Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Technical Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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%.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

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

C EPCC :

Engineering, procurement and $ construction cost, $

C EQP :

Total equipment cost, $

CP :

Specific heat at constant pressure, kJ/kmol K

CRF:

Capital recovery factor

C TOC :

Total overnight cost, $

CUF:

Capacity utilization factor

D p :

Depletion potential

E ADE :

Annualized delivery electricity, kWh

Ex:

Specific exergy, kJ/kg

EX:

Exergy, kW

F :

Faraday constant, C/kmol

F :

Annual inflation rate, %

f EPCC :

Rectification factor associated with engineering, procurement and construction cost

f TOC :

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

f TPC :

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

K air :

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

m air :

Mass flow rate of air, kg/s

Mc:

Moisture content kg/kg of biomass

m f :

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

N cell :

Number of fuel cells

N MCFC :

Number of MCFC stack

OB:

Mass percentage of oxygen

P :

Pressure, bar

Q :

Heat rate, kW

R :

Universal gas constant, kJ/kmol K

R an :

Loss at anode, V

R ca :

Loss at cathode, V

R ohm :

Ohmic loss, V

RP:

Pressure ratio

S :

Specific entropy, kJ/kmol K

SI:

Sustainability index

T :

Temperature, K

T cell :

Cell temperature, K

T gas :

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

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

Β :

Correlation of the factor

η :

Efficiency, %

\( \xi \) :

Effectiveness

\( \phi \) :

Exergy efficiency, %

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

References

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kotas TJ (1985) The exergy method of thermal plant analysis. Butterworths, London

    Google Scholar 

  23. NETL, Quality Guidelines for Energy Systems Studies (2011) Cost estimation methodology for NETL plant performance. NETL, US DOE

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Trading Economics. https://tradingeconomics.com/india/indicators. Accessed 27 July 2017

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Demirel Y (2002) Nonequilibrium thermodynamics: transport and rate processes in physical and biological systems. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Alauddin ZA (1996) Performance and characteristics of a biomass gasifer system. PhD Thesis. University of Wales, College of Cardif, UK

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 51:37–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Eisentraut A, Brown A (2012) Technology roadmap: bioenergy for heat and power. International Energy Agency, Renewable Energy Division

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Chowdhury NR (2014) Advances in trends in woody biomass gasification. Energy engineering and management, Tecnico Lisboa

  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. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur, Howrah, West Bengal, 711103, India

    Dibyendu Roy & Sudip Ghosh

  2. School of Mechanical Engineering, Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, Orissa, 24, India

    Samiran Samanta

Authors
  1. Dibyendu Roy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Samiran Samanta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sudip Ghosh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samiran Samanta.

Additional information

Technical editor: Jose A. R. Parise.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Roy, D., Samanta, S. & Ghosh, S. 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. J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 41, 112 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-019-1614-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-019-1614-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation