This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elseviers archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit: http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy

Energy Conversion and Management 52 (2011) 21932203

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Exergoeconomic analysis and optimization of an Integrated Solar Combined Cycle System (ISCCS) using genetic algorithm
A. Baghernejad a,, M. Yaghoubi a,b
a b

Engineering School, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran Academy of Sciences, Islamic Republic of Iran

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
In this study, thermoeconomic concept is applied using genetic algorithm for optimization of an Integrated Solar Combined Cycle System (ISCCS) that produces 400 MW of electricity. Attempt is made to minimize objective function including investment cost of equipments and cost of exergy destruction. Optimization process carried out by using exergoeconomic principles and genetic algorithm. The developed code rst validated with a thermal system and good comparison is observed. Then the analysis is made for the ISCCS, and it shows that objective function for the optimum operation reduced by about 11%. Also cost of electricity produced by steam turbine and gas turbine in the optimum design of the ISCCS are about 7.1% and 1.17% lower with respect to the base case. These objectives are achieved with 13.3% increase in capital investment. Finally, sensitivity analysis is carried out to study the effect of changes in the unit cost of electricity for the system important parameters such as interest rate, plant lifetime, fuel cost, solar operation period and system construction period. 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 24 May 2009 Received in revised form 24 March 2010 Accepted 13 December 2010

Keywords: Solar thermal energy Thermoeconomics Exergy Optimization Cost

1. Introduction Appropriate design for an energy system with minimized costs is one of the foremost challenges and aims that energy engineers face. In the world having nite natural resources and increasing energy demand by developing countries, it becomes increasingly important to understand the mechanisms that degrade energy and resources, and developing systematic approaches for improving the design of energy systems and reducing the impact on the environment [1,2]. In the analysis and design of energy systems, the techniques which combine scientic disciplines with economic disciplines to achieve optimum design are growing in the energy industries. Exergoeconomic analysis as a powerful scheme is such a method that combines exergy analysis with economic studies. This method provides a technique to evaluate the cost of inefciencies or cost of individual process streams, including intermediate and nal products of any system. These costs are applicable in feasibility studies, for investment decisions, on comparing alternative techniques and operating conditions, in a cost-effective section of equipments during an installation, and an exchange or expansion of an energy system and for the present analysis the design of new solar power systems. Also it can be utilized in optimization of thermodynamic systems, in which the task is usually focused on minimizing the unit cost of the system product [3]. History of
Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 711 2301672; fax: +98 711 6474614.
E-mail addresses: abaghernezhad@gmail.com (A. Baghernejad), yaghoubi@ shirazu.ac.ir (M. Yaghoubi). 0196-8904/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2010.12.019

second law costing method is comprehensively reviewed by Gaggioli and El-Sayed [1,2] and Tsatsaronis [4]. They reported the use of availability (exergy) for appropriate allocation of cost associated with cogeneration of electric power and steam. However, the works developed by Gaggioli [5], and Tribus and Evans [6] can be considered as the starting point of the real development of thermoeconomics, i.e., the idea of using the Second Law of thermodynamics as a tool for calculating costs in industrial processes. According to El-Sayed and Gaggioli [1,2], exergoeconomic methods can be grouped in two classes: algebraic methods and calculus methods. The algebraic methods use algebraic balance equations, always require auxiliary cost equations for each component, focus essentially on the cost formation process and determine average costs. On the other hand, calculus methods use differential equations, such that the system cost ows are obtained in conjunction with optimization procedures based on the method of Lagrange multipliers, which determines marginal cost. Algebraic methods employed by [7,8] are considered subjective with regard to the denition of the auxiliary equations, whereas calculus methods explained in [9,10] are considered subjective with regard to the mathematical description of the function of each component in a system. To illustrate the process of exergoeconomics analysis, some of the recent design and optimization of thermal systems are explained as follows. These will provide the importance of the scheme to be applied for any new energy system. Bhargava et al. [11] analyzed an intercooled reheat gas turbine, with and without recuperation, for the cogeneration applications using exergoeconomic principles. Their result provides useful

Author's personal copy

2194

A. Baghernejad, M. Yaghoubi / Energy Conversion and Management 52 (2011) 21932203

Nomenclature AC BFP c _ C CC CEP CH COLL COND CP DEA e _ E ECO EVA f FPL GT h H hs HCE HP HRSG HTF I in ISCCS k LHV LP _ m N OILP air compressor boiler feed pump cost per exergy unit, $/kW h cost rate, $/h combustion chamber condensate extraction pump chemical collector condenser construction period, year dearator specic exergy, kJ/kg exergy rate, MW economizer evaporator exergoeconomic factor/annuity factor fuelproductloss gas turbine specic enthalpy, kJ/kg operation period, hour enthalpy transferred to steam, kW heat collection element high pressure heat recovery steam generator heat transfer uid equipment investment, $ interest rate Integrated Solar Combined Cycle System plant lifetime, year lower heat value, kJ/kg low pressure mass ow rate, kg/s Gaussian normalized random number oil pump P P0 Pr R ri s SCA SH ST SHE T _ W _ Z parent/pressure, bar offspring pressure ratio universal constant, kJ/kg K rate of ination specic entropy, kJ/kg K solar collector assembly superheater steam turbine solar heat exchanger temperature, K power, MW investment cost rate, $/h

Greek symbols g isentropic efciency v relative irreversibility e exergetic efciency / scaling factor r standard deviation u maintenance factor Subscripts 1, . . . ,38 state points D destruction F fuel i inlet/ith ow stream k kth component L loss o outlet/ambient P product ph physical exergy sys system tot total

guidelines for preliminary sizing and selection of gas turbine cycle for cogeneration applications. Energy and exergy studies together with cost analysis were performed by Kwak et al. [12] for each component of a 500-MW combine cycle plant. With the computer program developed, they were able to determine the production costs of the power plants, such as gas- and steam-turbine plants and gas-turbine cogeneration plants. Also energy and exergy studies together with cost analysis were performed by Silveria and Tuna in 2003 [13] for multinational chemical industry in Sao Paulo. They considered four cogeneration systems in various congurations of the same element with exergy production cost method (EPC). They found that the cogeneration system consisting of a gas turbine with a heat recovery steam generator, without supplementary ring, has the lowest exergy production cost. Solar thermal power generation is one of the promising options for electricity supply as demonstrated in some countries during the past decades [14]. These plants with parabolic trough type of solar collectors featuring gas burners and Rankine steam cycles have been successfully demonstrated by Californias Solar Electric Generating System (SEGS). The conventional energy analysis (based on the rst law analysis) does not give the qualitative assessment of the various losses occurring in the components of such solar thermal system [15]. Therefore the exergy analysis (based on the second law analysis) should be used to get a clear picture of the various losses quantitatively as well as qualitatively. The major elds of application of exergoeconomic optimization theories have been applied to relatively simple conventional

energy conversion systems only, such as the combined power plants and CGAM cogeneration systems [12,13,16], whereas the reports of solar power plants are limited and there are only very few studies from applications of this method for these plants in literature such as the analysis of Singh et al. [17]. The present paper uses exergy analysis and the exergoeconomic analysis by the systematic method developed by Bejan et al. [18] for an Integrated Solar Combined Cycle System (ISCCS) which is different from those published in literature. As far as the authors are aware it is for the rst time that such an analysis is carried out for an ISCCS of 400 MW electricity and it will open a new era for cost effective utilization of solar energy as a renewable energy source to generate electricity. In recent years, exergoeconomic concepts have been used with search algorithms, such as genetic algorithm to nd out realistic optimal solution(s) of thermal systems. In 2001, Marletta [19] used three methods to optimize a vapour compression chiller using exergoeconomic formulations: The Monte-Carlo method a stochastic technique based search algorithm; the Lagrange multiplier method an analytical method; and the iterative thermoeconomic evaluation and optimization (TEO) method of Tsatsaronis. This work concluded that all these three methods present comparable results in terms of decision variables and minimum global costs. Also Cziesla and Tsatsaronis [20] presented an application of iterative exergoeconomic evaluation for the improvement of thermal power plants using fuzzy inference systems. The optimization techniques used by the above researchers are mainly based on iterative local optimization procedure, which

Author's personal copy

A. Baghernejad, M. Yaghoubi / Energy Conversion and Management 52 (2011) 21932203

2195

requires the interpretation of the designer in each step to arrive to the nal conguration. In the present study, exergoeconomic optimization will be carried out using Genetic Algorithm (GA), which is a global optimization scheme and more efcient for power generation system [21].

Table 1 Natural gas composition, COMGA S. Component CH4 C2H6 C3H8 C4H10 C5H12 CO2 N2 Total Volume (%) 89.35 8.03 0.78 0.07 0.01 0.48 1.28 100 Mass (%) 80.92 13.64 1.94 0.23 0.04 1.20 2.03 100 LHV (kJ/kg) 50,000 47,525 46,390 45,775 45,400 47,966

2. System description Fig. 1 shows a schematic diagram of the system under consideration. This power plant which is located in Yazd, Iran contains two 125 MW gas turbines, a 150 MW steam turbine, and a 17 MW solar plant which is not yet installed. In this system a combined cycle unit with the following equipments is used:  Two V94.2 gas turbine units with natural gas fuel (Table 1).  Two heat recovery steam generators with two pressure lines. The high and low pressure steam conditions are: 84.8 bar and 506 C and 9.1 bar and 231.6 C respectively. A design stack temperature of 113 C is selected to recover as much energy from the turbine exhaust as possible.  A no reheat two pressure steam turbine. The solar eld considered in this site is comprised of 42 loops and for each loop, six collectors from type of LS-3 [22] which are single axis tracking and aligned on a northsouth line, thus tracking the sun from east to west. Various design parameters of these collectors are given in Table 2. In this study, numerical results are based on site design condition with ambient temperature of 19 C and a relative humidity of 32% and wind speed of 3 m/s. The

analysis is carried out on 21 June in Yazd, IRAN at 12:00 noon (LAT). At this hour, solar radiation intensity at the plant site is about 800 W/m2. Therminol VP-1 is used as heat transfer uid (HTF) in the solar eld. The properties of HTF are related to temperature, these relations are:

 kJ 0:0024T 5:95 106 T 2 2:98 109 T 3 kg K 4:41 1011 T 4 1:5 1 

kg m3

0:90709T 0:00078T 2 2:367 106 T 3 1083:25 2

  kJ 8:19 106 T 1:92 107 T 2 2:5 1011 T 3 k mK 7:29 1015 T 4 0:137 3

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of Integrated Solar Combined Cycle System.

Author's personal copy

2196

A. Baghernejad, M. Yaghoubi / Energy Conversion and Management 52 (2011) 21932203

In the above equations T is temperature (C), k is thermal conductivity, C is specic heat and H is density. For the purpose of analysis the following assumptions are made:  The Integrated Solar Combined Cycle System operates at a steady state condition.  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 and stacks. All other components operate without heat loss.  The exit temperature is above the dew point temperature of the combustion product.  The reference environmental state for the system is T0 = 19 C and P0 = 1.013 bar. In this model, the variables selected for the optimization are:   The compressor pressure ratio P r P2 , isentropic efciency of the P1 compressor gAC, temperature of the combustion products entering the turbine T3, isentropic efciency of the gas turbine gGT in the gas cycle, isentropic efciency of the oil pump gOILP, and oil outlet temperature in the collectors T28 in the solar eld, temperature and pressure of the steams leaving the heat recovery steam generator T23, P23,17, isentropic efciency of the condensed extraction pump gCEP and isentropic efciency of the boiler feed water pump gBFP in the steam cycle. This model is treated as the base case and the following nominal values of the decision variables are selected based on the operation program of the constructed site. Pr = 11, gac = 0.85, T3 = 1404.8 K, g GT = 0.875, gOILP = 0.8, T28 = 666.5 K, T23 = 779.15 K, P23 = 84.8 bar, P17 = 9.1 bar, gST = 0.85, gCEP = 0.8, gBFP = 0.8. 3. Exergy analysis Exergy is dened as the maximum possible reversible work obtainable in bringing the state of a system to equilibrium with that of environment [18]. The physical exergy component is associated with the work obtainable in bringing a stream of matter from its initial state to a state that is in thermal and mechanical equilibrium with the environment. The chemical exergy component is associated with the work obtainable in bringing a stream of matter from the state that is in thermal and mechanical equilibrium with the environment to a state that is in the most stable conguration in equilibrium with the environment.

The state properties and exergies calculated for the system of Fig. 1 are given in Table 3. The thermodynamic properties of water, oil, are obtained from thermodynamic property evaluation code in Matlab (XSteam). In this table, states 0, 00 and 000 are the dead states for air, water and oil, respectively. 4. Economic model In this methodology, it is necessary to estimate the annual cost associated with owning and operating each plant component. The expressions of purchase components costs and amortization factor are accepted here similar to [24]. Its format is widely used by various authors but some coefcients were adapted to quotation made by manufacturers. The new coefcients also taken into account the installation, electrical equipment, control system, piping and local assembly. These are explained in Appendix A. 5. Exergoeconomic principles The prerequisite for the thermoeconomic analysis is a proper fuelproductloss (FPL) denition of the system to show the real production purpose of its subsystems by attributing a well dened role, i.e. fuel, product or loss, to each physical ow entering or leaving the subsystems. 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. The product represents the desired result produced by the system. Both the fuel and the product are expressed in terms of exergy. The losses represent the exergy loss from the system. The productive structure of the system is given in Table 4. Once the FPL of a system is dened according to [25], appropriate cost can be allocated to the products, fuels and losses occurring in the system. A detailed exergy analysis includes calculation of exergy destruction, exergy loss, exergetic
Table 3 State properties and calculated exergy of the system corresponding to Fig. 1. State 0 00 000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 _ m (kg/s) 421.81 421.81 429.56 429.56 429.56 429.56 429.56 429.56 429.56 429.56 144.32 144.32 144.32 72.16 9.25 9.25 9.25 62.91 62.91 53.66 53.66 62.91 62.91 14.06 14.06 218.42 218.42 218.42 2575 2575 7.75 T (K) 292.15 292.15 292.15 292.15 630.35 1404.80 821.46 729.67 536.86 479.67 477.12 431.1 386.15 321.19 321.19 321.55 390.02 390.15 449.9 504.74 391.71 488.15 488.15 578.66 578.66 779.15 488.15 578.66 571.15 573.82 666.5 292.15 320.35 292.15 P (bar) 1.013 1.013 1.013 1.013 11.14 10.58 1.05 1.07 1.04 1.04 1.02 1.02 1.013 0.112 0.112 25.5 1.8 9.3 9.3 9.1 119 118 118 92.77 92.77 84.8 118 92.77 11 16 26 1.013 1.013 20 h (kJ/kg) 292.43 79.82 12 292.43 631.8 1409 823.6 468.15 261.64 200.65 197.92 148.67 100.58 2304.5 201.15 204.36 490.52 491.52 2774.3 2906 506 923.8 923.8 2738.2 2738.2 3408.6 923.8 2738.2 550.34 552.63 790 79.82 197.71 292.43 _ E (MW) 0 132.86 388.29 105.8 80.24 31.75 20.59 19.39 11.87 6 28.25 0.80 1.09 4.09 0.53 7.82 8.27 4.39 13.17 10.22 53.1 68.38 91.22 2.94 15.28 36.54 36.83 73.16 0 13.77 401.89

_ _ _ E EPH ECH

The physical exergy component is calculated using the following relation:

_ _ EPH mh h0 T 0 s s0

The exergy of the air and gas streams per unit mass are dened by [23]:

ei C p;AirGas T i T 0 T 0 ln

   Ti Pi RAirGas T 0 ln T0 P0

Table 2 LS-3 collector specications [22]. Aperture area per SCA (m2) Mirror segments Aperture (m) HCE diameter (m) Average focal distance (m) HCE absorptivity HCE emittance 545 224 5.76 0.07 0.94 0.96 0.17 HCE transmittance Mirror reectivity Length Concentration ratio Peak collector efciency (%) Annual thermal efciency (%) Optical efciency (%) 0.96 0.94 99 82 68 53 80

Author's personal copy

A. Baghernejad, M. Yaghoubi / Energy Conversion and Management 52 (2011) 21932203 Table 4 Fuelproduct denition of the system corresponding to Fig. 1. Components Air compressor Combustion chamber Gas turbine Evaporator (LP) Super heater (LP) Economizer (HP) Evaporator (HP) Super heater (HP) Condensate extraction pump Boiler feed water pump Dearator Condenser Steam turbine Solar pump Collector Solar heat exchanger Fuel (MW) _ _ W AC E36 _ _ E2 E32 _ _ E3 E4 _ _ E8 E9 _ _ E7 E8 _ _ E6 E7 _ _ E5 E6 _ _ E4 E5 _ _ W CEP E34 _ _ W BFP E35 _ _ E9 E10 _ _ E30 E29 _ _ _ E17 E23 E11 _ _ W OILP E33 _ E32 _ _ E25 E24 Product (MW) _ _ E2 E1 _ E3 _ _ W GT E37 _ _ E16 E15 _ _ E17 E16 _ _ E19 E18 _ _ E21 E20 _ _ E23 E22 _ _ E13 E12 _ _ E18 E14 _ _ E14 E13 _ _ E12 E11 _ _ W ST E38 _ _ E27 E26 _ _ E28 E27 _ _ E28 E26

2197

HRSG super heater (HP):

_ _ _ _ _ C 23 C 5 C 4 C 22 Z SH;HP _ _ C4 C5 c4 c5 or _ 4 E5 _ E
HRSG evaporator (HP):

15 16

_ _ _ _ _ C 21 C 6 C 5 C 20 Z EVA;HP _ _ C5 C6 c5 c6 or _ 5 E6 _ E
HRSG economizer (HP):

17 18

_ _ _ _ _ C 19 C 7 C 6 C 18 Z ECO;HP _ _ C6 C7 c6 c7 or _ 6 E7 _ E
HRSG super heater (LP):

19 20

efciency and exergy destruction ratio in each component of the system along with the overall system. Mathematically, these are expressed as follows [26]:

_ _ _ _ _ C 17 C 8 C 7 C 16 Z SH;LP _ _ C7 C8 c7 c8 or _ _ E7 E8
HRSG evaporator (LP):

21 22

_ _ _ _ ED;k EF;k EP;k EL;k _ _ _ E E E e _P 1 D _ L EF EF

7 8 9

vk _ D k ED Tot

_ E

_ _ _ _ _ C 16 C 9 C 8 C 15 Z EVA;LP _ 8 C9 _ C c8 c9 or _ _ E8 E9
Steam turbine:

23 24

Exergy costing involves cost balances formulated for each system component separately. A cost balance applied to the kth component shows that the sum of cost rates associated with all exiting exergy streams equals the sum of cost rates of all entering exergy streams plus the appropriate charges (cost rate) due to capital investment and operating and maintenance expenses. The sum of the last _ two terms is denoted by Z. Accordingly, for a kth component:
N N X X _ _ _ _ _ ce Ee k cw;k W k cq;k Eq;k ci Ei k Z k e i

_ _ _ _ _ C 11 C 38 2C 17 C 23 Z ST _ 17 C 23 C 11 _ _ C c17 c23 c11 or _ 17 E23 E11 _ _ E

Condenser:

25 26

_ _ _ _ _ C 12 C 30 C 11 C 29 Z COND _ _ C 11 C 12 c11 c12 or _ 11 E12 _ E

Condensate extraction pump:

27 28

10

In general, if there are Ne exergy streams exiting the component being considered, we have Ne unknowns and only one equation, the cost balance. Therefore, we need to formulate Ne 1 auxiliary equations. This is accomplished with the aid of the F and P principles in the SPECO approach [27]. The system used in this work consists of 16 components and has 38 streams (32 for mass and six for work) shown in Fig. 1. Therefore 22 boundary conditions and auxiliary equations are necessary. Developing equation for each component of ISCCS along with auxiliary costing equations (according to P and F rules) leads to the following system of equations: Air compressor:

_ _ _ _ C 13 C 12 C 34 Z CEP
Dearator:

29

_ _ _ _ _ C 14 C 10 C 9 C 13 Z DEA _ _ C 9 C 10 c9 c10 or _ 9 E10 _ E

Boiler feed water pump:

30 31

_ _ _ _ _ C 15 C 18 C 14 C 35 Z BFP _ _ C 15 C 18 c15 c18 or _ 15 E18 _ E

Solar heat exchanger:

32 33

_ _ _ _ C 2 C 1 C 36 Z AC
Combustion chamber:

11

_ _ _ _ C 3 C 2 C 31 Z CC
Gas turbine:

12

_ _ _ _ _ C 25 C 26 C 24 C 28 Z SHE _ _ C 26 C 28 c26 c28 or _ 26 E28 _ E

Oil pump:

34 35

_ _ _ _ C 4 C 37 C 3 Z GT c3 c4 or _ _ C3 C4 _ _ E3 E4

13 14

_ _ _ _ C 27 C 26 C 33 Z OILP
Collector:

36

_ _ _ _ C 28 C 27 C 32 Z COLL

37

Author's personal copy

2198

A. Baghernejad, M. Yaghoubi / Energy Conversion and Management 52 (2011) 21932203

Separation point:

_ _ _ C 20 C 24 C 19 _ _ C 20 C 24 c20 c24 or _ _ E20 E24

Mixing point:

38 39

_ _ _ C 22 C 21 C 25

40

_ In the above equations, the cost of incoming air stream (C 1 ), cost of _ solar stream (C 32 ) and cost of incoming water stream in the con_ denser (C 29 ) are assumed to be zero. The cost of fuel stream to _ the system (C 31 ) is taken as 1.61 $/kg of natural gas. Additional auxiliary equations are formulated as follow:

c36 c37 or c33 c38 c34 c38

_ _ C 36 C 37 _ _ E36 E37 _ 33 C 38 _ C or _ 33 E38 _ E _ 34 C 38 _ C or _ _ E34 E38 _ _ C 35 C 38 _ 35 E38 _ E

41 42 43 44

c35 c38 or

By solving the system of 38 equations and 38 unknowns, the cost of unknown streams of the system are obtained. These are the average unit cost of fuel (cf,k), average unit cost of product (cp,k), cost rate of _ exergy destruction (C D;k ), cost rate of exergy loss (CL,k), and the exergoeconomic factor (fk). Mathematically, these are expressed as [26]:

components of ISCCS including the exergy destruction, ratio of exergy destruction to the total exergy destruction of the system, related cost of exergy destruction for each component, capital investment plus the operating costs of components and nally the exergoeconomic factor of each component. This factor is an important thermoeconomic parameter that shows the relative importance of a component cost to the associated cost of exergy destruction in that component [18]. Higher value of exergoeconomic factor implies that the major source of cost for the component under consideration is related to the capital investment and operating and maintenance costs. The lower value of exergoeconomic factor states that the associated cost of thermodynamic inefciencies is more significant than the capital investment and operating and maintenance costs for the component under consideration. The results show maximum exergy destruction of 292.93 MW occurs in the combustors with vCC = 64.18%. The collectors are having second largest exergy destruction (38.82 MW) with vCOLL = 8.5%. The exergy loss from the heat dissipative device (collectors) is 34 MW and also 22.89 MW exergy losses by the stacks. The exergy destruction and the exergetic efciency of the overall system is found to be 456.39 MW and 43.79%, respectively. Exergy analysis suggests the designer to nd means for the improvement of the overall exergetic efciency to the maximum possible value. However, the thermodynamic optimum, so obtained, does not guarantee a cost-optimal design. A cost-optimal design can be obtained through the thermoeconomic optimization, which is discussed in the following section. 6. Exergoeconomic optimization Solution procedure for optimization of the problem is discussed in Appendix B. The schematic diagram of the genetic algorithm used for solving the problem is shown in Fig. 2. To perform effectively, the genetic algorithm requires that some input parameters be set up properly. The user is asked to specify, among others, the following items: the admissible range of variables, the sample size of initial population of parent individuals, the scaling factor, and the maximum number of generations of offspring. In general, a thermal system requires two conicting objectives: one being increase in exergetic efciency and the other is decrease in product cost, to be satised simultaneously. The rst objective is governed by thermodynamic requirements and the second by economic constraints. Therefore, objective function should be dened in such a way that the optimization satises both requirements. For that, the optimization problem should be formulated as a min-

_ _ cf ;k C f ;k =Ef ;k _ _ cp;k C p;k =Ep;k _ _ C D;k cf ;k ED;k _ _ C L;k cf ;k EL;k fk _ Zk _ _ _ Z k C D;k C L;k

45 46 47 48 49

Bejan et al. [18] have presented the guidelines for the thermoeconomic evaluation. The exergy analysis of the Integrated Solar Combined Cycle System and its components are carried out using fuelproduct relationships and Eqs. (7)(9) for the base case operating conditions. Results are summarized in Table 5. Also this Table represents important exergoeconomic parameters for the

Table 5 Exergoeconomic parameters of the system for the base design. Component AC CC GT EVA (LP) SH (LP) ECO EVA (HP) SH (HP) CEP BFP DEA COND ST OILP COLL SHE Stacks System _ EF (MW) 286.31 1070 564.97 15.03 2.4 22.32 96.98 51.12 0.46 2.23 11.74 13.76 170.73 0.5 109.12 36.62 0 913.28 _ EP (MW) 265.73 776.58 536.24 14.58 0.89 17.55 85.74 45.67 0.3 1.67 7.08 27.43 150 0.3 36.3 24.68 0 400 _ ED (MW) 20.58 292.93 28.73 0.45 1.51 4.77 11.24 5.44 0.16 0.56 4.66 13.67 20.73 0.2 38.82 11.94 0 456.39 _ EL (MW) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 22.89 56.89

vi (%)
4.51 64.18 6.3 0.1 0.33 1.04 2.46 1.19 0.03 0.13 1.02 3 4.54 0.04 8.5 2.62 0 100

e (%) 92.81 72.61 94.91 97 37.04 78.63 88.42 89.34 63.63 74.73 60.3 50.16 87.9 60 33.26 67.39 0 43.79

_ C D ($/h) 4566.3 44,407 6000.4 94.22 315.59 996.133 2345.4 1137.7 49.9 167.1 973.78 7099.2 5369.6 61.75 2933.98 2737.7 0 79255.75

_ C L ($/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2569.7 0 0 2569.7

_ Z ($/h) 1429.58 51.84 976.18 77.52 48.92 131.6 139.92 127.5 0.09 0.34 45.72 11.56 9.03 0.36 8247.2 56.66 0 11354.02

_ _ _ Z C D C L ($/h) 5995.88 44458.84 6976.58 171.74 364.51 1127.73 2485.32 1265.2 49.99 167.44 1019.5 7110.76 5378.63 62.11 13750.87 2794.36 0 93179.46

f (%) 23.8 0.12 14 45.4 13.3 11.6 5.6 10 0.19 0.2 4.4 0.16 0.17 0.58 59.9 2 0 12.18

Author's personal copy

A. Baghernejad, M. Yaghoubi / Energy Conversion and Management 52 (2011) 21932203

2199

Vector representation of the decision variables

Initial random population

N p Parents

selection

NO Max. No of Generation Objective function evaluation Offspring creation (crossover+mutation

Yes STOP
Fig. 2. Scheme for genetic algorithm used in the present work.

imization or maximization problem. The exergoeconomic analysis gives a clear picture about the costs related to the exergy destruction, exergy losses, etc. Thus, the objective function becomes a minimization problem. Cammarata et al. [28] demonstrated the use of this technique for optimizing district heating network-using GA. In the same manner, the optimization of this system requires the solution of a minimization problem. The objective function for this problem is dened as to minimize the total cost function _ C sys , which can be modeled as

Table 7 The turning parameters in genetic algorithm. Turning parameters Population size Maximum number of generations Number of elite children at each population Selection process Crossover fraction at each population Value 100 100 4 Stochastic uniform 50%

_ C sys

X
k

_ Zk

X
k

_ _ C D;k C L;k

50

k _ In the above equation Z k fIHu, where f and Ik are the annuity factor and investment cost which are calculated from those given in Appendix A. u is maintenance factor and H is operation period. The values of the economic parameters and xed parameters used in all calculations are given in Table 6 [29]. To perform the optimization of the Integrated Solar Combined Cycle System, it is assumed that the output of the system be kept constant (400 MW).

7. Result and discussion The tuning of the genetic algorithm is performed according to the values indicated in Table 7. Although the decision variables may be varied in optimization procedure, each decision variable is normally required to be within a given practical range of operation as follow [29]: 9 6 Pr 6 16 0.75 6 gAC 6 0.9 1350 6 T3 6 1500 K 0.75 6 gGT 6 0.9 0.75 6 gCEP 6 0.9 0.75 6 gOILP 6 0.9 640 6 T28 6 670 K 80 6 P23 6 100 bar 7 6 P17 6 10 bar 0.75 6 gBFP 6 0.9 0.75 6 gST 6 0.9 723.15 6 T23 6 823.15 K
Fig. 3. Schematic ow diagram of the system studied by Silveira [13].

The code for simulation is developed in MATLAB and determines all the mass, energy and exergy ow rates throughout the system.

Table 6 Fixed parameters for the system [29].

gCC u
in (%) k (years) H (hour) for solar eld

0.99 1.06 10 25 2000

LHV (kJ/kg) ri (%) CP (year) _ W out MW H (hour) for Combined cycle

47,966 8 3 400 7500

First, in order to validation the code and evaluate advantages and robustness of the evolutionary optimization approach, the computation are compared for the system shown in Fig. 3 using conventional mathematical optimization approach. This system is considered by Silveira and Tuna [13] for minimizing of electricity cost produced by a steam turbine. Results are presented shown in Table 8. The minimum value of the electricity cost obtained using genetic algorithm is 0.053 $/kW h while the amount of 0.056 $/kW h was obtained in [13] using the conventional mathematical approach. This indicates that this method leads to an optimum solution which is 5.35% lower than the corresponding optimum for the cost of electricity. Therefore genetic algorithm for the cost minimization of system shown in Fig. 3 leads to better results compared to the conventional optimization approaches. Other thermodynamic parameters determined using genetic algorithm and the corresponding values obtained in the previous study

Author's personal copy

2200

A. Baghernejad, M. Yaghoubi / Energy Conversion and Management 52 (2011) 21932203

Table 8 Comparative results obtained with [13] for the system shown in Fig. 3. Decision variables, objective function Inlet temperature to steam turbine (C) Inlet pressure to steam turbine (MPa) System output (kW) Inlet mass ow rate to steam turbine (kg/s) Cost of electricity ($/kW h) Thermoeconomic analysis [13] 500 Thermoeconomic analysis via genetic algorithm 498 Differences (%) 0.4

5.6

5.7

+1.8

6000 10.386

6000 10.45

0 +0.67

0.056

0.053

5.35

[13] are also reected in Table 8. This comparison reveals that present method has good agreement with result of Silveira [13]. Based on the valid code, the exergoeconomic parameters for each component of the system shown in Fig. 1 for the optimum operating conditions are summarized in Table 9. It can be found out from Table 9 that for combustion chamber, the related cost of exergy destruction is signicantly higher than the owning and operating cost of this component and the inefciency cost for this component is dominant for both the base case and the optimized systems. This is due to the very high exergy destruction in the combustion process of combustion chamber. Hence, the component efciency should be improved by increasing the capital investment. This can be achieved by increasing the combustion temperature T3. The maximum temperature of the combustion chamber, however, is limited due to the metallurgical conditions. The next component is condenser, where the lower value of f suggests improvement in exergetic efciency through increase in its effectiveness. Low value of exergoeconomic factor, f, for the HP evaporator, superheater, the steam turbine and the pumps suggests that a decrease in cost rate of exergy destruction of these components by increasing exergetic efciency can improve the system performance. The highest owning and operation cost is associated with the collector, gas turbine and air compressor for the base case and optimized system respectively. Also it is observed that the exergoeconomic factor of all other components except the collectors in the

optimized system has increased. The collectors after the combus_ _ _ tors have the second highest value of the sum Z C D C L , because their exergy destruction and exergy loss is very high. The cause of exergy destruction in the collectors is that solar energy with high quality (95%) heats a uid with low temperature. In this process, the irreversibility created due to heat transfer between two large temperature differences that solar energy with high quality is converted to heat in the absorber with low quality. Therefore the cost rate of exergy destruction and exergy loss dominate. Hence, effort should be made to reduce this exergy loss. However material constraints for construction and operation play an important role. Furthermore, Tables 5 and 9 denote that the highest cost _ _ _ Z C D C L and the highest exergy destruction (highest cost of exergy destruction) for the base case and optimized systems belong to the combustion chamber and collectors. Moreover, it can be found from Table 9 that the optimization increases the overall exergoeconomic factor of ISCCS from 12.18 to 15.51 (27.34% increases) implying that optimization process mostly reduced the associated cost of thermodynamic inefciencies rather to increase the capital investment and operating and maintenance cost of the system components. The cost of the streams in the base case and optimum case are given in Table 10. Unit cost of the electricity produced by steam turbine and gas turbine is reduced from 29.57 and 22.18 cents/ kW h in the base case to 27.47 and 21.92 cents/kWh in the optimum case respectively. The decision variables for the base case and optimum case are given in Table 11. The air compressor efciency, gAC, is 85.98; the optimum air compressor pressure ratio, Pr, is 11.98; the exit temperature of the combustion chamber, T3, is 1449.9 K; the gas turbine efciency, gGT, is 90%; the oil outlet temperature, T28, is 658.17 K; inlet pressure to the HP steam turbine, P23, is 99.91 bar; inlet temperature to the HP steam turbine, T23, is 823.13 K; inlet pressure to the LP steam turbine, P17, is 9.97 bar; the steam turbine efciency, gST, is 89.94%; the CEP efciency, gCEP, is 88.84%; the BFP efciency, gBEP, is 84.02% and OILP efciency, gOILP, is 83.44%. These new parameters obtained will help the designer to select components, i.e. turbines, compressor, as close to the optimum conguration. The comparative results of the base case and the optimum case are presented in Table 12. This table denotes that optimization process improves the total performance of the system in a way that the objective function is decreased by 10.98%, the exergetic efciency of system is increased from about 43.79% to 46.8% and the rate of fuel cost is decreased by 7.23%. Also exergy destructions is reduced about 12%, the related cost of the system inefciencies

Table 9 Exergoeconomic parameters of the system for the optimum case. Component AC CC GT EVA (LP) SH (LP) ECO EVA (HP) SH (HP) CEP BFP DEA COND ST OILP COLL SHE Stacks System _ EF (MW) 264.34 992.61 541.70 12.89 2.18 19.05 78.14 51.67 0.36 2.07 10.11 11.68 156.72 0.50 109.12 35.17 854.75 _ EP (MW) 246.98 726.46 520.02 12.78 0.87 15.12 71.05 48.13 0.25 1.60 6.11 23.28 144.32 0.29 34.88 24.06 400 _ ED (MW) 17.36 266.15 21.68 0.11 1.31 3.93 7.09 3.54 0.11 0.47 4 11.60 12.4 0.21 40.24 11.11 401.31 _ EL (MW) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 19.44 53.44

vi (%)
4.33 66.32 5.40 0.03 0.33 0.98 1.77 0.88 0.03 0.12 1.00 2.89 3.09 0.05 10.03 2.77 100

e (%)
93.43 73.19 96.00 99.16 39.89 79.35 90.93 93.15 69.65 77.36 60.50 50.16 92.09 57.72 31.96 68.42 46.80

_ C D ($/h) 3806.2 40,193 4475.5 22.27 271.31 812.28 1463.9 730.81 30.01 129.03 823.85 5863.1 3136.9 58.92 3041.4 2648.2 67506.68

_ C L ($/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2569.7 0 2569.7

_ Z ($/h) 1783.3 60.36 2202.6 68.4 42.32 114.96 118.24 111.5 0.077 0.328 39.9 9.97 8.8 0.37 8247.2 57.82 12866.14

_ _ _ Z C D C L ($/h) 5589.5 40253.36 6678.1 90.67 313.63 927.24 1582.14 842.31 30.087 129.358 863.75 5873.07 3145.7 59.29 13858.3 2706.02 82942.52

f (%) 31.9 0.15 32.98 75.44 13.50 12.40 7.47 13.24 0.26 0.25 4.62 0.17 0.28 0.62 59.51 2.14 15.51

Author's personal copy

A. Baghernejad, M. Yaghoubi / Energy Conversion and Management 52 (2011) 21932203 Table 10 Cost of streams in the system. State points (Fig. 1) Base case c (cents/kW h) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 0 24.44 20.88 20.88 20.88 20.88 20.88 20.88 20.88 20.88 25.99 25.99 31.49 34.77 35.59 22.98 25.07 35.59 30.07 30.07 24.99 26.88 26.07 30.07 33.44 22.92 23.14 22.92 0 51.90 12.09 0 29.57 29.57 29.57 22.18 22.18 29.57 _ C $=h 0 32,474 81,093 22,097 16,758 6632 4301 4050 2480 1254 7343 209 346 1422 189 1799 2074 1564 3960 3075 13,272 18,383 23,785 885 5111 8378 8526 16,773 0 7145 48,593 0 148 137 331 31,760 59,484 44,384 Optimum case c (cents/kW h) 0 24.19 20.64 20.64 20.64 20.64 20.64 20.64 20.64 20.64 25.30 25.30 29.06 34.01 34.29 22.22 24.27 34.29 29.32 29.32 24.12 26.61 25.39 29.32 33.97 23.84 24.02 23.84 0 50.52 12.09 0 27.47 27.47 27.47 21.92 21.92 27.47 _ C $=h 0 29,873 74,980 19,069 13,736 5670 3703 3477 2146 1103 6067 176 275 1200 158 1523 1769 1328 3352 2504 10,629 15,700 21,089 848 5070 9226 9366 17,613 0 5901 45,077 0 139 99 285 28,981 57,012 39,659

2201

is decreased about 14.8%, although the total owning and operation cost is increased about 13.3%.

8. Sensitivity analysis Sensitivity analysis is a general concept which aims to quantify the variations of an output parameter of a system regarding to changes imposed on some input important parameters. A comprehensive sensitivity analysis performed to examine the impact of the variation of important factors on electricity costs. The most important factors which inuence electricity cost are fuel specic cost, interest rate, plant lifetime, solar eld operation period and construction period. As shown in Fig. 4, increasing the plant life time from 15 to 35 years with 10% interest rate and keeping other economic and technical parameters constant will reduce electricity cost by 1.48%. Fig. 5 shows sensitivity with respect to fuel cost which is linear. Fig. 6 illustrates variation of unit cost with increasing solar contribution which is signicant and Fig. 7 presents variation of unit cost with construction period which increases considerably the unit cost of electricity.

31.0

Unit cost of electricity produced by steam turbine (cent/kWh)

30.5

in=8% in=9% in=10% in=11% in=12%

30.0

29.5

29.0

Table 11 Comparison of the decisions variables for optimum and base case. Properties Compressor efciency (%) Compressor pressure ratio Combustion temperature (K) Gas turbine efciency (%) Oil outlet temperature (K) Inlet pressure to HP steam turbine (bar) Inlet temperature to HP steam turbine (K) Inlet pressure to LP steam turbine (bar) Steam turbine efciency (%) CEP efciency (%) BFP efciency (%) OILP efciency (%) Base case 85.00 11 1404.8 87.5 666.5 84.8 779.15 9.1 85 80 80 80 Optimum case 85.98 11.98 1449.9 90.00 658.17 99.91 823.13 9.97 89.94 88.84 84.02 83.44

28.5 15

20

25

30

35

k (years)
Fig. 4. Sensitivity of unit cost of electricity to the plant lifetime for various interest rate.

50.0 45.0 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 0.05

Table 12 Comparative results of the optimum and the base case. Properties Objective function ($/h) Fuel exergy (solar + gas) (MW) Exergy destruction (MW) Fuel cost ($/h) Exergy destruction cost ($/h) Capital investment cost ($/h) Exergy efciency (%) Base case 93179.46 511.02 456.39 48,593 79255.75 11354.02 43.79 Optimum case 82942.52 481.94 401.31 45,077 67506.68 12866.14 46.80 % Variation 10.98 5.69 12.07 7.23 14.82 +13.31 +6.87

Unit cost of electricity produced by steam turbine (cent/kWh)

0.075

0.1

0.125

0.15

0.175

0.2

Fuel cost ($/kWh)

Fig. 5. Sensitivity of unit cost of electricity with specic fuel cost.

Author's personal copy

2202

A. Baghernejad, M. Yaghoubi / Energy Conversion and Management 52 (2011) 21932203

35.0 34.0 33.0 32.0

Unit cost of electricity produced by steam turbine (cent/kWh)

3. The unit cost of electricity has a linear and remarkable increase with fuel cost. 4. By increasing the system construction period from 3 to 6 years, the unit cost of electricity produced by steam turbine increased about 13%.

Acknowledgment
31.0

Authors appreciate MOSHANIR for providing Yazd data.

30.0

Appendix A. Economic model [29]

29.0

Air compressor
28.0 1000 1500 2000 2500

Solar field operation period (hour/year)

Fig. 6. Sensitivity of unit cost of electricity to the solar eld operation periods.

IAC

_ c11 mair c12 gAC

    Po Po ln Pi Pi

A:1

c11 = 75 $/(kg/s), c12 = 0.9. Combustion chamber

_ ICC c21 :mair :1 expc22 T o c23 :

Unit cost of electricity produced by steam turbine (cent/kWh)
38.0 37.0 36.0 35.0 34.0 33.0 32.0 31.0 30.0 29.0 28.0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 0:995 Po P
i

A:2

c21 = 48.64 $/(kg/s), c22 = 0.018 K1, c23 = 26.4. Gas turbine

 IGT

   _ c31 mG Pi ln 1 expc33 T i c34 c32 gGT Po

A:3

c31 = 1536 $/(kg/s), c32 = 0.92, c33 = 0.036 K1, c34 = 54.4. Heat recovery steam generator

IHRSG c41

0:8 hs _ _ c42 ms c43 mg logT i T o

A:4

c41 = 4745, c42 = 11,820 $/(kg/s), c43 = 658 $/(kg/s). Condenser

Construction period (years)

Fig. 7. Sensitivity of unit cost of electricity to the construction periods.

_ ICOND c5 ms
c5 = 1773 $/(kg/s) Steam turbine

A:5

9. Conclusions The analysis presented in this paper demonstrates the application of the exergoeconomic concept to optimize an Integrated Solar Combined Cycle System (ISCCS). An exergy-costing method is applied to a 400 MW Integrated Solar Combined Cycle System to estimate the unit costs of electricity produced from combined gas and steam turbines. The optimization code that developed shows that exergy and thermoeconomic analysis improved signicantly for optimum operation as follows: 1. Objective function decreased by about 11% and overall exergoeconomic factor of system increased by 27.34%. 2. Unit cost of electricity produced by steam turbine and gas turbine reduced by about 7.1% and 1.17% respectively. This is achieved, however, with 13.3% increase in the capital investment. 3. Exergy destruction cost reduced by 14.82% and exergetic efciency of the system increased from about 43.79% to 46.8%. Also sensitivity analysis shows that: 1. Increasing the plant life time will reduce unit cost of electricity not considerably. 2. Increasing solar eld operation periods from 1000 to 2000 hours per year reduces the unit cost of electricity produced by steam turbine about 14%.

_ IST c6 W 0:7 ST
c6 = 6000 $/(kW) Pump
0.7

A:6

_ Ip c7 W 0:71 p
c7 = 3540 $/(kW)0.71

A:7

qkcp 1 qcp 1 kcp q 1qcp q 1q    in ri 1 q 1 100 100

1 A:8 A:9

Also, it should be noted, that in this study, total investment cost of collectors (include the heat collection elements, reectors, sun trackers, mirrors, . . .) from type of LS-3 is assumed 355 $ per square meter of aperture area based on LS-3 technology. Appendix B. Genetic algorithm The genetic algorithm is a method for solving both constrained and unconstrained optimization problems that is based on natural selection, the process that drives biological evolution. For each trial, the objective function is evaluated through exergy analysis and exergoeconomic formulations after passing through the system constraints. As a rst step, parent selection is performed with

Author's personal copy

A. Baghernejad, M. Yaghoubi / Energy Conversion and Management 52 (2011) 21932203

2203

each individual having the same probability of being chosen. Suppose NP is the size of generated population. Then NP numbers of parents enter the reproduction step, generating NP offspring through a crossover strategy in which the decision variable values of the offspring fall in a range dened by the decision variable values of the parents. Some of the offspring are also produced by adding a Gaussian random variable (N) with zero mean and a standard deviation proportional to the scaled cost value of the parent trial solution, i.e.,

P0g;i P g;i N0; r2 i

B:1

The standard deviation ri indicates the range over which the offspring is created around the parent trial solution and is given by

r2 u i

f Pi f Pmin

B:2

where f P min is the minimum value of the objective function among the NP trial solution, f Pi is the objective function value associated with the trial vector P i and / is a scaling factor. These offspring P0i ; i 1; 2; . . . ; N P and their parents Pi ; i 1; 2; . . . ; N P form a set of 2NP trial solutions and they contend for survival with each other within the competing pool. After competition, the 2NP trial solutions including the parents and the offspring are ranked in descending order of the score. The rst NP trial solutions survive and are transcribed along with their objective functions f Pi into the survivor set as the basis of the next generation. Finally, the number of generations elapsed is compared to the established maximum number of generations. If the termination condition is met, the process stops, otherwise the surviving solutions become the starting population for the next generation. In this study, in the rst generation, 100 vectors P i Pr ; gAC ; T 3 ; gGT ;gOILP ; T 28 ; T 23 ; P23 ; P17 ; gST ; gCEP ; gBFP are randomly generated within the operating range. Performance of the system with each vector is evaluated. The vector having the best system performance is stored for future comparison. The algorithm selects a group of vectors in the current generation, called parents that have better objective function values for the next generation (second generation). These parents are modied using Eq. (B.1) to generate the offsprings. The performance of the offsprings and the parent vectors are compared to select the best vector in the generation. The process of selecting parents and then generating the offsprings repeats till the specied number of generations. References
[1] El-Sayed YM, Gaggioli RA. A critical review of second law costing methods-I: background and algebraic procedures. J Energy Res Technol 1989;111:17. [2] Gaggioli RA, El-Sayed YM. A critical review of second law costing methodsII: calculus procedures. ASME J Energy Res Technol 1989;111:815. [3] Silveira JL, Tuna CE. Thermoeconomic analysis method for optimization of combined heat and power systems. Part II. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2004;30:6738.

[4] Tsatsaronis G. A review of exergoeconomic methodologies. In: Proceedings, 4th International Symposium on Second Law Analysis, University of Roma, Rome, Italy; 1987. p. 81. [5] Gaggioli RA. Thermodynamics and the non-equilibrium systems. Ph.D. Thesis, Winsconsin, Madison; 1961. [6] Tribus M, Evans RB. A contribution to the theory of thermoeconomics, UCLA, Dept. of Engineering. Report No. 62-63, Los Angeles, USA; 1962. [7] Lazzaretto A, Tsatsaronis G. On the calculation of efciencies and costs in thermal systems. In: Aceves et al SM. (Eds.), Proc ASME Adv Energy Syst Div. AES-Vol. 39, ASME, New York; 1999. [8] Lozano MA, Valero A. Theory of the exergetic cost. Energy, Int J 1993;18:93960. [9] Frangopoulos CA. Thermoeconomic functional analysis: a method for optimal design or improvement of complex thermal systems. Ph.D. Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA; 1983. [10] von Spakovsky MR. A practical generalized analysis approach to the optimal thermoeconomic design and improvement of real-world thermal systems. Ph.D. Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA; 1986. [11] Bhargava R, Bianchi M, di Montenegro GN, Peretto A. Thermoeconomic analysis of an intercooled, reheat and recuperated gas turbine for cogeneration application. Part I: base load operation. ASME J Eng Gas Turb Power 2002;124:14754. [12] Kwak HY, Kim DJ, Jeon JS. Exergetic and thermoeconomic analyses of power plants. Energy 2003;28:34360. [13] Silveira JL, Tuna CE. Thermoeconomic analysis method for optimization of combined heat and power systems. Part I. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2003;29:47985. [14] Singh N, Kaushik SC. Technology assessment and economic evaluation of solar thermal power generation: a state of art report. IIT, Delhi: CES; 1994. [15] Dufe John A, Beckman William A. Solar engineering of thermal processes. INC: John Wiley & Sons; 1991. [16] Attala L, Facchini B, Ferrara G. Thermoeconomic optimization method design tool in gas steam combined plant realization. Energy Convers Manage 2001;42:216372. [17] Singh N, Kaushik SC, Misra RD. Exergetic analysis of a solar thermal power system. Renew Energy 2000;19:13543. [18] Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran M. Thermal design and optimization. New York: Wiley; 1996. [19] Marletta L. A comparison of methods for optimizing air-conditioning systems according to the exergonomic approach. ASME: J Energy Resour Technol 2001;123:30410. [20] Cziesla F, Tsatsaronis G. Iterative exergoeconomic evaluation and improvement of thermal power plants using fuzzy inference systems. Energy Convers Manage 2002;43:153748. [21] Dersch J, Geyer M, Herrmann U. Trough integration into power plantsa study on the performance and economy of integrated solar combined cycle systems. Energy 2004;29:94759. [22] Kearney D. Parabolic-trough technology roadmap a pathway for sustained commercial development and deployment of parabolic-trough technology. January SunLab NREL; 1999. [23] Moran M, Sciubba E. Exergy analysis: principles and practice. J Eng Gas Turb Power 1994;116:28590. [24] Schwarzenbach A, Wunsch AK. Flexible power generation systems and their planning. ABB Review 6/89; 1989. [25] Lozano M, Valero A. Theory of the exergetic cost. Energy 1993;18:93960. [26] Tsatsaronis G, Pisa J. Exergoeconomics evaluation and optimization of energy systemsapplication to the CGAM problem. Energy 1994;19:287321. [27] Lazzaretto A, Tsatsaronis G. SPECO: a systematic and general methodology for calculating efciencies and costs in thermal systems. Energy 2006;31:125789. [28] Cammarata G, Fichera A, Marletta L. Using genetic algorithms and the exergonomic approach to optimize district heating networks. ASME: J Energy Resour Technol 1998;120:2416. [29] Baghernejad A, Yaghoubi M. Multi objective exergoeconomic optimization of an integrated solar combined cycle system using evolutionary algorithms. Int J Energy Res. doi:10.1002/er.1715.