Energy, exergy, and economic (3E) analysis of novel heat recovery systems for recovery and optimization of waste flows at a combined cycle power plant

IF 6.9 2区环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENGINEERING, CHEMICAL

Process Safety and Environmental Protection Pub Date : 2025-03-08 DOI:10.1016/j.psep.2025.106987

Farzad Asadi, Ali Jahangiri, Mohammad Ameri, Ali Saedi

{"title":"Energy, exergy, and economic (3E) analysis of novel heat recovery systems for recovery and optimization of waste flows at a combined cycle power plant","authors":"Farzad Asadi, Ali Jahangiri, Mohammad Ameri, Ali Saedi","doi":"10.1016/j.psep.2025.106987","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In different industries, waste heat recovery is considered an efficient approach of maximizing energy utilization. This study addresses the recovery of waste flows from the blowdown tanks (BTs) and deaerators of a Combined Cycle Power Plant (CCPP). To this end, three waste heat recovery scenarios were proposed using the organic Rankine cycle (ORC) and the distributed boosted multi-effect distillation (DBMED) integrated with the CCPP: Scenario 1 (ORC-DBMED), Scenario 2 (ORC-D-DBMED), and Scenario 3 (ORC P-DBMED). The proposed scenarios were evaluated through the energy, exergy, and economic (3E) analysis and were then optimized from an economic perspective. The main exergy destruction occurred in the combustion chamber of the CCPP, the evaporator of the ORC, and the condenser of the DBMED, accounting for 55.4 %, 52 %, and 29.9 %, respectively. According to the results, Scenario 1 demonstrated the shortest payback period (PP) of 1.62 years, while Scenario 2 achieved a slightly higher energy efficiency of 46.7 %. However, the payback period for Scenario 2 was longer, at 2.34 years. Scenario 1, which exhibits superior economic conditions compared to other scenarios, was proposed in this study. In this cycle, 730.1 kW of power and 278.56 m<sup>3</sup>/day of water were saved by recovering the flows of vents and producing water in the DBMED process. The integration of the cycle led to a 0.21 % rise in the energy efficiency and 0.13 % increase in exergy efficiency for the CCPP.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":20743,"journal":{"name":"Process Safety and Environmental Protection","volume":"197 ","pages":"Article 106987"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Process Safety and Environmental Protection","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095758202500254X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CHEMICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

In different industries, waste heat recovery is considered an efficient approach of maximizing energy utilization. This study addresses the recovery of waste flows from the blowdown tanks (BTs) and deaerators of a Combined Cycle Power Plant (CCPP). To this end, three waste heat recovery scenarios were proposed using the organic Rankine cycle (ORC) and the distributed boosted multi-effect distillation (DBMED) integrated with the CCPP: Scenario 1 (ORC-DBMED), Scenario 2 (ORC-D-DBMED), and Scenario 3 (ORC P-DBMED). The proposed scenarios were evaluated through the energy, exergy, and economic (3E) analysis and were then optimized from an economic perspective. The main exergy destruction occurred in the combustion chamber of the CCPP, the evaporator of the ORC, and the condenser of the DBMED, accounting for 55.4 %, 52 %, and 29.9 %, respectively. According to the results, Scenario 1 demonstrated the shortest payback period (PP) of 1.62 years, while Scenario 2 achieved a slightly higher energy efficiency of 46.7 %. However, the payback period for Scenario 2 was longer, at 2.34 years. Scenario 1, which exhibits superior economic conditions compared to other scenarios, was proposed in this study. In this cycle, 730.1 kW of power and 278.56 m³/day of water were saved by recovering the flows of vents and producing water in the DBMED process. The integration of the cycle led to a 0.21 % rise in the energy efficiency and 0.13 % increase in exergy efficiency for the CCPP.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Process Safety and Environmental Protection 环境科学-工程：化工

CiteScore

11.40

自引率

15.40%

发文量

929

审稿时长

8.0 months

期刊介绍： The Process Safety and Environmental Protection (PSEP) journal is a leading international publication that focuses on the publication of high-quality, original research papers in the field of engineering, specifically those related to the safety of industrial processes and environmental protection. The journal encourages submissions that present new developments in safety and environmental aspects, particularly those that show how research findings can be applied in process engineering design and practice. PSEP is particularly interested in research that brings fresh perspectives to established engineering principles, identifies unsolved problems, or suggests directions for future research. The journal also values contributions that push the boundaries of traditional engineering and welcomes multidisciplinary papers. PSEP's articles are abstracted and indexed by a range of databases and services, which helps to ensure that the journal's research is accessible and recognized in the academic and professional communities. These databases include ANTE, Chemical Abstracts, Chemical Hazards in Industry, Current Contents, Elsevier Engineering Information database, Pascal Francis, Web of Science, Scopus, Engineering Information Database EnCompass LIT (Elsevier), and INSPEC. This wide coverage facilitates the dissemination of the journal's content to a global audience interested in process safety and environmental engineering.