Energy Conversion and Management 56 (2012) 69–79

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

A comparative study on energetic, exergetic and environmental performance

assessments of novel M-Cycle based air coolers for buildings
Hakan Caliskan a,1, Ibrahim Dincer b,⇑, Arif Hepbasli c
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ege University, TR-35100 Izmir, Turkey
b
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, 2000 Simcoe Street North, Oshawa, Ontario, Canada L1H 7K4
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, King Saud University, P.O. Box 800, Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia

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

Article history: In this study, three various novel air coolers based on M-Cycle are evaluated using energy and exergy
Received 27 September 2011 analyses based efficiency assessments along with environmental impact and sustainability parameters.
Received in revised form 7 November 2011 The M-Cycle systems are considered to cool a building room air while their inlet air parameters are same,
Accepted 7 November 2011
but outlet cooled air parameters are different. Systems I and III draw electricity directly taken from an
Available online 15 December 2011
electric grid in the building while System II, which is stand alone system, produces and draws electricity
from its solar PV panels. In the energy analysis, wet bulb effectiveness, cooling capacity, Coefficient of
Keywords:
Performance (energetic COP) and Primary Energy Ratio (PER) are found. In the exergy analysis, exergy
Air cooler
Building
input and output rates, exergy loss rate, exergy destruction rate, Exergetic Coefficient of Performance
Environment (COPex), Primary Exergy Ratio (PExR) and exergy efficiency are obtained for six different dead state tem-
Energy peratures changing between 10 °C and 35 °C. Also, sustainability assessments of the systems are obtained
Exergy using sustainability index (SI) tool for these various dead state temperatures. Finally, environmental
Efficiency assessments of the systems are calculated from their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (gCO2/kW h)
Greenhouse gases due to their electricity consumptions. Maximum exergy efficiencies and sustainability assessments are
Maisotsenko cycle found to be 35.13% and 1.5415 for System III and 34.94% and 1.5372 for System II, respectively. GHG
Sustainability
emissions of the systems are calculated to be 2119.68 gCO2/day, 153.6 gCO2/day and 3840 gCO2/day
for Systems I, II and III respectively. So, System II becomes a good choose to prevent the global warming
and to attain sustainable future.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Air coolers are generally used in hot humid climates in order to
create comfort air conditions for occupants living in the buildings.
These commonly used systems require high energy consumption.
Especially, conventional air coolers, which are not environmental
and sustainable compared with novel systems, utilize large
amount of electricity [1]. Also, one of the other large parts of the
energy demand is generally related with building envelope and
its environment. Reducing energy utilization of air coolers used
for the buildings is a precaution for energy conservation and envi-
ronmental protection in the world [2]. So, indirect evaporative
coolers can supply necessary air conditions with their high effi-
ciencies and low energy costs [3]. They can also lower air temper-
ature and avoid adding moisture to the air. Furthermore, it can
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 905 721 8668; fax: +1 905 721 3370.
E-mail addresses: hakan.caliskan@ege.edu.tr, hakanc85@gmail.com, hakan.
caliskan@usak.edu.tr (H. Caliskan), Ibrahim.Dincer@uoit.ca (I. Dincer), AHepbasli.c@
ksu.edu.sa, arifhepbasli@gmail.com (A. Hepbasli).
1
On leave: Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Usak
University, TR-64200 Usak, Turkey.
limit the supply air temperature above the wet bulb temperature
of the outdoor air [4,5].
There is another, relatively new and novel indirect evaporative
air cooling system based on patented ‘‘M-Cycle’’ to create comfort
air conditions for the buildings with lowest energy consumption
and highest efficiency. M-Cycle has got the wet and dry sides of
a plate like indirect evaporative coolers, but with a much different
airflow creating a new thermodynamic cycle (resulting in product
temperatures which approach the dew point temperature of the
air) [6]. This cycle uses the enthalpy difference of the air at dew
point temperature and the air saturated at a higher temperature
to reject the heat from the product, and also it allows the product
fluid to be cooled into the dew point temperature of the incoming
air ideally. The air is then pre-cooled before passing into the heat
rejection stream where the water is evaporated [7].
Indoor air quality requirements have become more and more
stringent with the continuous improvement of people living stan-
dard [8]. Also, energy percentages of air coolers in buildings may
be over 50% of the total electric energy consumed. So, energy is
used in sizeable quantities to provide comfort air conditioning in
buildings [9]. The comfort air conditions consist of comfort air tem-

0196-8904/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2011.11.007
70 H. Caliskan et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 56 (2012) 69–79

Nomenclature

ex specific exergy flow (kJ/kg or kJ/kgw) db dry bulb

_
Ex exergy rate (kW) dp dew point
cp specific heat capacity (kJ/kg K) ex exergy
h specific enthalpy (kJ/kg) f fluid
m _ mass flow rate (kg/s or kgw/s) g gas
P pressure (atm or kPa) ha humid air
Q_ cooling capacity rate (kW) in input
R ideal gas constant (kJ/kg K) loss losses
s specific entropy (kJ/kg K) out output
S_ entropy generation rate (kW/K) pd power distribution
T temperature (°C or K) sat saturated
m specific volume rate (m3/kg) SI supply inlet
_
W energy (electricity) consumption (utilized energy) rate SO supply outlet
or consumed power (kW) w water
x molar rate in the mixture (mol or kmol) wb wet bulb
v water vapor
Greek letters
e effectiveness (–) Abbreviations
g efficiency (%) COP (energetic) coefficient of performance
/ relative humidity (–) COPex (exergetic) coefficient of performance
W exergy efficiency (%) EER Energy Efficiency Ratio
x humidity ratio or specific humidity (kgw/kgda or kgw/kg) EES Engineering Equation Solver
x
 mole fraction ratio (–) GHG greenhouse gas
HMX heat and mass exchanger
Subscripts NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
0 reference (dead state) condition PER Primary Energy Ratio
da dry air PExR Primary Exergy Ratio
dest destruction SI sustainability index

perature between 19.45 °C and 27.78 °C, minimum 0.012 humidity
ratio and minimum 80% humidity level based on ASHRAE Standard
55-2004 (for Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occu-
pancy) [10].
The open literature has been chronologically searched to obtain
background studies of the M-Cycle, and a few studies related with
only about description of the heat and mass exchanger (HMX) of
the M-Cycle or energy/exergy analysis of the M-Cycle have been
found. In this regard, Maisotsenko and Gillan [7] investigated the
open perforated M-Cycle. It was found that at no time was water
evaporated into the product air stream, and this cooling cycle
was suitable for use with desiccant air drying systems as it did
not add humidity to the product air. Gillan and Maisotsenko [11]
presented the M-Cycle, which cooled the product fluid with the li-
quid evaporating into a gas from the atmosphere and returned it to
the atmosphere, used for the gas turbine power generation. Com-
pressor inlet air temperature was cooled below the wet bulb tem-
perature by an atmospheric pressure HMX with the cycle. The M-
Cycle created a compressed air saturator using heat from the tur-
bine exhaust gases and cooled water for heat recovery in a com-
pressor intercooler, while the saturator humidified and
superheated the compressed air before entering a combustor to
the amount desired. Shell and tube heat exchangers were used to
be equipment. It was found that NOx and equipment costs were
lower than any other power cycle enhancement systems. Mai-
sotsenko and Reyzin [12] investigated the M-Cycle based HMX
for the electronics cooling. A large cooling capacity could be ob-
tained from the M-Cycle cooler. It was found that air coolers based
on the cycle had got higher Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER) than the
best conventional air coolers. Gillan [6] explained how the M-Cycle
is working. The M-Cycle allows the product fluid air to be cooled in
temperature ideally to the dew point temperature of the incoming
air. This was because of the pre-cooling of the air before passing it
into the heat rejection stream where water was evaporated. The
cycle was realized in a single device with a much higher heat flux
and lower pressure drop than had been realizable in the past due to
its efficient design. Zhao et al. [4] presented numerical investiga-
tion of a novel counter flow heat and mass exchanger used in the
indirect evaporative dew point cooling systems. It was found that,
wet bulb and dew point effectiveness and energy efficiency were
largely dependent on the dimensions of the airflow passages, air
velocity and working to intake air ratio. Zhao et al. [13] carried
out the feasibility of a novel dew point evaporative cooling system
within various regions of China. Lower relative humidity resulted
in higher temperature differences between the dry bulb and dew
point temperatures, and higher cooling capacity of the dew point
system. Tap water could be used to support cooling of the dew
point system. High ambient temperature caused some low-level
cooling capacity as a major part of cooling energy. The system con-
sumed more water in dry and hot climate regions than in mild and
humid regions. Zhao et al. [14] studied about dynamic perfor-
mance of the novel dew point evaporative air cooling system (M-
Cycle) of the buildings based on weather conditions of the various
UK regions. The required air volume flow rate varied with its appli-
cation location. The dry and hot climates needed less air volume
flow rate and less water compared with mild or humid climates.
Riangvilaikul and Kumar [15] explained the results of an experi-
mental study of a novel dew point evaporative cooling system
for different air conditions. It was found that, wet bulb effective-
ness is between 92% and 114%, while dew point effectiveness is be-
tween 58% and 84%, and these results were compared with some
latest studies. Riangvilaikul and Kumar [16] presented the numer-
ical and theoretical performances of a novel dew point evaporative
cooling system operating under the various inlet air conditions. A
dew point evaporative cooling system model was developed to
simulate the heat and mass transfer processes. The model was used
 H. Caliskan et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 56 (2012) 69–79
to optimize the system parameters and to investigate the system
effectiveness operating under various inlet air conditions. Zhan
et al. [1] carried out numerical analyses of the thermal perfor-
mance of the M-Cycle with cross-flow heat exchanger. The finite
element method and Engineering Equation Solver (EES) were used
with published experimental data for the numerical model. It was
found that lower inlet air relative humidity, lower channel air
velocity, and higher working to product air ratio yielded higher
wet bulb effectiveness. Long channel length and small channel
height contributed to increase of the system wet bulb effectiveness
but lead to reduced system Coefficient of Performance (COP). The
M-Cycle heat and mass exchanger can achieve 16.7% higher wet
bulb effectiveness compared with the conventional types of
cross-flow heat and mass exchanger for the indirect evaporative
cooler. Caliskan et al. [17] applied energy, exergy and sustainability
analyses to only one type of M-Cycle based air cooler. For exergy
and sustainability analyses, six different reference temperatures
were considered to be ranging from 0 °C to 23.88 °C, while environ-
ment (supply inlet) temperature was 23.88 °C. As a result, maxi-
mum exergy efficiency was found to be 19.14% for a reference
temperature of 23.88 °C. Caliskan et al. [18] compared one M-Cycle
based air cooling system with other three conventional types along
with energy, exergy and sustainability analyses. Also, twelve dif-
ferent dead state temperatures varying from 5 °C to 50 °C with
a temperature interval of 5 °C were considered. The results showed
that at the dead state temperatures of higher than 23 °C, exergy
efficiency and sustainability of M-Cycle based air cooling system
was higher than those of the conventional systems. The novel
cooling system’s exergy efficiency could reach 60.329% as the max-
imum, while the minimum exergy efficiency of other conventional
cooling systems became as low as 35.866% at a dead state temper-
ature of 50 °C, respectively.
In this study, comprehensive environmental impact and sus-
tainability assessments, and also energy and exergy analyses of
three novel air coolers based on M-Cycle are conducted. Based on
the literature survey conducted, this paper differs from the previ-
ously conducted ones as follows: (i) all of the three studied sys-
tems are novel indirect evaporative air coolers based on the
novel M-Cycle, (ii) six different dead state temperatures, changing
from 10 °C to 35 °C, are considered for parametric study, (iii) entro-
py generations of the systems (based on exergetic values) are ob-
tained, and (iv) environmental assessment based on GHG
emissions (CO2) is made in terms of electricity consumption.
The main aims of the study are to define energetic, exergetic,
environmental and sustainable results of the M-Cycle based novel
air coolers, assess the systems with variable dead state conditions
and obtain the GHG emissions of the systems basing on their elec-
tricity utilizations at which electricity is produced from coal or so-
lar resources.
2. System description
In this study, three different novel air coolers based on M-Cycle
are studied and compared for buildings. The inlet air conditions of
the air coolers are considered to be same for the reliability of the
comparison. The inlet parameters of the systems, which are used
in this study, are listed in Table 1. Outlet air parameters of the sys-
tems, sent to building for cooling and creating the comfort air con-
ditions, are different due to systems’ specifications. Also, systems
are assumed to be operated for 8 h a day (125 days per year) during
a typical cooling season [19]. Furthermore, some necessary system
parameters are given in Table 2.
‘‘Dry bulb temperature’’ is thought of as air temperature which
is the temperature measured by the standard thermometer
exposed to the air stream. ‘‘Wet bulb temperature’’ is a kind of
71
temperature measurement, which reflects the physical properties
of a system with a mixture of air and water vapor, and also it is
the lowest temperature that can be reached by the evaporation
of water only [20]. The wet bulb temperature is lower than the
dry bulb temperature. Unlike the dry bulb temperature, the wet
bulb temperature is an indication of the amount of moisture in
the air, and while together, the dry and wet bulb temperatures
are used to calculate the moisture or humidity in the air. ‘‘Dew
point’’ is the air temperature where moisture in the air begins to
condense or change from a vapor to a liquid. Also, ‘‘dew point tem-
perature’’ is always the coldest of the three temperatures [21].
Generally, heat exchangers use parallel corrugated polymer or
metal plates in their heat transfer structures such as plate and
compact heat exchangers, and media evaporative coolers. Fluid in
devices flows in the space between these plates, and transfers its
heat. In this regard, cross flow heat exchangers have two parallel
corrugated plates with different orientations of corrugation [22].
But the M-Cycle, used in this study, works with novel HMX. On
the dry side of this type of HMX, some parts of the surfaces are de-
signed for the working air, and the other parts are allocated to the
product air. The working and product airs flow parallel channels on
the dry side, and then the working air enters the wet side using the
holes on the area to allow the working air to be pre-cooled before
entering the wet side by losing heat to the opposite wet surface.
This pre-cooled air flows over the wet surface along with channels
absorbing heat from the working and product air. Thus, the work-
ing air is humidified, heated and discharged to the atmosphere,
while the product air is cooled before being delivered to spaces.
The working air temperature in the wet side is low because of
the pre-cooling, so it absorbs more heat from its dry working and
dry product air flow sides. As a result, the wet bulb (cooling) effec-
tiveness of the novel system is higher than that the conventional
ones [1,23,24]. The systems use same novel HMXs. So, the control
volume and HMX of the systems based on M-Cycle are shown in
Fig. 1. This figure explains the systems’ general control volume
and working methods.
The novel air cooler systems based on M-Cycle are named to be
Systems I, II and III, respectively. All of the systems are very kinds
of novel indirect evaporative air cooling systems. Schematic lay-
outs of the Systems I and III are same, but their models and capac-
ities are different. The specifications of System I are taken from
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) under the US
Department of Energy. It draws a daily energy of 2.208 kW h (elec-
trical energy produced from coal) and consumes a power of
0.276 kW [25].
System II is a solar powered 6 ton-capacity (21.1 kW) air condi-
tioner, which runs by four photovoltaic panels utilizing just 0.6 kW
of power. It draws a daily energy of 4.8 kW h (electrical energy pro-
duced from solar panels). This system provides about 30% less
power during the full summer heat when panels can reach temper-
atures of more than 65.55 °C. However, the air conditioner’s ex-
haust can be ducted to the back of the panels to help them for
improving efficiency up to 15% [26]. As explained above, the sys-
tem includes a set of solar panels, which create the electricity to
operate the unit. Fresh air is drawn into the unit using a fan. Then,
the air passes through a filter to remove any impurities, and enters
special chambers known as HMX. Since the air that enters the ex-
changes contain quantities of water, this water is returned to out-
side atmosphere, and the ‘‘conditioned’’ or ‘‘cooled’’ air is then sent
to the structure to be cooled by means of a duct [27].
System III is ideal for residential and commercial installations. It
allows modular installations by placing units side by side, and also
it delivers 5 tons of cooling capacity (17.58 kW), and draws a daily
energy of 4 kW h (electrical energy produced from coal) and con-
sumes maximum a power of 0.5 kW. Also, it has five pieces HMXs,
200–277 V AC power, 50/60 Hz power frequency, 241–413 kPa
72 H. Caliskan et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 56 (2012) 69–79

Table 1
Inlet parameters of the systems.

Parameter Value
Dead state
Dead state temperature, T0 (°C) 10–35 °C
Dead state pressure, P0 = P1 = P2 (atm) 1
Relative humidity at dead state condition, /0 0.128
Inlet
Supply inlet dry bulb temperature of air, TSI,db (°C) 37.77
Supply inlet wet bulb temperature of air, TSI,wb (°C) 18.33
Humidity ratio of the inlet air condition, x (kgw/kgda) 0.0055
Mole fraction ratio of the inlet air condition, x
 0.008844
Dry air
Mass flow rate of dry air, m_ da (kg/s) 0.114
Specific ideal gas constant of dry air, Rda (kJ/kg K) 0.287
Specific heat capacity of dry air, cp,da (kJ/kg K) 1.003
Water vapor
Mass flow rate of water, m_ w (kg/s) 0.000627
Specific ideal gas constant of water vapor, Rv (kJ/kg K) 0.4165
Specific heat capacity of water vapor, cp,v (kJ/kg K) 1.872
Others
 (kJ/kmol K)
Universal gas constant, R 8.314
Saturated water pressure at inlet air temperature, P satðT SI;db Þ (atm) 0.064651
Specific volume rate of saturated water at inlet air temperature, v f ðT SI;db Þ
(m3/kg) 0.001007
Enthalpy of saturated water at inlet air temperature, hf ðT SI;db Þ (kJ/kg) 158.2
Enthalpy of supply inlet air, hin (kJ/kg) 311.4
Entropy of saturated water at inlet air temperature, sf ðT SI;db Þ (kJ/kg K) 0.5425
Power distribution efficiency, gpd (%) 30

Table 2 systems. So, they have common analysis methodology which is gi-
Some necessary system parameters.
ven here.
T0 (°C) P satðT 0 Þ (atm) hgðT 0 Þ sgðT 0 Þ x0 x
 0 (–)
(kJ/kg) (kJ/kg K) (kgw/kgda)
3.1. Energy analysis
10 0.012119 2519.12 8.8995 0.000966 0.0016
15 0.016832 2528.26 8.7801 0.001343 0.0022 The performance of the air coolers can be expressed by the wet
20 0.230820 2537.38 8.6658 0.001843 0.0030
25 0.031300 2546.47 8.5565 0.002502 0.0040
bulb effectiveness ‘‘ewb’’, which is defined as the ratio of tempera-
30 0.041905 2555.52 8.4519 0.003354 0.0054 ture depression of the device to the potential wet bulb depression
35 0.055542 2564.53 8.3516 0.004454 0.0072 as follows [25]:
T SI;db  T SO;db
ewb ¼ ð1Þ
T SI;db  T SI;wb
water pressure, 24 L/h average water utilization and 25 mm drain
size [28]. where ‘‘TSI,db’’ is the supply inlet dry bulb temperature of air, ‘‘TSO,db’’
The exit parameters of the systems are listed in Table 3, while is the supply outlet dry bulb temperature of air and ‘‘TSI,wb’’ is the
their external appearances are illustrated in Fig. 2. supply inlet wet bulb temperature of air.
The dew point effectiveness ‘‘edp’’ can be calculated to measure
the performance of the air coolers. Novel air coolers (based on M-
3. Analysis Cycle) can cool the air below the wet bulb temperature of the inlet
air. The dew point effectiveness is the ratio of temperature depres-
All of the systems mentioned here bases on same novel M-Cycle sion of the system to the potential dew point depression as
technology which is partly similar to indirect evaporative cooling follows:

Environment

Product channel

Building Control volume Working wet channel

Dry air
Air Working dry channel
Humid air Cooler
(System)
Water

(a) Control volume (b) HMX

Fig. 1. The control volume and HMX of the systems based on M-Cycle.
 H. Caliskan et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 56 (2012) 69–79 73

Table 3 where ‘‘hin’’ is the enthalpy of supply inlet air, and ‘‘hout’’ is the en-
Outlet parameters of the systems. thalpy of supply outlet air (cooled room air).
Parameter Value The Coefficient of Performance (COP) for cooling is the ratio of
System I
the heat removed from the cold reservoir to input work. The COP
Supply outlet dry bulb temperature of air, TSO,db (°C) 17.5 (also the so-called energetic COP) of the system can be found as
Supply outlet wet bulb temperature of air, TSO,wb (°C) 10.5
Relative humidity, / (%) 50 Q_ cooling
_ consume (kW) 0.276
COP ¼ ð7Þ
Power consumption, W _ consume
W
System II
where ‘‘W_ consume ’’ is the consumed power.
Supply outlet dry bulb temperature of air, TSO,db (°C) 23.33
Supply outlet wet bulb temperature of air, TSO,wb (°C) 12.7 The primary energy is the energy that has not been subject to
Relative humidity, / (%) 34 any conversion or transformation process. Primary energy may
Power consumption, W _ consume (kW) 0.6
be either resource energy or renewable energy or a combination
System III of both [31]. The Primary Energy Ratio (PER) of the system is also
Supply outlet dry bulb temperature of air, TSO,db (°C) 23.44 obtained as follows:
Supply outlet wet bulb temperature of air, TSO,wb (°C) 13
 
Relative humidity, / (%) 32
_ consume (kW) 0.5
PER ¼ COP gpd ð8Þ
Power consumption, W

where ‘‘gpd’’ is the average power distribution efficiency as to be

30% [25].
T SI;db  T SO;db The mole fraction ratio ‘‘x
 ’’, which represents the number of
edp ¼ ð2Þ
T SI;db  T SI;dp moles of water corresponding to 1 mol of dry air in the mixture
is expressed by:
where ‘‘TSI,dp’’ is the dew point inlet temperature of air.
The specific humidity or humidity ratio ‘‘x’’, which gives the xw
number of kilograms of water to 1 kg of dry air in the mixture is
x
 ¼ ð9Þ
xda
defined to be [30]:
where ‘‘xw’’ (xw = xv) is the mole of water in the mixture and ‘‘xda’’ is
_
m the mole of dry air in the mixture. Also, mole fraction ratio can be
x¼ _ w ð3Þ
mda determined as follows:
where ‘‘m_ w ’’ (m
_w¼m _ v ) is the mass flow rate of water in the mixture
_ da ’’ is the mass flow rate of dry air in the mixture. Also,
and ‘‘m Table 4
humidity ratio at the dead state condition ‘‘x0’’ is found by: Results of the energy analysis.

0:622 System Energetic parameter Value

x0 ¼  P0
 ð4Þ
/0 P satðT
1 I Wet bulb effectiveness (–) 1.0427
0Þ Cooling capacity (kW) 2.3256
Coefficient of Performance (–) 8.426
where ‘‘P0’’ is the dead state pressure, ‘‘/0’’ is the relative humidity
Primary Energy Ratio (–) 2.528
at dead state condition, and ‘‘P satðT 0 Þ ’’ is the saturated water pressure Energy consumption per day (kW h/day) 2.208
at dead state temperature.
II Wet bulb effectiveness (–) 0.7428
Mass flow rate of humid air is total of the mass flow rates of dry Cooling capacity (kW) 1.6530
air and water as follows: Coefficient of Performance (–) 2.755
Primary Energy Ratio (–) 0.827
_ ha ¼ m
m _ da þ m
_w ð5Þ Energy consumption per day (kW h/day) 4.8

The cooling capacity rate of the system ‘‘Q_ cooling ’’ can be defined III Wet bulb effectiveness (–) 0.7371
by Cooling capacity (kW) 1.6416
Coefficient of Performance (–) 3.283
Q_ cooling ¼ m
_ da ðhin  hout Þ ð6Þ Primary Energy Ratio (–) 0.985
Energy consumption per day (kW h/day) 4

Fig. 2. Schematic layouts of the systems [28,29].

74 H. Caliskan et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 56 (2012) 69–79

Table 5
Results of the exergy analysis and sustainability assessment.

System Parameter Dead state temperature (°C)

10 15 20 25 30 35
I Exergy input ratea (kW) 0.3160 0.2751 0.2464 0.2304 0.2276 0.2389
Exergy input rate of dry aira (kW) 0.1606 0.1181 0.0876 0.0696 0.0645 0.0734
Exergy input rate of watera (kW) 0.1554 0.1570 0.1588 0.1608 0.1631 0.1655
Exergy output rate (kW) 0.0864 0.0559 0.0376 0.0321 0.0399 0.0619
Exergy loss rate (kW) 0.2077 0.1703 0.1329 0.0955 0.0581 0.0207
Exergy destruction rate (kW) 0.0219 0.0489 0.0759 0.1028 0.1296 0.1563
Exergetic Coefficient of Performance (–) 0.7526 0.6171 0.4816 0.3461 0.2106 0.0751
Primary Exergy Ratio (–) 0.2258 0.1851 0.1445 0.1038 0.0632 0.0225
Exergy efficiency (%) 27.34 20.32 15.26 13.93 17.53 25.91
Entropy generation (kW/K) 0.000077 0.000170 0.000259 0.000345 0.000427 0.000507
Sustainability assessment (–) 1.3765 1.2549 1.1802 1.1617 1.2128 1.3494
II Exergy input ratea (kW) 0.3160 0.2751 0.2464 0.2304 0.2276 0.2389
Exergy input rate of dry aira (kW) 0.1606 0.1181 0.0876 0.0696 0.0645 0.0734
Exergy input rate of watera (kW) 0.1554 0.1570 0.1588 0.1608 0.1631 0.1655
Exergy output rate (kW) 0.1104 0.0683 0.0386 0.0215 0.0178 0.0282
Exergy loss rate (kW) 0.1476 0.1211 0.0945 0.0679 0.0413 0.0147
Exergy destruction rate (kW) 0.0580 0.0857 0.1133 0.1410 0.1685 0.1960
Exergetic Coefficient of Performance (–) 0.2461 0.2018 0.1575 0.1132 0.0688 0.0245
Primary Exergy Ratio (–) 0.0738 0.0605 0.0472 0.0339 0.0207 0.0074
Exergy efficiency (%) 34.94 24.83 15.67 9.33 7.82 11.80
Entropy generation (kW/K) 0.000205 0.000297 0.000387 0.000473 0.000556 0.000636
Sustainability assessment (–) 1.5372 1.3305 1.1855 1.1028 1.0848 1.1338
III Exergy input ratea (kW) 0.3160 0.2751 0.2464 0.2304 0.2276 0.2389
Exergy input rate of dry aira (kW) 0.1606 0.1181 0.0876 0.0696 0.0645 0.0734
Exergy input rate of watera (kW) 0.1554 0.1570 0.1588 0.1608 0.1631 0.1655
Exergy output rate (kW) 0.1110 0.0687 0.0387 0.0214 0.0175 0.0277
Exergy loss rate (kW) 0.1466 0.1202 0.0938 0.0674 0.0410 0.0146
Exergy destruction rate (kW) 0.0584 0.0862 0.1139 0.1416 0.1691 0.1966
Exergetic Coefficient of Performance (–) 0.2932 0.2404 0.1876 0.1348 0.0820 0.0293
Primary Exergy Ratio (–) 0.0880 0.0721 0.0563 0.0405 0.0246 0.0088
Exergy efficiency (%) 35.13 24.97 15.71 9.29 7.69 11.59
Entropy generation (kW/K) 0.000206 0.000299 0.000388 0.000475 0.000558 0.000638
Sustainability assessment (–) 1.5415 1.3329 1.1863 1.1024 1.0834 1.1311
a
These parameters are same for all of the systems due to same inlet air conditions.

Table 6
Results of the environmental assessment.

Parameter Value
System I
Greenhouse gas emission (CO2) rate for electricity consumption (produced from coal), gCO2/kW h 960
Greenhouse gas emission (CO2) rate per day, gCO2/day 2119.68
System II
Greenhouse gas emission (CO2) rate for electricity consumption (produced from solar PV panels), gCO2/kW h 32
Greenhouse gas emission (CO2) rate per day, gCO2/day 153.6
System III
Greenhouse gas emission (CO2) rate for electricity consumption (produced from coal), gCO2/kW h 960
Greenhouse gas emission (CO2) rate per day, gCO2/day 3840

x
 ffi ð1:608Þ x ð10Þ _ in ’’, ‘‘Ex
where ‘‘Ex _ out ’’, ‘‘Ex
_ loss ’’ and ‘‘Ex
_ dest ’’ are the exergy input rate,
exergy output rate, exergy loss rate and exergy destruction rate,
The relative humidity ‘‘/’’, which represents the number moles _ in ’’ and ‘‘Ex_ out ’’ can be expressed by:
respectively. ‘‘Ex
of water in the actual mixture over the number of moles of water
in the saturated mixture at temperature ‘‘T’’ is found by: _ in ¼ Ex
Ex _ in;da þ Ex
_ in;w ð13Þ
xv ½T; P Pv and
/¼ ¼ ð11Þ
xw;sat ½T; Psat  Psatð TÞ _ ha
_ out ¼ Ex
Ex ð14Þ
where, ‘‘Pv’’ is the water vapor pressure of the atmospheric air, and _ in;da ’’, ‘‘Ex
where ‘‘Ex _ in;w ’’ and ‘‘Ex
_ ha ’’ are the exergy input rate of dry
‘‘PsatðTÞ ’’ is the saturated water vapor pressure at temperature ‘‘T’’. air, exergy input rate of water and exergy rate of humid air,
respectively.
3.2. Exergy analysis The exergy input rate of dry air ‘‘Ex _ in;da ’’ is given as

_ in;da ¼ m
Ex _ da exda ð15Þ
The exergy balance for a control volume is given as follows:
_ da ’’ is the mass flow rate of dry air (kg/s) and ‘‘exda’’ is the
where ‘‘m
_ in ¼ Ex
Ex _ out þ Ex
_ loss þ Ex
_ dest ð12Þ specific exergy flow of dry air (kJ/kg) as follows:
 H. Caliskan et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 56 (2012) 69–79 75

 
T SI;db T SI;db P1 Also, the Primary Exergy Ratio (PExR) can be created basing on
exda ¼ cp;da T 0  1  ln þ Rda T 0 ln
T0 T0 P0 same methods of exergy and PER. So, the PExR is defined to be re-
þ Rda T 0 ln ð1 þ x  0Þ ð16Þ lated with COPex and power distribution efficiency ‘‘gpd’’. It can be
found by
where ‘‘cp,da’’ is the specific heat capacity of dry air, ‘‘T0’’ is the dead
state temperature, ‘‘TSI,db’’ is the supply inlet dry bulb temperature,  
PEx R ¼ COP ex gpd ð24Þ
‘‘Rda’’ is the specific ideal gas constant of dry air, ‘‘P1’’ is the supply
inlet pressure, ‘‘P0’’ is the dead state pressure, ‘‘x  0 ’’ is the mole frac- _ is the ratio of the exergy
The entropy generation rate ‘‘S’’
tion ratio of the dead state condition.
_ in;w ’’ can be expressed by destruction to the dead state temperature as follows:
The exergy input rate of water ‘‘Ex
_ in;w ¼ m
Ex _ da x exw
_ w exw ¼ m ð17Þ _ dest
Ex
S_ ¼ ð25Þ
_ w ’’ is the mass flow rate of water (kgw/s) and ‘‘exw’’ is the
where ‘‘m T0
specific exergy flow of water (kJ/kgw) which is given by The exergy efficiency is defined as
   
exw ¼ hf ðT SI;db Þ  hgðT 0 Þ  T 0 sf ðT SI;db Þ  sgðT 0 Þ
_ out
Ex _ ha
Ex
  W¼ ¼ ð26Þ
þ P1  P satðT SI;db Þ v f ðT SI;db Þ  Rv T 0 ln ð/0 Þ ð18Þ _Exin _Exin;da þ Ex
_ in;w

where ‘‘hf ðT SI;db Þ ’’ is the enthalpy (fluid) of saturated water at inlet air
temperature (TSI,db), ‘‘hgðT 0 Þ ’’ is the enthalpy (gas) of saturated water
3.3. Sustainability assessment
vapor at dead state temperature (T0), ‘‘sf ðT SI;db Þ ’’ is the entropy (fluid)
of saturated water at inlet air temperature (TSI,db), ‘‘sgðT 0 Þ ’’ is the Sustainability assessment is required for efficient and effective
entropy (gas) of saturated water vapor at dead state temperature use of resources and its performance here is assessed with SI
(T0), ‘‘P1’’ is the supply inlet pressure, ‘‘PsatðT SI;db Þ ’’ is the saturated parameter as a function of exergy efficiency. Exergy methods are
water pressure at inlet air temperature (TSI,db), ‘‘v f ðT SI;db Þ ’’ is the spe- better choice in improving efficiency that allows society to maxi-
mize the benefits [32]. So, SI method based on exergy efficiency
cific volume rate of saturated water (fluid) at inlet air temperature
is a useful tool to obtain sustainability assessment as follows:
(TSI,db), ‘‘Rv’’ is the specific ideal gas constant of water vapor, ‘‘/0’’ is
the relative humidity of inlet air condition.
The exergy output rate ‘‘Ex _ out ’’ is equal to the exergy rate of 1
SI ¼ ð27Þ
_
humid air ‘‘Exha ’’ as follows: 1W
_ ha ¼ m
Ex _ ha exha ð19Þ
_ ha ’’ is the mass flow rate of humid air (kg/s) and ‘‘exha’’ is
where ‘‘m 3.4. Environmental assessment
the specific exergy flow of humid air (kJ/kgw) which can be ex-
pressed as The emissions of GHGs cause a major environmental impact
 

T SO;db T SO;db and effect on global warming. The changing of this cycle influences
exha ¼ cp;da þ x cp;v T 0  1  ln the fraction of anthropogenic GHGs that remains in the atmo-
T0 T0
sphere, and hence the atmospheric concentrations of GHGs, result-
P2
þ ð1 þ x  ÞRda T 0 ln ing in further climate change. This feedback is called climate-
P0
     carbon cycle coupling. The first generation coupled climate-carbon
1þx 0 x

cycle models indicate that global warming increases the fraction of
þ Rda T 0 ð1 þ x  Þ ln þx  ln ð20Þ
1þx  x
0 anthropogenic CO2 that remains in the atmosphere [33]. So, esti-
where ‘‘cp,v’’ is the specific heat capacity of water vapor, ‘‘TSO,db’’ is mating the GHG is important to do an environmental assessment.
the supply outlet dry bulb temperature (cooled air temperature), The systems are operated with electricity. So, electric energy
‘‘P2’’ is the supply outlet pressure, ‘‘P0’’ is the dead state pressure consumption is the key point to estimate GHG emissions of the
and ‘‘x  ’’ is the mole fraction ratio of the inlet condition. air coolers. Because of the electricity generation, some of GHGs,
The heat loss occurs due to temperature differences between in- especially CO2, release to the environment. In this study, Systems
let and outlet conditions. Also, exergy loss bases on this heat loss I and III use electricity produced from coal, while System II uses so-
considering dead state temperature. The exergy loss rate ‘‘Ex _ loss ’’ lar PV panels to create electric energy for operating the unit. The
is calculated by CO2 emissions due to the production of the PV system can be ob-
  tained by multiplying all energy and material inputs with their cor-
_ loss ¼ Q_ cooling 1  T 0
Ex ð21Þ responding CO2 emission factors [34]. Also, CO2 emissions during
T SI;db
the PV life cycles can give more reliable results [35]. These emis-
Exergy destruction can be thought to be irreversibility of the sions generated the major hazards to the environment and people
systems, which occurs inside the control volume and cannot be from materials extraction during the PV life cycle. The emissions
_ dest ’’ is determined by
gained again. The exergy destruction rate ‘‘Ex were normalized by the electricity generated during the life cycle
of PV [33].
_ dest ¼ Ex
Ex _ in  Ex
_ out  Ex
_ loss ð22Þ Estimated CO2 values for electricity generators are obtained
The Exergetic Coefficient of Performance (COPex) may be derived from Sovacool [36], which includes lifecycle estimates for electric-
from the similar methodology of exergy and COP. The COPex of the ity generators. These estimated CO2 values for electricity genera-
system is obtained as follows: tors, produced from coal and solar PV panels, are 960 gCO2/kW h
  and 32 gCO2/kW h, respectively [36,37]. So, environmental assess-
T0 ments of the systems are performed based on the values for these
COP ex ¼ COP 1  ð23Þ
T SI;db estimated GHG and the systems’ daily electricity consumption.
76 H. Caliskan et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 56 (2012) 69–79

4. Results and discussion 2.5

Wet Bulb Effectiveness (-)

Wet Bulb Effectiveness (-)

Cooling Capacity (kW)

Cooling Capacity (kW)

The systems, which were novel air coolers based on M-Cycle, 2.0
were investigated through energy and exergy analyses, sustain-
ability and environmental assessments methods. The values for 1.5
wet bulb effectiveness, cooling capacity, COP and PER were ob-

&
tained from the energy analysis. The results of the energy analysis 1.0
are illustrated in Table 4. In the exergy analysis, exergy input rate
(exergy input rates of dry air and water), exergy output rate (exer- 0.5
gy rate of humid air), exergy loss rate, exergy destruction rate, CO-
Pex, PExR and exergy efficiency were calculated for six varying dead 0.0
state temperatures stated earlier. Also, sustainability assessments System I System II System III
of the systems were obtained using SI tool for these various dead
Fig. 3. The wet bulb effectiveness and cooling capacity rates of the systems.
state temperatures. Finally, environmental assessments of the sys-
tems were calculated from their GHG emissions (in ‘‘gCO2/kW h’’)
due to their electricity utilization. The results of the exergy analysis 9
and sustainability assessment are given in Table 5, while those of 8
COP (-)
PER (-)
the environmental assessment are listed in Table 6.

COP (-) & PER (-)

7
Energy analysis is not affected by the dead state temperature. 6
The wet bulb effectiveness and cooling capacity rates of the sys- 5
tems are shown in Fig. 3. The wet bulb effectiveness is related with 4
inlet and outlet air temperatures of the systems. Maximum and 3
minimum wet bulb effectiveness values were found to be 1.0427 2
and 0.7371 for Systems I and III, respectively. Also, the cooling 1
capacity rates of the Systems II and III were very close to each 0
System I System II System III
other. The maximum cooling capacity was found to be
2.3256 kW for System I, while the minimum cooling capacity Fig. 4. COP and PER rates of the systems.
was obtained to be 1.6416 kW for System III.
COP and PER values of the systems are given in Fig. 4. The max-
imum COP was found to be 8.426 for System I, while the minimum 0.18
COP was obtained to be 2.755 for System II. Also, the maximum and
Exergy Input Rate (kW)

minimum PER values were calculated to be 2.528 and 0.827 for 0.16
Systems I and II, respectively.
0.14
Exergy input includes exergy inputs of dry air and water. Exergy Exergy Input Rate of Dry Air (kW)
input rates are same for all of the systems due to same inlet air Exergy Input Rate of Water (kW)
0.12
conditions, but they change with varying dead state temperatures.
The exergy input rates of the systems are given in Fig. 5. The exergy 0.10
input rates decrease with increasing the dead state temperatures
until which the comfort air temperature range (between 19.45 °C 0.08
and 27.78 °C) becomes very close. The maximum exergy input rate
(total of exergy input rates of dry air and water) was calculated to 0.06
10 15 20 25 30 35
be 0.3160 kW at a dead state temperature of 10 °C (minimum dead
Dead State Temperature (°C)
state temperature), while the minimum exergy input rate was ob-
tained to be 0.2276 kW at a dead state temperature of 30 °C (near Fig. 5. The exergy input rates of the systems.
to comfort air temperature).
Exergy output is equal to exergy of humid air. Outlet (cooled)
air parameters are different for all of the systems. So, the exergy
Exergy Output Rate (kW)

0.12
System I
output rates of the systems are different and also they change with System II
0.10 System III
various dead state temperatures as shown in Fig. 6. Maximum and
minimum exergy output rates were calculated to be 0.1110 kW 0.08
and 0.0175 kW for System III at dead state temperatures of 10 °C 0.06
and 30 °C, respectively.
0.04
Exergy losses occur due to the differences between the inlet
(environment) and outlet (cooled room) air temperatures of the 0.02
systems, and they are also affected by the dead state temperature 0.00
as explained in Eq. (21). The exergy loss rates of the systems are 10 15 20 25 30 35
illustrated in Fig. 7 to show such a variation. The exergy loss is in- Dead State Temperature (°C)
versely proportional to the dead state temperature. The maximum
exergy loss rate was calculated to be 0.2077 kW at a dead state Fig. 6. The exergy output rates of the systems.
temperature of 10 °C for System I while the minimum exergy loss
rate was obtained to be 0.0146 kW at a dead state temperature of
35 °C (maximum dead state temperature) for System III. due to irreversibilities. It also changes with varying dead state
Exergy destruction occurs inside the systems due to irreversibil- temperatures. In this regard, the exergy destruction rates of the
ity and never gains again. In the other words, part of exergy input systems are given in Fig. 8. The exergy destructions of the systems
is lost through the heat transfer and is destroyed within the system are directly proportional to the dead state temperatures. The
 H. Caliskan et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 56 (2012) 69–79 77

0.22 0.24
System I 0.22 System I
Exergy Loss Rate (kW)

0.20 System II System II

0.18 System III 0.20 System III
0.16 0.18
0.16

PEx R (-)
0.14
0.14
0.12 0.12
0.10 0.10
0.08 0.08
0.06 0.06
0.04 0.04
0.02 0.02
0.00 0.00
10 15 20 25 30 35 10 15 20 25 30 35
Dead State Temperature (°C) Dead State Temperature (°C)

Fig. 7. The exergy loss rates of the systems. Fig. 11. PExR values of the systems.

36
System I
Exergy Destruction Rate (kW)

Exergy Efficiency (%)

32 System II
System III
0.20 28
System I
0.18 System II 24
0.16 System III
20
0.14
16
0.12
0.10 12
0.08 8
0.06 4
0.04 0
0.02 10 15 20 25 30 35
0.00 Dead State Temperature (°C)
10 15 20 25 30 35
Dead State Temperature (°C) Fig. 12. The exergy efficiency values of the systems.

Fig. 8. The exergy destruction rates of the systems.

1.6
Sustainability Index (-)

System I
1.4 System II
System III
Entropy Generation Rate (kW/K)

1.2
0.00065 1.0
System I
System II 0.8
0.00055 System III
0.6
0.00045 0.4
0.00035 0.2
0.0
0.00025 10 15 20 25 30 35

0.00015 Dead State Temperature (°C)

0.00005 Fig. 13. The sustainability assessment values of the systems.

10 15 20 25 30 35
Dead State Temperature (°C)
Greenhouse Gas Emission (CO2)

Fig. 9. The entropy generation rates of the systems.

4000
3500
per Day (g/day)

0.8
System I 3000
0.7 System II
2500
System III
0.6 2000
COPex (-)

0.5 1500
0.4 1000
0.3 500
0.2 0
System I System II System III
0.1
0.0
10 15 20 25 30 35 Fig. 14. The environmental assessment values of the systems.
Dead State Temperature (°C)

Fig. 10. COPex values of the systems. Furthermore, entropy generations of the systems occur due to
exergy destructions. The entropy generation rates of the systems
minimum and maximum exergy destruction rates were calculated are shown in Fig. 9. For all of the system, the minimum and max-
to be 0.0219 kW and 0.1966 kW for Systems I and III at 10 °C and imum entropy generation rates were found at the dead state tem-
35 °C dead state temperatures, respectively. peratures of 10 °C and 35 °C, respectively.
78 H. Caliskan et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 56 (2012) 69–79
Exergy Input Rate of
Water
0.1554 kW
(49.18%)
Exergy Input Rate
0.3160 kW
(100%)
Exergy
Output Rate
0.1104 kW
(34.94%)
Fig. 15. The exergy loss and flow (Grassmann) diagram of the System II at a dead state temperature of 10 °C.
The COPex values of the systems are illustrated in Fig. 10. The
minimum and maximum COPex values were found to be 0.0245
and 0.7526 for System II and System I at 35 °C and 10 °C dead state
temperatures, respectively. Furthermore, PExR values of the sys-
tems are shown in Fig. 11. The minimum and maximum PExR val-
ues are obtained to be 0.0074 and 0.2258 for System II and System I
at 35 °C and 10 °C dead state temperatures, respectively.
The exergy efficiency, which is a ratio of the obtained useful
exergy output to the exergy input, was calculated using Eq.
(26). The exergy output (exergy of humid air) changes with vary-
ing dead state temperatures for all of the systems and hence the
exergy efficiencies change. The exergy efficiency rates of the sys-
tems are illustrated in Fig. 12. The exergy efficiencies of the sys-
tems were obtained minimum at the dead state temperature
values ranging from 25 °C to 30 °C, which were close to the com-
fort air temperature range (between 19.45 °C and 27.78 °C). Min-
imum and maximum exergy efficiencies were calculated to be
7.69% and 35.13% at dead state temperatures of 30 °C and 10 °C
for System III, respectively. This concludes that System III is the
most efficient air cooler.
The SI values of the systems are given in Fig. 13. They depend on
exergy efficiency, as mentioned in Eq. (27). So, SI values of the sys-
tems change with varying dead state temperatures. The minimum
and maximum SI values were obtained to be 1.0834 and 1.5415 at
dead state temperatures of 30 °C and 10 °C for System III,
respectively.
Also, the variations of environmental impact assessment of the
systems considered are illustrated in Fig. 14. They depend on elec-
tricity consumption and types of the sources of electricity genera-
tion. This indicates how many grams CO2 are released to the
environment atmosphere in a day. GHG emissions (CO2) of the sys-
tems are different due to the sources of electric energy generations
and the systems’ energy drawing. System II uses solar PV panels to
create electric energy for operating the M-Cycle, also Systems I and
III take the electric energy directly from the electric grid in the
building. The electricity produced from solar PV panels and coal
cause 32 gCO2/kW h and 960 gCO2/kW h GHGs (CO2) oscillations
Exergy Input Rate of
Dry Air
0.1606 kW
(50.82%)
Exergy
Loss Rate
0.1476 kW
(46.71%)
Exergy
Destruction Rate
0.0580 kW
(18.35%)
to the environment, respectively. Also, Systems I, II and III release
2119.68 gCO2/day, 153.6 gCO2/day and 3840 gCO2/day GHG (CO2),
respectively.
The System II appears to be the most environmentally-benign
and efficient air cooler. Note that its maximum exergy efficiency
(for 34.94 kW) is very close the highest exergy efficiency of the sys-
tems as System III (for 35.13 kW). So, the exergy loss and flow
(Grassmann) diagram of the System II at a dead state temperature
of 10 °C is shown in Fig. 15 from which the exergetic dispersals of
the system may be clearly understood.
5. Conclusions
The energy and exergy analyses, and sustainability and envi-
ronmental impact assessments are applied to the three novel
air cooler systems considered to cool a building air. Energy
analysis is performed to achieve wet bulb effectiveness, cooling
capacity, COP and PER of the systems. For the exergy analysis,
six various dead state temperatures, changing from 10 °C to
35 °C, are taken into account to compare the systems and ob-
tain their best working dead state temperatures along with
exergy efficiency and sustainability. Also, environmental assess-
ments are obtained using GHG emission rates of the systems
due to their electricity consumptions. Considering the results
of the analyses, the following main conclusions can be drawn
from the present study:
 The wet bulb effectiveness mostly depends on the different out-
let (cooled) air parameters of the systems because the inlet air
parameters are same for all of the systems. Also, the wet bulb
effectiveness of System II is very close to that of System III
due to their close supply outlet temperatures.
 The cooling capacity depends on the mass flow rate of dry air
and enthalpy differences of the inlet and outlet airs. The inlet
mass flow rate and enthalpy of dry air are same for all of the
systems and hence only enthalpy of the supply outlet air is
responsible for this variation.
 H. Caliskan et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 56 (2012) 69–79
 The COP values are different for all of the systems because of
their varying energy consumption values. The PER is related to
COP. So, its chart behavior is similar to that of COP. The mini-
mum and maximum COP and PER values are found for Systems
II and I, respectively.
 The entropy generation depends on the exergy destruction and
dead state temperature. The entropy generation rates increase
with the increase in the dead state temperatures like the exergy
destruction rates.
 The COPex changes with the dead state temperatures. This vari-
ation mostly depends on the varying dead state temperatures.
COP and supply inlet dry bulb temperatures are same for all of
the systems. Also, PExR is related with COPex and hence its charts
are similar with COPex.
 The exergy efficiency decreases until the dead state tempera-
ture ranges between 25 °C and 30 °C, which is close to the com-
fort air temperature range (between 19.45 °C and 27.78 °C), but
after this range it starts to increase.
 The sustainability indexes of the systems decrease until the
dead state temperature ranges between 25 °C and 30 °C. After
this range, SI starts to increase. It depends on the exergy effi-
ciency, so the results of SI are resemble to those of the exergy
efficiency.
 For a future work, economic assessments of this system and com-
parisons with other conventional systems are recommended.
The System II, which uses solar PV panels (stand alone) to create
electricity and operate the air cooler, is the most environmental air
cooler, while System III utilizing electric energy from the electric
grid in the building (produced from coal) is not good in respect
to the environmental protection and global warming.
Furthermore, the System III, which uses coal fired electricity, is
the most efficient and sustainable air cooler, while it is the worse
environmental system. But the exergy efficiency differences of Sys-
tems II and III are not so much. Also, their other exergetic values
are close to each other. So, System II utilizing renewable solar en-
ergy is the best option for users preferring to use energy efficient
and environmentally friendly air coolers among the M-Cycle based
air coolers.
References
[1] Zhan C, Zhao X, Smith S, Riffat SB. Numerical study of a M-cycle cross-flow heat
exchanger for indirect evaporative cooling. Build Environ 2011;46:657–68.
doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.09.011.
[2] Eskin N, Turkmen H. Analysis of annual heating and cooling energy
requirements for office buildings in different climates in Turkey. Energy
Build 2008;40(5):763–73. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2007.05.008.
[3] Chen Q, Yang K, Wang M, Pan N, Guo ZY. A new approach to analysis and
optimization of evaporative cooling system I: theory. Energy
2010;35:2448–54. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2010.02.037.
[4] Zhao X, Li JM, Riffat SB. Numerical study of a novel counter-flow heat and mass
exchanger for dew point evaporative cooling. Appl Therm Eng
2008;28:1942–51. doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2007.12.006.
[5] Seppala A, Lampinen MJ. Entropy analysis of wet-surface cooling system
for air flow. Int J Energy Res 1998;22:563–77. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-
114X(199805)22:6<563::AID-ER378>3.0.CO;2-0.
[6] Gillan L. Maisotsenko cycle for cooling processes. Int J Energy Clean Environ
2008;9(1–3):47–64. doi:10.1615/InterJEnerCleanEnv.v9.i1-3.50.
[7] Maisotsenko V, Gillan L. Maisotsenko cycle for air desiccant cooling. In:
Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on heating, ventilating and air
conditioning, Beijing, China; October 9–11, 2003. p. 1011–20. ISBN-
10:7302073260.
[8] Tu Q, Mao S, Feng Y, Guo D. Heating control strategy in fresh air processor
matched with variable refrigerant flow air conditioning system. Energy
Convers Manage 2011;52:2542–54. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2011.02.007.
[9] Al-Rabghi OM, Akyurt MM. A survey of energy efficient strategies for effective
air conditioning. Energy Convers Manage 2004;45:1643–54. doi:10.1016/
j.enconman.2003.10.004.
79
[10] ASHRAE. ASHRAE Technical Committee 2.1 – physiology and human
environment. <http://tc21.ashraetcs.org/faq.html> [accessed 05.10.10].
[11] Gillan L, Maisotsenko V. Maisotsenko open cycle used for gas turbine power
generation. In: Proceedings of ASME turbo expo, Atlanta, US, vol. 3; June 16–
19, 2003. p. 75–84 [Paper no. GT2003-38080].
[12] Maisotsenko V, Reyzin I. The Maisotsenko cycle for electronics cooling. In:
Proceedings of the ASME/Pacific rim technical conference and exhibition on
integration and packaging of MEMS, NEMS, and electronic systems: advances
in electronic packaging, San Francisco, CA, US, vol. A; July 17–22, 2005. p. 415–
24. ISBN-10:0791842002.
[13] Zhao X, Yang S, Duan Z, Riffat SB. Feasibility study of a novel dew point air
conditioning system for China building application. Build Environ
2009;44:1990–9. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.02.003.
[14] Zhao X, Duan Z, Zhan C, Riffat SB. Dynamic performance of a novel dew point
air conditioning for the UK buildings. Int J Low-Carbon Technol
2009;4(1):27–35. doi:10.1093/ijlct/ctp005.
[15] Riangvilaikul B, Kumar S. An experimental study of a novel dew point
evaporative cooling system. Energy Build 2010;42(5):637–44. doi:10.1016/
j.enbuild.2009.10.034.
[16] Riangvilaikul B, Kumar S. Numerical study of a novel dew point evaporative
cooling system. Energy Build 2010;42(11):2241–50. doi:10.1016/
j.enbuild.2010.07.020.
[17] Caliskan H, Hepbasli A, Dincer I, Maisotsenko V. Thermodynamic performance
assessment of a novel air cooling cycle: Maisotsenko cycle. Int J Refrig
2011;34(4):980–90. doi:10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2011.02.001.
[18] Caliskan H, Dincer I, Hepbasli A. Exergetic and sustainability performance
comparison of novel and conventional air cooling systems for building
applications. Energy Build 2011;43:1461–72. doi:10.1016/
j.enbuild.2011.02.006.
[19] Air conditioner. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_conditioner> [accessed
10.12.10].
[20] Hosoz M, Ertunc HM, Ozguc AF. Modelling of a direct evaporative air cooler
using artificial neural network. Int J Energy Res 2008;32:83–9. doi:10.1002/
er.1336.
[21] Qiu GQ, Riffat SB. Novel design and modelling of an evaporative cooling system
for buildings. Int J Energy Res 2006;30:985–99. doi:10.1002/er.1199.
[22] Tavakoli E, Hosseini R. Numerical analysis of 3D cross flow between
corrugated parallel plates in evaporative coolers. Energy Convers Manage
2011;52:884–92. 10.1016/j.enconman.2010.08.015.
[23] Coolerado Inc. Coolerado HMX (heat and mass exchanger) brochure. Arvada
(Colorado, USA): Coolerado Corporation; 2006.
[24] ISAW. Natural air conditioner (heat and mass exchanger) catalogues.
Hangzhou (China): SAW Corporation Ltd.; 2005.
[25] National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). US Department of Energy by
Midwest Research Institute, Battelle, Bechtel. <http://www.nrel.gov/>
[accessed 13.04.03].
[26] Ecohome. Ecohome-cooled by the sun. <http://www.ecohomemagazine.com/
green-products/cooled-by-the-sun.aspx> [accessed 05.10.10].
[27] GreenProphet. Coolerado from Colorado could cool the middle east with solar-
powered air conditioning. <http://www.greenprophet.com/2009/03/coolarado-
solar-air-conditioning/> [accessed 05.10.10].
[28] Coolerado Inc. Coolerado reference manual C60, M50, M30, Version 2010-1.
<http://coolerado.clearsolar.com.au/downloads/information_pack/4_3%20Operations%
20manual%20C60%20M50%20M30%20V1.pdf> [accessed 05.10.10].
[29] Coolerado Inc. Video 3 – Coolerado solar powered air conditioning. <http://www.
coolerado.com/tech-info/video-3-coolerado-solar-powered-air-conditioning/>
[accessed 05.10.10].
[30] Shukuya M, Hammache A. Introduction to the concept of exergy-for a better
understanding of low temperature heating and high temperature cooling
systems. LowEx Espoo 2002; VTT Research Notes 2158. <http://www.vtt.fi/inf/
pdf/tiedotteet/2002/T2158.pdf> [accessed 05.10.10]. ISBN: 951-38-6075-2.
[31] Rodriguez-Vieitez E, Wolf O. Common benchmark ecolabel & GPP criteria for
hydronic central heating systems. Institute for Prospective Technology Studies,
JRC-European Commission, October 2010. <http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
heating/docs/2%20IPTS%20Scope%20Draft%202%20-%20Common%20Benchmark
%20Hydronic% 20Central%20Heating%20Systems.pdf> [accessed 01.09.11].
[32] Rosen MA, Dincer I, Kanoglu M. Role of exergy in increasing efficiency and
sustainability and reducing environmental impact. Energy Policy
2008;36:128–37. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.09.006.
[33] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). <http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/
assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_appendix.pdf> [accessed 10.12.10].
[34] Alsema EA. Energy pay-back time and CO2 emissions of PV systems. Prog
Photovolt Res Appl 2000;8:17–25.
[35] Fthenakis VM, Kim HC, Alsema M. Emissions from photovoltaic life cycles.
Environ Sci Technol 2008;42:2168–74.
[36] Sovacool BK. Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: a
critical survey. Energy Policy 2008;36:2940–53. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.
2008.04.017.
[37] Comparisons of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions. <http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Comparisons_of_life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions#cite_note-sov-0>
[accessed 10.12.10].