4.7 Article

On the importance of the thermosiphon effect in CPG (CO2 plume geothermal) power systems

期刊

ENERGY
卷 69, 期 -, 页码 409-418

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2014.03.032

关键词

Carbon dioxide; Geothermal energy; Carbon dioxide utilization; Thermosiphon; Renewable energy; Carbon dioxide plume

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [CHE-1230691]
  2. George and Orpha Gibson Endowment for the Hydrogeology and Geofluids Research Group in the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Minnesota (UMN)
  3. Division Of Earth Sciences
  4. Directorate For Geosciences [1230691] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

CPG (CO2 Plume Geothermal) energy systems use CO2 to extract thermal energy from naturally permeable geologic formations at depth. CO2 has advantages over brine: high mobility, low solubility of amorphous silica, and higher density sensitivity to temperature. The density of CO2 changes substantially between geothermal reservoir and surface plant, resulting in a buoyancy-driven convective current - a thermosiphon - that reduces or eliminates pumping requirements. We estimated and compared the strength of this thermosiphon for CO2 and for 20 weight percent NaCl brine for reservoir depths up to 5 km and geothermal gradients of 20, 35, and 50 degrees C/km. We found that through the reservoir, CO2 has a pressure drop approximately 3- 12 times less than brine at the same mass flowrate, making the CO2 thermosiphon sufficient to produce power using reservoirs as shallow as 0.5 km. At 2.5 km depth with a 35 degrees C/km gradient the approximate western U.S. continental mean - the CO2 thermosiphon converted approximately 10% of the energy extracted from the reservoir to fluid circulation, compared to less than 1% with brine, where additional mechanical pumping is necessary. We found CO2 is a particularly advantageous working fluid at depths between 0.5 km and 3 km. (C) 2014 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