4.7 Article

Techno-Economic Analysis of dual ejectors solar assisted combined absorption cooling cycle

Journal

CASE STUDIES IN THERMAL ENGINEERING
Volume 39, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.csite.2022.102423

Keywords

Ejector-flash tank absorption cooling cycle; Double ejectors; Techno-economical analysis; Cycle performance

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study conducted a techno-economic analysis of a dual ejector-flash tank absorption cooling cycle assisted by solar energy, demonstrating that the absorption system with dual ejectors was the preferred option due to its cost-effectiveness compared to other systems.
This paper deals with the Techno-Economic Analysis of dual ejectors -flash tank absorption cooling cycle assisted by solar energy. In this study, the solar system is simulated using the TRNSYS software and a one-dimensional ejector is modeled in EES (Engineering Equation Solver) using NH3/H2O as working fluids. A cooling capacity of 5 kW is considered and a parametric optimization is carried out to select the optimum size of the thermal solar system. The design of the absorption cooling cycle under the Malaysia climate conditions was 5 kW (about 1.5 refrig-eration ton) with a solar thermal collector (evacuated tube solar collector of 8.5 m2 sloped at 14 degrees and 0.35 m3 tank size with 0.1 kg s-1 for fluid flow rate). The solar fraction varied between 53.6% in March and 68.6% in February. The payback period and profit gain for the dual ejector cycle, flash -tank with ejector and basic cycle with only ejector are 11 yr, 3192 $; 13.5yr, 1647$; and 16 yr, 874$ respectively. The results also show that the combined dual ejectors-flash tank cycle (Cycle 3) was up to 27% less than of the absorption combined ejector system (Cycle-1), and 10% cheaper than the combined ejector -flash tank absorption system (Cycle-2). Therefore, the economic analysis showed that the absorption system with dual ejectors (Cycle-3) was the preferred option.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available