Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 43 (2012) 226–234

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers

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

Performance assessment with Pinch technology and integrated heat pumps for
vaporized concentration processing
Chi-I Tuan a, Yi-Lung Yeh b, Chi-Jen Chen c, Ting-Chien Chen a,*
a
Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, Neipu, Pingtung, 91201, Taiwan
b
Department of Civil Engineering, National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, Neipu, Pingtung, 91201, Taiwan
c
Department of Hospitality Management, Tajen University, Enpu, Pingtung 90741, Taiwan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: The enhancement of energy use efficiency is an urgent issue. In this study, Pinch technology (PT) was used
Received 12 June 2011 to assess the optimum energy use in a process. A heat pump (HP) was combined with a three-effect
Received in revised form 1 October 2011 vacuum evaporator (TEVE) in an old and traditional food factory to recover and reuse waste heat. The
Accepted 10 October 2011
Base case evaluated just the TEVE system. Three other cases included using the TEVE with: PT assessment
Available online 13 November 2011
alone (Case-1), PT with a conventional HP (CHP) (Case-2) and PT with a mechanical vapor recompression
technology called advanced HP (AHP) (Case-3). Case-2 and Case-3 not only enhanced the energy use
Keywords:
efficiency and reduced energy consumption, but also decreased waste heat emissions, which lowered the
Pinch technology
Heat pump
environmental heating load. When the PT was combined with the AHP (Case-3), the results were
Mechanical vapor re-compression unsurpassed. The heat of demand and emission were reduced by 15.7 (2.15  106 kWh/y) and 22.6%
Multiple-effect vacuum evaporators (3.10  106 kWh/y), respectively compared to the Base case. The results imply that if industry in Taiwan
used this system to promote energy use efficiency, the potential energy savings would be equal to 1.9
months of heat energy by burning fuel oil. In addition, the reduced heat discharge potential was
2.44  107 kWh/y, which could also reduce the environmental heating load.
ß 2011 Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The whole world faces two problems: the shortage of energy
resources and substantial fossil fuel use and waste heat discharge,
which causes environmental pollution. Because fuel oil prices
continuously move upward, the production cost increases [1,2].
Vaporized concentration is an industrial energy consumption
process in which water is changed into steam to reach a required
concentration [3]. A multiple-effect vacuum evaporator (MEVE),
widely used in factories, decreases the boiling point of water under
vacuum and therefore, energy consumption reduction [4]. Rao and
Kumar [5] showed that the vaporized concentration in a Kraft
pulping process consumed 24–30% of the total energy but after a
MEVE was introduced, the steam consumption decreased 24.6%. A
refined MEVE was shown to increase steam use efficiency and
decrease energy consumption. Higa et al. [6] and Khademi et al. [7]
pointed out that the more effect was added, the less energy was
used. Kaya and Sarac [8] investigated steam consumption in a
MEVE with co-current, counter-current, and parallel feed streams
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 8 7740333; fax: +886 8 7740244.
E-mail addresses: cituan@jellice.com.tw (C.-I. Tuan), yalung@mail.npust.edu.tw
(Y.-L. Yeh), chencj@mail.tajen.edu.tw (C.-J. Chen), chen5637@mail.npust.edu.tw
(T.-C. Chen).
in a sugar production process. The parallel module used only 15.6%
of the co-current type’s energy.
Although refined MEVE devices can increase energy use
efficiency, they are unable to confirm an optimum energy use
state. In addition, the steam from the MEVE final emissions
contains a great amount of energy, but its temperature is too low to
directly recover and reuse. The heat discharges to ambient
environments are not only an energy waste, but also cause
environmental heating loads.
Pinch technology (PT) is one of the best methods used to assess
energy use efficiency [9]. It analyzes the process energy use
conditions and integrates an optimum energy use state. In the 1980s,
Linnhoff et al. [10] and Linnhoff and Hindmarsh [11] applied PT to
individual processes and then designed a heat exchange network
(HEN). In a factory having multiple streams, at given temperature
ranges, the heat loads or heat capacity rates of all streams can be
added together. Therefore, all of the hot and cold streams can be
added separately to produce hot and cold composite curves,
respectively. The temperature/heat (T/H) diagram is shown in
Fig. 1(b). At the bottom of the hot composite curve and at the top of
the cold composite curve, the external cooling (QC) and heating (QH)
loads are represented, respectively [12]. The proximal distance
between the hot and cold composite curves generated the minimum
approach temperature (MAT) (DTPinch) [11,13], which determined
the self-heat exchange load (QR). The QR is the overlapping interval

1876-1070/$ – see front matter ß 2011 Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jtice.2011.10.004
 C.-I. Tuan et al. / Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 43 (2012) 226–234 227

recovered and reused. The AHP’s low heat loss and smaller
Nomenclature
electrical demand can further save energy [22,23].
An HP/PT combination can reach the minimum energy require-
Q heat-transfer rate (kW) ment and maximum energy recovery. The HP can be regarded as a
m mass flow rate (kg/h) kind of cooling and heating utility. The HP installation must follow
Cp specific heat (kJ/kg K) three golden rules: the heat energy cannot pass across the MAT, the
DT the difference in temperature (K) cooling apparatus cannot be used above the MAT, and the heating
CP heat capacity rate (kJ/K h, CP = m  Cp) apparatus cannot be used below the MAT. In addition, the analysis of
DH the difference in enthalpy (kJ/kg) the MAT needs to follow several technical aspects. At MAT, the
COP coefficient of performance system is divided into two parts, where above and below the MAT
represents the demand and discharge of heat energy, respectively.
NPV net present value
Starting from MAT, the heat exchange streams are coupled and
t the number of periods
compared. Then the process is expanded outwardly to make pairs
CFt the net cash flow in a time period one by one. The principal of making a heat exchange stream pair is
Co initial costs of investment that the CPHOT is smaller than the CPCOLD above the MAT for all hot
N the expected number of the whole period streams and the CPHOT is greater than the CPCOLD below the MAT for
r the discount rate all cold streams. Finally, the maximum amount of heat exchange is
F MVR input flow-rate (kg/h) selected from the several results and the optimum heat exchange
T1 MVR input temperature (8C) stream pair is created.
P1 MVR input pressure (kPa) Nafey et al. [24] combined an MVR with an MEVE to produce an
V1 MVR input steam specific volume (cm3/g) external heating source, and Ettouney [23] and Mabrouk et al. [25]
used an MVR to make an external heating source in a single-effect
PR compression ratio (PR = P2/P1)
vacuum evaporator (SEVE). These new evaporator models are
h compressor motor efficiency
different from conventional MEVEs because they have a large heat
P2 MVR output pressure (kPa, P2 = PR  P1)
exchange area that uses an MVR to recover low temperature steam
T2 MVR output temperature (8C) and become the external heating source. Although a few studies
V2 MVR output steam specific volume (cm3/g) [23–25] have proved that the AHP/MVR technology combined with
WS Shaft horsepower (kJ/kg, WS = (P2  P1)/V1) an MEVE or SEVE; the optimum energy use was not examined. No
WB brake horsepower (kJ/kg, WB = WS/h) study has investigated using a conventional MEVE combined with
WE electrical power demand (kW, WE = WB  F/3600) a HP to recover and reuse the waste heat, nor applied PT to analyze
the optimum process energy use.
In our study factory, the energy use efficiency generally was on
between the hot and cold composite curves, which represents the the low side and a great amount of waste heat was discharged.
maximum possible amount of heat that can be recovered in the Although the industrial equipment was continuously improved to
process. enhance the energy use efficiency, the optimum energy use in the
Although, a larger internal self-heat exchange can be obtained process was still not examined, and the low temperature waste
with a smaller MAT, the ideal 0 K temperature could not be reached heat was not recovered. This study studied operations in a food
because of the loss of the heat exchanger. Foo et al. [14] used PT to factory’s traditional TEVE, under existing construction and
integrate oleic acid production in a batch stirred-tank reactor. equipment, to assess the optimum energy use state and to
When the MAT reached 10 K, the heat of demand and discharge enhance the energy use efficiency. New technologies included PT,
were reduced 43.3% and 97.0%, respectively. Tovazhnyansky et al. HP and MVR were added and tested to recover more waste heat, to
[15] applied PT to sodium hypophosphite production, in which the reach an energy savings, and to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
demand for the hot and cold utilities was reduced 55.0% and 70.0%, Simultaneously, the waste heat discharge and environmental
respectively at a 10 K of MAT. Although, the data of the optimum heating load could be reduced. The original system was referred to
process energy demand target can be confirmed and obtained by as the Base case. When the PT was used to confirm and obtain the
using the PT. However, the temperature of emission waste heat process MAT while reaching the optimum energy demand, it was
from the process was too low to recover and reuse, and it needs to referred to as Case-1. The other two cases, Case-2 and Case-3,
be discharged. combined PT with a CHP and an AHP, respectively. Finally, the net
A HP enables waste heat to be recovered and recycled to the present value (NPV) method was used to assess the investment
process [16,17]. Baek et al. [18] used a HP to recover waste heat benefits of CHP and AHP use.
from a steam bath in a hotel using off-peak electricity; the recovery
heat completely supplied the hot water load except for one 2. System description
weekend in the winter season. A conventional HP (CHP) uses
refrigerant to absorb heat from the low temperature side, after A TEVE system consists of three components: an external
compression, and then to discharge heat to the high temperature heating load unit, a TEVE unit, and an external cooling load unit
side. Therefore, waste heat is recovered and reused. The advantage [3,26]. In this study, the 7500 kg/h feed stream and 45 8C food
of a HP has been highlighted by the Canadian Natural Resources solution were concentrated from 3% to 20%. The external heating
[19]. The CHP is a closed system, which uses refrigerant to source was 320 kPa-saturated steams at 135 8C with an enthalpy of
indirectly absorb and discharge heat. It has only moderate energy 2727 kJ/kg. The TEVE was a commercial operating model and the
transfer efficiency and needs electricity. Moreover, the refrigerant limit of input temperature was 60 8C. The cooling source in the
may cause environmental pollution when it is ineffective and vacuum condenser was from the cooling tower; its temperature
discharged to the atmosphere [20,21]. difference was 5 K between input and output. All of the steam
Recently, a mechanical vapor re-compression (MVR) technolo- condensate was recovered and reused. The TEVE operation energy
gy was developed, which is also an advanced HP (AHP) system. The use was calculated by Eq. (1) based on energy and mass balances.
AHP is an open system, which absorbs the low temperature steam
from process emissions. After compression, the steam can be Q ¼ m  C p  DT ¼ CP  DT ¼ m  DH (1)
228 C.-I. Tuan et al. / Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 43 (2012) 226–234

Fig. 1. The standard three-effect vacuum evaporator (TEVE). (a) System schematic and flow diagram. (b) Temperature–heat diagram (Base case).

where Q is the heat-transfer rate, m is the mass flow rate, Cp is the
specific heat, DT is the temperature difference, CP is the heat
capacity rate, and DH is the enthalpy difference.
The simulated T/H diagrams in this study were calculated by
the PT software [12]. The calculated results of each case are
listed in Table 1. The PT software was applied to a TEVE process
and the hot and cold streams reached the optimum amount
using the HEN mode. The waste heat recovery used the CHP or
an AHP combined with the TEVE, respectively. The locations of
the HPs in the process were based on a reliable methodology

Table 1
Simulation data.

Data Unit Base case Case-1 PT Case-2 CHP Case-3 AHP

Heating load, QH kWh 1727 1588 1455 1455

(–) (8.1%) (15.7%) (15.7%)
Cooling load, QC kWh 1736 1527 1408 1344
(–) (12.0%) (18.9%) (22.6%)
Recovery energy, QR kWh 131 270 376 453
Fuel oil amounta L/h 161 148 136 136
Cooling water amountb m3/h 298 262 242 231
MAT, DTPinch K 60 10 2.8 0
HP power demand, WEP kWh 0 0 62 17
Electricity saving kWh – 9 14 17
Total electrical demand kWh – 9 48 0
a
The heating value of fuel oil is 10.67 kW/L.
b
The input and output temperatures for the cooling tower are 33 and 28 8C, respectively.
 C.-I. Tuan et al. / Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 43 (2012) 226–234
considering PT, process, and HP constraints to ensure a real and
feasible HEN that has been explained in Introduction. Both types
of HPs recovered and reused the heat energy to reduce process
energy consumption.
3. Simulation results
3.1. Base case (standard TEVE)
Fig. 1(a) and (b) shows the schematic system and T/H diagrams
of the standard TEVE systems (Base case), respectively. A preheater
was used to increase the feed solution temperature from 45 to
60 8C to satisfy the demand for TEVE. Furthermore, the last
emission steam required an external cooling load to remove waste
heat.
In Fig. 1(b), the solid and dotted lines indicate the hot (H,B) and
cold (C,B) streams, respectively. The two lines represent the total
heating (QH,B = 1727 kWh) and cooling (QC,B = 1736 kWh) loads,
Fig. 2. The three-effect vacuum evaporator (TEVE) self-heating exchange system by Pinch technology. (a) System schematic and flow diagram. (b) Temperature–heat diagram
(Case-1).
229
respectively. Since the two lines slightly overlapped, the recovery
energy (QR,B) was 131 kWh. The MAT (DTB) was 60 K.
3.2. Case-1 (Pinch technology module, PT-module)
Fig. 2(a) and (b) shows the schematic TEVE system and its T/H
diagrams (Case-1). PT was introduced to evaluate the optimum
energy use of the TEVE system. As shown in Fig. 2(a), the 90 8C
steam condensate from the first effect discharge was used to
preheat the boiler feed water to 80 8C. The feed water was then
transferred to the boiler and heated to 135 8C steam by burning
fuel oil. Finally, the waste heat of the last effect emission steam was
removed by external cooling water and the steam temperature
dropped from 55 to 40 8C (condensate). The solid and dotted lines
in Fig. 2(b) indicate the hot (H,PT) and cold (C,PT) stream,
respectively. The analyzed results showed that the external
heating load (QH,PT) of 1588 kWh was a little higher than the
external cooling load (QC,PT) of 1527 kWh. The steam condensate
230 C.-I. Tuan et al. / Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 43 (2012) 226–234
from each effect was directly recovered (70 kWh) for reuse and did
not pass the vacuum condenser. The MAT (DTPT) was 10 K and the
recovery energy (QR,PT) was 270 kWh.
In Case-1, the heat of demand and emission were compared to
the Base case. The values were reduced 139 (8.1%) and 209
(12.0%) kWh. However, the TEVE process after PT addition still
required a greater boiler steam energy consumption (1588 kWh,
QH,PT) and waste steam energy discharge (1527 kWh, QC,PT). The
calculated data are shown in Table 1. The boiler and condenser
needed 148 L/h fuel oil and 262 m3/h cooling water, respectively.
The total electrical demand saved 9 kWh. A large amount of latent
heat (1527 kWh) remained in the last effect emission steam
because the temperature was too low (55 8C) to recover and reuse.
The latent heat was absorbed by cooling water in the vacuum
condenser and discharged to the atmosphere, which resulted in not
only energy waste but also environmental pollution.
3.3. Case-2 (conventional heat pump module, CHP-module)
In Case-2, the simulated CHP used refrigerant to indirectly
recover fractional waste heat (Q 0C;CHP ¼ 119 kWh) from the last
Fig. 3. The three-effect vacuum evaporator (TEVE) self-heating exchange system by conventional heat pump. (a) System schematic and flow diagram. (b) Temperature–heat
diagram (Case-2).
effect emission steam, which reduced the cooling load in the vacuum
condenser. In addition, the pressurized refrigerant recovered heat
with the compressor. The released heat energy (Q 0C;CHP ¼ 181 kWh)
completely replaced the external preheating steam required to heat
the TEVE feed stream to raise the temperature from 45 to 60 8C.
Simultaneously, the boiler feed water was raised from 30 to 50 8C.
The heating load was also reduced. The CHP refrigerant was
recovered and reused (Fig. 3(a)). The Case-2 T/H diagram is shown in
Fig. 3(b). It demonstrates that the fractional energy below the MAT
was recovered and reused; this energy completely replaced the
preheating steam that originally needed to be removed by the
cooling water. Therefore, after deducting the recovery energy both
external heating (QH,CHP) and cooling (QC,CHP) loads were 1455 and
1408 kWh, respectively. The external heating load includes the HP
power of 62 kWh. The total recovery energy was 376 kWh (QR,CHP)
and the MAT (DTCHP) was 2.8 K.
The simulated results are listed in Table 1. The fuel oil demand
was reduced to 136 L/h; simultaneously, the amount of cooling
water in the vacuum condenser was also reduced to 242 m3/h. In
comparison with the Base case, the electrical demand conserved
14 kWh. The CHP machinery, however, used refrigerant in the
 C.-I. Tuan et al. / Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 43 (2012) 226–234 231

condenser, expansion valve, compressor, and evaporator to transfer Table 2

MVR specification data.
energy; hence, the CHP needed external electricity 62 kWh (WCHP).
Therefore, the total electrical demand increased 48 kWh. Item Nomenclature Unit Data

MVR input flow-rate F kg/h 271

3.4. Case-3 (advanced heat pump module, AHP-module) MVR input temperature T1 8C 55
MVR input pressure P1 kPa 15.76
In Case-3, the CHP was replaced by an AHP, in which a MVR MVR input steam specific volume V1 cm3/g 9579
Compression ratio PR 2
technology was used (the specification data are shown in Table 2).
Compressor motor efficiency h 0.65
The MVR directly recovered and reused heat energy, which MVR output pressure P2 kPa 31.51
enhanced the energy use efficiency. This was referred to as the AHP MVR output temperature T2 8C 70
process. Fig. 4(a) shows the AHP system schematic and process MVR output steam specific volume V2 cm3/g 5046
Shaft horsepower WS kJ/kg 151
diagram. Fig. 4(b) shows the thermal recycle module.
Brake horsepower WB kJ/kg 232
When the external heating load for both Case-2 and Case-3 Electrical power demand WE kW 17
were equivalent (QH,CPH = QH,AHP = 1455 kWh), the AHP directly
absorbed more waste heat (Q 0C;CHP ¼ 196 kWh) from the last effect
emission steam and the electricity demand (WAHP) was only water in the vacuum condenser was reduced to 231 m3/h. In
17 kWh (Case-3). The absorbed steam was pressurized by the MVR comparison with the Base case, the electrical demand conserved
and discharged to generate a phase change to increase the TEVE 17 kWh. However, the MVR also needed 17 kWh of electricity.
feed stream temperature to 60 8C and the boiler feed water to 50 8C Therefore, the total electrical demand did not change.
(steam became condensate). This released 198 kWh (Q 0H;AHP ) of
latent heat. The external cooling load (QC,AHP) was reduced to 4. Discussion
1344 kWh. In the T/H diagram (Fig. 4(b)), the total recovery energy
(QR,AHP) and MAT (DTAHP) was 453 kWh and 0 (nearly 0) K, 4.1. The performance assessment for each case
respectively (shown as Case-3 in Table 1). The AHP heat energy
demand was equivalent to the CHP (Case-2) demand; hence, the In this old and traditional factory, without change in equipment
total fuel oil demand of 136 L/h was also identical. The cooling or construction, the PT was used to establish a HEN connected to

Fig. 4. The three-effect vacuum evaporator (TEVE) self-heating exchange system by advance heat pump. (a) System schematic and flow diagram. (b) Temperature–heat
diagram (Case-3).
232 C.-I. Tuan et al. / Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 43 (2012) 226–234
the cold and hot streams to enhance the energy use efficiency. It
was combined with a HP to recover and reuse waste heat to further
reduce energy consumption.
Table 1 shows the comparison of energy use conditions for the
study cases. The Base case examined the energy use condition of
the TEVE, which is an energy conservation device. It established
the baseline for energy use comparison. Case-1 used PT to assess
the energy use efficiency. The total heat demand and emission
decreased 8.1% and 12.0%, respectively, compared with the Base
case. Case-2 used a CHP to recover and reuse waste heat. The heat
demand and emissions decreased 15.7% and 18.9%, respectively.
Case-3 used an AHP to replace the CHP. The AHP heat emissions
were decreased 22.6% under the same heat demand as the CHP.
The recovery heats (QR) of the Base case, Case-1, Case-2, and
Case-3 were 131, 270, 376, and 453 kWh, respectively. The MAT
was 60, 10, 2.8, and 0 K, respectively. The Case-1 was a
conventional energy conservation device and the MAT was
therefore between 10 and 20 K. However, Case-2 and Case-3
added HP devices and the MAT was below 10 K. In Case-2 and
Case-3, the preheating function of the 90 8C steam condensate
that came from first effect discharge was replaced by a HP (CHP
or AHP), and was not fully used. However, a fraction of the
condensate energy was still recovered for reuse. The total energy
was without waste and loss.
4.2. The coefficient of performance (COP) assessment for the two heat
pumps
The heat pump efficiency was assessed by the coefficient of
performance (COP, the ratio of output heat energy divided by
input power). A higher COP value indicates a better energy
efficiency [27,28]. Generally, the COP values of conventional
heaters (such as electricity, diesel oil, fuel oil, and natural gas)
are all less than 1.0. The COP value of the closed-type electrical
CHP was 3.0–8.0. The open type AHP with MVR COP values could
reach 10–30 as was announced in International Energy Agency
[29].
The CHP and AHP efficiency comparison is shown in Table 3.
When the HP heat emission was closed (Q 0H;CHP is 181 kWh and
Q 0H;AHP is 198 kWh), the electrical demand was 62 (WCHP) and
17 (WAHP) kWh, respectively. The absorption heat energy from the
TEVE emissions was 119 (Q 0H;CHP ) and 196 (Q 0C;AHP ) kWh, respec-
tively. The CHP exothermic function COP value was 2.92. When the
endothermic function COP value was added, the total COP value
was 4.84. The AHP exothermic function COP value was 11.65. If the
endothermic function COP value was added, the total COP value
was 23.18.
The energy efficiencies of these two HPs in this study were all
superior to conventional heaters, and their efficiency accorded
with the IEA requirement. The total AHP COP value was 4.8-fold
higher than the CHP. The difference was that the CHP used
refrigerant to transfer energy, which caused heat loss, and the
refrigerant compression and transport needed more power. The
AHP with MVR technology did not need refrigerant to transfer heat
energy, which made the COP value higher than the CHP COP value
[30,31].
Table 3
The comparison of COP values for CHP (Case-2) and AHP (Case-3).
Power demanded (WEP, kWh) Energy absorption (Q 0C ; kWh)
CHP (Case-2) 62.00 119.00
AHP (Case-3) 17.00 196.00
Case-3–Case-2 45.00 77.00
Case-3–Case-2 27.4% 164.7%
4.3. The benefit assessment for investment
The investment benefit was assessed by the net present value
(NPV) method shown in Eq. (2). NPV is a primary investment
decision criterion. This method involves calculating the present
value of all yearly capital costs and savings throughout the life of a
project. The NPV summed all these present values (costs being
represented as negative amounts and net savings as positive) of
this project. If the NPV was positive then the technology could be
accepted, otherwise, it could be rejected [32].
X
t¼N
CF t
NPV ¼  Co (2)
t¼1 ð1 þ rÞt
where NPV is the summation of the net cash flow in the time period
(t = 1–N) divided by 1 plus the squared discount rate, r, minus the
initial costs of investment, Co.
Bakhtiari et al. [33] used absorption heat pumps in a Kraft
pulping process to integrate evaporation system energy sources.
The NPV data were under an investment discount rate of 7% with a
15-year running time. The results showed that NPV obtained a
positive value around 3 and 1.9 years for the double lift and single
stage absorption heat pumps, respectively.
In the current study, the TEVE was also an evaporation system;
hence, the investment discount rate was also 7%. The CHP and AHP
NPV data within a five-year running period are listed in Table 4. In the
current study, the CHP and AHP investment costs were US$ 37,500
and 98,750, respectively. This included newly added apparatus,
piping connections, and insulation. The manpower and the expense
of the equipment operation were not increased. The yearly system
maintenance expense was set at 10% of the investment cost, which
were US$ 3750 and 9875, respectively. After installation of the
devices and deducting the maintenance expenses, the total annual
operation cost could save US$ 74,737 and 99,025, respectively. The
NPV value of the two investment cases could obtain a positive value
in 1 and 2 years after start-up, respectively. Because the NPV of the
two investment cases achieved a positive value in a very short time,
these two procedures are good investments. When comparing the
NPV values between these two cases, it is clear that the AHP NPV
value is less than the CHP value at the beginning, but the AHP NPV
value is greater than the CHP value after two years. In spite of the fact
that the AHP’s investment cost is higher than CHP’s, and considering
investment benefits over time and short return time (Table 4), the
AHP is still a better investment than the CHP.
4.4. The significance of potential energy saving benefit in industry
In this study, the equipment in an old and traditional factory
used PT to assess optimum energy use. A HP was then combined
with the existing equipment to recover waste heat for reuse. The
results of Case-3 (PT plus AHP) showed the total electricity
consumption in this unit process did not increase but its heat of
demand and emissions conserved 272 (15.7%) and 392
(22.6%) kWh, respectively.
Six different unit processes reported in the literature using PT,
HP, or PT plus HP to save energy are listed in Table 5, in which each
Energy emission (Q 0H ; kWh) COP (kWh/kWh)
Cooling Heating Total
181.00 1.92 2.92 4.84
198.00 11.53 11.65 23.18
17.00 9.61 8.73 18.35
109.4% 600.5% 399.0% 478.9%
 C.-I. Tuan et al. / Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 43 (2012) 226–234 233

Table 4 5. Conclusions
Case-2 and Case-3a efficiency assessment.

Case-2 (CHP) Case-3 (AHP) In this study, to assess the best energy use conditions, PT was
New devices HP MVR applied to a TEVE in a commercial running module. The results
Device cost (US$) 25,000 80,000 showed the heat of demand (QH,PT) and emission (QC,PT) were
Project cost (US$) 12,500 18,750 decreased 8.1% and 12.0%, respectively. If a CHP (Case-2) was
Annual maintenance cost (US$) 3750 9875 additionally used to recover waste heat to increase the feed
Electricity
solution temperature, the heat of demand (QH,CHP) and emission
Increased amount (kWh/y) 380,160 0
Feeb (US$/y) 30,413 0 (QC,CHP) decreased 15.7% and 18.9%, respectively. While the total
Fuel oil heat demand in Case-3 (AHP) was the same as Case-2 (CHP), heat
Decreased amount (kL/y) 198.0 198.0 emissions (QC,AHP) were reduced 22.6%. When comparing these
Cost savingsb (US$) 108,900 108,900
two HP cases, the AHP absorbed waste heat more than the CHP by
Cost savings (US$/y) 74,737 99,025
Investment money (US$) 37,500 98,750
79 kWh (66.4%) and the external cooling load was reduced by 4.5%.
NPV (US$) The AHP also reduced the cooling water load. The total AHP COP
Initial 37,500 98,750 value was 4.8-fold higher than the CHP; they were 23.18 and 4.84,
1st year 32,348 6203 respectively. The NPV of the two heat pump investment cases
2nd year 97,626 80,289
obtained a positive value in 1 (Case-2) and 2 (Case-3) years after
3rd year 158,634 161,123
4th year 215,651 236,669 start-up, under a discount rate of 7% and the return time is very
5th year 268,937 307,272 short. Although the Case-3 investment cost was higher than Case-
a
Working time is 330 days per year and 24 h per day. 2, Case-3 will be a better decision. The study results showed that
b
Electrical and fuel oil unit costs are US$ 0.08/kWh and 550/kL, respectively. when an old and traditional factory used PT to enhance the energy
use efficiency and an HP to recover waste heat, there were strong
advantages from a sustainable development perspective. The
technology not only conserved energy to reduce waste heat
emissions, but also reduced the production cost to increase the
Table 5 product competitive ability.
The energy saving cases using PT, HP, and PT plus HP in industrial processes.

Method Item of industrial process Saving Refs. Acknowledgment

percentage

PT Oleic acid production in a 43.3
batch stirred-tank reactor
PT Sodium hypophosphite 55.0
production
HP Simulation an i-butane/n-butane 33.0
distillation process by vapor
recompression
HP A small scale cogeneration plant 26.0–57.0
PT plus HP Hydro-desulfurization process 46.0
PT plus HP A distillation process to separate 22.6
benzene from the mixture of
benzene and toluene.
case can save energy greater than 20%. In this study, the Base case
was the existing TEVE process, which is an energy saving device.
When Case-3 was compared with the Base case, the energy
demand saving was 15.7%. If all industries used this energy-saving
mode, it could reduce energy use and waste heat emissions. Using
Taiwan as an example, the energy demand was 1.38  108 KLOE
(kiloliters of oil equivalent) in 2009. The largest energy use, 52.48%
(7.25  107 KLOE), was consumed by industry [34]. The fuel oil
consumption alone was 7.44% (1.03  107 KLOE) and it is
commonly used in boilers and combustors to supply heat energy
to various unit processes. Therefore, a reduced energy requirement
for any unit process is proportional to the estimated decreased
amount of fuel oil use. If Taiwan used PT plus HP technologies to
improve energy use in industrial unit process, the yearly energy
saving potentials from fuel oil would be 1.61  106 KLOE
(1.69  107 kWh). These data are equal to 1.9 months of fuel oil
use in Taiwan. Furthermore, the reduction in heat emission
potentials in Taiwan would be 2.32  106 KLOE (2.44  107 kWh).
The data are proportionally calculated, using the heat of demand
and emissions in Case-3. Originally, the heat emission needed to be
discharged but now it was all recovered and reused. Consequently,
the environmental heating load was also decreased. Therefore, if
industry applied the PT/HP technologies completely, energy would
be saved, and waste heat emissions would be reduced.
[14] Gail Bowers-Irons is appreciated for her editorial assistance.
[15]
References
[35]
[1] Jamekhorshid A, Karimi G, Noshadi I. Current distribution and cathode flood-
ing prediction in a PEM fuel cell. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng 2011;42:622–31.
[2] Manh DV, Chen YH, Chang CC, Chang MC, Chang VY. Biodiesel production from
[36]
Tung oil and blended oil via ultrasonic transesterification process. J Taiwan
[37]
Inst Chem Eng 2011;42:640–4.
[38]
[3] Niesnfeld AE. Industrial evaporators. Instrument Society of America; 1985.
[4] Simpson R, Almonacid S, Lopez D, Abakarov A. Optimum design and operating
conditions of multiple effect evaporators: tomato paste. J Food Eng 2008;89:
488–97.
[5] Rao NJ, Kumar R. Energy conservation approaches in a paper mill with special
reference to the evaporator plant. In: Proceedings of the IPPTA international
seminar on energy conservation in pulp and paper industry; 1985.
[6] Higa M, Freitas AJ, Bannwart AC, Zemp RJ. Thermal integration of multiple
effect evaporator in sugar plant. Appl Therm Eng 2009;29:515–22.
[7] Khademi MH, Rahimpour MR, Jahanmiri A. Simulation and optimization of a
six-effect evaporator in a desalination process. Chem Eng Process 2009;48:
339–47.
[8] Kaya D, Sarac HI. Mathematical modeling of multiple-effect evaporators and
energy economy. Energy 2007;32:1536–42.
[9] Staine F, Favrat D. Energy integration of industrial processes based on the
pinch analysis method extended to include energy factors. Appl Therm Eng
1996;16:497–507.
[10] Linnhoff B, Townsend DW, Boland D, Hewitt GF, Thomas BEA, Guy AR, et al.
User guide on process integration for the efficient use of energy, 1st ed., UK:
Institute of Chemical Engineers; 1982.
[11] Linnhoff B, Hindmarsh E. The pinch design method of heat exchanger net-
works. Chem Eng Sci 1983;38:745–63.
[12] Kemp IC. Pinch analysis and process integration, 2nd ed., UK: Elsevier Ltd.;
2007.
[13] Raskovic P, Stoiljkovic S. Pinch design method in the case of a limited number
of process streams. Energy 2009;34:593–612.
[14] Foo DCY, Chew YH, Lee CT. Minimum units targeting and network evolution
for batch heat exchanger network. Appl Therm Eng 2008;28:2089–99.
[15] Tovazhnyansky L, Kapustenko P, Ulyev L, Boldyryev S, Arsenyeva O. Process
integration of sodium hypophosphite production. Appl Therm Eng 2010;30:
2306–14.
[16] Colak N, Hepbasli A. A review of heat pump drying: part 1 – systems, models
and studies. Energy Convers Manage 2009;50:2180–6.
[17] Colak N, Hepbasli A. A review of heat-pump drying (HPD): part 2 – applications
and performance assessments. Energy Convers Manage 2009;50:2187–99.
[18] Baek NC, Shin UC, Yoon JH. A study on the design and analysis of a heat pump
heating system using wastewater as a heat source. Solar Energy 2005;78:
427–40.
234 C.-I. Tuan et al. / Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 43 (2012) 226–234
[19] Canadian Natural Resources. Heating and cooling with a heat pump. Canada:
Natural Resources; 2004.
[20] Palm B. Hydrocarbons as refrigerants in small heat pump and refrigeration
systems – a review. Int J Refriger 2008;31:552–63.
[21] Mohanraj M, Jayaraj S, Muraleedharan C. Environment friendly alternatives
to halogenated refrigerants—a review. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 2009;3:
108–19.
[22] El-Sayed MM. Rational bases for designing vapour compression water desali-
nation systems. Desalination 1986;58:213–25.
[23] Ettouney H. Design of single-effect mechanical vapor compression. Desalina-
tion 2006;190:1–15.
[24] Nafey AS, Fath HES, Mabrouk AA. Thermoeconomic design of a multi-effect
evaporation mechanical vapor compression (MEE–MVC) desalination process.
Desalination 2008;230:1–15.
[25] Mabrouk AA, Nafey AS, Fath HES. Analysis of a new design of a multi-stage
flash-mechanical vapor compression desalination process. Desalination 2007;204:
482–500.
[26] Karimi M, Jahanmiri A, Azarmi M. Inferential cascade control of multi-effect
falling-film evaporator. Food Control 2007;18:1036–42.
[27] Nguyen A, Kim Y, Shin Y. Experimental study of sensible heat recovery of heat
pump during heating and ventilation. Int J Refriger 2005;28:242–52.
[28] Park KJ, Lee Y, Jung D. Performance of R170/R1270 under air-conditioning and
heat pump conditions. J Mechanical Sci Tech 2010;24:879–85.
[29] IEA, Heat pump centre, heat pump performance, International Energy
Agency (IEA) heat pump centre, Retrieved 22 August 2011 from: http://
www.heatpumpcentre.org.
[30] Bahar R, Hawlader MNA, Woei LS. Performance evaluation of a mechanical
vapor compression desalination system. Desalination 2004;166:123–7.
[31] Holland FA, Siqueiros J, Santoyo S, Heard CL, Santoyo ER. Water purification
using heat pump. Taylor & Francis e-Library; 2005.
[32] Lam JC, Chan WW. Life cycle energy cost analysis of heat pump application for
hotel swimming pools. Energy Convers Manage 2001;42:1299–306.
[33] Bakhtiari B, Fradette L, Legros R, Paris J. Opportunities for the integration of
absorption heat pumps in the pulp and paper process. Energy 2010;35:4600–6.
[34] Bureau of Energy. Administrative plan: business statistics and research report,
Bureau of Energy. Taiwan: Ministry of Economic Affairs; 2010.
[35] Diez E, Langston P, Ovejero G, Romero MD. Economic feasibility of heat pumps
in distillation to reduce energy use. Appl Therm Eng 2009;29:1216–23.
[36] Malinowska W, Malinowski L. Parametric study of exergetic efficiency of a
small-scale cogeneration plant incorporating a heat pump. Appl Therm Eng
2003;23:459–72.
[37] Matsuda K, Kawazuishi K, Hirochi Y, Sato R, Kansha Y, Fushimi C, et al.
Advanced energy saving in the reaction section of the hydro-desulfurization
process with self-heat recuperation. Appl Therm Eng 2010;30:2300–5.
[38] Kansha Y, Tsuru N, Fushimi C, Shimogawara K, Tsutshmi A. An innovative modu-
larity of heat circulation for fractional distillation. Chem Eng Sci 2010;65:330–4.