If abatement of a ppollutant takes place, a degree of abatement is defined and the related equipment appears in the diagram. Measures of olution are introduced. The environomic objective function for system optimization is formulated and. the solution procedure is described. Some general conclusions are drawn, ‘An application example based on a simple gas turbine plant is formulated and solved. NOMENCLATURE C capital cost Seb Gye Sy price of electricity, water and limestone Tespectively E exerey F _ objective function FCR fixed charge rate fm maintenance factor 22 of Inequality constraint functions ig = tH energy flow rate with the fuel Hy low heating value of fuel K, number of inputs to unit r from the environment Krm number of inputs to the m th abatement element oof unit r from the environment 157 10 Zografou, Greece specific heat capacity ratio uber of polulon abatement elements of unit + mas flow rate miss flow rate of SOp before abatement number of moles of the substance In w mbxure onber" of unis end oa fay et OL lis and junctions in a functonal diagram tye = Pe/Py compressor pressure ratio typ = PyP2 combustor pressure ratio Ipr = PyPq turbine pressure ratio 8 content of the fuel (kg of sulphurike of times period. of time: petiod of operation in a year volumetric a flow rate (xz) set of independent decision variables for design and operation pe gee grr power set of independent decision variables for synthesis set of independent decision variables for operation ‘constraint function ated function output of unit r set of all the functions (products) the function of unit Your Yom the kth resource entering unit r or sbatement element mm from the environment Z annualized capital cost 4 set of independent decision variables for design Tour Totrm cost of Yous. Your Tespectively Tq benefit (eg. revenue) from the function y,9 of unit r to the environment J) Tatalt factor for the FGD unit degree of abatement 11 cyCle thermal efficiency ‘ic. Mr isentropic efficiency of compressor and turbine respectively SM gate e Ym Ye) Ge) All the variables appearing in Eqs. Ga-e), are explained in the nomenclature; the capital letters Y and P symbolize the ‘mathematical functions, which correlate the variables in the Parentheses with y ‘and p respectively. ‘The degree of Abatement Bq may be one of the variables in the set Vem. ‘The function of a unit is distributed to other units, eee ete cee R M, 7} Ae Shes Eo. a 2.2 Stages of Pollution Abstement Pollution abatement at the system level can take place in each one or ina combigation of three stages ()_pre-process, (i) process, and (il) post-process stage. For example, SO; reduction can be achieved at a pre-combustion stage by removing sulphur from the fuel, and/or at a post-combustion stage by removing SO from the exhaust gases; NOx emissions can be reduced at the combustion stage by proper design of the combustion chamber and adjustment of the combustion temperature, andor at a post-combustion stage by catalytic converters. ‘Thermal pollution, in particular, can be reduced by a better match "between streams exchanging heat (process integration and optimization), cascading use of heat, ‘combined cycle, cogeneration, ete. ‘Ata regional or national level in addition to the aforement iques, recycling can help in reducing pollution. 233 23. Measures of Pollution Pollution causes a disturbance to the environment, i. a departure from its ‘initial (or desirable) stele of equilibrium, “Exergy (essergy), as a measure of departure from equilibrium, is « very appropriate measure of pollution too. Thus, thermal, chemical and other forms of exergy cal be used és measures of thermal, chemical and other forms ‘of pollution respectively (the subscript rm Is dropped here for onvenience). Fg = (1-TyN@ © By = Dayco Pa Py 7 6) Exergy (essergy) offers a theoretically elegant measure ‘of pollution. Since resources consumed can be measured in terms of exergy, a uniform measure is established for both ‘the inputs and 'the outputs “of the system (Including the pollutants), However, such a measure may not be always ‘convenient in practice because (I) it often requires additional computations (e.g., calculation of chemical potential and chemical exergy), (i) pollution regulation standards and limits are usually given in gd, gkWh, g/Nm3, ete: ic Is difficult, if at all possible, (and’ perhaps’ it does not offer ‘any practical advantage) to convert these figures to. chemical exergy in order to compare with results obtained by the analysis of the system. Another measure of pollution, which is computed more easly than exergy and makes the comparison of the effected polution with, established standards or limits more direct and convenient, is the following = -a, ale le » A a where an intensive property characterising the pollutant the intensive property of the same poltant in the cavironment & Perm Turmess Limit of the intensive roperty: if it {6 exceeded, she. pollution becomes Parcuery: harmful £0 the eavironment ‘A Ghanity of the polotant. Equation (7) has been obtained ‘elaborat some. {ides pescted by Galvao and dnumane (985) ‘Thermal and chemical pollution are given as two examples of applying Eq. (7) T-T, ® Pa = Fag a ° where temperature at which heat is rejected Q heat quantity X ass Content of the polutant in the rejected stream [total mass of the steam © concentration of the pollutant inthe rejected stream (eg. in g/m’) total volume of the stream (e.g. in Nm’) 6 harminess mt for T, x and ¢ respectively Ty Yor Co the values of T, x and c in the environment. y x,Of course, Eqs. (5)-(9) are valid with flow rates too : Q, th, V, p, ete. ‘The measure established by Eq. (7) has the following properties = © If the intensive property is equal to that in the environment, the pollution is zero: a = = p= 0. () If the intensive property is equal to the harmfulness limit, the measure of pollution is equal to the quantity (flow rate) of the pollutant : a = @— p— A. If the harmfulness limit is equal to. the intensive property of the pollutant inthe environment, the measure of pollution approaches infinity @= ay — pon cn) ‘Thus, the term (a-ag\/(@-a,) may be called the harmfulness factor of the patticuar pollutant. Environmental considerations may impose an upper limit on each pollutant of the system psi (29) Careful environmental studies have to be conducted in order fo determine the values of a and f for each pollutant in a articular region. Pollutant movement (one particular ‘spect being "the transboundary pollution) and decay or assimilation speed have to be taken into consideration in ese. studies 3. ENVIRONOMIC OPTIMIZATION ‘At the community level, the social objective may be to obtain desirable environmental standards at least cost to. the society (Griffin, 1987, Plourde and Yeung, 1989). Here, however, we work at the level of a system. At both levels, environment can be treated as an exhaustible resource, Which is consumed by the production activity. Solution of the problem at the community level provides useful data. for the problem at the system level, as {twill become clear in the following. If there were no possibility of sbeting pollutants at any stage, the objective of system optimization would be to maximize its efficiency "(subject to certain’ economic constraints), since increasing the efficiency and reducing. the pollution are parallel objectives. However, reducing’ the pollutants not only. by increasing ‘the efficiency but also by changing other design and operation characteristics “of the system "(process abatement) or by removing — those (re-process and post-process abatement), requires expenditure in both capital (equipment) and resources (fuel, electricity, etc). ‘Thus, the objective becomes more involved and can be written mred fae] EG raep EE tant] ARrap hse] om ‘The first summation over r gives the capital cost of the system (with explicit representation of the pollution Abatement equipment). The second summation is the’ cost of Tesources consumed. The third summation gives the environmental and social cost’ due to pollution The last summation gives the benefit to the system (eg, Tevenue) from products and services it provides to the environment, All costs (including capital) and benefits may be measured either in monetary or physical unite (eg, exergy). ‘The time period of integration in Eq. (11) is the feriod of the amavis : one year, the whole Me ume of ‘The following functional relationships are valid 2q = Tiley Ye), Zam = Zem(2rm Pr) Tokr= Tous(Yorr), Tokrm= Fokrm(¥ourm) a2) Thm = Trm(Prn)> Tro = Tol) Thm 18 the environmental and/or social cost due 10 Pm It may represent cost of pollution permits, if pm < Pym < Plan oF & penalty, if Pq > pA: in these cases it 18 Tm > OIF Pom < Pha, & benefit may be granted to the system (eg. tax reduction, profit, from selling pollution permits, ete); In such a case it is Tm <0. The low and high values Plm and pm may be set by an agency or the society based on the environmental studies mentioned above, ‘The optimization problem is stated by the objective fonction (11), the equality constraints (3) and (4) and ‘inequality constraints of the general form sxKZWA) <0 ax) Which may be imposed by the operability of the system, safety considerations, state regulations, ete. Among. the ‘inequality constraints, an upper limit imposed on Pm may be included, Eq. (10) 32 Solution of the Optimization Problem In simple cases, the environomic optimization problem can be solved by direct use of @ nonlinear algorithm, in the same way as it has thermoeconomic | of von of a simple system (Frangopoulos, 1988). It is relatively easy to use such an approach, however it does not offer’ any information regarding the internal economy of the Furthermore, if the system is complex, it may fail to determine the ‘optimum point. A a beer understanding of the system and its internal economy is required and/or if the direct approach fall to solve the problem, then the Intelligent Functional Approach can be used, the general formulation of which has been presented in ‘earlier work (Frangopoulos, 1990). In. order fo gain an insight and reach some useful conclusions ‘here with no need of a numerical solution, let us assume. steady State operation of the system and write the objective function in the form : 234as) ‘The objective (14) and the equality constraints (3) end @) are used to formulate the Lagrangian. A simplified form fof the Lagrangian is obtained by a procedure similar to the ‘one presented in the aforementioned work : R wedi . oo Hoar taa2} K M Kp +E eta haden* 3 Ea ball” ) tara C Ade) f 0) ! Y BX ant hat oe 6a) Ke & Bgg*Zagt SYoamn Yama * hymn ean (i) mt ft The necessary conditions lead to the folowing equations aay a7) R My ale. ¥ OgthaPal ° an : = My By+ 3 ae haF as) mt ar, den He 20) On” Woy. hen = a a 2 Dim It can be written eB. aft = Aten 2) where My bin = 3; Bin Thea? ow) @) According to Eq. (23), AM is the part of the Lagrange multiplier (marginal cost) which is due to environmental considerations, when the pollution abatement takes place in distinct elements (e.g., in pre-process and _post-process abatement). In process abatement, there may De no separate element’ and X% bears at least part of the abatement cost. ‘The optimum value of the degree of abatement, 8* pq, {is determined by Eq. (18), which is written for this particular variable =F) Sie, Bn hm om) = 0 ay ‘The term Bry is an Increasing function of 8, while hymPam is a decreasing one. Both Bry and Pym have non-negative values. A rational environmental policy leads to non- negative values fOr hmm 100. According tO Eq. (24), 8'nm is the value of 8, which minimizes the term BrythanPmn- Increasing. values of og OF decreasing Valves of Brn move the optimum polnt™ "toward a higher abatement Etcency. Tg i a tinction of Pym. which ‘cin be formulated by &° goveramental agency or the society 30, that the resulng. Values Of nq lead Yo favorable values of 6rm- In formulating Tym, expenses for neutralizing the pollution and restoring the environment in its previous sate Fray be taken into csieraion (Gepoliuton cut) tn such Bcc, hm my bevcaled the margiaal cost of depollut fon. Abo, if an eavirooment of Spproprlee Standards 16 he’ soca “oblestive, Tom may be given soch a form that the operation of the sytem compl with the standards. ee 4. APPLICATION EXAMPLE A simple gas turbine plant has been studied in an ealier work (Frangopoulos, 1988), where the thermoeconomic optimum has ‘been compared with (wo thermodynamic optima: maximum of the efficiency and maximum of the net power density of the cycle. It. is interesting to study the same plant here and compare the environomic optimum with the thermodynamic and thermoeconomic optima. 4.1 Description of the Plant and Main iptions Assumy ‘The thermodynamic and thermoeconomic optimizations fare performed for the plant consisting of the compressor, 235Fig. 2. A simple gas turbine plant with flue gas ‘esulphururization equipment. combustor and turbine only (Fig. 2). In the example of environomle optimization presented here, only flue gas esulphurization will be considered, although $O> is not the ‘only pollutant emitted by such a plant. For this purpose, the fue gas“ desulphurization equipment (FGD)" is installed (Fig. 2). According to Rentz (1979) and Welsh (1988), the size (and ‘consequently the capital cost) of the desulphurization lunit depends largely on the flue gas flow. For this reason, it As less expensive to desulphurize a partial flow at the ‘maximum technically possible degree, S,max . than the total flow at a lower degree. This is why a by-pass of the FGD unit is shown on Fig. 2. If 8, is the desirable degree of SO, abatement, then the mass and volume flow rates through the FGD unit are determined by the ratios m, Vy 8, eaters a, V, Gy It Is considered that the plant operates at steady state and the net power output W Is given, Fuel oil is used. In order to simplify the analysis, it is assumed that the ‘working medium is ideal gas of constant quantity and quality. 42 Objective Functions Two thermodynamic objectives are studied: Maximization of the cycle efficiency way mx = Geist) A, BY, age D-e0 and maximization of the net power density w --b yet, se Frag an where r are e*Fac Both 1 and w increase continuously with no, t3, tp and ny and consequently the thermodynamic optimum ‘value for each one of these variables is equal’ to. 1, which Is impractical. More realistic values for these variables will be assigned in Section 4.4. Therefore, the only independent vvarlable left for the thermodynamic optimization problems is the compressor pressure ratio Xe = Oyo) ‘The minimization of the annual cost of owning and operating the system is selected as the thermoeconomie objective min Ze = Ze + Zp + 2p + Tp es) where Zc, Zp, Zp are the annualized capital costs of the compressor, combustor and turbine respectively (see ElSayed and Tribus, 1983, and Frangopoulos, 1988, 1991b) and Ty is the annual cost of fuel: Te = cplipt 29) ‘The analysis of the system, which has been presented in earlier work (Frangopoulos, 1988) and it is not ‘repeated here in order to save space, shows that there ate. five degrees of freedom for the design (and operation in this case) variables. The following are selected as. the Independent. variables: Xie = (pe Ts Nes Typ tr) ‘The minimization of the annual cost of owning and operating the system is selected asthe environomic objective also, which now includes additional terms: min Zeay = Ze + Zeqp + Ta + Fy + Ty + Ts where Zegp is the annualized capital cost of the FGD equipment including operation and maintenance, Tj, Ty, and Tis are the annual costs for electricity, water and limestone ‘used for the desulphurization, and T, is « penalty imposed fon the system for the emitted $0; \ (environmental cost) The degree of SO; abatement is included in the independent variables: 30) env * (lcs Tas Mes Typ Ms 85) Information published by Welsh (1988) has been used to derive the following cost functions. The capital cost of the FGD unit is estimated by Crap = WeiSsths, + oV4 + 63) where cj, cg, 3 are cost coefficients and y a retrofit factor (for a new plant y = 1). Since the SO retention factor for fuel oil is zero, the SO, mass flow rate before abatement is an ti = 2p 2 236The annualized capital cost of the FGD unit is Zpop = CR + fn)Cra0 63) The annual costs for electricity, water end limestone required by the FGD unit are Ta = cemei¥at co) Tye = Cait (3s) Ty = ogmdetigt (36) where ¢ and % are unit costs and specific consumptions respectively. Let us consider here that the mass of SO, emitted to the atmosphere is the measure of pollution Bs = (1-Spithg, ‘and that the annual penalty is a linear function of the pollation: en r cab 38) ‘where cis the unit pollution penalty, a constant 43° Solution Procedure The thermodynamic and thermoeconomle, optimization proves have bon saved, by dec apacon ts fonlinear thm, (Frangopoules, 1988) "The fame melod wean be ‘aed for te solution “ot the Environomiopiminaon, problem oo. However econ Griterion, which is obtained by the analyse presented ‘in Section 3.2, will fectate the solution s Equation (24) is written in this particular case ty. Cc) Ge teyeyt eb, +e, teyeyt + eye yt where a= FER + fp) Since both Bry and AepPrm are linear wart. 6, the left hand side of Eq. (9) is not a function of 4, and consequently the optimum degree of abatement 6%, can not be obtained by a direct solution of Eq. (39), ‘which Is satisfied only for a particular value of c,, namely ‘ aie 4) Bs saat Cake teesy ‘The interpretation written right after the Eq. (24) leads to the following decision criterion: We o> oy then 8%, = Bgnax og c% results in the maximum technically possible degree of SOz abatement, any further increase of the unit pollution penalty c, has an insignificant effect on x*eny and nf, It is very interesting to note that the effect of the fuel Price on the environomic optimum is much stronger than the effect of the unit pollution penalty. CLOSURE A method has been presented, which combines thermodynamic, economic. and ‘environmental considerations for the analysis and — optimization of energy-intensive stems. The numerical example clarifies and. demonstrates ‘applicability of the method, In addition, It gives concrete results and reveals the effect of the aforementioned onsderatins on the optimum design and operation pont system. It Is worthwhile to study the effect of different policies ‘on the optimal design and operation of several energy systems taking into account more than one pollutant. In order, for the environmental aspects to be taken into consideration quantitatively, information Is required, which can be provided by 9 study of the environment at a Teglonal, national or inter-national level. REFERENCES ELSayed, Y. M. and Evans, R. B, 1970, “Thermo economics ‘and’ the Design of Heat Systems J. of Engineering for Power, Vol. 92, No. 1, pp. 27.3. ELSayed, Y. M. and Tribus, M., 1983, "Strategic Use of ‘Thermocconomies for System Improvement,” Efficiency and Costing, ACS Symposium Series, Vol. "235, American ‘Chemleal Society, Washington, -D.C., pp. 215-238. Evans, R. B, 1980, "Thermoeconomic Isolation and Exergy" Analysis,” Energy, Vol. 5, Nos. 8 - 9, pp. 805-821. Frangopoulos, C. A, 1983, “Thermoeconomic Functional Analysis ? A Method "for Optimal Design oF Improvement of Complex Thermal Systems," Ph.D. Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Ge. Frengopoulos, C. A, 1987, "Thermoeconomic Functional aulya tad ion,” "Energy, Vol. 12, No. 7. Dp. Frangopoulos, C. A, 1988, “Optimal Design of @ Gas Tubing Plant by jomicAppronch,” 2nd ternations Symposium on Turbomachinery, Combined-Cycle | Tectnologies and Cogeneration, GK. Serovy and T. H. Franson, eds, Montreux, Switzerland, pp. 369-375. ee ort ie Sey ta Se ig be at SBS orig Spt on eo au = ge ae Eramoeprenle gut Tpogmanic opine Be of Seabee rg Page mado Coles oy ; eu pitens A. Functional A, 19910, “troduction of Boersy Systems, ‘Winter Annual Meeting, Atlanta, Ga. " Galvao, A. AL, 1985, "Evaluation Economique “de Ia Pollution de 1Eavironment par une Activité Industrielle, Application aux Centrales Electriques,” Entropie, No. 121, pp. 3-11. Griffin, R. C., 1987, "Environmental Policy and Persistent “Pollutants,” Journal of Ea Economics and Management, Vol. 14, pp. 41-53 1989, "A. Model of ‘Environment,” Journal of ‘Management, Vol. 16, Design, ASME et Jaumotte, for Spatial wironmental Plourde, C. and Yeung, Industrial Pollution in a St Environmental Economics pp. 97-108. Rentz, ©., 1979, Techno-Okonomle Betrleblicher Emissionsminderungsmatnahmen", Beriln. ‘Tribus, M, and Evans, R. B., 1962, "A Contribution to the Theory of Thermoeconomics,” UCLA Report No, 62-36, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Ca. Welsh, H., 1988, “A Cost Comparison of Alternative Policies for Sulphur’ Dioxide Control", Energy Economics, October, pp. 287-297. D., and 239