Solar & Wind TechnologyVol.6, No. 1, pp. 71-74, 1989 0741-983X/89 $3.00+.

00
Printedin Great Britain. Pergamon Press pie

TECHNICAL NOTE

Comments about the comparison between a conventional and solar powered absorption
refrigeration system*

O. D. CORBELLAt
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro Faculdade de Arquitetura e Urbanismo Coordenac~o de P6s,
Graduacao Edificio da Reitoria, 2 Pavimento Ilha do Fundao, Cidade Universitaria, Rio de Janeiro,
RJ-CEP-21921, Brazil

and

C. R. GARIBOTTI~
Instituto Balseiro, Universidad Nacional de Cuyo S. C. de Bariloche, Argentina

(Received 9 February 1988 ; accepted 25 M a y 1988)

Abstract--Two statements about the performance of solar refrigeration systems are discussed. First,
concepts of efficiency and coefficient o f performance are studied. Second, the influence of inflation and rise
of fuel prices are considered, in relation to the comparison between solar and conventional refrigeration
systems.

I. INTRODUCTION these two sources. The maximum mechanical work Wm that

we can obtain from the cycle is
When solar and conventional sources are compared for
refrigeration or ice-production, two points usually arise W~ = tidE, (2.1)
against the solar system :
where E is the thermal energy delivered from the high tem-
(1) Solar systems are bad thermal machines, because they perature source, and tio is the Carnot or ideal efficiency given,
have a very low coefficient of performance (COP) ; as it is well known, by
(2) Solar systems are more expensive than conventional sys-
tems. rh-- ro
tic rh (2.2)
This paper analyses these two statements. For the first one
we discuss that the COP is not the appropriate comparison The energy which is totally transformed in mechanical work
parameter ; another parameter, the so-called 2nd low COP is also called exergy (see for example Ref. [1]), E x , that is
must be used. Furthermore, we conclude that the second
E x = tidE. (2.3)
statement is not true. Depending on the inflation rate, future
fuel prices and the distance from the fuel source to the system, The energy which is absolutely impossible to transform in
the solar could be cheaper than the conventional system. mechanical work, is called the anergy d ,
To
II. CONCEPTS OF EXERGY, ANERGY AND A = E - - E x = Thh E. (2.4)
SECOND LAW EFFICIENCY
The first law efficiency (efficiency of the conversion from
Given a thermal source at the temperature Th and another thermal to mechanical energy) is defined as the quotient
at the temperature To, lower than the first one, we can obtain between the real or experimentally mechanical work W, and
work from a thermodynamical cycle which runs between the total thermal energy used,
W
ti(lst) = ~- ~< qc < 1 (2.5)
* This paper was written by the authors during their stay
at the ICTP International Centre for Theoretical Physics as that is, the Carnot efficiency gives an upper bound.
Associate Members. The efficiency o f the second law, sometimes called avail-
f Researcher o f the CNPq, Consellao Nacional de ability, effectiveness or exergy efficiency, is defined as :
Pesquisas, Brazil. On leave from P R O M E C / D E M E C / W
UFRGS, Porto Alegre, Brazil. ti (2nd) = Exx ~< 1 (2.6)
:~Researcher o f the CNICT, Consejo Nacional de Inves-
tigaciones Cientifica y T6cnicas, Argentina. and is related to the efficiency o f the first law by

71
72 Technical Note

r~
i fM~ Energy
r hI , ~ ,
~ = Exergy E=Ex+A
Tc ~ ~ Anergv
./
s

Fig. 1. Interpretation of E, Ex and A for a thermodynamic Fig. 2. Ideal reverse cycle for refrigeration.
cycle in the temperature entropy diagram.

r/(2nd) r/(lst) (2.7) thermal sources related to their capacity in producing mech-
qc anical work, and the 2nd law efficiency allows us to dis-
tinguish the quality of real systems to produce mechanical
Note that in the temperature-entropy diagram of an ideal work, independently of the source in contrast with the 1st
cycle, energy and exergy can be interpreted as different areas, law efficiency concept.
as shown in Fig. 1.
The concept of exergy is useful in order to state precisely
how m u c h mechanical work can be delivered from a thermal IlL REVERSE CYCLE, C O N C E P T O F S E C O N D
source which has a fixed temperature. LAW COP. COMPARISON BETWEEN SOLAR
In order to discuss the meaning, let us take as an example AND CONVENTIONAL THERMAL BEHAVIOUR
the comparison between two thermal cycles producing mech-
Reverse cycles, instead of producing work, consume mech-
anical work, characterized by the following parameters,
anical or thermal energy to produce heat (heat pumps) or to
System 1 : extract heat (refrigeration). Here a different criterion is used
to categorize thermal system, not the efficiency but the COP
Th = 300C, Tc = 30C, r/~ (lst) = 26% (measured).
(Coefficient of Performance) defined as
System 2 :
thermal energy transfered
Th = 500C, Tc = 30C, q2 (lst) = 28% (measured). COP =
thermal or mechanical energy u s e d
Meanwhile, the exergy o f system 1 is : For an ideal reverse cycle such as shown in Fig. 2, we have
Ext = 0.47E, A Tc
which means that the m a x i m u m mechanical work that can C O P ( R E F , CO, C A R ) = Ex = Th-T~ (3.1)
be obtained from this source is 47% of the total energy, while
and
the rest
E Th 1
A i = 0.53E COP (HEAT, CO, CAR) Ex Th -- T~ - q , (3.2)

is the energy which has lost its capacity to do mechanical

work. For system 2 we have, respectively
Ex2 = 0.61E and A2 = 0.39E.
Therefore the 2nd law efficiency for the two systems will be
r/~(lst) 0.26
ql (2nd) = 0.55
r/cI 0.47
q2(lst) 0.28
~/2 (2nd)
qc2 0.61 - 0.46.
W h e n we consider the first law efficiencies, q t (1 st) < q 2 (1 st),
we should conclude that system 2 is a better machine than
system I. But the conclusion is wrong, because the first law
efficiency loses its relevance when we consider solar radiation,
which is a free source of entropy. In the present case, system
1 gives better use of its thermal source than system 2. As a
thermal machine, system 1 is able to use 55% of its exergy
and is better than system 2, which is only able to transform
46% of its exergy in mechanical work.
A n o t h e r example which clarifies the concepts of exergy
and anergy is the following. Let us suppose that in the former
example thermal energy is dissipated to a reservoir of con-
stant temperature o f 30C, with anergies A1 and A2. If we
dispose o f another reservoir at 25C and we want to get
mechanical work through a thermodynamical cycle between
these reservoirs, the new system should have an exergy of
1.6% of the total energy E ' = A ~+ A 2.
Then, the concept of exergy gives a hierarchical order of
where C O P (REF, CO, CAR) is the C O P for refrigeration
by vapour compression ideal or Carnot cycle, COP (HEAT,
CO, CAR) is the C O P for heating by vapour compression
ideal or Carnot cycle and q is the 1st law efficiency for the
equivalent direct cycle between the same thermal sources.
For ideal absorption systems (negligible p u m p i n g work or
running by thermosyphon), in which the heating source is at
temperature T~, the COP is given (see for example Ref. [2])
by
T~(Th-Ta)
C O P (REF, ABS, CAR) Th (T~ -- To) (3.3)
where
ABS = absorption cycle
T, = ambient temperature
T = refrigerator temperature.
In the practical realization of the reverse cycles, the thermal
or mechanical energy actually used by the device is larger
than the theoretical one because it involves irreversible
phenomena, thermal losses, etc.
Then
COP (EXP) < COP (CAR). (3.4)
As the 1st law efficiency concept cannot be employed to
compare two systems acting between two different thermal
sources, the COP, as defined, is not able to give a quality
 Technical Note
criterion to distinguish two systems whose thermal sources
have different temperatures.
Then, as done in the direct cycle, we defined a parameter
similar to the 2nd law efficiency, which could be called the
second law coefficient o f performance, COP (2rid), as
COP (EXP)
COP (2nd) COP (CAR)" (3.5)
This parameter will give us the quality o f the device, that is,
its relationship with the ideal one.
Let us consider an example. Suppose we have to compare
two absorption systems, characterized by
System A - - A b s o r p t i o n refrigerator with a solar energy
source
Th (produced by the collectors) = 120C ; T. = 25C,
To (in the refrigerator) = - 5C COPA (EXP) = 0.6.
System B--Absorption refrigerator with a fossil fuel source
Th (flame temperature measured) = 1000C ; Ta = 25C,
Tc = --5C, COPB (EXP) = 1.8,
where Ta is the ambient temperature.
Usually, a refrigerator engineer concludes that System B
is three times better than A, because for each kWh used,
System B removes 1.8 kWh from the refrigerator, whereas
System A removes only 0.6 kWh. These figures seem impres-
sive; however, the sources are essentially different. For System
A it could be a set of flat plate collectors (evacuated tube
selective surface collectors) or CPC collectors, whereas in B
it is a flame produced by the fuel oxidation. In that case the
COP is not an appropriate parameter.
As a clarifying example, let us calculate the COP (2nd) of
the two systems
0.6
COP (2nd)A = ~ = 0.278
1.8
COP (2nd)B = ~ . ~ = 0.263.
As we can see, even though System A has a COP three times
lower than System B, it is better than System B as a thermal
machine, because it has a COP (2nd) 0.28 vs 0.26 o f System
B.
Then we conclude that in order to make a comparison
between a conventional and a solar powered system we have
to compare their "second law COP" and not the COP derived
from the first law.
IV. COST C O M P A R I S O N BETWEEN SOLAR AND
CONVENTIONAL SYSTEMS
Solar systems have higher commercial prices than con-
ventional ones ; however, when they are compared, fuel and
transportation charges must be included. These two points
will be discussed here. For rural and remote installations we
should also consider the availability of conventional fuels:
in many large countries like Brazil and Argentina it is a usual
problem that communications and fuel provision fail due to
weather or management troubles. We will not consider these
factors which depend critically on local conditions.
Fuel transportation requires two types of investments :
(a) Cartier costs (according to the fuel considered; it could
be a high voltage electricity transmission line, truck for fossil
73
fuel or a gas pipeline). They represent an immediate invest-
ment which has to be added to the price of the conventional
energy system.
(b) Runhing charges, which can be classified in two types:
(1) Carrier etficiency. Ohmic losses in electricity lines have
a relative large variation from 0.1% per kilometer for
high voltage overhead lines up to 1-1.5% for poorly
isolated low potential branches. Fuel consumption
represents the losses in fuel truck transportation and
can be estimated as 0.1-0.3 % per km. Wide pipelines
have a very small pressure drop per km of horizontal
transfer requiring small expenses in pumping energy,
but costs are larger for distribution networks.
(2) Maintenance.
Let us introduce the following notation :
v = present value of the carrier per unit of transportable
energy,
p = share of the carrier used to transport the energy
required for the conventional machine used,
f = fuel consumption in the transport process, per km,
unit of energy transported and year,
m = maintenance cost of the transportation system, per km
and unit o f energy.
d = distance between the source of the fuel and the
machine,
n = mean life o f the carrier (years).
We shall assume that transportation cost is a linear function
of the distance (see for example Ref. [3]). This means that to
provide one unit of energy to the machine we have to deliver
qo = 1 + ( f + m ) a (4.1)
units of energy from the source. Let us assume that the price
of the fuel grows steadily each year at a rate e. Then,
q, = (1 +e)q,_, (4.2)
i.e. the price qi in the year i, is eqi_ t higher than the price in
the year i - 1 (u-unit). We call r the current rate for invest-
ment, and define
l+e
Xq = l-'~r" (4.3)
The present value required to have one unit of energy each
year, during n years, is
X,~ -- 1
Q = q o X q x ~ _ 1 = qoy, (4.4)
where y is a purely financial quantity. Then the present value
of fuel and transportation, per unit of energy required per
year, during n years, is
P = pv+O. (4.5)
We note that this is a linear function o f the distance d. It
allows us to determine the distance after which a solar system
becomes convenient. We have to add P to the initial cost o f
the conventional system before making a comparison with
the solar one.
A case situation
Let us consider a fishing village on the Brazilian coast
for which a refrigeration machine is required. We have to
compare a gas-oil absorption system with a solar powered
one. Gas-oil is carried by truck. We have carried out the
evaluation using a unit, that we call "u", representing the
74 Technical Note

of that consumption, we get f + m _~ 0.18%. The value of i'

is 1 when we assume r = e. However the most probable
trends indicated e > r. Then, from Eq. (4.5) we get (in u-
units)
P = 2 2.67+7'(1 +0.00018d).
In Fig. 3 we represent this quantity as a function of d for
P sol
(u) different values of 7. O f course the expected value of ;'
depends on local conditions.
Now we can perform a cost comparison between solar and
_.----- _e ~1,5 conventional systems. We have to evaluate the difference
~ " r between present prices of both systems for each unit of energy
40 necessary to run the absorption refrigerator. This difference
is independent of d, and in Fig. 3 is represented by a straighl
horizontal line. It has to be compared with present prices of
fuel and transportation. There will be a crossing between
e ~1.2
the lines, which determines beyond which distance (between
r energy source and machine) the solar system will be more
30 ~ ~r =1.1 convenient than the conventional one.
As an example let us consider an absorption machine
producing 250 kg of ice per day. This will require an energy
input of about 107 kcal per year, equivalent to 1100 kg of
fuel. The current commercial prices give a cost difference of
about $10000 between a solar CPC system and a fuel boiler.
20 *
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Ikm) This requires an extra-investment in the solar system of about
28.8 kg of fuel per unit of energy replaced. This is rep-
Fig. 3. Present prices for fuel and transportation vs. distance resented in Fig. 3 as a fiat line. We observe that depending
from energy source to refrigerator. on the e/r relation the solar system would not be convenient.
In particular for e/r = 1.1 the solar array will be appropriate
when the distance between source and machine is larger than
360 km. For expected values of e/r larger than about 1.18
present price of the energy unit involved, k W h or kg of fossil the solar system will always be the more appropriate choice.
fuel. In this way we intended to be independent of variations
of local currency and prices. Acknowlegement--The authors wish to thank Prof. A b d u s
Present prices for fuel and truck are u = $0.3 and Salam, the International Atomic Energy Agency and
v = $8/kg = 26.7u (in u unity). We will assume : (a) p = 0.1, U N E S C O for the hospitality at the International Centre for
that is the truck is employed at 10% for fuel transport and Theoretical Physics, Trieste.
(b) the m e a n life of a truck is 10 years. Since the mean life
of a solar system is 20 years we have to buy a new truck after REFERENCES
the first I0 years. This difference in life duration could be
taken into account by doubling the value o f v. This is equi- 1. A. Gardel, Eneryy, Economy and Prospective. Pergamon
valent to assuming that truck prices will increase at a rate r. Press (1981).
Therefore we choose n = 20 in Eq. (4.4). 2. G. F. C. Roger and Y. R. Mayhew, Engineerin9 Ther-
In a standard case, fuel consumption gives f = 0.13 % and modynamics Work and Heat Transfer. L o n g m a n (1967).
assuming maintenance and driver salary will be about 40% 3. B. Sorensen, Renewabh" Enerqy. Academic Press (1979).