You are on page 1of 17

Energy Conversion and Management 127 (2016) 170–186

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Thermodynamic and economic studies of two new high efficient


power-cooling cogeneration systems based on Kalina and absorption
refrigeration cycles
Jouan Rashidi, Pouya Ifaei, Iman Janghorban Esfahani, Abtin Ataei, Chang Kyoo Yoo ⇑
Dept. of Environmental Science and Engineering, College of Engineering, Center for Environmental Studies, Kyung Hee University, Seocheon-dong 1, Giheung-gu, Yongin-Si,
Gyeonggi-Do 446-701, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Two new power and cooling cogeneration systems based on Kalina cycle (KC) and absorption refrigera-
Received 4 July 2016 tion cycle (AC) are proposed and studied from thermodynamic and economic viewpoints. The first pro-
Received in revised form 26 August 2016 posed system, Kalina power-cooling cycle (KPCC), combines the refrigerant loop of the water-ammonia
Accepted 2 September 2016
absorption chiller, consisting of an evaporator and two throttling valves with the KC. A portion of the
Available online 10 September 2016
KC mass flow enters the evaporator to generate cooling after being condensed in the KPCC system.
KPCC is a flexible system adapting power and cooling cogeneration to the demand. The second proposed
Keywords:
system, Kalina lithium bromide absorption chiller cycle (KLACC), consists of the KC and a single effect
Kalina cycle
Power and cooling cogeneration
lithium bromide-water absorption chiller (ACLiBr-water). The KC subsystem discharges heat to the
Refrigeration ACLiBr-water desorber before condensing in the condenser. The performance and economic aspects of both
Sensitivity proposed systems are analyzed and compared with the stand alone KC. A parametric analysis is
Thermodynamic analysis conducted to evaluate the sensitivity of efficiencies and the generated power and cooling quantities to
the key operating variables. The results showed that, thermal efficiency and total annual costs decreased
by 5.6% and 8% for KPCC system but increased 4.9% and 58% for KLACC system, respectively. Since the
power-cooling efficiency of KLACC is 42% higher than KPCC it can be applied where the aim is cooling
generation without considering economic aspects.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction of primary energy sources and increase the efficiency besides


decreasing the greenhouse gases emissions [4]. In some studies,
The increasing consumption of fossil fuels required to meet two cycles are integrated as a combined cycle to generate heat
energy demands has led to resource restrictions. Effective use of and power [5]. Other objectives of integrating cycles are the
the energy sources is the first step in avoiding more energy losses. generation of power and fresh water [6,7] power and cooling
One such concept is the utilization of low-grade heat sources, such [8,9], heating and cooling [10] cooling and freshwater [11] or
as exhaust or waste heat from other processes and renewable trigeneration of power, heat and water [12,13].
energy sources, to produce power [1], as well as cooling genera- Producing power and cooling using low-grade heat sources can
tion. Cycles with organic or multi component working fluids can satisfy the previously mentioned requirements because energy is
convert low heat resources into power and/or cooling by the effectively used. Power and cooling are needed in many regions,
organic Rankine cycle (ORC), Kalina cycle (KC), and absorption climates and industries. In some regions and climates, low-grade
refrigeration cycle (AC) [2,3]. heat resources are the only available sources, for cooling and
Applying new configurations, based on known thermodynamic power generation. Moreover, some industries that produce a lot
cycles, to increase a system efficiency is another solution to tackle of waste heat require cooling as well as power. To this end, the
these challenging issues. A significant amount of attention has KC and AC can be used with both binary and trinary working fluids
been paid to the integration of different cycles for the cogeneration to convert low temperature heat into power and cooling, respec-
of different products. Cogeneration systems provide energy savings tively [14].
The Kalina cycle is a fairly new thermodynamic power cycle
that uses ammonia water solution as the working fluid [15]. It is
⇑ Corresponding author.
a modified Rankine power cycle capable of producing more power
E-mail address: ckyoo@khu.ac.kr (C.K. Yoo).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.09.014
0196-8904/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Rashidi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 127 (2016) 170–186 171

Nomenclature

A heat transfer area Subscripts


C cost abs absorber
Cp,min minimum value between heat capacity of hot and cold B primary
streams C,K condenser of Kalina cycle
CRF amortization factor C,ref condenser of refrigeration cycle
f mass ratio cold cold stream
g working fluid ratio c,i cold inlet stream
h enthalpy c,o cold outlet stream
i interest rate con contingency
m _ mass flow rate const construction
n plant life cycle c,p cooling-power
P pressure cw cooling water
Q_ heat rate D dilute
T temperature des desorber
U heat transfer coefficient EC electric control monitor system
W_ power eq equipment
x ammonia mass fraction elec electricity
Z capital cost eng engineering and supervision
g efficiency eva evaporator
v specific volume FT flash tank
e heat exchanger effectiveness h,i hot inlet stream
h,o hot outlet stream
Abbreviations hot hot stream
AC absorption refrigeration cycle hx heat exchanger
ACLiBr-water lithium bromide –water absorption chiller icon indirect contingency
ACC annual capital cost in inlet
AOC annual operation cost int intermediate
CI cost index K Kalina cycle
COP coefficient of performance L labor
DC direct cost M maintenance
IDC indirect cost net net value
KC Kalina cycle Out outlet
KLACC Kalina lithium bromide absorption chiller cycle pipe piping
KPCC Kalina power cooling cycle ph preheater
LMTD Logarithm mean temperature difference R reference
OFSC offsite cost ref refrigeration cycle
ONSC onsite cost ser service facility
OO other outlays Sh superheater
ORC organic Rankine cycle shx solution heat exchanger
PH preheater str civil structural and architectural work
POF plant operation factor th thermal
TCI total cost investment tur turbine
TAC total annual cost W working capital
WF working fluid

than the Rankine cycle [16]. Since the evaporation and condensa- KC with an ammonia mass fraction of 84% can produce 18% more
tion of ammonia water do not occur at a constant temperature net power and consume 17.8% less electricity [23]. Kalina [24] per-
compared to a pure fluid, it has a better thermal conformity formed analysis on combined cycles and waste heat recovery based
through condenser and evaporator to achieve enhanced perfor- on KC utilizing low-temperature heat for power generation. With
mance [17]. The KC has been analyzed by many researchers; Well regard to his study, the efficiency of KC is 1.5 times higher than
et al. [18] studied the exergy analysis on KC, Modi and Haglind [19] the best Rankine cycle while the cost per unit of power output is
optimized the KC for a central receiver solar thermal power plant, about two-thirds of the cost of a comparable Rankine cycle system.
and Knudsena et al. [20] analyzed KC from Energy and exergy view Jonsson [25] has done comparisons between the Kalina and Rank-
points for use in concentrated solar power plants. KC can be used ine cycles. He has shown that the KC has a better efficiency when
for a variety of applications ranging from bottoming cycles to pro- both systems are applied as bottoming cycles. It is reported that to
vide power using low temperature waste heat [15]. It is compared apply in a solar power plant, the Rankine cycle has a higher effi-
with applying other bottoming cycles in the literature. Kalina cycle ciency by 5% and that the highest efficiency is obtained at 0.60–
has one more degree of freedom compared to Rankine cycle that is 0.70 mol fraction of ammonia [20]. Yue et al. [26] compared KC
the fraction of the ammonia–water mixture, so the KC performance with transcritical ORC as a bottoming cycle for engine exhaust heat
greatly depends on the ammonia mass fraction [21]. Gholamian recovery. Their study revealed that Compared to KC, the transcrit-
and Zare [22] investigated employing KC in comparison with the ical ORC shows prominent advantages on the overall thermal effi-
organic Rankine cycle (ORC) for waste heat recovery from Hybrid ciency, low operation pressure and simple components
SOFC/GT system. According to a comparison of ORC and KC, the configuration. According to Marston and Hyre’s study [27] KC is
172 J. Rashidi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 127 (2016) 170–186

more efficient than a triple-pressure steam cycle as the bottoming this goal, a portion of concentrated working fluid which is provided
cycle of a gas turbine combined cycle power plant. El-Sayed and by flash tank is throttled into the evaporator. Similar to an absorp-
Tribus [28] found that, when the temperature of the heat source tion chiller, the evaporator is located after the condenser. Plus, this
is below 537 °C, the second law efficiency of the KC may be arrangement improves the cycle into a controlling system. To gen-
10–20% higher than that of a simple Rankine cycle. erate cooling in the second proposed system, Kalina lithium
In 1996, developed model for the complete thermodynamic bromide-water absorption chiller cycle (KLACC), the heat require-
analysis, introducing correlations and simulations of the Kalina ment of refrigeration cycle is supplied by KC waste. On the other
unit has been represented by Rogdakis [29]. He found that the opti- hand the refrigeration cycle’s waste heat is recovered and used in
mum theoretical efficiency of the KC is from 42.7% to 46.6%. Het- two different points of the KC to compensate the extracted heat
tiarachchi et al. [2] have studied the performance of the KCe from the turbine exhaust; this integration not only generates cool-
system 11 (KCS-11) using geothermal low-temperature heat ing besides power, but also increases the efficiency of the whole
sources. They concluded that an optimum ammonia mass fraction system.
for a given turbine pressure can be defined. Regarding to Valdi- In this study, first thermodynamic and economic models are
marsson and Eliasson [30] and Mlcak [31] Studies about low and developed to simulate and calculate the energy efficiency, coeffi-
moderate temperature Kalina cycles the best mass fraction of cient of performance (COP) and total annual cost (TAC) of the base
ammonia is approximately 70%. Environmental impact of a refrig- and two proposed systems. Second according to these calculations,
erant is often studied according to the ozone layer depletion, global all three cycles are compared with each other as far as performance
warming potential (GWP) or toxicity [32]. Ammonia is known to and economic aspects are concerned. Third, for better process
have an indirect impact on ozone depletion contributing in nitrous understanding parametric analyses are carried out to investigate
compounds formation in the atmosphere which can be ignored in the effects of key parameters on the performance and TAC. These
small-scale systems [33]. Ammonia is also considered to be used parameters include ammonia mass fraction of the working fluid
widely as a natural refrigerant in the future as it was in the past (XWF), absorber pressure (Pabs), turbine pressure (Ptur), the
century for its low GWP100 in comparison with carbon compounds intermediate pressure (Pint), the mass flow ratio used to generate
[34]. However, the threshold limit value of ammonia is reported to cooling in KPCC (f), mass flow rate of the refrigeration cycle (mref),
be 50 ppm. The economically beneficial refrigerant is unbearable the high temperature (Thigh) and the low temperature (Tlow) of the
for man at 500 ppm, while its acute toxicity starts at 2500 ppm ACLiBr-water subsystem.
and the flammability at 15 vol% [35]. The flammability of ammonia
is still a serious consideration. Thus special safety standards are
devoted for those industries involved with this natural refrigerant 2. Materials and methods
[36]. Annoying odor of ammonia is considered as an advantage in
the case of leakage in open industries but those marine systems 2.1. System configuration
are not included in this group [37]. Thus higher concentration of
ammonia or its usage in large-scale systems should be restricted Three investigated systems are shown in Fig. 1. All three sys-
according to the safety and toxicity concerns. tems generate power based on Kalina cycle principles at the same
A KC, driven by flat solar collectors, that operates at low pres- operation conditions. Fig. 1a represents a schematic diagram of the
sure and a low maximum temperature of 130 °C has been studied KC using ammonia – water as the working fluid and a low-
by Lolos and Rogdakis [38]. This study showed that lower mini- temperature heat source [41]. In the KC the working fluid after
mum and higher maximum temperatures of the cycle results in passing through several preheaters to recover the recycled streams
higher performance and efficiency. Goswami [39] proposed a heat is concentrated in a flash tank and then condensed to enter
thermodynamic cycle to improve the efficiency and resource the boiler in a higher pressure level. Then it can produce power
utilization by producing power and cooling. He combined an passing the turbine. The saturated liquid at the lowest pressure
ammonia-based Rankine cycle with an ammonia- water absorp- level of the cycle (state 1) is pumped to an intermediate pressure
tion refrigeration cycle. A combined cooling and power system (state 2) and then passes through two preheaters where the work-
using ammonia-water mixture has been proposed by Wang et al. ing fluid is heated from the turbine exhaust (state 11) and one of
[40]. They have simulated the system using mathematical models the flash tank outlet streams (state 15). The preheated fluid (state
and performed exergy destruction analysis. Sensitivity analysis of 4) is sent to the flash tank where it is separated into two different
that study revealed that thermal and exergy efficiencies of the sys- ammonia concentrations streams. The stream with higher ammo-
tem increases by higher ammonia mass fraction. nia concentration (state 5) is the strong solution and the other
Recent research efforts have focused on thermodynamic and one (state 15) is weak solution. The weak solution exits the flash
parametric analysis of KC, comparing the KC with Rankine cycle, tank releases heat to state 3 through FP2 (state 16) and is throttled
application of KC as a bottoming cycle, power generation with to the absorber (state 17). The strong solution (state 5) is passed
low heat temperature using KC, and cooling and power cogenera- through a preheater to preheat the boiler feed solution (state 8)
tion using a combined organic Rankine cycle and ammonia- water leading to a decreased heat load in the condenser. The saturated
absorption cycle. However, combining a KC with a refrigeration liquid (state 14) is then pumped to the preheater (state 7), boiler
cycle to cogenerate power and cooling as a high efficient system (state 8), and superheater (state 9), consecutively, where the
has been rarely done. superheated solution at state 10 is expanded through the turbine
This study proposes two new combined systems based on to produce power. The turbine outlet stream (state 11) after giving
Kalina and absorption refrigeration cycles that simultaneously heat to state 2 enters the absorber where a basic mass fraction of
generate power and cooling. Two systems are investigated with a ammonia is produced by absorbing the weak solution from the
focus toward model-based thermodynamic and economic issues. flash tank. The absorbed solution (state 1) is then pumped and
The first proposed system provides cooling using ammonia-water the cycle is repeated.
absorption refrigeration cycle. Initially, a conventional KC with In the first proposed system shown in Fig. 1b, two throttling
three pressure levels is considered as the base system. Then, to valves and an evaporator are added to the base KC to generate
generate cooling in the first proposed system, Kalina power- cooling. As shown in Fig. 1b a portion of the condensed solution
cooling cycle (KPCC), an evaporator is placed to the base cycle (state13) is throttled to the evaporator (state 18) to generate
where the ammonia-water temperature is very low. To accomplish cooling and the evaporator outlet after throttling (state 20) enters
J. Rashidi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 127 (2016) 170–186 173

(a) 7
8 9
Bo Super
10
P Preheat
14 Tur
C 5
6
FT 4 12 11
15 F
F 3
16
2
17 Absor P
1

(b) 7 8 9
Boil Super
10
P Preheat
14 6 5 Turb
C
13
4 12
FT 11
18 15 FP
Evaporat FP 3
16
19 2
17
20 Absor P
1

(c) 8 PH2 44
PH3
45 9
Boiler Super
h 10
7 14 43 13
P Cond 6
PH1 42 41 5 Tur

cond2 Desor
4
29 33 34
FT 12 11
38 SHX
1 FP
32 35 FP 3
P 16
39
31 36 2
Evapora
40 Absorb Absor P
17
1
2

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of (a) Kalina cycle [30], (b) proposed Kalina power and cooling cycle (KPCC) and (c) proposed combined Kalina and LiBr absorption chiller
(KLACC).

the absorber. Indeed, this system operates based on ammonia- the amount of produced power since the mass flow rate through
water absorption chiller, where the KC operates as the solution the turbine decreases.
loop and the assembly throttling valve with evaporator (states 13 The configuration of the second proposed system that combines
and 18–20) plays the role as the refrigerant loop. The pressure a KC with the ACLiBr-water is shown in Fig. 1c. A stream from the
due to the added evaporator is required to be between the inter- Kalina cycle which preheats the boiler inflow (state 6) can perform
mediate and low pressure levels of the base system in order to gain as the AC heat source. To compensate this heat extraction, the con-
more cooling and prevent crystallization. The cooling load of the denser and absorber from the refrigeration cycle give their waste
system can be controlled by changing the mass evaporator flow heat to states 7 and 8 of the KC subsystem. As shown in Fig. 1c,
rate and pressure. Using a controlling valve to change the mass the hot concentrated ammonia solution outflow leaving the flash
flow ratio of evaporator from 0 to 1, the system this cycle can be tank (state 5), after giving heat to the desorber at state 6, preheats
flexible to switch between only a power cycle or a cooling and the boiler inflow (state 45) through PH3 and then becomes con-
power cogeneration cycle or only a cooling generation cycle. It is densed (state14). The subcooled liquid at state 7 is preheated
obvious that generating cooling using this method will decrease through PH1 and PH2 which use the rejected heat of Absorber2
174 J. Rashidi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 127 (2016) 170–186

and cond2, respectively. The amount of generated cooling through 2.2.1.1. Absorber. The energy balance of the absorber is presented
this cycle can be controlled by changing the temperature of the in Eq. (3) [41].
desorber (Thigh). Since higher temperatures for the desorber require
greater amounts of heat, more cooling generation may decrease
Q_ abs ¼ m
_ 12 h12 þ m
_ 17 h17  m
_ 1 h1 ð3Þ
the efficiency of the KC. where Q_ abs is the released heat from the absorber, and h is the speci-
fic enthalpy.
2.2. Thermodynamic modeling
2.2.1.2. Solution pumps. Power consumption of the solution pump
To conduct the energy analysis of the three systems, thermody- is given by Eqs. (4) and (5) [44].
namic properties of the systems at all states must be obtained _ in  v in  ðPout  Pin Þ
_ pump ¼ m
using thermodynamic modeling. In this section mass, salinity and W ð4Þ
gpump
energy balance equations are presented. The models developed
by Fu et al. [42], Rogdakis [29], Fontalvo et al. [43], Hassan et al. where gpump, W_ pump , and v are the isentropic efficiency, power con-
[8] and Esfahani et al. [11] are used in this study. sumption of the pump, and the specific volume of the solution,
Several assumptions are used to simplify the analysis: respectively.

 The system is under steady-state condition 2.2.1.3. Preheaters. The mass and concentration balance equation of
 Pressure drops and heat losses within pipes and components all the cycle preheaters are given via Eqs. (5)–(8) and the effective-
are neglected ness and energy balance of the preheaters can be obtained using
 The ammonia-water solution in the absorber, condenser, boiler Eqs. (9)–(11) [45].
and evaporator outlet of Kalina cycle is saturated.
m _ out;hot
_ in;hot ¼ m ð5Þ
 The strong and weak ammonia-water solutions in the Kalina
cycle flash tank outflow are saturated vapor and liquid,
_ in;hot ¼ ðmxÞ
ðmxÞ _ out;hot ð6Þ
respectively.
 The refrigerant in the condenser and evaporator of the absorp-
tion refrigeration cycle is saturated. m _ out;cold
_ in;cold ¼ m ð7Þ
 The water/lithium bromide solution in the generator and absor-
ber outlet is saturated. ðmxÞ _ out;cold
_ in;cold ¼ ðmxÞ ð8Þ

Q ph
In this study, turbine pressure and temperature, absorber e¼ ð9Þ
pressure, ammonia mass fraction of the turbine inlet and the inter- cp;min ðT in;hot  T in;cold Þ
mediate pressure are assumed to be the input operating data. The where
values for these parameters were picked from the studies per-
_ hot ðhin;hot  hout;hot Þ ¼ m
Q ph ¼ m _ cold ðhout;cold  hin;cold Þ ð10Þ
formed by Rogdakis [29] and Price [41]. Table 1 summarizes the
reference values for the input parameters. It should be noted that
in this study the temperature and pressure of working fluid enter- cp;min ¼ minðcp;hot and cp;cold Þ ð11Þ
ing the turbine assumed to be less than references values because also cp,min is the minimum value between heat capacity of hot and
the hot source is assumed to be low temperature heat recovered cold streams at constant pressure, e is the effectiveness of the heat
from other processes or renewable energy sources. exchanger and T is the temperature of the solution.

2.2.1. Base system thermodynamic modeling 2.2.1.4. Flash tank. The heat requirement of the flash tank is
The governing equations of the Kalina cycle as the base system obtained using the following concentration and energy balance
are expressed as follow: equations:
Mass balance and concentration balance equations for all com- m _ 5 x5 þ m
_ 4 x4 ¼ m _ 15 x15 ð12Þ
ponents can be obtained using Eqs. (1) and (2).
X X Q_ FT ¼ m
_ 5 h5 þ m
_ 15 h15  m
_ 4 h4 ð13Þ
_ in ¼
m _ out
m ð1Þ
Here x5, x4, x15, are introduced as XWF, XB, XD, which are the ammo-
X X nia mass fraction of working fluid, primary and dilute solution. m _ 5,
_ in xin ¼
m _ out xout
m ð2Þ
and m_ 15 also are defined as working fluid mass flow, m _ WF , and dilute
solution mass flow, m _ D , respectively. By substituting a mass balance
where m _ is the mass flowrate and x is the concentration of the
into Eq. (13), the ratio of the working fluid flow rate used to dilute
stream. In and out subscripts refer to inlet and outlet streams,
the stream flow rate (g) can be solved as follows [29]:
respectively.
_ WF X WF  X B
m
g¼ ¼ ð14Þ
m_D XB  XD
Table 1
The reference data of Kalina cycle [28,34].
2.2.1.5. Condenser, boiler and superheater of the Kalina cycle. Using
Parameter Unit Values in the Values in
references this study the energy balance for the condenser, boiler and superheater in
the Kalina cycle, the required or released heat from these compo-
Turbine pressure (Ptur) kPa 11,000 1500
Intermediate pressure (Pint) kPa 470 470 nents can be obtained using Eqs. (15)–(17).

Q_ C;K ¼ m
Absorber pressure (Pabs) kPa 170 170
Turbine inlet temperature (Ttur) °C 510 280
_ 6 ðh6  h13 Þ ð15Þ
Working fluid ammonia mass % 70 72
fraction (XWF) Q_ boiler ¼ m
_ 8 ðh9  h8 Þ ð16Þ
J. Rashidi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 127 (2016) 170–186 175

Q_ Sh ¼ m
_ 9 ðh10  h9 Þ ð17Þ The coefficient of performance (COP), which is calculated for
refrigeration cycles, can be obtained as follows:
where Q_ C;K is the released heat from the KC condenser, Q_ boiler and
Q_ Sh are the required heat of boiler and superheater, respectively. Q_ ev a
COP kpcc ¼ ð26Þ
W _ in
2.2.1.6. Turbine. The turbine power is given by the following _ in is the quantity of required power due to the cooling gen-
where W
equation.
eration in comparison with KC as the base system. Since the mass
_ tur ¼ g m _
W tur 10 ðh11  h10 Þ ð18Þ flow of the turbine decreases, W _ in can be calculated using Eq. (27).

where W _ tur is the turbine power and g is the efficiency of the _ in ¼ m


_ 10 ðf Þðh10  h11 Þ
tur W ð27Þ
turbine.

2.2.1.7. Throttling valve. It’s assumed that there is no heat exchange 2.2.3. KLACC system thermodynamic modeling
through the throttling valve. Thus the enthalpy of solution at inlet Eqs. (1)–(23), as well as the following equations are used for
and outlet of valve remains constant and the energy balance equa- KLACC system thermodynamic modeling. Thermodynamic model
tion can be given as follows [46]: of the absorption cycle subsystem is presented by Eqs. (28)–(36)
[45].
m _ out hout
_ in hin ¼ m ð19Þ
2.2.3.1. Refrigeration cycle absorber. The absorption components of
2.2.1.8. Thermal efficiency of the Kalina cycle. The first law efficiency the refrigeration cycle, including the absorber, desorber, solution
of the Kalina cycle (gth;K ) is defined by dividing the output of the heat exchanger, condenser and evaporator, are simulated by Eqs.
cycle by the required input. It is given by Eq. (22) [17]. (28)–(36).
The mass and concentration balance equations for ACLiBr-water
gth;K ¼ W_ net =Q_ in ð20Þ are given by Eqs. (1) and (2). It should be noted that when these
equations are used for the refrigeration cycle, x refers to the mass
where W_ net is the net generated power, and Q_ in is the required heat
fraction of lithium bromide in the H2O/LiBr solution.
which are obtained as follow: The energy balance of the absorber can be obtained as follow:
_ net ¼ W
W _ tur  W
_ pump1  W
_ pump2 ð21Þ
Q_ abs;ref ¼ m
_ 36 h36 þ m
_ 40 h40  m
_ 31 h31 ð28Þ

Q_ in ¼ Q_ boiler þ Q_ Sh þ Q_ FT ð22Þ where Q_ abs;ref is the rejected heat from the absorber in the refriger-
ation cycle.
where Q_ boiler , Q_ sh and Q_ FT are required heat for boiler, superheater
_ tur , W
and flash tank, respectively. W _ pump1 , and W
_ pump2 are generated
2.2.3.2. Solution heat exchanger. The effectiveness of the ACLiBr-water
power of the turbine and consumed power of pump1 and Pump2, subsystem solution heat exchanger is given via Eq. (29), which is
respectively. the division of transferred heat through the heat exchanger by
the maximum possible heat transfer between the inlet and outlet
2.2.2. KPCC system thermodynamic modeling streams.
Eqs. (1)–(22) as well as the following equations are used to
model KPCC system. e ¼ Q_ shx =cp;min ðT 34  T 32 Þ ð29Þ

2.2.2.1. Mass flow ratio. The mass flow rate of the evaporator can be Here Cp,min is the minimum value between heat capacity of hot and
obtained by applying Eq. (1) (mass balance equation) and Eq. (23). cold streams entering the solution heat exchanger at constant pres-
This is an input parameter to calculate the mass flow rate of cool- sure and Q_ shx is the transferred heat between the hot and cold
ing generation which has a controlling role for cooling generation. steams which is calculated as follows:

m18 ¼ f  m13 ð23Þ _ 32 ðh33  h32 Þ ¼ m


Q shx ¼ m _ 34 ðh34  h35 Þ ð30Þ
where f is the mass flow ratio between the refrigerant and solution
loops. 2.2.3.3. Desorber. Eqs. (31) and (32) represent the mass and energy
balance equations of the desorber, respectively.
2.2.2.2. Evaporator. Mass and concentration balances are presented
_ 33 x33 ¼ m
m _ 34 x34 þ m
_ 37 x37 ð31Þ
by Eqs. (1) and (2). The generated cooling, Q_ ev a , can be calculated as
follows:
Q_ des ¼ m
_ 37 h37 þ m
_ 34 h34  m
_ 33 h33 ð32Þ
Q_ ev a ¼ m
_ 18 ðh18  h19 Þ ð24Þ
where Q_ des is the required heat for the desorber. The desorber out-
2.2.2.3. Performance criteria. To investigate the performance of the flow at point 37 is assumed to be pure water (x37 = 0). To calculate
system, three criteria were studied including thermal efficiency, h37 as the desorber outflow enthalpy, the solution quality is pro-
cooling-power efficiency and coefficient of performance. The ther- posed to the quality of solution in point 33. That is the vapor outlet
mal efficiency can be obtained using Eqs. (20)–(22). According to from the desorber is considered as the vapor component of a two
the study of Hassan et al. [8] the efficiency of cooling and power phase system where the solution in the desorber is in the liquid
cogeneration system is the amount ratio of net power and gener- phase. Therefore the thermodynamic state of this point assumed
ated cooling to the required heat of the cycle which can be calcu- to be equal to desorber inlet thermodynamic state [45].
lated as follows: Since the heat requirement of the desorber is supplied from
state 5, the enthalpy of state 13 can be calculated as follow:
_ net þ Q_ ev a
W
gc;p ¼ ð25Þ Q_ des ¼ m
_ 5 ðh5  h13 Þ ð33Þ
Q_ in
176 J. Rashidi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 127 (2016) 170–186

2.2.3.4. Refrigeration cycle condenser. The waste heat of the con- Rodríguez et al. [23], Esfahani et al. [44] and Silveira and Tuna
denser in the refrigeration cycle can be obtained using the energy [52] were used in this section.
balance equation as follows: The total annual cost is given by Eq. (37) [44].

Q_ C;ref ¼ m
_ 37 ðh37  h38 Þ ð34Þ TAC ¼ ACC þ AOC ð37Þ

where Q_ C;ref is the waste heat of the refrigeration cycle condenser. where ACC and AOC are the annual capital cost and annual operating
The waste heat of the absorber and condenser components of cost, respectively.
the ACLiBr-water subsystem are used in the Kalina cycle for heating To find the ACC, the total cost investment, TCI, is multiplied by
the streams 7 and 8. Therefore states 30 and 48 can be modeled the amortization factor given in Eq. (38) [48].
using Eqs. (8)–(12). It should be noted that, the stream between n
i  ð1 þ iÞ
states 28 and 29 is considered as the cold stream to cool down CRF ¼ n ð38Þ
the working fluid passing the absorber 2 and as the hot stream
ð1 þ iÞ  1
to heat the working fluid passing PH1. The stream between states where CRF is the amortization factor, i and n are the interest rate
41 and 42 is both cold stream for cond2 and hot stream for PH2. and total operation period of the system in years, respectively [53].
Total cost investment (TCI) is calculated by Eq. (39), which is a
2.2.3.5. Refrigeration cycle evaporator. Mass and concentration bal- summation of the direct cost (DC), including onsite and offsite
ance equations of the evaporator are calculated using Eqs. (1) and costs, indirect costs (IDC), and other outlays (OO).
(2) and cooling load of the evaporator, Q_ ev a , can be calculated as
TCI ¼ DC þ IDC þ OO ð39Þ
follows:
Here the costs which are related to equipment, piping, electric con-
Q_ ev a ¼ m
_ 38 ðh40  h39 Þ ð35Þ
trol monitor system, structural work, direct contingencies and ser-
vice facilities are introduced as direct cost. Also indirect cost
2.2.3.6. Performance criteria of KLACC. Eqs. (21)–(23) are used to represents the engineering, supervision and indirect contingencies
calculate the thermal performance of KLACC. The efficiency of the cost. The cost of startup and working capital are considered as other
cooling and power also, as with the KPCC system, can be obtained outlays in Eq. (39).
using Eq. (25). The coefficient of performance of KLACC is calcu- TCI is obtained via Eqs. (40)–(55) which are summarized in
lated as follows: Table 2 including the cost of pipes, electrical controls, the monitor-
ing system, civil structural and architectural work, service facili-
Q_ ev a ties, contingencies, and other outlays.
COP KLACC ¼ ð36Þ
Q_ des
2.3.1. Equipment cost
where COP KALCC and Q_ des are the coefficient of performance and the
2.3.1.1. Heat exchangers cost. Included are the condensers, evapora-
desorber heat requirement of KLACC, respectively.
tors, preheaters, flash tank, absorber, desorber, boiler and 4 super-
Thermodynamic characteristic of ammonia – water are
heaters, which are assumed to be operating as shell and tube heat
calculated based on the research work by Ibrahim and Klein [47].
exchangers. The cost of these heat exchangers is calculated accord-
Additionally, enthalpy and entropy for pure water and water –
ing to their heat transfer area (A) obtained by Eq. (56) [45].
lithium bromide solution have been calculated and adopted from
the previous literature [48–51]. The corresponding equation can Q_ k
be found in Appendices A and B. Ak ¼ ð56Þ
U k  LMTDk

2.3. Economic modeling where Q_ k is the heat transfer flow rate through component k, U is
the heat transfer coefficient, and LMTD is the logarithmic mean tem-
The following equations were developed to assess the total perature difference. U values for different components, given in
annual cost (TAC) of each system. The models reported by units of kW/m2 K, are shown in Table 3.

Table 2
Equations for capital cost estimation [48].

Equations Description
DC ¼ ONSC þ OFSC ONSC is the onsite cost and OFSC is the offsite cost (40)
ONSC ¼ C eq þ C pipe þ C EC Ceq, Cp and CEC are the cost of equipment, piping and electric control monitor system, respectively (41)
C eq ¼ C hx þ C tur þ C pump Chx, Ctur and Cpump are the cost of heat exchangers, turbine and pumps, respectively (42)
C pipe ¼ 0:05  ðC eq Þ (43)
C EC ¼ 0:3  ðC eq þ C pipe Þ (44)
OFSC ¼ C str þ C ser þ C con Cstr, Cser and Ccon are the cost of the civil structural and architectural work, service facilities, (45)
and contingencies, respectively
C str ¼ 0:2  ðONSCÞ (46)
C ser ¼ 0:25  ðONSCÞ (47)
C con ¼ 0:15  ðONSCÞ (48)
IDC ¼ C eng þ C const þ C icon Ceng, Cconst and Cicon are the cost of engineering and supervision, construction including contractor’s profit, (49)
and indirect contingencies, respectively
C eng ¼ 0:15  ðDCÞ (50)
C const ¼ 0:15  ðDCÞ (51)
C icon ¼ 0:2  ðDCÞ (52)
OO ¼ C start þ C W Cstart and CW are the cost of startup and working capital, respectively (53)
C start ¼ 0:06  ðDC þ IDCÞ (54)
C W ¼ 0:05  ðDC þ IDCÞ (55)
J. Rashidi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 127 (2016) 170–186 177

Table 3
Heat transfer coefficient of plant components [32,46,47].

Component U (kW/m2 K) [46] U (W/m2 K) [32] U (kW/m2 K) [47]


Solution heat exchanger 1 1000 Thermal compr: 18
NH3 superheat: 0.2
Evaporator 0.9 900 1.2
Condenser 1.1 1100 1.1
Refrigerant (condensing – water – 650 –
Refrigerant (evaporating– water – 510 –
Absorber – – 0.785
Desorber – – 1.2 boiling/0.8 heating

Table 4 Table 5
The reference costs of components (AR = 100 m2) [33]. The operation conditions of analyzed systems.

Component Reference cost (2000) $ Parameter Unit Value Reference


Desorber 17,500 Ttur °C 280 [34]
Absorber 16,500 Ptur kPa 1500 –
Solution heat exchanger 12,500 Tabs °C 20 [34]
Evaporator 16,000 Pabs kPa 170 [34]
Condenser 8000 m_ kg/s 4 [34]
Expansion valve 300 XWF – 0.72 [28]
f – 0.1 –
Pevap kPa 250 –
XB – 0.43 [34]
m_ ref kg/s 2 –
The logarithmic temperature difference for the heat exchangers Phigh kPa 7.445 [38]
is obtained by Eq. (57) [54]. Plow kPa 0.637 [38]
Tdes °C 93 [38]
ðT h;i  T c;i Þ  ðT h;o  T c;o Þ Tabs,ref °C 34 [38]
LMTDk ¼ ð57Þ
T T
ln T h;i T c;i gpump – 0.91 [10]
h;o c;o e – 0.9 [26]
gtur – 0.85 [26]
where subscripts h, c, i, and o refer to hot, cold, inlet and outlet i – 0.15 [46]
streams. n yr 20 [46]
Having the heat transfer area, the cost of all above mentioned CI2000 – 394.1 [11]
heat exchangers can be obtained using the power law relation CI2013 – 568.8 [11]
Csteam $/ton 6 [51]
given by Eq. (58) [23]. Celec $/kW h 0.084 [52]
 0:6 Ccw $/ton 0.06 [52]
Ahx
Z hx ¼ Z R;hx  ð58Þ POF – 0.9 [52]
AR CL 0.03TCI [22]
CM 0.06 TCI [53]
where Zhx, is the capital cost of the heat exchanger with a heat
transfer area of Ahx in a reference year. ZR,hx is the reference cost
2.3.2. Operation and maintenance costs
of the heat exchanger in the reference year which has a reference
Operation costs are assumed to include the steam, electricity,
heat transfer area of AR. The reference costs of the heat exchangers
and labor costs. The steam cost due to heating energy is the main
for the reference year 2000 are listed in Table 4 [44].
part of the operating cost and depends significantly on steam con-
ditions, source, and the cost evaluation method. Based on the
2.3.1.2. Pump. The capital cost of the pump is calculated using Eq. equivalent electricity-consumption cost method presented by Song
(59) [55]. et al. [56] and Hu et al. [57] where steam cost is evaluated as the
_ 0:8
C pump ¼ 1120  W ð59Þ cost of the electricity that can be produced in a steam turbine,
pump
the cost of the saturated steam at pressures of 0.25 MPa and
_ pump is the required pump power.
where W 0.5 MPa are $9.6/ton and $11.4/ton, respectively, where electricity
cost is $0.07/kW h [58]. In the current study, using the same
method, the cost of steam is estimated. Cost of electricity, cooling
2.3.1.3. Turbine cost. Eq. (60) gives the capital cost of the turbine
water labor and maintenance as well as plant operation factor and
[54].
CI are obtained from previous studies which is done by Wang and
_ tur Þ0:7
C tur ¼ 4405  ðW ð60Þ Lior [58] Kumar et al. [59] Harkin et al. [60] and Rodriguez et al.
[23]. The annual operating cost, AOC, is obtained using the follow-
where W _ tur is the output power of the turbine. ing unweighted linear equation.
Using Eq. (61) and chemical engineering plant cost index (CI), AOC ¼ C steam þ C cw þ C elec þ C L þ C M ð62Þ
all of the obtained costs were updated to represent equivalent
costs for the desired year of 2013 [44].
  3. Results and discussions
CI2013
Z k;2013 ¼ Z k ð61Þ
CI2000
3.1. Energy and economic analysis
where Zk,2013 is the component cost in recent year 2013, Zk is the
component cost in year 2000 and CI2013, and CI2000 are equipment The energy and cost analyses were conducted to determine the
cost indexes in year 2013 and 2000, respectively. energy efficiency, performance, generated cooling and TAC of the
178 J. Rashidi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 127 (2016) 170–186

Table 6 US dollar. As shown in Fig. 2b since the mass flow rate of most of
Performance and cost of analyzed systems. the KPCC components is less than the mass flow rate of KC compo-
KC KPCC KLACC nents, the ACC, AOC and TAC are less than the KC system by 6, 8.3
Energy efficiency 16.1% 15.2% 16.9 and 8%, respectively. On the other hand, since KLACC is a combina-
Power-cooling efficiency 18.8% 20.2% tion of KC and ACLiBr-water, the ACC, AOC and TAC are more than the
6
Total annual cost ($/yr) 6.11 ⁄ 10 5.62 ⁄ 106 8.89 ⁄ 106 KC system by 4.7, 34 and 45%, respectively. Therefore the ACC as
Produced power (kW) 1722 1550 1722 well as AOC and TAC for KLACC are the highest and for KPCC are
Generated cooling (kW) 277 393
the lowest among three systems.
Table 7 compares thermodynamic analysis results besides oper-
ation condition of KPCC and KLACC with some literature. As can be
Kalina cycle, KPCC and KLACC under the specified conditions pre- seen The power- cooling system studied by Wang et al. [40]
sented in Table 5. achieved 13.6% of thermal efficiency and 75 kW cooling load which
According to the summarized input conditions, the net pro- is significantly less than those of KPCC and KLACC. The power and
duced power, first law efficiency, generated cooling, coefficient of refrigeration cycle which analyzed by Hasan et al. [8] has a thermal
performance and efficiency of the power and cooling cogeneration efficiency around 12.3% at 95.9% of ammonia mass fraction. At the
are obtained by Eqs. (1)–(36). same ammonia mass fraction the thermal efficiency of KPCC and
Table 6. Summarizes the results of energy analysis for KC, KPCC KLACC is around 18.3% and 25.9% that is much higher. Fontalvo
and KLACC systems. According to this table, KLACC improves the et al. [43] reported a thermal efficiency equal to 16% which is also
energy efficiency of KC by 4.5% while the total annual cost of this less than the result of this study. Comparison between literature
system is much higher than both KPCC and KC. According to Table 6 results with this study shows that thermal efficiency of both KPCC
it can be resulted the net power and cooling production of KLACC and KLACC are higher than most of the other proposed power-
and KPCC are 23% and 6% higher than KC, respectively. Thermody- cooling cogeneration cycles which are based on Kalina cycle using
namic and economic results of three analyzed systems are pre- ammonia-water as the working fluid. From the results it can be
sented in Fig. 2. Fig. 2a compares the net output (power and deduced that cooling and power generation in KPCC and KLACC
cooling) and efficiency of each cycle. It is clear that KLACC has is a high efficient power-cooling cogeneration cycles.
the highest efficiency among the three cycles (16.9%). Since a frac-
tion of mass flow of turbine is separated to generate cooling, KPCC
has the lowest efficiency (15.2%), about 5.6% lower compared to 3.2. Parametric analysis
the base Kalina cycle. As can be seen in Fig. 2a, the power - cooling
efficiency of KLACC is 11% higher than that of KPCC. Parametric analysis was performed to evaluate the effects of
Fig. 2b shows the results of the economic analysis which is the key parameters on the energy efficiency, cooling generation, and
amount of annual operation, annual capital and total annual cost in TAC of KC, KPCC and KLACC. Key parameters for all three cycles
include ammonia mass fraction of the working fluid (XWF), absor-
ber pressure (Pabs), turbine pressure (Ptur), intermediate pressure
0.25 (Pint) and turbine temperature (Ttur). Two other key parameters
0.2 are considered for the first proposed system, KPCC, which are the
mass flow ratio of cooling (f) and the pressure of the evaporator
0.15 (Peva in the second proposed system, KLACC, the effect of higher
0.1 and lower refrigeration temperatures and the mass flow rate of
the absorption chiller on efficiencies and cost were also analyzed).
0.05 The variables change ranges are summarized in Table 8. In the
parametric analysis, one parameter was varied while the others
0
energy efficiency power-cooling were kept constant. Figs. 3–6 demonstrate the result of parametric
efficiency analysis for KPCC and KLACC on the thermal efficiency, coefficient
KPCC KLACC KC of performance, annual capital, annual operation and total annual
costs.
(a)
3.2.1. Effect of the absorber pressure (Pabs)
1.00E+07
The effect of absorber pressure on power production, cooling
9.00E+06
generation, energy efficiency, power-cooling efficiency, TAC, ACC
8.00E+06 and AOC of the systems are presented in Figs. 3a–c, 5a and b. As
7.00E+06 can be seen, by changing Pabs from 100 to 350 kPa, thermal effi-
6.00E+06 ciency increases by 1.2% for KPCC and 1% for KLACC system. Also
5.00E+06 power - cooling efficiency goes up about 1.3 and 1.1% in KPCC
and KLACC systems, respectively. Thus absorber pressure has a
4.00E+06
direct effect on efficiencies of cycles. Both efficiencies increase
3.00E+06 because the heat requirement of flash tank increases due to higher
2.00E+06 solution enthalpy in higher pressure while net produced power
1.00E+06 and generated cooling are constant.
0.00E+00 Fig. 3b describes the net power and cooling generation as a
AOC TAC ACC function of the absorber pressure variation. Since the absorber
KPCC KC KLACC pressure has no effect on cooling production, the generated cooling
(b) remains constant. Increasing the pressure of the absorber causes
both absorber waste heat and the required heat of the flash tank
Fig. 2. (a) Thermodynamic analysis of KC, KPCC and KLACC, (b) economic analysis to decrease; thereby increasing the thermal efficiency by for KPCC
of TAC, ACC and AOC of KC, KLACC and KPCC systems. and KLACC. Fig. 3c and 5b shows how ACC, AOC and TAC change
J. Rashidi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 127 (2016) 170–186 179

Table 7
Comparison of proposed systems (KPCC and KLACC) with references.

Parameter Ref. [36] Ref. [8] Ref. [33] KPCC KLACC


XWF 0.963 0.959 0.530 0.72 0.959 0.72 0.959
Ptur (bar) 20 20 20 15 20 15 20
Pabs (bar) 1.5 2 8 1.7 2 1.7 2
Thermal efficiency 16% 12.3 13.6 15.2 18.3 16.9 25.9
Cooling load (kW) 3.6 3.7 75 277 271 393 473
Mass flowrate (kg/s) 1 1 1 4 1 4 1
Heat source temperature (K) 200 370 370 370 370 370 370
Net power (kW) 44.6 47.2 35.9 1550 301 1722 610

Table 8 slope. Also, TAC for KPCC system decreases 2.3% while for the
Range of effective parameters on analyzed systems.
KLACC system it increases slightly (0.2%).
Parameter Range Unit Relative change (%)
Pabs 100–350 kPa 250 3.2.4. Effect of ammonia mass fraction (XWF)
PTur 1.1–2 MPa 82 Figs. 4a, i, 6a and b demonstrate how performance and cost for
Pint, 420–560 kPa 33 the KPCC system vary with ammonia mass fraction changing from
XWF of KPCC 0.7–0.8 – 14
0.72 to 0.78. As shown in two proposed system, the thermal effi-
f 0.05–0.3 – 500
Pevap 250–475 kPa 90 ciency increases by 18 and 11% for KPCC and KLACC systems,
XWF of KLACC 0.71–0.77 – 84 respectively and power - cooling efficiency increases by 9 and
Thigh 76–87 °C 14 13.7% for KPCC and KLACC systems. Moreover, the COP for the
Tlow, 28–35 °C 25 KPCC system increases about 14% while for the KLACC system it
mref 0.5–3.5 kg/s 600
remains constant. Since having a higher amount of ammonia in
solution results in a higher average temperature of the required
heat as well as a lower average temperature of the heat dissipated,
with absorber pressure variation. When increasing Pabs, AOC the efficiency, according to Carnot cycle efficiency, increases. Also
remains constant while ACC, and therefore TAC, increase. the parametric analysis for cost shows that, for proposed
systems, increasing the ammonia mass fraction causes the ACC to
increase while the AOC decreases which is governing the TAC
3.2.2. Effect of the turbine pressure (Ptur)
calculations.
Figs. 3d, e, 5c and d show the effect of turbine pressure on ther-
mal efficiency, power - cooling efficiency, COP, TAC, ACC and AOC
3.2.5. Effect of the evaporator mass flow rate (f)
of the systems. While other parameters remain constant, Ptur varies
It is clear that increasing the mass flow rate through the evap-
from 1.1 to 2 MPa. As shown in Figs. 3d, e, 5c and d, increasing the
orator in the KPCC system results in higher cooling generation. The
turbine pressure from 1.1 to 2 MPa in both KPCC and KLACC sys-
effect of higher f on efficiencies and COP is demonstrated in Fig. 4c.
tems, causes both the thermal efficiency and power-cooling effi-
As can be seen, with increasing f the thermal efficiency decreases
ciencies face a dramatic decrease about 11 and 14%, respectively
about 16%, while power-cooling efficiency increases by 14.8%.
and subsequently increase slightly. The minimum value of these
Additionally, the COP for KPCC decreases by 40% before gradually
efficiencies occurs at 1.75 MPa of turbine pressure and the maxi-
rising. This is due to the direct effect of the mass flow rate on the
mum happens at lower turbine pressures. It happens because of
net power, required heat, and the net generated cooling. By
higher heat requirement than power production when turbine
increasing f, the net power and required heat reduce and the
pressure varies from 1.1 to 1.75 MPa. It is clear that increasing tur-
amount of cooling increases. TAC, AOC and ACC all have lower val-
bine pressure causes ACC, AOC and TAC to increase. Because the
ues with higher mass flow rates through the evaporator (Fig. 4d).
prices of higher pressure vapor for heating the turbine inlet is
higher and a turbine which works in higher pressure ratio is more
3.2.6. Effect of evaporator pressure (Peva) on KPCC system
expensive. Therefore lower turbine pressure is more reasonable to
The evaporator pressure assumed to change from 250 kPa to
achieve better performance and lower cost of systems.
475 kPa. The change range is selected according to the thermody-
namic limits of working fluid under the cycle condition. Increasing
3.2.3. Effect of intermediate pressures (Pint) Peva causes the ACC to decrease, however, the TAC remains nearly
The effect of intermediate pressure on the efficiency and total the same. Since at lower evaporator pressures the enthalpy differ-
annual cost was studied. Since the amount of required heat for ence in the vapor-liquid zone is larger than at higher pressures, the
water separation at higher pressures is more than that at lower generated cooling at higher evaporator pressures is less than at
pressure limits, the flash tank heat requirement for higher pressure lower pressures. It can then be said that COP as well as power -
is greater. Thus, by increasing the intermediate pressure, the input cooling efficiency decrease with increasing evaporator pressure.
heat requirement increases while the net produced power and Since the evaporator is not separated from the power cycle, the
cooling remain unchanged. As can be seen in Fig. 3f and e, by pressure in the evaporator has no effect on the thermal efficiency
changing Pint from 420 to 570 kPa for the KPCC system both ther- (Fig 4e and f).
mal, and power-cooling efficiencies decrease by 0.9% while the
intermediate pressure seems to have no effect on power-cooling 3.2.7. Effect of higher temperatures for the refrigeration cycle (Thigh)
efficiency of KLACC system. Comparing Fig. 5g and f, it can be con- The effect of desorber temperature on efficiencies and cost of
cluded that intermediate pressure has a different effect on the cost the KLACC system were analyzed. The results show that by increas-
of two proposed systems. As can be seen, for the KPCC system, the ing the desorber temperature from 76 °C to 87 °C, the evaporator
ACC has a minimum value at the intermediate pressure of 490 kPa heat rejection increases more than the desorber heat requirement,
while for the KLACC system the ACC increases with a constant therefore the COP of the cycle increases by 34%. When the desorber
180 J. Rashidi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 127 (2016) 170–186

Fig. 3. KPCC energy and cost variations with respect to the effects of Pabs on (a) efficiency, (b) generated cooling and power, and (c) ACC, AOC and TAC, Ptur on (d) efficiency and
(e) ACC, AOC and TAC, Pint on (f) efficiency and (g) ACC, AOC and TAC.

temperature 83 °C is reached, then the COP remains almost According to Fig. 6d, it can be seen that by changing the desorber
constant. The efficiency of power and cooling goes up dramatically temperature from 76 to 87 °C, the TAC and AOC decrease a negligi-
(14.7%), but thermal efficiency decreases by about 0.2% (Fig. 6c). ble amount while the ACC increases.
J. Rashidi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 127 (2016) 170–186 181

Fig. 4. KPCC energy and cost variations with respect to the effects of Xwf on (a) efficiency and COP and (b) ACC, AOC and TAC, f on (c) efficiency and COP and (d) ACC, AOC and
TAC, and Peva on (e) efficiency and COP and (f) ACC, AOC and TAC.

3.2.8. Effect of the lower temperatures on the refrigeration cycle (Tlow) smaller negative ones the bigger positive is picked. Fig. 6h demon-
Fig. 6e and f shows the effect of the absorber temperature of the strates that increasing mref will cause the annual operating cost to
refrigeration cycle on the efficiency and cost of the entire system. increase while ACC and TAC decrease slightly.
Increasing Tlow from 28 to 35 °C will cause the thermal efficiency
to increase slightly, this can be attributed to the fact that waste heat 3.3. Summary of results
at higher temperature transferred from the chiller absorber to the
stream before the boiler results in a lower heat requirement for 3.3.1. Energy and economic analysis
the boiler. On the other hand, the power and cooling efficiencies face The highest efficiency among the three cycles occurs in KLACC
a dramatic reduction since increasing this temperature decreases with 16.9% while KPCC contributes with the lowest efficiency
the COP by 48%. Changing Tlow, the AOC remains nearly constant (15.2%). The power - cooling efficiency of KLACC in comparison
while the ACC has a downward trend resulting in a lower TAC. to KPCC is1.4% higher. KPCC costs less than KC by 8% fewer TAC,
while KLACC is the most expensive one among three cycles. In
3.2.9. Effect of the mass flow rate of the refrigeration cycle (mref) summary besides cogeneration of cooling and power, KLACC
It is clear that increasing the mass flow rate of refrigeration sub- increases the performance and KPCC decreases the cost of KC.
system in KLACC from 0.5 to 3.5 kg/s will increase the amount of
cooling, resulting in higher power-cooling efficiency (about 15%). 3.3.2. Parametric analysis
However, as more heat becomes required by the power cycle to The parametric analysis results for both proposed systems are
supply the desorber within absorption cycle, the thermal efficiency summarized in Table 9 where the effect of each parameter on three
decreases slightly (about 0.05%) which can be seen in Fig. 6g. In variables including thermal efficiency, power-cooling efficiency
this situation when some positive changes happen with some and total annual cost is presented in percent. This table shows
182 J. Rashidi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 127 (2016) 170–186

Fig. 5. KLACC energy and cost variations with respect to the effects of Pabs on (a) efficiency and (b) ACC, AOC and TAC, Ptur on (c) efficiency and (d) ACC, AOC and TAC, Pint on (e)
efficiency and (f) ACC, AOC and TAC.

the change of each variable via parameters change. In the last col- while power-cooling efficiency decreases by 17.07%. It means that
umn the ratio of variable changes to parameters (dx/dy) is calcu- lower turbine pressure can be selected to achieve more cooling
lated to have a better comparison between parameters. with lower cost. Since the total annual cost of KLACC is more sen-
According to the results in Table 9 ammonia mass fraction (XWF) sitive to turbine pressure than other parameters lower Ptur gives
has the greatest influence on KPCC system efficiencies and total higher quantity of power and cooling with a low cost. Mass flow
annual cost. Each percent increase in XWF causes thermal effi- ratio, f, has a minor effect on KPCC system, to achieve higher
ciency and power-cooling efficiency of KPCC to increase by 50 power-cooling efficiency and lower TAC, f should be increased
and 63.57%, respectively, while total annual cost decreases signifi- which has a negative effect on thermal efficiency. It means that
cantly (83.57%). KLACC thermal efficiency is also more sensitive to both effects are desirable for cooling generation, but it causes ther-
XWF than other parameters, which increases 17.14% via 1% increase mal efficiency to decrease. Higher temperature of absorption chil-
in XWF. These effects lead to desire higher fraction of ammonia in ler subsystem of KLACC has the most important influence on
the working fluid. On the other hand higher amount of ammonia power-cooling efficiency; each percent increase results in 105%
in the solution has worse environmental impact. The best range increase in power-cooling efficiency. Higher Thigh results in higher
of ammonia mass fraction respect to operational and environmen- power-cooling efficiency besides higher TAC, although it causes
tal issues can be investigated as a future research. Thigh has the thermal efficiency to decrease slightly. According to the parametric
most significant effect on power-cooling efficiency of KLACC. As analysis of Tlow, smaller values are preferable to reach a better
can be seen in Table 9 Ptur is the other important effective param- power-cooling efficiency but with a higher cost. The optimization
eter on both systems. Thermal efficiency and total annual cost of of the system operation condition as a result of parametric analysis
KPCC increase by 13.14% and 28.39% against 1% increase of Ptur will be done in future researches.
J. Rashidi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 127 (2016) 170–186 183

Fig. 6. KLACC energy and cost variations with respect to the effects of Xwf on (a) efficiency and COP and (b) ACC, AOC and TAC, Thigh on (c) efficiency and COP and (d) ACC, AOC
and TAC, and Tlow on (e) efficiency and COP and (f) ACC, AOC and TAC and mref on (g) efficiencies and COP and (h) ACC, AOC and TAC.
184 J. Rashidi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 127 (2016) 170–186

Table 9
Influence of effective parameters on both proposed systems.

System Variable Parameter Change of variables Variable to parameter change ratio


KPCC Thermal efficiency Pabs 1.2% 0.48%
PTur 11% 13.41%
Pint 0.9% 2.73%
XWF 7% 50%
Pevap Constant Constant
f 16% 0.94%
Power –cooling efficiency Pabs 1.3% 0.52%
PTur 14% 17.07%
Pint 0.9% 2.73%
XWF 8.9% 63.57%
Pevap 10.8% 0.12%
f 14.8% 0. 87%
Total annual cost Pabs 0.09% 0.036%
PTur 23% 28.39%
Pint 2.3% 6.97%
XWF 11.7% 83.57%
Pevap 0.05% 0.05%
f 24.7% 1.45%
KLACC Thermal efficiency Pabs 1.1% 0.44%
PTur 1.1% 1.34%
Pint 0.3% 0.9%
XWF 14.4% 17.14%
Thigh 0.2% 1.42%
Tlow 0.2% 0.8%
mref 0.4% 0.07%
Power –cooling efficiency Pabs 1% 0.4%
PTur 13.7% 16.71%
Pint constant constant
XWF 14.5% 17.26%
Thigh 14.7% 105%
Tlow 1.3% 5.2%
mref 14.9% 2.48%
Total annual cost Pabs 0.05% 0.02%
PTur 28% 34.15%
Pint 0.2% 0.61%
XWF 19% 22.62%
Thigh 0.4% 2.86%
Tlow 0.4% 1.6%
mref 0.5% 0.08%

4. Conclusions power-cooling cycle (KPCC) regarding to economic aspect and


cooling generation despite the lowest thermal efficiency is the
In this study, two new cooling and power cogeneration systems best choice with the lowest TAC. However, in comparison
that combined KC and AC were proposed and investigated based on with KC, it has the ability to generate cooling in addition to
energy performance and cost analyses. Also the effect of cooling power.
generation on KC efficiency and total annual cost were studied 3. In comparison with other literatures which investigated
and the best configuration was introduced. Findings of the current power and cooling cogeneration using Kalina cycle KPCC
research were compared with literature and finally parametric and KLACC can be introduced as high efficient cycles. They
analyses were performed to investigate the sensitivity of cycles’ achieve 14–49% higher efficiency with 3.6–70 times higher
performance to different parameters. The main conclusions are generated cooling quantities At the same operation
shown below. conditions.
4. The most important results of Parametric analysis includes:
1. Energy analysis showed that the base system (Kalina Cycle)  High Ammonia mass fraction operates better performance
produces 1722 kW power with 16.1% thermal efficiency and and fewer costs in both proposed systems.
6.11 ⁄ 106 ($/yr) total annual cost (TAC). Kalina Lithium-  Lower turbine pressure makes better performance and
Bromide Absorption chiller cycle (KLACC) and Kalina Power- decreases the cost of KPCC. In contrast it leads converse
Cooling Cycle (KPCC) generate 277 and 393 kW cooling besides results in KLACC except cooling-power efficiency which
1550 and 1722 kW power with 5.62 ⁄ 106 and 8.89 ⁄ 106 ($/yr) increases as pressure of turbine goes up.
of TAC, respectively. Moreover KPCC and KLACC has a thermal  KLACC system is more sensitive to the Thigh and Tlow varia-
efficiency of 15.2 and 16.9% with 18.8 and 20.2% tions; however both Thigh increasing and Tlow decreasing
power-cooling efficiency, in sequential. Cooling generation in has just this benefit to raise power-cooling efficiency.
KPCC and KLACC causes thermal efficiency and TAC to be
reduced by 5.6% and 8% and increased by 4.9% and 42%,
respectively. Acknowledgements
2. Among three compared systems, neglecting the cost, Kalina
Lithium-Bromide Absorption chiller cycle (KLACC) with the This work was supported by a National Research Foundation of
highest thermal and power-cooling efficiency is the best choice Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean Government (MSIP) (No.
for generating cooling and power. On the other hand Kalina 2015R1A2A2A11001120).
J. Rashidi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 127 (2016) 170–186 185

Appendix A. Water/LiBr and pure water enthalpy correlations Appendix B. Water/LiBr and pure water entropy correlations

The following correlations were used to calculate pure water The following correlations a used to calculate pure water and
and water/LiBr enthalpy. water/LiBr entropy. In all cases of entropy calculation dead state
temperature was considered equal to 25 °C.
A.1. Pure water
B.1. Pure water
Pure water enthalpy at saturated liquid, saturated vapor,
and superheated vapor states can be calculated through Eqs. Saturated water entropy can be calculated by Eq. (B.1) which is
(A.1)–(A.6). valid for 5 6 T 6 200  C [50].
Saturated water (5 6 T 6 200  C) enthalpy [50]:
sf ¼ ð0:1543 þ 15:383  T  0:02996  T 2 þ 0:00008193  T 3
2 3
hf ¼ ð0:141355 þ 4:20207  T  0:000535  T þ 0:000004  T Þ=1000  0:000000137  T 4 Þ=1000 ðB:1Þ
ðA:1Þ
Saturated vapor enthalpy [51]:
B.2. Water/LiBr
hv ¼ hf þ hfg ðA:2Þ
Water/LiBr entropy cold be obtained using Eq. (B.2) which is
where hv is saturated vapor enthalpy, and hf is saturated water valid for 0 6 T 6 190  C and 40 6 x 6 75 wt:% [50].
enthalpy in Eq. (A.1).
Latent heat of evaporation (hfg) is calculated by Eq. (A.3) which sLiBrwater ¼ a1 þ a2 þ a3 T 2 þ A4 x þ a5 xT þ a6 xT 2 þ a7 x2 þ a8 x2 T
is valid for 0 6 T 6 200  C [50].
þ a9 x3 þ a10 x4
6 3 1 2
hfg ¼ ð2:501  10  2:369  10  T þ 2:678  10 T a1 ¼ 1:01961E3; a2 ¼ 1:101529E  1; a3 ¼ 1:042150E  2;
 8:103  10 3 3
 T  2:079  10 5 4
 T Þ=1000 ðA:3Þ a4 ¼ 1:036935E2; a5 ¼ 5:87032E  2; a6 ¼ 8:63107E  5;
a7 ¼ 3:266802; a8 ¼ 3:16683E  4; a9 ¼ 4:100993E  2;
Superheated vapor enthalpy is also calculated by (A.4) as fol-
a10 ¼ 1:790548E  4
lows [49]:
ðB:2Þ
hðp; sÞ
¼ sðc0s þ crs Þ ðA:4Þ
RT where x and T are solution concentration and temperature of water/
LiBr solution, respectively.
where p ¼ p=p and s ¼ T =T with p = 1 MPa and T is 540 K. cs and
  ⁄ ⁄ 0

crs are the ideal-gas and residual parts of dimensionless Gibbs free
energy respectively in Eqs. (A.5) and (A.6) [49]. References

[1] Rashidi Z, Karbassi AR, Ataei A, Ifaei P, Samiee-Zafarghandi R,


X
9
Mohammadizadeh MJ. Power plant design using gas produced by waste
c0s ¼ n0i J 0i sJi 1
0
ðA:5Þ leachate treatment plant. Int J Environ Res 2012;6:875–82.
i¼1 [2] Hettiarachchi HM, Golubovic M, Worek WM, Ikegami Y. The performance of
the Kalina cycle system 11 (KCS-11) with low-temperature heat sources. J
X
43 Energy Res Technol 2007;129:243–7.
crs ¼ ni pIi J i ðs  0:5ÞJi 1 ðA:6Þ [3] Han W, Chen Q, Sun L, Ma S, Zhao T, Zheng D, et al. Experimental studies on a
combined refrigeration/power generation system activated by low-grade heat.
i¼1
Energy 2014;74:59–66.
All the necessary numerical values of the coefficients and expo- [4] Çakir U, Çomakli K, Yüksel F. The role of cogeneration systems in sustainability
of energy. Energy Convers Manage 2012;63:196–202.
nents can be found in Ref. [49]. [5] Ogriseck S. Integration of Kalina cycle in a combined heat and power plant, a
case study. Appl Therm Eng 2009;29:2843–8.
[6] Atallah R, Mustafa M, Al-Asker M, El-Masoud L. Feasibility study of a combined
A.2. Water/LiBr electric power and water desalination plant in Jordan. Energy Convers Manage
1998;39:1207–13.
[7] He WF, Han D, Xu LN, Yue C, Pu WH. Performance investigation of a novel
Water/LiBr solution enthalpy can be calculated by Eq. (A.7) water-power cogeneration plant (WPCP) based on humidification
which is valid for 0 6 T 6 190  C and 40 6 x 6 75 wt:% [48]. dehumidification (HDH) method. Energy Convers Manage 2016;110:184–91.
[8] Hasan AA, Goswami DY, Vijayaraghavan S. First and second law analysis of a
X
4 X
3 new power and refrigeration thermodynamic cycle using a solar heat source.
hLiBrwater ¼ an xn þ T bn xn þ T 3 d0 Sol Energy 2002;73:385–93.
n¼0 n¼0 [9] Ifaei P, Rashidi J, Yoo C. Thermoeconomic and environmental analyses of a low
water consumption combined steam power plant and refrigeration chillers–
a0 ¼ 954:8; a1 ¼ 47:7739; a2 ¼ 1:59235; a3 ¼ 2:09422  102 ; Part 1: energy and economic modelling and analysis. Energy Convers Manage
2016;123:610–24.
a4 ¼ 7:689  105 [10] Chaiyat N, Kiatsiriroat T. Analysis of combined cooling heating and power
generation from organic Rankine cycle and absorption system. Energy
b0 ¼ 3:293  101 ; b1 ¼ 4:076  102 ; b2 ¼ 1:36  105 ; 2015;91:363–70.
[11] Esfahani IJ, Kang YT, Yoo C. A high efficient combined multi-effect
b3 ¼ 7:1366  106
evaporation–absorption heat pump and vapor-compression refrigeration
Part 1: energy and economic modeling and analysis. Energy 2014;75:312–26.
[12] Ahmadi P, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Exergo-environmental analysis of an integrated
c0 ¼ 7:4285  103 ; b1 ¼ 1:5144  104 ; b2 ¼ 1:3555  106 organic Rankine cycle for trigeneration. Energy Convers Manage
2012;64:447–53.
d0 ¼ 2:269  106 [13] Guo L, Liu W, Cai J, Hong B, Wang C. A two-stage optimal planning and design
method for combined cooling, heat and power microgrid system. Energy
ðA:7Þ Convers Manage 2013;74:433–45.
[14] Ayou DS, Bruno JC, Saravanan R, Coronas A. An overview of combined
where x and T are water/LiBr solution concentration and tempera- absorption power and cooling cycles. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
ture, respectively. 2013;21:728–48.
186 J. Rashidi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 127 (2016) 170–186

[15] Kalina AI. Combined-cycle system with novel bottoming cycle. J Eng Gas [38] Lolos P, Rogdakis E. A Kalina power cycle driven by renewable energy sources.
Turbines Power 1984;106:737–42. Energy 2009;34:457–64.
[16] Jurgen R. The promise of the Kalina cycle: using an ammonia-water mixture, [39] Goswami D. Solar thermal power: status of technologies and opportunities for
the Kalina steam cycle may permit thermal-mechanical-electrical energy research. In: Proceedings of proceedings of the 2nd ISHMT-ASME heat and
conversion efficiencies of 45 percent. IEEE Spectrum 1986;23:68–70. mass transaction conference. p. 57–60.
[17] Wang J, Yan Z, Zhou E, Dai Y. Parametric analysis and optimization of a Kalina [40] Wang J, Wang Jianyong, Zhao P, Dai Y. Thermodynamic analysis of a new
cycle driven by solar energy. Appl Therm Eng 2013;50:408–15. combined cooling and power system using ammonia–water mixture. Energy
[18] Wall G, Chuang C-C, Ishida M. Exergy study of the Kalina cycle. In: ASME Convers Manage 2016;117:335–42.
winter annual meeting, San Francisco, CA, December. p. 10–5. [41] Price S. A consideration of cycle selection for meso-scale distributed solar-
[19] Modi A, Haglind F. Optimisation of a Kalina cycle for a central receiver solar thermal power; 2009.
thermal power plant with direct steam generation. In: World renewable [42] Fu W, Zhu J, Li T, Zhang W, Li J. Comparison of a Kalina cycle based cascade
energy congress XIII. utilization system with an existing organic Rankine cycle based geothermal
[20] Knudsen T, Clausen LR, Haglind F, Modi A. Energy and exergy analysis of the power system in an oilfield. Appl Therm Eng 2013;58:224–33.
Kalina cycle for use in concentrated solar power plants with direct steam [43] Fontalvo A, Pinzon H, Duarte J, Bula A, Quiroga AG, Padilla RV. Exergy analysis
generation. Energy Procedia 2014;57:361–70. of a combined power and cooling cycle. Appl Therm Eng 2013;60:164–71.
[21] Zhang XX, He MG, Zhang Y. A review of research on the Kalina cycle. Renew [44] Esfahani IJ, Lee S, Yoo C. Evaluation and optimization of a multi-effect
Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:5309–18. evaporation–absorption heat pump desalination based conventional and
[22] Gholamian E, Zare V. A comparative thermodynamic investigation with advanced exergy and exergoeconomic analyses. Desalination
environmental analysis of SOFC waste heat to power conversion employing 2015;359:92–107.
Kalina and Organic Rankine Cycles. Energy Convers Manage 2016;117:150–61. [45] Ibrahim OM, Klein SA. Absorption chillers and heat pumps. CRC Press; 1996.
[23] Rodríguez CEC, Palacio JCE, Venturini OJ, Lora EES, Cobas VM, dos Santos DM, [46] Esfahani IJ, Yoo C. Exergy analysis and parametric optimization of three power
et al. Exergetic and economic comparison of ORC and Kalina cycle for low and fresh water cogeneration systems using refrigeration chillers. Energy
temperature enhanced geothermal system in Brazil. Appl Therm Eng 2013;59:340–55.
2013;52:109–19. [47] Ibrahim OM, Klein SA. Thermodynamic properties of ammonia-water
[24] Kalina AI. Combined cycle and waste heat recovery power systems based on a mixtures. ASHRAE Trans Symposia 1993;21(2):1495.
novel thermodynamic energy cycle utilizing low-temperature heat for power [48] Kaita Y. Thermodynamic properties of lithium bromide-water solutions at
generation. In: 1983 joint power generation conference: GT papers. American high temperatures. Int J Refrig-Revue Internationale Du Froid
Society of Mechanical Engineers; 1983. p. V001T002A003. 2001;24:374–90.
[25] Jonsson M. Advanced power cycles with mixture as the working [49] The international association for the properties of water and steam. Release on
fluid. Stockholm, Sweden: Department of Chemical Engineering and the IAPWS industrial formulation for the thermodynamic properties of water
Technology, Energy Processes, Royal Institute of Technology; 2003. and steam. Erlangen, Germany; 1997.
[26] Yue C, Han D, Pu W, He W. Comparative analysis of a bottoming transcritical [50] Sharqawy MH, Lienhard JH, Zubair SM. Thermophysical properties of
ORC and a Kalina cycle for engine exhaust heat recovery. Energy Convers seawater: a review of existing correlations and data. Desalination Water
Manage 2015;89:764–74. Treat 2010;16:354–80.
[27] Marston CH, Hyre M. Gas turbine bottoming cycles: triple-pressure steam [51] Ya C, Boles MA. Thermodynamics: an engineering approach. Boston: McGraw-
versus Kalina. J Eng Gas Turbines Power 1995;117:10–5. Hill; 2008.
[28] El-Sayed Y, Tribus M. A theoretical comparison of the Rankine and Kalina [52] Silveira J, Tuna C. Thermoeconomic analysis method for optimization of
cycles. Proceedings of analysis of energy systems, design and operation, combined heat and power systems. Part I. Prog Energy Combust Sci
presented at the winter annual meeting of the American Society of Mechanical 2003;29:479–85.
Engineers, Miami Beach, Florida; 1985. p. 97. [53] Ameri M, Ahmadi P, Hamidi A. Energy, exergy and exergoeconomic analysis of
[29] Rogdakis E. 96/03424-Thermodynamic analysis, parametric study and a steam power plant: a case study. Int J Energy Res 2009;33:499–512.
optimum operation of the Kalina cycle. In: Fuel and energy [54] Rodríguez CEC, Palacio JCE, Sotomonte C, Leme M, Venturini O, Lora E, et al.
abstracts. Elsevier; 1996. p. 234. Exergetic and economic analysis of Kalina cycle for low temperature
[30] Valdimarsson P, Eliasson L. Factors influencing the economics of the Kalina geothermal sources in Brazil. The 25th international conference on
power cycle and situations of superior performance. In: Proceedings of efficiency, cost, optimization, simulation and environmental impact of
international geothermal conference, Reykjavik, Citeseer; 2003. p. 31–9. energy, ECOS. p. 167–79.
[31] Mlcak HA. Kalina cycleÒ concepts for low temperature geothermal. Trans- [55] Ábrego Castillo JC. Cost estimation of using an absorption refrigeration system
Geotherm Resour Council 2002:707–14. with geothermal energy for industrial applications in El Salvador 2007.
[32] Ifaei P, Ataei A, Yoo C. Thermoeconomic and environmental analyses of a low [56] Song Z-P, Hu S-G, Zhou S-X. Indigenous construction of sizeable desalination
water consumption combined steam power plant and refrigeration chillers- units for dual-purpose power plants in China. Energy 1991;16:721–6.
Part 2: thermoeconomic and environmental analysis. Energy Convers Manage [57] Zhou S, Hu S. The unified indexes for evaluating the performance of
2016;123:625–42. desalination processes. Technol Water Treat 2001;27(22):74–9.
[33] Ravishankara A, Daniel JS, Portmann RW. Nitrous oxide (N2O): the dominant [58] Wang Y, Lior N. Thermoeconomic analysis of a low-temperature multi-effect
ozone-depleting substance emitted in the 21st century. Science thermal desalination system coupled with an absorption heat pump. Energy
2009;326:123–5. 2011;36:3878–87.
[34] Mclinden MO, Kazakov AF, Brown JS, Domanski PA. A thermodynamic analysis [59] Kumar V, Kiran B, Jana AK, Samanta AN. A novel multistage vapor
of refrigerants: possibilities and tradeoffs for Low-GWP refrigerants. Int J recompression reactive distillation system with intermediate reboilers.
Refrig 2014;38:80–92. AIChE J 2013;59:761–71.
[35] Bolaji B, Huan Z. Ozone depletion and global warming: case for the use of [60] Harkin T, Hoadley A, Hooper B. Optimisation of power stations with carbon
natural refrigerant – a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;18:49–54. capture plants – the trade-off between costs and net power. J Cleaner Prod
[36] Calm JM. The next generation of refrigerants–historical review, considerations, 2012;34:98–109.
and outlook. Int J Refrig 2008;31:1123–33.
[37] Pigani L, Boscolo M, Pagan N. Marine refrigeration plants for passenger ships:
low-GWP refrigerants and strategies to reduce environmental impact. Int J
Refrig 2016;64:80–92.