三边循环发电机余热回收发电的热经济可行性分析

IF 1.1 Q3 Engineering
H. A. Ajimotokan, Isiaka Ayuba, H. K. Ibrahim
{"title":"三边循环发电机余热回收发电的热经济可行性分析","authors":"H. A. Ajimotokan, Isiaka Ayuba, H. K. Ibrahim","doi":"10.18186/thermal.1198852","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The trilateral cycle (TLC), a promising alternative waste heat recovery-to-power cycle, is receiving increasing attention due to feats such as the high thermal match between the exergy of the heat source temperature profiles and its working fluid. Although the TLC has neither been broadly applied nor commercialised because of its thermo-economic feasibility considerations. This study examined the thermo-economic analysis of different TLC power generator configurations; i.e., the saturated subcritical simple (non-recuperative) and recuperative cycles using n-pentane as the working fluid for low-grade waste heat recovery-to-power generation. Based on the thermodynamic and economic analyses, the feasibility analysis models of the cycles were established using Aspen Plus, considering efficiency, cost, and expected operating and capacity factors. Furthermore, the capacity factor, specific investment cost (SIC), and payback period (PBP), among other, were used to evaluate the cycle design configurations and sizes. The SICs of the simple and recuperative TLCs were 3,683.88 $/kW and 4,220.41 $/kW, and their PBPs were 8.43 years and 8.55 years, respectively. The simple TLC had a lower investment ratio of 0.24 compared to an investment ratio of 0.28 for the recuperative TLC. These economic values suggest that the simple TLC is more cost-effective when compared with the recuperative TLC because the recuperation process does not recompense the associated cost, making it unattractive.","PeriodicalId":45841,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Thermal Engineering","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Thermo-economic feasibility analysis of trilateral-cycle power generators for waste heat recovery-to-power applications\",\"authors\":\"H. A. Ajimotokan, Isiaka Ayuba, H. K. Ibrahim\",\"doi\":\"10.18186/thermal.1198852\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The trilateral cycle (TLC), a promising alternative waste heat recovery-to-power cycle, is receiving increasing attention due to feats such as the high thermal match between the exergy of the heat source temperature profiles and its working fluid. Although the TLC has neither been broadly applied nor commercialised because of its thermo-economic feasibility considerations. This study examined the thermo-economic analysis of different TLC power generator configurations; i.e., the saturated subcritical simple (non-recuperative) and recuperative cycles using n-pentane as the working fluid for low-grade waste heat recovery-to-power generation. Based on the thermodynamic and economic analyses, the feasibility analysis models of the cycles were established using Aspen Plus, considering efficiency, cost, and expected operating and capacity factors. Furthermore, the capacity factor, specific investment cost (SIC), and payback period (PBP), among other, were used to evaluate the cycle design configurations and sizes. The SICs of the simple and recuperative TLCs were 3,683.88 $/kW and 4,220.41 $/kW, and their PBPs were 8.43 years and 8.55 years, respectively. The simple TLC had a lower investment ratio of 0.24 compared to an investment ratio of 0.28 for the recuperative TLC. These economic values suggest that the simple TLC is more cost-effective when compared with the recuperative TLC because the recuperation process does not recompense the associated cost, making it unattractive.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45841,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Thermal Engineering\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Thermal Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18186/thermal.1198852\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Engineering\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Thermal Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18186/thermal.1198852","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Engineering","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

三边循环(TLC)是一种很有前途的替代功率循环的废热回收方式,由于热源温度分布的火用与其工作流体之间的高度热匹配等优点,它正受到越来越多的关注。尽管由于其热经济可行性考虑,TLC既没有得到广泛应用,也没有商业化。本研究考察了不同TLC发电机配置的热经济性分析;即使用正戊烷作为低等级废热回收到发电的工作流体的饱和亚临界简单(非回收)和回收循环。基于热力学和经济分析,使用Aspen Plus建立了循环的可行性分析模型,考虑了效率、成本以及预期运行和容量因素。此外,容量系数、比投资成本(SIC)和回收期(PBP)等被用于评估循环设计配置和规模。简单型和恢复型TLC的SIC分别为3683.88$/kW和4220.41$/kW,其PBP分别为8.43年和8.55年。与回收TLC的0.28的投资比相比,简单TLC具有0.24的较低投资比。这些经济价值表明,与回收的TLC相比,简单的TLC更具成本效益,因为回收过程不会补偿相关成本,使其不具吸引力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Thermo-economic feasibility analysis of trilateral-cycle power generators for waste heat recovery-to-power applications
The trilateral cycle (TLC), a promising alternative waste heat recovery-to-power cycle, is receiving increasing attention due to feats such as the high thermal match between the exergy of the heat source temperature profiles and its working fluid. Although the TLC has neither been broadly applied nor commercialised because of its thermo-economic feasibility considerations. This study examined the thermo-economic analysis of different TLC power generator configurations; i.e., the saturated subcritical simple (non-recuperative) and recuperative cycles using n-pentane as the working fluid for low-grade waste heat recovery-to-power generation. Based on the thermodynamic and economic analyses, the feasibility analysis models of the cycles were established using Aspen Plus, considering efficiency, cost, and expected operating and capacity factors. Furthermore, the capacity factor, specific investment cost (SIC), and payback period (PBP), among other, were used to evaluate the cycle design configurations and sizes. The SICs of the simple and recuperative TLCs were 3,683.88 $/kW and 4,220.41 $/kW, and their PBPs were 8.43 years and 8.55 years, respectively. The simple TLC had a lower investment ratio of 0.24 compared to an investment ratio of 0.28 for the recuperative TLC. These economic values suggest that the simple TLC is more cost-effective when compared with the recuperative TLC because the recuperation process does not recompense the associated cost, making it unattractive.
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
2.40
自引率
18.20%
发文量
61
审稿时长
4 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Thermal Enginering is aimed at giving a recognized platform to students, researchers, research scholars, teachers, authors and other professionals in the field of research in Thermal Engineering subjects, to publish their original and current research work to a wide, international audience. In order to achieve this goal, we will have applied for SCI-Expanded Index in 2021 after having an Impact Factor in 2020. The aim of the journal, published on behalf of Yildiz Technical University in Istanbul-Turkey, is to not only include actual, original and applied studies prepared on the sciences of heat transfer and thermodynamics, and contribute to the literature of engineering sciences on the national and international areas but also help the development of Mechanical Engineering. Engineers and academicians from disciplines of Power Plant Engineering, Energy Engineering, Building Services Engineering, HVAC Engineering, Solar Engineering, Wind Engineering, Nanoengineering, surface engineering, thin film technologies, and Computer Aided Engineering will be expected to benefit from this journal’s outputs.
×
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