Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Combustion modeling”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

1,119 records · Page 63
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

High-Fidelity and High-Performance Computational Simulations for Rapid Design Optimization of Sulfur Thermal Energy Storage

Industrial process heating (IPH) accounts for approximately 70% of US manufacturing energy use and is primarily produced by fossil fuel combustion. Approximately 1500 TWht (approximately 60%) of IPH demand is in the temperature range of 100-300. Industrial applications in this temperature range include drying, hydrothermal processing, thermal enhanced oil recovery, food and beverage, bioethanol production, etc. Cost-effective thermal energy storage (TES) that increases the utilization of waste and renewable heat (solar, geothermal, etc.) could provide significant energy savings and reliable heat sources, decrease emissions, and increase US manufacturing competitiveness through reductions in fuel consumption. TES development has historically been dominated by technologies suitable for deployment with concentrating solar power (CSP). State-of-the-art thermal storage deployed commercially with power tower CSP plants uses a 60%/40% NaNO3/KNO3 molten salt and operates between temperatures of approximately 280 degrees Celsius and 570 degrees Celsius using a two-tank configuration. However, these nitrate salts are unsuitable for operation outside of this temperature range due to a high freezing point of approximately 220 degrees Celsius, and limits on high-temperature salt stability and corrosion resistance of containment alloys. Other materials being investigated for TES include those based on: (1) sensible energy storage (various molten salt compositions, inert solid particles, rocks or pebble beds, sulfur, water, concrete, graphite, etc.), (2) latent energy storage in materials that undergo solid-liquid phase change at relevant temperatures (organic materials for low-temperature applications, inorganic salts and/or metals for high-temperature applications), or (3) thermochemical energy storage (hydrides, hydroxides, carbonates, metal oxides, etc.). The application temperature and challenges pertaining to storage material and/or containment cost, energy density, long-term thermal and cyclic stability, and charge/discharge heat transfer effectiveness drive material selection for a given IPH or electricity generation application. Sulfur is a cheap commodity at $80/ton compared to $1100 - 1300/ton for conventional salts. When using a metric of storage cost per kWh, sulfur costs around 2-3 $/kWh. Previous sulfur TES development focused on high temperature (>600 degrees) concentrated solar power applications with sulfur encapsulated in pipes and flow of gaseous HTF (air) in the shell side. However, for lower-temperature IPH applications in the range of approximately 100-300 degrees Celsius Element 16 adopted a compact and scalable TES design with molten sulfur in the shell and HTF pipes submerged in the molten sulfur bath. The low-cost molten sulfur TES for dispatchable IPH has deployment potential for broad applications. The spatial and temporal evolution of the HTF and sulfur temperature is critical to the TES system performance, and thus detailed modeling can improve understanding of the performance and facilitate design improvements. Using high performance computing and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) a low-cost molten sulfur thermal energy storage (TES) system for industrial process heating (IPH) applications was developed. The unique challenges in CFD modeling of sulfur TES are the sharp property changes of sulfur relevant to the working temperatures. Above 159, liquid sulfur undergoes polymerization, and the viscosity of sulfur rapidly increases by several orders of magnitude between 159 degrees Celsius and 188 degrees Celsius, followed by a decrease in viscosity beyond 188 degrees Celsius due to thermal bound dissociation. In addition, various concentrations of H2S impurities can also modify sulfur viscosity. This numerical challenge is especially relevant to transient simulation of the sulfur TES charging and discharging processes as the extreme property variations limit the applicability of traditional heat transfer correlations. Transient CFD simulations including the temperature-dependent sulfur properties and geometric complexity of the TES design were used to predict the effect of natural convection during charging and discharging on the heat transfer process, sulfur temperature uniformity, charge/discharge rates, and performance of the storage devices. The CFD model was validated with experimental results for a full charge and discharge cycle. The work will show 3D and 2D simulation comparisons aimed to facilitate rapid design iterations and a machine learning based design optimization approach.

CFD↗
DOE OSTI2020

FINAL TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STUDY ON THE APPLICATION OF A HEAT INTEGRATED POST-COMBUSTION CO2 CAPTURE SYSTEM WITH HITACHI ADVANCED SOLVENT INTO EXISTING COAL-FIRED POWER PLANT

This report contains the results of a techno-economic assessment (TEA) conducted of a heat integrated post-combustion CO2 capture process with Hitachi advanced solvent for retrofit into an existing coal-fired power plant (but treated as greenfield plant on cost analysis). The process has been developed by the University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy (UK CAER). EPRI was chiefly responsible for this analysis, with significant input from WorleyParsons, Hitachi Power Systems America (Hitachi) and UK CAER. The project also involves the design, fabrication, installation, testing, and analyses of a slipstream facility located at L&GE-KU’s E.W. Brown Generating Station to demonstrate the UK CAER carbon capture system that could utilize heat integration with the main power plant. The design, start-up, and baseline of the pilot system was performed with a generic 30 wt% MEA solvent to obtain data for direct comparison with the DOE/NETL Reference Case followed by testing Hitachi’s proprietary solvent H3-1. In this techno-economic analysis, two cases utilizing the UK CAER process are compared, using different approach temperatures and solvent, against the DOE/NETL Reference Case (Case 10). The results are shown comparing the energy demand for post-combustion CO2 capture and the net higher heating value (HHV) efficiency of the power plant integrated with the post-combustion capture (PCC) plant. A levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) assessment was performed showing the costs of the options presented in the study. The key factors contributing to the reduction of LCOE were identified as CO2 partial pressure increase at the flue gas inlet, thermal integration of the process, and performance of the Hitachi H3-1 solvent. Recent UK CAER process pilot-scale testing data and process simualtion data showed that the packing heights of absorber and stripper columns were significantly oversized in the prelimanary TEA (Task 2 of this project) and thus updated in this final TEA for the H3-1 case only. In addition, the solvent make-up cost for H3-1 was updated based on lattest test results. Finally, a heat integration with the main power plant was applied in this final TEA to increase overall energy effciency for both the MEA and H3-1 cases. Additonal reductions in capital and operational costs are expected but not taken into account here. Shorter columns result in reduced pressure drops, smaller blower head and pump hydraulic head requirements. An increase in overall energy efficiency resuls in a decreased size of the power plant, the CCS and a reduced parasitic steam requirement to the CCS. The net efficiency of the UK CAER integrated PC power plant with CO2 capture changes from 26.2% for the Reference Case 10 plant in 2010 revised DOE/NETL baseline report to 27.6% for the MEA options considered, and 29.1% for the options utilizing the Hitachi advanced solvent. The UK CAER Process + Hitachi case also produces an extra 30.9 MW of generation compared to the UK CAER Process + MEA case and total 60.9 MW more than DOE Case 10. LCOE ($/MWh) values are $172.08/MWh for the MEA option and $157.65/MWh for the Hitachi H3-1 solvent cases considered in comparison to $189.59/MWh in January 2012 dollar for the Reference Case 10. The UK CAER CCS process with MEA case lowers energy consumption for CO2 capture to 1340 Btu/lb-CO2 captured as compared to 1540 Btu/lb-CO2 in the Reference Case 10. The UK CAER CCS process with H3-1 case further lowers energy consumption for CO2 capture to 973 Btu/lb-CO2 captured, for an advantage of 36.8% less energy consumption than Case 10. The study also shows 38.1% less heat rejection associated with the carbon capture system from 3398 MBtu/hr (Case 10) to 2104 MBtu/hr for the UK CAER + MEA system. Heat rejection is reduced to 2464 MBtu/hr in the UK CAER + H3-1 case, for a 27.5 % decrease compared to Case 10. Modeling outputs show that in the UK CAER process, the cooling water that is 2-5°C cooler than conventional cooling tower water can be achieved for ambient conditions common to the midwest and other regions. The results from the techno-economic assessment show that the proposed technology can be investigated further as a viable alternative to conventional CO2 capture technology. The evaluation also shows the effect of the critical parameters on the LCOE, with the main variables being the approach temperature and CO2 partial pressure increase at the flue gas inlet. A summary of the key advantages of the UK CAER Process + H3-1 case for LCOE and other economic factors compared to the DOE Case 10 is as follows: • A lower variable operating cost by $1.56/MWh ($1.08MWh less than the UK CAER Process + MEA Case), a 11.7% reduction compared to the DOE Case 10 • A lower COE by $25.32MWh ($13.94/MWh lower than the UK CAER Process + MEA Case), a 16.9% reduction compared to the DOE Case 10 • A lower LCOE by $31.94/MWh ($17.51/MWh lower than the UK CAER Process + MEA Case), a 16.9% reduction compared to the DOE Case 10 • A lower cost of CO2 captured by $18.65/tonne CO2 ($9.44/tonne CO2 lower than the UK CAER Process + MEA Case), a 30.4% reduction compared to the DOE Case 10 • A lower cost of CO2 avoided by $34.95/tonne CO2 ($18.53 tonne CO2 lower than the UK CAER Process + MEA Case), a 38.7% reduction compared to the DOE Case 10

Bhown, Abhoyjit S.↗
DOE OSTI2022

Pilot Testing of a Highly Efficient Pre-combustion Sorbent-based Carbon Capture System

TDA developed and demonstrated a highly efficient pre-combustion carbon capture system. The overall objective of this work was to develop a new sorbent-based pre-combustion carbon capture technology for Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plants. In this project our goal was to demonstrate the techno-economic viability of the new technology by 1) demonstrating it in large-scale slipstream tests, and 2) carrying out a high fidelity engineering and cost analysis. TDA’s process used an advanced physical adsorbent that selectively removes CO 2 from coal-derived synthesis gas above the dew point of the gas at temperatures as high as 300°C. The sorbent consists of a mesoporous carbon whose surface was grafted with functional groups that remove CO 2 via a well-known acid-base interaction. As documented in bench-scale experiments and field tests with actual coal gas, the sorbent achieved a very high capacity for CO 2 at temperatures as high as 300°C. The sorbent bound CO 2 more strongly than common physical adsorbents, providing the chemical potential needed for the high temperature operation. However, because CO 2 does not form a true covalent bond with the surface sites (as is the case with chemical absorbents), the sorbent regeneration could be carried out with only a very small energy input. The heat input to regenerate our sorbent was only 4.9 kcal per mol of CO 2 , which is much lower than that for chemical absorbents (e.g., 29.9 kcal/mol CO 2 for sodium carbonate) and was similar to the requirements of physical solvents (e.g., 4 kcal/mol CO 2 for Selexol TM ). Because the sorbent operates above the dew point of the synthesis gas (unlike the Selexol TM process), a higher power cycle efficiency can be achieved. With previous DOE/NETL funding (Contract No. DE-FE-0000469), we demonstrated the techno-economic viability of the technology in bench-scale tests and slipstream demonstrations at the National Carbon Capture Center (NCCC), Wilsonville, Alabama and Wabash River IGCC plant in Terra Haute, Indiana. We demonstrated a stable working CO 2 capacity for over 11,650 cycles with simulated synthesis gas. We also evaluated its performance with actual synthesis gas in two test campaigns at the Wabash River IGCC Plant, Terre Haute, IN and the National Carbon Capture Center (NCCC), Wilsonville, AL. The slipstream tests clearly showed that the actual coal gas constituents and potential contaminants (e.g. trace metals, halides, tars) had no effect on the sorbent’s ability to remove CO 2 (the same sorbent beds were used in both field tests with no sign of deactivation for 2,000 cycles with over 26,750 SCF of gas treated). As expected, due to the high temperature CO 2 removal capability and low energy needed to regenerate the sorbent, the power cycle efficiency with our process was greater than 34% on a higher heating value (HHV) basis; in comparison, the same IGCC plant equipped with the Selexol TM solvent for carbon capture can only achieve 31.4% HHV efficiency. The capital cost for an IGCC system with TDA’s process is estimated as $2,417/kW e , which is 12% lower than that of the IGCC/ Selexol TM process. The levelized cost for electricity including the transport, storage and monitoring (TS&M) cost for CO 2 was calculated as $\$ $92.9/MWh (lowest reported to our knowledge), which is much better than the $105.2/MWh estimated for the IGCC/ Selexol TM process. In this project (DE-FE0013105), TDA Research, in collaboration with our partners Gas Technology Institute (GTI), Illinois Clean Coal Institute (ICCI), University of California, Irvine (UCI), University of Alberta (UOA), Siemens, NCCC and Sinopec advanced the technical maturity of the technology; scaling it up by a factor of 100. We optimized the reactor design using computational fluid dynamics (CFD); using adsorption modeling we improved the pressure swing adsorption (PSA) cycle sequence. We carried out two field test campaigns with a fully-equipped 0.1 MW e prototype unit (for a total of 844 hours) using actual synthesis gas to prove the viability of the new technology. A successful 30 day (707 hrs) evaluation was completed at NCCC under air blown gasification conditions. We demonstrated 97.3% carbon capture at 1,500 SLPM, 93% carbon capture at 1,800 SLPM, and 90% carbon capture at 2,100 SLPM in the NCCC tests. We also demonstrated the system for 137 hours at a Sinopec petrochemical plant under oxygen blown gasification, demonstrating 86% carbon capture at 2,660 SLPM. In collaboration with University of California, Irvine (UCI), we completed a techno-economic analysis (TEA) for TDA’s warm gas cleanup technology integrated to IGCC power plant. The net plant efficiencies (on a coal HHV basis) for the warm gas cleanup cases were estimated to be 34.0% for E-GasTM gasifier, 34.4% for GE gasifier, 33.4 for the Shell gasifier and 34.2 for the TRIG TM gasifier (Cases 2, 4, 6 and 8 in this study) with a catalytic combustor for CO 2 purification, which are significantly higher than those for the Cold Gas Case, or an increase of as much as 12% in the heat rate for Case 2, 6% for Case 4, 9% for Case 6, and 9% for Case 8. The 1st year cost of electricity with the transport, storage and monitoring (TS&M) costs for the CO 2 included was $\$ $129.2/MWh for the E-GasTM gasifier Warm Gas Cleanup Case, $\$ $131.9/MWh for the GE gasifier Warm Gas Cleanup Case, $\$ $146.8/MWh for the Shell Gasifier Warm Gas Cleanup Case, and $\$ $129.9/MWh for the TRIG TM gasifier Warm Gas Cleanup Case. For comparison, the costs for the baseline Cold Gas CO 2 removal with Selexol for the different gasifiers were: $\$ $146.6/MWh for the E-Gas TM gasifier, $\$ $142.2/MWh for the GE gasifier, $\$ $159.0/MWh for the Shell gasifier and $\$ $144.3/MWh for the TRIG TM gasifier. In summary, the costs for our system were 7 to 12% lower than the corresponding Cold Gas Cleanup cases. The results of this techno-economic analysis suggested that TDA’s high temperature PSA-based Warm Gas Clean-up Technology can make a substantial improvement in the IGCC plant thermal performance for achieving near zero CO 2 emissions for E-Gas TM , GE, Shell and TRIG TM gasifier based IGCC power plants. The capital expenses were estimated to be lower than that of Selexol’s™. Taken together, the higher net plant efficiency and lower capital and operating costs resulted in substantial reduction in the cost of carbon capture for the IGCC plant equipped with TDA’s high temperature PSA-based carbon capture system. Finally, in collaboration with Gas Technology Institute (GTI) we completed the environmental health and safety assessment for TDA’s warm gas carbon capture technology.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗