Advertisement

Energy and exergy analysis of solar energy-integrated, geothermal energy-powered Organic Rankine Cycle

  • Merve Senturk Acar
  • Oguz ArslanEmail author
Article
  • 27 Downloads

Abstract

In this study, the energy and exergy analysis of the solar- and geothermal energy-powered Organic Rankine Cycle was made for different system configurations and Simav geothermal field was taken into consideration for system designs. The solar collectors were integrated into the system with thermal energy storage tank. The R-600a, Therminol VP-1, and molten salt were used as a working fluid in Organic Rankine Cycle, solar field, and thermal energy storage, respectively. As a result of this study, the energy and exergy efficiencies of the geothermal-powered ORC were decreased with the integration of solar energy. But the net power output of the system was increased. The energy and exergy efficiencies of the solar energy-aided, geothermal-powered Organic Rankine Cycle increase by the decrease in the solar collector area. The energy generation of the proposed system was calculated up to 305,713.5 kWh.

Keywords

Organic Rankine Cycle—ORC Solar Geothermal Energy Exergy 

List of symbols

AColl

Total collector area (m2)

c

Specific heat (kJ kg−1 K−1)

\(\dot{E}x\)

Exergy (kW)

H

Specific enthalpy (kJ kg−1)

I

Solar radiation (W m2)

\(\dot{m}\)

Mass flow (kg s−1)

\(\dot{Q}\)

Heat energy (kJ s−1)

T

Temperature (K)

\(\dot{W}\)

Power (kJ s−1)

ε

Exergy efficiency (%)

ψ

Specific exergy (kJ kg−1)

η

Energy efficiency (%)

Subscripts

Coll

Solar collector

G

Generator

Gf

Geothermal fluid

HE

Heat exchanger

m,i

Inlet mass flow

m,o

Outlet mass flow

P

Pump

Wf

Working fluid

T

Turbine

TES

Thermal energy storage unit

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Tugcu A, Arslan O. Thermodynamics and economical analysis of geothermal assisted absorption refrigeration system: Simav case study. J Therm Sci Technol. 2016;36:143–59.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tempesti D, Manfrida G, Fiaschi D. Thermodynamic analysis of two micro CHP systems operating with geothermal and solar energy. Appl Energy. 2012;97:609–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tempesti D, Fiaschi D. Thermo-economic assessment of a micro CHP system fuelled by geothermal and solar energy. Energy. 2013;58:45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ezzat MF, Dincer I. Energy and exergy analyses of a new geothermal–solar energy based system. Sol Energy. 2016;134:95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Valdimarsson P. Geothermal Power Plant Cycles and Main Components, Short Course on Geothermal Drilling, Resource Development and Power Plants; 2011, p. 16–22. “Short Course on Geothermal Drilling, Resource Development and Power Plants”, organized by UNU-GTP and LaGeo, in Santa Tecla, El Salvador, 16–22 Jan 2011.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Walraven D, Laenen B, D’haeseleer W. Comparison of thermodynamic cycles for power production from low-temperature geothermal heat sources. Energy Convers Manag. 2013;66:220–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Luo C, Huang L, Gong Y, Ma W. Thermodynamic comparison of different types of geothermal power plant systems and case studies in China. Renew Energy. 2012;48:155–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yari M. Exergetic analysis of various types of geothermal power plants. Renew Energy. 2010;35:112–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Basaran A, Ozgener L. Investigation of the effect of different refrigerants on performances of binary geothermal power plants. Energy Convers Manag. 2013;76:483–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heberle F, Brüggemann D. Exergy based fluid selection for a geothermal Organic Rankine Cycle for combined heat and power generation. Appl Therm Eng. 2010;30:1326–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhou C, Doroodchi E, Moghtaderi B. An in-depth assessment of hybrid solar-geothermal power generation. Energy Convers Manag. 2013;74:88–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ghasemi H, Sheu E, Tizzanini A, Paci M, Mitsos A. Hybrid solar-geothermal power generation: optimal retrofitting. Appl Energy. 2014;131:158–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhou C. Hybridisation of solar and geothermal energy in both subcritical and supercritical Organic Rankine Cycles. Energy Convers Manag. 2014;81:72–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Arslan O, Yetik O. ANN based optimization of supercritical ORC-Binary geothermal power plant: Simav case study. Appl Therm Eng. 2011;31:3922–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Arslan O. Exergoeconomic evaluation of electricity generation by the medium temperature geothermal resources, using a Kalina Cycle: Simav case study. Int J Therm Sci. 2010;49:1866–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boukelia TE, Arslan O, Mecibah MS. ANN-based optimization of a parabolic trough solar thermal power plant. Appl Therm Eng. 2016;107:1210–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boukelia TE, Arslan O, Mecibah MS. Potential assessment of a parabolic trough solar thermal power plant considering hourly analysis: ANN-based approach. Renew Energy. 2017;105:324–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sonsaree S, Asaoka T, Jiajitsawat S, Aguirre H, Tanaka K. A small-scale solar Organic Rankine Cycle power plant in Thailand: three types of non-concentrating solar collectors. Sol Energy. 2018;162:541–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cioccolanti L, Tascioni R, Arteconi A. Mathematical modelling of operation modes and performance evaluation of an innovative small-scale concentrated solar organic Rankine cycle plant. Appl Energy. 2018;221:464–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nouri M, Namar MM, Jahanian O. Analysis of a developed Brayton cycled CHP system using ORC and CAES based on first and second law of thermodynamics. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-018-7316-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sheshpoli MA, Ajarostaghi SSM, Delavar MA. Thermodynamic analysis of waste heat recovery from hybrid system of proton exchange membrane fuel cell and vapor compression refrigeration cycle by recuperative organic Rankine cycle. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-018-7338-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sadeghi S, Maghsoudi P, Shabani B, Gorgani HH, Shabani N. Performance analysis and multi-objective optimization of an organic Rankine cycle with binary zeotropic working fluid employing modified artificial bee colony algorithm. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-018-7801-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Arslan O. Ultimate evaluation of Simav-Eynal geothermal resources: design of integrated system and its energy-exergy analysis. Ph.D. thesis. Eskisehir: Eskisehir Osmangazi University. Institute of Applied Sciences; 2008 (in Turkish).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Arat H, Arslan O. Exergoeconomic analysis of district heating system boosted by the geothermal heat pump. Energy. 2017;119:1159–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Li X, Xu E, Song S, Wang X, Yuan G. Dynamic simulation of two-tank indirect thermal energy storage system with molten salt. Renew Energy. 2017;113:1311–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    REFPROP, NIST Reference Fluid Thermodynamic and Transport Properties. NIST Reference Database. Version 9.0, National Institute of Standards and Technology USA; 2010.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Aydin D, Utlu Z, Kıncay O. Thermal performance analysis of a solar energy sourced latent heat storage. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2015;50:1213–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Potential atlas of solar energy. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources. 2018. http://www.yegm.gov.tr/MyCalculator. Accessed Jan 2018.

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mechanical Engineering Department, Engineering FacultyBilecik Seyh Edebali UniversityBilecikTurkey

Personalised recommendations