## 4 Discussion  
The AdvExEcon analysis is performed according to the AdvEx analysis analogy. The AdvEx analysis showed that the amount of preventable exergy destruction caused by the components was high for the maximum exergy efficiency of the plant. The evaluation of this situation in terms of cost can be made with the AdvExEcon method. Therefore, in this analysis, total operating costs show the components that should have their improvement prioritized to increase the overall cost efficiency of the plant. This exergy is determined by adding the destruction cost to the capital investment cost. The change in the total operating costs of the plant and its components in terms of TradExEcon and AdvExEcon analyses is shown in Figure 2. As seen in Figure 2, the total operating cost is 1218 USD/h for traditional analysis, while its value is 186 USD/h for further analysis. Thus, an 85% reduction in total operating costs can be achieved. It can also be seen from the figure that with the AdvEx analysis of all components, the total operating costs are reduced. In the context of Tables 6 and 7, the components are preventable costs, as their endogenous exergy destruction costs are much higher than their preventable endogenous capital investment costs. Figure 3 shows the relative cost difference for the plant and its components for the TradExEcon and AdvExEcon analyses. The relative cost difference (\(r_{k}\)) is related to the increase in cost per unit exergy between fuel and product. As seen in Figure 3, while the \(r_{k}\) value of the PP is 16% in the TradExEcon analysis, its value is 28% in the further analysis. The cost increase is provided between fuel and production with AdvExEcon analysis. However, this situation occurs by decreasing the \(r_{k}\) value in the components. According to the TradExEcon analysis, the \(r_{k}\) values of the pumps (754% and 1083% for \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Component**, \(k\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\dot{Z}_{\alpha,4}\)**(USD/h)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\dot{Z}_{\alpha,4}^{\text{EX}}\)**(USD/h)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\dot{Z}_{\alpha,4}^{\text{EX}}\)**(USD/h)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\dot{Z}_{\alpha,4}^{\text{EX}}\)**(USD/h)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\dot{Z}_{\alpha,4}^{\text{EX}}\)**(USD/h)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\dot{Z}_{\alpha,4}^{\text{EX}}\)**(USD/h)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\dot{Z}_{\alpha,4}^{\text{EX}}\)**(USD/h)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\dot{Z}_{\alpha,4}^{\text{EX}}\)**(USD/h)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\dot{Z}_{\alpha,4}^{\text{EX}}\)**(USD/h)**} \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{5-10}  & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline VAP 1 & 18.600 & 17.998 & 0.602 & 16.346 & 2.254 & 16.892 & \(-\)0.547 & 1.106 & 1.148 \\ \hline PRE-HE 1 & 14.450 & 13.708 & 0.742 & 12.616 & 1.834 & 13.298 & \(-\)0.683 & 0.410 & 1.424 \\ \hline CON 1 & 130.060 & 114.909 & 15.151 & 94.000 & 36.060 & 106.393 & \(-\)12.394 & 8.516 & 27.544 \\ \hline TURB 1 & 119.460 & 109.433 & 10.027 & 99.679 & 19.781 & 108.813 & \(-\)9.133 & 0.621 & 19.160 \\ \hline PU 1 & 16.550 & 16.441 & 0.109 & 16.133 & 0.417 & 16.241 & \(-\)0.107 & 0.200 & 0.216 \\ \hline RECUP & 22.120 & 19.774 & 2.346 & 16.326 & 5.794 & 18.263 & \(-\)1.937 & 1.511 & 4.283 \\ \hline _LEVEL II_ & & & & & & & & \\ \hline VAP 2 & 19.880 & 17.998 & 1.882 & 15.362 & 4.518 & 16.969 & \(-\)1.606 & 1.029 & 3.489 \\ \hline PRE-HE 2 & 14.450 & 13.460 & 0.990 & 12.437 & 2.013 & 13.352 & \(-\)0.915 & 0.108 & 1.905 \\ \hline CON 2 & 130.060 & 114.695 & 15.365 & 96.938 & 33.122 & 109.925 & \(-\)12.986 & 4.770 & 28.352 \\ \hline TURB 2 & 119.460 & 110.322 & 9.138 & 99.706 & 19.754 & 107.965 & \(-\)8.259 & 2.357 & 17.397 \\ \hline PU 2 & 16.550 & 15.382 & 1.168 & 13.740 & 2.810 & 14.783 & \(-\)1.043 & 0.599 & 2.211 \\ \hline OVERALL SYSTEM & 707.830 & 674.411 & 33.419 & 614.595 & 93.235 & 645.049 & \(-\)30.454 & 29.362 & 63.873 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Results of the AdvExEcon analysis for the investment cost rates of all the components. PUs 1 and 2, respectively) are very high compared to the other equipment.