4.7 Article

Performance analysis of zeotropic mixture as a working fluid for medium temperature in regenerative Organic Rankine cycle

期刊

PROCESS SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
卷 179, 期 -, 页码 864-872

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.psep.2023.09.043

关键词

Regenerative Organic Rankine cycle; Energy economic analysis; Exergy analysis; Zeotropic mixture

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Efficient recovery of waste heat is crucial for addressing energy and environmental problems. In this study, a thermo-economic analysis was conducted to recover medium temperature waste heat from the glass industry using different fluid mixtures. The results showed that the system performance was optimized when using cyclohexane + benzene as the working fluid.
Energy consumption is a never-ending need so, for levelizing the energy demands the efficient recovery of waste heat is a crucial mechanism to address energy and environmental problems. Organic Rankine cycle is the most technically feasible and promising approaches for recovering waste heat. To augment the system performance and technology economic viability, the opted fluid plays a vital role. So, zeotropic fluid acts as a best candidate by showing a proper match with the temperature of heat source as a result enhances the thermodynamic performance of Organic Rankine cycle system. In this study a detailed thermo-economic analysis of regenerative Organic Rankine cycle to recover medium temperature waste heat from glass industry employing zeotropic mixtures of cyclohexane + benzene, toluene + benzene, toluene + nonane and cyclohexane + nonane as a viable working fluid at 0.5 mass fraction. Result reveals that, at 375 degrees C hot gas inlet temperature the maximum power, energy and exergy at respective parameters are 1132.96 kW, 50.15 % and 75.53 % by using cyclohexane + benzene. Economic analysis shows the maximum operating cost of 118.8 $/h. Likewise, the impact of hot gas input temperatures are investigated for the best mixture at a mass fraction of 0.1-0.9.

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