Development of optimized energy system

Abstract

The Kalina cycle is a binary mixture power generation system optimised for a range of waste heat recovery applications, which has received considerable attention as an energy efficient power generation cycle well suited to Indian climatic conditions. The Kalina cycle makes use of a binary mixture system which utilises ammonia–water mixture as a working fluid. First law and second law analysis were examined on two different Kalina cycle configurations (low temperature and medium temperature Kalina systems). The low temperature series heaters Kalina cycle system is driven with renewable energy source, while medium temperature is generally used for hot stream of energy from boiling water nuclear reactor or pressurised water nuclear reactor. The specific work output, energy, exergy and relative efficiencies have been optimized with the parameters considered. Separator temperature and turbine concentration (separator inlet concentration, x3 for Medium temperature Kalina cycle system (MTKCS) and separator vapour concentration, x11 for Low temperature Kalina cycle system (LTKCS)) are treated as common parameters between the two Kalina cycle systems. The optimum separator temperature for low temperature Kalina cycle systems with series heat exchangers and medium temperature Kalina cycle systems is in the ranges 110–150°C and 70–100°C, respectively, and the turbine concentration between 0.85–0.97 and 0.77–0.86. The highest exergy efficiency observed in the study (82%) occurred for the MTKCS, which exhibits lower exergy losses than the LTKCS, due to its more efficient energy recovery. The results identify that Kalina cycle systems can well adapt for medium temperature applications.

Keywords

Heat recovery Kalina power thermodynamics vapor absorption nuclear reactor

Introduction

Ammonia is environmentally benign and does not promote ozone depletion or global warming as organic fluids do. In the Kalina cycle, ammonia as a working fluid has zero oxygen depletion potential, near-zero global warming potential and is not highly flammable. By contrast, organic Rankine cycle (ORC) working fluids have worse environmental performance than ammonia and many are highly flammable. Organic fluid spills and emissions can lead to serious hazards if not controlled through proper safety procedures and planning. According to the literature, impressive performance advantages of Kalina cycles over ORCs have been observed. Naser Shokati et al.¹ have performed an exergoeconomic analysis of absorption power and cooling cogeneration of Kalina cycles. The highest levels of exergy destruction result from the boiler and low-pressure absorber. The five objective functions identified are the minimum unit cost of products, maximum energy and exergy efficiencies, minimum unit cost of produced exergy, minimum of the sum of exergy destruction and capital investment cost rates.² Jouan Rashidi and Changkyoo Yoo³ have identified the key parameters in evaluating the energy efficiency and cooling generation of the system: ammonia mass fraction of the working fluid, absorber pressure, turbine inlet pressure and flash tank pressure. Bahram Ghorbani et al.⁴ have examined a trigeneration system with the Kalina cycle power generation system. They concluded that the high exergy destruction results from the solar collectors, auxiliary boiler and heat exchangers.

Shankar and Srinivas⁵ compared Kalina Cooling Cogeneration with once-through and split cycles. The highest energy utilisation was observed for the once-through cycle. Asou et al.¹⁵ have compared Kalina cycle and conventional ocean thermal energy conversion system with ammonia–water mixture as working fluid. Dejfors et al.⁶ suggested that a higher maximum pressure could improve the performance of a binary mixture cycle. Hatem⁷ has presented an experimental study on ammonia vapour in an ammonia–water solution.

Koroneos and Rovas⁸ compared coal/diesel system with vapor-dominated system and concluded that the latter system is economic. Korobitsyn⁹ examined combined power generation systems and suggested as advanced thermal conversion methods. Shankar Ganesh and Srinivas^10,11 examined two different Kalina cycle systems suitable for low temperature applications. Shankar Ganesh and Srinivas¹⁴ have implemented the procedure extended from Gibbs free energy equations in finding the thermophysical properties. The LTKCS, and MTKCS and HTKCS formulations are considered from literature.^10–13 Kalina cycle system is a flexible system suitable for generating power at low, medium and high temperature heat recoveries. In combined cooling and power generation systems too KCS can be extended.

Table 1.

Performance details of the Kalina cycle with source temperature.

S.No.	References	Heat source	Temperature, °C	Power generation, kW	Thermal efficiency,%	Remarks
1.	Zhu et al.¹⁶	Waste heat recovery	380	1700	27.02	Dual-pressure vaporization Kalina cycle
2.	Bombarda et al.¹⁷	Diesel engine exhaust gas	346	1615	19.70	NH₃–H₂O mixture/Experimentation
3.	Wang et al.¹⁸	Exhaust gases from cement plant	330	10500	24.10	NH₃–H₂O mixture/Theoretical
4.	Nguyen et al.¹⁹	Waste heat recovery applications	330	1910	25.70	Conventional Kalina cycle and Kalina – split cycle
5.	Larsen et al.²⁰	Waste heat recovery on large marine diesel engines	330	1953	23.20	Kalina – split cycle, reheat
6.	Zhao et al.²¹	Waste heat recovery	320	25401	23.78	Integrated compressed air energy storage (CAES) system and Kalina cycle
7.	Guo et al.²²	Waste heat recovery	310	946	27.90	Dual-pressure vaporization Kalina cycle
8.	Galanis et al.²³	Geothermal	300	400	22.00	NH₃–H₂O mixture/Theoretical
9.	Hua et al.²⁴	Waste heat recovery	300	739	21.69	NH₃–H₂O mixture/Theoretical
10.	Zhang et al.²⁵	Waste heat	300	473	20.85	Integrated system of ammonia–water Kalina-Rankine cycle
11.	Chen et al.²⁶	Waste heat	280	495	20.90	Integrated system of ammonia–water Kalina-Rankine cycle
12.	Chew et al.²⁷	Waste heat recovery	262	1309	20.29	Combined benzene, toluene, p-xylene(BTX) – Kalina cycle
13.	Victor et al.²⁸	Waste heat recovery	250	150	15.01	Low temperature Kalina cycle
14.	Yue et al.²⁹	Engine exhaust heat recovery	221	216	18.80	Kalina as a bottoming cycle

Table 1 results the innovations and the performance data for Kalina Cycle Systems. The objective of the present work is to investigate two different Kalina cycle systems (KCS) designed for low and medium-temperature heat recovery. The thermodynamic properties of the two systems have been evaluated using MATLAB. Based on the system components, the separator temperature and turbine concentration have been chosen as common parameters for parametric evaluation.

Properties of binary ammonia–water mixture

The ammonia–water mixture properties were developed from the literature reported.^32–34, Based on the references, the correlations have been considered in evaluating the properties of binary ammonia–water mixture up to high temperature KCS. Figure 1 shows the enthalpy–concentration plot as function of ammonia concentration and pressure. Both the low-temperature and medium-temperature Kalina cycle systems (LTKCS and MTKCS) have been modelled with ammonia–water mixture properties calculated up to 100 bar pressure by Shankar Ganesh and Srinivas.¹⁴ The model trends are in good agreement with experimental data up to 100 bar. The three curves (liquid enthalpy curve, vapour enthalpy curve and auxiliary curve) provide the thermodynamic property values. The properties have been generated using MATLAB.

Figure 1.

Ammonia–water enthalpy concentration diagram.

Figure 1 shows the enthalpy–concentration plot as function of ammonia concentration and pressure. Both the low-temperature and medium-temperature Kalina cycle systems (LTKCS and MTKCS) have been modelled with ammonia–water mixture properties calculated up to 100 bar pressure.¹⁴ The model trends are in good agreement with experimental data up to 100 bar. The three curves (liquid enthalpy curve, vapour enthalpy curve and auxiliary curve) provide the thermodynamic property values. The properties have been generated using MATLAB.

Thermodynamic modelling of the Kalina power plant for low and medium-temperature heat recovery

An LTKCS, depicted in Figure 2, has been investigated in order to optimise heat recovery from solar thermal collectors. The low temperature Kalina power plant works with a hot source temperature up to 150°C. The high and low pressure forms operate at pressures of 35 and 10 bar, respectively. The components, i.e. the high temperature regenerator (HTRGN), economiser and evaporators, have been serially connected in the LTKCS. Hot fluid coming from a solar parabolic trough collector with vacuum tubes generates ammonia-rich vapour in a boiler for power generation. The turbine inlet conditions have been optimised to match the variable hot fluid temperature, taking into account the intermittent nature of the solar radiation. The proposed system utilises hot source stream from solar concentrator collectors. The first and second law analyses of the LTKCS have been discussed by the authors in a previous work.^10,11

Figure 2.

Schematic flow diagram of the Kalina cycle LTKCS.

The ammonia–water mixture power generation system utilizes hot source stream from the sources (solar collectors, waste heat sources, geothermal sources and the ocean) to generate binary mixture vapour. Figure 3 shows the schematic material flow details for the Kalina cycle operating with a medium-temperature heat source at approximately 230°C and 50 bar. The low pressure version of the system operates at 12 bar. The MTKCS uses two more heat exchangers than the LTKCS. Because the separator is located on the low pressure side there is no need for a throttling device in the MTKCS. Nearly 30% more working fluid is needed in the turbine for expansion compared to the volume used in the regular design. The proposed system utilises a pressurised water reactor for economic reasons. Corrosion is an important consideration when choosing a nuclear reactor, and a pressurised water reactor is expected to be the most resistant to corrosion in this context. Ammonia–water mixture is corrosive, especially at high temperature for zirconium reactor cladding. The Kalina cycle system operates at three different temperature levels. The system performance is high in the low and moderate temperature limits. The medium temperature Kalina cycle system operating conditions do not favour corrosion. The hot source to the reactor is simply water, which again has close to no environmental safety considerations. The first and second law analyses of the MTKCS have been discussed by the authors in a previous work.¹²

Figure 3.

Schematic flow diagram of the Kalina cycle MTKCS with nuclear reactor as external boiling unit.

Kalina cycle (KC) efficiency²¹

η_{1, KC} = \frac{W_{net}}{Q_{Supply}} \times 100

(1)

Kalina cycle exergy efficiency²¹

η_{2, KC} = \frac{E_{hf} - \sum I_{tot}}{E_{hf}} \times 100

(2)

The assumptions for the analysis of the two systems are tabulated in Table 2.

Table 2.

Assumptions used in the thermodynamic analysis.

Atmospheric condition	25°C and 1.01325 bar
Terminal temperature difference (TTD) at heat recovery vapor generator
(boiler) inlet with respect to the collector’s hot fluid	10°C
Pinch point (PP) in boiler	5°C
Approach point (AP) in the boiler	10°C
Degree of superheat	10°C
The cooling water inlet temperature	30°C
The cooling water temperature difference	10°C
The isentropic efficiency of solution pump (η_P) and mixture turbine (ƞ_T) is considered as	75%
The mechanical efficiency of the solution pump (ƞ_Mech) and mixture turbine (ƞ_Mech) is taken as	96%
The condensate leaving the condenser is assumed as saturated liquid.
Pressure drop and heat loss in the pipelines are neglected.
Electrical generator efficiency (ƞ_gen) is taken as	98%

Kalina cycle relative efficiency

η_{RE} = \frac{η_{1, KC}}{η_{Carnot}} \times 100

(3)

Results and discussion

The simulated results relating to power and efficiency of turbo machines developed for the two KCSs are discussed below.

Figure 4(a) to (c) depicts the enthalpy–entropy, temperature–enthalpy and temperature-specific exergy diagrams for the MTKCS. Figure 5(a) and (b) shows the variations in specific power with separator temperature and turbine concentration for both systems. Separator temperatures were simulated in the range of 110°C to 155°C for the LTKCS and 70°C to 100°C for the MTKCS. Turbine concentration ranged from 0.85 to 0.97 for the LTKCS and 0.77 to 0.86 for the MTKCS. As we are nearing global depletion of conventional fuels, the two systems have been modelled with an unconventional heat supply system. The specific power increases from 60 kW to 130 kW for the LTKCS with an increase in the separator temperature from 110°C to 150°C. For the MTKCS, the specific power decreases from 267 kW to 240 kW as the temperature is increased. The high pressure in the cycle is a function of separator temperature and turbine concentration. The liquid concentration in the separator is directly proportional to the pressure. To match the bubble point and separator temperature, the liquid concentration must be increased. These changes cause the mass flow to the turbine to decrease. The combined effect of decreased mass flow and increased high pressure causes the turbine work to increase by a small amount resulting in increased specific work. For the MTKCS, the liquid concentration in the separator decreases with increased separator temperature at constant pressure. The turbine mass flow rate also decreases, as it is directly proportional to the liquid concentration in the separator. The dew point temperature remains constant, resulting in reduced output. The trends are identical for both the separator temperature and turbine concentration. An optimal value for the specific work of the MTKCS is achieved with the parametric change in turbine concentration.

Figure 4.

(a) MTKCS Enthalpy-entropy diagram, (b) MTKCS Temperature-enthalpy diagram and (c) MTKCS Temperature-specific exergy diagram.

Figure 5.

Influence of (a) separator temperature and (b) turbine concentration on specific power for LTKCS and MTKCS.

Figure 6(a) and (b) shows the variations in cycle energy efficiency with parametric variations in separator temperature and turbine concentration. The cycle energy increases from 5.15% to 12% for the LTKCS with the increase in separator temperature, whereas it decreases from 19.25% to 13.8% for the MTKCS. The cycle energy increases from 3% to 10.1% for the LTKCS with an increase in turbine concentration, whereas it decreases from 20.8% to 14.3% for the MTKCS. With an increase in separator temperature, the high pressure increases significantly, and the low pressure increases slightly for both systems. The increased pressure causes the turbine expansion to also increase. With a decrease in the heat load at the evaporator the efficiency increases and the heat supplied to the boiler decreases. As a result, the efficiency increases. At increased turbine concentration, with fixed high pressure, the dew point temperature decreases, favouring a decreased supply temperature. Turbine concentration is inversely proportional to the mass flow rate at the turbine. With an increase in turbine concentration, the mass flow rate to the turbine decreases. The heat load at HE3 increases with decreased heat load at HE2, resulting in decreased efficiency.

Figure 6.

Influence of (a) separator temperature and (b) turbine concentration on cycle energy efficiency for LTKCS and MTKCS.

Figure 7(a) and (b) shows the variations in relative efficiency with changes in the separator temperature and turbine concentration parameters. The relative efficiency increases from 24% to 56% for the LTKCS with an increase in separator temperature, whereas it decreases from 57% to 41% for the MTKCS. The relative efficiency increases from 14% to 47% for the LTKCS with an increase in turbine concentration but decreases from 62% to 42% for the MTKCS.

Figure 7.

Influence of (a) separator temperature and (b) turbine concentration on relative efficiency for LTKCS and MTKCS.

Figure 8(a) and (b) shows the variations in exergy efficiency with changes in parameters separator temperature and turbine concentration. The exergy efficiency increases from 53% to 72% for the LTKCS with an increase in separator temperature, whereas it decreases from 78.5% to 62.7% for the MTKCS. The exergy efficiency increases from 37% to 71% for the LTKCS with an increase in turbine concentration but decreases from 80.5% to 67% for MTKCS.

Figure 8.

Influence of (a) separator temperature and (b) turbine concentration on exergy efficiency for LTKCS and MTKCS.

Table 3 gives the details of the working fluid and hot source fluid at the state points, defined in Figure 2. The results are plotted at a separator temperature of 125°C, strong solution concentration of 0.77, 1 kg/s of working fluid and turbine concentration of 0.95. The specific enthalpy value is higher at high input conditions (state 1). The value proves to be lower at condenser outlet conditions. The dryness fraction for a vapour is 1 and for liquid is 0, hence states 1 and 10 are in vapour conditions. States 5–9 and states 12–13 remain in liquid conditions. The entire system is solved with a unit mass of working fluid at the turbine which consumes 3.80 kg/s of hot source fluid.

Table 3.

LTKCS material flow details with respect to Figure 2 at Indian atmospheric conditions and T_sep = 125°C.

State	Pressure, bar	Temperature, °C	Ammonia concentration	Flow rate, kg/s	Specific enthalpy, kJ/kg	Specific entropy, kJ/kg K	Dryness fraction
1	35.60	135.00	0.95	0.64	1543.24	4.54	1.00
2	10.10	69.12	0.95	0.64	1385.30	4.67	0.96
3	10.10	70.70	0.77	1.00	967.12	3.41	0.65
4	10.10	68.12	0.77	1.00	932.23	3.29	0.63
5	10.10	35.00	0.77	1.00	12.01	0.47	0.00
6	35.60	35.98	0.77	1.00	21.98	0.49	0.00
7	35.60	43.24	0.77	1.00	52.84	0.56	0.00
8	35.60	55.94	0.77	1.00	117.12	0.75	0.00
9	35.60	80.12	0.77	1.00	236.86	1.15	0.00
10	35.60	125.00	0.77	1.00	1152.84	3.56	0.68
11	35.60	125.00	0.95	0.64	1514.66	4.51	1.00
12	35.60	125.00	0.46	0.35	341.23	1.62	0.00
13	10.10	87.82	0.46	0.35	160.32	1.12	0.00
14	–	73.26	0.46	0.35	162.56	1.08	0.05
15	–	145.00	–	3.80	502.78	1.38	–
16	–	144.12	–	3.80	497.32	1.42	–
17	–	84.74	–	3.80	253.22	0.76	–
18	–	77.92	–	3.80	223.24	0.68	–

Table 4 shows the properties of the working fluid and hot fluid at the state points, defined in Figure 3. The results are plotted at a separator temperature of 70°C, strong solution concentration of 0.9, 1 kg/s of strong solution and a turbine concentration of 0.8 at 50 bar. This results in a hot fluid inlet temperature of 217°C. A unit mass of working fluid in the power circuit demands 3.58 units of hot water under the above conditions. The unknown properties at the state points are determined from the equations outlined in the thermodynamic model. The turbine inlet mass flow rate is raised to 1.29 kg/s at the specified conditions.

Table 4.

MTKCS material flow details with respect to Figure 3 at T_sep = 70°C, strong solution concentration of 0.90 and turbine condition of 50 bar and 0.80 concentration.

State	Pressure, bar	Temperature, °C	Ammonia concentration	Flow rate, kg/kg refrigerant	Specific enthalpy, kJ/kg	Specific entropy, kJ/kg K	Specific exergy, kJ/kg	Dryness fraction
1	50.0	192.0	0.80	1.29	1819.3	4.78	391.35	1.00
2	10.4	114.7	0.80	1.29	1602.2	4.95	125.07	0.93
3	10.4	70.0	0.80	1.29	962.6	3.38	−45.84	0.65
4	10.4	70.0	0.46	0.44	76.6	0.85	−178.71	0.00
5	10.4	70.0	0.98	0.84	1432.5	4.72	24.64	1.00
6	10.4	70.0	0.46	0.15	76.6	0.85	−178.71	0.00
7	10.4	70.0	0.90	1.00	1223.9	4.15	−16.12	0.85
8	10.4	57.0	0.90	1.00	1162.5	3.81	26.38	0.79
9	10.4	30.0	0.90	1.00	68.5	0.47	−72.40	0.00
10	50.0	31.2	0.90	1.00	75.7	0.47	−65.67	0.00
11	50.0	43.8	0.90	1.00	137.0	0.67	−63.37	0.00
12	50.0	43.8	0.90	0.10	137.0	0.67	−63.37	0.00
13	50.0	43.8	0.90	0.89	137.0	0.67	−63.37	0.00
14	50.0	109.7	0.90	0.89	1058.4	3.18	109.89	0.70
15	50.0	109.7	0.90	0.10	1058.4	3.18	109.89	0.70
16	50.0	109.7	0.90	1.00	1058.4	3.18	109.89	0.70
17	50.0	146.0	0.90	1.00	1527.8	4.23	263.77	0.96
18	50.0	146.0	0.80	1.29	1284.2	3.69	183.04	0.76
19	50.0	182.2	0.80	1.29	1787.1	4.71	380.07	1.00
20	10.4	70.0	0.46	0.29	76.6	0.85	−178.71	0.00
21	50.0	71.2	0.46	0.29	84.4	0.86	−171.60	0.00
22	50.0	146.0	0.46	0.29	450.3	1.82	−93.44	0.00
23	–	217.2	–	3.58	803.5	2.08	182.09	–
24	–	213.6	–	3.58	791.8	2.05	179.68	–
25	–	171.0	–	3.58	610.1	1.66	112.47	–
26	–	171.0	–	0.27	610.7	1.66	112.47	–
27	–	171.0	–	3.30	610.7	1.66	112.47	–
28	–	137.0	–	3.30	468.3	1.33	69.90	–
29	–	130.3	–	3.30	440.1	1.26	62.39	–
30	–	76.2	–	0.27	214.0	0.66	16.09	–
31	–	126.2	–	3.58	422.9	1.22	58.01	–

The present thermodynamic evaluation for LTKCS has been validated by comparing the existing Kalina cycle power plant located in Husavik, Iceland, running from hot water (geo thermal resource). Table 5 presents the comparative results of the current model and the running plant readings.³¹ The plant is studied with the working conditions, i.e. at strong solution concentration = 0.81, T15 = 125°C, x1 = 0.95 and t5 = 12°C. Most of the calculated results in this work closely match the Husavik power plant conditions. The resulted low pressure is 5.4 bar against the 5.5 bar of the plant reading.³⁵ These results have been matched with the results reported by Usvika et al. who reported 11.62% of energy net efficiency. For MTKCS, the present thermodynamic simulated results have been compared with the literature readings of Kalina power plant running from hot water of geo thermal resource.³⁰ The plant and current model are solved at strong solution concentration, x9 = 0.90 and T1 = 192°C. For condenser, the cooling water inlet temperature is considered as 16°C as per the plant data. Therefore, at the inlet of pump the resulted working fluid temperature is 21°C. Most of the calculated results are closely matched with the plant conditions. The resulted low pressure is 7.7 bar whereas 8 bar in the plant reading.

Table 5.

Comparison of the current series heaters plant results with the existing Husavik plant readings at 75% turbine efficiency (T_sep = 125°C and x₁ = 0.95) for LTKCS and of the operational conditions of current work with the reported readings at 70°C separator temperature³⁰ for MTKCS.

Sl. No.	Description	LTKS		MTKCS
Sl. No.	Description	Husavikplant result	Predicted result	Kalina and Hillsborough’s³⁰ results	Simulated result
1	Hot water requirement, kg/s	90.00	82.30	2.58	2.82
2	Hot water inlet temperature, °C	124.00	125.00	188.00	182.20
3	Hot water outlet temperature, °C	80.00	69.12	77.00	78.70
4	Separator pressure, bar	31.00	35.60	32.00	32.00
5	Low pressure, bar	5.50	5.40	8.00	7.70
6	Temperature of working fluid at boiler inlet, °C for LTKCS and MIX₂ for MTKCS	67.00	71.29	102.00	97.00
7	Vapor in separator, kg/s	11.20	10.50	0.87	0.89
8	Ammonia–water mixture before separation, kg/s	16.30	15.62	1.17	2.10
9	Temperature after expansion, °C	60.00	70.00	111.00	106.00
10	Temperature after pumping, °C	13.00	14.21	21.70	22.86
11	Cycle energy efficiency, %	11.80	12.66	17.24	17.00

Conclusions

The ammonia–water mixture properties calculated here using MATLAB give us an indication of the behaviour of this working fluid at a wide range of pressures and temperatures. Kalina cycle system is the best competitor to ORC. The cycle utilizes solar collectors, conventional boilers, nuclear reactors to generate binary vapor. The cycle using nuclear reactor to generate steam will work with single component environment friendly working fluid. In the present work, low temperature Kalina cycle system and medium temperature Kalina cycle system have been investigated at various separator temperatures and turbine concentrations. The two KCS have been examined with hot source from solar and nuclear. Both frameworks can be used in either system, though because of pressure limitations we assume the medium-temperature KCS uses the atomic source. The LTKCS provides its highest performance at an optimised separator temperature of 150°C and turbine concentration of 0.97. The MTKCS achieves its highest performance at an optimised separator temperature of 100°C and turbine concentration of 0.87. The sink temperature in Indian climatic conditions is approximately 25°C. The output of the MTKCS is higher compared to the common Kalina cycle configurations. The mass flow rate to the turbine inlet of the MTKCS is increased with the cycle configuration and hence results in increased performance but without affecting condenser performance. Hot fluid of 3.58 units at the separator temperature has resulted with unit mass of strong solution at the separator temperature of 70°C for MTKCS, whereas 3. 8 units of hot fluid at the separator temperature have resulted with unit mass of strong solution at the separator temperature of 125°C for LTKCS. In LTKCS, the separator is located before turbine and hence requires high separator temperature. The total cost of the Kalina cycle of 2 kW capacities suitable for low temperature applications will be around 16,00,000 rupees. Based on the development of heat exchangers and with increment in quantity, the cost varies.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

N Shankar Ganesh has received his M.Tech. (Energy Systems Engineering) and PhD in Binary mixture power generation cycles from VIT University, Vellore in 2004 and 2014 respectively. Currently working as Professor in Department of Mechanical Engineering, Kingston Engineering College, Vellore, India. Has published 40 research papers in various reputed International and National journals as well as conferences. His research area includes power generations system, cogeneration system, modeling of heat recovery systems. Has filed a patent in the year 2018 and published an International book in 2019.

T Srinivas is an associate professor of the Department of Mechanical Engineerirng at Dr. B. R. Ambedkar National Institute of Technology, Jalandhar, Punjab, India. He previously worked as a Professor at the CO2 Research and Green Technologies Centre of the School of Mechanical Engineering at the Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, India, and the Faculty of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada, as a postdoctoral fellow. Dr. Srinivas has published 190 research papers in various international and national journals as well as conference proceedings. He has contributed six book chapters in the area of energy efficiency andintegrated systems and has published two full books, titled Flexible Kalina Cycle Systems and Desalination and Cooling Integration. He has also published a patent on a combined power and cooling system and has filed two patents on trigeneration and single axis self-tracker. He has completed two funded projects on vapor power and trigeneration systems, respectively with SERB and CSIR, India. His research area includes power-free solar trackers, hybrid solar-biomass systems, poly-generation, conducting exergy scrutinizing, heat recovery options in cement factories, desalination, solar cooling, advanced combined cycle systems, and ORC and KCS plants. Dr. Srinivas has 17 years of teaching experience and has guided four PhD scholars. He worked in the machine tools industry in the field of production and quality control for four years. Dr. Srinivas received his MTech (Thermal Engineering) and his PhD in advanced combined powercycles from JNTUH College of Engineering Hyderabad in 2002 and 2008 respectively. He secured a university first rank in MTech program and was the overall branch topper during the diploma programs. He received an outstanding scientist award (VIFRA) in 2015 from Venus International Foundation, India.

G Uma Maheswari is an assistant professor (SG) in the School of Information Technology and Engineering, VIT, Vellore. She was previously assistant professor of Computer Science Engineering in Sona College of Technology, Salem. She works on parallel programming, computer architecture and energy analysis in computing. Her focus is on experimenting energy analysis of algorithms in parallel computing.

S Mahendiran is currently working as HOD/Mechanical in Kingston Engineering College, since 2009. He received his BE Mechanical Engineering and ME in Computer Aided Design from University of Madras and Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology respectively. He has a strong academic and administrative Experience for a span of more than 16 years in the academic field. He is currently pursuing his PhD in VIT, Vellore.

D Manivannan is working as assistant professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Kingston Engineering College from 2010 and doing part time Ph.D. in the area of organic Rankine cycle and cogeneration. He has completed B.E. in 2008 and M.E. in 2011. Active SAE member for two years (2014–2016).

References

Shokati

Ranjbar

Yari

A comprehensive exergoeconomic analysis of absorption power and cooling cogeneration cycles based on Kalina, part 1: simulation. Energy Conver Manage 2018; 158: 437–459.

Shokati

Ranjbar

Yari

A comprehensive exergoeconomic analysis of absorption power and cooling cogeneration cycles based on Kalina, part 2: parametric study and optimization. Energy Conver Manage 2018; 161: 74–103.

Rashidi

Yoo

A novel Kalina power-cooling cycle with an ejector absorption refrigeration. Energy Conver Manage 2018; 162: 225–238.

Ghorbani

Mehrpooya

Sadeghzadeh

Developing a tri-generation system of power, heating, and freshwater (for an industrial town) by using solar flat plate collectors, multi-stage desalination unit, and Kalina power generation cycle. Energy Conver Manage 2018; 165: 113–126.

Shankar Srinivas

Performance investigation of Kalina cooling cogeneration cycles. Int J Refrig 2018; 86: 163–185.

Dejfors

Thorin

Svedberg

Ammonia–water power cycles for direct-fired cogeneration applications. Energy Conver Manage 2008; 39: 1675–1681.

Al-Zawagy

HMM.

Experimental and analytical investigation of ammonia–vapor absorption into ammonia–water solution. Doctoral dissertation, Saga University, Japan, 2007.

Koroneos

Rovas

DC.

Electricity from geothermal energy with the Kalina cycle an exergy approach. In: 2007 International conference on clean electrical power, 2007, Capri, Italy, pp.423–428.

Korobitsyn

MA.

New and advanced energy conversion technologies. Analysis of cogeneration, combined and integrated cycles, PhD Thesis, University of Twente, Netherlands, 1998.

10.

Shankar Ganesh

Srinivas

Design and modeling of low temperature solar thermal power station. Appl Energy 2012; 91: 180–186.

11.

Shankar Ganesh

Srinivas

Thermodynamics assessment of heat source arrangements in Kalina Power station. J Energy Eng 2013; 139: 99–108.

12.

Shankar Ganesh

Srinivas

Power augmentation in a Kalina power system for a medium temperature low grade heat. ASME J Solar Energy 2013; 135: 1–10.

13.

Shankar Ganesh

Srinivas

Processes development for high temperature solar thermal Kalina power station. Therm Sci 2014; 18: 393–404. SS

14.

Shankar Ganesh

Srinivas

Development of thermo-physical properties of aqua ammonia for Kalina cycle system. IJMPT 2017; 55: 113–141.

15.

Asou

Yasunaga

Ikegami

(2007). Comparison between Kalina cycle and conventional OTEC system using ammonia–water mixtures as working fluid. In: Proceedings of the seventh international offshore and polar engineering conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 1–6 July 2007.

16.

Zhu

Zhang

Chen

, et al. Parameter optimization of dual-pressure vaporization Kalina cycle with second evaporator parallel to economizer. Energy 2016; 112: 420–429.

17.

Bombarda

Invernizzi

Pietra

Heat recovery from diesel engines: a thermodynamic comparison between Kalina and ORC cycles. Appl Therm Eng 2010; 30: 212–219.

18.

Wang

Dai

Gao

Exergy analyses and parametric optimizations for different cogeneration power plants in cement industry. Appl Energy 2009; 86: 941–948.

19.

Nguyen

Knudsen

Larsen

, et al. Thermodynamic evaluation of the Kalina split-cycle concepts for waste heat recovery applications. Energy 2014; 71: 277–288.

20.

Larsen

Nguyen

Knudsen

, et al. System analysis and optimisation of a Kalina split-cycle for waste heat recovery on large marine diesel engines. Energy 2014; 64: 484–494.

21.

Zhao

Wang

Dai

Thermodynamic analysis of an integrated energy system based on compressed air energy storage (CAES) system and Kalina cycle. Energy Conver Manage 2015; 98: 161–172.

22.

Guo

Zhang

Chen

, et al. Dual-pressure vaporization Kalina cycle for cascade reclaiming heat resource for power generation. Energy Conver Manage 2015; 106: 557–565.

23.

Galanis

Cayer

Roy

et al. Electricity generation from low temperature sources. J Appl Fluid Mech 2009; 2: 55–67.

24.

Hua

Chen

, et al. Waste heat supply – side power generation with variable concentration for turbine in Kalina cycle. Appl Therm Eng 2015; 91: 583–590.

25.

Zhang

Guo

Chen

, et al. Power generation and heating performances of integrated system of ammonia–water Kalina – Rankine cycle. Energy Conver Manage 2015; 92: 517–522.

26.

Chen

Guo

, et al. Energy and exergy analysis of integrated system of ammonia–water Kalina-Rankine cycle. Energy 2015; 90: 2028–2037.

27.

Chew

Reddy

CCS

Rangaiah

GP.

Improving energy efficiency of driving-wall columns using heat pumps, organic Rankine cycle and Kalina cycle. Chem Eng Process: Process Intensification 2014; 76: 45–59.

28.

Victor

Kim

J-K

Smith

Composition optimisation of working fluids for organic Rankine Cycles and Kalina cycles. Energy 2013; 55: 114–126.

29.

Yue

Han

, et al. Comparative analysis of a bottoming transcritical ORC and a Kalina cycle for engine exhaust heat recovery. Energy Conver Manage 2015; 89: 764–774.

30.

Kalina

Hillsborough

CA.

Power cycle and system for utilizing moderate and low temperature heat sources, U.S. Patent No. 7,021,060. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 2006.

31.

Mirolli

Hjartarson

Mlcak

, et al. Testing and operating experience of the 2MW Kalina cycle geothermal power plant in Husavik, Iceland. In: Proceedings of the world renewable energy congress VII, Cologne, Germany, 29 June–5 July 2002.

32.

Ziegler

Trepp

Equation of state for ammonia–water mixtures. Int J Refrig 1984; 7: 101–106.

33.

Patek

Klomfar

Simple functions for fast calculations of selected thermodynamic properties of the ammonia–water system. Int J Refrig 1995; 18: 228–234.

34.

Goswami

DY.

Thermodynamic properties of ammonia–water mixtures for power-cycle applications. Energy 1999; 24: 525–536.

35.

Usvika R, Rifaldi M and Noor A. Energy and Exergy analysis of Kalina cycle system (KCS) 34 with mass fraction ammonia-water mixture variation. Journal of mechanical science and technology 2009: 23: 1871–1876.