See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330879183

Parametric analysis and yearly performance of a trigeneration system driven

by solar‐dish collectors

Article  in  International Journal of Energy Research · February 2019

DOI: 10.1002/er.4380

CITATIONS READS

19 257

5 authors, including:

Evangelos Bellos Christos Tzivanidis

National Technical University of Athens National Technical University of Athens
186 PUBLICATIONS   3,746 CITATIONS    178 PUBLICATIONS   3,466 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Branka Nakomcic-Smaragdakis
University of Novi Sad
45 PUBLICATIONS   176 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sustainable refrigeration systems View project

The 13th Conference on Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems – SDEWES2018 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Evangelos Bellos on 07 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Parametric analysis and yearly performance of a trigeneration
system driven by solar dish collectors
Evangelos Bellosa, Sasa Pavlovicb, Velimir Stefanovicb, Christos Tzivanidisa,
Branka B. Nakomcic-Smaradgakisc
a
Department of Thermal Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Zografou,
Heroon Polytechniou 9, 15780 Athens, Greece.
b
Department of Energetics and Process technique, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
University in Nis, Serbia.
c
University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Trg D. Obradovica 6, 21000 Novi
Sad, Serbia.

Corresponding author: Evangelos Bellos ([email protected])

Abstract
Solar-driven polygeneration systems are promising technologies for covering many
energy demands with a renewable and sustainable way. The objective of the present
work is the investigation of a trigeneration system which is driven by solar dish
collectors. The examined trigeneration system includes an organic Rankine cycle
(ORC) which operates with toluene and an absorption heat pump which operates with
LiBr/H2O. The absorption heat pump is fed with heat by the condenser of the ORC
which operates at medium temperature levels (120oC to 150oC). The absorption heat
pump produces both useful heat at 55oC and cooling at 12oC. The ORC produces
electricity and it is fed by the solar dishes. The examined ORC is a regenerative cycle
with superheating. The total analysis is performed with a developed model in
Engineering Equation Solver (EES). The system is investigated parametrically for
different ORC heat rejection temperatures, different superheating levels in the turbine
inlet and various solar beam irradiation levels. Furthermore, the system is investigated
on a yearly basis for the climate conditions of Athens (Greece) and for Belgrade
(Serbia). It is found that the yearly system energy and exergy efficiencies are
108.39% and 20.92% respectively for Athens, while 111.38% and 21.50%
respectively for Belgrade. For both locations, the payback period is found close to 10
years and the internal rate of return close to 10%. The final results indicate that the
examined configuration is a highly efficient and viable system which operates only
with a renewable energy source.

Keywords: Solar dish, trigeneration, ORC, absorption heat pump, sustainability

1. Introduction
The building sector is one of the most energy-consuming sectors which is responsible
for about the 30%~40% of the overall energy consumption in every country [1-2].
Trigeneration systems are a sustainable choice for producing heating, cooling and
electricity for the building sector [3-4]. Solar energy is a renewable and abundant
energy source which is usually used for driving trigeneration or generally
polygeneration energy systems [5-6].

In the literature, there are numerous studies which investigate solar driven or solar-
assisted polygeneration systems, usually for building applications. Bellos and
Tzivanidis [7] studied a solar-driven trigeneration system with parabolic trough
collectors (PTC) which include an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) and an absorption
heat pump. They found that this system with toluene present exergy efficiency up to
30%. The financial analysis of this system was performed in Ref. [8] and it is found
that the payback period is around 5 years. Calise et al. [9] studied a polygeneration
system for electricity, heating, cooling and fresh-water production which is fed by
geothermal energy, solar energy and an auxiliary boiler. This system presents exergy
efficiency up to 50% in the heating mode and up to 20% in the cooling mode, while it
has a payback period of 5 years. Baghernejad et al. [10] examined the combination of
PTC with gas turbine and they found the maximum system exergy efficiency at 56%.
Bellos and Tzivanidis [11] investigated a trigeneration system based on an ORC with
an ejector device which presents 12% energy efficiency, 87% exergy efficiency and a
payback period of 5 years. The combination of PTC and biomass boiler has been
studied for the production of cooling, electricity and heating at two temperature levels
[12]. They combined and ORC and a vapor compression heat pump, as well as the
proper heat exchangers. According to their results, the energy efficiency of the system
is 51%, exergy efficiency is 22% and the payback period around 5 years. The use of a
solar tower in a polygeneration system has been studied by Siddiqui and Dincer [13]
for heating, cooling, electricity and hydrogen. The examined system includes
electrolyzer, fuel cell, absorption chiller and heat exchangers. They found that the
system present 39.1% energy efficiency and 38.7% exergy efficiency.

Recently, some studied have been focused on the polygeneration systems with solar
dish collectors. Hogerwaard et al. [14] studied a system with solar dishes, ORC,
absorption heat pump, gas turbine and heat exchangers. The energy and the exergy
efficiencies are found 28.4% and 27.0% respectively. El-Emam and Dincer [15]
examined the use of solar dishes with biomass as the heat sources for a polygeneration
system. This system includes has a gas turbine, gasifier, fuel cell and absorption
chiller for electricity, cooling and hydrogen production. The energy and the exergy
efficiencies are found 40% and 27% respectively. Rokni [16] investigated a system
with solar dish coupled to a Stirling engine and PTC. Moreover, there is a fuel cell,
desalination unit and heat exchangers. The total configuration produces electricity of
500 kW and 6500 L fresh water per day. In another work, Ullvius and Rokni [17]
found that a similar system presents 19.3% overall efficiency.

The previous literature review indicates that there is a lot of interest in solar-driven
trigeneration systems. The use of solar dishes is not so extensively examined in the
literature and so this study examines a configuration for heating, cooling and
electricity production with the solar dish as the only heat source. The system includes
an ORC for electricity production and an absorption heat pump for heating and
cooling production. The absorption heat pump is fed by the ORC condenser. The
system is examined parametrically and it is evaluated energetically and exergetically.
One novel aspect of this work is the yearly evaluation of this system and its financial
evaluation. The yearly analysis is conducted for two locations; Athens (Greece) and
Belgrade (Serbia). The analysis is conducted with a developed model in Engineering
Equation Solver (EES). The results of this work indicate the sustainability and the
viability of the trigeneration system driven by solar dish collectors.

2. Material and methods

2.1 The examined trigeneration system
The examined trigeneration system is depicted in figure 1. Solar dish collectors are
used in order to produce the useful heat which is stored in a storage tank. Four solar
dishes with a total collecting area of about 40 m2 are used in this work. More details
about them are given in section 2.2. The storage tank feeds and ORC and the utilized
working fluid in the solar loop and the tank system is Therminol VP-1 [18]. This
thermal oil is able to operate up to 400oC with a safety under a pressure level of 15
bar [18].

Figure 1. The examined trigeneration system

The storage tank feeds with heat the ORC which operates with toluene as the working
fluid. Toluene is a working fluid with a critical point at 318.60oC, a high temperature
which gives the potential for high ORC performance. The ORC is a regenerative cycle
with a recuperator and this fact leads also to high performance. The condenser of the
ORC operates at a relatively high temperature (T hr) which is in the ranges of 120oC to
150oC. This device gives energy to the absorption heat pump generator and this is the
reason for the high values of the (Thr).
The absorption heat pump operates with LiBr/H2O working pair and it has an internal
solution heat exchanger. The cooling is produced by the evaporator which operates at
12oC; a temperature level which gives the potential for cooling production in a
building. The heating is produced by the absorption heat pump condenser and
absorber which operate at 55oC, a temperature level which is able to produce heating
in the building for space heating or domestic hot water production.

The approach temperature difference in the various heat exchanging devices has been
selected at 10 K (for example, in the evaporator, in the generator and in the heat
recovery system - pinch point). Moreover, the heat exchanger effectiveness in the
absorption cycle is selected at 70%. More details about the modeling of this system
can be found in the references [7-8].

2.2 The examined solar collector

In this paper, a solar dish collector with 10 m2 net aperture is examined. The receiver
is a spiral cavity and it is depicted in figure 1. This is a low-cost system which can
have an acceptable efficiency. More details about this system can be found in our
previous studies [19-21].

Figure 2. The examined solar dish collector for the trigeneration system

The thermal efficiency of the solar collector has been found experimentally in Refs
[20-21]. Moreover, a detailed numerical model has been developed in these studies
and it has been validated with the experimental results. The performance of the solar
dish, with the numerical model, is given in figure 3 for different operating conditions.
A regression model is developed in order to approximate the thermal efficiency (ηth)
and it is given in equation 1. This model has an R2 equal to 99.97% and its accuracy is
also depicted in figure 4.
( )
(1)
It is obvious that the use of equation 1 is an acceptable and accurate way of estimating
the thermal performance of the solar collector. This equation is valid for the specific
mass flow rate equal to 0.02 kg/m2s which is a usual value in solar thermal systems.
So, for every dish module with 10 m2, the mass flow rate is 0.2 kg/s.

Gb = 1000 W/m² Gb = 800 W/m² Gb = 600 W/m²

70%

65%
Collector thermal efficiency

60%

55%

50%

45%

40%
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
[Tin - Tam] (oC)

Figure 3. Solar collector thermal efficiency for different operating conditions

70%
Thermal efficiency with the correlation

65%

60%

55%

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%
30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Thermal efficiency with the analytical model

Figure 4. Accuracy of the regression model for the collector thermal efficiency
2.3 Weather data
In this work, the system is evaluated on a yearly basis for the climate conditions of
Athens – Greece (37° 59'N, 23° 43'E) and of Belgrade – Serbia (44° 79'N, 20° 45'E).
More specifically, the direct solar beam irradiation distribution over the year has been
used in order to simulate the system behavior. The data have been taken by the
TRSNSY libraries [22] and they are depicted in figures 5 and 6 for Athens and
Belgrade respectively. These figures show the number of hours per year with the solar
irradiation in a specific range, as well as the energy in (kWh) which corresponds to
this solar irradiation level. It has to be said that the yearly solar potential for Athens is
1314 kWh/m2, while for Belgrade is 1244 kWh/m2. It is also important to state that
there are more hours per year in Belgrade with high solar direct beam irradiation
levels (> 800 W/m2) compared to Athens. This result which indicates that the
Belgrade has the advantage of a clearer atmosphere for more hours per year than
Athens, but Athens has a greater solar potential overall because of the lower
geographical latitude.

900 Hours Energy 300

Solar energy for every irradiation range (kWh)

800
250
Hours for every irradiation range

700

600 200

500
150
400

300 100

200
50
100

0 0
<100 100-200 200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600 600-700 700-800 800<
Solar beam irradaition range (W/m2)

Figure 5. Distribution of the solar irradiation during the year for Athens
(Greece)
 1000 Hours Energy 300

900

Solar energy for every irradiation range (kWh)

250
800
Hours for every irradiation range

700
200
600

500 150

400
100
300

200
50
100

0 0
<100 100-200 200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600 600-700 700-800 800<
Solar beam irradaition range (W/m2)

Figure 6. Distribution of the solar irradiation during the year for Belgrade
(Serbia)
2.4 Basic mathematical formulation
The basic equations for the evaluation of the examined system are given in this
section. Firstly, the useful heat production from the solar field (Qu) is calculated as:

(2)

The solar energy input in the solar field (Qs) is calculated as below:

(3)

The total aperture (Aa) includes all the modules of the dishes. The next important
parameter is the energy balance in the storage tank which can be written as:

(4)

The net electricity production (Pel) is calculated as below:

(5)

The work production in the turbine (WT) is calculated as below:

( ) (6)
The system energy efficiency (ηen) can be written as:

(7)

The system exergy efficiency (ηex) can be written as:

( ) ( )
(8)
[ ( ) ( ) ]

In the previous equation, all the temperature levels are expressed in Kelvin units. The
sun temperature (Tsun) can be taken equal to 5770 K. Moreover, it has to be said that
the exergy flow of the solar irradiation has been modeled using the Petela model [23].

2.5 Financial analysis

The yearly income cash flow of the system (CF) can be calculated using the yearly
energy parameter (Yi) and the specific cost (ki), as below:

(9)

The total investment cost (C0) is calculated as below:

(10)

The net present value (NPV) of the investment is calculated as:

( )
( )
(11)

The simple payback period (SPP) of the investment is calculated as:

(12)

The payback period (PP) of the investment is calculated as:

( )
( )
(13)

The internal rate of return (IRR) of the investment is calculated using the next
formula:

* + (14)
( )

Table 1 gives the values of the parameters in the financial analysis [24-27]. The
project life (N) is selected at 25 years and the discount factor (r) at 3%. The costs of
the electricity, heating and cooling are selected at 0.20 €/kWh, 0.10 €/kWh and 0.067
€/kWh respectively.
 Table 1. Parameters of the financial analysis [24-27]
Parameter Symbol Value
Specific cost of electricity kel 0.20 €/kWh
Specific cost of heat kheat 0.10 €/kWh
Specific cost of cooling kcool 0.067 €/kWh
Specific cost of the ORC KORC 15000 €
Cost of the absorption chiller KAHP 10000 €
Cost of the solar collectors KDISH 20000 €
Cost of the tank KTANK 1000 €
Project lifetime N 25 years
Discount factor r 3%

2.6 Followed methodology

The examined trigeneration system is studied with a developed model in Engineering
Equation Solver (EES) [28]. The detailed modeling of this configuration has been also
presented in Ref [7] and so it is not given again with all the details. The difference
with this work is the use of solar dishes and not PTC, as well as the yearly
investigation of the system for two locations (Athens and Belgrade).

The first step in this work is a parametric analysis in order to present the impact of
critical parameters on the system performance. More specifically, the examined
parameters are the following: the ORC heat rejection temperature (T hr), the solar
beam irradiation level (Gb) and the superheating in the turbine inlet (ΔΤsh). Table 2
includes the examined range of these parameters, as well as their default values in the
parametric study. Moreover, table 3 includes the main data of the present simulation.
It is important to state that the maximum pressure of the system (P max) is selected to
be 90% of the critical pressure of the toluene. This value leads to the maximum
system performance, as it has been found in Ref [7] after a detailed optimization
work. The heating temperature is the temperature level in the absorption heat pump
condenser and absorber, while the cooling temperature is the one in the evaporator.
The storage tank volume has been selected by using the empirical equation (Aa/V=80
m2/m3) [24]. The temperature difference (ΔΤ) in the approach point of the generator,
recuperator and of the heat recovery system has been selected at 10 K which is a
reasonable choice.

In the yearly performance, different values of the solar irradiation levels are applied in
the system and its performance is calculated by assuming pseudo-steady state
conditions in every case. The distribution of the solar beam irradiation during the year
is taken into account (figures 5-6) and so the yearly system performance is calculated.
It is important to state that the system does not operate for solar irradiation level lower
than 200 W/m2 because there is no adequate heat input in the system. However, the
solar energy loss by this fact is not so important on the yearly solar energy utilization.
 Table 2.The examined parameters and their values
Parameter Symbol Default value Range
o
ORC heat rejection temperature Thr ( C) 125 120-150
Solar beam irradiation Gb (W/m2) 900 400-1000
o
Superheating in the turbine inlet ΔΤsh ( C) 30 0-30

Table 3. Main data of the present work [7-8].

Parameter Symbol Value
Total collecting area Aa 40 m2
Ambient temperature Tam 25oC
Pressure in the turbine inlet Pmax 90% of the critical pressure
Heat production temperature Theat 55oC
Cooling production temperature Tcool 12oC
Tank thermal loss coefficient UT 0.5 W/m2 K
Storage tank volume V 0.5 m3
Temperature difference in the heat exchangers ΔT 10oC
Turbine isentropic efficiency ηis,T 85%
Electromechanical efficiency ηmg 98%
Solution heat exchanger effectiveness ηhex 70%
Motor efficiency ηmotor 70%

3. Results
The first part of the results is devoted to presenting the system parametric analysis.
Figures 7 and 8 show the impact of the ORC heat rejection level on the system
performance for Gb =900 W/m2 and ΔTsh = 30oC. Figure 7 shows that the heating and
the cooling productions are higher for higher values of the ORC heat rejection
temperature. This is a reasonable result because the increase of the (Thr) leads to a
higher temperature in the generator and consequently to higher performance in the
heat pump. On the other hand, the increase of the (T hr) leads to lower work production
in the turbine and thus the electricity production is decreased for higher (T hr). Figure 8
exhibits the energy and exergy efficiencies of the system. The energy efficiency
increases with the increase of the (Thr), while the exergy efficiency presents a
maximum point for (Thr=125oC). The maximum exergy efficiency is 23.93% and the
respective energy efficiency, in this case, is 124%. The energy efficiency is
influenced by all the useful energy outputs in the same way, while the exergy
efficiency is mainly included by the electricity production. These facts lead to the
different behavior of these indexes and the exergy efficiency presents an important
reduction in the high values of the (T hr). Moreover, it is important to state that the
energy efficiency takes values over 100% because of the existence of the heat pump
in the examined configuration.

Figures 9 and 10 show the impact of the solar beam irradiation level on the system
performance for Thr = 125oC and ΔT sh = 30oC. Figure 9 indicates that all the useful
outputs of the system increase approximately linearly with the increase of the solar
irradiation level. Figure 10 shows that both energy and exergy efficiencies increase
with the increase of the solar irradiation but with a decreasing rate.
 16 Cooling Electricity Heating 30,5

14 30,0

29,5
12
Cooling/Electricity (kW)

29,0
10

Heating (kW)
28,5
8
28,0
6
27,5
4
27,0

2 26,5

0 26,0
120 125 130 135 140 145 150
ORC heat rejection temperature - Thr (oC)

Figure 7. Electricity, cooling and heating production for different ORC heat
rejection temperatures (Gb =900 W/m2 and ΔTsh = 30oC)

Energy efficiency Exergy efficiency

134% 24,0%

132%
23,8%
Energy efficiency of the system

Exergy efficiency of the system

130%

128% 23,6%

126%
23,4%
124%
23,2%
122%

120% 23,0%
118%
22,8%
116%

114% 22,6%
120 125 130 135 140 145 150
ORC heat rejection temperature - Thr (oC)

Figure 8. Energy and exergy efficiencies for different ORC heat rejection
temperatures (Gb =900 W/m2 and ΔTsh = 30oC)
 14 Cooling Electricity Heating 35

12 30
Cooling/Electricity (kW)

10 25

Heating (kW)
8 20

6 15

4 10

2 5

0 0
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Solar beam irradiation - Gb (W/m2)

Figure 9. Electricity, cooling and heating production for different solar

irradiation levels (Thr = 125oC and ΔTsh = 30oC)

Energy efficiency Exergy efficiency

135% 25,0%

130% 24,0%
Energy efficiency of the system

Exergy efficiency of the system

125%
23,0%

120%
22,0%
115%
21,0%
110%

20,0%
105%

100% 19,0%

95% 18,0%
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Solar beam irradiation - Gb (W/m2)

Figure 10. Energy and exergy efficiencies for different solar irradiation levels
(Thr = 125oC and ΔTsh = 30oC)
Figures 11 and 12 show the impact of the superheating on the system performance for
Thr = 125oC and Gb = 900 W/m2. Figure 11 shows that the heating and the cooling
productions have a decreasing rate with the superheating increase, while the
electricity production is getting higher. Practically, the superheating is beneficial for
the electricity production and this fact makes the heat input to be lower in the
absorption heat pump and so the heating and the cooling production are getting lower
with the superheating increase. Figure 12 proves that the superheating is beneficial for
the exergy performance but not for the energy. The increase of the electricity with the
greater superheating makes also the exergy efficiency to decrease. On the other hand,
the decrease of both heating cooling production makes the energy efficiency to be
lower for higher superheating levels.

The previous parametric study proved that the optimum ORC heat rejection level is at
125oC, while higher superheating is beneficial for the exergy efficiency of the system.
So, the design with Thr=125oC and ΔΤ sh=30oC is selected as the proper one for further
investigation on a yearly basis. It has to be said that the exergy efficiency is a more
suitable index than the energy efficiency and so it is selected as the proper one for
choosing the best superheating level. Practically the exergy efficiency evaluates both
the useful outputs quantities and their quality level through their temperature level.

Table 4 includes the data on the yearly analysis, as well as the results about the
financial evaluation of the total investment. The electricity production is found to be
5765 kWh for Athens, while it is 5556 kWh for Belgrade. The heating and the cooling
productions are 32654 kWh and 13768 kWh respectively for Athens, while they are
21473 kWh and 13270 kWh respectively for Belgrade. So, it is obvious that the useful
outputs production is about 3.75% higher for Athens. On the other hand, the energy
efficiency is a bit higher for Belgrade with 111.38%, while for Athens it is 108.39%.
Moreover, the exergy efficiency is found 21.50% for Belgrade and 20.92% for
Athens. The reason for this result is based in the different solar beam irradiation level
distribution. In Belgrade, there is a great percentage of the solar energy which is
found at high levels (> 800 W/m2) and in these cases, the system operates with
increased efficiency. So, the system in Belgrade is able to produce 3.75% lower useful
outputs, while its solar potential is 5.63% lower compared to Athens. In any case, the
results indicate similar performance in two cities with small differences without great
practical importance about the system sustainability.

Moreover, table 4 includes the results of the financial evaluation. Again the results are
similar for both cities and they indicate the viability of the examined investment.
More specifically, the payback period is found at 10.11 years for Athens and 10.56
years for Belgrade, while the IRR 10.70% for Athens and 10.20% for Belgrade. The
net present value is found also higher for Athens with 47.0 k€ compared to 43.6 k€ in
Belgrade. The deviation in the NPV is about 7.8% between the cities which is a
remarkable value. The reason for the higher NPV in Athens is the higher useful
energy productions which lead to higher yearly cash flow, as table 4 indicates.
 13 Cooling Electricity Heating 29,4

12 29,2

11
29,0
Cooling/Electricity (kW)

10
28,8

Heating (kW)
9
28,6
8
28,4
7
28,2
6

5 28,0

4 27,8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Superheating - ΔTsh (oC)

Figure 11. Electricity, cooling and heating production for different superheating
values (Thr = 125oC and Gb = 900 W/m2)

Energy efficiency Exergy efficiency

128,0% 24,0%

127,5% 23,8%
Energy efficiency of the system

Exergy efficiency of the system

127,0%
23,6%
126,5%
23,4%
126,0%
23,2%
125,5%
23,0%
125,0%
22,8%
124,5%

124,0% 22,6%

123,5% 22,4%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Superheating - ΔTsh (oC)

Figure 12. Energy and exergy efficiencies for different superheating values (T hr =
125oC and Gb = 900 W/m2)
 Table 4. Final comparison of the yearly solar dish performance and financial
evaluation data for both locations
Parameter Symbol Athens Belgrade
Yearly electricity production Eel (kWh) 5765 5556
Yearly heating production Eheat (kWh) 32654 31473
Yearly cooling production Ecool (kWh) 13768 13270
Yearly energy efficiency ηen 108.39% 111.38%
Yearly exergy efficiency ηex 20.92% 21.50%
Simple payback period SPP (years) 8.61 8.94
Payback period PP (years) 10.11 10.56
Internal rate of return IRR 10.70% 10.20%
Net present value NPV (€ 47003 43637
Capital cost C0 (€) 46000 4600
Yearly cash flow CF (€) 5341 5148

4. Conclusions
The objective of this work is the investigation of a trigeneration system which is
driven by solar dish collectors. The total configuration includes four solar dishes
which feed an ORC for electricity production. The ORC rejects heat to an absorption
heat pump which produces both heating and cooling. The system is examined
parametrically and its yearly performance is examined for two locations; Athens
(Greece) and Belgrade (Serbia). The most important conclusions from this work are
summarized below:

- The increase of the ORC heat rejection temperature leads to higher heating, cooling,
and energy efficiency, while the electricity has a decreasing rate. The exergy
efficiency is maximized for (Thr=125oC) and it is 23.93%. The energy efficiency for
this case is 124%, a value over 100% which is explained by the existence of the
absorption heat pump in the system.

- It is found that higher values of the solar beam irradiation lead to an approximately
linear increase of the useful outputs. Also, both energy and exergy efficiencies
increase when there is higher solar potential.

- The increase of the superheating in the turbine inlet leads to higher electricity
production and consequently to higher exergy performance. On the other hand, the
heating and the cooling production, as well as the energy efficiency decrease with the
increase of the superheating level.

- The system is found to produce higher useful output in Athens compared to

Belgrade with a difference of 3.75%. On the other hand, the energy and exergy
efficiencies are found higher in Belgrade due to the difference in the yearly solar
beam irradiation distribution compared to Athens.

- The examined configuration is found to be a viable choice for both locations with a
payback period of around 10 years and IRR close to 10%. The NPV is found 7.8%
higher in Athens the fact that proves that this system leads to a bit better financial
performance in Greece, while it is also an attractive choice for the climate of Serbia.

Acknowledgments
Dr. Evangelos Bellos would like to thank “Bodossaki Foundation” for its financial
support. Moreover, this paper is done within the research framework of the research
projects III42004 and III42006 which are financed by the Ministry of Education,
Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia.

Nomenclature
Aa Collecting area, m2

C0 Total investment cost, €

CF Yearly cash flow, €

Gb Solar direct beam irradiation, W/m2

h Specific enthalpy, kJ/kg

IRR Internal rate of return, %

k Specific energy value, €/kWh

K Investment cost of a device, €

morc Mass flow rate in the Organic Rankine cycle, kg/s

NPV Net present value, €

Pel Electricity production, kW

Pmax Maximum pressure, bar

PP Payback period, years

Q Heat rate, kW

Qin Heat input in the system from the solar field, kW

r Discount factor, %

SPP Simple payback period, years

T Temperature, oC

Tsun Sun temperature, K

UT Tank thermal loss coefficient, W/m2 K

V Storage tank volume, m3

WT Turbine work production, kW

Wpump Pump work, kW

Y Yearly energy quantity, kWh

Greek symbols
ΔΤ Temperature difference in heat exchanger, oC

ΔΤsh Superheating in the turbine inlet, oC

ηen System energy efficiency, -

ηex System exergy efficiency, -

ηhex Solution heat exchanger effectiveness, -

ηis,T Turbine isentropic efficiency, -

ηmg Electromechanical efficiency, -

ηmotor Motor efficiency, -

ηth Thermal efficiency of the solar collector, -

Subscripts and Superscripts

a Absorber

AHP Absorption heat pump

am Ambient

c Condenser

cool Cooling

DISH Solar dish

e Evaporator

el Electrical

g Generator

heat Heating

hr Heat rejection

in Inlet

loss Thermal losses

ORC Organic Rankine cycle

s Solar energy

st Stored

TANK Storage tank

u Useful

Abbreviations
COP Coefficient of Performance

EES Engineering Equation Solver

ORC Organic Rankine Cycle

PTC Parabolic Trough Collector

References
[1] Z. Liu, W. Li, Y. Chen, Y. Luo, L. Zhang, Review of energy conservation
technologies for fresh air supply in zero energy buildings, Applied Thermal
Engineering 2019;148:544-556

[2] S. Luo, H. Li, Y. Mao, C. Yang, Experimental research on a novel sun shading &
solar energy collecting coupling device for inpatient building in hot summer and cold
winter climate zone in China, Applied Thermal Engineering 2018;142:89-99

[3] W. Wu, F.T. Hsu, H.Y. Chen, Design and energy evaluation of a stand‐alone
copper‐chlorine (Cu‐Cl) thermochemical cycle system for trigeneration of electricity,
hydrogen, and oxygen, Int J Energy Res. 2018;42:830–842

[4] S. Ozlu, I. Dincer, Analysis and evaluation of a new solar energy‐based

multigeneration system, Int. J. Energy Res. 2016;40:1339–1354

[5] U. Sahoo, R. Kumar, S.K. Singh, A.K. Tripathi, Energy, exergy, economic
analysis and optimization of polygeneration hybrid solar-biomass system, Applied
Thermal Engineering 2018;145:685-692

[6] F. Yilmaz, Thermodynamic performance evaluation of a novel solar energy based

multigeneration system, Applied Thermal Engineering 2018;143:429-437

[7] E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis, Parametric analysis and optimization of a solar driven

trigeneration system based on ORC and absorption heat pump, Journal of Cleaner
Production 2017;161:493-509

[8] E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis, K. Torosian, Energetic, exergetic and financial evaluation

of a solar driven trigeneration system, Thermal Science and Engineering Progress
2018;7:99-106
[9] F. Calise, M.D. d’Accadia, A. Macaluso, A. Piacentino, L. Vanoli, Exergetic and
exergoeconomic analysis of a novel hybrid solar–geothermal polygeneration system
producing energy and water, Energy Conversion and Management 2016;115:200-220

[10] A. Baghernejad, M. Yaghoubi, K. Jafarpur, Exergoeconomic optimization and

environmental analysis of a novel solar-trigeneration system for heating, cooling and
power production purpose, Solar Energy 2016:134:165-179

[11] E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis, Multi-objective optimization of a solar driven

trigeneration system, Energy 2018;149:47-62

[12] E. Bellos, L. Vellios, I.-C. Theodosiou, C. Tzivanidis, Investigation of a solar-

biomass polygeneration system, Energy Conversion and Management 2018;173:283-
295

[13] O. Siddiqui, I. Dincer, Analysis and performance assessment of a new solar-

based multigeneration system integrated with ammonia fuel cell and solid oxide fuel
cell-gas turbine combined cycle, Journal of Power Sources 2017;370:138-154

[14] J. Hogerwaard, I. Dincer, G.F. Naterer, Solar energy based integrated system for
power generation, refrigeration and desalination, Applied Thermal Engineering
2017;121:1059-1069

[15] R.S. El-Emam, I. Dincer, Assessment and Evolutionary Based Multi-Objective

Optimization of a Novel Renewable-Based Polygeneration Energy System. Journal of
Energy Resources Technology 2016;139(1):012003-012003-13

[16] M. Rokni, Analysis of a polygeneration plant based on solar energy, dual mode
solid oxide cells and desalination, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2018
(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.03.147)

[17] N.C. Ullvius, M. Rokni, A study on a polygeneration plant based on solar power
and solid oxide cells, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2018
(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.04.085)

[18] http://www.therminol.com/

[19] S.R. Pavlovic, E. Bellos, V.P. Stefanovic, C. Tzivanidis, Z.M. Stamenkovic,

Design, simulation and optimization of a solar dish collector spiral-coil thermal
absorber, Thermal science 2016;20(4):1387-1397

[20] S. Pavlovic, A.M. Daabo, E. Bellos, V. Stefanovic, S. Mahmoud, R.K. Al-Dadah,

Experimental and numerical investigation on the optical and thermal performance of
solar parabolic dish and corrugated spiral cavity receiver, Journal of Cleaner
Production 2017;150:75-92
 [21] S. Pavlovic, E. Bellos, W.G. Le Roux, V. Stefanovic, C. Tzivanidis,
Experimental investigation and parametric analysis of a solar thermal dish collector
with spiral absorber, Applied Thermal Engineering 2017;121:126-135

[22] http://www.trnsys.com/

[23] R. Petela, Exergy of undiluted thermal radiation, Solar Energy 2003;74(6):469-

488

[24] C. Tzivanidis, E. Bellos, K.A. Antonopoulos, Energetic and financial

investigation of a stand-alone solar-thermal Organic Rankine Cycle power plant,
Energy Conversion and Management 2016;126:421-433

[25] https://www.theheatexchangercompany.co.uk/

[26] E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis, C. Symeou, K.A. Antonopoulos, Energetic, exergetic

and financial evaluation of a solar driven absorption chiller – A dynamic approach,
Energy Conversion and Management 2017;137:34-48

[27] B.B. Nakomcic-Smaragdakis, N.G. Dragutinovic, Hybrid renewable energy

system application for electricity production and heat supply of a residential building,
Theremal Science 2016;20(2):695-706

[28] F-Chart Software, Engineering Equation Solver (EES), 2015. Available at:
(http://www.fchart.com/ees)

View publication stats