Energy Conversion and Management 228 (2021) 113607

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

Evaluation of power and freshwater production based on integrated gas

turbine, S-CO2, and ORC cycles with RO desalination unit
M.H. Khoshgoftar Manesh a, b, P. Firouzi a, S. Kabiri b, A.M. Blanco-Marigorta c, *
a
Division of Thermal Science & Energy Systems, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Technology & Engineering, University of Qom, Qom, Iran
b
Center of Environmental Research, University of Qom, Qom, Iran
c
Department of Process Engineering, Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Edificio de Ingenierías-Tafira Baja, 35017 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this paper, the simultaneous production of power and freshwater by the integration of a gas turbine (GT), a
SCO2 supercritical carbon dioxide (S-CO2) cycle, an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) and a reverse osmosis (RO) desali­
ORC nation unit is proposed. The S-CO2 and the ORC are bottoming cycles that recover the waste heat from the
Brayton cycle
exhaust gases of the GT. A RO seawater desalination unit has been added to this power generation cycle to
Reverse osmosis (RO)
Exergetic
produce low-cost freshwater. The thermodynamic modelling and the simulation of the integrated cycle are
Exergoeconomic performed. In addition, exergetic, exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental analyses have been carried out.
Exergoenvironmental Cyclopentane has been chosen as working fluid of the ORC. The results show that the total energy generated by
the cycles is about 75.1 MW; the compressors and pumps consume 44% and the rest is sent to the electricity grid.
The integration of the S-CO2 cycle with the gas turbine increases the total efficiency by 10.9%. Also, the addition
of the ORC to this integration, improves the efficiency by about 2%. The cost of power generation in the gas
turbine is about 0.604 $/s, in the turbine of the S-CO2 cycle about 0.182 $/s and in the turbine of ORC cycle
about 0.036 $/s. The cost of freshwater production in the RO unit with 5 MW of power consumption is 0.88
$/m3. The results show that the proposed combined GT/S-CO2/ORC/RO regenerative system is promising in
terms of waste heat recovery from gas turbines. As advantages, deep waste heat recovery, high exergetic effi­
ciency, and low power and freshwater costs have been achieved.

Usually, a steam cycle is used as downstream process in order to recover

the waste heat in the gas turbine cycle, and to increase the overall ef­
1. Introduction
ficiency of the combined cycle [6]. Another option that has attracted
researcher’s attention in the past few years is the supercritical carbon
In recent years, the use of gas turbines has increased significantly.
dioxide (S-CO2) cycle [7]. This cycle can take better profit of the high
This is due to their fast start-up, flexible operation, short-term con­
output temperatures of the gas turbine [8]. High efficiency, low physical
struction capability and low environmental impact. And, in the coming
footprint, and the use of small and compact heat exchangers and
decades, gas turbines are expected to be one of the main technologies for
turbomachinery components are other important advantages of the S-
reducing CO2 emissions in the power generation sector [1]. The most
CO2 cycle. Ahn et al. [9] showed that the S-CO2 cycle has a wide variety
effective way to reduce CO2 emissions is to improve process efficiency.
of applications when integrated with gas turbine cycles. In addition, the
Therefore, increasing the efficiency of gas turbines is becoming the focus
S-CO2 cycle can be the background cycle for various heat sources such as
of technology development.
fossil fuels, nuclear energy, waste heat, and renewables. Kim et al. [10]
investigated nine S-CO2 cycles. They used a sensitivity analysis of
1.1. Combination of GT/S-CO2/ORC for power generation
operational parameters, such as ambient temperature, to show the
importance of waste heat recovery. They conclude that the recovery
One of the most effective ways to increase gas turbine efficiency is
process is much more important than the intercooling for increasing the
the combination or integration of cycles, taking advantage of the high
thermal efficiency. Zhang et al. [11] evaluated the heat transfer and the
exhaust temperatures [2,3]. This way, the efficiency of the gas turbine
performance of the S-CO2 cycle as a bottoming cycle of a gas heater.
combined cycle could reach 40–50% with the best technologies [4,5].

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (A.M. Blanco-Marigorta).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113607
Received 29 November 2019; Received in revised form 22 October 2020; Accepted 25 October 2020
Available online 26 November 2020
0196-8904/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.H. Khoshgoftar Manesh et al. Energy Conversion and Management 228 (2021) 113607

Nomenclature RO reverse osmosis

rp Pressure ratio
A Area RR Recovery Ratio
AC Air compressor s entropy
B Brine T Temperature
b environmental impact per exergy unit TIT Turbine Inlet Temperature
Ḃ environmental impact rate Ẇ power
bm environmental impact per mass unit w weight
c cost per exergy unit x mole fraction
CC Combustion chamber X salinity
Ċ cost rate y environmental impact of the component
Cond Condenser Ẏ environmental impact rate of the equipment
cp specific heat at constant pressure Ż Cost rate of the equipment
Cr compression ratio
CRF Capital Recovery Factor Greek letters
e specific exergy γ ratio of the specific heats
Ė Exergy rate Δ Difference
f exergoeconomic factor ε exergetic efficiency
F Feed η efficiency
fb exergoenvironmental factor Φ maintenance factor
GT Gas Turbine ρ density
h enthalpy п osmotic pressure
J specific mass flow rate Subscripts
LHV Lower Heating Value 0 ambient condition
ṁ Mass Flow Rate D Destruction
MW molecular weight F Fuel
N annual operating hours of the system k counter of components
P Pressure P Product
PEC Purchase Equipment Cost sw seawater
Q Heat Duty
r relative cost difference Superscripts
rb relative environmental impact difference * restricted dead state
rp Compression ratio 0 global dead state
R Universal Gas Constant

They showed that the thermal boundary conditions had a negligible efficiency processes [20]. The use of the ORC as bottoming cycle to
effect on the heat transfer and the performance of the S-CO2 cycle. Li recover waste heat is also economically feasible [21,22]. It can reduce
et al. [12] reported the supercritical cycle, S-CO2, in different industries the operating costs of the cycle to shorten the payback period and in­
especially with nuclear and solar sources of energy. Their results proved crease the economic justification of the industrial units [23]. Ghoreishi
that the S-CO2 power generation cycle achieved the maximum efficiency et al. [24] performed an economical and technical analysis of an ORC
in a waste heat temperature range of about 450–600 ◦ C. Manjunath et al. recovering waste heat from an exhaust gas stream. Li et al. [25] inves­
[13] focused on the discussion of the optimal use of the S-CO2 cycle as a tigated energy conversion cycles with critical and supercritical CO2, and
bottoming cycle for waste heat recovery. They used thermodynamic with R245fa as working fluids. These cycles were compared in terms of
relations (energy and exergy) to compare the cycle performance with thermodynamics and power generation. The results showed that the
and without the S-CO2 cycle. The output power of the integrated cycle higher the temperature of the heat source, the higher the efficiency of
was increased by about 18%, the energetic performance by 12%, and the the integrated cycles. Wang et al. [26] studied two combined cogene­
exergy efficiency by15%. Garg et al. [14] used a S-CO2 cycle as bot­ ration cycles where the waste heat from a recompression S-CO2 was
toming cycle of a thermal solar power plant. The results showed that the recovered by either a transcritical CO2 cycle or an ORC for generating
integration increased the efficiency of the plant by about 30%. Wang electricity. The results showed that when the optimization was con­
et al. [15] investigated the exergetic and economic performance of a ducted based on exergoeconomics, the total product unit cost of the S-
cogeneration plant integrated with a S-CO2 cycle. They used an opti­ CO2/ORC was slightly lower than that of the sCO2/tCO2 cycle. Cha­
mization procedure to calculate the optimum temperature of the waste cartegui et al. [27] proposed a combined cycle that comprised a topping
heat at which the highest efficiency of the cogeneration plant is ach­ carbon dioxide gas turbine and a bottoming organic Rankine cycle. The
ieved. The results revealed that an increase in the temperature of the results showed that this cycle was a promising technology for waste heat
waste heat led to a decrease in the total cost rate and the total cost rate of recovery, with the potential to compete in terms of efficiency and costs
exergy destruction of the system. with other conventional technologies.
Moreover, an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) could be added down­ Just a couple of papers related to the combination of all three power
stream the heat recovery generator of the S-CO2 cycle for further use of production processes GT/S-CO2/ORC have been found in the literature.
the remaining heat of the exhaust gases [16]. This cycle is very suitable Hou et al. [28] proposed a combined supercritical CO2 regenerative
for the low temperature range of the waste heat after the SCO2 cycle cycle and organic Rankine cycle using zeotropic mixtures for waste heat
[17,18]. The ORC cycle has already been experienced in a variety of recovery of a gas turbine. They performed an Exergoeconomic analysis
industries with low waste heat temperatures [19], resulting in high and several parametric studies to investigate the effect of system

2
M.H. Khoshgoftar Manesh et al. Energy Conversion and Management 228 (2021) 113607

Fig. 1. Schematic of combined Brayton, CO2 supercritical and organic Rankine cycle with reverse osmosis plant.

3
M.H. Khoshgoftar Manesh et al. Energy Conversion and Management 228 (2021) 113607

Table 1
Thermodynamic relations for each component together with input and output parameters.
Cycle Component Input Output Thermodynamic relation
1/δ
Gas turbine cycle Compressor T1 , P 1 h1 , h2 , ẆAC T2 = T1(1 + 1/η(rp)δ− − 1)
rp, η ẆAC = ṁair (h2 − h1 )
Combustion chamber ΔP, ṁfuel , h3 , h4 ṁg = ṁfuel + ṁair
LHV, ṁair /ṁfuel ṁair *h3 + ṁf *LHV = ṁg *h4
p4 = p3 * (1 − Δp)
Heat exchanger 1 T6 − T13 = 77 h5 ṁair *(h3 − h2 )*(1 − 0.05) = ṁg *(h5 − h6 )
ṁg P6 = P5 × (1 − ΔPRE1)
Δp h − h2
ε = 3
ε h5 − h2
Gas turbine T4 , T5 ẆGT , Ẇnet P3 = P2 × (1 − ΔPRE1)
ẆGT = ṁg *(h4 − h5 )
Ẇnet = ẆGT − ẆAC
SCO2 Heat exchanger 2 T7 − T12 = 24.7 ṁS− CO2 mg *(h6 − h7 )*(1 − 0.05) = ṁS− CO2 *(h13 − h12 )
ΔP P7 = P6(1 − ΔP)
Turbine T13, P13, h13 h14 P14 = P10
ηT1 Ẇ h − h14
η = 13
h13 − h14s
Ẇ = ṁS− CO2 (h14 − h13 )
Heat exchanger 3 ε h12 ṁS− CO2 *(h14 − h15 ) = ṁS− CO2 *(h12 − h11 )
T15 − T11 = 24.8 p15 = p10 = p14
h − h11
ε = 12
h14 − h11
Cooler 1 T23 − T22 = 5 ṁwater . ṁwater *(h23 − h22 ) = ṁS− CO2 *(h16 − h10 )
P16 = p10
Compressor T10, P10η h11 h11s − h10
η =
h11 − h10
p11 = p13
ORC Heat exchanger 4 T15 − T19 = 5 h16 ṁS− CO2 *(h15 − h16 ) = ṁcyclopentane *(h19 − h18 )
P19 = P18 = P20
Heat exchanger 5 h20, P8, T8, h8 ṁ.cyclopentane ṁg *(h7 − h8 ) = ṁcyclopentane *(h20 − h19 )
Δp P8 = P7(1 − ΔP)
Turbine T20, P20, h20 h21 h21 − h20
η =
ηT2 Ẇ h21s − h20
P21 = P17
Heat exchanger 6 h17 ṁ.water ṁwater *(h25 − h24 ) = ṁcyclopentane (h21 − h17 )
T25 − T24 = 5
Pump η h18 h18s − h17
η =
P18 h18 − h17
Ẇ = ṁcyclopentane (h18 − h17 )
p18 = p20
Freshwater production RO ṁFeed ṁD , ṁB ṁD Jw
RR = RR = RR|T=25◦ C /T ×
Tfeed, pfeed RR25 ṁF Jw |T=25◦ C
RR ẆRO ṁF = ṁD + ṁB
e = 2 × 10− 6[m] ṁF = ṁcwd,MED
( 3)
m ṁF (pFeed − p2 ) × 100
Vw = 18 ẆRO =
mol ρ × ηpump
Cw = ρ Dw Cw Vw
Jw = {(pF − pD ) − (πF − πD ) }
MWw RTe
ηRO− pump 385 × sali × Ti
πi =
0.14507(1000 − 10sali )
T : average Temp
e : membrane thickness
Vw : water molar volume
Cw : water concentration
k × T[K]
Dw =
3πF μw ds
ds = 0.076 m
ds : Stocks diameter
MW : Molcular Weight
salF
salB =
1 − RR
h2 − RR × h3
h4 =
1 − RR

4
M.H. Khoshgoftar Manesh et al. Energy Conversion and Management 228 (2021) 113607

parameters on the exergy efficiency and the unit cost of electricity. The
obtained results revealed the superiority of the combined regenerative
S-CO2 cycle and ORC compared to the basic S-CO2/ORC. Then, they
concluded that the proposed system was suitable for gas turbine waste
heat recovery, and it had advantages of deep utilization of waste heat,
high efficiency, and low cost. In another article [29] the same authors
combined this cogeneration system GT/S-CO2/ORC with a steam power
cycle. The results of their exergoeconomic optimization showed the
superiority of the cogeneration system. Wang et al. [30] carried out an
exergoeconomic analysis on a trigeneration system containing super­
critical CO2 Brayton cycle, organic Rankine cycle and absorption
refrigeration cycle for gas turbine waste heat recovery. They compared
the effects of different ORC working fluids on the whole system per­
formance. Also, the performances of the proposed cycle under different
objectives were analyzed and compared. Cardenas-Gutiérrez et al. [31]
article dealt with energy, exergetic and thermo-economic performance
of combined Brayton S-CO2-ORC configurations as bottoming cycles.
They compared the use of cyclohexane, acetone and toluene as working
fluids and their results showed that cyclohexane was the organic fluid
that presented the best thermo-economic performance.

1.2. Integration of freshwater production via reverse osmosis with the

power generation cycle

Water stress in the Middle East and North Africa is increasing, and
the supply of high quality, healthy water has become a clear issue. Iran,
located in the Middle East region, has been facing a water crisis in recent
years. Reduced rainfall and misuse of existing water resources, espe­
cially in the agricultural sector, has led the country to meet major
challenges in providing healthy, high-quality water. As an indication, it
can be noted that the magnitude of precipitation in 2017 was reduced by
25.8% compared to 2016 and by 52.9% compared to a longer period
[32]. RO is the most-effective desalination technology due to its low
energy consumption. The integration of reverse osmosis with power
generation cycles makes the production of fresh water affordable from
the energetic point of view. In many articles, the production of fresh­
water by a RO unit along with a power generation cycle has been
investigated. For example, Caldera et al. [33] demonstrated how sea
water reverse osmosis plants could be powered just by renewable en­
ergy. Their results showed that for some regions with high water de­ Fig. 2. Procedure for the design of the RO unit.
mand, the levelized cost of water (LCOW), which includes water
production, electricity, water transport, and water storage costs, is ex­ simultaneously, by the integration of GT/S-CO2/ORC/RO, has not been
pected to be within the range of 0.59 euros/m3 to 2.81 euros/m3 by previously investigated. In this study, the GT is used as the main cycle
2030. Poullikkas [34] investigated the integration of a RO unit with a for the production of power, and the S-CO2 and ORC cycles are down­
mixed air steam turbine in terms of technical and economic aspects. The stream cycles that recover energy from the waste heat of gas turbine
results indicated that by increasing the load factor of the RO unit, the exhaust gases. The generated power is used to feed a reverse osmosis
price of fresh water decreased. Almutairi et al. [35] proposed a 100-MW unit, and the remaining power is sent to the power grid. The integrated
gas turbine integrated with a RO unit to form a cogeneration plant. The system has been analyzed from the thermodynamic, exergetic, exer­
results showed that the exergetic efficiency of the gas turbine, the RO goeconomic and exergoenvironmental points of view. Previous research
unit, and the cogeneration plant were 44.3, 32.83, and 47.6%, respec­ by Hou et al. on a GT/S-CO2/ORC system [28,29], is taken here as a
tively. Many other articles could be cited. But, directly related to the reference. But our report is a novelty that complements the above-
topic of this study, we have just found the paper written by Eveloy et al. mentioned studies, since they do not consider the production of drink­
[36], who investigated a hybrid gas turbine and ORC plant to power a ing water nor environmental analysis. Increasing the efficiency of a GT
RO unit using the waste heat of the exhaust gases. In their study, as a by using two downstream cycles, S-CO2, and ORC, producing high
result of process integration, the hybrid plant increased its efficiency by quality fresh water with a high efficiency process, and evaluating the
about 12% and produced 2260 m3/h of freshwater. economic and environmental aspects of the integrated system are the
In this paper the simultaneous production of power and freshwater most important goals of this article.
by the integration of GT/S-CO2/ORC/RO is proposed. Based on the re­
view of the literature, we have found that there is great interest in the
study of integrated cycles, especially when it comes to waste heat re­
covery from a GT. In addition, the production of power and freshwater

5
M.H. Khoshgoftar Manesh et al. Energy Conversion and Management 228 (2021) 113607

2. Problem definition Thermodynamics energy has quality, and practical processes will reduce
energy quality. The high-temperature body heat, when transmitted to
The schematic diagram of the coupling of the gas turbine, the su­ the low-temperature object, causes the body to be reduced to a lower
percritical CO2 regeneration cycle, and the ORC, along with the RO unit, degree of energy. Efforts to quantify the quality or potentiality of energy
is presented in Fig. 1. Gas turbine fuel is natural gas. The exhaust gases in the light of the Second Law of Thermodynamics have led to the
from the gas turbine enter the heat exchanger 1 at a temperature of definition of the properties of entropy and exergy.
approximately 650 ◦ C and preheat the compressor exhaust air. The Total exergy is the sum of physical and chemical exergy, neglecting
exhaust gases from the gas turbine then enter the heat exchanger 2, at a other contributions such as kinetic or potential exergy. For a material
temperature of approximately 450 ◦ C, to provide the heat required for stream, the physical and chemical exergies, ePH and eCH, are calculated
the S-CO2 cycle. Next, the combustion gases from the heat exchanger 2 by Eqs.(1) and (2) respectively:
are fed into the heat exchanger 5 to provide the heat for the ORC cycle.
ePH = (h − h0 ) − T0 (s − s0 ) (1)
The temperature of the S-CO2 after the expansion and the heat
exchanger 3, stream 15, is still high. Therefore, stream 15 is used to
where h, s denote, respectively, the enthalpy and entropy of the system
preheat the organic working fluid in heat exchanger 4.
at the specified state, and h0, and s0 are the values of the same properties
The assumptions for the simulation of this cycle are the following:
when the system is at ambient temperature, T0, and pressure, p0.
∑ ∑
• The cycle works under steady state conditions. eCH = xk eCH
k + RT0 xk ln(xk ) (2)
• Potential and kinetic energy changes are negligible.
• The ambient temperature and pressure are 25 ◦ C and 1.013 bar, where xk is the mole fraction of component k, eCH
k the chemical exergy
respectively. per mole of component k, and R the Universal Gas Constant.
• The isentropic efficiency of the gas turbine is 90%, of the S-CO2 cycle An exergy balance provides the exergy destroyed in a component,
90%, and of the ORC 85%. ĖD,k , by:
• The isentropic efficiencies of the GT and S-CO2 cycle compressors,
and of the ORC pump are assumed to be 80%, 85% and 80%, ĖD,k = ĖF,k − ĖP,k (3)
respectively.
where F and P denote the fuel and product respectively. The product is
Because the temperature of the combustion gases entering the ORC the sum of all exergy values to be considered at the outlet plus all the
for heat supply is approximately 200 ◦ C, this cycle is considered a high- exergy increases between inlet and outlet that are in accord with the
temperature ORC. Therefore, an organic fluid suitable for that temper­ purpose of the component. The fuel is the sum of all the exergy values to
ature should be used. Cyclopentane has been selected for this work due be considered at the inlet, plus all the exergy increases between inlet and
to its thermophysical conditions, its stability, and its respect for the outlet, minus all the exergy increases between inlet and outlet that are
environment [37]. not in accord with the purpose of the component [39]. The exergetic
The reverse osmosis desalination unit consists of a seawater high efficiency of each component can be, then, determined from:
pressure pump, with 50% efficiency, and a unit of RO membranes, that
ĖP,k
use SEAMAXX elements. The TDS concentration of seawater is taken as ψk = (4)
ĖF,k
45,000 mg/l. Feedwater pressure and temperature are 1.013 bar and
25 ◦ C, respectively. Four different scenarios have been considered in
terms of the power demanded by the desalination unit: 5, 4, 3 and 2 MW. 3.3. Exergoeconomic analysis
As a result, the required feed water flow was 400.4, 319.9, 240, and 160
kg/s, respectively. The optimum plant must not only be in its best thermodynamic
condition, but it must also be economically optimal. Since financial is­
3. Method sues are always an inevitable part of engineering analyses, economic
quantities have been merged into thermodynamic calculations, giving
3.1. Thermodynamic analysis origin to the so-called exergoeconomic analyses.
Here, the exergoeconomic analysis has been performed following the
The thermodynamic relations used in the modelling and simulation guidelines of Bejan et al. [40]. The cost rate associated with capital in­
of each component are presented in Table 1. MATLAB code has been vestment and operating and maintenance expenses of the k-component
used to perform the system simulation. In addition, a simulation of the can be determined by [38]:
proposed system has been done in Thermoflex to verify the thermody­ Φk × PECk × CRF
namic simulation code. Ż k = (5)
3600 × N
The modelling of the RO unit has been performed following El-Emam
In Eq.(5)Φk is the maintenance factor and clarify the effect of the
et al. [38] procedure. A flowchart of this procedure is presented in Fig. 2.
maintenance costs on the total cost rate of the equipment. It can be
considered as 1.06 [40,41]. The purchase equipment cost, PEC, can be
3.2. Exergy analysis calculated with the equations reported by Bejan et al. [40]. N is the life
of the plant in years, which here is considered to be 25 years [40]. The
The first thermodynamic knowledge was established based on two capital recovery factor, CRF, can be evaluated by [40].
main natural laws called First and Second Law. The First Law of Ther­
modynamics simply refers to the law of energy conservation. The law i × (1 + i)N
CRF = (6)
states that energy is a thermodynamic property and that in each reac­ (1 + i)N − 1
tion, energy can be transformed into a different form, but the total
amount of energy remains constant. According to the Second Law of where i denotes the average annual effective discount rate (cost of

6
M.H. Khoshgoftar Manesh et al. Energy Conversion and Management 228 (2021) 113607

Table 2 Table 3
Values of the environmental impact per weight unit of the Weight functions of the equipment.
equipment. Component wk (ton)
( )
Component mpts
bmk Compressor 100Pout × D × FS
kg 2σ
Compressor 72 FS = 2, v = 15m/s, σ = 15.8
Combustion chamber 585 Combustion chamber 100Pout × D × FS
Gas turbine 646 2σ
Heat exchanger 28 FS = 1.6, v = 6.2m/s, σ = 45.6
Turbine 646 Gas Turbine 100Pout × D × FS
Cooler 28 2σ
Pump 133 FS = 2, v = 13m/s, σ = 5.9
Heat exchanger 2.989 × Q̇
0.97
P < 25 bar
1.15
2.340 × Q̇ P > 25 bar
money).
In order to find the values of the cost per exergy unit of all the Turbine 4.90 × Ẇ
0.73

streams, ci, exergoeconomic balances for each component, Eqs.(8) and Cooler 0.073 × Q̇
0.99

(9), should be written down [40]. As a result, a system of equations is Pump 0.95
0.0061 × Ẇ
formed, that needs to be solved. A matrix approach has been developed
to work out this problem. Note: D is the diameter in m, v is the velocity in m/s, FS is the safety factor, σ is
After determining the cost per exergy unit of all the streams, ci,this the fatigue stress in MPa, Q̇ is the heat duty in MW, Ẇ is the power in MW, and
cost is multiplied by the exergy rate, Ėi , to obtain the cost rate of the ṁ is the mass flow rate in kg/s.
streams, Ċi , [40]:
3.4. Exergoenvironmental analysis
Ċi = ci ∙Ėi (7)
Then, a cost balance applied to the k-th component expresses that the In the recent decades, researchers and industries have taken envi­
total cost of the exiting streams equals the total cost of the entering ronmental issues into substantial account. Energy production systems
streams plus the cost associated with capital investment and operating have a remarkable number of impacts on the environment, so analyzing
and maintenance expenses of the k-component: these systems from an environmental point of view to reduce damage
seems to be essential.
∑ ∑ In this paper, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has been used as a tool to
n m
Ċi,in + Ż k = Ċi,out (8)
i=1 i=1
study the environmental aspects of the system. This analysis takes into
account the impacts of each part of system in the construction, opera­
And, tion, and depletion stages. Therefore, it is a function of the material,
ĊP,k = ĊF,k − ĊL,k + Ż k (9) weight, and operating conditions of the components involved. Here, the
Eco-indicator 99 life cycle impact assessment method [42] has been
where the cost flow rates associated with the fuel, ĊF , and product, ĊP , of used. The combination of LCA and exergy analysis gives us valuable
a component are calculated in a similar way to the exergy flow rates results and analysis, the so-called exergoenvironmental analysis [43].
Eq.(13) shows the relationship between exergy and environmental
ĖF and ĖP . The term ĊL,k represents the monetary loss due to the rejection
impact for each stream.
of exergy to the environment.
The exergy destruction’s cost rate, ĊD,k , can be calculated by Eq.(10) Ḃi = bi Ėi (13)
[40]. This parameter has an important place in subsequent discussions
and indicates the economic importance of the exergy destruction in each where Ėi is the exergy rate, bi the environmental impact per exergy unit,
component. and Ḃi the environmental impact rate of the i-th stream. For the calcu­
lation of bi, a system of algebraic equations similar to that proposed in
ĊD,k = cF,k ∙ĖD,k (10)
the exergoeconomic analysis, Eqs.(8) and (9), must be developed, Eqs.
The exergoeconomic factor, fk, can be assessed using Eq.(11) and (14) and (15), and solved.
indicates the relationship between the capital cost rate and the cost of ∑
n ∑
m
exergy destruction rate. This factor is a useful tool to identify which Ḃi,in + Ẏ k = Bi,out (14)
component can be improved by reducing its cost. Furthermore, if the i=1 i=1

exergoeconomic factor is too low, it means that the exergy destruction of And,
the component costs too much, and this component must operate more
efficiently thermodynamically. ḂP,k = ḂF,k − ḂL,k + Ẏ k (15)

Ż k ḂP,k and ḂF,k are the environmental impact rates associated with
fk = (11)
Ż k + cF,k ĖD,k product and fuel respectively. Ẏ k represents the environmental impact
rate of component k [43]. It is a function of the life of the plant in years,
The relative cost difference between the average cost per exergy unit N = 25, the annual operating hours, t = 7446 h [44], and the
of product and average cost per exergy unit of fuel, rk, is given by Eq. component-related environmental impact, Yk:
(12). The components with the highest relative cost difference are good
targets to be investigated in order to degrease the extra costs they imply. Ẏ k =
Yk
(16)
3600 t⋅N
cP,k − cF,k 1 − ψ k Ż k
rk = = + (12) The component-related environmental impact, can be calculated
cF,k ψk cF,k ĖD,k
trough the weight of each component, wk, and its environmental impact
per weight unit, bmk, [45,46]:
Yk = bmk .wk (17)

7
M.H. Khoshgoftar Manesh et al. Energy Conversion and Management 228 (2021) 113607

Fig. 3. Flowchart of the whole calculation path.

8
M.H. Khoshgoftar Manesh et al. Energy Conversion and Management 228 (2021) 113607

Table 4
Verification of the Thermoflex and MATLAB simulation.
Stream Hou et al. [28] MATLAB simulation Thermoflex
( ) ( ) ( )
kg T ( C)
◦
P (kPa) kg T (◦ C) P (kPa) kg T (◦ C) P (kPa)
ṁ ṁ ṁ
s s s
1 91.22 25.0 101 91.21 25.0 101 91.22 25.0 101
2 91.22 441.5 1520 91.21 446.1 1520 91.22 447.7 1517
3 91.22 561.9 1447 91.21 566.2 1444 91.22 561.9 1445
4 92.90 1246.9 1375 92.89 1247.0 1371 92.85 1246.9 1376
5 92.90 638.9 113 92.89 636.6 113 92.85 635.7 112.9
6 92.90 527.6 110 92.89 527.6 109.6 92.85 529.8 109
7 92.90 226.2 106 92.89 226.2 106.3 92.85 226.2 106.4
8 92.90 106.2 101 92.89 101.3 101.3 92.85 104.6 101.3
9 1.68 25.1 1200 1.68 25.1 1200 1.626 25.1 1740
10 94.32 31.0 7400 92.49 31.0 7400 92.63 31.0 7395
11 94.32 81.4 31,059 92.49 81.4 31,059 92.63 82.0 31,060
12 94.32 199.9 31,059 92.49 199.9 31,059 92.63 199.4 31,060
13 94.32 450.6 31,059 92.49 450.6 31,059 92.63 450.6 31,060
14 94.32 294.6 7400 92.49 294.5 7400 92.63 294.5 7395
15 94.32 106.2 7400 92.49 106.2 7400 92.63 106.2 7395
16 94.32 63.8 7400 92.49 71.2 7400 92.63 63.8 7395
17 46.08 33.0 71 34.77 38.9 71 39.56 33.0 71
18 46.08 33.2 508 34.77 39.4 508 39.56 33.2 510
19 46.08 101.2 508 34.77 101.2 508 39.56 101.2 510
20 46.08 103.0 508 34.77 109.0 508 39.56 108.7 510
21 46.08 55.7 71 34.77 55.6 71 39.56 38.9 71
22 727.56 25.0 300 764.70 25.0 300 702.80 25.0 300
23 727.56 30.0 300 764.70 30.0 300 702.80 30.0 300
24 734.25 25.0 300 695.50 25.0 300 716.60 25.0 300
25 734.25 30.0 300 695.50 30.0 300 716.60 30.0 300

Table 6
Table 5
Exergy, exergoeconomic cost and exergoenvironmental parameters of each
Main parameters of the process.
stream.
Main parameter Value
Stream Ė (kW) c ($/kJ) Ċ ($/s) b (pts/kJ) Ḃ (pts/s)
Ẇcompressor1 29,943 (kW)
3225 (kW) 1 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
Ẇcompressor2
2 36,249 9.98E− 06 3.62E− 01 5.44E− 03 1.97E+02
Ẇgas turbine 64,866 (kW) 3 43,233 9.80E− 06 4.23E− 01 5.44E− 03 2.35E+02
Ẇturbine of cyclopentane cycle 1053 (kW) 4 101,689 7.61E− 05 7.73E+00 4.78E− 03 4.86E+02
5 30,384 7.61E− 05 2.31E+00 4.78E− 03 1.45E+02
Ẇturbine of carbone dioxide cycle 9179 (kW)
6 22,421 7.61E− 05 1.71E+00 4.78E− 03 1.07E+02
Ẇpump 29.6 (kW) 7 5477 7.61E− 05 4.17E− 01 4.78E− 03 2.62E+01
Water recovery ratio 0.4 8 1211 7.61E− 05 9.21E− 02 4.78E− 03 5.79E+00
9 87,108 4.00E− 06 3.48E− 01 2.88E− 03 2.51E+02
10 19,848 1.11E− 05 2.20E− 01 6.38E− 03 1.27E+02
The values of the environmental impact per weight unit for each 11 23,114 1.18E− 05 2.72E− 01 6.57E− 03 1.52E+02
12 28,482 1.12E− 05 3.20E− 01 6.94E− 03 1.98E+02
component, bmk, have been gathered in Table 2, and the weight func­
13 43,681 1.11E− 05 4.84E− 01 6.38E− 03 2.79E+02
tions of the equipment, wk, [45] are shown in Table 3. 14 28,559 1.11E− 05 3.17E− 01 6.38E− 03 1.82E+02
The environmental impact rate associated with the exergy destruc­ 15 21,380 1.11E− 05 2.37E− 01 6.38E− 03 1.36E+02
tion within the k-component can be calculated by [43]: 16 20,611 1.11E− 05 2.29E− 01 6.38E− 03 1.31E+02
17 20 1.31E− 05 2.60E− 04 7.71E− 03 1.53E− 01
ḂD,k = bF,k ĖD,k (18) 18 41 2.08E− 05 8.50E− 04 9.45E− 03 3.87E− 01
19 638 1.56E− 05 9.98E− 03 8.30E− 03 5.30E+00
The exergoenvironmental factor, fb, k, indicates the relation between 20 3330 1.31E− 05 4.37E− 02 7.71E− 03 2.57E+01
the environmental impact rate and the environmental impact rate of the 21 688 1.31E− 05 9.03E− 03 7.71E− 03 5.31E+00
22 152 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
exergy destruction of the equipment [43].
23 285 5.18E− 05 1.48E− 02 1.71E− 02 4.86E+00
Ẏ k 24 137 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
fb,k = (19) 25 259 5.59E− 05 1.45E− 02 1.99E− 02 5.15E+00
Ẏ k + bF,k ĖD,k ẆAir compressor 39,746 8.79E− 06 3.49E− 01 4.96E− 03 1.97E+02

And, the relative environmental impact difference, rb, k, is given by ẆGas turbine 68,681 8.79E− 06 6.04E− 01 4.96E− 03 3.41E+02
[43]: ẆCompressor of 3740 1.28E− 05 4.78E− 02 6.76E− 03 2.53E+01
CO2
bP,k − bF,k 1 − ψ k Ẏ k 14,277 1.28E− 05 1.82E− 01 6.76E− 03 9.65E+01
rb,k = = + (20) ẆTurbine of CO2
bF,k ψk bF,k ĖD,k ẆPump 26 1.62E− 05 4.24E− 04 8.96E− 03 2.34E− 01

The calculation procedure for the whole analysis is shown in Fig.3. ẆTurbine of 2273 1.62E− 05 3.68E− 02 8.96E− 03 2.04E+01
Cyclopentane

9
M.H. Khoshgoftar Manesh et al. Energy Conversion and Management 228 (2021) 113607

Table 7
Exergetic and exergoeconomic results of the components.
Component ĖF (kW) Ėp (kW) ĖD (kW) ψ (%) cF($/kJ) cp($/kJ) ĊD($/s)

Air compressor 39,746 36,249 3497 91.2 8.79E− 06 9.10E− 06 3.08E− 02

Gas turbine 71,304 68,681 2623 96.3 7.61E− 06 8.46E− 06 2.00E− 02
Combustion chamber 130,341 101,689 28,653 78.0 5.92E− 06 5.93E− 06 1.70E− 01
Heat exchanger 1 7964 6984 979 87.7 7.61E− 06 7.76E− 06 7.45E− 03
Heat exchanger 2 16,944 15,199 1745 89.7 7.61E− 06 7.76E− 06 1.33E− 02
Heat exchanger 3 7179 368 1810 74.8 1.11E− 06 1.11E− 05 2.01E− 02
Heat exchanger 4 769 597 172.2 77.6 1.19E− 05 1.19E− 06 1.91E− 03
Heat exchanger 5 4266 2692 1574 63.1 1.11E− 06 7.91E− 05 1.20E− 02
Turbine of SCO2 15,122 14,277 844.5 94.4 1.11E− 06 1.28E− 05 9.37E− 01
Cooler 1 – – 630.2 – – – –
Compressor of SCO2 3740 3266 473.7 87.3 1.28E− 05 1.38E− 05 6.06E− 03
Turbine of ORC 2642 2273 368.7 86.0 1.31E− 05 1.40E− 05 4.84E− 03
Cooler 2 – – 547.5 – – – –
Pump of ORC 26 21 5.0 80.9 1.62E− 05 2.26E− 05 8.08E− 05
Overall 300,043 252,296 43,923 68% 9.48E− 05 1.93E− 04 1.22E+00

The air compressor of the gas turbine consumes 46% of the power
Table 8
generated in the gas turbine. The compressor of the S-CO2 cycle con­
Exergoenvironmental analysis results of the components.
sumes about 38% of the S-CO2 turbine power output. The ORC pump
Component bF (pts/ bp (pts/ ḂD (pts/ Ẏ (pts/s) Ẏ +ḂD shaft power demand is 2.8% of the ORC turbine power generation. The
kJ) kJ) s) (pts/s)
total power generation of the system is about 75,098 kW, whereof the
Air compressor 4.96E− 03 5.44E− 03 17.35 1.32E− 05 17.35 compressors and the pump consume 44%, making it possible to transfer
Gas turbine 4.78E− 03 4.96E− 03 12.53 1.06E− 04 12.53 41,903 kW to the electricity grid. The calorific value produced by the
Combustion 3.73E− 03 4.78E− 03 106.80 6.52E− 05 106.80 combustion of the fuel in the combustion chamber is about 83,969 kW.
chamber
Therefore, the efficiency of the gas turbine process amounts to 41.6%.
Heat exchanger 4.78E− 03 5.45E− 03 4.68 6.31E− 07 4.68
1 The integration of the gas turbine with the S-CO2 cycle increases the
Heat exchanger 4.78E− 03 5.33E− 03 8.34 1.24E− 06 8.34 process efficiency to 52.5%. And by adding the ORC to this integration,
2 the efficiency increases to 54%. These results agree with literature. For
Heat exchanger 6.38E− 03 8.53E− 03 11.55 9.08E− 07 11.55 example, Manjunat et al. [13] found that the energetic performance of a
3
Heat exchanger 6.38E− 03 8.22E− 03 1.10 3.16E− 07 1.10
GT cycle increased by 12% when a S-CO2 cycle was used to recover the
4 waste heat from the exhaust gases. Chacartegui et al. [27] studied a
Heat exchanger 4.78E− 03 7.57E− 03 7.52 6.50E− 07 7.52 combined S-CO2/ORC. They found an efficiency gain of 2–3 percentage
5 points of the combined cycle layout compared with the simpler stand-
Turbine of SCO2 6.38E− 03 6.76E− 03 5.39 4.45E− 05 5.39
alone gas turbine.
Cooler 1 6.38E− 03 3.67E− 02 4.02 5.93E− 08 4.02
Compressor of 6.76E− 03 7.74E− 03 3.20 2.32E− 06 3.20
SCO2
Turbine of ORC 7.71E− 03 8.96E− 03 2.84 1.08E− 05 2.84 4.2. Exergetic, exergoeconomic, and exergoenvironmental analyses of the
Cooler 2 7.71E− 03 4.27E− 03 4.22 5.40E− 08 4.22 power generation process
Pump of ORC 8.96E− 03 1.11E− 02 0.04 3.35E− 08 0.04
Overall 0.08 0.13 189.59 2.46E− 04 189.59
The total exergy, cost, and environmental impact flow rates, together
with the costs and environmental impacts per exergy unit of the different
4. Results and discussion streams are reported in Table 6. The cost of power generation in the GT
amounts to 0.604 $/s, in the turbine of S-CO2 cycle to 0.182 $/s, and in
4.1. Thermodynamic evaluation the turbine of the ORC to 0.036 $/s. Therefore, the cost of power gen­
eration in the GT is 70% greater than the cost of power generation in the
To perform the analyses of the system under study, the information S-CO2 cycle. This shows the importance of using waste heat to generate
obtained from the code generated in the MATLAB software must be low-cost power. The power generation of the ORC is 94% cheaper than
validated. This validation was performed by comparing the information that of the GT. The environmental impact of power generation in the GT
obtained with the program developed in MATLAB to the results pre­ is about 341 pts/s, 72% higher than in the S-CO2 cycle and 94% higher
sented by Hou et al. [28] and those obtained with Thermoflex software than in the ORC.
(Table 4). As seen in Table 4, the results do not differ in significant The results of the exergetic and exergoeconomic analyses of the
amounts and the error rate is acceptable. components are presented in Table 7. The device that destroys the
The main purpose of the system is to generate power from the waste greatest amount of exergy in the overall process is the combustion
heat of the gas turbine cycle. Therefore, the main indicator is the amount chamber. The whole GT section (compressor, combustion chamber, and
of power output. Table 5 shows the main parameters of the process: the turbine) is responsible for 81.3% of the total exergy destruction. The cost
amount of power produced or consumed in the different components, of exergy destruction in the combustion chamber is the highest exergetic
and the water recovery ratio of the RO unit. The water recovery ratio is cost in the system. This high exergetic cost in the combustion chamber
defined as the ratio of the mass flow of desalinated water to the feed was also found by Wang et al. [15].
water, and it is set at 0.4. The exergetic efficiency of the integrated power generation process is
about 68% which is similar to the exergetic efficiency of Hou et al. [28]

10
M.H. Khoshgoftar Manesh et al. Energy Conversion and Management 228 (2021) 113607

Fig. 4. Exergoeconomic factor and relative cost difference.

Fig. 5. Exergoenvironmental factor.

GT/S-CO2/ORC integrated process (68.4%) and Ren and Wang [47] S- very high because of the pollution associated with the fuel combustion
CO2/ORC combined system (68%). Manjunat et al. found that the process and the release of exhaust gases. The LCA reflects that the gas
exergetic efficiency of the GT was increased by 15% when a S-CO2 cycle turbine is the device with the greatest environmental impact throughout
was used as a bottoming cycle for waste heat recovery. its life cycle, which is caused by the complexity of the gas turbine
The results of the exergoenvironmental analysis of the components: technology and its construction materials.
environmental impact per exergy unit associated with the fuel and the The exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmetal factors, the relative
product, bF and bp, environmental impact associated with the exergy cost differences and the relative environmental impact differences are
destruction, ḂD , and component-related environmental impact, Ẏ,are shown in Figs. 4, 5, and 6. It has been found that the gas turbine has the
presented in Table 8. The combustion chamber has the highest envi­ highest exergoeconomic factor. The maximum relative cost difference
ronmental impact of the system. The environmental impact of the corresponds to the ORC pump. And, the heat exchanger 5 has the highest
combustion chamber amounts to 106.8 pts/s, and it accounts for about relative environmental impact difference.
56% of the total environmental impact of the cycle. The environmental
impact associated with exergy destruction in the combustion chamber is

11
M.H. Khoshgoftar Manesh et al. Energy Conversion and Management 228 (2021) 113607

Fig. 6. Relative environmental impact difference.

Table 9
Thermodynamic, exergetic, exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental characteristics of the RO systems.
Power Stream P T ṁ Salinity h s Exergy C Ċ b Ḃ
(bar) (◦ C) (kg/s) (w %) (kJ/kg) (kj/kg⋅◦ C) (kW) ($/kJ) ($/s) (pts/kJ) (pts/s)

2 MW RO Feed 1.01 25.00 160.00 4.50 98.10 0.34 2940.64 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
Pump outlet 78.28 25.75 160.00 4.50 108.20 0.35 4545.12 8.73E− 06 3.97E− 02 4.13E− 03 1.88E+01
Desalinated water 1.01 26.58 64.00 0.01 111.50 0.37 2002.66 5.16E− 05 1.03E− 01 1.00E− 05 2.00E− 02
Brine 74.83 26.58 96.00 7.50 106.00 0.34 2527.54 5.16E− 05 1.30E− 01 2.10E− 02 5.31E+01
Brine discharge 1.01 28.36 96.00 7.50 106.00 1.56 762.67 5.16E− 05 3.94E− 02 2.65E− 02 2.02E+01
3 MW RO Feed 1.01 25.00 240.40 4.50 98.10 0.34 4418.31 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
Pump outlet 78.28 25.75 240.40 4.50 108.20 0.35 6829.04 8.88E− 06 6.06E− 02 4.18E− 03 2.85E+01
Desalinated water 1.01 26.58 96.15 0.01 111.50 0.37 3008.68 5.23E− 05 1.12E− 01 1.10E− 05 3.31E− 02
Brine 74.83 26.58 144.20 7.50 106.00 0.34 3796.57 5.23E− 05 1.99E− 01 2.15E− 02 8.16E+01
Brine discharge 1.01 28.36 144.20 7.50 106.00 1.56 1145.60 5.23E− 05 5.99E− 02 3.32E− 02 3.80E+01
4 MW RO Feed 1.01 25.00 319.90 4.50 98.10 0.34 5879.44 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
Pump outlet 78.28 25.75 319.90 4.50 108.20 0.35 9087.40 9.01E− 06 8.19E− 02 4.23E− 03 3.84E+01
Desalinated water 1.01 26.58 128.00 0.01 111.50 0.37 4005.31 5.31E− 05 1.22E− 01 1.20E− 05 4.81E− 02
Brine 74.83 26.58 191.90 7.50 106.00 0.34 5052.44 5.31E− 05 2.68E− 01 2.20E− 02 1.11E+02
Brine discharge 1.01 28.36 191.90 7.50 106.00 1.56 1524.55 5.31E− 05 8.10E− 02 3.70E− 02 5.64E+01
5 MW RO Feed 1.01 25.00 400.40 4.50 98.10 0.34 7358.95 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
Pump outlet 78.28 25.75 400.40 4.50 108.20 0.35 11,374.16 9.03E− 06 1.03E− 01 4.25E− 03 4.83E+01
Desalinated water 1.01 26.58 160.20 0.01 111.50 0.37 5012.90 5.33E− 05 1.42E− 01 1.22E− 05 6.12E− 02
Brine 74.83 26.58 240.30 7.50 106.00 0.34 6326.74 5.33E− 05 3.37E− 01 2.21E− 02 1.40E+02
Brine discharge 1.01 28.36 240.30 7.50 106.00 1.56 1909.06 5.33E− 05 1.02E− 01 4.20E− 02 8.02E+01

4.3. Analysis of the RO unit capacity) the freshwater production, the specific energy consumption
(kWh/m3), the exergy destruction, the exergy destruction cost, and the
In this paper, a RO unit has been integrated with the power gener­ environmental impact associated with exergy destruction, have been
ation plant. Four different scenarios in terms of energy demanded by the calculated. The results are presented in Figs. 7 and 8.
desalination unit (5, 4, 3 and 2 MW) have been considered. The required The increase in the amount of fresh water produced with the power
feedwater flow was 400.4, 319.9, 240, and 160 kg/s, respectively. consumed in the different scenarios of the RO unit has an approximately
The results of the economic and environmental analyses of the constant slope. In the 2 MW system, about 64 kg/s of freshwater is
freshwater production process, via seawater reverse osmosis desalina­ produced, while in the 5 MW system this amount increases to 160 kg/s.
tion, are shown in Table 9. The main purpose of this sub-process is to Fig. 7 shows that the slope of the rate of exergy destruction in the RO is
produce low-cost freshwater in the cogeneration plant. The results of the higher than the rate of freshwater produced. The reason for this is that
exergoeconomic analysis reveal that the RO unit with 5 MW of power the greater the outlet flow at the RO unit, the greater the amount of
consumption produces the cheapest freshwater. The cost of freshwater exergy destroyed through the expansion valve.
amounts to 0.142 $/s, which corresponds to 0.88 $/m3. The fresh water The cost of exergy destruction in the RO unit decreases as the power
produced with a power consumption of 2 MW, 3 MW, and 4 MW costs consumption increases. This is because the cost of power generation in
1.6, 1.16, and 0.95 $/m3, respectively. The cost of the power consumed the gas turbine is kept constant. The most economical RO unit, which
at the reverse osmosis pump is assumed to be equal to the cost of power has the lowest cost of freshwater production and the lowest cost of
generated in the gas turbine cycle. exergy destruction, is the RO unit with a power consumption of 5 MW.
For the different scenarios (2, 3, 4 or 5 MW of power consumption Similar trends have been obtained for environmental impacts, as shown

12
M.H. Khoshgoftar Manesh et al. Energy Conversion and Management 228 (2021) 113607

Fig. 7. Specific energy consumption, exergy destruction and fresh-water production in the different scenarios for the RO unit.

a) The total power generation of the system is about 75,098 kW,

whereof the compressors and the pump consume 44%, making it
possible to transfer 41,903 kW to the electricity grid.
b) The heat produced by the combustion of the fuel in the combustion
chamber is about 83,969 kW. Therefore, the efficiency of the gas
turbine process amounts to 41.6%. The integration of the gas turbine
with the S-CO2 cycle increases the process efficiency to 52.5%. And
by adding the ORC to this integration, the efficiency increases to
54%.
c) The cost of power generation in the GT amounts to 0.604 $/s, in the
turbine of S-CO2 cycle to 0.182 $/s, and in the turbine of the ORC to
0.036 $/s. Therefore, the cost of power generation in the GT is 70%
greater than the cost of power generation in the S-CO2 cycle. This
Fig. 8. Costs of exergy destruction and environmental impacts associated with shows the importance of using waste heat to generate low-cost
exergy destruction in the different scenarios for the RO unit. power.
d) The GT is responsible for circa 72% of the total exergy destruction.
The cost of exergy destruction in the RO unit is about 82% lower than
in Fig. 6.
in the GT. And the cost of exergy destruction in the turbine of the
SCO2 cycle is 66% higher than in the turbine of the ORC. The results
4.4. Sankey flow diagrams
of the exergoeconomic analysis also reveal that the RO unit with 5
MW power consumption produces the cheapest freshwater. The cost
The exergy flow diagram for the energy production process is shown
of freshwater amounts to 0.142 $/s which corresponds to 0.88 $/m3.
in Fig. 9. In addition, the exergetic cost and environmental impact flow
diagrams are represented in Figs. 10 and 11, respectively. These figures
CRediT authorship contribution statement
show that the combustion chamber outlet has the highest exergy rate,
cost rate, and environmental impact rate in the entire plant.
M.H. Khoshgoftar Manesh: Conceptualization, Investigation,
Methodology, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Supervision, Roles/
5. Conclusion
Writing - original draft. P. Firouzi: Data curation, Formal analysis,
Software. S. Kabiri: Data curation, Formal analysis, Software. A.M.
In this paper, power and water production in an integrated GT-SCO2-
Blanco Marigorta: Methodology, Funding acquisition, Project admin­
ORC-RO system has been investigated. The recovery of the waste heat
istration, Supervision Writing - review & editing.
from the exhaust gases of the GT together with the production of low-
cost fresh water are the main targets of this study. In this regard, ther­
Declaration of competing interest
modynamic, exergetic, exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental ana­
lyses have been performed.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
Some of the most important results obtained in this study are listed
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
below:
the work reported in this paper.

13
M.H. Khoshgoftar Manesh et al. Energy Conversion and Management 228 (2021) 113607

Fig. 9. Exergy flow diagram for the energy production process.

14
M.H. Khoshgoftar Manesh et al. Energy Conversion and Management 228 (2021) 113607

Fig. 10. Exergetic cost flow diagram for the energy production process.

15
M.H. Khoshgoftar Manesh et al. Energy Conversion and Management 228 (2021) 113607

Fig. 11. Environmental impact flow diagram for the energy production process.

Acknowledgement [7] Chen S, Soomro A, Yu R, Hu J, Sun Z, Xiang W. Integration of chemical looping

combustion and supercritical CO2 cycle for combined heat and power generation
with CO2 capture. Energy Convers Manag 2018;167:113–24.
This research has been co-funded by ERDF funds, INTERREG MAC [8] Li H, Su W, Cao L, Chang F, Xia W, Dai Y. Preliminary conceptual design and
2014-2020 programme, within the E5DES project (MAC2/1.1a/309). thermodynamic comparative study on vapor absorption refrigeration cycles
No funding sources had any influence on study design, collection, integrated with a supercritical CO2 power cycle. Energy Convers Manag 2018;161:
162–71.
analysis, or interpretation of data, manuscript preparation, or the de­ [9] Ahn Y, Bae SJ, Kim M, Cho SK, Baik S, Lee JI, et al. Review of supercritical CO2
cision to submit for publication. power cycle technology and current status of research and development. Nucl Eng
Technol 2015;47(6):647–61.
10. Kim MS, Ahn Y, Kim B, Lee JI. Study on the supercritical CO2 power cycles for
References landfill gas firing gas turbine bottoming cycle. Energy 2016;111:893–909.
[11] Zhang Y, Yao Y, Li Z, Tang G, Wu Y, Wang H, et al. Low-grade heat utilization by
1. Mom Andre JA. Introduction to gas turbines. In: Modern gas turbine systems. High supercritical carbon dioxide Rankine cycle: analysis on the performance of gas
efficiency, low emission, fuel flexible power generation; 2013. p. 3–20. Woodhead heater subjected to heat flux and convective boundary conditions. Energy Convers
publising series in energy, Number 20. Manag 2018;162:39–54.
[2] Soltani S, Mahmoudi S, Yari M, Rosen M. Thermodynamic analyses of an externally [12] Li M-J, Zhu H-H, Guo J-Q, Wang K, Tao W-Q. The development technology and
fired gas turbine combined cycle integrated with a biomass gasification plant. applications of supercritical CO2 power cycle in nuclear energy, solar energy and
Energy Convers Manag 2013;70:107–15. other energy industries. Appl Therm Eng 2017;126:255–75.
[3] Khaljani M, Saray RK, Bahlouli K. Comprehensive analysis of energy, exergy and [13] Manjunath K, Sharma O, Tyagi S, Kaushik S. Thermodynamic analysis of a
exergo-economic of cogeneration of heat and power in a combined gas turbine and supercritical/transcritical CO2 based waste heat recovery cycle for shipboard
organic Rankine cycle. Energy Convers Manag 2015;97:154–65. power and cooling applications. Energy Convers Manag 2018;155:262–75.
[4] Pashchenko D. Energy optimization analysis of a thermochemical exhaust gas [14] Garg P, Kumar P, Srinivasan K. Supercritical carbon dioxide Brayton cycle for
recuperation system of a gas turbine unit. Energy Convers Manag 2018;171: concentrated solar power. J Supercrit Fluids 2013;76:54–60.
917–24. 15. Wang X, Yang Y, Zheng Y, Dai Y. Exergy and exergoeconomic analyses of a
[5] Woudstra N, Woudstra T, Pirone A, Van Der Stelt T. Thermodynamic evaluation of supercritical CO2 cycle for a cogeneration application. Energy 2017;119:971–82.
combined cycle plants. Energy Convers Manag 2010;51(5):1099–110. [16] Singh R, Singh O. Comparative study of combined solid oxide fuel cell-gas turbine-
[6] Shi X, Che D. A combined power cycle utilizing low-temperature waste heat and organic Rankine cycle for different working fluid in bottoming cycle. Energy
LNG cold energy. Energy Convers Manag 2009;50(3):567–75. Convers Manag 2018;171:659–70.

16
M.H. Khoshgoftar Manesh et al. Energy Conversion and Management 228 (2021) 113607

[17] Camporeale SM, Pantaleo AM, Ciliberti PD, Fortunato B. Cycle configuration 31. Cardenas-Gutierrez J, Valencia-Ochoa G, Duarte-Forero J. A comparative study of
analysis and techno-economic sensitivity of biomass externally fired gas turbine the energy, exergetic and thermo-economic performance of a novelty combined
with bottoming ORC. Energy Convers Manag 2015;105:1239–50. Brayton S-CO2-ORC configurations as bottoming cycles. Helyon 2020;6:e04459.
[18] Patil A, Ajah A, Herder P. Recycling industrial waste heat for sustainable district 32. The yearbook of water statistical. 2017.
heating: a multi-actor perspective. Int J Environ Technol Manag 2009;10(3–4): [33] Caldera U, Bogdanov D, Breyer C. Local cost of seawater RO desalination based on
412–26. solar PV and wind energy: a global estimate. Desalination 2016;385:207–16.
19. Zhang Y, He Y, Li S, Shen Y, Huang X, Tang Q, et al. Effect of preheating on 34. Poullikkas A. Technical and economic analysis for the integration of small reverse
combustion of ceramic burners. J Combust Sci Technol 2001;7(3):267–70. osmosis desalination plants into MAST gas turbine cycles for power generation.
20. Carcasci C, Ferraro R, Miliotti E. Thermodynamic analysis of an organic Rankine Desalination 2005;172(2):145–50.
cycle for waste heat recovery from gas turbines. Energy 2014;65:91–100. 35. Almutairi A, Pilidis P, Al-Mutawa N, Al-Weshahi M. Exergetic and sustainability
21. Wang H-t, Wang H, Zhang Z-m. Optimization of low-temperature exhaust gas waste analysis of an intercooled gas turbine cogeneration plant with reverse osmosis
heat fueled organic Rankine cycle. J Iron Steel Res Int 2012;19(6):30–6. desalination system. J Energy Eng 2017;143(5):04017016.
22. Li Y-R, Du M-T, Wu C-M, Wu S-Y, Liu C, Xu J-L. Economical evaluation and [36] Eveloy V, Rodgers P, Qiu L. Hybrid gas turbine–organic Rankine cycle for seawater
optimization of subcritical organic Rankine cycle based on temperature matching desalination by reverse osmosis in a hydrocarbon production facility. Energy
analysis. Energy 2014;68:238–47. Convers Manag 2015;106:1134–48.
[23] Lee K, Kuo S, Chien M, Shih Y. Parameters analysis on organic Rankine cycle 37. Shu G, Gao Y, Tian H, Wei H, Liang X. Study of mixtures based on hydrocarbons
energy recovery system. Energy Convers Manag 1988;28(2):129–36. used in ORC (Organic Rankine Cycle) for engine waste heat recovery. Energy 2014;
24. Shams Ghoreishi SM, Akbari Vakilabadi M, Bidi M, Khoeini Poorfar A, 74:428–38.
Sadeghzadeh M, Ahmadi MH, et al. Analysis, economical and technical 38. El-Emam RS, Dincer I. Thermodynamic and thermoeconomic analyses of seawater
enhancement of an organic Rankine cycle recovering waste heat from an exhaust gas reverse osmosis desalination plant with energy recovery. Energy 2014;64:154–63.
stream. Energy Sci Eng 2019;7(1):230–54. [39] Lazzaretto A, Tsatsaronis G. SPECO: a systematic and general methodology for
[25] Li L, Ge Y, Luo X, Tassou S. Thermodynamic analysis and comparison between CO2 calculating efficiencies and costs in thermal systems. Energy 2006;31:1257–89.
transcritical power cycles and R245fa organic Rankine cycles for low grade heat to 40. Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran M, Moran MJ. Thermal design and optimization. John
power energy conversion. Appl Therm Eng 2016;106:1290–9. Wiley & Sons; 1996.
[26] Wang X, Dai Y. Exergoeconomic analysis of utilizing the transcritical CO2 cycle and 41. Dincer I, Rosen MA, Ahmadi P. Optimization of energy systems. Wiley; 2017.
the ORC for a recompression supercritical CO2 cycle waste heat recovery: a 42. Goedkoop M, Spriensma R, Effting S, Collignon M. The eco-indicator 99: a damage
comparative study. Appl Energy 2016;170:193–207. oriented method for life-cycle impact assessment: manual for designers. In: PRé,
[27] Chacartegui R, Muñoz de Escalona JM, Sánchez D, Monje B, Sánchez T. Alternative Product ecology consultants; 2000.
cycles based on carbon dioxide for central receiver solar power plants. Appl Therm 43. Meyer L, Tsatsaronis G, Buchgeister J, Schebek L. Exergoenvironmental analysis for
Eng 2011;31:872–9. evaluation of the environmental impact of energy conversion systems. Energy 2009;
[28] Hou S, Zhou Y, Yu L, Zhang F, Cao S. Optimization of the combined supercritical 34:75–89.
CO2 cycle and organic Rankine cycle using zeotropic mixtures for gas turbine waste [44] Anvari S, Mahian O, Taghavifar H, Wongwises S, Desideri U. 4E analysis of a
heat recovery. Energy Convers Manag 2018;160:313–25. modified multigeneration system designed for power, heating/cooling, and water
[29] Hou S, Zhou Y, Yu L, Zhang F, Cao S, Wu Y. Optimization of a novel cogeneration desalination. Appl Energy 2020;270:115107.
system including a gas turbine, a supercritical CO2 recompression cycle, a steam [45] Cavalcanti EJC. Exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental analyses of an
power cycle and an organic Rankine cycle. Energy Convers Manag 2018;172: integrated solar combined cycle system. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2017;67:507–19.
457–71. [46] Anvari S, Khalilarya S, Zare V. Power generation enhancement in a biomass-based
[30] Wang S, Liu C, Li J, Sun Z, Chen X, Wang X. Exergoeconomic analysis of a novel combined cycle using solar energy: thermodynamic and environmental analysis.
trigeneration system containing supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle, organic Rankine Appl Therm Eng 2019;153:128–41.
cycle and absorption refrigeration cycle for gas turbine waste heat recovery. [47] Ren L, Wang H. Optimization and comparison of two combined cycles consisting of
Energy Convers Manag 2020;221:113064. CO2 and organic trans-critical cycle for waste heat recovery. Energies 2020;13(3):
724.

17