Energy Conversion and Management 123 (2016) 431–444

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Environmental and exergy benefit of nanofluid-based hybrid PV/T

systems
Samir Hassani a, R. Saidur b, Saad Mekhilef c,⇑, Robert A. Taylor d
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
b
Center of Research Excellence in Renewable Energy (CoRE-RE), Research Institute, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals (KFUPM), Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia
c
Power Electronics and Renewable Energy Research Laboratory (PEARL), Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
d
School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Photovoltaic/thermal (PV/T) solar systems, which produce both electrical and thermal energy simultane-
Received 4 April 2016 ously, represent a method to achieve very high conversion rates of sunlight into useful energy. In recent
Received in revised form 3 June 2016 years, nanofluids have been proposed as efficient coolants and optical filter for PV/T systems. Aim of this
Accepted 22 June 2016
paper is to theoretically analyze the life cycle exergy of three different configurations of nanofluids-based
Available online 29 June 2016
PV/T hybrid systems, and compare their performance to a standard PV and PV/T system. Electrical and
thermal performance of the analyzed solar collectors was investigated numerically. The life cycle exergy
Keywords:
analysis revealed that the nanofluids-based PV/T system showed the best performance compared to a
Nanofluids
PV/T
standard PV and PV/T systems. At the optimum value of solar concentration C, nanofluid-based PV/T con-
Optical properties figuration with optimized optical and thermal properties produces
1.3 MW h/m2 of high-grade exergy
Life cycle exergy analysis annually with the lowest exergy payback time of 2 years, whereas these are
0.36,
0.79 MW h/m2 and
Concentrated solar 3.48, 2.55 years for standard PV and PV/T systems, respectively. In addition, the nanofluids-based PV/T
High-grade exergy system can prevent the emissions of about 448 kg CO2 eq m2 yr1. Overall, it was found that the
nanofluids-based PV/T with optimized optical and thermal properties has potential for further develop-
ment in a high-concentration solar system.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction collector is more efficient than stand-along PV or thermal systems

Since 19th century, fossil fuels are the main energy resources
used by the humanity, 81% of the world’s primary energy use [1],
to face the growing needs of energy demand. However, energy pro-
duced from the combustion of fossil fuels does not fulfil the criteria
of a ‘‘sustainable energy”, and it is the fundamental cause of the
greenhouse effect. Recently, many economies are planning and
investing in renewable energy. According to the Renewables
2015 Global Status Report [2], renewable energy represented
approximately 59% of net addition to global power capacity in
2014. Solar energy, which is by far the most abundant type of
renewable energy, can be used to generate heat and electricity –
and could potentially be used to meet a majority of total energy
demand. Solar cells, solar thermal collectors, concentrated solar
power and concentrated photovoltaic/thermal (CPV/T) can be used
to convert solar energy into useful form of energy. The hybrid PV/T
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: samietude@yahoo.fr (S. Hassani), saad@um.edu.my
(S. Mekhilef).
[3] because it can be designed to utilize nearly 80% of the incoming
solar energy [4]. The hybrid PV/T collector is a sustainable technol-
ogy [5]. Several publications [5–10] reported the economic and
environmental competitiveness of PV/T hybrid systems.
Battisti and Corrado [9] carried out LCA on a conventional
multi-crystalline silicon PV and PV/T systems with a heat recovery
system for the domestic hot water supply. The LCA was conducted
based on energy replaced, either by electricity or natural gas. Based
on their results, the EPBT (Energy Payback Time) and GPBT (Green-
house Gas Payback Time) of PV system were found to be 3.3 and
4.1 years, whereas those of PV/T systems designed for electricity
replacement were 1.7 and 1.6 years.
In another study, Tripanagnostopoulos et al. [5] applied the
methodology of LCA to perform an energy and environmental
assessment of a standard PV, and water-cooled glazed/unglazed
PV/T system. The output power of the both systems was 3 kWp.
Both of these devices were analyzed for both free-stand and inte-
grated building installations. The EPBT of the PV and BiPV system
were found to be 2.9 and 3.2 years, whereas the GPBT were 2.7
and 3.1 years, respectively. For glazed PV/T system at 45 °C

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.06.061
0196-8904/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
432 S. Hassani et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 123 (2016) 431–444

Nomenclature

A area, m2 j linear absorption coefficient, m1

C solar concentration k wavelength, lm
CExC cumulative exergy consumption, kW h/m2 t kinematic viscosity, m2 s1
cp specific heat, J kg1 K1 r linear scattering coefficient, m1
Dh hydraulic diameter, m s transmittance
d diameter, m / volume fraction
E annual exergy production, kW h
en nanofluid thickness, m Subscripts
ExPBT exergy payback time, years a air gap
F factor emission, g/GJ eq equivalent
G solar radiation, W m2 np nanoparticles
h heat transfer coefficient, W m2 K1 bc back cover
hr radiation transfer coefficient, W m2 K1 el electrical
I radiation intensity, W m2 lm1 th thermal
K conversion factor ex exergy
k thermal conductivity, W m1 K1, or imaginary part of w water
the refractive index c 1, 2, 3 cover glass 1, 2 and 3
l collector length, m n, 1, 2 nanofluid 1 and 2
Lc characteristic length, m i the node number in the flow direction, or insulation
m _ mass flow rate, kg s1 am ambient
Nu Nusselt number p plate
PE pollutant emitted, kg con. convection
PS pollutant saved, kg rad. radiation
Pr Prandtl number cond. conduction
q heat flux, W m2 wf working fluid
Qe extinction efficiency 0 electrical efficiency at 298 K
R thermal resistance, K W1 s exergy factor of solar radiation
Ra Rayleigh number
Re Reynolds number
Abbreviations
T temperature, K PV/T photovoltaic/thermal
t days CPV/T concentrating photovoltaic/thermal
v velocity, m s1 LCA life cycle assessment
LCEA life cycle exergy assessment
Greek symbols PExI profitability exergetic index
a absorption coefficient GHG greenhouse gas
b0 temperature coefficient, K1 Mod. modeling
b linear extinction coefficient, m1 Exp. experimental
Dx spatial step, m
e emissivity
g efficiency

operating temperature, the EPBT for PV/T and BiPV/T were found to
be 2.6 and 2.7 years, and GPBT were 3 and 3.1 years, respectively.
Chow and Ji [6] reported an evaluation of the EPBT and GPBT of
a tilted free-stand PV/T and vertical-mounted BiPV/T systems in
Hong Kong. Their results showed that the EPBT of PV/T and BiPV/
T were 2.8 and 3.8 years, thus the GPBT were 3.2 and 4 years,
respectively. The performance of a vertical-mounted BiPV/T was
found to be better than that of roof-top BiPV/T system.
The interested reader can peruse the body of work on LCA of PV/
T systems in the review papers published by Bahaidarah et al. [11]
and Good [7].
After searching the literature on LCA of PV/T systems, the
authors of the present paper found that the LCA method was
applied only on a standard PV/T system that uses water or air,
flowing behind the PV cells, as a working fluid to recover the heat
for thermal applications.
Recently, researchers proposed a new PV/T system which uses
an optical filtering technique to absorb the solar radiation laying
outside the spectral response interval of the solar cells. Pure fluids
can serve as ‘selective’ filters [12,13] and coolants in PV/T systems
[14], but recent advancements in nanomaterials have provided a
means to substantially improve the thermal and optical perfor-
mance of conventional pure fluids. In particular, nanofluids [15]
promise tenability of optical properties [16–19] and more attrac-
tive thermal properties than pure fluids [20,21].
In this paper, exergetic analysis and environmental impact of
three nanofluid-based PV/T configurations have been reported. In
addition, a comparative analysis to a standard PV-only and PV/T
system operated by a conventional fluid has been reported. Life
cycle exergy method has been used as a verification tool for the
sustainability of the PV/T configurations. The objective of the pre-
sent work is to answer the following question; how the use of nano-
fluid as a coolant and optical filter can improve the energetics and
ecological performance of a PV/T hybrid system?
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper offers the first
investigation on the life cycle exergy analysis of a PV/T collector
operated by nanofluids based optical filter and coolant.
2. Methods
A detailed numerical model of the PV/T system was developed
which included the physical, optical, thermal and electrical cou-
pling of the system. A systematic study of the salient operational
 S. Hassani et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 123 (2016) 431–444
parameters and the physical geometry were investigated to exam-
ine the performance of the four configurations of a PV/T system.
2.1. Physical model of PVT system
The physical description of the different PV/T configurations
(i.e. M-1 to M-5) are provided in this section. The solar module
M-1 consists of only one PV module. The PV/T configurations
M-2 and M-3 consist of one PV module and one thermal unit for
the cooling purpose placed under the PV module. Water and
CNTs/water nanofluid have been used as working fluids in M-2
and M-3 configurations, respectively. The PV/T hybrid configura-
tions M-4 and M-5 consist of one PV module and two thermal
units. One of the thermal unit is placed under the PV module for
the cooling purpose using CNTs/water as working fluids. The sec-
ond unit is placed above the PV module to act as an optical filter.
Fig. 1. Sketch of the PV/T hybrid system for the four studied configurations; (a) M-2 and M-3, (b) M-4 and M-5.
433
Water and Ag/water nanofluids based optical filters were used as
working fluids in the second thermal unit in M-4 and M-5 config-
urations, respectively. Fig. 1 presents a schematic description of
the four PV/T configurations M-2, M-3, M-4 and M-5. The compo-
nents, their materials and geometries in the PV/T hybrid systems
were taken from Ref. [6]. It is to be noted that the working princi-
ples of M-4 and M-5 for the present study is different from Ref. [6].
Components and the specifications of all 5 collectors’ configura-
tions are presented in Table 1.
2.2. Working principles of PV/T configurations M-4 and M-5
Fig. 1b presents the optical and thermal flows of M-4 and M-5
configurations. Solar radiation reaches the PV cells after crossing
the cover glass and then to the working fluid filtration channel.
In the configuration M-5, only the radiation within the spectral
434 S. Hassani et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 123 (2016) 431–444

Table 1 Table 2
Technical design data of the different solar collectors investigated in the present Assumptions considered in the present study.
study.
Assumptions
Elements Specifications M-1 M-2 M-3 M-4 M-5
1 Steady state
Glass cover Thickness: 3 mm U U U U 2 Normal incident irradiation
Transmittance: 0.925 3 Uses a thin, uniform temperature cover glass [22]
1 unit for M-2 and M-3, and 3 4 Temperature dependent thermophysical properties of the fluids were
units for M-4 and M-5 determined using data taken from literature [23]
PV cells Si single-crystalline U U U U U 5 All working fluids remains liquid during operation
Efficiency: 13% 6 Thermal energy is only transferred in the flow direction
Temperature coefficient 7 Cover glass, plate, and air gaps are independent of temperature
0
b : 0.005/K 8 Electrical pumping power is considered negligible due to low mass flow
Absorber Two aluminum plates U U U U rates
Thickness: 2 mm
Insulation Glass wool U U U U
Thickness: 30 mm
Back cover Galvanized iron U U U U discretized equations corresponding to each configuration are
Thickness: 1 mm summarized in Table 3.
Working Nanofluid based optical filter: U For the configurations M-2 and M-4, the subscript ‘‘n1” has to
fluid Ag/water
be replaced by ‘‘w”.
Nanofluid based coolant: U U U
CNTs/water It has to be noted that the heat transfer correlations used for all
Water based optical filter U the configurations are presented in the Appendix A. All other
Water based coolant U parameters and coefficients involved in solving Eqs. (2)–(21) are
Storage Storage capacity for working U U U U presented in Table 4.
fluid based coolant: 150 kg
Storage capacity for working U U
fluid based optical filter: 2.3.2. Optical properties of nanofluid based optical filter for the
150 kg configuration M-5
Additional Solar concentrator, tracking U U U U U
Optical properties are critical parameters to design a nanofluid
elements system, structural support and
electrical accessories
based optical filter. The aim, of course, is to design the nanofluid-
based optical filter to be transparent across spectral response curve
The area of collectors (including the solar concentrator) is = 1 m2. of the PV cells. Moreover, the nanofluid should highly absorb the
undesired sunlight to obtain a high quality output.
In the present study, silver (Ag) nanoparticles suspended in
response of the PV cells remains once passes through the nanofluid
water was chosen to design a nanofluid-based optical filter. Water
channel. The choice of the nanoparticle materials type, base fluid,
was used to absorb the long wavelength whereas the silver
size, and volume concentration for the optical nanofluid depends
nanoparticles were used to absorb shorter wavelength.
on the bandgap of the PV cells and the thickness of the channel.
The radiative transfer Eq. (22) is used to determine the intensity
The function of air gap 1 and 2 is to reduce heat loss by conduction
of the incoming solar radiation in the first channel as shown in
and convection, and to enable the optical nanofluid thermal recei-
Fig. 1.
ver to operate at significantly higher temperature than the PV cells.
@Ik
¼ ðjn1;k þ rn1;k ÞIk ¼ bn1;k Ik ð22Þ
2.3. Mathematical model @y

The general numerical model presented in the following sub-
sections was used to predict system temperatures, electrical per-
formance, and efficiencies of the different configurations with the
known optical and thermal properties. In the following sub-
sections, a brief description of this model is given using pertinent
literature.
2.3.1. Thermal model
The thermal model used in the present study was derived by
applying the first law of thermodynamics (i.e. the energy balance
equation) for each element of the four PV/T configurations. For
one-dimensional heat transfer model, the general energy balance
equation is given by:
@U
¼ Q_ in  Q_ out þ Q_ g
@t
where @U@t
is the change in the internal energy, Q_ in is the heat transfer
rate into the system, Q_ out is the heat transfer rate out of the system,
and Q_ g is the heat generation rate into the system.
To simplify the model, a set of assumptions are made and pre-
sented in Table 2.
The temperature variation along the flow direction is consid-
ered. Therefore, a backward scheme for the spatial coordinate (x)
is adopted to discretize the derived thermal energy balance equa-
tions for each element of the PV/T configuration. The resulting
where Ik is the spectral solar irradiance. AM1.5 Global (ASTM G-
173) [24] is used as solar spectra in the present study, and its range
is from 0.28 lm to 2.5 lm, which has an integrated power of
992 W/m2.
jn1;k , rn1;k , and bn1;k are the linear absorption, scattering, and
extinction coefficients of the nanofluid, respectively.
Pure water does not scatter sunlight – e.g., independent from
the nanoparticles; thus, only the linear absorption coefficient for
water jTH;k is considered as follows [25]:
4pkTH;k
jTH;k ¼ ð23Þ
k
where kTH;k is the imaginary part of the refractive index of water.
Since they are independent, the extinction coefficient of the
ð1Þ nanofluid is the sum of the absorption coefficient of the base fluid
and extinction coefficient of nanoparticles [26]:
bn1;k ¼ jTH;k þ bnp;k ð24Þ
where bp;k is the sum of the linear absorption and scattering coeffi-
cient of nanoparticles and is defined as [27]:
3 /Q e;k
bnp;k ¼ ð25Þ
2 dnp
where Q e;k is the extinction efficiency of the nanoparticles and is
calculated using the Mie theory described in [28].
 S. Hassani et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 123 (2016) 431–444 435

Table 3
Energy balance equations of the all PV/T configurations presented in Fig. 1.

Col. Thermal model No.

R 2:5lm
M-1 C 0:28lm Gk ðapv  gel ð1  b0 ðT pv  298ÞÞÞdk  2  heqðc1amÞ ðT pv  T am Þ ¼ 0 (2)
M-2 and M-3 hca(Ta,i  Tc,i) + hrcpv(Tpv,i  Tc,i) + acCG  heq(cam)(Tc,i  Tam) = 0 (3)
hpva(Tpv,i  Ta,i)  hca(Ta,i  Tc,i) = 0 (4)
R 2:5lm ðT pv ;i T p;i Þ
sc C 0:28 lm Gk ðapv  gel ð1  b ðT pv  298ÞÞÞdk ¼
0
Rp þ hr cpv ðT pv ;i  T c;i Þ (5)
ðT pv ;i T p;i Þ (6)
Rp  hpn ðT p;i  T n;i Þ ¼ 0
hpn ðT p;i _ n cpn T n;i T
 T n;i Þ  m lD x
n;i1
 hpn ðT n;i  T p2;i Þ ¼ 0 (7)
ðT p2;i T i;i Þ (8)
hpn ðT n;i  T p2;i Þ  Ri ¼0
ðT p2;i T i;i Þ ðT T Þ (9)
Ri  i;i Rbc bc;i ¼ 0
ðT i;i T bc;i Þ (10)
Rbc  heqðbcamÞ ðT bc  T am Þ ¼ 0
M-4 and M-5 hc1a(Ta,i  Tc1,i) + hrc1c2(Tc2,i  Tc1,i) + ac1CG  heq(c1am)(Tc1,i  Tam) = 0 (11)
hc2a(Tc2,i  Ta,i)  hc1a(Ta,i  Tc1,i) = 0 (12)
hc2n1(Tn1,i  Tc2,i) + ac2sc1CG  hrc2c1(Tc2,i  Tc1,i)  hc2a(Tc2,i  Ta,i) = 0 (13)
R 2:5lm T n1;i T n1;i1
sc1 sc2 C 0:28 lm ak;n1 Gk dk  hc2n1 ðT n1;i  T c2;i Þ  hc3n1 ðT n1;i  T c3;i Þ  mn1 cpn1
_ lD x
¼0 (14)
R 2:5lm
hc3n1 ðT n1;i  T c1;i Þ þ ac3 sc1 sc2 C 0:28lm sk;n1 Gk dk  hr c3pv ðT c3;i  T pv ;i Þ ¼ 0 (15)
 R 2:5lm R 2:5lm 
ðT pv ;i T p;i Þ (16)
sc1 sc2 sc3 C apv 0:28 lm sk;n1 Gk dk  ð1  b ðT pv  298ÞÞ 0:28lm sk;n1 gel;k Gk dk ¼
0
Rp  hr c3pv ðT c3;i  T pv ;i Þ
ðT pv ;i T p;i Þ (17)
Rp  hpn2 ðT p;i  T n2;i Þ ¼ 0
_ n2 cpn2 T n2;i T
hpn2 ðT p;i  T n2;i Þ  m lDx
n2;i1
 hpn2 ðT n2;i  T p2;i Þ ¼ 0 (18)
ðT p2;i T i;i Þ (19)
hpn2 ðT n2;i  T p2;i Þ  Ri ¼0
ðT p2;i T i;i Þ ðT T Þ (20)
Ri  i;i Rbc bc;i ¼ 0
ðT i;i T bc;i Þ (21)
Rbc  heqðbcamÞ ðT bc  T am Þ ¼ 0

Table 4
Values of the different parameters and coefficients used in this study.
2.3.3. Determination of the thermal conductivity of nanofluids
Parameters Value One of the objectives of the present study is to investigate
A 1 m2 the suitability of two different nanofluids in configuration M-5.
l 1m Nanofluids will serve both as optical filter and coolant to
Lc 0.25 m improve the efficiency of the PV/T system. A low volume concen-
Dh1 0.0198 m tration based nanofluid is needed to be a good optical filter as
Dh2 0.0392 m
en1 0.01 m
shown in channel 1 in Fig. 1b. At the same time, a higher
en2 0.02 m volume concentration based nanofluid is needed to be a good
Dx 0.25 m coolant, as shown in channel 2 in Fig. 1a and b, to improve
ac 0.05 the heat removal from the PV cells. This approach is missing
ec 0.9
in the open literature. Therefore, this is a novel contribution
apv 0.945
epv 0.9 compared to available literature.
Rp 5.71  106 K/W In this study, carbon nanotube (CNT) of diameter 15 nm sus-
Tam 298 K pended in water was chosen to be used in the second channel for
vam 1 m/s the PV/T configurations M-3, M-4 and M-5. Water as a base fluid
m_ 0.0104 kg/s
was selected due to its good performance in cooling applications.
/n2 0.1%, (0.21 wt%)
To optimize the nanofluid used as a coolant in the second chan-
nel, a new correlation, previously developed by Hassani et al. [30],
was used for the thermal conductivity of the nanofluid.
Then, the extinction coefficient of the nanofluid is determined,
The remaining thermophysical properties of nanofluids were
and the spectral transmittance of the nanofluid is calculated using
estimated using mathematical models reported in Ref. [31].
the Beer–Lambert–Bouguer law as follows [29]:
Ik en1 bn1;k
sn1;k ¼ e ð26Þ 2.3.4. Thermal, electrical and exergy efficiencies of the PV/T system
I0;k
The interdependence of the different temperatures and the effi-
where Ik is the transmitted irradiation, I0;k is the incident irradiation ciency of the PV cells requires a coupled iterative method between
(AM1.5 Global [ASTM G-173]), and en1 is the fluid thickness for the the electrical and thermal models. In other words, Eqs. (3)–(10) for
optical nanofluid in the first channel. The extinction coefficient in M-2 and M-3, Eqs. (11)–(21) for M-4 and M-5 should be solved
Eq. (26) formally includes scattering, but, the loss of solar energy simultaneously.
by scattering is ignored because the nanoparticles are extremely Thus, the electrical efficiency of the PV cells for different config-
small (
10 nm). urations were calculated as follows:
The total transmittance of the nanofluid-based optical filter in
the first channel is then calculated using Eq. (27). For the configuration M-1:
R 2:5lm
R 2:5lm
lm sn1;k I0;k dk ð1  b0 ðT pv  298ÞÞ g0;k Gk dk
sn1 ¼ 0:28
R 2:5lm ð27Þ gel ¼ 0:28
ð28Þ
I dk
0:28lm 0;k G
436 S. Hassani et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 123 (2016) 431–444

 
For the configuration M-2 and M-3: T0
The quantity K 1  T n;out gth;i in the Eqs. (34) and (35) is, by def-
R 2:5lm
sc1 ð1  b0 ðT pv  298ÞÞ g0;k Gk dk inition; ‘‘The thermal energy that is converted into electrical output is
gel ¼ 0:28
ð29Þ a fraction, K, of the Carnot efficiency where the ideal Carnot cycle
G
operates between the peak temperature of the fluid at the exit of the
concentrating solar collector and the ambient temperature” [39].
For the configuration M-4 and M-5:
R 2:5lm Electrical energy is high grade exergy and is more valuable than
   
sc1 sc2 sc3 ð1  b0 ðT pv  298ÞÞ sn1;k g0;k Gk dk T0
the exergy of heat i:e: 1  T n;out gth;i which is of a low grade
gel ¼ 0:28
ð30Þ
G
[36].
g0;k is the spectral electrical efficiency of the Si PV cells at 25 °C, and Therefore, as a conservative estimate of the useful amount of
   
taken from Ref. [32]. thermal exergy i:e: 1  TT 0 gth;i in Eqs. (34) and (35), the con-
n;i
When all the unknown temperatures have been computed, the version factor K is needed to account for this gradation.
thermal efficiency of the PV/T configurations M-2 and M-3 can be In this study, the ‘‘high-grade thermal exergy” refers to fraction
calculated using Eq. (31) of thermal energy converted to electricity, and ‘‘high-grade exergy”
refers to total exergy were produced by the various PV/T
cpn ðT n;out  T n;in Þ
gth ¼ m_ n ð31Þ configurations.
CGA
The subscript ‘‘n” has to be replaced by ‘‘w” for the configuration 2.4. Life cycle exergy analysis
M-2.
In the present study, the overall thermal efficiencies of M-4 and A lot of energy is needed during the manufacturing and oper-
M-5 is the sum of the thermal efficiency of the first and second ational phases of the PV/T system. Life cycle exergy analysis
channels. The thermal energy extracted from the second channel, (LCEA) approach [43,44] was employed in the present study to
could be considered as a useful energy source. Therefore, by adding determine the cumulative exergy consumption (CExC) during
the useful energy obtained from both channels, the thermal effi- the construction and operation phases, and the exergy payback
ciencies of M-4 and M-5 can be expressed by Eq. (32). time (ExPBT) period.
Before applying LCEA method to the PV/T collectors, a classical
cpn1 ðT n1;out  T n1;in Þ cp ðT  T n2;in Þ
gth ¼ m_ n1 _ n2 n1 n2;out
þm ð32Þ LCA method is necessary to conduct a balance of all embodied
CGA CGA
energies relative to the different stages of the life cycle. The cumu-
The subscript ‘‘n1” has to be replaced by ‘‘w” for the configura- lative energy spent throughout the entire life cycle of the PV/T
tion M-4. hybrid system is the sum of embodied energy spent during the
Electrical and thermal energies are one of the useful output of a manufacturing, balance of system (BOS) and maintenance opera-
PV/T hybrid system. However, they don’t have same quality grade. tion. We assume that the manufacturing zone is quit close to the
Electrical energy is 100% recoverable as work, and therefore has an installation area, therefore the embodied energy due to the trans-
exergy equal to its energy [33]. Whereas, thermal energy is a low portation was neglected. Moreover, during the operation phase,
grade energy, and has exergy content less than its energy content the energy needed for the maintenance operation is supposed to
[34]. Moreover, thermal exergy is low-grade exergy, while the elec- be supplied by the collectors, hence the embodied energy related
tricity is high-grade [35,36]. Energy analysis method is not a suit- to the operation phase is neglected as well.
able thermodynamic approach to evaluate the usefulness of a In order to assess the cumulative energy consumption, the ele-
renewable energy device, since the energy analysis method does ments constituting the PV/T hybrid systems were assumed of the
not differentiate the quality of energy [37,38]. Therefore, the con- same material of the PV/T system in reference [6]. Table 5 presents
cept of exergy is adopted in the present study as it includes quality the resulting cumulative energy for all configurations of the PV/T
aspect of energy. system. Embodied energy presented in Table 5 is the primary ther-
The exergy efficiency of the different PV/T configurations can be mal energy. It can be seen that the greater portion of the consumed
calculated using Eqs. (33)–(35). energy is attributed to the lead acid batteries and PV cells. It has to
be noted that the embodied energy due the replacement of battery
For the configuration M-1: for every 5 years has also been taken into account.
After obtaining the cumulative energy of the PV/T configuration
gex ¼ gel ð33Þ system using the LCA method, the second step is to switch to LCEA
method to assess the cumulative exergetic consumption of the PV/
T configurations. In order to do this, the total embodied energy of
For the configurations M-2 and M-3 [39]:
  the system is converted into primary electrical energy assuming a
T0
gex ¼ gel þ K 1  gth;i ð34Þ conversion factor of 0.36. This factor presents the output efficiency
T n;out of a coal power plant [45]. It has to be noted that the exergy con-
tent of electricity is essentially 100% of its energy content [33].
That is, the cumulative exergy consumption (CExC) and primary
For the configurations M-4 and M-5:
electrical energy values become identical.
X2  
T0
gex ¼ gel þ K 1 g ð35Þ
i¼1
T n;i th;i 2.4.1. Exergy payback time
In order to ascertain the profitability and sustainability of the
where i = 1 is the first channel and i = 2 is the second channel. nanofluid-based PV/T collectors, exergy payback time (ExPBT)
 
1  TT 0 is the Carnot efficiency which is the maximum work has to be estimated. ExPBT can be defined as the time period after
n;i
which the real economic benefit commences.
extractable from the thermal energy produced by the PV/T,
  ExPBT is the period of time during which the produced exergy
1  TT 0 gth;i is the exchanged exergy, and K is the fraction of the compensates the amount of cumulative exergy spent, and deter-
n;i

work converted to electrical output and assumed to be 0.3 [40–42]. mined using Eqs. (36) and (37).
 S. Hassani et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 123 (2016) 431–444 437

Table 5
Cumulative energy use in different PV/T configurations.

Elements Embodied energy M-1 M-2 M-3 M-4 M-5

index (MJ/kg)
Weight Energy Weight Energy Weight Energy Weight Energy Weight Energy
(kg) (kW h) (kg) (kW h) (kg) (kW h) (kg) (kW h) (kg) (kW h)
Solar concentrator and Estimated from [46] – 504.7 – 504.7 – 504.7 – 504.7 – 504.7
tracking system
Glass cover 19.7 – 0 7.52 41.15 7.52 41.15 22.56 123.45 22.56 123.45
PV cells 3514a [6] 1a 976.1 1a 976.1 1a 976.1 1a 976.1 1a 976.1
Absorber 219 – 0 10.8 657 10.8 657 10.8 657 10.8 657
Insulation 31.7 – 0 0.9 7.92 0.9 7.92 0.9 7.92 0.9 7.92
Back cover 32.6 [47] – 0 7.85 71 7.85 71 7.85 71 7.85 71
Nanoparticles Ag 11480 [48] – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 0.016 51
CNT 900 [49] – 0 – 0 0.324 81 0.324 81 0.324 81
BOS Structural 604a [50] 1a 168 1a 168 1a 168 1a 168 1a 168
support
Inverter 5% of PV panel [6] – 48.8 – 48.8 – 48.8 – 48.8 – 48.8
+ wiring
Storage system 85.6 [6] – 0 14 333 14 333 28 666 28 666
(WFb)
c
Lead-acid 1.19 [50] – 1773 – 2760 – 2805 – 3630 – 3870
Battery
Total 3471 5568 5694 6934 7225
a 2
MJ/m .
b
Working fluid.
c
MJ/W he.

CExC pollutant emitted per unit of electrical energy (g/GJ), i is the pollu-
ExPBT ¼ ð36Þ
E tant element.
Similarly, the avoided emission by the exergy generated from
where E is the annual exergy produced by the PV/T hybrid system,
the PV/T configurations throughout the post exergy payback time
and calculated using Eq. (37);
period is estimated using Eq. (40);
Z 365
E¼ gex gs Ces dt ð37Þ PSi ¼ F i ð25  ExPBTÞE ð40Þ
0

where gex, gs, C, es and t are respectively; the exergetic efficiency of
the PV/T calculated using Eqs. (33), (34) or (35), the exergy factor of
solar radiation equal to 0.93 [51,52], the solar concentration, the
solar energy received during 4 h under radiation intensity equal
to 992 W/m2, the number of day.
The ExPBT was calculated assuming a lifetime cycle of 25 years
for all four PV/T configurations.
2.4.2. Profitability exergetic index
A new tool for ranking the different PV/T configurations has
been introduced in the present study. The profitability exergetic
index (PExI) that evaluates the ratio of the exergetic benefit to
the exergetic investment. In other words, PExI is the inverse of
ExPBT and determined using Eq. (38):
1 essary, the nanofluid loop could contain a component to re-
PExI ð%Þ ¼  100
ExPBT
In order to identify best environmental friendly configurations,
the amount of pollutants released/avoided to the atmosphere are
estimated based on actual emission from a hard coal power plant
with an efficiency of 36% [54].
2.5. Stability of nanofluids
The stability of nanofluid is indeed a critical issue for nanofluid
systems. The co-authors (and other researchers) have put signifi-
cant time/effort into achieving nanofluids which are chemically
functionalized to be stable at high temperature and under UV light
(both of which are important for solar nanofluids) [55–58]. Since
this is a numerical study, we have assumed that these advanced
stabilization techniques can be used in this system and that, if nec-
ð38Þ sonicate the fluid during operation.

2.4.3. Life cycle environmental analysis 3. Results and discussion

Before a new energy technology is completely put into service,
its environmental superiority over the competing options should
be asserted by assessing its consumption levels of energy through-
out its entire life cycle [6]. Generally, the energy usage during the
manufacturing phase of the PV/T hybrid system is derived from
fossil fuels resources [53]. Consequently, GHG and emissions occur
during the first phase of the life cycle of the PV/T hybrid system.
If the primary resource of energy is known, for example coal,
the quantity of pollutant emitted from the power plan can be esti-
mated using Eq. (39).
PEi ¼ CExC  F i
where CExC is the cumulative exergy of the PV/T systems, Fi is the
emission factor and defined as the quantity of a given GHG or air
3.1. Model validation
The detailed numerical model developed herein includes the
optical, thermal and electrical coupling of the system. This system-
atic study of the salient operational parameters and the physical
geometry to determine the performance of the different PV/T con-
figurations represents a big step forward from previous physical
PV/T models in the literature.
After researching the current nanofluid PV/T literature, we have
found an additional experimental study conducted by Sardarabadi
ð39Þ
et al. [59] that is similar to the PV/T configuration M-3 (after
removing its cover glass). Therefore, we have conducted a compar-
ative study between the results obtained by our model and those
438 S. Hassani et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 123 (2016) 431–444
obtained experimentally by Sardarabadi et al. [59]. We have repro-
duced almost all of the experimental conditions.
The nanofluid’s inlet temperature and wind velocity have been
assumed to be 306 K and 1 m/s, respectively. These two parame-
ters were neglected in their manuscript. The predicted and exper-
imental data are presented in Table 6.
The comparative study reveals that the theoretical data are in
good agreement with these experimental results. It is to be noted
that if the nanofluid’s inlet temperature is not correct, the pre-
dicted data will diverge from the experimental results. Aside from
some slight deviation, the present numerical model can be con-
cluded to be accurate enough for our comparative analysis.
Since there is no experimental data available for the proposed
M-4 and M-5 PV/T types, our model for these can be considered
as an extrapolation from the validated M-3 configuration.
3.2. Properties of working fluid as optical filters
Pure water was considered as an optical filter for M-4 configu-
ration and Ag/water nanofluid for M-5 configuration. Water is an
excellent absorber of sunlight radiation in the infrared region
[13], whereas silver nanoparticles (Ag) have a good absorption
property at UV spectra. The nanofluid-based optical filters was
optimized in such a way so that it allows the transmittance of
the maximum visible sunlight laying within the spectral response
of the PV cells. To find the best volume fraction of nanoparticles, an
optimization algorithm is used to solve Eqs. (22)–(27). The optical
properties of water and Ag nanoparticles, along with real and
imaginary parts of the index of refraction were adapted from
[60] and [61], respectively. The resulting optical properties of
water and optimized nanofluid-based optical filters are summa-
rized in Table 7.
To understand the behavior of the solar radiation spectrum
within the working fluid as an optical filter (first channel of M-4
and M-5), Eq. (22) has been numerically solved using the finite dif-
ference scheme. The simulation results are presented in Fig. 2. The
theoretical results show that the PV cells in M-4 received more
sunlight energy than the configuration M-5. Approximately,
78.8% of the sunlight energy is transmitted to the PV cells in M-4
as opposed to 62% in M-5. This implies that the electrical efficiency
of the PV cells in M-4 surpassed that in M-5.
Roughly, both working fluids based optical filters are able to
absorb the desired IR spectra completely as shown in
Fig. 2b and d. However, water based optical filter has been found
to be a poor absorber at UV spectra, and this is due to the optical
properties of the water which is not a good absorber at short wave-
length. Since PV cells in M-4 received all the UV spectra, this raised
PV cells temperature which leads to limit their performance at high
solar concentration.
The nanofluid based optical filter in M-5 absorbed the UV spec-
tra better than water in M-4 configuration as shown in Fig. 2c. This
is due to the ability of Ag nanoparticles to absorb the UV spectra.
Overall, both working fluid based optical filters designed for M-
4 and M-5 PV/T configurations absorbed 21.2% and 38% of the total
incident radiation, respectively.
Table 6
Numerical and experimental data comparison.
Working fluid Input exergy from Thermal exergetic
the sun (W/m2) efficiency (%)
Silica/water Experiment 871.1 1.68
nanofluid Present 873.1 1.72
3 wt% Deviation 0.23% 2.38
3.3. Exergetic performance of PV/T collectors
Once the optical properties of working fluids as optical filters
have been determined, the next step is to check the electrical
and exergetic performances of the configurations M-1 to M-5. For
this, a MATLAB code was built to simultaneously solve the equa-
tions shown in Table 3. In the code, the temperature distribution
along the flow direction is considered in the present analysis.
The output performances of a concentrated PV/T configurations
depend on different parameters. One of this parameter is the solar
concentration, C. The optimum value of the solar concentration
depends on the desired output, and on the maximum allowable
working fluid temperature. In the present analysis, the different
PV/T configurations are designed for the domestic use only. Hence
all the working fluids have to remain liquid, which means their
working temperatures have to be less than 100 °C. Therefore, the
maximum solar concentration value has to obey the condition of
T working fluid < 100  C. This condition is valid only for the PV/T con-
figurations M-2, M-3, M-4 and M-5. For the PV module M-1, the
optimum C was determined in such a way that the electrical out-
put has to be as maximum as possible.
Table 8 shows the different working temperatures for the PV
module M-1 and PV/T configurations M-2 to M-5 as a function of
solar concentration. It can be seen that the PV module’s tempera-
ture in M-1 configuration increased sharply when the C increased
compared to the other remaining configurations. On the other
hand, the lowest PV modules temperature was found in M-5.
The optimum C in the PV module M-1 was found to be 4. Due to
the condition imposed to C in M-2 to M-5, the optimum C was
attained once the working fluids reached their near saturation
temperature. The simulation results in Table 8 showed that the
optimum C for M-2 and M-3 was found at C = 5, whereas C = 8
and 10 in M-4 and M-5, respectively.
With the help of Eqs. (28)–(35), the temperatures shown in
Table 8 have been used to calculate the exergetic performance of
the PV module M-1 and PV/T configurations M-2 to M-5.
Fig. 3a presents the variation of electrical efficiencies of the dif-
ferent PV/T configurations as a function of C. It can be observed
that the electrical efficiency is decreased when C is increased.
However, the steepness of lines differ from each other. For exam-
ple, in the standard PV-only M-1, the efficiency is decreased shar-
ply than the remaining PV/T configurations. It was also observed
that the efficiency line in M-5 has the smallest slope compared
to the rest of configurations. This is due to the difference in PV
module’s temperature between the configurations. Although the
configurations M-1, M-2 and M-3 received the same quantity of
radiation, M-2 and M-3 are more efficient in terms of electrical effi-
ciency. This is due to the fact that in M-2 and M-3, the PV cells are
cooled down by the working fluid placed under the PV module. The
electrical efficiency in M-3 is slightly higher than M-2, and this is
due to the advantage of the nanofluid which has higher thermal
conductivity in M-3, compared to water, in M-2. The electrical effi-
ciency in M-4 and M-5 found to be the lowest compared to M-2
and M-3, and this is due to the working fluids as optical filters
which absorbed a fraction of solar radiation before it reached the
PV cells. However, PV/T configurations M-2 and M-3 cannot run
Electrical Total exergetic Thermal Electrical Total exergy of the
efficiency (%) efficiency (%) exergy (W/m2) exergy (W/m2) system (W/m2)
12.59 14.27 14.64 109.67 124.31
12.25 13.97 15.02 106.94 121.96
2.7 2.1 2.6% 2.5% 1.9%
 S. Hassani et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 123 (2016) 431–444 439

Table 7
Properties of working fluids as optical filters.
R 2:5 R 2:5
Configuration Working fluids as optical filters Diameter of nanoparticles (nm) Volume fraction (%) Filter thickness, en1 (mm)
0:28 sn1;k 0:28 an1;k
M-4 Water – – 10 0.788 0.212
M-5 Ag/water 10 0.001(0.0104 wt%) 10 0.620 0.380

Fig. 2. AM1.5 spectrum crossing the first channel for three distinct cases; (a) vacuum, (b) water, (c) Ag nanofluid.

Table 8
PV module and working fluid temperatures at various solar concentration.

Model M-1 M-2 M-3 M-4 M-5

C Tpva Tpva Tf Tpva Tnf Tpva Tf Tnf Tpva Tnf1 Tnf2
1 51.5 37.6 37.7 37.4 37.7 33.2 29.2 33.4 31.5 32 31.7
2 78.5 50.7 51.0 50.2 51.0 41.5 33.9 41.9 38.0 39.3 38.5
3 103.4 63.8 64.5 63.0 64.6 49.7 38.7 50.6 44.7 46.7 45.4
4 126.4 77.0 78.1 75.7 78.3 58.0 43.6 59.4 51.3 54.1 52.4
5 147.7 90.4 91.9 88.3 92.1 66.3 48.5 68.3 58.0 61.5 59.5
6 167.5 NC NC NC NC 74.6 53.4 77.3 64.7 68.9 66.8
7 186 NC NC NC NC 82.9 58.5 86.3 71.4 76.4 74.1
8 203 NC NC NC NC 91.2 63.6 95.5 78.1 83.8 81.4
9 220 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC 84.8 91.2 88.9
10 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC 91.5 98.5 96.5

NC: not computed either T pv > 225  C or T working fluid > 100  C.
a
Mean temperature of PV module.

with solar concentration above 5, unlike M-4 and M-5 which can
run at C = 8 and 10 respectively. This produced more electrical
power output in the configurations M-4 and M-5 than M-1, M-2
and M-3.
Fig. 3b presents electrical power output by the configurations
M-1 to M-5 as a function of solar concentrations. As predicted
before, the amount of electrical power produced by M-5 exceeded
all other configurations. For instance, at the optimum value of C in
each collector, the electrical power produced found to be 264.7 W
in M-1, 417.9 W in M-2, 424.3 W in M-3, 549.6 W in M-4 and
585.2 W in M-5.
The novel design in M-4 and M-5 was operated at higher solar
concentrations than M-1, M-2 and M-3. Therefore, more electrical
and thermal outputs were obtained in M-4 and M-5.
Fig. 4 shows the high-grade exergetic efficiencies of the thermal
units for the various PV/T configurations and the amounts of high-
grade thermal exergy produced. From Fig. 4a, it has been observed
that, at low solar concentration, high-grade thermal exergy effi-
ciencies of M-2 and M-3 are almost similar, and higher than M-4
and M-5. This is due to the fact that Carnot efficiencies in M-2
and M-3 are higher than M-4 and M-5. The high-grade thermal
exergy efficiency in PV/T configuration M-5 outperformed than
440 S. Hassani et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 123 (2016) 431–444

0.12 600
(a) M-1 (b)
M-2
M-3
0.1 M-4 500
M-5

Electricity produced, (W)

Electrical efficiency, ηel

0.08 400
M-1
M-2
M-3
0.06 300 M-4
M-5

0.04 200

0.02 100

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Solar concentration, C Solar concentration, C
Fig. 3. Electrical efficiency and electrical power produced by the PV modules as a function of solar concentration.

0.04 400
(a) (b)
0.035 350
High-grade themal exergy efficiency, η ex,th

High-grade thermal exergy produced, (W)

0.03 300

0.025 250

0.02 200

0.015 150

0.01 100

M-2 M-2
0.005 M-3 50 M-3
M-4 M-4
M-5 M-5
0 0
0 5 10 0 5 10
Solar concentration, C Solar concentration, C
Fig. 4. (a) High-grade thermal exergetic efficiency, and (b) high-grade thermal exergy generated by the thermal unit as a function of solar concentration.

M-4, and this is due to the nanofluid based optical filter in M-5 the optimum value of C which should satisfy the condition of
which has more absorbing capability than the water based optical T working fluid < 100  C.
filter in M-4. In this study, using the model for pumping power described in
It has to be noted that the nanofluid based optical filter in M-5 Ref. [62], the required pumping power was found to be
0.4 W for
absorbed UV and IR spectra, whereas in M-4 water absorbed only M-2 and M-3, and
0.73 W for M-4 and M-5. These are certainly
IR spectra. negligible in comparison to the minimum high-grade thermal
Despite the superiority of M-2 and M-3 in terms of high-grade exergy (i.e. >100 W) produced by various PV/T configurations. This
thermal exergetic efficiency at low solar concentrations, M-4 and small value of pumping power is due to the low mass flow rate (i.e.
M-5 dominated in terms of high-grade thermal exergy output as m_ n ¼ 0:0104 kg/s for all cases). It should be noted that a marginally
shown in Fig. 4b. Again, this is due to the constraint imposed to increased viscosity of the nanofluids does not significantly alter
 S. Hassani et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 123 (2016) 431–444 441

this fact, since the volume fraction of the thermal nanofluid is
/n2 < 0.001 and that optical nanofluid is /n1 < 0.00001.
This is in agreement with several researchers who have con-
ducted numerical and experimental studies on heat exchangers
and solar collectors using nanofluids as their working fluids. That
is, if the volume fraction and mass flow rate are both small, the
pumping power is insignificant. The Table 9 summarizes some of
these works.
Fig. 5 depicts overall efficiency and the total exergy produced
(i.e. high-grade exergy) by the different PV/T configurations as a
function of C. The amount of exergy shown in Fig. 5b is the combi-
nation of electricity and high-grade thermal exergy produced daily
during 4 operating hours under a solar radiation flux of 992 W/m2.
It has been clearly observed that M-5 PV/T configuration outper-
formed than all other configurations in terms of total yield exergy.
For instance, at the optimum operating point, M-5 produced
3.56 kW h per day, while M-4, M-3, M-2 and M-1 produced respec-
tively; 2.92 kW h, 2.18 kW h, 2.15 kW h and 1.06 kW h.
The amount of produced exergy is a key factor in the LCEA
method in order to determine the sustainability and ecological
impact on the ecosystem of each configuration investigated in
the present work.
3.4. Exergy payback time and environmental analysis
Once the output performance of each configuration is evalu-
ated, then the determination of the necessary time to payback
the exergetic investment of each configuration is needed. The
exergetic investment refers to the cumulative exergy consump-
tion (CExC). All the LCEA output parameters have been deter-
mined at the optimum operating point and presented in
Table 10. The LCEA revealed that the amount of energy needed
to manufacture 1 m2 of M-5 PV/T configuration was found to
be 2601 kW h, which is approximately double compared to M-
1. This is logical since M-5 consist of more elements than M-1
and the rest of configurations. However, the PV/T configuration
M-5 has the smallest ExPT, and the maximum exergy savings
compared to other configurations. According to the simulation
results, M-5 PV/T configuration produced 1301 kW h of high-
grade exergy annually with a payback time of 2.96 years and
estimated to save approximately 28.7 MW h of exergy through-
out the period of post ExPBT.
The poorest performance in terms of exergetic benefit is attrib-
uted to the standard PV-only configuration M-1.
Table 11 shows the environmental impact of different PV/T con-
figurations throughout the whole life cycle period. During the first
phase of the life cycle, configuration M-1 seems to be greener than
other configurations. On the other hand, configuration M-5 found
to be the most pollutant during the manufacturing phase. For
instance, during the manufacturing process of 1 m2 of M-5 emits
approximatively; 885 kg of CO2, 7.16 kg of SO2 and 11.3 kg of par-
ticulate matter (PM10). However, during the second phase of the
life cycle, production phase, configuration M-5 outperformed com-
pared to the other configurations in terms of pollution prevention.
The simulation results demonstrated that configuration M-5 may
prevent the emissions of about 448 kg CO2 eq m2 yr1.
According to literature review, authors found that no studies
were conducted on the environmental and exergy life cycle assess-
ment of PV/T system operated with nanofluid such as configura-
tions M-3, M-4 and M-5. Moreover, since the M-5 configuration
represents a new type of solar collector, no comparative data on
the environmental and exergy life cycle assessment available in
the literature. Table 12 shows some of the data, reported in the lit-
erature, on CO2 reduction rates for PV/T and CPV/T operating with
conventional fluids.
CO2 avoidance rates in some of the works reported in Table 12
were given based on unconventional units. Therefore, they have
been recalculated to a standard unit ‘‘kg CO2 eq/m2/yr” to facilitate
the comparison.
Based on the results obtained by the LCEA method (i.e. Tables
10 and 11), configuration M-5 was ranked as top among the all
PV/T configurations in terms of exergy output performance and
pollution avoidance. It can be concluded that a cascade
nanofluid-based PV/T system with optimized optical and thermal
properties represents an enhanced technique towards harvesting
more sunlight energy at high solar concentration.
4. Conclusion
In this study, life cycle exergetic analysis has been carried out to
evaluate the exergy and environmental impact of three nanofluid-
based PV/T hybrid configurations systems, and compared their per-
formance to a standard PV and PV/T system.
The cumulative exergies and pollutant emissions during the
manufacturing phase were determined by an established method
using technical data taken from the literature.
The annual exergy outputs of the analyzed PV/T configurations
were determined using numerical simulation based on validated
electrical and thermal models reported in the literature.
The main conclusions based on the results of the present study
are summarized as follows:
(a) In the PV/T configuration M-5, the nanofluid-based optical
filter absorbed practically all the desired UV and the IR spec-
tra, whereas the water based optical filter in M-4 absorbed
only IR spectra.

Table 9
Nanofluid system pumping power examples reported from the literature.

Authors Type of Volume Mass flow rate Re Pumping Remarks

study fraction (%) (kg/s) power (W)
Radwan et al. [63] Mod. 2–4 – Laminar 0.11–1.2 The power net is a round 150 W
flow
Said et al. [64] Exp. 0.02–0.035 0.0167–0.066 Laminar 0.01–0.15 Almost negligible effect in the pumping power and pressure drop
flow
Said et al. [65] Mod. 0.02–0.09 0.017–0.05 Laminar 0.01–0.1 Almost negligible
flow
Faizal et al. [66] Exp. 0.2–0.4 0.0167–0.05 Laminar Negligible Insignificant impact on the effective efficiency of the system
flow
Xu and Mod. 0–4 – Turbulent <1 W The pumping power to electrical output ratio equal to 0.035
Kleinstreuer
[67]
Taylor et al. [68] Exp. <0.001 104 Laminar Negligible Pumping power from frictional losses was found less than 1% of the
power plant’s electrical output
442 S. Hassani et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 123 (2016) 431–444

0.14 4
(a) (b)
3.5
0.12

Overall exergetic efficiency, η ex

3
0.1

Daily exergy, (kWh)

2.5
0.08
M-1 2 M-1
M-2 M-2
0.06 M-3 M-3
M-4 1.5 M-4
M-5 M-5
0.04
1

0.02
0.5

0 0
0 5 10 0 5 10
Solar concentration, C Solar concentration, C
Fig. 5. (a) Overall efficiency, and (b) daily exergy produced by the corresponding collector as a function of solar concentration.

Table 10
ExPBT and exergy savings comparison for the different PV/T configurations.

Model Exergy consumed C gex (%) Annual produced exergy ExPBT (years) Profitability exergetic Exergy savings
(kW h/m2) (kW h/m2) index (%) (MW h/m2)
M-1 1250 4 6.70 359 3.48 28.7 7.7
M-2 2004 5 11.7 786.2 2.55 39.2 17.7
M-3 2050 5 11.8 795.6 2.58 38.8 17.8
M-4 2496 8 9.88 1065 2.34 42.7 24.1
M-5 2601 10 9.66 1301 2 50 29.9

Table 11
Environmental impact of the different PV/T configurations.

Model Pollutants
CO2 SO2 NOx CO PM10
PEia PSia PEia PSia PEia PSia PEia PSia PEia PSia
M-1 426 2630 3.44 21.3 1.31 8.12 0.401 2.48 5.41 33.4
M-2 682 6007 5.52 48.6 2.11 18.5 0.642 5.66 8.67 76.4
M-3 698 6073 5.65 49.1 2.16 18.7 0.658 5.72 8.88 77.2
M-4 850 8221 6.88 66.5 2.63 25.4 0.801 7.74 10.8 105
M-5 885 10,188 7.16 82.4 2.73 31.4 0.834 9.60 11.3 130
a
kg/m2.

(b) The simulation results demonstrated that the PV/T hybrid phase in terms of pollution prevention. Configuration M-5
system M-5 outperformed in terms of high-grade exergy PV/T system may prevent emissions of about
output compared to the remaining. 448 kg CO2 eq m2 yr1.
(c) The life cycle exergy analysis revealed that the PV/T config-
uration M-5 produced
1.3 MW h/m2 of exergy annually The present study proposed a new approach to the efficient use
with the smallest exergy payback time of 2 years. This con- of solar energy in PV/T hybrid configuration systems. A small area
figuration estimated to save approximately
30 MW h of of nanofluid-based PV/T system may produce the amount of energy
high-grade exergy throughout the post exergy payback time equivalent to a large area of a standard PV-only can produce. The
(
23 years). optimized optical and thermal nanofluids-based PV/T hybrid sys-
(d) Although configuration M-5 PV/T system found to be the tem is a reliable solution to electrify remote off-grid regions at a
most pollutant during the manufacturing phase, it outper- low cost and to provide a potentially large supply of useful thermal
formed rest of the configurations during the operational energy.
 S. Hassani et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 123 (2016) 431–444 443

Table 12 Rayleigh numbers Ra1 and Ra2 of the air gap are determined as
Comparative data on CO2 reduction rates. follow:
Authors Systems Type Embodied CO2 avoidance
of emissions rates gbjT ci  T a jL3c
Rai ¼ Pr a ðA:11Þ
study (kg CO2 eq/ (kg CO2 eq/m2/ t2a
m2) yr)
i ¼ 1; 2:
Present study CPV/T type Mod. 691–896 271–448
M-2 and M-5 rec1 ec2 ðT 2c1 þ T 2c2 ÞðT c1 þ T c2 Þ
hrc1c2 ¼ ðA:12Þ
Chow and Ji [6] PV/T with Exp. 513 162 ec1 þ ec2  ec1 ec2
water as
Nun1 kn1
working fluid hc2n1 ¼ hc3n1 ¼ ðA:13Þ
Tripanagnostopoulos Glazed PV/T- Mod. 400 500 Dh1
et al. [5] liquid
Cellura et al. [46] PTC-based Exp. 228.1 212.6
The nanofluid flow regime in this study is limited to a fully
CPVT developed laminar flow with a Reynolds number Ren1 < 2300.
Kerzmann and Linear Fresnel Mod. – 10,350 kg CO2/yr Therefore the Nusselt number Nun1 is determined as follow [72]:
Schaefer [69] lenses-based
CPVT system 0:03Ren1 Prn1 Dh1
Agrawal and Tiwari Glazed hybrid Exp. – 1393 (energy Nun1 ¼ 7:54 þ l
2=3
ðA:14Þ
[8] PV/T module analysis) 1 þ 0:016ðRen1 Prn1 Dh1
l
Þ
air collector 322 (exergy
analysis)
m_ n1 Dh1
Ren1 ¼ ðA:15Þ
len1 ln1

Acknowledgment rec3 epv ðT 2c3 þ T 2pv ÞðT c3 þ T pv Þ

hrc3pv ¼ ðA:16Þ
ec3 þ epv  ec3 epv
The authors are grateful for the financial support provided by Nun2 kn2
hpn2 ¼ ðA:17Þ
the Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE), Malaysia, through the Dh2
University of Malaya High-Impact Research Grant under project 0:03Ren2 Pr n2 Dh2
No. UM-MOHE UM.C/HIR/MOHE/ENG/24 and 40, FRGS-FP014– Nun2 ¼ 7:54 þ 
l
2=3 ðA:18Þ
2014A. They also thank the Department of Mechanical Engineering, 1 þ 0:016 Ren2 Pr n2 Dh2l
University of Malaya, for granting access to necessary research _ n2 Dh2
m
facilities. Ren2 ¼ ðA:19Þ
len2 ln2
R.A.T. gratefully acknowledges the support of the Australian
Research Council (DE160100131).
References
Appendix A
[1] EIA. Monthly energy review. Washington, DC: US Energy Information
Administration; 2016. Available from: http://www.
This appendix presents all the coefficients and parameters used eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly2016. January 2016.
in the present paper. [2] Renewables 2015: global status report. REN21 (renewable energy policy
network for the 21st century). <http://www.ren21.net2015>.
heqðc1amÞ ¼ hr c1am þ hc1am ðA:1Þ [3] Kasaeian A, Eshghi AT, Sameti M. A review on the applications of nanofluids in
solar energy systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;43:584–98.
rec1 ðT 4c1  T 4sky Þ [4] Chow TT. A review on photovoltaic/thermal hybrid solar technology. Appl
hrc1am ¼ ðA:2Þ
T c1  T am Energy 2010;87:365–79.
[5] Tripanagnostopoulos Y, Souliotis M, Battisti R, Corrado A. Energy, cost and LCA
where Tsky is the sky’s temperature evaluated using Daguenet’s for- results of PV and hybrid PV/T solar systems. Prog Photovoltaics Res Appl
2005;13:235–50.
mula [70]:
[6] Chow T-T, Ji J. Environmental life-cycle analysis of hybrid solar photovoltaic/
0:25 thermal systems for use in Hong Kong. Int J Photoenergy 2012;2012:9.
T sky ¼ ½T 4am ð1  0:261 expð7:77  104 ðT am  273Þ2 ÞÞ ðA:3Þ [7] Good C. Environmental impact assessments of hybrid photovoltaic–thermal
Nuc1am kam (PV/T) systems – a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;55:234–9.
hc1am ¼ ðA:4Þ [8] Agrawal S, Tiwari GN. Enviroeconomic analysis and energy matrices of glazed
Lc hybrid photovoltaic thermal module air collector. Sol Energy 2013;92:139–46.
[9] Battisti R, Corrado A. Evaluation of technical improvements of photovoltaic
The Nusselt number is calculated using the correlation pro- systems through life cycle assessment methodology. Energy 2005;30:952–67.
posed by Sparrow et al. [71] [10] Tiwari A, Raman V, Tiwari GN. Embodied energy analysis of hybrid
photovoltaic thermal (PV/T) water collector. Int J Ambient Energy
Nuc1am ¼ 0:86Re1=2 1=3
am Pr am ðA:5Þ 2007;28:181–8.
[11] Bahaidarah HMS, Baloch AAB, Gandhidasan P. Uniform cooling of photovoltaic
vam Lc panels: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;57:1520–44.
Ream ¼ ðA:6Þ
tam [12] Kaluza J, Funken K-H, Groer U, Neumann A, Riffelmann K-J. Properties of an
optical fluid filter: theoretical evaluations and measurement results. J Phys IV
Nuc1a ka
hc1a ¼ ðA:7Þ France 1999;09. Pr3-655-Pr3-60.
Lc [13] Palmer KF, Williams D. Optical properties of water in the near infrared. J Opt
Soc Am 1974;64:1107–10.
Nuc2a ka
hc2a ¼ ðA:8Þ [14] Michael JJ, Iniyan S, Goic R. Flat plate solar photovoltaic–thermal (PV/T)
Lc systems: a reference guide. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;51:62–88.
[15] Chol S. Enhancing thermal conductivity of fluids with nanoparticles. ASME-
Nusselt numbers Nuc1a and Nuc2a are determined using the Publ-Fed 1995;231:99–106.
following correlations [72]: [16] Otanicar TP, Phelan PE, Prasher RS, Rosengarten G, Taylor RA. Nanofluid-based
direct absorption solar collector. J Renewable Sustainable Energy
2010;2:033102.
Nuc1a ¼ 0:27Ra1=4
1 ðA:9Þ [17] He Q, Wang S, Zeng S, Zheng Z. Experimental investigation on photothermal
Nuc2a ¼ 0:54Ra1=4
2 ðA:10Þ properties of nanofluids for direct absorption solar thermal energy systems.
Energy Convers Manage 2013;73:150–7.
444 S. Hassani et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 123 (2016) 431–444
[18] Taylor R, Coulombe S, Otanicar T, Phelan P, Gunawan A, Lv W, et al. Small
particles, big impacts: a review of the diverse applications of nanofluids. J Appl
Phys 2013;113:011301.
[19] Sajid Hossain M, Saidur R, Mohd Sabri MF, Said Z, Hassani S. Spotlight on
available optical properties and models of nanofluids: a review. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2015;43:750–62.
[20] Younes H, Christensen G, Li D, Hong H, Ghaferi AA. Thermal conductivity of
nanofluids: review. J Nanofluids 2015;4:107–32.
[21] Saidur R, Leong KY, Mohammad HA. A review on applications and challenges
of nanofluids. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:1646–68.
[22] Duffie JA, Beckman WA. Solar engineering of thermal processes. 4th
ed. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley; 2013.
[23] NIST. Thermophysical properties of fluid systems. <http://
webbooknistgov/chemistry/fluid/> [accessed December, 2015].
[24] International standard ISO 9845-1, standard solar spectra ASTM G-173-03,
<http://pveducation.org/pvcdrom/appendices/standard-solar-spectra>
[accessed in July 2015].
[25] Tyagi H, Phelan P, Prasher R. Predicted efficiency of a low-temperature
nanofluid-based direct absorption solar collector. J Sol Energy Eng
2009;131:041004.
[26] Taylor RA, Otanicar T, Rosengarten G. Nanofluid-based optical filter
optimization for PV/T systems. Light Sci Appl 2012;1:e34.
[27] Taylor RA, Otanicar TP, Herukerrupu Y, Bremond F, Rosengarten G, Hawkes ER,
et al. Feasibility of nanofluid-based optical filters. Appl Opt 2013;52:1413–22.
[28] Bohren CF, Huffman DR. Absorption and scattering of light by small
particles. John Wiley & Sons; 1983.
[29] Siegel R, Howell JR. Thermal radiation heat transfer. 3rd ed. Hemisphere
Publishing Corporation; 1992.
[30] Hassani S, Saidur R, Mekhilef S, Hepbasli A. A new correlation for predicting
the thermal conductivity of nanofluids; using dimensional analysis. Int J Heat
Mass Transfer 2015;90:121–30.
[31] Duangthongsuk W, Wongwises S. Comparison of the effects of measured and
computed thermophysical properties of nanofluids on heat transfer
performance. Exp Thermal Fluid Sci 2010;34:616–24.
[32] Jing D, Hu Y, Liu M, Wei J, Guo L. Preparation of highly dispersed nanofluid and
CFD study of its utilization in a concentrating PV/T system. Sol Energy
2015;112:30–40.
[33] Ayres RU, Ayres LW, Martinás K. Exergy, waste accounting, and life-cycle
analysis. Energy 1998;23:355–63.
[34] Wall G. Exergy-a useful concept within resource accounting. Sweden: Institute
of Theoretical Physics, Chalmers University of Technology and University of
Göteborg; 1977. Report no. 77-42.
[35] Lämmle M, Kroyer T, Fortuin S, Wiese M, Hermann M. Development and
modelling of highly-efficient PVT collectors with low-emissivity coatings. Sol
Energy 2016;130:161–73.
[36] Müller A, Kranzl L, Tuominen P, Boelman E, Molinari M, Entrop AG. Estimating
exergy prices for energy carriers in heating systems: country analyses of
exergy substitution with capital expenditures. Energy Buildings
2011;43:3609–17.
[37] Petela R. An approach to the exergy analysis of photosynthesis. Sol Energy
2008;82:311–28.
[38] Zhao J, Song Y, Lam W-H, Liu W, Liu Y, Zhang Y, et al. Solar radiation transfer
and performance analysis of an optimum photovoltaic/thermal system. Energy
Convers Manage 2011;52:1343–53.
[39] Otanicar T, Chowdhury I, Phelan PE, Prasher R. Parametric analysis of a coupled
photovoltaic/thermal concentrating solar collector for electricity generation. J
Appl Phys 2010;108:114907.
[40] He W, Zhang G, Zhang X, Ji J, Li G, Zhao X. Recent development and application
of thermoelectric generator and cooler. Appl Energy 2015;143:1–25.
[41] Zheng XF, Yan YY, Simpson K. A potential candidate for the sustainable and
reliable domestic energy generation–thermoelectric cogeneration system.
Appl Therm Eng 2013;53:305–11.
[42] Niu X, Yu J, Wang S. Experimental study on low-temperature waste heat
thermoelectric generator. J Power Sources 2009;188:621–6.
[43] Gong M, Wall G. Life cycle exergy analysis of solar energy systems. J Fundam
Renewable Energy Appl 2014;5:1–8.
[44] Gong M, Wall G. On exergy and sustainable development—Part 2: indicators
and methods. Exergy, Int J 2001;1:217–33.
[45] Schivley G, Ingwersen WW, Marriott J, Hawkins TR, Skone TJ. Identifying/
quantifying environmental trade-offs inherent in GHG reduction strategies for
coal-fired power. Environ Sci Technol 2015;49:7562–70.
[46] Cellura M, Grippaldi V, Brano VL, Longo S, Mistretta M. Life cycle assessment of
a solar PV/T concentrator system. In: Fifth international conference on life
cycle management, Berlin. p. 28–31.
[47] Varun, Sharma A, Shree V, Nautiyal H. Life cycle environmental assessment of
an educational building in Northern India: a case study. Sustainable Cities Soc
2012;4:22–8.
[48] Kück A, Steinfeldt M, Prenzel K, Swiderek P, Gleich Av, Thöming J. Green
nanoparticle production using micro reactor technology. J Phys: Conf Ser
2011;304:012074.
[49] Kim HC, Fthenakis V. Life cycle energy and climate change implications of
nanotechnologies. J Ind Ecol 2013;17:528–41.
[50] Agrawal B, Tiwari GN. Building integrated photovoltaic thermal systems: for
sustainable developments. Royal Society of Chemistry; 2011.
[51] Koroneos C, Stylos N. Exergetic life cycle assessment of a grid-connected,
polycrystalline silicon photovoltaic system. Int J Life Cycle Assessment
2014;19:1716–32.
[52] Joshi AS, Dincer I, Reddy BV. Performance analysis of photovoltaic systems: a
review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:1884–97.
[53] Aman MM, Solangi KH, Hossain MS, Badarudin A, Jasmon GB, Mokhlis H, et al.
A review of safety, health and environmental (SHE) issues of solar energy
system. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;41:1190–204.
[54] Pulles T, Appelman W. Air pollution from electricity-generating large
combustion plants. Denmark: European Environmental Agency; 2008.
[55] Hordy N, Rabilloud D, Meunier J-L, Coulombe S. High temperature and long-
term stability of carbon nanotube nanofluids for direct absorption solar
thermal collectors. Sol Energy 2014;105:82–90.
[56] Mesgari S, Coulombe S, Hordy N, Taylor RA. Thermal stability of carbon
nanotube-based nanofluids for solar thermal collectors. Mater Res Innovations
2015;19. S5-650–S5-653.
[57] Chen M, He Y, Zhu J, Shuai Y, Jiang B, Huang Y. An experimental investigation
on sunlight absorption characteristics of silver nanofluids. Sol Energy
2015;115:85–94.
[58] Bandarra Filho EP, Mendoza OSH, Beicker CLL, Menezes A, Wen D.
Experimental investigation of a silver nanoparticle-based direct absorption
solar thermal system. Energy Convers Manage 2014;84:261–7.
[59] Sardarabadi M, Passandideh-Fard M, Zeinali Heris S. Experimental
investigation of the effects of silica/water nanofluid on PV/T (photovoltaic
thermal units). Energy 2014;66:264–72.
[60] Hale GM, Querry MR. Optical constants of water in the 200-nm to 200-lm
wavelength region. Appl Opt 1973;12:555–63.
[61] Babar S, Weaver JH. Optical constants of Cu, Ag, and Au revisited. Appl Opt
2015;54:477–81.
[62] Routbort JL, Singh D, Timofeeva EV, Yu W, France DM. Pumping power of
nanofluids in a flowing system. J Nanopart Res 2011;13:931–7.
[63] Radwan A, Ahmed M, Ookawara S. Performance enhancement of concentrated
photovoltaic systems using a microchannel heat sink with nanofluids. Energy
Convers Manage 2016;119:289–303.
[64] Said Z, Sabiha MA, Saidur R, Hepbasli A, Rahim NA, Mekhilef S, et al.
Performance enhancement of a flat plate solar collector using titanium dioxide
nanofluid and polyethylene glycol dispersant. J Cleaner Prod 2015;92:343–53.
[65] Said Z, Sajid MH, Alim MA, Saidur R, Rahim NA. Experimental investigation of
the thermophysical properties of AL2O3-nanofluid and its effect on a flat plate
solar collector. Int Commun Heat Mass Transfer 2013;48:99–107.
[66] Faizal M, Saidur R, Mekhilef S, Hepbasli A, Mahbubul IM. Energy, economic,
and environmental analysis of a flat-plate solar collector operated with SiO2
nanofluid. Clean Technol Environ Policy 2015;17:1457–73.
[67] Xu Z, Kleinstreuer C. Computational analysis of nanofluid cooling of high
concentration photovoltaic cells. J Therm Sci Eng Appl 2014;6:031009.
[68] Taylor RA, Phelan PE, Otanicar TP, Walker CA, Nguyen M, Trimble S, et al.
Applicability of nanofluids in high flux solar collectors. J Renewable
Sustainable Energy 2011;3:023104.
[69] Kerzmann T, Schaefer L. System simulation of a linear concentrating
photovoltaic system with an active cooling system. Renewable Energy
2012;41:254–61.
[70] Dagunet M. Les séchoirs solaires: théorie et pratique. Paris, France: UNESCO;
1985.
[71] Sparrow EM, Ramsey JW, Mass EA. Effect of finite width on heat transfer and
fluid flow about an inclined rectangular plate. J Heat Transfer
1979;101:199–204.
[72] Cengel YA, Ghajar AJ. Heat and mass transfer: fundamentals & applications.
4th ed. McGraw-Hill; 2011.