Advertisement

Exergy Analysis and Environmental Impact Assessment of Solar-Driven Heat Pump Drying Systems

  • Hasan OzcanEmail author
  • Ibrahim Dincer
Chapter

Abstract

Exergy and sustainability analysis and environmental impact assessment of drying processes are performed for conventional and solar-driven two-stage evaporator heat pump drying systems. Some parametric studies are also undertaken to investigate the influence of environmental and system parameters on the overall efficiencies. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, for electricity generation are comparatively evaluated under various options. Coal-based generation has the highest emissions for both conventional and solar-driven drying systems and lowest emissions are observed for nuclear and solar photovoltaic based electricity generation. The results show that solar thermal integration to the heat pump drying system brings an additional 32 gCO2/kWh carbon dioxide emission due to production, transportation, maintenance, and disposal of the solar thermal system. However, GHG emissions from conventional HPD system are 20.4–34.1 % higher than those of solar-driven HPD system for different generation resources.

Keywords

Environmental assessment Exergy analysis Efficiency Drying systems Heat pump Renewable energy Solar Two-stage evaporation 

Nomenclature

Cp

Specific heat (kJ/kg °C)

ex

Exergy rate (kW)

\( \dot{E}\mathrm{ x} \)

Exergy rate (kW)

\( h \)

Specific enthalpy heat convectivity (kJ/kg)—(W/m2 K)

\( \dot{m} \)

Mass flow rate (kg/s or L/min)

Nu

Nusselt number

\( P \)

Pressure (kg/m s2)

\( \dot{Q} \)

Heat transfer rate (kW)

s

Specific entropy (kJ/kg K)

T

Temperature (K or °C)

T0

Ambient temperature (K or °C)

TSP

Solar panel temperature (K or °C)

TSUN

Sun temperature (K or °C)

U

Overall heat transfer coefficient for solar panels (W/m2 K)

w

Specific humidity ratio (g water/kg air)

\( \dot{W} \)

Work rate or power (kW)

Greek Symbols

η

Energy efficiency

ψ

Exergy efficiency

Subscripts

a

Air

act

Actual

B

Blower

comp

Compressor

cond

Condenser

D

Destruction

dry

Dryer

en

Energy

ex

Exergy

r

Refrigerant

s

Isentropic

v

Water vapor

w

Water

p

Product

Acronyms

C-HPD

Conventional heat pump drying system

COP

Coefficients of performance

EES

Engineering equation solver

EIE

Environmental impact assessment

EV

Expansion valve

GHG

Greenhouse gas

GWP

Global warming potential

HP

Heat pump

HPD

Heat pump drying

HPE

High-pressure evaporator

LCA

Life cycle assessment

LPE

Low-pressure evaporator

ODP

Ozone depleting potential

SC

Sub-cooler

S-HPD

Solar heat pump drying system

SI

Sustainability index

References

  1. 1.
    Granovskii M, Dıncer I, Rosen MA (2007) Greenhouse gas emissions reduction by use of wind and solar energies forhydrogen and electricity production: economic factors Int. J Hydrogen Energ 32:927–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wuebbles DJ, Atul KJ (2001) Concerns about climate change and the role of fossil fuel use. Fuel Process Technol 71:99–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dincer I (2011) Exergy as a potential tool for sustainable drying systems, Sus. Cities and Society 1:91–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dincer I, Rosen MA (2007) Exergy, energy environment and sustainable development, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rosen MA, Dincer I, Kanoglu M (2008) Role of exergy in increasing efficiency and sustainabilityand reducing environmental impact. Energ Pol 36:128–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tsoutsos T, Frantzeskaki N, Gekas V (2005) Environmental impacts from the solar energy Technologies. Energ Pol 33:289–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Various, Karapanagiotis N (Ed.) (2000) Environmental impacts from the use of solar energy technologies. THERMIEGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    KoroneosCJ NEA (2012) Life cycle environmental impact assessment of a solar water heater. J Clean Prod 37:154–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goh LJ, Othman MY, Mat S, Ruslan H, Sopian K (2011) Review of heat pump systems for drying application. Rene and SusEnr Rev 15:4788–4796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sun L, Islam MR, Ho JC, Mujumdar AS (2005) A diffusion model for drying of a heat sensitive solid under multiple heat input modes. Bioresour Technol 96:1551–1560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chua KJ, Mujumdar AS, Hawlader MNA, Chou SK, Ho JC (2001) Batch drying of banana pieces—effect of stepwise change in drying air temperature on drying kinetics and product color. Food Res Int 34:721–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ogura H, Yamamoto T, Otsubo Y, Ishida H, Kage H, Mujumdar AS (2005) A control strategy for chemical heat pump dryer. Dry Technol 23:1189–1203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mujumdar AS (1987) Handbook of industrial drying, 2nd edn. Marcel Dekker, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mujumdar AS (2005) Handbook of industrial drying, vol 2. Marcel Dekker Inc, New York, NY, pp 1241–1272Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chua KJ, Chou SK (2005) A modular approach to study the performance of a two-stage heat pump system for drying. Appl Therm Eng 25:1363–1379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li CJ, Su CC (2003) Experimental study of a series-connected two-evaporator refrigerating system with propane (R-290) as the refrigerant. Appl Therm Eng 23:1503–1514MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brundrett GW (1987) Handbook of dehumidification technology, vol 1. Butterworths, London, p 138Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rose RJ, Jung DS, Radermacher R (1992) Testing of domestic two-evaporator refrigerators withzeotropic refrigerant mixtures. ASHRAE Transaction 98:216–226Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jung DS, Radermacher R (1991) Performance simulation of a two-evaporator refrigerator–freezer charged with pure and mixed refrigeration. Int J Refrig 14:254–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Simmons KE, Haider I, Radermacher R (1996) Independent compartment temperature control of Lorenz–Meutzner and modified Lorenz–Meutzner cycle refrigerators. ASHRAE Transaction 102:1085–1092Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brian Norton B, Eames PC, Lo SNG (1998) Full-energy-chain analysis of greenhouse gas emissions for solar thermal electric power generation systems. Renew Energ 15:131–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eco-Indicator 99: A damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment (2000), Ministry of housing, spatial planning and environment. doi: http://www.pre-sustainability.com/download/manuals/EI99_Manual.pdf
  23. 23.
    Kreith F, Kreider JF (1978) Principles of solar engineering. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Akyuz E, Coskun C, Oktay Z, Dincer I (2012) A novel approach for estimation of photovoltaic exergy efficiency. Energy 44:1059–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Powell RL (2002) CFC phase out: have we met the challenge? J Flourine Chem 114:237–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wepfer WJ, Gaggioli RA (1980) Reference datums for available energy. Thermodynamics: second Law analysis, ACSSymposium series, vol 122. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp 77–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kalogirou SA (2004) Solar thermal collectors and applications. Progr Energ Combust Sci 30:231–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hammond GP (2004) Engineering sustainability: thermodynamics, energy systems, and the environment. Int J Energ Res 28:613–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Parliementary office of science and technology (2011) Carbon footprint of electricity generation. doi: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn_383-carbon-footprint-electricity-generation.pdf
  30. 30.
    International energy Agency (2012) CO2 Emissions from fuel combustion highlights. doi:http://www.iea.org/co2highlights/co2highlights.pdf
  31. 31.
    National inventory report NIR (2010) Greenhouse gas sources and sinks in Canada, submission to UN framework convention on climate change Part 3, Canada, doi: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/national_inventories_submissions/items/6598.php
  32. 32.
    Sovacool BK (2008) Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: a critical survey. Energ Pol 36:2940–2953Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Engineering equation solver (2009) version 8.176. F-Chart Software, Box 44042, Madison, WI, USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Engineering and Applied ScienceUniversity of Ontario Institute of TechnologyOshawaCanada

Personalised recommendations