{"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}
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.
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.