International Journal of Energetica (IJECA) https://www.ijeca.info ISSN: 2543-3717 Volume 6. Issue 2. 2021 Page 35-43 IJECA-ISSN: 2543-3717. December 2021 Page 35 4E (Energy-Exergy-Economic-Environmental) performances assessment of different configurations of power cycles Islem Meriche1, Adem Chemoul1, Taqiy Eddine Boukelia1,2* 1Mechanical Engineering Department, Jijel University, Jijel, ALGERIA 2 Mechanical and Advanced Materials Laboratory, Polytechnic School of Constantine, Constantine, ALGERIA Email *: taqy25000@hotmail.com Abstract – Steam power plants are alimented by different sources of energy including fossil fuels or renewable ones such as solar thermal, biomass or geothermal. Thus, thermodynamic, economic and environmental analyses of different steam power cycles are highly required for identification and choice of the most effective and viable layout to be adopted in the installation. Consequently, the main aim of the present paper is to compare five different configurations of power cycles in terms of energy and exergy efficiencies, fuel and cooling water consumptions, CO2 emissions rate, as well as investment and operating costs, and net present value (NPV). The obtained results present relevant differences; the energy and exergy efficiencies of the fifth configuration similar to the one of Achouat power station are the highest with 41.9% and 39.5% respectively. On the other hand, this configuration shows better environmental performances represented by CO2 emission (46.12 kg/s), and water consumption for cooling (7.42 m3/s). Economically, there is a clear convergence in the NPV values for configurations with Reheating and Regeneration processes. Moreover, the fourth configuration is the best in terms of net present value (NPV) of 103.1(M€). Keywords: 4E, Configuration, Power cycle, Performance, Steam power plant. Received: 06/08/2021 – Accepted: 30/10/2021 I. INTRODUCTION The world is witnessing major changes in the energy sector that control the joints of human daily life, and there is no doubt that energy based on fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas is the most important source of energy for human development. However, this type of energy is currently facing two main challenges; global climate change and harmful environmental effects. To meet these challenges, any energy conversion system must comply with the environmental laws and respect the emissions limits. In Algeria, the global demand for electricity has increased, especially during summer season and hot days, when consumption is at its peak. This increase is a direct result of a change in habits consumption and an increase in livelihoods, as well as the impetus given to economic and industrial sectors to meet Algeria's electricity needs. In 2017, the power generation based on steam power plants was about 10074 GWh, which represents a share of 12% of the total installed capacity [1]. Steam power plants have attended remarkable developments in order to improve their energy and exergy performances, and to reduce their economic risks and CO2 emissions. Steam power plants are alimented by different sources of energy, either fossil or renewable ones. This last type can be solar thermal, biomass or geothermal. Thus, thermodynamic, economic and environmental analyses of different steam power cycles are highly required for identification and choice of the most effective and viable configuration to be adopted in the installation. In this direction, a large number of studies have been presented to examine this concern. a group of researchers analyzed the thermodynamic performances of a steam power plant with reheating-regenerative technology [2]. The simulations were performed with a CyclePad V2.0 software package. They examined the effects of regeneration on the performance indicators of the steam plant by increasing the number of feed water heater from 1 to 10. The simulation results show that the thermal efficiency of the plant has increased by 8.3%. https://www.ijeca.info/ I. Meriche et al IJECA-ISSN: 2543-3717. December 2021 Page 36 Furthermore, another group of researchers analyzed the exergy and exergo-environmental performances of a 660 MW coal-fired supercritical steam power plant located in western India [3]. The study is based on the SPECO (Specific exergy costing) approach, which is followed in this case by exergo-economic analysis. The obtained results prove the possibility of attending a value of 35.54 % for the exergy efficiency; the cooling water and exhaust gases represent the environmental impact rate of 507.173 mPts s-1and 676.29 mPts s-1 respectively. On the other study [4], the same research team, used MATLAB programming software and performed an economic and exergo-economic analysis of the 660 MW coal-fired supercritical units. The economic analysis is carried out using the net present value method. The results of the economic analysis established that the payback period of the plant is estimated at 4.5 years for 9% of the interest rate. In another numerical study performed a complete thermodynamic analysis of an 82 MW steam power plant. They developed an EES code to assess the energy loss, energy efficiency, exergy efficiency and exergy destruction for each part of the installation, by considering the range of actual values of the operating parameters. It has been observed that the energy and exergy efficiencies of this plant are 35.95% and 33.15% respectively [5]. Moreover, the maximum energy loss occurs in the boiler, (approximately 36.39%). Using the thermodynamic properties of steam, an investigation to show via a code developed under EES environment, the energy and exergy efficiencies of an existing commercial thermal power plant, and values of 38% and 53% respectively have been recorded. In addition, the monetary expenditure, the costs of exergy losses and the exergo-economic factors of the power plant units were calculated, and a maximum cost of exergy losses in the boiler of 758.32 $/h has been obtained [6]. On the other hand, a study concluded conducted technical and economic evaluations of the use or non-use of low- and high-pressure feed water heaters in different situations [7]. In a research lab, they used the pinch analysis method to integrate energy into the steam cycle of a 250 MW steam power plant located in Rajasthan, India [8]. The recovery of the steam cycle is carried out according to six schemes. By using this approach, the generated power is increased by 0.55%, and the demand for demineralised water is reduced by 57.6%. Furthermore, the exergy analysis shows that the boiler has maximum exergy destruction with a share of 89% of the whole steam power plant. An investigation used TRNSYS programming software to design a numerical model of a thermal power plant based on parabolic trough solar technology. The energy performance of the system was compared for two cases, the Rankine cycle with and without a solar field [9]. a fairly recent study performed a techno-economic analysis of deploying an aero- condenser in a concentrating solar power (CSP) plant with two configurations; the first is based on thermic oil as the working fluid, and the second is utilizing molten salt[10]. However, according to our knowledge, a 4E comparative study (Energy-Exergy-Economic- Environmental) between different layouts of Steam Rankine power cycle is not found in the literature. Consequently, the main aim of the present work is to compare five different configurations of this type of power cycles in terms of energy and exergy efficiencies, consumed fuel, CO2 emissions, cooling water consumption, as well as investment and operating costs, net present value (NPV) and depreciated payback period (DPP). II. DATA AND METHODOLOGY II.1. Studied Configurations 4E (Energy- Exergy-Economic-Environmental) is a comparative study of five different configurations of a power cycle was carried out in order to choose the best configuration to adapt in CSP, geothermal and biomass thermal power plants. These layouts are listed below: • Basic Rankine Cycle (1); • Regenerative Rankine Cycle (2); • Rankine Cycle with Reheating (3); • Rankine Cycle with Reheating and Regeneration on both turbines (LPT and HPT) (4); • Similar Rankine Cycle of a real steam power plant (Achouat- Jijel, Algeria) (5). The five studied configurations have the same net capacity of 210 MW to have a common ground for comparison. However, due to the addition of different processes in each configuration, differences in thermodynamic performances, economic and environmental parameters arise. Therefore, the five configurations are compared in terms of energy and exergy efficiencies, consumed fuel, CO2 emissions, cooling water consumption, as well as investment & operating costs, net present value (NPV) and depreciated payback period (DPP). The Table 1 summarises the assumptions and the nominal values of the design for the main parameters within the five studied configurations [11]. I. Meriche et al IJECA-ISSN: 2543-3717. December 2021 Page 37 Table 1. Nominal values for the main parameters in the studied configurations [10,11] parameters Value units Ambient conditions: Temperature/ Pressure 25/ 1.01325 °C/ bar HPT input conditions: Temperature/ Pressure 540/ 127.5 °C/ bar LPT input conditions: Temperature/ Pressure 540/ 23.48 °C/ bar Isentropic efficiency of turbines 88 % Mechanical efficiency of turbines 97.5 % Isentropic efficiency of pumps 87 % Generator efficiency 98 % Fuel lower calorific value 28938 kJ/kg Condensing pressure 0.0527 bar Outlet temperature of the reheater 540 °C Power generated by the plant 210 Mw Number of service hours per year 7000 hr/yr II.2. Mathematical Modeling The Cycle-Tempo 5.1 Software has been used to simulate the thermodynamic performances (energetic and exergetic). On the other hand, using MATLAB software [12,13], mathematical codes have been developed to simulate the economic and environmental performances of these investigated configurations. II.2.1. Thermodynamics modelling The energy analysis of every sub-system of the installation is based on the conservation of mass and energy (the first law of thermodynamics): outin   mm  (1) (1) hmWhmQ outoutinin    (2) On the other hand, the general formula to present the exergy analysis can be formulated as: outoutinin exmxEexmxE WQ    (3) (3) The exergy of a substance can be partitioned into four segments. The two most significant are physical exergy and chemical exergy [14]. In this study, the other two parts; kinetic exergy and potential exergy are negligible. ChmPh xExExE   (4)    000 SSThhmxE Ph   (5) (4)          00 ln i i n i iChm y y TRmxE  (6) Table 2 presents the main equations for each component of the studied configurations. Table 2. Main equations used to perform the thermodynamic analysis for each component of the configurations Component Equation Boiler Exergy produced tm water tm steamBoilerprd xExExE  , Exergy source chm fuelBoilersrc xExE  , Condenser Exergy produced inpoutpCONprd xExExE ,,,   Exergy source outsinsCONsrc xExExE ,,,   Turbines Power )( outinsteamTub hhmW    Exergy produced TubTubprd WxE  , Exergy source tm out tm inTubsrc xExExE  , Pump Power )( inoutwaterPum hhmW    Exergy produced PumPumprd WxE  , Exergy source inoutPumsrc xExExE  , Feed water heater Exergy produced inpoutpFWHprd xExExE ,,,   Exergy source outsinsFWHsrc xExExE ,,,   Deaerator Exergy produced inpoutpDESprd xEexmxE ,, )(   Exergy source )(,, soutinsDESsrc mexxExE    Exergy efficiency src prd xE xE EX    Electric power GenTubele WW   Net power Pumelenet WWW   II.2.2. Economic modelling In the present study, the economic analysis of the five configurations was carried out on the basis of the initial investment (Є), the operating cost (Є/year), the annual income obtained (Є/year), the net present value (NPV) (Є) and depreciated payback period (DPP) (years) [15]. The initial investment can be expressed in terms of the cost of every individual component as follows: )( inddTot CCI  (7) The total direct plant costs: eqpd CC )1(  (8) Where: µ, is the factor of direct installation, µ= 0.3. σ, is the factor of auxiliary services, σ= 0.15. δ, is the factor of instrumentation and controls, δ=0.1. ε, is the preparation site factor, ε=0.1. The total indirect plant costs: eqpind CC )(  (9) Where: I. Meriche et al IJECA-ISSN: 2543-3717. December 2021 Page 38 ∂, is the engineering factor, ∂ = 0.12. ℓ, is the start-up factor, ℓ= 0.1. The initial cost of equipment: i b ieqp WaC ])([  (10) The specific coefficients a and b are given in Table 3. Table 3. Constants to determine the cost of each component of the plant presented [15]. Components a b Boiler 1340000 0.694 Turbines 633000 0.398 Condenser 398000 0.333 Condensate extraction pumps 9000 0.4425 Feed pump 35000 0.6107 Pump 28 000 0.5575 Feed water heater 51 000 0.5129 Deaerator 17 100 0.5575 Generator 138300 0.3139 The total annual operating cost (COopr), is obtained on an annual basis, including the cost of operating labor (COlab), the cost of purchasing fuel (COf), the cost of servicing and maintenance (COm), insurance and general costs (COinscgen). minscgenmlabfuelopr CCCCCC   (11) The annual cost of purchasing fuel (COf) : hrCGVfuel PC  (12) Where CGp, is the price of fuel (natural gas) on the Algerian market is set by the value 2 €/MWh [16]. The annual cost of operating labor is given by the following formula: Cnlab labAvrC ,emp (13) The annual cost of insurance and general costs: Totinscgen IC 0.025 (14) The insurance costs are considered as 2.5 % of the total fixed cost [15]. The annual cost of maintenance is given by the following formula: Totm IC 0.05  (15) The annual cost of maintenance considered as 5 % of the total fixed cost [15]. The annual revenues (Rann) from the generated power: pann CEhrWR  (16) Where: ξ as 90 %, takes into account the energy needs of auxiliary equipment [15], CEP is the current price of electricity on the Algerian market is set by the value 33 Є/MW [16], while hr represent number of service hours per year. Finally, net present value is formulated as:     Tot N j j joprann I r COR NPV      1 (17) Where: r and N are the discount rate (9%) and the life of the plant (35 years) respectively [15], [17]. II.2.3. Environmental modeling This study also examines the environmental impacts including the CO2 emissions, and the cooling water consumptions. The general expression for the combustion of methane is written based on stochiometric combustion:   OHNCONOCH 222224 23.6767.32  (18) The cooling water consumption was also investigated by calculating the mass flow rate (ṁc) as: )T(TCp Lm m c,c,c vh c outin     (19) III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION III.1. Validation In order to confirm the credibility of the developed model, its performances are evaluated by comparing the obtained results using the energy model with those of real data given by the manufacturer of Achouat-Jijel plant. Table 4 represents the statistical comparison between the two based on the relative error at some points. The error of the mass flow rate of the steam goes from a minimum value of 0.09% at the inlet of the boiler to a maximum value of 13.92% at the outlet of the condenser. On the other hand, the pressure error varies from a minimum value of 0% at the majority of the main points, to a maximum value of 3.01% at the outlet of HPT. In addition, the maximum temperature error is 2.94% at the outlet of the deaerator. Table 4. Statistical comparison between the manufacturer's data and the results of the model. Point Parameter Manufacturer data Model results Error (%) Boiler inlet T (°C) 244 242.9 0.45 P (bar) 178.5 178.5 0 ṁ (kg/s) 171.5 171.66 0.09 HPT outlet T (°C) 329 321.29 2.39 P (bar) 26.7 27.53 3.01 ṁ (kg/s) 160.27 165.92 3.4 Condenser outlet T (°C) 33.5 33.81 0.91 P (bar) 0.0527 0.0527 0 ṁ (kg/s) 125.25 145.52 13.92 Deaerator outlet T (°C) 169.2 164.37 2.94 P (bar) 6.9 6.9 0 ṁ (kg/s) 171.5 171.66 0.09 I. Meriche et al IJECA-ISSN: 2543-3717. December 2021 Page 39 III.2. 4E comparative study between the five configurations According to the Figures 1-5, it can be noticed that the quality of the steam at the outlet of the LPT is much better in the cycles which include the heating system than in the other cycles (Basic cycle, Regenerative cycle). The quality varies from a minimum value of 85.51% for the simple cycle, to a maximum value of 94.84% for the fourth configuration; this positive variation is due to the reheating system that works to improve the quality of steam at the LPT. On the other hand, it can be noticed that the steam mass flow in the system decreases when using the reheating system, which goes from a value of 173.5 kg/s in the simple cycle to 144.27 kg/s in the reheating cycle, while the value in the presence of regeneration processes is 154.55 kg/s. Furthermore, due to the addition of different processes in each configuration, differences in performance (energy and exergy), and economic and environmental parameters arise. These differences are shown in Table 5. Furthermore, Figure 6 shows the evolution of NPV with the lifetime of the installation with the five layouts. Table 5. 4E comparative analysis of the five configurations. Configurations 1 2 3 4 5 Energy efficiency (%) 35.74 37.41 38.31 40.02 41.09 Exergy efficiency (%) 33.7 35.26 36.11 37.73 39.5 Fuel consumption (kg/s) 19.7 18.9 18.32 17.61 16.81 CO2 Emissions (kg/s) 54.04 51.85 50.26 48.31 46.12 Cooling water usage (m3/s) 9.64 8.99 8.56 8.01 7.42 Investment cost (M€) 119.87 119.87 121.76 123.24 132.12 Operating cost (M€/yr) 23.26 22.7 22.46 22.23 21.69 NPV (M€) 96 102 102.2 103.1 100 DPP (years) 8.7 8.3 8.4 8.5 9 Figure 1. Stream at each point of the basic Configuration. Figure 2. Stream at each point of the Configuration with Reheating. Figure 3. Stream at each point of the Regenerative Configuration. I. Meriche et al IJECA-ISSN: 2543-3717. December 2021 Page 40 Figure 4. Stream at each point of the configuration with Reheating and Regeneration on both turbines (LPT and HPT). Figure 5. Stream at each point of the fifth configuration. Figure 6. Evolution of NPV with lifetime of the installation with the five layouts. I. Meriche et al IJECA-ISSN: 2543-3717. December 2021 Page 41 From Table 5, it seems that the fifth configuration (similar to Achouat plant) has the highest energy and exergy performances, with values of 41.9% and 39.5% respectively, therefore energy and exergy gains of 6.16% and 5.8% respectively are attained compared to the simple cycle (configuration 1). This explains the essential role of regeneration and reheating systems in the process of improving the performances of steam power plants. On the environmental point of view, and according to Table 5, the fifth configuration is always the best, with a fuel consumption of 16.81 kg/s, which refers to a decrease of 2.89 kg/s compared to the first configuration, and 0.8 kg/s compared to the fourth configuration. In addition, the fifth configuration has the lowest rate of CO2 emissions with a value of 46.12 kg/s, which represents a decrease of 7.93 kg compared to the first configuration, and 2.19 kg compared to the fourth one. On the other hand, the fifth configuration always remains the best configuration in term of water consumption for the cooling process, with the lowest value of 7.42 m3/s, with a saving of 2.22 m3/s compared to the simple cycle (first configuration). This difference is due to the decreasing in the mass flow rate of the steam at the outlet of the low-pressure turbine (LPT). In the economic dimension, there is an increase in the investment cost, when different thermal equipment are added to the plant, with a minimum value of almost 119.9 million Euros (M€) for the simple cycle (configuration 1), and a maximum value of 132.12 million Euros for the fifth configuration, thus, a difference of 12.25 M€ between the two layouts. On the other hand, the annual operating cost improves as the thermal equipment increases with a minimum value of 21.69 M€/year for the fifth configuration and a maximum value of 23.26 M€/year for the first configuration, and this is mainly due to the amount of fuel consumed. From Figure 6, it can be observed a clear convergence in the NPV in configurations with Reheating and Regeneration. The net present value is 1.07 times greater for the fourth configuration than the first one; with a maximum value in the fourth configuration recorded 103.1 million Euros and the minimum value in the first configuration 96 million Euros. In addition, it is noted the shortest depreciated payback period (DPP) for the second configuration is 8.3 years; this is mainly due to the low investment cost. The longest depreciated payback period (DPP), it goes back to the fifth configuration, 9 years. After this period, the plant begins to make a profit. IV. Conclusion In this study, 4E (Energy - Exergy- Economic- Environmental) comparative study of five different configurations of a power cycle was performed. Thus, a validation was carried out to verify the reliability of the developed model compared to real data of Achouat power plant. The results indicate relevant differences; the energy and exergy efficiencies of the Achouat power station are the highest with values of 41.9% and 39.5% respectively, while the worst configuration was that of the basic cycle with the values of 35.74% and 33.7% respectively. On the other hand, Achouat's configuration shows better environmental performance represented by the CO2 emission rate and the cooling water usage. The net present value is 1.07 times greater for the fourth configuration than the first configuration. In addition, it is noted from the predictions that the shortest depreciated payback period (DPP) for the second configuration is 8.3 years. As for the longest depreciated payback period (DPP), it goes back to the fifth configuration, 9 years. After this period, the plant begins to make a profit. I. Meriche et al IJECA-ISSN: 2543-3717. December 2021 Page 42 Nomenclature C Cost (€) ṁout Outlet mass flow rate (kg/s) CAvr,lab Average labour cost (€) ṁp Mass flow rate of a primary fluid (kg/s) Cd Direct cost (€) ṁs Mass flow rate of a secondary fluid (kg/s) Ceqp Total cost of equipments (€) ṁsteam Mass flow rate of steam (kg/s) Ceqp i Initial cost of equipment (€) ṁwater Mass flow rate of water (kg/s) Cind Indirect cost (€) N Number (-) Copr Operating cost (€) NPV Net present value (€) Cpc Heat capacity of cooling water (kJ/K) nemp Number of employees (-) CEp Electric price (€) Q Heat quantity (Mw) CGp Gas price (€) R Ideal gas constant (kJ/mol.K) COf Fuel cost (€) Rann Annual revenues (€) COinscgen Insurance and general costs (€) r Discount rate (%) COlab Labor cost (€) S Entropy (kJ/K) COm Maintenance cost (€) S0 Specific entropy (kJ/kg. K) Ėx Exergy (Mw) T Temperature (°C) ĖxChm Chemical exergy (Mw) T0 Ambient temperature (°C) Ėxin Inlet exergy (Mw) Tc,in Inlet temperature of cooling water (°C) ĖxPh Physical exergy (Mw) Tc,out Outlet temperature of cooling water (°C) Ėxprd Product exergy (Mw) V Volume flow rate (m 3/h) ĖxQ Heat exergy (Mw) Ẇ Power (Mw) Ėxsrc Source exergy (Mw) Ẇele Electrical Power (Mw) Ėxtm Thermo-mechanical exergy (Mw) Ẇnet Net Power (Mw) ĖxW Work exergy (Mw) ẆPum Pump Power (Mw) ex Specific exergy (kJ/kg) ẆTub Turbine Power (Mw) exin Specific inlet exergy (kJ/kg) y Molar fraction (-) exout Specific outlet exergy (kJ/kg) Abbreviation h Enthalpy (kJ/kg) CON Condenser h0 Specific enthalpy (kJ/kgK) CSP Concentrating solar power hin Inlet enthalpy (kJ/kg) DES Deaerator hout Outlet enthalpy (kJ/kg) DDP depreciated payback period hr Number of service hours per year (Hour/years) FWH Feed water heater ITot Total investment cost (€) HPT Haut pressure turbine Lv Latent heat (kJ/kg) Gen Generator ṁ Mass flow rate (kg/s) LPT Low pressure turbine ṁc Mass flow rate of cooling water (kg/s) Pum Pump ṁh Mass flow rate of heat fluid (kg/s) Tot Total ṁin Inlet mass flow rate (kg/s) Tub Turbine References [1] Ministry of Energy (Algeria), https://www.energy.gov.dz/ [2] S.O. Oyedepo et al, "Thermodynamics analysis and performance optimization of a reheat –Regenerative steam turbine power plant with feed water heater", Fuel, Vol. 280, 2020. 118577. [3] K.C. Nikam, R. Kumar, R. Jilte, "Exergy and exergo- environmental analysis of a 660 MW supercritical coal- fired power plant", J Therm Anal Calorim, 2020. [4] K.C. Nikam, R. Kumar, R. Jilte, "Economic and exergoeconomic investigation of 660 MW coal-fired power plant", J Therm Anal Calorim, 2020. [5] V. Kumar, B. Pandya, V. Matawala, "Thermodynamic studies and parametric effects on exergetic performance of a steam power plant", International Journal of Ambient Energy, Vol. 40, Issue 1, 2017, pp. 1- 45. [6] A. Bolatturk, A. Coskun, C. Geredelioglu, "Thermodynamic and exergoeconomic analysis of Cayırhan thermal power plant", Energy Conversion and Management, Vol. 101, 2015, pp. 371–378. [7] S.N. Naserabad, A. Mehrpanahi, G. Ahmadi, "Multi- objective optimization of feed-water heater arrangement options in a steam power plant repowering", Journal of cleaner production, Vol. 220, 2019, pp. 253–270. [8] S.S. Chauhan, S. Khanam, "Enhancement of efficiency for steam cycle of thermal power plants using process integration", Energy, Vol. 173, 2019, pp. 364–373. [9] A. Remlaoui, M. Benyoucef, D. Assi, D. Nehari, "A TRNSYS dynamic simulation model for a parabolic trough solar thermal power plant", Int. J. Energetica, Vol. 4, Issue 2, 2019, pp. 36-41. [10] T.E. Boukelia, M.S. Mecibah, A. Laouafi, A. Mekroud, A. Bouraoui, "Potential assessment of using dry cooling I. Meriche et al IJECA-ISSN: 2543-3717. December 2021 Page 43 mode in two different solar thermal power plants", Int. J. Energetica, Vol. 2, Issue 2, 2017, pp. 18-24. [11] Data catalog. Available at Achouat power station. [12] Asymptote. Cycl-Tempo, http://www.asimptote.nl [13] MathWorks. MATLAB, https://www.mathworks.com [14] I. Dincer, " Comprehensive Energy Systems", Elsevier, 1st edition 2018, ISBN 978-0-12-809597-3. [15] A.C. Caputo, M. Palumbo, P.M. Pelagagge, F Scacchia, "Economics of biomass energy utilization in combustion and gasification plants: Effect of logic variables", Biomass and bio energy, Vol. 28, 2005, pp. 35–51. [16] Global Petrol Prices, https://fr.globalpetrolprices.com/ [17] R. Kumar, A.K. Sharma, P.C. Tewari, "Cost analysis of a coal-fired power plant using the NPV method", J Ind Eng Int, Vol. 11, 2015, pp. 495–504. I. Introduction II. Data and Methodology II.2.1. Thermodynamics modelling II.2.2. Economic modelling II.2.3. Environmental modeling III. Results and Discussion IV. Conclusion Nomenclature References