4.6 Article

Exergy analysis of the solar cylindrical-parabolic cooker

Journal

SOLAR ENERGY
Volume 79, Issue 3, Pages 221-233

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.solener.2004.12.001

Keywords

exergy; radiation; solar cooker

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

For the first time the simple solar parabolic cooker (SPC), of the cylindrical trough shape, is analysed from the exergy viewpoint. The paper presents the methodology of detailed exergy analysis of the SPC, the distribution of the exergy losses, and, on the example of the cooker surfaces, explains the general problem of how the exergy loss on any radiating surface, should be determined, if the surface absorbs many radiation fluxes of different temperatures. An imagined surface was used in the considerations to close the system of the cooker surfaces. It was shown that optimization is needed, to increase the energy and exergy efficiencies of the cooker. Equations for heat transfer between the three surfaces: cooking pot, reflector and imagined surface making up the system, were derived. The model allowed for theoretical estimation of the energy and exergy losses: unabsorbed insolation, convective and radiative heat transfer to the ambient, and additionally, for the exergy losses: the radiative irreversibilities on the surfaces, and the irreversibility of the useful heat transferred to the water. The exergy efficiency of the SPC, was found to be relatively very low (similar to 1%), and to be about 10 times smaller than the respective energy efficiency which is in agreement with experimental data from the literature. The influence of the input parameters (geometrical configuration, emissivities of the surfaces, heat transfer coefficients and temperatures of water and ambience) was determined on the output parameters, the distribution of the energy and exergy losses and the respective efficiencies. (c) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available