Basic question: what happens (advantageously) if the area below the work integral in the T/S diagram is now in play? To do this, one would have to avoid condensing the steam at the steam turbine exhaust. To see the diagrams I am referring to, use
"Rankine cycle" as a search term, and click on the wikipedia link. There are others if you want a different source. Also here is a link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rankine_cycle_with_reheat.jpg
the following patent by Ernst Korting of Vienna, Austria (notice the date) describes a means of condensing steam with water (which apparently could be condensate water from other means.)
I propose that if even as much as 50% of the steam turbine exhaust could be captured in water otherwise condensed, the evaporative loss of water (cooling tower) can be reduced tremendously, and this is the largest use of water in steam electric generation.
Patent number: 141361
Filing date: May 23, 1873
There are numerous patents dealing with jet condensers, distinct from surface condensers. I think the idea would be to utilize a number of jet condensers to capture as much of the steam exhaust as possible, but remember that it will take about 12 to 15 pounds motive fluid to capture one pound of steam. All of this condensate circulating through this type of condenser would require the largest part of it to be cooled in a natural draft tower (dry tower). There would still be an immense heat loss.
Can anyone find a way around this? It does sound a bit like trying to beat thermodynamics, which can't be done. Even if cooling off 15/16 of the water (motive and condensed) and conserving 1/16 of the heat, while eliminating most of the high temperature exhaust penalty, and eliminating the need for vast amounts of water for evaporative cooling, does the cost outweigh the benefits in areas where water resources are scant? Another thought: solar power towers experience problems with cooling tower drift - eliminated in this concept.
Advanced Rankine Cycle???
Re: Advanced Rankine Cycle???
