Thermal power production is largely a matter of heat source—heat sink temperature difference and heat transfer capacity, that Ls, providing the correct amount of heat transfer capacity at an affordable cost for the source—sink difference that is available.
For similar types of thermal power systems, the larger the source—sink difference that the resource provides, the higher the maximum efficiency at which the system can operate. This maximum efficiency limit is often described by the Carnot cycle (Nicolas Carnot, 1824).
While the Carnot cycle is simple to understand, it is difficult to implement. Therefore, most thermal power systems have come to rely on the Rankine cycle (William Rankine, prior to 1872), which is slightly less efficient in theory but much more achievable in practice than the Carnot cycle. In Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics (1976), Van Wylen and Sonntag provide detailed analyses of both Carnot and Rankine cycles. The Rankine cycle is used in most thermal power systems today. As originally conceived by Rankine for steam engines and most frequently implemented today in steam turbines, the Rankine cycle uses water as its motive fluid.
For the purposes of this application, a binary motive fluid is defined as a motive fluid comprising a substance other than water. This definition includes pure substances other than water, mixtures of water and pure substances other than water, and azeotropes (constant-boiling mixtures) of water and pure substances other than water. Applying this definition, methanol is a binary motive fluid, methanol and water form a binary motive fluid as a mixture (but not an azeotrope), and ethanol and water form a binary motive fluid as an azeotrope of approximately 95% ethanol and 5% water at standard atmospheric pressure.
Both Carnot and Rankine specified isentropic expansion as being the process that converted thermal energy into mechanical power. For the purposes of this application, a wet fluid is a fluid that expands isentropically from saturated vapor into a two-phase mixture of vapor and liquid. A dry fluid is a fluid that expands isentropically from saturated vapor into superheated vapor. For example, water is a wet fluid, as shown in
Prior to both Carnot and Rankine, various types of reciprocating steam engines had been implemented successfully, as evidenced by U.S. Pat. No. 0,000,001 to Ruggles (1836) for an improvement to a steam locomotive. For a variety of reasons, these engines suffered from low efficiencies.
Gustaf de Laval invented the impulse steam turbine in 1882, and Charles Parsons invented the reaction steam turbine in 1884. These inventions rapidly replaced steam engines, and modern steam turbines descend from one or both of these two inventions. Nevertheless, they have limitations.
While water is a satisfactory motive fluid for most applications, the Rankine cycle suffers from increasing pressure losses and decreasing operating pressures that rapidly reduce power output as the resource temperature drops closer to the 100° C. boiling point of water. Therefore, primarily due to the thermophysical properties of water (especially its boiling point), the Rankine cycle is generally limited to turbine inlet steam temperatures of 150° C. or greater. In Geothermal Reservoir Engineering (2009), I present a conceptual system design of a complete geothermal power system that shows peak system power output at 150° C. turbine inlet temperature.
In response to this problem, a number of attempts have been made to identify a motive fluid better than water and a thermal power cycle better than Rankine.
U.S. Pat. No. 1,154,880 to Patten (1915) proposed a Rankine cycle with carbon dioxide as a potential binary motive fluid. Because of the low boiling point and critical temperature of carbon dioxide, such a system would have to operate in the supercritical region at very high pressures, stressing the system components and increasing their expense.
Shortly after CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) were invented, U.S. Pat. No. 2,301,404 to Holmes (1942) proposed a Rankine cycle with four different CFCs as potential binary motive fluids. Since these are dry fluids with low boiling points, they would expand to superheated vapor, losing useful power and reducing efficiency. Such a system would probably require a regenerator (an additional, fifth component) and its added expense. Because of their low boiling points, the fluids would need to be condensed under pressure, putting back-pressure on the expander and further reducing its efficiency. Also, the system would probably need a compressor rather than a liquid pump, further increasing power losses and adding expense.
U.S. Pat. No. 2,471,476 to Benning et at (1949) proposed a Rankine cycle with octafluorocyclobutane (a hydrofluorocarbon or HFC) as a potential binary motive fluid. Since this is a dry fluid with a low boiling point, it would expand to superheated vapor. Such a system would require a regenerator (an additional, fifth component, as shown by Benning et al. in their FIG.), probably require a compressor rather than a liquid pump, and suffer from limited efficiency as for CFCs.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,040,528 to Tabor et al. (1962) proposed a Rankine cycle with octane or higher alkanes or heavier aromatics (hydrocarbons or HCs), heavier ethers, or chlorinated hydrocarbons as potential binary motive fluids. This is often referred to as the ORC (organic Rankine cycle). Since these are all dry fluids, they would expand to superheated vapor. Such a system would require a regenerator (an additional, fifth component, as shown by Tabor et al. in their
U.S. Pat. No. 3,516,248 to McEwen (1970) proposed a group of potential binary motive fluids. After studying the thermophysical properties of a wide variety of pure substances, he recommended for use the dry fluids (as shown by McEwen in his
U.S. Pat. No. 3,722,211 to Conner et al. (1973) proposed a Rankine cycle with a mixture of trifluoroethanol and 3 to 25% water as a potential binary motive fluid. The pure substance trifluoroethanol is a dry fluid (as shown by Conner et al. in their
U.S. Pat. No. 3,841,009 to Somekh (1974) proposed a Rankine cycle with a potential binary motive fluid comprising a mixture of 10 to 75% water and one of a group of pyridines. Pure pyridine is a dry fluid that would expand to superheated vapor (as shown by Somekh in his
U.S. Pat. No. 4,008,573 to Petrillo (1977) proposed a Rankine cycle with a potential binary motive fluid comprising three components: ethyl alcohol, water, and pyridine (or one of a number of other substances). A complex system was proposed that focused mainly on the avoidance of corrosion and freezing. Details of the thermodynamic states of the proposed power cycle were not provided. In addition, if the proposed mixtures were not azeotropic, the proposed system would suffer from the fractional distillation problem as for trifluoroethanol and water.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,233,525 to Enjo (1980) proposed a Rankine cycle with a potential binary motive fluid comprising an azeotropic mixture of tetrafluoropropanol and water. Azeotropic mixtures of tetrafluoropropanol and water expanded to superheated vapor (as shown by Enjo in his
U.S. Pat. No. 4,346,561 to Kalina (1982) proposed an alternative to the Rankine cycle with a potential binary motive fluid comprising a mixture of ammonia and water and employing a desorption/absorption process. This is often referred to as the Kalina cycle. Such a system would require at least seven components (three more than Rankine), increasing its cost.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,557,112 to Smith (1985) proposed an alternative to the Rankine cycle with a motive fluid expanding from saturated liquid to two-phase vapor and liquid mixture, progressively drying, while delivering mechanical power. This is often referred to as the Trilateral cycle. It requires addition of a flashing chamber or use of a flashing expander (as shown by Smith in his
U.S. patent application 20050188697 by Zyhowski et al. (2005) proposed a new family of potential binary motive fluids based on the fluorination of ethers and ketones, and it specified that they all be dry fluids (as described by Zyhowski et al. in their SUMMARY). A system using any one of these motive fluids would suffer from the same limitations on efficiency of other ORC systems.
U.S. patent application 20060245733 by Pierson et al. (2007) proposed a supercritical binary system. While methanol is proposed as one of many potential binary motive fluids (as described by Pierson et al. in their DETAILED DESCRIPTION), this supercritical system would fail to take advantage of methanol's wet property. In addition, the expander would exhaust superheated vapor (as described by Pierson et al. in their first example and in
U.S. patent application 20110048014 by Chen (2011) proposed a combination power generation system comprising a steam Rankine cycle first stage and an ORC second stage. This application proposed methanol as a possible binary motive fluid for the ORC second stage of the system. Since the fluid leaving the second turbine and entering the cooling coil pipe is vapor (as described by Chen in his BRIEF DESCRIPTION), the second turbine must exhaust either saturated vapor or superheated vapor and not saturated vapor and liquid mixture. Furthermore, TABLE 1 shows relative performance of nine fluids in this system: n-butane is the best, and methanol is the second to the worst. This could be another example of the system failing to take advantage of the wet property of methanol, letting heat escape from the turbine unused as superheated vapor, and suffering limited efficiency.
In the relevant prior art in this field, there have been a small number of major advances and a larger number of smaller advances. For the avoidance of prolixity, I have only referenced the first relevant patent or published patent application for each major advance. Subsequent patents or published patent applications have tended to make small enhancements or add complexity, making them less relevant than their references for this application.
All of the binary power systems heretofore known suffer from a number of disadvantages:
In accordance with one embodiment, a thermal power cycle comprises a wet binary motive fluid, a pump, an evaporator, an expander, and a condenser.
Thus, several advantages of one or more aspects are to provide a simpler thermal power cycle. Other advantages of one or more aspects are to provide a thermal power cycle that is capable of exploiting lower temperature heat sources and utilizing a wider range of heat sinks for cooling with higher efficiency and at lower cost. These and other advantages of one or more aspects will become apparent from a consideration of the ensuing description and accompanying drawings.
1 Saturated liquid 11
2 Subcooled liquid 12
3 Saturated vapor 13
4 Two-phase vapor and liquid mixture 14
The Timlin cycle also includes the possibility of superheated vapor 15 in state 3.
The processes that comprise the cycle are:
1 Isentropic compression by pump 21 of saturated liquid 11 to subcooled liquid 12
2 Isobaric heating by evaporator 22 of subcooled liquid 12 to saturated vapor 13
3 Isentropic expansion by expander 23 of saturated vapor 13 to two-phase vapor and liquid mixture 14
4 Isobaric cooling by condenser 24 of two-phase vapor and liquid mixture 14 to saturated liquid 11
The Timlin cycle includes the possibility of process 2 being isobaric heating by evaporator 22 of subcooled liquid 12 to superheated vapor 15.
The Timlin cycle also includes the possibility of process 3 being isentropic expansion by expander 23 of superheated vapor 15 to two-phase vapor and liquid mixture 14.
The Timlin cycle further includes the possibility of process 3 being isentropic expansion by expander 23 of superheated vapor 15 to two-phase vapor and liquid mixture 14, reheating to a dryer condition, and then further isentropic expansion to a wetter and cooler condition at the exhaust of expander 23.
The system components that perform each of the above processes are shown and labeled on
For this embodiment, I contemplate the wet binary motive fluid being methanol, but other substances will work.
I contemplate pump 21 being a conventional radial-flow, centrifugal pump, as is commonly used in industry to pump liquids, but other types will work.
I contemplate evaporator 22 being a conventional indirect-contact, shell-and-tube heat exchanger, but other types will work.
I contemplate expander 23 being a conventional axial-flow, reaction turbine, with at least one reheat inlet 25 to receive saturated vapor 13 or superheated vapor 15 from evaporator 22, but other types will work. This is often referred to as a pass-in turbine.
I contemplate condenser 24 being based on a conventional shell-and-tube heat exchanger, but other types will work. It will be enhanced on the outside with at least one direct-contact heat exchange inlet 26 to receive subcooled liquid 12 from pump 21. It will be enhanced on the inside with at least one conventional spray, shower, jet or their equivalents for efficient direct-contact heat exchange between the two-phase vapor and liquid mixture 14 from expander 23 and the subcooled liquid 12 from pump 21. An external cooling sink will be available, such as cooling water passing through the tubes, and the shell will contain saturated liquid 11. The cooling water removes heal from condenser 24 by indirect-contact heat exchange then and rejects it to the external cooling sink. In any case, wet binary motive fluid never makes contact with cooling water.
I contemplate fabricating substantially all components, connectors, and pipes from austenitic steel, but other materials will work.
In operation in a normal manner the Timlin cycle of embodiment shown in
Using coolant that is externally supplied at 50° C. from the heat sink, condenser 24 receives two-phase vapor and liquid mixture 14 from expander 23 and subcooled liquid 12 from pump 21, mixes them together, and produces a combined saturated liquid 11 condensate. Using coolant that is externally supplied at 50° C. from the heat sink, condenser 24 cools saturated liquid 11 by indirect-contact heat exchange and delivers saturated liquid 11 to pump 21, completing the cycle.
Expander 23 typically delivers mechanical power via an output shaft to turn a generator for electric power production or directly provides mechanical power to a local load. Pump 21 consumes a small amount of the power that is produced by expander 23. In addition to supplying subcooled liquid 12 to evaporator 22, pump 21 returns a portion of subcooled liquid 12 to condenser 24 to provide direct-contact heat exchange within condenser 24.
The embodiment shown in
The embodiment shown in
The embodiment shown in
The embodiment shown in
The embodiment shown in
The embodiment shown in
From the description above, a number of advantages of some embodiments of my thermal power cycle become apparent:
Accordingly the reader will see that, according to one embodiment of the invention, I have provided a simpler, more efficient, and less costly thermal power cycle that can address a wide range of heat source—sink temperatures.
While the above description contains many specificities, these should not be construed as limitations on the scope of any embodiment, but as exemplifications of various embodiments thereof. Many other ramifications and variations are possible within the teachings of the various embodiments. For example, the first embodiment can be adapted to exploit low-temperature and oil/gas co-produced geothermal resources. The second embodiment can be adapted to exploit separated produced water from flash geothermal powcr systems. The third embodiment can be adapted to exploit the entire energy flow of high-temperature geothermal systems. Alternative embodiments can exploit unused thermal power in waste heat recovery and other applications. In addition, motive fluids can be developed and selected for optimal performance in other heat source—sink temperature differences and ranges. These can include pure substances or mixtures or azeotropes of two or more pure substances, with water possibly being one of them.
Thus, the scope should be determined by the appended claims and their legal equivalents, and not by the examples given.
This application claims the benefit of provisional patent application Ser. No. U.S. 61/377,094, filed 2010 Aug. 26 by the present inventor, which is incorporated by reference.
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
PCT/IB2011/003348 | 8/26/2011 | WO | 00 | 2/11/2013 |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO2012/069932 | 5/31/2012 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Ruggles | Jul 1836 | A |
296197 | Lowrey | Apr 1884 | A |
1154880 | Patten | Sep 1915 | A |
2301404 | Holmes | Nov 1942 | A |
2471476 | Benning et al. | May 1949 | A |
3040528 | Tabor et al. | Jun 1962 | A |
3516248 | Mcewen | Jun 1970 | A |
3722211 | Conner et al. | Mar 1973 | A |
3802186 | Mahler | Apr 1974 | A |
3841099 | Somekh | Oct 1974 | A |
3982379 | Gilli | Sep 1976 | A |
4008573 | Petrillo | Feb 1977 | A |
4164848 | Gilli | Aug 1979 | A |
4232525 | Enjo et al. | Nov 1980 | A |
4346561 | Kalina | Aug 1982 | A |
4358930 | Pope | Nov 1982 | A |
4448025 | Oda | May 1984 | A |
4553397 | Wilensky | Nov 1985 | A |
4557112 | Smith | Dec 1985 | A |
4760705 | Yogev | Aug 1988 | A |
4876855 | Yogev | Oct 1989 | A |
5027602 | Glen et al. | Jul 1991 | A |
5680764 | Viteri | Oct 1997 | A |
6422017 | Bassily | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6866092 | Molivadas | Mar 2005 | B1 |
7019412 | Ruggieri | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7454912 | Yamanaka | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7469540 | Knapton | Dec 2008 | B1 |
7594399 | Lehar | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7827791 | Pierson | Nov 2010 | B2 |
8276379 | Logan | Oct 2012 | B2 |
8713939 | Tsuchino | May 2014 | B2 |
8820079 | Zyhowski | Sep 2014 | B2 |
20030000213 | Christensen | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20040103661 | Ohta et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20050188697 | Zyhowski | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20060010868 | Smith | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20070101989 | Strathman | May 2007 | A1 |
20070245733 | Pierson | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20090126364 | Mills | May 2009 | A1 |
20090277400 | Conry | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090301090 | Fukushima | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100084120 | Yin | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100126172 | Sami | May 2010 | A1 |
20100154419 | Kontomaris | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20110048014 | Chen | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110167823 | Berger | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110167825 | Mauran et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110252796 | Burkhart | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110277476 | Minovitch | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20120006024 | Hays et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20130193369 | Low | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20140007575 | Ernst | Jan 2014 | A1 |
Entry |
---|
Honeywell, Working Fluid Developments for HT Heat Pumps and ORC Systems, Chillventa 2010. |
Fluid Selection for a low temperature solar organic Rankine Cycle; Bertrand Fankam Tchanche, Dec. 31, 2008, Elsevier.com. |
Honeywell, Working Fluid Developments for HT Heat Pumps and ORC Systems, Chillventa Jul. 15, 2010. |
WO2010009839A2, Berger, Jan. 28, 2010. |
Comparative assessment of regrigerants, Sunita, Dec. 2011. |
Fluid Selection for a low temperature solar organic Rankine Cycle; Bertrand Fankam Tchanche, Dec. 31, 2008 (Year: 2008). |
Huijuan Chen, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Jul. 30, 2010, Elsvier.com (Year: 2010). |
Madhawa Hettiarachchi, “Optimum design criteria for an Organic Rankine cycle using low-temperature geothermal heat sources”, Published 2007, pp. 1698-1706. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion from corresponding PCT International Application No. PCT/US2011/003348, dated Aug. 24, 2012 (8 pp.). |
Timlin, M. J., New Mexico Geothermal Working Group, Socorro, NM, “Geothermal Reservoir Engineering”, May 20, 2009 (35 pp.). |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20130133328 A1 | May 2013 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61377094 | Aug 2010 | US |