UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA BOLIVIANA “SAN PABLO”

UNIDAD ACADEMICA REGIONAL COCHABAMBA

Departamento de Ciencias Exactas e Ingeniería

Exergy analysis of different configurations

of solar exergy thermal storage for air
conditioning
Prof. Marcos Luján Pérez

21-22 may 2019

Bilbao, Spain
PCMSOL meeting
1
Weston A. Hermann , Energy 31 (2006) 1685–1702
https://gcep.stanford.edu/research/exergy/resourcechart.html
2
Solar energy: availability versus demand

Daily exergy demand

Solar radiation in Almería, Spain Parker, D (2002), FSEC-PF-369-02
3
The need to store solar exergy

Offer and demand of exergy

Offer and demand of exergy

Demand Exergy to sotore

Offer Direct use

Direct use 30-40%
20-30%

0h 12 h 24 h 0h 12 h 24 h

Day time Day time

4
¿How to store exergy?

Chemical exergy: batteries, hydrogen (60-80%)

Potential exergy: elevated water tank (60-70%)

5
Kinetical exergy: inertial systems (50-85%) Thermal exergy: thermal mass , PCMs (20- 90%)
HVAC system at CIESOL, Almería
Exergy analysis of the PCMSOL system

Overall daily efficiency 5,4%

9,2% 89,0% 59,8% 88,9%

7
Proposed scenario for the system

8
Energy efficiency (m) of a solar collector

Solaris CP1

𝑇𝑖𝑛 − 𝑇𝑜
𝜇 = ℎ𝑜 − ℎ1
𝐺
ℎ𝑜 = 0,787
ℎ1 = 4,206

9
80 collectors of 2 m2
Exergy flux in solar radiation

4
1 𝑇𝑜 4 𝑇𝑜
𝐸𝑥 = 1 + − 𝐺𝑠𝑟 = 𝜑𝐺𝑠𝑟
3 𝑇𝑠𝑢𝑛 3 𝑇𝑠𝑢𝑛

𝜑 = 0,934

for 𝑇𝑜 = 298𝐾 y 𝑇𝑠𝑢𝑛 = 6.000 𝐾

10

R. Petela, Exergy of heat radiation. J. Heat Transfer 86, pp. 187-192 (1964)
 Energy vs Exergy efficiency of a solar collector
Solar radiation for august in Almería, Spain; 80 collectors Solaris CP1, 30° south

Exergy flux
Energy Flux
180 180

160 160
140
140

Exergy flux kW
120
Energy flux kW

120
100
100
80
80
60
60 40
40 20
20 0

5:01
5:46
6:31
7:16
8:01
8:46
9:31
10:16
11:01
11:46
12:31
13:16
14:01
14:46
15:31
16:16
17:01
17:46
18:31
0
4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00
Radiative exergy kW Collected exergy kW
Radiative energy kW Collected energy kW

Exergy Efficiency
𝑚𝑐 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑡 − ℎ𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑐 = 4,8 𝑙/𝑠 10%
𝜇= 𝑇𝑖𝑛 = 80 °𝐶
𝐺∗𝑆 8%

6%
𝑚𝑐 𝜓𝑜𝑢𝑡 − 𝜓𝑖𝑛 4%
𝜉= 11
𝜑∗𝐺∗𝑆 2%

0%
6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00
 Collector Exergy efficiency vs flux and Tin
Collector Exergy Efficiency vs Tin, mc = 4,8 L/s Daily Collector Efficiency vs Tin and water
12% flux in l/s
9%
10%
8%

8% 7%

6%
6%
5%

4% 4%

3%
2%
2%

1%
0%
5:00 7:00 9:00 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 0%
Day time 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Tin °C
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
2,88 4,80 7,20

According to Chamoli S.
Bayrak F. et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 74
Optimum daily exergy efficiency is 4%
(2017) 755–770 12
Chamoli S.,J. Energy South. Afr., 24(3), pp 8-13 (2013)
From a paper review by Bayrak F. et al.
Mean daily exergy efficiency is 4,4 %
Exergy efficiency of a PCM

Tc Th
Cold source

Hot source
13
 Exergy analysis of a PCM for high temperature

PCM hysteresis cycle

H
𝑄𝑐 𝑄ℎ
Slope= apparent Cp
Heat source 𝐼 = 𝑇𝑜 Δ𝑆𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑣. = 𝑇𝑜 +
𝑇𝑐 𝑇ℎ
Th > Tup 𝑄ℎ = −𝑄𝑐
Qh 𝑇ℎ − 𝑇𝑐
𝐼 = 𝑇𝑜 𝑄𝑐 heating
𝑇ℎ 𝑇𝑐 cooling
PCM 𝑇𝑎
𝐸𝑥𝑖𝑛 = − 1 − 𝑄
𝑇ℎ ℎ
Exergy efficiency 2∆𝑇
Qc
𝑇ℎ
To Tc Tlow Tfus Tup Th Temp
Heat use −1
𝑇𝑐 𝑇ℎ = 𝑇𝑓𝑢𝑠 + Δ𝑇
Tc < Tlow 𝜀 =1− 𝑇𝑐 = 𝑇𝑓𝑢𝑠 − Δ𝑇
𝑇ℎ
𝑇𝑜
−1 14
 Efficiency of a PCM as function of Tfus and
DT of hysteresis 100%

80%

60%

𝑇ℎ 40% DT 5°C
−1
𝑇𝑐 DT 10°C
𝜀 =1− 20%
𝑇ℎ
−1
𝑇𝑜 0%
25 75 125
𝑇𝑜 = 25 °𝐶 Fusion Temperature in °C
𝑇ℎ = 𝑇𝑓𝑢𝑠 + Δ𝑇
𝑇𝑐 = 𝑇𝑓𝑢𝑠 − Δ𝑇 100%

80%

𝑇𝑐
1−
𝑇ℎ 60%
𝜀 =1−
𝑇
1− 𝑐
DT 3°C
40%
𝑇𝑜 DT 5°C

20% 15
0%
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Fusion temperature of PCM °C
PCMs figure of merit

Specific thermal capacity per unit volume

∆𝐻𝑡𝑜𝑡 𝜌 ∆𝐻𝑡𝑜𝑡 = 𝐶𝑝,𝑠 ∆𝑇𝑡𝑟. + ∆𝐻𝑡𝑟. + 𝐶𝑝,𝑙 ∆𝑇𝑡𝑟.

𝐶𝑝 = Donde: 𝜌 = 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑑 𝑚𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑎 𝑑𝑒𝑙 𝑃𝐶𝑀
2∆𝑇𝑡𝑟. ∆𝑇𝑡𝑟. = 𝑑𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜/𝑠𝑜𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜

Apparent Vol. Cp
Tfus
Material MJ m-3 K-1
°C

LiNO3-NaNO3-Mn(NO3)2.H2O 10,8 11,72

LiNO3.Mn(NO3)2.Mg(NO3)2.H2O 13,1 9,09
Water 0 35,07 16
Chiller’s performance

RCC=70 kW
RHI= 100 kW

𝐶𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑄𝑒 = 𝐶𝐶𝐹 ∗ 𝐹𝐶𝐹 ∗ 𝑅𝐶𝐶 = 𝑚𝑐ℎ 𝑐𝑝 Δ𝑇𝑐ℎ

𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑄𝑔 = 𝐻𝐼𝐹 ∗ 𝐹𝐶𝐹 ∗ 𝑅𝐻𝐼 = 𝑚ℎ 𝑐𝑝 Δ𝑇ℎ

3,05 l/s

17
4,8 l/s
 Chiller’s exergy efficiency
Conditions:
mh=4,8 L/s (100%); DTh variable
mch= 3,05 L/s ; Tch,out=7°C; DTch variable

Cooling power vs Th,in and hot water flux Exergy efficiency vs Th,in and hot water flux
90 45%

80 40%

70 35%
Cooling power in kW

60 30%

Exergy efficiency
50 100% 25% 100%

40 80% 80%
20%
60% 60%
30 15%
40% 40%
20 10%

10
5%
18
0
0%
70 75 80 85 90 95 100
70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Hot water incoming temperature °C
Hot water incoming temperature °C
Configuration for exergy storage

Solar collector
Heat Absorption Chilled Cooling
storage Chiller water needs
tank
PCM S83
PCM S89
Water

Absorption Chilled Cold Cooling

Chiller water storage needs
PCM S10
Water
 Thermal storage systems considered
𝑇𝑐ℎ,𝑜𝑢𝑡 = 𝑇𝑓𝑢𝑠 + Δ𝑇ൗ2

65% of the volume PCM

35% of the volume water

𝑇𝑑,𝑖𝑛 = 𝑇𝑓𝑢𝑠 − Δ𝑇ൗ2

Fusion
Tank Volume Specific Heat capacity Fusion Temp enthalpy Heat
Material m3 Density kg/m3 kj/(kgK) °C kJ/kg DT °C Capacity MJ
PCM water PCM water
S83+water 2 1600 970 2,31 4,2 83 100 10 284,6
S89+water 2 1550 966 2,48 4,2 89 145 10 370,5
Water 5 971 4,2 6 122,3
S10+water 2 1470 1000 1,9 4,2 10 170 3 344,6 20
Water 3 1000 4,2 5,5 69,3
Results for PCM S83 + water
Relative
Ex flux Irreversibility Efficiency
Stage Loses
MJ MJ % %
Solar Radiation 575,29
Solar Collector 50,06 525,23 8,70% 93,55%
PCM Charge 45,16 4,90 90,21% 0,87%
Heat Loss 42,94 2,22 95,08% 0,40%
PCM Discharge 39,22 3,72 91,34% 0,66%
Chiller 13,85 25,37 35,31% 4,52%
Cold water 13,85
Total 561,44 2,41% 100,00%
600

500

400
Exergy Flux MJ

300

200

100 21
0
Solar Radiation Solar Collector PCM Charge Heat Loss PCM Discharge Chiller Cold water

Exergy Irreversibility
Results for PCM S10 + water
Relative
Stage Ex flux Irreversibility Efficiency Loses
MJ MJ % %
Solar Radiation 805,14
Solar collector 73,18 731,96 9,09% 92,69%
Chiller 23,34 49,84 31,89% 6,31%
PCM charging 20,05 3,29 85,90% 0,42%
Cool loss 19,85 0,2 99,00% 0,03%
PCM discharge 15,49 4,36 78,04% 0,55%
Cold water 15,49
Total 789,65 1,92% 100,00%
900

800

700

600
Exergy flux MJ

500

400

300

200

100 22
0
Solar Solar collector Chiller PCM charging Cool loss PCM discharge Cold water
Radiation

Exergy Irreversibility
Results for all configurations
Parameters Units PCM S83 PCM S89 Hot tank PCM S10 Cold tank
Stored exergy MJ 45,16 63,97 18,69 20,05 4,11
Delivered exergy MJ 13,85 16,82 4,94 15,49 3,79
Efficiency % 2,41% 1,91% 2,40% 1,92% 2,68%
Cooling Power kW 43,73 55,18 44,00 51,5 51,5
Charging time min 74 130 27 101 20,9
Cooling time min 84 81 29 110 20

Exergy Efficiency Exergy Delivered MJ

3.00% 18 16.82
2.68%
15.49
2.41% 16
2.50% 2.40%
13.85
14
1.91% 1.92%
2.00% 12
10
1.50%
8

1.00% 6 4.94
3.79
4
0.50%
2

0.00% 0
23
PCM S83 PCM S89 Hot tank PCM S10 Cold tank PCM S83 PCM S89 Hot tank PCM S10 Cold tank
Conclusions
• The exergy losses at the solar collector are critical for the
overall efficiency of the system.
• The efficiency of the absorption chiller is lower than
previously estimated, according to its performance charts
• The overall efficiency of the PCM systems range from 1,91% to
2,4%, lower than estimated before.
• The S10 PCM may not be usable du to the small temperature
gap needed
• The best option may be the S83 PCM for storing exergy as
heat.

24
¡Many Thanks!

25