Life Cycle Assessment Analysis and Comparison of 1000 MW S-CO2Coal Fired Power Plant and 1000 MW USC Water-Steam Coal-Fired Power Plant

被引:13
|
作者
Li, Mingjia [1 ]
Wang, Ge [2 ]
Xu, Jinliang [2 ]
Ni, Jingwei [1 ]
Sun, Enhui [2 ]
机构
[1] Xi An Jiao Tong Univ, Key Lab Thermofluid Sci & Engn, Minist Educ, Sch Energy & Power Engn, Xian 710049, Peoples R China
[2] North China Elect Power Univ, Beijing Key Lab Multiphase Flow & Heat Transfer L, Beijing 102206, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金; 国家重点研发计划;
关键词
S-CO(2)power plant; ultra-supercritical water-steam Rankine cycle power plant; life cycle assessment; energy efficiency; environment impact; economic performance; ENERGY EFFICIENCY; BRAYTON CYCLE; ELECTRICITY-GENERATION; THERMODYNAMIC ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC-ANALYSIS; CO2; PERFORMANCE; OPTIMIZATION; LAYOUTS; CAPTURE;
D O I
10.1007/s11630-020-1327-x
中图分类号
O414.1 [热力学];
学科分类号
摘要
The objective of this paper is to understand the benefits that one can achieve for large-scale supercritical CO2(S-CO2) coal-fired power plants. The aspects of energy environment and economy of 1000 MW S-CO(2)coal-fired power generation system and 1000 MW ultra-supercritical (USC) water-steam Rankine cycle coal-fired power generation system are analyzed and compared at the similar main vapor parameters, by adopting the neural network genetic algorithm and life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology. Multi-objective optimization of the 1000 MW S-CO(2)coal-fired power generation system is further carried out. The power generation efficiency, environmental impact load, and investment recovery period are adopted as the objective functions. The main vapor parameters of temperature and pressure are set as the decision variables. The results are concluded as follows. First, the total energy consumption of the S-CO(2)coal-fired power generation system is 10.48 MJ/kWh and the energy payback ratio is 34.37%. The performance is superior to the USC coal-fired power generation system. Second, the resource depletion index of the S-CO(2)coal-fired power generation system is 4.38 mu PRchina,90, which is lower than that of the USC coal-fired power generation system, and the resource consumption is less. Third, the environmental impact load of the S-CO(2)coal-fired power generation system is 0.742 mPE(china,90), which is less than that of the USC coal-fired power generation system, 0.783 mPE(china,90). Among all environmental impact types, human toxicity potential HTP and global warming potential GWP account for the most environmental impact. Finally, the investment cost of the S-CO(2)coal-fired power generation system is generally less than that of the USC coal-fired power generation system because the cost of the S-CO(2)turbine is only half of the cost of the steam turbine. The optimal turbine inlet temperatureT(5)becomes smaller, and the optimal turbine inlet pressure is unchanged at 622.082 degrees C/30 MPa.
引用
收藏
页码:463 / 484
页数:22
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Life Cycle Assessment Analysis and Comparison of 1000 MW S-CO2 Coal Fired Power Plant and 1000 MW USC Water-Steam Coal-Fired Power Plant
    LI Mingjia
    WANG Ge
    XU Jinliang
    NI Jingwei
    SUN Enhui
    [J]. Journal of Thermal Science, 2022, 31 (02) : 463 - 484
  • [2] Life Cycle Assessment Analysis and Comparison of 1000 MW S-CO2 Coal Fired Power Plant and 1000 MW USC Water-Steam Coal-Fired Power Plant
    Mingjia Li
    Ge Wang
    Jinliang Xu
    Jingwei Ni
    Enhui Sun
    [J]. Journal of Thermal Science, 2022, 31 : 463 - 484
  • [4] Exergy analysis of a 1000 MW single reheat supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle coal-fired power plant
    Zhou, Jing
    Zhang, Chenhao
    Su, Sheng
    Wang, Yi
    Hu, Song
    Liu, Liang
    Ling, Peng
    Zhong, Wenqi
    Xiang, Jun
    [J]. ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT, 2018, 173 : 348 - 358
  • [5] Water footprint comparison of a naphtha-fired combined cycle power plant and a coal-fired steam power plant
    Arpit, Sankalp
    Das, Prasanta Kumar
    Dash, Sukanta Kumar
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT, 2022, 194 (06)
  • [6] Water footprint comparison of a naphtha-fired combined cycle power plant and a coal-fired steam power plant
    Sankalp Arpit
    Prasanta Kumar Das
    Sukanta Kumar Dash
    [J]. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2022, 194
  • [7] Deactivation of commercial SCR catalyst used in 1000MW coal-fired power plant
    Fang, Tuo-Tuo
    Gao, Er-Hao
    Wang, Liang
    Xu, Nan
    Wang, Xiao-Xiang
    He, Yi
    Pan, Hua
    Shi, Yao
    [J]. Zhongguo Huanjing Kexue/China Environmental Science, 2019, 39 (02): : 583 - 590
  • [8] Environmental Impact Assessment on 1000 MW Coal-Fired Power Plant under Off-Design Conditions
    Chen, Na-Na
    Han, Xiao-Qu
    Mu, Qi-Wei
    Liu, Ming
    Yan, Jun-Jie
    [J]. Kung Cheng Je Wu Li Hsueh Pao/Journal of Engineering Thermophysics, 2019, 40 (01): : 22 - 27
  • [9] Exergy Analysis of 300MW Coal-Fired Power Plant
    Li, Yong
    Liu, Lei
    [J]. 2012 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON FUTURE ELECTRICAL POWER AND ENERGY SYSTEM, PT A, 2012, 17 : 926 - 932
  • [10] A life cycle assessment of biomass cofiring in a coal-fired power plant
    M. Mann
    P. Spath
    [J]. Clean Products and Processes, 2001, 3 (2): : 81 - 91