4E Study and Best Performance Analysis of a Hydrogen Multi-Generation Layout by Waste Energy Recovery of Combined SOFC-GT-ORC
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methodology
2.1. Systems Description
2.2. Mathematical Modeling
- The conversion equations were presented in the context of steady-state modes.
- A three percent pressure drop was considered to exist in the SOFC, the AB of the SOFC system, and the subsystem HXs.
- All components, as well as the connecting pipes, were insulated.
- The observation has been made regarding the neglect of both the kinetic and potential elements in the energy and exergy equations.
- It was posited that the isentropic efficiencies of all turbomachines persisted unchanging throughout the course of the analysis.
- Correlations pertaining to ideal gas mixtures have been utilized to ascertain the properties of the aforementioned gas mixture.
- The assumed air composition was comprised of 21% O2 and 79% N2 on a volume basis.
- The minimum temperature of the SOFC exhaust gas was expected to be no less than 70 °C.
- The condition of organic fluid subsequent to the ORC evaporator was that of saturated vapor.
- The analysis of exergy was performed while keeping the reference state as the ambient condition.
2.3. 4E Study
2.4. Output Parameters
2.5. Validation
Parameter | Result | Ref. [37] | Deviation (%) |
---|---|---|---|
4.45 | 4.38 | +1.6 | |
220.6 | 233 | −5.3 | |
0.015 | 0.014 | +7.1 | |
435.1 | 437.5 | −0.5 |
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Inputs for Baseline Conditions
3.2. Sensitivity Analysis
3.3. The Best Performance Points of the Systems
4. Conclusions
- #
- In the base case mode and in Configurations 1 and 2, the power of SOFC sub, GT, and ORC was 500 kW, 392.3 kW, and 25.85 kW. The waste energy recovery of Configuration 1 resulted in an extra 1.77 kW of power in the TEG and 42.67 kW of heating in the HWU.
- #
- The exergy fuel was equal to 1314 kW in both layouts. The product exergy was 2 kW and 921.2 kW in Configurations 1 and 2. Because of the waste heat recovery in Configuration 2, in this configuration was lower than in Configuration 1, leading to lower in Configuration 2 and higher exergy efficiency.
- #
- Because there were more components in Configuration 2, its was considerably higher than that of Configuration 1, bringing about a higher and UCOP for Configuration 2. Furthermore, the fuel cost and environmental cost rate of the two configurations were the same at USD 55.24/h and USD 6.06/h, respectively.
- #
- In the parametric study, a rise in TSOFC,out and PR of the SOFC subsystem improved the performance of both systems, while a climb in current density and Teva,ORC negatively impacted the overall performance of the systems.
- #
- In the best performance mode, increased from 69.41% in SOFC-GT to 71.19% in Configuration 1 and 71.4% in Configuration 2, and UCOP increased from USD 26.53/GJ to USD 26.56/GJ in Configuration 1 and USD 29.78/GJ in Configuration 2. The economic performance of Configuration 1 was justifiable, while in Configuration 2, the high of RODU made a trade-off between the production of potable water and economic indicators.
- #
- In comparison with the previous studies, of Configuration 2 was competitive, but its UCOP was not good enough because of the high investment cost of some components of the system.
- #
- High investment cost: Configuration 2 involved a significant initial investment, particularly due to the cost of integrating the RODU, which affected its economic competitiveness.
- #
- System complexity: The inclusion of additional components such as the TEG, HWU, PEME, and RODU increased the system’s complexity, potentially leading to higher maintenance and operational challenges.
- #
- Simulation-based data: The study’s findings are primarily based on simulation data, which may not fully capture real-world operational conditions and variances.
- #
- Experimental validation: Conduct real-world experiments and pilot studies to validate the simulated performance and economic assessments of the proposed configurations.
- #
- Cost optimization: Explore strategies to reduce the capital and operational costs of Configuration 2, particularly focusing on the cost-effective integration and operation of the RODU and PEME.
- #
- System optimization: Further optimize system parameters, such as the placement and operating conditions of the TEG and HWU, to enhance overall efficiency and economic performance.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Boretti, A. The Perspective of Fuel Cell High-Speed Powerboats. Energy Technol. 2023, 11, 2300442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, F.; Mu, Z.; Hao, H.; Liu, Z.; He, X.; Victor Przesmitzki, S.; Ahmad Amer, A. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle development in China: An industry chain perspective. Energy Technol. 2020, 8, 2000179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inci, M. Technoeconomic Analysis of Fuel Cell Vehicle-to-Grid (FCV2G) System Supported by Photovoltaic Energy. Energy Technol. 2023, 11, 2201162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elharati, M.A.; Dewa, M.; Bkour, Q.; Mohammed Hussain, A.; Miura, Y.; Dong, S.; Fukuyama, Y.; Dale, N.; Marin-Flores, O.G.; Ha, S. Internal reforming solid oxide fuel cell system operating under direct ethanol feed condition. Energy Technol. 2020, 8, 2000350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guan, X.; Jiang, J.; Lattimer, J.; Tsuchiya, M.; Friend, C.M.; Ramanathan, S. Hydride-Based Solid Oxide Fuel Cell–Battery Hybrid Electrochemical System. Energy Technol. 2017, 5, 616–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lo Faro, M.; Oliveira, V.L.; Reis, R.M.; Saglietti, G.G.A.; Zignani, S.C.; Trocino, S.; Ticianelli, E.A.; Aricò, A.S. Solid Oxide Fuel Cell fed directly with dry glycerol. Energy Technol. 2019, 7, 45–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, S.; Ma, J.; Li, W.; Khayatnezhad, M.; Rouyendegh, B.D. An optimal configuration for hybrid SOFC, gas turbine, and Proton Exchange Membrane Electrolyzer using a developed Aquila Optimizer. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 8943–8955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, T.H.; Song, R.H.; Shin, D.R.; Yang, J.I.; Jung, H.; Vinke, I.C.; Yang, S.S. Operating characteristics of a 5 kW class anode-supported planar SOFC stack for a fuel cell/gas turbine hybrid system. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2008, 33, 1076–1083. [Google Scholar]
- Behzadi, A.; Habibollahzade, A.; Arabkoohsar, A.; Shabani, B.; Fakhari, I.; Vojdani, M. 4E analysis of efficient waste heat recovery from SOFC using APC: An effort to reach maximum efficiency and minimum emission through an application of grey wolf optimization. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 23879–23897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hai, T.; El-Shafay, A.S.; Alizadeh, A.A.; Almojil, S.F.; Almohana, A.I.; Alali, A.F. Employing a booster/ejector-assisted organic flash cycle to heat recovery of SOFC system; Exergy-and economic-based optimization. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 18433–18453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, Z.; Zhao, P.; Wang, J.; Dai, Y. Thermodynamic analysis of an SOFC–GT–ORC integrated power system with liquefied natural gas as heat sink. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2013, 38, 3352–3363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ebrahimi, M.; Moradpoor, I. Combined solid oxide fuel cell, micro-gas turbine and organic Rankine cycle for power generation (SOFC–MGT–ORC). Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 116, 120–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghaffarpour, Z.; Mahmoudi, M.; Mosaffa, A.H.; Farshi, L.G. Thermoeconomic assessment of a novel integrated biomass based power generation system including gas turbine cycle, solid oxide fuel cell and Rankine cycle. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 161, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, R.; Singh, O. Comparative study of combined solid oxide fuel cell-gas turbine-Organic Rankine cycle for different working fluid in bottoming cycle. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 171, 659–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karimi, M.H.; Chitgar, N.; Emadi, M.A.; Ahmadi, P.; Rosen, M.A. Performance assessment and optimization of a biomass-based solid oxide fuel cell and micro gas turbine system integrated with an organic Rankine cycle. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 6262–6277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Emadi, M.A.; Chitgar, N.; Oyewunmi, O.A.; Markides, C.N. Working-fluid selection and thermoeconomic optimisation of a combined cycle cogeneration dual-loop organic Rankine cycle (ORC) system for solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) waste-heat recovery. Appl. Energy 2020, 261, 114384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, C.; Cherian, J.; Sial, M.S.; Zaman, U.; Niroumandi, H. Performance assessment of a novel biomass-based solid oxide fuel cell power generation cycle; Economic analysis and optimization. Energy 2021, 224, 120134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gholamian, E.; Zare, V. A comparative thermodynamic investigation with environmental analysis of SOFC waste heat to power conversion employing Kalina and Organic Rankine Cycles. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 117, 150–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ouyang, T.; Zhao, Z.; Su, Z.; Lu, J.; Wang, Z.; Huang, H. An integrated solution to harvest the waste heat from a large marine solid oxide fuel cell. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 223, 113318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pirkandi, J.; Penhani, H.; Maroufi, A. Thermodynamic analysis of the performance of a hybrid system consisting of steam turbine, gas turbine and solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC-GT-ST). Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 213, 112816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roy, D.; Samanta, S.; Ghosh, S. Techno-economic and environmental analyses of a biomass based system employing solid oxide fuel cell, externally fired gas turbine and organic Rankine cycle. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 225, 36–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pan, M.; Zhang, K.; Li, X. Optimization of supercritical carbon dioxide based combined cycles for solid oxide fuel cell-gas turbine system: Energy, exergy, environmental and economic analyses. Energy Convers. Manag. 2021, 248, 114774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ran, P.; Zhou, X.; Wang, Y.; Fan, Q.; Xin, D.; Li, Z. Thermodynamic and exergetic analysis of a novel multi-generation system based on SOFC, micro-gas turbine, s-CO2 and lithium bromide absorption refrigerator. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2023, 219, 119585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Han, J.; You, H. Exergoeconomic analysis and multi-objective optimization of a CCHP system based on SOFC/GT and transcritical CO2 power/refrigeration cycles. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2023, 230, 120686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Sulaiman, F.A.; Dincer, I.; Hamdullahpur, F. Energy analysis of a trigeneration plant based on solid oxide fuel cell and organic Rankine cycle. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2010, 35, 5104–5113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hou, R.; Zhang, N.; Gao, W.; Chen, K.; Liu, Y. Thermodynamic, environmental, and exergoeconomic feasibility analyses and optimization of biomass gasifier-solid oxide fuel cell boosting a doable-flash binary geothermal cycle; a novel trigeneration plant. Energy 2023, 265, 126316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balali, A.; Asadabadi, M.J.R.; Moghimi, M. 4E assessment and neural network optimization of a solid oxide fuel cell-based plant with anode and cathode recycling for electricity, freshwater, and hydrogen production. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2023, 177, 95–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- You, H.; Xiao, Y.; Han, J.; Lysyakov, A.; Chen, D. Thermodynamic, exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental analyses and optimization of a solid oxide fuel cell-based trigeneration system. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 25918–25938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vojdani, M.; Fakhari, I.; Ahmadi, P. A novel triple pressure HRSG integrated with MED/SOFC/GT for cogeneration of electricity and freshwater: Techno-economic-environmental assessment, and multi-objective optimization. Energy Convers. Manag. 2021, 233, 113876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ogorure, O.J.; Oko, C.O.C.; Diemuodeke, E.O.; Owebor, K. Energy, exergy, environmental and economic analysis of an agricultural waste-to-energy integrated multigeneration thermal power plant. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 171, 222–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, W.; Yu, Z.; Bai, S.; Li, G.; Wang, D. Study on a near-zero emission SOFC-based multi-generation system combined with organic Rankine cycle and transcritical CO2 cycle for LNG cold energy recovery. Energy Convers. Manag. 2022, 253, 115188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhong, L.; Yao, E.; Zou, H.; Xi, G. Thermo-economic-environmental analysis of an innovative combined cooling and power system integrating Solid Oxide Fuel Cell, Supercritical CO2 cycle, and ejector refrigeration cycle. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2021, 47, 101517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mojaver, P.; Abbasalizadeh, M.; Khalilarya, S.; Chitsaz, A. Co-generation of electricity and heating using a SOFC-ScCO2 Brayton cycle-ORC integrated plant: Investigation and multi-objective optimization. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 27713–27729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Habibollahzade, A.; Gholamian, E.; Houshfar, E.; Behzadi, A. Multi-objective optimization of biomass-based solid oxide fuel cell integrated with Stirling engine and electrolyzer. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 171, 1116–1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Behzadi, A.; Habibollahzade, A.; Zare, V.; Ashjaee, M. Multi-objective optimization of a hybrid biomass-based SOFC/GT/double effect absorption chiller/RO desalination system with CO2 recycle. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 181, 302–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, Y.; Zoghi, M.; Habibi, H.; Raise, A. Waste heat recovery of a combined solid oxide fuel cell-gas turbine system for multi-generation purposes. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2021, 198, 117463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sadat, S.M.S.; Ghaebi, H.; Lavasani, A.M. 4E analyses of an innovative polygeneration system based on SOFC. Renew. Energy 2020, 156, 986–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.; Han, J.; Liang, W.; Ge, Y.; Zhu, W.; Yang, J.; Mou, C.; Lv, W. Performance analysis and multi-objective optimization of a novel poly-generation system integrating SOFC/GT with SCO2/HDH/ERC. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2024, 238, 122075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chitsaz, A.; Mahmoudi, S.M.S.; Rosen, M.A. Greenhouse gas emission and exergy analyses of an integrated trigeneration system driven by a solid oxide fuel cell. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2015, 86, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, M.N.; Zoghi, M.; Habibi, H.; Zanj, A.; Anqi, A.E. Waste heat recovery of two solar-driven supercritical CO2 Brayton cycles: Exergoeconomic analysis, comparative study, and monthly performance. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2022, 214, 118837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.; Feng, L.; Li, X.; Zoghi, M.; Javaherdeh, K. Exergy-economic analysis and multi-objective optimization of a multi-generation system based on efficient waste heat recovery of combined wind turbine and compressed CO2 energy storage system. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2023, 96, 104714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yousuf, M.U.; Abbasi, M.A.; Kashif, M.; Umair, M. Energy, exergy, economic, environmental, energoeconomic, exergoeconomic, and enviroeconomic (7E) analyses of wind farms: A case study of Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 67301–67324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hai, T.; Zoghi, M.; Abed, H.; Chauhan, B.S.; Ahmed, A.N. Exergy-economic study and multi-objective optimization of a geothermal-based combined organic flash cycle and PEMFC for poly-generation purpose. Energy 2023, 268, 126607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hai, T.; Zoghi, M.; Javaherdeh, K. 4E analysis and optimization of a biomass-fired waste-to-energy plant integrated with a compressed air energy storage system for the multi-generation purpose. Fuel 2023, 348, 128457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zoghi, M.; Habibi, H.; Chitsaz, A.; Holagh, S.G. Multi-criteria analysis of a novel biomass-driven multi-generation system including combined cycle power plant integrated with a modified Kalina-LNG subsystem employing thermoelectric generator and PEM electrolyzer. Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog. 2021, 26, 101092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, Y.; Habibi, H.; Zoghi, M.; Raise, A. Waste heat recovery of a combined regenerative gas turbine-recompression supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle driven by a hybrid solar-biomass heat source for multi-generation purpose: 4E analysis and parametric study. Energy 2021, 236, 121432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hai, T.; El-Shafay, A.S.; Alizadeh, A.A.; Chauhan, B.S.; Almojil, S.F.; Almohana, A.I.; Alali, A.F. Combination of a geothermal-driven double-flash cycle and a Kalina cycle to devise a polygeneration system: Environmental assessment and optimization. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2023, 228, 120437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, M.; Chen, H.; Zoghi, M.; Habibi, H. Comparison between biogas and pure methane as the fuel of a polygeneration system including a regenerative gas turbine cycle and partial cooling supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle: 4E analysis and tri-objective optimization. Energy 2022, 257, 124695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hassan, H.; Yousef, M.S.; Fathy, M. Productivity, exergy, exergoeconomic, and enviroeconomic assessment of hybrid solar distiller using direct salty water heating. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 5482–5494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azari, P.; Mirabdolah Lavasani, A.; Rahbar, N.; Eftekhari Yazdi, M. Performance enhancement of a solar still using a V-groove solar air collector—Experimental study with energy, exergy, enviroeconomic, and exergoeconomic analysis. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 65525–65548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehr, A.S.; Mahmoudi, S.M.S.; Yari, M.; Chitsaz, A. Thermodynamic and exergoeconomic analysis of biogas fed solid oxide fuel cell power plants emphasizing on anode and cathode recycling: A comparative study. Energy Convers. Manag. 2015, 105, 596–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zoghi, M.; Habibi, H.; Chitsaz, A.; Ayazpour, M. Multi-criteria performance comparison between a novel and two conventional configurations of natural gas–driven combined cycle power plant based on a hybrid multi-objective optimization. Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog. 2020, 19, 100597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sadeghi, M.; Chitsaz, A.; Mahmoudi, S.M.S.; Rosen, M.A. Thermoeconomic optimization using an evolutionary algorithm of a trigeneration system driven by a solid oxide fuel cell. Energy 2015, 89, 191–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zoghi, M.; Habibi, H.; Chitsaz, A.; Ayazpour, M.; Mojaver, P. Thermo-economic assessment of a novel trigeneration system based on coupling of organic Rankine cycle and absorption-compression cooling and power system for waste heat recovery. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 196, 567–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, J.; Hai, T.; Ali, M.A.; Shamseldin, M.A.; Almojil, S.F.; Almohana, A.I.; Alali, A.F. Waste heat recovery of a wind turbine for poly-generation purpose: Feasibility analysis, environmental impact assessment, and parametric optimization. Energy 2023, 263, 125891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Z.; Cao, Y.; Anqi, A.E.; Zoghi, M.; Habibi, H.; Rajhi, A.A.; Alamri, S. Converting a geothermal-driven steam flash cycle into a high-performance polygeneration system by waste heat recovery: 3E analysis and Genetic-Fgoalattain optimization. Renew. Energy 2022, 186, 609–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, D.; Dhahad, H.A.; Ali, M.A.; Almojil, S.F.; Almohana, A.I.; Alali, A.F.; Alyousuf, F.Q.A.; Almoalimi, K.T. Environmental/Economic assessment and multi-aspect optimization of a poly-generation system based on waste heat recovery of PEM fuel cells. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2023, 223, 119946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zoghi, M.; Habibi, H.; Chitsaz, A.; Shamsaiee, M. Exergoeconomic and environmental analyses of a novel trigeneration system based on combined gas turbine-air bottoming cycle with hybridization of solar power tower and natural gas combustion. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2021, 188, 116610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nemati, A.; Sadeghi, M.; Yari, M. Exergoeconomic analysis and multi-objective optimization of a marine engine waste heat driven RO desalination system integrated with an organic Rankine cycle using zeotropic working fluid. Desalination 2017, 422, 113–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nafey, A.S.; Sharaf, M.A. Combined solar organic Rankine cycle with reverse osmosis desalination process: Energy, exergy, and cost evaluations. Renew. Energy 2010, 35, 2571–2580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ni, M.; Leung, M.K.H.; Leung, D.Y.C. Energy and exergy analysis of hydrogen production by a proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolyzer plant. Energy Convers. Manag. 2008, 49, 2748–2756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Habibi, H.; Zoghi, M.; Chitsaz, A.; Javaherdeh, K.; Ayazpour, M. Thermo-economic analysis and optimization of combined PERC-ORC-LNG power system for diesel engine waste heat recovery. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 173, 613–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Habibi, H.; Zoghi, M.; Chitsaz, A.; Javaherdeh, K.; Ayazpour, M. Thermo-economic performance comparison of two configurations of combined steam and organic Rankine cycle with steam Rankine cycle driven by Al2O3-therminol VP-1 based PTSC. Sol. Energy 2019, 180, 116–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zare, V.; Palideh, V. Employing thermoelectric generator for power generation enhancement in a Kalina cycle driven by low-grade geothermal energy. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2018, 130, 418–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tohidi, F.; Holagh, S.G.; Chitsaz, A. Thermoelectric Generators: A comprehensive review of characteristics and applications. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2022, 201, 117793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tukenmez, N.; Yilmaz, F.; Ozturk, M. Parametric analysis of a solar energy based multigeneration plant with SOFC for hydrogen generation. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 3266–3283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gholamian, E.; Zare, V.; Mousavi, S.M. Integration of biomass gasification with a solid oxide fuel cell in a combined cooling, heating and power system: A thermodynamic and environmental analysis. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2016, 41, 20396–20406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chitgar, N.; Emadi, M.A. Development and exergoeconomic evaluation of a SOFC-GT driven multi-generation system to supply residential demands: Electricity, fresh water and hydrogen. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 17932–17954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghaebi, H.; Ahmadi, S. Energy and exergy evaluation of an innovative hybrid system coupled with HRSG and HDH desalination units. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 252, 119821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chitgar, N.; Moghimi, M. Design and evaluation of a novel multi-generation system based on SOFC-GT for electricity, fresh water and hydrogen production. Energy 2020, 197, 117162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- You, H.; Han, J.; Liu, Y.; Chen, C.; Ge, Y. 4E analysis and multi-objective optimization of a micro poly-generation system based on SOFC/MGT/MED and organic steam ejector refrigerator. Energy 2020, 206, 118122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haghghi, M.A.; Holagh, S.G.; Chitsaz, A.; Parham, K. Thermodynamic assessment of a novel multi-generation solid oxide fuel cell-based system for production of electrical power, cooling, fresh water, and hydrogen. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 197, 111895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Correlation | Note | Number |
---|---|---|
SOFC [36,39] | ||
The reaction of Reforming | (1) | |
The reaction of Shifting | (2) | |
Overall electrochemical reaction | (3) | |
Constant of equilibrium for the shifting reaction | (4) | |
(5) | ||
Current density | (6) | |
Fuel utilization factor | (7) | |
The SOFC’s molar rate of output | (8) | |
The SOFC’s molar rate of output | (9) | |
The SOFC’s molar rate of output | (10) | |
The SOFC’s molar rate of output | (11) | |
The SOFC’s molar rate of output | (12) | |
The SOFC’s molar rate of output | (13) | |
The SOFC’s molar rate of output | (14) | |
The SOFC’s molar rate of output | (15) | |
The SOFC’s molar rate of output | (16) | |
The SOFC’s molar rate of output | (17) | |
The output power of SOFC | (18) | |
Current of SOFC | (19) | |
Cell voltage | (20) | |
Voltage loss | (21) | |
Nernst voltage | (22) | |
Energy conservation equation in SOFC | (23) | |
Thermoelectric generator [43,44] | ||
Output power | (24) | |
Rate of cold side energy | (25) | |
Efficiency of TEG | (26) | |
Carnot efficiency | (27) | |
Proton exchange membrane electrolyzer [45,46] | ||
Molar rate of hydrogen | (28) | |
The power that the PEME received | (29) | |
Electric potential in PEME | (30) | |
Nernst equation | (31) | |
Activation over potential | (32) | |
Exchange current density | (33) | |
Ohmic over potential | (34) | |
Overall resistance of the PEME | (35) | |
Membrane surface water | (36) | |
Local ionic conductivity | (37) | |
Reverse osmosis desalination unit [47,48] | ||
Conservation of salt | (38) | |
Conservation of volumetric flow rate | (39) | |
Salt rejection percentage | (40) | |
Recovery ratio | (41) | |
The high-pressure pump’s (HPP) power | (42) | |
Pressure differential that the HPP produces | (43) | |
Temperature correction factor | (44) | |
Membrane water permeability | (45) | |
Osmotic pressure of feed water | (46) | |
Osmotic pressure of freshwater | (47) | |
Osmotic pressure of Brine | (48) | |
Average osmotic pressure | (49) | |
Net osmotic pressure | (50) |
Device | Energy Relation | Fuel | Product |
---|---|---|---|
Air compressor | |||
Fuel compressor | |||
Water pump | |||
Air HX | |||
Fuel HX | |||
Water HX | |||
SOFC | Table 1 | ||
Inverter | |||
AB | |||
Gas turbine | |||
ORC evaporator | |||
ORC turbine | |||
ORC pump | |||
TEG | Table 1 | ||
HWU | |||
PEME | Table 1 | ||
RODU | Table 1 |
Device | Cost Balance | Auxiliary Relations |
---|---|---|
Air compressor | ||
Fuel compressor | [51] | |
Water pump | ||
Air HX | ||
Fuel HX | ||
Water HX | ||
Mixer | ||
SOFC | ||
Inverter | ||
After burner | ||
Gas turbine | ||
ORC evaporator | ||
ORC turbine | ||
ORC pump | – | |
TEG | , | |
HWU | ||
PEME | – | |
RODU | – |
Device | Equation | Reference |
---|---|---|
Air compressor | [52] | |
Fuel compressor | [52] | |
Water Pump | [52] | |
Air HX | [53] | |
Fuel HX | [53] | |
Water HX | [53] | |
SOFC | [53] | |
Inverter | [53] | |
Afterburner | [53] | |
Gas turbine | [52] | |
ORC evaporator | [53] | |
ORC turbine | [54] | |
ORC pump | [54] | |
TEG | [55] | |
HWU | [55] | |
PEME | [56] | |
RODU | [57] |
Parameter | Value |
---|---|
Temperature reference () | 20 °C |
Pressure reference () | 101.3 kPa |
SOFC—Gas turbine [36,39] | |
SOFC inlet temperature ( ) | 427 °C |
SOFC outlet temperature ( ) | 800 °C |
Fuel utilization factor () | 0.85 |
Current density (J) | 8500 A/m2 |
Active surface area () | 0.01 m2 |
Number of cells () | 15,720 |
Steam to carbon ratio () | 2.5 |
Exchange current density of anode () | 6500 A/m2 |
Exchange current density of cathode () | 2500 A/m2 |
Effective gaseous diffusivity through anode () | 2 |
Effective gaseous diffusivity through cathode () | 5 |
Thickness of anode () | 0.5 mm |
Thickness of cathode () | 0.05 mm |
Thickness of electrolyte () | 0.01 mm |
Thickness of interconnect () | 3 mm |
Pressure ratio of compressors and pump () | 9 |
Isentropic efficiency of compressors and pump | 0.85 |
Efficiency of inverter | 0.97 |
Isentropic efficiency of gas turbine 1 | 0.75 |
Efficiency of afterburner | 0.99 |
ORC with toluene as working fluid [62,63] | |
Evaporation temperature ) | 180 °C |
Evaporator pinch temperature difference | 10 °C |
ORC condensation temperature () | 40 °C |
Isentropic efficiency of ORC pump | 0.8 |
Isentropic efficiency of ORC turbine | 0.85 |
TEG [64,65] | |
Temperature of TEG water inlet | 25 °C |
Temperature of TEG water outlet | 35 °C |
0.9 | |
PEME [45,46] | |
80 °C | |
76 | |
18 | |
14 | |
10 | |
100 | |
96,486 | |
RODU [47,48] | |
6700 kPa | |
45 | |
25 °C | |
SR | 0.994 |
FF | 0.85 |
RR | 0.3 |
35.4 | |
0.8 | |
7 | |
42 |
Parameter | Configuration 1 | Configuration 2 |
---|---|---|
500 | 500 | |
392.3 | 392.3 | |
25.85 | 25.85 | |
- | 1.77 | |
918.2 | 918.2 | |
- | 42.67 | |
- | 0.054 | |
- | 0.017 | |
1314 | 1314 | |
918.2 | 921.2 | |
341.5 | 346.1 | |
54.26 | 46.63 | |
395.76 | 392.73 | |
69.88 | 70.11 | |
9.91 | 20.8 | |
19.11 | 19.41 | |
55.24 | 55.24 | |
6.06 | 6.06 | |
90.32 | 101.5 | |
27.32 | 30.61 |
Parameter | SOFC-GT | Configuration 1 | Configuration 2 |
---|---|---|---|
Design variables | |||
735 | 735 | 735 | |
15 | 15 | 15 | |
J (A/) | 6500 | 6500 | 6500 |
- | 180 | 180 | |
Objective functions | |||
69.41 | 71.19 | 71.4 | |
26.53 | 26.56 | 29.78 |
System | |||
---|---|---|---|
SOFC subsystem (Air com + Fuel com + water pump + Air HX + Fuel HX + Water HX + SOFC + Inverter) | 278 (85.03%) | 8.97 (42.25%) | 14.85 (82.10%) |
GT | 26.83 (8.20%) | 0.332 (1.56%) | 1.678 (9.27%) |
ORC + TEG | 16.27 (4.97%) | 1.097 (5.16%) | 1.156 (6.38%) |
HWU | 5.31 (1.62%) | 0.0069 (0.032%) | 0.332 (1.83%) |
PEME | 0.282 (0.086%) | 0.014 (0.066%) | 0.039 (0.216%) |
RODU | 0.240 (0.073%) | 10.82 (50.93%) | 0.033 (0.184%) |
Reference | Description of System | Type of Products | (%) | Unit Cost (USD/GJ) |
---|---|---|---|---|
[53] | SOFC + GAX + HWU | Power + heating + cooling | 48.24 | 25.94 |
[66] | SOFC + GT + SCBC + ORC + ejector refrigeration cycle + PEME | Power + cooling + hydrogen | 54.06 | - |
[67] | SOFC + HWU + double effect ACH | Power + heating + cooling | 37.92 | - |
[68] | SOFC + organic flash cycle + multi effect desalination unit + PEME | Power + hydrogen + freshwater | 59.4 | 23.6 |
[69] | SOFC + GT + HRSG + HDH desalination unit | power + heating + freshwater | 63.04 | - |
[35] | SOFC + GT + double effect ACH + RODU | power + cooling + freshwater | 38.16 | 69.47 |
[70] | SOFC + GT + Kalina cycle + ORC + LNG subsystem + PEME + RODU | Power + cooling + hydrogen + freshwater | 54.2 | 34.5 |
[71] | SOFC + GT + HRSG + multi effect desalination + HWU + ejector refrigeration cycle | power + heating + cooling + freshwater | 64.7 | - |
[72] | SOFC + GT + ORC + ejector refrigeration cycle + PEME + HDH desalination unit | Power + cooling + hydrogen + freshwater | 47.14 | - |
[36] | SOFC + GT + SCBC + ACH + HWU + PEME | power + heating + cooling + hydrogen | 64.49 | 20.59 |
[37] | SOFC + GT + HWU + PEME + ejector refrigeration cycle | power + heating + cooling + hydrogen | 33.92 | 897.7 |
SOFC multi ref | SOFC + GT + SCBC + new AWC + PEME | Power + heating + cooling + hydrogen | 69.29 | 19.5 |
Present study | SOFC + GT + ORC + TEG + HWU + PEME + RODU | Power + heating + hydrogen + freshwater | 71.4 | 29.78 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zoghi, M.; Hosseinzadeh, N.; Gharaie, S.; Zare, A. 4E Study and Best Performance Analysis of a Hydrogen Multi-Generation Layout by Waste Energy Recovery of Combined SOFC-GT-ORC. Energies 2024, 17, 2791. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17112791
Zoghi M, Hosseinzadeh N, Gharaie S, Zare A. 4E Study and Best Performance Analysis of a Hydrogen Multi-Generation Layout by Waste Energy Recovery of Combined SOFC-GT-ORC. Energies. 2024; 17(11):2791. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17112791
Chicago/Turabian StyleZoghi, Mohammad, Nasser Hosseinzadeh, Saleh Gharaie, and Ali Zare. 2024. "4E Study and Best Performance Analysis of a Hydrogen Multi-Generation Layout by Waste Energy Recovery of Combined SOFC-GT-ORC" Energies 17, no. 11: 2791. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17112791