Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Energy Procedia 69 (2015) 1181 – 1191

International Conference on Concentrating Solar Power and Chemical Energy Systems,

SolarPACES 2014

An exergy analysis of recompression supercritical CO2 cycles with

and without reheating
R. Vasquez Padillaa*, R. G, Benitob and W. Steinc
a
Postdoctoral Fellow, CSIRO Energy Technology, PO Box 330, Newcastle, NSW 2300, Australia
b
Principal Research Engineer, PhD, CSIRO Energy Technology, PO Box 136, North Ryde, NSW 2113,
c
Solar Research Program Leader, CSIRO Energy Technology, PO Box 330, Newcastle, NSW 2300, Australia

Abstract

Concentrated Solar Power using supercritical CO2 (S-CO2) recompression Brayton cycles offer advantages of similar and even
higher overall thermal efficiencies compared to power cycles using superheated or supercritical steam. The high efficiency and
compactness of S-CO2, as compared with steam Rankine cycle at the same high temperature, make this cycle attractive for
central receiver applications, since both attributes lead to decrease in levelized cost of energy and therefore make this technology
economically feasible.
The current research in S-CO2 is focused on thermodynamic analysis and system components. In this paper energy and exergy
analyses of a supercritical CO2 Recompression Brayton cycle are presented. Energy, exergy and mass balance are carried out for
each component and first law and exergy efficiencies are calculated with and without reheat scenarios. Optimization is then
carried out by using Sequential Least SQuares Programming (SLSQP) and optimum operating conditions based on maximum
first law efficiency are determined. The results showed that the exergy efficiency reaches a maximum value at 600 °C while the
first law efficiency increases monotonically with highest temperature of the cycle.

© 2015
© 2015 Published by Elsevier
The Authors. Ltd. This
Published is an open
by Elsevier access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Ltd.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer review by the scientific conference committee of SolarPACES 2014 under responsibility of PSE AG.
Peer review by the scientific conference committee of SolarPACES 2014 under responsibility of PSE AG
Keywords: Supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle, recompression, reheat, exergy efficiency, central receiver

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 4960 6293; fax: +61 2 4690 6021.
E-mail address: Ricardo.Vasquezpadilla@csiro.au

1876-6102 © 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer review by the scientific conference committee of SolarPACES 2014 under responsibility of PSE AG
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2015.03.201
1182 R. Vasquez Padilla et al. / Energy Procedia 69 (2015) 1181 – 1191

Nomenclature

C Concentration ratio
CO2 Carbon dioxide
e Specific exergy [kJ/kg]
h Specific enthalpy[kJ/kg]
hconv Convective heat transfer coefficient [W/m 2 K]
s Specific entropy [kJ/kg-K]
EDNI Direct normal irradiance [W/m 2]
‫ܧ‬ሶௗ Exergy destroyed rate [kW]
‫ܧ‬ሶ௟௢௦௦ Exergy loss rate [kW]
‫ܧ‬ሶ௤௝ Exergy of heat transfer rate [kW]
‫ܧ‬ሶ Exergy rate [kW]
fconv Convective heat loss multiplier
Fview Radiative view factor from the receiver to the surroundings
g Acceleration of gravity, 9.8 [m/s2]
HTR High thermal recuperator
ITD Initial temperature difference [°C]
LTR Low thermal recuperator
݉ሶ Mass flow rate [kg/s]
ܳሶ Heat transfer rate [kW]
SR Split ratio
T Temperature [°C, K]
Tair Dry ambient temperature [K]
Tin,comp Compressor inlet temperature [°C]
TR Receiver surface temperature [K]
V Fluid velocity [m/s]
ܹሶ௡௘௧,௖௢௠௣௥௘௦௦௢௥ Net input power to compressors [kW]
ܹሶ஼௏ Work rate [kW]
ܹሶ௡௘௧,௧௨௥௕௜௡௘ Net power from turbines [kW]
Greek Symbols
ߙ Receiver solar absorptance
ߝ Receiver thermal emittance, Heat exchanger effectiveness
ߟ௘௫௘௥௚௬ Exergy efficiency
ߟ௙௜௘௟ௗ Heliostat field efficiency
ߟூ First law efficiency
ߟ௧௛ Thermal efficiency of the solar receiver
߰ Dimensionless maximum useful work available from radiation
Subscripts
Cv Control volume
e exit
i inlet
j Source
o Reference
 R. Vasquez Padilla et al. / Energy Procedia 69 (2015) 1181 – 1191 1183

opt Optimum
s sun

1. Introduction

Concentrated Solar Power using supercritical carbon dioxide (S-CO2) recompression Brayton cycles offer
advantages of similar and even higher overall thermal efficiencies compared to power cycles using superheated or
supercritical steam. The high efficiency and compactness of S-CO2, as compared with steam Rankine cycles at the
same high temperature, make this cycle attractive for central receiver application, since both attributes lead to
decrease in levelized cost of energy and therefore make this technology economically feasible.
Current research in S-CO2 is focused on the thermodynamic analysis and system components (turbine design and
heat exchangers), although few experimental setups have been developed to date [1,2]. Kulhánek and Dostal [3]
carried out a thermodynamic analysis of S-CO2 cycle for application in nuclear energy. Turchi et al. [4,5] performed
a similar thermodynamic analysis for central receivers, but a proposed configuration with reheat was included to
increase thermal efficiency. Both simulations used different cycle configurations: Simple Brayton Cycle,
Recompression Cycle, Partial Cooling Brayton Cycle and Recompression with Main-Compression Intercooling. The
results obtained by Turchi et al. [6] showed that reheat increased thermal efficiency and the Recompression
configuration achieved efficiency as high as the other configurations (Partial Cooling Brayton Cycle and
Recompression with Main-Compression Intercooling).
Although many of the supercritical CO 2 Brayton cycle optimization is focused on first law (thermal efficiency),
it is also necessary to perform an exergy analysis, since exergy analysis gives a detailed thermodynamic
examination of each cycle component and is useful to find critical components, causes and locations of
thermodynamic losses [7] and optimum operating conditions to maximize output work. In this paper an exergy
analysis of a Recompression S-CO2 with and without reheat is performed and a solar receiver is used to provide heat
input to the cycle through the heater and reheater. Firstly, a first law energy analysis is carried out and optimal
operating conditions are determined. Later, exergy analysis is introduced and exergy losses are calculated on each
cycle component. This type of analysis is very useful in demonstrating that an improvement shown by first law
analysis does not lead to improvement when second law is applied.

2. Thermodynamic cycle

The Recompression S-CO2 Brayton Cycle is shown in Fig. 1; in this configuration two compressors and two
recuperators are used (LTR, Low thermal recuperator and HTR, high thermal recuperator). This layout can reduce
pinch point problems in the recuperators which lead to no heat transfer between the hot and cold streams. The
stream leaving the LTR (state 6) is split into two streams. The first stream goes to the main compressor (C1) and the
second stream to the recompressor, which is a compressor operating at the exit pressure and temperature of the low
thermal recuperator [6]. The stream (state 8) leaving the main compressor passes though the LTR where it receives
energy from the hotter stream (state 5) and it is then mixed with the stream (state 10) leaving the recompressor
(C2). The mixed stream (state 11) passes is further preheated in the HTR before final heating in the solar receiver.
Part of the work produced by the turbines is used to drive the compressor (C1) and recompressor (C2).
Due to the rapid variation of thermal physical properties of CO2 near supercritical conditions [8], it is necessary
WR GLVFUHWL]H WKH KHDW H[FKDQJHUV௒WR FRUURERUDWH LI D SLQFK SRLQW SUREOHP WDNHV SODFH [9]. The high temperature
recuperator was modeled by assuming heat exchanger effectiveness and effectiveness factor for the total hot stream
[10] as follows:

(1)
1184 R. Vasquez Padilla et al. / Energy Procedia 69 (2015) 1181 – 1191

LTR HTR
6 5

9 11 4
Cooler 12
Solar Receiver Heater

1 Reheater
7 8 10
2 3

C1 C2 T1 T2

Fig. 1 Supercritical CO2 Recompression Brayton Cycle Layout. Adapted from [6]

The enthalpy ݄଺ (଼ܶ , ܲ଺ ) is the enthalpy at state 6, but calculated at the minimum temperature that the hot stream
leaving the LTR could reach [11]. This effectiveness factor defines the enthalpy and therefore the thermodynamic
state of stream 6. Another important parameter to be calculated is the split ratio (SR), which is defined as the ratio of
the mass flow rate of the cold stream entering the low thermal recuperator and the total mass flow rate of the
supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle. The split ratio (SR) is determined by applying an energy balance on the low
thermal recuperator (LTR):

(2)

The first law efficiency of the power cycle is then defined as:

(3)

The energy, mass and exergy balance were written in Python 3.2 [12] and REFPROP [13] was used to obtain the
thermodynamic properties of carbon dioxide (CO under supercritical conditions based on the model developed by
Span and Wagner [14]. In order to optimize the first law, optimum operating conditions were obtained by using an
optimization package from Scipy [15] based on Sequential Least SQuares Programming (SLSQP) [16]. The
following assumptions were used in this simulation:

x Pressure losses in the pipes and heat exchanger are neglected

x The components of the cycle are well insulated
x Expansion and compression processes are adiabatic
x The cycle operates under steady state conditions
x Carbon dioxide always achieves the minimum and maximum temperature and pressure of the cycle.

The energy model was validated with numerical models proposed by Kulhánek and Dostál [3] and Turchi et
al.[6]. The parameters used in the validation are shown in Table1. As shown in Fig. 2, the results are in excellent
agreement with the other models and the current model was extended for exergy analysis.
 R. Vasquez Padilla et al. / Energy Procedia 69 (2015) 1181 – 1191 1185

Table 1 Input parameters used in the validation of the proposed model. Data taken from Ref. [3]

Parameters Value
Turbine Efficiency 90%
Compressor Efficiency 89%
Heat Exchanger Effectiveness 95%
Turbine inlet temperature 500-800 ºC
Cycle High Pressure 25 MPa
Compressor inlet temperature 32 ºC
Minimum Pinch Point Temperature 5 ºC

Fig. 2 Cycle thermal efficiencies as a function of turbine inlet temperature. Kulhánek and Dostal [3], Turchi et al. [6]

The exergy balance for each component of the supercritical CO Recompression Brayton cycle is calculated as
follows [11]:

(4)

with:

(5)

(6)

In this paper supercritical CO Brayton cycle is integrated with a central receiver, therefore the exergy input
includes the exergy coming from the solar field to the solar receiver (optical losses are not included). The exergy
input can be approximated as:
1186 R. Vasquez Padilla et al. / Energy Procedia 69 (2015) 1181 – 1191

Table 2 Input parameters for exergy analysis. Location: Alice Springs, Australia

Parameters Value Reference

Direct normal irradiance, 980 W/m
m
[20]
Ambient Temperature, 35.5 C
Turbine Efficiency 93%
Compressor Efficiency 89%
Heat Exchanger Effectiveness 95%
[3]
Turbine inlet temperature 500-850 ºC
Cycle High Pressure 25 MPa
Minimum Pinch Point Temperature 5 ºC
Main Compressor Inlet Temperature 55.5 ºC
Reference temperature, 25 C
[22]
Reference pressure, 101.325 kPa
Absorptance, 0.95
Thermal emittance, 0.85
Radiative view factor, 1
Convective heat loss factor, 1 [19]
Convective heat transfer coefficient, 10 W/m2K
Annual heliostat field efficiency, 0.6
Concentration ratio, 900

(7)

where is the thermal efficiency of the solar receiver and is defined as the maximum useful work available
from radiation. For an ideal process, the dimensionless relative potential of the maximum useful work available
from radiation, , is calculated with Petela’s formula [17]. In this paper, the effect of the sun’s cone angle (
0.005 rad) on the limiting efficiency proposed by Parrot [18] is also taking into account:

(8)

The thermal efficiency of the central receiver is calculated as follows [19]:

(9)

As a first approximation, the receiver heat loss was calculated by using a solar receiver temperature approach of 250
ºC above the high temperature of the Brayton cycle as the receiver temperature. Typical parameters used for
calculating thermal efficiency of central receivers are presented in Table 2 with prevailing conditions at Alice
Springs, Australia [20]. Since central receivers generally work in desert areas, a dry condenser can be used. In this
case, the compressor inlet temperature is calculated as:

(10)
 R. Vasquez Padilla et al. / Energy Procedia 69 (2015) 1181 – 1191 1187

where ITD is the initial temperature difference (ITD) which is assumed to be 20 ºC [21]. The input parameters for
the exergy analysis are also shown in Table 2. Finally, the overall exergy efficiency (solar receiver and power
cycle) is calculated as:

(11)

3. Results

Exergy losses (internals and externals) or irreversibilities were calculated for each component. The results
obtained are shown in Fig. 3-7. Adding reheat to the supercritical recompression CO2 Brayton cycle leads to
increase the total exergy losses as shown in Fig. 3. The exergy loss shows an exponential tendency as the high
temperature of the cycle increases due to the exergy losses in the solar receiver. The highest exergy losses take place
in the solar receiver and, as it was presented above, adding reheat also increase the exergy destruction and losses in
the solar receiver.

Fig. 3 Total exergy Losses and exergy losses at solar receiver.

Fig. 4 shows the effect of the high temperature of the cycle and reheat on the exergy losses (destruction) of the
components. The second highest exergy destruction takes place in the cooler for both cases (with and without
reheat).
The exergy destruction in the recuperators, HTR and LTR, is the third highest with and without reheat. After
700 °C the exergy destruction in the HTR is quite stable (7.5 kJ/kg CO2 without reheat and 7.0 kJ/kg CO2 with
reheat). For LTR, its exergy destruction shows a linear tendency with the high temperature of the cycle and adding
reheat increases its irreversibilities by an average of 10.8%. The compressor and recompressor have the lowest
exergy destruction. Reheat increases exergy destruction in the compressor and recompressor by an average of 13.2%
and 4.35% respectively.
Fig. 5 and 6 show the exergy destruction as a percentage of the total exergy losses. The solar receiver contributes
to more than 77% of the exergy losses. Cooler contributes to 9-12% of the exergy losses, which makes it attractive
to integrate with a bottoming cycle [10]. In this case, the bottoming cycle uses as heat input the waste heat from the
cooler and therefore more work output is obtained and the overall efficiency of the combined cycle increases.
1188 R. Vasquez Padilla et al. / Energy Procedia 69 (2015) 1181 – 1191

a b

Fig. 4 Exergy losses in components of the supercritical CO2 Recompression Brayton Cycle. (a) No reheat, (b) With reheat

Fig. 5 Exergy losses in the solar receiver and cooler as percentage of the total exergy losses.

As it is shown in Fig. 5, the receiver contributes to less percent of the total exergy losses when reheat is added,
while the cooler increases its contribution. Fig. 6 shows that HTR and LTR contribute on average around 5.4% of
the total exergy losses for both conditions (with and without reheat). For both cases, with and without reheat,
turbines (T1 and T2) and compressors (C1 and C2) have less than 2.6% and 2.4% of the total exergy losses
respectively.
The results showed that the solar receiver and the heat exchangers are key components from the exergetic point
of view. Optimum design has to be performed in order to minimize exergy destruction which has a direct impact on
the capital and operational costs of the cycle [23].
 R. Vasquez Padilla et al. / Energy Procedia 69 (2015) 1181 – 1191 1189

a b

Fig. 6 Exergy losses in components of the supercritical CO2 Recompression Brayton Cycle as percentage of the total exergy losses. (a) No reheat,
(b) With reheat

Fig. 7 shows the effect of the high temperature of the cycle on the optimum pressure ratios. Adding reheat
increases the total pressure ratio ( ), but the pressure ratio for the main turbine (
) remains almost constant (1.4-1.5).

Fig. 7 Optimum pressure ratios

Finally, Fig. 8 shows the effect of high temperature of the cycle and reheat on the first law and exergy
efficiencies. Adding reheat increases the thermal efficiency of the supercritical CO2 Recompression Brayton cycle
by an average of 0.94 percentage points. The first law efficiency showed to increase monotonically with the
temperature while the exergy efficiency showed a parabolic tendency with maximum values around 600 °C. The
maximum first law efficiency is reached at 850 °C with a value of 52.8% corresponding to the reheat case while the
exergy efficiency reached a maximum value of 35.1% at 600 °C for the same condition as well. In general, adding
reheat improves the exergy efficiency by an average of 0.68 percentage points.
1190 R. Vasquez Padilla et al. / Energy Procedia 69 (2015) 1181 – 1191

Based on the results, the optimum operating condition of the supercritical recompression CO2 Brayton cycle is
around 600 °C, since higher temperatures lead to higher thermal efficiencies but more environmental impact and
higher operational costs take place [24].

Fig. 8 Effect of high temperature of the supercritical CO2 Recompression Brayton Cycle and reheat on the first law (Cycle) and exergy (Solar
receiver and power cycle) efficiencies

4. Conclusions
Thermodynamic and exergy analysis of a supercritical CO2 recompression Brayton cycle, with and without reheat
and dry cooling, were performed with the following results being obtained:
x Adding reheat to the supercritical CO2 recompression Brayton cycle improves the first law and exergy
efficiencies.
x The exergy efficiency has a parabolic tendency and a maximum value is reached at 600 °C due to the
exergy losses (internal and external) in the solar receiver.
x The first law efficiency increases monotonically with the high temperature of the cycle and the maximum
value corresponds to 52% at 850 °C for reheat configuration.
x The maximum exergy loss takes place in the solar receiver and cooler, which makes it attractive to
implement a bottoming cycle to improve the exergy efficiency.

Acknowledgements

This project has been supported by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA).

References

[1] Conboy T, Wright S, Pasch J, Fleming D, Rochau G, Fuller R. Performance Characteristics of an Operating Supercritical CO2 Brayton Cycle.
J Eng Gas Turbines Power 2012;134:111703–111703. doi:10.1115/1.4007199.
[2] Wright SA, Radel RF, Vernon ME, Rochau GE, Pickard PS. Operation and analysis of a supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle. Sandia Rep No
SAND2010-0171 2010.
[3] Kulhanek M, Dostal V. Supercritical carbon dioxide cycles thermodynamic analysis and comparison. Supercrit. CO2 Power Cycle Symp.,
Boulder, Colorado: 2011.
[4] Turchi CS, Ma Z, Dyreby J. Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Power Cycle Configurations for Use in Concentrating Solar Power Systems
2012:967–73. doi:10.1115/GT2012-68932.
[5] Turchi CS, Ma Z, Dyreby J. Supercritical carbon dioxide power cycle configurations for use in concentrating solar power systems. ASME
 R. Vasquez Padilla et al. / Energy Procedia 69 (2015) 1181 – 1191 1191

Turbo Expo 2012 Turbine Tech. Conf. Expo., American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2012, p. 967–73.
[6] Turchi CS, Ma Z, Neises TW, Wagner MJ. Thermodynamic Study of Advanced Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Power Cycles for
Concentrating Solar Power Systems. J Sol Energy Eng 2013;135:041007–041007. doi:10.1115/1.4024030.
[7] Dincer I, Ratlamwala T a. h. Importance of exergy for analysis, improvement, design, and assessment. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Energy Environ
2013;2:335–49. doi:10.1002/wene.63.
[8] Dostál V. A supercritical carbon dioxide cycle for next generation nuclear reactors. Thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2004.
[9] Hoang HT, Corcoran MR, Wuthrich JW. Thermodynamic Study of a Supercritical CO2 Brayton Cycle Concept. Supercrit. CO2 Power Cycle
Symp., Boulder, Colorado: 2011.
[10] Besarati SM, Yogi Goswami D. Analysis of Advanced Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Power Cycles With a Bottoming Cycle for
Concentrating Solar Power Applications. J Sol Energy Eng 2013;136:010904–010904. doi:10.1115/1.4025700.
[11] Moran MJ, Shapiro HN. Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics. 5 edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2006.
[12] Lutz M. Programming Python. 3rd edition. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media; 2006.
[13] Lemmon EW, Huber ML, McLinden MO. NIST Standard Reference Database 23: Reference Fluid Thermodynamic and Transport
Properties-REFPROP, Version 9.1. 2013.
[14] Span R, Wagner W. A New Equation of State for Carbon Dioxide Covering the Fluid Region from the Triple-Point Temperature to 1100 K
at Pressures up to 800 MPa. J Phys Chem Ref Data 1996;25:1509–96. doi:10.1063/1.555991.
[15] Jones E, Oliphant T, Peterson P. SciPy: Open source scientific tools for Python. 2001.
[16] Kraft D. A software package for sequential quadratic programming. DFVLR Obersfaffeuhofen, Germany; 1988.
[17] Petela R. Exergy of undiluted thermal radiation. Sol Energy 2003;74:469–88.
[18] Parrott J. Theoretical upper limit to the conversion efficiency of solar energy. Sol Energy 1978;21:227–9.
[19] Ho CK, Iverson BD. Review of high-temperature central receiver designs for concentrating solar power. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2014;29:835–46. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.099.
[20] U.S. Department of Energy. EnergyPlus Energy Simulation Software 2006.
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/cfm/weather_data3.cfm/region=5_southwest_pacific_wmo_region_5/country=AUS/cname
=Australia.
[21] Kelly B. Nexant Parabolic Trough Solar Power Plant Systems Analysis, Task 2: Comparison of Wet and Dry Rankine Cycle Heat Rejection.
Natl Renew Energy Lab NRELSR-550-40163 2006.
[22] Kenneth JW. Advanced Thermodynamics for Engineers. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
[23] Shah RK, Sekulic DP. Fundamentals of Heat Exchanger Design. John Wiley & Sons; 2003.
[24] Kanoglu M, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Understanding energy and exergy efficiencies for improved energy management in power plants. Energy
Policy 2007;35:3967–78. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.01.015.