NET73_proof ■ 27 August 2015 ■ 1/15

N u c l E n g T e c h n o l x x x ( 2 0 1 5 ) : 1 e1 5

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

65

1 ScienceDirect 66
67
2 68
3 69
4 70
journal homepage: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/nuclear-
5 71
engineering-and-technology/
6 72
7 73
8 74
9 Original Article 75
10 76
11
12
REVIEW OF SUPERCRITICAL CO2 POWER CYCLE TECHNOLOGY 77
78
13
14
AND CURRENT STATUS OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 79
80
15 81
16 82
17 Q44 YOONHAN AHN a, SEONG JUN BAE a, MINSEOK KIM a, SEONG KUK CHO a, 83
18 SEUNGJOON BAIK a, JEONG IK LEE a,*, and JAE EUN CHA b 84
19 85
a
20 Department of Nuclear and Quantum Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, 373-1 Guseong-dong, Yuseong-gu,
86
21 Daejeon, 305-701, South Korea 87
22 b
Fast Reactor Technology Development Division, Korean Atomic Energy Research Institute, 305-353, DukJin-Dong 150, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 88
23 South Korea 89
24 90
25 91
26 article info abstract 92
27 93
28 94
Article history: The supercritical CO2 (S-CO2) Brayton cycle has recently been gaining a lot of attention for
29 95
Received 16 January 2015 application to next generation nuclear reactors. The advantages of the S-CO2 cycle are high
30 96
Received in revised form efficiency in the mild turbine inlet temperature region and a small physical footprint with a
31 97
32 19 May 2015 simple layout, compact turbomachinery, and heat exchangers. Several heat sources
98
33 Accepted 6 June 2015 including nuclear, fossil fuel, waste heat, and renewable heat sources such as solar ther-
99
34 Available online xxx mal or fuel cells are potential application areas of the S-CO2 cycle. In this paper, the current
100
35 development progress of the S-CO2 cycle is introduced. Moreover, a quick comparison of 101
36 Keywords: various S-CO2 layouts is presented in terms of cycle performance. 102
37 Advanced power system Copyright © 2015, Published by Elsevier Korea LLC on behalf of Korean Nuclear Society. 103
38 Integral test loop 104
39 105
Layout study
40 106
Research review
41 107
42 Supercritical carbon dioxide cycle
108
43 109
44 110
45 111
46 112
47 113
48 1. Introduction reactor candidates. Characteristics of Gen IV reactors vary in
114
49 neutron energy spectrum and the fluid type used for coolant. 115
50 Q1 Since the early 2000s, numerous countries have cooperated to The operating temperatures of Gen IV reactors are commonly 116
51 develop Generation IV (Gen IV) nuclear reactors. Sodium- higher, which is ~500e900
C, compared with conventional 117
52 cooled Fast Reactor (SFR), Lead-cooled Fast Reactor (LFR), water-cooled reactors, which operates ~300
C. 118
53 119
Gas-cooled Fast Reactor (GFR), Super-Critical Water-cooled The main reason why Gen IV reactors have high operating
54 120
Reactor (SCWR), Very High Temperature gas-cooled Reactor temperatures is to increase the nuclear power plant efficiency
55 121
(VHTR), and Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) were selected as Gen IV which is currently lower than fossil fuel power plants.
56 122
57 123
58 * Corresponding author. 124
59 E-mail address: jeongiklee@kaist.ac.kr (J.I. Lee). 125
60 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http:// 126
61 creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any me- 127
62 dium, provided the original work is properly cited. 128
63 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2015.06.009
129
64 1738-5733/Copyright © 2015, Published by Elsevier Korea LLC on behalf of Korean Nuclear Society.

Please cite this article in press as: Y. Ahn et al., Review of supercritical CO2 power cycle technology and current status of
research and development, Nuclear Engineering and Technology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2015.06.009
 NET73_proof ■ 27 August 2015 ■ 2/15

2 N u c l E n g T e c h n o l x x x ( 2 0 1 5 ) : 1 e1 5

1 Increasing the reactor outlet temperature typically leads to a 2. S-CO2 power cycle 66
2 higher turbine inlet temperature in the power conversion 67
3 systems and potentially improves thermal efficiency accord- 2.1. The characteristics and benefits of the S-CO2 cycle 68
4 ing to the second law of thermodynamics. 69
5 70
Therefore, the Gen IV reactor thermal efficiency can be Fig. 1 shows the thermal efficiencies of various power con-
6 71
improved with an increase of reactor outlet temperature. version systems and heat sources with respect to the turbine
7 72
Furthermore, several related issues due to the low efficiency of inlet temperature range. The representative heat sources in
8 73
9 current nuclear power plants can be solved as well. For example, Fig. 1 are geothermal energy, solar thermal energy, nuclear 74
10 the cooling water requirement for existing nuclear power plants energy, coal, waste heat recovery, and liquefied natural gas 75
11 is distinctively higher compared with those of other power (LNG). The power conversion systems in Fig. 1 are organic 76
12 plants and it is usually criticized not only from the economic Rankine cycle (ORC), steam Rankine cycle (steam turbine), air 77
13 point of view but also from the view point of environmental Brayton cycle (gas turbine), combined cycle gas turbine 78
14 protection. Therefore, Gen IV reactors not only enhance thermal (CCGT), and S-CO2 direct and indirect cycle. As shown in Fig. 2, 79
15 efficiency but also minimize the influence on the environment. the steam Rankine cycle can achieve high efficiency under low 80
16 To successfully utilize the high reactor outlet temperature, 81
turbine inlet temperature conditions because the working
17 82
interest in alternative power conversion systems is also fluid is compressed at a liquid state. In other words, liquid
18 83
increasing. The steam Rankine cycle and gas turbine systems water is incompressible and requires less work for compres-
19 84
20 have been utilized by large size power plants for several de- sion. By contrast, the gas turbine utilizes air, compressible 85
21 cades. When the turbine inlet temperature is > 550
C, the fluid, and a large amount of work is consumed for the 86
22 ultra-supercritical (USC) steam cycle is required to further compression process. Therefore, the thermal efficiency of gas 87
23 improve the efficiency of a steam Rankine cycle. However, the turbines is not significantly higher than that of a steam 88
24 USC steam cycle inevitably suffers from material degradation Rankine cycle although the turbine inlet temperature is much 89
25 due to high temperature and pressure operating conditions. higher because the compressor requires a large amount of 90
26 Therefore, when the USC steam Rankine cycle is coupled to a work. However, the material issue becomes significant at 91
27 nuclear power plant, the plant reliability can be a significant 92
higher turbine inlet temperatures with gas turbines.
28 93
issue if the system is composed only of existing materials. As a As schematically shown in Fig. 2, the S-CO2 Brayton cycle is
29 94
result, an alternative power conversion system which can the power conversion system which combines the advantages
30 95
operate in the mild turbine inlet temperature region of both a steam Rankine cycle and a gas turbine system. In
31 96
32 (500e900
C) is essential to improve the next generation nu- other words, the fluid is compressed in the incompressible 97
33 clear power plant performance and safety at the same time. region and the higher turbine inlet temperature can be utilized 98
34 Among the various candidates, the S-CO2 power cycle is with less material issues compared with the steam Rankine 99
35 considered as one of the promising alternatives to potentially cycle. The CO2 critical condition is 30.98
C and 7.38 MPa; the 100
36 provide high efficiency in the Gen IV reactor operating tem- fluid becomes more incompressible near the critical point. 101
37 perature region, better stability with conventional structure 102
38 materials, and eventually improve the safety and reliability of P$M 103
Z¼ (1)
39 r$R$T 104
the power conversion system.
40 105
41 106
42 107
43 108
44 109
45 110
46 111
47 112
48 113
49 114
50 115
51 116
52 117
53 118
54 119
55 120
56 121
57 122
58 123
59 124
60 125
61 126
62 127
63 128
64 129
65 130
Fig. 1 e Thermal efficiencies of power conversion systems and applications. CCGT, combined cycle gas turbine.

Please cite this article in press as: Y. Ahn et al., Review of supercritical CO2 power cycle technology and current status of
research and development, Nuclear Engineering and Technology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2015.06.009
 NET73_proof ■ 27 August 2015 ■ 3/15

N u c l E n g T e c h n o l x x x ( 2 0 1 5 ) : 1 e1 5 3

1 66
2 67
3 68
4 69
5 70
6 71
7 72
8 73
9 74
10 75
11 76
12 77
13 78
14 79
15 80
16 81
17 82
18 83
19 84
20 85
21 86
22 87
23 88
24 89
25 90
26 Fig. 2 e Principles of power conversion system. S-CO2, supercritical CO2. 91
27 92
28 93
29 The compressibility factor, Z, is defined as the molecular than any existing steam Rankine cycle (a few kPa) or gas 94
30 95
volumetric ratio of a fluid compared with an ideal gas. It de- Brayton cycle (~100 kPa), and thus the fluid remains dense
31 96
scribes how much the fluid behaves like the ideal gas state. throughout the entire power system. Therefore, the volu-
32 97
33 The fluid behaves very close to an ideal gas when this factor is metric flow rate decreases as the fluid density is higher, 98
34 unity and is considered to be an incompressible fluid when it resulting in 10 times smaller turbomachinery compared with 99
35 is zero. For CO2 near the critical point, the compressibility the turbomachinery of a steam Rankine cycle. 100
36 factor decreases by 0.2e0.5 as shown in Fig. 3, and the However, the cycle pressure ratio of the S-CO2 Brayton 101
37 compression work can be substantially decreased. In addition, cycle is much smaller compared with the steam Rankine cycle 102
38 as S-CO2 is less corrosive compared with steam at the same and the turbine outlet temperature is relatively high. There- 103
39 temperature, the S-CO2 cycle can potentially increase the fore, a large amount of heat must be recuperated to increase 104
40 turbine inlet temperature [1,2]. the thermal efficiency. In other words, the recuperation pro- 105
41 106
One of the main advantages of the S-CO2 Brayton cycle is cess in the S-CO2 Brayton cycle greatly influences the thermal
42 107
its compact turbomachinery. As the system operates beyond efficiency.
43 108
the critical point, the minimum pressure is higher (~7,400 kPa) The most efficient layout of the S-CO2 cycle is generally
44 109
45 agreed to be the recompressing layout until now, which was 110
46 suggested by Feher [3] and Angelino [4] and later revitalized by 111
47 Dostal et al [5] for the next generation reactor application. Q2 112
48 However, according to recent studies, various optimized lay- 113
49 outs can be utilized for the S-CO2 power cycle depending on 114
50 the application [6]. This is because the S-CO2 cycle is similar to 115
51 a steam Rankine cycle in terms of layout while the S-CO2 cycle 116
52 is similar to a gas turbine system from the main component 117
53 118
design point of view.
54 119
One of the S-CO2 Brayton cycle characteristics is that the
55 120
56 specific heat of the cold side flow is two to three times 121
57 higher than that of the hot side flow in recuperators. It is 122
58 especially important for the S-CO2 cycle layout design and 123
59 also explains why the recompressing layout can have high 124
60 efficiency as shown in Figs. 4 and 5. In other words, the CO2 125
61 flow is split to compensate for the specific heat difference in 126
62 the low temperature recuperator and to maximize the heat 127
63 recuperation in the recompressing layout. Therefore, the 128
64 129
Fig. 3 e CO2 compressibility factor near the critical point waste heat is reduced and thermal efficiency can be
65 130
(30.98
C, 7.38 MPa). improved.

Please cite this article in press as: Y. Ahn et al., Review of supercritical CO2 power cycle technology and current status of
research and development, Nuclear Engineering and Technology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2015.06.009
 NET73_proof ■ 27 August 2015 ■ 4/15

4 N u c l E n g T e c h n o l x x x ( 2 0 1 5 ) : 1 e1 5

1 can be reduced up to four times compared with the conven- 66

2 tional steam Rankine cycle. (3) The competitiveness of the dry 67
3 air cooled S-CO2 cycle has been investigated by multiple re- 68
4 searchers [7,8]. Especially for a concentrated solar power (CSP) 69
5 70
application, several research programs including SunShot
6 71
(USA) and Australian Solar Thermal Research Initiative
7 72
(ASTRI, Australia) emphasized the reduction of water con- Q3
8 73
9 sumption and competitive performance when the complete or 74
10 hybrid air cooling option is utilized [7,9]. On the contrary, 75
11 Moisseytsev and Sienicki [10] claimed that an air cooling S- 76
12 CO2 cycle would not be competitive with a water cooling S-CO2 77
13 cycle for a 400 MWe SFR application. Moisseytsev Sienicki [10] Q4 78
14 claimed that the size of the air cooling heat exchanger and the 79
15 overall capital cost excessively increase. Overall, the feasi- 80
16 bility of the air cooled S-CO2 cycle is not agreed upon by re- 81
17 82
searchers. Yet, the positive potential of the air cooled S-CO2
18 83
Fig. 4 e S-CO2 recompressing cycle layout. S-CO2, cycle can grow as the system design becomes more sophisti-
19 84
supercritical CO2. cated and the component level technology becomes more
20 85
21 advanced. (4) As the minimum pressure is higher than the CO2 86
22 critical pressure (7.38 MPa), the purification system re- 87
23 The operating condition is important in the S-CO2 heat quirements are lower than those of the steam Rankine cycle to 88
24 exchangers. As a large amount of heat is recovered in recu- prevent air ingress. Thus, the power conversion system can be 89
25 perators to increase the thermal efficiency, high effectiveness much simpler. In the steam cycle case, the low pressure in the 90
26 condenser causes gas ingression and complex purification 91
is required and therefore the capital cost increases when
27 systems are required. (5) Among various fluids, CO2 is rela- 92
conventional Shell and Tube Heat Exchangers (STHE) are uti-
28 93
lized. However, various compact heat exchangers with high tively cheaper and less harmful when an appropriate venti-
29 94
compactness (up to 10 times compared with STHE), such as a lation system is installed to prepare for a sudden large release
30 95
Printed Circuit Heat Exchanger (PCHE), have been commer- of CO2 from the power conversion system.
31 96
32 cialized and can be applied to the S-CO2 cycle directly. 97
33 The benefits of the S-CO2 cycle can be summarized as fol- 2.2. S-CO2 power cycle application 98
34 lows. (1) The thermal efficiency can be increased up to 5% 99
35 point compared with the steam Rankine cycle. (2) The turbo- As discussed above, many potential advantages exist for the 100
36 machinery can be much smaller and the overall system size S-CO2 power cycle and it can be applied to various heat 101
37 102
38 103
39 104
40 105
41 106
42 107
43 108
44 109
45 110
46 111
47 112
48 113
49 114
50 115
51 116
52 117
53 118
54 119
55 120
56 121
57 122
58 123
59 124
60 125
61 126
62 127
63 128
64 129
65 130
Fig. 5 e T-s diagram of S-CO2 recompressing cycle. S-CO2, supercritical CO2. Q35

Please cite this article in press as: Y. Ahn et al., Review of supercritical CO2 power cycle technology and current status of
research and development, Nuclear Engineering and Technology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2015.06.009
 NET73_proof ■ 27 August 2015 ■ 5/15

N u c l E n g T e c h n o l x x x ( 2 0 1 5 ) : 1 e1 5 5

1 66
2 67
3 68
4 69
5 70
6 71
7 72
8 73
9 74
10 75
11 76
12 77
13 78
14 79
15 80
16 81
17 82
18 83
19 84
20 85
21 86
22 87
23 88
24 Fig. 6 e The comparison of steam, air, S-CO2 power conversion systems [11,12]. S-CO2, supercritical CO2. 89
25 90
26 91
27 92
sources. For instance, since the S-CO2 cycle can be considered fuel cells, concentrated solar power, and geothermal power. A
28 93
29 as an alternative to the steam Rankine cycle, it can be applied brief comparison of air, steam, and S-CO2 power conversion 94
30 to nuclear energy ranging from pressurized water reactors systems and the potential application areas of the S-CO2 cycle 95
31 (both large and small modular reactors) to the next generation are shown in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively. 96
32 nuclear reactors and fusion reactor applications as well. Other 97
33 than nuclear energy applications, the S-CO2 power cycle can 2.2.1. Nuclear application 98
34 be utilized as a topping cycle for fossil fuel powered plants and The S-CO2 power cycle is being researched for application to 99
35 a bottoming cycle of gas combined cycle plants. There are also sodium-cooled fast reactors [13,14]. The S-CO2 cycle can 100
36 promising heat sources soon to be developed, which include replace a violent sodiumewater reaction with a mild 101
37 102
several renewable energy sources such as high temperature sodiumeCO2 reaction and potentially increase the safety of
38 103
39 104
40 105
41 106
42 107
43 108
44 109
45 110
46 111
47 112
48 113
49 114
50 115
51 116
52 117
53 118
54 119
55 120
56 121
57 122
58 123
59 124
60 125
61 126
62 127
63 128
64 129
65 130
Fig. 7 e The potential application of S-CO2 cycle. S-CO2, supercritical CO2.

Please cite this article in press as: Y. Ahn et al., Review of supercritical CO2 power cycle technology and current status of
research and development, Nuclear Engineering and Technology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2015.06.009
 NET73_proof ■ 27 August 2015 ■ 6/15

6 N u c l E n g T e c h n o l x x x ( 2 0 1 5 ) : 1 e1 5

1 the nuclear system as well as thermal efficiency. Related to temperature fuel cells, and geothermal energy. The S-CO2 66
2 the sodium reaction, the safety of the S-CO2 cycle has been cycle can potentially improve the economics of renewable 67
3 investigated in KAERI. The ignition temperature of the energy systems significantly [27e30]. 68
4 NaeCO2 reaction was verified to be 595
C in terms of sodium 69
5 70
temperature [15]. In addition, numerical modeling is being
6 71
studied to predict the impact of a CO2 leak in a sodiumeCO2
7 72
heat exchanger and a related experiment is being designed for 3. Various layouts of S-CO2 cycle
8 73
9 the validation [16]. By contrast, the nitrogen Brayton cycle is 74
10 being studied as an alternative of the power conversion sys- 3.1. S-CO2 cycle literature review 75
11 tem for a sodium-cooled fast reactor to inherently eliminate 76
12 the chemical reaction between sodium and the power con- Several layouts of S-CO2 cycle were suggested and compared 77
13 version fluid in France. At high pressure conditions, the ni- by Angelino [2]. His original work focused on the condensation Q8 78
14 trogen Brayton cycle can also achieve performance cycle but some layouts such as the recompression cycle, 79
15 competitive to the superheated steam Rankine cycle. The partial cooling cycle, and precompression cycle were also 80
16 economics of the nitrogen Brayton cycle for SFR application is suggested in his work and they are still being investigated in 81
17 the S-CO2 cycle research field. He showed that the efficiency of 82
Q5 being investigated by the CEA because it can eliminate the
18 the recompression cycle with 650
C turbine inlet temperature 83
expensive safety systems needed to detect and mitigate the
19 84
sodiumewater reaction [17]. However, the nitrogen Brayton is competitive to the reheat steam Rankine cycle. He sum-
20 85
cycle can only be utilized in the sodium-cooled fast reactor marized his work on the CO2 condensation cycle for two
21 86
22 application and unfortunately other than the nuclear appli- temperature range applications; one is for the mild tempera- 87
23 cation no immediate application area can be found. This ture range (450e550
C) with the benefits of simple layout and 88
24 limitation in the application area may become a substantial compactness, the other is for the high temperature range 89
25 obstacle to establish a firm supply chain and gain support (650e800
C) with high efficiency as well as simplicity and 90
26 from a wide spectrum of energy industries. By contrast, the S- compactness. Dostal et al [5] revitalized the S-CO2 cycle for Q9 91
27 CO2 power cycle can potentially be utilized for Small and nuclear applications and designed the recompression cycle 92
28 with a turbine inlet temperature of 550e750
C. For the S-CO2 93
Medium sized Reactors (SMR) such as SMART, large size con-
29 heat exchangers, he assumed the heat exchanger to be a 94
ventional water-cooled reactors, and fusion reactor applica-
30 95
tions as well as other energy sources such as coal, natural gas, printed circuit heat exchanger (PCHE) and estimated the
31 96
and renewable energies [18e21]. physical size of a S-CO2 cycle [3].
32 97
After Dostal et al's [5] work, S-CO2 cycle research on various
33 98
34 2.2.2. Coal power application heat sources including concentrated solar power (CSP), fuel 99
35 The S-CO2 cycle is also considered to be a promising candidate cells, gas turbine exhaust heat recovery systems, and alter- 100
36 for the coal-fired power plant topping cycle to improve thermal native power conversion systems of current power plants 101
37 efficiency. Various power plant vendors and operators were conducted [27e30]. Most studies adopted the recom- 102
38 including Pratt Whitney & Rocketdyne (USA) and Electricite De pression cycle, which is known as the most efficient layout for 103
39 France (France) are studying S-CO2 cycle design for application the S-CO2 cycle. However, the relatively small specific work of 104
Q6
40 the recompression cycle can limit the system performance, 105
to coal power plants [22,23]. This innovative layout can achieve
41 especially in the waste heat recovery systems. Kimzey [31] 106
competitive efficiency compared with the conventional power
42 107
conversion system as well as capturing and storing CO2. In compared performances of various S-CO2 bottoming cycle
43 108
other words, the innovative S-CO2 topping cycle can produce layouts, which can potentially maximize the output power
44 109
45 the same amount of net electricity as a nonCO2 capturing steam from the exhaust gas of current gas turbines. Halimi and Suh 110
46 power plant while reducing the CO2 emission significantly. [21] designed the cascade CO2 system that consists of a Q10 111
47 topping S-CO2 recuperation cycle and a bottoming CO2 112
48 2.2.3. Exhaust/waste heat recovery application Rankine cycle for the bottoming cycle application of fuel cells. 113
49 The S-CO2 power cycle is expected to first be utilized and Several S-CO2 cycle layouts from Angelino's [4] work were 114
50 commercialized for the exhaust/waste heat recovery appli- compared by Martin and Dostal [32]. This study reviewed the Q11 115
51 wide spectrum of S-CO2 layouts including the topping and 116
cation. The patents related to this application belong to Ech-
52 bottoming cycle applications and suggests a S-CO2 layout 117
Q7 ogen and General Electric (USA) [24,25]. The exhaust gas
53 118
temperature from a gas turbine or general topping cycle is classification for further development of more innovative
54 119
55 usually > 450
C and the conventional steam Rankine cycle power systems with S-CO2.
120
56 utilizes this exhaust gas to improve the thermal efficiency. 121
57 The S-CO2 cycle can potentially replace the steam Rankine 3.2. S-CO2 cycle layout classification 122
58 cycle to further improve the thermal efficiency and it can be 123
59 utilized to recover waste heat from a small gas turbine as well, Several S-CO2 cycle layouts have been analyzed in previous 124
60 which it is not practically feasible with the steam Rankine studies [3,4,24,33,34]. However, the general classification of S- 125
61 cycle [26]. CO2 cycles has not been discussed thoroughly. Although some 126
62 advanced S-CO2 layouts were suggested in the literature, 127
63 128
2.2.4. Renewable energy application these suggested layouts are simply a combination of several
64 129
The S-CO2 cycle can be utilized for various heat sources commonly utilized processes in power plant engineering such
65 130
including solar thermal power, waste heat from high as intercooling, reheating, and recuperation. Therefore, this

Please cite this article in press as: Y. Ahn et al., Review of supercritical CO2 power cycle technology and current status of
research and development, Nuclear Engineering and Technology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2015.06.009
 NET73_proof ■ 27 August 2015 ■ 7/15

N u c l E n g T e c h n o l x x x ( 2 0 1 5 ) : 1 e1 5 7

1 66
2 67
3 68
4 69
5 70
6 71
7 72
8 73
9 74
10 75
11 76
12 77
13 78
14 79
15 80
16 81
17 82
18 83
19 84
20 85
21 86
22 87
23 88
24 89
25 90
26 91
27 92
28 Fig. 8 e S-CO2 cycle single flow layouts. S-CO2, supercritical CO2. 93
29 94
30 95
31 96
32 97
33 98
34 99
35 100
36 101
37 102
38 103
39 104
40 105
41 106
42 107
43 108
44 109
45 110
46 111
47 112
48 113
49 114
50 115
51 116
52 117
53 118
54 119
55 Fig. 9 e S-CO2 cycle split flow layouts. S-CO2, supercritical CO2. 120
56 121
57 122
58 123
59 124
60 125
Table 1 e The reference SFR system. Q29
61 126



62 Reactor sodium inlet temperature ( C) 545 (Na-CO2) IHX sodium inlet temperature ( C) 526 127
63 Reactor sodium outlet temperature (
C) 390 (Na-CO2) IHX sodium outlet temperature (
C) 364 128
64 Reactor sodium mass flow (kg/sec) 508.0 Intermediate loop sodium mass flow (kg/sec) 484.5 129
65 SFR, sodium-cooled fast reactor. 130

Please cite this article in press as: Y. Ahn et al., Review of supercritical CO2 power cycle technology and current status of
research and development, Nuclear Engineering and Technology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2015.06.009
 NET73_proof ■ 27 August 2015 ■ 8/15

8 N u c l E n g T e c h n o l x x x ( 2 0 1 5 ) : 1 e1 5

1 66
Table 2 e S-CO2 single flow layout design conditions.
2 Q30 67
3 Layout Recuperation Intercooling Reheating Interrecuperation Precompression Split-expansion 68
4 Turbine inlet temperature (
C) 500 69
5 IHX inlet temperature (
C) 275.9 249.7 334.5 314.6 281.1 270.0 70
6 CO2 mass flow rate (kg/sec) 354.4 315.5 339.0 430.7 363.1 364.2 71
7 Compressor inlet 32 72
8 temperature (
C) 73
9 Compressor inlet & outlet 7.5/25 6.16/7.5 7.5/25 74
10 pressure (MPa) 7.5/25 75
11 Turbine & compressor 92/88 76
12 isentropic efficiency (%) 77
13 HT/LT recuperator 95/95 78
14 effectiveness (%) 79
15 S-CO2, supercritical CO2. 80
16 81
17 82
18 83
19 Table 3 e S-CO2 split flow layout design conditions. Q31 84
20 85
Layout Recompression Modified Preheating Turbine Turbine Turbine
21 recompression split flow 1 split flow 2 split flow 3 86
22 87
23 Turbine inlet temperature (
C) 500 88
24 IHX inlet temperature (
C) 335.5 283.3 98.7 150.4 275.9 98.7 89
CO2 mass flow rate (kg/sec) 486.1 367.1 262.6 377.1 708.9 383.0
25 90
Compressor inlet temperature (
C) 32
26 91
Compressor inlet & outlet pressure (MPa) 7.5/25 5.0/7.5 7.5/25
27 92
7.5/25
28 93
Turbine & compressor isentropic 92/88
29 94
efficiency (%)
30 HT/LT recuperator effectiveness (%) 95/95
95
31 Flow split ratio (mH/mT) 0.31 0.4 0.5 0.43 0.5 0.46 96
32 97
HT, high temperature; LT, low temperature, S-CO2, supercritical CO2.
33 98
34 99
35 100
36 101
37 study provides a general layout classification and compares The split flow layouts are composed of recompression, 102
38 various S-CO2 cycle layouts in a fair way. modified recompression, preheating, and turbine split flow 1, 103
39 In the closed Brayton cycle design, the recuperation pro- 2, and 3 as shown in Fig. 9. The difference between the 104
40 cess is generally required to improve the cycle efficiency by recompression layout and the others is the recuperation 105
41 minimizing the waste heat. Therefore the recuperation layout process. In the recompression layout, the flow is split and high 106
42 can be considered as the reference layout in S-CO2 cycle specific heat in the cold side flow is compensated with the hot 107
43 design. Other layouts are compared with the recuperation side whole flow in the low temperature recuperator (LTR) to 108
44 109
layout. maximize the cycle efficiency. In the modified recompression
45 110
The S-CO2 cycle layouts considered in this study are shown
46 111
in Figs. 8 and 9. The CO2 flow can be separated depending on
47 112
48 the application. Therefore, the cycle can be categorized 113
49 depending on whether the flow is split. Single (nonsplit) flow 114
50 layouts are composed of intercooling, reheating, pre- 115
51 compression, interrecuperation, and split expansion cycles as 116
52 shown in Fig. 8. The intercooling and reheating layouts are 117
53 adopted to minimize or maximize the compression or 118
54 expansion work, respectively. One of the major characteristics 119
55 of the S-CO2 cycle is its low pressure ratio because the limit of 120
56 121
minimum pressure in the system is influenced by the critical
57 122
pressure (7.38 MPa), which is relatively high compared with
58 123
59 the steam Rankine cycle (~0.07 MPa) or air Brayton cycle 124
60 (~0.1 MPa). As the exhaust CO2 temperature in the turbine is 125
61 still high due to the low cycle pressure ratio, the heat can be 126
62 recuperated in several ways. In the single flow layouts, the 127
63 interrecuperation, precompression, and split expansion lay- 128
64 outs are suggested depending on the position where the 129
Fig. 10 e The efficiencies of S-CO2 split flow layouts for
65 recuperation process occurs. 130
various flow split ratio. S-CO2, supercritical CO2.

Please cite this article in press as: Y. Ahn et al., Review of supercritical CO2 power cycle technology and current status of
research and development, Nuclear Engineering and Technology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2015.06.009
 NET73_proof ■ 27 August 2015 ■ 9/15

N u c l E n g T e c h n o l x x x ( 2 0 1 5 ) : 1 e1 5 9

1 the CO2 temperature change in the intermediate heat 66

2 exchanger. Q12 67
3 68
4 69
5 70
6 3.3. Performance comparison of S-CO2 cycle layouts 71
7 72
8 Twelve layouts are analyzed to investigate and compare S-CO2 73
9 cycle performance. The boundary conditions to design the S- 74
10 CO2 cycle for SFR application is shown in Table 1 [35]. The 75
11 76
design conditions of each layout are listed in Tables 2 and 3. It
12 77
should be noted that pressure drop in the heat exchangers and
13 78
pipes is ignored for simplicity. As the S-CO2 cycle in this study
14 79
15 is for the SFR application, the turbine inlet temperature is Q45 80
16 maintained at 500
C. Previous studies showed that S-CO2 81
17 cycle efficiency is sensitive not only to the temperature ratio 82
18 but also to the pressure ratio [3,36,37]. However, the 83
19 maximum pressure is limited due to the capital cost related to 84
20 Fig. 11 e Performance comparison of S-CO2 Cycle layout. the piping and measurement systems. The minimum pres- 85
21 S-CO2, supercritical CO2. sure of the S-CO2 cycle significantly influences the cycle effi- 86
22 ciency and operational stability of the S-CO2 cycle. As the inlet 87
23 88
condition approaches the critical point, the cycle efficiency is
24 89
improved [38,39]. In this study, the minimum and maximum
25 90
26 layout, the turbine expands below the critical pressure to ac- pressures are fixed at 7.5 MPa and 25 MPa, respectively, for the 91
27 quire more work. Compressor 1 compresses CO2 near the simple comparison. Since the flow split ratio influences the 92
28 critical point and the other processes are similar to the orig- cycle efficiency, a sensitivity study was performed and the 93
29 inal recompression layout. result is shown in Fig. 10. The optimum flow split ratio of each 94
30 By contrast, the other layouts, such as the preheating S-CO2 split flow layout is determined when the cycle efficiency 95
31 and turbine split flow 1, 2, and 3 layouts, maximize the is maximized. 96
32 temperature difference in the intermediate heat exchanger. The cycle efficiency and recuperator UA (overall heat 97
33 For example, in the waste heat recovery or cogeneration transfer rate times heat transfer area) ratio (compared with 98
34 99
power plant systems, the large temperature change in the the recuperation cycle) of the S-CO2 layouts are compared in
35 100
heat source is proportional to the heat in the power con- Fig. 11. To assess the recuperator size, the LMTD (Log Mean
36 101
version system. In this case, more power can be achieved Temperature Difference) method was used and the UA of each
37 102
38 even with a lower thermodynamic efficiency when the layout is compared. The recompression layout shows the best 103
39 absorbed heat is large. The transferred heat is limited by efficiency but requires the largest recuperator size. 104
40 105
41 106
42 107
43 108
44 109
45 110
46 111
47 112
48 113
49 114
50 115
51 116
52 117
53 118
54 119
55 120
56 121
57 122
58 123
59 124
60 125
61 126
62 127
63 128
64 129
Fig. 12 e The layout of SNL experiment loop. HTR, high temperature gas-cooled reactor; LTR, low temperature recuperator;
65 130
SNL, Sandia National Laboratory. Q36 Q37

Please cite this article in press as: Y. Ahn et al., Review of supercritical CO2 power cycle technology and current status of
research and development, Nuclear Engineering and Technology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2015.06.009
 NET73_proof ■ 27 August 2015 ■ 10/15

10 N u c l E n g T e c h n o l x x x ( 2 0 1 5 ) : 1 e1 5

1 66
2 67
3 68
4 69
5 70
6 71
7 72
8 73
9 74
10 75
11 76
12 77
13 78
14 79
15 80
16 81
17 82
18 83
19 84
20 85
21 86
22 87
23 88
24 Fig. 13 e The layout of KAPL experiment loop. KAPL, Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory. Q38
89
25 90
26 91
27 92
28 4. S-CO2 power system development status study, the discussion focuses on the S-CO2 Brayton cycle 93
29 which can be applied to next generation nuclear reactor sys- 94
30 tems. The current development of the S-CO2 Brayton cycle will 95
4.1. International development
31 96
be introduced.
32 97
While the research on the S-CO2 Bryton cycle is conducted at S-CO2 integral systems tests, which are composed of main
33 98
34 lab scale, the development of the S-CO2 Rankine cycle is components such as turbomachinery and heat exchangers, 99
35 relatively mature for commercialization. However, in this were designed and constructed in several research institutes 100
36 101
37 102
38 103
39 104
40 105
41 106
42 107
43 108
44 109
45 110
46 111
47 112
48 113
49 114
50 115
51 116
52 117
53 118
54 119
55 120
56 121
57 122
58 123
59 124
60 125
61 126
62 127
63 128
64 129
Fig. 14 e The layout of IAE experiment loop. HTR, high temperature gas-cooled reactor; IAE, Institute of Applied Energy; LTR,
65 130
low temperature recuperator. Q39 Q40

Please cite this article in press as: Y. Ahn et al., Review of supercritical CO2 power cycle technology and current status of
research and development, Nuclear Engineering and Technology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2015.06.009
 NET73_proof ■ 27 August 2015 ■ 11/15

N u c l E n g T e c h n o l x x x ( 2 0 1 5 ) : 1 e1 5 11

1 66
Table 4 e The design comparison of existing S-CO2 integral system loops.
2 Q32 67
3 Sandia National Lab (US) Knolls Atomic Power Lab (US) Institute of Applied Energy (Japan) 68
4 Turbomachinery type 2-TAC 1-TAC, 1-turbine 1-TAC (2-recuperaters) 69
5 Cycle layout Recompressing Simple recuperated Simple recuperated 70
6 Heat (kW) 780 834.9 160 71
7 Efficiency (%) 31.5 14.7 7 72
8 Mass flow rate (kg/sec) 3.5 (target) 5.35 (target) 1.4 (achieved) 73
9 2.7 (achieved) 3.54 (achieved) 74
10 T.I.T (
C) 537 (target) 300 (target) 277 (achieved) 75
11 342 (achieved) 76
12 Pressure ratio 1.8 (target) 1.8 (target) 1.4 (achieved) 77
13 1.65 (achieved) 1.44 (achieved) 78
14 Rotating speed (1,000 rpm) 75 (target) 75 (target) 69 (achieved) 79
15 52 (achieved) 55-60 (achieved) 80
16 Turbine efficiency (%) 86 (turbine 1) 79.8 65 81
17 87 (turbine 2) (power turbine) 82
79.7
18 83
(compressor driving turbine)
19 84
20 S-CO2, supercritical CO2. 85
21 86
22 87
23 88
24 such as Sandia National Lab (SNL), Knolls Atomic Power Lab electric power can demonstrate high efficiency with the uti- 89
25 Q13 (KAPL), and Institute of Applied Energy (IAE) (Figs. 12e14). lization of conventional bearing and sealing technology, 90
26 Q14 They commonly utilize similar turbomachinery features and which can minimize the performance degradation of S-CO2 91
27 PCHE for the S-CO2 power cycle. SNL demonstrated the turbomachinery. Therefore, an experiment loop > 10 MW 92
28 recompressing cycle with two TAC (turbine- power is required to demonstrate the high efficiency of the S- 93
29 ealternatorecompressor) type turbomachineries for the next CO2 cycle. 94
30 generation reactor application and KAPL demonstrated the 95
31 96
simple recuperated cycle with two turbines (a power turbine
32 97
and compressor-driven turbine) for the water-cooled reactor 4.2. Development progress in Korea
33 98
34 application. IAE constructed a small scale S-CO2 cycle test 99
35 facility to investigate the small size turbomachinery and In contrast to the cycle efficiency of a conventional power 100
36 assess the cycle performance. The design parameters of S-CO2 conversion system, which highly depends on the turbine inlet 101
37 test facilities are shown in Table 4. Based on the experimental temperature and heat source, S-CO2 cycle efficiency is influ- 102
38 results from the S-CO2 integral system tests, several conclu- enced by the low temperature regions such as the precooler 103
39 sions can be drawn. (1) The thermal efficiency of the S-CO2 and compressor. Therefore, Korea Advanced Institute of Sci- 104
40 power cycle increases when the compressor inlet temperature ence and Technology (KAIST) constructed a low pressure ratio Q15 105
41 approaches the critical point. When the operating condition is compressor test loop, S-CO2 Pressurizing Experiment 106
42 107
slightly below the critical point, no noticeable noise or vibra-
43 108
tion is observed. (2) The design of bearings to balance the
44 109
thrust loads is challenging for small scale S-CO2 turboma-
45 110
46 chinery (both for turbines and compressors). (3) When the 111
47 pressure of S-CO2 turbomachinery is maintained high, the 112
48 windage loss in the rotor increases and influences the 113
49 compressor performance. Therefore, the cavity pressure must 114
50 be lowered to 2 MPa to decrease the CO2 density; (4) when a 115
51 recompressing cycle is designed for the SNL integrated system 116
52 test, the operation strategy must be strictly established as the 117
53 outlet flow of two S-CO2 compressors must balance to prevent 118
54 119
flow reversal. (5) To maintain the operational stability of in-
55 120
tegral system operations, the CO2 inventory for the system
56 121
57 loops must be precisely measured and controlled. In addition, 122
58 caution is required because Teflon type pipe joints can be 123
59 damaged by the abrupt CO2 decompression process. (6) Heat 124
60 exchanger, including PCHE, performances are generally 125
61 satisfactory. (7) The thermal efficiencies of most power con- 126
62 version systems improve as the size increases and the S-CO2 127
63 cycle follows the same trend. In other words, high efficiency is 128
64 hardly demonstrated in a small scale S-CO2 cycle test facility. 129
Fig. 15 e The layout of S-CO2 pressurizing experiment
65 130
However, a large size S-CO2 cycle test facility of > 10 MW (SCO2PE). S-CO2, supercritical CO2.

Please cite this article in press as: Y. Ahn et al., Review of supercritical CO2 power cycle technology and current status of
research and development, Nuclear Engineering and Technology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2015.06.009
 NET73_proof ■ 27 August 2015 ■ 12/15

12 N u c l E n g T e c h n o l x x x ( 2 0 1 5 ) : 1 e1 5

1 Korean Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) con- 66

2 structed a S-CO2 Integral Experiment Loop (SCIEL) with the 67
3 cooperation of KAIST and POTECH. The schematic layout and 68
4 figure of SCIEL are shown in Figs. 17 and 18, respectively. The 69
5 70
SCIEL design parameters are listed in Table 5. The main dif-
6 71
ference of SCIEL compared with other S-CO2 cycle experiment
7 72
facilities is its high pressure ratio with two compression and
8 73
9 expansion stages. The efficiency of the Brayton cycle usually 74
10 depends not only on the turbine inlet temperature but also on 75
11 the cycle pressure ratio. However, the existing turbomachinery 76
12 in integral system test (IST) facilities was designed for a pres- 77
13 sure ratio < 2 due to the technical limits. However, as the S-CO2 78
14 power cycle can achieve high efficiency at a higher pressure 79
15 ratio, 2.7, SCIEL is designed to achieve a higher pressure ratio 80
16 with two stages of compression and expansion. The turbine 81
17 82
inlet temperature was determined to be 500
C for the sodium-
18 Fig. 16 e S-CO2 pressurizing experiment (SCO2PE). S-CO2, 83
cooled fast reactor application, which is similar to SNL IST.
19 84
supercritical CO2. The major characteristic of SCIEL turbomachinery design is
20 85
21 to control the thrust loads caused by the pressure gradient of 86
22 the compressor and turbine impellers with two approaches. 87
23 (SCO2PE), to demonstrate the S-CO2 compressor performance, The first unique approach is to separate the shaft of turbine 88
24 as shown in Figs. 15 and 16. and compressor and the second unique approach is to utilize a 89
25 twin impeller compressor, which has two identical impellers 90
The KAIST research team demonstrated and observed
26 to minimize the thrust load acting on the shaft. In addition, 91
similar phenomena as the international research institutions
27 while the compressor impellers of existing ISTs are 92
28 [40]. While operating the compressor in various conditions 93
including the phase change, no perceivable noise or vibration unshrouded, a shrouded impeller is utilized to balance the
29 94
was observed. In addition, various phasic (gas, liquid, and pressure distribution of the inner and outer shroud at the
30 95
same time.
31 supercritical state) behaviors were identified and the experi- 96
32 ment to perform the transient analysis of the S-CO2 cycle was Currently, the compressor test loop of SCIEL has been 97
33 conducted as well. constructed and the preliminary experiment over the critical 98
34 99
35 100
36 101
37 102
38 103
39 104
40 105
41 106
42 107
43 108
44 109
45 110
46 111
47 112
48 113
49 114
50 115
51 116
52 117
53 118
54 119
55 120
56 121
57 122
58 123
59 124
60 125
61 126
62 127
63 128
64 129
Fig. 17 e The layout of S-CO2 integral experiment loop (SCIEL). HTR, high temperature gas-cooled reactor; LTR, low
65 130
temperature recuperator, S-CO2, supercritical CO2. Q41 Q42

Please cite this article in press as: Y. Ahn et al., Review of supercritical CO2 power cycle technology and current status of
research and development, Nuclear Engineering and Technology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2015.06.009
 NET73_proof ■ 27 August 2015 ■ 13/15

N u c l E n g T e c h n o l x x x ( 2 0 1 5 ) : 1 e1 5 13

1 66
2 67
3 68
4 69
5 70
6 71
7 72
8 73
9 74
10 75
11 76
12 77
13 78
14 79
15 80
16 81
17 82
18 83
19 84
20 85
21 86
22 87
23 88
24 Fig. 18 e S-CO2 integral experiment loop (SCIEL). S-CO2, supercritical CO2. Q43
89
25 90
26 91
27 92
28 Table 5 e The design parameters of S-CO2 Integral Experiment Loop (SCIEL). Q33 Q34
93
29 94
Design variable Value Design variable Value
30 95
31 Maximum pressure (MPa) 20 Turbine/compressor efficiency (%) 85/65 96
32 TIT (
C) 500 HTR & LTR effectiveness (%) 74/54 97
33 Pressure ratio 1.8 (LPC), 1.5 (HPC) Cycle efficiency (%) 19.6 98
34 Compressor efficiency (%) 65 LPT (rpm) 83,000 99
Heater power (kW) 1,300 TAC (rpm) 100,000
35 100
CO2 flow rate (kg/sec) 4.8 LPC (rpm) 70,000
36 101
37 HTR, high temperature gas-cooled reactor; LTR, low temperature recuperator; S-CO2, supercritical CO2; TAC, turbineealternatorecompressor. 102
38 103
39 104
40 condition was performed. The heat exchangers of SCIEL are Various layouts were compared and the recompression 105
41 commonly PCHE type, which is similar to the existing ISTs cycle shows the best efficiency. The layout is suitable for 106
42 107
around the world. The turbine and the heater are planned to application to advanced nuclear reactor systems. However,
43 108
be added to generate electricity in 2015 and the high pressure for the bottoming cycle applications, the specific work should
44 109
45 compressor and high pressure turbine will be installed for the be compared because other layouts might be more favorable. 110
46 final stage of SCIEL. As S-CO2 cycle performance can vary depending on the layout 111
47 Korea Institute of Energy Research (KIER) is constructing a configuration, further studies on the layouts are required to 112
48 separate experiment loop for low temperature heat source design a better performing cycle. 113
49 applications such as a waste heat recovery system. The design To evaluate the S-CO2 cycle performance, various coun- 114
50 power capacity is on the magnitude of tens of kW and the tries constructed and demonstrated S-CO2 integral system 115
51 layout is a simple cycle without recuperation process. The test loops and similar research works are ongoing in Korea as 116
52 heater capacity is 647 kW and the turbine inlet temperature is well. However, to evaluate the commercial S-CO2 power sys- 117
53 118
< 200
C. tems, development of a large scale (> 10 MW) prototype S-CO2
54 119
system is necessary. The research activities are focused on a
55 120
large scale S-CO2 power system and various foreign research
56 121
57 5. Summary institutions and Korean researchers are attempting to realize 122
58 the future power system that can significantly transform the 123
59 The S-CO2 cycle can achieve relatively high efficiency within energy industry around the world. 124
60 the mild turbine inlet temperature range (450e600
C) 125
61 compared with other power conversion systems. The main 126
62 benefit of the S-CO2 cycle is the small size of the overall sys- 127
63 Conflicts of interest 128
tem and its application includes not only next generation
64 129
nuclear reactors but also conventional water-cooled reactors,
65 All authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Q16
130
coal power plants, and several renewable energy sources.

Please cite this article in press as: Y. Ahn et al., Review of supercritical CO2 power cycle technology and current status of
research and development, Nuclear Engineering and Technology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2015.06.009
 NET73_proof ■ 27 August 2015 ■ 14/15

14 N u c l E n g T e c h n o l x x x ( 2 0 1 5 ) : 1 e1 5

1 Q17 Acknowledgments with S-CO2 Brayton cycle, in: International Congress on 66

2 Advanced Nuclear Power Plants, Charlotte (NC), April 6e9, 67
3 This research was supported by the National Research Foun-
2014. 68
4 [16] H.Y. Jung, J.I. Lee, M.H. Wi, Numerical studies of CO2 leak 69
dation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT,
5 modeling in sodiumeCO2 heat exchanger in the SFR coupled 70
and Future Planning. with the S-CO2 Brayton cycle, in: International Topical
6 71
7 Meeting on Nuclear Reactor Thermal Hydraulics, Chicago 72
8 (IL), Aug 30eSep 4, 2015. 73
references [17] N. Alpy, L. Cachon, D. Haubensack, J. Floyd, Gas Cycle testing
9 Q18 Q19
74
opportunity with ASTRID, the French SFR prototype, in:
10 75
Supercritical CO2 Power Symposium, Boulder (CO), May
11 76
[1] H.J. Lee, H. Kim, C. Jang, Compatibility of candidate structural 24e25, 2011.
12 77
materials in high-temperature S-CO2 environment, in: [18] H.J. Yoon, Y. Ahn, J.I. Lee, A. Yacine, Potential advantages of
13 coupling supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle to water cooled
78
Supercritical CO2 Power Symposium, Pittsburgh (PA), Sep
14 small and medium size reactor, Nuclear Engineering and 79
9e10, 2014.
15 [2] G.S. Was, P. Ampornrat, G. Gupta, S. Teysseyre, E.A. West, Design 245 (2012) 223e232. 80
16 T.R. Allen, K. Sridharan, L. Tan, Y. Chen, X. Ren, C. Pister, [19] J. Lee, J.I. Lee, H.J. Yoon, J.E. Cha, Supercritical carbon dioxide 81
17 Corrosion and stress corrosion cracking in supercritical turbomachinery design for water-cooled small modular 82
18 water, J. Nucl. Mater. 371 (2007) 176e201. reactor application, Nuclear Engineering and Design 270 83
19 [3] E.G. Feher, The Supercritical Thermodynamic Power Cycle, (2014) 76e89. Q23 84
20 Douglas Paper No. 4348, IECEC, Miami Beach (FL), 1967. [20] S.J. Bae, J. Lee, Y. Ahn, J.I. Lee, Preliminary studies of compact 85
21 [4] G. Angelino, Carbon dioxide condensation cycles for power Brayton cycle performance for small modular high 86
22 production, ASME Paper No. 68-GT-23, Journal of Engineering temperature gas-cooled reactor system, Ann. Nucl. Energy. 87
23 Q20 for Power 90 (1968) 287e295. 75 (2015) 11e19. 88
24 [5] V. Dostal, M.J. Driscoll, P. Hejzlar, A Supercritical Carbon [21] B. Halimi, K.Y. Suh, Computational analysis of supercritical 89
25 Dioxide Cycle for Next Generation Nuclear Reactors, MIT- CO2 Brayton cycle power conversion system for fusion 90
26 ANP-TR-100 [Internet], Massachusetts Institute of reactor, Energy Conversation Management 63 (2012) 38e43. 91
27 Technology, Cambridge (MA), 2004. Available from: http:// [22] G.A. Johnson, M.W. McDowell, Supercritical CO2 cycle 92
28 Q21 hdl.handle.net/1721.1/17746. development at Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, in: 93
[6] Y. Ahn, S.J. Bae, M. Kim, S.K. Cho, S. Baik, J.I. Lee, J.E. Cha, Supercritical CO2 Power Symposium, Boulder, Colorado, May
29 94
Cycle layout studies of S-CO2 cycle for the next generation 24e25, 2011.
30 95
nuclear system application, in: Transactions of the Korean [23] Y.L. Moullec, Conceptual study of a high efficiency coal-fired
31 96
Nuclear Society Autumn Meeting, Pyeongchang, Korea, Oct power plant with CO2 capture using a supercritical CO2
32 97
30e31, 2014. Brayton cycle, Energy 49 (2012) 32e46.
33 [24] M.A. Lehar, V. Michelassi, System and Method for Recovery
98
[7] C.S. Turchi, Z. Ma, T.W. Neises, M.J. Wagner,
34 of Waste Heat from Dual Heat Sources, US 20130247570 A1, 99
Thermodynamic study of advanced supercritical carbon
35 dioxide power cycles for concentrating solar power systems, 2013. Q24
100
36 J. Sol. Energy. Eng. 135 (2013). [25] T.J. Held, S. Hostler, J.D. Miller, Heat Engine and Heat to 101
Q22
37 [8] D.J. Gavic, Investigation of Water, Air, and Hybrid Cooling for Electricity Systems and Methods with Working Fluid Mass 102
38 Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Brayton Cycles, Master Thesis, Management Control, 2012. US 8096128 B2. 103
39 University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison (WI), 2012. [26] D. Bella, A. Francis, Gas turbine engine exhaust waste heat 104
40 [9] H. Guregenci, W. Stein, A. Beath, M. Blanco, E. Sauret, 2014, recovery navy shipboard module development, in: 105
41 The Case for Supercritical CO2 Radial Turbine Development Supercritical CO2 Power Symposium, Boulder (CO), May 106
42 within the Australian Solar Thermal Research Initiative 24e25, 2011. 107
43 (ASTRI) Program, Proceedings of the 52nd Annual [27] T. Neises, C. Turchi, A comparison of supercritical carbon 108
44 Conference, Australian Solar Energy Society (Australian dioxide power cycle configuration with an emphasis on CSP 109
45 Solar Council), Melbourne, Australia, May 2014. applications,, Energy Procedia 49 (2014) 1187e1196. 110
46 [10] A. Moisseytsev, J.J. Sienicki, Investigation of a dry air cooling [28] S.J. Bae, Y. Ahn, J. Lee, J.I. Lee, Various supercritical carbon 111
47 option for an S-CO2 cycle, in: Supercritical CO2 Power dioxide cycle layouts study for molten carbonate fuel cell 112
48 Symposium, Pittsburgh (PA), Sep 9e10, 2014. application, Journal of Power Sources 270 (2014) 608e618. 113
[11] Y. Kato, T. Ishizuka, K. Nikitin, An advanced energy system [29] D. Sanchez, J.M. Munoz de Escalona, R. Chacartegui, A. Munoz,
49 114
with nuclear reactors as an energy source, in: 13th T. Sanchez, A comparison between molten carbonate fuel
50 115
International Conference on Emerging Nuclear Energy cells based hybrid systems using air and supercritical carbon
51 116
Systems, June 3e8, 2007. Istanbul, Turkiye. dioxide Brayton cycles with state of the art technology,
52 117
[12] Siemens, Technical Data from Siemens Gas Turbine Package Journal of Power Sources 196 (2011) 4347e4354.
53 [30] A.S. Sabau, H. Yin, L.A. Qualls, J. McFarlane, Investigation of
118
SGT5-PAC 4000F [Internet], 2009. Available from: http://www.
54 supercritical CO2 Rankine cycles for geothermal power 119
energy.siemens.com/hq/pool/hq/power-generation/gas-
55 turbines/SGT5-4000F/sgt5-4000f-application-overview.pdf. plants, in: Supercritical CO2 Power Symposium, Boulder (CO), 120
56 [13] A. Moisseytsev, J.J. Scienicki, Investigation of alternative May 24e25, 2011. 121
57 layouts for the supercritical carbon dioxide Brayton cycle for [31] G. Kimzey, Development of a Brayton Bottoming Cycle Using 122
58 a sodium-cooled fast reactor, Nucl. Eng. Des. 239 (2009) Supercritical Carbon Dioxide as the Working Fluid, Electric 123
59 1362e1371. Power Research Institute Report, Palo Alto (CA), 2012. Q25 124
60 [14] Y. Ahn, J.I. Lee, Study of various Brayton cycle designs for [32] K. Martin, V. Dostal, Thermodynamic analysis and 125
61 small modular sodium-cooled fast reactor, Nucl. Eng. Des. comparison of supercritical carbon dioxide cycles, in: 126
62 276 (2014) 128e141. Supercritical CO2 Power Symposium, Boulder (CO), May 127
63 [15] H.Y. Jung, Y.H. Yoo, J.I. Lee, M.H. Wi, J.H. Eoh, An 24e25, 2011. 128
64 experimental study on the ignition temperature of [33] A. Moisseytsev, J.J. Sienicki, Analysis of Supercritical CO2 129
65 sodiumeCO2 reaction with an implication of safety of a SFR Cycle Control Strategies and Dynamic Response for 130

Please cite this article in press as: Y. Ahn et al., Review of supercritical CO2 power cycle technology and current status of
research and development, Nuclear Engineering and Technology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2015.06.009
 NET73_proof ■ 27 August 2015 ■ 15/15

N u c l E n g T e c h n o l x x x ( 2 0 1 5 ) : 1 e1 5 15

1 Generation IV Reactors [Internet], ANL-GenIV-124, 2009. [37] Y. Ahn, J. Lee, S.G. Kum, J.I. Lee, J.E. Cha, S.W. Lee, Design 19
2 Available from: http://www.ipd.anl.gov/anlpubs/2011/04/ consideration of supercritical CO2 power cycle integral 20
3 Q26 65270.pdf. experiment loop, Energy 86 (2015) 115e127. 21
4 [34] A. Moisseytsev, J.J. Sienicki, Extension of the supercritical [38] W.S. Jeong, J.I. Lee, Y.H. Jeong, Potential improvements of 22
5 carbon dioxide Brayton cycle for application to the Very High supercritical recompression CO2 Brayton cycle by mixing 23
6 Temperature Reactor, in: International Congress on other gases for power conversion system of a SFR, Nucl. Eng. 24
7 Advanced Nuclear Power Plants, San Diego (CA), June 13e17, Des. 241 (2011) 2128e2137. 25
8 2010. [39] S.A. Wright, R.F. Radel, T.M. Conboy, G.E. Rochau, Modeling 26
[35] J.E. Cha, T.H. Lee, J.H. Eoh, S.H. Seong, S.O. Kim, D.E. Kim, and Experimental Results for Condensing Supercritical CO2
9 27
M.H. Kim, T.W. Kim, K.Y. Suh, Development of a supercritical Power Cycles, Sandia Report, SAND2010-8840, [Internet],
10 28
CO2 Brayton energy conversion system coupled with a Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore (CA), 2011 [cited
11 29
Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor, Nuclear Engineering and 2011 Jan]. Available from: http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/
12 30
Technology 41 (2009). No. 8. access-control.cgi/2010/108840.pdf. Q27
13 [36] H.J. Yoon, Y. Ahn, J.H. Lee, J.I. Lee, Y.H. Jeong, Studies on the [40] S.G. Kim, CFD investigation of a centrifugal compressor
31
14 application of supercritical carbon dioxide cycle to a small derived from pump technology for supercritical carbon 32
15 modular reactor, in: International Congress on Advanced dioxide as a working fluid, The Journal of Supercritical Fluids 33
16 Nuclear Power Plants, Nice, France, May 2e5, 2011. 86 (2014) 160e171. Q28
34
17 35
18 36

Please cite this article in press as: Y. Ahn et al., Review of supercritical CO2 power cycle technology and current status of
research and development, Nuclear Engineering and Technology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2015.06.009