# Design and Comparative Techno-Economic Analysis of Two Solar Polygeneration Systems Applied for Electricity, Cooling and Fresh Water Production

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

#### Novelty

## 2. System Layout

## 3. Study Area and Building Specifications

^{2}units on each floor. The total floor area of each apartment block is 680 m

^{2}with 40 residents considering five residents living in each apartment unit (a total of 2000 residents). For each apartment block, the annual electricity, heating and cooling requirements were calculated using a commercial software tool considering the building specifications such as numbers of floors, directions, numbers of windows, the wall thicknesses, insulation layers, the facade color, numbers of people living in each apartment unit, the interior lighting thermal loads and so forth. The air conditioning system was considered to operate from 2 p.m. to 7 a.m. and the building windows are double glazed with a total area of 18 m

^{2}, facing the south and with a U-value of 2.85 W/m

^{2}K. In addition, the U-value of external walls, internal walls, roof and floor were considered as 1.01 W/m

^{2}·K, 1.22 W/m

^{2}·K, 0.44 W/m

^{2}·K and 0.55 W/m

^{2}·K (and 0.743 W/m

^{2}·K for the first floor near the unconditioned parking space), respectively. The buildings were considered to be located in the city of Bandar-Abbas which is a port city located on the southern coast of Iran, on the Persian Gulf. The city has a hot desert climate with a maximum annual temperature of 37 °C in summer and the minimum annual temperature of nearly 15 °C in winter. The annual rainfall is around 170 mm and the average relative humidity is 65%. The five years average monthly daily DNI and dry bulb temperature of the region for 12 months of the year were collected from the Iranian Meteorological Organization (IMO) and are shown in Figure 3.

## 4. System Model

- The buildings are modelled through HAP, coupled to the AutoCAD 2018 2D drawing model.
- MED/TVC desalination unit. It is modeled through the MATLAB software and it was validated by the commercial MED/TVC plant which is currently operated on Kish Island located in the Persian Gulf. Please refer to the previous study that has been conducted by some authors of the present study for additional details about the modeling of MED/TVC unit [36].
- The thermodynamic modeling of the ORC was performed using Engineering Equation Solver (EES). Based on the critical temperature of pentane (R601), and its good performance within the temperature ranges of 180 °C to 200 °C, this organic fluid was selected to be used in the ORC.
- The LF solar field and PV plant were modelled using the System Adviser Model (SAM) software provided by U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) [47].
- The ACH (or CCH) were modelled in EES based on the fixed input thermal energy (or required electricity) and considering the specific chilled water and average seawater cooling temperatures of 7 °C and 30 °C, respectively.
- A simple model was considered for RO desalination unit considering the RO recovery ratio of 45%. For additional details about the modeling of RO unit, please see [36].

#### 4.1. Linear Fresnel Model

^{2}of collector aperture area in the present work [47,48]. Also the receiver HTF system losses were calculated based on the proposed heat loss model by NREL for evacuated tubes as follows [49]:

^{2}) was considered in this paper [40].

#### 4.2. MED/TVC Model

^{3}/day was considered for 2000 people who are living in the 50 apartment units. A parallel cross flow MED unit with five effects, a TVC and gain output ratio (GOR) of 8.5 was used in the calculations of the present paper. This type of MED/TVC system is currently used on Kish Island located in the Persian Gulf [50]. A detailed model of the MED unit can be found in previous research by the authors of the present study [36,40]. The average seawater temperature and salinity were considered as 35 °C and 45,000 ppm based on the average annual sweater temperature of the region and the Persian Gulf seawater salinity [51,52]. The last effect temperature and resultant brine salinity were considered as 40 °C and 72,000 ppm, respectively. The following equation was used to determine the amount of required mass flow rate of the steam that should be flowed through the TVC as the motive steam (${\dot{\mathrm{m}}}_{{\mathrm{SF}}_{\mathrm{MED}}}$) according to the MED fresh water capacity of 2.31 kg/s (200 m

^{3}/day):

^{3}[36]. The specific heat consumptions of the MED unit is defined as the amount of heat that is required for producing 1 m

^{3}of fresh water and it is calculated as follows [53]:

_{t}/m

^{3}considering the GOR of 8.5 for the MED/TVC unit of the present study. This value was used to calculate part of the unit cost of the water which is associated with the thermal energy unit cost that is generated by LF solar field.

#### 4.3. ORC Model

#### 4.4. Chiller Models

_{2}O ACH (Table 2) and electrical CCH systems, respectively. A capacity of 7500 kW was considered based on the required cooling capacity of the air-conditioning system during the summertime. Because the high relative humidity and dry bulb temperature of the region during the warm months, the once through cooling technology was considered to cool down the chiller condensers due to the low distance between the buildings and the sea. The ACH required thermal energy and CCH electricity demand were calculated based on their COPs, required cooling load of the system and assuming the average seawater temperature of 30 °C for the warm months as follows:

#### 4.5. NGB

^{3}. The amount of thermal energy that is generated by NGB was calculated from the following equations:

#### 4.6. PV Model

^{2}), module area (m

^{2}) and PV efficiency, respectively. ${\mathrm{F}}_{\mathrm{T},\text{}\mathrm{corr}}$ is the temperature correction factor. Please see Ref. [47] for detail explanations on the PV model.

#### 4.7. RO Model

^{3}of permeate [36,42]. However, for the SWRO desalination plants that are located in the Mediterranean Sea with a salinity of 35,000 ppm it has been reported as 3.5 kWh/m

^{3}of produced permeate [61]. The recovery ratio is defined as the ratio of the produced permeates (m

^{3}) to the intake seawater (m

^{3}) that is flowed into the RO system [62]. In the present study, the specific electricity consumptions of 4.2 $/kWh and the recovery ratio of 45% were considered in the calculations of the RO plant [42]. The required electricity of the SWRO unit was calculated by multiplying the amount of required fresh water by the specific electricity consumptions of the plant as follows:

## 5. Economic Analysis

## 6. Results and Discussion

#### 6.1. Scenatrio#1, $L{F}_{PS}$

#### 6.1.1. LF Solar Field

^{2}for each loop. By increasing the surface area of the SF mirrors it is possible to increase the contribution of the solar thermal energy in supplying the total annual required thermal power of the system (SF, %). Based on the results of the former sections regarding the solar field mass flow rates that are assigned to the MED, ACH and ORC, the total required heating steam mass flow rate was considered as 25.73 kg/s. In this part of the study, the variations of the annual SF and WF of the system versus the solar field numbers of loops (NLs) were calculated and shown in Figure 6 for the Bandar-Abbas, Iran. As can be seen, by increasing of the NLs, the SF would be increased. However, the further increasing in the NLs for more than a specific number results in increasing the wasted solar thermal fraction (WF, %) and has no considerable effect on the SF of the plant. Considering 0.62% of the annual WF for nine NLs in the field (aperture area of 0.060 km

^{2}) and the ORC rated power of 6.5 MW, the SF of the system would be obtained as 32.20%. In such case, the increasing of NLs for more than nine would result in an increase in the amount of solar thermal energy that cannot be used to further supply the total annual required thermal load. Therefore, the SF of the system would be slightly increased and as consequence, the percentage of WF is increased for the NLs of more than nine.

#### 6.1.2. SPB

#### 6.1.3. Sensitivity Analysis

^{3}to 7-fold more (0.21 $/kWh), the ${\mathrm{LCE}}_{\mathrm{fuel}}$ would be increased by about 49.35% (0.338 $/kWh). The sensitivity of the average unit electricity cost ($\mathrm{LCE}$), which is produced on 33.50% solar electricity and 66.50% of fuel, was also investigated. Figure 11b shows that the $\mathrm{LCE}$ is most sensitive to the ORC capital cost followed by LF capital cost and fuel price. The decrease of ORC and LF capital costs to 64% of their first cost assumption values results in a decrease of the $\mathrm{LCE}$ by about 37.33% and 4.77%, respectively.

^{3}to 7-fold higher (0.21 $/kWh), the $\mathrm{LCW}$ would be increased to 2.69 $/m

^{3}(an increase of 60.31%). At a marginal fuel price of 0.176 $/m

^{3}, the $\mathrm{LCW}$, ${\mathrm{LCW}}_{\mathrm{fuel}}$ and ${\mathrm{LCW}}_{\mathrm{sol}}$ become identical and equal to 2.45 $/m

^{3}.

^{3}), the $\mathrm{LCC}$ is increased to 0.061$\text{}\$/{\mathrm{kWh}}_{\mathrm{th}}$ which is still lower than that is obtained for the solar-based system (0.083$\text{}\$/{\mathrm{kWh}}_{\mathrm{th}}$).

^{2}/year) and Bushehr (1350 kWh/m

^{2}/year) locations, respectively. For each location, the proper solar field numbers of loops was determined so that the annual WF doesn’t exceed 1%. The annual SF was determined as 32.11%, 28.43% and 28.34% for Khormaksar, Masirah and Bushehr, respectively. As it is shown in Table 5, The lowest and highest ${\mathrm{LCH}}_{\mathrm{sol}}$, ${\mathrm{LCC}}_{\mathrm{sol}}$, ${\mathrm{LCE}}_{\mathrm{sol}}$ and ${\mathrm{LCW}}_{\mathrm{sol}}$ are related to the Khormaksar and Bushehr with respectively highest and lowest DNI among four locations.

^{,}Appendix, Equation (5a)), which is associated with the fact the total annual cooling energy production (CP), for Bandar-Abbas is nearly 13.5% lower than that of the Masirah because of the higher percentage of annual SF in Bandar-Abbas as compared to Masirah. As consequence, the ${\mathrm{LCC}}_{\mathrm{sol}}$ for Masirah is nearly 11.01% higher than that of the Bandar-Abbas. The same illustration can be used for the ${\mathrm{LCW}}_{\mathrm{sol}}$ of the system for Masirah and Bandar-Abbas. Part of the fresh water unit of cost which is related to the electricity cost and thermal energy cost of the MED system for Masirah is lower than that of the Bandar-Abbas. However, the total annual fresh water production rate of Masirah with SF of 28.43% is lower than that of the Bandar-Abbas with SF of 32.20%. Therefore, the ${\mathrm{LCW}}_{\mathrm{sol}}$ for Masirah is 2.55% higher than that of Bandar-Abbas. The average solar/fuel based LCW is obtained as a value between 1.57 $/m

^{3}to 1.69 $/m

^{3}for four locations of the study. Table 5 also shows that for Khormaksar with the DNI level of 43.18% higher than that Bushehr, the ${\mathrm{LCH}}_{\mathrm{sol}}$ and ${\mathrm{LCE}}_{\mathrm{sol}}$ are obtained to be 44.00% and 28.09% lower than that are obtained for Bushehr. Also, the comparison between the unit product costs of Khormaksar and Bandar-Abbas with a nearly same annual SF percentage of 32% shows that because the DNI of Khormaksar is 32.21% higher than that of Bandar-Abbas, the ${\mathrm{LCH}}_{\mathrm{sol}}$, ${\mathrm{LCE}}_{\mathrm{sol}}$, ${\mathrm{LCC}}_{\mathrm{sol}}$ and ${\mathrm{LCW}}_{\mathrm{sol}}$ for Khormaksar is respectively 33.00%, 24.78%, 3.09% and 14.82% lower than those for Bandar-Abbas. Also, at same annual SF of nearly 28% for Masirah and Bushehr, the DNI level for Masirah is 12.14% higher than that of Bushehr. As consequence, the ${\mathrm{LCH}}_{\mathrm{sol}}$, ${\mathrm{LCE}}_{\mathrm{sol}}$, ${\mathrm{LCC}}_{\mathrm{sol}}$ and ${\mathrm{LCW}}_{\mathrm{sol}}$ of Masirah are respectively 12.50%, 4.11%, 1.73% and 5.48% lower than those for Bushehr.

#### 6.2. Scenatrio#2

#### 6.2.1. PV Plant

^{2}to 53 $/m

^{2}(367% decrease). Also, at the LF solar field of 195 $/m

^{2}, the LCE of ${\mathrm{LF}}_{\mathrm{PS}}$ is equal to that of PV plant by decreasing the ORC capital cost from 3500$\$/{\mathrm{kW}}_{\mathrm{nominal}}$ to 1950$\$/{\mathrm{kW}}_{\mathrm{nominal}}$(179% decrease). The sensitivity of the LCC to the PV and CCH is shown in Figure 16b. As can be seen, the LCC is most sensitive to PV capital cost. In order to have an equal LCC for both polygeneration systems, the capital cost of PV modules should be decreased from 3300 $/kW to 580 $/kW (a 568% decrease). As it was mentioned formerly, the high unit cost value of electricity in ${\mathrm{PV}}_{\mathrm{PS}}$ causes the LCC of CCH in this plant becomes higher than that of the other plant with a low unit cost of heat (LCH) that is consumed in the ACH. The sensitivity analysis of the LCW in Figure 16c shows that the PV and RO capital costs have similar effect on the unit cost of fresh water in the ${\mathrm{PV}}_{\mathrm{PS}}$; 63% decrease in the capital cost of PV or RO results in 14.28% decrease in the LCW of the system. The LCW of the ${\mathrm{LF}}_{\mathrm{PS}}$ system is considerably higher than that of the other plant because of the higher electricity and thermal energy costs that is used in the MED unit. Only when the LF solar field capital cost would be decreased from 195 $/m

^{2}to 46 $/m

^{2}, the LCW of both plants would be equal.

#### 6.2.2. SPB of Scenario#2

^{3}), the capital investment will be returned back during 10 years, 8.8 years and 8 years for the EI scenarios with electricity selling cost of 0 $/kWh, 0.2 $/kWh and 0.35 $/kWh, respectively. This means that without any incentive, the SPB time of ${\mathrm{PV}}_{\mathrm{PS}}$ is nearly 31.5% higher than that of ${\mathrm{LF}}_{\mathrm{PS}}$ (14.6 years, Figure 12). Similarly, for the CS scenario (Figure 17b), if the products are sold to users at ${\mathrm{PV}}_{\mathrm{PS}}$ units of costs and 5% (or 40%) of the total capital cost would be paid by the government; the payback time of the system would be 13 years (or 8 years). For the case when the electricity and fresh water of ${\mathrm{PV}}_{\mathrm{PS}}$ are sold to the users at the unit costs of ${\mathrm{LF}}_{\mathrm{PS}}$, the SPB of ${\mathrm{PV}}_{\mathrm{PS}}$ will be 9.4 years and 6 years for the CS incentives of 5% and 40%, respectively. At such case, for 5%/40% of CS incentives, the SPB of the PV/RO system (9.4 years/6 years) is nearly 48.93%/46.66% lower than that of the ${\mathrm{LF}}_{\mathrm{PS}}$ (14 years/8.8 years, Figure 13).

#### 6.3. The Cumulative Electricity Generation

## 7. Conclusions

^{3}/year and ${\mathrm{CO}}_{2}$ emission reduction of 11,850 tonnes/year.

^{2}/year and 1718/1350 kWh/m

^{2}/year), respectively, the ${\mathrm{LCE}}_{\mathrm{sol}}$, ${\mathrm{LCW}}_{\mathrm{sol}}$ and ${\mathrm{LCC}}_{\mathrm{sol}}$ of the ${\mathrm{LF}}_{\mathrm{PS}}$ system for Khormaksar are respectively 28.09%, 24.03% and 16.48% lower than that for Bushehr. Also, these values for the ${\mathrm{PV}}_{\mathrm{PS}}$ in Khormaksar are respectively, 26.92%, 15.76% and 18.80% lower than those in Bushehr.

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Conflicts of Interest

## Nomenclature

ACH | Absorption Chiller |

${\mathrm{A}}_{\mathrm{field}}$ | Solar field aperture area (m^{2}) |

${\mathrm{A}}_{\mathrm{sf}}$ | LF mirrors aperture area or PV surface area |

${\mathrm{A}}_{\mathrm{land}}$ | Total required land area for the solar field |

${\mathrm{A}}_{\mathrm{PV}}$ | PV module area (m^{2}) |

${\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{CAPEX}}\left(\mathrm{D}\right)$ | Capital annualized direct costs, $ |

${\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{CAPEX}}\left(\mathrm{ID}\right)$ | Capital annualized indirect costs, $ |

Battery | Bat |

CCH | Compression Chiller |

CHP | Combined Heat and Power |

${\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{el}}$ | Electricity costs, $ |

${\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{f}}$ | Fuel costs, $ |

${\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{Ins}}$ | Insurance costs, $ |

${\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{L}}$ | Labor costs, $ |

COP | Coefficient of performance |

CP | Annual cooling production |

CPC | Compound Parabolic Concentrator |

CPVT | Concentrated Photovoltaic/Thermal |

$\mathrm{CRF}$ | Capital recovery factor |

${\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{SP}}$ | Spare parts replacement costs, $ |

$\mathrm{CSP}$ | Concentrating solar power plant |

CUF | Capacity Utilization Factors |

$\mathrm{DNI}$ | Direct Normal Irradiation, (W/m^{2}) |

DHW | Domestic Hot Water |

EG | Annual electricity production |

ETC | Evacuated flat plate solar Collector |

${\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{el}}$ | total electricity that is generated by solar (LF/ORC or PV) |

${\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{sol}}$ | total available solar energy on the solar field |

${\mathrm{F}}_{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{corr}}$ | Temperature correction factor |

GHI | Global Horizontal Irradiance |

$\mathrm{GOR}$ | Gain Output Ratio |

HE | Heat exchanger |

${\mathrm{h}}_{\mathrm{out},\mathrm{SF}}$ | Enthalpy of the steam at the outlet of the solar field |

HP | Annual heating production |

${\mathrm{HV}}_{\mathrm{NG}}$ | Natural gas heating value |

HTF | Heat Transfer Fluid |

i | Interest rate (%) |

${\mathrm{IAM}}_{\mathrm{t}}$ | Transversal incident angle modifier |

${\mathrm{IAM}}_{\mathrm{L}}$ | Longitudinal incident angle modifier |

IEA | International Energy Agency |

${\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{o}}$ | Reference total incident radiation, 1000 W/m^{2} |

${\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{t}}$ | Total incident global radiation (W/m^{2}) |

$\mathrm{L}$ | Receiver length, m |

LCE | Levelised cost of electricity, $/kWh |

LCC | Levelised cost of cooling energy, $\$/{\mathrm{kWh}}_{\mathrm{t}}$ |

LCH | Levelised cost of heating energy, $\$/{\mathrm{kWh}}_{\mathrm{t}}$ |

LCW | Levelised cost of water, $/m^{3} |

${\mathrm{L}}_{\mathrm{f}}$ | Focal distance, m |

$\mathrm{LF}$ | Linear Fresnel solar field |

${\mathrm{LF}}_{\mathrm{PS}}$ | LF/ORC/ACH/MED configuration |

${\mathrm{m}}_{\mathrm{NG}}$ | Natural gas mass |

${\dot{\mathrm{m}}}_{\mathrm{D}}$ | Fresh water flow rate |

${\dot{\mathrm{m}}}_{{\mathrm{SF}}_{\mathrm{MED}}}$ | Motive steam mass flow rate |

${\dot{\mathrm{m}}}_{{\mathrm{SF}}_{\mathrm{ORC}}}$ | Mass flow rate that is flowed through the ORC heat exchanger |

ME | Middle East |

MED | Multi Effect desalination |

$\mathrm{N}$ | Number of project Life time |

$\mathrm{NGB}$ | Natural gas boiler |

NREL | Natural Renewable Energy Laboratory |

ORC | Organic Rankine Cycle |

PEMFC | Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell |

PTC | Parabolic Trough solar Collector |

PV | Photovoltaic |

${\mathrm{PV}}_{\mathrm{PS}}$ | PV/CCH/RO polygeneration scenario |

PVT | Photovoltaic/Thermal |

${\mathrm{Q}}_{\mathrm{absorbed}}$ | Absorbed solar energy, W/m^{2} |

${\mathrm{Q}}_{\mathrm{hl}\_\mathrm{HTF}}$ | Heat transfer fluid heat loss, W/m^{2} |

${\mathrm{Q}}_{{\mathrm{hl}}_{\mathrm{piping}\text{}}}$ | Heat lost from solar field pipes, W/m^{2} |

${\mathrm{Q}}_{\mathrm{LFR}}$ | Solar field useful thermal output, W/m^{2} |

${\mathrm{Q}}_{\mathrm{in}}$ | Incident thermal power, W/m^{2} |

${\mathrm{Q}}_{\mathrm{sol}}$ | Hourly LF solar thermal energy that is used to supply the (Q_{need}(t)) |

${\mathrm{Q}}_{\mathrm{need}}\left(\mathrm{t}\right)$ | Hourly required thermal energy of the system |

RO | Reverse Osmosis |

SAM | System Advisor Model |

SORC | Solar Organic Rankine cycle |

SRC | Solar Rankine cycle |

SWRO | Seawater Reverse Osmosis |

$\mathrm{WP}$ | Annual water production, m^{3}/yr |

${\mathrm{T}}_{\mathrm{in},\mathrm{Cool},\mathrm{w}}$ | Temperature of the input stream from the sea |

${\mathrm{T}}_{\mathrm{out},\mathrm{Cool},\mathrm{w}}$ | Temperature of the output stream to the sea |

$\mathrm{TES}$ | Thermal energy storage |

TVC | Thermal Vapor Compression |

Greek symbols | |

${\mathrm{a}}_{\mathrm{s}}$ | Sun elevation angle, degree |

${\mathsf{\alpha}}_{\mathrm{TP}}$ | Power temperature coefficient |

$\mathsf{\epsilon}$ | Effectiveness of heat exchanger |

${\mathsf{\eta}}_{\mathrm{endloss}}$ | End loss efficiency |

${\mathsf{\eta}}_{\mathrm{opt}}$ | Optical efficiency |

${\mathsf{\eta}}_{\mathrm{PV}}$ | PV module efficiency |

${\mathsf{\theta}}_{\mathrm{i}}$ | The angle of incidence, degree |

${\mathsf{\theta}}_{\mathrm{z}}$ | Zenith angle, degree |

${\mathsf{\gamma}}_{\mathrm{s}}$ | Azimuth angle, degree |

$\mathsf{\gamma}$ | PV maximum power temperature coefficient |

${\mathsf{\varphi}}_{\mathrm{L}}$ | Longitudinal angle, degree |

${\mathsf{\varphi}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ | Transversal angle, angle |

## Appendix A

**Table A1.**The cost formulations that were used in the economic analysis of scenario#1, ${\mathrm{LF}}_{\mathrm{PS}}$.

LCH: | |

${\mathrm{LCH}}_{\mathrm{S}\#1}={\mathrm{LCH}}_{\mathrm{solar},\text{}\mathrm{S}\#1}\times \left(\mathrm{SF}\right)+{\mathrm{LCH}}_{\mathrm{fuel},\text{}\mathrm{S}\#1}\times \left(1-\mathrm{SF}\right)\text{\hspace{1em}\hspace{1em}}\left({\frac{\$}{\mathrm{kWh}}}_{\mathrm{t}}\right)$ | (1a) |

${\mathrm{LCH}}_{\mathrm{solar},\mathrm{S}\#1}=\frac{{\left[{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{CAPEX}}\left(\mathrm{D}\right)+{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{CAPEX}}\left(\mathrm{ID}\right)+{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{Ins}}+{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{L}}+{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{SP}}+{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{el}}\right]}_{\mathrm{LF}}}{\mathrm{HP}\times \left(\mathrm{SF}\right)}\text{\hspace{1em}\hspace{1em}}\left(\frac{\$}{{\mathrm{kWh}}_{\mathrm{t}}}\right)$ | (2a) |

${\mathrm{LCH}}_{\mathrm{fuel},\mathrm{S}\#1}=\frac{{\left[{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{CAPEX}}\left(\mathrm{D}\right)\right]}_{\mathrm{NGB},\text{}\mathrm{S}\#1}+{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{f}}}{\mathrm{HP}\times \left(1-\mathrm{SF}\right)}\text{}\left(\frac{\$}{{\mathrm{kWh}}_{\mathrm{t}}}\right)$ | (3a) |

LCC: | |

${\mathrm{LCC}}_{\mathrm{S}\#1}={\mathrm{LCC}}_{\mathrm{solar},\text{}\mathrm{S}\#1}\times \left(\mathrm{SF}\right)+{\mathrm{LCC}}_{\mathrm{fuel},\text{}\mathrm{S}\#1}\times \left(1-\mathrm{SF}\right)\text{\hspace{1em}\hspace{1em}}\left(\frac{\$}{{\mathrm{kWh}}_{\mathrm{t}}}\right)$ | (4a) |

${\mathrm{LCC}}_{\mathrm{solar},\mathrm{S}\#1}=\frac{{\left[{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{CAPEX}}\left(\mathrm{D}\right)+{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{CAPEX}}\left(\mathrm{ID}\right)\right]}_{\mathrm{ACH}}}{\mathrm{CP}\times \left(\mathrm{SF}\right)}+\frac{{\mathrm{LCH}}_{\mathrm{solar},\mathrm{S}\#1}}{CO{P}_{ACH}}\text{}\left(\frac{\$}{{\mathrm{kWh}}_{\mathrm{t}}}\right)$ | (5a) |

${\mathrm{LCC}}_{\mathrm{fuel},\mathrm{S}\#1}=\frac{{\left[{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{CAPEX}}\left(\mathrm{D}\right)+{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{CAPEX}}\left(\mathrm{ID}\right)\right]}_{\mathrm{ACH}}}{\mathrm{CP}\times \left(1-\mathrm{SF}\right)}+\frac{{\mathrm{LCH}}_{\mathrm{fuel},\mathrm{S}\#1}}{CO{P}_{ACH}}\text{}\left(\frac{\$}{{\mathrm{kWh}}_{\mathrm{t}}}\right)$ | (6a) |

LCE: | |

${\mathrm{LCE}}_{\mathrm{S}\#1}={\mathrm{LCE}}_{\mathrm{solar},\text{}\mathrm{S}\#1}\times \left(\mathrm{SF}\right)+{\mathrm{LCE}}_{\mathrm{fuel},\text{}\mathrm{S}\#1}\times \left(1-\mathrm{SF}\right)\text{\hspace{1em}\hspace{1em}}\left(\frac{\$}{\mathrm{kWh}}\right)$ | (7a) |

${\mathrm{LCE}}_{\mathrm{solar},\text{}\mathrm{S}\#1}=\frac{{\left[{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{CAPEX}}\left(\mathrm{D}\right)+{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{OPEX}}\right]}_{\mathrm{ORC}}}{\mathrm{EG}\times \left(\mathrm{SF}\right)}+\frac{{\mathrm{LCH}}_{\mathrm{solar},\mathrm{S}\#1}}{{\eta}_{ORC}}\text{\hspace{1em}\hspace{1em}}\left(\frac{\$}{\mathrm{kWh}}\right)$ | (8a) |

${\mathrm{LCE}}_{\mathrm{fuel},\text{}\mathrm{S}\#1}=\frac{{\left[{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{CAPEX}}\left(\mathrm{D}\right)+{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{OPEX}}\right]}_{\mathrm{ORC}}}{\mathrm{EG}\times \left(1-\mathrm{SF}\right)}+\frac{{\mathrm{LCH}}_{\mathrm{fuel},\mathrm{S}\#1}}{{\eta}_{ORC}}\text{\hspace{1em}\hspace{1em}}\left(\frac{\$}{\mathrm{kWh}}\right)$ | (9a) |

LCW: | |

${\mathrm{LCW}}_{\mathrm{S}\#1}={\mathrm{LCW}}_{\mathrm{solar},\text{}\mathrm{S}\#1}\times \left(\mathrm{SF}\right)+{\mathrm{LCW}}_{\mathrm{fuel},\text{}\mathrm{S}\#1}\times \left(1-\mathrm{SF}\right)\text{\hspace{1em}\hspace{1em}}\left(\frac{\$}{{\mathrm{m}}^{3}}\right)$ | (10a) |

${\mathrm{LCW}}_{\mathrm{solar},\text{}\mathrm{S}\#1}=\frac{{\left[{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{CAPEX}}\left(\mathrm{D}\right)+{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{CAPEX}}\left(\mathrm{ID}\right)+{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{Ins}}+{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{L}}+{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{SP}}+{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{el}}\right]}_{\mathrm{MED}}}{\mathrm{WP}\times \left(\mathrm{SF}\right)}+1.55\left[\frac{\mathrm{kWh}}{{\mathrm{m}}^{3}}\right]\times {\mathrm{LCE}}_{\mathrm{solar},\mathrm{S}\#1}+{Q}_{S{H}_{MED}}\times {\mathrm{LCH}}_{\mathrm{solar},\mathrm{S}\#1}\text{\hspace{1em}\hspace{1em}}\left(\frac{\$}{{\mathrm{m}}^{3}}\right)$ | (11a) |

${\mathrm{LCW}}_{\mathrm{fuel},\text{}\mathrm{S}\#1}=\frac{{\left[{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{CAPEX}}\left(\mathrm{D}\right)+{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{CAPEX}}\left(\mathrm{ID}\right)+{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{Ins}}+{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{L}}+{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{SP}}+{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{el}}\right]}_{\mathrm{MED}}}{\mathrm{WP}\times \left(1-\mathrm{SF}\right)}+1.55\left[\frac{\mathrm{kWh}}{{\mathrm{m}}^{3}}\right]\times {\mathrm{LCE}}_{\mathrm{solar},\mathrm{S}\#1}+{Q}_{S{H}_{MED}}\times {\mathrm{LCH}}_{\mathrm{solar},\mathrm{S}\#1}\text{\hspace{1em}\hspace{1em}}\left(\frac{\$}{{\mathrm{m}}^{3}}\right)$ | (12a) |

LCH: | |

${\mathrm{LCH}}_{\mathrm{solar},\mathrm{S}\#2}=\frac{{\left[{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{CAPEX}}\left(\mathrm{D}\right)\right]}_{\mathrm{NGB},\text{}\mathrm{S}\#1}+{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{f}}}{\mathrm{HP}}\text{}\left({\frac{\$}{\mathrm{kWh}}}_{\mathrm{t}}\right)\text{}\mathrm{only}\text{}\mathrm{for}\text{}\mathrm{DHW}$ | (13a) |

LCC: | |

${\mathrm{LCC}}_{\mathrm{solar},\mathrm{S}\#2}=\frac{{\left[{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{CAPEX}}\left(\mathrm{D}\right)+{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{CAPEX}}\left(\mathrm{ID}\right)\right]}_{\mathrm{CCH}}}{\mathrm{HP}\times \left(\mathrm{SF}\right)}+\frac{{\mathrm{LCE}}_{\mathrm{solar},\mathrm{S}\#2}}{CO{P}_{CCH}}\text{}$$\text{}\left({\frac{\$}{\mathrm{kWh}}}_{\mathrm{t}}\right)$ | (14a) |

LCE: | |

${\mathrm{LCE}}_{\mathrm{solar},\mathrm{S}\#2}=\frac{{\left[{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{CAPEX}}\left(\mathrm{D}\right)+{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{OPEX}}\right]}_{\mathrm{PV}}}{\mathrm{EG}\times \left(\mathrm{SF}\right)}\text{\hspace{1em}\hspace{1em}}\left(\frac{\$}{\mathrm{kWh}}\right)$ | (15a) |

LCW: | |

${\mathrm{LCW}}_{\mathrm{solar},\text{}\mathrm{S}\#2}=\frac{{\left[{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{CAPEX}}\left(\mathrm{D}\right)+{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{CAPEX}}\left(\mathrm{ID}\right)+{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{Ins}}+{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{L}}+{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{SP}}+{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{el}}\right]}_{\mathrm{RO}}}{\mathrm{WP}\times \left(\mathrm{SF}\right)}+4\left[\frac{\mathrm{kWh}}{{\mathrm{m}}^{3}}\right]\times {\mathrm{LCE}}_{\mathrm{solar},\mathrm{S}\#2}\text{}\left(\frac{\$}{{\mathrm{m}}^{3}}\right)$ | (16a) |

MED Direct Costs (DC), Indirect Costs (IC) and (O&M) | |

Main investment ($/m^{3}/day) | 1240 |

Post-treatment plant ($/m^{3}) | 120 |

Open sea water intakes ($/m^{3}) | 313 |

Drinking water storage and pumping ($/m^{3}) | 100 |

Freight & insurance rate during construction | 5.00% DC |

Owner’s cost rate | 10.00% of direct material and labor cost |

Contingency rate | 10.00% of DC |

Construction overhead (interest during construction) | 12.24% of DC |

Electricity costs ($/m^{3}) | Depending on Electricity cost (Assuming: 1.55 kWh/m^{3}) |

Spare parts Replacement | 1.5% of total DC |

Chemical cost of product water ($/m^{3}) | 0.04 |

insurance | 0.5% of total DC |

Natural Gas auxiliary boiler costs ($/m^{3}) | 0.02 to 0.8 |

Labor cost of product water ($/m^{3}) | 0.025 |

RO Direct Costs (DC), Indirect Costs (IC) and (O&M) | |

Main investment ($/m^{3}/day) | 900 |

Pretreatment plant ($/m^{3}) | 250 |

Post-treatment plant ($/m^{3}) | 120 |

Open sea water intakes ($/m^{3}) | 313 |

Drinking water storage and pumping ($/m^{3}) | 100 |

Wastewater collection & treatment ($/m^{3}) | 50 |

Freight & insurance rate during construction | 5.00% DC |

Owner’s cost rate | 10.00% of direct material and labor cost |

Contingency rate | 10.00% of DC |

Construction overhead (interest during construction) | 12.24% of DC |

Electricity costs ($/m^{3}) | Depending on Electricity cost (Assuming: 3.5 kWh/m^{3}) |

Spare parts Replacement | 1.5% of total DC |

Chemical cost of product water ($/m^{3}) | 0.04 |

insurance | 0.5% of total DC |

Natural Gas auxiliary boiler costs ($/m^{3}) | 0.02 to 0.8 |

Labor cost of product water ($/m^{3}) | 0.05 |

Solar LF Direct Costs (DC) and Indirect Costs (ID) | |

Site improvement ($/m^{2}) | 20 |

Solar filed ($/m^{2}) | 150 |

HTF system ($/m^{2}) | 35 |

Contingency rate | 7.00% total DC |

Design and Construction | 15% of total DC |

Land cost ($/m^{2}) | 10 |

insurance | 1% of total DC |

ORC Direct Costs (DC) and Operation (OC) | |

Direct Costs (DC) | $3500\times {\mathrm{P}}_{\mathrm{ORC}}$[64] |

Operation Costs (OC) ($/kWh) | 0.013 |

PV Direct Costs (DC) and Operation (OC) | |

Direct Costs ($/kW) | 3300 [65] |

Operation Costs (OC) ($/kW-year) | 25 |

ACH Direct Costs (DC) and Operation (OC) | |

Direct Costs ($/kW) | $362\text{}$[23] and [24] |

Operation Costs (OC) ($/kWh) | 15% of total DC |

CCH Direct Costs (DC) and Operation (OC) | |

Direct Costs ($/kW) | 350 [24] |

Operation Costs (OC) ($/kWh) | 15% of total DC |

NGB Direct Costs (DC) and Operation (OC) | |

NGB ($/${\mathrm{kWht}}_{\mathrm{nom}}$) | 10 [31] |

Operation Costs (OC) ($/kWh) | 0.0028 |

## References

- IRENA. Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2014. 2015. Available online: https://www.irena.org/documentdownloads/publications/irena_re_power_costs_2014_report.pdf (accessed on 27 August 2019).
- Technology Road Map: Solar Thermal Electricity-2014 Edition, in, International Energy Agency (IEA) Report. 2014. Available online: http://www.solarconcentra.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Technology-Roadmap-Solar-Thermal-Electricity-2014-edition-IEA-1.pdf (accessed on 17 September 2019).
- Technology Road Map: Solar Photovoltaic Energy-2014 Edition, in, International Energy Agency (IEA) Report. 2014. Available online: https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/TechnologyRoadmapSolarPhotovoltaicEnergy_2014edition.pdf (accessed on 14 November 2019).
- Observatoire des Energies Renouvelables (ObservER). Worldwide Electricity Production from Renewable Energy Sources. Stats and Figures Series. Thirteenth Inventory. Available online: http://www.energies-renouvelables.org/observ-er/ html/inventaire/Eng/organisation.asp (accessed on 25 September 2019).
- IEA Report. 2016. Available online: http://energyatlas.iea.org/#!/tellmap/1378539487 (accessed on 8 September 2019).
- Baniasad Askari, I.; Oukati Sadegh, M.; Ameri, M. Energy Management and Economics of a Trigeneration System: Considering the Effect of Solar PV, Solar collector and Fuel Price. Energy Sustain. Dev.
**2015**, 26, 43–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Connolly, D.; Lund, H.; Mathiesen, B.V. Smart Energy Europe: The technical and economic impact of one potential 100% renewable energy scenario for the European Union. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
**2016**, 60, 1634–1653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Calise, F.; Dentice d’Accadia, M.; Libertini, L.; Quiriti, E.; Vicidomini, M. A novel tool for thermoeconomic analysis and optimization of trigeneration systems a case study for a hospital building in Italy. Energy
**2017**, 126, 64–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mancarella, P. MES (multi-energy systems): An overview of concepts and evaluation models. Energy
**2014**, 65, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kasaeiana, A.; Nouri, G.; Ranjbaran, P.; Wen, D. Solar collectors and photovoltaics as combined heat and power systems: A critical review. Energy Convers. Manag.
**2018**, 156, 688–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Buonomano, A.; Calise, F.; Palombo, A.; Vicidomini, M. Adsorption chiller operation by recovering low-temperature heat from building integrated photovoltaic thermal collectors: Modelling and simulation. Energy Convers. Manag.
**2017**, 149, 1019–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Desai, N.B.; Bandyopadhyay, S. Thermo-economic analysis and selection of working fluid for solar organic Rankine cycle. Appl. Therm. Eng.
**2016**, 95, 471–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Calise, F.; Dentice d’Accadia, M.; Palombo, A. Exergetic and exergoeconomic analysis of a renewable polygeneration system and viability study for small isolated communities. Energy
**2015**, 92, 290–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Calise, F.; Dentice d’Accadia, M.; Macaluso, A.; Palombo, A.; Vanoli, L. Exergetic and exergoeconomic analysis of a novel hybrid solar-geothermal polygeneration system producing energy and water. Energy Convers. Manag.
**2016**, 115, 200–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tzivanidis, C.; Bellos, E.; Antonopoulos, K.A. Energetic and financial investigation of a stand-alone solar-thermal Organic Rankine Cycle power plant. Energy Convers. Manag.
**2016**, 126, 421–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Calise, F.; Dentice d’Accadia, M.; Vicidomini, M.; Scarpellino, M. Design and simulation of a prototype of a small-scale solar CHP system based on evacuated flat-plate solar collectors and Organic Rankine Cycle. Energy Convers. Manag.
**2015**, 90, 347–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bellos, B.; Tzivanidis, C. Parametric analysis and optimization of an Organic Rankine Cycle with nano fluid based solar parabolic trough collectors. Renew. Energy
**2017**, 114, 1376–1393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bellos, B.; Tzivanidis, C. Investigation of a hybrid ORC driven by waste heat and solar energy. Energy Convers. Manag.
**2018**, 156, 427–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Garcia-Saez, I.; Méndez, J.; Ortiz, C.; Loncar, D.; Becerra, J.A.; Chacartegui, R. Energy and economic assessment of solar Organic Rankine Cycle for combined heat and power generation in residential applications. Renew. Energy
**2019**, 140, 461–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mazloumi, M.; Naghashzadegan, M.; Javaherdeh, K. Simulation of solar lithium bromide–water absorption cooling system with parabolic trough collector. Energy Convers. Manag.
**2008**, 49, 2820–2832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chahartaghi, M.; Golmohammadi, H.; Faghih Shojaei, A. Performance analysis and optimization of new double effect lithium bromide-water absorption chiller with series and parallel flows. Int. J. Refrig.
**2019**, 97, 73–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Delač, B.; Pavković, B.; Lenić, K. Design, Monitoring and dynamic model development of a solar heating and cooling system. Appl. Therm. Eng.
**2018**, 142, 489–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bellos, B.; Tzivanidis, C. Energetic and financial analysis of solar cooling systems with single effect absorption chiller in various climates. Appl. Therm. Eng.
**2017**, 126, 809–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Calise, F.; Dentice d’Accadia, M.; Libertini, L.; Quiriti, E.; Vanoli, R.; Vicidomini, M. Optimal operating strategies of combined cooling, heating and power systems: A case study for an engine manufacturing facility. Energy Convers. Manag.
**2017**, 149, 1066–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Shirazi, A.; Taylor, R.A.; Morrisona, G.L.; White, S.D. Solar-powered absorption chillers: A comprehensive and critical review. Energy Convers. Manag.
**2018**, 171, 59–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Buonomano, A.; Calise, F.; Palombo, A. Solar heating and cooling systems by absorption and adsorption chillers driven by stationary and concentrating photovoltaic/thermal solar collectors: Modelling and simulation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
**2018**, 82, 1874–1908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bellos, B.; Tzivanidis, C. Parametric analysis and optimization of a solar driven trigeneration system based on ORC and absorption heat pump. J. Clean. Prod.
**2017**, 161, 493–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Xu, Z.Y.; Wang, R.Z. Comparison of CPC driven solar absorption cooling systems with single, double and variable effect absorption chillers. Sol. Energy
**2017**, 158, 511–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Akrami, E.; Nemati, A.; Nami, H.; Ranjbar, F. Exergy and exergo economic assessment of hydrogen and cooling production from concentrated PVT equipped with PEM electrolyzer and LiBr-H2O absorption chiller. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy
**2018**, 43, 622–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Shekarchiana, M.; Moghavvemib, M.; Motasemi, F.; Mahlia, T.M.I. Energy savings and cost–benefit analysis of using compression and absorption chillers for air conditioners in Iran. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
**2011**, 15, 1950–1960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ghafurian, M.M.; Niazmand, H. New approach for estimating the cooling capacity of the absorption and compression chillers in a trigeneration system. Int. J. Refrig.
**2018**, 86, 89–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Calise, F.; Damian Figaj, R.; Massarotti, N.; Mauro, A.; Vanoli, L. Polygeneration system based on PEMFC, CPVT and electrolyzer: Dynamic simulation and energetic and economic analysis. Appl. Energy
**2017**, 192, 530–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Leiva-Illanes, R.; Escobar, R.; Cardemil, J.M.; Alarcón-Padillad, D.C. Thermo economic assessment of a solar polygeneration plant for electricity, water, cooling and heating in high direct normal irradiation conditions. Energy Convers. Manag.
**2017**, 151, 538–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Baneshi, M.; Hadianfard, F. Techno-economic feasibility of hybrid diesel/PV/wind/battery electricity generation systems for non-residential large electricity consumers under southern Iran climate conditions. Energy Convers. Manag.
**2016**, 127, 233–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Baniasad Askari, I.; Ameri, M. Combined linear Fresnel solar Rankine cycle with multi-effect desalination (MED) process: Effect of solar DNI level on the electricity and water production costs. Desalin. Water Treat.
**2018**, 126, 97–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Baniasad Askari, I.; Ameri, M.; Calise, F. Energy, exergy and exergo-economic analysis of different water desalination technologies powered by Linear Fresnel solar field. Desalination
**2018**, 428, 37–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Baniasad Askari, I.; Ameri, M. The application of Linear Fresnel and Parabolic Trough solar fields as thermal source to produce electricity and fresh water. Desalination
**2017**, 415, 90–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bellos, B.; Tzivanidis, C.; Moschos, K.; Antonopoulos, K.A. Energetic and financial evaluation of solar assisted heat pump space heating systems. Energy Convers. Manag.
**2016**, 120, 306–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Baccioli, A.; Antonelli, M.; Desideri, U.; Grossi, A. Thermodynamic and economic analysis of the integration of Organic Rankine Cycle and Multi-Effect Distillation in waste-heat recovery applications. Energy
**2018**, 161, 456–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Baniasad Askari, I.; Ameri, M. Techno Economic Feasibility Analysis of MED/TVC Desalination Unit Powered by Linear Fresnel Solar Field Direct Steam. Desalination
**2016**, 394, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Baniasad Askari, I.; Ameri, M. Solar Rankin Cycle (SRC) Powered by Linear Fresnel Solar Field and Integrated With Combined MED Desalination system. Renew. Energy
**2018**, 117, 52–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fichtner (Fichtner GmbH&Co. KG) and DLR (Deutsches Zentrum für Luft und Raumfahrt e.V.), MENA Regional Water Outlook, Part II, Desalination Using Renewable Energy, Task 1—Desalination Potential. 2011. Available online: http://www.dlr.de/tt/Portaldata/41/Resources/dokumente/institut/system/projects/MENA_REGIONAL_WATER_ OUTLOOK.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2019).
- Javadpour, A.; Jahanshahi Javaran, E.; Lari, K.; Baniasad Askari, I. Techno-economic analysis of combined gas turbine, MED and RO desalination systems to produce electricity and drinkable water. Desalin. Water Treat.
**2019**, 159, 232–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Patil, V.R.; Biradar, V.I.; Shreyas, R.; Garg, P.; Orosz, M.S.; Thirumalai, N.C. Techno-economic comparison of solar organic Rankine cycle (ORC) and photovoltaic (PV) systems with energy storage. Renew. Energy
**2017**, 113, 1250–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Awana, A.B.; Zubair, M.; Praveen, R.P.; Bhatti, A.R. Design and comparative analysis of photovoltaic and parabolic trough based CSP plants. Sol. Energy
**2019**, 183, 551–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Desideri, U.; Campana, P.E. Analysis and comparison between a concentrating solar And a photovoltaic power plant. Appl. Energy
**2014**, 113, 422–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - System Adviser Model (SAM), Version 2015.6.30. Available online: https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/ sam/help/html-php/index.html?linear_fresnel_system_costs.htm (accessed on 5 October 2019).
- Kelly, B.; Kearney, D. Parabolic Trough Solar System Piping Model Final Report, National Renewable Energy Laboratory Subcontract Report NREL/SR-550-40165, July 2006. Available online: Available electronically at http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/pdfs/40165.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2019).
- PTR70 Parabolic Trough Receiver, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Technical Report No. NREL/TP-550–45633. Available online: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/45633.pdf (accessed on 5 November 2019).
- Kouhikamali, R. Thermodynamic analysis of feed water pre-heaters in multiple effect distillation systems. Appl. Therm. Eng.
**2013**, 50, 1157–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Persian Gulf Seawater Salinity. Available online: http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/global_ncom/glb8_3b/html/pgulf.html (accessed on 10 November 2019).
- Persian Gulf seawater salinity. Available online: http://havajanah.ir/?page_id=924 (accessed on 8 November 2019).
- Calise, F.; Dentice d’Accadia, M.; Piacentino, A. A novel solar trigeneration system integrating PVT (photovoltaic/thermal collectors) and SW (seawater) desalination: Dynamic simulation and economic assessment. Energy
**2014**, 67, 129–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yu, H.; Gundersen, T.; Feng, X. Process integration of organic Rankine cycle (ORC) and heat pump for low temperature waste heat recovery. Energy
**2018**, 160, 330–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zheng, X.; Shi, R.; Wang, Y.; You, S.; Zhang, H.; Xia, J.; Wei, S. Mathematical modeling and performance analysis of an integrated solar heating and cooling system driven by parabolic trough collector and double-effect absorption chiller. Energy Build.
**2019**, 202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Underwood, C.P. Advances in Ground-Source Heat Pump Systems, 1st ed.; Woodhead: Cambridge, UK, 2016; pp. 387–421. [Google Scholar]
- Baniasad Askari, I.; Ameri, M. The Effect of fuel price on economic analysis of hybrid (photovoltaic/diesel/battery) systems in Iran. Energy Sources Part B Econ. Plan. Policy
**2011**, 11, 357–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Baniasad Askari, I.; Oukati Sadegh, M.; Ameri, M. Effect of heat storage and fuel price on energy management and economics of micro CCHP cogeneration systems. J. Mech. Sci. Technol.
**2014**, 28, 2003–2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Baniasad Askari, I.; Ameri, M. Optimal sizing of photovoltaic-battery power systems in a remote region in Kerman, Iran. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part A J. Power and Energy
**2009**, 223, 563–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Duffie, J.; Beckman, W. Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes, 2nd ed.; ASME: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Palenzuela, P.; Zaragoza, G.; Alarcon-Padilla, D.C. Characterisation of the coupling of multi-effect distillation plants to concentrating solar power plants. Energy
**2015**, 82, 986–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Loutatidou, S.; Arafat, H.A. Techno-economic analysis of MED and RO desalination powered by low enthalpy geothermal energy. Desalination
**2015**, 365, 277–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Electricity Incentive Policy in Iran. Available online: http://electricity%20and%20gas%20prices/Iran%20Solar%20Brochure.pdf (accessed on 12 November 2019).
- Eveloy, V.; Rodgers, P.; Qiu, L. Hybrid gas turbine–organic Rankine cycle for seawater desalination by reverse osmosis in a hydro carbon production facility. Energy Convers. Manag.
**2015**, 106, 1134–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Khosravi, A.; Syri, S.; Assad, M.E.H.; Malekan, M. Thermodynamic and Economic analysis of a hybrid ocean thermal energy conversion/photovoltaic system with hydrogen-based energy storage system. Energy
**2019**, 172, 304–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 2.**Scenario#2 (PV/CCH/RO (${\mathrm{PV}}_{\mathrm{PS}}$) grid-connected system without battery storage).

**Figure 7.**The daily required thermal load and solar thermal energy that is useful or wasted. NLs = 10, SF = 32.20%, WF = 0.62%.

**Figure 11.**the sensitivity of ${\mathrm{LCE}}_{\mathrm{sol}}$ and $\mathrm{LCE}$ to different cost parameters.

**Figure 12.**the sensitivity of ${\mathrm{LCW}}_{\mathrm{sol}}$ and $\mathrm{LCW}$ to different cost parameters.

**Figure 13.**The sensitivity of ${\mathrm{LCC}}_{\mathrm{sol}}$ and $\mathrm{LCC}$ to different cost parameters.

**Figure 15.**The daily solar electricity generated by the ${\mathrm{PV}}_{\mathrm{PS}}$ (7074 kW) and ${\mathrm{LF}}_{\mathrm{PS}}$ (6500 kW) systems for Bandar-Abbas with SF = 32.20%.

**Figure 18.**Cumulative electricity produced by ${\mathrm{LF}}_{\mathrm{PS}}$ and ${\mathrm{PV}}_{\mathrm{PS}}$.

**Table 1.**Specifications of different hybrid electricity, heating, cooling and fresh water systems that have been investigated in the previous studies.

Ref. | Technology/Temperature | Modelling/Review | Results | Applications |
---|---|---|---|---|

[10] | PVT and CPVT | Review | Please refer to paper | Electricity and heating |

[11] | PVT/ACH/Bat/NGB (50–60 °C) | Energy, economic, environmental | System payback time: 10.6–11.3 years | Electricity, space heating and cooling |

[12] | PTC/ORC and LF/ORC (Up to 400 °C) | Techno-economic assessment | PTC/ORC: 0.344–0.476 $/kWh, LF/ORC: 0.353–0.488 $/kWh | Electricity |

[13] | CPVT/Biomass/ACH/MED (90 °C) | Exergetic and exergo-economic analysis | Electricity: 0.042$\text{\u20ac}/\mathrm{kWh}$–0.268$\text{\u20ac}/\mathrm{kWh}$ Heating: 0.007$\text{\u20ac}/{\mathrm{kWh}}_{\mathrm{t}}$– 0.077$\text{\u20ac}/{\mathrm{kWh}}_{\mathrm{t}}$ Cooling: 0.008$\text{\u20ac}/{\mathrm{kWh}}_{\mathrm{t}}$– 0.086$\text{\u20ac}/{\mathrm{kWh}}_{\mathrm{t}}$ Fresh water: 1.7$\text{\u20ac}/{\mathrm{m}}^{3}$– 8$\text{\u20ac}/{\mathrm{m}}^{3}$ | Electricity, space heating, cooling and fresh water |

[14] | PTC/Geothermal/ACH/MED (160–200 °C) | Exergo-economic analysis | Electricity: 0.1475–0.1722 €/kWh, Cooling: 0.5695–0.6023$\text{\u20ac}/{\mathrm{kWh}}_{\mathrm{t}}$ Fresh water: 0.431–0.458$\text{\u20ac}/{\mathrm{m}}^{3}$. | Electricity, space heating, cooling and fresh water |

[15] | PTC/ORC (235–300 °C) | Energy and economic | ORC efficiency: 19.57–25.36% System Payback time: 9 years | Electricity: 1 MW |

[16] | ETC/ORC (230 °C) | Energy and economic | ORC efficiency: 10% System Payback time: 10 years | Electricity: 6 kW |

[17] | PTC/ORC nanoparticles with thermal oil (300 °C) | Technical Model | System efficiency = 20.11% and is improved by 1.75% using the Nano fluid in the ORC | Electricity: 167 kW |

[18] | Waste heat/PTC/ORC (150–300 °C) | Technical Model | System efficiency from 11.6–19.7% | Electricity: 479–845 kW |

[19] | EFPC ^{2}/ORC and EFPC/HP ^{3}(80–170 °C) | Energy and economic | System Payback: EFPC/ORC: 3.8 years EFPC/HP: 3.1 years | Electricity and heating |

[20] | PTC/ACH Single effect (90 °C) | Technical modeling | ACH COP: 0.66–0.76 | Cooling: 17.5 kW |

[21] | ACH (double effect parallel and series flows LiBr/${\mathrm{H}}_{2}\mathrm{O}$) (145–185 °C) | Technical modeling | ACH COP: 0.45–1.35 | The effects of generator $T$ and $\dot{m}$ inlet vapor on COP |

[22] | ETC/ACH (60–95 °C) | Techno economic assessment | Cooling energy cost: 0.0225$\text{\u20ac}/{\mathrm{kWh}}_{\mathrm{t}}$ | Cooling capacity: 900 kWh |

[23] | ETC/ACH (single effect LiBr/${\mathrm{H}}_{2}\mathrm{O}$) (Up to 90 °C) | Energy and economic analysis | Cooling energy: Abu Dhabi: 0.0575$\text{\u20ac}/{\mathrm{kWh}}_{\mathrm{t}}$, Rome: 0.2125$\text{\u20ac}/{\mathrm{kWh}}_{\mathrm{t}}$, Madrid: 0.1792$\text{\u20ac}/{\mathrm{kWh}}_{\mathrm{t}}$ Thessaloniki: 0.1771$\text{\u20ac}/{\mathrm{kWh}}_{\mathrm{t}}$ | Cooling in a building with 100${\text{}\mathrm{m}}^{2}$ floor area |

[24] | Waste heat/ACH/CCH/NGB (70–95 °C) | Thermo-economic | System Payback: 3.8–4.8 years COP: 0.7–0.8 | Electricity, space heating, cooling |

[25] | Solar-assisted/ACH (single and multi-effect) (70–240 °C | Review | Solar ACHs cannot compete economically with conventional cooling without government subsidies | Cooling |

[26] | CPVT/ACH or PVT/ACH (80–95 °C) | Modelling, review | System Payback: CPVT/ACH (6.1–6.9 years), PVT/ACH (21–29 years) | Electricity, heating, cooling |

[27] | PTC/ORC/ACH Single effect, LiBr/${\mathrm{H}}_{2}\mathrm{O}$ (235–360 °C) | Energy, exergy and economic | ACH COP: 0.57–0.85 Second law efficiency: 21.92–29.42% | Electricity and cooling |

[28] | CPC ^{4}/ACH/TES ^{5}single, double and variable effect LiBr/${\mathrm{H}}_{2}\mathrm{O}$ (90–160 °C) | Energy, Simulation | Average COP: 0.7–1.2 Solar efficiency: 10–24% Storage tank volume has an important effect on variable and double effect ACHs | Cooling |

[29] | CPVT ^{6}/ACH/PEM ^{7}/electrolyzer (100 °C) | Energy–exergy | Cooling: 0.0649$\text{\$}/{\mathrm{kWh}}_{\mathrm{t}}$ | Cooling and hydrogen |

[30] | ACH and CCH | Energy, economic | ACH energy demand > CCH energy demand ACH energy cost < CCH energy cost | Cooling |

[31] | Prime mover/NGB ^{8}/ACH and CCH | four-E analysis (energy, exergy, economy) | System Payback: 5.1 years Exergy efficiency of ACH: 41.9% for grid on mode and 32.7% for grid off mode | Electricity, heating and cooling (900–5600 kW) |

[32] | CPVT/ACH/PEM Fuel Cell (50–90 °C) | Energy economic | The results are in terms of: Payback time, energy and economic efficiencies and utilization factor | heating, cooling, DHW electricity, hydrogen, oxygen |

[33] | PTC/SRC ^{9}/ACH/MED/TES/process heat (373 °C) | energy- economic | Electricity: 0.1058–0.1220$\text{\$}/\mathrm{kWh}$, Heating: 0.018$-$0.03$\text{\$}/{\mathrm{kWh}}_{\mathrm{t}}$, Cooling: 0.036–0.055$\text{\$}/{\mathrm{kWh}}_{\mathrm{t}}$, fresh water: 2.746–4.035$\text{\$}/{\mathrm{m}}^{3}$ | Electricity, heating, cooling, fresh water |

[34] | Diesel/PV/Wind/Bat | Techno-economic | Electricity: Off-grid systems = 9.3–12.6 $\u20b5$/kWh On-grid/Bat system = 5.7–8.4 $\u20b5$/kWh | Electricity |

[35] | LF/SRC/MED (395 °C) | Techno-economic | Electricity: 0.15–0.23$\text{\$}/\mathrm{kWh}$, fresh water: 1.42–1.78$\text{\$}/{\mathrm{m}}^{3}$ | Electricity and heating |

[36] | LF/SRC/MED and LF/SRC/RO (373 °C) | Exergo-economic | Electricity: 0.15–0.20 $/kWh, Fresh water: 1.42$\text{\$}/{\mathrm{m}}^{3}$–2.38$\text{\$}/{\mathrm{m}}^{3}$ | Electricity and fresh water |

[37] | LF/SRC/MED and LF/SRC/RO (384 °C) | Techno-economic | For TES = 7.5 h: Electricity and fresh water: 0.19 $/kWh and 1.66$\text{\$}/{\text{}\mathrm{m}}^{3}$ for LF/SRC/MED And 0.23 $/kWh 1.84$\text{\$}/{\mathrm{m}}^{3}$ for PTC/SRC/MED | Electricity and fresh water |

[38] | PV/Air source HP, PV/FPC/Water source HP and PVT/FPC/Water source HP (70 °C) | Energy and economic | PV/Air source heat pump is more suitable than PVT/FPC/Water source heat pump if the electricity cost would be up to 0.23 €/kWh | Space heating |

[39] | Waste heat/ORC/MED (200 °C) | Thermo-economic | Electricity: 0.04–0.12 $/kWh and Fresh water:0.8–1.8$\text{\$}/{\mathrm{m}}^{3}$ for production capacities of 500–2000${\text{}\mathrm{m}}^{3}/\mathrm{day}$ | Electricity and fresh water |

[40] | LF/MED/TVC/TES (256–520 °C) | Techno- economic | Fresh water: 1.63$\$/{\mathrm{m}}^{3}$–3.32$\$/{\mathrm{m}}^{3}$ for fresh water rate of 9000${\text{}\mathrm{m}}^{3}/\mathrm{day}$ | Fresh water |

[41] | LF/SRC/MED (390 °C) | Techno-economic | Electricity: 0.16–0.23 $/kWh and Fresh water: 1.85–2.21$\text{}\$/{\mathrm{m}}^{3}$ for production capacities of 100,000${\text{}\mathrm{m}}^{3}/\mathrm{day}$ | Electricity and fresh water |

[42] | PTC/SRC/MED PTC/SRC/RO (377 °C) | Techno-economic | Electricity: 0.21–0.24 $/kWh and Fresh water: 1.82–2.11$\text{\$}/{\mathrm{m}}^{3}$ for 100,000${\text{}\mathrm{m}}^{3}/\mathrm{day}$ | Electricity and fresh water |

[43] | GT/MED/TVC/RO (120–354 °C) | Techno-economic | Electricity: 0.018–0.02 $/kWh and Fresh water: 0.5–0.7$\text{}\$/{\mathrm{m}}^{3}$ for 2000–5000${\text{}\mathrm{m}}^{3}/\mathrm{day}$ | Electricity and fresh water |

^{1}Flat plate collector;

^{2}Evacuated flat plate collector;

^{3}Heat pump;

^{4}Compound parabolic concentrator;

^{5}Thermal energy storage;

^{6}Concentration photovoltaic thermal collector;

^{7}Proton exchange membrane electrolyser;

^{8}Natural gas boiler;

^{9}Solar Rankine cycle.

${\mathrm{T}}_{\mathrm{in},\mathrm{Chw},\mathrm{rated},\mathrm{ACH}}$ Inlet chilled water rated temperature | 12 °C |

Chilled water set-point temperature | 7 °C |

${\mathrm{T}}_{\mathrm{in},\mathrm{cool},\mathrm{rated},\mathrm{ACH}}$ Inlet cooling water rated temperature | 30 °C |

${\mathrm{T}}_{\mathrm{out},\mathrm{cool},\mathrm{rated},\mathrm{ACH}}$Outlet cooling water rated temperature | 35 °C |

${\mathrm{T}}_{\mathrm{in},\mathrm{hot},\mathrm{rated},\mathrm{ACH}}$Inlet hot water rated temperature for ACH operation | 180 °C |

${\mathrm{T}}_{\mathrm{out},\mathrm{hot},\mathrm{rated},\mathrm{ACH}}$Outlet hot water rated temperature for ACH operation | 70 °C |

Chilled water flowrate (pump P3) | 359 kg/s |

Cooling water flow rate (pump P2) | 780 kg/s |

Hot water flow rate (pump P1) | 2.64 kg/s |

COP | 1.2 |

Rated cooling capacity | 7500 kW |

Rated Heat Input | 6250 kW |

$\mathbf{L}\mathbf{C}{\mathbf{H}}_{\mathbf{s}\mathbf{o}\mathbf{l}}$ $\left(\frac{\mathbf{\$}}{\mathbf{k}\mathbf{W}{\mathbf{h}}_{\mathbf{t}}}\right)$ | $\mathbf{L}\mathbf{C}{\mathbf{H}}_{\mathbf{f}\mathbf{u}\mathbf{e}\mathbf{l}}$ $\left(\frac{\mathbf{\$}}{\mathbf{k}\mathbf{W}{\mathbf{h}}_{\mathbf{t}}}\right)$ | $\mathbf{L}\mathbf{C}\mathbf{H}$ $\left(\frac{\mathbf{\$}}{\mathbf{k}\mathbf{W}{\mathbf{h}}_{\mathbf{t}}}\right)$ | $\mathbf{L}\mathbf{C}{\mathbf{C}}_{\mathbf{s}\mathbf{o}\mathbf{l}}$ $\left(\frac{\mathbf{\$}}{\mathbf{k}\mathbf{W}{\mathbf{h}}_{\mathbf{t}}}\right)$ | $\mathbf{L}\mathbf{C}{\mathbf{C}}_{\mathbf{f}\mathbf{u}\mathbf{e}\mathbf{l}}$ $\left(\frac{\mathbf{\$}}{\mathbf{k}\mathbf{W}{\mathbf{h}}_{\mathbf{t}}}\right)$ | $\mathbf{L}\mathbf{C}\mathbf{C}$ $\left(\frac{\mathbf{\$}}{\mathbf{k}\mathbf{W}{\mathbf{h}}_{\mathbf{t}}}\right)$ | $\mathbf{L}\mathbf{C}{\mathbf{E}}_{\mathbf{s}\mathbf{o}\mathbf{l}}$ $\left(\frac{\mathbf{\$}}{\mathbf{k}\mathbf{W}\mathbf{h}}\right)$ | $\mathbf{L}\mathbf{C}{\mathbf{E}}_{\mathbf{f}\mathbf{u}\mathbf{e}\mathbf{l}}$ $\left(\frac{\mathbf{\$}}{\mathbf{k}\mathbf{W}\mathbf{h}}\right)$ | $\mathbf{L}\mathbf{C}\mathbf{E}$ $\left(\frac{\mathbf{\$}}{\mathbf{k}\mathbf{W}\mathbf{h}}\right)$ | $\mathbf{L}\mathbf{C}{\mathbf{W}}_{\mathbf{s}\mathbf{o}\mathbf{l}}$ $\left(\frac{\mathbf{\$}}{{\mathbf{m}}^{3}}\right)$ | $\mathbf{L}\mathbf{C}{\mathbf{W}}_{\mathbf{f}\mathbf{u}\mathbf{e}\mathbf{l}}$ $\left(\frac{\mathbf{\$}}{{\mathbf{m}}^{3}}\right)$ | $\mathbf{L}\mathbf{C}\mathbf{W}$ $\left(\frac{\mathbf{\$}}{{\mathbf{m}}^{3}}\right)$ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

0.013 | 0.003 | 0.006 | 0.083 | 0.037 | 0.051 | 0.249 | 0.228 | 0.218 | 2.540 | 1.268 | 1.67 |

**Table 4.**Multiple values used to increase or decrease of the first cost assumptions that are shown in Table A3.

Solar Field | ORC | Fuel | ACH | MED | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Cost ($/m^{2}) | Value | Cost ($/kW) | Value | Cost ($/m^{3}) | Value | $\mathbf{Cos}\mathbf{t}\text{}(\mathbf{\$}/\mathbf{k}{\mathbf{W}}_{\mathbf{c}})$ | Value | Cost ($/m^{3}) | Value |

125 | 0.64 | 2000 | 0.57 | 0.03 | 1.00 | 262 | 0.72 | 1040 | 0.84 |

135 | 0.69 | 2250 | 0.64 | 0.105 | 3.50 | 282 | 0.78 | 1140 | 0.92 |

145 | 0.74 | 2500 | 0.71 | 0.21 | 7.00 | 302 | 0.83 | 1240 | 1.00 |

155 | 0.79 | 2750 | 0.79 | ------ | ------ | 322 | 0.89 | 1340 | 1.08 |

165 | 0.85 | 3000 | 0.86 | ------ | ------ | 342 | 0.94 | 1440 | 1.16 |

175 | 0.90 | 3250 | 0.93 | ------ | ------ | 362 | 1.00 | 1540 | 1.24 |

185 | 0.95 | 3500 | 1.00 | ------ | ------ | 382 | 1.06 | 1640 | 1.32 |

195 | 1.00 | 3750 | 1.07 | ------ | ------ | 402 | 1.11 | 1740 | 1.40 |

205 | 1.05 | 4000 | 1.14 | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | 1840 | 1.48 |

Parameter | Khormaksar | Masirah | Bandar-Abbas | Bushehr |
---|---|---|---|---|

Latitude & Longitude | ${12.81}^{\mathrm{o}}\mathrm{E},\text{}$ ${45.03}^{\mathrm{o}}\text{}\mathrm{N}$ | ${20.31}^{\mathrm{o}}\mathrm{E},\text{}$ ${58.69}^{\mathrm{o}}\text{}\mathrm{N}$ | ${26.53}^{\mathrm{o}}\mathrm{E},\text{}$ ${53.96}^{\mathrm{o}}\text{}\mathrm{N}$ | ${28.92}^{\mathrm{o}}\mathrm{E},\text{}$ ${50.82}^{\mathrm{o}}\text{}\mathrm{N}$ |

GHI (kWh/m^{2}/year) | 2186 | 1879 | 1858 | 1718 |

DNI (kWh/m^{2}/year) | 1933 | 1514 | 1462 | 1350 |

NGB rated capacity (MW) | 51.23 | 51.23 | 51.23 | 51.23 |

ORC rated power (MW) | 6.50 | 6.50 | 6.50 | 6.50 |

Natural gas price ($/m^{3}) | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 |

ACH cooling capacity (${\mathrm{MW}}_{\mathrm{t}}$) | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7.5 |

MED capacity (m^{3}/day) | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 |

Project life time (years) | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 |

LF mass flow rate (kg/s) | 25.73 | 25.73 | 25.73 | 25.73 |

LF output Temperature ( °C) | 185 | 185 | 185 | 185 |

DNI (kWh/m^{2}/year) | 1933 | 1514 | 1462 | 1350 |

Solar field area (km^{2}) | 0.057 | 0.057 | 0.060 | 0.060 |

SF (%) | 32.11 | 28.43 | 32.20 | 28.34 |

WF (%) | 0.86 | 0.56 | 0.64 | 1.00 |

${\mathrm{LCH}}_{\mathrm{sol}\text{}}\left(\$/{\mathrm{kWh}}_{\mathrm{t}}\right)$ | 0.010 | 0.0128 | 0.0133 | 0.0144 |

$\mathrm{LCH}\text{}\left(\$/{\mathrm{kWh}}_{\mathrm{t}}\right)$ | 0.0052 | 0.0057 | 0.0063 | 0.0062 |

${\mathrm{LCC}}_{\mathrm{sol}\text{}}\left(\$/{\mathrm{kWh}}_{\mathrm{t}}\right)$ | 0.0807 | 0.0924 | 0.0832 | 0.0940 |

$\mathrm{LCC}\text{}\left(\$/{\mathrm{kWh}}_{\mathrm{t}}\right)$ | 0.0508 | 0.0514 | 0.0517 | 0.0516 |

${\mathrm{LCE}}_{\mathrm{sol}\text{}}\left(\$/{\mathrm{kWh}}_{\mathrm{t}}\right)$ | 0.1997 | 0.2457 | 0.2492 | 0.2558 |

$\mathrm{LCE}\text{}\left(\$/{\mathrm{kWh}}_{\mathrm{t}}\right)$ | 0.2168 | 0.2325 | 0.2186 | 0.2370 |

${\mathrm{LCW}}_{\mathrm{sol}}\text{}\left(\$/{\mathrm{kWh}}_{\mathrm{t}}\right)$ | 2.212 | 2.605 | 2.540 | 2.748 |

$\mathrm{LCW}\text{}\left(\$/{\mathrm{kWh}}_{\mathrm{t}}\right)$ | 1.578 | 1.643 | 1.678 | 1.685 |

Total fuel saving ($\times {10}^{8}{\text{}\mathrm{m}}^{3}/\mathrm{yr}$) | 3.22 | 2.85 | 3.22 | 2.84 |

Total CO_{2} emissions ($\times {10}^{3}$ tons/yr) | 11.87 | 12.51 | 11.85 | 12.53 |

Total capital cost (M$) | 38.97 | 38.97 | 40.57 | 40.57 |

Parameter | Value |
---|---|

Nominal efficiency | 15% |

Max Power | 270.3 W$\mathrm{dc}$ |

Module length/width | 1.66 m/1 m |

Max power voltage/Max power current | 31.8 V$\mathrm{dc}$/8.5 A$\mathrm{dc}$ |

Open Circuit Voltage/Short Circuit Current | 38.5 V$\mathrm{dc}$/9 A$\mathrm{dc}$ |

Temperature Coefficient of Power (${\mathsf{\alpha}}_{\mathrm{TP}}$) | −0.454/ °C |

Nameplate capacity of the plant | 6500 kW |

Number of PV modules | 24,074 |

Inverter Total capacity | 5416 kW |

Location | Khormaksar | Masirah | Bandar-Abbas | Bushehr | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

SF (%) | 32.11 | 28.43 | 32.20 | 28.34 | ||||

Scenario | ${\mathrm{LF}}_{\mathrm{PS}}$ | ${\mathrm{PV}}_{\mathrm{PS}}$ | ${\mathrm{LF}}_{\mathrm{PS}}$ | ${\mathrm{PV}}_{\mathrm{PS}}$ | ${\mathrm{LF}}_{\mathrm{PS}}$ | ${\mathrm{PV}}_{\mathrm{PS}}$ | ${\mathrm{LF}}_{\mathrm{PS}}$ | ${\mathrm{PV}}_{\mathrm{PS}}$ |

PV/ORC (MW) | 6.500 | 7.331 | 6.500 | 6.853 | 6.500 | 7.074 | 6.500 | 7.609 |

${\mathrm{LCE}}_{\mathrm{sol}}\text{}\left(\$/{\mathrm{kWh}}_{\mathrm{t}}\right)$ | 0.1997 | 0.1426 | 0.2457 | 0.163 | 0.2492 | 0.169 | 0.2558 | 0.181 |

${\mathrm{LCW}}_{\mathrm{sol}}\text{}\left(\$/{\mathrm{kWh}}_{\mathrm{t}}\right)$ | 2.212 | 1.484 | 2.605 | 1.645 | 2.540 | 1.588 | 2.748 | 1.718 |

${\mathrm{LCC}}_{\mathrm{sol}}\text{}\left(\$/{\mathrm{kWh}}_{\mathrm{t}}\right)$ | 0.0807 | 0.1175 | 0.0924 | 0.1335 | 0.0832 | 0.1261 | 0.0940 | 0.1396 |

Solar electricity $\left(\mathrm{GWh}/\mathrm{yr}\right)$ | 14.517 | 14.517 | 11.831 | 11.831 | 11.812 | 11.812 | 11.862 | 11.862 |

LF mirror or PV area (ha) | 5.34 | 4.51 | 5.34 | 4.21 | 6.00 | 4.35 | 6.00 | 4.68 |

Total solar field land area (ha) | 7.20 | 5.40 | 7.20 | 9.05 | 8.10 | 10.56 | 8.10 | 13.56 |

$\mathrm{F}$(%) | 74.07 | 83.49 | 74.07 | 57.52 | 74.07 | 41.17 | 74.07 | 34.70 |

$\mathrm{CUF}$ | 0.25 | 0.23 | 0.21 | 0.20 | 0.21 | 0.19 | 0.21 | 0.18 |

${\mathsf{\eta}}_{\mathrm{se}}$(%) | 14.06 | 14.73 | 14.63 | 14.95 | 13.47 | 14.62 | 14.64 | 14.76 |

$\mathrm{IRR}$(%) | 13.05 | 13.39 | 13.09 | 13.36 | 13.01 | 13.38 | 13.11 | 13.37 |

Total capital cost (M$) | 38.97 | 27.39 | 38.97 | 25.81 | 40.57 | 26.54 | 40.57 | 28.30 |

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Askari, I.B.; Calise, F.; Vicidomini, M.
Design and Comparative Techno-Economic Analysis of Two Solar Polygeneration Systems Applied for Electricity, Cooling and Fresh Water Production. *Energies* **2019**, *12*, 4401.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en12224401

**AMA Style**

Askari IB, Calise F, Vicidomini M.
Design and Comparative Techno-Economic Analysis of Two Solar Polygeneration Systems Applied for Electricity, Cooling and Fresh Water Production. *Energies*. 2019; 12(22):4401.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en12224401

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Askari, Ighball Baniasad, Francesco Calise, and Maria Vicidomini.
2019. "Design and Comparative Techno-Economic Analysis of Two Solar Polygeneration Systems Applied for Electricity, Cooling and Fresh Water Production" *Energies* 12, no. 22: 4401.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en12224401