Exergoeconomic analysis applied to supercritical CO2 power systems
Different sCO2 cycle concepts together with a newly proposed cycle configuration were simulated and a comparison was conducted to show the advantages and disadvantages of each cycle considered here. The cycles were compared using a wide range of the turbine inlet temperature, while alternating the u...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Energy (Oxford) 2019-09, Vol.183, p.756-765 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Different sCO2 cycle concepts together with a newly proposed cycle configuration were simulated and a comparison was conducted to show the advantages and disadvantages of each cycle considered here. The cycles were compared using a wide range of the turbine inlet temperature, while alternating the used cooling system (air vs. wet cooling systems). The thermodynamic and cost inefficiencies within the simulated cycles were identified using exergoeconomic evaluation methods. The high exergy destruction costs in coolers indicate that the investment cost should be reduced by using different material than titanium due to its high cost. Also, the calculated product cost demonstrates a potential advantage of the proposed cycle. The analysis showed, in general, that sCO2-based cycles are promising for various applications, resulting in system efficiencies and costs that could compete with conventional power generation technologies soon. The sCO2 recompression concept and the novel sCO2 cycle showed the best results among all investigated sCO2 cycles.
•Several configurations of supercritical CO2 power cycles are evaluated.•Exergetic, economic and exergoeconomic analyses are applied.•The advantages and disadvantages of each cycle are discussed.•The sCO2 recompression concept and a novel sCO2 cycle showed best performance. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0360-5442 1873-6785 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.energy.2019.06.161 |