Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109581

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

A review of research on the closed thermodynamic cycles of ocean thermal

energy conversion
Weimin Liu a, b, Xiaojian Xu c, Fengyun Chen a, *, Yanjun Liu d, Shizhen Li d, Lei Liu a, Yun Chen d
a
The First Institute of Oceanography, Ministry of Natural Resources, Qingdao, 266061, Shandong, China
b
Pilot National Laboratory for Marine Science and Technology (Qingdao), Qingdao, 266237, Shandong, China
c
Department of Mathematics &Statistics, Brock University, ST Catharines, L2S 3A1, Canada
d
Institute of Marine Science and Technology, Shandong University, Qingdao, 266237, Shandong, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper presents a review of the research on closed thermodynamic cycles of ocean thermal energy conversion
OTEC (OTEC) system, including a description of thermodynamic cycles with either pure or mixture working fluids, and
Thermodynamic cycles describes the effects of various working fluids on cycle efficiency. For cycles with pure working fluids, the ef­
Pure working fluid
ficiency changes due to change in the evaporation and condensation temperature caused by heat resource dif­
Mixture working fluid
ferences. For cycles with mixture working fluids, the efficiency may be improved by a number of techniques,
such as heat recovery of ammonia-depleted solution and the intermediate extraction regeneration. Furthermore,
the effect of the ejector on performance of the cycle is also reviewed. Finally, the techniques used to improve
efficiency are discussed and summarized. In general, the thermodynamic efficiency can be improved by adopting
suitable working fluids and measures which could increase the utilization rate of ocean thermal energy. The
related methods need to be compared and analyzed under the same working conditions to determine which is the
most effective.

often adopted in the OTEC cycle so that it will evaporate at a relatively

1. Introduction
Ocean thermal energy is the energy that exists because of the tem­
perature difference between surface warm water and deep cold water in
the ocean, and it is essentially stored solar energy [1–4]. Power gener­
ation can provide an important method for using ocean thermal energy.
The basic principle of ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) involves
using surface warm water of the ocean (26–28 � C) to heat and vaporize
the liquid working fluid in a system where the generated steam drives
the turbine to run and generate electricity. After the exhausted gas is
condensed into liquid again by the deep cold water (4–6 � C), the ther­
modynamic cycle is then completed [5]. (see Table 1)
The efficiency of the thermodynamic cycle is often low because the
available temperature difference in the ocean is quite small (about
20 � C). When the temperature different is 20 � C, the efficiency of the
Carnot cycle (theoretical ideal thermodynamic cycle) is only about
6.7%. Therefore it is the core of OTEC [6–8] to select an appropriate
thermodynamic cycle and a working fluid for improving the system ef­
ficiency. At present, the closed cycle is the main circulation method used
by existing OTEC systems [9]. A working fluid with low boiling point is
high pressure and condense at a relatively low pressure, therefore to
improve the difference between the inlet and outlet turbine pressure
[10].
This paper presents a review of the research development on the
thermodynamic cycles and their working fluids in recent years, pointing
out the possible future research directions of thermodynamic cycle
technology for OTEC.
2. Review of the cycles with pure working fluids, and their
working fluids
2.1. Description of the cycles with pure working fluids
The Rankine cycle is the primitive OTEC thermodynamic cycle with
pure working fluids. Based on the Rankine cycle, D’Arsonval proposed
the idea of utilizing ocean thermal energy to generate electricity in 1881
[11]. Anderson proposed the closed cycle OTEC system in 1964 [12].
Then, the United States successfully built the world’s first OTEC power
generation system (Mini-OTEC) with a closed cycle, which confirmed
the conjecture of D’Arsonval [13], in 1979 in Hawaii.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: lwmxjtu@163.com (F. Chen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109581
Received 31 December 2018; Received in revised form 7 November 2019; Accepted 7 November 2019
Available online 22 November 2019
1364-0321/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
W. Liu et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109581

water pump, turbine, generator, and working fluid pump. Its working
Nomenclature fluid completes the thermal cycle in a closed loop. Ammonia is often
adopted as a working fluid of the OTEC Rankine cycle [15].
T Temperature [K], [� C] Due to the isothermal evaporation and condensation of ammonia,
Q Heat flux [W] the irreversible loss in the heat exchange process is large for the Rankine
P Power [W] cycle. As a result the improvement of system performance is limited.
When the temperature difference is between 15 � C and 25 � C, the
Greek symbol maximum thermal efficiency of Rankine cycle is about 3% [16–19]. In
η Efficiency [ ] order to improve the efficiency of the OTEC thermodynamic cycle, many
Subscripts new thermodynamic cycles have been developed after the temperature
e Evaporation change of the cold and hot sources.
c Condensation In 2005, Wang et al. [20] and Shuai [21] proposed the closed solar
cy Cycle energy-reheating OTEC power generation system. Please refer to Fig. 1
s System for its cycle schematic diagram. In this system, solar energy was used as
wp Working pump the main heat source to further heat up the working fluid (after heated
t Turbine by warm water) to superheated state. Then, the turbine was driven by
the superheated steam to generate electricity. After passing through the
Abbreviations turbine, the exhausted gas was condensed into liquid by the deep cold
OTEC Ocean thermal energy conversion
GeOTEC Geo-Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion
LNG Liquefied natural gas
SOTEC Solar and ocean thermal energy conversion
EP Ejector pump
KCS Kalina cycle system
EP-OTEC Ejector pump OTEC
ORC Organic Rankine cycle

The earliest closed cycle of OTEC power generation system is the

Rankine cycle, which is still in use. The Rankine cycle is one of the
simplest and most widely used closed thermodynamic cycles, consisting
of four thermal processes which are isentropic compression, isobaric
heating, isentropic expansion, and an isobaric condensation process
[14]. A Rankine cycle system is composed of evaporator, condenser, Fig. 1. A solar energy-reheating ocean thermal energy conversion cycle.

Table 1
Summary of closed thermodynamic cycles of OTEC.
Cycle Efficiency Working fluid Evaporation outlet Terminal Condenser outlet Terminal Notes
(%) temperature (� C) difference temperature (� C) difference
(� C) (� C)

Rankine 3.099 R32 20 5 10 5 Turbine pressure difference

between its inlet and outlet is
3.67 bar.
A solar energy-reheating 3.3 Ammonia 50 5 10 5 The efficiencies of the turbine, the
ocean thermal energy working fluid pump, and the
conversion cycle water pump used were all 60%.
Geo-ocean thermal 4.61 Ammonia 25.9 4.1 9.1 4.1 References [24]
energy conversion
R717 OTEC power cycle 2.401 R717 24 2 7 2 The turbine and pump efficiencies
(Ammonia) were 80% and 65%
References [26].
Double-stage Rankine 3.25 Ammonia The efficiency is 3.22 when using
cycle R134a as working fluid.
The OTEC power cycle 2.47 R152a 24 2 10.59 5.59 References [33]
with a vapor-vapor
ejector
OTEC cycle with a 2.76 R32/R152a R32/R152a (87:13)
liquid-vapor ejector References [35]
EP-OTEC 4.0 R152a 23.8 5.2 12.2 7.2 References [36]
Injection Power Cycle 3.057 R32 20 5 10 5 turbine pressure difference
between its inlet and outlet is
13.49 bar due to the use of ejector
OTEC Using Kalina Cycle 5 Ammonia–water 26 2 6 2 References [86]
Uehara cycle 5.1 Ammonia–water 26.1 5.8
GuoHai cycle 5.1 Ammonia–water 25 2 7 2
The absorption power 4.17 Ammonia–water 27 6.82 Absorption temperature is
cycle increased by 2.0–6.5 � C by
employing the two-stage ejector
sub-cycle

2
W. Liu et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109581

water. Compared with the basic OTEC power generation system and the
pure solar energy power generation system, the solar energy-reheating
OTEC power generation system took advantage of the available tem­
perature difference, so that the efficiency of the system was improved.
Their results showed that the efficiency of the cycle could reach 3.3%
when the evaporation temperature was 50 � C and the condensation
temperature was 10 � C, while the efficiencies of the turbine, the working
fluid pump, and the water pump used were all 60%.
Aydin et al. [22] had also investigated the use of solar energy in order
to improve cycle efficiency. Based on the Rankine cycle, they made a
comparative study of the following two schemes. In the first scheme, the
solar energy was used to heat the warm water and increase the heat
source temperature, whereas in the second one, the solar energy was
used to directly heat the working fluid to superheated state at the tur­
bine inlet. The second scheme is depicted in Fig. 2. The comparison
results showed that the net thermal efficiencies of the first and second
cycles were 1.9% and 3% respectively under the same conditions. It was
also noted that the solar collector area of the second cycle was relatively Fig. 3. A diagram of Geo-ocean thermal energy conversion.
smaller.
In 2004, He [23] analyzed the huge amount of excess heat contained
in the circulating cooling water from nuclear power plants. The recovery
and utilization of such surplus heat of circulating water could avoid
various nagative impacts in the local aquatic ecosystem.
In 2004, Idrus et al. [24] proposed the Geo-Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion (GeOTEC), as shown in Fig. 3. Frist, the working fluid was
preheated and vaporized in the evaporator by warm ocean water, and
then further heated into superheated state by geothermal energy. Sec­
ond, the superheated steam drove the turbine to run and was then
condensed in the condenser. Finally, the working fluid was pumped into
the evaporator and the cycle was eventually completed. Their results
showed that the cycle thermal efficiency reached 4.61% when the
ammonia temperature at the inlet of the turbine was 80 � C. Moreover,
according to their calculation, the cost of the GeOTEC device was clearly
lower than that of OTEC.
In 2014, Kim et al. [25] examined different cycles using nuclear
waste heat as the heat source and determined an appropriate OTEC
thermodynamic cycle. Their results showed that the waste heat of
condenser in a nuclear power plant could replace the warm water for
heating the working fluid, and its temperature was 7 � C higher than that
of warm ocean water. Consequently, the efficiency was increased by at
least 2%.
In 2014, Yoon et al. [26] designed a new OTEC power cycle using Fig. 4. R717 OTEC power cycle.
ammonia as its working fluid; please refer to its flow diagram depicted in
Fig. 4. In this cycle, the superheated vapor at the outlet of evaporator separated liquid passed through the expansion valve and then the cooler
passed through Turbine 1 which drove the generator to generate elec­ where the exhausted gas was cooled before turning back to the working
tricity. After that, the exhausted gas passed through the regenerator and fluid with low temperature and low pressure. Meanwhile, the separated
cooler in turns to release the heat. Then, the cooled ammonia working gas drove Turbine 2 to run, and then mixed with the working medium
fluid was separated into saturated gas and liquid in the separator. The from the cooler. Afterwards, the working fluid was condensed into a
saturated liquid in the condenser. The saturated liquid was pressurized
by the working medium pump and heated in the regenerator, and later
entered the evaporator to absorb the heat of surface warm water into
superheated steam, so the cycle was completed. Compared with Rankine
cycle, this cycle reduced heat release in the condenser by using a cooler
and separator. Furthermore, the regenerator took advantage of the heat
of the exhausted gas and reduced heat absorption in the evaporator. In
addition, work ouput and efficiency were increased by using two-stage
turbines. According to the theoretical calculation of the Uehara cycle,
the Kalina cycle, and this newly proposed cycle, their efficiencies were
2.379%, 2.361%, and 2.401%, respectively under the same conditions
when the turbine and pump efficiencies were 80% and 65%. Apparently,
the thermal efficiency of this new cycle appeared to be the highest.
Although the ammonia-water mixture in Kalina cycle reduced irre­
versible losses during the heat transfer process, the heat transfer co­
efficients and available temperature difference decreased due to the
changes in the concentration layer [27]. Therefore, the authors [28–30]
Fig. 2. A diagram of solar-boosted ocean thermal energy conversion. proposed double-stage Rankine cycle and conducted the corresponding

3
W. Liu et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109581

experimental research in 2014. The diagram in Fig. 5 illustrates this

cycle. Because a pressure-reducing valve was used in their experiment in
order to simulate the turbine, both work output and the thermal effi­
ciency could not be measured. Consequently, their test would not fully
reflect the actual situation of the system. Nevertheless, the theoretical
and experimental results showed that when the flow ratio of working
medium in the double-stage cycle was 1:1, the rate of entropy generation
of the cycle and the irreversible loss of the system had reached their
minimums, and therefore the efficiency and work output of this system
were maximized.
Yamada et al. [31] proposed a new generation system, named SOTEC
(solar and ocean thermal energy conversion). It utilized both ocean
thermal energy and solar thermal energy as its heat sources and the
thermal efficiency subsequently went up to 1.5 times higher than that of
the ordinary OTEC system. In 2015, Arcuri et al. [32] studied the
feasibility of using liquefied natural gas (LNG) as the cold source for
OTEC cycle. The regasification process of LNG absorbed a large amount
of heat, therefore using LNG as the cold source of OTEC could increase
the temperature difference between cold and heat sources, and then
improve cycle efficiency. When the inlet temperature of the LNG at the
condenser was 160 � C, the cycle efficiency was increased to 17.5%.
Moreover, the cost was reduced without requiring large-scale use of the
condenser facility, so the cycle became much more economical. Fig. 6. The OTEC power cycle with a vapor-vapor ejector.
In 2015, Lee et al. [33] proposed the use of ejector in OTEC cycles in
order to maximize the turbine work output and improve the thermal As indicated in Ref. [34], the types of ejectors adopted would change
efficiency of the cycle. Please refer to the diagram of this cycle in Fig. 6. due to the state of the working fluid in the cycle being different from that
The pressure at the outlet of Turbine 2 was lower than the condensation of the ejecting fluid. As aforementioned, Lee et al. [33] used a
pressure of working fluid. Meanwhile, the operation pressure difference vapor-vapor ejector, and Yoon et al. [26] and others proposed to use a
was increased by using a vapor-vapor ejector, and it followed that the liquid-vapor ejector [35]. The cycle system with a liquid-vapor ejector is
output power of Turbine 2 increased with a fixed amount of circulating illustrated in Fig. 7. In this cycle, the regenerator was used to utilize the
working fluid. They also analyzed the influence degrees of the key pa­ heat of working medium and the liquid-vapor ejector was used, by
rameters on the cycle performance. These parameters included the taking high-pressure fluid as the working fluid and the exhausted gas at
outlet pressure of Turbine 1, the mass flow rate ratio of working fluid at the outlet of Turbine 1 as the ejection fluid. With this type of ejector, the
the outlet of Separator 1, and the nozzle diameter of the ejector. Their work output was increased because the outlet pressure of Turbine 1 was
results had indicated that the change in nozzle diameter of the ejector lower than the condensation pressure of the working fluid, and then the
had the greatest impact on the cycle thermal efficiency among all pa­ efficiency of the system was improved without additional energy input.
rameters considered. After these key parameters being optimized, the In addition, Yoon et al. [35] also studied the best possible mass mixing
thermal efficiency of the system could reach 2.47%, whereas the effi­ ratio of R32 to R152a, and concluded that the optimal ratio was 87:13.
ciency of Rankine cycle was only 2.2%. Moreover, their analysis of the system performance had showed that the
thermal efficiency of the cycle increased as the amount of the steam flow
at the outlet of the regenerator increased, providing the total work of the
turbine remained unchanged. Under the same operating conditions, the
thermal efficiency of the Uehara cycle was 2.38% when the mass frac­
tion of ammonia-water mixture was 0.95. The thermal efficiency of this
new cycle under optimal condition was as high as 2.76%. In addition,

Fig. 5. Double-stage Rankine cycle. Fig. 7. The OTEC cycle with a liquid-vapor ejector.

4
W. Liu et al.
both size and cost of its components were reduced.
In 2017, Yoon et al. [36] designed the ejector-pump OTEC power
cycle (EP-OTEC), please refer to its diagram in Fig. 8. In this cycle, the
saturated liquid working fluid was divided into two parts by the sepa­
rator: one part became the superheated steam with high temperature
and high pressure after passing through Pump 1 and the evaporator
which ran the turbine, and then the exhausted gas was used as the driven
fluid of the ejector. The other part was compressed by Pump 2 and
flowed into the ejector as the driving fluid. These two parts of the
working fluids were mixed afterwards in the ejector and discharged
from the ejector by the condensing pressure. In this cycle, the pressure at
the outlet of Pump 2 was higher than the evaporation pressure, mean­
while the pressure at the outlet of Turbine 1 was lower than the
condensing pressure of the working fluid. As a result, the difference of
the working pressure in the turbine was increased. They concluded that
the thermal efficiency of this cycle was 4.7%, which appeared to be 38%
higher than that of the Rankine cycle taking R152a as the working fluid
when the temperature of the ocean warm water was 29 � C; therefore, the
outperformance of this cycle system was verified. Furthermore,
EP-OTEC cycle was not as complex as the cycle previously proposed by
Ref. [33], thus it could also reduce the device cost of the system.
In 2017, Miljkovic [37] designed a new cycle by adding an ejector
into the basic Rankine cycle. A diagram of this new cycle is presented in
Fig. 9. In this cycle, a part of the working fluid behind the condenser and
a part of working liquid behind the evaporator entered the ejector in
order to inject the exhausted gas at the turbine outlet. They mixed in the
chamber of the ejector and then entered the condenser afterwards. The
efficiency of this cycle was 3.057%.
2.2. Research on the OTEC pure working fluids
In general, the temperature of the heat source in an OTEC power
generation system is about 25 � C and that of the cold source is about
5 � C. The physical properties of the working fluid often have a great
impact on the performance of the heat exchanger, the turbine, the other
components, and the thermodynamic cycle [38–41]. Therefore, the
research on how to select an appropriate working fluid is significantly
important for the closed cycle of OTEC power system development.
The working fluid for an OTEC cycle usually needs to meet the
following requirements: (1) Safety, including resistibility to toxicity, to
flammability and explosiveness, and to corrosion of the equipment and
pipelines; (2) Environmental protection, such as protecting potential
Fig. 8. EP-OTEC cycle.
5
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109581
Fig. 9. Injection power cycle.
damage to atmospheric ozone layer and possible room temperature ef­
fect; (3) Chemical stability, including non-decomposability, which
means the maximum working temperature shall not exceed its decom­
position temperature, and stability of the chemical properties in the
operating region; (4) Critical values of the parameters involved in the
working fluid, such as condensation and evaporation temperatures of
the OTEC system; (5) Cost affordability [42–45].
Considering the thermodynamic characteristics of the working fluid,
when the turbine is running, dry working medium should be selected as
much as possible. That is because the slope of its saturated steam line on
the temperature entropy map is positive, and it is not easy to enter the
two-phase area during the expansion process [46,47], therefore, a
higher thermal efficiency is more likely to be achieved. On the other
hand, the saturated vapor line slope of the wet working fluid is negative,
so it can easily be liquefied to form droplets in the turbine. Those
droplets may cause pitting and corrosion on the blade surface, which
may reduce the turbine efficiency and even shorten the life of the turbine
[48]. According to the above-mentioned conditions, the general evalu­
ation criteria for selecting a proper working fluid for an OTEC system are
(1) the thermal efficiency of the cycle; (2) the exergy efficiency of the
cycle; and (3) the economics of the system.
Ammonia is the most commonly used refrigerant in industry, and it is
currently an ideal working fluid in Rankine cycle of OTEC power gen­
eration system [49–51]. In 1980, Coffay et al. [52] analyzed the cost of
OTEC plants with different working fluids and concluded that the
ammonia was the most suitable choice.
In 1980, Rosard [53] studied the design parameters of the closed
cycle turbines using ammonia, and compared them with other working
fluids, such as propane. Among the 11 working fluids compared in the
study, the turbine using carbon dioxide as a working fluid had the
smallest size, but with high working pressure; whereas the turbine
power using ammonia as its working fluid was twice as much as that
using carbon dioxide, when propane is adopted and their turbine sizes
are kept the same. Therefore, ammonia was recommended as an
appropriate working fluid for the closed cycle turbine.
In 1980, under the consideration of the OTEC systems having a large
volume of heat exchangers and with high equipment cost, Ganic et al.
[54,55] compared both the heat exchanger size and system performance
of the OTEC power generation device when using ammonia, propane, or
R114 as a working fluid, and also concluded that ammonia was the most
suitable choice.
In 1995, Stoecher [56] compared the thermodynamic properties
among R717, R123 (a potential substitute for R11), R134a (a substitute
for R12), and R22. The result showed that the latent heat of ammonia
was 5–6 times more than that of these halogenated hydrocarbons, and
also indicated the heat transfer capacity of ammonia was the best.
W. Liu et al.
Moreover, with a given heat flux, the system using ammonia required
the least mass and volume of flow and its cost was ten times lower than
that of halogenated hydrocarbons. Comparatively, its theoretical per­
formance parameter values were lower than their peers when using
R123, but higher than those when using either R22 or R134a.
In 2004, Liu et al. [57] studied the effects of ammonia and R123 on
both the thermal efficiency and the heat recovery efficiency of the
organic Rankine cycles. It was found that the lower the critical tem­
perature of the working fluid was, the lower the cycle heat efficiency
would be; and the maximum total heat recovery efficiency occurred at a
certain evaporation temperature somewhere between the inlet temper­
ature of the heat source and the condensation temperature.
In 2006, Kim et al. [58] studied the thermal efficiency of subcritical
OTEC cycle using various working fluids under different degree of su­
perheat and subcooling. Twelve different working fluids, investigated in
their study, were divided into three categories: isentropic, dry, and wet
working fluids. Among those wet working fluids, the cycles with R717
and R404A provided the highest and lowest thermal efficiencies,
respectively; among all dry working fluids, the cycle with R22 attained
the highest thermal efficiency. In terms of heat transfer area, pump size,
and together with thermal efficiency, R717 performed the best for being
a cycle working fluid among others.
In 2008, Liu et al. analyzed the OTEC system using a variety of
working fluids and pointed out that the selection of a working fluid had a
certain impact on the net output of the system [59]. In 2009, Anderson
[60] introduced various pure working fluids in a closed cycle of OTEC
power generation, compared and summarized the advantages and dis­
advantages of different working fluids (including R124, R125, R134a,
R143a, R152a and R507a), and further analyzed the thermodynamic
factors involved in the working fluid selection.
In 2009, Wang et al. [61] analyzed and calculated the thermal per­
formance of OTEC Rankine cycles using different working fluids, such as
R218, R227ea, R236fa, R600a, R245fa, R601, etc. Their results had
showed that the cycle efficiency was generally increased by elevating
the critical temperature of the working fluids. Moreover, n-butane
(R600) achieved a higher thermal efficiency, so it was more suitable for
the organic Rankine cycle of an OTEC system. Zhong et al. [62] also
investigated the system performance with ammonia, R22 or R134a
being a working fluid for a 50 kW OTEC power plant. Their results also
revealed that the ammonia working fluid system required the minimum
flow rate, meanwhile achieved higher cycle net efficiency and output
power, so it was a suitable working fluid.
In 2010, Hung et al. [63] analyzed the OTEC cycles using R11, R12,
R152a, R500, R502, R113, R114, R123, C6H6, C7H8 or C8H10 as a
working fluid, which cross all isentropic, dry and wet working fluid
groups. Their results showed that the higher cycle efficiency was
attained when a working fluid with a higher latent heat was employed.
Such pattern appeared more obvious for the low temperature cycles than
for the high temperature ones. In 2011, Sun et al. [64] also analyzed and
optimized the Rankine cycle system with ammonia or R134a as working
fluid. In terms of net power output of the ORC system, they revealed that
ammonia was considered as an ideal working fluid.
In 2013, Gong et al. [65] compared the cycle parameters of six
different types of working fluids, including ammonia, under different
inlet turbine pressures. They pointed out that R125, R143a, and R32
were ideal working fluids in general; however, the ammonia working
fluid had a large and stable working pressure range and was more
suitable for plant operation except as being toxic and flammable.
In 2014, Yoon et al. [66] studied and compared the performance of
OTEC Rankine cycles using dry, wet, and isentropic working fluids
under different evaporation and condensation temperature, and turbine
efficiency. Their study disclosed that the thermal efficiency of a
subcritical OTEC cycle largely depended on the evaporation tempera­
ture, condensation temperature, and the turbine efficiency; whereas
both the superheat degree of the vapor at the evaporator outlet and the
pump efficiency had little effect on the thermal efficiency. According to
6
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109581
their comparison results in terms of both the thermal efficiency and the
size of the main components, the ammonia (R717) appeared to be a
suitable working fluid again.
In 2015, Wu et al. [67] conducted a theoretical study on the mixture
of ammonia and R227ea, a non-azeotropic working fluid used in OTEC.
Their study determined that the optimum ratio of ammonia versus
R227ea was 0.85:0.15, in which case, the highest thermal efficiency of
the Rankine cycle was attained.
In 2016, Wu et al. [68] took ammonia as a benchmark to compare the
network, thermal efficiency, and other parameters of eight different
types of working fluids, including R245ca, R245fa, R236ea, R236fa,
R717, n-butane, under different condensation temperatures. Their
findings indicated that the thermal efficiency of n-pentane was the
highest with the smallest exergy loss, under given working conditions;
on the other hand, the performance of ammonia was much better than
that of the organic working fluid, however, the exergy loss when using
ammonia was much greater than that using the organic working fluid. In
2017, Li et al. [69] also analyzed and compared the performance of
R717, R134a, and R600 by establishing a Rankine cycle model of OTEC.
It was found that the working pressure range of R717 was relatively
larger among others.
3. A review of the cycles with mixture working fluids, and their
working fluids
3.1. Description of the cycles with mixture working fluids
Ammonia is a commonly used working fluid in OTEC Rankine cycles
[70–72]. However, due to its isothermal evaporation or condensation in
the Rankine cycle, the irreversible loss during the heat exchange process
is large, wherefore it limits the improvement of the system performance.
When the temperature difference of the ocean water is between 15 � C
and 25 � C, the thermal efficiency of a Rankine cycle is only about 3%
[73–76]. Researchers should also pay attention to the disadvantages of
ammonia such as pungent odor, toxicity, combustion and explosion
under particular circumstances and corrosive effect on copper and
copper alloys [13,77,78].
In order to reduce the irreversible loss during the phase change heat
process, Kalina proposed a Kalina cycle using a non-azeotropic working
fluid [79–81], as shown in Fig. 10. Due to the temperature glide of the
non-azeotropic working fluid in the phase change process, it matched
well with the temperature of heat source and cold source, therefore the
irreversible loss was reduced [82,83]. A T-S diagram [84] for organic
Rankine cycle (ORC) with both pure and mixed working fluid is dis­
played in Fig. 11. The Kalina cycle adopted a mixture of ammonia and
water as its working fluid which could achieve variable evaporation
Fig. 10. Kalina cycle.
W. Liu et al.
Fig. 11. T–S diagram for ORC with pure working fluid and mixture fluid.
temperature. During the evaporation process, the concentration of
ammonia decreased due to its evaporation, which led to an increase of
boiling point of the solution, so that the gasification process matched the
heat transfer process. Consequently, the irreversible loss in the heat
transfer process was much reduced, and the thermal efficiency was
therefore improved. At the same time, exhausted gas was used to heat
the working fluid before passing the evaporator, hence reducing the
consumption of warm ocean water. Both theoretical and practical
studies had shown that the thermal efficiency of the Kalina cycle was
higher than that of the Rankine cycle when using pure working fluids. As
a result, the system performance of the Kalina cycle was better [85–89].
On the other hand, due to the small temperature difference between
the ocean water sources, the effect of the Kalina cycle using turbine
exhausted gas for heat recovery was not obvious. In 1999, Uehara
invented the Uehara cycle [90–92], shown in Fig. 12. The Uehara cycle
adopted a two-stage turbine and used ammonia-water mixture as its
working fluid. Meanwhile, the Uehara cycle removed the exhausted gas
heat recovery process and added the ammonia-depleted solution
Fig. 12. Uehara cycle.
7
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109581
recovery and intermediate extraction regenerative cycle in order to
reduce the heat loss during the cycle. As a result, the thermal efficiency
of the Uehara cycle attained 5.4%, in which case, it had increased by
10% compared with the Kalina cycle [93]. Moreover, the heat loads of
the evaporator and the condensed exhausted gas in the Uehara cycle
were both reduced, and so did its pipe diameter and the volumes of its
condenser and evaporator [94]. The adoption of ammonia-depleted
solution recovery and intermediate extraction regenerative cycle can
reduce the heat loss in the condenser because a part of the working fluid
is extracted from the turbine in order to preheat the working fluid before
entering the evaporator. As a result, the temperature of working fluid in
the inlet of the evaporator increases and then the heat exchange tem­
perature difference between working fluid and ocean surface warm
water decreases, which may cause the heat exchange area increase
consequently. However, the improvement of the efficiency may decrease
the heat exchange area when the installed capacity of the system is
given. Comparing the impacts of these two, the improvement of the
efficiency has a greater impact on heat transfer area of the evaporator.
Compared with the Rankine cycle, however, the structure of the Uehara
cycle system was relatively more complicated.
In 2012, Liu et al. [95] proposed a new cycle, named Guo Hai cycle,
shown in Fig. 13. In this cycle, Ammonia-water mixture was used as its
working fluid. Such mixture was heated in the evaporator, and then
entered the separator so that the ammonia gas could be separated from
the mixture. The gas drove turbine to run and a part of the gas, mean­
while, was extracted from the turbine to heat the basic working fluid to
saturation state in Regenerator 2. The ammonia-depleted solution from
the separator heated the basic working fluid in Regenerator 1, so that the
energy of the ammonia-depleted solution could be reserved in order to
produce more work by the turbine. As a consequence, the efficiency of
the system was improved. An additional advantage of this cycle was that
the use of indirect heat exchange in Regenerator 1 could save more
energy by reducing the use of a pump, furthermore, the ammonia pump
head could be better matched in this new cycle [96]. Compared with the
Rankine cycle, the Guo Hai cycle made better use of the heat in the cycle
by incorporating both the ammonia-depleted solution regenerative cycle
and the intermediate extraction regenerative cycle to the system. The
results had showed that the thermal efficiency of the Guo Hai cycle
reached 5.16% under the conditions of ocean warm water temperature
being 27 � C and cold water temperature being 5 � C [97].
In 2012, Yuan et al. [98,99] improved the Uehara cycle by adding in
the ammonia-water reheating-injecting power absorption circulation. A
diagram of this cycle is shown in Fig. 14. The cycle used ammonia-water
mixture as its working fluid, and added a reheater and a liquid-vapor
ejector which both took warm ocean water as their heat source to heat
up the exhausted gas passing Turbine 1. After going through Turbine 2,
the exhausted gas flew into the ejector as the driven fluid, and the
Fig. 13. Guo Hai cycle.
W. Liu et al.
Fig. 14. A power cycle with ammonia-water reheating-injecting power ab­
sorption circulation.
high-pressure ammonia-depleted solution from the evaporator was
taken as the driving fluid. They merged together in the ejector chamber
and then entered the condenser afterwards. The ejector not only reduced
the turbine back pressure but also increased the pressure of the mixed
solution to the condensation pressure. The research results had showed
that the thermal efficiency of this new cycle was higher than that of the
previous cycle. When the temperatures of the ocean warm and cold
water were 28 � C and 4 � C, the thermal efficiency of the cycle reached
5.27%. Furthermore, the exergy analysis based on the second law of
thermodynamics showed that in the regenerator suffered the greatest
loss, and the heat transfer temperature difference was the major
contributing factor for such loss.
In 2014, Yuan et al. [100] proposed the use of two ejectors to in­
crease the condensation temperature required for the cycle so that the
pump power of cold water and the cost of water pipelines were reduced
[101]. This cycle is illustrated in Fig. 15. The ammonia-water mixture
was used in the cycle, and the exhausted gas after work was reheated
into superheated state, and then conducted work in Turbine 2. For
Ejector 1, the after-work exhausted gas was used as the driven fluid and
Fig. 15. The absorption power cycle.
8
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109581
the high-pressure ammonia gas (heated by warm ocean water) was used
as the driving fluid. They mixed in Ejector 1 then discharged afterwards.
On the other hand, the ammonia-depleted solution from the evaporator
was the driving fluid of Ejector 2, and it was mixed with the discharged
gas from Ejector 1. For the ammonia-water mixture, the saturation
temperature is related to pressure. The higher pressure, the greater en­
ergy the molecule needs in order to get out of the liquid, the higher the
corresponding temperature will be. For ammonia-water mixture at a
certain concentration, the saturation temperature is higher under higher
pressure. Therefore, in this cycle, the pressure of the ammonia-rich so­
lution could be increased by adopting two ejectors, so that the saturation
temperature would be increased. This implied that the required cold
source temperature could be higher so as to reduce the cost of the device.
Theoretical analysis of the performance of the cycle showed that under
certain conditions, 49.8% of the exergy loss occurred in the generator
and regenerator, while 36.12% loss in the ejectors. When the heat source
temperature was 30 � C, the generator pressure was 0.6 MPa, and the
expansion ratio was 1.42, the thermal efficiency of the cycle could reach
4.17%, and the net heat efficiency could reach 3.1%.
3.2. Research on the mixture working fluids
The temperature of pure working fluid remains unchanged during its
evaporation, so the temperature difference between the working fluid
and the heat source is very significant at the outlet of the evaporator. As
a result a large amount of entropy can be produced during the process,
therefore the irreversible heat loss of the cycle increases and the effi­
ciency of the cycle decreases.
In 1976, Iqbal et al. [102] carried out a comparison study on the
performance of a Rankine cycle with either propane or a mixed working
fluid (the mixture molar percentages were 1% ethane, 98% propane, and
1% butane) under the same conditions. Their results showed that the
mixed working fluid not only reduced the size of the heat exchanger,
improved the thermal efficiency of the system, but also enhanced the
performance of the heat exchanger even with the occurrence of gradual
scale formation. The ammonia-water mixture was also widely used as a
non-azeotropic working fluid. For instance, Kalina [103] had used
ammonia-water mixture as the working fluid in the Kalina cycle, and the
Uehara cycle [90–92] had taken ammonia-water mixture as its working
fluid as well. In 1995, Uehara et al. [104] also studied the Kalina cycle
using HFC32/HFC134a mixture as its working fluid, and analyzed the
influence of various system parameters on the cycle efficiency, including
ocean warm water inlet temperature, cold ocean water inlet tempera­
ture, and turbine inlet pressure. When the temperatures of the ocean
warm and cold water were 28 � C and 4 � C, the cycle heat efficiency could
reach as high as 5%.
In 2010, Ikegami et al. [105] studied the effects of working fluid flow
rate and ammonia concentration in the ammonia-water mixture on heat
source, heat sink temperature, and flow rate. They indicated that
increasing the mass fraction of ammonia in the ammonia-water mixture
caused an increase of the turbine power and the system net output, while
the working fluid flow rate showed different effect on total and net
output of the system with different ammonia concentration. Most
recently, Lee et al. [106] proposed a new azeotropic mixture of
R32/R290 (67%:33%) for OTEC. The advantage of the R32/R290
mixture brought in a significant reduction in the sizes of the turbine and
the heat exchangers, therefore resulted in an initial cost reduction.
4. Discussion
Theoretically, the efficiency of OTEC thermal cycle can be improved
by increasing the ocean temperature difference. The theoretical Carnot
cycle efficiency formula shown below may be used for calculating the
cycle efficiency:
η¼1 Tc =Te (1)
W. Liu et al.
It can be seen from Formula (1) that the efficiency of the cycle in­
creases as the evaporation temperature increases and the condensation
temperature decreases.
According to the definition, the thermodynamic cycle efficiency is
equal to the ratio of the output power to the heat absorption, it may be
calculated by Formula (2):
� output power of the cycle can be raised. Note that the ejector
η ¼ ðPt Pwp Þ Qe (2)
Based on the first law of thermodynamics: Qe ¼ Qc þ Pt, Formula (1)
can be expressed as:
� working fluid in the cycle can be utilized to maximize the
η ¼ 1 ​ ðQc þ ​ Pwp Þ Qe (3)
Formula (2) indicates that the greater the output power Pt, the higher
the efficiency, provided the heat absorption in the evaporator held
constant. Therefore, in the cycle using a mixture working fluid, an
ejector is often adopted in order to make full use of the kinetic energy of
the ammonia-depleted solution, and to provoke a pressure drop after the
turbine to improve the efficiency.
Formula (3) signifies that the lower the heat of the condensed
discharge Qc is, the higher the efficiency. Therefore, recovering heat of
the ammonia-depleted solution and intermediate extraction in the cycle
may also improve the cycle efficiency.
In order to improve the cycle efficiency, various techniques have
been developed in the literature, such as working fluid selection using
different optimized objective functions, adoption of heat regenerator,
and intermediate extraction regeneration in order to increase the utili­
zation rate of ocean thermal energy. The mixture working fluids
composed of pure working fluid with different boiling point are adopted
in order to reduce irreversible loss, and then the thermal efficiency is
improved. However, the following problems still exist in the current
research: (1) Although many efficient cycles have been proposed, no
uniform measurement or standard exists among these cycles that can be
used to compare them with each other. (2) Most of the research work is
still conducted at a basic stage of theoretical analysis and simulation,
with a severe lack of experimental data support. (3) By being simple and
applicable, the OTEC Rankine cycle is still the main form of the existing
OTEC closed cycle test system. Researchers in this field primarily focus
on investigating the selection of proper pure working fluids for the
Rankine cycle, whereas little research has been conducted on the mixed
working fluids of OTEC cycles. According to the existing research re­
sults, however, the efficiency of the cycle with a mixture working fluid is
significantly higher than that of a cycle with a pure working fluid.
5. Conclusion
(1) Due to the limitation caused by the small water temperature
difference, the efficiency of the OTEC power generation system is
generally low.
� Multi-energy utilization system can make full use of different
forms of energy in order to increase the available temperature
difference. For example, using solar energy may significantly
increase the temperature difference in a system in a way that
will enhance work output, improve the efficiency of a device,
and further reduce power generation costs.
� When a non-azeotropic mixture being placed in a phase change
process, it closely matches with the temperature of the warm
ocean water. Therefore, we can reduce the loss in this heat
exchange process and improve its thermal efficiency.
(2) The thermal efficiency of the cycle can be improved by opti­
mizing the cycle.
� Increasing the working pressure difference of the turbine by
increasing the pressure at the inlet and reducing the back
pressure may amplify the output power of the turbine, which
will improve the thermal efficiency of the system. In the
ejector, the driving fluid generates negative pressure by passing
9
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109581
through the nozzles at high speed and absorbs the surrounding
medium. Based on this principle, an ejector may be introduced
into the thermodynamic cycle wherein the exhausted gas can
be taken as the driven fluid, so that the pressure at the turbine
outlet can be reduced, therefore the working pressure differ­
ence of the turbine can be increased, and furthermore, the
type can be different when the cycle process and working fluid
are different.
� Through heat recovery and other processes, the heat of the
temperature at the evaporator inlet and minimize the temper­
ature at the condenser inlet in order to reduce the consumption
of ocean water, and ultimately to improve the thermal
efficiency.
(3) In practical applications, it is difficult to find a working fluid with
all kinds of good properties that meet the performance re­
quirements. Currently, ammonia is still a relatively ideal pure
working fluid, while ammonia-water mixture is a suitable non-
azeotropic working fluid.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China, under projects of “Study on Influence Mechanism of the Sec­
ondary Heat Recovery to OTEC Cycle Using Mixing Working Medium
and Experiment Verification” (51709055), China-Korea Cooperation
Project “China-Korea Technology Exchange and Cooperation of Ocean
Energy Development and Utilization” (PI-2018-4), and 2018 Marine
Renewable Energy Special Project “Preliminary Study on Engineering
Application of OTEC” (GHME2018ZC04).
References
[1] Tanner D. Ocean thermal energy conversion: current overview and future
outlook. Renew Energy 1995;6(3):367–73.
[2] Mcgowan JG. Ocean thermal energy conversion -A significant solar resource. Sol
Energy 1976;18(2):81–92.
[3] Avery WH. ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC). Encycl Phys Sci & Technol
2003;49(10):123–60.
[4] Hammar L, Ehnberg J, Mavume A, Cuamba BC, Molander S. Renewable Ocean
Energy in the western Indian ocean. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16(7):
4938–50.
[5] Wang L, Shi LX, Lu DQ. Optimization design about ocean thermal energy
conversion in coastal area of east China. Renew Energy Resour 2010;28(1):
134–6.
[6] Li DS, Chen RQ, Zhang L. Research progress of thermodynamic cycle of ocean
thermal energy conversion. Ind Heat 2016;45(4):6–9.
[7] Garcia RF, Sanz BF, Sanz CF. Preliminary study of an efficient OTEC using a
thermal cycle with closed thermodynamic transformations. Br J Appl Sci Technol
2014;4(26):3840.
[8] Rajagopalan K, Nihous GC. Estimates of global Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion
(OTEC) resources using an ocean general circulation model. Renew Energy 2013;
50(6):532–40.
[9] Wang CM, Yee AA, Krock H, Tay ZY. Research and developments on ocean
thermal energy conversion. The IES J Part A Civ & Struct Eng 2011;4(1):41–52.
[10] Li W, Zhao ZN, Wang X, Liu YQ. Current situation and prospects of oceanic
thermal energy conversion. Ocean Eng 2004;22(2):105–8.
[11] Kobayashi H, Jitsuhara S, Uehara H. The present status and features of OTEC and
recent aspects of thermal energy conversion technologies. In: 24th Meeting of the
UJNR Marine Facilities Panel, Honolulu, HI, November; 2001. p. 4–12.
[12] Heydt GT. An assessment of ocean thermal energy conversion as an advanced
electric generation methodology. Proc IEEE 2002;81(3):409–18.
[13] Vega LA. Ocean thermal energy conversion primer. Mar Technol Soc J Winter
2002;6(4):25–35. 2003.
[14] Yang MH, Yeh RH. Analysis of optimization in an OTEC plant using organic
Rankine cycle. Renew Energy 2014;68(3):25–34.
[15] Ganic EN, Moeller L. Performance study of an OTEC system. Appl Energy 1980;6
(4):289–99.
[16] Nakaoka T, Uehara H. Performance test of a shell-and-plate type evaporator for
OTEC. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 1988;1(3):283–91.
[17] Liu WM, Ma CL, Chen FY, Liu L, Ge YZ, Peng JP, et al. Exploitation and technical
progress of marine renewable energy. Adv Mar Sci 2018;36(1):1–18.
[18] Chen FY, Liu WM, Peng YP. Development and prospect of the ocean thermal
energy conversion. J Green Sci Technol 2012;11:246–8.
W. Liu et al.
[19] El-Sayed YM, Tribus M. A theoretical comparison of the Rankine and Kalina
cycles. In: Proceedings of analysis of energy systems, design and operation,
presented at the winter annual meeting of the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, Miami Beach, Florida. vol. 97; 1985.
[20] Wang T, Gu CG, Yang B, Shuai K. OTEC-a solar energy-reheating cycle. 2005. CN
1673527 A.
[21] Shuai K. The solar energy-reheating ocean thermal energy conversion. Shanghai
Jiao Tong University; 2006. p. 17–8.
[22] Aydin H, Lee HS, Kim HJ, Shin SK, Park K. Off-design performance analysis of a
closed-cycle ocean thermal energy conversion system with solar thermal
preheating and superheating. Renew Energy 2014;72(4):154–63.
[23] He YY. Discussion on utilization of surplus heat of circulating cooling water of
fossil fuel/nuclear power plants. J China Inst Water Resour Hydropower Res
2004;2(4):315–20.
[24] Idrus NHM, Musa MN, Yahya WJ, Yahya WJ. Geo-ocean thermal energy
conversion (GeOTEC) power cycle/plant. Renew Energy 2017;111:372–80.
[25] Kim NJ, Ng KC, Chun W. Using the condenser effluent from a nuclear power plant
for Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC). Int Commun Heat Mass Transf
2009;36(10):1008–13.
[26] Yoon JI, Son CH, Baek SM, Ye BH, Kim HJ, Lee HS. Performance characteristics of
a high-efficiency R717 OTEC power cycle. Appl Therm Eng 2014;72(2):304–8.
[27] Panchal CB, Hillis DL, Lorenz JJ, Yung DT. OTEC performance tests of the Trane
plate-fin heat exchanger. Nasa Sti/recon Technical Report N 1981:82.
[28] Kusuda E, Morisaki T, Ikegami Y. Performance test of double-stage rankine cycle
experimental plant for OTEC. Procedia Engineering 2015;105:713–8.
[29] Ikegami Y, Yasunaga T, MorisakiT. ocean thermal energy conversion using
double-stage rankine cycle. J Mar Sci Eng 2018;6(1):21–39.
[30] Ikegami Y, Morisaki T. OTEC using mutli-stage rankine cycle. The Twenty-Third
International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference 2013.
[31] Yamada N, Hoshi A, Ikegami Y. Thermal efficiency enhancement of ocean
thermal energy conversion (OTEC) using solar thermal energy. In: 4th
International Energy Conversion Engineering Conference and Exhibit. IECEC);
2006. p. 4130.
[32] Arcuri N, Bruno R, Bevilacqua P. LNG as cold heat source in OTEC systems. Ocean
Eng 2015;104:349–58.
[33] Lee HS, Yoon JI, Son CH, Seol SH, Ye BH, Kim HJ, et al. Efficiency enhancement
of the ocean thermal energy conversion system with a vapor-vapor ejector. Adv
Mech Eng 2015:1–10.
[34] Sokolov. Ejector. Science Press; 1977. p. 5–6.
[35] Yoon JI, Son CH, Seol SH, Kim HU, Ha SJ, Jung SH, et al. Performance analysis of
OTEC power cycle with a liquid vapor ejector using R32/R152a. Heat Mass Transf
2015;51(11):1597–605.
[36] Yoon JI, Seol SH, Son CH, Jung SH, Kim YB, Lee HS, et al. Analysis of the high-
efficiency EP-OTEC cycle using R152a. Renew Energy 2017;105:366–73.
[37] Marijo M. Injection power cycle applied in OTEC power plants. Energy Procedia
2017;143:823–8.
[38] Schuster A, Karellas S, Kakaras E, Spliethoff H. Energetic and economic
investigation of organic rankine cycle applications. Appl Therm Eng 2009;29
(8–9):1809–17.
[39] Morisaki T, Ikegami Y. Performance evaluation of heat exchangers in OTEC using
ammonia/water mixture as working fluid. Open J Fluid Dyn 2013;3(4):302.
[40] Bollina E, Consonni S, Macchi E. Thermo-dynamic and economic optimization of
OTEC and GEOTEC plants. Int J Ambient Energy 1985;6(1):3–16.
[41] Griffin A. Research on an engineering evaluation and test program. In: 2nd Ocean
Thermal Energy Conversion Workshop; 1975. p. 58–66.
[42] Bao J, Zhao L. A review of working fluid and expander selections for organic
Rankine cycle. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;24(10):325–42.
[43] Chen H, Goswami D, Stefanakos EK. A review of thermodynamic cycles and
working fluids for the conversion of low-grade heat. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2010;14(9):3059–67.
[44] Tchanche BF, Papadakis G, Lambrinos G, Frangoudakis A. Fluid selection for a
low-temperature solar organic Rankine cycle. Appl Therm Eng 2009;29(11–12):
2468–76.
[45] Lavi A, Lavi GH. Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC): social and
environmental issues. Energy 1979;4(5):833–40.
[46] Hung TC. Waste heat recovery of organic Rankine cycle using dry fluids. Energy
Convers Manag 2001;42(5):539–53.
[47] Mago PJ, Chamra LM, Srinivasan K, Somayaji C. An examination of regenerative
organic Rankine cycles using dry fluids. Appl Therm Eng 2008;28(8):998–1007.
[48] Barsness E, Rosard DD, Miller RT, Cunninghis S. Conceptual design of an OTEC
power system using modular heat exchangers. Proc. 5th OTEC Conf 1978.
[49] Schuster A, Karellas S, Kakaras E, Spliethoff H. Energetic and economic
investigation of innovative Organic Rankine Cycle applications. Appl Therm Eng
2008;29(8):1809–17.
[50] Panchal CB, Rabas TJ. Thermal performance of advanced heat exchangers for
ammonia refrigeration systems. Heat Transf Eng 1993;14(4):42–57.
[51] Nelson MI. Ocean thermal energy conversion/OTEC/plant working fluid study.
Alternative Energy Sources 1978;4:1533–56.
[52] Coffay B, Horazak DA. Selection of OTEC working fluids based on power system
costs. Proc, of the 7th Ocean Energy Conference 1980;7. 2-1.
[53] Rosard DD. Generalized parameters for selection of turbines and working fluids
for OTEC power systems. J Eng Power 1980;102(1):215–22.
[54] Ganic EN, Wu J. On the selection of working fluids for OTEC power plants. Energy
Convers Manag 1980;20(1):9–22.
[55] Ganic EN, Wu J. Comparative study of working fluids for OTEC power plants.
Technical Report N Nasa Sti/recon 1979;79.
10
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109581
[56] Stoecker WF. Comparison of ammonia with other refrigerants for district cooling
plant chillers. Fuel Energy Abstr 1995;1(36):44.
[57] Liu BT, Chien KH, Wang CC. Effect of working fluids on organic Rankine cycle for
waste heat recovery. Energy 2004;29(8):1207–17.
[58] Kim NJ, Shin SH, Chun WG. A study on the thermodynamic cycle of OTEC system.
J Korean Sol Energy Soc 2006;26(2):9–18.
[59] Liu WM, Yu KB, Ji YQ. The influence of the selection of working fluids of 15 kW
closed-cycle ocean thermal energy conversion on self-use energy consumption. In:
Proceedings of the first academic conference of the China Renewable Energy
Society Marine Energy Professional Committee Symposium; 2008.
[60] Anderson JH. ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC): choosing a working fluid.
ASME 2009 Power Conference 2009:645–53.
[61] Wang HT, Wang H. Selection of working fluids for ocean thermal energy
conversion power generation organic Rankine cycle. Ocean Eng 2009;27(2):
119–23.
[62] Zhong S, Sun BZ, Wang H. Effect of thermodynamic properties of working fluids
on performance of OTEC system. Proceedings of the Engineering
Thermodynamics and Energy Utilization Branch of the Engineering
Thermophysics Society 2009.
[63] Hung TC, Wang SK, Kuo CH, Pei CH, Tsai KF. A study of organic working fluids on
system efficiency of an ORC using low-grade energy sources. Energy 2010;35(3):
1403–11.
[64] Sun F, Ikegami Y, Jia B, Arima H. Optimization design and exergy analysis of
organic Rankine cycle in ocean thermal energy conversion. Appl Ocean Res 2012;
35(35):38–46.
[65] Gong J, Gao T, Li G. Performance analysis of 15 kW closed cycle ocean thermal
energy conversion system with different working fluids. J Sol Energy Eng 2013;
135(2):024501.
[66] Yoon JI, Son CH, Baek SM, Kim HJ, Lee HS. Efficiency comparison of subcritical
OTEC power cycle using various working fluids. Heat Mass Transf 2014;50(7):
985–96.
[67] Wu CX, Wu BJ, Ye Y. Analysis of zeotropic mixtures used in OTEC Rankine cycle
system. Renew Energy Resour 2015;33(004):632–6.
[68] Wu CX, Lin LQ, Wang X, Wu BJ. Study of working fluid for closed OTEC system.
Acta Energiae Solaris Sin 2016;37(4):1064–70.
[69] Li DS, Zhang L. Numerical analysis on evaporating pressure and working fluids of
ocean thermal energy conversion. Renew Energy Resour 2017;35(7):1101–6.
[70] Ganic EN, Moeller L. Performance study of an OTEC system. Appl Energy 1980;6
(4):289–99.
[71] Uehara H, Ikegami Y. Optimization of a closed-cycle OTEC system. Trans of the
Asme Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 1990;112(4):247–56.
[72] Chen FY, Liu L, Peng JP, et al. Theoretical and experimental research on the
thermal performance of ocean thermal energy conversion system using the
rankine cycle mode. Energy 2019;183:497–503. 2019.
[73] Nakaoka T, Uehara H. Performance test of a shell-and-plate type evaporator for
OTEC. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 1988;1(3):283–91.
[74] Liu WM, Ma CL, Chen FY, et al. Exploitation and technical progress of marine
renewable energy. Adv Mar Sci 2018;36(1):1–18.
[75] Chen FY, Liu WM, Peng YP. Development and prospect of the ocean thermal
energy conversion. J Green Sci Technol 2012;(11):246–8.
[76] El-Sayed YM, Tribus M. A theoretical comparison of the Rankine and Kalina
cycles. In: Proceedings of analysis of energy systems, design and operation,
presented at the winter annual meeting of the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, Miami Beach, Florida, vol. 97; 1985.
[77] Sepehri A, Sarrafzadeh MH. Effect of nitrifiers community on fouling mitigation
and nitrification efficiency in a membrane bioreactor. Chemical Engineering and
Processing-Process Intensification 2018;128:10–8.
[78] Sepehri A, Sarrafzadeh MH. Activity enhancement of ammonia oxidizing bacteria
and nitrite oxidizing bacteria in activated sludge process: metabolite reduction
and CO2 mitigation intensification process. Applied Water Science 2019;9:131.
[79] Kalina AI. Combined-cycle system with novel bottoming cycle. J Eng Gas
Turbines Power 1984;106(4):737–42.
[80] Kalina AI. Combined cycle and waste heat recovery power systems based on a
novel thermodynamic energy cycle utilizing low-temperature heat for power
generation. Mech Eng 1983;105(11). 104-104.
[81] Ikegami Y, Yasunaga T, Uehara H. Effect of regenerator heat transfer performance
on the cycle thermal efficiency of OTEC using ammonia - water as working fluid.
The Proceedings of the International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference
2005;15.
[82] Huang JT, Liu QS, Wang YL. Research on thermodynamic properties of ammonia-
water mixtures for power cycles. Power Eng 2003;23(1):2236–9.
[83] Saleh B, Koglbauer G, Wendland M, Fischer J. Working fluids for low-temperature
organic Rankine cycles. Energy 2007;32(7):1210–21.
[84] Ni Y, Zhao LJ, Liu Z. Recovery of waste heat of low-temperature flue gas by
parametric optimization on organic Rankine cycle with non-azeotropic mixtures.
CIE J 2013;64(11):3985–92.
[85] Marston CH. Parametric analysis of the Kalina cycle. ASME 1989 International
Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress and Exposition. American Society of
Mechanical Engineers; 1989. V004T09A020-V004T09A020.
[86] Wall G, Chuang CC, Ishida M. Exergy study of the Kalina cycle. Anal Design of
energy Syst: analysis of industrial processes 1989;10(3):73–7.
[87] El-Sayed YM, Tribus M. A theoretical comparison of the Rankine and Kalina
cycles. In: Proceedings of analysis of energy systems, design and operation,
presented at the winter annual meeting of the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, Miami Beach, Florida; 1985. p. 97–102.
W. Liu et al.
[88] Uehara H. Parametric performance analysis of OTEC using Kalina cycle. ASME
International Solar Energy Conference 1993.
[89] Nemati A, Nami H, Ranjbar F, Yari M. A comparative thermodynamic analysis of
ORC and Kalina cycles for waste heat recovery: a case study for CGAM
cogeneration system. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 2016;9(1):1–13.
[90] Uehara H. Performance analysis of OTEC system using a cycle with absorption
and extraction processes. Transaction of JSME, Series B 1998;64(624):384–9.
[91] Wang YQ. Study on the Uehara cycle system of ocean thermal energy conversion.
Qingdao University of Technology; 2011. p. 27–9.
[92] Uehara H. The experimental research on ocean thermal energy conversion using
Uehara cycle. Proceeding of the international OTEC/DOWA conference 1999:
132–5.
[93] Dhanak MR, Xiros NI. Springer Handbook of Ocean Engineering. Springer
International Publishing; 2016.
[94] Goto S, Motoshima Y, Sugi T, Yasunaga T, Ikegami Y, Nakamura M, et al.
Construction of simulation model for OTEC plant using Uehara cycle. Electr Eng
Jpn 2011;176(2):1–13.
[95] Liu WM, Chen FY, Wang YQ, Jiang WJ. Progress of closed-cycle OTEC and study
of a new cycle of OTEC. Adv Mater Res 2012;354–355(1):275–8.
[96] Xu Y. Design and numerical study the performance of a highly efficient ocean
thermal energy conversion system. JiMei University; 2016. p. 5–6.
[97] Chen FY. Study on thermal performance and comprehensive utilization of ocean
thermal energy conversion. Harbin Engineering University; 2016. p. 88–9.
11
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109581
[98] Yuan H. Theoretical and experimental investigation of a power cycle using
ammonia-water as working fluid. Ocean University of China; 2012. p. 9–11.
[99] Yan XY, Mei N, Bai Y. Thermodynamic study of ammonia regenerator cycle
driven by ocean thermal energy. In: Proceedings of the Engineering
Thermodynamics and Energy Utilization Branch of the Engineering
Thermophysics Society; 2010.
[100] Yuan H, Mei N, Zhou P. Performance analysis of an absorption power cycle for
ocean thermal energy conversion. Energy Convers Manag 2014;(87):199–207.
[101] Soto R, Vergara J. Thermal power plant efficiency enhancement with ocean
thermal energy conversion. Appl Therm Eng 2014;62(1):105–12.
[102] Iqbal KZ, Starling KE. Use of mixtures as working fluids in ocean thermal energy
conversion cycles. Proc Okla Acad Sci 1976;56:114–20.
[103] Kalina AI. Generation of energy by means of a working fluid, and regeneration of
a working fluid: US, US 4346561 A 1982.
[104] Uehara H, Ikegami Y. Parametric performance analysis of OTEC system using
HFC32/HFC134a mixtures. New York, NY (United States): American Society of
Mechanical Engineers; 1995.
[105] Ikegami Y, Goto H, Morisaki T, Furukawa T. Effect of working fluid flow rate and
ammonia concentration on OTEC using ammonia/water mixture as working fluid.
In: 13th Asian Congress of Fluid Mechanics; 2010. p. 1026–9.
[106] Lee HS, Kim HJ, Jung D. A novel working fluid for building air-conditioning and
ocean thermal energy conversion. Korean J Chem Eng 2014;31(10):1732–5.