COMPARISON OF FIVE DEVELOPED POWER CYCLES IN THE FRAME OF WASTE HEAT RECOVERY

Year 2021, Volume: 4 Issue: 1, 1 - 9, 30.06.2021

Alperen Tozlu , Aysegul Abusoglu Emrah Özahi

Abstract

A thermodynamic comparison of five developed power cycles which are gas turbine (GT), Kalina (KAL), organic Rankine (ORC), gas turbine-Kalina (GT-KAL) and gas turbine-organic Rankine (GT-ORC) fed by the waste heat of an actual power plant system in Gaziantep is presented in this paper. The waste heat has a temperature and a pressure of 566 oC and 1.9 bar, respectively. In order to compare the thermodynamic performance of the power cycles, various parametric studies were performed by using the effect of the values of the pressure ratio of the cycles, the temperature of the exhaust gas, the logarithmic mean temperature difference of the heat exchangers and the turbine inlet and the outlet pressures in the given ranges. The net power output of GT, KAL, ORC, GT-KAL and GT-ORC were found to be 1095 kW, 955 kW, 585 kW, 1508 kW and 1594 kW, respectively. The thermodynamic results showed that the GT-KAL cycle has the best thermodynamic performance in terms of energetic and exergetic efficiencies such as 19.71% and 40.53%, respectively, as well as in terms of the highest net power production of 1594 kW from the available exhaust gas.

Keywords

Waste heat recovery, Gas Turbine, Kalina, Organic Rankine, Energetic Efficiency, Exergetic Efficiency

Supporting Institution

TUBİTAK

Project Number

114M142

Thanks

This study is supported by TUBİTAK (the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey) with the project under the grant number of 114M142. The authors would like to thank TUBİTAK and CEV (Clean Energy & Vehicles) energy. In addition, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to organizing committee of TICMET19 in the selection of my study which was presented in the conference organized on 10-12 October, 2019 in Gaziantep University.

References

• A. Tozlu, E. Özahi, and A. Abuşoğlu. Waste to energy technologies for municipal solid waste management in Gaziantep, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 54, 809, (2016).
• E. Metin, A. Eröztürk, C. Neyim, Solid Waste Management Practices and Review of Recovery and Recycling Operations in Turkey, Waste Management, 23, 425-432, (2003).
• J. N., Fobil, D. Carboo, N. A Armah, Evaluation of municipal solid wastes (MSW) for utilisation in energy production in developing countries, Int. J. Environmental Technology and Management, 5, 1-12, (2005).
• R. Bove, P. Lunghi, Electric power generation from landfill gas using traditional and innovative technologies, Energy Conversion and Management, 47, 1391–1401, (2006).
• A. Magrinho, F. Didelet, V. Semiao, Municipal solid waste disposal in Portugal, Waste Management, 26, 1477–1489, (2006).
• Manaf L., Samah M. A., Zukki N. Municipal Solid Waste Management in Malaysia: Practices and Challenges, Waste Management, 29, 2902–2906, (2009).
• Ağdağ O. N. Comparison of Old and New Municipal Solid Waste Management Systems in Denizli, Turkey, Waste Management, 29, 456-464, (2009).
• Turan N. G., Çoruh S., A. Akdemir, Ergun O. N. Municipal Solid Waste Management Strategies in Turkey, Waste Management, 29, 465-469, (2009).
• Cheng H., Hu Y. Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) as a Renewable Source of Energy: Current and Future Practices in China, Bioresource Technology, 101, 3816–3824, (2010).
• Bovea M.D., Ibáñez-Forés V., Gallardo A., Colomer-Mendoza F.J. Environmental Assessment of Alternative Municipal Solid Waste Management Strategies, A Spanish Case Study, Waste Management, 30, 2383–2395, (2010).
• Tozlu A., Abusoglu A. and Ozahi E., Thermoeconomic analysis and optimization of a Re-compression supercritical CO2 cycle using waste heat of Gaziantep Municipal Solid Waste Power Plant, Energy,143, 168-180, 2018.
• Y.A, S. Bae, M. Kim, S. Cho, S. Baik, J. Lee, and J. Cha, Review of supercritical CO2 power cycle technology and current status of research and development, Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 47, 647-661, 2015.
• Akbari A.D.and Mahmoudi S.M.S., Thermoeconomic analysis & optimization of the combined supercritical CO2 (carbon dioxide) recompression Brayton/organic Rankine cycle, Energy, 78, 501-512, 2014.
• Tozlu A., Abusoglu A. and Ozahi E., Thermodynamic and thermoeconomic analyses of an organic Rankine cycle adapted gas turbine cycle using S-CO2, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 33/3, 917-928, 2018.
• U. Drescher, and D. Brüggemann, Fluid selection for the organic Rankine cycle (ORC) in biomass power and heat plants, Applied Thermal Engineering, 27, 223–228, 2007.
• D. Wang, X. Ling, and H. Peng, Performance analysis of double organic Rankine cycle for discontinuous low temperature waste heat recovery, Applied Thermal Engineering, 48, 63–71, 2012.
• Ozahi E., Tozlu A. and Abusoglu A., Thermoeconomic multi-objective optimization of an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) adapted to an existing solid waste power plant, Energy Conversion and Management, 168, 308-319, 2018.
• X. Zhang, M. He and Y. Zhang, A review of research on the Kalina cycle, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16 (2016) 5309–5318.
• E. Thorin, Power cycles with ammonia-water mixtures as working fluid: Analysis of different applications and the influence of thermophysical properties, Stockholm, Sweden: Royal Institute of Technology (2000).