Limits of Performance for Alternate Fuel Energy to Mechanical Work Conversion Systems

[+] Author and Article Information
George A. Adebiyi

Mechanical Engineering Department, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762adebiyi@me.msstate.edu

J. Energy Resour. Technol 128(3), 229-235 (Sep 23, 2005) (7 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2213278 History: Received July 26, 2005; Revised September 23, 2005

The major alternatives for producing work from fuel energy include combustion systems and fuel cells. Combustion systems are subject to several performance-limiting constraints. Key amongst these is the fact that combustion is an uncontrolled chemical reaction and is typically highly irreversible. The requirement to operate below the metallurgical limit adds to the irreversibility of practical combustion systems. Furthermore, the use of heat exchangers, which must have finite temperature differences between fluid streams, compounds the exergy consumption. The fuel cell conversion system is a major alternative to combustion systems. It operates as a direct conversion device and is often cited as having a potential for 100% second-law efficiency. Realistically, however, the chemical reactions involved are not reversible. More importantly, the available fuel resources must be reformed to make the chemical energy of the fuel convertible to work. The significant exergy input required must be factored into the determination of the overall exergy conversion efficiency attainable. This paper gives a simplified first- and second-law analysis for the limits of efficiency of these alternate systems for the conversion of fuel exergy to mechanical work, thus providing a more realistic comparison of the potential of both systems.

Copyright © 2006 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Model for an adiabatic combustor in a generalized combustion engine

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

The adiabatic flame temperature versus the gravimetric air-fuel ratio for a combustor with Tair∕T0 ratios of 1, 2, and 3

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

The exergy consumption as a percentage of fuel exergy input versus the gravimetric air-fuel ratio in adiabatic combustion process with Tair∕T0 of 1, 2, and 3

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Thermodynamic model of an external combustion engine

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

A model for the direct fuel cell

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

A model for the indirect fuel cell

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

(a) Performance of a steam reformer relative to H2 production and amount of methane consumed. (b) Second-law efficiency of the hydrogen reforming process versus the reformed products temperature.




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In