Energy Conversion and Management 176 (2018) 11–29

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

Economic analysis of heat and electricity production in combined heat and T

power plant equipped with steam and water boilers and natural gas engines
⁎
Jarosław Król, Paweł Ocłoń
Cracow University of Technology, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Thermal Power Engineering, Al. Jana Pawła II 37, 31-435 Cracow, Poland

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper deals with the cost and energy efficiency for heat and electricity production. The operation of the
Combined heat and power medium size Combined Heat and Power plant, located in Poland, with diverse production units: steam boilers,
Natural gas engines water boilers and gas engines is studied. The analysis is performed for spring-autumn season, characterized by
Modeling of energy systems relatively low and variable heat power demand. Due to such mutable conditions production units are forced to
Economic analysis
operate out of the nominal efficiencies. The analysis is performed for heating and electric energy production on:
steam boilers and turbo-generator, water boilers, steam boiler and gas engines; and water boiler and gas engines.
To reflect the actual situation, a mathematical model for the complete installation is developed. The model
calculates energy balance for a given heating power demand profile. The model is based on the actual para-
meters, including all technical aspects and equipment’s limitations. The developed tool enables to select the
mode of operation for each production unit separately or in combined mode. As a result, the energy balance in
one hour operation period is calculated. Such approach allows to compare the energy production efficiency and
cost in each system at every hour.
Due to the fact, that nowadays heat and electricity production business, is strongly affected by legal reg-
ulations, the analysis of gas engines profitability with and without subsidy for natural gas based co-generation is
performed.

1. Introduction natural gas. They evaluated the cycle in terms of exergo-economic at

The energy production efficiency and fossil fuels availability are
mainstream subjects in the power engineering. Worldwide energy
policy is focused on energy production improvement and energy
sources diversification. Recently many studies are performed on the
energy efficiency growth and reduction of operational costs of
Combined Heat and Power Plants.
Zhang et al. [1] developed a model to optimize the design of a
biomass-fueled Combined Heat and Power Plants (BCHP) with energy
storage. They used a receding horizon optimization to dispatch the
BCHP components to obtain the minimum cost. The model application
provides a means to determine optimal BCHP configuration with
varying demands and utility tariff rates. Bartela et al. [2] studied the
two cases of CHP units, one with Stirling engine and other without. The
raw gas from the waste of biomass gasification is used as a heat source
for Stirling engine. The authors identified the break-even unit invest-
ment costs for Stirling engine. They suggested that the expected drop of
Stirling engines prices will allow the future use the proposed system.
Zareh et al. [3] studied a cogeneration cycle with co-firing of biogas and
different mixing ratios. They found that the irreversibility of the
anaerobic digester at low mixing ratios is high and irreversibility of
combustion chamber at all mixing ratios is the highest value, as well as
the total cost rate of the system is increased in the case of the pure
biogas. Zhang et al. [4] proposed a novel CCHP system based on bio-
mass, natural gas and geothermal energy. They performed a thermo-
dynamic and economic evaluation of proposed system and studied the
effects of gas mass ratio and split ratio on integrated system. Also, they
performed a sensitivity analysis of economic factors on system perfor-
mance. They found that the introduction of natural gas contributes to
improve the reliability of energy supply system, and increase the energy
density of inputs in prime mover. Zhu et al. [5] developed an advanced
model for a free-piston Stirling engine micro-CHP system. Their model
includes acoustic impedance matching and nonlinear thermodynamics.
They compared their model results with experimental data and noticed
the highest deviation of 10%. They found that the micro-CHP system
exhibits high efficiency over a large temperature lift. Di Fraia et al. [6]
proposed an integrated system for sewage sludge drying and electricity
production. The system is powered by biogas from sewage sludge

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: poclon@mech.pk.edu.pl (P. Ocłoń).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.09.009
Received 3 August 2018; Received in revised form 25 August 2018; Accepted 2 September 2018
0196-8904/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Król, P. Ocłoń
Nomenclature
cp specific heat capacity (kJ/(kg·K))
E5̇ electric power in co-generation (MW)
E6̇ electric power in condensation (MW)
E energy (MWh)
h enthalpy (kJ/kg)
ṁ mass flow rate (t/h)
T temperature (°C)
p pressure (bar)
Ḟ mass flow rate of fuel (t/h)
Cf chemical energy cost (EUR/GJ)
CCHP chemical energy cost for electricity production in co-gen-
eration [EUR]
CCond chemical energy cost for electricity production in con-
densation [EUR]
S subsidy in EUR to 1 MWh of electric energy produced in
natural gas engines CHP (EUR/MWh)
η energy efficiency
Q̇ heat flow rate (GJ/h)
Q thermal energy (GJ)
digestion and solar energy. They performed an energy, environmental
and economic analysis for a real case study. They found that the use of
renewable energy sources leads to a primary energy saving of about
15%. Arabkoohsar et al. [7] investigated the cost-effectiveness of em-
ploying CHP in power productive gas stations. They proposed a techno-
economic criterion determining which station can efficiently host a
CHP unit. They found the optimal CHP units and turbo-expanders for
several case studies. The results shows that a power productive gas
station with a relative heating demand of greater than 0.35 is a suitable
host, while the minimum relative heating demand for making a simple
gas station a suitable host is of 0.23. Arsalis et al. [8] studied a small
scale a 1 MW gas turbine/0.5 MW photovoltaic cogeneration system.
They used an electrolyzer coupled to convert excess renewable elec-
tricity to hydrogen. They found that the system is fully autonomous and
satisfies the load profile of 1500 households. The results show the an-
nual average primary energy ratio of the system is 0.806 while the
lifecycle cost is 11.12 million USD, with an electricity cost at 0.06 USD/
kWh. Sadaghiani et al. [9] proposed a new power generation plant to
convert the trapped energies of geothermal hot water and Liquid Nat-
ural Gas streams to useful power. The combined power plant consists of
7 units, which each unit includes three discrete cycles of Kalina and two
Organic Rankine power generation cycles to produce power from its
heat sources. The results of energy and exergy analysis shown that the
system is amended to maximize the exergy efficiency. After im-
plementing modifications, the exergy efficiency of the system increased
to 32.15%. Also, the net power output of each unit increased to
2485 kW after modifications. Kwan et al. [10] performed an exergetic
and temperature analysis of a fuel cell-thermoelectric device hybrid
system for the combined heat and power application. The authors
proposed fuel cell and thermoelectric combined heat and power (FC-TE-
CHP) system The novel system idea is to use the thermoelectric device
to further improve the exergetic and temperature performance of the
conventional fuel cell based combined heat and power (FC-CHP)
system. The results show that the FC-TE-CHP improves the exergetic
efficiency of FC-CHP by up to 2%, and that the optimal operation can be
controlled by the water flow rate and fan speed. Wang et al. [11]
proposed a CCHP system coupled with thermal energy storages ac-
cording to energy level. They developed thermodynamics models and
presented the coordinative strategies for operation of TES. They also
compared the energy performance and adjustable area of building loads
of two types TES. Jiang et al. [12] proposed a novel combined cooling,
heating and power (CCHP) system integrated with trigenerative
12
Energy Conversion and Management 176 (2018) 11–29
̇
QChem5 chemical energy stream for heat production in co-gen-
eration
NCV net calorific value [GJ/t]
x CHP chemical energy ratio on 1 MWh production in co-gen-
eration (GJ/MWh)
x Cond chemical energy ratio on 1 MWh production in con-
densation (GJ/MWh)
uCCHP the unit cost of 1 MWh production in co-generation (EUR/
MWh)
uCCond the unit cost of 1 MWh production in condensation (EUR/
MWh)
CHeat5 cost of thermal energy production in co-generation [EUR/
GJ]
x el23 chemical energy ratio on 1 MWh production in gas engines
(GJ/MWh)
uCel23 the unit cost of 1 MWh production in gas engines (EUR/
MWh)
Cel23 chemical energy cost for electricity production in gas en-
gines [EUR]
compressed air energy storage (T-CAES). The comparison of thermo-
dynamic and economic analysis between the novel CCHP system and
conventional CCHP system are carried out in application of office
building. The primary energy rate of novel CCHP system is 85.57%, the
primary energy saving ratio of novel CCHP system is 26.87%, and the
total cost saving ratio of novel CCHP system is 30.55%. The authors
found that their novel system is superior to conventional CCHP system.
Yan et al. [13] studied the application of a gas-fired CCHP for solving
the seasonal shortages of electricity and gas. They found that the rev-
enue of Gas-fired CCHP system is greatly influenced by fuel price and
electricity price. Also the results show that a reasonable energy effi-
ciency sharing ratio will help to the recovery of investment in Gas-fired
CCHP. Kang et al. [14] studied the performance of a biogas-fired gas
turbine and performed the economic analysis of CHP systems with
different heat demands. The net present value of the cash flow and the
payback period were estimated by authors by using the investment and
running costs of the entire facilities and the prices of electricity and
heat, and economic indices such as the annual gross margin. The au-
thors found a strong dependence of project economics on heat sales
revenue. They also found that at moderate heat demand, the CHP
system is more economical than the combined-cycle (CC) system. Bar-
tela et al. [15] proposed the use of Stirling engine in CHP system that
allows a growth in electricity production. They found that their system
can be useful for municipal heating, however for further implementa-
tion the lower prize of Stirling engines is required. Zhang et al. [16]
studied the performance of four CCHP systems with different cooling
modes. CCHP system used the water–LiBr absorption chiller to meet the
cooling demand. The authors compared exhaust-gas-and-hot-water-
driven absorption chiller (AC) and another three cooling modes, in-
cluding AC combined with electric chiller (EC), AC combined with gas-
fired absorption chiller (GFC), and AC combined with ground source
heat pump (GSHP). The authors proposed the optimization models for
the four CCHP systems following the electric load (FEL) and following
the thermal load (FTL). The evaluation criteria include primary fossil
energy saving rate (PFESR), carbon dioxide emission reduction rate
(CDERR) and annual total cost saving rate (ATCSR) compared with the
separation production (SP) system. For optimization the authors used
the Genetic algorithm (GA). The hypothetical commercial building in
Shanghai was used for case study. Results show that the CCHP system
with GSHP under FEL strategy has the best comprehensive perfor-
mance, with PFESR of 0.2990, CDERR of 0.5278 and ATCSR of 0.1582.
Yao et al. [17] proposed a novel tri-generation based compressed air
J. Król, P. Ocłoń
energy storage system. The system combines a gas engine, supple-
mental heat exchangers and an ammonia-water absorption refrigeration
system. The authors found that, with an increase in the exergy effi-
ciency, the total product unit cost is less affected in the beginning, while
rises substantially afterwards. The best trade-off solution is selected
with an overall exergy efficiency of 53.04% and a total product unit
cost of 20.54 cent/kWh, respectively. The variation of decision vari-
ables with the exergy efficiency indicates that the compressor, turbine
and heat exchanger preheating the inlet air of turbine are the key
equipment to cost-effectively pursuit a higher exergy efficiency.
Havukainen et al. [18] conducted life cycle analysis (LCA) to
quantify the environmental impacts of the energy production of a small-
scale, combined heat and power production plant utilizing different
forest biomasses and to estimate the changes in the environmental
impacts on the district heat production from natural gas when partially
replacing it by heat from the Combined Heat and Power plant. Their
results showed that by using forest biomass instead of natural gas in
energy production, the global climate impacts are reduced when bio-
genic carbon is excluded, while the local effects are higher (acidifica-
tion potential and eutrophication potential). Hu et al. [19] analyzed an
integrated thermal and power system with phase-change heat storage
(HS) facility to improve the flexibility of the system, where the heat
released from the extraction steam does not match the heat load. The
authors optimized the operation of the integrated system by the linear
programming (LP) method. Zhang and Kang [20] studied the effects of
the distribution density of a biomass combined heat and power plant
network on heat utilization efficiency in village–town systems. They
obtained an optimal biomass CHP plant network using geographical
information system (GIS) tools. They calculated the optimal value of the
heat transmission threshold through a multi-scheme comparison. Haa-
kana et al. [21] presented a methodology to promote the operation of
CHP plant in the liberalized energy markets. The methodology con-
sidered a combination of marketplaces available to the power plant for
its end products heat and electrical power, with a particular reference
to electricity reserve market opportunities. The authors tested their
methodology with price data of the respective energy and power mar-
kets between years 2013 and 2015. Guo et al. [22] studied the eco-
efficiency of coal-fired CHP plants in Chinese eco-industrial parks. The
results indicated that consideration of freshwater consumption and
capital depreciation would have a significant impact on eco-efficiency.
Fig. 1. Online scheme of simulated CHP unit.
13
Energy Conversion and Management 176 (2018) 11–29
From the performed literature survey it is found that the most ef-
ficient technologies combined with the fossil fuels availability, increase
installation complexity. Therefore, the optimization of CHP perfor-
mance is needed, to achieve the highest profitability, especially for
varied energy demands. Therefore, this paper deals with the installation
using the mixed energy sources and production units. Medium size
Combined Heat and Power plant operating in Poland is composed of
three different and independent production units. The examined power
plant is the source of energy for the municipal district heating grid. The
thermal energy is produced in the steam boilers fired by hard coal,
combined with the extraction-condensing turbine. The second source of
heat are water boilers, fired by hard coal. Another production units are
gas engines fed by natural gas. Listed energy sources are well-known
technologies for decades. The optimization of individual equipment is
limited. For combined system, complex approach is required. Especially
for modern energy markets, characterized by many environmental
protection costs, additional taxes, subsidies for renewable energy
sources, continuous monitoring and optimization is enforced.
This paper presents a tool, which calculates the economic efficiency
of various CHP modes at a given power demand. The tool is compre-
hensive and is used by CHP owner for electric energy and heating
production cost control, CHP modes efficiency comparison and pro-
duction scheduling.
This paper is a continuation of author’s previous work [23], the
added value is the analysis of CHP operation with two gas engines GE
Jenbacher J624 GS-H02 which also produce heat and electricity in
cogeneration. The use of natural gas engines, has a considerable effect
on the installation performance as well as energy production profit-
ability. Various modes of CHP operation are compared to determine the
most profitable scenario. From the business point of view, the main
objective is to generate the highest possible income, meeting at the
same time all legal and environmental regulations. The national energy
policy promotes variety support systems for technologies, especially
less harmful for the environment, creating the situation that economic
efficiency of emerging technologies becomes profitable. To better un-
derstand the issue, the complete installation has to be studied including
below mentioned technical equipment’s limitations and energy law
aspects:
• Steam and water boilers efficiency at low capacity;
J. Król, P. Ocłoń
• Technological minimum of the steam and water boilers;
• CO emission level from hard coal and natural gas;
2 Energy system 2: Water boilers (only heating is delivered)
• Fuel price difference for hard coal and natural gas;
• Support system for co-generation powered by natural gas (yellow
certificates);
• Turbine’s technological minimum in condensation mode;
• Low electricity production efficiency at steam parameters
T = 435 °C, p = 34 bar;
• High electricity production cost in condensation mode;
• Low prices of electric energy on the energy market;
• Variable demand for thermal energy in time.
All listed bullet points are taken into consideration, to create the
complex and reliable energy-economical analysis. Therefore, the CHP
operation modes are studied separately and in combination. What is
important, the same power demand in the calculation is used, to make
the results comparable. The mathematical model developed in this
paper is a real case study, developed based on the historical parameters
of CHP operation. The tool was used in every day of installation op-
eration, for scheduling and production cost control.
2. Studied facility
The CHP plant (Fig. 1) produces the heating power of 127.1 MW and
electric power of 32.86 MWe. The power plan is complex, which pro-
vides heat to the city, and consist of following equipment: three steam
boilers of the OR-64 type which deliver steam at the temperature of
435 °C and pressure of 34 bar for the turbine. The turbine is the ex-
traction-condensing type with the nominal electric power of 20.44
MWe. The heat and electricity production is also realized on two gas
engines GE Jenbacher J624 GS-H02 linked to two electrical energy
generators with 4.2 MWe electrical power output. Moreover, the in-
stallation contains two water boilers (WR-25 type). The more detailed
description of the operational parameters of the studied installation is
provided in the author’s previous paper [23]. Fig. 1 presents the
numbered points, which are used to develop the formulas of energy
balance at indicated components of the installation. The additional and
essential part of this study compared to [23] is the consideration of gas
engines powered by the natural gas (points 22–25 in Fig. 1). Due to
lower emission to the environment and subsidy to the electric energy,
the production units powered by the natural gas, are preferable. The
characteristics of the gas engines are given below
2.1. Gas engines characteristic
Two gas engines have been operated since the end of 2011. The
engine’s thermal power is adjusted to the energy demand during the
summer season and is used in the base load, for about 8000 h per year.
Detailed technical data specification are provided in Table 1.
2.2. Analyzed cases
The subject of analysis is thermal and electric energy production
economic effectiveness on three different units: hard coal co-generation
system, hard coal industrial water boiler and gas engines fed by natural
gas. The hard coal CHP system describes the thermal energy production
on the steam boilers and extraction-condensing turbine. In this system,
electricity is generated in co-generation and condensation section [23].
The second system produces only heat in two industrial water boilers
WR25. The third energy system is based on the steam boiler and two gas
engines which also produce heat and electricity in co-generation. The
fourth energy system considers the operation of a water boiler and gas
engines. The following energy systems studied in this work are su-
marized.
Energy system 1: Steam boilers and turbo-generator (hard coal-
14
Energy Conversion and Management 176 (2018) 11–29
based CHP)
Energy system 3: Steam boiler and gas engines (CHP hard coal and
natural gas)
Energy system 4: Water boiler and gas engines (CHP natural gas and
heating in water boiler)
The calculation is performed as a function of heating demand, re-
quired by district heating grid. The level of thermal power is chosen to
reflect the autumn and spring seasons. The conditions when thermal
energy demand is low with high variability enables industrial equip-
ment examination out of its nominal parameters. The gas engines are an
exemption. Since from the beginning were designed to work during the
low power loads occurred in summer seasons, and are operated mostly
at nominal parameters. In [23] the mathematical model of this ex-
emplary installation was developed. However, the model handles only
the Energy system 1 and Energy system 2. In the present study, the gas
engines system model is added. Thus all abovementioned four modes of
plant operation can be studied.
The energy flows data at every hour of operation are generated. The
algorithm is equipped in the economic module with implemented input
data. Therefore, the energy performance for 24 h operation period can
be calculated. The following assumptions are made during the calcu-
lation:
• Net Calorific Value of the hard coal – 22.5 GJ/t
• Net Calorific Value of natural gas – 36 GJ/m 3
• Cost of energy from coal with transport, carbon dioxide and pollu-
tion emission = 3.83 EUR/GJ
• Cost of energy from natural gas with transport, carbon dioxide and
pollution emission = 7,93 EUR/GJ
• Air and water physical properties used in the calculation were ap-
propriately assigned to the parameters in each point in Fig. 1.
• The boilers efficiency calculated as the function of the output
parameters
• Engines efficiency taken from the technical documentation of
system components
• Other equipment efficiency is taken from dedicated technical doc-
umentation
• Electric energy prices for different time zones: Z0 = 35.29 EUR/
MWh Z1 = 47.06 EUR/MWh; Z2 = 44.71 EUR/MWh. The time
zone Z0 is defined for hours 00:00–7:00, 13:00–16:00, and
21:00–00:00. Time zone Z1 is defined for hours 7:00–13:00, and the
time zone Z2 is valid from 16:00 to 21:00.
• Thermal energy price = 7.06 EUR/GJ
• The cost of CO2 emission = 7 EUR/t CO2
• CO2 emission ratio form 1 GJ hard coal: 0.092 t/GJ
• CO2 emission ratio form 1 GJ natural gas: 0.057 t/GJ
• Maximal subsidy for electric energy produced from natural gas CHP:
27 EUR/MWh
• Water price = 0.82 EUR/m3.
The maintenance costs of production units are neglected due to the
fact, that the analysis is focused on the production costs and profit-
ability excluding the technology reliability, repairs, inspection
Table 1
Technical parameters of gas engines.
Year of construction 2011
Type J624 GS-H02
Nominal electric power output PN 4.2 MWe
Nominal thermal power output QN 3.6 MWt
Electric efficiency 45%
Thermal efficiency 38%
Overall efficiency 83%
J. Król, P. Ocłoń Energy Conversion and Management 176 (2018) 11–29

required, main renovation etc. The all operational costs are included in uCel23 = x el23 Cf (9)
the cost of chemical energy (cost of fuel, cost of CO2 emission [24], cost
The formula (10) gives the total chemical energy cost
of pollution emission to the environment, cost of chemical energy
transport), except the cost of water which is specified separately. De- Cel23 = Qchem23 Cf (10)
spite the fact that the CO2 emission cost had significant increase since
the January of 2018, cost of emission are kept at the same level as in It has to be mentioned, that income from electric energy produced
[23], to have the analysis continuation and the same operational con- in gas engines CHP is calculated including the subsidy
ditions. The manpower is not included, due to the fact that the pro- I = E23 (P + S ) (11)
duction units are operated under one installation and employment rate
is constant, irrelevantly to the operation mode. The cost of CO2 emis- where
sion is allocated in the price of chemical energy for natural gas and hard
coal. The incentive is the subsidy for the electric energy produced in the I – is the income from electric energy sold (EUR)
natural gas based CHP. The maximum level of subsidy is 27 EUR/MWh. E23 – electric energy produced in natural gas CHP (MWh);
E23 = E23̇ ·1[h]
3. The natural gas engines model P – electric energy price accordingly to tariff in each time zone Z0,
Z1, Z3 (EUR/MWh)
The mathematical model of gas engines operated in the installation S – subsidy (EUR/MWh)
is developed to calculate the operational cost and energy balance. The
mathematical formulas which describe the operation of the engine are Based on the presented formulas (1)–(11), combined with the En-
based on the equipment technical specification. Hence, the electric ergy System 1 and Energy System 2 models given in [23] the complete
power produced by the gas engines is calculated based on the linear mathematical model of the studied CHP is developed. Below is provided
relation between heat and electricity production described by the reference to most important equations used for models of Energy
system 1 and Energy system 2.
̇ = 1.667Q̇24
E23 (1)
̇ i.e. heat power demand form the district
where Q̇24 is equal to the Q15 3.1. Steam boilers with VE40 turbo-generator – Energy system 1
heating grid
From the sum of E23 ̇ and Q̇24 is calculated the overall thermal power The electric power in co-generation part of the CHP is given by [23]
input to the system Q̇25 given by
((m18̇ (h3−h5) + ṁ 19CHP (h3−h5 )) ηel
Q̇25 = 3.6(E23
̇ + Q̇24 ) (2) E5̇ =
3.6 (12)
Based on the engines overall efficiency taken form the technical The chemical energy input (GJ) to 1 MWh production in co-gen-
documentation, the chemical energy flow is calculated as follows eration is given as
Q̇22 = 3.6(E23
̇ + Q̇24 )/ η25 (3) (ṁ 18 (h3−h5) + ṁ 19CHP (h3−h5 )
x CHP =
The formula for the overall efficiency of gas engines η25 is defined by E5̇ ηOR64 (13)

η25 = 0.0093Q̇24 + 0.765 (4) The summarized chemical energy cost required for electric energy
production in co-generation is given by Eq. (14). In the energy price are
From the calculated chemical energy flow and the partial effi- included costs of: transport, environment protection, CO2 emission and
ciencies, the chemical energy demand for heating power production is water
calculated as
Cf ((ṁ 18 (h3−h5) + ṁ 19CHP (h3−h5 ))1[h]
η CCHP =
Qchem24 = 3.6Q̇22 ⎛⎜1− 24 ⎞⎟ 1[h] ηOR64 (14)
⎝ η25 ⎠ (5)
Cumulated electric power produced in the condensation section of
where η24 is the nominal efficiency of heat production in gas engines the turbine is calculated as
By knowing the chemical energy demand and its unit price, the heat
ṁ 6 (h3−h6) ηel ṁ 17 (h3−h17) ηel
production cost is calculated E6̇ = E6̇ Cond + E17̇ + E19
̇ Cond = +
3.6 3.6
CHeat 24 = Qchem24 Cf (6) ṁ 19Cond (h3−h19) ηel
+
Analogically is calculated the chemical energy demand to produce 3.6 (15)
one hour electric power in the gas engines with co-generation The chemical energy demand, to produce electricity in the turbine’s
η23 ⎞ condensation part, is defined as
Qchem23 = 3.6Q̇22 ⎛⎜1− ⎟ 1[h]
⎝ η25 ⎠ (7) x Cond =
(m6̇ + ṁ 17 + ṁ 19Cond )(h3−h2 )
E6̇ ηOR64 (16)
η23 – The nominal efficiency of electricity production in gas engines
The total chemical energy cost used for electricity production in
η24 – The nominal efficiency of heat production in gas engines
condensation mode is
η25 – The overall nominal efficiency of gas engines
Cf (m6̇ + ṁ 17 + ṁ 19Cond )(h3−h2 )1[h]
CCond =
The chemical energy ratio on 1 MWh electric energy production in ηOR64 (17)
co-generation (GJ/MWh) is given by
The heating energy produced is defined as
Qchem23
x el23 =
E23 (8) Q18 = ṁ 18 (h5−h16 )1[h] (18)

The unit chemical energy cost (EUR/MWh) for production is cal- The chemical energy required to produce the relevant heating en-
culated as ergy is given by

15
J. Król, P. Ocłoń Energy Conversion and Management 176 (2018) 11–29

ṁ 18 (h5−h16 )
QChem18 = 1[h]
ηOR64
Using the amount of chemical energy and unit cost, the cost of heat
production in the CHP is calculated as
CHeat18 = QChem18 Cf
3.2. Water boilers WR25 – Energy system 2
The thermal energy required to cover heating demand is calculated
as [23]
̇ = 3.6Q15
Q11 ̇ / η20
The chemical energy delivered is calculated as
̇ / ηWR25 1[h]
QChem9 = Q11
where
3
̇ + 0.0594Q11 2
̇ + 0.06159Q11
̇ + 66.17858)/100
ηWR25 = (−0.00166Q11
The thermal energy production cost is calculated
CHeat11 = QChem9 Cf
4. Results and discussion
The detailed exemplary analysis is performed based on the mathe-
matical model which covers complete installation. The algorithm is
divided into independent energy systems, which can be operated se-
parately or in different combinations. Therefore designed tool gives the
possibility to perform dedicated analysis with energy performance
comparison. For this study, the analysis is made on the exemplary
heating demand given in Table 2. The 24 h operation period is covered.
It is important to note, that the heating power demand taken for the
analysis is higher than in the paper [23] to maintain the gas engines and
steam boilers under operation.
4.1. Energy system 1: Steam boilers and turbo-generator (hard coal-based
CHP)
The first energy analysis is performed for the operation of hard coal
co-generation based on the two steam boilers connected with turbo-
generator VE40. The computations consider the boilers technical
minimum and maximum capacity, and turbine minimum and maximum
steam flow rates. The operation of two steam boilers is needed to cover
the heating power demand. Fig. 2 presents the cumulated heating
power of two steam boilers, with their technical minimum.
From Fig. 2 one can note, that the heating power demand requires
about 30% more thermal power generated in the Energy system 1. The
higher thermal power is needed to produce the electric power in the co-
generation and condensation mode of the turbine. Due to that, two
steam boilers are required to cover the heating power, whereas during
low load at noon, the boilers are operated at the technical minimum.
The extra over steam production is worked out on the condensation
section of the turbine.
Fig. 3 compares the thermal energy production with chemical en-
(19) ergy input in each hour of Energy system 1 operation. Furthermore, the
hourly boiler efficiency, calculated with the assumption that boilers
load is equal, is shown.
Fig. 3 shows the difference between the energy input and energy
(20) output from the boilers, with the appropriate efficiency of energy
production. From Fig. 3 one can observe that the boiler efficiency curve
is flat, due to the equipment operation mostly at the technical
minimum.
In the following figures, the below-listed symbols are used:
Q18 – thermal energy used for heating
(21) Q5 for E5 – thermal energy used for electric energy production in a
co-generation mode
Q6 for E6 – thermal energy used for electric energy production in
condensation mode
(22)
E5, E6 – electric energy production in co-generation and condensa-
tion modes
Fig. 4 shows the thermal energy usage in the Energy system 1.
(23) Fig. 4 indicates that in the particular example, a vast amount of
energy is delivered for the heating purposes. On the second place is the
condensation part, despite the fact, that less electric energy is produced
(24) when compared to co-generation mode. It is due to the significantly
lower efficiency of electricity production in condensation mode. An-
other notification is the increase of thermal energy use in the con-
densation mode, during the low demand for heating power. The over-
production of thermal energy is worked out in the condensation section
of the turbine, with increased electricity production. The described si-
tuation is displayed in Fig. 5, which shows the electric energy pro-
duction in the system.
Knowing the hourly electric energy production and thermal energy
distribution the chemical energy input for the 1 MWh electric energy
production is calculated both in co-generation and condensation mode
(Fig. 6).
Fig. 6 displays the significant difference in chemical energy input
between co-generation and condensation mode. Co-generation tech-
nology is more than three times more efficient in electric energy pro-
duction. The total chemical energy allocation is presented in Fig. 7.
Fig. 7 indicates where chemical energy is delivered in the system.
The vast amount of energy is worked out for heating, electricity pro-
duced in condensation mode, and for electricity produced in co-gen-
eration.
Fig. 8 shows the thermal energy production profitability.
The profitability of thermal energy is kept in all range of production,
despite the low level of boilers efficiency. Fig. 9 displays the profit-
ability of electric energy production in co-generation mode.
The profitability is kept within a 24 h period of operation.
Noticeable is the higher variation caused by the electric price change
accordingly to the day/night tariff. Fig. 10 displays the profit/cost re-
lation for the condensation mode of CHP operation.
The opposite situation (compared to Fig. 9) is observed, at a current
energy cost to price relation, where the permanent loss is generated. For
every 1 MWh produced in the condensation mode, the financial gain is
negative. Fig. 11 summarizes the financial cost/profit relation of Energy
system 1.

Table 2
Heating power demand for 24 h, used in mathematical models of energy systems 1–4.
Hour 00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00

Heating power demand (MW) 27.5 28.9 30.4 30.8 31.2 31.8 31.0 30.4 28.9 26.1 23.3 17.8

Hour 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00

Heating power demand (MW) 13.2 13.5 13.9 14.3 17.8 19.1 20.5 21.9 23.3 24.7 26.1 27.0

16
J. Król, P. Ocłoń Energy Conversion and Management 176 (2018) 11–29

50.0

Thermal power [MW]

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
Boilers power [MW] Heating power demand [MW]
Technical boiler min [MW]
Fig. 2. Two steam boilers power vs heating power demand.

250.0 74%

69%
200.0

64%
Energy [GJ]

150.0

Effciency %
59%
100.0
54%

50.0
49%

0.0 44%
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00

Thermal energy produced [GJ] Chemical energy delivered [GJ] Boiler efficiency %
Fig. 3. Chemical energy delivered and produced in the steam boilers.

180
160
Thermal energy usage [GJ]

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00

Q5 [GJ] for E5 [MWh] Q6 [GJ] for E6 [MWh] Heating Q18 [GJ]

Fig. 4. Thermal energy usage in the hard coal CHP.

17
J. Król, P. Ocłoń Energy Conversion and Management 176 (2018) 11–29

8.0

Electric energy production [MWh]

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
E6 [MWh] E5 [MWh]
Fig. 5. Electric energy production in hard coal CHP.

Based on the results shown in Figs. 2–11 one can deduce, that the For the Energy system 2 operation one can observe the variation of
hard coal-fired CHP installation is an attractive source of heat and water boilers efficiency. The situation is caused by the operation of one
electricity production in co-generation. Even though the boiler operates or two water boilers, with respect to the hourly heating power demand.
under low load and efficiency, the CHP generated 3302 EUR profit for Fig. 14 shows the thermal energy production profitability.
24 h period. The profitability is kept in the water boilers thermal energy pro-
duction during the 24 h operation period. The cumulated income is
given in Fig. 15.
4.2. Energy system 2: Water boilers (only heating is delivered) The 24 h period profit from the operation of Energy system 2 is
evaluated at 4260 EUR.
The energy system 2 considers thermal energy production in two
water boilers. The same thermal power demand profile (given in
Table 2) is used as for the Energy system 1. The thermal power gen- 4.3. Energy system 3: Steam boiler and gas engines (CHP hard coal and
eration in water boilers vs heating power demand is displayed in Fig. 12 natural gas)
The calculation methodology and algorithm is described in the
paper [23]. Based on the given thermal power profile (Table 2) the Energy system 3 is based on the electrical and thermal energy
profitability and energy balance is evaluated for every hour. Noticeable production in gas engines and steam boiler. In this case, the gas engines
difference in comparison to steam boilers is the heating power demand are the leading equipment, with production priority. The preference of
equal to the thermal power generated by water boilers. Another ad- production in the gas engines, is caused by the high legal subsidy for the
vantage of Energy system 2 compared to Energy system 1 is the higher electric energy produced in co-generation powered by the natural gas.
flexibility of thermal power output regulation and significantly lower The steam boiler works as a support to cover the thermal power deficit
technical minimum. The chemical energy demand on thermal energy form the gas engines. Based on the heating profile (Table 2) the analysis
production is given in Fig. 13. of Energy system 3 is made. Fig. 16 displays the relation between the

20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
[GJ/MWh]

12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00

Cogen. ratio [GJ/MWh] Cond. ratio [GJ/MWh]

Fig. 6. Chemical energy input needed to produce 1 MWh of electric energy in co-generation and condensation mode.

18
J. Król, P. Ocłoń Energy Conversion and Management 176 (2018) 11–29

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
Chem energy for Q18 [GJ] Chem. energy for E5 [GJ] Chem. energy for E6 [GJ]
Fig. 7. Chemical energy allocation for heat and electricity production.

heating power demand and thermal power generated in gas engines and
steam boiler.
In the base load, gas engines are used. Steam boilers production
completes the thermal energy shortage. The small excess of thermal
energy over the heating power demand is required for electricity pro-
duction in the turbine. The steam boiler technical minimum is achieved
in the middle of the day, what forces thermal energy overproduction.
The surplus of energy is worked out on the condensation section of the
turbine. Figs. 17–19 display the production profitability of heat and
electricity in co-generation and condensation mode.
The general comments to the Figs. 17–19 are similar to the analysis
performed for Energy system 1. Profitability is achieved in thermal and
electric energy production in co-generation. The electricity production
generates a significant loss on operation in the condensation section of
the turbine. The Energy system 3 performance is better than of Energy
system 1, due to the more efficient boiler operation at higher loads,
what is reflected in lower chemical energy input (Fig. 20).
The costs of heat and power production in the natural gas engines
depends on the following key factors:
• Higher chemical energy price from natural gas 7.93 EUR/GJ versus
3.83 EUR/GJ from hard coal
• Higher overall efficiency of gas engines. Even at low loads efficiency
drop is much smaller in comparison to hard coal CHP, and oscillates
around 80%
• Lower CO2 emission from natural gas. CO2 emission ratio form hard
coal assumed 0.092 t/GJ, whereas CO2 emission ratio form natural
gas: 0.057 t/GJ
• Subsidy to the price of electric energy produced in natural gas CHP
at 27 EUR/MWh
All above-listed assumptions are taken into account, and the fol-
lowing results are obtained. Fig. 21 shows the thermal energy pro-
duction profitability.
Heat production profitability of gas engines is constant, due to the
units are operated at constant and maximal heating power demand, and
thermal energy price invariable. The gas engines generate the high
overall profitability due to the electric energy subsidy.
At the current thermal energy price scenario, the thermal energy
production in gas engines generates a permanent loss.
The level of subsidy for electric energy production aforementioned
before has a significant effect on economic yield. Fig. 22 displays the

€ 1 000.0
€ 800.0
€ 600.0
€ 400.0
€ 200.0
€-
-€ 200.0
-€ 400.0
-€ 600.0
-€ 800.0
23:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00

Thermal energy - income [EUR] Thermal energy - cost [EUR]

Thermal energy - profitability [EUR]
Fig. 8. Thermal energy profitability.

19
J. Król, P. Ocłoń Energy Conversion and Management 176 (2018) 11–29

€ 300.0
€ 250.0
€ 200.0
€ 150.0
€ 100.0
€ 50.0
€-
-€ 50.0
-€ 100.0
-€ 150.0
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
Electricity form cogen. - income [EUR] Electricity production in cogen. - cost [EUR]
Electricity in cogen. - profitability [EUR]
Fig. 9. Electricity from co-generation profitability.

€ 300.0
€ 200.0
€ 100.0
€-
-€ 100.0
-€ 200.0
-€ 300.0
-€ 400.0

23:00
21:00
22:00
19:00
20:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
10:00
11:00
9:00
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00

Electricity from cond. - income [EUR] Electricity production in cond. - cost [EUR]
Electricity in cond. - profitability [EUR]

Fig. 10. Electricity from condensation mode – profitability.

300.0 €

250.0 €

200.0 €

150.0 €

100.0 €

50.0 €

- €
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00

-50.0 €

-100.0 €
OR64 CHP - profitability [EUR]
Fig. 11. Cumulated hard coal CHP profitability of 24 h operation.

20
J. Król, P. Ocłoń Energy Conversion and Management 176 (2018) 11–29

50.0

Thermal power [MW]

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
Heating power demand [MW] Boilers power [MW]
Technical boiler min [MW]
Fig. 12. Heating power demand vs. water boiler technical minimum.

200.0 84%
180.0 79%
160.0
74%
140.0
Energy [GJ]

69%

Effciency %
120.0
100.0 64%
80.0 59%
60.0
54%
40.0
20.0 49%

0.0 44%
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00

Thermal energy produced [GJ] Chemical energy delivered [GJ] Boiler efficiency %
Fig. 13. Water boilers operation parameters.

€ 1 000.0
€ 800.0
€ 600.0
€ 400.0
€ 200.0
€-
-€ 200.0
-€ 400.0
-€ 600.0
-€ 800.0
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00

Thermal energy - income [EUR] Thermal energy - cost [EUR]

Thermal energy - profitability [EUR]
Fig. 14. Hourly water boilers heat production profitability.

21
J. Król, P. Ocłoń Energy Conversion and Management 176 (2018) 11–29

250.0 €

200.0 €

150.0 €

100.0 €

50.0 €

- €
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
WR25 - profitability [EUR]
Fig. 15. Cumulated water boilers profitability.

40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
Boiler power [MW] Heating power demand [MW]
Gas engines power [MW] Technical boiler min [MW]
Fig. 16. Heating power demand vs boiler and gas engines power generation.

€ 800.0
€ 600.0
€ 400.0
€ 200.0
€-
-€ 200.0
-€ 400.0
-€ 600.0
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00

Thermal energy - income [EUR] Thermal energy - cost [EUR]

Thermal energy - profitability [EUR]
Fig. 17. Heat production profitability from steam boilers.

22
J. Król, P. Ocłoń Energy Conversion and Management 176 (2018) 11–29

€ 200.0

€ 150.0

€ 100.0

€ 50.0

€-

-€ 50.0

-€ 100.0
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
Electricity form cogen. - income [EUR] Electricity production in cogen. - cost [EUR]
Electricity in cogen. - profitability [EUR]

Fig. 18. Electric energy production profitability in co-generation.

€ 150.0
€ 100.0
€ 50.0
€-
-€ 50.0
-€ 100.0
-€ 150.0
-€ 200.0
-€ 250.0
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
Electricity from cond. - income [EUR] Electricity production in cond. - cost [EUR]
Electricity in cond. - profitability [EUR]

Fig. 19. Electric energy production profitability in condensation.

20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
[GJ/MWh]

12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00

Cogen. ratio [GJ/MWh] Cond. ratio [GJ/MWh]

Fig. 20. Chemical energy delivered to produce 1 MWh of electric energy in co-generation and condensation mode.

electric energy production profitability. shown in Fig. 23.

The income vs. cost balance is opposite to thermal energy produc-
tion. The high profit is generated. Mainly it is caused by subsidy to each
MWh of electric energy produced in gas engines CHP. There is also
slight cumulated effect of higher production efficiency and lower CO2
emission costs, but the subsidy is the critical point. To distinguish the
level of subsidy the electric energy profitability without subsidy is
Production of electricity without subsidy is still remunerative, but
including a loss in thermal energy production, the negative yield is
generated. The scale of difference with and without subsidy for electric
energy generation is calculated on 67% (weighted average), what is a
significant value. Assuming no subsidy the gas engines operation is not
profitable.

23
J. Król, P. Ocłoń Energy Conversion and Management 176 (2018) 11–29

€ 300.0
€ 200.0
€ 100.0
€-
-€ 100.0
-€ 200.0
-€ 300.0
-€ 400.0
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
Thermal energy gas eng. - income [EUR] Thermal energy gas eng. - cost [EUR]
Thermal energy gas eng. - profitability [EUR]

Fig. 21. Heat production profitability from gas engines.

€ 700.0
€ 600.0
€ 500.0
€ 400.0
€ 300.0
€ 200.0
€ 100.0
€-
-€ 100.0
-€ 200.0
-€ 300.0
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
Electricity gas eng. - income [EUR] Electricity gas eng. - cost [EUR]
Electricity gas eng. - profitability [EUR]

Fig. 22. Electric energy production profitability from gas engines.

€ 500.0
€ 400.0
€ 300.0
€ 200.0
€ 100.0
€-
-€ 100.0
-€ 200.0
-€ 300.0
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00

Electricity gas eng. - cost [EUR]

Electricity gas eng. - income without subsidy [EUR]
Electricity gas eng. - profitability without subsidy [EUR]

Fig. 23. Electric energy production profitability from gas engines without subsidy.

Fig. 24 shows the total profitability of gas engines installation with a profit from 24 h operation is rated on 8068 EUR.
subsidy for electric energy production.
The gas engines production system is a remunerative solution in the
4.4. Energy system 4: Water boiler and gas engines (CHP natural gas and
environment of permanent subsidy support. If the support is variable,
heating in water boiler)
installation is tend to generate a loss. Fig. 25 shows the cumulated
profitability of the Energy system 3.
Energy system 4 is a combination of gas engines with water boiler
Fig. 25 reveals that the production system based on the combination
WR25. Analogically to the Energy system 3, the gas engines are the
of the hard coal CHP with gas engines is cost-effective. The cumulated
leading production unit with power completion by water boiler and use

24
J. Król, P. Ocłoń Energy Conversion and Management 176 (2018) 11–29

€ 500.0
€ 400.0
€ 300.0
€ 200.0
€ 100.0
€-
-€ 100.0
-€ 200.0
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
Thermal energy gas eng. - profitability [EUR] Electricity gas eng. - profitability [EUR]
Gas engines - profitability [EUR]

Fig. 24. Total gas engines profitability.

600.0 €

500.0 €

400.0 €

300.0 €

200.0 €

100.0 €

- €
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
Combined OR64 and GE - profitability [EUR]
Fig. 25. Cumulated gas and hard coal CHP profitability.

35.0

30.0

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00

Heating power demand [MW] Boiler power [MW]

Gas engines power [MW] Technical boiler min [MW]
Fig. 26. Heating power demand vs water boiler and gas engines power generation.

25
J. Król, P. Ocłoń Energy Conversion and Management 176 (2018) 11–29

140.0 84%

120.0 79%

74%
100.0
Energy [GJ] 69%

Effciency %
80.0
64%
60.0
59%
40.0
54%
20.0 49%

0.0 44%
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
Thermal energy produced [GJ] Chemical energy delivered [GJ] Boiler efficiency %
Fig. 27. Water boiler parameters – energy delivered and produced.

€ 800.0

€ 600.0

€ 400.0

€ 200.0

€-

-€ 200.0

-€ 400.0

-€ 600.0
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
Thermal energy - income [EUR] Thermal energy - cost [EUR]
Thermal energy - profitability [EUR]
Fig. 28. Hourly water boiler profitability.

the same heating power demand profile. Fig. 26 shows the heating
power distribution within the Energy system 4 components.
Fig. 26 reflects the system operation, where the primary heating
power demand is covered by the gas engines, whereas the water boiler
supplies the rest of the energy. For the Energy system 4, the profitability
of the heat and power production in the gas engines is not presented
since it is the same as in the Energy system 3. Fig. 27 shows the dif-
ferences in the thermal energy generated and chemical energy con-
sumed during the water boiler operation.
The thermal energy production profitability is shown in Fig. 28.
Fig. 28 shows that the Energy system 4 generates the positive eco-
nomic yield in a 24 h period of operation.
The cumulated profit calculated based on Fig. 29 is equal to 8060
EUR. Fig. 30 compares all examined cases by showing the hourly
profitability. In Fig. 31 the cumulated economic yield of Energy systems
1–4 is given.
From Figs. 30 and 31 one can note that the lowest income is gen-
erated in hard coal CHP, whereas the highest is achieved in the hard
coal CHP combined with gas engines. The noticeable discrepancy is also
between the economic gain in the hard coal CHP and water boilers. The
extra electric energy production in the condensation section of steam
turbine results in significant loss: nearly 1000 EUR lower income
compared to WR25 based system. The use of gas engines gives the
possibility to the operation of only one steam or water boiler. The cu-
mulated profitability of Energy system 3 and Energy system 4 is nearly
doubled to the profitability of Energy systems 1 and 2. The reason of
such high difference is due to a subsidy for electrical energy produced
in natural gas co-generation. Noticeable is the same cumulative prof-
itability achieved from gas engines combined with a steam boiler or
water boiler. However from Fig. 30 one can observe that the profiles of
hourly profitability for Energy system 3 and Energy system 4 are
slightly different. Between the hours 1–12 better economic yield is
achieved in Energy system 3, due to the higher gain from combined
heat and electricity. Whereas between hours 12–19 the gas engines
combined with water boiler is more profitable. The situation is caused
by the significant cost of electrical energy production in condensation
mode when Energy system 3 is used at low heating demand. It should
be mentioned that at the particular heating power demand the smaller
boiler (as studied in this paper) would have a positive influence on the
efficiency and profitability of CHP, whereas bigger unit with higher

26
J. Król, P. Ocłoń Energy Conversion and Management 176 (2018) 11–29

500.0 €
450.0 €
400.0 €
350.0 €
300.0 €
250.0 €
200.0 €
150.0 €
100.0 €
50.0 €
- €
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
Combined WR25 and GE - profitability [EUR]
Fig. 29. Cumulated gas engines and water boiler profitability.

€ 600.00

€ 500.00

€ 400.00

€ 300.00

€ 200.00

€ 100.00

€-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
-€ 100.00

OR64 CHP - profitability [EUR] WR25 - profitability [EUR]

Combined OR64 and GE - profitability [EUR] Combined WR25 and GE - profitability [EUR]
Fig. 30. Hourly production profitability of studied systems.

power output would have a negative influence. The explanation is in
the efficiency profile of the boilers, where the highest efficiency is
achieved at the boiler nominal load. For bigger units, the boiler op-
eration at the technical minimum is not efficient.
The profitability over the seasons will change significantly. For
summer seasons, at the low demand for heating power, the profitability
is lower due to the two key factors:
1. Efficiency drop of the boilers
2. Longer operation at the technical minimum and necessity to work
out overproduction in the condensation section of the turbine.
In the winter seasons and higher demand for heating power, the
profitability and energy efficiency is better analogically to mentioned
above key factors. The boiler can be operated at the higher efficiency
with no operation at the technical minimum.
Also, it has to be mentioned that overall energy efficiency and
27
profitability (excluding energy price increase) within the time is low-
ering, due to equipment wear.
5. Conclusions
This paper undertakes the assessment challenge of energy produc-
tion profitability for the CHP installation equipped in mixed energy
sources: steam boilers, water boiler, and natural gas engines. The
transient season heat demands are considered. The entire analysis,
would not be possible without the developed mathematical model of
the installation. The mathematical modeling is proved as a reliable tool
for CHP efficiency and profitability assessment. The adequately de-
signed algorithm is a practical and useful tool for many applications as:
• Indication which production mode is the most energy efficient
• Assessment which operational mode has the highest profitability
• Electric energy production forecast
J. Król, P. Ocłoń
€ 9 000.00
€ 8 000.00
€ 7 000.00
€ 6 000.00
€ 5 000.00 € 4 260.35
€ 4 000.00 € 3 302.10
€ 3 000.00
€ 2 000.00
€ 1 000.00
€-
Cumulated OR64 CHP - profitability [EUR]
Cumulated OR64 and GE - profitability [EUR]
Fig. 31. Cumulated profitability of studied systems.
• Chemical energy consumption prediction
• CO emission level evaluation
2
• Sensitivity analysis for energy cost composition variability as: che-
mical energy cost, CO2 emission cost, thermal and electric energy
price, subsidy variance
The main conclusions of the performed analysis are:
• Combined heat and power based on the low parameters steam
boilers and the extraction-condensing turbine is not more profitable
than using the traditional water boilers. Two flexible water boilers,
generated better profit at low loads, in comparison to mentioned
hard coal-fired CHP based on two steam boilers.
• The cost-effectiveness of CHP is improved if natural gas engines are
used. For the studied energy demand scenario, the profitability is
increased over two times, when compared to CHP operating without
natural gas engines. At low and variable heating power demand, the
cooperation of one water boiler, or one steam boiler with gas en-
gines provides nearly the same economic yield.
• Scale of subsidy provided for electric energy produced in gas en-
gines is shown. The 67% average weighted difference in electric
energy production, between scenarios without subsidy and with.
The current level of subsidy is a significant value, which strongly
affects profitability. If legal support of gas engines not exist, pro-
duction of heat and power in total is not profitable at actual energy
prices.
References
[1] Zheng Yingying, Jenkins Bryan M, Kornbluth Kurt, Kendall Alissa, Træholt
Chresten. Optimal design and operating strategies for a biomass-fueled combined
heat and power system with energy storage. Energy 2018;155:620–9.
[2] Bartela Łukasz, Kotowicz Janusz, Dubiel-Jurgaś Klaudia. Investment risk for bio-
mass integrated gasification combined heat and power unit with an internal com-
bustion engine and a Stirling engine. Energy 2018;150:601–16.
[3] Darabadi Zareh A, Khoshbakhti Saray R, Mirmasoumi S, Bahlouli K. Extensive
thermodynamic and economic analysis of the cogeneration of heat and power
system fueled by the blend of natural gas and biogas. Energy Convers Manage
2018;164:329–43.
[4] Zhang Xiaofeng, Liu Xiaobo, Sun Xiaoqin, Jiang Changwei, Li Hongqiang, Song
Quanbin, et al. Thermodynamic and economic assessment of a novel CCHP in-
tegrated system taking biomass, natural gas and geothermal energy as co-feeds.
Energy Convers Manage 2018;172:105–18.
[5] Zhu Shunmin, Yu Guoyao, Jongmin O, Xu Tao, Wu Zhanghua, Dai Wei, Luo Ercang.
Modeling and experimental investigation of a free-piston Stirling engine-based
micro-combined heat and power system. Appl. Energy 2018;226:522–33.
[6] Di Fraia Simona, Figaj Rafal Damian, Massarotti Nicola, Vanoli Laura. An integrated
28
Energy Conversion and Management 176 (2018) 11–29
€ 8 067.78 € 8 060.10
Cumulated WR25 - profitability [EUR]
Cumulated WR25 and GE - profitability [EUR]
system for sewage sludge drying through solar energy and a combined heat and
power unit fuelled by biogas. Energy Convers Manage 2018;171:587–603.
[7] Arabkoohsar A, Gharahchomaghloo Z, Farzaneh-Gord M, Koury RNN, Deymi-
Dashtebayaz M. An energetic and economic analysis of power productive gas ex-
pansion stations for employing combined heat and power. Energy
2017;133:737–48.
[8] Arsalis Alexandros, Alexandrou Andreas N, Georghiou George E. Thermoeconomic
modeling of a small-scale gas turbine-photovoltaic-electrolyzer combined-cooling-
heating-and-power system for distributed energy applications. J Clean Prod
2018;188:443–55.
[9] Sadaghiani Mirhadi S, Ahmadi MH, Mehdi Mehrpooya F, Pourfayaz Michel Feidt.
Process development and thermodynamic analysis of a novel power generation
plant driven by geothermal energy with liquefied natural gas as its heat sink. Appl
Therm Eng 2018;133:645–58.
[10] Kwan Trevor Hocksun, Yao Qinghe. Exergetic and temperature analysis of a fuel
cell-thermoelectric device hybrid system for the combined heat and power appli-
cation. Energy Convers Manage 2018;173:1–14.
[11] Wang Jiangjiang, Xie Xinqi, Lu Yanchao, Liu Boxiang, Li Xiaojing. Thermodynamic
performance analysis and comparison of a combined cooling heating and power
system integrated with two types of thermal energy storage. Appl Energy
2018;219:114–22.
[12] Jiang Runhua, Yin Huibin, Yang Minlin, Yang Xiaoxi. Thermodynamic model de-
velopment and performance analysis of a novel combined cooling, heating and
power system integrated with trigenerative compressed air energy storage. Energy
Convers Manage 2018;168:49–59.
[13] Yan Bofeng, Xue Song, Li Yuanfei, Duan Jinhui, Zeng Ming. Gas-fired combined
cooling, heating and power (CCHP) in Beijing: a techno-economic analysis. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2016;63:118–31.
[14] Kang Jun Young, Kang Do Won, Kim Tong Seop, Hur Kwang Beom. Comparative
economic analysis of gas turbine-based power generation and combined heat and
power systems using biogas fuel. Energy 2014;67:309–18.
[15] Bartela Łukasz, Kotowicz Janusz, Remiorz Leszek, Skorek-Osikowska Anna, Dubiel
Klaudia. Assessment of the economic appropriateness of the use of Stirling engine as
additional part of a cogeneration system based on biomass gasification. Renew
Energy 2017;112:425–43.
[16] Zhang Jiaxuan, Cao Sheng, Yu Lijun, Zhou Yaodong. Comparison of combined
cooling, heating and power (CCHP) systems with different cooling modes based on
energetic, environmental and economic criteria. Energy Convers Manage
2018;160:60–73.
[17] Yao Erren, Wang Huanran, Wang Ligang, Xi Guang, Maréchal François. Multi-ob-
jective optimization and exergoeconomic analysis of a combined cooling, heating
and power based compressed air energy storage system. Energy Convers Manage
2017;138:199–209.
[18] Havukainen Jouni, Nguyen Mai Thanh, Väisänen Sanni, Horttanainen Mika. Life
cycle assessment of small-scale combined heat and power plant: Environmental
impacts of different forest biofuels and replacing district heat produced from nat-
ural gas. J Clean Prod 2018;172:837–46.
[19] Hu Kang, Chen Lei, Chen Qun, Wang Xiao-Hai, Qi Jun, Fei Xu, et al. Phase-change
heat storage installation in combined heat and power plants for integration of re-
newable energy sources into power system. Energy 2017;124:640–51.
[20] Zhang Yifei, Kang Jian. Effects of the distribution density of a biomass combined
heat and power plant network on heat utilisation efficiency in village–town sys-
tems. J Environ Manage 2017;202(Part 1):21–8.
[21] Haakana Juha, Tikka Ville, Lassila Jukka, Partanen Jarmo. Methodology to analyze
combined heat and power plant operation considering electricity reserve market
opportunities. Energy 2017;127:408–18.
J. Król, P. Ocłoń
[22] Guo Yang, Liu Wei, Tian Jinping, He Ruonan, Chen Lujun. Eco-efficiency assess-
ment of coal-fired combined heat and power plants in Chinese eco-industrial parks.
J Clean Prod 2017;168:963–72.
[23] Król Jarosław, Ocłoń Paweł. Economic analysis of heat production in existing
medium size combined heat and power plant, with respect to the CO2 allowances
29
Energy Conversion and Management 176 (2018) 11–29
purchasing cost. Energy Convers Manage 2018;171:110–25.
[24] National Center for Emission Balancing and Management. Report from CO2 market
[in Polish], July 2018. Available online: http://www.kobize.pl/uploads/materialy/
materialy_do_pobrania/raport_co2/2018/Raport_z_rynku_CO2_lipiec_2018.pdf.