3E Comparative Analysis of Brayton–ORC Cycle Using Two Thermal Sources: Solar Energy and Coconut Shell Biomass
Solar energy and biomass offer sustainable alternatives to meet the energy demand and reduce the environmental impact of fossil fuels. In this study, through mass and energy balances, a comparative analysis of energy, exergy, and environmental impact (LCA) was conducted on two renewable thermal sour...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2024-12-01
|
| Series: | Eng |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2673-4117/5/4/174 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850042484270301184 |
|---|---|
| author | José Manuel Tovar Guillermo Valencia Ochoa Branda Molina |
| author_facet | José Manuel Tovar Guillermo Valencia Ochoa Branda Molina |
| author_sort | José Manuel Tovar |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Solar energy and biomass offer sustainable alternatives to meet the energy demand and reduce the environmental impact of fossil fuels. In this study, through mass and energy balances, a comparative analysis of energy, exergy, and environmental impact (LCA) was conducted on two renewable thermal sources: solar energy and coconut shell biomass, both coupled to a supercritical CO<sub>2</sub> Brayton cycle (sCO<sub>2</sub>) with an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) for waste heat recovery. The sCO<sub>2</sub>–ORC–biomass configuration showed higher exergy efficiency (41.1%) and lower exergy destruction (188.88 kW) compared to the sCO<sub>2</sub>–ORC–solar system (23.76% and 422.63 kW). Thermal efficiency (50.6%) and net power output (131.73 kW) were similar for both sources. However, the solar system (204,055.57 kg CO<sub>2</sub>-equi) had an 85.6% higher environmental impact than the biomass system (109,933.63 kg CO<sub>2</sub>-equi). Additionally, the construction phase contributed ~95% of emissions in both systems, followed by decommissioning (~4.5%) and operation (~0.1%). Finally, systems built with aluminum generate a higher carbon footprint than those with copper, with differences of 2% and 3.2% in sCO<sub>2</sub>–ORC–solar and sCO<sub>2</sub>–ORC–biomass, respectively. This study and an economic analysis make these systems viable thermo-sustainable options for clean energy generation. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-4d565fb6f94e4ba8a2bcd7456320b5bc |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 2673-4117 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-12-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Eng |
| spelling | doaj-art-4d565fb6f94e4ba8a2bcd7456320b5bc2025-08-20T02:55:32ZengMDPI AGEng2673-41172024-12-01543335335710.3390/eng50401743E Comparative Analysis of Brayton–ORC Cycle Using Two Thermal Sources: Solar Energy and Coconut Shell BiomassJosé Manuel Tovar0Guillermo Valencia Ochoa1Branda Molina2Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universidad del Atlántico, Puerto Colombia 081007, ColombiaDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universidad del Atlántico, Puerto Colombia 081007, ColombiaFaculty of Economic Sciences, Universidad del Atlántico, Puerto Colombia 081007, ColombiaSolar energy and biomass offer sustainable alternatives to meet the energy demand and reduce the environmental impact of fossil fuels. In this study, through mass and energy balances, a comparative analysis of energy, exergy, and environmental impact (LCA) was conducted on two renewable thermal sources: solar energy and coconut shell biomass, both coupled to a supercritical CO<sub>2</sub> Brayton cycle (sCO<sub>2</sub>) with an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) for waste heat recovery. The sCO<sub>2</sub>–ORC–biomass configuration showed higher exergy efficiency (41.1%) and lower exergy destruction (188.88 kW) compared to the sCO<sub>2</sub>–ORC–solar system (23.76% and 422.63 kW). Thermal efficiency (50.6%) and net power output (131.73 kW) were similar for both sources. However, the solar system (204,055.57 kg CO<sub>2</sub>-equi) had an 85.6% higher environmental impact than the biomass system (109,933.63 kg CO<sub>2</sub>-equi). Additionally, the construction phase contributed ~95% of emissions in both systems, followed by decommissioning (~4.5%) and operation (~0.1%). Finally, systems built with aluminum generate a higher carbon footprint than those with copper, with differences of 2% and 3.2% in sCO<sub>2</sub>–ORC–solar and sCO<sub>2</sub>–ORC–biomass, respectively. This study and an economic analysis make these systems viable thermo-sustainable options for clean energy generation.https://www.mdpi.com/2673-4117/5/4/174renewable energieslife cycle assessmentsupercritical CO<sub>2</sub> Brayton cycleORC |
| spellingShingle | José Manuel Tovar Guillermo Valencia Ochoa Branda Molina 3E Comparative Analysis of Brayton–ORC Cycle Using Two Thermal Sources: Solar Energy and Coconut Shell Biomass Eng renewable energies life cycle assessment supercritical CO<sub>2</sub> Brayton cycle ORC |
| title | 3E Comparative Analysis of Brayton–ORC Cycle Using Two Thermal Sources: Solar Energy and Coconut Shell Biomass |
| title_full | 3E Comparative Analysis of Brayton–ORC Cycle Using Two Thermal Sources: Solar Energy and Coconut Shell Biomass |
| title_fullStr | 3E Comparative Analysis of Brayton–ORC Cycle Using Two Thermal Sources: Solar Energy and Coconut Shell Biomass |
| title_full_unstemmed | 3E Comparative Analysis of Brayton–ORC Cycle Using Two Thermal Sources: Solar Energy and Coconut Shell Biomass |
| title_short | 3E Comparative Analysis of Brayton–ORC Cycle Using Two Thermal Sources: Solar Energy and Coconut Shell Biomass |
| title_sort | 3e comparative analysis of brayton orc cycle using two thermal sources solar energy and coconut shell biomass |
| topic | renewable energies life cycle assessment supercritical CO<sub>2</sub> Brayton cycle ORC |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2673-4117/5/4/174 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT josemanueltovar 3ecomparativeanalysisofbraytonorccycleusingtwothermalsourcessolarenergyandcoconutshellbiomass AT guillermovalenciaochoa 3ecomparativeanalysisofbraytonorccycleusingtwothermalsourcessolarenergyandcoconutshellbiomass AT brandamolina 3ecomparativeanalysisofbraytonorccycleusingtwothermalsourcessolarenergyandcoconutshellbiomass |