An Analysis of Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Cycles

By: Noah Kuehn

12/19/16

Our current societies are run by, and depend on, electricity. From powering televisions to
cellphones, electricity maintains many of elements of our modern culture. While some of these
electric devices are powered using batteries or solar cells, nearly all important elements of daily
life, both luxuries and necessities, are connected to power grids. Nearly 80% of the worlds electric
power is generated by steam-based cycles [1]. Therefore billions of dollars has been put into R&D
of these cycles in an effort to optimize them. A one percentage point increase in efficiency, can lead
to millions of dollars in savings for a company, as well as helping to decrease fossil fuel emissions.
As of late though, engineers have had a very difficult time improving upon steam-based power
generation. It appears as if a plateau has been reached, and while additional improvements to these
cycles can still be made, they will not provide great changes to the overall efficiency of the cycle.
One proposed solution to surmounting this plateau is replace the working fluid in these
cycles, namely steam, with a supercritical fluid. The advantage of using a supercritical fluid is its
energy density. Additionally, great changes in density can be achieved with relatively small changes
in temperature and pressure [2]. While nearly any compound can be turned into a super critical
fluid [3], supercritical carbon dioxide (henceforth referred to as SCO2) integrates well into existing
steam-based cycles [2], and thus is a great candidate for further research.
Carbon dioxide is supercritical whenever its temperature and pressure are above 31 C and
73 atm. The reason SCO2 fits into existing steam based cycles so well is multifaceted. Firstly, they
have similar firing temperatures, so the method of heating the SCO2 can be very similar to the way
water is heated in our current steam-based power cycles. Secondly, because of supercritical fluids
tend to have densities similar to liquids, but behaviors similar to gasses, existing pump, compressor
and turbine designs can all be used [1]. For you can pump it around like a liquid, but it will fill up a
whole turbine like a gas. However, the scale of these elements can be greatly reduced. A SCO2
turbine is estimated to be able to be an order of magnitude smaller than existing steam turbines [2].
This helps to reduce mechanical friction greatly, improving the actual efficiency of the cycle. What is
of greater importance than actual efficiency from a thermodynamics perspective is thermal
efficiency.
The thermal efficiency of a power generating cycle is the ratio of the amount of power the
cycle produces, net, over the heat input into the cycle, Q . This relation is shown in Equation 1 with
representing the thermal efficiency.

= (1)

There are many ways in which someone could design a cycle where SCO2 is the working
fluid; however, a closed loop, recompression Brayton cycle seems like a good candidate for effective
power generation. Figure 1 contains a flow diagram for one of these cycles [2].
 Figure 1. The flow diagram of the cycle being considered

In an effort to be able to use Equation 1, the flow diagram present in Figure 1 must be
deconstructed into equations. Firstly the net power output of the cycle, net, must be defined. For
the setup seen in Figure 1 it is simply the power generated by the turbine, minus the power
consumed by the compressors. This relation can be seen in Equation 2. The assumed sign here is
that power generation is positive, while power consumption is negative. The turbine will produce
power, whereas the compressor will consume power.

= + (1 + 2 ) (2)

The component of the cycle that must be known to determine the efficiency of the cycle is
simply the heat added to the SCO2 by the primary heat exchanger, in Figure 1 this is represented by
the large flame in the upper right hand corner of the page. If Q in and the values found in Equation 2
were known, enough information would be known to solve for the efficiency of the cycle. However,
additional components of the cycle can be represented mathematically. By making the assumptions
that all turbines and compressors work isentropically, that friction and other dissipative processes
are absent, and that no work happens during heat transfer processes, all states within the cycle can
be fixed, and thus the power the cycle produces - and the heat it requires to do so - can be solved
with very little starting information.
The following equations are a result of the aforementioned assumptions, while some
explanations will be used to show how these equations came to be, no rigorous proofs will be used
in order to save time.
Since the turbines and compressors in the cycle are operating isentropically, the work they
require or produce can be expressed as a function of specific enthalpy of the fluid entering the
component, hin, as well as exiting, hout. A negative sign implies power is required, whereas a positive
sign indicates power is being produced. Equation 3 shows this relation.


= (3)

In the cycle proposed by Figure 1 the mass flow rate through each compressor and the
turbine differ. This will affect the seen in Equation 3. In order to rectify this each component
receives a fraction of the mass flow rate. The turbine will receive all of the flow so its can be left
alone. We can show the main compressor as receiving y percent of the flow, where 0 < y < 1. The
recycle compressor then receives (1-y) percent of the flow. Those values, namely 1, y, or (1-y) can
then be multiplied to the other side of Equation 3. This results in Equation 4, where X represents the
percentage mass flow. X can be defined as 1 for the turbine; y for the main compressor, or c1; and
(1-y) for the recycle compressor, or c2.

= ( ) (4)

The percentage mass flow for the two compressors, y, can be solved for by examining the
LTR heat exchanger. Equation 5 does this by assuming heat is gained or lost simply exchanged.
Enthalpies with a subscript b relate to the SCO2 that is more towards the bottom of Figure 1
whereas the ones with a subscript t relate to the SCO2 towards to top.

= ( ) (5)

Since all the states can be fixed, the mass flow rate for each element is now known, and the
total work produced by the cycle can be solved for.
The final thing to symbolically solve for is the rate of heat addition to the cycle, Q in. This
quantity can also simply be expressed as the difference of enthalpies entering and exiting the boiler.
However, since heat added is assumed to be positive, a negative sign needs to be added Equation 3
to maintain this sign convention. The result of this is Equation 6.

= (6)

Equation 6 and Equation 4s variations all are over , which is not found in Equation 1,
however when all the above equations are combined in the correct order, the will cancel itself
out. Equation 7 is the result of combining the above equations in order to solve for thermal
efficiency in terms of the enthalpies and percent of flow diverted. The following subscripts will
refer to the following components: q for the primary heat source, t for the turbine, c1 for the
primary compressor, and c2 for the recycle compressor; y can be written out as enthalpies as well,
but in an effort to save space and reduce clutter it will be kept as a symbol (remember it can be
computed via use of Equation 5).

+(1 2 )+(1)(2 2 )
=
(7)
 Equation 7 gives the thermal of a process if all the states within the process are known.
While it was alluded to before that the states of all the components of the process can be fixed, here
is a general overview of how it is done.
Firstly we know that the minimum temperature and pressure of SCO2 is 31 C and 73 atm
[3]. The minimum temperature and pressure of the working fluid in Figure 1 is after the cooling and
before the main compressor. The maximum temperature and pressure can be assumed to be 760 C
and 250 atm this would occur right after the main heating element [3]. Since there are only heat
exchangers, a turbine and compressors, it can be assumed that the only pressures present in the
system are 73 atm and 250 atm. Both compressors bring the SCO2 up to 250 atm, and the turbine
brings the pressure down to 73 atm. Therefore the pressures between these elements is now
known. Furthermore, the entropy before and after the compressors and the turbine remains
constant. This allows the state of the SCO2 to be fixed before and after the turbines and
compressors. Then using a process similar to that used in Equation 5 the states of the fluids
entering and exiting the heat exchangers can also be fixed.
After all the states have been fixed, the diversion percentage, y, has been calculated,
Equation 7 is ready to be used. Using the values assumed above, a thermal efficiency of 69.3% was
found. The average range for most power generating Brayton cycles is 50-63% [4]. Since the cycle
depicted in Figure 1 is relatively complex, the top end of normal Brayton cycle efficiency will be
what we compare the SCO2 cycles efficiency to. This leads to an increase of 6.3% in efficiency!
Currently, engineering are trying to squeeze decimal improvements in percent efficiency out of
cycles, so a 6.3% increase is enormous.
While this result is promising, and further improvements to SCO2 cycles could surely be
made, SCO2 cycles do not come without their difficulties. One such difficult is that CO2 tends to
corrode materials rather quickly [1], additionally, supercritical fluids have the ability to diffuse
through solid materials like any other gas [3]. This mean the piping used for SCO2 cycles would
likely need to be more expensive than the piping used in most power generation cycles today.
Furthermore, while there have been successful trials with smaller SCO2 turbines, there have been
no efforts to make a large scale one yet [2]. I do not know if this is because large SCO2 turbines are
very hard to design, or if there has just been no need to make one yet, so there have been none
made.
There are considerable benefits though too. Particulate emissions from SCO2 are
considerably lower than most steam cycles [2]. While it would seem environmentally inappropriate
to use a greenhouse gas as the working fluid in a cycle, the working fluid actually never leaves the
cycle, and thus does not have the ability to pollute the environment. Finally, there are regulations
that have been recently passed, that will force energy producers to look for cleaner ways of
producing power, and thus SCO2 cycles will be very lucrative [1].
While there may be unforeseen hurdles that get in the way of SCO2 power generation, it
certainly is an interesting field of research. If SCO2 does prove to be a viable method of energy
production I can see 3 things happening. 1) The company that develops a workable SCO2 cycle first
will make tons of money; 2) Environmental impacts of fossil fuel based power will lessen; and 3)
electricity will become more widely available, especially in third-world countries. Any one of these
three results would warrant research, but the prospect of all three at once certainly makes
supercritical carbon dioxide cycles worth investigating more.
 References

[1] Irfan U. and ClimateWire, 2016, Can Carbon Dioxide Replace Steam to Generate
Power?, n.d., from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-carbon-
dioxide-replace-steam-to-generate-power/

[2] National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2016, Supercritical CO2

Turbomachinery., n.d., from http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/
energysystems/turbines/supercritical-co2-turbomachinery

[3] DaPonte M., 2015, The Thermodynamics of Supercritical Fluids, No. 40, from
http://www.spq.pt/magazines/BSPQ/614/article/30001127/pdf

[4] Turbine Technolgy LTD., 2012, Brayton Power Cycle Qualities. n.d., from
http://www.turbinetechnologies.com/educational-lab-products/turbojet-engine-
lab/brayton-cycle-experiment-jet-engine