Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering xxx (2015) 1e9

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering

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

Evaluation of the PRICO liquefaction process using exergy-based

methods
T. Morosuk*, S. Tesch, A. Hiemann, G. Tsatsaronis, N. Bin Omar
€t Berlin, Marchstrasse 18, KT 1, TU Berlin, 10587 Berlin, Germany1
Institute for Energy Engineering, Technische Universita

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The PRICO process is a single mixed-refrigerant process used for small-scale LNG plants, including
Received 7 October 2014 offshore terminals. The working fluid (refrigerant) is a mixture of methane, ethane, butane and nitrogen.
Received in revised form The behavior of the mixture in processes such as cooling, heating, compression, evaporation and
5 February 2015
condensation depends on its composition and on the part of the chemical constituents of the mixture
Accepted 7 February 2015
that are in the gas and liquid phases. The state-of-the art for the evaluation and optimization of the
Available online xxx
PRICO process is discussed. Exergy-based analyses, i.e. exergetic, exergoeconomic and exergoenvir-
onmental analyses, are applied to the evaluation of the PRICO liquefaction process of natural gas. The
Keywords:
LNG
purpose of the paper is to identify options for improving the PRICO process and to demonstrate the
PRICO process application of exergy-based methods to the improvement of an LNG plant. The perspectives from the
Exergy analysis thermodynamic, economic and environmental impact points of view are discussed.
Exergoeconomic analysis © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Exergoenvironmental analysis

1. Introduction  Proven process that achieves the promised performance

Liquefaction of natural gas is the most energy-intensive and
cost-intensive part of the overall chain “natural gas
LNG e natural
gas”. At the same time, liquefaction has also the largest potential for
improvement. Therefore, different LNG production processes have
been developed and are used in export terminals in many parts of
the world. The PRICO process, which is one of them, is also known
as a single mixed refrigerant (SMR) process. This process has been
developed by the Black&Veatch Company, and the industrial ap-
plications of PRICO started in the year 1955, when it was applied to
one of the first LNG plants. Three U.S./international patents cover
the PRICO process. At present at least 21 LNG plants use this process
while 16 more plants are in the design and/or construction phase.
The PRICO process is popular for LNG peak-shaving units. In the
year 2010, 25% of the LNG plants in the U.S. used this process. In the
year 2012, design and construction for the world's first offshore
LNG project started (Black&Veatch).
The following advantages are associated with the PRICO process
(Roberts et al., 2004):
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: morozyuk@iet.tu-berlin.de (T. Morosuk), s.tesch@iet.tu-berlin.
de (S. Tesch), adrian-h@gmx.de (A. Hiemann), tsatsaronis@iet.tu-berlin.de
(G. Tsatsaronis), omar@iet.tu-berlin.de (N. Bin Omar).
1
URL: www.ebr.tu-berlin.de; www.energietechnik.tu-berlin.de.
 Relative simple operation
 Minimal refrigerant inventory
 Reduced number of equipment items
 Low capital cost and operating cost
 High flexibility
 High reliability
 Rapid startup
There are not many research publications dealing with lique-
faction processes; however the PRICO (SMR) process recently
became quite popular among researchers.
Four processes for small-scale LNG plants were evaluated by
Remeljeja and Hoadley, 2006. The PRICO process was selected there
as a reference process. An exergy analysis was performed in a
simple way and only relative data are given. The exergy de-
structions (thermodynamic inefficiencies) are distributed as fol-
lows: 21%
within both compressors, 30% e within both coolers,
46% e within a heat exchanger, and 3% - within the throttling valve.
The paper concluded that the SMR process has among all studied
processes the lowest exergy consumption for the compressors, and
that the main difference between the processes was caused by ef-
ficiency differences of the expander-driven compressors.
Jensen and Skogestad, 2009 discussed eight compositions of the
mixed refrigerant that can be used for the PRICO process; the effect
of properties of the mixed refrigerant to the main characteristics of

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.02.007
1875-5100/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Morosuk, T., et al., Evaluation of the PRICO liquefaction process using exergy-based methods, Journal of Natural
Gas Science and Engineering (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.02.007
2 T. Morosuk et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering xxx (2015) 1e9
the PRICO process were reported. The authors demonstrated that
increasing the concentration of nitrogen within the mixed refrig-
erant leads to an improvement in the heat-transfer characteristics
of all heat exchangers.
An application of the gradient-free optimization-simulation
method to processes modeled with the simulator Aspen HYSYS is
reported by Aspelund et al., 2010. The PRICO process was selected
as an academic example for the optimization for two reasons:
Firstly this process is a simple LNG process with seven independent
variables (selected by the authors). This number is too large for the
optimization routine, but small enough to be optimized with an
optimization-simulation tool. The second reason is that it is
possible to verify the results by investigating the hot and cold
composite curves. The paper focused on the number of iterations
required to get an optimal concentration of the mixed refrigerant.
Mokarizadeh Haghighi Shirazi and Mowla (2010) discussed the
simulation of SMR concepts and the properties that are used in
MATLAB to generate the objective function. A genetic algorithm was
used for optimization. The energy consumption of the process was
minimized. Depending on the concentration of the refrigerant, the
specific energy consumption can be reduced from 1485 kJ/kgLNG to
1186.6 kJ/kgLNG or from 1126.7 kJ/kgLNG to 1092.4 kJ/kgLNG. The
smaller values were taking from Lee, 2001 (as a reference publica-
tion). The authors applied also an exergy analysis, in order to calcu-
late the values of the exergy destruction within the components:
31%
within both compressors, 33% e within both coolers, 27% e
within the heat exchanger, and 9% - within the throttling valve.
Hiemann, 2011 conducted a detailed exergy analysis of the
PRICO process. Here the approach “exergy of fuel/exergy of prod-
uct” has been used taking into account a splitting of the physical
exergy into thermal and mechanical parts. Marmolejo-Correa and
Gundersen, 2012 selected the PRICO process as an academic
example to demonstrate the effect of using different approaches in
the exergy analysis (“inlet exergy/outlet exergy” versus “exergy of
fuel/exergy of product” as well as splitting of the physical exergy
into thermal and mechanical parts) on the obtained results. The
authors assumed the operation conditions without necessarily a
reference to real plants.
Xu et al., 2013 reported the results of the optimization of the
concentration of the refrigerant as a function of the inlet tempera-
ture to the heat exchanger (263.15 K through 313.15 K). For the
optimization, a genetic algorithm coupled with the process simu-
lation software Aspen Plus has been used. The results show that
when the ambient temperature increases, the concentrations of
methane, ethylene and propane should decrease, while the con-
centration of isopentane should increase. In this way the overall
exergetic efficiency can be increased from 30% (calculated by the
authors for the commercial concentration of the refrigerant) up to
39.6e42.3%. In this paper the exergetic efficiency is a function of COP
and of a “correlation factor”. In a follow-up paper (Xu et al., 2013),
the effect of concentration for each working fluid within the mixed
refrigerant was investigated, in order to minimize the specific power
consumption (the value of 1003.6 kJ/kgLNG was reached), i.e. maxi-
mize the values of COP and exergetic efficiency. The reported value of
COP ¼ 0.782 is surprisingly high in comparison with results reported
in other publications; however, the definition of COP is not given.
The exergetic efficiency was calculated as 43.9%, which is in the
range of other available data for the PRICO process. The distribution
of the exergy destruction within the components is as follows:
36%
within both compressors, 27% e within both coolers, 26% e
within the heat exchanger, and 11% - within the throttling valve.
Sequential quadratic programming was also applied to the
optimization of the PRICO process (Morin A. et al., 2011). The
research focused on the method used for optimization. The opti-
mization results related to the liquefaction process itself were
Please cite this article in press as: Morosuk, T., et al., Evaluation of the PRICO liquefaction process using exergy-based methods, Journal of Natural
Gas Science and Engineering (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.02.007
discussed very briefly for the two study cases, in which the mixed
refrigerant is with and without pentane. Through the energetic
optimization, the specific energy supply decreases by 3.12%. Again
the same optimization procedure for the PRICO process was re-
ported by Wahl et al., 2013. The optimal composition of the mixed
refrigerant was a function of the composition of natural gas (so
called “lean natural gas” and “rich natural gas”). The heat-transfer
characteristics for the multi-flow heat exchanger are also dis-
cussed. The main goal of the authors was to get the results of the
optimization within a short period of execution time (5 min) in
comparison with the optimization procedure discussed by
Aspelund et al., 2010 that required 12 h.
Castillo and Dorao, 2012, discussed economic issues related to
LNG processes. They reported the application of Decision-Making
(using a Genetic Algorithm binary coding and Nash-GA) for the
PRICO process. The LNG markets were also implemented in the
optimization of the PRICO process. Only relative economic data are
reported, for example, the cost of the multi-flow heat exchanger is
approximately 10e15% of the total investment cost and the cost
associated with the compression process is always the dominating
factor for all approaches used in the optimization.
Khan et al., 2012 discussed the optimal composition of the
mixed refrigerant for the SMR process from the energetic point of
view, i.e. through the minimization of energy consumption for the
compression process (from 1600 to 1528 kJ/kgLNG). The log mean
temperature difference within multi-flow heat exchanger is 7.8 K.
The SMR process was modeled in the UniSim Design simulator, and
the model was optimized with nonlinear programming. The exergy
analysis was implemented into the described optimization meth-
odology (Khan et al., 2013) and more complex mixed refrigerant
processes were optimized.
Heldt, 2011 developed and tested a mathematical model for
control strategies, in order for the SMR processes to operate at
optimal conditions. High attention was given to the modeling of the
multi-flow heat exchanger based on industrial experimental data.
The literature review for the evaluation of the PRICO (SMR)
process shows that mainly energetic optimizations were discussed
using different methods for the mathematical optimization and
corresponding algorithms. Sometimes the selected method for
optimization and its improvement/robustness were more impor-
tant to the authors that the obtained results related to the PRICO
process. The objective function of the optimization refers mainly to
the composition of the mixed refrigerant. An economic analysis is
not very common for the evaluation of the PRICO liquefaction
process, and environmental issues have not been discussed yet.
The goal of this paper is to evaluate the PRICO process from the
exergetic, economic, and environmental viewpoints for a given
composition of the mixed refrigerant, in order to assist in devel-
oping an optimal strategy for designing and operating such a plant.
2. Exergy-based methods
Exergy is defined as the maximum theoretical useful work (shaft
work or electrical work) obtainable from an energy conversion
system as this is brought into thermodynamic equilibrium with the
thermodynamic environment while interacting only with this
environment (Tsatsaronis, 2007).
An exergetic analysis identifies the location, magnitude, and cau-
ses of thermodynamic inefficiencies, which are the exergy destruction
(due to irreversibilities within each system component), and the
exergy loss (exergy transfer to the environment). In an exergetic
analysis, we calculate the exergy associated with each energy carrier
(stream) in the overall system, the exergy destruction within each
system component and process, and the exergetic efficiency (for each
process, component, or system) (for example, Bejan et al., 1996).
 T. Morosuk et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering xxx (2015) 1e9 3

Modern exergetic analyses use the concept of fuel and product

CI OM
introduced almost 30 years ago (Tsatsaronis, 1984) and generalized Z_ k ¼ Z_ k þ Z_ k (6)
by Lazzaretto and Tsatsaronis, 2006: The exergy of product is the
desired result (expressed in exergy terms) achieved by the system Here C_ P;k and C_ F;k are the cost rates associated with the exergy of
(e.g., the kth component) being considered, and the exergy of fuel product and fuel, respectively; cP,k and cF,k are the specific costs per
represents the exergetic resources expended to generate the exergy unit of exergy associated with the exergy of product and fuel,
of the product. These concepts are used in a consistent way in all respectively; Z_ k is the cost rate that represents the sum of the capital
CI OM
exergy-based analyses (Bejan et al., 1996; Lazzaretto and investment cost Z_ k and operating and maintenance expenses Z_ k .
Tsatsaronis, 2006; Meyer et al., 2009; Tsatsaronis and Morosuk, The cost rate associated with exergy destruction within the kth
2012) that include the exergoeconomic and the exergoenvir- component is
onmental analyses.
The exergy balance for the overall system (subscript tot) is C_ D;k ¼ cF;k $E_ D;k (7)
X
E_ F;tot ¼ E_ P;tot þ E_ D;k þ E_ L;tot (1) and for the overall system
k X
C_ D;tot ¼ cF;tot $ E_ D;k (8)
and for the kth component (subscript k)
An exergoeconomic evaluation is based on the following vari-
ables: C_ D;k , Z_ k , the sum ðC_ D;k þ Z_ k Þ, the relative cost difference rk,
E_ F;k ¼ E_ P;k þ E_ D;k (2)
and the exergoeconomic factor fk
where E_ F , E_ P , E_ D and E_ L are the exergy rates of fuel, product,
cP;k
cF;k 1
εk Z_ k
destruction and losses, respectively. rk ¼ ¼ þ (9)
The variables used for the conventional exergetic evaluation of cF;k εk cF;k E_ P;k
the kth component in a system include the following:
Z_ k
fk ¼ (10)
 Exergy destruction rate that is calculated from the exergy Z k þ C_ D;k
_
balance
 Exergetic efficiency In an exergoenvironmental analysis (Meyer et al., 2009), the
environmental impacts obtained by Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) are
apportioned to the exergy streams and the exergy destruction
streams, thus identifying the system components with the highest
E_ P;k E_ D;k environmental impact and possible improvements associated with
εk ¼ ¼1
(3) these components. Finally, exergoenvironmental variables are
E_F;k E_ F;k calculated, and an exergoenvironmental evaluation is carried out.
Life cycle assessment is a technique for assessing the environ-
mental aspects associated with a product over its life cycle. The LCA
process consists of goal definition and scoping (defining the system
 Exergy destruction ratio
under consideration), inventory analysis (identifying and quanti-
fying the consumption and release of materials), and interpretation
(evaluation of the results). Any of the recently introduced metrics
(environmental indicators) can be used for LCA, for example, Eco-
E_ D;k
yk ¼ (4) Indicator 99 (Goedkoop and Spriensma, 2000).
E_ F;tot The exergoenvironmental model for an energy conversion sys-
tem consists of environmental impact balances written for the kth
Exergoeconomic analysis (for example, Bejan et al., 1996;
component and auxiliary equations based on the F and P rules. The
Lazzaretto and Tsatsaronis, 2006) is a unique combination of
environmental impact balances can be written as
exergy analysis and cost analysis conducted at the component level,
to provide the designer or operator of an energy conversion system  PF

with information crucial to the design or operation of a cost- B_ P;k ¼ B_ F;k þ Y_ k þ B_ k (11a)
effective system. The same information cannot be provided by
any other approaches. A complete exergoeconomic analysis con- or
sists of (a) an exergetic analysis, (b) an economic analysis, and (c) an  PF

exergoeconomic evaluation. bP;k E_ P;k ¼ bF;k E_ F;k þ Y_ k þ B_ k (11b)
The exergoeconomic model for an energy conversion system
consists of cost balances written for the kth component, and of Here B_ P;k and B_ F;k are the environmental impact rates associated
auxiliary equations based on the so-called F and P rules (Bejan et al., with the exergy of product and fuel, respectively; cP,k and cF,k are the
1996; Lazzaretto and Tsatsaronis, 2006). The cost balances can be specific environmental impacts per unit of exergy associated with
CO
written as the exergy of product and fuel, respectively; construction, Y_ k ,
OM DI
operation & maintenance, Y_ k , and disposal, Y_ k constitute the
C_ P;k ¼ C_ F;k þ Z_ k (5a) component-related environmental impact associated with the kth
component Y_ k :
or
CO OM DI
Y_ k ¼ Y_ k þ Y_ k þ Y_ k (12)
cP;k E_ P;k ¼ cF;k E_ F;k þ Z_ k (5b)
To simplify the discussion, we assume that the value of Y_ k is
CO
where mainly associated with Y_ k

Please cite this article in press as: Morosuk, T., et al., Evaluation of the PRICO liquefaction process using exergy-based methods, Journal of Natural
Gas Science and Engineering (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.02.007
4 T. Morosuk et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering xxx (2015) 1e9

To account for pollutant formation within the k th component,  Inlet characteristics of natural gas: T8 ¼ 38 С and p8 ¼ 67 bar
PF PF
the variable B_ k is used (Boyano et al., 2012). The term B_ k is zero (Venkatarathnam, 2008)
when no pollutants are formed within a process, i.e. for processes  The pressure drop within the heat exchanger is 3 bar for all three
without a chemical reaction such as compression, expansion, heat streams
transfer, etc.  The minimum temperature difference within the cooler and the
The environmental impact associated with the exergy destruc- condenser is 3 K
tion within the kth component B_ D;k is given by  The isentropic efficiency for both compressors is assumed to be
equal to 80%
B_ D;k ¼ bF;k E_ D;k (13)  The compositions of refrigerant and natural gas are given in
Table 1. Note that n- butane is lumped with butane.
and within the overall system by
X The simulation data are given in Tables 2 and 3.
B_ D;tot ¼ bF;tot $ E_ D;k (14)
The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the PRICO process,
To identify the most important components from the viewpoint therefore the drivers for the compressors have not been considered
of formation of environmental impacts, the sum of environmental in the simulation, and the energy and exergy analyses.
PF
impacts ðY_ k þ B_ k þ B_ D;k Þ is used together with two other variables
in analogy with the exergoeconomic analysis, i.e. the relative 3.1. Energy and exergy analyses
difference
The results obtained from the energy analysis include the
bP;k
bF;k
rb;k ¼ (15) following: The power required for the compressors is
bF;k _ _
W CM1 ¼ 44:70 MW and W ¼ 46:51 MW. In the case of one-
CM2
and the exergoenvironmental factor stage compression process, additional 5.6 MW would be required.
The heat rates transferred to the environment are
Y_ k Q_ ¼ 36:38 MW and Q_ ¼ 93:57 MW. The heat rate within the
fb;k ¼ (16) COL CD
PF
Y_ k þ B_ k þ B_ D;k heat exchanger is Q_ HE ¼ 336:95 MW. The T
DH_ diagram for the
heat exchanger is shown in Fig. 2. The log-mean temperature dif-
However, the application of the exergoenvironmental analysis ference within the exchanger is equal to 7 K. The coefficient of
to different energy conversion processes (for example, Meyer et al., performance of the PRICO process defined by
2009; Boyano et al., 2011, 2012; Tsatsaronis and Morosuk, 2012; COP ¼ ðH_
H_ Þ=ðW
8
_
9 þW_
CM1 Þ is equal to 0.44 under the
CM2
Morosuk et al., 2012) demonstrated that the value of environ- assumed operation conditions and concentration of the refrigerant,
mental impact associated with the exergy destruction B_ D;k is always whereas the specific energy consumption amounts to 1824 kJ/
much higher than the component-related environmental impact Y_ k kgLNG.
PF
(if the value of B_ is not considered for the k th component). In this
k The exergetic analysis was conducted using the approach
way, and for simplifying the analysis without affecting the con- “exergy of fuel/exergy of product” (Bejan et al., 1996; Lazzaretto and
clusions, Y_ k can be neglected; then, fb,k is not used. Tsatsaronis, 2006). The physical exergy of the material streams in
These methods were used to evaluate power plants (for the PRICO process must be split into thermal and mechanical parts
example, Tsatsaronis and Morosuk, 2008, 2012; Petrakopoulou at (Morosuk and Tsatsaronis, 2005) for processes below the ambient
el. 2011), refrigeration processes (for example, Morosuk and temperature and every time this temperature is crossed. The
Tsatsaronis, 2012) and chemical processes (for example, Meyer reference values for the exergetic analysis (state 0) for each mate-
et al., 2009; Boyano et al., 2011, 2012). rial stream are given in Table 2. The exergy of fuel and exergy of
product for each system component are defined as follows:
3. PRICO process
 Compressor 1 (CM 1)
The flow diagram of the PRICO (SMR) process is shown in Fig. 1.
The working fluid (refrigerant) is a mixture of methane, ethane,  M 
E_ F;CM1 ¼ W_ _T _ _ _ M þ E_ T
butane and nitrogen (Table 1). The refrigerant is compressed from CM1 þ E1 and EP;CM1 ¼ E 2
E1 2
state 1 to state 4 using a two-stage compression process (CM1 and
CM2) with interstage cooling (COL), and is subsequently condensed  Cooler (COL) is a dissipative component (Bejan et al., 1996;
(CD). The heat exchanger HE is a three-flow heat exchanger, where Lazzaretto and Tsatsaronis, 2006), therefore E_ D;COL ¼ E_ 2
E_ 3
the stream 5-6 of refrigerant is cooled down, while the stream 7-1  Compressor 2 (CM 2)
of refrigerant is vaporized, and the stream 8-9 of natural gas is
cooled and liquefied.
E_ F;CM2 ¼ W_ _ _ _
CM2 and EP;CM2 ¼ E 4
E3
In general, due to the relative small pressure ratio, a single-stage
compression process could be sufficient. However, a two-stage
compression process with interstage cooling is more appropriate,  Condenser (CD) is a dissipative component, E_ D;CD ¼ E_ 4
E_ 5
in order to decrease the total power required for the compressors.  Heat exchanger (HE)
For the simulation of the PRICO process the software Aspen Plus
(2011) was used, and the PengeRobinson equation of state was
selected. This approach can handle any combination of nonpolar or  T T
  M M
  M M
  M M

mildly polar mixtures; examples are hydrocarbons and light gases. E_ F;HE ¼ E_ 7
E_ 1 þ E_ 7
E_ 1 þ E_ 8
E_ 9 þ E_ 5
E_ 6
The following assumptions were used for the simulation: T T
þ E_ 5 þ E_ 8 and E_ P;HE
 The ambient temperature is 25  C, and the ambient pressure is T
¼ E6T þ E_ 9
1.013 bar

Please cite this article in press as: Morosuk, T., et al., Evaluation of the PRICO liquefaction process using exergy-based methods, Journal of Natural
Gas Science and Engineering (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.02.007
 T. Morosuk et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering xxx (2015) 1e9 5

Fig. 1. Flow diagram of the PRICO process: CM 1 e Compressor 1; COL e Cooler; CM 2 e Compressor 2; CD e Condenser; HE e Heat exchanger; TV e Throttling Valve.

Table 1 Table 3
Compositions of natural gas and refrigerant. Detailed thermodynamic data of each chemical component in the streams within
mixed refrigerant.
Component Formula Refrigerant (% mol)a Natural gasb (% mol)
Stream 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Methane CH4 0.30 0.88
Ethane C2H6 0.30 0.08 Mass fraction (kg/kg)
Propane C3H8 e 0.02
Vapor
Butane C4H10 0.25 e
Methane 0.148 0.148 0.148 0.148 0.144 e 0.003 0.786 e
Nitrogen N2 0.15 0.02
Ethane 0.277 0.277 0.277 0.277 0.249 e 0.000 0.134 e
a
Jensen and Skogestad, 2009. Propane 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 e 0.000 0.049 e
b
Mokhatab and Economides, 2006. Butane 0.446 0.446 0.446 0.446 0.224 e 0.000 0.000 e
Nitrogen 0.129 0.129 0.129 0.129 0.128 e 0.057 0.031 e
 Throttling valve (TV) Liquid
Methane e e e e 0.004 0.148 0.145 e 0.786
Ethane e e e e 0.028 0.277 0.277 e 0.134
Propane e e e e 0.000 0.000 0.000 e 0.049
Butane e e e e 0.222 0.446 0.446 e 0.000
M M T T
E_ F;TV ¼ E_ 6
E_ 7 and E_ P;TV ¼ E_ 7
E_ 6 Nitrogen e e e e 0.001 0.129 0.072 e 0.031
Partial pressure (bar)
Methane 0.90 2.40 2.40 6.60 7.69 e 0.43 58.96 e
Ethane 0.90 2.40 2.40 6.60 7.10 e 0.00 5.36 e
Propane e e e e e e e 1.34 e
 Overall system (without considering the drivers for the Butane 0.75 2.00 2.00 5.50 3.31 e 0.00 e e
Nitrogen 0.45 1.20 1.20 3.30 3.91 e 5.57 1.34 e
compressors)

 M  example, Bejan et al., 1996). For the economic analysis the bare
E_ F;tot ¼ W_ _ _ _M _ _T _T
CM1 þ W CM2 þ E8
E 9 ; and EP;tot ¼ E9
E8 module cost for each component was estimated, and the remaining
cost contributors are calculated based on these values (Table 5).
The results obtained from the exergetic analysis are shown in Since the location of the evaluated LNG plant is unknown, office
Table 4. costs were not taken into consideration.
Because no economic data for the PRICO process are available in
3.2. Economic analysis the open sources and because cost estimation data for the low-
temperature and cryogenic equipment is not reported in detail in
An economic analysis of the PRICO process was carried out the literature, as it is the case for chemical and power plants, the
based on the Total Revenue Requirement (TRR) method (for bare module cost for each component of the PRICO process was

Table 2
Thermodynamic, exergetic, cost and environmental impact data for the material streams.

Stream Material stream Thermodynamic data Exergetic analysis Exergoeconomic analysis Exergoenvironmental analysis

m_ T p x h s eT
eM
e PH
cT
c M
cPH
bT bM bPH

(Kg/s) (ºC) (Bar) (Kg/kg) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg K) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg) ($/GJ) ($/GJ) ($/GJ) (Pts/GJ) (Pts/GJ) (Pts/GJ)

1 Refrigerant 475 15 3 e
2446
5.16 0.3 81.5 81.8 50.07 17.87 67.94 39.06 14.42 53.48
2 71 8 e
2352
5.10 6.1 153.3 159.4 18.06 17.96 36.02 14.54 14.48 29.01
3 30 8 e
2429
5.34 0.1 153.3 153.4 18.06 17.96 36.02 14.54 14.48 29.01
4 91 22 e
2331
5.28 16.8 218.2 235.0 17.67 17.87 35.54 14.29 14.42 28.71
5 30 22 0.84
2532
5.90 0.2 218.2 218.4 17.67 17.87 35.54 14.29 14.42 28.71
6
159 19 0
3156
8.94 291.2 210.0 501.2 57.49 17.87 75.36 44.76 14.42 59.18
7
162 6 0.07
3156
8.92 362.3 132.5 494.8 50.07 17.87 67.94 39.06 14.42 53.48
0a 25 1.013
2426
4.81
8 Natural gas 38 67 e
4188
6.83 0.7 555.1 555.8 0 0 0 3.75 3.75 7.51
9 50
159 64 0
4998
10.92 417.0 549.7 966.7 57.49 0 57.49 44.76 3.75 48.52
0a 25 1.013
4141
4.81
a
Reference state for the exergetic analysis.

Please cite this article in press as: Morosuk, T., et al., Evaluation of the PRICO liquefaction process using exergy-based methods, Journal of Natural
Gas Science and Engineering (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.02.007
6 T. Morosuk et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering xxx (2015) 1e9

Table 5
Estimation of the fixed-capital investment (in mil US$ for the year 2014).

Direct costs (DC) Onsite costs (bare module cost, CBM) 87.6
 Compressor CM1 39.3
 Compressor CM2 40.5
 Cooler 1.7
 Condenser 1.4
 Heat exchanger 3.9
 Throttling valve 0.8
Offsite costs 0
Total direct costs 87.6
Indirect costs (IC) Engineering and supervision (8% of DC) 7.0
Construction costs (15% of DC) 13.1
Contingencies (15% of the sum DC and ID) 16.1
Total indirect costs 36.2
Fixed-capital investment 123.8

Fig. 2. T
DH_ diagram for the heat exchanger.

estimated using the following equation:
CBM;k ¼ CM;k  fd fm fT fp  fBM;k
where CBM,k
bare module cost of the k th component, CM

module cost of the k th component, fd e design-type factor, fm e
material factor, fT e temperature factor, fp e pressure factor, and fBM
e bare module factor of the k th component. The term CM  fd fm fT fp
is the purchased-equipment cost. Data from the chemical industry
were used to calculate the bare module cost and the factors.
The following assumptions were made and results were ob-
tained for the economic analysis:
 Centrifugal type of turbo compressors was selected. The infor-
mation from Waren et al., 2004 was used for the economic
analysis of the compressors. For the estimation of the module
cost, the net required power (W _ ) is used as a sizing factor.
k
Based on the data given for the year 2004, the recalculated
specific cost is 878 US$2014/kW. Since the operation conditions
for the two compressors are in the range of regular application,
the design-type, material, temperature and pressure factors
were assumed to be equal to one. The bare module factor is
equal to 2.15.
 The cooler and condenser were assumed to be shell-and-tube
heat exchangers. The UA values of the cooler and condenser
were obtained from the Aspen PLUS simulation software and
the overall heat transfer coefficients (U) were taken from Kakac
and Hongtan, 1998, i.e., UCOL ¼ 500 W/m2K and UCD ¼ 1000 W/
m2K. Finally, the heat transfer surfaces amount to
ACOL ¼ 2600 m2 and ACD ¼ 2198 m2. For the economic analysis,
the data reported by Waren et al., 2004 were used. Since the
operation conditions for the cooler and condenser are also in the
range of regular application, the design-type, temperature, and
pressure factors were assumed to be equal to one. However, for
the intensification of heat-transfer characteristics, the material
of tube is assumed to be brass (material of shell is carbon steel).
Therefore the material factor is 2.4. The bare module factor is
(17) equal to 3.17.
 The heat exchanger is a three-flow, low temperature heat
exchanger. Such a heat exchanger is considered as quite chal-
lenging due to its special design. Only few companies in the
world produce such heat exchangers for LNG applications;
therefore the data required for the economic analysis are
confidential and not available in the open literature. The overall
heat transfer coefficient was estimated as UHE ¼ 2000 W/m2K
(Kakac and Hongtan, 1998), therefore ACOL ¼ 3865 m2. For the
economic analysis, the data reported by Ulrich and Vasudevan,
2002 were used with the following adjustments correspond-
ing to the low-temperature operation conditions: fm ¼ 2.3 and
fT ¼ 1.5. The bare module factor is equal to 3.5.
 A simple throttling valve used for the simulation, represents in
reality a throttling valve station (many throttling valves with
corresponding safety/control equipment, used in parallel).
Based on the estimated fixed-capital investment and the as-
sumptions for the economic, financial, operating, and market input
variables, the total revenue requirement is calculated. The non-
uniform annual monetary values associated with the investment
(carrying charges, CC), operation & maintenance (OMC), and fuel
costs (FC) of the system being analyzed are levelized, that is they are
converted into an equivalent series of constant payments
(annuities).
The levelized carrying charges are calculated as
CCL ¼ ðTotal Capital InvestmentÞ  CRF (18)
where the capital-recovery factor (CRF) (Bejan et al., 1996) is given
by

Table 4
Results obtained from the exergetic, exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental analyses.

Component Exergetic analysis Exergoeconomic analysis Exergoenvironmental analysis

E_ F;k E_ P;k E_ D;k εk yk cF,k cP,k Z_ k C_ D;k Z_ k þ C_ D;k r f bF,k bP,k B_ D;k rb

(MW) (MW) (MW) (%) (%) ($/GJ) ($/GJ) ($/h) ($/h) ($/h) (%) (%) (mPts/GJ) (mPts/GJ) (mPts/h) (%)

CM1 44.84 37.00 7.84 82.5 8.6 31.99 48.76 1330 188 1518 171.1 87.6 12.00 14.54 338 21.2
COL e e 2.86 e 3.1 97.28 e 56 370 426 e 13.3 384.63 e 3946 e
CM2 46.51 38.83 7.71 83.5 8.5 31.67 47.84 1373 182 1555 170.9 88.3 11.91 14.29 332 20.0
CD e e 7.89 e 8.6 96.17 e 48 1009 1057 e 4.6 204.02 e 5791 e
HE 200.50 159.20 41.31 79.4 45.1 120.42 151.89 131 6759 6890 26.4 1.9 35.54 55.82 5284 57.1
TV 36.77 33.73 3.04 91.7 3.3 48.32 52.89 26 196 222 10.2 11.8 14.42 15.72 158 9.0
Overall system 91.48 20.82 70.66 22.7 77.2 31.58 178.35 2965 1654 4619 948.1 64.2 11.89 52.24 3024 339.5

Please cite this article in press as: Morosuk, T., et al., Evaluation of the PRICO liquefaction process using exergy-based methods, Journal of Natural
Gas Science and Engineering (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.02.007
 T. Morosuk et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering xxx (2015) 1e9 7

 n  Cooler and condenser are dissipative components, therefore the

ieff 1 þ ieff cost balances should be written in a different way taking into
CRF ¼  n (19) account that the specific cost of each stream passed through
1 þ ieff
1 these components remains constant, i.e. the cost balance for the
T T M M
cooler is C_
C_ þ C_
C_ þ Z_
2 3 2 ¼ C_
3 COL with the as-
Diff;COL
Here ieff is the average annual effective discount rate (cost of
sumptions cT2 ¼ cT3 and cM M
2 ¼ c3 , and the cost balance for the
money), and n denotes the plant economic life expressed in years.
T T M M
For the fuel we calculate the constant escalation levelization condenser is C_ 4
C_ 5 þ C_ 4
C_ 5 þ Z_ CD ¼ C_ Diff ;CD with the as-
factor (CELF). sumptions cT4 ¼ cT5 and cM M _
4 ¼ c5 . The values of C Diff;COL and
  C_ are considered in the calculation of the cost associated
kFC 1
knFC Diff;CD
FCL ¼ FC0  CELF ¼ FC0 CRF (20) with the product of the overall system.
ð1
kFC Þ
The cost rates associated with the exergy of fuel and the exergy
with kFC ¼ 1 þ rFC =1 þ ieff and rFC ¼ const. The term rFC denotes the
of product for the overall system are
average annual nominal escalation rate for fuel cost.
The levelized annual operating and maintenance costs OMCL are T T
given by C_ P ¼ C_ 9
C_ 8 þ C_ Diff;CD þ C_ Diff;COL and C_ F
M M
  ¼ C_ W;CM1 þ C_ W;CM2 þ C_ 8
C_ 9 respectively:
kOMC 1
knOMC
OMCL ¼ OMC0  CELF ¼ OMC0 CRF (21)
ð1
kOMC Þ The value of cW was calculated using the cost balance applied to
the overall open-cycle gas-turbine system LM 6000 used as a driver
with kOMC ¼ 1 þ rOMC =1 þ ieff and rOMC ¼ const, where rOMC is the for both compressors: C_ fuel þ Z_ GT ¼ C_ W . Based on data reported by
average annual nominal escalation rate for the operating and General Electric for the LM 6000 system (Gas Turbine World, 2006),
maintenance costs. the following initial data were obtained, and the corresponding
Finally, the levelized total revenue requirement (TRRL) is ob- results were calculated:
tained from
 The overall energetic efficiency of the LM 6000 system is equal
TRRL ¼ CCL þ FCL þ OMCL (22) to 44.5%; therefore the fuel (natural gas) consumption is
The following assumptions have been made for the economic calculated as 4.43 kg/s;
analysis:  The specific investment cost of the gas-turbine system for the
year 2010 was estimated as 296 US$/kW, which leads to the
 The LNG plant operates with a 100% capacity during 7446 h per value of Z_ GT ¼ 1073 $/h.
year (capacity factor ¼ 85%)  Assuming that the price of natural gas is 4.5 US$/GJLHV, the
specific cost of power supplied from the driver to both com-
The average cost of money is ieff ¼ 10%. pressors is calculated as cW ¼ 14.37 $/GJ.
The plant economic life is n ¼ 20 years.
The average general inflation rate is rn ¼ 2.5% Tables 2 and 4 show the results obtained from the exer-
goeconomic analysis.
 The operating and maintenance costs are assumed to be 4% of
the CC.
3.4. Exergoenvironmental analysis

An exergoenvironmental analysis is based on environmental

3.3. Exergoeconomic analysis
impact balances written for the k th component and auxiliary
equations (if required). The environmental impact balances are
An exergoeconomic analysis is based on cost balances written
formulated in analogy to the cost balances written for the corre-
for the k th component and auxiliary costing equations (if
sponding exergoeconomic analysis. For the evaluation of the PRICO
required):
process, we assumed that the component-related environmental
T M M T impact can be neglected (Yk¼0), therefore no component-related
 Compressor 1: C_ 1 þ C_ W;CM1 þ Z_ CM1 ¼ C_ 2
C_ 1 þ C_ 2 and one
LCA was conducted. The Eco-Indicator 99 was applied.
auxiliary costing equation according to the P-rule,
M M M M
Note that for the exergoenvironmental analysis of the PRICO
cT2
ðC_ 2
C_ 1 Þ=ðE_ 2
E_ 1 Þ process with compressors driven by a gas-turbine power system,
M M T T
 Compressor 2: C_ W;CM2 þ Z_ CM2 ¼ C_ 4
C_ 3 þ C_ 4
C_ 3 , and ac- two different values of the environmental impact associated with
cording to the P rule natural gas were used:
M M M M T T T T
ðC_
C_ Þ=ðE_
E_ Þ
ðC_
C_ Þ=ðE_
E_ Þ. The values of
4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3
 For natural gas that should be liquefied (stream 8),
C_ W;CM1 and C_ W;CM2 are calculated as C_ W;CM1 ¼ W_
CM1 cW and Pts ¼ 3:90 Pts , and
bCH4 ¼ 0:14 Nm
_ _
C W;CM2 ¼ W CM2 cW , respectively
3 GJLHV
 For natural gas that is used in a gas-turbine system (driver),
T M M M M M M
 Heat Exchanger: C_ 5 þ C_ 8
C_ 9 þ C_ 5
C_ 6 þ C_ 7
C_ 1 þ bCH4 ¼ 5:30 GJPts . This value is higher than the first one because it
LHV
T T T T T T T T includes the generation of pollutants during the combustion
C_ 7
C_ 1 þ Z_ HE ¼ C_ 9 þ C_ 6 , according to the P-rule C_ 9 =E_ 9 ¼ C_ 6 =E_ 6
process. Charging the potential pollutants to the fuel is an
, and according to the F rule: cM M M M M M
8 ¼ c9 , c5 ¼ c6 , c7 ¼ c1 and approach that simplifies the analysis because there is then no
PF
cT7 ¼ cT1 . need to calculate the value of B_ k for Eq. (11). For the calculation
M M T T
 Throttling Valve: C_ 6
C_ 7 þ Z_ TV ¼ C_ 7
C_ 6 , according to the F of the environmental impact associated with the power sup-
M M
rule, c6 ¼ c7 plied to the compressors, an analogous methodology to the

Please cite this article in press as: Morosuk, T., et al., Evaluation of the PRICO liquefaction process using exergy-based methods, Journal of Natural
Gas Science and Engineering (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.02.007
8 T. Morosuk et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering xxx (2015) 1e9
exergoeconomic analysis was applied. Finally the environmental
impact associated with the power for the compressors is
bW ¼ 11.91 Pts/GJ.
Tables 2 and 4 show the results obtained from the exer-
goenvironmental analysis.
4. Results and discussions
The values of COP ¼ 0.44 and specific energy consumption of
1824 kJ/kgLNG are relatively low compared to the corresponding
ones from the publications mentioned in the introduction. The
value of the exergetic efficiency of 22.7% cannot be compared with
the data reported by others because, as it was already noted, the
exergy analysis was conducted in terms of “exergy of fuel/exergy of
product” and not of “inlet/outlet exergy” as used by other authors.
However, the distribution of the exergy destruction among the
components (Table 4) has a good correlation with the earlier re-
ported results (Mokarizadeh Haghighi Shirazi and Mowla, 2010;
Xu et al., 2013): 22% associated with the compression process
(E_ D;CM1 þ E_ D;CM2 ¼ 15:55 MW); 15% associated with the cooler and
condenser (E_ D;COL þ E_ D;CD ¼ 10:75 MW) e within both coolers, 58%
e within the heat exchanger (E_ D;HE ¼ 41:31 MW), and 5.7% - within
the throttling valve (E_ D;TV ¼ 3:04 MW). The rate of exergy
destruction within the heat exchanger (yHE) shows that 45% of the
exergy of the fuel supplied to the overall system is destroyed
through the inefficiencies within this component. The exergetic
efficiency for each of the productive components (compressors,
heat exchanger and throttling valve) is high (in the range of
80e90%). This means that the evaluated PRICO system has a rela-
tively low potential of efficiency improvement as long as the
composition of the mixed refrigerant remains unchanged.
The economic analysis (Tables 4 and 5) shows that 91% of the
total capital investment associated with the two compressors (that
is fully confirmed by data reported by Castillo and Dorao, 2012.), 5%
with the heat exchanger, 3% with the cooler and condenser and 1%
with the throttling valve. If cost optimization would be based on the
investment costs, then the conclusion is obvious: a reduction in the
cost of both compressors will significantly reduce the total cost of
the PRICO plant.
Let us discuss the conclusions that have been obtained from the
exergoeconomic analysis (Table 4). The value of the exer-
goeconomic factor (64.2%) for the overall system demonstrates
(based on recommendation from Bejan et al., 1996), that the
analyzed PRICO process has no design error from the cost point of
view. The component-by-component analyses show, that the value
of the total cost associated with the component, i.e., the sum
ðC_ D;k þ Z_ k Þ, is the highest for the heat exchanger because of the cost
of the exergy destruction within this component. The very low
value of the exergoeconomic factor (fHE ¼ 1:9%) suggests the di-
rection for cost improvement: The heat exchanger should be
improved from the thermodynamic point of view, i.e. the exergy
destruction should be reduced, and the exergetic efficiency
increased. This will lead to a decrease in the cost of the exergy
destruction. At the same time, the capital investment cost of this
component will increase. However, the cost of the final product will
definitely decrease. Both compressors have the highest capital in-
vestment cost but very low cost associated with the exergy
destruction. The high value of the exergoeconomic factor (around
88%) for the compressors indicates that the overall LNG cost could
be reduced if less expensive compressors would be used, even if
these would have a lower efficiency.
The data obtained from the exergoenvironmental analysis
demonstrate that the highest environmental impact is associated
with the exergy destruction within the heat exchanger. In order to
Please cite this article in press as: Morosuk, T., et al., Evaluation of the PRICO liquefaction process using exergy-based methods, Journal of Natural
Gas Science and Engineering (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.02.007
reduce this value, the thermodynamic efficiency of the heat
exchanger should be increased.
The exergy-based evaluation of the PRICO process shows that
the most important component from the thermodynamic, eco-
nomic and environmental points of view is the heat exchanger.
Thermodynamically improving this component (decreasing the
temperature differences during heat transfer and the pressure
drops), would significantly improve the performance of the PRICO
process.
5. Conclusions
In this paper the PRICO process (operated with compressors
driven by a gas-turbine system) for the liquefaction of natural gas
has been evaluated using exergy-based analyses. The results ob-
tained from these analyses confirmed that this process is, in gen-
eral, well designed from the thermodynamic and economic points
of view. Since all LNG processes are not only energy-intensive but
also cost- and environmental-impact-intensive, the design of the
heat exchanger should be a central focus of such LNG plants,
especially the heat transfer characteristics. Despite the fact that the
investment cost of the heat exchanger is relatively high due to the
large heat transfer surface and to a complex and unique design,
decreasing the inefficiencies within this component and accepting
higher investment cost will finally lead to a decrease in the overall
cost of the generated LNG.
References
Aspelund, A., Gundersen, T., Myklebust, J., Nowak, M.P., Tomasgard, A., 2010. An
optimization-simulation model for a simple LNG process. Comput. Chem. Eng.
34, 1606e1617.
Aspen Plus V7.1, 2011. The Software is a Proprietary Product of AspenTech. http://
www.aspentech.com.
Bejan, A., Tsatsaronis, G., Moran, M., 1996. Thermal design and Optimization. Wiley,
New York, NY.
Black&Veatch, www.bv.com.
Boyano, A., Blanco-Marigorta, A.M., Morosuk, T., Tsatsaronis, G., 2011. Exer-
goenvironmental analysis of a steam methane reforming process for hydrogen
production. Energy Int. J. 36 (4), 2202e2214.
Boyano, A., Morosuk, T., Blanco-Marigorta, A.M., Tsatsaronis, G., 2012. Conventional
and advanced exergoenvironmental analysis of a steam methane reforming
reactor for hydrogen production. J. Clean. Prod. 20, 152e160.
Castillo, L., Dorao, C.A., 2012. Consensual decision-making model based on game
theory for LNG processes. Energy Conv. Manag. 64, 387e396.
Gas Turbine World, 2006. Handbook. Pequot Publishing Inc., USA.
General Electric, Gas turbine catalog, www.ge.com.
Goedkoop, M., Spriensma, R., 2000. The Eco-indicator 99: a Damage Oriented
Method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Methodology Report. Amersfoort,
Netherlands. http://www.pre.nl.
Heldt, S., 2011. Near-optimal Operation of LNG Liquefaction Processes by Means of
Regulation. Ph.D. Thesis. Technische Universita €t Berlin, Germany.
Hiemann, A., 2011. Energy and Exergy Analysis of a Single Mixed Refrigerant Process
for the Liquefaction of Natural Gas. Student Research Project. Technische Uni-
versit€at Berlin, Germany.
Jensen, J.B., Skogestad, S., 2009. Single cycle mixed-liquefied LNG process Part I:
optimal design. In: Alfadala, H.E., Reklaitis, G.V., El-Halwagi, M.M. (Eds.), Pro-
ceedings of the 1st Annual Gas Processing Symposium. Elsevier, UK,
pp. 211e218.
Kakac, S., Hongtan, L., 1998. Heat Exchangers: Selection, Rating, and Thermal
Design. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Khan, M.S., Lee, S., Lee, M., 2012. Optimization of single mixed refrigerant natural
gas liquefaction plant with nonlinear programming. Asia-Pac J. Chem. Eng. 7,
62e70.
Khan, M.S., Lee, S., Rangaiah, G.P., Lee, M., 2013. Knowledge based decision making
method for the selection of mixed refrigerant systems for energy efficient LNG
processes. Appl. Energy 111, 1018e1031.
Lazzaretto, A., Tsatsaronis, G., 2006. SPECO: a systematic and general methodology
for calculating efficiencies and costs in thermal systems. Energy Int. J. 31,
1257e1289.
Lee, G., 2001. Optimal Design and Analysis of Refrigeration Systems for Low Tem-
perature Processes. PhD Thesis. UMIST, Manchester, UK.
Marmolejo-Correa, D., Gundersen, T., 2012. A comparison of exergy efficiency def-
initions with focus of low temperature process. Energy Int. J. 44, 477e489.
Meyer, L., Tsatsaronis, G., Buchgeister, J., Schebek, L., 2009. Exergoenvironmental
analysis for evaluation of the environmental impact of exergy conversion
 T. Morosuk et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering xxx (2015) 1e9
systems. Energy Int. J. 34, 75e89.
Mokarizadeh Haghighi Shirazi, M., Mowla, D., 2010. Energy optimization for
liquefaction process of natural gas in peak shaving plant. Energy Int. J. 35,
2878e2885.
Mokhatab, S., Economides, M.J., 2006. Process selection is critical to onshore LNG
economics. Glob. LNG Rep. 227 (2).
Morin, A., Wahl, P.E., Mølnvik, M.J., 2011. Using evolutionary search to optimize the
energy consumption for natural gas liquefaction. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 89,
2428e2441.
Morosuk, T., Tsatsaronis, G., 2005. Graphical models for splitting physical exergy. In:
Kjelstrup, S., Hustad, J.E., Gundersen, T., Rosjorde, A., Tsatsaronis, G. (Eds.),
Shaping Our Future Energy Systems, vol. 1, pp. 377e384.
Morosuk, T., Tsatsaronis, G., 2012. 3-D exergy-based methods for improving energy-
conversion systems. Int. J. Thermodyn. 15 (4), 201e213.
Morosuk, T., Tsatsaronis, G., Koroneos, C., 2012. On the effect of eco-indicator se-
lection on the conclusions obtained from an exergoenvironmental analysis. In:
Proceedings of ECOS 2012-the 25th International Conference on Efficiency, Cost,
Optimization, Simulation and Environmental Impact of Energy Systems June
26e29, 2012, Perugia, Italy. CD-ROM: 275-1 e; 275e13.
Petrakopoulou, F., Boyano, A., Cabrera, M., Tsatsaronis, G., 2011. Exergoeconomic
and exergoenvironmental analyses of a combined cycle power plant with
chemical looping technology. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 5, 475e482.
Remeljeja, C.W., Hoadley, A.F.A., 2006. An exergy analysis of small-scale liquefied
natural gas (LNG) liquefaction processes. Energy Int. J. 31, 2005e2019.
Please cite this article in press as: Morosuk, T., et al., Evaluation of the PRICO liquefaction process using exergy-based methods, Journal of Natural
Gas Science and Engineering (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.02.007
9
Roberts, M.J., Liu, Y.-N., Bronfenbrenner, J.C., Solomon, J., 2004. Hydrocarbon Engi-
neering. May, pp. 81e84.
Tsatsaronis, G., 1984. Combination of exergetic and economic analysis in energy-
conversion processes, energy economics and management in Industry. In:
Proceedings of the European Congress, Algarve, Portugal, April 2e5, 1984, vol. 1.
Pergamon Press, Oxford, England, pp. 151e157.
Tsatsaronis, G., 2007. Definitions and nomenclature in exergy analysis and exer-
goeconomics. Energy Int. J. 32, 249e253.
Tsatsaronis, G., Morosuk, T., 2008. A general exergy-based method for combining a
cost analysis with an environmental impact analysis. In: Proceedings of the
ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Boston,
Massachusetts, USA, 2008 files IMECE2008e67218 and IMECE2008-67219.
Tsatsaronis, G., Morosuk, T., 2012. Understanding and improving energy conversion
systems with the aid of exergy-based methods. Int. J. Exergy 11, 518e542.
Ulrich, G.D., Vasudevan, P.T., 2002. Chemical Engineering: Process Design and
Economics. A Practical Guide. Process Publishing, Durham, Now Hampshire.
Venkatarathnam, G., 2008. Cryogenic Mixed Refrigerant Processes. Springer.
Wahl, P.E., Løvseth, S.W., Mølnvik, M.J., 2013. Optimization of a simple LNG process
using sequential quadratic programming. Comput. Chem. Eng. 56, 27e36.
Waren, D., Seider, J.D., Lewin, D.R., 2004. Product & Process Design Principles:
Synthesis, Analysis and Evaluation, second ed. John Wiley.
Xu, X., Liu, J., Jiang, C., Cao, L., 2013. The correlation between mixed refrigerant
composition and ambient conditions in the PRICO LNG process. Appl. Energy
102, 1127e1136.