Advanced Exergo-Environmental Assessments of an Organic Rankine Cycle as Waste Heat Recovery System from a Natural Gas Engine
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Cycle Description
2.2. Working Fluid Selection
2.3. Thermodynamic Modelling
2.3.1. Energy and Exergy Balance
2.3.2. Exergy Analysis
2.4. Advanced Exergetic Analysis
2.4.1. Graphic Method
2.4.2. Exogenous and Exogenous Destroyed Exergy
2.4.3. Exogenous and Exogenous Destroyed Exergy
2.5. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
2.6. Exergo-Environmental Analysis
2.7. Advanced Exergo-Environmental Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Exergetic Analysis
3.2. Advanced Exergetic Analysis
3.3. Life Cycle Assessment and Exergo-Environmental Analysis
3.4. Advanced Exergo-Environmental Analysis
3.5. Sensitivity Analysis
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
Abbreviations | |
ORC | Organic Rankine Cycle |
ODP | Ozone depression potential |
GWP | Global warming potential |
WHRS | Waste Heat Recovery System |
LCA | Life Cycle Assessments |
HX1 | Heat Exchanger 1 |
ITC | Heat Exchanger |
LMTD | logarithmic mean temperature difference |
Nomenclature | |
A | Area, m2 |
b | Environmental impact points per unit of exergy, mPts/kJ |
Environmental impact rate associated with exergy, mPts/h | |
Cp | Specific heat, kJ/kg K |
D | Diameter, m |
Specific exergy, kJ/kg | |
Exergy rate, kW | |
Temperature correction factor | |
Exergo-environmental factor | |
h | Specific enthalpy, kJ/kg |
Mass, kg | |
Mass flow, kg/s | |
P | Pressure, kPa |
Heat rate, kW | |
R | Universal gas constant or coefficient of effectiveness |
Relative difference of specific environmental impact, % | |
rp | Pressure ratio |
S | Heat capacity ratio |
s | Specific entropy, kJ/kg· K |
T | Temperature, °C |
U | Overall heat transfer coefficient, |
Internal energy, J | |
Volume, | |
Power, kW | |
Exergy destruction rate, kW | |
Gas mole fraction | |
Environmental impact, mPts | |
Environmental impact related to the component, mPts/h | |
Exergy destruction fraction, % | |
Subscripts | |
wf | Working fluid |
cond | Condensator |
evap | Evaporator |
Destroyed | |
F | Fuel (exergy) |
k | k-th component |
Lost (exergy) | |
Input | |
pum | Pump |
P | Product (exergy) |
Output | |
Control volume | |
Sys | Sistem |
tur | Turbine |
tot | Total |
0 | Reference condition |
Superscripts | |
Endogenous | |
Exogenous | |
Avoidable | |
Unavoidable | |
Physical | |
Chemical | |
Ideal system | |
Real system | |
co | Contruction phase |
om | Operation and maintance phase |
de | Decommissioning phase |
Greek letters | |
Exergetic efficiency, % | |
Eco-99 coefficient | |
Density, kg/m3 | |
Thickness, m | |
Mass of material per k, kg/kW |
References
- Meyer, L.; Tsatsaronis, G.; Buchgeister, J.; Schebek, L. Exergoenvironmental analysis for evaluation of the environmental impact of energy conversion systems. Energy 2009, 34, 75–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Audenaert, A.; De Cleyn, S.H.; Buyle, M. LCA of low-energy flats using the Eco-indicator 99 method: Impact of insulation materials. Energy Build. 2012, 47, 68–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaiyat, N.; Chaongew, S.; Ondokmai, P.; Makarkard, P. Levelized energy and exergy costings per life cycle assessment of a combined cooling, heating, power and tourism system of the San Kamphaeng hot spring, Thailand. Renew. Energy 2020, 146, 828–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heijungs, R.; Huppes, G.; Guinée, J.B. Life cycle assessment and sustainability analysis of products, materials and technologies. Toward a scientific framework for sustainability life cycle analysis. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2010, 95, 422–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, R.; Wu, P. Estimation of environmental impacts of roads through life cycle assessment: A critical review and future directions. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2019, 77, 148–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nwodo, M.N.; Anumba, C.J. A review of life cycle assessment of buildings using a systematic approach. Build. Environ. 2019, 162, 106290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ameri, M.; Mohammadzadeh, M. Thermodynamic, thermoeconomic and life cycle assessment of a novel integrated solar combined cycle (ISCC) power plant. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2018, 27, 192–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ayres, R.U.; Ayres, L.W.; Martinás, K. Exergy, waste accounting, and life-cycle analysis. Energy 1998, 23, 355–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koroneos, C.; Tsarouhis, M. Exergy analysis and life cycle assessment of solar heating and cooling systems in the building environment. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 32, 52–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laner, D.; Rechberger, H.; De Soete, W.; De Meester, S.; Astrup, T.F. Resource recovery from residual household waste: An application of exergy flow analysis and exergetic life cycle assessment. Waste Manag. 2015, 46, 653–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Param, H.K.; Jianu, O.A. Exergy Analysis of Heat Recovery Steam Generator: Effects of Supplementary Firing and Desuperheater. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 2020, 142, 50908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keçebaş, A. Exergoenvironmental analysis for a geothermal district heating system: An application. Energy 2016, 94, 391–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmadi, P.; Dincer, I. Exergoenvironmental analysis and optimization of a cogeneration plant system using Multimodal Genetic Algorithm (MGA). Energy 2010, 35, 5161–5172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boyano, A.; Blanco-Marigorta, A.M.; Morosuk, T.; Tsatsaronis, G. Exergoenvironmental analysis of a steam methane reforming process for hydrogen production. Energy 2011, 36, 2202–2214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petrakopoulou, F.; Boyano, A.; Cabrera, M.; Tsatsaronis, G. Exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental analyses of a combined cycle power plant with chemical looping technology. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2011, 5, 475–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsatsaronis, G. Strengths and Limitations of Exergy Analysis BT–Thermodynamic Optimization of Complex Energy Systems; Bejan, A., Mamut, E., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1999; pp. 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colorado-Garrido, D. Advanced Exergy Analysis of a Compression–Absorption Cascade Refrigeration System. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 2018, 141, 42002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petrakopoulou, F. Comparative Evaluation of Power Plants with CO2 Capture: Thermodynamic, Economic and Environmental Performance. Doctoral Thesis, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naeimi, M.M.; Salehi, G.R.; Yazdi, M.E. Advanced Exergy, Exergoeconomic, Exergoenvironmnetal Evaluation of a Solar Hybrid Trigeneration System based on Solar-Gas Turbine for an Office Building. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 2020, 143, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boyano, A.; Morosuk, T.; Blanco-Marigorta, A.M.; Tsatsaronis, G. Conventional and advanced exergoenvironmental analysis of a steam methane reforming reactor for hydrogen production. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 20, 152–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petrakopoulou, F.; Tsatsaronis, G.; Morosuk, T. Advanced exergoenvironmental analysis of a near-zero emission power plant with chemical looping combustion. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3001–3007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Açıkkalp, E.; Aras, H.; Hepbasli, A. Advanced exergoenvironmental assessment of a natural gas-fired electricity generating facility. Energy Convers. Manag. 2014, 81, 112–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petrakopoulou, F.; Tsatsaronis, G.; Morosuk, T. Assessment of a Power Plant With CO2 Capture Using an Advanced Exergoenvironmental Analysis. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 2014, 136, 22001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, X.; Chen, J.; Lyu, H.; Sheng, D.; Li, W.; Li, H. Advanced exergoenvironmental evaluation for a coal-fired power plant of near-zero air pollutant emission. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2018, 128, 1139–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morosuk, T.; Tsatsaronis, G. Advanced exergy-based methods used to understand and improve energy-conversion systems. Energy 2019, 169, 238–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boyaghchi, F.A.; Sohbatloo, A. Assessment and optimization of a novel solar driven natural gas liquefaction based on cascade ORC integrated with linear Fresnel collectors. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 162, 77–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, Y.; Liu, C.; Zhang, C.; Xu, X.; Li, Q.; Mao, L. Exergoenvironmental model of Organic Rankine Cycle system including the manufacture and leakage of working fluid. Energy 2018, 145, 52–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alibaba, M.; Pourdarbani, R.; Manesh, M.H.K.; Ochoa, G.V.; Forero, J.D. Thermodynamic, exergo-economic and exergo-environmental analysis of hybrid geothermal-solar power plant based on ORC cycle using emergy concept. Heliyon 2020, 6, e03758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boyaghchi, F.A.; Chavoshi, M.; Sabeti, V. Multi-generation system incorporated with PEM electrolyzer and dual ORC based on biomass gasification waste heat recovery: Exergetic, economic and environmental impact optimizations. Energy 2018, 145, 38–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, W.; Wang, J.; Lu, Z.; Wang, S. Exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental analysis of a combined heating and power system driven by geothermal source. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 211, 112765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alibaba, M.; Pourdarbani, R.; Manesh, M.H.K.; Herrera-Miranda, I.; Gallardo-Bernal, I.; Hernández-Hernández, J.L. Conventional and advanced exergy-based analysis of hybrid geothermal-solar power plant based on ORC cycle. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghorbani, S.; Khoshgoftar-Manesh, M.H.; Nourpour, M.; Blanco-Marigorta, A.M. Exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental analyses of an integrated SOFC-GT-ORC hybrid system. Energy 2020, 206, 118151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ochoa, G.V.; Prada, G.; Duarte-Forero, J. Carbon footprint analysis and advanced exergo-environmental modeling of a waste heat recovery system based on a recuperative organic Rankine cycle. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 274, 122838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herrera-Orozco, I.; Valencia-Ochoa, G.; Duarte-Forero, J. Exergo-environmental assessment and multi-objective optimization of waste heat recovery systems based on Organic Rankine cycle configurations. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 288, 125679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, H.; Liu, P.; Shu, G. Challenges and opportunities of Rankine cycle for waste heat recovery from internal combustion engine. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2021, 84, 100906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, L.; Shu, G.; Tian, H.; Deng, S. A review of modified Organic Rankine cycles (ORCs) for internal combustion engine waste heat recovery (ICE-WHR). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 92, 95–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peris, B.; Navarro-Esbrí, J.; Molés, F. Bottoming organic Rankine cycle configurations to increase Internal Combustion Engines power output from cooling water waste heat recovery. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2013, 61, 364–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hou, G.; Bi, S.; Lin, M.; Zhang, J.; Xu, J. Minimum variance control of organic Rankine cycle based waste heat recovery. Energy Convers. Manag. 2014, 86, 576–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahbar, K.; Mahmoud, S.; Al-Dadah, R.K.; Moazami, N.; Mirhadizadeh, S.A. Review of organic Rankine cycle for small-scale applications. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 134, 135–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schuster, A.; Karellas, S.; Kakaras, E.; Spliethoff, H. Energetic and economic investigation of Organic Rankine Cycle applications. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2009, 29, 1809–1817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Invernizzi, C.; Iora, P.; Silva, P. Bottoming micro-Rankine cycles for micro-gas turbines. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2007, 27, 100–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Desai, N.B.; Bandyopadhyay, S. Process integration of organic Rankine cycle. Energy 2009, 34, 1674–1686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ambiente, M.D.E.; Territorial, D. Resolucion 909. 2008. Available online: https://www.minambiente.gov.co/documento-entidad/resolucion-909-del-2008/ (accessed on 1 February 2023).
- NFPA 704: Standard System for the Identification of the Hazards of Materials for Emergency Response, 2017 ed.; National Fire Protection Association: Quincy, MA, USA, 2017; p. 2017.
- Scaccabarozzi, R.; Tavano, M.; Invernizzi, C.M.; Martelli, E. Comparison of working fluids and cycle optimization for heat recovery ORCs from large internal combustion engines. Energy 2018, 158, 396–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shu, G.; Zhao, M.; Tian, H.; Huo, Y.; Zhu, W. Experimental comparison of R123 and R245fa as working fluids for waste heat recovery from heavy-duty diesel engine. Energy 2016, 115, 756–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, H.; Shu, G.; Wei, H.; Liang, X.; Liu, L. Fluids and parameters optimization for the organic Rankine cycles (ORCs) used in exhaust heat recovery of Internal Combustion Engine (ICE). Energy 2012, 47, 125–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lai, N.A.; Wendland, M.; Fischer, J. Working fluids for high-temperature organic Rankine cycles. Energy 2011, 36, 199–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weith, T.; Heberle, F.; Preißinger, M.; Brüggemann, D. Performance of Siloxane Mixtures in a High-Temperature Organic Rankine Cycle Considering the Heat Transfer Characteristics during Evaporation. Energies 2014, 7, 5548–5565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spinelli, A.; Cammi, G.; Zocca, M.; Gallarini, S.; Cozzi, F.; Gaetani, P.; Dossena, V.; Guardone, A. Experimental observation of non-ideal expanding flows of Siloxane MDM vapor for ORC applications. Energy Procedia 2017, 129, 1125–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Invernizzi, C.M.; Iora, P.; Manzolini, G.; Lasala, S. Thermal stability of n-pentane, cyclo-pentane and toluene as working fluids in organic Rankine engines. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2017, 121, 172–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Secretariat, O. United Nations Environment Programme. Synthesis of the reports of the Scientific, Environmental Effects, and Technology and Economic Assessment Panels of the Montreal Protocol—1999. 2000. Available online: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/514339 (accessed on 1 February 2023).
- Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention On Climate Change United Nations; UNFCC: Bonn, Germany, 1998.
- Invernizzi, C.M.; Bonalumi, D. Thermal Stability of Organic Fluids for Organic Rankine Cycle Systems; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lemmon, E.; Huber, M.; McLinden, M. NIST Standard Reference Database 23: Reference Fluid Thermodynamic and Transport Properties-REFPROP, Version 8.0; Natl. Std. Ref. Data Series (NIST NSRDS); National Institute of Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Valencia, G.; Fontalvo, A.; Cárdenas, Y.; Duarte, J.; Isaza, C. Energy and exergy analysis of different exhaust waste heat recovery systems for natural gas engine based on ORC. Energies 2019, 12, 2378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelly, S. Energy Systems Improvement Based on Endogenous and Exogenous Exergy Destruction. Ph.D. Thesis, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany, 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsatsaronis, G.; Park, M.H. On avoidable and unavoidable exergy destructions and investment costs in thermal systems. Energy Convers. Manag. 2002, 43, 1259–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelly, S.; Morozyuk, T. Endogenous and Exogenous Exergy Destruction in Thermal Systems. ASME Int. Mech. Eng. Congr. Expos. 2006, 47640, 311–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Organization for Standardization. Environmental Management The ISO 14000 Family of International Standards ISO in Brief ISO and the Environment; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, C.; He, C.; Gao, H.; Xie, H.; Li, Y.; Wu, S.; Xu, J. The environmental impact of organic Rankine cycle for waste heat recovery through life-cycle assessment. Energy 2013, 56, 144–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valencia, G.; Núñez, J.; Duarte, J. Multiobjective optimization of a plate heat exchanger in a waste heat recovery organic rankine cycle system for natural gas engines. Entropy 2019, 21, 655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Petrakopoulou, F.; Tsatsaronis, G.; Morosuk, T.; Carassai, A. Conventional and advanced exergetic analyses applied to a combined cycle power plant. Energy 2012, 41, 146–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shu, G.; Li, X.; Tian, H.; Liang, X.; Wei, H.; Wang, X. Alkanes as working fluids for high-temperature exhaust heat recovery of diesel engine using organic Rankine cycle. Appl. Energy 2014, 119, 204–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Descriptions | Value | Unit |
---|---|---|
Compression ratio | 710.5 | - |
Number of cylinders | 12 | En V 60° |
Maximum load capacity | 1982 | mm |
Maximum torque | 60.66 | kN·m |
Power at nominal speed | 1820 | kW |
Engine speed | 1500 | m−1 |
Nominal speed | 1500 | rpm |
Fuel mass fuel | 432 | kg/h |
Exhaust mass flow | 9986 | kg/h |
No | Criteria | Operational Parameter | Reference |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Critical temperature | >250 °C | [41] |
3 | Global Warming Potential (GWP) | <2000 | [42,43] |
4 | Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) | 0 | [42] |
5 | Safety classification (NFPA 704 standard) | Class 4 not allowed | [44] |
Working Fluid | Type | Pcrit [MPa] | Tcrit [°C] | NFPA 704 | ODP | GWP | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Flammability | Health Hazard | ||||||
Toluene | Dry | 4.13 | 319 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2.7 |
Component | Real | Ideal | Unavoidable |
---|---|---|---|
Turbine | |||
Pumps | |||
Condenser | |||
Evaporator | |||
Endogenous exergy destruction rate | |
(41) | |
Exogenous energy destruction rate | |
(42) | |
Avoidable exergy destruction rate | |
(43) | |
Unavoidable exergy destruction rate | |
(44) | |
Avoidable endogenous exergy destruction rate | |
(45) | |
Unavoidable endogenous exergy destruction rate | |
(46) | |
Avoidable exogenous energy destruction rate | |
(47) | |
Unavoidable exogenous energy destruction rate | |
(48) |
Parameters | Values | Unit |
---|---|---|
Ambient temperature (To) | 30 | °C |
Ambient pressure (Po) | 101.3 | kPa |
Turbine isentropic efficiency (ηturb) | 80 | % |
Pump isentropic efficiency (ηpum) | 75 | % |
Cooling water temperature (TS10) | 50 | °C |
Pinch point on the evaporator (PPevap) | 15 | °C |
Pinch point on the condenser (PPcond) | 15 | °C |
Minimum temperature differences () | 30 | °C |
Exhaust gas temperature (TS1) | 435.07 | °C |
Exhaust gas outlet temperature (TS2) | 270 | °C |
Pressure ratio pump-1 (rp1) | 2.5 | - |
Pressure ratio pump-2 (rp2) | 30 | - |
Exhaust gases mass flow () | 9986.04 | kg/h |
Steam | Mass Flow [kg/s] | Pressure [kPa] | Temperature [°C] | Enthalpy [kJ/kg] | Entropy [kJ/kg-K] | Exergy [kW] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S1 | 2.77 | 102.30 | 435.00 | −1960.43 | 0.90 | 541.10 |
S2 | 2.77 | 101.30 | 270.00 | −2143.67 | 0.59 | 296.45 |
S3 | 1.64 | 101.43 | 308.84 | 463.93 | 0.95 * | 209.33 |
S3g | 1.64 | 91.45 | 271.01 | 378.65 | 0.82 * | 143.44 |
S3f | 1.64 | 81.08 | 204.20 | 235.76 | 0.57 * | 53.32 |
S4 | 1.64 | 68.15 | 143.72 | 116.00 | 0.32 * | 6.11 |
S5 | 1.64 | 170.38 | 143.84 | 116.23 | 0.32 * | 6.16 |
S6 | 0.70 | 675.85 | 278.84 | 645.65 | 1.39 | 170.24 |
S7 | 0.70 | 22.53 | 208.40 | 524.51 | 1.45 | 71.36 |
S7g | 0.70 | 22.53 | 65.00 | 301.64 | 0.91 | 30.64 |
S8 | 0.70 | 22.53 | 65.00 | −87.53 | −0.24 | 2.31 |
S9 | 0.70 | 675.85 | 65.31 | −86.47 | −0.24 | 2.88 |
S9f | 0.70 | 675.85 | 194.20 | 181.72 | 0.43 | 49.30 |
S9g | 0.70 | 675.85 | 194.20 | 477.95 | 1.06 | 122.52 |
S10 | 13.09 | 101.30 | 50.00 | 209.42 | 0.70 | 34.59 |
S10g | 13.09 | 101.30 | 55.00 | 230.33 | 0.77 | 53.50 |
S11 | 13.09 | 101.30 | 57.86 | 242.30 | 0.79 | 66.07 |
Components | EF [kW] | EP [kW] | Ed [kW] | EL [kW] | [%] | [%] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ITC 1 | 541.20 | 202.79 | 41.95 | 338.41 | 37.47 | 32.55 |
Pump-1 | 0.37 | 0.06 | 0.31 | - | 15.61 | 0.24 |
Turbine | 99.48 | 85.59 | 13.89 | - | 86.04 | 10.77 |
Pump-2 | 0.76 | 0.59 | 0.17 | - | 77.60 | 0.13 |
Evaporator | 202.85 | 166.34 | 36.51 | - | 82.00 | 28.32 |
Condenser | - | - | 36.06 | 66.59 | - | 27.97 |
Turbine (T1) | Case 1 | Case 2 | Case 3 | Case 4 |
rp | 30 | 60 | 90 | 120 |
Tcond [°C] | 75 | 68 | 71 | 74 |
PPEvap [°C] | 35 | 30 | 27 | 24 |
Pump-2 (P2) | Case 1 | Case 2 | Case 3 | Case 4 |
rp | 30 | 60 | 90 | 120 |
Tcond [°C] | 71.7 | 68 | 71 | 74 |
PPEvap [°C] | 32.6 | 30 | 26 | 22 |
Evaporator | Case 1 | Case 2 | Case 3 | Case 4 |
rp | 30 | 60 | 90 | 120 |
Tcond [°C] | 70 | 68 | 71 | 74 |
PPEvap [°C] | 35 | 30 | 27 | 24 |
Condenser | Case 1 | Case 2 | Case 3 | Case 4 |
rp | 30 | 60 | 90 | 120 |
Tcond [°C] | 70 | 68 | 71 | 74 |
PPEvap [°C] | 35 | 30 | 27 | 24 |
Pump-1 (P1) | Case 1 | Case 2 | Case 3 | Case 4 |
rp | 30 | 60 | 90 | 120 |
Tcond [°C] | 71 | 68 | 71 | 74 |
PPEvap [°C] | 33 | 30 | 27 | 24 |
Components | |||
---|---|---|---|
ITC 1 | - | 41.95 | - |
Pump-1 | 0.31 | 0.27 | 0.04 |
Turbine | 13.89 | 8.66 | 5.23 |
Pump-2 | 0.17 | 0.14 | 0.03 |
Evaporator | 36.51 | 26.85 | 9.66 |
Condenser | 36.06 | 24.61 | 11.45 |
Components | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ITC 1 | 37.34 | 4.61 | 34.11 | 7.85 | 6.99 | 0.86 | 30.36 | 3.75 |
Pump 1 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.27 | 0.14 | −0.11 |
Turbine | 8.66 | 5.23 | 10.12 | 3.69 | 0.28 | 3.40 | 8.38 | 1.82 |
Pump-2 | 0.14 | 0.03 | 0.14 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.13 | 0.01 |
Evaporator | 26.85 | 9.66 | 3.55 | 32.97 | 5.32 | 27.64 | 21.53 | −17.98 |
Condenser | 24.61 | 11.45 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Total | 97.75 | 31.14 | 48.03 | 44.57 | 12.62 | 32.21 | 60.54 | −12.41 |
% | 75.83% | 24.16% | - | - |
Parameters | ITC 1 | Pump-1 | Turbine | Pump-2 | Evaporator | Condenser |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
W [kW] | - | 0.37 | 85.59 | 0.76 | - | - |
Q [kW] | 514.85 | - | - | - | 515.23 | 430.39 |
A [] | 88.70 | - | - | - | 27.61 | 14.32 |
[kW] | 41.95 | 0.31 | 13.89 | 0.17 | 36.51 | 13.06 |
Parameters | ITC 1 | Pump-1 | Turbine | Pump-2 | Evaporator | Condenser |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[mPts] | 90,119.94 | 679.31 | 29,838.73 | 363.80 | 78,432.35 | 77,456.15 |
[mPts] | 133,081.57 | 496.29 | 252,782.47 | 1001.50 | 41,428.33 | 21,481.49 |
[mPts] | 223,201.51 | 1175.60 | 282,621.20 | 1365.30 | 119,860.69 | 98,937.64 |
[mPts/h] | 0.89 | 0.003 | 1.69 | 0.007 | 0.28 | 0.14 |
Components | [mPts/MJ] | [mPts/MJ] | [mPts/h] | [mPts/h] | [%] | [%] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ITC 1 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 45.79 | 6.48 | 23.54 | 12.12 |
Pump-1 | 0.04 | 0.28 | - | 0.05 | 579.15 | 6.64 |
Turbine | 0.03 | 0.04 | - | 1.53 | 34.17 | 52.51 |
Pump-2 | 0.04 | 0.05 | - | 0.02 | 36.59 | 21.12 |
Evaporator | 0.02 | 0.03 | - | 3.25 | 23.83 | 7.89 |
Condenser | 0.07 | 0.03 | 16.12 | 8.73 | 116.78 | 1.63 |
Components | [mPts/h] | [mPts/h] | [mPts/h] | [mPts/h] | [mPts/h] | [mPts/h] | [mPts/h] | [mPts/h] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ITC 1 | 5.77 | 0.71 | 5.27 | 1.21 | 1.08 | 0.13 | 4.69 | 0.58 |
Pump-1 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.004 | 0.004 | 0.002 | 0.04 | 0.02 | −0.02 |
Turbine | 0.96 | 0.58 | 1.13 | 0.41 | 0.03 | 0.38 | 0.92 | 0.20 |
Pump-2 | 0.02 | 0.004 | 0.02 | 0.004 | 0.001 | 0.003 | 0.02 | 0.001 |
Evaporator | 2.39 | 0.86 | 0.32 | 2.93 | 0.47 | 2.46 | 1.91 | −1.60 |
Condenser | 5.96 | 2.77 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Material | Components | w [mPts/kg] | Quality [kg] | Yco [mPts] | Yom [mPts] | Yde [mPts] | Y [mPts] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Copper | ITC 1 | 1400 | 1589.50 | 2,336,570.88 | 0 | 111,265.28 | 2,447,836.16 |
Pump-1 | 1400 | 5.89 | 8653.84 | 0 | 412.09 | 9065.93 | |
Turbine | 1400 | 2998.22 | 4,407,379.03 | 0 | 209,875.19 | 4,617,254.22 | |
Pump-2 | 1400 | 11.88 | 17,463.30 | 0 | 831.59 | 18,294.88 | |
Evaporator | 1400 | 494.82 | 727,386.38 | 0 | 34,637.45 | 762,023.82 | |
Condenser | 1400 | 2565.71 | 3,771,598.40 | 0 | 179,599.92 | 3,951,198.33 | |
Thermal oil | 46,467 | 184.00 | 8,568,514.8 | 856,851.48 | 231,349.90 | 9,656,716.18 | |
Organic fluid | 2679.8 | 476.74 | 1,277,557.65 | 127,755.76 | 34,494.05 | 1,439,807.47 | |
Aluminum | ITC 1 | 780 | 478.67 | 392,052.15 | 0 | 18,669.15 | 410,721.30 |
Pump-1 | 780 | 5.58 | 4573.80 | 0 | 217.80 | 4791.60 | |
Turbine | 780 | 2844.35 | 2,329,523.03 | 0 | 110,929.67 | 2,440,452.70 | |
Pump-2 | 780 | 11.27 | 9229.85 | 0 | 439.52 | 9669.37 | |
Evaporator | 780 | 149.02 | 122,047.83 | 0 | 5811.80 | 127,859.62 | |
Condenser | 780 | 772.69 | 632,834.76 | 0 | 30,134.99 | 662,969.75 | |
Thermal oil | 46,467 | 184.00 | 8,568,514.8 | 856,851.48 | 231,349.89 | 9,656,716.18 | |
Organic fluid | 2679.8 | 476.73 | 1,277,557.65 | 127,755.76 | 34,494.05 | 1,439,807.47 |
Components | [mPts/h] | [mPts/h] | [mPts/h] | [mPts/h] | [mPts/h] | [mPts/h] | [mPts/h] | [mPts/h] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ITC 1 | 25.09 | 3.10 | 22.92 | 5.27 | 4.69 | 0.58 | 20.40 | 2.52 |
Pump-1 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.28 | 0.15 | −0.12 |
Turbine | 5.04 | 3.04 | 5.94 | 2.15 | 0.16 | 1.98 | 4.88 | 1.06 |
Pump-2 | 0.14 | 0.03 | 0.15 | 0.03 | 0.007 | 0.02 | 0.14 | 0.007 |
Evaporator | 12.08 | 4.35 | 1.59 | 14.83 | 2.39 | 12.44 | 9.68 | −8.09 |
Condenser | 51.59 | 24.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Components | [mPts/h] | [mPts/h] | [mPts/h] | [mPts/h] | [mPts/h] | [mPts/h] | [mPts/h] | [mPts/h] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ITC 1 | 8.69 | 1.07 | 7.94 | 1.82 | 1.62 | 0.20 | 7.06 | 0.87 |
Pump-1 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.006 | 0.11 | 0.06 | −0.04 |
Turbine | 1.55 | 0.94 | 1.82 | 0.66 | 0.05 | 0.61 | 1.50 | 0.32 |
Pump-2 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.003 | 0.009 | 0.05 | 0.003 |
Evaporator | 3.79 | 1.37 | 0.50 | 4.66 | 0.75 | 3.91 | 3.04 | −2.54 |
Condenser | 12.97 | 6.03 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Benavides Gamero, A.; Camargo Vanegas, J.; Duarte Forero, J.; Valencia Ochoa, G.; Diaz Herazo, R. Advanced Exergo-Environmental Assessments of an Organic Rankine Cycle as Waste Heat Recovery System from a Natural Gas Engine. Energies 2023, 16, 2975. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16072975
Benavides Gamero A, Camargo Vanegas J, Duarte Forero J, Valencia Ochoa G, Diaz Herazo R. Advanced Exergo-Environmental Assessments of an Organic Rankine Cycle as Waste Heat Recovery System from a Natural Gas Engine. Energies. 2023; 16(7):2975. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16072975
Chicago/Turabian StyleBenavides Gamero, Aldair, Josué Camargo Vanegas, Jorge Duarte Forero, Guillermo Valencia Ochoa, and Rafael Diaz Herazo. 2023. "Advanced Exergo-Environmental Assessments of an Organic Rankine Cycle as Waste Heat Recovery System from a Natural Gas Engine" Energies 16, no. 7: 2975. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16072975