Applied Thermal Engineering 95 (2016) 471–481

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / a p t h e r m e n g

Research Paper

Thermo-economic analysis and selection of working fluid for solar

organic Rankine cycle
Nishith B. Desai, Santanu Bandyopadhyay *
Department of Energy Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400 076, India

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Concentrating solar power plant

with organic Rankine cycle. 3.40
PTC_OMTS PTC_Toluene
• Thermo-economic analysis of solar
organic Rankine cycle. PTC_Heptane PTC_Cyclohexane

• Performance evaluation for 3.35 PTC_Hexane PTC_Benzene

Logarithmic of Energy Term

different working fluids. PTC_Isohexane PTC_R113

• Comparison diagram to select
PTC_Pentane PTC_HMDS
appropriate working fluid.
PTC_R245fa PTC_Water
3.30
LFR_OMTS LFR_Toluene

LFR_Heptane LFR_Cyclohexane

LFR_Benzene LFR_Hexane
3.25
LFR_Isohexane LFR_R113

LFR_Pentane LFR_HMDS

LFR_R245fa LFR_Water
3.20
2.50 2.60 2.70 2.80 2.90 3.00
Logarithmic of Economic Term

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

Article history: Organic Rankine cycle (ORC), powered by line-focusing concentrating solar collectors (parabolic trough
Received 11 August 2015 collector and linear Fresnel reflector), is a promising option for modular scale. ORC based power block,
Accepted 7 November 2015 with dry working fluids, offers higher design and part-load efficiencies compared to steam Rankine cycle
Available online 1 December 2015
(SRC) in small-medium scale, with temperature sources up to 400 °C. However, the cost of ORC power
block is higher compared to the SRC power block. Similarly, parabolic trough collector (PTC) system has
Keywords:
higher optical efficiency and higher cost compared to linear Fresnel reflector (LFR) system. The thermo-
Ashby chart
dynamic efficiencies and power block costs also vary with working fluids of the Rankine cycle. In this
Concentrating solar power
Linear Fresnel reflector paper, thermo-economic comparisons of organic Rankine and steam Rankine cycles powered by line-
Organic Rankine cycle focusing concentrating solar collectors are reported. A simple selection methodology, based on thermo-
Parabolic trough collector economic analysis, and a comparison diagram for working fluids of power generating cycles are also
Comparison diagram proposed. Concentrating solar power plants with any collector technology and any power generating cycle
can be compared using the proposed methodology.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In recent years, the worldwide interest for highly efficient re-

newable and modular scale power plants increased significantly.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 22 25767894; fax: +91 22 25726875. Concentrating solar power (CSP) plants with parabolic trough col-
E-mail address: santanub@iitb.ac.in (S. Bandyopadhyay). lector (PTC) using thermal oil as heat transfer fluid (HTF) are the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.11.018
1359-4311/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
472 N.B. Desai, S. Bandyopadhyay/Applied Thermal Engineering 95 (2016) 471–481
Table 1
Summary of literature review for ORC based CSP plants.
Authors Collector Working fluid for Working fluids For ORC
field collector field
Rayegan and Tao [33] PTC Thermal oil 30 different organic fluids (R-245fa,
pentane, acetone, hexane, benzene,
toluene, etc.)
Quoilin et al. [34] PTC Thermal oil R134a, R245fa, Solkatherm (SES36),
pentane
He et al. [35] PTC Thermal oil R113, R123, pentane
Calise et al. [36] PTC Thermal oil Butane
Ferrara et al. [37] PTC Thermal oil R134a, R245fa, acetone
Xu et al. [38] LFR Organic fluid Isopentane, pentane, hexane, heptane,
cyclohexane, toluene
Cocco and Cau [11] PTC, LFR Thermal oil Silicone oil
most proven technology for solar thermal power generation [1,2].
The maximum temperature, in such plants, is limited to about 400 °C
due to the stability limit of conventional synthetic oil based HTFs
[3]. Direct steam generation [4,5], in which steam is generated
without any HTF, as well as use of alternative HTFs (e.g., molten salt)
[6,7] is proposed for the cost reduction in CSP plants. However, such
technologies still have to be demonstrated at larger scales. CSP plants
with direct steam generating linear Fresnel reflector (LFR) field are
also developed as a cheaper option to PTC systems [8]. LFR systems
have lower optical efficiency [9] and it usually produces saturated
steam [10], resulting in higher solar field area requirement com-
pared to PTC based plants of same capacity. Cocco and Cau [11]
reported a comparative analysis between PTC based and LFR based
plants, using an organic Rankine cycle (ORC). Solar power tower
systems are rarely used for low to medium temperature applica-
tions and paraboloid dish systems are the least applied CSP
technology for power generation; and therefore are not discussed
here.
Most of the commercially developed CSP plants use the con-
ventional steam Rankine cycle (SRC) for power generation. The power
block of SRC based small-medium scale (less than 2 MWe) plants
have much lower efficiency and higher capital cost compared to large
scale plants [12]. In such applications, organic Rankine cycle, which
uses an organic fluid as working medium, is very promising over
the steam Rankine cycle. ORC power block, with dry working fluids,
offers higher design as well as part-load efficiencies compared to
the SRC in small-medium scale applications, with energy source tem-
peratures up to 400 °C [13]. ORC turbines with dry working fluids
can operate at almost same efficiency with superheated and satu-
rated conditions of the fluid at turbine inlet, unlike steam turbines.
Compared to a steam turbine, use of a dry organic working fluid
also eliminates the problem of turbine blade erosion, reduces me-
chanical stress, improves turbine life, reduces operating and
maintenance costs, and allows fully automatic operation [14].
A significant number of plants based on ORC, which mainly uses
biomass, waste heat, or geothermal as a heat source, have been in-
stalled worldwide [15]. However, only one commercial plant (in MWe
range) uses concentrated solar energy as a heat source [15]. The most
widely used working fluids in commercially available ORC plants
are R134a, R245fa, Solkatherm, Pentane, Octamethyltrisiloxane
(OMTS), Toluene, etc. [16]. It may be noted that the existing ORC
plants, with the maximum heat source temperature greater than
250 °C, mainly use pentane, OMTS, and toluene as a working fluid.
Max. temp. Remark
of ORC (°C)
130 Benzene and acetone are promising working fluids for
temperature sources up to 130 °C.
190 Solkatherm: higher efficiency, highest expander swept
volumes, higher cost of the system.
R245fa: good efficiency, lower expander swept
volumes
205 Pentane is the most preferred working fluid.
170 Design optimization criterion of geometrical
parameters of shell and tube heat exchangers.
Performance of the ORC based plant in off-design
working conditions.
390 Acetone has higher thermal efficiency. However,
flammability and explosion risk have to be considered.
420 Analysis of super critical ORC powered by LFR.
Cyclohexane achieves the highest overall efficiency.
300 LCOE of 1 MWe CSP plant with 2 hrs of storage:
PTC based plant: 340 Euro/MWh
LFR based plant: 380 Euro/MWh
Recently, several studies on selection of appropriate working fluid
for the ORC are reported. Selection of a proper working fluid for an
ORC plays vital role in efficient and economical utilization of any
available energy source. Extensive investigations on low tempera-
ture ORCs (maximum temperature up to 150 °C) for solar flat plate
collectors [17,18], ocean thermal energy conversion [19], exhaust
heat recovery of internal combustion engines [20,21], exhaust flue
gas heat recovery of coal-fired power plants [22], and geothermal
sources [23,24] are reported in literature. In case of medium-high
temperature applications, such as gas turbine exhaust, biomass com-
bustion, industrial heat recovery, combined cycles, CSP plants, etc.,
the working fluids and parameters are necessarily different from low
temperature applications. Several studies on working fluid selec-
tion for the ORC powered by such heat sources are reported in
literature and the most preferred working fluids for such applica-
tions are alkenes [25] and siloxanes [26,27].
Proper working fluid should have low global warming poten-
tial and ozone depletion potential, low toxicity and freezing point,
good material compatibility and stability limits, high flash point,
and low cost [28]. Properties of the working fluid also affect the ther-
modynamic and economic performance of the ORC significantly [29].
High vaporization and low condensation latent heat, high critical
temperature, and low liquid specific heat of the working fluid have
a positive impact on the thermodynamic efficiency of the cycle [30].
High vapor density is also an important parameter, especially for
working fluids (e.g., silicon oils) with a lower condensing pres-
sure. Organic fluids with lower vapor density have higher volume
flow rate, resulting in higher pressure drops in the heat exchang-
ers and the size of the expander also increases [30]. Macchi and
Perdichizzi [31] defined the turbine size parameter for ORC tur-
bines as Vout ,Turbine 4 Δhis , where Vout,Turbine is the volumetric flow rate
at the outlet of turbine (m3/s) and Δhis is the isentropic enthalpy
change in the turbine (J/kg). A higher value of turbine size param-
eter results in larger size and higher cost of the turbine. Stijepovic
et al. [32] evaluated the impact of working fluid properties on
thermal efficiency, exergetic efficiency, and economics of the ORC.
It was observed that the higher values of fluid compressibility factor
and lower values of saturated liquid molar volumes favor all three
criteria.
Several studies on ORC based CSP plants are summarized in
Table 1. Rayegan and Tao [33] proposed a procedure to select a
working fluid for low temperature (up to 130 °C) ORC using PTC and
concluded that benzene and acetone are promising working fluids
 N.B. Desai, S. Bandyopadhyay/Applied Thermal Engineering 95 (2016) 471–481 473

for temperature up to 130 °C. Solkatherm [34] and pentane [35] were Organic
HTF 5
reported to be suitable working fluids for PTC based power plants Circuit Fluid
(maximum temperature up to 200 °C). However, the expander swept Circuit
volume and cost of the plant for solkatherm are much higher [34]. Turbine
Calise et al. [36] presented off-design performance of a PTC based
2P
plant using butane as a working fluid. Ferrara et al. [37] reported Evaporator 6
that ORC with acetone has higher thermal efficiency compared to

PTC Field
R134a and R245fa. However, flammability and explosion risks are 4a
also higher for acetone. Xu et al. [38] investigated supercritical ORC 3P Regenerator
powered by LFR and reported that cyclohexane gives the highest
thermal efficiency, among different working fluids. 6a
Compared to the modular scale SRC based CSP plants, the im-
proved design and part-load characteristics of the organic turbine
may result in lower solar field area requirement. On the other hand, 1P 4
cost of ORC power block is higher compared to SRC power block. Condenser
Moreover, different organic working fluids have different thermo- 7
dynamic efficiencies and different power block costs. Similarly, PTCs
have higher optical efficiency and higher cost compared to LFRs. HTF Pump Feed Pump
Therefore, thermo-economic analysis of PTC based and LFR based
(a)
plants using different working fluids of ORC as well as SRC is nec-
essary, before finalizing the type of collector field and working fluid
for a power generating cycle. The best possible way, for selection
of collector type and working fluid (different organic or water) for
power generating cycle, is based on the condition of equality of 5
levelized cost of energy (LCOE). A simple selection methodology,
based on thermo-economic analysis, for working fluid of power gen- T
erating cycle is proposed in this paper. ORCs with different working
fluids and SRC powered by line-focusing concentrating solar col- 4a 6
lectors are compared using the proposed methodology. The 4
calculated costs of LFR field, for cost parity with PTC based power 6a
plant, using organic Rankine and steam Rankine cycles, are very close
to the values reported in literature. 7

2. Organic Rankine cycle based CSP plants s

Line-focusing concentrating solar collectors are widely used com-
mercially to generate power through a conventional steam Rankine
cycle. ORC can be used as a power generating cycle in modular CSP
plants.
(b)
Fig. 1. (a) Simplified schematic of a regenerative ORC based CSP plant using PTC,
(b) T–s diagram of a regenerative ORC based plant using PTC.

2.1. ORC based plant with parabolic trough collector

2.2. ORC based plant with linear Fresnel reflector
Simplified schematic of a regenerative ORC based plant with PTC
Simplified schematic of a regenerative ORC based plant with LFR
and the corresponding T–s diagram are shown in Fig. 1. Low tem-
and the corresponding T–s diagram are shown in Fig. 2. In LFR based
perature HTF (state 1P) is heated to high temperature (state 2P) in
plants, the low temperature organic liquid (state 1L) directly enters
the PTC field using concentrated solar energy. Then the high tem-
into the LFR field and heated using concentrated solar energy. Typ-
perature HTF is used to generate high temperature and high pressure
ically, at the outlet of LFR field a two-phase mixture (state 2L) is
organic fluid vapor through an evaporator (from state 4a to state
obtained. The mixture enters into a separator, where saturated vapor
5). It may be noted that the condition of organic fluid vapor at the
is directed toward the turbine to generate power (from state 5a to
inlet of turbine may be superheated or saturated for dry fluids. HTF
6). The liquid coming out of the separator (at state 3L) is re-
coming out of the evaporator (state 3P) is re-circulated back to the
circulated back into the LFR field using Pump-I. The other state points
PTC field and the high temperature and high pressure organic fluid
are the same as explained earlier.
vapor from the evaporator is expanded through an organic turbine
to generate power. In case of dry organic working fluids, the con-
dition of expanded stream at the outlet of turbine (state 6) is always 2.3. Thermo-economic analysis
superheated and the temperature of the fluid is always higher than
that at the evaporator inlet (state 4). Therefore, the heat from fluid The levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for a CSP plant is calcu-
at the turbine outlet is transferred to the evaporator feed (from state lated as follows:
4 to state 4a). This is known as regeneration, resulting in improve-
ment in thermal efficiency [39]. Finally, the organic fluid vapor is ( C CL ⋅ Ap + β0 + β1 ) ⋅ CRF + ( C CL ⋅ Ap ⋅ far + β2 )
LCOE = (1)
condensed in the condenser (from state 6a to state 7) to complete E
the cycle. Basic ORC can also be modified by incorporating both re-
generation and turbine bleeding to improve thermal efficiency [40]. d ⋅ (1 + d )n
However, most of the commercial ORC based plants use only CRF = (2)
regeneration. (1 + d )n − 1
474 N.B. Desai, S. Bandyopadhyay/Applied Thermal Engineering 95 (2016) 471–481

Neglecting the heat losses and pressure drop through piping (typ-
Organic 5a ically, calculated during detailed engineering design), the solar field
Fluid Circuit area specific net power output is expressed as:
Separator (ORC) Turbine
Pnet PD − PFeedPump mD ( Δhis ⋅ηis,D − WFeedPump )
= = (5)
Organic Ap Ap Ap
2L 4a 6
Fluid 3L
where Pnet is the net power output (W); PD is the design turbine
Circuit power output (W); Δhis is the isentropic enthalpy change in turbine
LFR Field

(Collector (J/kg); ηis,D is the isentropic efficiency of turbine at design condi-

Regenerator
Field) HTF tion; mD is the mass flow rate of organic fluid in the power generating
Pump 6a cycle (kg/s); WFeedPump is the specific work input to the feed pump
(J/kg).
The solar field area specific mass flow rate of the organic fluid
4 is expressed as [42]:
1L Condenser
7 mD (ηo ⋅ ID − Ul ⋅ ΔT )CL
= (6)
Ap Δh
Feed Pump where ηo is the optical efficiency of solar field; Ul is the heat loss
(a) co-efficient based on aperture area of solar field (W/(m2·K)); ΔT is
the difference between Tm, the mean temperature of solar field (°C),
and Ta, the ambient temperature (°C); Δh is the specific heat input
to power generating cycle (for PTC based plant: (h5 − h4a) and for
LFR based plant: (h5a − h4a)) (J/kg); ID is the aperture effective design
direct normal irradiance (DNI), which is a product of DNI and in-
5 cidence angle modifier. The CSP plant produces rated power output
T at design DNI. Incidence angle modifier expresses the reduction of
optical efficiency due to the incidence angle in PTC fields and due
to the incidence as well as the transversal angles in LFR fields [43].
4a
4 6 Desai et al. [42] proposed a methodology to determine the ther-
modynamically optimum and economically optimum design
6a radiations for CSP plants. Due to the better part-load efficiencies
7 of the ORCs, design radiation (ID) for ORC based CSP plants is ex-
pected to be slightly higher than the SRC based plants, which may
result in lower aperture area requirement.
s Using Eq. (6), Eq. (5) can be written as:
(b) Pnet
Ap = (7)
Fig. 2. (a) Simplified schematic of a regenerative ORC based CSP plant using LFR, Δ CL ⋅ηcycle
(b) T–s diagram of a regenerative ORC based plant using LFR.
( Δhis ⋅ηis,D − WFeedPump )
Δ CL = (ηo ⋅ ID − Ul ⋅ ΔT )CL and ηcycle = (8)
2
where CCL is the specific collector field cost ($/m ); β0 is the com- Δh
plete power block cost ($); β1 is the sum of land and site development Furthermore, using Eq. (7), Eq. (4) can be expressed as:
cost, civil works cost, and miscellaneous cost ($); β2 is the annual
operating and maintenance cost ($/y); far is the fraction of annual ⎛⎛ C ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ β0 ⎞
solar field component replacement cost; E is the annual genera- ⎜⎜ ⎟ ⋅⎜ ⎟ ⋅ ( CRF + far ) + ⋅ CRF ⎟
⎝ Δ ⎠ η P
tion (kWh/y); Ap is the aperture area of solar field (m2); CRF is the LCOE′ = ⎝ CL ⎝ cycle ⎠ net ⎠ (9)
E
capital recovery factor (annualization factor); n is the lifetime (y); Pnet
d is the discount rate.
Solar field and power block are the most expensive compo- E
1 Pnet
nents of CSP plants and have a significant impact on the LCOE. In = (10)
LCOE′ ⎛ ⎛ C ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ β0 ⎞
comparisons between different CSP plants (same plant size), with ⎜⎜ ⎟ ⋅⎜ ⎟ ⋅ ( CRF + far ) + ⋅ CRF ⎟
different working fluids of power generating cycle or with differ- ⎝ ⎝ Δ ⎠ η
CL ⎝ cycle ⎠ Pnet ⎠
ent collector technologies, Eq. (1) can be simplified using the
following assumption [41]: The numerator is an energy term and the denominator is an eco-
nomic term. The objective is to maximize (1/LCOE’).
β1 ⋅ CRF + β 2
≈ Constant (3)
⎛⎛ C ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ β0 ⎞
⎛ E ⎞
log ⎛⎜
1 ⎞
E ⎟ = log ⎜ ⎟ − log ⎜ ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ ( CRF + far ) + ⋅ CRF ⎟
⎝ LCOE′ ⎠ ⎝ Pnet ⎠ ⎝ ⎝ Δ ⎠CL ⎝ ηcycle ⎠ Pnet ⎠
Based on this assumption (Eq. 3), Eq. (1) may be simplified as:
(11)
C ⋅ A ⋅ ( CRF + far ) + β0 ⋅ CRF
LCOE′ = CL p (4)
E For a constant LCOE’, Eq. (11) may be modified as:
where LCOE’ is the LCOE term that needs to be considered for com-
parisons between different types of CSP plants. log ( Energy Term ) = log ( Economic Term ) + constant (12)
 N.B. Desai, S. Bandyopadhyay/Applied Thermal Engineering 95 (2016) 471–481 475

Table 2
Data used for the analysis of PTC and LFR based CSP plants.

Input parameter PTC based CSP plant LFR based CSP plant

Collector field efficiency model parameters ηo = 0.7; Ul = 0.1 W/(m2·K) ηo = 0.65; Ul = 0.1 W/(m2·K)
Collector tracking mode Focal axis N–S horizontal and E–W tracking Focal axis N-S horizontal and E-W tracking
Incidence angle modifier Euro Trough design [43] Novatech design [43]
Specific land requirement 3.5·Ap 2·Ap
Heat transfer fluid Therminol VP-1 Organic Fluids/Water
Maximum superheating at turbine inlet condition (ΔTsup) 40 °C (for ORC); 100 °C (for SRC) 0 °C
Collector outlet temperature (T2) Teva + ΔTsup + 40 °C Teva
Ambient temperature (Ta) 30 °C (design value) 30 °C (design value)
Plant capacity (Pnet) 1 MWe 1 MWe
Auxiliary consumption 10% of gross power output 10% of gross power output
Temperature driving force (ΔTmin) For heat exchanger and regenerator = 10 °C; For regenerator = 10 °C; For condenser = 5 °C
For condenser = 5 °C
Isentropic efficiency of pump 0.6 0.6

The subset of working fluids with the greatest value of economic indicators (such as discounted payback period, internal rate
1/LCOE’ can be identified easily from Eq. (12) and plotting of return, etc.) may have been used for thermo-economic analysis.
the resulting selection line of unity slope on the logarithmic However, calculations of these parameters require electricity tariffs
of energy term (E/Pnet ) vs. logarithmic of economic term of the place and other governmental policies (such as preferential
(((C/Δ)CL·(1/ηcycle)·(CRF + far)) + ((β0/Pnet)·CRF)) diagram. With increas- tariffs, direct subsidy, low-interest loan, tax benefits, etc.).
ing 1/LCOE’, this unity slope line shifts toward the left. This
methodology is similar to the one given by Ashby and Cebon [44]
for material selection in mechanical design. Eq. (12) captures the varia- 3. Comparisons between CSP plants with different
tions of thermodynamic as well as economic performance of an ORC working fluids
based CSP plant for different working fluids. It should be noted that
the most widely used economic indicator is LCOE for comparison of The proposed methodology is applied to the CSP plants based
different CSP plants [11]. In this paper, LCOE is adapted to compare on ORC (with different working fluids) and SRC. Data given in
different solar collector technologies and various working fluids. Other Tables 2–4 are used for the analysis. Thermodynamic properties of
different dry organic fluids are calculated using the Refprop [45] and
Coolprop (for HMDS and OMTS) [46] software. The values of global
Table 3 warming potential, for different working fluids, are taken from
Data used for the analysis of SRC and ORC powered by CSP. Lecompte et al. [47]. It may be noted that the value of ozone de-
pletion potential for all working fluids, except R113, is zero [47].
Input parameter SRC ORC
The value of ozone depletion potential for R113 is one [47]. The cost
Isentropic efficiency of the Superheated turbine: 0.77
of ORC power block varies with working fluids and it is very diffi-
turbine at design (ηis,D) 0.65; Saturated
turbine: 0.45 cult to get the actual cost data for all working fluids. The actual cost
Turn down ratio of turbine 0.2 0.1 of ORC power blocks, available for working fluids pentane [48] and
(Pmin/Pmax) OMTS [49], is used for the analysis. For other organic working fluids,
Willans’ line equation: a = −y·PD; y = 0.2; a = −y·PD; y = 0.1; the cost of turbine is calculated as a function of number of stages
turbine power output b = (1 + y)·Δhis·ηis,D [42] b = (1 + y)·Δhis·ηis,D [42]
(n), last stage size parameter, and power as scaling factors [50]. More-
(P) = a + b·m
over, the costs of other components of the power block (generator,

Table 4
Data used for economic analysis.

Investment Value/Correlation Reference

Collector field and HTF system cost, CCL ($/m2) 280 (for PTC); 167 (for LFR) Krishnamurthy et al. [51];
IIT Bombay [52]
Complete power block cost for pentane and 1,780 (for pentane); 2300 (for OMTS) Arvay et al. [48]; Cofrancesco and Ronzello [49]
OMTS ($/kW)
0.5 1.1
⎛ n ⎞ ⎛ SP ⎞
Turbine cost ($) 31,093·(kW)0.41 (for SRC); 1476000 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ Gutiérrez-Arriaga et al. [53]; Astolfi et al. [50]
⎝ n0 ⎠ ⎝ SP0 ⎠
n = number of stages, SP = last stage size parameter,
n0 = 2, SP0 = 0.18 m, (for ORC)
Generator cost ($) 2,447·(kWe)0.49 Gutiérrez-Arriaga et al. [53]
Condenser cost ($) 597·(kWth)0.68 Gutiérrez-Arriaga et al. [53]
Boiler feed pump cost ($) 16,800·(kW/200)0.67 Astolfi et al. [50]
Heat exchanger cost ($) 235·(kWth)0.75 IIT Bombay [52]
Land and site development cost ($/m2 of land) 6 IIT Bombay [52]
Civil works cost ($) 169·(kWe) – 0.00053·(kWe)0.75 Krishnamurthy et al. [51]
Miscellaneous cost ($/kWe) 183 IIT Bombay [52]
Operation and maintenance
Annual solar field component replacement cost 2.5% of solar field cost IIT Bombay [52]
Annual operating and maintenance cost ($/year) 4% of equipment cost IIT Bombay [52]
Financial parameters
Discount rate (%) 10 Krishnamurthy et al. [51]
Lifetime (y) 30 Montes et al. [54]; Morin et al. [55]

Parameters for cost correlations have been updated to 2014 using Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index.
476 N.B. Desai, S. Bandyopadhyay/Applied Thermal Engineering 95 (2016) 471–481

Table 5
Results for PTC based CSP plants (Pnet = 1 MWe).

Working GWP Pcrit Tcrit Peva Pcond Tcond PTC based CSP plant
fluid (100 yrs) (MPa) (°C) (MPa) (MPa) (°C)
T5 Ap (m2) ηcycle Energy term Economic term Ratio of energy Actual LCOE
(°C) (%) (kWh/kW·y) ($/kW·y) and economic ($/kWh)
term (1/LCOE’)
(kWh/$)

R113 6,130 3.392 214.1 2.839 0.0929 45 242 10,794 22.65 2207 518 4.264 0.344
Water 0.2 22.06 374.0 4.0 0.0096 45 350 11,713 22.48 2175 524 4.151 0.353
Isohexane Very low 3.04 224.6 2.308 0.0608 45 246 10,272 23.88 2206 549 4.018 0.364
Cyclohexane Very low 4.075 280.5 3.229 0.0300 45 302 8,597 28.83 2202 556 3.964 0.369
Benzene Very low 4.894 288.9 3.583 0.0298 45 294 8,992 27.53 2202 564 3.907 0.374
Hexane 3.1 3.034 234.7 2.308 0.0451 45 236 10,399 23.55 2207 569 3.88 0.376
OMTS 0 1.415 290.9 0.882 0.0050 66.6* 300 9,714 25.63 2207 601 3.675 0.396
HMDS 0 1.939 245.6 1.186 0.0142 45 225 10,524 23.24 2208 601 3.674 0.396
Pentane 2 3.37 196.6 2.45 0.1361 45 216 11,824 20.61 2206 623 3.541 0.410
Heptane 3 2.736 267.0 2.087 0.0153 45 288 8,882 27.85 2204 661 3.336 0.434
Toluene 3.3 4.126 318.6 3.154 0.0099 45 337 7,992 31.21 2199 721 3.051 0.473
R245fa 1,030 3.651 154.0 2.128 0.2945 45 165 16,740 14.42 2210 732 3.018 0.476

* Lowest pressure accepted for the condenser [57].

condenser, boiler feed pump, heat exchanger), solar field, and other
financial parameters are calculated using correlations given in Table 4
[51–55]. DNI data of the place Jodhpur, India, are taken from
Ramaswamy et al. [56]. It may be noted that the annual DNI and
ambient temperature, along with latitude and longitude of the lo-
cation, are required to generate the comparison diagram.
Line-focusing solar collectors are capable of giving maximum
temperature up to about 400 °C. For different dry working fluids (in
subcritical ORC), the higher limit of evaporation pressure and cor-
responding temperature varies with the critical temperature and
the saturation vapor curve in the T–s diagram. Rayegan and Tao [33]
presented the procedure for finding the higher limit of the evap-
oration pressure and the corresponding temperature. The thermal
efficiency of an ORC is a function of higher temperature of the cycle
and therefore, there is no benefit of analyzing working fluids with
very low critical temperatures. Ten different organic fluids, with the
criteria of minimum critical temperature 190 °C, are selected for the
analysis. Moreover, an ORC using R245fa, the most widely used
organic working fluid in low temperature commercial plants, is also
analyzed.
The important results of simulations, for PTC based plants, are
tabulated in Table 5. Considering safety margin, the maximum evap-
oration temperature of the working fluid is taken as 10 °C lesser than
the higher limit of the evaporation temperature reported by Rayegan
and Tao [33]. It may be noted that the maximum superheating at
the turbine inlet condition is taken as 40 °C for PTC based plants
with ORC. The superheating is varied from 0 °C to 40 °C and the
optimum values, based on lowest LCOE’, are reported in Table 5. It
may be noted that the trend of inverse of LCOE’ (i.e., values calcu-
lated using simplified assumptions) matches with the trend of LCOE
(calculated without such an assumption). This validates the sim-
plification described in Eq. (3). The cost optimum design radiations
for PTC based plants with steam Rankine and organic Rankine cycles
are calculated as 580 W/m2 and 610 W/m2, respectively (place:
Jodhpur, India). The values of optimum design radiations are cal-
culated based on the methodology proposed by Desai et al. [42].
Results of PTC based plants show that toluene gives the highest
thermodynamic efficiency of the cycle (31.2%), resulting in lower
solar field area requirement. However, the cost of toluene based
power block is significantly higher than the other working fluids
and that makes toluene economically unviable. Among 12 working
fluids (including water) analyzed for Rankine cycle powered by PTC,
R113 achieves the lowest LCOE (0.344 $/kWh). However, the global
warming and ozone depletion potentials of R113 are very high com-
pared to other working fluids and that makes R113 environmentally
unviable. Considering environmental and economic aspects PTC
based plants with SRC is the most promising option (with 2.6% higher
LCOE than R113). In recent years, ORC [58,59] and CSP technolo-
gies [60,61] have become matured and there is a significant increase
in the number manufacturers. Therefore, the decrease in the cost
of ORC based plants powered by any energy source as well as in
the cost of CSP plants with any power generating cycle is ex-
pected in future. Taking the uncertainty in economic and
thermodynamic parameters, a selection band, for promising working

Table 6
Results for LFR based CSP plants.

Working Peva Pcond Tcond LFR based CSP plant

fluid (MPa) (MPa) (°C)
T5a (°C) Ap (m2) ηcycle (%) Energy term Economic term Ratio of energy and economic Actual LCOE
(kWh/kW·y) ($/kW·y) term (1/LCOE’) (kWh/$) ($/kWh)

R113 2.839 0.0929 45 202 15,176 20.8 1,883 450 4.184 0.353
Hexane 2.308 0.0451 45 216 13,428 21.81 1,884 477 3.953 0.373
Isohexane 2.308 0.0608 45 206 14,002 20.87 1,886 478 3.949 0.373
HMDS 1.186 0.0142 45 215 12,978 22.6 1,887 491 3.846 0.383
Benzene 3.583 0.0298 45 264 11,832 25.01 1,878 492 3.816 0.387
Cyclohexane 3.229 0.0300 45 262 11,651 25.43 1,875 500 3.748 0.393
OMTS 0.882 0.0050 66.6* 260 12,577 23.64 1,880 519 3.624 0.405
Water 4.0 0.0096 45 250 20,348 15.01 1,846 532 3.472 0.422
Pentane 2.45 0.1361 45 176 16,523 17.54 1,888 552 3.421 0.427
Toluene 3.154 0.0099 45 297 10,616 28.14 1,872 590 3.172 0.460
Heptane 2.087 0.0153 45 248 11,809 25.02 1,881 601 3.127 0.467
R245fa 2.128 0.2945 45 125 24,335 11.75 1,896 640 2.964 0.488

* Lowest pressure accepted for the condenser [57].

 N.B. Desai, S. Bandyopadhyay/Applied Thermal Engineering 95 (2016) 471–481 477

3.40
PTC_OMTS PTC_Toluene

PTC_Heptane PTC_Cyclohexane

PTC_Hexane PTC_Benzene
Logarithmic of Energy Term 3.35
PTC_Isohexane PTC_R113

PTC_Pentane PTC_HMDS

PTC_R245fa PTC_Water
3.30
LFR_OMTS LFR_Toluene

LFR_Heptane LFR_Cyclohexane

LFR_Benzene LFR_Hexane
3.25
LFR_Isohexane LFR_R113

LFR_Pentane LFR_HMDS

LFR_R245fa LFR_Water
3.20
2.50 2.60 2.70 2.80 2.90 3.00
Logarithmic of Economic Term

Fig. 3. Comparisons between PTC based and LFR based plants with different working fluids.

fluids, can be represented. Considering about 15% variations in the
value of LCOE, the promising working fluids for ORC, powered by
PTC, are isohexane, cyclohexane, hexane, benzene, OMTS, and HMDS.
It may be noted that the promising organic working fluids, other
than OMTS, are highly flammable and therefore, OMTS is the widely
preferred working fluid in commercial CSP plants with medium-
high temperature energy sources. It may be observed from Table 5
that the trend of inverse of LCOE’ matches with LCOE. Therefore,
the maximization of inverse of LCOE’ will lead to minimization of
LCOE. The final selection, among the promising working fluids, should
be done based on actual cost data and detailed simulations. It is im-
portant to highlight that the places with high solar radiation (DNI)
typically have lower water availability. The working fluid OMTS has
the lowest limit of condenser temperature, 66.6 °C, based on the
lowest pressure (minimum Pcond = 0.005 MPa) accepted for the con-
denser [57]. Therefore, unlike other working fluids, the air cooled
condenser can be employed in OMTS based CSP plants without sac-
rificing efficiency (compared to wet cooled plants).
The important results of simulations, for LFR based plants, are
tabulated in Table 6. The cost optimum design radiation for LFR based
plants using steam Rankine and organic Rankine cycles are calcu-
lated as 530 W/m2 and 550 W/m2, respectively (place: Jodhpur, India).
Analysis of LFR based plants show that R113, isohexane, hexane,
HMDS, Benzene, cyclohexane, and OMTS are promising working
fluids based on lower value of cost of energy. Moreover, the LFR based
plant with SRC has much higher cost of energy compared to the PTC
based plant with SRC. This is mainly due to the very low isen-
tropic efficiency of the saturated turbines, compared to the
superheated turbines.
The comparative diagram for working fluids of the Rankine cycle
powered by line-focusing concentrating solar collectors is shown
in Fig. 3. The subset of working fluids with the greatest value of
1/LCOE’ (lowest value of cost of energy) can be easily identified by
plotting the resulting selection line of unity slope on the logarith-
mic of energy term vs. logarithmic of economic term diagram.
Movement of the unity slope line from right to left implies working

3.40
PTC_OMTS PTC_Toluene

PTC_Heptane PTC_Cyclohexane

PTC_Hexane PTC_Benzene
3.35
Logarithmic of Energy Term

PTC_Isohexane PTC_R113

PTC_Pentane PTC_HMDS

PTC_R245fa PTC_Water
3.30
LFR_OMTS LFR_Toluene

LFR_Heptane LFR_Cyclohexane

LFR_Benzene LFR_Hexane
3.25
LFR_Isohexane LFR_R113

LFR_Pentane LFR_HMDS

LFR_R245fa LFR_Water
3.20
2.50 2.60 2.70 2.80 2.90 3.00
Logarithmic of Economic Term

Fig. 4. Effects of variation in collector field cost on selection of different working fluids of the Rankine cycle.
478 N.B. Desai, S. Bandyopadhyay/Applied Thermal Engineering 95 (2016) 471–481

fluids with lower cost of energy. Thus, the working fluid on the

Actual LCOE
extreme right side of the diagram is having the highest cost of energy

($/kWh)
(the lowest value of 1/LCOE’). It may be noted that CSP plants falling

0.412

0.422
0.377

0.437
0.432

0.512
0.433

0.497
0.498
0.532
0.440
on the same line of unity slope have equal costs of energy. Parallel
lines of unity slope are generated to find the optimum working fluid.
The solid line with unity slope represents the cost of energy for PTC

and economic term

(1/LCOE’) (kWh/$)
based plant with SRC (see Fig. 3). Working fluids on left side of this

Ratio of energy
solid line have lower cost of energy compared to PTC based plant
with SRC. On the other hand, working fluids on the right side of this
solid line have higher cost of energy. The dashed line on right side

3.554

3.462

3.337
3.387

2.819
3.361

3.315
2.915
3.908

2.906
2.72
of the solid line is drawn in such a way that the working fluids on
the line have about 15% lower value of 1/LCOE’ compared to PTC
based plant with SRC. Promising working fluids of ORC for PTC based

Economic

($/kW·y)
and LFR based plants are highlighted in Fig. 3. The energy term for

term
different working fluids, for a given collector field technology, is

534
485

558
549

571
661
567

574
653
655
701
nearly same and that is because the design radiation (for a given
collector technology and place), collector fields characteristics, frac-

(kWh/kW·y)
tion of internal losses of the turbines (y), and auxiliary consumptions
(excluding feed pump power) are assumed to be the same. However,

Energy

1,898
1,896

1,891
1,900
1,863

1,904
1,904

1,902
1,903
1,903
1,906
term
the aperture specific net electrical outputs (E/Ap) for different working
fluids are significantly different. It may be noted that the energy
terms (annual electricity generations) for parabolic trough and linear

18.99
17.68

17.21
18.61
11.51
18.65

18.87

15.82
19.21
19.16
ηcycle
Fresnel collector based plants, for a given working fluid of Rankine

18.4
(%)
cycle, are also significantly different. This is because of different char-

LFR based CSP plant

acteristics of collector fields. It may be observed that the difference

15,736

15,556

15,241
16,361

16,811

26,044
15,497

15,358
15,117
18,341
15,059
in vertical axis (Log10(Energy Term)) for PTC based and LFR based

(m2)
plants is about 2–3%. However, this leads to difference in energy term

Ap
(difference in annual electricity generation) and LCOE of about 15–
20%. CSP plants with any collector technology and any power

(°C)

170
170
170

170

170
170

170
170

170

170
170
T5a
generating cycle can be compared using the proposed methodology.
Variations in the value of collector field costs may change the

($/kWh)
choice between PTC based and LFR based plants and that is dem- Actual

0.412
0.417
0.423

0.438

0.489
0.382

0.438
0.438

0.441

0.498
LCOE

0.52
onstrated by changing the LFR field cost from 167 $/m2 (earlier case)
to 134 $/m2. At this modified cost of LFR field, the values of 1/LCOE’
for PTC based and LFR based plants with SRC are equal (see Fig. 4).
and economic term
(1/LCOE’) (kWh/$)
Results for PTC and LFR based CSP plants (PTC based plant, T5,max = 210 °C; LFR based plant, T5a = 170 °C).

For SRC based CSP plants, the cost of LFR field (saturated steam gen-
Ratio of energy

eration) should be reduced to about 48% of the PTC field cost (280 $/
m2) to reach cost parity, which is very close to the value (45%)
reported by Giostri et al. [62]. Effects of reduction in collector field
3.523
3.481
3.428

2.942
3.299

3.305
3.276

2.883
2.759
3.302
3.81

cost, for different working fluids, depend on dominance of collec-

tor field cost component ((C/Δ)CL·(1/ηcycle)) on overall cost term.
Therefore, the decrease in cost of energy for SRC based plant is higher
Economic

($/kW·y)

compared to the ORC based plants with cyclohexane, OMTS, pentane,

term

and benzene working fluids. Isentropic efficiency of the saturated

627
634
644

669

751
580

665
669

676

767
801

steam turbines is much lower compared to superheated steam tur-

bines. However, the isentropic efficiencies of organic turbines
(kWh/kW·y)

powered by PTC or LFR are the same. Therefore, compared to SRC

based plants, the lower decrease in LFR field cost, for cost parity
Energy

2,210
2,207
2,209

2,210

2,210
2,209

2,193
2,210

2,213

2,211
2,209
term

with PTC based plant, is expected. In case of the ORC (with OMTS)
based CSP plant, the cost of LFR field should be reduced to about
58% of the PTC field cost (280 $/m2) to reach cost parity, which is
ηcycle (%)

very close to the value (55%) obtained by Cocco and Cau [11]. It may
20.98
20.65
20.08
20.73
16.78

20.98
20.56

20.67

20.97
20.07

17.17

be noted that there is only one commercial ORC based plant (in MWe
range), which uses concentrated solar energy as an energy source.
PTC based CSP plant

Therefore, it is not possible to validate the proposed methodology

Ap (m2)

12,132

11,636
11,814

11,770
12,139

15,347
11,861
11,630
11,814

14,241
11,638

with actual plants.

Comparisons between PTC based and LFR based plants, using the
same evaporation temperature (Teva = 170 °C) for the power gener-
T5 (°C)

ating cycles, are also done and the results are tabulated in Table 7.
210

210
210

210

210
210

210
210

210

210
210

The superheating of 40 °C (T5 = 210 °C) and saturated condition

(T5a = 170 °C) at the inlet of turbine are considered for the PTC and
Working fluid

LFR based plants, respectively. Representation of the results on the

Cyclohexane

proposed diagram (see Fig. 5) shows that the R113, isohexane,

Isohexane

Benzene

Heptane
Pentane

Toluene
Hexane

pentane, hexane, benzene, and cyclohexane working fluids of the

HMDS
Water

OMTS
Table 7

R113

ORC achieve lower or almost equal cost of energy compared to SRC

based CSP plants. It may be noted that pentane is widely used in
 N.B. Desai, S. Bandyopadhyay/Applied Thermal Engineering 95 (2016) 471–481 479

3.40
PTC_OMTS PTC_Toluene

PTC_Heptane PTC_Cyclohexane

3.35 PTC_Hexane PTC_Benzene

Logarithmic of Energy Term

PTC_Isohexane PTC_R113

PTC_Pentane PTC_HMDS

3.30 PTC_Water LFR_OMTS

LFR_Toluene LFR_Heptane

LFR_Cyclohexane LFR_Benzene
3.25
LFR_Hexane LFR_Isohexane

LFR_R113 LFR_Pentane

LFR_HMDS LFR_Water
3.20
2.50 2.60 2.70 2.80 2.90 3.00
Logarithmic of Economic Term

Fig. 5. Comparisons between PTC and LFR based CSP plants (PTC based plant, T5 = 210 °C; LFR based plant, T5a = 170 °C).

the commercial plants with energy source temperatures up to about Nomenclature

250 °C and the OMTS is used in the applications with higher energy
source temperature as well as with higher condensing tempera- a Willans’ line equation parameter (W)
ture requirements (air cooled condenser, combined heat and power, Ap Aperture area of the solar field (m2)
etc). b Willans’ line equation parameter (J/kg)
C Cost ($)
4. Conclusions CRF Capital recovery factor (y−1)
d Discount rate
Steam Rankine cycle is used as a power generating cycle in most DNI Direct normal irradiance (W/m2)
of the commercial CSP plants. However, SRC needs higher plant ca- E Annual electricity generation (kWh/y)
pacity and higher heat source temperature to be profitable. ORC, far Fraction of annual solar field component replacement cost
with dry working fluids, gives more efficient turbines for small– h Specific enthalpy (J/kg)
medium scale plants using energy sources temperature up to 400 °C. I Aperture effective direct normal irradiance (W/m2)
These efficient turbines are at a relatively higher cost compared to LCOE Levelized cost of energy ($/kWh)
steam turbines. The thermo-economic comparisons between SRC m Mass flow rate (kg/s)
and ORC (with different dry working fluids) powered by line- n Lifetime (y)
focusing concentrating solar collectors (PTC and LFR) are presented P Power (W)
in this paper. Among 12 working fluids analyzed for Rankine cycle T Temperature (°C)
powered by PTC, detailed simulation results show that R113 can Ul Heat loss coefficient based on aperture area (W/(m2·K))
achieve the lowest LCOE (0.344 $/kWh) and toluene based ORC can V Volumetric flow rate
achieve the highest cycle efficiency (31.2%). Considering environ- y Fraction of internal losses of turbine
mental and economic aspects, the PTC based plants with SRC is the
most promising option (with 2.6% higher LCOE compared to that Greek symbols
of R113). Compared to PTC based plants, LFR based plants with Δ Difference
n-pentane and OMTS working fluids have higher LCOE of about 4.2% β0 Complete power block cost ($)
and 2.3%, respectively. Similar conclusions can be made using pro- β1 Sum of land and site development cost, civil works cost,
posed comparison diagram, which captures the trade-offs between and miscellaneous cost ($)
energy and economics of the overall system. β2 Annual operating and maintenance cost ($/y)
Analysis of LFR based plants show that R113, isohexane, hexane, η Efficiency
HMDS, benzene, cyclohexane, and OMTS are promising working
fluids based on cost of energy. On the other hand, R113, water, Subscripts
isohexane, cyclohexane, hexane, benzene, OMTS, and HMDS are a Ambient
promising for PTC based plants. For SRC based CSP plants, the cost cond Condenser
of LFR field (saturated steam generation) should be reduced to about crit Critical
48% of the PTC field cost (280 $/m2) to reach cost parity. However, CL Collector
in case of ORC (with OMTS) based CSP plants, the cost of LFR field D Design
should be reduced to about 58% of the PTC field cost to reach cost eva Evaporator
parity. The obtained values of LFR cost, for cost parity, are very close is Isentropic
to the values reported in literature. Effects of reduction in collec- m Mean
tor field costs, for different working fluids, depend on dominance max Maximum
of collector field cost component ((C/Δ)CL·(1/ηcycle)) on overall cost min Minimum
term. o Optical
480 N.B. Desai, S. Bandyopadhyay/Applied Thermal Engineering 95 (2016) 471–481
out Outlet
sup Superheat
Abbreviations
CSP concentrating solar power
GWP global warming potential
HMDS hexamethyldisiloxane
HTF heat transfer fluid
LFR linear Fresnel reflector
OMTS octamethyltrisiloxane
ORC organic Rankine cycle
PTC parabolic trough collector
SRC steam Rankine cycle
References
[1] V.S. Reddy, S.C. Kaushik, S.K. Tyagi, Exergetic analysis and performance
evaluation of parabolic trough concentrating solar thermal power plant
(PTCSTPP), Energy 39 (2012) 258–273.
[2] F.A. Al-Sulaiman, Energy and sizing analyses of parabolic trough solar collector
integrated with steam and binary vapor cycles, Energy 58 (2013) 561–570.
[3] A. Fernández-García, E. Zarza, L. Valenzuela, M. Pérez, Parabolic-trough solar
collectors and their applications, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (2010)
1695–1721.
[4] M. Eck, T. Hirsch, Dynamics and control of parabolic trough collector loops with
direct steam generation, Sol. Energy 81 (2007) 268–279.
[5] T. Hirsch, J.F. Feldhoff, K. Hennecke, R. Pitz-Paal, Advancements in the field of
direct steam generation in linear solar concentrators-a review, Heat Transfer
Eng. 35 (2014) 258–271.
[6] F. Manenti, Z. Ravaghi-Ardebili, Dynamic simulation of concentrating solar
power plant and two-tanks direct thermal energy storage, Energy 55 (2013)
89–97.
[7] K. Vignarooban, X. Xu, A. Arvay, K. Hsu, A.M. Kannan, Heat transfer fluids for
concentrating solar power systems – a review, Appl. Energy 146 (2015)
383–396.
[8] W.T. Xie, Y.J. Dai, R.Z. Wang, Theoretical and experimental analysis on efficiency
factors and heat removal factors of Fresnel lens solar collector using different
cavity receivers, Sol. Energy 86 (2012) 2458–2471.
[9] G. Zhu, T. Wendelin, M.J. Wagner, C. Kutscher, History, current state, and future
of linear Fresnel concentrating solar collectors, Sol. Energy 103 (2014) 639–
652.
[10] N.B. Desai, S. Bandyopadhyay, J.K. Nayak, R. Banerjee, S.B. Kedare, Simulation
of 1 MWe solar thermal power plant, Energy Procedia 57 (2014) 507–516.
[11] D. Cocco, G. Cau, Energy and economic analysis of concentrating solar power
plants based on parabolic trough and linear Fresnel collectors, Proc IMechE Part
A: J Power and Energy 229 (2015) 677–688.
[12] N.B. Desai, S. Bandyopadhyay, Optimization of concentrating solar thermal
power plant based on parabolic trough collector, J. Clean. Prod. 89 (2015)
262–271.
[13] T.C. Hung, T.Y. Shai, S.K. Wang, A review of organic Rankine cycles (ORCs) for
the recovery of low-grade waste heat, Energy 22 (7) (1997) 661–667.
[14] A. Algieri, P. Morrone, Comparative energetic analysis of high-temperature
subcritical and transcritical Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) A biomass application
in the Sibari district, Appl. Therm. Eng. 36 (2012) 236–244.
[15] S. Quoilin, M. Broek, S. Van Den Declaye, P. Dewallef, V. Lemort, Techno-
economic survey of Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) systems, Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 22 (2013) 168–186.
[16] D. Maraver, J. Royo, V. Lemort, S. Quoilin, Systematic optimization of subcritical
and transcritical organic Rankine cycles (ORCs) constrained by technical
parameters in multiple applications, Appl. Energy 117 (2014) 11–29.
[17] B.F. Tchanche, G. Papadakis, G. Lambrinos, A. Frangoudakis, Fluid selection for
a low-temperature solar organic Rankine cycle, Appl. Therm. Eng. 29 (2009)
2468–2476.
[18] P. Mavrou, A.I. Papadopoulos, M.Z. Stijepovic, P. Seferlis, P. Linke, S. Voutetakis,
Novel and conventional working fluid mixtures for solar Rankine cycles:
performance assessment and multi-criteria selection, Appl. Therm. Eng. 75
(2015) 384–396.
[19] T.C. Hung, S.K. Wang, C.H. Kuo, B.S. Pei, K.F. Tsai, A study of organic working
fluids on system efficiency of an ORC using low-grade energy sources, Energy
35 (2010) 1403–1411.
[20] H. Tian, G. Shu, H. Wei, X. Liang, L. Liu, Fluids and parameters optimization for
the organic Rankine cycles (ORCs) used in exhaust heat recovery of Internal
Combustion Engine (ICE), Energy 47 (2012) 125–136.
[21] B. Peris, J. Navarro-Esbrí, F. Molés, Bottoming organic Rankine cycle
configurations to increase Internal Combustion Engines power output from
cooling water waste heat recovery, Appl. Therm. Eng. 61 (2013) 364–371.
[22] C. Guo, X. Du, L. Yang, Y. Yang, Organic Rankine cycle for power recovery of
exhaust flue gas, Appl. Therm. Eng. 75 (2015) 135–144.
[23] H. Zhai, L. Shi, Q. An, Influence of working fluid properties on system
performance and screen evaluation indicators for geothermal ORC (organic
Rankine cycle) system, Energy 74 (2014) 2–11.
[24] M. Imran, M. Usman, B.-S. Park, H.-J. Kim, D.-H. Lee, Multi-objective optimization
of evaporator of organic Rankine cycle (ORC) for low temperature geothermal
heat source, Appl. Therm. Eng. 80 (2015) 1–9.
[25] G. Shu, X. Li, H. Tian, X. Liang, H. Wei, X. Wang, Alkanes as working fluids for
high-temperature exhaust heat recovery of diesel engine using organic Rankine
cycle, Appl. Energy 119 (2014) 204–217.
[26] F.J. Fernández, M.M. Prieto, I. Suárez, Thermodynamic analysis of high-
temperature regenerative organic Rankine cycles using siloxanes as working
fluids, Energy 36 (2011) 5239–5249.
[27] N.A. Lai, M. Wendland, J. Fischer, Working fluids for high-temperature organic
Rankine cycles, Energy 36 (2011) 199–211.
[28] H. Chen, D.Y. Goswami, E.K. Stefanakos, A review of thermodynamic cycles and
working fluids for the conversion of low-grade heat, Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 14 (2010) 3059–3067.
[29] P. Linke, A. Papadopoulos, P. Seferlis, Systematic methods for working fluid
selection and the design, integration and control of organic Rankine cycles –
a review, Energies 8 (2015) 4755–4801.
[30] J. Bao, L. Zhao, A review of working fluid and expander selections for organic
Rankine cycle, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 24 (2013) 325–342.
[31] E. Macchi, A. Perdichizzi, Efficiency prediction for axial-flow turbines
operating with non conventional fluids, Trans. ASME J. Eng. Power 103 (1981)
718–724.
[32] M.Z. Stijepovic, P. Linke, A.I. Papadopoulos, A.S. Grujic, On the role of working
fluid properties in organic Rankine cycle performance, Appl. Therm. Eng. 36
(2012) 406–413.
[33] R. Rayegan, Y.X. Tao, A procedure to select working fluids for solar organic
Rankine cycles (ORCs), Renew. Energy 36 (2011) 659–670.
[34] S. Quoilin, M. Orosz, H. Hemond, V. Lemort, Performance and design
optimization of a low-cost solar organic Rankine cycle for remote power
generation, Sol. Energy 85 (2011) 955–966.
[35] Y.-L. He, D.-H. Mei, W.-Q. Tao, W.-W. Yang, H.-L. Liu, Simulation of the parabolic
trough solar energy generation system with organic Rankine cycle, Appl. Energy
97 (2012) 630–641.
[36] F. Calise, C. Capuozzo, A. Carotenuto, L. Vanoli, Thermoeconomic analysis and
off-design performance of an organic Rankine cycle powered by medium-
temperature heat sources, Sol. Energy 103 (2013) 595–609.
[37] F. Ferrara, A. Gimelli, A. Luongo, Small-scale concentrated solar power (CSP)
plant: ORCs comparison for different organic fluids, Energy Procedia 45 (2014)
217–226.
[38] G. Xu, G. Song, X. Zhu, W. Gao, H. Li, Y. Quan, Performance evaluation of a direct
vapor generation supercritical ORC system driven by linear Fresnel reflector
solar concentrator, Appl. Therm. Eng. 80 (2015) 196–204.
[39] B. Saleh, G. Koglbauer, M. Wendland, J. Fischer, Working fluids for low-
temperature organic Rankine cycles, Energy 32 (2007) 1210–1221.
[40] N.B. Desai, S. Bandyopadhyay, Process integration of organic Rankine cycle,
Energy 34 (2009) 1674–1686.
[41] N.B. Desai, S. Bandyopadhyay, Integration of parabolic trough and linear Fresnel
collectors for optimum design of concentrating solar thermal power plant, Clean
Technol. Environ. Policy 17 (2015) 1945–1961.
[42] N.B. Desai, S.B. Kedare, S. Bandyopadhyay, Optimization of design radiation for
concentrating solar thermal power plants without storage, Sol. Energy 107
(2014) 98–112.
[43] H. Schenk, T. Hirsch, J.F. Feldhoff, M. Wittmann, Energetic comparison of linear
fresnel and parabolic trough collector systems, J. Sol. Energy Eng. 136 (2014)
041015.
[44] M.F. Ashby, D. Cebon, Materials selection in mechanical design, J. Phys. (1993)
C7-1–C7-9.
[45] E. Lemmon, M. McLinden, M. Huber, NIST reference fluid thermodynamic and
transport properties-REFPROP. NIST Standard Reference Database 23 – Version
7.0, 2002.
[46] I.H. Bell, S. Quoillin, J. Wronski, V. Lemort, Coolprop software.
<http://ibell.pythonanywhere.com/#>, 2013 (accessed 11.02.15).
[47] S. Lecompte, H. Huisseune, M. van den Broek, M. De Paepe, Methodical
thermodynamic analysis and regression models of organic Rankine cycle
architectures for waste heat recovery, Energy (2015) doi:10.1016/
j.energy.2015.04.094 in press.
[48] P. Arvay, M.R. Muller, V. Ramdeen, Economic Implementation of the Organic
Rankine Cycle in Industry, ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in
Industry, New York, USA, 2011, pp. 1–12.
[49] K. Cofrancesco, M. Ronzello, United States Environmental Protection Agency
CHP Meeting Presentations. <http://www.epa.gov/chp/documents/meeting
_100511_ronzello.pdf>, 2011 (accessed 13.02.15).
[50] M. Astolfi, M.C. Romano, P. Bombarda, E. Macchi, Binary ORC (Organic Rankine
Cycles) power plants for the exploitation of medium-low temperature
geothermal sources – Part B: techno-economic optimization, Energy 66 (2014)
435–446.
[51] P. Krishnamurthy, S. Mishra, R. Banerjee, An analysis of costs of parabolic trough
technology in India, Energy Policy 48 (2012) 407–419.
[52] I.I.T. Bombay, Solar thermal simulator version 2.0, 2014.
[53] C.G. Gutiérrez-Arriaga, F. Abdelhady, H.S. Bamufleh, M. Serna-González, M.M.
El-Halwagi, J.M. Ponce-Ortega, Industrial waste heat recovery and cogeneration
 N.B. Desai, S. Bandyopadhyay/Applied Thermal Engineering 95 (2016) 471–481
involving organic Rankine cycles, Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 17 (2015)
767–779.
[54] M.J. Montes, A. Abánades, J.M. Martínez-Val, M. Valdés, Solar multiple
optimization for a solar-only thermal power plant, using oil as heat transfer
fluid in the parabolic trough collectors, Sol. Energy 83 (2009) 2165–2176.
[55] G. Morin, J. Dersch, W. Platzer, M. Eck, A. Häberle, Comparison of Linear Fresnel
and Parabolic Trough Collector power plants, Sol. Energy 86 (2012) 1–12.
[56] M.A. Ramaswamy, B. Rao, N.C. Thirumalai, N.S. Suresh, Estimation of Hourly
Direct Normal Irradiance (DNI) for 22 Stations in India, Center for Study of
Science, Technology and Policy, Bangalore, 2013.
[57] U. Drescher, D. Brüggemann, Fluid selection for the Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC)
in biomass power and heat plants, Appl. Therm. Eng. 27 (2007) 223–228.
[58] B.F. Tchanche, G. Lambrinos, A. Frangoudakis, G. Papadakis, Low-grade heat
conversion into power using organic Rankine cycles – a review of various
applications, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (2011) 3963–3979.
481
[59] S. Lecompte, H. Huisseune, M. van den Broek, B. Vanslambrouck, M. De Paepe,
Review of organic Rankine cycle (ORC) architectures for waste heat recovery,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 47 (2015) 448–461.
[60] T.M. Pavlović, I.S. Radonjić, D.D. Milosavljević, L.S. Pantić, A review of
concentrating solar power plants in the world and their potential use in Serbia,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (2012) 3891–3902.
[61] R. Pitz-Paal, A. Amin, M. Oliver Bettzuge, P. Eames, G. Flamant, F. Fabrizi, et al.,
Concentrating solar power in Europe, the Middle East and North Africa: a review
of development issues and potential to 2050, J. Sol. Energy Eng. 134 (2012)
024501.
[62] A. Giostri, M. Binotti, P. Silva, E. Macchi, G. Manzolini, Comparison of two linear
collectors in solar thermal plants: parabolic trough versus fresnel, J. Sol. Energy
Eng. 135 (2012) 011001.