Solar Energy 255 (2023) 487–496

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Solar Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Exergetic, enviroeconomic and exergoeconomic (3E) assessment of a

stationary parabolic trough solar collector with thermal storage
Eloiny Guimarães Barbosa a, b, *, Marcos Eduardo Viana de Araujo a, b, Yuanhui Zhang b,
Marcio Arêdes Martins a
a
Department of Agricultural Engineering, Federal University of Viçosa, Viçosa, MG 36570-900, Brazil
b
Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA

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

Keywords: A solar heating system operating in thermosyphon regime was experimentally evaluated in this study. The system
Exergy destruction consisted of a stationary parabolic trough solar collector (PTC) with thermal storage. The effect of three collector
Environmental impact inclination angles (0◦ , +5◦ , and +10◦ ) and two thermal fluids (water and thermal oil, denoted as WPTC0◦ and
Non-tracking PTC
OPTC0◦ ) were evaluated on the exergetic, enviroeconomic, and exergoeconomic (3E) performance of PTC. The
Sustainability analysis
average exergetic efficiencies for the evaluated cases were 10.84, 11.75, 12.97, and 19.73% for WPTC+10◦ ,
WPTC+5◦ , WPTC0◦ , and OPTC0◦ , respectively. It was observed that about 50% of the input exergy is lost in all
cases evaluated, indicating that some improvements could be incorporated to recover part of this loss. WPTC0◦
had the lowest average destroyed exergy among the inclinations (35%). For the case using thermal oil, the
average exergy destroyed was 28%. OPTC0◦ showed the best results in exergetic terms. OPTC0◦ also presented the
highest values of the exergoeconomic parameter among all the evaluated cases, and WPTC0◦ presented the
highest values among the evaluated inclinations. The energy and carbon payback times obtained were 0.848 and
0.569 for the WPTC0◦ and 0.923 and 0.608 for the OPTC0◦ , respectively.

1. Introduction underdeveloped. Two prominent collectors investigated for this appli­

The importance of using renewable energy sources has been
increasingly highlighted due to adverse environmental impacts, limited
availability, and significant fluctuations in the price of fossil fuels. Solar
energy is clean, abundant, widely available, and has the potential to
supply much of the world’s energy demand (Barbosa et al., 2019). In
addition, most renewable energy comes directly or indirectly from the
sun. Therefore, solar energy has been considered the future energy
(Chafie et al., 2018). The conversion of solar radiation into heat through
solar collectors is one of the used applications of solar energy. Solar
collectors can be classified into concentrating and non-concentrating
and can operate stationary or with a solar tracking system. Due to
their versatility and adequate thermal efficiency, these devices can meet
the demands of a wide range of applications and temperatures (Evan­
gelisti et al., 2019; Faisal Ahmed et al., 2021).
Solar systems that work at a medium temperature (80–250 ◦ C) can be
used in various agro-industrial operations (Sharma et al., 2017).
Nevertheless, collectors operating in this range have historically been
cation are the composite parabolic concentrator (CPC) and the parabolic
trough solar collector (PTC). Their main differences are related to the
concentration ratio and the use of the solar tracking system. The CPC has
a lower concentration ratio (generally < 2) to prolong the effective
working time when operating stationary and is built with a larger
acceptance half-angle. This fact consequently results in a reduction in
the ratio of the geometric concentrator and lower energy flow density in
the absorber (Gao and Chen, 2020). In addition, a structural limitation
at higher concentrations is the greater depth required in the concen­
trator. The use of PTC can be considered a viable alternative for
achieving higher concentration rates and material savings. However, the
need to use solar tracking devices in these systems considerably in­
creases the cost of installation and maintenance and their complexity of
operation (Buonomano et al., 2018). Although the use of stationary PTC
limits its efficiency, this type of collector operates in a simpler and more
economical way, which can be important in specific cases.
Exergy analysis has been considered an effective tool for energy
conservation and accounting in terms of quality and quantity. This

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: eloiny06@illinois.edu (E. Guimarães Barbosa).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2023.02.060
Received 7 November 2022; Received in revised form 27 February 2023; Accepted 28 February 2023
Available online 28 March 2023
0038-092X/© 2023 International Solar Energy Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
E. Guimarães Barbosa et al. Solar Energy 255 (2023) 487–496

Fig 1. Geometric parameters of the evaluated PTC.

analysis is used to detect and evaluate the causes of the thermodynamic

Table 1
imperfection of a process (Gakkhar et al., 2016). Exergy is defined as the
PTC geometric parameters and technical specifications.
maximum available work that can be extracted from a system until it is
in equilibrium with the environment. Exergy analysis allows identifying Specifications Symbol Value Unit
where and how irreversibilities occur, allowing one to infer the true Length Lp 1.700 m
potential of systems (Sangi and Muller, 2019). In addition, the exergy Parable aperture Wa 0.800 m
parameter can also be used to economically analyze and investigate the Focal length f 0.285 m
Parabolic vertical length hp 0.140 m
environmental effects of a system (Caliskan, 2017). This is very impor­ Collector aperture area Aa 1.360 m2
tant since, nowadays, most of the complex environmental issues faced Rim angle φr 70 ◦

around the world are related, in some way, to the production, trans­ Concentration ratio C 4.390 –
formation, and use of energy (Barbosa et al., 2020a). In this sense, some Concentrator film reflectance ρ 0.950 –
Receiver characteristics
studies in the literature used exergy analysis with economic and envi­
Outer diameter Do 0.058 m
ronmental considerations to evaluate the effect of key parameters on the Inner diameter Di 0.047 m
performance of different types of PTCs. Absorptivity α 0.930 – 0.960 –
Bellos et al. (2016) performed exergetic, energetic, and economic Emissivity ε 0.040 – 0.060 –
evaluations for an absorption cooling system for four types of solar Transmittance τ 0.950 –

collectors (FPC, ETC, PTC, and CPC). The PTC presented a better ener­
getic and exergetic performance among the collectors evaluated, but it
has a high cost. Later, in another study, the authors also provided a
detailed exergetic analysis of a PTC (Bellos and Tzivanidis, 2017).
Thermoeconomic, exergetic, and optimization analysis of small PTCs for
solar heat integration in industrial processes was conducted by Gha­
zouani et al. (2020). Thermal efficiency and exergetic efficiency have
been shown to change oppositely as the flow rate of the heating medium
increases. Vahedi et al., (2022) carried out a thermal, thermodynamic
and exergoeconomic investigation of a PTC using nanofluids. The results
showed that the use of nanoparticles does not have a significant impact
on thermal efficiency. Other PTC evaluation and optimization studies
were also reported (Chafie et al., 2018; Ehyaei et al., 2019; Huang and
Marefati, 2020; Chakraborty et al., 2021). It is worth mentioning that in
the cited works, the evaluated PTCs operate with a solar tracking system
and that for stationary PTCs, such analyzes (exergetic, enviroeconomic,
and exergoeconomic) have not yet been reported. The energy perfor­
mance of stationary PTCs has been previously studied in the literature
(Ullah and Kang, 2017; Fathy et al., 2018; Barbosa et al., 2020b). Due to
the lower thermal performance, this type of PTC is more suitable in
applications where high efficiency is not required, and ease of operation
and construction is essential.
PTC has been widely investigated in the literature, and innovative
studies have been reported; however, its effective contribution to ther­
mal energy production for agro-industrial applications is far from re­
ality. Much of this is related to the complexity of operation and
integration and the high cost of this collector. In practice, it is necessary
to look for reliable technologies that are accessible and not necessarily
too complicated but suitable for the operating conditions. Using sta­
tionary PTCs can be considered an alternative in scenarios where low
cost and less complexity are important. One of its main limitations is the
low efficiencies generally presented by this type of collector. It is known
that exergy analysis can help researchers understand how and where
irreversibilities occur, directing future research to increase the effi­
ciency of such systems, while environmental analyzes are very impor­
tant from an ecological point of view. Despite that, for stationary PTCs,
this is still a gap to be filled. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first
reported literature to apply these analyzes to this type of collector. In
addition, this work also evaluates how and if the type of heat transfer
fluid used and the angle of inclination of the collector can influence the
investigated parameters. In this study, experimental investigations of a
PTC were carried out to evaluate its performance from an exergetic,
environmental and exergoeconomic point of view. The evaluated PTC
operates in the simplest possible way (stationary and thermosyphon
regime). The evaluated scenarios are compared to determine variations
such as exergy losses, exergy destruction, and environmental
parameters.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Experimental PTC setup
The PTC used in this study was described in details in a previous
study (Barbosa et al., 2020b). The parabolic trough solar collector (PTC)

488
E. Guimarães Barbosa et al. Solar Energy 255 (2023) 487–496

Table 2
Thermophysical properties of heat transfer fluids.
Properties Water Thermal oil Unit

Density at 20 C
◦
997.00 879.00 kg m− 3
kinematic viscosity at 40 ◦ C 0.66 100.00 mm2 s− 1
kinematic viscosity at 100 ◦ C 0.29 14.00 mm2 s− 1
Specific heat at 100 ◦ C 4186.00 2121.00 J kg− 1 K− 1

(LR-7018, LR Informática Industrial, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil) and data

conversion (LR-7520, LR Informática Industrial, Porto Alegre, RS,
Brazil) modules from LR Industrial Informatics.

2.2. Experimental procedure

Fig. 2. Data acquisition system in the evaluated PTC.
For the stationary PTC collector, collector inclination angles and heat
experiment was conducted outside the Laboratory of Biofuels, Federal transfer fluid type are the most influencing factors in its performance. In
University of Viçosa, Brazil, with an altitude of 643 m, and 20◦ 45′ 00′′ this study, the PTC performance was evaluated at three collector incli­
south latitude, 42◦ 56′ 15′′ west longitude. The existing PTC system is nation angles: 0◦ (WPTC0◦ ), +5◦ (WPTC+5◦ ), and +10◦ (WPTC+10◦ ).
stationary without diurnal solar tracking and forced convective heat Where 0◦ refers to the PTC with an inclination equal to the local latitude
transfer. Fig. 1 shows a detailed schematic of the PTC evaluated in this (20.75◦ ), and “+” indicates an increment in this parameter, as shown in
study. Fig. 1. The two heat transfer fluids were water and thermal oil (Lubrax
The main parameters and dimensions of the PTC are presented in extra turbo ch-4 SJ), coded as WPTC0◦ and OPTC0◦ , respectively. With
Table 1. The reflector’s cross-section is a parabola, in which the rays are the oil treatment, only the best incident angle was compared with the
reflected towards the focal point, where the receiver tube is located. A water treatment. The thermophysical properties of the fluids used are
high-reflectance film was used to allow maximum reflection of the rays shown in Table 2.
on the reflector surface. A glass tube in which the annular space is
evacuated and the selective coating is used to minimize the losses by 2.3. Analytical procedures
radiation and convective heat transfer. The thermal reservoir (TES), in
turn, consisted of an insulated metallic reservoir to reduce the transfer of 2.3.1. Uncertainty analysis
thermal energy to the external environment. The insulation consisted of Uncertainty analysis provides the confidence level and accuracy of
2 layers: 25 mm thick glass wool and 10 mm thick expanded polystyrene the results. This analysis was applied to the experimental data obtained
board. The receiving tube was directly connected to the TES through an in this study. The total value of the system uncertainty was calculated
opening in its lower part. using Eq. (1):
Data acquisition was carried out between January 3 and February 4,
[( ) ( ) ( ) ]1/2
corresponding to the summer season in Brazil, and the data were ∂R ∂R ∂R
WR = w + w + ⋯⋯ + w (1)
collected at every minute. Global solar radiation, diffuse solar radiation, ∂x1 1 ∂x2 2 ∂xn n
and temperature data were collected. The meteorological station of the
National Institute of Meteorology (INMET), located on the campus of the where WR represents the total uncertainty (%) of the results, x represents
Federal University of Viçosa, in the city of Viçosa, Minas Gerais State, a variable considered, w and R are dimensional shape factors and the
provided data on ambient temperature and wind speed. Fig. 2 presents a uncertainty function, respectively, and w1, w2, and wn represent the
detailed view of the data acquisition system in the PTC at the experi­ uncertainty in the independent variables. Thus, the total uncertainty
mental area. obtained was less than 2.00% for the present experimental investigation.
Global solar radiation is the sum of diffuse and direct solar radiation.
One of the main difficulties in obtaining direct solar radiation data is the 2.3.1.1. Exergy. Exergetic analysis is a handy method to quantify the
high costs of the equipment (pyrheliometer) due to the need for an ac­ thermodynamic quality of any process or system. This method is based
curate solar tracking system. An alternative is to calculate the direct on comparing an idealized system where the energy transformations are
solar radiation as the difference between the global and the diffuse, reversible, without entropy production with the system to be evaluated.
which was the procedure adopted in this study. The global solar radia­ This study performed a detailed analysis, including solar irradiation
tion was measured using a silicon pyranometer model LI-200SA (LI- exergy, useful exergy production, exergy losses, and exergy destruction.
200SA model, LI-COR Inc., Lincoln, NE, USA, Accuracy: ± 5%). The The model presented in Bellos and Tzivanidis (2017) was used.
diffuse solar radiation was obtained by the Melo-Escobedo-Oliveira The exergy of solar irradiation can be estimated using the most
(MEO) shading method described by Rossi et al. (2018). A first-class accepted model in the literature, introduced by Petela (2003). The
pyranometer (CMP6 model, Kipp & Zonen, Delft, The Netherlands, Ac­ temperature of the sun (Tsun) in the outer layers can be estimated as
curacy: ± 5 W m− 2) was installed under the shaded device to measure 5770 K. The exergy flux from the undiluted solar irradiation or exergy
diffuse solar radiation. A fixed ring is used to shade the pyranometer, input (Ex,in) can be calculated according to Eq. (2).
and variations in solar declination are compensated by moving the [ ( ) ( )4 ]
pyranometer at its base, below the ring. For a detailed understanding of Ex,in = QS 1 −
4 Tamb
+
1 Tamb
(2)
the MEO method, the reader is directed to Rossi et al. (2018). Temper­ 3 Tsun 3 Tsun
ature data were collected using four K-type thermocouples (K-type
model, Omega, Stamford, CT, USA, Accuracy: ± 0.1 ◦ C), positioned at where QS is the available solar energy on the collector aperture and Tamb
the top, middle, and bottom of the TES and one at the center of the is the ambient temperature. The useful exergy output (Ex,out) can be
receiver tube, as depicted in Fig. 2. For the analyzes carried out in this calculated according to Eq. (3).
study, the outlet and inlet temperatures were considered as the average [ ] [ ]
Tout ΔP
temperature of the reservoir in the evaluated time and in the previous Ex,out = Qu − mcp Tamb ln − mTamb (3)
Tin ρfluid Tfluid
time, respectively. Data were collected and stored using data acquisition

489
E. Guimarães Barbosa et al. Solar Energy 255 (2023) 487–496

where Qu is the useful energy production, m is the mass flow rate, cp is Table 3
Weight, embodied energy, and embodied CO2 emission of raw material (Ardente
the specific heat capacity, ρfluid is the density, and Tfluid is the fluid
et al., 2005; Hammond and Jones, 2008; Sharafeldin et al., 2019).
temperature. Pressure losses are essential when the working fluid is a gas
due to its low density. However, this irreversibility term can be ignored Material Total weight Embodied Embodied CO2
(kg) energy (MJ emission
when the fluid is a liquid, as the pressure drop (ΔP) due to compress­
kg¡1) (kg of CO2 kg¡1)
ibility effects is usually negligible. Therefore, Eq. (3) can be reduced
Evacuated tube 3.10 23.50 15.60
according to Eq. (4).
Metallic reservoir 3.40 24.40 1.77
[ ] Expanded polystyrene 0.20 75.20 2.18
Tout
Ex,out = Qu − mcp Tamb ln (4) Glass wool 1.50 28.00 1.53
Tin Collector aluminum 2.40 155.00 8.24
structure
The exergetic efficiency of the collector (ηex) can be defined as the
PTC steel structure 6.20 24.40 1.77
ratio between the useful exergy output (Ex,out) and the exergy input (Ex, Galvanized steel sheet 3.36 24.40 1.77
in), as shown in Eq. (5). Reflector sheet 0.50 155.00 8.24
Thermal fluid 15.8 41.00 10.40
Ex,out Total [WPTC+10◦ , +5◦ , 895.61 97.93
ηex = (5)
and 0◦ ]
Ex,in
Total [OPTC0◦ ] 1543.41 262.24
The magnitude of the total exergy loss (Exl) was obtained by Eq. (6).
This loss is defined as the sum of optical exergy loss and thermal exergy
loss. Total heat loss can be defined as the difference between available The economic analysis of the system was performed as described
solar energy (Qs) and useful energy production (Qu) and is calculated below. The capital recovery factor (CRF), annual fixed cost (FAC), sys­
according to Eqs. (7), 8 and 9. tem residual value (S), sinking fund factor (SFF), annual residual value
( ) (ASV) and annual cost (UAC) were calculated as described in Eqs. 13–18,
( ) Tamb
Exl = 1 − ηopt Ex,in + 1 − Ql (6) respectively (Barbosa et al., 2020a). The cost of capital (Ps) of the col­
Tr
lector evaluated in this study is $288.86 and $358.50 when operating
with water and thermal oil as HTF, respectively, considering the current
Ql = Qs − Qu (7)
dollar exchange rate (Barbosa et al., 2020b). The operational mainte­
Q s = G b Aa (8) nance cost (AMC) is assumed to be 10% of the FAC. For most solar en­
ergy projects, the lifetime of the systems is generally considered to be 20
Qu = m.cp (Tout − Tin ) (9) years (Huang and Marefati, 2020). This study performed a parametric
evaluation considering different values for the system’s useful life (10,
The irreversibilities related to the heat transfer in the system are 15 and 20 years) and interest rate (5, 7 and 9%).
expressed through the destruction of exergy. Specifically, this parameter
indicates possible work lost during thermal energy transfer from a hot i.(1 + i)n
CRF = (13)
resource to a cooler one. For solar collectors, exergy destruction can be (1 + i)n − 1
specified in two main cases. The first case refers to the destruction be­
tween the sun and the receiver tube, while the second one occurs be­ FAC = CRF.Ps (14)
tween the absorber tube and the HTF, and the magnitude of exergy
S = 0.2.Ps (15)
destruction can be expressed by Eq. (10). Due to the optical losses, the
tubular absorber absorbs a smaller amount of energy from the total
i
available from the sun, so the energy absorbed by the receiver (Qabs) can SFF = (16)
(1 + i)n − 1
be calculated according to Eq. (11).
(
Tamb
) (
Tamb
) ASV = SSF.S (17)
Exd = ηopt Ex,in − Qabs 1 − + Qu 1 − − Ex,out (10)
Tr Tr
UAC = FAC + AMC − ASV (18)
Qabs = ηopt Qs (11)
2.3.1.3. Environmental. Assessing the environmental impact generated
2.3.1.2. Exergoeconomic. The exergoeconomic approach is an exergy- during its lifetime is very important for any renewable technology. In
based cost analysis method for analyzing and improving systems per­ this study, different parameters were used to evaluate the sustainability
formance. The main objective of this investigation is to provide pa­ and environmental feasibility of the proposed systems. Energy payback
rameters to evaluate the optimal cost structure and provide data so that time (EPBT) is always one of the criteria used to assess the feasibility of
designers can improve system performance economically. This analysis renewable energy systems. This parameter is considered the time
aims to achieve the ideal design, balancing the economic and exergetic required to reach an energy yield above the energy invested and depends
aspects properly. Conventionally, parameters for exergoeconomic on the embodied energy (Ein) and the system’s annual exergy production
analysis were evaluated as exergy loss per unit cost to reduce the exergy (Eex,ann). The exergy-based energy payback time EPBTex was calculated
losses. But this is not suitable for solar thermal systems because no according to Eq (19). Like the EPBT, the carbon payback time (CPBT)
penalty has to pay against exergy losses. This happens because nothing indicates how long it takes for the PTC to mitigate the amount of CO2
has to pay for solar radiation which is input for solar thermal systems. emitted during its construction. Equation (20) describes the calculation
Moreover, there is no control over solar radiation as it depends on the for exergy-based carbon payback time CPBTex (Hassan et al., 2020).
atmospheric conditions (Chopra et al., 2021). Therefore, exer­ Ein
EPBT ex = (19)
goeconomic parameter (Rex) can be defined as the ratio between the Eex,ann
exergy production per year (Eex,ann) and the annual cost (UAC) and was
calculated according to Eq. (12) (Chopra et al., 2021). CO2,emi
CPBT ex = (20)
CO2,red
Eex,ann
Rex = (12)
UAC For any technology or system based on renewable energy, the energy

490
E. Guimarães Barbosa et al.
Fig. 3. Variation of solar radiation, wind speed, and ambient, inlet and outlet temperatures for: (A) WPTC+10◦ ; (B) WPTC+5◦ ; (C) WPTC0◦ and (D) OPTC0◦ .
produced over its lifetime must be greater than the energy consumed
during manufacture. This fact is also valid for the emission of polluting
gases, such as carbon dioxide. Embodied energy is the energy consumed
to manufacture each material used in the system (PTC). Similarly, the
embodied CO2 emission is the amount of CO2 emitted to produce these
materials. The macro approach “Cradle to Gate” is followed in this study,
and thus the embodied energies for transportation, installation, and
foundation or special structures were not considered (Michael and Sel­
varasan, 2017). Table 3 presents the weight, embodied energy, and
embodied CO2 emission of the different materials used to construct the
PTC.
2.3.1.4. Enviroeconomic. The use of solar-powered technologies re­
duces carbon emissions to the environment and minimizes the envi­
ronmental impact generated by using non-renewable and polluting
energy sources. In this study, an enviroeconomic analysis was performed
based on the rate of CO2 emission into the environment. The average
amount of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere for electricity generation from
a thermoelectric plant is 980 g of CO2 per kWh. Considering distribution
and transmission losses of 40 and 20 %, respectively, the total amount of
CO2 emitted (ψ CO2) becomes about 2.0 kg of CO2 per kWh (Gagnon et al.,
2002). Then, the amount of CO2 mitigated per year in tons based on
exergy (ϕCO2)ex can be calculated as per Eq. (22) (Tripathi et al., 2016).
( ) ψ CO2 . Eex,ann
ϕCO2 ex
= (22)
103
The annual revenue (carbon credits) obtained by reducing CO2
emissions over the system’s lifetime based on exergy (ZCO2 )ex is
described in Eq. (23) (Tripathi et al., 2016). According to the interna­
tional market, carbon (zCO2 ) price varies between $13 and $16 per ton of
mitigated CO2 (Chopra et al., 2021). This study considered the average
carbon price of $14.5 per ton of CO2 to obtain the annual revenue.
( )
(ZCO2 )ex = ϕCO2 ex .zCO2 (23)
491
Solar Energy 255 (2023) 487–496
3. Results and discussion
This section presents the results obtained from the experimental
investigation and evaluation of the exergetic, enviroeconomic, and
exergoeconomic performance of PTC for different inclinations and
different heat transfer fluids. For data reduction, a representative day for
each evaluated configuration is presented, namely: 01/20 for WPTC0◦ ,
01/24 for WPTC+5◦ , 01/30 for WPTC+10◦ , and 02/02 for OPTC0◦ . The
results obtained are presented and discussed in detail below. It is worth
mentioning that the results presented were obtained considering the
operation of the collector on typical days of the summer season in Brazil,
that is, days with clear skies and high solar incidence.
3.1. Summary data
Fig. 3 presents the variation of solar radiation, wind speed, ambient
temperature, and the inlet and outlet temperatures for the evaluated
cases. As expected, solar radiation showed typical behavior of clear
days, with a continuous increase until reaching its maximum between
12:00 and 14:00 h for all evaluated days. The ambient temperature
varied similarly to solar radiation, getting a maximum value at 16:00 h
on the assessed days. The maximum observed solar radiation and
ambient temperature values were 998.93 W m− 2 and 32.90 ◦ C, 965.89
W m− 2 and 31.20 ◦ C, 983.30 W m− 2 and 31.50 ◦ C and 935.99 W m− 2
and 32.50 ◦ C for WPTC+10◦ , WPTC+5◦ , WPTC0◦ , and OPTC0◦ cases,
respectively. It is also observed that the wind speed presented an erratic
behavior throughout the day, with its maximum value obtained between
8:00 and 10:00 h on the evaluated days.
For HTF inlet temperature, a constant increase was verified over the
hours, reaching a maximum value at 17:00 h for all cases evaluated. On
the other hand, a drop in the outlet temperature is observed from 16:00
to 17:00 h for the OPTC0◦ case (Fig. 3D). The most significant gains in
thermal energy, i.e., the difference between the inlet and outlet
E. Guimarães Barbosa et al.
Fig. 4. Evolution of exergetic efficiency over hours for the evaluated cases.
temperatures of the HTF, were obtained at 13:00 h for all cases evalu­
ated. The temperature increase observed were 11.20, 11.47, 15.13, and
46.87 ◦ C for WPTC+10◦ , WPTC+5◦ , WPTC0◦ , and OPTC0◦ cases, respec­
tively. This result may be related to the higher optical efficiencies of the
collector observed between 11:00 and 13:00 h. As the PTC evaluated in
this study operates in a stationary manner, the angle of solar incidence is
greatly influenced by the sun’s movement. Close to solar noon, the solar
rays are perpendicular to the collector surface, increasing the portion of
the rays reflected to the receiver and consequently its efficiency. It was
Fig. 5. Exergy as a function of time for (A) WPTC+10◦ , (B) WPTC+5◦ , (C) WPTC0◦ , and (D) OPTC0◦ .
492
Solar Energy 255 (2023) 487–496
also noted that higher temperatures are observed when the PTC operates
with thermal oil as a working fluid (OPTC0◦ ). This is related to the
expressive differences between water and thermal oil heat capacities
(Table 2), where the highest temperature uptake is achieved for the fluid
with the lowest heat capacity.
3.2. Exergetic analysis
The different inclinations effect and the thermal fluids used on the
exergetic efficiency of the PTC as a function of time are shown in Fig. 4.
It is observed that, similarly to solar radiation, the exergetic efficiency
reaches a maximum value between 12:00 and 13:00, followed by a
reduction in the following hours for all cases evaluated. Although solar
radiation presents high values until 14:00, a reduction in exergy effi­
ciency is observed at this time. This behavior may be related to the
continuous increase in the HTF inlet temperature in all cases (Fig. 3).
This causes an increase in the temperature difference between the HTF
and the environment temperature, consequently causing an increase in
thermal losses from the collector to the environment. As the increase in
radiation between 13:00 and 14:00 pm is small, this increase in the
amount of incident solar radiation may not be enough to overcome such
thermal losses and still result in an increase in the total temperature
gain, directly influencing the efficiency. The average and maximum
exegetic efficiency values were 10.84 and 24.98% for WPTC+10◦ , 11.75
and 19.99% for WPTC+5◦ , 12.97 and 23.27% for WPTC0◦ , and 19.73 and
34.04% for OPTC0◦ . According to Teles et al. (2019), for collectors that
operate in a stationary manner, the inclination equal to latitude can
minimize the effects of solar declination, increasing the percentage of
intercepted radiation. This may explain the behavior observed in this
study. It is verified that the average exergetic efficiency reduces as the
E. Guimarães Barbosa et al.
Fig. 6. Distribution of exergy flows as a function of time for (A) WPTC+10◦ , (B) WPTC+5◦ , (C) WPTC0◦ and (D) OPTC0◦ .
PTC inclination moves away from the local inclination value. In respect
to the heat transfer fluids, the use of thermal oil considerably improves
the exergetic efficiency of PTC during the time evaluated when
compared with water. This may be related to the higher output tem­
perature values obtained using thermal oil (Fig. 3D). It is clear that, for
the cases evaluated in this study, the exergetic efficiency of the PTC is
much more dependent on the type of fluid used than on the inclination of
the collector.
Fig. 5 shows the variation of input exergy (Ex,in) or solar irradiation
exergy, useful exergy output (Ex,out), total exergy loss (Exl) and exergy
destruction (Exd) along the day. As the input exergy is directly related to
the incident solar radiation available in the collector area, Ex,in showed a
behaviour similar to the variation of radiation throughout the day with
maximum values between 12:00 and 14:00 h. For the cases using water
as HTF, the collector with local inclination (20.75◦ ) presented total
useful exergy of 7.8 and 32.7% higher in relation to the inclinations of
25.75 and 30.75◦ , respectively, with daily sums of useful exergy of
approximately 1308 W for WPTC0◦ , 1213 W for WPTC+5◦ and 985 W for
WPTC+10◦ . For the case using oil as HTF, the daily sum of useful exergy
was about 1726 W, 32% higher than the best configuration using water
as HTF. The best use of exergy in the OPTC0◦ case is related to the higher
fluid temperature values achieved in this configuration. For all cases
evaluated, the exergy loss increases during the day, with loss peaks at
15:00 h. The total daily exergetic loss for the evaluated collectors was
4852, 4237, 4243 and 4485 W for WPTC0◦ ; WPTC+5◦ ; WPTC+10◦ and
OPTC0◦ , respectively. For all cases, the destruction of exergy caused by
the irreversibilities of the system tends to follow the behavior of the
radiation, being more pronounced at higher incident radiation. This
exergy destruction occurred because the input exergy from the sun,
disregarding optical and thermal losses, cannot be fully converted into
493
Solar Energy 255 (2023) 487–496
useful energy in the collector. Thus, at high radiation incidence, much of
the exergy is destroyed in heat transfer from the receiver to the HTF
since the working fluid cannot instantly absorb all the energy available
in the receiver. For OPTC0◦ , the total exergy destroyed (2419 W) is
approximately 35% lower than the average observed for cases using
water as HTF.
The distribution of exergetic flows over the hours for the cases
evaluated is shown in Fig. 6. This figure describes the results of Fig. 5 in
percentage to clarify how the exergy flows occurred. The mean exergy
lost corresponds to more than 50% of the total available input exergy for
all cases evaluated. When assessing the exergy destruction during the
sun hours, it is clearly noticed that the lowest percentages of exergy loss
occur between 11:00 and 14:00 and increase in the other hours. This
shows that some changes can be made to the collector in the future to
recover part of this lost exergy, such as adding a solar tracking system
and optical optimization of the collector-receiver system, among others.
About 35–37% of the exergy is destroyed during the day for cases using
water as HTF. Therefore, for these cases, the useful exergy of the system
varies between 12 and 14%. Despite the slight variation, the WPTC0◦
presented the best exergy performance among the evaluated in­
clinations, with the lowest destroyed exergy and the highest percentage
of useful exergy. For the oil use as HTF, the destroyed exergy corre­
sponds to about 28%, while the useful exergy represents 20% of the total
input exergy. These results indicate that OPTC0◦ is the best system ac­
cording to exergy analysis since it has the highest flow of useful exergy
and the lowest flow of destroyed exergy. Notably, the exergy destroyed
in the system is an essential indicator of system performance because it
is due to irreversibilities and therefore cannot be recovered.
E. Guimarães Barbosa et al. Solar Energy 255 (2023) 487–496

Table 4
Variation of the exergoeconomic parameter (Rex) and annual cost (UAC) of the systems evaluated for different lifetimes and interest rates (IR).
Cases Lifetime IR UAC Rex Cases Lifetime IR UAC Rex

(years) (%) ($) (kWh $-1) (years) (%) ($) (kWh $-1)

WPTC+10◦ 10 5 61.70 3.33 WPTC0◦ 10 5 61.70 4.75

7 65.83 3.12 7 65.83 4.46
9 70.09 2.93 9 70.09 4.18
15 5 54.04 3.80 15 5 54.04 5.43
7 58.30 3.52 7 58.30 5.03
9 62.75 3.27 9 62.75 4.67
20 5 50.32 4.08 20 5 50.32 5.83
7 54.74 3.75 7 54.74 5.36
9 59.40 3.46 9 59.40 4.94
WPTC+5◦ 10 5 61.70 4.47 OPTC0◦ 10 5 76.58 6.07
7 65.83 4.19 7 81.70 5.69
9 70.09 3.94 9 86.99 5.34
15 5 54.04 5.11 15 5 67.07 6.93
7 58.30 4.73 7 72.36 6.42
9 62.75 4.40 9 77.88 5.96
20 5 50.32 5.49 20 5 62.45 7.44
7 54.74 5.04 7 67.94 6.84
9 59.40 4.65 9 73.72 6.30

causes a reduction in Rex. On the other hand, this parameter increases

Table 5
when thermal oil is used instead of water for the same inclination. This is
Energy payback time (EPBTex) and the carbon payback time (CPBTex) for all
related to the higher values of useful exergy production for these con­
evaluated systems.
figurations. Considering a fixed useful life of 20 years and an interest
Cases Total embodied Total embodied EPBTex CPBTex rate of 7%, the Rex of WPTC0◦ is higher than that of WPTC+5◦ and
energy CO2 emission (kg of (year) (year)
(MJ) CO2)
WPTC+10◦ by about 6.3% and 42.9%, respectively. For this scenario,
using thermal oil increases the Rex by approximately 27.6% compared to
WPTC+10◦ 895.61 97.93 1.212 1.161
using water for the same inclination. Hassan et al. (2020) reported Rex
WPTC5◦ 0.901 0.643
WPTC0◦ 0.848 0.569 values ranging between 4.9 and 6.2 kWh $-1 for different configurations
OPTC0◦ 1543.41 262.24 0.923 0.608 of a PTC coupled to a solar still.

3.3. Exergoeconomic analysis 3.4. Environmental analysis

In this evaluation, the exergoeconomic parameter (Rex) was calcu­
lated considering different interest rates (5, 7, and 9 %) and useful life
(10, 15, and 20 years), and the results are presented in Table 4. Note that
the annual cost (UAC) is the same for the different inclinations
(WPTC+10◦ , WPTC+5◦ , and WPTC0◦ ) and higher when oil is used as HTF
(OPTC0◦ ) due to the capital cost values. In all cases evaluated, for a fixed
life, the UAC increases with an increase of interest rate but decreases
with increasing useful life for a fixed interest rate. Both configurations
observed inverse behavior for the exergoeconomic parameter (Rex).
Regardless of interest rate and useful life, increasing the PTC tilt angle
Table 5 presents the total embodied energy and embodied CO2
emission values, and the energy payback times (EPBTex) and carbon
(CPBTex). When assessing the PTC inclinations, the WPTC+10◦ presented
the highest EPBTex and CPBTex, while the WPTC0◦ presented the lowest
values. It can also be observed that the OPTC0◦ presented values of total
embodied energy and total embodied CO2 emission considerably higher
than the other cases. This is due to the weight of thermal oil used as HTF
in the OPTC0◦ . Despite this, the OPTC0◦ obtained energy and carbon
payback times close to those of the WPTC0◦ . This is mainly due to the
greater exergy efficiencies and, consequently, the greater production of
useful exergy presented by the OPTC0◦ . The EPBTex and CPBTex values

Fig. 7. Variation of enviroeconomic parameters with the lifetime of the systems for (A) amount of CO2 mitigated (ϕCO2ex) and (B) annual revenue generated (ZCO2ex).

494
E. Guimarães Barbosa et al.
obtained were 0.848 and 0.569 for the WPTC0◦ and 0.923 and 0.608 for
the OPTC0◦ , respectively.
3.5. Enviroeconomic analysis
Fig. 7 shows the amount of CO2 mitigated (ϕCO2ex) and the revenue
generated (ZCO2ex) for different lifetime values evaluated in this study.
As expected, both parameters increase with increasing the system life­
time for all cases. Considering a useful life of 20 years, the values ob­
tained for ϕCO2ex were 11.73, 11.04, 8.21, and 18.58 mitigated tons of
CO2, while for ZCO2ex, the values were 170.11, 160.08, 119.09, and
269.45 $ for WPTC0◦ , WPTC+5◦ , WPTC+10◦ , and OPTC0◦ , respectively. It
can be inferred that the increase in the PTC inclination generated a
reduction in both the amount of CO2 mitigated and the revenue gener­
ated. It is also noted that OPTC0◦ was the best system to reduce CO2
emissions and increase revenue among all the evaluated cases. These
results indicate that the useful exergy outputs of this case during its
useful life are significantly higher than those of the other cases
evaluated.
4. Conclusions
In this study, an experimental evaluation of the performance of a
stationary parabolic trough solar collector (PTC) was performed in
different configurations for climatic conditions in Brazil. The influence
of the PTC inclination (0 to 10◦ ) and the thermal fluid type (oil and
water) were examined. Exergetic, enviroeconomic and exergoeconomic
analyzes were used to assess the sustainability of the PTC. The system
operating with oil and at 0◦ of inclination (OPTC0◦ ) presented the
highest exergy efficiency among the evaluated cases, where its efficiency
peak was observed between 12:00 and 13:00 h. Among the inclinations
evaluated, the inclination by 0◦ presented the highest values of useful
exergy. In all cases evaluated, an exergy loss of approximately 50% was
observed, indicating that improvements can be applied to the collector.
The OPTC0◦ system presented the lowest exergy destruction among the
cases evaluated, showing itself as the best configuration in exergetic
terms. This system presented the highest values of energy production per
$ for all scenarios evaluated. The energy and carbon payback times
obtained were 0.848 and 0.569 for the WPTC0◦ and 0.923 and 0.608 for
the OPTC0◦ , respectively.
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.
Acknowledgment
The authors thank the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento
Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq – Brazil) (National Council for Scientific
and Technological Development) for funding the PhD scholarship (grant
202655/2020-2) and the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento Pessoal de
Nível Superior (CAPES – Brazil) (Coordination for the Improvement of
Higher Education Personnel) (Finance Code 001 and grant
88887.508444/2020-00).
References
Ardente, F., Beccali, G., Cellura, M., Lo Brano, V., 2005. Life cycle assessment of a solar
thermal collector: sensitivity analysis, energy and environmental balances. Renew.
Energy 30, 109–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2004.05.006.
Barbosa, E.G., Araújo, M.E.V.D., Moraes, M.J.D., Martins, M.A., Alves, B.G.X., Barbosa, E.
G., 2019. Influence of the absorber tubes configuration on the performance of low
cost solar water heating systems. J. Clean. Prod. 222, 22–28. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.020.
Barbosa, E.G., Araujo, M.E.V., Lopes, R.P., Martins, M.A., Moraes, M.J., Barbosa, E.G.,
Falconí, J.H.H., 2020a. Exergetic, economic and environmental (3E) analysis of a
495
Solar Energy 255 (2023) 487–496
low cost solar heater in different configurations. Renew. Energy 160, 1096–1104.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.07.060.
Barbosa, E.G., Martins, M.A., Araujo, M.E.V., Renato, M.J., Barbosa, N.S., Zolnier, S.,
Pereira, E.G., Resende, M.O., 2020b. Experimental evaluation of a stationary
parabolic trough solar collector: influence of the concentrator and heat transfer fluid.
J. Clean. Prod. 276, 124174 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124174.
Bellos, E., Tzivanidis, C., 2017. A detailed exergetic analysis of parabolic trough
collectors. Energ. Conver. Manage. 149, 275–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2017.07.035.
Bellos, E., Tzivanidis, C., Antonopoulos, K.A., 2016. Exergetic, energetic and financial
evaluation of a solar driven absorption cooling system with various collector types.
Appl. Therm. Eng. 102, 749–759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2016.04.032.
Buonomano, A., Calise, F., Palombo, A., 2018. Solar heating and cooling systems by
absorption and adsorption chillers driven by stationary and concentrating
photovoltaic/thermal solar collectors: modelling and simulation. Renew. Sust.
Energy Rev. 82, 187–1908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.10.059.
Caliskan, H., 2017. Energy, exergy, environmental, enviroeconomic,
exergoenvironmental (EXEN) and exergoenviroeconomic (EXENEC) analyses of solar
collectors. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 69, 488–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2016.11.203.
Chafie, M., Aissa, M.F.B., Guizani, A., 2018. Energetic end exergetic performance of a
parabolic trough collector receiver: an experimental study. J. Clean. Prod. 171,
285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.012.
Chakraborty, O., Roy, S., Das, B., Gupta, R., 2021. Effects of helical absorber tube on the
energy and exergy analysis of parabolic solar trough collector – a computational
analysis. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 44, 101083 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
seta.2021.101083.
Chopra, K., Tyagi, V.V., Pandey, A.K., Ma, Z., Ren, H., 2021. Energy, exergy,
enviroeconomic & exergoeconomic (4E) assessment of thermal energy storage
assisted solar water heating system: experimental & theoretical approach. J. Energy
Storage 35, 102232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2021.102232.
Ehyaei, M.A., Ahmadi, A., El Haj Assad, M., Salameh, T., 2019. Optimization of parabolic
through collector (PTC) with multi objective swarm optimization (MOPSO) and
energy, exergy and economic analyses. J. Clean. Prod. 234, 285–296. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.210.
Evangelisti, L., Vollaro, R.L., Asdrubali, F., 2019. Latest advances on solar thermal
collectors: a comprehensive review. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 114, 109218 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109318.
Faisal Ahmed, S., Khalid, M., Vaka, M., Walvekar, R., Numan, A., Khaliq Rasheed, A.,
Mujawar Mubarak, N., 2021. Recent progress in solar water heaters and solar
collectors: a comprehensive review. Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog. 25, 100981 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tsep.2021.100981.
Fathy, M., Hassan, H., Ahmed, M.S., 2018. Experimental study on the effect of coupling
parabolic trough collector with double slope solar still on its performance. Sol.
Energy 163, 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.01.043.
Gagnon, L., Bélanger, C., Uchiyama, Y., 2002. Life-cycle assessment of electricity
generation options: the status of research in year 2001. Energy Policy 14,
1267–1278. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00088-5.
Gakkhar, N., Soni, M.S., Jakhar, S., 2016. Second law thermodynamic study of solar
assisted distillation system: a review. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 56, 519–535.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.11.076.
Gao, C., Chen, F., 2020. Model building and optical performance analysis on a novel
designed compound parabolic concentrator. Energ. Conver. Manage. 209, 112619
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112619.
Ghazouani, M., Bouya, M., Benaissa, M., 2020. Thermo-economic and exergy analysis
and optimization of small PTC collectors for solar heat integration in industrial
processes. Renew. Energy 152, 984–998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2020.01.109.
Hammond, G., Jones, C., 2008. Inventory of carbon & energy: ICE. Sustainable Energy
Research Team, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bath, Bath.
Hassan, H., Yousef, M.S., Fathy, M., Ahmed, M.S., 2020. Assessment of parabolic trough
solar collector assisted solar still at various saline water mediums via energy, exergy,
exergoeconomic, and enviroeconomic approaches. Renew. Energy 155, 604–616.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.03.126.
Huang, W., Marefati, M., 2020. Energy, exergy, environmental and economic comparison
of various solar thermal systems using water and Thermia Oil B base fluids, and CuO
and Al2O3 nanofluids. Energy Rep. 6, 2919–2947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
egyr.2020.10.021.
Michael, J.J., Selvarasan, I., 2017. Economic analysis and environmental impact of flat
plate roof mounted solar energy systems. Sol Energy 142, 159–180. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.solener.2016.12.019.
Rossi, T.J., Escobedo, J.F., dos Santos, C.M., Rossi, L.R., da Silva, M.B.P., Dal Pai, E.,
2018. Global, Diffuse and direct solar radiation of the infrared spectrum in Botucatu/
SP/Brazil. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 82, 448–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2017.09.030.
Sangi, R., Muller, D., 2019. Application of the second law of thermodynamics to control:
a review. Energy 174, 938–953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.03.024.
Sharafeldin, M.A., Grof, G., Abu-Nada, E., Mahian, O., 2019. Evacuated tube solar
collector performance using copper nanofluid: energy and environmental analysis.
Appl. Therm. Eng. 162, 114205 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2019.114205.
Sharma, A.K., Sharma, C., Mullick, S.C., Kandpal, T.C., 2017. Solar industrial process
heating: a review. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 78, 124–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2017.04.079.
E. Guimarães Barbosa et al.
Teles, M.P.R., Ismail, K.A.R., Arabkoohsar, A., 2019. A new version of a low
concentration evacuated tube solar collector: optical and thermal investigation. Sol.
Energy 180, 324–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.01.039.
Tripathi, R., Tiwari, G.N., Dwivedi, V.K., 2016. Overall energy, exergy and carbon credit
analysis of N partially covered Photovoltaic Thermal (PVT) concentrating collector
connected in series. Sol. Energy 136, 260–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solener.2016.07.002.
496
Solar Energy 255 (2023) 487–496
Ullah, F., Kang, M., 2017. Impact of air flow rate on drying of apples and performance
assessment of parabolic trough solar collector. Appl. Therm. Eng. 127, 275–280.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.07.101.
Vahedi, B., Golab, E., Nasiri Sadr, A., Vafai, K., 2022. Thermal, thermodynamic and
exergoeconomic investigation of a parabolic trough collector utilizing nanofluids.
Appl. Therm. Eng. 206, 118117 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2022.118117.