4.7 Article

Geothermal energy development by circulating CO2 in a U-shaped closed loop geothermal system

期刊

ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT
卷 174, 期 -, 页码 971-982

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2018.08.094

关键词

Geothermal energy extraction; U-shaped closed loop geothermal system; CO2 circulating; Geothermal recovery performance; Critical position; Effective distance

资金

  1. National Science and Technology Major Projects of China [2016ZX05042, 2017ZX05039, 2016ZX05039]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation Projects of China [51504269, 51490654, 40974055]
  3. Science Foundation of China University of Petroleum, Beijing [C201605]
  4. National Basic Research Program of China [2015CB250900]
  5. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University [NCET-13-1030]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

At present, geothermal energy is a promising research area but with a series of unknowns waited to be explored. Recently, the U-shaped closed loop geothermal extraction system was proposed to improve the geothermal recovery performance. However, there is a lack of mathematical model to simulate the circulating process of CO2 in the wellbore. In this paper, a model is developed for simulating CO2 flow in the descending, horizontal and ascending sections of the geothermal well. Besides, in order to properly evaluate the geothermal recovery performance, two new concepts of critical position and effective distance are proposed. Simulation results show that: (a) There exists a critical position in the ascending wellbore where the working fluid temperature is equal to the formation temperature. (b) The effect of mass flow rate on pressure drop becomes more obvious when the gravity is neglected, especially under the condition that the mass flow is at a higher value. (c) The rapid increase of working fluid temperature does not mean that the geothermal recovery performance is better. At this time, the effective distance should be adopted as an additional reference.

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