See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251496413

Exergy modeling of a new solar driven

trigeneration system

Article in Solar Energy · September 2011

DOI: 10.1016/j.solener.2011.06.009

CITATIONS READS

56 125

3 authors, including:

Fahad A Al-Sulaiman Feridun Hamdullahpur

King Fahd University of Petroleum and Min… University of Waterloo
49 PUBLICATIONS 704 CITATIONS 97 PUBLICATIONS 1,948 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Fahad A Al-Sulaiman
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 20 September 2016
 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Solar Energy 85 (2011) 2228–2243

www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Exergy modeling of a new solar driven trigeneration system

Fahad A. Al-Sulaiman a,c,⇑, Ibrahim Dincer b, Feridun Hamdullahpur c
a
Mechanical Engineering Department, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM), Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
b
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology Oshawa, ON, Canada
c
Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering Department, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada

Received 12 November 2010; received in revised form 13 March 2011; accepted 8 June 2011
Available online 19 July 2011

Communicated by: Associate Editor S.A. Sherif

Abstract

In this paper, exergy modeling is used to assess the exergetic performance of a novel trigeneration system using parabolic trough solar
collectors (PTSC) and an organic Rankine cycle (ORC). Four cases are considered: electrical-power, cooling-cogeneration, heating-
cogeneration, and trigeneration. In this trigeneration system a single-effect absorption chiller is utilized to provide the necessary cooling
energy and a heat exchanger is utilized to provide the necessary heating energy. The trigeneration system considered is examined using
three modes of operation. They are: solar mode during the low-solar radiation time of the day, solar and storage mode during the high-
solar radiation time of the day, and storage mode during night time. The storage mode is operated through the heat collected in a thermal
storage tank during the solar and storage mode. The exergy efficiencies and exergy destruction rates are examined under the variation of
the ORC evaporator pinch point temperature, ORC pump inlet temperature, and turbine inlet pressure. This study reveals that the max-
imum electrical-exergy efficiency for the solar mode is 7%, for the solar and storage mode is 3.5%, and for the storage mode is 3%. Alter-
natively, when trigeneration is used, the exergy efficiency increases noticeably. The maximum trigeneration-exergy efficiency for the solar
mode is 20%, for solar and storage mode is 8%, and for the storage mode is 7%. Moreover, this study shows that the main sources of
exergy destruction rate are the solar collectors and ORC evaporators. Therefore, careful selection and design of these two components
are essential to reduce the exergy destructed by them and, thus, increase the exergy efficiencies of the system.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Trigeneration; Parabolic trough solar collectors; Organic Rankine cycle; Thermal storage tank; Exergy efficiency; Exergy destruction rate

1. Introduction trical power directly through photovoltaic solar cells or

Solar energy is a reliable energy source. It is a free
renewable energy source with no gas emissions. The num-
ber of power plants operated partially or completely by
solar energy has been increasing significantly (Fernndez-
Garca et al., 2010). Solar energy can be used to obtain elec-
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Mechanical Engineering Department,
King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM), Dhahran,
Saudi Arabia.
E-mail addresses: fahadas@kfupm.edu.sa (F.A. Al-Sulaiman),
Ibrahim.Dincer@uoit.ca (I. Dincer), fhamdullahpur@uwaterloo.ca (F.
Hamdullahpur).
indirectly through a solar thermal system.
There are several solar thermal systems that can be used
to produce electrical power through thermal power plants;
these include PTSC, solar towers, and solar dishes. PTSC
are the most established technology among these thermal
solar technologies for power production and has been used
in large power plants since the 1980s. Currently, several
thermal solar power plants are under construction and most
of them are based on PTSC. Therefore, PTSC is selected for
the solar trigeneration system considered in this study.
A thermal system that produces cooling, heating, and
power simultaneously from the same energy source is
defined as a trigeneration system. In trigeneration systems,

0038-092X/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.solener.2011.06.009
 F.A. Al-Sulaiman et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 2228–2243 2229

List of symbols

Aap aperture area, m 2 Subscripts

Ac area of the receiver cover, m2 0 atmospheric conditions
Ar area of the receiver, m2 a ambient
Cp specific heat, kJ/kg K aam average temperature above the ambient
Coln total number of collectors per single row chst charging hot storage tank
Colr total number of solar collectors rows cog, c cooling cogeneration
D diameter, m cog, h heating cogeneration
ex specific exergy, kJ/kg cst cold storage tank
Ex exergy, kJ dhst discharging hot storage tank
Ex_ exergy rate, kW d destruction
FR heat removal factor e exit
F1 collector efficiency factor ev evaporator
Gb solar radiation, W/m2 ex exergy
hc convection heat coefficient, kW/m2 K g generator
hr radiation heat coefficient, kW/m2 K h heating
k thermal conductivity, W/m hp heating process
m mass, kg hst hot storage tank
M mass of the oil in the tank, kg i inlet
Nus Nusselt number l, hst heat lost from the hot storage tank
P pressure, kPa m motor
Pv vapor pressure, kPa o organic
Q heat, kJ oe organic cycle evaporator
Q_ heat rate, kW op organic cycle pump
rel,h electrical to heating energy ratio ot organic cycle turbine
rel,c electrical to cooling energy ratio sol, p pump of the solar system
T temperature, °C or K sp solution pump
UA overall heat coefficient and area, kW/K st1, p first pump in the thermal storage system
UL overall heat loss coefficient of the solar collector, st2, p second pump in the thermal storage system
kW/m2 K wp water pump
Uo heat loss coefficient between the ambient and re- tri trigeneration
ceiver of the solar collector, kW/m2 K u useful
w collector width, m
W_ work rate, kW Superscripts
-
molar base
.
Greek letters rate of a component
Dt change in time in second 0 at standard pressure
Dth change in time in hour
cv emittance of the receiver cover Acronyms
gex exergy efficiency ORC organic Rankine cycle
r Stefan–Boltzmann constant, kW/m2 K4 PTSC parabolic trough solar collectors
q density, kg/m3

the waste heat from the plant’s prime mover, such as a gas
turbine, is used for heating and cooling. ORC is one of the
potential subsystems that can be used in trigeneration
plants for mechanical power production and, then, electri-
cal power production through an electrical generator. ORC
can be integrated with a low- or medium-temperature
energy source while the steam Rankine cycle can be inte-
grated with a high-temperature energy source.
A comprehensive review of trigeneration plants based on
trigeneration prime movers was conducted by Al-Sulaiman
et al. (2011). In their study, it was shown that a signifi-
cant number of studies were conducted on trigeneration
plants that are based on internal combustion engines as
prime movers, but there are fewer studies on gas turbines
and microturbines as prime movers. On the other hand,
there is a need for more research on the other three
prime movers: fuel cells, Rankine cycles, and Stirling
engines. In terms of analysis type, most of the studies
have been conducted using energy and economical anal-
yses and less attention has been given to environmental,
2230 F.A. Al-Sulaiman et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 2228–2243
exergy, and thermoeconomic analyses of trigeneration
plants.
A number of studies considered using solar energy and
ORC for desalination, e.g. (Delgado-Torres and Garcna-
Rodrnguez, 2007; Garcna-Rodrnguez and Delgado-Torres,
2007; Manolakos et al., 2009; Bruno et al., 2008; Kosmadakis
et al., 2010; Karellas et al., 2011; Tchanche et al., 2010;
Nafey and Sharaf, 2010). In contrast, a few studies exam-
ined the feasibility of using a thermal system based on solar
energy and ORC for power production, e.g. (Prabhu, 2006;
Jing et al., 2010; Wang and Zhao, 2009; Riffat and Zhao,
2004; Zheng and Weng, 2010). Prabhu (2006) examined
the feasibility and economic possibilities of using PTSC
and ORC for electrical power and water cooling produc-
tion. The author also examined the feasibility of using
the system proposed in his study for selected locations in
the USA and in other parts of the world. In another study,
Wang and Zhao (2009) examined the energy efficiency of
three zeotropic mixtures as a working fluid of an ORC.
They found that under specific working conditions, intro-
ducing an internal heat exchanger to the system can notice-
ably increase the thermal performances of the Rankine
cycle, especially for drying and isentropic zeotropic mix-
tures. In a different study, Jing et al. (2010) conducted an
energy analysis to examine the integration of an ORC with
a low temperature PTSC for different locations. In their
study, they compared first the efficiency of single-stage
solar collectors with two-stage solar collectors. The authors
found that the two-stage solar collectors have a higher effi-
ciency, where the improvement varies from 8.1% to 20.9%,
as compared to the single-stage solar collectors. Then the
authors compared the power output of their system at six
different locations.
A performance assessment of cogeneration thermal sys-
tems was conducted by Riffat and Zhao (2004), Zheng and
Weng (2010). Zheng and Weng (2010) studied the perfor-
mance of a cooling-cogeneration system for power and
refrigeration production, using R245fa as a working fluid
for the Rankine cycle. The refrigeration power is based
on an ejector refrigeration cycle. The authors found that
the energy efficiency of the system was 34.1% while the
exergy efficiency of the system was 56.8%. Riffat and Zhao
(2004) examined the performance of a heating-cogenera-
tion system using solar collectors, an ORC, and a gas boi-
ler. The authors found that the electrical efficiency of their
system was 16% and the heating efficiency was 43%; and as
a result, the overall efficiency was 59%. In a different study,
energy performance assessment of a trigeneration system
using PTSC and ORC was conducted by Al-Sulaiman
(2011). In their study, it was shown that the maximum elec-
trical energy efficiency was 14%; alternatively, when trigen-
eration was used the energy efficiency increases to 94%.
Exergy analysis, which is based on both the first law of
thermodynamics and the second law of thermodynamics,
overcomes some limitations of the energy analysis. Exergy
analysis indicates the locations of energy degradation in a
process and quantifies the irreversibility in each component
in the analyzed system. It can, therefore, lead to improved
operation or technology (Dincer and Rosen, 2007).
This paper presents an exergy analysis that was con-
ducted to assess a new trigeneration system using PTSC
and ORC. The system considered consists of a solar sub-
system, two thermal storage tanks, an ORC, a single-effect
absorption chiller, and a heat exchanger for the heating
process. The simulation of the present system considers
three modes of operation: solar mode, solar and storage
mode, and storage mode. The four specific cases that are
considered in this study are electrical power, cooling-
cogeneration, heating-cogeneration, and trigeneration
cases. The system is sized to produce around 500 kW of
net electrical power. The objective of this study is to assess
the exergetic performance of the four cases considered, to
identify and quantify the sources of the exergy destruction
in the system considered, and, hence, to help in improving
the system exergy efficiency. The following text presents
first the system description and assumptions and then sys-
tem modeling, results and discussion, and conclusions.
2. System description
The trigeneration system considered consists of a PTSC,
an ORC, a heating process heat exchanger, and a single-
effect absorption chiller, as shown in Fig. 1. The oil heated
through PTSC is used to heat the fluid in the ORC. On the
other hand, the waste heat from the ORC is used for heat-
ing and cooling. The waste heat from the ORC is used to
produce steam in the heating process, using a heat exchan-
ger and to produce cooling using a single-effect absorption
chiller. To have an efficient ORC, the working fluid in the
ORC should have a high critical temperature, so that a
usable waste heat can be gained. One of the typical organic
fluid types used to operate the ORC is n-octane, which has
a relatively high critical temperature, 569 K (Yaws, 1999).
Hence, it is selected as the working fuel of the ORC (Bruno
et al., 2008; Vijayaraghavan and Goswami, 2005).
The solar-trigeneration system is a dynamic system
where the energy input varies with time. After the sunrise,
the solar radiation increases from zero until it reaches its
maximum at noon and then decreases until it reaches zero
at sunset. To have a continuously operating solar plant,
another auxiliary subsystem is needed. A common subsys-
tem that is combined with a solar system, is a thermal stor-
age energy subsystem. The thermal storage subsystem
stores the excess solar energy during the day time and, thus,
ensures running the system at night time. Therefore, to
have a full picture of a thermal solar system performance,
it needs to be designed considering a thermal storage sub-
system. Indeed, considering a thermal storage subsystem
is important when there is a need to have energy during
night time, for example, which is the considered case in this
study. The solar trigeneration plant operating modes are
described next.
In this study, three modes of operation are considered:
solar, solar and storage, and storage modes. During the
 F.A. Al-Sulaiman et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 2228–2243 2231

Valve I
16 17 3
Electrical
generator
24
20 Hot
storage Power
25 ORC turbine
23 tank ORC
Parabolic evaporator-b
trough Storage Storage
solar HEx pump I
collectors 2b
4
26
30
Cold
Storage storage ORC Thp,2
pump II tank evaporator-a Heating
22 29
28 27 process Thp,1=40 C
21 (313K)
19 18 2a 1 5
Valve II Solar pump
ORC pump
Condenser
Tco,2
6 Desorber
Tco,1=30 C
(303K) `

7 12 13

Refrigerant
expansion valve Solution heat
exchanger

8 11 14
Solution Solution expansion
pump valve
10 15

9
Evaporator Absorber

Tev,2 Tev,1=12 C Tab,1=30 C Tab,2

(285K) (303K)

Fig. 1. Schematic of the solar-trigeneration system.

early time of the day, after the sunrise, and later, before the
sunset, all the solar energy collected by the solar collectors
is used to run the trigeneration system. This mode is called
the solar mode (6:00 am to 8:00 am and 4:00 pm to 6:00
pm). At the other time of the day (high solar radiation
time), part of the solar energy collected by the solar collec-
tors is used to run the trigeneration system. The remaining
part of the solar energy is stored in the thermal storage
tank. This mode is called the solar and storage mode
(8:00 am to 4:00 pm). At night time, the trigeneration sys-
tem runs using the energy stored in the thermal storage.
This mode is called the storage mode (6:00 pm to 6:00
am). A representative diagram that shows these three
modes of operation is shown in Fig. 2. Also, this diagram
shows the change of the solar radiation density during
the day time. The solar radiation variation density in this
study is taken from Kalogirou (2009). The selected data
from Kalogirou (2009) is for full tracking of solar collec-
tors to sun radiation and based on annual average condi-
tions. In this study, 70% of the solar energy collected
during the solar and storage mode is stored in the storage
tank. This percentage is selected based on an initial simula-
tion that shows this percentage will result in a high energy
efficiency of the system during this mode.
There are commonly two thermal storage configurations
in thermal solar energy applications: thermocline tank and
two tanks. The fluid heated by the solar energy can be stored
in a single tank and, in this case, it is called thermocline
2232 F.A. Al-Sulaiman et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 2228–2243

1.2 Table 1
Input data for solar-trigeneration system.

Solar and Data (Kalogirou) ORC

1
Solar radiation density (kW/m2)

storage mode Organic cycle turbine efficiency 80%

Organic cycle pump efficiency 80%
Effectiveness of the organic cycle 85%
0.8
evaporator
Solar mode
Baseline turbine inlet pressure 2000 kPa
0.6 Solar mode
Organic pump inlet temperature 365 K
Electrical generator efficiency 95%
Electrical motor efficiency 95%
0.4 Chilling cycle
Overall heat transfer coefficient of the 70 kW/K
Storage Storage desorber
0.2 mode mode Overall heat transfer coefficient of the 80 kW/K
condenser
Overall heat transfer coefficient of the 95 kW/K
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 evaporator
Overall heat transfer coefficient of the 75 kW/K
Time (hours)
absorber
Fig. 2. Solar radiation density variation versus time. Effectiveness of solution heat exchanger 70%
Solar subsystem
thermal storage tank. This tank would require using w 5.76 m (Zarza et al., 2006)
advanced technology to separate the hot fluid from the cold L 12.27 m (Zarza et al.,
fluid in the tank, Herrmann and Kearney (2002). The other 2006)
option is to use two thermal storage tanks. In this study, gr 0.765 (Zarza et al., 2006)
the two thermal storage tanks option is selected. The two Gba 0.5 kW/m2 (Kalogirou,
2009)
tanks option is widely used in parabolic trough solar collec- Gbb 0.85 kW/m2 (Kalogirou,
tor (Herrmann and Kearney, 2002; Kelly, 1994; Valenti, 2009)
1995; Pacheco and Gilbert, 1999; Kroizer, 1984; Herrmann r 0.92 (Montes et al., 2009)
et al., 2004). For parabolic trough solar collectors, two Colnc 50
tanks thermal storage is more cost-effective in the near term Colrc 7
m_ cr 8 kg/s
option based on the field experience and technical confi- Dr,ic 0.045 m
dent as compared with the single tank option (Herrmann a
During low sun radiation.
and Kearney, 2002). b
During high sun radiation.
The working fluid in the solar collectors receiver and c
Based on thermoeconomic optimization results.
storage tanks could be a commercial oil. Therminol-66
oil is the selected working fluid in this study for these com-
ponents. It is a commercial oil that could be used in both (1996). The single-effect absorption chiller model was vali-
thermal solar systems and thermal storage tanks (Harrison dated with (Herold et al., 1996).
and Randall, 1980). This oil has an operating temperature
ranges from 0 to 345 °C (Therminol, 2010). Furthermore, 3.1. Solar collectors
this oil has a low relative pressure and its pressure is not
sensitive to the increase in the temperature. In this study, The energy analysis of the PTSC are presented in this
the solar subsystem consists of two thermal storage tanks. subsection. The energy analysis of the PTSC in this section
One tank is used to store the hot oil; when the hot oil is is based on the equations presented in Kalogirou (2009),
used to provide the heat input to the ORC, it cools down Duffie and Beckman (2006). This energy analysis is vali-
and is stored in the second storage tank (cold storage tank.) dated with these two references and with the experimental
study by Dudley et al. (1994). The validation with (Dudley
et al., 1994) is presented at the end of this section. The use-
3. Thermodynamic modeling ful power from the collector is defined as
The mathematical modeling of the trigeneration systems Q_ u ¼ m_ r  ðCpr;o  T r;o  Cpr;i  T r;i Þ ð1Þ
considered are presented in this section. The equations
developed are programmed using Engineering Equation where Q_ u is the useful power and m_ r is the mass flow rate of
Solver (EES) software. The input data used in this model the oil in the receiver (pipe). The subscripts r, i, and o indi-
is given in Table 1. The energy analysis applied to the sin- cate receiver, inlet, and outlet, respectively. In addition,
gle-effect absorption chiller is similar to the approach used this power can be calculated from
by American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers Inc. (2005) and Herold et al. Q_ u ¼ Aap  F R  ðS  Ar =Aap  U L  ðT r;i  T 0 ÞÞ ð2Þ
 F.A. Al-Sulaiman et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 2228–2243 2233

where Aap is the collector aperture area, FR is the heat re- The amount of the solar radiation that falls on the collector
moval factor, S is the absorbed radiation by the receiver, is calculated using this equation
Ar is the receiver area, and UL is solar collector overall heat
loss coefficient. The aperture area is defined as Q_ solar ¼ Aap  F R  S  Colr ð14Þ

Aap ¼ ðw  Dc;o Þ  L ð3Þ where Colr is the total number of the solar collectors rows.
The exergy of a solar collector is defined as Petela (2005)
where w is the collector width, Dc,o is the cover outer diam-
eter, and L is the collector length. The absorbed radiation _ coll ¼ Aap;t  Gb
Ex
by the receiver is defined as  
4
 1 þ ð1=3Þ  ðT 0 =T s Þ  ð4=3Þ  ðT 0 =T s Þ ð15Þ
S ¼ G b  gr ð4Þ
where Gb is the solar radiation in W/m2 and gr is the recei- where Ts is the sun temperature and equals to 6000 K (Pe-
ver efficiency. The heat removal factor is defined as tela, 2005). The exergy destruction of the solar collectors is
  
m_ r  Cpr Ar  U L  F 1 _ d;coll;solar ¼ ðEx
Ex _ 22  Ex
_ 16 þ Ex
_ coll ÞðDth;solar Þ=24 ½h ð16Þ
FR ¼  1  exp  ð5Þ
Ar  U L m_ r  Cpr
where Dth,solar is the total time in hour where the solar col-
where Cpr is the specific heat of the oil in the receiver and lectors are working and for the solar mode equals to
F1 is the collector efficiency factor and defined as
Dthsolar ¼ 24 ½h  Dthchst  Dthdhst ð17Þ
F 1 ¼ U o =U L ð6Þ
The solar collector heat loss coefficient between the ambi- whereas for the solar and storage mode, Dth,solar equals to
ent and receiver is defined as Dthsolar ¼ 24 ½h  Dthchst ð18Þ
 1
Ar where Dthdhst is the total time where there is a discharge
UL ¼ þ 1=hr;cr ð7Þ
ðhc;ca þ hr;ca Þ  Ac from the hot storage tank and Dthchst is the total time where
where hc,ca is the convection heat coefficient between the there is charging to the hot storage tank.
cover and the ambient and defined as
3.1.1. Validation of the solar collectors model
hc;ca ¼ ðNus  k air =Dc;o Þ ð8Þ The validation of the solar collectors model is shown in
where Nus, kair, and Dc,o are Nusselt number, thermal con- Table 2. The model is examined by considering the design
ductivity of the air, and outer diameter of the cover, respec- data for the black chrome receiver material case for a vac-
tively. The radiation heat coefficient is defined as uum space between the receiver and its cover, as in Dudley
   et al. (1994). In this study, the baseline simulation of the
hr;ca ¼ cv  r  ðT c þ T a Þ  T 2c þ T 2a ð9Þ solar-trigeneration system has an absorber fluid tempera-
ture of less than 200 °C above ambient temperature. There-
where T, cv, and rare the temperature, emittance, and Ste-
fore, the model is in good agreement with the experimental
fan–Boltzmann constant, respectively. The subscripts c and
results, as demonstrated in this table. The deviation in the
a indicate the cover and ambient, respectively. The radia-
calculations as compared to the experimental results is
tion heat coefficient between the cover and receiver is
 1 attributed to the approximation used to calculate the heat
0
r  ðT c þ T r;av Þ  T 2c þ T 2r;av loss coefficients.
hr;cr ¼ @ A ð10Þ
1=r þ Ar =Ac  ð1=cv  1Þ 3.2. Thermal storage tanks

The overall heat coefficient is defined as The modeling of the thermal storage tanks is presented
  1 in this subsection. The modeling considers charging, stor-
Dr;o Dr;o
U o ¼ 1=U L þ þ  lnðDr;o =Dr;i Þ ing, and discharging the fluid from both tanks.
hc;r;in  Dr;i 2  kr
ð11Þ
Table 2
where hc,r,in is defined as Validation of the current model as compared with Dudley et al. (1994):
heat losses change with the average temperature above the ambient of the
Nusr  k r
hc;r;in ¼ ð12Þ fluid inside the absorber.
Dr;i
Taam (K) Heat loss (Model) Heat loss (Exp. Dudley et al. (1994))
where the subscripts r indicates the receiver. The cover 100.6 8.7 10.6
average temperature can be calculated using this equation 149.1 19.3 19.3
196.7 34.2 30.6
hr;cr  T r;av þ Ac =Ar  ðhc;ca þ hr;ca Þ  T 0 245.8 53.0 45.4
Tc ¼ ð13Þ
hr;cr þ Ac =Ar  ðhc;ca þ hr;ca Þ 293.3 75.5 62.9
2234 F.A. Al-Sulaiman et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 2228–2243

3.2.1. Hot fluid tank: charging
The rate in which the heat enters the storage tank is
Q_ hst ¼ Q_ 23  Q_ l;hst
where the subscripts hst and l, hst indicate hot storage tank
and lost heat from the heat storage tank, respectively. The
lost heat from the storage tank is
3.3. Overall analysis of the solar-trigeneration system
The equations used to analyze the trigeneration plant
ð19Þ
based on the solar subsystem are presented in this subsec-
tion. The input energy to the plant is defined as
Q_ in ¼ Q_ solar ¼ Q_ u ð31Þ

Q_ l;hst ¼ UAh  ðT hst  T 0 Þ ð20Þ where Q_ solar is the total heat collected by the solar collec-
tors. The net electrical power is defined as
where U is the overall heat transfer coefficient. The total
heat lost from the hot storage tank is W_ net ¼ gg  W_ ot  W_ op =gmotor  W_ sp =gmotor
X
Qhst ¼ Q_ hst  Dth ð21Þ  W_ sol;p =gmotor  W_ st1;p =gmotor  W_ st2;p =gmotor ð32Þ
where Dth is the total time of charging. The temperature in The exergetic efficiency of net electrical power is defined as
the storage tank can be found from
P gex;el ¼ W_ net =Ex
_ coll ð33Þ
Qhst
T hst ¼ ð22Þ
Cphst  M hst The exergetic efficiency of the heating cogeneration is de-
fined as
where Mhst is the total oil mass in the hot storage tank.
W_ net þ m_ hp  ðexhp;1  exhp;2 Þ
gex;cog;h ¼ ð34Þ
3.2.2. Hot fluid tank: storing _ coll
Ex
The change in the temperature of the tank with time can
be calculated using where exhp,1 and exhp,1 are the exergy of the stream at the
inlet and exit of the heating process heat exchanger, respec-
Dth tively. The exergetic efficiency of the cooling cogeneration
Tþ
hst ¼ T hst þ  ðUAh  ðT hst  T 0 ÞÞ ð23Þ
M hst  Cphst is defined as
The total heat lost during storage is W_ net þ m_ ev  ðexev;1  exev;2 Þ
gex;cog;c ¼ ð35Þ
Qhst;tlost ¼ ðM hst  Cphst  DT hst Þ ð24Þ _ coll
Ex
where DThst is the change in the temperature during storing where exev,1 and exev,1 are the exergy of the stream at the
in the hot tank and equals to inlet and exit of the evaporator of the single-effect absorp-
tion chiller, respectively. The exergetic efficiency of the tri-
DT hst ¼ T hst  T þ
hst ð25Þ generation is defined as
W_ net þ m_ hp  ðexhp;1  exhp;2 Þ þ m_ ev  ðexev;1  exev;2 Þ
3.2.3. Hot fluid tank: discharging gex;tri ¼
_ coll
Ex
The total heat at discharging is
X ð36Þ
Q24 ¼ Qhst  Qhst;tlost ð26Þ
A discussion on various energy and exergy efficiency defini-
tions for combined cycles can be found in Khan (2006).
3.2.4. Cold fluid tank: storing The pinch point temperature for evaporator-a is defined
The total amount of heat storing in the cold tank is as Li and Priddy (1985)
Qcst;tlost ¼ ðM cst  Cpcst  DT cst Þ ð27Þ T pp ¼ T 27  T 2a ð37Þ
where the subscript cst indicates cold storage tank. DTcst is and for evaporator-b is
the change of the temperature in the cold storage tank and T pp ¼ T 18  T 2b ð38Þ
equals to
DT cst ¼ T cst  T þ
cst ð28Þ 4. Results and discussion
where Tcst+ is equal to
In this section, the results of exergy modeling of the tri-
Dtc
Tþ
cst ¼ T cst þ  ðUAcv  ðT cst  T 0 ÞÞ ð29Þ generation system using solar energy are presented and dis-
M cst  Cpcst cussed. In this study, the effects of the ORC evaporator
pinch point temperature, pump inlet temperature, and tur-
3.2.5. Cold fluid tank: discharging bine inlet pressure are examined. The range of the ORC
The heat rate discharges from the cold tank is evaporator pinch point temperature (Li and Priddy,
X 1985) and pump inlet temperature (Herold et al., 1996;
Q28 ¼ Qcst  Qcst;tlost ð30Þ Thermax Inc, 2010) considered here are taken from the
 F.A. Al-Sulaiman et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 2228–2243 2235

literature. In the calculations, the mass flow rate of the
organic fluid is kept constant. For the solar and storage
subsystems, the mass flow rates of the Therminol-66 are
kept constant for each operating mode. The thermody-
namic properties of the stations for the baseline case for
all the three modes are shown in Tables 3–5.
4.1. Effect of the ORC evaporator pinch point temperature
The effect of the pinch point temperature on the exerget-
ic performance of the solar trigeneration system is exam-
ined through Figs. 3–6. The effect of the ORC evaporator
pinch point variation on the exergy efficiency is shown in

Table 3
Thermodynamic properties of the stations for the solar mode.
State no. Fluid m_ ðkg=sÞ T (K) P (kPa) Pv (kPa)a h (kJ/kg) ex (kJ/kg)
1 n-octane 7 365.0 35.77 157.5 15.6
2 n-octane 7 365.9 2000.00 161.3 18.8
3 n-octane 7 549.0 2000.00 891.8 294.0
4 n-octane 7 498.7 35.77 782 167.7
5 n-octane 7 365.0 35.77 185.9 20.8
6 Water 0.067 336.5 5.44 2618 78.3
7 Water 0.067 307.5 5.44 144 0.5
8 Water 0.067 278.2 0.87 144 6.0
9 Water 0.067 278.2 0.87 2509.7 176.0
10 LiBr–water 0.34 303.4 0.87 67.3 11.1
11 LiBr–water 0.34 303.4 5.44 67.3 11.1
12 LiBr–water 0.34 332.2 5.44 128.3 71.8
13 LiBr–water 0.273 365.0 5.44 244.5 117.3
14 LiBr–water 0.273 321.9 5.44 168.5 41.6
15 LiBr–water 0.273 329.0 0.87 168.5 41.6
16 therminol-66 7.1 600.0 54.1 1601.7 689.8
17 therminol-66 7.1 600.0 54.1 1601.7 689.8
18 therminol-66 7.098 405.0 0.200 788.8 158.5
19 therminol-66 7.1 405.0 0.200 788.8 158.5
22 therminol-66 7.1 405.0 0.200 788.8 158.5
a
The data available in the literature and that is used by EES can calculate only the vapor pressure for therminol-66.

Table 4
Thermodynamic properties of the stations for the solar and storage mode.
State no. Fluid m_ ðkg=sÞ T (K) P (kPa) Pv (kPa)a h (kJ/kg) ex (kJ/kg)
1 n-octane 7 365.0 35.77 157.5 15.6
2 n-octane 7 365.9 2000.00 161.3 18.8
3 n-octane 7 549.0 2000.00 749.1 228.0
4 n-octane 7 447.5 35.77 658.5 122.0
5 n-octane 7 365.0 35.77 185.9 20.8
6 Water 0.067 336.5 5.44 2618 78.3
7 Water 0.067 307.5 5.44 144 0.5
8 Water 0.067 278.2 0.87 144 -6.0
9 Water 0.067 278.2 0.87 2509.7 -176.0
10 LiBr–water 0.34 303.4 0.87 67.3 11.1
11 LiBr–water 0.34 303.4 5.44 67.3 11.1
12 LiBr–water 0.34 332.2 5.44 128.3 71.8
13 LiBr–water 0.273 365.0 5.44 244.5 117.3
14 LiBr–water 0.273 321.9 5.44 168.5 41.6
15 LiBr–water 0.273 329.0 0.87 168.5 41.6
16 therminol-66 13.9 600.0 54.1 1601.7 689.8
17 therminol-66 4.2 600.0 54.1 1601.7 689.8
18 therminol-66 4.2 405.0 0.200 788.8 158.5
19 therminol-66 4.2 405.0 0.200 788.8 158.5
20 therminol-66 9.7 600.0 54.1 1601.7 689.8
21 therminol-66 9.7 444.4 0.868 929.1 241.6
22 therminol-66 13.9 433.1 0.580 887.9 216.7
23 therminol-66 10 467.0 27.0 1442.1 578.1
28 therminol-66 10 404.37 0.195 786.6 157.3
29 therminol-66 10 404.37 0.195 786.6 157.3
30 therminol-66 10 404.37 0.195 786.6 157.3
a
The data available in the literature and that is used by EES can calculate only the vapor pressure for therminol-66.
2236 F.A. Al-Sulaiman et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 2228–2243

Table 5
Thermodynamic properties of the stations for the storage mode.
State no. Fluid m_ ðkg=sÞ T (K) P (kPa) Pv (kPa)a h (kJ/kg) ex (kJ/kg)
1 n-octane 7 365.0 35.77 157.5 15.6
2 n-octane 7 365.9 2000.00 161.3 18.8
3 n-octane 7 549.0 2000.00 676.1 194.6
4 n-octane 7 421.0 35.77 598.6 103.3
5 n-octane 7 365.0 35.77 185.9 20.8
6 Water 0.067 336.5 5.44 2618 78.3
7 Water 0.067 307.5 5.44 144 0.5
8 Water 0.067 278.2 0.87 144 6.0
9 Water 0.067 278.2 0.87 2509.7 176.0
10 LiBr–water 0.34 303.4 0.87 67.3 11.1
11 LiBr–water 0.34 303.4 5.44 67.3 11.1
12 LiBr–water 0.34 332.2 5.44 128.3 71.8
13 LiBr–water 0.273 365.0 5.44 244.5 117.3
14 LiBr–water 0.273 321.9 5.44 168.5 41.6
15 LiBr–water 0.273 329.0 0.87 168.5 41.6
24 therminol-66 6.7 571.6 30.2 1466 594.9
25 therminol-66 6.7 571.6 30.2 1466 594.9
26 therminol-66 6.7 571.6 30.2 1466 594.9
27 therminol-66 6.7 405 0.200 788.8 158.5
a
The data available in the literature and that is used by EES can calculate only the vapor pressure for therminol-66.

Fig. 3. Effect of the ORC evaporator pinch point temperature on the exergy efficiency at P3 = 2000 kPa, T1 = 365 K.

Fig. 3. This figure shows that the exergy efficiency is low.
As reported in the literature, the exergy efficiency of a solar
system is considerably less than the energy efficiency
(Petela, 2005). This decrease is attributed to the large tem-
perature difference between the sun temperature and fluid
temperature in the collectors (Petela, 2005). Fig. 3 shows
that for the solar mode the electrical-exergy efficiency is
between 6% and 6.6% and the cooling-cogeneration exergy
efficiency is between 6.1% and 6.7%. This small improve-
ment in efficiency is attributed to the small size of the sin-
gle-effect absorption chiller as compared to the electrical
system. This chiller was selected from the industry (Thermax
Inc, 2010). On the other hand, the heating-cogeneration
exergy efficiency decreases from around 19% at 10 K to
15% at 60 K. Similarly, the trigeneration-exergy efficiency
decreases from almost 20% at 10 K to 16.5% at 60 K. This
decrease is due to the decrease in the amount of the heat
input to the ORC as the pinch point temperature increases.
Now, consider the solar and storage mode, as shown in
this figure. This figure illustrates that the electrical and
cooling-cogeneration efficiencies are around 3% and 3.5%,
respectively. The drop in the exergy efficiency of this
mode, as compare to the solar mode, is because part of
the solar energy collected during this mode is stored in
the storage tank, as discussed in Section 2. Therefore, the
exergy efficiency for this mode is lower than the solar
mode. Alternatively, using heating cogeneration or trigen-
eration, this efficiency increases to around 7.5% or 8%,
 F.A. Al-Sulaiman et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 2228–2243 2237

700
1400

. 600
1200
.Ex d, hp
Exergy destruction rate (kW)

Exergy destruction rate (kW)

Ex .
. d, coll, solar 500 Ex d, hst
1000 Ex d, ot .
.
Ex d, ev, b .Ex d, hp
400 Ex
. d, ot
800
Ex d, ev, a

300
600

400 200

200 100

0 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60
Tpp (K) Tpp (K)

Fig. 4. Effect of the ORC evaporator pinch point temperature on the Fig. 6. Effect of the ORC evaporator pinch point temperature on the
exergy destruction rate at P3 = 2000 kPa, T1 = 365 K, for solar mode. exergy destruction rate at P3 = 2000 kPa, T1 = 365 K, for storage mode.

5000
reveals that most of the destructed exergy is destroyed by
. the solar collectors. The exergy destructed by this compo-
Ex
. d, hst nent is around 1400 kW. This figure shows that the exergy
Ex
. d, hp destructed by the solar collectors increases marginally as
4000
Exergy destruction rate (kW)

.Ex d, coll, solar, charging
.Ex d, ot
Ex d, ev, b
3000
2000
1000
0 decreases from 350 kW at 10 K to 200 kW at 60 K. This
10 20 30 40 50
Tpp (K)
Fig. 5. Effect of the ORC evaporator pinch point temperature on the
exergy destruction rate at P3 = 2000 kPa, T1 = 365 K, for solar and
storage mode.
respectively. Considering the storage mode in this figure, it
can be observed that for this mode the exergy efficiencies
decrease further more. This decrement is because there is
less energy input from the storage tank, as compared to
the energy inputs from the other two modes. The electrical
and cooling-cogeneration exergy efficiencies are around
2.5% and the heating-cogeneration and trigeneration exer-
gy efficiencies are around 6%.
The effect of the ORC evaporator pinch point on the
exergy destruction rate is shown in Figs. 4–6. Only the
components that have high exergy destruction rates are
presented. Fig. 4 illustrates the exergy destruction rate of
the heating-process heat exchanger, solar collectors, tur-
bine, and evaporator-b for the solar mode. This figure
the pinch point temperature increases. This increment is
because of the increase in the exergy difference between
the inlet and exit of the solar collectors as the pinch point
temperature increases. Similarly, the destructed exergy by
evaporator-b increases as the pinch point temperature
increases. It increases from 450 kW at 10 K to 550 kW at
60 K. This increase in the destructed exergy is owing to
the increase in exergy difference between the inlets and exits
of evaporator-b. Also, this figure illustrates that the des-
tructed exergy by the heating-process heat exchanger
decreases as the pinch point temperature increases. It
60
decrement is due to the decrease in the available exergy
in the ORC as the pinch point increases and, thus, less exer-
gy is available for the heating process. In addition, this fig-
ure shows that as the pinch point temperature increases,
the destructed exergy by the turbine decreases. This des-
tructed exergy decreases from 120 kW at 10 K to 115 kW
at 60 K. Again, this decrease in the destructed exergy by
the turbine is due to the decrease in the available exergy
in the ORC as the pinch point temperature increases, as
well as to the decrease in the turbine power output.
Fig. 5 illustrates the solar and storage mode. This figure
shows that the destructed exergy of the solar collectors
increases significantly as compared to the solar mode. This
increase is mainly due to the increase in the solar radiation
during this mode. The definition of the exergy of the solar
collectors indicates that it increases linearly as the solar
radiation increases as shown in Eq. (15). The destructed
exergy rate by the solar collectors is around 4700 kW. On
the other hand, the other components destroy considerably
less exergy. The destructed exergy by evaporator-b is
2238 F.A. Al-Sulaiman et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 2228–2243

Fig. 7. Effect of the ORC pump inlet temperature on the exergy efficiency at P3 = 2000 kPa, Tpp = 40 K.

around 500 kW. Fig. 6 shows the storage mode case. It can
be observed that the significant source of the destructed
exergy is evaporator-a. The destructed exergy by this com-
ponent is around 600 kW. One the other hand, the des-
tructed exergies by the turbine, heating-process heat
exchanger, and hot storage tank are around 100 kW,
70 kW, and 30 kW, respectively.
4.2. Effect of the ORC pump inlet temperature
The effect of the ORC pump inlet temperature variation
on the plant’s exergetic performance is presented in Figs. 7–
10. The effect of the ORC pump inlet temperature on the
exergy efficiency is presented in Fig. 7. Considering the
solar mode as shown in this figure, it is shown that as this
temperature increases, the electrical-exergy efficiency drops
from 7% at 345 K to 5% at 380 K. This drop is due to the
decrease in the electrical power as this temperature
increases. Using cooling cogeneration, the exergy efficiency
improves by less than 0.5%. However, using heating cogen-
eration or trigeneration, the exergy efficiency improves sig-
nificantly to 18% or 18.5%, respectively. Considering the
solar and storage mode, it is shown that the electrical, cool-
ing-cogeneration, heating-cogeneration, and trigeneration
efficiencies are around 3%, 3.5%, 7%, and 7.5%, respec-
tively. Considering the storage mode, it is shown that the
electrical, cooling-cogeneration, heating-cogeneration,
and trigeneration efficiencies are around 2.5%, 3%, 6%,
and 6.5%, respectively. It can be noticed from this figure
that the exergy efficiencies for the solar mode are the

5000

1400 .
4000 .Ex d, hst
Exergy destruction rate (kW)

Ex
. d, hp
1200 .
Exergy destruction rate (kW)

Ex d, coll, solar
. .Ex d, coll, solar, charging
Ex
. d, hp .Ex d, ot
1000 3000 Ex d, ev, b
Ex
. d, ot
Ex d, ev, b
800

2000
600

400 1000

200

0
0 345 350 355 360 365 370 375 380
345 350 355 360 365 370 375 380 T1 (K)
T1 (K)
Fig. 9. Effect of the ORC pump inlet temperature on the exergy
Fig. 8. Effect of the ORC pump inlet temperature on the exergy destruction rate at P3 = 2000 kPa, Tpp = 40 K, for solar and storage
destruction rate at P3 = 2000 kPa, Tpp = 40 K, for solar mode. mode.
 F.A. Al-Sulaiman et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 2228–2243 2239

700
1400

600 .
1200 Ex

Exergy destruction rate (kW)

. d, coll, solar
Exergy destruction rate (kW)

Ex
. d, hp
500 Ex
. d, ot
1000
Ex d, ev, b
Ex d, hst
400 Ex d, ot
800
Ex d, ev, a

300 600

200 400

100 200

0
0 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
350 360 370 380
T1 (K) P3 (kPa)

Fig. 10. Effect of the ORC pump inlet temperature on the exergy Fig. 12. Effect of the turbine inlet pressure on the exergy destruction rate
destruction rate at P3 = 2000 kPa, Tpp = 40 K, for storage mode. at T1 = 365 K, Tpp = 40 K, for solar mode.

highest while for the storage mode are the lowest. This
difference is because there is more energy input to the
ORC for the solar mode and less for the storage mode.
The effect of the ORC pump inlet temperature on the
exergy destruction rate is presented in Figs. 8–10. These fig-
ures present only the components that have high exergy
destruction rates. Fig. 8 presents the solar mode. This fig-
ure shows the exergy destruction rate of the solar collec-
tors, heating-process, turbine, and evaporator-b. It can
be noticed that the solar collectors have the highest exergy
destruction rate, around 1400 kW. The exergy destruction
rate of the solar collectors increases marginally as the
ORC pump inlet temperature increases. This increase is
attributed to the increase in the temperature at the exit of
evaporator-b, T18, as the ORC pump inlet temperature
increases. That is, the pinch point temperature is a function
of the ORC pump inlet temperature, T1, and T18. There-
fore, as T1 increases, T18 increases and, thus, the inlet tem-
perature to the solar collectors increases. This figure shows
that as T1 increases, the exergy destruction rate of evapora-
tor-b decreases marginally. This decrease is due to the
decrease in the available exergy in evaporator-b as T1
increases. The exergy destruction rate of evaporator-b is
around 550 kW. The exergy destructed by the heating-pro-
cess heat exchanger increases as T1 increases. This increase
is owing to the increase in the available heat energy and the
decrease in the heating-cogeneration exergy efficiency. The
exergy destruction rate increases from 100 kW at 345 K to
360 kW at 380 K. The exergy destruction rate of the tur-
bine is around 120 kW. The exergy destruction rate of
the turbine decreases as T1 increases. This decrement is
owing to the decrease in the power produced by the turbine

Fig. 11. Effect of the turbine inlet pressure on the exergy efficiency at T1 = 365 K, Tpp = 40 K, for solar mode.
2240 F.A. Al-Sulaiman et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 2228–2243

as this temperature increases. Fig. 9 presents the solar and 5000

storage mode. This figure reveals that the destructed exergy
.
rate by the solar collectors for this mode are significantly
.Ex d, hst

Exergy destruction rate (kW)

high, around 4800 kW. The reason for this was discussed 4000
Ex
. d, hp
above. This figure shows that as the ORC pump inlet tem- Ex
. d, coll, solar, charging
perature increases, the destructed exergy by the solar col- Ex
. d, ot
lectors increases. It increases from 4700 kW at 348 K to 3000 Ex d, ev, b
4800 kW at 380 K. The exergy destruction rate of evapora-
tor-b decreases from 530 kW to 490 as this temperature
2000
increases. The exergy destruction rate of the turbine
decreases from 125 kW to 90 kW as this temperature
increases. The exergy destruction rate of the heating-
1000
process heat exchanger increases from almost zero to
220 kW as this temperature increases. The exergy destruc-
tion rate of the hot storage tank decreases from 22 kW to
0
20 kW as this temperature increases. Fig. 10 presents the 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
storage mode. This figure illustrates that as the ORC pump P3 (kPa)
inlet temperature increases, the exergy destruction rate by
evaporator-a decreases. It decreases from 650 kW at Fig. 13. Effect of the turbine inlet pressure on the exergy destruction rate
at T1 = 365 K, Tpp = 40 K, for solar and storage mode.
345 K to 550 kW at 380 K. The exergy destruction rate
by the turbine decreases from 120 kW to 80 kW as this
temperature increases. The exergy destruction rate by the
heating-process heat exchanger increases from almost zero 700

to 150 kW as this temperature increases. The exergy

destruction rate of the hot storage tank is almost constant 600
Exergy destruction rate (kW)

and around 30 kW.

500 .
.Ex d, hst
4.3. Effect of the turbine inlet pressure
.Ex d, hp
400 Ex
. d, ot
The effect of the turbine inlet pressure variation on the Ex d, ev, a
plant’s exergetic performance is presented in Figs. 7–10. 300
The effect of the turbine inlet pressure on the exergy effi-
ciency is illustrated in Fig. 11. It can be observed that the 200
effect of this pressure is insignificant on the exergy effi-
ciency. This insignificant change is attributed to the insig- 100
nificant change in the powers and temperatures as this
pressure changes. Considering the solar mode in this figure, 0
the exergy efficiencies for the electrical, cooling cogenera- 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

tion, heating cogeneration, and trigeneration are around P3 (kPa)

6%, 6.5%, 17.5%, and 18%, respectively. Considering the
solar and storage mode as shown in this figure, the exergy
efficiencies for the electrical, cooling cogeneration, heating
cogeneration, and trigeneration are around 3%, 3.5%, 7%,
and 7.5%, respectively. Considering the storage mode in
this figure, the exergy efficiencies for the electrical, cooling
cogeneration, heating cogeneration, and trigeneration are
around 2.5%, 3%, 6%, and 6.5%, respectively. It can be
observed that the efficiencies for the solar mode are higher
than in the other two modes. The reason for that was dis-
cussed above.
The effect of the turbine inlet pressure on the exergy
destruction rate is shown in Figs. 12–14. Fig. 12 presents
the solar mode. It can be noticed that effect of varying this
pressure on the exergy destruction ratio is insignificant
since the change in the exergy streams is negligible. The
variation in the exergy destruction rate with the change
in this pressure is within 30 kW. The destructed exergy
Fig. 14. Effect of the turbine inlet pressure on the exergy destruction rate
at T1 = 365 K, Tpp = 40 K, for storage mode.
rates of the solar collectors, evaporator-b, heating-process
heat exchanger, and turbine are around 1400 kW,
520 kW, 260 kW, and 130 kW, respectively. Fig. 13 illus-
trates the solar and storage mode. This figure shows that
there is a considerable increase in the exergy destructed
by the solar collectors for this mode, as compared to the
solar mode. This increase is owing to the increase in the
solar energy radiation during this mode, as mentioned
above. The variation of the exergy destruction rate is
within 15 kW. The exergy destruction rates of the solar col-
lectors, evaporator-b, heating-process heat exchanger, tur-
bine, and hot storage tank are around 4800 kW, 500 kW,
115 kW, 110 kW, and 21 kW, respectively. Fig. 14 presents
the storage mode. This figure illustrates that the change in
 F.A. Al-Sulaiman et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 2228–2243
Fig. 15. Overall exergy destruction rates and percentages (P3 = 2000 K,
T1 = 365 K, and Tpp = 40 K).
the exergy destruction rate is within 15 kW. The exergy
destruction rates of evaporator-a, heating-process heat
2241
exchanger, turbine, and hot storage tank are around
585 kW, 70 kW, 100 kW, and 30 kW, respectively.
4.4. Overall exergy destruction
The overall exergy destruction rate and its percentage
for the solar trigeneration system is shown in Fig. 15.
The baseline values considered here are 40 K for the
ORC evaporator pinch point temperature, 365 K for the
pump inlet temperature, and 2000 kPa for the turbine inlet
pressure. It should be noticed that each sector in these three
figures presents the exergy destruction rate value and its
percentage of the total exergy destructed and not the avail-
able exergy in the system. Fig. 15a illustrates the solar
mode. This figure shows that the major sources of the exer-
gy destruction are the solar collectors and evaporator-b.
The solar collectors destroy 1400 kW of exergy (59%) and
evaporator-b destroys 530 kW of exergy (23%). In contrast,
the destructed exergy by the heating-process heat exchan-
ger and turbine are lower. The exergy destructed exergy
by the heating-process heat exchanger is 260 kW (11%)
and the exergy destructed by the turbine is 115 kW (5%).
The other components of the system destroy 38 kW of
exergy (2%). Fig. 15b illustrates the solar and storage
mode. This figure demonstrates that most of the destructed
exergy is destroyed by the solar collectors, which is around
4750 kW (86%). Conversely, the other components have
less destruction of exergy. The exergy destructed by evapo-
rator-b, turbine, heating process, and hot storage tank are
510 kW (9%), 110 kW (2%), 115 kW (2%), and 21 kW,
respectively. The other components of the system destroy
42 kW (1%). Fig. 15c illustrates the storage mode. This fig-
ure shows that during this mode the significant source of
exergy destruction is evaporator-a, which destroys
590 kW of exergy (71%). The other components that have
a relatively high destruction rate of exergy are the turbine
(96 kW, 12%), heating process (70 kW, 8%), and hot stor-
age tank (30 kW, 4%). The remaining components of the
system destroy 42 kW (5%). The above three figures dem-
onstrate that the most significant components that have
high destruction rates are the solar collectors and the ORC
evaporators. Therefore, in designing a solar-trigeneration
system, the most significant components that require
careful design and selection are the solar collectors and
ORC evaporators.
5. Conclusions
In this study, the exergy modeling of the solar-trigeneration
system is conducted considering three modes of operation:
solar, solar and storage, and storage modes. The exergy
modeling of this system is examined by varying the ORC
evaporator pinch point temperature, ORC pump inlet
temperature, and turbine inlet pressure. Moreover, overall
exergy destruction modeling is conducted under the
selected baseline operating values that are taken from
2242 F.A. Al-Sulaiman et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 2228–2243
literature. The following remarks can be concluded from
this study.
 The solar mode has the highest exergy efficiency as com-
pared with the other two modes. The maximum electri-
cal-exergy efficiency for the solar mode is 7%, for the
solar and storage mode is 3.5%, and for the storage
mode is 3%. In contrast, when trigeneration is used,
the exergy efficiency increases noticeably. The maximum
trigeneration-exergy efficiency for the solar mode is 20%,
for solar and storage mode is 8%, and for the storage
mode is 7%.
 The main sources of exergy destruction rate are the solar
collectors and ORC evaporators. Therefore, careful
selection and design of these two components are essen-
tial to reduce the exergy destructed by them and, thus,
increase the exergy efficiency in the system.
 The effect of the turbine inlet pressure variation is insig-
nificant on the exergetic performance. That is, the ORC
could be run on low pressure, which will result in cost
savings.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the support of King Fahd
University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM), Dhah-
ran, Saudi Arabia, and the Natural Sciences and Engineer-
ing Research Council of Canada (NSERC).
References
Al-Sulaiman, Fahad A., Hamdullahpur, Feridun, Dincer, Ibrahim, 2011.
Trigeneration: a comprehensive review based on prime movers.
International Journal of Energy Research 35 (3), 233–258.
Al-Sulaiman, Fahad A. Hamdullahpur, Feridun, Dincer, Ibrahim, 2011.
Performance assessment of a novel system using parabolic trough solar
collectors for combined cooling, heating, and power production.
Unpublished report.
American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engi-
neers Inc., 2005. Chapter 1 – thermodynamics and refrigeration cycles.
In: ASHRAE Handbook: Fundamentals, Inch Pound Edition. ASH-
RAE, Atlanta, USA.
Bruno, Joan Carles, Lopez-Villada, Jesus, Letelier, Eduardo, Romera,
Silvia, Coronas, Alberto, 2008. Modelling and optimisation of solar
organic rankine cycle engines for reverse osmosis desalination. Applied
Thermal Engineering 28 (17-18), 2212–2226.
Delgado-Torres, Agustnn Manuel, Garcna-Rodrnguez, Lourdes, 2007.
Comparison of solar technologies for driving a desalination system by
means of an organic rankine cycle. Desalination 216 (1-3), 276–291.
Dincer, Ibrahim, Rosen, Marc A., 2007. EXERGY: Energy, Environment
and Sustainable Development, 1 ed. Elsevier Science.
Dudley, V.E., Koib, G.J., Mahoney, A.R., Mancini, T.R., Mathews,
C.W., Sloan, M., Keamey, D., 1994. Segs ls-2 solar collector test
results. Report of Sandia National Laboratories, SANDIA94-1884.
Duffie, J., Beckman, W., 2006. Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Fernndez-Garca, A., Zarza, E., Valenzuela, L., Prez, M., 2010. Parabolic-
trough solar collectors and their applications. Renewable and Sus-
tainable Energy Reviews 14 (7), 1695–1721.
Garcna-Rodrnguez, Lourdes, Delgado-Torres, Agustnn M., 2007. Solar-
powered rankine cycles for fresh water production. Desalination 212
(1-3), 319–327.
Harrison, T.D., Randall, R.A., 1980. Thermal storage experience at the
msstf and plans for the future. Thermal Energy Storage: Fourth
Annual Review Meeting, NASA CP-2125, pp. 125–130.
Herold, K.E., Radermacher, R., Klein, S.A., 1996. Absorption Chillers
and Heat Pumps. CRC Press.
Herrmann, U., Kearney, D.W., 2002. Survey of thermal energy storage for
parabolic trough power plants. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering,
ASME Transactions 124, 145–152.
Herrmann, U., Kelly, B., Price, H., 2004. Two-tank molten salt
storage for parabolic trough solar power plants. Energy 29 (5-6),
883–893.
Jing, Li, Gang, Pei, Jie, Ji, 2010. Optimization of low temperature solar
thermal electric generation with organic rankine cycle in different
areas. Applied Energy 87 (11), 3355–3365.
Kalogirou, Soteris, 2009. Solar energy engineering: processes and systems.
Elsevier.
Karellas, Sotirios, Terzis, Konstantinos, Manolakos, Dimitrios, 2011.
Investigation of an autonomous hybrid solar thermal orc-pv ro
desalination system. the Chalki island case. Renewable Energy 36 (2),
583–590.
Kelly, Bruce D., Lessley, Robert L., 1994. Investigation of commercial
central receiver thermal storage and steam generator issues. In: ASME-
JSES-JSME International Solar Energy Conference, San Francisco,
CA, USA, pp. 611–616.
Khan, Jameel Ur Rehman, 2006. Design and Optimization of a Distrib-
uted Generation System with the Production of Water and Refriger-
ation. PhD Thesis, University of Florida.
Kosmadakis, G., Manolakos, D., Papadakis, G., 2010. Parametric
theoretical study of a two-stage solar organic rankine cycle for ro
desalination. Renewable Energy 35 (5), 989–996.
Kroizer, I., 1984. Design of a 13 mwel parabolic power plants at daggatt,
california. In: International Energy Agency Workshop on the Design
and Performance of Large Solar Thermal Collectors, San Diego, CA,
USA.
Li, Kam W., Paul Priddy, A., 1985. Power Plant System Design. Wiley.
Manolakos, D., Kosmadakis, G., Kyritsis, S., Papadakis, G., 2009. On
site experimental evaluation of a low-temperature solar organic
rankine cycle system for ro desalination. Solar Energy 83 (5), 646–
656.
Montes, M.J., Abanades, A., Martinez-Val, J.M., Valdes, M., 2009. Solar
multiple optimization for a solar-only thermal power plant, using oil as
heat transfer fluid in the parabolic trough collectors. Solar Energy 83
(12), 2165–2176.
Nafey, A.S., Sharaf, M.A., 2010. Combined solar organic rankine cycle
with reverse osmosis desalination process: energy, exergy, and cost
evaluations. Renewable Energy 35 (11), 2571–2580.
Pacheco, J.E., Gilbert R., 1999. Overview of recent results of the solar two
test and evaluations program, renewable and advanced energy systems
for the 21st century. In: Proceedings of 1999 ASME Internatonal Solar
Energy Conference, Maui, HI.
Petela, R., 2005. Exergy analysis of the solar cylindrical-parabolic cooker.
Solar Energy 79 (3), 221–233.
Prabhu, E., 2006. Solar trough organic rankine electricity system (stores)
stage 1: Power plant optimization and economics. NREL/SR-550-
39433.
Riffat, S.B., Zhao, X., 2004. A novel hybrid heat-pipe solar collector/chp
system–part ii: theoretical and experimental investigations. Renewable
Energy 29 (12), 1965–1990.
Tchanche, B.F., Lambrinos, Gr., Frangoudakis, A., Papadakis, G., 2010.
Exergy analysis of micro-organic rankine power cycles for a small scale
solar driven reverse osmosis desalination system. Applied Energy 87
(4), 1295–1306.
Thermax Inc., 2010. Absorpion Cooling: Cogenie. <www.thermax-
usa.com/index.htm>.
Therminol, 2010. Therminol-66 Heat Transfer Fluid.
<www.therminol.com>.
Valenti, Michael, 1995. Storing solar energy in salt. Mechanical Engi-
neering 117 (6), 72–75.
 F.A. Al-Sulaiman et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 2228–2243 2243

Vijayaraghavan, Sanjay, Goswami, D.Y., 2005. Organic working fluids for
a combined power and cooling cycle. Journal of Energy Resources
Technology, Transactions of the ASME 127 (2), 125–130.
Wang, X.D., Zhao, L., 2009. Analysis of zeotropic mixtures used in low-
temperature solar rankine cycles for power generation. Solar Energy
83 (5), 605–613.
Yaws, C.L. (Ed.), 1999. Chemical Properties Handbook. McGraw-Hill.
Zarza, Eduardo, Rojas, Ma Esther, Gonzalez, Lourdes, Caballero anda,
Jose Ma, Rueda, Fernando, 2006. Inditep: the first pre-commercial dsg
solar power plant. Solar Energy 80 (10), 1270–1276.
Zheng, B., Weng, Y.W., 2010. A combined power and ejector refrigeration
cycle for low temperature heat sources. Solar Energy 84 (5), 784–791.