کد مقاله | کد نشریه | سال انتشار | مقاله انگلیسی | نسخه تمام متن |
---|---|---|---|---|
7008206 | 1455298 | 2016 | 10 صفحه PDF | دانلود رایگان |
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله ISI
Energy cost comparison between MSF, MED and SWRO: Case studies for dual purpose plants
دانلود مقاله + سفارش ترجمه
دانلود مقاله ISI انگلیسی
رایگان برای ایرانیان
کلمات کلیدی
DMFDissolved air floatationSWROFGDLHSRHSSPCPFDDAFHRSGTVCGORMSFCCPPSeawater reverse osmosis - اسمز معکوس دریاییMED - باMulti-Effect Distillation - تقطیر چند مرحله ایSteam turbine - توربین بخارGas turbine - توربین گازright hand side - سمت راستleft hand side - سمت چپFlue gas desulfurization - سولفوریزاسیون گاز دودکشLow pressure - فشار کمMulti-stage flash - فلش چند مرحله ایHeat recovery steam generator - مولد بخار با توان بازیافت حرارتProcess flow diagram - نمودار جریان فرآیندCombined cycle power plant - نیروگاه چرخه ترکیبی
موضوعات مرتبط
مهندسی و علوم پایه
مهندسی شیمی
تصفیه و جداسازی
پیش نمایش صفحه اول مقاله
چکیده انگلیسی
Energy cost comparison between MSF, MED and SWRO has been conducted. In order to investigate energy consumption differences when combined with a simple cycle Oil-Fired Power Plant (OFPP) or a Combined Cycle Power Plant (CCPP), Yanbu Ph.3 and Ras Al-Khair Ph.1 power and water cogeneration projects are considered as practical heat and mass balance references. With the net power production of 2708.5Â MW and the total water production of 124.54Â MIGD, the fuel energy differences due to desalination are compared. By calculating the fuel energy requirement for desalination from a cogeneration cycle itself, some controversial issues including evaluating electricity and steam could be avoided. Results show that the required fuel energies for desalination are less by 11-49% when combined with CCPP than with OFPP, owing to the higher efficiency of the combined cycle. Thermal desalination benefits more greatly from the combined cycle's higher efficiency due to a lowered steam value. While SWRO shows a better fuel energy efficiency for most of the studied regime, high Performance Ratio (PR) MEDs combined with CCPP could be a similar energy efficient option if PR is 16.5-19.3, compared to SWRO with CCPP.
ناشر
Database: Elsevier - ScienceDirect (ساینس دایرکت)
Journal: Desalination - Volume 397, 1 November 2016, Pages 116-125
Journal: Desalination - Volume 397, 1 November 2016, Pages 116-125
نویسندگان
Seungwon Ihm, Othman Y. Al-Najdi, Osman A. Hamed, Gabjin Jun, Hyunchul Chung,