4.7 Article

Methodology of exergy-based economic analysis incorporating safety investment cost for comparative evaluation in process plant design

期刊

ENERGY
卷 182, 期 -, 页码 864-880

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2019.06.028

关键词

Exergy; Economic analysis; Safety investment cost; Risk assessment; Rankine cycle; LNG FSRU

资金

  1. Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KEIT) - Korea government [10070163]
  2. Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KEIT) [10070163] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study proposes a new methodology of exergy-based economic analysis incorporating safety investment cost (SIC) for the comparative evaluation of process design alternatives for plants in terms of efficiency and economics while considering safety. Exergy-based economic analysis is employed to synthetically evaluate the design factors within the same framework. The SIC is estimated as the cost required to ensure the safety of the design by reducing accident risks to a level that is 'as low as reasonably practicable' (ALARP), which presents a rational approach to converting the risks associated with design alternatives into monetary values for economic analysis. The proposed method is applied to select the optimal working fluid in the Rankine cycle used in the recovery of both waste heat from a gas turbine and cold energy from liquefied natural gas (LNG) of the regasification process. The Rankine cycle, using ammonia, propane, and carbon dioxide as the working fluid, produces electric power of 11.7 MW, 8.9 MW, and 7.4 MW with specific exergy costs of 45.0 KJ, 61.9 $/GJ, and 77.8 $/GJ, respectively. Ammonia can be selected as the best alternative. The results are limited to quantitative risk assessment that does not consider domino effect and environmental damage. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据