3-E Analysis of Advanced Power Plants Based On High Ash Coal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCH
Int. J. Energy Res. (2009)

Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/er.1593
3-E analysis of advanced power plants based on high ash coal
M. V. J. J. Suresh, K. S. Reddy
,y
and Ajit Kumar Kolar
Heat Transfer and Thermal Power Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai-600 036, India
SUMMARY
The objective of the study is to identify the best possible power plant conguration based on 3-E (namely energy,
exergy, and environmental) analysis of coal-based thermal power plants involving conventional (subcritical (SubC)) and
advanced steam parameters (supercritical (SupC) and ultrasupercritical (USC)) in Indian climatic conditions using high
ash (HA) coal. The analysis is made for unit congurations of three power plants, specically, an operating SubC steam
power plant, a SupC steam power plant, and the AD700 (advanced 7001C) power plant involving USC steam
conditions. In particular, the effect of HA Indian coal and low ash (LA) reference coal on the performance of these
power plants is studied. The environmental impact of the power plants is estimated in terms of specic emissions of
CO
2
, SO
x
, NO
x
, and particulates. From the study, it is concluded that the maximum possible plant energy efciency
under the Indian climatic conditions using HA Indian coal is about 42.3% with USC steam conditions. The results
disclose that the major energy loss is associated with the heat rejection in the cooling water, whereas the maximum
exergy destruction takes place in the combustor. Further, the sliding pressure control technique of load following results
in higher plant energy and exergy efciencies compared to throttle control in part-load operation. Copyright r 2009
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS: coal; energy; exergy; emissions; subcritical; supercritical; ultrasupercritical
1. INTRODUCTION
India has substantial amounts of proven reserves
of coal of about 98.5 billion tonnes [1] and thus
coal-based thermal power plants dominate the
source-wise mix with 52.5% installed capacity of a
total of about 147.5 GWe [2]. The total electricity
generation in 20072008 from conventional power
resources like coal/lignite, large hydro, natural
gas, nuclear, and diesel was 705 billion units
(1 unit 51 kWh) and among these resources coal
alone contributed about two-thirds to the total [2].
Further, the coal-based power plants in India
operate on sub-critical steam conditions. However,
the Indian coal is of low grade with a very high
mineral matter content of 45% but it is also of
high quality with sulfur content of less than 0.6%.
In order to address increasing electricity demand
and concern for environmental safety, it is
imperative to install power plants based on
*Correspondence to: K. S. Reddy, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai-600 036,
India.
y
E-mail: ksreddy@iitm.ac.in
Received 8 March 2009
Revised 26 May 2009
Accepted 11 June 2009 Copyright r 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
advanced coal technologies that are (more) energy
efcient, environmentally acceptable, and econom-
ically viable.
Thermodynamic analysis based on energy and
exergy provides insight into losses in various com-
ponents of a system [36]. Unlike energy, the exergy
is not generally conserved but is destroyed. So, the
majority of the causes of irreversibilities like heat
transfer through a nite temperature difference,
chemical reactions, friction, and mixing are ac-
counted by exergy analysis [7]. The design and part-
load performance of a 400MWe thermal power
plant based on energy and exergy analysis has been
studied by Habib et al. [8]. Dincer and Al-Muslim
[9] carried out the thermodynamic analysis of reheat
cycle steam power plant. Energy and exergy ef-
ciencies were analyzed by varying system para-
meters such as temperature and pressure at the
boiler outlet, and the work output. Rosen [10] re-
ported energy- and exergy-based comparisons of
coal-red and nuclear power plant of unit size of
approximately 500 MWe. Sengupta et al. [11] car-
ried out the exergy analysis of a 210 MWe coal-
based thermal power plant. The major source of
irreversibility in the power plant cycle was identied
as the boiler. It was shown that the sliding pressure
mode improves the exergy efciencies in part-load
operation. During part-load operation, the power
plant is required to generate a lower output than the
design capacity to meet the reduced demand. The
power output is reduced using suitable pressure
control techniques. The two widely used pressure
control techniques during part-load operation are
sliding pressure control and throttling control. In
the case of sliding pressure control, the pressure in
the steam generator is reduced in order to get a
lower power output, whereas in the case of throt-
tling control, a pressure-reducing valve is used in the
main steam line before the turbine. Rosen and Tang
[12] studied the effect of altering combustion air
ow on a steam power plant through energy and
exergy analysis. Kopac and Hilalci [13] reported the
effect of ambient temperature on the efciency of a
power plant using energy and exergy analysis.
Ameri et al. [14] performed the energy, exergy, and
exergoeconomic analysis of a steam power plant.
The effects of load variations and ambient tem-
perature were calculated to obtain insight into the
analysis. Bugge et al. [15] presented the status and
perspectives for the AD700 (advanced 7001C)
technology that involves the development of a coal-
red power plant with steam temperature of 7001C.
Energy and exergy analysis of combined cycle
power plants has also been widely reported in the
literature [1618]. Over 60% of the installed thermal
power capacity in India is accounted by 200/210 and
500MWe units based on pulverized coal-red boi-
lers [19]. The plant energy efciencies of old power
plants in India are still around 30% and the modern
subcritical (SubC) cycles (500MWe unit size) have
attained plant energy efciencies of about 3537%
based on higher heating value (HHV) of fuel [20].
Migrating to higher steam parameters is one of the
methods to improve the plant energy efciency and
reduce specic emissions (emissions/kWh). Making
a beginning in this direction, the rst power plant
based on supercritical (SupC) steam conditions in
India is being installed at Sipat by National Ther-
mal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC) [20].
There is a dearth of literature dealing with the
thermodynamic analysis of power plants based on
high ash (HA) coal and advanced steam para-
meters in Indian climatic conditions where the de-
sign ambient temperature is taken as 331C. Such an
analysis attains utmost importance in selecting the
appropriate technologies for future capacity addi-
tion. The objective of this paper is to analyze the
3-E performance of the coal power plants based on
conventional and advanced steam parameters and
predict the improvement, if any, in plant energy
and exergy efciencies and specic emissions in
Indian climatic conditions for Indian HA coal
using the design data of the power plant cong-
urations. The specic emissions of CO
2
, SO
x
, NO
x
,
and particulates were calculated to quantify the
environmental impact. The part-load performance
analysis has also been carried out to nd the var-
iation of plant energy and exergy efciencies.
2. POWER PLANT CONFIGURATIONS AND
FUEL CHARACTERISTICS
2.1. SubC power plant
A 500 MWe pulverized coal combustion power
plant based on SubC steam parameters and run by
M. V. J. J. SURESH, K. S. REDDY AND A. K. KOLAR
Copyright r 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/er
NTPC, India was chosen as a reference [20]. The
conguration of the SubC power plant with steam
parameters of 166.7 bar/5371C/5371C is shown in
Figure 1. It has one single-ow high-pressure
cylinder, one double-ow intermediate-pressure
cylinder, and one double-ow low-pressure cylin-
der. It has three low-pressure feed water heaters
(LPFWHs) and two high-pressure feed water
heaters (HPFWHs). The plant uses a single stage
reheating with the nal feed water temperature of
about 2531C.
2.2. SupC power plant
The rst SupC steam power plant being installed
in India by NTPC [20] has been considered to
investigate the performance of the plant based on
SupC steam conditions. The detailed conguration
of the SupC power plant is shown in Figure 2. The
gross power output of the plant is 660 MWe
having steam parameters of 242.2 bar/5371C/
5651C with a single stage reheating and nal feed
water temperature of about 2801C. This plant
has one single-ow high-pressure cylinder, one
double-ow intermediate-pressure cylinder, and
two double-ow low-pressure cylinders. It has
four LPFWHs and three HPFWHs.
2.3. Ultrasupercritical power plant
Further, the design conguration of a conceptual
430 MWe Ultrasupercritical (USC) power plant
also known as The AD700 cycle [15,21] has been
considered to study the effect of USC steam
parameters. Figure 3 shows the conguration of
the USC power plant. It involves steam para-
meters of 350 bar/7001C/7201C with a single stage
reheating and nal feed water temperature of
Figure 1. Schematic representation of 500 MWe Subcritical Power Plant (Numerics indicate stream numbers).
3-E ANALYSIS OF ADVANCED POWER PLANTS
DOI: 10.1002/er
3301C. The USC power plant consists of single-
ow high-pressure, intermediate-pressure cylin-
ders, one each, and one double-ow low-pressure
cylinder. For this conguration, ve LPFWHs and
three HPFWHs have been considered. Steam
driven boiler feed pump (BFP) is used in the
SubC and SupC power plants, whereas an electric
driven BFP is used in the AD700 USC power plant
conguration.
2.4. Fuel characteristics
The characteristics of the HA Indian and low ash
(LA) imported (reference) coals are presented in
Table I. The composition of the HA coal (dry basis)
used for the present study represents that of the
typical Indian coal [20] with a lower heating value
(LHV) of 15.2 MJ kg
1
and a specic exergy of
17.3MJ kg
1
. In India, the normal practice in power
plant industry is to quote the plant efciency on
the basis of higher heating value (HHV) of fuel.
Hence, to reect the typical values of power plant
efciencies in India, HHV has been used instead of
LHV. The specic exergy (chemical) of coal (Ex
coal
),
in MJ kg
1
, was estimated on the basis of following
empirical correlation [22,23]:
Ex
coal
0:9775 n LHV
coal
2:410
0:0065 n LHV
coal
0:054 1
where LHV
coal
(Lower Heating Value of coal) is
in MJ kg
1
. The second part of the correlation
represents the deviation to be expected.
Figure 2. Schematic representation of 660 MWe Supercritical Power Plant (Numerics indicate stream numbers).
DOI: 10.1002/er
Figure 3. Schematic representation of 430 MWe Ultrasupercritical Power Plant (Numerics indicate stream numbers).
Table I. Characteristics of coal.
Indian (high ashHA) Imported (low ashLA)
As-received (wt%) Dry basis (wt%) As-received (wt%) Dry basis (wt%)
Proximate analysis
Fixed carbon 24.00 27.27 59.00 60.47
Volatile matter 21.00 23.86 22.29 22.85
Ash 43.00 48.87 16.27 16.68
Moisture 12.00 2.44
Ultimate analysis
Carbon 34.46 39.16 68.10 69.80
Hydrogen 2.43 2.76 3.49 3.58
Oxygen (by difference) 6.97 7.92 7.47 7.66
Nitrogen 0.69 0.78 1.69 1.73
Sulfur 0.45 0.51 0.54 0.55
Ash 43.00 48.87 16.27 16.68
Moisture 12.00 2.44
HHV (MJ kg
1
) 13.96 15.83 26.83 27.42
Exergy (MJ kg
1
) 15.26 17.30 27.84 28.46
DOI: 10.1002/er
Indigenous coals used in thermal power plants
in India have mineral matter as high as 4045%.
With a view to compare the performance of
the power plants using LA coal, a typical South
African coal was considered [24]. The LHV of the
LA coal (dry basis) is 26.6 MJ kg
1
and its specic
exergy is 28.5 MJ kg
1
. Although the sulfur con-
tent of both the coals is comparable, the nitrogen
content of LA coal is about 1 percentage point
more than the HA coal.
3. MODELING OF POWER PLANT
CONFIGURATIONS
3.1. Assumptions
The following assumptions were made to carry out
the simulation:
Ambient pressure (P
o
) and temperature (T
o
) of
reference environment are 1.013 bar and 331C,
respectively (Indian climatic conditions).
The chemical composition of reference-environ-
ment model constitutes (in mole fraction): N
2
:
75.62%, O
2
: 20.30%, H
2
O: 3.12%, CO
2
: 0.03%,
SO
2
: 0.01%, Others: 0.92%.
The relative humidity of the ambient air
C60%.
The excess air 20%.
Energy loss in the boiler (due to the combus-
tibles in ash, radiation and convection losses,
and unaccounted losses) C1.5% of energy in
input fuel.
Ash constitutes 70% SiO
2
and 30% Al
2
O
3
(by
weight) and the bottom to y ash ratio is 20:80
[20].
Condenser pressure is 10.3 kPa (Indian climatic
condition) and temperature gain across the
condenser C101C [20].
The terminal temperature difference of all closed
feed water heaters C31C [25].
Pressure drop in the pipes are neglected.
An auxiliary power consumption of 7.5% was
assumed for HA coal-based SubC and SupC
power plant and 9.0% for HA coal-based USC
power plant [20].
The power consumption by miscellaneous
balance of plant (like plant control systems,
lighting, HVAC), steam turbine auxiliaries and
transformer losses for all the three power plants
has been considered as 5 MWe (included in the
auxiliary power consumption) [26].
Reduction in auxiliary power consumption of
coal and ash handling equipments as compared
to the reference case (rated gross power output
using HA coal) has been assumed to vary
directly with the coal consumption rate [27].
Isentropic efciency of fans and pumps C80
and 85%, respectively [20].
Generator efciency C98.7% [20].
Carbon and Sulfur in the fuel are completely
oxidized to CO
2
and SO
2
, respectively [28].
50% of nitrogen in the fuel has been assumed
to oxidize to NO and it only constitutes NO
x
[28,29].
NO
x
reduction using low NO
x
burners in the
furnace C40% [30].
Electro Static Precipitator (ESP) efciency
C99.8% [31].
3.2. Governing equations
Mass, energy, exergy, and chemical species balance
are applied to components in the power plant
congurations shown in Figures 13 considering
them as a control volume at steady state. The
governing equations are [8,32,33]:
Mass balance:
P
i
_ m
i

P
e
_ m
e
2
Energy balance:
P
i
_ m
i
h
i

_
Q
cv

P
e
_ m
e
h
e

_
W
cv
3
Exergy balance:
P
i
_ m
i
c
i

_
X
heat

P
e
_ m
e
c
e

_
W
cv

_
I 4
Chemical species balance:
P
e
_
N
j

P
i
_
N
j

_
N
p
5
The equation for chemical species balance
accounts for input, output species ow, and the
DOI: 10.1002/er
rate of production of species due to chemical
reactions in a control volume. This equation is
applicable throughout the air/ue gas circuit, and
in particular, the combustor, where the chemical
reactions take place.
3.3. Simulation procedure
The power plant conguration constitutes various
interconnected circuits each of which consists of
different components. These components are in
turn connected by pipes involving appropriate
media, thus forming a complex network of mass
and energy ows. A comprehensive thermody-
namic analysis of such system involves the solution
of a large number of equations necessitating the
need for an efcient code with an extensive
database of thermodynamic properties. Hence, a
ow-sheet computer program, Cycle-Tempo, a
software package for the steady-state thermody-
namic modeling and analysis of systems for the
production of electricity, heat and refrigeration,
was used for this study [23,34]. Part-load perfor-
mance can also be carried out as correlations
governing the equipment performance are in-
cluded in the package. The performance of the
state-of-the-art power plants has been estimated
by a detailed component-wise modeling followed
by a system simulation. It involves the prepara-
tion of the process ow diagrams of the system
(power plant congurations) to be analyzed.
Then the required operating conditions for
individual components like one or more inlet or
outlet pressure, temperature, and efciencies of
pumps and motors are specied. Based on the
input data, the ow rates and state conditions of
streams, composition, and heat/work outputs are
calculated.
3.4. Performance parameters
The performance of the power plants is evaluated
in terms of plant energy efciency, Z, and exergy
efciency, e as follows [10,12]:
Plant energy efciency,
Z
Net energy output with electricity
Energy input
6
or
Z
Net work output rate
Mass flow rate of coal HHV of the coal
Plant exergy efciency,
e
Net exergy output with electricity
Exergy input
7
or
e
Net work output rate
Mass flowrate of coalSpecific exergy of the coal
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Pressure, temperature, mass ow rates of steam,
isentropic efciency of turbines, and the steam
quality at the exhaust of low-pressure (LP) turbine
obtained from the simulation of a SubC power
plant at the rated capacity of 500 MWe are shown
in Table II. Further, the stream data of a SubC-
HA coal-red power plant is shown in Table III.
As, the stream data of the steam cycle remains
same for power plants using both HA and LA
coals, only the data of streams that differ for a
SubC-LA coal-red power plant is shown in
Table IV. The same data sets for a 660 MWe
SupC power plant are shown in Tables VVII,
respectively. Further, Tables VIIIX, respectively
Table II. Steam cycle parameters of the SubC power plant at the rated capacity (500 MWe).
SubC parameters
P (bar) T (1C) _ m
steam
(kg s
1
) Isentropic Z (%)
HP turbine inlet 166.7 537.0 425.8 89.0
IP turbine inlet 39.7 537.0 380.5 90.3
LP turbine inlet 7.3 303.3 316.9 85.1
Steam quality (at LPT exhaust) 0.93
Condenser pressure (kPa) 10.3
DOI: 10.1002/er
show the same data sets for a 430 MWe USC
power plant.
4.1. Energy and exergy efciency
The comparison of net plant energy and exergy
efciencies of the SubC, SupC, and USC power
plants using HA and LA coal is shown in
Table XI. It is observed that SupC power plant
results in an increase of about 1.6 percentage
points in plant energy efciency as compared to
the SubC power plant, whereas USC power plant
results in an increase of about 6.4 percentage
points using HA coal (based on HHV). In the case
of exergy efciency, the corresponding increase is
about 1.4 and 5.8 percentage points, respectively.
The increase in both the efciencies (i.e. plant
energy and exergy) of the SupC and USC power
plants over SubC power plant is due to the
increased steam parameters (pressure, tempera-
ture) at the inlet of HP turbine. The T-s diagrams
of the simulated coal-based power plants operat-
ing on SubC, SupC, and USC steam parameters
are shown in Figures 46, respectively. Increase in
steam parameters (pressure, temperature) results
in increase in the average temperature during the
Table III. Stream data of SubC HA coal-red power plant.
Stream no.
(as indicated in Figure 1)
Pressure
(bar) Temperature (1C)
Mass ow rate
(kg s
1
)
Energy ow
rate (MW
th
)
Exergy ow
rate (MW
th
)
Coal/bottom ash
1 1.030 33.0 81.3 1287.8 1407.4
11 1.013 1050.0 7.9 10.6 6.4
Air/ue gas
2 1.013 33.0 480.9 21.8 0
3 1.040 35.9 480.9 23.3 1.1
4 1.030 297.2 480.9 153.7 37.7
5 1.010 1782.7 554.3 1411.6 975.4
5
0
1.010 1344.9 554.3 980.8 616.2
6 1.005 842.3 554.3 592.0 314.8
7 1.005 579.8 554.3 411.4 190.6
8 1.000 335.0 554.3 254.0 99.5
9 1.000 117.8 554.3 123.6 50.1
10 1.060 125.0 554.3 127.8 53.7
Water/steam
12 166.7 537.0 425.8 1387.1 613.5
13 44.1 339.4 380.5 1110.3 410.7
14 39.7 537.0 380.5 1290.9 507.5
15 7.3 303.3 316.9 927.6 266.6
16 44.1 339.4 45.3 132.1 48.9
17 17.4 416.1 21.0 66.1 22.6
18 7.3 303.3 24.0 70.4 20.2
19 2.6 192.6 12.2 33.2 7.5
20 1.3 132.1 23.3 60.6 11.3
21 0.26 65.8 10.2 24.1 2.3
22 0.103 46.4 271.2 620.3 25.6
23 0.103 46.4 335.5 18.7 0.4
24 7.3 46.5 335.5 19.0 0.6
25 193.7 170.2 425.8 252.0 50.9
26 193.7 253.2 425.8 410.2 109.1
27 187.7 324.0 425.8 567.5 180.6
28 186.2 359.8 425.8 998.4 401.5
29 1.013 33.0 15614.7 0 0
30 2.030 33.0 15614.7 2.0 1.6
31 1.030 43.0 15614.7 653.1 10.5
DOI: 10.1002/er
heat addition, which in turn raises the thermal
efciency of the cycle, and thus, the plant energy
and exergy efciencies. The study shows an
increase of about 1.01.4 percentage points in the
plant energy efciency using LA coal as compared
to the HA coal. This is due to the lower mineral
matter that increases the boiler efciency (in this
study, boiler efciency of power plants using LA
coal is about 1 percentage points higher than the
one using HA coal) and also reduces the energy
consumption of the auxiliaries for the same gross
power output. There is a drop of 2, 2.2, and 1
percentage points in auxiliary power consumption
of LA coal-based SubC, SupC, and USC power
plants, respectively, as compared to the power
plants based on HA coal. It is to be noted that an
electric driven BFP is used in the USC power plant
conguration and hence, there is only 1 percentage
point reduction in auxiliary power consumption
using LA coal as compared to the HA coal.
A signicant increase of 2.93.1 percentage points
in exergy efciency is observed using LA coal as
compared to the HA coal. This is also due to the
presence of lower mineral matter, resulting in
reduced exergy loss in the combustor. Further, it
can be observed from Table XII that the use of LA
coal results in a substantial reduction of 43% in
specic fuel consumption as compared to the HA
coal for all the three power plants. Similarly, about
4 and 16.5% reduction in specic fuel consumption
is observed for the SupC and USC power plants,
respectively, as compared to the SubC power plant.
4.2. Energy balance
An energy balance was made for SubC, SupC, and
USC power plants to quantify the losses as shown
in Table XIII. The energy losses were calculated as
the ratio of heat rejected rate to the energy input
rate (through fuel). It is observed from Table XIII
Table IV. Stream data of SubC LA coal-red power plant.
Stream no.
Pressure
Mass ow rate
(kg s
1
)
Energy ow
rate (MW
th
)
Exergy ow
rate (MW
th
)
Coal/bottom ash
1 1.030 33.0 46.4 1272.2 1320.2
11 1.013 1050.0 1.5 2.0 1.2
Air/ue gas
2 1.013 33.0 502.2 22.8 0
3 1.040 35.9 502.2 24.3 1.2
4 1.030 282.1 502.2 152.5 35.7
5 1.010 1934.7 547.0 1403.5 986.1
5
0
1.010 1396.6 547.0 972.7 623.5
6 1.005 855.8 547.0 583.9 320.4
7 1.005 585.4 547.0 403.3 195.6
8 1.000 335.0 547.0 245.9 104.3
9 1.000 117.5 547.0 117.7 55.8
10 1.060 125.0 547.0 122.1 59.4
Table V. Steam cycle parameters of the SupC power plant at the rated capacity (660 MWe).
SupC parameters
P (bar) T (1C) _ m
steam
(kg s
1
) Isentropic Z (%)
HP turbine inlet 242.2 537.0 550.7 89.6
IP turbine inlet 42.0 565.0 466.2 91.7
LP turbine inlet 2.9 215.6 173.0 85.7
DOI: 10.1002/er
that the energy losses are associated with the heat
rejection in cooling water and stack. Though the
energy rejected in cooling water is same for SubC,
SupC, and USC power plants using HA and LA
coals, the percentage loss in terms of energy
content of the input fuel into the combustor
appears slightly higher in the case of LA coal.
This is due to the slightly lower energy input
through the LA coal on account of reduced energy
loss through the bottom ash as compared to the
HA coal. However, the ratio of energy content in
the ue gas at the exit of the combustor to the
energy content in the coal remains the same for the
power plants using both HA and LA coals. The
heat rejected through the bottom ash is almost 0.6
percentage point lower in the case of LA coal as
compared to the HA coal.
4.3. Exergy balance
An exergy balance was also carried out for the
SubC, SupC and USC power plants using both
HA and LA coals as shown in Table XIV. The
exergy losses were calculated as the ratio of
Table VI. Stream data of SupC HA coal-red power plant.
Stream no.
Pressure
Mass ow rate
(kg s
1
)
Energy ow
rate (MW
th
)
Exergy ow
rate (MW
th
)
Coal/bottom ash
1 1.030 33.0 102.9 1628.3 1779.4
11 1.013 1050.0 10.1 13.4 8.0
Air/ue gas
2 1.013 33.0 608.1 27.6 0
3 1.040 35.9 608.1 29.4 1.4
4 1.030 272.1 608.1 178.2 40.4
5 1.010 1771.9 700.9 1768.7 1219.5
5
0
1.010 1046.7 700.9 937.3 539.6
6 1.005 905.2 700.9 805.1 439.5
7 1.005 542.4 700.9 488.4 220.9
8 1.000 319.0 700.9 308.3 119.4
9 1.000 122.7 700.9 159.5 63.8
10 1.060 130.0 700.9 164.8 68.4
Water/steam
12 242.2 537.0 550.7 1743.7 786.9
13 44.3 288.7 466.2 1293.0 471.4
14 42.0 565.0 466.2 1609.7 643.0
15 2.9 215.6 173.0 477.5 111.7
16 66.8 340.0 36.2 103.6 39.9
17 44.3 288.7 48.3 133.9 48.8
18 21.0 459.9 14.4 46.5 16.6
19 11.9 381.1 22.4 69.0 22.1
20 6.1 295.4 19.2 56.0 15.6
21 2.98 215.6 31.4 86.6 20.3
22 0.64 87.6 14.1 35.3 5.1
23 0.27 66.7 13.5 32.2 3.1
24 0.103 46.4 318.5 727.4 30.1
25 0.103 46.4 429.5 24.0 0.5
26 11.9 46.5 429.5 24.7 1.0
27 308.7 193.9 550.7 386.1 90.3
28 308.7 279.6 550.7 599.9 175.6
29 294.7 341.0 550.7 780.1 260.8
30 263.2 480.0 550.7 1611.5 711.7
31 1.013 33.0 18992.8 0 0
32 2.03 33.0 18992.8 2.4 1.9
33 1.03 43.0 18992.8 794.3 12.7
DOI: 10.1002/er
irreversibility rate to the exergy input rate
(through fuel). As observed from Table XIV,
exergy balance accounts for all the irreversibilities.
Energy balance leads to misapprehension because
the heat rejected in cooling water is of low grade
(the quality of energy being important rather than
its quantity). The exergy balance discloses that the
maximum exergy destruction takes place in the
steam generator dominated by irreversibilities
associated with coal combustion and heat transfer.
Thus, the design/process modications should be
focussed on the combustor/steam generator rather
than the condenser. It is also observed that the
reduced exergy losses in the steam generator of
SupC and USC power plants results in the increase
in exergy efciency. The increase in the steam
temperature in the case of SupC and USC power
plant reduces the temperature difference between
the ue gas and the steam, which in turn results in
the reduction of irreversibilities associated with
heat transfer in the steam generator. In contrast,
the heat transfer irreversibility in the steam
generator increases for the plants using LA coal
as compared to the HA coal. This is due to
relatively higher ue gas temperatures using LA
coal (higher reaction temperature) as compared to
the HA coal and hence higher temperature
difference between the ue gas and the steam
(steam parameters and excess air ratio being the
same for power plants using both the HA and LA
coals). The exergy loss in the case of steam
turbines also decreases with the increase in steam
parameters. This is due to the dryer steam exhaust
and hence, higher efciency of LP turbine.
4.4. Environmental performance
The comparison of specic emissions of the three
power plants is shown in Table XV. It is observed
that by migrating to the SupC and USC power
Table VII. Stream data of SupC LA coal-red power plant.
Stream no.
Pressure
Mass ow
rate (kg s
1
)
Energy ow
rate (MW
th
)
Exergy ow
rate (MW
th
)
Coal/bottom ash
1 1.030 33.0 58.6 1607.4 1668.0
11 1.013 1050.0 1.9 2.6 1.6
Air/ue gas
2 1.013 33.0 634.5 28.8 0
3 1.040 35.9 634.5 30.7 1.5
4 1.030 258.5 634.5 176.8 38.2
5 1.010 1921.4 691.1 1757.5 1232.3
5
0
1.010 1070.8 691.1 926.2 546.6
6 1.005 921.8 691.1 793.9 446.0
7 1.005 547.6 691.1 477.3 226.5
8 1.000 319.0 691.1 297.1 124.6
9 1.000 122.4 691.1 151.0 70.1
10 1.060 130.0 691.1 156.5 74.8
Table VIII. Steam cycle parameters of the USC power plant at the rated capacity (430 MWe).
USC parameters
P (bar) T (1C) _ m
steam
(kg s
1
) Isentropic Z (%)
HP turbine inlet 350.0 700.0 296.6 88.0
IP turbine inlet 60.0 720.0 243.1 91.5
LP turbine inlet 5.0 338.2 203.1 88.8
DOI: 10.1002/er
plants, specic emissions of CO
2
, SO
x
, NO
x
,
and particulates can be reduced by about 35%
and 1517%, respectively, as compared to the
SubC power plant. Thus, installing power plants
based on advanced steam parameters seems to be
an efcient short-term measure to mitigate bur-
geoning emissions. There is no variation in the
specic emission of CO
2
from the same power
plant using HA and LA coals as complete carbon
conversion is assumed in both the cases. It is also
observed that all the power plants result in very
low emission of SO
x
as both the coals (HA and
LA) have low sulfur content. Majority of Indian
coals have very low sulfur content (o0.6%) and
hence the coal-red power plants in India do not
have any SO
x
emission control systems; however,
it is mandatory for 500 MWe and above-sized
units to have space provision to accommodate
such systems in future [2]. There is about 43%
reduction in the specic emission of SO
x
using LA
coal as compared to the HA coal though both the
coals contain almost the same amount of sulfur.
Table IX. Stream data of USC HA coal-red power plant.
Stream no.
Pressure
Mass ow
rate (kg s
1
)
Energy ow
rate (MW
th
)
Exergy ow
rate (MW
th
)
Coal/bottom ash
1 1.030 33.0 58.4 924.8 1010.6
11 1.013 1050.0 5.7 7.6 4.6
Air/ue gas
2 1.013 33.0 345.4 15.7 0
3 1.040 35.9 345.4 16.7 0.8
4 1.030 309.8 345.4 115.0 29.2
5 1.010 1788.3 398.1 1018.3 704.4
5
0
1.010 1033.7 398.1 525.6 301.4
6 1.005 825.5 398.1 416.6 219.9
7 1.005 480.4 398.1 248.7 108.1
8 1.000 350.0 398.1 189.2 74.9
9 1.000 122.7 398.1 90.9 36.6
10 1.060 130.0 398.1 93.9 39.1
Water/steam
12 350.0 700.0 296.6 1058.6 515.5
13 63.5 429.7 243.1 756.2 298.9
14 60.0 720.0 243.1 924.1 403.6
15 5.0 338.2 203.1 610.4 167.9
16 134.0 527.8 29.8 97.2 42.2
17 75.5 437.2 23.7 73.8 29.7
18 39.1 645.3 14.3 52.1 21.3
19 15.0 491.4 7.1 23.5 8.2
20 9.6 426.1 9.5 30.1 9.6
21 5.0 338.2 9.1 27.5 7.6
22 2.4 251.1 8.8 25.0 5.7
23 1.0 163.4 8.7 23.2 4.0
24 0.4 75.2 9.1 22.7 2.5
25 0.103 46.4 176.5 415.7 17.2
26 0.103 46.4 221.7 12.4 0.2
27 15.0 46.6 221.7 12.8 0.6
28 416.5 207.1 296.6 226.5 57.5
29 416.5 330.2 296.6 397.4 131.8
30 402.5 365.0 296.6 456.8 161.6
31 371.0 590.0 296.6 949.5 445.0
32 1.013 33.0 9852.8 0 0
33 2.030 33.0 9852.8 1.3 1.0
34 1.030 43.0 9852.8 412.1 6.6
DOI: 10.1002/er
This can be attributed to the almost same
amount of reduction in specic fuel consumption
using LA coal as compared to the HA coal
(Table XII). In contrast, there is about 22%
increase in specic emission of NO
x
using LA coal
as compared to the HA coal, which is due to the
higher nitrogen content of the LA coal. There is
also a large increase of about 81% in specic
emission of particulates using HA coal as com-
pared to the LA coal for the same ESP efciency
of 99.8%, which is due to the higher mineral
matter content.
Table X. Stream data of USC LA coal-red power plant.
Stream no.
Pressure
Mass ow
rate (kg s
1
)
Energy ow
rate (MW
th
)
Exergy ow
rate (MW
th
)
Coal/bottom ash
1 1.030 33.0 33.3 913.7 948.2
11 1.013 1050.0 1.1 1.5 0.9
Air/ue gas
2 1.013 33.0 360.7 16.4 0
3 1.040 35.9 360.7 17.4 0.9
4 1.030 294.0 360.7 114.0 27.7
5 1.010 1941.7 392.9 1012.7 712.3
5
0
1.010 1055.7 392.9 520.0 305.9
6 1.005 837.9 392.9 411.0 224.1
7 1.005 483.3 392.9 243.1 111.8
8 1.000 350.0 392.9 183.6 78.6
9 1.000 122.4 392.9 87.0 40.9
10 1.060 130.0 392.9 90.2 43.6
Table XI. Comparison of efciencies.
Plant efciency (%) Exergy efciency (%)
Plant Capacity (MWe) HA LA HA LA
Subcritical 500 35.9 37.2 32.9 35.8
Supercritical 660 37.5 38.9 34.3 37.4
Ultrasupercritical 430 42.3 43.3 38.7 41.7
Figure 5. T-s diagram of a 660 MWe Supercritical
Power Plant (Numerics indicate stream numbers).
Figure 4. T-s diagram of a 500 MWe Subcritical Power
Plant (Numerics indicate stream numbers).
DOI: 10.1002/er
4.5. Part-load analysis
In order to assess the performance of the power
plants at part-load conditions, sliding pressure and
throttling control mode were simulated. The
variation of operating and performance para-
meters of HA and LA coal-based SubC power
plant at part-load conditions with sliding pressure
and throttling control are shown in Tables XVI
and XVII, respectively. Tables XVIIIXXI present
the same data sets for SupC and USC power
plants. Part-load performance was simulated up to
40% of the rated capacity as further lower loads
necessitate supplementary oil-ring [20]. The
variation of plant energy and exergy efciencies
Figure 6. T-s diagram of a 430 MWe Ultrasupercritical
Power Plant (Numerics indicate stream numbers).
Table XIII. Comparison of energy balance.
Subcritical Supercritical Ultrasupercritical
Components (%) HA LA HA LA HA LA
Power (efciency of the system) 35.9 37.2 37.5 38.9 42.3 43.3
Heat rejected in cooling water 50.7 51.3 48.8 49.4 44.6 45.1
Heat rejected through stack 9.9 9.6 10.1 9.7 10.2 9.9
Heat rejected through bottom ash 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.2
Other losses (by difference) 2.7 1.7 2.8 1.8 2.1 1.5
Table XII. Comparison of specic fuel consumption.
Specic fuel consumption (kg kWh
1
)
Plant HA % reduction (w.r.t SubC) LA % reduction (w.r.t SubC)
Subcritical 0.586 0.334
Supercritical 0.561 4.3 0.320 4.2
Ultrasupercritical 0.489 16.6 0.279 16.5
Table XIV. Comparison of exergy balance.
Subcritical Supercritical Ultrasupercritical
Components (%) HA LA HA LA HA LA
Power (efciency of the system) 32.9 35.8 34.3 37.4 38.7 41.7
Loss in combustor 32.9 27.9 33.3 28.3 32.7 27.7
Loss in steam generator (excluding combustor) 20.3 22.2 18.9 20.7 14.9 16.5
Loss in stack 3.8 4.5 3.8 4.5 3.9 4.6
Loss in turbine 3.7 4.0 3.5 3.7 3.1 3.3
Loss in condenser and cooling water 2.1 2.2 2.0 2.1 1.8 1.9
Loss in feed water heaters 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.3
Loss through bottom ash 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.1
Other losses (by difference) 2.9 2.3 2.8 2.2 3.2 2.9
DOI: 10.1002/er
Table XV. Comparison of specic emissions.
CO
2
(kg kWh
1
) SO
x
(g kWh
1
) NO
x
(g kWh
1
) Particulate matter (mg kWh
1
)
Plant HA LA HA LA HA LA HA LA
Subcritical 0.84 0.84 5.8 3.3 2.9 3.7 456.1 88.4
Supercritical 0.80 0.80 5.6 3.2 2.8 3.6 436.9 84.6
Ultrasupercritical 0.70 0.70 4.9 2.8 2.4 3.1 380.9 73.8
Table XVI. Operating and performance parameters of SubC HA and LA coal-red power plant at part-load conditions
with sliding pressure.
100% Load 80% Load 60% Load 40% Load
P
(bar)
T
(1C)
_ m
(kg s
1
)
P
(bar)
T
(1C)
_ m
(kg s
1
)
P
(bar)
T
(1C)
_ m
(kg s
1
)
P
(bar)
T
(1C)
_ m
(kg s
1
)
HP turbine inlet 166.7 537.0 425.8 132.6 537.0 334.7 101.2 537.0 251.9 70.7 537.0 173.4
IP turbine inlet 39.7 537.0 380.5 31.6 530.5 303.0 23.9 519.0 230.0 16.4 500.3 159.6
LP turbine inlet 7.3 303.3 316.9 5.9 301.1 256.6 4.5 295.0 197.9 3.2 283.2 139.6
Steam quality
(LPT exhaust)
0.934 0.938 0.946 0.963
Coal ow (t h
1
) 292.8 (167.0) 235.9 (134.4) 180.3 (102.7) 125.7 (71.5)
Final feed water
temp (1C)
253.2 239.8 226.5 210.2
Gross power
output (MWe)
500.0 400.0 300.0 200.0
Plant efciency (%) 35.9 (37.2) 35.5 (36.7) 34.7 (35.9) 32.7 (34.0)
Exergy efciency (%) 32.9 (35.8) 32.5 (35.4) 31.7 (34.6) 30.0 (32.7)
Values in brackets correspond to LA coal.
Table XVII. Operating and performance parameters of SubC HA and LA coal-red power plant at part-load
conditions with throttling control.
P
(bar)
T
(1C)
_ m
(kg s
1
)
P
(bar)
T
(1C)
_ m
(kg s
1
)
P
(bar)
T
(1C)
_ m
(kg s
1
)
P
(bar)
T
(1C)
_ m
(kg s
1
)
HP turbine inlet 166.7 537.0 425.8 133.6 523.2 341.4 102.6 509.4 261.3 72.2 494.9 182.9
IP turbine inlet 39.7 537.0 380.5 32.0 524.2 308.7 24.5 509.3 238.0 17.1 490.6 167.7
LP turbine inlet 7.3 303.3 316.9 5.9 294.7 258.3 4.6 284.5 200.1 3.2 271.4 141.7
Steam quality
(LPT exhaust)
0.934 0.936 0.943 0.962
Coal ow (t h
1
) 292.8 (167.0) 238.0 (135.6) 183.6 (104.6) 129.6 (73.7)
Final feed water
temp (1C)
253.2 240.5 227.7 211.9
Gross power
output (MWe)
500.0 400.0 300.0 200.0
Plant efciency (%) 35.9 (37.2) 35.1 (36.4) 33.9 (35.2) 31.6 (32.9)
Exergy efciency (%) 32.9 (35.8) 32.2 (35.1) 31.1 (33.9) 29.0 (31.7)
DOI: 10.1002/er
of a SupC power plant with load using HA and
LA coals and involving sliding pressure and
throttling control is shown in Figures 7 and 8,
respectively. Sliding pressure control results in
efciencies relatively higher than the throttling
control. At 40% of the rated capacity, sliding
pressure control resulted in 1.21.3 percentage
points increase in plant energy and exergy
efciencies as compared to the throttling control.
This is mainly due to the reduction of energy
consumption by the BFP at part-load operation,
which is one of the major consumer of parasitic
energy. A similar observation was made for SubC
and USC power plants using both the HA and LA
coals. There is about 1.01.2 percentage points
reduction in plant energy and exergy efciencies
using throttling control mode as compared to the
sliding pressure mode. In the case of throttling
Table XVIII. Operating and performance parameters of SupC HA and LA coal-red power plant at part-load
conditions with sliding pressure.
P
(bar)
T
(1C)
_ m
(kg s
1
)
P
(bar)
T
(1C)
_ m
(kg s
1
)
P
(bar)
T
(1C)
_ m
(kg s
1
)
P
(bar)
T
(1C)
_ m
(kg s
1
)
HP turbine inlet 242.2 537.0 550.7 195.7 537.0 435.1 149.6 537.0 325.9 104.5 537.0 223.1
IP turbine inlet 42.0 565.0 466.2 33.8 563.8 373.4 25.7 556.9 284.2 17.8 542.8 197.7
LP turbine inlet 2.9 215.6 173.0 2.5 218.4 142.2 1.9 217.4 111.1 1.4 211.9 79.4
Steam quality
(LPT exhaust)
0.932 0.946 0.966 0.994
Coal ow (t h
1
) 370.3 (211.0) 300.5 (171.3) 231.5 (131.9) 162.5 (92.5)
Final feed water
temp (1C)
279.6 268.1 253.2 234.5
Gross power
output (MWe)
660.0 528.0 396.0 264.0
Plant efciency (%) 37.5 (38.9) 36.8 (38.2) 35.7 (37.1) 33.5 (34.8)
Exergy efciency (%) 34.3 (37.5) 33.7 (36.8) 32.6 (35.7) 30.7 (33.6)
Table XIX. Operating and performance parameters of SupC HA and LA coal-red power plant at part-load
conditions with throttling control.
P
(bar)
T
(1C)
_ m
(kg s
1
)
P
(bar)
T
(1C)
_ m
(kg s
1
)
P
(bar)
T
(1C)
_ m
(kg s
1
)
P
(bar)
T
(1C)
_ m
(kg s
1
)
HP turbine inlet 242.2 537.0 550.7 197.8 519.2 448.9 152.7 499.1 345.6 107.5 476.8 242.2
IP turbine inlet 42.0 565.0 466.2 34.4 552.5 384.1 26.7 536.2 299.9 18.8 514.9 213.4
LP turbine inlet 2.9 215.6 173.0 2.5 209.1 143.8 1.9 200.3 113.4 1.4 188.5 81.6
Steam quality
(LPT exhaust)
0.932 0.941 0.956 0.981
Coal ow (t h
1
) 370.3 (211.1) 304.4 (173.4) 237.0 (135.1) 168.5 (95.9)
Final feed water
temp (1C)
279.6 268.9 255.7 236.4
Gross power output
(MWe)
660.0 528.0 396.0 264.0
Plant efciency (%) 37.5 (38.9) 36.3 (37.7) 34.8 (36.1) 32.2 (33.6)
Exergy efciency (%) 34.3 (37.5) 33.3 (36.3) 31.8 (34.8) 29.5 (32.4)
DOI: 10.1002/er
control, steam undergoes isenthalpic expansion in
the pressure-reducing valve without delivering any
work and the steam generator pressure stays
constant. Therefore, throttling control results in
signicant drop of pressure over the pressure-
reducing valves at part-load operation and thus,
results in lower turbine inlet temperatures as
compared to the sliding pressure. Figures 9 and 10
show the variation of plant energy and exergy
efciencies, respectively, for SubC, SupC, and
USC power plants using HA coal with sliding
pressure control. The decrease in efciency at
part-load operation can be attributed to the exergy
loss in the steam generator. This can be further
interpreted from Figure 11, which shows the
effect of loading on the nal feed water tempera-
ture. It is observed that the nal feed water
temperature reduces with the reduction in load,
which in turn increases the exergy loss in the
steam generator.
Table XX. Operating and performance parameters of USC HA and LA coal-red power plant at part-load conditions
with sliding pressure.
P
(bar)
T
(1C)
_ m
(kg s
1
)
P
(bar)
T
(1C)
_ m
(kg s
1
)
P
(bar)
T
(1C)
_ m
(kg s
1
)
P
(bar)
T
(1C)
_ m
(kg s
1
)
HP turbine inlet 350.0 700.0 296.6 271.1 700.0 228.6 207.1 700.0 172.4 143.2 700.0 117.6
IP turbine inlet 60.0 720.0 243.1 47.6 707.5 193.7 36.4 694.3 148.8 25.2 679.2 103.5
LP turbine inlet 5.0 338.2 203.1 4.0 331.4 162.9 3.1 324.3 126.3 2.2 316.3 89.0
Steam quality
(LPT exhaust)
0.961 0.971 0.988 1.000
Coal ow (t h
1
) 210.3 (119.9) 170.3 (97.1) 131.8 (75.1) 92.5 (52.7)
Final feed water
temp (1C)
330.2 309.1 291.7 269.2
Gross power output
(MWe)
430.0 344.0 258.0 172.0
Plant efciency (%) 42.3 (43.3) 41.7 (42.6) 40.4 (41.3) 38.1 (39.0)
Exergy efciency (%) 38.7 (41.7) 38.1 (41.0) 36.9 (39.8) 34.8 (37.6)
Table XXI. Operating and performance parameters of USC HA and LA coal-red power plant at part-load conditions
with throttling control.
P
(bar)
T
(1C)
_ m
(kg s
1
)
P
(bar)
T
(1C)
_ m
(kg s
1
)
P
(bar)
T
(1C)
_ m
(kg s
1
)
P
(bar)
T
(1C)
_ m
(kg s
1
)
HP turbine inlet 350.0 700.0 296.6 270.4 681.5 230.9 206.3 665.3 175.7 142.7 647.7 121.0
IP turbine inlet 60.0 720.0 243.1 48.1 702.8 195.9 37.1 686.8 151.8 25.9 668.5 106.6
LP turbine inlet 5.0 338.2 203.1 4.0 328.9 165.2 3.1 319.8 129.4 2.2 309.6 92.1
Steam quality
(LPT exhaust)
0.961 0.969 0.985 1.000
Coal ow (t h
1
) 210.3 (119.9) 170.6 (97.2) 132.1 (75.3) 92.9 (52.9)
Final feed water
temp (1C)
330.2 309.3 291.9 269.5
Gross power
output (MWe)
430.0 344.0 258.0 172.0
Plant efciency (%) 42.3 (43.3) 41.3 (42.2) 39.7 (40.6) 37.1 (38.0)
Exergy efciency (%) 38.7 (41.7) 37.8 (40.7) 36.3 (39.1) 33.9 (36.6)
DOI: 10.1002/er
5. CONCLUSIONS
The present study carried out to analyze the
energy, exergy, and environmental performance
of the coal power plants based on conventional
and advanced steam parameters and to nd
the effect of HA coal as compared to the LA coal
has resulted in many useful ndings. The maxi-
mum possible plant energy efciency in Indian
climatic conditions using HA coal appears to
be 42.3% for an USC power plant. There was
a substantial increase of about 43% in fuel
consumption and also a signicant decrease of
about 3% in plant exergy efciency using HA
coal as compared to the LA coal for all the
three power plants. The exergy balance discloses
Figure 9. Variation of plant energy efciency with load
for HA coal.
Figure 7. Variation of plant energy efciency with load
for different part-load control operation of a SupC
power plant.
Figure 10. Variation of exergy efciency with load for
HA coal.
Figure 8. Variation of exergy efciency with load for
different part-load control operation of a SupC power plant.
Figure 11. Variation of feed water temperature with
load.
DOI: 10.1002/er
that the maximum exergy destruction takes place
in the steam generator dominated by irreversi-
bilities associated with coal combustion and
heat transfer. So, exergy analysis gives us insight
that the design/process modications should be
focussed on the combustor/steam generator
rather than the condenser. A reduction of about
35% and 1517% in specic emission of CO
2
,
SO
x
, NO
x
, and particulates was observed by
migrating to SupC and USC power plants,
respectively, as compared to the SubC power
plant. Therefore, installing power plants based
on advanced steam parameters seems to be an
efcient short-term measure to mitigate burgeon-
ing emissions. The part-load performance shows
that the sliding pressure control results in higher
efciencies across the load as compared to the
throttling control. Thus, it is anticipated that 3-E
analysis will aid in decision-making through the
selection of appropriate technology for future
capacity addition.
NOMENCLATURE
h 5specic enthalpy (kJ kg
1
)
_
I 5irreversibility rate (kW)
_ m 5mass ow rate (kg s
1
)
_
N 5molar ow rate (kmol s
1
)
_
Q 5heat transfer rate (kW)
T 5temperature (1C)
_
W 5work rate (kW)
Greek symbols
Z 5plant energy efciency (%)
e 5plant exergy efciency (%)
c 5specic exergy (kJ kg
1
)
Acronyms
3-E 5energy, exergy, and environment
HA 5high ash
LA 5low ash
SubC 5subcritical
SupC 5supercritical
USC 5ultrasupercritical
Subscripts
cv 5control volume
e 5exit
i 5inlet
j 5boundary
o 5reference/dead state
p 5production
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Authors thank Ir. Theo Woudstra and Ir. Nico
Woudstra, Delft University of Technology for providing
the technical support for Cycle-Tempo.
REFERENCES
1. Ministry of Coal (MOC), Government of India, 2008.
Available from: http://www.coal.nic.in/. Accessed on
October 10, 2008.
2. Central Electricity Authority (CEA). Installed Generation
Capacity as on January 31, 2009, CEA, Government
of India, 2009. Available from: http://www.cea.nic.in/.
Accessed on March 4, 2009.
3. Gaggioli RA, Petit PJ. Use the second law rst. Chemtech
1977; 7:496506.
4. Moran MJ, Sciubba E. Exergy analysis: principles and
practice. Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power
1994; 116:285290.
5. Rosen MA. Second-law analysis: approaches and implica-
tions. International Journal of Energy Research 1999; 23:
415429.
6. Dincer I, Cengel YA. Energy, entropy and exergy concepts
and their roles in thermal engineering. Entropy 2001; 3(3):
116149.
7. Cengel YA, Boles MA. Thermodynamics: An Engineering
Approach (5th edn). Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing
Company Limited: New Delhi, 2006.
8. Habib MA, Said SAM, Al-Bagawi JJ. Thermodynamic
performance analysis of the Ghazlan power plant. Energy
1995; 20(11):11211130.
9. Dincer I, Al-Muslim H. Thermodynamic analysis of reheat
cycle steam power plants. International Journal of Energy
Research 2001; 25:727739. DOI: 10.1002/er.717.
10. Rosen MA. Energy- and exergy-based comparison of coal-
red and nuclear steam power plants. Exergy International
Journal 2001; 1(3):180192.
11. Sengupta S, Datta A, Duttagupta S. Exergy analysis of a
coal-based 210 MW thermal power plant. International
Journal of Energy Research 2007; 31:1428. DOI:
10.1002/er.1224.
12. Rosen MA, Tang R. Effect of altering combustion air ow
on a steam power plant: Energy and exergy analysis.
International Journal of Energy Research 2007; 31:219231.
DOI: 10.1002/er.1242.
DOI: 10.1002/er
13. Kopac M, Hilaci A. Effect of ambient temperature
on the efciency of the regenerative and reheat Catalagzi
power plant in Turkey. Applied Thermal Engineering 2007;
27:13771385. DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2006.10.029.
14. Ameri M, Ahmadi P, Hamidi A. Energy, exergy and
exergoeconomic analysis of a steam power plant: A case
study. International Journal of Energy Research 2009;
33:499512. DOI: 10.1002/er.1495.
15. Bugge J, Kjaer S, Blum R. High-efciency coal-red power
plants development and perspectives. Energy 2006; 31:
14371445.
16. Cihan A, Hachafzoglu O, Kahveci K. Energy-exergy
analysis and modernization suggestions for a combined-
cycle power plant. International Journal of Energy Research
2006; 30:115126. DOI: 10.1002/er.1133.
17. Hammond GP, Akwe SSO. Thermodynamic and related
analysis of natural gas combined cycle combined cycle
power plants with and without carbon sequestration.
International Journal of Energy Research 2007; 31:
11801201. DOI: 10.1002/er.1328.
18. Reddy BV, Chui KF, Gnanapragasam NV, Prasad RC.
Energy and exergy analyses of a CFBbased indirectly
red combined cycle power generation system. Inter-
national Journal of Energy Research 2009. DOI:
10.1002/er.1537.
19. Central Electricity Authority. Report of the Committee to
Recommend Next Higher Size of Coal Fired Thermal Power
Stations. Ministry of Power, Government of India,
November 2003. Available from: http://www.cea.nic.in/
thermal/Special_reports/index_special_reports_thermal.htm.
Accessed on August 25, 2008.
20. National Thermal Power Corporation LimitedEngineer-
ing Ofce Complex, Noida, India. Private communication,
2008.
21. DONG Energy Generation, Denmark. Private communi-
cation, 2008.
22. Baehr HD. Die Exergie von Kohle und Heizoel (the exergy
of coal and fuel oil). BWK Band 39, Nr.1/2, January/
February 1987; 4245.
23. Delft University of Technology. Cycle-Tempo Release 5.0,
Delft University of Technology, 2008. See also http://
www.tudelft.nl/live/pagina.jsp?id 58c53f82e-a500-41f1-
971b-629e832bfbef&lang 5en. Accessed on November
20, 2008.
24. Barroso J, Ballester J, Ferrer LM, Jimenez S. Study of coal
ash deposition in an entrained ow reactor: Inuence of
coal type, blend composition and operating conditions.
Fuel Processing Technology 2006; 87:737752.
25. Srinivas T, Gupta AVSSKS, Reddy BV. General thermo-
dynamic analysis of steam power cycles with n number of
feedwater heaters. International Journal of Thermodynamics
2007; 10(4):177185.
26. U.S. Department of Energy. Market-based Advanced Coal
Power Systems, Washington, 1999. Available from: http://
www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/refshelf/market
based_systems_report.pdf. Accessed on September 11, 2008.
27. Frankland SC, Johar JMS. Technical and economic
feasibility of low ash power station fuel in India. Report
No.COAL R254 DTI/Pub URN 04/822, March, 2004.
Available from: http://www.berr.gov.uk/les/le20565.pdf.
Accessed on January 25, 2008.
28. Bellhouse GM, Whittington HW. Simulation of gaseous
emissions from electricity generating plant. Electrical Power
& Energy Systems 1996; 18(8):501507.
29. Phong-Anant D, Wibberley LJ, Wall TF. Nitrogen oxide
formation from Australian coals. Combustion and Flame
1985; 62:2130.
30. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. External
Combustion Sources (5th edn), vol. I, Chapter 1, AP42,
2008. See also http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/
index.html. Accessed on November 20, 2008.
31. Bhanarkar AD, Gavane AG, Tajne DS, Tamhane SM,
Nema P. Composition and size distribution of particules
emissions from a coal-red power plant in India. Fuel 2008;
87:20952101.
32. Moran MJ, Shapiro HN. Fundamentals of Engineering
Thermodynamics (4th edn). Wiley: New York, 2000.
33. Dunbar WR, Lior N. Combining fuel cells with fuel-red
power plants for improved exergy efciency. Energy 1991;
16(10):12591274.
34. Delft University of Technology. Cycle-Tempo Reference
Manual, Delft University of Technology, 2008.
DOI: 10.1002/er

3-E Analysis of Advanced Power Plants Based On High Ash Coal

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

3-E Analysis of Advanced Power Plants Based On High Ash Coal

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCH

Int. J. Energy Res. (2009)

Potrebbero piacerti anche