氨混合燃料在燃气轮机中的污染物排放报告和性能考虑

IF 1.4 4区 工程技术 Q3 ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL
Christopher M Douglas, Thomas Martz, Robert Steele, David Noble, Benjamin Emerson, Tim Lieuwen
{"title":"氨混合燃料在燃气轮机中的污染物排放报告和性能考虑","authors":"Christopher M Douglas, Thomas Martz, Robert Steele, David Noble, Benjamin Emerson, Tim Lieuwen","doi":"10.1115/1.4063417","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract To limit climate change and promote energy security, there is widespread interest toward transitioning existing fossil fueled combustion systems to sustainable, alternative fuels such as hydrogen (H2) and ammonia (NH3) without negatively impacting air quality. However, quantifying the emission rate of air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOx) is a nuanced process when comparing pollutant emissions across different fuels, as discussed in our paper GT2022-80971 presented last year. That study indicated that the standardized approach for measuring combustion emissions in terms of dry, oxygen-referenced volumetric concentrations (i.e., dry ppmv at the reference O2 concentration (ppmvdr)) inflates reported pollutant emissions by up to 40% for hydrogen combustion relative to natural gas. In this paper, we extend our prior analysis of these so-called “indirect effects” on emissions values to ammonia (NH3) and cracked ammonia (i.e., molecular hydrogen and nitrogen, 3H2 per N2) fuel blends. The results reveal that ppmvdr-based pollutant reporting approaches have a less prominent influence on emissions interpretations for molecular ammonia–methane blends than for hydrogen–methane blends. Nonetheless, we still find that ppmvdr reporting induces up to a 10% relative increase in apparent emissions when comparing 100% NH3 and 100% methane (CH4) fuels at an equal mass-per-work emission rate. Cracking the ammonia is shown to increase this relative bias up to 21% in comparison to a methane system. Further analysis shows how drying, dilution, thermodynamic, and performance effects each influence the relationship between ppmvdr and mass-per-work emissions across the spectrum of fuels and fuel blends. Following discussion of these findings, we conclude that quantifying combustion emissions using ppmvdr is generally inappropriate for emissions comparisons and advise the combustion community to shift toward robust mass-per-energy metrics when quantifying pollutant emissions.","PeriodicalId":15685,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power-transactions of The Asme","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pollutant Emissions Reporting and Performance Considerations for Ammonia-Blended Fuels in Gas Turbines\",\"authors\":\"Christopher M Douglas, Thomas Martz, Robert Steele, David Noble, Benjamin Emerson, Tim Lieuwen\",\"doi\":\"10.1115/1.4063417\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract To limit climate change and promote energy security, there is widespread interest toward transitioning existing fossil fueled combustion systems to sustainable, alternative fuels such as hydrogen (H2) and ammonia (NH3) without negatively impacting air quality. However, quantifying the emission rate of air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOx) is a nuanced process when comparing pollutant emissions across different fuels, as discussed in our paper GT2022-80971 presented last year. That study indicated that the standardized approach for measuring combustion emissions in terms of dry, oxygen-referenced volumetric concentrations (i.e., dry ppmv at the reference O2 concentration (ppmvdr)) inflates reported pollutant emissions by up to 40% for hydrogen combustion relative to natural gas. In this paper, we extend our prior analysis of these so-called “indirect effects” on emissions values to ammonia (NH3) and cracked ammonia (i.e., molecular hydrogen and nitrogen, 3H2 per N2) fuel blends. The results reveal that ppmvdr-based pollutant reporting approaches have a less prominent influence on emissions interpretations for molecular ammonia–methane blends than for hydrogen–methane blends. Nonetheless, we still find that ppmvdr reporting induces up to a 10% relative increase in apparent emissions when comparing 100% NH3 and 100% methane (CH4) fuels at an equal mass-per-work emission rate. Cracking the ammonia is shown to increase this relative bias up to 21% in comparison to a methane system. Further analysis shows how drying, dilution, thermodynamic, and performance effects each influence the relationship between ppmvdr and mass-per-work emissions across the spectrum of fuels and fuel blends. Following discussion of these findings, we conclude that quantifying combustion emissions using ppmvdr is generally inappropriate for emissions comparisons and advise the combustion community to shift toward robust mass-per-energy metrics when quantifying pollutant emissions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15685,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power-transactions of The Asme\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power-transactions of The Asme\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4063417\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power-transactions of The Asme","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4063417","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为了限制气候变化和促进能源安全,在不影响空气质量的情况下,将现有的化石燃料燃烧系统转变为可持续的替代燃料,如氢(H2)和氨(NH3),受到了广泛的关注。然而,在比较不同燃料的污染物排放时,量化氮氧化物(NOx)等空气污染物的排放率是一个微妙的过程,正如我们在去年发表的论文GT2022-80971中所讨论的那样。该研究表明,根据干燥、氧气参考体积浓度(即参考O2浓度下的干燥ppmv (ppmvdr))测量燃烧排放的标准化方法使报告的氢气燃烧污染物排放量相对于天然气高出40%。在本文中,我们将之前对排放值的所谓“间接影响”的分析扩展到氨(NH3)和裂解氨(即分子氢和氮,3H2 / N2)燃料混合物。结果表明,基于ppmvdr的污染物报告方法对氨-甲烷分子混合物的排放解释的影响不如氢-甲烷混合物显著。尽管如此,我们仍然发现,当比较100% NH3和100%甲烷(CH4)燃料时,在相同的质量/功排放率下,ppmvdr报告导致表观排放量相对增加高达10%。与甲烷系统相比,氨气裂解可使相对偏差增加21%。进一步的分析表明,干燥、稀释、热力学和性能影响如何影响ppmvdr与燃料和燃料混合物中每功质量排放之间的关系。在对这些发现进行讨论后,我们得出结论,使用ppmvdr量化燃烧排放通常不适合进行排放比较,并建议燃烧界在量化污染物排放时转向更可靠的单位能量质量指标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Pollutant Emissions Reporting and Performance Considerations for Ammonia-Blended Fuels in Gas Turbines
Abstract To limit climate change and promote energy security, there is widespread interest toward transitioning existing fossil fueled combustion systems to sustainable, alternative fuels such as hydrogen (H2) and ammonia (NH3) without negatively impacting air quality. However, quantifying the emission rate of air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOx) is a nuanced process when comparing pollutant emissions across different fuels, as discussed in our paper GT2022-80971 presented last year. That study indicated that the standardized approach for measuring combustion emissions in terms of dry, oxygen-referenced volumetric concentrations (i.e., dry ppmv at the reference O2 concentration (ppmvdr)) inflates reported pollutant emissions by up to 40% for hydrogen combustion relative to natural gas. In this paper, we extend our prior analysis of these so-called “indirect effects” on emissions values to ammonia (NH3) and cracked ammonia (i.e., molecular hydrogen and nitrogen, 3H2 per N2) fuel blends. The results reveal that ppmvdr-based pollutant reporting approaches have a less prominent influence on emissions interpretations for molecular ammonia–methane blends than for hydrogen–methane blends. Nonetheless, we still find that ppmvdr reporting induces up to a 10% relative increase in apparent emissions when comparing 100% NH3 and 100% methane (CH4) fuels at an equal mass-per-work emission rate. Cracking the ammonia is shown to increase this relative bias up to 21% in comparison to a methane system. Further analysis shows how drying, dilution, thermodynamic, and performance effects each influence the relationship between ppmvdr and mass-per-work emissions across the spectrum of fuels and fuel blends. Following discussion of these findings, we conclude that quantifying combustion emissions using ppmvdr is generally inappropriate for emissions comparisons and advise the combustion community to shift toward robust mass-per-energy metrics when quantifying pollutant emissions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
20.00%
发文量
292
审稿时长
2.0 months
期刊介绍: The ASME Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power publishes archival-quality papers in the areas of gas and steam turbine technology, nuclear engineering, internal combustion engines, and fossil power generation. It covers a broad spectrum of practical topics of interest to industry. Subject areas covered include: thermodynamics; fluid mechanics; heat transfer; and modeling; propulsion and power generation components and systems; combustion, fuels, and emissions; nuclear reactor systems and components; thermal hydraulics; heat exchangers; nuclear fuel technology and waste management; I. C. engines for marine, rail, and power generation; steam and hydro power generation; advanced cycles for fossil energy generation; pollution control and environmental effects.
×
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