Energy Conversion and Management 188 (2019) 276–295

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

Thermo-economic evaluation of a hybrid solar-conventional energy supply T

in a zero liquid discharge wastewater treatment plant
⁎
Ahmadreza Najafi, Ali Jafarian , Jamal Darand
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this paper, thermo-economic evaluation of hybrid solar-conventional energy supply in a zero liquid discharge
Thermo-economic plant has been conducted. The zero liquid discharge plant includes a brine concentrator and a crystallizer. Brine
Hybrid solar-conventional energy supply concentrator and crystallizer utilize falling film and forced circulation evaporators respectively. The plant was
Wastewater treatment studied thermo-economically in capital of Iran, Tehran city weather conditions. The plant performance and
Brine concentrator
economics were investigated in four design (winter, spring, summer and autumn design) conditions based on the
Crystallizer
Zero liquid discharge plant
seasonal weather data and compared with the conventional energy supply system. It was concluded that the
design proposed based on average weather conditions shows no economic advantage over the conventional
design; due to accounting for financial aids and subsides for the fuel cost at 0.05 $/m3, affecting the steam and
water costs. However, a parametric study demonstrated that if the financial aids associated with the fuel are
disregarded, it will have a pronounced effect on the cost of steam and produced water.

1. Introduction
Today, the need for recycling industrial wastewater is one of the
most important problems in society; and due to the faster growing
population, and subsequently, the growing industries, it is deemed even
more necessary [1]. In addition to environmental problems and water
shortage, energy is considered another important reason in industrial
wastewater management [2]. Therefore, thermodynamic study and
economic analysis of water and power cogeneration plants in the scope
of industrial wastewater can demonstrate the feasibility of different
methods to resolve the aforementioned issues [3]. One of the solutions
to water scarcity is recycling and concentration of the industrial was-
tewater. Desalination is the process to remove the dissolved salts to
produce fresh water. Multi-effect distillation (MED) and multistage
flash distillation (MSF) are among the most important processes to
produce fresh water. Although desalination processes have succeeded
in slightly improving the water scarcity problem, they require ex-
pensive investments due to their high energy consumption [4]. Because
of the rising fuel costs, environmental contaminant and greenhouse gas
emission, using fossil fuels to setup the aforementioned processes are
not efficient options [5]. Regarding the problems with fossil fuels, re-
newable energy resources seem like an appropriate alternative [6].
Among renewable energy resources, using solar energy has a lot of
advantages, especially in areas with high sunlight, such as the Middle
East [7]. Accordingly, a lot of researches have been carried out on using
solar energy for desalination.
Shaobo et al. [8] provided an improved MSF design based on
“Pinch” technology. Sharaf et al. [9] studied two configuration of multi
effect distillation-vapor compression in both economic and thermo-
dynamic aspects. Their studies showed that for a 4545 m3/day design,
water would be priced at 2.1 and 1.5 $/m3 for multi effect distillation-
thermal vapor compression (MED-TVC), and multi effect distillation-
mechanical vapor compression (MED-MVC), respectively. Palenzuela
et al. [10] studies different configuration of parabolic trough solar
power plants with distillers designs in arid environments. In one of the
designs, they used a low-temperature distiller in the place of the con-
denser in a solar power plant, and studied the optimization of this de-
sign by evaluating the turbine discharge. Bataineh [11] studied the
yearly operation of a MED-MVC in Jordan. He demonstrated that
highest efficiency of the system is achieved by placing the collectors
towards south, and solar fraction change has negligible variation in
saturated vapor production. Delgado et al. [12] demonstrated in their
thermoeconomic study of a solar powered reverse osmosis and MED-
TVC seawater desalination plant, that highest system efficiency is
achieved when the reverse osmosis unit is connected to the local power
grid. Kouta et al. [13] provided an entropy, exergy, and cost analyses of
a solar driven cogeneration systems using supercritical CO2 Brayton
cycles and multiple effect evaporation with a thermal vapor

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jafarian@modares.ac.ir (A. Jafarian).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.03.059
Received 20 December 2018; Received in revised form 18 March 2019; Accepted 19 March 2019
Available online 27 March 2019
0196-8904/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Najafi, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 188 (2019) 276–295

Nomenclature J nominal interest rate

np plant lifetime [year]
A area [m2] nk year counter
M mass [kg] TVW total volume of water [m3]
ṁ mass flow rate [kg/s] TMS total mass of steam [kg]
Q thermal power [W] LCOW levelized cost of water [$/m3]
I direct normal irradiance (DNI) [W/m2] LCOS levelized cost of steam [$/ton]
T temperature [K] LCOE levelized cost of electricity [$/kWh]
P pressure [Pa] LCOH levelized cost of heat [$/kJ]
H enthalpy [J/kg] NPV net present value [$]
e specific energy of working fluid in PTC [J/kg] GI gross income [$]
x quality of steam AF amortization factor [1/y]
t,TIME time [s] PBP payback period [y]
ρ density [kg/m3] – reflectance coefficient Re Reynolds number
μ dynamic viscosity [kg/m s] Ra Rayleigh number
k conduction coefficient [W/m K] Fr Froude number
Cp specific heat coefficient [J/kg K] Bo Boiling number
v velocity of working fluid in PTC [m/s] Pr Prandtl number
h convective heat transfer coefficient [W/m2 K] We Weber number
U overall heat transfer coefficient [W/m2 K] Co Convection number
R fouling resistance [m2 K/W] IRR internal rate of return
L length of the aperture [m] MED multi-effect distillation
W width of the aperture [m] MSF multistage flash distillation
Δz Segment of parabolic trough collector [m] TVC thermal vapor compression
di inner diameter of absorber tube [m] MVC mechanical vapor compression
do outer diameter of absorber tube [m] MEE multiple effect evaporation
Di inner diameter of glass cover [m] TES thermal energy storage
Do outer diameter of glass cover [m] CSP concentrating solar power
di∗ inner diameter of heat exchanger tube [m] LPSP loss of power supply probability
do∗ outer diameter of heat exchanger tube [m] PTC parabolic trough collector
D* Diameter of steam separator [m] ZLD zero liquid discharge
L* length of steam separator [m] WWT wastewater treatment
X concentration [g/l] BC brine concentrator
fr friction coefficient FCC forced circulation crystallizer
vol volume of steam separator [m3] IST industrial solar technology
LHV lower heating value [kJ/m3] TMY typical meteorological year
φ wall shear stresses correction factor Evap evaporator
τ shear stress [Pa] – transmittance coefficient Cond condenser
α absorptance coefficient
ε emittance coefficient Subscripts
εsh heat collector element shadowing coefficient
εtr tracking error coefficient l liquid
εgr geometry error coefficient g gas
εdm dirt on mirror coefficient s steam
εda dirt on heat collector element coefficient v vapor
εun unaccounted error coefficient liq liquor
ρcl reflectivity mirror coefficient w wall
ρref heat collector element shadowing coefficient f fluid
β incident angle [rad] a absorber
F0 incident angle modifier c cover
β liquid surface tension [N/m] a-c from absorber to cover
₤ absolute roughness op optical
γ special heat rate d design
δ diameter of gas molecules [μm] sp single phase
σ Stefan-Boltzman constant [W/m2K4] tp two phase
η efficiency D distillate
g gravity acceleration [m/s2] B brine
θ tilt angle [rad] F flow entering condenser
R̄ universal gas constant (8.314 [J/mol K]) R recirculation
GOR gain output ratio V vapor
BPE boiling point evaluation [K] ts tube side
Hfgsl vaporization heat of solution [J/kg] ss shell side
ER entrainment ratio mot motive
MW molecular weight [kg/mol] amb ambient
C cost [$] Sep separator

277
A. Najafi, et al.
suc suction
disch discharge
Salt containing salt of solution
anu annulus
std standard
FPH feed preheater
SF solar field
sat saturation
SLS Salty liquid separation
CLT coolant
cry crystal
O&M operation & maintenance
compression (MEE-TVC) desalination system. The study was performed
for the regeneration and recompression of supercritical CO2 Brayton
cycles with two thermal energy storage (TES). The studies showed that
80% and 0.3% of total entropy are generated by solar tower and TES,
respectively. Ayman et al. [14] studied a solar desalination system
composed of evaporation chamber, air-cooled condenser and condenser
receiver, in terms of exergetic performance, the results of this research
can be attributed to a 27% increase in the productivity and 25% in-
crease in energy efficiency of the desalination plant with a 12% im-
provement in the absorption of basin base. It is also determined that
with 75% reduction in the heat loss from the bath base, the exergy
efficiency and production increases by 152% and 87% respectively.
Mohammadi et al. [15] thermodynamically analyzed different config-
urations of integrated cogeneration of electricity, fresh water and
cooling. The result of this study showed the configurations extracting
their required motive vapor at a lower pressure and temperature were
more effective. In power and cooling cogeneration plant, supplying
electricity to compression cooling was less efficient than all single,
double and triple effects absorption chillers. Alhaj et al. [16] studied
energy efficiency of an optimized MED process, driven by vapor at 70 °C
and 0.3 bar, which was integrated with a linear Fresnel collector. Re-
ducing 59% of equivalent mechanical energy of the optimized MED
plant compared to existing commercial installations with thermal vapor
compression and using 1 m2 of solar linear Fresnel collector for pro-
ducing 8.6 m3 of fresh water per year were the most important results of
this study. Thermo-economic evaluation of a concentrated solar power
plant integrated with desalination cycles and absorption refrigeration
were investigated by Mehrpooya et al [17]. The results of the study
showed around 86% of the total exergy destruction rate of plant be-
longed to the heat exchangers and desalination cycles. The overall ex-
ergy and thermal efficiency of the plant were 66.05% and 80.70% re-
spectively. The economic analysis showed that the proposed integrated
structure had a payback period (PBP) of 5.738 years and a net annual
profit of 6.828 million dollars per year. Sadi and Arabkoohsar [18] si-
mulated a 10 MW hybrid solar-concentrating waste incineration power
plant for a case study in Denmark. During this research they showed
that the hybrid system can increase the solar fraction and utilized more
waste incinerators to generate electricity. Using this plant reduced 8000
tons of carbon dioxide resulted emission per month. Also, the overall
efficiency of the plant was reached 24%. Bravo and Friedrich [19]
provided a two-stage optimization in which a multi-objective opera-
tional optimization was used to supply the operational information to a
multi-objective design optimization. The epsilon constraint method and
the scalarisation method were used for balancing the trade-off between
financial and technical performance. Both method had same result but
scalarisation method was much faster than the epsilon constraint
method. Using the methods, it was shown that both, the levelized cost
of electricity (LCOE) and the loss of power supply probability (LPSP) of
the concentrating solar power (CSP) plant can be enhanced by its hy-
bridization with a photovoltaic power plant. Whereas the LPSP was
reduced by 90% and the LCOE decreased by 5.6%. Despite this the TES
278
Energy Conversion and Management 188 (2019) 276–295
in inlet
out outlet
Superscripts
sol solar
conv convection
cond conduction
rad radiation
i number of effect
N last number of effect
C related to condenser
could be reduced by 33% (from 17.5 to 11.7 h), whereby the LCOE and
LPSP decreases by almost 5% and increased from 1.02% to 7.17%, re-
spectively. Rashid et al. [20] conducted a dynamic simulation of
100 MW solar and natural gas hybrid power plant in its nominal con-
dition, integrated by parabolic trough collector (PTC). The results de-
monstrated that the hybridization of the power plant with dispatchable
energy resource can be improved reliability of solar power production
and increased thermal efficiency from 15.2% to 26.13% annually. The
potential environmental impact of two kind of 100 kW power plant:
photovoltaic plant and hybrid solar-gas turbine system, was studied by
Magrassi et al. [21]. The study showed greenhouse gas emission of
photovoltaic plant and hybrid solar-gas turbine system was 0.043 kg/
kWh and 0.236 kg/kWh respectively. The study also showed that
technological improvements could further reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, higher receiver outlet temperatures and consequently save
fuel reached. Large-scale solar heating plants for district heating net-
works integrated with flat plate and PTCs was investigated by Tian
et al. [22]. In this study a generic method to optimize the hybrid solar
district heating plant with respect to levelized cost of heat (LCOH) was
introduced. This method can help engineers on design and control of
such plant. It was clarified that using solar collectors can reduce LCOH
by 5–9%. A cogenerative plant that a solar field (SF) combined with gas
and steam turbine system evaluated from exergoeconomic and ex-
ergoenvironmental aspect by Cavalcanti [23]. Based on this research, in
the exergoeconomic aspect, a 4.2% increase the net produced electricity
and 2.6% increase of average cost rate per exergy unit of electricity was
achieved by using SF. The influence of using SF in the plant, in the
exergoenvironmental aspect can denote reusing 3.8% and 9.8% about
average specific environmental impact per exergy unit of electricity and
specific environmental impact per exergy unit of electricity produced at
the turbine, respectively. In other study, Cavalcanti et al. [24] ther-
modynamically analyzed a SF combined with Rankine engine for gen-
erating power. The specific exergy cost analysis was carried out for the
plant on March, June, September and December 21th from 7 am to
4 pm in Natal, Brazil. The ratio of the advantageous solar flux, the daily
average values of collector efficiencies, the specific cost per exergy unit
of the generated power and other heat rates were presented in this
study. These items can be valuable in the operating variables optimi-
zation, design and guide to take the better decision of investment. As-
kari and Ameri [25] conducted a feasibility study on a multistage dis-
tiller utilizing a thermocompressor on a SF combined with Fresnel
collectors. They concluded that, considering the solar fraction of
67.77% and without using thermal storage, water production cost
(3.32 $/m3) is higher than common multistage distillers utilizing fossil
fuels. They carried out a sensitivity analysis in another paper, coming to
the conclusion that for a cogeneration water and power plant, water
and power costs are dependent to solar collector and energy storage
costs, respectively; with land and fuel costs having negligible effects.
They also claimed that by doubling the size of the design, water cost can
be reduced by 27.33% [26]. In recent years, the decline of water
sources and strict regulations on industrial wastewater effluents,
A. Najafi, et al.
changed focus to zero liquid discharge (ZLD). This process results in
more fresh water and less brine production [27]. A lot of researches
have been carried out on ZLD due to the importance of fresh water
production. Sobhani et al. [28] studied the energy footprint of a mod-
ular process in a pellet reactor to reduce hardness and improving the
ZLD process. Koppol et al. [29] provided an approach based on a
mathematical program to analysis the feasibility of ZLD in different
industries. Kumar et al. [30] provided a steady state simulation of a
multistage evaporator and its related topics using MATLAB. Farahbod
et al. [31] conducted an experimental study on a forced circulation
evaporator in a ZLD process. In this study, they investigated factors
affecting system function, such as heat exchanger temperature, cooling
fluid flow rate and size distribution of salt crystals. Vinshu et al. [32]
studied a few different methods of achieving ZLD. They compared the
different properties of a few composite samples, namely color, pH,
amount of sulfates and hardness.
Most literature in the field of water production is subject to the use
of a MED system, in some of which solar energy is used to lunch a
desalination process. In fact, the main purpose is to produce freshwater
from seawater and evaluate it from different aspects, such as economics
and thermodynamics. In the present work, focus is on an industrial
wastewater treatment (WWT) plant, which includes a brine con-
centrator (BC) and a forced circulation crystallizer (FCC). These kinds
of plants are generally installed inland to manage the wastewater de-
livered from industries. Here the main challenge is supplying the mo-
tive energy. Thus, the proposed energy supplying plant performance
and its economics are investigated in four design (winter, spring,
summer and autumn design) conditions based on the seasonal Tehran
Fig. 1. Schematic of solar wastewater treatment unit.
279
Energy Conversion and Management 188 (2019) 276–295
weather data and compared with the conventional energy supply
system. As mentioned before, few works has thermo-economically
studied such a proposed plant configuration. Evaluation of the cost of
water and economic sensitivity analysis to investigate the influence of
fuel cost on proposed plant feasibility as well as effect of the plant on
reducing environmental impacts by carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are
main contribution of this research.
2. Process description
According to Fig. 1, condensate is pumped through vacuum PTCs
arranged in a North-South direction, in a once-through sequence, by the
pump. Sun rays are focused by the apertures in the collectors, gradually
heating and increasing the temperature of fluid passing through. Taking
the length and surface area of the collectors, the amount of sun beam's
rays, and other climate conditions, steam as a working fluid is dis-
charged from the collectors with a quality between 0 and 1. According
to this quality and unit demand to saturated vapor, the following pro-
cesses take place.
1. When the sun doesn’t provide enough solar energy for the water to
reach the saturated conditions required by the unit at its operational
pressure, since the quality is lower than one, the discharged satu-
rated steam enters a separator, so that its separated liquid passes
through the boiler to be evaporated, and mixed with the produced
vapor.
2. During night and at times of the day that the solar energy is not
efficiently available, the water is directly supplied to the boiler to
A. Najafi, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 188 (2019) 276–295

reach the aforementioned conditions. part of this water is used by the steam generator unit.

In addition, had the water reached the required saturated condition

before reaching the end of the collector sequence, control valves di- 3. Mathematical model
rectly guide it to the thermocompressors of unit and prevent it from
advancing any further. The system is consist of a BC, and a FCC. The In this section, assumptions, relations and methods of modeling for
main purpose of this system is to separate the salt crystals from was- the employed compartments of the proposed solar WWT process are
tewater and produce purified distillate. As evident in Fig. 1, the BC has outlined.
three effects, each of which consists of an evaporator and a separator to
separate the evaporated water vapor from the concentrated brine. At
3.1. Parabolic trough solar collectors
first, the discharged wastewater enters the preheaters embedded in the
system, and are preheated utilizing some of the produced vapor.
The fluid enters PTCs with known mass flow rate, temperature and
Afterwards, the feed enters the evaporator of the first effect, exchanging
pressure and the sun beam's rays are focused on it by the apertures; to
heat with the steam discharged from the thermocompressor resulting in
be absorbed by the absorber tube after passing through the glass cov-
creating some vapor, which is separated from the wastewater in the
ering and the vacuum between the absorber tube and the glass cov-
separator of the same effect. The remaining wastewater is recirculated
ering. The absorbed energy causes the temperature of the flowing fluid
through the system by the recirculation pump; the distributor shapes
to rise, and reach a quality dependent to the amount of absorbed direct
the wastewater as a falling thin film inside the evaporator tubes sur-
normal irradiance, fluid velocity, and other parameters. Control volume
rounded by the thermocompressor discharged steam. The thermal ex-
viewpoint has been used in analyzing the PTCs in such a way that the
change inside the evaporator leads to the evaporation of a little per-
working fluid, the absorber tube and the glass covering along the col-
centage of the falling film inside the tubes. The two phase fluid enters
lector are divided to small, identical parts; with the continuity, mo-
the separator from the evaporator sump, and the evaporate is trans-
mentum and energy equations being solved for each of them.
ferred to the next effect through mist eliminator. This evaporate enters
Fig. 2 shows the schematics of the heat transfer occurred in a section
the shell of the next evaporator effect, and the aforementioned process
of the PTC. According to Fig. 2, It is possible to present the governing
is repeated until the last effect. It is common for BC to provide the
equations on the flowing fluid, the absorber tube and the glass covering
suction vapor of the thermocompressor from the evaporate generated in
in Eqs. (1)–(5) of Table 1, respectively [33]. According to Eq. (1), the
the final effect. The low pressure suction vapor is combined with the
inlet mass flow rate from PTC (ṁ mot ) is considered as sum of liquid and
motive generated by the steam generator unit, and discharged at a
gas mass flow rates (ṁ l and ṁ g ). Dividing the total flow of solar col-
higher pressure and temperature compared to the suction vapor. Fi-
lectors into liquid and gas, flow equations can be developed, based on
nally, the produced steam from the last effect separator is condensed in
the control volume point of view for two-phase flow (Eqs. (1)–(3)). In
the condenser. So a cooling tower is used to supply the coolant for the
Eq. (2) vl and vg represent the velocity of liquid and gas at the input and
condenser. In the following processes, the concentrated brine enters the
output of each PTC segment respectively. In this equation, M is the
FCC with two effects. The process in the effects and thermocompressor
amount of mass in each segment of control volume. Pin and Pout in Eq.
of this unit is altogether similar to the BC, with the exception that the
(2) are the pressure at the inlet and outlet of PTC segments, and the el
evaporation percentage of evaporation in the evaporator tubes of this
and eg are specific energy of liquid and gas at the inlet and outlet of
unit is set to maximize heat transfer and prevent scaling. The clear
each segment. τw in Eq. (2) represents the wall shear stress. In Eq. (7), £
difference between this system and the BC is in the method of re-
is the absolute roughness of the absorber tube, and φ represents wall
circulating the wastewater. In forced circulation systems, the waste-
shear stresses correction factor, equal to one for single phase flows, and
water is pumped to the tubes with pumps with higher power con-
can be obtained from Eq. (8) for water–vapor two phase flow [34]. In
sumption compared to BC. Usually, a pusher centrifuge is embedded at
Eq. (8) ß is liquid surface tension at fluid temperature. In Table 1, di , do
the end of this system, to separate the crystals from the wastewater
, Di and Do are inner diameter of absorber tube, outer diameter of ab-
reject. Finally, the water recovered in the force circulation system is
sorber tube, inner diameter of glass cover and outer diameter of glass
consumed along with the water recovered in the BC. As shown in Fig. 1,
cover, respectively. The length of each segment is Δz .

Fig. 2. Schematics of heat transfer mechanisms in a parabolic trough collector.

280
A. Najafi, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 188 (2019) 276–295

Table 1
The equations associated with the energy supply unit of the solar wastewater treatment unit.
Definition Equation Number

Continuity Equation for working fluid ∂M (1)

[ṁ l + ṁ g ]out − [ṁ l + ṁ g ]in + =0
∂t
[ṁ l + ṁ g ]in = ṁ mot
Momentum Equation for working fluid ∂Ṁ πdi2 (2)
Δz + [ṁ l vl + ṁ g vg ]out − [ṁ l vl + ṁ g vg ]in = − (Pout − Pin) − τw πdi Δz − Mgsin (θ)
∂t 4
Energy Equation for working fluid ∂ (Me ) πd 2 ∂P (3)
+ [ṁ l el + ṁ g eg ]out − [ṁ l el + ṁ g eg ]in = Qfconv + i Δz
∂t 4 ∂t
Energy Equation for absorber tube Ma
∂Ha
= Ma C pa
∂Ta sol
= Qa − Qa conv rad conv cond
− Qa − c − Qa − c + Qawest − Qacond (4)
∂t ∂t east
Energy Equation for glass cover ∂H ∂T
Mc c = Mc C pc c = Qcsol + Qarad conv cond cond (5)
∂t ∂t − c + Qa − c + Qc west − Qceast
Wall shear stresses of absorber tube[35] fr
2 (6)
ṁ
τw = φ ⎜⎛ 2 ⎟⎞
2ρ πd
⎝ i⎠
Fraction factor 1
3 12
(7)
⎛ 8 12 2⎞
fr = 8 ⎜
⎝
Re( ) +
1
(
A′ + B′ ⎟ )⎠
0.9 16 16
⎛ ⎛ 7 £ ⎞⎞ 37530 ⎞
A′ = ⎜2.457 ln ⎜ ⎛ ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ + 0.27 ⎟ ⎟ , B′ = ⎛ ⎜ ⎟
Ref di
⎝ ⎝⎝ ⎠ ⎠⎠ ⎝ Ref ⎠
Two-phase multiplier frg ρl ρ
0.91
μ 0.19 (8)
φ = (1 − x )2 + x 2 + 3.43x 0.685 (1 − x )0.24 ⎛ l ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ ⎛ g⎞ +
frl ρg ρ ⎝ μl ⎠
⎝ g⎠
μg 0.7
−0.045
⎛1 − ⎞ Frtp We−0.035
⎝ μl ⎠

ṁ 2di
Wetp =
2 2 −1
⎛ πdi ⎞ ⎛ x 1−x⎞
ß⎜ +
4 ⎟ ⎜ ρg ρl ⎟
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
2
⎛ ⎞
⎜ ṁ ⎟
Frtp = gdi ⎜ −1 ⎟
πd 2
⎜⎜ gdi i ⎛⎜ x + 1 − x ⎞⎟ ⎟⎟
4 ρ ρl
⎝ ⎝ g ⎠ ⎠
Solar thermal energy absorbed in absorber tube sol
Qa = Isol W Δzηop αa τc (9)
Optical efficiency ηop = F0 (β ) ρref εsh εtr εge εda εun (10)
Solar thermal energy absorbed in glass cover Qcsol = Isol W Δzηop αc (11)
Radiative heat transfer coefficient rad
hamb = σεc (Tc2 + 2
Tsky )(Tc + Tsky ) (12)
Convective heat transfer coefficient 1 (13)
⎧ kair Γ Re Γ2 Pr 3 Reair ≠ 0
⎪ Do 1 air air
⎪ 2
⎪ ⎛ ⎞
⎪
conv ⎜ ⎟
hamb =
⎨ kair ⎜ 0.387Raair1.6 ⎟
⎪ Do ⎜0.6 + 8 ⎟ Reair = 0
⎪ ⎜ ⎛
9 27
⎞ ⎟
⎪ 0.559 ⎞ 16
⎜⎜ ⎜1 + ⎛ ⎜ ⎟ ⎟
⎟
⎪ ⎜ ⎝ Prair ⎠ ⎟ ⎟
⎩ ⎝ ⎝ ⎠ ⎠
Sky temperature 1.5
Tsky = 0.0552Tamb (14)
Radiative heat losses to ambient rad = πD Δzh rad (T − T )
Qamb o (15)
amb c sky
Convective heat losses to ambient conv = πD Δzh rad (T − T
Qamb o amb) (16)
amb c
Radiative heat transfer coefficient between absorber tube and glass cover (T 2 + Ta2 )(Tc + Ta ) (17)
harad
−c = σ c1 (1 − εc ) d o
+
εa εc Di
Convective heat transfer coefficient between absorber tube and glass cover Pr Ra 0.25 (18)
⎧ 2.425k ⎛ anu anu ⎞
⎪ ⎝ 0.861 + Pr ⎠
Panu > 1 [torr ]
⎪ 5
3 4
⎪ ⎛
d 5
⎞
⎪ ⎜1 + ⎜⎛ o ⎟⎞ ⎟
D
haconv
−c =
⎜
⎝
⎝ i⎠ ⎟
⎠
⎨
⎪ kstd
Panu ⩽ 1 [torr ]
⎪ Ta + Tc d
⎪d (9γ − 5) ⎛ o + 1⎞ ⎜ ⎟
2 ⎝ Di
⎪ o ln ⎛ Di ⎞ + 2.331 × 10−20
⎜ ⎟
⎠
⎩ 2 ⎝ do ⎠ 2(1 + γ ) Panu δ2
Radiative heat losses between absorber tube and glass cover Qarad rad (T − T )
= πdo Δzhamb a c
(19)
−c
Convective heat losses between absorber tube and glass cover Qaconv rad
− c = πd o Δzhamb (Ta − Tc )
(20)
Single-phase heat transfer coefficient between absorber tube and fluid k (21)
⎧
⎪ 4.367 di Ref < 2300
hfconv =
⎨ k
⎪ 0.023 Ref0.8 Pr f0.4 Ref ⩾ 2300
⎩ di
Two-phase heat transfer coefficient between absorber tube and fluid hfconv =
k
0.023 Ref0.8 Pr f0.4 (Ω CoΩ 2 (25 Frsp )Ω 5 +Ω BoΩ 4 ) (22)
di 1 3

2
0.5 ⎛ ⎞ Qconv
1 − x 0.8 ρg ṁ f
Co = ( ) x
⎛ ⎞
⎝ ρl ⎠
, Frsp = gdi ⎜
⎜ gdi ρl πdi
2
⎟
⎟
, Bo =
ṁ (Hg − Hl )
⎝ 4 ⎠
(continued on next page)

281
A. Najafi, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 188 (2019) 276–295

Table 1 (continued)

Definition Equation Number

Heat energy absorbed by fluid Qfconv = πdi Lhfconv (Ta − Tf ) (23)

Heat conduction energy in absorber tube (do2 − di2 ) (24)
Qacond = −k a π
4 ( )
dTa
dz
Heat conduction energy in glass cover (Do2 − Di2 ) (25)
Qccond = −k c π
4 ( )
dTc
dz
Thermal energy supplied by Boiler ṁ mot (1 − x )(Hout − Hin) (26)
⎧QBoiler =
⎪ ηBoiler
⎨Q ṁ mot (Hout − Hin)
⎪ Boiler = ηBoiler
when DNI is unavailable
⎩

3.1.1. Solar heat flux Table 3

Assuming the sun beam’s rays are always perpendicular to the The coefficients used in Eqs. (13) and (22).
surface of the collector aperture, and assuming that the solar thermal Reair Γ1 Γ2
energy reaches the entire surface of the PTC uniform and equally, the
received thermal energy can be calculated from Eq. (9) [36], where β , 0.4–40 0.989 0.33
F0 , ρcl , εsh , εtr , εge , εdm , εda , εun , τc and ρref incident angle, incident angle 40–4000 0.683 0.486
4000–40,000 0.193 0.618
modifier, clean mirror reflectance coefficient, heat collector element 40,000–400,000 0.0266 0.805
shadowing coefficient, tracking error coefficient, geometry error coef- 0.4–40 0.989 0.33
ficient, dirt on mirror coefficient, dirt on heat collector element coef-
Constant Coefficients Convective region Nucleate boiling region
ficient, unaccounted error coefficient, envelope transmittance through
the glass cover and reflectivity mirror coefficient, respectively. The Ω 1 1.136 0.6683
amount of these parameters is listed in Table 2 [37]. The surface of the Ω 2 −0.9 −0.2
Ω 3 667.2 1058.0
absorber tube is covered by Luz Black Chrome, coating absorptance and
Ω 4 0.7 0.7
absorber emittance coefficient of which is also provided in Table 2 [38]. Ω 0.3 0.3
5
The amount of solar thermal flux in the glass cover is modeled similarly
to the absorber tube by considering the light efficiency and assuming a
uniform distribution on its surrounding; as seen in Eq. (11) [39]. In this 3.1.3. Heat transfer between the glass cover and the absorber tube
equation, Isol and W , are the direct normal irradiance (DNI) of the sun Considering the fact that the area between the glass cover and the
and the width of the aperture, respectively. absorber tube is devoid of any material and considered a vacuum, ra-
diative heat transfer has a higher contribution compared to convective
(natural) and conductive heat transfer [42]. In this study, conductive
3.1.2. Heat transfer between the glass cover and the environment heat transfer is disregarded [40] and radiative heat transfer coefficient
The collector’s glass cover, mostly made of Pyrex, has two me- [43] and conductive heat transfer coefficient [44] are calculated by Eqs.
chanism of heat transfer with the surrounding environment, radiative (17) and (18) respectively. In Eq. (18), kstd stands for conductive heat
and convective; heat transfer of the both mechanisms can be obtained transfer coefficient of air in standard conditions (25 °C temperature and
from Eqs. (12) and (13), respectively. Convective heat transfer me- 100 kPa pressure). γ and δ are special heat rate and the diameter of gas
chanism is of the force convection type in case of the presence of wind, molecules present in the area between the glass cover and the absorber
and otherwise is natural convective heat transfer [40]. The value of the tube, the amount of which is presented in Table 2 [45]. By considering
Stefan-Boltzman constant (σ ) is listed in Table 2 along with the physical Eqs. (17) and (18), the radiative and conductive heat transfer between
properties of the glass cover. Eq. (14) can be used to calculate the the glass cover and the absorber tube is calculated by Eqs. (19) and
temperature of the sky [41]. Γ1 and Γ2 coefficients are provided in (20), respectively [39].
Table 3 [40]. Finally, by taking Eqs. (12) and (14) into account, the
heat transfer between the glass cover and the environment is calculated
3.1.4. Heat transfer between the absorber tube and the working fluid
by Eqs. (15) and (16) [26].
The heat transfer between the absorber tube and the working fluid,

Table 2
Physical and geometrical properties of IST parabolic solar collectors.
Parameter value Parameter value Parameter Value

di [mm] 47 εge 0.980 J 502.48

C pa ⎡ ⎤
⎣ kgK ⎦
do [mm] 51 εun 0.960 W 3.945 × 10−9Tc3 − 2.939 × 10−6Tc2 + 0.00176Tc + 1.111
kc ⎡ 2 ⎤
⎣m K ⎦
Di [mm] 72 ρref 0.9337 W 16.27
ka ⎡ 2 ⎤
⎣m K ⎦
Do [mm] 75 F0 (β = 0) 1 W 5.670367 × 10−8
σ ⎡ 2 4⎤
⎣m K ⎦
L [m] 6.1 τc 0.935 εc 0.86
W [m] 2.3 αc 0.023 αa 0.94
εda 0.999 kg 2225 εa 0.0005333 Ta − 0.0856
ρc ⎡ 3 ⎤
⎣m ⎦
εsh 0.974 kg 8030 γ 1.39
ρa ⎡ 3 ⎤
⎣m ⎦
εtr 0.994 J 835 δ [μm] 0.0353
C pc ⎡ ⎤
⎣ kgK ⎦

282
A. Najafi, et al.
considering the fluid’s velocity range, is of forced convective type. The
heat transfer coefficient can be in either a single phase or two phase
condition (which is a result of fluid temperature rising and entering the
saturated area and forming the conditions for convective and nucleate
boiling). Therefore, Eqs. (21) and (22) are used for the single phase [46]
and two phase [47] conditions, respectively. The values of the constant
Ω i used in Eq. (22) are presented in Table 3.
In the case that Frsp of the flow is bigger than 0.04, Ω 5 is set as
zero. Considering the equations used to obtain the heat transfer coef-
ficient between the absorber tube and the working fluid, it is possible to
calculate the thermal energy received by the fluid through Eq. (23)
[39].
3.1.5. Conductive heat transfer in the glass cover and the absorber tube
walls
As depicted in Fig. 2, Fourier transform is used to calculate the
conductive heat transfer along each collector (Eqs. (24) and (25)) [33].
3.1.6. Solar collector equations solution algorithm
An iterative developed MATLAB code is used to solve Eqs. (1) to (5)
after their discretization based on Ref. [48]. Fig. 3 shows the algorithm
used for the aforementioned equations. In this algorithm, after speci-
fying the initial conditions, geometrical and optical properties, weather
conditions such as amount of DNI, wind speed, ambient temperature,
and other parameters involved with the problem, the desired tem-
perature distribution for the absorber tube temperature and the glass
cover, temperature, pressure and fluid mass flow rate are set, and fi-
nally the fluid continuity, momentum and energy equations are solved
along the tube. The new acquired temperature values of the fluid are
used to calculate source terms for the absorber tube energy equation,
and start the solution of the absorber tube energy equation. After the
solution of this equation, new temperature distribution for the absorber
tube is acquired, and is utilized to update the glass cover source terms
and solve its energy equation and obtain its new temperature dis-
tribution. Now, this process is repeated until the temperature calcula-
tion error satisfies an acceptable limit. In that case, the solution for a
time step is halted, and the solution for the next time step is started.
3.2. Boiler and separator
As the sun cannot output the same thermal power throughout a day,
this design considers a boiler schematic of which is provided in Fig. 1.
Fig. 3. Numerical solution algorithm.
283
Energy Conversion and Management 188 (2019) 276–295
The boiler will evaporate the liquid part of the fluid discharged from
the collectors. In case DNI of sun amounts to approximately zero, the
boiler provides the entire energy required by the wastewater con-
centrator unit. Eq. (26) calculates the heat required from the boiler and
ηB indicates boiler efficiency. The boiler was chosen regarding the
maximum capacity required by the wastewater concentrator unit, equal
to 2000 kW.
Considering the operating pressure (600 kPa, gage), Eqs. (27) to
(29) are applied to obtain the vapor-water separator used in the energy
supply unit.
4ṁ g
D∗ = ρl − ρg
πρg k ′
ρg
(27)
L
L∗ = D∗ ⎛ ∗ ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎝ D∗ ⎠recomended (28)
D 2
vol = 2π ⎛ ∗ ⎞ L∗
⎝2 ⎠ (29)
where L∗, D∗ and vol are height, diameter and volume of cylindrical
L
separator respectively. D∗ ( ) and k ′ are set as 3 and 2 m per
∗ recomended
second, respectively[49]. The details of the separator design are pro-
vided in Ref. [50].
3.3. Wastewater treatment unit
The equations governing the WWT unit for the BC and FCC are quiet
similar.
Generally, the equations governing each part of the WWT unit are
grouped in three categories; mass, energy and concentration equations.
The equations include these equipment: Effects (containing evaporator
and separator), thermocompressor, preheater, centrifuge (present in
FCC part), and condenser. In addition, a few other quantitative equa-
tions are used for thermodynamic analysis along with the aforemen-
tioned equations; all of which are presented in Table 4.
Equations (30) to (33) represent the governing equations of the heat
transfer effects. Eqs. (30) and (31) denote, the mass and concentration
equations of fluid flow inside evaporator tubes, respectively. In Eq.
(30), Ψ and rFCC function, indicate the position of returned liquor from
the pusher centrifuge to the effect and the existence of forced circula-
tion crystallizer. Eq. (32) governs the vapor inside of the shell. In these
A. Najafi, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 188 (2019) 276–295

Table 4
The equations used in the simulation of wastewater treatment unit.
Component Equation type Equation Number

i-th Effect Mass ṁ Bi− 1 + rFCC Ψ(i) ṁ liq = ṁ Vi + ṁ Bi , i = 2, ...,N Tube Side (30)

Ψ(i) =
1
0 { i=N
i≠N

rFCC = {01 For FCC

For BC
Concentration ṁ Bi− 1 XBi− 1 + rFCC Ψ(i) ṁ liq Xliq = ṁ Bi XBi , i = 2, ...,N (31)
Mass ṁ Si + ṁ FPH
i
+ ṁ Di− 1 = ṁ Di , i = 2, ...,N Shell Side (32)
Energy ṁ Bi− 1 HBi− 1 + ṁ Di− 1 HDi− 1 + ṁ Si HSi + rFCC Ψ(i) ṁ liq Hliq = ṁ Vi HVi + ṁ Bi HBi + ṁ Di HDi, i = 2, …, N General Control Volume (33)
Thermocompressor Mass ṁ mot + ṁ suc = ṁ disch (34)
Energy ṁ mot Hmot + ṁ suc Hsuc = ṁ disch Hdisch (35)
Auxiliary ER =
ṁ suc (36)
ṁ mot
i-th Preheater Mass ṁ Vi− 1 = ṁ suc Ψsuc (i) + ṁ FPH
i
+ ṁ Si , i = 2, ...,N (37)
1 i = isuc
Ψsuc (i) = ⎧ , isuc is the position of suction
⎩0
⎨ i ≠ isuc
ṁ FN = ṁ FC = ṁ Feed
Energy i
ṁ FPH (HSi − HDi ) = ṁ Fi ΔHFi , i = 1, ...,N (38)
C
ṁ FPH (HSC − HDC ) = ṁ FC ΔHFC
Condenser Mass ṁ VN = ṁ suc
N C
+ ṁ FPH + ṁ SC (39)
C
ṁ FPH + ṁ SC + ṁ DN = ṁ Distillate
Energy ṁ SC HSC + ṁ FPH
C
HDC + ṁ DN HDN − ṁ CLT ΔHCLT = ṁ Distillate HDC (40)
Pusher centrifuge Mass ṁ BN − ṁ liq = ṁ Salt (41)
Energy ṁ BN HBN − ṁ liq Hliq = ṁ Salt HSalt (42)
Concentration (1 − ηSLS ) (43)
ṁ liq Xliq = (ṁ BN − N
ṁ Salt ) Xsat + ṁ Salt XSalt
ηSLS
General equations Recovery = 1 For FCC (44)
ṁ Feed − ṁ Brine
Recovery = For BC
ṁ Feed
ṁ Feed + ṁ mot = ṁ Distillate + ṁ Brine + ṁ Salt (45)
XBrine =
XFeed
For BC (46)
1 − Recovery

ṁ Salt =
ṁ Feed XFeed
For FCC (47)
XSalt
Temperature distribution of effects ΔT = ∑ ΔT i + BPEBi , i = 1, …, N (48)
i
ΔT i = TSi − TBi
BPEBi = TBi − TVi
i )2 2 3
R¯ (TB ⎛ ⎛ X Bi ⎞ i
1 ⎛ XB ⎞
i
1 ⎛ XB ⎞ ⎞
BPEBi = VHF ⎜⎜ 1 − Xi ⎟ + ⎜ ⎟ + ⎜ ⎟
⎟
MWcry H ifg 2 1 − Xi 3 1 − Xi
sl ⎝⎝ B⎠ ⎝ B⎠ ⎝ B⎠ ⎠
Equations related to heat exchanger Surface ṁ Si H ifg = U iAi ΔT i (49)
sl
1 (do∗ / di∗ ) dout ln(do∗ / di∗ ) 1
= + +R+ , i = 1, …, N
Ui i
hinner 2kw i
houter

equations, ṁ Bi , ṁ liq , ṁ Vi and X are mass flow rate of brine, returned li-
quor from the pusher centrifuge, produced vapor in the i-th effect and
concentration. In the Eq. (32), ṁ Si and ṁ FPHi
show the inlet steam flow to
the effect shell and preheater respectively. ṁ Di is the total amount of
produced water from the i-th effect. The H symbol represents the flow
of the enthalpy in Eq. (33).
Eqs. (34), (35) and (36) show the governing equations of mass,
energy, and auxiliary equation of designing the thermocompressor re-
spectively. In these equations, ṁ mot , ṁ suc and ṁ disch are mass flow rate of
motive steam, suction and discharge of the thermocamposor. ER re-
presents thermocompressor Entrainment Ratio in Eq. (36), obtained by
using experimental data from Ref. [51].
The governing equations for preheaters include the mass equations
of the tube and shell side (Eq. (37)) and the equation of energy trans-
ferred from the shell side to the heat exchanger tubes (Eq. (38)). In
these equations, ṁ FC , HSi − HDi , ΔHFi and ΔHFC are the mass flow rate of
intake feed passed through the preheaters, evaporation enthalpy, in-
creasing the feed enthalpy in the i-th preheater and preheater of the
condenser.
Similar to the preheaters, Eqs. (39) and (40) are represented for
mass and energy governing equations of condenser, but coolant water is
supplied from the cooling tower to condense vapor from the last effect.
In Eqs. (39) and (40), ṁ Distillate and ṁ CLT represent the cooling water and
the total amount of produced water, respectively.
Pusher centrifuge is used to remove the emerged salt crystals. Its
governing equations are conservation of mass, energy, and concentra-
tion, which are presented by Eqs. (41), (42) and (43), respectively. In
these equations, ṁ Salt is the value of crystal salts present in the inlet feed
and ηSLS =0.85, is the separation efficiency of pusher centrifuges. In Eq.
(43), Xsat N
is the concentration of solution, in saturation state of the N-th
effect.
To close the thermodynamic equations governing the WWT, we
need a number of general equations that are presented in Eqs. (44) to
(47). Additionally to calculate the enthalpy flows, the temperatures of
flow streams are calculated by Eq. (48). In the relations of Eq. (48),
i
H fg sl
, TBi , TVi and TSi are vaporization heat, temperature of brine, vapor
and steam which enter to the i-th effect, respectively. An important
parameter in WWT unit is the boiling point elevation (BPE), which is
the temperature difference between the generated vapor and re-
circulating brine, and can climb up to 20 °C at higher concentrations.
This can negatively affect investment and operational costs. Eq. (48)
governs this phenomenon, where VHF is Vent Hoff coefficient and

284
A. Najafi, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 188 (2019) 276–295

MWcry is the molar weight of crystal. [AF × Ccapital + CO & M + CMaterial + Celectrical ]WWT
LCOW =
As mentioned fluid flows as a falling film in the BC evaporator TVW
tubes, while it is in the FCC evaporator tubes of forced circulation type. [AF × Ccapital + CO & M + Celectrical ]SF
+
Therefore, total heat transfer coefficient of each part is different. Heat TVW
transfer coefficient in the falling film tube side (htsi ) is calculated [AF × Ccapital + CO & M + Cfuel + Celectrical ]Boiler
through an equation from Ref. [52]. The heat transfer coefficient (hssi ) of +
TVW
the shell side in both of the systems, preheater, and condenser is cal- [CInsurance + Cpersonal + CContingency ]overall
culated based on Ref. [53]. The tube side heat transfer coefficient in all +
TVW (50)
of the heat exchangers (except for the BC tubes with falling film) is
calculated by Eq. (21). [AF × Ccapital + CO & M + Celectrical ]SF
The calculations on heat transfer surfaces are done by Eq. (49). The LCOS =
TMS
first phrase of this equation shows heat transfer from the shell side to [AF × Ccapital + CO & M + Cfuel + Celectrical ]Boiler
the tubes side; where the latent heat energy of vaporization on the +
TMS
vapor side evaporates a percentage of the recirculating flow inside the [CInsurance + Cpersonal + CContingency ]overall
tubes. Total heat transfer coefficient is calculated in the second phrase; +
TMS (51)
the first term of which is heat resistance of the tube side with the heat
transfer coefficient (hinner ) being calculated based on the flow regime. AF in the Eq. (50) and (51) represents amortization factor and can
The second, third, and the fourth phrases of this equation indicate wall be obtained through Eq. (52).
heat resistance, fouling resistance, and convective thermal resistance of J ( J + 1)np
the shell side, respectively. AF =
( J + 1)np − 1 (52)
where J and np stand for nominal interest rate and plant lifetime, re-
3.4. Validation spectively. In this paper nominal interest rate and plant lifetime are 5%
and 20 years, respectively.
The accuracy of the PTC and WWT simulation codes is evaluated by Another important factor used in the economic evaluation of dif-
the results provided in Refs. [54] and [55] (Darwish study) respec- ferent projects, is the PBP, acquired by setting the Net Present Value
tively. As Fig. 4 demonstrates a good agreement between results of the (NPV) to zero, and finding a suitable Np from Eq. (53).
simulation and the experimental work (maximum error of 2, 7 and Np
GI
3.3% for temperature, pressure along the PTC and gain output ratio NPV = ∑ (1 + J )nk
− ∑ Ccapital
(GOR) of WWT) is observed. Furthermore, in this diagram, results of the nk = 1 (53)
present have been compared against the simulation results proposed by
This plant is intended to have five personnel, two for energy supply
Sagharchiha [56].
unit and three for WWT unit. Therefore, personnel cost calculation is
considered by setting a monthly salary of 450 $ for each personnel.
Insurance and unanticipated costs are to 0.005 and 0.05 of the initial
3.5. Economic analysis
capital cost. The land cost to construct the SF and the WWT unit is
considered zero. The costs related to BC and FCC of the WWT unit are
One of the important viewpoints on the execution of a plan is its
accounted for based on the experience of the authors at Fanniroo Co.
economic outlook; here it is analyzed by reviewing the cost of the
[58]. Refs. [59] and [60] are used to calculate the costs associated with
generated water and steam in the hybrid energy supply unit. Levelized
the SF and boiler respectively. All the aforementioned expenses are
cost of water (LCOW) and levelized cost of steam (LCOS) are respec-
provided in Table 5 [59–62].
tively used to estimate the costs of water and steam in the WWT unit.
This method considers all the CAPEX (capital expenditures) and OPEX
3.6. Fuel and pollutants
(operating expenses) of every component of the system and calculated
the water and steam costs by Eqs. (50) and (51), respectively [57].
One of the most important factors in analyzing hybrid energy supply
projects is studying the environmental effects such as pollutant

(A) Validation of for Parabolic trough collector simulation (B) Validation of wastewater treatment unit
results simulation results
Fig. 4. Validation of hybrid solar-conventional wastewater treatment plant simulation results.

285
A. Najafi, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 188 (2019) 276–295

Table 5
Solar wastewater treatment unit expenses.
Wastewater treatment unit BC FCC BC FCC

Evaporator [$] 77,508 45,660 Therocomperesor [$] 15,000 15,000

Separator [$] 47,595 26,087 installation services [$] 77,712 64,254
Pre Heater [$] 10,984 2144 Cooling Tower [$] 29,401 23,967
Pumps [$] 68,043 72,986 Pusher Centrifuge [$] 0 50,845
Chassis [$] 13,365 10,395 Cooling Tower [$] 29,401 18,693
Instruments [$] 31,328 29,577 Engineering [$] 6997 6704
Piping [$] 77,312 21,541 Chemical [$/y] 5540 2460
Lighting & Control [$] 12,100 12,100 Operation & Maintenance [$/y] 23,367 19,063

Solar field Boiler

PTC [$] 150(WL)0.95 Boiler [$/ton] 5000

Pump [$] 3500(Workpump )0.47 Operation & Maintenance [$/y] 0.05CBoiler
Separator [$] 2
8.074 × 103.4974 + 0.4483 log(vol) + 0.1074 log (vol)
Operation & Maintenance [$/y] (0.15CPTC + 0.25Cpump ) AF + 0.05Csep

emissions, especially greenhouse gases and economic evaluation based
on the financial support and subsides. These types of support are given
out by the government through bonuses or periodic extra financial
payments based on the amount of reduced pollutants in an operational
cycle of the complex. On the other hand, using clean solar energy not
only reduces environmental pollutants, it also cuts back on fuel con-
sumption and provides a solution to fight the fossil fuel shortage in the
not too distant future. Therefore, the fuel mass required by the energy
supply unit is necessary to estimate the amount of pollutants; which can
be acquired by Eq. (54).
TIME
Mfuel = QBoiler
LHV
In the equation above LHV stands for Lower Heating Value of the
fuel, and equals 3600 [kJ/m3] for the natural gas of Tehran, Iran [63].
In this equation, TIME represents the operation cycle of boiler. Exact
fuel analysis is presented in Table 6.
The program Chemkin is used to calculate the amount of fuel
combustion products in the boiler [64], the results including exact
contribution of each combustion product is presented in Table 6.
4. Results
The design and numerical simulation of the solar WWT unit in
Tehran (35.44 N, 51.30 E) is based on typical meteorological year
(TMY) of the city [65]. To this aim, each month of the year is divided to
first and second halves, and in each half, average ambient temperature,
wind speed, and DNI is calculated, and presented in diagrams (A), (B)
and (C) in Fig. 5. Taking averages of each of these parameters in a
season of a year is carried out similarly; and its values provided in
Fig. 7. For a WWT unit, SF area and intake pressure of the pump tasked
with pumping the water into the collectors is computed based on the
developed computer program for each of the calculated seasonal
averages, and its results also included in Table 7. The Characteristics of
each of the WWT unit are presented in Table 7. Regarding the para-
meters presented in Table 7, for BC and FCC, the steam conditions re-
quired by the WWT are determined. Solar collectors have different
dimensions and varieties. Among them, vacuum tube collectors have
lowest thermal loss compared to other collectors due to the presence of
vacuum between the glass cover and the absorber tube [66]. Hence IST
type of these collectors was used in this design. Collector and WWT unit
properties and other relevant parameters are presented in Table 2.
Working fluid thermodynamic properties are calculated by REFPROP
[67].
In the following, the thermodynamic and economic analysis results,
along with the amount of reduced pollutants are represented.
Fig. 6 shows the percentage of variation in discharge pressure of the
solar collectors proportional to operational pressure of BC and FCC
thermocompressors of the WWT unit in different months of the year.
(54)
The highest value is 1.64% for the spring design in the second half of
July with the highest DNI and ambient temperature. Based on minor
changes of ΔP throughout the entire year, it should be acknowledged
Pd
that the summer design shows the lowest yearly average (0.32%) and
best performance in providing the thermocompressor operational
pressure compared to the other three hybrid design scenarios.
Hence, the motive steam pressure range of the WWT unit thermo-
compressors would be about 6.9–7.1 bar. The aforementioned differ-
ences results in differences in compression ratio and expansion ratio
equal to: 2.10–2.14 and 40.70 to 41.76, respectively, which will con-
sequently slightly affect thermocompressor suction. Therefore, no sig-
nificant variations will occur in the total performance of the WWT unit.
Although the overall pressure variations are negligible, the gradients of
pressure variations for spring design are far more than that of the au-
tumn and summer, which peak from July to October.
Reaching the operating WWT unit thermocompressor motive steam
pressure (saturated temperature at 600 kPa, gage), requires choosing a
suitable collector surface area and creating enough pressure along the
line in accordance to the working fluid mass flow rate; climate condi-
tions, specially DNI which has direct effect on reaching this tempera-
ture. Higher dependence of temperature to operating parameters
compared to pressure, generally necessitates higher temperature fluc-
tuations compared to pressure in the discharged fluid from the PTCs.
The provided diagram in Fig. 7 showing the difference percentage be-
tween this temperature and design temperature provided in Table 7

Table 6
Percentage of volume fractions of natural gas constituents and its combustion products.
Natural gas combinations
C3H8 1.74 C2H6 4.70 C5H12 i-pentane 0.13 CO2 0.05
C6H14 n-hexane 0.08 C4H10 n-butane 0.42 CH4 87.7 N2 4.70
C4H10 Iso-butane 0.37 C5H10 n-pentene 0.10 C5H12 n-pentane 0.10

Fuel products
CO 2.65 CO2 8.48 H2O 18.67 NO 0.05
N2 68.77 Others 2.24

286
A. Najafi, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 188 (2019) 276–295

(A) Monthly changes in wind speed (B) Monthly changes in ambient temperature

(C) Monthly changes in DNI

Fig. 5. Monthly weather conditions of Tehran.

compared to yearly design temperature proves this fact. The values
presented in this diagram indicate that the four design scenarios pro-
posed for the energy supply unit properly provide the temperature
conditions for the motive steam. The summer design with the lowest
heat transfer area and the winter design with the highest collector
surface area showed the lowest and the highest fluctuations, respec-
tively. The average annual variations of temperature in Fig. 7 for
spring, summer, autumn and winter design are 0.327%, 0.321%,
0.411% and 0.875%, respectively.
Working fluid steam quality is the most important and fundamental
parameters in designing a hybrid energy supply unit. Its changes
throughout the months of the year are depicted in Fig. 8. This para-
meter in addition to expressing the flow rate of steam discharged from
the PTCs, defines the rate of boiler usage against the SF in the hours
when DNI value is decent (maximum 8 h in a day). Thus, lower quality
value indicates higher boiler usage contribution compared to the PTCs
of SF.
For example, due to the decrease in DNI in colder months of the year
(January and February) working fluid quality of the four design sce-
narios drops. This trend can be seen in Fig. 9, where the highest amount
of solar fraction in all of the designs is about 34% for the hot months of
the year, and the lowest happens in the first half of January for the

Table 7
Design parameters for winter, spring, summer and autumn.
Solar field Characteristics
Season W Tamb [°C] m Pin [kPa] ASF [m2] Td [K ] Pd [kPa]
DNI ⎡ 2 ⎤ Vwind ⎡ ⎤
⎣m ⎦ ⎣s⎦

Winter 287.96 5.52 2.18 938 8151 438 698

Spring 413.90 18.50 3.53 878 5513 438 698
Summer 623.83 32.12 3.19 818 3605 438 698
Autumn 471.60 20.33 2.53 878 4826 438 698

Wastewater treatment Characteristics

Part kg g TFeed [°C] GOR kg ΔT [°C] ER
ṁ Feed ⎡ ⎤ XFeed ⎡ ⎤ ṁ product ⎡ ⎤
⎣s⎦ ⎣l⎦ ⎣s⎦

BC 2.972 90 20 4.46 1.858 23.1 0.62

FCC 1.114 240 40 3.28 0.816 19.2 0.74

287
A. Najafi, et al.
Fig. 6. The changes in solar field discharge pressure.
summer design. Another point deducted from comparing the DNI
Figure diagram and discharged steam quality based on the summer,
autumn and spring design is that the trend of changes in quality and
DNI are completely proportional to each other while steam quality is
lower than one, and appears to be independent of other atmospheric
conditions such as wind speed, and ambient temperature. This con-
formity seems more pronounced for the summer design compared to
the other designs. By comparing the DNI and quality diagram, it is
concluded that with an increase of 58.25% of DNI from first half of
February to first half of June, 71.5%, 53.9%, 43.7%, and 5.64% in-
crease in the steam quality occur for summer, autumn, spring and
winter design.
The diagram presented in Fig. 10 shows the percentage of unused
intended collector surface area for each design in different months of
the year. Based on this diagram, unused percentage is the lowest in the
summer design, and the highest in the winter design. Unused area
percentage increases sharply in the hot seasons of the year so much, so
that in the first half of July, it reaches 65, 47, 40, and 20% for the
winter, spring, autumn, and summer designs, respectively. During the
winter, due to the sharp decline of DNI, the need for more surface area
is profoundly felt, causing the unused area to reach approximately zero.
Fig. 7. The changes in solar field discharge temperature.
288
Energy Conversion and Management 188 (2019) 276–295
According to the gradient of these designs, it is possible to say that the
autumn design showed the least fluctuations after the summer design.
Fig. 11 depicts the trend of change for the PTC efficiency, provided
according to Eq. (55). This diagram expresses the percentage of solar
energy received by the collectors used to increase the fluid temperature.
The diagram takes the effects of atmospheric conditions, and optical
parameters associated with the collector and mirror manufacturing si-
multaneously. By comparing the results acquired for the PTCs, it is
concluded that in the cold months of the year, decreasing the heat
transfer area of the collectors from the winter design to the summer
design, causes the efficiency of the collectors to drop by 1%; however,
increasing ambient temperature and DNI, reduces this difference to
zero, making the efficiency of all four collector design essentially
identical. On the other hand, studying this parameter separately for
each collector, results in calculating a zero to five percent difference in
efficiency according to atmospheric conditions.
ṁ mot (Hout − Hin )SF
ηSF =
Qasol (55)
Fig. 12 demonstrates the trend of change in the two hot (June 21th)
and cold (January 14th) days of the year throughout a day-night cycle.
A. Najafi, et al.
Fig. 8. Changes in steam quality discharged from the absorber tubes of the parabolic trough collectors.
This figure illustrates the changes in the thermal energy supplied by the
boiler needed for the production of water by the WWT unit for all four
hybrid design scenarios in accordance to the changes in atmospheric
conditions. This trend indicates that even in cold days, in the hours with
more favorable DNI the winter design requires lower boiler assistance
compared to the other designs due to its larger surface area; so that
during some sunny hours of the day, its need for boiler is 2.3 times
lower than the other designs. Comparing the design of autumn and
spring for a period of 8 h (8 am to 16 pm on January 14th) in terms of
heat energy supply, it is concluded that in spring design, greater
thermal energy of 88 kW is required. All four designs demonstrate si-
milar performance in reducing boiler usage and consequently fuel
consumption in hot days of the year. Since hot days of the year receive
more sunlight throughout the day, hybrid designs provide most of the
energy used by the WWT unit.
In this section, each of the proposed hybrid design scenarios and a
conventional design where a boiler is tasked with providing the entire
energy requirement of the WWT unit throughout the day are econom-
ically analyzed. Afterwards, the sensitivity of water and steam cost of
each of these designs is studied in relation to the capital and operational
Fig. 9. Monthly changes in Solar Fraction of the solar field.
289
Energy Conversion and Management 188 (2019) 276–295
costs.
By considering natural gas and electricity costs as 0.05 $/m3 and
0.02 $/kWh respectively, and the capital and operational costs pre-
sented in Table 5, the cost of water, steam, PBP and internal rate of
return of the capital are calculated and presented in Table 8 considering
linear depreciation.
Since the cost of produced water and produced steam is evaluated
by Eqs. (50), (51) and the mentioned equations in Table 5 is directly
proportional to the level of SF area, this leads to higher costs for water
and steam. By comparing the spring and summer designs while taking
the values presented in Table 8 into account, it is concluded that by
increasing the capital and operational costs by 14 and 4% respectively,
steam costs and consequently water costs rise by 17.5 and 7% respec-
tively.
In the aforementioned conditions, the changes in operational and
capital costs of the hybrid designs has little effect on the PBP and in-
ternal rate of return (IRR) when compared with each other.
Based on the PBP and the water and steam costs of the hybrid de-
signs reported in Table 8 compared to the conventional design, it is
concluded that the design proposed based on average atmospheric
A. Najafi, et al.
Fig. 10. Amount of unused heat transfer surface area for each design.
Fig. 11. Monthly changes in parabolic trough collector efficiency.
conditions has no economic advantage over the conventional design;
due to accounting for financial aids and subsides for the fuel cost at
0.05 $/m3, affecting the final calculation of steam and water costs. If
the financial aids associated with the fuel are disregarded, it will have a
pronounced effect on determining the cost of water and steam. Fig. 13
illustrates this issue.
Comparative evaluation of four investigated scenarios revealed that
considering indicators such as minimum changes of steam pressure and
temperature at wastewater treatment plant inlet, and economics,
summer design sounds more superior; however winter design demon-
strates a better stable performance while considering the produced
steam quality and active available solar heat transfer surface and re-
duction of gases pollutants. To take use of both summer and winter
design advantages one might consider autumn and spring design sce-
narios. Economic evaluation showed that autumn design is the second
rank after summer design from the plant IRR point of view. Considering
other indicators as showed in different figures it was realized that au-
tumn design displays a proper performance. For example the minimum
variation of steam temperature and pressure at the WWT plant inlet as
well as the minimum unused heat transfer area is for autumn. Hence
290
Energy Conversion and Management 188 (2019) 276–295
autumn design could be suggested as a proper scenario, although no
significant difference was observed between autumn and spring design
scenarios.
According to this diagram, while natural gas cost is set to 0.05 $/m3,
the share of the boiler in the design equals 28.45%; by increasing the
fuel cost to 0.25 $/m3 this share increases significantly to 66%, taking a
significant share of the water cost, while the WWT unit accounts for
about one third of the water cost. On the other hand, the role of the PTC
becomes more significant due to their lack of need for fuel, and as
shown in Fig. 14, reduces overall water and steam costs compare to
conventional design. At a fuel cost of 0.05 $/m3, using hybrid design
the contribution of WWT unit cost in water cost can be reduced from
45.5% to about 36–41%, while rising fuel cost to 0.25 $/m3, the con-
tribution of WWT unit for all design scenarios would be almost
21–24.5%. According to Fig. 13, increasing fuel cost, reduces the con-
tribution of other costs. For example, for conventional and hybrid
spring design, this reduction is about 13.65% and 11.13% respectively.
The changes in the economy between the different hybrid designs
can be entirely affiliated with the difference in surface area due to the
high dependence of SF expenses on the surface area of the collectors.
A. Najafi, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 188 (2019) 276–295

Fig. 12. Hourly variations in weather conditions and thermal energy supplied by the boiler in a cold and a hot day of the year for all four hybrid design scenarios.

Therefore, as evident in Fig. 14, by increasing the fuel cost, the summer
design and the winter design will each prorate the produced water and
steam costs at 0.11 $/m3 and 0.17 $/m3 fuel costs, respectively. It is
deducted from the figure above that at fuel costs higher than 0.1 $/m3,
hybrid designs become economically feasible. Another important result
which is concluded from Fig. 14, is that LCOW and LCOS of conven-
tional design cross and overcome the hybrid one at a same cost of fuel.
It means that as predicted before LCOW mostly follows the motive
energy cost.
Due to the possibility of variations in the costs of equipment, elec-
tricity and fuel, it is important to analyze the sensitivity of steam and
water costs to these changes. It is important to note that while ana-
lyzing the sensitivity of water and steam costs to one parameter, other
parameters should remain constant.
Fig. 15 displays the sensitivity analysis of water and steam costs to
all each of the four hybrid designs in proportion to an increase in any of
the expenses listed in Table 5. It is concluded from the results of this
analysis that the cost of water for all of these designs has the highest
sensitivity to changes in WWT unit and least sensitivity to changes in
boiler expenses; the sensitivity of the cost of water to SF expenses in the
displayed range takes the second rank. By increasing the size of the SF
from summer design to winter design, the sensitivity of water and steam
costs to heat transfer surface area, increases compared to fuel cost,
electrical and boiler costs. This diagram demonstrates that changes in
electricity costs have the lower effect compared to changes in fuel costs
on the cost of water in each design. The effect of changes in electricity
costs in the cost of steam is very insignificant. For the unit studied in
this paper, boiler capital cost compared to its yearly fuel cost is con-
sidered negligible, so much so that as seen in the Fig. 15, the sensitivity
of water and steam costs is essentially inconsiderable to boiler cost. The
only difference between the sensitivity analyses of the hybrid designs is
related to their SF. The winter design shows higher sensitivity due to
having a larger collector surface area.
In addition to the study on sensitivity of the solar WWT unit to
parameters such as cost and expenses, the sensitivity of this unit to the
interest rate and its lifetime is discussed as well. The results are de-
picted as contours based on the two parameters mentioned in Fig. 16.
According to the contours in the Fig. 16, it is concluded that for the
solar and the conventional WWT units, the cost of water is more de-
pendent on changes in the rate of interest against changes in plan life
time. In fact, the conventional design has lower expenses for the interest
rate and plan life time in the intended life cycle range compared to the
hybrid designs; but due to the presence of numerous gradients in its
contour, it is deduced that its cost changes have a lot of fluctuations.
While by adding the SF and operating the hybrid energy supply unit,
these fluctuations are reduced; in such a way that the cost of water for
the autumn design in 20–35 years lifetime, and 4–8% interest rate has
significantly fewer fluctuations compared to the conventional design for
the same range. The Fig. 16 indicates that by increasing the lifetime of
the plant at low interest rates, lower water costs are obtainable.

Table 8
Economic parameters, the fuel saving and pollutant reduction value.
Parameter Conventional design Winter design Spring design Summer design Autumn design

Total capital cost [$] 866,288 1,586,095 1,458,399 1,279,097 1,392,988

Total current cost [$/y] 226,671 245,610 238,108 229,337 234,344
LCOW [$/m3] 3.50 4.41 4.19 3.92 4.09
LCOS [$/ton] 4.71 8.43 7.57 6.44 7.13
PBP [y] 7.56 9.42 9.24 8.93 9.13
IRR [%] 15.35 12.21 12.47 12.95 12.61
pollution Reduction [ton/year] – 87.48 84.47 75.63 82.82
Fuel Saving per year [%] – 40.13 38.75 34.69 38
Pollution reduction rate, at the end of the plant lifetime [ton] – 1750 1690 1513 1656

291
A. Najafi, et al.
Fig. 13. The contribution of solar wastewater treatment plant components in cost of water based on 0.05 $/m3 and 0.25 $/m3 fuel cost.
The use of solar energy in hybrid design scenarios results in lower
fuel consumption and consequently lower pollutants (NO and CO2)
emission from burning natural gas in the boiler. The amount of re-
duction in the emission of these destructive gases and fuel consumption
due to the use of each of the hybrid design scenarios compared to the
conventional design are provided in Table 8. The highest and lowest
values belong to the winter and summer designs, respectively, while the
spring design shows better performance in this matter compared to the
autumn design. Fig. 17 indicates that in the 20 years lifetime of the
solar WWT unit, between 1500 and 1750 tons less pollutants is pro-
duced compared to the conventional WWT unit. Employing winter,
spring, summer and autumn design scenarios, approximately 40, 39, 35
and 38% of fuel saving is occurred annually.
5. Conclusion
In this paper, Thermo-economic evaluation of a hybrid solar-
Fig. 14. Changes in water and steam costs against increasing fuel cost.
292
Energy Conversion and Management 188 (2019) 276–295
conventional energy supply plant in a ZLD WWT plant, was considered.
The investigation was conducted based on mean seasonal climate of
Tehran (Iran) in four different scenario designs; winter, spring, summer
and autumn. The performance and sensitivity of all the scenarios were
studied. Thermodynamic analysis revealed that variations of the tem-
perature and pressure are negligible at the inlet of thermocompressor.
Quality was considered as ones of the main parameters to indicate the
contribution of conventional boiler during solar times. Studies showed
that in winter design, averagely up to 34% of solar energy contributes
to producing water, however around 60% of heat transfer surface area
remain unused in some hot seasons.
The hourly analysis indicated that on 21th June, in all hybrid design
scenarios, the amount of heat energy supply by boiler is reduced si-
milarly, but on a cold day (14th January), the amount of heat energy
supply by boiler in sunny hours varies depending on the amount of
thermal surface of each design and the reduction of DNI. While the
summer design uses about 17 to 33% of the sun's energy and it uses
A. Najafi, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 188 (2019) 276–295

Fig. 15. Sensitivity analysis of the hybrid design to increase in expenses.

almost all of its thermal surface in all seasons.
Based on economic analysis performed in each of the four hybrid
design scenarios, it was found that the payback period and water cost
for all different scenarios were roughly the same, about 9–10 years, and
4–5.5 $/m3 respectively. These values for conventional design were
7.7 years and 3.5 $/m3, respectively. As the fuel cost rises up to more
than 0.1 $/m3 the hybrid design gets superior. The LCOW of all design
is most sensitive to the WWT unit cost rather than energy supplying
plant. Changes in the cost of electricity versus fuel cost changes had less
impact on water costs in all hybrid designs. The effect of electricity
costs on LCOS changes is negligible. For hybrid solar-conventional en-
ergy supply in a WWT plant and conventional WWT unit, water cost
changes were more dependent on changes in interest rates versus
changes in plant lifetime. The conventional design for a given range for
the interest rate and lifetime of the collection is less expensive than
hybrid configurations, although with increasing lifetime at a low in-
terest rate, lower costs for water in hybrid configurations can be
achieved. By using winter, spring, summer and autumn designs,

Fig. 16. Sensitivity analysis based on simultaneous changes in interest rate and life cycle.

293
A. Najafi, et al.
Fig. 17. The amount of reduction in gaseous pollutants of the hybrid design
scenarios during the life cycle of the project.
approximately 40, 39, 35 and 38% can be used to reduce fuel con-
sumption per year.
Declaration of interests
None declared.
References
[1] Kouhikamali R, Kojidi AS, Asgari M, Alamolhoda F. The effect of condensation and
evaporation pressure drop on specific heat transfer surface area and energy con-
sumption in MED–TVC plants. Desalin Water Treat 2012;46:68–74.
[2] Razmi A, Soltani M, Kashkooli FM, Farshi LG. Energy and exergy analysis of an
environmentally-friendly hybrid absorption/recompression refrigeration system.
Energy Convers Manage 2018;164:59–69.
[3] Lee S, Esfahani IJ, Ifaei P, Moya W, Yoo C. Thermo-environ-economic modeling and
optimization of an integrated wastewater treatment plant with a combined heat and
power generation system. Energy Convers Manage 2017;142:385–401.
[4] Saif Y, Almansoori A. A capacity expansion planning model for integrated water
desalination and power supply chain problem. Energy Convers Manage
2016;122:462–76.
[5] Kalogirou S. Survey of solar desalination systems and system selection. Energy
1997;22:69–81.
[6] Gorji TB, Ranjbar A. Thermal and exergy optimization of a nanofluid-based direct
absorption solar collector. Renewable Energy 2017;106:274–87.
[7] Mathioulakis E, Belessiotis V, Delyannis E. Desalination by using alternative energy:
review and state-of-the-art. Desalination 2007;203:346–65.
[8] Sharon H, Reddy K. A review of solar energy driven desalination technologies.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;41:1080–118.
[9] Sharaf M, Nafey A, García-Rodríguez L. Thermo-economic analysis of solar thermal
power cycles assisted MED-VC (multi effect distillation-vapor compression) desali-
nation processes. Energy 2011;36:2753–64.
[10] Palenzuela P, Zaragoza G, Alarcón-Padilla DC, Guillén E, Ibarra M, Blanco J.
Assessment of different configurations for combined parabolic-trough (PT) solar
power and desalination plants in arid regions. Energy 2011;36:4950–8.
[11] Bataineh KM. Multi-effect desalination plant combined with thermal compressor
driven by steam generated by solar energy. Desalination 2016;385:39–52.
[12] Ortega-Delgado B, García-Rodríguez L, Alarcón-Padilla D-C. Thermoeconomic
comparison of integrating seawater desalination processes in a concentrating solar
power plant of 5 MWe. Desalination 2016;392:102–17.
[13] Kouta A, Al-Sulaiman F, Atif M, Marshad SB. Entropy, exergy, and cost analyses of
solar driven cogeneration systems using supercritical CO2 Brayton cycles and MEE-
TVC desalination system. Energy Convers Manage 2016;115:253–64.
[14] Ibrahim AG, Dincer I. A solar desalination system: exergetic performance assess-
ment. Energy Convers Manage 2015;101:379–92.
[15] Mohammadi K, McGowan JG. Thermodynamic analysis of hybrid cycles based on a
regenerative steam Rankine cycle for cogeneration and trigeneration. Energy
Convers Manage 2018;158:460–75.
[16] Alhaj M, Mabrouk A, Al-Ghamdi SG. Energy efficient multi-effect distillation
powered by a solar linear Fresnel collector. Energy Convers Manage
2018;171:576–86.
[17] Mehrpooya M, Ghorbani B, Hosseini SS. Thermodynamic and economic evaluation
of a novel concentrated solar power system integrated with absorption refrigeration
and desalination cycles. Energy Convers Manage 2018;175:337–56.
[18] Sadi M, Arabkoohsar A. Modelling and analysis of a hybrid solar concentrating-
294
Energy Conversion and Management 188 (2019) 276–295
waste incineration power plant. J Cleaner Prod 2018.
[19] Bravo R, Friedrich D. Two-stage optimisation of hybrid solar power plants. Sol
Energy 2018;164:187–99.
[20] Rashid K, Safdarnejad SM, Powell KM. Dynamic simulation, control, and perfor-
mance evaluation of a synergistic solar and natural gas hybrid power plant. Energy
Convers Manage 2019;179:270–85.
[21] Magrassi F, Rocco E, Barberis S, Gallo M, Del Borghi A. Hybrid solar power system
versus photovoltaic plant: a comparative analysis through a life cycle approach.
Renewable Energy 2019;130:290–304.
[22] Tian Z, Perers B, Furbo S, Fan J. Thermo-economic optimization of a hybrid solar
district heating plant with flat plate collectors and parabolic trough collectors in
series. Energy Convers Manage 2018;165:92–101.
[23] Cavalcanti EJC. Exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental analyses of an in-
tegrated solar combined cycle system. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev
2017;67:507–19.
[24] Cavalcanti EJ, Motta HP. Exergoeconomic analysis of a solar-powered/fuel assisted
Rankine cycle for power generation. Energy 2015;88:555–62.
[25] Askari IB, Ameri M. Techno economic feasibility analysis of Linear Fresnel solar
field as thermal source of the MED/TVC desalination system. Desalination
2016;394:1–17.
[26] Askari IB, Ameri M. Solar Rankine Cycle (SRC) powered by Linear Fresnel solar field
and integrated with Multi Effect Desalination (MED) system. Renewable Energy
2018;117:52–70.
[27] Deng C, Feng X, Bai J. Graphically based analysis of water system with zero liquid
discharge. Chem Eng Res Des 2008;86:165–71.
[28] Sobhani R, Abahusayn M, Gabelich CJ, Rosso D. Energy footprint analysis of
brackish groundwater desalination with zero liquid discharge in inland areas of the
Arabian Peninsula. Desalination 2012;291:106–16.
[29] Koppol AP, Bagajewicz MJ, Dericks BJ, Savelski MJ. On zero water discharge so-
lutions in the process industry. Adv Environ Res 2004;8:151–71.
[30] Kumar D, Kumar V, Singh V. To study the parametric effects on optimality of
various feeding sequences of a multieffect evaporators in paper industry using
mathematical modeling and simulation with MATLAB. Int J Chem Biol Eng
2010;3:129–36.
[31] Farahbod F, Mowla D, Nasr MJ, Soltanieh M. Experimental study of forced circu-
lation evaporator in zero discharge desalination process. Desalination
2012;285:352–8.
[32] Vishnu G, Palanisamy S, Joseph K. Assessment of fieldscale zero liquid discharge
treatment systems for recovery of water and salt from textile effluents. J Cleaner
Prod 2008;16:1081–9.
[33] García-Valladares O, Velázquez N. Numerical simulation of parabolic trough solar
collector: improvement using counter flow concentric circular heat exchangers. Int
J Heat Mass Transf 2009;52:597–609.
[34] Friedel L. Improved friction pressure drop correlation for horizontal and vertical
two-phase pipe flow. Proc of European Two-Phase Flow Group Meet, Ispra, Italy,
1979; 1979.
[35] Churchill SW. Friction-factor equation spans all fluid-flow regimes. Chem Eng
1977;84:91–2.
[36] de Oliveira Siqueira AM, Gomes PEN, Torrezani L, Lucas EO, da Cruz Pereira GM.
Heat transfer analysis and modeling of a parabolic trough solar collector: an ana-
lysis. Energy Procedia 2014;57:401–10.
[37] Price H. Concentrated solar power use in Africa. NREL/TP; 2001.
[38] Duffie JA, Beckman WA. Solar engineering of thermal processes. John Wiley &
Sons; 2013.
[39] Forristall RE. Heat transfer analysis and modeling of a parabolic trough solar re-
ceiver implemented in engineering equation solver. Golden, CO: National
Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2003.
[40] Bergman TL, Incropera FP, DeWitt DP, Lavine AS. Fundamentals of heat and mass
transfer. John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
[41] Swinbank WC. Long-wave radiation from clear skies. Q J R Meteorolog Soc
1963;89:339–48.
[42] Burkholder F, Kutscher CF. Heat loss testing of Schott’s 2008 PTR70 parabolic
trough receiver. Citeseer; 2009.
[43] Ratzel A, Hickox C, Gartling D. Techniques for reducing thermal conduction and
natural convection heat losses in annular receiver geometries. J Heat Transfer
1979;101:108–13.
[44] Bejan A. Convection heat transfer. John Wiley & Sons; 2013.
[45] Marshal N. Transl. Gas Encyclopedia. New York, NY: Elsevier; 1976.
[46] Winterton RH. Where did the Dittus and Boelter equation come from. Int J Heat
Mass Transf 1998;41:809–10.
[47] Kandlikar SG. A general correlation for saturated two-phase flow boiling heat
transfer inside horizontal and vertical tubes. J Heat Transfer 1990;112:219–28.
[48] Velázquez N, García-Valladares O, Sauceda D, Beltrán R. Numerical simulation of a
Linear Fresnel Reflector Concentrator used as direct generator in a Solar-GAX cycle.
Energy Convers Manage 2010;51:434–45.
[49] Mereto A. Thermoeconomic analysis of geothermal power cycles for IDDP-1
chloride mitigation; 2016.
[50] Zarrouk SJ, Purnanto MH. Geothermal steam-water separators: design overview.
Geothermics 2015;53:236–54.
[51] Amer AB. New trend in the development of ME-TVC desalination system.
Desalination, Trends and Technologies. InTech; 2011.
[52] Alhusseini AA, Tuzla K, Chen JC. Falling film evaporation of single component li-
quids. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 1998;41:1623–32.
[53] Papini D, Cammi A. Modelling of heat transfer phenomena for vertical and hor-
izontal configurations of in-pool condensers and comparison with experimental
findings. J Sci Technol Nucl Install 2010;2010.
A. Najafi, et al.
[54] Biencinto M, González L, Valenzuela L. A quasi-dynamic simulation model for direct
steam generation in parabolic troughs using TRNSYS. Appl Energy
2016;161:133–42.
[55] Darwish M, Abdulrahim HKJD. Feed water arrangements in a multi-effect desalting
system. Desalination 2008;228:30–54.
[56] Sagharichiha M, Jafarian A, Asgari M, Kouhikamali RJCE, Intensification PP.
Simulation of a forward feed multiple effect desalination plant with vertical tube
evaporators. Chem Eng Process 2014;75:110–8.
[57] Loutatidou S, Arafat HA. Techno-economic analysis of MED and RO desalination
powered by low-enthalpy geothermal energy. Desalination 2015;365:277–92.
[58] Fanniroo Company, http://www.fanniroogroup.com/; 2018 [accessed 20
November 2018].
[59] Voros N, Kiranoudis C, Maroulis Z. Solar energy exploitation for reverse osmosis
desalination plants. Desalination 1998;115:83–101.
[60] Nafey A, Sharaf M, García-Rodríguez L. Thermo-economic analysis of a combined
solar organic Rankine cycle-reverse osmosis desalination process with different
295
Energy Conversion and Management 188 (2019) 276–295
energy recovery configurations. Desalination 2010;261:138–47.
[61] Palenzuela P, Alarcón-Padilla D-C, Zaragoza G. Large-scale solar desalination by
combination with CSP: techno-economic analysis of different options for the
Mediterranean Sea and the Arabian Gulf. Desalination 2015;366:130–8.
[62] Mehrpooya M, Ashouri M, Mohammadi A. Thermoeconomic analysis and optimi-
zation of a regenerative two-stage organic Rankine cycle coupled with liquefied
natural gas and solar energy. Energy 2017;126:899–914.
[63] Tehran Gas Company, http://tehrangasco.ir; 2018 [accessed 20 November 2018].
[64] Chemkin online code, https://cearun.grc.nasa.gov/; 2018 [accessed 20 November
2018].
[65] Energy Plus, http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus; 2018 [accessed
20 November 2018].
[66] Kalogirou SA. Solar thermal collectors and applications. Prog Energy Combust Sci
2004;30:231–95.
[67] Lemmon EW, Huber ML, McLinden MOJNsrd. NIST reference fluid thermodynamic
and transport properties—REFPROP. 23; 2002. v7.