ORC and Kalina Analysis and Experience

ORC and Kalina Analysis and experience
Sabbatical December 2003 Lecture III Pll Valdimarsson professor of mechanical engineering
Energy and energy use

Energy is utilized in two forms, as heat and as work Work moves, but heat changes temperature (moves the molecules faster) These are two totally different products for a power station
2
Created with FinePrint pdfFactory (beta version) -- details at www.fineprint.com
Convertability
Work can always be changed into heat (by friction since ste stone age) Conversion of heat into work is difficult and is limited by the laws of thermodynamics. A part of the heat used has always to be rejected to the surroundings
3
Heat and work again

Work is the high quality, high priced product Heat is second class quality, a low priced byproduct
A power plant
Electricity Source Heat Fuel Sellable heat Power plant
Rejected heat Losses

5
Single flash - condensing

Turbine Cooling tower Separator Condenser
Pump Pump
Production well
Injection well
T-s diagram
ORC with regenerator

Production well Turbine Boiler Regenerator Injection well Pump Condenser
8
T-s diagram
0, 0,0026 0 ,1 63 0, 5 0, 37 89 m 3/ kg
250
Isopentane
0, 00
2300 kPa 1000 kPa 350 kPa 0,2 90 kPa 0,4 0,6 0,8
200
150
T [C]
100
50
-50 -2,0
-1,5
-1,0
-0,5
45
0,0
0,5
1,0
9
s [kJ/kg-K]
ORC with paralell single flash

Turbine Cooling tower
Condenser Separator Pump
Turbine
Cooling tower
Boiler
Condenser Production well Injection well 10
ORC with serial single flash

Separator Throttling valve Turbine
Turbine
Cooling tower
Boiler
Condenser
Production well
Injection well
11
Rogner, Bad Blumau

The 250 kW air-cooled geothermal CHP plant generates electrical power as well as district heating using a low temperature geothermal resource. One standard containerized ORMAT CHP module, generating 250 kW electricity and 2,500 kW heat. The power plant is in commercial operation since July 2001.
15
Mokai, New Zealand

The 60 MW Geothermal Power Plant is comprised of:
one 50 MW module operating on geothermal steam two 5 MW units operating on geothermal brine
The power plant uses air-cooled condensers and achieves 100% geothermal fluid reinjection to produce electrical power with virtually no environmental impact.
16
Kalina
Separator Production well Turbine
Throttling valve Boiler Brine hx Regenerator
Injection well
Cooling tower Condenser Pump 18
Geothermal experience
Rough surroundings Aggressive chemistry Simple and reliable solutions Geothermal energy - a mayor economic factor
19
20
10
Conversion of heat to electricity

The Carnot efficiency applies for infinite heat sources The maximum efficiency is lower than the Carnot efficiency for a source stream with finite heat capacity Kalina reduces entropy generation in the heat exchange process
21
Carnot efficiency
Hot reservoir Heat in
Carnot = 1
Work output Heat out Cold reservoir
T0 T1
22
11
Maximum efficiency for a liquid source

T1
(h) Ex
T ln 1 T 2 = H * 1 T0 T1 T2
T2
T0
T0
23
What is a Kalina process?

A modified Rankine cycle, or rather: a reversed absorption cycle Ammonia - water working fluid Patented by Exergy Inc and A. Kalina
24
12
The characteristics
Heat is added in a combined boiling and separation process
at a variable temperature
Heat is rejected in a combined condensation and absorption process

as well at a variable temperature
25
Mixture boiling at 30 bar

240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60
Temperature [C]
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Ammonia mass fraction [-]
0.8
0.9
26
13
Heat addition - boiler

Source Kalina
ORC
27
The working fluid

Ammonia has a molar mass of 17, so steam turbines can be used The mixture properties are more complex, usually three independent properties are needed for the calculation of the fourth Therefore the cycle is more flexible, and can be closely optimized to the source
28
14
The benefit
The working fluid is almost at the temperature of the source fluid when leaving the boiler The variable heat rejection temperature makes regeneration possible
29
Kalina vs. ORC

Kalina is better when the heat source stream has a finite heat capacity ORC and Kalina are similar when the source is condensing steam
30
15
Boiling curves for Hsavk

120 110 100 90 Temperature [C] 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 0 200 400 600 Enthalpy [kJ/kg] 800 1000 1200 Water Kalina ORC
31
32
16
33
Kalina again
Injection well
17
35
36
18
37
T - h diagram
200
31
150
31
31
6.5
Temperature [C]
31
100
31 6 .5
1 3 6.5
6.5
31
31
6.5
6 .5
50
31
6.5
31 31
6.5
6 .5
6. 5
6.5
6.5
200
400
600 800 Enthalpy [kJ/kg]
1000
1200
1400
31
1600
38
19
Comparison
Power [kW]
1. law
2. law
Max liquid eff. 0,56 0,45 0,45 0,20
Kalina ORC Flash cycle Themoelectricity
2000 1589 1589 720
0,13 0,10 0,10 0,05
0,45 0,36 0,36 0,16
Volume to turbine [m 3/s] 0,57 2,06 22,4 0
39
Comparison of Kalina and ORC

Heat (10MW) is available down to 80C Cooling water (120kg/s) is available at 20C Heat exchangers have a pinch of 3C Condensers have a pinch of 10C
40
20
0.25
Carnot Liquid Kalina ORC
0.2 Efficiency [-]
0.15
0.1
0.05
0 90
95
100
105
110 115 120 Temperature [C]
125
130
135
140
Hsavk geothermal power plant
42
21
General design parameters
43
Summary
Commissioned in the summer 2000 Running at ~1500 kW net 2000 - 2001 Running at ~1700 kW net since November 2001 Final acceptance certificate issued Total investment cost 3,7 MEUR
44
22
Process diagram
0,81 NH 3 118 C 31 bara 90 kg/s 121 C 11,2 kg/s
G
5,5 bara
1950 kW
67 C 16,3 kg/s 80 C 24 C 130 kW 12 C 5 C 173 kg/s
45
The power plant
46
23
Design
Standard industrial components Turbine-generator from KKK, Germany Electrical components CE marked Heat exchangers from USA Most of the tanks made in Iceland Installed by a local contractor
47
Equipment
Evaporator, shell and tube, 1600 m2 Separator Turbine Recuperators Condenser, plate, 2 x 750 m2 Hotwell Circulation pump
48
24
Auxillary equipment
Ammonia storage tank Demineralized water tank Blow down tank
49
Thermal equilibrium
Power input Brine 15.700 kW
Power output
Electricity, net Cooling water
1.700 kW 14.000 kW
50
25
Start-up problems
Separator Evaporator Axial sealing of the turbine, ammonia leakage Condensers Miscellaneous
Main pump Safety valves Magnetite
51
Separator
Difficult to measure the performance of the separator Mist eliminator module wrongly installed New separator installed November 2001
52
26
Evaporator
Ammonia leaking into the hot water All tubes rolled again in November 2001, no leakages since
53
Axial sealing
One axial sealing on the low pressure side N2 used in the sealing The sealing has been replaced once Leakage caused by carry-over from separator
54
27
Condensers
Plate heat exchangers Important to mix liquid and vapor Spraying nozzles modified Increase power output by improving performance of the condensers
55
Miscellaneous
Safety valves, leakage Circulation pump, seals and guides/bushings for shaft Improvment of spraying system in recuperator 2 Magnetite (Fe3O4)
56
28
Turbine corrosion
Ferritic material in the turbine corrodes Austenitec material is unharmed Corrosion is from the turbine control valve until abt 1 metre after the turbine Influence of rotor magnetic field?
Elimination of ferritic material in the steam side of the turbine
57
Operating experience
Maximizing the output by optimizing the strength of the NH3 H2O solution Prevent air entering the system Improvement of flushing and filters The system is stable in operation
58
29
Lessons learned
The technology is proven Standard equipment has been adjusted The plant is running according to specs Individual equipment still may be improved to increase output Engineering details will improve future plants
59
What do we have?
New thermodynamic cycle with better efficiency in particular when the heat source cooled down while heat is extracted Theoretical and technical descriptions of the processes involved. Mathematical models that have been tested up against Husavik Plant Known media and known machinery
60
30
The knowledge
Real experience and know how from the Husavik plant Mathematical models and ,,steam tables, worked out in cooperation with University of Iceland. Over 30 years of experience in electrical generation from low and mid heat sources (Geothermal)
61
Kalina references
Canoga Park, USA, demonstration plant 3 6 MW, 1991-1997 Fukuoka, Japan, incineration plant, 4,5 MW, 1999 Sumitomo, Japan, waste heat recovery from a steel plant, 3,1 MW Husavik, Iceland, geothermal plant, 2,0 MW, 2000
62
31
Svartsengi 1980, 37 MWel, 60 MWdh
Krafla 1970, 60 MWel
Nesjavellir 1990, 90 MWel, 250 MWdh
Were does it fit?

Temperature above 150C and good size stands on its own. Cogeneration of electricity and water for district heating. Good cold end helps Environmental issues and subsidizing changes these values
64
32
Budgetary unit price

Budgetary price for 500 kW unit 720.000 USD Equals 1440 USD/kW Turbine/generator most costly unit (3035%) Presuming cooling water available
65
Opportunities
Where there may be hot water or other fluid/gas available at temperatures between 120 and 300C Geothermal Waste heat
Industrial processes Gas and diesel engine exhaust
66
33
Kalina plant benefits

Energy cost efficient Environmental issues Green energy Reduced emissions Standard off the shelf equipment
67
General market conditions

General market price 4 eurocents/kWh General pay-back time 4 years required General investment 1000 USD/kW So how can 1440 USD/kW be competitive?
68
34
German law
Green electrical power generation bonus
2002-2004 2005-2006 2007-2008 2009-2010 1,74 eurocents/kWh 1,69 eurocents/kWh 1,64 eurocents/kWh 1,59 eurocents/kWh
Provided plant in operation before end of 2005
69
Competitive investment ?
Given 1,65 eurocents/kWh bonus 4 year pay-back period Additional investment acceptable for green energy USD 528.000/MW Total acceptable investment cost thus USD 1.528.000/MW or 764.000 USD for our 500 kW unit.
70
35
Green energy?
Is waste heat recovery=green energy? Waste heat recovery reduces emissions CO2 quotas pricing as high as 20-25 USD/tonCO2 Average emission 800 gCO2/kWh in fossil fuel plants Equals values of 1,8-2,2 eurocents/kWh
71
Summary
Given green energy bonuses or CO2 evaluation the investment in a Kalina waste heat recovery electrical generating plant is feasible The investment is competitive to other investments for industrial improvements Pay-back time of 4 years in a green energy technology is short
72
36
Introduction
Finite source heat capacity lowers this upper bound due to the reduction of the source temperature as heat is removed from the source This results in high cost for such low temperature power plants, as they have to handle large heat flows The Kalina cycle is a novel approach to increase this efficiency
73
The Models
It is assumed that a fluid is available at temperatures ranging from 100 to 150C A heat customer is assumed for the primary outlet water at the temperature of 80C Primary flow of 50 kg/s is assumed Cooling water source is assumed at 15C, and cooling water outlet is fixed at 30C It is assumed that a cooling water pump has to overcome a pressure loss of 1 bar on the cooling water side in the condenser
74
37
Solution
The software Engineering Equation Solver (EES) is used to run the models The cost model keeps the logarithmic mean temperature difference for each heat exchanger at the same value as found in the cycle data for the tenders for the Husavik power plant Estimated cost figures for individual components were then added together in order to obtain the final cost value
75
Process assumptions
The OCR model is based on a system without regeneration Isopenthane is assumed as a working fluid A Kalina cycle for generation of saturated vapour for the turbine is used
76
38
ORC flow sheet

Production well Turbine Boiler
Injection well Pump Condenser

77
Kalina flow sheet

Injection well
39
Kalina assumptions
This cycle will be limited by the dew point of the mixture, that is when the boiling of the mixture is complete, and no liquid remains at the boiler outlet The bubble temperature of the mixture has to be lower or equal to the primary fluid outlet temperature to ensure safe operation The feasible region will be in the area between the 70 and 80C bubble contours The feasible area regarding the dew temperature is limited to a value some 2-4C lower than the maximum temperature of the primary fluid
79
Bubble temperature
Bubble temperature [C]
100 80 60 40 20 1
Bubble temperature
40 0.8 20 Ammonia ratio [-] 0.6 10 Pressure [bar] 30
40
Dew temperature
200 Dew temperature [C]
Dew temperature
150
100
50 1 40 0.8 20 30 0.6 10 Pressure [bar]
Ammonia ratio [-]
Bubble temperature contours 1 0.95 Bubble contours
70
0.9
30
Ammonia ratio [-]
60
70
0.85
40
50
0.8
40
50
60
70
0.7
0.65 10 15 20 25 Pressure [bar] 30 35 40
80
90
0.75
80
80
41
Dew temperature contours 1
Ammonia ratio [-]
Dew10 contours 0.95 0 120 0 11 0.9 130

0.85 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.65 10
12 0
13 0
80
90
10 0 110
110 12 0 130 14 0
120 130 14 0 15 0
0 14
0 15
150
0 16
0 17
160
17 0
14 0
180
0 19
0 16
15
20
25 30 Pressure [bar]
35
40
More Kalina
Both high pressure level and ammonia content are design variables in the Kalina cycle This gives flexibility in the design of the cycle, and requires as well a certain design strategy The plant can be designed for maximum power or with strong demands on the investment cost The cost is 100 for the lowest cost, and the power 100 for the highest power An x denotes an infeasible solution, the cycle will not be able to run at these ammonia content pressure combinations
84
42
Cost contours, 100C source 1

10810 9 10 7 10 5 10 4
Cost 0.95
Ammonia ratio [-] 0.9 0.85 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.65 15
11 0 contours
70 50 4 0 0 1 1 16 1 10 0 2101 13
1 10
10 1
10 3
102
3 10
102
10 3
106 78 10 10 10 9110
10 4 10 5
2 10 3 10 6 04 10 15 8 10 107 10 0 91 10 1
110
10 6 10 7 108 109
110
20
35
40
Power contours, 100C source 1
Power contours 0.95

Ammonia ratio [-] 0.9 0.85 0.8 0.75
90
91 90 92 94
90 91 92 93 95 96
90 91 92 93 95 94 96 97 99 98
90 91 92 93 2 4 0 9 95 9 4 1 3 99 97 96 4 6 7 3 1 2 0 5 99 98 9 9 4 6 1 0 7 8 9 2 5 3 9 9 9
0.7 0.65 20
91 90
995 6 7 4 3 1 0 2 8 9 9 99 98 1 6 0 3 5 7 4 2 9 9 9 7 99 49 5 0 1 3 2 9 9 9 96 0 2 1 3 9 4 9 95 9 9 94 0 21 9 99
25
97
95 93
30 Pressure [bar]
35
40
43
Cost function
600
Cost surface
400 Cost 200 0 1 40 0.8 20 Ammonia ratio [-] 0.6 10 Pressure [bar] 30
Power function
100
Power surface
Power
50
0 1 40 0.8 20 Ammonia ratio [-] 0.6 10 Pressure [bar] 30
44
Discussion
The best power and best cost points are different The lowest cost is at 32 bar, 92% ammonia, but highest power is at 34 bar and 88% ammonia This leads to the definition of two different Kalina cycles, the best power and the best cost cycles, with different pressure and ammonia content
89

0 11 89 00 11
10 5 10 4 10 3
0 1 7 08 1 10 45 10 10 3
10 6
0.95
02
10 1
10 2
10 5 10 4 10 3
10 2
10 1
106 107
0.9 Ammonia ratio [-]
110
10
108 109
0.85
10 1
10
10 2 0 1 3
0.8
10
3
10 5 10 6 10 7
10
10 5 10 6 10 7
4 10
0.75
10 9 110
0.7
10
8 101 0 9
0.65 15
20
35
40
45
Created with FinePrint pdfFactory (beta version) -- details www.fineprint.com at

7 6 78 80 84 82 86 90
76 78
0.95
70
88 90
82 84
94
88 91 92 93
84 90
86 94 96
88 91 92 93
95
97
98
99
72
74
80
96
95
93 92 91
0.85
70
0.8
78 76
72
86 84
82
80
0.75
74
0.7
0.65 22
24
26
28
34
36
38
40

10 87 10 1 0 610 5 0 4 1 03 1
10 1 30 4 10 1
0.95
10 8 10 7
102
10 1

11 0 10 9
10 2
10 1
10 2 3 10
10 5
0.85
10 6
10 4
10
0.8
10 5
10 4
10 8
0.75
11 0
10 9
10 6
10 8
7 10
0.7
10 9
0.65 18
20
22
24
30
32
34
36
46
Created with FinePrint pdfFactory (beta version) -- details www.fineprint.com at
76
94
0.95
74 72 70
84 82 80
96
90
93
78
97 95
9291
88 86
0.85
76
84 82
80
0.8
70 72
74
78
0.75
0.7
0.65 22
24
26
28
34
36
38
40
Comparison
Two ORC companies made a tender in the Husavik bid Manufacturer A offered a high power, high cost power plant, where manufacturer B took a more conservative approach Following is a comparison with both the low cost and high power Kalina power plants
94
47
Kalina vs ORC cost comparison 2400
2200
Cost comparison
2000
Net cost [$/kW]
1800 Kalina LC 1600
ORC B ORC A
1400
Kalina HP
1200
1000 100
110
120 130 Source inlet temperature [C]
140
150
Kalina vs ORC power comparison 2000
Power comparison
1500 ORC B
Net power [kW]
Kalina LC 1000 Kalina HP ORC A
500
0 100
110
120 130 Source inlet temperature [C]
140
150
48
Results
The maximum power generated for a given source is greater for the Kalina cycle Kalina cycle is well positioned against an ORC cycle for applications with high utilization time, a base load application
97
Results II
A heat consumer is beneficial for the ORC cycle as it results in less temperature change of the primary fluid during the boiling process The Kalina cycle has the boiling or vaporization of the fluid happening over a temperature range up to 100C, which is beneficial when the primary fluid return temperature has to be minimized
98
49
The debate
The theoretical efficiency and cost/production ratio are better for Kalina as shown above Other arguments like difficulties with machinery and lesser operational security or uptime are only temporary discussion items, as always for a new technology These arguments were exactly the same between conventional flash cycle and ORC when the latter popped up 30 years ago with better efficiency but little track record
99
Conclusion
The Kalina cycle is thermodynamically superior or equal to the ORC cycle There is no black magic behind the Kalina cycle The startup problems that have either been solved, or are solvable
100
50

ORC and Kalina Analysis and Experience

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ORC and Kalina Analysis and Experience

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ORC and Kalina Analysis and experience

Energy and energy use

Created with FinePrint pdfFactory (beta version) -- details at www.fineprint.com

Heat and work again

Created with FinePrint pdfFactory (beta version) -- details at www.fineprint.com

Rejected heat Losses

Single flash - condensing

Created with FinePrint pdfFactory (beta version) -- details at www.fineprint.com

ORC with regenerator

Created with FinePrint pdfFactory (beta version) -- details at www.fineprint.com

ORC with paralell single flash

Condenser Separator Pump

Condenser Production well Injection well 10

Created with FinePrint pdfFactory (beta version) -- details at www.fineprint.com

ORC with serial single flash

Created with FinePrint pdfFactory (beta version) -- details at www.fineprint.com

Created with FinePrint pdfFactory (beta version) -- details at www.fineprint.com

Rogner, Bad Blumau

Mokai, New Zealand

Created with FinePrint pdfFactory (beta version) -- details at www.fineprint.com

Throttling valve Boiler Brine hx Regenerator

Cooling tower Condenser Pump 18

Created with FinePrint pdfFactory (beta version) -- details at www.fineprint.com

Created with FinePrint pdfFactory (beta version) -- details at www.fineprint.com

Conversion of heat to electricity

Hot reservoir Heat in

Created with FinePrint pdfFactory (beta version) -- details at www.fineprint.com

Maximum efficiency for a liquid source

What is a Kalina process?

Created with FinePrint pdfFactory (beta version) -- details at www.fineprint.com

Heat is rejected in a combined condensation and absorption process

Mixture boiling at 30 bar

0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Ammonia mass fraction [-]

Created with FinePrint pdfFactory (beta version) -- details at www.fineprint.com

Heat addition - boiler

The working fluid

Created with FinePrint pdfFactory (beta version) -- details at www.fineprint.com

Kalina vs. ORC

Created with FinePrint pdfFactory (beta version) -- details at www.fineprint.com

Boiling curves for Hsavk

Created with FinePrint pdfFactory (beta version) -- details at www.fineprint.com

Throttling valve Boiler Brine hx Regenerator

Cooling tower Condenser Pump 34

Created with FinePrint pdfFactory (beta version) -- details at www.fineprint.com

Created with FinePrint pdfFactory (beta version) -- details at www.fineprint.com

600 800 Enthalpy [kJ/kg]

Created with FinePrint pdfFactory (beta version) -- details at www.fineprint.com

Max liquid eff. 0,56 0,45 0,45 0,20

Kalina ORC Flash cycle Themoelectricity

2000 1589 1589 720

0,13 0,10 0,10 0,05

0,45 0,36 0,36 0,16

Volume to turbine [m 3/s] 0,57 2,06 22,4 0

Comparison of Kalina and ORC

Created with FinePrint pdfFactory (beta version) -- details at www.fineprint.com

Carnot Liquid Kalina ORC

0.2 Efficiency [-]

110 115 120 Temperature [C]

Hsavk geothermal power plant

Created with FinePrint pdfFactory (beta version) -- details at www.fineprint.com

General design parameters

Created with FinePrint pdfFactory (beta version) -- details at www.fineprint.com

67 C 16,3 kg/s 80 C 24 C 130 kW 12 C 5 C 173 kg/s