processes

Article
Modeling of an Organic Rankine Cycle Integrated into a
Double-Effect Absorption System for the Simultaneous
Production of Power and Cooling
José C. Jiménez-García 1, * , Isaías Moreno-Cruz 2 and Wilfrido Rivera 1

1 Instituto de Energías Renovables, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Temixco 62580, Mexico
2 Laboratorio de Energía Solar Térmica, Center for Research in Optics Ac, Aguascalientes 20200, Mexico
* Correspondence: jcjig@[Link]; Tel.: +52-77-7362-0090 (ext. 29736)

Abstract: Climate change is one of the main problems that humanity is currently facing due to carbon
dioxide emissions caused by fossil fuel consumption. Organic Rankine cycles may play an important
role in reducing these emissions since they can use industrial waste heat or renewable energies. This
study presents the proposal and modeling of an organic Rankine cycle integrated into a double-effect
absorption cooling system for the simultaneous production of power and cooling. The working
fluids utilized were the ammonia–lithium nitrate mixture for the absorption system and benzene,
cyclohexane, methanol, and toluene for the organic Rankine cycle. The influence of the primary
operating parameters on the system performance was analyzed and discussed in terms of cooling
load, turbine power, energy utilization factor, and exergy efficiency for a wide range of operating
conditions. It was found that, for all cases, the cooling load was dominant over the turbine power
since the minimum cooling load obtained was above 50 kW, while the maximum turbine power was
under 12.8 kW. For all the operative conditions analyzed, the highest performance parameters were
obtained for benzene, achieving an energy utilization factor of 0.854 and an exergy efficiency as high
as 0.3982.

Keywords: organic Rankine cycle; absorption cooling system; power production; waste heat recovery
Citation: Jiménez-García, J.C.;
Moreno-Cruz, I.; Rivera, W.
Modeling of an Organic Rankine
Cycle Integrated into a Double-Effect 1. Introduction
Absorption System for the Climate change is a large problem humanity faces due to the carbon dioxide (CO2 )
Simultaneous Production of Power emissions into the atmosphere. Most emissions are due to the consumption of fossil fuels.
and Cooling. Processes 2023, 11, 667. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), in 2019, 33 Gt of CO2 was released into
[Link] the atmosphere [1]. On the other hand, according to the “Waste Heat Recovery: Technology
Academic Editor: Kian Jon Chua and Opportunities in U. S. Industry” report [2], just in the United States, the amount of
unrecovered waste heat at temperatures lower than 150 ◦ C was 75 × 109 kW per year.
Received: 25 January 2023 According to the Oak Ridge Laboratory, most industries’ waste heat sources are exhaust
Revised: 18 February 2023
gases produced by burners, furnaces, dryers, heaters, and heat exchangers using liquids
Accepted: 21 February 2023
at high temperatures [3]. To reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, and diminish CO2
Published: 22 February 2023
emissions, many studies have been carried out on the study and development of organic
Rankine cycles (ORC). These cycles are similar to Rankine cycles, but they utilize an organic
fluid instead of steam, and their capacities are considerably lower than the former, typically
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
varying from 20 kW to 200 kW, although some organic cycles can even produce only a few
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. watts. Currently, some microturbines can be found in the market from a few kW up to
This article is an open access article 1000 kW [4]. Moreover, the temperatures to drive these cycles are lower than those required
distributed under the terms and for the steam Rankine cycle; hence, these cycles are typically used to recover industrial
conditions of the Creative Commons waste heat or with renewable energies such as geothermal or solar.
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Due to the relevance that ORCs have taken mainly in the last two decades, a con-
[Link]/licenses/by/ siderable number of papers have been published about these systems. Just in the last
4.0/). few years, five bibliographic reviews have been published regarding different aspects of

Processes 2023, 11, 667. [Link] [Link]

Processes 2023, 11, 667 2 of 30

ORCs [5–9]. One more was published on the optimization of organic Rankine, Kalina, and
Goswami cycles and modifications of them driven with low heat sources such as solar,
geothermal, and industrial waste heat in which the authors identified the best cycles for
different specific operating conditions [10].
Regarding the use of different working fluids to be used in ORCs, some studies mainly
focused on finding the best working fluids. In this regard, Herath et al. [11] modeled a
geothermal ORC plant using R134a, R245fa, benzene, methanol, ethanol, acetone, and
propane as working fluids. The results showed that the ORC was more efficient using
benzene and methanol. The highest efficiency was 18.5% at 194 ºC using benzene. Zhang
et al. [12] analyzed more than fifty fluids. The analysis considered the saturated–vapor
curves, which were divided into wet, dry, and isentropic depending on the slope of the
saturated–vapor curve. According to the authors, the triangle formed by the critical point
and the liquid and vapor points in saturated conditions at the turning point significantly
impact the system performance. The highest efficiencies were obtained using working
fluids with turning points higher than 200 ◦ C and triangle areas lower than 6 kJ/kg. From
the analysis, it was found that the best working fluids were toluene and benzene, achieving
efficiencies of 29% and 28.5%, respectively. Dai et al. [13] carried out an energy and
exergy study of a basic ORC using twelve hydrocarbon working fluids operating with
four different heat sources. From the analysis, it was found that cyclohexane achieved the
highest energy efficiencies reaching a value of 21.43%. Pezzuolo et al. [14] developed a tool
for fluid selection of a basic and a recuperative ORC. More than eighty fluids were analyzed
in the systems. At a heat source temperature of around 170 ◦ C, the highest efficiencies were
obtained in the basic ORC using ethanol, benzene, and toluene with values of 24.2%, 23.2%,
and 22.9%, respectively. For the case of the recuperative ORC, the maximum efficiencies
were obtained with benzene, toluene, and cyclohexane, with energy efficiencies of around
25.6%. Braimakis and Karellas [15] performed the exergy optimization of a two-stage ORC
integrated by two-single ORCs using diverse fluids. The proposed system could achieve
exergy efficiencies up to 25% higher than basic ORCs. The highest exergy efficiencies were
around 50% using cyclopentane, cyclohexane, and toluene.
Different kinds of hybrid cycles integrating an ORC and diverse technologies or heat
sources have been proposed in the last years for producing two or even three different
outputs, including power production. Some of these studies have proposed the simul-
taneous production of power and heating [16,17], power and desalination [18], power
and hydrogen [19–23], and also power and cooling. Regarding these systems, Voeltzel
et al. [24] reported the study and optimization of a cogeneration system for the simulta-
neous production of power and cooling using the ammonia–water mixture driven with
low-grade heat. Two different configurations varying the rectifier position were analyzed
in which the absorption cooling cycle was in parallel with the ORC. The authors found
that the most efficient configuration is in which the rectifier is effective for both cooling
and power production. Wang et al. [25] proposed an ORC integrating ejector-compression
cooling system (ECS). This system has the advantage of using an ejector to circulate and
increase the refrigerant pressure in a similar way to a conventional compression cooling
system, but without consuming electricity to run the compressor, since the ejector operates
thermally. The highest energy and exergy efficiencies were 18.16% and 59.16%, respectively,
at a geothermal brine temperature of 190 ◦ C. Lizarte et al. [26] analyzed the performance
of an ORC and a cascade compressor cooling system (CCS) since, in a cascade cooling
system, the pressure and temperature differences are considerably higher compared to
single compression cooling systems. The proposed cycle can achieve temperatures as low
as −55 ◦ C. The power produced by the ORC was used as the input power of the cooling
cycle. The highest COP and exergy efficiencies were 0.79 and 31.6%, respectively. Javanshir
et al. [27] proposed a similar system integrated by an ORC and a CCS. The system was
analyzed using R134a, R22, and R142a. The highest energy and exergy efficiencies were
obtained using R143a, reaching 27.2% and 57.9%, respectively. The electricity production
cost was 60.7 USD/GJ. Sun et al. [28] modeled a two-stage G-ORC recovering the residual
Processes 2023, 11, 667 3 of 30

heat of an absorption cooling system (ACS) using H2 O/LiBr to produce power and cooling
simultaneously; since the use of a second stage in the ORC, the system was able to increase
the net power output by 10%. Ehyaei et al. [29] proposed a similar system but using R134a.
The use of ACS increased energy efficiency from 9.3% to 47.3%. The system’s minimum
electricity cost was 3.3 USD/MWh. Leveni and Cozzolino [30] conducted an energy and
exergy analysis of the same system producing a net power of 5 kW and obtaining an exergy
efficiency of 40.98%. Other studies were performed proposing a third or even a fourth
output; Li et al. [31] presented a geothermal ORC for cooling, heating, and power using
twenty zeotropic mixtures. In addition to the conventional components of an ORC, the
system was integrated with two heat pumps. One of them was used to produce heat, and
the other for cooling. The heat input to the evaporator of the heat pumps was supplied
by the expander exhaust gases. Due to the integration of the heat pumps, the system was
able to produce power, heating, and cooling. At a heat source temperature of 90 ◦ C, the
highest net power output, cooling capacity, and exergy efficiency were 92 kW, 2450 kW, and
0.62%, respectively, for R141b/R134a. Pashapour et al. [32] proposed a system integrated
by a Brayton cycle, an ORC, and an ACS using H2 O/LiBr to produce power, heating, and
cooling simultaneously, driven with geothermal energy. In the proposed system, the gas
leaving the Brayton turbine is first used by a regenerator and then by the ORC to generate
hot water and power, respectively. At the same time, geothermal is employed to reheat the
ORC and to drive the absorption cooling system. Because of the good integration between
the three cycles, the system achieved high energy and exergy efficiencies. The highest
exergy efficiency was 50.65%, while the maximum COP was 0.5. Although this system
achieved high exergy efficiency, it requires many components and very high operating
temperatures close to 1250 ◦ C, and Sharifishourabi and Chadegani [33] proposed a system
for simultaneous cooling production, hot water, heating, hydrogen, and power. The system
was integrated by an ORC, a triple-effect ACS using H2 O/LiBr, a dehumidification system
(DS), and an electrolyzer, all driven by solar energy. In the system, the heat produced by
the CPC was used to drive the ORC to produce the power. The gas leaving the turbine
was used as heat input for the cooling system, while the power produced by the turbine
was used in the electrolyzer to produce H2 . The system achieved an energy utilization
factor of 0.39, a COP of 1.34, an energy efficiency of 14.4%, and an exergy efficiency of 26%.
Although this system is not as efficient as that reported by Pashapour et al. [32], it has the
advantage of being driven with solar energy and operating at lower temperatures.
As can be concluded from the literature review, although there are some studies
related to the simultaneous production of power and cooling, none of them consist of the
integration of an ORC and a double-effect absorption system. As was stated, the organic
Rankine cycles are suitable for producing power with heat sources at significantly lower
temperatures than typical Rankine cycles. Therefore, although quantitatively, the power
production obtained by organic cycles is less attractive, they offer an efficient way to take
advantage of heat sources at intermediate temperatures.
On the other hand, the main advantage of the double-effect absorption cooling system
over the single-effect is a more significant refrigerant production, which results in a better
coefficient of performance. Moreover, regarding the working mixtures used for absorption
cooling systems, currently, the most used pairs have been the LiBr-H2 O and the NH3 -H2 O;
however, both pairs had some relevant drawbacks. Since in the LiBr-H2 O mixture, the
water is the refrigerant, the cooling systems operating with this mixture cannot operate
at temperatures under 0 ◦ C, thus limiting its application to air-conditioning systems. On
the other hand, the NH3 -H2 O has the inconvenience of requiring a rectification process,
and since the proposed system is a double-effect system, two rectifiers would be needed to
operate it, increasing not only the cost but also decreasing its efficiency. The NH3 -LiNO3
mixture has been proposed as an alternative mixture that does not require rectification
processes and can operate at temperatures below 0 ◦ C.
In conclusion, the present study proposes the production of cooling and power mainly
by exploiting heat sources at intermediate temperatures (160–220 ◦ C), which include renew-
Processes 2023, 11, 667 4 of 30

able sources, such as geothermal or solar energy, but also industrial waste heat or exhaust
gases of combustion processes. Moreover, the proposed working fluid in the absorption
subsystem is a relatively new mixture with some interesting advantages regarding the
H2 O/LiBr working pair. In some aspects, the proposed working pair also has presented
better results than the ammonia/water mixture [34–37]. Concerning the organic fluid, the
ORC modeling was carried out using four different fluids: benzene, cyclohexane, methanol,
and toluene. These fluids were chosen based on the presented bibliographic review since
several authors [11–15] found these fluids were among the most efficient or promising at
intermediate temperatures. For the criterion of wet/dry/isentropic fluid, Toluene, Benzene,
and Cyclohexane are classified as “dry fluids”, while methanol is a wet fluid; such selection
seeks to explore the relative operational advantages of dry fluids over wet fluids. Further-
more, a remarkable subject about the working fluids in both subsystems is that they present
either zero or low global warming potential. Thus, this study proposes the present system
as an attractive and sustainable solution to generate clean cooling and power from several
possible sources with better efficiency than that corresponding to the separated cycles.

2. System Description
A basic ORC is analogous to the steam Rankine cycle. It consists of four main compo-
nents, an evaporator, a turbine, a condenser, and a pump. The main difference between
these two cycles is that ORCs use organic fluids instead of water, as in the Rankine cycle.
Another difference is that while the Rankine cycle is normally used to produce a significant
amount of power, the ORCs are generally used for small and medium capacities varying,
in general, between 20 kW and 200 kW, although 500 kW microturbines can now be found
in the market. Because of the low capacity production, ORCs normally use renewable
energies such as solar, geothermal, or industrial waste heat.
Figure 1 shows a basic ORC coupled with a double-effect ACS. As can be seen, the
liquid leaving the pump (1) enters the evaporator, where it is evaporated by supplying
thermal energy. Then, the working fluid leaving the evaporator (2) enters the expander,
reducing its pressure and temperature, (3) producing mechanical work and electricity
by using an electrical generator. The organic fluid leaving the turbine passes through a
condenser ORC/generator HP, where it is condensed, leaving the component as a saturated
liquid (4). The heat delivered from the condensation process is used to desorb the refrigerant
of the double-effect ACS.
The ammonia as a superheated vapor leaving the condenser ORC/generator HP
passes to the condenser/generator LP, where it is condensed, leaving this component as
a saturated liquid (6). Then, the ammonia passes through valve V1 (7), leaving it as a
vapor-liquid mixture due to the partial evaporation caused by the expansion process. At
these conditions, the vapor–liquid mixture mixes inside the condenser with the vapor
coming from the condenser/generator LP (19), leaving the condenser as a saturated liquid
to flow through the expansion valve V2. Under these conditions, the ammonia refrigerant
enters the evaporator producing the cooling effect. Next, the ammonia in a vapor phase
leaving the evaporator (10) enters the absorber, where it is absorbed by the low-refrigerant
solution coming from the condenser/generator LP. The refrigerant-concentrated solution
at the exit of the absorber (11) is then pumped (12) and heated up as it passes through the
solution heat exchanger and the condenser ORC/generator HP (13). Once the solution
with a high refrigerant concentration is heated in the generator HP by the heat delivered
from the condenser of the ORC [3,4], the refrigerant in a vapor phase is produced (5), and a
solution with a low amount of refrigerant leaves the component (14). The solution leaving
this component (14) passes through valve V4 (15) and then the condenser/generator LP,
where it is heated up by the heat delivered by the condensation processes carried out on
the other side of the heat exchanger. This way, the second stream of refrigerant is produced
(19). The solution leaving the component with the lowest ammonia concentration passes
through the solution heat exchanger (17) and then through valve V3 (18), completing the
 a solution with a low amount of refrigerant leaves the component (14). The solution leav-
ing this component (14) passes through valve V4 (15) and then the condenser/generator
LP, where it is heated up by the heat delivered by the condensation processes carried out
Processes 2023, 11, 667 5 of 30
on the other side of the heat exchanger. This way, the second stream of refrigerant is pro-
duced (19). The solution leaving the component with the lowest ammonia concentration
passes through the solution heat exchanger (17) and then through valve V3 (18), complet-
cycle.
ing theBecause the ACS the
cycle. Because produces two streams
ACS produces twoof refrigerant,
streams this cycle this
of refrigerant, is known asknown
cycle is a doubleas
effect.
a double effect.

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the proposed system.

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the proposed system.

3. Mathematical
3. Mathematical Model
Model
Asexplained
As explained before,
before, the
theproposed
proposedsystem
system results
resultsfrom
fromthe
theintegration
integration ofofan
anorganic
organic
Rankine
Rankine cycle
cycle
 .  (ORC)
(ORC) and
and an
an absorption
absorption
. cooling
cooling cycle.
cycle. The
The former
former generates
generates mechanical
mechanical
𝑊T from load Q𝑄E,, ORC supplied

power W
power from aa heat
heatload suppliedby byan
an external
external heat
heat source
source inin the
the ORC
ORC
evaporator.
evaporator. At the same time, in the ORC condenser, this system rejects
At the same time, in the ORC condenser, this system rejects a heat load a heat load
 𝑄. that
 is transferred to the double-effect absorption cooling system (DEACS) as ac-
QC,, ORC that is transferred to the double-effect absorption cooling system (DEACS) as
tivation energy.
activation energy.
3.1. Model Assumptions, Equations, and Balances
3.1. Model Assumptions, Equations, and Balances
The numerical modeling considered the following assumptions:
The numerical modeling considered the following assumptions:
1. The system operates in steady-state conditions;
1. The system operates in steady-state conditions;
2. The
2. The system
system operates
operates in
in thermodynamic
thermodynamic equilibrium;
equilibrium;
3.
3. There are no heat losses in the components and piping;
There are no heat losses in the components and piping;
4.
4. There are no pressure losses in the components and piping,thus:
There are no pressure losses in the components and piping, thus:

 
P5 = P6 = P12 = P13 = P14
 P9 = P10 = P11 = P18 
P7 = P8 = P15 = P16 = P17 = P19
5. The processes in the valves are isenthalpic, thus:
Processes 2023, 11, 667 6 of 30

 
h6 = h7
 h8 = h9 
 
h14 = h15 
h17 = h18
6. Isentropic efficiencies of 90 and 80% were considered for the pumps and turbine,
respectively;
7. At the turbine discharge, there is always superheated vapor;
8. The condenser and absorber of the DEACS operate at the same temperature (T11 = T8 );
9. There is a constant temperature difference of 10 ◦ C between the hot stream entering
and the cold stream leaving the generators in the DEACS, thus:
 
T5 = T14 = T3 − 10
T16 = T19 = T6 − 10
The assessment of the system performance considered that the working fluid in the
ORC could be benzene, cyclohexane, methanol, or toluene. By defining some input vari-
ables as operating pressure and the heat source temperature, it is possible to determine any
thermodynamic state for this subsystem and, thus, the power or thermal loads associated
with each component. Regarding the DEACS, it is necessary to define the temperature at
which the heat is rejected in the condenser (T8 ) and supplied in the evaporator (T10 ), the
condenser–generator temperature (T6 ), and the effectiveness of the solution heat exchanger
(ηSHE ). Temperature T3 is calculated from the ORC analysis. The numerical model describ-
ing the system behavior is based on mass, species, and energy balances applied to the main
system components. These balances are shown in Tables 1–4.

Table 1. Energy balances for the organic Rankine cycle.

Component Equation
. .
Heat supply Q E,ORC = m1 (h2 − h1 )
. .
Turbine W T = m1 ( h2 − h3 )
. .
Condenser QC,ORC = m1 (h3 − h4 )
. .
Pump ORC W P,ORC = m1 (h1 − h4 )

Table 2. Energy balance for the DEACS.

Component Equation
. . . . .
Generator HP QG,HP = QC,ORC = m5 h5 + m14 h14 − m13 h13
. .
Condenser HP QC,HP = m5 (h5 − h6 )
. . . .
Condenser QC = m7 h7 + m19 h19 − m8 h8
. .
Evaporator Q E = m9 (h10 − h9 )
. . . .
Absorber Q A = m10 h10 + m18 h18 − m11 h11
. . .
Pump ARC W P = m11 (h12 − h11 ) ≈ m11 ν11 ( P12 − P11 )
. . . .
Solution HE m12 h12 + m16 h16 = m13 h13 + m17 h17
. . . . .
Generator LP Q G,LP = QC,HP = m16 h16 + m19 h19 − m15 h15
Processes 2023, 11, 667 7 of 30

Table 3. Mass balance for the proposed system.

Component Equation
. . . .
ORC m1 = m2 = m3 = m4
. . .
Condenser m = m7 + m19
. 8 . .
Absorber m11 = m10 + m18
. . .
Generator HP m13 = m14 + m5
. . .
Generator LP m15 = m16 + m19
. .
Valve 1 m5 = m6
. .
Evaporator m9 = m10
. .
Pump m11 = m12
. .
Valve 2 m = m9
. 8 .
Valve 3 m16 = m17
. .
Valve 4 m14 = m15

Table 4. Species balance for the DEACS.

Component Equation
. . .
Absorber m11 x11 = m10 x10 + m18 x18
. . .
Generator HP m x = m14 x14 + m5 x5
. 13 13 . .
Generator LP m15 x15 = m16 x16 + m19 x19

A notable reduction in the number of balance equations can be achieved if a series of

substitutions and simplifications are applied, bringing out the equation system shown by
Equation (1).
  .   . 
h5 h14 h13 ( x18 − x10 )/( x10 − x11 ) m5 QC,ORC
.
 ( h5 − h6 ) (h15 − h19 ) (h19 − h16 ) m14  =  0  (1)
.
1 1 ( x18 − x10 )/( x10 − x11 ) m16 0

The equations’ system solution and subsequent substitution in the relevant balance
equations allow us to know the flow, concentration, and enthalpy in each point of interest
throughout the whole system and, thus, each relevant parameter. The concentration xi of
the lithium nitrate ammonia mixture is obtained from the equations presented by Farshi
et al. [38].
The first-law performance parameter for the ORC is the thermal efficiency, defined as
shown by Equation (2).
.
WT
ηORC = . . (2)
Q E,ORC + W P,ORC
. . .
In Equation (2), W T represents the turbine power while Q E,ORC and W P,ORC are the
heat supplied to the evaporator and the power consumed by the pump, respectively; both
parameters correspond to the power cycle. The thermal efficiency is used in this study for
the validation of the ORC model in Section 3.2. On the other hand, the first-law performance
parameter for the DEACS is defined as it is indicated by Equation (3).
.
QE
COP = . . (3)
QG,HP + W P

All the parameters involved in Equation (3) correspond exclusively to the absorption
. . .
system, Q E is the cooling load produced in the evaporator while QG,HP and W P are the
thermal load supplied to the generator and the power consumed by the pump. The COP
defined by Equation (3) is also useful for the validation of the cooling system presented in
Section 3.2.
Processes 2023, 11, 667 8 of 30

The effectiveness of the solution heat exchanger is a measure of how efficient is the actual
heat transfer regarding the maximum possible heat transfer that would occur under a specific
thermal condition. It can be determined in terms of enthalpies, as Equation (4) indicates.

(h13 − h12 )
ηSHE = (4)
(h16 − h12 )

The energy utilization factor (EUF) is a relevant parameter used in systems with
several energy outputs, as is the case of the cogeneration and polygeneration systems.
This parameter rates the energy of the useful effects produced by a system to those energy
inputs required for generating such output effects. The energy utilization factor, in this
case, can be calculated based on the parameters defined previously (Equations (2) and (3))
as indicated by Equation (5).
. .
W T + QE
EUF = . . . (5)
Q E,ORC + W P,ORC + W P

Although the energy utilization factor is an important performance parameter, it

relates all energy interactions without the distinction of its nature (heat or power). Because
of this, the exergy parameter is often used, which eliminates the inconvenience of adding
power and heat. Thus, a more appropriate parameter describing the system performance
according to the second law of thermodynamics is the exergy efficiency, which rates the
system exergy output (the exergy of the power and cooling effects) regarding the exergy
supplied to the system (the exergy of the supplied heat and work to power the utilized
pumps). Therefore, the exergy efficiency for the described system is calculated as indicated
by Equation (6).  .  .
10 +10
Q E 1 − T298.15 + WT
ηEX = .   . . (6)
Q E,ORC 1 − T298.15
2 +10
+ W P + W P,ORC

In Equation (6), 10 K are added to the temperatures T10 and T2 , since cooling and
heating are both related to external (not internal) sources. This addition considers the heat
source temperature in the ORC evaporator (system heating source) and the temperature of
the heat source in the DEAS evaporator (cooled media).
A code written in Python was used to model the system’s behavior. The organic fluids’
properties were calculated using the CoolProp 6.4.1 software [39]. Figure 2 shows the code
flowchart, where input variables, variation intervals, and outputs are indicated. All files
involved in the solution of the system model are described in Table 5.

Table 5. Definition of the python files utilized to solve the numerical model of the proposed system.

File Description
The [Link] file reads all necessary libraries to compute the model of the proposed system, including
Python libraries such as “Cool-Prop” and “Numpy” and also local libraries such as those called “orc”,
“nh3lino3”, “refrigeration”, and “aux”.
[Link]  .
In this file, all input variables are defined, including the supplied heat QE,ORC , the working fluid, some
temperatures (T2 , T6 , T8 , T10 ), the ORC pressure (P2 , P3 ), and the solution heat exchanger effectiveness
(nSHE ). Finally, this file prints the results.
The [Link] file contains the functions “orc()” and “FUE()”.
.
The function called “orc” depends on: T2 , P2 , P3 , QE,ORC, and the working fluid; it computes the organic
. . .
[Link] Rankine cycle calculations and returns: a heat load (QC,ORC ), the turbine and pump powers (W T , W P,ORC ),
the ORC mass flow rate, and a temperature (T3 ).
The function called “FUE” depends on: W P,ORC , QT , QE , W P and calculates the energy utilization factor.
Processes 2023, 11, 667 9 of 30

Table 5. Cont.

File Description
The [Link] file contains the functions called “REFRI()”, “masas()”, “COP()” and “nex()”.
.
The function “REFRI” depends on: T3 , T6 , T8 , T10 , nshe , QGHP , and the working fluid. It computes the
. . . . . .
double-effect absorption cooling system and returns variables such as QCHP , QC , QA , QGLP , QE , W P .
.
[Link] The function called “masas” uses some input variables (h5 , h6 , h13 , h14 , h16 , h19 , x10 , x11 , x18 , QGHP ) to
. . .
solve the equations system and return: m5 , m14 , and m16 .
The “COP” function calculates the COP using the “REFRI” outputs.
The “nex” function determines the exergy efficiency.
The [Link] file contains the functions “H(T,x)”, “S(T,x)” and “rho(T,x)” to compute some NH3 -LiNO3
[Link] properties, in this case: enthalpy, entropy, and density. Additionally, it contains the necessary functions to
calculate the value of the concentration mass xi by numerical methods.

Processes TheREVIEW
2023, 11, x FOR PEER [Link]
file contains a general “help” function, as well as the function that allows printing
10 ofout
30 each
[Link]
operative condition results.

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Code
Codeflowchart
flowchartforfor
thethe
mathematical model
mathematical solution.
model solution.

3.2. Model Validation

Since, in the literature, there is not available any other system with the same config-
uration as the one proposed in this work, the model validation was carried out considering
that the ORC and the DEACS are independent systems. For that purpose, input values for
the operating conditions of the ORC model were taken from Hung et al. [40], who ana-
Processes 2023, 11, 667 10 of 30

3.2. Model Validation

Since, in the literature, there is not available any other system with the same configu-
ration as the one proposed in this work, the model validation was carried out considering
that the ORC and the DEACS are independent systems. For that purpose, input values
for the operating conditions of the ORC model were taken from Hung et al. [40], who
analyzed several working fluids assuming a constant pressure (2500 kPa) at the turbine
inlet while the maximum temperature was increased between 500 K and 560 K, and the
condensation temperature was kept constant at 273 K. Table 6 shows the comparison of the
results obtained with the present work and those reported by Hung et al. [40] using benzene
as the working fluid. The results presented in Table 6 were only obtained for validation
purposes and corresponded exclusively to the ORC without involving the DEACS. Thus,
the reported efficiencies are not presented in the results section; instead, it is discussed the
energy utilization factor (EUF), which is a performance parameter for the coupled system
(ORC and DEACS).

Table 6. Validation of the ORC model using data from Hung et al. [40].

Cycle Efficiency Cycle Efficiency Hung

Deviation
T Max (K) (Present Work) et al. [40]
(%)
(%) (%)
500 25.73 30.70 16.19
505 26.21 30.80 14.90
510 26.69 30.82 13.40
515 31.87 30.82 3.41
520 31.94 30.90 3.37
525 32.00 30.90 3.56
530 32.04 30.90 3.69
535 32.08 30.82 4.09
540 32.10 30.82 4.15
545 32.12 30.62 4.90
550 32.14 30.62 4.96
555 32.14 30.59 5.07
560 32.15 30.50 5.41

It is evident from Table 6 that the first three values differ significantly from the values
obtained with the proposed model. According to the software used for the property’s
calculation in the present work, for benzene, the saturation temperature at 2500 kPa
corresponds to 510.13 K, so for temperatures under this value (first three values in Table 6),
the benzene is present as a liquid–vapor saturated mixture, so the turbine power and
the cycle efficiency are not the best for such conditions. However, once this temperature
increases, there is a very good agreement between both models. Moreover, the proposed
ORC model was validated using the results published by Desai and Bandyopadhyay [41],
who analyzed an ORC including isentropic efficiencies for the pump and turbine of 0.65
and 0.8, respectively, for several working fluids, including benzene and toluene, whose
properties were calculated using the software REFPROP. The results of this validation are
shown in Table 7.
Processes 2023, 11, 667 11 of 30

Table 7. Validation of the ORC model using data from Desai and Bandyopadhyay [41].

Validation for Benzene

Cycle Efficiency
Cycle Efficiency (Desai and
T Max T Cond Deviation
(Present Work) Bandyopadhyay
(◦ C) (◦ C) (%)
(%) [41])
(%)
120 40 14.06 14.1 0.28
202.8 50 19.71 19.75 0.20
Validation for Toluene
Input heat Net power Condensation
(kW) (kW) heat (kW)
T max = 202.5 ◦ C Present work 172.45 33.74 138.71
Desai and
172.6 33.8 138.8
T cond = 50 ◦ C Bandyopadhyay [41]
Deviation (%) 0.08 0.17 0.06

From Table 7, it is shown that a very good agreement is achieved with the model
proposed by Desai and Bandyopadhyay [41]; this may be because the property sources
in both works use the same state-equation for both substances: benzene and toluene, so
results are practically the same.
As it has been performed for the ORC, the validation for the DEACS model was
performed taking into consideration a selected operating condition from those analyzed
by Domínguez-Inzunza et al. [34]. Therefore, the COP was calculated exclusively for the
DEACS. The COP is defined as the cooling effect produced in the evaporator divided by the
heat supplied to the generator plus the work consumed by the pump, as it was indicated
by Equation (3). The operating condition includes generation temperatures from 140 ◦ C
to 164 ◦ C, a condensation-absorption temperature of 40 ◦ C, and 0 ◦ C as the evaporation
temperature. The validation of the proposed model for the DEACS with the model in the
literature [34] resulted in a good agreement; the main values for the selected operating
condition are presented in Table 8.

Table 8. Validation of the DEACS model using data from Domínguez-Inzunza et al. [34].

COP
COP
Domínguez-Inzunza Deviation
T Max (◦ C) (Present Work)
et al. [34] (%)
(%)
(%)
140 0.77 0.80 3.58
145 0.86 0.88 3.13
150 0.92 0.95 3.76
155 0.97 1.00 3.69
160 1.00 1.04 4.35
163.9 1.04 1.07 3.33

The values presented in Table 8 correspond exclusively to the absorption system; thus,
they are no longer presented in the results section, which is dedicated to the analysis of the
coupled system (ORC + DEACS).

4. Operating Condition
4.1. Operating Ranges for Organic Rankine Cycle Temperature and Pressures (T2 , P2 , P3 )
In terms of power generation by a turbine, it is known that a greater expansion (∆P) of
the vapor leads to higher power production. To maximize the pressure difference between
Processes 2023, 11, 667 12 of 30

points 2 and 3, one option is to increase the pressure at the turbine inlet; however, there
are limitations related to the mechanical strength of the turbine materials. Moreover, this
pressure must be below the saturation pressure at the heat source temperature (T2 ) since,
otherwise, the fluid thermodynamic state would not be superheated vapor. The saturation
pressure can be increased by increasing the heat source temperature, that is, the temperature
at the exit of the evaporator of the ORC; however, this parameter can not be increased
indefinitely since it has both technical and economic limits. For this reason, an operating
range between 160 ◦ C and 220 ◦ C was chosen for all working fluids combinations. These
temperatures are always below the critical point of all the substances.
Another option to increase the work produced by the turbine would be by reducing
the expansion pressure; however, the main limitation in this regard is that the fluid at the
exit of the turbine could approach the saturation condition or even fall into the saturated
mixture region, which is not convenient given the problems associated with cavitation in
the turbine. Therefore, for the analyzed fluids, the maximum pressure at the turbine inlet is
limited by the saturation pressure at each heat source temperature, while the expansion
pressure range considers preventing the fluid in question from changing phase. For these
reasons, expansion operating pressures between 300 and 500 kPa were chosen.

4.2. Operating Temperature of the Low-Pressure Condenser-Generator (T6 )

Two parameters of the ORC directly affect the performance of the double-effect ab-
sorption cooling system (DEACS). These are the heat source temperature of the cycle (T2 ),
which is the highest temperature in the system, and the expansion pressure (P3 ), which
is the pressure of the organic fluid leaving the turbine. Both factors depend on the ORC
.
working fluids and have a significant influence on the temperature and heat load (Q g,hp )
supplied to the absorption subsystem.
On the other hand, the performance of the DEACS is influenced by factors such as the
.
temperature and amount of supplied heat (Q g, hp) and the temperatures of the condenser
(T8 ), absorber (T11 ), and low-pressure condenser-generator (T6 ). However, although T6 is
an important parameter, it was found that for constant conditions of the ORC (T2 , P2 , P3 ),
a change in the temperature of the low-pressure condenser–generator has minimal effect
on the cooling capacity of the absorption system; for this reason, the performance of
the analyzed system was presented exclusively for a low-pressure condenser-generator
temperature of 100 ◦ C and 110 ◦ C.

4.3. Operating Temperatures of the Condenser (T8 ), Absorber (T11 ), Evaporator (T10 ), and
Economizer Effectiveness
The condenser and absorber of the DEACS operate at the same temperatures, ranging
from 24 ◦ C to 38 ◦ C. For the analyzed fluids, the condenser and absorber temperatures are
kept at a constant average value of 30 ◦ C, with one exception, which is discussed later.
The evaporator temperature of the absorption subsystem represents the lowest tem-
perature in the system and is directly related to the cooling capacity. The temperature
range considered for the refrigerant evaporation was from −4 ◦ C to 4 ◦ C. Regarding the
analysis of the economizer, it is known that its effectiveness has a considerable impact on
the system’s operation. For the present analysis, the economizer effectiveness of 0.8 has
been considered. This value could be representative of the typical condition at which this
component operates in real conditions.

4.4. Operating Condition for the Presentation of Results

The operation condition selected for the presentation of the performance results of
the proposed system is presented in Table 9. The differences between the values of some
parameters are discussed in the results section.
Processes 2023, 11, 667 13 of 30

Table 9. Operating condition for the presentation of data for each analyzed fluid.

ORC Fluid T2 (◦ C) P2 (KPa) P3 (KPa) T6 (◦ C) T8 (◦ C) T10 (◦ C) εshe

Benzene 500–1700 300 100 30
Cyclohexane 160–220 500–1700 300 100 30
−4 to 4 0.8
Methanol 500–1200 400 100 30
Toluene
Processes 180–220
2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW500–1000 400 110 24 14 of 30

5. Results and Discussion

when the DEACS
In this usesmost
section, the the ammonia–lithium
relevant results fornitrate mixtureevaluation
the theoretical (NH3-LiNO of3),the
and the ORC
proposed
uses benzene (C6 H 6 ), toluene (C 7 H 8), methanol (CH 3 OH) and cyclohexane
cycle are presented. Among the performance indicators considered are the cooling load(C 6 H 12).
. .
(Qe ) produced by the evaporator of the DEACS, the power produced by the turbine (W T ) of
5.1. System Operation with Ammonia–Lithium Nitrate and Benzene
the ORC, the energy utilization factor (EUF), and the exergy efficiency of the system (ηex ).
Forcomplex
For the operating
systems,condition
such ascorresponding
the one proposed to benzene
in the (see Table
present 9), Figure
study, 3 presents
the change in
the effects of the heat source temperature (𝑇 ), turbine inlet
a parameter usually affects more than one operating variable, so it is not convenientpressure (𝑃 ), and cooling
to
temperature
analyze (𝑇 ) effect
the isolated on thethat cooling load,has
a variable which,
on the forsystem
the described operating
performance; instead,conditions,
it is betteris
tobetween
analyze56.7 kW and
the effect that73.8 kW.
a set of variables has on each of the main indicators for a given
system. Previously,
Below are itthe was described
theoretical that of
results a the
heatoperation
supply to of the ORC ( 𝑄 , system
the proposed ) at when
higher
temperatures
the DEACS usesallows the cycle operation
the ammonia–lithium at higher
nitrate mixture pressures so that
(NH3 -LiNO 3 ), both
and parameters
the ORC usesare
closely (C
benzene linked.
H
6 6 ), From
tolueneFigure
(C H3,
7 8 it
), is evident
methanol that
(CH 3 the
OH) cooling
and capacity
cyclohexane decreases
(C H
6 12 ). as the heat
supply temperature and the higher system pressure (𝑃 ) increase. This decrease is because
5.1.
theSystem Operation
temperature of with Ammonia–Lithium
the working Nitrate
fluid in the and Benzene
turbine discharge lowers as 𝑃 increases,
although
For thethe pressurecondition
operating at the turbine dischargetoisbenzene
corresponding constant. This
(see effect
Table 9), happened because
Figure 3 presents
the
of effects of the heat of
the consideration source temperature
an isentropic (T2 ),ofturbine
process inletin
expansion pressure (P2 ), and
the turbine. This cooling
means a
temperature
reduction in(Tthe10 ) thermal
on the cooling load, which,
load supplied to theforDEACSthe described operating
(𝑄 , ), resulting inconditions,
a detrimentisof
between 56.7 kW and 73.8 kW.
the cooling load produced by the system.

[Link]
NH-LiNO
3-LiNO3--C6H6 effect of heat source and cooling temperatures on the cooling load.
Figure 3 3 –C6 H6 effect of heat source and cooling temperatures on the cooling load.
.
From Figure
Previously, 3, it
it was is also possible
described that a heat to supply
note that theORC
to the evaporation
(Q E, ORC )temperature of the
at higher temper-
absorption system ( 𝑇 ) significantly affects its cooling capacity.
atures allows the cycle operation at higher pressures so that both parameters are closelyThat is, under any
operating
linked. Fromcondition,
Figure 3,the it isproposed system
evident that thepresents a higher cooling
cooling capacity decreases capacity
as the as thesupply
heat cooling
temperatureand
temperature is increased.
the higher system pressure (P2 ) increase. This decrease is because the
Regarding
temperature of thethe turbinefluid
working power, it is
in the evident
turbine from Figure
discharge lowers4 that
as P2itincreases,
mainly depends
althoughon
thepressure
the differenceat in
thepressures
turbine before and is
discharge after the turbine,
constant. Thiswhich
effect is limited bybecause
happened the heatofsource
the
temperature (𝑇 ). Therefore, the higher heat source temperatures allow a greater range of
operating conditions and a higher pressure at the turbine inlet; this is the reason why at a
pressure of 1900 kPa, it is possible to obtain the highest power production (12.82 kW) for
the selected operating condition.
Processes 2023, 11, 667 14 of 30

consideration of an isentropic process of expansion in the turbine. This means a reduction

.
in the thermal load supplied to the DEACS (Q g, hp ), resulting in a detriment of the cooling
load produced by the system.
From Figure 3, it is also possible to note that the evaporation temperature of the
absorption system (T10 ) significantly affects its cooling capacity. That is, under any op-
erating condition, the proposed system presents a higher cooling capacity as the cooling
temperature is increased.
Regarding the turbine power, it is evident from Figure 4 that it mainly depends on
the difference in pressures before and after the turbine, which is limited by the heat source
temperature (T2 ). Therefore, the higher heat source temperatures allow a greater range of
operating conditions and a higher pressure at the turbine inlet; this is the reason why at a
Processes 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
pressure of 1900 kPa, it is possible to obtain the highest power production (12.82 kW) 15 of
for30
the selected operating condition.

[Link]
NH-LiNO
3-LiNO3--C6H6 turbine power as a function of heat source temperature and cooling
Figure 3 3 –C6 H6 turbine power as a function of heat source temperature and cooling
temperature at different operating conditions.
temperature at different operating conditions.

Fromthe
From the analysis
analysis of Figure
of Figure 4, it 4, it is observed
is observed that, atthat, at the constant
the constant inlet andinlet and
outlet outlet
turbine
turbine pressures, an increase in 𝑇 generates a slight drop in
pressures, an increase in T2 generates a slight drop in power production, which seems to be power production, which
seems totobe
opposed theopposed
operating to the operating
principles principles
of the Rankineofcycle.
the Rankine
This effect cycle. This effect
happens sincehappens
if T2 is
since if 𝑇
increased, the enthalpy of the fluid at the turbine inlet and outlet also increases;outlet
is increased, the enthalpy of the fluid at the turbine inlet and however, also
increases;
the enthalpyhowever,
increase atthe theenthalpy
dischargeincrease at more
is slightly the discharge
significant,iscausing
slightlya more
powersignificant,
decrease.
Incausing
Figure a4,power decrease. In Figure
the aforementioned 4, the
effect aforementioned
seems to be relatedeffect to theseems
change to be
in related to the
the cooling
change in the
temperature; cooling when
however, temperature;
analyzing however,
the data when analyzing
obtained, it was thecorroborated
data obtained, thatit the
was
corroborated that the slight decrease in power production
slight decrease in power production in the turbine of the ORC has no relationship within the turbine of the ORC has
nocooling
the relationship with the
temperature cooling
of the DEACS. temperature of the DEACS.
If the temperature If the were
and pressure temperature
kept at theand
pressure
turbine werethe
outlet, kept at the turbine
increase outlet, the increase
in the temperature for the in the temperature
supplied heat would for produce
the suppliedan
heat would
increment producepower.
in turbine an increment in turbine power.
ToTodate,
date,itithas
hasbeen
beenshownshownthat increasingT𝑇
thatincreasing andP2𝑃 reduces
2 and reducesthe thecooling
coolingcapacity
capacity
butenhances
but enhancesthe theturbine
turbine power.
power. Since the the proposed
proposed system
systemcombines
combinesthe theproduction
productionof
ofpower
powerand andcooling,
cooling,itit isis convenient
convenient to to present the the results
results basedbasedon ona adimensionless
dimensionless
parameter
parameterrepresenting
representingthe thesystem
systemperformance.
[Link] Theenergy
energyutilization
utilizationfactor
factor(EUF),
(EUF),from
from
the
theperspective
perspective ofof
the first
the law
first of of
law thermodynamics,
thermodynamics, objectively
objectively describes
describesthe the
performance
performance of
a of
system
a systemproducing different
producing usefuluseful
different effects.effects.
FigureFigure
5 presents the influence
5 presents of the heat
the influence source
of the heat
temperature (T2 ), the maximum
source temperature pressure ofpressure
(𝑇 ), the maximum the system of (P 2 ), system
the and the (𝑃 cooling
), and temperature
the cooling
(Ttemperature
10 ) on the EUF.
(𝑇 ) on the EUF.
From Figure 5, it is evident that increasing the pressure at the inlet of the turbine
benefits the system operation since higher values of the EUF are obtained. However, the
EUF increase depends on factors such as the 𝑃 value, the pressure increment, and the
temperature of the working fluid. On the other hand, it is also observed that, for a given
pressure, increasing the temperature results in the detriment of the system performance
Processes 2023, 11, 667 15 of 30
Processes 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 30

Figure
5. 5.
NH NH-LiNO
3-LiNO3--C6H6 effect of heat source and cooling temperatures on EUF.
Figure 3 3 –C6 H6 effect of heat source and cooling temperatures on EUF.

SinceFigure
From the cooling
5, it istemperature
evident thathave no effect
increasing theonpressure
the turbine power,
at the inlet and theturbine
of the EUF ac-
counts the
benefits for system
the turbine and cooling
operation loads, Figure
since higher values5ofshows
the EUFthatare
theobtained.
effect of cooling
However,temper-
the
ature
EUF on the EUF
increase is equivalent
depends on factors to such
the effect of P
as the the cooling
2 value, thetemperature on the cooling
pressure increment, and load.
the
That is, theof
temperature system offers better
the working fluid. performance when it
On the other hand, the
is required cooling
also observed temperature
that, for a givenis
higher. The
pressure, range of
increasing thevalues for the EUF
temperature at three
results in thedifferent
detriment cooling
of thetemperatures is shown
system performance
in Table
due to the 10, where it is possible
considerations to observe
of isentropic that,and
expansion at the reported
constant conditions,
discharge the effect
pressure at theof
turbine. This modification slightly affects the cooling load and the turbine
reducing the cooling temperature by 4 °C will lead to a reduction of close to 5% of the power, whose
effects
energyresult in the trends
utilization [Link] in Figure 5.
Since the cooling temperature have no effect on the turbine power, and the EUF
Table [Link]
accounts Effecttheofturbine
cooling temperature
and cooling onloads,
EUF forFigure
a selected operating
5 shows condition.
that the effect of cooling
temperature on the EUF is equivalent to the effect of the cooling temperature on the cooling
Cooling temperature
𝑻𝟐 °𝐂
load. That is, the system offers better performance 𝑷𝟐 the
when 𝐤𝐏𝐚required𝑷cooling
𝟑 𝐤𝐏𝐚 temperature
EUF
𝑻𝟏𝟎 °𝐂
is higher. The range of values for the EUF at three different cooling temperatures is shown
4 0.76
in Table 10, where it is possible to observe that, at the reported conditions, the effect of
reducing the cooling 0 temperature by 4 ◦190 C will lead to900 300 to 5% of
a reduction of close 0.71
the
−4
energy utilization factor. 0.66

AsEffect
Table 10. of cooling
the EUF, temperature
exergy efficiencyonisEUF for a selectedparameter
a performance operating condition.
that objectively describes
any system operation based on the second law of thermodynamics. Figure 6 shows the
Cooling Temperature
combined T (◦ C) P (KPa) P3 (KPa)
the ORC on theEUF
T10 effect
(◦ C) of the higher2 pressure and2 temperature of exergy effi-
ciency for two cooling temperatures corresponding to −4 °C and 4 °C. Figure 6 shows that,
4 0.76
with a low performance, the proposed system can operate from 400 kPa and 160 °C up to
0
1900 kPa when 190 to the ORC
the heat supplied 900is at least 220
300 0.71
°C. In such conditions, the
system reaches
−4 an exergy efficiency equal to 0.37 with a cooling temperature 0.66 of −4 °C.

As the EUF, exergy efficiency is a performance parameter that objectively describes

any system operation based on the second law of thermodynamics. Figure 6 shows the
combined effect of the higher pressure and temperature of the ORC on the exergy efficiency
for two cooling temperatures corresponding to −4 ◦ C and 4 ◦ C. Figure 6 shows that, with a
low performance, the proposed system can operate from 400 kPa and 160 ◦ C up to 1900 kPa
when the heat supplied to the ORC is at least 220 ◦ C. In such conditions, the system reaches
an exergy efficiency equal to 0.37 with a cooling temperature of −4 ◦ C.
Processes 2023, 11, 667 16 of 30
Processes 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 30

[Link]
Figure NH 3-LiNO–
3 -LiNO 3 3--CC6H6exergy
6H 6 exergyefficiency
efficiencyasasaafunction
functionofofthe
theheat
heatsource
sourcetemperature
temperatureand
andthe
the
maximum pressure of the
maximum pressure of the ORC. ORC.

As
Asininthe
thecase
caseofof
the EUF,
the EUF,increasing
increasing thethe
heat supply
heat temperature
supply temperature makes it possible
makes to
it possible
improve the system
to improve the systemperformance
performancefromfrom
the point of view
the point of exergy
of view efficiency.
of exergy The values
efficiency. for
The values
this of −4 of◦ C, went from 0.13 (at 180 ◦ C and 400 kPa)
forparameter, for a cooling
this parameter, temperature
for a cooling temperature −4 °C, went from 0.13 (at 180 °C and 400
tokPa)
0.37to
(at0.37 ◦ C and 1900 kPa).
220(at 220 °C and 1900 kPa).
Regarding
Regardingthe theeffect
effectofofcooling
coolingtemperature
temperatureon onexergy
exergyefficiency,
efficiency,ititisisobserved
observedthat that
better efficiency corresponds to a lower temperature. This makes
better efficiency corresponds to a lower temperature. This makes sense because, from sense because, fromthe
the second-law
second-law point
point of of view,
view, thethe exergy
exergy of of a system
a system is proportional
is proportional to the
to the temperature
temperature dif-
difference betweenthe
ference between thesystem
systemand and the
the reference
reference state.
state. In
In this
this study,
study,aastandard
standardreference
reference
state of 25 ◦ C and 1 atm was considered. Thus, the cooling process occurring at the
state of 25 °C and 1 atm was considered. Thus, the cooling process occurring at the lowest
lowest temperatures
temperatures (in this(in this−4
case, °C) −
case, 4 ◦ C) corresponds
corresponds to a temperature
to a greater greater temperature
difference difference
concern-
concerning that of the reference state or, equivalently, greater exergy efficiency
ing that of the reference state or, equivalently, greater exergy efficiency of the system of the system
car-
carrying out such a process.
rying out such a process.
5.2. System Operation with Ammonia–Lithium Nitrate and Cyclohexane
5.2. System Operation with Ammonia–Lithium Nitrate and Cyclohexane
The saturation pressures of cyclohexane for the heat supply temperatures considered
(160 ≤The T2saturation
≤ 220) are pressures ofthe
similar to cyclohexane
saturationfor the heatofsupply
pressures temperatures
benzene considered
previously presented.
(160
For 𝑇
this reason, 220 ) are similar
the operating to the saturation
conditions at which thepressures of benzene previously
system performance pre-
was analyzed
are very similar for both working fluid combinations. Below are the main observationswas
sented. For this reason, the operating conditions at which the system performance of
analyzed
the are very
performance similar
of the for both
proposed working
system whenfluid
thecombinations.
ORC operatesBelow are the main obser-
with cyclohexane.
vations of 7the
Figure performance
shows the coolingofcapacity
the proposed system
at different when
heat the and
sources ORCcooling
operates with cyclo-
temperatures.
hexane.
The maximum cooling load obtained with cyclohexane was 83.5 kW at 4 C and a turbine ◦
Figure 7of
inlet pressure shows the cooling
600 kPa. capacitycooling
The minimum at different
load heat
was sources
50.85 kWandat cooling tempera-
−4 ◦ C and was
tures. The
obtained at amaximum
pressure of cooling load obtained with cyclohexane was 83.5 kW at 4 °C and a
1700 kPa.
turbine inlet pressure of 600 kPa. The minimum cooling load was 50.85 kW at −4 °C and
was obtained at a pressure of 1700 kPa.
Processes 2023,
Processes 11,11,
2023, 667x FOR PEER REVIEW 17
18ofof3030

[Link]
NH-LiNO
3-LiNO3-- C6H12 effect of heat source and cooling temperatures on cooling load.
Figure 3 3 – C6 H12 effect of heat source and cooling temperatures on cooling load.

Bycomparing
By comparingFigures Figures 33 and 7, itit can
canbebeverified
verifiedthatthatboth
boththethecooling
coolingloadloadtrends
trendsand
values are very similar to those obtained with benzene, except
and values are very similar to those obtained with benzene, except that the system with that the system with cyclo-
hexane achieves
cyclohexane achievesthe the
same sameperformance
performance at slightly lower
at slightly heatheat
lower source
sourcetemperatures.
temperatures. For
example,
For example, at aatpressure
a pressure of 1100
of 1100kPakPa
at the turbine
at the turbineintake,
intake,thethe
system
system using cyclohexane
using cyclohexane can
can produce
produce 59.02
59.02 kW kW of of cold
cold 4 ◦ C,
atat−4−°C, with
with heat
heat suppliedatat190
supplied 190°C.◦ C. Regarding benzene,
Regarding benzene, it
itreaches
reachesaacooling
coolingload loadofof58.76
58.76kWkW at at
thethe
samesame cooling
cooling temperature
temperature butbut requires
requires heatheat
sup-
supplied at 200 ◦ C, which, in this application, is an interesting advantage of cyclohexane
plied at 200 °C, which, in this application, is an interesting advantage of cyclohexane over
over benzene.
benzene. On theOn other
the other
hand, hand, a disadvantage
a disadvantage of cyclohexane
of cyclohexane compared
compared to benzene
to benzene is
is that,
that, in general,
in general, for for a given
a given source
source temperature,the
temperature, thepressure
pressurerange
range at which
which itit isispossible
possibletoto
operate
operatethethesystem
systemisismore morerestricted
restrictedthan
thanthat
thatofofbenzene.
benzene.
Figure
Figure8 8shows
showsthe theproduced
producedpower powerby bythe
theproposed
proposedsystemsystematatdifferent
differentoperating
operating
conditions.
conditions. It is observed that when the pressures in the intake and discharge ofturbine
It is observed that when the pressures in the intake and discharge of the the tur-
remain constant,
bine remain the turbine
constant, power tends
the turbine powertotends
decrease slightly slightly
to decrease by increasing the heat the
by increasing source
heat
temperature. In the case
source temperature. In of
thecyclohexane, the maximum
case of cyclohexane, turbine power
the maximum turbine (11.3 kW)(11.3
power is reached
kW) is
atreached
the maximum turbine inlet
at the maximum pressure
turbine inlet (1700
pressurekPa). On kPa).
(1700 the other
On the hand,
otherwhen
hand, P2 when
adopts𝑃
the lowest
adopts thevalue,
lowest thevalue,
turbinethepower
turbine is power
minimal, and the cooling
is minimal, and theload is maximum.
cooling At this
load is maximum.
condition, the turbine power barely reaches 2.2 kW for heat supplied at 160 ◦ C.
At this condition, the turbine power barely reaches 2.2 kW for heat supplied at 160 °C.
An evident behavior from Figure 8 is that the power gain in the turbine, due to the P2
increase, is not linear, but it is a function of the pressure level from which it starts. Therefore,
for example, at a heat source temperature of 180 ◦ C, increasing the pressure from 500 to
600 kPa produces an increase of 34.5% in the turbine power, while an increase from 600
to 700 kPa, causes an increment of only 21.2%. This fact highlights the convenience of
determining an adequate pressure level to achieve the objectives sought; for this objective,
the EUF analysis can be very useful. The behavior of EUF as a function of T2 , P2 , and T10 is
presented in Figure 9. It is shown that, as shown for benzene, increasing P2 up to a certain
level allows it to reach higher EUF values.
 Figure 8 shows the produced power by the proposed system at different operating
conditions. It is observed that when the pressures in the intake and discharge of the tur-
bine remain constant, the turbine power tends to decrease slightly by increasing the heat
source temperature. In the case of cyclohexane, the maximum turbine power (11.3 kW) is
Processes 2023, 11, 667 reached at the maximum turbine inlet pressure (1700 kPa). On the other hand, when 18 of 30𝑃
adopts the lowest value, the turbine power is minimal, and the cooling load is maximum.
At this condition, the turbine power barely reaches 2.2 kW for heat supplied at 160 °C.
Processes 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 30

Figure 8. NH3-LiNO3--C6H12 turbine power as a function of heat supply temperature and cooling
temperature at different turbine operating pressures.

An evident behavior from Figure 8 is that the power gain in the turbine, due to the
𝑃 increase, is not linear, but it is a function of the pressure level from which it starts.
Therefore, for example, at a heat source temperature of 180 °C, increasing the pressure
from 500 to 600 kPa produces an increase of 34.5% in the turbine power, while an increase
from 600 to 700 kPa, causes an increment of only 21.2%. This fact highlights the conven-
ience of determining an adequate pressure level to achieve the objectives sought; for this
objective, the EUF analysis can be very useful. The behavior of EUF as a function of 𝑇 ,
𝑃 , and 𝑇 is presented in Figure 9. It is shown that, as shown for benzene, increasing 𝑃
up to a certain level allows it to reach higher EUF values.
To date, it has been shown that regardless of the working fluid utilized, the turbine
power and cooling load depend mainly on the 𝑇 and 𝑃 values. Likewise, it has been
shown that the operating condition that favors the maximum turbine power negatively
impacts
Figure the3 -LiNO
8. NH cooling
3 –Cload, so an intermediate
6 H12 turbine level for
power as a function thissupply
of heat parameter could and
temperature be the most
cooling
suitable to balance both products.
temperature at different turbine operating pressures.

[Link]
NH-LiNO
3-LiNO3--C6H12 effect of heat source and cooling temperatures on EUF.
Figure 3 3 –C6 H12 effect of heat source and cooling temperatures on EUF.

ToFigure
date, 9itshows thatshown
has been the maximum value ofofthe
that regardless thecyclohexane
working fluid EUF was 0.762,
utilized, the obtained
turbine
at a pressure
power and coolingof 1100 kPadepend
load and a temperature
mainly on the of 190 °C, P
T2 and although
2 [Link] pressures
Likewise, it of
has900 kPa
been
and 1300
shown thatkPa,
the for temperatures
operating of 180
condition °Cfavors
that and 200the°C, respectively,
maximum the EUF
turbine poweris very similar.
negatively
This fact
impacts theoffers the possibility
cooling load, so anofintermediate
operating inlevel
a wideforrange of conditions
this parameter couldwithout
be thesignifi-
most
cantly affecting
suitable to balancethe system
both performance from the perspective of the first law of thermo-
products.
dynamics.
Figure 9Therefore,
shows thatthethechoice of thevalue
maximum operating
of thecondition
cyclohexane in such
EUFawasrange depends
0.762, obtainedon the
at
aeffect to improve,
pressure of 1100 kPaeither
andcooling or power.
a temperature of 190 ◦ C, although for pressures of 900 kPa and
1300 kPa,
Figurefor temperatures
10 shows the of 180 ◦ Cperformance
system and 200 ◦ C, respectively, the EUFpoint
from a second-law is very
of similar.
view. InThis
this
fact offers
case, the the possibility
influence ofmain
of the operating in a wide
operating range ofon
parameters conditions
the exergy without significantly
efficiency is shown.
affecting the system
For example, performance
in Figure 10, it canfrom the perspective
be observed that, asofinthe
thefirst
caselaw
of of
thethermodynamics.
EUF, for a given
Therefore, the choice of the operating condition in such a range
temperature, increasing the pressure at the turbine intake increases the exergy depends on theefficiency;
effect to
improve, either cooling or power.
however, unlike the EUF, which does not necessarily benefit from an increase in pressure
andFigure 10 shows
temperature, thethe
bestsystem
exergyperformance
efficiency valuesfromarea second-law
obtained at thepoint of view.
highest heatInsource
this
case, the influence
temperature of the main operating parameters on the exergy efficiency is shown.
and pressure.
Processes 2023, 11, 667 19 of 30

For example, in Figure 10, it can be observed that, as in the case of the EUF, for a given
temperature, increasing the pressure at the turbine intake increases the exergy efficiency;
however, unlike the EUF, which does not necessarily benefit from an increase in pressure
Processes 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 30
and temperature, the best exergy efficiency values are obtained at the highest heat source
temperature and pressure.

Figure 10. NH3-LiNO3--C6H12 exergy efficiency as a function of heat supply temperature and higher
Figure 10. NH3 -LiNO3 –C6 H12 exergy efficiency as a function of heat supply temperature and higher
pressure of the ORC.
pressure of the ORC.

Figure1010shows
Figure showsthat
thatexergy
exergyefficiency
efficiencyreached
reacheda amaximum
maximumofof0.350.35when
whenthe
theheat
heatwas
was
suppliedtotothe
supplied thesystem
systematat 220C,
220 ◦ P2 𝑃equals
°C, equals 1800
1800 kPa,
kPa, andand
thethe cooling
cooling loadload
waswas provided
provided at
−at4 ◦−4
C; °C; on other
on the the other
hand,hand, the lowest
the lowest exergy
exergy efficiency
efficiency (in the(in the of
range range of conditions
conditions pre-
presented)
sented)
was was when
obtained obtained when
the heat thesupplied
was heat wasatsupplied
170 ◦ C, Pat 170 °C, 𝑃 was kept at 400 KPa, and
2 was kept at 400 KPa, and the cooling
the cooling load was
load was provided at 4 C. provided
◦ at 4 °C.

[Link]
5.3. SystemOperation
Operationwith
withAmmonia–Lithium
Ammonia–LithiumNitrate
Nitrateand
andMethanol
Methanol
InInthe
thecase
caseofofmethanol,
methanol,the thesaturation
saturationpressures
pressurescorresponding
correspondingtotothe theheat
heatsource
source
temperatures
temperaturesare aredifferent
differentfrom
fromthose
thosefor
forbenzene
benzeneandandcyclohexane.
[Link] Duetotothis
thisdifference,
difference,
the
theoperating
operatingconditions
conditionsfor forthe
thesystem
systemutilizing
utilizingmethanol
methanolarearelimited.
[Link]
Thisisisthe
thereason
reason
why
whythe theresults
resultspresented
presentedbelowbelowconsider
considerananoperating
operatingcondition
conditionslightly
slightlydifferent
differentfrom
from
that
thatselected
selectedforforthe
thepreviously
previouslyanalyzed
analyzedfluids,
fluids,particularly
particularlyfor
forthe
thepressures
pressuresininthe
theORC.
ORC.
The
Thesystem
systembehavior
behaviorresults
resultsoperating
operatingwithwithmethanol
methanolininthetheORC
ORC are presented
are presented below.
below.
Figure
Figure 11 presents the cooling load achieved by the system when it operateswith
11 presents the cooling load achieved by the system when it operates with
methanol
methanolininthe theORC.
[Link]
observedthat thatthe
theeffects
effectsofofpressure
pressureand andtemperature
temperatureon on
the
thecooling
coolingload
loadarearesimilar
similartotothose
thosedescribed
describedabove.
above.
From a quantitative point of view, for the cooling temperatures analyzed, there is a
slight increase in the cooling load achieved by the operation with methanol. This increase
could be attributed to the fact that this power corresponds to a lower expansion pressure
(P3 = 400 kPa). However, it was found that, under the same operating conditions, for the
system operating with methanol, the cooling load was slightly higher (74.5 kW) than that
achieved with benzene (74.08 kW) and cyclohexane (73.9 kW).
 the operating conditions for the system utilizing methanol are limited. This is the reason
why the results presented below consider an operating condition slightly different from
that selected for the previously analyzed fluids, particularly for the pressures in the ORC.
The system behavior results operating with methanol in the ORC are presented below.
Figure 11 presents the cooling load achieved by the system when it operates with
Processes 2023, 11, 667 20 of 30
methanol in the ORC. It can be observed that the effects of pressure and temperature on
the cooling load are similar to those described above.

Processes 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 30

Figure 11. NH3-LiNO3--CH3OH effect of heat source and cooling temperatures on cooling load.

From a quantitative point of view, for the cooling temperatures analyzed, there is a
slight increase in the cooling load achieved by the operation with methanol. This increase
could be attributed to the fact that this power corresponds to a lower expansion pressure
(𝑃 400 kPa). However, it was found that, under the same operating conditions, for the
Figure [Link]
system NH3 -LiNO with methanol, the cooling load was slightly higher (74.5 kW) than that
3 –CH3 OH effect of heat source and cooling temperatures on cooling load.
achieved with benzene (74.08 kW) and cyclohexane (73.9 kW).
Regardingthe
Regarding theturbine
turbine power,
power, Figure
Figure 12 shows
12 shows that methanol,
that with with methanol, the observed
the observed trends
trends
are are contrary
contrary to thosetoobserved
those observed
[Link]. For constant
For constant pressures
pressures in theinORC,
the ORC, it is no-
it is noticed
ticedthe
that thatturbine
the turbine
power power is slightly
is slightly increased
increased as as
thethe heatsource
heat sourcetemperature
temperatureaugments.
augments.
Thisbehavior
This behaviorisisdifferent
differentfromfromthethecorresponding
correspondingto tothe
thepreviously
previouslydiscussed
discussedfluids.
[Link]
This
happenedfor
happened forthe
thesame
samereasons
reasons explained
explained in in Figure
Figure 4. However,
4. However, in the
in the casecase of methanol,
of methanol, the
enthalpy increase
the enthalpy is more
increase is significant in the inlet
more significant in thethan in than
inlet the outlet,
in thecausing
outlet, acausing
slight increase
a slight
in the turbine
increase in thepower
turbine as power
the heat assource temperature
the heat is augmented.
source temperature is augmented.

Figure12.
Figure [Link]
NH33-LiNO
-LiNO33–CH
--CH33OH
OH turbine
turbine power
power as
as aa function
function of
of heat
heat source
source temperature
temperatureand
andcooling
cooling
temperature at different operating conditions.
temperature at different operating conditions.

Figure 12 also shows that the turbine power achieved (7.9 kW) when the system op-
erates with methanol is lower than that achieved when using benzene (11.4 kW) or cyclo-
hexane (9.43 kW) at the same ORC pressure condition. However, with benzene and cyclo-
hexane, the turbine power achieved is higher than with methanol, even at lower heat
source temperatures. For example, for the system operating with methanol, at a pressure
of 1100 kPa, the minimum heat source temperature required to produce cooling at 4 °C is
215 °C. In the case of the system operating with benzene or cyclohexane, even greater
turbine power is produced with heat supplied at 190 °C.
As for the energy utilization factor, it is found between 0.62 and 0.76, which are lower
values than those obtained by the system with benzene and cyclohexane. Figure 13 shows
Processes 2023, 11, 667 21 of 30

Figure 12 also shows that the turbine power achieved (7.9 kW) when the system
operates with methanol is lower than that achieved when using benzene (11.4 kW) or
cyclohexane (9.43 kW) at the same ORC pressure condition. However, with benzene and
cyclohexane, the turbine power achieved is higher than with methanol, even at lower heat
source temperatures. For example, for the system operating with methanol, at a pressure
of 1100 kPa, the minimum heat source temperature required to produce cooling at 4 ◦ C
is 215 ◦ C. In the case of the system operating with benzene or cyclohexane, even greater
turbine power is produced with heat supplied at 190 ◦ C.
Processes 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW As for the energy utilization factor, it is found between 0.62 and 0.76, which are 22 of 30
lower
values than those obtained by the system with benzene and cyclohexane. Figure 13 shows
that the highest EUF value is obtained when the system operates at the highest possible
pressure. This behavior
corresponding differs
cyclohexane, frombehavior
whose the case shows
of cyclohexane, whose highest
that an increase EUFsource
in the heat was
attained at an intermediate pressure.
temperature from any point generally results in a lower EUF.

Figure13.
Figure [Link]
NH 3-LiNO3--CH3OH effect of heat source and cooling temperatures on EUF.
3 -LiNO3 –CH3 OH effect of heat source and cooling temperatures on EUF.

From Figurethe
Regarding 13 exergy
also can be noticed
efficiency, that,14
Figure like the behavior
shows its highestobserved
value is with benzene,
approximately
when P2 isissignificantly
0.26. It kept constant, the than
lower highest
the EUF
valueiscorresponding
achieved for an to intermediate
benzene and heat source
cyclohexane.
temperature. Thus, cases,
As in the previous for any pressure,
from augmenting
the second-law theofheat
point source
view, temperature
the best from that
system performance
point would when
is obtained result the
in aORC
decrease in theatEUF
operates due to the
the highest reasons
pressure discussed
and for the
temperature previously
and when the
analyzed fluids. Such
DEACS supplies a trend,
a cooling loadobserved for benzene
at the lowest temperatureand (in
methanol,
this case,contrasts
−4 °C). with the
corresponding cyclohexane, whose behavior shows that an increase in the heat source
temperature from any point generally results in a lower EUF.
Regarding the exergy efficiency, Figure 14 shows its highest value is approximately
0.26. It is significantly lower than the value corresponding to benzene and cyclohexane. As
in the previous cases, from the second-law point of view, the best system performance is
obtained when the ORC operates at the highest pressure and temperature and when the
DEACS supplies a cooling load at the lowest temperature (in this case, −4 ◦ C).

Figure 14. NH3-LiNO3--CH3OH exergy efficiency as a function of heat supply temperature and max-
imum ORC pressure.
 Figure 13. NH3-LiNO3--CH3OH effect of heat source and cooling temperatures on EUF.

Regarding the exergy efficiency, Figure 14 shows its highest value is approximately
0.26. It is significantly lower than the value corresponding to benzene and cyclohexane.
As in the previous cases, from the second-law point of view, the best system performance
Processes 2023, 11, 667 22 of 30
is obtained when the ORC operates at the highest pressure and temperature and when the
DEACS supplies a cooling load at the lowest temperature (in this case, −4 °C).

Figure14.
Figure 14. NH
NH33-LiNO
-LiNO33--CH
–CH33OH
OHexergy
exergyefficiency asas
efficiency a function of heat
a function supply
of heat temperature
supply and max-
temperature and
imum ORC pressure.
maximum ORC pressure.

5.4.
[Link]
SystemOperation
Operationwith withAmmonia–Lithium
Ammonia–LithiumNitrate Nitrateand
andToluene
Toluene
Compared
Comparedtotothe theorganic
organicfluids
fluidspreviously
previouslyanalyzed,
analyzed,forforthe
theconsidered
consideredheatheatsource
source
temperatures
temperaturesrange,
Processes 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW range,the thesaturation
saturationpressures
pressuresofoftoluene
tolueneare
arethe
thelowest.
[Link]
Thisfact
factlimits
limits
23 ofthe
the30
use
useofoftoluene
tolueneasasthetheworking
workingfluidfluidofofthe
theORC,
ORC,which
whichmeans
meansthat thatthe
theoperation
operationofofthe the
proposed ◦
proposedsystemsystemisispossible
possibleexclusively
exclusivelyatattemperatures
temperaturesabove
above180 180 C.
°[Link],
addition,ititwas
was
found ◦
found that when the system operates with toluene, a condensation temperature of 30 C
that when the system operates with toluene, a condensation temperature of 30 °C
considerably limits the conditions at which the system can operate. For
considerably limits the conditions at which the system can operate. For that reason, in the that reason, in the
caseof
case oftoluene,
toluene,aacondensation
condensationtemperature
temperatureofof24 24◦ °C wasconsidered.
C was considered.
ItItalso
alsowas
wasfound
foundthat thatthe
theoperating
operatingparameters
parameterscorresponding
correspondingto totoluene
toluenehave
havethe the
most linear response to changes in the operating variables. Figure 15 shows
most linear response to changes in the operating variables. Figure 15 shows that the highest that the high-
est cooling
cooling load load was 82.07
was 82.07 kW, achieved
kW, achieved at the at the lowest
lowest pressure
pressure (P2 = 500(𝑃 kPa)500𝑘𝑃𝑎)
and the and
lowestthe
lowest heat source temperature ◦ (180 °C). For these conditions, the cooling
heat source temperature (180 C). For these conditions, the cooling load with benzene and load with ben-
zene and cyclohexane
cyclohexane reached 80.3 reached
kW and80.3 kWkW,
80.1 andrespectively,
80.1 kW, respectively,
while 80.4 while
kW of80.4 kW at
cooling of 4cool-
◦C
ing obtained
was at 4 °C was obtained
utilizing utilizing methanol.
methanol.

Figure [Link]
Figure15. NH33-LiNO
-LiNO33–C
--C77H effect of heat source and cooling temperatures
H88 effect temperatures on
on cooling
cooling load.
load.

The lowest cooling load achieved with toluene was 69.8 kW, obtained with heat sup-
plied at 220 °C, a cooling temperature of −4 °C, and a turbine inlet pressure of 1000 kPa.
For the same condition, the system achieved cooling loads of 70.09 kW, 69.4 kW, and 72.9
kW with benzene, cyclohexane, and methanol, respectively, demonstrating that the fluid
Processes 2023, 11, 667 23 of 30

The lowest cooling load achieved with toluene was 69.8 kW, obtained with heat
supplied at 220 ◦ C, a cooling temperature of −4 ◦ C, and a turbine inlet pressure of 1000 kPa.
For the same condition, the system achieved cooling loads of 70.09 kW, 69.4 kW, and 72.9
kW with benzene, cyclohexane, and methanol, respectively, demonstrating that the fluid
used in the ORC does not have a significant influence on the cooling load.
Figure 16 shows the turbine power as a function of the main parameters. In the case of
the operation with toluene, the system can reach a maximum power of 6.9 kW when the
heat is supplied at 220 ◦ C and the turbine inlet pressure is 1000 kPa. Under these same
conditions, with benzene, cyclohexane, and methanol, the turbine power was: 7.02 kW,
6.57 kW, and 6.71 kW, respectively. It is worth mentioning that, in the condition described,
the system can produce cooling from −4 ◦ C; however, the minimum required temperature
Processes 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of 30
(at the specified conditions) is 220 ◦ C. For this reason, only one point for such a condition
appears in Figure 16.

Figure16.
Figure [Link]
NH 3-LiNO3--C7H8 turbine power as a function of heat source temperature and cooling
3 -LiNO3 –C7 H8 turbine power as a function of heat source temperature and cooling
temperature at differentoperating
temperature at different operatingconditions.
conditions.

OnOnthetheother
otherhand,
hand,when
whenthe thesystem
systemoperated
operatedwith
withtoluene,
toluene,thetheminimum
minimumturbine
turbine
power was 1.81
power was 1.81 kW, kW, with a minimum pressure of 500 kPa, at 205 °C. ◦ Under
a minimum pressure of 500 kPa, at 205 C. Under the same the same con-
ditions, forfor
conditions, thethe
other fluids
other analyzed,
fluids analyzed,thethe
system obtained
system turbine
obtained powers
turbine of: 1.80
powers kW,kW,
of: 1.80 1.70
kW,kW,
1.70 andand1.711.71
kWkW for for
benzene,
benzene,cyclohexane,
cyclohexane, andand
methanol,
methanol,respectively.
respectively.
Regardingthe
Regarding theEUF,
EUF,Figure
Figure 1717 shows that
that when
whenthethesystem
systemoperates
operateswithwithtoluene,
toluene,its
performance
its performance is is
different
differentcompared
compared to to
that of the
that other
of the analyzed
other analyzedfluids. It was
fluids. found
It was that,
found
that,
fromfromthe the first-law
first-law point
point of of view,
view, thebest
the bestoperating
operatingcondition
condition reached
reached a EUF EUF ofof0.82,
0.82,
achieved
achieved for lowest temperature
for the lowest temperatureand andthethe lowest
lowest pressure
pressure of theof system (𝑇
the system
(T180
2 =°C, 𝑃 ◦ C,500
180 P2 kPa).
= 500 kPa).
The sameThe same performance
performance was at
was obtained obtained
the same atcondition
the same forcondi-
ben-
tion
zeneforand
benzene and cyclohexane,
cyclohexane, while for methanol,
while for methanol, this parameter
this parameter reached [Link] 0.83.
 kW, and 1.71 kW for benzene, cyclohexane, and methanol, respectively.
Regarding the EUF, Figure 17 shows that when the system operates with toluene, its
performance is different compared to that of the other analyzed fluids. It was found that,
from the first-law point of view, the best operating condition reached a EUF of 0.82,
Processes 2023, 11, 667
achieved for the lowest temperature and the lowest pressure of the system24(of 𝑇 30
180 °C, 𝑃 500 kPa). The same performance was obtained at the same condition for ben-
zene and cyclohexane, while for methanol, this parameter reached 0.83.

Figure17.
[Link]
NH-LiNO
3-LiNO3--C7H8 effect of heat source and cooling temperatures on the EUF.
Figure 3 3 –C7 H8 effect of heat source and cooling temperatures on the EUF.

Figure17
Figure 17also
alsoshows
showsthat,
that,for
forthe
thesystem
systemoperating
operatingwith
withtoluene,
toluene,the
theworst
worstenergy
energy
Processes 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 25atof◦205
performance corresponded
performance corresponded toto a EUF
a EUF equal
equal to 0.72,
to 0.72, obtained
obtained whenwhen
heatheat is supplied
is supplied at 205 C30
°C and
and 500 kPa.
500 kPa. For benzene,
For benzene, cyclohexane,
cyclohexane, and methanol,
and methanol, this parameter
this parameter corresponds
corresponds to 0.73, to
0.73,and
0.72, 0.72, andrespectively.
0.74, 0.74, respectively.
Finally,
Finally,Figure
Figure1818shows
showsthethesystem
systemperformance
performancefromfromaasecond-law
second-lawperspective.
[Link] The
exergy
exergyefficiency
efficiencyfor forthe
thesystem
systemoperating
operatingwith
withtoluene
toluenecoincides
coincideswith
withthat
thatof
ofthe
theother
other
fluids
fluidsanalyzed
analyzedsince
sincethe
themaximum
maximumexergyexergyefficiency
efficiencycorresponds
correspondstotothethemaximum
maximumheat heat
source temperature and the maximum operating pressure
source temperature and the maximum operating pressure in the ORC. in the ORC.

Figure18.
Figure [Link]
NH3 -LiNO
3-LiNO3–C
3
--C77H
H88 exergy
exergy efficiency
efficiency asas aa function
function of
of heat
heat supply
supplytemperature
temperatureand
andmaxi-
maxi-
mum ORC pressure.
mum ORC pressure.

Themaximum
The maximumexergy
exergy efficiency
efficiency waswas obtained
obtained for for
heatheat supplied
supplied at◦220
at 220 °C1000
C and and kPa,
1000
kPa,cooling
and and cooling produced
produced ◦
at −4 at C.−4 °C. value,
Such Such value, corresponding
corresponding to 0.26,towas
0.26, was
also also reached
reached at the
at theconditions
same same conditions by theoperating
by the system system operating with and
with benzene benzene and methanol,
methanol, while when while
the when
fluid
the cyclohexane,
was fluid was cyclohexane,
the exergythe exergy was
efficiency efficiency
0.25. was 0.25.

5.5. Performance Comparison for the ORC Working Fluids

Table 11 presents a comparison of the main performance parameters for the four or-
ganic fluids utilized in the present study. The comparison is carried out at one selected
operating condition corresponding to the maximum heat supply temperature (220 °C), a
pressure difference of 500 kPa in the ORC (1000–500 KPa), a condenser-generator temper-
Processes 2023, 11, 667 25 of 30

5.5. Performance Comparison for the ORC Working Fluids

Table 11 presents a comparison of the main performance parameters for the four
organic fluids utilized in the present study. The comparison is carried out at one selected
operating condition corresponding to the maximum heat supply temperature (220 ◦ C), a
pressure difference of 500 kPa in the ORC (1000–500 KPa), a condenser-generator temper-
ature of 120 ◦ C, and a condensation temperature of 30 ◦ C, for cooling being produced at
−4 ◦ C.

Table 11. Comparison of the main parameters for the different working fluids at one selected
operating condition.

Turbine Power Cooling Load EUF ηEXER

Organic Fluid
(kW) (kW) (Dimensionless) (Dimensionless)
Benzene 5.56 72.13 0.75 0.19
Cyclohexane 5.23 71.74 0.75 0.18
Methanol 5.25 74.20 0.77 0.18
Toluene 5.55 71.97 0.75 0.19

From the comparison of the organic fluids, due to the similar values achieved for the
different performance parameters, it could be thought that the selection of the organic
fluid does not significantly affect the performance parameters in Table 11; however, it
is important to mention that the working fluid is a key parameter on the determination
of the operating conditions at which the integrated system can work. In other words,
although the system performance with the different organic fluids is similar, some fluids
have operational advantages over others, such as higher operating pressure ranges or
lower activation temperatures with similar performance for a given operating condition.
For example, for the described operating condition, benzene and cyclohexane can offer a
similar behavior if heat is supplied from 200 ◦ C and 195 ◦ C, respectively, while methanol
and toluene necessary require a minimum activation temperature of 220 ◦ C.
Regarding the system’s cooling and power capacities, these are directly dependent on
the thermal load supplied to the system in the ORC evaporator. As we previously described,
for the results presented in this section, a constant amount (100 kWth ) of heat supplied to
the ORC’s evaporator was considered. Based on this parameter, the mass flow rate in the
organic cycle and the rest of the components of the absorption cycle were determined in
such a way that, if this parameter is changed, the corresponding cooling load and turbine
power will change proportionally. For a heat supply at 180 ◦ C, constant pressures on the
ORC, a condensing temperature of 24 ◦ C, a condenser/generator temperature of 100 ◦ C,
and the minimum evaporation temperature (−4 ◦ C), Table 12 presents the influence of the
.
change on the amount of heat supplied to the ORC, on the turbine power (W T ), the cooling
.
load (Q E ), energy utilization factor (EUF), and exergy efficiency (ηEX ).
From Table 12, it can be proved that changing the amount of heat supplied to the
ORC’s evaporator affects the turbine power and the cooling load linearly, as it was expected.
Hence, a key step in the prospective design of a system such as the one proposed in this
work should consider, as a first step, the available heat that could potentially be supplied
to the ORC to accordingly size the main components.
Another important fact, evident from Table 12, is that the amount of heat supplied
affects only quantitatively the system performance since the energy utilization factor and
the exergy efficiency remain undisturbed as the heat supply is changed. The reason for that
is that these parameters are mainly affected by the operative conditions, as it is shown in
Table 12.
Processes 2023, 11, 667 26 of 30

Table 12. Influence of the heat supplied for the different working fluids at one selected operating
condition.

Benzene
. . .
QE,ORC WT QE EUF ηEX
100 1.86 72.45 0.7295 0.1728
200 3.72 144.90 0.7295 0.1728
300 5.58 217.35 0.7295 0.1728
400 7.44 289.80 0.7295 0.1728
500 9.31 362.25 0.7295 0.1728
Cyclohexane
. . .
Q E,ORC WT QE EUF ηEX
100 1.80 72.24 0.727 0.171
200 3.61 144.48 0.727 0.171
300 5.42 216.73 0.727 0.171
400 7.23 288.97 0.727 0.171
500 9.04 361.21 0.727 0.171
Methanol
. . .
Q E,ORC WT QE EUF ηEX
100 1.67 73.59 0.7389 0.1699
200 3.35 147.18 0.7389 0.1699
300 5.03 220.78 0.7389 0.1699
400 6.71 294.37 0.7389 0.1699
500 8.39 367.97 0.7389 0.1699
Toluene
. . .
Q E,ORC WT QE EUF ηEX
100 1.90 72.31 0.7286 0.1737
200 3.81 144.63 0.7286 0.1737
300 5.71 216.95 0.7286 0.1737
400 7.62 289.26 0.7286 0.1737
500 9.52 361.58 0.7286 0.1737

6. Conclusions
The present study presented and discussed the theoretical performance of a new
system for simultaneous power and cooling. The proposed system is based on integrating
a power cycle and a cooling cycle. The power cycle was an organic Rankine cycle (ORC),
and the cooling cycle was a double-effect absorption cooling system (DEACS). For the
ORC operation, the use of four organic fluids was considered. These fluids are benzene,
cyclohexane, methanol, and toluene. For the DEACS, the ammonia–lithium nitrate mixture
was used. The results discussion was based on the evaluation of the main operating
parameters’ effect on the most significant performance parameters, such as the cooling
load, the turbine power, the energy utilization factor, and the exergy efficiency.
It was found that the heat source temperature (T2 ) and the higher pressure of the ORC
(P2 ) have a great influence on the system performance since the ORC operating conditions
determine the thermal load supplied to the DEACS.
As for the main parameters of the DEACS, it was found that, in addition to the cooling
temperature, the condenser-generator temperature (T6 ) is also an important parameter
since it limits the system’s operating range. However, it was found that the variation in this
temperature keeping the rest constant does not significantly affect the system performance
from the quantitative point of view.
From the information presented, it was observed that the conditions that favor the
cooling load (lower pressure in the intake of the turbine) result in the detriment of the
turbine power and vice versa. Regarding the cooling load, it was proved that, for any
operating condition, the cooling load was higher than the turbine power since the minimum
Processes 2023, 11, 667 27 of 30

cooling produced by the system with any combination of working fluids is above 50 kW,
while the maximum turbine power is less than 12.8 kW.
On the other hand, from the comparison of the different combinations, it is possible
to conclude that, under the considerations to which the present analysis was carried out,
the fluid used in the ORC has a significant impact neither on the turbine power nor on
the cooling produced; however, it influences how the changes in operating parameters
affect the system performance. Therefore, it is also concluded that the ORC working fluid
selection is closely related to the operating conditions in which the system can work.
The analysis of the system results with benzene and cyclohexane showed that the
performance of both substances is very similar in the qualitative and quantitative aspects.
Nevertheless, for some conditions, it was found that although the system operating with
benzene offers a wider range of operating conditions, which represents an advantage in
terms of its operability, the system with cyclohexane achieves the same performance at
slightly lower heat source temperatures. On the other hand, for some operative conditions,
the system utilizing methanol obtained cooling loads slightly higher than those obtained
with the other fluids analyzed. However, the maximum pressure for the ORC at which the
system can operate with methanol is limited in comparison to that of the other fluids. This
fact could be an advantage when considering that, with a lower operating pressure, similar
or even better performance than the obtained with the other organic fluids is achieved
with methanol. On the other hand, it is known that benzene and cyclohexane freeze at
temperatures around 6 ◦ C; however, it is important to mention that there is no risk of
solidification for using them in the proposed system since they are only present in the
organic cycle, which in general, operates at temperatures above 100 ◦ C.
From the comparison between the different working fluids, it was found that the main
operating parameters did not vary considerably for the different used working fluids, but
the highest energy utilization factor and efficiencies of 0.76 and 0.27, respectively, were
obtained with methanol.
Regarding the performance of the system operating with toluene, it was found that,
although it is possible to operate in a relatively wide range of temperatures for each
pressure, the minimum heat source temperatures that make possible the system operation
are higher than those corresponding to the other fluids analyzed. For this reason, it is
considered that toluene does not represent any advantage when used as the working fluid
of the proposed system concerning the other organic fluids analyzed in this study.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.C.J.-G. and W.R.; Formal analysis, J.C.J.-G.; Investigation,
J.C.J.-G. and W.R.; Methodology, W.R.; Project administration, J.C.J.-G.; Resources, J.C.J.-G., I.M.-C.,
and W.R.; Software, I.M.-C.; Supervision, W.R.; Validation, J.C.J.-G. and I.M.-C.; Visualization, J.C.J.-G.;
Writing—original draft, J.C.J.-G., I.M.-C., and W.R.; Writing—review and editing, J.C.J.-G., I.M.-C.,
and W.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding. APC was funded by W. Rivera, I. Moreno-Cruz
and J. C. Jiménez-García.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: Isaías Moreno-Cruz acknowledges the posdoctoral fellowship awarded by
CONACYT through the program “Estancias Posdoctorales por México 2022(1)” agreement I1200/320/2022.
The authors also are grateful for the support provided by Alejandro Pacheco in the design and elabo-
ration of some of the figures reported in this document.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Processes 2023, 11, 667 28 of 30

Nomenclature

Symbol Meaning Units

EUF Energy utilization factor dimensionless
DEACS Double-effect absorption cooling system ---
h Specific enthalpy kJ/kg
HP High-pressure kPa
LP Low-pressure kPa
.
m Mass flow rate kJ/s
η Efficiency dimensionless
ORC Organic Rankine cycle ---
P Pressure kPa
.
Q Thermal load kW
T Temperature ◦ C, K
.
W Power kW
x Refrigerant mass concentration kg/kg

Subscripts and superscripts

Subscript Meaning
A absorber
C condenser
C,ORC Organic Rankine cycle condenser
G HP Generator high-pressure
G LP Generator low-pressure
E evaporator
E,ORC Organic Rankine cycle evaporator
EXER Related to exergy
G generator
i ith flow
ORC Organic Rankine cycle
P pump
P,ORC Organic Rankine cycle pump
SHE solution heat exchanger
T Turbine

References
1. IEA. World Energy Balances: Overview; IEA: Paris, France, 2019.
2. U.S. Department of Energy. Waste Heat Recovery: Technology and Opportunities in U.S. Industry; U.S. Department of Energy:
Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
3. Thekdi, A.; Nimbalkar, S.U. Industrial Waste Heat Recovery-Potential Applications, Available Technologies and Crosscutting R&D
Opportunities; U.S. Department of Energy: Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
4. Capstone Green Energy Corporation The Capstone Microturbine. Available online: [Link]
filings/content/0001558370-22-010690/[Link] (accessed on 24 January 2023).
5. Haghighi, A.; Pakatchian, M.R.; Assad, M.E.H.; Duy, V.N.; Alhuyi Nazari, M. A Review on Geothermal Organic Rankine Cycles:
Modeling and Optimization. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 2021, 144, 1799–1814. [CrossRef]
6. Ahmadi, A.; Assad, M.E.H.; Jamali, D.H.; Kumar, R.; Li, Z.X.; Salameh, T.; Al-Shabi, M.; Ehyaei, M.A. Applications of Geothermal
Organic Rankine Cycle for Electricity Production. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 274, 122950. [CrossRef]
7. Pethurajan, V.; Sivan, S.; Joy, G.C. Issues, Comparisons, Turbine Selections and Applications–An Overview in Organic Rankine
Cycle. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 166, 474–488. [CrossRef]
8. Tartière, T.; Astolfi, M. A World Overview of the Organic Rankine Cycle Market. Energy Procedia 2017, 129, 2–9. [CrossRef]
9. Park, B.-S.; Usman, M.; Imran, M.; Pesyridis, A. Review of Organic Rankine Cycle Experimental Data Trends. Energy Convers.
Manag. 2018, 173, 679–691. [CrossRef]
10. Karimi, M.; Dutta, A.; Kaushik, A.; Bansal, H.; Haque, S. A Review of Organic Rankine, Kalina and Goswami Cycle. Int. J. Eng.
Technol. Manag. Appl. Sci. 2015, 3, 90–105.
11. Herath, H.M.D.P.; Wijewardane, M.A.; Ranasinghe, R.A.C.P.; Jayasekera, J.G.A.S. Working Fluid Selection of Organic Rankine
Cycles. Energy Rep. 2020, 6, 680–686. [CrossRef]
12. Zhang, X.; Zhang, C.; He, M.; Wang, J. Selection and Evaluation of Dry and Isentropic Organic Working Fluids Used in Organic
Rankine Cycle Based on the Turning Point on Their Saturated Vapor Curves. J. Therm. Sci. 2019, 28, 643–658. [CrossRef]
Processes 2023, 11, 667 29 of 30

13. Dai, B.; Zhu, K.; Wang, Y.; Sun, Z.; Liu, Z. Evaluation of Organic Rankine Cycle by Using Hydrocarbons as Working Fluids:
Advanced Exergy and Advanced Exergoeconomic Analyses. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 197, 111876. [CrossRef]
14. Pezzuolo, A.; Benato, A.; Stoppato, A.; Mirandola, A. The ORC-PD: A Versatile Tool for Fluid Selection and Organic Rankine
Cycle Unit Design. Energy 2016, 102, 605–620. [CrossRef]
15. Braimakis, K.; Karellas, S. Exergetic Optimization of Double Stage Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC). Energy 2018, 149, 296–313.
[CrossRef]
16. Li, W.; Lin, X.; Cao, C.; Gong, Z.; Gao, Y. Organic Rankine Cycle-Assisted Ground Source Heat Pump Combisystem for Space
Heating in Cold Regions. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 165, 195–205. [CrossRef]
17. Marty, F.; Serra, S.; Sochard, S.; Reneaume, J.-M. Simultaneous Optimization of the District Heating Network Topology and the
Organic Rankine Cycle Sizing of a Geothermal Plant. Energy 2018, 159, 1060–1074. [CrossRef]
18. Geng, D.; Du, Y.; Yang, R. Performance Analysis of an Organic Rankine Cycle for a Reverse Osmosis Desalination System Using
Zeotropic Mixtures. Desalination 2016, 381, 38–46. [CrossRef]
19. Gholamian, E.; Habibollahzade, A.; Zare, V. Development and Multi-Objective Optimization of Geothermal-Based Organic
Rankine Cycle Integrated with Thermoelectric Generator and Proton Exchange Membrane Electrolyzer for Power and Hydrogen
Production. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 174, 112–125. [CrossRef]
20. Kaşka, Ö.; Ylmaz, C.; Bor, O.; Tokgöz, N. The Performance Assessment of a Combined Organic Rankine-Vapor Compression
Refrigeration Cycle Aided Hydrogen Liquefaction. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2018, 43, 20192–20202. [CrossRef]
21. Ganjehsarabi, H. Mixed Refrigerant as Working Fluid in Organic Rankine Cycle for Hydrogen Production Driven by Geothermal
Energy. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2019, 44, 18703–18711. [CrossRef]
22. Han, J.; Wang, X.; Xu, J.; Yi, N.; Talesh, S.S.A. Thermodynamic Analysis and Optimization of an Innovative Geothermal-Based
Organic Rankine Cycle Using Zeotropic Mixtures for Power and Hydrogen Production. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2020, 45, 8282–8299.
[CrossRef]
23. Cao, Y.; Haghghi, M.A.; Shamsaiee, M.; Athari, H.; Ghaemi, M.; Rosen, M.A. Evaluation and Optimization of a Novel Geothermal-
Driven Hydrogen Production System Using an Electrolyser Fed by a Two-Stage Organic Rankine Cycle with Different Working
Fluids. J. Energy Storage 2020, 32, 101766. [CrossRef]
24. Voeltzel, N.; Phan, H.T.; Blondel, Q.; Gonzalez, B.; Tauveron, N. Steady and Dynamical Analysis of a Combined Cooling and
Power Cycle. Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog. 2020, 19, 100650. [CrossRef]
25. Wang, N.; Zhang, S.; Fei, Z.; Zhang, W.; Shao, L.; Sardari, F. Thermodynamic Performance Analysis a Power and Cooling
Generation System Based on Geothermal Flash, Organic Rankine Cycles, and Ejector Refrigeration Cycle; Application of
Zeotropic Mixtures. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2020, 40, 100749. [CrossRef]
26. Lizarte, R.; Palacios-Lorenzo, M.E.; Marcos, J.D. Parametric Study of a Novel Organic Rankine Cycle Combined with a Cascade
Refrigeration Cycle (ORC-CRS) Using Natural Refrigerants. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2017, 127, 378–389. [CrossRef]
27. Javanshir, N.; Seyed Mahmoudi, S.M.; Rosen, M.A. Thermodynamic and Exergoeconomic Analyses of a Novel Combined Cycle
Comprised of Vapor-Compression Refrigeration and Organic Rankine Cycles. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3374. [CrossRef]
28. Sun, Y.; Lu, J.; Wang, J.; Li, T.; Li, Y.; Hou, Y.; Zhu, J. Performance Improvement of Two-Stage Serial Organic Rankine Cycle
(TSORC) Integrated with Absorption Refrigeration (AR) for Geothermal Power Generation. Geothermics 2017, 69, 110–118.
[CrossRef]
29. Ehyaei, M.A.; Ahmadi, A.; Assad, M.E.H.; Rosen, M.A. Investigation of an Integrated System Combining an Organic Rankine
Cycle and Absorption Chiller Driven by Geothermal Energy: Energy, Exergy, and Economic Analyses and Optimization. J. Clean.
Prod. 2020, 258, 120780. [CrossRef]
30. Leveni, M.; Cozzolino, R. Energy, Exergy, and Cost Comparison of Goswami Cycle and Cascade Organic Rankine Cy-
cle/Absorption Chiller System for Geothermal Application. Energy Convers. Manag. 2021, 227, 113598. [CrossRef]
31. Li, Z.; Li, W.; Xu, B. Optimization of Mixed Working Fluids for a Novel Trigeneration System Based on Organic Rankine Cycle
Installed with Heat Pumps. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2016, 94, 754–762. [CrossRef]
32. Pashapour, M.; Jafarmadar, S.; Khalil Arya, S. Exergy Analysis of a Novel Combined System Consisting of a Gas Turbine, an
Organic Rankine Cycle and an Absorption Chiller to Produce Power, Heat and Cold. Int. J. Eng. 2019, 32, 1320–1326.
33. Sharifishourabi, M.; Chadegani, E.A. Performance Assessment of a New Organic Rankine Cycle Based Multi-Generation System
Integrated with a Triple Effect Absorption System. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 150, 787–799. [CrossRef]
34. Domínguez-Inzunza, L.; Hernández-Magallanes, J.A.; Sandoval-Reyes, M.; Rivera, W. Comparison of the Performance of
Single-Effect, Half-Effect, Double-Effect in Series and Inverse and Triple-Effect Absorption Cooling Systems Operating with the
NH3 –LiNO3 Mixture. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2014, 66, 612–620. [CrossRef]
35. Soto, P.; Rivera, W. Experimental Assessment of an Air-Cooled Absorption Cooling System. Appl Therm Eng 2019, 155, 147–156.
[CrossRef]
36. Jiménez-García, J.C.; Rivera, W. Parametric Analysis on the Performance of an Experimental Ammonia/Lithium Nitrate Absorp-
tion Cooling System. Int. J. Energy Res. 2018, 42, 4402–4416. [CrossRef]
37. Moreno-Quintanar, G.; Rivera, W.; Best, R. Comparison of the Experimental Evaluation of a Solar Intermittent Refrigeration
System for Ice Production Operating with the Mixtures NH3/LiNO3 and NH3/LiNO3/H2O. Renew Energy 2012, 38, 62–68.
[CrossRef]
Processes 2023, 11, 667 30 of 30

38. Farshi, L.G.; Ferreira, C.A.I.; Mahmoudi, S.M.S.; Rosen, M.A. First and Second Law Analysis of Ammonia/Salt Absorption
Refrigeration Systems. Int. J. Refrig. 2014, 40, 111–121. [CrossRef]
39. Bell, I.H.; Wronski, J.; Quoilin, S.; Lemort, V. Pure and Pseudo-Pure Fluid Thermophysical Property Evaluation and the Open-
Source Thermophysical Property Library CoolProp. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2014, 53, 2498–2508. [CrossRef]
40. Hung, T.-C.; Shai, T.; Wang, S.K. A Review of Organic Rankine Cycles (ORCs) for the Recovery of Low-Grade Waste Heat. Energy
1997, 22, 661–667. [CrossRef]
41. Desai, N.B.; Bandyopadhyay, S. Process Integration of Organic Rankine Cycle. Energy 2009, 34, 1674–1686. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.