Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Rome, 17 October, 2014
Advanced energy systems
Studio, modellizzazione e analisi di componenti e sistemi innovativi a bassa
emissione di CO 2 per la conversione termomeccanica dell’energia
Marco Gambini, Michela Vellini
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Industriale
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Rome, 17 October, 2014
Introduction
Environmental situation
Increasing amounts of gases, such as CO2, in the earth's atmosphere bring the risk of enhancing the natural
greenhouse effect, leading to changes in the climate.
Actual energy policy
The size of climate changes and their impact are not fully understood. Nevertheless, it is generally accepted that
the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere must be stabilised in order to prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system.
Power generation sector
Fossil fuels are likely to play a major role in global energy supply and especially in power energy sector in the
near-medium term future. But fossil fuel are also major source of anthropogenic CO2 emission into the
atmosphere. A strong abatement of these emissions must be achieved in these and in the next few years
CO2 mitigation options in power generation
A broad range of options is available for reducing carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere. They are:
• improving the efficiency of energy use
• switching to less carbon-intensive fuel (e.g. from coal to natural gas)
• increasing the application of renewable energy sources and the nuclear power
• removal of CO2 from fossil fuel power plants
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
•
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Rome, 17 October, 2014
CO2 CAPTURE AND STORAGE
It’s the most important option to reduce substantially carbon dioxide emissions. Capture and storage of CO2 is
now technically feasible.
Carbon dioxide removal techniques
The methodologies proposed up to now are:
• CO2 removal process treating the products of combustion from conventional fossil fuel power plants
or the process gases (option A)
• using semi-closed cycles where the working fluid is prevalently CO2; the excess CO2 produced in the
combustion process is totally captured (option B)
• Fossil fuel decarbonization (option C)
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Rome, 17 October, 2014
G.I.ST. Cycle
Study and proposal of new advanced power plants able to attain high performance and low ambient impact.
G.I.ST. (Gas Injection Steam) is a new mixed cycle where there is a topping heating of steam by means of an
internal combustion
•
•
•
•
•
p=cost.
T
pressure drop during mixing steam and exhaust gases
(process A-B)
topping temperature of the cycle very high (point B)
final point of expansion (point C) is superheated steam
(together with incondesable gases)
de-superheating of mixuture steam and incondensable
gases after expansio (process C-D)
condensation (separation and recovery of the water) not
isothermal (process D-E).
B
A
C
D
E
S
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
Rome, 17 October, 2014
G.I.ST. Cycle
aria
CHP
IC
0A
CLP
•
Conventional high pressure steam
turbine
•
Regenerative re-heating
•
Bottoming cycle
•
“bottoming cycle”, fed by heat of
the
mixture
steam
and
incondensable gases at the exit of
the medium pressure turbine
comb.
1A
CC
gas sat.
1
3S
6G
THP
TMP
6S
comb.
TSG
TLP
2
8
6R
7
SEP
10
9
3
5
4
•
Efficiency: 38.3%
•
boiler/tot : 74%
•
msteam/mtot : 67% (by weight at SEP inlet)
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
Rome, 17 October, 2014
G.I.ST. Cycle
Ciclo termodinamico del vapore (diagramma T,s)
aria
1000
950
p=cost. 1
900
CHP
IC
0A
CLP
850
800
700
TEMPERATURA (°C)
comb.
riscaldamenti tramite
combustibile
750
1A
c.i.
650
CC
c.e.
600
2
6g
550
3S
6s
6G
500
TMP
6S
TSG
350
TLP
2
8
6R
400
7
7
300
250
SEP
6r
200
150
4
100
0
THP
comb.
450
50
gas sat.
1
10
3
3
10
9
0.0
3i
5
8
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
5
9.0
10.0
ENTROPIA (KJ/KG °C)
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
4
9
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
Rome, 17 October, 2014
G.I.ST. Cycle
Profili di temperatura nel separatore
aria
650
0A
600
CHP
550
IC
CLP
TEMPERATURA (°C)
500
comb.
450
1A
CC
400
gas sat.
1
3S
RH
350
6G
300
THP
TMP
6S
comb.
TSG
2
8
6R
250
TLP
7
separazione dell'acqua
200
150
SEP
100
10
3
50
0
5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
CALORE SCAMBIATO (%)
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
4
9
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
Rome, 17 October, 2014
G.I.ST. Cycle (AMC)
comb.
CLP
aria
CHP
1A
IC
1
CC1
CC2
0A
2P
•
Gas-turbine with reheating and steam
injection in the first combustion
chamber
•
Conventional high pressure steam
turbine
•
HRSG for steam production
•
Atmospheric SEP for water recovery
2
TMP1
THP
6
TMP2
2R
6S
SEP
6R
5
gas
4
3
•
Efficiency: 57.0%
•
msteam/(mair+ msteam): 25% (by weight)
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Rome, 17 October, 2014
G.I.ST. Cycle
Ciclo termodinamico del vapore (diagramma T,s)
1300
comb.
2p
1
CLP
p=cost.
1200
riscaldamenti tramite
combustibile
1100
aria
1000
CHP
1A
IC
1
CC1
CC2
0A
2P
2
TEMPERATURA (°C)
900
TMP1
THP
2
800
TMP2
2r
6
700
600
6
2R
6S
6s
500
SEP
400
6R
300
6r
200
100
5
gas
3i
4=5
3
0
0.0
4
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
ENTROPIA (KCAL/KG °C)
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
3
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
Rome, 17 October, 2014
G.I.ST. Cycle
Profili di temperatura nel separatore
800
comb.
750
CLP
CHP
700
aria
650
TEMPERATURA (°C)
600
1A
IC
1
CC1
CC2
0A
550
500
2
6
400
350
TMP1
THP
miscela gassosa
450
2P
TMP2
2R
6S
RH in parallelo
300
250
SEP
generazione di
vapore ipercritico
200
6R
150
condensazione acqua
100
5
gas
50
4
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
CALORE SCAMBIATO (%)
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
3
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Rome, 17 October, 2014
Study of unconventional components
SEPARATOR
Study of the thermodynamic process (cooling of wet gas), development of a proper numerical
model
m
 g i   m
 vi (i) , p vi (i) , pgi (i) , TMi (i)
SEP
m
 r(i-1)
m
 r(i)
Tri(i-1)
Tri (i)
Tru(i-1)
Tru (i)
m
 r(i +1)
Tru (i +1)
Tri (i +1)
m
 g (i)  m
 vu (i)
m
 c (i-1) , p t (i-1) , Tcm(i-1)
 vi  m
 vu  m
c
m



m
 c (i) , p t (i) , Tcm(i)
p vu (i) , p gu (i)
TMu (i)
m
 c (i +1) , p t (i +1) , Tcm(i +1)

 r   H ru  H ri   m
 vi  m
 g  H Mi  m
 vu  m
 g  H Mu  m
 c  H cm
m
h M  TM  Tc  +
dmc
   h io  Tc  Tr 
dS
h M  TM  Tc  + k G  M v     p v  pc   hio  Tc  Tr 
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Rome, 17 October, 2014
Study of unconventional components for AMC
WET GAS EXPANSION
Study of the thermodynamic process (wet gas expansion), development of a proper numerical
model
sat. gas
non in scala
T
gas saturo
TSG
gas secco
p1
T1
p1g
1g
1
T2’
T2
vapore + acqua
2g’
p2
2’
2
A B
1v=1s
p2g
p2g’
S
D
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
2s’
2v’
2v
2g
C
2a’
D’
Sg
F F’
E
Sv
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
Rome, 17 October, 2014
Study of advanced components
4
5
5
1
1
6
4
6
3
aria
ossigeno prodotto
ossigeno (crude)
azoto liquido
azoto gassoso
aria
ossigeno prodotto
ossigeno (crude)
azoto liquido
azoto (waste)
azoto prodotto
punto
1
2
3
4
5
6
3
2
T
p
m
(°C)
(bar)
(kg/kgaria)
N2
Composizione (% vol.)
O2
Ar
35
-174
-179
32
32
32
5,7
5,2
5,1
1,05
1,05
1,05
0,9995
0,4524
0,3866
0,2400
0,6055
0,1500
78,11
58,34
99,87
1,13
99,91
98,95
20,96
40,00
0,00
95,00
0,02
0,75
0,93
1,66
0,13
3,87
0,07
0,30
2
Fase
L=0%
L=100%
L=100%
L=0%
L=0%
L=0%
punto
1
2
3
4
5
6
T
p
m
(°C)
(bar)
(kg/kgaria)
N2
Composizione (% vol.)
O2
Ar
35
-174
-179
33
33
33
5,7
5,2
5,1
84
1,05
21
0,4712
0,3810
0,0960
0,2059
0,5987
0,1950
78,11
61,24
99,00
1,66
94,34
99,00
20,96
37,29
0,73
95,02
5,23
0,73
0,93
1,47
0,27
3,32
0,43
0,27
Fase
L=0%
L=100%
L=100%
L=0%
L=0%
L=0%
In questo caso l’ossigeno separato viene consegnato a 84 bar e
temperatura ambiente ossia in condizioni supercritiche (pcO2=50,4
bar e TcO2=-118,6°C) e l’azoto a 21 bar e temperatura ambiente
(pcN2=33,9 bar, TcN2=-147°C) allo stato gassoso.
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
-110
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research
Activity on Energy
-140
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
Rome, 17 October, 2014
-170
Study of advanced components
-200
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Q (%)
aria
O 2, N 2
40
40
a) compressione esterna
b) compressione interna
10
10
-20
-20
-50
-80
T (°C)
T (°C)
-50
-110
-80
-110
cambiamento di fase ossigeno
lungo l’isobara ipercritica
-140
-140
-170
-170
cambiamento di fase azoto
-200
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-200
0
10
20
30
40
50
Q (%)
Q (%)
aria
O 2, N 2
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
60
70
80
90
100
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
Rome, 17 October, 2014
Study of advanced components
OTM technology is based on ceramic materials which can rapidly transport oxygen ions at 800 - 1000°C.
pressurized
air feed
O2
ion-transport
membrane
ions O-
O2
e --
O2
O2
ions O-
O2
O2
O2
O2
jO2
e --
O2
recombined oxygen
retentate
RT  i  pO2 , f

ln 
2
16 F L  pO2 , p
permeate
O2
O 
low pressure, high purity oxygen
2




nOout2 , p  nOin2 , p
nOin2 , f
The fraction of oxygen that a OTM system recovers from a given flow rate of feed air can be adjusted by varying
one of the following parameters (assuming that membrane composition and thickness are fixed):
• feed air pressure (↑pf ↑ ηO2)
• membrane temperature (↑T ↑σ ↑ ηO2)
• permeate suction pressure (↓pp ↑ ηO2)
• membrane area (↑A ↑ ηO2)
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
Rome, 17 October, 2014
Study of advanced components
Formulation of mathematical problem
element
1
2
3
k
k+1
...
...
element k
n
k-
retentate
feed
sweep
permeate
Hf
k-
1
2
H
k-1
f
T fk
Q k H kj
1
H p 2  H kp
T
k
p
k+
1
2
k+
1
2
Hf
Hp
 H fk
 H k+1
p
x
Δlk
b)
a)
A one-dimensional model has been set up in Matlab. During each step mass and heat transfer across the membrane
are solved.
Our scope is evaluating membrane area, considering the separation efficiency as an input data. If N is the number
of control volumes chosen and nO2,f is the oxygen molar flow at feed inlet, the amount of oxygen permeated
through each control volume is given by:
 nin
nOperm

2
O2
O2 , f
N
Membrane area required in each control volume is related to oxygen flow through the membrane by means of
the local permeation rate jO2:
perm
O2
n
A j
k
k
O2
k
RT k  i  pO2 , f
A
ln 
16 F 2 L  pOk 2 , p
k




M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Study of advanced components
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
Rome, 17 October, 2014
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Rome, 17 October, 2014
Study of advanced components
air
air
to HRSG
syngas
to HRSG
syngas
OTM
permeate
syngas
sweep
boost
compressor
recuperator
syngas
permeate
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
OTM
sweep
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Rome, 17 October, 2014
REFERENCE POWER PLANTS
CH4
0.0215
40.0
15.0
567.2
QCOAL=1448 kJ/kgair
Waux=81.36 kJ/kgair
1.0
15
1.01
294.5
1.0
398.3
15.2
691.6
C
cc
m [kg/kg]
T [°C]
p [bar]
h [kJ/kg]
1.0215
1250
14.71
1857
T
GASIFICATION ISLAND
m [kg/kgair]
T [°C]
p [bar]
h [kJ/kg]
1.0
439.8
18.6
736.6
1.0974
1250
18.0
1778
C.C.
1.0215
630.1
1.07
1081
W = 608 kJ/kg air
Qf = 1079 kJ/kgair
 = 56.35 %
0.1517
565
30.
3602
0.1263
565
140
3498
STHP
1.0215
90.0
1.01
475.8
0.1688
32.94
5.2
138.4
WGT=418.6 kJ/kgair
C
Wnet=658.2 kJ/kgair
T
1.0974
595.8
to the HRSG
1.07
976.6
Q1 Q2 Qexhaust
0.2157
565
30
3602
WSC=320.9 kJ/kgair
STMP-LP
0.1263
0.0171
349.3
224.6
31.3
4.05
3113
2912
HRSG
3LR
1.0
15
1.01
294.5
0.1688
32.9
0.05
2416
0.1688
32.9
0.05
137.8
HRSG
3LR
0.1749
565
140
3498
STHP
STIP-LP
0.2375
32.9
0.05
2417
0.02178
225
4.0
2912
0.2375
32.94
5.2
138.4
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
0.2375
32.91
0.05
137.8
η = 45.46%
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
Rome, 17 October, 2014
REFERENCE POWER PLANT: IGCC
coal
2 - water
COAL
TREATMENT
WATER
HEATING
3
1 - oxidizer
GASIFIER
SYNGAS
COOLING
slag
Q1
W
4
5
Q2
water
Q
SYNGAS
PURIFICATION
6 - syngas
Coal gasification island is composed of:
• coal treatment plant,
• gasifier
• syngas cooling and cleaning
The syngas is then burned in the gas
turbine combustor
H2S
397
451
373
357
200
1330
200
Q1
50
Q2
596
94
Qexhaust
565
335
RH
343
SH HP
343
VAP HP
232
ECO HP
50
379
200
440
In order to use profitably heat from gasification
island, more steam is produced by using Q1 and
Q2.
The optimal integration between gasification island
and power section is developed by using the
calculation model SuperTarget6, which performs
the Pinch Technology
565 411
565
387
243 199
304
159
94
387
565
343
343
333
333
277
239
239
277
239
229
229 174
225
147
137
225
147
137
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
59
SH MP
239
VAP MP
138
ECO MP
147
SH LP
147
VAP LP
33
ECO
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Rome, 17 October, 2014
EXHAUST GAS TREATMENT
(chemical absorption)
Chemical absorption
CO2
gases (low CO2)
W CO2_RS
lean solvent
QCO2_RS
It is the most suitable method for CO2 separation
when carbon dioxide has a low concentration (515% by volume) in a gaseous stream at low
pressure
It consists of two steps:
exhaust gases
lean/rich
exchanger
•
absorption of CO2 by chemical solvent at low
temperature (40-65°C);
•
recovery of CO2 from the chemical solvent by
using low grade heat, (100-150°C).
rich solvent
CO2 REMOVAL SECTION (CO2_RS)
QCO2_LS
Liquefaction and dehydration
CO2 liquid
W CO2_LS
CO2 LIQUEFACTION
SECTION (CO2_LS)
•
compression is carried out in various steps
by alternately compressing and cooling;
•
final cooling reaches a temperature below
the CO2 critic temperature.
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Rome, 17 October, 2014
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION BY METHANE DECARBONIZATION
(partial oxidation)
Qng natural gas
QSH
air
1
natural gas
HEATING
water
2
air
COMPRESSION
REACTOR
superheated steam
GENERATION
3
SYNGAS
COOLING
Q1
4
SHIFT
REACTORS
QCO2_LS
CO2
COMPRESSION
5
Q2
SYNGAS
COOLING
Q3
6
Q
7
SYNGAS
PURIFICATION
water
8
QCO2_RS
It consists of several steps:
Fig. 5 – Natural gas decarbonisation (based on methane partial oxidation)
• partial oxidation: methane, air and steam are introduced into a catalytic air-blown partial oxidation reactor where
different chemical reactions take place: partial and total oxidation together with steam and CO2 reforming of methane;
•
shift reaction: converts CO to H2 in order to produce a hydrogen-rich fuel gas; this reaction is exothermic and is
accomplished in two stages;
•
fuel gas purification: the CO2 must be separated by a chemical process that consists of two steps:
•

absorption of CO2 at low temperature by a proper solvent

recovery of CO2 by using heat (to break the chemical bonds)
CO2 liquefaction: it is performed in various steps by compressing and cooling alternately
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Rome, 17 October, 2014
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION BY METHANE DECARBONIZATION
(steam methane reforming)
Qng natural gas
water
QSH
1
2
9
natural gas
HEATING
superheated steam
GENERATION
REFORMER
QREF
oxidizer
3
QCO2_LS
CO2
COMPRESSION
SYNGAS
COOLING
Q1
4
SHIFT
REACTORS
5
Q2
SYNGAS
COOLING
Q3
6
Q
7
water
SYNGAS
PURIFICATION
8
QCO2_RS
hydrogen rich furel gas
It consists of several steps:
• steam methane reforming: methane and steam are introduced into a reformer where the endothermic steam
methane reforming reaction takes place; external heat, needed to drive the reaction, can be provided by the
combustion between a proper oxidizer and the final fuel;
•
shift reaction: convert CO to H2 in order to produce a hydrogen-rich fuel gas; this reaction is exothermic and is
accomplished in two stages;
•
fuel gas purification: the CO2 must be separated by a chemical process that consists of two steps:
•

absorption of CO2 at low temperature by a proper solvent

recovery of CO2 by using heat (to break the chemical bonds)
CO2 liquefaction: it is performed in various steps by compressing and cooling alternately
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
Rome, 17 October, 2014
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION BY COAL GASIFICATION
(TEXACO TECHNOLOGY)
Q4
2
water
COAL
WATER HEATING AND
STEAM PRODUCTION
COAL
TREATMENT
oxidizer
CO2
LIQUEFACTION
coal-water slurry
1
3
GASIFIER
W
9
8
SYNGAS
COOLING
Q1
4
SHIFT
REACTORS
5
SYNGAS COOLING
AND PURIFICATION
Q2
6
CO2
REMOVAL
7
Q3 water and H2S
slag
It consists of several steps:
• gasification: coal-water slurry and oxygen react chemically in order to form a syngas which is composed of CO and
H2 mainly. Some chemical reactions are exothermic and provide heat to drive the endothermic ones;
•
shift reaction: convert CO to H2 in order to produce a hydrogen-rich fuel gas; this reaction is exothermic and is
accomplished in two stages;
•
fuel gas purification: the CO2 must be separated by a physical process that consists of two steps:
•

absorption of CO2 at high pressure by a proper solvent

recovery of CO2 by lowering the pressure of the rich solvent
CO2 liquefaction: it is performed in various steps by compressing and cooling alternately
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
Rome, 17 October, 2014
INTEGRATION OF REFERENCE POWER PLANTS AND
EXHAUST GAS TREATMENT SECTION
WGT=418.6 kJ/kgair
QCOAL=1448 kJ/kgair
WSC=242.8 kJ/kgair
WGT=380.6 kJ/kgair
WSC=196.6 kJ/kgair
Waux=81.36 kJ/kgair
C.C.
CO2 liquid
GASIFICATION SECTION
Wnet=526.2 kJ/kgair
Waux=24.50 kJ/kgair
η = 36.34%
C
T
CO2=0.08911 kg/kWh
CO2_LP
C.C.
CO2 liquid
Waux=53.95 kJ/kgair
incondensables
C
to CO2_RP
T
CO2_LP
steam
from ST
incondensables
Q1 Q2 Qexhaust
CO2_RP
STHP
CO2 free gases
satured water
to HRSG
to CO2_RP
STIP-LP
steam
from ST
HRSG
3LR
CO2_RP
STHP
CO2 free gases
satured water
to HRSG
exhaust gases
Wnet=546.9 kJ/kgair
exhaust gases
η = 50.67%
CO2=0.03910 kg/kWh
H2 O
H2 O
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
HRSG
3LR
STIP-LP
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
INTEGRATION OF AMC PLANT AND
EXHAUST GAS TREATMENT SECTION
fuel
58
air
C
cc2
HPT
ST
CO2
LP
LPT
HRSG
1L - RH
Electric efficiency (LHV),  %
cc1
CO2
liquid
Rome, 17 October, 2014
56
54
AMC
52
CC
50
48
46
AMC
CC
44
CO2
RP
SEP
42
0,040
0,041
0,353
CO2 emissions (kg/kWh)
vent to
atmosphere
H2O
excess
The performance of AMC is very interesting:
• an efficiency over 2 points higher than CC
• a CO2 emission of about 0.04 kg/kWh
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
0,355
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Rome, 17 October, 2014
INTEGRATION OF REFERENCE POWER PLANT
AND FOSSIL FUEL DECARBONIZATION SECTION (POX)
686
power section
work balance (kJ/kgair)
production section
required work (kJ/kgair)
W CO2_RS+CO2_LS
W C_GT
W syn_GT
W T_GT
W p_SC
W T_SC
W power section
10.12
68.9
445.2 W air_compr_POX
W aux
79.02
14.2
973.9 fuel heat input (kJ/kgair)
Q fuel
1502
4.8
269.7 CO2 emission (kg/kgair)
mCO2 (produced) 0.0834
0.0725
767.8 mCO2 (liquefied)
mCO2 (e_CC)
0.0110
overall performance
Net work (kJ/kgair)
688.8
Overall efficiency, %
specific CO2 emission (kg/kWh)
45.86
0.0573
587
400
400
980
Q1
275
275
275
Q2
162 142
200
465
381
376
304
271 266 203 157
151
142
Q3
86
Q exhaust
90.5 86
584
565
15
Q ng
70
147
565
565
335
RH
565
565
343
SH_HP
343
VAP_HP
565
343
343
343
232
333
ECO_HP
333
280
238
SH_MP
238
VAP_MP
280
238
238 238
225
147
SH_LP
140
ECO_MP
147
VAP_LP
225
228
228
147
147
147 147
137
33
ECO
137
The best power plant performance is attained when all the possible heat, discharged by the hydrogen production
plant, is profitably used:
•
all heat loads (Q1, Q2, Q3) of the production plant can be put in the thermodynamic cycle in order to
increase steam production
•
steam, for the reactor and the CO2 removal plant, is extracted at the suitable pressures from the
steam turbines
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
Rome, 17 October, 2014
INTEGRATION OF REFERENCE POWER PLANT
AND FOSSIL FUEL DECARBONIZATION SECTION (SMR)
 exhaust gases, at the gas turbine exit, are
used in the reformer as oxidizer (they
contain enough oxygen to do the
combustion and they are also rather hot)
hydrogen rich
fuel
 fuel to drive the reforming reaction is part
of the total hydrogen rich fuel gas, the
other part goes into the combustion
chambers of the power plants
cc
air
C
steam to
H2 produc tion
plant
T
H2 PRODUCTION
PLANT
CH4
details in fig. 4
ST
HRSG
3L
+
RH
exhaust gas
 fuel at the reformer exit, before shift
reactors, is used to heat the mixture
steam-methane before reformer inlet
 steam for reforming and CO2 removal is
extracted at 4 bars in the steam section of
the power plant
 steam for the reforming reaction is
laminated until to the atmospheric pressure
and mixed with natural gas
 Q3 is used to heat water from environmental
condition up to return condensate condition
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
Rome, 17 October, 2014
INTEGRATION OF REFERENCE POWER PLANT
AND FOSSIL FUEL DECARBONIZATION SECTION (SMR)
CC power plant
work balance (kJ/kgair)
W ST
161.7
CO2, e
m=0.01105 kg/kg
air
CC
POWER PLANT
W net=493.9 kJ/kg
exhaust gases
m=1.016 kg/kg
W H2 purification
gaseous CO2
W CO2 liquefaction
hydrogen rich fuel
exhaust gases
to HRSG
H2 purification
(shift reactions
H2 production
(reforming)
superheated steam
from ST
QCH4=1121.4 kJ/kg
CO2 liquefaction
+
CO2 removal)
condensate
to HRSG
methane
m=0.02241 kg/kg
steam
from ST
m=0.0355 kg/kg
CO2, l
m=0.05059 kg/kg
W CO2_RS
5.56
WT
811.7
W CO2_LS
17.71
23.27
WC
401.1
Total electric requirement
W syn
47.52
Net work output
516.9
fuel mass (kg/kg)
mfuel_cc
0.02043
CC power plant
mfuel_ref
0.00539
heat balance (kJ/kg)
inlet
Qa
294.5
Qfuel (HHV)
1628
mCH4
fuel heat (kJ/kg)
QCH4 (LHV) (at the global plant inlet)
0.0224
outlet
QHRSG+COND
1121.4
807.5
CO2 emission (kg/kg)
mCO2 (produced)
0.06164
QREF
288.9
mCO2 (liquefied)
0.05059
QCO2
255.5
mCO2 (e_CC)
0.01105
Qlosses
water
m=0.0695 kg/kg
H2 production plant works (kJ/kg)
53.8
overall performace
OVERALL EFFICIENCY, %
specific CO2 emission (kg/kWh)
 the consumption of hydrogen rich fuel in the reformer is over 20%
 overall efficiency is 44.02%
 CO2 emission is 0.0806 kg/kWh
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
44.02
0.0806
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
Rome, 17 October, 2014
INTEGRATION OF REFERENCE POWER PLANT
AND FOSSIL FUEL DECARBONIZATION SECTION (CG)
QCOAL=1508 kJ/kgair
Waux=116.8 kJ/kgair
COAL DECARBONIZATION SECTION
436
379 350
1330
350
Q1
275
Q2
175
Q3
584
96
Qexhaust
565
329
RH
343
SH HP
275 275 275
m [kg/kgCOAL]
T [°C]
p [bar]
h [kJ/kg]
275
Wnet=572.0 kJ/kgair
1.0
439.8
18.6
736.6
1.028
1250
18.0
1951
η = 37.93%
CO2=0.1127 kg/kWh
264 175
366
275
381
288 229
370 320
194 96
C.C.
1.0
15
1.01
294.5
WGT=411.1 kJ/kgair
565 359
565
C
T
565
343
Q1 Q2 Q3 Qexhaust
HRSG
3LR
1.028
583.7
1.07
1102
to the shift
reactors
0.1843
565
30
3602
0.1823
565
140
3498
0.04957
438.1
60
3275
343
to the HRSG
333
280
WSC=277.7 kJ/kgair
239
326 266
333
280
229
STHP
0.1327
349.3
31.2
3113
0.2527
29.54
5.2
124.2
STIP-LP
0.2031
32.9
0.05
2417
0.01877
225
4.0
2912
0.2527
29.51
0.05
123.6
0.04957
15.0
1.03
63
225
147
137
343
VAP HP
232
ECO HP
239
266
239 239
229
162
225
147
SH MP
239
VAP MP
138
ECO MP
147
SH LP
147
VAP LP
33
ECO
137
The best power plant performance is attained when all the possible heat, discharged by the hydrogen production
plant, is profitably used:
•
all heat loads (Q1, Q2, Q3) of the production plant can be put in the thermodynamic cycle in order to
increase steam production
•
steam, for the reactor and the CO2 removal plant, is extracted at the suitable pressures from the
steam turbines
•
warm water, to prepare water-coal slurry is generated by the intercooling heat of oxygen compression
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Rome, 17 October, 2014
TECHNICAL COMPARISON: overall efficiency
(exhaust gas treatment vs fossil fuel decarbonization)
70

CO2 emission
(%)
(kg/kWh)
CC (CH4)
607.9
56.34
0.3513
IGCC (coal)
658.2
45.46
0.7124
exhaust gas treatment
CC - R
546.9
50.67
0.03910
IGCC - R
526.2
36.34
0.08911
fossil fuel decarbonization
CC - POX
688.8
45.86
0.0573
CC - SMR
516.9
44.02
0.0806
CC - CG
572.0
37.93
0.1117
W
(kJ/kgair)
60
CC
CC-R
Overall efficiency (%)
50
CC-POX
IGCC
CC-SMR
IGCC-R
40
CC-CG
30
20
10
0
CC
•
•
IGCC
when coal is used, the exhaust gas treatment (IGCC-R) penalizes plant performance very much,
while energy results are better when coal decarbonization is performed: the specific work reduction
is about 13% for the coal decarbonisation and about 20% for the exhaust gas treatment and overall
efficiency decreases of about 7.5 percentage points for the CC-CG and over 9 percentage points for
the IGCC-R;
when natural gas is used, the exhaust gas treatment is the best solution in order to obtain low CO2
emission and good performance (CC-R): efficiency reduction of about 5.5 percentage points. Vice
versa, natural gas decarbonization is a very penalizing system to reduce CO2 emissions
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Rome, 17 October, 2014
TECHNICAL COMPARISON: specific emissions
(exhaust gas treatment vs fossil fuel decarbonization)
0,8
IGCC
0,7
CO2 specific emission rate (kg/kWh)

CO2 emission
(%)
(kg/kWh)
CC (CH4)
607.9
56.34
0.3513
IGCC (coal)
658.2
45.46
0.7124
exhaust gas treatment
CC - R
546.9
50.67
0.03910
IGCC - R
526.2
36.34
0.08911
fossil fuel decarbonization
CC - POX
688.8
45.86
0.0573
CC - SMR
516.9
44.02
0.0806
CC - CG
572.0
37.93
0.1117
W
(kJ/kgair)
0,6
0,5
0,4
CC
0,3
0,2
CC-R
0,1
IGCC-R
CC-CG
CC-SMR
CC-POX
0
CC
•
•
coal
IGCC
the CC-R stands out because it exhibits the highest net efficiency and thus the lowest
final specific CO2 emission
the CC-CG and the IGCC-R are the worst power plants because they have the lowest
net efficiency, are fed by the most poor fuel and thus they have the highest final specific
CO2 emission
fuel decarbonization
natural gas
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
exhaust gas treatment
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Rome, 17 October, 2014
ECONOMIC COMPARISON: kWh cost increase
(exhaust gas treatment vs fossil fuel decarbonization)
50
Electricity production cost increase (%)
45
CC-SMR
IGCC-R
40
CC-POX
35
CC-CG
30
25
20
CC-R
15
10
5
0
•
coal: the economic penalizations are similar between the two CO2 emission abetment methodologies: 41.5%
for the IGCC-R and 34% for the CC-CG. Coal decarbonization seems to have major potential;
•
natural gas: the economic penalizations are very moderate only for the exhaust gas treatment (the kWh cost
increase is about 18%). This result depends on the high overall efficiency of this solution and on the small
increase of the total capital cost. The natural gas decarbonization (CC-POX and CC-SMR) shows similar
increases (33.6% and 41.5% respectively) in comparison with coal decarbonization. In fact, even if the total
capital costs become very high, the good overall efficiencies allow a positive limitation in the kWh cost
increase
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Rome, 17 October, 2014
FINAL COMPARISONS
(exhaust gas treatment vs fossil fuel decarbonization)
•
in order to reduce CO2 emissions when coal is used, the coal decarbonization must
be implemented: in this case it is possible to attain
 a global efficiency of about 38%
 a specific CO2 emission of 0.1117 kg/kWh
 an increase of kWh cost of about 34%
•
vice versa, in order to reduce CO2 emissions when natural gas is used, the exhaust
gas treatment must be implemented: in this case it is possible to attain
 a global efficiency of about 50.7%
 a specific CO2 emission of 0.0391 kg/kWh
 an increase of kWh cost of about 18%
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Rome, 17 October, 2014
EFFECTS OF FUEL AND OXIDIZER SWITCHING
IN COMBINED CYCLES
Using oxygen instead of air and hydrogen instead of natural gas the first consequence is a very high (and
inadmissible) oxygen excess in the exhaust gases in order to obtain a fixed TIT (b15 and TIT=1250°C, the
final oxygen fraction is over 87% by mass! )
A possible idea for reducing oxygen excess could be the subdivision of the total expansion and the addition
of working fluid reheat between two consecutive expansions (like depicted in figure)
H2
Also in this way, it is not possible to limit
properly the oxygen fraction at the plant
discharge and, even if it could happen, there
would be another problem:
the working fluid, composed mainly of steam, is
discharged into the environment at the HRSG
exit and thus there is a great thermal loss
related to this steam, discharged at ambient
pressure.
O2
cci
cc1
T1
ccn
Ti
Tn
ST
HRSG
3L+RH
exhaust gas
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Rome, 17 October, 2014
EFFECTS OF FUEL AND OXIDIZER SWITCHING
IN STEAM TURBINE TECHNOLOGY
CH4
cc1
air
C
This is the AMC layout.
Starting from the scheme it is possible to
understand, qualitatively, the main modifications
correlated to a change in the oxidizer and in the
fuel:
 limit the oxygen excess by steam injection in the
combustion chamber
 working fluid composed mainly of H2O
cc2
HPT
ST
LPT
HRSG
1L
RH
exhaust gas
H2 O
excess
it could be interesting to study the working fluid
expansion until to pressures, typical of the
conventional steam cycle.
using hydrogen as fuel and oxygen as oxidizer, the thermodynamic solution is an internal
combustion steam cycle (ICSC) where H2O (steam) plays a role of inert in the H2-O2
combustion.
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
Rome, 17 October, 2014
H2/O2 CYCLES: first reference case
H2
O2
2
3
cc1
5
1
12
ST
10
cc2
6
4
HPT
9
a fuel compression section with
intercooling;

an oxidizer compression section with
intercooling;

two gas turbines; in the MPT the working
fluid is composed mainly of steam;

a steam turbine where there is the steam
expansion before its injection in the
combustion chamber;

a heat recovery steam generator for the
steam generation and steam reheating;

an atmospheric separator in order to obtain
the water separation and its recovery
MPT
7
11

8
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
Rome, 17 October, 2014
H2/O2 CYCLES:
first reference case performance
O2
1.0
15
1.01
262.5
1.0
360.6
33.8
594.5
0.0601
280
31.3
6644
2
cc1
1
12
2.455
500
33.8
3451
ST
2.455
565
294
3346
10
2.455
268
36.7
2884
m [kg/kg]
T [°C]
p [bar]
h [kJ/kg]
0.1012
15
1.01
3343
H2
3
3.515
777
2.1
3615
4 3.515
1350
30.4
4919
5
cc2
6
11
4
1400
3.556
1350
2.02
5293
MPT
HPT
3.556
1200
1.07
4912
1600
0.0411
240
5.64
6587
7
6
1200
Temperature (°C)
LHV = 52.1 MJ/kg
HHV = 61.3 MJ/kg
7
1000
800
5
10
600
12
400
W= 5865 kJ/kg
 = 50,6 %
11
200
2.455
42.8
346
209
8
9
9
8
0
1.10
97.6
1.01
2182
0
2
6
Entropy (kJ/kg/K)
0.01
40.
1.01
167
b=30
TIT=1350°C
4
W=5865 kJ/kg
=50.6%
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
8
10
12
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
Rome, 17 October, 2014
H2/O2 CYCLES: second reference case
H2
This is the new layout:
O2
2
3
cc1
5
1
12
ST
11
4
cc2
6
HPT
11'
MPT
7
 there will not be water separation
in the last HRSG section (SEP)
 there will be another steam
turbine, LPT
 there will be a “conventional”
condenser where all the steam will
condense: after, part of the water
is sent into the HRSG and part is
discharged into the environment
LPT
9
8
10
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
Rome, 17 October, 2014
H2/O2 CYCLES: second reference case
LHV = 52.1 MJ/kg
HHV = 61.3 MJ/kg
1.0
15
1.01
262.5
1800
1.0
361.5
77.5
594.5
0.0765
228
71.8
6259
2
3
3.170
1129
7.4
4511
cc1
1
12
ST
2.094
565
294
3346
11
2.094
370
84.1
3043
4 3.170
1700
2.094
69.6
500
5918
77.4
3401
5
0.0480
228
17.4
600
11'
6
1400
cc2
3.218
1700
7.2
6418
6
HPT
3.218
1220
1.07
5127
4
1600
Temperature (°C)
O2
m [kg/kg]
T [°C]
p [bar]
h [kJ/kg]
0.1245
15
1.01
3343
H2
MPT
7
7
1200
5
1000
800
11
600
12
LPT
3.218
206
1.01
2837
9
3.2182
32.55
0.051
2423
b=70
TIT=1700°C
11'
8
200
8
10
10
W= 8834 kJ/kg
 = 62,5 %
400
0
0
2.094
36.6
346
184
2
4
6
Entropy (kJ/kg/K)
W=8834 kJ/kg
=62.5%
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
8
10
12
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
Rome, 17 October, 2014
H2/O2 CYCLE POWER PLANTS: overall performance evaluation
fossil fuel
•
•
air
H2
PRODUCTION
PLANT
O2
PRODUCTION
PLANT
WO2_ASU
O2
H2
CO2
•
Waux
H2
O2
2
3
cc1
5
1
12
ST
11
4
cc2
6
HPT
11'
MPT
Wnet
7
LPT
The main inlet are air and fossil fuel
The emission outlet is located in the H2
production plant (it is liquid CO2 and gaseous
CO2 only for the reforming) and in the power
section (the syngas is not pure hydrogen)
The integration between the three systems is
very simple:
• oxygen flow from ASU to power
section and H2 production plant (for
gasification)
• hydrogen flow from H2 production
plant to power section
• cycle work from power section to
production plants in order to satisfy all
mechanical auxiliaries.
9
8
Wnet cycle
10
ηcycle 
msyngas  H isyngas
CO2
Two performance parameters are defined:
ηoverall 
Wnet
mfuel  Hifuel
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
cycle efficiency
overall efficiency
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Rome, 17 October, 2014
H2/O2 CYCLE POWER PLANTS: overall results
FIRST REFERENCE CASE
SECOND REFERENCE CASE
p1=30 bars p1=47 bars p1=70 bars
p1=30 bar
p1=47 bar
p1=70 bar
cycle overall cycle overall cycle overall cycle overall cycle overall cycle overall
TIT=1350°C
TIT=1500°C
TIT=1700°C
•
•
•
G
R
G
R
G
R
52.76
49.16
56.89
52.55
60.29
55.99
24.56
19.32
27.47
21.08
29.88
22.85
54.18
50.24
58.42
53.59
62.01
57.19
25.56
19.88
28.55
21.61
31.01
23.46
55.05
50.96
59.35
54.20
63.05
57.92
26.10
20.25
29.13
21.92
31.74
23.84
61.41
57.85
65.22
60.96
30.64
23.80
33.33
25.40
62.65
58.72
66.59
61.78
31.53
24.25
34.31
25.83
63.40
59.29
67.45
62.27
31.97
24.54
34.83
26.08
cycle efficiencies of power plants, coupled with coal gasification, are always greater than those of
power plants, coupled with steam-methane reforming, because the first syngas is pressurized
for the first reference case, cycle efficiencies attain a mean value of about 58%. The overall
efficiencies are very low, especially those coupled with the steam methane reforming: the mean
values are about 21% and over 28% for H2/O2 cycle power plants based on steam methane
reforming and coal gasification respectively.
for the second reference case, cycle efficiencies attain a mean value of about 64%. The overall
efficiencies are very low, especially those coupled with the steam methane reforming: the mean
values are about 25% and 33% for H2/O2 cycle power plants based on steam methane reforming
and coal gasification respectively.
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
Rome, 17 October, 2014
Current research projects
air separation unit
gasification island
HT shift
gasifier
D
C
quench
ash
coal
LT shift
B
gasification island
power island and oxygen
production
air
HT shift
gasifier
D
C
saturator
water
A
liquefied
CO2
booster
quench
to Claus
recuperator
ash
HRSG
B
A
coal
LT shift
M1
B
C D
to H2S stripper
power island
H2S and CO2 purification island
IGCCCryo-ASU
Electric power (MW e )
Coal handling, milling and slurry pumps
Slag handling
Gasification island process pumps
Air separation unit
N2 compressor
O2 compressor
Syngas expander
Selexol plant auxiliaries
CO2 compressors
Gas turbine
Booster compressor
Steam cycle
Overall performance
Heat input, LHV (MWth)
Net electric power (MWe)
Net LHV efficiency (%)
M2
IGCCOTM
saturator
water
-1.7
-0.6
-1.1
-33.9
-20.6
7.9
-8.3
-15.1
244.5
117.3
800.0
288.5
36.07
-1.7
-0.6
-1.1
-13.3
7.9
-8.3
-15.1
216.7
-6.9
119.1
800.0
296.9
37.12
A
liquefied
CO2
to Claus
HRSG
A
B
C D
to H2S stripper
H2S and CO2 purification island
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Current research projects
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
Rome, 17 October, 2014
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Current research projects
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
Rome, 17 October, 2014
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Current research projects
air-combustion
(refrence case)
CASE
ASU
oxycombustion
OTM sweep
72,1
10,0
60,0
0,515
0,1912
80,0
0,0957
75,0
587,8
175,0
473,5
318,6
12,3
4,9
206,6
16,0
2,7
258,8
13,0
65,6
34,5
34,5
34,5
Main operating parameters
air flow pressure (OTM), bar
OTM efficiency (%)
mass ratio OTM (sweep/feed)
average permeation rate (mol/sm2 )
flue gas recirculation (%)
Power section - Electric power (MW)
steam turbines
vitiated air expander
compressors
air (FB)
oxygen
recycled flue gas
air (OTM)
steam cycle pumps
430,9
437,5
OTM no sweep
40,0
75,0
3,8
0,7
1,9
12,1
Power plant - Electric power (MW)
Oxygen production
CO 2 compression
NET ELECTRIC POWER OUTPUT
400,5
307,7
482,1
465,0
Coal LHV thermal input (MW)
Natural gas LHV thermal input (MW)
890,6
890,6
890,6
401,8
890,6
326,1
NET ELECTRIC EFFICIENCY (%)
44,97
34,55
37,30
38,22
Specific CO2 emission (kg/kWh)
0,7327
0,0000
0,1665
0,1401
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
Rome, 17 October, 2014
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Rome, 17 October, 2014
Thank you
for your attention
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
PhD of Industrial Engineering - Research Activity on Energy
Rome, 17 October, 2014
Study of unconventional components
TURBINA A GAS SATURO
D’ACQUA
SEPARATORE
D’ACQUA
analisi termodinamica
del
processo di raffreddamento di
un gas saturo;
sviluppo
di
calcolo,
sua
• analisi termodinamica
del
processo di espansione di
un gas saturo;
modello
di
• sviluppo di un modello di
validazione
e
calcolo in sede limite e reale
un
e sua applicazione.
applicazione.
sat. gas
SEP
TSG
M. Gambini, M. Vellini – Advanced Energy Systems