Thermodynamic and economic analyses of natural gas combined cycle power plants with and without the presence of organic Rankine cycle

Abstract

This study performs the simulation and energy, exergy, and economic analyses of an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) integrated with a natural gas combined cycle. Working fluids studied in this research are ammonia, isobutane, R-11, R-113, and R-141b. The power plant and ORC are simulated using Aspen HYSYS software. The results show that using the ORC leads to an improvement in the thermo-economic indexes of the combined cycle power plant. The sensitivity analysis also demonstrated that using ammonia and isobutane as working fluids results in the highest exergy destruction and the lowest exergy and energy efficiencies; therefore, they are unsuitable. On the other hand, a comparison of thermo-economic results illustrated that among the studied working fluids, R-113 is the desirable selection. According to the simulation, it is deduced that employing R-113 working fluid leads to the net power generation of the plant increasing by 2.48%, the cost of electricity decreasing by 10.75%, and the total energy efficiency of the power plant increasing by 6.02%.

Keywords

Natural gas combined cycle organic Rankine cycle thermo-economic analysis power plant

Introduction

Natural gas processing leading to electricity production by relevant power plants plays a principal role in the energy sector worldwide (Gas, 2006). The electricity produced by natural gas accounts for about 25% of global electricity generation; outstanding countries contain Russia, the United States, Iran, and Saudi Arabia (Johnson and Keith, 2004). However, environmental challenges and the energy economics of such plants impose some defects. Although the air pollution related to natural gas-fueled power plants is lower than in other fossil fuel-driven frameworks, their further contribution to the energy market causes climate changes and staggering extraction costs to export (Mao et al., 2005). In this regard, the maximum use of natural gas energy is suggested through innovative arrangements resulting in higher electricity production capacities and efficiencies (Brito et al., 2017). Also, the modification can be applied to the system’s operation mode (Hoseinzadeh and Stephan Heyns, 2022) and considering the environmental impact enhances its advantages (Hoseinzadeh and Astiaso Garcia, 2022).

Some studies working on natural gas-based power plants are reviewed in the following. Gazzani et al. (2013) simulated a natural gas-fueled power plant and tried to mitigate the carbon dioxide (CO₂) footprint using a CO₂ capture unit. They used different sorbents and evaluated the environmental capability resulting in an 86% reduction in CO₂ emission. Agrawal et al. (2014) developed a case study of a natural gas-based power plant with a capacity of 350 MW in India to decrease its CO₂ footprint. They added a steam power generation cycle into the base framework and observed reduced environmental impacts. In a study by He and Ricardez-Sandoval (2016), they dynamically simulated a natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) producing 453 MW of electricity. They employed a post-combustion CO₂ capture framework to reduce the CO₂ footprint. Their effort led to a 90% reduction in the CO₂ released. The thermodynamic, economic, and environmental aspects of encompassing an NGCC with a post-combustion CO₂ capture unit were investigated by Hu et al. (2017). The simulation demonstrated that the unit cost of the electricity and CO₂ avoided experienced an 8.7% and 27.5% decline compared to the sole NGCC. Jiang et al. (2019) utilized activated carbon adsorption to capture the CO₂ released in a natural gas-driven power plant. They parametrically examined their idea resulting in better thermodynamic and environmental performances. Qureshi et al. (2021) surveyed the part-load operation of an NGCC in combination with a CO₂ capture unit for adoptive wasted gas recirculation in different arrangements (parallel, series, and hybrid). They parametrically analyzed these arrangements and compared the environmental and thermodynamic facilities making promising outcomes. Considering Iran’s natural gas-based Shahrood power plant, Haghghi et al. (2020) developed a multigeneration system to increase thermodynamic performance and improve environmental impacts. To this end, they tried to produce cooling, hot steam, and hydrogen through the heat wasted, resulting in a thermal efficiency of 68.7%. Reddy et al. (2012) employed a Fresnel-based solar field to assist an NGCC and evaluated the impact of the solar field's features on the energetic and exergetic performances. Their results showed that this technique augmented the power production capacity by 10% with an exergetic efficiency of 50%. Rashid et al. (2019) also followed the use of solar energy added to an NGCC to enhance the scheme's performance. They used parabolic trough solar collectors and found that the annual electrical efficiency could enhance from 15.2% to 26.1% compared to the mode without the effect of solar energy. Fichera et al. (2022) utilized a molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC) to capture CO₂ released from an NGCC. Their idea led to reducing the CO₂ emission from 416.5 to 66.67 kg/MWh with an exergetic efficiency of 53.3%.

The organic Rankine cycle (ORC) is a flexible and notable technology in low- and medium-operating temperatures, capable of launching with waste heat (Cao et al., 2020). Using organic working fluids, the ORC is a promising suggestion for joining combined cycles to improve the quality of the outputs and diminish the irreversibility of the whole scheme (El Haj Assad et al., 2021; Haghghi et al., 2020). Also, the ORC has the feasibility to couple with various systems (Ahmadi et al., 2021; Aryanfar et al., 2022; Assad et al., 2021). Furthermore, it can be utilized besides the other subsystems (Ahmadi et al., 2020; Ehyaei et al., 2020). The wasted heat recovery provides the feasibility of producing various products (Mahmoudan et al., 2021). Some related studies are reviewed in the following. Hossainpour (2019) proposed the use of waste heat recovery for a coal-fueled oxy-fuel plant with a production capacity of 300 MW via an ORC. The results of the environmental, economic, and thermodynamic analyses designated a feasible integration. Hoseinzadeh and Stephan Heyns (2021) aimed to analyze a power plant with a capacity of 400 MW from energy, exergy, economic, and environmental. Li et al. (2019) evaluated utilizing an ORC for waste heat recovery in an extractive distillation system with and without an economizer. According to the study, the total thermal efficiency was increased by 3.4%, and the total annual cost was reduced by 30.3% using the ORC and economizer compared to the base system. The economic capability of integrating a liquid energy storage unit with an ORC was assessed by Tafone et al. (2020). In their paper, the levelized cost of storage descended by around 10% using the ORC. Li et al. (2021) established an ORC for waste heat recovery in a combined cooling, heating, and power generation framework driven by biomass fuel. They examined the effect of climate conditions in different areas in China, resulting in better thermodynamic and environmental performances. The feasibility of integrating an ORC to recover the heat wasted by a high-temperature fuel cell and other integrated cycles was evaluated and thermodynamically analyzed by Haghghi et al. (2019). They also provided environmental and economic analyses in another study; the results exhibited a sensible enhancement of the system's performance. Cao et al. (2022) proposed and optimized the waste heat recovery process for a marine diesel engine leading to an 11.3% increase in the thermal efficiency of the engine. Also, the waste heat recovery brought an optimum exergetic efficiency of 37.4% with a levelized cost of electricity of 0.1413$/kWh.

This study provides an opportunity to examine the feasibility of integrating an ORC with an NGCC regarding the waste-to-energy concept. Toward this, the base NGCC and NGCC + ORC cycles are simulated in Aspen HYSYS v10; the energy, exergy, environmental, and cost analyses are also implanted. Moreover, different organic working fluids are considered to use in the ORC to have a comparative study and select the efficient working fluid. A sensitivity analysis is also carried out to show the effect of the temperature of the heat source on the main variables, including the required flow rate of the working fluid, turbine power generation capacity, exergy destruction rate of the ORC cycle, and exergy efficiency of the ORC.

Process description

Description of the base case process

Figure 1 depicts the schematic of the combined cycle power plant considering all the equipment. This figure includes compressors (K), combustor, heat recovery steam generator (HRSG), pump (P), and heat exchangers (E) (Al Hashmi et al., 2018). According to the process flow diagram, the fresh air is first compressed by compressors 100 to 102, and for inter-cooling the air between compressors, coolers 100 and 101 are employed.

Figure 1.

The schematic of the process flow diagram of the studied natural gas combined cycle.

Air that leaves compressor 102 enters a splitter where a portion of air does not mix with the fuel. This portion is sent into the gas turbine along with combustion gases. The gaseous fuel (its composition and conditions are given in Table 1) mixes with the combustion air (oxidizer) and injects into the combustor. Hot combustion gases mix with the separated portion of the air stream and flow into the turbine, where power is generated due to gas expansion, and gas temperature also decreases (Al Hashmi et al., 2018).

Table 1.

Composition and operating conditions of the gaseous fuel (Al Hashmi et al., 2018).

Components of the gaseous fuel	Mass percentage	Molar percentage
Water	0	0
Methane	87.6	93
Ethane	5.3	3
Propane	2.6	1
Oxygen	1.9	2
Carbon dioxide	2.6	1
Nitrogen	0	0
Total	100	100
Fuel mass flow rate (kg/h)	85716	–
Fuel molar flow rate (kmol/h)	4942	–
Fuel heating value (kJ/kg)	46690	–
Fuel molecular weight	17.34	–

The temperature of the combustion gas is still high; consequently, it should be re-utilized for power generation. For this purpose, the HRSG system is employed. The heat source, i.e. hot combustion gas, enters the HRSG, where on its other side water stream flows throughout the heat exchangers for low-pressure, medium-pressure, and high-pressure steam generation. The stream of hot gases leaves the HRSG at a lower temperature. Cooler 102 cools down the flue gas, which is done since a portion of the flue gas is being recycled to the gas turbine to reduce emissions and increase power plant efficiency. This technique is called flue gas recirculation (FGR).

A portion of the flue gas enters a network of compressors (K-103 to K-105) to be compressed to the pressure at the gas turbine inlet and then expands in the gas turbine along with air and combustion gases. The water stream is pressurized by pump 100 and flows through the HRSG system to steam being produced and injected into the steam turbines for power generation. Three HP, MP, and LP turbines are employed for power generation. After producing the steam flow, it is first injected into the high-pressure turbine.

The fluid leaving the high-pressure turbine at a lower temperature re-enters the HRSG heat exchanger and then is fed to the medium-pressure turbine in the vapor phase at medium pressure. After expansion, the steam again enters the heat exchanger HRSG in a two-phase state and is then injected into the low-pressure turbine in the vapor phase. Therefore, electricity is generated in three stages. In heat exchanger 105, the outlet stream of the low-pressure steam turbine condenses. Then since its pressure drops due to thermodynamic changes, it is pressurized in pump 100, and the cycle is closed (Al Hashmi et al., 2018).

Structure of the proposed process

The ORC requires a heat source for electricity generation. In the present study, the heat source point, which should be supplied from the natural gas combined cycle, is at the outlet of compressor 105, leading to a suitable temperature to feed the ORC.

As shown in Figure 2, this stream enters the evaporator of the ORC and, after heating the working fluid, leaves the downstream cycle at a lower temperature. Its temperature increases in heat exchanger 100 again. This heating is conducted because the temperature of the outlet stream of compressor 105 should reduce and increase before its injection into the gas turbine. Otherwise, the temperature after the turbine is lower by a few degrees, which its effect on the HRSG system exhibits itself as a reduction in electricity generation and plant efficiency, even by using ORC. It is not desirable and contrasts with the objectives of the present study.

Figure 2.

Schematic of the process flow diagram of the combined cycle coupled with ORC.

As a result, heat exchanger 100 works with a cooling fluid in the base case; in this case, it works in an integrated model, and the heat transfer is of process-process type. Therefore, using the low temperature of the heat source that leaves the ORC, the temperature of the compressed air decreases and the temperature of the stream injected into the gas turbine increases sufficiently, and the overall performance of the power generation is not disturbed.

Hence, the working fluid coming from compressor 105 in the new case and with the addition of ORC to NGCC, experiences the following thermodynamic stages:

It is cooled down in the ORC evaporator.

In heat exchanger 100, this stream experiences an increase in temperature again, and it is sent into the gas turbine.

Choosing the working fluid

According to the study by Dai et al. (2009), five working fluids are considered, each of which can be utilized for electricity generation in the ORC. These researchers also report the operating conditions of the working fluids. These conditions are defined in the simulation. Working fluids are as follows:

Ammonia

Isobutane

R-11 refrigerant

R-113 refrigerant

R-141b refrigerant

Liu et al. (2004) analyzed the performance of an ORC cycle affected by the working fluids. They assessed the effect of different working fluids on thermal efficiency and total heat-recovery efficiency. Hung (2001) studied the heat recovery performance of an ORC with different working fluids such as benzene, toluene, p-xylene, R-113, and R-123. They stated that p-xylene leads to the highest efficiency. While benzene and p-xylene have the lowest irreversibility in high-temperature heat recovery, R-113 and R-123 show the best performance for low-temperature heat recovery. Hung et al. (1997) investigated the influence of different working fluids, such as benzene, ammonia, R-11, R-12, R-134a, and R-113, on the energy and exergy efficiencies of the ORC cycle.

In Table 2, the operating conditions for the mentioned working fluids are given. Here, $p_{in}$ is the turbine inlet pressure, $p_{out}$ is the turbine outlet pressure, $T_{in}$ is the evaporator inlet temperature, and $T_{C}$ is the condenser temperature.

Table 2.

Optimum operating conditions for working fluids in ORC (Dai et al., 2009).

Parameter	Unit	Working fluids
Parameter	Unit	NH₃	i-Butane	R-11	R-113	R-141b
$p_{in}$	(kPa)	3900	350	550	290	440
$p_{out}$	(kPa)	1003	155	106	45	79
$T_{in}$	°C)	26.43	26.2	25.39	25.19	25.29
$T_{C}$	°C)	26.43	26.2	25.39	25.19	25.29

Simulation and methodology

Software introduction

Aspen HYSYS v10 is one of the most powerful engineering simulation software employed in the chemical engineering field. Almost all the refineries, petrochemical plants, and other relative industries worldwide use this software in their projects. Aspen HYSYS is a product of Aspen Tech Company, one of the strongest simulation tools and software in engineering. This is because of its strong thermodynamic basis. Flexible design, high accuracy, and strength due to the available fluid package for different materials cause Aspen HYSYS to provide realistic and reliable simulations. Using Aspen HYSYS, in different processes in the oil, gas, and petrochemical industries, like refinery processes, can be modelled. Properties of different chemical and petrochemical materials are available in its libraries, which can assist the user. In addition, in this software, one can design all the equipment required in the process individually and separately and then perform the simulation.

Simulation and unit operation

As mentioned, to develop the simulation flowsheet for NGCC and NGCC + ORC processes, Aspen HYSYS v10 is employed. It is advanced software from the thermodynamic aspect and provides all the process design requirements for a chemical engineer. This software has a special financial tool in which the most important financial parameters are calculated, and the results are available in Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (APEA) part. Moreover, it includes modules in which one could perform a well and professional analysis of heat exchangers, distillation columns, or air coolers.

In the process shown in Figure 1, there is a series of unit operations, and for simulation, it is required to enter their operating information called spec. This action is called unit operations convergence. This information is presented in Table 3, and they are used for the convergence of the equipment and the whole NGCC system.

Table 3.

Specifications of unit operations in the NGCC system.

Unit operation	Operation specification (Spec)
K-100	The efficiency of 75% and discharge pressure of 1000 kPa
E-100	Without heat loss and outlet temperature of 35 °C
K-101	The efficiency of 75% and discharge pressure of 1400 kPa
E-101	Without heat loss, the outlet temperature of 35 °C and zero pressure drop
K-102	The efficiency of 75% and discharge pressure of 3100 kPa
Combustor	No heat loss, the pressure of 3100 kPa and no pressure drop; outlet temperature is calculated based on combustion reactions, complete conversion of hydrocarbons of the fuel
Gas turbine	Adiabatic efficiency of 75% and discharge pressure of 110 kPa
HRSG	No heat loss, Min Approach has a value of 1.897 °C
E-102	No heat loss, the outlet temperature of 40 °C, and zero pressure drop
V-100	Operating pressure of 110 kPa, and separates the water condensates at 40 °C.
P-100	Adiabatic efficiency of 75% and discharge pressure of 10,000 kPa
K-103	Adiabatic efficiency of 75% and discharge pressure of 1000 kPa
K-104	Adiabatic efficiency of 75% and discharge pressure of 2000kPa
K-105	Adiabatic efficiency of 75% and discharge pressure of 3100 kPa
E-103	No heat loss, the outlet temperature of 86.98 °C, and zero pressure drop
E-104	No heat loss, the outlet temperature of 104.5 °C, and zero pressure drop
HP Turbine	Adiabatic efficiency of 75% and discharge pressure of 5000 kPa
LP Turbine	Adiabatic efficiency of 75% and discharge pressure of 101.3 kPa
MP Turbine	Adiabatic efficiency of 75% and discharge pressure of 1000 kPa

Stoichiometric combustion air

Stoichiometric combustion is a theoretical point defined to achieve the optimum oxygen and gaseous fuel mixture for obtaining the highest possible heat in the combustor and maximum combustion efficiency. The natural gas and compressed air mixture burns in the combustor, and its hydrocarbon content converts to CO₂. Reactions that are used to estimate the theoretically required air are given in Equations (1)–(3) (Al Hashmi et al., 2018):

C H_{4} + (2 O_{2} + 7.52 N_{2}) \to C O_{2} + 2 H_{2} O + 7.52 N_{2}

(1)

C_{2} H_{6} + (3.5 O_{2} + 13.17 N_{2}) \to 2 C O_{2} + 3 H_{2} O + 13.17 N_{2}

(2)

C_{3} H_{8} + (5 O_{2} + 18.8 N_{2}) \to 3 C O_{2} + 4 H_{2} O + 18.8 N_{2}

(3)

The air-to-fuel ratio (AFR) is calculated based on the mass balance for carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen atoms in the complete combustion equations 1 to 3. Solving these four-atom mass balances results in a value of 9.9 for the molar stoichiometric AFR and 16.91 for its mass counterpart. Hence, 384.53 kg/s of stoichiometric air is required for gaseous fuel combustion. In addition, to achieve the complete conversion of natural gas during combustion in the gas turbine, 10% of the excess air (EA) should be injected. To calculate the amount of excess air, Equation (4) is suggested (Al Hashmi et al., 2018):

EA = \frac{Actual AFR - Stoichiometric AFR}{Stoichiometric AFR} \times 100 %

(4)

In some cases, the excess air ratio (EAR) is used in the calculation, which is written as Equation (5) (Al Hashmi et al., 2018):

EAR = \frac{Actual AFR}{Stoichiometric AFR}

(5)

Finally, according to Equation (5) and considering 10% excess air, the optimum AFR in mole and mass are obtained as 10.89 and 18.6, respectively. Considering the amount of gaseous fuel and the calculated molar or mass value of AFR, the flow rate of the inlet air to the combined cycle should be 442.866 kg/s.

Simulation fluid package

The Peng–Robinson fluid package in Aspen HYSYS is employed in the present simulation. This package is developed and improved with the software team in Aspen. This fluid package is extensively recommended for simulating a wide range of oil, gas, petrochemical, and power plant processes (Amann et al., 2009; Farajollahi and Hossainpour, 2017; Ystad et al., 2013). The formulation of Peng–Robinson equation of state is as Equation (6):

P = \frac{R T}{V - b} - \frac{a}{V (V + b) + b (V - b)}

(6)

In Equation (6), P is the pressure, R is the universal gas constant, V is the molar volume, and a and b are the equation constants.

Peng–Robinson fluid package can be used for a wide range of operating conditions. This fluid package is recommended for processes containing aromatic, natural gas dehydration, raw oil treatment, cryogenic separation systems, methanol, ethers, rich-hydrogen processes, carbon dioxide, methane, argon, air separation, and syngas production.

Analyses of the processes

Energy analysis

In the present study, comprehensive energy analysis is performed on the NGCC and NGCC + ORC cycles, and the mass and energy balance equations for unit operations are given in Table 4. These equations are written based on the general simultaneous mass and energy balance for a system (Equation (7)) (Dai et al., 2009).

\sum Energ y_{in} = \sum Energ y_{out}

(7)

Table 4.

Mass and energy balance equations and relationships for the base case and the hybrid system.

NGCC + ORC
Equipment	Equations
K-100	$Q_{1} = {\dot{m}}_{air} (h_{1} - h_{air})$
E-100	$({\dot{m}}_{1} (h_{1} - h_{2}))_{hot} = ({\dot{m}}_{90} (h_{91} - h_{90}))_{cold}$
K-101	$Q_{3} = {\dot{m}}_{2} (h_{3} - h_{2})$
E-101	$Q_{4} = {\dot{m}}_{3} (h_{3} - h_{4})$
K-102	$Q_{5} = {\dot{m}}_{4} (h_{5} - h_{4})$
Combustor	${\dot{m}}_{11} h_{11} = {\dot{m}}_{12} h_{12}$
Gas turbine	${\dot{m}}_{14} h_{14} = G_{1} + {\dot{m}}_{15} h_{15}$
MP turbine	${\dot{m}}_{66} h_{66} = G_{3} + {\dot{m}}_{77} h_{77}$
HP turbine	${\dot{m}}_{21} h_{21} = G_{2} + {\dot{m}}_{44} h_{44}$
LP turbine	${\dot{m}}_{80} h_{80} = G_{4} + {\dot{m}}_{54} h_{54}$
HRSG	$Q_{HRSG} = {\dot{m}}_{15} h_{15} + {\dot{m}}_{21} h_{21} + {\dot{m}}_{66} h_{66} + {\dot{m}}_{80} h_{8021}$
E-102	$Q_{21} = {\dot{m}}_{16} (h_{16} - h_{22})$
V-100	${\dot{m}}_{22} h_{22} = {\dot{m}}_{32} h_{32} + {\dot{m}}_{wastewater} h_{wastewater}$
P-100	$Q_{14} = {\dot{m}}_{4} (h_{39} - h_{43})$
E-105	$Q_{19} = {\dot{m}}_{54} (h_{54} - h_{43})$
K-103	$Q_{9} = {\dot{m}}_{65} (h_{19} - h_{65})$
E-103	$Q_{22} = {\dot{m}}_{19} (h_{19} - h_{18})$
K-104	$Q_{56} = {\dot{m}}_{18} (h_{45} - h_{18})$
E-104	$Q_{65} = {\dot{m}}_{45} (h_{45} - h_{38})$
K-105	$Q_{10} = {\dot{m}}_{38} (h_{30} - h_{38})$
Evaporator	$({\dot{m}}_{heat} (h_{heat} - h_{from ORC}))_{hot} = ({\dot{m}}_{R - 141 b} (h_{1} - h_{R - 141 b}))_{cold}$
Turbine	${\dot{m}}_{1} h_{1} = power + {\dot{m}}_{2} h_{2}$
Condenser	$({\dot{m}}_{2} (h_{2} - h_{3}))_{hot} = ({\dot{m}}_{return} (h_{return} - h_{cold stream}))_{cold}$
Pump	$WS = {\dot{m}}_{4} (h_{4} - h_{3})$

The final goal of the energy analysis is to calculate the energy efficiency ( $η_{energy}$ ) and energy loss ( $ε_{energy}$ ). The total energy efficiency is determined by dividing the total produced energy by the total input energy (Equation (8)). Based on the energy efficiency calculations, the total heat loss of the power plant in both cases is calculated as Equation (9):

η_{energy} = 100 \times \frac{{\dot{W}}_{prod}}{{\dot{W}}_{used} + {\dot{m}}_{fuel} LH V_{fuel}}

(8)

ε_{energy} = (1 - η_{energy}) \times ({\dot{W}}_{used} + {\dot{m}}_{fuel} LH V_{fuel})

(9)

where

{\dot{W}}_{used}

denotes the power consumption in compressors and water circulation pumps in the HRSG system. Thus, this parameter for the NGCC and NGCC + ORC cycles is written as Equations (10) and (11):

{\dot{W}}_{used}^{NGCC} = {\dot{W}}_{K 100} + {\dot{W}}_{K 101} + {\dot{W}}_{K 102} + {\dot{W}}_{K 103} + {\dot{W}}_{K 104} + {\dot{W}}_{K 105} + {\dot{W}}_{P 100}

(10)

{\dot{W}}_{used}^{NGCC + ORC} = {\dot{W}}_{K 100} + {\dot{W}}_{K 101} + {\dot{W}}_{K 102} + {\dot{W}}_{K 103} + {\dot{W}}_{K 104} + {\dot{W}}_{K 105} + {\dot{W}}_{P 100} + {\dot{W}}_{ORCPUMP}

(11)

In addition, ${\dot{m}}_{fuel} LH V_{fuel}$ represents the input energy to NGCC and NGCC + ORC cycles, where ${\dot{m}}_{fuel}$ is the mass flow rate of gaseous fuel (kg/s) and $LH V_{fuel}$ is the gaseous fuel heating value (kJ/kg). Moreover, ${\dot{W}}_{prod}$ exhibits the power (electricity) generation, and it is calculated for NGCC + ORC and NGCC using Equations (12) and (13), respectively:

{\dot{W}}_{prod}^{NGCC} = {\dot{W}}_{LP TURBINE} + {\dot{W}}_{MP TURBINE} + {\dot{W}}_{GAS TURBINE} + {\dot{W}}_{HP TURBINE}

(12)

{\dot{W}}_{prod}^{NGCC + ORC} = {\dot{W}}_{LP TURBINE} + {\dot{W}}_{MP TURBINE} + {\dot{W}}_{GAS TURBINE} + {\dot{W}}_{HP TURBINE} + {\dot{W}}_{TURBINE ORC}

(13)

Exergy analysis

In the present study, the following items are considered for the exergy analysis of the NGCC and NGCC + ORC cycles as the key parameters (Rocha et al., 2021):

At first, the exergy efficiency of equipment is obtained by dividing product exergy by fuel exergy:

ε_{k} = \frac{{\dot{E}}_{P, k}}{{\dot{E}}_{F, k}}

(14)

Also, the total exergy efficiency is defined as total produced exergy divided by total input exergy:

ε_{tot} = \frac{{\dot{E}}_{P, tot}}{{\dot{E}}_{F, tot}}

(15)

Exergy destruction of each equipment is calculated by subtracting product exergy from fuel exergy according to Equation (16):

{\dot{E}}_{D, k} = {\dot{E}}_{F, k} - {\dot{E}}_{P, k}

(16)

Fuel exergy is the accessible exergy. For instance, in a pump or compressor, the amount of consumed power is

{\dot{E}}_{F, k}

, and product exergy is the amount of obtained exergy from the fuel exergy. For example, in a compressor, the difference between outlet and inlet exergy is

{\dot{E}}_{P, k}

. Based on these definitions, equations, and relationships regarding the exergy destruction of equipment in the cycles are presented in Table 5.

Table 5.

Governing exergy equations for the power plant in the base and hybrid cases.

Equipment	Exergy destruction
K-100	${\dot{E}}_{D} = {\dot{W}}_{used} - ({\dot{E}}_{1} - {\dot{E}}_{air})$
K-101	${\dot{E}}_{D} = {\dot{W}}_{used} - ({\dot{E}}_{3} - {\dot{E}}_{2})$
K-102	${\dot{E}}_{D} = {\dot{W}}_{used} - ({\dot{E}}_{5} - {\dot{E}}_{4})$
K-103	${\dot{E}}_{D} = {\dot{W}}_{used} - ({\dot{E}}_{19} - {\dot{E}}_{65})$
K-104	${\dot{E}}_{D} = {\dot{W}}_{used} - ({\dot{E}}_{30} - {\dot{E}}_{38})$
K-105	${\dot{E}}_{D} = ({\dot{E}}_{14} - {\dot{E}}_{15}) - {\dot{W}}_{prod}$
Gas Turbine	${\dot{E}}_{D} = ({\dot{E}}_{14} - {\dot{E}}_{15}) - {\dot{W}}_{prod}$
MP Turbine	${\dot{E}}_{D} = ({\dot{E}}_{66} - {\dot{E}}_{77}) - {\dot{W}}_{prod}$
HP Turbine	${\dot{E}}_{D} = ({\dot{E}}_{21} - {\dot{E}}_{44}) - {\dot{W}}_{prod}$
LP Turbine	${\dot{E}}_{D} = ({\dot{E}}_{80} - {\dot{E}}_{54}) - {\dot{W}}_{prod}$
E-100	${\dot{E}}_{D} = ({\dot{E}}_{1} - {\dot{E}}_{2}) - Q_{2} (1 - \frac{T_{0}}{T_{2}})$
Combustor	${\dot{E}}_{D} = ({\dot{E}}_{7} + {\dot{E}}_{fuel gas}) - ({\dot{E}}_{12} - {\dot{E}}_{7} - {\dot{E}}_{fuel gas})$
E-101	${\dot{E}}_{D} = ({\dot{E}}_{3} - {\dot{E}}_{4}) - Q_{4} (1 - \frac{T_{0}}{T_{4}})$
E-102	${\dot{E}}_{D} = ({\dot{E}}_{16} - {\dot{E}}_{22}) - Q_{from NGCC} (1 - \frac{T_{0}}{T_{22}})$
E-103	${\dot{E}}_{D} = ({\dot{E}}_{19} - {\dot{E}}_{18}) - Q_{22} (1 - \frac{T_{0}}{T_{22}})$
E-104	${\dot{E}}_{D} = ({\dot{E}}_{45} - {\dot{E}}_{38}) - Q_{65} (1 - \frac{T_{0}}{T_{38}})$
P-100	${\dot{E}}_{D} = {\dot{W}}_{used} - ({\dot{E}}_{39} - {\dot{E}}_{43})$
HRSG	${\dot{E}}_{D} = ({\dot{E}}_{15} - {\dot{E}}_{16}) - (({\dot{E}}_{21} - {\dot{E}}_{water}) + ({\dot{E}}_{66} - {\dot{E}}_{44}) + ({\dot{E}}_{80} - {\dot{E}}_{77}))$
E-100 (new)	${\dot{E}}_{D} = ({\dot{E}}_{1} - {\dot{E}}_{2}) - ({\dot{E}}_{91} - {\dot{E}}_{90})$
Turbine (new)	${\dot{E}}_{D} = ({\dot{E}}_{1} - {\dot{E}}_{2}) - {\dot{W}}_{prod}$
Condenser	${\dot{E}}_{D} = ({\dot{E}}_{2} - {\dot{E}}_{3}) - ({\dot{E}}_{return} - {\dot{E}}_{cold stream})$
Pump	${\dot{E}}_{D} = {\dot{W}}_{used} - ({\dot{E}}_{4} - {\dot{E}}_{3})$

The equipment exergy destruction percentage is obtained by dividing the exergy destruction rate of the equipment by the total exergy destruction rate of the system.

δ_{k} = \frac{{\dot{E}}_{D, k}}{{\dot{E}}_{D, tot}}

(17)

In the present study, the total exergy in the combustor, where chemical reactions happen, is obtained from the summation of physical exergy (

{\dot{E}}_{k}^{PH}

) and chemical exergy (

{\dot{E}}_{k}^{CH}

), and in the other points of the cycles, it only consists of physical exergy. Physical exergy can be calculated as Equation (18). Specific physical exergy (

e_{k}^{ph}

) for each stream is read from the properties results in Aspen HYSYS for each stream.

{\dot{E}}_{k}^{PH} = e_{k}^{ph} \times {\dot{m}}_{k}

(18)

Environmental analysis

In this simulation, the environmental analysis concerns the net carbon dioxide (CO₂) emission rate. The net CO₂ emission rate is the summation of direct and indirect emissions:

Net C O_{2} emission = direct + indirect

(19)

indirect = Heat + Electricity

(20)

Direct emission denotes the flow rate of CO₂ released to the atmosphere in the stack flue gas. This is the same for both NGCC and NGCC + ORC cases. Indirect emission is the total emission due to electricity and heat supply, which is written as Equation (20). In the power plant cycle, the required electricity for air and FGR compressors and pumps are supplied by the turbines of the cycle. As a result, it can be said that the indirect emission will be zero. Consequently, Equation (19) can be re-written as Equation (21):

Net C O_{2} emission = direct

(21)

Economic analysis

Here, the competitive parameter of total annualized cost (TAC) is considered, which depends on two parameters of capital expenses (CAPEX) and total operational expenses (OPEX). These two parameters are calculated using the financial tool APEA in Aspen HYSYS. CRF play a role in total annualized cost calculation and depends on two parameters, the interest rate of 8% (i) and the plant’s economic lifetime of 30 years (m). Economic parameters can be determined using Equations (22) and (23) (Mores et al., 2014):

TAC = \frac{CAPEX}{CRF} + OPEX

(22)

CRF = \frac{i \times {(1 + i)}^{m}}{{(1 + i)}^{m} - 1}

(23)

Furthermore, after calculating TAC, the cost of electricity in NGCC and NGCC + ORC cycles can be calculated using Equation (24) (Mores et al., 2014):

COE = \frac{TAC}{{\dot{W}}_{net} \times POT}

(24)

In Equation (25), POT represents the plant operating time per year. Here, it is assumed that the plant's useful operating time per year equals 8150 hours (340 days (Abdelaziz et al., 2017)).

Results and discussion

Validation

The validity of the basic ORC thermodynamic model has been established by verifying it against published data provided by Shokati et al. (2015). The simulation results are compared to this reference in Table 6 under similar operating conditions. The comparison reveals that the values of parameters obtained in the present study and those reported in the literature are in good agreement. It is noteworthy that the simulation and reference data correspond well.

Table 6.

Comparison between the results of simulation and reference paper.

Component	Exergy destruction (kW)		Absolute error (5%)
Component	This work	Shokati et al. (2015)	Absolute error (5%)
Evaporator	624	625.5	0.24
Turbine	763.5	762.1	0.18
Preheater	1089	1099.0	0.91
Pump	20.9	21.2	1.43
Condenser	278.5	278.7	0.07

Sensitivity analysis

Effect of heat source temperature on the variables

The effect of the heat source temperature on the required flow rate of the working fluid is presented in Figure 3. According to Figure 3, increasing heat source temperatures increases the required flow rate for all the studied working fluids of the ORC. Based on this figure, it can be observed that the rising trend for fluids with the R prefix is more significant than ammonia and isobutane, which can be because of the boiling point. The flow rate of the working fluid increases with the temperature of the heat source since the design spec in the evaporator is adjusted in a way that the software calculates the maximum required flow rate for working fluid at evaporator temperature. Thus, when the heat source has a higher temperature, further working fluid is required to have saturated vapor at the evaporator outlet and turbine inlet.

Figure 3.

Effect of heat source temperature on the required flow rate of the working fluid.

The effect of the heat source temperature on the turbine power generation is shown in Figure 4. Referring to Figure 4, increasing the temperature of the heat source in ORC raises the generated power in the ORC turbine. This can be explained using the mass and energy balance around the turbine:

power = \dot{m} \times (h_{1} - h_{2})

(25)

Figure 4.

Effect of heat source temperature on the turbine power generation.

Based on Equation (25), the turbine’s power is directly related to the working fluid flow rate. Therefore, it is expected that by increasing the flow rate of the ORC working fluid, further power can be generated in the turbine. It is pointed out that based on Figure 3, increasing the flow rate of working fluid with an increase in heat source temperature was explained.

In Figure 5, the variation in the total exergy destruction rate of ORC against the heat source temperature is measured. As Figure 5 depicts, the increase in the heat source temperature results in decline in the exergy destruction for working fluids with the R prefix and a rise in exergy destruction for ammonia and isobutane. This is an important result in the total exergy efficiency evaluation of cycles.

Figure 5.

Effect of heat source temperature on the total exergy destruction rate of the ORC cycle.

Figure 6 shows the influence of the heat source temperature on the total exergy efficiency of the ORC. The total exergy efficiency of the ORC cycle for all the working fluids exhibits an increasing trend with the growth of heat source temperature, which is illustrated in Figure 6. However, the important issue is the significant difference between the efficiency of the cycle using ammonia and isobutane as the working fluid and using working fluids with the R prefix.

Figure 6.

Effect of heat source temperature on the exergy efficiency of the ORC.

Simulation results for the studied working fluids

Results of using ammonia

In Tables 7 to 9, the simulation results for the power plant integrated with the ORC employing ammonia as the working fluid are presented. Based on the results, using ammonia leads to an enhancement of the plant's total energy efficiency and a reduction in the cost of electricity from 0.04 to 0.036 USD/kWh. Furthermore, the results demonstrate that the required flow rate of this working fluid of the ORC is 12,710 kmol/h, which leaves the evaporator as a saturated vapor to be utilized for power generation in the turbine.

Table 7.

Thermodynamic conditions of ORC with ammonia as the working fluid.

Stream	T (°C)	P (kPa)	M (kmol/h)
From ORC	45	3100	40,140
NH₃	26.43	3900	12,710
2	25.27	1003	12,710
3	25.27	1003	12,710
1	77.36	3900	12,710
Return	20	500	613,000

Table 8.

Results of energy and exergy analyses for ammonia as the working fluid.

Parameter	Unit	Value
Heat transfer in the evaporator	(MW)	73.34
Generated power in the ORC turbine	(MW)	7.58
Power plant net generated power	(MW)	313.09
Plant energy efficiency	(%)	47.37
The energy efficiency of NGCC + ORC	(MW)	50.2
Turbine exergy destruction	(MW)	2.52
Pump exergy destruction	(MW)	0.06
Evaporator exergy destruction	(MW)	4.64
Condenser exergy destruction	(MW)	21.05
Heat transfer in the condenser	(MW)	66.18
ORC pump consumed power	(MW)	0.39
Net power of ORC cycle	(MW)	7.19

Table 9.

Economic results for NGCC + ORC with ammonia as the working fluid.

Parameter	Unit	Value
Capital expenses	(MUSD)	102.89
Operating expenses	(MUSD/year)	94.88
Total annualized cost	(MUSD)	104.02
Power plant cost of electricity	($/kWh)	0.04
NGCC + ORC cost of electricity	($/kWh)	0.036

Results of using isobutane

The simulation results for the ORC using isobutane as the working fluid are reported in Tables 10 to 12. Based on the specified spec for the evaporator, the required flow rate of the working fluid is 11,150 kmol/h, which this stream produces 7974 kW power in the turbine through expansion from 1550 to 350 kPa. The net power generation of the cycle with this working fluid is determined as 7450.7 kW.

Table 10.

Thermodynamic conditions of ORC with isobutane as the working fluid.

Stream	T (°C)	P (kPa)	M (kmol/h)
From ORC	45	3100	40,140
i-Butane	26.2	1550	11,150
2	44.83	350	11,150
3	25.19	350	11,150
1	87.01	1550	11,150
Return	20	500	610,300

Table 11.

Results of energy and exergy analyses for isobutane as the working fluid.

Parameter	Unit	Value
Heat transfer in the evaporator	(MW)	73.34
Generated power in the ORC turbine	(MW)	7.97
Power plant net generated power	(MW)	313.1
Plant energy efficiency	(%)	47.37
The energy efficiency of NGCC + ORC	(%)	50.21
Turbine exergy destruction	(MW)	2.52
Pump exergy destruction	(MW)	0.15
Evaporator exergy destruction	(MW)	4.11
Condenser exergy destruction	(MW)	10.8
Heat transfer in the condenser	(MW)	65.88
ORC pump consumed power	(MW)	0.52
Net power of ORC cycle	(MW)	7.45

Table 12.

Economic results for NGCC + ORC with isobutane as the working fluid.

Parameter	Unit	Value
Capital expenses	(MUSD)	102.87
Operating expenses	(MUSD/year)	94.99
Total annualized cost	(MUSD)	104.12
Power plant cost of electricity	($/kWh)	0.04
NGCC + ORC cost of electricity	($/kWh)	0.036

Results of using R-11

According to the Aspen HYSYS simulation results, using R-11 as the working fluid leads to net power generation of 7814.7 kW, and for producing this power, 9226 kilomoles per hour of the working fluid is required, which absorbs the necessary heat from the heat source in the evaporator and feeds it to the turbine. In this case, the energy efficiency of the plant is 50.22%, which is higher compared to the base case. Increasing energy efficiency translates into a decrease in the cost of electricity from 0.04 to 0.0358 USD/kWh. Simulation results for this case are presented in Tables 13 to 15.

Table 13.

Thermodynamic conditions of ORC with R-11 as the working fluid.

Stream	T (°C)	P (kPa)	M (kmol/h)
From ORC	45	3100	40,140
R-11	25.46	550	9226
2	25.14	106	9226
3	25.16	106	9226
1	82.51	500	9226
Return	20	500	60,700

Table 14.

Results of energy and exergy analyses for R-11 as the working fluid.

Parameter	Unit	Value
Heat transfer in the evaporator	(MW)	73.78
Generated power in the ORC turbine	(MW)	7.96
Power plant net generated power	(MW)	313.1
Plant energy efficiency	(%)	47.37
The energy efficiency of NGCC + ORC	(%)	50.22
Turbine exergy destruction	(MW)	2.62
Pump exergy destruction	(MW)	0.042
Evaporator exergy destruction	(MW)	3.94
Condenser exergy destruction	(MW)	1.77
Heat transfer in the condenser	(MW)	65.53
ORC pump consumed power	(MW)	0.14
Net power of ORC cycle	(MW)	7.81

Table 15.

Economic results for NGCC + ORC with R-11 as the working fluid.

Parameter	Unit	Value
Capital expenses	(MUSD)	101.41
Operating expenses	(MUSD/year)	94.67
Total annualized cost	(MUSD)	103.68
Power plant cost of electricity	($/kWh)	0.04
NGCC + ORC cost of electricity	($/kWh)	0.036

Results of using R-113

In Tables 16 to 18, the simulation results for the case with R-113 as the working fluid are reported. According to the result, using this working fluid enhances the thermodynamic efficiency of the power plant, which shows its influence on the cost of electricity. The required flow rate for this working fluid is 7640 kmol/h, which through expansion from 290 to 45 kPa generates 7870 kW power in the turbine.

Table 16.

Thermodynamic conditions of ORC with R-113 as the working fluid.

Stream	T (°C)	P (kPa)	M (kmol/h)
From ORC	45	3100	40,140
R-113	24.87	290	7640
2	49.24	45	7640
3	24.72	45	7640
1	83.56	290	7640
Return	15	500	607,300

Table 17.

Results of energy and exergy analyses for R-113 as the working fluid.

Parameter	Unit	Value
Heat transfer in the evaporator	(MW)	73.34
Generated power in the ORC turbine	(MW)	7.87
Power plant net generated power	(MW)	313.1
Plant energy efficiency	(%)	47.37
The energy efficiency of NGCC + ORC	(%)	50.22
Turbine exergy destruction	(MW)	2.47
Pump exergy destruction	(MW)	0.024
Evaporator exergy destruction	(MW)	4.016
Condenser exergy destruction	(MW)	1.6
Heat transfer in the condenser	(MW)	65.56
ORC pump consumed power	(MW)	0.08
Net power of ORC cycle	(MW)	7.79

Table 18.

Economic results for NGCC + ORC with R-113 as the working fluid.

Parameter	Unit	Value
Capital expenses	(MUSD)	101.22
Operating expenses	(MUSD/year)	94.58
Total annualized cost	(MUSD)	103.56
Power plant cost of electricity	($/kWh)	0.04
NGCC + ORC cost of electricity	($/kWh)	0.036

Results of using R-141b

The last working fluid that was studied is R-141b, and the simulation results for this case are given in Tables 19 to 21. Using this working fluid results in a net power generation of 7756.1 kW. Moreover, the total energy efficiency of the power plant after the addition of ORC with the mentioned working fluid becomes 50.22%, which shows a significant improvement. Similar to the other working fluids, in this case also the cost of electricity is lower than that of NGCC.

Table 19.

Thermodynamic conditions of ORC with R-141b as the working fluid.

Stream	T (°C)	P (kPa)	M (kmol/h)	Stream	T (°C)	P (kPa)	M (kmol/h)
From ORC	45	3100	40140	3	25.04	79	8561
R-141b	25.29	440	8561	1	81.89	440	8561
2	39.48	79	8561	Return	15	500	607600

Table 20.

Results of energy and exergy analyses for R-114b as the working fluid.

Parameter	Unit	Value
Heat transfer in the evaporator	(MW)	73.34
Generated power in the ORC turbine	(MW)	7.87
Power plant net generated power	(MW)	313
Plant energy efficiency	(%)	47.37
The energy efficiency of NGCC + ORC	(%)	50.22
Turbine exergy destruction	(MW)	2.55
Pump exergy destruction	(MW)	0.03
Evaporator exergy destruction	(MW)	4.06
Condenser exergy destruction	(MW)	1.59
Heat transfer in the condenser	(MW)	65.6
ORC pump consumed power	(MW)	0.11
Net power of ORC cycle	(MW)	7.77

Table 21.

Economic results for NGCC + ORC with R-114b as the working fluid.

Parameter	Unit	Value
Capital expenses	(MUSD)	101.18
Operating expenses	(MUSD/year)	94.62
Total annualized cost	(MUSD)	103.61
Power plant cost of electricity	($/kWh)	0.04
NGCC + ORC cost of electricity	($/kWh)	0.036

Comparison of the results

In this section, the key results of different working fluids are compared and shown in Figures 7 to 11. According to Figure 7, the exergy destruction of ORC with ammonia and isobutane as working fluid is considerably higher than in the cases that use working fluids with the R prefix, which results in a reduction in the exergy efficiency of ORC with ammonia and isobutane. Based on this study, using R-113 causes the lowest exergy destruction in ORC. The exergy destruction of ORC with this working fluid is 71.3% and 53.88% less than that of ORC with ammonia and isobutane, respectively.

Figure 7.

Comparison of total exergy destruction of ORC using the studied working fluids.

Figure 8.

Comparison between the total energy efficiency of power plant with and without the working fluids.

Figure 9.

Comparison of net power generation using studied working fluids.

Figure 10.

Comparison of total costs of power plant with different working fluids.

Figure 11.

Comparison between the cost of electricity in different cases.

On the other hand, based on Figure 8, it can be said that integrating ORC with the NGCC power plant improves the total energy efficiency in general, and among all the studied working fluids, those with the R prefix could achieve energy efficiency of 50.2%, which is higher than NGCC by 2.8%. It seems that high and significant exergy destruction in the cases with ammonia and isobutane as working fluid affects the energy efficiency of the ORC cycle and makes it decline.

Exergy destruction plays an important role in thermodynamic performance. Figure 9 shows that the net power generation of the turbine for cases with ammonia and isobutane as working fluid is significantly lower than that of R-11, R-113, and R-114b as the working fluid. Therefore, it emphasizes the importance of exergy destruction in studying a thermodynamic cycle. According to Figure 9, when the ORC works with ammonia as the working fluid, power generation in the turbine is 3.5% less than isobutane, 8% less than R-11, 7.67% lower than R-113 case, and 7.3% less than R-141b case. This demonstrates the superiority of working fluids with the R prefix for power generation in the ORC.

Figures 10 and 11 compare the ORCs considering the economic performance. According to Figure 10, the capital cost of ORC with ammonia as the working fluid is higher than in all the other cases. Furthermore, operating expenses have the highest value for isobutane working fluid. This comparison demonstrates that using ammonia and isobutane increases the total annualized cost of the scheme too. However, TAC for R-11, R-113, and R-141b show a similar trend and with a significant difference compared to ammonia and isobutane.

Similarly, increasing TAC causes the cost of electricity for ammonia and isobutane cases to be higher than the other three working fluids cases. It should be noted that according to Figure 11, integrating ORC reduces the cost of electricity compared to NGCC. Nevertheless, with a more precise comparison, it is clear that fluids with the R prefix perform better.

Finally, a comparative study of exergy destruction ratio for different components considering various working fluids is presented in Table 22.

Table 22.

Results of exergy destruction ratio for different working fluids.

Parameter	NH₃	i-Butane	R-11	R-113	R-141b
Turbine exergy destruction ratio (%)	8.92	14.36	31.27	30.40	30.99
Pump exergy destruction ratio (%)	0.22	0.87	0.50	0.30	0.40
Evaporator exergy destruction ratio (%)	16.41	23.35	47.03	49.53	49.31
Condenser exergy destruction ratio (%)	74.45	61.42	21.20	19.77	19.31

Conclusion

The study investigated the potential capacity of the Natural Gas Combined Cycle power plant and the use of different working fluids, including ammonia, isobutane, R-11, R-113, and R-141b, in the ORC system. The results indicated that the integration of ORC with NGCC enhances the technical and economic characteristics of the plant. However, the selection of an appropriate working fluid is a significant challenge in achieving the desired improvement in the cycle.

The study identified the recirculated flue gas leaving the last compressor as the suitable heat source for the ORC and the basis of ORC design. The parametric study conducted on the temperature of the heat source showed that R-11, R-113, and R-141b are better working fluid choices than isobutane and ammonia due to lower exergy destruction, higher net power generation in the turbine, and higher total energy efficiency.

The economic analysis revealed that ammonia and isobutane are disadvantageous compared to R-11, R-113, and R-141b and could not achieve lower total annualized cost. Although the cost of electricity for ammonia and isobutane cases is lower than NGCC, it is the highest among all the studied working fluids. Therefore, these two working fluids cannot be used to attain maximum improvement in the cycle at the studied conditions, and there are better alternatives.

Overall, it can be concluded that R-11, R-113, and R-141b are better choices for the ORC system in NGCC power plants. However, a more precise and detailed comparison showed that R-113 has close technical characteristics with the other two and provides lower total annualized cost (TAC) and cost of electricity (COE).

Implications of the study

The study provides insights into the potential of integrating ORC with natural gas combined cycle power plants. The findings of this study demonstrate that integrating ORC with NGCC can significantly improve the thermo-economic performance of the power plant. Furthermore, this study identifies the most suitable working fluid for this integration. The results of the sensitivity analysis also indicate that careful selection of the working fluid is critical for achieving maximum benefits.

Limitations of the study

This study has several limitations that need to be considered while interpreting the results. Firstly, the simulation is based on a specific set of operating conditions, which may not be representative of all real-world scenarios. Secondly, the study does not consider the environmental impact of the ORC integration with the NGCC power plant. Lastly, the economic analysis considers only the capital and operational costs and does not include externalities such as environmental and social costs.

Future scope

The findings of this study provide a foundation for future research on ORC integration with natural gas combined cycle power plants. Future studies could focus on evaluating the performance of ORC with other heat sources such as flue gases from other sources like biomass power plants and waste incineration plants. Additionally, future research could investigate the environmental impact of the ORC integration and incorporate it into the economic analysis. Furthermore, future research could explore the potential of using different working fluids or optimizing the operating conditions to further improve the performance of the power plant. While the present study does not directly address the cost of CO₂ sequestration during energy production in the plants, it is crucial to evaluate the influence of CO₂ emissions on the selection of working fluids and working conditions. Future research should aim to address this limitation by quantitatively analyzing the cost of CO₂ emissions and comparing it to the performance of different working fluids and working conditions. By including this analysis, the study’s implications can be improved significantly, particularly in the context of climate change and carbon neutrality goals. We thank the reviewer for their insightful suggestion, and we will certainly consider this issue in our future work.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: In 2022, the first batch of Jiangsu industry university research cooperation project “research and development of cold chain logistics intelligent stowage system based on big data technology” was funded by the fund.

In 2022, Jiangsu Provincial and Department-affiliated colleges and universities were funded by the “Research on the Classroom Revolution Practice of Management from the Perspective of “Help Classroom” (Project No.: ZX222105002,) for the construction of the key professional group “e-commerce professional group” of Jiangsu provincial and departmental universities.

Novel coronavirus pneumonia background, a study on the construction of emergency logistics system in the central city of Jiangsu and Jiangsu Province in 2020 (Project No.: 2020SJA1823, Jiangsu), a general project of philosophy and Social Sciences in universities and colleges.

The project of Jiangsu University Students’ innovation and entrepreneurship training program in 2020: investigation and Research on urban emergency logistics system based on the new coronavirus epidemic—Taking Huai’an, an important central city in Northern Jiangsu as an example (Project No.: 202012805022y) is funded by the fund.

ORCID iD

Ruihua Li

References

Abdelaziz

Hosny

Gadalla

, et al. (2017) Novel process technologies for conversion of carbon dioxide from industrial flue gas streams into methanol. Journal of CO2 Utilization 21, 52–63.

Agrawal

Jain

, et al. (2014) A life cycle environmental impact assessment of natural gas combined cycle thermal power plant in Andhra Pradesh, India. Environmental Development 11, 162–174.

Ahmadi

El Haj Assad

Jamali

, et al. (2020) Applications of geothermal organic Rankine cycle for electricity production. Journal of Cleaner Production 274: 122950.

Ahmadi

Irandoost Shahrestani

Sayadian

, et al. (2021) Performance analysis of an integrated cooling system consisted of earth-to-air heat exchanger (EAHE) and water spray channel. Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry 143(1): 473–483.

Al Hashmi

Mohamed

AAA

Dadach

(2018) Process simulation of a 620 Mw-natural gas combined cycle power plant with optimum flue gas recirculation. Open Journal of Energy Efficiency 7(2), 33.

Amann

J-M

Kanniche

Bouallou

(2009) Natural gas combined cycle power plant modified into an O2/CO2 cycle for CO2 capture. Energy Conversion and Management 50(3), 510–521.

Aryanfar

Assad

MEH

Khosravi

, et al. (2022) Energy, exergy and economic analysis of combined solar ORC-VCC power plant. International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 17: 196–205.

Assad

MEH

Aryanfar

Radman

, et al. (2021) Energy and exergy analyses of single flash geothermal power plant at optimum separator temperature. International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 16(3): 873–881.

Brito

TLF

dos Santos

Galbieri

, et al. (2017) Qualitative comparative analysis of cities that introduced compressed natural gas to their urban bus fleet. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 71, 502–508.

10.

Cao

Delpisheh

Yousefiasl

, et al. (2022) Examination and optimization of a novel auxiliary trigeneration system for a ship through waste-to-energy from its engine. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 31, 101860.

11.

Cao

Haghghi

Shamsaiee

, et al. (2020) Evaluation and optimization of a novel geothermal-driven hydrogen production system using an electrolyser fed by a two-stage organic rankine cycle with different working fluids. Journal of Energy Storage 32, 101766.

12.

Dai

Wang

Gao

(2009) Parametric optimization and comparative study of organic Rankine cycle (ORC) for low grade waste heat recovery. Energy Conversion and Management 50(3), 576–582.

13.

Ehyaei

Ahmadi

Assad

MEH

, et al. (2020) Investigation of an integrated system combining an organic Rankine cycle and absorption chiller driven by geothermal energy: Energy, exergy, and economic analyses and optimization. Journal of Cleaner Production 258, 120780.

14.

El Haj Assad

Aryanfar

Javaherian

, et al. (2021) Energy, exergy, economic and exergoenvironmental analyses of transcritical CO2 cycle powered by single flash geothermal power plant. International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 16(4): 1504–1518.

15.

Farajollahi

Hossainpour

(2017) Application of organic Rankine cycle in integration of thermal power plant with post-combustion CO2 capture and compression. Energy 118, 927–936.

16.

Fichera

Samanta

Volpe

(2022) Exergetic analysis of a natural gas combined-cycle power plant with a molten carbonate fuel cell for carbon capture. Sustainability 14(1), 533.

17.

Gas

P-QN

(2006) Natural gas processing: The crucial link between natural gas production and its transportation to market. 2006, Los Alamos 20–22.

18.

Gazzani

Macchi

Manzolini

(2013) CO2 Capture in natural gas combined cycle with SEWGS. Part A: Thermodynamic performances. International Journal of Greenhouse gas Control 12, 493–501.

19.

Haghghi

Holagh

Chitsaz

, et al. (2019) Thermodynamic assessment of a novel multi-generation solid oxide fuel cell-based system for production of electrical power, cooling, fresh water, and hydrogen. Energy Conversion and Management 197, 111895.

20.

Haghghi

Mohammadi

Pesteei

, et al. (2020) Exergoeconomic evaluation of a system driven by parabolic trough solar collectors for combined cooling, heating, and power generation; a case study. Energy 192, 116594.

21.

Ricardez-Sandoval

(2016) Dynamic modelling of a commercial-scale CO2 capture plant integrated with a natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plant. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 55, 23–35.

22.

Hoseinzadeh

Astiaso Garcia

(2022) Techno-economic assessment of hybrid energy flexibility systems for islands’ decarbonization: A case study in Italy. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 51: 101929.

23.

Hoseinzadeh

Stephan Heyns

(2021) Advanced energy, exergy, and environmental (3E) analyses and optimization of a coal-fired 400 MW thermal power plant. Journal of Energy Resources Technology 143(8), American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection.

24.

Hoseinzadeh

Stephan Heyns

(2022) Development of a model efficiency improvement for the designing of feedwater heaters network in thermal power plants. Journal of Energy Resources Technology 144(7), 1–11.

25.

Hossainpour

(2019) Thermo-economic evaluation of 300 MW coal based oxy-fuel power plant integrated with organic Rankine cycle. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 88, 383–392.

26.

, et al. (2017) Thermodynamic analysis and techno-economic evaluation of an integrated natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plant with post-combustion CO2 capture. Applied Thermal Engineering 111, 308–316.

27.

Hung

T-C

(2001) Waste heat recovery of organic Rankine cycle using dry fluids. Energy Conversion and Management 42(5), 539–553.

28.

Hung

T-C

Shai

Wang

(1997) A review of organic Rankine cycles (ORCs) for the recovery of low-grade waste heat. Energy 22(7), 661–667.

29.

Jiang

Gonzalez-Diaz

Ling-Chin

, et al. (2019) Post-combustion CO2 capture from a natural gas combined cycle power plant using activated carbon adsorption. Applied Energy 245, 1–15.

30.

Johnson

Keith

(2004) Fossil electricity and CO2 sequestration: How natural gas prices, initial conditions and retrofits determine the cost of controlling CO2 emissions. Energy Policy 32(3), 367–382.

31.

Dai

, et al. (2021) Multi-criteria optimization of a biomass gasification-based combined cooling, heating, and power system integrated with an organic rankine cycle in different climate zones in China. Energy Conversion and Management 243, 114364.

32.

Cui

, et al. (2019) Process synthesis and simultaneous optimization of extractive distillation system integrated with organic Rankine cycle and economizer for waste heat recovery. Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 102, 61–72.

33.

Liu

B-T

Chien

K-H

Wang

C-C

(2004) Effect of working fluids on organic Rankine cycle for waste heat recovery. Energy 29(8), 1207–1217.

34.

Mahmoudan

Samadof

Hosseinzadeh

, et al. (2021) A multigeneration cascade system using ground-source energy with cold recovery: 3E analyses and multi-objective optimization. Energy 233, 121185.

35.

Mao

Guo

Chang

, et al. (2005) Improving air quality in large cities by substituting natural gas for coal in China: Changing idea and incentive policy implications. Energy Policy 33(3), 307–318.

36.

Godoy

Mussati

, et al. (2014) A NGCC power plant with a CO2 post-combustion capture option. Optimal economics for different generation/capture goals. Chemical Engineering Research and Design 92(7), 1329–1353.

37.

Qureshi

Ali

Sher

(2021) Part load operation of natural gas fired power plant with CO2 capture system for selective exhaust gas recirculation. Applied Thermal Engineering 190, 116808.

38.

Rashid

Safdarnejad

Powell

(2019) Dynamic simulation, control, and performance evaluation of a synergistic solar and natural gas hybrid power plant. Energy Conversion and Management 179, 270–285.

39.

Reddy

Kaushik

Tyagi

(2012) Exergetic analysis of solar concentrator aided natural gas fired combined cycle power plant. Renewable Energy 39(1), 114–125.

40.

Rocha

DHD

De Souza

TAZ

Coronado

CJR

, et al. (2021) Exergoenvironmental analysis of hydrogen production through glycerol steam reforming. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 46(1), 1385–1402.

41.

Shokati

Ranjbar

Yari

(2015) Exergoeconomic analysis and optimization of basic, dual-pressure and dual-fluid ORCs and Kalina geothermal power plants: A comparative study. Renewable Energy 83, 527–542.

42.

Tafone

Ding

, et al. (2020) Levelised cost of storage (LCOS) analysis of liquid air energy storage system integrated with organic Rankine cycle. Energy 198, 117275.

43.

Ystad

PAM

Lakew

Bolland

(2013) Integration of low-temperature transcritical CO2 Rankine cycle in natural gas-fired combined cycle (NGCC) with post-combustion CO2 capture. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 12, 213–219.