Analysis and Comparison of The Simple and Recompression Supercritical Co2 Cycles PDF
Analysis and Comparison of The Simple and Recompression Supercritical Co2 Cycles PDF
Zanganeh, Kourosh
CanmetENERGY, Natural Resources Canada
Abstract
The recompression cycle has been proposed as a means of improving upon the efficiencies obtainable using a simple
Brayton cycle. It differs from the simple cycle in that a portion of the mass flow is recompressed to the working
pressure without first being precooled. A second compressor is required and the single recuperator of the simple
cycle is split into two separate parts, so increasing system complexity, but this can be justified by the potential for
increased efficiency.
This paper analyzes the efficiencies of the simple and recompression cycles over a range of operating conditions
(turbine inlet temperature, compressor inlet pressure, turbine inlet pressure) and with recuperator performance
defined in terms of both effectiveness and minimum attainable pinch. NIST material properties were used
throughout the analyses, but pressure losses in piping and heat exchangers were neglected. Taking them into account
would reduce the efficiencies of both the simple and recompression cycles, but the recompression cycle would
presumably suffer more because of the greater recuperator areas required. A previously published comparison of the
simple and recompression cycles is critiqued and the efficiencies of the two cycles are compared using a variety of
assumptions.
It is proved that, for any given compressor and turbine conditions, the recompression cycle will always be more
efficient than a simple cycle provided that the two cycles have the same precooler inlet temperature. In order to
satisfy this condition, however, the recompression cycle will always require more total recuperator area. It is
demonstrated that when the two cycles are compared on the basis of equal total recuperator area, the efficiency
advantage of the recompression cycle is reduced and, depending upon the assumptions made, can disappear
altogether.
1100
0.36
1000
Cooling
900 Recuperation 0.32
Thermal Efficiency
Heating
Enthlapy (KJ/kg)
800
700 0.28
600
0.24
500
400
0.2
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
300 Compressor Inlet Pressure (MPa)
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Entropy (J/(kg-K)) Figure 5 TIT = 350˚C, effectiveness = 95%
Figure 2 h-s Diagram for Simple Cycle
0.48
TIP = 10.0 MPa
Throughout this paper pressure losses are neglected, TIP = 12.5 MPa
TIP = 15.0 MPa
NIST material properties are used, the compressor Thermal Efficiency 0.44 TIP = 17.5 MPa
inlet temperature is assumed to be 32˚C (just above the TIP = 20.0 MPa
critical temperature), and compressors and turbines are TIP = 22.5 MPa
0.4 TIP = 25.0 MPa
assumed to have isentropic efficiencies of 0.89 and
0.90 respectively. Given these assumptions, a simple
cycle is fully defined by 0.36
generally increase as the pressure ratio is increased. Dashed lines indicate the presence of internal
This is because increasing the pressure ratio increases recuperator pinch. Cycles in these regions are
the compressor outlet temperature and hence the theoretically possible but cannot be realized in practice
minimum temperature attainable at the precooler inlet. because the recuperators required would be
This limits the recuperation potential and negatively impractically large. Figure 9 illustrates the
affects efficiency. phenomenon. The solid lines represent a normal
recuperator temperature profile (hot flow from right to
0.36 left, cold flow from left to right). The minimum
temperature difference occurs at the cold end of the
0.32
recuperator and temperature differences increase
towards the hot end. The dashed lines represent a
Thermal Efficiency
0.36
300
0.32
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
200
Compressor Inlet Pressure (MPa)
Figure 8 TIT = 550˚C, pinch = 15˚C
100
0.54
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
0.5 UA (MW /deg C)
Thermal Efficiency
Enthlapy (KJ/kg)
800
of 7.38 MPa. This is the case for a turbine inlet
700
temperature of 350˚C but at turbine inlet temperatures
of 550˚C of 750˚C having the compressor inlet at or 600
0.35
that the cycle is impractical). The results are rather
more in keeping with what one might intuitively
0.33
expect than the corresponding results for the simple
Thermal Efficiency
0.38
2 4 6 8 10 12 0.44
Thermal Efficiency
TIP = 20 MPa
0.52 TIP = 25 MPa
0.32
2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Pressure Ratio
0.5
Figure 15 Simple vs. Recompression Cycles
however, and at higher pressure ratios reaches 98%. values would give quantitatively different but
The comparison can therefore be faulted on the qualitatively similar curves).
grounds that it compares simple cycles in which
effectiveness is limited to 95% to recompression 0.5
cycles in which effectiveness can reach 98%. On the
other hand the recompression cycle suffers because the
0.45
total implied recuperator UA (U-overall heat transfer
Thermal Efficiency
coefficient, A-area) is not optimally divided between
the low and high temperature recuperators. 0.4
0.45
Figure 16 represents an attempt to address these issues.
Recompression cycles have been optimized by
0.35
optimally dividing the implied recuperator UA and
simple cycles have been given the sample total UA as
the recompression cycles to which they are being 0.25
10 15 20 25
compared. Though it perhaps presents a truer picture Turbine Inlet Pressure (MPa)
of the relative merits of the simple and recompression Figure 18 Simple vs. Recompression Cycles (3)
cycles, it is not without its own difficulties. The
Figure 18 compares the efficiencies of the
results of any comparison based on equal total
recompression (solid lines) and simple (dashed lines)
recuperator UA will depend upon the UA value
cycles on the basic of equal recuperator pinch. It
chosen. Figure 17 shows how simple and
assumes 10˚C pinch, and pressure ratios chosen so to
recompression cycles efficiencies vary as total
maximize efficiency. The trend towards higher
recuperator UA is increased. It assumes CIP =
recompression cycle efficiencies with increasing
7.5MPa, TIP = 22.5MPa, and TIT = 550˚C (other
turbine inlet pressure can clearly be seen, as can the
Supercritical CO2 Power Cycle Symposium
May 24-25, 2011
Boulder, Colorado
lack of any such trend in the case of the simple cycle. Because cycle A is 100% efficient, the overall
If pinch is accepted as a measure what is possible in a efficiency of cycles A and B acting together will
heat exchanger, Figure 18 represents a fair comparison always be greater than that of cycle B (i.e. that of an
in that all of the implied recuperators are equally "equivalent" simple cycle). This can be formally
practical. On the other hand the recompression cycles demonstrated by noting that the efficiency of the
do require between 2 and 3.6 times as much recompression cycle is equal to the total work done by
recuperator UA as the simple cycles to which they are cycles A and B divided by the total external heat
being compared. required by these cycles. Let WA and WB be work done
by the two cycles, QA and QB be the external heat they
4.0 Understanding Recompression require, and QAB be the heat transferred from cycle A
to cycle B.
The recompression cycle can be seen as the super-
position of two simple cycles as shown in Figure 19. WA + WB WA + WB
ηR = =
(QA + QB ) (WA + QAB ) + (WB / η S − QAB )
Cy cle A Cycle B
WA + WB ⎡ W /W +1 ⎤
= = ηS ⎢ B A ⎥ (1)
Heat In Heat In WA + WB / η S ⎣WB / WA + η S ⎦
Temperature (deg C)
Temperature (deg C)
0.5 450
0.45
350
Temperature (deg C)
Thermal Efficiency
0.4
250
0.35
2 deg C pinch
f = 0.00
5 deg C pinch 150
0.3 f = 0.15
10 deg C pinch
f = 0.30
20 deg C pinch
30 deg C pinch
0.25 50
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 5 10 15 20
Recompression Fraction UA (MW /deg C)
Figure 22 Effects of Recompression on Efficiency Figure 21 Recuperator Temperature Profiles
Figure 21 assumes the same conditions (CIP = which heat is rejected and efficiency can only increase
7.5MPa, TIP = 22.5MPa, TIT = 550˚C) as Figure 17. if the reduction in the mass flow through the precooler
It shows, for a range of simple cycle pinch values, how is great enough to overcome this effect. Whether or
efficiency changes as the recompression fraction is not efficiency increases depends upon the assumed UA
increased from zero while keeping state point 8 fixed value. A pinch of 2˚C implies that UA = 11.8 MW/
(solid lines) and while maintaining the same total ˚C. At this value recompression is advantageous (see
recuperator UA (dashed lines). Figure 17) and efficiency increases (up to a point) as
the recompression fraction is increased. A pinch of
If state point 8 is kept fixed, efficiency always 30˚C implies that UA = 4.36 MW/ ˚C. At this value
increases, but so does total recuperator UA. In part recompression is not advantageous and efficiency
this is because compressing part of the flow under less decreases as the recompression fraction is increased.
favourable conditions increases total compressor work
and so increases the mass flow required to produce any 5.0 Conclusions
given net power. The primary cause, however, is that
For any given compressor and turbine conditions the
as the recompression fraction is increased state point 7
recompression cycle is potentially more efficient than
moves towards state point 8, reducing the temperature
the simple cycle, but achieving higher efficiency
difference between state points 3 and 7 and so
generally involves increasing the total recuperator area
squeezing recuperator temperature differences. This
significantly beyond what would be reasonable for a
effect is illustrated by Figure 22, which shows the
simple cycle. Were the associated pressure losses
recuperator temperature profile for 10˚C pinch and
were taken into account the advantage of the
recompression fractions of 0, 0.15 and 0.3. The red
recompression cycle would certainly be reduced and
circles represent state point 7, the blue circles state
might even largely disappear. Further studies that take
point 3, and the black lines the division between the
pressure losses into account are required.
low and high temperature recuperators. The temp-
erature difference between state points 3 and 7 limits
References
the amount of recompression possible. Once it is
reduced to the minimum allowable pinch any further [1] Vaclav Dostal, Martin Kulhanek "Research on the
recompression would violate this assumption. Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Cycles in the Czech
Republic" Proceedings of the S-CO2 Cycle
If total recuperator area is held constant recompression Symposium, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy
causes state point 8 to move away from state point 1. NY, April 29-30 2009
This increases the specific enthalpy difference over