## 5 Results
### Exergoeconomic Analysis
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Nr.**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Case I**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Case II**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Case III**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & **Comp.** & \(f_{k}\)**[-]** & \(\langle\dot{C}_{D,k}+\dot{Z}_{k}\rangle/\dot{E}_{P}\) & **Comp.** & \(f_{k}\)**[-]** & \(\langle\dot{C}_{D,k}+\dot{Z}_{k}\rangle/\dot{E}_{P}\) & **Comp.** & \(f_{k}\)**[-]** & \(\langle\dot{C}_{D,k}+\dot{Z}_{k}\rangle/\dot{E}_{P}\) \\  & & **[§/MWh]** & & & & & **[§/MWh]** & & **[§/MWh]** \\ \hline
1 & R-04 & 0.09 & 16.42 & R-09 & 0.01 & 13.46 & R-06 & 0.10 & 8.62 \\
2 & CM-01 & 0.92 & 5.95 & MP-EVA & 0.00 & 9.95 & LP-ECO & 0.00 & 3.58 \\
3 & CM-02 & 0.92 & 5.95 & CM-02 & 0.83 & 4.63 & MP-ECO & 0.00 & 3.20 \\
4 & T-01 & 0.83 & 1.30 & MP-ECO & 0.00 & 3.49 & T-01 & 0.37 & 2.73 \\
5 & T-02 & 0.83 & 1.30 & C-02 & 0.13 & 1.62 & CM-03 & 0.82 & 2.49 \\
6 & CM-06 & 0.95 & 1.11 & T-01 & 0.14 & 1.49 & CM-04 & 0.82 & 2.49 \\
7 & CM-04 & 0.95 & 0.94 & CM-05 & 0.54 & 1.43 & CM-01 & 0.89 & 1.28 \\
8 & C-02 & 0.38 & 0.92 & R-05 & 0.24 & 1.22 & CM-02 & 0.87 & 1.15 \\
9 & C-01 & 0.22 & 0.70 & CM-06 & 0.48 & 0.97 & T-02 & 0.70 & 0.99 \\
10 & R-05 & 0.50 & 0.52 & CM-01 & 0.80 & 0.89 & R-05 & 0.06 & 0.86 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Comparison of the cases using results from the exergoeconomic analyses. destruction. At position number five, the costs of the refining column C-02 are mainly assigned to the exergy destruction caused by heat transfer. The expander T-01 is rated to position number six, whereby the relative cost rate is mainly caused by the exergy destruction within it. The combustion chamber of the ATR R-05 is associated with a high cost because of the irreversibilities caused by the POX reaction. In addition, the syngas compressors are listed at position seven and nine. The \(f\)-value shows a balance of the cost impact through exergy destruction and investment, so that no decision for improvement can be derived here. As in Case II, the furnace R-09 also has the highest relative cost impact among all components in Case III. The low-pressure and medium-pressure economizers are rated to position number two and three, whereby the cost related to exergy destruction have a dominant role. Here, the cost of the exergy of fuel \(c_{F}\) has less influence than the large irreversibilities due to heat transfer at large temperature differences. The \(f\)-factor implies a reduction of the irreversibilities by increasing for example the area of the heat exchangers. The cost of the low-pressure turbine (T-01) is mainly caused by irreversibilities due to friction of droplets in the last stages of the expander. The turbine has a steam quality of \(x=0.93\) at the outlet. Having a smaller relative cost impact, a set of compressors follows on the positions 5-8. As with all other compressors, the investment costs mainly cause the relative cost rates associated with these components: the steam-turbine-driven air compression units (CM-03 and CM-04) and the compressors for pressure control in the reforming (CM-01 and CM-02) unit have an f-value between 0.8 and 0.9. An interesting observation can be made for the gas-heated reactors, the cost impact of which is relatively low. The design of such reactors is similar to a shell and tube heat exchanger and therefore not capital intensive. Moreover, convective heat transfer substitutes the highly irreversible radiant heat transfer from direct firing of fuel in a furnace. In addition, the temperature profiles are regulated for relatively small temperature differences and low exergy destruction.