This article was downloaded by: [University of Winnipeg]

On: 20 August 2014, At: 19:50

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Green Energy

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ljge20

Thermal Performance of Biomass Plant with Triple

Generation System
a b c
T. Srinivas , B.V. Reddy & A.V.S.S.K.S. Gupta
a
CO2 Research and Green Technologies Centre, School of Mechanical and Building Sciences ,
VIT University , Vellore , 632 014 , India
b
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Sciences , University of Ontario Institute of
Technology , Oshawa , ON , L1H 7K4 , Canada
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering , J N T U College of Engineering , Kukatpally ,
Hyderabad , 500 080 , India
Accepted author version posted online: 28 Oct 2013.

To cite this article: T. Srinivas , B.V. Reddy & A.V.S.S.K.S. Gupta (2013): Thermal Performance of Biomass Plant with Triple
Generation System, International Journal of Green Energy, DOI: 10.1080/15435075.2013.858256

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2013.858256

Disclaimer: This is a version of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service
to authors and researchers we are providing this version of the accepted manuscript (AM). Copyediting,
typesetting, and review of the resulting proof will be undertaken on this manuscript before final publication of
the Version of Record (VoR). During production and pre-press, errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal relate to this version also.

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

THERMAL PERFORMANCE OF BIOMASS PLANT

WITH TRIPLE GENERATION SYSTEM
T. Srinivas1*, B.V. Reddy2 and A.V .S.S.K.S. Gupta3
1
CO2 Research and Green Technologies Centre, School of Mechanical and Building Sciences,
VIT University, Vellore 632 014, India
2
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of Ontario Institute of Technology,
Oshawa, ON, L1H 7K4, Canada
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, J N T U College of Engineering, Kukatpally,
Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

Hyderabad 500 080, India

Abstract

Supplementary firing (SF) in a combined cycle power plant results a gain in power but a loss

in efficiency. In the present work, Kalina cycle plant (KCP) has integrated in series to the steam

power plant to compensate this efficiency penalty to some extent. The effects of the relative air

fuel ratio (RAFR), steam fuel ratio (SFR) and compressor pressure ratio have been examined on

plant energy efficiency, power and stack temperature of integrated gasification combined cycle

(IGCC) plant. It has been found that lower values of RAFR, SFR and compressor pressure ratio

results favorable conditions to the IGCC plant.

Keywords – biomass, gasification, integrated energy system, Kalina system, supplementary firing

* Author for correspondence

Email: srinivastpalli@yahoo.co.in

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Currently at Faculty of Engineering and Applied Sciences, UOIT, Canada as Post Doctoral

Fellow

INTRODUCTION

In most of countries, biomass fuels are a domestic source of fuel and are often found as waste

products in different kinds of industries e.g. agriculture, forestry, pulp and paper. Biomass has

great potential as a sustainable energy for producing electricity from integrated gasification
Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

combined cycles (IGCCs). The use of gasification is increasing in place of direct combustion due

to higher efficiency. Gasification of biomass is an attractive technology for combined heat and

power production. The use of biomass gasification process is a key element in an advanced gas

turbine combined cycle system (Mark, 2003). The biomass systems produce very low levels of

particulates, NOx, and SOx compared to the fossil systems (Margaret and Pamela, 2002). Still

there is a chance to recover heat from a gas turbine exhaust after the steam generation. In current

work, Kalina cycle plant (KCP) has been proposed in series to steam power plant to recover

additional heat. Supplementary firing (SF) is suitable to meet the peak loads without increasing

the size of the plant. The solution of triple power cycle with biomass gasifier and SF involves

tedious numerical and programme coding. Integration of KCP will compensate the efficiency

loss caused by SF integration. Zhang et al. (2011) used Aspen Plus simulator to solve the

integrated systems used in a polygeneration plant in view of first and second law of

thermodynamics. Anil et al. (2006) solved the equations containing four atom balances (C, O, H

and N) and equilibrium relations for gas compositions using MATLAB at atmospheric

conditions. Laihong et al. (2008) simulated the processes, including chemical reactions and

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
heat/mass balance with Aspen Plus software. Many researchers developed, analyzed and

predicted the producer (synthesis) gas composition of biomass gasification process (Madhukar

and Goswami, 2007; Krzysztof, Mark and Anke, 2007; Rutherford, 2006; Jarungthammachote

and Dutta, 2007). Compared to biomass air gasification, steam gasification improves the gas

quality. However, excessive steam would lower gasification temperature and so degrade fuel gas

quality. Srinivas et al. (2009) developed a simple thermo chemical model to predict the gas

composition and performance of a biomass gasifier with steam injection on thermodynamic

Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

equilibrium concept for different biomass materials. Srinivas et al. (2006, 2011, 2012) also

focused on studying the parameters which influence the operation of gasification and

performance of integrated plant.

Recent fluctuations in fuel prices, however, have rekindled interest in alternatives to the

natural gas based systems. Transforming solid fuels such as biomass into gas so that they can

substitute for natural gas provides the opportunity to enhance the efficiency of biomass based

power systems by allowing the solid fuels to be used in high efficiency power generation cycles

such as IGCC processes. Odukoya et al. (2011) analyzed and showed the benefit of solid oxide

fuel cell integration to IGCC plant. Paisley and Welch (2003) discussed the operating experience

of biomass gasification along with projected IGCC process efficiencies utilizing a range of

biomass materials. An increase in power plant output would normally mean adding a second

unit, thus doubling the output. Finer upward adjustment of the design rating can be achieved by

introducing SF in the exhaust gas duct of the heat recovery steam generator (HRSG). Finckh and

Pfost (1992) investigated the potential and efficiency limits and described the possibilities for

enhancing efficiency. It is demonstrated that limited SF of the HRSG can be an interesting

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
alternative and that this allows efficiency and plant size to be increased. Gnanapragasam et al.

(2009) studied different options in SF and proved that the full gasification with syngas option

produces the highest work output per unit mass of coal. De and Nag (2000) performed the

thermodynamic analysis and optimization of SF to combined cycle. A simple combined cycle

performance with various amounts of steam injection and different degrees of supplementary

fining have been reported by Korakianitis et al. (2005).

Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

In the present work, a triple pressure HRSG has been developed with steam reheater in steam

cycle with the integration of a low temperature KCP. In 1984, Kalina cycle was first invented by

the Russian Engineer Kalina (1984). The temperature difference between the hot fluid and the

working fluid in Kalina cycle is small compared to Rankine cycle to allow a good thermal match

between the source and working fluid, which leads to less irreversibility in heat addition process.

Sayed and Tribus (1985) made a theoretical comparison of the Kalina cycle with the Rankine

cycle. The configurations developed by them were very much complicated because several heat

exchangers had more than two streams. Later, Marston (1990) modified the Sayed and Tribus

configuration with simple two stream heat exchangers and performed the thermodynamic

analysis by using the property charts developed by them. Rogdakis and Antonopolos (1991)

proposed an absorption power cycle with ammonia-water mixture as a working agent and

compared with efficiency with the Rankine cycle. They showed that for fixed upper (i.e.

superheating) and lower (i.e. condensation) temperatures, the Kalina cycle shows efficiency 20%

higher than that of the Rankine cycle. This cycle was also optimized by Rogdakis (1996) who

developed correlations describing the optimum operation of the cycle. Thermodynamic

properties of ammonia-water system developed by Ziegler and Trepp (1984) are used in the

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
present work. The Kalina cycle turbine was less expensive than the steam turbine, since the

volumetric flow rate in the low pressure part of the ammonia-water turbine was much smaller

than in the steam turbine, while the Kalina cycle heat exchangers were more expensive.

However, the additional power output of the Kalina cycle gave an economic benefit compared

with the steam cycle. Power plants using conventional processes and unconventional fluids have

a significant potential for the valorization of low and medium temperature renewable energy

sources as well as waste heat from industrial, commercial or institutional installations. In 1992, a
Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

Kalina demonstration plant started operation at the US Department of Energy’s Energy

Technology Engineering Center in California. In this plant the maximum pressure and

temperature of the Kalina cycle were 110 bar and 516 °C (Leibowitz and Mirolli, 1997).

Recently researchers are paying interest towards Kalina power generation due to suitability of

this system in conventional and non-conventional energy systems with higher efficiency. Tamm

and Goswami (2003) proposed a combined power/refrigeration cycle using ammonia-water as

the mixed working fluids, and investigated its performance. Lu and Goswami (2002) established

the operating conditions at each refrigeration temperature by maximizing the efficiency for

Kalina power and refrigeration cycle. Vidal et al. (2006) used ASPEN Plus for simulation of the

cycle. It was proved by Hasan and Goswami (2003) that heat from flat plate solar collectors

(temperature of 90 °C or less) can drive the combined power and refrigeration cycle, and produce

power and refrigeration at the same time. The cycle has a good thermal efficiency reaching

25.3% at 430 K, which constitutes 78% of the Carnot engine efficiency operating between the

same upper and lower boundary conditions. Tamm et al. (2004) also constructed an experimental

system to demonstrate the feasibility of the cycle and to compare the experimental results with

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
the theoretical simulation. They showed the feasibility of the vapor generation and absorption

condensation processes experimentally. Hettiarachchi et al. (2007) analyzed the performance of

the Kalina cycle system for low-temperature geothermal heat sources and compared with an

organic Rankine cycle. They investigated the effect of the ammonia fraction and turbine inlet

pressure on the cycle performance. They showed that for a given turbine inlet pressure, an

optimum ammonia fraction can be found that yields the maximum cycle efficiency. Srinivas et

al. (2008) studied the heat recovery from gas turbine exhaust with Kalina bottoming cycle and
Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

also compared the resulted benefit with steam bottoming cycle to combined cycle.

In the literature the effect of gasification conditions on power generation is not well reported.

KCP system is newly proposed to the biomass based IGCC system. The IGCC performance with

KCP integration was not reported so far. In this work an attempt has been made to examine the

gasifier conditions on triple power generation. The main scope of this work is to study the

behavior of IGCC system with gasifier conditions, KCP and SF systems and to develop the best

operating conditions to run the plant at maximum possible performance level.

THERMODYNAMIC MODEL OF BIOMASS BASED IGCC

WITH KCP AND SF

Figure 1 shows the schematic flow diagram of a biomass based IGCC power plant with the

gas, steam, and aqua ammonia flows and the typical HRSG surfaces and steam drums. The

compressed air and steam enter the gasifier at 12 bar. The syngas after cleaning in a gas cleaner

goes to gas turbine combustion chamber (GTCC) where a complete combustion takes place with

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
supply of the compressed air. The remaining portion goes to SF to get the required level of

temperature of turbine exhaust gas. The flue gas from the SF enters the HRSG and is reduced in

temperature by the reheater, superheater, drum evaporative surfaces, and economizer before it

enters the stack. The condensate from condenser enters the economizer and flows through the

deaerator, other heating sections and drum. Steam from the drum flows to the superheater and

then to the related pressure turbine. Then the steam from the high pressure steam turbine flows

into the intermediate pressure turbine via reheater. Some portion of the steam from the turbine is
Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

injected in the biomass gasifier and the remaining is expanded.

The exhaust of HRSG can be used to generate ammonia-water vapor mixture in heat recovery

vapor generator (HRVG) to generate power after expansion of this mixture. In separator, the

working fluid is separated into rich ammonia water vapor and weak liquid mixture. The

temperature of vapor is raised in super heater before its expansion. The vapor is expanded in

mixture turbine to generate power and it is diluted with a weak solution. The liquid weak

solution coming from separator rejects heat to high temperature regenerator, throttled and mixed

with turbine exit fluid. The mixture again rejects heat in low temperature regenerator and then

condensed to a saturated liquid state. After condensation it is pumped to separator pressure. This

liquid mixture is heated in a low temperature regenerator and high temperature regenerator as the

incoming fluids to be cooled. The liquid mixture after preheating enters into HRVG where liquid

vapor mixture generates in economizer and evaporator sections. In separator weak liquid mixture

and rich vapor mixture are separated. The cycle repeats for power generation.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Gasifier assumptions:

The syngas is assumed to be as an ideal gas and its properties are taken as a function of

temperature. It is assumed that the steam enters into the gasifier at a pressure equal to the

pressure of the incoming compressed air. The pressure drop and heat loss in biomass gasifier is

assumed as 5%. It has been assumed that the solid carbon in fuel is gasified completely. The

reference state for atmospheric condition is taken at 298.15 K and 1.01325 bar. From the
Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

literature, the ultimate analysis of solid waste biomass sample is C: 51.03 %, H: 6.77 %, O2:

39.17 %, N: 2.64 % and ash 0.37 % (Srinivas et al., 2009).

GT-ST combined cycle assumptions:

In combined cycle, gas turbine combustion chamber is maintained at 11 bar and 1200 °C. Air

flow rate in compressor is fixed at 100 kg/s. Gas turbine exhaust temperature after SF kept at 750

°C. The condenser pressure is taken as 0.098 bar. The PPs in high pressure (HP), intermediate

pressure (IP) and low pressure (LP) evaporators (minimum temperature difference between the

flue gas and the saturated steam) are taken as 50 K. The TTD in the HP, IP and LP super heaters

(temperature difference between flue gas and superheated steam) are taken at 50 K. Approach

point in economizer is 25 K (Saravanamuttoo and Rogers, 2003). The degree of superheat (DSH)

in the LP and IP super heater is taken at 75 K and 50 K respectively. The temperature difference

between steam and outlet cooling water in condenser is taken at 8 K. Polytrophic efficiency of

turbo machines is considered at 87.5%. Isentropic efficiency of steam turbine is taken as 85 %.

Pressure drop in combustion chamber, HRSG and condenser is considered as 5 %. Heat loss in

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
combustion chamber, HRSG, turbines, condenser, and feed water heaters is neglected (Srinivas

et al. 2012).

KCP assumptions:

TTD at HRVG inlet is taken at 5 K. The isentropic efficiency for the pump is 80% and for

turbine it is 85%. The dryness fraction after expansion is limited to 0.85. The condensate leaving

the condenser is assumed as saturated liquid. Electrical generator efficiency (ηg) is taken as 96
Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

%. Pressure drop and heat loss in pipe lines are neglected. (Shankar Ganesh and Srinivas, 2012)

Equilibrium model of biomass gasifier

The biomass is defined by a general formula as C a1 H a 2 Oa 3 N a 4 . For single atom of carbon in

fuel, the coefficient a1 becomes one. The coefficients of a2, a3 and a4 are the H/C, O/C and N/C

mole ratios, respectively. The moisture content in the biomass fuel is neglected. The reactions

are solved at thermodynamic equilibrium. The gasification products contain CH4, CO, CO2, H2,

H2O and N2. The following is the chemical reaction in biomass gasifier.

C a1 H a 2 Oa 3 N a 4 + a 5 (O 2 + 3.76N 2 ) + a 6 H 2 O ⇒ b1CH 4 + b 2 CO + b 3 CO 2 + b 4 H 2 + b 5 H 2 O + b 6 N 2
(1)

The Eq. (1) represents an overall chemical reaction in a gasifier but a number of competing

intermediate reactions take place during the process. There are six unknowns and four mass

balance equations, so there is a need of two equations to be developed from equilibrium

reactions. They are,

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Methane reforming CH4 + H2O = CO +3H2 (2)

Water shift reaction CO + H2O = CO2 + H2 (3)

The methane steam reforming reaction (Eq. 2) is an endothermic because of the stable

methane molecule. The C-H bond has a high binding energy (439 kJ/kg mol). Therefore the

dissociation reaction needs a high process temperature to shift the equilibrium composition to the

right side. The water gas shift reaction (Eq. 3) is an exothermic and needs a temperature as low
Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

as possible in order to shift the equilibrium to the right side. The kinetic rates are in most studies

assumed to be very fast compared with the methane steam reforming reaction and therefore to be

in equilibrium composition under the conditions of methane steam reforming. All the

coefficients are converted in terms of two unknown coefficients i.e., b1 and b2.

Total number of species (kg mol) in products of gasifier,

ntg = b1 + b2 + b3 + b4 + b5 + b6

= a1+ 0.5a2 + 0.5a4 + 3.76a5 + a6 - 2 b1 (4)

The required two equations result from the equilibrium constants, Kp of reactions. The

equilibrium constant Kp,1 of the reforming reaction (Eq. 2) can be written as,

PCO PH32 b2 b43 P 2

K p1 = = . (5)
PCH 4 PH 2O b1b5 ntg2

Similarly

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Pco 2 PH 2 b3 b4
K p,2 = = . (6)
PCO PH 2O b2 b5

A numerical method is used to solve the b1 and b2 from the above two equilibrium constant

equations (Eq. 5 and 6). All the six coefficients (b1 to b6) in the partial oxidation reaction are

calculated by the iteration of the numerical solution. The iteration procedure is repeated until the

temperature value is converged with the energy balance of gasification reaction (Srinivas et al.,
Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

2009). At the RAFR of 0.4, SFR 0.5 and gasifier pressure of 11 bar the coefficients of syngas

resulted as b1 (CH4): 0.1463, b2 (CO): 0.3235, b3 (CO2): 0.5302, b4 (H2): 0.4237, b5 (H2O): 0.9

and b6 (N2): 1.6923. These are the results obtained at a1 = 1, a2 = 1.5933, a3 = 0.5758, a4 =

0.0444, a5 = 0.4442 and a6 = 0.7068.

Thermodynamic model of power and SF systems

The complete combustion of syngas with compressed air in gas turbine combustion chamber is

b1CH 4 + b 2 CO + b 3 CO 2 + b 4 H 2 + b 5 H 2 O + b 6 N 2 + x(O 2 + 3.76 N 2 ) →

(7)
c1CO 2 + c 2 H 2 O + c 3 O 2 + c 4 N 2

In the Eq. (7) ‘x’ is the amount of air to be supplied in kg mol into the gas turbine combustion

chamber. The amount of air required for combustion to get the required temperature (T33) is

determined with the energy balance of reactants and products at the temperature of compressed

air (T32).

Following are the coefficients of products resulted in combustion chamber at above mentioned

conditions.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
c1 (CO2): 1, c2 (H2O): 1.6169, c3 (O2): 1.3, c4 (N2): 9.1762 and x (air): 1.9941

The combustion of natural gas with gas turbine exhaust in supplementary fired combustion

chamber is

fx( b1CH 4 + b 2 CO + b 3 CO 2 + b 4 H 2 + b 5 H 2 O + b 6 N 2 ) + c1CO 2 + c 2 H 2 O + c 3 O 2 + c 4 N 2

→ d 1CO 2 + d 2 H 2 O + d 3 O 2 + d 4 N 2

(8)
Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

In the Eq. (8) ‘fx’ is the amount of synthesis gas to be supplied in SF combustion chamber. The

amount of fuel required for combustion to get the required temperature (T35) is determined with

the energy balance of reactants and products at the temperature of exhaust (T34).

Following are the coefficients of products resulted in SF at the same conditions.

d1 (CO2): 1.1741, d2 (H2O): 1.8994, d3 (O2): 1.1836 d4 (N2): 9.4719 and fx (syngas): 0.1748.

For an isentropic compression process in the compressor, the expression is given as

  P   P 
sO2 ,32 − sO2 ,31 + 3.76( s N ' − s N 2 ,31 ) − R ln 0.21 × 32  + 3.76 × ln 0.79 × 32  = 0 (9)
2 , 32
  P31   P31 

The temperature of the compressed air at state 32' is determined by the iteration of the above

equation. The actual temperature of the compressed air (T32) is calculated with the isentropic

efficiency of the compressor.

For an isentropic expansion process in the gas turbine, the equation is given as

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
∆s = 0 = s33 – s34′ (10)

4
 b P 
s33 = [b1 sCO2 + b2 s H 2O + b3 sO2 + b4 s N 2 ]33 − R ∑ bi ln i × 33  (11)
i =1  ntcc P0 

4
 b P 
s34 = [b1 sCO2 + b2 s H 2O + b3 sO2 + b4 s N 2 ]34 − R ∑ bi ln i × 34  (12)
i =1  ntcc P0 

In the above equation ntcc is the total number of chemical elements in the products of
Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

combustion in kg mol. The temperature of the gas after expansion in gas turbine at state 34′ is

estimated from the iteration of above Eq. (10). The actual temperature of the gas at outlet of gas

turbine (T34) is determined with the gas turbine isentropic efficiency.

From Figure 1, the HP, IP and LP steam from the HRSG enters into the related steam turbines to

generate power. Some quantity of steam bled from intermediate stage of the turbine to heat the

feed water in deaerator. From the PPs in the evaporators, the outlet temperatures of the flue gas

at the inlet of HP, IP and LP evaporator are determined. The steam flow rates in the heating

devices (HP, IP, LP and deaerator) are determined from the energy balance equations. The

enthalpy and temperature of the steam after mixing at inlet of IP and LP steam turbine are

obtained from the mass and energy balance of the adiabatic mixing process. The flue gas

temperatures at different heating zones are calculated with the energy balance equations.

Kalina cycle is solved with one kg mixture at the separator inlet. In separator, out of 1 kg/s

mixture, F kg/s vapor portion and (1-F) kg/s liquid portion are separated. The problem is

extended with heat balance equation with exhaust gas coming from HRSG. The properties at

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
various sections of the cycle are determined by mass, concentration and energy balance

equations. The separator pressure (high pressure at turbine inlet) is determined from the

ammonia concentration at turbine inlet and separator temperature. Similarly the low pressure is

determined from saturated liquid mixture concentration and temperature at condenser outlet.

The outlet temperature of the exhaust gas from the evaporator in HRVG,

T71 = T69 + PP (13)

Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

where T69 is the bubble point temperature at high pressure.

Mixture turbine output, wt = m16 (h61 - h62), kJ/kg mixture in HRVG (14)

Work input to pump, wp = m65 (h66 - h65), kJ/kg mixture in HRVG (15)

Amount of working fluid in HRVG from exhaust gas,

(h65 − h68 )
mk = , kg/s (16)
m68 (h70 − h68 ) + m71 (h61 − h71 )

Net output from Kalina cycle, wnetkc = mk (wt – wp), kW (17)

Energy efficiency of combined cycle,

 wnet cc 
η1,cc =   × 100 (18)
 HHV 
 biomass 

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

For solid waste biomass, the syngas composition is validated with the literature and

experiments at 0.4 RAFR (Srinivas et al., 2009). At this condition, the present syngas species are

H2: 13.6%, CO: 10.38, CH4: 4.7%, CO2: 10.38% and N2: 54,3%.

The characteristics of Kalina system are studied and plotted in Figure 2 and 3 to fix its

conditions in IGCC plant. Figure 2 shows the IGCC plant efficiency (a) without SF and (b) with
Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

SF. From Figure 3 (a) and (b), it has been observed that superheating is not favoring in

improvement of the plant efficiency. But to ensure the dry vapor in expansion a minimum

amount of superheating has been recommended. The degree of superheat (temperature difference

between superheated steam and saturated steam) is kept constant at 15 K. In Figure 2, the vapor

portion in the separator (vapor fraction) is varied from 20% to 65% in steps of 5% with a change

in turbine inlet concentration from 84% to 96%. From Figure 2 (a), the plant efficiency increases

with an increase in turbine concentration only from 25-30% of vapor fraction. But the efficiency

increases with turbine concentration from 25% vapor fraction after integrating the SF to IGCC

plant as per the results shown in Figure 2 (b). The temperature of exhaust gas decreases after heat

recovery for steam generation and it becomes a source temperature to run a KCP system. The hot

gas supply temperature to KCP is at 123 ºC without SF and 116 ºC with SF as per the HRSG

calculations. The optimum vapor fraction increases with an increase in turbine concentration. A

high turbine concentration and high vapor fraction are recommended to result maximum plant

efficiency for both the cases of without and with SF.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 3 results the effect of degree of superheat with the separator vapor fraction on plant

energy efficiency (a) without SF and (b) with SF. The turbine inlet concentration is fixed at 0.95.

Efficiency has been studied with variations in degree of superheat (10 – 35 K) and vapor fraction

(40 – 60%). The plant efficiency is decreasing with an increase in degree of superheat at a fixed

vapor fraction. Due to reversing the vapor fraction influence from 18 K of degree of superheat, it

is critical for the plant without SF. The critical degree of superheat for plant with SF is decreased

to 13 K. On overall basis, the critical degree of superheat varies from 13 K to 18 K. The plant
Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

efficiency decreases with an increase in vapor fraction at high degree of superheat. So, the

superheating is not necessary for the KCP system but only a minimum amount is sufficient to

ensure the dry expansion in the turbine.

Thermodynamic evaluation to KCP has been validated with the existing KCP located at Husavik,

Iceland running from hot water (geo thermal resource). Table 1 compares the present simulated

results with the plant readings (Hjartarson et al., 2003) for validation of the KCP work. The plant

is solved with the working conditions of F = 0.687, T70 = 121 °C, x61 = 0.95 and tw, in = 12 °C.

The power plant under consideration is operating without a superheater; therefore in the present

simulated model the superheater is bypassed for validation. Most of the calculated results are

closely matched with the Husavik power plant conditions. The ammonia concentration at turbine

inlet is reported as 0.8 compared to Husavik at 0.81. Similarly the determined low pressure is 5.1

bar compared to 5.5 bar. The resulted liquid ammonia concentration at separator is

comparatively weak solution (0.45) over the plant reading (0.5). The temperature after expansion

is low (53.5 °C) compared to the plant temperature (60 °C). It is due to the assumed turbine

efficiency.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 4 shows the effect of RAFR on (a) plant energy efficiency (b) power output and (c)

stack temperature with and without SF and KCP integrations. The individual and combined

effect of above mentioned systems have been studied with the biomass gasifier conditions. Lv et

al. (2004) suggested the optimal value of RAFR as 0.23 for biomass gasification. In the present

study, to examine the other gasifier variants, RAFR is fixed at 0.4. SF declines the efficiency as

it is carried out at low temperature compared to main combustion chamber. KCP alone raises 1%

plant efficiency compared to without any integration. KCP gives an efficiency increment of 0.7%
Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

with association of SF. The syngas to be cooled in case of engine applications to get high

volumetric efficiency but in turbo generator, gas cooling is not essential. The gasifier

temperature increases with an increase in RAFR. But when SF is used with high RAFR, the high

temperature syngas decreases SF combustion efficiency which results lower plant efficiency and

output. The stack temperature is decreased from 123 °C to 66 °C with KCP and without use of

SF. With integration of SF and KCP, the stack temperature is decreased from 117 °C to 58 °C.

Figure 5 depicts the influence of steam injection in gasifer on (a) plant efficiency (b) power

and (c) stack temperature with and without the combination of SF and KCP. The results are

plotted at a fixed air supply of 100 kg/s to the air compressor. SF boosts the power output, so it is

a suitable component for peak load demands. But it drops the efficiency due to decreased output

from steam turbine and also increased exhaust losses per unit mass of fuel. For fixed amount of

air supply to the compressor, the total output increases with steam injection in the gasifier. The

gas plant output, steam plant output and KCP output increases with steam injection with

increased rate of working fluids. But the output per unit mass of fuel decreases with the steam

injection. It leads to decrease in the energy efficiency with the steam injection. An increment of 6

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
MW is obtained with SF addition and 1 MW is resulted with KCP addition. But nearly 2% drop

in efficiency has been observed with the SF and a compensation of 0.75 to 1% has been obtained

with the KCP.

Figure 6 depicts the effect compressor pressure ratio on (a) plant efficiency (b) power (c) stack

temperature with additions of SF and KCP. Fluctuations in efficiency and power have been

observed with the compressor pressure changes. The power output at fixed compressor air supply
Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

decreases with an increase in compressor ratio. The optimum pressure ratio for high efficiency is

decreasing with the SF. KCP recovers extra heat from exhaust gas so it results lower stack

temperature compared to without its involvement. The stack temperature increases with

compressor ratio without addition of SF. But with SF and due to fixation of SF’ exit temperature,

the stack temperature does not change with the compressor pressure. Without SF and KCP, the

stack temperature is high. The plant efficiency and output gets maximum at the lower

compressor ratio of 11 without SF and SF decreases this optimum pressure ratio from 11 to 9.

Table 2 presents IGCC results with KCP and SF. The specifications are developed at the

optimized working conditions. The HRSG TPs are matching with the Franco and Russo (2002)

thermo-economic optimized results of 216 bar (HP), 28.2 bar (IP) and 2.2 bar (LP). A deviation

in pressures is due to integration of SF. The results show that with the KCP addition 10% of

additional heat recovery can be obtained. The total air circulation in IGCC is less compared to

natural gas based combined cycle. The stiochiometric air fuel ratio for the solid waste biomass is

6.5:1. In the present IGCC plant the actual air fuel ratio in gasifier is 2.4:1. It is 2.7:1 for IGCC’s

gas turbine combustion chamber. In case of natural gas it was reported as 49:1 (Gupta et al.,

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2009). Therefore with the gasification, the air supply to gas turbine combustion chamber

decreases. It reduces the overall load on air compressor. So the reduction in efficiency by low

grade biomass fuel can be compensated by this effect.

CONCLUSIONS

The effects of biomass gasifier conditions on IGCC plant performance are studied with the

options of KCP and SF. The KCP has been optimized at 0.95 ammonia concentration, 0.6 vapor
Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

fraction and 15 K superheat. KCP increases the plant efficiency with an increment of 1% and

compensates the efficiency loss caused by SF. For peak plants, SF is a suitable option to generate

extra power. Energy efficiency is high at lower values of RAFR, SFR and gasifier pressure.

Steam injection into biomass gasifier increases the power output at fixed air supply but it drops

the efficiency. The compressor load decreases with the solid fuel gasification.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Authors T. Srinivas and B.V. Reddy acknowledge the financial support from NSERC, Canada

for the research work.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
REFERENCES

Anil, K. Prasad, P. Preeti, A. and Anuradda, G. 2006. Equilibrium model for biomass

gasification. Proceedings of International conference on Advances in Energy Research (AER –

2006):106-112.

De, S. Nag, P.K. 2000. Effect of supplementary firing on the performance of an integrated

gasification combined cycle power plant. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical

Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy 214 (1): 53-60.

Finckh, H.H. and Pfost, H. 1992. Development potential of combined-cycle (GUD) power plants

with and without supplementary firing, ASME Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and

Power 114 (4): 653- 659.

Franco, A. Russo, A. 2002. Combined cycle plant efficiency increase based on the optimization

of the heat recovery steam generator operating parameters. International Journal of Thermal

Sciences 41(9):843–59.

Gnanapragasam, N. V. Reddy, B.V. and Rosen, M.A. 2009. Optimum conditions for a natural

gas combined cycle power generation system based on available oxygen when using biomass as

supplementary fuel. Energy 34 (6): 816–826.

Jarungthammachote, S. and Dutta, A. 2007. Thermodynamic equilibrium model and second law

analysis of a downdraft waste gasifier. Energy 32 (9): 1660–1669.

Hasan, A.A. and Goswami, D.Y., 2003. Exergy analysis of a combined power and refrigeration

thermodynamic cycle driven by a solar heat source. ASME J. Sol. Energy Eng. 125 (1): pp.55-60.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Hettiarachchi, H.D.M. Golubovic, M. Worek, W.M. and Ikegami, Y. 2007. The performance of

the Kalina cycle system 11 (KCS-11) with low-temperature heat sources, ASME Journal of

Energy Resources Technology 129 (3):.243-247.

Hjartarson, H. Maack, R. Johannesson, S. 2003. Husavik energy, multiple use of geothermal

energy. International Geothermal Conference, Reykjavik, Iceland.

Kalina, I.A. 1984. Combined cycle system with novel bottoming cycle, ASME J. Engineering for
Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

Gas Turbine and Power 106 (10):.737-742.

Korakianitis, T. Grantstrom, J. Wassingbo, P. 2005. Parametric performance of combined cycle-

cogeneration power plants with various power and efficiency enhancements. ASME Journal of

gas turbines and power 127 (1), 65-72.

Krzysztof, J. P. Mark, J. P. and Anke, P. 2007. Exergetic evaluation of biomass gasification.

Energy 32 (4): 568–574

Laihong, S. Yang, G. and Jun, X. 2008. Simulation of hydrogen production from biomass

gasification in interconnected fluidized beds. Biomass and Bioenergy 32 (2): 120-127.

Leibowitz, H. and Mirolli, M. 1997. First Kalina combined cycle plant tested successfully.

Power Engineering 101(5): 44-48.

Lu, S. and Goswami, D.Y. 2002. Theoretical analysis of ammonia-based combined

power/refrigeration cycle at low refrigeration temperatures, Proceedings of SOLAR 2002,

Sunrise on the Reliable Energy Economy, June 15-20, Reno, Nevada.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Lv, P.M. Xiong, Z.H. Chang, J., Wu, C.Z. Chen, Y. and Zhu, J.X. 2004. An experimental study

on biomass air–steam gasification in a fluidized bed. Bioresource Technology 95 (1): 95–101.

Madhukar, R.M. and Goswami, D.Y. 2007. Thermodynamic optimization of biomass gasifier

for hydrogen production. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 32 (16): 3831-3840.

Margaret, K.M and Pamela, L.S. 2002. Life cycle assessment comparisons of electricity from

biomass, coal, and natural gas, Paper No. 18d, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Annual
Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

Meeting of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers.

Mark, A. and Mike, J.W. 2003. Biomass gasification combined cycle opportunities using the

future energy silvagas gasifier coupled to Alstom’s industrial gas turbines, Proceedings of ASME

Turbo Expo 2003, Georgia World Congress Center, No. GT2003-38294:1-7.

Marston, C.H. 1990. Parametric analysis of the Kalian cycle, ASME J Engineering for Gas

Turbine and Power 112:107-116.

Odukoya, A., Dincer, I., Naterer, G.F., 2011. Exergy analysis of a gasification based combined

cycle with solid oxide fuel cells for cogeneration,

International Journal of Green Energy 8(8): 834-856.

Paisley, M.A. and Welch, M.J. 2003. Biomass gasification combined cycle opportunities using

the future energy silvagas gasifier coupled to alstom’s industrial gas turbines, Proceedings of

ASME Turbo Expo 2003, GT2003-38294:1-7.

Rogdakis, E.D. and Antonopoulos, K.A. 1991. A high efficiency NH3-H2O absorption power

cycle, Heat recovery systems and CHP 11 (4):263-275.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Rogdakis, E.D. 1996. Thermodynamic analysis, parametric study and optimum operation of the

Kalina cycle, International journal of Energy Research 20 (4):359-370.

Rutherford, J. 2006. Heat and power applications of advanced biomass gasifiers in New

Zealand’s wood industry, M.E. thesis in Chemical and Process Engineering, University of

Canturbury.

Saravanamuttoo, HIH. Rogers, GFC. and Cohen, H. 2003. Gas turbine theory, Pearson
Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

Education, 5nd Edn.

Sayed, Y.M.E.I. and Tribus, M. 1985. A theoretical comparison of Rankine and Kalina cycles,

ASME publication, AES, 1.

Shankar Ganesh, N. and Srinivas,T. 2012. Design and modeling of low temperature solar thermal

power station. Applied Energy 91(1): 180-186.

Srinivas, T. Gupta, A.V.S.S.K.S. Reddy, B.V. and Nag, P.K. 2006. Parametric analysis of a coal

based combined cycle power plant, International Journal of Energy Research 30 (1):19-36.

Srinivas, T. Gupta, A.V.S.S.K.S. and Reddy, B.V. 2009. Thermodynamic equilibrium model and

exergy analysis of a biomass gasifier. ASME Journal of Energy Resources Technology 131 (3):1-

7.

Srinivas,T. Reddy, B.V. and Gupta, A.V.S.S.K.S. 2012. Thermal performance prediction of a

biomass based integrated gasification combined cycle plant, ASME Journal of Energy Resources

Technology 134 (2): 1-9.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Srinivas,T. Reddy, B.V. and Gupta, A.V.S.S.K.S. 2011. Biomass fueled integrated power and

refrigeration system, Journal of Power and Energy, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical

Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy 225 (3), 249-258.

Tamm, G. Goswami, D.Y. Lu, S. and Hasan, A.A. 2003. Novel combined power and cooling

thermodynamic cycle for low temperature heat sources, part 1: theoretical investigation. ASME J.

Sol. Energy Eng. 125 (2): 218–222.

Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

Tamm, G. Goswami, D.Y. Lu, S. and Hasan, A.A. 2004. Theoretical and experimental

investigation of an ammonia–water power and refrigeration thermodynamic cycle, Solar Energy

76 (1-3): 217–228.

Vidal, A. Best, R. Rivero, R. and Cervantes, J. 2006. Analysis of a combined power and

refrigeration cycle by the exergy method, Energy 31 (15): 3401-3414.

Zhang, G. Yan, J. Jin, H. Dahlquist, E. 2011. Integrated black liquor gasification polygeneration

system with CO2 capture in pulp and paper mills to produce methanol and electricity,

International Journal of Green Energy

8(2): 275-293.

Ziegler, B. Trepp, C. 1984. Equation of state for ammonia–water mixtures, International Journal

of Refrigeration 7(2): 101–6.

NOMENCLATURE

a, b, c, d coefficients

h specific enthalpy, kJ/kg mol

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
F vapor fraction

K equilibrium constant.

P pressure, bar

R universal gas constant, kJ/kg mol K

s specific entropy, kJ/kg mol K

Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

T temperature, K

η efficiency

Suffix

g gasifier

cc combined cycle

mc main combustion

t total

Acronyms and abbreviations

AFR air fuel ratio

GTCC gas turbine combustion chamber

HRSG heat recovery steam generator

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
HRVG heat recovery vapor generator

IGCC integrated gasification combined cycle

KCP Kalina cycle plant

PP pinch point

RAFR relative air fuel ratio

Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

SF supplementary firing

SFR steam fuel ratio

syn synthetic gas

TTD terminal temperature difference

List of Figures and Tables

Fig. 1 Schematic flow diagram of a biomass gasifier with triple power (gas, steam and aqua

ammonia turbines) generation system

Fig.2 Influence of KCP operating parameters (separator vapor fraction and turbine concentration)

on plant energy efficiency

Fig.3 Influence of KCP operating parameters (degree of superheat and separator vapor fraction)

on plant energy efficiency

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 4 Influence of RAFR on (a) energy efficiency of IGCC plant (b) power and (c) exhaust gas

exit temperature with SF and KCP integrations

Fig. 5 Influence of SFR on (a) energy efficiency of IGCC plant (b) power and (c) exhaust gas

exit temperature with SF and KCP integrations

Fig. 6 Influence of compressor pressure ratio on (a) energy efficiency of IGCC plant (b) power

and (c) exhaust gas exit temperature with SF and KCP integrations
Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

Table 1 Validation of the KCP work with the existing plant readings at F = 0.687, T70 = 121°C,

x61 = 0.95, tw in = 12 °C).

Table 2 Solid waste fueled IGCC plant results with KCP and SF systems having TP reheat

HRSG at the operating conditions of rp = 11, Tmax = 1200 °C and mair = 100 kg/s.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 1 Schematic flow diagram of a biomass gasifier with triple power (gas, steam and aqua
ammonia turbines) generation system
Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
28
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig.2 Influence of KCP operating parameters (separator vapor fraction and turbine concentration)
on plant energy efficiency
Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
29
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig.3 Influence of KCP operating parameters (degree of superheat and separator vapor fraction)
on plant energy efficiency
Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
30
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 4 Influence of RAFR on (a) energy efficiency of IGCC plant (b) power and (c) exhaust gas
exit temperature with SF and KCP integrations
Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
31
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 5 Influence of SFR on (a) energy efficiency of IGCC plant (b) power and (c) exhaust gas
exit temperature with SF and KCP integrations
Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
32
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 6 Influence of compressor pressure ratio on (a) energy efficiency of IGCC plant (b) power
and (c) exhaust gas exit temperature with SF and KCP integrations
Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
33
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 1 Validation of the KCP work with the existing plant readings at F = 0.687, T70 = 121°C,

Simulated
Sl. No. Description Plant result
result

1. Hot water requirement, kg/s 90.0 89.1

Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

2. Hot water outlet temperature, °C 80 82.5

3. Separator pressure, bar 31 29.3

4. Low pressure, bar 5.5 5.1

5. Temperature of working fluid at HRVG inlet, °C 67 60

6. Ammonia concentration at HRVG inlet 0.81 0.8

7. Liquid concentration at separator 0.5 0.45

8. Vapor in separator, kg/s 11.2 10.7

9. Ammonia-water mixture before separation, kg/s 16.3 15.6

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
34
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

10. Temperature after expansion, °C 60 53.5

11. Temperature after pumping, °C 13 14.8

12. Turbine output, kW 1950 2125

13. Pump input, kW 130 230

Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

14. Energy efficiency, % 11.8 13.2

x61 = 0.95, tw in = 12 °C).

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
35
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 2 Solid waste fueled IGCC plant results with KCP and SF systems having TP reheat
HRSG at the operating conditions of rp = 11, Tmax = 1200 °C and mair = 100 kg/s.

Gas Cycle

Net output, MW 39

mair, kg/s GTCC(80) + Gasi.(20) = 100

Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

Steam injection, kg/s 4.3

mex, kg/s 113

Tgt ex, °C 640

mf, solid waste, kg/s 8.6

mf, syngas, kg/s GTCC(29) + SF(5) = 34

Steam Cycle

Net output, MW 34

PHP (bar), THP (°C), mHP (kg/s) 200, 600, 19

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
36
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PIP (bar), TIP (°C), mIP (kg/s) 23 340, 3

PLP (bar), TLP (°C), mLP (kg/s) 3.7, 250, 0.3

THRSG ex ,°C 116

Kalina Cycle
Downloaded by [University of Winnipeg] at 19:50 20 August 2014

Net output, MW 1

P, bar, T, °C, x, m, kg/s at SEPin 15, 101, 0.73, 23

P, bar, T, °C, x, m, kg/s at Turbine exit 9, 77, 0.95, 13.8

Tstack ,°C 59

IGCC

Net output, MW 74

Energy efficiency (on HHV), % 51.4

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
37