Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927

www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Exergy and exergoeconomic analysis of a crude oil

combined distillation unit
Ricardo Rivero
, Consuelo Rendón, Salvador Gallegos
Grupo de Exergia, Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo, Eje Central Lázaro Cárdenas 152, México D.F. 07730, México

Abstract

The combined distillation unit is the first plant in a crude oil refinery, in which several intermediate
products, i.e. liquid petroleum gas (LPG), naphtha, jet fuel, kerosene, diesel fuel, gas oils and reduced
crude, are obtained through atmospheric and vacuum distillation of the crude oil mixture. It is important
to determine the critical points in the unit from the exergy view point and to properly allocate the total
production cost to the different simultaneously produced streams, to determine the monetary flows all
through the plant, and to state the relevance in economic terms of the exergy losses of each individual
equipment item. The results of the exergy and exergoeconomic analyses are presented in this paper. The
most important factor affecting the transformation, operation and production costs of the products is the
cost of the crude oil raw material; utilities, salaries, maintenance and even capital investment costs are
less important. Also the critical points of the plant are presented which provide the basis for the opti-
mization of the unit showing additional opportunities for process integration.
# 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Exergoeconomic analyses consider the quality of energy (exergy) in allocating the production
costs of a process to the different products it produces. A general methodology for this kind of
analysis was presented by Tsatsaronis in 1985 [1], which has later been called the exer-
goeconomic accounting technique [2]. Normally, in conducting an exergoeconomic balance, a
system of simultaneous equations with a higher number of unknowns than equations is
obtained, thus the main problem to solve is the statement of the additional equations required.
Several approaches to solve this problem in cogeneration systems have been presented [3,4], but
in the case of crude oil refining processes the problem is much more complex due to the high
number of simultaneous products, compared to cogeneration systems producing only heat and

Corresponding author. Tel.: +52-55-91-75-8427; fax: +52-55-91-75-8067.
E-mail address: rrivero@imp.mx (R. Rivero).

0360-5442/$ - see front matter # 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2004.03.094
1910 R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927

Nomenclature

Ex exergy
Efl effluent exergy losses
F additional cost
H enthalpy
Irr irreversible exergy losses
N number of blocks/equations
NHV net heating potential
P pressure
Pex total exergy losses
Pot exergy improvement potential
Potec exergoeconomic Improvement potential
S entropy
T temperature
X composition
x mol fraction
z mass fraction

Greek
b chemical exergy correction factor
c activity coefficient
e effectiveness
U cost


/ average exergy unit cost
/ cost of a stream

Subscripts
b block
efl effluent exergy losses
f physical
i input stream
irr irreversible exergy losses
j output stream
k component
m component
ntp net produced
nts net supplied
o operation cost
p production cost
q chemical
r block
 R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927 1911

t transformation cost
tte total input
tts total output
0 dead state

power. The use of average unit costs has then been proposed and applied to solve this problem
[5] replacing other approaches used in the past [6,7].
The objective of this paper is to present the exergy analysis of the crude combined distillation
unit and the production costs of this as a function of the amount and quality of the energy used
for separating a crude oil stream, as well as the costs of the exergy losses and the exer-
goeconomic improvement potential of all equipment items of the process.
1.1. Process description

The combined distillation unit scheme corresponds to the Cadereyta refinery in northern
Mexico (Fig. 1). This scheme is used to process 120,000 barrels per day of a mixture of Maya

Fig. 1. Combined distillation unit.

1912 R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927

and Isthmus crude oil 50/50% vol. (stream No. 1) The objective of this unit is the separation of
crude oil in several products by distillation. This process is divided into five sections: preheating
and desalting, topping, stabilization, atmospheric distillation and vacuum distillation.
The desalting and preheating section is used to remove salts from the crude oil and heating it
to drive off the light fractions in the topping section. In this section, the light phase is sent to
the stabilization section for obtaining fuel gas (stream No. 2), liquid petroleum gas (LPG,
stream No. 3) and stabilized naphtha (stream No. 4). The topped crude oil (stream No. 5) is
fractionated in the atmospheric section producing atmospheric naphtha (stream No. 6), jet fuel
(stream No. 7), kerosene (stream No. 8), diesel (stream No. 9), atmospheric gas oil (ATGO,
stream No. 10) and atmospheric residue (stream No. 11), which is separated into light vacuum
gas oil (LVGO, stream No. 12), heavy vacuum gas oil (HVGO, stream No. 13) and vacuum
residue (stream No. 14) in the vacuum section.

2. Exergy analysis

A complete exergy analysis of the combined distillation unit has been conducted in the frame
of a research project [8] using the general methodology presented in previous papers [9]. The
simulation of the plant has been conducted using the AspenPlus simulation code, and the
exergy analysis subroutines developed by the IMP Exergy Group. The dead state conditions in
v
all calculations are a temperature T 0 ¼ 25 C, a pressure P0 ¼ 1 atm and a composition X0
equal to the composition used by the Szargut model for the standard chemical exergy of sub-
stances [10].

2.1. Exergy calculation

Physical exergy of a stream of matter can be defined as the maximum work (useful energy)
that can be obtained from it in taking it to physical equilibrium (of temperature and pressure)
with the environment [3,10].
Exf ¼ ðH  H0 ÞjX T0 ðS  S0 ÞjX (1)
where the enthalpy and the entropy of the substance have to be evaluated at its temperature and
pressure conditions (T, P) and at the temperature and pressure of the environment (T0, P0).
Enthalpy and entropy at the stream and reference conditions are evaluated for the same chemi-
cal composition (X) of the stream of matter and considering all mixing effects if the stream con-
tains several components. This evaluation has to be conducted using the most suitable method
for predicting thermodynamic properties for the substance at its temperature and pressure con-
ditions. There are several thermodynamic option sets available in AspenPlus for evaluating the
properties of petroleum mixtures [11].
No matter the thermodynamic option set used in the simulation of a process with AspenPlus,
enthalpy and entropy at reference conditions (T0, P0) are evaluated with two fortran sub-
routines, USRHXO and USRSXO [8]; these subroutines are linked to the main simulation code
and execute an internal Aspen subroutine called FLASH which calculates the equilibrium at the
dead state reference conditions established.
 R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927 1913

The values of the enthalpy and entropy at the stream conditions (P, T) and at the reference
conditions (T0, P0) are then retrieved from the results file of the simulation run using the Aspen-
Plus Toolkit. Physical exergy is calculated inside the fortran code described later.

2.2. Chemical exergy

Chemical exergy of a stream of matter can be defined as the maximum work (useful energy)
that can be obtained from it in taking it to chemical equilibrium (of composition) with the
environment [3,10].
Exq ¼ ðH  H0 ÞjT0 ;P0 T0 ðS  S0 ÞjT0 ;P0 (2)

where the enthalpy and the entropy have to be evaluated for the chemical composition of the
substance (X) and for the composition of the environment (X0). Enthalpy and entropy for the
stream and environment compositions are evaluated for the same temperature and pressure,
normally the environment conditions (T0, P0).
For many identified substances, the standard chemical exergy (i.e. at T0 and P0) can be found
in the literature, however for the pseudo-components (unidentified compounds of a crude oil
and derived streams), the chemical exergy can be determined from heuristic empirical expres-
sions as a function of the elementary composition and the heating value of each pseudo-compo-
nent [10]. The standard specific chemical exergy (e.g. in kJe/kg) of each pseudo-component is
calculated with the following modified expression [12]:
X
Exqk ¼ NHVk bk þ zm Exqm (3)

where zm are the mass fractions of metals, Fe, Ni, V, and water in the pseudo-component k and
Exqm are their corresponding specific standard chemical exergies, obtained from the standard
chemical exergy values of the Szargut reference model. NHVk is the net heating value of the
pseudo-component k and bk is the chemical exergy correction factor as a function of its C, H2,
O2, S, and N2, mass fractions [12]:
 
zH2 zO2 zS zH2 zN
b ¼ 1:0401 þ 0:1728 þ 0:0432 þ 0:2169 1  2:0628 þ 0:0428 2 (4)
zC zC zC zC zC
The standard molar chemical exergy (e.g. in kJe/kmol) of the crude oil stream can be calcu-
lated from the standard molar chemical exergies of all identified components (obtained from
the Szargut tables [10]) and pseudo-components (converting their standard specific chemical
exergies to a molar basis) and the molar fractions of all identified components and pseudo-
components.
X X
Exq ¼ xk Exqk þ RT0 xk lnxk ck (5)

The second term in the right hand side of Eq. (5) is called the compositional exergy [13]. The
details of the calculation for physical and chemical exergy of crude oil and its fractions can be
found in the literature [12].
1914 R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927

2.2.1. Exergy performance parameters

The different performance parameters are determined; they can be classified in three catego-
ries: quantitative parameters, qualitative parameters and combined parameters, such as the
exergy losses, the effectiveness and the exergy improvement potential, respectively.

2.2.2. Exergy losses

The exergy losses of a system can be split in two [14]. On one side are those resulting from
the irreversibility of the processes taking place in the system (internal losses), and on the other
side, those resulting from an exergy discharge to the environment (external losses).
The irreversible exergy losses are the difference between the total input exergy (Extte) and the
total output exergy (Extts). These losses can also be calculated using the Gouy–Stodola theorem:
X X
Irr ¼ Exinput  Exoutput ¼ Extte  Extts ¼ T0 DS (6)

The irreversible exergy losses can also be expressed considering the system as a couple
(source–sink, donor–acceptor, fuel–product), obtained from the difference between the net sup-
plied exergy Exnts (by the source(s), donor(s) or fuel(s)) and the net produced exergy Exntp (to
the sink(s), acceptor(s) or product(s)):
X X
Irr ¼ DExsources  DExsinks ¼ T0 DS (7)
Irr ¼ Exnts  Exntp (8)
The effluent exergy losses represent the ecological effects of rejecting streams to the environ-
ment; they are simply the sum of all exergy streams rejected to the environment:
X
Efl ¼ Exrejected to the environment (9)

The total exergy losses in any system are then equal to the sum of irreversible and effluent
losses:
Pex ¼ Irr þ Efl (10)
For any system composed by N blocks, the Gouy–Stodola theorem states that the overall
exergy losses are the sum of the exergy losses of the N blocks.

2.2.3. Effectiveness
In order to determine how well the desired effect of the system is accomplished, the effective-
ness is calculated as the ratio of the net produced exergy to the net supplied exergy:
e ¼ Exntp =Exnts (11)
The effectiveness can also be expressed as a function of the irreversible exergy losses since
these are equal to the difference between both net exergies [2,12]:
e ¼ 1  Irr=Exnts (12)
The effectiveness is then the measure of the system’s capacity to produce the desired effect.
In other words, it is the fraction of the net supplied exergy used by the system to perform its
function.
 R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927 1915

2.2.4. Exergy improvement potential [9]

Total exergy losses and effectiveness are the quantitative and qualitative measures of energy
degradation, respectively, and they can be combined to have a more complete parameter of the
performance of the system, this parameter is called the exergy improvement potential [2,9,14].
The exergy improvement potential of the system is a measure of how much and how easily the
system could be improved for optimization purposes. This parameter is based on the definition
of thermodynamic potential for improvement proposed by Reistad [15], but incorporating an
additional term to explicitly consider the effluent exergy losses. It is obtained from the exergy
losses and the effectiveness of the system:
Pot ¼ Irrð1  eÞ þ Efl (13)
It is formed by three contributions: the absolute potential (Irr), the relative potential (1  e)
and the environmental potential (Efl). The relative potential (1  e) is a measure of the facility
to improve a system; if the effectiveness is very low the relative potential approaches its
maximum value, so in principle the system should be improved easily; the absolute potential Irr
is a measure of how much the system could be improved from inside itself by attacking its
entropy production or irreversibility; the environmental potential Efl is a measure of how much
the system could be improved from outside itself if the exergy of the effluents is used instead of
rejected to the environment.
The exergy improvement potential makes it possible to determine the critical points of the
system stating a hierarchy on its components in such a way that the measure be applied in the
places where they will be most effective. In order to optimize a system it is necessary to increase
the effectiveness of the blocks with the higher irreversible exergy losses and to reduce the effluent
exergy losses of the blocks where their utilization could be profitable.
In order to optimize a system it is necessary to attack preferably the blocks with the higher
exergy improvement potential.
For the exergy analysis of this unit, the process was divided into 93 blocks which receive, pro-
duce or are interconnected by 283 exergy streams. Some of the results obtained follow.

2.3. Combined distillation unit results

Total exergy losses of the plant are 111.08 MWe, 11.32% of which are effluent exergy losses
and 88.68% are irreversible exergy losses as shown in Fig. 2.1
The plant has a total effectiveness of 13.56%, which is the ratio of the net exergy produced to
the net exergy supplied. In this case the net exergy supplied is calculated as the fuel exergy sup-
plied to combustion equipment and electricity supplied to pumps and compressors minus the
exergy rejected by flue gases to the atmosphere. The net exergy produced is the exergy gained by
the process streams (distilled products minus crude oil) and the exergy gained by cooling
streams (water and air).
The total exergy improvement potential of the plant is 97.72 MWe, which represents 88% of
the total exergy losses. However if the exergy gained by cooling streams (water and air) is sub-

1
These values are different to the ones presented in the ECOS 2002 Conference due to a change in the pressure of
the air supplied to fired heaters [16].
1916 R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927

Fig. 2. Total exergy losses of the combined distillation unit.

tracted from the net exergy supplied instead of added to the net exergy produced, the process
effectiveness becomes 11.78% and the total exergy improvement potential is 99.47 MWe.
Fig. 3 shows the specific exergy profile of the process streams. The small numbers in the dia-
gram correspond to the feed and product streams of the unit. As shown in Fig. 3, the thermo-
dynamic value of the petroleum fractions obtained in the combined distillation unit can be
clearly quantified by their specific exergy. The small changes in specific exergy are mainly due to
the physical exergy change since the chemical exergy remains constant for a stream that does
not change its composition.
A diagram widely used to represent graphically the exergy balance of a process is the Grass-
mann diagram (Fig. 4). In this case the chemical exergy of the process streams is so high com-
pared to their physical exergy that it is not possible to visualize the contribution of utility
streams used to perform the separation of the crude oil, nor the relevance of the irreversible
exergy losses of each section. However, it can be seen that crude oil chemical exergy is more or
less split into the different products through the separation process, but without any combus-
tion, i.e. through physical changes (composition), but without chemical reactions.

Fig. 3. Specific total exergy.

 R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927 1917

Fig. 4. Grassmann diagram of the combined distillation unit (total exergies).

In order to have a better view of the exergy balance, a modified Grassmann diagram can be
constructed considering only physical exergies for all streams except fuels. In this way the ther-
mal integration between sections, the utilities contributions to achieve the separation, the rel-
evance of the irreversibilities and the physical exergy increase of cooling water and air can be
observed (Fig. 5).

2.4. Section results

Figs. 6 and 7 show total exergy losses, effectiveness and improvement potential for each sec-
tion of this unit.
The atmospheric section has the highest total exergy losses (60.54%) and it is due to its low
effectiveness (24.48%) that this section also has the highest improvement potential (68.89%). In
this section the effectiveness is the result of the net exergy supplied: fuel exergy to the fired
heater minus flue gases exergy rejected to the atmosphere and electricity to pumps and com-
pressors; and the net exergy produced: exergy gained by process streams (both physical and
chemical exergy), heat exergy transferred to the crude oil preheating section, and physical
exergy gained by cooling streams (water and air). The final products water and air coolers are
also included in this section.
1918 R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927

Fig. 5. Grassmann diagram of the combined distillation unit (physical exergies, except for fuel streams).

In the vacuum section the net exergy supplied has the same components as in the atmospheric
section, but in this case the physical exergy of process streams decreases whereas their chemical
exergy increases, thus, the first term is included in the net exergy supplied and the second
included in the net exergy produced. This gives an effectiveness of 44.69% for the section. These
two sections represent 90.21% of the total exergy losses. It is important to note that the most
effective section is the preheating and desalting section, that is, of the total exergy supplied to
the section (heat from the process streams of the atmospheric and vacuum sections, electricity to
pumps and a chemical exergy decrease in the desalting process) 82.47% is mainly used to
increase the physical exergy of crude oil. Another important aspect of this section is that it
 R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927 1919

Fig. 6. Total exergy losses and improvement potential per section.

includes only the cold side of the heat exchangers with streams coming from and going back to
the atmospheric and vacuum sections. The hot sides of these exchangers are included in the
atmospheric and vacuum sections. As mentioned before, all final products coolers were also
included in the atmospheric or vacuum sections, not in the preheating and desalting section.

2.5. Block results

The total exergy losses of the plant are equal to the sum of the exergy losses of the 93 blocks
in which it is divided but the sum of the exergy improvement potentials of the blocks is different
from the total exergy improvement potential since the effectiveness of the blocks are not addi-
tive. The sum of the exergy improvement potentials of the blocks could be used for opti-
mization purposes. The block with the highest exergy losses is the atmospheric fired heater
(block A), followed by the vacuum fired heater (block B), the atmospheric tower (block C), the
ejector (block D), the atmospheric tower condenser (block E), the vacuum tower (block F), the
topping tower condenser (block G), the naphtha-crude oil preheater (block H), the stabilization
tower reboiler (block I) and the desalting system (block J) (see Figs. 1 and 8).

Fig. 7. Effectiveness per section.

1920 R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927

Fig. 8. Total exergy losses of the combined distillation unit.

In terms of the exergy improvement potential, the top ten blocks are almost the same as the
ones with highest exergy losses but in a slightly different order: the atmospheric fired heater
(block A), followed by the vacuum fired heater (block B), the atmospheric tower (block C), the
ejector (block D), the vacuum tower (block F), the atmospheric tower condenser (block E), the
topping tower condenser (block G), the desalting system (block J), the stabilization tower
reboiler (block I), and the naphtha-crude oil preheater (block H) (see Figs. 1 and 9).
With regard to the obtained results, in the distillation systems (integrated by fired heaters,
columns and condensers) the highest total exergy losses are found. For this reason, the follow-
ing research work will be focused on the application of diabatic distillation through the pro-
gressive distillation concept, which consists in using a series of distillation columns separating

Fig. 9. Exergy improvement potential of the combined distillation unit.

 R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927 1921

two products in each one, instead of obtaining all products simultaneously as in the atmos-
pheric and vacuum distillation towers of the present process scheme, i.e. it will be proposed to
use a diabatic distillation column for each product obtained from the crude oil.

3. Exergoeconomic analysis

3.1. Production costs

In this paper the following definitions are used. The production cost of each of the products
of a process is formed by two contributions: the capital cost and the operation cost. Capital
cost includes levelized capital investment, construction, depreciation, and financing costs; oper-
ation cost includes transformation cost, salaries, maintenance and administration and other
expenses. Finally, transformation cost is formed only by raw materials and utilities (fuel, steam,
cooling water, service water, etc.) [5].

Transformation cost ¼ raw materials þ utilities

Operation cost ¼ transformation cost
þ salaries; maintenance and administration and other expenses
Capital cost ¼ capital investment; construction; depreciation; and financing costs
Production cost ¼ operating cost þ capital cost

3.2. Average exergy unit costs

The exergoeconomic balance is written for each block considering the exergy of each input
stream multiplied by its corresponding unit costs plus the additional costs considered in the
analysis; the monetary flow obtained by summing up these terms is then equated to the exergy
of each output stream multiplied by the average exergy unit cost, i.e.:
X
IN X
OUT
Exbi Ui þ Fb ¼
b
Exbj / 8 b ¼ 1; . . . ; N (14)
i¼1 j¼1

where Ui is either the cost of a stream entering the block, or the average exergy unit cost of the
preceding block, i.e.:
Ui ¼ /i
or

r jr 6¼ b
Ui ¼ /
The transformation costs are obtained when no additional costs are considered:
Fb ¼ Ft ¼ 0
1922 R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927

The operating costs are obtained when salaries, maintenance and administration and other
expenses are considered:
Fb ¼ Fo
The production costs are obtained when in addition to salaries, maintenance and chemicals,
also capital investment, construction, depreciation, and financing costs are considered:
Fb ¼ Fp
In any of the F values considered, in writing Eq. (14) for each one of the N blocks composing
the process, a system of N simultaneous equations with N unknowns is obtained which is solved
obtaining the output average exergy unit costs for each block. The F values in each equation of
the equation system were estimated with the Icarus Process Evaluator code of AspenTech.

3.3. Exergoeconomic parameters

The costs of the irreversible, effluent and total exergy losses of each block and the exer-
goeconomic improvement potential for them is then calculated with the following expressions:

tte
Uirr ¼ Irr/ (15)
b b

Ueflb
tte
¼ Efl/ b

Potecb ¼ Uirrb ð1  eÞ þ Ueflb

where:
PIN

tte ¼ i¼1 Exbi Ui
/ b
Extteb
For the exergoeconomic analysis of this unit, a system of 93 simultaneous equations was solved.
Some of the results obtained follow.

3.4. Exergoeconomic analysis results

The results of the exergoeconomic analysis of the combined distillation unit in terms of the
costs of the exergy losses and the exergoeconomic improvement potential, are very similar to the
results in terms of total exergy losses and exergy improvement potential obtained from the
exergy (without costs) analysis.
The production cost of the plant is 28.87 US$/s, i.e. 823 million dollars per year. Table 1
shows the relative contribution of the different concepts to the production costs. The block with
the highest cost of exergy losses is the atmospheric fired heater (block A), followed by the vac-
uum fired heater (block B), the atmospheric tower (block C), the ejector (block D), the atmos-
pheric tower condenser (block E), the vacuum tower (block F), the topping tower condenser
(block G), the naphtha-crude oil preheater (block H), the stabilization tower reboiler (block I)
and the desalting system (block J). These costs reduce from 580 to 11 US$/h for the top ten
blocks with an average cost for the blocks in the plant of 13.87 US$/h (see Figs. 1 and 10).
 R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927 1923

Table 1
Production costs
% Million US$ per year
Fuel gas 0.82 6.75
Electricity 0.14 1.13
Cooling water 0.25 2.06
Treated water 0.02 0.18
Medium pressure steam 0.30 2.43
Low pressure steam 0.15 1.23
Crude oil 96.21 792.00
Transformation costs 805.78

Salaries, maintenance, administration and other 0.22 1.84

expenses
Operation costs 807.78

Levelized capital costs 1.89 15.56

Production costs 100.00 823.18

In terms of the exergoeconomic improvement potential, the top ten blocks are almost the
same as the ones with highest costs of exergy losses but in a slightly different order: the atmos-
pheric fired heater (block A), followed by the vacuum fired heater (block B), the ejector (block
D), the atmospheric tower (block C), the vacuum tower (block F), the atmospheric tower con-
denser (block E), the topping tower condenser (block G), the desalting system (block J), the sta-
bilization tower reboiler (block I), and the naphtha-crude oil preheater (block H). These
potentials reduce from 367 to 9 US$/h with an average exergoeconomic improvement potential
for the blocks in the plant of 9.4 US$/h (see Figs. 1 and 11).
The production costs are mainly affected by the transformation costs, since salaries, mainte-
nance, administration and other expenses (0.0646 US$/s) and levelized capital costs (0.5458
US$/s) have a very small contribution (see Fig. 12).

Fig. 10. Total exergy losses costs of the combined distillation unit.
1924 R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927

Fig. 11. Exergoeconomic improvement potential of the combined distillation unit.

3.5. Parametric analysis

Since the production cost is mainly affected by the transformation costs, a parametric analysis
was done, varying the crude oil, fuel, electricity and cooling water costs in order to know how
they affect the transformation costs.
Fig. 13 shows that transformation costs increase proportionally to the variation of crude oil
cost, which goes from 0 to 2.5 times the base cost (20 US$ per barrel).
Fig. 14 shows the effect of the costs of electricity (0.0447 US$/(kWh)) from 1 to 100 times its
base cost on the transformation cost; for the highest electricity cost, the jet fuel cost is 9%
higher than with the base cost and the LPG cost is 33% higher than with the base cost, with
variations between these two values for the other products.
Fig. 15 shows the effect of the costs of cooling water (0.0938 US$/m3) from 1 to 100 times its
base cost on the transformation costs; for the highest cooling water cost, the atmospheric gas oil
cost is 14% higher than with the base cost and the naphtha cost is 42% higher than with the
base cost, with variations between these two values for the other products.

Fig. 12. Production costs.

 R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927 1925

Fig. 13. Transformation costs vs crude oil cost.

Fig. 14. Transformation costs vs electricity cost.

Fig. 15. Transformation costs vs cooling water cost.

1926 R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927

Fig. 16. Transformation costs vs fuel cost.

Finally, the variation in transformation cost when the fuel cost is 100 times greater than its
base cost (0.0021 US$/MJ) is 50% higher for the jet fuel and 123% higher for the gas fuel with
values in between for the rest of the products (Fig. 16).

4. Conclusions

The results of the exergy and exergoeconomic analyses are very similar. The blocks presenting
the highest exergy losses, exergy improvement potential and exergoeconomic improvement
potential are the distillation systems, integrated by fired heaters, columns and condensers. The
application of crude oil progressive diabatic distillation could be an option to solve this prob-
lem. Since the transformation costs are the most important part of the total production costs of
the products of this refinery unit, the most important cost of the plant is that of crude oil fed to
the plant.

References
[1] Tsatsaronis G, Winhold M. Exergoeconomic analysis and evaluation of energy-conversion plants. 1. A new gen-
eral methodology. Energy 1985;10(1):69–80.
[2] Rivero R. L’Analyse d’Exergie: Application à la Distillation Diabatique et aux Pompes à Chaleur à Absorption.
Thèse Doctorale. Institut National Polytechnique de Lorraine, Nancy, 1993.
[3] Kotas TJ. The exergy method of thermal plant analysis. London: Butterworths; 1985.
[4] Erlach B, Tsatsaronis G, Cziesla FA. New approach for assigning costs and fuels to cogeneration products. In:
Öztürk A, Gögüs Y, editors. Efficiency, costs, optimization, simulation and environmental impact of energy
systems. Istanbul: International Centre for Applied Thermodynamics; 2001, p. 759–70.
[5] Rivero R, Rendón C, Monroy L, Garcı́a M, Urquiza J, Gómez A, et al. Simulación, Análisis Exérgico y Análisis
Exergoeconómico de la Unidad de Destilación Combinada, Informe DSC v. 1. Project: Optimización Exérgica
de un Esquema de Refinación. México: Grupo de Exergia—Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo; 2001.
[6] Rivero R, Escárcega C, Núñez A, Terreros P, Ledón F. Análisis Exergoeconómico de una Unidad Reformadora
de Naftas. IV Pacific Area Chemical Engineering Congress, PACHEC ’88, Acapulco, México. 1988.
[7] Rivero R. Análisis Exergoeconómico de Procesos. Revista del IMIQ 1995;36(7–8):19–24.
 R. Rivero et al. / Energy 29 (2004) 1909–1927 1927

[8] Rivero R. Investigador en Jefe, Proyecto D.00018 Investigación y Desarrollo Tecnológico de Procesos de Desti-
lación Diabática. Grupo de Exergia—PIMAS, Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo. México, 2000–2003.
[9] Rivero R, González G, Garcı́a V, Pulido R, Escárcega C. Exergy analysis of a crude oil atmospheric distillation
unit. In: Cai RX, Moran MJ, editors. Thermodynamic analysis and improvement of energy systems. Beijing:
International Academy Publishers, Pergamon Press; 1989, p. 506–11.
[10] Szargut J, Morris DR, Steward FR. Exergy analysis of thermal, chemical and metallurgical processes.
New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation; 1988.
[11] AspenTech. Physical property methods and models. AspenPlus Reference Manual, Vol. 2, Release 9.3.
Cambridge: Aspen Technology Inc.; 1996.
[12] Rivero R, Rendón C, Monroy L. The exergy of crude oil mixtures and petroleum fractions: calculation and
application. International Journal of Applied Thermodynamics 1999;2(3):115–23.
[13] Rivero R. Tridimensional exergy diagram. In: Szargut J, Kolenda Z, Tsatsaronis G, Ziebik A, editors. Energy
systems a ecology. Cracow: Polish Ministry of National Education American Society of Mechanical Engineering;
1993, p. 305–12.
[14] Rivero R, Anaya A. Exergy analysis of industrial processes, energy–economy–ecology. Latin American Applied
Research 1997;27(4):191–205.
[15] Reistad GM. Availability: concepts and applications. Ph.D. Thesis. The University of Wisconsin, University
Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, 1970.
[16] Rivero R, Rendón C. Exergoeconomic analysis of a crude oil combined distillation unit. In: Tsatsaronis G,
Moran MJ, Cziesla F, Buckner T, editors. Efficiency, cost, optimization, simulation and environmental impact
of energy systems. Berlin: Technische Universität; 2002, p. 177–84.