INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCH

Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:215–225

Published online 18 June 2007 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/er.1342

Exergoeconomic analysis of glycol cold thermal energy storage systems

K. Bakan, I. Dincer*,y and M. A. Rosen

Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT), 2000 Simcoe Street North,
Oshawa, ON, Canada L1H 7K4

SUMMARY

An exergoeconomic analysis of glycol cold thermal energy storage (CTES) is reported. Glycol CTES is an application of
sensible heat storage where the temperature of a storage material changes in order to store cold energy, usually
generated from electricity when its cost is low. Exergoeconomic analysis combines thermodynamic analysis based on
the first and second laws with principles of economics, mostly cost accounting. Exergy analysis accounts for energy
quality and irreversibilities, and provides more meaningful and useful information than energy analysis about efficiency
and losses. A storage tank with a capacity of 350 000 kg is considered for this investigation and a water solution based
on ethylene glycol is used as the storage medium. Several thermodynamic system factors are analysed, such as change in
storage temperature, coefficient of performance (COP) of the chiller, heat losses from the storage tank, and the mass
flow rates. Simulation results indicate that the system exergy efficiency is much less (
45%) than the energy efficiency.
The average exergy efficiency of the storage tank is determined to be 35% and the average energy efficiency 80%. The
system exergy efficiency is determined to be 30% and 40% at 45 and 258C ambient temperatures, respectively. The
chiller COP is observed to be strongly related to storage temperature, and to vary approximately between 2.4 and 5.8 at
a 358C ambient temperature. As ambient temperature decreases, COP increases. The exergoeconomic analysis indicates
that the ratio of exergy-based thermodynamic loss to capital cost of the glycol CTES ranges from 0.00233 to 0:00225
kW $1 at a 358C reference environment temperature, and from 0.00235 to 0:00227 kW $1 at a 258C reference
environment temperature. The reference environment temperature affects significantly exergy destruction and efficiency,
e.g. a 108C change in ambient temperature causes a 37.5% change in exergy efficiency. This result implies that cold
energy is more valuable at higher ambient temperatures. Heat loss from the storage tank exhibits a mild dependence on
ambient temperature, e.g. a 108C increase in ambient temperature causes a heat loss increase of 7.1%. Copyright
# 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEY WORDS: energy; exergy; efficiency; cooling; glycol; thermal energy storage; performance

*Correspondence to: I. Dincer, Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT),
2000 Simcoe Street North, Oshawa, ON, Canada L1H 7K4.
y
E-mail: Ibrahim.Dincer@uoit.ca

Contract/grant sponsor: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

Received 19 September 2006

Revised 12 February 2007
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 28 April 2007
216 K. BAKAN, I. DINCER AND M. A. ROSEN
1. INTRODUCTION
Exergoeconomic analysis, which combines scien-
tific disciplines (mainly thermodynamics) with
economic disciplines (mainly cost accounting) is
increasingly used to analyse, design and optimize
energy systems. Here, exergoeconomic analysis is
applied to cold thermal energy storage (CTES)
systems with the objective of achieving optimum
designs [1].
Glycol CTES is a type of sensible heat storage.
In sensible heat storage, the temperature of the
storage material changes with heat interactions.
The storage medium is a key parameter in
determining storage size and the configuration
and size of the overall system. When glycol
thermal storage is incorporated into a new or
existing building system, a low temperature
chilled-water supply allows the use of low-tem-
perature air distribution and consequently smaller
fans and ducts. The capacity of a chilled-water
TES system is increased by storing the coldest
water possible and by extracting as much heat
from the chilled water as practicable when char-
ging the storage, thus raising the temperature of
the return water used in charging.
A reduction and shift in peak electric power
demand can be implemented using a cold storage
system because it permits the use of nighttime
electric power, instead of more costly daytime
power. This measure also often reduces the
discharge of CO2 due to the production methods
for nighttime electric power.
Air conditioning and industrial process cooling
make up almost a third of the aggregate electricity
demand during the summer in many countries.
Therefore, the aggregate utility demand tends to
have the same pattern as a building’s cooling
demand. For economic reasons, electric utilities
operate their most economic ‘base load’ power
plants as much as possible. Other power plants are
somewhat less efficient. These ‘intermediate’ power
plants have limited use during the day. Finally,
plants with the highest operating costs are mainly
used during the few peak-load hours, and are
called peak-load power plants. The cost to
produce 1 kWh of electricity is highest during
these peak hours. Two factors contribute to these
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
high costs. First, the utilities must build enough
capacity to meet the highest or peak demand.
Therefore, much of the utility’s capacity-related
costs are charged during these on-peak hours
(often as peak ‘demand’ charges). Second, because
often the least efficient power plants operate
during peak hours, the costs of generating the
electrical energy are higher during those hours.
This leads to a situation in which electricity users
can reduce their electricity costs under many rate
schemes if they reduce their peak electricity
use. TES provides electricity users with that
opportunity [2].
Many studies on CTES systems and exergy/
energy analysis have been reported [3–11]. These
studies are mostly based on experimental investi-
gations and deal with quantities of stored energy
or applications. But, to the best of the authors’
knowledge, investigations of glycol CTES systems
using exergoeconomic methods have not been
reported. In this article, an exergoeconomic
analysis is applied to a glycol CTES system that
includes energy and exergy analyses, as well as cost
and mass analyses. Energy- and exergy-based
efficiencies are determined for the storage tank,
the overall storage system, and the chiller unit.
Analyses of the relation between thermodynamic
losses and economic costs are performed in order
to define the costs of losses with time. Addition-
ally, the effects of changes in storage temperature,
coefficient of performance (COP) of the chiller,
heat losses from the storage tank, and mass flow
rates are examined for glycol CTES systems. The
objective of this study is to provide more mean-
ingful, comprehensive, and useful information on
the performance of glycol CTES systems in order
to enable designers to develop, design, optimize,
and improve such systems.
2. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
A glycol CTES system is shown in Figure 1. The
main components of the system are a storage tank,
a chiller unit (with an evaporator, a condenser, a
compressor, and an expansion valve), pumps, a
cooling tower, and heat exchangers. In this system,
water is not exposed to the atmosphere. Chilled
Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:215–225
DOI: 10.1002/er
 GLYCOL COLD THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS 217

0
Propylene Glycol
-10
Ethylene Glycol

Freezing point [°C]

Cooling tower -20

10 11 -30

-40
3 2
Condenser
-50

Expansion Compressor
-60
valve
0 20 40 60 80 100
Concentration of antifreeze [Vol. %]
Chiller
Figure 2. Freezing point of water solutions based on
4 1 propylene glycol and ethylene glycol at different
concentrations.
7

3.8
6 5 9 3.6 T=4.5 °C
T=-18 °C
3.4
pump
Cp [kJ/kg.K]

3.2
3

Heat
exchanger
Storage tank 8
Figure 1. Glycol CTES system.
water flows through the evaporator from the
storage tank forming a closed recirculating loop.
In a chilled water system, the glycol solution is
first cooled in the chiller, which is the evaporator
of a screw or centrifugal refrigeration system
located in a centralized plant. The glycol solution
is then pumped to the cooling-load heat exchan-
ger, where the temperature of the fluid is increased.
Then, it returns to the storage tank through the
evaporator.
A water–glycol mixture is employed as the
storage medium and working fluid in glycol TES
systems. The most common antifreeze fluids are
ethylene glycol and propylene glycol. Figure 2
shows the freezing point of water solutions based
on propylene glycol and ethylene glycol at
different concentrations. A 45% (by volume)
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Concentration of Antifreeze [Vol. %]
Figure 3. Specific heat at constant pressure of water
solutions based on ethylene glycol at different concen-
trations.
ethylene glycol concentration is used here as the
storage medium because it has a low freezing point
that enables the temperature to decrease to –308C
without any freezing, as seen in Figure 2. This low
temperature allows the storage of very cold energy,
reducing the size of storage needed. Furthermore,
ethylene glycol is a clear, odourless, and slightly
viscous liquid and has a low vapour pressure.
Figure 3 illustrates the variation of specific heat of
such antifreeze fluids as a function of concentra-
tion. The specific heat of the fluid is seen to
decrease with increasing antifreeze concentration.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:215–225
DOI: 10.1002/er
218 K. BAKAN, I. DINCER AND M. A. ROSEN

Glycol CTES systems are relatively simple. Few the storage medium temperature is decreased. The
accessories are needed and a conventional water maximum value of the cooling load is 1000 kW:
chiller is used. Glycol CTES systems cool water by An energy balance for the overall system in Figure
circulating ethylene or propylene glycol solution 1 can be written as
through storage tanks. Glycol storage systems Q’s ¼Q’ load þ Q
’ loss  Q
’ chill ð1Þ
present the system designer with numerous bene-
fits: the ability to use a standard packaged chiller, where
the opportunity to reduce pump horsepower, and ’ s ¼ MCp DT
Q ð2Þ
the need for few accessories [12]. t
Glycol CTES systems are closed recirculated
water systems. Air or nitrogen has a negative effect ’ loss ¼ UAðTamb  Tst Þ
Q ð3Þ
within the system. Air can exist in the system as
free air or gas bubbles, or as packets of air/gas, or ’ chill ¼ m
Q ’ r ðh4  h1 Þ ð4Þ
it can be dissolved in water. Potential problems
where Q’ s denotes the rate energy is stored in the
due to the presence of air or gas include unstable
’ loss and Q
tank, Q ’ chill denote the heat loss rates
system pressure, poor pump performance due to
gas bubbles, water logging in plain closed expan-
sion tanks, reduction of heat transfer surface, and
excessive noise. The latent heat of condensation is 1000
removed from the refrigerant in the condenser by
condenser cooling water. This condenser cooling 800
water is supplied from a cooling tower [13].
Qload [kW]

600

3. MODELLING AND ANALYSIS 400

An exergoeconomic analysis is carried out on a 200

glycol CTES system. A daily load diagram
is chosen between 8:00 and 18:00, as shown in 0
Figure 4, and the parameter values used in the 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
simulation are listed in Table I. The chiller unit is t [hour]
switched off from 18:00 to 02:00, and for the Figure 4. Change in cooling load that must be met by
remaining part of the day it is in operation, so that storage system with time.

Table I. Parameters and data used in the case study.

Refrigerant R-134a
Refrigerant volumetric flow rate 0:51 m3 s1
Compressor efficiency, Zc 70%
a ¼ ðEC’ min Þevap chiller effectiveness–capacitance rate product 375:1 W K1
b ¼ ðEC’ min Þcon condenser effectiveness–capacitance rate product 905:57 W K1
Cooling tower working temperature 20:08C
Chiller standard capacity 600 kW
Standard storage mass, M 350 000 kg
Storage medium 45% Ethylene glycol-based water solution
Charging water flow rate, m ’ ch 10 kg m1
Specific heat at constant pressure of storage medium Cp 3:45 kJ kg1 K1
Cold storage tank loss coefficient–area product, UA 0:75 kW K1
Capital cost K 130 000 US$
Reference environment temperature, T0 20:08C

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:215–225
DOI: 10.1002/er
 GLYCOL COLD THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS 219

from the tank and chiller, respectively, Cp and M The exergy efficiency of the storage tank Ct is
denote the value of the specific heat for a 45% ’ t;out
X
ethylene glycol-based water solution and the mass Ct ¼ ð12Þ
’ t;in
X
of water in the storage tank, respectively, and UA
and t are the overall heat transfer coefficient of the The pump is an energy-consuming device in the
storage tank and time, respectively. glycol TES system. The electrical power used by
The refrigerant mass flow rate m ’ r can be the pump can be determined as follows:
expressed as follows: ’ p;in
’ p ¼ DPn m
W ð13Þ
V’ r Zp
m’r ¼ ð5Þ
vr where v; DP; Zp and m ’ p;in denote the specific
where V’ r is the volume flow rate of refrigerant volume at the inlet of the pump, the pressure
(which is taken to be 0:51 m3 s1 ), and vr is the difference between the inlet and the exit of the
specific volume of the refrigerant. In addition, pump, the energy efficiency of the pump, which is
’ chill ¼ aðTst  T1 Þ taken to be 80%, and the mass flow rate of fluid
Q ð6Þ
entering the pump, respectively. Several exergy
’ con ¼ bðT3  Tct Þ
Q ð7Þ quantities for the pump are as follows:
’ p;in ¼ m
X ’ p;in ½ðhp;in  h0 Þ  T0 ðsp;in  s0 Þ ð14Þ
’ con ¼ m
Q ’ r ðh2  h3 Þ ð8Þ
where Q’ con denotes the capacity of condenser, and ’ p;out ¼ m
X ’ p;out ½ðhp;out  h0 Þ  T0 ðsp;out  s0 Þ ð15Þ
a and b are evaporator and condenser heat
exchanger effectiveness–capacitance rate products,

’ p;dest ¼ W
X ’ p;out  X
’ p X ’ p;in ð16Þ
respectively. Also, T1 ; T3 ; and Tst denote tempera-
tures at the evaporator outlet, the condenser inlet,
where X ’ p;dest ; X’ p;in ; and X ’ p;out denote the
and the storage, respectively, and Tct is the cooling
tower working temperature. exergy destruction rate, the exergy input rate,
The energy recovery rate from the tank during and the exergy output rate for the pump,
discharging is respectively.
’d ¼m The compressor work rates and outlet enthalpy
Q ’ d Cp ðT9  T8 Þ ð9Þ
can be expressed as
where Q ’ d and m ’ d are discharge energy rate and the ’ c;i ¼ m
W ’ r ðh2;i  h1 Þ ð17Þ
discharge mass flow rate, respectively, and numer-
ical subscripts refer to points in Figure 1. ’
The exergy inlet X ’ t;in and outlet X’ t;out rates ’ c ¼ W c;i
W ð18Þ
associated with the fluid entering and exiting the Zc
storage tank are
   ’c
W
’ t;in ¼ m Tin h2 ¼ h1  ð19Þ
X ’ c Cp ðTin  T0 Þ  T0 ln ð10Þ ’r
m
T0
where W ’ c are the compressor work rates
’ c;i and W
  
Tout for ideal and real processes, and h2;i and h2 are the
’ t;out
X ’ c Cp ðTout  T0 Þ  T0 ln
¼m
T0 enthalpies at the condenser inlet for ideal and real
processes, respectively. Also, Zc is the isentropic
ð11Þ efficiency of the compressor.
A heat exchanger is used to discharge cold
where m ’ c and the subscript t refer to discharge energy from the storage. This heat exchanger
mass flow rate and storage tank, respectively. The is positioned in the storage tank. An exergy
reference temperature T0 is taken as 208C: analysis of the discharge heat exchanger yields

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:215–225
DOI: 10.1002/er
220 K. BAKAN, I. DINCER AND M. A. ROSEN

the following equation: L’ to the capital cost K [13]

 
’ hx
T9 Q ’
L
’ hx;dest ¼ T0 m
X ’ d Cp;w ln þ ð20Þ R¼ ð27Þ
T8 Ts K
where where K is the capital cost for purchasing and
’ hx ¼ m installing the glycol CTES system of 1000 kW
Q ’ d Cp;w ðT8  T9 Þ ð21Þ
capacity.
and X ’ hx denote the exergy destruction
’ hx;dest and Q The energy efficiency of the storage tank is
rate in the heat exchanger and the rate of energy ’s
Q
absorption by the heat exchanger, respectively, Zst ¼ ð28Þ
’
Qe
and m ’ d and Cp;w are the discharge mass flow rate
and the specific heat of discharge fluid (water in The exergy efficiency of the overall system Cs
this case), respectively. Subscripts 8 and 9 in the can be written as follows:
above equation refer, respectively, to inlet and ’ s;dest
X
outlet from the discharge heat exchanger. Cs ¼ 1  ð29Þ
’ s;in
X
The COP of the chiller unit is
where X ’ s;in are the total exergy destruc-
’ s;dest and X
’e
Q
COPen ¼ ð22Þ tion rate of the overall system and the total exergy
W’c
input rate to the system, respectively.
where Q ’ e denotes evaporator capacity, which is The value of R generally depends on whether it
equivalent to Q ’ chill : is based on energy loss rate ðRen Þ or exergy loss
The exergy destruction rate of the chiller unit rate ðRex Þ; where
’ chill;dest ; which includes the condenser, the eva-
X ’ en
L
porator, the expansion valve, and the compressor, Ren ¼ ð30Þ
K
can be defined as follows:
   
’ ex
’Xchill;dest ¼ T0 Q ’ con  T0 Q
’ evap ð23Þ Rex ¼
L
ð31Þ
Tct Ts K
where Tct is the working temperature of the Here, L’ en and L’ ex denote the energy and exergy
cooling tower. loss rates for the overall system.
The COP of the chiller unit can also be defined The values of the parameter R based on energy
based on exergy analysis. In this case, exergy loss rate and on exergy loss rate can be determined
transfer through the evaporator is considered, as as follows:
follows:
L’ en ¼ E’ s;in  E’ s;out ð32Þ
’Q
X
COPex ¼ e ð24Þ and
W’c
’ s;in  X
’ ex ¼ X
L ’ s;out ¼ I’ s;dest ð33Þ
’Q ’e
X e ¼ tQ ð25Þ where E’ s;in and E’ s;out are the total energy inlet and
outlet rates for the system, respectively.
T0
t¼1 ð26Þ
Ts
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
where X ’Q
e and t refer to thermal exergy
transfer associated with heat transfer for the The results obtained from the simulations are
evaporator, and exergetic temperature factor, presented and discussed.
respectively. Figure 4 shows the daily cooling-load diagram
For the exergoeconomic analysis, a parameter R that must be met by the glycol CTES system.
is defined as the ratio of thermodynamic loss rate The load is chosen between 8:00 and 18:00, and its

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:215–225
DOI: 10.1002/er
 GLYCOL COLD THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS
1600
Qload
1200 Qchill
Q [kW]
800
400
0
0 4 8 12 16 20
t [hour]
Figure 5. Comparison of chiller capacity and cooling
load for the storage system.
maximum value is 1000 kW at 13:00. Discharging
of cold energy from the storage occurs from 8:00
to 18:00, respectively. The load increases steadily
to its maximum value of 1000 kW at 13:00 O’clock
and then decreases to 0 at 18:00.
Figure 5 shows the cooling load and the
capacity of the chiller unit, as a function of time
of day. The solid line represents a typical cooling
load for a commercial building, while the dashed
line represents the cooling capacity of a chiller. As
seen in this figure, during first two hours of
operation the chiller capacity is much higher than
at other times; this is the case only for the start-up
period of the first day. For this reason, the storage
medium temperature is the same as the ambient
temperature, and the evaporator therefore dissi-
pates more cold energy to the storage medium,
yielding a higher chiller capacity during this start-
up period. The storage temperature does not reach
the ambient temperature for any subsequent
cycles. It is also evident that the storage system
enables the use of lower capacity: instead of
employing a 1000 kW chiller to meet the load, a
600 kW chiller unit is sufficient.
Figure 6 shows the variation in the temperature
of the storage medium under the specified load, for
three different ambient temperatures, for a period
of 32 h: The initial temperature of the storage
medium is taken to be equal to ambient tempera-
ture in order to show a start-up period during the
first 24 h of operation. Once charging begins at
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
221
30 T = 45 °C
T = 35 °C
20 T = 25 °C
10
Ts [°C]
0
-10
-20
24 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 4 8
t [hour]
Figure 6. Variation of storage temperature Ts with
time t:
midnight, the temperature of the storage is
observed to decrease gradually with time until
discharging begins at 8:00. Then, the temperature
increases between 8:00 and 18 O’clock as cold
energy is extracted from the storage to meet the
load. The chiller unit is switched off from 18:00 to
02:00 on the following day; during this period, due
to a lower storage temperature, heat transfer
occurs from the surrounding environment to the
storage medium. Therefore, the storage tempera-
ture increases to its maximum value at 02:00 and
the chiller unit is switched on at 02:00 and run
until 18:00. During the second and subsequent
operating days, the storage medium temperature
remains below the ambient temperature, and
varies between 13 and 218C; depending on the
environment temperature.
Figure 7 illustrates the variation of both energy-
and exergy-based COP values of the chiller for the
32-h operating period. The energy-based COP
varies between 2 and 6, while the exergy-based
COP varies between 0.6 and 0.7. The figure
indicates that the exergy-based COP for the chiller
is much less than the energy-based COP, and that
energy-based COP values decrease during char-
ging from midnight to 08:00 while storage
temperature decreases. The increase in storage
temperature during the discharging period from
08:00 to 21:00 makes the evaporator dissipate cold
energy more easily and this yields a higher energy
COP. The COPs depend mainly on the storage
Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:215–225
DOI: 10.1002/er
222 K. BAKAN, I. DINCER AND M. A. ROSEN

9 0.8 80
8
70
7 0.6
60

Qloss [kW]
6
50

COPex
COPen

5 0.4
40
4

30
3 0.2
Tamb=45 °C Tamb =45 °C
=45[˚C
COPex Tamb=35 °C 20 Tamb =35 °C
=35[˚C
2
COPeenn Tamb=25 °C Tamb =25 °C
=25[˚C
1 0 10
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 4 8 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 4 8
t [hour]
t [hour]
Figure 7. Variation of energy- and exergy-based chiller Figure 8. Variation of energy loss rate from storage
COP with time for several ambient temperatures. tank with time.

temperature where the evaporator is located. 4.0x107

Thus, a lower storage temperature causes the
evaporator to absorb less heat from the storage 3.2x107
medium and results in a lower energy COP. On the
other hand, the exergy-based COP increases with 2.4x107
Qst [kJ]

decreasing storage temperature, as seen between

midnight and 08:00, and an increase in storage 1.6x107
temperature lowers the exergy-based COP. The
Tamb=45 °C
reason for this observation is the high-temperature Tamb=35 °C
8.0x106
difference between the evaporator and the storage Tamb=25 °C
medium that flows through the evaporator. The
0.0x100
high-temperature difference increases the amount 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 4 8
t [hour]
of heat transfer from the storage medium to the
evaporator, causing more thermal exergy transfer, Figure 9. Variation of amount of cold energy stored in
and lowering the exergy-based COP. From Figure the system with time.
7, the exergy-based COP is a minimum for this
time period. Also, from this figure it is evident that 18:00 due to the stored cold energy being drawn
the minimums/maximums occur approximately at down to service the discharge load. After 18:00,
midnight, not at 21:00. there is no load but the cold energy stored still
Figure 8 illustrates the energy loss rate from the decreases due to heat infiltration to the storage
storage tank with time. Heat loss from the storage from the surroundings. When the chiller unit is
tank is clearly dependent on ambient temperature, switched on at 02:00, the stored cooling energy
e.g. a 108C increase in ambient temperature causes increases again in the system and becomes
a heat loss increase of 7.1%. constant when it reaches the maximum chiller
Figure 9 illustrates the variation of cold energy capacity.
stored in the glycol CTES system with time, for Figure 10 illustrates the variation of the energy
several ambient temperatures. The energy stored is and exergy efficiencies of the system with time, for
seen to increase with time due to the gain of ‘cold three ambient temperatures. The energy efficiency
energy’ from the evaporator, until 08:00 when cold is higher at lower ambient temperatures due to the
energy begins discharging from the storage. The lower cold energy losses from the storage to the
energy in the storage decreases between 08:00 and surroundings. The CTES exergy efficiency is

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:215–225
DOI: 10.1002/er
 GLYCOL COLD THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS 223

100 Tamb=45 °˚C

C 60
η
Tamb=35 °˚C
C Ψ
90
Tamb=25 °˚C
C
80 55
70

Ξ chill,dest [kW]
60 50
Efficiency [%]

50
40
45
30
20
40
10
0
35
-10 Charging Discharging Storing Charging
30
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 4 8 4 8 12 16 20 24 4 8
t [hour] t [hour]

Figure 10. Variation of energy and exergy efficiencies Figure 11. Variation of exergy destruction rate for the
for the system with time. chiller unit with time.

observed to be lower than the energy efficiency. 0.0006

A lower storage temperature causes more exergy T =45 °C
˚C
0.00055
destruction, which results in a lower exergy T =35 °C
˚C
efficiency for the chiller unit. CTES exergy 0.0005 T =25 °C
˚C
Rchill [kW/$]

efficiencies are generally lower than the corre-

0.00045
sponding energy efficiencies due to the relatively
more significant exergy losses during a CTES 0.0004
process, which are associated with external exergy 0.00035
emissions and internal irreversibilities. Internal
irreversibilities often destroy a significant amount 0.0003
of the input exergy. Figure 10 also demonstrates 0.00025
the effect of ambient temperature on exergy 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 4 8
efficiency. A higher ambient temperature leads to t [hour]
lower exergy efficiency. The exergy efficiency is 40 Figure 12. Variation of the ratio R of thermodynamic
and 30%, for ambient temperatures of 25 and loss rate (based on exergy) to capital cost for the chiller
458C; respectively. It is observed that cold energy unit.
is used more efficiently at lower ambient tempera-
tures.
Figure 11 illustrates the variation of exergy Figures 12 and 13 illustrate the variation of the
destruction for the chiller unit with time. As ratio of thermodynamic loss rate based on exergy
observed in the figure, the smallest exergy destruc- to capital cost for both the chiller unit Rchill
tion occurs at 08:00 when the storage temperature and the overall storage system Rsys ; respectively,
is a minimum, and the exergy destruction increases for several ambient temperatures. As seen in
with rising storage temperature. A high-tempera- Figure 12, the loss-to-cost ratio for the chiller unit
ture difference between the evaporator and the operation decreases to its minimum value of
storage medium causes greater heat transfer from 0:00026 kW $1 with decreasing storage tempera-
the storage medium to the evaporator, which ture due to the lower exergy destruction rate. On
produces significant exergy destruction. Thus, the other hand, in Figure 13, the loss-to-cost ratio
the maximum exergy destruction occurs close to for the whole system is minimum, when the storage
midnight, when the storage temperature is a temperature is a maximum at 02:00. A lower
maximum. storage temperature results in higher loss-to-cost

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:215–225
DOI: 10.1002/er
224 K. BAKAN, I. DINCER AND M. A. ROSEN

0.00235
exergy efficiency around 40%, for a 258C
ambient air temperature. Also, the chiller COP
is observed to be strongly related to storage
0.0023 temperature and to vary approximately between
Rsys [kW/$]

2 and 6, while the exergy-based COP varies

0.00225 between 0.6 and 0.7 and is 70% less than the
energy-based COP values. Costs depend on the
T =25 °˚C
[C exergy losses, and need to be increased when
0.0022
T =35 °˚C
[C device exergy losses increase. The ratio of
T =45 °˚C
[C thermodynamic loss to capital for the overall
0.00215 system is between 0.00233 and 0:00225 kW $1 at
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 4 8
t [hour]
358C; and between 0.00235 and 0:00227 kW $1
at 258C; respectively. The cost of the thermo-
Figure 13. Variation of the ratio R of thermodynamic dynamic loss that is due to exergy destruction
loss rate (based on exergy) to capital cost for the storage
system. for the chiller unit is much less than that for the
overall system.
The use of exergoeconomics in designing and
ratios, for example, as can be seen especially analysing glycol CTES systems appears to have the
around 08:00, when the ratio is 0:00235 kW $1 : potential to enable more efficient energy use. Thus,
The reason is that a higher temperature difference this approach can contribute to allowing glycol
between the storage medium and the surround- CTES systems to play a significant role in meeting
ing environment increases the exergy and energy society’s desire for efficient, environmentally be-
loss rates. nign energy use, in part by allowing the mismatch
between supply and demand for cold thermal
energy to be addressed.
5. CONCLUSIONS

An exergoeconomic analysis has been applied to NOMENCLATURE

glycol CTES, taking into account exergy, cost,
energy, and mass. Exergy analysis provides more A ¼ area (m2 )
meaningful and useful information than energy Cp ¼ specific heat at constant pres-
analysis about the efficiency and performance of sure ðkJ kg1 K1 Þ
glycol CTES systems. Traditional analyses are E’ ¼ energy rate (kW)
based only on mass and energy balances and h ¼ specific enthalpy ðkJ kg1 Þ
identify mainly external process losses. Glycol I’ ¼ irreversibility rate (kW)
CTES exergy efficiencies are seen to be lower K ¼ capital cost ($)
than the corresponding energy efficiencies. Irre- L’ ¼ thermodynamic loss rate (kW)
versibilities in a CTES process destroy a signi- m’ ¼ mass flow rate ðkg s1 Þ
ficant amount of the input exergy. In addition, M ¼ mass (kg)
the system and tank exergy efficiencies vary Q’ ¼ heat transfer rate (kW)
with time in similar fashions. However, the s ¼ specific entropy ðkJ kg1 K1 Þ
system exergy efficiency is observed to be higher t ¼ time (s)
than the tank exergy efficiency. The exergy T ¼ temperature ð8CÞ
efficiency of the overall system appears to be U ¼ overall heat transfer coefficient
1
much less (
45%) than its corresponding energy ðWm2 K Þ
efficiency. V ¼ velocity ðm s1 Þ
For glycol CTES, the energy efficiency is V’ ¼ volume flow rate of refrigerant
found to be around 85%, and the corresponding ðm3 s1 Þ

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:215–225
DOI: 10.1002/er
 GLYCOL COLD THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS 225

n ¼ specific volume ðm3 kg1 Þ 0 ¼ reference state

W’ ¼ power (kW) 1,2,3,4,8,9 ¼ points in Figure 1

Greek letters
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
a ¼ evaporator heat exchanger
effectiveness–capacitance rate The authors acknowledge the support provided by the
products ðW K1 Þ Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
b ¼ condenser heat exchanger ef- Canada.
fectiveness–capacitance rate
REFERENCES
products
ðW K1 Þ 1. Rosen MA, Dincer I. Exergoeconomic analysis of power
plants operating on various fuels. Applied Thermal
Z ¼ energy efficiency Engineering 2002; 23(6):643–658.
’
X ¼ exergy rate (kW) 2. CEC. Source energy and environmental impacts of thermal
t ¼ exergetic temperature factor energy storage. Report, California Energy Commission, 1996.
3. Bejan A. Fundamentals of exergy analysis, entropy
C ¼ exergy efficiency generation, minimization and the generation of flow
architecture. International Journal of Energy Research
2002; 26(6):545–565.
Subscripts
4. Rosen MA, Pedinelli N, Dincer I. Energy and exergy
analysis of cold thermal energy storage systems. Interna-
amb ¼ ambient tional Journal of Energy Research 1999; 23(12):1029–1038.
c ¼ compressor 5. Rosen MA, Dincer I. Effect of varying dead-state properties
on energy and exergy analyses of thermal systems. Interna-
ch ¼ charging tional Journal of Thermal Sciences 2004; 43(2):121–133.
chill ¼ chiller 6. Silveira JL, Tuna CE. Thermoeconomic analysis method
con ¼ condenser for optimization of combined heat and power systems:
part I. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 2003;
ct ¼ cooling tower 29(6):479–485.
d ¼ discharge 7. Kwak HY, Kim DJ, Jeon JS. Exergetic and thermoeco-
dest ¼ destruction nomic analyses of power plants. Energy 2003; 28(4):
343–360.
e ¼ evaporator 8. Guoxi Z, Ben H, Qinglin C. Exergoeconomic methodology
en ¼ energy for analysis and optimization of process systems. Compu-
ex ¼ exergy ters and Chemical Engineering 2000; 24(2–7):613–618.
9. Rosen MA, Dincer I. Exergy methods for assessing and
hx ¼ heat exchanger comparing thermal energy storage systems. International
i ¼ ideal Journal of Energy Research 2003; 27(4):415–430.
in ¼ inlet 10. Si-Moon K, Si-Doek O, Yong-Ho K, Ho-Young K.
Exergoeconomic analysis of thermal systems. Energy
load ¼ cooling load 1998; 23(5):393–406.
out ¼ outlet 11. Chih W, Lingen C, Fengrui S. Effect ZOF heat transfer law
p ¼ pump on finite-time exergoeconomic performance of CARNOT
heat pump. Energy Conversion and Management 1998;
r ¼ refrigerant 39(7):579–588.
st ¼ storage 12. Dincer I, Rosen MA. Thermal Energy Storage Systems and
s ¼ system Applications. Wiley: New York, 2001.
13. Rosen MA, Dincer I. Exergy-cost-energy-mass analysis of
t ¼ tank thermal systems and processes. Energy Conversion and
w ¼ water Management 2003; 44(10):1633–1651.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:215–225
DOI: 10.1002/er