10.1007/s40095-021-00442-9

Effects of coupled heat sources in a triple power cycle: thermodynamic, economics and environment analysis and optimization

  • Mahdi Alibeigi1,
  • Somayeh Davoodabadi Farahani*1,
  • Sina Amiri Hezaveh1,
  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Arak University of Technology, Arāk, 38181-46763, IR

Published in Issue 2021-10-22

How to Cite

Alibeigi, M., Farahani, S. D., & Hezaveh, S. A. (2021). Effects of coupled heat sources in a triple power cycle: thermodynamic, economics and environment analysis and optimization. International Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering, 13(1 (March 2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40095-021-00442-9
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

Abstract In this study, the thermodynamic and economic analysis for a triple combination including the Brayton cycle (GT), reheat cycle and an organic Rankine cycle, and Brayton cycle by coupling geothermal with biomass energy source and solar energy source is presented. Thermodynamically and economically, the effects of changing working fluid, air, CO, CO 2 , N 2 , and NO 2 are studied for pressure ratio and air mass flow in the GT. The highest and lowest total thermal efficiency belong to CO and NO 2 with values of 32.98% and 30.64%, respectively. The highest thermal efficiency and the lowest cost occur in the pressure ratio of 4 and 2, respectively. Ammonia and isopropanol have the highest and lowest combined power output cycles with organic Rankine cycle efficiency of 0.8654 and 0.9499, and amount of the overall thermal efficiency equal to 0.4196 and 0.4067, respectively. In addition, geothermal energy, solar energy, and biomass energy have been used to supply part of the energy required by the cycle. The solar tower is designed to supply the required heat from the sun. Optimization is performed based on thermal efficiency and cycle cost using a genetic algorithm. The solar thermal efficiency of summer was less than winter, and the cost of heat source in summer was more than winter because of the expense of geothermal in summer. Compared to the geothermal–solar cycle, the geothermal–biomass cycle has a lower cost and better performance. The environmental effects of the cycle have been investigated with different energy sources, and it has been found that the geothermal–solar cycle has less destructive ecological impacts.

Keywords

  • Solar energy,
  • Geothermal,
  • Biomass,
  • RC-GT-ORC,
  • Emission

References

  1. Evans et al. (2012) Assessment of utility energy storage options for increased renewable energy penetration 16(6) (pp. 4141-4147) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.03.048
  2. Karkour et al. (2020) External-cost estimation of electricity generation in G20 countries: case study using a global life-cycle impact-assessment method 12(5) https://doi.org/10.3390/su12052002
  3. Chen et al. (2009) Progress in electrical energy storage system: a critical review 19(3) (pp. 291-312) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnsc.2008.07.014
  4. Menéndez et al. (2019) Energy from closed mines: underground energy storage and geothermal applications (pp. 498-512) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.04.007
  5. Burer et al. (2003) Multi-criteria optimization of a district cogeneration plant integrating a solid oxide fuel cell–gas turbine combined cycle, heat pumps and chillers 28(6) (pp. 497-518) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-5442(02)00161-5
  6. Al-Sulaiman et al. (2011) Trigeneration: a comprehensive review based on prime movers 35(3) (pp. 233-258) https://doi.org/10.1002/er.1687
  7. Wang et al. (2011) Design study of configurations on system COP for a combined ORC (organic Rankine cycle) and VCC (vapor compression cycle) 36(8) (pp. 4809-4820) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.05.015
  8. Carvalho et al. (2011) Optimal synthesis of trigeneration systems subject to environmental constraints 36(6) (pp. 3779-3790) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.09.023
  9. Wu et al. (2018) Exergoeconomic analysis and optimization of a combined supercritical carbon dioxide recompression Brayton/organic flash cycle for nuclear power plants (pp. 936-52) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.06.041
  10. Khan and Mishra (2020) Parametric (exergy-energy) analysis of parabolic trough solar collector-driven combined partial heating supercritical CO2 cycle and organic Rankine cycle https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2020.1788676
  11. Habibi et al. (2020) Thermo-economic performance evaluation and multi-objective optimization of a screw expander-based cascade Rankine cycle integrated with parabolic trough solar collector https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2020.115827
  12. Tempesti and Fiaschi (2013) Thermo-economic assessment of a micro CHP system fuelled by geothermal and solar energy (pp. 45-51) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.01.058
  13. Mohammadkhani et al. (2014) Exergoeconomic assessment and parametric study of a gas turbine-modular helium reactor combined with two organic rankine cycles (pp. 533-543) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.11.002
  14. Liu et al. (2004) Effect of working fluids on organic Rankine cycle for waste heat recovery 29(8) (pp. 1207-1217) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2004.01.004
  15. Mikielewicz and Mikielewicz (2010) A thermodynamic criterion for selection of working fluid for subcritical and supercritical domestic micro CHP 30(16) (pp. 2357-2362) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2010.05.035
  16. Dai et al. (2009) Parametric optimization and comparative study of organic Rankine cycle (ORC) for low grade waste heat recovery 50(3) (pp. 576-582) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2008.10.018
  17. Sirignano and Liu (1999) Performance increases for gas-turbine engines through combustion inside the turbine 15(1) (pp. 111-118) https://doi.org/10.2514/2.5398
  18. Abd El-Maksoud (2014) Gas turbine with heating during the expansion in the stator blades (pp. 219-224) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.10.054
  19. Boehm et al. (2015) Wiley
  20. Farahani and Alibeigi (2020) Investigation of power generated from a PVT-TEG system in Iranian cities 5(4) (pp. 603-16) https://doi.org/10.22059/jser.2020.308162.1170
  21. Farahani et al. (2021) Thermal analysis of PVT-HEX system: electricity efficiency and air conditioning system 6(1) (pp. 625-33) https://doi.org/10.22059/jser.2020.310682.1174
  22. Reyes-Belmonte, M.A., Sebastián, A., González-Aguilar, J., Romero, M.: Performance comparison of different thermodynamic cycles for an innovative central receiver solar power plant. In: AIP conference proceedings, AIP Publishing LLC (2017)
  23. Blanco and Santigosa (2016) Woodhead Publishing
  24. Neises and Turchi (2014) A comparison of supercritical carbon dioxide power cycle configurations with an emphasis on CSP applications (pp. 1187-1196) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.03.128
  25. Turchi et al. (2013) Thermodynamic study of advanced supercritical carbon dioxide power cycles for concentrating solar power systems https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4024030
  26. Stein and Buck (2017) Advanced power cycles for concentrated solar power (pp. 91-105) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.04.054
  27. Pramanik and Ravikrishna (2017) A review of concentrated solar power hybrid technologies (pp. 602-637) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.08.038
  28. Detwiler, R.L., Roberts, J.J., Ralph, W., Bonner, B.P.: Modeling fluid flow and electrical resistivity in fractured geothermal reservoir rocks: Lawrence Livermore National Lab (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States) (2003)
  29. Factsheets on geothermal electricity. European Geothermal Energy council (EGEC).
  30. 12
  31. (2014)
  32. Lentz and Almanza (2006) Parabolic troughs to increase the geothermal wells flow enthalpy 80(10) (pp. 1290-1295) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2006.04.010
  33. Boyaghchi and Heidarnejad (2015) Thermoeconomic assessment and multi objective optimization of a solar micro CCHP based on Organic Rankine Cycle for domestic application (pp. 224-234) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.03.036
  34. Chen et al. (2020) Power and efficiency optimization for open combined regenerative Brayton and inverse Brayton cycles with regeneration before the inverse cycle 22(6) https://doi.org/10.3390/e22060677
  35. Mohammadi et al. (2020) A novel triple power cycle featuring a gas turbine cycle with supercritical carbon dioxide and organic Rankine cycles: thermoeconomic analysis and optimization https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113123
  36. Bademlioglu et al. (2020) Multi-objective optimization of parameters affecting organic rankine cycle performance characteristics with Taguchi-Grey relational analysis https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109483
  37. Rabbani et al. (2015) Transient energy and exergy analyses of a solar based integrated system 137(1) https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4028072
  38. Shahin et al. (2016) Thermodynamic analysis of parabolic trough and heliostat field solar collectors integrated with a Rankine cycle for cogeneration of electricity and heat (pp. 183-196) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.06.057
  39. Shaaban (2016) Analysis of an integrated solar combined cycle with steam and organic rankine cycles as bottoming cycles (pp. 1003-1012) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.08.075
  40. Sachdeva and Singh (2019) Thermodynamic analysis of solar powered triple combined brayton, rankine and organic rankine cycle for carbon free power (pp. 765-80) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.02.128
  41. Bhatt and Thakore (2010) Tata McGraw-Hill Education
  42. Kazemi and Ehyaei (2018) Energy, exergy, and economic analysis of a geothermal power plant 2(2) (pp. 190-209) https://doi.org/10.26804/ager.2018.02.07
  43. Noorollahi et al. (2019) Modelling of heat supply for natural gas pressure reduction station using geothermal energy 38(8) (pp. 773-793) https://doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2019.1585434
  44. Li et al. (2010) Thermal model and thermodynamic performance of molten salt cavity receiver 35(5) (pp. 981-988) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2009.11.017
  45. Benammar et al. (2014) Contribution to the modeling and simulation of solar power tower plants using energy analysis (pp. 923-930) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.08.066
  46. Hezaveh et al. (2020) Technical-economic analysis of the organic rankine cycle with different energy sources 5(1) (pp. 362-373) https://doi.org/10.22059/JSER.2020.300111.1148
  47. Mehmood et al. (2012) Energy analysis of a biomass co-firing based pulverized coal power generation system 4(4) (pp. 462-490) https://doi.org/10.3390/su4040462
  48. Mann, M.K., Spath, P.L.: Life cycle assessment of a biomass gasification combined-cycle power system: national renewable Energy Lab., Golden, CO (US) (1997)
  49. Darrow et al. (2015) (pp. 5-6) US Environmental Protection Agency
  50. Wang et al. (2017) Exergy and exergoeconomic analyses of a supercritical CO2 cycle for a cogeneration application (pp. 971-982) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.11.044
  51. Obidziñski (2014) Pelletization of biomass waste with potato pulp content 28(1) https://doi.org/10.2478/intag-2013-0030
  52. Kolb, G.J., Ho, C.K., Mancini, T.R., Gary, J.A.: Power tower technology roadmap and cost reduction plan. SAND2011-2419, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM. (2011)
  53. https://doi.org/10.2172/1011644
  54. Fritsch et al. (2019) Techno-economic analysis of solar thermal power plants using liquid sodium as heat transfer fluid (pp. 155-162) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.10.005
  55. Ghorbani et al. (2020) Assessment of a cost-optimal power system fully based on renewable energy for Iran by 2050–Achieving zero greenhouse gas emissions and overcoming the water crisis (pp. 125-148) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.06.079
  56. Charbonneau, P., Knapp, B.: A user's guide to PIKAIA 1.0. (1995)