Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

A multi-generation system based on geothermal driven: energy, exergy, economic and exergoenvironmental (4E) analysis for combined power, freshwater, hydrogen, oxygen, and heating production

  • Published:
Environment, Development and Sustainability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Renewable energy is one of environmentally friendly strategies to reduce the environmental pollution caused by energy generation from fossil fuels and reach sustainable development. In this current study, a geothermal driven multi-generation system to provide power, heating, freshwater, hydrogen and oxygen demands is investigated. The main components are encompassed single-pressure organic Rankine cycle, reverse osmosis desalination unit, domestic water heater and proton exchange membrane electrolyzer. For this purpose, energy, exergy, economic and exergoenvironmental (4E) evaluations are accomplished upon proposed system. Non-dominant sorting genetic algorithm has been considered as optimization method that leads to reveal the maximum and minimum of exergy efficiency and total annual cost (TAC) rate as two objective functions. In addition, sensitivity analysis is performed to reveal the roles of design parameters on the system performance and productivity from different standpoints. The optimal results showed that exergy efficiency and TAC increased, as operating temperature of PEM electrolyzer enhances. In terms of economic analysis, the most percentage of total investment cost is pertained to RO unit which was 58.05%. In addition, exergy efficiency and TAC of the proposed system were 30.42% and 255.96 $/h, respectively. As well, the mass flow rate of freshwater, hydrogen, oxygen, net power output and heating production were obtained 3146.7 m3/day, 0.42 m3/day, 3.35 m3/day, 1556.2 kW and 18,586 kW, respectively. Furthermore, by taking into account exergoenvironmental analysis, the environmental impact rate of power, heating, freshwater and hydrogen–oxygen production 2.331 × 10−5 pts/kJh, 3.668 × 10−3 pts/kJh, 1.45 pts/m3h and 11.42 pts/kgh, respectively. Eventually, the optimal outcomes from various perspectives were compared and argued.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
€32.70 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data will be made available on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

A :

Heat transfer area (m2)

a :

Constant (–)

B :

Brine (kg/s)

b :

Average environmental impact ($/kJ)

C :

Cost ($), cost rate ($/h)

CRF:

Capital recovery factor

D :

Membrane thickness (m)

DWH:

Domestic water heater

Eva:

Evaporator

\({\dot{\text{E}}}x\) :

Exergy rate (kW)

ex:

Specific physical exergy (kJ/kg)

F :

Feed water flow rate (kg/s), Farady constant (C/mole)

FF:

Fouling factor

f :

Exergoenvironmental factor (%)

G :

Gibbs free energy

h :

Specific enthalpy (kJ/kg)

J :

Current density (A/m2)

LCA:

Life cycle assessment

\(\dot{m}\), M :

Mass flow rate (kg/s, \({\text{m}}^{3} /h\))

N :

Lifetime of the system (year)

\(\dot{n}\) :

Molar flow rate (mole/s)

P :

Pressure (bar)

PP:

Pinch point

PEM:

Proton exchange membrane

Prh:

Preheater

\(\dot{Q}\) :

Heat rate (kW)

ORCP:

Organic Rankine cycle pump

ORCT:

Organic Rankine cycle turbine

R :

Gas constant (kJ/kg K), recovery ratio

r :

Environmental impact relative difference (–)

SR:

Salt rejection

SCP:

Specific power consumption (kWh/m3)

RO:

Reverse osmosis

T :

Temperature (°C)

TAC:

Total annual cost ($/h)

TCF:

Temperature correction factor

V :

Ohmic over potential (V)

\(\dot{W}\) :

Power (kW)

X f :

Salt concentration (g/kg, ppm)

Y :

Environmental impact rate of component

\(\eta_{{{\text{ex}}}}\) :

Exergy efficiency (%)

\(\lambda\) :

Water content

\(\sigma\) :

The local ionic conductivity

\(\lambda\) :

Represents the water content at location

\(\phi\) :

Maintenance factor (\(-\))

Act, a:

Actual, anode

Act, c:

Actual, cathode

av:

Average

Cell:

Cell potential

Cond:

Condenser

Cw:

Cooling water

d:

Distillate water

f:

Fuel, Feed water

fw:

Freshwater

fwp:

Feed water pump

Geo:

Geothermal

H2 :

Hydrogen

H2O:

Water

ir:

Interest rate

inv:

Investment

k:

Equipment or component

n:

Number of equipment (\(-\))

o:

Reference environmental condition

O2 :

Oxygen

p:

Product

ph:

Physical

PT:

Pelton turbine

tot:

Total

z:

Number (–)

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Vali-e-Asr University of Rafsanjan, Rafsanjan, Iran

    Hassan Hajabdollahi, Amin Saleh & Mohammad Shafiey Dehaj

Authors
  1. Hassan Hajabdollahi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amin Saleh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohammad Shafiey Dehaj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad Shafiey Dehaj.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Weight functions of each component (Blanco-Marigorta et al., 2014; Manente et al., 2017; Musharavati et al., 2021)

Component

Weight function (ton)

HX

\(2.14 \times \left( {\dot{Q}_{{{\text{HX}}}} } \right)^{0.7}\), [\(\dot{Q}\) in MW]

ORCT

\(4.9 \times \left( {\dot{W}_{{{\text{ORCT}}}} } \right)^{0.7}\), [\(\dot{W}\) in MW]

ORCP

\(0.0061 \times \left( {\dot{W}_{{{\text{ORCP}}}} } \right)^{0.95} ,\) [\(\dot{W}\) in kW]

PEM electrolyzer

\(0.0146 \times \dot{W}_{{{\text{PEM}}}}\), [\(\dot{W}\) in kW]

PT

\(4.9 \times \left( {\dot{W}_{{{\text{PT}}}} } \right)^{0.7}\), [\(\dot{W}\) in MW]

Appendix 2

The flowchart for simulation and optimization of proposed system

figure a

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hajabdollahi, H., Saleh, A. & Shafiey Dehaj, M. A multi-generation system based on geothermal driven: energy, exergy, economic and exergoenvironmental (4E) analysis for combined power, freshwater, hydrogen, oxygen, and heating production. Environ Dev Sustain 26, 26415–26447 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03735-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03735-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation