Applied Thermal Engineering 153 (2019) 128–141

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

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

Research Paper

Power generation enhancement in a biomass-based combined cycle using T

solar energy: Thermodynamic and environmental analysis
Simin Anvaria, , Shahram Khalilaryaa, Vahid Zareb
⁎

a
Mechanical Engineering Department, Technical Education Faculty, Urmia University, Urmia, West Azerbaijan 57561-15311, Iran
b
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Urmia University of Technology, Urmia, Iran

HIGHLIGHTS

• ATwonovel configuration of hybrid biomass/solar combined cycle to 15 MW power is proposed.

• The cycle
main objectives followed: to increase power and reduce CO emissions.
• A parametric
2
is analyzed from the energy, exergy, environmental, and economical viewpoints.
• The proposed analysis with different approach is conducted.
• cycle has been economically and environmentally justified.

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Renewable energy sources are one of the promising solutions to deal with the problems and environmental issues
Biomass arising from fossil fuels. Among the various types of thermodynamic cycles, combined systems are one of the most
Combined cycle efficient power generation systems. In this regard, in the present work, a combined cycle is proposed based on new
CO2 emission configuration of hybrid biomass-solar energies for production of 13.4 MW power in three sections (Biomass sec-
Hybrid biomass-solar
tion, Solar section and Steam turbine section). Initially, the proposed cycle is extensively analyzed in energetic,
Exergy analysis
exergetic, and environmental terms and LCOE costs are calculated to estimate the economy of the proposed cycle.
Solar energy
Then, for having a clear insight on the effect of adding each of the solar and steam turbine sections to biomass
section, the generated power and CO2 emission of each biomass, biomass/solar, and combined cycles are compared
and examined. In the end, during the parametric study, the effect of prime thermodynamic parameters on the share
of each of the cycle sections on the entire proposed cycle is studied and evaluated. The results showed that, adding
the solar section to the biomass-based system brings about an increase of around 25% in power production and a
reduction of about 31% in CO2 emission. Also, the amount of CO2 emissions from the proposed combined cycle is
about 49% lower than that of the standalone biomass-based system.

1. Introduction
In recent years, the energy crisis, depletion of fossil fuel reservoirs
and environmental issues such as greenhouse gas emissions, have urged
international community to pay more attention on switching towards
renewable energy resources, such as solar energy [1] and biomass en-
ergy [2]. The pursuit of sustainable energy sources offers biomass as a
good alternative due to advantages such as abundance and having net
zero CO2 emissions [3]. The prevalent use of biomass in energy section
is its direct combustion following the gasification, carbonization, and
pyrolysis. Unlike fossil fuels, biomass can be reproduced, therefore, it is
considered as a renewable fuel source [4]. From the other hand, solar
energy, for the present time and for the future, is considered promising
and sustainable choice for the electricity production and a potential
substitute for fossil fuels [1]. In this regard, researchers postulated that
by using the clean energies (such as solar energy, biomass energy, etc.)
instead of conventional fuels, the environmental issues could be
brought under control. It is esteemed that by 2050, the worldwide CO2
emissions would be diminished up to 75% in comparison to that of CO2
content registered in 1985 [5].
Regarding the power generation systems, the combined cycles are
recognized as one of the best cost-effective methods thanks to their
efficient utilization of fuel that makes significant improvements from
environmental aspect [6]. That being said, the efficient utilization of

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: S.Anvari@Urmia.ac.ir (S. Anvari).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.02.112
Received 29 June 2018; Received in revised form 18 January 2019; Accepted 24 February 2019
Available online 28 February 2019
1359-4311/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Anvari, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 153 (2019) 128–141

Nomenclature air air

AC air compressor
E exergy rate (kW) CC combustion chamber
ED exergy destruction rate (kW) CHP combined heating and power
h specific enthalpy (kJ/kg) Cond condenser
0
h̄f enthalpy of formation (kJ/kg) D destruction
LHV lower heating value (kJ/kg) DNI direct normal irradiance
HHV higher heating value (kJ/kg) e exit condition
m mass flow rate (kg/s) Eva evaporator
P pressure (bar) Fuel fuel
Q heat rate (kW) g gas
rp, AC compressor pressure ratio hel heliostat field
s specific entropy (kJ/kg K) HP_GT high pressure gas turbine
T temperature (K) i inlet condition
W power (kW) ORC organic Rankine cycle
y exergy destruction ratio (%) IHE intermediate heat exchanger
k component
Greek symbols LP_GT low pressure gas turbine
P pump
difference PP pinch point
energy efficiency rec receiver
exergy efficiency ST steam turbine
k component
Superscripts L loss
tot total
CH chemical 0 dead state
PH physical

Subscripts

a actual

renewable energy sources is currently a main goal of the researchers,
for which the application of hybrid biomass-solar systems is a good
choice.
Ahmadi et al. [3] conducted an energetic, exergetic and environ-
mental analysis on a multi-generation bio-based power plant. In that
research, the Pine sawdust as the biomass source fueled the combustor
and the heat from the biomass combustion is transferred to the organic
Rankine cycle (ORC). They reported that, the proposed system releases
lower CO2 content than the conventional power generation and Com-
bined Heat and Power (CHP) systems. Khalid et al. [7] analyzed ther-
modynamically a multi-generation hybrid cycle based on a gas turbine
driven by biomass energy combined with an ORC, which is powered by
solar energy. They concluded that the system has higher efficiency
when it works in an integrated form by two renewable energy sources
compared with a single renewable energy source. For such a system
fueled with two renewable energy sources, the energy and exergy ef-
ficiencies are given 66.5% and 39.7%, respectively. Gholamian et al.
[8] presented a combined cycle based on biomass gasification and the
exergetic and environmental analyses are performed on the combined
cycle. Wood and paper are considered as biomass fuels and the results
indicated that with using the wood as biomass fuel, efficiency of cycle
would be 2.5% higher than the case when paper is used as the biomass.
However, with using paper, the amount of emission is 0.8% lower than
when wood is used. Cavalcanti [9] conducted exergoeconomic and
exergoenvironmental analyses on an integrated solar combined co-
generation cycle to examine the impact of solar collector field on the
system performance. The results demonstrated that the application of
solar field brings about 4.2% increase in the net electricity generation
and 3.8% decrease in the mean environmental impact. Casas Ledón
et al. [10] considered exergoenvironmental analysis on a Gasification
Integrated Combined Cycle (GICC) fuelled by Municipal Solid Waste
(MSW). Their results showed that the environmental impact of their
proposed system (13.5 mPts/kWh) is significantly lower than that for
conventional energy systems (i.e. Natural gas: 22–26 mPts/kWh).
Martín et al. [11] proposed a network of renewable sources (integration
of Wind, solar, waste, biomass, CO2 and water) for fuel and power
production. The results showed that the proposed system could easily
be employed at any area, serving as a tool to assess the application of
renewable resources. Marchi et al. [12] performed a greenhouse gas
(GHG) balance analysis for the historic center of Siena (Italy) and de-
veloped a mathematical model to calculate the energy saving and the
integrated waste management. They found that their proposed strate-
gies (in particular the installation of photovoltaic panels on roofs) show
a substantial reduction in gross GHG emissions (−57%) in a short
period (about 10 years). Zare and Sarkis [13] proposed two novel in-
tegrated hybrid solar-biomass power generation systems based on
combined Brayton-Rankine cycle. They showed that Levelized Cost of
Electricity (LCOE) is lower when direct steam generation solar collec-
tors are employed compared to the case when indirect solar thermal
collectors are used. Khanmohammadi et al. [14] conducted thermo-
dynamic and economic analyses on an externally fired gas turbine
coupled to a biomass gasifier. The sensitivity analysis showed that a
desirable decrement of the gasifier temperature can influence the effi-
ciency of the cycle, although it can continuously increase the cost of
system. Livshits and Kribus [15] analyzed a solar hybrid steam injection
gas turbine (STIG) cycle and reported that by integration of solar
thermal energy to STIG cycle, the cycle performance improves sig-
nificantly. The efficiency of the hybrid cycle reaches over 40–55%,
while before solar integration to the system, the efficiency of STIG cycle
was only about 25–35%. Amiri et al. [16] hybridized the solar thermal
energy systems with the gas turbine cycle in a tri-generation system in
order to reduce the fossil fuel consumption. The results revealed that
the fuel efficiency increases from 31% to 85% as a result of using solar
thermal energy to pre-heat the entering air to combustion chamber and

129
S. Anvari, et al.
the amount of CO2 emission can be reduced about 400 kg/MWhe.
Korzynietz et al. [17] proposed a comprehensive project in which the
solar unit is hybridized with Brayton cycle generating power in MW
scale. They indicated that, with increasing the temperature and pres-
sure in the Brayton cycle, performance of the system can be improved.
They achieved ultimate temperatures in the range of 800 ˚C by con-
structing the solar heliostat receivers. This power plant was designed,
constructed, and operated successfully in Sanlucar la Mayor.
Grange and et al. [18] modeled and analyzed a hybrid solar gas-tur-
bine cycle/solar storage tank in an integrated mode. They reported that,
using storage tank brings about stability in the air temperature entering
the combustion chamber and therefore a sustainable electricity is expected
to be generated. Baghernejad et al. [19] compared three kinds of trigen-
eration cycles from exergoeconomic viewpoint. They used gas turbine
cycle with different energy sources in each of tripartite systems. The gas
turbine cycle in the first case is driven with fuel cell; in the second case
driven with the biomass energy and in the third case with the solar energy.
They reported that the tri-generation system with fuel cell has compara-
tively higher exergy efficiency, while the lowest cost is obtained with
using biomass energy in the gas turbine cycle. Liu et al. [20] assessed
thermodynamic performance of a hybrid solar-biomass system in two
different cases. In the first case, the biomass gasification is implemented by
concentrated solar energy meanwhile the gasifier gas is used as a fuel in
the combined cycle for power generation. In the second case, solar energy
is used for heating the compressed air at Bryton cycle, while the biomass
gasification is done separately. The results indicated that the energy effi-
ciency of the first case is 5.4% higher than that for the second case.
Pantaleo et al. [21] has explored a thermodynamic system with techno-
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the proposed combined cycle.
130
Applied Thermal Engineering 153 (2019) 128–141
economic evaluation of a new hybrid solar/biomass power-generation
arrangement. They were able to recuperate the heat from the exhaust
gases of the externally powered gas-turbine by thermal energy storage,
and incorporation of heat from a parabolic-trough collector field wherein
molten salts are used as a heat-transfer medium. They reported that with
utilization of CSP incorporation, the energy efficiency has higher overall
conversion rate and higher investment NPV, because of the increased
electricity production and higher solar-based electricity cost.
The aforementioned literature review reveals that, hybridization of
renewable energies such as solar and biomass energy can reduce
emissions like CO2 considerably, in the meantime, the system efficiency
can be increased. In the present global condition, facing fossil fuel
shortages and increase of emissions from fossil fuels are the critical
setbacks, where utilization of clean and renewable sources like solar
and biomass is vital because of their abundance and their capacity in
emission reduction. Accordingly, in this paper a new hybrid Biomass/
Solar combined cycle is proposed. The main difference of the proposed
system is in its presentation and suggestion of a new configuration in
application of hybrid solar/biomass energies. The cycle in three parts
including biomass (in which the gasification of biomass is im-
plemented), solar section (comprised of helistat field with thermal en-
ergy storing tank), and steam turbine section (with waste heat re-
cuperation from low-pressure gas turbine by evaporator) is proposed.
The proposed cycle undergoes a comprehensive energy, exergy, eco-
nomic, and environmental analyses while from a new and different
perspective, the effect of performance of each cycle section on the
overall performance of the proposed cycle is evaluated. In the end, the
effect of important thermodynamic parameters on the share of each
S. Anvari, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 153 (2019) 128–141

section on the overall performance of the proposed cycle is discussed in parameters such as performance parameters including energy and ex-
detail. ergy efficiencies, power production, CO2 emission and exergy destruc-
tion of various segments are derived.
2. System description and assumptions
3.1. Energy (first law) analysis
Schematic diagram of the proposed combined cycle is shown in
Fig. 1. The system is composed of three sub-systems: biomass section The conservation of mass and energy for a control volume under
(internally fired gas turbine cycle coupled to a biomass gasifier), solar steady state conditions can be written as:
section (consists of heliostats and power tower) and the steam turbine
(m )i (m)o = 0 (1)
section (a conventional Rankine cycle). As the figure indicates, the
environmental air, as the gasification agent enters to the gasifier where
(mh)i (mh)o + ( Qi Qo) + W = 0 (2)
the biomass is fed for gasification. It is noteworthy that in the biomass
section (for obtaining the maximum inlet temperature to high-pressure
gas turbine component) for producing maximum possible power; an 3.1.1. Biomass section
internally fired gas turbine is utilized. Therefore, the biofuel produced In the first law analysis applied to the proposed combined cycle,
in the gasifier flows into the combustion chamber where it is reacted more attention is paid to the modeling of biomass gasifier and com-
with the compressed air from the the compressor. The high temperature bustion chamber rather than the other components and details of their
combustion products are expanded in the high-pressure gas turbine simulation models are described here. The applied energy balance and
(HPGT) to generate power, after which it will pass through the Inter- other governing equations to model the system performance can be
mediate Heat Exchanger (IHE) where it is reheated by the solar energy. described for each component as follows:
The solar energy is received by the heliostat field and then reflected
into the receiver. In the receiver, the heat is transferred to the passing
air and heats it up, so that it can reheat the combustion products in the
• Air compressor
IHE as mentioned. The combustion products exiting the IHE pass The isentropic efficiency and the consumed power in AC are as
through the low-pressure gas turbine (LPGT) to generate power before follows [24]:
entering the evaporator of the Rankine cycle. Thus, with recovering the
h2s h1
waste heat of the high-pressure gas turbine and application of that in =
the low-pressure gas turbine, power is generated in the low-pressure gas
AC
h2 h1 (3)
turbine as well. In other words, two gas turbines can trigger increase of WAC = m1 (h2 h1) (4)
the produced power in the proposed cycle. The proposed system due to
utilization of clean energies has a great applicable potential particularly
in cases that if restrictions in fossil fuel resources may exist or when • Biomass gasifier
there are abundant solar and biomass energies. Among the established
In the present work, wood is considered as the biomass fuel. The
hybrid cycles, the hybrid cycles in Refs. [22,23] can be mentioned.
thermodynamic equilibrium model is presumed to simulate the gasifi-
The following assumptions are considered to model the proposed
cation process. The equilibrium model assumes that all the reactions are
system in this study:
in thermodynamic equilibrium and the pyrolysis product burns and

• The system operates under steady state conditions.

reaches the equilibrium state in the reduction zone before leaving the

• Pressure losses are neglected through the pipelines.

gasifier [23]. The reactions in the reduction zone are follows [8,18]:

• Changes in kinetic and potential energies and exergies are ne- Table 1
glected.
• The pumps and the turbines operate adiabatically with appropriate
The assumed values and input data for the proposed combined cycle
[6,8,25,27].
isentropic efficiencies as given in Table 1.
• Air, gasification products, and combustion gases are assumed to be Parameter Assumed value

treated as ideal-gas mixtures. P0 (bar) 1.013

• The pressure drop through the combustion chamber, internal heat T0 (K) 298.15
exchanger, and the evaporator is assumed to be 2%. AC = HP _GT = LP _GT (%) 0.86
ST (%) 0.88
The basic assumptions and input data for the simulation of proposed P (%) 0.92
system are listed in Table 1. rP, AC ( ) 10
MC (%) 20
T5 = Tg (K ) 1073
3. Modeling and analysis
p5 = pg (bar) 1.013
T6 (K ) 1370
To model and simulate thermodynamic performance of the pro- HHV of wood as the biomass (kJ/kg) 449,568
posed system, computer programs are developed using the Engineering DNI (W/m2) 850
Equation Solver (EES) software. In the simulation procedure, each cos 0.8267
component of the considered system is treated as a control volume, for s&b 0.9698
which the principles of mass conservation and first and second laws of int 0.971
thermodynamics are applied. Modeling process of the proposed cycle is att 0.9383
given by flowchart demonstration in Fig. 2. As seen from the flowchart, ref 0.88

the required tools for estimating the cycle is composed of the energy, Nhel 350
Ahel (m2) 121.3
exergy, environmental, and economical analysis. The respective equa-
TPP, Eva 15
tions of each tool are brought in the text according to different sections 753.2
TEva (K )
of the proposed hybrid cycle. Then, the whole equations along with pEva (bar ) 140
considered assumptions governing the cycle are solved simultaneously TCond (K ) 313.2
for the entire points of the cycle by EES and as a result, the output

131
S. Anvari, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 153 (2019) 128–141

Fig. 2. The flowchart for the simulation of the proposed system.

C + CO2 2CO (5) where MC is the moister content per mole of wood as follows:
C + H2 O CO + H2 (6) MC = (mass of water/mass of wet biomass) × 100 (17)

C + 2H2 CH4 (7) The seven unknown coefficients of n1 to n6 and m can be determined
by applying the mass conservation principle for H, O, C and N.
Eqs. (5) and (6) can be combined to give the shift reaction as below:
The energy balance equation for the gasifier, assuming an adiabatic
CO + H2 O CO2 + H2 (8) gasification at a given temperature, can be expressed as [8]:
The equilibrium constants for methane formation reaction (Eq. (7)) 0
h¯ f
0
+ w × h¯ f
0 0
+ nair ,4 × h¯air ,4 = n1 (h¯ f
0
+ h¯H 2 ) + n2 (h¯ f + h¯CO)
wood H2 O H2 CO
and for the shift reaction are given by Eqs. (9) and (10), respectively: 0 0 0
+n3 (h¯ f CO 2 + h¯ CO2 ) + n4 (h¯ f H2 O + h¯ H2 O ) + n5 (h¯ f CH 4 + h¯ CH 4 )
1
n P /Pref 0
+n6 (h¯ f + h¯ N2)
K1 = 52 N2
n1 ntot (9)
(18)
n1 n3 P / Pref 0
In order to verify the accuracy of the gasification modeling, the
K2 =
n2 n4 ntot (10) obtained results for components’ mole fractions of the present work are
compared with reported data in the literature (for a gasification tem-
where n1 to n5 are the numbers of moles in the gasification products in perature of 800 ˚C and a moisture content of 20%) in Table 2. As can be
Eq. (15) and K1 and K2 are the equilibrium constants, which can be seen from Table 2, there is a good agreement between the obtained
related to the change in the Gibbs function as follows: results from the present work and theoretical reported data in previous
G10 works. It should be pointed out that, the sum of hydrogen and carbon
= ln K1 monoxide molar fractions (as the most important determinant species
¯ g
RT (11)
of the producer gas properties) predicted by the present model is
G20 42.2%, which agrees with the experimental data (38.27%) reported by
= ln K2 Alauddin [37].
¯ g
RT (12)
where
• Combustion chamber
G10 = (h¯ CH4 0
Tg s¯CH ) 2(h¯ H2 Tg s¯H0 2 ) (13)
The syngas exiting from the gasifier enters into the combustion
4

G20 = (h¯CO2 0
Tg s¯CO 2
) 2(h¯ H2 Tg s¯H0 2 ) (h¯ CO 0
Tg s¯CO ) (h¯ H2 O Tg s¯H0 2 O) chamber and react with the compressed air coming from the com-
pressor. Assuming a complete combustion, the reaction can be
(14)
For a biomass, the global gasification reaction can be expressed as Table 2
follows [24]: Comparison of the components’ mole fractions obtained from the present model
CHa Ob Nc + wH2 O + m (O2 + 3.76N2 ) with those reported in literature.

n1 H2 + n2 CO + n3 CO2 + n4 H2 O + n5 CH4 + n6 N2 (15) Constituent Present Zainal equilibrium model Experiment [37]
model [26]
where CHa Ob Nc denotes the biomass, w is the biomass moisture content
and m is the kilomoles of oxygen per kilomoles of biomass. According to Hydrogen 21.66 21.06 15.23
Carbon monoxide 20.55 19.61 23.04
Refs. [8,25], the chemical formula of wood is CH1.44 O0.66 . The biomass
Methane 1.01 0.64 1.58
moisture content, w, can be calculated as: Carbone dioxide 12.36 12.01 16.42
Nitrogen 44.42 46.68 42.31
MBiomass MC
w= Oxygen 0 0 1.42
18(1 MC ) (16)

132
S. Anvari, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 153 (2019) 128–141

expressed as: Qrec , net = m17 (h17 h19) (27)

n1 H2 + n2 CO + n3 CO2 + n4 H2 O + n5 CH4 + n6 N2 + nair ,2 (O2 + 3.76N2) Qrec , in = field × Qsun (28)

n 7 CO2 + n8 H2 O + n 9 O2 + (n6 + 3.76nair ,2 ) N2 (19)

For an adiabatic combustion, the energy balance equation in the • Thermal energy storage
combustion chamber is represented as [25]:
Solar energy storage tank is being charged during the day and in the
0
Xj (h¯ fj + h¯ ) produced gas +
0
Xj (h¯ fj + h¯ )air ,2 =
0
Xj (h¯ fj + h¯ )products times of the peak solar irradiation, so that the thermal energy can be
j j j used when the solar radiation is declined or when at night there is no
(20) solar energy. In other words, the storage tank is utilized to generate the
constant electrical power during the day and night [28]. The functional
Regarding the first law analysis, the total thermal energy input to
temperature range of the solar energy storage tank for the power tower
the biomass section, accompanying with the entering biomass to the
of the power plants is 300–1000 °C [29].
gasifier, can be expressed as:
Among different materials that can be applied as the solar energy
QBiomass = mbiomass × LHVbiomass (21) storing substance, salts are known to have high melting point and
therefore suitable for storing high-temperature energy storage. The salts
where mbiomass and LHVbiomass are the mass flow rate and lower heating are of various types such as nitrites, hydroxides, chlorides, carbonates,
value of biomass, respectively. sulfates, and fluorides. From these, nitrites have the low melting points
and hydroxides have the melting point between 250 and 600 °C, while
• High pressure gas turbine chloride, carbonate, sulfate, and fluoride have the melting point of
600 °C [29]. In this investigation, LiF-NaF-KF (46.5–11.5–42) is used as
The isentropic efficiency and the generated power in HPGT are a thermal energy storage in the TES [30].
expressed as [24]: The amount of thermal energy that is charged by the tank is esti-
h6 h7 mated as [30]:
=
(22)
GT , HP
h6 h 7s QTES = mcp T (29)

WGT , HP = m6 (h6 h7 ) (23) where m is the salt mass in kg, cp is the specific heat for the salt in kJ/
kg.K, and ΔT represents the temperature increment during the charging
process.
3.1.2. Solar section
In the proposed combined cycle, the solar section is added to reheat
the exiting gas from the HPGT. The solar section consists of the heliostat
• Intermediate heat exchanger
field (he), receiver (rec), thermal energy storage (TES), intermediate In IHE, the heat is transferred between hot air and combustion gases
heat exchanger, and low-pressure gas turbine (LPGT). The basic as- exiting from HPGT. Therefore, applying the energy balance on this
sumptions and input data applied for the simulation of solar section are component gives:
given in Table 1. For each component of this section, the energy balance
and other governing equations are estimated as follows: QIHE = m17 (h17 h18) = m6 (h8 h 7) (30)

• Heliostat field • Low pressure gas turbine

The total heat received by the heliostat field, i.e. the total input The isentropic efficiency and the generated power by LPGT can be
thermal solar energy to the system, can be calculated by [27]: expressed as:
h8 h9
Qsun = DNI × Ahel × Nhel (24) =
(31)
GT , LP
h8 h9s
where Ahel and Nhel are the area of each heliostat and the total number
of heliostats, respectively. Also, the DNI stands for Direct Normal Ir- WGT , LP = m6 (h8 h 9) (32)
radiance which determines the amount of solar thermal energy received
by the heliostats. The heliostat field efficiency or optical efficiency, 3.1.3. Steam turbine section
field , is defined as [27]: Regarding the temperature of exiting gas from the LPGT, a con-
field = cos × s&b × int × att × ref (25) ventional steam Rankine cycle would be a good choice to be combined
with the considered hybrid solar-biomass system to recover the waste
where cos is the cosine effect efficiency; s & b denotes the shading and heat and enhance the overall system efficiency. The modeling of simple
blocking efficiency; int is the interception efficiency; att denotes the Rankine cycle is straightforward and the required governing equations
atmospheric attenuation efficiency and ref expresses the reflectivity of for each component of this system are presented in Table 3.
the heliostats.
3.2. Exergy (second law) analysis
• Receiver
Exergy can be defined as the maximum work extractable from a
The receiver absorbs (Qrec , in ) from the heliostat field, transferring a
system when it is allowed to reach the dead state reversibly interacting
part of it to the IHE (Qrec , net ) while the remaining part of the absorbed
only with the environment. Applying the second law analysis (known as
energy is lost to the environment by convective, conductive and re-
the exergy analysis), inefficiencies due to irreversibilities within the
flective heat losses (Qrec , loss ). The energy balance for the central receiver
plant components can be identified [32]. The total exergy rate of a
can be expressed as:
system consists of four parts: physical exergy, E , kinetic exergy, E ,
PH KN

potential exergy, E and chemical exergy, E :

PT CH
Qrec , net = Qrec, in Qrec, loss (26)

Also, the following equations are applied: E = E PH + E KN + E PT + E CH (33)

133
S. Anvari, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 153 (2019) 128–141

Table 3 WSteamTurbineSection = WST WP (43)

The energy equations for modeling of the steam turbine section.
From the viewpoint of the second law, the exergy efficiency can be
Component Energy equation defined as the ratio of the useful exergy output to the total exergy input.
Evaporator m 9 (h9 h10) = m11 (h11 h14)
For the proposed combined cycle, it can be expressed as follows:
Steam turbine WT = m11 (h11 h12) , = wa/ ws = (h11 h12)/(h11 h12s ) (WGT , HP + WGT , LP + WST WAC WP )
ST Wnet
Condenser mw (h16 h15) = m11 (h12 h13) CombinedCycle = =
Ein (EBiomass + Esun ) (44)
Pump WP = m11 (h14 h13) , P = ws /wa = (v14 (P14 P13))/(h14 h13)
In the above equation, Esun = Qsun 1 ( T0
Tsun ) and T sun denote the
equitant temperature of sun [34].
Neglecting the kinetic and potential exergies, the total exergy for a
The net exergy destructions of any sections of the combined cycle
material stream is the sum of physical and chemical exergies. The
are:
physical exergy rate for a material stream is defined as [32]:
ED, BiomassSection = ED, AC + ED, gasifier + ED, CC + ED, HP _GT (45)
Eph = m (hi ho T0 (si so)) (34)

The specific exergy for an ideal gas mixture can be expressed as [32]:
ED, Solar Section = ED, IHE + ED, rec + ED, TES + ED, hel + ED, LP _GT (46)

ech = ¯ 0
xk e¯kch + RT xk ln xk (35)
ED, SteamTurbineSection = ED, Eva + ED, ST + ED, Cond + ED, Pump (47)

The specific chemical exergy for a solid biomass as the fuel is for-
mulated as [8,33]: 3.4. Economic analysis (LCOE)
ch
ebiomass = LHVbiomass (36) Economic considerations play an essential role in evaluation of dif-
ferent power generation systems to help detection of the best option
where the factor indicates the proportion of the chemical exergy to
among the systems under consideration. One of the significant parameters
the lower heating value (LHV) of the organic fraction of the biomass.
in economic analysis is the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE). With
This factor is given by [8,33]:
having the balanced energy cost, one can compare the cost per generated

=
1.044 + 0.16 ZH
Z
C
Z
(
0.34493 ZO 1 + 0.0531 ZH
C
Z
C ) power unit in various power plants. The LCOE can be calculated as [13]:

1 0.4142 ZO
Z CRF × Ztot + ZO & M
(37) LCOE =
(48)
C
PGnet
where ZH , ZC and ZO denotes the weight fractions of the hydrogen,
where PGnet denotes for the annual net power generation by hybrid
carbon and oxygen in the biomass, respectively.
combined plant, and Ztot is the total investment cost of the plant, ZO & M is
The irreversibility assessment within each system component is an
obtained by the addition of the costs rate corresponding to capital in-
important outcome of the second law analysis, which identifies the CI OM
vestment cost, Zk , and operating and maintenance cost, Zk .
contribution of components on the total exergy destruction. To calcu-
late the exergy destruction values within each system component, the CL
ZO & M = ZK + ZK
OM
= CRF × ( r / N × 3600) × PECK (49)
exergy balance equation for the kth component can be written as:
where N and PECK are the annual number of operation hours for the unit,
ED, k = Ein, k Eout , k (38) and the purchase equipment cost, respectively, and r is the maintenance
factor, which is often equal to 1.06. The Capital Recovery Factor, CRF,
The relations used to calculate exergy destruction values within the depends on the interest rate as well as estimated equipment life time, and
components of the proposed system are outlined in Table 4. it is determined using the following relation:
The exergy destruction ratio for each component can be calculated
as follows: i (1 + i)n
CRF =
(1 + i) n 1 (50)
ED, K
yD, K =
ED, tot (39) Table 4
The exergy destruction ratio is an important parameter by which the Exergy balance equations applied for the components of proposed combined
cycle.
exergy destruction values can be compared within the system components.
Components Exergy destruction
3.3. Performance evaluation
Air compressor ED, AC = E1 E2 + WAC
Combustion ED, CC = E2 + E5 E6
From the viewpoint of the first law, the ratio of net output power by chamber
the system to the total input energy from biomass and solar sections Gasifier ED, gasifier = E3 + E4 E5
[31] is defined as the energy efficiency of the proposed cycle. It can be High pressure ED, HP _GT = E6 E7 WHP _GT
expressed as: gas turbine
Intermediate ED, IHE = E7 + E17 E8 E18
Wnet (WGT , HP + WGT , LP + WST WAC WP ) heat
CombinedCycle = = exchanger
Qin (QBiomass + Qsun ) (40)
Receiver ED, rec = E19 E17 + Qrec, in (1 T0/Thel ) Qrec, loss (1 T0/Trec )
Here, QBiomass and Qsun represent the input heat to the combined cycle Heliostat field ED, hel = Qsun (1 T0/Tsun) Qrec, in (1 T0/Thel )
from biomass and solar sections, respectively. The net output power by Low pressure gas ED, LP _GT = E8 E9 WLP _GT
the combined cycle is the sum of generated power by each of three turbine
sections: Evaporator ED, Eva = E9 + E14 E10 E11
Steam turbine ED, ST = E11 E12 WST
WBiomassSection = WGT , HP WAC (41) Condenser ED, Cond = E12 + E15 E13 E16
Pump ED, P = E13 E14 + WP
WSolar Section = WGT , LP (42)

134
S. Anvari, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 153 (2019) 128–141

where i is the interest rate that is considered to be 12% in this study, and n
is the system total operating period in years that is considered to be
20 years in this study.
3.5. Environmental impact assessment
The critical concerns to maintain the global sustainable development
has been put forward in the United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development (UNCED), which is held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in
June 1992. Accordingly, Agenda 21 (ratified by UNCED) articulates that
“new policies or programs, as appropriate, to increase the contribution of
environmentally safe and sound and cost-effective energy systems, par-
ticularly new and renewable ones, through less polluting and more ef-
ficient energy production, transmission, distribution and use.” [36].
Most recently, majority of the environmental analysts and legal
control instruments have focused on typical hazardous emissions such
as sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulates, and carbon
monoxide (CO). However, environmental challenges have been ex-
tended to treat harmful air pollutants. These air pollutants are toxic
chemical species that can damage human health even in small portions.
Besides, there are some other globally significant pollutants such as
carbon dioxide (CO2) [35] as the primary greenhouse gas affecting
Ozone layer.
In the proposed system and in this paper, the solar section is added
to the biomass-based system to decrease the amount of CO2 emission.
To assess and compare the environmental impact for the considered
system, the amount of CO2 emission is calculated for three different
cases. For the stand-alone gas turbine cycle fueled by biomass, the
amount of CO2 emission can be expressed as:
(mCO2 )BiomassCycle
=
CO2 BiomassCycle
WBiomassCycle (51)
By integration of the solar section to the biomass section, the
amount of CO2 emission can be calculated by:
(mCO2 )BiomassCycleIntegratedWithSolar Section
CO2 BiomassCycleIntegratedWithSolar Section = also indicates that the exergy destruction in biomass section is sig-
WBiomassCycleIntegratedWithSolar Section
(52)
Combining the steam turbine section to the Brayton cycle, the
amount of CO2 emission for the proposed system can be calculated by:
(mCO2 )CombinedCycle
CO2 CombinedCycle =
WCombinedCycle (53)
4. Results and discussion
The developed equations for each system component are acquired
by applying mass, energy, and exergy balance with application of
thermodynamic properties (available from EES software), therefrom
exergy values are calculated for each stream using the relevant relation
to solve the governing equations simultaneously so as to simulate the
thermodynamic performance of the proposed system. As a result of such
a simulation, all the properties (pressure, temperature, enthalpy, en-
tropy, mass flow rate, exergy rate and etc.) of each fluid stream are
obtained and the values of objectives (energy and exergy efficiency, net
output power and etc.) for the overall system can be calculated. The
results of the thermodynamic analysis for the combined cycle are
gathered in Table 5. In Table 5, the values of temperature, pressure,
mass flow rate, and physical/chemical exergy for all cycle points are
mentioned.
For the proposed combined cycle, the pie chart of Fig. 3 presents a
breakdown of the energy and exergy analysis, which elucidates the
share of each three sections. Referring to Fig. 3(a), the biomass and
solar energies are providing 23 MW (56%) and 18.6 MW (44%) of the
total input thermal energy to the proposed system. Fig. 3(c) indicates
that, the solar section with an output power of around 6.5 MW (49%)
has the highest contribution on the total generated power. The steam
turbine section comes next, which generates 5.8 MW (43%) of power.
The net power generation in the biomass section is 1.1 MW (8%), which
is lower than the corresponding value for the other two sections. This is
because a large amount of generated power by the HPGT is consumed
in the air compressor. It is depicted in Fig. 3 that coupling the solar and
steam turbine sections to biomass section results in a significant power
generation enhancement. From Fig. 3(b), it can be seen that the solar
section has the highest contribution on the exergy destruction with a
value of 17.1 MW that reaches to almost 57%. Such a large exergy
destruction in the solar section is due to the fact that in solar field the
high-quality solar irradiation energy is converted to a thermal energy
with lower quality (at a lower temperature level). Thus, energy loss at
solar section involves a high amount of exergy destruction. Fig. 3(b)
nificantly higher than that of steam turbine. The higher exergy de-
struction in the biomass section can be attributed to chemical reactions
in the gasifier and combustion chamber.
Components with the most exergy destruction rate in each section
and their respective exergy destruction rate are exhibited in Fig. 4(a),
while exergy efficiency for each component and the entire proposed
combined cycle are graphed in Fig. 4(b). As seen, in biomass section,

Table 5
Calculated thermodynamic properties for the proposed combined cycle.
State no. Fluid T (K) P (bar) m (kg/s) Eph (MW) ECH (MW) E (MW)

1 Air 298.2 1.013 17.22 0 0 0

2 Air 612.7 10.13 17.22 5.2 0 5.2
3 Biomass 298.2 1.013 1 0 22.18 22.2
4 Air 298.2 1.013 2.14 0 0 0
5 Gasification products 1073 1.013 3.14 1.8 13.45 15.25
6 Comb.gases 1370 9.927 20.36 18.9 0.25 19.15
7 Comb. Gases 1104 3.236 20.36 11.8 0.25 12.05
8 Comb. Gases 1298 3.172 20.36 17.35 0.25 17.6
9 Comb. Gases 1011 1.034 20.36 10.7 0.25 10.95
10 Comb. Gases 431.4 1.013 20.36 2.1 0.25 2.35
11 Steam 753.2 140 4.213 6.6 0 6.6
12 Steam 314.6 0.08 4.213 0.47 0 0.47
13 Steam 313.2 0.08 4.213 0.006 0 0.006
14 Steam 313.9 140 4.213 0.065 0 0.065
15 Water 298.2 1.013 210.4 0 0 0
16 Water 308.2 1.013 210.4 0.144 0 0.144
17 Air 1273 1.013 21.3 17.22 0 17.22
18 Air 877 1.013 21.3 10.47 0 10.47
19 Air 470.3 1.013 21.3 3.6 0 3.6

135
S. Anvari, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 153 (2019) 128–141

Fig. 3. Share of each three section on: (a) heat input; (b) exergy destruction rate; (c) output power.

Fig. 4. (a) Components with the highest rate of exergy destruction in each section and percentage of exergy destruction in each component, (b) each component
exergy efficiency and the entire proposed combined cycle.

136
S. Anvari, et al.
gasifier component with 7 MW exergy destruction constitutes 23% of
the total exergy destruction of the system. In the solar section, heliostats
with 40 MW exergy destruction constitutes 40% of the total exergy
destruction of the system and similarly in the steam turbine section,
evaporator with 1.7 MW has the highest amount of exergy destruction.
As mentioned above, large exergy destruction in heliostats is due to
the high-quality solar irradiation energy conversion to a thermal energy
(with lower quality at a lower temperature level). In the biomass ga-
sifier, however, three sources of irreversibility, i.e., chemical reaction,
mixing and temperature difference exist; therefore, a large amount of
exergy is destructed.
The values of the exergy efficiencies for the individual components
are shown in Fig. 4(b). This figure shows that, the highest exergy effi-
ciency corresponds to the intermediate heat exchanger with a value of
96%. The low-pressure gas turbine, high-pressure gas turbine and air
compressor with 95.6%, 95%, and 92% are in the subsequent places.
The overall exergy efficiency of the cycle is calculated to be 33.4%, at
the considered operating conditions.
To assess the environmental effects of adding the solar and steam
turbine section to the biomass-based system, Fig. 5 is presented that
depicts the values of CO2 emission at the base case operating condi-
tions. Also, the values of generated power and exergy efficiencies is
shown in this figure. Referring to Fig. 5, the standalone biomass section
generates 6.6 MW of power with 1.04 ton/MWhr CO2 emission and
28% of exergy efficiency. With adding the solar section to the biomass-
based one, a value of 8.3 MW of power is calculated to be generated
with CO2 emission of 0.7 ton/MWhr and 24% of exergy efficiency.
Therefore, adding the solar section to the standalone biomass-based
system results in a 25% power enhancement, 31% emission decrease
and 14% efficiency decrease. The reason of higher exergy efficiency of
the biomass cycle than that of hybrid biomass/solar cycle is that once
solar section added to biomass section, in addition to inlet heat resulted
from biomass gasification, a bit of heat also enters the cycle by heliostat
fields in the solar section. Therefore, considering the efficiency defini-
tion, the denominator of exergy efficiency increases more than nomi-
nator fraction so lesser efficiency decrease is resulted.
Fig. 5 also indicates that when the steam turbine is combined with
the hybrid biomass-solar section to form the proposed combined cycle,
a value of 13.4 MW of power is generated with 0.52 ton/MWhr CO2
emission and 33% exergy efficiency. Thus, it is observed that the pro-
posed combined cycle can generate around 51% more power with 49%
lower CO2 emission and 18% more exergy efficiency as compared with
the standalone biomass-based system.
Fig. 5. Performance comparison between the standalone biomass-based system and hybrid biomass-solar system with the proposed combined cycle.
137
Applied Thermal Engineering 153 (2019) 128–141
Table 6
Performance comparison between the proposed
cycle in this work and suggested cycle in Ref. [13]
in operational condition of Tg = 800 °C, DNI =
800 W/m2, n = 25 year.
Ref. [13] This work
Power generation (MW)
10.25 13.4 (+31%)
CO2 emission (t/MWh)
0.62 0.52 (−16%)
LCOE ($/MWh)
74.95 49 (−34%)
In order to have a better vision and understanding on the effec-
tiveness of the proposed hybrid biomass-solar system in the present
work, a comparison is made between the proposed system and the si-
milar hybrid systems analyzed in the previous literature in terms of CO2
emissions, power generation, and the Levelized Cost of Power. The
comparison, as presented in Table 6, shows that under the identical
operational conditions, for the proposed cycle in this work the power
generation is 31% higher than power generation in Ref. [13]. More, the
value of CO2 emissions and LCOE in this work is calculated to be about
16% and 34% lower than the corresponding values for the proposed
system in Ref. [13].
4.1. Results of parametric study
A parametric study is conducted to examine the effects of key op-
erating/design parameters on the proposed system performance. The
effects of important parameters including compressor pressure ratio,
gasification temperature, HPGT inlet temperature, biomass mass flow
rate, and direct normal irradiance are investigated as decision vari-
ables. Such a thermodynamic analysis is necessary to design efficient
and cost-effective new generations of this type of power plants.
The most important parameter affecting the system performance in
terms of output power and efficiency is the compressor pressure ratio.
The effects of this parameter on the energy and exergy efficiencies as
well as the net output power by each of the three sections are shown in
Fig. 6. According to Fig. 6(a), it can be seen that the generated power by
the biomass section can be maximized at an optimal value of the
pressure ratio, while for the solar section the generated power increases
steadily with increasing the pressure ratio. For the biomass section, the
S. Anvari, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 153 (2019) 128–141

output power reaches its maximum value of 1.102 MW at pressure ratio
of 9.8, while for the solar section the output power is increased by 83%
as the pressure ratio increases from 4 to 17. For the biomass section, the
trend can be explained as follows: as rP increases, the generated power
by the HPGT and the consumed power by the compressor are increased.
However, at lower pressure ratios than the optimum one, the increment
of turbine-generated power dominates the increment of compressor-
consumed power and at higher pressure ratios, the trend is vice versa.
Regarding the solar section, however, as the pressure ratio of com-
pressor rises, the inlet temperature to low-pressure gas turbine takes a

Fig. 6. The effects of compressor pressure ratio on the output power and energy and exergy efficiencies.

138
S. Anvari, et al.
Fig. 7. The effect of HPGT inlet temperature on the performance of the proposed combined cycle.
Fig. 8. The effect of DNI on the performance of the proposed combined cycle in terms of power and efficiency.
declining trend, therefore the generated power in this component de-
monstrates a decreasing trend.
Fig. 6(b) indicates that as the pressure ratio increases from 4 to 17,
the output power of the steam turbine section decreases from around
9.6 MW to around 2.4 MW which shows a reduction by 75%. Fig. 6(b)
also shows that the generated power by the proposed combined cycle is
reduced from 13.54 MW to 9.74 MW indicating a reduction of 28%. The
reduction of output power of the combined cycle with increasing the
pressure ration is mainly due to reduction of generated power by the
steam turbine and solar sections as discussed above.
The steady reduction of the output power from the combined cycle
with increasing the pressure ratio brings about consistent decrease of
the energy and exergy efficiencies as shown in Fig. 6(c). It can be ob-
served that, increasing the compressor pressure ratio from 7 to 17 leads
to a reduction by around 18% (from 35.45% to 29%) for energy effi-
ciency and for exergy efficiency (from 34.85% to 28.4%).
Another important parameter affecting the performance of the gas
turbine cycle is the inlet temperature of the HP gas turbine, the effect of
which on the performance of the proposed combined cycle is presented in
Fig. 7. The figure indicates that as the HPGT inlet temperature increases
from 1350 K to 1400 K, the total generated power is also increasing by
139
Applied Thermal Engineering 153 (2019) 128–141
around 14% from 12.5 MW to 14.3 MW. Such a significant increase in the
output power is due to the fact that increasing T6 results in an increase of
the gas temperature in state points 7, 8 and 9 (Fig. 1), as a result, the
generated power by each of three sections increases. The power generation
enhancement resulted by increasing T6 brings about an efficiency (both
the energy and exergy efficiencies) improvement by around 10% as in-
dicated in Fig. 7, when T6 increases from 1350 K to 1400 K.
Direct Normal Irradiance (DNI), which varies with geographical
position and the time of the day, is an important factor in evaluating the
performance of solar-based power plants. The influence of this para-
meter on the performance of the proposed combined cycle is presented
in Fig. 8. The figure indicates a higher output power and efficiency as
DNI increases. As shown in the figure, increasing the DNI from 600 to
1000 W/m2 results in a significant increase in the input of solar thermal
energy to the plant. Therefore, the amount of thermal energy received
by the receiver and the air working medium increases, hence the
temperature of exiting gas from the IHE increases and the generated
power by low-pressure gas turbine increases, as shown in the figure.
Further, as the exiting gas temperature leaving the LPGT is increased,
the evaporator’s thermal duty is increased, so the generated power by
the steam turbine section exhibits an increasing trend, as indicated in
S. Anvari, et al.
Fig. 9. The effect of number of heliostats on the performance of the proposed combined cycle in terms of power and efficiency.
Fig. 8. It can be observed from the figure that with increasing DNI from
600 W/m2 to 1000 W/m2, the generated power of the combined cycle
increases by 61% (from 10.4 MW to 16.8 MW). Such a significant in-
crease of the output power results in an efficiency improvement as
depicted in Fig. 8. From this figure, it can be observed that the energy
and exergy efficiencies of the combined cycle are increased by around
11% and 14%, respectively as DNI increases from 600 W/m2 to
1000 W/m2.
In the solar section, the number of heliostats is another effective
factor. The effect of this parameter on the performance of the proposed
system is shown in Fig. 9. It is evident from Fig. 9(a) that with
140
Applied Thermal Engineering 153 (2019) 128–141
increasing the number of heliostats from 300 to 400, the rate of solar
input heat to the cycle is increased by around 57% (from 18 MW to
28 MW) with which the produced power by the solar section increases
by around 16%. From Fig. 9(a) it can be also seen that as the number of
heliostats increases from 300 to 400, the generated power by the steam
turbine section increases by around 75% (from around 4 MW to 7 kW).
Such a significant improvement in steam turbine section is due to the
fact that with increasing the number of heliostats, an increasing trend
appears in steam mass flow rate in Rankine cycle.
Fig. 9(a) reveals that with increasing the number of heliostats from
300 to 400, as a consequence of increasing power by the solar and
S. Anvari, et al.
steam turbine sections, the total output power from the combined cycle
increases significantly from 11.5 MW to 15 MW (by around 30%). Such
an increase of the total output power results in an efficiency improve-
ment by around 7% and 8%, respectively for the energy and exergy
efficiencies, as depicted in Fig. 9(b).
5. Conclusion
In this paper, a novel configuration of hybrid biomass-solar power
generation system, based on Brayon-Rankine combined cycle concept is
proposed and analyzed. The proposal aims to establish a novel system
to reduce the environmental impacts of the basic biomass-based gas
turbine cycle via adding the solar and steam turbine sections.
Accordingly, a thermodynamic and environmental impact assessment is
conducted to evaluate the proposed system performance taking into
account the share of each added sections to the base cycle. The values of
output power, exergy destruction, CO2 emission, energy, and exergy
efficiencies are considered as the objective functions and the impact of
each section on improving these performance parameters are evaluated
and discussed. An evaluation of the effects of important design and
operating variables on the proposed system performance yielded some
important insights to the plant operation. Some key findings of the
present study can be listed as follows:
1. Compared to the basic biomass-based gas turbine system, the pro-
posed combined cycle can generate 51% more power with 49%
lower CO2 emissions.
2. The standalone biomass-based system yields 1 ton/MWhr CO2
emission, while adding the solar section results in a 31% reduction
in the amount of CO2 emissions.
3. At the considered operating conditions, the proposed combined
cycle has the exergy efficiency of 33.4% with 13.4 MW of power, in
which the solar section has the highest contribution on the gener-
ated power with around 49%.
4. Among the three subsystems, the solar section has the highest
contribution on the exergy destruction with a value of 57%.
5. Increasing the air compressor pressure ratio results in a significant
decrease in the generated power and the efficiencies of the proposed
combined cycle.
6. With increasing DNI from 600 to 1000 W/m2, the generated power
by the proposed system is increased by 61%, as a result of which the
exergy efficiency is increased by 14%.
References
[1] O. Behar, A. Khellaf, K. Mohammedi, S. Ait-Kaci, A review of integrated solar
combined cycle system (ISCCS) with a parabolic trough technology, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 39 (2014) 223–250.
[2] H. Liu, Y. Shao, J. Li, A biomass-fired micro-scale CHP system with organic Rankine
cycle (ORC) – thermodynamic modelling studies, Biomass Bioenergy 35 (2011)
3985–3994.
[3] P. Ahmadi, I. Dincer, M.A. Rosen, Development and assessment of an integrated
biomass-based multi-generation energy system, Energy 56 (2013) 155–166.
[4] P. Basu, Biomass Gasification, Pyrolysis, and Torrefaction: Practical Design and
Theory, Academic press, 2013.
[5] T.B. Johanson, H. Kelly, A.K.N. Reddy, R.H. Williams, 1993. Renewable fuels and
electricity for a growing world economy-defining and achieving the potential, in: T.
B. Johnasson, H. Kelly, A.K.N. Reddy, R.H. Williams (Eds.), Renewable Energy-
Sources of Fuels and Electricity. Island Press, Washington DC, USA.
[6] H. Taghavifar, S. Anvari, R. Khoshbakhti, Sh. Khalilarya, S. Jafarmadar, Towards
modeling of combined cooling, heating and power system with artificial neural
network for exergy destruction and exergy efficiency prognostication of tri-gen-
eration components, Appl. Therm. Eng. 89 (2015) 156–168.
[7] F. Khalid, I. Dincer, M.A. Rosen, Energy and exergy analyses of a solar-biomass
integrated cycle for multigeneration, Solar Energy 112 (2015) 290–299.
[8] E. Gholamian, S.M.S. Mahmoudi, V. Zare, Proposal, exergy analysis and optimiza-
tion of a new biomass-based cogeneration system, Appl. Therm. Eng. 93 (2016)
223–235.
141
Applied Thermal Engineering 153 (2019) 128–141
[9] E.J.C. Cavalcanti, Exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental analyses of an in-
tegrated solar combined cycle system, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 67 (2017)
507–519.
[10] Ledón Y. Casas, F. Spaudo, L.E. Arteaga-Pérez, Exergoenvironmental analysis of a
waste-based Integrated Combined Cycle (WICC) for heat and power production, J.
Cleaner Prod. 164 (2017) 187–197.
[11] M. Martín, I.E. Grossmann, Optimal integration of renewable based processes for
fuels and power production: Spain case study, Appl. Energy 213 (2018) 595–610.
[12] M. Marchi, V. Niccolucci, R. MariaPulselli, Nadia Marchettini, Environmental po-
licies for GHG emissions reduction and energy transition in the medieval historic
centre of Siena (Italy): the role of solar energy, J. Cleaner Prod. 185 (2018)
829–840.
[13] R.B. Sarkis, V. Zare, Proposal and analysis of two novel integrated configurations
for hybrid solar-biomass power generation systems: Thermodynamic and economic
evaluation, Energy Convers. Manage. 160 (2018) 411–425.
[14] S.H. Khanmohammadi, K. Atashkari, R. Kouhikamali, Exergoeconomic multi-ob-
jective optimization of an externally fired gas turbine integrated with a biomass
gasifier, Appl. Therm. Eng. 91 (2015) 848–859.
[15] M. Livshits, A. Kribus, Solar hybrid steam injection gas turbine (STIG) cycle, Solar
Energy 86 (2012) 190–199.
[16] F. Amiri, N. Tahouni, M. Azadi, M.H. Panjeshahi, Design of a hybrid power plant
integrated with a residential area, Energy 115 (2016) 746–755.
[17] R. Korzynietz, J.A. Brioso, A. delRío, M. Quero, M. Gallas, R. Uhlig, M. Ebert,
R. Buck, D. Teraji, Solugas – comprehensive analysis of the solar hybrid Brayton
plant, Solar Energy 135 (2016) 578–589.
[18] B. Grange, C. Dalet, Q. Falcoz, F. Siros, A. Ferrière, Simulation of a hybrid solar gas-
turbine cycle with storage integration, Energy Procedia 49 (2014) 1147–1156.
[19] A. Baghernejad, M. Yaghoubi, K. Jafarpur, E. Aslanzadeh, Exergoeconomic com-
parison of three novel trigeneration systems using SOFC, biomass and solar en-
ergies, Appl. Therm. Eng. 104 (2016) 534–555.
[20] Q. Liu, Z. Bai, X. Wang, J. Lei, H. Jin, Investigation of thermodynamic performances
for two solar-biomass hybrid combined cycle power generation systems, Energy
Convers. Manage. 122 (2016) 252–262.
[21] A.M. Pantaleo, S.M. Camporeale, A. Sorrentino, A. Miliozzi, N. Shah, N.M. Christos,
Hybrid solar-biomass combined Brayton/organic Rankine-cycle plants integrated
with thermal storage: techno-economic feasibility in selected Mediterranean areas,
Renew. Energy (2018) 1–19.
[22] J.D. Nixon, P.K. Dey, P.A. Davies, The feasibility of hybrid solar-biomass power
plants in India, Energy 46 (2012) 54–554.
[23] U. Sahoo, R. Kumar, P.C. Pant, R. Chaudhury, Scope and sustainability of hybrid
solar–biomass power plant with cooling, desalination in polygeneration process in
India, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 51 (2015) 304–316.
[24] S. Anvari, H. Taghavifar, R. Khoshbakhti, Sh. Khalilarya, S. Jafarmadar,
Implementation of ANN on CCHP system to predict trigeneration performance with
consideration of various operative factors, Energy Convers. Manage. 101 (2015)
503–514.
[25] S. Soltani, S.M.S. Mahmoudi, M. Yari, M.A. Rosen, Thermodynamic analyses of an
externally fired gas turbine combined cycle integrated with a biomass gasification
plant, Energy Convers. Manage. 70 (2013) 107–115.
[26] Z.A. Zainal, R. Ali, C.H. Lean, K.N. Seetharamu, Prediction of performance of a
downdraft gasifier using equilibrium modeling for different biomass materials,
Energy Convers. Manage. 42 (2001) 1499–1515.
[27] V. Zare, M. Hassanzadeh, Energy and exergy analysis of a closed Brayton cycle-
based combined cycle for solar power tower plants, Energy Convers. Manage. 128
(2016) 227–237.
[28] A.M. Pantaleo, S.M. Camporeale, A. Miliozzi, V. Russo, N. Shah, C.N. Markides,
Novel hybrid CSP-biomass CHP for flexible generation: thermo-economic analysis
and profitability assessment, Appl. Energy 204 (2017) 994–1006.
[29] G. Alva, Y. Lin, G. Fang, An overview of thermal energy storage systems, Energy
144 (2018) 341–378.
[30] C.W. Forsberg, P.F. Peterson, H. Zhao, High-temperature liquid-fluoride-salt closed-
Brayton-cycle solar power towers, J. Solar Energy Eng. 129 (2007) 141–146.
[31] S. Anvari, H. Taghavifar, A. Parvishi, Thermo- economical consideration of
Regenerative organic Rankine cycle coupling with the absorption chiller systems
incorporated in the trigeneration system, Energy Convers. Manage. 148 (2017)
317–329.
[32] S. Anvari, R. Khoshbakhti, K. Bahlouli, Conventional and advanced exergetic and
exergoeconomic analyses applied to a tri-generation cycle for heat, cold and power
production, Energy 91 (2015) 925–939.
[33] A. Datta, R. Ganguly, L. Sarkar, Energy and exergy analyses of an externally fired
gas turbine (EFGT) cycle integrated with biomass gasifier for distributed power
generation, Energy 35 (2010) 341–350.
[34] M. Almahdi, I. Dincer, M.A. Rosen, A new solar based multigeneration system with
hot and cold thermal storages and hydrogen production, Renewable Energy 91
(2016) 30214.
[35] EPA, 2007. (Environmental Protection Agency). Available at: www.epa.gov/
globalwarming/index.html.
[36] S.A. Kalogirou, Solar Energy Engineering: Processes and System, Academic Press,
2013.
[37] Z.A.Z. Alauddin, Performance and Characteristics of a Biomass Gasifier System
(Doctoral dissertation), University of Wales, Cardiff, 1996.