INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCH, VOL.

21, 209—220 (1997)

EXERGETIC EVALUATION OF GAS TURBINE COGENERATION

SYSTEMS FOR DISTRICT HEATING AND COOLING

P. S. PAK* AND Y. SUZUKI

Faculty of Engineering, Osaka University, 2–1 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka 565, Japan

SUMMARY
A cogeneration system (CGS) generating both power and heat for district heating and cooling is required to be able to
cope efficiently with its heat demand change. In this paper, two types of gas turbine CGSs were investigated: (1) a CGS
using a dual fluid cycle; and (2) a CGS using a combined cycle. Exergy flows at various points of each CGS have been
evaluated when its heat demand is changed. The following have been shown through simulation studies: (a) the higher
the heat supply ratio, the higher the exergetic efficiency of the dual fluid cycle CGS; (b) the lower the heat supply ratio,
the higher the exergetic efficiency of the combined cycle CGS; and (c) the highest exergetic efficiency of the dual fluid
cycle CGS at the maximum heat supply operation is higher than that of the combined cycle CGS; and the exergetic
efficiency of the combined cycle CGS at the minimum heat supply operation is higher than that of the dual fluid cycle
CGS. A simple criterion has also been derived for determining which type of CGS has higher average exergetic efficiency
for a specific district when its heat demand characteristics are known. ( 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Int. J. Energy Res., vol. 21, 209—220 (1997)
(No. of Figures: 5 No. of Tables: 3 No. of Refs: 6)

KEY WORDS: cogeneration system; exergy; efficiency; combined cycle; dual-fluid cycle; district heating and
cooling

1. INTRODUCTION
It is becoming more important to save energy to mitigate global warming. Many cogeneration systems have
been introduced in Europe and North America for supplying energy for district heating, and have been
contributing to saving energy and decreasing emissions of air pollutants. The economical viability of
cogeneration systems, however, is not so high in such countries as Japan where the period with small energy
demand is relatively long and equipment for district cooling as well as for district heating is required. For
improving the economics of a cogeneration system for district heating and cooling, it becomes important not
only to improve its total thermal efficiency at its rated output but also to make it possible to cope efficiently
with its change of energy demand (Horii et al., 1987).
In the present study, an exergetic evaluation of cogeneration systems for district heating and cooling has
been performed for analysing their characteristics when their heat energy demands are changed. The reason
the method of exergetic evaluation has been adopted is that this approach enables us to perform a systematic
analysis of heat and power flow in the systems. Systems using gas turbines have been adopted because gas
turbine cogeneration systems are suitable for constructing large scale district heating and cooling systems
(Suzuki et al., 1984).

2. OUTLINE OF THE SYSTEMS INVESTIGATED

A cogeneration system (CGS) composed of a gas turbine power generator and a waste heat boiler, shown in
Figure 1(a), has the most simple construction (Pak and Suzuki, 1990). We shall call this system ‘System A’
hereafter. It will be shown in the following section that the total thermal efficiency of System A is high when
*Correspondence to: P. S. Pak, Faculty of Engineering, Osaka University, 2-1 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka 565, Japan
CCC 0363—907X/97/030209—12 $17.50 Received 6 September 1994
( 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised 28 November 1994
210 P. S. PAK AND Y. SUZUKI

Figure 1. Schematic diagrams of the gas turbine cogeneration systems investigated: (a) gas turbine cogeneration system using a waste
heat boiler; (b) dual fluid cycle cogeneration system; (c) combined cycle cogeneration system

its heat demand is large, but deteriorates remarkably when its heat demand is small. Hence the following two
CGSs have mainly been investigated in the present study.
A dual fluid cycle CGS (System B) shown in Figure 1(b) is a CGS in which superheated steam is produced
at a waste heat boiler by utilizing turbine waste heat and is injected into a combustor to increase gas turbine
power when heat demand is small (Pak and Suzuki, 1990).
In System B, the turbine waste heat is utilized preferentially for heat supply and then the residual heat is
used for increasing power output, so that it can efficiently deal with heat demand changes. It should be noted
that System B is equivalent in characteristics to System A when no steam is injected into the combustor.

( 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res., Vol. 21, 209—220 (1997)
 GAS TURBINE DISTRICT HEATING AND COOLING 211

A combined cycle CGS (System C), whose structure is shown in Figure 1(c), is a CGS in which superheated
steam is produced at a waste heat boiler by utilizing turbine waste heat and is used for steam turbine power
generation. System C is well known to have a high power generation efficiency. In System C, heat is supplied
by extracting steam from the steam turbine (bleeder turbine), and thus the heat quantity supplied can be
easily changed by controlling the extracted steam quantity.

3. ASSUMPTIONS
In estimating various characteristics of these three systems, simulation models developed by the authors have
been used (Pak and Suzuki, 1989a, b; 1990). Table 1 shows the exogenous variables and parameters of the
models, together with the reference values adopted in performing simulations. The following are brief
explanation of the specific conditions assumed:

Table 1. Exogenous variables and parameters of the simulation model

Definition Reference value

(a) Ambient temperature and relative humidity 288 K; 70%

Atmospheric pressure 0·101 MPa
Fuel gas temperature and pressure 298 K; 0·101 MPa
Fuel gas composition and its volume percentage Methane; 100%
Turbine inlet temperature 1273 K
Pressure ratio of air compressor Optimal vlaue
Main steam pressure
Pressure of low pressure steam H determined

Feed Water temperature of WHBs 393 K

Pressure of saturated steam for heat supply 1·03 MPa
Return water temperature 393 K
Gas turbine generator output 10 MW
(b) Pressure loss rate of filter silencer 2%
Adiabatic efficiency of air compressor 85%
Flow loss rate at air compressor 1%
Combustion efficiency of combustor 98%
Pressure loss rate at combustor 2%
Flow loss rate at combustor 1%
Pressure loss rate at fuel gas nozzle 10%
Adiabatic efficiency of gas and steam turbine 85%; 90%
Flow loss rate of gas turbine 1%
Enthalpy exchange efficiency of WHB 95%
WHB terminal temperature difference
(incoming exhaust gas temperature minus
main steam temperature) 40 K
WHB pinch point temperature difference 20 K
WHB outlet exhaust gas temperature Higher than 423 K
WHB outlet exhaust gas pressure 0·101 MPa
Exhaust gas pressure loss at WHB 4%
Exhaust gas flow loss rate at WHB 1%
Condenser outlet temperature 305·7 K
Generator efficiency 98%
Efficiency of heat exchanger 95%

sWHB: waste heat boiler.

(a) Exogenous variables.
(b) Exogenous parameters.

( 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res., Vol. 21, 209—220 (1997)
212 P. S. PAK AND Y. SUZUKI

(a) The gas turbine generator output was assumed to be 10 MW for Systems A and C, and for System B in
the case where no steam was injected.
(b) Natural gas composed of only methane (CH ) was assumed to be used as fuel for the gas turbine. The
4
combustion efficiency of the combustor was assumed to be 98%.
(c) Turbine inlet temperature, that strongly affects gas turbine power generation efficiency (Pak and Suzuki,
1989a, b), was assumed to be 1273 K.
(d) The heat medium for district heating and cooling was assumed to be saturated steam with pressure
1·03 MPa (temperature 454 K), so that a high-efficiency absorption refrigerator can be operated with
dual-effect. The return water temperature was assumed to be 393 K.
(e) Auxiliary boilers, which are used at peak heat demands or for other purposes, were assumed not to be
installed in any of the systems for simplicity of discussion.
(f ) In System B, the turbine inlet temperature was assumed to be kept equal to the rated temperature
(1273 K) with an increase in the rate of fuel flow following an increase in the amount of superheated
steam injected into the combustor.
(g) In System C, the values of high- and low-pressure superheated steam were set to their optimal values,
determined by searching for the highest efficiency of steam turbine power generation in the simulation
model.
(h) For evaluating the exergetic characteristics of CGSs, it is necessary to determine the ambient thermo-
dynamic standard conditions (Pak and Suzuki, 1997). In this study, the atmospheric states 298 K and
101·3 kPa were taken as the standard values for gases at various points of the gas turbine, and saturated
water at 298 K was taken as the standard state for heat medium for district heating and cooling.

4. SIMULATION RESULTS AND THEIR EXERGETIC EVALUATION

4.1 Exergetic efficiency of System A

Figure 2 shows the estimated electric power and heat generation characteristics of System A when its heat
demand is changed. In Figure 2, the heat supply ratio, defined as the ratio of supplied heat output to
maximum supplied heat output, is taken as the abscissa from 1·0 to 0·0 in the opposite direction. As can be
seen from Figure 2(a), the electric power generated decreases with the heat supply ratio. This is because the
rate of fuel use should decrease in response to a decrease in the heat output rate in System A, which is
different from the situations for Systems B and C as will be shown in the following subsections. It can also be
seen from Figure 2(b) that the exergetic efficiencies of power and heat generation are 27·1% and 15·0%,
respectively, and that the total exergetic efficiency is 42·0% at the rated operation. The total exergetic
efficiency is estimated to decrease sharply with a decrease in heat supply ratio. Thus we can see that Systems
B and C are more advantageous than System A in coping efficiently with heat demand changes. Hence only
the characteristics of Systems B and C will be discussed in the following.

4.2 Exergetic efficiency of system B

Figure 3 shows the estimated characteristics of System B in which injected steam quantity was controlled
according to changes in heat demand. As shown in Figure 3(a), it was estimated in System B that the
maximum supplied heat quantity is 16·4 MW (the same value as in System A), and that the power output
generated increases as the steam quantity injected into combustor is increased, with a decrease in the heat
supply ratio. The maximum steam that can be injected into the combustor is 26·0 t h~1 and the maximum
generated power is 17·6 MW; the heat output is 1·10 MW at this time. The heat supply ratio denoted by b is
equal to 0·067. The value of b cannot be made zero in System B, since a certain temperature difference is
required between the turbine exhaust gas and superheated steam at the waste heat boiler outlet (it is assumed
to be 40 K here), and thus it is impossible to use all the energy in the turbine exhaust gas for producing

( 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res., Vol. 21, 209—220 (1997)
 GAS TURBINE DISTRICT HEATING AND COOLING 213

Figure 2. Estimated characteristics of System A (gas turbine CGS): (a) generated power and heat; (b) efficiency

superheated steam. As can be seen from Figure 3(b), the total exergetic efficiency decreases from 42·0% to
38·1% with a decrease in the heat supply ratio b. This is because the exergetic efficiency of heat generation
decreases from 15·0% to 0·80%, although the exergetic efficiency of power generation increases from 27·1%
to 37·3% (see Table 2).
Thus we can see that high exergetic efficiency can be obtained by adopting System B in a district where
heat demand is larger.

4.3 Exergetic evaluation of System C

Figure 4 shows the estimated characteristics of System C. As shown in Figure 4(a), the maximum supplied
heat quantity is 10·1 MW and the total generated power is 11·0 MW when the maximum steam quantity is
extracted from the bleeder turbine. This is similar to System B in that the generated power output increases
and heat output decreases with a decrease in the steam quantity extracted. The maximum power output is
15·1 MW, with a steam turbine generator output of 5·1 MW when no steam is extracted from the bleeder

( 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res., Vol. 21, 209—220 (1997)
214 P. S. PAK AND Y. SUZUKI

Figure 3. Estimated characteristics of System B (dual fluid cycle CGS): (a) generated power and heat, and combustor-injected steam
flow; (b) efficiency

turbine. Figure 4(b) shows the estimated enthalpy and exergetic efficiency of power and heat generation. As
shown in Figure 4(b), since the enthalpy efficiency of heat generation is counted as relatively high, the total
enthalpy efficiency is estimated to be high when b"1·0, and decreases sharply from 57·0 to 40·7% when
b decreases from 1·0 to 0·0. The total exergetic efficiency, however, is estimated to increase from 39·1 to
40·8%. This is because the exergetic efficiency of generating electric power is high, while that of generating the
heat energy used for district heating and cooling is low, since its temperature is relatively low at 494 K.
We can see from the above simulation results that high exergetic efficiency can be obtained by adopting
System C in a district where the heat demand is small.

4.4 Comparison and discussion

In this section we compare and investigate the estimated characteristics of Systems B and C from the
viewpoint of exergy flow in each system.

( 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res., Vol. 21, 209—220 (1997)
 GAS TURBINE DISTRICT HEATING AND COOLING 215

Figure 4. Estimated characteristics of System C (combined cycle CGS): (a) generated power and heat; (b) efficiency

Table 2 shows the evaluation results of exergy flow in System B for two extreme cases where the steam
quantity injected into the combustor is maximum (b"1) and minimum (b"0·067). In Table 2, the exergy
quantity of the fuel, which can be calculated by using its chemical exergy, is taken as 100. As shown in
Table 2, the maximum exergetic loss is the irreversible loss of 30·6% in the combustor that is caused by
conversion of the chemical exergy of the fuel to high temperature combustion that is caused by conversion of
the chemical exergy of the fuel to high temperature combustion gas through the combustion reaction. This
loss can be decreased by raising the combustor outlet temperature or the turbine inlet temperature (Pak and
Suzuki, 1997). However, the turbine inlet temperature is assumed to be constant at 1273 K in the present
study, so that this loss is kept constant even when the value of b is changed.
When b"1 in System B, the second largest loss is the irreversible loss of 7·4% in the waste heat boiler.
This exergy loss is caused by producing relatively low temperature (454 K) saturated steam using the
relatively high temperature (762 K) turbine exhaust gas. With a decrease in heat demand, the amount
of superheated steam produced in the waste heat boiler for injection into the combustor increases, and

( 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res., Vol. 21, 209—220 (1997)
216 P. S. PAK AND Y. SUZUKI

Table 2. Evaluation of exergy use in System B

When b is When b is
maximum minimum
Item (b"1·0) (b"0·067)

Inflow of exergy Chemical exergy of fuel 100·0 † 100·0 ‡

Exergy of feed water 0·0 !6·5
Total inflow of exergy 100·0 93·6
Effectively used Exergy of generated power 27·1 37·3
exergy (Turbine output) (86·9) (84·4)
(Power for compressing air) (!58·4) (!45·7)
(power for compressing fuel gas) (!1·4) (!1·4)
Exergy of supplied heat 15·0 0·8
(Exergy generated at waste heat boiler) (15·0) (17·7)
(Exergy for generating superheated steam) (0·0) (!16·9)
Total of effectively used exergy 42·0 38·1
Loss of exergy Irreversible loss at filter silencer 0·2 0·2
Flow loss at air compressor 0·5 0·4
Irreversible loss at air compressor 3·9 3·1
Irreversible loss at fuel compressor 0·1 0·1
Irreversible loss at fuel nozzle 0·0 0·0
Irreversible loss at steam nozzle 0·0 0·2
Combustion loss of combustor 2·0 2·0
Flow loss at combustor 1·2 1·2
Irreversible loss at combustor 30·6 30·6
Flow loss at turbine 0·3 0·3
Irreversible loss at turbine 6·7 6·3
Exergy loss at waste heat boiler 0·7 0·9
Irreversible loss at waste heat boiler 7·4 5·5
Exergy of ambient-exhausted gas 3·6 3·8
Gas turbine generator loss 0·6 0·8
Total exergy loss 58·0 55·4

† Exergy inflow"37.0 MW h per hour.

‡ Exergy inflow"47.3 MW h per hour.

thus the irreversible loss in the waste heat boiler decreases, because the temperature of the superheated
steam (707 K) is higher than that of the saturated steam. The minimum value of this loss is 5·5% when
b takes the minimum value, that is when b"0·067. Thus, the total exergy loss has been estimated to be
decrease from 58·0 to 55·4% when b decreases from 1·0 to 0·067. Nevertheless, the total exergetic
efficiency is estimated to decrease from 42·0 to 38·1%, as shown in Table 2. This is because, since 298 K
and 101·3 kPa is taken as the standard state for the gas turbine working fluid, the exergetic value of the
feed water for producing the superheated steam takes a negative value, as shown in Table 2. In other
words, the latent heat energy required to convert water to steam is not used in the gas turbine, since
the turbine exhaust gas has to be emitted from the waste heat boiler into the ambient in the gaseous
state.
Table 3 shows the evaluation results of exergy flow in System C for two extreme cases where: (1) the
maximum steam quantity is extracted (b"1); and (2) no steam is extracted (b"0). In Table 3, the exergy of
the fuel is taken as 100 in the same manner as in Table 2. As shown in Table 3, the largest and the second
largest loss are the irreversible loss in the combustor and gas turbine, respectively. The third largest loss is the
irreversible loss in the waste heat boiler. These losses are kept constant even when b changes. The exergetic

( 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res., Vol. 21, 209—220 (1997)
 GAS TURBINE DISTRICT HEATING AND COOLING 217

Table 3. Evaluation of exergy use in System C

When b is When b is
maximum minimum
Item (b"1·0) (b"0·0)

Inflow of exergy Chemical exergy of fuel 100·0† 100·0†

Exergy of feed water 0·0 0·0
Total inflow of exergy 100·0 100·0
Effectively used Exergy of generated power by gas turbine 27·1 27·1
exergy (Turbine output) (86·9) (86·9)
(Power for compressing air) (!58·4) (!58·4)
(Power for compressing fuel gas) (!1·4) (!1·4)
Exergy of generated power by steam turbine 2·7 13·8
Exergy of supplied heat 9·3 0·0
(Exergy generated at waste heat boiler) (9·9) (0·0)
(Exergy of feed water) (!0·6) (0·0)
Total of effectively used exergy 39·1 40·8
Loss of exergy Irreversible loss at filter silencer 0·2 0·2
Flow loss at air compressor 0·5 0·5
Irreversible loss at air compressor 3·9 3·9
Irreversible loss at fuel compressor 0·1 0·1
Irreversible loss at fuel nozzle 0·0 0·0
Combustion loss of combustor 2·0 2·0
Flow loss at combustor 1·2 1·2
Irreversible loss at combustor 30·6 30·6
Flow loss at turbine 0·3 0·3
Irreversible loss at turbine 6·7 6·7
Exergy loss at waste heat boiler 0·9 0·9
Irreversible loss at waste heat boiler 4·9 4·9
Exergy of ambient-exhausted gas 3·0 3·0
Gas turbine generator loss 0·6 0·6
Irreversible loss at steam turbine 0·5 1·8
Exergy loss at heat exchanger 0·5 0·0
Irreversible loss at heat exchanger 1·4 0·0
Irreversible loss at deaerator 3·2 1·2
Exergy loss at condenser 0·1 0·8
Steam turbine generator loss 0·1 0·3
Total exergy loss 60·9 59·2

sExergy inflow"37.0 MW h per hour.

efficiency at b"0 is estimated to be higher than that at b"1. The reason is as follows: when b decreases, the
amount of the extracted steam used for district heating and cooling decreases, and thus the irreversible losses
in the heat exchanger and the deaerator decreases. That is, the total exergy loss is estimated to be 60·9 and
59·2% when b"1 and 0, respectively, and the exergetic efficiency 39·1 and 40·8% when b"1 and 0,
respectively.
The highest exergetic efficiency of 40·8% of System C when b"0 is estimated to be lower than that of
42·0% of System B when b"1. This is because additional equipment, such as a steam turbine, condenser and
deaerator, are required to generate electric power in System C compared with System B, and exergetic losses
as a result of these are inevitable in System C. In other words, for utilizing the waste heat energy included in
the turbine exhaust gas, direct use in the form of heat energy is easier than indirect use, which is required in
converting thermal energy into electric energy.

( 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res., Vol. 21, 209—220 (1997)
218 P. S. PAK AND Y. SUZUKI

We can see at this point that an advantage exists in systems cogenerating two kinds of energy: heat and
electricity.

5. SELECTION OF SYSTEMS SUITABLE FOR THE HEAT DEMAND PATTERN IN A DISTRICT

The value of the exergetic efficiencies of Systems B and C are different depending upon the value of heat
supply ratio b. Let us call the system with higher annual average exergetic efficiency the superior system. In
this section, we investigate which type of the two systems is superior when we introduce a cogeneration
system in a specific district.

5.1 Assumptions
The followings are assumed in deciding which of Systems B and C is superior.

(a) The cogeneration system is assumed to be operated 8760 hour per year for simplicity of discussion.
(b) Heat supply characteristics such as the maximum quantity of heat supplied are different between
Systems B and C. Hence the heat supply characteristics are considered to be different even in the case
where the cogeneration system is assumed to be constructed in the same district. It is assumed in the
present study that the heat supply area of each CGS has been determined according to its maximum
heat supply output, and that the heat demand characteristics for each system have already been
determined as shown in Figure 5(a). That is to say, the heat demand characteristics of Systems B and C,
denoted by w (b) and w (b), respectively, are assumed to be known, where functions w (b) and w (b)
B C B C
denote the annual total hours when Systems B and C are operated at heat supply ratio b, respectively.
(c) The exergetic efficiencies of Systems B and C, denoted by e (b) and e (b), respectively, can be
B C
approximated by a linear function of the heat supply ratio b with sufficient accuracy, as can be seen from
Figures 3 and 4. Let us denote the values of exergetic efficiencies of Systems B and C when b"1 as e
B1
and e , respectively, and those when b takes its minimum value as e and e , respectively. The
C1 B. C0
minimum value of b is designated by b , and specifically b "0 for system C. Then, referring to Figure
0 0
5(b), e (b) and e (b) can be expressed as
B C
e (b)"e #(e !e )(b!1)/(1!b )
B B1 B1 B. 0
"e #(e !e )b (1)
B0 B1 B0
e (b)"e !(e !e )b (2)
C C0 C0 C1
where e "(e !e b )/(1!b ).
B0 B. B1 0 0
The following relationships hold among coefficients in equations (1) and (2), as can be seen from the
estimated characteristics of Systems B and C:

k ,e !e '0, k ,e !e '0 (3)

B B1 B0 C C0 C1
e 'e (4)
C0 B0

5.2 Criterion for selection of the CGS with higher efficiency

Let us denote the annual operating time of a cogeneration system that is operated at heat supply ratio b as
¼(b). Then, the following relationship holds from assumption (a)

1
P
1
¼(b) db"1 (5)
8760
b0
( 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res., Vol. 21, 209—220 (1997)
 GAS TURBINE DISTRICT HEATING AND COOLING 219

Figure 5. Heat demand characteristics and exergetic efficiency: (a) heat demand characteristics; (b) exergetic efficiency

Denoting the average annual heat supply ration as b , b can be obtained as

!7 !7
1
P
1
b " b¼(b) db (6)
!7 8760
b0
Hence when we denote the exergetic efficiency of a cogeneration system as e(b)"e $kb, e and k being
0 0
constant coefficients, the average annual exergetic efficiency e can be expressed as
!7
1
P
1
e " e(b)¼(b) db
!7 8760
b0
1
P
1
" Me $kbN¼(b) db
8760 0
b0
"e $kb (7)
0 !7
We can deduce, therefore, that the average annual exergetic efficiency of System B is higher than that of
System C when the average heat supply ratio b satisfies the following inequality:
!7
b 'b ,(e !e )/(k #k ) (8)
!7 $ C0 B0 B C
On the contrary, when b is less than b , System C is superior to System B.
!7 $
( 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res., Vol. 21, 209—220 (1997)
220 P. S. PAK AND Y. SUZUKI

In the two systems investigated here, b is equal to 0·507, and thus we can claim under the conditions
$
assumed in the present study that System B is superior to System C in the district where its average annual
heat supply ratio b is larger than 0·507 and that System C is superior in the district where b is smaller than
!7 !7
0·507.

6. CONCLUSION
In the present study, we have evaluated the exergetic efficiencies of two types of gas turbine cogeneration
systems (CGSs) for district heating and cooling that are considered to be suitable for coping with changes in
heat energy demand. The investigated systems are: (1) a CGS using a dual fluid cycle gas turbine power
generation system and a waste heat boiler (dual fluid cycle CGS or System B) and (2) a CGS using
a combined cycle power generation system with a bleeder turbine (combined cycle CGS or System C). The
characteristics of the two CGSs have been estimated by using simulation models developed in the study. The
following are summaries of results obtained in this study.
(a) The higher the heat supply ratio, the higher the exergetic efficiency of the dual fluid cycle CGS.
(b) The lower the heat supply ratio, the higher the exergetic efficiency of the combined cycle CGS.
(c) The maximum exergetic efficiency can be attained at maximum heat supply operation for the dual fluid
cycle CGS, and at minimum heat supply operation for the combined cycle CGS. The highest exergetic
efficiency of the dual fluid cycle CGS is higher than that of the combined cycle CGS, and the exergetic
efficiency of the combined cycle CGS at the minimum heat supply operation is higher than that of the
dual fluid cycle CGS.
(d) It has been shown that the average annual exergetic efficiency of the two CGSs can be expressed as
a linear function of the average annual heat supply ratio. A simple criterion has also been derived that
can enable us to determine which type of CGS is superior for a specific district where the heat demand
characteristics are known.
The authors hope that these findings will help engineers in charge of planning urban energy systems to
plan suitable cogeneration systems for district heating and cooling in specific districts.

REFERENCES
Horii, S., Ito, K., Pak, P. S. and Suzuki, Y. (1987). ‘Optimal planning of Gas Turbine Cogeneration plants based on mixed-integer linear
programming’, Int. J. Energy Research, 11(4), 507/518.
Pak, P. S. and Suzuki, Y. (1989a). ‘Characteristics and economics of high-efficiency gas turbine cogeneration systems using low Btu Gas’,
Int. J. Energy Research, 13(3), 363/372.
Pak, P. S. and Suzuki, Y. (1989b). ‘Evaluation of thermal NO emission characteristics of high efficiency gas turbines using
x
refuse-recovered low Btu gases’, Int. J. Energy Research, 13, 649/659.
Pak, P. S. and Suzuki, Y. (1990). ‘Thermodynamical, economical and environmental evaluation of high efficiency gas turbine
cogeneration systems’, Int. J. Energy Research, 14(8), 821/832.
Pak, P. S. and Suzuki, Y. (1997). ‘Exergetic evaluation of methods for improving power generation efficiency of a gas turbine
cogeneration system’, Int. J. Energy Research, to be published.
Suzuki, Y., Pak, P. S. and Ito, K. (1984). ‘Total planning of combined district heating, cooling and power generation systems for a new
town — Part I’, Int. J. Energy Research, 8(1), 61/75.

( 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res., Vol. 21, 209—220 (1997)