International Journal of Sustainable Energy

iFirst, 2011, 1–15

Investigation of the effects of repowering options on electricity

generation cost on Iran steam power plants
A. Mehrpanahia , S.M. Hossienalipourb * and K. Mobinia
a Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Lavizan, Tehran, Iran;
b Mechanical Engineering Department, Computer Aided Engineering Center, Iran University of Science
and Technology, Narmak, Tehran, Iran

(Received 2 April 2011; final version received 8 September 2011)

Many of Iran’s steam power plants are old and inefficient. Repowering as an experimented and generable
way can be an effective method for reconstruction of the old steam power plants. According to the power
plant specifications, there are different repowering methods. In this paper, overall conditions have been
considered for choosing the most appropriate method. Thermo-economical parameters are calculated for
repowering a number of Iran power plants. Expenses for repowering an existing power plant are compared
with those of establishing a new gas turbine plant or a combined power plant cycles. The cost of electricity
generation are calculated and compared for three different scenarios: repowering of the steam power plant,
building a new gas turbine power plant and building a combined cycle power plant. The results show that
repowering options not only have considerable capacity for upgrading, but also provide the lowest cost of
electricity generation.

Keywords: full repowering; steam power plant; combined cycle; feedwater heating; hot windbox;
gas turbine

1. Introduction

The high rate of increase in energy demand in Iran (Power and Energy Planning Department,
Iran Ministry of Energy 2006, 2007) motivates energy researchers to provide creative solutions to
overcome this problem and reply to this demand. Managers of electricity generation networks are
looking for cheaper and more reliable methods to satisfy this demand. Most of the existing steam
power plants in Iran have reached the end of their lifetime and a considerable number of them do
not have acceptable efficiency. Therefore, finding the best way to improve these power plants has
become a challenging problem. Since the major part of the electrical energy is produced by the
steam power plants, use of the repowering methods can be a remedy to this problem. Repowering
is broadly defined as an addition to or replacement of the existing power plant equipment, retaining
serviceable permitted components in order to improve power generation economics, to extend
power plant life, to reduce environmental impact, to enhance operability and maintainability and
to use an existing site more effectively (Stoll et al. 1994). To determine the effects of steam

*Corresponding author. Email: alipour@iust.ac.ir

ISSN 1478-6451 print/ISSN 1478-646X online

© 2011 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2011.622762
http://www.tandfonline.com
2 A. Mehrpanahi et al.

power plants repowering on a particular plant, the characteristics of the existing cycle, such as
power plant age, availability, required space and ambient temperature should be considered along
with technological limitations. However, due to the extension of Iran’s steam power plant fleet,
only general parameters required for estimation are considered in this study. Differences between
the methods of power plant construction and repowering are investigated by important techno-
economic parameters in decision. The possible repowering options in Iran’s steam power plants
are investigated using the available experimental data for other countries. The current condition
of the studied power plants and practical restrictions are considered for each repowering method
during the study. Iran electricity industry has a large investment plan for construction of gas
turbine power plants (Power and Energy Planning Department, Iran Ministry of Energy 2006,
2007). Therefore, the cost of electricity production per kWh in repowering options is compared
with that of gas turbine power plants. The combined cycle power plants with similar costs are
considered as the basis for the comparison. New policies regarding energy subsidy omission is a
key issue which shows the importance of this study. Both subsidized and non-subsidized fuel costs
are considered in this work. Since most of the existing power plants in Iran consume non-solid
fuels, the suitable repowering options are (Stenzel et al. 1997):

1.1. Full repowering (heat recovery boiler repowering)

In this option, the boiler in the existing power plant is replaced by gas turbines and heat recovery
steam generators. Full repowering is the most common application of repowering (Rives and
Catina 1987, Stoll et al. 1994, Pace et al. 1997). Typical candidates for this type of repowering
are plants of more than 25 years old (Kudlu 1989, Sanaye and Hamzeie 2004).

1.2. Partial repowering

Partial repowering is performed in three different ways:

(a) Hot windbox repowering (HWBR): This method utilizes gas turbine(s) exhaust gas as combus-
tion air in the existing boiler (Chase et al. 1991). In this application, gas turbine technological
improvements could add to its capabilities. For example, intercooled gas turbines and partial-
oxidation gas turbines improve steam cycle characteristics more than the conventional systems
(Negri di Montenegro et al. 1996, Heyen and Kalitventzeff 1998).
(b) Feedwater heating repowering (FWHR): In this method, gas turbine(s) exhaust gases are used
to heat feedwater for the existing boiler (Kudlu 1989).
(c) Supplemental boiler repowering: In this method, the existing boiler is retained and a new
supplemental boiler and gas turbine(s) are added.According to the heat recovery boiler exhaust
path and/or its steam path, there are different combinations for this method (Gambini and
Guizzi 1989, Kudlu 1989, Walters 1995, Joyce 1996).

The gas exhaust from the heat recovery boiler can be directed

(1) towards the existing boiler

(2) towards the stack

Heat recovery boiler steam moves towards the retained steam turbine

(1) to provide added IP and LP steam

(2) to provide added HP and IP steam
(3) to provide added HP and reheat steam
 International Journal of Sustainable Energy 3

Partial repowering options are better suited for modern, much larger and newer existing units
(Moore 1995, Walters 1995, Sarabchi and Nabati 2000).

2. Selecting appropriate option for repowering

Based on the appropriate repowering method(s), power plants are divided into the following
categories according to their capacities:

(1) Steam power plants with capacity of less than 200 MW and with more than 25 years lifetime
(2) Steam power plants with capacity of less than 200 MW but with newer units
(3) Steam power plants with capacity ranging from 200 to 300 MW
(4) Steam power plants with capacity of more than 300 MW and with more than 25 years lifetime
(5) Steam power plants with capacity of more than 300 MW but with newer units

Based on the above categorization, potential increase in Iran power plant capacity due to
different repowering options is calculated and presented in Table 1 (Power and Energy Planning
Department, Iran Ministry of Energy 2006, 2007). Two main scenarios have been considered for
steam power plant network upgrading. In the first scenario, new power plants with efficiencies
less than the mean existing efficiency are investigated. In the second scenario, new power plants
are investigated regardless of their efficiency. These scenarios are recognized by single or double
asterisks in tables. A comparison of the results based on these two scenarios shows that upgrading
low efficiency units is more acceptable. As shown in Table 1, in contrast to the results of applying
heat recovery boiler repowering (HRBR), the proposed scenarios have shown considerable effects

Table 1. The calculated values for potential increase in Iran power plant capacity due to different repowering options
implementation.

Power increase Power increase Specific capacity Specific capacity

in first scenario in second scenario of first scenario of second scenario
Category no. (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) Explanation

1 HRBR HRBR Three units of

Montazeri
steam power
plant are
located here
3125.4–3906.8 3125.4–3906.8 1953.4 1953.4
2 HWBR FWHR HWBR FWHR
38.4–76.8 25.6–76.8 38.4–76.8 25.6–76.8 256∗ 256∗∗
3 HWBR FWHR HWBR FWHR
120–240 80–240 270–540 180–540 800∗ 1800∗∗
4 HRBR HRBR One unit
of Tabriz
steam plant
and four
units of
Ramin
steam plant
are located
here
7982.4–9978 7982.4–9978 4989 4989
5 HWBR FWHR HWBR FWHR
– – 483–966 322–966 – 3220∗∗
∗
First scenario, new power plants with efficiencies less than the mean existing efficiency.
∗∗
Second scenario, new power plants are investigated regardless of their efficiency.
4 A. Mehrpanahi et al.

on capacity increase potential in partial repowering options. Supplemental boiler option is not
considered here, because according to previous experiences this method was less competitive than
HWBR and FWHR options (Ploumen et al. 1996). Therefore, there are three main options and
five categories.
The first criterion for a steam power plant to go through full repowering (HRBR) is it should
be at least 25 years old (Kudlu 1989, Sanaye and Hamzeie 2004). Some other references suggest
30 years or 25–30 years (Chase et al. 1991, Brandr and Chase 1992, Moore 1995, Sarabchi and
Nabati 2000). In this work, the HRBR method is applied for steam power plants of 25 years old
and more. HRBR is better to be considered for units with the maximum capacity of 250 MW and
with the maximum steam pressure of 12.4 MPa (Pace et al. 1997, Stenzel et al. 1997). There is no
old steam power plant in Iran with capacity in the range of 200–300 MW. Therefore, the existing
capacity in the first row of Table 1 is preferred for doing repowering by this option.1 The old large
units with a capacity of more than 300 MW are also considered for HRBR (row 4 of Table 1).
More than one gas turbine is usually used in this condition. Phasing allows the minimization of
the downtime of the existing units (Walters et al. 1988).
Newer units are repowered by feedwater heating and hot windbox options (Moore 1995, Walters
1995, Sarabchi and Nabati 2000). HWBR is more complicated than FWHR and needs more effort
and time to apply. The units in rows 2 and 5 of Table 1 are more suitable for partial repowering
options (HWBR and FWHR).2 The units in row 3 of Table 1, such as Mofatteh and four newer
units of Montazeri (unlike HRBR), are more suitable for partial repowering options.3

3. Repowering option costs

Besides attention to capacity increase, a precise look at economic aspects is also essential. Some
of the important factors which can be effective in decision for the construction or expansion
of a power plant are: generated electricity cost per kWh, capital cost investment, unit cost rate
and outage time. The simplest way for techno-economic evaluation of repowering methods is to
calculate electricity generation cost per kWh and compare it with the cost of electricity generation
by traditional power plants. Three important parameters play a crucial role in estimating electricity
generation cost per kWh. One of them, total cost investment (TCI), is a fixed cost, and the other
two, fuel cost (M) and operation and maintenance (OM) cost, are variable costs. These three are
related by the following formula (Sanaye and Hamzeie 2004):

Pe = CRF × TCI + M + OM($/annum), (1)

where Pe is the annual cost of electricity generation and CRF is the capital recovery factor. Pe
can be converted to $/kWh by the following equation:
Pe CRF × TCI + M + OM
Ze = = = ZC + Zf + ZOM ($/kWh) (2)
Ẇ · H Ẇ · H
Ẇ in HWBR and FWHR is the extra capacity of a repowered power plant compared with the
primary plant, but in HRBR it is the total capacity of the new plant. H is the annual operation
time of the plant.
To evaluate parameters used in Equation (2), the following method can be used: Zc is calculated
according to the method introduced by Tsatsaronis et al. (1996). In this method, costs are given
in two main forms of fixed capital investment and outlay costs. These two are expressed as
percentages of purchased equipment cost. Purchased equipment cost is the scale for approximation
of total costs. Therefore, having the above values, one can approximate the plant capital investment.
In order to approximate purchased equipment costs, list of essential equipment for each of the
 International Journal of Sustainable Energy 5

Table 2. Repowering options specifications (Kudlu 1989, Moore 1995, Walters 1995, Ploumen et al. 1996, Pace et al.
1997, Stenzel et al. 1997, Mehrevan 2006).

HRBR HWBR FWHR GT

Capacity increase (%) 160–200 15–30 10–30 –

Efficiency Up to 12 3–6 2–5 –
improvement (%)
NOx decrease (%) 50–80 50–80 10–20 –
Limitation factor(s) Existing condenser Existing boiler Steam turbine(s) –
and steam turbine(s)
Capital investmenta (%) 70–85 20–30 15–20 60–70
Capital investment 450–750 150–250 For small units 300–400
($/kW)b 90–110
For large units 75–80
Special advantage Heat rate improvement Heat rate improvement Heat rate improvement –
up to 30–40% 10–15% 5–10%
Outage time (months) 12–18 8 2 10–12
Gas turbine capacity 160–200% of existing Up to 30% of existing Up to 20% of existing –
steam turbine steam turbine steam turbine
capacity capacity capacity
a
Relative investment compared with the investment for a new combined cycle of the same capacity.
b
These costs due to similar costs in the USA and Holland in about 1995–1997.

repowering options is needed first. Then using the cost functions (Frangopoulos 1983, Tsatsaronis
et al. 1996), the costs are calculated. Since in this study, the range of investigated power plants is
very extensive, similar statistics from other countries are used for each of the repowering options.
Capital cost investment is calculated using the following formula:
TCI × CRF
ZC = ($/kWh). (3)
Ẇ · H
TCI is given in percentage of the cost of constructing a similar combined cycle power plant
according to the statistics given in Table 2. The Ẇ is considered equal to the total capacity of
created power plant in HRBR, but in HWBR and FWHR Ẇ was considered equal to the added
capacity. CRF is estimated by the following formula:

i(i + 1)n
CRF = , (4)
(1 + i)n − 1
where i and n are percent interest rate and the number of years of the system operation, respectively.
In order to have a proper estimation of construction costs, available information for similar gas
turbine power plants can be used. This information, given for Iranian power plants, is presented in
Table 3. For any plant, construction investment costs can be expressed as a percentage of similar
combined cycle power plants given in this table.
OM costs are calculated in a general manner and for operation in a nominal load condition. The
cost of plant maintenance consists of fixed and variable costs and can be written as a function of
capital cost investment (Sanaye and Hamzeie 2004):

ZOM = (ϕ − 1)ZC ($/kWh) (5)

TCI × CRF × ϕ
⇒ ZC + ZOM = ($/kWh), (6)
Ẇ · H
where ϕ is the maintenance factor with an approximate value of 1.06 in lack of exact information
(Pace et al. 1997). Due to the differences between the power plants in terms of specifications and
operation conditions, different values are used for CRF parameter in this work.
6 A. Mehrpanahi et al.

Table 3. Considered values used in the calculations.

Considered values Electricity price subsidy: average electricity sales price in electricity market =
for calculating US$0.0174 (Iran Ministry of Energy 2008)
Supposed fuel: natural gas in a usual manner with the heat rate 36,700 kJ/m3
(Tavanir Organization 2008)
Price per cubic metre of natural gas consumption subsidy for power plants
was considered as US$0.0049 (Power and Energy Planning Department, Iran
Ministry of Energy 2006, 2007)
Price per cubic metre of natural gas non-subsidy, according to the Department
of Energy experts estimate, of 3.6 cents/m3 was considered (Sadri et al. 2005)
In CRF, n equals to unit lifetime
In all of the options, interest is 12%
The operation time, during the year for all kinds of options and also for com-
bined cycle power plants, is as similar as the one considered in Stoll et al.
(1994) and is equal to the average of annual operation time of combined cycle
power plant existing at 2007 = 7330 h (Tavanir Organization 2008)
HRBR The lifetime for repowered units is estimated 5 years less than the newer
similar ones of this kind of power plant (i.e. it is a digit between 20 years
(Gambini and Guizzi 1989) and 30 years (Rives and Catina 1987))
The added power to cycle is considered to be equal to adjoint gas turbine
power plant
Decrease in the heat rate due to combining two cycles has been according
to the experimented cases and its real range is between15 and 30% (Walters
et al. 1988, Chase et al. 1991, Stoll et al. 1994). Efficiencies between 15%
and 20% are due to repowering options at about 1985 (Walters et al. 1988),
while the newer ones show the heat rate improvement to be about 30% or
more (Chase et al. 1991, Stoll et al. 1994, Frankle 2006, Escosa and Romeo
2009)
FWHR Lifetime for repowered units depends on the existing steam cycle, but it is
estimated at 20 years (however, in some performed projects, these data are
based on 30 years (Rives and Catina 1987))
The added capacity to the cycle is the sum of 10% of steam turbines and gas
turbine that is less than the data mentioned in Shahnazari et al. (2003)
HWBR Lifetime for repowered units depends on the existing steam cycle, but it is
estimated at 20 years (one can use the estimated values in Ploumen et al.
(1996))
The added capacity to the cycle is the summation of 5% of steam plant’s
capacity and gas turbine’s capacity, which here is 5% because of better boiler
heat transfer
GT Unit’s lifetime, according to the data of Ministry of Energy Planning Depart-
ment office, of 15 years was considered (Power and Energy Planning
Department, Iran Ministry of Energy 2001, Sadri et al. 2005)
Annual operation time of the gas turbine power plant in 2007 (4800 h) was
considered (Tavanir Organization 2008)
CC Unit’s lifetime, according to the data of Ministry of Energy Planning Depart-
ment office, of 30 years was considered (Power and Energy Planning
Department, Iran Ministry of Energy 2001, Sadri et al. 2005)
The necessary investment costs per kW electricity produced in a combined
cycle power plant in Iran is 666.5 $/kW (Office of Energy Planning, Energy
Affairs Department, Iran Ministry of Energy 2006)

The fuel cost per kWh is calculated using the following expression:

Zf = Cf · HRPP ($/kWh), (7)

in which
ṁf · LHVf
HRPP = ($/kWh), (8)
Ẇ
HRPP is the power plant heat rate and Cf is the regional cost of fuel per unit of energy.
 International Journal of Sustainable Energy 7

In the next step, the per kWh cost for repowering options for constructing gas turbine and
combined cycle plants is calculated. Combining the above equations generates the following
relation for electricity cost per kWh estimation:
TCI × CRF × ϕ
ZE = + Zf ($/kWh). (9)
Ẇ · H
Finally, the unit cost rate is calculated by (Massardo and Scialo 2000):
PEC · CRF · ϕ
Zr = ($/h). (10)
H × 3.6 × 105

4. Results and discussions

The results of the study on the effects of using different repowering options on the steam plants of
Iran are presented in Table 4. The following considerations are taken into account for obtaining
the parameters in this table:
(1) Units of the steam power plants in Iran, according to their capacities and specifications, are
located in different categories in column 3.
(2) Capacities of the gas turbines are obtained using the information given in Table 2 and Figure 1.
The fourth column of Table 4 presents some suitable gas turbine models for the implemen-
tation of repowering procedure in the steam power plants. As the gas turbine technological
development is improved, the result of repowering is also improved (Chase et al. 1991, Stoll
et al. 1994, Negri di Montenegro et al. 1996, Frankle 2006).
(3) Efficiency for HWBR and FWHR is calculated by the following formula using the data
presented in Table 2:
Ẇst,net + Ẇgt,net
ηnet = (%). (11)
ṁfb · LHVb + ṁfg · LHVgt
For HRBR, the following formula is used:

Ẇst,net + Ẇgt,net
ηnet = (%). (12)
ṁfg · LHVgt

The results are presented in the fifth column of Table 4.

(4) Heat rate range is obtained from the available experimental data given in Table 3. Heat rate
is directly related to fuel consumption. Therefore, the fuel cost per kWh depends on heat rate
and fuel consumption per kWh. As can be seen in Table 4, HRBR option has the lowest fuel
cost and the highest efficiency increase. HWBR and FWHR are, respectively, located after
HRBR in this regard. As previously mentioned, partial repowering options are not suitable
for low-capacity power plants. As seen in Table 4, small 64 MW power plants have the lowest
efficiency increase when HWBR and FWHR options are used for repowering. Figures in the
seventh column of Table 4 are calculated according to the subsidized fuel cost. The new plant
capacity (column 8) is determined based on the existing steam plant capacity and selected
(bolded) gas turbine.
Table 5 presents the techno-economic parameters in applying various repowering options.
Summation of OM and TCI for generating per kW electricity on the basis of common independent
variable (TCI in combined cycle construction (Power and Energy Planning Department, Iran
Ministry of Energy 2001, Sadri et al. 2005) is stated in the second column of this table. The
 8
Table 4. Effects of repowering on Iran steam power plants.

Unit capapcity Suitable gas Efficiency Heat rate Fuel cost New capacity Efficiency
Category (MW) turbine(s) range (%) range (kJ/kWh) ($/MWh) × 10 (MW) increase (%)
GT11N2, LMS100PA-NG, LMS100PA-NGW,
HRBR 1 60 LMS100PA-NGS, LMS100PA-NGD, JAPAN 37.4–45.4 7917–9614 10.6–12.88 175.4 5.6–13.6
GT, NPO SATURAN
82.5 V94.2 33.8–41.1 8751–10,627 11.7–14.2 241.9 5.1–12.4
120 GT24, STG5-3000E Unit 1 42.1–51.1 7042–8552 9.43–11.46 307.7 6.39–15.4
Unit 2 42.6–51.8 6946–8434 9.3–11.3 307.7 6.4–15.4
GT26, V934.3A, MS9351(FA), ALSTOM,
156.5 41.1–50 7206–8751 9.65–11.7 434.5 6.2–15.1
STG5-4000F, STG6-6000G
200 ×1 MITSUBISHI
×2 GT13E2, GT24, V94.2, PG9231(EC), STG6- 41.2–50 7189–8729 9.6–11.7 744.2 6.2–15
5000F
GT26, V94.3A, MS9351(FA), Japan GT, STG6-
4 315 ×2 45.9–55.8 6451–7834 8.6–10.5 877 6.9–16.8
6000G, STG5-4000F, ALSTOM

A. Mehrpanahi et al.
GT24, GT13E2, MS7241(FA), STG5-3000E,
315 ×3
STG6-6000F, PG9231(EC)
GT26, V94.3A, Japan GT, STG6-6000G, STG5-
320 ×2 Unit 1 43.8–53.2 6764–8214 9–11 882 6.6–16
4000F, ALSTOM
×3 GT24, GT13E2, MS7241(FA), STG5-3000E, Unit 2 42.6–51.8 6946–8434 9.3–11.3 882 6.4–15.6
STG6-6000F
368 ×2 MITSUBISHI 42.3–51.3 7007–8509 9.4–11.4 962.9 6.4–15.4
×3 HITACHI, STG6-5000F
×4 GT13E2, PG9231(EC),MS7241(FA), STG5-2000E
GT26, V94.3A, STG6-6000G, STG5-4000F,
440 ×3 41.1–50 7206-8750 9.6–11.7 1283 6.2–15.1
MS9351(FA), HITACHI, JAPAN GT
×4 GT24, STG6-5000F, STG5-3000E
HWBR 2 64∗ (6.4–19.2 MW) 31.9–33.6 10,691–11,258 14.32–15.8 80.5 2.7–4.4
64∗∗ LM1600PE-NGW
3 200∗ (30–60 MW) 40.3–42.7 8419–8915 11.28–11.94 258.4 5.3–7.7
LM6000PC-NGWS
250∗∗ (37.5–75 MW) 41.3–43.8 8214–8697 11–11.65 323.6 4.9–7.4
STG-1000F
5 315∗∗ (42.25–94.5 MW) MS7001EA 41.5–44 8176–8657 10.9–11.6 391 25.5–5
MS7001EA
320∗∗ (48–96 MW) 41.6–44.1 8162–8642 10.9–11.58 421.4 2.7–5.2
325∗∗ (48.75–97.5 MW) Unit 1 40.6–43 8364–8856 11.2–11.8 426.6 2.9–5.3
MS7001EA Unit 2 39.6–41.9 8581–9086 11.5–12.1 426.6 3.1–5.4
Table 4. (Continued).

International Journal of Sustainable Energy

Unit capapcity Suitable gas Efficiency Heat rate Fuel cost New capacity Efficiency
Category (MW) turbine(s) range (%) range (kJ/kWh) ($/MWh) × 10 (MW) increase (%)

FWHR 2 64∗ (6.4–19.2 MW) 31.2–32.7 10,979–11,589 14.7–15.5 76.6 2–3.5

64∗∗ SGT-300
3 200∗ 20–60 MW) LM2500+PK-MGW(6STG) 39–41.1 8742–9228 11.7–12.3 249.3 4–6.1
200∗ (20–60 MW) LM2500+PK-MGW(6STG) 39–41.1 8742–9228 11.7–12.3 249.3 4–6.1
250∗∗ (25–75 MW) LM6000PC-NGW 39.1–41.3 8707–9190 11.66–12.3 318.1 2.7–4.9
5 315∗∗ (31.5–92.5 MW) LM6000PC-NGWS 41.6–43.9 8202–8657 10.99–11.6 396.5 2.6–4.9
320∗∗ (32–96 MW) LM6000PC-NGWS 41.5–43.8 8215–8672 11–11.62 402 2.6–4.9
325∗∗ (32.5–97.5 MW) Unit 1 40.3–42.5 8454–8924 11.32–11.95 407.5 2.6–4.8
LM6000PC-NGWS Unit 2 39.1–41 8706–9189 11.6–12.3 407.5 2.6–4.5
∗
First scenario, new power plants with efficiencies less than the mean existing efficiency.
∗∗
Second scenario, new power plants are investigated regardless of their efficiency.

9
10 A. Mehrpanahi et al.

Figure 1. Suitable gas turbine(s) in different repowering options (Walters 1995, Ploumen et al. 1996).

Figure 2. Variation of efficiency vs. plant capacity due to HRBR implementation.

maximum and minimum coefficients of ‘x’ correspond to gas turbine power plant construction
and FWHR, respectively. The fuel cost in non-subsidized and subsidized scenarios is shown in the
fourth and fifth columns, respectively. The fuel cost of gas turbine power plants has the greatest
value in comparison to the other options. Efficiency of each option is presented in the sixth column.
It shows that combined cycle power plant has the highest efficiency and gas turbine power plant
has the lowest efficiency. The ratio of the fuel cost to other costs is shown in the last column.
Figures 2–4 show efficiency vs. plant capacity for the existing plants and the repowered plants
using the main three repowering options. HRBR provides the highest efficiency increase, while
FWHR provides the lowest efficiency increase.
As seen in columns 7 and 8 in Table 5, there is a large difference between the fuel cost in two
scenarios of using subsidized fuel and non-subsidized fuel. This effect is investigated using two
different methods. The first method is based on the ratio of the fuel cost to other costs (as in
Table 5), and the second method is based on the following equation which denotes the fuel cost
to the total power plant cost ratio:

Zf
Rfuel,TC = . (13)
(Zf ) + (ZOM + ZC )
 International Journal of Sustainable Energy 11

Table 5. Investigation of cost elements in different repowering options.

Zf
(ZC + ZOM )($/kWh) Zf × 10−4 ($/kWh) Zf × 10−4 ($/kWh) ηth,pp (ZC +ZOM )
Zf
(ZC +ZOM )

GT 1.939x–2.254x 122.3 16.8 28.7 0.814–0.946 0.111–0.13

HRBR 1.279x–1.55x 70.46–85.46 9.67–11.74 41–49.8 0.682–1.002 0.093–0.137
FWHR ∗ 0.287x–0.378x 89.98–94.64 12.36–13 37.1–39 3.571–4.947 0.49–0.679
∗∗ 86.3–91.14 11.86–12.52 38.5–40.6 3.425–4.764 0.47–0.654
HWBR ∗ 0.378x–0.574x 86.63–91.72 11.9–12.6 38.2–40.4 2.264–3.64 0.311–0.5
∗∗ 84.44–89.32 11.6–12.27 39.3–41.5 2.207–3.545 0.303–0.487
CC 1.775x 78 10.72 45 0.659 0.09

Notes:  demonstrates the case in non-subsidized fuel cost. x denotes the investment cost per kW for combined cycle power plants in Iran
(666.5 $/kW).

Figure 3. Variation of efficiency vs. plant capacity due to HWBR implementation.

Figure 4. Variation of efficiency vs. plant capacity due to FWHR implementation.

Effects of TCI variation for the maximum and minimum heat rate on Rfuel,TC have been shown
in Figures 5 and 6. For each repowering option, two cases of subsidized and non-subsidized fuel
costs are compared. Note that for the maximum TCI, Rfuel,TC is minimum and vice versa, because
TCI is in the denominator.
Cost per kWh of electricity generation for a gas turbine relative to the cost related to different
repowering options is expressed in columns 2 and 3 of Table 6 for two cases of subsidized and
non-subsidized fuel costs. Also, Figure 7 denotes the same results graphically. Column 4 of Table 6
shows the estimated potential for generating electricity by repowering options in Iran. Finally, the
ratio of the average unit cost rate for a gas turbine to other options is presented in the last column
of Table 6. Maximum and minimum values of the same ratio are graphically shown in Figure 8.
These values are calculated considering the difference between the capital cost and the purchased
equipment cost; in other words, the difference between the costs for the construction of a new
power plant and that of the power plant extension (repowering) (Tsatsaronis et al. 1996).
12 A. Mehrpanahi et al.

Figure 5. Effect of TCI variation on Rfuel,TC for maximum heat rate.

Figure 6. Effect of TCI variation on Rfuel,TC for minimum heat rate.

Table 6. Cost per kW of electricity generated by gas turbine, compared with corresponding cost for
repowering options.

Added capacity
according to
considered gas
ZE [gt] ZE [gt] turbine(s) in Zr [gt]
(%) (%) Table 4 (%)

HRBR 151.4 154.1 13,106 MW 226.5

FWHR ∗ 456.9 230.5 197.2 MW 969.5
∗∗ 459.2 237.3 1342 MW
HWBR ∗ 369.3 229.4 233.6 MW 738.5
∗∗ 371.45 222.9 1558 MW
CC 121.2 133.4 – 116.5
∗
First scenario, new power plants with efficiencies less than the mean existing efficiency.
∗∗
Second scenario, new power plants are investigated regardless of their efficiency.
 International Journal of Sustainable Energy 13

Figure 7. Relative cost of electricity generation of gas turbine to the other options.

Figure 8. Maximum and minimum values of gas turbine unit cost rate relative to the other options.

5. Conclusion

Omission of energy subsidies in Iran necessitates a profound investigation on different potential

scenarios for the future developments of the electric power generation. There are two main sce-
narios in this regard: construction of new gas turbine power plants and repowering of the existing
steam power plants. Among different repowering options, HRBR (besides a considerable increase
in output power by almost 13 GW) can increase the mean efficiency of present thermal power
plants significantly. This option has a great potential for being applied to present steam power
plants, considering steam power plants lifetime in Iran (more than 7 GW in studied scenarios).
Although the decrease in electricity generation cost in the HRBR method is not much different but
comparing to constructing combined cycles, the plant’s unit cost rate has dropped almost by half.
Although the partial repowering options have less potential comparing to HRBR but they have
much better economical and technical characteristics (Table 6). The decrement of the unit cost
rate of applying these options is one of the most significant advantages of applying these options
in comparison to other options, for example, the FWHR option unit cost rate is almost 10% of
14 A. Mehrpanahi et al.

constructing new gas turbine power plants. Noticing the above-mentioned points, it is completely
obvious that the application of repowering options are more justified than establishing new gas
turbine power plants in Iran, both technically and economically.

Nomenclature

CC combined cycle
Cf fuel cost ($/kJ)
CRF capital cost recovery factor
GT or gt gas turbine
HP high pressure
HRPP heat rate (kJ/kWh)
i interest rate
IP intermediate pressure
LHV low heat value (kcal/m3 )
LP low pressure
M annual fuel cost ($)
PE annual cost ($)
PEC purchased equipment cost
OM annual maintenance costs ($)
H annual operation time (h)
TCI TCI ($)
Ẇst,net , Ẇgt,net net steam turbine and gas turbine output (MW)
Zc , Zc capital investment cost ($/kWh)

ZOM , ZOM OM cost rate ($/kWh)
Zf , Zf fuel cost rate ($/kWh)
ZE , ZE total capital cost rate ($/kWh)
Zr unit cost rate ($/h)

Notes

1. Toos steam power plant and small units of Islamabad and Zarand power plants are not considered, because of their
low capacity and very long lifetime. Tabriz steam power plant is also neglected.
2. Four units of Toos steam power plant, a unit of Montazeri steam power plant and small units of Mashhad and Neka
steam power plants are not considered.
3. Rajaee steam power plant and newer units of Tabriz steam power plant are not considered for either partial repowering
or full repowering, because of their long lifetime.

References

Brandr, J.A. and Chase, D.L., 1992. Repowering application consideration. ASME – Journal of Engineering for Gas
Turbines and Power, 114, 643–652.
Chase, D.L., Kovacik, J.M., and Stoll, H.G., 1991. The economic of repowering steam turbines. GE Company.
Escosa, J.M. and Romeo, L.M., 2009. Optimization CO2 avoided cost by means of repowering. Applied Energy Journal,
86, 2351–2358.
Frangopoulos, C.A., 1983. Thermo-economic functional analysis: a method for optimal design or improvement of complex
thermal system. Thesis (PhD). Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.
Frankle, M., 2006. SRS: The standardized repowering solution for 300 MW steam power plants in Russia. Germany:
Siemens Power Generation (PG).
Gambini, M. and Guizzi, G.L., 1989. Repowering of steam power plants for medium-high increase of power generated.
Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, IEEE, 4 2491–2498.
Heyen, G. and Kalitventzeff, B., 1998. A comparison of advanced thermal cycles for upgrading existing power plant.
Applied Thermal Engineering Journal, 19(3), 227–237.
 International Journal of Sustainable Energy 15

Iran Ministry of Energy, 2008. Report regulation and competition in the market development of water and electricity
[online]. Available from: www.moe.org.ir.
Joyce, J.S., 1996. Parallel repowering of existing steam turbine plants with gas turbines to improve their operating
efficiency and environmental compatibility. Germany: Siemens AG, 31–45.
Kudlu, N., 1989. Major options and considerations for repowering with gas turbines, BETCHEL Project Report, Electric
Power Research Institute.
Massardo, A.F. and Scialo, M., 2000. Thermo-economic analysis of gas turbine based cycle. ASME – Journal of
Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, 122(4), 664–671.
Mehrevan, P.B., 2006. Gas turbine engineering handbook. 3rd ed. Gulf Professional Publishing.
Moore, T., 1995. Repowering as competitive strategy. EPRI Journal, September, 6–13.
Negri di Montenegro, G., Gambini, M., and Peretto, A., 1996. Intercooled and Brayton cycle gas turbines for steam power
plant hot windbox repowering. ASME, 98-GT-198.
Office of Energy Planning, Energy Affairs Department, Iran Ministry of Energy, 2006. Techno-economic information of
Iran power plants in 2006 [online]. Available from: www.iranenergy.org.ir.
Pace, S., Graces, D., and Stenzel, W., 1997. Strategic assessment of repowering, Interim Report, Electric Power Research
Institute. Available from: http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?Abstract_id=TR-106908
Ploumen, P.J., Veenema, J.J., and Epon, N.V., 1996. Dutch experience with hot windbox repowering. ASME, 96-GT-250.
Power and Energy Planning Department, Iran Ministry of Energy, 2001. Program 25-years in the country’s energy supply.
Power and Energy Planning Department, Iran Ministry of Energy, 2006, 2007. Iran energy balance sheet 2006 and 2007
[online]. Available from: http://pep.moe.org.ir.
Rives, J.D. and Catina, J., 1987. Repowering reheat units with gas turbines, Virginia Power Report.
Sadri, A.M., Sadeghzadeh, S.M., and Montasar, K. 2005. Gas turbine’s heat recovery investigation in Iran. Energy Affairs
Department, Iran Ministry of Energy [online]. Available from: www.iranenergy.org.ir.
Sanaye, S. and Hamzeie, Y., 2004. Modeling and techno-economic optimization of steam power plant repowering by
using gas turbine. 20th international power system conference, Tehran, Iran.
Sarabchi, K. and Nabati, H., 2000. Thermodynamics investigation of steam power plant conversion to combined cycle
power plant. 8th Iranian annual mechanical engineering conference. Tehran, Iran.
Shahnazari, M.R., Foroughi, D., and Fakhrian, H., 2003. Repowering of Lowshan power plant. IGTC conference, Tokyo.
Stenzel, W., Sopocy, D.M., and Pace, S., 1997. Repowering existing fossil steam plants. EPRI. Available from:
http://www.soapp.com/papers/Repowering_Fossil_Plants.pdf.
Stoll, H.G., Smith, R.W., and Tomlinson, L.O., 1994. Performance and economic considerations of repowering steam
power plants. GE Company.
Tavanir Organization, 2008. Iran Detailed statistics of electricity industry, for strategic management in 2008 [online].
Available from: www.amar.tavanir.org.ir.
Tsatsaronis, J., Bejan, A., and Michael, M., 1996. Thermal design and optimization. John Wiley & Sons Press.
Walters, A.B., 1995. Power plant topping cycle repowering. Energy Engineering Journal, 5, 49–71.
Walters, A.B., et al., 1988. Repowering options study. Florida Power & Light Company Report.