mdh.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Techno-economic evaluation of the evaporative gas turbine cycle with different CO(2) capture options
Royal Inst Technol.
Mälardalen University, School of Sustainable Development of Society and Technology. (MERO)ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6279-4446
Mälardalen University, School of Sustainable Development of Society and Technology. (MERO)ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0300-0762
2012 (English)In: Applied Energy, ISSN 0306-2619, E-ISSN 1872-9118, Vol. 89, no 1, 303-314 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The techno-economic evaluation of the evaporative gas turbine (EvGT) cycle with two different CO(2) capture options has been carried out. Three studied systems include a reference system: the EvGT system without CO(2) capture (System I), the EvGT system with chemical absorption capture (System II), and the EvGT system with oxyfuel combustion capture (System III). The cycle simulation results show that the system with chemical absorption has a higher electrical efficiency (41.6% of NG LHV) and a lower efficiency penalty caused by CO(2) capture (10.5% of NG LHV) compared with the system with oxyfuel combustion capture. Based on a gas turbine of 13.78 MW, the estimated costs of electricity are 46.1 $/MW h for System I. while 70.1 $/MW h and 74.1 $/MW h for Systems II and III, respectively. It shows that the cost of electricity increment of chemical absorption is 8.7% points lower than that of the option of oxyfuel combustion. In addition, the cost of CO(2) avoidance of System II which is 71.8 $/tonne CO(2) is also lower than that of System III, which is 73.2 $/tonne CO(2). The impacts of plant size have been analyzed as well. Results show that cost of CO(2) avoidance of System III may be less than that of System II when a plant size is larger than 60 MW.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2012. Vol. 89, no 1, 303-314 p.
National Category
Energy Engineering
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mdh:diva-16532DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.07.034ISI: 000296114700036Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-80053350189OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mdh-16532DiVA: diva2:575935
Available from: 2012-12-11 Created: 2012-12-11 Last updated: 2014-01-07Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Li, HailongYan, Jinyue
By organisation
School of Sustainable Development of Society and Technology
In the same journal
Applied Energy
Energy Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 50 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf