Energy for Sustainable Development 14 (2010) 267279

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy for Sustainable Development

4-E (Energy, Exergy, Environment, and Economic) analysis of solar thermal aided
coal-red power plants
M.V.J.J. Suresh, K.S. Reddy , Ajit Kumar Kolar
Heat Transfer and Thermal Power Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, 600 036, India

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 6 January 2010
Revised 17 September 2010
Accepted 17 September 2010
Keywords:
Subcritical
Supercritical
High ash coal
Solar thermal
Feedwater heating
CO2 emissions

a b s t r a c t
Solar aided feedwater heating (SAFWH) appears to be a prospective option for using solar thermal energy in
existing or new coal-red thermal power plants. This article deals with the 4-E (namely energy, exergy,
environment, and economic) analysis of solar thermal aided coal-red power plants to establish their technoeconomic viability. An operating coal-red subcritical (SubC) and the rst supercritical (SupC) power plant
being commissioned in India are considered as reference power plants for SAFWH. The 4-E analysis is
reported assuming operation of coal-red power plants with SAFWH for 8 h/day in either fuel conservation or
power boosting mode. An instantaneous reduction of about 1419% in coal consumption is observed by
substituting turbine bleed streams to all the feedwater heaters including deaerator with SAFWH in fuel
conservation mode. The substitution of turbine bleed stream to high pressure feedwater heater alone with
SAFWH results in about 56% instantaneous improvement in coal consumption and additional power
generation for the fuel conservation and power boosting modes, respectively compared with the same values
in reference power plants. The annual savings in fuel cost alone correspond to Indian Rupee (INR) 73.574.5
millions. The performance of solar thermal aided coal-red power plants is also measured in terms of energy
and exergy performance index and it is observed that the utilization of solar energy for feedwater heating is
more efcient based on exergy rather than energy. The environmental analysis shows that about 62,000 and
65,000 t of CO2 are reduced annually from 500 MWe SubC and 660 MWe SupC coal-red power plants,
respectively using the best possible SAFWH option. However, the cost/tonne of CO2 avoided is about 7775
8885 and 83959790 INR (~ 200 USD) for solar thermal aided coal-red SubC and SupC power plants,
respectively far higher than the most mitigation measures under consideration today. Furthermore, SAFWH is
found to be a not very cost effective measure based on the cost of saved fuel (coal).
2010 International Energy Initiative. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction
India is witnessing robust economic growth and it can be sustained
with an intelligent use of energy, especially electricity. The total
installed power generating capacity in India is about 156 GWe with
coal-based thermal power plants comprising 52.3% of the total (CEA,
2009). India has huge proven coal reserves (58.6 billion tonnes),
about 7% of the world's total (BP, 2009) and hence coal has been the
workhorse of Indian power sector and it will continue to be so for
many more decades. The shares of hydro, gas, nuclear, and diesel are
23.6%, 10.8%, 2.6%, and 0.8%, respectively. Wind, small hydro (up to
capacity of 25 MWe), and biomass contribute almost 99.5% to the
grid-interactive renewable power share of 9.9% (MNRE, 2009). The
Integrated Energy Policy of India envisages installed power generation capacity of about 778 GWe by 20312032 with a substantial
contribution of electricity generation (about 80%) from fossil fuels

Corresponding author. Fax: + 91 44 2257 4652.

E-mail address: ksreddy@iitm.ac.in (K.S. Reddy).

(PC, 2006). With rapid depletion of fossil fuel reserves and their
marked effects on the environment, the usage of renewable energy
needs to be accelerated. Though India experiences 250300 clear
sunny days a year with annual global radiation of 16002200 kWh/m2
(Ramachandra and Shruthi, 2007), the contribution of solar energy to
power generation is negligible. Lower plant capacity factors and
higher investment costs appear to hinder the commercialization of
stand-alone solar power generation systems.
India has signicant coal reserves and it also receives high solar
insolation levels, thus providing a suitable opportunity for the
combined use of coal and solar energy in the thermal power plants.
Solar energy can be used as a supplementary energy source in the
existing or new coal-red thermal power plants to reduce fossil fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions, thus promoting sustainable energy
development. There are various options to use solar energy in
conventional steam power plants like feedwater heating, superheating/reheating of steam, and air preheating (Zoschak and Wu,
1975). Pai (1991) proposed integration of a solar concentrator eld to
a 210 MWe coal-red power plant. The thermodynamic advantages of
using solar energy as an auxiliary heat source in the regenerative

0973-0826/$ see front matter 2010 International Energy Initiative. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.esd.2010.09.002

268

M.V.J.J. Suresh et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 14 (2010) 267279

Rankine power plant were reported by Ying and Hu (1999). Gupta and
Kaushik (2009) concluded that heating feedwater of a thermal power
plant using solar energy is more advantageous rather than using the
same (solar energy) in stand-alone solar thermal power plants. The
present article focuses on the effect of solar aided feedwater heating
(SAFWH) on the thermodynamic performance of coal-red subcritical
(SubC) and supercritical (SupC) steam power plants. SAFWH is
selected because of its following advantages: a) the ease of integration
with existing power plant conguration, and b) operational and
control exibility. For coal-red power plants with SAFWH, the
feedwater heated in the solar collector eld alone needs to be
integrated with the power plant cycle. Also, the operational and
control exibility can be ensured by supplying turbine bleed steam to
the feedwater heaters, whenever required.
Two power plant congurations are considered for the study. The
rst conguration is of an operating pulverized coal-red power plant
based on SubC steam parameters and run by National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited (NTPC), India (NTPC, 2008). The second
conguration is of the rst pulverized coal-red SupC steam power
plant being installed in India by NTPC (NTPC, 2008). Currently, all the
power plants operating in India are based on SubC steam parameters.
Migrating to higher steam parameters is one alternative to increase
the power plant efciency and reduce the emissions. The advantages
of migrating to higher steam parameters in coal-red power plants
have been presented by Suresh et al. (2010) considering 3-Es (energy,
exergy, and environment). Solar thermal aided coal-red power
plants can be another viable alternative to reduce the fuel consumption and thus, the emissions per unit of electricity generation.
Thermodynamic performance based only on energy analysis does
not provide insights into the performance of the system. Hence,
researchers (Dincer and Cengel, 2001; Rosen, 2001) recommend the
application of both energy and exergy analysis. Evaluation of
thermodynamic performance of a power generation system along

with its environmental impact and economic analysis is necessary for

a detailed techno-economic assessment. Economic analysis gains
much importance in the case of solar based power generation systems
that involve huge xed cost. Hence, a 4-E (energy, exergy, environment, and economic) analysis of coal-red power plants with SAFWH
is carried out in this study.
Simulation of solar thermal aided coal-red power plants
A 500 MWe coal-red SubC power plant with direct SAFWH is
shown in Fig. 1. It has steam parameters of 166.7 bar/537 C/537 C
with the nal feedwater temperature of about 253 C. It uses three
low pressure feedwater heaters (LP FWHs), a deaerator, and two high
pressure feedwater heaters (HP FWHs). A leakage risk is involved in
power plants with direct SAFWH as the feedwater at high pressure
and high temperature needs to ow through a large solar collector
eld. Therefore, SubC power plant with indirect SAFWH is also
simulated and the conguration of the same is shown in Fig. 2. It uses
an additional heat exchanger to transfer thermal energy in the heat
transfer uid (usually oil) to the feedwater. Fig. 3 shows a 660 MWe
coal-red SupC power plant with direct SAFWH. It uses steam
parameters of 242.2 bar/537 C/565 C with the nal feedwater
temperature of about 280 C. It has four LP FWHs, a deaerator, and
three HP FWHs. The conguration of the SupC power plant with
indirect SAFWH is shown in Fig. 4. The thermodynamic performance
of all the considered power plants is estimated by a component-wise
modeling followed by a system simulation. A ow-sheet computer
program, Cycle-Tempo (Cycle-Tempo, 2007) is used for the study. It
is a well-structured package for the steady state thermodynamic
modeling and analysis of systems for the production of electricity,
heat and refrigeration (Au et al., 2003; Colonna and Gabrielli, 2003).
The characteristics of a typical Indian coal used for power
generation are presented in Table 1. The lower heating value (LHV)

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of 500 MWe SubC power plant with direct SAFWH (Numerics indicate stream numbers).

M.V.J.J. Suresh et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 14 (2010) 267279

269

Fig. 2. Schematic representation of 500 MWe SubC power plant with indirect SAFWH (Numerics indicate stream numbers).

of the coal (dry basis) is 15.2 MJ/kg with a specic exergy of 17.3 MJ/kg
(Suresh et al., 2010). Two operating modes are considered for the
simulation of power plants with SAFWH. In the rst mode, hereafter
referred to as fuel conservation mode, SAFWH results in reduction in
fuel consumption for the same gross power output whereas, in the
second mode, hereafter referred to as power boosting mode, SAFWH
results in additional power generation for the same fuel consumption
as in the reference power plant. The effect of bulk and individual
substitution of turbine bleed streams (TBS) to the feedwater heaters
(FWHs) with SAFWH is determined. Since de-aeration function is
critical for the proper operation and maintenance of steam/feedwater
circuit, the deaerator is opted out for SAFWH in the study of effect of
substitution of individual TBS to FWHs.

6.
7.

8.

9.

10.
Assumptions
11.
The following assumptions are made to carry out the power plant
simulation:
1. Ambient pressure (Po) and temperature (To) of the reference
environment are considered as 1.013 bar and 33 C, respectively
(Indian climatic conditions).
2. The relative humidity of the ambient air is taken as 60%.
3. The chemical composition of the reference-environment model
constitutes (in mole fraction): N2:0.7562, O2:0.2030, H2O:0.0312,
CO2:0.0003, and others: 0.0093.
4. The excess air is considered as 20%.
5. Energy loss in the steam generator (due to the combustibles in
ash, radiation and convection losses, and unaccounted losses) is

12.
13.
14.

15.

assumed as 1.5% of energy in the input fuel (coal) (Suresh et al.,

2010).
Ash constitutes 70% SiO2 and 30% Al2O3 (by weight) and the
bottom to y ash ratio is taken as 20:80 (NTPC, 2008).
Condenser pressure is assumed to be 10.3 kPa (Indian climatic
condition) and temperature gain of the condenser cooling water
is considered as 10 C.
The terminal temperature difference of all the closed feedwater
heaters is taken as 3 C whereas the drain cooler approach
temperature for the same feedwater heaters except the LP FWH1
(saturated stream) is considered as 5 C.
Pressure drop in the pipes is neglected whereas the same in steam
generator is assumed equal to that in the reference power plants
(Suresh et al., 2010).
Isentropic efciency of fans and pumps is considered as 80% and
85%, respectively (NTPC, 2008).
Isentropic efciency of turbine driven boiler feed pump (BFP) is
taken as 80%.
Generator efciency is taken as 98.7% (NTPC, 2008).
An auxiliary power consumption of 7.5% is assumed for both the
SubC and SupC power plants (reference power plants) (NTPC, 2008).
The power consumption by miscellaneous balance of plant (like
plant control systems, lighting, HVAC), steam turbine auxiliaries
and transformer losses for both the SubC and SupC power plants is
considered as 5 MWe (included in the auxiliary power consumption) (US DoE, 1999).
Change in auxiliary power consumption of coal and ash handling
equipments compared with the reference power plants is assumed
to vary directly with the coal consumption rate (Frankland and
Johar, 2004).

270

M.V.J.J. Suresh et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 14 (2010) 267279

Fig. 3. Schematic representation of 660 MWe SupC power plant with direct SAFWH (Numerics indicate stream numbers).

Further, the annual variation in coal consumption, ash, and CO2

emissions is calculated considering SAFWH for 8 h (sunshine hours)
and plant capacity factor of 0.85. It is also assumed that the land
required for solar collector eld (SCF) is a part of the existing or new
coal-red power plants and hence, the cost of land for SCF is not
considered in the study.

from the solar collectors to the excess power generated over the
design rated capacity in power boosting mode for power plants with
SAFWH.The Energy Performance Index (EnPI) is dened as:
EnPI =

Excess power generated over the design rated capacity Pexcess


Energy input to the solar collector field Q s

Performance parameters

The energy input to the solar collector eld (Q s) is calculated as:

Energy and exergy parameters

The performance of coal-red power plants with SAFWH is
evaluated in terms of coal consumption rate, gross power output,
and plant energy and exergy efciencies. The equations used to
determine plant efciencies are as follows:
Plant energy efficiency;

Net electricity output

Mass flow rate of coal HHV of the coal

Plant exergy efficiency;

Net electricity output

:
Mass flow rate of coal Specific exergy of the coal

2
In India, plant energy efciency of coal-red power plants is
quoted on the basis of higher heating value (HHV) of coal (normal
practice in power plant industry). Hence, to reect the typical values
of power plant energy efciencies in India, HHV (dry basis) has been
used throughout the study instead of LHV.
Furthermore two performance indices namely, Energy Performance Index (EnPI), and Exergy Performance Index (ExPI) are dened
to account for the contribution of energy and exergy, respectively

Q
Q s = c
c

where, Q c is the energy output of the solar collector eld (MWth) and
c is the collector efciency. The study assumes parabolic trough being
used as the solar thermal energy collector with collection efciency of
60% (Pai, 1991; The World Bank, 1999). The energy output of the solar
collector eld is specied as:

Q c = m:h

where, m is the mass ow rate of the feedwater (kg/s), and h is the

specic enthalpy gain of the feedwater across the feedwater heater
(kJ/kg). The collector area (Ac) required to transfer the energy output
is calculated as:
Ac =

Q c
Sd c

where, Sd is the direct irradiation in W/m2.

M.V.J.J. Suresh et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 14 (2010) 267279

271

Fig. 4. Schematic representation of 660 MWe SupC power plant with indirect SAFWH (Numerics indicate stream numbers).

The Exergy Performance Index (ExPI) is dened as:

ExPI =

Excess power generated over the design rated capacity Pexcess


s
Exergy input through solar irradiation Ex

7
Exergy input through solar irradiation (xs) is specied as (Winter
et al., 1991; Hu et al., 2010):


s = 1 4 Ta 10:28 ln f Q s
Ex
3 Ts

Table 1
Characteristics of Indian coal.
Proximate analysis

As-received (wt%)

Dry basis (wt%)

Fixed carbon
Volatile matter
Ash
Moisture

24.00
21.00
43.00
12.00

27.27
23.86
48.87

Ultimate analysis

As-Received (wt%)

Dry Basis (wt%)

Carbon
Hydrogen
Oxygen (by difference)
Nitrogen
Sulfur
Ash
Moisture
HHV (MJ/kg)
Exergy (MJ/kg)

34.46
2.43
6.97
0.69
0.45
43.00
12.00
13.96
15.26

39.16
2.76
7.92
0.78
0.51
48.87

15.83
17.30

where, Ta is the ambient temperature (306 K), Ts is the temperature of

the Sun (5777 K), and f is the dilution factor (1.3 10 5). Dilution
factor is a measure of the mixing ratio of radiation from two sources
Table 2
Steps for calculating annualized and levelized cost of electricity generation.
Parameter

Unit

Capital cost (CC)

Life of the power plant (n)
Discount rate (d)
Capital recovery factor (CRF)
Annualized capital cost (ACC)
Plant capacity factor (PCF)
Auxiliary consumption (AC)
Net energy generated annually (Pnet)
Fixed capital cost (FCC)
Fixed O&M cost (FOM)
Fixed O&M cost per unit (CFOM)
Fuel cost (FC)
Heating value of fuel (HV)
Heat rate (net) (HR)
Fuel cost per unit (CF)
O&M cost per unitvariable (CVOM)
Total variable cost per unit (CV)
Annualized cost of electricity
generation (ACoE)
Escalation rate (fuel/O&M
xed&variable) (e)
Equivalent discount rate with
escalation (d)
Levelizing factor (LF)
Levelized fuel and O&M cost (CL)
Levelized cost of electricity
generation (LCoE)

INR/kW
Year
Fraction
Fraction
INR/kW
Fraction
Fraction
kWh/kW
INR/kWh
INR/kW
INR/kWh
INR/kg
kJ/kg
kJ/kWh
INR/kWh
INR/kWh
INR/kWh
INR/kWh

Value

d/(1(1 + d) n)
CC CRF

(8760 PCF)(1 AC)

ACC/Pnet
FOM/Pnet

FC (HR/HV)
CF + CVOM
FCC + CFOM + CV

Fraction
Fraction

(d e)/(1 + e)

Fraction
INR/kWh
INR/kWh

LF (CFOM + CV)
FCC + CL

272

M.V.J.J. Suresh et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 14 (2010) 267279

Table 3
Stream data of 500 MWe SubC coal-red power plant.
Stream no. (as indicated in Figs. 1/2)

Pressure (bar)

Temperature (C)

Coal/bottom ash
1
11

1.030
1.013

33.0
1050.0

Air/ue gas
2
3
4
5
5
6
7
8
9
10

1.013
1.040
1.030
1.010
1.010
1.005
1.005
1.000
1.000
1.060

33.0
35.9
297.2
1786.7
1345.9 (1356.6)
842.3 (866.3)
579.7 (574.9)
335.0
117.8
125.0

Water/steam
12
13
14
15
16 (NA)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36

166.7
44.1 (42.7)
39.7
7.3
44.1
17.4
7.3
2.6
1.3
0.26
0.103
0.103
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
193.7 (213.7)
193.7 (213.7)
193.7
187.7
186.2
1.013
2.030
1.030

537.0
339.4 (335.2)
537.0
303.3
339.4
416.1
303.3
192.6
132.1
65.8
46.4
46.4
46.5
62.8
105.0
125.6
166.7
170.2 (170.5)
202.5
253.2
324.0
359.8
33.0
33.0
43.0

Mass ow rate (kg/s)

81.4 (76.3)
7.9 (7.5)

Energy ow rate (MWth)

Exergy ow rate (MWth)

1288.2 (1207.7)
10.8 (10.1)

1407.8 (1319.8)
6.6 (6.1)

481.1
481.1
481.1
554.5
554.5
554.5
554.5
554.5
554.5
554.5

(450.8)
(450.8)
(450.8)
(519.6)
(519.6)
(519.6)
(519.6)
(519.6)
(519.6)
(519.6)

21.8 (20.5)
23.3 (21.8)
153.7 (144.1)
1411.8 (1323.5)
980.9 (927.9)
592.2 (571.0)
411.6 (382.7)
254.2 (238.3)
123.8 (116.0)
127.9 (119.9)

0 (0)
1.1 (1.1)
37.7 (35.3)
975.6 (914.6)
616.4 (584.6)
314.9 (306.9)
190.8 (176.9)
99.7 (93.4)
50.2 (47.1)
53.8 (50.4)

425.8
380.5
380.5
316.9
45.3
21.0
24.0
12.2
23.3
10.2
271.2
335.5
335.5
335.5
335.5
335.5
425.8
425.8
425.8
425.8
425.8
425.8
15614.7
15614.7
15614.7

(390.9)
(390.9)
(390.9)
(325.2)

1387.1 (1273.4)
1110.3 (1137.7)
1290.9 (1326.0)
927.6 (952.0)
132.1
66.1 (67.3)
70.4 (74.3)
33.2 (34.1)
60.6 (62.2)
24.1 (24.7)
620.3 (637.3)
18.7 (19.2)
19.0 (19.5)
42.0 (43.1)
101.4 (104.0)
130.7 (134.0)
241.1 (221.3)
252.0 (232.4)
312.0 (286.8)
410.2 (376.6)
567.5 (521.0)
998.4 (916.5)
0
2.0
653.1 (670.5)

613.5
410.7
507.5
266.6
48.9
22.6
20.2
7.5
11.3
2.3
25.6
0.4
0.6
2.1
10.5
16.7
41.5
50.9
80.0
109.1
180.6
401.5
0
1.6
10.5

(21.4)
(25.4)
(12.6)
(23.9)
(10.4)
(278.3)
(344.1)
(344.1)
(344.1)
(344.1)
(344.1)
(390.9)
(390.9)
(390.9)
(390.9)
(390.9)
(390.9)
(16031.7)
(16031.7)
(16031.7)

(563.2)
(418.9)
(521.3)
(273.6)
(23.0)
(21.4)
(7.7)
(11.6)
(2.3)
(26.4)
(0.4)
(0.6)
(2.2)
(10.8)
(17.2)
(38.1)
(47.7)
(65.8)
(100.2)
(165.8)
(368.6)

(10.8)

Values in parentheses correspond to solar aided (optimum SAFWH) SubC power plant.
NA = Not Applicable.

i.e., the radiance of the sun and the radiance of the surroundings. Since
Ts Ta, the mixing can be regarded as a dilution of hot solar radiation
with cold ambient radiation (Winter et al., 1991).
Environmental parameters
Coal-red power plants release various pollutants like CO2, SOx,
NOx, and some trace elements into the atmosphere apart from ash.
Specic CO2 emission (kg of CO2/kWh) is calculated to determine the
impact of solar thermal aided coal-red SubC and SupC power plants
on the environment as coal-red power plants are one of the major
contributors to CO2 emissions along with the ash. Indigenous coals

used for power generation in India consist of about 4045% ash,

resulting in huge quantities of y- and bottom ash. Thus, annual
variation in ash using SAFWH is also reported. Both SOx and NOx
emissions are neglected because of the lower specic emissions
values from pulverized coal-red SubC and SupC power plants
(Suresh et al., 2010). Also, sulfur content of Indian coal is very low
(b0.6%).
Economic parameters
The annualized cost of electricity generation (ACoE) (Sathaye and
Phadke, 2006) and levelized cost of electricity generation (LCoE)

Table 4
Thermodynamic performance of SubC coal-red power plant with SAFWH bulk substitution of TBS to FWHs (design case- rated capacity: 500 MWe; coal consumption: 81.4 kg/s;
plant energy efciency: 35.9%; plant exergy efciency: 32.9%).
Substitution options for TBS

Fuel conservation mode

Power boosting mode

Fuel conservation mode

Energy performance

Exergy performance

Coal consumption Fuel conservation Gross power

Power
Plant energy Improvement over Plant exergy Improvement over
(kg/s)
(%)
output (MWe) boosting (%) efciency (%) design case (%)
efciency (%) design case (%)
All FWHs including deaerator 69.7
HP and LP FWHs
72.9
LP FWHs
80.2

14.4
10.4
1.5

575.8
553.7
506.4

15.2
10.7
1.3

41.8
40.7
36.7

16.4
13.4
2.2

38.2
37.2
33.6

16.1
13.1
2.1

M.V.J.J. Suresh et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 14 (2010) 267279

273

Table 5
Thermodynamic performance of SubC coal-red power plant with SAFWH individual substitution of TBS to FWHs (design case- rated capacity: 500 MWe; coal consumption:
81.4 kg/s; plant energy efciency: 35.9%; plant exergy efciency: 32.9%).
Substitution options
for TBS

Fuel conservation mode

Coal consumption
(kg/s)

Fuel conservation
(%)

Plant energy
efciency (%)

Energy performance
Improvement over
design case (%)

Plant exergy
efciency (%)

Improvement over
design case (%)

HP FWH2
HP FWH1
LP FWH3
LP FWH2
LP FWH1

76.3
79.0
80.9
80.8
81.4

6.27
2.95
0.61
0.74
0

38.4
37.4
36.4
36.5
35.9

6.96
4.18
1.39
1.67
0

35.2
34.2
33.3
33.4
32.9

6.99
3.95
1.22
1.52
0

(Gilbert, 2004; Roth and Ambs, 2004) are used as economic indicators.
The procedure used to calculate ACoE is modied to account for the
escalation of annual fuel and operation and maintenance cost using a
levelizing factor. Table 2 shows the steps to calculate ACoE and LCoE
(INR/kWh). The levelizing factor is calculated as (Gilbert, 2004):
Levelizing factor; LF =




1 + dn 1
d1 + dn
d1 + dn 1 + dn 1

where, d is the discount rate (%), d is the equivalent discount rate

with escalation (%), e is the escalation rate (%), and n is the plant life
(years).
Indian Rupee (INR) is used as the monetary unit throughout the
study1 and the xed operation and maintenance (O&M) cost is
considered as 2.5% of the capital cost (Sathaye and Phadke, 2006).
Variable O&M cost/unit is assumed to be INR 0.10 for all the
considered power plants. Since, coal-red power plants with
SAFWH are expected to result in lower fuel consumption and thus,
lower CO2 emissions for the same gross power output, cost/tonne of
CO2 avoided is also reported. It is calculated as:

Cost = tonne of CO2 avoided =

h
i
ACPSAFWH ACPReference without SAFWH
Annual reduction in CO2 emission
10

where, ACP is the annual cost of power generation (INR). ACP is the
product of ACoE, Pnet, and unit capacity of the power plant.
Results and discussion
SubC power plant with solar aided feedwater heating
The stream data of the SubC power plants with SAFWH (corresponding to Figs. 1 and 2) are presented in Table 3. The calculated
isentropic efciencies of high pressure (HP), intermediate pressure
(IP), and low pressure (LP) turbines in the design case of 500 MWe
without SAFWH are 89.0, 90.3, and 85.1%, respectively. Three cases are
considered for the bulk substitution of TBS to FWHs in a SubC power
plant. The rst case [case (i)] deals with substitution of all the TBS to
FWHs including deaerator with SAFWH. The other two cases deal with
substitution of either all the TBS to HP FWHs and LP FWHs [case (ii)]
or substitution of TBS to only LP FWHs [case (iii)] except the
deaerator. Table 4 presents the simulation results of all the three
cases. It is observed that the maximum reduction in instantaneous
fuel consumption is about 14% in fuel conservation mode
corresponding to case (i) whereas the gross power output for the
same option [case (i)] in power boosting mode is about 76 MWe
more than the design rated capacity. This can be attributed to the
savings in extraction steam from turbines that lead to increased
power output. However, the feasibility of generating such an excess
1

A typical exchange rate in recent years has been 46.5 INR/USD.

Exergy performance

power over the design rated capacity may be very limited. Hence,
fuel conservation mode for a constant gross power output seems to
be a viable option between the two modes for both the existing/new
coal-red power plants. The effect of SAFWH on the plant energy and
exergy efciencies in fuel conservation mode is also shown in
Table 4 and an improvement of about 16% over the design case is
observed for case (i). Substitution of TBS to all the FWHs with SAFWH
is a risky option that may not be feasible under actual operating
conditions. Hence, this study is carried out to nd the effect of
substitution of TBS to the individual FWHs with SAFWH and the
results for fuel conservation mode are shown in Table 5. Further, the
variation of additional power generation for the same option
(substitution of TBS to the individual FWHs with SAFWH) in power
boosting mode is shown in Fig. 5. It is observed that the maximum
improvement in both the fuel conservation and power boosting
modes is obtained by substituting the TBS to the nal high pressure
feedwater heater (HP FWH2) with SAFWH. Therefore, in the case of
optimum feedwater heat exchanger network with the solar collector
eld, the feedwater is assumed to bypass the HP FWH2 (during
sunshine hours). The maximum variation of turbine isentropic
efciencies for the best possible SAFWH option (HP FWH2) during
the fuel conservation mode, which is a better alternative to power
boosting mode is only about 0.4% point. The isentropic efciencies of
steam turbines are evaluated according to the correlations based on
steam parameters and volume ow that are implemented in the
software, Cycle-Tempo (Cycle-Tempo, 2007). It is observed that
substituting individual TBS to LP FWHs has no signicant effect on the
performance of the SubC power plant. Using solar assist at the high
temperature feedwater heaters result in a noticeable performance
improvement than using the same at low temperature feedwater
heaters. This is due to the higher temperature that corresponds to the
higher quality of energy (exergy). The variation of EnPI and ExPI by
substitution of TBS to individual FWHs with SAFWH is shown in Fig. 6.

Fig. 5. Variation of additional power generation by substitution of turbine bleed streams

with SAFWH in a 500 MWe SubC power plant.

274

M.V.J.J. Suresh et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 14 (2010) 267279

Fig. 6. Variation of Energy (En) and Exergy (Ex) Performance Index (PI) by substitution
of turbine bleed streams with SAFWH in a 500 MWe SubC power plant.

It is distinctly noticed that the exergetic utilization of solar energy for

feedwater heating is higher than the corresponding energetic
utilization. Hence, it can be concluded that the utilization of solar
energy for feedwater heating is more efcient based on exergy rather
than energy.
It is observed that the solar thermal aided coal-red SubC power
plant results in a signicant reduction of coal consumption which in turn
lowers the emissions. The specic fuel consumption and CO2 emission of
a SubC power plant are 0.59 kg/kWh, and 0.84 kg/kWh, respectively.
The same values for the SubC power plant with the best possible SAFWH
option (HP FWH2) are 0.55 kg/kWh, and 0.79 kg/kWh, respectively that
correspond to a reduction of about 6.06.5%. Assuming a plant capacity
factor of 0.85, the annual reduction in coal consumption of a 500 MWe
SubC power plant with SAFWH (HP FWH2) is about 49,600 t. The
corresponding reduction in ash and CO2 emissions are about 24,300 and
62,000 t, respectively. Assuming the cost of coal at the power plant as
INR 1500/t, the annual savings in fuel cost alone corresponds to about
INR 74.5 million.
The heat transferred through the solar collector eld for the
best possible SAFWH option (HP FWH2) is about 90 MWth. With an

assumed annual average direct irradiation (Sd) of 500 W/m2 and the
collector's efciency of 60%, a collector area of about 3 105 m2or
30 ha is required for the best possible SAFWH option. The land
required for the solar collector eld is usually thrice the collector
area (Pai, 1991), so the same is considered as 90 ha. The specic
investment cost of parabolic trough solar collector eld for direct
SAFWH is considered as INR 12,730/m2 (Montes et al., 2009a)
[1 ~ INR 67, considering the Dec 2009 exchange rate (International
Monetary Fund, 2009)]. The same value for indirect SAFWH is taken as
INR 13,800/m2 (Montes et al., 2009b). The capital cost of coal-red
SubC power plant is considered as INR 45,000/kWe. Including the cost of
solar collector eld increases the capital cost of the SubC power plant
with the best possible direct SAFWH option to INR 52,600/kWe whereas
the same value for the indirect SAFWH option is INR 53,300/kWe. The
LCoE is calculated considering the life of power plant to be 25 years. The
results of economic analysis are presented in Table 6 and it is observed
that the LCoE increases from 2.26 to 2.41 and 2.42 INR/kWh with the
best possible direct and indirect SAFWH option, respectively, about 7%
increase. The corresponding cost/tonne of CO2 avoided is found to be
about INR 7775 and INR 8885. The simple payback period (SPP) for the
considered power plants is calculated as:

SPP =

CC
Pnet ACoE

11

where, CC is the installed capital cost, and Pnet is the net energy
generated annually. The payback period for SubC power plant is
3.2 years. The same value for SubC power plant with direct and
indirect SAFWH is found to be about 3.5 years. Though solar assist
appears to be cost effective based on the cost of energy and payback
period, the cost of CO2 avoided is far higher than the most mitigation
measures under consideration today (McKinsey & Co., 2009). Hence,
the cost effectiveness of additional investment for SAFWH needs to be
determined. The cost of saved fuel is used as an indicator to
determine the marginal cost effectiveness of coal-red power plant
with SAFWH. The same is calculated as follows:
Additional cost of SubC coal  fired power plant with direct SAFWH
= 2:412:26 = 0:15 INR=kWh

Table 6
Economic analysis of SubC power plant.
Parameter

Capital cost
Life of the power plant
Discount rate
Capital recovery factor
Annualized capital cost
Plant capacity factor
Auxiliary consumption
Net energy generated annually
Fixed capital cost
Fixed O&M cost
Fixed O&M cost per unit
Fuel cost
Heating value of fuel
Heat rate (net)
Fuel cost per unit
O&M cost per unit variable
Total variable cost per unit
Annualized cost of electricity generation (ACoE)
Escalation rate (fuel/O&M xed & variable)
Equivalent discount rate with escalation
Levelizing factor
Levelized fuel and O&M cost
Levelized cost of electricity generation (LCoE)

Unit

INR/kW
Year
Fraction
Fraction
INR/kW
Fraction
Fraction
kWh/kW
INR/kWh
INR/kW
INR/kWh
INR/kg
kJ/kg
kJ/kWh
INR/kWh
INR/kWh
INR/kWh
INR/kWh
Fraction
Fraction
Fraction
INR/kWh
INR/kWh

SubC power plant

Without SAFWH

With direct SAFWH

With indirect SAFWH

45,000
25
0.12
0.13
5737.50
0.85
0.075
6888.00
0.83
1125.00
0.16
1.5
15,830
10,028
0.95
0.10
1.05
2.05
0.02
0.10
1.17
1.43
2.26

52,600
25
0.12
0.13
6706.50
0.85
0.075
6888.00
0.97
1315.00
0.19
1.5
15,830
9810
0.93
0.10
1.03
2.19
0.02
0.10
1.17
1.43
2.41

53,300
25
0.12
0.13
6795.75
0.85
0.075
6888.00
0.99
1332.50
0.19
1.5
15,830
9810
0.93
0.10
1.03
2.21
0.02
0.10
1.17
1.44
2.42

M.V.J.J. Suresh et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 14 (2010) 267279

275

Table 7
Stream data of 660 MWe SupC coal-red power plant.
Stream no. (as indicated in Figs.3/4)

Pressure (bar)

Temperature (C)

Coal/bottom ash
1
11

1.030
1.013

33.0
1050.0

Air/ue gas
2
3
4
5
5
6
7
8
9
10

1.013
1.040
1.030
1.010
1.010
1.005
1.005
1.000
1.000
1.060

33.0
35.9
272.1
1775.8
1046.8 (1064.2)
905.2 (926.2)
542.4 (538.0)
319.0
122.7
130.0

Water/steam
12
13
14
15
16
17 (NA)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

242.2
44.3 (45.5)
42.0
2.9
66.8
44.3
21.0
11.9
6.1
2.98
0.64
0.27
0.103
0.103
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
308.7 (328.7)
308.7 (328.7)
308.7
308.7
294.7
263.2
1.013
2.03
1.03

537.0
288.7 (292.0)
565.0
215.6
340.0
288.7
459.9
381.1
295.4
215.6
87.6
66.7
46.4
46.4
46.5
63.7
84.6
130.3
156.2
187.7
193.9 (194.3)
212.0
253.5
279.6
341.0
480.0
33.0
33.0
43.0

Mass ow rate (kg/s)

Energy ow rate (MWth)

Exergy ow rate (MWth)

102.9 (98.1)
10.0 (9.6)

1628.8 (1552.5)
13.7 (13.0)

1779.9 (1696.5)
8.3 (7.9)

608.3
608.3
608.3
701.1
701.1
701.1
701.1
701.1
701.1
701.1

(579.8)
(579.8)
(579.8)
(668.3)
(668.3)
(668.3)
(668.3)
(668.3)
(668.3)
(668.3)

27.6
29.4
178.2
1768.9
937.5
805.3
488.7
308.5
159.7
165.0

(26.3)
(28.0)
(169.9)
(1686.1)
(909.5)
(786.0)
(462.3)
(294.0)
(152.2)
(157.3)

0
1.4
40.4
1219.8
539.7
439.6
221.1
119.5
64.0
68.5

550.7
466.2
466.2
173.0
36.2
48.3
14.4
22.4
19.2
31.4
14.1
13.5
318.5
429.5
429.5
429.5
429.5
429.5
429.5
550.7
550.7
550.7
550.7
550.7
550.7
550.7
18992.8
18992.8
18992.8

(514.4)
(480.6)
(480.6)
(179.7)
(33.8)

1743.7 (1628.8)
1293.0 (1335.6)
1609.7 (1659.2)
477.5 (495.8)
103.6 (96.8)
133.9
46.5 (38.5)
69.0 (74.9)
56.0 (58.0)
86.6 (89.6)
35.3 (36.5)
32.2 (33.3)
727.4 (755.3)
24.0 (24.9)
24.7 (25.5)
55.6 (57.5)
93.2 (96.4)
176.1 (182.2)
223.8 (231.6)
363.0 (339.1)
386.1 (362.0)
429.4 (401.5)
532.2 (497.1)
599.9 (560.4)
780.1 (728.7)
1611.5 (1505.2)
0
2.4
794.3 (821.6)

786.9
471.4
643.0
111.7
39.9
48.8
16.6
22.1
15.6
20.3
5.1
3.1
30.1
0.5
1.0
3.1
7.5
23.7
36.3
70.3
90.3
105.7
146.3
175.6
260.8
711.7
0
1.9
12.7

(11.9)
(24.3)
(19.9)
(32.5)
(14.5)
(13.9)
(330.9)
(444.4)
(444.4)
(444.4)
(444.4)
(444.4)
(444.4)
(514.4)
(514.4)
(514.4)
(514.4)
(514.4)
(514.4)
(514.4)
(19644.6)
(19644.6)
(19644.6)

(38.5)
(1162.7)
(526.7)
(432.7)
(208.6)
(113.9)
(61.0)
(65.3)

(735.0)
(488.7)
(662.8)
(116.0)
(37.3)
(13.7)
(24.0)
(16.1)
(21.0)
(5.3)
(3.2)
(31.3)

(3.2)
(7.8)
(24.5)
(37.6)
(65.6)
(85.6)
(99.7)
(136.7)
(164.0)
(243.6)
(664.8)

(13.2)

Values in parentheses correspond to solar aided (optimum SAFWH) SupC power plant.
NA = Not Applicable.

Energy saved using direct SAFWH in SubC coal  fired power plant
= 100289810 = 218 kJ=kWh

Cost of saved energy =

0:15
6
= 688 10 INR=kJ
218

It is observed that the cost of saved fuel is about 7 times the cost of
purchased fuel (cost of coal = 1.5 INR/kg). Thus, it can be concluded
that integrating coal-red power plant with the best possible SAFWH
option is currently not a cost effective measure.

SupC power plant with solar aided feedwater heating

Since, the heating value of fuel is 15,830 kJ/kg, the cost of saved
fuel = 688 106 15830 = 10:9 INR=kg:

Table 7 presents the stream data of the SupC power plant

(corresponding to Figs. 3 and 4). The calculated isentropic efciencies

Table 8
Thermodynamic performance of SupC coal-red power plant with SAFWH bulk substitution of TBS to FWHs (design case- rated capacity: 660 MWe; coal consumption: 102.9 kg/s;
plant energy efciency: 37.5%; plant exergy efciency: 34.3%).
Substitution options for TBS

Fuel conservation mode

Power boosting mode

Fuel conservation mode

Energy performance

Exergy performance

Coal consumption Fuel conservation Gross power

Power
Plant energy Improvement over Plant exergy Improvement over
(kg/s)
(%)
output (MWe) boosting (%) efciency (%) design case (%)
efciency (%) design case (%)
All FWHs including deaerator 83.5
HP and LP FWHs
88.5
LP FWHs
98.2

18.9
14.0
4.6

806.0
763.9
691.1

22.1
15.7
4.7

45.5
44.0
39.4

21.3
17.3
5.1

41.6
40.2
36.0

21.3
17.2
5.0

276

M.V.J.J. Suresh et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 14 (2010) 267279

Table 9
Thermodynamic performance of SupC coal-red power plant with SAFWH individual substitution of TBS to FWHs (design case- rated capacity: 660 MWe; coal consumption:
102.9 kg/s; plant energy efciency: 37.5%; plant exergy efciency: 34.3%).
Substitution
options for TBS

Fuel conservation mode

Coal consumption
(kg/s)

Fuel conservation
(%)

Energy efciency
(%)

Energy performance
Improvement over
design case (%)

Exergy efciency
(%)

Exergy performance
Improvement over
design case (%)

HP FWH3
HP FWH2
HP FWH1
LP FWH4
LP FWH3
LP FWH2
LP FWH1

99.0
98.1
100.8
101.1
100.6
102.3
102.6

3.79
4.66
2.04
1.75
2.24
0.58
0.29

39.0
39.4
38.3
38.1
38.3
37.7
37.6

4.00
5.07
2.13
1.60
2.13
0.53
0.27

35.7
36.1
35.1
34.9
35.1
34.5
34.4

4.08
5.25
2.33
1.75
2.33
0.58
0.29

of HP, IP, and LP turbines in the design case of 660 MWe without
SAFWH are 89.6, 91.7, and 85.7%, respectively. The thermodynamic
performance of SupC power plant with SAFWH for bulk substitution of
TBS to FWHs is shown in Table 8. The results of both the operational
modes (fuel conservation and power boosting) are reported and it is
observed that the qualitative trends are similar to that of the SubC
power plant. An improvement of about 19% in fuel consumption is
observed over the design case for case (i) (substitution of TBS to all
the FWHs including deaerator with SAFWH). Also, the plant energy
and exergy efciencies show an increase of about 21% for the same
case. A signicant increase of about 146 MWe (~22%) in gross power
output is observed for case (i) in power boosting mode. The
thermodynamic performance of SupC power plant with SAFWH for
individual substitution of TBS to FWHs during fuel conservation
mode is shown in Table 9. The variation of additional power
generation for the same option (individual substitution of TBS to
FWHs) in power boosting mode is shown in Fig. 7. The maximum
improvement in fuel conservation/power boosting mode is observed
for substitution of TBS to HP FWH2. Therefore, the feedwater is
assumed to bypass the HP FWH2 (during sunshine hours) for the best
possible SAFWH option. For SupC power plants also, the maximum
variation of turbine isentropic efciencies for the best possible SAFWH
option (HP FWH2) in fuel conservation mode is only about 0.3%
point. Fig.8 shows the variation of EnPI and ExPI with SAFWH. For
SupC power plant too with SAFWH, it is observed that the exergetic
utilization of solar energy for feedwater heating is higher than the
corresponding energetic utilization. It is also noted that the exergetic
contribution by SAFWH through substitution of TBS to LP FWHs is
slightly higher for SupC power plant compared with the SubC power

plant. It can be attributed to the higher bleed steam temperatures

contributing higher exergy to the SupC power plant FWH network.
The specic fuel consumption and CO2 emission for reference SupC
power plant are 0.56 kg/kWh, and 0.80 kg/kWh, respectively. The
same values for SupC power plant with the best possible SAFWH
option (HP FWH2) are 0.53 kg/kWh, and 0.76 kg/kWh, respectively
that correspond to a reduction of 5.05.5%. Assuming the same plant
capacity factor as of SubC power plant (0.85), a 660 MWe SupC power
plant with the best possible SAFWH option results in annual reduction
of approximately 49,000 t of coal, 24,000 t of ash, and 65,000 t of CO2.
The annual savings in fuel cost for the same plant is INR 73.5 million.
The heat transferred through the solar collector eld for the
best possible SAFWH option (HP FWH2) is about 96 MWth and the
required collector area (Ac) is approximately 3.2 105 m2 or 32 ha. The
corresponding land area required is 96 ha. The capital cost increases
to INR 56,200/kWe and INR 57,000/kWe for SupC power plant with
direct and indirect SAFWH option, respectively compared with INR
50,000/kWe for the reference SupC power plant. The LCoE for SupC
power plant with and without SAFWH is presented in Table 10. For
SupC power plant, the LCoE increases from 2.33 to 2.45 and 2.47 INR/
kWh with the best possible direct and indirect SAFWH, respectively.
The payback period for SupC power plant is found to be 3.4 years. The
same value for SupC power plant with direct and indirect SAFWH is
about 3.6 and 3.7 years, respectively. However, for the best possible
solar thermal aided coal-red SupC power plant, the cost of saved fuel
is found to be 8 times the cost of purchased fuel. Thus, SAFWH is not
cost effective even for coal-red SupC power plant.
The cost/tonne of CO2 avoided is found to be INR 8395 and INR
9790 for SupC power plant with direct and indirect SAFWH option,

Fig. 7. Variation of additional power generation by substitution of turbine bleed streams

with SAFWH in a 660 MWe SupC power plant.

Fig. 8. Variation of energy (En) and exergy (Ex) performance index (PI) by substitution
of turbine bleed streams with SAFWH in a 660 MWe SupC power plant.

M.V.J.J. Suresh et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 14 (2010) 267279

277

Table 10
Economic analysis of SupC power plant.
Parameter

Capital cost
Life of the power plant
Discount rate
Capital recovery factor
Annualized capital cost
Plant capacity factor
Auxiliary consumption
Net energy generated annually
Fixed capital cost
Fixed O&M cost
Fixed O&M cost per unit
Fuel cost
Heating value of fuel
Heat rate (net)
Fuel cost per unit
O&M cost per unit variable
Total variable cost per unit
Annualized cost of electricity generation (ACoE)
Escalation rate (fuel/O&M xed & variable)
Equivalent discount rate with escalation
Levelizing factor
Levelized fuel and O&M cost
Levelized cost of electricity generation (LCoE)

Unit

INR/kW
Year
Fraction
Fraction
INR/kW
Fraction
Fraction
kWh/kW
INR/kWh
INR/kW
INR/kWh
INR/kg
kJ/kg
kJ/kWh
INR/kWh
INR/kWh
INR/kWh
INR/kWh
Fraction
Fraction
Fraction
INR/kWh
INR/kWh

respectively. This is about 200 USD/tCO2 avoided at recent typical

exchange rates. It needs to be emphasized here that the reduction in
CO2 emission in solar thermal aided coal-red power plants is only a
consequence of reduction in fuel consumption unlike pre/post- and
oxyfuel combustion processes specically used to capture CO2.
Furthermore, there is also a signicant reduction of about 1015%
points in plant energy efciency of coal-red power plants using pre/
post- and oxyfuel combustion processes to capture 8590% CO2
emissions (Kanniche et al., 2010).
Sensitivity analysis for LCoE of SupC power plant with indirect SAFWH
In order to determine the effect of various parameters on LCoE, a
sensitivity analysis is carried out for SupC power plant with indirect
SAFWH. The variation of discount rate, plant capacity factor, fuel cost,
and escalation rate on LCoE is shown in Figs. 9ad, respectively. It is
observed that at 10% discount rate, the LCoE of SupC power plant with
indirect SAFWH becomes approximately equal to that of reference
SupC power plant without SAFWH. About 7% increase in LCoE is
observed by reducing the plant capacity factor to 0.75 (the average
plant capacity factor of coal-red power plants in India) from 0.85.
The fuel (coal) cost and escalation rate appears to be the critical
parameters affecting the LCoE. A 100% increase in the fuel cost results
in a corresponding increase of 42.5% in LCoE whereas increase in
escalation rate of fuel/O&M (both xed and variable) from 2 to 9%
results in approximately 50% increase in LCoE.
Stand-alone solar thermal power plant
The analysis is extended to compare the stand-alone solar thermal
power plant with the solar thermal aided coal-red power plant.
Accordingly, the solar aided thermal energy of 96 MWth in SupC
power plant is selected to determine the annual fuel (coal) and CO2
emission reduction from the equivalent stand-alone solar thermal
power plant. Also, the cost of power generation and cost/tonne of CO2
avoided are determined. The cost/tonne of CO2 avoided is calculated
as the ratio of difference between annual cost of power generation
(ACP) of stand-alone solar thermal power plant and an equivalent
SupC power plant without SAFWH to the corresponding reduction in
annual CO2 emissions. Based on the assumed collector's efciency of
60%, the solar energy that is to be collected in the eld is 160 MWsolar.
Assuming a solar to electric conversion efciency of 22%, the gross

SupC power plant

Without SAFWH

With direct SAFWH

With indirect SAFWH

50,000
25
0.12
0.13
6375.00
0.85
0.075
6888.00
0.93
1250.00
0.18
1.5
15,830
9600
0.91
0.10
1.01
2.12
0.02
0.10
1.17
1.40
2.33

56,200
25
0.12
0.13
7165.50
0.85
0.075
6888.00
1.04
1405.00
0.20
1.5
15,830
9446
0.90
0.10
1.00
2.24
0.02
0.10
1.17
1.41
2.45

57,000
25
0.12
0.13
7267.50
0.85
0.075
6888.00
1.06
1425.00
0.21
1.5
15,830
9446
0.90
0.10
1.00
2.26
0.02
0.10
1.17
1.41
2.47

power output of the stand-alone solar thermal power plant

corresponds to about 35 MWe. Considering an auxiliary power
consumption of 7.5% and a plant capacity factor of about 0.27 (8 h
of daily operation for 300 days), the net energy generated from the
plant is about 76.6 million kWh. The corresponding reduction in fuel
consumption and CO2 emission are 42,895 and 61,280 t, respectively.
The economic analysis is presented in Table 11 and it is observed that
LCoE increases to INR 14.46. The LCoE of stand-alone solar thermal
power plant is very high compared with a marginal increase of 0.12
0.16 INR in the LCoE of solar thermal aided coal-red power plants.
Furthermore, the cost/tonne of CO2 avoided increases to INR 14,900.
Hence, it can be concluded that SAFWH in coal-red thermal power
plants is more benecial compared with the stand-alone solar thermal
power plant.
Conclusions
Thermodynamic analysis of coal-red subcritical and supercritical
power plants shows an instantaneous fuel conservation of about 56%
with the substitution of turbine bleed streams to the feedwater
heaters with the best possible SAFWH option in fuel conservation
mode. It is also observed that substituting turbine bleed streams to
individual LP FWHs has no signicant effect on the performance of the
subcritical power plant whereas there is almost 2% improvement in
the instantaneous fuel conservation/power generation for the
supercritical power plant. Furthermore, the utilization of solar energy
for feedwater heating is observed to be more efcient based on exergy
rather than energy. The annual reduction in coal consumption, ash,
and CO2 emissions for a 500 MWe subcritical power plant with the
best possible SAFWH option is signicant and the corresponding
values are about 49,600, 24,300, and 62,000 t. The same values for a
660 MWe supercritical power plant are about 49,000, 24,000, and
65,000 t, respectively. Though there is only a small increase (about 5
7%) in the levelized cost of electricity generation for subcritical and
supercritical power plants with the best possible SAFWH option the
corresponding increase in the cost of saved fuel is about 78 times the
cost of fuel. Thus, 4-E analysis aids in identifying solar thermal aided
coal-red power plants as an attractive option for the combined use
of fossil (coal) and renewable (solar) energy in India whereas the
same option may not be cost effective in economic point of view.

278

M.V.J.J. Suresh et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 14 (2010) 267279

Fig. 9. a. Variation of levelized cost of electricity generation (LCoE) with the discount rate. b. Variation of levelized cost of electricity generation (LCoE) with the plant capacity factor.
c. Variation of levelized cost of electricity generation (LCoE) with the fuel cost. d. Variation of levelized cost of electricity generation (LCoE) with the escalation rate.

Nevertheless, with the advancements in materials, technology, and

large scale implementation of solar collectors, the SAFWH may
become cost effective in the near future.

Table 11
Economic analysis of stand-alone solar power plant.

Acknowledgment
Authors thank Dr. Gautam S. Dutt, the Editor of Energy for
Sustainable Development for his suggestions that have improved the
presentation of this work.
References

Parameter

Unit

Stand-alone solar
power plant

Capital cost
Life of the power plant
Discount rate
Capital recovery factor
Annualized capital cost
Plant capacity factor
Auxiliary consumption
Net energy generated annually
Fixed capital cost
Fixed O&M cost
Fixed O&M cost per unit
Fuel cost
Heating value of fuel
Heat rate (net)
Fuel cost per unit
O&M cost per unitvariable
Total variable cost per unit
Annualized cost of electricity generation
Escalation rate (fuel/O&Mxed&variable)
Equivalent discount rate with escalation
Levelizing factor
Levelized fuel and O&M cost
Levelized cost of electricity generation

INR/kW
Year
Fraction
Fraction
INR/kW
Fraction
Fraction
kWh/kW
INR/kWh
INR/kW
INR/kWh
INR/kg
kJ/kg
kJ/kWh
INR/kWh
INR/kWh
INR/kWh
INR/kWh
Fraction
Fraction
Fraction
INR/kWh
INR/kWh

200,000
25
0.12
0.13
25500.00
0.27
0.075
2188.00
11.66
5000.00
2.29

0.10
0.10
14.04
0.02
0.10
1.17
2.80
14.46

Au SF, Hemmes K, Woudstra N. Flowsheet calculation of a combined heat and power

fuel cell plant with a conceptual molten carbonate fuel cell with separate CO2
supply. J Power Sources 2003;122:1927.
BP. BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2009. British Petroleum; 2009. Available
from: http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=6929&contentId=
7044622. Accessed on June 16, 2009.
CEA. Monthly review of the power sector (Executive Summary). Central Electricity
Authority (CEA), Government of India; November 2009. Available from: http://
www.cea.nic.in/. Accessed on December 26, 2009.
Colonna P, Gabrielli S. Industrial trigeneration using ammonia-water absorption
refrigeration systems (AAR). Appl Therm Eng 2003;23:38196.
Cycle-Tempo. Cycle-Tempo release 5.0: Delft University of Technology, 2007. See also bhttp:
//www.tudelft.nl/live/pagina.jsp?id=8c53f82e-a500-41f1-971b629e832bfbef&
lang=enN. Accessed on November 20, 2008.
Dincer I, Cengel YA. Energy, entropy and exergy concepts and their roles in thermal
engineering. Entropy 2001;3(3):11649.
Frankland SC, Johar JMS. Technical and economic feasibility of low ash power station fuel
in India. Report no.COAL R254 DTI/Pub URN 04/822; 2004. March 2004. Available
from: http://www.berr.gov.uk/les/le20565.pdf. Accessed on January 25, 2008.
Gilbert MM. Renewable and Efcient Electric Power Systems. New Jersey: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.; 2004.
Gupta MK, Kaushik SC. Exergetic utilization of solar energy for feedwater preheating in
a conventional thermal power plant. Int J Energy Res 2009;33:593604.
Hu E, Yang YP, Nishimura A, Yilmaz F, Kouzani A. Solar thermal aided power generation.
Appl Energy 2010;87:28815.
International Monetary Fund (IMF). Exchange rate archives by month, 2009. Available
from: http://www.imf.org/. Accessed on December 26, 2009.

M.V.J.J. Suresh et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 14 (2010) 267279

Kanniche M, Gros-Bonnivard R, Jaud P, Valle-Marcos J, Amann JM, Bouallou C. Precombustion, post-combustion and oxy-combustion in thermal power plant for CO2
capture. Appl Therm Eng 2010;30:5362.
McKinsey & Company. Pathways to a low-carbon economy. Version 2 of the Global
Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve, January 2009. Available from: https://
solutions.mckinsey.com/ClimateDesk/default.aspx. Accessed on July 27, 2010.
MNRE. Akshay Urja. Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India
2009;3(2):48. Available from: http://www.mnre.gov.in/. Accessed on December
26, 2009.
Montes MJ, Abnades A, Martnez-Val JM. Performance of a direct steam generation
solar thermal power plant for electricity production as a function of the solar
multiple. Sol Energy 2009a;83:67989.
Montes MJ, Abnades A, Martnez-Val JM, Valds M. Solar multiple optimization for a
solar-only thermal power plant, using oil as heat transfer uid in the parabolic
trough collectors. Sol Energy 2009b;83:216576.
NTPC. Power plant data. National Thermal Power Corporation Limited Engineering
Ofce Complex, Noida, India: Private communication, 2008.
Pai BR. Augmentation of thermal power stations with solar energy. Sdhan 1991;16(1):
5974.
PC. Integrated Energy Policy. Planning Commission, Government of India; August 2006.
Available from: http://www.planningcommission.nic.in/reports/repgen.html.
Accessed on June 17, 2009.

279

Ramachandra TV, Shruthi BV. Spatial mapping of renewable energy potential.

Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2007;11:146080.
Rosen MA. Energy- and exergy-based comparison of coal-red and nuclear steam
power plants. Exergy Int J 2001;1(3):18092.
Roth IF, Ambs LL. Incorporating externalities into a full cost approach to electric power
generation life-cycle costing. Energy 2004;29:212544.
Sathaye J, Phadke A. Cost of electric power sector carbon mitigation in India:
international implications. Energy Policy 2006;34:161929.
Suresh MVJJ, Reddy KS, Kolar AK. 3-E analysis of advanced power plants based on high
ash coal. Int J Energy Res 2010;34:71635.
The World Bank. Cost reduction study for solar thermal power plants. Washington: The
World Bank; 1999. Available from: http://www.solarpaces.org/Library/docs/STPP%
20Final%20Report2.pdf. Accessed on December 27, 2009.
US DoE. Market-based advanced coal power systems. U.S. Department of Energy
Washington; 1999. Available from: http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/
refshelf/marketbased_systems_report.pdf. Accessed on September 11, 2008.
Winter CJ, Sizmann RL, Vant-Hull LL. Solar Power Plants: Fundamentals, Technology,
Systems. New York: Economics. Springer-Verlag; 1991.
Ying Y, Hu EJ. Thermodynamic advantages of using solar energy in the regenerative
Rankine power plant. Appl Therm Eng 1999;19:117380.
Zoschak RJ, Wu SF. Studies of the direct input of solar energy to a fossil-fueled central
station steam power plant. Sol Energy 1975;17:297305.