Energy Conversion and Management 202 (2019) 112154

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

Development and techno-economic assessment of a new biomass-assisted T

integrated plant for multigeneration
Fatih Yilmaza, , Murat Ozturka, Resat Selbasb
⁎

a
Department of Mechatronic Engineering, Faculty of Technology, Isparta University of Applied Sciences, 32100 Isparta, Turkey
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Technology, Isparta University of Applied Sciences, 32100 Isparta, Turkey

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: In this paper, a novel renewable power-assisted multigeneration system is introduced for useful commodities
Biomass such as cooling, hydrogen, heating, drying, hot water, and power generations. The biomass energy is preferred as
Energy a renewable power source. The proposed plant is including the biomass gasifier unit, gas turbine cycle, Kalina
Exergy cycle, reverse osmosis unit, proton exchange membrane electrolyzer, absorption cooling cycle, dryer and heat
Efficiency
pump subsystem. The primary purpose of this paper is to analyze a biomass assisted combined plant in terms of
Multigeneration
thermodynamic and economic viewpoints. In this regard, the thermodynamic performance, exergy destruction
rate and economic examination are performed according to the various parameters. Results demonstrated that
the whole energy and exergy efficiencies of the examined plant are 63.84% and 59.26%, respectively.
Furthermore, the total irreversibility and hydrogen production rates are found as 53,406 kW and 0.072 kg/s. The
overall purchase cost rate of the suggested cycle is about 2000 $/s.

1. Introduction solution [6].

Energy usually performs an essential mission in the progress of
countries. Because of the many reasons such as the rise in human po-
pulation and expansion of industrial development, the energy demand
continues to increase day by day in the globe. However, currently, the
majority of energy demands are obtained from carbon-based fuels [1].
The utilization of fossil-based fuels as energy sources, which leads to
many environmental problems, such as climate change, air pollution,
global warming. Also, due to the limited availability of carbon-based
fuels and the above negative effects, the renewable energy sources will
take their place soon.
The major renewable power sources in use at the present are solar,
wind, geothermal, biomass, and hydropower [2]. Biomass is any or-
ganic matter including wood, crops, seaweed, animal wastes, also algae,
which can be utilized as a power resource. Biomass is derived from
living or dead material exist in the world [3]. In general, biomass ga-
sification is a thermochemical conversion of partial oxidation, which
converts biomass into gaseous for example as hydrogen, carbon mon-
oxide, carbon dioxide, methane, volatile hydrocarbons, and also small
amounts of tar and coal particles [4]. This gas product (called “bio-
syngas)) is utilized in situations such as energy production and the need
for heat [5]. Furthermore, the biomass gasification process can be
considered as promising and alternative to sustainable bioenergy
Moreover, energy challenges can be overcome by the more efficient
utilization of power sources. In this context, cogeneration, trigeneration
and multigeneration plants are becoming important to efficiently uti-
lization of energy resources and sustainable energy production [7,8].
The multigeneration system occurs as a result of the combination of
several sub-plants. A multigeneration power production system means
to a plant for various purposes comprising power, heating-cooling,
hydrogen, oxygen, freshwater and synthetic fuels with the same power
inlet [9].
There are several papers have been put forward in the literature
concerning multigeneration energy production systems. The energetic
and exergetic evaluation of solar-biomass based integrated process have
examined by Khalid et al. [8]. They computed that the whole energetic
and exergetic performances of the multigeneration process using bio-
mass and solar power are 66.5% and 39.7%.
Rashidi and Khorshidi [10] have reported the exergy assessment
and multiobjective optimization of the integrated system by using the
biomass gasification. They have investigated the energetic and ex-
ergetic assessment to determine the efficiency of the planned multi-
generation plant. According to their results, the optimization results are
compared, and the effectiveness of the investigated way is verified
utilizing different efficiency parameters. Also, the exergetic perfor-
mance and total cost rate of their proposed study are found as 0.31 and

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: fatihyilmaz@isparta.edu.tr (F. Yilmaz), muratozturk@isparta.edu.tr (M. Ozturk), resatselbas@isparta.edu.tr (R. Selbas).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.112154
Received 6 August 2019; Received in revised form 3 October 2019; Accepted 5 October 2019
Available online 24 October 2019
0196-8904/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. Yilmaz, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 202 (2019) 112154

Nomenclature E Exit
gen Generation
D Destruction ph Physical
E Energy rate (kW) ch Chemical
Ex Exergy rate (kW) cc Combustion chamber
F Faraday constant (C/mol) pt Potential
h Specific enthalpy (kJ/kg) kn Kinetical
hr Heat energy of gasification reaction (kcal/mol-coal) 0 Dead state conditions
J Current density (A/m2) en Energetic
m Mass flow rate (kg/s) ex Exergetic
P Pressure (kPa)
Q Heat transfer rate (kW) Acronyms
s Specific entropy (kJ/kgK)
T Temperature (oC, K) BC Brayton cycle (gas turbine cycle)
W Work rate (kW) BG Biomass gasifier
DC Dryer cycle
Greek letters DP Desalination process
HC Hydrogen compression
Energy efficiency HP Hydrogen production unit
Water amount in PEM electrolyzer HPC Heat pump cycle
Exergy efficiency KC Kalina cycle
Entrainment ratio MC Moisture content
Chemical exergy ratio SEAC Single effect absorption cooling cycle
WS Whole system
Subscripts

I Inlet

293.8 $/h, respectively.
Wang and Yang [11] have evaluated the thermodynamic and en-
vironmental examines of solar and biomass combined multigeneration
system for various applications. The multigeneration system consists of
combined cooling, heating and electricity production sub-cycles. Based
on the outputs of paper, under the design condition, the whole en-
ergetic and exergetic efficiencies of plant are computed as 57.9% and
16.1%. The thermodynamic performance assessment and economic
evaluation of solar-biomass combined Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC)
and Vapor Compression Cycle (VCC) have investigated by Karellas and
Braimakis [12]. In their system, the ORC turbine is connected to the
VCC compressor with the same shaft. They have calculated the exergy
efficiency for two models which are namely A (supported by biomass
and) and B (addition supported by solar) as 7.15% and 7.56%, re-
spectively. In addition, they stated that the energy and exergy perfor-
mances of the proposed plant slightly increased with the increase of
superheating temperature.
Sarkis and Zare [13] have performed the thermodynamic and eco-
nomic examination of novel three different configurations of hybrid
solar-biomass based electricity production plant. In the two proposed
systems, the biomass sources are gasified to produce syngas, and then
this synthesis gaseous are used in the gas turbine and Rankine cycle for
the system 1 and system 2, respectively. They calculated the energy and
exergy efficiencies to be 47.52% and 40.68% for the standard plant,
45.06% and 39.25% for system 1, 40.12% and 36.91% for system 2.
The electricity cost for the standard system has been calculated as 79.34
$/MWh. The developed and improved hybrid solar-biomass integrated
poly-generation plant for the cooling, desalination and power genera-
tion is examined by Sahoo et al. [14], and they are found that the en-
ergy outlet is improved to 78.12% from this process as contrasted with
the base system. Also, the have concluded that hybrid solar biomass
systems in the poly-generation power plants are ideal for industries.
Moharamian et al. [15] have displayed the advanced exergetic and
exergoeconomic assessments of biomass and natural gas-based system
for hydrogen production. They figure out that the energetic and ex-
ergetic performances decrease almost by 37% and 39%, the hydrogen
injection results in 67% less carbon-based source consumption. Also,
the exergoeconomic indicator and relative cost difference increases
with hydrogen injection in the combustor.
Soltani et al. [16] have investigated an advanced exergetic assess-
ment method for an external-fired integrated power plant cycle with
biomass component. They proposed that advanced exergy assessment is
superior to conventional analysis. Besides, they concluded that the
unavoidable part for irreversibility is higher than the avoidable value
for almost all constituents of the studied system. Ruiz et al. [17] have
analyzed the present technology obstacles of a biomass gasification for
electricity production. They have reviewed the gasification technology
in-depth and the main factors of designed parameters gasification
process. Furthermore, they stated that there are many critical features
in the plan and operation of a gasification unit. Also, they concluded
that moisture content above 15% stated that the syngas components
generated would make changes in the concentration. Another review
study is conducted by Sansaniwal et al. [18], and they are performed an
extensive review of recent development for biomass gasification tech-
nology. Based on their review study results, they have claimed that
biomass gasification is one of the most promising renewable power
conversion pathways especially for motor and thermal practices.
Safari and Dincer [19] have proposed the development and ex-
amination study of biomass-based multigeneration process for hydrogen
production. Their paper is designed for power, clean water, hydrogen
and hot water production, and also the whole energy and exergy per-
formances are 63.65% and 40%. Sevinchan and Dincer [20] have proven
the thermodynamic analyses of a biogas supported combined plant. They
have computed that the energetic and exergetic performances of the
multigeneration process, and also calculated the overall energy efficiency
is 72.5%, as well as the whole exergy efficiency is 30.44%. Roy et al. [21]
have analyzed the techno-economic and environmental analysis of bio-
mass supported power system integrated by the solid oxide fuel cell, gas
turbine, and Rankine cycle. The maximum energetic and exergetic effi-
ciencies of their paper are computed as 49.4% and 44.2%.
Moharramian et al. [22] have investigated the energy and ex-
ergoeconomic evaluations of solar supported biomass cofired plant.

2
F. Yilmaz, et al.
According to their study results, while the hydrogen injection does not
rise the efficiency, it decreasing the exergetic destruction by 0.24% and
the exergy destruction cost rate by 3.36%. The study of Soltani [23] has
discussed the exergetic and exergoeconomic assessments of biomass
post-fired multigeneration plant for hydrogen generation. According to
modified exergoeconomic analysis result shows that the maximum ir-
reversibility is seen in the Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HSRG)
component. Also, their analysis report results to show that increasing
the hydrogen injection rate in the combustor, the energy efficiency of
plant decreasing from 0.55 to about 0.4. Shahid et al. [24] have ana-
lyzed a comprehensive thermodynamic efficiency assessment of the
solar and biomass-based integrated plant including ammonia as a hy-
drogen carrier. They use a phase change material-based power storage
component to supply uninterrupted power to the plant in their pro-
posed system. In this study, the overall energetic and exergetic effi-
ciencies are calculated as 18.9% and 28.0%.
The study of Segurado et al.[25] examines the biomass gasification
assisted trigeneration system based on the techno-economic analysis. In
their proposed study, they initially reviewed relevant papers on the
utilization of biomass gasification in trigeneration and pollination
plants, and then presented a casework assessing the potential of bio-
mass gasification utilization of the trigeneration natural gas-fired
system in Lisbon. According to their study results, it emphasizes the
importance of such a system as an environmental perspective, however
the complexity of the system and the high investment costs. Hashemian
and Noorpoor [26] have discussed a thermodynamic, thermoeconomic
and exergoeconomic assessment of solar and biomass supported mul-
tigeneration plant. Furthermore, they are applied multi-criteria opti-
mization to determine the optimal design of the system. Their study
results indicate that energy and exergy performances, and also total
cost rate of the system are computed as 82.4%, 14% and 0.84 $/s, re-
spectively.
Previous papers in the literature show that the biomass-based
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of biomass-based multigeneration energy plant.
3
Energy Conversion and Management 202 (2019) 112154
multigeneration system is not much interested in economic evaluation
and that the outputs from proposed systems are limited. However, in
this proposed study, many useful generations such as power, hydrogen,
heating, cooling, clean water, and drying will be obtained from the
biomass multi-production system. Besides, it is generally known that
the hydrogen obtained in multiple production systems at gas phases,
which is known to be a storage problem. One of the main differences of
this proposed work is that it is designed to be stored under high pres-
sure by passing through the hydrogen compression unit produced in the
gas phase. Furthermore, another difference is that the Kalina cycle is
selected instead of the Rankine cycle.
Furthermore, as a result of the review in the literature, the efficiency
of multiple production systems varies according to the system design
and many parameters such as useful outputs obtained from the system.
Therefore, it is important to increase system efficiency by selecting
different designs in the studies.
The primary aim of this study is to examine the thermodynamic and
economic examinations of a new biomass-based assisted plant for
multigeneration. The examined study is designed to supply clean water,
hydrogen, electricity, and heating-cooling purposes, as well as proposes
some important insights into clean and sustainable energy productions.
At this point, the energy, exergy and economic evaluations of the
multigeneration plant are investigated. Also, developing and designing
a novel biomass combined plant for hydrogen generation is suggested.
Another aim of this paper is to evaluate the multiple generation system
economically. The novelty of this study is the production of hydrogen
by using the waste heat of biomass supported multigeneration plant and
storage of this hydrogen under pressure as well as clean water pro-
duction from seawater. Furthermore, the effect of some varying
working indicators such as dead state and gasifier temperatures on the
overall performance and cost rate of designed process and sub-systems
are studied, and some significant results are presented in graphical
forms and tables.
F. Yilmaz, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 202 (2019) 112154

2. Methodology 2.2. Thermodynamic examination

In this chapter, the designed integrated plant, working conditions, The thermodynamic examination of the combined plant is in-
and thermodynamic assessment are explained in detailed. A detailed vestigated by conducting quantitative energetic and exergetic analyses.
definition of the investigated multigeneration plant is provided, and it To give exhaustive thermodynamic assessment, the assumptions, pri-
is expected that multigeneration plants meet with power sustainable mary notions, method, and equalities are used to evaluate the multi-
development demands. generation system efficiency are defined, and also expressed. Generally,
this methodology such as thermodynamic assessment are widely used in
2.1. Multigeneration system description the various references [10,19,38,39]. Furthermore, the subsequent as-
sumptions are made for thermodynamic examination of biomass gasi-
In the current paper, a renewable energy supported multigeneration fication based integrated system;
plant is examined for various useful outputs, which is supported by
biomass energy. The suggested renewable energy-assisted combined • Pressure drops and heat transfer from piping to the environment are
cycle is seen in Fig. 1. It includes nine different sub-systems that namely disregarded.
Biomass Gasifier (BG), Gas Turbine Cycle (BC), Kalina Cycle (KC), • System components are well insulated, and therefore they are given
Single Effect Absorption Cooling System (SEAC), Heat Pump Cycle as adiabatic.
(HPC), Hydrogen Generation Unit (HP), Compressed Hydrogen Storage • Kinetic and potential energy and exergy changes are disregard.
Unit (HC), Dryer Cycle (DC) and Desalination Process (DP). First, re- • Dead state temperature and pressure are assumed as 20 °C and
newable power-based integrated system working design indicators are 101.3 kPa.
tabulated in Table 1. The main outputs of this study are heating, • Isentropic performance of Kalina turbine and pumps are taken as
cooling, hot water, electrical power, hydrogen production and storage, 86%.
drying and freshwater production with single renewable energy input. • The working fluids of the Kalina process and SEAC sub-system are
Firstly, biomass enters the biomass gasifier unit at point 1, then here the NH -H O and LiBr-H O, respectively.
3 2 2
biomass is converted into biogas, and then, produced biogas enters the • Effectiveness coefficient of HEXs is taken as 0.80.
combustor of the gas turbine cycle at point 8. After that, air entering at • Pinch point temperature difference of HEXs ( T ) is 6 °C. PP , HEX
point 9 and then it is compressed in the AC compressor and exits as
compressed air. The biogas from point 8 transfers its heat to the com- General mass, energetic, entropy, and exergetic equilibrium equal-
pressed air in the combustor. Then, the compressed air is sent to the gas ities are presented in this sub-section, according to thermodynamic 1st
turbine of the BC at a temperature of 780 °C and pressure of 506.5 kPa and 2nd laws.
at point 11, where power is produced with gas turbine. Some of the The mass balance equation can be defined as;
electricity produced by gas turbine is utilized for the generation of
hydrogen in PEM electrolysis. mi = me (1)
Secondly, the exhaust gas from the gas turbine goes to HEX3, gen-
erator and HEX5 respectively. The exhaust gaseous enters the HEX3 and where m are the mass flow rate, subscripts i and e show the input and
then transfers part of its heat energy to the Kalina cycle, which works output. The energetic balance equality can be defined as follows [40];
with ammonia-water (NH3-H2O). The Kalina cycle is generally similar
to that of the modified Rankine cycle. However, unlike the Rankine
cycle, it operates in lower temperature applications. The Kalina cycle Table 1
including the regenerator, HEX, separator, expander, evaporator, Different required input indicators of the proposed plant.
ejector, mixer and condenser and two expansion valves. A schematic Parameters Values Reference
representation of ejector used in the Kalina cycle is shown in Fig. 2
[33]. This proposed Kalina cycle is integrated into the ejector cooling Dead state conditions, T0 and P0 25 °C and
101.325 kPa
subcycle to achieve both power and cooling outputs at the same time.
Isentropic efficiency of pumps, P 0.85
Thirdly, the exhaust gas from HEX3 enters the generator of the Mass flow rate of biomass fuel, m1 5.72 kg/s
SEAC sub-plant at point 13 and transfers the heat energy required for Biomass gasifier temperature, T3 888 °C [27]
the work of this system. The exhaust gas enters the generator at 118 °C. Biomass gasifier pressure, P3 101.3 kPa [27]
Lithium-bromide water (LiBr-H2O) pair has been chosen as a working Isentropic efficiency of air compressor, AC 0.85 [28]
fluid in the SEAC system. Heating and cooling processes take place in Compression ratio of air compressor, CP, AC 6 [29]
Isentropic efficiency of combustion 0.98 [19]
the condenser and evaporator parts of this sub-system. The SEAC cycle
chamber, CC
comprises the generator, condenser, evaporator, two expansion valves, Isentropic efficiency of gas turbine, GT 0.86 [19]
HEX, and absorber. Afterward, the exhaust gas enters in HEX5 at point Gas turbine inlet temperature, T11 780 °C
14 and evaporator3 respectively, and then at 54 °C is thrown to the Gas turbine inlet pressure, P11 506.6 kPa
environment at point 16. The HP system includes the evaporator, Operating temperature of Reverse osmosis 45 °C [30]
compressor, expansion valve and condenser, and which operates with unit, TFWPS
Membrane recovery ratio 60% [31]
R123 working fluid. Salinity of seawater 35,000 PPM (base
On the other, finally, the saline water entering from point 17 passes case)
through various processes as seen in Fig. 1, and exits as freshwater at Salinity of produced water 0.5 PPM
point 28. Saline water entering at point 22 is separated with RO module Salt rejection ratio of membrane 99.6% [32]
NH3 concentration at expander outlet, X 42 99.97% [33]
and brine exits at point 23. The produced fresh water at point 29, with
NH3 concentration at HEX3 outlet, X 40 15% [33]
the temperature of 80 °C at 110 kPa pressure, enters the Proton Ex- Expander inlet temperature, T41 190 °C
change Membrane (PEM) electrolyzer, and then it decomposes into the Expander inlet pressure, P41 1750 kPa
hydrogen and oxygen molecules. The gaseous form of hydrogen is Evaporator exit temperature, T47 10 °C
compressed, and then enters the hydrogen storage component at flow Dryer hot air inlet temperature, T76 88 °C
Inlet temperature of SEAC generator, T13 118 °C
31. Then enters the intercooler 1 and intercooler 2 processes respec-
Inlet temperature of HP evaporator, T15 76 °C
tively and re-enters the HC2 at point 33. Also, the design indicators of Exhaust gaseous temperature, T16 54 °C
compressed hydrogen storage tank are written in Table 2.

4
F. Yilmaz, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 202 (2019) 112154

Based on the given above procedure, the balance equations of the

integrated system are given in Table 3.

2.2.1. Biomass gasifier

Fig. 2. Schematic profile of ejector sub-system (modified from [33]).
In this paper, the demolition wood is chosen as biomass resources,
and its composition analysis is made according to Table 4 values. The
chemical composition and Higher Heating Value (HHV) of demolition
wood based on the ultimate assessment is written in Table 4. The
equation of gasification reaction for biomass gasifier should be ex-
pressed as;

CHm On + O2 + H2 O H2 + CO + CO2 + CH4 + C2 H4 + C2

Table 2
Design parameters of compressed hydrogen storage tank.
H6 + CH m' On' (12)

Design parameters Values The chemical exergy of biomass source can be specified as below;

Compressed hydrogen temperature, Tchst 80 °C

ch
Exbiomass = LHVbiomass (13)
Exit pressure from hydrogen compressor 1, P32 500 kPa[34]
Compressed hydrogen pressure, Pchst 2500 kPa [34]
where show ratio of chemical exergy of biomass organic reaction
Compression ratio of hydrogen compressor1, CP, HC1 5 [35] [45], and can be expressed as follows;
Compression ratio of hydrogen compressor2, CP, HC 2 15 [35]
Compressed hydrogen mass flow rate, m35 0.00798 kg/s
=
1.044 + 0.016 C
H O
(
0.34493 C 1 + 0.0531 C
H
)
Compressing time, tct 3 min [36] O
Volume of compressed hydrogen storage tank, Vchst 0.065 m3 [37]
1 0.4124 C (14)
Mass capacity of compressed hydrogen storage tank, Mchst 1.56 kg [37]
In Eq. (13), LHVbiomass is Lower Heating Value (LHV) of biomass, and
should be computed as [46];
LHVbiomass = (1 MC ) HHVbiomass E w (HCm H2 O ) Ew MC (15)
mi h i + Qi + Wi = me h e + Qe + We (2)
Here MC is moisture content, and is defined as follows;
where Q , W and h show heat transfer and work rate, and the specific
18w
enthalpy, respectively. Entropy balance equation is MC = x100%
25.93 + 18w (16)
Qcv
mi si + + Sgen = me se In Eq. (15), HC is hydrogen content, E w is energy required for water
To (3)
evaporation (~2.26 MJ/kg), and HHVbiomass is higher heating value of
where s and Sgen shows specific entropy and entropy generation rate. biomass, and should be given as [47];
The steady-state and flow exergy balance equality is defined as HHVbiomass = 0.3491z C + 1.1783zH 0.1034z O 0.0151zN + 0.1005z S 0.0211z A
[40–42];
(17)
mi exi + Ex iQ + Ex iW = me ex e + ExeQ + ExeW + ExD Here z C , zH , z O , zN , z S and z A are percentage mass of carbon, hy-
(4) drogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur and ash in biomass sources.
To calculate the synthesis gas composition, elemental balance
The heat transfer and work exergy flow rates are
equalities for C, H and O in Eq. (12) should be written as given below:
To
ExQ = 1 Q 1= + + +2 +2 + (18)
T (5)

ExW = W (6) m + 2 = 2 + 4 + 4 + 6 + m' (19)

The exergy destruction rate, which is indicated as ExD in the given n+2 + = + 2 + n' (20)
exergetic balance equality;
Also, the total moles of generated gaseous mixture is
ExD = T0 Sgen (7)
= + + + + + (21)
The specific flow exergy should be given as;
If the concentrations of H2, CO, CO2, CH4, C2H4, and C2H6 (dry and
Ex flow = (mi ex i) (8) N2 free) are defined by using p, q, r, s, t, and u, the mole numbers of
produced gaseous mixture are
Furthermore, the specific flow exergy also can be written as below;
H2; =p (22)
ex = exph + ex ch + ex pt + exkn (9)
CO; =q (23)
Here, ex ph , ex ch , ex pt and exkn denotes the physical, chemical, po-
tential, and kinetic exergies. The kinetic and potential are disregard in CO2 ; =r (24)
this paper, and then the specific physical exergy is
CH4; =s (25)
ex ph = h ho To (s so) (10)
C2 H4; =t (26)
The chemical exergy is the section of flow exergy that is formed by a
system including a heat transfer and exchange of ingredients with the C2 H6; =u (27)
surroundings to bring the ingredient to the reference conditions [41].
The chemical exergy of ideal gas mixture is [43]; =v (28)
ch
ex mix = yi ex ich + RTo yi lnyi The reference condition is very important to define the reaction
(11)
mechanism.

5
 Table 3
Balance equations of biomass gasification based integrated system.
Components Mass balance Energy balance Entropy balance Exergy balance
F. Yilmaz, et al.

Biomass gasifier m1 + m5 = m2 + m3 m1 h1 + m5 h5 = m2 h2 + m3 h3 + QL, BG m1 s1 + m5 s5 + Sgen, BG = m2 s2 + m3 s3 + QL,BG /TBG m1 ex1 + m5 ex5 = m2 ex2 + m3 ex3 + ExLQ,BG + ExD, BG
HEX1 m3 = m6m4 = m5 m3 h3 + m 4 h4 = m5 h5 + m6 h 6 m3 s3 + m 4 s4 + Sgen, HEX 1 = m5 s5 + m6 s6 m3 ex3 + m 4 ex 4 = m5 ex5 + m6 ex 6 + ExD, HEX 1
Syngas storage m6 = m7 m6 h6 + QL, SS = m7 h7 m6 s6 + QL, SS /TSS + Sgen, SS = m7 s7 m6 ex 6 + ExLQ, SS = m7 ex7 + ExD, SS
HEX2 m7 = m8m28 = m29 m7 h7 + m28 h28 = m8 h8 + m29 h29 m7 s7 + m28 s28 + Sgen, HEX 2 = m8 s8 + m29 s29 m7 ex7 + m28 ex28 = m8 ex 8 + m29 ex29 + ExD, HEX 2
Air Compressor m9 = m10 m9 h 9 + WAC = m10 h10 m9 s9 + Sgen,AC = m10 s10 m9 ex 9 + WAC = m10 ex10 + ExD,AC
Combustion chamber m8 + m10 + m30 = m11 m8 h8 + m10 h10 + m30 h30 = m11 h11 + QL,cc m8 s8 + m10 s10 + m30 s30 + Sgen, CC = m11 s11 + QL, CC / TCC m8 ex 8 + m10 ex10 + m30 ex30 = m11 ex11 + ExLQ, cc + ExD,CC
Gas turbine m11 = m12 m11 h11 = m12 h12 + WGT m11 s11 + Sgen, GT = m12 s12 m11 ex11 = m12 ex12 + WGT + ExD, GT
Pump1 m17 = m18 m17 h17 + WP1 = m18 h18 m17 s17 + Sgen, P1 = m18 s18 m17 ex17 + WP1 = m18 ex18 + ExD, P1
Filter m18 = m19 m18 h18 = m19 h19 m18 s18 + Sgen, Fl = m19 s19 m18 ex18 = m19 ex19 + ExD, Fl
3-Way Valve1 m19 = m20 + m25 m19 h19 = m20 h20 + m25 h25 m19 s19 + Sgen,3WV 1 = m20 s20 + m25 s25 m19 ex19 = m20 ex20 + m25 ex25 + ExD,3WV 1
Chemical pretreatment m20 = m21 m20 h20 + QL, CP = m21 h21 m20 s20 + QL, CP /TCP + Sgen,CP = m21 s21 m20 ex20 + ExLQ, CP = m21 ex21 + ExD,CP
TV1 m25 = m26 m25 h25 = m26 h26 m25 s25 + Sgen, TV 1 = m26 s26 m25 ex25 = m26 ex26 + ExD, TV 1
Pump2 m21 = m22 m21 h21 + WP 2 = m22 h22 m21 s21 + Sgen, P 2 = m22 s22 m21 ex21 + WP2 = m22 ex22 + ExD,P 2
RO module m22 = m23 + m24 m22 h22 = m23 h23 + m24 h24 m22 s22 + Sgen,ROM = m23 s23 + m24 s24 m22 ex22 = m23 ex23 + m24 ex24 + ExD,ROM
Mixing chamber m24 + m26 = m27 m24 h24 + m26 h26 = m27 h27 m24 s24 + m26 s26 + Sgen, MC = m27 s27 m24 ex24 + m26 ex26 = m27 ex27 + ExD,MC
TV2 m27 = m28 m27 h27 = m28 h28 m27 s27 + Sgen,TV 2 = m28 s28 m27 ex27 = m28 ex28 + ExD, TV 2
PEM electrolyzer m29 = m30 + m31 m29 h29 + WPEM = m30 h30 + m31 h31 m29 s29 + Sgen, PEM = m30 s30 + m31 s31 m29 ex29 + WPEM = m30 ex30 + m31 ex31 + ExD,PEM
Hydrogen compressor1 m31 = m32 m31 h31 + WHC1 = m32 h32 m31 s31 + Sgen, HC1 = m32 s32 m31 ex31 + WHC1 = m32 ex32 + ExD, HC1
Intercooler1 m32 = m33m36 = m37 m32 h32 + m36 h36 = m33 h33 + m37 h37 m32 s32 + m36 s36 + Sgen, intc1 = m33 s33 + m37 s37 m32 ex32 + m36 ex36 = m33 ex33 + m37 ex37 + ExD, intc1

6
Hydrogen compressor2 m33 = m34 m33 h33 + WHC 2 = m34 h34 m33 s33 + Sgen, HC 2 = m34 s34 m33 ex33 + WHC 2 = m34 ex34 + ExD, HC 2
Intercooler2 m34 = m35m38 = m39 m34 h34 + m38 h38 = m35 h35 + m39 h39 m34 s34 + m38 s38 + Sgen, intc2 = m35 s35 + m39 s39 m34 ex34 + m38 ex38 = m35 ex35 + m39 ex39 + ExD, intc 2
HEX3 m12 = m13m40 = m54 m12 h12 + m54 h54 = m13 h13 + m 40 h 40 m12 s12 + m54 s54 + Sgen,HEX 3 = m13 s13 + m 40 s40 m12 ex12 + m54 ex54 = m13 ex13 + m 40 ex 40 + ExD, HEX 3
Separator m40 = m 41 + m 43 m40 h40 = m 41 h 41 + m 43 h43 m40 s40 + Sgen, Sep = m 41 s41 + m 43 s43 m40 ex 40 = m 41 ex 41 + m 43 ex 43 + ExD, Sep
Expander m41 = m 42 m41 h41 = m 42 h 42 + WEp m41 s41 + Sgen, Ep = m 42 s42 m41 ex 41 = m 42 ex 42 + WEp + ExD,Ep
Ejector m42 + m 47 = m 48 m42 h42 + m 47 h47 = m 48 h48 m42 s42 + m 47 s47 + Sgen, Ej = m 48 s48 m42 ex 42 + m 47 ex 47 = m 48 ex 48 + ExD, Ej
Regenerator m43 = m 44m53 = m54 m43 h43 + m53 h53 = m 44 h44 + m54 h54 m43 s43 + m53 s53 + Sgen,Reg = m 44 s44 + m54 s54 m43 ex 43 + m53 ex53 = m 44 ex 44 + m54 ex54 + ExD, Reg
3-Way Valve2 m44 = m 45 + m 49 m44 h 44 = m 45 h 45 + m 49 h 49 m44 s44 + Sgen,3WV 2 = m 45 s45 + m 49 s49 m44 ex 44 = m 45 ex 45 + m 49 ex 49 + ExD,3WV 2
Expansion valve1 m45 = m 46 m45 h45 = m 46 h46 m45 s45 + Sgen, EV 1 = m 46 s46 m45 ex 45 = m 46 ex 46 + ExD, EV 1
Evaporator1 m46 = m 47m55 = m56 m46 h 46 + m55 h55 = m 47 h 47 + m56 h56 m46 s46 + m55 s55 + Sgen,Eva1 = m 47 s47 + m56 s56 m46 ex 46 + m55 ex55 = m 47 ex 47 + m56 ex56 + ExD, Eva1
Expansion valve2 m49 = m50 m49 h 49 = m50 h50 m49 s49 + Sgen, EV 2 = m50 s50 m49 ex 49 = m50 ex50 + ExD,EV 2
Mixer m48 + m50 = m51 m48 h48 + m50 h50 = m51 h51 m48 s48 + m50 s50 + Sgen,Mix = m51 s51 m48 ex 48 + m50 ex50 = m51 ex51 + ExD,Mix
Condenser1 m51 = m52m57 = m58 m51 h51 + m57 h57 = m52 h52 + m58 h58 m51 s51 + m57 s57 + Sgen, Con1 = m52 s52 + m58 s58 m51 ex51 + m57 ex57 = m52 ex52 + m58 ex58 + ExD, Con1
Pump3 m52 = m53 m52 h52 + WP3 = m53 h53 m52 s52 + Sgen, P3 = m53 s53 m52 ex52 + WP3 = m53 ex53 + ExD, P3
Generator m13 = m14m61 = m62 + m65 m13 h13 + m61 h61 = m14 h14 + m62 h 62 + m65 h 65 m13 s13 + m61 s61 + Sgen,Gn = m14 s14 + m62 s62 + m65 s65 m13 ex13 + m61 ex 61 = m14 h14 + m62 ex 62 + m65 ex 65 + ExD, Gn
Condenser2 m65 = m66m69 = m70 m65 h65 + m69 h69 = m66 h 66 + m70 h70 m65 s65 + m69 s69 + Sgen, Con2 = m66 s66 + m70 s70 m65 ex 65 + m69 ex 69 = m66 ex 66 + m70 ex70 + ExD, Con2
Expansion valve3 m66 = m67 m66 h 66 = m67 h 67 m66 s66 + Sgen, EV 3 = m67 s67 m66 ex 66 = m67 ex 67 + ExD, EV 3
Evaporator2 m67 = m68m71 = m72 m67 h67 + m71 h71 = m68 h68 + m72 h72 m67 s67 + m71 s71 + Sgen, Eva2 = m68 s68 + m72 s72 m67 ex 67 + m71 ex71 = m68 ex 68 + m72 ex72 + ExD, Eva2
Absorber m73 = m74 m64 + m68 = m59 m64 h 64 + m68 h 68 + m73 h73 = m59 h59 + m74 h74 m64 s64 + m68 s68 + m73 s73 + Sgen,Abs = m59 s59 + m74 s74 m64 ex 64 + m68 ex 68 + m73 ex73 = m59 ex59 + m74 ex74 + ExD, Abs
Pump4 m59 = m60 m59 h59 + WP 4 = m60 h60 m59 s59 + Sgen,P 4 = m60 s60 m59 ex59 + WP 4 = m60 ex 60 + ExD, P 4
Expansion valve4 m55 = m56 m55 h55 = m56 h56 m55 s55 + Sgen,EV _IV = m56 s56 m55 ex55 = m56 ex56 + ExD, EV _IV
HEX4 m60 = m61m62 = m63 m60 h60 + m62 h 62 = m61 h 61 + m63 h63 m60 s60 + m62 s62 + Sgen, HEX 4 = m61 s61 + m63 s63 m60 ex 60 + m62 ex 62 = m61 ex 61 + m63 ex 63 + ExD, HEX 4
HEX5 m14 = m15m75 = m76 m14 h14 + m75 h75 = m15 h15 + m76 h76 m14 s14 + m75 s75 + Sgen,HEX 5 = m15 s15 + m76 s76 m14 ex14 + m75 ex75 = m15 ex15 + m76 ex76 + ExD, HEX 5
Energy Conversion and Management 202 (2019) 112154

(continued on next page)

F. Yilmaz, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 202 (2019) 112154

Table 4
Composition of demolition wood based on ultimate analysis (%dry
fuel) [44].

m83 ex 83 + m84 ex 84 = m80 ex 80 + m85 ex 85 + ExD, Con3

m15 ex15 + m81 ex 81 = m16 ex16 + m82 ex 82 + ExD, Eva3
Substance Value (% by weight)
m76 ex76 + m78 ex78 = m77 ex77 + m79 ex79 + ExD, Dr

MC (% wet biomass) 15
HHVbiomass (MJ/kg) 18.68
1.133
m82 ex82 + Wcom = m83 ex83 + ExD,com

C 46.30
H 5.39
m80 ex 80 = m81 ex 81 + ExD, EV 5

O 34.45
N 0.57
S 0.12
Tar 13.12
Exergy balance

CHm On + 0.5(1 n ) O2 0.5mH2 + CO (29)

= 0.5(1 n) + Oex (30)

In the Oex > 0 state when the z mole of CH4 is formed, the for-
mulation should be defined as:

CHm On + {0.5(1 n) + Oex } O2 + (y x z ) H2 O

m76 s76 + m78 s78 + Sgen, HEX _Dr = m77 s77 + m79 s79

m83 s83 + m84 s84 + Sgen, Con3 = m80 s80 + m85 s85
m15 s15 + m81 s81 + Sgen,Eva3 = m16 s16 + m82 s82

(0.5m + y x 3z ) H2 + (1 2Oex y+x z) C

O + (2Oex + y x ) CO2 + zCH4 (31)
In the Oex < 0 state, the formulation should be written as:

CHm On + {0.5(1 n) + Oex } O2 + ( 2Oex + y z ) H2 O

m80 s80 + Sgen, EV 5 = m81 s81
m82 s82 + Sgen,com = m83 s83

(0.5m 2Oex + y 3z ) H2 + (1 y z ) CO + yCO2 + zCH4

(32)
Entropy balance

Based on the two formulations defined above, the formerly de-

scribed coefficients of each element should be described numerically as
given in Table 5.

2.2.2. Air compressor

Air at the dead state temperature and pressure (To , Po ) inlets to the
air compressor component of the Brayton Cycle for utilizing in com-
bustor. The outlet temperature of air should be written as:
m83 h83 + m84 h84 = m80 h80 + m85 h85

a 1
m76 h76 + m78 h78 = m77 h77 + m79 h79

1
m15 h15 + m81 h81 = m16 h16 + m82 h82

T10 = T9 1 + rACa 1
AC (33)
where AC is compressor isentropic efficiency, rAC and a are compressor
m82 h82 + Wcom = m83 h83

pressure and specific heat ratio. The work rate of air compressor is
m80 h80 = m81 h81

Wac = m9 Cp, a (T10 T9) (34)

Energy balance

where Cp, a is specific heat of air and can be calculated as follows [48];
3.83T 9.45T 2 5.49T 3 7.92T 4
Cp, a = 1.048 + +
10 4 107 1010 1014 (35)

2.2.3. Combustion chamber

As given in Fig. 1, the combustion reactions occur in the combustor.
m80 = m83m84 = m85
m76 = m77m78 = m79
m15 = m16m81 = m82

The energetic balance equality of current combustion chamber should

be written as;
Mass balance

m80 = m81
m82 = m83

m8 LHVSyngas + m10 h10 + m30 h30 = m11 h11 + (1 cc ) m8 LHVsyngas + QL, cc

(36)
where LHVsyngas is syngas LHV, and also cc is combustion chamber
performance. The equation of combustion reaction in the combustion
chamber is;
Table 3 (continued)

Expansion valve5

aCH4 + (x O2 O2 + x N2 N2 + x H2 O H2 O + x CO2 CO2) (

(1 + a) yCO2
Components

Evaporator3

)
Condenser3
Compressor

CO2 + yN2 N2 + yO2 O2 + yH2 O H2 O (37)

Dryer

where x O2 , x N2 , x H2 O and x CO2 are mole fractions of O2 , N2 , H2 O and CO2

as inlet molecules to the combustion chamber, respectively. The mole

7
F. Yilmaz, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 202 (2019) 112154

Table 5
Coefficients of all elements in gasifier sub-system based on the Oex value.
Oex 0 Oex 0

0.5(1 n) + Oex 0.5(1 n) + Oex

y x z 2w 2u (1 n' ) v 2Oex + y z 2w 2u (1 n') v
0.5m + y x 3z 4w 5u {(1 n') + 0.5m'} v 0.5m 2Oex + y 4w 5u {(1 n') + 0.5m'} v
1 2Oex y + x z 2w 2u v 1 y z 2w 2u v
2Oex + y x y
Z z
w w
u u
v v

fractions of O2 , N2 , H2 O and CO2 as outlet molecules can be defined by The maximum hydrogen and oxygen producing are
the following formulas, respectively.
NH2 = J /2F = NH2 O (51)
(x O2 2a)
yO2 =
(1 + a) (38) NO2 = J /4F (52)
x N2 where J shows current density, F indicates Faraday constant and NH2 O
yN2 =
(1 + a) (39) is water consuming rate. The input electrical power of electrolyzer can
be obtained as;
(x H2 O + 2a)
yH2 O = Eelec = Jv (53)
(1 + a) (40)

(x CO2 + a) where v is cell potential, and equal to;

yCO2 =
(1 + a) (41) = o + act , a + act , c + ohm (54)

nfuel Here, o is reversible potential and can be calculated as follows [15];

a=
nair (42) vo = 1.229 8.5x10 4 (TPEM _elc T0) (55)
where a is fuel to air ratio. The total lost heat from combustion chamber where TPEM _elc is PEM electrolyzer temperature. Also, act , a and act , c
can be calculated as given below [49]; show activation potential of anode and cathode of the electrolyzer, and
QL, cc = 0.02aLHVsyngas (43) ohm demonstrate electrolyte ohmic potential and can be calculated as

vohm = JR (56)
2.2.4. Gas turbine where R is overall ohmic resistance.
The exit temperature of GT should be defined as following;
D dx
R=
1 g 0 PEM [ (x )] (57)
P11 g
T12 = T11 1 1
GT
P12 where D is electrolyzer thickness, PEM [ (x )] show local ionic PEM
(44) conductivity.
where GT is gas turbine isentropic performance, and g is gas turbine 1 1
pressure ratio. The Brayton cycle power output should be calculated as PEM [ (x )] = [0.5139 (x ) 0.326] exp 1268
303 T (58)
follows;
where (x ) is water amount in PEM electrolyzer [50].
Wgt = m10 Cp, g (T10 T11) (45)
a c
Here Cp, g can be given as a function of temperature as (x ) = x+
D
c
(59)

Cp, g = 0.991
6.99T
+
2.712T 2 1.2244T 3 where a and c are amount of water at anode and cathode mem-
105 107 1010 (46) brane interface. The electrolyzer activation potential is [51,52]
Also, the net electricity outlet from gas turbine is computed as RT 1 J
below; vact , i = sinh , i = anode , cathode
F 2Jo, i (60)
Wnet , GT = Wgt Wac (47)
zFvact , i (1 ) zFvact , i
J = Jo, i exp exp , i = anode , cathode
RT RT
2.2.5. Proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolyzer
(61)
The chemical reaction of electrolyzer should be explained as;
H2 O(liq) H2(gas) + 0.5O2(gas) Eact , i
(48) Jo, i = Jiref exp , i = anode , cathode
RT (62)
where subscripts liq and gas are the liquid and gas phases. The chemical
reactions of anode and cathode of electrolyzer are written as; where Jo is exchange current density, is charge transfer factor, and
also is equal to 0.5. z is count of electrons included per water splitting
H2 O(liq) 0.5O2(gas) + H(+aq) + 2e (49) reactions, and must be equal to 2 for PEM electrolyzer. Jiref shows pre-
exponential indicator and Eact , i indicates activation energy. The design
H(+aq) + 2e 2H2 (50) indicators utilized for PEM electrolyzer are given in Table 6.

8
F. Yilmaz, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 202 (2019) 112154

Table 6 expressed as;

The working parameters of PEM electrolyzer [53].
m47
=
Working parameters Values m42 (69)
PEM electrolyzer inlet temperature, T29 80 °C where is entrainment ratio. The momentum equality of mixing
PEM electrolyzer inlet pressure, P29 110 kPa chamber is
Activation power of anode, Eact, a 76 kJ/mol
Activation power of cathode, Eact, c 18 kJ/mol m42 V42, nz e + m47 V47, nz e = (m42 + m47 ) V48, mci (70)
Amount of water at anode, a 14
Amount of water at cathode, c 10 The secondary flow velocity of the nozzle part is very low when
Electrolyzer thickness, D 100 μm compared to the primary flow velocity. Therefore, V47, nz e can be negli-
Pre-exponential indicator of anode, Jaref 1.7x 105 A/m2 gible, and inlet velocity of the mixing chamber can be defined as flows;
pre-exponential indicator of cathode, Jcref 4.6x103 A/m2
V42, nz e mc
Faraday's constant, F 96,486C/mol V48, mci =
1+ (71)
where mc is mixing chamber efficiency, and is taken from [54] as 0.9.
In Eq. (68), the mixing chamber inlet enthalpy can be expressed as
2.2.6. Compressed hydrogen storage tank follows;
The physical exergy of produced hydrogen mass flow plus the initial 2
h42, nzi + h47, nz e V48,
exergy amount of compressed hydrogen storage tank equals the total h48, mci =
mci

amount of exergy for compressed hydrogen in the storage tank plus the 1+ 2 (72)
exergy destruction during the compressing cycle. Based on this defini- The kinetic energy of working fluid at point 48 in the diffuser part of
tion, the exergy balance equality of compressed hydrogen storage tank the ejector is converted to the pressure increase. Assuming the exit
can be defined as; velocity of diffuser to be negligible and considering diffuser perfor-
(m35 xtct ) ex35 + m H2, f ex ie, f = m H2,l ex ie, l + ExD, chst (63) mance, the energy equation of diffuser is written as
2
Here, tct is compressing time, m H2, f and m H2, l are mass of hydrogen in V48, mce
m48 h 48, mce + = m48 h48, dce
the compressed hydrogen storage tank at first time interval and each 2 (73)
time interval, ex ie, f and ex ie, l are initial exergy of compressed hydrogen
storage tank at first time interval and each time interval, and ExD, chst is where h48, dce is diffuser chamber exit enthalpy, and can be calculated as
exergy destruction of compressed hydrogen storage tank. Also, ex ie, f and follows;
ex ie, l can be defined respectively as follows; (h48, dci h48, mce )
h48, dce = h48, mce +
ex ie, f = (uie, f uo ) To (sie, f so) + Po (vie, f vo) (64) dc (74)
and where h48, dci is ideal exit enthalpy from diffuser chamber, and dc is
efficiency of diffuser chamber, and also taken from [54].
ex ie, l = (uie, l uo ) To (sie, l so) + Po (vie, l vo) (65)
Here, uie, f and uie, l are internal power of compressed hydrogen in the 2.2.8. Energy efficiency analysis
storage tank at the first-time interval and each time interval. vie, f and The general energy efficiency of any thermodynamic plant should
vie, l are specific volume of hydrogen in the storage tank at first-time be presented as below;
interval and each time interval.
usefuloutputenergy energyloss
= =1
2.2.7. Ejector inputenergy inputenergy (75)
The nozzle, mixing chamber and diffuser chamber of the ejector The energy efficiency equalities of sub-systems and whole plant are
sub-system are above mentioned in Fig. 2 based on the literature [33]. defined as given below;
As given in this figure, the primary and secondary flows enter the Biomass gasifier sub-system;
nozzle part of the ejector at points 42 and 47, respectively. If the inlet
velocities of primary flow and secondary flow are chosen as negligible, m 7 LHVSyngas
=
the energetic performance equation of nozzle can be written as;
BG
m1 LHVBio + m5 h5 (76)
2
V42, nz e
2
V47, nz e
Brayton cycle sub-system;
m42 h42, nzi + m47 h47, nzi = m42 h42, nz e + + m47 h47, nz e +
2 2 WGT
BC =
(66) m8 LHVsyngas + m30 LHVO2 + WAC (77)
where nz i and nz e are nozzle inlet and outlet conditions, respectively, Desalination process;
and V42,
2
n e is exit velocity of nuzzle primary flow, and is defined as flows;
m28 h28
h 42, nz e )]0.5 =
V42, nze = [2 nz (h 42, nzi (67) DP
m17 h17 + WP1 + WP 2 (78)
where nz is nozzle efficiency. The energetic balance equation of mixing Hydrogen production sub-system;
chamber is
m31 LHVH2
2 2 2 =
V42, nz e V47, nz e V48, mci
HP
m29 h29 + WPEM (79)
m42 h42, nz e + + m47 h 47, nz e + = m48 h48, mci +
2 2 2
Hydrogen compression sub-system;
(68) m H2, l enie, l
where the subscript mci is mixing chamber inlet condition, V48, =
mci is
2 HC
(m35 xtct ) en35 + m H2, f enie, f (80)
mixing chamber inlet velocity, and also to define this velocity the en-
trainment ratio and mixing chamber momentum equation should be Kalina sub-system;

9
F. Yilmaz, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 202 (2019) 112154

WExp + QCW + QHW Table 7

= Financial parameters of the cost analysis.
(81)
Kalina
m12 (h12 h13) + WP3
Financial parameters Values
SEAC sub-system;
Interest rate, i 6%
QC, SEAC + QH , SEAC
= Maintenance factor, 1.09
(82)
SEAC
m13 (h13 h14) + WP 4 Equipment life span, n 20 years
Annual operating hours, N 7000 h
Dryer cycle;

QDryer
= Table 8
DC
m76 (h76 h 77 ) (83)
Cost equations of integrated plant components [29,55–59].
Heat pump sub-system; Components Cost equalities

QH , HP Biomass gasifier
= ZBG = 2.9x106 (3.6xmbiomass )0.7
(84)
HP
m15 (h15 h16) + Wcom Air compressor ZAC = (75mwf /0.9 AC )(Pe / Pi ) ln (Pe / Pi )
Expander ZEp = (1536mwf /0.92 Ep ) ln (Pi / Pe )[1 + exp (0.036Ti 54.4)]
Whole system;
Evaporator ZEva = 16000x (AEva /100)0.6
WGT + m31 LHVH2 + WExp + QCW + QHW + QC , SEAC + QH , SEAC Condenser ZCon = 8000x (ACon /100)0.6
Absorber ZAbs = 16500x (AAbs /100)0.6
+ QDryer + Q H , HP Generator
= ZGen = 17500x (AGen /100)0.6
WS
m1 LHVBio + Wp + WAC HEX ZHEX = 390x (AHEX /0.093)0.78
Dryer ZDr = 130x (ADr /0.093)0.78
(85)
Pump ZP = 549.13WP
0.71
x 1.41[1 + (0.2/1 P )]
The energetic COP of SEAC sub-plant can be written as; Hydrogen ZHC = (75m H2 /0.9 HC )(Pe / Pi ) ln (Pe / Pi )
compressor
QEva2
COPen, SEAC = Intercooler ZIntC = 130x (AIntC /0.093)0.78
QGn + WP 4 (86) Mixing chamber ZMC = 130x (AMC /0.093)0.78
Mixer ZMix = 130x (AMix /0.093)0.78
The energetic COP of heat pump sub-plant are written as;
Regenerator ZReg = 390x (AReg /0.093)0.78
QEva3 Chemical ZCP = 260x (ACP /0.093)0.78
COPen, HP =
QCon1 + Wcom (87) pretreatment
RO module 3
ZDr = 0.98mSW
Combustion 46.08mf
ZCC = [1 + exp (0.018T 26.4)]
2.2.9. Exergy efficiency analysis chamber 0.995 (Pout / Pin )
Gas turbine
The general exergetic efficiency equalities for steady-state condi- ZGT =
479.34mg ln (Pin / Pout )[1 + exp (0.036T + 273.15) 54.4]
0.92 GT
tions should be written as given below; PEM electrolyzer ZPEM = 1000WPEM
useful output exergy exergy loss Syngas storage 0.506
ZSS = 3651V SS
= =1 Expansion valve ZEV = 37(Pin/ Pout )0.68
input exergy input exergy (88)
Compressed 0.4084
ZSS = 3120VCHST
The exergetic efficiency equations of sub-systems and integrated hydrogen
storage tank
plant are given as follows;
Ejector
( ) ( )
0.05 0.75
T42 + 273.15 P48
Biomass gasifier sub-system; ZEj = 1000x15.96m 42
P42 / 1000 1000

m7 exSyngas
=
BG
m1 exBio + m5 ex5 (89)

Brayton cycle sub-system;

Q Q
ExC, SEAC + ExH , SEAC
=
(95)
SEAC
WGT m13 (ex13 ex14 ) + WP 4
BC =
m8 exsyngas + m30 ex O2 + WAC (90) Dryer cycle;

Desalination process; Q
ExDryer
=
m28 ex28
DC
m76 (ex 76 ex 77 ) (96)
=
DP
m17 ex17 + WP1 + WP 2 (91) Heat pump sub-system;
Hydrogen production sub-system; Q
ExH , HP
=
m31 ex H2 HP
m15 (ex15 ex16) + Wcom (97)
=
HP
m29 ex29 + WPEM (92)
Whole system;
Hydrogen compression sub-system; Q Q Q Q Q
WGT + m31 ex H2 + WExp + ExCW + ExHW + ExC, SEAC + ExH ,SEAC + ExDryer
m H2,l ex ie, l WS =
= m1 exBio + Wp + WAC
HC
(m35 xtct ) ex35 + m H2, f ex ie, f (93) (98)
Kalina sub-system; The exergetic COP of SEAC sub-system are defined as;
Q Q Q
WExp + ExCW + ExHW ExEva2
= COPex , SEAC = Q
(94)
Kalina
m12 (ex12 ex13) + WP 3 ExGn + WP 4 (99)
SEAC sub-system; The exergetic COP of heat pump sub-plant should be given as

10
F. Yilmaz, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 202 (2019) 112154

Table 9
Calculated values for biomass energy based integrated plant and its sub-plants.
Sub-parts Energy efficiency(%) Exergy efficiency(%) Exergy destruction rate (kW) Exergy destruction ratio (%)

Biomass gasifier 56.43 53.67 14,486 27.12

Brayton cycle 48.37 44.14 12,962 24.27
Desalination process 24.15 21.86 2,629 4.92
Hydrogen production 54.68 51.24 6,741 12.62
Hydrogen compression 18.13 15.27 3,488 6.53
Kalina cycle 18.47 16.12 4,821 9.03
SEAC 16.87 15.14 3,171 5.94
Dryer cycle 67.25 63.48 2,863 5.36
Heat pump cycle 78.16 75.63 2,245 4.21
Whole system 63.84 59.26 53,406 100

Table 10 follows;
The energetic and exergetic COP of SEAC and HP. Q
ExEva3
Energetic COP of SEAC, COPen
SEAC 1.27 COPex , HP = Q
ExCon _I + Wcom (100)
Exergetic COP of SEAC, COPexSEAC 0.58
Energetic COP of HP, COPen
HP 3.18
2.2.10. Thermo-economic assessment
Exergetic COP of HP, COPex
HP 0.36
Utilizing together with the exergetic and economic assessment
creates a beneficial tool with high potential for ideal sustainable and
optimized performance of a combined system. The exergetic assessment
Table 11
introduces the exergetic content of all conditions in the combined
Integrated biomass gasification-based power plant outputs.
system, and however, the cost indicators of combined plant, such as the
Plant outputs Values computation of initial capital (IC) and the operation and maintenance
12420 kW
(OM) costs should be computed utilizing by the economic assessment.
Obtained work rate by the gas turbine, WGT
3864 kW The cost rate for exergetic current can be defined as;
Obtained work rate by expander, WEp
Total cooling capacity, QCooling 4358 kW C = cEx (101)
Heating capacity, QHeating 5022 kW
Here, c shows cost per exergetic content ($/kJ). The thermo-eco-
Hot water production capacity, QHot _water 6336 kW
nomic equality of integrated system parts should be defined as;
Drying production capacity, QDrying 4184 kW
Fresh water mass flow rate in Reverse Osmosis Unit, m24 13.5 kg/s Cin + CQ + Z = Cout + CW (102)
Produced hydrogen mass flow rate, mHydrogen 0.072 kg/s
Here, C is cost associated with the exergetic currents, Z is cost of

Fig. 3. Variation of energy efficiencies of integrated system and its sub-systems with changing dead state temperature.

11
F. Yilmaz, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 202 (2019) 112154

Fig. 4. Variation of exergy efficiencies of integrated system and its sub-systems with changing dead state temperature.

Fig. 5. Variation of useful products and hydrogen generation rates of integrated system with changing dead state temperature.

investment, operating and maintenance expense, CQ and CW show cost i (i + 1)n

CRF =
indicators for heat and work exergy rates, and they can be described as (1 + i )n 1 (105)
given below;
The total cost of combined plant parts is should be given in the $/h
CW = (cEx )electricity = (cE )electricity (103) basis by utilizing the cost rate balance equality. The cost rate of in-
tegrated plant parts is expressed as the following equation.
For this study, as given below, the total cost of losses and also useful Zi CRF
productions from the integrated system, such as electricity, compressed Z=
(106)
3600N
hydrogen, heating-cooling, drying, and hot-water, is equivalent to the
mass flow rate of biomass fuel plus the IC and OM costs. Here, is maintenance factor, Zi shows purchase cost of the ith plant
part, N gives total annual operating hour of integrated system. The fi-
Closses + Celec + CH2 + Cheating + Ccooling + Cdrying + Chot _w nancial parameters and cost equalities of integrated plant components
are defined in Tables 7 and 8.
= Cbiomass + Zsystem (104)

Also, in this study, the cost assessment is defined to analyze the IC 3. Results and discussion
and OM costs. As written below, the Capital Recovery Factor (CRF)
should be utilized to amortize the costs of IC and OM over n working In this study, the detailed thermodynamic and economic evaluations
years at i interest rate. are performed to determine the performance and cost of new biomass

12
F. Yilmaz, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 202 (2019) 112154

Fig. 6. Effect of biomass inlet mass flow rate on energy efficiencies of whole system and its sub-systems.

Fig. 7. Effect of biomass inlet mass flow rate on exergy efficiencies of whole system and its sub-systems.

supported multi-generation system and sub-components with the EES
package program [60]. The main target of this section are as follows; (i)
to examine the hydrogen production with biomass-based multi-
generation system, (ii) to conducted thermodynamic assessment of
overall system and sub-systems, (iii) economic assessment of the overall
system and sub-systems, and (iv) investigating the impacts of various
indicators such as gasifier and ambient temperature on system effi-
ciency and hydrogen production rate. Table 9 lists the calculated values
for the renewable power-based integrated process and its sub-systems.
As can be seen, the maximum irreversibility rate is calculated as
14486 kW for biomass gasifier sub-unit, while the minimum irreversi-
bility rate is found as 2245 kW for the heat pump cycle, which depends
on the high-temperature difference. However, the highest exergy effi-
ciencies among sub-systems are the dryer cycle, biomass gasifier, and
hydrogen production units, respectively. For this study, the overall
energetic and exergetic performances of examined multigeneration
process are to be 63.84% and 59.26%.
The COPen and COPex values of SEAC and HP are calculated based on
the Eqs. (86) and (87) and Eqs. (99) and (100), and also the outputs are
given in Table 10. The energetic efficiencies of HP and SEAC sub-
systems are found as 3.18 and 1.27, also, the exergetic efficiencies are
0.36 and 0.58, respectively, for the mentioned same subsystems. It can
be concluded from these results that the energetic efficiency of the HP
process is quite good.
Table 11 tabulates the outputs from biomass gasification based
combined plant. As seen from this table, a total of 16284 kW electricity
is obtained from integrated plant by using gas turbine and expander,
and a part of produced electricity is used to power productions for the
pumps, air compressor, hydrogen compressors and PEM electrolyzer. It
can be concluded that the electricity production rate of the gas turbine

13
F. Yilmaz, et al.
Fig. 8. Effect of biomass inlet mass flow rate on useful products and hydrogen generation rates of integrated system.
Fig. 9. Impact of gasifier temperature on energy efficiencies of whole system and its sub-systems.
process is higher than the Kalina cycle. Moreover, the total cooling
capacity of the combined process is 4358 kW. Based on the calculated
results, the SEAC and ejector cooling capacities are 2479 and 1879 kW,
respectively. In addition, the freshwater and hydrogen production rate
are computed as 13.5 kg/s and 0.072 kg/s, respectively.
The dead state temperature is a very significant factor for thermal
energy generation cycles. The impacts of dead state temperature on the
proposed system performance as well as on useful outputs are presented
in Figs. 3–5. Firstly, Fig. 3 illustrates the varying energy performance of
the proposed process and its sub-cycles with various dead state tem-
peratures. As seen in the diagram, when the ambient temperature rises
from 0 to 40 °C, the overall energy performance of the suggested pro-
cess and its sub-cycles increases, except for SEAC sub-cycle. The reason
for this is that the rise in the dead state temperature and then as it
approaches the operating temperature of plant decrease the irreversi-
bility rate of the proposed plant. Similarly, the effect of dead state
temperature on the exergetic performance of the whole process and its
14
Energy Conversion and Management 202 (2019) 112154
sub-cycles is shown in Fig. 4. It is evident that the increase in the am-
bient temperature from 0 to 40 °C, increment in the total exergy per-
formance of the investigated process and the sub-systems. As can be
realized from Figs. 3 and 4, it can be expressed that the efficiency of the
proposed process and sub-process increases by the raise in the dead
state temperature. It can be stated that the rise in dead state tempera-
ture has a positive impact on the energy and exergy efficiencies pro-
posed systems and subsystems, based on these figures.
Fig. 5 expressions the effect of reference temperature on the useful
commodities from suggested integrated plant. While the reference
temperature increases, the cooling capacity decreases about 1000 kW,
and also the hydrogen production rate increase as linearly. Moreover,
while the rise in the dead state temperature from 0 to 40 °C, drops in the
cooling capacity of the plant. Furthermore, the hydrogen generation
rises from 0.066 kg/s to 0.076 kg/s, in consequence, a rise in the dead
state temperature approximately 40 °C.
Another important parameter for this study is the varying biomass
F. Yilmaz, et al.
Fig. 10. Impact of gasifier temperature on exergy efficiencies of whole system and its sub-systems.
Fig. 11. Impact of gasifier temperature on useful products and hydrogen generation rates of integrated system.
mass input which is seen Figs. 6–8. Figs. 6 and 7 exhibit the impact of
biomass input mass flow rate on the energetic and exergetic efficiencies
for the proposed process and its sub-cycles. Practically, the higher mass
flow rate makes the higher useful outputs, and therefore rises the en-
ergy and exergy performances for the whole cycle and sub-plants. As
should be seen in both two figures (Figs. 6 and 7), the increase in the
biomass mass transfer rises the energy and exergy performances of
examined process and sub-plants. This situation can be stated that
based on rising in the biomass inlet mass flow rate causes more useful
products from the combined system.
Likewise, the impact of biomass input mass flow rate on the useful
commodities of the proposed plant is specified in Fig. 8. It should be
determined from this figure that increasing the biomass inlet mass flow
rate cause increases in the useful products from the examined system
such as cooling-heating, hot water, drying, power, and hydrogen. The
biomass inlet mass flow rate increase from 0.72 kg/s to 10.72 kg/s, rise
in the hydrogen production rate by about 0.12 kg/s. It is clear that there
is a linear relationship between the hydrogen produced from the
15
Energy Conversion and Management 202 (2019) 112154
process and electricity generation. The reason for this increase is that
rising the mass flow rate of biomass, higher thermal power is trans-
ferred to the integrated system, therefore system useful outputs in-
creases.
Furthermore, Figs. 9–11 demonstration the effect of gasification
temperature on the cycle performances and useful products of the
combined system. The varying energy efficiency of proposed study with
various gasifier temperature is shown in Fig. 9. The energetic efficiency
of the examined process and sub-systems rises with the increase of
gasifier temperature from 688 to 1008 °C. Similarly, Fig. 10 shows the
effect of gasifier temperature on the exergy performance of suggested
process and sub-cycles. There are seen in both figures (Figs. 9 and 10),
the gasifier temperature has a constructive effect on the suggested plant
and sub-cycles performance. As can be seen clearly in both figures
(Figs. 9 and 10), the gasifier temperature increased from 688 °C to
1088 °C, the energetic and exergetic efficiencies of investigated process
and subprocesses are the same increasing trend. The cause for this in-
crement is the rise in the gasifier temperature, thermal energy entering
F. Yilmaz, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 202 (2019) 112154

Fig. 12. Variation of energy efficiencies of integrated system and its sub-systems with changing gas turbine inlet temperature.

Fig. 13. Variation of exergy efficiencies of integrated system and its sub-systems with changing gas turbine inlet temperature.

the integrated cycle increasing, and also another important factor is the
system and sub-systems have higher performance.
Fig. 11 illustrates the influence of gasifier temperature on the useful
outputs from suggested system and its sub-cycles. The increase in ga-
sification temperature cause increases as the parallel in useful outputs
such as heating-cooling, drying, and expansion products. The hydrogen
and power generation rate increase from 0.066 kg/s to about 0.077 kg/s
and from 11000 kW about to13500 kW, respectively, with gasifier
temperature increase from 688 to 1088 °C. However, this increase is
faster in power generation with gas turbine as well as hydrogen pro-
duction rate. The reason for this situation because by increasing the
gasifier temperature lead to a rise in the gas turbine input temperature
and hence the increase in the power generation rate. So, it can be in-
ferred that, if the gas turbines are higher in terms of material strength,
more energy can be obtained.
Another important parameter for this work is the varying gas tur-
bine input temperature. The varying of energy efficiency for suggested
plant and sub-systems with various gas turbine inlet temperature is seen
in Fig. 12. The energy efficiency curves of the plant and sub-systems are
almost increasing in parallel. Once the gas turbine input temperature
increases from 580 to 980 °C, the energetic efficiency of the whole plant
increases from 0.61 to 0.66. The reason for this increase should be
explained that the more electricity generation rate occurs in the com-
bined plant with an increase in turbine input temperature.
Likewise, Fig. 13 shows the effect of gas turbine input temperature
on the exergetic performance of the proposed process and its sub-cycles.
With the increase in gas turbine temperature of about 400 °C, exergetic
efficiency increases for the plant and all subsystems. It concluded that

16
F. Yilmaz, et al.
Fig. 14. Variation of useful products and hydrogen generation rates of integrated system with changing gas turbine inlet temperature.
Fig. 15. Purchase cost rate, energy and exergy efficiency of HPCS versus hydrogen generation rate.
increment in the gas temperature entering the gas turbine produces
more electrical power, which increases the useful output from the
system. Therefore, the system energetic and exergetic efficiency gen-
erally increase. As expected, it can be stated that the gas turbine input
temperature has a positive effect on both the energetic and exergetic
efficiencies of system and sub-systems.
Fig. 14 explains the variety of useful products and hydrogen pro-
duction rate of combined plant with various gas turbine input tem-
perature. As seen, the increment in the gas turbine input temperature
from 580 to 980 °C, the useful outputs of the suggested process increase
as linearly. The highest increase is observed in the hydrogen and power
generation rates, similar to above mentioned the curve in Fig. 11. The
gas turbine inlet temperature increment by 400 °C, the hydrogen pro-
duction rises from 0.04 to about 0.10 kg/s. Also, the electricity gen-
eration rate rises from 7500 kW about to 15000 kW with this increment
in the gas turbine inlet temperature. The reason for this rise is that
rising gas turbine input temperature increase the electricity and hy-
drogen production rate.
In recent studies, it has gained importance to investigate the
17
Energy Conversion and Management 202 (2019) 112154
economic analysis of multi-energy production systems besides ther-
modynamic analysis. In this context, the economic evaluation of this
proposed plant is examined, and also presented in Figs. 15–17. Firstly,
Fig. 15 presents the purchase cost rate, energy and exergy performances
of HPCS against the rate of hydrogen production. As a result of the rise
in hydrogen production, the efficiency of the HPCS cycle is increased,
and also the purchase cost rate is increasing. Likewise, the varying
purchase cost rate and performances of the whole system according to
total electricity production are seen in Fig. 16. An increment in the total
electricity production leads to a rise in both purchase cost rate of the
overall plant and performances. Referring to Figs. 15 and 16, it is clear
that the curves for both charts are in the same direction. The reason for
this is that due to the correct proportion between the generation of
hydrogen and electricity. It can be concluded that therefore, with the
increase in electricity generation, hydrogen production increases, and
so the cost of purchasing HPCS and the entire system increases.
Finally, the impact of biomass mass input on the cost of purchasing
the whole plant and on the sub-plants is shown in Fig. 17. As should be
seen, the increase in the biomass input mass flow rate rises the purchase
F. Yilmaz, et al.
Fig. 16. Purchase cost rate, energy and exergy efficiency of WS versus total electricity generation rate.
Fig. 17. Purchase cost rate of whole system and its sub-systems versus biomass inlet mass flow rate.
cost of total plant from 250 $/s to about 2000 $/s. Among the sub-
systems, the highest purchase cost increase is seen in biomass gasifier.
Depending on this condition, the cost of purchasing the whole system
increased in the same trend. The reason for this situation is that because
of the increment in the biomass mass flow rate, the power generation
rate rises, and therefore, the purchase cost rate of the whole system
increases. However, the rise in the biomass input mass ratio did not
affect the purchase cost of other subsystems such as the Kalina cycle,
SEAC, and HP.
4. Conclusions
In this paper, biomass energy is employed to generate power,
heating-cooling, fresh-hot water, compressed hydrogen, and drying. In
this study, biomass energy is preferred as a single energy input. This
proposed system for the production of these useful outputs is compre-
hensively investigated in terms of thermodynamics and economics. In
this regard, the energy, exergy, exergy destruction, and economic as-
sessments are conducted. Also, the thermodynamic and economic
18
Energy Conversion and Management 202 (2019) 112154
assessments of the overall process and sub-systems are examined based
on the various dead state, gasifier, and gas turbine input temperatures
and also biomass input mass flow rate. The results show that the in-
crease in the dead state, gasifier and turbine inlet temperatures have a
positive impact on the overall process and sub-plants performances.
Increment in the inlet mass flow rate of the biomass has a positive effect
on the useful outputs and also the performance of the integrated plant.
The proposed system's performance and purchase cost rate of the whole
plant increases with the total electricity generation rate rise. Besides, it
is observed that the increase in the hydrogen generation rate also rises
the system cost. As a result of the increase in biomass input mass flow
rate, the purchase cost of the biomass gasification subsystem increases
and also rises the purchase cost of the total plant at the same rate. This
proposed study presents the evaluation of renewable energy supported
hydrogen production system in terms of performance and economics.
The weaknesses or limitations of this proposed study are the high ir-
reversibility rates in the biomass gasifier system and the Brayton cycle
which is the gas cycle. Besides, the heat exchangers (HEXs) connecting
the subsystems has also highly exergy destruction rate since there are
F. Yilmaz, et al.
different working fluids. Above mentioned in both cases, it can be said
that it affects the system's performance negatively. With the technolo-
gical developments in the coming years, the transition to hydrogen
energy will be inevitable, and will enable the experimental installation
of these systems. This study suggests that different systems can be in-
tegrated depending on the working conditions and many useful outputs
should be obtained with a single energy input. Furthermore, this in-
tegrated plant is advantageous in terms of thermodynamic performance
over other conventional power production systems. The highest irre-
versibility rate occurs in biomass gasifier with 27.12%. The minimum
exergy destruction ratio is shown in the heat pump system with 4.21%.
The energy and exergy efficiencies of the Kalina cycle are 18.47% and
16.12%. The total power production rate with the gas turbine is
12420 kW, and also generated total hydrogen generation rate is
0.072 kg/s. The heating and cooling capacity are calculated as 5022
and 4358 kW. The total purchase cost rate of this proposed plant cal-
culated as approximately 2000 $/s, in biomass mass flow rate of
10.72 kg/s.
As a result, these plants are very significant for a clean and sus-
tainable future. The multigeneration plants have higher thermo-
dynamic performance than conventional systems and also presents
lower CO2 emissions.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Fossil Fuels Will Continue to Dominate Energy Consumption Patterns. Glob CCS Inst
n.d. https://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/fossil-fuels-will-continue-
dominate-energy-consumption-patterns/fossil-fuels-will-continue-dominate-energy-
consumption-patterns (accessed March 27, 2019).
[2] Ahmadi P, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Development and assessment of an integrated bio-
mass-based multi-generation energy system. Energy 2013;56:155–66. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.04.024.
[3] Cohce MK, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Energy and exergy analyses of a biomass-based
hydrogen production system. Bioresour Technol 2011;102:8466–74. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.06.020.
[4] Ma Z, Zhang Y, Zhang Q, Qu Y, Zhou J, Qin H. Design and experimental in-
vestigation of a 190 kWe biomass fixed bed gasification and polygeneration pilot
plant using a double air stage downdraft approach. Energy 2012;46:140–7. https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2012.09.008.
[5] Huang Z, He F, Zheng A, Zhao K, Chang S, Zhao Z, et al. Synthesis gas production
from biomass gasification using steam coupling with natural hematite as oxygen
carrier. Energy 2013;53:244–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.02.068.
[6] Luo X, Wu T, Shi K, Song M, Rao Y. Biomass gasification: an overview of techno-
logical barriers and socio-environmental impact. Gasif Low-grade Feed., InTech
2018. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74191.
[7] Chicco G, Mancarella P. A unified model for energy and environmental performance
assessment of natural gas-fueled poly-generation systems 2008. doi:10.1016/j.en-
conman.2008.02.015.
[8] Khalid F, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Energy and exergy analyses of a solar-biomass in-
tegrated cycle for multigeneration. Sol Energy 2015;112:290–9. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.solener.2014.11.027.
[9] Dincer I, Zamfirescu C. Renewable-energy-based multigeneration systems. Int J
Energy Res 2012;36:1403–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.2882.
[10] Rashidi H, Khorshidi J. Exergy analysis and multiobjective optimization of a bio-
mass gasification based multigeneration system. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2018;43:2631–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.12.073.
[11] Wang J, Yang Y. Energy, exergy and environmental analysis of a hybrid combined
cooling heating and power system utilizing biomass and solar energy. Energy
Convers Manag 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.07.059.
[12] Karellas S, Braimakis K. Energy-exergy analysis and economic investigation of a
cogeneration and trigeneration ORC-VCC hybrid system utilizing biomass fuel and
solar power. Energy Convers Manag 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.
2015.06.080.
[13] Bet Sarkis R, Zare V. Proposal and analysis of two novel integrated configurations
for hybrid solar-biomass power generation systems: thermodynamic and economic
evaluation. Energy Convers Manag 2018;160:411–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2018.01.061.
[14] Sahoo U, Kumar R, Pant PC, Chaudhary R. Development of an innovative poly-
generation process in hybrid solar-biomass system for combined power, cooling and
desalination. Appl Therm Eng 2017;120:560–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
19
Energy Conversion and Management 202 (2019) 112154
applthermaleng.2017.04.034.
[15] Moharamian A, Soltani S, Rosen MA, Mahmoudi SMS. Advanced exergy and ad-
vanced exergoeconomic analyses of biomass and natural gas fired combined cycles
with hydrogen production. Appl Therm Eng 2018;134:1–11. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.01.103.
[16] Soltani S, Yari M, Mahmoudi SMS, Morosuk T, Rosen MA. Advanced exergy analysis
applied to an externally-fired combined-cycle power plant integrated with a bio-
mass gasification unit. Energy 2013;59:775–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.
2013.07.038.
[17] Ruiz JA, Juárez MC, Morales MP, Mendívil P, Muñoz MA. Biomass gasification for
electricity generation: Review of current technology barriers. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2013;18:174–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.10.021.
[18] Sansaniwal SK, Pal K, Rosen MA, Tyagi SK. Recent advances in the development of
biomass gasification technology: a comprehensive review. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2017;72:363–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.038.
[19] Safari F, Dincer I. Development and analysis of a novel biomass-based integrated
system for multigeneration with hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2019;44:3511–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.12.101.
[20] Sevinchan E, Dincer I, Lang H. Energy and exergy analyses of a biogas driven
multigenerational system. Energy 2019;166:715–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2018.10.085.
[21] Roy D, Samanta S, Ghosh S. Techno-economic and environmental analyses of a
biomass based system employing solid oxide fuel cell, externally fired gas turbine
and organic Rankine cycle. J Clean Prod 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2019.03.261.
[22] Moharramian A, Mahmoudi SMS, Bhattacharya T, Soltani S, Rosen MA. Modified
exergy and modified exergoeconomic analyses of a solar based biomass co-fired
cycle with hydrogen production. Energy 2018;167:715–29. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.energy.2018.10.197.
[23] Soltani S. Modified exergy and exergoeconomic analyses of a biomass post fired
hydrogen production combined cycle. Renew Energy 2019;135:1466–80. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.09.074.
[24] Bin Shahid U, Bicer Y, Ahzi S, Abdala A. Thermodynamic assessment of an in-
tegrated renewable energy multigeneration system including ammonia as hydrogen
carrier and phase change material energy storage. Energy Convers Manag
2019;198:111809https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.111809.
[25] Segurado R, Pereira S, Correia D, Costa M. Techno-economic analysis of a trigen-
eration system based on biomass gasification. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2019;103:501–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2019.01.008.
[26] Hashemian N, Noorpoor A. Assessment and multi-criteria optimization of a solar
and biomass-based multi-generation system: thermodynamic, exergoeconomic and
exergoenvironmental aspects. Energy Convers Manag 2019;195:788–97. https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2019.05.039.
[27] Liu X, Jiang C, Zeng J, Song Q, Zhang G, Sun X, et al. Thermodynamic and economic
assessment of a novel CCHP integrated system taking biomass, natural gas and
geothermal energy as co-feeds. Energy Convers Manag 2018;172:105–18. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.07.002.
[28] Guizzi GL, Manno M, Tolomei LM, Vitali RM. Thermodynamic analysis of a liquid
air energy storage system. Energy 2015;93:1639–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2015.10.030.
[29] Khalid F, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Thermoeconomic analysis of a solar-biomass in-
tegrated multigeneration system for a community. Appl Therm Eng
2017;120:645–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.03.040.
[30] Khalid F, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Analysis and assessment of a gas turbine-modular
helium reactor for nuclear desalination. J Nucl Eng Radiat Sci
2016;2:031014https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4032508.
[31] Ishaq H, Dincer I, Naterer GF. New trigeneration system integrated with desalina-
tion and industrial waste heat recovery for hydrogen production. Appl Therm Eng
2018;142:767–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APPLTHERMALENG.2018.07.019.
[32] El-Emam RS, Dincer I. Thermodynamic and thermoeconomic analyses of seawater
reverse osmosis desalination plant with energy recovery. Energy 2014;64:154–63.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2013.11.037.
[33] Ghaebi H, Parikhani T, Rostamzadeh H, Farhang B. Thermodynamic and thermo-
economic analysis and optimization of a novel combined cooling and power (CCP)
cycle by integrating of ejector refrigeration and Kalina cycles. Energy
2017;139:262–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2017.07.154.
[34] Ishaq H, Dincer I, Naterer GF. Performance investigation of an integrated wind
energy system for co-generation of power and hydrogen. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2018;43:9153–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.03.139.
[35] Al-Zareer M, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Development and assessment of a new solar he-
liostat field based system using a thermochemical water decomposition cycle in-
tegrated with hydrogen compression. Sol Energy 2017;151:186–201. https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.SOLENER.2017.04.045.
[36] Yang JC. A thermodynamic analysis of refueling of a hydrogen tank. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2009;34:6712–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2009.06.015.
[37] Klell M. Thermodynamics of gaseous and liquid hydrogen storage. Int. Hydrog.
energy Congr. Exhib. IHEC. Istanbul Turkey; 2007, Istanbul: 2007.
[38] Mohammadi K, Mcgowan JG. Thermodynamic analysis of hybrid cycles based on a
regenerative steam Rankine cycle for cogeneration and trigeneration. Energy
Convers Manag 2018;158:460–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.12.
080.
[39] Behzadi A, Gholamian E, Ahmadi P, Habibollahzade A, Ashjaee M. Energy, exergy
and exergoeconomic (3E) analyses and multi-objective optimization of a solar and
geothermal based integrated energy system. Appl Therm Eng 2018;143:1011–22.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.08.034.
[40] Dincer I, Rosen M. EXERGY : Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development.
F. Yilmaz, et al.
Elsevier Science; 2012.
[41] Kotas TJ. The exergy method of thermal plant analysis. 1st ed. Butterworths; 1985.
[42] Moran MJ, Shapiro HN, Boettner DD, Bailey MB. Fundamentals of engineering
thermodynamics. n.d.
[43] BoroumandJazi G, Rismanchi B, Saidur R. A review on exergy analysis of industrial
sector. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;27:198–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
RSER.2013.06.054.
[44] Lian ZT, Chua KJ, Chou SK. A thermoeconomic analysis of biomass energy for tri-
generation. Appl Energy 2010;87:84–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.
2009.07.003.
[45] Szargut JST. Approximate evaluation of the exergy of fuels. Brennst. Wa¨rme Kraft
n.d.;16(12):589–96 [in German].
[46] van den Broek R, Faaij A, van Wijk A. Biomass combustion for power generation.
Biomass Bioenergy 1996;11:271–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/0961-9534(96)
00033-5.
[47] Channiwala SA, Parikh PP. A unified correlation for estimating HHV of solid, liquid
and gaseous fuels. Fuel 2002;81:1051–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-
2361(01)00131-4.
[48] Ahmadi P, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Exergo-environmental analysis of an integrated
organic Rankine cycle for trigeneration. Energy Convers Manag 2012;64:447–53.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2012.06.001.
[49] Mohtaram S, Chen W, Zargar T, Lin J. Energy-exergy analysis of compressor pres-
sure ratio effects on thermodynamic performance of ammonia water combined
cycle. Energy Convers Manag 2017;134:77–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENCONMAN.2016.12.024.
[50] Gurau V, Barbir F, Liu H. An analytical solution of a half-cell model for PEM fuel
cells. J Electrochem Soc 2000;147:2468. https://doi.org/10.1149/1.1393555.
[51] Thampan T, Malhotra S, Zhang J, Datta R. PEM fuel cell as a membrane reactor.
Catal Today 2001;67:15–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0920-5861(01)00278-4.
20
Energy Conversion and Management 202 (2019) 112154
[52] Hamann CH, Hamnett A, Vielstich W. Electrochemistry. Wiley-VCH; 2007.
[53] Safari F, Dincer I. Assessment and optimization of an integrated wind power system
for hydrogen and methane production. Energy Convers Manag 2018;177:693–703.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2018.09.071.
[54] Garousi Farshi L, Mosaffa AH, Infante Ferreira CA, Rosen MA. Thermodynamic
analysis and comparison of combined ejector–absorption and single effect absorp-
tion refrigeration systems. Appl Energy 2014;133:335–46. https://doi.org/10.
1016/J.APENERGY.2014.07.102.
[55] Akrami E, Gholami A, Ameri M, Zandi M. Integrated an innovative energy system
assessment by assisting solar energy for day and night time power generation: ex-
ergetic and Exergo-economic investigation. Energy Convers Manag
2018;175:21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2018.08.075.
[56] Ahmadi P, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Multi-objective optimization of a novel solar-based
multigeneration energy system. Sol Energy 2014;108:576–91. https://doi.org/10.
1016/J.SOLENER.2014.07.022.
[57] Yari M, Mehr AS, Mahmoudi SMS, Santarelli M. A comparative study of two SOFC
based cogeneration systems fed by municipal solid waste by means of either the
gasifier or digester. Energy 2016;114:586–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENERGY.2016.08.035.
[58] Ahmadi P, Almasi A, Shahriyari M, Dincer I. Multi-objective optimization of a
combined heat and power (CHP) system for heating purpose in a paper mill using
evolutionary algorithm. Int J Energy Res 2012;36:46–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/
er.1781.
[59] Cheddie DF, Murray R. Thermo-economic modeling of a solid oxide fuel cell/gas
turbine power plant with semi-direct coupling and anode recycling. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2010;35:11208–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2010.07.082.
[60] EES 2018. EES: Engineering Equation Solver | F-Chart Software : Engineering
Software/Academic Version n.d.