A review on technologies with electricity generation potentials using liquified natural gas regasification cold energy

doi:10.1007/s11708-023-0863-y

Frontiers in Energy

2023, Vol. 17

Issue (3): 332-379 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11708-023-0863-y

本期目录

A review on technologies with electricity generation potentials using liquified natural gas regasification cold energy

Muhammad Tauseef NASIR¹, Mirae KIM¹, Jaehwa LEE², Seungho KIM¹(

), Kyung Chun KIM¹(

)

¹. School of Mechanical Engineering, Eco-friendly Smart Ship Parts Technology Innovation Center, Pusan National University, Busan 46241, South Korea
². School of Mechanical Engineering, Pusan National University, Busan 46241, South Korea; Korea Gas Corporation, Daegu 41062, South Korea

全文: PDF(27103 KB) HTML

Abstract：

In modern times, worldwide requirements to curb greenhouse gas emissions, and increment in energy demand due to the progress of humanity, have become a serious concern. In such scenarios, the effective and efficient utilization of the liquified natural gas (LNG) regasification cold energy (RCE), in the economically and environmentally viable methods, could present a great opportunity in tackling the core issues related to global warming across the world. In this paper, the technologies that are widely used to harness the LNG RCE for electrical power have been reviewed. The systems incorporating, the Rankine cycles, Stirling engines, Kalina cycles, Brayton cycles, Allam cycles, and fuel cells have been considered. Additionally, the economic and environmental studies apart from the thermal studies have also been reviewed. Moreover, the discussion regarding the systems with respect to the regassification pressure of the LNG has also been provided. The aim of this paper is to provide guidelines for the prospective researchers and policy makers in their decision making.

Key words： liquified natural gas cold energy power generation

收稿日期: 2022-09-06 出版日期: 2023-08-09

Corresponding Author(s): Seungho KIM,Kyung Chun KIM

引用本文:

. [J]. Frontiers in Energy, 2023, 17(3): 332-379.
Muhammad Tauseef NASIR, Mirae KIM, Jaehwa LEE, Seungho KIM, Kyung Chun KIM. A review on technologies with electricity generation potentials using liquified natural gas regasification cold energy. Front. Energy, 2023, 17(3): 332-379.

链接本文:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fie/CN/10.1007/s11708-023-0863-y
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fie/CN/Y2023/V17/I3/332

Tab.1

Fig.1

Tab.2

Fig.2

Ref.	T_{LNG, In}/°C	P_{LNG, In}/kPa	$m ˙ L N G$ /(kg·s^?1)	P_{LNG, Regasification}/kPa	Heat source (HS) substance	T_{HS, In}/°C	$m ˙ HS$ /(kg·s^?1)	Other products	Results
Lee et al. [42]	First design: −162	101	1	22081.3	First design: SW	25	40.41 (first pump) and 17.41 (second pump)	–	EE = 68.12%;RTE = 135.98%
Lee et al. [42]	Second design: −162	101	1	24865.9	Second design:SW	25	32.32 (first pump) and 19.64 (second pump)	–	EE = 68.12%;RTE = 135.98%
Peng et al. [46]	−161.65	101	0.209 $m ˙ / m ˙ charging air$	20000	Ambient air	25	−	–	EE = 64%;RTE = 89%
Barsali et al. [47]	Case 1: −160	120	0.174/0.066	15000/1219	−	−	−	Liquid CO₂, water	TE = 39%;RTE = 90%
Barsali et al. [47]	Case 2: −160	120	0.177/0.066	15000/1092	−	−	−	Liquid CO₂, water	TE = 39%;RTE = 90%
Park et al. [48]	−162	130	28.77?86.31	7000	WH	60	−	–	EE = 66%; RTE = 85.1%; PP = 5.6 years;NPV = 143 million USD at IRR = 17.7%

Tab.3

Fig.3

Fig.4

Ref.	$T LNG, In$ /°C	$P LNG, In$ /kPa	$m ˙ LNG$ /(kg·s^?1)	$P LNG, Regasification$ /kPa	Heat source (HS) substance	$T HS, In$ /°C	$m ˙ HS$ /(kg·s^?1)	Other products	Results
Dong et al. [53]	−162	140	1	3000	SW	15	−	–	EE = 24.26%
Ansarinasab et al. [55]	−162	130	34.72	7000	Water	60	−	–	RTE_max = 192%;EE = 70.88%
Buliński et al. [56]	−180 to −130	–	–	–	Ambient air	0 to 100	−	–	TE = about 25%
Hou et al. [58]	−163	–	–	–	Water	30	−	–	TE_max = 37%
Xu et al. [40]	−163	–	–	–	WH	27 to 427	−	Cooling, heating	Annual results: Cost saving = 10.55 kUSD^a, CO₂ savings = 30.6 t, EE = 24.1%

Tab.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Ref.	$T LNG, In$ /°C	$P LNG, In$ /kPa	$m ˙ LNG$ /(kg·s^?1)	$P LNG, Regasification$ /kPa	Heat source (HS) substance	$T HS, In$ /°C	$m ˙ HS$ /(kg·s^?1)	Other products	Results
Rao et al. [70]	−162	600	Depends on WF	3000	WF itself (solar energy)	75	–	–	Best WF: R143b; TE = 24.92%; EE = 13.72%
Dorosz et al. [71]	ORC with DEE: −165	−	100	2100	Air or SW	–	–	–	Best WF =ethane;EE = 36.2%
	ORC only: −165	−	100	100
	Two-stage DEE: −165	−	100	10000
	DEE: −165	−	100	6300
Sung & Kim [72]	−165	101	0.7	600	JCW	91	58.3	–	Best WF: R125; TE = 20.19%
Baldasso et al. [73]	−165 and −138	500 and 100	0.62 and 0.75	−	WH	210 and 365.4	52.5 and 22.8	–	Fuel saving: 2.37% (ferry) and 0.87% (containership); Best WF: n-pentane
Yu et al. [74]	−162	100	0.45	600, 2500, 3000, 7000	FGs treated as CO₂	150	2.64	–	R290, R1270, R125, and R143a (SW or ambient air as HS); R170, R143a and R290 (FGs)
Sun et al. [75]	−162	100	1	3000?40000	Low grade heat	100, 150, 200	−	–	Best WF: R290 (HS temp = 100 °C) @ EE = 17.89%; R290 (HS temp = 150 °C) @ EE = 21.26%; R600a (HS temp = 200 °C) @ EE = 25.35%
Tan et al. [76]	−162	–	16.51	600	WH	389.6	–	Wastewater treatment	Optimized value: EE = 50.4%
Lim & Choi [77]	−148.15	–	4	3000	Water	84.85	–	–	Highest TE = 23% (R123); Highest EE = 31% (R123)
Choi et al. [78]	−160	7000	250 million standard cubic feet per day (MMSCFD)	–	SW	15	–	–	Best WF: propane; Optimum point: exergy destruction = 19.6 MJ/s; Capital expenditure = 1.8 million USD
Koo et al. [79]	−162	101	0.487 (high pressure engine) and 0.474 (medium pressure engine)	30000 (high pressure engine) and 1660 (medium pressure engine)	Water	25 °C and 80 °C	–	–	EE_max = 40.7%;Actual annualized cost = 38838 USD/a;Best WF ≥ propane
Musharavati et al. [80]	–	–	–	–	SW	–	–	Hydrogen	Best configuration = > Fig.8; TE = 6.876% (increment of 10.2%); PP = 1.29 years for TEG with the cost of TEG module =1 USD/W TEG
Mehdikhani et al. [82]	−161.5	101.1	20	3000	Geothermal water (GW)	230	50	Hydrogen, oxygen	TE = 17.10%; EE = 44.16%; PC = 19.86 USD/GJ

Tab.5

Fig.9

Ref.	$T LNG, In$ /°C	$P LNG, In$ /kPa	$m ˙ LNG$ /(kg·s^?1)	$P LNG, Regasification$ /kPa	Heat source (HS) substance	$T HS, In$ /°C	$m ˙ HS$ /(kg·s^?1)	Other products	Results
Yu et al. [85]	−162	100	–	–	CO₂	150	2.64	–	For sub-critical ORC: 0.56 moles fraction R290, 0.44 mol fraction R1270 (about 160 kW);For trans-critical ORC: R143a (about 163 kW), 0.51 mol fraction R290, 0.49 mol fraction R1270 (about 155 kW)
He et al. [86]	−162	101.325	1	4000 to 10000	SW	15 to 35	–	–	Highest efficiency at 4000 kPa pressure: WF = R1270/C₂H₆ (0.3/0.7 molar fraction); TE = about 19.83%; EE = about 22.75%
Zhang et al. [87]	−162	102	2	1500	Thermal oil	168	29.92	–	EE = 34.62%
Dutta et al. [88]	−148.17 to −123.12	–	–	40600?75600	SW	25	–	–	EE_max = 18.65% @ NPV = 2.45 million USD (WF = ethane/R134a/R116 (40.88/16.79/42.33));NPV_max = 6.87 million USD @ EE = 14.63% (WF = ethane/R218 (87.15/12.85))
Park et al. [89]	−162	130	1 million t/a	7000	–			–	Cryogenic storage and ORC best combination; NPV = 215 million USD
He et al. [90]	−159.60	–	27.8	4400	SW (propane/cyclopentane)	18/20.77	103/116.65	Water production	Best case: cyclopentane as hydrate producer and ethane/propane as best WF LNG CE EE = 61.11%; levelized cost of water = 1.946 USD/m³
He et al. [90]	−159.60	–	27.8	4400	Heat from hydrator	−3/0	720/716	Water production
Lee & You [92]	−162	130	1	7000	SW	25	–	–	EE = 70.3%; NPV = 31.89 million USD (8 h) @50% on peak electricity
Park et al. [93]	−162	130	34.72	7000	SW	20	–	–	RTE = 187.4%; EE = 75.1%; NPV = 225.89 million USD

Tab.6

Fig.10

Ref.	$T LNG, In$ /°C	$P LNG, In$ /kPa	$m ˙ LNG$ /(kg·s^?1)	$P LNG, Regasification$ /kPa	Heat source (HS) substance	$T HS, In$ /°C	$m ˙ HS$ /(kg·s^?1)	Other products	Results
Bao et al. [94]	−162	100	1	600?7000	SW	15	0.2244	–	At optimized point: Best WF: C₂H₄F₂; TE = 21.78%; EE = 36.87%
Ouyang et al. [95]	−162	6000	0.8	–	Ambient air	20	–	Purification of coal-gas, air conditioning	Ideal WF: flouromethane/CO₂ (fraction 0.2247/0.7753); TE = 79.05%; EE = 48.18%
Badami et al. [96]	−162	100	1	7000	SW	10?15	–	–	Best configuration: third configuration; best WF: ethane; TE = 9%; EE = about 20%
Bao et al. [97]	−162	101	1	600, 2500, 3000, 7000	SW	15	42.56	Hydrogen	Best result @600 kPa; optimized TE = about 13% and cost of hydrogen production = 1.93 USD/kg of hydrogen
Yuan et al. [98]	−162	100	−	600, 2500, 3000, 7000	SW	15	−	−	Optimized point 3 cond/exp configuration; gasification pressure 7000 kPa; PC = 17.05 USD/h, WF: R32/C₂H₄ (0.95/0.05)

Tab.7

Fig.11

Fig.12

Ref.	$T LNG, In$ /°C	$P LNG, In$ /kPa	$m ˙ LNG$ /(kg·s^?1)	$P LNG, Regasification$ /kPa	Heat source (HS) substance	$T HS, In$ /°C	$m ˙ HS$ /(kg·s^?1)	Other products	Results
Ma et al. [99]	−161	120	2.40	2000	SW	20	75.1	−	Exergy recovery rate = 67.70%
Li et al. [100]	−160	600	1	2890	Solar heated water	96.85	10	−	EE _max = 13.44%
Moghimi & Khosravian [101]	−164	101.3	1	3000	SW	25	−	−	EE = 54.2%
Wang et al. [102]	− 162	140	4.16	280	FGs	80	−	−	EE = 56.90%; CO₂ capture = 0.29 t CO₂/t LNG
Qi et al. [103]	−162	130	1	7000	SW	15	−	−	RTE = 129.2%; NPV = 45.10 million USD
Zheng et al. [104]	−160	−	for case 1 and 2: 1; for case 3: 1, 5, 10, 50, 100	600/2500/3000/7000	SW	15	−	−	Best WF: R290, R32, R600; The technology is ideal for the NG distribution pressure of 600 kPa

Tab.8

Fig.13

Ref.	$T LNG, In$ /°C	$P LNG, In$ /kPa	$m ˙ LNG$ /(kg·s^?1);	$P LNG, Regasification$ /kPa	Heat source (HS) substance	$T HS, In$ /°C	$m ˙ HS$ /(kg·s^?1)	Other products	Results
Atienza-Márquez et al. [105]	−162	130	45.36	7200	SW	20	−	District cooling	Best WF: methane, CO₂, and propane for ORCs in series; EE = 40.6%; $E R C O 2$ = 75 kt/a
					WH water	40	−
					Biomass combustion gases	850	−
Zhang et al. [106]	−162	600	10.10	800	First stage ORC: thermal oil	319	17.13	−	RTE = 45.44%; EE = 50.73%
Zhang et al. [106]	−162	600	10.10	800	2nd stage ORC: WH	120	−	−	RTE = 45.44%; EE = 50.73%
Ouyang et al. [107]	−162	100	2	20000	Water	15	blood (first ORC); −60, −50, −40, −30, −20, −10, 0, 10 (second ORC); 4	Blood freezing	Best WF:CH₃F/CO₂ and CH₂F₂/C₂H₃F₃; EE = 28.96%; PP = 6.3 years
Tian et al. [108]	−162	100	0.61	593	Engine FGs	230	18.9	−	Best WF: R1150-R600a (highest power) and R170/R1270 (0.9/0.1 mol fraction)?R600 (economic aspect); TE_max = 22.09%, EE = 23.28%, PP = 4.58?5.18 years, LCOE = 0.065–0.074 USD/kWh
Tian et al. [108]	−162	100	0.61	593	JCW	95	16.3	−

Tab.9

Fig.14

Ref.	$T LNG, In$ /°C	$P LNG, In$ /kPa	$m ˙ L N G$ /(kg·s^?1)	$P LNG, Regasification$ /kPa	Heat source (HS) substance	$T HS, In$ /°C	$m ˙ HS$ /(kg·s^?1)	Other products	Results
Yu et al. [109]	−162	101	87.52	7000	FG	83	655.3	−	Best WF : R290/R1150 with TE = 27.07%; EE = 48.42%; in case when LNG flowrate > 120.28 kg/s, Best WF = R1270/R1150
Tomków & Cholewiński [110]	−162	100	1	8500	SW	4	−	−	EE = 19.3%
Mahmoudan et al. [111]	−161.37	101.30	7.42	9000	GW	200	40	Cooling, heating, purified water	EE = 29.15%, total PC per exergy unit = 1.512 USD/GJ
Emadi & Mahmoudimehr [112]	−161.41	101	31.99	6500	GW	160	100	Domestic water, hydrogen, oxygen	At optimum point: total cost rate = 423.5 USD/h; EE = 24.92%
Ansarinasab & Hajabdollahi [113]	−161.50	1.01	35.7	3000	GW	175	170	Heating, pure water	At optimum point: PC rate = 4.35 USD/GJ; EE = 52.65%
Mehrenjani et al. [32]	−161.50	101.3	−	300	GW	121.22	70.43	Liquid hydrogen, oxygen, district cooling	At optimum point: PC rate = 291.36 USD/h (LCOE = 1.46 cents/kWh); EE = 23.34%; Hydrogen production rate = 154.95 kg/h

Tab.10

Fig.15

Ref.	$T LNG, In$ /°C	$P LNG, In$ /kPa	$m ˙ L N G$ /(kg·s^?1)	$P LNG, Regasification$ /kPa	Heat source (HS) substance	$T HS, In$ /°C	$m ˙ HS$ /(kg·s^?1)	Other products	Results
Joy & Chowdhury [115]	−162	100	30	600 and 3000	SW	15	First-stage: 401.7; Second-stage: 601.8	−	First stage: 35.12%; Second stage: EE 42.62%
Zhang et al. [116]	−160.8	100	1	3000	FG	150	−	−	Best WF: n-pentane; At optimal point: dynamic PP = 2.62 years
Eghtesad et al. [38]	−162	101.4	1	8200	SW	15	−	Ice production	At optimized work production point: TE = 17.7%, EE = 34.3%, Unit production cost = 139.1 USD/GJ
Han et al. [117]	−162	100	1	3000	WH/JCW	270/90	−	−	Topping cycle: Best RF: R601a, TE = 31.72%, EE = 67.21%, Annual cost = 0.71 million USD; Bottoming cycle: Best RF: propane, TE = 19.86%, EE = 49.91%, Annual cost = 1.33 million USD; Bottoming cycle: Best RF: R236ea, TE = 27.53%, EE = 58.79%, Annual cost = 0.98 million USD
Tian et al. [119]	−163	101	0.61	600	FG/JCW	150/95	−	−	Best WF: R600a (topping ORC), R1150 (bottoming ORC), R1234yf (series ORC); TE = 16.32%, EE = 29.06%, PP = 7.68
Tian et al. [118]	−161.50	101	0.61	600	FG/JCW	150/95	19/75	−	Best WF: R600a (topping ORC), R601a (bottoming ORC), R1150 (series ORC); Optimal conditions: TE = 14.65%, EE = 27.59%, PP = 8.36 years
Sun et al. [120]	−162	130	1	30000	SW	25	−	Ethylene glycol cooling	Optimal composition WF (ORC-1) = 23.73%, 15.01%, 20.17%, 41.09% (ethane/ethylene/R134a/R152a) by mole fraction; Optimal composition WF (ORC-II) = 60.14%, 38.73%, 0.54%, 0.59% (ethylene/R134a/R1270/R134a), RTE = 141.88%, EE = 73.92%

Tab.11

Fig.16

Ref.	$T LNG, In$ /°C	$P LNG, In$ /kPa	$m ˙ L N G$ /(kg·s^?1)	$P LNG, Regasification$ /kPa	Heat source (HS) substance	$T HS, In$ /°C	$m ˙ HS$ /(kg·s^?1)	Other products	Results
Sun et al. [121]	−162	100	1	3000	Water	50, 100	150, 200	−	At 50 °C: Best configuration ≥ series configuration, Best WF ≥ NH₃/ethane, EE = 17.36%;
									At 100 °C: Best configuration ≥ORC bottoming ORC, Best WF ≥ NH₃/ethane, EE = 19.49%;
									At 150 °C: Best configuration ≥ORC bottoming ORC, Best WF ≥ NH₃/ethane, EE = 21.69%;
									At 200 °C: Best configuration ≥ORC bottoming ORC, Best WF ≥ NH₃/ethane, EE = 24.37%
Sun et al. [122]	−162	100	1	3000	Water	60, 120, 180	−	−	Best WF: ethane, Best configuration = regenerative-reheat ORC, EE_max = 24.57% @ HS temperature of 180°C and LNG regasification pressure of 3 MPa
Choi et al. [123]	−162	100	1	6000	SW	15	61.3/11.24	−	Best configuration ≥ triple cascade condenser ORC, Best WF combination ≥ C₃H₈/C₃H₈/C₃H₈, TE = 12.5%, EE = 65.2%, life cycle cost about 11.75 million @life of 20 years
Mosaffa et al. [124]	−161.5	101.3	27.91	3000	GW	175	80	−	Best configuration ≥ ORC with internal heat exchanger, @ EE optimization, EE = 39.93%, TE = 34.49%, PC rate = 4.45 MUSD/year; @ PC rate optimization, EE = 38.94%, TE = 34.42%, PC = 4.74 USD/year
Bao et al. [125]	−162	101	10	600, 2500, 3000, 7000	SW	15	−	−	Regasification pressure of 0.6 MPa, $W ˙ m a x, n e t$ , (Fig.16(b)); WF (top cycle) = R32; WF (bottom cycle) = R1150; least electricity production cost is Fig.16(a) @ cost = 4.83 USD/GJ
									Regasification pressure of 2.5 MPa, $W ˙ m a x, n e t$ , (Fig.16(b)); WF (top cycle) = R32; WF (bottom cycle) = R1150; least electricity production cost is Fig.16(c) @ cost = 5.58 USD/GJ
									Regasification pressure of 3.0 MPa, $W ˙ m a x, n e t$ , (Fig.16(d)); WF (top cycle) = R41; WF (bottom cycle) = R143a; least electricity production cost is Fig.16(c) @ cost = 5.92 USD/GJ
									Regasification pressure of 7.0 MPa, $W ˙ m a x, n e t$ , (Fig.16(d)); WF (top cycle) = R41; WF (bottom cycle) = R143a; least electricity production cost is Fig.16(d) @ cost = 10.53 USD/GJ
Sun et al. [126]	−162	100	1	3000, 5000, 7000	Water	80, 140, 200	−	−	Best configuration ≥ multiple cond/exp configuration; EE about 31% @ 3000 kPa; Electricity PC = 9 USD/GJ; Best WF ≥ NH₃

Tab.12

Fig.17

Fig.18

Fig.19

Ref.	$T LNG, In$ /°C	$P LNG, In$ /kPa	$m ˙ LNG$ /(kg·s^?1)	$P LNG, Regasification$ /kPa	Heat source (HS) substance	$T HS, In$ /°C	$m ˙ HS$ /(kg·s^?1)	Other products	Results
Kim et al. [129]	−161.5	101	0.129	1000	Air	200	1	−	TE = 37.7%; EE = 17.2%
Kim et al. [130]	−161.5	101	0.12	1000	Air	200	1	−	EE_max = 28.5% (regenerative ORC)
Sadaghiani et al. [131]	−162	200	8	1000	GW; 30/9 (KC/ORC2)			−	TE = 14.46%; EE = 32.15%
Ghorbani et al. [132]	−161.55	100	4.911	3700	Water	203.45	18.89	Methanol, oxygen, hydrogen	TE = 74.21%; EE = 76.41%
Emadi et al. [133]	−162	101	22.7	6500	GW	120	100	Cooling, hydrogen	EE = 43%
Ning et al. [134]	−165	100	1?2	10000?12000	−	−	−	Freezing, cooling air conditioning	EE = 85.19%
Li et al. [135]	−162	150	4.38	10000	Water	120	0.37	−	Energy utilization ratio = 81.63%; EE = 35.14%
Li et al. [136]	−161.5	101.3	1.671	3000	GW	170	10	Cooling, hydrogen, oxygen	EE = 26.5%; PP = 2.385 years
Ghaebi et al. [137]	−161.45	101.3	3.149	3000	Water	170	30	Cooling	TE = 43.25%; EE = 22.51%; unit PC = 133.7 USD/GJ
Ghaebi et al. [138]	−161.65	100	3.015	1500	GW	125.05	10.24	Cooling, heating	TE = 85.92%; EE = 18.52%; unit PC = 68.76 USD/GJ
Fang et al. [139]	−162	110	4.72	3000	FG	468	4.06	Cooling, heating	At optimized point: EE = 80.49%; cost per unit exergy = 48.04 USD/GJ
Ayou & Eveloy [140]	−162	130	1	about 10000?20000	Water	70?100	7.654 (at baseline)	Chilled water	TE = 39%; EE = 36.3%; CO₂ equivalent emissions = 19.3 ktons/a; unit PC = 153.6 USD/GJ
Ansarinasab et al. [141]	−161	100	12.8	3000	GW	170	170	Cooling, heating, drinking water	EE = 42.95%; unit PC = 20.08 USD/GJ

Tab.13

Fig.20

Fig.21

Ref.	$T LNG, In$ /°C	$P LNG, In$ /kPa	$m ˙ LNG$ /(kg·s^?1)	$P LNG, Regasification$ /kPa	Heat source (HS) substance	$T HS, In$ /°C	$m ˙ HS$ /(kg·s^?1)	Other products	Results
Sun et al. [145]	−162	600	0.71	2000	WH	380	1.39	−	At optimum point: TE = 35.56%, EE = 48.06%
Wang et al. [146]	−161.47	101.4	6	7000	GW	140	10	−	EE_max = 8.12%
Sun et al. [147]	−161.48	−	0.176	600	Water	89.73	5.8	Hydrogen	EE = 12.38%
Zhao et al. [148]	−161.5	110	72.57/84.93 (charging/ discharging of CAES)	4200/7000 (charging/discharging of CAES)	FG	198.63	429.63	−	EE = 35.98%, RTE = 56.97%
Mehrpooya & Sharifzadeh [150]	−161.5	101	6.05 kgmol/s	7000	FG	1262	2.82 kgmol/s	−	TE = 57.2%, EE = 60.7%
Mehrpooya & Sharifzadeh [150]	−161.5	101	6.05 kgmol/s	7000	Therminol VP-1	30	2.82 kgmol/s		TE = 57.2%, EE = 60.7%
Ahmadi et al. [151]	−161	−	about 0.1075?0.13 (depending on the condenser saturation temperature of TRC)	7000	Water	about 65?87	−	−	At optimum point: TE = 10.781%; total investment per solar fraction = 109109.92 USD (ideal point)
Ahmadi et al. [152]	−161.47	101.4	3.4	7000	GW	140	10	−	At optimized point: EE = 20.5%, PC rate = 263592.15 USD/a (technique for order of preference by similarity); EE = 22.1%, PC rate = 295,001.26 USD/a (linear programming techniques for multidimensional analysis of preference technique); EE = 23.97%, PC rate = 370378.758 USD/a (FUZZY decision-making technique)
Liu et al. [153]	−162 °C	130	41.26	8000	FGs	395.8	20.4	−	At optimized point: EE = 41.38%; cost per unit exergy = 18.05 USD/GJ
Cao et al. [154]	−62.81	658.5	59.5	−	TRC inlet FG	125	2.2	Cooling, water, sodium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid	TE = 75.1%, EE = 88.4%, PP = 2.94 years, NPV = 39.92 million USD, IRR = 0.36
Esfilar et al. [155]	−162	140	63.97	7000	−	−	−	Hydrogen	Energy saved = 40459.53 kW, exergy destruction = 1.007 × 10⁵ kW
Dokandari et al. [156]	−167.95	101	10	2435	−	−	−	−	At optimum point: TE = 77.3%; EE = 23.7% (first cycle); TE = 87.5%, EE = 23.9% (second cycle)
Naseri et al. [157]	−162	101	0.173 (with SE), 0.212 (with condenser)	6578	Flat plate collector-storage tank-auxiliary heater	about 78	0.8 for either case	−	Improved exergy destruction = 17% to 8.85%, $W ˙ net$ increment =15 kW (off-times) and 20 kW (peak times)
Tjahjono et al. [158]	−161.65	101.4	9.547	6580	Steam	240	115.5	Heating, cooling, NaClO salt, water, hydrogen	TE = 54.3%, EE = 13.1%, PP = 6.9 years, NPV = 908.9 million USD, IRR = 0.138

Tab.14

Fig.22

Fig.23

Fig.24

Fig.25

Ref.	$T LNG, In$ /°C	$P LNG, In$ /kPa	$m ˙ LNG$ /(kg·s^?1)	$P LNG, Regasification$ /kPa	Heat source (HS) substance	$T HS, In$ /°C	$m ˙ HS$ /(kg·s^?1)	Other products	Results
Özen [160]	−161.15	105	160.28	1000	−	−	−	−	TE = 46.1%
Zhao et al. [31]	−162	110	3.49	2235	−	−	−	Hot water, chilled water	EE = 48.97%
Moghimi et al. [161]	−162	101	1	2039	−	−	−	−	Optimum TE = 53.51%, EE = 47.43%
Ghorbani et al. [162]	−162.05	100	6.7	938	−	−	−	Cooling, heating, water	TE = 55.18%, EE = 67.74%
Bao et al. [163]	−162	−	−	−	−	−	−	CO₂	TE = 50.66%
Liang et al. [164]	−162	101.3	−	−	−	−	−	CO₂	Power generation efficiency = 58.78% (O₂/CO₂ atmosphere), 54.87% (O₂/H₂O atmosphere), (GT and N₂ BC and TRC)
Ebrahimi et al. [165]	−162.25	100	10.30	800	BiPhynel/diPH-Ether (24.62%/75.38%, mass fraction) heat transfer fluid	300.05	15	Cooling	RTE = 45.44%, EE = 40.17%
She et al. [166]	−161.65	100	0.788	12000	−	−	−	−	EE = 57%, RTE = about 70.6%
Mehrpooya et al. [169]	−162	140	33	7000	−	−	−	Argon, oxygen	TE = about 50%, EE = about 76%
Liu et al. [170]	− 153	8000	0.075	−	−	−	−	−	TE = 51.51%, EE = 49.23%
Krishnan et al. [171]	−132.5	550	1.95	−	−	−	−	−−	Best WF ≥ air in terms of EE, EE = 56%
Cha et al. [172]	−162	101.3	−	9000	−	−	−	−	Comparison of proposed system with GT-steam combined power plant: enhancement in power output = 25.4%, enhancement in TE = 11.5%

Tab.15

Fig.26

Ref.	$T LNG, In$ /°C	$P LNG, In$ /kPa	$m ˙ LNG$ /(kg·s^?1)	$P LNG, Regasification$ /kPa	Heat source (HS) substance	$T HS, In$ /°C	$m ˙ HS$ /(kg·s^?1)	Other products	Results
Ouyang et al. [173]	−162	−	0.09	−	FGs	652.59	1.67	Sewage purification, refrigeration	At optimum conditions: PP = 6.976 years, fuel saving = 38.55 kg/h, $E R C O 2$ = 502.9 t/a, TE = 40.23%
Mehrpooya et al. [174]	−161	113	96.3	5240	−	−	−	−	EE = 59.4%, recommended strategy ≥ replace the high exergy costing device with an efficient one
Cao et al. [175]	−160	100	2.389	5000	−	−	−	−	Best WF for the bottoming GT cycle ≥ helium, EE = 41.01%, LCOE = 51.38 USD/MWh
Tang et al. [176]	−100	−	5.56	2500	−	−	−	Chilled water	EE = 55.886% @ minimum total annual cost = 57.16 million USD, $W ˙ net$ = 83.6 MW @ maximum EE = 55.911%
Ozen & Uçar [177]	−161.15	105	160.28	8200	−	−	−	−	At minimized PC: Unit PC = 12.4 USD/GJ, TE = 43.66%, EE = 33.26%
Cao et al. [178]	−161.4	120	0.03095	6500	−	−	−	−	Best WF = ammonia; at baseline conditions: TE = 92.11%, EE = 60.05%, total cost rate = 36.75 USD/h, CO₂ savings = 485 t/a
Liu et al. [179]	−165.5	101.325	13.64	3000	−	−	−	−	TE = 55.18 (with inlet cooling), NPV = 20.35 million USD (Singapore) and NPV = 53.63 million USD (Riyadh)
Gao et al. [180]	−162	130	−	7000	−	−	−	−	System efficiency = 99.39%, EE = 49.60%, minimum dynamic PP = 4.07 years, maximum IRR = 39.4%
Kanbur et al. [181]	−162	101.325	−	−	−	−	−	Heating	For proposed system at pressure ratio of 4 (ambient temperature = ~42°C). EE=~32%, TE=76%, LCOE=15 USD/s, CO₂ Emission rate= ~3 kgCO₂/kWh,
Sadeghi et al. [182]	−158.2	130	−	10000	−	−	−	−	TE = 55.3%, EE = 46.4%, LCOE = 12.4 USD/MWh, normalized carbon dioxide emissions = 210.1 kg/MWh
Ayou & Eveloy [183]	−162	130	1	8500 (ORC) and 27000 (GT)	SW (ORC);FGs (BC)	30 (ORC);370 (BC)	−	Cooling	With ORC: TE = 24%, EE = 26.2%, economic saving = 5.3 million USD, CO₂ saving = 16.9 kilotons/a, PP = 2.6 years; with Brayton: TE = 43.1%, EE = 45.5%, economic saving = 8.3 million USD, CO₂ saving = 51.5 kilotons/a, PP = 3.9 years

Tab.16

Fig.27

Fig.28

Fig.29

Ref.	$T LNG, In$ /°C	$P LNG, In$ /kPa	$m ˙ LNG$ /(kg·s^?1)	$P LNG, Regasification$ /kPa	Heat source (HS) substance	$T HS, In$ /°C	$m ˙ HS$ /(kg·s^?1)	Other products	Results
Li et al. [185]	162	−	73	3000	−	−	−	−	EE = 51.88%
Yu et al. [186]	−148.40 (for considered processes)	−	16.52 (for considered processes)	3050 (for considered processes)	−	−	−	−	EE_max= 80.68% (A and B configurations)
Chan et al. [187]	−161.5	101.3	86.71	16000	−	−	−	Chilled water	Optimized results: EE = 50.31%, unit PC = 16.654 USD/GJ

Tab.17

Fig.30

Fig.31

Fig.32

Fig.33

Ref.	$T LNG, In$ /°C	$P LNG, In$ /kPa	$m ˙ LNG$ /(kg·s^?1)	$P LNG, Regasification$ /kPa	Heat source (HS) substance	$T HS, In$ /°C	$m ˙ HS$ /(kg·s^?1)	Other products	Results
Ahmadi et al. [196]	−161.7	101	4.693	7000	−	−	−	Cooling	TE = 72.36%
Ebrahimi et al. [197]	−161.55	101.3	4.066	3000	−	−	−	Cooling	TE = 61.66%, EE = 68.21%, RTE = 66.29%
Ahmadi et al. [198]	−160.05	121	1027 kmol/h	726	−	−	−	−	EE = 39.9%
Mehrpooya et al. [199]	−161.3	1127	2900 kmol/s	7000	Syngas	1750	3773	Nitrogen, oxygen, CO₂, water	TE = 56.4%, EE = 57.9%
Liang et al. [200]	−161.5	101.3	0.1355	7000	−	−	−	Liquified CO₂, domestic hot water, chilled water	TE = 90.99%, EE = 53.07%, CO₂ captured = 5,219.21 t/a
Chitgar & Moghimi [39]	−161	101	−	3500 to 8500	−	−	−	Fresh water, cooling	Optimized values with EE and total unit cost as objective functions: EE = 54.2%, total unit cost = 34.5 USD/GJ
Emadi et al. [201]	−161	101	1.09	6500	−	−	−	Cooling	R601(top)-ethane(bottom) ORCs, EE = 51.6%, cost of electrical production = 9.2 USD/GJ
Mahmoudi & Ghavimi [202]	−60.15	607	19.25	871	−	−	−	−	EE = 64.7%, unit PC = 12.5 USD/GJ
Cao et al. [203]	−161.65	101	1.18	4559	GW	230	2	−	TE = 62.25%, EE = 33.34%, unit PC = 40.66 USD/GJ
Atsonios et al. [204]	162	100	−	7900	−	−	−	Cooling, desalination	SOFC-GT: TE = 67.04%

Tab.18

Fig.34

Ref.	Technology(ies)	Heat source (HS) substance	$T HS, In$ /°C	$m ˙ HS$ /(kg·s^?1)	Other products	Results
Thermal evaluation (EE wise)
Cao et al. [154]	CO₂ RC, DEE	TRC inlet (FG)	125	2.2	Cooling, water, sodium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid	EE = 88.4%
Wang et al. [102]	In series ORC, bottoming ORCs, configuration using same HS	FGs	80	–	–	EE = 56.90%
Economic evaluation (PP wise)
Cao et al. [154]	CO₂ RC, DEE	TRC inlet (FG)	125	2.2	Cooling, water, sodium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid	PP = 2.94 years
Tian et al. [108]	Series ORC	Engine FGs	230	18.9	–	PP = 4.58?5.18 years
Tian et al. [108]	Series ORC	JCW	95	16.3	–	PP = 4.58?5.18 years
Economic evaluation (cost of product wise)
Bao et al. [125]	Various single and multiple ORC configurations	SW	15	–	–	Cost = 0.017 USD/kWh
Mehrenjani et al. [32]	ORC bottoming ORC, DEE	GW	121.22	70.43	Liquid hydrogen, oxygen, district cooling	At optimum point: LCOE = 1.46 cents/kWh, Levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) = 1.81 USD/kg
Environmental evaluation (annual CO₂ wise)
Ouyang et al. [173]	CO₂ BC, organic flash cycle	FGs	652.59	1.67	Sewage purification, refrigeration	$E R C O 2$ = 502.9 t/a

Tab.19

Ref.	Technology(ies)	Heat source (HS) substance	$T HS, In$ /°C	$m ˙ HS$ /(kg·s^?1)	Other products	Results
Thermal evaluation (EE wise)
Yu et al. [186]	AC, ORC	–	–	–	–	EE _max = 80.68% (A and B configurations)
Fang et al. [139]	ORC bottoming ORCs, organic flash cycle, DEE	FG	468	4.06	Cooling, heating	At optimized point: EE = 80.49%
Economic evaluation (PP wise)
Li et al. [136]	ORC, geothermal flash cycle, DEE	GW	170	10	Cooling, hydrogen, oxygen	PP = 2.385 years
Economic evaluation (cost of product wise)
Bao et al. [125]	Various single and multiple ORC configurations	SW	15	–	–	Cost = 5.92 USD/GJ (0.021 USD/kWh)
Sun et al. [126]	ORC, DEE	Water	80, 140, 200	–	–	Best configuration: multiple cond/exp configuration @ 3000 kPa; electricity PC = 9 USD/GJ (0.032 USD/kWh)

Tab.20

Ref.	Technology(ies)	Heat source (HS) substance	$T HS, In$ /°C	$m ˙ HS$ /(kg·s^?1)	Other products	Results
Thermal evaluation (EE wise)
Mehrpooya et al. [169]	CO₂ RC, GT	–	–	–	Argon, oxygen	EE about 77%
Park et al. [93]	ORC, LAES	SW	20	–	–	EE = 75.1%
Economic evaluation (PP wise)
Gao et al. [180]	GT, SRC, LAES	–	–	–	–	Minimum dynamic PP = 4.07 years
Park et al. [48]	LAES, DEE	WH	60	–	–	PP = 5.6 years and NPV = 143 million USD at IRR = 17.7%
Environmental evaluation (annual CO₂ wise)
Atienza-Márquez et al. [105]	Series ORC, DEE	SW,	20	–	District cooling	$E R C O 2$ = 75 kt/a
		WH water	40	–
		Biomass combustion gases	850	–
Liang et al. [200]	SOFC, ORC, CO₂ RC	–	–	–	Liquified CO₂, domestic hot water, chilled water	CO₂ captured = 5219.21 t/a

Tab.21

Fig.35

Tab.22

Fig.36

A	Area, m²
AC	Allam cycle
BC	Brayton cycle
CC	Combustion chamber
CE	Cold energy
CCP	Combined cooling and power
CCHP	Combined cooling, heating and power
CHP	Combined heating and power
Comp	Compressor
Cond	Condenser
DE	Direct expansion
DEE	Direct expansion expander/expansion
Exp	Expander
Eva	Evaporator
HRSG	Heat recovery steam generator
HS	Heat source
RHE	Reheater
FC	Fuel cell
FG	Flue gas
GT	Gas turbine
HX	Heat exchanger
IRR	Internal rate of return
JCW	Jacket cooling water
KC	Kalina cycle
LAES	Liquid air energy storage
LCOE	Levelized cost of electricity, USD/GJ
LNG	Liquified natural gas
$m ˙$	Mass flow rate, kg/s
MCFC	Molten carbonate fuel cell
NG	Natural gas
NPV	Net present value
ORC	Organic Rankine cycle
P	Pressure, kPa
PC	Product cost
PEMFC	Proton exchange membrane fuel cell
PP	Payback period
RO	Reverse osmosis
RC	Rankine cycle
RCE	Regasification cold energy
Rec	Recuperator
RHE	Reheater
SE	Stirling engine
SOFC	Solid oxide fuel cell
SRC	Steam Rankine cycle
SW	Sea water
ST	Storage tank
T	Temperature, °C
TEG	Thermo-electric generator
TRC	Transcritical CO₂ cycle
USD	United States dollars, $
$Q ˙$	Heat transfer, kW
$W ˙$	Electrical power, kW
WF	Working fluid
WH	Waste heat
TE	Thermal efficiency
EE	Exergetic efficiency
RTE	Round trip efficiency
Subscripts
in	Inlet
tot	Total
net/overall	Overall

1	M Mehrpooya, M M Moftakhari Sharifzadeh, M A Rosen. Energy and exergy analyses of a novel power cycle using the cold of LNG (liquefied natural gas) and low-temperature solar energy. Energy, 2016, 95: 324–345 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.12.008
2	M Miana, R Hoyo, V Rodrigálvarez. et al.. Calculation models for prediction of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) aging during ship transportation. Applied Energy, 2010, 87(5): 1687–1700 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.10.023
3	M Liu, N Lior, N Zhang. et al.. Thermoeconomic analysis of a novel zero-CO2-emission high-efficiency power cycle using LNG coldness. Energy Conversion and Management, 2009, 50(11): 2768–2781 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2009.06.033
4	M Mehrpooya, M M M Sharifzadeh, H Ansarinasab. Investigation of a novel integrated process configuration for natural gas liquefaction and nitrogen removal by advanced exergoeconomic analysis. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2018, 128: 1249–1262 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.09.088
5	G S Lee, Y S Chang, M S Kim. et al.. Thermodynamic analysis of extraction processes for the utilization of LNG cold energy. Cryogenics, 1996, 36(1): 35–40 https://doi.org/10.1016/0011-2275(96)80767-3
6	S Li, Y Ju. Review of the LNG intermediate fluid vaporizer and its heat transfer characteristics. Frontiers in Energy, 2022, 16(3): 429–444 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11708-021-0747-y
7	J Pospíšil, P Charvát, O Arsenyeva. et al.. Energy demand of liquefaction and regasification of natural gas and the potential of LNG for operative thermal energy storage. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2019, 99: 1–15 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.09.027
8	V Semaskaite, M Bogdevicius, T Paulauskiene. et al.. Improvement of regasification process efficiency for floating storage regasification unit. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 2022, 10(7): 897–913 https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10070897
9	A ZoelleD KeairnsL L Pinkerton, et al.. Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Volume 1a: Bituminous Coal (PC) and Natural Gas to Electricity Revision 3. Technical Report, National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2015
10	J M YustaJ Beyza. Opitimal cooperative model for the security of gas supply on European gas networks. Energy Strategy Reviews, 2021, 38: 100706
11	B B Kanbur, L Xiang, S Dubey. et al.. Cold utilization systems of LNG: A review. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2017, 79: 1171–1188 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.161
12	Department of Industry NSW. Cold water pollution. 2023-01-01, available at NSW Department of Primary Industries
13	Q Zou, C Yi, K Wang. et al.. Global LNG market: Supply-demand and economic analysis. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2022, 983: 012051 https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/983/1/012051
14	Y Liu, K Guo. A novel cryogenic power cycle for LNG cold energy recovery. Energy, 2011, 36(5): 2828–2833 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.02.024
15	M MehrpooyaR EsfilarS M A Moosavian. Introducing a novel air separation process based on cold energy recovery of LNG integrated with coal gasification, transcritical carbon dioxide power cycle and cryogenic CO2 capture. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142(4): 1749–1764
16	W Lin, M Huang, A Gu. A seawater freeze desalination prototype system utilizing LNG cold energy. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2017, 42(29): 18691–18698 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.04.176
17	V La Rocca. Cold recovery during regasification of LNG Part two: Applications in an Agro food industry and a hypermarket. Energy, 2011, 36(8): 4897–4908 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.05.034
18	H Dhameliya, P Agrawal. LNG cryogenic energy utilization. Energy Procedia, 2016, 90: 660–665 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.11.238
19	T K Ibrahim, M M Rahman, A N Abdalla. Improvement of gas turbine performance based on inlet air cooling systems: A technical review. International Journal of Physical Sciences, 2011, 6(4): 620–627 https://doi.org/10.5897/IJPS10.563
20	E B Graham. LNG — a review of developments. Cryogenics, 1973, 13(8): 453–456 https://doi.org/10.1016/0011-2275(73)90001-5
21	Z Pan, L Zhang, Z Zhang. et al.. Thermodynamic analysis of KCS/ORC integrated power generation system with LNG cold energy exploitation and CO2 capture. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 2017, 46: 188–198 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2017.07.018
22	IEA. Global Energy Review: CO2 Emissions in 2021. 2023-01-03, available at the website of IEA
23	Rodríguez C E Campos, Palacio J C Escobar, O J Venturini. et al.. Exergetic and economic comparison of ORC and Kalina cycle for low temperature enhanced geothermal system in Brazil. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2013, 52(1): 109–119 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2012.11.012
24	World Bank The. Electricity production from natural gas sources (% of total). 2023-01-01, available at the World Bank website
25	Gómez M Romero, Garcia R Ferreiro, Gómez J Romero. et al.. Review of thermal cycles exploiting the exergy of liquefied natural gas in the regasification process. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2014, 38: 781–795 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.029
26	F Xue, Y Chen, Y Ju. A review of cryogenic power generation cycles with liquefied natural gas cold energy utilization. Frontiers in Energy, 2016, 10(3): 363–374 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11708-016-0397-7
27	M Mehrpooya, M M M Sharifzadeh, M H Katooli. Thermodynamic analysis of integrated LNG regasification process configurations. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 2018, 69: 1–27 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2018.06.001
28	G Yu, S Jia, B Dai. Review on recent liquefied natural gas cold energy utilization in power generation cycles. Advances in Geo-Energy Research, 2018, 2(1): 86–102 https://doi.org/10.26804/ager.2018.01.08
29	C M Summers. The conversion of energy. Scientific American, 1971, 225(3): 148–160 https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0971-148
30	Y CengelM A Boles. Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach. 5th ed. McGraw Hill, 2006
31	L Zhao, J Zhang, X Wang. et al.. Dynamic exergy analysis of a novel LNG cold energy utilization system combined with cold, heat and power. Energy, 2020, 212: 118649 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118649
32	J R Mehrenjani, A Gharehghani, A G Sangesaraki. Machine learning optimization of a novel geothermal driven system with LNG heat sink for hydrogen production and liquefaction. Energy Conversion and Management, 2022, 254: 115266 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2022.115266
33	States Energy Information Administration United. Utility-scale batteries and pumped storage return about 80% of the electricity they store. 2023-01-01, available at website of United States Energy Information Administration
34	M EbrahimiA Keshavarz. CCHP evaluation criteria. In: Combined Cooling, Heating and Power. In: Combined Cooling, Heating and Power, 2015
35	L F Moreira, F R P Arrieta. Thermal and economic assessment of organic Rankine cycles for waste heat recovery in cement plants. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2019, 114: 109315 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109315
36	EIA. Levelized cost of new generation resources in the annual energy outlook. 2023-01-03, available at website of EIA
37	M Ashouri, A M Khoshkar Vadani, M Mehrpooya. et al.. Techno-economic assessment of a Kalina cycle driven by a parabolic Trough solar collector. Energy Conversion and Management, 2015, 105: 1328–1339 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.09.015
38	A Eghtesad, H Afshin, S Kazemzadeh Hannani. Energy, exergy, exergoeconomic, and economic analysis of a novel power generation cycle integrated with seawater desalination system using the cold energy of liquified natural gas. Energy Conversion and Management, 2021, 243: 114352 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114352
39	N Chitgar, M Moghimi. Design and evaluation of a novel multi-generation system based on SOFC-GT for electricity, fresh water and hydrogen production. Energy, 2020, 197: 117162 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117162
40	J Xu, E Luo, S Hochgreb. A thermoacoustic combined cooling, heating, and power (CCHP) system for waste heat and LNG cold energy recovery. Energy, 2021, 227: 120341 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.120341
41	G Bisio, L Tagliafico. On the recovery of LNG physical exergy by means of a simple cycle or a complex system. Exergy, An International Journal, 2002, 2(1): 34–50 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1164-0235(01)00037-1
42	I Lee, J Park, F You. et al.. A novel cryogenic energy storage system with LNG direct expansion regasification: Design, energy optimization, and exergy analysis. Energy, 2019, 173: 691–705 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.02.047
43	A Vecchi, Y Li, Y Ding. et al.. Liquid air energy storage (LAES): A review on technology state-of-the-art, integration pathways and future perspectives. Advances in Applied Energy, 2021, 3: 100047 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adapen.2021.100047
44	O O’Callaghan, P Donnellan. Liquid air energy storage systems: A review. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2021, 146: 111113 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111113
45	M Qi, J Park, I Lee. et al.. Liquid air as an emerging energy vector towards carbon neutrality: A multi-scale systems perspective. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2022, 159: 112201 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112201
46	X Peng, X She, C Li. et al.. Liquid air energy storage flexibly coupled with LNG regasification for improving air liquefaction. Applied Energy, 2019, 250: 1190–1201 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.05.040
47	S Barsali, A Ciambellotti, R Giglioli. et al.. Hybrid power plant for energy storage and peak shaving by liquified oxygen and natural gas. Applied Energy, 2018, 228: 33–41 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.06.042
48	J Park, F You, H Cho. et al.. Novel massive thermal energy storage system for liquefied natural gas cold energy recovery. Energy, 2020, 195: 117022 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117022
49	B Kongtragool, S Wongwises. A review of solar-powered Stirling engines and low temperature differential Stirling engines. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2003, 7(2): 131–154 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-0321(02)00053-9
50	U R Singh, A Kumar. Review on solar Stirling engine: Development and performance. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress, 2018, 8: 244–256 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsep.2018.08.016
51	F Ahmed, H Huang, S Ahmed. et al.. A comprehensive review on modeling and performance optimization of Stirling engine. International Journal of Energy Research, 2020, 44(8): 6098–6127 https://doi.org/10.1002/er.5214
52	M Z Malik, P H Shaikh, S Zhang. et al.. A review on design parameters and specifications of parabolic solar dish Stirling systems and their applications. Energy Reports, 2022, 8: 4128–4154 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.03.031
53	H Dong, L Zhao, S Zhang. et al.. Using cryogenic exergy of liquefied natural gas for electricity production with the Stirling cycle. Energy, 2013, 63: 10–18 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.10.063
54	I Szczygieł, W Stanek, J Szargut. Application of the Stirling engine driven with cryogenic exergy of LNG (liquefied natural gas) for the production of electricity. Energy, 2016, 105: 25–31 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.08.112
55	H Ansarinasab, H Hajabdollahi, M Fatimah. Conceptual design of LNG regasification process using liquid air energy storage (LAES) and LNG production process using magnetic refrigeration system. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 2021, 46: 101239 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101239
56	Z Buliński, A Kabaj, T Krysiński. et al.. A computational fluid dynamics analysis of the influence of the regenerator on the performance of the cold Stirling engine at different working conditions. Energy Conversion and Management, 2019, 195: 125–138 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.04.089
57	T Jin, J Huang, Y Feng. et al.. Thermoacoustic prime movers and refrigerators: Thermally powered engines without moving components. Energy, 2015, 93(1): 828–853 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.09.005
58	M Hou, Z Wu, G Yu. et al.. A thermoacoustic Stirling electrical generator for cold exergy recovery of liquefied nature gas. Applied Energy, 2018, 226: 389–396 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.05.120
59	Central Bank European. Euro foreign exchange reference rates. 2023-01-30, available at European Central Bank
60	M T Nasir, K C Kim. Working fluids selection and parametric optimization of an Organic Rankine Cycle coupled Vapor Compression Cycle (ORC-VCC) for air conditioning using low grade heat. Energy and Building, 2016, 129: 378–395 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.07.068
61	M Tauseef Nasir, M Chukwuemeka Ekwonu, J A Esfahani. et al.. Integrated vapor compression chiller with bottoming organic Rankine cycle and onsite low-grade renewable energy. Energies, 2021, 14(19): 6401–6442 https://doi.org/10.3390/en14196401
62	J Bao, L Zhao. A review of working fluid and expander selections for organic Rankine cycle. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2013, 24: 325–342 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.03.040
63	K Rahbar, S Mahmoud, R K Al-Dadah. et al.. Review of organic Rankine cycle for small-scale applications. Energy Conversion and Management, 2017, 134: 135–155 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.12.023
64	B F Tchanche, G Lambrinos, A Frangoudakis. et al.. Low-grade heat conversion into power using organic Rankine cycles—A review of various applications. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2011, 15(8): 3963–3979 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.024
65	B F Tchanche, M Pétrissans, G Papadakis. Heat resources and organic Rankine cycle machines. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2014, 39: 1185–1199 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.139
66	M Bahrami, F Pourfayaz, A Kasaeian. Low global warming potential (GWP) working fluids (WFs) for Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) applications. Energy Reports, 2022, 8: 2976–2988 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.01.222
67	M A Qyyum, A Khan, S Ali. et al.. Assessment of working fluids, thermal resources and cooling utilities for organic Rankine cycles: State-of-the-art comparison, challenges, commercial status, and future prospects. Energy Conversion and Management, 2022, 252: 115055 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.115055
68	S Lecompte, H Huisseune, M van den Broek. et al.. Review of organic Rankine cycle (ORC) architectures for waste heat recovery. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2015, 47: 448–461 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.089
69	X Zhang, M He, Y Zhang. A review of research on the Kalina cycle. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2012, 16(7): 5309–5318 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.05.040
70	W Rao, L Zhao, C Liu. et al.. A combined cycle utilizing LNG and low-temperature solar energy. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2013, 60(1−2): 51–60 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2013.06.043
71	P Dorosz, P Wojcieszak, Z Malecha. Exergetic analysis, optimization and comparison of LNG cold exergy recovery systems for transportation. Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 2018, 20(1): 59–77 https://doi.org/10.3390/e20010059
72	T Sung, K C Kim. Thermodynamic analysis of a novel dual-loop organic Rankine cycle for engine waste heat and LNG cold. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2016, 100: 1031–1041 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.02.102
73	E Baldasso, M E Mondejar, S Mazzoni. et al.. Potential of liquefied natural gas cold energy recovery on board ships. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020, 271: 122519 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122519
74	H Yu, D Kim, T Gundersen. A study of working fluids for Organic Rankine Cycles (ORCs) operating across and below ambient temperature to utilize Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) cold energy. Energy, 2019, 167: 730–739 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.11.021
75	Z Sun, Z Wu, Q Zhao. et al.. Thermodynamic improvements of LNG cold exergy power generation system by using supercritical ORC with unconventional condenser. Energy Conversion and Management, 2020, 223: 113263 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113263
76	J Tan, S Xie, W Wu. et al.. Evaluating and optimizing the cold energy efficiency of power generation and wastewater treatment in LNG-fired power plant based on data-driven approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2022, 334: 130149 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130149
77	T Lim, Y Choi. Thermal design and performance evaluation of a shell-and-tube heat exchanger using LNG cold energy in LNG fuelled ship. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2020, 171: 115120 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2020.115120
78	H W Choi, S Na, S B Hong. et al.. Optimal design of organic Rankine cycle recovering LNG cold energy with finite heat exchanger size. Energy, 2021, 217: 119268 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.119268
79	J Koo, S Oh, Y Choi. et al.. Optimization of an organic Rankine cycle system for an LNG-powered ship. Energies, 2019, 12(10): 1933–1950 https://doi.org/10.3390/en12101933
80	F Musharavati, M Saadat-Targhi, S Khanmohammadi. et al.. Improving the power generation efficiency with the use of LNG as cold source by thermoelectric generators for hydrogen production. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2020, 45(51): 26905–26919 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.07.107
81	N Jaziri, A Boughamoura, J Müller. et al.. A comprehensive review of thermoelectric generators: Technologies and common applications. Energy Reports, 2020, 6(7): 264–287 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2019.12.011
82	V Mehdikhani, I Mirzaee, M Khalilian. et al.. Thermodynamic and exergoeconomic assessment of a new combined power, natural gas, and hydrogen system based on two geothermal wells. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2022, 206: 118116 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2022.118116
83	G Bamorovat Abadi, K C Kim. Investigation of organic Rankine cycles with zeotropic mixtures as a working fluid: Advantages and issues. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2017, 73: 1000–1013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.02.020
84	W Xu, R Zhao, S Deng. et al.. Is zeotropic working fluid a promising option for organic Rankine cycle: A quantitative evaluation based on literature data. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2021, 148: 111267 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111267
85	H Yu, D Kim, X Hu. et al.. Organic Rankine cycle with pure and mixed working fluids for LNG cold energy recovery. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 2019, 76: 607–612 https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1976102
86	T He, H Ma, J Ma. et al.. Effects of cooling and heating sources properties and working fluid selection on cryogenic organic Rankine cycle for LNG cold energy utilization. Energy Conversion and Management, 2021, 247: 114706 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114706
87	Y Zhang, T Liang, C Yang. et al.. Advanced exergy analysis of an integrated energy storage system based on transcritical CO2 energy storage and Organic Rankine Cycle. Energy Conversion and Management, 2020, 216: 112938 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112938
88	A Dutta, I A Karimi, S Farooq. Economic feasibility of power generation by recovering cold energy during LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) regasification. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 2018, 6(8): 10687–10695 https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.8b02020
89	J Park, I Lee, F You. et al.. Economic process selection of liquefied natural gas regasification: Power generation and energy storage applications. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2019, 58(12): 4946–4956 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.9b00179
90	T He, J Zhang, N Mao. et al.. Organic Rankine cycle integrated with hydrate-based desalination for a sustainable energy–water nexus system. Applied Energy, 2021, 291: 116839 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116839
91	P Babu, A Nambiar, T He. et al.. A review of Clathrate hydrate based desalination to strengthen energy-water nexus. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 2018, 6(7): 8093–8107 https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.8b01616
92	I Lee, F You. Systems design and analysis of liquid air energy storage from liquefied natural gas cold energy. Applied Energy, 2019, 242: 168–180 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.03.087
93	J Park, S Cho, M Qi. et al.. Liquid air energy storage coupled with liquefied natural gas cold energy: Focus on efficiency, energy capacity, and flexibility. Energy, 2021, 216: 119308 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.119308
94	J Bao, Y Lin, R Zhang. et al.. Strengthening power generation efficiency utilizing liquefied natural gas cold energy by a novel two-stage condensation Rankine cycle (TCRC) system. Energy Conversion and Management, 2017, 143: 312–325 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.04.018
95	T Ouyang, B Gao, Z Su. et al.. Design and optimization of combined gasoline vapor recovery, cascade power and Rectisol wash for liquid natural gas cold energy utilization. Energy Conversion and Management, 2020, 207: 112511 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112511
96	M Badami, J C Bruno, A Coronas. et al.. Analysis of different combined cycles and working fluids for LNG exergy recovery during regasification. Energy, 2018, 159: 373–384 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.06.100
97	J Bao, T Yuan, C Song. et al.. Thermodynamic analysis of a new double-pressure condensation power generation system recovering LNG cold energy for hydrogen production. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2019, 44(33): 17649–17661 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.05.107
98	T Yuan, C Song, R Zhang. et al.. Energy and economic optimization of the multistage condensation Rankine cycle that utilizes LNG cold energy: Considerations on working fluids and cycle configurations. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 2019, 7(15): 13505–13516 https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b03146
99	G Ma, H Lu, G Cui. et al.. Multi-stage Rankine cycle (MSRC) model for LNG cold-energy power generation system. Energy, 2018, 165: 673–688 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.09.203
100	C Li, J Liu, S Zheng. et al.. Performance analysis of an improved power generation system utilizing the cold energy of LNG and solar energy. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2019, 159: 113937 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.113937
101	M Moghimi, M Khosravian. Exergy optimization for a novel combination of organic Rankine cycles, Stirling cycle and direct expander turbines. Heat and Mass Transfer, 2018, 54(6): 1827–1839 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00231-017-2270-6
102	X Wang, L Zhao, L Zhang. et al.. A novel combined system for LNG cold energy utilization to capture carbon dioxide in the flue gas from the magnesite processing industry. Energy, 2019, 187: 115963 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.115963
103	M Qi, J Park, J Kim. et al.. Advanced integration of LNG regasification power plant with liquid air energy storage: Enhancements in flexibility, safety, and power generation. Applied Energy, 2020, 269: 115049 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115049
104	S Zheng, C Li, Z Zeng. Thermo-economic analysis, working fluids selection, and cost projection of a precooler-integrated dual-stage combined cycle (PIDSCC) system utilizing cold exergy of liquified natural gas. Energy, 2022, 238: 121851 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.121851
105	A Atienza-Márquez, J C Bruno, A Akisawa. et al.. Fluids selection and performance analysis of a polygeneration plant with exergy recovery from LNG-regasification. Energy, 2019, 176: 1020–1036 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.04.060
106	T Zhang, L Chen, X Zhang. et al.. Thermodynamic analysis of a novel hybrid liquid air energy storage system based on the utilization of LNG cold energy. Energy, 2018, 155: 641–650 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.05.041
107	T Ouyang, S Xie, J Tan. et al.. Optimization of energy-exergy efficiencies of an advanced cold energy utilization system in liquefied natural gas filling station. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 2021, 95: 104235 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2021.104235
108	Z Tian, W Zeng, B Gu. et al.. Energy, exergy, and economic (3E) analysis of an organic Rankine cycle using zeotropic mixtures based on marine engine waste heat and LNG cold energy. Energy Conversion and Management, 2021, 228: 113657 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113657
109	P Yu, H Liu, S Zhou. et al.. Thermodynamic analysis of a cryogenic power generation system recovering both sensible heat and latent heat of flue gas. Energy Conversion and Management, 2021, 227: 113615 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113615
110	Ł Tomków, M Cholewiński. Modelling of a novel power-generating cycle for the utilization of the cold exergy of liquid natural gas with the adjustable parameters of working fluid. Energy Conversion and Management, 2019, 201: 112178 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.112178
111	A Mahmoudan, P Samadof, S Hosseinzadeh. et al.. A multigeneration cascade system using ground-source energy with cold recovery: 3E analyses and multi-objective optimization. Energy, 2021, 233: 121185 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.121185
112	M A Emadi, J Mahmoudimehr. Modeling and thermo-economic optimization of a new multi-generation system with geothermal heat source and LNG heat sink. Energy Conversion and Management, 2019, 189: 153–166 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.03.086
113	H Ansarinasab, H Hajabdollahi. Multi-objective optimization of a geothermal-based multigeneration system for heating, power and purified water production purpose using evolutionary algorithm. Energy Conversion and Management, 2020, 223: 113476 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113476
114	S Z Al Ghafri, S Munro, U Cardella. et al.. Hydrogen liquefaction: a review of the fundamental physics, engineering practice and future opportunities. Energy & Environmental Science, 2022, 15(7): 2690–2731 https://doi.org/10.1039/D2EE00099G
115	J Joy, K Chowdhury. Enhancing generation of green power from the cold of vaporizing LNG at 30 bar by optimising heat exchanger surface area in a multi-staged organic Rankine cycle. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 2021, 43: 100930 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2020.100930
116	M Zhang, L Zhao, C Liu. et al.. A combined system utilizing LNG and low-temperature waste heat energy. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2016, 101: 525–536 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.09.066
117	F Han, Z Wang, Y Ji. et al.. Energy analysis and multi-objective optimization of waste heat and cold energy recovery process in LNG-fueled vessels based on a triple organic Rankine cycle. Energy Conversion and Management, 2019, 195: 561–572 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.05.040
118	Z Tian, Y Yue, B Gu. et al.. Thermo-economic analysis and optimization of a combined Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) system with LNG cold energy and waste heat recovery of dual-fuel marine engine. International Journal of Energy Research, 2020, 44(13): 9974–9994 https://doi.org/10.1002/er.5529
119	Z Tian, Y Yue, Y Zhang. et al.. Multi-objective thermo-economic optimization of a combined organic Rankine cycle (ORC) system based on waste heat of dual fuel marine engine and LNG cold energy recovery. Energies, 2020, 13(6): 1397–1420 https://doi.org/10.3390/en13061397
120	T He, H Lv, Z Shao. et al.. Cascade utilization of LNG cold energy by integrating cryogenic energy storage, organic Rankine cycle and direct cooling. Applied Energy, 2020, 277: 115570 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115570
121	Z Sun, J Lai, S Wang. et al.. Thermodynamic optimization and comparative study of different ORC configurations utilizing the exergies of LNG and low grade heat of different temperatures. Energy, 2018, 147: 688–700 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.01.085
122	Z Sun, Q Zhao, Z Wu. et al.. Thermodynamic comparison of modified Rankine cycle configurations for LNG cold energy recovery under different working conditions. Energy Conversion and Management, 2021, 239: 114141 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114141
123	I Choi, S Lee, Y Seo. et al.. Analysis and optimization of cascade Rankine cycle for liquefied natural gas cold energy recovery. Energy, 2013, 61: 179–195 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.08.047
124	A H Mosaffa, N H Mokarram, L G Farshi. Thermo-economic analysis of combined different ORCs geothermal power plants and LNG cold energy. Geothermics, 2017, 65: 113–125 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2016.09.004
125	J Bao, T Yuan, L Zhang. et al.. Comparative study of liquefied natural gas (LNG) cold energy power generation systems in series and parallel. Energy Conversion and Management, 2019, 184: 107–126 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.01.040
126	Z Sun, H Zhang, T Zhang. et al.. Optimizations and comparison of three two-stage Rankine cycles under different heat source temperatures and NG distribution pressures. Energy Conversion and Management, 2020, 209: 112655 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112655
127	B Ghorbani, Z Javadi, S Zendehboudi. et al.. Energy, exergy, and economic analyses of a new integrated system for generation of power and liquid fuels using liquefied natural gas regasification and solar collectors. Energy Conversion and Management, 2020, 219: 112915 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112915
128	M Wolf, N Fischer, M Claeys. Formation of metal-support compounds in cobalt-based Fischer-Tropsch synthesis: A review. Chem Catalysis, 2021, 1(5): 1014–1041 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.checat.2021.08.002
129	K H Kim, K C Kim. Thermodynamic performance analysis of a combined power cycle using low grade heat source and LNG cold energy. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2014, 70(1): 50–60 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2014.04.064
130	K C Kim, J M Ha, K H Kim. Exergy analysis of a combined power cycle using low-grade heat source and LNG cold energy. International Journal of Exergy, 2015, 17(3): 374–400 https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEX.2015.070504
131	S. Sadaghiani M, Ahmadi M H, Mehrpooya M, et al. Process development and thermodynamic analysis of a novel power generation plant driven by geothermal energy with liquefied natural gas as its heat sink. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2018, 133: 645–658 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.01.077
132	B Ghorbani, A Ebrahimi, M Ziabasharhagh. Novel integrated CCHP system for generation of liquid methanol, power, cooling and liquid fuels using Kalina power cycle through liquefied natural gas regasification. Energy Conversion and Management, 2020, 221: 113151 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113151
133	M A Emadi, H Pourrahmani, M Moghimi. Performance evaluation of an integrated hydrogen production system with LNG cold energy utilization. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2018, 43(49): 22075–22087 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.10.048
134	J Ning, Z Sun, Q Dong. et al.. Performance study of supplying cooling load and output power combined cycle using the cold energy of the small scale LNG. Energy, 2019, 172: 36–44 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.01.094
135	Y Li, Y Liu, G Zhang. et al.. Thermodynamic analysis of a novel combined cooling and power system utilizing liquefied natural gas (LNG) cryogenic energy and low-temperature waste heat. Energy, 2020, 199: 117479 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117479
136	J Li, M Zoghi, L Zhao. Thermo-economic assessment and optimization of a geothermal-driven tri-generation system for power, cooling, and hydrogen production. Energy, 2022, 244: 123151 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.123151
137	H Ghaebi, T Parikhani, H Rostamzadeh. Energy, exergy and thermoeconomic analysis of a novel combined cooling and power system using low-temperature heat source and LNG cold energy recovery. Energy Conversion and Management, 2017, 150: 678–692 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.08.052
138	H Ghaebi, T Parikhani, H Rostamzadeh. A novel trigeneration system using geothermal heat source and liquefied natural gas cold energy recovery: Energy, exergy and exergoeconomic analysis. Renewable Energy, 2018, 119: 513–527 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.11.082
139	Z Fang, L Shang, Z Pan. et al.. Exergoeconomic analysis and optimization of a combined cooling, heating and power system based on organic Rankine and Kalina cycles using liquified natural gas cold energy. Energy Conversion and Management, 2021, 238: 114148 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114148
140	D S Ayou, V Eveloy. Energy, exergy and exergoeconomic analysis of an ultra low-grade heat-driven ammonia-water combined absorption power-cooling cycle for district space cooling, sub-zero refrigeration, power and LNG regasification. Energy Conversion and Management, 2020, 213: 112790 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112790
141	H Ansarinasab, H Hajabdollahi, M Fatimah. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of a novel geothermal-based multigeneration system using LNG cold energy-integration of Kalina cycle, Stirling engine, desalination unit and magnetic refrigeration system. Energy, 2021, 231: 120888 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.120888
142	J Sarkar. Review and future trends of supercritical CO2 Rankine cycle for low-grade heat conversion. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2015, 48: 434–451 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.039
143	X Wang, C Pan, C E Romero. et al.. Thermo-economic analysis of a direct supercritical CO2 electric power generation system using geothermal heat. Frontiers in Energy, 2022, 16(2): 246–262 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11708-021-0749-9
144	H Yang, X Yang, J Yang. et al.. Preliminary design of an SCO2 conversion system applied to the sodium cooled fast reactor. Frontiers in Energy, 2021, 15(4): 832–841 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11708-021-0777-5
145	X Sun, S Yao, J Xu. et al.. Design and optimization of a full-generation system for marine LNG cold energy cascade utilization. Journal of Thermal Science, 2020, 29(3): 587–596 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11630-019-1161-1
146	J Wang, J Wang, Y Dai. et al.. Thermodynamic analysis and optimization of a transcritical CO2 geothermal power generation system based on the cold energy utilization of LNG. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2014, 70(1): 531–540 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2014.05.084
147	Z Sun, J Wang, Y Dai. et al.. Exergy analysis and optimization of a hydrogen production process by a solar-liquefied natural gas hybrid driven transcritical CO2 power cycle. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2012, 37(24): 18731–18739 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.08.028
148	P Zhao, J Wang, Y Dai. et al.. Thermodynamic analysis of a hybrid energy system based on CAES system and CO2 transcritical power cycle with LNG cold energy utilization. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2015, 91: 718–730 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.08.082
149	L Chen, T Zheng, S Mei. et al.. Review and prospect of compressed air energy storage system. Journal of Modern Power Systems and Clean Energy, 2016, 4(4): 529–541 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40565-016-0240-5
150	M Mehrpooya, M M M Sharifzadeh. A novel integration of oxy-fuel cycle, high temperature solar cycle and LNG cold recovery–energy and exergy analysis. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2017, 114: 1090–1104 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.11.163
151	M H Ahmadi, M Mehrpooya, S Abbasi. et al.. Thermo-economic analysis and multi-objective optimization of a transcritical CO2 power cycle driven by solar energy and LNG cold recovery. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress, 2017, 4: 185–196 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsep.2017.10.004
152	M H Ahmadi, M Mehrpooya, F Pourfayaz. Exergoeconomic analysis and multi objective optimization of performance of a Carbon dioxide power cycle driven by geothermal energy with liquefied natural gas as its heat sink. Energy Conversion and Management, 2016, 119: 422–434 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.04.062
153	Y Liu, J Han, H You. Exergoeconomic analysis and multi-objective optimization of a CCHP system based on LNG cold energy utilization and flue gas waste heat recovery with CO2 capture. Energy, 2020, 190: 116201 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.116201
154	Y Cao, M Kasaeian, H Abbasspoor. et al.. Energy, exergy, and economic analyses of a novel biomass-based multigeneration system integrated with multi-effect distillation, electrodialysis, and LNG tank. Desalination, 2022, 526: 115550 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2022.115550
155	R Esfilar, M Mehrpooya, S M A Moosavian. Thermodynamic assessment of an integrated biomass and coal co-gasification, cryogenic air separation unit with power generation cycles based on LNG vaporization. Energy Conversion and Management, 2018, 157: 438–451 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.12.026
156	D A DokandariR H KhoshkhooM Bidi, et al.. Thermodynamic investigation and optimization of two novel combined power-refrigeration cycles using cryogenic LNG energy. International Journal of Refrigeration, 124: 167–183
157	A Naseri, M Fazlikhani, M Sadeghzadeh. et al.. Thermodynamic and exergy analyses of a novel solar-powered CO2 transcritical power cycle with recovery of cryogenic LNG using stirling engines. Renewable Energy Research and Applications, 2020, 1(2): 175–185 https://doi.org/10.22044/rera.2020.9282.1023
158	T Tjahjono, M A Ehyaei, A Ahmadi. et al.. Thermo-economic analysis on integrated CO2, organic Rankine cycles, and NaClO plant using liquefied natural gas. Energies, 2021, 14(10): 2849–2873 https://doi.org/10.3390/en14102849
159	A Poullikkas. An overview of current and future sustainable gas turbine technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2005, 9(5): 409–443 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2004.05.009
160	D N Özen. Thermodynamic analysis of a new the combined power system using LNG’s cold energy. Konya Journal of Engineering Sciences, 8(1): 122−134
161	M Moghimi, S Rashidzadeh, S M Hosseinalipour. et al.. Exergy and energy analysis of a novel power cycle utilizing the cold energy of liquefied natural gas. Heat and Mass Transfer, 2019, 55(11): 3327–3342 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00231-019-02660-8
162	B Ghorbani, A Ebrahimi, S Rooholamini. et al.. Pinch and exergy evaluation of Kalina/Rankine/gas/steam combined power cycles for tri-generation of power, cooling and hot water using liquefied natural gas regasification. Energy Conversion and Management, 2020, 223: 113328 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113328
163	J Bao, L Zhang, C Song. et al.. Reduction of efficiency penalty for a natural gas combined cycle power plant with post-combustion CO2 capture: Integration of liquid natural gas cold energy. Energy Conversion and Management, 2019, 198: 111852 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.111852
164	Y Liang, L Cai, Y Guan. et al.. Numerical study on an original oxy-fuel combustion power plant with efficient utilization of flue gas waste heat. Energy, 2020, 193: 116854 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.116854
165	A Ebrahimi, B Ghorbani, F Skandarzadeh. et al.. Introducing a novel liquid air cryogenic energy storage system using phase change material, solar parabolic trough collectors, and Kalina power cycle (process integration, pinch, and exergy analyses). Energy Conversion and Management, 2021, 228: 113653 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113653
166	X She, T Zhang, L Cong. et al.. Flexible integration of liquid air energy storage with liquefied natural gas regasification for power generation enhancement. Applied Energy, 2019, 251: 113355 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113355
167	M Aneke, M Wang. Potential for improving the energy efficiency of cryogenic air separation unit (ASU) using binary heat recovery cycles. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2015, 81: 223–231 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.02.034
168	A R Smith, J Klosek. A review of air separation technologies and their integration with energy conversion processes. Fuel Processing Technology, 2001, 70(2): 115–134 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3820(01)00131-X
169	M Mehrpooya, B Golestani, S M Ali Mousavian. Novel cryogenic argon recovery from the air separation unit integrated with LNG regasification and CO2 transcritical power cycle. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 2020, 40: 100767 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2020.100767
170	R Liu, Y Xiong, L Ke. et al.. Integration of LNG regasification process in natural gas-fired power system with oxy-fuel combustion. Journal of Thermal Science, 2022, 31(5): 1351–1366 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11630-020-1326-y
171	E N Krishnan, N Balasundaran, R J Thomas. Thermodynamic analysis of an integrated gas turbine power plant utilizing cold exergy of LNG. Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 2018, 12(3): 3961–3975 https://doi.org/10.15282/jmes.12.3.2018.14.0345
172	S Cha, S Na, Y H Lee. et al.. Thermodynamic analysis of a gas turbine inlet air cooling and recovering system in gas turbine and CO2 combined cycle using cold energy from LNG terminal. Energy Conversion and Management, 2021, 230: 113802 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113802
173	T Ouyang, Z Su, F Wang. et al.. Efficient and sustainable design for demand-supply and deployment of waste heat and cold energy recovery in marine natural gas engines. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020, 274: 123004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123004
174	M Mehrpooya, M M M Sharifzadeh, M J Zonouz. et al.. Cost and economic potential analysis of a cascading power cycle with liquefied natural gas regasification. Energy Conversion and Management, 2018, 156: 68–83 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.10.100
175	Y Cao, H A Dhahad, H Togun. et al.. Proposal and thermo-economic optimization of using LNG cold exergy for compressor inlet cooling in an integrated biomass fueled triple combined power cycle. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2021, 46(29): 15351–15366 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.02.111
176	Q Q Tang, C He, Q L Chen. et al.. Sustainable retrofit design of natural gas power plants for low-grade energy recovery. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2019, 58(42): 19571–19585 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.9b04117
177	D N Ozenİ Uçar. Energy, exergy, and exergo-economic analysis of a novel combined power system using the cold energy of liquified natural gas (LNG). Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 39(4): 1–16
178	Y Cao, H Nikafshan Rad, D Hamedi Jamali. et al.. A novel multi-objective spiral optimization algorithm for an innovative solar/biomass-based multi-generation energy system: 3E analyses, and optimization algorithms comparison. Energy Conversion and Management, 2020, 219: 112961 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112961
179	Z Liu, I A Karimi, T He. A novel inlet air cooling system based on liquefied natural gas cold energy utilization for improving power plant performance. Energy Conversion and Management, 2019, 187: 41–52 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.03.015
180	Z GaoW Ji L Guo, et al.. Thermo-economic analysis of the integrated bidirectional peak shaving system consisted by liquid air energy storage and combined cycle power plant. Energy Conversion and Management, 234: 113945
181	B B KanburL XiangS Dubey, et al.. Thermoeconomic and environmental assessments of a combined cycle for the small scale LNG cold utilization. Applied Energy, 204: 1148–1162
182	S Sadeghi, S Ghandehariun, B Rezaie. et al.. An innovative solar-powered natural gas-based compressed air energy storage system integrated with a liquefied air power cycle. International Journal of Energy Research, 2021, 45(11): 16294–16309 https://doi.org/10.1002/er.6876
183	D S Ayou, V Eveloy. Sustainable multi-generation of district cooling, electricity, and regasified LNG for cooling-dominated regions. Sustainable Cities and Society, 2020, 60: 102219 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102219
184	N Khallaghi, D P Hanak, V Manovic. Techno-economic evaluation of near-zero CO2 emission gas-fired power generation technologies: A review. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 2020, 74: 103095 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2019.103095
185	B Li, S Wang, J Qiao. et al.. Thermodynamic analysis and optimization of a dual-pressure Allam cycle integrated with the regasification of liquefied natural gas. Energy Conversion and Management, 2021, 246: 114660 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114660
186	H Yu, T Gundersen, E Gençer. Optimal liquified natural gas (LNG) cold energy utilization in an Allam cycle power plant with carbon capture and storage. Energy Conversion and Management, 2021, 228: 113725 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113725
187	W Chan, H Li, X Li. et al.. Exergoeconomic analysis and optimization of the Allam cycle with liquefied natural gas cold exergy utilization. Energy Conversion and Management, 2021, 235: 113972 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.113972
188	O Z Sharaf, M F Orhan. An overview of fuel cell technology: Fundamentals and applications. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2014, 32: 810–853 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.012
189	D Akinyele, E Olabode, A Amole. Review of fuel cell technologies and applications for sustainable microgrid systems. Inventions (Basel, Switzerland), 2020, 5(3): 42–77 https://doi.org/10.3390/inventions5030042
190	A Mohapatra, S Tripathy. A critical review of the use of fuel cells towards sustainable management of resources. IOP Conference Series. Materials Science and Engineering, 2018, 377(1): 012135 https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/377/1/012135
191	N Sazali, W N Wan Salleh, A S Jamaludin. et al.. New perspectives on fuel cell technology: A brief review. Membranes (Basel), 2020, 10(5): 99–117 https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes10050099
192	B Jaleh, M Nasrollahzadeh, M Eslamipanah. et al.. The role of carbon-based materials for fuel cells performance. Carbon, 2022, 198: 301–352 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2022.07.023
193	A S Mehr, A Lanzini, M Santarelli. et al.. Polygeneration systems based on high temperature fuel cell (MCFC and SOFC) technology: System design, fuel types, modeling and analysis approaches. Energy, 2021, 228: 120613 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.120613
194	R Choudhury, A Kang, D Lee. Effect of ionic mass transport on the performance of a novel tubular direct carbon fuel cell for the maximal use of a carbon-filled porous anode. ACS Omega, 2022, 7(35): 31003–31012 https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.2c03003
195	D Yang, G Chen, L Zhang. et al.. Low temperature ceramic fuel cells employing lithium compounds: A review. Journal of Power Sources, 2021, 503: 230070 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2021.230070
196	M H AhmadiA MohammadiF Pourfayaz, et al.. Thermodynamic analysis and optimization of a waste heat recovery system for proton exchange membrane fuel cell using transcritical carbon dioxide cycle and cold energy of liquefied natural gas. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 34: 428–438
197	A Ebrahimi, Ziabasharhagh M Ghorbani. Introducing a novel integrated cogeneration system of power and cooling using stored liquefied natural gas as a cryogenic energy storage system. Energy, 2020, 206: 117982 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117982
198	M H Ahmadi, M S Sadaghiani, F Pourfayaz. et al.. Energy and exergy analyses of a solid oxide fuel cell-gas turbine-organic rankine cycle power plant with liquefied natural gas as heat sink. Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 2018, 20(7): 484–506 https://doi.org/10.3390/e20070484
199	M Mehrpooya, M M M Sharifzadeh, S A Mousavi. Evaluation of an optimal integrated design multi-fuel multi-product electrical power plant by energy and exergy analyses. Energy, 2019, 169: 61–78 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.12.018
200	W Liang, Z Yu, S Bai. et al.. Study on a near-zero emission SOFC-based multi-generation system combined with organic Rankine cycle and transcritical CO2 cycle for LNG cold energy recovery. Energy Conversion and Management, 2022, 253: 115188 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.115188
201	M A Emadi, N Chitgar, O A Oyewunmi. et al.. Working-fluid selection and thermoeconomic optimisation of a combined cycle cogeneration dual-loop organic Rankine cycle (ORC) system for solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) waste-heat recovery. Applied Energy, 2020, 261: 114384 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114384
202	S M S Mahmoudi, A R Ghavimi. Thermoeconomic analysis and multi objective optimization of a molten carbonate fuel cell–Supercritical carbon dioxide–Organic Rankin cycle integrated power system using liquefied natural gas as heat sink. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2016, 107: 1219–1232 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.07.003
203	Y Cao, H A Dhahad, H M Hussen. et al.. Multi-objective optimization of a dual energy-driven solid oxide fuel cell-based power plant. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2021, 198: 117434 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2021.117434
204	K Atsonios, C Samlis, K Manou. et al.. Technical assessment of LNG based polygeneration systems for non-interconnected island cases using SOFC. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2021, 46(6): 4827–4843 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.03.072
205	I Sartori, A Napolitano, K Voss. Net zero energy buildings: A consistent definition framework. Energy and Building, 2012, 48: 220–232 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.01.032
206	K Mohammadi, S Khanmohammadi, H Khorasanizadeh. et al.. A comprehensive review of solar only and hybrid solar driven multigeneration systems: Classifications, benefits, design and prospective. Applied Energy, 2020, 268: 114940 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114940
207	A Kasaeian, E Bellos, A Shamaeizadeh. et al.. Solar-driven polygeneration systems: Recent progress and outlook. Applied Energy, 2020, 264: 114764 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114764
208	M Wegener, A Malmquist, A Isalgué. et al.. Biomass-fired combined cooling, heating and power for small scale applications: A review. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2018, 96: 392–410 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.07.044
209	M R Maurya, J Cabibihan, K K Sadasivuni. et al.. A review on high performance photovoltaic cells and strategies for improving their efficiency. Frontiers in Energy, 2022, 16(4): 548–580 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11708-022-0826-8
210	B J Wythoff. Backpropogation neural network: A tutorial. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 1993, 18(2): 115–155 https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-7439(93)80052-J
211	S SakunthalaR KiranmayiP N Mandadi. A review on artificial intelligence techniques in electrical drives: Neural networks, fuzzy logic, and genetic algorithm. In: International Conference on Smart Technologies for Smart Nation (SmartTechCon), Bengaluru, India, 2017
212	Z Tian, W Gan, Z Qi. et al.. Experimental study of organic Rankine cycle with three-fluid recuperator for cryogenic cold energy recovery. Energy, 2022, 242: 122550 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.122550
213	M H Katooli, R Askari Moghadam, A Hajinezhad. Simulation and experimental evaluation of Stirling refrigerator for converting electrical/mechanical energy to cold energy. Energy Conversion and Management, 2019, 184: 83–90 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.01.014
214	Z B Yu, Q Li, X Chen. et al.. Experimental investigation on a thermoacoustic engine having a looped tube and resonator. Cryogenics, 2005, 45(8): 566–571 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cryogenics.2005.06.007
215	L M Qiu, D M Sun, W L Yan. et al.. Investigation on a thermoacoustically driven pulse tube cooler working at 80 K. Cryogenics, 2005, 45(5): 380–385 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cryogenics.2005.01.006

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed