Energy Conversion and Management 234 (2021) 113910

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

A novel hybrid biomass-solar driven triple combined power cycle

integrated with hydrogen production: Multi-objective optimization based
on power cost and CO2 emission
Yan Cao a, Hayder A. Dhahad b, *, Hussein Togun c, Ali E. Anqi d, Naeim Farouk e, f,
Babak Farhang g
a
School of Mechatronic Engineering, Xi’an Technological University, Xi’an 710021 China
b
Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Technology, Baghdad, Iraq
c
Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Thi-Qar, 64001 Nassiriya, Iraq
d
Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, King Khalid University, Abha 61421, Saudi Arabia
e
Mechanical Engineering Department, College of Engineering, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, Alkharj 16273, Saudi Arabia
f
Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Red Sea University Port Sudan, Sudan, Saudi Arabia
g
Department of Energy Technology, Aalborg University, Denmark

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

Keywords: Utilization of hybrid renewable resources in supplying clean energy is a new idea which helps to fulfill individual
Hybrid solar-biomass drawbacks of each renewable source. In this work, an innovative triple combined power cycle driven by hybrid
Gasification biomass-solar energies is proposed, analyzed and optimized from the exergy, economics, and environmental
PVT
standpoints. In order to fulfill the intermittent nature of solar energy, it is used for hydrogen production (via
Hydrogen production
Multi-objective optimization
Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) electrolyzer supplied by electricity from Photovoltaic-Thermal (PVT) panels)
Thermoeconomic which is injected into a post-firing combustion chamber of the gas turbine. The proposed system consists of a
biomass fueled gas turbine combined with a closed Brayton cycle and a Rankine cycle as the bottoming cycles. To
examine the system performance, thermoeconomic evaluation is carried out and multi-objective optimization is
performed to find the optimum operating conditions based on Levelized Cost Of Electricity (LCOE) and CO2
emission. The results revealed that, incorporation of solar-based hydrogen production with the biomass-based
gas turbine results in a significant decrease in CO2 emissions and biomass consumption as well as increase in
power generation capacity. However, it brings about a decrease of exergetic efficiency (due to the large exergy
destruction in PVT and PEM electrolyzer) and an increase of LCOE (due to the additional expenditures imposed
by PVT panels and PEM electrolyzer). Under the best operating conditions based on multi-objective optimization,
the proposed triple combined cycle attains exergy efficiency of 30.44% with a LCOE of 61.37 $/MWh, and CO2
emission of 0.4579 kg/kWh.

discontinuity and fluctuations of the solar energy is a vital drawback.

This drawback can be covered by using the solar energy for hydrogen
1. Introduction
production and its combustion to form a continuous heat source stream
for running proper heat engines.
The present industrialization significantly depends on generating
To attain better reliability, individual drawbacks of renewable en­
and supplying clean energy to support sustainable development. The air
ergy resources can be eliminated by using hybrid resources. In this re­
pollutions and harmful emissions resulted from fossil fuels have urged to
gard, recently much attention is paid on hybridization of solar and
switch towards renewable energy resources [1]. The global CO2 emis­
biomass energies in power generation systems. In such systems the
sion, as the primary greenhouse gas raised by fossil fuels’ combustion, is
biomass is usually the primary fuel, meanwhile the solar energy is used
increasing by 2.5% annually since the last decade [2]. Amongst various
for different purposes resulting in a lower environmental emissions [4].
types of renewables, the solar and biomass resources are considered as
In some studies in this arena, the solar energy assists the endothermic
good alternatives due to their availability and abundance [3]. However,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (H.A. Dhahad).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.113910
Received 27 December 2020; Received in revised form 27 December 2020; Accepted 30 January 2021
Available online 27 February 2021
0196-8904/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Cao et al. Energy Conversion and Management 234 (2021) 113910

Nomenclature ph physical

A Area (m2) Abbreviations

CC Combustion chamber
Ė Exergy rate (kW)
CBC Closed Brayton Cycle
F Faraday constant
CSP Concentrating Solar Power
G Solar radiation(W/m2 )
GAX Generator Absorber heat exchange
H Annual operating hours (h)
GT GasTurbine
ir Interest rate (%)
HRHE Heat Recovery Heat Exchanger
Q̇ Heat duty (kW)
HRSG Heat Recovery Steam Generator
n Economic life (year)
GA GeneticAlgorithm
T Temperature (K)
LPT Low pressure turbine
rc Pressure ratio
LCOE LevelizedCostofElectricity
s Entropy (kJ/kgK− 1)
PVT Photovoltaic thermal
Ẇ Power (kW) PEM Proton exchange membrane
V Voltage (V) RC Rankine cycle
Ż Costrate($/h) SOFC Solid Oxide Fuel Cell
TCC Triple Combined cycle
Subscripts
TIT TurbineInletTemperature
a anode
AC Air Compressor Greek symbols
act activation ηex ExergyEfficiency
c Cathode λ water content
ch chemical ηcell Cell efficiency
Cond Condenser βcell Packing factor
is Isentropic τglass transitivity
OM Operation & maintenance
P pump

gasification reactions of biomass in Integrated Solar Gasification Com­ power production was investigated and optimized by Sahoo et al. [14],
bined Cycle (ISGCC) plants. For instance, Campo et al. [5], proposed who found that the energy output of the hybrid system is improved by
utilization of solar energy to assist the high temperature steam biomass 78.1% compared to the similar single resource one. Another hybrid
gasification in a 20 kWe micro Gas Turbine (GT). biomass-solar system for generating desalinated water along with
Many studies have been devoted to investigate different arrange­ power, cooling, and heating outputs was evaluated by Sahoo et al. [15].
ments of biomass-solar hybridization in power generation systems. They employed the solar energy from parabolic collectors for preheating
Tanaka et al. [6] proposed utilization of generated heat from the solar the feedwater in a biomass driven Rankine cycle and reported an exergy
collectors to assist steam generation in the HRSG of a biomass fueled efficiency of 20.94%. Another poly-generation system based on hybrid
combined GT-Rankine cycle. They showed that the overall electricity biomass-solar resources was proposed as a combination of Rankine,
output is increasing linearly with increasing the input heat from the absorption, Linde-Hampson cycles and Multi Effect Distillation (MED)
collectors. A hybrid biomass-solar driven Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) unit, for which a product cost rate of 15.16 $/h and exergy efficiency of
was investigated by Soares and Oliveira [7], in which parabolic collec­ 11.20% is calculated [16]. For a small community as the case study,
tors were integrated with biomass boiler. They reported annual power thermo-economic analysis of a hybrid plant for producing electricity,
augmentation from 3.4 to 9.6% via integration the solar collectors. Bet hot water and freshwater was conducted by Mouaky et al. [17], who
sarkis et al. [8] proposed utilization of solar energy in direct and indirect calculated the values of 0.231 €/kWh, 0.047 €/m3 and 0.86 €/m3
ways for feedwater heating or direct steam generation in a biomass respectively for electricity, hot water and freshwater costs. In a few
fueled combined GT-Rankine cycle. They found that the use of solar studies hybrid solar-biomass resource is utilized to run the ORC. Oyekale
energy in a direct way results in attaining lower LCOE for the combined et al. [18] optimized a conceptual ORC design with an electrical capacity
cycle. Anvari et al. [9,10] proposed novel configurations of biomass- of 629 kWe for cogeneration purposes and reported exergetic efficiency
solar hybrid power cycles in which the solar energy via heliostat field of 11.0% with a 10.5c€/kWh electricity cost. For another hybrid energy
was utilized to reheat the exhaust gases of a biomass fueled GT. They driven ORC, the advanced exergoeconomic analysis was performed and
found that via incorporation of solar subsystem to biomass fueled GT, the results indicated that, individual optimization of the system com­
CO2 emissions decreases by 22% and power production increases by ponents can eliminate about 60% of destruction cost rates [19]. Hy­
30%. Thermodynamic modeling and sizing analysis for a steam Rankine bridization of biomass with solar energy generated from Concentrating
cycle driven by hybrid solar–biomass energies was presented by Suresh Solar Power (CSP) systems to run a transcritical ORC in a micro Com­
et al. [11], who found that hybrid operation mode increases the plant bined Heat and Power (CHP) unit was investigated by Morrone et al.
power capacity from 23.0% to 47%. Qibin et al. [12] evaluated two [20], who demonstrated that utilization of hybrid resource brings about
configurations of hybrid combined cycles, in the first system solar en­ 21.0% biomass saving compared to the biomass-fueled CHP units. Bellos
ergy was employed to heat the compressed air, while in the second one it et al. [21] investigated a cogeneration system for electricity, heating and
was used for assisting the gasification process. They reported better cooling based on ORC driven by solar and biomass resources. They re­
performance for the second system with an efficiency of 18.4%. Feasi­ ported a payback period of 5.1 years for the system, and the yearly CO2
bility study for power supply using hybrid renewable resources in a avoidance is found to be about 125 tones via hybridization of solar
Moroccan remote area with energy demand of 91.3 kWh/day was con­ energy.
ducted for which the unit power cost was found to be 0.2 $/kWh [13]. A The combined cycle concept is a well-known and practical way to
hybrid biomass-solar tri-generation system for desalination, cooling and enhance the performance of conventional high-temperature driven

2
Y. Cao et al. Energy Conversion and Management 234 (2021) 113910

power plants. In this regard, some studies were devoted to proposal and The literature review on TCC systems revealed that almost all the
investigation of Triple Combined cycle (TCC) systems. The TCC is a available researches were devoted to the SOFC-based systems. There is
configuration of three heat engines driven by a single heat source, to no research focusing on techno-economic evaluation of biomass fueled
reach a higher efficiency compared to conventional combined cycles TCC systems without including the SOFC as the topping cycle. Also, the
[22]. Selection of proper heat engines in designing TCC plants has a key employment of a Closed Brayton Cycle (CBC) as the middle (or bot­
role, where a better thermal match between the topping and bottoming toming) cycle in a TCC has not been investigated yet, while it has some
cycles results in lower irreversibilities. In the context of TCC systems, advantages compared to Rankine cycles, such as simple configuration,
most of the researchers focused on Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) based better economics and reliability and even higher efficiency [36]. In
systems. Roy et al. [2], presented thermoeconomic and environmental addition, the feasibility analysis of H2 post-combustion in a biomass
evaluations for a TCC based on SOFC-GT combined with an ORC for fired GT system has not been considered in literature and almost all the
which the minimum LCOE was found to be 0.086 $/kWh. Ehyaei and available research works in this field are focused on H2 blending with
Rosen [23] combined the SOFC-GT system with a steam Rankine cycle to NG. Considering these motivations and research gap, this paper aims at
form a TCC. They showed that, for the TCC system the exergy efficiency proposal of a new configuration of hybrid biomass-solar system in which
could be increased by 8.0% by optimization which results in a reduction the H2 is utilized as a co-feed in a post-combustion stage of a biomass-
of electricity cost by 9.7%. Singh et al. [24] proposed combination of an fueled TCC to decrease the CO2 emissions and augment the power ca­
ORC with SOFC-GT system to make an efficient TCC, for which it was pacity. The required H2 is generated using a PEM electrolyzer powered
shown that the system efficiency can be enhanced by 8–12% with the by the solar PVT panels. The practical feasibility based on the first and
ORC incorporation. Another TCC was proposed by Khani et al. [25] in second laws along with thermoeconomic analyzes are carried out for the
which the SOFC-GT system was combined with a Generator Absorber proposed system. From the economic standpoint, LCOE is considered as
heat exchanger (GAX) refrigeration system for power/cooling applica­ a rational indicator to assess the economic performance. The influences
tions. They showed that the TCC system has ~6.5% higher exergy effi­ of design/operating variables of each subsystem (GT, PVT, CBC, and
ciency than the standalone SOFC. Han et al. [26] investigated a TCC PEM) are analyzed on overall system performance, prior to the multi-
power system via employment of a transcritical CO2 cycle as the bot­ objective optimization for which the CO2 emission and LCOE are
toming cycle for SOFC-GT system. They reported an electrical efficiency taken into account as the objectives.
of 69.26% for the TCC compared to the efficiency of 49.21% for the
SOFC. Very few studies are available on TCCs which are not based on 2. System description
SOFC-GT systems. For instance, a TCC based on a combination of
Magneto hydrodynamic (MHD) generator with a GT and a Rankine cycle Fig. 1(a) shows the schematics of the proposed TCC system, which
was proposed by Khalili et al. [27], who reported a maximum efficiency consists of a GT (as the topping cycle), a CBC (as the middle cycle) and a
of 71.30% for the TCC system. Another TCC driven by solar energy as a Rankine cycle (as the bottoming cycle). The system is powered by the
combination of Brayton, steam Rankine and organic Rankine cycles was hybrid biomass-solar resources. The biomass is the primary fuel,
evaluated by Sachdeva and Singh [1] for which a thermal efficiency of meanwhile the solar energy is used for hydrogen production which is
33.15% is reported. combusted in a post-firing chamber to reheat the exhaust gas from the
Over the last decade, global spendings on hydrogen energy research High Pressure Turbine (HPT). As mentioned before, the reason for in­
and development is raised since it provides a major green energy op­ direct utilization of solar energy in the proposed system is to fulfill its
portunity. The hydrogen can be utilized in various power systems such fluctuations and intermittency. With hydrogen combustion in reheat
as fuel cells, internal combustion engines and GTs. In solar energy based stage of the GT, the exhaust gas temperature from the Low Pressure
systems, in order to fulfill the intermittency and fluctuations of solar Turbine (LPT) would be increased to around 1200 K (stream 9 on Fig. 1
energy, it can be used for H2 production and storage for provision of (a)). Such a temperature is too high to be used as a Rankine cycle heat
continuous power. The water electrolysis is a promising method for H2 source and would lead to large amounts of exergy destruction in Heat
production, for which the electrical power consumption is the main Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG). Therefore, a CBC is employed which
challenge. The solar based systems, particularly the PVT panels, are the can efficiently recover the waste heat because its turbine inlet temper­
most favorable technologies to meet this challenge [28]. Martin et al. ature is higher than the Rankine cycle.
[29] analyzed H2 production via the water electrolysis and using the As shown in Fig. 1(a), the ambient air (stream 2a) is warmed through
generated electricity by Photovoltaic (PV) panels and reported a cost of the PVT panels before entering the gasifier as the gasification agent for
around 6–7 €/kg for the produced H2. In some researches, the H2 was production of syngas (stream 3). Via combusting the syngas with warm
used as a co-fuel to be combusted/blended with other fuels such as air coming from the compressor (stream 5), the hot combustion gas is
biogas or Natural Gas (NG) in various power systems. For a 50 MW formed (stream 6) and is expanded in the HPT to generate power. The
capacity gas turbine, blending of H2 and NG was evaluated and it was leaving flow from the HPT (stream 7) has a moderate temperature and
reported that, the H2 usage significantly reduces CO2 emissions, mean­ contains adequate amount of oxygen. This stream is combusted using
while the fuel cost increases [30]. Gaeta [31] analyzed a 100 kWe the hydrogen within the post-firing chamber to raise its temperature
commercial GT performance fueling with NG and H2 mixture and indi­ before entering the LPT (stream 8) in order to increase the power gen­
cated saving of NG consumption up to 37.5–41.5%. The environmental eration based on the reheat GT concept. Such a power enhancement,
characteristics of a micro GT fueled by H2-NG blends, was assessed by raised by a clean energy source, would result in a reduction of CO2
Santoli et al. [32], who concluded that the CO emission can be reached emission as the primary greenhouse gas. The flue gas leaving the LPT has
approximately zero for proper values of blending ratios. An integration a temperature of around 1200 K. As mentioned above, this is a relatively
of biomass fired GT system with H2 production by PEM electrolyzer was high temperature for powering a Rankine cycle, however it is an ideal
evaluated by Moharamian et al. [33], who suggested the H2 injection source to drive a CBC. As shown in Fig. 1(a), a CBC with a recuperator is
into the combustion chamber and showed a reduction of CO2 emissions employed as the middle cycle for which Helium is considered as the
by 32.0%, despite the reduction of exergy efficiency by 45%. For a small- working media. For a CBC, the helium gas yields higher efficiency than
scale GT system fueled by NG/H2 blends, it was concluded that, as the other gases such as Nitrogen. Also lower operating pressure of helium
hydrogen blending ratio increases the exergetic efficiency is also raised compared to the CO2 in supercritical-CO2 cycle is another advantage
from 33.8% to 36.0% [34]. Mehr et al. [35] analyzed the H2 production [37]. The flue gas exiting from the HRHE has a temperature of around
by PVT panels and evaluated its blending with the biogas to fuel an SOFC 850 K, which is an ideal source to drive a steam Rankine cycle. Fig. 1(b)
integrated system. Their results indicated a reduction of 16.0% in CO2 shows the flow diagram of occurring processes in the PEM electrolyzer.
emission and an increment of output power by 4% via the H2 blending. Details of these processes are widely explained in literature [38,39] and

3
Y. Cao et al. Energy Conversion and Management 234 (2021) 113910

Fig. 1. Schematics of the system configuration; (a): proposed TCC system, (b): PEM electrolyzer.

4
Y. Cao et al. Energy Conversion and Management 234 (2021) 113910

not included here for summarization. Table 1

The integration of solar based hydrogen production and its post- The input data and parameter values used for system modeling
firing with the biomass fueled GT brings about a reduction in overall [37,38,41.50].
energy conversion efficiency, because every process accompanies some Parameters Values
exergy destruction. However, in the present model the efficiency P0 (kPa) 100
reduction is occurred at the expense of decreasing the CO2 emission. As T0 (K) 298.15
mentioned before, such model can be accounted as a potential way to
fulfill discontinuity and fluctuations of solar energy, so that a continuous GT&CBC
TGasification (K) 1073
power supply is possible. As it is well-known, the battery storage
rc,AC (base case conditions) 8
(particularly in relatively large capacities) has some disadvantages such
as: high initial costs, low energy density and needing a lot of space, short T6 (K)(base case conditions) 1500

lifetime due to crushing and penetration, environmental hazards of ΔPCombustion (%) 2

battery disposal and etc. Also, the integration of solar system and ηis,AC (%) 87

hydrogen production brings about a decrease in consumption of biomass ηis,GT (%) 89

feedstock for generation of constant power amount. The presented rc,CBC (base case conditions) 3

model in this paper can be considered as a feasibility assessment and PVT

technical knowledge development for similar integrated hybrid energy A(m2 ) (each PVT) 4
systems. G(W/m2 ) 800
To simplify the proposed system simulation, following assumptions ηcell (%) 38 (%)
are adopted according to relevant literature [33,39,40,51]: τglass 0.95
βcell 0.83
• Heat losses from the components are neglected.
PEM
• The ambient air has a composition of 21.0% oxygen and 79.0%
TPEM (K) 353.15 (K)
nitrogen. ( )
J 18,000
• The kinetic and potential effects in flow streams are negligible. Eact,Cathode
mol
( )
• Compressors, pumps, and turbines are simulated using the isentropic Eact,Anode
J 76,000
efficiencies. mol
LMembrane (μm) 50
• The PEM modeling is based on single-phase approach.
λAnode 14
• The combustion gas mixture is assumed to behave as ideal gas.
λCathode 10
• The syngas exiting the gasifier is at equilibrium state. ref
JAnode (A/m2 ) 1.7 × 105
ref
JCathode (A/m2 ) 4.6 × 105
The wood chips is adopted as the biomass feedstock for its abun­
dance, as it contributes about 64% of all the available biomass resources Rankine cycle
[37]. Based on ultimate analysis this biomass type has a chemical for­ T21 (K) 850
mula of: CH1.44O0.66 [37]. Other given data and assumptions are listed in TCondenser T0 + 10
Table 1. P21 (MPa) 18
ηis,ST (%) 90
3. Modeling and analysis ηis,P (%) 85

Economic factors
For system feasibility assessment from the first and second law
Interest rate (%) 10
standpoints, thermodynamic models are developed. The energy con­ Economic life (year) 20
servation principle along with exergy concept for second law assessment
are applied for each system component. To simulate the system per­
formance and for solving the system of equations the Engineering ∑ ∑
Ėin = Ėout + ĖD (5)
Equation Solver (EES) software is employed.
The energy balance principle for a control volume is applied as:
∑ ∑ 3.1. Gasifier model
Q̇cv + ṁin hin = Ẇ cv + ṁout hout (1)
The primary driver of the proposed TCC system is the gisifier and the
Neglecting the potential and kinetic effects, the exergy rate of a fluid
syngas composition has a crucial effect on the overall system perfor­
stream is:
mance. Thus, much attention is devoted on its accurate modeling. To
Ė = Ėph + Ėch (2) simulate the gasification process equilibrium model is applied, because
it is an accurate method in estimation of syngas composition [43]. The
Ėph is the physical part and Ėch is the chemical part of exergy. These species are assumed to be reacted in a totally mixed condition in this
are defined as [37,50,52–54]: approach until reaching the equilibrium state. The chemical reaction of
∑ the gasification process is expressed as [37]:
Ėph = ṁi ((hi − h0 ) − T0 (si − s0 ) ) (3)
i CHa Ob Nc + wH2 O + n(O2 + 3.76N2 )→n1 H2 + n2 CO + n3 CO2 + n4 H2 O
[ ] + n5 CH 4 + n6 N2 (6)
∑ ∑
Ėch = ṁ xi e0,i + RT0 xi lnxi (4) CHa Ob Nc indicates chemical formula of the biomass and w indicates
its moisture content.
i i

xi Denotes the mole fraction of ith specie and e0 denotes the standard The key reactions occurring during the gasification are the methane
chemical exergy. formation and shift reactions. These reactions and their equilibrium
To assess the exergy destruction within a component, the exergy constants can be expressed as [37]:
balance relation is applied as [42]:

5
Y. Cao et al. Energy Conversion and Management 234 (2021) 113910

( )−
n5 P
1 indicates the useful transferred heat to the air stream inside the tubes.
C + 2H2 ↔ CH 4 , K = 2
(7) These parameters can be expressed as [45]:
n1 ntot
Q̇loss,top,conv = houter A(T PVT − Tamb ) (16)
CO + H2 O ↔ CO2 + H2 , K1 = (n1 n3 )/(n2 n4 )(P/nt ot)0 (8)
The energy balance for the gasification process is [37]: Q̇loss,top,rad = hrad A(T PVT − Tsky ) (17)

( ) ( )
0 0 0 0 0
hf − biomass + w × hf − H2 O + n × h2 = n1 hf − + ΔhH2 + n2 hf − CO + ΔhCO + n3 (hf − CO2
H2
( ) ( )
(9)
0 0 0
+ ΔhCO2 ) + n4 hf − H2O + ΔhH2O + n5 hf − Ch4 + ΔhCh4 +n6 (hf − N2 + ΔhN2

T abs − T inside
Q̇loss,back = A (18)
RB

3.2. Combustion processes Q̇useful = ṁ2 (h2 − h2a ) (19)

The produced syngas from the gasification is combusted with com­ From the other side, the Q̇absorbed can also be expressed as [45]:
pressed air inside the combustion chamber. This combustion reaction
can be expressed in chemical form as: Q̇absorbed = GAτglass (1 − ηcell ) (20)

n1 H2 + n2 CO + n3 CO2 + n4 H2 O + n5 CH 4 + n6 N2 + n’ (O2 + 3.76N2 )→n7 CO2

+ n8 H2 O + n9 O2 + (n6 + 3.76n’ )N2 (10) 3.4. PEM electrolyzer

n’ denotes for the kilomoles of air participating in the reaction. Also, The proposed procedure by Ni et al. [38] is used to model the PEM
the energy balance for an adiabatic combustion is: electrolyzer. The input electrical energy to the electrolyzer can be
∑ ( 0 ) ∑ ( 0 ) ∑ ( 0 ) expressed as [38]:
Xj hfj + Δh + Xj hfj + Δh = Xj hfj + Δh
j syngas,3 j air,5 j products,6 Eelectrical = J.V (21)
(11)
where, J is the current density and V denotes the cell voltage as [38]:
In the post-firing chamber, the produced H2 by the electrolyzer is
combusted with exiting flue gas from the HPT which contains sufficient V = V0 + ηact,a + ηact,c + ηohm (22)
oxygen. This process is a reheat stage for the GT cycle in order to V0 indicates the reversible voltage calculated via the Nernst equa­
augment the turbine power generation. The chemical reaction in this tion. Also,ηohm and ηact are the ohmic and activation overpotentials,
chamber can be expressed as: respectively. The reversible voltage can be expresses as a function of cell
n7 CO2 + n8 H2 O + n9 O2 + (n6 + 3.76n’ )N2 + nH2 H2 →n10 CO2 + n11 H2 O temperature as [38]:
+ n12 O2 + (n6 + 3.76n’ )N2 (12) V0 = 1.229 − 8.5 × 10− 4 (TPEM − 298) (23)
nH2 denotes the hydrogen kilomoles injected to the chamber. Also, In a PEM electrolyzer, the membrane resistance against the move­
the energy balance can be applied as: ment of H2 ions brings about the ohmic overpotential. The membrane
( ) ∑ ( 0 ) ∑ ( 0 ) local conductivity of ions can be used to calculate the ohmic resistance
(13) [38]:
0
X hf + Δh + Xj hfj + Δh = Xj hfj + Δh
H2 j mixture,7 j products,8 ( ( ))
1 1
σ (λ(x) ) = (0.5139λ(x) − 0.326 ) × exp 1268 − (24)
3.3. PVT modeling 303 T

here, x denotes for the membrane depth and λ(x) indicates the water
The required electricity for hydrogen production is generated by the
content at x distance. The λ(x) is expressed as:
PVT panels. Also as discussed before, the thermal energy provided by the
PVTs is transferred to the ambient air before entering the gasifier. To (λa − λc )
λ(x) = x + λc (25)
model the PVT panels, developed procedure in Refs. [41,44] is applied. L
The produced electricity by the PVT module can be expressed as [41]:
where, and λa and λc are the water contents at electrodes interface and L
Ẇ = ηcell βcell τglass GA (14) denotes for the thickness of the membrane.
The ohmic resistance is expressed as [38]:
ηcell and βcell are the cell efficiency and packing factor, τglass denotes
∫L
transitivity of the PVT glass, A is the total surface area of PVT and G dx
denotes the radiation intensity. RPEM = (26)
0 σ (λ(x))
From thermal standpoint, via applying the energy balance the useful
heat received by the panels can be estimated [45]: Finally, using the Ohmic’s law the overpotential is obtained as
follows:
Q̇absorbed = Q̇loss,top,conv + Q̇loss,top,rad + Q̇loss,back + Q̇useful (15)
ηohm = J.RPEM (27)
where Q̇loss denote the heat loss (by convection or radiation) and Q̇useful The activation overpotential is a measure of electrodes activity and

6
Y. Cao et al. Energy Conversion and Management 234 (2021) 113910

represents the required potential to accomplish electrochemical re­

CRF.Zinvestment + ZO&M + Zfuel
actions. This type of overpotential can be expressed as [38]: LCOE = (35)
⎛ H.Ẇ net
( ) ( )2 ̅⎞
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
RT J RT ⎝ J J Zinvestment and ZO&M are the overall system investment costs and
ηact,i = sinh − 1
= ln + +1 ⎠ (28)
F 2J0,i F 2J0,i 2J0,i operation/maintenance costs, respectively, while Zfuel denotes for the
fuel costs. Also, H is the annual operation hours. The biomass price is
J0,i indicates the exchange current density [38]: assumed in this work to be 100 $/tonne [37], meanwhile the solar en­
( ) ergy as the second fuel is assumed to be free of charge. To convert the
Eact,i
J0,i = Jiref exp − (29) capital expenditures and costs into the levelized values, the CRF factor is
RT
used as [48]:
ref
where Ji indicates pre-exponential factor and Eact,i is the activation (1 + ir )n .ir
CRF = (36)
energy of the electrodes (i denotes for either the anode or the cathode). (1 + ir )n − 1
More details and discussions about PEM electrolyzer modeling can be
found in Ref. [38]. ir is the interest rate and n denotes for the economic life of the system.
The overall system investment costs, Zinvestment , may be estimated by
3.5. Other components the evaluation of the costs of individual system constituents. For this
purpose, proper cost functions are used as given in Table 2.
Other system components including the turbines, compressors, and The environmental considerations has a major role in evaluation of
pump are modeled using a proper assumed value for the isentropic ef­ innovative power cycles. The carbondioxide has the most negative
ficiency as: impact regarding the global GHG emissions. Therefore, this parameter is
taken into account here as a proper criterion to estimate the system
ηCompressor = ηPump =
wis hes − hi
= (30) environmental performance. Also, it is considered as one of the objective
wa he − hi functions in multi-objective optimization. This indicator can be defined
as:
wa hi − he
ηTurbine = = (31) ṁCO2
wis hi − hes CO2 emission = (37)
Ẇ net
The above relations are used to determine the actual exit enthalpy
(temperature) of the components. Then, by applying the first law their
4. Result and discussion
power generation/consumption values can be calculated.
4.1. Validation
3.6. Performance assessment
Accuracy of developed thermodynamic models is verified by
The proposed TCC system is investigated from thermodynamic and comparing the obtained results with reliable available ones in literature.
economic standpoints. From thermodynamic viewpoint, the exergy ef­ To verify the applied model for biomass gasification integrated with a
ficiency beside net power output are the major considered performance simple GT, the generated net power obtained in this work is compared
indicators. The net output power is the sum of net generated power in with the given results by Zare [49] as illustrated in Fig. 2. Also, Fig. 3
three cycles as: shows the model verification for closed cycle GT. Another model vali­
Ẇ net = Ẇ net,GT + Ẇ net,CBC + Ẇ net,RC (32) dation is presented in Fig. 4 for the PEM electrolyzer in which the ob­
tained results in this work are compared with experimental data given
It is worth recognizing that, the generated electricity by PVT system by Ni et al. [38]. As it is clear, there is acceptable agreement for the
is consumed in the electrolyzer, therefore it cannot be considered as the obtained results in this work with the reported ones in literature before.
output power.
The exergetic efficiency is adopted as the most essential criterion
from thermodynamic perspective. For the considered TCC system it can
be defined as [8]: Table 2
The cost functions used for estimation of the components investment costs
Ẇ net [35,37].
ηex = (33)
Ėsolar radiation +Ė biomass Component Cost function
( [ ] )0.670
Gasifier kg
where, Ėsolar radiation and Ėbiomass indicate the input exergies associated 1600 ṁdry biomass
h
with the solar energy and biomass feedstock. The former can be calcu­ Combustion chamber 1
48.64mair (1 + exp (0.018Tout + 26.40) )
lated by [46]: 0.995 − Pout/
Pin
Gas turbine 1536ṁgas Pi
( )4 ( ) ln (1 +exp(0.036Tin − 54.4) )
1 T0 4 T0 0.92 − ηGT( Po)
Ėsolar radiation = 1 + − (34) Compressor 75ṁair Pout Pout
3 Tapp 3 Tapp ln
0.9 − ηAC Pin Pin ( )
RC turbine
Tapp indicates the apparent sun temperature for associated exergy log(ZT ) = 2.6259 + 1.4398log ẆT − 0.1776log2 (ẆT )

with the solar energy [46]. Pump 3450(ẆP )0.71

Recuperator 4122(ARec )0.6
3.7. Economic and environmental analysis Heat recovery heat 4122(AHRHE )0.6
exchanger
Heat recovery steam 230(AHRSG /0.093)0.78
The economic aspects play a major role in feasibility analysis and generator
profitability evaluation of novel power systems [47]. The LCOE is a Condenser 10000 + 324(ACond )0.91
generally adopted indicator for profitability evaluation of these systems, PEM electrolyzer 1000ẆPEM
meanwhile it also helps system designers for comparing various power PVT collectors 130(APVT )
production systems. The LCOE is defined as [37]:

7
Y. Cao et al. Energy Conversion and Management 234 (2021) 113910

Table 3
Key thermodynamic properties and mass flow rates at state points of the
considered system.
state Fluid stream P(kPa) T(K) ṅ(kmol/s) Ė(kW)

1 Biomass 101.3 298.2 0.00362 1759

2 Air 101.3 341 0.005911 1.22
2a Air 101.3 298.2 0.005911 0
3 Syngas 101.3 1073 0.01188 1409
4 Air 101.3 298.2 0.0357 7.372
5 Air 810.4 570.1 0.0357 272.3
6 Combustion gas 794.2 1500 0.04532 1429
7 Combustion gas 285.1 1228 0.04532 953.6
8 Combustion gas 279.4 1494 0.04637 1352
8a Hydrogen 101.3 353.2 0.002091 492.0
9 Combustion gas 102.3 1230 0.04637 875.8
10 Combustion gas 101.8 829.7 0.04637 405.8
10a Combustion gas 101.3 393.2 0.04637 79.89
11 Helium 7320.0 1210 0.08187 1716
12 Helium 2590.0 835.9 0.08187 1052
Fig. 2. Validation of developed thermodynamic model for the gasification in­ 13 Helium 2540.0 529.7 0.08187 758.5
tegrated gas turbine. 14 Helium 2500.0 309.7 0.08187 653.2
15 Helium 7500.0 513.3 0.08187 970.9
16 Helium 7420.0 819.7 0.08187 1252
17 Water 101.3 298.2 0.2483 0
18 Water 101.3 318.2 0.2483 12.01
19 Water 9.6 318.2 0.01146 0.5354
20 Water 18,000.0 319.5 0.01146 4.315
21 Water 18,000.0 819.7 0.01146 310.5
22 Water 9.6 318.2 0.01146 26.09
23 Water 101.3 298.2 0.5394 0
24 Water 101.3 308.2 0.5394 6.668

Table 4
Calculated performance parameters for a typical operating condition.*
Parameter Value

Net power output from GT cycle 635.4 (kW)

Net power output from CBC 289.3 (kW)
Net power output from Rankine cycle 253.2 (kW)
PVT power generation 767.0 (kW)
Electrolyzer power consumption 767.0 (kW)
Fig. 3. Validation of developed thermodynamic model for the closed Bray­ Ẇnet 1178.0 (kW)
ton cycle. ηex (%) 28.78 (%)
CO2 emission 0.487 (kg/kWh)
LCOE 64.31 ($/MWh)

*
rc,AC = 8, rc,CBC = 3, T6 = 1500 K, APVT = 3200 m2 .

In order to identify the major operating/design variables a para­

metric analysis is conducted by which the effects of design variables are
inspected on the system performance. The exergy efficiency (ηex ), net
output power (Ẇnet ), CO2 emissions and LCOE are the main performance
indicators.
Fig. 5 shows the effects on the system performance of air compressor
pressure ratio (rc,AC ). Referring to Fig. 5(a), a maximum value for both
Ẇnet and ηex is reached, as they are increased firstly and then decreased.
The optimum value for the pressure ratio is rc,AC ≅ 2.6. Such a trend for
power and efficiency is due to the increment of both consumed
compressor power and generated turbine power with increasing the
rc,AC . For lower values of rc,AC than the optimal one, turbine power
increment is dominant and thus Ẇnet increases, while for higher rc,AC
Fig. 4. Validation of developed thermodynamic model for the PEM values compressor power increment dominates and hence Ẇnet is
electrolyzer.
decreased. Regarding Eq. (37), this variational trend for Ẇnet brings
about existence of an optimum value for rc,AC for which the CO2 emis­
4.2. Parametric analysis sions is minimized, as shown in Fig. 5(b). However, the LCOE has a flat
curve at pressure ratios of higher than 4. The figure also indicates that,
The state point properties of the proposed TCC are presented in optimum value of rc,AC to attain maximum power (and efficiency) co­
Table 3 to reveal the system specifications and sizing. incides the one to reach minimum CO2 emissions, but differs from the
Table 4 represents the performance parameters of the system at a one to reach minimum LCOE. Therefore, a two-objective optimization
typical operating condition.

8
Y. Cao et al. Energy Conversion and Management 234 (2021) 113910

Fig. 6. Effects of compressor pressure ratio of CBC on the system performance.

Fig. 5. Effects of air compressor pressure ratio on the system performance.
the turbine inlet temperature is increased from 1200.0 K to 1500.0 K,
can rightly determine the best operating conditions from both envi­ the efficiency would be improved from 24.8 to 28.8% and the emission
ronmental and economical standpoints, as will be discussed later. would be reduced from 0.566 to 0.487 kg/kWh.
Effects on the system performance of CBC compressor pressure ratio Another key design parameter is the current density of PEM elec­
(rc,CBC ) are shown in Fig. 6. As can be seen from Fig. 6(a), the trend of trolyzer, the effects of which are shown in Fig. 8. According to Fig. 8(a),
variations for Ẇnet and ηex is similar to that explained above for Fig. 5(a) larger values of ηex and Ẇnet are detected for higher current density
and there exist optimum values for pressure ratio (rc,CBC ≅ 2.1) which values because increasing J brings about an increase of H2 production
maximizes the power and efficiency. Considering the definitions ofLCOE (as indicated by Fig. 8(c)). The higher H2 production and injection
and CO2 emissions, having a maximum output power brings about causes higher gas temperature at LPT inlet, so Ẇnet would be raised. The
reaching a minimum value for LCOE and CO2 emission, as represented in increasing trend for power output is the reason to have lower CO2
Fig. 6(b). From this figure it is also revealed that, the rc,CBC is an emission for larger current densities as represented in Fig. 8(b).
important design parameter affecting the overall system. It is seen that, Considering the economic aspect, Fig. 8(b) reveals that there is an op­
the minimum LCOE is around 63.2 $/MWh, while at the upper bond timum value for J for which the LCOE would be minimized. Regarding
(rc,CBC ≅ 5) the product cost value is about 69.7 $/MWh, indicating a the LCOE definition, its trend is related mainly to the variations of
cost reduction by 10.3% with optimization. Zinvestment and Ẇnet . Since higher current densities brings about higher
Effect of TIT(Turbine Inlet Temperature) of the HPT on system per­
electrolyzer costs, increment of investment costs along with rising Ẇnet
formance is depicted in Fig. 7. As shown in Fig. 7(a), with increasing T6
is the main reason to reach a minimum value for LCOE.
both the power and efficiency are increased, as expected. The net power
The total PVT panels’ area is the other design parameter which in­
enhancement normally brings about a reduction in LCOE as illustrated
fluences the system, as illustrated in Fig. 9. The influence of this
by Fig. 7(b), though at upper bounds of T6 a minimum point is exist.
parameter is equivalent to the effects of LPT inlet temperature. As shown
Noting LCOE definition, such a trend relates to the variations of Zinvestment
in Fig. 9(a), higher Ẇnet is reached with larger PVT areas. The input
with increasing T6 which brings about increment in turbine costs. An
power to the electrolyzer increases with increasing APVT and thus, higher
increment of investment costs along with rising Ẇnet is the reason for
values of H2 is produced. With more H2 combustion in the post-firing
existing an optimum value for T6 to reach a minimum LCOE. Also, Fig. 7
chamber the LPT inlet temperature increases and more power is
(b) indicates steadily reduction of CO2 emission with increasing T6 as a
generated. However, the enhancement of Ẇnet does not increase the
result of steadily increase of Ẇnet . It can be observed from Fig. 7 that, if

9
Y. Cao et al. Energy Conversion and Management 234 (2021) 113910

Fig. 7. Effects of HPT inlet temperature on the system performance.

exergy efficiency necessarily. This can be explained considering the ef­

ficiency definition (Eq. (33)), so that the increment of Ẇnet couldn’t
compensate the increase of input exergy associated with the solar energy
as denominator of the relation. Considering the economic aspect Fig. 9
(b) shows higher LCOE values for larger PVT areas, as the system costs
particularly the PVT panels and electrolyzer costs are increased with
increasing PVT area. The incremental trend for LCOE indicates that, the
power enhancement couldn’t compensate the increment of investment
costs.
From Fig. 9, it is revealed that, the main advantage for incorporation
Fig. 8. Effects of electrolyzer current density on the system performance.
of solar sub-system and H2 injection is the reduction of CO2 emissions
and enhancement of power production for a constant value of biomass
input. indicators. The optimization process is conducted using Genetic Algo­
rithm (GA) procedure. This method is a particular type of evolutionary
methods which applies inspired techniques based on evolutionary
4.3. Optimization biology such as mutation, selection, inheritance, and crossover. Decision
variables have been determined by the aid of parametric analysis as
Two-objective optimization is carried out to determine the best listed in Table 5 along with their constraints.
operating conditions for the proposed TCC. The LCOE and CO2 emission Fig. 10 indicates the optimization results as a Pareto frontier, each
are considered as the objectives. The former takes into account both point on which indicates an optimum solution. Fig. 10 shows that, if the
economic and thermodynamic aspects of the system performance LCOE is to be decreased, then the CO2 emission would be increased
considering its definition as given by Eq. (35). Also, the latter is a con­ indicating a conflict trend between the objectives, and reveals that a
flicting objective with respect to some decision variables as revealed by system with less emissions will cost more. Points A and B on the figure
the results of parametric study. Therefore, an optimization with respect correspond to the optimum solutions based on single-objective
to these two objectives seems more rational than the other performance

10
Y. Cao et al. Energy Conversion and Management 234 (2021) 113910

Fig. 10. Pareto frontier for two-objective optimization based on cost

and emission.

Table 6
optimization results.
Decision variables/Performance parameters Optimum values

rc,AC (–) 5.62

rc,CBC (–) 2.13
T6 (K) 1468.9
APVT (m2 ) 3000
J(A/m2 ) 419.4
ηex (%) 30.44
Ẇnet (kW) 1201.0
CO2 emission (kg/kWh) 0.4579
LCOE($/MWh) 61.37
Żtotal ($/h) 44.49

kg/kWh. A comparison of these figures with the ones obtained by single-

objective optimization for minimum LCOE (point B), indicates an
improvement by 4.7% in terms of emissions at the expense of 2.2% in­
crease in LCOE. The values of decision variables and the other perfor­
mance parameters at the final optimum conditions are outlined in
Table 6. The overall system cost rate is calculated to be 44.49 $/h for a
power generation of 1201.0 kW.
To indicate an in depth view of the system performance in compo­
nent level, the exergy destructions and cost rates of each component are
represented in Figs. 11 and 12. As can be seen, the PVT and electrolyzer
have the largest contributions on both exergy destruction and cost rates.
Fig. 9. Effects of total PVT area on the system performance. Such a large exergy destruction occurred in PVT panels is due to the
involvement of large temperature changes in conversion of high-quality
solar radiation (received at a high temperature) into lower temperature
Table 5 levels accompanying low exergies [8]. Also, within the PEM electrolyzer
Decision variables. the irreversibilities associated with electrochemical reactions are the
Parameter Range main responsible for such a high exergy destruction. The gasifier and
rc,AC 1.5 < rc,AC < 10 combustion chambers have the next ranks in terms of exergy destruc­
rc,CBC 1.5 < rc,AC < 5 tion, due to the existence of chemical reactions in these components.
Current density 200 < J(A/m2 ) < 600
In order to get a better vision on the performance of the proposed
HPT inlet temperature 1200 < T6 (K) < 1500
hybrid biomass-solar system in this work, a comparison is made with
PVTarea
two similar hybrid systems investigated in previous literature. Table 7
3000 < APVT (m2 ) < 5000
represents the results of such a comparison with two previous works at
optimal operating conditions. However, as no optimization is conducted
optimizations with respect to CO2 emission and LCOE, respectively. in Ref. [9] the range of the obtained results for the similar operating
Meanwhile, based on two-objective optimization the indicated point C conditions are outlined. Referring to this Table, it is revealed that the
can be determined as the best solution since it is the closest point to the proposed system in this work has better performance in terms of LCOE
ideal solution. Under these operating conditions, the proposed TCC and CO2 emission compared to the previous works. It can be argued that,
system yields a LCOE value of 61.37 $/MWh and an emission of 0.4579 the lower exergy efficiency of the present system compared to the system

11
Y. Cao et al. Energy Conversion and Management 234 (2021) 113910

Fig. 11. Exergy destruction rates for system components.

Fig. 12. Cost rates for system components.

proposed by Bet sarkis et al. [8] is due to the indirect utilization of solar proposed in which, to eliminate the intermittency of solar radiation it is
energy as it is used for hydrogen production and then the produced utilized for hydrogen production. The produced hydrogen is injected
hydrogen is injected into the post-firing chamber. into the post-firing combustion chamber to boost the power generation
capacity. Thermoeconomic evaluation and multi-objective optimization
5. Conclusions is performed to examine the system performance in terms of exergy,
economics, and environmental impacts. The results revealed that,
A novel hybrid biomass-solar driven triple combined power cycle is incorporation of solar PVTs and hydrogen injection bring about signif­
icant reduction in CO2 emission and increment of power generation
capacity for a constant biomass input. However, it results in a reduction
Table 7
of exergetic efficiency (due to large destructions in PVT panels and PEM
Performance comparison between the proposed hybrid system in this work with
electrolyzer) and increment of LCOE (due to the additional expenditures
previous similar systems (TGasification = 800 K,.G = 800 W/m2 )
associated with PVT panels and PEM electrolyzer). Under the best
Performance Present Proposed system by Proposed system by
operating conditions obtained by two-objective optimization, the pro­
parameter system Anvari et al. [9] Bet sarkis et al. [8]
posed TCC yields exergy efficiency of 30.44%, LCOE of 61.37 $/MWh,
Exergy efficiency 30.44 21–28 36.91 and CO2 emission of 0.458 kg/kWh. Also, the overall system cost rate is
(%)
calculated to be 44.49 $/h for a power generation of 1201.0 kW. In
CO2 emission 0.4579 0.46–0.75 0.62
(kg/kWh) addition, the following results are obtained:
LCOE ($/MWh) 61.37 N.A. 74.95

12
Y. Cao et al. Energy Conversion and Management 234 (2021) 113910

• The compressor pressure ratio (for both the GT and CBC systems) is [15] Sahoo U, Kumar R, Singh SK, Tripathi AK. Energy, exergy, economic analysis and
optimization of polygeneration hybrid solar-biomass system. Appl Therm Eng
found to be as the most effective design variables.
2018;145:685–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.09.093.
• For higher current densities of the PEM electrolyzer the proposed [16] Ghasemi A, Heidarnejad P, Noorpoor A. A novel solar-biomass based multi-
system reaches higher efficiency and output power as well as lower generation energy system including water desalination and liquefaction of natural
emissions. gas system: thermodynamic and thermoeconomic optimization. J Cleaner Prod
2018;196:424–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.160.
• The proposed system attains higher output power and lower CO2 [17] Mouaky A, Rachek A. Thermodynamic and thermo-economic assessment of a
emissions for larger PVT panels’ area, however, it brings about lower hybrid solar/biomass polygeneration system under the semi-arid climate
efficiency and higher LCOE. conditions. Renewable Energy 2020;156:14–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2020.04.019.
• The PVT panels and PEM electrolyzer have the largest contributions [18] Oyekale J, Petrollese M, Heberle F, Brüggemann D, Cau G. Exergetic and integrated
on exergy destruction and component cost rates. exergoeconomic assessments of a hybrid solar-biomass organic Rankine cycle
cogeneration plant. Energy Convers Manage 2020;215:112905. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112905.
CRediT authorship contribution statement [19] Oyekale J, Petrollese M, Cau G. Modified auxiliary exergy costing in advanced
exergoeconomic analysis applied to a hybrid solar-biomass organic Rankine cycle
plant. Appl Energy 2020;268:114888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Yan Cao: Formal analysis, Software, Supervision, Investigation,
apenergy.2020.114888.
Conceptualization, Visualization. Hayder A. Dhahad: Methodology, [20] Morrone P, Algieri A, Castiglione T. Hybridisation of biomass and concentrated
Software, Resources. Hussein Togun: Writing - original draft, Writing - solar power systems in transcritical organic Rankine cycles: a micro combined heat
review & editing. Ali E. Anqi: Writing - original draft. Naeim Farouk: and power application. Energy Convers Manage 2019;180:757–68. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.11.029.
Validation, Data curation. Babak Farhang: Project administration. [21] Bellos E, Vellios L, Theodosiou I-C, Tzivanidis C. Investigation of a solar-biomass
polygeneration system. Energy Convers Manage 2018;173:283–95. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.07.093.
Declaration of Competing Interest [22] McLarty D, Brouwer J, Samuelsen S. Fuel cell–gas turbine hybrid system design
part I: steady state performance. J Power Sources 2014;257:412–20. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.11.122.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial [23] Ehyaei MA, Rosen MA. Optimization of a triple cycle based on a solid oxide fuel
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence cell and gas and steam cycles with a multiobjective genetic algorithm and energy,
the work reported in this paper. exergy and economic analyse. Energy Convers Manag 2019;180:689–708. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.11.023.
[24] Singh R, Singh O. Comparative study of combined solid oxide fuel cell-gas turbine-
References Organic Rankine cycle for different working fluid in bottoming cycle. Energy
Convers Manage 2018;171:659–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2018.06.009.
[1] Sachdeva J, Singh O. Thermodynamic analysis of solar powered triple combined
[25] Khani L, Mahmoudi SMS, Chitsaz A, Rosen MA. Energy and exergoeconomic
Brayton, Rankine and organic Rankine cycle for carbon free power. Renewable
evaluation of a new power/cooling cogeneration system based on a solid oxide fuel
Energy 2019;139:765–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.02.128.
cell. Energy 2016;94:64–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.11.001.
[2] Roy D, Samanta S, Ghosh S. Techno-economic and environmental analyses of a
[26] Meng Q, Han J, Kong L, Liu H, Zhang T, Yu Z. Thermodynamic analysis of
biomass based system employing solid oxide fuel cell, externally fired gas turbine
combined power generation system based on SOFC/GT and transcritical carbon
and organic Rankine cycle. J Cleaner Prod 2019;225:36–57. https://doi.org/
dioxide cycle. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017;42(7):4673–8. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.261.
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.09.067.
[3] Esen M, Yuksel T. Experimental evaluation of using various renewable energy
[27] Dehkordi AJ, Giahi MH. Investigating the effect of channel angle of a subsonic
sources for heating a greenhouse. Energy Build 2013;65:340–51. https://doi.org/
MHD (Magneto-Hydro-Dynamic) generator on optimum efficiency of a triple
10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.06.018.
combined cycle. Energy 2015;85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.03.064.
[4] Zhang C, Sun J, Lubell M, Qiu L, Kang K. Design and simulation of a novel hybrid
[28] Sadeghi S, Ghandehariun S, Rosen MA. Comparative economic and life cycle
solar-biomass energy supply system in northwest China. J Cleaner Prod 2019;233:
assessment of solar-based hydrogen production for oil and gas industries. Energy
1221–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.128.
2020;208:118347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118347.
[5] Campo P, Benitez T, Lee U, Chung JN. Modeling of a biomass high temperature
[29] Gutiérrez-Martín F, Amodio L, Pagano M. Hydrogen production by water
steam gasifier integrated with assisted solar energy and a micro gas turbine. Energy
electrolysis and off-grid solar PV. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2020. https://doi.org/
Convers Manage 2015;93:72–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.09.098.
enconman.2014.12.069.
[30] Adnan G, Koc A. Analysing the performance, fuel cost and emission parameters of
[6] Tanaka Y, Mesfun S, Umeki K, Toffolo A, Tamaura Y, Yoshikawa K.
the 50 MW simple and recuperative gas turbine cycles using natural gas and
Thermodynamic performance of a hybrid power generation system using biomass
hydrogen as fuel. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gasification and concentrated solar thermal processes. Appl Energy 2015;160:
ijhydene.2020.05.267.
664–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.05.084.
[31] Gaeta A, Reale F, Chiariello F, Massoli P. A dynamic model of a 100 kW micro gas
[7] Soares J, Oliveira AC. Numerical simulation of a hybrid concentrated solar power/
turbine fuelled with natural gas and hydrogen blends and its application in a
biomass mini power plant. Appl Therm Eng 2017;111:1378–86. https://doi.org/
hybrid energy grid. Energy 2017;129:299–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.06.180.
energy.2017.03.173.
[8] Bet Sarkis R, Zare V. Proposal and analysis of two novel integrated configurations
[32] de Santoli L, Lo Basso G, Barati S, D’Ambra S, Fasolilli C. Seasonal energy and
for hybrid solar-biomass power generation systems: thermodynamic and economic
environmental characterization of a micro gas turbine fueled with H2NG blends.
evaluation. Energy Convers Manage 2018;160:411–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Energy 2020;193:116678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.116678.
enconman.2018.01.061.
[33] Moharamian A, Soltani S, Rosen MA, Mahmoudi SMS. Exergoeconomic and
[9] Anvari S, Khalilarya S, Zare V. Exergoeconomic and environmental analysis of a
thermodynamic analyses of an externally fired combined cycle with hydrogen
novel configuration of solar-biomass hybrid power generation system. Energy
production and injection to the combustion chamber. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2018;
2018;165:776–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.10.018.
43(2):781–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.11.136.
[10] Anvari S, Khalilarya S, Zare V. Power generation enhancement in a biomass-based
[34] Arsalis A. Thermodynamic modeling and parametric study of a small-scale natural
combined cycle using solar energy: thermodynamic and environmental analysis.
gas/hydrogen-fueled gas turbine system for decentralized applications. Sustainable
Appl Therm Eng 2019;153:128–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Energy Technol Assess 2019;36:100560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2019.02.112.
seta.2019.100560.
[11] Suresh NS, Thirumalai NC, Dasappa S. Modeling and analysis of solar thermal and
[35] Mehr AS, Moharramian A, Hossainpour S, Pavlov DA. Effect of blending hydrogen
biomass hybrid power plants. Appl Therm Eng 2019;160:114121. https://doi.org/
to biogas fuel driven from anaerobic digestion of wastewater on the performance of
10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.114121.
a solid oxide fuel cell system. Energy 2020;202:117668. https://doi.org/10.1016/
[12] Liu Q, Bai Z, Wang X, Lei J, Jin H. Investigation of thermodynamic performances
j.energy.2020.117668.
for two solar-biomass hybrid combined cycle power generation systems. Energy
[36] Olumayegun O, Wang M, Kelsall G. Thermodynamic analysis and preliminary
Convers Manage 2016;122:252–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
design of closed Brayton cycle using nitrogen as working fluid and coupled to small
enconman.2016.05.080.
modular Sodium-cooled fast reactor (SM-SFR). Appl Energy 2017;191:436–53.
[13] El-houari H, Allouhi A, Rehman S, Buker MS, Kousksou T, Jamil A, El Amrani B.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.01.099.
Feasibility evaluation of a hybrid renewable power generation system for
[37] Zare V. Performance improvement of biomass-fueled closed cycle gas turbine via
sustainable electricity supply in a Moroccan remote site. J Cleaner Prod 2020;277:
compressor inlet cooling using absorption refrigeration; thermoeconomic analysis
123534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123534.
and multi-objective optimization. Energy Convers Manag 2020;215:112946.
[14] Sahoo U, Kumar R, Pant PC, Chaudhary R. Development of an innovative
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112946.
polygeneration process in hybrid solar-biomass system for combined power,
cooling and desalination. Appl Therm Eng 2017;120:560–7. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.04.034.

13
Y. Cao et al. Energy Conversion and Management 234 (2021) 113910

[38] Ni M, Leung MKH, Leung DYC. Energy and exergy analysis of hydrogen production [47] Esen H, Inalli M, Esen M. A techno-economic comparison of ground-coupled and
by a proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolyzer plant. Energy Convers Manage air-coupled heat pump system for space cooling. Build Environ 2007;42(5):
2008;49(10):2748–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2008.03.018. 1955–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.04.007.
[39] Boyaghchi FA, Chavoshi M, Sabeti V. Multi-generation system incorporated with [48] Esen H, Inalli M, Esen M. Technoeconomic appraisal of a ground source heat pump
PEM electrolyzer and dual ORC based on biomass gasification waste heat recovery: system for a heating season in eastern Turkey. Energy Convers Manage 2006;47(9-
exergetic, economic and environmental impact optimizations. Energy 2018;145: 10):1281–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2005.06.024.
38–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.12.118. [49] Zare V. Role of modeling approach on the results of thermodynamic analysis:
[40] Toghyani S, Afshari E, Baniasadi E, Atyabi SA, Naterer GF. Thermal and concept presentation via thermoeconomic comparison of biomass gasification-
electrochemical performance assessment of a high temperature PEM electrolyzer. fueled open and closed cycle gas turbines. Energy Convers Manag 2020;225:
Energy 2018;152:237–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.03.140. 113479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113479.
[41] Ahmadi P, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Multi-objective optimization of a novel solar-based [50] Dhahad HA, Ahmadi S, Dahari M, Ghaebi H, Parikhani T. Energy, exergy, and
multigeneration energy system. Sol Energy 2014;108:576–91. https://doi.org/ exergoeconomic evaluation of a novel CCP system based on a solid oxide fuel cell
10.1016/j.solener.2014.07.022. integrated with absorption and ejector refrigeration cycles. Therm Sci Eng Prog
[42] Esen H, Inalli M, Esen M, Pihtili K. Energy and exergy analysis of a ground-coupled 2021;21:100755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsep.2020.100755.
heat pump system with two horizontal ground heat exchangers. Build Environ [51] Cao Y, Mihardjo LWW, Farhang B, Ghaebi H, Parikhani T. Development,
2007;42(10):3606–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.10.014. assessment and comparison of three high-temperature geothermal-driven
[43] Wongchanapai S, Iwai H, Saito M, Yoshida H. Performance evaluation of an configurations for power and hydrogen generation: Energy, exergy
integrated small-scale SOFC-biomass gasification power generation system. thermoeconomic and optimization. Int J Hydrogen Energ 2020;45(58):34163–84.
J Power Sources 2012;216:314–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.09.013.
jpowsour.2012.05.098. [52] Cao Y, Mihardjo LWW, Dahari M, Mohamed AM, Ghaebi H, Parikhani T.
[44] Joshi AS, Tiwari A, Tiwari GN, Dincer I, Reddy BV. Performance evaluation of a Assessment of a novel system utilizing gases exhausted from a ship’s engine for
hybrid photovoltaic thermal (PV/T) (glass-to-glass) system. Int J Therm Sci 2009; power, cooling, and desalinated water generation. Appl Therm Eng 2021;184:
48(1):154–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2008.05.001. 116177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2020.116177.
[45] Gholamian E, Hanafizadeh P, Ahmadi P, Mazzarella L. A transient optimization [53] Cao Y, Dhahad HA, Parikhani T, Anqi AE, Mohamed AM. Thermo-economic
and techno-economic assessment of a building integrated combined cooling, evaluation of a combined Kalina cycle and humidification-dehumidification (HDH)
heating and power system in Tehran. Energy Convers Manage 2020;217:112962. desalination system integrated with thermoelectric generator and solar pond. Int J
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112962. Heat Mass Tran 2021;168:120844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[46] Zare V, Moalemian A. Parabolic trough solar collectors integrated with a Kalina ijheatmasstransfer.2020.120844.
cycle for high temperature applications: Energy, exergy and economic analyses. [54] Bhao Z, Mihardjo LWW, Dahari M, Abo-Khalil AG, Al-Qawasmi A-R, Mohamed AM,
Energy Convers Manage 2017;151:681–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Parikhani T. Thermodynamic and exergoeconomic analyses and optimization of an
enconman.2017.09.028. auxiliary tri-generation system for a ship utilizing exhaust gases from its engine.
J Cleaner Prod 2021;287:125012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125012.

14