<p>Given biomass’s advantages as a power cycle fuel, the current study proposes an effective configuration consisting of a biomass-fueled solid oxide fuel cell and a gas turbine. Also, a steam Rankine cycle, a proton exchange membrane electrolyzer, and a multi-effect desalination unit are employed for waste heat recovery and the production of excess power, hydrogen, and freshwater. The configuration is analyzed from energy, exergy, exergoeconomic, and technoeconomic assessments. The results reveal that the gasifier and heat exchanger 2 are the main sources of exergy destruction, with values of 859.1&#xa0;kW and 477.7&#xa0;kW, respectively, while the highest cost rate associated with the exergy destruction is related to the heat exchanger 2 and the afterburner, at about 249,050.11 $&#xa0;year<sup>−1</sup> and 122,657.58 $&#xa0;year<sup>−1</sup>, respectively. Also, an increase in the electricity sale cost from 0.07 to 0.15&#xa0;$/kWh reduces the payback period from 2.73 to 1.09&#xa0;years. Meanwhile, the net present value increases from 3,585,887 to 10,363,095 $. Increasing the anode’s recycling ratio reduced the exergy efficiency, whereas increasing the cathode’s recycling ratio improved it. At the optimal state, the exergy efficiency, unit product cost, and payback period are 47.87%, 8.78 $&#xa0;GJ<sup>−1</sup>, and 2.23&#xa0;years, respectively.</p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Exergoeconomic and technoeconomic analyses and multi-objective optimization of biomass-fueled integrated solid oxide fuel cell and gas turbine system for power generation and multigeneration applications

  • Zongfu Chen,
  • Min Ma

摘要

Given biomass’s advantages as a power cycle fuel, the current study proposes an effective configuration consisting of a biomass-fueled solid oxide fuel cell and a gas turbine. Also, a steam Rankine cycle, a proton exchange membrane electrolyzer, and a multi-effect desalination unit are employed for waste heat recovery and the production of excess power, hydrogen, and freshwater. The configuration is analyzed from energy, exergy, exergoeconomic, and technoeconomic assessments. The results reveal that the gasifier and heat exchanger 2 are the main sources of exergy destruction, with values of 859.1 kW and 477.7 kW, respectively, while the highest cost rate associated with the exergy destruction is related to the heat exchanger 2 and the afterburner, at about 249,050.11 $ year−1 and 122,657.58 $ year−1, respectively. Also, an increase in the electricity sale cost from 0.07 to 0.15 $/kWh reduces the payback period from 2.73 to 1.09 years. Meanwhile, the net present value increases from 3,585,887 to 10,363,095 $. Increasing the anode’s recycling ratio reduced the exergy efficiency, whereas increasing the cathode’s recycling ratio improved it. At the optimal state, the exergy efficiency, unit product cost, and payback period are 47.87%, 8.78 $ GJ−1, and 2.23 years, respectively.