## 6 Results and Discussion
### Exergoeconomic and Environmental Results
The steam generator and steam turbine in the first configuration, compressor and gas turbine in the second configuration, and regenerator and compressor in the third configuration are in the next position in terms \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline
**Component** & \(\dot{W}\)_or_\(\dot{Q}\) **(kW)** & \(\dot{E}_{\text{YD}}\) **(kW)** & \(\eta_{ex}\) **(\%)** \\ \hline Compressor & 160,058 & 11,336 & 92.92 \\ Regenerator & 251,314 & 19,287 & 89.11 \\ Combustion chamber & 266,854 & 76,669 & 72.79 \\ First gas turbine & 160,058 & 6493 & 96.1 \\ Second gas turbine & 98,483 & 7945 & 92.53 \\ Steam generator & 39,348 & 5250 & 57.38 \\ Steam turbine & 12,368 & 2039 & 85.85 \\ Condenser & 27,117 & 1289 & 27.7 \\ Pump & 136.2 & 25.58 & 81.22 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 11: Energy and exergy analysis of Config. 3. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline
**Component** & \(\dot{W}\)_or_\(\dot{Q}\) **(kW)** & \(\dot{E}_{\text{YD}}\) **(kW)** & \(\eta_{ex}\) **(\%)** \\ \hline Compressor & 160,058 & 11,336 & 92.92 \\ Regenerator & 251,314 & 19,287 & 89.11 \\ Combustion chamber & 266,854 & 76,669 & 72.79 \\ First gas turbine & 160,058 & 6493 & 96.1 \\ Second gas turbine & 98,483 & 7945 & 92.53 \\ Steam generator & 39,348 & 5250 & 57.38 \\ Steam turbine & 12,368 & 2039 & 85.85 \\ Condenser & 27,117 & 1289 & 27.7 \\ Pump & 136.2 & 25.58 & 81.22 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Energy and exergy analysis of Config. 2. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline
**Component** & \(\dot{W}\)_or_\(\dot{Q}\) **(kW)** & \(\dot{E}_{\text{YD}}\) **(kW)** & \(\eta_{ex}\) **(\%)** \\ \hline Compressor & 160,058 & 11,336 & 92.92 \\ Combustion chamber & 544,390 & 184,593 & 67.89 \\ Gas turbine & 324,425 & 17,080 & 95 \\ Steam generator & 342,595 & 31,587 & 82.64 \\ Steam turbine & 116,964 & 19,284 & 85.85 \\ Condenser & 226,597 & 10,770 & 27.7 \\ Pump & 966.9 & 181.5 & 81.22 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: Energy and exergy analysis of Config. 1.  
of higher overall cost rates. In addition, as indicated in these tables, the combustion chamber has the lowest exergoeconomic factor in all three configurations. The value obtained for this component means that the exergy destruction cost prevails over the initial cost, which reduces the exergoeconomic factor. Moreover, it is worth noting that the total exergoeconomic factors for the first to third configurations are 7.53, 9.59, and 10.63 percent, respectively. The obtained values indicate that the exergy destruction cost rate has a significantly higher share than the initial equipment cost rate. As a result, the use of higher initial cost components can improve system performance. The exergy unit cost of electricity generated by the turbines in the first to third configurations is presented in Table 15. As shown in this table, the exergy unit cost of electricity in the Brayton cycle is lower than the Rankine cycle in the considered combined cycle systems. This indicates that the Brayton cycle in all three configurations perform better than the Rankine cycle. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline
**Component** & \(\dot{\mathbf{C}}_{\mathbf{D}}\) **(S/h)** & \(\dot{\mathbf{Z}}\) **(S/h)** & \(\dot{\mathbf{C}}_{\mathbf{D}}+\dot{\mathbf{Z}}\) **(S/h)** & \(f\) **(\%)** \\ \hline Compressor & 916.7 & 500.2 & 1416.9 & 35.3 \\ Regenerator & 1485 & 112.8 & 1597.8 & 7.05 \\ Combustion chamber & 4561 & 27.69 & 4588.69 & 0.603 \\ First gas turbine & 499.9 & 120 & 619.9 & 19.35 \\ Second gas turbine & 611.7 & 113.4 & 725.1 & 15.64 \\ Steam generator & 404.2 & 92.1 & 496.3 & 18.56 \\ Steam turbine & 220.8 & 69.55 & 290.35 & 23.95 \\ Condenser & 139.6 & 14.48 & 154.08 & 39.9 \\ Pump & 3.37 & 1.091 & 4.461 & 24.46 \\ Total system & 8842.27 & 1051.31 & 9893.58 & 10.63 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 14: Exergoeconomic analysis of Config. 3.