Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 631–645

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

Design optimization and sensitivity analysis of a biomass-fired combined MARK

cooling, heating and power system with thermal energy storage systems
⁎
Martina Calianoa, , Nicola Biancoa, Giorgio Graditib, Luigi Mongibellob
a
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Industriale (DII), Università di Napoli Federico II, Napoli, Italy
b
ENEA, Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, Portici Research Center, Portici (NA), Italy

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

Keywords: In this work, an operation strategy for a biomass-fired combined cooling, heating and power system, composed
Biomass of a cogeneration unit, an absorption chiller, and a thermal energy storage system, is formulated in order to
Combined Cooling, Heating and Power (CCHP) satisfy time-varying energy demands of an Italian cluster of residential multi-apartment buildings. This operation
system strategy is adopted for performing the economical optimization of the design of two of the devices composing the
Feasible investment cost
combined cooling, heating and power system, namely the absorption chiller and the storage system. A sensitivity
Thermal energy storage
analysis is carried out in order to evaluate the impact of the incentive for the electricity generation on the
Sensitivity analysis
Cold thermal energy storage optimized results, and also to evaluate, separately, the effects of the variation of the absorption chiller size, and
Design optimization the effects of the variation of the thermal energy storage system size on the system performance. In addition, the
inclusion into the system of a cold thermal energy storage system is analyzed, as well, assuming different
possible values for the cold storage system cost. The results of the sensitivity analysis indicate that the most
influencing factors from the economical point of view are represented by the incentive for the electricity gen-
eration and the absorption chiller power. Results also show that the combined use of a thermal energy storage
and of a cold thermal energy storage during the hot season could represent a viable solution from the economical
point of view.

1. Introduction their performance in comparison to stand-alone conventional systems.

Biomass, particularly wood, used for heating, cooling and electricity
generation is one of the biggest source of renewable energy in the EU
and is expected to have a key role in the achievement of the 20% EU
renewable energy target by 2020. Moreover, a sustainable use of bio-
mass can give a great contribution in addressing concerns about climate
change and security of energy supply, also supporting economic growth
and development [1]. In the residential sector, biomass is usually used
to feed small-scale stoves. However, its use in Combined Heat and
Power (CHP) plants is demonstrated to have substantial benefits with
respect to biomass-fired systems providing separate generation of
power and heat, and its expansion is further promoted by the EU energy
efficiency directive [2].
In the last years, many authors have studied biomass-based poly-
generation systems, conducting economic, energetic and exergetic
analyses, also aimed at the evaluation of such systems performance
with respect to systems for separate generation. Maraver et al. [3,4]
presented a review on the technologies involved in biomass-fired
Combined Cooling Heat and Power (CCHP) systems, also evaluating
Huang et al. [5] analyzed the technical and economic performances of a
small-scale biomass-fuelled CCHP plant using an organic Rankine cycle
to provide electricity and heat for building use. Harrod et al. [6]
evaluated the cost and energy savings obtained by using a biomass-fired
Stirling engine as a part of a CCHP system for building use. Calise et al.
[7] simulated dynamically and investigated a polygeneration system
where a reciprocating engine fed by vegetable oil was included. Pfeifer
et al. [8] investigated the feasibility of CHP facilities fuelled by biomass
in the Republic of Croatia, by considering several costs of biomass, and
investment costs of the CHP systems. Gholamian et al. [9] performed a
comprehensive thermodynamic modeling and environmental impact
assessment for a CHP plant, composed of a wood biomass-fuelled gas
turbine and a S-CO2 cycle coupled with a domestic water heater. Bor-
sukiewicz-Gozdur et al. [10] analyzed three variants of the same CHP
plant based on organic Rankine cycle and fuelled with sawmill waste, in
Poland. Amirante and Tamburrano [11] analyzed the use of small
combined cycles for simultaneous generation of heat and power from
the external combustion of solid biomass and low quality biofuels.
Wang et al. [12] analyzed the performance of a biomass CCHP system

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: martina.caliano@enea.it (M. Caliano).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.07.048
Received 20 April 2017; Received in revised form 17 July 2017; Accepted 23 July 2017
0196-8904/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Caliano et al. Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 631–645

Nomenclature DHW domestic hot water

dumped energy dumped
C capacity (kWh) EC electrical chillers
E energy (kWh) el electric
ES economic saving (€) LHV lower heat value
F cash flow (€) max maximum
FIC feasible investment cost (€) sent relative to the electricity released to the grid
FP feed-in premium (€/MWh) surplus thermal energy surplus
FT feed-in tariff (€/MWh) taken relative to the electricity taken from the grid
I investment cost (€) TES thermal energy storage
j years th thermal
Lf loss factor (%) user user
OEB operational economic balance (€)
ObjF objective function Superscripts
OM operation and maintenance cost (€)
P power (kW) ∗ solution of the 2-variables optimization problem
PES Primary Energy Saving index ″ relative to non-dimensional variables
UHEV useful heat economic value (€/kWh)
UHF useful heat fraction Acronyms

Symbols AB Auxiliary Boiler

AC Absorption Chiller
η efficiency AH Ambient Heating
CCHP Combined Cooling, Heat and Power
Subscripts CHP Combined Heat and Power
COP Coefficient of Performance
AB auxiliary boilers CTES Cold Thermal Energy Storage
AC absorption chiller DHW Domestic Hot Water
biom referred to biomass DTL Distribution Thermal Losses
c referred to cooling EC Electrical Chiller
CHP combined heat and power RES Renewable Energy Sources
cost cost (€/kWh) TES Thermal Energy Storage
CTES cold energy storage system

in three different operating conditions: summer, winter, and the tran-
sitional seasons. In another work, Wang et al. [13] conducted cost al-
location and sensitivity analysis of the CCHP system integrated with
biomass gasification based on exergoeconomic methodology. Campor-
eale et al. [14] analyzed and compared, from the economic and en-
ergetic points of view, three operation strategies for a CHP plant fired
by a mix of biomass and natural gas, to serve a residential demand. Bai
et al. [15] analyzed the thermodynamic and economic performances of
a polygeneration system based on the thermal gasification of cotton
stalk by concentrated solar power. Li et al. [16] analyzed a cogenera-
tion system coupling biomass partial gasification and ground source
heat pump. Vakalis et al. [17] have recently introduced an integrated
efficiency index that can be used to compare the thermodynamic per-
formances of different polygeneration systems based on small-scale
biomass gasifiers.
As many researches pointed out, optimization of polygeneration
systems design and operational strategy is crucial to improve energy
efficiency and to reduce overall energy costs and greenhouse gas
emissions. Ahmadi et al. [18] analyzed and optimized a complex multi-
generation system considering as objectives the total cost rate mini-
mization and the exergy efficiency maximization. Shaneb et al. [19]
proposed an online approach for the operation optimization of micro-
CHP systems. Fuentes-Cortés et al. [20] minimized the cost and the
environmental impact of two residential users in Mexico. Li et al. [21]
optimized the design and the operation strategy of a CCHP system from
the energetic, economic, and environmental viewpoints, for hotels, of-
fices and residential buildings in Dalian (China). Mongibello et al. [22]
and Caliano et al. [23] introduced a novel full-load heat-driven op-
eration strategy for natural gas-fired CHP systems, evaluating economic
and environmental benefits of such approach. In another work,
Mongibello et al. [24] compared two different operation strategies for
residential CHP systems, i.e. heat dumping and load partialization, by
conducting an economic optimization and an environmental analysis.
Franco et al. [25] defined an optimal operational strategy for CHP
plants connected to civil/residential district heating networks, based on
a multi-objective approach. Several studies on operation and design
optimization of biomass-fuelled polygeneration systems have been
published in the last years. Lund et al. [26] presented an optimal design
methodology for small CHP plants in Danish market in which the plant
size was optimized against various electricity prices. Taljan et al. [27]
optimized economically the operation of a biomass CHP plant and the
heat storage system. Noussan et al. [28] found out the optimal con-
figuration of a biomass-fired CHP system with thermal energy storage
from the economic and energetic points of view. Recently, many studies
have been also focused on real-time management and dynamic opti-
mization of smart polygeneration systems, taking into account the
fluctuations occurring at the supply side and/or at the demand one, as
the works of Powell et al. [29] and Rossi et al. [30]. Dominković et al.
[31] developed an optimization model for combining biomass trigen-
eration energy system and pit thermal energy storage for the Croatian
market.
This paper presents the operation strategy for biomass-fired CCHP
systems formulated to satisfy the time-varying energy demands of an
Italian cluster of residential multi-apartment buildings. The results of
the design optimization of two devices composing the system, namely
the absorption chiller and the thermal energy storage system, per-
formed by implementing the developed operation strategy are shown
and discussed. Furthermore, the impact of the incentive for the elec-
tricity generation on the optimized results is also analyzed. Finally, the
optimized results obtained including a cold storage system into the

632
M. Caliano et al.
CCHP system, and assuming different possible values for the cold sto-
rage system cost, are presented and discussed.
The main novel contribution of the present work is represented by
the results of the optimization analysis relative to the combined use of a
thermal energy storage and a cold thermal energy storage during the
hot season.
Thermal energy storage can play a major role in many energetic
systems. In solar systems, thermal energy storage permits to mitigate a
mismatch between the energy demand and the availability of the en-
ergy source. In CHP and CCHP systems, apart from addressing mis-
matches between the energy demand and supply, thermal energy sto-
rage allows to concentrate the electricity generation during on-peak
hours, when generally the selling price is higher, storing the thermal
energy for a later use. Furthermore, in air conditioning systems driven
by conventional electrical reversible heat pumps, the adoption of
thermal energy storage permits the shifting of the electric demand fully
or partially from on-peak hours to off-peak ones. This generally implies
a reduction of the operating and equipment costs, since thermal energy
storage allows a reduction of the equipment size, and to have longer
operating hours of equipment at full load. Nevertheless, in general, the
use of thermal energy storage systems also presents some drawbacks,
namely high initial costs, complicated operation, maintenance, and
control, and high encumbrance [32,33].
Typically, the combined use of hot water and cold water storages is
implemented in polygeneration systems driven by solar systems, such as
the ones investigated by Calise et al. [34,35], who in both the works
performed a parametric analysis in order to evaluate the impact of the
storage systems attributes on the system performance, and the one
analyzed by Noro et al. [36], who also considered the use of phase
change materials as storage media. Indeed, in previous studies, tri-
generation systems with energy storage, in which, as in the present
work, the cooling energy is generated by an absorption chiller fed by
using the heat recovered from a prime mover burning fuels, such as
natural gas and biomass, include only one typology of thermal energy
storage, as in works of Farahnak et al. [37], Huang et al. [38], Martinez-
Lera et al. [39], and Stanek et al. [40], where a thermal energy storage
system is used, or as in the works of Jiang et al. [41], Lai and Hui [42],
and Song et al. [43], where a cold thermal energy storage system is
employed. This is explained considering for example that, in case a
thermal energy storage is present, these systems can allow to store hot
water at a relatively high temperature (90–95 °C in order to avoid the
use of pressurized tanks), so that the absorption chiller can be also fed
by using the stored heat without a sensible decrease of its performance.
Nevertheless, later in this paper, it is shown that the combined use
during the hot season of a thermal energy system and a cold thermal
energy storage system in residential biomass-fired CCHP plants can
increase the percentage of useful heat relative to the total thermal en-
ergy production of the CCHP system, and could represent a viable so-
lution from the economical point of view.
2. Combined cooling, heating and power system
This section reports the layout of the considered CCHP system, and
describes the approach adopted as concerns the operation of the system
components. The first subsections regard the basic configuration of the
CCHP system, namely the configuration without the cold thermal en-
ergy storage. The system operation, when a the cold thermal energy
storage is present, is analyzed at the end of the section.
2.1. Basic system description
The basic layout of the CCHP system considered in the present work
is shown in Fig. 1. It is composed of a biomass-fuelled CHP unit, an
absorption chiller (AC), and a thermal energy storage (TES) system,
providing electricity, heat, and cooling to an Italian cluster of re-
sidential multi-apartment buildings. Auxiliary systems, namely natural
633
Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 631–645
gas boilers (AB) and electrical chillers (EC), are also included into the
system in order to integrate the CHP and absorption chiller generations.
According to the scheme of Fig. 1, the CHP unit provides electricity
to the external grid and heat for the domestic hot water (DHW) demand
over the entire year. During the cold season, it also provides heat for the
ambient heating (AH) demand, while during the hot season, the
thermal energy generated by the CHP unit is also used to provide
cooling by the absorption chiller.
The thermal energy storage system is included in order to store the
CHP unit heat generation surplus with respect to the heat demand for a
later use.
2.2. Operation strategy and modeling
An hourly-based operation strategy of the system has been im-
plemented in a numerical code written in Matlab, in order to evaluate
the annual economic savings that can be obtained by using the CCHP
system with respect to the separate generation of electricity, heat and
cooling, considered made by centralized power plants, natural gas
boilers and electrical chillers, respectively. It is assumed that the CHP
unit operates continuously for the entire year, and that there is not
electricity self-consumption, namely, that all the produced electricity is
fed into the grid. This choice, that depends on the Italian RES subsidy
rules [44], according to which, only the electricity from biomass fed
into the grid is subject to a feed-in tariff, will be analytically justified
later in the paper in Section 3.2.4. Therefore, the total electrical de-
mand of the user is considered covered by the external grid.
The CHP unit thermal (Eth,CHP(h)) and electrical (Eel,CHP(h)) gen-
erations, for each hour of the year (h), are:
Eth,CHP (h) = Pth,CHP ·h (1)
Eel,CHP (h) = Pel,CHP ·h (2)
where Pth,CHP and Pel,CHP are the CHP unit thermal and electrical power,
respectively. The electricity sent to (Eel,sent(h)) and taken from the grid
(Eel,taken(h)), for each hour of the year, are:
Eel,sent (h) = Eel,CHP (h) (3)
Eel,taken (h) = electricaldemand (h) (4)
2.2.1. Implementation model in the cold and intermediate seasons
During the cold season and the intermediate ones, the operation
strategy implementation model is practically the same, the only one
difference is the user heat demand, that during the intermediate seasons
consists in the domestic hot water demand only, whereas during the
cold one consists in the domestic hot water and space heating demands.
Fig. 1. Layout of the CCHP plant.
M. Caliano et al. Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 631–645

Therefore, in the following, the variable heat_demand(h) will refer to heat demand (h)
CTES (h) = CTES (h−1)−⎛⎜ −Eth,CHP (h)⎞⎟
space heating and domestic hot water thermal energy demand, if cold 1−Lf (5)
⎝ ⎠
season is considered; to domestic hot water thermal energy demand, for
the intermediate seasons. As concerns the thermal modeling of the where Lf is the loss factor taking into account thermal losses relative to
CCHP system, this is accomplished by evaluating three parameters at thermal energy distribution, considered equal to the 16% of the energy
each operation hour, represented by the capacity of the TES (CTES(h)), delivered to the user [45].
the auxiliary boilers generation (EAB(h)), and the thermal energy gen- In the second subcase, the storage system is emptied (CTES(h)
erated by the CHP unit in excess with respect to sum of the heat demand = 0), and EAB(h) is evaluated as follows:
and the energy required to fill the TES (Eth,dumped(h)). Fig. 2 shows the
EAB (h) = heat demand (h)−(Eth,CHP (h) + CTES (h))·(1−Lf ) (6)
block diagram relative to the CCHP system operation in the cold and
intermediate seasons, implemented on an hourly basis, while the ana-
lytical description of the operation strategy for the different cases that
2.2.1.2. Case 2. Cogeneration unit thermal energy generation higher than or
can occur at each operation hour is reported in the following subsec-
equal to the sum of heat demand and distribution thermal losses.
tions.
In this case EAB(h) is zero, and there are the following two subcases:

(1) the thermal energy generated by the CHP is also higher than the
2.2.1.1. Case 1. Cogeneration unit thermal energy generation lower than the
sum of heat demand, DTL and the energy necessary to fill the sto-
heat demand.
rage, evaluated as the difference of its maximum capacity (CTES,max)
In this case, the dumped thermal energy Eth,dumped(h) is zero, and there
and CTES(h − 1);
are two possibilities or subcases:
(2) the CHP unit thermal energy generation is lower than or equal to
the sum of heat demand, DTL and the energy necessary to fill the
(1) the sum of heat demand and the distribution thermal losses (DTL) is
storage.
lower than or equal to the sum of the CHP unit thermal energy
generation and the thermal energy in the storage;
In the first subcase, the thermal energy in excess is dumped and
(2) the sum of heat demand and DTL is higher than the sum of the CHP
evaluated as follows:
unit thermal energy generation and the thermal energy in the sto-
rage. heat demand (h)
Eth,dumped (h) = Eth,CHP (h)−⎜⎛ + (CTES,max−CTES (h−1))⎞⎟
⎝ 1−Lf ⎠
In the first subcase, the heat demand is covered by the CHP unit
(7)
and the TES system, EAB(h) is zero, and the TES capacity is updated and
evaluated as follows: and the TES system is filled (CTES(h) = CTES,max).
In the second subcase, Eth,dumped(h) is zero, while CTES(h) is

Fig. 2. Block diagram relative to the CCHP system operation in the cold and intermediate seasons.

634
M. Caliano et al. Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 631–645

updated as follows: the heat demand. Then, the residual available thermal energy, if pre-
sent, can be used for cooling generation. Furthermore, it is also assumed
heat demand (h)
CTES (h) = CTES (h−1) + Eth,CHP (h)− that the absorption chiller cooling energy generation can be in excess
1−Lf (8) with respect to the cooling demand only when the absorption chiller is
fed without using the thermal energy stored, namely, when the ab-
sorption chiller is fed only by the surplus heat produced by the CHP
2.2.2. Implementation model in the hot season
system. Furthermore, it is also assumed that the absorption chiller
During the hot season, there are six variables parameters re-
cooling generation cannot be lower than the 60% of the absorption
presented by the three ones defined in the previous section, namely
chiller nominal power. In such a case, the absorption chiller is switched
CTES(h), EAB(h) and Eth,dumped(h), and the variables relative to the
off, and the cooling demand is entirely satisfied by the electrical chil-
cooling generation, which are the absorption chiller cooling generation
lers. This last assumption is justified in Section 3.2.2, where the devices
(EAC(h)), the electricity absorbed by the electrical chillers (EEC(h)), and
characteristics are described.
the dumped cooling energy (Ec,dumped(h)), that is the cooling energy
Fig. 3 reports the block diagram of the CCHP system operation
generated by the absorption chiller in excess with respect to the cooling
strategy during the hot season, implemented on an hourly basis. An
demand.
exhaustive analytical description of the operation strategy at the dif-
Relatively to the use of the thermal energy generated by the CHP
ferent cases that can occur at each operation hour is presented in the
unit and of the thermal energy stored both for heating and cooling, the
following subsections.
adopted operational strategy prescribes that the priority is on the heat
demand, this last consisting only in the DHW demand in this season.
This assumption involves that, at each hour, the thermal energy gen- 2.2.2.1. Case 1. Cogeneration unit thermal energy generation lower than the
erated by the CHP and the thermal energy stored are first used to satisfy heat demand.

Fig. 3. Block diagram relative to the CCHP system operation in the hot season.

635
M. Caliano et al. Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 631–645

In this case, Eth,dumped(h) and Ec,dumped(h) are zero, and, similarly to what as follows:
reported in Section 2.2.1.1, there are two main subcases:
heat demand (h)
Eth,surplus = Eth,CHP (h)−⎜⎛ + (CTES,max−CTES (h)) ⎞⎟
(1) the sum of heat demand and DTL is lower than or equal to the sum ⎝ 1−Lf ⎠ (15)
of the CHP unit thermal energy generation and the thermal energy In this case, the TES system is updated as follows
in the storage;
(2) the sum of heat demand and DTL is higher than the sum of the CHP ′ = CTES,max
CTES (16)
unit thermal energy generation and the thermal energy in the sto- If Eth,surplus multiplied by the absorption chiller coefficient of per-
rage. formance is higher than or equal to the cooling energy that is necessary
to satisfy the cooling demand, plus DTL, then the TES system remains
In the first main subcase, the heat demand is covered by the CHP full (CTES(h) = C′TES), the cooling energy generated by the absorption
unit and the TES system, EAB(h) is zero, and the TES capacity is updated chiller is given by:
as follows:
EAC (h) = min(PAC ·h,Eth,surplus ·COPAC (h)) (17)
heat demand (h)
′ = CTES (h−1) + Eth,CHP (h)−
CTES and the thermal energy dumped by:
1−Lf (9)
EAC (h)
If C′TES multiplied by the absorption chiller coefficient of perfor- Eth,dumped (h) = Eth,surplus−
mance is higher than or equal to the cooling energy that is necessary to COPAC (h) (18)
satisfy the cooling demand (cooling_demand(h)), plus DTL, then the If EAC(h) is higher than or equal to the cooling demand plus DTL,
cooling energy generated by the absorption chiller is given by: then EEC(h) is zero and the cooling energy dumped is given by:
coolingdemand (h) ⎞ coolingdemand (h)
EAC (h) = min ⎛⎜PAC ·h, ⎟ Ec,dumped (h) = EAC (h)−
⎝ 1−Lf ⎠ (10) 1−Lf (19)

where PAC is the nominal power of the absorption chiller. The TES Otherwise, if EAC(h) is lower than the cooling demand plus DTL,
capacity is updated as follows: then Ec,dumped(h) is zero, and the electricity absorbed by the electrical
chiller is evaluated by using Eq. (12).
EAC (h) In case Eth,surplus multiplied by the absorption chiller coefficient of
′ −
CTES (h) = CTES
COPAC (h) (11) performance is lower than the cooling energy that is necessary to satisfy
where COPAC is the coefficient of performance of the absorption chiller. the cooling demand, plus DTL, then Ec,dumped(h) is 0, and there are two
In this case, the electricity absorbed by the electrical chillers is given different subcases, with respect to the present one, that can verify:
by:
(1) the sum of Eth,surplus and C′TES multiplied by the absorption chiller
coolingdemand (h)−EAC (h)·(1−Lf ) coefficient is lower than the cooling energy that is necessary to
EEC (h) =
COPEC (h) (12) satisfy the cooling demand, plus DTL;
(2) the sum of Eth,surplus and C′TES multiplied by the absorption chiller
where COPEC is the electrical chillers coefficient of performance.
coefficient is higher than or equal to the cooling energy that is
Otherwise, if C′TES multiplied by the absorption chiller coefficient of
necessary to satisfy the cooling demand, plus DTL.
performance is lower than the cooling energy that is necessary to satisfy
cooling demand, plus DTL, then the cooling energy generated by the
In the first subcase, the cooling energy generated by the absorption
absorption chiller is given by:
chiller is given by
′ ·COPAC (h),PAC ·h)
EAC (h) = min(CTES (13)
′ )·COPAC (h))
EAC (h) = min(PAC ·h,(Eth,surplus + CTES (20)
The TES capacity is calculated using Eq. (11), and the electricity
In this case, EEC(h) is evaluated by Eq. (12), and Eth,dumped(h) is given
absorbed by the electrical chillers is calculated with Eq. (12).
by:
In the second main subcase, the storage system is emptied
(CTES(h) = 0), and EAB(h) is evaluated as in Eq. (6). In this case, EAC(h) P (h)
Eth,dumped (h) = max ⎛Eth,surplus− AC
⎜ ,0⎞ ⎟
is zero since the thermal energy generated by the CHP unit and the COPAC (h) ⎠ (21)
⎝
stored one are entirely used for covering the heat demand, and the
cooling demand is completely satisfied by the electrical chillers, with and the stored energy is updated as follows:
the electricity absorbed by the electrical chillers equal to: E (h)
′ −max ⎛ AC
CTES (h) = CTES ⎜ −Eth,surplus,0⎞ ⎟

EEC (h) =
coolingdemand (h) ⎝ COPAC (h) ⎠ (22)
COPEC (h) (14)
In the second subcase, the cooling energy generated by the absorption
chiller is given by:
2.2.2.2. Case 2. Cogeneration unit thermal energy generation higher than or coolingdemand (h) ⎞
equal to the sum of heat demand and distribution thermal losses. EAC (h) = min ⎛⎜PAC ·h, ⎟

⎝ 1−Lf ⎠ (23)
In this case EAB(h) is zero, and the two main subcases are:
and EEC(h), Eth,dumped(h), and CTES(h) are calculated using Eqs. (12),
(1) the thermal energy generated by the CHP is also higher than the (21), and (22), respectively.
sum of heat demand, DTL and the energy necessary to fill the sto- In the second main subcase, Eth,dumped(h) is zero, and consequently
rage; also Ec,dumped(h) is zero, while the stored energy is updated as follows:
(2) the CHP unit thermal energy generation is lower than or equal to
heat demand (h)
the sum of heat demand, DTL and the energy necessary to fill the ′ = CTES (h−1) + Eth,CHP (h)−
CTES
1−Lf (24)
storage.
In case C′TES multiplied by the absorption chiller coefficient of
In the first main subcase, the thermal energy surplus is evaluated performance is lower than the cooling energy that is necessary to satisfy

636
M. Caliano et al.
the cooling demand, plus DTL, then the cooling energy generated by the
absorption chiller is given by:
′ ·COPAC (h))
EAC (h) = min(PAC ·h,CTES (25)
else, it is given by
coolingdemand (h) ⎞
EAC (h) = min ⎛⎜PAC ·h, ⎟
⎝ 1−Lf ⎠ (26)
CTES and EEC(h) are evaluated by Eqs. (11) and (12), respectively.
2.3. Inclusion of the cold thermal energy storage
Fig. 4 shows the layout of the CCHP system with integrated a cold
thermal energy storage system (CTES), that is included into the system
to store the absorption chiller generation during the hot season when it
is higher than the cooling demand, for a later use. Although, in general,
a cold thermal energy storage system provide more flexibility and a
higher efficiency to a tri-generation system, in cases like the present one
it could seem to be unnecessary, and not convenient from the eco-
nomical point of view, since the absorption chiller can be also feed by
using the heat stored in the thermal energy storage system, this last
being already present in the basic CCHP system configuration con-
sidered. Later in this paper it is shown that the combined use of a
thermal energy storage and of a cold thermal energy storage could be
convenient also from the economical point of view, essentially because
the cost per stored kWh of the cold thermal energy storage system can
be much lower than the thermal energy storage system one. Indeed,
differently from the thermal energy storage systems, cold thermal en-
ergy storage systems does not supply sanitary water, and thus they can
be manufactured using much cheaper materials and processes.
As to the operation strategy with the cold storage, it is assumed that
the absorption chiller can feed the cold storage system only when the
thermal energy in input to the absorption chiller consists in a surplus of
the CHP unit thermal production with respect to the sum of the heat
demand and the energy necessary to fill the thermal energy storage. In
more simple words, it is assumed that energy cannot be transferred
from the TES to the CTES.
The implementation model of the cold thermal energy storage in the
hot season is similar to the thermal storage system one in the cold and
intermediate seasons (see Section 2.2.1), and thus its details are not
reported here.
3. Optimization
The variables of the optimization problem are CTES,max and PAC,
whose variation is limited in the ranges reported in Eqs. (28) and (29)
in order to limit the computational cost, respectively.
0 ⩽ CTES,max ⩽ 4·Eth,CHP (28)
0 ⩽ PAC ⩽ PAC,max (29)
In Eq. (28), the upper limit of the variation range of the maximum
thermal energy storage capacity is fixed at four times the thermal en-
ergy generated by the CHP unit in an hour, because, as it will be clear
from the results in Section 4, this range includes all solutions of the
optimization and sensitivity analyses. As to the maximum possible
cooling power of the absorption chiller in Eq. (29), this has been fixed
on the basis of the maximum cooling demand of the user, and will be
detailed in Section 3.2.2.
The thermal energy storage system and absorption chiller design
optimization is performed by means of the Matlab patternsearch opti-
mization algorithm, with the objective of maximizing the feasible in-
vestment cost (FICCHP) relative to the purchase of the CHP unit.
637
Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 631–645
3.1. Objective function
The objective function that is minimized in the optimization pro-
blem is given by:
Obj F = −FICCHP (30)
in which FICCHP is evaluated by fixing the payback period to 5 years:
5
FICCHP = ∑ ⎛ Fj ⎞−(ITES + IAC )
⎜ ⎟
j
j=1 ⎝ (1 + r ) ⎠ (31)
In Eq. (31) r is the discount rate, ITES and IAC are the investment
costs for the purchase of the storage system and absorption chiller,
respectively, while Fj is the annual cash flow over the year j, that de-
pends on the annual economic savings (ESj) with respect to the separate
generation, and on the operation and maintenance costs (OMTES)
(OMAC) (OMCHP) of TES, absorption chiller and CHP unit, respectively,
according to the following relation:
Fj = ESj−(OMTES + OMAC + OMCHP )j (32)
3.2. Inputs of the optimization problem
The inputs of the optimization problem are the user main char-
acteristics and its energy demands, the devices characteristics, energy
price and devices costs, and the Italian incentives for cogeneration
using biomass.
3.2.1. Energy demand
The user is represented by a residential cluster of 15 buildings, each
consisting of 8 apartments of 100 m2, located in the Italian climatic
zone E. This zone is representative of all the Italian locations char-
acterized by heating degree-days ranging from 2100 to 3000 and a
heating period ranging from October 15th to April 15th [46]. For the
specific considered location, situated in the north-west of Italy, the
heating degree-days are 2611.
The electrical appliances, domestic hot water and ambient heating
demands, equal to 18, 15 and 68 kWh/m2/yr, respectively, and their
hourly load profiles have been evaluated as in [22], while the cooling
demand is fixed to 21 kWh/m2/yr [47]. The load profiles of electrical
appliances and domestic hot water demand are the same for each day of
the year, while the cooling demand one is the same for each day of the
hot season. For the ambient heating demand, each month is represented
by a different load profile. Fig. 5 shows the domestic hot water, elec-
trical appliances and cooling demand profiles of the selected user,
whereas Fig. 6 shows ambient heating demand profiles relative to the
representative days of the months of the cold season. The monthly
thermal demand over the entire year is shown in Fig. 7.
Fig. 4. Layout of the CCHP system with cold storage.
M. Caliano et al.
Fig. 5. DHW, electrical appliances, and cooling demand profiles.
Fig. 6. AH demand profiles.
Fig. 7. Monthly thermal demands.
3.2.2. Devices and fuel characteristics
The CHP unit considered in the present work is a commercial co-
generation system consisting of a fixed bed gasifier and of an internal
combustion engine, fuelled by wood-chip-biomass with lower heat
value equal to 4.76 kWh/kg [48]. Its characteristics are shown in
Table 1.
A single effect LiBr-H2O absorption chiller is considered in the
present work. LiBr-H2O absorption chillers are the most commercia-
lized absorption chillers in the market, and the choice of considering a
single effect one is essentially due to the maximum hot water tem-
perature in the thermal energy storage system, assumed lower than
100 °C in order to avoid the use of a pressurized storage tank in a re-
sidential area. For such chillers, the condenser and the absorber can be
either water-cooled or air-cooled. Great part of the commercialized
absorption chillers are water-cooled, nevertheless air-cooled ones can
be more suitable for residential applications since they do not require
the cooling tower, and thus they can save both space and water [49,50].
638
Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 631–645
As concerns the characteristics of the absorption chiller cooling
generation, the solver of the optimization problem needs as input data
COPAC and the maximum possible nominal power PAC,max of the ab-
sorption chiller, used in Eq. (29), while the nominal cooling power is
one of the optimized variables.
The maximum possible nominal power PAC,max is fixed to 350 kW,
that represents the maximum cooling power requested by the user.
COPAC has been evaluated on the basis of the experimental findings
of Chen et al. [50], considering the following assumptions:
• constant mass flow rate of the hot water through the absorption
chiller generator heat exchanger;
• the maximum and minimum hot water inlet temperature are 95 °C
and 75 °C, respectively;
• during the absorption chiller operation, the temperature of the
chilled water exiting the evaporator heat exchanger is kept fixed by
varying the chilled water mass flow rate.
Under the above assumptions, COPAC variation with the hot water
inlet temperature can be considered negligible, and its variation with
the ambient temperature is assumed to be linear within the range going
from 17 °C and 28 °C, namely the range of variation of the hourly
averaged ambient temperature at the selected location evaluated con-
sidering the entire hot season period, with a rate of −0.0114/°C.
Further, the cooling power can be considered to be a linear function of
the hot water inlet temperature, ranging from the nominal cooling
power, when hot water inlet temperature is 95 °C, to the minimum
cooling power, equal to the 60% of the nominal one, that is obtained
when the hot water inlet temperature is equal to 75 °C.
Fig. 8 shows the variation of COPAC as a function of the hourly
averaged ambient temperature. The temperature profile and COPAC one
are normalized using the maximum average temperature equal to 28 °C,
and the maximum value of COPAC, assumed equal to 0.8, respectively.
Relatively to the electrical chillers, the adoption of a modular so-
lution composed of two electrical vapor compression chillers with hy-
dronic loop and inverters, both having a cooling power of 175 kW, has
been hypothesized in this study. This solution guarantees a low varia-
tion of the coefficient of performance COPEC at partial loads with re-
spect to the nominal one. Indeed, COPEC is assumed to be a function of
the ambient temperature only. The variation of COPEC as a function of
the hourly averaged ambient temperature is shown in Fig. 8, where
COPEC profile is normalized assuming its maximum value equal to 3
[51].
Finally, a modular solution is hypothesized also for the auxiliary
boilers, consisting of two natural gas-fired boilers of 325 kW each,
capable of satisfying the entire thermal energy demand. The boilers
efficiency is considered constant and equal to 0.9, that can be assumed
as an average value between conventional and high-efficiency com-
mercial solutions.
3.2.3. Energy price and devices costs
In order to evaluate the economic saving (ESj) with respect to the
separate generation, the biomass, natural gas and electricity costs are
taken into account. The biomass cost is fixed to 0.16 €/kg [52], while
the natural gas cost, used to feed the auxiliary boilers, and the imported
electricity cost are evaluated according to [53], as a function of the
climatic zone, the consumption ranges and, as regards the cost of
electricity, also as a function of the installed electrical power. In the
present analysis, the average costs of natural gas and imported
Table 1
CHP unit main characteristics.
Pth (kW) Pel (kW) ηth ηel
CHP unit 120 50 0.40 0.21
M. Caliano et al.
Fig. 8. Normalized profiles of the hourly averaged ambient temperature, COPAC and
COPEC relative to the representative day of the hot season.
electricity are equal to 1.01 €/Sm3 and 190 €/MWh, respectively.
The devices costs used in the present work are presented in Table 2,
reporting the investment costs of the TES and absorption chiller, and
the operation and maintenance costs of the TES, absorption chiller and
CHP unit [54].
3.2.4. Incentive for biomass cogeneration systems
In the Italian context, there are two types of incentive for biomass
cogeneration. The first one consists in an incentivizing tariff for the
electricity generated from biomass and released to the grid, and can be
employed only by plants with a power lower than 500 kWel. The second
one, accessible by plants of any power, consists in an incentive that is
added to the economical value of the electricity released to the grid
evaluated on the basis of the electricity market [55].
In the present case, with the electrical power of the CHP unit being
lower than 500 kW, the first incentivizing mechanism is chosen, since
generally it is the most convenient one. The calculation of the in-
centivizing tariff depends on the assessment of the primary energy
saving (PES) index, evaluated according to [56], and on the type of
biomass used. In particular, if the hourly PES is equal to or lower than a
threshold limit, that in the present case is 0, the incentive consists of a
feed-in tariff (FT) relative to the electricity from biomass fed into the
grid, equal to 229 €/MWh. When the hourly PES is higher than the
threshold limit, the incentive also includes a feed-in premium (FP),
relative to the electricity from biomass generated in cogeneration asset,
equal to 40 €/MWh.
As stated in Section 2.2, it is assumed that the CHP unit operates
continuously for the entire year, and that all the generated electricity is
fed into the grid. This assumption is explained by performing the hourly
operational economic balance (OEB) of the CCHP system, presented in
Eq. (33).
OEB (h) = Eel,CHP ·incentive (h) + Eth,CHP ·UHF (h)·UHEV (h)
Eel,CHP 1 Fj = ESj−(OMTES + OMAC + OMCHP + OMCTES) j
+ ∑ OMi (h)−costbiom· ·
ηel LHVbiom (33)
i = CHP ,TES ,AC
In the above equation, incentive represents the economic value of the
electricity generated by the CHP unit, expressed in €/kWh, UHF is the
fraction of useful heat relative to the total thermal generation of the
CHP unit, UHEV is the economic value of the useful heat expressed in
€/kWh, costbiom is the biomass cost in €/kg, and LHVbiom is the biomass
lower heat value in kWh/kg. Clearly, the case in which the fraction of
useful heat is zero represents the worst case from the economical point
of view. In this case, Eq. (33) becomes:
Eel,CHP 1 Investment cost (I)
OEB (h) = Eel,CHP ·incentive (h)−OMCHP−costbiom· ·
ηel LHVbiom (34)
Therefore, the assumption of continuous operation of the CHP unit
makes sense only if OEB evaluated using Eq. (34) is always positive,
639
Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 631–645
namely only if the real incentive for the electricity generation is high
enough to yield a positive operational economic balance at each op-
eration hour, as it actually happens in the present case. In fact, Eq. (34),
used to calculate the value of the incentive for the electricity generation
above which the continuous operation of the CHP unit is economically
convenient, that corresponds to the value obtained by imposing OEB
equal to zero, gives an incentive of 209 €/MWh, that is well below the
actual value of the feed-in tariff, i.e. 229 €/MWh.
3.3. Sensitivity analysis
A sensitivity analysis is carried out to analyze the effects of the
variation of feed-in tariff, feed-in premium, storage system size and
absorption chiller one on the energetic and economic performance of
the CCHP system.
To evaluate the effects of the incentive for the electricity fed into the
grid on the optimized results, different values of the incentive are
considered. With reference to the Italian incentive for cogeneration
from biomass reported in Section 3.2.4, a sensitivity analysis is made by
fixing the feed-in premium to 40 €/MWh, that represents the actual
value, whereas for the feed-in tariff three values are considered, namely
209 €/MWh, that represents the lower limit value for the present op-
eration approach to be applied, as described in Section 3.2.4, 229
€/MWh (the actual one), and 269 €/MWh. Furthermore, it is also
evaluated the sensitivity of the optimal results to the variation of the
feed-in premium, by fixing the feed-in tariff to the actual value, and
considering three different values for the feed-in premium, namely 0
€/MWh, 40 €/MWh, and 80 €/MWh.
In order to show the contribution of the thermal energy storage and
the absorption chiller separately, the optimization is carried out for
different configurations of the system, obtained by fixing the size of one
component and by optimizing the size of the other one, and considering
the real incentive for the electricity generation. The different analyzed
cases in sensitivity analysis are all presented in Table 3.
3.4. Optimization of the case with the cold storage
In the case in which the CCHP system includes the cold thermal
energy storage system, the optimization problem consists in the opti-
mization of three variables, namely CTES,max, PAC, and CCTES,max, whose
variation is limited in the ranges presented in Eqs. (28), (29), and (35),
respectively.
0 ⩽ CCTES,max ⩽ 8·PAC ·h (35)
In this case, the feasible investment cost is given by:
5
FICCHP = ∑ ⎛ Fj ⎞−(ITES + IAC + ICTES )
⎜
j
⎟
j=1 ⎝ (1 + r ) ⎠ (36)
in which Fj is evaluated as follows:
(37)
ICTES in Eq. (36) and OMCTES in Eq. (37) are the investment and the
operation and maintenance cost of CTES, respectively.
4. Results
All the results presented in this section represent solutions of
Table 2
Investment, and operating and maintenance costs.
Operation and maintenance cost (OM)
TES system 50 (€/kWh) 0.0012 (€/kWh)
AC 500 (€/kW) 0.002 (€/kWh)
CHP unit – 2.448 (€/h)
M. Caliano et al. Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 631–645

Table 3 increase in the TES size involves, as it was to be expected, a reduction of

Cases analyzed in the sensitivity analysis. the total auxiliary boiler heat generation, and a reduction of the wintry
heat dumping. The increase of the absorption chiller size clearly in-
Fixed variables Values of fixed variables Optimized Capacity
variables constraints volves an increase of the total absorption chiller generation, and, as a
consequence, a reduction of the summery heat dumping and of the total
FT, FP (€/MWh) FT = 209, 229, 269; FP = CTES,max and Eqs. (28) and electrical chiller cooling generation. As a result, the increase in the
40 PAC (29)
feed-in premium allows to reduce the total heat dumping, but on the
FT, FP FT = 229; FP = 0, 40, 80 CTES,max and Eqs. (28) and other hand Table 4 shows that it also involves an increase of the cooling
PAC (29) energy dumping caused by the higher absorption chiller size.

PAC (kW), FT, FP PAC = 0, 10, 20, 40, 65, CTES,max Eq. (28)
87.5, 110, 130, 150, 175;
FT = 229; FP = 40
CTES,max (kWh), CTES,max = 0, 30, 60, 120, PAC Eq. (29)
FT, FP 240, 480; FT = 229;
FP = 40
optimization problems formulated considering one, two or three opti-
mization variables.
4.1. Basic combined cooling, heating and power system configuration
In this subsection, the optimized results relative to the case in which
the CCHP system includes only the TES system are reported and dis-
cussed. First, the results obtained by optimizing both TES system and
the absorption chiller sizes are shown, and the sensitivity of the opti-
mized results to the variation of the incentive is discussed. Successively,
the results of the sensitivity analyses conducted by varying the TES
system size and the absorption chiller one are shown and discussed as
well.
4.1.1. Results of the 2-variables optimization and sensitivity to the incentive
for the electricity generation
The 2-variables optimization problem consists in the identification
of the optimal sizes of the thermal energy storage system and of the
absorption chiller in case the cold thermal energy is not included. The
solution of the 2-variables optimization problem formulated con-
sidering the real incentive for the electricity fed into the grid, indicated
in the following with (∗), presents a feasible investment cost (FIC∗CHP)
equal to 5810 €/kWel, and the optimized variables C∗TES;max and P∗AC
equal to 400 kWh and 33 kW, respectively.
As concerns the optimal results obtained by varying the feed-in
tariff and fixing the feed-in premium, the variation of the feed-in tariff
leads to a variation of the feasible investment cost, while the sizes of the
thermal energy storage system and of the absorption chiller remain
equal to 400 kWh and 33 kW, respectively. This is because in the three
different cases, since the CHP unit operates continuously, and being the
feed-in premium the same, which means that the heat recovery is
equally incentivized, the hourly useful heat is the same, and so the
devices sizes. Fig. 9 shows the influence of the variation of the feed-in
tariff on the feasible investment cost. Clearly, the feasible investment
cost increases by increasing the feed-in tariff value.
From the above, it is clear that, for a fixed feed-in tariff, the increase
in the feed-in premium leads to a higher feasible investment cost, TES
size and absorption chiller one, as shown in Fig. 10. In this figure, the
values of the feasible investment cost, the thermal energy storage
system and the absorption chiller sizes are normalized with respect to
the maximum ones, obtained, of course, with the maximum considered
value of the feed-in preminum, i.e. 80 €/MWh, equal to 6589 €/kWel,
433 kWh, and 42 kW, respectively.
Table 4 shows the main energetic output data resulting from the 2-
variables optimization problems resolution. As stated above, the var-
iation of the feed-in tariff does not influence the energetic results,
which are reported in the central row of Table 4 under FT variable,
FP = 40. It can be seen that by increasing the feed-in premium, the
4.1.2. Sensitivity to the thermal energy storage size
Fig. 11 shows the influence of the thermal energy storage system
size on the CHP unit feasible investment cost, as it shows the variation
of the non-dimensional feasible investment cost obtained at different,
fixed values of the thermal energy storage system size, and optimizing
the absorption chiller power, whereas Fig. 12 shows, for each value of
CTES,max, the value of PAC resulting from the optimization problem re-
solution. The non-dimensional feasible investment cost (FIC″CHP) is
calculated as follows:
FICCHP−min(FICCHP )
″ =
FICCHP ∗
FICCHP −min(FICCHP ) (38)
where the minimum value of FICCHP, evaluated among all the analyzed
cases presented in Fig. 11, is equal to 5703 €/kWel and corresponds to
the case without the thermal energy storage. It can be noted that the
above minimum value is not much lower than the value of the feasible
investment cost relative to the two variable optimization (FIC∗CHP),
namely 5810 €/kWel. This result indicates that the variation of the
thermal energy storage system size, within the considered set of values,
has a low influence from the economical point of view.
In Fig. 11, it can be noticed that the feasible investment cost in-
creases by increasing CTES,max until reaching its maximum value for
CTES,max equal to C∗TES;max, then it decreases. The increase of CTES,max
from 0 to 400 kWh makes the CCHP system more flexible and allows to
have a better management of the CHP unit heat generation. This can be
explained by considering the total and seasonal heat dumping shown in
Figs. 13 and 14, respectively. From these figures it can be seen that the
total heat dumping always decreases by increasing CTES,max, and this is
mainly due to the reduction of the wintry heat dumping. When CTES,max
is higher than C∗TES;max, although the heat dumping continues to re-
duce, the feasible investment cost decreases due to the higher cost of
the thermal energy storage system. Figs. 12, 15, and 16 show that,
when CTES,max is higher than 60 kWh, PAC, the absorption chiller cooling
energy generation, and the cooling energy dumped do not significantly
vary with the storage system size. This is due to the fact that, with
CTES,max higher than 60 kWh, although the increase of the absorption
chiller power would have a positive effect by reducing the electricity
cost for air conditioning, the increase of the absorption chiller size
would cause the increase of the component cost, with a consequent
Fig. 9. Feasible investment costs obtained by varying the feed-in tariff and fixing the
feed-in premium.

640
M. Caliano et al. Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 631–645

Fig. 10. Normalized feasible investment costs, TES and AC sizes, obtained by fixing the
feed-in tariff and varying the feed-in premium. Fig. 11. Non-dimensional feasible investment cost at different values of CTES,max.

reduction of the feasible investment cost.

4.1.3. Sensitivity to the absorption chiller size

Fig. 17 shows the influence of the absorption chiller size on the
variation of the CHP unit feasible investment cost, obtained at different,
fixed values of the absorption chiller power and optimizing the storage
system maximum capacity, whereas Fig. 18 shows, for each value of
PAC, the value of CTES,max resulting from the optimization problems
resolution. Also in this case, the feasible investment cost is expressed in
non-dimensional terms, and calculated with Eq. (38), with the
minimum evaluated among all the analyzed cases presented in Fig. 17.
In this case, the minimum feasible investment cost is equal to 3021
€/kWel, much lower than the one resulting from the two variables op-
timization problem resolution, implying that the variation of the ab- Fig. 12. Absorption chiller power at different values of CTES,max.
sorption chiller size has a notable effect on the economic performance
of the CCHP system.
From Fig. 17, it can be seen that the feasible investment cost in-
creases until reaching its maximum value for PAC equal to P∗AC, after
that it decreases. This can be explained by observing the absorption
chiller generation and the cooling energy dumped, shown in Figs. 19
and 20, respectively. When PAC is lower than P∗AC, the absorption
chiller generation is very low, and thus the cost of electricity used by
the electrical chillers to cover the user air conditioning demand is high.
When PAC is higher than P∗AC, the cooling generation increases for
PAC up to 87.5 kW, then it stabilizes. As to the cooling energy dumped,
it strongly increases for PAC up to 65 kW, then it stabilizes at a lower
value, because in this range, the summery heat dumping, shown in
Fig. 22, is null. For these values of PAC, the absorption chiller invest-
ment, and operating and maintenance costs increase, causing the re-
duction of the feasible investment cost with respect to the one relative Fig. 13. Total heat dumping obtained at different values of CTES,max.
to P∗AC. Figs. 21 and 22 show the total and seasonal heat dumping
obtained at different, fixed values of the absorption chiller power. From
these figures it can be seen that, for PAC ranging from 0 to 110 kW, the
total heat dumping decreases because of the reduction of the summery
heat dumping due to the increase of the heat from the TES system used

Table 4
Main energetic output data of 2-variables optimization problems resolution.

Auxiliary boilers total Electrical chillers total AC total cooling Total heat Total cooling Seasonal heat dumping (kWh)
heat generation (kWh) cooling generation generation (kWh) dumping (kWh) energy dumped
(kWh) (kWh) Winter Intermediate Summer
seasons

FT = 229, 4.92 * 105 2.16 * 105 4.59 * 104 4.43 * 105 2.68 * 103 8.63 * 104 2.08 * 105 1.48 * 105
FP = 0

FT variable, 4.45 * 105 1.99 * 105 7.16 * 104 3.52 * 105 8.44 * 103 3.14 * 104 2.08 * 105 1.12 * 105
FP = 40

FT = 229, 4.41 * 105 1.92 * 105 8.84 * 104 3.24 * 105 1.53 * 104 2.61 * 104 2.08 * 105 8.92 * 104
FP = 80

641
M. Caliano et al. Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 631–645

Fig. 14. Seasonal heat dumping obtained at different values of CTES,max. Fig. 18. TES system maximum capacity at different values of PAC.

Fig. 15. Absorption chiller generation. Fig. 19. Absorption chiller generation.

Fig. 16. Total cooling energy dumped obtained at different values of CTES,max.
Fig. 20. Total cooling energy dumped obtained at different values of PAC.

Fig. 17. Non-dimensional feasible investment cost at different values of PAC.

Fig. 21. Total heat dumping obtained at different values of PAC.

642
M. Caliano et al. Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 631–645

Fig. 26. Absorption chiller nominal power and CTES sizes obtained by varying the CTES
Fig. 22. Seasonal heat dumping obtained at different values of PAC.
cost and the incentive.

Fig. 23. Cold storage maximum capacity and absorption chiller nominal power at dif-
ferent cold storage investment cost.
Fig. 27. Non-dimensional feasible investment cost obtained by varying the CTES cost and
the incentive.

Table 5
Minimum and maximum feasible investment costs obtained by varying the CTES cost and
the incentive.

min(FICCHP) (€/kWel) max(FICCHP) (€/kWel)

FT = 229, FP = 0 €/MWh 5091 5107

FT = 229, FP = 40 €/MWh 5937 5884

FT = 229, FP = 80 €/MWh 6828 6751

to feed the absorption chiller. For PAC higher than 87.5 kW, the total
Fig. 24. Hourly profiles of the cooling demand, the cooling energy stored, and the cooling heat dumping is practically constant and the seasonal one is null.
energy generated by the electrical chillers.

4.2. Results with cold thermal energy storage

This section shows the results obtained by integrating a cold

thermal energy storage into the CCHP system, and optimizing the size
of the absorption chiller, the size of the thermal energy storage, and the
one of the cold thermal energy storage. As stated before in Section 2.3,
the cost per stored kWh of the cold thermal energy storage system
(CostCTES) can be much lower than the thermal energy storage system
one (CostTES). For this reason, different values of the cost per stored
kWh of the cold thermal energy storage are considered, ranging from 0
(limit case) to CostTES, and the above three variable are optimized for
each of these values.
The results show that, considering the real incentive for the elec-
tricity generation, in all the analyzed cases, the thermal energy storage
system maximum capacity resulting from the optimization problem
Fig. 25. Useful heat generated by the CHP unit obtained by varying the CTES cost and the
incentive.
resolution is always equal to 400 kWh, while the cold storage maximum
capacity and the absorption chiller power strongly depend on CostCTES.
Fig. 23 shows the cold storage maximum capacity and the absorption
chiller power resulting from the optimization problem resolution as a

643
M. Caliano et al.
function of the ratio between CostCTES and CostTES. From this figure, it
can be seen that for CostCTES equal to or higher than 0.5∗CostTES, the
maximum capacity of the cold storage system is zero, while the ab-
sorption chiller power and the CHP unit feasible investment cost are
33 kW and 5810 €/kWel, respectively, or rather those obtained from the
2-variables optimization problem resolution. It can be also seen that, for
CostCTES going from 0.5∗CostTES to 0, CCTES,max and PAC increase up to
their maximum values (CCTES,max equal to 555 kWh and PAC equal to
70 kW), obtained in the limit case when CostCTES is zero. Moreover, for
CostCTES going from 0.5∗CostTES to 0, also the CHP unit feasible in-
vestment cost increases with respect to the one obtained from the 2-
variables optimization problem resolution. At CostCTES equal to zero,
the CHP unit feasible investment cost is equal to 5937 €/kWel.
Fig. 24 shows, for three different values of CostCTES in the range
0–0.5∗CostTES, corresponding to three different values of CCTES,max in
Fig. 23, the hourly profiles of the cooling demand, the cooling energy
stored, and the cooling energy generated by the electrical chillers over a
representative summer day. From this figure, it can be argued that the
increase of the cold storage size involves the decrease of the electricity
absorbed by the electrical chillers. This justifies the increase in the CHP
unit feasible investment cost.
The above results indicate that the inclusion of a cold thermal en-
ergy storage in the considered CCHP system could represent a viable
solution from the economical point of view in case the cost per stored
kWh of the cold thermal energy storage is much lower than the thermal
energy storage one.
4.2.1. Influence of the incentive variation
Fig. 25 shows the amount of useful heat generated by the CHP unit,
whereas Fig. 26 shows the absorption chiller and CTES sizes, obtained
by varying the cost of CTES and the incentive value. As concerns the
variation of the incentive, only the case in which the feed-in premium
varies is presented, since the feed-in tariff variation does not affects the
useful heat, evaluated as the difference between the CHP unit thermal
energy generation and the total energy dumped, nor the cold storage
size with respect to the case with the real incentive. The thermal energy
storage system maximum capacities for the considered incentive values
(FP = 0, 40, 80 €/MWh), are always equal to 96 kWh, 400 kWh, and
433 kWh, respectively, and thus do not depend on the cold storage cost.
On the other hand, the cold storage maximum capacity and the ab-
sorption chiller power strongly depend on CostCTES, and on the in-
centive value. From Figs. 25 and 26, it can be seen that by increasing
the feed-in premium value, the useful heat and the two devices sizes
increase, becoming the cold storage system economically viable for
increasingly higher levels of cost. Furthermore, in both the figures, it
can be noticed that the variation of the CTES cost has a minimum effect
when the feed-in premium is zero, namely in case the economic value of
the electricity generated by the CHP unit does not depend on the per-
centage of useful heat relative to the CHP unit hourly thermal energy
generation.
Finally, Fig. 27 shows, for each value of the feed-in premium, the
non-dimensional feasible investment cost obtained by varying the CTES
cost, and evaluated as:
FICCHP−min(FICCHP )
″ =
FICCHP
max(FICCHP )−min(FICCHP ) (39)
The minimum and maximum feasible investment costs obtained for
each value of the feed-in premium are reported in Table 5.
5. Conclusions
In this work, an operation strategy for a biomass-fired CCHP system,
composed of a CHP unit, an absorption chiller, and a thermal energy
storage system, has been formulated in order to satisfy time-varying
energy demands of an Italian cluster of residential multi-apartment
buildings. The results of the operation strategy implementation for the
644
Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 631–645
economic optimization of the absorption chiller and the storage system
sizes have been presented and discussed. A sensitivity analysis has been
also presented to show the impact of the incentive for the electricity
generation on the optimized results, consisting in a basic feed-in tariff,
plus a feed-in premium in case of positive PES index, and also to show,
separately, the effects of the variation of the absorption chiller size and
the effects relative to the variation of the thermal energy storage system
size on the CCHP system performance. Furthermore, the inclusion into
the system of a cold thermal energy storage system has been in-
vestigated.
The main results of the present work are:
• the optimal sizes of the thermal energy storage system, the ab-
sorption chiller, and the cold thermal energy storage system are
highly influenced by the value of feed-in premium, whereas the
optimal sizes of the above devices have shown no sensibility to the
variation of the feed-in tariff;
• the variation of the thermal energy storage size has a negligible
effect on the CCHP system performance from the economical point
of view;
• the variation of the absorption chiller size highly influences the
CCHP system economic and energetic performances;
• the inclusion of a cold thermal energy storage in the considered
CCHP system could represent a viable solution from the economical
point of view in case the cost per stored kWh of the cold thermal
energy storage is much lower than the thermal energy storage one.
References
[1] Commission staff working document: state of play on the sustainability of solid and
gaseous biomass used for electricity, heating and cooling in the EU; 2014. < http://
ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/2014_biomass_state_of_play_.pdf > .
[2] Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on enenrgy
efficiency. < http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=
CELEX:32012L0027 & from=EN > .
[3] Maraver D, Sin A, Royo J, Sebastián F. Assessment of CCHP systems based on
biomass combustion for small-scale applications through a review of the technology
and analysis of energy efficiency parameters. Appl Energy 2013;102:1303–13.
[4] Maraver D, Sin A, Royo J, Sebastián F. Environmental assessment of CCHP systems
based on biomass combustion in comparison to conventional generation. Energy
2012;57:58–64.
[5] Huang Y, Wang YD, Rezvani S, McIlveen-Wright DR, Anderson M, Mondol J, et al. A
techno-economic assessment of biomass fuelled trigeneration system integrated
with organic Rankine cycle. Appl Therm Eng 2013;53:325–31.
[6] Harrod J, Mago PJ, Luck R. Sizing and analysis of a combined cooling, heating, and
power system for a small office building using a wood waste biomass-fired Stirling
engine. Int J Energy Res 2012;36:64–74.
[7] Calise F, Palombo A, Vanoli L. Design and dynamic simulation of a novel poly-
generation system fed by vegetable oil and by solar energy. Energy Convers Manage
2012;60:204–13.
[8] Pfeifer A, Dominković DF, Ćosić B, Duić N. Economic feasibility of CHP facilities
fueled by biomass from unused agriculture land: Case of Croatia. Energy Convers
Manage 2016;125:222–9.
[9] Gholamian E, Mahmoudi SMS, Zare V. Proposal, exergy analysis and optimization of
a new biomass-based cogeneration system. Appl Therm Eng 2016;93:223–35.
[10] Borsukiewicz-Gozdur A, Wisniewski S, Mocarski S, Bankowski M. ORC power plant
for electricity production from forest and agriculture biomass. Energy Convers
Manage 2014;87:1180–5.
[11] Amirante R, Tamburrano P. Novel, cost-effective configurations of combined power
plants for small-scale cogeneration from biomass: feasibility study and performance
optimization. Energy Convers Manage 2015;97:111–20.
[12] Wang JJ, Yang K, Xu ZL, Fu Ch. Energy and exergy analyses of an integrated CCHP
system with biomass air gasification. Appl Energy 2015;142:317–27.
[13] Wang JJ, Mao T. Cost allocation and sensitivity analysis of multi-products from
biomass gasification combined cooling heating and power system based on the
exergoeconomic methodology. Energy Convers Manage 2015;105:230–9.
[14] Camporeale SM, Fortunato B, Torresi M, Turi F, Pantaleo AM, Pellerano A. Part load
performance and operating strategies of a natural gas-biomass dual fueled micro-
turbin for combined heat and power generation. ASME 2015;137.
[15] Bai Z, Liu Q, Lei J, Li H, Jin H. A polygeneration system for the methanol production
and the power generation with the solar–biomass thermal gasification. Energy
Convers Manage 2015;102:190–201.
[16] Li H, Zhang X, Liu L, Wang S, Zhang G. Proposal and research on a combined
heating and power system integrating biomass partial gasification with ground
source heat pump. Energy Convers Manage 2017;145:158–68.
[17] Vakalis S, Patuzzi F, Baratieri M. Introduction of an energy efficiency tool for small
scale biomass gasifiers – a thermodynamic approach. Energy Convers Manage
M. Caliano et al.
2017;131:1–9.
[18] Ahmadi P, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Thermodynamic modeling and multi-objective
evolutionary-based optimization of a new multigeneration energy system. Energy
Convers Manage 2013;76:282–300.
[19] Shaneb O, Taylor P, Coates G. Optimal online operation of residential CHP systems
using linear programming. Energy Build 2012;44:17–25.
[20] Fuentes-Cortés LF, Ponce-Ortega JM, Nápoles-Rivera F, Serna-González M, El-
Halwagi MM. Optimal design of integrated CHP systems for housing complexes.
Energy Convers Manage 2015;99:252–63.
[21] Li M, Mu H, Li N, Ma B. Optimal design and operation strategy for integrated
evaluation of CCHP (combined cooling heating and power) system. Energy
2016;99:202–20.
[22] Mongibello L, Bianco N, Caliano M, Graditi G. Influence of heat dumping on the
operation of residential micro-CHP systems. Appl Energy 2015;160:206–20.
[23] Caliano M, Bianco N, Graditi G, Mongibello L. Economic optimization of a re-
sidential micro-CHP system considering different operation strategies. Appl Therm
Eng 2016;101:592–600.
[24] Mongibello L, Bianco N, Caliano M, Graditi G. Comparison between two different
operation strategies for a heat-driven residential natural gas-fired CHP system: heat
dumping vs. load partialization. Appl Energy 2016;184:55–67.
[25] Franco A, Versace M. Multi-objective optimization for the maximization of the
operating share of cogeneration system in District Heating Network. Energy
Convers Manage 2017;139:33–44.
[26] Lund H, Andersen AN. Optimal design of small CHP plants in a market with
Fluctuating electricity prices. Energy Convers Manage 2005;46:893–904.
[27] Taljan G, Verbic G, Pantoš M, Sakulin M, Fickert L. Optimal sizing of biomass fired
Organic Rankine Cycle CHP system with heat storage. Renewable Energy
2012;41:29–38.
[28] Noussan M, Abdian GC, Poggio A, Roberto R. Biomass-fired CHP and heat storage
system simulations in existing district heating systems. Appl Therm Eng
2014;71:729–35.
[29] Powell KM, Kim JS, Cole WJ, Kapoor K, Mojica JL, Hedengren JD, et al. Thermal
energy storage to minimize cost and improve efficiency of a polygeneration district
energy system in a real-time electricity market. Energy 2016;113:52–63.
[30] Rossi I, Banta L, Cuneo A, Ferrari ML, Traverso AN, Traverso A. Real-time man-
agement solutions for a smart polygeneration microgrid. Energy Convers Manage
2016;112:11–20.
[31] Dominković DF, Ćosić B, Bačelić Medić Z, Duić N. A hybrid optimization model of
biomass trigeneration system combined with pit thermal energy storage. Energy
Convers Manage 2015;104:90–9.
[32] Silvetti B, MacCracken M. Thermal storage and deregulation. ASHRAE J
1998;4:55–9.
[33] Wang SK. Handbook of Air Conditioning and Refrigeration. 2nd ed. New York, NY,
USA: McGraw-Hill; 2001.
[34] Calise F, et al. A novel polygeneration system integrating photovoltaic/thermal
collectors, solar assisted heat pump, adsorption chiller and electrical energy sto-
rage: dynamic and energy-economic analysis. Energy Convers Manage 2017. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.03.027.
[35] Calise F, Dentice d’Accadia M, Figaj RD, Vanoli L. A novel solar-assisted heat pump
driven by photovoltaic/thermal collectors: dynamic simulation and
645
Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 631–645
thermoeconomic optimization. Energy 2016;95:346–66.
[36] Noro M, Lazzarin RM, Busato F. Solar cooling and heating plants: an energy and
economic analysis of liquid sensible vs phase change material (PCM) heat storage.
Int J Refrig 2014;39:104–16.
[37] Farahnak M, Farzaneh-Gord M, Deymi-Dashtebayaz M, Dashti F. Optimal sizing of
power generation unit capacity in ICE-driven CCHP systems for various residential
building sizes. Appl Energy 2015;158:203–19.
[38] Huang Y, Wang YD, Chen H, Zhang X, Mondol J, Shah N, et al. Performance analysis
of biofuel fired trigeneration systems with energy storage for remote households.
Appl Energy 2017;186:530–8.
[39] Martínez-Lera S, Ballester J, Martínez-Lera J. Analysis and sizing of thermal energy
storage in combined heating, cooling and power plants for buildings. Appl Energy
2013;106:127–42.
[40] Stanek W, Gazda W, Kostowski W. Thermo-ecological assessment of CCHP (com-
bined cold-heat-and-power) plant supported with renewable energy. Energy
2015;92:279–89.
[41] Jiang XZ, Li M, Zeng G, Shi L. Multiple effects of energy storage units on combined
cooling, heating and power (CCHP) systems. Int J Energy Res 2016;40:853–62.
[42] Lai SM, Hui CW. Integration of trigeneration system and thermal storage under
demand uncertainties. Appl Energy 2010;87:2868–80.
[43] Song X, Liu L, Zhu T, Zhang T, Wu Z. Comparative analysis on operation strategies
of CCHP system with cool thermal storage for a data center. Appl Therm Eng
2016;108:680–8.
[44] Ministery Decree 06/07/2012 on the Reform of the Supporting Mechanism for
Renewable Electricity in Italy.
[45] Report: Valutazione del potenziale neazionale di applicazione della cogenerazione
ad alto rendimento. Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE); 2015.
[46] EPBD buildings platform. Country reports; 2008 [ISBN 2-930471-29-8].
[47] Barbieri ES, Melino F, Morini M. Influence of the thermal energy storage on the
profitability of micro_CHP systems for residential building applications. Appl
Energy 2012;97:714–22.
[48] http://www.espegroup.com/en/biomass/cogenerator/ [access date: 27 March
2016].
[49] Siddiqui MU, Said SAM. A review of solar powered absorption systems. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2015;42:93–115.
[50] Chen JF, Dai YJ, Wang RZ. Experimental and analytical study on an air-cooled
single effect LiBr-H2O absorption chiller driven by evacuated glass tube solar col-
lector for cooling application in residential buildings. Sol Energy 2017;151:110–8.
[51] Mongibello L, Graditi G. Cold storage for a single-family house in Italy. Energies
2016;9:1043. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en9121043.
[52] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/111513989/sito%20aiel/Prezzi/A4E_
PREZZI_2-2016.pdf [in Italian] [access date: 27 March 2016].
[53] http://www.autorita.energia.it/it/prezzi.htm [in Italian] [access date: 27 March
2016].
[54] Di Somma M, Yan B, Bianco N, Graditi G, Luh PB, Mongibello L, Naso V. Multi-
objective design optimization of distributed energy systems through cost and exergy
assessments. Appl Energy. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.03.105.
[55] Italian D.M. 23/06/2016. Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 105; 2016.
[56] Italian D.M. 05/09/2011. Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 218; 2011.