4.7 Article

Exergy analysis and dynamic control of chemical looping combustion for power generation system

期刊

ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT
卷 228, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113728

关键词

Chemical looping combustion; Carbon deposition; Power generation system; Exergy analysis; Dynamic simulation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21576143]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study focuses on optimizing the global energy of PGS systems using CLC technology and exergy analysis to address carbon deposition issues. By increasing OC circulation rate, optimizing key parameters, and designing control schemes using transfer entropy method, the system performance and stability are improved.
Chemical looping combustion (CLC) is an efficient technology for power generation system (PGS) and CO2 capture. Regarding carbon deposition, this work presents a global energy optimization strategy by integrating CLC with PGS process (CLC-PGS) based on exergy analysis. First, the CLC-PGS system is simulated by using Aspen Plus software and its steady-state simulation results are used for global exergy analysis. Second, the carbon deposition phenomena resulting in insufficient contact between oxygen carrier (OC) and methane (CH4) and thus low conversion of CH4 is considered in the CLC-PGS optimization. OC circulation rate is increased to address carbon deposition problem and alleviate exergy destruction along with fuel reactor (FR) temperature, the ratio of CH4 to steam (X-CTS), and the ratio of CH4 to OC (X-CTO) optimized simultaneously by exergy analysis. Finally, the pressure and liquid level of drum in heat recover steam generator (HRSG) are selected as key variables by transfer entropy method for control scheme design. The dynamic behaviors of three alternative control schemes are compared by Aspen Dynamics software, with the control scheme II resulting the best according to the stability indicators in the face of +/- 10% disturbances.

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