Differentiating the Physical Optimum from the Exergetic Evaluation of a Methane Combustion Process

Lukas Kerpen, Achim Schmidt and Bernd Sankol
Additional contact information
Lukas Kerpen: Department for Energy Systems and Infrastructures, Energy- and Resource-Efficient Systems, Fraunhofer Institute for Factory Operation and Automation, Sandtorstr. 22, 39106 Magdeburg, Germany
Achim Schmidt: Department of Mechanical Engineering and Production Management, Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science, Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, Berliner Tor 11, 20099 Hamburg, Germany
Bernd Sankol: Department of Mechanical Engineering and Production Management, Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science, Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, Berliner Tor 11, 20099 Hamburg, Germany

Energies, 2021, vol. 14, issue 12, 1-17

Abstract: Combustion processes continue to be essential for the energy supply sector. A reliable energetic evaluation of these processes is crucial, particularly since the pollutants resulting from combustion have a significant impact on global warming. This work evaluates a combustion using the exergetic evaluation and the Physical Optimum (PhO) as it is described in VDI-Guideline 4663. Differences between PhO and exergy are investigated, allowing a distinct differentiation and examining the PhO’s added value in combustion analysis. Based on the evaluation of a simulated methane combustion, this paper shows that the PhO-Factor may be used to evaluate combustion processes. However, it shows that the PhO of a combustion process is a simplification of this fuels exergy and does not provide advantages to the exergy evaluation. Nevertheless, an adaption of the PhO is not carried out in the context of this work since the minimal deviation of the simulated energy indicators currently cannot justify an adaptation. In addition, proposed adjustments of the reference value (PhO) could lead to the definition limits of the PhO-Factor being exceeded. The paper introduces the indirect PhO-Factor for a targeted process optimization. It is shown that in this case, the indirect PhO-Factor closely corresponds to the exergy efficiency.

Keywords: fuel; combustion; process evaluation; physical optimum; exergy; exergy efficiency (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q Q0 Q4 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q47 Q48 Q49 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/12/3419/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/12/3419/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:12:p:3419-:d:572106

Access Statistics for this article

Energies is currently edited by Ms. Agatha Cao

More articles in Energies from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().