Performance and Complexity Trade Study of Candidate Liquid Air Generation Techniques

Masis Torosyan, A. Pollman, A. Gannon, Alejandro S. Hernandez
{"title":"Performance and Complexity Trade Study of Candidate Liquid Air Generation Techniques","authors":"Masis Torosyan, A. Pollman, A. Gannon, Alejandro S. Hernandez","doi":"10.1115/power2021-63957","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This paper presents the results of an alternatives analysis of gas-liquefaction methods used in liquid air energy storage (LAES) systems that incorporates two novel measures of performance (MOP) into the analysis: system complexity score and system density. The cryogenic methods typically considered for air, and used in this trade study, include Linde-Hampson, Claude, Heylandt, and cascade [1]. With these four options of air-liquefaction currently in use for a variety of purposes with ranging scales, there exists no standard selection process for the air-liquefaction method in LAES. This trade study provides fundamental design solutions for given stakeholder requirements, allowing for a pragmatic analysis of integration for future implementation of LAES systems. The intent of these design solutions is to be used in the earliest stage of consideration of a LAES implementation, helping stakeholders quickly narrow the focus of their design engineers to a specific liquefaction process. This will reduce the complexity of integration techniques and processes and streamline LAES into the energy-storage industry. The results of this study showed that with evenly weighted MOP the Heylandt method had the highest final weighted score (0.9), followed by Cascade (0.88), Claude (0.86), and Linde-Hampson (0.67). However, the results showed that the Cascade method was the most frequent design solution (8/11) from 11 variations of MOP weight distributions.","PeriodicalId":8567,"journal":{"name":"ASME 2021 Power Conference","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ASME 2021 Power Conference","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1115/power2021-63957","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper presents the results of an alternatives analysis of gas-liquefaction methods used in liquid air energy storage (LAES) systems that incorporates two novel measures of performance (MOP) into the analysis: system complexity score and system density. The cryogenic methods typically considered for air, and used in this trade study, include Linde-Hampson, Claude, Heylandt, and cascade [1]. With these four options of air-liquefaction currently in use for a variety of purposes with ranging scales, there exists no standard selection process for the air-liquefaction method in LAES. This trade study provides fundamental design solutions for given stakeholder requirements, allowing for a pragmatic analysis of integration for future implementation of LAES systems. The intent of these design solutions is to be used in the earliest stage of consideration of a LAES implementation, helping stakeholders quickly narrow the focus of their design engineers to a specific liquefaction process. This will reduce the complexity of integration techniques and processes and streamline LAES into the energy-storage industry. The results of this study showed that with evenly weighted MOP the Heylandt method had the highest final weighted score (0.9), followed by Cascade (0.88), Claude (0.86), and Linde-Hampson (0.67). However, the results showed that the Cascade method was the most frequent design solution (8/11) from 11 variations of MOP weight distributions.
候选液体空气生成技术的性能与复杂性权衡研究
本文介绍了液体空气储能(LAES)系统中使用的气体液化方法的替代分析结果,该分析将两种新的性能指标(MOP)纳入分析:系统复杂性评分和系统密度。本行业研究中通常考虑的空气低温方法包括Linde-Hampson、Claude、Heylandt和cascade[1]。由于这四种空气液化方法目前用于各种目的和范围,LAES中没有标准的空气液化方法选择过程。这项贸易研究为给定的利益相关者需求提供了基本的设计解决方案,允许对LAES系统未来实现的集成进行实用分析。这些设计解决方案的目的是在考虑LAES实施的早期阶段使用,帮助利益相关者迅速将设计工程师的关注点缩小到特定的液化过程上。这将降低集成技术和过程的复杂性,并简化LAES进入能源存储行业。本研究结果显示,对于均匀加权的MOP, Heylandt法的最终加权得分最高(0.9),其次是Cascade(0.88)、Claude(0.86)和Linde-Hampson(0.67)。然而,结果表明,在11种MOP权重分布的变化中,Cascade方法是最常见的设计方案(8/11)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信