Organic Rankine Cycles

Low Temperature Power Cycles

Some material by courtesy of Dr. Henrik Öhman,

Opcon Energy Systems AB, and
Atlas Copco AB
Conventional Vapor Cycle Basics

The goal is to find a fluid better

suited for low-temperature heat
sources (such as waste heat,
geothermal, etc.) and often also
smaller scales, than typical
water-steam power applications
Components: similar for any vapor power cycle
Turbine

Heat source

Heat absorber
Fluid pump
Heat rejector

Work

Heat sink
 Why Organic?
At first, the suggested alternative working fluids were actually organic compounds, thus the
ORC denomination. However, recently some more sophisticated inorganic substances have
taken over as good working fluids for low-temperature applications.

In reality: ”Any-fluid-but-water” Rankine Cycle

Many common light organic substances or their isomers could be used as ORC fluids, such
as butane/pentane/isopentane, etc. The selection is according to cost and availability,
danger of toxicity and explosivity, and of course by pressure-temperature properties.

The fluid type has no effect on the max theoretical Carnot potential for power generation,
but could allow for better utilization of that potential than what water-steam could achieve
at the same conditions.
This is especially valid for low-T heat sources and for small scales. The borderline lies
around 200-300 oC and ~10 MW capacity, above which conventional steam would always be
the better choice.
 The expander: often an alternative type
Many turbine technologies are
applicable to ORC applications

Expanders commonly used in ORC's

P1/P2
25

20

Dynamic
15
Piston
Lysholm
10 Scroll

0 Development and Performance Analysis of a Two

1 10 100 1000 kWe Cylinder Rolling Piston Expander for Transcritical
CO2 System, Yang et al, 2006
Heat exchangers for ORC: very large
 ORC heat exchangers:
operate at low ΔT and with nasty fluids

Heat exchanger design is critical

for the cycle performance!
And highly complex…
 The costs?
Well developed industrial infrastructure for high volume
manufacturing of vital parts, which can be shared with
ORC systems:
• Refrigeration industry
• Air-conditioning industry
• Heat pump industry
• Process gas industry
These are all larger than ”conventional steam industry”.
Less consolidated market => wider variation and more
opportunities than the large-scale steam power industry
 ORC thermodynamics
• Thermodynamic cycle variations to match the
specific heat source and heat sink parameters
in each particular application.
• Thereafter the choice of fluid.

B
H
E G
D
C F
A
 Thermodynamics 1
T1

HEAT SOURCE Thermal Efficiency Carnot Efficiency

Q1
W T2
W th  C  1 
Q2 Q1 T1
HEAT SINK
But:
T2
Local
Carnot
T2exit  T2entry
Efficiency

50%
A
T2,local [˚C]
0
T1exit  T1entry
40% 20
40
30%
60

20% 80
100
10%
B
0%
300 280 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
T1,local [˚C]
 Thermodynamics 2
Integrated Local Carnot efficiency

 T2,l 
c , Il  c ,l  dQ1   1    dQ1
Q1 Q1 
T1,l 

1 n
c , Il  c ,l (i )
n i 1

The potentially available work in a low-T power cycle should be

evaluated using finite heat source and finite heat sink!

H. Öhman, P. Lundqvist / Applied Thermal Engineering 37 (2012) 44-50

 Thermodynamics 3
1st law restriction
Irreversibilities

We  Q1  c , Il  FoC Real Power Out

2nd law restriction
Where
th
FoC  Fraction of Carnot
c , Il
and

th  We Q1 Thermal efficiency

Thermodynamic potential for a LTPC
c,Il
It’s important to optimize
for highest specific work
output and maximum use
of available heat source,
rather than for the best
W e local efficiency…
T1exit

T 2exit Utilization
 U  Q1 Q1,ca

Q1,ca Q 1
 Quick assessment of potential
• What if we know the source and sink, but not
which technology to use?

• Apply a simplified evaluation

• Practical engineering rather than science!
 Real performance of LTPCs
1,0
Market
0,9 Quotes
0,8 Technical

0,7 Science

Yamada
0,6
Technical Qui
0,5

0,4
Market
0,3
Scientific
0,2

0,1

0,0
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0

ORC, Kalina, Hybrids / 0.5kWe - 3MWe / different fluids / T1 from 55 to 300 oC

Öhman. H, Lundqvist. P, ”Comparison and analysis of performance using Low Temperature Power Cycles”, Applied Thermal Engineering, 2013
 What about those funky fluids?
• Many single-molecule fluids are possible
• Choices grow to hundreds if mixtures are used
• Various mixing ratios are also possible
• Zeotropic/Non-zeotropic mixtures
Main challenges for the ORC fluids:
• Stability over time ? (often unstable at high T)
• Safety, toxicity, corrosivity, degradation compatibility ?
• Separation or undesired stratification ?
• Customer acceptance ?
 Thermodynamic choice of fluids
Comfy vapor pressure and crooked double-phase dome of ORC fluids allow
for efficient expansion process but carry less power per unit mass of fluid

Good reference for 105 fluids: Namal Joumal ”Comparative studies and analysis
of working fluids for Organic Rankine Cycles”, M.Sc. Thesis report, KTH, 2012
 Adaptation to new heat sources
• Smaller scale technology
• Accept large variation in operating conditions
• Short cycling ability (intermittent operation
depending on the heat source availability)
• Generally speaking – no chance for high
efficiencies when using low-T heat sources,
therefore hard to operate economically
 Feasibility of ORCs?
• Different fluids match different temperatures,
equipment and investment cases
Operating fluid Global Safety Cost/kg relative
Warming Class to NH3 (Sept-
Potential 2011)

NH3 0 B2 1

R134a 1300 A1 8.4

R236fa 9400 A1 42.9

R245fa 950 B1 25.2

R407c 1650 A1 5.3

R410a 1980 A1 5.9

Misconceptions are common due to simplifications
(a bad example below)

???
This comparison is totally
misleading unless proper
accounting for the heat source
type and temperature is given,
for instance via the exergetic
efficiency (fraction of Carnot)
 Are ORC’s new?
Rumor goes that Carnot himself has
been experimenting with organic fluids,
200 years ago…
He wanted to find out if the efficiency
potential is dependent on the fluid –
and he managed to prove that it isn’t –
but via his theoretical analysis, without
realizing fully the impact it had

ORC engines for cars have been

suggested and tested in the 1970-ies…

The largest heat exchanger would be

the condenser, here shown on the
roof of the car (left) or below the floor
(the picture above)
Sample 1: Infinity ORC Turbine

• 3.8 x 4 meter front

• 10 kWe
• ~0.7kW/m3 (nominal)
Sample 2: Opcon PowerBox

• Opcon Marine (utilizing the

waste heat from a ship engine)
• 11 x 3.5 x 3 meter
• 37 tonnes
• 775 kWe
• 7kW/m3 (nominal)
 Large Size, Little Power
GE: 3MW BarberNichols: 380kW

Pratt&Whitney: 275kW
Ormat: 350kW
 Applications (Waste heat)
• ICEs (jacket water, charge air, exhaust gas)
Adding ~5-to-8 %-points of efficiency
• Process waste heat (Paper industry,
Metallurgic, Chemical, Cement industry, etc)
Usually around 10% thermal efficiency of ORC
• CHP – ORC could even use district heating as energy input
Often there is a surplus of district heat that could be
converted to power via ORC
 Applications (Prime heat)
• Small-scale distributed CHP
Replacing steam cycles in <5MWe local plants
• Solar heat powered ORC
1kWe to 5MWe Solar-ORC plants
• Geothermal heat powered ORC
Up to 15MWe multiple-unit Geo-ORC plants
Highly sensitive to the heat sink properties

Jacket Cooling Scav air cooling

74.000 tonnes RoRo carrier Figaro

230 meter
8000 cars
13 decks
 ORC system integration example
m/v Figaro 74.000 ton LCTC
• 19MW 2-stroke diesel engine
• Operating load 2-16 MWshaft
• Multiple waste heat sources
• Variable waste heat source temperature & flow
• Theoretical potential for efficiency
improvement by waste heat recovery: 17%
• Economic potential for improvement: 6-8%
Waste heat recovery from ship engine
Fuel savings of 5 – 10%
Shaft power Electric power
50% 2-4% 3-6%

Steam Rankine
25%

14% ORC
Cooling water

6%

4%

1%
 Sample system layout
Saturated RANKINE
steam, 8 bar Dump valve
G OPB-WST – Genset

Boiler
onboard
heat Dump
8 bar abs loads Condenser
Electric power to
main switchboard

ORC
Exhaust gas
LT Cooling by seawater
economizer
G

Jacket cooling

OPB–ORC equipment
Main
Engine Scavenging (charge air) cooling
 Profitability
• Value of electric energy: 0.035 – 0.3 Euro/kWh
• Typical ORC unit cost : 1000-2000 Euro/kWe
• PayOff:

Best: 1000 / 0.3 = 3,300 hours

Worst: 2000 / 0.035 = 57,000 hours

 Do’s and Dont’s with ORC

Do’s: Dont’s:
• Investment case focus • Technology focus
• System integration • Cycle type priority
• ”Good enough” • Endless Optimization
• Standardize • Customize
• Maximize the • Maximize the specific
Running Hours cycle efficiency
Thank you !