Process Safety and Environmental Protection 178 (2023) 396–413

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Process Safety and Environmental Protection

journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/process-safety-and-environmental-protection

Exergy-based techno-economic and environmental assessments of a

proposed integrated solar powered electricity generation system along with
novel prioritization method and performance indices
Aslı Tiktaş a, Huseyin Gunerhan b, Arif Hepbasli c, *, Emin Açıkkalp d
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Kırşehir Ahievran University, 40100 Bağbaşı, Kırşehir, Turkey
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ege University, 35100 Bornova, Izmir, Turkey
c
Department of Energy Systems Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Yasar University, 35100 Bornova, Izmir, Turkey
d
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Eskisehir Technical University, 26555 Eskisehir, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study focused on the two important gaps in the literature. The first is solar energy- powered electricity
Organic Rankine cycle generation in a more economical way via the integration of flat plate solar collector (FPSC), an Organic Rankine
Absorptional heat transformer Cycle (ORC), and an absorptional heat transformer (AHT) system. Another gap is advanced exergy analysis of the
Solar energy
AHT cycle/ORC process based on renewable energy integration to reveal clues for improving the system. To close
Advanced exergy analysis
Advanced exergoeconomic analysis
these gaps, a novel system including a lithium bromide AHT cycle-ORC with a FPSC system application was
Optimization proposed in this study. In this proposed system, the temperature of the heat source for the ORC system was
upgraded via an integration of the AHT and FPSC cycles. The main components of the AHT cycle are the
condenser (ABScon), refrigerant cycle pump (P1), evaporator (EV), absorber (ABS), solution heat exchanger
(SHX), absorbent cycle pump (P2), expansion valve (V), generator (Gen), ORC turbine (ORCT) and ORC
condenser (ORCcon). To demonstrate the electricity production from solar energy in a more economical way
thanks to the proposed system, a comparison was made with similar-scaled existing solar power plants. The
results supported the main purpose of this study. The annual electricity production with the proposed system was
calculated as 2601 MWh, with initial investment cost and payback period values of US$3.924 million and 4.531
years, respectively. The conventional and advanced exergy, exergoeconomic, environmental impact, and sus­
tainability analyzes were also performed. Based on these, the novel performance parameters and prioritization
method were proposed to assess the improvement potential of the system. The results indicated that SHX and
FPSC had the highest exergy destruction rates (EDRs) of 23.711% and 21.849% over 5853.89 kW due to the
stronger thermal and chemical reactions. Similarly, Gen, FPSC, and SHX had the highest ED cost rates (CRs) of
67.59%, 59.09%, and, 47.98%, respectively. Gen, V, and ORCcon were higher contributors to the exergy
destruction rates of almost all the components. However, these showed an adverse manner for irreversibility
activities. So, the temperatures of Gen and ORCcon should be optimized carefully. ABScon, P2, P1, ABS, Gen,
ORCT, and ORCcon had high development priority to improve the whole system.

statistical report indicated that the global energy consumption this year
was 3 points above the average annual increase over the 2000–2019
1. Introduction period. Such a rapid surge in energy demand and consumption triggered
significant global-scaled problems i.e., energy crisis and distortion of
Following a recent statistical report, the global primary energy de­ green and sustainable environment. Hence, the integration of renewable
mand in 2021 increased by 5.8% compared to the previous year and energy sources with effective waste heat recovery mechanisms is an
exceeded its pre-pandemic value by 1.3% (bp, 2022). The data from this

Abbreviations: ABS, Absorber; ABScon, Absorption heat transformer condenser; EV, Evaporator; Gen, Generator; ORC, Organic Rankine cycle; ORCcon, ORC
condenser; ORCT, ORC turbine; P1, Pump 1 (or refrigerant cycle pump); P2, Pump 2 (or absorbent cycle pump); SHX, Solution heat exchanger; V, Expansion valve.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (A. Tiktaş), [email protected] (H. Gunerhan), [email protected], arif.
[email protected] (A. Hepbasli), [email protected] (E. Açıkkalp).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2023.08.048
Received 7 June 2023; Received in revised form 25 July 2023; Accepted 16 August 2023
Available online 19 August 2023
0957-5820/© 2023 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Tiktaş et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 178 (2023) 396–413

Nomenclature SEF Social ecological factor.

t Time (s).
adp.GWP Global warming potential of substance with the T Temperature (◦ C or K).
atmospheric degradation. x LiBr concentration (wt%).
AEC Annual energy consumption (kWh/year). z Mole fraction.
ALR Annual leakage rate (kg/years).
b Chemical exergy value per mole (kW/mol). Subscripts
c Cost associated with exergy streams ($/kWh). 0 Dead-state.
C Substance charge mass causing emission (kg). 1 Inlet.
2 Outlet.
Ċ Annualized cost rate ($/h).
b Base.
CECPI Chemical economic plant cost index.
c Component.
CRF Capital recovery factor.
D Destruction.
EcoEF Ecological effect factor.
eq.mfg Equipment manufacturing.
EEF Environmental effect factor.
eq.rcy Equipment recycling.
EF Emission factor of plant.
F Fuel.
Em CO2 emission(kg).
i Relevant stream.
EOL End of life substance (years).
k Equipment.
ExSI Exergetic sustainability index.
m Material.
f Exergoeconomic factor.
mexo Mexogenous.
FExWR Fuel exergy waste ratio.
mod Modified.
GWP Global warming potential.
P Product.
h Specific enthalpy (kJ/kg).
r Contributed component.
i Interest rate.
re.mfg Substance manufacturing emissions.
L Life time (years).
T Total.
ṁ Mass flow rate (kg/s).
mr Recycled material mass (kg). Superscripts
M Price index. AV Avoidable.
MM Equivalent CO2 emission pertained with the production of Ch Chemical.
material mass (kg). EN Endogeneous.
n Entire number of component. EX Exogenous.
N Entire operating period (years). Ph Physical.
RDF Substance disposal emissions (kg). UN Unavoidable.
RM Equivalent CO2 emission pertained with the recycled
material mass (kg). Greek letters
RMF Substance manufacturing emissions (kg). ϕk Maintenance factor.
s Specific entropy (kJ/kg.K). η Efficiency.
S Size.

intelligent and sustainable solution to meeting the rising energy de­ solar collectors are generally used in existing solar power plants for
mand. In this context, the implementation of these applications has great electricity generation with solar energy support. In this case, the cost of
importance for the industry, which is one of the sectors with the highest solar collectors constitutes an important portion of the total initial in­
energy consumption. However, most of the industrial processes involve vestment cost of the system and also requires additional maintenance
high temperature or power requirements and almost half of the energy costs to be covered. Therefore, there is a significant gap in the literature
consumed is thrown into the environment in the form of low-grade due to the constraint on generating electricity more economically by
waste heat. Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) systems create a strong po­ integrating FPSCs with the ORC system. To close this gap, the current
tential to meet the high-power requirement in the industry together with study, which includes the integration of these two advantageous systems
the sustainable energy concept. Because the prominent features of ORC with each other by utilization of absorption technology, was performed.
systems are flexible structure, simplest infrastructure and installation, In addition, the advanced exergy analysis of the absorptional heat
easiest integration to the renewable energy source, lowest capital cost, transformer (AHT) cycle/ORC process based on renewable energy
and power generation with medium-grade heat sources. For the integration with this study, besides closing another important gap in the
mentioned reasons, the most practical and economical way to produce literature, reveals the clues for the improvement of such a system.
electricity from low- grade waste heat is seen as the utilization of the In general, AHT is one of the most important technologies in the 21st
ORC system (Quoilin et al., 2013). Providing multigeneration outputs by century for energy recovery and/or temperature-raising applications
integrating ORC systems with novel prime movers and complex waste (Horuz and Kurt, 2010; Donnellan et al., 2014; Ma et al., 2021). With
heat recovery mechanisms has attracted much more attention in recent this technology, high-grade energy output in the absorber is obtained as
years (Tiktas et al., 2022; Javed and Tiwari, 2023; Bagherzadeh et al., a result of absorption processes from the low-grade waste heat sent to
2020; Yağlı et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021). Among the integrable the generator (Wakim and Rivera-Tinoco, 2019). The environmental
renewable energy sources to the ORC system, solar energy comes to the friendliness and excellent energy recovery features of AHT explain the
fore due to its easy integration into most processes with abundant and intense interest of researchers in this technology. Liu et al (Liu et al.,
cleaner features. However, the practical implementation of low-cost 2017). estimated optimal design conditions for the combination of
solar energy systems, such as flat plate solar collectors (FPSCs), pro­ single-stage AHT system and solar energy source by implementing the
vides low-grade heat to the ORC system, and with this heat grade, the ratio method. They observed 1318 kWh of heat output per day for these
ORC system cannot work. For this reason, parabolic through or Fresnel conditions. Yari et al (Yari et al., 2017). improved the maximum

397
A. Tiktaş et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 178 (2023) 396–413

temperature enhancement by 18%− 27% via the utilization of integration, mostly concentrated solar power technology (CSP) is
double-stage AHT system. With the double AHT system developed by preferred due to its high energy efficiency with the provision of sus­
Wang et al (Wang et al., 2018a). for the carbon dioxide capturing pro­ tainable solutions (Chuquin-Vasco et al., 2023; Pop et al., 2023). The
cess, the total production cost decreased by 10.7 $/t-CO2, and the exergy National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) database shows that in
efficiency of the system increased by 1.85%. Mosaffa and Garousi CSP technology, parabolic trough collectors are the most used collector
(Mosaffa and Farshi, 2020) utilized a double-effect AHT system for the group with a share greater than 80% among all installations ($author1$
carbon dioxide power cycle to enhance the exergy efficiency of the et al., 32] </id><collab>NREL</collab>). Another strong alternative
system by preheating carbon dioxide before entering the generator. solar collector for the integration of solar energy and LiBr-water and
In the literature, the idea of generating electricity by raising the ORC cycles is Fresnel solar collectors as a low-grade heat source (Sigue
temperature of the heat source in the ORC system with AHT supple­ et al., 2023; Machado et al., 2023; Díaz Carrillo, 2023; Kumar, 2023).
mentation was first introduced by Chaiyat (Chaiyat, 2014). In this study, As a result of the extensive literature research, it has been deter­
to generate 20 kW of electricity from an ORC system, a 250 kW AHT mined that solar energy- supported electricity generation with the ORC
system was utilized with a rising final temperature of 90–110℃. From system is mainly carried out with high-cost CSP technologies. This is due
economic evaluations, the electricity cost of Thailand and the payback to the technical constraint in integrating low-cost FPSC technology in
period were estimated yearly US$5945.82 and 15.96 years, respectively. electricity generation in this way. In this study, we propose to overcome
In this respect, this integration has been convenient and costly in terms this technical limitation through the integration of FPSC, ORC, and AHT.
of energy efficiency due to the relatively higher AHT system cost per Another important finding obtained from the literature research is
produced electricity power. This situation caused the researchers not to that the researchers did not pay enough attention to this integrated
dwell on this subject sufficiently and the absorption effect was mostly system and instead focused heavily on ORC and absorption cooling
tested on cooling systems. Especially, lithium bromide-water solution systems, concerning the economic results of the study of Chaiyat
absorption cooling systems (LiBr-water cycle) have attracted increasing (Chaiyat, 2014) based on the integration of ORC and AHT systems for
attention in obtaining cooling load by using low-grade heat input due to electricity generation. Thus, there has been a tendency in the literature
their environmentally friendly properties (Nikbakhti et al., 2020) when to use the absorption effect mostly on cooling systems. This highlights
the temperature of the heat source is 100◦ C-175◦ C, this cooling system another important gap in the literature on electricity generation, with
shows a better thermodynamic performance compared to the Kalina two powerful technologies, such as ORC and AHT, which are efficient as
cycle (Wang et al., 2018b). Research on the LiBr-water cycle and inte­ well as economically applicable at a practical level.
gration of ORC systems is relatively mature. In recent years, new com­ With the current study, the integration of FPSC application with ORC
plex energy recovery processes by combining different subsystems have and AHT systems has been suggested to close these gaps in the literature
received considerable attention. The integrated system presented by and to provide electricity production more economically with powerful
Razmi et al (Razmi et al., 2019)., which included ORC, compressed air technologies.
energy storage, and absorption cooling systems, produced 2280 kW of The present study has focused on the two main gaps in the literature
electrical energy rate and 416.7 kW of cooling load. This system had 13, above. In this context, a lithium bromide AHT cycle-ORC system pro­
15% higher efficiency compared to the system, in which only com­ cess assisted with an FPSC system application for electricity generation
pressed air energy was used. Alsagri et al (Alsagri et al., 2019). inte­ was proposed and evaluated exergetically. In this proposed system, it is
grated the ORC and the subcooled compressed air energy storage also aimed to indicate how electricity production can be realized more
systems. With this design, they managed to generate approximately 20% economically with the integration of AHT, FPSC, and ORC systems,
more power than the ORC system. In another study (Emadi et al., 2020), unlike existing small-medium-sized solar power plants. For this pur­
a double loop was integrated and developed by combining solid oxide pose, the techno-economic data obtained from the proposed system
fuel cell, ORC, and LiBr-water cycle systems. This waste heat recycling was compared with other solar power plants of similar capacities in the
system was able to supply 20.7% of the electricity while at the same time world. For this, the proposed system was modeled in Engineering
providing a cooling load of 567 kW. Equation Solver (EES) and Transient System Simulation Software
The LiBr-water cycle is generally used for the better thermodynamic (TRNSYS) packages for an illustrative example of the city of Izmir,
performance of other integrated subsystems or the higher cooling load. Turkey. The advanced exergy, exergo-economic, environmental
For example, when the temperature of the environment where the impact, and sustainability analyses were implemented in this novel
cooling load is obtained was 2◦ C − 10◦ C. Yang et al (Yang et al., 2019). system. In this way, a rational way was proposed to integrate two
integrated a transcritical carbon dioxide process with the LiBr-water powerful technologies of the 21st century, which was not emphasized
cycle and obtained a cooling load ranging from 36.08 kW to much in the literature due to the negativities in economic parameters.
39.68 kW. An increase in the cooling capacity of the system was made by With advanced exergy analysis, important clues were tried to be given
45% by combining the LiBr-water cycle and the Kalina cycle (Liu et al., for the development of this proposed system while novel performance
2020). A lithium chloride liquid dehumidification system was integrated indices were derived based on this analysis. For example, with the
with the LiBr-water cycle and based on the calculations, the maximum upgrade potential index ( UPI) included in the derived novel indices,
coefficient of performance for the system was 0.603 (Xu et al., 2021). the feasible improvement potential contributions of each component
These studies in the literature have shown that the cooling load capacity in improving the overall performance of the system are expressed.
is significantly increased by integrating the LiBr-water cycle with other Essentially, UPI combines other developed novel indices based on the
subsystems. In addition, studies are proving that the output pressure of advanced exergy analysis to realize the induced mechanism of inef­
the ORC turbine can be increased by reducing the output pressure in this fectiveness for each piece of equipment. Thus, unlike the performance
way (Mohammadi et al., 2017; Azizi et al., 2023). For example, an indices available in the literature, it was suggested which equipment
attempt was made towards increasing the efficiency of the ORC system should be prioritized in improving the overall performance of the
by using an absorption cooling system (Navongxay and Chaiyat, 2019). system with these indices, together with a numerical value. In addi­
In this system design, the absorption unit replaced the condenser of the tion, based on the novel indices derived here, the novel prioritization
ORC system, with energy and exergy efficiencies of 20.61% and 21.54%, method with a three-stage rating system was proposed in detail for the
respectively, and the system exhibited a better thermodynamic perfor­ improvement potential of the overall system. With this novel method,
mance compared to the case where no improvement was made. not only the improvement potentials of the equipment were graded,
The solar energy integration of LiBr-water and ORC cycles is widely but also what kind of improvement model should be used for each of
used in practice due to the need for a low-grade waste heat source in this them was also specified.
application (Karabuga et al., 2023; Li et al., 2023). However, in this

398
A. Tiktaş et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 178 (2023) 396–413

2. System description and modelling transmitted to the absorber for completion of the ORC cycle.

2.1. System description 2.3. Flowsheet simulation

The proposed system for electricity generation based on the AHT Table 1 indicates the flowsheet simulation results. The proposed
cycle-ORC system process assisted with low-grade solar energy appli­ system was modelled using the EES package. For the evaluation of this
cation is shown in Fig. 1. In this system, for the ORC system component system, the selected special design parameters and assumptions made
various ORC working fluid candidates, namely toluene, isopentane, are summarized in Table 2 while the general assumptions are listed
R600, R123 and R245fa, were evaluated. However, for the AHT system, below:
the LiBr-H2 O solution was utilized. With this proposed system, 1000 kW
of mechanical power production from the ORC turbine was aimed. In a) Kinetic and potential energy changes are neglected.
this configuration, the required heat to operate the generator and b) Operation of the system occurs steadily.
evaporator in the AHT cycle was provided from a low-grade solar energy c) The heat losses of the component to the environment are neglected.
source application. In this regard, to reduce system costs and create low- d) The change of the voltage for all the components is neglected except
grade waste heat, the required heat was obtained from flat FPSCs for the pumps and valves.
reaching a temperature of 80℃. Hence, the generator and evaporator
temperature values were taken as 80℃. The absorber, absorption system 3. Analyses
condenser, and ORC turbine inlet temperatures were chosen as 150℃,
40℃, and 145 ℃, respectively, with a parametric study following the 3.1. Energy analysis
system flow to satisfy more than 17–19% of ORC system efficiency. With
this approximation, it is aimed to exceed the thermal efficiency of the To implement energy analysis based on the first law of thermody­
conventional PV system and constitute a comparable solar power plant namics in the proposed system, the mass and energy balance equations
such as the Saguaro ORC plant. In current small-medium scaled solar were utilized for each component. These equations are summarized in
power plants using parabolic or Fresnel solar collector technologies, Table 3. For the five different ORC working fluids, the overall system
electricity generation takes place at a relatively high cost. Thus, unlike energy efficiency values are compared in Fig. 2 to determine the best
the existing solar power plants, it is aimed to produce more electricity ORC working fluid from the energetic view. According to this figure,
more economically with the integration of FPSC and ORC cycle. toluene, R123, and R600 demonstrated better energetic performances
compared with others. Table 4 shows the energy analysis results for the
2.2. Process description best ORC working fluid.

The water in the solution of the generator is evaporated and sent to 3.2. Exergy analyses
the condenser at state 2. A fully saturated liquid form is obtained in the
condenser at state 3 and is pumped to the evaporator at state 4. After The quality of energy based on the second law of thermodynamics
evaporation takes place in the high-pressure region of the evaporator, it was evaluated by performing an exergy analysis on the proposed system.
is sent to the absorber at state 5. The mixture, which is rich in LiBr, is In this way, the real work output of the system including the real con­
produced in the generator and directed to the solution pump at state 8, ditions was compared to the ideal feasible work output involving the
and from there, it is pumped to the absorber at state 9. The mixture at ideal conditions. Hence, it was possible to comment on the improvement
the absorber is mixed with the steam from the evaporator at state 6. This potential of the system. In this regard, conventional and advanced
mixture is returned from the absorber to the generator through the exergy analyses were performed. In this study, the physical and chem­
throttling valve at state 7. The waste heat in the absorber is used as heat ical exergy rates were considered. The physical and chemical portions of
input to the ORC system. The ORC working fluid enters the ORC turbine exergy rates were defined with Eqs. (1–3) in the formulae section,
at state 10 while at state 11, it exits the turbine and enters the condenser. respectively (Tiktas et al., 2022).
The mechanical work is produced through the expansion work per­
formed in the ORC turbine. At state 12, the ORC working fluid is fully 3.2.1. Conventional exergy analysis
saturated in liquid form because of condensing process. Then, it is In conventional exergy analysis, exergy fuel, product and destruction
rates, and exergy efficiency were determined for each component along
with the overall system. For this analysis, the exergy balance equations
based on the second law of thermodynamics were utilized for each
system component. These equations are given in Table 5.

Table 1
Flowsheet simulation results.
Stream P[kPa] T[℃] ṁ [kg/s] h[kJ/kg] [ kJ ] X(%)
s
kgK

0 3.169 25 2.155 104.8 0.367

1 3.169 90 2.155 2669 8.928
2 7.381 80 2.155 2649 8.483
3 7.381 40 2.155 167.5 0.5723
4 47.37 80 2.155 334.9 1.075
5 47.37 80 2.155 2643 7.611
6 47.37 150 43.42 349.7 0.7354 66.77
7 80.95 156.6 43.42 349.7 0.8015 63.46
8 47.37 150 41.27 349.7 0.7354 66.77
9 41.48 145 41.27 340.9 0.7139 66.77
10 1926 145 18.87 463.9 1.71
11 75.71 20 18.87 410.9 1.719
12 75.71 20 18.87 221 1.074
Fig. 1. Schematic description of the proposed system.

399
A. Tiktaş et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 178 (2023) 396–413

Table 2
Design parameter and assumption specification of the proposed system.
Design parameters Assumptions

Absorptional heat transformer system ORC system Absorptional heat transformer system ORC system

Generator temperature:80℃ ORC working fluid: R123 The water leaving the condenser is in the saturated liquid The organic working fluid is saturated
Condenser temperature:40℃ Evaporator phase. vapor at the turbine inlet.
Evaporator temperature:80℃ temperature:145℃ The water leaving the evaporator is in the saturated vapor At the condenser outlet, the organic
Absorber temperature:150℃ Condenser phase. working fluid is in saturated liquid state.
Solution heat exchanger temperature:20℃ The LiBr-water mixture separated from the absorber is in
temperature:145℃ Turbine isentropic equilibrium at the absorber pressure and temperature.
Refrigerant-absorbent mixture: efficiency: 0.95 The LiBr-water mixture leaving the generator is in equilibrium
LiBr-water solution Output power of turbine: at the absorber pressure and temperature.
1 MW The temperature of water leaving the generator is at the
generator temperature.

Table 3 utilizing Eq. (12):

Mass and energy balance equations.
Equipment Mass balance equation Energy balance equation 3.3. Annual simulation of the proposed system in TRNSYS
Gen ṁ7 = ṁ2 + ṁ8 Q̇gen = ṁ2 [fh8 +h2 − (f +1)h7 ]
ṁ7 X7 = ṁ8 X8 Because the energy and exergy analyses made in the previous sec­
f = X7 /(X8 − X7 ) tions are instant analyses, they are not sufficient to measure the per­
ABScon ṁ2 = ṁ3 Q̇con = ṁ2 (h2 − h3 ) formance of the proposed system. The annual analysis of the proposed
P1 ṁ3 = ṁ4 ṁ3 h3 + Ẇp = ṁ4 h4
system in this study was made by modelling it in the TRNSYS program
EV ṁ4 = ṁ5 Q̇ev = ṁ2 (h5 − h4 )
for an illustrative example of the city of Izmir, Turkey. The collector
ABS ṁ5 + ṁ9′ = ṁ6 Q̇abs = ṁ2 [h5 +fh9 − (f +1)h6 ]
ṁ6 X6 = ṁ9′X9′ model in the TRNSYS is readily available but the absorption heat
SHX ṁ6 = ṁ6′ ṁ6 h6 + ṁ9 h9 = ṁ6′h6′ + ṁ9′h9′ transformer and ORC system do not exist as a direct component. That is
ṁ9 = ṁ9′ why the relevant components are integrated into calls via EES.
ṁ6 X6 = ṁ6′X6′
ṁ9 X9 = ṁ9′X9′
P2 ṁ8 = ṁ9 ṁ8 h8 + Ẇp = ṁ9 h9 3.4. Economic consideration and comparison of the proposed system
V ṁ6′ = ṁ7 h6′ = h7
ORCT ṁ10 = ṁ11 ṁ10 h10 = ṁ11 h11 + Ẇt The proposed system including the integration of the FPS, ORC, and
ORCcon ṁ11 = ṁ12 Q̇ORC,con = ṁ10 (h11 − h12 ) absorptional heat transformer systems to present a more economical
FPSC ṁ1 = ṁ2′ Q̇y = ṁ2′cp (T2′ − T1 ) way for electricity production from solar energy was evaluated with
where ṁ [kg/s], X(%), T[℃], h[kJ/kg], Ẇ p [kW], Ẇ t [kW], cp , Q̇ [kW], and f are
economic considerations. In this economic evaluation, many parame­
mass flow rate, LiBr concentration in solution, temperature, specific enthalpy for ters, such as total investment cost, payback period, net present value,
streams, pump and turbine power, specific heat of working fluid, heat transfer internal rate of return, and levelized cost of electricity generation, were
rate and circulation rate, respectively. examined. These investigated parameters were also compared with
existing solar power plants of similar scale and it was shown that this
proposed system could be a strong alternative.
3.2.2. Advanced exergy analysis
Advanced exergy analysis was performed to determine how much 3.5. Exergoeconomic analyses
the component in the system can be advanced maximally and to deter­
mine how the progress in one component affects the performance of With exergoeconomic analysis, the concepts of exergy and economy
other components. In advanced exergy analysis, the exergy destruction were combined through the thermoeconomic cost flow and auxiliary
rates were divided into four separate portions: endogenous, exogenous, equations defined for each component. Thus, the terms of exergy fuel,
unavoidable, and avoidable. These portions were determined with the product, and destruction cost rates were determined. This analysis was
Eqs. (4–6) (Mosaffa and Farshi, 2020): also examined in two parts, conventional and advanced, as in the exergy
To determine the endogenous exergy destruction rate, the exergy analysis.
destruction was calculated for the situation where the examined
component is in real conditions and other component is in ideal condi­ 17
tions by providing the same exergy product rate for the entire system.
Overall system thermal energy

The unavoidable exergy destruction rate was estimated according to the 16.5
defined unavoidable conditions for each component. Table 6 shows the
16
real, ideal, and unavoidable conditions for each component. Also, in this
efficiency (%)

analysis, unavoidable and avoidable exergy destruction rates were

15.5
divided into endogenous and exogeneous parts with Eqs. (7–10):
From a deeper perspective, it has been seen that the exogeneous 15
exergy destruction of any component is the sum of mexogeneous and
contributions of exogeneous exergy destruction originating from other 14.5
components in the system. The mexogeneous exergy destruction is a
measure of simultaneous interactions among the components. This 14
relation was expressed in Eq. (11). Toluene izopentane R600 R123 R245fa
In addition to these, the total avoidable exergy destruction rates for ORC working fluids
each component were estimated to realize the significance of the
Fig. 2. Comparison results of thermal efficiency of overall proposed system for
component from the thermodynamic improvement point of view
different selected ORC working fluids.

400
A. Tiktaş et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 178 (2023) 396–413

Table 4
Energy analysis results.
AHT cycle ORC cycle FPSC system

Circulation ratio, f 19.15 Heat transfer rate in condenser, 3582 Required heat transfer rate in collector, 9930
Q̇ORC,con [kW] Q̇y [kW]
] [
Heat effect coefficient, ITK[s/kJ] 0.4614 Heat input rate in ORC cycle, Q̇in [kW] 4582 Required collector field area, A m2 16027.142
Heat transfer rate in condenser, Q̇con [kW] 5348 Thermal efficiency of ORC system, ηth 0.2118
Heat transfer rate in evaporator, 4974
Q̇ev [kW]
Heat transfer rate in generator, 4956
Q̇gen [kW]
Required pump powers, Ẇp [kW] 360.8

rates for each component, the average costs per unit of product and fuel
Table 5
exergy, exergy destruction cost rate, and exergo-economic factor were
Exergy balance equations.
computed with Eqs. (15–17).
Equipment Exergy balance equation

Gen
) [
˙ d,gen = Q̇gen 1 − T0 + ṁ7 Ex
( ] 3.5.2. Advanced exergoeconomic analysis
Ex ˙ 7 − ṁ2 Ex
˙ 2 − ṁ8 Ex
˙ 8
Tgen
) [
In advanced exergoeconomic analysis, exergy destruction and in­
ABScon ˙ d,con = − Q̇con 1 − T0 + ṁ2 Ex
( ]
vestment cost rates for each component were firstly divided into four
Ex ˙ 2 − ṁ3 Ex
˙ 3
Tcon
[ ] parts: endogeneous, exogeneous, unavoidable, and avoidable, as in the
P1 Ex
˙ d,P1 = Ẇp + ṁ3 Ex ˙ 3 − ṁ4 Ex
˙ 4
) advanced exergy analysis. The endogeneous cost rates originate from the
EV ˙ d,ev = Q̇ev 1 − T0 + ṁ4 Ex
( [ ]
components themselves. The exogeneous cost rates exist due to the
Ex ˙ 4 − ṁ5 Ex
˙ 5
Tev
) [ impact of other components on special equipment. The unavoidable cost
ABS ˙ d,abs = − Q̇abs 1 − T0 + ṁ5 Ex
( ]
Ex ˙ 5 +ṁ9 Ex˙ 9 − ṁ6 Ex
˙ 6
rates cannot be decreased due to technical limitations. However, the
Tabs
avoidable cost rates can be decreased with smarter equipment and/or
( )
SHX ˙ d,SHX = ṁ6 Ex
Ex ˙ 6 − ṁ9 Ex
˙ 9
P2
[ ] structure optimization. These parts were calculated with Eqs. (18–33).
Ex
˙ d,P2 = Ẇp + ṁ8 Ex ˙ 8 − ṁ9 Ex
˙ 9
( )
V ˙ d,EV = ṁ6 Ex
Ex ˙ 6 − ṁ7 Ex
˙ 7
( ) 3.6. Environmental impact assessment
ORCT Ex
˙ d,T = ṁ11 Ex ˙ 11 − ṁ10 Ex˙ 10 − Ẇt
) [
ORCcon ˙ d,ORC,con = − Q̇ORC,con 1 −
Ex
( T0
+ ṁ11 Ex ˙ 11 − ṁ12 Ex
˙ 12
]
The environmental analysis was exerted on the proposed system for
TORC,con realizing the system whether is eco-friendly in terms of greenhouse gas
)
FPSC ( ( )4
˙ d,FSC = Ak I 1 +1 T0
Ex −
4 T0
− emissions. In this evaluation, the total greenhouse gas emission quantity
3 Tsolar 3 Tsolar
[ (T ) ]
from the proposed system was obtained by summing direct and indirect
ṁ2′cp (T2′ − T1 ) − T0 ln 2′ emissions. To calculate the direct emissions, Eq. (34) (Hwang et al.,
T1
2015) was utilized:
[ ] [ ]
where T0 [K], Tsolar [K], Ak m2 , I kW/m2 , Ex
˙ [kW], and Ex ˙ d [kW] are dead- To determine the indirect emission quantity, the components of en­
state and solar temperatures, cross-sectional area of solar collector, solar radi­ ergy consumption, equipment manufacturing, equipment recycling, and
ation density coming to the collector surface, exergy rate of streams and exergy substance manufacturing emissions were added. Eqs. (35–39) were
destruction rates for equipment, respectively. utilized for the estimation of total indirect equivalent CO2 emission
quantity.

Table 6 3.7. Sustainability analysis

Real, ideal, and unavoidable conditions for each component.
The sustainability indices, such as ecological effect, social-ecological
Component Condition Real Ideal Unavoidable
parameter condition condition condition value Table 7
value value
Thermoeconomic cost flow and auxiliary equations.
ABScon Temperature 55 0 20
Component Thermo-economic cost equation Auxiliary equation
difference,
ΔT(℃) ABScon c2 Ė2 + ŻABScon = c3 Ė3 + cQ̇con ĖQ̇con c2 = c 3
P1 Isentropic 0.918 1 0.95 P1 cẆP1 = cẆP2 = cT
c3 Ė3 + cẆP1 ẆP1 + ŻP1 = c4 Ė4
efficiency, ηP1 c4 = c 5
EV c4 Ė4 + ŻEV + cQ̇EV ĖQ̇EV = c5 Ė5
EV ΔT(℃) 0 0 0
ABS ΔT(℃) 10 0 3 ABS c5 Ė5 + c9 Ė9 + ŻABS = c6 Ė6 + cQ̇ABS ĖQ̇ABS c5 Ė5 + c9 Ė9
= c6
SHX ΔT(℃) 0 0 0 Ė5 + Ė9
P2 ηP2 1.202x10− 9 1 0.5 SHX c6 Ė6 + ŻSHX = c9 Ė9
Gen ΔT(℃) 4 0 2 P2 c8 Ė8 + cẆP2 ẆP2 + ŻP2 = c9 Ė9 c8 = c 9
ORCT ηT 0.8 1 0.95 Gen c7 Ė7 + cQ̇Gen ĖQ̇Gen + ŻGen = c2 Ė2 + c8 Ė8 c2 Ė2 + c8 Ė8
ORCcon ΔT(℃) 0 0 0 = c7
Ė2 + Ė8
ORCT c10 Ė10 + ŻT = c11 Ė11 + cT ẆT c10 = c11
3.5.1. Conventional exergoeconomic analysis ORCcon c11 Ė11 + ŻORCcon = c12 Ė12 + cQ̇ORCcon ĖQ̇ORCcon c11 = c12
Table 7 indicates the defined thermoeconomic cost flow and auxil­ FPSC c0 Ė0 + ŻFPSC = c1 Ė1 c0 = c 1
iary equations for each component. The investment cost rate term in this
where c($/kWh), Ė (kW), andŻ($/h) are cost rate associated with exergy
table was calculated with Eqs. (13–14) by implying the chemical
streams, exergy rates for streams and heat and work interactions, and invest­
component calculation method proposed by Smith (Smith, 2005): ment cost rate, respectively.
Based on the fuel and product exergy (or exergetic fuel and product)

401
A. Tiktaş et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 178 (2023) 396–413

Table 8 and performance metrics, first of all, a previously published study on

Environmental and sustainability analysis results. energy systems was selected from the literature (Zhou et al., 2021), and
Component EcoEF EEF EXSI SEF then the novel methodology was applied to this study while the results
were compared. The required data for implementation of the novel
Gen 2.028 1.028 0.9726 1.972
ABScon 1.276 0.2991 3.343 4.63 methodology on the reference study was obtained by forming the ther­
P1 9.551 8.55 0.117 1.117 modynamic model of the pertained study from the design parameters,
EV 1.088 0.0884 11.31 12.32 and applying energy and advanced exergoeconomic analyses on this
ABS 2.471 1.471 0.6798 1.68 system. In Table 11, the performance assessment conclusions with novel
SHX 1.056 0.05633 17.75 18.76
P2 3.774 2.774 0.3605 1.361
indices are presented for reference study. By evaluating the UPI value in
V 1.026 0.02642 37.85 38.91 Table 11 and advanced exergoeconomic results, the novel prioritization
ORCT 1.05 0.04971 20.12 21.1 methods was implemented on this study. The conclusions of the novel
ORCcon 1.309 0.3086 3.241 4.241 prioritization method indicate that the greatest irreversibility occurs in
FPSC 78.8 77.83 0.01285 1.013
the evaporator due to thermal reactions in the reference system which
Overall system 1.05 0.1022 9.787 21.05
consists of ORC and absorption refrigeration system components
although the improvement potential of this component is quite low.
factors, and exergetic sustainability index (Balli and Caliskan, 2021), However, the turbine and absorber have high improvement potential in
were estimated for the proposed system with Eqs. (40–42). The envi­ the overall thermodynamic betterment of the system, and these com­
ronmental and sustainability analysis results are shown in Table 8. ponents should be prioritized by the implementation of relevant
equipment condition optimization. These findings are fully consistent
3.8. Novel indices developed based on the advanced exergy analysis with the results of the reference study.

In the previous sections, it was stated that the energy, advanced 4. Results and discussion
exergy, and advanced exergoeconomic analyses available in the litera­
ture were carried out for the proposed system in this study. However, 4.1. Exergy analysis results
with advanced exergy analysis, it is a fact that more detailed information
was obtained for the development potential both for the system and all 4.1.1. Conventional exergy analysis results
components separately. For this reason, the novel indices developed In Fig. 3, the overall exergetic efficiency values for the five different
based on the advanced exergy analysis by considering the parameters ORC working fluids were compared to estimate the best working fluid
and assumptions of this analysis in a more detailed manner are shown in from the exergetic point of view. The conventional exergy analysis re­
Table 9. This table includes the name, representation, and purpose of the sults for the proposed system for the best working fluid of R123 are
utilization of developed novel indices. The relationships between the shown in Table 12 and Fig. 4. It is clear from the results in the table that
developed novel indices were expressed with Eqs. (43–61). The math­ the entire exergy destruction rate for the proposed system is
ematical basis of the relations between the novel indices was established 5853.89 kW. Fig. 4 presents the distribution of exergy destruction of the
with Eqs. (62–65). entire system based on each component percentile. According to the
figure, SHX and FPSC were the components that contributed the highest
3.9. Novel prioritization method developed for the improvement potential to the exergy destruction with 23.711% and 21.849%, respectively. On
of the proposed system the other hand, ORCcon and ORCT had the lowest exergy destruction
rate with 0.242% and 0.849%, respectively. Based on these observa­
Table 10 illustrates the general methodology of the developed novel tions, the component improvement priority chart is introduced in
prioritization method based on the novel indices for estimation and Table 13.
implementation of the improvement potential of the system.
4.1.2. Advanced exergy analysis results
3.10. Validation of novel prioritization method and performance metrics The advanced exergy analysis results of the proposed system are
indicated in Tables 13–15 and Figs. 3–4. The endogenous, exogeneous,
To prove the accuracy of the developed novel prioritization method unavoidable, and avoidable exergy destruction rates of the components

Table 9
Descriptive list of the developed novel indices.
Name Representation Purpose of utilization

Specific internal irreversibility generation SIIG To express that how much internal irreversibility constitutes in the overall system per unit total exergy product rate
index
Specific external irreversibility generation SEIG To state that how much external irreversibility constitutes in the overall system per unit total exergy product rate
index
Equipmentwise endogeneous exergetic ηex,EN To estimate the exergetic efficiency of equipment for endogeneous conditions
efficiency
Equipmentwise exogeneous exergetic ηex,EX To account the exergetic efficiency of equipment for exogeneous conditions
efficiency
Internal exergy fuel ratio IExFR To evaluate the impact of internal irreversibilities on the fuel exergy rate
Internal mass flow ratio IMFR To examine the impact of internal irreversibilities on the mass flowrate
External to internal exergy product ratio ETIExPR To assess the significance degree of external and internal irreversibilities comparatively
Unavoidable exergetic efficiency ηex,UN To determine the exergetic efficiency of equipment for unavoidable conditions
Avoidable exergetic efficiency ηex,AV To calculate the exergetic efficiency of equipment for avoidable conditions
Unavoidable exergy fuel ratio UNExFR To investigate the impact of unavoidable irreversibilities on the fuel exergy rate
Unavoidable exergy product ratio UNExPR To mean the impact of unavoidable irreversibilities on the product exergy rate
Avoidable exergy fuel ratio AVExFR To determine the impact of avoidable irreversibilities on the fuel exergy rate
Avoidable exergy product ratio AVExPR To estimate the impact of avoidable irreversibilities on the product exergy rate
Upgrade potential index UPI To state the ratio of feasible recoverable to the unrecoverable exergy destruction rates due to the technological and
economical limitations

402
A. Tiktaş et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 178 (2023) 396–413

Table 10
General methodology of the developed novel prioritization method.

403
A. Tiktaş et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 178 (2023) 396–413

Table 11
Performance evaluation results based on the developed novel indices for reference study of (Zhou et al., 2021).
Component, k ηex,EN,k ηex,EX,k ηex,UN,k ηex,AV,k ETIExPR, k UNExFR, k AVExFR, k UNExPR, k AVExPR UPI

Evaporator 1 0.613 0.387 0.429 0.571 0.173 0.864 0.031 0.864 0.136 0.255
Turbine 0.466 0.534 0.326 0.674 0.237 0.468 0.036 0.468 0.532 0.646
Condenser 1 0.760 0.240 0.532 0.468 0.302 0.316 0.356 0.316 0.684 0.549
Pump 1 0.927 0.073 0.649 0.351 0.267 0.136 0.738 0.136 0.864 0.516
Generator 0.835 0.165 0.584 0.416 0.213 0.877 0.082 0.877 0.123 0.396
Condenser 2 0.596 0.404 0.417 0.583 0.293 0.182 0.149 0.182 0.818 0.615
Absorber 0.262 0.738 0.183 0.817 0.093 0.673 0.156 0.673 0.327 0.763
Pump 2 0.851 0.149 0.595 0.405 0.105 0.298 0.492 0.298 0.702 0.527
Heat exchanger 0.729 0.271 0.510 0.490 0.846 0.662 0.155 0.662 0.338 0.506

90
Overall system exerge�c efficiency(%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Toluene izopentane R600 R123 R245fa
ORC working fluids

Fig. 3. Comparison results of exergy efficiency of overall proposed system for Fig. 4. Distribution of exergy destruction rates of entire system based on each
different selected ORC working fluids. component percentile.

are summarized in Table 14 while Table 15 shows the unavoidable and

avoidable components of endogenous and exogeneous exergy destruc­ Table 13
tion rates of the components. Table 16 illustrates the contributions of Component improvement priority chart according to the conventional exergy
other system components to exogeneous exergy destruction rates of each analysis results.
component. The unavoidable and avoidable exergy destruction share of Degree
each component over entire exergy destructions is also shown in Fig. 5. First priority SHX 1
According to Fig. 5, only for P1 and FPSC, the avoidable exergy FPSC 2
destruction was become higher than the unavoidable one. For all other Gen 3
ABS 4
components, the unavoidable part dominated, particularly for the
V 5
evaporator (EV), SHX, P2, and ORC turbine (ORCT), where the un­ Second priority P1 1
avoidable part of the exergy destruction is over 95% of total exergy P2 2
destruction within these components. Also, FPSC and P1 constituted the
highest and middest avoidable exergy destruction values within the
overall components. The endogenous and exogeneous exergy destruc­ Also, in P1, EV, ABScon, and generator (Gen), endogenous and exoge­
tion shares of each component are presented in Fig. 6 where the exo­ neous parts were quite closer. From the results in Table 16, it is obvious
geneous exergy destruction component is dominated by the endogenous that Gen, V, and ORCcon were the biggest contributors to exogenous
one for only SHX and P2. This situation explained that these components exergy destruction of almost all components. Also, mexogeneous com­
are stronger. For all other components, the endogenous part dominated, ponents had quite an important share for ABScon, P1, and EV. This
particularly for the ABS where the endogenous part of exergy destruc­ expressed that the simultaneous interactions among these components
tion is over 85% of the entire exergy destruction within this component. were stronger. In these components, commonly simultaneous

Table 12
Conventional exergy analysis results.
Component Product exergy rate, Fuel exergy rate, Exergy destruction rate, Exergetic efficiency, Overall system exergetic efficiency,
Ex
˙ P [kW] Ex
˙ F [kW] Ex
˙ D [kW] ηex ηex.OAS

Gen 842.3 1709 866.3 0.493

ABScon 267.9 314.8 73.83 0.784
P1 37.77 360.8 323 0.1047
EV 776.8 845.5 68.67 0.9188
ABS 569.8 1408 838.2 0.4047
SHX 24642 26030 1388 0.9467
P2 95.61 360.8 265.2 0.265
V 26030 26718 687.8 0.9743
ORCT 1000 1050 49.72 0.9526
ORCcon 45.92 60.09 14.17 0.7642
FPSC 16.43 1295 1279 0.01269 0.9525

404
A. Tiktaş et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 178 (2023) 396–413

Table 14 performed and the process of raising the temperature of the heat source
Endogenous, exogeneous, unavoidable, and avoidable exergy destruction rates due to the FPS and ORC integration in our proposed system. On the other
of each component. hand, it has been determined that the total initial investment costs of the
Equipment ED,k
˙ EN
[kW] ED,k
˙ EX
[kW] ED,k
˙ UN
[kW] ED,k
˙ AV
[kW]
compared solar power plants are in the range of approximately US$6–10
million, and the payback periods vary between 10 and 15 years. For the
Gen 560.5 305.8 497.9 368.4
proposed system, these values were determined as US$3.924 million and
ABScon 53.43 20.4 387.1 -313.3
P1 230.3 92.71 104.4 218.6 4.531 years, respectively. These values have proven that the cost burden
EV 48.96 19.71 68.67243 -0.00243 of solar collectors in the entire system can be alleviated in the produc­
ABS 734.6 103.6 1933 -1095 tion of electricity with solar energy with the proposed system. Therefore,
SHX 269.8 1118 1384 3.663 we think that the proposed system is a powerful alternative for gener­
P2 2.985 262.2 239.3 25.9
V 817.9 -130.1 679.3 8.493
ating electricity from solar energy more economically.
ORCT 187.6 -137.9 49.72 0.00195
ORCcon 98.94 -84.77 184.2 -170 4.4. Exergoeconomic analysis results
FPSC 1372 -92.66 45.15 1234
4.4.1. Conventional exergoeconomic analysis
The conventional exergoeconomic results of the proposed system are
Table 15
Unavoidable and avoidable components of endogenous and exogeneous exergy shown in Table 18 and Fig. 8. According to these, the total investment
destruction rates of each component. and exergy destruction cost rates were 250.526 US$/h and 231.229 US
$/h, respectively. Investment cost rates were evenly distributed among
Component ED,k
UN,EN
ED,k
UN,EX
ED,k
AV,EN
ED,k
AV,EX
almost all the components due to the provision of needed heat for the
˙ [kW] ˙ [kW] ˙ [kW] ˙ [kW]

Gen 412.6 85.32 147.9 220.5 generator and evaporator via low-grade solar energy. However, exergy
ABScon 280.1 107 -226.6 -86.68 destruction cost rates were concentrated in Gen, FPSC, and SHX with
P1 74.44 29.96 155.9 62.74
percentages of 67.59, 59.09, and 47.98, respectively. This is because
EV 48.96 19.71 0.003453 -0.005883
ABS 1173 760 -438.4 -656.6 strong thermal and/or chemical processes take place in these
SHX 4.422 1380 265.4 -261.7 components.
P2 2.243 197.1 0.742 65.15
V 650.6 28.66 167.3 -158.8 4.4.2. Advanced exergoeconomic analysis
ORCT 4.973 44.75 182.6 182.59805
ORCcon -96.17 280.4 195.1 -365.1
The advanced exergoeconomic results of the proposed system are
FPSC 57.46 -12.31 1315 -80.54 illustrated in Tables 19 and 20 and Figs. 9–11. The advanced compo­
nents of investment and exergy destruction cost rates are presented in
these two tables, respectively. The distribution of overall exergy
interaction of ABS, P2, V, FPSC, and ORCcon existed. Hence, this situ­ destruction cost rate components (UNEN, UNEX, AVEN, AVEX) based on
ation was consistent. In this table, the negative value terms indicated the each component in Fig. 9 supported the results of advanced exergy
situation of enhancing exergy destruction of the kth component with analysis. Fig. 10 summarizes the percent of investment cost rate com­
decreasing the exergy destruction of the rth component. This situation ponents to the overall system for each component. The distribution of
occurred for P1 on ABSCon, EV on ABScon and ABS, ABS on ABScon, V investment cost rate components over the considered component is
on ABScon, ORCcon on ABScon, P1, EV, ABS and Gen, Gen on P1, EV, shown in Fig. 11 where on average 67.504% of the investment cost rate
ABS and SHX, SHX on ABS, P2 and Gen, P2 on ABS, SHX, and Gen, ORCT for all components except P1 and SHX are due to the unavoidable
on P2, FPSC on P2, and ABScon on P2. The strongest and weakest im­ endogenous component. In P1, avoidable endogenous investment cost
pacts of irreversibilities were due to Gen on SHX and ABScon on P2, rate was 54.701% of the overall cost rate. This meant that component
respectively. From this observation, we concluded that due to the exis­ could achieve high improvement potential by optimizing conditions.
tence of chemical and thermal reactions, Gen and ORCcon had the most This was also valid for SHX, EV, ABS, Gen, ORCT, and ORCcon. How­
influential irreversibilities, which also triggered the exogeneous exergy ever, in P2, and FPSC, the avoidable exogeneous rate was substantial.
destruction of other components strongly. Hence, the Gen and ORCcon This situation involves system structure or other component optimiza­
temperatures should be optimized primarily. tion for achieving higher improvement potential in that component.

4.2. Annual simulation results in TRNSYS 4.5. Environmental impact and sustainability analysis results

The annual electricity production simulation results from TRNSYS The environmental impact and sustainability analysis results of the
are shown in Fig. 7. According to the simulation in TRNSYS, the total proposed system are shown in Tables 21 and 22. According to the results
annual electricity generation is calculated as 2601 MWh. levelized power output capacity equivalent CO2 emission is 0.1022 t/
MWh. This value is in the range of 0.4 and 0.6 in the previous literature
4.3. Economic consideration results and comparison of the proposed studies for similar scale solar power plants (Bet Sarkis and Zare, 2018;
system with existing small-medium scaled solar power plants Jie Ling et al., 2022). This situation comes from the utilization of clean
energy technologies with higher exergetic efficiency and lower eco­
The economic evaluation results of the proposed system are shown in nomic costs. Hence, the proposed system forms a good alternative to
Table 17. To compare the proposed system in terms of generated elec­ classic solar power plants in terms of exergo-environmental aspect.
tricity output and economic variables with similar scaled existing solar
power plants, Saguaro, Rende, Iresen, and Ougadougou ORC solar 4.6. Performance evaluation and improvement potential results
power plants (Permana et al., 2022) for 1000 kW of net turbine power
are considered. When the compared solar power plants are modeled The proposed system was evaluated with the defined conventional
with TRNSYS, it is determined that the annual electricity generation is and novel performance parameters completely developed by the au­
between 2000 and 2200 MWh. However, with the proposed system, it thors. For conventional performance parameters, the results are shown
has been shown that 2601 MWh of electricity can be produced annually in Table 23. However, Table 24 presents the performance evaluation
for the example of Izmir city in Turkey. This is due to both the difference results based on the novel indices. In addition, the novel prioritization
in the normal solar radiation level in the location where the simulation is method proposed in section 2.9 was also applied to this system. As a

405
A. Tiktaş et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 178 (2023) 396–413

Table 16
Contribution of other system components to exogeneous exergy destruction rates of each component.
Component,k ˙ EX
ED,k [kW] Component, r ED,k
˙ EX,r
[kW] Component, k EX
ED,k
˙ [kW] Component, r ED,k
˙ EX,r
[kW]

ABScon 20.4 P1 -0.79 G 305.8 ABScon 225.4

EV -0.79 P1 87.1
ABS -0.79 EV 166.6
SHX 7.38 ABS 86.9
P2 0.07 SHX -87
V -0.35 P2 -180.1
G 32.33 V -86.9
T 0.06 T 44.3
ORCcon -20.71 ORCcon -190.3
FPSC -0.79 FPSC 225.4
P1 92.71 ABScon 35.7
EV 35.7
ABS 35.7
SHX 35.7
P2 35.4
V 21.9
G -78.8
T 18.2
ORCcon -93.4
FPSC 35.7
EV 19.71 ABScon 7.59
P1 7.59
ABS 7.59
SHX 7.59
P2 7.53
V 16.71
G -16.75
T 3.83
ORCcon -19.85
FPSC -7.59
ABS 103.6 ABScon 113.9
P1 113.9
EV -113.9
SHX -113.9
P2 -122.1
V 604.9
G -37
T 60
ORCcon -297.4
FPSC -113.9
SHX 1118 ABScon 803.2
P1 803.2
EV 803.2
ABS -803.2
P2 -1000
V 1630.2
G -1634.2
T 732.2
ORCcon -1035.2
FPSC 803.2
P2 262.2 ABScon -0.022
P1 0
EV 0
ABS 2.1178
SHX -0.022
V 126.815
G 126.815
T -0.004
ORCcon 0.762
FPSC -0.022

result of combining the performance evaluations with the novel priori­ destruction activities.
tization methodology, it was seen that ABScon, P1, P2, ABS, Gen, and
ORCcon component were of high development priority to improve the 5. Conclusions
development potential of the whole system. Here, the components in
question not only had a high exergy destruction rate in themselves due In this present study, a novel ORC system assisted with low-grade
to the presence of strong thermal and/or chemical reactions, but also solar energy, FPS, and AHT systems was proposed to provide elec­
caused significant irreversibility for another component. Hence, to tricity generation. With this novel process design, it was aimed at
improve this proposed system from the thermodynamic point of view, achieving a potent production output more economically by combining
both relevant component conditions and system structure optimization two robust system technologies, such as ORC and AHT, with a renewable
should be applied. Another point to be considered here is that ABS and energy source, unlike existing small-medium-sized solar power plants.
Gen components exhibited opposite behavior in terms of exergy To compare the techno-economic data of the proposed system with other

406
A. Tiktaş et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 178 (2023) 396–413

Fig. 5. Unavoidable and avoidable exergy destruction percentages of each component over entire exergy destruction.

solar power plants of similar capacities in the world, the proposed sys­ in a more economical way. The conventional and advanced exergy,
tem was modeled in EES and TRNSYS for an illustrative example of the exergoeconomic, environmental impact, and sustainability analyses
city of Izmir, Turkey. According to the results of this comparison, it has were implemented on this proposed system to bring to light the hints for
been estimated that the proposed system for 1000 kW turbine power improvement of this system from the thermodynamic point of view. This
draws attention with its lower investment cost and payback period proposed system was examined by the defined conventional and novel
compared to its counterparts in the world. Hence, the proposed system performance parameters completely developed by the authors. These
forms a stronger alternative for electricity production from solar energy novel performance indices were derived based on the advanced exergy

407
A. Tiktaş et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 178 (2023) 396–413

Fig. 6. Endogenous and exogeneous exergy destruction percentages of each component over entire exergy destruction.

analysis to reveal the feasible improvement potential of both any rates were contributed by SHX (23.711%) and FPSC (21.849%),
component and the entire system from a deeper perspective. Unlike the while ORCcon and ORCT had the lowest rates with 0.242% and
performance indices available in the literature, it has been suggested 0.849% respectively.
which equipment should be prioritized in improving the overall per­ b) Advanced exergy analysis highlighted the potential for improvement
formance of the system with these indices, together with a numerical in FPSC and P1 due to dominant avoidable exergy destruction rates.
value. Based on these novel indices, the novel prioritization method with SHX and P2 exhibited stronger irreversibilities with exogeneous
a three-stage rating system was presented step by step to assess and parts dominating at 80.562% and 98.874% respectively. Gen, V, and
imply the improvement potential of the system. With this novel method, ORCcon were major contributors to exogenous exergy destruction
not only the improvement potentials of the equipment were graded, but but showed adverse aspects. Hence, the temperatures of Gen and
also what kind of improvement model should be used for each of them ORCcon should be optimized quite carefully.
was also specified. The key conclusions of the study may be listed as c) Conventional exergoeconomic analysis indicated total investment
follows: and exergy destruction cost rates are 250.526 US$/h and 231.229 US
$/h respectively. Gen, FPSC, and SHX had higher exergy destruction
a) Conventional exergy analysis results showed that the total exergy cost rates due to stronger thermal and/or chemical processes.
destruction rate was 5853.89 kW. The highest exergy destruction

408
A. Tiktaş et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 178 (2023) 396–413

Fig. 7. Annual electricity production simulation of the proposed system in TRNSYS for an illustrative example of Izmir, Turkey.

Table 17
Economic evaluation results of the proposed plant.
Installed cost of FPSC 96 US$/m2

ORC power plant cost US$503241.827

AHT cycle cost US$187488.779
Total direct cost US$3678751.938
Total indirect cost US$245250.1292
Total cost US$3924002.067
Fixed O&M cost by capacity 9 US$/kWh
Variable O&M cost by generation 0.343 US$/MWh
Revenue for electricity selling 876000 US$/year
Operating expenses 9892.143 US$/year
Annual net cash flow 866107.857 US$/year
Payback period 4.531 years
Net present value US$4878251.845 (for 20 years of useful
lifetime)
Levelized cost of electricity 0.342 US$/kWh Fig. 8. Investment and exergy destruction cost rate distribution based on each
generation
component percentile from conventional exergoeconomic analysis results.
Internal rate of return 13.38%

As a result of this study, it has been determined that the proposed

system for 1000 kW turbine power draws attention with its lower in­
Table 18
vestment cost and payback period compared to its counterparts in the
Conventional exergoeconomic analysis results.
world.
Component cf (US$/GJ) cp (US$/GJ) Ċd (US$/h) fk
Formulae
ABScon 11.72 13.53 3.116 0.307
(1)
Ph
P1 14.13 13.53 16.43 0.551 Ė = ṁ[(hi − h0 ) − T0 (si − s0 ) ]
EV 1.184 13.53 0.2926 0.992
ABS 1.774 13.53 5.353 0.776
∑
(2)
Ch
Ė = zi bi
SHX 13.53 13.53 67.59 0.499
P2 19.1 13.53 18.24 0.525
Gen 15.38 13.53 47.98 0.196 Ė = Ė + Ė
Ph Ch
(3)
ORCT 43.03 52.95 7.702 0.784
ORCcon 106.5 43.03 5.435 0.847
(4)
EN EX
FPSC 2.44 186.5 59.09 0.626 ˙ = ED,k
ED,k ˙ ˙
+ ED,k

˙ UN + ED,k
˙ = ED,k
ED,k ˙ AV (5)
However, the investment cost rates were distributed smoothly due to
the renewable energy integration. ( )UN
˙
d) Advanced exergoeconomic analysis supported the above results, ˙
ED,k
UN
˙
= EP,k
real ED,k
(6)
revealing that the unavoidable endogenous part for investment cost ˙
EP,k
rate had an average share of 67.504% in most components. Some
( )UN
components like ABS, Gen, ORCT, P1, and SHX had different domi­ ˙
ED,k
(7)
UN,EN EN
˙ ˙
nance patterns, requiring system structure optimization. ED,k = EP,k
˙
EP,k
e) The proposed system forms a good alternative to classic solar power
plants in terms of exergo-environmental aspect
(8)
UN,EX
˙
ED,k ˙ UN − ED,k
= ED,k ˙ UN,EN
f) With the implementation of a novel prioritization method on this
proposed system, it was realized that P1, P2, ABScon, ABS, Gen, and
(9)
AV,EN EN UN,EN
˙ ˙ ˙
ORCcon had high development priorities to improve overall the ED,k = ED,k − ED,k
system. However, within these components, Gen and ORCcon had a
(10)
AV,EX
high priority degree for the overall system. ˙
ED,k ˙ AV − ED,k
= ED,k ˙ AV,EN

409
A. Tiktaş et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 178 (2023) 396–413

Table 19
Advanced components of investment cost rates for each component.
Component Ż (US$/h) EN
Ż (US$/h)
EX
Ż (US$/h)
UN
Ż (US$/h) Ż
AV
(US$/h)
UN,EN
Ż (US$/h) Ż
UN,EX
(US$/h)
AV,EN
Ż (US$/h)
AV,EX
Ż (US$/h)

ABScon 1.379 0.9985 0.3802 1.374 0.00444 1.049 0.325 -0.051 0.0552
P1 20.192 11.55 8.638 9.085 11.11 0.507 8.578 11.043 0.06
EV 34.220 29.53 4.692 34.22 -0.002 24.4 9.82 5.13 -5.128
ABS 18.583 9.943 8.64 7.036 11.55 7.258 -0.222 2.685 8.862
SHX 67.391 20.8 46.59 65.79 1.605 0.2101 65.580 20.590 -18.990
P2 20.192 26.79 -6.599 21.66 -1.47 52.57 -30.91 -25.78 24.311
Gen 11.676 7.704 3.971 8.2 3.476 5.967 2.233 1.737 1.738
ORCT 27.950 17.78 10.17 4.014 23.94 4.014 0 13.766 10.17
ORCcon 30.163 28.39 1.778 30.13 0.031 27.34 2.79 1.05 -1.012
FPSC 18.780 13.39 5.393 10.23 8.546 13.02 -2.79 0.37 8.183

Table 20
Advanced components of exergy destruction cost rates for each component.
Component C˙d (US$/h) EN
C˙d (US$/h)
EX
C˙d (US$/h)
UN
C˙d (US$/h)
AV
C˙d (US$/h) C˙d
UN,EN
(US$/h) C˙d
UN,EX
(US$/h) C˙d
AV,EN
(US$/h) C˙d
AV,EX
(US$/h)

ABScon 3.116 2.255 0.8611 16.34 -13.22 11.82 4.516 -9.565 -3.659
P1 16.43 10.34 4.716 5.311 11.12 3.787 1.524 7.93 3.191
EV 0.2926 0.2086 0.08399 0.2926 -0.00001 0.2086 0.08399 0.00001471 -0.00002
ABS 5.353 4.691 0.6616 12.34 -6.993 7.491 4.854 -2.8 -4.193
SHX 67.59 13.14 54.44 67.4 0.1784 0.2153 67.2 12.92 -12.74
P2 18.24 0.2053 18.03 16.46 1.781 0.1543 13.56 0.0510 4.481
Gen 47.98 31.04 16.94 27.58 20.4 22.85 4.725 8.191 12.21
ORCT 7.702 29.06 -21.36 7.702 0.0003 0.7704 6.933 28.29 28.29
ORCcon 5.435 37.95 -32.51 70.65 -65.21 -36.89 107.6 74.83 -140
FPSC 11.23 12.05 -0.8138 0.3966 10.84 0.5047 -0.1081 0.1155 -0.707

Fig. 11. Distribution of investment cost rate components over the consid­
ered component.

Fig. 9. Distribution of overall exergy destruction cost rate components (UNEN,

UNEX,AVEN,AVEX) based on each component. Table 21
Environmental impact analysis results.
Total CO2 emission from the proposed plant (kg) 265.748

Levelized power output capacity equivalent CO2 emission (t/MWh) 0.102

∑
n− 1
(11)
mexo
˙
ED,k ˙ EX −
= ED,k ˙
ED,k
EX,r

r=1
r∕
=k

∑
n
(12)
AV,T AV,EN AV,EX,k
˙
ED,k ˙
= ED,k + ˙
ED,r
r=1
r∕
=k

( )M
ϕk (CRF) SSbc CEPCI 2020
Fig. 10. For each component the percent of advanced investment cost rate Ż = rm rp rt (13)
t CEPCI 2000
components to overall system.

410
A. Tiktaş et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 178 (2023) 396–413

Table 22
(21)
AV AV
Sustainability analysis results. Ċd,k = cf ,k Ėd,k
Component Ecological effect Exergetic Social ecological
(22)
EN EX
factor, EcoEF sustainability index, factor, SEF Ċd,k = Ċd,k + Ċd,k
EXSI

(23)
UN AV
Generator 2.028 0.9726 1.972 Ċd,k = Ċd,k + Ċd,k
Absorptional heat 1.276 3.343 4.63
transformer
(24)
UN,EN UN,EN
condenser Ċd,k = cf ,k Ėd,k
Pump 1 9.551 0.117 1.117
Evaporator 1.088 11.31 12.32 Ċd,k
UN,EX
= cf ,k Ėd,k
UN,EX
(25)
Absorber 2.471 0.6798 1.68
Solution heat 1.056 17.75 18.76
(26)
AV,EN AV,EN
exchanger Ċd,k = cf ,k Ėd,k
Pump2 3.774 0.3605 1.361
Expansion valve 1.026 37.85 38.91
(27)
AV,EX AV,EX
Turbine 1.05 20.12 21.1
Ċd,k = cf ,k Ėd,k
ORC condenser 1.309 3.241 4.241
Flat plate solar 78.8 0.01285 1.013 (28)
EX EN
Ż k = Ż k − Ż k
collector
Overall system 1.05 9.787 21.05
(29)
AV UN
Ż k = Ż k − Ż k
( )UN
i(1 + i)N Ż k
CRF = (14) Ż k
UN,EN
= Ėp,k
EN
(30)
(1 + i)N − 1 Ėp,k

cp Ėp = cf Ėf + Ż (15)

(31)
UN,EX UN UN,EN
Ż k = Ż k − Ż k

Ċd = cf Ėd (16)

(32)
AV,EN EN UN,EN
Ż k = Ż k − Ż k
Ż
(17) (33)
AV,EX EX UN,X
f = Ż k = Ż k − Ż k
Ż + Ċd
Emdirect = C(LT (ALR)(EOL) )(GWP + adp.GWP) (34)
(18)
EN EN
Ċd,k = cf ,k Ėd,k
Emindirect = Emenergy + Emeq.mfg + Emeq.rcy + Emre.mfg (35)
(19)
EX EX
Ċd,k = cf ,k Ėd,k
Emenergy = LT(AEC)EF (36)
(20)
UN UN
Ċd,k = cf ,k Ėd,k ∑
Emeq.mfg = MM(m) (37)

Table 23
Performance evaluation results based on the conventional parameters.
Component ηex ηex,mod yD yD adv f f AV,EN

ABScon 0.784 0.876 0.01261 0.03871 0.3067 0.005252

P1 0.1047 0.1952 0.05518 0.02663 0.5514 0.582
EV 0.9188 1 0.01173 5.899x10− 7 0.9915 1
ABS 0.4047 0.587 0.1432 0.07489 0.7764 0.042
SHX 0.9467 0.9893 0.2371 0.04534 0.4933 0.6144
P2 0.265 0.9922 0.0453 0.0001268 0.5254 0.983
Gen 0.493 0.8507 0.148 0.02527 0.1957 0.175
ORCT 0.9526 0.947 0.008493 0.03119 0.784 0.3273
ORCcon 0.7642 0.1905 0.002421 0.033 0.8473 0.01384
FPSC 0.01269 0.01203 0.2185 0.2246 0.6257 0.7621

Table 24
Performance evaluation results based on the developed novel indices.
Component, k ηex,EN,k ηex,EX,k ηex,UN,k ηex,AV,k ETIExPR, k UNExFR, k AVExFR, k UNExPR, k AVExPR UPI

Gen 0.555 0.321 0.658 0.241 0.207 0.853 0.284 1.139 0.139 0.711
ABScon 0.784 0.784 0.396 0.043 0.382 2.036 - 0.948 - 0.575
P1 0.105 0.105 0.822 0.670 0.403 1.626 1.838 12.772 11.772 0.962
EV 0.919 0.919 0.919 - 0.403 1.000 - 1 0.000 0.081
ABS 0.320 0.684 0.148 0.176 0.648 1.611 - 0.588 - 0.770
SHX 0.226 0.956 0.947 0.450 312.153 1.000 0 1 0 0.048
P2 0.265 0.265 0.000 1.372 87.857 0.663 - 0 - 0.867
V 0.968 1.134 0.975 - 0.044 1 0 1 - 0.015
ORCT 0.842 - 0.953 - 0.000 1.000 0 1 0.000 0.042
ORCcon 0.296 - 0.200 - 0.102 3.830 - 1 0.000 0.603
FPSC 0.012 - 0.267 - 0 0.048 0.953 1 0 1

411
A. Tiktaş et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 178 (2023) 396–413

∑
Emeq.rcy = RM(mr) (38) Ė
UN

(58)
P,k
UNExPR = R
Ė
(39)
P,k
Emre.mfg = (C + (C(ALR)(LT) ) )RMF + C(1 − EOL)(RDF)
( )
1
FExWRk ηex,UN,k = ηex,R (UNExPR) (59)
EEF k = (40) UNExFR, k
ηex,k
( )
1
1 ηex,AV,k = ηex,R (AVExPR) (60)
SEF k = (41) AVExFR, k
1 − ηex,k
) [( 1 )
( (( )]
1 1 − ηex,R − UNExFR, k − UNExPR, k)ηex,R
(42) (61)
UNExPR,k
ExSI k = UPI ,k = [( ) (( )]
EEF k 1
UNExFR, k − UNExPR, k)ηex,R
UNExPR,k

ĖP,overall
SIIG = k=n (43) Ė
R
= Ė
EN
+ Ė
EX
(62)
∑ EN P,total P,total P,total
Ė F,k
k=1
∑
k=n ∑
k=n ∑
k=n
(63)
R EN EX
Ė F,k = Ė F,k + Ė F,k
ĖP,overall
SEIG = k=n (44) k=1 k=1 k=1
∑ EX
Ė F,k EN EN,k
Ė Ṁ
(64)
k=1 P,k
R = R,k
Ė P,k Ṁ
1 1 1
= + (45)
ηex,R SIIG SEIG ( )UN
ĖD,k
(65)
UN R
Ė D,k = Ė P,k
k∑
=n R ĖP,k
Ė F,k
IExFR = kk=1 (46)
∑ EN
=n Financial funding and support
Ė F,k
k=1
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
SIIG = ηex,R (IExFR) (47) agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

EN
Ė
(48)
P,k
ηex,EN,k = EN
Ė F,k
All the authors were involved in the preparation of the manuscript
EX while their contributions are listed below. Aslı Tiktaş: Conceptualiza­
Ė
(49) tion, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Drawing the pictures,
P,k
ηex,EX,k = EX
Ė F,k Writing & editing. Huseyin Gunerhan: Conceptualization, Methodol­
EN,k
ogy, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. Arif Hepbasli: Concep­
IMFR, k =
Ṁ
(50) tualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Emin Aç ıkkalp: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing
R,k
Ṁ
– review & editing.
EX
Ė
(51)
P,k
ETIExPR, k =
Declaration of Competing Interest
EN
Ė P,k

[ ( )]
1 1 1 The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
= IMFR, k + ETIExPR, k (52)
ηex,k,R ηex,EN,k ηex,EX,k interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
UN
Ė
(53)
P,k
ηex,UN,k =
Ė
UN Acknowledgments
F,k

AV The authors are very grateful to the reviewers and editor for their
Ė
(54) valuable and constructive comments, which led to increasing the quality
P,k
ηex,AV,k = AV
Ė F,k of the paper.
UN

UNExFR, k =
Ė F,k
(55) References
R
Ė F,k
Alsagri, A.S., Arabkoohsar, A., Alrobaian, A.A., 2019. Combination of subcooled
AV compressed air energy storage system with an Organic Rankine Cycle for better
Ė electricity efficiency, a thermodynamic analysis (Dec.). J. Clean. Prod. vol. 239.
(56)
F,k
AVExFR, k = R https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118119.
Ė F,k
Azizi, S., Shakibi, H., Shokri, A., Chitsaz, A., Yari, M., 2023. Multi-aspect analysis and
RSM-based optimization of a novel dual-source electricity and cooling cogeneration
Ė
AV
system (Feb.). Appl. Energy vol. 332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
(57)
P,k
AVExPR = R apenergy.2022.120487.
Ė P,k Bagherzadeh, S.A., Ruhani, B., Namar, M.M., Alamian, R., Rostami, S., 2020.
Compression ratio energy and exergy analysis of a developed Brayton-based power
cycle employing CAES and ORC. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. vol. 139 (4), 2781–2790.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-019-09051-5.

412
A. Tiktaş et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 178 (2023) 396–413

Balli, O., Caliskan, H., 2021. On-design and off-design operation performance Convers. Manag. vol. 207, 112542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
assessmentsof an aero turboprop engine used on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in enconman.2020.112542.
terms of aviation, thermodynamic, environmental and sustainability perspectives. Navongxay, B., Chaiyat, N., 2019. Energy and exergy costings of organic Rankine cycle
Energy Convers. Manag. vol. 243 (June), 0–1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. integrated with absorption system (Apr.). Appl. Therm. Eng. vol. 152, 67–78.
enconman.2021.114403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.02.018.
Concentrating Solar Power Projects _ NREL. Nikbakhti, R., Wang, X., Hussein, A.K., Iranmanesh, A., 2020. Absorption cooling
Bet Sarkis, R., Zare, V., 2018. Proposal and analysis of two novel integrated systems – review of various techniques for energy performance enhancement. Mar.
configurations for hybrid solar-biomass power generation systems: thermodynamic 01. In: Alexandria Engineering Journal, vol. 59. Elsevier B.V.,, pp. 707–738. https://
and economic evaluation (no. January). Energy Convers. Manag. vol. 160, 411–425. doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2020.01.036.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.01.061. P. Hwang, Y., Ferreira, C. I., Guideline for life cycle climate performance, 2015.
bp, Statistical Review of World Energy 2022. Permana, D.I., Rusirawan, D., Farkas, I., 2022. A bibliometric analysis of the application
Chaiyat, N., 2014. Upgrading of low temperature heat with absorption heat transformer of solar energy to the organic Rankine cycle. Heliyon vol. 8 (4), e09220. https://doi.
for generating electricity by organic rankine cycle. Glob. Adv. Res. J. Eng., Technol. org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09220.
Innov. vol. 3 (9), 235–247. Pop, O.G., et al., 2023. Analytical modelling of food storage cooling with solar ammonia-
D. Chuquin-Vasco, C. Calderón-Tapia, N. Chuquin-Vasco, J. Chuquin-Vasco, D. Aguirre- water absorption system, powered by parabolic trough collectors. Method (Jan.).
Ruiz, and D.V. Ch, © ICAS 2023 Modeling a Binary Organic Rankine Cycle Operated MethodsX vol. 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2023.102013.
With Solar Collectors: Case Study-Ecuador, 2023. [Online]. Available: www.e-afr. Quoilin, S., Broek, M.Van Den, Declaye, S., Dewallef, P., Lemort, V., 2013. Techno-
orgwww.e-afr.org. economic survey of organic rankine cycle (ORC) systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Díaz Carrillo, J.J., 2023. Solar thermal cooling systems driven by linear Fresnel Rev. vol. 22, 168–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.01.028.
collectors, realistic and practical simulation tool, cases studies applications and Razmi, A., Soltani, M., Torabi, M., 2019. Investigation of an efficient and
machine learning as a control approach. E. T. S. I. Ind. (UPM). environmentally-friendly CCHP system based on CAES, ORC and compression-
Donnellan, P., Byrne, E., Oliveira, J., Cronin, K., 2014. First and second law absorption refrigeration cycle: energy and exergy analysis (Sep.). Energy Convers.
multidimensional analysis of a triple absorption heat transformer (TAHT). Appl. Manag vol. 195, 1199–1211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.05.065.
Energy vol. 113, 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.06.049. Sigue, S., Abderafi, S., Vaudreuil, S., Bounahmidi, T., 2023. Design and steady-state
Emadi, M.A., Chitgar, N., Oyewunmi, O.A., Markides, C.N., 2020. Working-fluid simulation of a CSP-ORC power plant using an open-source co-simulation framework
selection and thermoeconomic optimisation of a combined cycle cogeneration dual- combining SAM and DWSIM (Jan.). Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog. vol. 37. https://doi.org/
loop organic Rankine cycle (ORC) system for solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) waste-heat 10.1016/j.tsep.2022.101580.
recovery (Mar.). Appl. Energy vol. 261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Smith, R., 2005. Chem. Process Des. Integr.
apenergy.2019.114384. Tiktas, A., Gunerhan, H., Hepbasli, A., 2022. Single and multigeneration Rankine cycles
Horuz, I., Kurt, B., 2010. Absorption heat transformers and an industrial application. with aspects of thermodynamical modeling, energy and exergy analyses and
Renew. Energy vol. 35 (10), 2175–2181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. optimization: a key review along with novel system description figures (no.
renene.2010.02.025. February). Energy Convers. Manag.: X vol. 14, 100199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Javed, S., Tiwari, A.K., 2023. Performance assessment of different Organic Rankine Cycle ecmx.2022.100199.
(ORC) configurations driven by solar energy (no. January). Process Saf. Environ. Wakim, M., Rivera-Tinoco, R., 2019. Absorption heat transformers: sensitivity study to
Prot. vol. 171, 655–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2023.01.039. answer existing discrepancies. Renew. Energy vol. 130, 881–890. https://doi.org/
Jie Ling, J.L., Go, E.S., Park, Y.K., Lee, S.H., 2022. Recent advances of hybrid solar - 10.1016/j.renene.2018.06.111.
biomass thermo-chemical conversion systems. no. September 2021 Chemosphere Wang, D., Li, S., Liu, F., Gao, L., Sui, J., 2018a. Post combustion CO2 capture in power
vol. 290, 133245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.133245. plant using low temperature steam upgraded by double absorption heat transformer.
Karabuga, A., Yakut, M.Z., Utlu, Z., 2023. Assessment of thermodynamic performance of no. May 2017 Appl. Energy vol. 227, 603–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
a novelty solar-ORC configuration based hydrogen production: an experimental apenergy.2017.08.009.
study. Int J. Hydrog. Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.05.093. Wang, J., Han, Z., Liu, Y., Zhang, X., Cui, Z., 2021. Thermodynamic analysis of a
Kumar, M., 2023. A review study on organic rankine cycles coupled with latent thermal combined cooling, heating, and power system integrated with full-spectrum hybrid
energy storage systems using solar energy as heat source. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Manag. solar energy device (no. July). Energy Convers. Manag. vol. 228, 113596. https://
(IJAEM) vol. 5, 521. https://doi.org/10.35629/5252-0501521534. doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113596.
Li, Q., et al., 2023. Simulation study on solar single/double-effect switching LiBr-H2O Wang, M., Wang, Y., Feng, X., Deng, C., Lan, X., 2018b. Energy performance comparison
absorption refrigeration system (Apr.). Energy vol. 16 (7). https://doi.org/10.3390/ between power and absorption refrigeration cycles for low grade waste heat
en16073220. recovery (Apr.). ACS Sustain Chem. Eng. vol. 6 (4), 4614–4624. https://doi.org/
Liu, F., Sui, J., Liu, T., Jin, H., 2017. Energy and exergy analysis in typical days of a steam 10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b03589.
generation system with gas boiler hybrid solar-assisted absorption heat transformer. Xu, A., et al., 2021. Performance analysis of a cascade lithium bromide absorption
Appl. Therm. Eng. vol. 115, 715–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. refrigeration/dehumidification process driven by low-grade waste heat for hot
applthermaleng.2017.01.011. summer and cold winter climate area in China (Jan.). Energy Convers. Manag vol.
Liu, Z., Xie, N., Yang, S., 2020. Thermodynamic and parametric analysis of a coupled 228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113664.
LiBr/H2O absorption chiller/Kalina cycle for cascade utilization of low-grade waste Yağlı, H., Koç, Y., Kalay, H., 2021. Optimisation and exergy analysis of an organic
heat (Feb.). Energy Convers. Manag vol. 205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Rankine cycle (ORC) used as a bottoming cycle in a cogeneration system producing
enconman.2019.112370. steam and power. no. May 2020 Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. vol. 44. https://
Ma, L., Zhao, Q., Guo, X., Zhang, H., Hu, Z., Hou, S., 2021. A hybrid system consisting of doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2020.100985.
dye-sensitized solar cell and absorption heat transformer for electricity production Yang, S., Deng, C., Liu, Z., 2019. Optimal design and analysis of a cascade LiBr/H2O
and heat upgrading. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. vol. 150, 233–241. https://doi.org/ absorption refrigeration/transcritical CO2 process for low-grade waste heat recovery
10.1016/j.psep.2021.04.013. (Jul.). Energy Convers. Manag vol. 192, 232–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Machado, D.O., et al., 2023. Digital twin of a Fresnel solar collector for solar cooling enconman.2019.04.045.
(Jun.). Appl. Energy vol. 339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.120944. Yari, M., Salehi, S., Mahmoudi, S.M.S., 2017. Three-objective optimization of water
Mohammadi, A., Kasaeian, A., Pourfayaz, F., Ahmadi, M.H., 2017. Thermodynamic desalination systems based on the double-stage absorption heat transformers.
analysis of a combined gas turbine, ORC cycle and absorption refrigeration for a Desalination vol. 405, 10–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.12.001.
CCHP system (Jan.). Appl. Therm. Eng. vol. 111, 397–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Zhou, T., Liu, J., Ren, J., Yang, S., 2021. Comprehensive assessment of a coupled LiBr/
j.applthermaleng.2016.09.098. H2O absorption refrigeration/ORC system for low-grade residual heat recovery
Mosaffa, A.H., Farshi, L.G., 2020. Novel post combustion CO2 capture in the coal-fired based on advanced exergy and exergoeconomic analysis. ACS Sustain Chem. Eng.
power plant employing a transcritical CO2 power generation and low temperature https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.1c08611.
steam upgraded by an absorption heat transformer. no. November 2019 Energy

413