Electrical Power and Energy Systems 73 (2015) 899–912

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Electrical Power and Energy Systems

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

Optimum power performance of a new integrated SOFC-trigeneration

system by multi-objective exergoeconomic optimization
A. Baghernejad a,⇑, M. Yaghoubi a,b, K. Jafarpur a
a
School of Mechanical Engineering, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
b
Academy of Sciences, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the present study a comprehensive thermodynamic modeling and multi-objective exergoeconomic
Received 9 February 2014 optimization of a new integrated SOFC-trigeneration system is carried out to determine the optimum
Received in revised form 24 May 2015 decision parameters, accounting for exergetic, economic and environmental factors. Results of optimal
Accepted 10 June 2015
designs are obtained as a set of multiple optimum solutions, called the Pareto optimal solutions. An
example of decision-making is presented and a final optimal solution is introduced. Moreover, the opti-
mized results are compared with the working data from a base case design of an actual system. This new
Keywords:
approach shows that by selecting final optimum solution, the trigeneration unit cost of products reduced
Exergoeconomic
Optimization
by 13.88% and exergy efficiency increased from 62.85% in the base case to 64.5% in the optimum case.
Pareto optimal solution Also, the optimization results demonstrate that fuel cost, exergy destruction cost and environmental
SOFC impacts (CO2 emissions cost) are reduced by 17.54%, 17.05% and 18.22% respectively; although these
Trigeneration are achieved with 8.03% increase in the capital investment cost. Finally, sensitivity analysis is carried
out to examine the effect of changes in the Pareto optimal solutions to the system economic parameters.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction
Due to the growing energy consumption in the world and its
environmental impacts, utilization of highly efficient and low pol-
lutant power production systems are one of the primacies and
appealing topics for researchers. Combined generation by different
systems has become the mainstream application of distributed
generation during the last decades. The proven advantages of
cogeneration technology made it attractive in large-scale industrial
plants and later in commercial or even resident buildings. Most
recent advances, allow the investment of trigeneration systems
that produce electricity, heat and cooling, utilizing the primary
energy of a fuel even more efficiently, economically, reliably and
with less harm to the environment than the centralized dedicated
production systems.
In a trigeneration plant, the output products (electricity, heating
and cooling) are fundamentally different in terms of quality. The
use of conventional energy analysis based on the first law of ther-
modynamics cannot adequately evaluate the economic trade-offs
between work and heat output. It is therefore more appropriate
to analyze the efficiency of trigeneration plant based on the second
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 9125787308.
E-mail addresses: abaghernezhad@gmail.com (A. Baghernejad), yaghoubi@shir-
azu.ac.ir (M. Yaghoubi), kjafarme@shirazu.ac.ir (K. Jafarpur).
law concept of exergy [1]. Recently solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC)
have been considered an emerging technology as characterized
by their high efficiency and low CO2 emissions. A SOFC operates
at high temperature and thus has high waste energy that can be
integrated efficiently with a bottoming cycle. Several studies on
the performance of the integration of SOFC with a gas turbine cycle
have been undertaken over the past decade by many researchers
[2–6]. A few researches carried out some analysis on trigeneration
plants using fuel cells as prime movers. Fong and Lee [7] investi-
gated two zero grid-electricity design strategies of
SOFC-trigeneration for high-rise building including the full-SOFC
strategy without grid connection and the partial-SOFC strategy
with grid connection. Also, a parametric study to see the effect of
some design parameters of fuel cell on the energy and exergy anal-
ysis of trigeneration systems are conducted in [8]. In the same
aspect, Tse et al. [8] proposed a thermodynamic model to the fea-
sibility of combining a SOFC–GT system and an absorption heat
pump (AHP) in a trigeneration system to drive the heating ventila-
tion and air conditioning (HVAC) and electrical base-load systems.
It was found that for the optimum configuration using a double
effect absorption chiller, the net electric power increases by 47%
relative to the electrical power available for a conventional
SOFCGT-HVAC system. Weber et al. [9] used a SOFC as a prime
mover for some trigeneration plants. They carried out detailed
CO2 emissions and cost analyses of a trigeneration plant in an office

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2015.06.017
0142-0615/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
900 A. Baghernejad et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 73 (2015) 899–912

Nomenclature

A active surface area (cm2) m_ mass flow rate (kg/s)

a extent of methane reforming reaction (mol s1) P pressure (bar)
AC air compressor Pr pressure ratio
BFP boiler feed pump R universal constant (kJ/kg K)
b extent of water gas shift reaction (mol s1) rel/h electrical to heating energy ratio
C_ cost rate ($/h) rel/c electrical to cooling energy ratio
c extent of electrochemical reaction (mol s1); cost per s specific entropy (kJ/kg K)
exergy unit (cent/kW h) SH superheater
CC combustion chamber SOFC solid oxide fuel cell
CCHP combined cooling heating and power ST steam turbine
CEP condensate extraction pump T temperature (K)
CP construction period (year) Uf fuel utilization ratio
Daeff effective gaseous diffusivity through the anode (cm2 s1) UO2 air (oxidant) utilization ratio
Dceff effective gaseous diffusivity through the cathode (cm2 s1) V voltage (V)
DEA deaerator W_ power (MW)
E_ exergy rate (MW) x molar concentration
ECO economizer Z_ investment cost rate ($/h)
EVA evaporator z elevation (m)
ex exergy per unit mass (kJ/kg)
exch chemical exergy (kJ/kg) Greek symbols
exph physical exergy (kJ/kg) g isentropic efficiency
F faraday constant (C mol1) e exergetic efficiency
f annuity factor q electrical resistivity of cell components
FCHE fuel cell heat exchanger u maintenance factor
GT gas turbine
DG change in molar gibbs free energy (J mol1)
Subscripts
H operation period (h) 1, 2, . . . , 75 state points
h specific enthalpy (kJ/kg) D destruction
HE heat exchanger
F fuel
HP high pressure i inlet/ith flow stream
HRSG heat recovery steam generator k kth component
I equipment investment ($); current (A) L loss
in interest rate (%)
N Nernst
J current density (A cm2) o outlet/ambient
jac exchange current density of anode (A cm2) sys system
jsc exchange current density of cathode (A cm2) tot total
LHV lower heat value (kJ/kg)
LP low pressure

building. It was found that the model produced 30% reduction in
CO2 emissions at an approximate increase in cost of 70% compared
with a conventional plant. Different analyses have also been car-
ried out on trigeneration plants that have gas turbines as prime
movers. Calva et al. [10] considered only energy analysis and
developed a simple model to evaluate various available gas turbine
systems and showed how to design trigeneration plants based on
the results obtained from the model. Energy, economic and envi-
ronmental performance of micro gas turbine (MGT) based cogener-
ation system (CGS) and trigeneration system (TGS) in residential
buildings were studied by Basrawi et al. [11]. They showed that
MGT-TGS was a better configuration compared to MGT-CGS
because it can utilize more exhaust heat and had energy recovery
utilized efficiency of 0.37 and 0.8 during daytime and nighttime,
respectively. Furthermore, the payback period for the MGT-TGS
was also shorter than MGT-CGS, 13.8 years under highly subsi-
dized electricity tariff. Thermodynamic performance of a building
cooling, heating, and power (BCHP) was investigated by Cao and
Liu [12]. Their study examined the effect of power load on the effi-
ciencies of energy and exergy and the exergetic costs for a unit
amount of power, steam, and cooling water versus power load
rates. It is concluded that the proposed model could be economical
if its power load rates were maintained higher than 50%. A system
combining a SOFC with a gas turbine as a prime mover of a
trigeneration plant was analyzed by Burer et al. [13]. This work
focused mainly on cost and CO2 emission analysis using
multi-criteria optimization. Their analysis demonstrated that the
system that combined SOFC and gas turbine is an attractive eco-
nomical and environmental solution when high electricity and nat-
ural gas prices are encountered. In another research, a hybrid
system combining a gas turbine and a SOFC as a prime mover with
a multi stage flash (MSF) desalination unit was carried out by
Najafi et al. [14]. The authors performed thermodynamic, economic
and environmental (emissions cost) analysis and employed a
multi-objective genetic algorithm (MOGA) to obtain the optimal
design parameters of the plant. Al-Sulaiman et al. [15] conducted
energy analysis of a trigeneration plant based on an SOFC and
ORC. The study revealed that there is at least 22% gain in efficiency
when a trigeneration system is used compared with only the
power system.
The present paper provides a comprehensive thermodynamic
modeling and multi-objective exergoeconomic optimization of a
new trigeneration system to find an optimum SOFC share percent,
power, heating and cooling capacity in the system. This new tri-
generation system considers an integrated SOFC combined cycle
as a prime mover. The scope of this work is to present a method
of optimization for the new trigeneration plant based on econom-
ical, exergetic and environmental criteria. The full set of efficient
 A. Baghernejad et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 73 (2015) 899–912 901

optimal solutions is evaluated and the effect of important thermo- functions including the exergy efficiency and unit cost of system
dynamic and economic variables on the characteristics of the sys- products of SOFC-trigeneration system are considered. The unit
tem in optimal solutions is studied. cost of system products is minimized while system exergy effi-
ciency is maximized using a genetic algorithm; also, as result the
produced CO2 emission is minimized. Moreover, the sensitivity
System configuration and model assumptions
analysis of the changes in both objective functions and CO2 emis-
sion cost of the system with variations of important thermody-
SOFC has potential application in future since it has relatively
namic and economic parameters for optimal solutions is carried
high efficiency and low air pollution as compared with conven-
out in detail. Several assumptions are made to carry out the anal-
tional fossil fuel systems. Therefore, an integrated SOFC combined
ysis, for example, it is assumed that the system is at steady state.
cycle is considered as prime mover for a trigeneration plant. A
The performance analysis applied to a single-effect absorption chil-
schematic diagram of the proposed integrated SOFC-trigeneration
ler is similar to that used by Herold et al. [16]. The assumptions
system is shown in Fig. 1. This system consists of a SOFC combined
used in the cooling cycle of the SOFC-trigeneration system corre-
cycle system (a SOFC subsystem, two gas turbine units, two HRSG
sponding to Fig. 1 are:
units and a steam turbine unit) as a prime mover to produce the
electrical power, an absorption chiller to supply the cooling load,
 Pure water is used as a refrigerant (states 50–53).
and a heat exchanger to supply the heating load. In the present
 The liquid states at states 44, 47, and 51 are considered satu-
study, the thermodynamic modeling, exergoeconomic analysis
rated liquid.
and multi-objective optimization of a new integrated
 The water at state 53 is saturated vapor.
SOFC-trigeneration plant is conducted. Two complete objective

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of a new integrated SOFC-trigeneration system

902 A. Baghernejad et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 73 (2015) 899–912

 The pressures in the generator and condenser are equivalent. V C ¼ V N  V Loss ð4Þ
 The pressures in the evaporator and the absorber are
where VC, VN and VLoss are cell voltage, reversible cell voltage and
equivalent.
voltage loss respectively. The equation of the reversible cell voltage
is derived using Nernst equation and is defined as:
The assumptions for modeling of SOFC subsystem are:  
DG f T SOFC;exit xH2 O;31
VN ¼  R ln pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð5Þ
 Both the air and fuel flows have the same temperature at the 2F 2F xH2 ;31 xO2 ;43
inlet of the SOFC.
where Gf is the Gibbs free energy, R is the universal gas constant
 Both the air and fuel flows have the same temperature at the
(8.314 J (mol K)1) and F is Faraday constant (96,485 C mol1). The
exit of the SOFC.
voltage loss (VLoss) is the sum of three voltage losses that include
 The air that enters the SOFC consists of 79% N2 and 21% O2.
the activation polarization, ohmic and concentration losses. It is
 The gas mixture at the exit of the fuel channel is at chemical
defined as:
equilibrium.
 The radiation heat transfer between gas channels and solid V Loss ¼ V ohm þ V act þ V cont ð6Þ
structure is negligible.
where Vohm is defined by Bossel [17] as follows:
 Contact resistances are negligible.
V ohm ¼ ðqa La þ qc Lc þ qe Le þ qint Lint Þj ð7Þ
System flowsheet
where q is the electrical resistivity of cell components, L is the
thickness of a cell component and j is current density. The activa-
External pre-filtered input air (stream 1) is first compressed in
tion polarization losses are defined by Kim et al. [18] as follows:
the main process compressor (AC). A part of this compressed air
that is required to produce fuel cell electricity, is directed to the V act ¼ V act;a þ V act;c
  
RT 1 j
air heat exchanger in SOFC subsystem and preheated by the after V act;a ¼ SOFC;exit sinh
F 2j0;a ð8Þ
burner exhaust gas in a gas/gas heat exchanger. The other part of   
RT 1 j
this compressed air enters combustion chamber to produce V act;c ¼ SOFC;exit
F
sinh 2j0;c
required power by the gas turbine. The fuel (natural gas, stream
37) is compressed in the fuel compressor (FC) and with appropri- The concentration voltage loss is defined by Chan et al. [19] as
ated ratio; it will be sent to combustion chamber, on the anode follows:
side of SOFC, after burner and mixer. That part of compressed fuel V cont ¼ V cont;a þ V cont;c
that goes into anode side of SOFC is pre-heated and humidified by    PH ;j

RT RT
V cont;a ¼  SOFC;exit ln 1  2jj þ SOFC;exit ln 1 þ PH O2;j ð9Þ
steam injection in the water heat exchanger. The required steam F a;s F
2 a;s
 
(stream 29) is generated in a water heat exchanger fed by water RT
V cont;c ¼  SOFC;exit ln 1  j
4F 2jc;s
pump. The compressed and pre-heated fuel stream is then mixed
with the steam-rich anodic stream. Since the adopted model pre- where ja,s is the exchange current density of anode and jc,s is the
scribes the steam to carbon ratio to be an input parameter, the exchange current density of cathode and are defined as:
required water flow is calculated taking into account the steam
content of the flow. Methane is internally reformed at the SOFC
2FPH2 Da;eff
ja;s ¼ ð10Þ
anode. An external heat supply is required to maintain the desired RT SOFC;exit La
operating temperature (stream 74). The air and reformed fuel enter
the SOFC where the electrochemical reaction takes place. Another 4FPO2 Dc;eff
jc;s ¼ P ð11Þ
0 P O2
external heat supply is required to maintain the desired tempera- P0
RT SOFC;exit Lc
ture outlet gas from after burner (stream 73). This high tempera-
ture outlet gas enters fuel cell heat exchanger and vaporizes a where Dc,eff is effective gaseous diffusivity through the cathode and
part of water exiting from economizer in the heat recovery steam Da,eff is effective gaseous diffusivity through the anode. The sub-
generator (stream 25). Consecutively, the waste heat from this scripts ohm; act; cont; a; c; e, and int indicate ohmic, activation,
integrated SOFC combined cycle system is indirectly used to pro- concentration, anode, cathode, electrolyte, and interconnect,
duce steam in the heating process using a heat exchanger, and to respectively. The molar flow rates at the inlet of the air and fuel
produce cooling using a single-effect absorption chiller. The tem- channels are defined as:
perature of both the air and fuel exiting the SOFC is controlled by n_ CH4 ;30 ¼ a ð12Þ
throttling the inlet air flow.
n_ H2 O;30 ¼ 2:5a ð13Þ
SOFC modeling
 
c c 1
The selected fuel for the SOFC is methane. The chemical and n_ O2 ;42 ¼ þ 1 ð14Þ
2 2 U O2
electrochemical reactions that occur within the anode and cathode
of the solid oxide fuel cell in Fig. 1 are: 79 c
n_ N2 ;42 ¼ ð15Þ
CH4 þ H2 O ! CO þ 3H2 ð1Þ 21 2U O2
On the other side of the fuel cell, the molar flow rates at the exit
CO þ H2 O ! H2 þ CO2 ð2Þ of the air and fuel channels are defined as:

n_ CO2 ;43 ¼ b ð16Þ

H2 þ 1=2O2 ! H2 O ð3Þ

The cell voltage produced by the cell is the difference between n_ CO;43 ¼ a  b ð17Þ
the reversible cell voltage and the sum of the voltage loss. It is
defined as: n_ H2 O;43 ¼ 1:5a  b þ c ð18Þ
 A. Baghernejad et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 73 (2015) 899–912 903

n_ H2 ;43 ¼ 3a þ b  c ð19Þ Efficiency equation

 
c 1 The net power of trigeneration system shown in Fig. 1 is defined
n_ O2 ;43 ¼ 1 ð20Þ
2 U O2 as:

_ net ¼ W
W _ ST þ W
_ GT þ W
_ SOFC  W
_ AC  W
_ FC  W
_ CEP  W
_ BFP ð29Þ
n_ N2 ;43 ¼ n_ N2 ;42 ð21Þ

where the constant c is defined as: where the subscripts ST, GT, SOFC, AC, FC, CEP and BFP indicate
steam turbine, gas turbine, solid oxide fuel cell, air compressor,
c ¼ ð3a þ bÞU f ð22Þ fuel compressor, condensate extraction pump and boiler feed
pump, respectively. The total exergy in the system is then defined
In these equations, n, Uf and UO2 are molar flow rate, fuel utiliza- as:
tion ratio, and oxygen utilization ratio, respectively. The current
and current density are defined respectively as: _ f;tot ¼ Ex
Ex _ f;CH ;30 þ 2Ex
_ f;CH ;66 þ Ex
_ f;CH ;73 þ Ex
_ f;CH ;74 ð30Þ
4 4 4 4

I ¼ jAa ð23Þ
where Ex_ f;tot and Ex
_ f;CH are total exergy rate and exergy rate of
4

methane. The exergy efficiency is defined as the ratio of the actual

2Fc thermal efficiency to the maximum reversible thermal efficiency,
j¼ ð24Þ
Aa both under the same conditions. Thus, the exergy efficiency of the
trigeneration system is defined as:
where I is the current and Aa is the active surface area. The produced    
electricity of the fuel cell, WSOFC is defined as: _ net þ Q_ h 1  T 0 þ Q_ c 1  T 0
W T h Tc
gex;trigeneration ¼ _ f;tot
ð31Þ
_ SOFC ¼ IV c
W ð25Þ Ex

On the other hand, the CO2 emission of the trigeneration system is

defined as:
Exergy analysis
_ CO2
m
Exergy analysis provides strategies and guidelines for more EmiðCO2 ; trigenerationÞ ¼ 3600 ð32Þ
W net þ Q_ h þ Q_ c
_
effective use of energy, and recently it has been applied to various
thermal systems, especially power generation, cogeneration and That is, the emissions of CO2 in kg per MW h of the total trigenera-
trigeneration systems [20]. Unlike energy, exergy is not conserved. tion power (electricity, cooling and heating).
Exergy is defined as the maximum work that could be obtained
from a system at a given state. Exergy destruction is an important Economic model
parameter in any exergy analysis. It is defined as the potential
work lost due to irreversibility. The exergy destruction rate of a The economic model takes into account the cost of components
control volume for a steady state is defined as: including the amortization and maintenance and the cost of fuel
X  T0
   X X combustion. These cost functions can be obtained by statistical
_ D¼
Ex Q_ j 1   W_ CV  P0 dV CV þ _ i exi 
m _ e exe
m correlations between costs and the main thermodynamic parame-
j
Tj dt i e ters of the component performed on real data series. In this system,
ð26Þ the purchase cost functions for each plant component depend on
optimization parameters of interest expressed as a function of
_ D are temperature, pressure, volume, exergy
where T, P, V, ex and Ex thermodynamic design parameters [21].
per mass flow rate and rate of exergy destruction, respectively. The
subscript i is the property value at state i and the subscript 0 is the Exergoeconomic analysis
value of a property at the surrounding condition. The physical
exergy is defined as the maximum theoretical useful work obtained The second law of thermodynamics combined with economics
as a system interacts with an equilibrium state. The physical exergy represents a very powerful tool for the systematic study and opti-
per mass flow rate, exph , at a given state is defined as: mization of energy systems. This combination forms the basis of
the relatively new field of exergoeconomics [22,23]. Cost balance
!
V 2  V 20 equations applied to the system components shows that the sum
ph
ex ¼ ðh  h0 Þ  T 0 ðs  s0 Þ þ þ gðz  z0 Þ ð27Þ of cost rates associated with all existing exergy stream equals the
2
sum of cost rates of all entering exergy streams plus the appropri-
ate charges due to capital investment and operating and mainte-
where h, s, v, g and z are enthalpy per mass flow rate, entropy per
nance expenses. The sum of the capital investment and operating
mass flow rate, velocity, gravity and elevation, respectively. In this
study, the velocity and elevation are neglected. On the other hand, and maintenance expenses is denoted by Z_ k that is calculated from:
the chemical exergy is associated with the departure of the chemi- fI u
cal composition of a system from its chemical equilibrium. The Z_ k ¼ k ð33Þ
H
chemical exergy of a single gas at a multi-gas mixture is defined
In the above equation f and Ik are the annuity factor and invest-
as follows:
ment cost which are determined from component economic model
ch
ex ch;0 þ RT 0 xi lnðxi Þ [21], u is maintenance factor and H is operation period. For each
i ¼ xi exi ð28Þ
flow line in the system, a parameter called flow cost rate C_ ($/s)
where ex ch;0
i is the standard chemical exergy of a species in is defined and the cost balance equation of each component can
1
kJ mol . be written as follows [21]:
904 A. Baghernejad et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 73 (2015) 899–912
X X
C_ e;k þ C_ w;k ¼ C_ q;k þ C_ i;k þ Z_ k
k i
The cost balances are generally written so that all terms are
positive. Using Eq. (34), one can write:
X X
ðce E_ e Þk þ cw;k W
_ k ¼ cq;k E_ q;k þ ðci E_ i Þk þ Z_ k
k k
C_ j ¼ cj Ej
To estimate the cost of exergy destruction in each component of
the plant, one should initially solve the cost balance equations for
each component. Therefore, for applications of the cost balance
equation (Eq. (34)), there is usually more than one inlet outlet
streams for some components. In this case the numbers of
unknown cost parameters are higher than the number of cost bal-
ance equations for that component. Auxiliary exergoeconomic
equations are developed to solve this problem [24].
The system used in this study consists of 30 components and
has 75 streams. Therefore, 45 boundary conditions and auxiliary
equations are necessary. For example in this system, cost balance
and auxiliary costing equations (according to P and F rules) for
steam turbine (ST) and fuel cell auxiliary evaporator (FCAE), are
formulated as follows [21]:
Steam turbine:
C_ 11 þ C_ 71 ¼ 2ðC_ 18 þ C_ 24 Þ þ Z_ ST
C_ 18 þ C_ 24 C_ 11
c18 þ c24 ¼ c11 or ¼ ð38Þ
E_ 18 þ E_ 24 E_ 11
Fuel cell auxiliary evaporator:
C_ 26 þ C_ 33 ¼ C_ 25 þ C_ 32 þ Z_ FCHE
C_ 32 C_ 33
c32 ¼ c33 or ¼ ð40Þ
E_ 32 E_ 33
Implementing cost balance for each component of trigeneration
system together with the auxiliary equations (according to P and F
rules that are defined in the SPECO approach [25] a system of 75
linear algebraic equations is constructed as follows:
½Ex_ k   ½ck  ¼ ½Z_ k 
where Exk, ck and Z_ k are the matrix of exergy rate which was
obtained in exergy analysis, exergetic cost vector (to be evaluated)
and the vector of Z_ k factors (obtained in economic analysis), respec-
tively. Therefore, by solving these sets of equations (75 equations
and 75 unknown) one can find the cost rate of each line in Fig. 1.
Moreover, they are used to find the cost of exergy destruction in
each component of the plant.
In this analysis it is worth mentioning that the fuel and product
exergy should be defined. The exergy product is defined according
to the components under consideration. The fuel represents the
source that is consumed in generating the product. Both the pro-
duct and fuel are expressed in terms of exergy. In the cost balance
formulation (Eq. (34)), there is no cost term directly associated
with exergy destruction of each component. Accordingly, the cost
associated with the exergy destruction in a component or process
is a hidden cost. Thus, if one combines the exergy balance and
exergoeconomic balance together, the following equations can be
obtained:
_ F;k ¼ Ex
Ex _ P;k þ Ex
_ D;k
where Ex _ F;k represents the fuel exergy rate for kth component, and
_ExP;k stands for the product exergy rate of kth component and Ex_ D;k
ð34Þ is the exergy destruction rate of that component respectively. For
each flow line in the system, a parameter that is called flow cost
rate C_ ($/s) is defined. The last term on the RHS of Eq. (42) involves
_ P;k
the rate of exergy destruction. If one assumes that the product Ex
is fixed and that the unit cost of fuel cF;k of the kth component is
ð35Þ independent of the exergy destruction, the cost of exergy destruc-
tion can be defined by the last term of Eq. (34).
ð36Þ C_ D;k ¼ cF;k Ex_ D;k ð43Þ
More details of the exergoeconomic analysis, cost balance equa-
tions and exergoeconomic factors are completely discussed in ref-
erences [26–28].
Multi-objective optimization of trigeneration plants
The objectives to reach, when designing a system, are ruled by
the constraints imposed on the designer. The cost of the final sys-
tem is always an important factor for the realization of such a
plant. Other important factors are often related to the impact of
the system on the environment. Hence, while trying to minimize
the cost of the plant, the engineer will try to minimize the emis-
sions, or the noise, or to maximize the efficiency of the plant
[29,30]. It is focused here on exergoeconomic optimization that
considers two objectives:
ð37Þ
1. The maximization of the system exergy efficiency
2. The minimization of the system unit cost of products
The search space of the optimization is defined by the
decision variables and their bounds. The solution of such a
multi-objective optimization problem is a set of points in the
ð39Þ
decision variables space that express the possible tradeoff
between the objectives. In the domain of the objective functions,
this tradeoff is represented by the Pareto frontier that represents
the set of nondominated solutions, which delimits the unfeasible
domain from the feasible but suboptimal one. In the case of mul-
tiple objectives optimization, a solution does not necessarily exist
that is best with respect to all objectives because of differentia-
tion between objectives. A solution may be the best in one
objective but the worst in another. Therefore, there usually exists
ð41Þ a set of solutions for the multiple-objective case, which cannot
be simply compared with each other. For such solutions,
called Pareto optimal solutions or non-dominated solutions, no
improvement is possible in any objective function without
sacrificing at least one of the other objective functions. The
optimal trade-off solutions of certain conflicting objective criteria
are valuable for the decision-maker in order to choose the best
solution suited to its needs.
In the present methodology, the resolution of the optimization
of trigeneration system is performed using a Multi-Objective
Evolutionary Algorithm (MOEA) optimization which has been
developed by MATLAB software. The modeling and optimization
framework described above is integrated into MATLAB for the
design and optimization of integrated SOFC-trigeneration system
from an economic, energetic and environmental point of view.
Definition of objective functions
In order to minimize the environmental impacts, the primary
target is to increase the efficiency of energy conversion processes,
ð42Þ and as a result, decrease the amount of fuel and the related overall
environmental impacts, especially the release of carbon dioxide,
which is one of the main components of greenhouse gases. The
objective function that expresses the environmental impact as
 A. Baghernejad et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 73 (2015) 899–912 905

Table 1
Thermodynamic input data to analyze and optimization of the integrated SOFC-trigeneration system

SOFC subsystem
Fuel utilization factor 0.85
Air utilization factor 0.14
Active surface area (cm2) 2500
Base current density (A/cm2) 5
Effective gaseous diffusivity through the anode (cm2/s) 0.2
Effective gaseous diffusivity through the cathode (cm2/s) 0.05
Thickness of anode (cm) 0.5
Thickness of cathode (cm) 0.2
Thickness of electrolyte (cm) 0.05
Temperature difference between the inlet and the exit of the SOFC (K) 100
Produced electricity of fuel cell (MW) 0.1

Combined cycle
Compressors isentropic efficiency (fuel and air compressors) (%) 75
Turbines efficiency (gas and steam turbine) (%) 85
Compressors pressure ratio (fuel and air compressors) 11
Combustion temperature (combustion chamber and after burner) (K) 1400
Inlet pressure to steam turbine (bar) 84
Inlet temperature to steam turbine (K) 780

Cooling cycle
Effectiveness of solution heat exchanger 0.7
Evaporate temperature (K) 280
Condenser temperature (K) 303
Generator temperature (K) 368

the total pollution damage ($/s) due to CO2 emission is calculated Even though the decision variables may be varied in the opti-
by multiplying its flow rates by the corresponding unit damage mization procedure, each decision variable is normally required
cost (cCO2 is equal to 0.02086 $/kgCO2) [28]: to be within a reasonable range. The list of these constraints are:

C_ CO2 ¼ m
_ CO2 cCO2 ð44Þ 400 6 P total 6 800 ðMWÞ
10 6 SOFC share 6 60 ð%Þ
In the present work the cost of pollution damage is simultane- ð50Þ
ously minimized in multi-objective optimization process that max- 2 6 r el=h 6 8
imizes exergy efficiency and minimizes unit cost of products in
2 6 r el=c 6 8
trigeneration system. Therefore two important objective functions
including exergy efficiency (must be maximized), the system unit
cost of products (must be minimized) are considered for multi
Results and discussion
objective optimization purpose:

The thermodynamic and economic input data used for analysis

 Trigeneration exergy efficiency (Eq. (31)).
 Trigeneration unit cost of products:
cproducts ¼ celectricity þ cheating þ ccooling
Decision variables and constraints
and multi-objective optimization of trigeneration system (SOFC
subsystem, cooling cycle, gas and steam cycles) are given in
ð45Þ Tables 1 and 2. The present model with the specification given in
these tables are treated as a base case and the following nominal
values of the decision variables are selected based on the operation
program of the system.

The decision variables in this study are: Ptotal ¼ 600 MW

SOFC share ¼ 20%
(a) Trigeneration total power (Ptotal): ð51Þ
rel=h ¼ 4
_ net þ Q_ heating þ Q_ cooling
Ptotal ¼ W ð46Þ rel=c ¼ 5
(b) SOFC share percent in trigeneration system (%SOFC share): The state properties and the exergy rates of each line of the base
case trigeneration system according to Fig. 1 are determined with
H_ 32  H_ 33 thermodynamic analysis and given in Table 3. To examine the
%SOFC share ¼ ð47Þ
W_ tot
Table 2
(c) Ratios of produced electricity to heating capacity (rel/h) Economic input data to analyze and optimization of the integrated SOFC-trigener-
ation system

W_ net Economic parameters Value

rel=h ¼ ð48Þ
_
Q heating Maintenance factor (u) 1.06
Interest rate (in), % 10
(d) Ratios of produced electricity to cooling capacity (rel/c) Rate of inflation (ri), % 8
Amortization factor (k), year 25
W_ net Operation period (H), h 2000
rel=c ¼ ð49Þ
Q_ cooling Construction period (CP), year 3
906 A. Baghernejad et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 73 (2015) 899–912

Table 3
State properties of integrated SOFC-trigeneration system corresponding to Fig. 1 in the base case design

State _ (kg/s)
m T (K) h (kJ/kg) E_ (MW)
1 538.07 298.15 298.61 0
2 406.58 689.32 405.96 61.91
3 552.68 1664 1461.5 494.13
4 552.68 835.26 574.71 137.76
5 552.68 736.27 468.79 102.39
6 552.68 543.52 262.55 40.52
7 552.68 482.18 196.91 25.36
8 552.68 479.52 194.06 23.81
9 552.68 434.19 145.57 14.51
10 552.68 386.15 94.16 6.77
11 197.6 320.83 2305.1 30.07
12 197.6 320.83 1781.3 22.76
13 197.6 320.83 199.65 0.66
14 197.6 320.83 203.07 1.17
15 98.8 390.05 490.66 4.9
16 11.74 390.2 491.71 0.59
17 11.74 449.4 2773.9 9.47
18 11.74 505.4 2907.9 10.02
19 87.05 392 507.08 5.48
20 87.05 488.15 923.78 17.1
21 62.77 488.15 923.78 12.33
22 62.77 578 2739.6 66.21
23 87.05 578 2739.6 91.82
24 87.05 780 3412 12.29
25 24.28 488.15 923.78 4.77
26 24.28 578 2739.6 25.61
27 8.87 298.15 104.92 0
28 8.87 298.3 105.21 0.0025
29 8.87 520.35 424.16 3.75
30 12.03 1032.2 1785.4 178.76
31 20.56 1132.2 1608.1 90.42
32 273.55 1400 1299.1 214.5
33 273.55 1070 996.6 159.48
34 273.55 805.79 627.34 86.35
35 273.55 804.09 625.18 85.96
36 273.55 792.04 614.83 84.58
37 25.01 298.15 267 1299.9
38 3.15 595.88 809.01 164.83
39 3.15 651.77 996.15 165.14
40 538.07 689.32 405.96 81.94
41 262.97 689.32 405.96 40.04
42 262.97 1032.2 790.07 105.67
43 252.99 1132.2 885.94 103.89
44 458.46 368.15 239.43 42.75
45 458.46 322.8 137.68 28.43
46 458.46 302.8 137.68 43.88
47 493.13 303.35 94.08 23.33
48 493.13 303.35 94.08 23.33
49 493.13 345.5 188.67 33.51
50 34.67 368.15 2667.6 15.99
51 34.67 303.35 126.58 0.003
52 34.67 280 126.58 0.14
53 34.67 280 2513.4 5.52
54 439.86 343.15 293.07 5.68
55 439.86 298.15 104.92 0
56 552.11 298.15 104.92 0
57 552.11 343.15 293.07 7.13
58 468.28 298.15 104.92 0
59 468.28 343.15 293.07 6.049
60 – – – 0.0009
61 – – – 0.67
62 – – – 1.62
63 – – – 0.0025
64 – – – 22.82
65 25.01 595.88 809.01 1306.4
66 9.32 595.88 809.01 487.06
67 – – – 333.97
68 – – – 218.43
69 549.82 298.15 104.92 0
70 549.82 343.15 293.07 206.87
71 – – – 206.87
72 – – – 0.1
73 2.9 595.88 809.01 151.6
74 0.3 595.88 809.01 15.86
75 415.9 1400 1179 466.4
 A. Baghernejad et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 73 (2015) 899–912
effects of the decision parameters on objective functions, the vari-
ation of objective functions with changes in decision parameters is
shown in Figs. 2–4. Fig. 2 shows the variation of objective functions
with changes in total power produced by trigeneration system in
different SOFC share percent. It is seen that the increase in total
power in its allowable range results in an increase in the exergy
efficiency of system, however, this increase leads to an increase
in the unit cost of production, followed by an increase in the total
cost rate. Fig. 3 confirms this trend. Thus, it can be concluded from
Fig. 3 that increase in SOFC share percent for various trigeneration
total powers leads to an increase in exergy efficiency as well as the
increase of unit cost of products. Fig. 4 shows the variation of both
objective functions when ratios of electricity to heating and cooling
load varies in its allowable range. It is shown that an increase in
these decision parameters leads to a decrease in the exergy effi-
ciency and increase of the total unit cost, and this increase causes
a drastic increment in total cost rate of the plant. Therefore, lower
values of this parameter are favorable for a decision maker. It can
be understood from Figs. 2 and 3 that total power of trigeneration
and SOFC percent share in this system cause a conflict between
objective functions. Therefore for finding optimum value of these
decision parameters multi objective optimization must be
employed.
To optimize the trigeneration system, the enthalpy and entropy
equations for each species are programmed as user defined func-
tions into MATLAB. Sub-routines for each component as well as
cost functions are then written in MATLAB’s programming
language. These subroutines iteratively determine the outlet
Fig. 2. Variation of objective functions of the integrated SOFC-trigeneration system with changes in total power for different SOFC share percent
907
conditions (temperature and composition) of each component
given the inlet conditions. When inlet conditions are unknown,
they are initially guessed and iteratively determined. All subrouti-
nes are combined into one plant algorithm which is used to deter-
mine all state properties, and hence optimize the trigeneration
system. The tuning of MOEA is performed according to the values
indicated in Table 4.
The Pareto frontier solution for trigeneration system obtained
based on the evolutionary algorithm via multi-objective optimiza-
tion with the objective functions given by Eqs. (31) and (45) is
shown in Fig. 5. As it is illustrated, in Fig. 5 the maximum exergy
efficiency exists at design point B (about 67.5%), as unit cost of tri-
generation system is the greatest at this point (95 cent/kW h). The
minimum unit cost of products in this trigeneration system occurs
at design point A (45 cent/kW h). Design point B is the optimal sit-
uation when exergy efficiency is the only objective function, while
design point A is the optimum condition when unit cost of trigen-
eration system is the sole objective function. In multi-objective
optimization, a process of decision making for selection of the final
optimal solution from the available solutions is required. The pro-
cess of decision-making is usually performed with the aid of a
hypothetical point named equilibrium point (see Fig. 6) where
both objectives have their optimal values independent of the other
objective. It is clear that it is impossible to have both objectives at
their optimum point, simultaneously and as shown in Fig. 6, the
equilibrium point is not a solution located on the Pareto frontier.
The closest point of Pareto frontier to the equilibrium point (design
point C) might be considered as a desirable final solution. It should
908 A. Baghernejad et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 73 (2015) 899–912

Fig. 3. Variation of objective functions of the integrated SOFC-trigeneration system with changes in SOFC share percent for different total power

Fig. 4. Variation of objective functions of the integrated SOFC-trigeneration system with changes in the ratios of system produced electricity to heating and cooling capacity

Table 4
The turning parameters in MOEA optimization program be noted that in multi-objective optimization and the Pareto
solution, each point can be the optimized solution. Therefore
Turning parameters Value
selection of an optimum solution depends on the preferences and
Population size 100
criteria of each decision maker and each decision maker may
Maximum number of generations 100
Pc (probability of crossover) (%) 50
select a different point as optimum solution to better suit his/her
Pm (probability of mutation) (%) 1 desires.
Selection process Tournament The related values of decision variables for optimized points (A),
Tournament size 2 (B) and also final optimum point (C) are listed in Table 5. Cost of
 A. Baghernejad et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 73 (2015) 899–912 909

Table 5
Decision variables at optimum design points (A), (B) and (C) from Pareto frontier

Decision variables Optimum points

A B C
Ptotal (MW) 400 758.41 666.09
SOFC share (%) 10 58 15
rel=h 2 3.21 2.19
rel=c 2 3.48 2.08

the intermediate streams and products of the integrated

Fig. 5. Pareto optimal solutions and selecting two limited optimum points for the
integrated SOFC-trigeneration system according to the objective functions (exergy
efficiency and unit cost of products)
Fig. 6. Selecting procedure for optimal solution of the integrated SOFC-trigenera-
tion system from Pareto frontier
SOFC-trigeneration system according to Fig. 1 in the base case
and final optimum case (optimum point C) are provided in
Table 6. Unit cost of the electricity produced by steam turbine
and gas turbine is reduced from 29.64 cent/kW h and
16.35 cent/kW h in the base case to 24.7 cent/kW h and
14.44 cent/kW h in the optimum case, respectively. Also, unit cost
of heating and cooling in the heating unit and absorption chiller
decreased from 27.16 cent/kW h and 12.1 cent/kW h to
22.52 cent/kW h and 11.71 cent/kW h respectively. The objective
functions and also some important exergoeconomic and environ-
mental parameters for the base case and all three optimum points
of system (A, B and C) are listed in Table 7. As indicated in this
table, the multi-objective optimization process leads to 2.67%
increase in the exergetic efficiency and 13.88% decrease for the unit
cost of products in the optimum point C. Therefore, improvement
for the two objectives has been achieved using optimization pro-
cess. Also, Table 7 compares the fuel exergy, total exergy destruc-
tion, fuel cost rate and the cost rate of exergy destruction in the
base case and optimal solutions. According to this table, the opti-
mization leads to 16.27% reduction on the fuel exergy, 5.71% reduc-
tion in the total exergy destruction and also 17.54% and 17.05%
reduction in the fuel cost rate and cost rate relating to the exergy
destruction, respectively. This is achieved, however, with 8.03%
increase in the capital investment. Moreover, it can be found from
this table that the optimization decreased CO2 emission of the sys-
tem from 363.24 kg/MW h to 266.9 kg/MW h (26.52% reduction),
which yields 18.22% reduction in CO2 emission cost.

Table 6
Cost of the intermediate streams of the integrated SOFC-trigeneration system shown in Fig. 1 in the base case and optimum case

State Base case Optimum case

C_ ($/h) c (cents/kW h) C_ ($/h) c (cents/kW h)

1 0 0.00 0 0.00
2 22391 36.16 14,985 30.88
3 73,664 14.90 54,265 13.11
4 20,537 14.90 15,129 13.11
5 15,264 14.90 11,196 13.11
6 6041.3 14.90 3825.9 13.11
7 3781.1 14.90 2246.8 13.11
8 3549.8 14.90 2107.6 13.11
9 2163.8 14.90 1554.8 13.11
10 1010.4 14.90 744.34 13.11
11 7812.5 25.97 5234.1 21.65
12 5912.6 25.97 2837 21.65
13 171.57 25.97 114.95 21.65
14 372.52 31.74 249.6 26.46
15 1451.7 29.57 1014.1 25.71
16 188.85 31.84 76.66 27.13
17 1762.3 18.60 761.27 16.86
18 2112.3 21.06 984.33 20.60
19 1744.9 31.84 1260.6 27.13
20 4336.7 25.35 3119.9 21.51
21 3127.1 25.35 2459.4 21.51
22 12,684 19.15 10,127 16.50

(continued on next page)

910 A. Baghernejad et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 73 (2015) 899–912

Table 6 (continued)

State Base case Optimum case

C_ ($/h) c (cents/kW h) C_ ($/h) c (cents/kW h)

23 26,839 29.22 18,421 23.66

24 32,434 26.37 22,626 21.70
25 1209.6 25.35 660.49 21.51
26 14,155 55.26 8294.6 50.33
27 0 0.00 0 0.00
28 0.748 30.08 0.6248 25.12
29 766.11 20.40 785.99 20.35
30 37,477 20.96 36,939 20.44
31 32,112 35.51 31,535 33.93
32 99,413 46.33 96,444 44.95
33 73,904 46.33 81,505 44.95
34 40,017 46.33 41,082 44.95
35 39,837 46.33 40,891 44.95
36 39,194 46.33 40,229 44.95
37 157,170 12.09 129,230 12.09
38 32,992 20.01 31,954 19.38
39 33283 20.15 32257 19.52
40 36,874 44.99 27,353 39.90
41 28,965 72.32 24,737 61.76
42 63,537 60.12 65,844 53.88
43 36,896 35.51 40,776 33.93
44 7098 16.60 5786.5 6.77
45 4721.8 16.60 3849.4 6.77
46 4722 10.75 3849.5 4.38
47 114.53 4.90 98.58 0.21
48 113.67 4.87 97.16 0.20
49 3587 10.70 4497 6.71
50 2656.1 16.60 2165.4 6.77
51 0.518 16.60 0.4229 6.77
52 0.688 4.90 0.5923 0.21
53 27.09 4.90 23.32 0.21
54 0 0.00 0 0.00
55 688.06 12.10 1330.7 11.71
56 0 0.00 0 0.00
57 5477.8 76.80 5179.1 36.32
58 0 0.00 0 0.00
59 3132.2 51.78 3111.5 25.73
60 0.2829 29.64 0.4713 24.70
61 200.49 29.64 134.26 24.70
62 480.69 29.64 321.9 24.70
63 0.7395 29.64 0.616 24.70
64 6766.7 29.64 4656 24.70
65 163,990 12.55 133,930 12.46
66 48,742 10.00 37,150 9.69
67 54,635 16.35 40,399 14.44
68 35,734 16.35 26,400 14.44
69 0 0.00 0 0.00
70 1929.5 27.16 2421 22.52
71 61,323 29.64 42,023 24.70
72 37,039 37,039 36,278 36,278
73 30,343 20.01 24,070 19.38
74 3176.2 20.01 3605.9 19.38
75 54,067 11.59 34,150 9.31

Table 7
Comparative results of the integrated SOFC-trigeneration system in the base case and optimum case design points.

Result of multi objective optimization Base case design Design point (A) Design point (B) Design point (C)

Objective functions
Exergy efficiency (%) 62.85 61.41 67.72 64.5 (+2.67%)
Unit cost of products (celectricity + cheating + ccooling) (cent/kW h) 84.43 45.25 94.7 72.71 (13.88%)

Thermodynamic parameters
First law efficiency (%) 50.04% 72.18 58.73 67.73 (+35.35%)
Fuel exergy (MW) 670.04 343.35 716.59 561.02 (16.27%)
Exergy destruction (MW) 804.68 507.27 878.5 767.48 (4.62%)

Exergoeconomic parameters
Fuel cost ($/h) 168,480 79,224 179,200 138,920 (17.54%)
Exergy destruction cost ($/h) 176,990 77,173 189,810 146,810 (17.05%)
Capital investment cost ($/h) 23,502 18,504 18,201 25,391 (+8.03%)

Environmental parameters
CO2 emission (kg/MW h) 363.24 234.11 272.5 266.9 (26.52%)
CO2 emission cost ($/h) 5180.8 2229.8 4900.5 4236.7 (18.22%)
 A. Baghernejad et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 73 (2015) 899–912 911

Exergy efficiency and CO2 emission cost

An additional run of the optimization algorithm was performed

on the trigeneration system because one may wants to reduce the
CO2 emissions of the system and maximize exergy efficiency. The
results of multi-objective optimization are shown in Fig. 7 for the
objective functions accounting for trigeneration exergy efficiency
(Eq. (31)) and CO2 emissions cost (Eq. (44)). From this figure one
can consider a desired point from Pareto frontier line and analyze
the system for that optimum point.

Sensitivity analysis

Additional runs of the optimization algorithm were performed

on the system to examine the impact of the variation of important
economic parameters on the Pareto optimal set of solutions. The
effect of changing the construction period, fuel cost, interest rate
and operation periods on the Pareto optimal solutions are shown
in Figs. 8–11. Fig. 8 shows the sensitivity of the Pareto optimal Fig. 9. Sensitivity of Pareto optimum solutions of the integrated SOFC-trigeneration
Frontier to the construction period. A comparison of the Pareto system to the specific fuel cost

frontiers for the three optimizations shows that the unit cost of

Fig. 10. Sensitivity of Pareto optimum solutions of the integrated SOFC-trigener-

Fig. 7. Pareto optimal solutions and selecting procedure for optimal solution of the ation system to the interest rate
integrated SOFC-trigeneration system for the objective functions (exergy efficiency
and CO2 emission cost)

Fig. 8. Sensitivity of Pareto optimum solutions of the integrated SOFC-trigeneration Fig. 11. Sensitivity of Pareto optimum solutions of the integrated SOFC-trigener-
system to the construction period ation system to the operation period
912 A. Baghernejad et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 73 (2015) 899–912
products at higher construction period is shifted upwards as
expected but it is also shifted toward higher exergetic efficiencies.
Similar behavior is observed for sensitivity of Pareto optimal solu-
tion to the specific fuel cost and the interest rate in Figs. 9 and 10.
Sensitivity of the Pareto optimal Frontier to the variation of trigen-
eration operation period is illustrated in Fig. 11. This figure shows
that the Pareto frontier not only shifts downward as the operation
period increases but it is also shifted toward higher exergetic
efficiencies.
Conclusions
In the present study, thermodynamic and exergoeconomic
modeling of a new trigeneration system with optimization is car-
ried out. To achieve the desired solution, a simulation code is
developed by considering all dependent variables. Moreover, a
multi objective genetic algorithm is used to optimize the two
important objective functions. The first objective function was
the system exergy efficiency and the other was unit cost of prod-
ucts of system. An example of decision-making process for selec-
tion of the final optimal solution from the Pareto frontier is
presented. The final optimum solution from the Pareto frontier
requires the process of decision making, which depends on the
preferences and criteria of each decision maker. Each decision
maker may select different points, which better suits with their
desires as optimum solution. The final optimum design point is
compared with the base case design and discussed. Also, the algo-
rithm can easily be used to examine the sensitivity of the obtained
Pareto solutions to the construction period, specific fuel cost, inter-
est rate and system operation period. The optimization code that is
developed shows that exergeconomic analysis improved signifi-
cantly for the final optimum design point as follows:
1. Exergy efficiency increased from 62.85% in the base case design
to 64.5% in the final optimum design. Also, the unit cost of prod-
ucts of trigeneration system decreased by about 14%. This is
achieved, however, with 8.08% increase in the capital invest-
ment cost.
2. Exergy destruction cost and CO2 emission cost reduced by about
17% and 18% respectively.
Acknowledgment
The second author appreciates the support from Iran’s National
Elites Foundation.
References
[1] Wang J, Dai Y, Gao L. Exergy analyses and parametric optimizations for
different cogeneration power plants in cement industry. Appl Energy
2009;86:941–8.
[2] Lisbona P, Romeo LM. Enhanced coal gasification heated by unmixed
combustion integrated with a hybrid system of SOFC/GT. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2008;33:5755–64.
[3] Akkaya AV, Bahri S, Hasan Huseyin E. An analysis of SOFC/GT CHP system
based on exergetic performance criteria. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2008;33:
2566–77.
[4] Haseli Y, Dincer I, Naterer GF. Thermodynamic modeling of a gas turbine cycle
combined with a solid oxide fuel cell. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2008;33:5811–22.
[5] Lim T, Song RH, Shin DR, Yang JI, Jung H, Vinke IC, et al. Operating
characteristics of a 5 kW class anode-supported planar SOFC stack for a fuel
cell/gas turbine hybrid system. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2008;33:1076–83.
[6] Cheng B, Yixiang S, Li C, Ningsheng C, Qingquan S. Multi-level simulation
platform of SOFC–GT hybrid generation system. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2010;35:2894–9.
[7] Fong KF, Lee CK. Investigation on zero grid-electricity design strategies of solid
oxide fuel cell trigeneration system for high-rise building in hot and humid
climate. Appl Energy 2014;114:426–33.
[8] Tse LKC, Wilkins S, McGlashan N, Urban B, Martinez-Botas R. Solid oxide fuel
cell/gas turbine trigeneration system for marine applications. J Power Sources
2011;196:3149–62.
[9] Weber C, Koyama M, Kraines S. CO2 emissions reduction potential and costs of
a decentralized energy system for providing electricity, cooling and heating in
an office building in Tokyo. Energy 2006;31:2705–25.
[10] Calva ET, Nunez MP, Toral MAR. Thermal integration of trigeneration systems.
Appl Therm Eng 2005;25:973–84.
[11] Basrawi F, Yamada T, Obara S. Theoretical analysis of performance of a micro
gas turbine co/trigeneration system for residential buildings in a tropical
region. Energy Build 2013;68:108–17.
[12] Cao JC, Liu FQ. Simulation and optimization of the performance in the air
conditioning season of a BCHP system in China. Energy Build 2008;40:185–92.
[13] Burer M, Tanaka K, Favrat D, Yamada K. Multi-criteria optimization of a district
cogeneration plant integrating a solid oxide fuel cell–gas turbine combined
cycle, heat pumps and chillers. Energy 2003;28:497–518.
[14] Najafi B, Shirazi A, Aminyavari M, Rinaldi F, Taylor RA. Exergetic, economic and
environmental analyses and multi-objective optimization of an SOFC-gas
turbine hybrid cycle coupled with an MSF desalination system. Desalination
2014;334:46–59.
[15] Al-Sulaiman FA, Dincer I, Hamdullahpur F. Exergy analysis of an integrated
solid oxide fuel cell and organic Rankine cycle for cooling, heating and power.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2010;35:5104–13.
[16] Herold KE, Radermacher R, Klein SA. Absorption chillers and heat pumps. CRC;
1996.
[17] Bossel UG. Final report on SOFC data facts and figures. Swiss Federal Office of
Energy; 1992.
[18] Kim JW, Irkar AVV, Fung KZ, Mehta K, Singhal SC. Polarization effects in
intermediate temperature, anode-supported solid oxide fuel cells. J
Electrochem Soc 1999;146:69–78.
[19] Chan SH, Low CF, Ding OL. Energy and exergy analysis of simple solid oxide
fuel-cell power systems. J Power Sources 2002;103:188–200.
[20] Baghernejad A, Yaghoubi M. Exergy analysis of an integrated solar combined
cycle system. Renew Energy 2010;35:2157–64.
[21] Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran M. Thermal design and optimization. New
York: Wiley; 1996.
[22] Baghernejad A, Yaghoubi M. Exergoeconomic analysis and optimization of an
integrated solar combined cycle system (ISCCS) using genetic algorithm.
Energy Convers Manage 2011;52:2193–203.
[23] Wendell QL. Exergoeconomic methodology applied to energy efficiency
analysis of industrial power transformers. Electr Power Energy Syst
2013;53:348–56.
[24] Toffolo A, Lazzaretto A. Energy, economy and environment as objectives in
multi criteria optimization of thermal system design. Energy 2004;29:
1139–57.
[25] Lazzaretto A, Tsatsaronis G. SPECO: a systematic and general methodology for
calculating efficiencies and costs in thermal systems. Energy 2006;31:
1257–89.
[26] Baghernejad A, Yaghoubi M. Thermoeconomic methodology for analysis and
optimization of a hybrid solar thermal power plant. Int J Green Energy
2013;10:588–609.
[27] Yildirim U, Gungor A. An application of exergoeconomic analysis for a CHP
system. Electr Power Energy Syst 2012;42:250–6.
[28] Ahmadi P, Dincer I. Thermodynamic analysis and thermoeconomic
optimization of a dual pressure combined cycle power plant with a
supplementary firing unit. Energy Convers Manage 2011;52:2296–308.
[29] Baghernejad A, Yaghoubi M. Multi objective exergoeconomic optimization of
an Integrated Solar Combined Cycle System using evolutionary algorithms. Int
J Energy Res 2010;35:601–15.
[30] Zhang R, Zhou J, Wang Y. Multi-objective optimization of hydrothermal energy
system considering economic and environmental aspects. Electr Power Energy
Syst 2012;42:384–95.