4.7 Article

Thermodynamic analysis of employing ejector and organic Rankine cycles for GT-MHR waste heat utilization: A comparative study

期刊

ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT
卷 67, 期 -, 页码 125-137

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2012.11.015

关键词

GT-MHR; Cogeneration; Ejector; ORC; Exergy; Waste heat

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The waste heat from intercooler and pre-cooler of the gas turbine-modular helium reactor (GT-MHR) is utilized to drive organic Rankine and ejector refrigeration cycles for performance enhancement, in three different configurations. Meanwhile, a new 20 model is developed for the ejector to predict its performance more accurately. The cycles' performances are analyzed from the viewpoints of both the first and second laws of thermodynamics. The results of optimization revealed that; one of the configurations is more efficient than the other ones from the viewpoint of first law of thermodynamics. In this configuration, at turbine inlet temperature of 850 C the first law efficiency is 15.86% higher than the GT-MHR cycle and the fuel energy saving ratio (FESR) could be up to 20.06%. Another configuration is found to be the most effective (among the three) from the exergy utilization perspective. In this layout, the exergy efficiency is around 2.6% higher than that of the GT-MHR. Through parametric study, the effects of some important parameters such as turbine inlet temperature, pinch point temperature difference as well as the compressor pressure ratio, on the systeins' performances are investigated in detail. The results also showed that the compressor pressure ratio under optimized condition is higher for the configuration with the highest first law efficiency. This point can be accounted as an economic drawback for the configuration. Exergy analyses revealed that the compressor or recuperator (depending on the configuration) has the second highest exergy destruction after the reactor. (C) 2012 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