Advertisement

Energetic, exergetic and economic (3E) investigation of biomass gasification-based power generation system employing molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC), indirectly heated air turbine and an organic Rankine cycle

  • Dibyendu Roy
  • Samiran SamantaEmail author
  • Sudip Ghosh
Technical Paper
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, a biomass gasification-based molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC)-integrated advanced power system has been modelled and analyzed. The proposed system consisted of a biomass gasifier with hot gas cleaning equipment, a MCFC module, an indirectly heated air turbine and an organic Rankine cycle. Energetic, exergetic and economic (3E) analyses of the proposed power generation have been carried out. The effects of variation of operating and design parameters on the overall performances of the system have been showcased. Base case energetic and exergetic efficiency is found to be 38.49% and 32.7%, respectively. Exergetic analysis discloses that the highest exergy destruction takes place at gasifier (34.15%) followed by primary heat exchanger (16.15%), after burner (14.88%) and MCFC (13.80%). The proposed power system exhibits minimum unit cost of electricity of 0.17 $/kWh at current density of MCFC of 950 A/m2, fuel cell temperature of 973 K and secondary air blower pressure ratio of 1.6. At this operating condition, the plant gives a net output of 105.3 kW, its energy efficiency is 40.37% and exergy efficiency is 34.38%.

Keywords

Molten carbonate fuel cell Organic Rankine cycle Biomass gasification Energy Exergy Economic analysis 

List of symbols

A

Transmission loss, %

ASB

Mass percentage of ash in biomass

C

Cost, $

CB

Mass percentage of carbon in biomass

\( C_{\text{biomass}} \)

Cost of biomass, $/GJ

CEPCC

Engineering, procurement and $ construction cost, $

CEQP

Total equipment cost, $

CP

Specific heat at constant pressure, kJ/kmol K

CRF

Capital recovery factor

CTOC

Total overnight cost, $

CUF

Capacity utilization factor

Dp

Depletion potential

EADE

Annualized delivery electricity, kWh

Ex

Specific exergy, kJ/kg

EX

Exergy, kW

F

Faraday constant, C/kmol

F

Annual inflation rate, %

fEPCC

Rectification factor associated with engineering, procurement and construction cost

fTOC

Rectification factor associated with preproduction cost, inventory capital and owner’s cost

fTPC

Rectification factor associated with process contingencies

Δg

Change in Gibbs function, kJ/kmol

\( \Delta G \)

Gibbs energy formation, kJ/kmol

H

Plant operating hour in a year, hour

H

Specific enthalpy, kJ/kmol

\( \bar{h}_{f}^{o} \)

Enthalpy of formation kJ/kmol

HB

Mass percentage of hydrogen in biomass

HHV

Higher heating value, kW

I

Annual interest rate, %

I

Current, A

J

Current density, A/m2

J

Nominal interest rate, %

K

Equilibrium constant

Kair

Adiabatic gas constant of air

LHV

Lower heating value, kW

LMTD

Log mean temperature difference, K

M

Air requirement for biomass gasification, mole/mole of biomass

mair

Mass flow rate of air, kg/s

Mc

Moisture content kg/kg of biomass

mf

Mass flow rate of biomass, kg/s

\( m_{\text{ORC}} \)

Mass flow rate of organic fluid, kg/s

\( m_{\text{oxidant}} \)

Oxidant flow rate, kg/s

n

Lifespan of the system, years

N

Molar flow rate, kmol/s

NB

Mass percentage of nitrogen in biomass

Ncell

Number of fuel cells

NMCFC

Number of MCFC stack

OB

Mass percentage of oxygen

P

Pressure, bar

Q

Heat rate, kW

R

Universal gas constant, kJ/kmol K

Ran

Loss at anode, V

Rca

Loss at cathode, V

Rohm

Ohmic loss, V

RP

Pressure ratio

S

Specific entropy, kJ/kmol K

SI

Sustainability index

T

Temperature, K

Tcell

Cell temperature, K

Tgas

Gasifier temperature, K

UCOE

Unit cost of electricity, $/kWh

V

Voltage, V

W

Moisture content of biomass, mole/mole of biomass

W

Power, kW

\( x_{\text{D}} \)

Exergy destruction, %

\( x_{\text{Loss}} \)

Stack exergy loss, %

Y

Amount of individual gas component in syngas, mole

Abbreviations

AB

After burner

AT

Air turbine

B1

Primary air blower

B2

Secondary air blower

BIGCC

Biomass-integrated gasification combined cycle

CCHP

Combined cooling, heating and power

CON

Condenser

EES

Engineering equation solver

ESBC

Electric specific biomass consumption

GCE

Gas cleaning equipment

GT

Gas turbine

HEX1

Primary heat exchanger

HEX2

Secondary heat exchanger

HRVG

Heat recovery vapour generator

MCFC

Molten carbonate fuel cell

ODP

Ozone depletion potential

OLP

Organic liquid pump

ORC

Organic Rankine cycle

OVT

Organic vapour turbine

R245fa

1,1,1,3,3-Pentafluoropropane

SOFC

Solid oxide fuel cell

Greek letters

Β

Correlation of the factor

η

Efficiency, %

\( \xi \)

Effectiveness

\( \phi \)

Exergy efficiency, %

Subscripts

ADE

Annualized delivered electricity

an

Anode

B

Air blower

biom

Biomass

ca

Cathode

CAP

Capital

che

Chemical

Comp

Component

D

Destruction

env

Environment

EPCC

Engineering, procurement and construction cost

Ex

Exergy

f

Fuel

fg

Flue gas

G

Gasifier

HEX

Heat exchanger

in

Inlet

N

Nernst

ohm

Ohmic

out

Outlet

O&M

Operation and maintenance

p

Product

phy

Physical

r

Reactant

ref

Reference

sys

System

TOC

Total overnight cost

TPC

Total plant cost

w

Water

1, 2, 3

State points

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Vatani A, Khazaeli A, Roshandel R, Panjeshahi MH (2013) Thermodynamic analysis of application of organic Rankine cycle for heat recovery from an integrated DIR-MCFC with pre-reformer. Energy Convers Manag 67:197–207.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2012.11.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mamaghani AH, Najafi B, Shirazi A, Rinaldi F (2015) Exergetic, economic, and environmental evaluations and multi-objective optimization of a combined molten carbonate fuel cell-gas turbine system. Appl Therm Eng 77:1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2014.12.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhang X, Liu H, Ni M, Chen J (2015) Performance evaluation and parametric optimum design of a syngas molten carbonate fuel cell and gas turbine hybrid system. Renew Energy 80:407–414.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.02.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mahmoudi SMS, Ghavimi AR (2016) Thermoeconomic analysis and multi objective optimization of a molten carbonate fuel cell—supercritical carbon dioxide—organic Rankin cycle integrated power system using liquefied natural gas as heat sink. Appl Therm Eng 107:1219–1232.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Samanta S, Ghosh S (2016) A thermo-economic analysis of repowering of a 250 MW coal fired power plant through integration of Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell with carbon capture. Int J Greenh Gas Control 51:48–55.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.04.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mehrpooya M, Sayyad S, Zonouz MJ (2017) Energy, exergy and sensitivity analyses of a hybrid combined cooling, heating and power (CCHP) plant with molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC) and Stirling engine. J Clean Prod 148:283–294.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.157 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Iaquaniello G, Mangiapane A (2006) Integration of biomass gasification with MCFC. Int J Hydrog Energy 31:399–404.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2005.09.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Devianto H, Sasongko D, Sempurna FI et al (2016) Effect of gas composition produced by gasification, on the performance and durability of molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC). J Nat Gas Sci Eng 35:896–905.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2016.08.075 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aminyavari M, Mamaghani AH, Shirazi A et al (2016) Exergetic, economic, and environmental evaluations and multi-objective optimization of an internal-reforming SOFC-gas turbine cycle coupled with a Rankine cycle. Appl Therm Eng 108:833–846.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.07.180 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mahmoudi SMS, Khani L (2016) Thermodynamic and exergoeconomic assessments of a new solid oxide fuel cell-gas turbine cogeneration system. Energy Convers Manag 123:324–337.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.06.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meratizaman M, Monadizadeh S, Amidpour M (2014) Techno-economic assessment of high efficient energy production (SOFC-GT) for residential application from natural gas. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 21:118–133.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2014.07.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roy D, Ghosh S (2017) Energy and exergy analyses of an integrated biomass gasification combined cycle employing solid oxide fuel cell and organic Rankine cycle. Clean Technol Environ Policy 19:1693–1709.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-017-1358-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eveloy V, Karunkeyoon W, Rodgers P, Al Alili A (2016) Energy, exergy and economic analysis of an integrated solid oxide fuel cell - gas turbine - organic Rankine power generation system. Int J Hydrogen Energy 41:13843–13858.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.01.146 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhang S, Liu H, Liu M et al (2017) An efficient integration strategy for a SOFC-GT-SORC combined system with performance simulation and parametric optimization. Appl Therm Eng 121:314–324.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.04.066 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Soltani S, Mahmoudi SMS, Yari M, Rosen MA (2013) Thermodynamic analyses of a biomass integrated fired combined cycle. Appl Therm Eng 59:60–68.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2013.05.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zainal ZA, Ali R, Lean CH, Seetharamu KN (2001) Prediction of performance of a downdraft gasifier using equilibrium modeling for different biomass materials. Energy Convers Manag 42:1499–1515.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-8904(00)00078-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Santhanam S, Schilt C, Turker B et al (2016) Thermodynamic modeling and evaluation of high efficiency heat pipe integrated biomass gasifier–solid oxide fuel cells–gas turbine systems. Energy 109:751–764.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.04.117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    El-emam RS, Dincer I, Naterer GF (2011) Energy and exergy analyses of an integrated SOFC and coal gasification system. Int J Hydrog Energy 37:1689–1697.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.09.139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sanaye S, Katebi A (2014) 4E analysis and multi objective optimization of a micro gas turbine and solid oxide fuel cell hybrid combined heat and power system. J Power Sources 247:294–306.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.08.065 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Soltani S, Mahmoudi SMS, Yari M, Rosen MA (2013) Thermodynamic analyses of an externally fired gas turbine combined cycle integrated with a biomass gasification plant. Energy Convers Manag 70:107–115.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Arteaga-Pérez LE, Casas-Ledón Y, Pérez-Bermúdez R et al (2013) Energy and exergy analysis of a sugar cane bagasse gasifier integrated to a solid oxide fuel cell based on a quasi-equilibrium approach. Chem Eng J 228:1121–1132.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2013.05.077 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kotas TJ (1985) The exergy method of thermal plant analysis. Butterworths, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    NETL, Quality Guidelines for Energy Systems Studies (2011) Cost estimation methodology for NETL plant performance. NETL, US DOEGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Meratizaman M, Monadizadeh S, Pourali O, Amidpour M (2015) High efficient-low emission power production from low BTU gas extracted from heavy fuel oil gasification, introduction of IGCC-SOFC process. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 23:1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.01.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Trading Economics. https://tradingeconomics.com/india/indicators. Accessed 27 July 2017
  26. 26.
    Curletti F, Gandiglio M, Lanzini A et al (2015) Large size biogas-fed solid oxide fuel cell power plants with carbon dioxide management: technical and economic optimization. J Power Sources 294:669–690.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2015.06.091 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Samanta S, Ghosh S (2017) Techno-economic assessment of a repowering scheme for a coal fired power plant through upstream integration of SOFC and downstream integration of MCFC. Int J Greenh Gas Control 64:234–245.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2017.07.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Taheri MH, Mosaffa AH, Farshi LG (2017) Energy, exergy and economic assessments of a novel integrated biomass based multi generation energy system with hydrogen production and LNG regasification cycle. Energy 125:162–177.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.02.124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wang J-J, Yang K, Xu Z-L, Fu C (2015) Energy and exergy analyses of an integrated CCHP system with biomass air gasification. Appl Energy 142:317–327.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.12.085 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Reyhani HA, Meratizaman M, Ebrahimi A et al (2016) Thermodynamic and economic optimization of SOFC-GT and its cogeneration opportunities using generated syngas from heavy fuel oil gasification. Energy 107:141–164.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.04.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mondal P, Ghosh S (2017) Exergo-economic analysis of a 1-MW biomass-based combined cycle plant with externally fired gas turbine cycle and supercritical organic Rankine cycle. Clean Technol Environ Policy 19:1475–1486.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-017-1344-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Campanari S, Chiesa P, Manzolini G, Bedogni S (2014) Economic analysis of CO2 capture from natural gas combined cycles using Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells. Appl Energy 130:562–573.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.04.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nakyai T, Authayanun S, Patcharavorachot Y et al (2017) Exergoeconomics of hydrogen production from biomass air-steam gasification with methane co-feeding. Energy Convers Manag 140:228–239.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rosen MA, Dincer I, Kanoglu M (2008) Role of exergy in increasing efficiency and sustainability and reducing environmental impact. Energy Policy 36:128–137.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.09.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Demirel Y (2002) Nonequilibrium thermodynamics: transport and rate processes in physical and biological systems. Elsevier, AmsterdamzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Alauddin ZA (1996) Performance and characteristics of a biomass gasifer system. PhD Thesis. University of Wales, College of Cardif, UKGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gholamian E, Mahmoudi SMS, Zare V (2016) Proposal, exergy analysis and optimization of a new biomass-based cogeneration system. Appl Therm Eng 93:223–235.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.09.095 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Milewski J, Wołowicz M, Lewandowski J (2013) Optimization of the working conditions of a laboratory size (100 cm2) Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell. ECS Trans 51:37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Haghighat A, Naja B, Shirazi A, Rinaldi F (2015) 4E analysis and multi-objective optimization of an integrated MCFC (molten carbonate fuel cell) and ORC (organic Rankine cycle) system. Energy 82:650–663.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.01.074 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ahmed S, Papadias D, Ahluwalia R, Hua T, Roh HS (2015) Performance and cost analysis for a 300 kW tri-generation Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell System. U.S. DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program and Vehicle Technologies Office, annual merit review and peer evaluation meeting. https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review15/sa054_ahmed_2015_o.pdf
  41. 41.
    Eisentraut A, Brown A (2012) Technology roadmap: bioenergy for heat and power. International Energy Agency, Renewable Energy DivisionGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Malek ABMA, Hasanuzzaman M, Rahim NA, Al Turki YA (2017) Techno-economic analysis and environmental impact assessment of a 10 MW biomass-based power plant in Malaysia. J Clean Prod 141:502–513.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.057 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rokni M (2014) Biomass gasification integrated with a solid oxide fuel cell and Stirling engine. Energy.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.01.078 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ghosh S (2018) Biomass-based distributed energy systems: opportunities and challenges. Sustain Energy Transp.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7509-4_13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Chowdhury NR (2014) Advances in trends in woody biomass gasification. Energy engineering and management, Tecnico LisboaGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Craig KR, Mann MK (1996) Cost and performance analysis of biomass-based integrated gasification combined-cycle (BIGCC) power systems (No. NREL/TP-430-21657). National Renewable Energy Lab., Golden, CO (United States). https://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy97/21657.pdf
  47. 47.
    Zang G, Tejasvi S, Ratner A, Lora ES (2018) A comparative study of biomass integrated gasification combined cycle power systems: performance analysis. Bioresour Technol 255:246–256.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.01.093 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringIndian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, ShibpurHowrahIndia
  2. 2.School of Mechanical EngineeringKalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, Deemed to be UniversityBhubaneswarIndia

Personalised recommendations