A Comprehensive Comparative Analysis of Energetic and Exergetic Performance of Different Solar-Based Organic Rankine Cycles

Guillermo Valencia Ochoa (), York Castillo Santiago (), Jorge Duarte Forero, Juan B. Restrepo and Alberto Ricardo Albis Arrieta
Additional contact information
Guillermo Valencia Ochoa: Efficient Energy Management Group (KAI), Faculty of Engineering, Universidad del Atlántico, Carrera 30 # 8-49, Puerto Colombia 081001, Atlántico, Colombia
York Castillo Santiago: Laboratory of Thermal Sciences (LATERMO), Department of Mechanical Engineering (TEM/PGMEC), Fluminense Federal University (UFF), Rua Passo da Pátria 156, Niterói 24210-240, RJ, Brazil
Jorge Duarte Forero: Efficient Energy Management Group (KAI), Faculty of Engineering, Universidad del Atlántico, Carrera 30 # 8-49, Puerto Colombia 081001, Atlántico, Colombia
Juan B. Restrepo: Bioprocess Faculty of Engineering, Universidad del Atlántico, Carrera 30 # 8-49, Puerto Colombia 081001, Atlántico, Colombia
Alberto Ricardo Albis Arrieta: Bioprocess Faculty of Engineering, Universidad del Atlántico, Carrera 30 # 8-49, Puerto Colombia 081001, Atlántico, Colombia

Energies, 2023, vol. 16, issue 6, 1-26

Abstract: In this work, a comprehensive energetic and exergetic comparative assessment is presented for the simple solar organic Rankine cycle (SORC), regenerative solar organic Rankine cycle (RORC), and dual-loop solar organic Rankine cycle (DORC), considering parameters such as the net power produced, exergy destruction, exergy, and energy efficiency in four zones located in Colombia due to their high solar irradiation potential. The energetic and exergetic balances were applied for each system component, using toluene as the working fluid. The RORC system showed a 2% increase in efficiency over the SORC, while the DORC cycle was lower than the SORC (45.85%) and RORC (46.90%) systems. Finally, for the exergy analysis, the results revealed that the SORC (5.3%) and RORC (5.2%) systems had the highest efficiency compared to DORC systems. Additionally, the highest exergy destruction (89%) was related to the collector, followed by the evaporators (1–2%), pumps (0.1%), and turbines (1.12%).

Keywords: energy efficiency; exergy destruction; flat-plate solar collector; thermal storage tank (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q Q0 Q4 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q47 Q48 Q49 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/6/2724/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/6/2724/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:6:p:2724-:d:1097428

Access Statistics for this article

Energies is currently edited by Ms. Agatha Cao

More articles in Energies from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().