4.7 Review

A review of heat integration approaches for organic rankine cycle with waste heat in production processes

期刊

ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT
卷 221, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113175

关键词

Process heat integration; Organic Rankine Cycle; Optimization methods; Waste heat; Industrial systems

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Production systems represent a significant source of waste heat. The waste heat cannot be reused often. Many optimization methods can give a solution for waste heat recovery. However, the results do not depend only on the method. The low-temperature waste heat makes difficulties for its recovery within the processes. Organic Rankine Cycle units can be used for low-temperature heat transformation into electricity. Linking the Organic Rankine Cycle within the heat integrated system is not simple. This depends on the influence of a few important factors. The process parameters of the working medium, the physical and chemical characteristics of the working fluid, the continuity of heat supply, and the temperature level of waste heat are necessary conditions that must be included in optimization. The optimization method should determine the optimal operating point of the Organic Rankine Cycle. The displacement of the operating point leads to decrease in the effective transformation of heat into electricity. These problems are analyzed through a review of the methods and approaches used for the integration of Organic Rankine Cycle in thermal process systems. These include Pinch technology, Non Linear Programming, Multiple Integer Linear Programming, Genetic Algorithm, Artificial Neural Network and many different approaches for polygeneration systems. All methods were compared and systematized in a general scheme for integration of an Organic Rankine Cycle with low-temperature industrial waste heat supply. This work also includes experience in implemented and designed projects of an integrated Organic Rankine Cycle.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据