Exergy Int. J.

1(3) (2001) 180192

www.exergyonline.com

Energy- and exergy-based comparison of coal-red

and nuclear steam power plants
Marc A. Rosen
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ryerson Polytechnic University, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada

(Received 3 February 2000, accepted 2 April 2000)

Abstract The results are reported of energy- and exergy-based comparisons of coal-red and nuclear electrical generating stations.
Abstract

A version of a process-simulation computer code, previously enhanced by the author for exergy analysis, is used. Overall energy
and exergy eciencies, respectively, are 37% and 36% for the coal-red process, and 30% and 30% for the nuclear process. The
losses in both plants exhibit many common characteristics. Energy losses associated with emissions (mainly with spent cooling water)
account for all of the energy losses, while emission-related exergy losses account for approximately 10% of the exergy losses. The
remaining exergy losses are associated with internal consumptions, mainly in components which generate heat by combustion or
nuclear reactions, and in components which transfer heat across large temperature dierences. It is anticipated that the results will
prove useful to those involved in the improvement of existing and design of future electrical generating stations. 2001 ditions
scientiques et mdicales Elsevier SAS

Nomenclature
P
Q
Renergy
Rexergy
T

pressure
heat
net station condenser energy (heat) rejection rate
net station condenser exergy rejection rate
temperature

Greek symbols

energy efficiency
exergy efficiency

Subscripts
max
o

maximum
reference-environment state

1. INTRODUCTION
In this paper, a thermodynamic comparison of coalfired and nuclear electrical generating stations is performed using energy and exergy analyses. The comparisons are intended to identify areas where the potential

E-mail address: mrosen@acs.ryerson.ca (M.A. Rosen).

180

for performance improvement is high, and trends which

may aid in the design of future stations.
The coal-fired Nanticoke Generating Station (NGS)
and the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station (PNGS)
are selected as the representative stations on which the
comparisons are based [13]. Both stations are located
in Ontario, Canada and are operated by the provincial
electrical utility, Ontario Power Generation (formerly
Ontario Hydro). Reasons these stations are selected
include the following:
the individual units in each station have similar net
outputs (approximately 500 MWe);
a substantial base of operating data has been obtained
for them over several years (NGS has been operating
since 1981, and PNGS since 1971);
they are representative of present technology; and
they operate in similar physical environments.
Energy and exergy analyses [411] are used to perform thermodynamic performance comparisons in the
present study. Energy analysis is based on the first law
of thermodynamics, which is concerned with the conservation of energy. Exergy analysis is based on the second law, and generally allows process inefficiencies to
be better pinpointed than does an energy analysis, and
2001 ditions scientiques et mdicales Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved
S1164-0235(01)00024-3/FLA

M.A. Rosen / Exergy Int. J. 1(3) (2001) 180192

efficiencies to be more rationally evaluated. Many researchers [411] propose that the thermodynamic performance of a process is best evaluated with exergy analysis.
Exergy is the work which can be produced by a stream or
system as it is brought into equilibrium with a reference
environment, and can be thought of as a measure of the
quality (or usefulness) of energy, work having the highest
quality. Exergy is consumed during real processes, and
conserved during ideal processes. The exergy consumption during a process is proportional to the entropy created due to process irreversibilities.
Applications of exergy analysis have increased in
recent years, and have included investigations of coalfired electricity generation using conventional [1220],
fluidized-bed combustion [21, 22] and combined-cycle
[2327] systems, as well as cogeneration [2830] and
nuclear electricity generation [3134].
The work reported here forms part of a broader program by the author to investigate the thermodynamics
of production processes for electricity [20, 21, 31, 32],
and hydrogen and hydrogen-derived fuels [20, 35]. The
present work is a direct extension of previous studies
from that program on conventional nuclear [31, 32] and
coal-fired [20] electrical generation. In addition to these
processes for electricity generation, it is noted that the
author has investigated, as part of the program, several
advanced electrical generating processes, including pressurized fluid-bed combustion systems [21] and integrated
coal-gasification combined cycles [27], and several cogeneration processes [29, 30]. Although others have performed exergy-based analyses of electrical generating
stations [1219, 2226, 33, 34], the present work, by directly comparing coal-fired and nuclear systems based on
energy and exergy information, extends and broadens the
results of these studies. A preliminary comparison by the
author of coal-fired and nuclear electricity generation is
presented elsewhere [35].

2. PROCESS DESCRIPTIONS
Detailed flow diagrams for single units of NGS and
PNGS are shown in figure 1. The symbols identifying
the streams are described in table I(a,b), and the main
process data in table II. Process descriptions reported
previously [13] for each are summarized below, in terms
of the four main sections identified in the caption of
figure 1.

2.1. Steam generation

Heat is produced and used to generate and reheat

steam. In NGS, eight pulverized-coal-fired natural circulation steam generators each produce 453.6 kgs1 steam
at 16.89 MPa and 538 C, and 411.3 kgs1 of reheat
steam at 4.00 MPa and 538 C. Air is supplied to the
furnace by two 1080 kW 600-rpm motor-driven forced
draft fans. Regenerative air preheaters are used. The flue
gas passes through an electrostatic precipitator rated at
99.5% collection efficiency, and exits the plant through
two multi-flued, 198 m high chimneys. In each unit of
PNGS, natural uranium is fissioned in the presence of a
moderator to produce heat, which is transferred from the
reactor to the boiler in the Primary Heat Transport Loop
(PTHL). The flow rate of pressurized heavy water (D2 O)
in the PTHL is 7724 kgs1 . The D2 O is heated from
249 C and 9.54 MPa to 293 C and 8.82 MPa in the nuclear reactor. Light-water steam (815 kgs1 at 4.2 MPa
and 251 C) is produced in the boiler and transported
through the secondary heat transport loop. Spent fuel is
removed from the reactor, and heat generated in the moderator is rejected.

2.2. Power production

The steam produced in the Steam Generation section is passed through a series of turbine generators
which are attached to a transformer. Extraction steam
from several points on the turbines preheats feedwater in several low- and high-pressure heat exchangers and one spray-type open deaerating heat exchanger.
The low-pressure turbines exhaust to the condenser at
5 kPa. Each unit of NGS has a 3600-rpm, tandemcompound, impulse-reaction turbine generator containing one single-flow high-pressure cylinder, one doubleflow intermediate-pressure cylinder and two double-flow
low-pressure cylinders. Steam exhausted from the highpressure cylinder is reheated in the combustor. Each unit
of PNGS has an 1800-rpm, tandem-compound, impulsereaction turbine generator containing one double-flow
high-pressure cylinder, and three double-flow low-pressure cylinders. Steam exhausted from the high-pressure
cylinder passes through a moisture separator and a closed
reheater (which uses steam from the boiler as the heat
source).

181

M.A. Rosen / Exergy Int. J. 1(3) (2001) 180192

Figure 1. Process diagrams for single units of: (a) NGS, and (b) PNGS. The ow of uranium into and out of the nuclear reactor, and
the net heat delivered, are indicated. Lines exiting turbines represent ows of extraction steam. Stream S16 in gure 1 (b) represents
the mixed contents of the four indicated ows of extraction steam. The diagrams are each divided into four main sections: steam
generation (device A for NGS, and devices A-D for PNGS); power production (devices B-E for NGS, and E-I for PNGS); condensation
(device F for NGS, and J for PNGS); and preheating (devices G-K for NGS, and K-P for PNGS).

182

M.A. Rosen / Exergy Int. J. 1(3) (2001) 180192

TABLE Ia
Stream data for a unit in NGS.

Stream
S1
S2
S3***
S4
S5A
S8
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S20
S21
S22
S25
S33
S34
S35
S36
S37
S38
S39
S40
S41
S42
Q5
Q6
P1
P8
P15

Mass flow rate*

(kgs1 )
41.74
668.41
710.15
710.15
453.59
42.84
367.85
367.85
58.82
18 636.00
18 636.00
410.75
367.85
410.75
15.98
26.92
309.62
10.47
23.88
12.72
11.16
58.23
367.85
453.59
453.59
453.59

Temperature
( C)
15.00
15.00
1673.59
119.44
538.00
323.36
35.63
35.73
188.33
15.00
23.30
323.36
360.50
538.00
423.23
360.50
35.63
253.22
209.93
108.32
60.47
55.56
124.86
165.86
169.28
228.24

Pressure
(Nm2 )
1.01 105
1.01 105
1.01 105
1.01 105
1.62 107
3.65 106
4.50 103
1.00 106
1.21 106
1.01 105
1.01 105
3.65 106
1.03 106
4.00 106
1.72 106
1.03 106
4.50 103
3.79 105
2.41 105
6.89 104
3.45 104
1.33 104
1.00 106
1.00 106
1.62 107
1.62 107

Vapor
fraction**
SOLID
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.93
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Energy flow rate

(MW)
1367.58
0.00
1368.00
74.39
1585.28
135.44
36.52
37.09
50.28
0.00
745.95
1298.59
1211.05
1494.16
54.54
88.64
774.70
32.31
71.73
35.77
30.40
11.37
195.94
334.86
347.05
486.75
5.34
5.29
0.57
523.68
12.19

Exergy flow rate

(MW)
1426.73
0.00
982.85
62.27
718.74
51.81
1.20
1.70
11.11
0.00
10.54
496.81
411.16
616.42
20.02
30.09
54.07
9.24
18.82
7.12
5.03
0.73
30.41
66.52
77.57
131.93
0.00
0.00
0.57
523.68
12.19

The composition of all streams is 100% H2 O, except that, on a volume basis, the composition of S1 is 100% carbon, of S2 is 79% N2 and
21% O2 , and of both S3 and S4 is 79% N2 , 6% O2 and 15% CO2 .
** Vapour fraction is listed as 0.0 for liquids and 1.0 for superheated vapours.
*** S3 (not shown in figure 1) represents the hot product gases for adiabatic combustion.

2.3. Condensation
Cooling water from Lake Ontario condenses the steam
exhausted from the turbines. The flow rate of cooling
water is adjusted so that a specified temperature rise in
the cooling water is achieved across the condenser.

(feedwater heaters). (The overall efficiency of the station

is increased by raising the temperature of the feedwater
to an appropriate level before heat is added to the cycle
in the steam generation section.)

3. APPROACH
2.4. Preheating
The temperature and pressure of the feedwater are
increased in a series of pumps and heat exchangers

The analyses and comparisons of NGS and PNGS are

performed using a computer code developed by enhancing a state-of-the-art process simulator, Aspen Plus [36],

183

M.A. Rosen / Exergy Int. J. 1(3) (2001) 180192

TABLE Ib
Stream data for a unit in PNGS.

Stream
S1
S2
S3A
S4
S5A
S6
S7
S9
S10
S11
S12A
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
S21
S22
S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
S29
S39
S40
Q1
Q2
Q9
Q10
P1
P2
P3
P4
P8
*

Mass flow rate*

(kgs1 )
7724.00
7724.00
7724.00
1000.00
1000.00
1956.83
1956.83
698.00
603.00
61.00
61.00
55.00
603.00
83.00
498.00
22.00
83.00
581.00
581.00
581.00
150.00
150.00
753.00
753.00
753.00
24 073.00
24 073.00
95.00
753.00

Temperature
( C)
291.93
249.38
249.00
64.52
43.00
15.00
26.00
151.83
160.00
254.00
254.00
176.66
237.97
60.81
23.32
186.05
60.81
23.32
23.40
100.20
134.00
134.17
123.69
124.20
163.94
15.00
26.00
160.00
254.00

Pressure
(Nm2 )
8.82 106
9.60 106
8.32 106
1.01 105
1.01 105
1.01 105
1.01 105
5.00 105
5.00 105
4.25 106
4.25 106
9.28 106
4.50 105
2.07 104
2.86 103
2.55 105
2.07 104
2.86 103
1.48 106
1.40 106
3.04 105
1.48 106
1.40 106
5.40 106
5.35 106
1.01 105
1.01 105
6.18 105
4.25 106

Vapor
fraction**
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.88
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.90
1.0
0.95
0.90
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.03
1.0

Energy flow rate

(MW)
9548.21
7875.44
7861.16
207.02
117.02
0.00
90.00
1705.50
1629.83
166.88
63.57
138.70
1733.17
204.00
1125.10
61.06
15.89
20.15
211.55
207.88
75.04
75.27
344.21
347.93
476.02
0.00
1107.20
75.70
2060.02
1673.00
90.00
5.56
5.50
14.28
3.73
1.00
0.23
544.78

Exergy flow rate

(MW)
2984.23
2201.64
2188.64
15.99
5.34
0.00
1.67
500.40
476.54
64.62
17.78
44.60
508.35
28.10
44.40
16.03
1.13
0.17
1.13
26.50
12.29
12.50
53.16
56.53
96.07
0.00
20.61
23.70
797.70
1673.00
90.00
0.00
0.00
14.28
3.73
1.00
0.23
544.78

All streams are modelled as 100% H2 O. Streams S1, S2, S3A, S4 and S5A are actually reactor-grade D2 O.
fraction is listed as 0.0 for liquids and 1.0 for superheated vapours.

** Vapour

for exergy analysis [37]. The reference-environment

model used by Gaggioli and Petit [5] and Rodriguez [6] is
used in the evaluation of energy and exergy quantities, but
with a reference-environment temperature To of 15 C
(the approximate mean temperature of the lake cooling
water). The reference-environment pressure Po is taken
to be 1 atm, and the chemical composition is taken to con-

184

sist of air saturated with water vapor, and the following

condensed phases at 15 C and 1 atm: water (H2 O), gypsum (CaSO4 2H2 O), and limestone (CaCO3 ). In addition
to properties in Aspen Plus data banks, which include
steam properties based on the 1967 ASME steam tables,
base enthalpy and chemical exergy values reported elsewhere [5, 6] are used. The base enthalpy of a component

M.A. Rosen / Exergy Int. J. 1(3) (2001) 180192

TABLE II
Main process data for single units in NGS and PNGS* .

Section
Steam generation gection
Furnace
Coal consumption rate at full load (kgs1 )
Flue gas temperature ( C)
Nuclear reactor
Heavy water mass flow rate (kgs1 )
Heavy water temperature at reactor inlet ( C)
Heavy water temperature at reactor outlet ( C)
System pressure at reactor outlet header (MPa)
Boiler (heat-exchanger component)
Feed water temperature ( C)
Total evaporation rate (kgs1 )
Steam temperature ( C)
Steam pressure (MPa)
Reheat evaporation rate (kgs1 )
Reheat steam temperature ( C)
Reheat steam pressure (MPa)
Power production section
Turbine
Condenser pressure (kPa)
Generator
Gross power output (MW)
Net power output (MW)
Condensation section
Cooling water flow rate (m3 s1 )
Cooling water temperature rise ( C)
*

NGS

PNGS

47.9
120

724
249
293
8.8

253
454
538
16.9
411
538
4.0

171
815
251
4.2

505

542
515

18.9
8.3

23.7
11

Compiled from data presented elsewhere [13].

(at To and Po ) is evaluated from the enthalpies of the stable components of the environment (at To and Po ). The
base enthalpy of a fuel is equal to the enthalpy change
in forming the fuel from the components of the environment (the same environment used in exergy calculations).
A compound which exists as a stable component of the
reference environment is defined to have an enthalpy of
zero at To and Po .
For simplicity, the net heat produced by the uranium
fuel is considered the main energy input to PNGS, and
D2 O is modelled as H2 O, coal as pure graphite (C) and
air as 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen by volume. Also, it
is assumed that
the turbines have isentropic and mechanical efficiencies of 80% and 95%, respectively;
the generators and transformers are each 99% efficient,
and heat losses from their external surfaces occur at 15 C
(i.e., To );

the input to and output from the nuclear reactor of

uranium is a steady-state process; and
all heat rejected by the moderator cooler is produced
in the moderator. Ontario Power Generation [2] actually
observes for each PNGS unit that, of the 90 MWt rejected
by the moderator cooler, 82 MWt is produced in the
moderator, 2.6 MWt is transferred from the fuel channel
to the moderator, and 6.1 MWt is produced in other
reactor components (1.1 MWt in the shield, 0.1 MWt in
the dump tank, 2.4 MWt in the calandria and 2.5 MWt in
the calandria tubes) and then transferred to the moderator.
It is further assumed that the temperature at which heat
can be produced by fissioning uranium can theoretically
be so high that the quantities of energy and exergy
of the heat can be considered equal. This assumption
has a major effect on the exergy efficiencies discussed
subsequently. If as an alternative fission heat is taken to
be available at the temperature at which it is actually
produced (i.e., at the thermal neutron flux-weighted

185

M.A. Rosen / Exergy Int. J. 1(3) (2001) 180192

average temperature of about 880 C), the exergy of the

heat is about 75% of the energy.

4. ANALYSIS
Energy and exergy efficiencies are evaluated as ratios
of products to inputs. For the overall stations, the energy
efficiency is evaluated as
=

Net energy output with electricity

Energy input

(1)

and the exergy efficiency as

=

Net exergy output with electricity

Exergy input

(2)

For most of the other plant components and sections,

similar expressions are applied to evaluate efficiencies.
Efficiencies are not readily defined for the condensers,
as the purpose of such devices is to reject waste heat
rather than generate a product. However, the merit of
the condensers with respect to the overall plant can be
assessed for comparative purposes by evaluating the net
station condenser heat (energy) rejection rate Renergy ,
where
Renergy =

Heat rejected by condenser

Net electrical energy produced

(3)

and comparing it to an analogous quantity developed by

the author, the net station condenser exergy rejection
rate Rexergy , where
Rexergy =

Exergy rejected by condenser

Net exergy produced

(4)

5. RESULTS
Simulation and analysis data (including energy and
exergy values) are summarized along with specified data
in table I(a,b) for the streams identified in figure 1.
Exergy-consumption values for the devices are listed, according to process-diagram sections, in table III. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the net energy and exergy flows and
exergy consumptions for the four main process-diagram
sections described in the caption of figure 1. The data are
summarized in overall energy and exergy balances in figure 4.
Regarding result validity, it is observed that:

186

simulated stream property values are within 10% of the

values measured at the stations (for properties for which
data are recorded),
energy and exergy values and efficiencies for the
overall processes and for process subsections are in broad
agreement with the literature for similar processes [12
34], and
exergy-analysis results for PNGS and NGS are relatively insensitive to the composition of the reference environment.
On the last point, it is noted that the exergies of
only the coal and stack gas depend on the choice of
the chemical composition of the environment, and that,
for most electrical generating stations, the results of
energy and exergy analyses are not significantly affected
by reasonable and realistic variations in the choice of
reference-environment properties [38].

6. DISCUSSION
6.1. Overall process eciencies
Overall energy () and exergy efficiency () values
are evaluated for the overall processes using equations (1)
and (2), respectively.
For NGS, where coal is the only input source of energy
or exergy,
=

(524 13) MW
(100%) = 37%
1368 MW

and
(524 13) MW
(100%) = 36%
1427 MW
The small difference in the efficiencies is due to the fact
that the specific chemical exergy of coal is slightly greater
than its specific base enthalpy.
For PNGS, where fission heat is treated as the only
input source of energy and exergy,
=

(545 19) MW
(100%) = 30%
1763 MW

and
(545 19) MW
(100%) = 30%
1763 MW
Ontario Power Generation [2] reports = 29.5% for
PNGS. Although for each station the energy and exergy
efficiencies are similar, these efficiencies differ markedly
for many station sections.
=

M.A. Rosen / Exergy Int. J. 1(3) (2001) 180192

Figure 2. Simplied process diagrams for single units of: (a) NGS and (b) PNGS, indicating net energy ow rates (MW) for streams.
Stream widths are proportional to energy ow rates. Sections of stations shown are steam generation (S.G.), power production (P.P.),
condensation (C.), and preheating (P.). Streams shown are electrical power (P), heat input (Q) and heat rejected (Qr).

Figure 3. Simplied process diagrams for single units of: (a) NGS, and (b) PNGS, indicating net exergy ow rates for streams and
consumption rates (negative values) for devices. Stream widths are proportional to exergy ow rates, and shaded regions to exergy
consumption rates. All values are in MW. Other details are as in gure 2.

6.2. Eciencies and losses in steam

generators
Exergy consumptions in the Steam Generation sections of the stations are substantial, accounting for 659
MW (or 72%) of the 916 MW total exergy losses for
NGS, and 1027 MW (or 83%) of the 1237 MW total exergy losses for PNGS.
Of the 659 MW of exergy consumed in this section
for NGS, 444 MW is due to combustion, and 215 MW to
heat transfer.

Of the 1027 MW of exergy consumed in this section

for PNGS, 47 MW is consumed in the boiler, 9 MW in
the moderator cooler, 1 MW in the heavy-water pump,
and 970 MW in the reactor. The exergy consumptions in
the reactor can be broken down further by hypothetically
breaking down into steps the processes occurring within
it (figure 5): heating of the moderator, heating of the fuel
pellets (to their maximum temperature of approximately
2000 C), transferring the heat within the fuel pellets
to the surface of the pellets (at approximately 400 C),
transferring the heat from the surface of the fuel pellets

187

M.A. Rosen / Exergy Int. J. 1(3) (2001) 180192

Figure 4. Overall energy and exergy balances for single units of: (a) NGS, and (b) PNGS. The left and right halves of the energy balances
represent respectively energy inputs and energy outputs. The left and right halves of the exergy balances represent respectively exergy
inputs and exergy outputs and consumptions (exploded section of balance). Cooling water and air inputs are not shown because they
contain zero energy and exergy. The PNGS reactor represents only the ssion reactor, not all devices in the Steam Generation section.

to the cladding surface (at 304 C), and transferring the

heat from the cladding surface to the primary coolant and
then to the preheated boiler feedwater to produce steam.
The energy and exergy efficiencies for the Steam
Generation section, considering the increase in energy or
exergy of the water as the product, for NGS are
[(1585 487) + (1494 1299)] MW
(100%)
1368 MW
= 95%

and
=

The Steam Generation sections of NGS and PNGS appear significantly more efficient on an energy basis than
on an exergy basis. Physically, this discrepancy implies
that although 95% of the input energy is transferred to
the preheated water, the energy is degraded as it is transferred. Exergy analysis highlights this degradation.
Two further points regarding PNGS are noted:

[(719 132) + (616 497)] MW

(100%) = 49%
1427 MW

and for PNGS are

188

(2267 64 476) MW
(100%) = 95%
(1763 + 14) MW
(862 18 96) MW
=
(100%) = 42%
(1763 + 14) MW

The step in which heat is generated by fissioning

uranium (also shown for completeness in figure 5) is,
by previous assumption, outside the boundary of the
nuclear reactor considered here. The energy and exergy

M.A. Rosen / Exergy Int. J. 1(3) (2001) 180192

TABLE III
Breakdown by section and device of exergy consumptions (in MW) in single units of NGS and PNGS.

Section/Device
Steam generation section
Reactor
D2 OH2 O heat exchanger
D2 O pump
Moderator cooler

NGS

PNGS

659.0

969.7
47.4
1.1
9.0
659.0

Power production section

High-pressure turbine(s)
Intermediate-pressure turbine(s)
Low-pressure turbine(s)
Generator
Transformer
Moisture separator
Closed steam reheater

26.4
22.3
59.2
5.3
5.3

1027.2
36.9
79.7
5.5
5.5
0.2
15.0

118.5
Condensation section
Condenser

43.1

142.8
24.7

43.1
Preheat section
Low-pressure heat exchangers
Deaerating heat exchanger
High-pressure heat exchangers
Hot well pumps
Heater condensate pumps
Boiler feed pumps

10.7
5.1
6.4
0.1

1.6
1.8
16.4
0.04
0.03
0.43

1.1

Total

efficiencies calculated for PNGS could be significantly

different if this step were considered. In this case, the
energy and exergy of the fresh and spent nuclear fuel
would be required. The question of what are the exergies
of nuclear fuels is not completely resolved. Researchers
usually only deal with the heat delivered by nuclear fuels,
and most argue that the exergy of nuclear-derived heat is
equal or nearly equal to the exergy because the heat can
potentially be produced at very high temperatures.
Since D2 O is modelled as H2 O, the chemical exergy
of D2 O is neglected. Neglecting the chemical exergy
of D2 O does not significantly affect the exergy analysis
results here because, since the D2 O is contained in
the closed Primary Heat Transport loop of the Steam
Generation section and used only as a heat-transfer
medium, it is only the physical exergy of the D2 O stream
that is of interest.

24.7

23.4
844.0

20.8
1215.5

6.3. Losses in steam condensers

In the condensers,
a large quantity of energy enters (775 MW for each
NGS unit, and 1125 MW for each PNGS unit), of which
close to 100% is rejected; and
a small quantity of exergy enters (54 MW for each
NGS unit, and 44 MW for each PNGS unit), of which
25% to 50% is rejected and 50% to 75% is internally
consumed.
Thus, energy-analysis results lead to the erroneous conclusion that almost all losses in electricity-generation potential for NGS and PNGS are associated with the heat rejected by the condensers, while exergy analyses demonstrate quantitatively and directly that the condensers are
responsible for little of these losses (figure 3). This discrepancy arises because heat is rejected by the condensers
at a temperature very near that of the environment. The

189

M.A. Rosen / Exergy Int. J. 1(3) (2001) 180192

Figure 5. Breakdown of the energy and exergy losses in the nuclear reactor of one PNGS unit. Material streams are represented by
solid lines, and heat ows by broken lines. The heavy solid line encloses the part of the nuclear reactor considered in the present
analysis. Exergy (in parentheses) and energy ow rates are indicated for streams, and exergy consumption rates (negative values in
parentheses) for devices. Flows of heat Q at points in the reactor at dierent values of temperature T are shown. All values are in
MW. P.H.T. denotes primary heat transport.

characteristics of condensers can be seen more clearly

by considering the net station condenser heat (energy)
rejection rate Renergy , and the net station condenser exergy rejection rate Rexergy . Following the expressions for
these quantities in equations (3) and (4), respectively, it
can be shown for each coal-fired unit that
Renergy =

746 MW
= 1.46
(524 13) MW

6.4. Miscellaneous losses

In the Power Production and Preheating sections of
the NGS and PNGS units, energy losses were found to be
very small (less than 10 MW total), and exergy losses
were found to be moderately small (100 to 150 MW
in the Power Production section and 20 to 25 MW in
the Preheating section). The exergy losses are almost
completely associated with internal consumptions.

and
Rexergy =

11 MW
= 0.0215
(524 13) MW

6.5. Comparison and further discussion

and for each nuclear unit that

1107 MW
= 2.10
Renergy =
(545 19) MW
and
Rexergy =

21 MW
= 0.0399
(545 19) MW

The R values indicate that the exergy rejected by the

condensers is less than 4% of the net exergy produced,
while the energy rejected is approximately 150% to 200%
of the net energy produced.

190

The thermodynamic behaviour of the coal-fired and

nuclear generating stations considered are similar in all
areas, except the Steam Generation sections. The significant differences in the Steam Generation sections affect their thermodynamic efficiencies, losses and performances, and cause these parameters to differ for the coalfired and nuclear stations. Some of the differences are as
follows:
The temperatures associated with heat generation are
constrained to lower values for PNGS than NGS, leading
to lower efficiencies for the nuclear station.

M.A. Rosen / Exergy Int. J. 1(3) (2001) 180192

The heat generation and heat transfer mechanisms vary

greatly between the stations. For PNGS, heat is generated
in the calandria and transported to the steam generator,
while heat is generated in the steam generator without
the need for a transport step in NGS. Also, most heat
transfer in the steam generator of the coal-fired station
occurs from a gas to a solid, whereas the more efficient
liquid-to-solid heat transfer predominates in the nuclear
station.
Thermal neutrons are absorbed and moderated for
necessary operating and control processes in PNGS. This
process, which is somewhat analogous to wasting fuel, is
not present in the coal-fired station.
The potential of the used form of the fuel (spent
uranium for PNGS and combustion gases for NGS) is
much greater for the nuclear station, where the spent fuel
is highly radioactive and releases significant quantities of
thermal energy for many years.
These factors impact on the exergy- and energyrelated performances of the stations, and should be taken
into account in efforts to improve efficiencies.

7. CONCLUSIONS
In comparing the thermodynamic characteristics of
coal-fired and nuclear electrical generating stations, several illuminating insights into the performance of such
stations have been acquired. First, although energy and
exergy efficiencies are the same for PNGS and similar
for NGS, energy analyses do not systematically identify the location and cause of process inefficiencies, and
exergy analyses do. That is, energy losses are associated with emissions (mainly heat rejected by condensers),
and exergy losses primarily with consumptions (mainly
in the reactors) and little with cooling water and stack
gases. Second, since devices with the largest thermodynamic losses have the largest margins for efficiency improvement, efforts to increase the efficiencies of coalfired and nuclear electrical generating stations should focus on the combustion and nuclear reactors, respectively.
For instance, technologies capable of producing electricity without combustion (e.g., fuel cells) or utilizing heat
at high temperatures could increase efficiencies significantly. This conclusion is, of course, overly simplistic,
as such decisions require consideration of other technical and economic factors, in addition to thermodynamic
efficiency. Third, the use of heat rejected by condensers
only increases the exergy efficiencies by a few per cent.
Cogeneration systems, which produce heat at useful temperatures at the expense of reduced electrical output, can

have greater efficiencies than conventional electrical generating stations, but the merit of cogeneration systems
must be determined using exergy analyses because energy analyses tend to overstate performance.
Acknowledgements

Financial support for this project was provided by the

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada.
REFERENCES
[1] Ontario Hydro, Nanticoke generating station technical data, document, August 1996.
[2] Ontario Hydro, Pickering generation station data:
units 14, Data Sheet No. 966 A119:0, 1985.
[3] Scarrow R.B., Wright W., Commissioning and early
operation of Nanticoke generating station, Paper presented
to Thermal and Nuclear Power Section at Canadian Electrical Association Fall Meeting, Halifax, N.S., 1975.
[4] Moran M.J., Sciubba E., Exergy analysis: principles
and practice, J. Engrg. Gas Turbines Power 116 (1994) 285
290.
[5] Gaggioli R.A., Petit P.J., Use the second law rst,
Chemtech 7 (1977) 496506.
[6] Rodriguez L.S.J., Calculation of available-energy
quantities, in: Gaggioli R.A. (Ed.), Thermodynamics: Second
Law Analysis, ACS Symposium Series, Vol. 122, Amer.
Chem. Soc., Washington, DC, 1980, pp. 3960.
[7] Gaggioli R.A., Available energy and exergy, Internat. J. Appl. Therm. 1 (1998) 18.
[8] Moran M.J., Shapiro H.N., Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics, 4th edn., Wiley, New York, 2000.
[9] Wall G., Gong M., Exergy analysis versus pinch technology, in: Proc. Int. Conf. on Eciency, Costs, Optimization, Simulation and Environmental Aspects of Energy Systems (ECOS 96), Stockholm, Sweden, 1996, pp. 451455.
[10] Kotas T.J., The Exergy Method Of Thermal Plant
Analysis, reprint edn., Krieger, Malabar, FL, 1995.
[11] Rosen M.A., Second-law analysis: approaches and
implications, Internat. J. Energy Res. 23 (1999) 415429.
[12] McIlvried H.G., Ramezan M., Enick R.M., Venkatasubramanian S., Exergy and pinch analysis of an advanced ammonia-water coal-red power cycle, in: Proc.
ASME Advanced Energy Systems Division, AES, Vol. 38,
1998, pp. 197203.
[13] Yasni E., Carrington C.G., The role for exergy
auditing in a thermal power station, in: HTD, Vol. 80, Amer.
Soc. Mech. Engineers, New York, 1987, pp. 101109.
[14] Habib M.A., Zubair S.M., Second-law based thermodynamic analysis of regenerative-reheat Rankine-cycle
power plants, EnergyInternat. J. 17 (1992) 295301.
[15] Habib M.A., Said S.A.M., Al-Bagawi J.J., Thermodynamic performance analysis of the Ghazlan power plant,
EnergyInternat. J. 20 (1995) 11211130.
[16] Habib M.A., Said S.A.M., Al-Zaharna I., Optimization
of reheat pressures in thermal power plants, Energy
Internat. J. 20 (1995) 555565.

191

M.A. Rosen / Exergy Int. J. 1(3) (2001) 180192

[17] Horlock J.H., Young J.B., Manfrida G., The rational eciency of fossil-fuel power plants, in: Proc. ASME
Advanced Energy Systems Division, AES, Vol. 38, 1998,
pp. 235242.
[18] Gaggioli R.A., Yoon J.J., Patulski S.A., Latus A.J.,
Obert E.F., Pinpointing the real ineciencies in power
plants and energy systems, in: Proc. Amer. Power Conf.,
Vol. 37, 1975, pp. 656670.
[19] Nishio M., Itoh J., Shiroko K., Umeda T., A thermodynamic approach to steam-power system design, in: Proc.
14th Intersoc. Energy Conver. Engrg. Conf., Amer. Chem.
Soc., Washington, DC, 1979, pp. 17511757.
[20] Rosen M.A., Scott D.S., Energy and exergy analyses
of selected production processes for hydrogen and electricity from coal, in: Wepfer W.J., Tsatsaronis G., Bajura R.A.
(Eds.), Thermodynamic Analysis of Chemically Reactive Systems, AES, Vol. 4, Amer. Soc. Mech. Engineers, New York,
1988, pp. 1321.
[21] Rosen M.A., Horazak D.A., Energy and exergy
analyses of PFBC power plants, in: Alvarez Cuenca M.,
Anthony E.J. (Eds.), Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustion,
Chapman and Hall, London, 1995, pp. 419448, Chapter
11.
[22] Grimaldi C.N., Bidini G., Using exergy analyses
on circulating uidized bed combustors, in: A Future
For Energy: Proc. Florence World Energy Research Symp.,
Firenze, Italy, 1990, pp. 181192.
[23] Tawk T., Tsatsaronis G., Price D., Exergetic comparison of various IGCC power plant designs, in: Proc. Internat. Conf. Energy Systems and Ecology, Cracow, Poland,
1993, pp. 585593.
[24] Kim D.J., Jeon J.S., Kwak H.Y., Exergetic and thermoeconomic analyses of a combined cycle power plant,
in: Proc. ASME Advanced Energy Systems Division, AES,
Vol. 39, 1999, pp. 397405.
[25] Jin H., Ishida M., Kobayashi M., Nunokawa M.,
Exergy evaluation of two current advanced power plants:
supercritical steam turbine and combined cycle, J. Energy
Resources Technology 119 (1997) 250256.
[26] Silvestri G.J., Bannister R.L., Fujikawa T., Hizume A.,
Optimization of advanced steam condition power plants,
J. Engrg. Gas Turbines Power 114 (1992) 612620.
[27] Rosen M.A., Assessment of an integrated coalgasication combined-cycle (IGCC) power plant using energy and exergy analyses, in: Boehm R.F. (Ed.), Thermodynamics and the Design, Analysis and Improvement of

192

Energy Systems, AES, Vol. 27, HTD, Vol. 228, Amer. Soc.
Mech. Engineers, New York, 1992, pp. 101109.
[28] Habib M.A., First- and second-law analysis of
steam-turbine cogeneration systems, J. Engrg. Gas Turbines Power 116 (1994) 1519.
[29] Rosen M.A., Comparison based on energy and
exergy analyses of the potential cogeneration eciencies
for fuel cells and other electricity generation devices,
Internat. J. Hydrogen Energy 15 (1990) 267274.
[30] Rosen M.A., Energy utilization eciency in a
macrosystem (Ontario): evaluation and improvement
through cogeneration, in: Proc. Internat. Symp. CO2 Fixation and Ecient Utilization of Energy, Tokyo, 1993,
pp. 1726.
[31] Baumal A.E., Rosen M.A., First- and second-law
analyses of the Bruce B nuclear generating station, in: Proc.
19th Canad. Nuclear Assoc./Canad. Nuclear Soc. Student
Conf. on Nuclear Science and Engineering, Toronto, 1994,
pp. 4048.
[32] Rosen M.A., Scott D.S., Energy and exergy analyses
of a nuclear steam power plant, in: Proc. 7th Canadian
Nuclear Soc. Annual Conf., Toronto, 1986, pp. 187196.
[33] Rogers J.T., Optimization of thermal energy supply
from combined-purpose CANDU nuclear reactors, in: Proc.
2nd World Congr. of Chemical Engrg., Montreal, Quebec,
1981, p. 339.
[34] Currie T.A., Analysis of a pickering reactor unit
on an availability basis, Energy Research Group report
ERG 77-1, Carleton University, Ottawa, April 1977.
[35] Rosen M.A., Thermodynamic comparison of coalred and nuclear electrical generating stations, Trans.
CSME 24 (1B) (2000) 273283.
[36] Aspen Plus Reference Manual, Aspen Technology,
Inc., Cambridge, MA, 1994.
[37] Rosen M.A., Scott D.S., The enhancement of a
process simulator for complete energy-exergy analysis, in:
Gaggioli R.A. (Ed.), Analysis of Energy SystemsDesign and
Operation, AES, Vol. 1, Amer. Soc. Mech. Engineers, New
York, 1985, pp. 7180.
[38] Rosen M.A., Scott D.S., On the sensitivities of
energy and exergy analyses to variations in dead-state
properties, in: Moran M.J., Gaggioli R.A. (Eds.), Analysis
and Design of Advanced Energy SystemsFundamentals,
AES, Vol. 3-1, Amer. Soc. Mech. Engineers, New York, 1987,
pp. 2332.