Organic-based WHRS applications are similar to those seen for RC, but ORC systems can work better for low/medium heat sources opening a new range of applications where normally the system’s waste energy will have to be dumped into the environment. Tartière [2016] calculated, from 19 ORC vendors, that there are more than 560 ORC land-based power plants with a total power installed of 2.75 TWe of which 12.7% are soley coming from waste heat applications.
Land-based ORC plants can reach power outputs as high as 125 MW [Kaplan 2007a; Bronicki 2008] with thermal and exergetic efficiencies that can reach to 53.9% [Kaplan 2007b; Saavedra et al. 2010]. Boronicki [2000] studied the use of an ORC as a waste recovery system for a cement plant. Cement plants waste heat losses represent on average 30% at a temperature range between 275°C and 350°C, used in some cases to dry raw materials. By not using the waste heat, there is a loss of around £915k per year. The ORC WHRS discussed is installed as a bottoming cycle capable of producing 1.3 MW and saving annually around 6.35x103 t CO223. For compressor stations, the losses are even greater than those seen in cement plants reaching levels of around 65%-75% mainly due to compressor thermal inefficiencies [Popov 2004].
Saavedra et al. [2010] optimised an ORC WHRS to use the low/medium waste heat from a compressor plant. The results show that an ORC can achieve a thermal efficiency of around 28.0% and power outputs close to 1,220 kW when the source temperature is at 405°C and the sink temperature is 35°C. For the same operational scenarios, a typical RC has a thermal efficiency of around 24.3% and a power output of 1,032 kW. This paper highlights the importance of optimising the ORC design by the selection of a suitable working fluid for the waste heat scenario.
An interesting application for the ORC is its use in a floating Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) plant. This source of energy could provide around 10 TW of power produced by small temperature differences (i.e. around 20-25°C) between the surface and bottom of the ocean [Pelc & Fujita 2002]. Due to the small gradient demanded by OTEC plants for large equipment (e.g. heat exchangers and pumps), it is possible to extract enough energy [Yang & Yeh 2014].
This means that the initial investment and the necessary area and volume footprint are considerably large, while the cooling source pump will play an important role in the OTEC net power output – due to its large power requirement. All these factors elevate the cost of
23 Original unit of case study is in tons, known as short tons. 1 ton = 0.91 tonne [Thompson 2008].
Organic Rankine cycle
51
producing electricity to higher levels than when using fossil fuels [Pelc & Fujita 2002;
Syamsuddin et al. 2015]. For this kind of application ORC are ideal due to low temperature boiling fluids such as R134a or R152a. Yang and Yeh [2014] found that an OTEC based on isobutene could deliver a better power output at a higher thermal efficiency than ammonia but with a larger requirement for heat transfer area.
The use of ORC as bottoming cycles for gas turbines is studied by Chacartegui et al. [2009]
who discovered that a recuperative gas turbine coupled with a recuperative toluene ORC could increase by around 3% the combined thermal efficiencies than when using water as working fluid. Also, steam was found to be the most sensitive working fluid for the turbine inlet temperature, followed by toluene. Another important finding shows that the combined cycle using ORC is financially attractive when the ORC cost is below £2,190/kWe for gas turbine temperatures of around 1,300°C, and below £1,460/kWe for temperatures of 1000°C.
Nowadays, the prices for ORC WHRS are inside the cost range given by Chacartegui et al.
[Quoilin et al. 2013; Shu et al. 2013]. Pierobon et al. [2013] also found that an ORC plant is the preferable thermodynamic WHRS for a natural gas turbine operating in an offshore platform.
The downside of the finding is that in order to have a substantially better performance than a RC, the total heat transfer area will have to be larger; this also increases the initial cost due to the use of a recuperator and larger economiser.
The ORC WHRS applications are not only evident in large size plants, but also in compact and portable efficient power generators. The trucking and automotive sector has analysed its use for exhaust and cooling waste heat. Dinanno et al. [1983] proposed an ORC in order to reduce the fuel consumption of a heavy duty truck. The study focused on four different engine configurations with different performances. The maximum improvement achieved by this study was a 24% increase in the maximum power output and a 19% reduction in fuel consumption, which was obtained by the least efficient engine. Inefficient engines will have higher cooling demands and temperatures at the exhaust gas which will increase the WHRS thermal efficiency and power output [Chacartegui et al. 2009]. This same pattern is seen when the engine loading changes [Hossain & Bari 2013], for example, marine propulsive plants have different tunings which allow a more efficient operation at the designed point. The work of Suárez de la Fuente and Greig [2013] shows that thermal efficiency seems to be more sensible to the waste heat quality, while the power output responds more strongly to heat availability.
Boretti [2012] simulated an ORC system installed in an 1.8 litre hybrid non-supercharged passenger car. He studied two different waste heat sources from which the ORC system could work: the exhaust gas system and cooling system. The author simulates different real scenarios of a hybrid car (i.e. different loads and weather conditions) by changing different variables in the system like the exhaust flow rate, temperature of exhaust gases, and turbine and pump speeds.
The electric power output from the ORC system charges the car’s batteries, enabling faster charging times and longer distances covered with the same amount of fuel. The R245fa ORC system achieves its best overall performance when combining together the exhaust gas and cooling system. The car’s total plant efficiency increases from its base line of 34.8% to 40.5%
Kalina cycle
52
C h a p te r:
An Overview Of Power Thermodynamic Waste Heat Recovery Systemswith the combined WHRS. Similar improvements (i.e. power increment, fuel consumption and thermal efficiency) on internal combustion engines are found in the works of Katsanos et al. [2012] for a truck’s diesel engine using a R245ca ORC with the maximum fuel saving of 10.2% at lower loads. Yang et al. [2014] use an R245fa ORC for a six cylinder diesel engine, having a maximum combined power output of 309 kW of which the ORC provides 29 kW. In the same field of internal combustion engines, Hossain and Bari [2013] achieved a power increase of 3.4% from a 40 kW diesel generator which meant a reduction of around 3.3%
in its fuel consumption.
Experience with land-based ORC systems show that these systems are realiable.
Bronicki [1995] shows that ORC power plants have recorded a maximum of 3.7 million hours while Dinanno et al. [1983] achieved more than 2,000 operating hours – representing a distance of 55,000 miles on board a truck – for their ORC WHRS prototype. Obernberger et al. [2001]
installed an ORC biomass cogenerative plant and found out that only for a few days the plant was off-line due to maintenance while operating successfully over more than 10,000 hours.
For more on ORC WHRS applications and manufacturers, please see the following references:
[Tchanche et al. 2011; Bianchi & De Pascale 2011; Vélez et al. 2012; Campana et al. 2013;
Quoilin et al. 2013; Sprouse & Depcik 2013].
K
ALINA CYCLE3.3
The Kalina cycle (KC) was designed and introduced by Alexander Kalina in the 1980’s [Kalina 1982]. The KC cycle is a hybrid system between the RC and an absorption cycle commonly used in refrigeration processes [Kalina & Leibowitz 1987], taking from each cycle components to operate. From the RC, uses an economiser, turbine – similar to a steam turbine [Tchanche et al. 2014] – and condenser; from the absorption cycle, it uses an absorber or distillator, and a binary working fluid. Figure 22 shows a broad idea of the KC structure.
The KC manages to improve the RC heat transfer at the economiser and condenser thanks to the usage of a binary working fluid which, because of its changing mix ratio, will have a variable boiling and condensing point, enabling the fluid to have a better match for the heat source and sink, thus effectively reducing the cycle’s irreversibilities.
The KC has different configurations which are used in order to achieve the best cycle possible for different types of heat sources (e.g. solar energy or exhaust gas from a gas turbine); some of the differences are the location of the distiller, and the amount and location of condensers among others. Kalina [1989] showed various KC configurations for different requirements, it named the systems with the initials KCS (Kalina Cycle System) and numbers from 1 to 12, some are still at design stage while the first to be constructed was a KCS 1 with the purpose of demonstrating the technology [Bliem 1988]. Each of the initial configurations have a specific application, for example, KCS11 was designed for low temperature geothermal heat sources [Mlcak 2004; Akbari et al. 2014]. Other systems configurations, using the same nomenclature, have appeared all this time such as KCS 34 and KCS 34g [Zhang et al. 2012].
Kalina cycle
53
Figure 22: KC illustration. The colour blue represents a RC and red represents an absorption cycle.
A spin-off of the KC is the Uehara Cycle – named after its inventor Haruro Uehara – which operates under the same KC principle but has two expanders, two regenerators, two mixing units, a diffuser and the condenser is followed by an after condenser [Uehara et al. 1998]. The cycle was designed for low grade heat (around 30˚C) specifically for OTEC plants, where it improved the OTEC thermal efficiency by around 10% from a typical KC [Uehara et al. 1997].
Further study of the Uehara Cycle will not be carried out in this thesis.
3.3.1 K
ALINA CYCLE OPERATION AND STUDIESTo explain how the KC works, the single stage distillation KC proposed by Zhang et al. [2008]
will be used (Figure 23). Starting at the economiser’s entrance, the working fluid (9) absorbs heat from the waste heat until it is superheated (10). It then enters the turbine and produces work where its pressure is reduced as it exits the expander (11), the low pressure vapour is used to heat the basic solution in a recuperator. At (14) the solution is mixed with a lean liquid (7) to form a basic solution (13), this has the purpose of having a greater content of water, making the new solution a completely saturated liquid at the low-pressure condenser’s exit (15).
The saturated liquid pressure is increased by the low pressure pump (1) and it then moves into two different routes: (2) and (3). The basic solution (2) is heated in the recuperator (5) and enters the distillator where it is again divided into an enriched vapour (6) and the lean liquid (7).
The basic solution (3) is mixed with the enriched vapour (6) to form the working solution (4) which is then cooled in the high-pressure condenser to ensure that it is a saturated liquid (8).
Finally, the solution is again pumped to increase its pressure (9) before entering the economiser and start the cycle again.
From the T-s diagram for a single stage distillation KC in Figure 24, it can be distinguished the following thermodynamic processes [Zhang et al. 2008]:
1. Heat absorbing at constant pressure (points 9-10).
Kalina cycle
54
C h a p te r:
An Overview Of Power Thermodynamic Waste Heat Recovery Systems2. Work produced adiabatically and isentropically (points 10-11s).
3. Distillation (points 5-6 and 5-7).
4. Condensation at constant low pressure (points 13-15).
5. Adiabatic compression at low pressure (points 15-1).
6. Condensation at constant high pressure (points 4-8).
7. Adiabatic compression at high pressure (points 8-9).
Figure 23: Basic KC configuration of a single stage distillation unit.
The KC T-s diagram is composed of various saturated liquid and vapour lines, which represent the different behaviours of the working fluid compositions along the process. Due to the working fluid variable mix, the KC has an extra degree of freedom when compared with a traditional RC [Zhang et al. 2012] which enables, as previously outlined, a better match in the heat transfer processes.
Looking in detail, the binary working fluid will start boiling when absorbing heat from the heat source due to the presence of a low boiling temperature fluid in the mixture, named here as fluid A. As the working fluid goes through the economiser and absorbs more heat the higher boiling temperature fluid in the mixture, called fluid B, will start to boil while fluid A increases its temperature and becomes a superheated vapour [Mlcak 2004]. This temperature increase by fluid A allows the working fluid to follow more closely the temperature profile from the waste heat (Figure 25). When analysing the boiling process of each fluid, it is seen that it is done isothermally as in the RC, but because it is a mixture it will have a variable boiling process.
Kalina cycle
55
Figure 24: The T–s diagram for a single stage distillation KC [Zhang et al. 2008].
The same variability happens at condensation point in the condensers. Here (point 13 of Figure 24) the fluid concentration is changed to a higher proportion of fluid B, which is closer to its dew point. In other words, it has a higher condensing temperature. This helps to improve the heat transfer with the cooling media and reducing the exergy losses – loss in the energy potential to transform into other forms of energy such as work – when compared to a single fluid RC [Mlcak 2004].
Most of the KC literature focuses on low quality heat sources. Leibowitz and Micak [1999]
studied the use of a 1.7 MWe KC using the available heat from a geothermal well at 121˚C, while Coskun et al. [2014] looked into geothermal sources from 92˚C to 162˚C and Eymel et al. [2012] produced power from a Brazilian geothermal heat source found at a temperature between 90˚C and 140˚C. For a heat source of 90˚C, Madhawa Hettiarachchi et al. [2007] used a KCS11 while Arslan [2011] used a KCS34 for a heat source of 148˚C. In the field of solar power, Lolos and Rogdakis [2009]
simulated a KC which extracted from the solar collectors heat at a temperature of 130˚C. Zare and Mahmoudi [2015] used a KC to use the waste heat coming at 200˚C from a helium reactor. Recently, there has been an increase in KC studies for medium and high quality waste heat. Nguyen et al. [2014] designed a KC using a genetic algorithm for a heat source of 346˚C. He et al. [2014] modified a KCS11 to use a heat source of 400˚C which brought a thermal efficiency increase of 27% – from 10.2% to Figure 25: Heat transfer process with an ammonia-water solution at
3,450 kPa [Mlcak 2004].
Kalina cycle
56
C h a p te r:
An Overview Of Power Thermodynamic Waste Heat Recovery Systems13.0% – when compared to the KCS11. Modi and Haglind [2015] compared different KC configurations for a heat source coming from solar collectors at a temperature above 500˚C and found that a KCS1234 achieves its highest efficiency at 31.5%. Yue et al. [2015] tested a WHRS based in the KC for a range of temperatures that went from 440˚C to 146˚C, with the highest power output at 217 kW.
When KC is compared with basic RC or ORC there are mixed results as to which systems are better. Valdimarsson [2003] showed that for a geothermal plant with temperatures ranging from 100˚C to 150˚C, the KC brought larger power outputs at lower costs than two different ORC.
Wang et al. [2009] demonstrated that a KC could deliver 10.7 MW from using the available waste heat from a cement plant while a RC achieved 10.1 MW and an ORC 8.9 MW. Li and Dai [2014] performed a comparison of a KC with a supercritical24 CO2 ORC, finding that the KC produced 220 kW more – around 122% – from the same heat source. Coskun et al. [2014]
showed that a KC could deliver around 6.1 MW from a geothermal source while an RC reached 3.9 MW. On the other hand, the results do not always go in favour of the KC, as discovered by Bombarda et al. [2010] who found that a KC would deliver the same power output than ORC, but the complexity of the KC plant will require a more advance control and monitor system leaning the balance to the ORC. Larsen, Haglind et al. [2013] showed that a marine WHRS using an ORC could return a power of 1.16 MW, while a water-based RC produced 0.86 MW and a KC 0.83 MW. Zare and Mahmoudi [2015] showed that a pentane ORC could produce 46.7 MW while a KC produced 34.8 MW from a modular helium reactor. Yue et al. [2015] found that an ORC using decane achieved 146 kW more than the KC.
It is important to note that KC WHRS tend to operate at higher pressures than their counterparts, which can translate to cost increments for the KC. Bombarda et al. [2010] found that a 10.0 MPa KC would deliver a similar power output to a 1.0 MPa ORC. Wang et al. [2009]
discovered that the optimum KC operated between 6.0 MPa and 18.0 MPa while an ORC has its maximum pressure between 2.0 MPa and 3.5 MPa. The optimum marine WHRS designed by Larsen, Haglind et al. [2013] showed that a typical water-based RC operated at a pressure of 1.0 MPa, while an ORC at 3.7 MPa and the KC reached 8.7 MPa.
From these comparative studies, it is seen that the results depend greatly on the heat source, KC complexity level (number of equipment required) and optimisation methodology.