Exergetic Performance Analysis of a Gas Turbine Cycle Integrated With Solid Oxide Fuel Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Energy and exergy assessments are reported of integrated power generation using solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) with internal reforming and a gas turbine cycle. The gas turbine inlet temperature is fixed at 1573 K and the high-temperature turbine exhaust heats the natural gas and air inputs, and generates pressurized steam. The steam mixes at the SOFC stack inlet with natural gas to facilitate the reformation process. The integration of solid oxide fuel cells with gas turbines increases significantly the power generation efficiency relative to separate processes and reduces greatly the exergy loss due to combustion, which is the most irreversible process in the system. The other main exergy destruction is attributable to electrochemical fuel oxidation in the SOFC. The energy and exergy efficiencies of the integrated system reach 70–80%, which compares well to the efficiencies of approximately 55% typical of conventional combined-cycle power generation systems. Variations in the energy and exergy efficiencies of the integrated system with operating conditions are provided, showing, for example, that SOFC efficiency is enhanced if the fuel cell active area is augmented. The SOFC stack efficiency can be maximized by reducing the steam generation while increasing the stack size, although such measures imply a significant and nonproportional cost rise. Such measures must be implemented cautiously, as a reduction in steam generation decreases the steam/methane ratio at the anode inlet, which may increase the risk of catalyst coking. A detailed assessment of an illustrative example highlights the main results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".