Skip navigation

Please find below the judging results for your proposal.

Finalist Evaluation

Judges'' comments


SUBJECT: Climate CoLab Judging Results

Proposal: ZERO (CARBON* Combustor* Air Compressed*) Combined Cycle Gas Turbine POWER Plant

Thank you for participating in the 2015 Climate CoLab Energy Supply contest, and for the time you spent in creating and revising your entry.

The Judges have strongly considered your proposal in this second round of evaluation, and have chosen to not advance it as a Finalist for this contest.

We, the Judges and contest Fellows, are truly grateful for your contribution to the Climate CoLab and for your commitment to address climate change.

We encourage you to keep developing your work. Transfer it to the Proposal Workspace to re-open it, make edits, add collaborators, and even submit it into a future contest. You can do so by logging into your account, opening your proposal, selecting the Admin tab, and clicking “Move proposal”.

We hope you will stay involved in the Climate CoLab community. Please support and comment on proposals that have been named Finalists and vote for which proposal you would like to be nominated as the contest’s Popular Choice Winner.

If you have questions, please contact the Climate CoLab staff at admin@climatecolab.org

Keep up the great work. And thank you again for being a part of this mission to harness the world’s collective efforts to develop and share innovative climate change solutions.

2015 Climate CoLab Judges


Additional comments from the Judges:

Comment 1:

Well presented proposal, however need more insights on how such high efficiency could be reached through this techniques and the return on investment of applying complex process to non-fossil fuel technologies.

Comment 2:

I appreciate the proposer’s efforts to address my previous comments. However, my judgment has not changed. Let me clarify my earlier remarks on why I think thermodynamics do not support the claims in the proposal. I will do this using the nuclear energy as an example.

The proposal states that the first law efficiency for nuclear is 33-36%. Let’s take 34% for illustrative purposes. The first law efficiency is simply 3414*kWh of electricity output/Btus of heat input. The availability of the steam (i.e., the maximum amount of work/electricity that steam can produce) is H-TS. Standard rankine cycles convert at least two-thirds of this availability to electricity. If we had a cycle to capture 100% of availability (instead of 67%), the kWh output would rise by 50%. This means that the first law efficiency would rise from 34% to 51%. This is the maximum work we can get out of the steam. Of course, any process to raise efficiency such as the TEEU system proposed here would have some inefficiencies, so result would be less than 51%. However, this is reasoning why I say 58% is impossible.

Another way to look at this is that in going from the high temperature of heat in the reactor core to the lower steam temperature, there is lost work. This work cannot be recovered if we just process the steam. This lost work is a big reason for low first law efficiencies. No manipulation of the steam will raise these first law efficiencies to anywhere near 58%.

Comment 3:

Very detailed presentation, appears feasible and addresses barriers to implementation based on expected performance. however, the amount of data also impeded the persuasive nature of the study.

Semi-Finalist Evaluation

Judges'' ratings


Novelty:
Feasibility:
Impact:
Presentation:

Judges'' comments


An interesting proposal. Improving the efficiency of relatively low temperature heat sources is a well known goal. That being said, the proposal does not make a strong case based on thermodynamics.

Specifically, one must look at the enhancements from a second law perspective, not just a first law one (the efficiencies in the summary are first law efficiencies). The second law efficiencies are much higher and truly define the potential to recover more work (i.e., electricity). The result is that the potential is there in increase first law efficiencies modestly, but nowhere near the 58% we see in the gas turbines. Thermodynamics tells us that it is not feasible.

Given the cost of a TEEU system and the inefficiencies always found in energy conversion processes, I have great doubts whether such a system could be cost-effective. However, there is not enough information in the proposal to make any definitive statements here.

Finally, operations of the gas turbine are much more complex than described in the proposal. While temperature is important, so are pressures and mass flows. What is missing from the proposal is looking at how an enhanced feed would work in a real gas turbine. Getting 58% is not automatic, but takes hard work and the right conditions. It also requires a bottoming cycle. While the goals of this proposal are good, the technical analysis is incomplete for reasons stated above.

6comments
Share conversation: Share via:

Dimoir Quaw

Jul 14, 2015
10:22

Member


1 |
Share via:
Proposal
creator
Dear Judges, Thank you for your comments. Please revisit my proposal; Particularly NEW: figures 2,4,6,7,8,9,10,11,12. Please also note the "What actions do you propose": "Social actions..." Methane (GHG) is a propellant candidate in the closed cycle gas-turbine loop. In this way; the natural gas companies do not lose out with TEEU. My justifications for the 58% efficiency claim has been supported. Also, please see rows 39 & 40 for mass flow rate and pressure on figure 9 (NEW): Will be in touch. Thanks...

Dimoir Quaw

Jul 15, 2015
10:22

Member


2 |
Share via:
Proposal
creator
Good morning Judges, I apologize for the brief comment earlier. I was attempting to make the revision deadline. I will now attempt to respond to your comments point by point. Please standby; the response is on its way. Kind regards, Dimoir

Dimoir Quaw

Jul 16, 2015
10:28

Member


3 |
Share via:
Proposal
creator
Evaluation Reply: Dear Judges, Thank you for giving me the opportunity to contend in the semi-finalist stage, for giving me valuable expert feedback, allowing me a platform for response and promotion of the research and the further development of the concept in detail. Please find my responses ## between the hashes ##. They allude to the most-recent edition of the revised proposal... ------ Judges' Comments An interesting proposal. ## Thank you ## Improving the efficiency of relatively low temperature heat sources is a well known goal. ## The author contends that the novelty exists in the technical approach to achieve this well-known and long-existing goal. Specifically, power plant pressure and temperatures are elevated by using thermal radiation as a heat transfer mechanism to accelerate volatile ices in a vacuum. Claim 11 of published patent GB2510435 (A) was found to be novel as discussed in private communications with its patent examiner and also according to the search report. Claim 11 [a] not debunked by the first search report [b] states that thermal radiation from a thermal power plant is collimated or focused to produce electricity. The first search report did cite solar-based [c,d,e] and combustion based [f] technologies most similar to TEEU (Please review to verify my novelty claim). Attempting to reduce carbon emissions at source may not be a novel strategy but it is perhaps the most effective. Nuclear power plant efficiency increase seems the most immediate way to make a large impact on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. ## That being said, the proposal does not make a strong case based on thermodynamics. ## I hope that the added tables and diagrams (proposal revision) help to bolster what was an introduction (proposal creation)to the concept. In fact, the entire concept behind the Thermal Efficiency Enhancement Unit (TEEU) was developed with the second, and then the first law of thermodynamics (TD) in mind. I hope this becomes apparent in the revised proposal as the stated energy transfer mechanisms are limited by Carnot efficiencies ##., Specifically, one must look at the enhancements from a second law perspective, ## dQ = TdS , dS (Entropy) = or > 0 , and hC (Carnot efficiency) = 1 - ( Tcold / Thot ) > hreal (real-world efficiency). Please see "rows 36" of figure 8 and figure 9. The heat loss at each major stage of a TEEU-Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) power plant is illustrated and quantified in figure 10. Please review. ## not just a first law one (the efficiencies in the summary are first law efficiencies). ## DU = Q - W was considered, where hreal (real world efficiency) = W(mf) / ( V*DP + (d/dA(dQ/dt))*A*Dt ) = ratio of the final (pre-collision) kinetic energy of the ice crystal remnant after its rocket-like propulsion and the sum of the energies required to pump the previous ice remnant rocket's exhaust vapour out of the (6) receiver vacuum chamber and the integrated thermal energy (5) radiated from the (4) collimator during the flight-time of the present ice remnant. Please see "rows 35" of figure 8 and figure 9. In fact, the energy (V*DP) to pump out the (6) receiver may be replaced with the energy required to condense, cool and freeze the propellant ( hv*m + c*m*DT + hf*m ) into an ice-crystal if the magnitude of the latter's energy is greater. ## The second law efficiencies are much higher and truly define the potential to recover more work (i.e., electricity). ## The real world efficiencies were always less than the Carnot efficiencies in the revised proposal. As such, the first and second laws of TD have been respected in the proposal. Please see figures 8, figure 9 and figure 10. ## The result is that the potential is there in increase first law efficiencies modestly, but nowhere near the 58% we see in the gas turbines. ## The gas turbine could be more than twice as efficient as it currently is due to its high operating temperatures. However, it uses 55% to 65% of its combustion-derived work to drive the compressor. Conversely a steam turbine in the Rankine cycle uses no compressor but operates at lower temperatures, and so is less efficient. The TEEU proposes to produced highly pressurised gas at high temperatures to be fed into a gas turbine - absent its compressor. Therefore, it is claimed and shown that in theory (please see figure 8, figure 9 and figure 10, cell: "column I", "row 8" of the table of figure 10) that more energy is available with TEEU produced gas than combustion gases ## Thermodynamics tells us that it is not feasible. Given the cost of a TEEU system and the inefficiencies always found in energy conversion processes, ## The ratio of real to Carnot efficiencies for a gas turbine can be comparable to the the ratio of real to Carnot efficiencies of a TEEU. If TEEU Carnot efficiencies peak at 84.15% as shown on "row 36", "column D" of table 8, then real-world efficiencies can approach that value with research & development. A TEEU fitted non-fossil fuelled power plant can reach 55.81% efficiency as shown in "row 13", "column D" of the table of figure 10. ## I have great doubts whether such a system could be cost-effective. However, there is not enough information in the proposal to make any definitive statements here. ## Based upon solar thermal parabollic trough TEEU estimates, TEEU mark I cost to drive a 301MW gas turbine (Please see figure 9, "row 38", "column G") are greater than those quoted in the earlier created proposal for the unpublished TEEU ($800,000). This figure is intermediate in cost between a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) and a gas turbine and has comparable impact on the estimated electrical power output to the two (latter) said components. Without a gas turbine and HRSG, a natural gas power plant would require a boiler and steam turbine; thus providing ~ 33% power plant efficiency (the same as a nuclear power plant). With a gas turbine and HRSG, the efficiency is ~58%. Therefore, with a gas turbine, HRSG and TEEU, a nuclear power plant can increase its efficiency from ~ 33% to around 58%. To see how to arrive at the 55.81% efficiency as shown in "row 13", "column D", please carefully follow the argument as revised in the present proposal's newly added figures (2,4,6,7,8,9,10,11&12). In short; the undisclosed TEEU is well worth the cost, and is an improvement on the disclosed TEEU mark I cost of $24.25 million integrated cost of a field of units to drive the aforementioned gas turbine. Cost calculated from nuclear power plant thermal flux (please see "row 9", "column D" of figure 9), gas turbine gross power of 601,000 kW (Please see figure 9, "row 38", "column G") and the "Current and Future Costs for Parabolic Trough and Power Tower Systems in the US Market Preprint", "Table 2. Estimated current and future costs for Parabolic Trough Systems"[g]. Please recall that the preferred TEEU embodiment has a cost of $800,000 rather than the TEEU mark I units' integrated cost of $24.25 million based upon solar thermal parabolic trough (less tracking technology in comparison to the dish Stirling and well suited for turbine operation. TEEU mark I does not track the sun across the sky). Finally, operations of the gas turbine are much more complex than described in the proposal. ## The author agrees with this comment, and this fact is the reason why collaborative research is sought with industry partners and universities as mention below figure 11 (Please see the "What actions do you propose?" heading). ## While temperature is important, so are pressures and mass flows. ## Please see figure 9, "row 40" and "row 39" respectively. ## What is missing from the proposal is looking at how an enhanced feed would work in a real gas turbine. Getting 58% is not automatic, but takes hard work and the right conditions. ## Please see figure 9, "row 41". To satisfy operational conditions of the aforementioned gas turbine, the (9) target must be limited in thickness so as to reduce its volume and increase its operating pressure. The tables of figure 9 describes (row by row) and the diagrams of figure 8 illustrates how and where the physical quantities were arrived at. Although the drag-free rocket equations were used due to the short time allowed for proposal revision presentation, a rocket equation has been derived and spreadsheet prepared with net thrust, ablative thrust, ablative drag, vapour-pressure thrust, vapour-pressure drag and gravitational thrust terms included. The spreadsheet results support the abbreviated form shown in figure 8 and figure 9 of the revised proposal. The author hopes to prepare the spreadsheet results shortly. ## It also requires a bottoming cycle. While the goals of this proposal are good, the technical analysis is incomplete for reasons stated above. ## I hope that the bottoming cycle has been adequately featured in figure 12(b) and alluded to in figure 2,figure 5, figure 6, figure 7, figure 8 and figure 10 of the revised proposal. Please compare figure 12(a) to figure 12(b) to see how high efficiencies can be achieved by removing the gas turbine compressor and combustor as well as the bottoming cycle heat-exchanger with a high grade heat (HGH) TEEU as well as a low grade heat (LGH) TEEU respectively. ## ## Please see the "What actions do you propose?" text between figure 10 and figure 11. Although fossil fuels are inteded to be phased out from combustion to produce power, natural gas (methane) is a GHG and an excellent absorber of infrared radiation (Please see "row 10", "column D" of figure 9). As such its ice-crystal ablative mass flow rate, its relatively low molecular mass, its low-toxicity in comparison to borane and its chemical longevity in comparison to the transient borane BH3 molecule suggest methane as a desired propellant! Sequestered GHGs may be trapped in the closed TEEU cycle, not to be released into the atmosphere but rather accelerated, heated, condensed, frozen and accelerated again in a power cycle. As such, the competitive natural gas sector barrier to market may be mitigated as "fossil fuels" are replaced with "fossil propellants". ## ## Please also see the "related proposals" section as this has been revised to include the surviving "Energy Supply 2015" proposals ##. ## Please also see the "timeline" section below figure 18. The references [34, 35] were too long to list in the "references" section but link to the "TEEU mark Zero" published patent application, which can be used to accelerate or irradiate sequestered frozen GHGs for formation into plasma. This can alter the chemical identity of the captured GHGs and convert the plasma neutral and charged particle kinetic energies into electrical energy for the consumer.## Thank you for reading Evaluation Reply References [a]https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Document/ApplicationNumber/GB1304570.3/67daedb5-9b57-4b91-a60f-0d3167c34050/GB2510435-20130827-Claims.pdf [b] https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Document/ApplicationNumber/GB1304570.3/6a033c17-f31c-44ac-be26-3070466e50d2/GB2510435-20140121-Search%20report%20%20First.pdf [c] http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=4&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19801210&CC=EP&NR=0019619A1&KC=A1 [d] http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=1&ND=4&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19830614&CC=US&NR=4388542A&KC=A [e] http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=2&ND=4&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19790925&CC=US&NR=4168716A&KC=A [f] http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=3&ND=4&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19790109&CC=US&NR=4134034A&KC=A [g] http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/49303.pdf

Dimoir Quaw

Aug 3, 2015
02:34

Member


4 |
Share via:
Proposal
creator
Dear Judges, Thank you for selecting EnthalpIQ+Associates for the semi-finalist stage and for your feedback. I will be sure to incorporate the responses below to interested third parties. Please see my responses # between the hashes below # # Thank you. In response to comment 1; There was hesitation to disclose more intellectual property (IP), and make the proposal longer than it was (according to comment 3). Any complexity in the processes are a burden on the engineer and not the public or the environment. The Thermal Efficiency Enhancing Unit (TEEU) costs are lower than that of a steam turbine. Fossil fuel power plants have incorporated the cost of adding an extra turbine to increase power output (combined cycle gas turbine or CCGT). If nuclear, geothermal and solar-thermal power plant designers are not willing to do the same, then they are not competitive and unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions will be with us for some time to come. In response to comment 2: Even half of the 51% theoretical maximum efficiency for steam would boost geothermal power plant efficiency from 15% to over 25% and solar-thermal parabolic trough power plant efficiency from 18% to over 25%. The case was always made for low-power TEEU with a Stirling engine (it does not use steam) rather than a turbine with efficiency upgraded to 32%. It appears as though this advantage stated in the proposal was overlooked. Additionally, unlike water-steam, the use of oils, molten salt and liquid metals in industry for solar-thermal and nuclear power respectively is indication of a coolant or working fluid that does not vaporize and increase in pressure upon heating. H - TS = U + PV - TS With little increase in pressure or volume upon heating (solid to liquid phase only), and limited entropy increase (liquid and not gas), the working fluid will express its absorbed energy with a temperature rise rather than a phase change (doing work) into a gas. Carnot efficiency 1 - Tc / Th = Wout / Qin since dQin = dH = dU + PdV +VdP = dU(function of Th; only). In response to comment 3: The data added in picture format was mostly optional and there to serve the reader. The tabulated data merely showed the results from the calculations to lead to the final conclusion.# Judges Comments with responses # between the hashes # below each comment ------------------------------- Comment 1: Well presented proposal, however need more insights on how such high efficiency could be reached through this techniques and the return on investment of applying complex process to non-fossil fuel technologies. # Thank you. In response to comment 1; There was hesitation to disclose more intellectual property (IP), and make the proposal longer than it was (according to comment 3). Any complexity in the processes are a burden on the engineer and not the public or the environment. The Thermal Efficiency Enhancing Unit (TEEU) costs are lower than that of a steam turbine. Fossil fuel power plants have incorporated the cost of adding an extra turbine to increase power output (combined cycle gas turbine or CCGT). If nuclear, geothermal and solar-thermal power plant designers are not willing to do the same, then they are not competitive and unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions will be with us for some time to come. # Comment 2: I appreciate the proposer’s efforts to address my previous comments. However, my judgment has not changed. Let me clarify my earlier remarks on why I think thermodynamics do not support the claims in the proposal. I will do this using the nuclear energy as an example. The proposal states that the first law efficiency for nuclear is 33-36%. Let’s take 34% for illustrative purposes. The first law efficiency is simply 3414*kWh of electricity output/Btus of heat input. The availability of the steam (i.e., the maximum amount of work/electricity that steam can produce) is H-TS. Standard rankine cycles convert at least two-thirds of this availability to electricity. If we had a cycle to capture 100% of availability (instead of 67%), the kWh output would rise by 50%. This means that the first law efficiency would rise from 34% to 51%. This is the maximum work we can get out of the steam. Of course, any process to raise efficiency such as the TEEU system proposed here would have some inefficiencies, so result would be less than 51%. However, this is reasoning why I say 58% is impossible. Another way to look at this is that in going from the high temperature of heat in the reactor core to the lower steam temperature, there is lost work. This work cannot be recovered if we just process the steam. This lost work is a big reason for low first law efficiencies. No manipulation of the steam will raise these first law efficiencies to anywhere near 58%. # Thank you. In response to comment 2: Even half of the 51% theoretical maximum efficiency for steam would boost geothermal power plant efficiency from 15% to over 25% and solar-thermal parabolic trough power plant efficiency from 18% to over 25%. The case was always made for low-power TEEU with a Stirling engine (it does not use steam) rather than a turbine with efficiency upgraded to 32%. It appears as though this advantage stated in the proposal was overlooked. Additionally, unlike water-steam, the use of oils, molten salt and liquid metals in industry for solar-thermal and nuclear power respectively is indication of a coolant or working fluid that does not vaporize and increase in pressure upon heating. H - TS = U + PV - TS With little increase in pressure or volume upon heating (solid to liquid phase only), and limited entropy increase (liquid and not gas), the working fluid will express its absorbed energy with a temperature rise rather than a phase change (doing work) into a gas. Carnot efficiency 1 - Tc / Th = Wout / Qin since dQin = dH = dU + PdV +VdP = dU(function of Th; only). # Comment 3: Very detailed presentation, appears feasible and addresses barriers to implementation based on expected performance. however, the amount of data also impeded the persuasive nature of the study. # Thank you. The data added in picture format was mostly optional and there to serve the reader. The tabulated data merely showed the results from the calculations to lead to the final conclusion.#

Dimoir Quaw

Jun 8, 2016
03:27

Member


5 |
Share via:
Proposal
creator

Dear Judges,

Thank you for your selection of my proposal.

I will address your feedback,

Regards,

Dimoir


Dimoir Quaw

Jun 16, 2016
01:20

Member


6 |
Share via:
Proposal
creator

Dear Judges,

Please allow me to respond ##"within the hash marks"## to your feedback and request. To quote your reply:

"Judges' Comments

Thank you very much for your creative contest entry, we greatly appreciate your willingness to share your ideas and also the time and effort you put into developing a proposal and submitting it to the contest!"...

##You are welcome. Thank you.##

 
..."Please clarify the current feasibility of deploying this technology. Thank you"

##The thermal efficiency enhancing unit ( TEEU ) can be deployed with existing technology. As mentioned in the proposal; it can be manufactured by 2017 ending. 

Please find new figures and inserts added to the proposal: 

insert (v) outlines a table modified from the 2015 energy supply contest with the distinction that dS/dm, TdS/dm, dH/dm and therefore (dH/dm)-(TdS/dm)=dW/dm; specific: entropy, heat, enthalpy, work respectively were computed on the spreadsheet. This is in response to the 2015 evaluation as well as the 2016 feasibility request. The materials and technologies that are required to construct TEEU are already available. All that is required is a design and manufacturing partner.

As anticipated, by avoiding unnecessary phase changes in working fluids, taking into account the major sources of heat loss as described in insert (vi) and deploying some subtle approaches as further explained in detail and magnified from the previous insert, insert (vII), high efficiencies have been calculated as indicated by the green text of insert (v). In the 2016 contest, the 2nd law efficiencies (73.34%) do exceed those predicted for the 2015 contest.

Many thanks,

Best Regards,

Dimoir Quaw##