## 4 Results and Discussions
An alternative to evaluate is to design a heat exchanger with a relative higher heat transfer area, due to the greater value of exergy destruction in the ITC1 mainly due to the temperature differences between the streams, and the technical restriction of the thermal oil operational temperature. The results presented in the relative cost difference and exergoeconomic factor by system components are shown in Table 7.  
The exergoeconomic factor and exergy efficiency for the GT-MHR turbine is found to be almost 55% and 97%, respectively, in all three combined cycles. Therefore, the exergy and exergoeconomic performance of this component are satisfactory. Considering the lower values of power production by the ORC turbine, its contribution to the total system cost will be low. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Component**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Configurations of WHR Systems Based on ORC**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**SORC**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**RORC**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**DORC**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & \(\dot{C}_{D}\) & \(\dot{C}_{L}\) & \(\dot{C}_{D}\) & \(\dot{C}_{L}\) & \(\dot{C}_{D}\) & \(\dot{C}_{L}\) \\ \hline ITC1 & 0.64 & 4.51 & 0.07 & 2.87 & 0.19 & 1.56 \\ B1 & 0.01 & - & 0.01 & - & 0.07 & - \\ ITC2 & 0.45 & - & 0.27 & - & 0.39 & - \\ T1 & 0.27 & - & 0.28 & - & 0.008 & - \\ ITC3 & 1.99 & 3.69 & 0.62 & 2.93 & 0.006 & 0.35 \\ B2 & 0.08 & - & 0.008 & - & 0.87 & - \\ RC & - & - & 0.35 & - & - & - \\ T2 & - & - & - & - & 0.01 & - \\ B3 & - & - & - & - & 0.17 & - \\ ITC4 & - & - & - & - & 3.30 & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Destruction exergy costs and exergy loss costs (\(\dot{C}_{L}X10^{-3}\)) for the WHR configurations. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Component**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Configurations of WHR Systems Based on ORC**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**SORC**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**RORC**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**DORC**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & \(\dot{c_{F}}\) & \(\dot{c_{P}}\) & \(\dot{c_{F}}\) & \(\dot{c_{P}}\) & \(\dot{c_{F}}\) & \(\dot{c_{P}}\) \\ \hline ITC1 & 15.21 & 11.97 & 9.69 & 7.60 & 5.26 & 9.73 \\ B1 & 47.85 & 1700.64 & 41.49 & 996.78 & 51.36 & 302.03 \\ ITC2 & 12.45 & 18.48 & 8 & 15.86 & 10.12 & 34.16 \\ T1 & 19.11 & 47.85 & 16.26 & 41.49 & 51.36 & 66.36 \\ ITC3 & 55.37 & 19.11 & 40.87 & 16.26 & 10.12 & 16.05 \\ B2 & 47.84 & 197.64 & 41.49 & 161.52 & 51.36 & 201.58 \\ RC & - & - & 16.26 & 28.95 & - & - \\ T2 & - & - & - & - & 51.36 & 211.30 \\ B3 & - & - & - & - & 51.36 & 387.76 \\ ITC4 & - & - & - & - & 105.98 & 20.69 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Fuel and product costs (USD/GJ) for each component. The relatively higher value of \(\dot{\mathcal{C}}D\) and the very low value of \(f\) for the HP and LP compressors suggest that greater capital investments are appropriate, i.e., higher values of the pressure ratio and isentropic efficiency. The precooler, intercooler, and condenser of the combined cycles have low values of the exergoeconomic factor. Therefore, increasing the capital investment of these components is suggested from the exergoeconomic viewpoint. From the results it can be observed that the pumps present a high relative cost difference, which together with the fact of having a low exergy destruction compared to the other components of the system and the higher values of the exergoeconomic factor, make that the investment of the costs is not effective to obtain the product of these equipments.