Exergetic Performance Analysis of a Gas Turbine Cycle Integrated With Solid Oxide Fuel Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper deals with an exergetic performance analysis of a gas turbine cycle integrated with SOFCs with internal reforming. As the efficiency of a gas turbine cycle is mainly defined by the maximum temperature at the turbine inlet, this temperature is fixed at 1573 K for the analysis. In the cycle considered, the high-temperature gaseous flow from the turbine heats the input flows of natural gas and air, and is used to generate pressurized steam which is mixed with natural gas at the SOFC stack inlet to facilitate its conversion. The application of SOFCs provides the opportunity to reduce the exergy losses of the most irreversible process in the system: fuel combustion. Depending on the SOFC stack efficiency, the energy efficiency of the combined cycle reaches 70–80% which compares well to the efficiencies of 54–55% typical of conventional combined power generation cycles. Parametric studies are also undertaken to investigate how energy and exergy efficiencies of the integrated system change with variations in operating conditions. An increase in the efficiency of SOFCs is attained by increasing the fuel cell active area. Achieving the highest efficiency of the SOFC stack leads to a significant and non-proportional increase in the stack size and cost, and simultaneously to a decrease in steam generation, reducing the steam/methane ratio at the anode inlet and increasing the possibility of catalyst coking. Accounting for these factors, likely operating conditions of the SOFC stack in combination with a gas turbine cycle are presented.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".