Desalination 563 (2023) 116721

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Desalination
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/desal

Thermodynamic, economic and environmental analyses of novel

concentrated solar-PV-thermal integrated combined power, cooling and
desalination system
Vinay Kumar Yadav , Jahar Sarkar *, Pradyumna Ghosh
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (B.H.U.), Varanasi, UP 221005, India

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Concentrated PV-thermal integrated

polygeneration for power, cooling and
water is proposed.
• Energy, exergy, economic and environ­
mental analyses are conducted using
ecofriendly fluids.
• Effects of seasonal climate change and
component sensitivity on performances
are evaluated.
• Design performance index of 0.351 and
annual total cost of 4566 $/yr are eval­
uated for R152a.
• Performance is found maximum in
January and annual total cost is found
minimum in June.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Solar concentrated photovoltaic-thermal collector integrated poly-generation system for simultaneous power,
Solar-driven multi-generation cooling and fresh water supply is highly promising for developing smart island/village. Hence, a novel system
Combined photovoltaic-thermal consisting of a concentrated photovoltaic-thermal collector, integrated organic Rankine cycle (for power), ejector
Organic Rankine cycle
refrigeration cycle (for cooling) and active solar still (for fresh water) is proposed. The system is analyzed based
Ejector cooling
Active solar still
on energy, exergy, economic and environmental perspectives using three eco-friendly refrigerants, R152a,
4E analyses R1234ze[Z] and R1233zd[E], under various operating conditions. Seasonal performance and component
sensitivity are evaluated as well. The novel system has the maximum value of the performance index of 0.351 as
well as an overall exergy efficiency of 4.15 %, whereas annual total cost, as well as equivalent CO2 emission, are
at their lowest values of 6125 $/yr and 301.7 tonnes/yr, respectively for R152a. Higher generator, as well as
evaporator, temperature but a lower ambient (surrounding) temperature will be better for thermodynamic
performance, but the annual cost, along with the equivalent CO2 emission, will increase. Performance index,
along with the overall exergy efficiency, are highest in January and lowest in April, whereas annual cost, as well

Abbreviations: CPCD, combined power, cooling and distillation; CPVT, concentrated photo-voltaic thermal; ERC, ejector refrigeration cycle; GWP, global warming
potential; LHV, latent heat of vaporization; LMTD, log mean temperature difference; MED, multi-effect desalination; PTC, parabolic trough collector; OEE, overall
exergy efficiency; ORC, organic Rankine cycle; ODP, ozone depletion potential; TEG, thermo-electric generator.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jsarkar.mec@itbhu.ac.in (J. Sarkar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2023.116721
Received 1 March 2023; Received in revised form 17 May 2023; Accepted 25 May 2023
Available online 29 May 2023
0011-9164/© 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
V.K. Yadav et al. Desalination 563 (2023) 116721

as CO2 emission, are lowest in June and highest in March. R152a is suggested as the best refrigerant for this
proposed multi-generation system based on its performance as well as its eco-friendly nature.

Nomenclature μ Entrainment ratio

φm Mixing loss factor
A Heat exchange area (m2) ρ Refrigerant density (kg/m3)
Bo Boiling number δ Thickness
G Mass flow rate per unit area (kg/s m2)
h Specific enthalpy (J/kg) Subscript & superscript
I Irreversibility (W) 0 Ambient
Ibs Beam solar insolation (W/m2 K) a Actual
Its Total solar insolation (W/m2 K) b Basin
i Rate of interest c Condenser
k Thermal conductivity (W/m K) conv Convection
K Ratio of specific heat C Concentration ratio
M Mach number CI Capital investment
ṁo Mass flow rate of oil inside collector (kg/s) e Evaporator
ṁe Mass flow rate of refrigerant inside evaporator (kg/s) ej Ejector
ṁew Mass flow rate of distillate water (kg/s) ev Expansion valve
ṁg Mass flow rate of refrigerant inside generator (kg/s) ew Evaporation of water
ṁg,1 Mass flow rate of refrigerant through the motive stream of g Generator
the ejector (kg/s) gl Glass
ṁg,2 Mass flow rate of refrigerant inside turbine (kg/s) in Input
Nu Nusselt number il Inside layer
PI Performance index ins Insulation
PLR Pressure lift ratio invt Inverter
Pr Prandtl number ISE Incident solar energy
Q Heat exchange rate (W) mod Module
q̇ Heat flux (W/m2) o Thermal oil
Re Reynolds number ol Outside layer
s Specific entropy (J/kg K) opt Optical
T Temperature (◦ C) out Output
tplate Plate thickness (m) p Pump
U Overall heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 K) ph Preheater
V Refrigerant velocity (m/s) rad Radiation
W Work done (W) rec Receiver
ss Solar still
Ẋ Rate of exergy flow (W)
u Useful
Ż Investment of capital per year ($/yr)
w Water
Greek symbols t Turbine
η Efficiency th Thermal
γ Coefficient for convection heat transfer (W/m2 K)

these processes, depending on the requirements [2].

1. Introduction
The current global issues include access to safe drinking water, en­
ergy security, environmental protection and sustainability, and the de­
mands for power, cooling, and freshwater are rising due to population
increase and higher living standards, which is especially noticeable on
island platforms [1]. In fact, combining the production of freshwater,
refrigeration, and power can result in efficient solutions for island
platforms' multi-purpose needs. Creating cooling and fresh water from
the waste heat of the power cycle is also efficient and doable. Renewable
energy sources are a superior and more sustainable alternative to fossil
fuels for effective energy conversion in light of the rise in fuel prices.
Solar energy is a preferable choice compared to other renewable energy
sources because of its free availability and minimal environmental
impact. Throughout the past few years, researchers have used solar
energy for a broad range of applications, including desalination, elec­
tricity generation, cooling, heating/drying, and various combinations of
Particularly in countries with a high demand for air conditioning and
limited water resources, alternative energy-driven poly-generation sys­
tems may be able to provide electricity, air conditioning, and fresh water
in a sustainable manner. Other benefits of poly-generation systems
include output variety (such as cooling, heating, power generation,
desalination of water, and others), operational flexibility, upgradeabil­
ity, economic scalability, and dependability. In the literature, there are
several poly-generation system designs that utilize solar energy either on
its own or in combination with other renewable energy sources, fossil
fuels, or both. A hybrid solar-biomass-fired system for generating power,
space cooling and heating and hot water was suggested by Khalid et al.
[3], which has an energy efficiency of around 34.9 % and produces no
greenhouse gas emissions directly. A multi-effect system was suggested
by El-Emam and Dincer [4] featuring heliostat that includes reverse
osmosis desalination, steam turbines, electrolyzer, and single-effect
absorption chiller, which offered 90 kg/s of fresh water and 4 MW of
net electrical power. A multi-generation system that consists of

2
V.K. Yadav et al.
parabolic trough collectors (PTC), a thermoelectric generator (TEG), a
Rankine cycle, and a proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell was
studied by Habibollahzade et al. [5]. They optimized the system using a
genetic algorithm and obtained 13.9 % exergy efficiency. Dabwan et al.
[6] examined the solar tri-generation system, consisting of a gas turbine,
single-effect absorption chiller and multi-stage flash distillation system,
using a linear Fresnel reflector collector and claimed more economic
feasibility with an optimized solar field. Kerme et al. [7] analyzed an
organic Rankine cycle (ORC) powered by solar energy that drives a
multi-effect distillation (MED) system and a single-effect absorption
chiller, which produced 384.7 kW of net electrical power, 12.7 kW of
cooling effect and distillation rate of 6.8 kg/s. Yilmaz et al. [8] analyzed
a parabolic dish collector integrated system consisting of ORC, mem­
brane distillation unit, polymer electrolyte membrane electrolyzer,
quadruple-effect absorption cooling cycle, vapor compression heat
pump, and dryer cycle to provide energy, potable water, cooling, drying,
hot water and hydrogen. The system had an overall power generation of
11.5 MW, a cooling effect of 3026 kW, and freshwater production of
0.124 kg/s. Zhou et al. [9] proposed a hybrid ocean thermal energy
conversion system combining ejector refrigeration cycle (ERC), multi-
effect distillation, and ORC. The suggested system's primary energy-
saving ratio and energy efficiency may reach up to 33.72 % and
29.33 %, respectively. Abdelhay et al. [10] analyzed a solar-powered
poly-generation system that combines steam Rankine cycle, MED and
absorption refrigeration system and found the maximum energetic ef­
ficiency of 24 %. Saini et al. [11] proposed a solar-driven combined
power, heating and desalination system and obtained an overall energy
efficiency of 17.89 %. Recently, an exergy-economic analysis of a
combined cycle power plant that uses PTC to produce both water and
electricity was carried out by Ghasemiasl et al. [12]. There was a 12 %
increase in the cost of producing electricity as well as freshwater. Their
optimization results revealed that the exergy efficiency increased by
1.74 %.
The solar photovoltaic-thermal collector has better conversion effi­
ciency, as well as output v/s, cost incurred than a simple thermal col­
lector, but it has a lower working fluid outlet temperature (up to 60 ◦ C).
So, it is useful for space heating, hot water, etc., but not useful for neither
power generation nor producing cooling output [13]. Therefore, re­
searchers moved to the concentrating photovoltaic and thermal (CPVT)
collectors, which have outlet temperatures up to 250 ◦ C and are suitable
to run the power as well as the refrigeration cycle. There is little liter­
ature that advocates the use of CPVT in poly-generation systems. Calise
et al. [14] dynamically simulated a system that combines CPVT collec­
tor, geothermal well, MED system and single-stage absorption chiller.
Results showed that the system had high energy performance, particu­
larly in summer, while CPVT performance significantly declined in the
winter. Then, this poly-generation system was altered so that it could be
powered by a biomass-fired boiler and CPVT collectors [15]. Sadi et al.
[16] optimized a CPVT-based multi-generation system, including an
absorption chiller and biomass heater and reported maximum electricity
production of 593.4 kWh. Albaik et al. [17] evaluated a CPVT-based
multi-generation integrated with ORC, adsorption chiller with desali­
nation system and reported maximum efficiency of 68.5 %.
Solar CPVT-driven multi-generation systems that combine desali­
nation, electricity, and cooling might be highly practical and appealing
for isolated villages and islands in the direction of smart villages or
islands. However, despite the importance of this system, most of the
work done in the literature includes an absorption refrigeration system
for cooling and humidification and dehumidification for distillation, but
no work has been done which includes an ejector refrigeration system
for cooling, which is better than absorption refrigeration system in
various aspects, such as simpler (fewer components) and compact [18].
Similarly, for water distillation, active solar still is a better option for hot
and remote locations [19]. Although solar still has a lower distillation
rate, some experimental studies are also available focusing on its im­
provements. Omara et al. [20] investigated the effect of using double
3
Desalination 563 (2023) 116721
layers of wick on the basin liner of the solar still. The results indicated
that water productivity was enhanced by 114 % over conventional solar
still. Hansen and Murugavel [21] did an experimental study with three
different (flat, grooved and fin-shaped) types of absorbers and
concluded that the productivity of the system improved by 25.75 % with
fined shaped absorber. Basharat and Naiem [22] performed an experi­
mental study to optimization of the gap between the basin and the glass
cover of the solar still and concluded that the daily efficiency of the solar
still increased from 11.25 % to 39.6 %. Hence, the authors are inspired
to use the growing solar still technology for water distillation.
Therefore a novel multi-generation system is proposed, which in­
tegrates the modern CPVT solar collector with the ERC, ORC and solar
still for simultaneous cooling, power as well as water distillation for a
micro-scale application. The primary goal of the ongoing study is to
suggest and examine a unique solar CPVT-based combined power,
cooling, and desalination (CPCD) system, particularly for outlying areas
and scorching islands.
A revolutionary solar-powered CPVT integrated CPCD system, which
includes ORC, ERC, and active solar still, is the major goal of the current
study, especially for hot isolated areas and islands. In order to safeguard
the environment, it is preferable to increase energy output, reduce
irreversibility, cut costs, and reduce CO2 emission. As a result, evalua­
tions of the economy, environment, energy, and exergy are undertaken.
Here it is analyzed how various performance parameters (such as per­
formance index (PI), overall exergy efficiency (OEE), total cost (TC), and
mass of CO2 release) are affected by the variation of evaporator,
generator and ambient temperature as well as the mass fraction of col­
lector heat transfer fluid through a solar still. To know the sensitivity of a
component to affect the performance, the impact of different component
efficiencies is examined. Apart from this, this study shows how the
performance parameters of examined innovative cycle vary seasonally
(moth-wise) at Varanasi, in India.
2. Proposed CPVT-based CPCD system
For simultaneous delivery of electricity, drinkable water, and cool­
ing, small-scale combined power, cooling, and desalination (CPCD)
system powered by solar energy is a more dependable, clean, and effi­
cient method than traditional systems, particularly on hot isolated sites
and islands. The suggested solar-driven innovative CPCD system's
schematic is shown in Fig. 1 (the black color indicates the working fluid
and the red color indicates the thermal oil). Concentrated photovoltaic
and thermal (CPVT) collector, ejector, generator, preheater, turbine,
condenser, pump, and active solar still are some of the significant parts
of this system.
The suggested CPCD system is explained based on two working
material cycles: the primary is the thermal oil cycle and the secondary is
the working fluid cycle. The photovoltaic panel converts incident solar
radiation from the concentrator into electricity, but it also gets heated
and transfers this heat energy to the thermal oil flowing inside the col­
lector tubes, which absorb this energy and passes toward the generator
at point-13, where it heats the working fluid. The thermal oil that is
released from the generator at point-14 is divided into two streams; one
is supplied to the preheater (which takes energy from oil and heats the
refrigerant till it reaches to saturated liquid state) and comes out at
point-15 while the other is routed through serpentine piping at point-10
to the solar still to activate it alongside incident solar radiation on the
solar still exposed slant surface. The salty water available inside the solar
still takes the heat energy from both incident solar radiations on its top
as well as hot thermal oil flowing inside serpentine piping, and pure
water evaporates. The drinkable water that has evaporated from the
basin is condensed and gets collected in a storage tank. Then, the ther­
mal oil exiting from the solar still at point-11 is blended with an oil
stream piping out from the preheater and returned to the solar collector
shown at point-12. Therefore, the thermal oil cycle is finished and
repeated in this manner continually. One portion of the vaporized high-
V.K. Yadav et al. Desalination 563 (2023) 116721

Fig. 1. Layout of the proposed novel system.

pressure refrigerant at point-1 is expanded by an ORC turbine to provide

Table 1
electricity and the rest is supply to the ejector as the primary (motive)
Basic properties of the selected refrigerants.
stream, while the secondary (suction) stream comes from exiting the
evaporator after creating a cooling effect at point-7. The turbine and Refrigerants Molecular Critical LHV at ODP GWP Safety
mass (kg/ temperature 5 ◦C label
ejector outlets which are shown at point-2 and point-3, respectively,
kmol) (◦ C) (kJ/
combine and create a new state at point-4, which condenses inside the kg)
condenser and comes out at point-5. Then it separates into two parts
R152a 66 113.26 301.51 0 138 A2
again, one of which is supplied to the preheater at point-8 by a pump and R1234ze[Z] 114 150.27 217.76 0 6 A2L
the other to the evaporator via an expansion valve at point-6. The R1233zd[E] 131 166.6 202.38 0 1 A1
working fluid cycle is finished and repeated by sending the preheater
outlet to the generator. Overall, this system is capable of concurrently
producing electricity, cooling, and desalination effects. Common this study due to its large operating range as well as stability at higher
generator, condenser and pump for ORC and ERC, and best temperature temperatures and many other popular properties [24].
glide matching in the generator are some special features.
The appropriate selection of the refrigerants (working fluids) for this 3. Mathematical modeling and simulation
system design is also critical because the generator temperature is nearly
80–110 ◦ C but the evaporator temperature is 0–10 ◦ C so the refrigerants The performance and viability of the above CPCD system are
should have a large difference between its critical and normal boiling examined based on thermodynamic, economic, and environmental
temperatures. Therefore, the refrigerant used in an ERC as well as ORC viewpoints after developing a mathematical model of the system. The
must have a large operating range along with better performance which following assumptions have been taken into account to simplify the
is essential for this system. They should have no or negligible potential system analyses:
to harm the ozone layer as well as to increase global warming. The re­
frigerants should be non-toxic and non-corrosive for the high durability • All the operations of the CPCD system are in steady state condition.
of the system. R152a, R1234ze[Z], and R1233zd[E] are consequently • Fluid pressure loss is neglected in all the components as well as
selected for both ERC and ORC in the current study, and their basic connecting tubes of the system.
properties are listed in Table 1 [23]. We can also use a few zeotropic • All the components and connecting lines are fully insulated except
mixtures such as R401a, R409a, R412a, and R414a, etc., but they have the condenser and the PV panel.
the GWP of the order of 1100 to 2200. To operate this proposed system, • The refrigerant condition is maintained saturated vapor at the
the outlet temperature of the thermal oil (collector fluid) should be a generator outlet and the evaporator outlet also, but its condition is
minimum of 10 ◦ C higher than the generator temperature. So, the saturated liquid at the condenser outlet.
therminol-66 is chosen as the heat transfer fluid for the CPVT collector in • The expansion process across the expansion valve is isenthalpic.

4
V.K. Yadav et al. Desalination 563 (2023) 116721

• The few components, such as the pump, turbine as well as various For PV cell:
sections of the ejector, have certain isentropic efficiency. ( ) kabs
dT PV kPV
• Mixing of both (primary and secondary) streams inside the ejector mPV Cp,PV = APV Tgl − TPV + Agl (Tabs − TPV ) + Qth (11)
dt δPV δabs
takes place at constant pressure.
• It is supposed that the constant water level inside the solar still.
• Energy loss due to evaporation, side walls, and leakage is not taken For absorber:
into consideration for the modeling of the solar still.
dT abs kabs kabs
• Insulating material and glass have very little heat capacity and mabs Cp,abs = Aabs (TPV − Tabs ) + Aabs (Tins − Tabs ) − Qu (12)
dt δabs δabs
absorbance.
• In the solar still, there is hardly any temperature variation over the
water's depth. For insulation:
dT ins ( ) kins
The detailed mathematical modeling of the sub-systems, such as
4 4
mins Cp,ins = γa (Ta − Tins )Ains + εins σ Tsky − Tins Agl + Ains (Tabs − Tins )
dt δins
CPVT, ERC and solar still, is given below [25–28].
(13)
The required mass flow rate of thermal oil for the desired cell tem­
3.1. Detailed modeling of CPVT, ERC and solar still perature can also be calculated by the energy balance of the thermal oil
inside the collector.
The CPVT receiver consists of a PV panel that is a combination of
various PV cell modules. It is also covered with a glass cover. Behind this mo Cp,o
dT o
= ṁo (hin − hout ) + Qu (14)
panel, there is an absorber that is insulated from other sides to avoid dt
heat loss. The ejector has four major parts: suction chamber, mixing section,
The PV panel efficiency can be calculated by, constant area section and lastly diffuser section.
ηCell = 0.298 + 0.142ln(C) + ( − 0.000715 + 0.0000ln(C) )(Tcell − 25) (1) The primary nozzle efficiency can be given as:
h1 − h2
ηPV = ηCell ηmod (2) ηn = (15)
h1 − h2s

where ηmod is taken as 0.90 due to the gap between the cells. The exit velocity of the motive stream from the primary nozzle is
The incident solar energy on the receiver can be calculated as: given by:
( )0.5
QISE = Ibs ηopt CArec (3) V2 = 2(h1 − h2 ) + V1 2 (16)

where: ηopt is the optical efficiency of the concentrator, and C is the Similarly, for the secondary stream of the ejector:
concentration ratio. h7 − h7o
The electrical power generation due to the PV panel is: ηs = (17)
h7 − h7os
PowerPV = QISE ηPV ηinvt (4) The exit velocity of the suction stream can be calculated by:
( )0.5
where: ηinvt is the inverter efficiency. V7o = 2(h7 − h7o ) + V7 2 (18)
The available thermal energy inside the PV panel can be calculated
The momentum along with the energy equations to determine the
as:
fluid properties after the mixing are [16]:
Qth = QISE (1 − ηPV ) (5) ( ) ( )
(Pm Ax + Pm A7o ) + ∅m ṁg Vx + ṁe V7o = Pm Ay + ṁg + ṁe Vy (19)
The useful thermal energy that can be absorbed inside the absorber
is:
Vy2 √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
Qu = Qth − Qloss (6) ηm = 2
= ∅m (20)
Vy′
where: Qloss is thermal losses form the receiver due to temperature dif­ ( ( ))
ference. Vy2
h1 + μh7 = (1 + μ) hy + (21)
Two types of thermal losses are considered that are convection and 2
radiation.
If the velocity of the mixer reaches supersonic after the mixing, there
Qloss = Qconv + Qrad (7) would be a shock that enhances the pressure as well as temperature
( ) mixer at the expanse of its velocity [19]. The state of the fluid behind the
Qconv = γ a Tgl − Ta Agl + γ a (Tins − Ta )Ains (8)
shock can be determined by the relations given below:
( ) ( )
Qrad = εgl σ Tgl4 − Ta4 Agl + εins σ Tins
4 4
− Tsky Ains (9) ρy Vy = ρz Vz (22)

The various component temperatures are calculated by using energy Vy2 Vz

hy + = hy′ + (23)
balance applied to the components separately, which are as follows. 2 2
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√M 2 + 2
For PV glass cover: √ y (K− 1)
Mz = √ 2KM2 (24)
dT gl ( ) ( ) kgl ( ) y
− 1
mgl Cp,gl = γ a Tgl − Ta Agl + εgl σ Tgl4 − Ta4 Agl + Agl TPV − Tgl + QISE αgl (K− 1)
dt δgl
(10) Pz 1 + KMy2
= (25)
Py 1 + KMz2

5
V.K. Yadav et al. Desalination 563 (2023) 116721

For the diffuser portion: assess the energy and exergy performances of the CPCD system, a
( 2) thermodynamic analysis is conducted for this system. Each part of the
Vz
h2 = hz + (26) system is subjected to the mass balance and energy balance approach,
2 which may be expressed as follows:
Diffuser efficiency is given as, ∑ ∑
ṁin = ṁout (38)
h2s − hz
ηd = (27) ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑
h2 − hz ṁin hin + Qin + Win = ṁout hout + Qout + Wout (39)
The single-slope solar still consists of a tilted glass cover on which the The following formula can be used to express a component's exergy
solar radiation falls. It also consists of a basin in which the impure water at the kth point:
is filled. The energy balance for the different components of the solar
still is given below: Ẋ ph = (hk − h0 ) − T0 (sk − s0 ) (40)

Tables 2 and 3 show specific energy and exergy calculation formulae

For glass cover:
for the suggested system components together with other key parameter
The outer layer of the glass cover interacts with the surrounding on
calculation equations.
the top side, whereas its inner layer interacts with the pure
The performance index (PI) is calculated as:
condensed water.
( )
For outer layer PowerPV + Wnet + Qe + Qu,SS
PI = ( ) (41)
kgl,SS ( ) ( ) Ibs CArec + Its Abs,SS
Agl.SS Tgl,il − Tgl,ol = γ a Tgl,ol − Ta Agl,SS (28)
δgl,SS
where:
Wnet = Wt − Wp (42)
For inner layer
( )
( ) kgl,SS ( ) Qu,SS = hew,SS Ab,SS Tw,SS − Tgl,il,SS (43)
Its αgl Agl.SS + γ1w Tw − Tgl,i Ab = Agl.SS Tgl,il − Tgl,ol (29)
δgl,SS
The efficiency of an individual sub-system can be calculated as:
PowerPV
For basin liner: ηPV,CPVT = (44)
Ibs CArec
Its αgl Agl.SS = γ bw (Tw − Tb )Ab + γba (Tb − Ta )Ab (30)
Qu
ηthermal,CPVT = (45)
Ibs CArec
For water mass in the basin
( ) Ẇ net,ORC
mw Cp,w
dT w
= Its αgl Ab + γ bw (Tb − Tw )Ab + γ1w Tw − Tgl,il Ab + Qin,SS (31) ηORC = (46)
dt Qin.ORC

The water distillation rate can be given as: Qu,SS

( ) ηSS = (47)
γ Tw − Tgl,il,SS Its Abs,SS + Qin,SS
ṁew = ew (32)
LHV w
Qe
COPERC = (48)
The latent heat of vaporization and the water evaporation heat Qin,ERC + Wp,ERC
transfer coefficient can be calculated by the following relations:
where:
LHV w = 2506103 − 2369Tw + 0.2678Tw2 − 8.10310− 3 Tw3 − 2.07910− 5 Tw4 ( )
(33) Ẋ e = Qe
T0
− 1 (49)
Tr
( )
Pw − Pgl,il
γ ew = 0.016273γ cw ( ) (34) Tr is considered 5 ◦ C above the evaporator temperature, i.e., pinch
Tw − Tgl,il

[ ( ) ]13
Table 2
/
( ) Pw − Pgl,il (Tw + 273)
γ cw = 0.884 Tw − Tgl,il + (35) Energy equations and some important parameters.
(0.2689 − Pw )
Thermal collector Qu = ṁo (h13 − h12 )
where: Generator Qg = ṁg (h1 − h9 )
[ ] Preheater Qph = ṁg (h9 − h8 )
(5144) Turbine Wt = ṁg,2 (h11 − h12 )
Pgl,il = exp 25.317 − ( ) (36) Pump
(
ṁg Pg − Pc v
)
Tgl,il + 273 Wp =
ηp
( )
[ ] Ejector
(5144) ṁe + ṁg,1 h4 = ṁe h7 + ṁg,1 h1
Pw = exp 25.317 − (37)
(Tw + 273) Pc
PLR =
Pe
ṁe
μ =
ṁg,1
3.2. Thermodynamic analysis ( )
Condenser
Qc = ṁs + ṁg (h4 − h5 )
The thermodynamic analysis of any thermal system is required to ṁg = ṁg,1 + ṁg,2
find out the performance of the system from both energetic as well as Expansion valve h6 = h5
exergetic points of view. It also helps to figure out which variables affect Evaporator Qe = ṁe (h7 − h6 )
Active solar still Qin,SS = ṁo,1 (h10 − h11 )
the system performance so that the performance can be optimized. To

6
V.K. Yadav et al. Desalination 563 (2023) 116721

Table 3 Table 4
Exergy equations of the proposed configuration. Capital investment cost relations for the different components.
Components Exergy input Exergy output Component Capital investment cost ($)

CPVT Ẋsun,CPVT + Ẋ12 Ẋ13 Preheater [31] ( A )0.78

ph
ZCI
ph = 130
Generator Ẋ13 + Ẋ9 Ẋ1 + Ẋ14 0.093
Preheater Ẋ14 + Ẋ8 Ẋ15 + Ẋ9 Generator [31] ( A )0.78
g
ZCI
g = 130
Turbine Ẋ1 Wt + Ẋ2 0.093
)0.78
Pump Ẋ5 + WP Ẋ8 Condenser [31] ( Ac
ZCI
c = 130
Ejector Ẋ1 + Ẋ7 Ẋ3 0.093
)0.78
Condenser Ẋ4 Ẋ5 Evaporator [31] ( Ae
ZCI
e = 130
Evaporator Ẋe + Ẋ6 Ẋ7 0.093
Active solar still Ẋsun,SS +Ẋ10 Ẋ11 Turbine [32] ZCI
t = 6000W0.71
t
Pump [29] ZCI
P = 3540W0.71
p
Solar still [33] ZCI
SS = 250Ab,SS
point temperature difference. CPVT [25] ZCI
CPVT = 1060Arec + 53Aconcentrator
( )
T0
Ẋ u,SS = Qu,SS 1 − (50)
Tw,SS numbers (30 ≤ Re ≤ 400) as well as chevron angles (π/6 ≤ β ≤ π/3) [34].
( )0.38 ( )
(51) Deq γ 6β μ 0.14
Ẋ out = Ẋ e + Wnet + Ẋ u,SS Nu = = 0.44 Re0.5
eq Pr
0.33
. (56)
kf π μwall
The overall exergy efficiency (for the whole system) is given as:
The convection coefficients associated with dual-phase heat transfer
Ẋ out are estimated by using the correlation given by Yan-Lin. Within a certain
ηII,0 = (52)
Ẋ sun,CPVT + Ẋ sun,SS range of Reynolds numbers, this relation is applicable (2000 ≤ Re ≤
10,000) [34].
( ( )0.5 )
3.3. Economic analysis Deq γ ρ
Nu = = 1.926Re Pr Boeq 1 − x + x l
0.5 0.33 0.3
(57)
kf ρv
The economic analysis of any proposed system is essential to identify
the factors affecting the total cost of the system. It can also suggest which
where:
working fluid should be used for the lowest total cost of the system under
the same operating scenario. Therefore, several cost-related calculations q̇wall
Boeq = (58)
for the above CPCD system have been performed in this section to Geq γ fg
examine its economic aspect. The capital investment (CI) or procure­
( ( )0.5 )
ment cost of any component per year is given by the following relation ρl
[29]. Geq = G 1 − x + x (59)
ρv
CI

Ż K =
ŻK
× CRF × φ × 24 × 365 (53)
trun
where: φ is the maintenance factor, and trun is the total annual running
time, which are taken as 1.06 and 7000 h, respectively [30].
The formula for calculating a financial parameter capital recovery
factor (CRF) is:
i(1 + i)n
CRF = (54)
(1 + i)n − 1
where: ‘i’ is bank interest rate and ‘n’ is the practical working life of the
system.
The total cost is calculated as:
∑ This CPCD system also presents an excellent opportunity to save
Ż total = Ż component (55)
Note: Since some components like ejector, serpentine solar still
tubes, and expansion valve make very little contribution to the whole
system cost, the capital investment for these components may be dis­
regarded [31].
The capital investment for different components which have a suf­
ficient contribution to the total cost of the system is given in Table 4.
To estimate the areas of heat exchange various components such as
generator, preheater, condenser as well as evaporator are treated as the
plate-type heat exchangers. The generator as well as condenser are
divided in the two sections for this estimation. One section of the
generator as well as condenser undergoes only single-phase heat ex­
change, while the other section associated with for two-phase heat
transfer. The convection coefficients associated with single-phase heat
transfer are estimated by using the famous correlation given by Mulley.
This relationship is applicable for a certain range of equivalent Reynolds
The several dimensional parameters of the plate exchangers, such as
their breath, channel gap as well as the no. of the flow passage, are
iterated so that Re comes within the allowable range of the suggested
correlations at a certain mass flow rate. After this step, separate com­
putations of the cold, as well as the hot fluid heat transfer coefficients,
are carried out for each portion of the heat exchangers. Therefore, the
heat exchange area of every section is estimated as [35].
( )
ṁΔh 1 tplate 1
(60)
A= + +
LMTD γ hot kplate γ cold
The heat exchange areas of the generator, as well as the condenser,
have been estimated into two sections, whereas those for the preheater,
as well as the evaporator, have been calculated in a single section.
money on the high cost of power, and one may easily save money on
their electricity bill by using every watt of electricity produced by this
system for domestic use. The total electricity generation of the system
can be calculated by,
Electricity Used = ηg Wnet + PowerPV (61)
Electricity cost saving = Cele × t × Electricity Used (62)
where: ηg is the efficiency of the electricity generator, Cele is the elec­
tricity cost and t is the total consumption time which are assumed to be
80 %, 0.094 $/kWh and 7000 h, respectively.
3.4. Environmental analysis
In this section, an analysis is carried out to determine the amount of

7
V.K. Yadav et al. Desalination 563 (2023) 116721

coal necessary alongside the amount of carbon dioxide that would be 3.5. Simulation methodology
emitted into the environment on an annual basis if the above CPCD
system is powered by the heat energy produced due to the burning of The mathematical model of solar-powered combined power, cooling
coal. The amount of energy needed to generate the same heat energy as well as water distillation system was utilized to construct an EES
input to this system is given by [36]: program for the purpose of evaluating the effects of different operational
( ) parameters in the EES software. It consists of input variables such as
Annual energy generation Qg + Qph × trun × 3600
Ein = = (63) solar irradiance (both beam and total), evaporator, ambient and
ηplant ηplant generator temperatures, along with various component efficiency and
mass fraction of thermal oil through the solar still. The built-in property
where the efficiency plant (ηplant ) is considered as 35 % and the yearly features of the software EES are utilized in order to do the evaluation of
total running time (trun ) of the system is 7000 h. the properties. The different system state points were evaluated with the
If the net calorific value (NCV) of Indian coals is 18,828,000 J/kg, help of both energy and mass balances, the isotropic efficiencies of the
and its carbon content is 50 % by weight. So, the amount of coal needed various components, and the pinch point method was used on the
for generating that energy input is calculated as [36]: different heat transfer devices [35,37]. The process flow chart for such a
Ein modeling technique for the provided operational parameters, along with
Mass of coal needed = (64)
NCV × 1000 collector and solar still sizes, is illustrated in Fig. 2, which may be found
below. Using the CPVT model, we were able to determine the efficiency
The CO2 emission per year is given by [36]:
as well as the exergy destruction and the exit temperature of the thermal
44 oil from the CPVT. Similarly, the ORC model is applied to estimate the
CO2 emission annually = Carbon released × (65)
12 exergy destruction along with the power output and the ERC model to
evaluate the cooling capacity as well as exergy destruction. The solar
where:
still model is used to calculate the freshwater distillation rate along with
Carbon released = mass of coal needed*carbon percentage in the coal the exergy distraction. Finally, the performance indicators of the whole
(66) proposed system are calculated based on the outcomes of all four sub-
cycles.

Fig. 2. Simulation flow chart.

8
V.K. Yadav et al. Desalination 563 (2023) 116721

3.6. Model validation 4. Results and discussion

The approach proposed in the above study is novel so, the whole
system cannot be cross-checked with already published literature.
Therefore, the numerical models of each of the key sub-cycles such as
CPVT, ERC, ORC and solar still have been verified independently using
the published literature. The CPVT model has been cross-checked with
the published work done by Mittelman et al. [38] for the same operating
conditions, and the comparison of the results is listed in Table 5. Here
the maximum variation in the results is within 6.43 %. The ERC model
has been verified by the experimental study of Smierciew et al. [39]. The
results have a maximum deviation of 10.15 % which is listed in Table 4.
For ORC, the deviation is within 4.16 % as shown in Table 4 when the
obtained theoretical findings are verified with the previous experi­
mental study by Rayegan and Tao [40]. In Table 4, the results of
simulating the solar still model under identical operating circumstances
as described by Singh et al. [26] have been provided which is showing a
contrast of 4.94 %. Therefore, the percentage deviations (or relative
errors) are within 10.15 %, as tabulated in Table 4, for all sub-cycles,
which are under the range of acceptable bars. The potential source of
these errors could be associated with various assumptions made to
support the scope of this investigation, as previously deliberated.
The thermodynamic performance of the proposed system for simul­
taneous power, cooling, and water distillation production has been
investigated by two critical objective functions, which are performance
index (PI) and overall exergy efficiency (OEE). Annual total cost (TC) as
well as the equivalent amount of CO2 (MCO2 ) emission is also examined
to see the economic as well as environmental perspectives of the above
CPCD system. The critical dimensions, such as Arec = 1 m2 and other
necessary data for the CPVT have been directly referred from the study
done by Kosmadakis et al. [25]. Similarly, the useful dimension, such as
Ab = 1 m2 as well as Agl,SS = 1.26 m2 and other necessary data for the
calculation of the solar still is taken from Singh et al. [26]. The beam
solar insolation of 420 W/m2 and total solar insolation of 600 W/m2 are
used for the calculation, which are the arithmetic mean values of the
incident beam as well as global irradiations at the investigated place
Varanasi (25.32◦ N, 82.98◦ E) in India. These data of the radiation have
been directly taken from the famous online radiation data website Sol
cast for the year 2021 [41]. The ambient temperature considered for the
analysis is 30 ◦ C which is very close to the average ambient temperature
for the studied location Varanasi. The isentropic efficiency values of the
several components used in the current analysis are referred from pub­
lished literature as well as some manufacturing data, mentioned in
Table 6. The typical mean operating scenario is also listed in this table.
The stream point-to-point data of the proposed system with the

Table 5
Validation of all four sub-cycles independently.
For the CPVT
Operating conditions: Solar intensity = 900 W/m2, oil temperature rise in the collector = 10 ◦ C, and concentration ratio = 200.

Collector oil outlet temperature (◦ C) Electrical efficiency Thermal efficiency

Present study Literature [38] Relative error (%) Present study Literature [38] Relative error (%)

60 0.242 0.232 4.31 0.581 0.575 1.04

110 0.228 0.215 6.04 0.586 0.580 1.02
160 0.215 0.202 6.43 0.589 0.583 1.02
210 0.201 0.189 6.34 0.593 0.586 1.19

For the ERC

Operating conditions: Working fluid = R600a, evaporator temperature = 10 ◦ C, condenser temperature = 24 ◦ C and = 80 ◦ C

Generator temperature (◦ C) COP

Present Study Literature [39] Relative error (%)

80 0.214 0.205 4.39

90 0.268 0.255 5.09
100 0.309 0.285 8.42
110 0.358 0.325 10.15

For the ORC

Operating conditions: Working fluid = R600a, condenser temperature = 25 ◦ C.

Generator temperature (◦ C) Efficiency

Present study Literature [40] Relative error (%)

85 11.25 10.8 4.16

121 13.98 13.78 1.45

For the solar still

Operating conditions: Initial glass temperature = 24 ◦ C, initial water temperature = 25 ◦ C, water level inside basin = 0.30 m.

Solar insolation (W/m2) Efficiency

Present study Literature [26] Relative error (%)

610 0.115 0.111 3.60

600 0.215 0.208 3.36
580 0.311 0.297 4.71
480 0.425 0.405 4.94

9
V.K. Yadav et al. Desalination 563 (2023) 116721

Table 6 Table 8
Typical mean operating scenario along with some useful input parameters. Comparison of various performance parameters for different refrigerants.
Parameters Value Units Parameter R152a R1234ze[Z] R1233zd[E]

Apparent sun temperature [42] 4054.5 ◦

C Electricity generation by PV Cell 17,658 17,658 17,658
Total solar insolation [41] 600 W/m2 (W)
Beam solar insolation [41] 420 W/m2 Efficiency of PV cell (%) 23.26 23.36 23.36
Ambient temperature [41] 30 ◦
C Useful thermal heat gain by CPVT 43,033 43,033 43,033
Generator temperature 90 ◦
C (W)
Condenser temperature 35 ◦
C Efficiency of thermal collector (%) 56.92 56.92 56.92
Evaporator temperature 5 ◦
C CPVT thermal energy supplied to 450.4 451.4 451.4
Ejector nozzle efficiency [28] 85 % still (W)
Ejector mixing efficiency [28] 90 % Distillation rate (kg/m2 h) 1.011 1.013 1.013
Ejector diffuser efficiency [28] 85 % Cooling capacity (W) 2717 2297 2065
Pump efficiency [27] 60 % Turbine power output (W) 2340 2325 2291
Turbine efficiency [40] 82 % Pumping power input (W) 613.6 220.4 167.9
Mass fraction through solar still 0.5 – PLR for ejector 2.523 2.927 3.083
Interest rate [37] 10 % Entrainment ratio of ejector 0.142 0.133 0.13
System life [37] 20 year Performance Index 0.3507 0.35 0.3467
Overall exergy efficiency 0.0415 0.0414 0.0405
Total cost ($/yr) 6125 6295 6336
R152a as a working fluid at the mean operating scenario is presented in Mass of CO2 (tonnes/yr) 301.7 301.7 301.7
the following Table 7.
R1234ze[Z] but minimum for R1233zd[E] because the cooling, as well
4.1. Comparison of various performance indicators for different
as turbine power out, is maximum for R152a. The total cost of the system
refrigerants
is lower for R152a due to less size condenser requirement. The main
cause of the variation in performance parameters for the different re­
Table 8 shows the comparison of several thermodynamic, economic
frigerants is their respective value of the properties such as latent heat of
and environmental performance parameters at the typical operating
the vaporization, critical temperature as well as molar mass.
conditions listed in Table 6 for the different refrigerants. CPVT electrical
Apart from these three refrigerants, R717 or NH3 is also tried in this
efficiency, thermal efficiency, electricity generation by PV cell, useful
system which gives the maximum values of PI and OEE as 0.39 and 4.8
thermal heat gains by CPVT as well as the equivalent mass of CO2 are
%, respectively. Therefore, R717 would be the best choice on the basis of
respectively 23.26 %, 56.92 %, 17,658 W 43033 W and 301.7 tonnes/yr.
performance for industrial applications. However, it is not suitable for
These are the same for all three refrigerants because it depends on solar
domestic applications due to its toxic nature and hence it is excluded in
insolation, the receiver area, and the concentration ratio, but these pa­
the forgoing discussion.
rameters are fixed for all working fluids. The water distillation rate is
Table 9 displays the irreversibility that transpires in the different
also the same for all refrigerants (1.013 kg/m2 h), but it is slightly lower
components of the proposed system, contingent on the selected input
for R152a (1.011 kg/m2 h) due to lower heat absorption by solar still
parameter as presented in Table 6. The table indicates that CPVT is
from CPVT. The ERC cooling capacity is maximum for R152a, followed
associated with the highest level of irreversibility (85.718 %). The high
by R1234ze[Z] and minimum for R1233zd[E] because R152a has a
value of the apparent solar temperature and its discrepancy with the
maximum value of latent heat of vaporization at the given evaporator
temperature of the collector heat transfer fluid may be the possible
temperature. Similarly, the ORC turbine power output is maximum for
reason of this huge irreversibility value in the CPVT. After the CPVT the
R152a followed by R1234ze[Z] and minimum for R1233zd[E] because
irreversibility is more in the solar still around 5 %. After this, irrevers­
R152a has lower condenser pressure at the given condenser tempera­
ibility occurs more inside the ejector (3.908 %), then the pump (1.57 %),
ture, which increases expansion through the turbine. The pumping
the condenser (1.168 %), and the generator (1.07 %). The irreversibility
power input is also maximum for R152a, followed by R1234ze[Z], and
occurs lowest inside the expansion valve (0.0630 %), followed by the
minimum for R1233zd[E] because the pressure difference across the
evaporator (0.086 %). The energy loss rate within the preheater is on a
pump is higher for R152a as disused above. The PLR for the ejector is
scale of 0.398 %, whereas the rate within the turbine is approximately
maximum for R1233zd[E] followed by R1234ze[Z] and minimum for
0.834 % when using R152a as the refrigerant. Because the thermo­
R152a because there is a large pressure difference between the
physical characteristics of each refrigerant are unique, the proportion of
condenser and the evaporator for R1233zd[E]. The PI as well as OEE of
exergy that is lost during the destruction of one kind of refrigerant is not
the proposed system are also maximum for R152a and slightly lower for
identical to the percentage lost during the destruction of another type.
The higher the level of irreversibility, the greater the energy loss, which
Table 7 in turn reduces the efficiency of the system. Therefore, there is an
State point properties at mean operating condition.
Stream point P (kPa) T (◦ C) h (kJ/kg) s (kJ/kg K) ṁ (kg/s)
Table 9
1 2873 90 541.74 2.000 0.15440
Irreversibility associated with different components.
2 791.53 35 511.44 2.021 0.07720
3 791.53 41.8 537.73 2.103 0.08817 Components Irreversibility (%)
4 791.53 35 525.46 2.067 0.16637
R152a R1234ze[Z] R1233zd[E]
5 791.53 35 262.06 1.212 0.16437
6 313.50 5 262.06 1.223 0.01097 Condenser 1.168 1.272 1.408
7 313.50 5 509.85 2.115 0.01097 CPVT 85.718 86.662 86.654
8 2873 37.1 266.03 1.217 0.15440 Evaporator 0.086 0.066 0.066
9 2873 83.7 377.59 1.548 0.15440 Ejector 3.908 3.942 3.816
10 101.32 95 167.59 0.529 0.5731 Expansion valve 0.063 0.043 0.044
11 101.32 94.6 166.80 0.527 0.5731 Generator 1.070 1.259 1.231
12 101.32 86.4 152.16 0.487 1.146 Preheater 0.398 0.145 0.109
13 101.32 107 189.70 0.589 1.146 Pump 1.570 1.432 1.487
14 101.32 95 167.59 0.530 1.146 Solar still 5.185 4.342 4.394
15 101.32 78.2 137.52 0.446 0.5731 Turbine 0.834 0.837 0.791

10
V.K. Yadav et al. Desalination 563 (2023) 116721

opportunity to enhancement of the performance of the entire system by

PI[R152a] PI[R1234ze[z]]
reducing the amount of irreversibility that occurs inside the CPVT, the
PI[R1233zd[E]] OEE[R152a]
solar still, and the ejector. This is because irreversibility is a substantial
OEE[R1234ze[Z]] OEE[R1233zd[E]]
contributor to the system's overall exergy loss. 0.4 0.045
Table 10 illustrates the cost incurred by various components for all

Overall Exergy Efficiency

refrigerants. The cost incurred by the turbine is a maximum of approx­

imately 1648 $/yr for R152a because turbine output is maximum for
R152a, so it requires a large-size turbine. The cost of the turbine is a
minimum for R1233zd[E] because it has minimum turbine output which
can be understood in Table 3. The second costliest component is the
CPVT which contributes 1606 $/yr because consists of a concentrator,
PV panel as well thermal collector circuit. The other costly component is
the generator which is maximum (1604 $/yr) with R1233zd[E] as
working fluid because it requires a large size of generator to supply more
energy input to the system due to less performance. The cost of the pump
is more than the condenser for R152a because it causes a very high
pumping power requirement. The cost of solar still is the lowest, nearly
37.87 $/yr because it has a very small area of about 1 m2. The costs of
the solar still (37.87 $/yr) and CPVT (1606 $/yr) collector are the same
for all three refrigerants because the surface area of these two compo­
nents is definite. The evaporator incurred a lower cost in comparison to
the generator as well as condenser due to its reduced heat exchange
surface area. The evaporator incurred a higher cost with R152a because
it requires a larger size due to its high cooling capacity than R1234ze[Z]
and R1233zd[E].
This CPCD system also presents an excellent opportunity to save
money on the high cost of power by deploying the total generated
electricity of the system for personal use. There are two types of elec­
tricity generation in this system one is the direct electricity generated
ted due to PV panel and the other is the electricity produced due to
conversion of the net mechanical work output (i.e., turbine work output
subtracted by pump work input) of the proposed system into electrical
power using electricity generator. By utilizing this total produced elec­
tricity, the user can save 12,527.7 $ money annually with the refrigerant
R152a as the working fluid. The calculation for the saving in the elec­
tricity bill can easily understand from Eqs. (61) and (62).
4.2. Effect of operating parameters on the novel system
This section explores the impact of varying certain operational pa­
rameters, specifically the temperatures of the evaporator, generator, and
ambient environment as well as mass fraction through solar still. The
solar isolation and several component isentropic efficiencies are also
varied while maintaining other parameters constant.
Fig. 3 demonstrates that when the temperature of the evaporator
rises, the PI, alongside the OEE of the proposed system, also climbs. This
phenomenon holds true for all three refrigerants. The increments in the
PI and OEE are about 13 % and 3.5 %, respectively, when the evaporator
temperature varies from 0 to 10 ◦ C. This is due to the fact that an
increased evaporator temperature results in an increased entrainment
ratio of the ejector. So, the mass flow rate of the refrigerant through the
evaporator results in more cooling capacity. The magnitude of the PI, as
well as OEE, is highest for R152a and lowest for R1233zd[E] as working
Performance Index
0.375 0.04
0.35 0.035
0.325 0.03
0 2 4 6 8 10
Evaporator Temperature (⁰C)
Fig. 3. Performance index as well as overall exergy efficiency variations with
evaporator temperature for various refrigerants.
fluid because R152a gives more cooling output at the same evaporator
temperature. Therefore, more cooling output contributes to a rise in the
PI and the OEE.
Fig. 4 shows that the annual total cost increases with the rise in
temperature of the evaporator for the three refrigerants. The possible
cause for the increase in total cost (TC) at elevated evaporator temper­
atures is that the ejector performance enhances, which leads to an in­
crease in the cost of the evaporator. The total variation with R152a is
more because it shows maximum variation in cooling capacity, which
results in variation in evaporator cost. The heat supply inside the
generator and the preheater are constant because of the fixed CPVT
receiver area and at particular solar intensity, so the requirement of coal
burning to produce that amount of energy will also be unchanged.
Therefore, the mass of CO2 (MCO2 ) emission is unchanged and it is also
constant with all the refrigerants.
Fig. 5 depicts the effect that a change in generator temperature has
on the PI as well as the OEE for the proposed cycle. This effect is shown
with all three refrigerants. The PI as well as OEE of the cycle increase as
the temperature of the generator rises because the power output from
ORC turbine increases due to more enthalpy drop with all the re­
frigerants for the higher generator temperature. The improvements in
the PI and OEE are about 4.75 % and 27.5 %, respectively, when the
generator temperature varies from 80 to 100 ◦ C. However, the slope of
the growth in performance is significantly less steep than that of the rise
in evaporator temperature. The refrigerant R1234ze[Z] achieved the
maximum value of PI, as well as OEE, because it produces maximum
turbine power output under identical working conditions.
The total cost increases with the increment in the generator
TC[R152a] TC[R1234ze[Z]]
TC[R1233zd[E]] Mco₂[R152a]
Mco₂[R1234ze[Z]] Mco₂[R1233zd[E]]
6600 310
Mass of CO2 (Tonne/yr)

Table 10
Total cost ($/yr)

Comparison of main components costs for various refrigerants. 6400 290

Components Cost ($/yr)

R152a R1234ze[Z] R1233zd[E] 6200 270

Condenser 540.4 802.7 859.8
CPVT 1606 1606 1606
Evaporator 119.3 82.41 77.63 6000 250
Generator 1222 1602 1604 0 2 4 6 8 10
Preheater 379.1 183.3 151 Evaporator temperature (⁰C)
Pump 572.4 381.6 357.5
Solar still 37.87 37.87 37.87
Fig. 4. Total cost along with the mass of CO2 variation with evaporator tem­
Turbine 1648 1641 1624
perature for various refrigerants.

11
V.K. Yadav et al. Desalination 563 (2023) 116721

PI[R152a] PI[R1234ze[z]] PI[R152a] PI[R1234ze[z]]

PI[R1233zd[E]] OEE[R152a] PI[R1233zd[E]] OEE[R152a]
OEE[R1234ze[Z]] OEE[R1233zd[E]] OEE[R1234ze[Z]] OEE[R1233zd[E]]
0.38 0.05
0.45 0.048

Overall Exergy Efficiency

Overall Exergy Efficiency

Performance Index

Performance Index
0.36 0.04 0.4 0.042

0.34 0.03 0.35 0.036

0.32 0.02 0.3 0.03

80 85 90 95 100 20 25 30 35 40
Generator Temperature (⁰C) Ambient Temperature (⁰C)

Fig. 5. Performance index as well as overall exergy efficiency variations with Fig. 7. Performance index as well as overall exergy efficiency variations with
generator temperature for various refrigerants. ambient temperature for various refrigerants.

temperature and it follows the same trend for all the refrigerants, as
shown in Fig. 6. It's probable that the higher generator temperature is to TC[R152a] TC[R1234ze[Z]]
blame for the rise in the total cost (TC) because the cost of the turbine TC[R1233zd[E]] Mco₂[R152a]
increases at higher generator temperature due to more turbine output Mco₂[R1234ze[Z]] Mco₂[R1233zd[E]]
with all three refrigerants. The amount of total cost variation is 7000 310
maximum with R1234ze[Z] because it shows the maximum variation in

Mass of CO2 (Tonne/yr)

turbine cost due to more turbine output. As the heat supply by the CPVT

Total cost ($/yr)

is constant for a particular solar intensity so the amount of coal burning 6500 290
needed would be constant to generate that amount of heat energy.
Therefore, the quantity of CO2 emission is independent of the generator
temperature as well as the refrigerant. 6000 270
According to Fig. 7, the performance index (PI) As well as overall
exergy efficiency (OEE) both decrease as the ambient temperature in­
creases. There are nearly a 25.5 % reduction in the PI and 27.5 % in the 5500 250
OEE when the ambient temperature increases from 20 to 40 ◦ C. This is 20 25 30 35 40
because the condenser exit temperature also increases with the incre­ Ambient temperature (⁰C)
ment in the ambient temperature, which is considered as 5 ◦ C above it.
Fig. 8. Total cost as well as mass of CO2 variations with ambient temperatures
When the temperature of the condenser rises, the saturation pressure
for various refrigerants.
that is associated with this event also rises, whereas the mass flow rate
through the evaporator decreases to get the ejector outlet pressure to the
goes down whenever the ambient temperature goes down, and this holds
condenser pressure, and this results in a decrease in the cooling capacity
true for all three refrigerants. This is because the temperature of the
of the ERC. Apart from this, the ORC turbine power output also de­
condenser's outflow has increased, which is known as the pinch point
creases with a rise in the condenser pressure. Although it is true that the
temperature and is regarded as being 5 ◦ C higher than the surrounding
performance of thermal collectors increases with higher atmospheric
air temperature. When the temperature of the condenser rises, the
temperatures, but major drop occurs in the cooling output of ERC as well
saturation pressure that corresponds to this rises as well. This results in a
as the power output of the ORC. As a result, both the PI and the OEE of
reduction in the amount of cooling output of the ERC as well as the
the proposed cycle decrease with all the refrigerants.
power output of the ORC, so there would be a need for a smaller size
As shown in Fig. 8, the yearly total cost (TC) of the innovative cycle
evaporator and turbine with all the refrigerants. So, the total system cost
decreases. As the heat supply from the CPVT is constant for a particular
solar intensity so the amount of coal burning needed would be constant
TC[R152a] TC[R1234ze[Z]] to generate that amount of heat energy. Therefore, the quantity of CO2
TC[R1233zd[E]] Mco₂[R152a] emission is independent of the generator temperature as well as the
7000
Mco₂[R1234ze[Z]] Mco₂[R1233zd[E]]
310 refrigerant.
The effect of variation in the supply of thermal oil mass fraction
through solar still, on the performance index (PI) along with the overall
Mass of CO2 (Tonne/yr)

exergy efficiency (OEE) for the three different refrigerants is presented

Total cost ($/yr)

6500 290
in Fig. 9. The PI of the cycle rises slightly with an increase in the supply
of thermal oil mass fraction through solar still because it increases the
distillation output with all the refrigerants. But the total energy effi­
6000 270
ciency decreases because the exergy input is more than the exergy out by
supplying this extra energy from the thermal collector. The value of the
PI that was attained by the refrigerant R152a was the maximum possible
value because it produces maximum distillation output under identical
5500 250
80 85 90 95 100
Generator temperature (⁰C) working conditions.
The total cost increases with the rise in the supply of thermal oil mass
Fig. 6. Total cost and mass of CO2 variations with generator temperature for fraction through solar still for the three different refrigerants, as
various refrigerants.

12
V.K. Yadav et al. Desalination 563 (2023) 116721

PI[R152a] PI[R1234ze[z]] PI[R152a] PI[R1234ze[z]]

PI[R1233zd[E]] OEE[R152a] PI[R1233zd[E]] OEE[R152a]
OEE[R1234ze[Z]] OEE[R1233zd[E]] OEE[R1234ze[Z]] OEE[R1233zd[E]]
0.352 0.047

Overall Exergy Efficiency

0.525 0.0525

Overall exergy efficiency

Performance Index

Performace Index
0.349 0.043
0.45 0.045

0.346 0.039
0.375 0.0375

0.343 0.035
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.03
Mass fraction through solar still 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Month
Fig. 9. Variation of performance index and overall exergy efficiency with mass
fraction through solar still. Fig. 11. Variation of performance index and overall exergy efficiency
with month.

presented in Fig. 10. The main cause for the increase in the total cost
(TC) is that the high mass fraction through solar still is the increase in
TC[R152a] TC[R1234ze[Z]]
preheater cost increase with all the three refrigerants. The amount of
TC[R1233zd[E]] Mco₂[R152a]
total cost variation is maximum for R152a because it incurs the Mco₂[R1234ze[Z]] Mco₂[R1233zd[E]]
maximum preheater cost. As the heat supply by the CPVT is constant for 8900 450
a particular solar intensity so the amount coal burning needed would be
constant to generate that amount of heat energy. Therefore, the quantity

Mass of CO2 (Tonne/yr)

of CO2 emission is independent of the generator temperature as well as
the refrigerant.
Fig. 11 illustrates how the performance attributes of the unique cycle
that uses all three types of refrigerants fluctuate across the seasons.
These attributes include the performance index and the overall exergy
efficiency. The graph makes it very clear that the months of December
and January, which have lower average temperatures than other
months, have higher levels of performance. In the explanation for Fig. 7,
it is discussed how, despite a reduction in collector efficiency, ejector
performance is greater when ambient temperatures are lower. This is a
possible explanation for why this is the case. Both the PI and OEE will
continue to drop until the month of April, when they will reach their
lowest point due to the highest ambient temperature. They go up a little
bit in May, but again they start going down again in June. Following
this, they will continue to rise until it reaches their peak in January,
when the ambient temperature is at its lowest at this site Varanasi in
India. Because at lower ambient pressure, both cooling and turbine
output increase. The PI along with the OEE of the suggested cycle, is
maximum with R152a but minimum with R1233zd[E].
At the specified location of Varanasi in India, Fig. 12 illustrates how
the total cost (TC) and quantity of CO2 emission of the recommended
TC[R152a] TC[R1234ze[Z]]
TC[R1233zd[E]] Mco₂[R152a]
Mco₂[R1234ze[Z]] Mco₂[R1233zd[E]]
310
6900
Mass of CO2 (Tonne/yr)
Total cost ($/yr)
7600 350
6300 250
5000 150
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Month
Fig. 12. Variation of total cost as well as mass of CO2 with the month.
cycle that makes use of all three refrigerants changes throughout the
course of the year. It can be seen that both the total cost and the amount
of CO2 emissions are increasing from January to March; after this, they
started decreasing and became lowest in the month of June. Again, they
started increasing till September, then decrease in October but again
increase in November and then decrease in December. The possible
reasons for such a zig-zag behavior are the change in solar radiation
intensity as well as ambient temperature throughout the year, which
affect the thermal collector, solar still as well as ORC and ERC perfor­
mance. In the month of March, the ambient temperature is 25 ◦ C, and
beam solar insolation is 660 W/m2; the CPVT performance is at best, so
here we are getting more cooling output and turbine output which in­
creases the size of the evaporator and turbine. But in the month of June,
the beam solar insolation is nearly 350 W/m2, but the ambient tem­
perature is 33 ◦ C so here ERC as well as ORC performance decrease to
the minimum due to high condenser pressure, which results in reduced

size of the evaporator and turbine. The maximum energy input to cycle
Total cost ($/yr)

is in the month of March, so the equivalent quantity of CO2 emission is

295
6500
the maximum in this month and vice-versa for the month of June. This
behavior is independent of the refrigerants because it only depends on
6100 280 the collector thermal fluid.
To assess the influence of several parts on the performance of the
proposed system, six unique scenarios for the innovative cycle with
5700 265 refrigerant R152a have been investigated. These scenarios were used to
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
test the system.
Mass fraction through solar still
Case-1: ηn = 0.85, ηm = 0.90, ηd = 0.85, ηp = 0.60, ηt = 0.82
Fig. 10. Variation of total cost and mass of CO2 with mass fraction through
Case-2: ηn = 0.85, ηm = 0.90, ηd = 0.85, ηp = 0.65, ηt = 0.82
solar still.

13
V.K. Yadav et al. Desalination 563 (2023) 116721

Case-3: ηn = 0.85, ηm = 0.90, ηd = 0.85, ηp = 0.60, ηt = 0.87 ➢ Performance is better at the higher generator as well as evaporator
Case-4: ηn = 0.90, ηm = 0.90, ηd = 0.85, ηp = 0.60, ηt = 0.82 temperatures, with more supply of thermal oil mass fraction
Case-5: ηn = 0.85, ηm = 0.95, ηd = 0.85, ηp = 0.60, ηt = 0.82 (0.6–0.8) through the solar still but lower ambient temperature.
Case-6: ηn = 0.85, ηm = 0.90, ηd = 0.90, ηp = 0.60, ηt = 0.82. ➢ Performance index along with the overall exergy efficiency are at
their highest in January, which is 0.477 and 4.875 %, whereas these
The findings depicted in Fig. 13 indicate that the performance index are lowest in April, i.e., 0.326 and 4.005 %, respectively.
and overall exergy efficiency of Cases 1 and 2 exhibit minimal disparity ➢ Annual total cost and CO2 release are minimal in June (5781$/yr and
despite the alteration in the pump's efficiency from 0.60 to 0.65. This 253.87 tonnes/yr), whereas they are maximum in March (8479$/yr
suggests that the system's efficiency is largely impervious to changes in and 427.73 tonnes/yr).
the pump's efficiency. This is a result of the fact that the heat input to the ➢ The performance of the system is influenced more by variations in
generator is a substantially larger quantity than the external effort put the ejector and turbine isentropic efficiencies than by variations in
into the pump. Nevertheless, the performance of the system is signifi­ the pump efficiency.
cantly impacted by the change in turbine efficiency from 0.82 to 0.87, as ➢ The annual total cost is influenced by changes in the ejector, the
seen in Case 3. In addition, the various isentropic efficiencies of the turbine, as well as the pump isentropic efficiencies.
ejector are especially more vulnerable to the performance of the system ➢ For the selection of appropriate refrigerants, three eco-friendly re­
since there is an approximately 10 % change in the performance index as frigerants are also tested and R152a is found as best suitable on the
well as overall exergy efficiency for Cases 4, 5, and 6. The entrainment basis of its performance.
ratio, which is directly impacted by these efficiencies, is one possible
explanation for why this is the case. As a consequence, the efficiencies of The suggested system suffers from less performance at higher
the ORC turbine as well as the various components of the ejector are ambient temperatures due to poor ejector performance. But it can also
more sensitive to variations in the performance of the system. be managed by using the variable geometry ejector. The proposed sys­
Fig. 14 illustrates the influence that alterations in the different tem would be operational only when sufficient solar intensity is avail­
component efficiencies that were addressed earlier have on the annual able at a particular location; otherwise, there will be a requirement for
total cost as well as the mass of CO2 emissions. In this case, a change in an auxiliary heat source. It can also be operated at low solar intensity by
the efficiency of the pump, the efficiency of the turbine, and the effi­ adding thermal energy storage to this system.
ciency of various ejectors, such as the nozzle, the mixing, and the Although this study concluded some useful observations, there is a
diffuser, have a major influence on the total cost. But there is no effect on future scope for transient analysis of this system to observe the fluctu­
the mass of CO2 emission because of changes in different component ation in the system performance due to variations in the solar intensity
isentropic efficiencies because it only depends on CPVT and solar still and ambient temperature throughout the day. It would be helpful for the
useful energy output. appropriate sizing of thermal energy storage, which is required to
operate this system uninterrupted in spite of variations in solar
5. Conclusions radiation.

Energy, exergy, economic, and environmental consequences of the
suggested CPVT-integrated CPCD system are evaluated. The effect of
various operational parameters, as well as the seasonal variation on the
performance of the system, is also discussed in this study. The following
is a list of some of the significant findings that can be drawn from this
research:
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Vinay Kumar Yadav: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Validation, Writing – original draft. Jahar Sarkar: Conceptualization,
Methodology, Software, Writing – review & editing. Pradyumna
Ghosh: Supervision, Writing – review & editing.

➢ The studied system has a maximum value of performance index
(0.3507) and overall exergy efficiency (4.15 %) with the refrigerant
R152a.
➢ The annual total cost of the system is lowest with R152a, which is
6125$/yr, but the amount of CO2 emission per year is 301 tonnes/yr
and it is constant with all the refrigerants.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.

Case-1 Case-2 Case-3 Case-1 Case-2 Case-3

Case-4 Case-5 Case-6 Case-4 Case-5 Case-6
0.355 0.043

0.345 0.041

0.335 0.039

0.325 0.037
Performance index Overall exergy efficiency

Fig. 13. Effect of various component efficiency on PI and overall exergy efficiency.

14
V.K. Yadav et al.
Case-1 Case-2 Case-3
Case-4 Case-5 Case-6
6200
6100
6000
5900
Total cost ($/yr)
Fig. 14. Effect of various component efficiency on total cost and mass of CO2.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
References
[1] Center B P. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook, 2020
(Washington DC).
[2] S.K. Sansaniwal, V. Sharma, J. Mathur, Energy and exergy analyses of various
typical solar energy applications: a comprehensive review, Renew. Sust. Energ.
Rev. 82 (2018) 1576–1601.
[3] F. Khalid, I. Dincer, M.A. Rosen, Thermoeconomic analysis of a solar-biomass
integrated multigeneration system for a community, Appl. Therm. Eng. 120 (2017)
645–653.
[4] R.S. El-Emam, I. Dincer, Development and assessment of a novel solar heliostat
based multigeneration system, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 43 (2018) 2610–2620.
[5] A. Habibollahzade, E. Gholamian, P. Ahmadi, A. Behzadi, Multi-criteria
optimization of an integrated energy system with thermoelectric generator,
parabolic trough solar collector and electrolysis for hydrogen production, Int. J.
Hydrog. Energy 43 (2018) 14140–14157.
[6] Y.N. Dabwan, G. Pei, G. Gao, J. Feng, J. Li, A novel integrated solar tri-generation
system for cooling, freshwater and electricity production purpose: energy,
economic and environmental performance analysis, Sol. Energy 198 (2020)
139–150.
[7] E.D. Kerme, J. Orfi, A.S. Fung, E.M. Salilih, S.U.D. Khan, H. Alshehri, E. Ali,
M. Alrasheed, Energetic and exergetic performance analysis of a solar driven
power, desalination and cooling poly-generation system, Energy 196 (2020),
117150.
[8] F. Yilmaz, M. Ozturk, R. Selbas, Thermodynamic investigation of a concentrating
solar collector based combined plant for poly-generation, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 45
(2020) 26138–26155.
[9] S. Zhou, X. Liu, Y. Bian, S. Shen, Energy, exergy and exergoeconomic analysis of a
combined cooling, desalination and power system, Energ. Convers. Manag. 218
(2020), 113006.
[10] A. Abdelhay, H.S. Fath, S.A. Nada, Solar driven polygeneration system for power,
desalination and cooling, Energy 198 (2020), 117341.
[11] P. Saini, J. Singh, J. Sarkar, Novel combined desalination, heating and power
system: energy, exergy, economic and environmental assessments, Renew. Sust.
Energ. Rev. 151 (2021), 111612.
[12] R. Ghasemiasl, M.A. Javadi, M. Nezamabadi, M. Sharifpur, Exergetic and economic
optimization of a solar-based cogeneration system applicable for desalination and
power production, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 145 (993) (2021) 1003.
[13] C. Lamnatou, R. Vaillon, S. Parola, D. Chemisana, Photovoltaic/thermal systems
based on concentrating and non-concentrating technologies: working fluids at low,
medium and high temperatures, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 137 (2021), 110625.
[14] F. Calise, A. Cipollina, M. Dentice d’Accadia, A. Piacentino, A novel renewable
polygeneration system for a small Mediterranean volcanic island for the combined
production of energy and water: dynamic simulation and economic assessment,
Appl. Energy 135 (2014) 675–693.
[15] F. Calise, M. Dentice d’Accadia, A. Piacentino, A novel solar trigeneration system
integrating PVT (photovoltaic/thermal collectors) and SW (seawater) desalination:
dynamic simulation and economic assessment, Energy 67 (2014) 129–148.
[16] M. Sadi, A.M. Behzadi, A.S. Alsagri, K.S. Chakravarty, A. Arabkuhsar, An
innovative green multi-generation system centering around concentrating PVTs
and biomass heaters, design and multi-objective optimization, J. Clean. Prod. 340
(2022), 130625.
[17] I. Albaik, Y.A. Alamri, M.B. Elsheniti, R. Al-Dadah, S. Mahmoud, M.A. Ismail,
Assessment of a novel multi-generation solar CPV/T system combining adsorption
and organic rankine cycle sub-systems, Sol. Energy 236 (2022) 455–472.
15
Desalination 563 (2023) 116721
Case-1 Case-2 Case-3
Case-4 Case-5 Case-6
350
300
250
200
Mass of co2 (Tonne/yr)
[18] V.K. Yadav, J. Sarkar, P. Ghosh, Thermodynamic, economic and environmental
analyses of novel solar-powered ejector refrigeration systems, Energy Convers.
Manag. 264 (2022), 115730.
[19] A.E. Kabeel, Z.M. Omara, F.A. Essa, A.S. Abdullah, Solar still with condenser–a
detailed review, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 59 (2016) 839–857.
[20] Z.M. Omara, M.A. Eltawil, E.A. ElNashar, A new hybrid desalination system using
wicks/solar still and evacuated solar water heater, Desalination 325 (2013) 56–64.
[21] R.S. Hansen, K.K. Murugavel, Enhancement of integrated solar still using different
new absorber configurations: an experimental approach, Desalination 422 (2017)
59–67.
[22] B. Jamil, N. Akhtar, Effect of specific height on the performance of a single slope
solar still: an experimental study, Desalination 414 (2017) 73–88.
[23] A. Mwesigye, S.B. Dworkin, Performance analysis and optimization of an ejector
refrigeration system using alternative working fluids under critical and subcritical
operation modes, Energy Convers. Manag. 176 (2018) 209–226.
[24] J. Sarkar, S. Bhattacharyya, Potential of organic Rankine cycle technology in India:
working fluid selection and feasibility study, Energy 90 (2015) 1618–1625.
[25] G. Kosmadakis, D. Manolakos, G. Papadakis, Simulation and economic analysis of a
CPV/thermal system coupled with an organic Rankine cycle for increased power
generation, Sol. Energy 85 (2011) 308–324.
[26] R.V. Singh, S. Kumar, M.M. Hasan, M.E. Khan, G.N. Tiwari, Performance of a solar
still integrated with evacuated tube collector in natural mode, Desalination 318
(2013) 25–33.
[27] D.K. Gupta, R. Kumar, N. Kumar, First and second law analysis of solar operated
combined Rankine and ejector refrigeration cycle, Appl. Solar Energy 50 (2014)
113–115.
[28] Y. Liu, M. Yu, J. Yu, An improved 1-D thermodynamic modeling of small two-phase
ejector for performance prediction and design, Appl. Therm. Eng. 204 (2021),
118006.
[29] H. Rostamzadeh, H. Ghaebi, T. Parikhani, Thermodynamic and thermoeconomic
analysis of a novel combined cooling and power (CCP) cycle, Appl. Therm. Eng.
139 (2018) 474–487.
[30] F.A. Boyaghchi, M. Chavoshi, Monthly assessments of exergetic, economic and
environmental criteria and optimization of a solar micro-CCHP based on DORC,
Sol. Energy 166 (2018) 351–370.
[31] H. Montazerinejad, P. Ahmadi, Z. Montazerinejad, Advanced exergy,
exergoeconomic and exergo-environmental analyses of a solar based trigeneration
system, Appl. Therm. Eng. 152 (2019) 666–685.
[32] A.M. Elsafi, Exergy and exergoeconomic analysis of sustainable direct steam
generation solar power plants, Energy Convers. Manag. 103 (2015) 338–347.
[33] S. Kumar, G.N. Tiwari, Life cycle cost analysis of single slope hybrid (PV/T) active
solar still, Appl. Energy 86 (2009) 1995–2004.
[34] J.R. Garcia-Cascales, F. Vera-Garcia, J.M. Corberan-Salvador, J. Gonzalvez-Macia,
Assessment of boiling and condensation heat transfer correlations in the modelling
of plate heat exchangers, Int. J. Refrig. 30 (2007) 1029–1041.
[35] J. Sarkar, A novel pinch point design methodology based energy and economic
analyses of organic Rankine cycle, J. Energy Resour. Technol. 140 (2018), 052004.
[36] J. Roy, P. Sarkar, S. Biswas, A. Choudhury, Predictive equations for CO2 emission
factors for coal combustion, their applicability in a thermal power plant and
subsequent assessment of uncertainty in CO2 estimation, Fuel 88 (2009) 792–798.
[37] P. Saini, J. Singh, J. Sarkar, Thermodynamic, economic and environmental
analyses of a novel solar energy driven small-scale combined cooling, heating and
power system, Energy Convers. Manag. 226 (2020), 113542.
[38] G. Mittelman, A. Kribus, A.A. Dayan, Solar cooling with concentrating
photovoltaic/thermal (CPVT) systems, Energy Convers. Manag. 48 (2007)
2481–2490.
[39] K. Smierciew, J. Gagan, D. Butrymowicz, J. Karwacki, Experimental investigations
of solar driven ejector air-conditioning system, Energy Build 80 (2014) 260–267.
V.K. Yadav et al. Desalination 563 (2023) 116721

[40] R. Rayegan, Y.X. Tao, A procedure to select working fluids for solar organic [41] https://solcast.com/.
Rankine cycle, Renew. Energy 36 (2011) 659–670. [42] R. Petela, Exergy of heat radiation, J. Heat Transf. 68 (1964) 187–192.

16