Exergy Based Analysis of Mini Tri-Generation Systems For South India

MASTERS THESIS
M.Sc. Energy Engineering

2012-14
Exergy Based Analysis of the Mini

Tri-generation Systems for South
India
By
Gautham Srinivas Ganesh (Reg. 350315)
Supervised by
Prof. Dr. Tatjana Morozyuk
Prof. Dr. Ing George Tsatsaronis
1 | Master Thesis Gautham Srinivas Ganesh
Eidesstattliche Erklrung
Hiermit versichere ich, dass ich die vorliegende Arbeit selbststndig verfasst
und keine anderen als die angegebenen Quellen und Hilfsmittel benutzt habe.
Alle Ausfhrungen, die anderen verffentlichten oder nicht verffentlichten
Schriften wrtlich oder sinngem entnommen wurden, habe ich kenntlich
gemacht. Die Arbeit hat in gleicher oder hnlicher Fassung noch keiner
anderen Prfungsbehrde vorgelegen.
To my parents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
At the outset, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Prof. Dr. Tatiana Morozyuk
and Prof. Dr. George Tsatsaronis, Institut fr Energietechnik, Technische Universitt Berlin,
for their constant and continuous support throughout the entire masters program, and the
extensive support provided during the course of this thesis.
I would also like to thank the people of Siddhamalli village (Nagapattinam district,
Tamilnadu, India) for their co-operation in responding to questions posed to them in the
form of a survey during the locational analysis phase of the project. I wish to express my
special and sincere thanks to Mr. R. Vishwanathan, Mrs. Padmavathi Vishwanathan and Mr.
R. Nagarajan, residents of Siddhamalli village, for the extensive assistance provided in the
form of intricate information about various issues regarding the village, which eventually
transformed into worthwhile techno-socio-economic analysis in the project.
I thank the entire TU Berlin Campus El Gouna batch of 2012 with special mention to
Energy Engineering class of 2012 among others, without whom this journey, which started
out riding ATVs in the deserts of Egypt, and spanning over two years, could not have been
so memorable.
Reserving the best for the end, I would like to thank my parents, Mrs. Vasanthi Ganesh and
Mr. S. Ganesh, for their constant backing all through my career and personal life, continuous
prayers for my well-being and successful completion of my Masters degree, and finally for
helping out in the locational survey of the project by clicking many different photos of the
village without which all this could not have been possible.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOPIC
Acknowledgement
Abstract
1. Introduction
1.1 Overview
1.2 Background
1.3 Locational Survey
1.3.1 Infrastructure
1.3.2 Environmental Conditions
1.3.3 Socio-economic and Political Situations
1.3.4 Technical Analysis and Potentials
1.4 Roadmap
2. System Design and Analysis
2.1 Absorption Refrigeration Machine
2.1.1 Flow Diagram
2.1.2 Components and Thermodynamic State Point Variables
2.2 Organic Rankine Cycle
2.2.1 Flow Diagram
2.2.3 T-S Diagram
2.3 Technological Considerations
2.3.1 Biomass Feedstock
2.3.2 Combustion Process
2.4 Effect of Generator Source Temperature on Various Thermodynamic
Parameters
3. Economic Analysis
3.1 Purchased Equipment Cost
3.1.1 Absorption Refrigeration Machine
3.1.2 Organic Rankine Cycle
3.2 Breakdown of Total Capital Investment
3.3 Operation and Maintenance and Fuel Costs
3.3.1 O&M Costs
3.3.2 Fuel Costs
3.4 Total Revenue Requirement
3.4.1 Calculation of Carrying Charges (CCL)
3.4.2 Calculation of Levelized Operation and Maintenance Costs
(OMCL)
3.4.3 Calculation of Levelized Fuel Cost (FCL)
3.5 Exergoeconomic Parameters
4. Exergy and Exergoeconomic Analysis
4.1 Exergy of Streams
4.2 Component Exergy Balances
4.3 Exergy Destruction, Exergetic Efficiencies and Exergy Destruction Ratios
4.4 Cost Balances and Auxiliary Equations
PAGE
4
10
11
11
12
13
14
15
16
19
24
25
25
25
26
33
33
34
37
38
38
40
43
46
46
49
52
56
57
57
57
57
58
58
58
59
61
61
61
63
64
67
70
4.5 Inputs for Exergoeconomic Optimization: Zk, CD,k, CL, Zk+CD,k, fk and rk
5. System Optimization
5.1 Decision Variables
5.2 Iterative Optimization
5.2.1 First Iteration
5.2.2 Second Iteration
5.2.3 Third Iteration
5.2.4 Fourth Iteration
5.3 Comparison of Iterations
5.3.1 Comparison of Individual Components
5.3.2 Comparison of Performances of Overall System
5.4 Conclusion
6. Future Work - Stoves Powered by District Heat
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A - Questions of the Survey Conducted in the Village
APPENDIX B - Additional Pictures from Siddhamalli Village, India
73
76
76
77
77
78
79
81
82
82
86
89
90
92
94
95
LIST OF TABLES
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
TOPIC
Appliances in households
Electrical power and energy demand trends in the village
Dimensions of the room to be cooled for different types of houses
Cooling energy demand trends in the village
State variables of the absorption cooling cycle
State variables for ORC
Median proximate and elementary analysis of various animal wastes
Values of individual heat transfer coefficient for tubular heat exchangers
Breakdown of Total Capital Investment (in 1000$)
Carrying Charges
Levelized operation and maintenance costs
Fuel Costs
Total Revenue Requirement
Values of Zk for the components of the system
Exergy of streams in Absorption Refrigeration Machine
Exergy of streams in Organic Rankine Cycle
Exergies, exergetic efficiency, exergetic ratios of components
Cost rates associated with individual streams
Exergoeconomic parameters of various components in the system
Decision variables
Exergoeconomic parameters of components after the first iteration
Exergoeconomic parameters of components after the second iteration
Exergoeconomic parameters of components after the third iteration
Exergoeconomic parameters of components after the fourth iteration
Comparison of exergoeconomic parameters across iterations
PAGE
19
21
22
24
32
38
40
46
56
58
58
59
59
60
63
64
67
72-73
74
76
78
79
80
82
86
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.12
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
2.15
2.16
2.17
2.18
2.19
2.20
2.21
2.22
2.23
2.24
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
TOPIC
State-wise commissioned biomass projects in India as on March 2011
Location of the village
Map view of the village
Temperature variation throughout the year
Relative Humidity throughout the year
Agriculture and milk industry in the village
Trends in power demand for a traditional type house on typical summer
and winter days
Trends in power demand for a modern type house on typical summer and
winter days
Trends in power demand for a thatched roof type hut on typical summer
and winter days
Trends in cooling demands for traditional type houses
Trends in cooling demands for modern type houses
Trends in cooling demand for huts
Flow diagram of the Absorption Refrigeration Machine
Evaporator
Condenser
Generator/Desorber
Solution heat exchanger
Solution throttling valve
Refrigerant throttling valve
Absorber
Solution pump
Flow diagram of ORC
Vapour generator
ORC Turbine
T-S diagram for the ORC cycle
Moisture content in typical biomass feedstock
Calorific values for typical biomass feedstock
Typical combustion efficiencies of stoves operating with different fuels
Combustion of biomass
Specifications of the biomass combustor
Elemental composition and LHV of biomass
Thot vs COP and electrical efficiency
Thot vs quality of refrigerant vapour
Thot vs circulation ratio
Thot vs Wnet
Thot vs mfuel
Relation between heat transfer surface area and bare module cost (in
year 2004 $)
Pressure factor for heat exchangers at different pressures
Heat exchanger reference cost in 2004 $ for a surface area of 1000 m2
Specific investment cost breakdown for ORC plants of different
capacities, at a hot source temperature of 1500C
PAGE
11
14
14
15
16
17
20
21
21
22
23
23
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
31
32
33
34
35
37
39
39
40
41
41
42
43
44
44
45
45
47
48
49
54
3.5
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
6.1
6.2
P1
P2
P35
P611
Breakdown of Purchased Equipment Cost

56
Exergy destruction in components
67
Exergetic efficiency of components
68
Percentage of total exergy destruction in components
68
Percentage of total exergy of fuel destroyed in components
69
Cost rates associated with capital investment and operation and 73
maintenance
f ratios for various components
75
r ratios for various components
75
Comparison of exergetic efficiencies across the iterations
83
Comparison of exergy destruction across iterations
83
Z values for components across iterations
84
CD values for components across iterations
84
Trends in f ratio of components across iterations
85
Trends in r ratio of components across iterations
85
Total revenue requirement for the project
87
Variations of Ztot of the entire system
87
CD,tot for the overall system
88
Cost due to exergy loss for the overall system
88
Cost of products and exergetic efficiency of the overall system
89
Heat demand for cooking for a single household
90
Illustration for heat extraction from ORC
91
Distribution transformer in the village
15
Temple located at one of the ends of the village
16
Constructed house types in the village
18
Additional Pictures from Siddhamalli Village, India
95
Abstract
With emerging economic development, comes greater demand for power. This demand for
power is accompanied with increased capacity of power plants to meet the requirements. In
a country like India with exploding population growth, this increased capacity is mostly
consumed by big industrial consumers and urban areas alike. Being at the bottom of the
pyramid, small towns and rural areas are often overlooked and their demands ignored,
however little they may be. Power shortages are quite frequent in such areas. The state of
Tamilnadu in the south of India, with a population of about 70 million, is a standing
example, wherein the power supply in 2012 was about 7500 MW against a demand of
11,500 MW; with a shortage of an enormous 4000 MW [1].
On the other hand, rural India has great unused potential. Biomass, among other Renewable
Energy sources is the most attractive for utilisation in these regions. Traditionally, animal
and plant wastes like cow dung and firewood have formed a significant part of peoples
everyday energy needs such as cooking, water and space heating. However, with a paradigm
shift towards modern fuels such as LPG, these non-commercial sources of energy have lost
much significance in certain parts. In regions where they are still in use, they cause health
and respiratory problems due to direct firing and prolonged exposure to the toxic fumes.
This thesis aims to develop a micro/mini combined heat and power unit, which shall serve
as a decentralized source of power and heat/cold. The plant shall work on locally available
biomass (rice husk, cow dung, firewood etc.). This CHP unit shall be coupled with an
absorption system. The first step would be to identify the demand of power and cold for an
Indian village or a small town. The cooling demand would lead us to the detailed design and
analysis of the absorption system. Hence, the final steps would include design of the CHP
plant, including exergy, economic and exergoeconomic analysis and optimisation.
1. Introduction
1.1 Overview
In March 2011, 58.43% of electricity consumed in India came from thermal power plants,
19.45% came from hydroelectric plants, 2.47% from nuclear plants, 10.10% by captive
power generation and 9.55% from renewable energy sources [2]. Up until January 2011,
India had about 274 MW installed capacity of off-grid biomass power and cogeneration, 128
MW of biomass gasification plants and 68 MW of waste to energy power plants. Around 70
cogeneration plants were under implementation, with the capacity totalling to about 800
MW in September 2011. The major states for biomass power projects were identified to be
Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra and Tamilnadu. By the end of March
2011, Andhra Pradesh had 363.25 MW of commissioned biomass power and cogeneration
projects, Karnataka with 365.18 MW, Chhattisgarh with 231.9 MW, Maharashtra with 403
MW, and Tamilnadu with 488.2 MW. The total capacity of the commissioned projects
amounted to 2664.63 MW in the entire country [2].
700
Commissioned Projects (MW)
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Figure 1.1: State-wise commissioned biomass projects in India as on March 2011 [2]
The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India, is targeting 10 GW of
biomass based projects until 2020. India generates about 800 million tonnes of agriculture
output from 141 million hectares of arable land. About 70-75% of the agricultural wastes are
used as fodder and fuel for domestic cooking. This leaves behind about 120 150 million
tonnes of agricultural residues per year, which sufficient for a power capacity of about 15
20 GW [2].
1.2 Background
In this section, the results obtained from the simulation and analysis of various designs of
absorption machines, cogeneration and tri-generation systems have been reviewed. In
principle, three such designs of tri-generation systems, which could bear a close likeness to
the system under design consideration, have been placed under scrutiny.
Ahmadi et al., in the year 2012, conducted an exergo-environmental analysis of an
integrated organic Rankine cycle for tri-generation [3]. This analysis considered a Brayton
cycle with gas turbine, an Organic Rankine Cycle coupled with a domestic water heater and
a single effect absorption chiller. The micro gas turbine cycle is power by a gaseous fuel
(presumably natural gas) and consists of a recuperator, where the expanded combustion
gases emerging out of the gas turbine retrieve heat from the incoming compressed air. The
combustion gases are then used to power the ORC and the domestic water heater. Space
heating is achieved through a heat recovery unit that is placed at the outlet of the ORC
turbine, following which the organic fluid heats up the desorber of the single effect
absorption chiller, operating with a Lithium Bromide Water mixture.
They observed that, for a cooling load of 199.8 kW, heating load of 819.5 kW and a net
power output of 1500 kW, the plant would have a tri-generation energy efficiency of 89%.
The Coefficient of Performance (COP) of the absorption chiller is 0.44 and the entire plant
requires 0.068 kg/s of gaseous fuel. The exergetic efficiency is 55%, with more than half of
the exergy destruction appearing in the combustion chamber, which has a value of about
1.3 MW. The specific CO2 emission of the tri-generation system amounts to 88.2 kg/MWh. A
comparison of the CO2 emissions from different systems revealed that a cogeneration
system would emit about 150 kg/MWh, while a sole power generation system with gas
turbine would emit more than 300 kg/MWh [3].
Tamm et al. conducted a theoretical and experimental investigation of an Ammonia Water
power and refrigeration thermodynamic cycle in the year 2003 [4]. The system consists of
the strong Ammonia Water solution. Part of the ammonia is vaporized in the boiler. The
vapour then passes through the rectifier, where water is condensed back into the boiler,
thus purifying the vapour further. The solution, which is now poor in ammonia passes
through the recovery heat exchanger, as it gives off excess heat to the incoming rich
solution. It is then throttled to the system low pressure and is passed on to the absorber.
The ammonia vapour is superheated and expanded in a turbine. Due to lower condensation
temperatures, the two-phase ammonia fluid at the outlet of the turbine is used for
refrigeration, and then passes to the absorber, where it is absorbed by the poor solution of
ammonia and water. The rich solution is pumped back to the system high pressure and
passed through the recovery heat exchanger, where it retrieves heat from the poor solution
and moves back to the boiler.
It was observed from the optimization curves, that a maximum energetic efficiency of 23.6%
is possible, when the heat source temperature is 1270C. The exergy efficiency curve shows a
maximum value of 65.2% at a heat source temperature of 1070C. However, certain
limitations have been imposed on the system due to practical constraints. The heat source
temperature is limited to a maximum of 1100C. Internal constraints include the system high
pressure, which is limited to 14.8 bar, and low pressure (absorber pressure) which is limited
to 3.1 bar. Experimental results showed that the recovery heat exchanger has an average
temperature difference of 160C and that about 53.6% of heat recovery is possible within the
heat exchanger. It was also witnessed that for boiler pressures above 5.5 bar, it is possible
to obtain nearly pure ammonia vapour, for a boiler temperature of 60 0C. For the same
temperature and pressure, a weak solution concentration of 0.4 could be obtained [4].
Al-Sulaiman et al., in the year 2011, compared the performance of three tri-generation
systems using Organic Rankine Cycles [5]. One of the compared systems was a biomass trigeneration system, which includes combustion of biomass in a biomass combustor that
provides heat to an ORC evaporator to operate the ORC turbine. The heating process takes
place with the help of a heat exchanger placed at the outlet of the turbine. The remaining
heat in the organic fluid is then transferred to the desorber of a single effect absorption
chiller.
It was observed that the inlet temperature to the ORC pump affects the net electrical power
output and the electrical efficiency of the system in inverse proportion, whereas the trigeneration efficiency remains fairly constant with changes in the ORC pump inlet
temperature. The results indicated that the maximum electrical efficiency that could be
obtained in the biomass tri-generation system is 15%, with a tri-generation efficiency of as
high as 90%. Specific CO2 emissions of 400 kg/MWh were also recorded for biomass trigeneration systems [5].
1.3 Locational Survey

The location chosen for analysis of the tri-generation system is the village of Siddhamalli,
located about 22 km from Mayiladuthurai town in Nagapattinam district of the South Indian
state of Tamilnadu. The locational coordinates of the village are 110N and 790E. There are
about 1500 households in the village with a population of approximately 5000 people [6].
The village is located on the bank of River Kollidam, which is a tributary of the main river
Kaveri, which is a major river in South India. The location and the map view of the village is
shown in the diagram below.
Figure 1.2 Location of the village [7]
Figure 1.3: Map view of the village [7]

1.3.1 Infrastructure
The village is connected by road to Mayiladuthurai town and to National Highway (NH 45).
A bus operated by the Tamilnadu State Government plies once every two hours between
Mayiladuthurai and Siddhamalli, thereby also connecting the villages that fall on the way.
Around twenty years ago, bullock carts used to be a prominent mode of conveyance
between nearby villages. However, currently the bullock carts have been replaced by motor
bikes, which are owned by about 75% of the local population for personal transportation
[6].
The major source of water for drinking and other purposes is ground water, which is
available from as deep as 15 ft, due to the presence of a major tributary at the end of the
village. In most households, these sources are tapped using water-wells.
Every household and farm in the village is connected to the electricity grid. The village has a
round the clock power supply most of the year, except during the months of peak summer
(April July), where there is likely to be an induced load shedding of two hours per day per
household due to higher power demand and shortage in supply [6].
P 1: Distribution transformer in the village [26]

1.3.2 Environmental Conditions
As the village is located 110 north of the equator, it falls under tropical zone. Hence, it is
warm throughout the year, with a maximum temperature of 39.80C, which occurs around
the first week of July and a minimum temperature of 19.2 0C in the second week of January.
The average temperature is 290C [8]. The relative humidity in the region ranges from 36% to
100%, with an average of about 74.5% [8]. The reasons for the high relative humidity can be
attributed to the presence of the river in the area and heavy rainfall during certain times of
the year [8].
45
40
Temperature (0C)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
1
352
703
1054
1405
1756
2107
2458
2809
3160
3511
3862
4213
4564
4915
5266
5617
5968
6319
6670
7021
7372
7723
8074
8425
hour of year
Figure 1.4: Temperature variation throughout the year [8]

100
90
Relative Humidity (%)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
1
326
651
976
1301
1626
1951
2276
2601
2926
3251
3576
3901
4226
4551
4876
5201
5526
5851
6176
6501
6826
7151
7476
7801
8126
8451
hour of year
Figure 1.5: Relative Humidity throughout the year [8]

1.3.3 Socio-Economic and Political Situations
The population of the village is about 5000, with the predominant religion being Hinduism.
There are about 5 Hindu temples located inside the village. Like any other Hindu society, it is
divided into various castes, although the differences have been minimized of late. The first
language of the people is Tamil, which is spoken by the people of the entire region of
Tamilnadu, parts of Sri Lanka, Singapore and Malaysia.
P 2: Temple located at one of the ends of the village [26]

Like most other villages, the main occupation of the people is agriculture. The total area of
agricultural land in the village is 560 Acres (~2.2 km2). Richer people own most of the
agricultural lands and they employ workforce from the village to work in the farms. While
men from the poorer households work in farms, women work as maid servants in other
households. The agricultural farms contain pumps for irrigation. Four different crops are
cultivated each year, namely rice (twice a year, harvested in August and January) black
gram, green gram and sugarcane. The approximate annual paddy cultivation amounts to
1680 tonnes. The paddy is sold for 15/kg1. Black gram is cultivated in 250 acres (1.011 km2)
of the available land once a year. The annual yield is approximately 50 tonnes and is sold for
50/kg. Green gram is also cultivated in 250 acres once a year with the same annual yield as
black gram and sold for 60/kg. Sugarcane is cultivated in 50 acres of the land, with an
annual yield of 2500 tonnes and sold for 2.50/kg. Some farmers also cultivate vegetables
like Eggplants, greens, Okra, Pumpkins, Gourds and coconuts and fruits like bananas;
however, most of these are non-commercial and are consumed domestically [6]. 1(1 Euro =
75 and 1 USD = 63.20, as on 08th January 2015).
Some of the other temporary jobs include construction and maintenance work in
infrastructural projects provided by the Government, such as building roads. Another major
source of income for the villagers is through milk business. There are about 2000 cattle in
the village, cumulatively producing 12,000 litres of milk per day and 10 kg of dung each day
approximately. The milk is sold locally for about 20/litre locally and 30/litre outside the
society [6]. Hence, the agriculture industry in the village amounts close to $600,000 per year
while the milk industry amounts close to $1.4 million yearly.
There are four shops located within the village, which sell provisions required for daily
consumption. Apart from that, commodities such as containers, clothes and vegetables are
brought into the village by traders from nearby villages and small communities.
The village consists of a school, in which the language of instruction is Tamil. It is run by the
Government of Tamilnadu and has until the 10 th grade. Most of the children from ordinary
and poorer economic backgrounds study in this school, while children of richer households
travel to nearby towns and villages for better quality of education and English instruction.
Annual Revenue (USD)

1600000
1400000
1200000
1000000
800000
600000
400000
200000
0
paddy
black gram
green gram
sugarcane
Milk
Figure 1.6: Agriculture and milk industry in the village [6]

There are three major types of constructed houses in the village. They can be classified as
traditional houses, modern houses and huts with thatched roofs. There are about 760
traditional type houses, 200 modern type houses and 500 huts with thatched roofs. These
types of houses are shown below.
P 3 5: Constructed house types in the village [27]

The constructed house types have a unique connection with the social or economic status of
the people and the daily routines and lifestyle resulting thereby. Thatched roof huts house
the poorer sections and lower classes of the society. They are typically single room
apartments, separated by a partially constructed partition. One part acts as the living and
the bedroom, while the other part is the kitchen. These houses are characterised by the
absence of advanced appliances and gadgets. The people living in these houses typically
work every day of the week.
Modern households accommodate people from richer backgrounds. These are houses that
have been converted from the traditional type in the last ten to twenty years. Some of such
houses contain air conditioners for space cooling during the summer and also other
appliances such as refrigerators, television sets and mixer grinders. Generally, these houses
lodge small families of four to five people. The men travel outside the village to work, while
the women stay at home.
Traditional households have the most complex architecture of all the house types. The living
room consists of a big area with a swing and a television set, where people can be seated.
Adjacent to this, there exists a roofless area in order to allow maximum daylighting
throughout. In many households, the odd chores such as washing dishes and clothes are
done in this place. The kitchen entails a similar construction, with a big area for the cooking
and the dining, and a smaller roofless area to allow daylight to pass through. The bedroom is
typically a fully constructed room. The roof is made of brick tiles and is constructed at an
angle. Due to the unique architecture of these houses, the artificial lighting requirements
during the day are heavily minimized. Peculiar to this village, most of the people living in
such houses are retired and senior citizens belonging to higher sections of the society.
The village is governed by a Panchayat Union, which is headed by a president. Each street
has a separate ward member, who is under the direct authority of the president. The ward
members look after the grievances of the people, convey it to the president, who in turn
conveys it to the district administration when external help is required. All members of the
Panchayat Union are democratically elected representatives. Elections to the union are held
once in every five years.
1.3.4 Technical Analysis and Potentials
In this section, the estimation of the power, energy and cooling demands shall be dealt with,
along with also analysing the biomass resources that can be cheaply and locally sourced. As
the annual minimum temperature in the area does not go below 19.2 0C, the demand for
space heating has been neglected. Hence, the cooling energy and the electrical power
demand have been calculated based on certain estimations and inputs obtained from the
locals.
The village has been divided into three socio-economic categories based on the type of
constructed houses. A survey was conducted in the village with a sample size of about five
households per category. The appliances present in different constructed house types, as
estimated using the obtained data from the locals are as shown in the table below.
Appliance
Fan
Fluorescent Tube
Incandescent Lamp
Grinder
Mixer
Refrigerator
Television Set
Water Pump
Power Rating (W)

Traditional
65
4
60
3
40
2
149
1
500
1
350
1
100
1
372.85 (half hp motor) 1
Table 1.1: Appliances in households [6]
Modern
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
Hut
1
2
2
1
1
0
1
0
Based on the responses to the questions posed in the survey, the power demand was
calculated. The figures below show typical electrical energy demand for the three different
types of houses.
The traditional type houses contain one peak of about 700 W, which occurs around 6 am
during both summer and winter days. The modern type houses contain two major peaks
during a typical summer day, each of more than 700 W, which occur around 1 pm and 10
pm. During winters, however, the second peak reduces to about 600 W. The huts consume
the minimum power of all houses. The peak consumption during a typical summer day is
around 350 W, which reduces to 300 W during winters, and occurs around 8 pm. The trends
in power consumption for each type of house can be attributed to personal life styles
including cooking times, eating habits and so on. More importantly, the socio-economic
status of individuals plays a very important role in determining the power consumption of
the household.
The overall annual estimations of electrical power and energy demands for all types of
houses and the entire village have been summarized in table 1.2. It can be approximated
that the entire village has a power demand of about 732.34 kW with an annual energy
consumption of about 2107.6 MWh. In order to ensure a firm capacity, a buffer of about
25% has to be provided. Therefore, this means that the power plant should be able to
provide a minimum of 915.42 kW.
800
Power Demand (W)
700
600
500
400
Winter day
300
Summer day
200
100
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
hour of the day
Figure 1.7: Trends in power demand for a traditional type house on typical summer and
winter days
800
700
Power Demand (W)
600
500
400
Winter Day
300
Summer Day
200
100
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
hour of the day
Figure 1.8: Trends in power demand for a modern type house on typical summer and winter
days
400
Power Demand (W)
350
300
250
200
Winter Day
150
Summer Day
100
50
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
hour of the day
Figure 1.9: Trends in power demand for a thatched roof type hut on typical summer and
winter days
Type
Numbers Base Load Peak Load Annual Electricity Consumption

(kW)
(kW)
(MWh)
Traditional
760
216.7
541.77
1426
Modern
200
59.8
149.57
407
Hut
500
103.13
257.83
274.48
Entire Village 1460
292.93
732.34
2107.6
Table 1.2: Electrical power and energy demand trends in the village
The estimation of the cooling energy demand was done with the help of the average daily
routine of the people of different socio-economic categories. One room in each house type
has been considered to estimate the energy demand for cooling. The dimensions of the
room to be cooled for each type of constructed house are as follows. Two separate heights
have been considered for traditional type houses and huts due to the slant roof
architecture.
House Type Length (m) Breadth (m)
Height(s) (m)
Traditional
3.6576
2.4384
2.1336
3.048
Modern
3.6576
2.4384
2.1336
Hut
4.572
3.048
2.1336 0.9144
Table 1.3: Dimensions of the room to be cooled for different types of houses
The figures below display the cooling demand for different construction types during typical
summer and winter days. It can be derived from the trends that traditional houses contain a
peak of about 2200 W, which occur at around 3 pm. The peak for modern houses is slightly
lower than 1600 W and is shifted to 4 pm. Huts have the maximum peak cooling demand,
which is about 2700 W and it occurs around 2 pm.
2500
Cooling Demand in W
2000
1500
Winter Day
1000
Summer Day
500
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
hour of day
Figure 1.10: Trends in cooling demands for traditional type houses
1800
1600
Cooling Demand in W
1400
1200
1000
Winter Day
800
Summer Day
600
400
200
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
hour of day
Figure 1.11: Trends in cooling demands for modern type houses

3000
Cooling DEmand in W
2500
2000
1500
Winter Day
Summer Day
1000
500
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
hour of day
Figure 1.12: Trends in cooling demand for huts

The trends observed in cooling demand patterns can also be attributed to the differences in
socio-economic statuses. Alternatively, the construction materials and the cooling area also
play a very important role in determining the cooling demands. It has to be noted that there
exists a demand for cooling even during winter days. This arises from the fact that the
temperature does not drop below 19.20C in the winters. The overall annual estimations of
cooling energy demands for all types of houses and the entire village have been summarized
in table 1.4. Due to the employment of modern construction techniques and materials, the
modern type houses have the lowest annual final energy demand.
Type
Numbers Peak
Demand
(MW)
Traditional
Modern
Hut
Entire
Village
760
200
500
1460
2.09
0.38
1.67
3.7
Annual
Energy
Demand
(MWh)
1101.3
206.55
1412
2719.9
Load
Annual Final
Density Energy
(W/m2) Demand
(kWh/m2/a)
307.9
162.48
213.85 115.8
239.22 202.66
238
175.14
Table 1.4: Cooling energy demand trends in the village
1.4 Roadmap
From the estimations in the previous section, it can be known that the minimum electrical
capacity required to provide firm capacity is 915.42 kW. The cooling energy demand is 3.7
MWth, and the energy demand for heating is negligible.
The biomass resources available in the locality are animal and agricultural wastes, like cattle
dung and rice husk, which shall be considered for direct combustion in a boiler. Biomass
gasification, has however not been placed under consideration for the plant due to
technological complications and maturity and economic constraints. The selection of the
biomass feedstock and the boiler shall be elaborated further in section 2.3.
In section 1.3, three different configurations of cogeneration/tri-generation systems were
reviewed. The outcomes of the review can be summarized as follows. The configuration
suggested by Ahmadi et al. requires a gaseous fuel to run a gas turbine system. The
suggestions by Tamm et al. are characterized by a cogeneration device with cooling and
power generation coupled within the same system and an ammonia-water working fluid
pair. Al-Sulaiman et al. suggested different power generation and cooling system, connected
however to form a single unit.
The absence of heat demand in the current scenario makes the Tamm et al. configuration an
attractive one, while the suggestions by Al-Sulaiman et al. pertain to biomass combustion.
The current configuration shall hence be based on the aforementioned two suggestions,
with structural changes in effect, according to the task at hand.
2. System Design and Analysis

2.1 Absorption Refrigeration Machine
The major components of the Absorption Refrigeration Machine are generator, absorber,
condenser, regeneration heat exchanger, evaporator, two throttling valves and a pump. It
shall be modelled with the base considerations of the suggestions handed by Tamm et al.,
reviewed in section 1.3. The working fluid pair is hence ammonia and water. The system is
supposed to have an output of 3.7 MW in order to cover the cooling energy demand of the
entire village. The design of the Absorption Refrigeration Machine, the description of
various component, energy balances and thermodynamic state point variables shall be
provided in the below sections.
2.1.1 Flow Diagram
11
CD
16
20
11
11
15
11
21
1
12
11
11
11
2
11
25
11
22
7
8
11
11
HE
3
TVR
11
11
11
TVS
11
18
11
4
11
5
11
EV
10
11
13
11
14
17
11
11
Figure 2.1: Flow diagram of the Absorption Refrigeration Machine
Combustion Gases
Pure Refrigerant
Poor Solution
Water
Rich Solution
The Absorption Refrigeration Machine consists of a pair of refrigerant-absorbent mixture,

such that the differences in boiling points of the two fluids are high. The ARS differs from a
traditional compression system in one key aspect that it contains a thermochemical
compressor in place of a mechanical compressor. A part of the refrigerant vapour boils off at
the desorber or generator (denoted by G), thus leaving a solution poor in refrigerant. The
refrigerant vapour is then condensed at the condenser (CD). The liquid refrigerant drops to
the pressure of the evaporator when passed through the refrigerant throttling valve (TVR).
The partially vaporized refrigerant is then completely vaporized at the evaporator (EV) by
extracting heat from the surroundings and reaches the absorber (A). The poor solution at
the desorber is passed through the solution heat exchanger (HE), where it gives off heat to
the incoming rich solution. It is then throttled to the pressure (TVS) of the absorber and
absorbs the refrigerant at the absorber. The rich solution is pumped to the pressure of the
desorber with a solution pump (P), following which it recovers heat from the poor solution
emerging from the desorber, and flows back into the desorber.
In the flow diagram shown above, the heat is supplied to the generator by combustion gases
with the inlet at state point 11 and outlet at state point 12. Refrigerant vapour leaves the
generator at point 1. The hot stream of the solution heat exchanger, with the poor ammonia
solution is 7 6, while the cold stream, carrying the rich solution through the heat
exchanger at points 3 2. The inlets and outlets for cooling water for the condenser and the
absorber are state points 13, 15 and 14, 16 respectively. The cooling takes place in the
evaporator, with water entering at state point 17 and leaving with lower temperature at
state point 18.
Evaporator:
Figure 2.2: Evaporator

The evaporator requires providing a cooling capacity (Q EV) of 3.7 MW. The desired
temperature of the cold sink (temperature at state point 18) is 288 K (150C). The terminal
temperature difference of the evaporator (TEV) is 5 K. The temperature at the evaporator
(TEV) is given by the following relation:
= [18] (2.1)
Ammonia (refrigerant used in this system) hence evaporates at 283 K at the evaporator. At
state point 9, ammonia is present in a two-phase state, while state point 10 contains
saturated ammonia vapour. The pressure at the evaporator corresponds to the saturation
pressure of ammonia at the temperature of evaporation, which is 6.153 bar.
The specific heat transfer between ammonia and water streams can be expressed with the
enthalpies at entry and exit state points of both streams.
= [10] [9] (2.2)
= [17] [18] (2.3)
The enthalpy and entropy of individual streams and state points can be obtained on EES
software with the help of any two non-dependent thermodynamic parameters. The entropy
of ammonia at state 9, for instance, can be obtained by the relation,
s[9] = Entropy(Ammonia, T = T[9], h = h[9]), where T[9] and h[9] denote the
temperature and enthalpy at state point 9 respectively.
The mass flow rate of the cycle can be given by the equation:
= / (2.4)
Condenser:
Figure 2.3: Condenser

A common condenser configuration has been proposed for the ORC and Absorption
Refrigeration Machines. Relatively pure ammonia emerging from the generator at state 1 is
mixed with ammonia emerging out of the ORC turbine at state 20. The fluid enters the
condenser at state 21 and leaves at state 25, following which it is again split according to
corresponding mass flow rates.
The secondary side of the condenser contains cooling water, which enters the condenser at
state point 15 with a temperature of 293 K and leaves at state point 16 with a temperature
of 303 K. It is at ambient pressure conditions. The pressure drops in the condenser have
been neglected.
The terminal temperature difference of the condenser (denoted by TCD) is considered to be
5 K. The temperature of condensation of the refrigerant is given by the relation
_ = [15] + _ (2.5)
Ammonia condenses at a temperature of 298 K at the condenser. The pressure of the
condenser is the saturation pressure of ammonia at the temperature of the condenser,
which is 10.03 bar. The other thermodynamic parameters associated with the
condenser shall be discussed in the section of the Organic Rankine Cycle.
Generator (with rectifier):
Figure 2.4: Generator/Desorber

The rich solution enters the generator at state point 7. Two streams leave the generator,
namely the refrigerant vapour at state point 1 and the poor solution at state point 2.
State point 11 contains combustion gases at 1400C at a pressure of 1.06 bar, entering the
generator after giving away a part of the heat to the vapour generator of the Organic
Rankine Cycle. The gases leave the generator at state point 12 with a temperature of 1000C
and a pressure of 1.025 bar. The secondary side pressure drop in the generator (pG) is
considered to be 0.2 bar, while the terminal temperature difference (T G) is 10 K. The
temperature of the leaving poor solution is then given by the equation
2 = [11] (2.6)
The pressure at the generator (PG) is given by relating the pressure of the condenser and the
secondary side pressure drop in the generator.
= (1 + ) (2.7)
The refrigerant vapour leaving the generator is at the pressure of the condenser, while
the pressure of the leaving poor solution is the same as the pressure of the generator,
which is 12.04 bar.
State point 1 is assumed to be pure refrigerant, which is possible only if a rectifier is

accompanied with the generator, as the system uses ammonia water pair. An
intermediate state point 31 is hence required to explain the thermodynamic behaviour of
the refrigerant vapour before it enters the rectifier.
The temperature of the state point 31 represents the middle temperature of the
vaporization process in the generator. Hence, [31] =
[100]+[2]
2
(2.8), where state point
100 represents the saturated liquid of the rich solution at the pressure of the generator [9].
The quality of the vapour at point 31 is 95.57%. Poor solution has a concentration of
22.27%. For simplicity, the pure ammonia vapour at state point 1 is assumed to have the
same temperature and pressure as the near pure ammonia solution at state point 31, which
is 363.9 K and 10.03 bar (pressure of the condenser) respectively.
The circulation ratio of the absorption machine, f is estimated to be 1.75, and is given by the
relation
(2.9)
According to the energy balance for the generator, the specific heat supplied to the
generator can be written as = ([1] [2]) + ( ([2] [7])) (2.10), where h[x] is
the enthalpy at the respective state points and f is the circulation ratio. Total heat supplied
to the generator can be calculated from the equation Q G = q G mcycle, the value of which
is 5927 kW. The total heat supplied to the generator can also be written in terms of the
enthalpy of combustion gases as = ([11] [12]) (2.11). Through these
relations, the mass flow rate of combustion gases was calculated to be 144.1 kg/s.
Solution Heat Exchanger:
Figure 2.5: Solution heat exchanger

The solution heat exchanger aids in recovery of heat from the poor solution to the incoming
rich solution. The poor solution leaves the generator at state point 2. The rich solution
emerges from the solution pump at state point 6. The hot stream is hence 2 3, while the
cold stream is 6 7. The pressure drops in primary and secondary sides of the heat
exchanger are both 0.2 bar. The minimum terminal temperature difference of the heat
exchanger is considered to be 10 K, which is the difference in temperatures between the

outlet of the hot stream and the inlet of the cold stream (points 3 and 6).
[3] = [6] + (2.12)
Rich solution enters the heat exchanger with a temperature of 296 K at a pressure of 12.24
bar, which means that the temperature at the outlet of the poor solution is 306 K. The
pressure at this state point is 11.84 bar. The heat transferred between the two streams of
the heat exchanger can be obtained by writing the energy balance for the component.
= ([7] [6]) (2.13)
= ( 1) ([2] [3]) (2.14)
From this relation, the value of the specific enthalpy at state point 7 can be obtained, which
is 69.76 kJ/kg. The other thermodynamic variables for this state point can be obtained by
using three independent variables, namely pressure, enthalpy and concentration. This can
be obtained by using the function Call NH3H2O in EES software. The temperature at state
point 7, is hence 326 K.
32(234, _, [6], _7: [7], [7], [7], [7], [7], [7], [7], [7]) (2.15)
Solution Throttling Valve:
Figure 2.6: Solution throttling valve

The solution throttling valve performs the function of reducing the pressure of the poor
solution to the pressure of the absorber. Poor solution at state 3 enters the throttling valve
at 11.84 bar and leaves at 5.23 bar. The temperature of the solution remains fairly constant.
Refrigerant Throttling Valve:
Figure 2.7: Refrigerant throttling valve

The refrigerant throttling valve decreases the pressure of the refrigerant in the main cycle
from the pressure of the condenser to the pressure of the evaporator. Saturated ammonia
liquid enters the throttling valve at state point 8 with a pressure of 10.03 bar and leaves at
state point 9 with a pressure of 6.153 bar. The leaving refrigerant is in the two phase zone.
Absorber:
Figure 2.8: Absorber

Ammonia vapour emerges from the evaporator at state point 10. Poor ammonia solution
emerges from the solution throttling valve at state point 4. The two streams mix in the
absorber, thus forming the rich solution, which leaves the absorber at state point 5.
Heat of mixing of the two streams is rejected to a stream of cooling water, which enters the
absorber at state point 13 with ambient temperature (293 K) and pressure conditions and
leaves at 14 with 10 K more than the inlet (303 K). The pressure drop in the secondary side
of the absorber has been neglected. The pressure drop in the primary side of the absorber
(pA) is considered to be 0.15 bar. The terminal temperature difference of the absorber
(TA) is 3 K.
The temperature of the rich solution leaving the absorber at state point 5 can be indicated
by the following relation.
5 = [13] + (2.16)
Solution Pump:
Figure 2.9: Solution pump

The function of the solution pump is to increase the pressure of the rich solution to the
pressure of the generator. In this case, however, the outlet pressure of the pump has to be
slightly higher than that of the generator, due to the pressure drop in the solution heat
exchanger. Rich solution enters the pump at state point 5, with a pressure of 5.23 bar and
leaves at state point 6 with 12.24 bar. Shaft work required for the pump is 16.32 kW. The
temperature remains fairly constant throughout and the pump is assumed to be ideal.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
P (bar)
T (K)
h (kJ/kg)
s (kJ/kg K)
10.03
12.04
11.84
5.23
5.23
12.24
12.04
10.03
6.153
6.153
1.06
1.025
1
1
1
1
1
1
363.9
403.1
306.2
306.4
296.1
296.2
326
298.1
283.2
283.2
413.2
373.2
293.2
303.2
293.2
303.2
293.2
288.2
1660
414.7
-6.518
-6.518
-111.7
-110.8
69.76
317.7
317.7
1472
143.2
102.1
83.93
125.8
83.93
125.8
83.93
63.01
5.857
1.652
0.4589
0.4613
0.2043
0.2043
0.7782
1.409
1.417
5.494
7.177
7.083
0.2962
0.4365
0.2962
0.4365
0.2962
0.2242
1
0.2227
0.2227
0.2227
0.6415
0.6415
0.6415
1
1
Table 2.1: State variables of the absorption cooling cycle

2.2 Organic Rankine Cycle

The major components of the Organic Rankine Cycle are vapour generator, ORC turbine,
condenser and a pump. The working fluid used in the ORC system is pure ammonia and the
configuration shall be modelled on the basis of Al-Sulaiman et al., reviewed in section 1.3.
The ORC is supposed to have a capacity of a minimum of 915.42 kW in order to provide firm
capacity supply to the entire village.
2.2.1 Flow Diagram
29
19
Gen
20
1
VG
21
16
11
P
24
22
25
CD
Shaft
Ammonia
Combustion Gases
15
Water
Figure 2.10: Flow diagram of ORC

The Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC), based on the normal Rankine cycle, however, employs an
organic fluid with high molecular mass, with the boiling occurring at a much lower
temperature than the normal water-steam boiling temperature at ambient pressure
conditions. The properties of the fluid allow for heat recovery from much lower source
temperatures, like biomass combustion, waste heat from industries, geothermal heat and so
on.
In the flow diagram shown above, the heat is supplied to the vapour generator by
combustion gases with the inlet at state point 29 and outlet at state point 11. Superheated
ammonia vapour leaves the vapour generator at point 19. The ORC turbine extracts work
from the hot ammonia vapours, following which ammonia is condensed at the pressure of
the condenser. After condensation, the pressure of ammonia is again increased to the high
pressure of the system and it passes through the vapour generator again. The inlet and
outlet for cooling water for the condenser are state points 15 and 16 respectively.
Vapour Generator:
Figure 2.11: Vapour generator

The vapour generator has been shown as a single component in the system. However, it
consists of three separate components, namely economizer, evaporator and superheater.
Ammonia liquid in a subcooled state enters the vapour generator at state point 24. It has a
temperature of 300.9 K at a pressure of 100 bar. Combustion gases enter the system in
counter-flow at state point 29, with a temperature of 551 K at a pressure of 1.09 bar. The
outlet of the vapour generator contains superheated ammonia vapour at state point 19,
with a temperature of 501 K. The energy balance of the vapour generator would reveal the
amount of heat transferred within the vapour generator.
= [11] ([29] [11]) (2.17)
The value of m11 is 144.1 kg/s, as obtained from the calculations for the Absorption
Refrigeration Machine. The heat transfer within the vapour generator amounts to 20889
kW. This variable can also be written in terms of the secondary side of the vapour generator
as follows:
__ = _[19] ([19] [24]) (2.18)

From this relation, the mass flow rate of the ORC cycle is calculated to be 13.66 kg/s.
ORC Turbine/Expander:
Figure 2.12: ORC Turbine

The ORC turbine extracts work from the high pressure, high temperature organic vapour.
The inlet to the turbine is at state point 19, which contains superheated ammonia vapour at
a pressure of 100 bar and a temperature of 501 K. The lower pressure at the outlet of the
turbine is the same as the pressure at the condenser, which is 10.03 bar. The turbine outlet
consists of ammonia vapour at a temperature of 311.1 K, which is still in superheated state.
The isentropic efficiency of the turbine is considered to be 90%. The enthalpy at the outlet
of the turbine can be estimated by utilising its relation with the state point of isentropic
expansion (state point 1234). It is given by the following relation:
[19][20]
= [19][1234] (2.19)
The enthalpy and entropy at state point 19 can be obtained through the temperature and
pressure at this state point.
h[19]=Enthalpy(Ammonia,P=P[19],T=T[19]) (2.20)
[19] = (, = [19], = [19]) (2.21)
The temperature and the entropy at the outlet of the turbine, T[20] and s[20], can be
obtained through the pressure and the enthalpy at this state point.
[20] = (, = [20], = [20]) (2.22)
[20] = (, = [20], = [20]) (2.23)
Condenser: As explained in the section of the Absorption Refrigeration Machine, the system
contains a common condenser. Superheated vapour from state points 20 and 1 mix to form
state point 21. The condenser cools down the vapour down from superheated level to
saturated vapour and then condenses the vapour to saturated liquid, following which it is
split according to mass flow rates, to state points 22 and 8 respectively.
Vapour at state point 20, with a temperature of 311 K mixes with vapour at state point 1,
with a temperature of 363.9 K. The mixing process can be denoted by the mass and energy
balance at the mixing point.
[21] = [19] + (2.24)
([20] [20]) + ( [1]) = [21] [21] (2.25)
mcycle is the mass flow rate of the basic process of the Absorption Refrigeration Machine,
which is 3.205 kg/s. m[19] is the mass flow rate of the ORC cycle, which is 13.66 kg/s. Hence,
the mass flow rate of ammonia at the condenser is 16.87 kg/s. The specific enthalpy
associated with the state point 21 (h[21]) is therefore, 1548 kJ/kg. The temperature and
entropy at the state point 21 can be obtained through the pressure and entropy.
[21] = (, = [20], = [21]) (2.26)
[21] = (, = [20], = [21]) (2.27)
State point 25 denotes the end of the condensation process, which means that ammonia is
present in saturated liquid form at this point. The temperature associated with this state
point is therefore the saturation temperature of ammonia at the pressure of the condenser
(10.03 bar), which is 298 K.
The heat transferred from the primary to the secondary side of the condenser is calculated
by writing down the energy balance for the component, which is 20759 kW.
= [21] ([21] [25]) (2.28)
This term can alternatively also be written with a relation to the mass flow rate of the
cooling water and the enthalpies. From this relation, the mass flow rate of cooling water is
deduced to be 496.3 kg/s.
= [16][15]
(2.29)
ORC Pump: The function of the ORC pump is to increase the pressure of the working fluid
from the pressure of the condenser to the system high pressure. Saturated liquid ammonia
enters the pump at state point 22, with a temperature of 298.1 at a pressure of 10.03 bar.
The required high pressure of the system is 100 bar. Shaft work required by the pump is
230.8 kW.
The pump is considered to have an isentropic efficiency of 88%. The enthalpy at the outlet
of the pump can be estimated by utilising its relation with the state point of isentropic
expansion (state point 1235). It is given by the following relation:
spump =
h[1235]h[22]
h[24]h[22]
(2.30)
The temperature and entropy at state point 24 can be obtained through the pressure and
enthalpy variables.
[24] = (, = [19], = [24]) (2.31)
[24] = (, = [19], = [24]) (2.32)
The temperature at state point 24 is therefore 301 K. This state point contains ammonia
liquid in a subcooled state.
2.2.3 T-S Diagram
Figure 2.13: T-S diagram for the ORC cycle (made in EES software)
P (bar)
T (K)
h (kJ/kg)
s (kJ/kg K)
P (bar)
Fluid
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
29
100
10.03
10.03
10.03
100
10.03
1.15
1.15
1.09
501.2
311.1
320.5
298.1
300.9
298.1
300
300
551.2
1863
1522
1548
317.6
334.5
317.6
13940
27.18
288.2
5.322
5.446
5.529
1.409
1.415
1.409
Ammonia
Ammonia
Ammonia
Ammonia
Ammonia
Ammonia
Fuel
Air
Flue gases
6.83
7.473
Table 2.2: State variables for ORC
2.3 Technological Considerations

2.3.1 Biomass Feedstock
The selection of biomass feedstock for combustion is an important step in the practical
realization of the plant. The most common types of biomass feedstock include field residues
such as rice straw, sugarcane tops, maize stalks, vegetable residues, pulse residues and
wheat straw, process crop residues such as rice husk, bagasse, coconut husks, gram husks
and maize husk and other feedstock such as animal wastes, poultry droppings, municipal
solid wastes, fuel wood, tree residues and saw dust.
The bulk composition of different biomass fuels does not vary so much. Typically, biomass
consists of 30-60% carbon, 5-6% hydrogen and 30-45% oxygen. Nitrogen, sulphur and
chlorine can also be found in traces, usually less than 1% of dry biomass weight. Biomass
fuels have lower bulk densities, of the order of 100-125 kg/m3 (for rice husk). Conventional
fuels like coals have typical bulk densities of 560-600 kg/m3 for brown coal and 900 kg/m3
for bituminous coal [10].
The moisture content and calorific values of some typical biomass feedstock has been
represented in figures 2.14 and 2.15 respectively. It can be seen that the moisture content
of different types of biomass vary from as low as 7.5% for wheat straw to as high as 50% for
sugarcane tops [11]. The moisture content in rice husk is 12.4%, while residues from
vegetables and pulses have 20%. It can also be seen from figure 2.14 that coconut shells and
husks have the highest calorific value among those feedstock compared, with a value of
18.53 MJ/kg. This is followed by sugarcane bagasse with 18.10 MJ/kg. Rice husk and rice
bran contain 16.30 MJ/kg and 13.97 MJ/kg respectively, while animal wastes have a typical
calorific value of 13.86 MJ/kg. Tree residues have the lowest of the calorific values among
those compared, with a value of 12.52 MJ/kg [11].
60
Moisture Content (%)
50
40
30
20
10
0
Sawdust
Tree residues
Fuel wood
MSW
Poultry droppings
Animal waste
Groundnut husks
Maize husks
Maize cob
Coconut husks
Coconut shells
Sugarcane bagasse
Rice bran
Rice husk
Residue from pulses
Residue from vegetables
Cotton stalks
Groundnut straw
Maize stalks
Jute stalks
Wheat straw
Sugarcane tops
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Rice straw
Calorific Value (MJ/kg)
Figure 2.14: Moisture content in typical biomass feedstock [11]
Figure 2.15: Calorific values for typical biomass feedstock [11]

According to the 2001 census, about 82% of rural Indian population rely primarily on
unprocessed solid fuels such as firewood, cow dung and crop residue for their cooking
needs. Combustion of biomass requires careful preparation of the fuel. Cattle dung contains
moisture which needs to be removed. In villages in India, this is achieved primarily through
direct solar drying by making dung cakes and drying them in the sun. Stoves operating with
cattle dung and agricultural residue have a typical combustion efficiency of about 85% as
compared to stoves operating with other fuels such as fuel wood with 90% and biogas with
99% [11]. Comparison of combustion efficiencies of typical fuels are provided in figure 2.16.
Combustion efficiencies (%)
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
Biogas
Liquefied
Petroleum
Gas (LPG)
Kerosene
Fuel wood
Agriculture
residues
Dung
Figure 2.16: Typical combustion efficiencies of stoves operating with different fuels [11]
The biomass feedstocks that are readily available in the locality under consideration are
animal wastes, which include all kinds of cattle dung, rice and gram husks and sugarcane
tops and bagasse. There is an annual availability of about 7300 tonnes of cattle dung, 840
tonnes of rice husk and 1250 tonnes of sugarcane bagasse locally, on an average. Due to
major availability of cattle dung, it shall be considered as the main fuel for the tri-generation
plant.
The median values of the proximate and elementary analysis of different types of animal
wastes (cow, pig, poultry and others) are provided in the table below.
Proximate analysis
Moisture
38.6%,
Ashes
neglected
Fuel
61.4%
Elementary analysis (in dried basis)

48.57%
Carbon
38.81%
Oxygen
6.44%
Hydrogen
4.44%
Nitrogen
Calorific vale(LHV) 18.85MJ/kg

Table 2.3: Median proximate and elementary analysis of various animal wastes [12]
2.3.2 Combustion Process
The combustion of cattle dung in a combustor has been simulated with the help of Ebsilon
Professional software, the screenshot of which is provided below.
Figure 2.17 Combustion of biomass (cattle dung)
Figure 2.18: Specifications of the biomass combustor (air fuel ratio marked in red)
The biomass combustion process shall take place in a fluidized bed combustion reactor. The
fuel particles are suspended by an upward flow of combustion air within the bed. When the
velocity of this air is increased, the fuel-air mix displays fluid like properties. Effective mixing
and combustion allows good efficiency and lower emissions. Typically, 97-99% of all
burnable carbon in the fuel is combusted [13]. At lower boiler temperatures, lesser nitrogen
oxide is produced. Sulphur dioxide emissions from biomass are negligible. Sulphur can be
neutralized by adding limestone to the boiler. The air to fuel stoichiometric ratio has been
altered in order to provide the required temperature at the vapour generator hot stream
inlet.
Air enters the combustion chamber at state point 27 with a temperature of 150C, at a
pressure of 1.15 bar. The higher pressure of the air from the ambient has been represented
by the compressor shown in the diagram. However, this compressor has not been taken into
consideration for the complete analysis. Fuel enters the combustor at state point 26. Due to
the fact that only cow/buffalo dung has been considered as the feedstock for combustion in
the plant, the elementary composition of the fuel is different from the one shown in table
2.3. The LHV of the used fuel is 13.94 MJ/kg, as calculated with Ebsilon Professional. It is to
be noted that the HHV of the fuel is nearly the same as the LHV, as the fuel is taken in dry
basis. The mass flow rate of the fuel is 3.019 kg/s, which amounts to a total of about 94600
tonnes annually. The two heat exchangers at the outlet of the combustion gases have been
made as a representation of the change in the thermodynamic state of the combustion
gases at different state points (namely, 29, 11 and 12). The specific enthalpy at these state
points can be obtained by entering the required thermodynamic data such as temperatures,
pressures and mass flow rate.
Figure 2.19: Elemental composition and LHV of biomass [14]

2.4 Effect of Generator Source Temperature on Various Thermodynamic

Parameters
The following diagrams show the variations in different thermodynamic parameters, such as
coefficient of performance of the absorption machine, electrical efficiency, work output of
the turbine, mass flow rate of the fuel, circulation ratio of the absorption machine and the
quality of refrigerant vapour, with changes in the generator hot source temperature (T hot).
The hot source temperature was varied from 1400C until 650C. It can be noted that the COP
of the absorption machine increases slightly, with decrease in temperature. It reaches a
maximum of 0.66 when the source temperature is about 800C and decreases again. The
work output of the turbine reduces to a minimum of 4147 kW and the mass flow rate to a
minimum of 2.852 kg/s at the same temperature, and exhibit increase with further
decreasing temperature. The electrical efficiency of the ORC remains fairly unaffected with
changes in the generator hot source temperature. The quality of the refrigerant vapour and
the circulation ratio, however, keep increasing with decrease in temperature, reaching
maximum values of 0.9963 and 12.63 respectively.
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
COP
0.3
eta_el
0.2
0.1
0
140
130
120
110
100
T_hot
90
80
70
65
(0C)
Figure 2.20: Thot vs COP and electrical efficiency
1
0.99
0.98
0.97
Quality of refrigerant
vapour
0.96
0.95
0.94
0.93
140
130
120
110
100
T_hot
90
80
70
65
(0C)
Figure 2.21: Thot vs quality of refrigerant vapour

14
12
10
8
6
Circulation ratio
4
2
0
140
130
120
110
100
T_hot
90
80
70
65
(0C)
Figure 2.22: Thot vs circulation ratio
6000
5000
kW
4000
3000
W_dot_net
2000
1000
0
140
130
120
110 100
90
T_hot (0C)
80
70
65
Figure 2.23 Thot vs Wnet

4
4
3
kg/s
3
2
m_dot_fuel
2
1
1
0
140
130
120
110
100
T_hot
90
80
(0C)
Figure 2.24: Thot vs mfuel
70
65
3. Economic Analysis
For the realisation of any project, it is very important to conduct an economic analysis in
order to know and understand the financial feasibility and long term benefits of such a
project. The economic analysis includes estimation of various costs such as investment
costs, operation and maintenance costs, fuel costs, overhauling etc. Estimation of the Total
Capital Investment (TCI) is the foremost step in any economic analysis. The first step to
estimate the total capital investment is to estimate the purchased equipment cost of every
component in the system. In this chapter, the economic analysis of the biomass fired trigeneration system shall be discussed using the Total Revenue Requirement (TRR) method.
3.1 Purchased Equipment Costs

Heat exchanger costing: The area of heat transfer is a major factor in the determination of
the cost of any heat exchanger. Other factors such as material, type of heat exchanger,
pressure, and temperature within the heat exchanger also play a very important role in
determination of the bare module cost.
The area of any heat exchanger is given by the following relation:
Q = k A LMTD (3.1)
In this relation, Q indicates the heat transferred from the hot to the cold side, A is the
area of the heat exchanger, LMTD is the Log Mean Temperature Difference of the heat
exchanger and k is the overall heat transfer coefficient of the heat exchanger.
LMTD is given by the equation
2 1
ln(
2
)
1
(3.2). In this relation, T2 and T1 indicate the higher
and lower terminal temperature difference respectively, of the heat exchanger.

1
The overall heat transfer coefficient k can be written down as () = ( ) + ( ) (3.3),

1
where 1 and 2 are the individual heat transfer coefficients of either side. Some typical
values of individual heat transfer coefficients for tubular heat exchangers are shown in table
3.1.
Material Flow
(W/m2K)
air (1bar)
50
superheated steam (high pressure)
400 800
water (liquid)
2000 4000
water (boiling)
4500 7000
steam (condensing)
7000 12000
Table 3.1: Values of individual heat transfer coefficient for tubular heat exchangers [15]
The heat transferred from the hot stream to the cold stream can be obtained by writing the
energy balance for the component.
= ( ) (3.4)
= ( ) (3.5)
The bare module cost for the reference year (PEC0) can be obtained by selecting the type of
heat exchanger and estimating the value corresponding to the obtained heat transfer area
according to the cost graph shown in figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1: Relation between heat transfer surface area and bare module cost
(in year 2004 $) [15]
The purchased equipment cost at reference year can be calculated by multiplying the bare
module cost with the pressure factor, material factor and the bare module factor.
= 0 (3.6)
The material factors for some typical heat exchangers are shown in figure 3.1 above. The
bare module factor has been assumed to be about 1.35 for normal heat exchangers and
1.65 for evaporators. The bare module factor includes costing consideration for piping,
installation, insulation, automatic system, and control system. The pressure factor for
different heat exchangers for different pressures can be obtained from figure 3.2 below.
Figure 3.2: Pressure factor for heat exchangers at different pressures [15]
The final purchased equipment cost of any component at the base year can be obtained by
using the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI).
= ( ) (3.7) [16]
When the area of the heat exchanger is out of the scope of the graph shown above, the
following relation can be used to estimate the cost of the heat exchanger for the obtained
heat transfer surface area for the reference year.
0.67
2 = 1 (2 )
1
(3.8) [16]
The reference cost for a floating head shell and tube heat exchanger, for an area of 1000 m2
is $60000 in 2004 value. The relation is shown in the graph in figure 3.3.
Figure 3.3 Heat exchanger reference cost in 2004 $ for a surface area of 1000 m2 [15]
The 2004 reference cost for a heat exchanger (denoted by CCref_HE) with the reference
surface area of 1000 m2 is estimated to be $81000.
It has to be noted, however, that the generator and the absorber are not regular heat
exchangers, as they have mass flow streams that enter or leave the component. Hence, the
mass transfer area also needs to be accounted for. In this estimation, the generator and the
absorber have been considered as simple heat exchangers and an additional 10% cost
approximation (realistic assumption) has been made to account for the mass transfer area.
Generator: As described above, the generator is considered as a simple heat exchanger for
the purpose of estimation of the heat transfer area. The upper and lower terminal
temperature differences of the generator are 47.1 K and 10 K respectively and are given by:
2 = [12] [7] (3.9)

1 = [11] [2] (3.10)
The LMTD of the generator would hence be =
2 1
(
2
1
(3.11), which is 23.94 K.
Heat transferred in the generator, as obtained from section 2.1.2, 5927 kW. The overall heat
transfer coefficient of the generator is assumed to be 0.1 kW/m 2/K. The area of heat
transfer, indicated by = /( ) (3.12), is estimated to be 2476 m2.
The 2004 reference cost for the generator for a heat transfer area of 2476 m 2 is given by:
A
0.67
CCG2004 = CCrefHE (A G )
ref
(3.13)
The estimates for the 2004 generator reference cost stand at $148692. The CEPCI for 2004
and 2014 are respectively 444.2 and 578.7 [17]. Hence, the cost of the generator (neglecting
mass transfer) in the year 2014 is $193715.
As mentioned earlier, an approximate assumption of 10% of the total heat transfer
equipment cost has been allotted for the mass transfer component. This indicates that the
total purchased equipment cost for the generator in 2014 is $213087.
Absorber: The absorber is also treated as a simple heat exchanger for the estimation of the
heat transfer area. The upper and lower terminal temperature differences are given by:
2 = [4] [14] (3.14)
1 = [5] [13] (3.15)
The values of the upper and lower terminal temperature difference are 3.213 K and 3 K
respectively. LMTD of the absorber, given by =
2 1
(
2
1
(3.16), is 3.105 K. The heat
transferred in the absorber is written as:

QA = ((h[10] h[4]) + f (h[4] h[5])) mcycle (3.17)
It is estimated at 5329 kW. Overall heat transfer coefficient of the absorber is assumed at
2.5 kW/m2/K. The area of heat transfer of the absorber is hence 686.5 m2.
A
CCA2004 = CCrefHE (A A )
ref
0.67
(3.18)
The reference cost of the absorber (neglecting heat transfer) in the year 2004, given by the
above relation, is therefore $62955. Cost of the absorber in 2014, considering CEPCI plant
indices in 2004 and 2014, is hence $82017.
Accounting for the mass transfer surface area cost of 10%, the final purchased equipment
cost of absorber in the year 2014 comes out to be $90218.
Evaporator: The upper and lower terminal temperature differences of the evaporator are
10 K and 3 K respectively, and are given by the equations:
2 = [17] [10] (3.19)
1 = [18] [9] (3.20)
LMTD of the evaporator is given by =
2 1
2
(3.21), and calculated to be
7.213 K. Heat transferred in the evaporator is the same as the peak energy requirement for
cooling, which is 3700 kW. Overall heat transfer coefficient of the evaporator is considered
to be 1.5 kW/m2/K. The heat transfer surface area of the evaporator is therefore estimated
at 342 m2.
0.67
CCEV2004 = CCrefHE (A EV )
ref
(3.22)
The reference cost of the evaporator in the year 2004, according to the above relation is
$48238. The purchased equipment cost of the evaporator in the year 2014 is $62845.
Solution Heat Exchanger:
2 = [2] [7] (3.23)
1 = [3] [6] (3.24)
=
2 1
(
2
1
(3.25),
The upper and lower terminal temperature differences are 77.1 K and 10 K respectively.
LMTD of the solution heat exchanger is 32.85 K. Overall heat transfer coefficient is assumed
to be 0.85 kW/m2/K. The heat transfer in the heat exchanger is calculated to be 1013 kW.
The area of heat exchange is therefore estimated at 36.28 m2.
0.67
CCHE2004 = CCrefHE (AHE )

ref
(3.26)
Reference cost of the solution heat exchanger in the year 2004 is $8779. The purchased
equipment cost of the component in 2014 is given by:
= 2004 (2014 ) (3.27)

2004
The estimated cost of the solution heat exchanger in the year 2014 is $11437.
Condenser: The PEC estimation of the condenser has been explained in the ORC section.
Solution Pump: Bare module cost for pump with an isentropic efficiency of 70 75% is
taken to be $172 for the year 2010 and the bare module reference cost for motor for the
year 2010 is $62 (assumed). The reference cost of the pump in the year 2010 is calculated
by considering the factors such as design factor, material factor, temperature factor,
pressure factor and bare module factor. The obtained value is $1299.
CrefP = CBP
ref
fdP fmP fTP fpP fbmP (3.28)
Where, fdp =1, fmp=1, fTp=1, fPp=1

= 1.35 + (0.1
) (3.29)
The solution pump is taken to be an ideal one, which means that the isentropic efficiency of
the pump is 100%. The reference cost in the year 2010 for the solution pump is given by:
1
2010 = (0.75)
0.84
(3.30)
Hence, the solution pump has a reference cost of $1654 in 2010. The CEPCI for the year
2010 is 550.8 [17]. Hence, the purchased equipment cost for the solution pump in 2014 is
$1737.
Throttling Valves: The PEC of throttling valves in 2014 is assumed to be $200 each.
The ORC consists of mainly the vapour generator, the ORC turbine, condenser and the ORC
pump. The fuel combustor has also been dealt with in this section.
Condenser: The upper and lower terminal temperature differences of the condenser are
17.3 K and 4.984 K respectively and are given by:
2 = [21] [16] (3.31)
1 = [25] [15] (3.32)
The LMTD of the condenser would hence be =
2 1
(
2
1
(3.33), which is 9.898 K.
Heat transferred in the condenser, as obtained from section 2.1.2, 20759 kW. The overall
heat transfer coefficient of the condenser is assumed to be 1.5 kW/m2/K. The area of heat
transfer, indicated by =
(3.34), is estimated to be 1398 m2.
The 2004 reference cost for the condenser for a heat transfer area of 1398 m2 is given by:
A
CCCD2004 = CCrefHE (ACD )

ref
0.67
(3.35)
The estimates for the 2004 condenser reference cost stand at $123924. Hence, the cost of
the condenser in the year 2014 is $161447.
Vapour Generator:
2 = [11] [24] (3.36)
1 = [29] [19] (3.37)
The values of the upper and lower terminal temperature difference are 112.3 K and 50 K
respectively. LMTD of the vapour generator, given by =
2 1
(
2
1
(3.38), is 76.99
K. The heat transferred in the vapour generator is written as:

QVG = (h[19] h[24]) m[19] (3.39), or
= ([29] [11]) (3.40)
It is estimated at 20889 kW. Overall heat transfer coefficient of the vapour generator is
assumed at 0.1 kW/m2/K. The area of heat transfer of the absorber is hence 2713 m2.
A
CCVG2004 = CCrefHE (AVG )
0.67
ref
(3.41)
The reference cost of the vapour generator in the year 2004, given by the above relation, is
therefore $193231. Cost of the vapour generator in 2014, considering CEPCI plant indices in
2004 and 2014, is hence $251740.
ORC Pump: As suggested earlier, a 2010 reference bare module cost for a pump is $172 and
the bare module reference cost for motor for the year 2010 is $62.
CrefPump = CBPump
ref
fdPump fmPump fTPump fpPump fbmPump (3.42)
Where, fdpumo =1, fmpump=1, fTpump=1, fPpump=1

= 1.35 + (0.1
) (3.43)
The reference cost of the ORC pump in the year 2010 is calculated by the above relation,
and amounts to $1092.
The ORC pump has an isentropic efficiency of 88%. The reference cost in the year 2010 for
the solution pump is given by:
1
0.84
2010 = (0.75)
(3.44)
Hence, the ORC pump has a reference cost of $1249 in 2010. Considering the CEPCI of 2010
and 2014, the purchased equipment cost for the solution pump in 2014 is $1312.
ORC Turbine: The equipment cost for the ORC turbine is estimated using the examples of
certain ORC plant studies that have been conducted in the past.
Figure 3.4: Specific investment cost breakdown for ORC plants of different capacities, at a
hot source temperature of 1500C [18]
From the above graph, it is clear that an ORC project of about 523 kW has an electrical and
instrumentation cost of 400/kW, turbine cost of 200/kW and other costs of about
500/kW. An ORC project of 706 kW has an electrical and instrumentation cost of 300/kW,
with other costs adding up to about 400/kW and turbine cost of 200/kW. It is clear that
the specific cost of the ORC turbine remains fairly constant for an ORC project plant of any
capacity. Hence, a value of 200/kW has been considered for the ORC turbine. This is
equivalent to approximately $246/kW (according to December 2014 conversion rates).
The reference cost of the turbine in the year 2013 can be given by:
2013 = (3.45)
The gross work output of the turbine (Wgross) is obtained by the energy balance of the ORC
turbine.
= [19] ([19] [20]) (3.46)
The turbine produces a gross work of 4638 kW. The work (net) produced by the turbine can
be obtained by subtracting the internal work requirements, such as the solution pump (W P)
and ORC pump (Wpump). The value of Wnet produced by the turbine is 4392 kW.
The reference cost of the ORC turbine in the year 2013 is estimated to be $1.147 million.
The CEPCI for 2013 and 2014 are 567.3 and 578.7 respectively [17]. The purchased cost of
the ORC turbine in 2014 is given by:
= 2013 (2014 ) (3.47)

2013
The equipment cost of the ORC turbine in the year 2014 is $1.17 million.
Biomass Combustor: The specific costs involved with the combustion of biomass have been
compared with other base load generation options, by the U.S. Department of Energy.
According to this comparison, the specific cost involved with biomass co-firing can range
from $119 274/kW (2012 data) [19]. The lower limit of this data ($119/kW) has been used
for estimating the purchased equipment cost of the biomass boiler.
2012 = (3.48)
The reference value of the boiler in the year 2012 is estimated at $554880. The CEPCI for
the year 2012 is 584.6. Therefore, the equipment cost of the boiler in the year 2014 is
valued at $549280.
This cost, however, denotes the cost for the biomass fluidized bed boiler, which is a
combination of the biomass combustor and the vapour generator. The vapour generator is a
separate component in this system. Hence, this cost has to be decreased from the obtained
cost of the boiler.
= (3.49)
Hence, the predicted cost of the biomass combustor in the year 2014 is $297540.
The total PEC of the entire tri-generation system in the year 2014 is hence $2.262 million. As
the bare module factor for most of the equipment includes piping, installation, insulation,
automatic system, and control system, the cumulative Purchased Equipment Cost can also
be considered as the total onsite costs. The pie chart in figure 3.5 shows the breakdown of
the total purchased equipment cost. The turbine accounts for the most purchased cost in
the system with more than half of the total PEC. The biomass combustor accounts for 13%
of the total equipment cost, and the generator and condenser account for 9% and 7%
respectively, while the absorber and evaporator account for 4% and 3% respectively.
PEC_A
4%
PEC_CD
7%
PEC_EV
3%
PEC_G PEC_CC
9%
13%
PEC_VG
11%
PEC_Pump
0%
PEC_T
52%
Figure 3.5: Breakdown of Purchased Equipment Cost
3.2 Breakdown of Total Capital Investment

Fixed Capital Investment (FCI) in 1000$ =
Direct Costs (DC) =
3683
3043
Onsite Costs =
2262
Purchased Equipment Cost (PEC) =
2262
PEC of Biomass Combustor (CC) =
297.5
PEC of Vapour Generator (VG) =
251.7
PEC of ORC Turbine (T) =
1170
PEC of Condenser (CD) =
161.5
PEC of ORC Pump (Pump) =
1.3
PEC of Generator (G) =
213
PEC of Absorber (A) =
90.2
PEC of Evaporator (EV) =
62.9
PEC of Solution Heat Exchanger (HE) =
11.4
PEC of Solution Pump (P) =
1.7
PEC of Refrigerant Throttling Valve (TVR) =
0.2
PEC of Solution Throttling Valve (TVS) =
0.2
Offsite Costs =
781.6
Land (2% of PEC) =
33.3
Civil, Structural & Architectural Work (15% of PEC) =
249.5
Service Facilities (30% of PEC) =
498.9
Indirect Costs (IC) =
639.1
Engineering & Supervision (6% of DC) =
182.6
Construction Costs (15% of DC) =
456.5
Contingencies (5% of FCI) =
184.1
Other Outlays in 1000$ =
1016
Startup Costs (5% of FCI) =
184.1
Working Capital (10% of TCI) =
405
Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC) (10% interest rate)=
Total Capital Investment (TCI) in year 2014 $1000 =
4700
Table 3.2: Breakdown of Total Capital Investment (in 1000$)

427
It has been assumed that the land costs about 2% of the total PEC, civil, structural and
architectural work cost 15% of the total PEC and service facilities require 30% of the total
PEC. Engineering and supervision cost 6% of the Direct Costs, while construction costs
amount to 15% of the DC. Start-up costs and working capital have been allotted 5% of the
Fixed Capital Investment and 10% of the Total Capital Investment respectively. Allowance
for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC) has been calculated at an interest rate of 10%.
The Total Capital Investment in the year 2014 for the entire plant comes out to be $4.7
million.
3.3 Operation and Maintenance and Fuel Costs

3.3.1 O&M Costs
The costs incurred for periodic overhauling and maintenance to ensure continuous and
proper running of the plant constitute the Operation and Maintenance costs (O&M). The
Operation and Maintenance costs for the plant under consideration have been estimated
with the help of certain existing plants and past research studies.
A general value of about 1% of the total capital investment can be considered for the O&M
costs [20]. This leads to an estimate of approximately $46989 annually. Alternatively, a value
of about $40000 annually has been suggested from the industrial heat recovery ORC
systems proposed by Turboden [21].
3.3.2 Fuel Costs
Animal waste such as cattle dung shall be the main fuel for the plant. However, agricultural
residues such as rice husk, gram husk and sugarcane bagasse could also be considered for
co-firing. Dry cow dung cakes are also made and sold from animal farms in Jabalpur,
Madhya Pradesh, India. Large scale production units sell the cow dung cakes for about
57,000 ($925) for 19 tonnes and 412,500 ($6694) for 165 tonnes of dry cow dung [22].
That amounts to 3/kg of dry cow dung for 19 tonnes and about 2.50/kg ($0.04) for 165
tonnes. As the requirement for the plant is about 259 tonnes each day, a value of 1/kg
($0.016) of dry cow dung has been considered for analysis. Hence, for a fuel requirement of
94608 tonnes annually, the annual fuel costs amount to $1.523 million.
3.4 Total Revenue Requirement (TRR)

The annual TRR is the minimum revenue required from the project in order to break even at
the end of the economic lifetime, whilst considering adjustments for changes in costs due to
inflation and escalation rates. It consists of two parts, namely carrying charges and
expenses.
3.4.1 Calculation of Carrying Charges (CCL)

Carrying charges are general designation for charges that are related to capital investment,
and include total capital recovery, return on investment for debt, preferred stock and
common equity, income taxes and other taxes, and insurance. Taxes have been neglected in
the current analysis.
When taxes are not considered, the levelized carrying charges can be calculated as:
= (3.50)
Where,
TCI is the total capital investment, and

CRF is the capital recovery factor with CRF =
(1+ )
(+ ) 1
(3.51)
ieff is the effective rate of interest, which is assumed to be 10% and n is the
economic lifetime of the plant, which is taken as 20 years.
CCL
CRF
@10% p.a effective interest rate
Levelized carrying charges 1000 $/a
Table 3.3 Carrying Charges
0.1175
549.6
3.4.2 Calculation of Levelized Operation and Maintenance Costs (OMCL)

The levelized value for operation and maintenance costs are given by:
1
= 0 1 (3.52)
With =
1+
1+
(3.53), where romc is the nominal escalation rate for the operation and
maintenance costs; romc = ((1+re)(1+ri))-1 (3.54), re and ri are the real escalation rate and the
inflation rate respectively. The inflation rate and the real escalation rate for equipment are
assumed to be 3% each. OMC0 is the operation and maintenance costs in the base year and
CRF is the capital recovery factor.
OMC
OMC
% of TCI
1%
OMC in the first year
1000 $/a
47
Levelized OMC
1000 $/a
77
Table 3.4: Levelized operation and maintenance costs
3.4.3 Calculation of Levelized Fuel Cost (FCL)
The levelized value of the fuel costs are given by:
= 0 (3.55)
Where,
CELF is the Constant Escalation Levelization Factor
=
With
(3.56)
1+
= 1+ (3.57), where rfc is the annual escalation rate for the fuel; rfc =
((1+re)(1+ri))-1 (3.58), re and ri are the real escalation rate and the inflation rate respectively.
The real escalation rate for fuel is assumed to be 3%. FC0 is the fuel cost in the base year and
CRF is the capital recovery factor. The rate of fuel is $0.016/kg, as observed previously. A
mass flow rate of 3 kg/s yields an annual fuel consumption of 94608 tonnes, which means
that the annual (non-levelized) fuel cost is $1.523 million.
Fuel Costs
Cattle dung
Fuel consumption
Fuel consumption
Annual fuel costs
$/kg
kg/s
tonnes/a
1000$/a
0.016
3
94608
1523
Levelized fuel costs

1000$/a
2501
Table 3.5: Fuel Costs
Finally, the total revenue requirement is given by:
= + + (3.59)
Total Revenue Requirement (TRRL)
Levelized Carrying Charges
1000$/a
Levelized OMC (OMCL)
1000$/a
Levelized Fuel Costs (FCL)
1000$/a
Total Revenue Requirement (TRRL)
1000$/a
Table 3.6: Total Revenue Requirement
549.6
77
2501
3127
3.5 Exergo-economic Parameters

To proceed with the exergoeconomic analysis, the cost rates associated with the capital
investment and operation and maintenance of each component need to be calculated. It is
also necessary to calculate the levelized cost rate of the fuel expenditures.
=(
=(
) ( ) (3.60)
) ( ) (3.61)
Where,
kCI: cost rates associated with the capital investment of the kth component
kOM: cost rates associated with operation and maintenance of the kth component
PECn: summation of the purchased equipment costs of all components in the system
: annual full load operation (in hours, in this case 7500 hr)
(3.62)
k is the total cost rate associated with the kth component.

=
(3.63)
Where, cf denotes the levelized cost rate of expenditures on fuel.

The calculated value for Cf was found to be 285.5 $/h. The calculated values for k for the
biomass plant are given below. All the values are in $/h.
Component
Zk (CI)
Zk (OM)
Zk Total
Biomass Combustor
Vapour Generator
ORC Turbine
Condenser
ORC Pump
Generator
Absorber
Evaporator
Solution Heat Exchanger
Solution Pump
Refrigerant Throttling
Valve
Solution Throttling Valve
11.19
9.5
44.1
6.09
0.05
8.07
3.42
2.38
0.43
0.07
1.57
1.33
6.16
0.85
0.01
1.13
0.48
0.33
0.06
0.01
12.76
10.83
50.26
6.95
0.06
9.2
3.9
2.71
0.49
0.08
0.01
0.01
0
0
0.01
0.01
Table 3.7: Values of k for the components of the system
4. Exergy and Exergoeconomic Analysis

4.1 Exergy of Streams
Exergy is the useful part of the energy that is associated with a material stream. It is defined
as the maximum useful energy that could be obtained from a stream when it is brought in
equilibrium with its thermodynamic environment, while interacting only with its
thermodynamic environment [23]. The exergy of streams consist of two parts, namely the
physical exergy and the chemical exergy. Physical exergy is further subdivided into thermal
and mechanical exergy. Thermal exergy is the maximum energy that could be obtained from
a stream when it is brought into thermal equilibrium with its thermodynamic environment.
This means that when the temperature of the stream or the system is not the same as the
temperature of the thermodynamic environment, it possesses thermal exergy, or there is a
potential to extract energy from the system. Mechanical exergy is the maximum energy that
could be obtained from a stream when it is brought into mechanical equilibrium with its
thermodynamic environment. When the pressure of the system or the material stream is
not the same as the pressure of the thermodynamic environment, there is a potential for
energy extraction by changing its pressure. Chemical exergy is the exergy that could be
obtained by bringing the system into chemical equilibrium with the surroundings. This
means that when the chemical composition of a system is different from that of the
thermodynamic environment, it is said to have a potential for energy extraction.
A part of this exergy could be extracted through various components and the rest is either
destroyed within the component as irreversibilities or is lost to the environment as exergy
loss. In this section, the exergy analysis of the entire system shall be explained.
In order to determine the exergy of the various streams, it is important to define the
thermodynamic environment (state 0). The state 0 can be defined differently for different
material streams.
In the Absorption Refrigeration Machines, there are four different material streams, namely
water streams, pure ammonia streams, ammonia solution streams and combustion gases
streams. State 0 shall be defined separately for each of the streams.
State 0 for pure water and pure ammonia streams is defined at T[0] = 293 K and P[0] = 1.013
bar. State 0 for air is defined at T0,air = 288 K and P[0] = 1.013 bar.
The specific chemical exergy of the jth flow for the ammonia water solution is calculated
as:
= ( 3
[0]) + ((1 ) 2
[0]) + (4.1) [9]
Where,
xj is the concentration of ammonia,
eCHNH3[0] is the specific chemical exergy of ammonia at ambient conditions,
eCHH2O[0] is the specific chemical exergy of water at ambient conditions, and
wrevxj is the specific work associated with the mixing of pure ammonia and pure water
= [,0 3,0 (1 ) 2,0 ] 0 [,0 3,0 (1 ) 2,0 ]
(4.2) [9]
hj,0 and sj,0 are the specific enthalpy and specific entropy respectively at state point 0 for
physical equilibrium. The state 0 for physical equilibrium for ammonia solution is defined for
each and every stream or state point in the system. It is the equilibrium state with
temperature and pressure equal to the physical state 0 of pure ammonia and the
concentration of the stream under consideration. The physical equilibrium state 0 for
stream number 4 is given below.
Call NH3H2O(123, T[0], p[0], X[4]: T[104], p[104], x[104], h[104], s[104], u[104], v[104], Qu[104])
(4.3)
The state 0 for ammonia water solution for chemical equilibrium is defined by writing the
Call NH3H2O function in EES, separately for water and ammonia and temperature T[0] and
pressure P[0].
32(123, [0], [0], 0: 2 [0], 2 [0], 2 [0], 2 [0], 2 [0], 2 [0], 2 [0], 2 [0])
(4.4)
32(123, [0], [0], 1: 3 [0], 3 [0], 3 [0], 3 [0], 3 [0], 3 [0], 3 [0], 3 [0])
(4.5)
The specific physical exergy of the jth flow for the ammonia water solution is calculated
as:
j
ePH = (hj hj,0 ) T[0] (sj sj,0 ) (4.6) [9]

hj and sj are the specific enthalpy and specific entropy of the jth flow respectively.
The specific physical and chemical exergies of flow streams with pure substances are given
by:
= ( [0]) 0 ( [0]) (4.7) [9]
= [0] (4.8) [9]
Material flows through throttling valve require splitting of the specific physical exergy into
specific thermal and specific mechanical exergies. This is done because the throttling valve
converts the mechanical exergy into thermal exergy.
= [( , ) 0 ( , )]= + [( , ) 0 ( , )] =
0
(4.9) [9]
The total physical and chemical exergies of a stream are calculated as:
= (4.10)
= (4.11)
The total exergy of a stream is given by = + (4.12)
The physical, chemical and total exergies of various streams of the Absorption Refrigeration
Machine are provided in table 4.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Ei (kW)
64546
10606
10434
10432
71377
71382
71451
64422
64414
64283
4050
2006
0
88.88
0
346.2
0
31.92
E(CH)i (kW)
63476
10428
10428
10428
71035
71035
71035
63476
63476
63476
E(PH)i (kW)
1070
177.7
5.729
4.064
342
347.1
416.3
946.4
938.3
807.8
ei (kJ/kg)
20139
4411
4339
4338
12724
12725
12737
20100
20098
20057
e(CH)i (kJ/kg)
19805
4337
4337
4337
12663
12663
12663
19805
19805
19805
e(PH)i (kJ/kg)
334
73.91
2.382
1.69
60.96
61.87
74.2
295.3
292.8
252
28.12
13.93
0
0.6977
0
0.6977
0
0.1804
Table 4.1: Exergy of streams in Absorption Refrigeration Machine

The organic Rankine cycle consists of three major types of streams, namely combustion
gases, pure ammonia and water streams. The state 0 for combustion gases is taken as air at
T0,air = 288 K and P[0]=1.013 bar. The state 0 temperature and pressure for ammonia and
water streams are at T[0] = 293 K and P[0] = 1.013 bar.
Specific physical and chemical exergies of streams in ORC are given by:
= ( [0]) 0 ( [0]) (4.13) [9]
= [0] (4.14) [9]

The total physical and chemical exergies of ORC streams are calculated as:
= (4.15)
= (4.16)
The total exergy of a stream is given by = +
The chemical exergy of the fuel typically is 1 1.04 times the higher heating value of the fuel
[23]. It is taken to be 1.02 times that of the HHV. Hence it has a value of 14,219 kJ/kg. The
exergy of streams in ORC is displayed in table 4.2.
Ei (kW)
19
20
21
22
24
25
27
29
ei (kJ/kg)
e(CH)i (kJ/kg)
e(PH)i (kJ/kg)
278556
20499
19805
694
273423
20121
19805
316.2
337943
20123
19805
318.1
273138
20100
19805
295.3
273341
20115
19805
310.2
337559
20100
19805
295.3
1667
11.96
12541
87.03
Table 4.2: Exergy of streams in Organic Rankine Cycle
4.2 Component Exergy Balances

The definitions of exergy of fuel, exergy of product, exergy destruction, exergetic efficiency,
and exergy destruction ratios for each component in the system are provided in this section.
Generator (equations 4.17 4.22):
, = [11] [12]
, = [2] + [31] [7]
, = , ,
= , /,
= , /,
= , /,
Absorber (equations 4.23 4.28):
, = [4] + [10] [5]
, = [14] [13]
, = , ,
= , /,
= , /,
= , /,
Evaporator (equations 4.29 4.34):
, = [9] [10]
, = [18] [17]
, = , ,
= , /,
= , /,
= , /,
Solution Heat Exchanger (equations 4.35 4.40):
, = [2] [3]
, = [7] [6]
, = , ,
= , /,
= , /,
= , /,
Refrigerant Throttling Valve (equations 4.41 4.46):
, = ( [8] [9])
, = ( [9] [8])
, = , ,
= , /,
= , /,
= , /,
Solution Throttling Valve (equations 4.47 4.52):
, = ( 1) ( [3] [4])
, = ( 1) ( [4] [3])
, = , ,
= , /,
= , /,
= , /,
ORC Turbine (equations 4.53 4.58):
, = [19] [20]
, =
, = , ,
= , /,
= , /,
= , /,
Mixer (equations 4.59 4.64):
, = ([1] [21])
, = [20] ([21] [20])
, = , ,
= , /,
= , /,
= , /,
Condenser (equations 4.65 4.70):
, = [21] [25]
, = [16] [15]
, = , ,
= , /,
= , /,
= , /,
ORC Pump (equations 4.71 4.76):
, =
, = [24] [22]
, = , ,
= , /,
= , /,
= , /,
Vapour Generator (equations 4.77 4.82):
, = [29] [11]
, = [19] [24]
, = , ,
= , /,
= , /,
= , /,
Biomass Combustor (equations 4.83 4.88):
, =
, = [29] [27]
, = , ,
= , /,
= , /,
= , /,
Table 4.3 shows the exergy of fuel, product, exergy destruction, exergetic efficiency and the
exergetic ratios of all the components in the system. Figures 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 show the
exergy destruction, exergetic efficiency and the exergetic ratios of various components
respectively.
4.3 Exergy Destruction, Exergetic Efficiencies and Exergy Destruction Ratios

Biomass Combustor
Vapour Generator
ORC Turbine
Condenser
ORC Pump
mixer
Generator
Absorber
Evaporator
Solution Pump
Refrigerant Throttling
Valve
Ef (kW)
42927
8490
5134
383.6
229.6
51.57
2044
3339
130.5
172
16.32
Ep (kW)
10875
5216
4392
344.7
202.7
25.58
871.5
88.88
31.92
69.17
16.32
Ed (kW)
32052
3274
742
38.9
26.9
25.99
1172.5
3250.12
98.58
102.83
0
0.25
0.61
0.86
0.90
0.88
0.50
0.43
0.03
0.24
0.40
1
x
0.79
0.08
0.02
0
0
0
0.03
0.08
0
0
0
y
0.72
0.07
0.02
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.02
0.07
0
0
0
121.6
1.73
113.5
0.064
8.1
1.67
0.93
0.04
0
0
0
0
Table 4.3: Exergies, exergetic efficiency, exergetic ratios of components

35000
Exergy Destruction (kW)
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
Figure 4.1: Exergy destruction in components

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
Exergetic efficiency
0.2
0
Figure 4.2: Exergetic efficiency of components
Generator
3%
Absorber
8%
ORC Turbine
2%
Vapour Generator
8%
Biomass Combustor
79%
Figure 4.3: Percentage of total exergy destruction in components

Generator
2%
ORC Turbine
2%
Absorber
8%
Vapour Generator
8%
Biomass Combustor
80%
Figure 4.4: Percentage of total exergy of fuel destroyed in components

From the above table and figures, it is clear that the maximum exergy destruction takes
place in the biomass combustor. It accounts for 79% of the total exergy destruction, which
amounts to about 32 MW. This is also equivalent to about 80% of the total exergy available
in the fuel and hence the biomass combustor has an exergetic efficiency of 25%. The vapour
generator and absorber exhibit exergy destruction of about 3.2 MW each, accounting for
about 8% each of the total exergy destruction. The ORC turbine has an efficiency of 85.5%.
The generator accounts for about 3% of the total exergy destruction, amounting to 1.18
MW. It has an efficiency of about 42%.
The exergy of product for the entire system is the sum of the individual products, namely
the net power and cold production; which add up to 4424 kW.
EP,tot = Wnet + (E[18] E[17]) (4.89)
The exergy of fuel for the entire system is given by:
, = + [27] (4.90)
Here, stream 27 is the air inlet to the biomass combustor. The exergy destruction in the
entire system is the summation of the exergy destruction of individual components in the
system.
, = , (4.91)
The exergy loss from the system is the summation of exergy of products of the absorber and
the condenser (dissipative components) and the stream of combustion gases leaving the
generator (stream 12).
= ( [14] [13]) + ( [16] [15]) + [12] (4.92)
The overall exergy balance of the system can hence be written as:
EF,tot = EP,tot + ED,tot + EL (4.93)
The overall exergetic efficiency of the system can be defined as follows:
= , (4.94)
,
Hence, the system has an overall exergetic efficiency of 9.92%.

[Note: The air compressor at the inlet of the biomass combustor has been neglected for the
analysis. Hence, effectively it has been assumed that air is available at 1.15 bar at the inlet
of the combustor. However, the pressure of state 0 of air has been defined at ambient
pressure.]
4.4 Cost Balances and Auxiliary Equations

Exergo-economic analysis involves the formulation of cost balances for each component in
the system. The summation of the cost rates of all streams leaving the component is equal
to the summation of the cost rates of all streams entering the component and cost rates
associated with the capital investment and operation and maintenance. It can be
represented as follows:
+ + =
(4.95) [24]
Where,
Cj is the cost rate associated with the jth stream in $/h (depending on the currency of
use).
= (4.96)
cj is the specific cost rate per exergy of stream and Ej is the exergy of the jth stream.
k = kCI + kOM are the cost rates associated with capital investment and operation
and maintenance of the component, in $/h.
If there are N streams leaving the component under consideration, (N-1) auxiliary equations
need to be formulated, based on the F-rule and P-rule.
F-rule: The total cost of removal of exergy from an exergy stream in a component is equal to
the cost at which the removed exergy was supplied to the same stream in upstream
components [24].
P-rule: Each exergy unit is supplied to any stream associated with the product of a
component at the same average cost [24].
The cost balances and auxiliary equations of all components are given below.
Generator (equations 4.97 4.99):
[11] [12] + = [1] + [2] [7]
[11] = [12]
[1] = ([7] [2])/([7] [2])
Absorber (equations 4.100 4.102):
[10] + [4] [5] + = [14] [13]
[13] = 0
[5] = ([10] + [4])/([10] + [4])
Evaporator (equations 4.103 4.105):
[9] [10] + = [18] [17]
[9] = [10]
[17] = 0
Solution Heat Exchanger (equations 4.106 4.107):
[2] [3] + = [7] [6]
[2] = [3]
Solution Pump (equations 4.108 4.109):
,
+ = [6] [5]
,
= _
Solution Throttling Valve (equation 4.110):
[4] = [3] +
Refrigerant Throttling Valve (equation 4.111):
[9] = [8] +
Biomass Combustor (equations 4.112 4.114):
_ = _
_ + _ = [29] [27]
[27] = 0
Vapour Generator (equations 4.115 4.116):

[29] [11] + = [19] [24]
[29] = [11]
ORC Turbine (equations 4.117 4.119):
[19] [20] + =
[19] = [20]
=
Mixer (equations 4.120 4.121):
[21] = [20] + [1]
= 0
Condenser (equations 4.122 4.124):
[21] [25] + = [16] [15]
[25] = [21]
[15] = 0
Splitter (equations 4.125 4.126):
[25] = [22]
[25] = [8]
ORC Pump (equations 4.127 4.128):
,
+ = [24] [22]
,
=
The cost rates associated with various streams in the system is shown in table 4.4.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
c(i) ($/kJ)
0.01562
0.2728
0.2728
0.2728
0.05317
0.05318
0.05379
0.01753
0.01753
0.01753
0.02378
0.02378
0
2.041
0
0.0395
C(i) ($/h)
1008
2893
2846
2846
3795
3796
3843
1129
1129
1127
96.31
47.71
0
181.4
0
13.67
E(i) (kW)
64546
10606
10434
10432
71377
71382
71451
64422
64414
64283
4050
2006
0
88.88
0
346.2
17
0
0
0
18
0.157
5.01
31.92
19
0.01798
5007
278556
20
0.01798
4915
273423
21
0.01753
5923
337943
22
0.01753
4787
273138
24
0.01754
4794
273341
25
0.01753
5916
337559
27
0
0
1667
29
0.02378
298.2
12541
Table 4.4: Cost rates associated with individual streams
4.5 Inputs for Exergoeconomic Optimization: Zk, CD,k, CL, Zk+CD,k, fk and rk
The cost rates associated with the capital investment and operation and maintenance (kCI
and kOM) of components can be obtained from economic analysis. Figure 4.5 shows a
representation of table 3.7. It can be noted that the ORC turbine has the highest cost rates
associated with capital investment and operation and maintenance. The k value for the
turbine is 50 $/h. The biomass combustor has a cost rate of about 13 $/h and the vapour
generator has a cost rate of about 11 $/h, while the generator has a cost rate of close to 10
$/h.
60
50
$/h
40
30
20
10
Z_dot_k values
Figure 4.5: Cost rates associated with capital investment and operation and maintenance
The cost associated with the exergy destruction of a component can be estimated with the
help of the following equation:
= , , (4.129) [24]
,
In this equation, cf,k denotes the cost per unit of exergy of the fuel of the component under
consideration and ED,k indicates the exergy destruction of the component. The cost rate
associated with exergy destruction within the overall system is given by:
,
= , , (4.130) [24]
Here, cf,tot denotes the cost of fuel per unit of exergy of the entire system.
,
= [27] +
(4.131)
The cost rate of the total exergy loss of the system is given by:
= , , (4.132) [24]
The exergoeconomic factor (f) and the relative cost difference between the average cost per
unit of exergy of product and average cost per unit of exergy of fuel (r) are the two most
important factors used in the exergoeconomic optimization of the system. The relations,
with the help of which they can be calculated, are herewith provided:
=
, ,
,
(4.133) [24]
Here, cp,k and cf,k are respectively the cost of product and fuel of individual components, per
unit of exergy.
=
+,
(4.134) [24]
Table 4.5 shows the values of k, CD,k, k+CD,k, fk and rk for all components in the system.
Z ($/h)
CD ($/h)
Z+CD ($/h)
f
Biomass Combustor
12.76
215.2
227.96
Vapour Generator
10.83
77.86
88.69
ORC Turbine
50.26
13.33
63.59
Condenser
6.95
0.68
7.63
ORC Pump
0.06
0.83
0.89
Mixer
0
0.46
0.46
Generator
9.2
27.87
37.07
Absorber
3.9
172.8
176.7
Evaporator
2.71
1.728
4.438
0.49
28.04
28.53
Solution Pump
0.08
0
0.08
Refrigerant Throttling Valve
0.01
0.14
0.15
0.01
0.6
0.61
Table 4.5: Exergoeconomic parameters of various components in the system
r
0.06
0.12
0.79
0.91
0.07
0
0.25
0.02
0.61
0.02
1
0.07
0.02
3.12
0.72
0.81
1.26
0.14
1.02
1.79
37.39
7.94
1.51
0.15
0.08
26.18
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
f
0.2
0
Figure 4.6: f ratios for various components

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
r
5
0
Figure 4.7 r ratios for various components

It is seen from the above two graphs, that the ORC turbine and the condenser have a large
f ratio. Components such as biomass combustor, absorber, vapour generator, and solution
heat exchanger exhibit very low values of f ratio. The absorber and the evaporator display
relatively high relative cost difference, followed by the biomass combustor. The trends
obtained from the observations are that in order to optimize the system, it is required to
decrease the cost of the turbine and condenser, increase the efficiency of biomass
combustor, vapour generator, and absorber. However, select components shall be chosen
for improvement during iterative optimisation of the system, which shall be discussed in the
next chapter.
5. System Optimization
In this chapter, the exergoeconomic optimization of the system is discussed. The system
shall be modified on the basis of the observable trends in the exergoeconomic parameters,
as analysed in the previous chapter.
5.1 Decision Variables

The decision variables are the thermodynamic variables associated with certain components
that may alter the thermodynamic and economic parameters of specific components, and
by extension, may alter the overall balance of the system.
From the suggestions of the exergoeconomic analysis, five components have been selected
for optimization. They are biomass combustor, absorber, condenser, vapour generator and
the ORC turbine.
The performance of the biomass combustor is governed fundamentally by the air fuel
stoichiometric ratio (air). Any alteration in the air fuel ratio could alter the temperature of
the combustion gases and vice versa. It could also alter the mass flow rate of the fuel and
the air inlet streams. Modifications in the temperature of combustion gases could alter the
performance of the vapour generator. If the temperature at the inlet of the turbine is kept
constant, the exergetic efficiency of the vapour generator will increase or decrease with
decreasing or increasing source temperature. However, if the temperature at the inlet of
the turbine is bound to change with the changing source temperature, it is likely to alter the
performance of the turbine. The temperature at the outlet of the turbine would decide the
outcome of the performance of the condenser. The isentropic efficiency of the turbine (s,T)
also plays a very important role in deciding the thermo-economic performance of the
turbine and the condenser. The temperatures at the inlet and the outlet of the cooling
water stream in a condenser could also be instrumental in deciding how certain parameters
associated with the condenser change. The decision variables that shall be considered for
modification in the iterative optimization have been provided in table 5.1.
Component
Recommendations
Decision Variables
Biomass
Combustor
Increase
T[29] Inlet to the vapour generator
Vapour Generator
Increase
ORC Turbine
Decrease
T[19] Temperature at inlet to the

turbine
T[19], s,T
Condenser
Decrease
Absorber
T[16] temperature of cooling water

outlet
T[14] temperature of cooling water
Increase
outlet
Table 5.1: Decision variables
5.2 Iterative Optimization

The decision variables have been modified in carefully measured steps and amounts, the
results of which are provided in this section. Four iterations have been made in an attempt
to move the system towards the more optimal solution.
5.2.1 First Iteration
BASE DESIGN
increase T[14], T[19] decrease s,turbine
FIRST
ITERATION
In the first iteration, the temperature of the outlet of the cooling water to the absorber
(T[14]) has been increased from 300C in the base design to 400C. This has been done in order
to increase the exergetic efficiency of the absorber. Alternatively, the temperature at the
inlet to the ORC turbine has been increased from 228 0C in the base design to 2380C, at the
same time, keeping the temperature of the combustion gases at the inlet of the vapour
generator constant. This results in a reduced terminal temperature difference for the
vapour generator, thus improving its efficiency. The isentropic efficiency of the turbine has
been dropped from 90% to 80%, in order to decrease the turbine costs associated with
capital investment and operation and maintenance. The results of the first iteration are
discussed below.
The exergetic efficiency of the vapour generator increased from 61.44% to 62.33%, while
the exergetic efficiency of the turbine dropped from 85.5% to 76.6%. The changes in the
thermodynamic parameters also affected the performance of the condenser, as the exergy
destruction of the condenser increased from 38.85 kW to 114.6 kW. The overall exergy
destruction increased from 40793 kW to 41150 kW, thus reducing the overall exergetic
efficiency from 9.92% to 8.9%. The net power generation dropped to 3937 kW from 4392
kW.
The changes in the thermodynamic parameters also modified the purchased equipment
costs of various components. The PEC of the turbine reduced from $1.164 million to $1.048
million. The PEC of the vapour generator increased from about $250,000 to $267,000. The
PEC of the condenser dropped from $160,000 to $120,000. The total PEC dropped to $1.48
million from $1.6 million. The Total Revenue Requirement reduced to $3.063 million from
$3.127 million. However, the cost of products recorded an increase. The cost of electricity
increased to 0.092 $/kWh from 0.085 $/kWh in the base case, while the cost of cold
production increased from 0.211 $/kWh to 0.216 $/kWh. Table 5.2 shows the
exergoeconomic parameters of the system after the first iteration.
Zdot ($/h) Cd ($/h) Zdot+Cd ($/h)

f
Biomass Combustor
9.71
215.2
224.91
0.04
Vapour Generator
11.54
25.28
36.82
0.31
ORC Turbine
45.25
21.42
66.67
0.68
Condenser
5.19
1.99
7.18
0.72
ORC Pump
0.05
0.86
0.91
0.05
Mixer
0
0.15
0.15
0
Generator
9.2
27.87
37.07
0.25
Absorber
2.98
166.2
169.18
0.02
Evaporator
2.71
1.73
4.44
0.61
0.49
28.04
28.53
0.02
Solution Pump
0.08
0
0.08
1
0.01
0.14
0.15
0.07
0.01
0.6
0.61
0.02
Table 5.2: Exergoeconomic parameters of components after the first iteration
r
3.08
0.697
0.95
1.17
0.14
0.33
1.79
18.53
7.94
1.51
0.15
0.08
26.18
5.2.2 Second Iteration
FIRST
ITERATION
Increase T[19] decrease s,turbine
SECOND
ITERATION
In the second iteration, the temperature at the inlet to the ORC turbine has been increased
from 2380C to 2480C. However, the temperature of the combustion gases at the inlet of the
vapour generator remains constant. The terminal temperature difference of the vapour
generator hence reduces to 30 K, thus increasing the exergetic efficiency. The isentropic
efficiency of the turbine has been dropped further from 80% to 70%, in order to decrease
the turbine costs further. The results of the second iteration are discussed below.
The exergetic efficiency of the vapour generator increased from 62.33% to 63.22%, while
recording a drop in exergy destruction of about 76 kW. The exergetic efficiency of the
turbine dropped from 76.6% to 68%. The exergy destruction in the turbine hence increased
to 1629 kW, up from 1202 kW in the first iteration. The exergy destruction in the ORC pump
reduced to 25.74 kW from 26.28 kW, the exergetic efficiency remaining constant however.
The exergetic efficiency of the condenser reduced to 61%, down from 75.5% in the first
iteration. The exergy destruction hence increased by 116 kW. The overall exergy destruction
increased from 41150 kW to 41609 kW, thus reducing the overall exergetic efficiency from
8.9% to 7.8%. The net power generation dropped from 3937 kW in iteration one to 3465 kW
in the second iteration.
The changes in the thermodynamic parameters also resulted in changes in economic
parameters. The PEC of the turbine reduced further to $928,000, down from $1.048 million
in the first iteration. The PEC of the vapour generator increased to about $289,000 from
$267,000, while at the same time reducing the PEC of the biomass combustor from
$225,000 to $147,000. The PEC of the condenser dropped to $100,000 from $120,000. The
total PEC dropped from $1.48 million to $1.342 million. The total revenue requirement
recorded a further drop to $3 million. The cost of electricity increased from 0.092 $/kWh to
0.102 $/kWh in the first iteration, while the cost of cold production increased to 0.223
$/kWh from 0.216 $/kWh. Table 5.3 shows the exergoeconomic parameters after the
second iteration.
Zdot ($/h) Cd ($/h) Zdot+Cd ($/h) f
r
Biomass Combustor
6.35
215.2
221.55
0.03
3.03
Vapour Generator
12.48
72.65
85.13
0.15
0.68
ORC Turbine
40.11
28.75
68.86
0.58
1.13
Condenser
4.315
3.97
8.28
0.52
1.34
ORC Pump
0.05
0.9
0.95
0.05
0.14
Mixer
0
0.02
0.02
0
0.2
Generator
9.2
27.87
37.07
0.25
1.79
Absorber
2.98
166.2
169.18
0.02
18.53
Evaporator
2.71
1.73
4.44
0.61
7.94
0.49
28.04
28.53
0.02
1.51
Solution Pump
0.08
0
0.08
1
0.15
0.01
0.14
0.15
0.07
0.08
0.01
0.6
0.61
0.02
26.18
Table 5.3: Exergoeconomic parameters of components after the second iteration
5.2.3 Third Iteration
SECOND
ITERATION
Increase T[19] increase s,turbine
THIRD
ITERATION
Trends observed in the first two iterations indicate that even though there is a reduction in
the total revenue requirement of the project, the cost of product still increases.
Furthermore, the efficiency of the system keeps decreasing. Hence, in the third iteration,
the exergetic efficiency of the vapour generator has been increased by increasing the
temperature at the inlet to the turbine, while keeping the temperature of the combustion
gases still constant. T[19] has been increased to 2530C. The isentropic efficiency of the
turbine has been increased to 90%. The results of the third iteration are discussed below.
It was observed that the system recorded positive changes in response to the modifications
made in the third iteration. The exergetic efficiency of the vapour generator increased to
63.67% from 63.22%, while recording a drop in exergy destruction from 3122 kW to 3084
kW. The exergetic efficiency of the turbine increased to 86.39%, up from 68% in the
previous iteration. The exergy destruction in the turbine hence decreased to 717.4 kW,
down from 1629 kW. The exergy destruction in the ORC pump recorded a slight reduction
from 25.74 kW from 25.48 kW, the exergetic efficiency remaining constant at 88.3%. The
exergetic efficiency of the condenser increased from 61% in the second iteration to 77.26%,
thus registering a decrease in exergy destruction of about 130 kW. The overall exergy
destruction decreased to 40538 kW, thus increasing the overall exergetic efficiency to
10.2%. The net power generation dropped to 3937 kW from 4392 kW. The net power
generated by the ORC increased to 4552 kW.
The resulting changes in economic parameters were also observed. The PEC of the turbine
increased to $1.2 million, while the PEC of the vapour generator increased further to an
amount of about $303,000, up from $288,000. The PEC of the biomass combustor
simultaneously was valued at $261,000, which is an increase of about $114,000 from the
earlier value of $147,000. Due to the increase in efficiency of the condenser, the PEC also
increased. The condenser was valued at $121,000, up from a value of $100,000 in the
second iteration. The total PEC increased from $1.48 million to $1.88 million. The total
revenue requirement registered an increase $3.125 million. The cost of electricity decreased
to 0.082 $/kWh from 0.102 $/kWh in the second iteration, while the cost of cold production
decreased from 0.223 $/kWh to 0.208 $/kWh.
It was observed that the trends in the third iteration showed considerable system
improvement as compared to the first two iterations. The total revenue requirement was
recorded slightly lower than that of the base case, also registering lower values of cost of
products. The third iteration also registered a marginally higher value of the exergetic
efficiency. It can however be concluded that this iteration is very close to that of the base
case. Table 5.4 shows the exergoeconomic parameters after the third iteration.
f
Biomass Combustor
11.27
215.2
226.47
0.05
Vapour Generator
13.08
72.98
86.06
0.15
ORC Turbine
51.86
12.84
64.7
0.80
Condenser
5.23
1.76
6.99
0.75
ORC Pump
0.05
0.78
0.83
0.06
Mixer
0
0.18
0.18
0
Generator
9.2
27.87
37.07
0.25
Absorber
2.98
166.2
169.18
0.02
Evaporator
2.71
1.73
4.44
0.61
0.49
28.04
28.53
0.02
Solution Pump
0.08
0
0.08
1
0.01
0.14
0.15
0.07
0.01
0.6
0.61
0.02
Table 5.4: Exergoeconomic parameters of components after the third iteration
r
3.1
0.67
0.79
1.17
0.14
0.38
1.79
18.53
7.94
1.51
0.15
0.08
26.18
5.2.4 Fourth Iteration
THIRD
ITERATION
Increase T[19] increase T[29]
FOURTH
ITERATION
As it was observed in the first two iterations, that reducing the investment costs of the
components had negative impacts on the system, the third iteration showed positive trends
by increasing the efficiencies of the turbine and the vapour generator. As suggested by the
developments associated with the exergoeconomic analysis, the most important
component, from the point of view of improving the system efficiency is the biomass
combustor. It has been hence attempted to increase the exergetic efficiency of the biomass
combustor in the fourth iteration. This can be done by increasing the temperature of the
combustion gases outlet at the biomass combustor. T[29] has been increased by 20 K, from
2780C to 2980C. The temperature at the inlet of the turbine has also been increased from
2530C to 2680C, thus leaving the vapour generator with a terminal temperature difference
of 30 K. The isentropic efficiency of the turbine remains constant at 90%. The results of the
fourth iteration are discussed below.
It was observed that the system registered more positive changes in response to the
modifications made in the fourth iteration. The exergetic efficiency of the vapour generator
decreased slightly, to 63.16% from 63.67%, while recording an increase in exergy
destruction to 3699 kW from 3084 kW. The exergetic efficiency of the turbine showed a
marginal increase from 86.39% to 86.88% in the previous iteration. The exergy destruction
in the turbine however increased from 717.4 kW to 804.7 kW. The exergy destruction in the
ORC pump recorded a slight increase from 25.74 kW from 28.43 kW, the exergetic efficiency
remaining constant at 88.3%. The exergetic efficiency of the condenser registered a
decrease to 70.13%, down from 77.26% in the third iteration. Exergy destruction in the
condenser increased from 100.7 kW to 162.1 kW. The overall exergy destruction increased
to 44594 kW. The system however recorded positive changes in the exergetic efficiency. The
efficiency of the system was valued at 11.1% after the fourth iteration. The net power
generation increased further to 5330 kW.
The PEC of the turbine increased to $1.4 million, while the PEC of the vapour generator
increased further to an amount of about $317,000, up from $303,000 in the previous
iteration. The PEC of the biomass combustor simultaneously was valued at $341,000, which
is an increase of about $80,000 from the earlier value of $261,000. The condenser was
valued at $116,000, down from $121,000 in the third iteration. The total PEC increased from
$1.88 million to $2.2 million. The total revenue requirement registered an increase to
$3.411 million. The cost of electricity decreased further to 0.077 $/kWh from 0.082 $/kWh
in the third iteration, while the cost of cold production decreased from 0.208 $/kWh to
0.202 $/kWh.
The increase in exergetic efficiencies of different components were also accompanied with
increase in exergy destruction. This can be attributed to the fact that the fuel mass flow rate
increased from 3.019 kg/s to 3.266 kg/s. Further, the gross power generated by the turbine
was the highest among the four iterations, which stood at 5589 kW, with the net power
valued at 5330 kW. This also resulted in a steep increase in the exergetic efficiency of the
system, while at the same time reducing the costs of the products. Table 5.5 shows the
exergoeconomic parameters after the fourth iteration.
F
Biomass Combustor
14.74
247
261.74
0.06
Vapour Generator
13.69
84.93
98.62
0.14
ORC Turbine
60.58
14.27
74.85
0.81
Condenser
5.05
2.8
7.85
0.64
ORC Pump
0.05
0.86
0.91
0.05
Mixer
0
0.18
0.18
0
Generator
9.2
27.87
37.07
0.25
Absorber
2.98
166.2
169.18
0.02
Evaporator
2.71
1.73
4.44
0.61
0.49
28.04
28.53
0.02
Solution Pump
0.08
0
0.08
1
0.01
0.14
0.15
0.07
0.01
0.6
0.61
0.02
Table 5.5: Exergoeconomic parameters of components after the fourth iteration
r
2.9
0.68
0.79
1.19
0.23
0.38
1.79
18.53
7.94
1.51
0.15
0.08
26.18
5.3 Comparison of Iterations

The exergoeconomic comparison of the four iterations has been explained in this section.
The behaviour of the components under scrutiny has been studied thoroughly through the
iterations and has been presented in the form of visual depictions. Comparisons include of
parameters such as exergetic efficiencies, exergy destructions, cost rates associated with
capital investment and operation and maintenance, cost rates of exergy destruction of the
overall system, cost rates of exergy loss of the overall system, and product costs.
5.3.1 Comparison of Individual Components
The variations in different exergoeconomic parameters for the components under scrutiny
have been discussed in this section. Figure 5.1 and 5.2 show the variations of the exergetic
efficiency of components and exergy destruction throughout the four iterations.
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
T
0.6
CD
0.5
VG
CC
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Base
It1
It2
It3
It4
Figure 5.1: Comparison of exergetic efficiencies across the iterations

40000
35000
30000
kW
25000
EdT
EdCD
20000
EdVG
EdCC
15000
EdA
10000
5000
0
1
Figure 5.2: Comparison of exergy destruction across iterations

Figure 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 respectively show the variations of , CD, f and r variations of the
components under consideration for design improvement.
70
60
50
Zdot ($/h)
Base
40
It1
It2
30
It3
It4
20
10
0
T
CD
VG
CC
Figure 5.3: values for components across iterations

300
250
200
Cd ($/h)
Base
It1
150
It2
It3
It4
100
50
0
T
CD
VG
CC
Figure 5.4: CD values for components across iterations
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
T
'f' ratio
0.6
CD
0.5
VG
CC
0.4
A
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Base
It1
It2
It3
It4
Figure 5.5: Trends in f ratio of components across iterations

40
35
30
'r' ratio
25
T
CD
20
VG
CC
15
A
10
5
0
Base
It1
It2
It3
Figure 5.6: Trends in r ratio of components across iterations
It4
The trends in the changing f ratios indicate that the condenser and the ORC turbine
reached closer to optimum conditions after the second iteration. Following this, the f ratios
of the condenser and turbine increased in the third iteration. The fourth iteration saw a
drop in the f ratio for the condenser again, thus again bringing it closer to the optimum
conditions. The relative difference between the product and the fuel for the absorber
decreased drastically due to the change in the cooling water outlet temperature in the first
iteration.
5.3.2 Comparison of Performances of Overall System
Table 5.6 shows the comparison of various parameters for the entire system. It has been
observed that the for the entire system decreases from the base design through the first
iteration, to the second iteration and increases in the third and the fourth iterations. The
system registered an increase in the cost rates associated with exergy destruction in the first
two iterations. It decreased slightly in the third iteration, but increased steeply in the final
step. The cost rate associated with exergy loss decreased through to the second iteration
and increased in the third and the final iterations.
BASE
DESIGN
FIRST
ITERATION
SECOND
ITERATION
THIRD
ITERATION
FOURTH
ITERATION
TRR (m $)
3.127
3.063
3.125
3.411
tot ($/h)
97.25
87.23
78.78
96.97
109.6
CD,tot
($/h)
263.5
265.8
268.8
261.9
302.3
CL($/h)
242.75
238.8
237.5
238.5
252
Cel
($/kWh)
0.085
0.092
0.102
0.082
0.077
Ccold
($/kWh)
0.211
0.216
0.223
0.208
0.202
tot
0.099
0.089
0.078
0.102
0.111
Wnet (kW)
4392
3937
3465
4552
5330
Table 5.6: Comparison of exergoeconomic parameters across iterations

Figures 5.7 through 5.11 show the variations in the TRR, , CD, CL, cost of products and the
exergetic efficiency of the entire system through the course of the four iterations.
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3
2.9
2.8
2.7
BASE DESIGN
FIRST ITERATION
SECOND ITERATION THIRD ITERATION FOURTH ITERATION

TRR (m $)
Figure 5.7: Total revenue requirement for the project

120
100
Ztot ($/h)
80
60
40
20
0
BASE DESIGN
FIRST ITERATION
SECOND
ITERATION
THIRD ITERATION
Figure 5.8: Variations of tot of the entire system
FOURTH
ITERATION
310
300
CD,tot ($/h)
290
280
270
260
250
240
BASE DESIGN
FIRST ITERATION
SECOND
ITERATION
THIRD ITERATION
FOURTH
ITERATION
Figure 5.9: CD,tot for the overall system

255
250
CL ($/h)
245
240
235
230
BASE DESIGN
FIRST ITERATION
SECOND
ITERATION
THIRD ITERATION
Figure 5.10: Cost due to exergy loss for the overall system
FOURTH
ITERATION
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
BASE DESIGN
FIRST ITERATION
SECOND ITERATION
Cel ($/kWh)
Ccold ($/kWh)
THIRD ITERATION
FOURTH ITERATION
tot
Figure 5.11: Cost of products and exergetic efficiency of the overall system
5.4 Conclusion
It has been noted that individual components reach closer to their respective
exergoeconomic optimum point at different iterations. It would be practically impossible to
alter the position of certain other components based on the exergoeconomic curve.
Decreasing the investment costs of individual components by reducing the exergetic
efficiency reduces the total revenue requirement. However, it can be inferred that the cost
due to exergy destruction plays a very important role in deciding the product costs, as they
increase despite a reduction in the total revenue requirement. The third iteration provides
an idea as to how the system could be brought closer to the optimal point. Increasing the
efficiency of the vapour generator, whilst keeping the efficiency of the turbine unaffected
reduces the product costs slightly, at the same time improving the efficiency of the system.
Improving the efficiency of the biomass combustor increases the efficiency of the system
steeply. However, the absolute value of the exergy destruction associated with some
components and the system as a whole also increases. This can be verified from the fact
that the cost due to exergy destruction shot up to over 300 $/h, up from just about 260 $/h
in the third iteration. It can hence be inferred that the value of exergy destruction and by
extension the cost associated with it would keep increasing, by increasing the efficiency of
single components and the system as a whole. Further, improving efficiency would also
increase the capital investment steeply. This would have an impact on the cost of products,
as they are bound to increase after a certain point. It has thus been concluded that the
fourth iteration is the closest to an optimum solution for the system.
6. Future Work - Stoves Powered by District Heat

The primary fuel source for cooking in India is firewood, followed by Liquefied Petroleum
Gas (LPG). In the year 2007-08, about 77.6% of rural Indian households used firewood, while
9.1% used LPG. About 7.4% of the rural households used dry cow dung cakes and 0.6% used
kerosene [25]. Conventional stoves are usually very inefficient and polluting. The traditional
stoves typically use only 2-10% of the total available energy [25]. These traditional stoves
can be improved by increasing the thermal efficiency, increasing the ventilation and
reducing emissions. Alternatively, suggestions to use clean energy in cooking have been
considered of late. Cookers operating on solar energy and on biogas have seen a stark rise in
recent years. However, economic barriers such as high investment costs, long payback
periods, lack of purchasing power and lack of infrastructure have hindered the progress in
this field.
Construction of a tri-generation or a CHP system, which could provide heat with
temperatures suitable for cooking needs, could solve the techno-economic issues related
with the transformation from traditional and inefficient cooking methods.
The Indian village under consideration in the current project has peak heat demand for
cooking of about 1.6 kWth per household. The peak heat demand for the entire village
amounts to 2382 kWth. The heat demand variations for cooking in a single day for one
household are provided in figure 6.1.
1.8
Heat Demand for Cooking (kWth)
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Figure 6.1: Heat demand for cooking for a single household
It has been recorded that there exists one major peak at around 10 am, with four other
smaller peaks around 7 am, 4 pm, 7 pm and 9 pm. As the diet in this village is majorly ricebased, a maximum hot temperature of about 120-1300C would be sufficient to meet the
demands. Providing on-demand heat supply could be one of the key technological issues
related to this project, which involves efficient design, construction, operation and
maintenance of heat storage systems.
Design suggestions for tri-generation systems, as proposed Ahmadi et al. [3], and AlSulaiman et al. [5], reviewed in section 1.3, include adding a heat extracting device at the
outlet of the ORC turbine. Following these design suggestions would mean that the fluid
should condense at around the temperature required for cooking, which in this case, is
1300C. Alternatively, superheated vapour can be used in heat transfer without phase
change. An illustration is provided in figure 6.3.
HEAT
EXTRACTION
Steam outlet for heating
Working fluid vapour
CD
Working fluid liquid
Water
Shaft work
Figure 6.3: Illustration for heat extraction from ORC, (concept based on [3], [5])
REFERENCES:
[1] TNN, Tamil Nadu reels under power shortage, The Times of India, February 10, 2012
[2] R. Pothan, Biomass a sustainable renewable source for India!, Renewable Energy
Magazine, September 12, 2011
[3] P. Ahmadi, I. Dincer, M.A. Rosen, Exergo-environmental analysis of an integrated
organic Rankine cycle for trigeneration, Energy Conversion and Management 64 (2012) 447
453, accepted 5th June, 2012, Elsevier Ltd. 2012
[4] G. Tamm, D.Y. Goswami, S. Lu, A.A. Hasan, Theoretical and experimental investigation
of an ammonia-water power and refrigeration thermodynamic cycle, Solar Energy 76
(2004) 217 228, accepted 25th August 2003, Elsevier Ltd. 2003
[5] F. A. Al-Sulaiman, Feridun Hamdullahpur, Ibrahim Dincer, Performance comparison of
three trigeneration systems using organice Rankine cycles, Energy 36 (2011) 5741 5754,
accepted 4th June 2011, Elsevier Ltd. 2011
[6] Approximate data obtained from the local population of Siddhamalli village
[7] Google maps, Kartendaten, Google 2015
[8] Data obtained using Meteonorm 7.0
[9] T. Morosuk, G. Tsatsaronis, A new approach to the exergy analysis of Absorption
Refrigeration Machines, Energy 33 (2008) 890 907, received 24th April 2007, Elsevier Ltd.
2007
[10] A.A. Khan, W. de Jong, P.J. Jansens, H. Spliethoff, Biomass combustion in fluidized bed
boilers: Potential problems and remedies, Fuel Processing Technology 90 (2009) 21 50,
accepted 18th July 2008, Elsevier Ltd. 2008
[11] A.S.N. Huda, S. Mekhilef, A. Ahsan, Biomass energy in Bangladesh: Current status and
prospects, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30 (2014) 504 517, accepted 21st
October 2013, Elsevier Ltd. 2013
[12] ECN Phyllis 2, Database for biomass and waste, 2012 ECN
[13] M. Crawford, Fluidized-Bed Combustors for Biomass Boilers, ASME, September 2012
[14] Kumar and Shende, Efficient Cooking Stove fueled by Cow Dung,
www.apropedia.org, 4th July 2010
[15] G. Tsatsaronis, EAO Tutorial 5 (PPT), Institut fr Energietechnik, Technische

Universitt Berlin, WS 2013/14
[16] G. Tsatsaronis, T. Morozyuk, Chapter 3: Economic Analysis, Energy Systems Project,

Campus El Gouna, TU Berlin, October 2013
[17] Chemical Engineering, April 2012 (www.che.com)
[18] T. Tartiere, B. Obert, L. Sanchez, Thermo-economic Optimization of Subcritical and
Transcritical ORC Systems, 2nd International Seminar on ORC Power Sytems, ASME ORC
2013, Enertime
[19] A Commitment to Renewable Biomass Energy & Global Warming by using Nature's
own Power Plants!, Planet Power Energy and the Environment, www.treepower.org,
2012
[20] A. Rettig, M. Lagler, T. Lamare, S. Li, V. Mahadea, S. McCallion, J. Chernushevich,
Application of Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC), ORC WEC Young Engineers, World Engineers
Convention, Geneva, 4 9 September 2011
[21] R. Vescovo, ORC Recovering Industrial Heat power generation from waste energy
streams, Recovering heat from industry feature, Cogeneration and On-Site Power
Production, March April 2009
[22] M. Harsdorff, Case study A green value chain analysis of the cow dung and dairy
industry in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, The Economics of Cow Dung Creating Green Jobs
in the Dairy Industry in India, June 2012
[23] G. Tsatsaronis, T. Morozyuk, Chapter 3: Exergetic Analysis, Master Program Energy
Engineering, Campus El Gouna, TU Berlin, October 2012
[24] G. Tsatsaronis, T. Morozyuk, Chapter 18: Exergoeconomics, Master Program Energy
Engineering, Campus El Gouna, TU Berlin, April 2013
[25] M. Bansal, R.K. Saini, D.K. Khatod, Development of cooking sector in rural areas in
India A review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 17 (2013) 44 53, accepted
15th September 2012, Elsevier Ltd. 2012
[26] Photograph, S. Ganesh, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India, January 2015
[27] Photograph, Vasanthi Ganesh, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India, May 2014
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONS OF THE SURVEY CONDUCTED IN THE VILLAGE
(PROVIDED IN ENGLISH AND TAMIL)
1. Electrical appliances installed in the house.
.
2. Hours of usage of each appliance, time of the day.

? (:
12 3 , )
3. Does it differ for different seasons? how?

? ? (,

, )
4. When do you use the maximum electricity? What are the reasons?

? ?
5. Details about lighting systems. Numbers, types, time of usage each day
etc.
. ,
(, ),
APPENDIX B
ADDITIONAL PICTURES FROM SIDDHAMALLI VILLAGE, INDIA
P 6 11: Photographs from Siddhamalli village [26]


Exergy Based Analysis of Mini Tri-Generation Systems For South India

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exergy Based Analysis of Mini Tri-Generation Systems For South India

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MASTERS THESIS

M.Sc. Energy Engineering

Exergy Based Analysis of the Mini

1 | Master Thesis Gautham Srinivas Ganesh

2 | Master Thesis Gautham Srinivas Ganesh

3 | Master Thesis Gautham Srinivas Ganesh

4 | Master Thesis Gautham Srinivas Ganesh

6 | Master Thesis Gautham Srinivas Ganesh

7 | Master Thesis Gautham Srinivas Ganesh

8 | Master Thesis Gautham Srinivas Ganesh

Breakdown of Purchased Equipment Cost

9 | Master Thesis Gautham Srinivas Ganesh

10 | Master Thesis Gautham Srinivas Ganesh

Commissioned Projects (MW)

12 | Master Thesis Gautham Srinivas Ganesh

1.3 Locational Survey

13 | Master Thesis Gautham Srinivas Ganesh

Figure 1.2 Location of the village [7]

Figure 1.3: Map view of the village [7]

14 | Master Thesis Gautham Srinivas Ganesh

P 1: Distribution transformer in the village [26]

Figure 1.4: Temperature variation throughout the year [8]

Figure 1.5: Relative Humidity throughout the year [8]

P 2: Temple located at one of the ends of the village [26]

Annual Revenue (USD)

Figure 1.6: Agriculture and milk industry in the village [6]

P 3 5: Constructed house types in the village [27]

18 | Master Thesis Gautham Srinivas Ganesh

Power Rating (W)

19 | Master Thesis Gautham Srinivas Ganesh

Power Demand (W)

20 | Master Thesis Gautham Srinivas Ganesh

Power Demand (W)

Power Demand (W)

Numbers Base Load Peak Load Annual Electricity Consumption

Figure 1.10: Trends in cooling demands for traditional type houses

22 | Master Thesis Gautham Srinivas Ganesh

Figure 1.11: Trends in cooling demands for modern type houses

Figure 1.12: Trends in cooling demand for huts

Table 1.4: Cooling energy demand trends in the village

24 | Master Thesis Gautham Srinivas Ganesh

2. System Design and Analysis

Figure 2.1: Flow diagram of the Absorption Refrigeration Machine

25 | Master Thesis Gautham Srinivas Ganesh

The Absorption Refrigeration Machine consists of a pair of refrigerant-absorbent mixture,

Figure 2.2: Evaporator

Figure 2.3: Condenser

27 | Master Thesis Gautham Srinivas Ganesh

Figure 2.4: Generator/Desorber

State point 1 is assumed to be pure refrigerant, which is possible only if a rectifier is

(2.8), where state point

Figure 2.5: Solution heat exchanger

exchanger is considered to be 10 K, which is the difference in temperatures between the

Figure 2.6: Solution throttling valve

30 | Master Thesis Gautham Srinivas Ganesh

Refrigerant Throttling Valve:

Figure 2.7: Refrigerant throttling valve

Figure 2.8: Absorber

Figure 2.9: Solution pump

Table 2.1: State variables of the absorption cooling cycle

2.2 Organic Rankine Cycle

Figure 2.10: Flow diagram of ORC

Figure 2.11: Vapour generator