Thermodynamic Performance Analysis of Combined Recompression Supercritical Carbon Dioxide (SCO2): Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) for Waste Heat Recovery



Abstract Views
246

Downloads
172

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Dec 9, 2021
Published Dec 19, 2022
10.24018/ejeng.2022.7.6.2694

Abstract viewed = 246 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

An energy and exergy-based performance evaluation of combined recompression supercritical carbon dioxide Brayton cycle and organic Rankine cycle (SCO2/ORC) is presented. A parametric investigation has been performed by varying input parameters such as compressor outlet pressure , SCO2 turbine temperature , SCO2 mass flow rate , flow split fraction, LTR effectiveness and HTR effectiveness. R1234ze, R1234yf, and R245fa working fluids were considered in the bottoming cycle of SCO2/ORC. Results obtained revealed that the R1234ze-based SCO2/ORC system demonstrated the highest thermal and exergy efficiency of 55.87% and 73.13% respectively, at  = 30MPa and  = 3900C; 51.47% and 80.39% at  = 3kg/s when the split fraction is between 0.357 and 0.4; 52.19% and 71.44% at  = 0.95; and 52.19% and 71.44% at  = 0.95. However, the R245fa-based SCO2/ORC system is observed to have the lowest thermal and exergy efficiency. The maximum exergy destruction is seen to occur in the gas heater with 36.97% (8.45kW) of input exergy destroyed in this component. It is followed by the recompression compressor at 17.17% (3.93kW) and the SCO2 turbine at 16.03% (3.67%), with the ORC pump at 0.157% (0.036kW) having the least exergy destroyed.

Keywords: Recompression SCO2/ORC, Rate of Exergy Destruction, Thermal and Exergy Efficiency.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Kim YM, Sohn JL, Yoon ES. Supercritical CO2 Rankine cycles for waste heat recovery from gas turbine. Energy, 2017; 118: 893-905. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2016.10.106.
     Google Scholar
  2. Song J, Song LX, Dong RX, Wei GC. Performance improvement of a preheating supercritical CO2 (S-CO2) cycle based system for engine waste heat recovery. Energy Convers. Manag., 2018; 161(February): 225-233. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2018.02.009.
     Google Scholar
  3. Sarkar J. Second law analysis of supercritical CO2 recompression Brayton cycle. Energy, 2009; 34(9): 1172-1178. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2009.04.030.
     Google Scholar
  4. Ahn Y, Bae SJ, Kim M, Cho SK, Baik S, Lee JI, Cha JE. Review of supercritical CO2 power cycle technology and current status of research and development. Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 2015; 47(6): 647–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2015.06.009.
     Google Scholar
  5. Guo Z, Zhao Y, Zhu Y, Niu F, Lu D. Progress in Nuclear Energy Optimal design of supercritical CO 2 power cycle for next generation nuclear power conversion systems. Prog. Nucl. Energy, 2018; 108(October): 111–121. doi: 10.1016/j.pnucene.2018.04.023.
     Google Scholar
  6. Le Moullec Y. Conceptual study of a high efficiency coal-fired power plant with CO2 capture using a supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle. Energy, 2013; 49: 32–46. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2012.10.022.
     Google Scholar
  7. Mecheri M, Le Y. Supercritical CO 2 Brayton cycles for coal- fi red power plants. Energy, 2016; 103: 758–771. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2016.02.111.
     Google Scholar
  8. Ruiz-Casanova E, Rubio-Maya C, Pacheco-Ibarra JJ, Ambriz-Díaz VM, Romero CE, Wang X. Thermodynamic analysis and optimization of supercritical carbon dioxide Brayton cycles for use with low-grade geothermal heat sources. Energy Conversion and Management, 2020; 216: 112978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112978.
     Google Scholar
  9. Song J, Wang Y, Wang K, Wang J, Markides CN. Combined supercritical CO2 (SCO 2) cycle and organic Rankine cycle (ORC) system for hybrid solar and geothermal power generation?: Thermoeconomic assessment of various con fi gurations. Renew. Energy, 2021; 174: 1020–1035. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2021.04.124.
     Google Scholar
  10. Wang K, He Y. Thermodynamic analysis and optimization of a molten salt solar power tower integrated with a recompression supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle based on integrated modeling. Energy Convers. Manag., 2017; 135: 336–350. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2016.12.085.
     Google Scholar
  11. Milani D, Tri M, McNaughton R, Abbas A. Optimizing an advanced hybrid of solar-assisted supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle?: A vital transition for low-carbon power generation industry. Energy Convers. Manag., 2017; 148:1317–1331. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2017.06.017.
     Google Scholar
  12. Acikkalp E. Ecologic and sustainable objective thermodynamic evaluation of molten carbonate fuel cell e supercritical CO 2 Brayton cycle hybrid system. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf., 2017: 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.12.110.
     Google Scholar
  13. Singh H, Mishra RS. Energy- and exergy-based performance evaluation of solar powered combined cycle (recompression supercritical carbon dioxide cycle/organic Rankine cycle). Clean Energy, 2018; 2(2): 140–153. doi: 10.1093/ce/zky011.
     Google Scholar
  14. Besarati SM, Yogi Goswami D. Analysis of Advanced Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Power Cycles With a Bottoming Cycle for Concentrating Solar Power Applications. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering; 2013; 136(1y): 2–8. doi: 10.1115/1.4025700.
     Google Scholar
  15. Klein SA. Engineering Equation Solver. F-Chart Software, 2020.
     Google Scholar
  16. Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran M. Thermal Design & Optimization. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc, 1996.
     Google Scholar
  17. Igbong D, Nyong O, Enyia J, Oluwadare B, Obhua M. Exergoeconomic Evaluation and Optimization of Dual Pressure Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) for Geothermal Heat Source Utilization. J. power energy Eng., 2021;9(9):19–40. doi: 10.4236/jpee.2021.99002.
     Google Scholar
  18. Igbong D, Nyong OE, Enyia J, Agba A. Working Fluid Selection for Simple and Recuperative Organic Rankine Cycle Operating Under Varying Conditions: A Comparative Analysis. Adv. Sci. Technol. Res. J., 2021; 15(4): 202–221.
     Google Scholar