0
Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Cycle Innovations

Evaluation of Property Methods for Modeling Direct-Supercritical CO2 Power Cycles

[+] Author and Article Information
Charles W. White

KeyLogic,
3168 Collins Ferry Road,
Morgantown, WV 26505
e-mail: CWWhite@keylogic.com

Nathan T. Weiland

National Energy Technology Laboratory,
626 Cochrans Mill Road,
Pittsburgh, PA 15236
e-mail: nathan.weiland@netl.doe.gov

Contributed by the Cycle Innovations Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received July 3, 2017; final manuscript received July 14, 2017; published online September 19, 2017. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 140(1), 011701 (Sep 19, 2017) (9 pages) Paper No: GTP-17-1264; doi: 10.1115/1.4037665 History: Received July 03, 2017; Revised July 14, 2017

Direct supercritical carbon dioxide (sCO2) power cycles are an efficient and potentially cost-effective method of capturing CO2 from fossil-fueled power plants. These cycles combust natural gas or syngas with oxygen in a high pressure (200–300 bar), heavily diluted sCO2 environment. The cycle thermal efficiency is significantly impacted by the proximity of the operating conditions to the CO2 critical point (31 °C, 73.7 bar) as well as to the level of working fluid dilution by minor components, thus it is crucial to correctly model the appropriate thermophysical properties of these sCO2 mixtures. These properties are also important for determining how water is removed from the cycle and for accurate modeling of the heat exchange within the recuperator. This paper presents a quantitative evaluation of ten different property methods that can be used for modeling direct sCO2 cycles in Aspen Plus®. Reference fluid thermodynamic and transport properties (REFPROP) is used as the de facto standard for analyzing high-purity indirect sCO2 systems, however, the addition of impurities due to the open nature of the direct sCO2 cycle introduces uncertainty to the REFPROP predictions as well as species that REFPROP cannot model. Consequently, a series of comparative analyses were performed to identify the best physical property method for use in Aspen Plus® for direct-fired sCO2 cycles. These property methods are assessed against several mixture property measurements and offer a relative comparison to the accuracy obtained with REFPROP. The Lee–Kessler–Plocker equation of state (EOS) is recommended if REFPROP cannot be used.

Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Block flow diagram of a simplified direct sCO2 cycle

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Comparison of LK-PLOCK calculations to saturated CO2 vapor and liquid-specific volume data

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Relative errors of property methods in calculating saturated vapor (upper) and liquid (lower) CO2 specific volumes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Pure saturated CO2 vapor and liquid molar volume evaluation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Relative error (bubble area) in superheated CO2 molar volume. Solid bubbles are positive deviations from REFPROP, and empty bubbles are negative deviations.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Data used for property assessment of CO2:H2O binary mixture [10]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

CO2:H2O binary property evaluation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Relative differences in key performance variables from REFPROP. Numbered variables defined in Table 5.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Calculated versus experimental data for REFPROP

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Calculated versus experimental data for LK-PLOCK

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Calculated versus experimental data for PR-BM

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Calculated versus experimental data for BWRS

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Calculated versus experimental data for BWR-LS

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Calculated versus experimental data for SRK

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Calculated versus experimental data for RK-SOAVE

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Calculated versus experimental data for SR-POLAR

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Calculated versus experimental data for GRAYSON

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Calculated versus experimental data for PC-SAFT

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In