ECOS 2010 ECOS 2010

June
Gary Zyhowski, Andrew Brown, Abdennacer Achaichia
Honeywell.com
Topics Line-up Topics Line up
Introduction
Power Plant Example Power Plant Example
Thermodynamics
Economics
Comparison of Water and HFC-245fa
Pinch point
Sensible heating
HFC-245fa properties
Exit Superheat and Recuperation
Comparison of HFC-245fa and Isopentane
Turbine sizing
O t t Output
Drop-in comparison
Benefits to the Environment
Conclusions
ECOS 2010
J une , 2010 2
Conclusions
Honeywell.com
Introduction Introduction
Drivers for Development of Medium- and Low-Grade Heat
Utili ti T h l i Utilization Technologies
growth in energy consumption and emissions
li h climate change
environmental legislation
binding targets for renewable energy
increased focus across the manufacturing sector on the economic
benefits of energy and fuel conservation
Need to reduce current fossil fuel combustion emissions Need to reduce current fossil fuel combustion emissions
mix of renewable and cleaner energy technologies will be
necessary to meet future demand.
geothermal power is a prime example
ECOS 2010
J une , 2010 3
geothermal power is a prime example
Honeywell.com
Introduction Introduction
Geothermal Power
EU 2030 target of 5% of total electric power production
US has ~350GW potential
Accessible Industrial Waste Heat Energy
Estimated at 1.06 x 10
13
megajoules in the US
Organic Rankine Cycle Systems are a robust means of thermal
energy conversion energy conversion
industrial waste heat
efficiency improvement in power stations
geothermal and solar heat geothermal and solar heat
efficiency typically between 10 and 20%, depending on temperature
levels and availability of a suitably matched fluid.
attractive option for heat recovery in the range of 90 C to 200C,
ECOS 2010
J une , 2010 4
Honeywell.com
ORC System Basic Layout ORC System Basic Layout

Vapor
3
Work
Output
Vapor
3
Work
Output
Vapor
Generator
Turbine
Heat Input
Vapor
Generator
Turbine
Heat Input
44
Liquid
1
2
Liquid
1
2
Pump
Condenser
1
Pump
Condenser
1
ECOS 2010
J une , 2010 5
Heat Output Heat Output
Honeywell.com
Power Plant Example Thermodynamic Analysis
Table 1. Steam Conditions for Simple Turbine Arrangement.
Power Plant Example Thermodynamic Analysis
Steam Conditions for Simple Turbine Arrangement
Outlet Location Temperature Pressure Enthalpy liq Enthalpy vap Entropy vap Outlet Location Temperature
C
Pressure
kPa
Enthalpy, liq.
kJ/kg
Enthalpy,vap
kJ/kg
Entropy,vap
kJ/kg K
From Boiler 537.8 8274 3486.7 6.8229
From 1
st
turbine 152.0 500.0 640.0 2748.8 6.8299
From Reheater 482.2 413.7 3446.3 8.1256
From 2
nd
turbine 135.0 29.2 552.0 2676.3 8.1274
From condenser 55.0 19.3 223.9
From Pump 58.0 8619 243.1
Enthalpy and entropy values use ASHRAE thermodynamic reference state Enthalpy and entropy values use ASHRAE thermodynamic reference state
Net Heat Output 1389.2 kJ/kg steam
Heat Input 3822.1 kJ/kg steam
Theoretical cycle 0.363
ECOS 2010
J une , 2010 6
efficiency
Honeywell.com
Power Plant Example HFC-245fa Bottoming Power Plant Example HFC 245fa Bottoming
HFC-245fa Rankine cycle
Outlet Location Temperature
C
Pressure
kPa
Enthalpy, liq.
kJ/kg
Enthalpy,vapor
kJ/kg
Entropy,vapor
kJ/kg K C kPa kJ/kg kJ/kg kJ/kg K
From Boiler 125.0 2113 490.1 1.811
From turbine 51.9 213 447.5 1.811
From condenser 95 7213 246.5
From pump 97.7 2113 249.1
Enthalpy and entropy values use ASHRAE thermodynamic reference state
Work done on 245fa - pump 2.53 kJ/kg
Net mech energy/unit mass 245fa 39.75kJ/kg
Thermal input to 245fa/cycle 241.0kJ/kg
Mass Ratio 9.07 kg 245fa per kg steam condensed g p g
Net ORC Work Out/unit mass
steam
362.7 kJ/kg
Combined cycle work output 1792.5kJ/kg steam
Combined cycle efficiency 0.456
ECOS 2010
J une , 2010 7
Combined cycle efficiency 0.456
% Increase in efficiency 25.6
Honeywell.com
Power Plant Example Simple Payback Analysis Power Plant Example Simple Payback Analysis
M h i l P (W) P i l d i it 1 39 10
9
W 5 0 kJ/h Mechanical Power (W) = Power in load circuit
(We)/commercial efficiency
1.39 x 10
9
W or 5.0 kJ/hr
Steam mass flow (kg/hr) = mechanical power
(kJ/hr)/heat input with reheat (kJ/kg)
1.27 x 10
6
kg/hr steam
ORC work = Mass Flow Steam (kg/hr) x Net Work
Out/Unit mass steam (kJ/kg)
4.6x10
8
kJ/hr or 128MW
Plant electric output increase, % 25
ORC System Cost ($1500 to $2000/KW) $192M to $256M
Value of Power produced in ORC ($0.085/kWhr) $95M V p O C ($ / W ) $
Payback (assumes operating cost is small) 2 to 3 years
ECOS 2010
J une , 2010 8
Honeywell.com
Comparison of Water to HFC-245fa - Pinch Point Comparison of Water to HFC 245fa Pinch Point
H
2
O: High latent heat of vaporization yields low mass flow. Results in decreased energy capture
from source via sensible heating. Evidenced as a smaller reduction in source temperature
170
200
170
200
150
170
43.3 kJ /s
137.8
147 C
110C
Overall Efficiency =cycle efficiency x total thermal power extracted
total thermal power available
HFC-245fa 8.1%
Water 3.5%
A
b'
b
150
170
43.3 kJ /s
137.8
147 C
110C
Overall Efficiency =cycle efficiency x total thermal power extracted
total thermal power available
HFC-245fa 8.1%
Water 3.5%
A
b'
b
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
,

C
100
50
0.02 kg/s
Water
0.51 kg/s
HFC-245fa
1.02kg/s
Flowing Source Fluid
110 C
B B'
100
50
0.02 kg/s
Water
0.51 kg/s
HFC-245fa
1.02kg/s
Flowing Source Fluid
110 C
B B'
T
e
m
p
e
100
200 300 400
50
40
51.6 kJ /s 142.1 kJ /s
B B'
100
200 300 400
50
40
51.6 kJ /s 142.1 kJ /s
B B'
ECOS 2010
J une , 2010 9
100
200 300 400 100
200 300 400
Thermal Power, kW (kJ /s)
Honeywell.com
HFC-245fa Enthalpy Drops and Superheats HFC 245fa Enthalpy Drops and Superheats
Enthalpy drop and superheat enthalpy of HFC-245fa (isentropic expansion).
HFC-245fa expander exit gas has more superheat than entering gas.
Temperature
Expander Inlet
Temperature
Condensing
Enthalpy Drop
Expansion
Superheat Enthalpy
kJ/kg
A recuperator puts this energy into condensed HFC-245fa rather than rejecting it.
Expander Inlet
C
Condensing
C
Expansion
kJ/kg
kJ/kg
148.9 21.1 56.0 29.3
162.8 21.1 61.1 48.1
176.7 21.1 64.9 65.1
148.9 15.4 60.1 29.8
162.8 15.4 65.5 48.4
176.7 15.4 69.9 64.7
ECOS 2010
J une , 2010 10
Honeywell.com
Comparison of HFC-245fa and Isopentane Comparison of HFC 245fa and Isopentane
Turbine Sizing
Turbine diameter D= ds Q
0.5
/ H
0.25
Assume a specific diameter of 4 (Balje Diagram)
Q is the volumetric flow rate (m3/s)
H is head (m2/s2)
ds is specific diameter (dimensionless)
H d i d t i d f th ti PR [1 ( 1) H/ 2 ] / 1 Head is determined from the equation PR=[1+(1) H/ a2 ]/-1
PR is the turbine pressure ratio (dimensionless),
i th i t i t (*di i l ) is the isentropic exponent (*dimensionless)
*for an ideal gas this is the heat capacity at constant pressure /heat capacity at constant volume,
Cp/Cv)
a is the speed of sound in the particular working fluid (m/s).
ECOS 2010
J une , 2010 11
p p g ( )
Honeywell.com
Comparison of HFC-245fa and Isopentane Comparison of HFC 245fa and Isopentane
Geothermal hot water source: HFC-245fa and isopentane working fluid comparison.
Basis: 5000kj/second delivered for working fluid vapor generation j f g f p g
90C
source*
Mass
flow,
kg/sec
Turbine
Exit flow,
m3/sec
Turbine
Diameter,
m
Theoretical
electrical output,
kWe
% difference relative
to HFC-245fa
Di t O t t
source kg/sec m3/sec m kWe
HFC-245fa 22.4 2.34 0.474 473.5
Isopentane 11.9 3.94 0.526 476
Diameter Output
+ 11 + 0.5 p
120C source*
HFC-245fa 20.6 2.30 0.418 646.5
Isopentane 10.6 4.06 0.470 531
*30C condensing (working fluid temperature)
+ 12 +4
ECOS 2010
J une , 2010 12
** exit condition limited by 9:1 pressure ratio.
Honeywell.com
Comparison of HFC-245fa and Isopentane Comparison of HFC 245fa and Isopentane
Drop-in of isopentane in a turbine initially sized for HFC-245fa.
90C Source Turbine
Diameter, m
Volumetric flow rate
(turbine exit), m
3
/sec
Mass flow,
kg/sec
Electrical
Output, kWe
% Change kWe
vs. HFC-245fa
Isopentane 0.474 3.20 9.6 383 (19.0)
HFC-245fa 0.474 2.34 22.4 473.5
120C Source
Isopentane 0 418 3 22 8 4 531 (17 9) Isopentane 0.418 3.22 8.4 531 (17.9)
HFC-245fa 0.418 2.30 20.6 646.5
Thermal efficiency Isopentane HFC-245fa
90C source
0.0952 0.0947

ECOS 2010
J une , 2010 13
120C source
0.1344 0.1293
Honeywell.com
Comparison of HFC-245fa and Isopentane Comparison of HFC 245fa and Isopentane
Temperature Reduction of a Flowing Fluid Source
S t d li 5000kJ/ (f 90C ) t b il System delivers 5000kJ/s (from a 90C source) to boiler
Assume source flow rate of 100kg/second
Latent heat of HFC-245fa at 80C and sensible heating from 30C to 80C = 224 kJ/kg
Mass flow x heat delivered to working fluid = heat from source Water, or 5000kJ/s g ,
q=mCpT
q is the heat removed (kJ/s)
m is mass flow (kg/s)
Cp is heat capacity at constant pressure (kJ/kg K)
T is the temperature difference (C) p ( )
The source temperature drop with HFC-245fa is ~12C
Since the HFC-245fa and Isopentane sizing is based on the same heat input to
ECOS 2010
J une , 2010 14
the boiler, it serves as a check that the source temperature drop with Isopentane is ~12C
Honeywell.com
Benefits to the Environment Benefits to the Environment
Can address needs for additional capacity and/or increased efficiency
Avoided CO2 emissions when ORC system electric power displaces grid power Avoided CO2 emissions when ORC system electric power displaces grid power
When appended to NG or diesel gensets
Additional power with no additional CO2 emissions
10-15% additional power output (more or less depending on design and conditions) p p ( p g g )
No additional fuel consumption
Renewable sources such as geothermal and solar can be utilized
Accessing manufacturing sector waste heat sources improves energy efficiency
ECOS 2010
J une , 2010 15
Honeywell.com
Conclusions Conclusions
HFC-245fa is a suitable working fluid for ORC applications
Hi h h t it t ib t t hi h l ffi i i High heat capacity contributes to high cycle efficiencies
Desirable latent heat to heat capacity ratio for ORC
Particularly well suited for source temperatures of 90C to 150C y p
HFC-245fa provides a non-flammable fluid option
ECOS 2010
J une , 2010 16