4.7 Article

Heat transfer efficiency and capital cost evaluation of a three-phase direct contact heat exchanger for the utilisation of low-grade energy sources

期刊

ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT
卷 106, 期 -, 页码 101-109

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2015.09.023

关键词

Three-phase direct contact condenser; Heat transfer efficiency; Costing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Low-grade energy cycles for power generation require efficient heat transfer equipment. Using a threephase direct contact heat exchanger instead of a surface type exchanger, such as a shell and tube heat exchanger, potentially makes the process more efficient and economic. This is because of its ability to work with a very low temperature driving force, as well as its low cost of construction. In this study, an experimental investigation of the heat transfer efficiency, and hence cost, of a three-phase direct contact condenser has been carried out utilising a short Perspex tube of 70 cm total height and 4 cm internal diameter. Only 48 cm was used for the direct contact condensation. Pentane vapour with three different initial temperatures (40 degrees C, 43.5 degrees C and 47.5 degrees C) was contacted with water with an inlet temperature of 19 degrees C. In line with previous studies, the ratio of the fluid flow rates was shown to have a controlling effect on the exchanger. Specifically, the heat transfer efficiency increased virtually linearly with this ratio, with higher efficiencies also being observed with higher flow rates of the continuous phase. The effect of the initial temperature of the dispersed phase was shown to have a lower order impact than flow rate ratio. The capital cost of the direct contact condenser was estimated and it was found to be less than the corresponding surface condenser (shell and tube condenser) by 30 times. An optimum value of the continuous phase flow rate was observed at which the cost of the condenser is at a minimum. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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