Applied Energy 86 (2009) 1055–1063

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Analysis of a carbon dioxide transcritical power cycle

using a low temperature source
Emmanuel Cayer a, Nicolas Galanis a,*, Martin Desilets a, Hakim Nesreddine b, Philippe Roy a
a
Université de Sherbrooke, Génie mécanique, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada J1K 2R1
b
LTE-Hydro-Québec, 600 Av. de la Montagne, Shawinigan, QC, Canada G9N 7N5

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A detailed analysis of a carbon dioxide transcritical power cycle using an industrial low-grade stream of
Received 22 April 2008 process gases as its heat source is presented. The methodology is divided in four steps: energy analysis,
Received in revised form 18 September exergy analysis, finite size thermodynamics and calculation of the heat exchangers’ surface. The results
2008
have been calculated for fixed temperature and mass flow rate of the heat source, fixed maximum and
Accepted 23 September 2008
Available online 6 November 2008
minimum temperatures in the cycle and a fixed sink temperature by varying the high pressure of the
cycle and its net power output. The main results show the existence of an optimum high pressure for each
of the four steps; in the first two steps, the optimum pressure maximises the thermal or exergetic effi-
Keywords:
Waste heat
ciency while in the last two steps it minimises the product UA or the heat exchangers’ surface. These high
Energy analysis pressures are very similar for the energy and exergy analyses. The last two steps also have nearly iden-
Exergy analysis tical optimizing high pressures that are significantly lower that the ones for the first two steps. In addi-
Finite size thermodynamics tion, the results show that the augmentation of the net power output produced from the limited energy
Heat exchanger surface source has no influence on the results of the energy analysis, decreases the exergetic efficiency and
Optimization increases the heat exchangers’ surface. Changing the net power output has no significant impact on
the high pressures optimizing each of the four steps.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction is not practical. In situ utilisation of this heat as the source of a

Worldwide energy demand is continuously increasing and, as a
consequence, so is the number of new power plants. Thus, three
key countries (China, India and the United States) are planning to
build close to 850 new coal fired power plants. By 2012 these
plants are expected to emit as much as an extra 2.7 billion tons
of CO2 which is almost six times the quantity that must be cut in
the same period by the Kyoto signatories [1]. This situation illus-
trates the necessity of developing new clean energy sources and
of decreasing the energy intensity in all sectors of the economy.
Accordingly, many projects are actively pursuing the development
of more efficient processes and the utilisation of energy sources
deemed uneconomical until recently. Among those, the valorisa-
tion of industrial thermal wastes seems to offer an important po-
tential. As an example, 71% of the 3220 PJ annually consumed by
the eight principal industrial sectors in Canada are thrown away
in the form of thermal wastes and represent an annual recovery
potential of 2280 PJ of thermal energy [2]. However, there are only
few applications that can use this energy directly as heat. Further-
more, transportation of large quantities of heat over long distances
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 819 8210 8000x62868; fax: +1 819 821 7163.
E-mail address: Nicolas.galanis@usherbrooke.ca (N. Galanis).
power cycle is thus a concept generating a lot of interest.
Several studies [3] envisage the utilisation of organic Rankine
cycles (ORC) which are more appropriate for low temperature heat
sources than traditional power cycles like the ones using steam.
However, an important limitation of the ORC is the constant tem-
perature evaporation which is not suitable for sensible heat
sources such as waste heat [4]. Therefore, some proposed cycles
use binary mixtures [5] or supercritical pressure to achieve vari-
able temperature heat addition to the working fluid for a better
fit with the source. These processes are illustrated in Fig. 1.
The present paper focuses on the transcritical cycle because of
its high potential and of the limited studies found in the literature.
The transcritical cycle, whose heat rejection takes place at a sub-
critical pressure, must not be confused with the entirely supercrit-
ical cycle proposed by Feher [6]. Actually, coal fired transcritical
power plants at high temperatures (above 500 °C) constitute a ma-
ture technology and are among the best performing heat engines
with a thermal efficiency as high as 49% [7]. Studies on nuclear
plants using CO2 or helium have been published [8] and showed
that standard gas turbines can be used with CO2 [9]. On the other
hand, studies of low temperature transcritical cycles are rare. The
geothermal area was the first to consider it with several fluids such
as propane, isobutane and pentane [10], CO2 [11], R125 and R134a
[12]. More recently, the transcritical cycle with carbon dioxide has

0306-2619/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.09.018
1056 E. Cayer et al. / Applied Energy 86 (2009) 1055–1063

Nomenclature

Cp isobaric specific heat, J/kg K g thermal efficiency

D hydraulic diameter, m gfins global fins efficiency
e specific flow exergy, J/kg l dynamic viscosity, m2/s
E_ d exergy destruction rate, W q density, kg/m3
f Darcy friction factor
h specific enthalpy, J/kg Subscripts
k thermal conductivity, W/m K av average
m _ mass flow rate, kg/s d destruction
Pr Prandtl number ex exergy
Q_ heat transfer, W f1, f2 fluids 1 and 2 in a heat exchanger
Re Reynolds number g gas (heat source)
s specific entropy, J/kg K in inlet
T temperature, °C or K is isentropic
U convection heat transfer coefficient, W/m2 K out outlet
UA product of the overall heat transfer coefficient by the p pump
area, W/K t turbine
w specific net power output, J/kg tot total
W_ net power output, W w water (heat sink)
x quality of the working fluid

Greek symbols
a _ t W
fraction of the maximum power a ¼ ðW _ p Þ=W
_ max
eIHX regenerator effectiveness

been studied with solar energy at temperature near 200 °C [13]
and a small scale prototype has been erected [14] showing its fea-
sibility. Finally, the CO2 was again considered with this cycle using
waste heat in an automobile application [15]. A slightly higher
power output than with a R123 ORC cycle [16] was obtained.
To the present, none of the published studies on transcritical cy-
cles with CO2 have presented results other than those obtained by
applying the first law of thermodynamics. For limited capacity heat
sources as is the case with thermal wastes, a more detailed study is
necessary. In the present article, a methodology is exposed and ap-
plied to the study of a CO2 transcritical cycle supplied by a steady
stream of low temperature process gases. The methodology is di-
vided in four steps: energy analysis, exergy analysis, finite size
thermodynamics analysis and calculation of the surface of all heat
exchangers. With this information, a much better assessment of
this cycle’s potential can be established.
2. System description and modeling
an industrial waste gas idealised as air at a temperature of
100 °C with a mass flow rate of 314.5 kg/s. The cooling fluid in
the condenser is water at 10 °C and its mass flow rate is calculated
to fulfill the cooling needs. Carbon dioxide is chosen as the working
fluid for the following reasons:
 Its critical properties of 7.4 MPa and 31 °C are well suited for the
external conditions mentioned above,
 it is environment-friendly with an ozone depletion potential
(ODP) of zero and a global warming potential (GWP) of 1 over
100 years [17],
 it is abundant, non-flammable, non-toxic and its cost is fairly low,
 it is compatible with standard materials and lubricants and is
not harmful to the environment,
 it has potentially favourable thermodynamics and transports
properties,
 its thermophysical properties are well known even in the super-
critical area.

Two configurations are considered with the only difference The following general assumptions are formulated for this pro-
being the presence of a regenerator (or internal heat exchanger ject: each component is considered as a steady-state steady-flow
IHX) as shown in Fig. 2. Fig. 3 shows a typical T–S diagram for system, the kinetic and potential energies as well as the heat and
the second configuration. For the present case, the heat source is friction losses are neglected, the pump and the turbine isentropic

° ° °

Fig. 1. Temperature variation in the vapour generator for ORC, binary mixtures and transcritical cycles.
 E. Cayer et al. / Applied Energy 86 (2009) 1055–1063 1057

Heat Source 3 Heat Source 3

Vapour Vapour
Generator Generator

Turbine Turbine
2 4
Regenerator
1,2 4,5

1 5

Pump Pump

6 6
Heat Sink Heat Sink
Condenser Condenser

CONFIGURATION 1 CONFIGURATION 2

Fig. 2. Configurations of the systems under consideration.

efficiencies are set to 0.8, the regenerator effectiveness is 0.9 and 2.1. Energy analysis
saturated liquid is supposed at the condenser exit. Furthermore,
a temperature difference of 5 °C is applied at the inlet of the vapour The energy analysis is based on the first law of thermodynam-
generator and condenser between the working fluid and the exter- ics. The thermal efficiency and the specific net output are its final
nal flows giving a maximum and a minimum cycle temperature of results. With the assumptions previously stated, their values de-
95 °C and 15 °C, respectively. For all the heat exchangers, a shell pend only on one independent parameter: the high pressure
and tube counter-flow configuration is chosen with one pass in P1 = P2 = P3. In particular, these results do not depend on the work-
the tubes and in the shell. More detailed assumptions on the heat ing fluid mass flow rate. The equations for the different compo-
exchangers are made in the modeling section. nents are the following.
The analysis is performed with EES (engineering equation sol- For the pump:
ver). This software [18] has the advantage of including fluid prop-
h1;is  h6
erties and ready-to-use optimization tools. It uses the same gp ¼ ð1Þ
h1  h6
equation of state as REFPROP-NIST [19] but different correlations
_ p¼m
W _ CO2 ðh1  h6 Þ ð2Þ
for the calculation of other carbon dioxide properties (viscosity,
thermal conductivity, surface tension) used in the present study. For the turbine:
Their predictions have been compared with the ones from REF-
PROP-NIST [19] and are essentially identical. h3  h4
gt ¼ ð3Þ
The following sections introduce the equations used to perform h3  h4;is
the different steps of the analysis. They are presented in order of _ t¼m
W _ CO2 ðh3  h4 Þ ð4Þ
increasing complexity. Thus, each step is based on the results of
the previous ones but requires the specification of additional inde- For the vapour generator:
pendent parameters.
Q_ in ¼ m
_ CO2 ðh3  h2 Þ ð5Þ
For the condenser:
100
3
Q_ out ¼ m
_ CO2 ðh5  h6 Þ ð6Þ
For the specific net output:
75
Temperature ( C)

_ tW
W _p
o

w¼ ð7Þ
_ CO2
m
50 11 MPa
For the thermal efficiency of the cycle:
2
4
_ tW
W _p
1
25 g¼ _
ð8Þ
Q in
5
5,087 MPa
6 The regenerator IHX requires more detailed explanations because of
the special conditions of the transcritical cycle. Indeed, the tradi-
1,00 1,25 1,50 1,75 2,00
tional definition of its effectiveness, which is based on the assump-
Entropy (kJ/k-K)
tion of constant specific heat, can not be used because for the CO2
Fig. 3. Example of a T–S diagram with supercritical carbon dioxide. this property varies considerably with temperature near the critical
1058 E. Cayer et al. / Applied Energy 86 (2009) 1055–1063
state. Fig. 4, plotted with REFPROP data, illustrates this point for dif-
ferent pressures. This observation invalidates the assumption at the
basis of the effectiveness definition and the LMTD and e–NTU meth-
ods. A modification is then required to take into account this varia-
tion of the properties. Thus, instead of considering a constant
specific heat and working with temperature differences as in the
traditional approach, the enthalpy difference is used to express both
the heat and effectiveness. Thus the heat exchanged between the
two streams in the regenerator is:
Q_ ¼ m _ CO2 ðh2  h1 Þ
_ CO2 ðh4  h5 Þ ¼ m ð9Þ
In an ideal heat exchanger, one of the following two situations can
occur depending on which of the two streams in the regenerator has
the smaller heat capacity: either T5 tends towards T1 or T2 tends to-
wards T4. In this way, the maximum heat exchange Q_ max is given by
the smaller of the following two quantities:
Q_ ¼ m
_ CO2 ðh4  h5ðT 5 ¼T 1 Þ Þ assuming T 5 ¼ T 1 ð10aÞ
Q_ ¼ m
_ CO2 ðh2ðT 2 ¼T 4 Þ  h1 Þ assuming T 2 ¼ T 4 ð10bÞ
The regenerator effectiveness eIHX is then expressed as:
_ CO2 ðh4  h5 Þ m
m _ CO2 ðh2  h1 Þ
eIHX ¼ _
¼ ð11Þ
Q max Q_ max
Utilisation of variable properties in the regenerator by applying Eqs.
9, 10a, 10b (instead of the traditional ones obtained by replacing the
enthalpy differences by the product of temperature differences and
a constant specific heat) has a very significant effect on the cycle
thermal efficiency. As an example, for a cycle with a high pressure
of 7.5 MPa and the previously specified maximum and minimum
cycle temperatures (95 °C and 15 °C, respectively) the thermal effi-
ciency obtained with the traditional method is 25.8% versus 6.3%
when considering variable properties. Since the corresponding Car-
not efficiency is 21.7%, it is obvious that the traditional definition of
the effectiveness leads to unacceptable results. By extension, the
LMTD and e–NTU methods, which are also based on the assumption
of constant properties, should not be used in an analysis such as the
present one.
2.2. Exergy analysis
One limitation of the energy analysis is that it does not consider
the quality of the heat exchange in the vapour generator and in the
condenser. To achieve this, a second law analysis is required. The
final results of this section are the exergetic efficiency of the cycle
and the relative exergy destruction in each component of the sys-
tem. In contrast to the energy analysis where the working fluid
Fig. 4. Specific heat of carbon dioxide versus temperature for different pressures.
mass flow rate is not needed, the exergy analysis requires the mass
flow rates of the working fluid and the coolant in order to charac-
terise the heat transfer processes.
The starting points in the determination of these mass flow
rates are the results of the energy analysis, specifically the value
of the specific net output w. The net power output of the cycle,
W_ tW _ p , is assumed to be equal to a fraction a of the maximum
theoretical power produced by a Carnot engine operating between
the heat source and sink temperatures. This quantity is:
 
T
_ g C Pg ðT g;in  T w;in Þ 1  w;in
_ max ¼ m
W ð12Þ
T g;in
In the last term (Carnot efficiency) the temperatures are in K. For
the conditions under consideration, this maximum theoretical
power is 6897 kW. The mass flow rate of the working fluid is then
calculated by combining Eq. (7) with the definition of a.
_ CO2 ¼
a  W_ max
m ð13Þ
w
It is therefore clear that this mass flow rate depends on two inde-
pendent parameters, the high pressure of the system and the value
of a (or, equivalently, on the net power output of the cycle).
The mass flow rate of the cooling water must also be known to
perform the exergy analysis for the condenser. In the condenser,
two situations are conceivable depending on the state of the work-
ing fluid at the turbine outlet. First, this fluid can be superheated
vapour, dividing the condenser into a single-phase region and a
two-phase region for the carbon dioxide as shown in Fig. 5. In this
situation, a pinch of 3 °C at the saturated vapour point (T 50 ) of CO2
is assumed (T w;as ¼ T 50  3). This assumption guarantees that the
temperature profiles do not intersect. It should be noted that the
saturation lines in Fig. 5 only apply to the CO2 and that the water
is always in the liquid phase. The water mass flow rate is then ob-
tained with the following energy balance applied to the two-phase
region:
Q_ out;2p ¼ m
_ CO2 ðh50  h6 Þ ¼ m
_ w C Pw ðT w;as  T w;in Þ ð14Þ
The exit temperature of the water is then calculated with the fol-
lowing global energy balance for the condenser:
Q_ out ¼ m
_ CO2 ðh5  h6 Þ ¼ m
_ w C Pw ðT w;out  T w;in Þ ð15Þ
In the second situation, the state of the working fluid at the exit of
the turbine falls in the two-phase region. The single-phase region is
then ignored and the 3 °C pinch is assumed at state 5, now situated
in the liquid–vapour region. The global energy balance is then used
to calculate the water mass flow rate. It depends on the same inde-
Fig. 5. Position of minimum temperature difference in the condenser.
 E. Cayer et al. / Applied Energy 86 (2009) 1055–1063 1059

pendent parameters as the mass flow rate of the working fluid and This last equation has the advantage of decreasing significantly the
on the assumed value of the condenser pinch. calculation time and guarantees numerical convergence without the
With all the mass flow rates known, the exergy analysis can be need of very good initial guess values, in opposition to the LMTD meth-
realised by calculating the specific flow exergy at the different od for which the logarithm complicates the numerical resolution.
states in the cycle and at the inlet and exit of the source and sink. The condenser requires a more detailed analysis for the calcula-
With all the preceding assumptions, this quantity is given by the tion of the UA value. As mentioned before, two situations are con-
following simplified expression: ceivable depending on the state of the working fluid at the turbine
e ¼ h  h0  T 0 ðs  s0 Þ ð16Þ outlet. First, when the carbon dioxide is superheated vapour, the
condenser is divided into a single-phase region and a two-phase
The 0 subscripts are relative to the dead state from which no inter- region. Each region is then subdivided in 20 steps with equal en-
action is possible. In the present project, this state is assumed to be thalpy differences for the carbon dioxide. Second, when the state
at 10 °C and at atmospheric pressure. The exergy destruction rates of CO2 at the exit of the turbine falls in the two-phase region, this
can then be calculated for each component from: region is subdivided in 20 steps with equal enthalpy differences
X X
E_ d ¼ _ in ein 
m m _
_ out eout  W ð17Þ and the first one ignored.
i o

Finally, the overall exergetic efficiency is expressed by: 2.4. Calculation of the heat exchangers’ surface
E_ d;tot
gex ¼1
_ g eg;in
ð18Þ The last step of the analysis is to determine the surface A of each
m
heat exchanger. This can be achieved by using the previous results
and specifying some of their geometric parameters in order to eval-
2.3. Finite size thermodynamics analysis uate the convection heat transfer coefficients for the two fluids.
The overall heat transfer coefficient can then be calculated and Ai
The third step in the analysis is the characterisation of the heat is obtained from the previously determined value of UAi. As men-
exchangers. Determination of the UA value (i.e. the product of their tioned before, each heat exchanger is considered as a counter-flow
area and their overall heat transfer coefficient) for each heat ex- shell and tubes with one pass for all the streams. The modeling of
changer is the aim of this step. It uses all the assumptions and re- each heat exchanger is presented separately because of their
sults of the previous two steps as well as the additional inputs particularities.
described in the following paragraphs.
A widely used method [20] of finding UA is by applying the log- 2.4.1. Vapour generator
arithmic mean temperature difference (LMTD) between the inlet The vapour generator transfers the heat from the waste gas to
and outlet of the heat exchanger. However, the LMTD method is the carbon dioxide. The high pressure working fluid flows inside
based on constant properties, an assumption leading to incorrect the tubes and the air flows in the shell. Because of the poor heat
results in the case of supercritical fluids, as mentioned before. An transfer coefficient of air, longitudinal fins are added on the outside
alternative solution consists in discretising the heat exchangers of each tube. The number of tubes and the shell diameter are ob-
so that the properties variation in each step is small and an average tained from the mass balance equations by fixing the minimum
constant value, different for each step, can be assigned to each of velocity at 0.5 m/s for the liquid carbon dioxide and the maximum
them. The discretisation is performed by dividing the overall en- velocity at 30 m/s for the hot entering air. As mentioned before, the
thalpy change for one of the streams in N equal differences Dh. vapour generator is discretised in 20 steps and the properties nec-
For the vapour generator and the condenser this subdivision is ap- essary for the calculation of the corresponding heat transfer coeffi-
plied to the carbon dioxide while in the regenerator it is applied to cients (i.e. the isobaric specific heats, the dynamic viscosities, the
the supercritical flow coming from the pump. The corresponding thermal conductivities and the densities) are evaluated with EES
temperatures and other properties at each intermediate state are at the prevailing local conditions and are used to determine the
then determined from the known enthalpy and pressure. The heat Prandtl and Reynolds numbers as well as the Darcy friction factor.
transfer for each step i as well as the corresponding properties of The heat transfer coefficients are calculated as follows:
the other stream (air in the evaporator, low pressure CO2 in the
regenerator, water in the condenser) and the fractional UAi values – On the air side the Petukhov correlation [21] is applied:
are calculated from the following equations modeling the assumed 2 3
counter-flow configuration: fg
kg 6 8
 Reg  Prg 7
Ug ¼ 4  0:5  21 5 ð21Þ
Q_ i ¼ m
_ f1 ðhf1;iþ1  hf1;i Þ ð19aÞ D fg
12:7  8  Pr g3
þ 1:07
Q_ i ¼ m
_ f2 ðhf2;iþ1  hf2;i Þ ð19bÞ
It is to be noted that the equivalent diameter of the shell must be
   
T f2;iþ1  T f1;i1  T f2;i  T f1;i used in this equation and that the air flow is supposed parallel to
Q_ i ¼ UAi   ð20aÞ the tubes.
ðT f2;iþ1 T f1;iþ1 Þ
ln – On the carbon dioxide side, the Krasnoshchekov–Protopopov
ðT f2;i T f1;i Þ
correlation [22] is employed:
The total UA value for each heat exchanger is the sum of all the UAi. 2 3
A numerical study demonstrated that a discretisation with N = 20 is f
kbulk 6 bulk
 Rebulk  Pr av 7
sufficient to reach step-size independent results for all the three HCO2 ¼ 4 8
 0:5  21 5
heat exchangers. For that number of steps, Eq. (20a) can be simpli- D fbulk
12:7  8  Pr av þ 1:07
3

fied by replacing the LMTD by the difference between the mean




temperatures of each step, expressed by Eq. (20b), without affecting C pav 0:35 K bulk 0:33 lbulk 0:11
   ð22Þ
the results C pbulk K wall lwall
 
T f1;i þ T f1;iþ1 T f2;i  T f2;iþ1
Q_ i ¼ UAi  ð20bÞ This correlation is similar to the one developed by Petukhov, but
2 2 includes corrections to take into account the differences between
1060 E. Cayer et al. / Applied Energy 86 (2009) 1055–1063
the bulk and the wall properties. The heat exchange surfaces of
each side are then calculated using the following equation and
the fins global efficiency:
1 1 1
¼ þ
UAi gfins;i  U g;i  Ag;i U CO2 ;i  ACO2 ;i
In this equation the thermal resistance of the tubes wall is ne-
glected and fouling is not considered. These last assumptions ap-
ply for the other heat exchangers as well.
2.4.2. Condenser
The condenser modeling is similar to the vapour generator with
a few exceptions. The carbon dioxide still flows inside the tubes be-
cause of its higher pressure and the water in the shell. However,
this time the longitudinal fins are positioned inside the tubes be-
cause of the good transfer properties of water and the risk of foul-
ing if fins are installed on the water side. The number of tubes and
the shell diameter are obtained by assuming a minimum velocity
of 1.5 m/s for the saturated liquid carbon dioxide and a maximum
velocity of 3 m/s for the water. The condenser is still divided into
two sections as in the finite size analysis. Petukhov’s correlation
(Eq. (21)) is employed on the water side and for the single-phase
carbon dioxide. For the two-phase region of the CO2, Cavallini’s
correlation [23] is used
ksat liq
U CO2 ¼ 0:05  Re0:8 0:33
eq  Pr sat liq
DCO2
In this equation, the equivalent Reynolds number is given by the
following formulas [23]:
!0:5
lsat vap qsat liq
Reeq ¼ Revap þ Reliq
lsat liq qsat vap
_f
m Dw
Reliq ¼  ð1  xÞ 
Af lsat liq
_f
m Dw
Revap ¼ x
Af lsat vap
2.4.3. Regenerator IHX
Modeling of the regenerator follows the same methodology as
the two preceding heat exchangers. The higher pressure working
fluid from the pump circulates inside the tubes and the lower pres-
sure one from the turbine in the shell. The fins are located inside
the tubes to reduce the regenerator size and facilitate assembly.
The minimum velocity of the cold stream of carbon dioxide is set
to 1.5 m/s and the maximum velocity of the supersaturated CO2
at 10 m/s. Petukhov’s correlation (Eq. (21)) is used for the low pres-
sure carbon dioxide and Krasnoshchekov–Protopopov’s correlation
(Eq. (22)) for the supercritical CO2 coming from the pump.
3. Calculation methodology
With all the modeling equations specified, a global methodol-
ogy has been developed and is schematized in Fig. 6. All of the
equations are implemented in a single EES file. The initial step
establishes the fixed and variable parameters. The fixed ones have
been mentioned in the system description and the variable ones
are the high pressure P3 and the value of a. The maximum cycle
temperature T3 is maintained constant at 95 °C. Then, step 1 is
the energy analysis where the specific net output and the thermal
efficiency are obtained. Step 2 uses the different states of the cycle
from the energy analysis and the source and sink characteristics to
determine the mass flow rate of CO2, the exergy destruction in
ð23Þ
Fig. 6. Global methodology of the cycle analysis.
each component and the exergetic efficiency of the cycle. The re-
sults of the energy analysis enable again to calculate, in step 3,
the total UA of each heat exchanger with the mentioned assump-
tion on the configuration (counter-flow configuration). Finally,
specifying geometric parameters such as fin characteristics and
setting maximum and minimum flow velocities allow the determi-
nation of the overall heat transfer coefficient U and the area of each
ð24Þ
heat exchanger using the UAi from the previous step. This proce-
dure can then be repeated over the variable parameters range in
order to determine their effect on the results.
4. Results and discussion
ð25Þ
In the following paragraphs we present the results of a para-
metric study for the transcritical carbon dioxide cycle using the
ð26Þ model previously described. The parameters specified at the begin-
ning of Section 2 are held constant while the high pressure (P1 = P2
= P3) varies between 9 and 15 MPa and the non-dimensional power
ð27Þ coefficient a (see Eq. (13)) is equal to one of the following two val-
ues: 0.15 and 0.20. These values of a correspond to a net power
output of 1034 and 1379 kW, respectively.
4.1. Energy analysis
Fig. 7 shows the variation of the specific net power output and
thermal efficiency of the cycle, which do not depend on the value
of a, with the high pressure. For high and low values of the inde-
pendent variable, the area of the cycle in the T–S diagram is small
and therefore both w and g tend to zero. In the present case, a max-
imum specific net power output of 18.8 kJ/kg is obtained at a pres-
sure of 11.5 MPa and these values are not affected by the
regenerator. However, at relatively low values of the pressure, this
component has a considerable influence on the thermal efficiency.
The maximum efficiency without a regenerator is 8.4% at a pres-
sure of 13.6 MPa whereas it is 8.6% at a pressure of 11.3 MPa with
it. For pressures higher than approximately 12.8 MPa the regener-
ator can not be used because the temperature at the turbine exit is
lower than the one at the pump outlet. It is important to note that
the pressure which maximises w is not the same as the one which
maximises g. However, a system with regenerator operating at
11.4 MPa constitutes an excellent compromise as far as the specific
net output and the thermal efficiency are concerned.
4.2. Exergy results
In opposition to the results of the previous section, the results of
the exergy analysis are influenced by the values of both the high
 E. Cayer et al. / Applied Energy 86 (2009) 1055–1063 1061

0,15 Specific output 19

netoutput
Specific net
0,14 η withoutIHX

Specific Net Output(kJ/kg)

η withIHX 18,5
0,13

Themal Efficiency
0,12 18

0,11
17,5
0,1
17
0,09

0,08 16,5
0,07
16
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
High Pressure (MPa)

Fig. 7. Specific net power output and thermal efficiency.

pressure and a (or, equivalently, by the net power output). For 4.3. Finite size thermodynamics results
a = 0.15 and 0.2, Fig. 8 shows respectively a maximum exergetic
efficiency of 63.4% and 58.1% at a pressure of 13.5 MPa without Fig. 9 shows the variation of the total UA (sum of the corre-
the regenerator and a maximum exergetic efficiency of 64.6% and sponding values for the vapour generator, the condenser and the
59.4% at a pressure of 11.3 MPa with this component. These values regenerator) with the high pressure for a system with and without
of the high pressure are very close to the ones maximising the ther- regenerator and the two values of a under consideration. Each
mal efficiency. In addition, the effect of the regenerator is the curve without regenerator presents a clear minimum which is
same: its inclusion in the system increases gex and lowers the value equal to 3357 kW/K at a high pressure of 11.61 MPa for a = 0.15
of the high pressure corresponding to the maximum exergetic effi- and 4724 kW/K at a high pressure of 11.58 MPa for a = 0.2. With
ciency. Therefore the regenerator has a beneficial effect on the the regenerator, the UA is significantly higher which means that
optimizing high pressure but its effect on the two efficiencies is the new UA added by the regenerator is not fully compensated
not significant. Indeed, the relative increase of the thermal and by a reduction at the vapour generator. The observed drastic drop
exergetic efficiencies is roughly 2% with the addition of the regen- between 12.5 and 13 MPa happens when the high pressure is
erator for the conditions under study. Fig. 8 also shows that as a important enough to induce a turbine outlet temperature higher
increases the exergetic efficiency decreases. In other words, when than the one at the pump outlet. The regenerator is then omitted
the net power output extracted from a fixed and limited heat and the UA values are those for a system without regenerator.
source increases the total exergy destruction increases as well. This Other observations are that the total UA increases with a and that
effect is due to the increase of the working fluid mass flow rate the optimum value of the high pressure is essentially independent
with a, which in turn increases the exergy destruction in the heat of a. Furthermore, the optimum value of the high pressure without
exchangers. Moreover, the high pressure which maximises gex re- regenerator is approximately 2 MPa lower than the value of P3
mains relatively constant for the two values of a under which maximises the thermal and exergetic efficiencies but quite
consideration. close to the one which maximises the specific net output. It is also
An exergy destruction distribution analysis showed that around important to notice that each of the four curves presents an aug-
50% of the irreversibility takes place in the vapour generator, 27% mentation of UA at low and high pressures. This phenomenon is
in the turbine, 11% in the condenser, 7% in the pump and less than explained by Fig. 7, which shows that the specific net output tends
5% in the regenerator. This distribution is essentially the same for to zero at low and high pressures. In order to achieve the fixed net
all values of the high pressure and a. In view of these results, ef- power output, the mass flow rate of the working fluid must there-
forts should be made to improve the temperature matching be- fore increase and this in turn increases significantly the UA. It must
tween the heat source and the working fluid in the evaporator.

6000
0,64 α = 0.20 without IHX
α = 0.20 with IHX
0,62 5500
Exergetic Efficiency

Total UA (kW/K)

0,6
5000
0,58
4500
0,56 α = 0.15 without IHX
α = 0.15 with IHX
0,54 α =0.2 without IHX 4000
α =0.2 with IHX
0,52 α =0.15 without IHX
3500
α =0.15 with IHX
0,5
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
High Pressure (MPa) High Pressure(MPa)

Fig. 8. Exergetic efficiencies with and without regenerator. Fig. 9. Total UA values for systems with and without regenerator.
1062 E. Cayer et al. / Applied Energy 86 (2009) 1055–1063
α = 0.20 without IHX
1800
α = 0.20 with IHX
1500
Total area (m )
2
α = 0.15 without IHX
1200
α = 0.15 with IHX
900
9 10 11 12 13 14
High Pressure(MPa)
Fig. 10. Total heat exchange surface for systems with and without regenerator.
also be noted that as a and the mass flow rate of the working fluid
increase, the temperature of the air at the exit of the vapour gen-
erator decreases and approaches the entrance temperature T2 of
the CO2. Since the former can not become lower than T2, this con-
dition implies the existence of an upper bound for a value of a. For
the present conditions, the maximum value of a is near 0.28 or,
equivalently, the corresponding maximum net power output of
the system is approximately 1930 kW.
4.4. Heat exchange surface
The total heat exchange surfaces (sum of the corresponding val-
ues for the vapour generator, the condenser and the regenerator)
are plotted in Fig. 10 for a system with and without regenerator.
These results are similar to those for UA (see Fig. 9). Again, the total
A increases with a and each curve without regenerator presents a
minimum which is 933 m2 at 11.54 MPa for a = 0.15 and
1409 m2 at 11.46 MPa for a = 0.20. With the regenerator, the total
heat exchange surfaces are significantly higher and again, an
important drop occurs at the pressure where this component is
withdrawn. Thus, in all cases, the variation of a does not have a sig-
nificant effect on the optimizing high pressure for the values of a
under consideration. These values of the high pressure are compa-
rable to the ones optimizing the total UA.
5. Conclusions
A methodology involving the first and second law of thermody-
namics, a modified LMTD method and heat transfer correlations
has been applied to analyse the performance of a CO2 transcritical
cycle using low enthalpy waste heat as its energy source. The
transcritical cycle was chosen because it shows a good potential
of converting heat from a sensible heat source into electricity ow-
ing to its variable temperature phase change in the vapour gener-
ator. The CO2 was chosen on account of its good thermodynamic,
economic and environmental properties.
The methodology has been applied for a case for which the heat
source temperature and mass flow rate are 100 °C and 314.5 kg/s,
respectively, the heat sink is water at 10 °C while the maximum
and minimum temperatures of the CO2 are 95 °C and 15 °C, respec-
tively. The high pressure of the cycle and its net power output (or,
in nondimensional formulation, the value of a) are independent
parameters whose values have upper and lower bounds. The calcu-
lated results include the specific net output, the thermal and exer-
getic efficiencies as well as the total surface of the system’s heat
exchangers. The main results are as follows:
 The value of a does not influence the specific net power output
and the thermal efficiency but it affects the exergetic efficiency,
the UA and the total surface of the system’s heat exchangers.
 A pressure of approximately 13.5 MPa maximises the thermal
and exergetic efficiencies without regenerator while a value of
11.5 MPa maximises the specific net power output. It is to be
noted here that in a context of a free heat source like industrial
waste gases, the focus should be on maximising the specific net
output instead of the thermal efficiency.
 The inclusion of a regenerator improves marginally the two effi-
ciencies but has no effect on the specific net power output; how-
ever the regenerator lowers the pressures for which the two
efficiencies reach their maximum values. On the other hand, this
15 component increased significantly the minimum UA and total
heat exchange surface. Based on these conflicting influences
alone, it is difficult to decide on the appropriateness of incorpo-
rating a regenerator in the system.
 The exergetic efficiency decreases with the increase of the net
power output extracted from the fixed and limited heat
source.
 For systems not including a regenerator, similar values of the
pressure minimise the product UA and the total surface of the
heat exchangers; these pressures are significantly lower than
the ones maximising the thermal and exergetic efficiencies but
close to the one maximising the specific net power output.
 The high pressures minimising the product UA and the surface of
the heat exchangers are essentially independent of the net
power output.
These results provide more information than a simple energy
and exergy analysis which is often used to evaluate the potential
of different cycles and fluids for the conversion of low-temperature
heat sources into electricity.
Acknowledgements
This project is part of the R&D program of the NSERC Chair in
Industrial Energy Efficiency established in 2006 at Université de
Sherbrooke. The authors acknowledge the support of the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Hydro Qué-
bec, Alcan International Ltd. and CANMET Energy Technology
Center.
References
[1] Clayton M. New coal plants bury Kyoto. Energy Bull 2004 (26 December).
[2] Stricker Associates Inc. Market study on waste heat and requirements for
cooling and refrigeration in Canadian industry; 2006.
[3] Hung TC, Shai TY, Wang SK. A review of organic Rankine cycles (ORCs) for the
recovery of low-grade waste heat. Energy 1997;22(7):661–7.
[4] Chen Y. Novel cycles using carbon dioxide as working fluid. Licentiate thesis.
Stockholm, Sweden: School of Industrial Engineering and Management; 2006.
[5] Kalina AI. Combined-cycle system with novel bottoming cycle. J Eng Gas Turb
Power 1984;106:737–42.
[6] Feher EG. The supercritical thermodynamic power cycle. Energy Convers
1968;8:85–90.
[7] Tsiklauri G, Talbert R, Schmitt B, Filippov G, Bogoyavlensky R, Grishanin E.
Supercritical steam cycles for nuclear power plant. Nucl Eng Des
2005;235(15):1651–64.
[8] Dostal V, Driscoll MJ, Hejzlar P, Todreas NE. A supercritical CO2 gas turbine
power cycle for next-generation nuclear reactors. In: Proceedings of ICONE 10,
10th international conference on nuclear engineering, Arlington, Virginia: 14–
18 April, 2002.
[9] Kato Y, Nitawaki T, Muto Y. Medium temperature carbon dioxide gas turbine
reactor. Nucl Eng Des 2004;230:195–207.
[10] Goldsberry FL. The variable pressure supercritical Rankine cycle for integrated
natural gas and power production from the geopressured geothermal
resource. Houston Texas: Geopressure Projects Office; 1982.
[11] Maghiar T, Antal C. Power generation from low-enthalpy geothermal
resources. GHC Bull 2001. June.
[12] Gu Z, Sato H. Performance of supercritical cycles for geothermal binary design.
Energy Convers Manage 2002;43(7):961–71.
 E. Cayer et al. / Applied Energy 86 (2009) 1055–1063
[13] Zhang XR, Yamaguchi H, Fujima K, Enomoto M, Sawada N. Theoretical analysis
of a thermodynamic cycle for power and heat production using supercritical
carbon dioxide. Energy 2007;32(4):591–9.
[14] Yamaguchi H, Zhang XR, Fujima K, Sawada N. Solar energy powered Rankine
cycle using supercritical CO2. Appl Therm Eng 2006;26(17–18):2345–54.
[15] Chen Y, Lundqvist P, Platell P. Theoretical research of carbon dioxide power
cycle application in automobile industry to reduce vehicle’s fuel consumption.
Appl Therm Eng 2005;25(14–15):2041–53.
[16] Chen Y, Lundqvist P, Johansson A, Platell P. A comparative study of the carbon
dioxide transcritical power cycle compared with an organic Rankine cycle with
R123 as working fluid in waste heat recovery. Appl Therm Eng 2006;26(17–
18):2142–7.
[17] Calm JM, Hourahan GC. Refrigerant data summary. Eng Syst 2001;18(11):
74–88.
1063
[18] Klein SA. Engineering equation solver (EES). Academic Commercial V7.
933. McGraw Hill; 2007.
[19] Lemmon EW, Mclinden MO, Huber ML. Reference fluid thermodynamic and
transport properties (REFPROP). NIST Standard Reference Database 23, Version
7.0; 2002.
[20] Madhawa Hettiarachchi MD, Golubovic M, Worek W, Ikegami Y. The
performance of the Kalina cycle system (KCS-11) with low-temperature heat
sources. ASME-JERT 2007;129:243–7.
[21] Incropera FP, Dewitt DP. Fundamentals of heat and mass transfer. 5th ed. New
York: John Wiley and Sons; 2002.
[22] Pioro IL, Khartabil HF, Duffey RB. Heat transfer to supercritical fluids flowing in
channels – empirical correlations (survey). Nucl Eng Des 2004;230:69–91.
[23] Kakaç S, Liu H. Heat exchangers: selection, rating and thermal design. 2nd
ed. New York: CRC Press; 2002.