Research Article

Cite This: ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 16843−16857 pubs.acs.org/journal/ascecg

Advanced Exergy and Exergoeconomic Analysis of Cascade

Absorption Refrigeration System Driven by Low-Grade Waste Heat
Mengxiao Yu,†,∥ Peizhe Cui,†,∥ Yinglong Wang,†,§ Zhiqiang Liu,‡ Zhaoyou Zhu,†,§
and Sheng Yang*,‡
†
College of Chemical Engineering, Qingdao University of Science and Technology, 53 Zhengzhou Road, Qingdao 266042, People’s
Republic of China
‡
School of Energy Science and Engineering, Central South University, 932 Lushan South Road, Changsha 410083, People’s
Republic of China
Downloaded via UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on October 22, 2019 at 18:15:25 (UTC).

§
See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

Shandong Collaborative Innovation Center of Eco-Chemical Engineering, Qingdao University of Science and Technology, 53
Zhengzhou Road, Qingdao 266042, China

ABSTRACT: A cascade absorption refrigeration system, which utilizes low-grade

waste heat, was investigated by an advanced exergy analysis and an exergoeconomic
analysis that are compared with a conventional method. In the advanced analysis, the
exergy destruction rate, exergy destruction cost rate, and investment cost rate of each
component in the system are divided into endogenous/exogenous parts and
avoidable/unavoidable parts. The results show that 24.44% of the exergy destruction
rate, 23.80% of the exergy destruction cost rate, and 17.68% of the investment cost
rate can be avoided by system optimization. The LiBr heat exchanger has the highest
exergy destruction rate (437.447 kW) and highest exergy destruction cost rate (7.257
$/h), while the NH3 generator has the highest avoidable exergy destruction rate
(95.309 kW) and highest investment cost rate (7.502 $/h). Most exergy destruction
rates and corresponding exergy destruction cost rates are endogenous; thus,
optimizing the components is necessary. In addition, the results of the
exergoeconomic factor show that the investment cost rate of most components
needs to be optimized. The sensitivity of parameters has a significant impact on the system. An advanced exergy analysis and an
exergoeconomic analysis provide valuable information for optimizing the irreversibility and inefficiency of the system.
KEYWORDS: Cascade absorption refrigeration system, Advanced exergy and exergoeconomic analyses, Exergy destruction rate,
Cost rate, Endogenous/exogenous, Avoidable/unavoidable

■ INTRODUCTION
According to a report by the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE), global energy consumption in 2018 was 417% of that
in 1949.1 With rapid growth in energy consumption, satisfying
the world’s energy demand has become a global problem.
Statistical data show that industries account for the majority of
energy consumption worldwide.2 In China, industrial energy
consumption accounted for 70% of the total energy
consumption in 2018.3 In the industrial process, 17%−67%
of the energy that is consumed is lost in the form of waste heat,
the majority of which is low-grade waste heat.4 The main
producers of waste heat are the cement, glass, ceramic, food,
steel, and coal industrial sectors.5 These waste heats have
caused a series of problems, such as the global energy crisis and
global warming.6 The effective use of low-grade waste heat to
alleviate energy pressure has become a topic of general interest.
An absorption refrigeration system (ARS) can convert low-
grade waste heat to cold energy. This system has characteristics
that are friendly to the surrounding environment, safe
operation, and simple maintenance.7 Therefore, ARS is
extensively employed in the Rectisol unit of the coal-to-
synthetic natural gas process, for food processing, the air
conditioning industry, and for pharmaceutical product
protection.8 With the efforts of researchers, ARS has been
continuously designed. A generator−absorber−heat exchanger
(GAX) system can provide a relatively higher coefficient of
performance (COP) value than the traditional single-stage
ARS but requires a higher level of heat source. Yari et al.9
designed a GAX system and improved its exergy efficiency to
175% of the base value by analysis and optimization. A double-
stage ARS has the ability to utilize a lower heat source
temperature, but its efficiency is lower than that of other
systems. Alelyani et al.10 designed a double-stage NH3/H2O
ARS that reduced the energy destruction by 55% compared
with a single-stage ARS. A double-effect ARS can use a higher
temperature heat source to improve the COP. A double-effect
LiBr/H2O ARS was designed by Kaushik et al.;11 the
maximum COP of this ARS ranges from 1 to 1.28. A cascade
Received: July 29, 2019
Revised: September 19, 2019
Published: September 20, 2019

© 2019 American Chemical Society 16843 DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b04396

ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 16843−16857
ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering
absorption refrigeration system (CARS) needs to be designed
with more than two different refrigerants that can produce low-
temperature cold energy. Dopazo et al.12 designed a CARS that
consists of CO2 and NH3 and determined the optimal CO2
refrigeration temperature. Other systems include ejector-ARS
with additional ejectors13 and compression-ARS, which is
supported by additional electric energy.14
The irreversibility of components in the actual ARS causes
exergy destruction. In recent years, a new analysis method that
divides exergy destruction into endogenous/exogenous parts
and avoidable/unavoidable parts has attracted extensive
attention. This method provides information for identifying
the irreversibility and inefficiency of ARS. The exergy
destruction created by the internal irreversibility of a
component is endogenous, while the exogenous part is caused
by the effect of other components on this component.15 As a
result of the technical and economic constraints, only part of
the exergy destruction is avoidable, and the remainder is
unavoidable.16 These classifications contribute to a better
understanding of ARS.
Morosuk et al.17 investigated ARS by using an advanced
analysis method and discovered that the maximum exergy
improvement of an absorber and a generator is 40.4% and
39.2%, respectively. Their results indicated that 65.8% of the
exergy destruction in this ARS is unavoidable, and 50.1% of the
exergy destruction depends on the components. Bagheri et
al.18 designed a double-effect LiBr/H2O ARS and optimized
the generator temperature by an advanced analysis method.
The optimal COP of the system is 1.295, and the maximum
exergy efficiency is 0.225. The results show that the
unavoidable exergy destruction accounts for approximately
66% of the entire system. Chen et al.19 calculated the exergy
destruction of the ejector-ARS and discovered that 35% of the
exergy destruction can be avoided. The sequence of system
improvement is ejector, condenser, and generator. Exergy
destruction of the improved system can be reduced by 30.2%.
Ansarinasab et al.20 designed a single-effect ARS with a
refrigeration temperature of −30 °C. The analysis results
indicate that exogenous exergy destruction is lower than that of
endogenous, and avoidable exogenous destruction is minimal.
The literature survey concluded that advanced analysis can
improve the understanding of an ARS system and provide a
better scheme for utilizing low-grade waste heat. Although
many researchers have performed the design and advanced
analysis of the ARS, the advanced analysis of CARS has not
been reported. In this work, a CARS driven by low-grade waste
heat is designed. Models, simulations, and assumptions are
constructed. An energy analysis, advanced exergy analysis, and
exergoeconomic analysis are performed, and their results are
compared with the conventional analysis. The influence of the
parameters on CARS is investigated.
■ PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Based on the research of Khan et al.,21 NH3/H2O and LiBr/
H2Othe two most commonly employed working fluids
were selected for the process design in this article. Combining
the advantages of the NH3/H2O system with an extremely low
solidification temperature and the LiBr/H2O system with an
extremely high water vaporization heat, a CARS that we
composed of NH3/H2O and LiBr/H2O is established.22
Figure 1 shows the design principle of CARS. The heat
source consists of two parts. The low-temperature part of the
heat source and the normal temperature cooling water are
16844
Research Article
Figure 1. Design principle of CARS.
employed in the LiBr/H2O system to obtain cooling water at
low temperatures. The high-temperature part of the heat
source and cooling water from the LiBr/H2O system are used
in the NH3/H2O system to produce cold energy.
Figure 2 shows the detailed process of CARS. Lines of
different colors represent streams with different components.
The LiBr/H2O system, which utilizes the low temperature part
of the heat source, is shown on the left side of the figure. Water
vapor and concentrated LiBr solution are produced by heating
the LiBr generator. Water vapor is condensed in the LiBr
condenser and then evaporated to produce low-temperature
cooling water. The purpose of this cooling water is to cool the
NH3 condenser and NH3 absorber and then return to the LiBr
absorber. The concentrated LiBr solution is heat exchanged by
the LiBr heat exchanger, enters the absorber to absorb water
vapor, and returns to the generator by the LiBr pump to
complete the cycle. The NH3/H2O system is shown on the
right side of the figure. Contrary to the LiBr/H2O system, the
NH3/H2O system utilizes the waste heat of the high-
temperature part. NH3 is produced at the top of the NH3
generator, and a lean NH3 solution is obtained at the bottom
of the NH3 generator. The NH3 is condensed and then
evaporated to produce cold energy and then returns to the
NH3 absorber. In this process, the cooling water of the LiBr/
H2O system is coupled to obtain additional cold energy. The
lean NH3 solution is heat exchanged with the concentrated
NH3 solution by the NH3 heat exchanger, enters the absorber
to absorb NH3, and then returns to the generator by the NH3
pump to complete the cycle.
■ PROCESS SIMULATION AND ASSUMPTIONS
CARS is simulated by using Aspen Plus V8.8. ELECNRTL is
the property method.23 The modified parameters of the two
systems are shown in Tables 1 and 2. These parameters are
calculated based on the vapor−liquid equilibrium data of the
solutions.24,25
To ensure accuracy, the models in CARS are contrasted with
the work of Ebrahimi et al.26 and the experimental data of
Ouadha et al.27 Only a slight difference between the results of
the comparison is observed, which proves that the model is
reliable. The specific results are reported in our previous
work.28
DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b04396
ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 16843−16857
ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering Research Article

Figure 2. Detailed process of CARS.

Table 1. Modified Parameters of LiBr/H2O System Energy balance: ∑ Q̇ + ∑ Ẇ + ∑ mḣ = 0 (3)

Parameter Component i Component j Value (SI units)
Table 6 lists the results obtained by applying these equations
GMELCC/1 H2O (Li+, Br−) 7.17 to CARS.

■
GMELCC/1 (Li+, Br−) H2O −1.417
GMELCD/1 H2O (Li+, Br−) −4803.40 EXERGY ANALYSIS
GMELCD/1 (Li+, Br−) H2O −854.73
Conventional Exergy Analysis. An exergy analysis, which
is based on the second law of thermodynamics, can be
performed to determine the thermodynamic irreversibility in
the components. The total exergy rate is calculated by the
Table 3 shows the input parameters. The output results of
physical and chemical exergy rates as follows:
the simulation are shown in Table 4. Table 5 shows the
parameters of the system analysis. ph ch
Ė = Ė + Ė (4)
The specific assumptions are listed as follows:29,30
The formula for calculating the physical exergy rate is as
1. The operation condition of the process is a steady state.
follows:32
2. The kinetic and potential energies (exergy) in the
process are disregarded. ph
Ė = ṁ [(hi − h0) − T0(si − s0)] (5)
3. For all equipment, the heat transfer to the surrounding
environment is disregarded. The formula for calculating the chemical exergy rate is
4. The pressure drop is disregarded for all equipment. expressed as follows:33
5. The process of solutions flowing through absorbers and ch
generators is nonisothermal. Ė = ∑ ziei (6)
6. The solutions of generators and absorbers is in
The standard chemical exergy rate of each component for
equilibrium.
calculating the chemical exergy rate is shown in Table 7.
7. The vapors and liquids produced by evaporators and
The calculation formula of exergy destruction rate (Ė D) is
condensers are saturated.

̇ + ∑ Q̇ ijjj1 −
T0 yz
expressed as follows:

zz
A flowsheet of the system modeling equations is shown in

k T{
Figure 3. In the following sections, details of this analysis are EḊ = EḞ − EṖ = ∑ Eiṅ − ∑ Eout
provided.

■ ENERGY ANALYSIS
The energy analysis is based on the law of conservation of
+ ∑ Ẇ
The exergy equations of each component in CARS are
(7)

energy, which consists of three equations.31 defined in Table 8.

Advanced Exergy Analysis. A conventional exergy
Mass balance: ∑ ṁ = 0 (1) analysis cannot provide information about costs, sources of
irreversibility, and classification of exergy destruction.34
Material balance: ∑ mẋ = 0 (2) Therefore, an advanced exergy analysis is conducted to divide

Table 2. Modified Parameters of NH3/H2O System

Item Component i Component j Aij Aji Bij Bji Cij

value NH3 H2O 0.71 4.83 −782.28 −1584.41 0.20

16845 DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b04396

ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 16843−16857
ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering Research Article

Table 3. Input Parameters of CARS Simulation

Block Model Specification
LiBr generator Heater Temperature: 80 °C, Pressure: 0 kPa
LiBr generator Flash Pressure: 9.65 kPa; Duty: 0 kW
LiBr condenser Heater Pressure: 1.065 kPa; Vapor fraction: 0
LiBr evaporator Heater Pressure: 1.065 kPa; Vapor fraction: 1
LiBr absorber Heater Pressure: 1.065 kPa; Vapor fraction: 0
LiBr heat exchanger HeatX Hot stream outlet temperature: 39 °C
LiBr pump Pump Discharge pressure: 9.65 kPa
LiBr valve Valve Outlet pressure: 1.065 kPa
NH3 generator Rad Frac Calculation type: Equilibrium
NH3 generator Rad Frac Number of stages: 10
NH3 generator Rad Frac Reflux ratio: 0.4
NH3 generator Rad Frac Feed stream: 7
NH3 evaporator Heater Pressure: 72.2 kPa; Vapor fraction: 1
NH3 heat exchanger HeatX Hot stream outlet temperature: 42 °C
NH3 pump Pump Discharge pressure: 655.8 kPa
NH3 absorber Heater Pressure: 72.2 kPa; Vapor fraction: 0
NH3 valve Valve Outlet pressure: 72.2 kPa

Table 4. Output Results of CARS Simulation

Stream no. T (°C) P (kPa) m (kg/h) h (kJ/kg) s (kJ/kg K) NH3 (%mol) H2O (%mol) Li+ (%mol) Br− (%mol)
1 63.500 9.650 52250.000 −9975.550 −4.460 0.707 0.147 0.147
2 79.992 9.650 4767.095 −13329.970 −1.061 1.000 0.000 0.000
3 79.992 9.650 47482.910 −9361.266 −4.111 0.663 0.168 0.168
4 39.000 9.650 47482.910 −9407.895 −3.921 0.663 0.168 0.168
5 36.415 1.065 47482.910 −9407.923 −4.282 0.663 0.168 0.168
6 45.014 9.650 4767.095 −15792.200 −8.785 1.000 0.000 0.000
7 7.041 1.065 4767.095 −15792.200 −8.752 1.000 0.000 0.000
8 7.041 1.065 4767.095 −13466.440 −0.477 1.000 0.000 0.000
9 30.735 1.065 52250.000 −10017.900 −4.716 0.707 0.147 0.147
10 30.741 9.650 52250.000 −10017.890 −4.387 0.707 0.147 0.147
11 66.400 655.800 12612.000 −11564.000 −9.242 0.373 0.627
12 57.160 655.800 3165.000 −3770.162 −10.562 1.000 0.000
13 118.400 655.800 9447.000 −13808.850 −8.148 0.153 0.847
14 42.000 645.800 9447.000 −14174.020 −9.118 0.153 0.847
15 42.088 72.200 9447.000 −14174.020 −9.117 0.153 0.847
16 12.020 655.800 3165.000 −3958.870 −11.200 1.000 0.000
17 −40.020 72.200 3165.000 −3958.870 −11.050 1.000 0.000
18 −40.020 72.200 3165.000 −2820.550 −6.167 1.000 0.000
19 12.000 72.200 12612.000 −11840.130 −10.038 0.373 0.627
20 12.230 655.800 12612.000 −11838.630 −10.034 0.373 0.627

Table 5. Parameters of System Analysis basis is derived from Table 9. The calculation formula is
expressed as follows:
Parameter Value Parameter Value Parameter Value
UN AV
T0 (°C) 25.0 cele ($/GJ) 19.31 N (year) 10 EḊ , k = EḊ , k + EḊ , k (9)
P0 (kPa) 101.3 ccw ($/GJ) 0.35 t (h) 8000
clgwh ($/GJ) 3.882 i (%) 15 ϕ (−) 1.06 To provide more useful information about the irreversibility
of equipment, the combinations of Ė EN ̇ EX ̇ UN ̇ AV
D , ED , ED , and ED are
listed here.37
Ė D into Ė EN ̇ EX ̇ UN ̇ AV
D , ED , ED , and ED parts.
35 ̇ EN
ED,k is the endogenous Ė UN,EN is the part of Ė D, which cannot be reduced due to
̇
part of ED, which is only related to the irreversibility of the kth D,k
technical limitations of the kth component. The calculation
component. Ė EX ̇
D,k is the exogenous part of ED within the kth formula is expressed as follows:

i ̇ y
component, which is caused by the irreversibility of other
EN j ED , k z
= EṖ , k jjjj zz
̇ , k zz
components, with the exception of the kth component. The UN
calculation methods of Ė EN ̇ EX
k {
UN , EN
D,k and ED,k are presented in ref 17. EḊ , k
The calculation formula is expressed as follows: EP (10)
EN EX
EḊ , k = EḊ , k + EḊ , k (8) UN
EḊ , k
Ė UN ̇
D,k is the ED that cannot be reduced due to technological
where ( )EṖ , k
is the ratio of the exergy destruction per unit of
limitations. The remaining part of Ė D is Ė AV
36
D,k. The calculation product exergy.
16846 DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b04396
ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 16843−16857
ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering Research Article

Figure 3. Flowsheet of system modeling equations.

Ė UN,EX
D,k is the part of Ė D that cannot be reduced due to Ė AV,EX
D,k is the part of Ė D that can be reduced by a structural
technical limitations in the other components of the total improvement in the total system or improving the efficiency of
system. The calculation formula is expressed as follows: the remaining components. The calculation formula is
expressed as follows:
UN , EX UN UN , EN
EḊ , k = EḊ , k − EḊ , k (11) AV , EX AV AV , EN
EḊ , k = EḊ , k − EḊ , k (13)
Ė AV,EN
is the part of Ė D that can be reduced by improving the

■
D,k
efficiency of the kth component. The calculation formula is
expressed as follows: EXERGOECONOMIC ANALYSIS
AV , EN EN UN , EN Conventional Exergoeconomic Analysis. An exergoe-
EḊ , k = EḊ , k − EḊ , k (12) conomic analysis is an effective method for energy system
16847 DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b04396
ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 16843−16857
ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering Research Article

Table 6. Equations for Energy Analysis of CARS The equipment size, material, and operating conditions
determine the cost of the equipment. The revised formula for
Component Mass/Material/Energy equations
calculating the investment cost of the equipment is expressed
ṁ 1 = ṁ 2 + ṁ 3 as follows:41
LiBr generator ṁ 1x1 = ṁ 3x3
Iṙ = Iė rmrprt (18)
Q̇ GEN − LiBr = ṁ 2h2 + ṁ 3h3−ṁ 1h1
Using the chemical economic plant cost index (CEPCI), the
equipment cost is transformed from the basic data in 2000 to
LiBr condenser Q̇ CON −LiBr = ṁ 6h6 − ṁ 2h2
the data in 2018. The CEPCI values in 2000 and 2008 are
394.1 and 638.1, respectively.42
ṁ 9 = ṁ 5 + ṁ 8
CEPCI2018
LiBr absorber ṁ 9x 9 = ṁ 5x5 Iė ,2018 = Iė ,2000
CEPCI2000 (19)
Q̇ ABS−LiBr = ṁ 5h5 + ṁ 9h9 − ṁ 8h8
The capital recovery factor (α) is determined by the interest
rate (i) and the system life (N), which can be calculated by eq
LiBr heat exchanger ṁ4 h4 − ṁ 3h3 = ṁ 1h1 − ṁ 10h10
20.

LiBr pump ẆPUM−LiBr = ṁ 10h10 − ṁ 9h9 i(1 + i)N

α=
(1 + i)N − 1 (20)
ṁ 11 = ṁ 12 + ṁ 13 The Ż of CARS is calculated by eq 21.
NH3 generator ṁ 11x11 = ṁ 12x12 + ṁ 13x13 M
Q̇ GEN −NH = ṁ 12h12 + ṁ 13h13 − ṁ 11h11
3
Z ̇k =
ϕαIḃ () Se
Sb
×
CEPCI2018
× rmrprt
8000 CEPCI2000 (21)
NH3 condenser Q̇ CON − NH = ṁ 16h16 − ṁ 12h12
3
The cost equations of the component in CARS are defined
in Table 11.
NH3 evaporator Q̇ EVA−NH = ṁ 18h18 − ṁ 17h17 Advanced Exergoeconomic Analysis. The advanced
exergoeconomic analysis is performed to calculate the Ċ D
3

associated with a component and compare it with its Ż .43

Similar to Ė D, the endogenous part and the exogenous part
NH3 heat exchanger ṁ 14 h14 − ṁ 13h13 = ṁ 11h11 − ṁ 20h20

of Ċ D and Ż are related to the operation of the kth component

NH3 pump ẆPUM−NH3 = ṁ 20h20 − ṁ 19h19 and the interaction among the components, respectively. The
unavoidable part and avoidable part are determined by the
ṁ 19 = ṁ 18 + ṁ 15 technological limitations.
Ċ EN ̇ EX
D,k and CD,k of the kth component are defined as follows:
NH3 absorber ṁ 19x19 = ṁ 15x15 + ṁ 18x18
EN EN
Q̇ ABS−NH = ṁ 19h19 − ṁ 15h15 − ṁ 18h18 CḊ , k = cF , kEḊ , k (22)
3

EX EX
CḊ , k = cF , kEḊ , k (23)

optimization. Both the exergy destruction cost rate (Ċ D) and EN EX

CḊ , k = cF , kEḊ , k = CḊ , k + CḊ , k (24)
the investment cost rate (Ż ) are considered in the analysis.
The exergy cost rate equations are listed as follows:38 The computing method for Ż kEN and Ż EX k of the kth
component is detailed in ref 16. The calculation formula is
cP ,kEṖ , k = cF , kEḞ , k + Żk (14) expressed as follows:
CṖ , k = CḞ , k + Żk (15) Z ̇k
EX
= Z ̇k − Z ̇k
EN
(25)
The formula for calculating Ċ D is expressed as follows: 39
Ċ UN ̇ AV
D,k and CD,k of the kth component can be computed as
CḊ , k = cF , kEḊ , k follows:
(16)
UN UN
The investment cost of the equipment is calculated by eq CḊ , k = cF , kEḊ , k (26)
17.40 The parameters of the equipment are listed in Table 10.
ij S yz
AV AV

Iė = Iḃ jjj e zzz

CḊ , k = cF , kEḊ , k (27)

j Sb z
M

k {
UN AV
(17) CḊ , k = cF , kEḊ , k = CḊ , k + CḊ , k (28)

Table 7. Standard Chemical Exergy Rate of Each Component

eNH3 (kJ/mol) eH2O (kJ/mol) eLi (kJ/mol) eBr (kJ/mol) eH (kJ/mol) eN (kJ/mol) eO (kJ/mol)
336.69 8.62 371.96 34.33 117.64 0.335 1.966

16848 DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b04396

ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 16843−16857
ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering Research Article

Table 8. Exergy Equations of Each Component of CARS

Component Exergy equations
ij yz
EḊ , GEN −LiBr = E1̇ + Q̇ GEN − LiBr jjjj1 − zz − E ̇ − E ̇
z
TGEN −LiBr z{
T0
k
LiBr generator 2 3

LiBr condenser EḊ , CON −LiBr = E2̇ − E6̇ − ΔEcw ̇ −LiBr

LiBr absorber EḊ , ABS−LiBr = E5̇ + E8̇ − E9̇ − ΔEcw

̇ −LiBr

LiBr heat exchanger EḊ , HE−LiBr = E3̇ + E10

̇ − E1̇ − E4̇

LiBr pump EḊ , PUM−LiBr = E9̇ + WPUM ̇

̇ − LiBr − E10

jij yz
zz − E ̇ − E ̇
j1 −
GEN −NH3j jj z
TGEN −NH3 zz
T0

k {
NH3 generator ̇ + Q̇
EḊ , GEN −NH3 = E11 12 13

NH3 condenser EḊ , CON −NH = E12

3
̇ − E16
̇ − ΔEcw ̇ −NH
3

NH3 evaporator EḊ , EVA−NH3 = E17

̇ − E18
̇ − ΔEcė −NH
3

NH3 heat exchanger EḊ , HE−NH3 = E13

̇ + E20
̇ − E11
̇ − E14
̇

NH3 pump EḊ , PUM−NH3 = E19

̇ + WPUM ̇
̇ −NH − E20
3

NH3 absorber EḊ , ABS−NH3 = E15

̇ + E18
̇ − E19
̇ − ΔEcw
̇ −NH
3

Table 9. Theoretical and Unavoidable Conditions for Each Component of CARS

Component Ideal conditionsa Unavoidable conditionsb Real conditionsc
LiBr generator ΔT =0K ΔT = 0.25 K ΔT = 10 K
LiBr condenser ΔT =0K ΔT = 0.25 K ΔT = 10 K
LiBr absorber ΔT =0K ΔT = 0.25 K ΔT = 10 K
LiBr heat exchanger ΔT =0K ΔT = 0.25 K ΔT = 10 K
LiBr pump η= 100% η= 95% η= 90%
NH3 generator ΔT =0K ΔT = 0.25 K ΔT = 10 K
NH3 condenser ΔT =0K ΔT = 0.2 5K ΔT = 10 K
NH3 evaporator ΔT =0K ΔT = 0.25 K ΔT =3K
NH3 heat exchanger ΔT =0K ΔT = 0.25 K ΔT = 10 K
NH3 pump η= 100% η= 95% η= 90%
NH3 absorber ΔT =0K ΔT = 0.25 K ΔT = 10 K
a
Ideal conditions are obtained based on perfect ideal states. bUnavoidable conditions are set to an extremely low temperature difference and
thermal/pressure loss. cReal conditions are derived from the specific parameters in the simulation process design.

Table 10. Parameters of Equipment in the CARS

Equipment Capacity measure Base size Base cost ($) Cost exponent M rm rp rt
LiBr generator volume (m3) 5.0 1.15 × 104 0.53 1.00 1.60 1.00
LiBr condenser heat transfer area (m2) 80 3.28 × 104 0.68 1.00 2.00 1.00
LiBr absorber volume (m3) 5.0 1.15 × 104 0.53 1.00 2.00 1.00
LiBr heat exchanger heat transfer area (m2) 80 3.28 × 104 0.68 1.00 2.00 1.00
LiBr pump power (kW) 4 9.84 × 103 0.55 1.00 2.00 1.00
Distillation column mass (t) 8.0 6.5 × 104 0.89 1.00 1.02 1.00
Sieve trays column diameter (m) 0.5 6.56 × 103 0.91 1.00 1.02 1.00
NH3 condenser heat transfer area (m2) 80 3.28 × 104 0.68 1.00 1.02 1.00
NH3 evaporator heat transfer area (m2) 80 3.28 × 104 0.68 1.00 1.02 1.00
NH3 heat exchanger heat transfer area (m2) 80 3.28 × 104 0.68 1.00 1.02 1.00
NH3 pump power (kW) 4 9.84 × 103 0.55 1.00 1.02 1.00
NH3 absorber volume (m3) 0.1 4.92 × 103 0.53 2.40 1.00 1.00

The basis of the calculation of Ż UN ̇ AV

k and Zk is derived from Ċ UN,EN
D,k and Ż UN,EN
k are associated with the operation of the
Table 9.44 The calculation formula is expressed as follows: component and can be calculated by the following formulas:
UN , EN UN , EN
AV UN CḊ , k = cF , kEḊ , k (30)
Z ̇k = Z ̇k − Z ̇k
i y
(29)

EN j Ż z
= EṖ , k jjjj k zzzz
UN
The combinations of Ċ EN ̇ EX ̇ UN ̇ AV
k EP , k {
UN , EN
D , CD , CD , and CD are defined as Z ̇k
̇
follows.45 (31)

16849 DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b04396

ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 16843−16857
ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering Research Article

Table 11. Cost Equations for Different Components of EṖ , k EḊ , k

CARS εk = =1−
EḞ , k EḞ , k (38)
Component Cost equations
C1̇ + ZGEN
̇ −LiBr + CQ̇ −GEN − LiBr = Ċ2 + Ċ3 EṖ , k
LiBr generator εk , modified = UN AV , EX
LiBr condenser Ċ2 + ZCON
̇ −LiBr = C6̇ + Ccw
̇ −LiBr EḞ , k − E ̇ D,k − Ė D,k (39)
LiBr abosrber C5̇ + C8̇ + ZABS
̇ −LiBr = Ċ9 + Ccw
̇ −LiBr The exergy destruction ratio (yD) is used to identify
Ċ3 + C10
̇ + ZHE
̇ −LiBr = C1̇ + C4̇ inefficient components. The formulas for calculating yD are
LiBr heat exchanger
listed as follows:
LiBr pump Ċ9 + ZPUM
̇ −LiBr + ĊW −PUM−LiBr = C10
̇
EḊ , k
NH3 generator ̇ + ZGEN
C11 ̇ −NH + CQ̇ −GEN −NH = C12
̇ + C13
̇ yD , k =
3 3
EḊ , tot (40)
NH3 condenser ̇ + ZCON
C12 ̇ + Ccw
̇ −NH = C16 ̇ − NH
3 3
EN , AV
NH3 evaporator ̇ + ZEVA
C17 ̇ + + Ccė −NH
̇ −NH = C18 Ė D,k
3 3 y adv =
NH3 heat exchanger ̇ + Ċ20 + ZHE
C13 ̇ + C14
̇ −NH = C11 ̇
D,k
EḊ , tot (41)
3

NH3 pump ̇ + ZPUM

C19 ̇ −NH + ĊW −PUM−NH = Ċ20 The exergoeconomic factor (f) shows the relationship
3 3
between the exergy destruction cost and the investment cost
NH3 abosrber ̇ + C18
C15 ̇ + ZABS ̇ + Ccw
̇ −NH = C19 ̇ −NH
3 3 of components. The calculation formula is expressed as
follows:
Z ̇k
Ċ D,k
UN,EX
and Ż kUN,EX are derived from the remaining fk =
Żk + CḊ , k (42)
components and can be formulated as follows:
UN , EX UN , EX AV , EN
CḊ , k = cF , kEḊ , k (32) Z ̇k
fkAV , EN = AV , EN AV , EN
UN , EX UN UN , EN Ż k + CḊ , k (43)
Z ̇k = Z ̇k − Z ̇k (33)
The total cost rate (f) is the sum of the exergy and
Ċ AV,EN
D,k and Ż AV,EN
k are associated with the operation of the investment cost rates for each component of the system. The
component and can be computed as follows: formulas for calculating this rate are listed as follows:
AV , EN AV , EN
CḊ , k = cF , kEḊ , k (34) Ṙ tot = Żk + CḊ , k (44)
AV , EN EN UN , EN
Z ̇k = Z ̇k − Z ̇k (35) Ṙ totAV , EN = Żk
AV , EN AV , EN
+ CḊ , k (45)

■
Ċ D,k
AV,EX
and Ż kAV,EX are derived from the remaining
components, which are formulated as follows: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
AV , EN AV , EN
CḊ , k = cF , kEḊ , k (36) Conventional Exergy and Exergoeconomic analysis
of CARS. Table 12 shows the results of the conventional
AV , EX
Z ̇k
EX UN , EX
= Z ̇k − Z ̇k (37) exergy and exergoeconomic analysis. Ė D of the entire process is
1179.176 kW. Ė D in the LiBr heat exchanger attains the highest

■ PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
The exergy efficiency (ε) of a component is the ratio of the
desired output exergy to the input exergy46,47 and demon-
strates the ability of components to utilize low-grade waste
heat. The calculation formulas are expressed as follows:
energy (437.447 kW) and accounts for 37.10% of the total
energy due to the lower temperature of the heat stream in the
LiBr heat exchanger. The second highest Ė D is obtained from
two generators; each generator accounts for 22.02%. This
finding shows that Ė D is higher in the process of heating the
system with waste heat. The highest Ċ D is derived from the

Table 12. Results of Conventional Exergy and Exergoeconomic Analysis of Each Component

Component Ė F (kW) Ė P (kW) Ė D (kW) cF ($/GJ) cP ($/GJ) Ċ D ($/h) Ż ($/h) ε (%) yD (%) f (%) Ṙ tot ($/h)
LiBr generator 949.612 689.907 259.705 3.882 5.344 3.630 1.246 72.65 22.02 25.56 4.876
LiBr condenser 242.414 210.824 31.590 4.608 5.298 0.524 6.336 86.97 2.68 92.36 6.860
LiBr absorber 228.863 195.157 33.706 5.357 6.282 0.650 1.546 85.27 2.86 70.39 2.196
LiBr heat exchanger 1363.874 926.427 437.447 4.608 6.784 7.257 2.721 67.93 37.10 27.27 9.978
LiBr pump 0.142 0.110 0.032 19.310 24.930 0.002 0.134 77.46 0.00 98.37 0.136
NH3 generator 693.379 433.719 259.660 3.882 6.206 3.629 7.502 62.55 22.02 67.40 11.131
NH3 condenser 76.943 57.231 19.712 5.609 7.541 0.398 3.720 74.38 1.67 90.33 4.118
NH3 evaporator 320.772 280.221 40.551 7.541 8.632 1.101 0.734 87.36 3.44 40.00 1.835
NH3 heat exchanger 199.682 134.551 65.131 5.609 8.324 1.315 0.703 67.38 5.52 34.83 2.018
NH3 pump 5.248 1.710 3.538 19.310 59.260 0.246 0.498 32.58 0.30 66.95 0.744
NH3 absorber 110.221 82.117 28.104 8.561 11.491 0.866 4.066 74.50 2.38 82.44 4.933

16850 DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b04396

ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 16843−16857
ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering Research Article

Table 13. Results of Advanced Exergy Destruction Rate in CARS

Component Ė D (kW) Ė EN
D (kW) Ė EX
D (kW) Ė UN
D (kW) Ė AV
D (kW) Ė UN,EN
D (kW) Ė UN,EX
D (kW) Ė AV,EN
D (kW) Ė AV,EX
D (kW)
LiBr generator 259.705 187.897 71.808 169.208 90.497 124.972 44.236 62.925 27.572
LiBr condenser 31.590 8.113 23.478 22.609 8.982 5.045 17.564 3.068 5.914
LiBr absorber 33.706 24.491 9.215 25.156 8.551 17.852 7.304 6.639 1.911
LiBr heat exchanger 437.447 292.135 145.312 388.937 48.510 260.623 128.314 31.512 16.998
LiBr pump 0.032 0.028 0.000 0.026 0.006 0.023 0.003 0.005 0.001
NH3 generator 259.660 182.263 77.397 164.351 95.309 119.160 45.191 63.103 32.206
NH3 condenser 19.712 5.801 13.911 14.475 5.237 4.124 10.351 1.677 3.560
NH3 evaporator 40.551 35.637 4.913 25.580 14.970 22.531 3.049 13.106 1.864
NH3 heat exchanger 65.131 44.357 20.774 57.922 7.209 39.684 18.238 4.673 2.536
NH3 pump 3.538 3.208 0.330 3.068 0.470 2.768 0.300 0.440 0.030
NH3 absorber 28.104 21.808 6.296 19.593 8.511 15.641 3.952 6.167 2.344

Table 14. Results of Advanced Exergy Destruction Cost Rate in CARS

Component Ċ D ($/h) Ċ EN
D ($/h) Ċ EX
D ($/h) Ċ UN
D ($/h) Ċ AV
D ($/h) Ċ UN,EN
D ($/h) Ċ UN,EX
D ($/h) Ċ AV,EN
D ($/h) Ċ AV,EX
D ($/h)
LiBr generator 3.630 2.626 1.004 2.365 1.265 1.747 0.618 0.880 0.385
LiBr condenser 0.524 0.135 0.389 0.375 0.149 0.084 0.291 0.051 0.098
LiBr absorber 0.650 0.472 0.178 0.485 0.165 0.344 0.141 0.128 0.037
LiBr heat exchanger 7.257 4.846 2.411 6.452 0.805 4.324 2.129 0.523 0.282
LiBr pump 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000
NH3 generator 3.629 2.547 1.082 2.297 1.332 1.665 0.632 0.882 0.450
NH3 condenser 0.398 0.117 0.281 0.292 0.106 0.083 0.209 0.034 0.072
NH3 evaporator 1.101 0.968 0.133 0.695 0.406 0.612 0.083 0.356 0.051
NH3 heat exchanger 1.315 0.896 0.419 1.169 0.146 0.801 0.368 0.094 0.051
NH3 pump 0.246 0.223 0.023 0.213 0.033 0.192 0.021 0.031 0.002
NH3 absorber 0.866 0.672 0.194 0.604 0.262 0.482 0.122 0.190 0.072

Table 15. Results of Advanced Investment Cost Rate in CARS

Component Ż ($/h) Ż EN ($/h) Ż EX ($/h) Ż UN ($/h) Ż AV ($/h) Ż UN,EN ($/h) Ż UN,EX ($/h) Ż AV,EN ($/h) Ż AV,EX ($/h)
LiBr generator 1.246 1.003 0.244 0.895 0.351 0.767 0.128 0.236 0.116
LiBr condenser 6.336 4.227 2.109 5.800 0.536 4.115 1.685 0.112 0.424
LiBr absorber 1.546 1.340 0.205 1.315 0.231 1.159 0.156 0.182 0.049
LiBr heat exchanger 2.721 2.192 0.529 2.266 0.455 1.845 0.421 0.347 0.108
LiBr pump 0.134 0.106 0.028 0.124 0.011 0.103 0.021 0.003 0.007
NH3 generator 7.502 6.397 1.104 6.009 1.492 5.228 0.781 1.170 0.323
NH3 condenser 3.720 2.403 1.326 2.960 0.770 2.144 0.816 0.250 0.510
NH3 evaporator 0.734 0.534 0.190 0.585 0.139 0.448 0.137 0.096 0.053
NH3 heat exchanger 0.703 0.573 0.130 0.561 0.142 0.485 0.076 0.088 0.054
NH3 pump 0.498 0.386 0.102 0.434 0.054 0.343 0.091 0.044 0.021
NH3 absorber 4.066 3.009 1.058 3.093 0.973 2.352 0.741 0.657 0.316

LiBr heat exchanger (7.257 $/h). Similarly, Ċ D of the
components with less Ė D is lower than that with a high Ė D.
The components with higher Ż are the NH3 generator (7.502
$/h), LiBr condenser (6.336 $/h), NH3 absorber (4.066 $/h),
and NH3 condenser (3.720 $/h).
As shown in Table 12, the higher the total cost rate is (Ṙ tot )
of the components, the greater the impact is on CARS. The
importance of each component to the system cost can be
determined. The NH3 generator (11.131 $/h) and LiBr heat
exchanger (9.978 $/h) have the highest Ṙ tot . From an
nents. For other components of the system, reducing the
investment costs is a more effective way to optimize them.
Advanced Exergy and Exergoeconomic Analyses of
CARS. Advanced analyses results of Ė D, Ċ D, and Ż are shown in
Tables 13, 14, and 15, respectively.
Figure 4 shows the advanced analysis results of Ė D. With the
exception that the LiBr condenser (55.60% unavoidable and
18.72% avoidable) and the NH 3 condenser (52.51%
unavoidable and 18.06% avoidable) have a high Ė EX ̇ EN
D , ED of
other components occupies the main part. A high Ė D occurs in
AV

exergoeconomic point of view, these components are
important.
The exergoeconomic factor (f) is effective for evaluating a
component economy. A high f value indicates that Ż should be
reduced, while a low f value indicates that Ċ D should be
reduced. For the LiBr generator, LiBr heat exchanger, NH3
evaporator, and NH3 heat exchanger, a reduction in the exergy
destruction should be considered to optimize these compo-
16851
the LiBr generator (24.23% endogenous and 10.62%
exogenous), NH 3 generator (24.30% endogenous and
12.40% exogenous), and NH3 evaporator (32.32% endogenous
and 4.60% exogenous) because the pressure drop and heat
transfer to the environment are neglected. For pumps, the
change in pressure is the main cause of Ė D. For other
components, the temperature difference between hot fluids
and cold fluids explains their irreversibility. With the exception
DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b04396
ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 16843−16857
ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering Research Article

Figure 4. Advanced exergy destruction rate of the components in CARS.

Figure 5. Advanced investment cost rate of the components in CARS.

of two condensers, the Ė AV,EN

D part of other components is
higher than the Ė AV,EX
D part.
Specific information about Ċ D is shown in Table 14.
According to eqs 30, 32, 34, and 36, Ċ D is calculated from Ė D.
Therefore, the results of Ċ D are similar to those in Figure 4.
Figure 5 shows the advanced analysis results of Ż for the
components. The gray part accounts for the majority, which
16852
shows that the main part of Ż is unavoidable. The LiBr
generator (18.90%), NH3 absorber (16.15%), and NH3
generator (15.59%) have the highest Ż AV,EN, which show that
they have a greater possibility of reducing Ż . Ż UN accounts for
the vast majority of the total, which indicates that reducing Ż is
difficult.
DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b04396
ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 16843−16857
ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering
Figure 6. Advanced analysis results in the CARS.
Figure 7. Comparisons of exergy analysis results including conventional and advanced.
The results of Ė D, Ċ D, and Ż of the entire system are shown
in Figure 6. These results indicate that 68.33% of Ė D in the
system is Ė EN ̇ AV
D , and only 8.05% of ED is exogenous, which show
that Ė D of the components has a significant effect on the
EN
system, while Ė DEX obtained by the interactions among
components has a lesser effect. Therefore, the focus of the
work should be to reduce Ė EN D of the system components. The
middle part of Figure 6 is Ċ D. The majority of Ċ D needs to be
avoided by optimizing the components; however, some are
exogenous, which requires improvement of the entire system.
The results show that 75.91% of Ż is derived from the
component. In addition, the value of Ż AV is 5.14 $/h, which
accounts for 17.68% of the total. The overwhelming majority
of Ż is unavoidable. Therefore, optimizing Ż is more difficult
than optimizing Ċ D.
The exergy analysis results, including the conventional and
advanced results, are illustrated and compared in Figure 7. The
LiBr heat exchanger has the highest Ė D. However, the results
also show that Ė AV,EN
D of the LiBr heat exchanger is only 2.67%.
16853
Research Article
Ė AV,EN
D of the LiBr generator and NH3 generator are 5.34% and
5.35%, respectively. Therefore, the priority of improving the
generator is higher than that of the LiBr heat exchanger.
Generators are the most important source of system
improvement.
The advanced exergoeconomic analysis results in Figure 8
show that the highest Ṙ tot is obtained by the NH3 generator,
followed by the LiBr heat exchanger and LiBr condenser.
Ṙ totAV , EN of the LiBr condenser is lower, whereas Ṙ totAV , EN of the
LiBr generator and NH3 absorber is higher. Ṙ totAV , EN of the
NH3 generator is the highest. In terms of Ṙ tot , priority should
be given to improving the component with a high value of
Ṙ totAV , EN represented by the NH3 generator.
The results of the performance criteria are listed in Table 16.
From the point of view of eliminating Ė D, the LiBr generator,
LiBr heat exchanger, and NH3 generator have potential for
improvement. The results of the exergoeconomic factor show
DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b04396
ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 16843−16857
ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering Research Article

Figure 8. Comparisons of exergoeconomic analysis results including conventional and advanced.

Table 16. Performance Criteria of Conventional and Advanced Analysis

Component ε (%) yD (%) f (%) Ṙ tot ($/h) εmodif ied (%) yadv
D (%) fAV,EN (%) Ṙ AV,EN
tot ($/h)
LiBr generator 72.65 22.02 25.56 4.876 88.40 5.34 21.13 1.115
LiBr condenser 86.97 2.68 92.36 6.860 95.91 0.26 68.79 0.163
LiBr absorber 85.27 2.86 70.39 2.196 95.80 0.56 58.64 0.310
LiBr heat exchanger 67.93 37.10 27.27 9.978 95.02 2.67 39.89 0.870
LiBr pump 77.46 0.00 98.37 0.136 94.83 0.00 90.90 0.003
NH3 generator 62.55 22.02 67.40 11.131 81.98 5.35 57.01 2.052
NH3 condenser 74.38 1.67 90.33 4.118 91.62 0.14 88.06 0.284
NH3 evaporator 87.36 3.44 40.00 1.835 94.93 1.11 21.25 0.452
NH3 heat exchanger 67.38 5.52 34.83 2.018 94.91 0.40 48.30 0.183
NH3 pump 32.58 0.30 66.95 0.744 78.44 0.04 58.77 0.074
NH3 absorber 74.50 2.38 82.44 4.933 90.61 0.52 77.55 0.847

Table 17. Strategies for Reducing Avoidable Exergy Destruction Cost Rate
The categories of Ċ D ($/h) Strategies to reduce Ċ D
Component Ċ D Ċ AV
D Ċ AV,EN
D Ċ AV,EX
D The part should be focused Strategy A a
Strategy Bb Strategy Cc
LiBr generator 3.630 1.265 0.880 0.385 EN/EX √ √
LiBr condenser 0.524 0.149 0.051 0.098 EX √
LiBr absorber 0.650 0.165 0.128 0.037 EN √
LiBr heat exchanger 7.257 0.805 0.523 0.282 EN/EX √ √ √
LiBr pump 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 EN √
NH3 generator 3.629 1.332 0.882 0.450 EN/EX √ √
NH3 condenser 0.398 0.106 0.034 0.072 EX √ √
NH3 evaporator 1.101 0.406 0.356 0.051 EN √ √
NH3 heat exchanger 1.315 0.146 0.094 0.051 EN/EX √ √ √
NH3 pump 0.246 0.033 0.031 0.002 EN √
NH3 absorber 0.866 0.262 0.190 0.072 EN √ √
a
A: Improve the efficiency of the components or replace components with effective devices. B: Improve the efficiency of other components. cC:
b

Optimize the structure of the entire system.

that the LiBr generator and NH3 evaporator have lower values
and should be considered to reduce their Ċ D. Other
components, especially the LiBr pump and NH3 condenser,
have higher exergoeconomic factor values and should reduce
their Ż .
Table 17 presents three strategies for reducing Ċ DAV.
Components with higher Ċ AV,EN
D and Ċ AV,EX
D should choose
strategy A and strategy B, respectively. The components
related to system coupling should choose strategy C.
16854
Depending on the parts of each component that are selected,
the strategy of each component is determined.
Parametric Study. In this section, the influence of the
parameters, such as refrigeration temperature and LiBr
evaporator temperature, on Ż and Ė D are investigated.
As shown in Figure 9, as the refrigeration temperature
increases, Ż of the system decreases, but the speed of decline
does not decrease. While Ė D decreases, the speed of decline
does not decrease. This finding shows that increasing the
refrigeration temperature can reduce Ż and Ė D of the system.
DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b04396
ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 16843−16857
ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering Research Article

(4) The LiBr condenser (74.32%) and NH3 condenser

(70.57%) have the highest Ė EX
D , which show that they are
most affected by other components of the system.
(5) The components with the highest Ċ D are the LiBr heat
exchanger (7.257 $/h), LiBr generator (3.630 $/h), and
NH3 generator (3.629 $/h). Consideration should be
given to reducing their Ċ D.
(6) The highest Ż is obtained from the NH3 generator
(7.502 $/h). The results of the exergoeconomic factor
show that the focus should be on reducing the Ż of other
componets, with the exception of the LiBr generator,
LiBr heat exchanger, NH3 evaporator, and NH3 heat
exchanger.
(7) The changes in the refrigeration temperature and LiBr
evaporator temperature will have a significant influence
Figure 9. Influence of refrigeration temperature on CARS. on the thermodynamic and economic performances of
CARS.

■
Figure 10 shows the results of the LiBr evaporator
temperature as a parameter. As the LiBr evaporator temper- AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail: ceshyang@csu.edu.cn.
ORCID
Peizhe Cui: 0000-0001-6390-9287
Yinglong Wang: 0000-0002-3043-0891
Zhiqiang Liu: 0000-0002-6504-0543
Sheng Yang: 0000-0002-3119-8131
Author Contributions
∥
These authors contributed equally to the paper.
Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Figure 10. Influence of LiBr evaporator temperature on CARS.
■ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work is supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Nos. 21776145, 21676152, 21808117,
and 51676209), Talent Fund of Shandong Collaborative
Innovation Center of Eco-Chemical Engineering
(XTCXQN03), and State Key Laboratory Base of Eco-
chemical Engineering (STHG1803).

■
ature increases, Ż decreases, but Ė D increases. Therefore, the
relationship between them should be weighed to determine the NOMENCLATURE
optimal temperature. Specific methods are introduced in our ̇
C = exergy cost rate ($/h)
previous work.48

■
c = unit exergy cost ($/GJ)
CONCLUSIONS Ė = exergy rate (kW)
f = exergoeconomic factor
In this article, advanced exergy and exergoeconomic analyses h = specific enthalpy (kJ/kg)
of CARS driven by low-grade waste heat is performed. The I ̇ = investment cost ($)
results show that the irreversibility and inefficiency of i = interest rate (%)
components can be better understood by using advanced M = price index
analysis methods. The main results of this article are detailed as ṁ = mass flow rate (kg/s)
follows: N = system life (year)
(1) By optimization of CARS, 24.44% of Ė D and 23.80% of P = pressure (kPa)
Ċ D can be avoided. In addition, 17.68% of Ż in the Q̇ = heat transfer rate (kW)
system is avoidable. Ṙ = cost rate ($/h)
(2) The highest Ė D is derived from the LiBr heat exchanger r = revised factor
(437.447 kW); 88.91% is unavoidable, while the NH3 S = equipment size
generator (95.309 kW) obtains the highest Ė AV D . s = specific entropy (kJ/kg·K)
(3) The results indicate that 68.33% of Ė D is endogenous, T = temperature (K)
and 31.67% of Ė D is exogenous. By optimization, Ė EN D t = annual working hour (h)
and Ė DEX can be reduced by 16.39% and 8.05%, Ẇ = power (kW)
respectively. Therefore, endogenous optimization of x = mass concentration
components should be given priority. y = exergy destruction ratio
16855 DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b04396
ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 16843−16857
ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering Research Article

Ż = investment cost rate ($/h) (2) Miró, L.; Gasia, J.; Cabeza, L. F. Thermal energy storage (TES)
z = mole fraction for industrial waste heat (IWH) recovery: A review. Appl. Energy
2016, 179, 284−301.
Greek Symbols (3) He, Y.; Liao, N.; Zhou, Y. Analysis on provincial industrial
ε = exergy efficiency (%) energy efficiency and its influencing factors in China based on DEA-
φ = maintenance factor RS-FANN. Energy 2018, 142, 79−89.
η = isentropic efficiency (%) (4) Yang, S.; Deng, C.; Liu, Z. Optimal design and analysis of a
α = capital recovery factor cascade LiBr/H2O absorption refrigeration/transcritical CO2 process
for low-grade waste heat recovery. Energy Convers. Manage. 2019, 192,
Superscripts
232−242.
AV = avoidable (5) Peris, B.; Navarro-Esbrí, J.; Molés, F.; Mota-Babiloni, A.
AV,EN = avoidable endogenous Experimental study of an ORC (organic Rankine cycle) for low
AV,EX = avoidable exogenous grade waste heat recovery in a ceramic industry. Energy 2015, 85,
adv = advanced 534−542.
ch = chemical (6) Wang, Y.; Liu, X.; Kraslawski, A.; Gao, J.; Cui, P. A novel process
EN = endogenous design for CO2 capture and H2S removal from the syngas using ionic
EX = exogenous liquid. J. Cleaner Prod. 2019, 213, 480−490.
ph = physical (7) Hong, D.; Tang, L.; He, Y.; Chen, G. A novel absorption
UN = unavoidable refrigeration cycle. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2010, 30 (14−15), 2045−2050.
UN,EN = unavoidable endogenous (8) Fan, Y.; Luo, L.; Souyri, B. Review of solar sorption refrigeration
technologies: Development and applications. Renewable Sustainable
UN,EX = unavoidable exogenous
Energy Rev. 2007, 11 (8), 1758−1775.
Subscripts (9) Yari, M.; Zarin, A.; Mahmoudi, S. M. S. Energy and exergy
ABS = absorber analysis of GAX and GAX hybrid absorption refrigeration cycles.
b = base equipment Renewable Energy 2011, 36 (7), 2011−2020.
CON = condenser (10) Alelyani, S. M.; Fette, N. W.; Stechel, E. B.; Doron, P.; Phelan,
ce = cold energy P. E. Techno-economic analysis of combined ammonia-water
cw = cooling water absorption refrigeration and desalination. Energy Convers. Manage.
2017, 143, 493−504.
D = destruction
(11) Kaushik, S. C.; Arora, A. Energy and exergy analysis of single
EVA = evaporator effect and series flow double effect water-lithium bromide absorption
e = actual equipment refrigeration systems. Int. J. Refrig. 2009, 32 (6), 1247−1258.
ele = electricity (12) Dopazo, J. A.; Fernández-Seara, J.; Sieres, J.; Uhía, F. J.
F = fuel Theoretical analysis of a CO2-NH3 cascade refrigeration system for
GEN = generator cooling applications at low temperatures. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2009, 29
HE = heat exchanger (8−9), 1577−1583.
i = component i (13) Wang, J.; Dai, Y.; Zhang, T.; Ma, S. Parametric analysis for a
in = inlet new combined power and ejector-absorption refrigeration cycle.
k = kth component Energy 2009, 34 (10), 1587−1593.
lgwh = low-grade waste heat (14) Cimsit, C.; Ozturk, I. T. Analysis of compression-absorption
LiBr = LiBr/H2O system cascade refrigeration cycles. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2012, 40, 311−317.
m = material (15) Salehzadeh, A.; Saray, R. K.; JalaliVahid, D. Investigating the
effect of several thermodynamic parameters on exergy destruction in
NH3 = NH3/H2O system
components of a tri-generation cycle. Energy 2013, 52, 96−109.
out = outlet (16) Anvari, S.; Saray, R. K.; Bahlouli, K. Conventional and
P = product advanced exergetic and exergoeconomic analysis applied to a tri-
PUM = pump generation cycle for heat, cold and power production. Energy 2015,
p = pressure 91, 925−939.
r = revised (17) Morosuk, T.; Tsatsaronis, G. A new approach to the exergy
t = temperature analysis of absorption refrigeration machines. Energy 2008, 33 (6),
tot = total 890−907.
0 = standard state (18) Bagheri, B. S.; Shirmohammadi, R.; Mahmoudi, S. M. S.;
1, 2, 3 = state points Rosen, M. A. Optimization and comprehensive exergy-based analysis
of a parallel flow double-effect water-lithium bromide absorption
Abbreviations refrigeration system. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2019, 152, 643−653.
ARS = absorption refrigeration system (19) Chen, J.; Havtun, H.; Palm, B. Conventional and advanced
CARS = cascade absorption refrigeration system exergy analysis of an ejector refrigeration system. Appl. Energy 2015,
CEPCI = chemical economic plant cost index 144, 139−151.
COP = coefficient of performance (20) Ansarinasab, H.; Mehrpooya, M. Advanced exergoeconomic
GAX = generator−absorber−heat exchanger analysis of a novel process for production of LNG by using a single

■
REFERENCES
(1) Wang, Q.; Hu, Y. J.; Hao, J.; Lv, N.; Li, T. Y.; Tang, B. J.
Exploring the influences of green industrial building on the energy
consumption of industrial enterprises: A case study of Chinese
cigarette manufactures. J. Cleaner Prod. 2019, 231, 370−385.
effect absorption refrigeration cycle. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2017, 114,
719−732.
(21) Khan, M. M. A.; Saidur, R.; Al-Sulaiman, F. A. A review for
phase change materials (PCMs) in solar absorption refrigeration
systems. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2017, 76, 105−137.
(22) Srikhirin, P.; Aphornratana, S.; Chungpaibulpatana, S. A review
of absorption refrigeration technologies. Renewable Sustainable Energy
Rev. 2001, 5 (4), 343−372.

16856 DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b04396

ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 16843−16857
ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering Research Article

(23) Belvèze, L. S.; Brennecke, J. F.; Stadtherr, M. A. Modeling of (44) Tsatsaronis, G.; Park, M. H. On avoidable and unavoidable
activity coefficients of aqueous solutions of quaternary ammonium exergy destructions and investment costs in thermal systems. Energy
salts with the electrolyte-NRTL equation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2004, Convers. Manage. 2002, 43, 1259−1270.
43 (3), 815−825. (45) Alavi, O.; Mostafaeipour, A.; Qolipour, M. Analysis of hydrogen
(24) Johnston, S. M. XXXII.-The Boiling and Freezing Points of production from wind energy in the southeast of Iran. Int. J. Hydrogen
Concentrated Aqueous Solutions, and the Question of the Hydration Energy 2016, 41 (34), 15158−15171.
of the Solute. Trans. - R. Soc. Edinburgh 1908, 45 (4), 855−884. (46) Kanoglu, M.; Dincer, I.; Rosen, M. A. Understanding energy
(25) Salavera, D.; Chaudhari, S. K.; Esteve, X.; Coronas, A. Vapor - and exergy efficiencies for improved energy management in power
liquid equilibria of ammonia + water + potassium hydroxide and plants. Energy Policy 2007, 35 (7), 3967−3978.
ammonia + water + sodium hydroxide solutions at temperatures from (47) Tsatsaronis, G.; Park, M. H. On avoidable and unavoidable
exergy destructions and investment costs in thermal systems. Energy
(293.15 to 353.15) K. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2005, 50 (2), 471−476.
(26) Ebrahimi, K.; Jones, G. F.; Fleischer, A. S. Thermo-economic Convers. Manage. 2002, 43 (9−12), 1259−1270.
(48) Cui, P.; Yu, M.; Liu, Z.; Zhu, Z.; Yang, S. Energy, exergy, and
analysis of steady state waste heat recovery in data centers using
economic (3E) analysis and multi-objective optimization of a cascade
absorption refrigeration. Appl. Energy 2015, 139, 384−397. absorption refrigeration system for low-grade waste heat recovery.
(27) Ouadha, A.; El-Gotni, Y. Integration of an ammonia-water Energy Convers. Manage. 2019, 184, 249−261.
absorption refrigeration system with a marine Diesel engine: A
thermodynamic study. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2013, 19, 754−761.
(28) Yang, S.; Wang, Y.; Gao, J.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, Z.; Olabi, A. G.
Performance analysis of a novel cascade absorption refrigeration for
low-grade waste heat recovery. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2018, 6
(7), 8350−8363.
(29) Grossman, G.; Wilk, M. Advanced modular simulation of
absorption systems. Int. J. Refrig. 1994, 17 (4), 231−244.
(30) She, X.; Yin, Y.; Xu, M.; Zhang, X. A novel low-grade heat-
driven absorption refrigeration system with LiCl-H2O and LiCl-H2O
working pairs. Int. J. Refrig. 2015, 58, 219−234.
(31) Jain, V.; Sachdeva, G. Energy, exergy, economic (3E) analysis
and multi-objective optimization of vapor absorption heat transformer
using NSGA-II technique. Energy Convers. Manage. 2017, 148, 1096−
1113.
(32) Mehrpooya, M.; Gharagheizi, F.; Vatani, A. Thermoeconomic
analysis of a large industrial propane refrigeration cycle used in NGL
recovery plant. Int. J. Energy Res. 2009, 33 (11), 960−977.
(33) Yang, S.; Qian, Y.; Yang, S. Development of a Full CO2 Capture
process based on the rectisol wash technology. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
2016, 55 (21), 6186−6193.
(34) Mehrpooya, M.; Mousavi, S. A. Advanced exergoeconomic
assessment of a solar-driven Kalina cycle. Energy Convers. Manage.
2018, 178, 78−91.
(35) Açıkkalp, E.; Aras, H.; Hepbasli, A. Advanced exergoeconomic
analysis of an electricity-generating facility that operates with natural
gas. Energy Convers. Manage. 2014, 78, 452−460.
(36) Vatani, A.; Mehrpooya, M.; Palizdar, A. Advanced exergetic
analysis of five natural gasliquefaction processes. Energy Convers.
Manage. 2014, 78, 720−737.
(37) Kelly, S.; Tsatsaronis, G.; Morosuk, T. Advanced exergetic
analysis: approaches forsplitting the exergy destruction into
endogenous and exogenous parts. Energy 2009, 34 (3), 384−391.
(38) Mehrpooya, M.; Ansarinasab, H. Advanced exergoeconomic
evaluation of single mixed refrigerant natural gas liquefaction
processes. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2015, 26, 782−791.
(39) Lazzaretto, A.; Tsatsaronis, G. SPECO: a systematic and
general methodology forcalculating efficiencies and costs in thermal
systems. Energy 2006, 31 (8), 1257−1289.
(40) Smith, R. Chemical Process Design and Integration; John Wiley,
2005.
(41) Sun, H.; Qiu, L. Comparison with ammonia absorption
refrigeration technique and compression refrigerationcraft in
economic efficiency. Chem. Eng. 2006, 125 (2), 49−50.
(42) Hou, S.; Cao, S.; Yu, L.; Zhou, Y.; Wu, Y.; Zhang, F.
Performance optimization of combined supercritical CO2 recompres-
sion cycle and regenerative organic Rankine cycle using zeotropic
mixture fluid. Energy Convers. Manage. 2018, 166, 187−200.
(43) Esfahani, I. J.; Lee, S.; Yoo, C. Evaluation and optimization of a
multi-effect evaporation-absorption heat pump desalination based
conventional and advanced exergy and exergoeconomic analyses.
Desalination 2015, 359, 92−107.

16857 DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b04396

ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 16843−16857