4E comparison and optimization of natural gas or solar-powered combined gas turbine cycle and inverse Brayton cycle in hydrogen and freshwater multi-generation systems
{"title":"4E comparison and optimization of natural gas or solar-powered combined gas turbine cycle and inverse Brayton cycle in hydrogen and freshwater multi-generation systems","authors":"Mohammad Zoghi , Nasser Hosseinzadeh , Ali Zare","doi":"10.1016/j.ref.2024.100546","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Replacing fossil fuel-based systems with renewable energy resources is a method to enhance the performance of the layout and reduce environmental pollution. The gas turbine cycle (GTC) is one of the main sources of consuming natural gas (NG) in a combustion chamber (CC). In the present study, the theoretical performance of a 500 kW CC-based gas turbine cycle is improved by replacing the NG CC with a solar power tower (SPT) and converting it into a multi-generation system. The waste heat recovery of GTC is done by a hot water unit and an inverse Brayton cycle (IBC), and then the energy of the heat rejection stage of IBC and the exhausted gas of the system is recovered by a thermoelectric generator (TEG) and an absorption chiller. Afterwards, the produced power of IBC and TEG is fed to a proton exchange membrane electrolyzer and a reverse osmosis desalination unit for hydrogen and potable water outputs. 4E optimization shows that the exergy efficiencies of the CC-based system (Configuration 1) and the SPT-based system (Configuration 2) are equal to 37.2% and 9.12%, respectively. However, the economic performance of Configuration 2 is better. In this case, the total cost rate and unit cost of multi-generation in Configuration 2 are 142.1 $/h and 15.14 $/GJ in comparison with 145.5 $/h and 31.58 $/GJ for Configuration 1. In addition, the fossil fuel consumption and emissions of Configuration 2 are zero, while the fuel and environmental cost rate make up 54.76% of the total cost rate of Configuration 1.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":29780,"journal":{"name":"Renewable Energy Focus","volume":"48 ","pages":"Article 100546"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755008424000103/pdfft?md5=4dda668904cecc11f26cdfb7de14c3bf&pid=1-s2.0-S1755008424000103-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Renewable Energy Focus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755008424000103","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Replacing fossil fuel-based systems with renewable energy resources is a method to enhance the performance of the layout and reduce environmental pollution. The gas turbine cycle (GTC) is one of the main sources of consuming natural gas (NG) in a combustion chamber (CC). In the present study, the theoretical performance of a 500 kW CC-based gas turbine cycle is improved by replacing the NG CC with a solar power tower (SPT) and converting it into a multi-generation system. The waste heat recovery of GTC is done by a hot water unit and an inverse Brayton cycle (IBC), and then the energy of the heat rejection stage of IBC and the exhausted gas of the system is recovered by a thermoelectric generator (TEG) and an absorption chiller. Afterwards, the produced power of IBC and TEG is fed to a proton exchange membrane electrolyzer and a reverse osmosis desalination unit for hydrogen and potable water outputs. 4E optimization shows that the exergy efficiencies of the CC-based system (Configuration 1) and the SPT-based system (Configuration 2) are equal to 37.2% and 9.12%, respectively. However, the economic performance of Configuration 2 is better. In this case, the total cost rate and unit cost of multi-generation in Configuration 2 are 142.1 $/h and 15.14 $/GJ in comparison with 145.5 $/h and 31.58 $/GJ for Configuration 1. In addition, the fossil fuel consumption and emissions of Configuration 2 are zero, while the fuel and environmental cost rate make up 54.76% of the total cost rate of Configuration 1.