Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By
Gautham Srinivas Ganesh (Reg. 350315)
Supervised by
Prof. Dr. Tatjana Morozyuk
Prof. Dr. Ing George Tsatsaronis
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
2.2.2 Components and Thermodynamic State Point Variables
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
4.1.1 Absorption Refrigeration Machine
4.1.2 Organic Rankine Cycle
4.2 Component Exergy Balances
4.3 Exergy Destruction, Exergetic Efficiencies and Exergy Destruction Ratios
4.4 Cost Balances and Auxiliary Equations
5 | Master Thesis Gautham Srinivas Ganesh
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
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
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
11 | Master Thesis Gautham Srinivas Ganesh
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].
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].
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
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
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.
black gram
green gram
sugarcane
Milk
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
Combustion Gases
Pure Refrigerant
Poor Solution
Water
Rich Solution
= [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:
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):
[100]+[2]
2
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:
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:
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
29
19
Gen
20
1
VG
21
16
11
P
24
22
25
CD
Shaft
Ammonia
Combustion Gases
15
Water
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.
2.2.2 Components and Thermodynamic State Point Variables
Vapour Generator:
= [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
60
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
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
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.
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%
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
41 | Master Thesis Gautham Srinivas Ganesh
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.
0.3
eta_el
0.2
0.1
0
140
130
120
110
100
T_hot
90
80
70
65
(0C)
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)
Circulation ratio
4
2
0
140
130
120
110
100
T_hot
90
80
70
65
(0C)
6000
5000
kW
4000
3000
W_dot_net
2000
1000
0
140
130
120
110 100
90
T_hot (0C)
80
70
65
kg/s
3
2
m_dot_fuel
2
1
1
0
140
130
120
110
100
T_hot
90
80
(0C)
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.
2 1
ln(
2
)
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.
3.1.1 Absorption Refrigeration Machine
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 1
(
2
1
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
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
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
(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:
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
) (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.
3.1.2 Organic Rankine Cycle
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
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 =
The 2004 reference cost for the condenser for a heat transfer area of 1398 m2 is given by:
A
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
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
) (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.
53 | Master Thesis Gautham Srinivas Ganesh
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:
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 $2.262 million. As
the bare module factor for most of the equipment includes piping, installation, insulation,
automatic system, and control system, the cumulative Purchased Equipment Cost can also
be considered as the total onsite costs. The pie chart in figure 3.5 shows the breakdown of
the total purchased equipment cost. The turbine accounts for the most purchased cost in
the system with more than half of the total PEC. The biomass combustor accounts for 13%
of the total equipment cost, and the generator and condenser account for 9% and 7%
respectively, while the absorber and evaporator account for 4% and 3% respectively.
PEC_A
4%
PEC_CD
7%
PEC_EV
3%
PEC_G PEC_CC
9%
13%
PEC_VG
11%
PEC_Pump
0%
PEC_T
52%
3683
3043
Onsite Costs =
2262
Purchased Equipment Cost (PEC) =
2262
PEC of Biomass Combustor (CC) =
297.5
PEC of Vapour Generator (VG) =
251.7
PEC of ORC Turbine (T) =
1170
PEC of Condenser (CD) =
161.5
PEC of ORC Pump (Pump) =
1.3
PEC of Generator (G) =
213
PEC of Absorber (A) =
90.2
PEC of Evaporator (EV) =
62.9
PEC of Solution Heat Exchanger (HE) =
11.4
PEC of Solution Pump (P) =
1.7
PEC of Refrigerant Throttling Valve (TVR) =
0.2
PEC of Solution Throttling Valve (TVS) =
0.2
Offsite Costs =
781.6
Land (2% of PEC) =
33.3
Civil, Structural & Architectural Work (15% of PEC) =
249.5
Service Facilities (30% of PEC) =
498.9
Indirect Costs (IC) =
639.1
Engineering & Supervision (6% of DC) =
182.6
Construction Costs (15% of DC) =
456.5
Contingencies (5% of FCI) =
184.1
Other Outlays in 1000$ =
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
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.
(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
= 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,
=
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
549.6
77
2501
3127
=(
=(
) ( ) (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)
(3.63)
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
= ( 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
= [( , ) 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
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
= , /,
= , /,
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]
, =
, = , ,
= , /,
= , /,
65 | Master Thesis Gautham Srinivas Ganesh
= , /,
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.
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
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
Exergetic efficiency
0.2
0
Generator
3%
Absorber
8%
ORC Turbine
2%
Vapour Generator
8%
Biomass Combustor
79%
Generator
2%
ORC Turbine
2%
Absorber
8%
Vapour Generator
8%
Biomass Combustor
80%
, = + [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)
,
(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 $/h.
If there are N streams leaving the component under consideration, (N-1) auxiliary equations
need to be formulated, based on the F-rule and P-rule.
F-rule: The total cost of removal of exergy from an exergy stream in a component is equal to
the cost at which the removed exergy was supplied to the same stream in upstream
components [24].
P-rule: Each exergy unit is supplied to any stream associated with the product of a
component at the same average cost [24].
The cost balances and auxiliary equations of all components are given below.
Generator (equations 4.97 4.99):
[11] [12] + = [1] + [2] [7]
[11] = [12]
[1] = ([7] [2])/([7] [2])
Absorber (equations 4.100 4.102):
[10] + [4] [5] + = [14] [13]
[13] = 0
[5] = ([10] + [4])/([10] + [4])
Evaporator (equations 4.103 4.105):
[9] [10] + = [18] [17]
[9] = [10]
[17] = 0
Solution Heat Exchanger (equations 4.106 4.107):
[2] [3] + = [7] [6]
[2] = [3]
Solution Pump (equations 4.108 4.109):
,
+ = [6] [5]
,
= _
Solution Throttling Valve (equation 4.110):
[4] = [3] +
Refrigerant Throttling Valve (equation 4.111):
[9] = [8] +
Biomass Combustor (equations 4.112 4.114):
_ = _
_ + _ = [29] [27]
[27] = 0
[19] [20] + =
[19] = [20]
=
Mixer (equations 4.120 4.121):
[21] = [20] + [1]
= 0
Condenser (equations 4.122 4.124):
[21] [25] + = [16] [15]
[25] = [21]
[15] = 0
Splitter (equations 4.125 4.126):
[25] = [22]
[25] = [8]
ORC Pump (equations 4.127 4.128):
,
+ = [24] [22]
,
=
The cost rates associated with various streams in the system is shown in table 4.4.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
c(i) ($/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
Solution Heat Exchanger
0.49
28.04
28.53
Solution Pump
0.08
0
0.08
Refrigerant Throttling Valve
0.01
0.14
0.15
Solution Throttling Valve
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
5
0
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.
Recommendations
Decision Variables
Biomass
Combustor
Increase
Vapour Generator
Increase
ORC Turbine
Decrease
Condenser
Decrease
Absorber
BASE DESIGN
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.
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
FIRST
ITERATION
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
78 | Master Thesis Gautham Srinivas Ganesh
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
Solution Heat Exchanger
0.49
28.04
28.53
0.02
1.51
Solution Pump
0.08
0
0.08
1
0.15
Refrigerant Throttling Valve
0.01
0.14
0.15
0.07
0.08
Solution Throttling Valve
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
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
79 | Master Thesis Gautham Srinivas Ganesh
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 $/kWh.
It was observed that the trends in the third iteration showed considerable system
improvement as compared to the first two iterations. The total revenue requirement was
recorded slightly lower than that of the base case, also registering lower values of cost of
products. The third iteration also registered a marginally higher value of the exergetic
efficiency. It can however be concluded that this iteration is very close to that of the base
case. Table 5.4 shows the exergoeconomic parameters after the third iteration.
Zdot ($/h) Cd ($/h) Zdot+Cd ($/h)
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
Solution Heat Exchanger
0.49
28.04
28.53
0.02
Solution Pump
0.08
0
0.08
1
Refrigerant Throttling Valve
0.01
0.14
0.15
0.07
Solution Throttling Valve
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
THIRD
ITERATION
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
81 | Master Thesis Gautham Srinivas Ganesh
in the third iteration, while the cost of cold production decreased from 0.208 $/kWh to
0.202 $/kWh.
The increase in exergetic efficiencies of different components were also accompanied with
increase in exergy destruction. This can be attributed to the fact that the fuel mass flow rate
increased from 3.019 kg/s to 3.266 kg/s. Further, the gross power generated by the turbine
was the highest among the four iterations, which stood at 5589 kW, with the net power
valued at 5330 kW. This also resulted in a steep increase in the exergetic efficiency of the
system, while at the same time reducing the costs of the products. Table 5.5 shows the
exergoeconomic parameters after the fourth iteration.
Zdot ($/h) Cd ($/h) Zdot+Cd ($/h)
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
Solution Heat Exchanger
0.49
28.04
28.53
0.02
Solution Pump
0.08
0
0.08
1
Refrigerant Throttling Valve
0.01
0.14
0.15
0.07
Solution Throttling Valve
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
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
kW
25000
EdT
EdCD
20000
EdVG
EdCC
15000
EdA
10000
5000
0
1
70
60
50
Zdot ($/h)
Base
40
It1
It2
30
It3
It4
20
10
0
T
CD
VG
CC
250
200
Cd ($/h)
Base
It1
150
It2
It3
It4
100
50
0
T
CD
VG
CC
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
'r' ratio
25
T
CD
20
VG
CC
15
A
10
5
0
Base
It1
It2
It3
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
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3
2.9
2.8
2.7
BASE DESIGN
FIRST ITERATION
100
Ztot ($/h)
80
60
40
20
0
BASE DESIGN
FIRST ITERATION
SECOND
ITERATION
THIRD ITERATION
FOURTH
ITERATION
310
300
CD,tot ($/h)
290
280
270
260
250
240
BASE DESIGN
FIRST ITERATION
SECOND
ITERATION
THIRD ITERATION
FOURTH
ITERATION
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.
89 | Master Thesis Gautham Srinivas Ganesh
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
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
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
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