skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Techno-economic Comparison of Solar-Driven sCO2 Brayton Cycles Using Component Cost Models Baselined with Vendor Data and Estimates.

Abstract

Abstract not provided.

Authors:
; ;
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Solar Energy Technologies Office (EE-4S)
OSTI Identifier:
1427953
Report Number(s):
SAND2017-2768C
651726
DOE Contract Number:
AC04-94AL85000
Resource Type:
Conference
Resource Relation:
Conference: Proposed for presentation at the ASME Power and Energy Conference held June 25-30, 2017 in Charlotte, NC.
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English

Citation Formats

Carlson, Matthew David, Middleton, Bobby, and Ho, Clifford K. Techno-economic Comparison of Solar-Driven sCO2 Brayton Cycles Using Component Cost Models Baselined with Vendor Data and Estimates.. United States: N. p., 2017. Web. doi:10.1115/ES2017-3590.
Carlson, Matthew David, Middleton, Bobby, & Ho, Clifford K. Techno-economic Comparison of Solar-Driven sCO2 Brayton Cycles Using Component Cost Models Baselined with Vendor Data and Estimates.. United States. doi:10.1115/ES2017-3590.
Carlson, Matthew David, Middleton, Bobby, and Ho, Clifford K. Wed . "Techno-economic Comparison of Solar-Driven sCO2 Brayton Cycles Using Component Cost Models Baselined with Vendor Data and Estimates.". United States. doi:10.1115/ES2017-3590. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1427953.
@article{osti_1427953,
title = {Techno-economic Comparison of Solar-Driven sCO2 Brayton Cycles Using Component Cost Models Baselined with Vendor Data and Estimates.},
author = {Carlson, Matthew David and Middleton, Bobby and Ho, Clifford K.},
abstractNote = {Abstract not provided.},
doi = {10.1115/ES2017-3590},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Wed Mar 01 00:00:00 EST 2017},
month = {Wed Mar 01 00:00:00 EST 2017}
}

Conference:
Other availability
Please see Document Availability for additional information on obtaining the full-text document. Library patrons may search WorldCat to identify libraries that hold this conference proceeding.

Save / Share:
  • Abstract not provided.
  • Abstract not provided.
  • A survey of capital cost estimates and process efficiencies for two different technologies for producing hydrogen from water has been completed. Thermochemical cycles show costs ranging from $600 to 1100/kW H/sub 2/ while advanced methods of water electrolysis were estimated in the range of $700 to 1100/kW H/sub 2/. In general, efficiencies for thermochemical cycles were higher at 40 to 55%, than for water electrolysis systems at 30 to 40%. In all evaluations of new technology, careful attention must be paid to the assumptions underlying the derived cost and efficiency to ensure that design conditions conform to achievable results.
  • Mitigating and overcoming environmental problems brought about by the current worldwide fossil fuel-based energy infrastructure requires the creation of innovative alternatives. In particular, such alternatives must actively contribute to the reduction of carbon emissions via carbon recycling and a shift to the use of renewable sources of energy. Carbon neutral transformation of biomass to liquid fuels is one of such alternatives, but it is limited by the inherently low energy efficiency of photosynthesis with regard to the net production of biomass. Researchers have thus been looking for alternative, energy-efficient chemical routes inspired in the biological transformation of solar power, CO2more » and H2O into useful chemicals; specifically, liquid fuels. Methanol has been the focus of a fair number of publications for its versatility as a fuel, and its use as an intermediate chemical in the synthesis of many compounds. In some of these studies, (e.g. Joo et al., (2004), Mignard and Pritchard (2006), Galindo and Badr (2007)) CO2 and renewable H2 (e.g. electrolytic H2) are considered as the raw materials for the production of methanol and other liquid fuels. Several basic PFD diagrams have been proposed. One of the most promising is the so called CAMERE process (Joo et al., 1999 ). In this process, carbon dioxide and renewable hydrogen are fed to a first reactor and transformed according to: H2 + CO2 <=> H2O + CO Reverse Water Gas Shift (RWGS) After eliminating the produced water the resulting H2/CO2/CO mixture is then feed to a second reactor where it is converted to methanol according to: CO2 + 3.H2 <=> CH3OH + H2O Methanol Synthesis (MS) CO + H2O <=> CO2 + H2 Water Gas Shift (WGS) The approach here is to produce enough CO to eliminate, via WGS, the water produced by MS. This is beneficial since water has been proven to block active sites in the MS catalyst. In this work a different process alternative is presented: One that combines the CO2 recycling of the CAMERE process and the use of solar energy implicit in some of the biomass-based process, but in this case with the potential high energy efficiency of thermo-chemical transformations.« less