Doctorand Ibrahim YILDIZ
Mechanical Engineer (M.Sc.)
In this paper, the exergy analysis and environmental assessment are performed to the biodiesel and diesel-fueled engine at full 294 Nm and 1800 r/min. The exergy loss rates of fuels are found as 15.523 and 18.884 kW for the 100% biodiesel (BDF100) (obtained from cooking oil) and Japanese Industrial Standard Diesel No. 2 (JIS#2) fuels, respectively. In addition, the exergy destruction rate of the JIS#2 fuel is found as 80.670 kW, while the corresponding rate of the BDF100 is determined as 62.389 kW. According to environmental assessments of emissions and nanoparticles of the fuels, the biodiesel (BDF100) fuel is more environmentally benign than the diesel (JIS#2) fuel in terms of particle concentration and carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions. So, it is better to use this kind of the 100% biodiesels in the diesel engines for better environment and efficiency in terms of the availability and environmental perspectives.
Hakan Caliskan, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Usak University, 64200 Usak, Turkey. Email: email@example.com
In this study, an internal combustion engine is experimentally analyzed under 100 Nm engine load using biodiesel and diesel fuels. The analyses of energy, exergy and environment are also applied to the internal combustion engine without after treatment system (Engine-Out) and with silicon carbide-based diesel particle filter (SiC-DPF) after treatment system. The impact of the utilization of SiC-DPF on the exhaust emissions and energy, exergy, environmental analyses results are examined. It is determined that (1) the work rate of diesel-fueled engine is higher than the biodiesel-fueled engine. (2) When energy and exergy losses are taken into consideration, the use of SiC-DPF has a positive effect on the emissions of the biodiesel-fueled engine, but it does not have the same effect for the diesel-fueled engine. (3) The biodiesel-fueled engine has higher energy and exergy efficiencies than diesel-fueled engine with and without after treatment systems. (4) In terms of exergy destruction, the results of the diesel-fueled engine have the maximum value with the use of SiC-DPF after treatment system, while the results of the biodiesel-fueled engine have the minimum value with the use of SiC-DPF. This reveals the effectiveness of the use of SiC-DPF after treatment system. (5) The emission rate of CO2 is obtained as maximum for the biodiesel-fueled engine. Also, the minimum CO2 emission rate is determined for the diesel-fueled engine without after treatment system. The use of SiC-DPF contributes to a reduction in CO2 emission for the biodiesel fuel, while it causes an increase for the diesel fuel. (6) The entropy generation rate of the biodiesel-fueled engine is lower than the diesel-fueled engine with and without after treatment options. This study could help future studies on the choice of fuels and utilization of after treatment systems in the internal combustion engines in terms of better environment.
In this study, Japanese Industrial Standard diesel no 2 and waste cooking oil biodiesel fuels are compared in terms of environmental pollution cost analysis. The experiments of the diesel and biodiesel fueled diesel engine are done at 100 Nm, 200 Nm and full load (294 Nm), while engine speed is constant at 1800 rpm. The method used in this study consists of a combination of economic and environmental parameters. According to the analyses, the total environmental pollution cost of the biodiesel is higher than the diesel fuel. On the other hand, the total cost of the CO2 emissions of the diesel fuel is generally found to be higher than biodiesel fuel in terms of the life cycle based environmental pollution cost. The specific environmental pollution cost is found as minimum at full load to be 2.217 US cent/kWh for the diesel fuel and 2.449 US cent/kWh for the biodiesel fuel at full load. On the other hand, the life cycle based specific environmental pollution cost is determined as minimum at full load to be 5.050 US cent/kWh for the diesel fuel and 5.309 US cent/kWh for the biodiesel fuel. The biodiesel fuel has higher values than diesel fuel in terms of the specific environmental pollution cost rates. The maximum total carbon dioxide emission rate is found as 0.2405 × 10−3 kg/kJ for the biodiesel fuel at 100 Nm engine torque and the minimum one is obtained as 0.1884 × 10−3 kg/kJ for the diesel fuel at full load. When the payback periods of the fuels are examined, biodiesel has longer period than diesel. The environmental payback period and life cycle based environmental payback period are also compared for fuels. In this context, the biodiesel has longer environmental payback periods rates than diesel. Consequently, the biodiesel fueled engine has higher environmental pollution cost rates than the diesel fueled engine, while the total carbon dioxide parameter of the diesel fuel is close to the biodiesel fuel’s rate. Also, all of the other environmental parameters of diesel fuel is generally better than biodiesel. Consequently, the diesel fuel is generally better option than the biodiesel considering environmental aspects. For better environmental management, the diesel fuel utilization in the diesel engine is slightly better option than biodiesel fuel in terms of environmental pollution cost analysis.
There are two Japanese quality standards for diesel fuels. One of them is JIS K 2204 class which consists of five class diesel fuels as No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, Special No. 1 and Special No. 3 (1S, 1, 2, 3 and 3S, respectively). No. 2 diesel fuel is generally used for highway vehicles (passenger cars, buses and trucks). In this study, Japanese Industrial Standard Diesel No:2 fuel is utilized to run the truck engine under 284.39 Nm load. The thermodynamic analysis and experimental tests are performed to the engine for nano-particle, emission and efficiency assessments. In this regard, the maximum energy rate is found for the energy of fuel (145.209 kW) which is the main component to start the engine. Also, the minimum energy rate is determined for the exhaust gases which are released to the atmosphere. The power of the truck engine is calculated as 53.585 kW and the energy efficiency is found as 31.625%. Furthermore, the maximum particle concentration is determined around 1061/cm3 which is lower than other fuels that compared in this study, and the particle size is measured between 5 nm and 15 nm by using Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS).
In this study, the energy and exergy prices of the coal, diesel oil, electricity, fuel oil, LPG, natural gas, air source heat pump (ASHP) and ground source heat pump (GSHP) along with their energetic and exergetic carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalents are evaluated basing on 12‐month data of 2016 (from January to December) for residential and industrial sectors in Turkey. Also, they are considered as district heating energy sources/fuels to heat the 100 m2 floor area in the residential and industrial applications. For the residential and industrial sectors, the minimum energy & exergy prices and energetic & exergetic CO2 equivalents are found for the GSHP; while the corresponding maximum energy and exergy rates are obtained for the LPG. Also, the quantity of fuel required for the desired period is calculated for each one of the energy sources. If the residential and industrial sectors are considered together, the minimum amount of required fuel is found for the LPG as 16.3 kg/°Ch; while the maximum one is found for the coal (for residential sector) to be 44.25 kg/°Ch. © 2017 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Environ Prog, 37: 912–925, 2018