Fill in the parameters and press Calculate
Computing steam properties…
Fill in the parameters and press Calculate
Computing…
Fill in the parameters and press Calculate
Fill in the parameters and press Calculate
Enter temperatures and press Calculate
Every efficiency value in this calculator has a specific meaning, formula, and range. This guide explains what each one measures, why the numbers differ, and the physical reasoning behind why some efficiencies are inherently higher or lower than others.
In any real steam power cycle, the efficiencies form a strict pyramid. The Carnot limit sits at top as the absolute ceiling; actual cycle efficiency is always below it; overall plant efficiency is lower still because it accounts for generator and boiler losses. Component efficiencies (turbine, pump) describe individual machine quality, not the whole system.
These are the component efficiencies you enter as inputs. They describe how well each individual machine performs relative to the theoretical ideal. They are NOT the overall cycle efficiency — they feed into the cycle calculation.
These are derived results — the calculator computes them from your inputs and steam table lookups. They describe the cycle as a whole, not individual components.
Carnot tells us η = 1 − T_cold/T_hot. The same logic applies to real cycles: raising T₃ (turbine inlet) dramatically raises η_th because more of the heat is added at a higher mean temperature. This is why supercritical plants (T₃ ≥ 600°C) outperform subcritical ones (T₃ ≤ 400°C) by 8–12 percentage points.
Example: T_H = 400°C = 673 K, T_C = 40°C = 313 K.
Correct (Kelvin): η = 1 − 313/673 = 53.5% ✓
Wrong (Celsius): η = 1 − 40/400 = 90% ✗ — wildly overstated
The calculator flags this error explicitly in the Carnot tab.
A geothermal plant running at 25% thermal efficiency on 180°C steam might have a higher 2nd Law efficiency than a coal plant at 35% thermal efficiency on 500°C steam, if the geothermal plant uses its limited temperature difference more cleverly. The 2nd Law metric strips out the advantage of raw fuel temperature and measures only engineering quality.
Even with η_g ≈ 98% and η_b ≈ 90%, multiplying gives 0.98 × 0.90 = 0.882. So overall plant efficiency is only 88.2% of the thermal cycle efficiency. A cycle achieving η_th = 45% gives only η_plant = 45% × 0.882 = 39.7%. The boiler is by far the bigger loss — improving it from 85% → 92% saves more than upgrading the turbine by 3 percentage points.
Water at 40°C has specific volume v_f ≈ 0.001 m³/kg. Pump work = v_f × ΔP ≈ 0.001 × 10,000 kPa = 10 kJ/kg. Turbine work ≈ 800–1200 kJ/kg. BWR ≈ 1%. Compare to a Brayton cycle where compressor work is 300–500 kJ/kg against turbine work of 600–900 kJ/kg — BWR of 40–60%. This 40× advantage is why Rankine cycles dominate large power generation.
| Cycle Type | Typical η_th | Why Higher / Lower | Key Improvement Mechanism | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Basic Rankine (saturated) | 18–30% | Lowest — heat added at saturation temperature; moisture limits turbine exit quality | Baseline — lowest capital cost | Turbine damage from wet steam; low T₃ |
| Superheated Rankine | 30–46% | Higher mean heat-addition temperature raises η; dry steam protects turbine blades | Superheating raises T₃ well above T_sat, increasing enthalpy drop | Material limits (~620°C ferritic, ~700°C Ni-alloy) |
| Reheat Rankine | 34–47% | Second expansion stage adds work at intermediate pressure; moisture kept low | Reduces irreversibility in LP turbine; raises mean heat-addition T | Added reheater cost; optimal P₂ selection critical |
| Regenerative Rankine | 36–48% | Feedwater preheating reduces boiler heat input for same output; mean T_addition rises | Bled steam internally heats feedwater — recovers otherwise wasted heat | Reduces steam flow to LP turbine (less mass doing work) |
| Carnot (theoretical max) | 31–75% | All processes perfectly reversible — zero entropy generation. Physically impossible | Isothermal heat addition and rejection at exact T_H and T_C | Cannot be built — requires infinite time for reversible processes |
Modern ultra-supercritical plants combine superheat (T₃ ≥ 600°C) + reheat (one or two stages) + regenerative feedwater heating (5–8 bleeds). Each addition addresses a different source of irreversibility. Superheat raises the peak temperature. Reheat keeps the steam dry and adds more work. Regeneration reduces the temperature gap between cold feedwater and hot boiler gases. Together, these push η_th from ~30% to 45–48% — a 50% improvement in cycle efficiency.
| Symbol | Name | Where | Formula | Typical Range | Higher means… |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| η_t | Turbine isentropic η | Input | (h₃−h₄)/(h₃−h₄s) | 82–92% | Less friction, better blades |
| η_p | Pump isentropic η | Input | (h₂s−h₁)/(h₂−h₁) | 75–88% | Less cavitation, better hydraulics |
| η_g | Generator η | Input | P_elec / P_shaft | 96–99.5% | Less winding/iron loss |
| η_b | Boiler η | Input | Q_steam / (ṁ×HHV) | 75–95% | Less stack loss, better heat recovery |
| η_th | Thermal efficiency | Output | W_net / Q_in | 18–48% | Better cycle design, higher T₃ |
| η_C | Carnot efficiency | Limit | 1 − T_C(K)/T_H(K) | 30–75% | Wider temperature ratio |
| η_II | 2nd Law η | Output | η_th / η_C | 55–85% | Less irreversibility, better components |
| η_plant | Overall plant η | Output | η_th × η_g × η_b | 20–42% | All three sub-efficiencies improved |
| BWR | Back work ratio | Output | W_pump / W_turbine | 0.1–3% | Lower is better — less pump work |
| HR | Heat rate | Output | 3600 / η_th (kJ/kWh) | 7,200–13,500 | Lower HR = more efficient plant |