to AndreChE, I'll try to concentrate on the subject of efficiency which seems to bother you.
The effectiveness "e" of a heat exchanger is expressed, as you did, on the fluid whose "m.c" is the lowest of both, because it represents the fluid than could in theory attain the maximum delta t. In this example, it is the gas side, since 87483*0.59<78472*1.
"e" values are affected by, and are a function of the type of HE, and depend quite strongly on two dimensionless numbers: R=(mc)min/(mc)max, and on NTUmax (number of transfer units)=UA/(mc)min.
U is the overall HTC, and A is the area.
The mathematical relation of "e" with R and NTU is complicated and exponential. However, some general conclusions can be formulated:
For low NTU values (<1) as in the example you gave, any increase in water flow, no matter how large, will not increase markedly the "e" values resulting from additional cooling of the gas, as it may be seen at the table given at the end of this message.
However, by reducing the water flow rate by, say, 75% one may decrease the heat load by 17% and increase the "e" to above 0.53! I'll try to explain:
When one reduces the water mass flow rate this stream becomes the one with (mc)min, and "e"=delta tw/(71.6-19.9).
For the submitted example UA is taken as constant at about 17000 kcal/(h*oC). By dropping the water flow rate to, say, 20,000 kg/h, NTU=17000/(20000*1)=0.85.
R=20000*1/(87483*0.598)=0.38. From charts "e"=0.53.
Thus the cooling water temperature will rise by 0.53*(71.6-19.9)=27.4oC.
The duty will drop to 27.4*20,000=548,000 kcal/h, i.e., by (659,165-548,000)/659,165=16.8%
The gas will cool only by 548,000/(87483*0.598)=10.5oC, down to 71.6-10.5=61.1oC instead of the original 59oC.
And the unit will become more "effective" at lower water flow rates (surprised ?). As you see, the influence of varying water flow rates in a given exchanger can be analysed, with outlet temperatures and heat duties changing with changes in effectiveness.
Reducing water flow rates may bring about undesirable results on the process side, thus it should be contemplated in a wider context.
Increasing A in order to improve NTU, to obtain a better "e" is a good approach. However, this means spending money in installations, operations, maintenance, etc., so it is all a matter of economics.
There are books with charts, and I pressume computer programs, to estimate and optimize "e", especially when the outlet temperatures are not known. Although the effectiveness method is not new at all, it offers advantages for analysing problems in the selection of the HE type best suited to accomplish a particular HE objective.
It may help to decide on whether to split the duty into two units in parallel or in series, it helps in analysing what happens when flows are changed in one given exchanger, and so forth.
Here is a short table comparing effectiveness values for two type of heat exchangers:
NTU R crossflow counterflow
0.25 0 0.23 0.23
0.25 1 0.22 0.19
0.50 0 0.40 0.42
0.50 1 0.32 0.31
1 0 0.62 0.63
1 0.5 0.50 0.55
1 1 0.48 0.49
2 0 0.87 0.87
2 0.5 0.72 0.77
2 1 0.61 0.67
4 0 0.98 0.99
4 0.5 0.87 0.92
4 1 0.72 0.81
Good luck in your HE analyses.