INDUSTRIAL HEAT RECOVERYIWITH ORGANIC RANKINE CYCLES

J. G. Hnat
J. S. Patten
L. M. Bartone
J. C. Cutting
Gilbert/Commonwealth
Reading, Pennsylvania
ABSTRACT
Rising energy costs are encouraging energy intensive industries
to investigate alternative means of waste heat recovery from
process streams. The use of organic fluids in Rankine cycles offers
improved potential for economical cogeneration from waste heat
at lower temperatures than can be provided using more conven
tional steam systems. This paper reviews a variety of organic
Rank ine cycles developed for industrial waste heat recovery. The
status of industrial experience is reported where data are available.
Several examples of industrial cogeneration applications are
presented with an assessment of their technical and economic
limitations.
INTRODUCTION
The use of organic Rankine cycles (ORC's) as a means of
recovering industrial waste heat is under active investigation by
both government and industry in the United States as well as other
countries. The importance of this new generation of heat recovery
technology stems from the fact that it offers potential for eco
nomical waste heat recovery at lower temperatures than was
previously possible. The primary applications are in the generation
of electrical or mechanical power in situations where there is
little demand for process steam.
Operating experience has been gained with laboratory units
as well as full scale industrial installations with waste heat stream
temperatures ranging from 140-11 OOF. For the lower range of
temperatures (140-450F), heat recovery has been principally
from liquids and condensing fluids. For the higher temperature
range (450-1100F), heat recovery has been primarily from furnace
or process heater flue gases.
With proper selection of the organic fluid, it is possible to
enhance the energy conversion efficiency by tailoring the ORC
heat recovery cycle to the thermodynamic characteristics of the
waste heat stream. More than 50 different working fluids have
been theoretically evaluated. However, for each working fluid, a
specific design of the turbomachinery must be developed.
Practical economic constraints or safety considerations have
limited integrated operating experience to about a dozen different
working fluids. Refrigerants such as R-ll, R-12, R-22, R-113 and
R-114 have been used for low temperature applications, while
fluids such as toluene and fluorinol/water mixtures have been used
with the higher temperature waste heat sources.
This paper provides a brief overview of the use of organic
Rankine cycles for industrial heat recovery. The major technical
considerations relating to ORC system design are first discussed.
This is followed by a status review of industrial heat recovery with
organic Rankine cycles. Finally, five specific industrial waste heat
recovery applications are examined. The cases examined were
submitted to approximately 20 ORC system manufacturers for
estimates of recommended system performance cost. A
summary of the responses to this survey is included i the case
study evaluations.
ORC SYSTEM DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The system efficiency and cost of ORC heat recove y systems
will depend to a large extent on three major factors., They are
a) the selection of the working fluid, b) the mechanica' design of
the prime mover (most often turbomachinery), and c) ,he design
of the vaporizer. To discuss these system design consIderations,
it is convenient to examine a specific application of the use of
an ORC heat recovery system and compare it to a stear), Rankine
cycle heat recovery system. The particular application is
heat recovery from diesel engine exhaust gas at a temPErature of
700F. Figure 1 shows the basic components of an uRC heat
recovery system using toluene as the working fluid. the corre
sponding diagram for a steam Rankine cycle heat recov ry system
is shown in Figure 2. In both cycles, the working fluid is,vaporized
and superheated ina flue gas heat recovery su bsystem. he super
heated fluid is expanded through a turbine for power p oduction,
condensed in a water cooled condenser and return d to the
vaporizer via feed pu mps. In the steam cycle, a port n of the
Figure 1. Process diagram for organic rankine cycle heat recovery ystem using
toluene as the working fluid.
Fan
I
130"F
2.16' psia
Flue
to
ing
'---+_;.-Water
340"F
2.60 psia
133"F
260 psia
Boost Pump
500F
200 psia
Su perheater
Turbine
700F
Flue Gas Diverting Valve
from
Diesel
524
ESL-IE-82-04-102
Proceedings from the Fourth Industrial Energy Technology Conference, Houston, TX, April 4-7, 1982
Flue Gas
Flue Gas Diverting Valve to
from --IB .- S.. tack
525 psia
215F
Deaerator
,..-_...."r- Generator
Condenser :.:W:..:a",te::,:.r-,.o:;;;;;....,
Diesel
Boiler Feed
Pump
Figure 2. Process diagram for steam rankine cycle heat recovery system
{medium pressure steaml.
steam generated is used for operation of a deaerator. With the
ORC, a regenerator is used to recover sensible heat from the
toluene vapor exiting the turbine, since it remains superheated
after expansion through the turbine. The cycle data presented in
Figures 1 and 2, therefore, provide a basis for the discussions
which follow.
Figure 3a. Toluene T-S cycle diagram.
700
600
500
If
400
I
300
200
40F 6T
Jo
~
<t'
~
",<5;
~ pump1 =80%
6 Condenser
5,F-----------(,
.3 -.2 .1 o .1 .2
Entropy - Btu/lboR
200
100 ! - ~ C o o l i n g water
L----,-
-200 -150 100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
Specific Enthalpy - Btu/lb
Figure 3b. Toluene T-H cycle diagram.
Cycle Efficiency and Heat Recovery Performance
Because each candidate working fluid has a unique set of
thermodynamic properties, it follows that the Rankine cycle
efficiency for each will be different. With specified temperature
limits for the heat source and heat sink, it is theoretically possible
to select an organic working fluid which will optimize the energy
conversion performance. I n this regard, the characteristics of the
vapor dome have a major influence on the energy which can be
recovered in a Rankine cycle. For example, Figures 3 and 4
compare the state points and performance of heat recovery
Rankine cycles using toluene and steam, respectively. The waste
heat source is assumed to be 700F flue gas from a diesel engine
exhaust. The minimum allowable flue gas temperature is 300F,
which is constrained by considerations of 503 condensation and
corrosion in the vaporizer. In comparing the two cycles, note that
the abscissa scales for the steam and toluene working fluids, on the
temperature-enthalpy diagram, are substantially different due to
the large heat of vaporization of water compared to toluene.
With flue gas heat recovery it is common to fix the pinch
point at the exit of the economizer since the gas side heat transfer
is generally constrained by this parameter. Note that with the
40F pinch specified for th is analysis, neither system can recover
the full waste heat potential of the flue gas, I.e., the sensible heat
available between 700F and 30QF. I n this case, the toluene
working fluid is able to recover energy from the waste gas down to
a temperature of 345F, while the minimum exhaust temperature
for steam cycle is 435F. Therefore, the heat recovery efficiency
of the ORC is 89 percent versus 66 percent for the steam cycle.
As seen from the above example, the heat recovery potential of
working fluids can vary substantially and is a major reason for
the use of organic fluids for low temperature heat recovery.
To recover additional energy from the flue gas, either the
pinch temperature constraint would have to be lowered or the
evaporator pressure reduced to lower the evaporator operating
temperature. The first option will increase evaporator size and cost
while the second will reduce the maximum cycle temperature
and lower system efficiency. The Rankine cycle efficiencies for
the toluene and steam heat recovery systems are 24 percent and
19 percent respectively, indicating that the organic fluid will be
able to convert a greater portion of the heat absorbed to mechan
ical or electrical power.
700
600
500
525
~ . 't
100
ESL-IE-82-04-102
Proceedings from the Fourth Industrial Energy Technology Conference, Houston, TX, April 4-7, 1982
------
I
Turbomachinery Design
Referring to the expansion processes depicted in Figures 3
and 4, the steam and toluene working fluids are observed to
experience enthalpy drops of 230 Btu/lb and 60 Btu/lb, respec
tively. Steam turbines are conventionally designed for enthalpy
drops on the order of 200-400 Btu/lb while turbines designed for
organic fluids generally experience drops between 30-100 Btu/lb,
e.g., see Table I. Turbomachine design practice limits the drop
per stage to approximately 40 Btu/lb, for most fluids, so that
nozzle velocities and wheel speeds can be kept within design
limits. With the higher enthalpy drop required for the steam tur
bine and the specified limit of 40 Btu/lb per stage, an efficient
steam turbine would require 6 stages while an efficient organic
turbine could be a one or two stage machine. Therefore, in
general, steam turbines will be more complex and costly than the
corresponding organic turbine for this application.
In contrast to the reduced number of stages needed to
accommodate the required enthalpy drop, the use of an organic
fluid necessitates a larger mass flow rate to remove a specified
amount of heat from the flue gas. This increased mass flow
requ irement can translate to larger size vaporizers and turbo
machines. However, the large molecular weight of some organic
fluids and operation at elevated turbine exhaust pressures can
partially compensate for this disadvantage.
Another aspect influencing the design of the turbine and
heat recovery system is the nature of the vapor expansion itself.
For example, toluene does not condense and, in fact, is super
heated during the expansion. The dry expansion minimizes
problems with turbine corrosion but may demand the use of a
regenerator for efficient heat utilization. Fluids with positive
sloping saturated vapor T-S curves such as R-113 and toluene are
Figure 4a. Steam T-S cycle diagram.
700
600
500
!l'
400
I


f!
..
Co
E 300
..
I
200
""'-----,--T--'--'--"'---" ---,-----,
o .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Specific Entropy - Btu/lb-oR
-- -- -- Water
I
I
classified as drying fluids; that is, they are superhered during
expansion. Conversely, fluids with negative slopes, su as water
and methanol, are classified as wetting fluids since the condense
during expansion. Fluorinal-85 and 2-methylpyriaine/water
mixtures can be either wetting or drying, on the
cycle conditions. I
In addition to the shape of the vapor dome, thelmaximum
temperature for fluid stability must be considered. Thejmaximum
stability temperature limits the maximum cycle tqmperature
and restricts the use of organic fluids for high waste
heat applications. I
I
Vaporizer Design
I
The vaporizer design is critical with regard to the
and cost of ORC heat recovery systems. The surface area require
ments are dictated to a large extent by pinch point
and the fouling nature of the flue gas stream. In adtlition, the
relatively low liquid film he<lt transfer coefficients fr organic
fluids the required heat tran er surface
area. ThiS latter consideration IS perhaps more import nt in heat
recovery from liquids and condensing vapors than in he t recovery
from flue gases. In the latter case, the gas side heat transfer is
generally the limiting factor on heat exchanger sizi g. As an
indicati?n of the relative magnitudes of the liquid transfer
properties, Table I shows the calculated film coefVcients of
several working fluids for flow at 5 ft/s in a 1-inch at 200F.
Water has the highest film coefficient, the freons have lhe lowest
values, and the remaining organics fall between these
Material selection for the vaporizer, on the oth r hand, is
determined primarily by the operating temperature an, corrosive
nature of the waste heat stream as well as the nature of
the working fluid. In some applications, such as recovery
from acid liquids or flue gases containing S03, the desi n and cost
of the vaporizer will be strongly influenced by corr sion con
siderations. I
In almost all industrial heat recovery applications,lthe design
of the vaporizer must be carefully considered if cost effective and
reliable operation is to be achieved. Typical vaporizer
I
Figure 4b. Steam T-H cycle diagram.
I
526
700 ]
600
500
!l'
400


f!
..
Co
300
E
..
I
200
Evaporator
100
3__ __ 2 "'"'"= _
200 400 600 800 1000 12f 1400
Specific Enthalpy - Btu/lb I
100
ESL-IE-82-04-102
Proceedings from the Fourth Industrial Energy Technology Conference, Houston, TX, April 4-7, 1982
vary between 10 and 30 percent of the total ORC heat recovery
system cost, depending on the nature of the waste heat stream.
Environmental, Safety and Other Factors
In addition to the thermodynamic, physical and transport
properties which influence heat recovery performance and cycle
efficiency, the selection of a working fluid is impacted by a
number of other factors. Some of these factors include flam
mability characteristics, toxicity, environmental impact, materials
compatibility and cost. Anyone of these practical considerations
can have a major influence on the selection of a working fluid.
In this regard, fear of the use of toxic or flammable working fluids
has been a major deterrent to the use of organic fluids in some
industrial heat recovery applications.
As can be seen from these discussions, a wide variety of
criteria and factors can influence a vendor's decision regarding
selection of a working fluid for a specific heat recovery applica
tion. The criteria for selection are not well defined and differences
of opinion are very likely to occur. From the perspective of a
potential industrial user, demonstrated operating experience with
a specific fluid will weigh heavily in any decision regarding selec
tion of a system for an industrial installation. For more detailed
discussions on the selection of organic working fluids for heat
recovery applications, see References 41-45.
STATUS OF ORC TECHNOLOGY FOR INDUSTRIAL HEAT
RECOVERY
Organic Rankine cycles have been under active development
for more than 20 years. Some of the earlier systems were devel
oped for space, undersea, military and remote site solar and
power pack applications where the availability of power was a
more important factor than the economics of power generation.
These systems were generally small in capacity, ranging from
about 0.1 kW to 300 kW. I n the 1970's, when the cost of energy
as well as its availability for industrial use increased in importance,
substantial government support was given to the development of
organic Rankine cycles for solar and geothermal applications.
To a lesser extent, ORC's were developed for industrial heat
recovery.
Interest in the use of organic Rankine cycles for cogeneration
from industrial waste heat heightened in the mid-1970's with
increased concern over rising energy costs. However, the status of
the technologies in terms of commercial availability for heat
recovery is still not clearly defined. A number of full scale ORC
heat recovery systems have been installed and are currently
operating. The installations have generally required a substantial
amount of engineering design to insure proper system integration.
These engineering requirements stem from the demand to have
1) a primary heat exchange device that will operate reliably with
a specific waste heat stream, 2) a system that will not interrupt
process operations during a failure of the heat recovery unit,
3) a practical integration of the heat recovery system into the
TABLE I
COMPARISON OF FLUID PHYSICAL AND THERMODYNAMIC PROPERTIES
Substance Water Methanol
2 Methyl
Pyridine/H20
Fluorinol
85 Freon R-11 Freon R-113
Molecular Weight
Ib/lb mole
18 32 33 88 92 137 187
Boiling Point at
1 ATM (NBPT)
F 212 148 200 168 231 75 118
NBPT Saturated Vapor
Specific Volume
ft
3
/lb
m
27.0 12.8 14.0 5.0 5.4 2.7 2.2
Maximum Stability
Temperature
F 350-450 700-750 550-625 750-800 300-350 350-450
I-Factor 2.81 2.16 1.43 1.26 0.66 1.04 0.69
Liquid Film
Coefficient (200F)
Btu/hr-ft
2
-F 1640 585 475 425 375 315 290
Isentropic Turbine
Enthalpy Drop
Btu/Ibm 150-500 70-130 80-230 30-80 50-100 10-20 10-20
Note: The I-Factor is defined as ~ f ~ , where Hfg is the heat of vaporization, C
p
the specific heat of the gas at constant pressure and T
is the operating temperature9n absolute degrees, I-Factor <:: 1 implies a dry expansion, '-Factor ~ 1 implies a wet expansion. The
data given in this table were obtained from Reference 43.
527
ESL-IE-82-04-102
Proceedings from the Fourth Industrial Energy Technology Conference, Houston, TX, April 4-7, 1982
process facility within eXisting space or other site specific con
straints, 4) a design of the heat recovery device to match the
available waste heat load and 5) a design of the power conversion
device to match the vaporizer performance based on the available
heat load.
Many of the ORC systems have been developed by manu
facturers that are well known for their design of prime movers and
power conversion systems. In this regard, a number of the prime
mover designs have been outstanding. However, the mqjor engi
neering stumbling block for economical heat recovery with ORC's
often resides with the design and operation of the primary heat
exchange devices.
Aside from the technical aspects previously discussed, the
economics of the investment are also strongly dependent on such
factors as site specific utility rates, interest rates, tax incentives,
depreciation rates, etc. In addition, because the industrial pro
cesses themselves are so diverse, each installation, to a large
extent, becomes a demonstration project with special engineering
and operating requirements.
Approximately two dozen manufacturers who have been
involved with the development of organic Rankine cycles were
contacted to obtain inputs with regard to the status and use of
organic Rankine cycles for industrial waste heat recovery. Several
representative cases of the use of organic Rankine cycles for
industrial waste heat recovery were submitted to these organiza
tions for their consideration. The following section describes these
cases and the responses received. Table 2 summarizes the results
of the survey.
CASE STUDIES OF POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS
Five commercial applications of waste heat recovery from
industrial process streams were investigated by Gilbert/Common
wealth (G/C) as part of an ORC applications study. Process data
for the heat sources were supplied to twenty ORC vendors who
were requested to respond with design, performance, and cost data
for ORC systems which they could supply. Since the condensing
temperature of the working fluid has a significant effect on system
performance, the same heat sink was used for all applications. The
heat sink was assumed to be water from a wet cooling tower with
a temperature rise of 25F (85F water entering the ORC condenser
and 110F exiting). A general simplified schematic of an ORC heat
recovery system was previously shown in Figure 1. Depending on
the expansion characteristics of the working fluid (i.e., whether it
expands through the turbine to a dry or wet condition), a super
heater and regenerator mayor may not be utilized. The applica
tions examined as part of the study involved heat recovery from
hot liqu ids, condensing vapors and exhaust flue gases. The five
specific cases which were examined are summarized below.
Case 1; Heat Recovery from a Hot Liquid (Sulfuric Acid)
A majority of present day sulfuric acid plants utilize the
contact process. The essential steps of this process entail passing
a mixture of sulfur dioxide over a catalyst to form sulfur trioxide.
The sulfur trioxide formed is then absorbed in a 98.5 to 99.0
percent su Ifuric acid solution. A necessary step in the production
process is the requ irement to cool 92-99 percent su Ifuric acid
from 220F to 165F. The Case 1 application assumes the heat
given up by the sulfuric acid during the cooling process is used
to drive a low temperature ORC.
A demonstration of ORC heat recovery from sulfuric acid
plants has been reported in the technical literature. In Refer
ence 2, a net power output of 560 kW is reported for heat
recovery from 927,000 Ib/hr of sulfuric acid at 240F with R-113
I
as the working fluid. Reference 10 presents a systems for
a larger plant with 3500 kW of gross power being from
5,420,000 Ib/hr of sulfuric acid at 220F with R-114 as the
working fluid. Data from this second reference was used for the
present applications study. The potential heat recovery from the
sulfuric acid amounts to 122 x 106 Btu/hr with an H2S04 exit
temperature of 165 F.
Responses to the marketing survey revealed five potential
vendors for the Case 1 application. Estimated net po r output
varied between 1.2 MW and 1.7 MW, and the estimated
costs were in the range of $1500/kW to $3000/kW. The working
fluids recommended were R-l1, R-113 and R-114. A major factor
influencing the installed costs of the ORC heat recovery system is
the heat exchanger. Design of the unit for various degrees of
effectiveness and corrosiveness can influence the total slstem cost
by 20 percent. Aside from the heat exchanger design the wide
range in quoted performances and costs suggests a car ful evalu
ation of the total system design for site specific ap Iications.
Performance calculations conducted by G/C indicate a et power
output of about 1315 kW with R-114 as the working flu
Pressure Case 2: Heat Recover
In a large chemical complex, a substantial amount of
saturated steam (120,000 Ib/hr at 15 psig, 250F) was being
exhausted from a back pressure turbine. The steam turbine
generator systems of the facility were originally designed to meet
the electric power demands of the chemical complex ard, at the
time of the installation, there was no strong economic to
generate excess power for sale to the utility. With the1advent of
the new PURPA regulations, the chemical company began investi
gating various means of cogenerating electric power.. The two
cogeneration alternatives considered were the use ORC 0t an
heat recovery system versus the use of a low press re steam
condensing turbine.
The response to the survey indicated four potentilll vendors
were interested in this application. Estimated net power genera
tion with ORC's were in the range of 3000 kW to 3700 kW,
and the total installation costs varied between $1621/kW and
$1817/kW. The working fluids recommended were either R-ll or
R-113. An estimate of net power generation by G/C 3110 kW
with an R-ll working fluid.
I
Analysis of the low pressure condensing steam option
indicated strong support for its use in lieu of an OR . The cal
culated net power output of the steam turbine-generat r is 3815
kW, and the estimated installed cost is $1218/kW. side from
performance and cost advantage for electric power gene ation, the
condensing steam turbine provides a means of conserving water
and reducing the water treatment load for the stearn boilers.
The use of a condensing steam turbine is convenient this case
because of the clean steam which is available. If coritaminated
steam were instead available, the ORC's would further
examination. .
Case 3: Heat Recovery from a Condensing Vapor (HYflrocarbon
Vapor)
i
Hydrocarbon distillation processes in all refineries require the
condensation of light hydrocarbon/steam vapor mixtut.es for the
production of liquid fuels. Typically this is done wit large air
blown heat exchangers and/or with boi ler feedwat r heaters.
In Case 3, an ORC is used to replace the air blown heat exchangers
and/or feedwater heaters for the condensation of light hydro
carbon vapors from crude tower overhead lines. The data
is for a small 14 x 106 bbl/year oil refinery. The waste stream
528
ESL-IE-82-04-102
Proceedings from the Fourth Industrial Energy Technology Conference, Houston, TX, April 4-7, 1982
TABLE 2
INDUSTRIAL HEAT RECOYERY EXPERieNCE WITH ORGANIC RANKINE CYCLES
NUMBER OF
INDUSTRIALI
UTILITY
INDUSTRIAL UTILITY WASTE HEAT OTHER UNlT HEAT RECOYERY
MANUFACTURER ~
WASTE HEAT SOURCE TEMPERATURE ENERGY SOURCES TYPE ENGINE WORKING FLUIDS RATING INSTALLATIONS REFERENCES REMARKS
AEROJET USA CEMENT KILN FLUE GAS IOO-IOOOF TURBINE 2-METHYLPYRIDINE 31ooK'I' 0 1 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FOR OOE,
400,000 LB/HR 21W:. THERMAL eFFICIENCY, ORC
AFI uSA-JAPAN SULFURIC ACID 240F TURBINE R-133A %OK'I'
,
2-]
'l'AS NOT FA8RICATED
AFIIS A PARTNERSHIP CORPORA.
SATURATED STEAM
WET STEAM
304-316F
266F
19OKW. j()()K"
.7)K..
TtON FORMED BY FOSTER-WHEELER
AND I5HIKAWAJIMA-HARIMA
XYLENE YAPOR 223-307 R1I 38ooK" HEAYY INDUSTRIES. LTD.
A 3S00KW UNIT HAS BEEN I ~
OPERATION SINCE 1961.
B... RBER-NICHOLS USA SOL"'R HE'"TED TURBINE R-12 1.'-9OOK. 0-' APPLICATIONS INCLUDE SOL"'R
HOT .....TER "'NOOIL R-IIJ U-.OK" POWERED AIR CONDITIONING,
(J00-6'OF), R-114 &OK. "ATER CHILLERS. IRRIGATION
GEOTHERM...l IS08UT"'NE 6O-SOOKW PUMPS, GEOTHERMAL POWER
BRINE (300-'COF) PRODUCTION.
BERTIN ltCIE FRANCE DIESEL EXHAUST 700-IOOF TURBINE Fcn 1I70KW 10 EXPECTED oPERATION OF 1170K"
SOLAR HEATED Fcn JOK. UNIT IN MARCH 1982
OIL (.sOF)
DORNIER SYSTEMS WEST GERMANY SOLAR COLLECTORS TURBINE R-II' I'K. II NO RESPONSE TO INQUIRIES
FIAT ITALY EXPeRIMENTAL TURBINE R-II 260KW I 12 NO RESPONSE TO lNQUIRIES
COMBUSTOR PERFLUOROHEXANE
(670F)
FORD ...EROSP"'CE It USA SOLAR COLLECTORS TURBINE TOLUENE 2.5KW Il POWER CONVERSION SYSTEM DESIGNED
COMMUNICATIONS CORP.
FOSTER MILLER USA HOT"ATER FROM GASEOUS Jl'O-I80f RECIPROCATING R-22 70K" 1 ..
AND BUILT BY BARBER-NICHOLS.
DEYELOPMENTAL H"'RDW"'RE, EXPECTED
DIFFUSION PLANT ENGlNE. INTEGRATED OPERATION IN 1912.
RANKINE-RANKINE
REFRIGERATION
UNIT
GARRET CORPORATION USA SOL... R COLLECTORS TURBINE R-II 4.'-Il'KW lI," DEVELOPMENTAL HARDWARE
V1
N
GENERAL ELECTRIC
HlTACHI
USA
JAPAN DIRECT FIRED AND EXHAUST "O-.,OOF
SOLAR COLLECTORS,
2.50F HOT ......TER
TURBINE FOR
HEAT PUMP
ABSORPTION
FREONS
LITHIUM BROMIDE
O.'I.,KW
U-22'KW
I'
17,11
DEVELOPMENTAL HARDW...RE
NUMBER OF INSTALLATIONS NOT KNOWN
'""
FLUE GAS CHILLERHEATER SOLUTiON 1000KW
15T1TUTO 01
MACCHINE
IT... LY CERAMIC TUNNEL KILN 0_
GEOTHERM"'L "'ND
TURBlNE C:zCl, 40KW
3-)OK.
1
]
19-21 DeSIGNED PROTOTYPES, BUT CANNOT
SUPPLY COMMERCIAL ORC SYSTEMS
SOLAR HEATED
WATER
MESSERSCHMITT WEST GERMANY SOLAR HE"'TED TURBINE TOLUENE 10-IOOKW 22-2lf CURRENTLY INYEST1GATING WASTE HE...T
OOLKOWBLOHM OiL ("0-6l10F) HELICAL SCRE" R-I" RECOYERY"'PPLICATIONS
EXPANDER
MITSUI JAPAN SlNTERING PLANT EXHAUST 700F 11 STAGE fLUORINOL-8, JOOK. 1 2> UMY UNIT STARTED OPER...TION IN "al
GASES 7l10F TURBINE 14000K.. 1 AT NIPPON STEEL S1NTERING PLANT
MTI USA CONDENSING YAPORS JOOF TURBINE R113 2SOOKW I 26-21 2 E.... l.2' MW UNITS SCHEDULED FOR
FROM FCC INSTAlLAnON AT MOBIL REFINERY IN 1911
DIESEL EXHAUST m-700F AUTOMOTIVE DIESEL TUR8lNE WATER/R-II JOOK. BINARY CYCLE. NO LONGER IN OPERATION.
SOLOR COLLECTORS TURBINE 10K.
ORMAT ISR...EL LIQUID NAPTHA 3JOF TURBINE R-II lOOK. 2 29,30 WOK" UNIT TO 8E AY"'ILABLE IN 1982,
STEAM oOOF JOOKW 1 SYSTEM BEING M... RKETED IN USA BY
OTHER lOOK. 2 WHITING
SOLAR COLLECTORS, TURBINE TRICHLOROBENZENE I-lOOK"
GEOTHERMAL, PROPANE
FIRED REMOTE UNITS
SOfRETES FRANCE SOLAR COLLECTORS SCREW EXP... NDER R-II S-40KW 0 31,J2 H"'RDWARE DeSIGNED PRIMARILY FOR
SOLAR APPLICATIONS
SUNOSTRANO USA DIESEL EXHAUST nO-UOF TURBINE TOLUENE XJO-610KW 0 33-36 THE RECIPROC...TING ENGINE AND FUME
CERAMIC KilN EXHAUST 710F nOKW 1 INCINERATOR INSTALL'"TrONS ARE
RECIPROCATINC ENGlNE 6 ~ K W 1 SCHEDULED FOR 1912
FUME INCINERATOR
SOL... R COLLECTORS TURBINE TOLUENE 1-200K"
THERMAL ELECTRON USA AUTOMOTIYE RECIPROCATlNG F .50. F-S', CP-}/f l-tl2KW J7-40 A UOK" ORC POWER CONVERSION
DIESEL EXHAUST. ENGINE, MODULE WAS DESIGNED AND FABRI
COMBUSTION PRODUCTS TURBINE CATED FOR HEAT RECOVERY FROM A
SOL"'R COLLECTORS TURBINE. RECIP R-It, R-22 J-3'KW UTILITY DIESEL-GENERATOR.
CURTAILMENT OF DOE FUNDS LED TO
TERMINATION OF THE PROJECT.
THERMO-ELECTRON ALSO HAS A
COOPERATIVE INTEREST IN THE
MITSUI THERMAX ORC.
TOSHIBA JAPAN GEOTHERMAL HOT TURBINE R-114 loooK9' 17 NO RESPONSE TO INQUIRIES
" ...TER
SOLAR COLLECTORS TURf\lNE OIL/TOLUENE 1-200K"I'
.5)OFOIL
TURBOOEN IT... LY ... XIAL FLOW TURBINE - ' - I ~ K W SYSTEM DATA NOT AYAIL...BLE
I'
z;,.,.;:, ~ ...... '"'r:'"f"'l"Y"';';ft<"-::
ESL-IE-82-04-102
Proceedings from the Fourth Industrial Energy Technology Conference, Houston, TX, April 4-7, 1982
has a heat content of 51.1 x 1()ti Btu/hr at 315F and 15 psig.
The cooling tower design criteria limits the waste stream exit
temperature to approximately 195F. This provides a maximum
heat extraction of 19 x 106 Btu/hr.
Only one vendor was interested in this application. Other
manufacturers believed the net power production was too small to
be economically attractive. The vendor can currently only provide
a 300 kW package which would produce a net power of 280 kW
with a hydrocarbon exit temperature of 227F. The total installed
cost for the installation was estimated to be in the range of
$1710/kW to $2510/kW, depending on the design and installation
requirements for the vaporizer. Calculations by G/C using an R-ll
working fluid indicate a net potential power output of 450 kW
with a vapor exit temperature of 195F.
Case 4: Heat Recovery from Flue Gas (Diesel Exhaust)
The recovery of heat from the exhausts of large stationary
diesel engines has been successfully demonstrated in several
installations in the United States and elsewhere. Three 600 kW
installations are currently operating at municipal power plants
with diesel exhaust temperatures in the range of 750-850F (33).
Approximately 20,000 hours of operating time has been accumu
lated on these units with toluene as the working fluid. Reference
26 reports on a 500 kW binary (steam/freon) Rankine cycle heat
recovery unit which was installed at a municipal power plant for
heat recovery from the 520F exhaust of two diesel engines, each
rated at 5.5 MW. This unit accumulated approximately 100
operating hours before the project was terminated due to a change
in operating duty of the diesel-generators. Reference 10 indicates
an 0 RC heat recovery system is to be installed at the Lucciana
Power Plant in' Corsica. The heat recovered from the exhaust gas
of an 11 MW diesel engine is expected to generate 1170 kW of
net power with an FC-75 working fluid.
This case study assumed 103,000 Ib/hr of diesel exhaust at a
temperature of 730F is delivered to the ORC. With an average
specific heat of 0.26 Btu/lb-F, the total available heat is 11.5 x
106 Btu/hr. The flue gas temperature is limited to 300F in con
sideration of acid dew points.
Two vendors responded to this application with toluene and
fluorinol-85 as the working fluids. The net power production
predicted for both systems is about 620 kW. The total installation
cost is estimated by G/C to be in the range of $1400/kW to
$1800/kW.
Case 5: Heat Recovery from Flue Gas (Glass Furnace Stack Gas)
A majority of the glass manufactured in the United States
is melted in regenerative type glass furnaces. With this type
furnace, stack gas temperatures are typically in the range of
70D-l000F. The Case 5 application study addresses heat recovery
from a nominal 700 ton/day regenerative flat glass furnace. Fur
nace operating data for the assessment were taken from Reference
46 which reports on the operating experience with a 2.2 MW
steam Rankine cycle cogeneration system installed at St. Helens,
England. Thus, the ORC performance and cost data obtained from
the present case study provide a basis of' comparison with a
conventional steam cycle. The assumption for the ORC system
analysis is a flue gas mass flow rate of 350,000 Ib/hr with a
nominal input temperature to the ORC of 860F. Because of the
fouling and corrosive nature of the flue gas, the flue gas discharge
temperature was limited to a minimum of 400F. In addition, a
conservative bare-tube design was assumed for the vaporizer.
The response to the survey indicated that 2 ORC vendors
were interested in the glass furnace application. Estimated net
I
power generation for fluorinol-S5 and toluene systems is about
2250 kW. This includes consideration of parasitic p wer for
pumps and auxiliaries for the ORC, cooling tower fans/pumps and
an induced draft fan. The installation cost for an ORC system
in this glass furnace application is estimated by G/C to be about
$1500/kW to $2000/kW, assuming a conservative design for the
vaporizer.
In comparing the two systems for this size furnace, it is
noted there is little or no advantage in the use of ap organic
Rankine cycle over a steam Rankine cycle. With a ste+m cycle,
the installation cost is estimated to be about $1500/kW. For
smaller container glass furnaces, however, the organic! Rankine
cycle is likely to provide advantages over a conventional steam
bottoming cycle. References 47 and 48 provide more detailed
discussions on the comparison of the use of organic Rankine
cycles versus steam Rankine cycles. '
CONCLUSIONS I
The use of organic Rankine cycles offers some pothntial for
cogeneration from industrial waste streams in the range of 200F
to 1000F. The most favorable applications are at facilities where
the cost of electricity is high and there is little opportunity for the
direct utilization of the waste thermal energy.
In many cases, the hardware wh ich is available must be
considered early commercial in nature. Therefore, the of an
organic Rankine cycle for industrial heat recovery may very likely
constitute a full scale demonstration of the Limita
tions on the availability of turbine and power conversionI hardware
place some restrictions on the economies of scale of organic
Rankine cycles. However, the design and cost of the vaporizer for
specific app lications are often more critical with regard to the
techn ical risks and economic benefits to be derived from lindustrial
waste heat recovery. I
As the cost of energy increases in the future, the use of
organic Rankine cycles for effective energy utilization can be
expected to become more important. The future market demand,
however, for this new technology is difficult to assess at 1f1is time.
REFERENCES
i
1) Bair, E. K., et ai, "Multi-Megawatt Organic Rank!"e Power
Plant," Phase lA Final Report prepared by th Aerojet
Energy Conversion Company for the U.S. D artment
of Energy, DOE/ET/12434, April 1980. I
2) Sawyer, R. H., and Ichikawa, S., "The Organic Rankine
Cycle Steam, Its Application to Extract Energy ftom Low
Temperature Waste Heat," 2nd Annual on
Energy Conservation and Technology, Houst0'1, Texas,
April 19S0.
3) Personal Communications, R. SawyerProposal 'Manager,
AF I Energy Systems, Livingston, New Jersey, ,February
1982.
4) Prigmore, D. and Nichols, K., "Recent in the
Organic Rankine Cycle Heat Engine Field," 15th
Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, Seattle, Washing
ton, August 19S0.
5) Barber, R. E., "Solar Rankine Engines - Exaples and
Projected Costs," ASME, Gas Turbine Conference and
Exhibit and Solar Energy Conference, San Diego, California,
March 1979.
530
ESL-IE-82-04-102
Proceedings from the Fourth Industrial Energy Technology Conference, Houston, TX, April 4-7, 1982
6) Barber, R. E., "Solar and Geothermal Rankine Cycle Engines
Can Convert Petroleum Industry Waste Heat into Electrical
Power," ASME, Energy Technology Conference and Exhi
bition, New Orleans, Lou ,,'iana, February 1980.
7) Personal Communications, D. Prigmore, Barber-Nichols
Engineering Company, Arvada, Colorado, February 1982.
8) Hlinak, A. J., Lobach, J. L. and Nichols, K. E., "Operational
and Field Test Results from the 500 MW Direct Contact
Pilot Plant at East Mesa," Geothermal Resources Council,
Transactions Volume 5, October 1981.
9) Werner, D. K., "Design and Test Results of a 63.4 kW Solar
Powered Rankine Cycle," Proceedings of the 1978 Annual
Meeting, AS/ISES, Denver, Colorado.
10) Dahan, G. and Verneau, A., "Technical-Economical Aspects
of Mechanical Energy Production from Waste Heat by Using
Organic Fluids Working on Rankine Cycles," French
American Technology Symposium, Washington, D.C.,
February 1980.
11) Curran, H. M., "The Use of Organic Rankine Fluids in
Rankine Engines:' 15th Intersociety Energy Conversion
Engineering Conference, Seattle, Washington, August 1980,
pp.985-991.
12) "New Ways to Save Energy:' Heat Recovery Systems,
Volume 1, pp 65-74.
13) Boda, F. P., "The SCSE Organic Rankine Engine," 16th
Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference,
Atlanta, Georgia, August 1981, pp. 1371-1374.
14) Hynek, S. J., et ai, "Design and Development of a Recipro
cating Low Temperature Freon Expander," 16th Inter
society Energy Conversion Engineering Conference,
Atlanta, Georgia, August 1981, pp. 1387-1392.
15) Personal Communications, Robin Mackey - Director Indus
trial Power Market Development, The Garett Corporation,
Los Angeles, California, October 1981.
16) Personal Communications, James Bledsoe - Manager of
Heat Engine Development, General Electric Company,
Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, October 1981.
17) Isshiki, N., "R&D on Rankine Cycle Engines in Japan:'
14th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Con
ference, Boston, Massachusetts, August 1979, pp. 2017
2022.
18) Personal Communications, A Desiderio, The Brooklyn
Union Gas Company, Brooklyn, New York, December
1981.
19) Personal Communications, E. Macchi-Professor, Istituto di
Macchine, Milan, Italy, February 1982.
20) Casci, C., et ai, "Heat Recovery in a Ceramic Kiln with an
Organic Rankine Cycle Engine:' Heat Recovery Systems,
Volume 1, No.2, 1981, pp. 125-131.
21) Giglioli, G., et ai, "Tetra-Chloroethylene Rankine Cycle
for Waste Heat Recovery from Ceramic Tunnel Kilns,"
13th I ntersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Con
ference, 1978, pp. 14881493.
531
22) Hopmann, H., H. Zewen, and S. Moustafa, "The Sulaibigah
Solar Food/Water/Power Plant," Colloques Internationaux
du CNRS, No. 306 - Systemes Solaires Thermodynamiques,
STS 80-103, 1980.
23) Schmidt, G., H. Zewen and S. Moustafa, "A Solar Farm
with Parabolic Dishes," Electric Power Systems Research, 3
(1980) pp. 65-76.
24) Personal Communications, H. Hopmann-Head Energy Sys
tems, Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm, Muchen, West Germany,
December 1981.
25) Personal Communications, S. Sakamaki and T. Nakamura
Representatives, Mitsui Engineering and Shipbuilding Com
pany, Ltd., New York, New York, February 1982.
26) Personal Communications, R. Rose-General Manager, Energy
Systems Division, Mechanical Technology Incorporated,
Ballston Spa, New York, March 1982.
27) Rose, R. K., and D. D. Colosimo, "Reclaim More Energy
from Plant Waste Heat:' Power Magazine, 1980 Energy
Systems Guidebook, pp. 42-43.
28) Rhinehart, H. L., C. P. Kether, and R. K. Rose, "Develop
ment Status: Binary Rankine Cycle Waste Heat Recovery
System," 12th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering
Conference, 1977, pp. 1090-1094.
29) Personal Communications, Anil Prasad and James Van Wyk,
Whiting Corporation, Harvey, Illinois, February 1982.
30) Bronicki, L. Y., "The Ormat Rankine Power Unit," 7th
Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference,
1972, pp. 327-334.
31) Personal Communications, M. Aschenbroich, Sofretes
Mengin, Montargis, France, October 1981.
32) Durand, S. P. and D. Mercier, "Solar Plants for Water
Pumping and/or Electricity Supply in Intertropical Zones,"
Proceedings of the International Solar Energy Society, : .
Atlanta, Georgia, May 1979.
~ '.
33) Personal Communications, Doug Lacey - Marketing Manager,
Sandstrand Energy Systems, Rockford, Illinois, March 1982.
34) Cheek, R. M., and P. D. Lacey, "600 KW Organic Rankine
Cycle Waste Heat Power Conversion System:' 12th Inter
society Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, 1977,
pp.l095-1099.
35) Niggemann, R. E., T. J. Bland and D. B. Wigmore, "A 6 KW
Organic Rankine Power Conversion System for Space Appli
cations," 5th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering
Conference, 1970, pp. 11-56 to 11-61.
36) Warren, A. and J. Monaham, "100 KW Organic Rankine
Cycle Total Energy System," 8th Intersociety Energy Con
version Engineering Conference, 1973, pp. 126-130.
37) Doyle, E., S. Helekar and R. Raymond, "Diesel-Organic
Rankine Compound Engine Development:' 12th Intersociety
Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, 1977, pp. 1073
1078.
38) Personal Communications, M. Armstrong and Mike Koplow,
Thermo-Electron Corporation, Walthamn, Massachusetts,
February 1982.
ESL-IE-82-04-102
Proceedings from the Fourth Industrial Energy Technology Conference, Houston, TX, April 4-7, 1982
39) Soini, H. E., et ai, "Combined Diesel-Organic Rankine
Cycle Power Plant," Thermo-Electron Corporation Publica
tion.
40) Doyle, E., L. DiNanno and S. Kramer, "Installation of a
Diesel-Organic Rankine Compound Engine in a Class 8 Truck
for a Single-Vehicle Test," SAE Meeting in Dearborn, Michi
gan, June 1979.
41) Niggemann, R. E., W. J. Greenlee and P. D. Lacey, "Fluid
Selection and Optimization of an Organic Rankine Cycle
Waste Heat Power Conversion System," ASME Paper 78-WAf
Ener-6 (1978).
42) Angelino, G. and V. Moroni, "Perspectives for Waste Heat
Recovery by Means of Organic Fluid Cycles," Transaction of
the ASME, J. of Engineering for Power, April 1973, pp.
75-83.
43) Krazinski, J. L., E. H. Buyco and H. M. Bushby, "Com
parison of Working Fluids Used in ORC Waste Heat Recovery
Systems," 16th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering
Conference, 1981, pp. 1375-1381.
44) Palmer, D. A., and B. E. Sirovich, "Selection of , Rankine
Cycle Fluid for Recovery of Work from Heat at a'Moderate
Temperature," 13th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engi
neering Conference, 1978, pp. 1500-1500.
45) Barber, R., "Rankine-Cycle Systems for Waste Heat Re
covery," 9th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering
Conference, 1974, pp. 554-558.
46) Richards, B. E., "Waste-Heat Boilers For Flat <plass Fur
naces," 40th Annual Conference on Glass Problems, Urbana
Champaign, Illinois, November 1979, pp. 50-58.
47) Hnat, J. G., J, S. Patten and P. R. Sheth, "Rankine and
Brayton Cycle Cogeneration for Glass Melting," 1981 Indus
trial Energy Conservation Technology Conference, April
1981. :
48) Hnat, J. G., J. S. Patten and J. C. Cutting, "Co eneration
from Glass Furnace Waste Heat Recovery," 9 h Energy
Technology Conference and Exposition, Washing on, D.C.,
February 1982.
532
ESL-IE-82-04-102
Proceedings from the Fourth Industrial Energy Technology Conference, Houston, TX, April 4-7, 1982