# Optimization of Cogeneration Power-Desalination Plants

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Process Description

#### 2.1. Multiple Stage Flash (MSF) Desalination System

^{SW}to T

_{1}

^{F}to reach the maximum allowable temperature (T

_{max}) in the MBH by using steam extracted from the CCHP cycle. The heated seawater F enters the flashing chamber of the first stage PFC

_{1}, where a flash boiling of a stream is carried out. The vapor formed in the first stage PFC

_{1}condenses in the associated pre-heater HEX1, pre-heating the incoming seawater F. The distillate leaving the HEX

_{1}(freshwater) is collected in the corresponding distillate plate of stage SFC1 and is passed to the next stage flowing in parallel with the brine stream B1. The brine leaving the first stage (B1) enters the second stage PFC

_{2}and the vapors formed are mixed with the vapor formed by the distillate stream SFC

_{2}, and the resulting vapor stream is used as a heating source in the HEX

_{2}. The boiling/condensation process of the brine and distillate streams is repeated until the last stage. The concentration profile increases from the first to the last stage. To reduce the incoming seawater SW and the associated pretreatment cost, a part of the brine leaving the last stage is often recycled by mixing it with the incoming seawater. A desalination plant operating in this mode is often referred to as a “brine recycle” plant.

#### 2.2. Multi-Effect Distillation (MED) Desalination System

## 3. Problem Statement

- mass balances;
- energy balances;
- design equations;
- cost model;
- process conditions (seawater temperature and salinity);
- design specifications (desired levels of electricity and freshwater production).

- the minimum total annual cost (TAC);
- optimal distribution among annCAPEX and OPEX;
- optimal selection of the configuration of the entire process (electricity generation plant + desalination process);
- optimal sizes of all process components selected;
- optimal operating conditions of all process streams.

## 4. Modeling Assumptions and Mathematical Model

#### 4.1. Thermal Desalination Systems

- The number of distillation effects in the MED and number of stages in the MSF are treated as continuous variables.
- Average salinity and temperature values of the brine at operating conditions are considered for estimating the boiling point elevation.
- The heat load and heat transfer area of the pre-heaters in the MSF process are considered as optimization variables (Al-Mutaz and Wazeer [22]).
- The same optimization variable is considered for the heat loads and heat transfer areas along the pre-heaters in the MSF process are assumed (Al-Mutaz and Wazeer [22]).
- The heat load and heat transfer area of the evaporation effects in the MED process are considered as optimization variables (Al-Mutaz and Wazeer [22]).
- The same optimization variable is considered for the heat loads and heat transfer areas along the evaporation effects in the MED process are assumed (Al-Mutaz and Wazeer [22]).
- An effective driving force for the heat transfer in the evaporation effect/stage represents an optimization variable (Al-Mutaz and Wazeer [22]).
- The same optimization variable is associated with the effective driving forces for the heat transfers along all effects/stages (Al-Mutaz and Wazeer [22]).

#### 4.2. Combined Cycle Heat and Power Plant

- Steady-state condition is considered.
- A fixed and known value of pressure drop in the HRSG is assumed.
- Pinch-point temperature differences in all heat exchangers (economizers, evaporators, superheaters, and condensers) are optimization variables with imposed lower bounds [14].
- Complete combustion with excess air is assumed. CO
_{2}, H_{2}O, O_{2}, and N_{2}are present in the combustion gas. - Fixed overall heat transfer coefficients are assumed [14].
- Heat transfer areas are estimated using the approximation from [24] to overcome numerical difficulties arising from the logarithm mean temperature difference (LMTD) computation.
- Dependence of the ideal gas thermodynamic properties of the combustion gases with temperature is considered [14].

#### 4.3. Selecting the Optimal Gas Turbine (GT1 or GT2)

_{2}, ṁ

_{Air}, ṁ

_{Fuel}, η

_{AC}, and η

_{GT}in terms of parameter values characterizing GT1 and GT2:

_{GT}

_{1}= 1, then GT1 is selected and, according to Equations (1)–(5), the values of P

_{2}, m

_{Air}, m

_{Fuel}, η

_{AC}, and η

_{GT}are calculated with the parameter values corresponding to GT1 (P

_{2}= RP

_{GT}

_{1}·P

_{1}, ṁ

_{Air}= ṁ

_{Air}

_{,GT1}, ṁ

_{Fuel}= ṁ

_{Fuel,GT}

_{1}, η

_{AC}= η

_{AC}

_{,GT1}, and η

_{GT}= η

_{GT}

_{1}); otherwise, with the parameter values corresponding to GT2. Then, with these values, the corresponding electrical power required by the air compressor and the power generated by the expander are calculated.

_{GT}is needed. For this case, the Equations (1)–(5) should be replaced by Equations (1a)–(5a):

#### 4.4. Selection/Removal of Additional Burners and Steam Generation and Reheating at Low-Pressure Level

_{5}= h

_{7}. Otherwise, it is selected by the optimization algorithm.

_{8}= h

_{13}. Otherwise, BURN2 is selected by the optimization algorithm.

_{REC}= 0, then, according to constraints Equation (11) and (12) ${\stackrel{\xb7}{m}}_{11}$ = 0 (${\stackrel{\xb7}{m}}_{10}$ = ${\stackrel{\xb7}{m}}_{11\mathrm{a}}$), indicating that no steam reheating is selected; otherwise, the reheating is included and the optimization variable m

_{11}is bounded between M

_{LO}and M

_{UP}.

#### 4.5. Selection of the Optimal Desalination System: MED System or MSF System

_{MSF}is defined and associated with the steam required by the MSF desalination unit. Then, the following constraints are derived from the splitter SP_DES (Figure 4):

_{MSF}= 0, then, according to constraints Equations (13) and (14), ṁ

_{42_MSF}= 0, indicating that no steam is supplied to the MSF unit and, therefore, it is removed from the optimal solution. At the same time, according to constraints Equations (15) and (16), ṁ

_{42_MED}> 0, thus assuring that steam is supplied to the MED unit.

## 5. Model Implementation Aspects

## 6. Results

^{2}of heat transfer area.

^{2}, which is distributed in 24 flashing stages.

^{2}lower than in Figure 5 because less energy is neede to be recovered (304 MW). The selection of the gas turbine affects not only the design and operating conditions of the HRSG and steam turbines, but also the MSF unit. The sub-optimal solution in Figure 6 requires 30.0 kg/s to run the HP steam turbine while the optimal solution in Figure 5 requires 37.71 kg/s. Despite the heating utility required, the MSF unit in Figure 6 is 10.07 MW higher than that required in Figure 5 (52.37 MW vs. 42.30 MW) the total area required by the MSF unit is 18,191 m

^{2}lower (45,902 m

^{2}vs. 64,093 m

^{2}).

## 7. Conclusions

^{3}/h and electricity generation of 80 MW was presented. It was found that a minimum TAC value of 5743 USD/h and an optimal configuration consisting of the gas turbine GT1 and the MSF process as the main subsystems. Then, the optimal solution was compared with suboptimal solutions obtained for other configurations different from the optimal one. The TAC value increased 405 USD/h when the GT1 was replaced with the GT2, keeping fixed the remaining configuration. However, the TAC value significantly increased when the MSF unit was replaced with the MED unit. By keeping the same CCHPP configuration as in the optimal configuration but replacing the MSF unit with the MED unit, the TAC value increased 1174 USD/h.

_{2}capture plants and absorption refrigeration systems already implemented will be included in the current model to address the study of polygeneration systems with zero greenhouse emissions.

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Conflicts of Interest

## Nomenclature

Ae | Heat transfer area of an effect, m^{2}. |

annCAPEX | Annualized capital expenditure, USD/y. |

$\stackrel{\xb7}{B}$ | Flowrate of the discharge brine stream, kg/s. |

BPE | Boiling point elevation, K. |

Ccivil | Civil work cost, USD. |

Ceq | Total cost of the equipment associated to the MSF and MED desalination plants, USD. |

Cp^{SW} | Averaged heat capacity of the inlet seawater stream, kJ/(kg K). |

Cp^{D} | Averaged heat capacity of the distillate (freshwater) stream, kJ/(kg K). |

Cp^{B} | Averaged heat capacity of the discharge brine, kJ/(kg K). |

CRF | Capital recovery factor, yr^{−1}. |

$\stackrel{\xb7}{D}$ | Flowrate of the distillate (freshwater) stream, kg/s. |

h | Specific enthalpy, kJ/kg. |

ṁ_{Air} | Mass flowrate of the inlet air stream, kg/s. |

ṁ_{Air,GT1} | Mass flowrate of the air stream in the gas turbine GT1, kg/s. |

ṁ_{Air,GT2} | Mass flowrate of the air stream in the gas turbine GT2, kg/s. |

ṁ_{Fuel} | Molar flowrate of the fuel stream, kmol/s. |

ṁ_{Fuel,GT1} | Molar flowrate of the fuel stream in GT1, kmol/s. |

ṁ_{Fuel,GT2} | Molar flowrate of the fuel stream in GT2, kmol/s. |

LMTD_{COND} | Logarithmic mean temperature difference of condenser, K. |

MP_{f} | Molecular weight, kg/kmol. |

M_{LO} | Lower value used in the constraints involving binary variables |

M_{UP} | Upper value used in the constraints involving binary variables |

N | Number of evaporation stages in MSF or effects in MED |

$\stackrel{\xb7}{{n}_{F}}$ | Flowrate of the fuel stream, kmol/s. |

OPEX | Operating expenditure, USD/yr. |

OPEX_{mant} | Maintenance cost, USD/yr. |

OPEXtreat | Pretreatment cost of the seawater stream, USD/yr. |

P_{2} | Outlet pressure at the air compressor, bar. |

RP_{GT1} | Pressure ratio at the gas turbine GT1, dimensionless. |

RP_{GT2} | Pressure ratio at the gas turbine GT2, dimensionless. |

$\stackrel{\xb7}{SW}$ | Flowrate of the inlet seawater stream, kg/s. |

TAC | Total annual cost, USD/y. |

T_{B} | Temperature of the discharge brine, K. |

THTA_{MSF} | Total heat transfer area of the MSF desalination unit, m^{2}. |

THTA_{MED} | Total heat transfer area of the MED desalination unit, m^{2}. |

TS | Temperature of the steam, K. |

X_{F} | Mass composition of the feed seawater, ppm. |

X_{B} | Mass composition of the discharge brine, ppm. |

Z_{COM} | Investment cost of the combustion chamber, USD. |

Z_{HE} | Investment cost of heat exchangers, USD. |

Z_{ST} | Investment cost of steam turbines, USD. |

Z_{DRUM} | Investment cost of the drum, USD. |

Z_{PUMP} | Investment cost of pumps, USD. |

Z_{GT} | Investment cost of gas turbine, USD. |

y_{GT1} | Binary variable to select or remove the gas turbine type 1, dimensionless. |

y_{GT2} | Binary variable to select or remove the gas turbine type 2, dimensionless. |

y_{MSF} | Binary variable to select or remove the MSF desalination unit |

Δt | Total temperature difference of the stage (MSF), K. |

$\Delta T$ | Temperature difference between the heating utility temperature in the first effect TS and the discharge brine temperature T_{B,} K. |

Δtc | Driving force for the heat transfer, K. |

$\Delta teff$ | Effective driving force for heat transfer in the evaporation effects, K. |

Δtf | Driving force for the flashing process, K. |

η_{AC} | Efficiency of the air compressor, dimensionless. |

η_{GT} | Efficiency of the gas turbine expander, dimensionless. |

Abbreviations | |

AC | Air compressor |

BURN | Burner |

CC | Combustion chamber |

CCHPP | Combined cycle heat and power plant |

COMP | Compressor |

COND | Condenser |

DPPDP | Dual-purpose power desalination plants |

EC | Economizer |

EVP | Evaporator |

EVP2 | Evaporator at the low-pressure level |

GT1 | Gas turbine Type I |

GT2 | Gas turbine Type II |

HEX | Pre-heater |

HRSG | Heat recovery steam generator |

MED | Multi-effect distillation desalination |

MINLP | Mixed integer nonlinear |

MSF | Multi-stage flash |

ORC | Organic Rankine cycle |

RH1 | Re-heater of the steam at high-pressure level |

SH2 | Superheater at the low-pressure level |

## Appendix A

#### Appendix A.1. Overall Mass Balances

_{sw}and x

_{B}.

#### Appendix A.2. Overall Energy Balance

_{42_MSF}the latent heat of condensation. The parameters Cp

^{SW}, Cp

^{D}, and Cp

^{B}refer to the averaged heat capacities of the seawater, distillate, and discharge brine, while T

^{0}represents the reference temperature.

#### Appendix A.3. Overall Balances in the Main Brine Heater

#### Appendix A.4. Total Heat Transfer Area

_{MSF}) can be expressed as follows:

#### Appendix A.5. Fresh Water Production

#### Appendix A.6. Multi-Effect Distillation (MED) Desalination Process

#### Appendix A.7. Overall and Component Mass Balances

_{F}and X

_{B}refer to the mass composition of the feed seawater and discharge brine, respectively.

#### Appendix A.8. Heating Steam in the First Effect E1

#### Appendix A.9. Effective Driving Force for Heat Transfer in the Evaporation Effects

_{B}(Equation (A17)), and the boiling point elevation BPE:

#### Appendix A.10. Heat Exchange in Evaporation Effects

#### Appendix A.11. Energy Balance and Heat Transfer Area of the Condenser

_{COND}is calculated by Equation (A22):

#### Appendix A.12. Combined Cycle Heat and Power Plant

#### Appendix A.13. Cost model for the Entire Integrated Process

#### Appendix A.14. Combustion Chamber and Burners

_{f}represent the flowrate and molecular weight of the fuel expressed in kmol/s and kg/kmol, respectively. Additionally, T refers to the temperature of the flue gas expressed in K.

#### Appendix A.15. Heat Exchangers

_{HE}is expressed in USD/m

^{2}and varies with the type of heat exchanger (35 USD/m

^{2}for economizers, 41.71 USD/m

^{2}for evaporators, and 83.43 USD/m

^{2}for superheaters). HTA refers to the heat transfer area (m

^{2}) and P is the operating pressure (bar).

#### Appendix A.16. Steam Turbines

_{ST}expressed in kW.

_{DRUM}and FP

_{DRUM}are calculated from Equations (A27)–(A29).

_{DRUM}refer to the flowrate (kmol/s) and operating pressure at the drum (MPa).

#### Appendix A.17. Pumps

_{PUMP}and FP

_{PUMP}are calculated taken into account the electrical power consumption W

_{PUMP}(MW) and high pressure P

_{High}(MPa).

#### Appendix A.18. Gas Turbines

_{GT1}and Z

_{GT2}represent the cost of the turbines (17.4 × 10

^{6}USD for GT1 and 11.3 × 10

^{6}USD for GT2) and Z

_{GT1}and Z

_{GT2}refer to the corresponding binary variables.

#### Appendix A.19. Desalination Processes

_{j}and ρ

_{SW,j}represent the flowrate of the incoming seawater (kg/s) and density (kg/m

^{3}).

_{b,j}represent, respectively, the total hours per year (8000 h/y), the incoming seawater flowrate (kg/s) and seawater density (kg/m

^{3}). A value of 0.024 USD/m

^{3}is assumed for Ctreat.

## References

- El-Nashar, A.M. Cogeneration for power and desalination—State of the art review. Desalination
**2001**, 134, 7–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Shahzad, M.W.; Ng, K.C.; Thu, K. An Improved Cost Apportionment for Desalination Combined with Power Plant: An Exergetic Analyses. Appl. Mech. Mater.
**2016**, 819, 530–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Eveloy, V.; Rodgers, P.; Qiu, L. Integration of an atmospheric solid oxide fuel cell-gas turbine system with reverse osmosis for distributed seawater desalination in a process facility. Energy Convers. Manag.
**2016**, 126, 944–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mokhtari, H.; Sepahvand, M.; Fasihfar, A. Thermoeconomic and exergy analysis in using hybrid systems (GT + MED + RO) for desalination of brackish water in Persian Gulf. Desalination
**2016**, 399, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Al-Zahrani, A.; Orfi, J.; Al-Suhaibani, Z.; Salim, B.; Al-Ansary, H. Thermodynamic Analysis of a Reverse Osmosis Desalination Unit with Energy Recovery System. Procedia Eng.
**2012**, 33, 404–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Ansari, K.; Sayyaadi, H.; Amidpour, M. Thermoeconomic optimization of a hybrid pressurized water reactor (PWR) power plant coupled to a multi effect distillation desalination system with thermo-vapor compressor (MED-TVC). Energy
**2010**, 35, 1981–1996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wu, L.; Xiao, S.; Hu, Y. Scheduling of the Combined Power and Desalination System. Chem. Eng. Trans.
**2020**, 81, 1201–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tian, L.; Wang, Y.; Guo, J. Economic Analysis of 2-200 MW Nuclear Heating Reactor For Seawater Desalination by Multi-effect Distillation (MED). Desalination
**2002**, 152, 223–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Eltamaly, A.M.; Ali, E.; Bumazza, M.; Mulyono, S.; Yasin, M. Optimal Design of Hybrid Renewable Energy System for a Reverse Osmosis Desalination System in Arar, Saudi Arabia. Arab. J. Sci. Eng.
**2021**, 46, 9879–9897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ali, E.; Bumazza, M.; Eltamaly, A.; Mulyono, S.; Yasin, M. Optimization of Wind Driven RO Plant for Brackish Water Desalination during Wind Speed Fluctuation with and without Battery. Membranes
**2021**, 11, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Luo, C.; Zhang, N.; Lior, N.; Lin, H. Proposal and analysis of a dual-purpose system integrating a chemically recuperated gas turbine cycle with thermal seawater desalination. Energy
**2011**, 36, 3791–3803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tamburini, A.; Cipollina, A.; Piacentino, A. Retrofit CHP (combined heat and power) retrofit for a large MED-TVC (multiple effect distillation along with thermal vapour compression) desalination plant: High efficiency assessment for different design options under the current legislative EU framework. Energy
**2016**, 115, 1548–1559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Modabber, V.H.; Manesh, K.M.H. 4E dynamic analysis of a water-power cogeneration plant integrated with solar parabolic trough collector and absorption chiller. Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog.
**2021**, 21, 100785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Manassaldi, J.I.; Mussati, M.C.; Scenna, N.J.; Morosuk, T.; Mussati, S.F. Process optimization and revamping of combined-cycle heat and power plants integrated with thermal desalination processes. Energy
**2021**, 233, 121131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mussati, S.F.; Aguirre, P.A.; Scenna, N.J. Optimization of alternative structures of integrated power and desalination plants. Desalination
**2005**, 182, 123–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wu, L.; Yangdong, H.; Congjie, G. Optimum design of cogeneration for power and desalination to satisfy the demand of water and power. Desalination
**2013**, 324, 111–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Shakib, S.E.; Hosseini, S.R.; Amidpour, M.; Aghanajafi, C. Multi-objective optimization of a cogeneration plant for supplying given amount of power and fresh water. Desalination
**2012**, 286, 225–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hosseini, S.R.; Amidpour, M.; Shakib, S.E. Cost optimization of a combined power and water desalination plant with exergetic, environment and reliability consideration. Desalination
**2012**, 285, 123–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Modabber, V.H.; Manesh, M.H.K. Exergetic Exergoeconomic and Exergoenvironmental Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm Optimization of Qeshm Power and Water Cogeneration Plant. Gas Process. J.
**2019**, 7, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zak, G.M. Thermal Desalination: And Integration in Clean Power and Water. Master’s Thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2012. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/74955 (accessed on 2 November 2022).
- Bussieck, M.R.; Drud, A. SBB: A New Solver for Mixed Integer Nonlinear Programming, Talk, OR 2001, Section “Continuous Optimization”. Available online: https://pdfs.hu/doc/64720b9d/sbb:-a-new-solver-for-mixed-integer-nonlinear-programming-gams (accessed on 2 November 2022).
- Al-Mutaz, I.S.; Wazeer, I. Economic optimization of the number of effects for the multi-effect desalination plant. Desalination Water Treat.
**2015**, 56, 2269–2275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - El-Dessouky, H.T.; Ettouney, H.M. Fundamentals of Salt Water Desalination; Elsevier Science: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2002; ISBN 960 9780444508102. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, J.J.J. Comments on improvements on a replacement for the logarithmic mean. Chem. Eng. Sci.
**1987**, 42, 2488–2489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Blumberg, T.; Assar, M.; Morosuk, T.; Tsatsaronis, G. Comparative exergoeconomic evaluation of the latest generation of combined-cycle power plants. Energy Convers. Manag.
**2017**, 153, 616–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tsatsaronis, G.; Morosuk, T. Understanding and improving energy conversion systems with the aid of exergy—based methods. Int. J. Exergy
**2012**, 11, 518–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Pietrasanta, A.M.; Mussati, S.F.; Aguirre, P.A.; Morosuk, T.; Mussati, M.C. Optimization of a multi-generation power, desalination, refrigeration and heating system. Energy
**2022**, 238, 121737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Maheshwari, M.; Singh, O. Thermo-economic analysis of combined cycle configurations with intercooling and reheating. Energy
**2020**, 205, 118049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ulrich, G.D.; Vasudevan, P.T. Chemical Engineering-Process Design and Economics-A Practical Guide; Process Publishing: Amherst, NH, USA, 2004; pp. 352–419. [Google Scholar]
- Al-Obaidi, M.A.; Filippini, G.; Manenti, F.; Mujtaba, I.M. Cost evaluation and optimisation of hybrid multi effect distillation and reverse osmosis system for seawater desalination. Desalination
**2019**, 456, 136–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 2.**(

**a**) Schematic of a MSF desalination system; (

**b**) representative system for mathematical modeling.

**Figure 5.**Optimal configuration of the integrated power/desalination process obtained by minimizing the total annual cost to generate 80.0 MW of net electrical power and 700 m

^{3}/h of freshwater.

**Figure 6.**Sub-optimal configuration of the integrated power/desalination process obtained by minimizing the total annual cost to generate 80.0 MW of net electrical power and 700 m

^{3}/h of freshwater (Config. #3).

Specification Design | |

Net electrical power generation (MW) | 80.0 |

Freshwater production rate (m^{3}/h) | 700.0 |

Process data | |

Seawater temperature (K) | 298.15 |

Seawater salinity (ppm) | 42,000 |

Cooling water temperature (K) | 298.15 |

MED and MSF Desalination Systems | |

Specific heat capacity of seawater (kJ/(kg·K)) | 4.2 |

Boiling point elevation (K) | 1.5 |

Latent heat of vaporization (kJ/kg) | 2333 |

Overall heat transfer coefficient in the effects (kW/(m^{2}·K)) | 3.0 |

Overall heat transfer coefficient in the condenser (kW/(m^{2}·K)) | 2.0 |

CCHP plant | |

Steam turbine isentropic efficiency (%) | 85 |

Overall heat transfer coefficients (W/(m^{2} K)) | |

Superheater | 50.0 |

Evaporator | 43.7 |

Economizer | 42.6 |

Pinch temperature (K) | 5 |

Fuel cost (USD/MJ) | 0.00386 |

Config. | GT1 ^{#} | GT2 ^{##} | BURN1 | BURN2 | RH1 | SH2/EV2 | MSF | MED | TAC (MM USD/y./USD/h) | Difference (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Optimal | X | - | X | - | X | - | X | - | 45.944/5743 | - |

#1 | - | X | - | - | X | - | X | - | 46.488/5811 | 1.2 |

#2 | - | X | X | - | X | - | X | - | 49.184/6148 | 7.1 |

#3 | - | X | X | X | X | - | X | - | 49.784/6223 | 8.35 |

#4 | X | - | X | - | X | - | - | X | 52.184/6523 | 13.6 |

#5 | - | X | - | - | X | - | - | X | 54.448/6806 | 18.5 |

#6 | - | X | X | X | X | - | - | X | 55.888/6986 | 21.6 |

^{#}GT1–39.1 MW

^{##}GT2–64.3/67.5 MW.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Pietrasanta, A.M.; Mussati, S.F.; Aguirre, P.A.; Morosuk, T.; Mussati, M.C.
Optimization of Cogeneration Power-Desalination Plants. *Energies* **2022**, *15*, 8374.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en15228374

**AMA Style**

Pietrasanta AM, Mussati SF, Aguirre PA, Morosuk T, Mussati MC.
Optimization of Cogeneration Power-Desalination Plants. *Energies*. 2022; 15(22):8374.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en15228374

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Pietrasanta, Ariana M., Sergio F. Mussati, Pio A. Aguirre, Tatiana Morosuk, and Miguel C. Mussati.
2022. "Optimization of Cogeneration Power-Desalination Plants" *Energies* 15, no. 22: 8374.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en15228374