4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

Ceramic Gas Turbine Development: Need for a 10 Year Plan

Publisher

ASME-AMER SOC MECHANICAL ENG
DOI: 10.1115/1.3124669

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ceramic gas turbine development that started in the 1950s has slowed considerably since most of the large-scale ceramic gas turbine development programs of the 1970s-1990s ended. While component durability still does not meet expectations, the prospect of significant energy savings and emission reductions, potentially achievable with ceramic gas turbines, continues to justify development efforts. Four gas turbine applications have been identified that could be commercially attractive: a small recuperated gas turbine (microturbine) with similar to 35% electrical efficiency, a recuperated gas turbine for transportation applications with similar to 40% electrical efficiency with potential applications for efficient small engine cogeneration, a similar to 40% efficient midsize industrial gas turbine, and a similar to 63% (combined cycle) efficient utility turbine. Key technologies have been identified to ensure performance and component durability targets can be met over the expected life cycle for these applications. These technologies include a Si(3)N(4) or SiC with high fracture toughness, durable EBCs for Si(3)N(4) and SiC, an effective EBC/TBC for SiC/SiC, a durable oxide/oxide ceramic matrix composite (CMC) with thermally insulating coating, and the next generation CMCs with high strength that can be used as structural materials for turbine components for small engines and for rotating components in engines of various sizes. The programs will require integrated partnerships between government, national laboratories, universities, and industry. The overall cost of the proposed development programs is estimated at U.S. $100M over 10 years, i.e., an annual average of U.S. $10M. [DOI: 10.1115/1.3124669]

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available