i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 3 1 9 1 1 e3 1 9 2 6

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

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

Design and modeling of an integrated combined

plant with SOFC for hydrogen and ammonia
generation

Fatih Yilmaz*, Murat Ozturk

Department of Mechatronics Engineering, Faculty of Technology, Isparta University of Applied Sciences, Isparta,
Turkey

highlights

A novel combined plant with SOFC is developed for hydrogen and ammonia generation.

Modeled system is investigated thermodynamically with energy and exergy efficiencies.

Parametric analysis is conducted to determine the how the effect of each parameter on the system's performance.

Overall energy and exergy efficiency of this modeled plant is 61.04% and 57.13%, respectively.

article info abstract

Article history: Because of the requirement of the utilization of energy resources in a way that is both
Received 18 October 2021 effective and efficient, solid oxide fuel cells have become a notable preference due to their
Received in revised form advantages such as high efficiency and use with different fuels. In addition, the integration
10 January 2022 of these systems in the production of alternative fuels such as hydrogen and ammonia are
Accepted 31 January 2022 important for a sustainable future to combat environmental problems. For this reason, the
Available online 18 February 2022 main intention of this paper is to introduce a new plant combining the different systems
that use the solid oxide fuel cell for a cleaner and sustainable future. In the modeled work,
Keywords: a solid oxide fuel cell, a gas turbine, an organic Rankine cycle, a Kalina cycle with ejector, a
Combined plant hydrogen generation and storage process, a wood steaming plant, and an ammonia pro-
Energy duction system is integrated, to generate useful products. Detailed thermodynamic
Exergy modeling is performed through energy and exergy methods, to determine the performance
Solid oxide fuel cell of the advised system and subsystem. Moreover, energy efficiency, exergy efficiency, and
Hydrogen exergy destruction analyses methods are applied to each sub-plant and the whole system
Ammonia separately. In addition, parametric research is carried out to examine the effects of
modifying key parameters on the plant's and subsystems' performance. Looking at the
analysis results, the amount of the hydrogen and ammonia generation capacities of this
work are 0.0085 kgs1and 0.2023 kgs1, respectively. In addition, the modeled power plant
produces a power rate of about 20,180 kW. As a result, this proposed study is calculated to
have 61.04% energy efficiency, and 57.13% exergy efficiency.
© 2022 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: fatihyilmaz@isparta.edu.tr (F. Yilmaz), muratozturk@isparta.edu.tr (M. Ozturk).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.01.249
0360-3199/© 2022 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
31912 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 3 1 9 1 1 e3 1 9 2 6
Introduction
Today, the energy demand has been obviously increasing
due to the rise of various essential criteria such as the human
population, globalization, technological breakthroughs, and
industrialization. This increase in energy demand is esti-
mated to be around 70% by 2050, as stated in the report of the
United Nations and International Energy Agency [1,2]. Since
most of this energy need is provided from fossil fuels, which
are non-renewable energy sources, harmful emissions are
released to the environment and this causes environmental
problems such as global warming, acid rain, and ozone
consumption, etc., The most important indicator of envi-
ronmental problems is the increase in world temperature by
0.8  C from 1889 to 2006 [3]. To preventing of above-
mentioned environmental difficulties, it is critical to use
renewable energy sources and to make effective use of the
energy-producing system.
When it comes to making efficient use of energy sources, the
irreversibilities that occur in energy conversions limit the effi-
ciency of plants. Therefore, instead of a single generation sys-
tem, cogeneration, trigeneration, or multigeneration systems
are designed to effectively utilization of the waste energy in the
energy conversion process [4]. In short, it is possible to define
systems with more than three beneficial productions with a
single energy input as multigeneration plants. For this point,
the multigeneration plants have present various beneficial
products that are power, hydrogen, heating-cooling, hot water,
and ammonia, etc., These systems also have several advan-
tages, including improved performance and lower emissions
due to the use of waste heat as a source of thermal energy [5].
Based on the investigation of the literature survey, there are a
lot of papers about to multigeneration plant that is assisted by
various energy sources, which means that it shows us the
importance of multiple production systems to researchers.
In a study, exergetic performance evaluation of the multi-
generation model united with solid oxide fuel cell plant (SOFC)
and ORC for useful products is investigated by Al-Sulaiman
et al. [6]. To generate power, heating, and cooling, the inte-
grated model is united with a SOFC, an ORC, and a cooling
subsystem. According to the results of the study they exam-
ined, it provides a relative advantage of 3e25% in exergy effi-
ciency by using trigeneration compared to power cycling
alone. In another study, Yari et al. [7] compared two different
SOFC-based cogeneration systems in terms of digester or
gasifier. They computed that the energetic efficiency of the
syngas fed model is 58.75%.
Ramadhani et al. [8] evaluated a new SOFC based poly-
generation plant to generate power. In that study, they con-
ducted a comprehensive analysis in terms of energy,
economic and environmental. They declared that with this
proposed study, approximately 73% of energy saving is ach-
ieved. In a study by Yuksel et al. [9], they examined a multi-
generation model supported by biomass that is integrated
with SOFC. The study produces cooling-heating, freshwater,
hydrogen, power, and hot water, and also it examined ther-
modynamically with energy and exergy methods. Their
modeled plant's total energetic and exergetic efficiencies are
56.17% and 52.83%, respectively.
Abdollahi Haghghi et a [10]. investigated a new SOFC based
multigeneration plant with the aim of generating power,
hydrogen, freshwater, and cooling. For this purpose, they
conducted a comprehensive thermodynamic performance
modeling based on the viewpoints of energetic and exergetic
analysis. According to their modeling analysis results, their
modeled plant electrical power generation capacity is
4392 kW, and also total energy and exergy performances are to
be found as 77.58% and 47.14%, respectively. In a study in 2015,
Chitsaz et al. [11] evaluated the SOFC-based trigeneration
system from an exergoeconomic perspective. In their analysis
consequences display that the rise in the SOFC inlet temper-
ature, the whole unit cost of products leads to first decline and
then increase. In 2017, the same author and different col-
leagues, Chitsaz et al. [12] executed a thermodynamic and
thermoeconomic comparative analysis of the SOFC-based
trigeneration model. In that study, they designed and inves-
tigated a methane-powered trigeneration plant for power,
heating and cooling generation. The energy efficiency of the
simple design SOFC-based trigeneration model is calculated
as 51.15%.
Considering the years, the interest in SOFC-based systems
has increased day by day. In 2019, in order to power and
freshwater generating, Chitgar et al. [13] planned and studied
a combination of SOFC, thermoelectric generator, Kalina cycle
and reverse osmosis units. They conducted a thermodynamic
and exergy-economic evaluation of the overall system and
components. The combined model designed by these authors
has an exergy efficiency is 54% and the total cost rate is also
$36.8 per hour, respectively. Habibollahzade et al. [14] exam-
ined and compared the four different design multigeneration
plants that is integrating biomass-SOFC systems based on
exergoeconomic and environmental analysis. In their pro-
posed study, they stated that the second configuration, that is,
a thermoelectric generator instead of a double effect cooling
unit, has the best performance and the lowest cost. Further-
more, this configuration system has an exergetic performance
of 43.23%.
Chitgar and Emadi [15] assessed a SOFC-gas turbine (GT)
motivated multigeneration plant, which aims to produce
power, hydrogen, and freshwater from the aspect of the
exergoeconomic examination. The system is formed by the
SOFC-GT, a multi-effect desalination unit (MED), an ORC, and
a PEM electrolyzer. At optimum working situations, the exergy
performance and cost unit of their modeled plant are 59.4%
and 23.6 $/GJ, respectively. On the other hand, the study by
Mei et al. [16] studied the thermodynamic modeling of the
plant combining the SOFC, TEG, and heat pump. The aim here
is to use TEG and absorption heat pump to manage the waste
heat in SOFC exhaust gas and to obtain a cogeneration system.
They stated that the heat-power ratio can be arranged from
0.8 to 4.2 and from 4.2 to 9.5.
Abbasi et al. [17] modeled a new configuration SOFC and
desalination unit-based trigeneration plant that is generates
cooling, power, and freshwater. Parametric research is per-
formed to evaluate the thermodynamics of this trigeneration
plant, taking into account the SOFC current density. According
to the evaluation results, the examined system has 60% en-
ergy 55% exergy efficiencies. Again, in a study conducted in
2021, the authors, Adebayo et al. [18] examined the biogas fed
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 3 1 9 1 1 e3 1 9 2 6
SOFC-based new design multigeneration model from the
perspective of energetic and exergetic analysis. As a result,
they discovered that the total plant's energy and exergetic
efficiencies are 69.86% and 47.4%, respectively.
The authors, Al-Hamed and Dincer [19] examined a new
design SOFC powering plant for clean locomotives, with
regards to energy and exergy examines. In this study, they
designed the use of exhaust heat from an ammonia-SOFC
integrated model to separate hydrogen from ammonia to
generate on-board hydrogen. According to the results of their
thermodynamic analysis, the energy and exergy perfor-
mances of the entire model are 61.1% and 66.3%, respectively.
In another study by the same authors [20] investigated a
design and optimization of the SOFC-engine powering plant
for cleaner locomotives. The plant they modeled includes a
SOFC-GT with a Partially-Premixed-Compression-Ignition
(PPCI) engine, an ORC, a heater, and a reversible heat pump
system. Based on results, they highlighted that the modeled
plant is %15 more efficient than the SOFC-GT system.
Tukenmez et al. [21] modeled a multigeneration system
that is integrated with SOFC for hydrogen generation. In this
system they proposed, they integrated both the renewable
energy source and the SOFC system and then carried out a
comprehensive performance evaluation of the integration of
waste heat management with different sub-systems. In the
light of their analysis results, it is stated that the energy and
exergy efficiency of the whole plant is 56.48% and 54.06%, and
the total hydrogen production capacity of the whole system is
0.0642 kg/s. In a study by Ma et al. [22], they investigated a new
design SOFC assisted combined power, heating, and cooling
system in terms of thermodynamic evaluation. They have
integrated the solar energy system into the fuel cell subsystem
with the aim of generating gradual and highly efficient power.
In cooling mode, they found the energy and exergy efficiency
of the proposed combined plant to be 78.02% and 45.92%. Cao
et al. [23] examined a thermodynamic performance evaluation
of the integrated plant with hydrogen generation and storage
unit. They designed the SOFC based ejector cooling system for
hydrogen production. Also, they employed comprehensive
energy, economic and environmental evaluations. The
modeled plant's exergy efficiency is 30.2% and thermal effi-
ciency is 60.4%.
As a result of a brief literature survey, it is possible to state
that there are numerous studies on SOFC-based cogeneration
and trigeneration systems. However, although there are studies
on SOFC supported integrated (more than three useful prod-
ucts), i.e, multigeneration systems, it is not enough. In short,
the reason why SOFC was chosen as the energy source in this
study is that it has advantages such as high performance, long-
term stability and low emission, and relatively low exergy
destruction. In this case, there is still a need for more
comprehensive studies on SOFC-based multigeneration sys-
tems, especially for the way to increase system performance.
Considering energy efficiency and environmental aspects,
more studies on integrated systems and a comprehensive ex-
amination of performance enhancement criteria are required.
In this framework, the key difference of this proposed study
from the literature is to examine the SOFC-GT based multi-
generation plant, from the point of energy and exergy effi-
ciencies, for power, hot water, cooling, compressed hydrogen
31913
and ammonia production. Moreover, the main innovative
aspect of this work is the operation of the ORC and Kalina sub-
cycles as well as hydrogen production and storage with the
waste heat obtained from the SOFC-based system. Another
innovative perspective is the use of some of the hydrogen
produced in ammonia generation. In addition, its main moti-
vation is to design a more sustainable system by using the
exhaust gas in the SOFC-GT cycle at the maximum level,
reducing environmental emissions. Furthermore, the modeled
new design work displays the following originalities, in order to
addressed literature gaps:

To introduce a SOFC-GT-based combined plant integrated
with an ORC, a Kalina cycle, hydrogen production and
storage, ammonia production, and wood steaming units.

Modeling the effective use of exhaust gas to achieve
beneficial outputs in a sustainable benign way.

Design and analysis of generating the various useful
products, such as hydrogen ammonia, cooling, power and
hot water, using the exhaust gas.

Conducting thorough thermodynamic modeling with en-
ergy and exergy efficiency methods to investigate the
whole performance of the integrated plant.

To implement a parametric work to examine the effect of
some significant factors on the modeled plant and
subsystems.
Designed system layout and definition
In this paper, a multigeneration plant is designed to purpose
to generate power, cooling, hot water, hydrogen, and
ammonia assisted by SOFC and also is schematized in Fig. 1.
As shown from this schematic layout of modeled plant, the
model consisting of the SOFC plant, gas turbine plant (GTP),
ORC plant (ORCP), Kalina power plant with ejector (KPP), wood
steaming plant (WSP), ammonia production plant (APP), and
also hydrogen production and compression process (CHPP).
The main energy carrier of this integrated cycle is the SOFC
integrated gas turbine cycle. In this model, SOFC, gas turbine,
ORC plant, Kalina power plant are used for power generation,
on the other hand, the PEM electrolyzer is also used for
generating hydrogen gas. Furthermore, hot water production
takes place in the condenser 1 part that of the ORC cycle. Each
system is thermally connected to the other and works
simultaneously. Basically, for the various subsystems inte-
grated to employed to the different aim, for example, SOFC is
integrated for thermal energy as well as power generation,
ORC for power generation, Kalina cycle for power and cooling
generation, PEM electrolysis for hydrogen production, and
then ammonia reactor for ammonia production. Also, further,
hot air is obtained with the heat exchanger and this wood will
be used for purposes such as steaming.
To begin with, in the multigeneration plant, the air and fuel
(states 1 and 5) are compressed and preheated, then entering
the SOFC. Here, the electrochemical reaction occurs and DC
power is produced. Subsequently, the high pressure and
temperature burned gas at state 13 enters the gas turbine to
generate power. Then, it passes through HEX-1, HEX-2, HEX33,
31914 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 3 1 9 1 1 e3 1 9 2 6

Fig. 1 e Schematic lay out of the methane-fed SOFC combined plant for multigeneration with hydrogen production.

generator, evaporator, economizer, and HEX4 respectively as
exhausting heat at state 14, transfers its thermal energy to
subsystems, and finally goes to the environment.
In addition, ORC, one of the subsystems, performs power
and also hot water production. The generator between states
17e18 transfers the thermal energy it receives from the
exhausted gas to the ORC plant and the thermal energy
required for the run of the system is met from here. R245fa
refrigerant, which is the working fluid, is used in this sub-
system. Afterward, the evaporator and economizer at states
18e19 provide the thermal energy required for the Kalina
cycle with ejector. This sub-cycle is a cycle that works with the
ammonia-water mixture and has attracted attention in recent
years. The main design purpose is power and cooling gener-
ation here.
Furthermore, at state 19, the still high-temperature waste
heat HEX-4 enters to heat the pure water from state 47. After
that, at state 48, water at about 80  C and some of the elec-
tricity obtained from the subsystems (excess part) enters the
PEM electrolysis and an electrochemical reaction occurs here.
Hydrogen and oxygen gases are produced as a result of this
process. While some of the produced hydrogen is sent to the
storage tank with a three-way valve, the other part is sent to
the ammonia production process. Conversely, the oxygen
produced can be used in many health fields. On the other
hand, HEX-5 is used in the wood steaming unit by making use
of the last heat of the waste heat. Briefly, the hydrogen storage
process consists of three hydrogen compressors and three
intercoolers and is sent to the tank as the compressed phase
that is about 25  C temperature and about 75,000 kPa pressure
at point 57. Hydrogen is stored here and used later if needed.
Finally, at state 65 compressed hydrogen and compressed
nitrogen at state 67, enters the ammonia reactor. Here,
ammonia is generated in consequence of the reaction that
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 3 1 9 1 1 e3 1 9 2 6 31915

takes place, and then generated ammonia at state 68 is sent to X X

m_ in hin þ Q_ in þ W_ in ¼ m_ out hout þ Q_ out þ W_ out (2)
the tank for storage. The operation of the power, hot water, out
in
cooling, hydrogen, and ammonia production system with
_ W
The terms used here, that are Q; _ and h are the rates of
thermal energy obtained from exhausted gas can be
expressed in this way. heat transfer and work, and specific enthalpy as well. Addi-
tionally, based on the thermodynamic second law, the equa-
tions for entropy and exergy balances can be formulated as:
Thermodynamic modeling and analysis X X Q_  X
m_ in sin þ þ S_gen ¼ m_ out sout (3)
in
T out
In this subpart of this work, comprehensive thermodynamic
modeling and analysis are examined by using the energetic Here S_gen and s terms are entropy generation rate and
and exergetic efficiencies techniques. This analysis method is specific entropy, respectively. Finally, the exergy balance
fulfilled by Engineering Equation Solver (EES) program [24], equivalence is as follows:
with regards to thermodynamics' first and second laws. X X
Generally, while employed these laws, fours balance equa- _ _ þ Ex
m_ in exin þ Ex _ _ ¼ _ _ þ Ex
m_ out exout þ Ex _ _ þ Ex
_ D
Q in Win Q out Wout
in out
tions take into consideration such as mass, energy, entropy,
(4)
and exergy balances. Furthermore, some acceptances are
made for the thermodynamic examination of a thermal sys- From the terms formulated above, ex defines specific
tem and then the analysis is employed. These assumptions of exergy and Ex _ _ and
_ D describes energy destruction. Also, Ex
Q
the displayed model are presented here: _ _ are also exergy terms due to heat and work transfer and
Ex W
can be formulated as, respectively:

The total system is expected to work in steady-state flow-
 
ing conditions. _ _ ¼ 1  T0 Q_
Ex Q (5)

Kinetic and potential energy changes are not taken into TC
account.

It is assumed that the connection between the pipes is not _ _ ¼W
Ex _ (6)
W
lost heat to the environment.
Above mentioned T0 and Tc terms are the environment and

Pressure drops in pipelines and heat exchangers are not
components' temperature. The specific exergy given in Eq. (4)
taken into account.
can be written as follows after the assumptions made, that is,
ignoring the kinetic and potential exergy changes:
For the analysis of this proposed plant, in addition to the
above-mentioned assumptions, more comprehensive as- ex ¼ exph þ exch (7)
sumptions are illustrated in Table 1.
According to this table, the isentropic effectiveness of After that, the physical and chemical exergies are [32];
compressors and turbines are assumed as 0.85. Accompanied
exph ¼ ðh  h0 Þ  T0 ðs  s0 Þ (8a)
by the assumptions made, the four equilibrium equations
mentioned above are expressed here, and firstly, mass, sec- X X
exch ¼ xk exkch þ RT0 xk lnðxk Þ (8b)
ondly energy, thirdly entropy, and finally exergy equilibrium
equations are mathematically formulated as follows [29e31]: here, xk is the molar fraction and exkch is standart chemical
X X exergy.
m_ in ¼ m_ out (1)
in out
SOFC
Here, m_ is mass flow rate. Next, the following is the general
energy balance equation: It basically consists of a SOFC anode, cathode, and electrolyte
parts. To feed the system, methane (CH4) is taken into account
with respect to its lower heating value. Also, CH4 is converted
Table 1 e The values of thermodynamic variables of state
points for the methane fed SOFC combined plant. to H2 and CO2 at the inner or external reformer. The reforming
activity contains the endothermic reaction of the steam
Values Value
reforming and exothermic reaction of oxidation. The gaseous
Ambient temperature, To 25  C combination discharged from the pre-reformer includes pri-
Ambient pressure, Po [17] 101.3 kPa
marily CH4, H2, CO2, CO and H2O. This combination should be
Mass flow rate of fuel, m_ f 0.52 kgs1
reformed completely to H2 and CO2 by using the internal
Isentropic efficiency of turbines, his;T [17] 0.85
reforming reactions as defined via Eqs. (9) and (10). Moreover,
Isentropic efficiency of pumps, his;P [25] 0.85
After burner efficiency [25] 0.99
the H2 utilized at the electrochemical reaction is described by
Isentropic efficiency of compressors, his;C [26] 0.80 Eq. (11) [33]:
Fuel utilization factor [27] 0.85
CH4 þ H2 O4CO þ 3H2 ðReformingÞ (9)
Air compressor pressure ratio, rP [28] 8
31916 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 3 1 9 1 1 e3 1 9 2 6

CO þ H2 O4CO2 þ H2 ðShiftingÞ (10) _ SOFC W_ þ Ex

m_ 3 ex3 þ m_ 11 ex11 ¼ m_ 4 ex4 þ m_ 12 ex12 þ Ex _ D;SOFC (14)

H2 þ 1=2O2 /H2 O (11) After burner

SOFC power production can de written as:

W_ SOFC ¼ Nc jAc Vc
Here, Nc and Vc show cell numbers and cell voltage, j in-
dicates current density and Ac is active surface area. Also, the
voltage equations utilized for estimating the SOFC effective-
ness are written in Table 2.
Finally, the SOFC energetic and exergetic balances equa-
tion can be defines as below;
m_ 3 h3 þ m_ 11 h11 ¼ m_ 4 h4 þ m_ 12 h12 þ W_ SOFC
The synthetic combustion with synthesis gas (methane)
(12) combustion in the after-burner part takes place as a result of
the reaction of fuel and air coming from SOFC anode and
cathode parts, respectively. At state 13, the flow characteristic
of the outlet conditions can be calculated with the following
mathematical formulation:
m_ 12 LHVfuel þ m_ 4 h4 ¼ m_ 13 h13 þ ð1  hcc Þm_ 12 LHVfuel (15)
The reaction of the syngas combustion can be defined as
(13) under:

 
lCx1 Hy1 þ xO2 O2 þ xN2 N2 þ xH2 O H2 O þ xCO2 CO2 þ xAr Ar / yCO2 CO2 þ yN2 N2 þ yO2 O2 þ yH2 O H2 O þ yNO NO þ yCO CO þ yAr Ar (16)

 
yCO2 ¼ lx1 þ xCO2  yCO (17)

 
yN2 ¼ xN2  yNO (18)
Table 2 e The voltage equations utilized for estimating  
the SOFC effectiveness [34]. ly1
yH2 O ¼ xH2 O þ (19)
2
Voltage Equations
Cell voltage Vc ¼ Vn  Vloss ¼ Vn  ðVohm þVact þVcon Þ  
" # ly1 lCO lNO
Nernst voltage Dg0 T12
0:5
pO yO2 ¼ xO2  lx1    (20)
Vn ¼  þR ln pH2;12 2;4
4 2 2
2F 2F pH2 O;12
pH2;12 ¼ PH2;12 =Po
yAr ¼ xAr (21)
pO2;4 ¼ PO2;4 =Po
pH2 O;12 ¼ PH2 O;12 =Po
nfuel
Ohmic voltage Vohm ¼ ðra da þrc dc þre de þrin din Þxj l¼
 #1 nair
h9:5x107 1150
ra ¼ exp , da ¼ 0:0005
T12 T12 PEM electrolyzer
 #
 1
h4:2x107 1200
rc ¼ exp , dc ¼ 0:00005
T12 T12 To hydrogen generation, the PEM electrolysis method is a
h 
10300 i1 commonly known approach. The produced hydrogen and
re ¼ 33400exp , de ¼ 0:00001
T12 oxygen rate as per the mole can be expressed mathematically
  #1
h9:3x106 1100 as follows [35]:
rin ¼ exp , din ¼ 0:003
T12 T12

Activation voltage Vact ¼ Vact;a þ Vact;c N_ O2;out ¼ J 4F (22)
 
T12 j
Vact;a ¼ R Arcsin , joa ¼ 0:65x104 
F
 
joa
N_ H2;out ¼ J 2F ¼ N_ H2 O;reacted (23)
T12 j
Vact;c ¼ R Arcsin , joc ¼ 0:25x104
F joa Here, J and F are current density and faraday constant. The
Concentration Vcon ¼ Vcon;a þ Vcon;c electrical energy required for PEM to decompose water into
 
voltage T12
Vcon;a ¼ R  ln 1  hydrogen and oxygen molecules can be modeled as in Eq. (22)
2F
   following:
j PH2 ;12 j
þln 1 þ
jas PH2 O;12 Jas
   Q_ e ¼ JV (24)
T12 j
Vcon;c ¼  R ln 1 
2F jcs In this equation, Q_ e is defined as required electrical power.
2FPH2 ;12 Daeff 100000
Jas ¼ , Daeff ¼ 0:2x104 To sum up, V is the PEM voltage, and can be clarified as [35];
RT12 La
4FPO2 ;4 Dceff 100000
Jcs ¼   , Dceff ¼ 0:05x104 V ¼ Vo þ Vact;a þ Vact;c þ Vohm (25)
P4  PO2 ;4
RT12 Lc
P4 where, Vo is the reversible voltage, and can be modeled as:
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 3 1 9 1 1 e3 1 9 2 6 31917

Vo ¼ 1:229  8:5x104 ðTelec  298Þ (26) W_ net;ORC

jORCP ¼ (36)
m_ 17 ex17  m_ 18 ex18
For anode and cathode parts of PEM, the over-potential
activation rates can be formulated as [9,35]: Kalina power plant (KPP)
 
RT J
Vact;i ¼ sinh1 i ¼ a; c (27)
F 2Jo ; i

      W_ net;KPP þ Q_ cooling
azFhact;i 1  a zFhact;i hKPP ¼ (37)
J ¼ Jo;i exp  exp ; i ¼ a; c (28) m18 h18  m_ 19 h19
_
RT RT
and
 
Eact;i
ref
Jo;i ¼ Ji exp  ; i ¼ a; c (29) W _ cooling Q_
_ net;KPP þ Ex
RT jKPP ¼ (38)
m_ 18 ex18  m_ 19 ex19
In Eq. (25), Vohm is the ohmic loss, and can be explained as,
using whole ohmic resistance (Rohm ) and then can be calcu-
lated as follows:
Ammonia production plant (APP)
Vohm ¼ JRohm (30)

m_ 68 h68
Energetic and exergetic effectiveness of overall plant and hAPP ¼ (39)
_ _
m64 h64 þ m66 h66 þ W _ HC1 þ W_ NC
subsystems
and
In this subsection, this integrated system modeled includes
seven subsystems, the energetic and exergetic efficiencies of m_ 68 ex68
jAPP ¼ (40)
m_ 64 ex64 þ m_ 66 ex66 þ W _ HC1 þ W_ NC
each are investigated separately, and then the mathematical
formulations are written as follows:
Compressed hydrogen production plant (CHPP)
SOFC plant
m_ 49 h49 þ m_ 57 h57
hCHPP ¼ (41)
m_ 48 h48 þ W_ PEM þ W _ HC2 þ W _ HC3 þ W_ HC4
W_ SOFC þ m_ 13 h13
hSOFC ¼ (31)
m_ 1 h1 þ m_ 5 h5 þ m_ 8 h8 þ W _ AC þ W_ P1 þ W_ FC and

and m_ 49 ex49 þ m_ 57 ex57

jCHPP ¼ (42)
_
m48 ex48 þ W_ PEM þ W _ HC2 þ W _ HC3 þ W_ HC4
W _ SOFC þ m_ 13 ex13
jSOFC ¼ (32)
m_ 1 ex1 þ m_ 5 ex5 þ m_ 8 ex8 þ W _ AC þ W_ P1 þ W_ FC Wood steaming plant (WSP)

Gas turbine plant (GTP)

Q_ steaming
hCHPP ¼ (43)
m_ 71 h71
W _ net;GTP
hGTP ¼ (33) and
m_ 4 h4 þ m_ 12 h12
and _ steaming Q_
Ex
_ net;GTP jCHPP ¼ (44)
W m_ 71 ex71
jGTP ¼ (34)
m_ 4 ex4 þ m_ 12 ex12
Overall system (OS)
ORC plant (ORCP)

W_ net;ORC
hORCP ¼ (35)
m_ 17 h17  m_ 18 h18
and

W_ net þ m_ 49 h49 þ Q_ heating þ Q_ cooling þ Q_ steaming þ m_ H LHVH þ m_ NH LHVNH

hCHPP ¼ 2 2 3 3
(45)
m_ 1 h1 þ m_ 5 h5 þ m_ 8 h8
31918 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 3 1 9 1 1 e3 1 9 2 6

validation as mentioned above. In short, when looking at

and Tables 3e5 for the model validation of the subcycles, the

W _ heating Q_ þ Ex
_ net þ m_ 49 ex49 þ Ex _ cooling Q_ þ Ex
_ steaming Q_ þ m_ H exH þ m_ NH exNH
jCHPP ¼ 2 2 3 3
(46)
m_ 1 h1 þ m_ 5 h5 þ m_ 8 h8

Model validation relative error was quite low, indicating that the results ob-
To emphasize the validity and precision of the conclusions tained are consistent with the studies reviewed in the
produced from thermodynamic analyses in theoretical in- literature.
vestigations, model validation is a reasonable method used by
many researchers. SOFC, ORC plant, and Kalina power plant,
which are the most important sub-plants of this integrated Results and discussion
system, are power generation cycles, and the model verifica-
tion of these cycles with some studies in the literature has In this subpart, energy and exergy methodologies are used to
been made and presented in this subsection. To begin with, conduct detailed thermodynamic modeling of the SOFC-
the SOFC subcycle is validated in the literature by the study assisted multigeneration plant. For this aim, energetic effi-
presented by Ma et al. [33], and is tabulated in Table 3. At the ciency, exergetic efficiency, irreversibility, and the amount of
same SOFC anode and cathode inlet and outlet values, the the beneficial products of the overall plant and subsystem are
exergy performance of the model developed by Ma et al. [33], is parametrically examined. Furthermore, parametric work is
46.73%, while the exergy efficiency that we examined and employed to identify how the influence of some important
simulated is 47.51%. Under these conditions, the relative error factors changing on the performance behavior of the planned
is 1.67%, which is a consistent result for model validation. model and subsystem. With the assumptions highlighted in
In addition, another power generation cycle is the Kalina Table 1, a mathematical model is created using the EES soft-
cycle. With this modeled sub-cycle, the literature study that is ware and the results obtained from the thermodynamic
presented by Ghaebi et al. [36] model validation is conducted analysis, i.e., the values of each point, are presented in Table 6.
and highlighted in Table 4. Looking at Table 4, in the same Looking at Table 6, the thermodynamic values of each point of
parameters of the Kalina plant, the exergy performance of the the recommended integrated plant above presented in Fig. 1,
study modeled by Ghaebi et al. [36] is 16.69%, while the exergy are calculated by EES.
performance of our modeled system is 17.08%. Looking at
these values, the relative error is calculated as %2.3, and it
should be noted that this value is consistent for the model
validation. Table 4 e Validation outputs for Kalina power plant with
In conclusion, for the last model validation part in this the study of Ghaebi et al. [36].
subsection, ORC subcycle with 245fa fluid is considered. Table Values [36]
5 presents the model validation of our modeled ORC subcycle,
Kalina turbine inlet temperature 190  C
with the work that Safari and Dincer [37] suggested in the Kalina turbine inlet pressure 1750 kPa
literature. In the same inlet and outlet conditions of the ORC Kalina turbine outlet temperature 172  C
turbine, the exergy efficiency of the study presented by Safari Kalina turbine outlet pressure 1167 kPa
and Dincer is 18.43%, while the exergy efficiency of this study Ejector exit temperature 102.85  C
is 18.65%. In between with these papers, the relative error is Ejector exit pressure 30.87 kPa
Mixer exit temperature 61.75  C
1.19%, and this value is within the range suitable for model
Mixer exit pressure 30.87 kPa
Exergetic performance of Kalina plant 16.69%
Simulated exergetic performance 17.08%
Table 3 e Validation outputs for SOFC plant with the Error 2.33%
study of Ma et al. [33].
Values [33]
Compressed air inlet temperature for cathode 426.85  C Table 5 e Validation outputs for ORC plant with the study
Compressed air inlet pressure for cathode 810.6 kPa of Safari and Dincer [37].
Mixing fuel inlet temperature for anode 426.85  C
Values [37]
Mixing fuel inlet pressure for anode 810.6 kPa
Compressed air exit temperature for cathode 946.85  C ORC turbine inlet temperature 160  C
Compressed air exit pressure for cathode 810.6 kPa ORC turbine inlet pressure 2500 kPa
Mixing fuel exit temperature for anode 946.85  C ORC turbine outlet temperature 73.14  C
Mixing fuel exit pressure for anode 810.6 kPa ORC turbine outlet pressure 100 kPa
Exergetic performance of SOFC 46.73% Energetic performance of ORC 18.43%
Simulated exergetic performance 47.51% Simulated energetic performance 18.65%
Error 1.67% Error 1.19%
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 3 1 9 1 1 e3 1 9 2 6 31919

Table 6 e Thermodynamical properties of state points illustrated in Fig. 1.

State point T ( C) P (kPa) m_ (kg/s) h (kJ/kg) s (kJ/kgK) X (%)
1 25 101.3 11.2 298.4 6.86 e
2 296.5 810.6 11.2 575.6 6.922 e
3 427 810.6 11.2 714.2 7.141 e
4 947 810.6 9.52 1303 7.767 e
5 25 101.3 0.52 0.9889 0.002294 e
6 213 810.6 0.52 469.7 0.1332 e
7 427 810.6 0.52 1166 1.311 e
8 25 101.3 1.17 104.8 0.3669 e
9 25.2 810.6 1.17 106.3 0.3695 e
10 427 810.6 1.17 3324 7.649 e
11 427 810.6 1.69 2660 5.699 e
12 947 810.6 3.374 3294 6.804 e
13 1134 810.6 12.89 2095 6.386 e
14 789 101.3 12.89 1603 5.875 e
15 700.9 101.3 12.89 1483 5.78 e
16 680.1 101.3 12.89 1455 5.757 e
17 457.5 101.3 12.89 1163 5.478 e
18 220 101.3 12.89 868.8 5.089 e
19 160 101.3 12.89 797 4.965 e
20 159.3 101.3 12.89 786.2 4.963 e
21 122 101.3 12.89 751.7 4.877 e
22 14.86 100 12.22 219.1 1.068 e
23 15.84 2500 12.22 221.2 1.069 e
24 160 2500 12.22 531.4 1.902 e
25 73.14 100 12.22 469.9 1.922 e
26 20 101.3 33.29 83.93 0.2962 e
27 42 101.3 33.29 176 0.5989 e
28 190 1750 0.936 1414 3.812 15
29 190 1750 0.3583 2744 6.262 29.58
30 152 1167 0.3583 1757 6.289 29.58
31 190 1750 0.5778 774.8 2.293 5.956
32 40.15 1750 0.5778 130.1 0.6166 5.956
33 40.15 1750 0.06592 130.1 0.6166 5.956
34 0.25 1.304 0.06592 130.1 0.6737 5.956
35 10 1.304 0.06592 2448 8.907 5.956
36 103 30.87 0.4242 2388 7.891 25.91
37 40.15 1750 0.5118 130.1 0.6166 5.956
38 40.45 30.87 0.5118 130.1 0.6222 5.956
39 61.75 30.87 0.936 1153 3.934 15
40 30.05 30.87 0.936 24.7 0.4577 15
41 30.15 1750 0.936 26.87 0.4588 15
42 123.6 1750 0.936 424.8 1.601 15
43 18 101.3 18.03 75.56 0.2675 e
44 32 101.3 18.03 134.1 0.464 e
45 18 101.3 2.862 75.56 0.2675 e
46 5.25 101.3 2.862 22.17 0.08003 e
47 18 101.3 0.537 75.56 0.2675 e
48 80 101.3 0.537 335 1.075 e
49 80 101.3 0.4765 50.5 0.1556 e
50 80 101.3 0.06043 4723 55.81 e
51 80 101.3 0.008461 4723 55.81 e
52 266.3 500 0.008461 7426 55.36 e
53 25 500 0.008461 3933 46.79 e
54 266.3 2500 0.008461 7441 48.72 e
55 25 2500 0.008461 3942 40.13 e
56 697 75,000 0.008461 14,395 43.36 e
57 25 75,000 0.008461 4419 25.83 e
58 5 101.3 0.3069 21.12 0.07625 e
59 28 101.3 0.3069 117.4 0.4088 e
60 5 101.3 0.3075 21.12 0.07625 e
61 28 101.3 0.3075 117.4 0.4088 e
62 5 101.3 0.8767 21.12 0.07625 e
63 28 101.3 0.8767 117.4 0.4088 e
(continued on next page)
31920 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 3 1 9 1 1 e3 1 9 2 6

Table 6 e (continued )
State point T ( C) P (kPa) m_ (kg/s) h (kJ/kg) s (kJ/kgK) X (%)
64 80 101.3 0.05197 4723 55.81 e
65 250 10,000 0.05197 7261 45.96 e
66 45 101.3 0.238 505.8 6.903 e
67 250 10,000 0.238 543 6.044 e
68 250 10,000 0.2023 1936 5.464 e
69 18 101.3 0.1672 75.56 0.2675 e
70 18.2 350 0.1672 76.63 0.2704 e
71 138.9 350 0.1672 2732 6.941 e

Accompanied by the values in Table 6, the consequences of
the thermodynamic analysis, i.e., energy efficiency, exergy ef-
ficiency, and irreversibility, are given in Table 7, for the sub-
systems and the whole plant. While the energy and exergy
performances of the SOFC model are 44.86% and 41.63%,
respectively, also its reversibility rate is determined as
11,086 kW. Also, the energy and exergy efficiency of another
subsystem, ORC, is listed as 17.26% and 14.85%. Furthermore,
the exergetic performance of the overall study is 57.13%, while
the energetic performance is 61.04%. Referring to the irrevers-
ibility of among the subcycles, the highest and lowest irre-
versibilities are determined in the SOFC unit and ORC plant. It
should be reported that more irreversibility occurs due to irre-
versibility in parts with high-temperature changes. On the
other hand, the values of the useful outputs obtained with this
designed plant are presented in Table 8. The power generation
quantities of SOFC, GT, ORCT, and KT are 12,743 kW, 6331 kW,
752 kW, and 354 kW, respectively. It is clearly shown that the
SOFC power generation rate is higher than other sub-cycles.
The heating and cooling capacities of this designed system
are 4962 kW and 154 kW. In conclusion, the hydrogen and
ammonia generation capacities of the overall plant are 0.0085
and 0.2023 kg per second, respectively.
As coming to the parametric evaluation results, to begin
with, it should be emphasized that the ambient point tem-
perature changing is a significant factor to determine the
impact on the performance behavior of any thermal plant
design. In this context, the effect of ambient point tempera-
ture change on the performances of the proposed model and
subsystems, respectively, are examined and illustrated in
Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. Referring Fig. 2, the energetic efficiency of the

Table 7 e Thermodynamic modeling results of the

methane fed SOFC integrated plant.
Plant sub-parts Energy Exergy Exergy
efficiency efficiency destruction
(%) (%) rate (kW)
SOFC 44.86 41.63 11,086
Gas turbine plant 47.29 43.87 5782
ORC plant 17.26 14.85 687
Kalina power plant 15.21 12.03 761
Ammonia production 64.57 60.47 1105 Fig. 2 e Energy efficiencies of the overall plant and
process subsystems versus reference temperature.
Compressed hydrogen 66.83 62.28 1624
production plant
Wood steaming plant 84.56 79.15 906
Overall plant 61.04 57.13 21,045

Table 8 e Methane fed SOFC combined plant outputs.

Plant outputs Values
W_ SOFC 12,743 kW
W_ GT 6331 kW
W_ ORCT 752 kW
W_ KT 354 kW
Q_ Heating 4962 kW
Q_ Cooling 154 kW
Q_ Steaming 457 kW
m_ Hydrogen 0.0085 kg/s
Fig. 3 e Exergy efficiencies of the overall plant and
m_ Ammonia 0.2023 kg/s
subsystems versus reference temperature.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 3 1 9 1 1 e3 1 9 2 6
Fig. 4 e Beneficial outputs changing of the modeled plant
versus reference temperature.
Fig. 5 e Hydrogen and ammonia generation rates of the
modeled plant versus reference temperature.
overall plant and subsystem increasing by raising the envi-
ronmental temperature from 0 to 40  C. Additionally, this
increment has a linear trend. In contrast, it is observed in Fig. 3
that the change in exergy efficiency also increases linearly
under the same circumstances. The exergetic efficiency of the
whole model increases linearly from about 0.58 to 0.6 over this
increased range. The main reason for the rise in the efficiency
of the whole model and subsystems is the decrease in irre-
versibility in plant components with the goes up in ambient
temperature.
Fig. 6 e Change of exergy destruction rates of overall plant
and subsystems according to ambient temperature.
31921
Figs. 4 and 5 show the how influence of the various refer-
ence point temperature on the beneficial products, and also
on the amount of generated ammonia and hydrogen rates,
respectively. For Fig. 4, the sharpest increase among the most
beneficial outputs occurred in power generation and heating
capacity. With a 40  C rise in the reference point temperature,
the power production is seen to increase from approximately
17,000 kWe23,000 kW. The increase in other useful outputs is
somewhat slower. Looking at the hydrogen and ammonia
production capacities, in Fig. 5, both generation quantities
increased linearly, with rising the reference point tempera-
ture from 0 to 40  C. In this increase in ambient temperature,
the amount of hydrogen and ammonia obtained (for
hydrogen; from 0.0065 kgs1 to 0.0095 kgs1, and for ammonia;
from 0.17 kgs1 to 0.225 kgs1) clearly increases. According to
Figs. 4 and 5, for the increment proportional similarity of the
power generation and hydrogen amount, the electrical power
required for hydrogen production is met from the total power
generation.
The last figure about the reference temperature, Fig. 6,
which examines how the change in reference temperature
has an influence on system behavior, displays the change in
irreversibility. Unlike the linear increases illustrated in the
above figures, here, the exergy destruction of the designed
subsystems decreases with the rise in ambient temperature.
In short, the exergy destruction of the SOFC plant decreases
from about 14,000 kW to about 10,000 kW when the ambient
temperature rises from 0  C to 40  C. This can be explained by
the reduction of irreversibility in the system’ parts. The main
reason for the increase in the system performance with the
increase of the reference temperature is the decrease in the
irreversibility with the decrease of the temperature difference
between the system and the environment.
On the other hand, another important parameter is SOFC
working temperature, because of the main energy carrier of
this paper. It is investigated how the SOFC operating tem-
perature change affects the performance, useful outputs, and
irreversibilities of the systems and subsystems, in this pro-
posed study. Firstly, in Figs. 7 and 8, the change in energetic
and exergetic efficiencies of the whole model and subsystems,
respectively, as the SOFC working temperature rises from
Fig. 7 e Variation of the energy efficiency of the overall
plant and subsystems in line with different SOFC operating
temperatures.
31922 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 3 1 9 1 1 e3 1 9 2 6
700  C to 950  C, is examined and presented. As a result of a
250  C rise in SOFC working temperature, Fig. 7 shows a linear
rise in the energy performance of the total model and sub-
system, while Fig. 8 demonstrates a straight increase in exergy
efficiency of the whole plant and subsystems. Looking at the
above-mentioned figures, as a result of the rise in SOFC
working temperature, the exhaust gas temperature increases,
and then it enters the subsystems HEXs at higher temperature
and enthalpy, and more power generation occurs. This causes
an increase in the useful outputs obtained, and finally a rise in
both energy and exergy effectiveness.
Secondly, Fig. 9 examines the impact of SOFC working
temperature variation on useful outputs from the modeled
cycle. As clearly illustrated here, with rising the SOFC working
temperature from 700 to 950  C, the net power generation
increases linearly from approximately 16,500 kWe24,500 kW,
and also the heating capacity increases from nearly 4200 kW
to about 6100 kW. After that, other useful products besides
Fig. 9, is the amount of ammonia and hydrogen. The impact of
the SOFC temperature on the ammonia and hydrogen gener-
ation rate is investigated and figured in Fig. 10. Increasing the
SOFC working temperature leads to rising in the hydrogen and
ammonia generation rates. For this increment in the hydrogen
Fig. 8 e Variation of the exergy efficiency of the overall
plant and subsystems in line with different SOFC operating
temperatures.
Fig. 9 e Variation of the modeled systems' beneficial
products in line with different SOFC operating
temperatures.
Fig. 10 e Variation of the hydrogen and ammonia
generation in line with different SOFC operating
temperatures.
rate, it can be stated that from about 0.0065 kgs1 to
0.011 kgs1. Furthermore, with this increment in the hydrogen
rate, the ammonia generation rate increases linearly. In the
light of the results obtained, it is possible to state that
ammonia and hydrogen generation amounts change in direct
proportion with the increase in SOFC operating temperature.
Finally, Fig. 11, the last figure that is investigating the how
the impact of the SOFC working temperature on the irrevers-
ibility of the total plant and subsystems. As can be understood
from Fig. 11, the irreversibility of the subsystems is decreasing
by raising the SOFC working temperature from 700  C to
950  C. A 250  C increase in SOFC's operating temperature
reduced the SOFC irreversibility by about 2000 kW. This situ-
ation can be cleared that it is the reduction of irreversibility in
system components as higher operating temperatures are
reached. Therefore, when designing SOFC-based systems,
higher efficiencies can be achieved by optimizing them for
ideal working temperatures.
In conclusion, the last parameter that has been investi-
gated is the influence of the fuel mass flow rate (m_ 5 ) chancing
on the performance, beneficial products, and the irrevers-
ibility of the total plant and subsystems. As shown from
Fig. 12, the energetic performance of the entire plant and
Fig. 11 e Variation of the exergy destruction rate of the
overall plant and subsystems in line with different SOFC
operating temperatures.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 3 1 9 1 1 e3 1 9 2 6 31923

0.0075 kgs1 to 0.0115 kgs1, and the amount of ammonia

enlarged from about 0.18 kgs1 to 0.25 kgs1. The reason for
this increase in the amount of ammonia and hydrogen is the
increase in the amount of electricity sent to the PEM elec-
trolysis with the rise in the net power generation amount, as
observed in Fig. 14, as a result of the mass increase of the fuel
entering the modeled plant.

Fig. 12 e Effect of different fuel mass flow ratios on the

energy efficiency of the proposed plant and subsystems.

subsystem increase from about 0.58 to 0.61, with rising the m_ 5

from 0.4 kgs1 to 0.8 kgs1. The main cause for this rise is that
the high inlet mass rate is also higher power generation of the
subsystems. Furthermore, Fig. 13 depicts the trend of the
exergetic efficiency of the overall model and subsystem with Fig. 14 e Effect of different fuel mass flow ratios on the
raising the m_ 5 . Looking at this chart, the exergetic efficiency of useful products of the overall plant.
the overall model increase from about 0.46 to 0.59, with rising
in the m_ 5 . Looking at these two figures, both energetic and
exergetic performances of the overall model and subsystems
have increase trend, with rising the m_ 5 .
Regarding the analysis results figures that include the
beneficial outputs, Figs. 14 and 15 demonstrate the impact of
the m_ 5 on the power, heating, cooling, and steaming, as well
hydrogen and ammonia generation rate, respectively. Power,
heating, cooling, and steaming production rate trends from
the modeled plant are increase with rising the m_ 5 , as
concluded from Fig. 14. As can be realized from this figure, in
this rise in the rate of m_ 5 , the total power generation increases
by approximately 6500 kW. Afterward, the amount of
ammonia and hydrogen production, which are other impor-
tant outputs, clearly increases with the increase in m_ 5 , as seen Fig. 15 e Effect of different fuel mass flow ratios on the
in Fig. 15. In this increased range of m_ 5 , the amount of hydrogen and ammonia generation rate of the overall
hydrogen obtained from the advised model raised from about plant.

Fig. 16 e Effect of different fuel mass flow ratios on the

Fig. 13 e Effect of different fuel mass flow ratios on the exergy destruction rate of the overall plant and
exergy efficiency of the proposed plant and subsystems. subsystems.
31924 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 3 1 9 1 1 e3 1 9 2 6
To the detailed investigation of the occurs in the irrevers-
ibility in the plant’ components, it should be emphasized that
the exergy destruction method is a very important parameter.
For this aim, the last figure of this investigated paper, Fig. 16,
presents the influence of the m_ 5 on the irreversibility of the
advised subsystems. With the rise of m_ 5 from 0.4 to 0.8,
generally, the irreversibility of the subcycles increase. In this
increased range of m_ 5 , the irreversibility of SOFC increases
linearly from approximately 10,000 kWe15,000 kW. In addi-
tion, the irreversibility rate of the GT plant has increased by
approximately 2500 kW. The main reason for this increase is
that there are more irreversibilities in the system components
with high fuel mass flow rates.
Conclusion
In this paper, an innovative SOFC supported combined plant is
introduced that is heating, cooling, steaming, ammonia, and
hydrogen generation. Detailed thermodynamic modeling is
conducted on the system with regards to energetic and exer-
getic approaches. Furthermore, the effect of some significant
parameters changing on the energy efficiency, exergy effi-
ciency, beneficial outputs, and irreversibility of the overall
plant and subsystem is examined and analyzed. Regarding
this thermodynamic analysis conclusions, some prominent
results consequences are highlighted as:

The energy and exergy performance of SOFC, which is one
of the subsystems, is calculated as 44.86% and 41.63%. Also,
this advised sub-model has higher irreversibility among
the subsystems with 11,086 kW.

The amounts of useful outputs from the proposed study
are found to be 4962 kW for heating, 154 kW for cooling,
457 kW steaming, 0.0085 kgs1 for hydrogen, 0.2023 kgs1
for ammonia respectively.

The amounts of the power generation rate of subsystems
are calculated as 12,743 kW for SOFC, 6331 kW for GT,
752 kW for ORCT, and 354 kW for KT, respectively.

The energetic and exergetic efficiency of the modeled
system is 61.04% and 57.13%, respectively.

The increase in ambient temperature makes an optimistic
effect on the thermodynamic performance of the proposed
model and subsystems. In addition, the performance of the
whole model and subsystems increased with the rise in
SOFC operating temperature.
It is believed that this study provides reference data on
hydrogen and ammonia production with advanced exhaust
heat management for a renewable and sustainable future.
Because every day, it becomes important to obtain hydrogen
and ammonia gases in a clean way. Furthermore, these
studies need to be examined more comprehensively in terms
of cost and exergoeconomic perspective. Finally, the future
perspective of this work is to design multigeneration plants
with the integration of different systems to achieve higher
performance. It is also conducting a comprehensive environ-
mental and cost analyzes of these systems.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
references
[1] Yan J, Broesicke OA, Wang D, Li D, Crittenden JC. Parametric
life cycle assessment for distributed combined cooling,
heating and power integrated with solar energy and energy
storage. J Clean Prod 2020;250:119483. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2019.119483.
[2] United Nations, 2014. World Urbanization Prospects (2014
Revision).
[3] Lean JL, Rind DH. How natural and anthropogenic influences
alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006.
Geophys Res Lett 2008;35:1e6. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2008GL034864.
[4] Yuksel YE, Ozturk M, Dincer I. Development and assessment
of a novel geothermal power-based multigenerational
system with hydrogen and ammonia production options.
Energy Convers Manag 2021;243:114365. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114365.
[5] Dincer I, Zamfirescu C. Renewable-energy-based
multigeneration systems. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1002/
er.2882.
[6] 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 production. J Power Sources
2010;195:2346e54. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jpowsour.2009.10.075.
[7] Yari M, Mehr AS, Mahmoudi SMS, Santarelli M. A
comparative study of two SOFC based cogeneration systems
fed by municipal solid waste by means of either the gasifier
or digester. Energy 2016;114:586e602. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.ENERGY.2016.08.035.
[8] Ramadhani F, Hussain MA, Mokhlis H, Fazly M, Ali JM.
Evaluation of solid oxide fuel cell based polygeneration
system in residential areas integrating with electric
charging and hydrogen fueling stations for vehicles. Appl
Energy 2019;238:1373e88. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2019.01.150.
[9] Yuksel YE, Ozturk M, Dincer I. Performance investigation of a
combined biomass gasifier-SOFC plant for compressed
hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2020;45:34679e94.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.05.076.
[10] Abdollahi Haghghi M, Ghazanfari Holagh S, Chitsaz A,
Parham K. Thermodynamic assessment of a novel multi-
generation solid oxide fuel cell-based system for production
of electrical power, cooling, fresh water, and hydrogen.
Energy Convers Manag 2019;197:111895. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2019.111895.
[11] Chitsaz A, Mehr AS, Mahmoudi SMS. Exergoeconomic
analysis of a trigeneration system driven by a solid oxide fuel
cell. Energy Convers Manag 2015;106:921e31. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2015.10.009.
[12] Chitsaz A, Hosseinpour J, Assadi M. Effect of recycling on the
thermodynamic and thermoeconomic performances of SOFC
based on trigeneration systems; A comparative study. Energy
2017;124:613e24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.02.019.
[13] Chitgar N, Emadi MA, Chitsaz A, Rosen MA. Investigation of a
novel multigeneration system driven by a SOFC for
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 3 1 9 1 1 e3 1 9 2 6 31925

electricity and fresh water production. Energy Convers
Manag 2019;196:296e310. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enconman.2019.06.006.
[14] Habibollahzade A, Mehrabadi ZK, Houshfar E.
Exergoeconomic and environmental optimisations of
multigeneration biomass-based solid oxide fuel cell systems
with reduced CO2 emissions. Int J Energy Res
2021;45:10450e77. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.6532.
[15] Chitgar N, Emadi MA. Development and exergoeconomic
evaluation of a SOFC-GT driven multi-generation system to
supply residential demands: electricity, fresh water and
hydrogen. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2021;46:17932e54. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.02.191.
[16] Mei S, Lu X, Zhu Y, Wang S. Thermodynamic assessment of a
system configuration strategy for a cogeneration system
combining SOFC, thermoelectric generator, and absorption
heat pump. Appl Energy 2021;302:117573. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117573.
[17] Abbasi HR, Pourrahmani H, Chitgar N, Van herle J.
Thermodynamic analysis of a tri-generation system using
SOFC and HDH desalination unit. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2021:1e12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.04.152.
[18] Adebayo V, Abid M, Adedeji M, Hussain Ratlamwala TA.
Energy, exergy and exergo-environmental impact
assessment of a solid oxide fuel cell coupled with absorption
chiller & cascaded closed loop ORC for multi-generation. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2021.02.222.
[19] Al-Hamed KHM, Dincer I. A novel ammonia solid oxide fuel
cell-based powering system with on-board hydrogen
production for clean locomotives. Energy 2021;220:119771.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.119771.
[20] Al-Hamed KHM, Dincer I. Development and optimization of a
novel solid oxide fuel cell-engine powering system for
cleaner locomotives. Appl Therm Eng 2021;183:116150.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2020.116150.
[21] Tukenmez N, Yilmaz F, Ozturk M. Parametric analysis of a
solar energy based multigeneration plant with SOFC for
hydrogen generation. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2021:1e18.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.01.131.
[22] Ma Z, Wang J, Dong F, Han Z, Tian L, Yan R, et al.
Thermodynamic analysis of fuel-cell-based combined
cooling, heating, and power system integrated solar energy
and chemical looping hydrogen generation. Energy
2022;238:121974. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2021.121974.
[23] Cao Y, Bani Hani EH, Mansir IB, Diyoke C, Dhahad HA. Exergy
and exergo-economic investigation of a novel hydrogen
production and storage system via an integrated energy
system. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2021.10.121.
[24] Klein S. Engineering equation solver (EES), Academic
Commercial, V11.199. 2021. Madison, USA: F-chart software;
2021.
[25] Cao Y, Zoghi M, Habibi H, Raise A. Waste heat recovery of a
combined solid oxide fuel cell - gas turbine system for multi-
generation purposes. Appl Therm Eng 2021;198:117463.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2021.117463.
[26] Al-Hamed KHM, Dincer I. A novel integrated solid-oxide fuel
cell powering system for clean rail applications. Energy
Convers Manag 2020;205:112327. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enconman.2019.112327.
[27] Sattari Sadat SM, Ghaebi H, Lavasani AM. 4E analyses of an
innovative polygeneration system based on SOFC. Renew
Energy 2020;156:986e1007. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.renene.2020.04.139.
[28] Ghaebi H, Ahmadi S. Energy and exergy evaluation of an
innovative hybrid system coupled with HRSG and HDH
desalination units. J Clean Prod 2020;252:119821. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119821.
[29] Cengel YA, Boles MA. Thermodynamics : an engineering
approach. 8th ed. Mc. New York: McGraw-Hil; 2015. p. 2015.
[30] Kotas TJ. The exergy method of thermal plant analysis. 1st
ed. London: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1985.
[31] Dincer I. Thermodynamics: a smart approach. USA: John
Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2020.
[32] Dincer I, Rosen MA, Ahmadi P. Optimization of energy
systems. John Wiley; 2017.
[33] Ma S, Wang J, Yan Z, Dai Y, Lu B. Thermodynamic analysis of
a new combined cooling, heat and power system driven by
solid oxide fuel cell based on ammonia-water mixture. J
Power Sources 2011;196:8463e71. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jpowsour.2011.06.008.
[34] Sadeghi M, Jafari M, Mahmoudi SMS, Yari M, Rosen MA.
Thermoeconomic analysis and multi-objective optimization
of a solid-oxide fuel cell plant coupled with methane tri-
reforming: effects of thermochemical recuperation. Int J
Energy Res 2021;45:10332e54. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.6522.
[35] Ni M, Leung MKH, Leung DYC. Energy and exergy analysis of
hydrogen production by a proton exchange membrane (PEM)
electrolyzer plant. Energy Convers Manag 2008;49:2748e56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2008.03.018.
[36] Ghaebi H, Parikhani T, Rostamzadeh H, Farhang B.
Thermodynamic and thermoeconomic analysis and
optimization of a novel combined cooling and power (CCP)
cycle by integrating of ejector refrigeration and Kalina cycles.
Energy 2017;139:262e76. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.ENERGY.2017.07.154.
[37] Safari F, Dincer I. Development and analysis of a novel
biomass-based integrated system for multigeneration with
hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2019;44:3511e26. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2018.12.101.
Nomenclature
Ac : Active surface area, m2
ex: Specific exergy, kJ/kg
_ Exergy rate, kW
Ex:
F: Faraday constant (C/mol)
h: Specific enthalpy, kJ/kg
i: Current (A)
j: Current density (A/m2)
m:_ Mass flow rate, kg/s
P: Pressure, kPa
p: Partial pressure (kPa)
_ Heat transfer rate, kW
Q:
R: Universal gas constant, kJ/kmol K
s: Specific entropy, kJ/kg-K
T: Temperature, oC- K
Vact : Activation polarization (V)
Vc : Cell voltage (V)
Vcon : Concentration polarization (V)
Vn : Nernst voltage (V)
Vohm : Ohmic polarization (V)
W:_ Work rate, kW
Abbreviations
APP: Ammonia production plant
CHPP: Compressed hydrogen production plant
31926 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 3 1 9 1 1 e3 1 9 2 6

GTP: Gas turbine Plant ri : Material resistivity (U=cm)

KPP: Kalina power plant din : Thickness, cm
MED: Multi effect desalination
ORCP: organic Rankine cycle plant Subscripts
OS: Overall system
SOFC: Solid oxide fuel fell plant c: component
WSP: Wood steaming plant ch: chemical
in: inlet
Greek letters out: outlet
ph: physical
h: Energy or energetic efficiency 0: dead point
j: Exergy or exergetic efficiency