International Journal of Refrigeration 22 (1999) 517

Thermodynamic based comparison of sorption systems for cooling and heat pumping
M. Pons a,*, F. Meunier a, G. Cacciola b, R.E. Critoph c, M. Groll d, L. Puigjaner e, B. Spinner f, F. Ziegler g,1
a CNRS-LIMSI, BP 133, F-91403 Orsay Cedex, France CNR-TAE, Salita S. Lucia sopra Contesse, I-98126 S. Lucia Messina, Italy c University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK d t Stuttgart, Pfaffenwaldring 31, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany IKE, Universita e UPC, Dept Ingenieria Quimica, ETSIIB, Diagonal 647, E-08028 Barcelona, Spain f , 52 Aue de Villeneuve, F-66860 Perpignan, France CNRS-IMP, L.E.A., Universite g Technical University Munich, Physics Dept. E19, James-Franck-Str 1, D-85748 Garching, Germany b

Received 23 April 1998; received in revised form 31 July 1998; accepted 31 July 1998

Abstract A comparison of thermodynamic performances of sorption systems (liquid absorption, adsorption, ammonia salts and metal hydrides) is carried out for typical applications (deep-freezing, ice making, air-conditioning and heat pumping) with either aircooled or water-cooled heat sink. The results are given in terms of cooling coefcient of performance (COP) (heating COP or coefcient of amplication (COA) for the heat pump), cooling (heating) power versus reactor volume or weight and thermodynamic efciency. LiBrwater systems show the best results for air-conditioning except when small units are required (metal hydride systems lead to more compact units). Other systems, however, show better results for other applications (chemical reaction with ammonia salts for deep-freezing, adsorption for heat pumping). q 1998 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd and IIR. All rights reserved. Keywords: Heat pump; Refrigeration; Thermodynamics; Chemical reaction; Air conditioning

mes Comparaison des performances thermodynamiques des syste chaleur a sorption dans des applications de de pompes a refroidissement et de chauffage
Resume mes a sorption (absorption liquide, adsorption, Une comparaison des performances thermodynamiques de syste talliques) est effectue e pour des applications repre sentatives (conge lation, fabrication de ammoniacates et hydrures me chaleur) avec rejet thermique refroidi soit a l'eau soit a l'air. Les re sultats sont glace, conditionnement d'air et pompes a sente s en termes de COP (ou COA pour les pompes a chaleur), puissance frigorique (ou de chauffage) en fonction soit du pre acteur et de l'efcacite thermodynamique. Les syste mes a BrLieau pre sentent les meilleurs volume soit due poids du re sultats pour le conditionnement d'air sauf lorsque des unite s compactes sont recherche es (dans ce cas, les hydrures re
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 1 331-6985-8075; Fax: 1 331-6985-8008; e-mail: pons@limsi.fr. 1 Present address: ZAE Bayern, Walther-Meiner-Str. 6, D-85748 Garching, Germany. 0140-7007/99/$ - see front matter q 1998 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd and IIR. All rights reserved. PII: S 0140-700 7(98)00048-6

M. Pons et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 22 (1999) 517

talliques pre sentent les meilleurs re sultats). Mais, d'autres syste mes pre sentent de meilleurs re sultats pour d'autres me action chimique avec les ammoniacates pour la conge lation, adsorption pour les pompes a chaleur). applications (re q 1998 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd and IIR. All rights reserved. chaleur; Re frige ration; Thermodynamique; Re action chimique; Conditionnement d'air s: Pompe a Mots cle

Nomenclature COA COP Q T Coefcient of amplication Coefcient of performance Heat quantity (J) Temperature (K)

Greek letters h Thermodynamic efciency Abbreviations SCP Specic cooling power (W kg 21) SHP Specic heating power (W kg 21) Subscripts CS Cooling system HS Heating system c condenser e evaporator 1. Introduction Refrigeration technology is required to evolve due to new environmental regulations. The rst regulation concerning the depletion of the ozone layer (Montreal Protocol, 1988) decided to phase-out chlorouorocarbons and then hydrochlorouorocarbons. In developed countries, the production of chlorouorocarbons has been prohibited since 1995, and hydrochlorouorocarbons will be banned in 2015 at the latest in the European Union depending on the country (they have been banned since 1998 in Sweden). The second regulation concerns the global warming effect and is being implemented according to the Kyoto Protocol (1997). Some of the refrigerants which full the Montreal Protocol with zero `ozone depletion potential', the hydrouorocarbons, are concerned with this new regulation which prescribes a limitation of the emissions of greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, hydrouorocarbons, PFC, SF6) [1]. As a consequence, the refrigeration professionals will have to improve their systems by: containment, recycling, recovery, qualication and alternative technologies. Sorption technology is, obviously, one of the possible alternative technologies. Another important concern for refrigeration technology is the primary energy and the expansion of air-conditioning. Indeed, in some countries, such as the USA, Japan and other Far East countries and Israel, air-conditioning in summer time induces peaks in the electricity demand. Therefore, a global rational energy policy consists of promoting heatpowered air-conditioning in summer time so as to cut down these peaks and make the electricity demand more uniform throughout the year.

Taking into account these considerations, sorption technology appears to be an alternative to vapour compression. First, sorption technology uses uids with zero `ozone depletion potential' which full the Montreal Protocol. Second, the uids have zero `global warming potential' and full the Kyoto Protocol. Third, they are heat-powered systems which need very little electricity. However, heatpowered sorption units require energy which, in most cases, is provided by natural gas or fuel combustion, also resulting in CO2 emissions. Therefore, care must be taken that the efciency of the sorption units is high enough to contribute less to global warming than the competing vapour compression systems. In the case of waste heat recovery, the problem of efciency is not important for environmental impact since there are no emissions of greenhouse gases. As sorption technology is a possible alternative to vapour compression refrigeration, it is important to compare the various sorption systems. Among them, liquid absorption units have been developed for a long time and present many references concerning their efciency, cost, reliability, overall dimensions and weight. On the contrary, solid sorption systems have been scarcely developed up to now and are still at the R&D stage [2]. For this reason, the comparison between systems is still a difcult academic challenge. This challenge was taken up in the framework of a `Human Capital and Mobility' programme nanced by the European Union. The idea of this collective study was to gather together seven European laboratories as recognised experts in the eld of cooling (or heat pump) sorption technology. The rst goal of this networking group was to dene gures of merit to compare systems, and the second goal was to calculate those gures of merit on various sorption systems for given similar operating conditions. Each laboratory performed calculations only on the systems it knew well. This work was oriented towards the use of natural gas or fuel energy so that the heat source temperature was not prescribed. The gures of merit which were selected are the well known cooling coefcient of performance (COP) and the heating coefcient of performance or coefcient of amplication (COA). Moreover, it was decided to introduce second law efciencies and cooling (heating) capacities per volume or weight which are important gures of merit from the thermodynamic and practical points of view. Great care was taken to make sure that the gures of merit calculated by the various groups correspond to the same conditions so that we get fair comparisons. Figures with all the systems studied are presented. They show the general trends for the systems which present the best gures of merit. However, note that this study was not devoted to

M. Pons et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 22 (1999) 517

given in Fig. 1. The `sorption system' includes either one or several `reactors', i.e. regenerator(s), absorber(s), adsorber(s), reactor(s), etc., according to the sorption pair. This `sorption system' exchanges refrigerant vapour with a condenser and an evaporator. In principle, the cycle is a four-temperature cycle. The heat QHS supplied by the heat source at THS to the sorption system induces desorption of vapour at the condenser pressure. This vapour is liqueed in the condenser at the intermediate temperature TC. When the sorption system is cooled down back to the intermediate temperature TCS, it re-absorbs vapour. This vapour is produced by vaporisation of the liqueed refrigerant. Evaporation requires heat Qe from the heat source at low temperature Te. The condenserevaporator system can also be a second sorption system `at low temperature'. Most often the two heat quantities rejected at the intermediate temperatures Tc and TCS are transferred towards the same heat sink. One then has Tc TCS. More background information about the cycles discussed here can be found in the other papers in this issue [612] and proceedings of relevant conferences [1315].

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of sorption refrigerating cycle and system. ma du cycle frigorique a sorption et du syste me. Fig. 1. Sche

3. Principle of the comparison Six typical applications have been xed: air-conditioning, ice making, deep-freezing 1, deep-freezing 2, heat pumping 1 and heat pumping 2 (the temperature levels are given in Table 1). The rst four applications correspond to refrigerating machines, while the other two correspond to heat pumps. For each of these applications, two cases have been considered for the external cooling of the units: by water or by air. The xed temperatures, given in Table 1, are assumed to be the internal temperatures: when the `low temperature' is given by a liquidvapour equilibrium, the values in Table 1 are those xed for evaporation Te and condensation Tc; when the `low temperature' is given by a solidvapour equilibrium, the values in Table 1 are those xed for the interface between sorbent and heat exchanger wall. Similarly, for all the cases, the heat rejection

show the niches where each system may show practical interest. As an example, processes based on storage or high cooling rates are not studied in this work when solid sorption systems may be attractive for very specic applications. This work is only starting up and should certainly be pursued. 2. General operation principle of sorption systems It is not intended to give a comprehensive description of sorption technologies in this paper. The reader is referred to the relevant literature [35]. Nevertheless, the general principle of a sorption refrigeration, or heat pumping, cycle is
Table 1 Prescribed temperatures for the different investigated applications Tableau 1. ratures recommande es pour des applications e tudie es Les tempe Applications Evaporator temperature (8C)

Intermediate temperature (8C) when water-cooled air-cooled 50 50 50 50 55 55

Air-conditioning Ice making Deep-freezing 1 Deep-freezing 2 Heat pumping 1 Heat pumping 2

13 2 10 2 25 2 50 5 2 15

40 40 40 40 40 40

M. Pons et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 22 (1999) 517

temperature TCS is the temperature of the sorption system itself at the end of the reactor cooling (lowest absorbing or adsorbing temperature). Moreover, it has been realistically decided that the heat sink intermediate temperature is the same for condensation and absorption or adsorption or synthesis reaction. Therefore, the two corresponding temperatures Tc and TCS are assumed equal. For each system presented, the temperature of the high temperature heat source is selected by the corresponding authors themselves, according to what they think to be the best trade-off between performance and problems such as stability, corrosion, safety, etc. Note here that the problem studied is that of cooling machines powered by an external energy like natural gas or fuel and not specically waste heat. Therefore, the selected heat source temperatures would be different if the objective were different, for instance the use of waste heat energy. With the selected heat source temperature, the authors roughly designed units according to their expertise. For each unit, they decided on: a thermodynamic cycle (single effect, double effect, etc); a range of cooling loads known to be technically feasible; a total mass of `sorbent'. In the following, the word `sorbent' means either adsorbent, salt, metal hydride or solution, according to the system. The total mass of sorbent contained in the unit (i.e. for liquid sorption systems, not only in the absorber) is always considered. Moreover, when a commercial presentation includes a binder (e.g. for zeolites), this binder is considered as part of the `sorbent'. a rough design of the `reactor'. According to the system considered, the word `reactor' used in the following means either adsorber(s), chemical reactor(s), hydride reactor(s) or absorber 1 generator (1 rectication column 1 dephlegmator 1 mixing column for the inverse rectication when required). Designing the `reactor' means rst setting the number of devices required by the process (for instance there can be several adsorbers in the `reactor'), and second, designing the heat transfer surface(s) and the corresponding mass(es) of metal and heat transfer uid, the pressure vessel, if any, and the corresponding mass of metal, plus any specic device such as those described above as part of the `reactor'. These technical characteristics are xed by the researchers themselves accounting for different problems such as pressure or vacuum, corrosion, stability, safety, etc. Moreover, for solid sorption systems, the authors evaluated the likely cycle period, i.e. the period after which each reactor in the unit returns to its initial state. From all these different data, each research group deduced with the help of its own models the performance of the so-designed units. Performance mainly consists of two gures: COP and cooling/ heating power.

3.1. Coefcient of performance (COP) For cooling applications, the coefcient of performance is given by the well-known Eq. (1). For heat pumping applications, the coefcient of performance, also called `coefcient of amplication' and denoted COA, is given by Eq. (2): Cooling : COP Heating : COA Qe QHS 2Qc 1 QCS , 1 1 COP . 1 QHS 1 2

Two values of COP or COA are calculated for each case: COP1 (COA1) is obtained when neglecting the specic heat of all the inert masses (metal, heat transfer uid, pressure vessel, etc.); COP2 (COA2) is obtained when taking into account all the inert masses in the designed `reactor' (metal, heat transfer uid, pressure vessel, etc.). For solid sorption systems, operation is not stationary and COP2 , COP1. For liquid sorption systems, operation is stationary and COP2 COP1. As COP2 and COA2 are more representative than COP1 and COA1, they are mainly considered in the present analysis except for the thermodynamic efciency (see below). 3.2. Cooling/heating power In the following, the expression `cooling/heating power' means: `cooling power for refrigerating machines' or `heating power for heat pumps'. For the solid sorption systems, the cooling/heating power is directly correlated to the cycle period. Comparing the cooling/heating power of units makes sense only when related to another extensive quantity that characterises the units. In the present work, sorbent mass, reactor mass and reactor volume have been considered. Specic cooling/heating power (SCP/SHP): this is the ratio of the cooling/heating power to the total mass of `sorbent' contained in the unit (see above). When the `low temperature' system is not a liquid/ vapour one (cycles with resorption or hydride systems), the solid sorbent contained in this latter system is accounted for. Cooling/heating power per kg `reactor'. For this gure, the total mass of the reactor is considered, i.e. the whole `sorbent' plus the heat exchanger plus the heat transfer uid plus the external pressure vessel, if any, plus any specic device such as the inert bed (system AW2) or separation and mixing columns, dephlegmator, etc. (system LS3). The condenser and evaporator are not included in the `reactor' mass. Reactor volume per kW of cooling/heating load: once the reactor is roughly designed, the ratio of the reactor volume to the cooling/heating power can easily be

M. Pons et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 22 (1999) 517 Table 2 Presentation of the different systems investigated. The codes are used in Figs. 27 Tableau 2. sentation des syste mes e tudie s. Les codes utilise s sont ceux des Figures 2 a 7 Pre Code AD1 AD2 AD3 AD4 AW1 AW2 AW3 CS1 CS2 CD1 CD2 CD3 HS HD HW LS1 LS2 LS3 LD1 LD2 LT1 LT2 Sorbent 1 refrigerant pair Zeolite 4A 1 H2O Active carbon 1 methanol Active carbon 1 methanol Zeolite NaX 1 H2O Active carbon 1 methanol Active carbon 1 NH3 Zeolite NaX 1 H2O SrCl2 1 NH3 (MnCl2/BaCl2) 1 NH3 (MnCl2 1 NiCl2) 1 NH3 (MnCl2 1 NiCl2) 1 NH3 (MnCl2 1 NiCl2/BaCl2) 1 NH3 Two metal hydrides 1 H2 Three metal hydrides 1 H2 N metal hydrides 1 H2 LiBr 1 H2O Binary hydroxide solution 1 H2O Water 1 NH3 LiBr 1 H2O Binary hydroxide solution 1 H2O LiBr 1 H2O Binary hydroxide solution 1 H2O Heating process Double effect Double effect Double effect Double effect Thermal wave Thermal wave Thermal wave Single effect Single effect Double effect Double effect Double effect Single effect Double effect Thermal wave Single effect Single effect Single effect Double effect Double effect Triple effect Triple effect Research group CNR TAE CNR TAE CNRS LIMSI CNRS LIMSI CNRS LIMSI Univ. Warwick CNRS LIMSI CNRS IMP CNRS IMP UPC CNRS IMP CNRS IMP IKE IKE IKE Tech. Univ. Munich Tech. Univ. Munich Tech. Univ. Munich Tech. Univ. Munich Tech. Univ. Munich Tech. Univ. Munich Tech. Univ. Munich Ref. [9] [9] [6] [6] [6] [7] [6] [10] [10] [11] [10] [10] [8] [8] [8] [12] [12] [12] [12] [12] [12] [12]

evaluated. For the end user, this criterion can be extremely important. Note that, in opposition to other performance, a small `volume per kW' corresponds to a high performance. 3.3. Thermodynamic efciency The thermodynamic efciency permits highlighting the differences between cycles as compared to an ideal Carnot cycle. In order to make it independent of the reactor design, the thermodynamic efciency, h , is calculated with the help of COP1:

and third columns. More detailed descriptions can be found in the references shown in the last column. Cycles with `thermal wave' are also described with `temperature front' or `heat regeneration' or `multi-hydride'. The systems CS2 and CD3 use cycles with resorption: the `low temperature' salt is BaCl2. Figs. 27 present the comparison of the data. Each gure is dedicated to one application described in Table 1. Each gure presents results in the cases of watercooling (upper half) and air-cooling (lower half). Each half gure contains four graphs: COP2 vs. SCP or SHP; COP2 vs. cooling/heating power per kg of reactor; COP2 vs. reactor volume per kW cooling/heating: in this graph, the most compact systems are located on the left side. Sometimes, the X-axis is limited and the systems that require a large volume are not shown, so that the points corresponding to compact systems can be better distinguished. Thermodynamic efciency vs. heat source temperature. This graph presents for each system the thermodynamic efciency evaluated according to Eq. (3) versus the prescribed heat source temperature. In each gure, the respective X- and Y-axes are always the same for both cases, water-cooled or air-cooled, so that the effect of the cooling mode can be clearly seen.

COP1 COPCarnot

where the Carnot COP is given by:    T TC COPCarnot 1 2 CS 21 THS Te 4. Presentation of the results

The list of the investigated systems is presented in Table 2. The codes indicated in the rst column are the ones used in the Figs. 27. The working sorption pairs and the type of process are given respectively in the second

10

M. Pons et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 22 (1999) 517

Fig. 2. Performance of the investigated systems for air-conditioning, either water-cooled or air-cooled. COP2 vs. SCP, COP2 vs. cooling power per kg of reactor, COP2 vs. reactor volume per kW cooling (volumes larger than 65 l kW 21 are not shown), thermodynamic efciency vs. THS. mes e tudie s dans le conditionnement d'air, avec refroidissement a eau ou a air. COP2 compare a la SCP, COP2 Fig. 2. Performance des syste a la puissance par kg de re acteur, COP2 compare au volume du re acteur par kw de refroidissement (les volumes au dela de 65 l/kW 21 compare s), rendement thermodynamique compare a la THS. ne sont pas indique

M. Pons et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 22 (1999) 517

11

Fig. 3. Performance of the investigated systems for ice making, either water-cooled or air-cooled. COP2 vs. SCP, COP2 vs. cooling power per kg of reactor, COP2 vs. reactor volume per kW cooling (volumes larger than 65 l kW 21 are not shown), thermodynamic efciency vs. THS. mes e tudie s dans l'application fabrication de glace (refroidissement a air ou a eau). COP2 compare a la SCP, Fig. 3. Performance des syste a la puissance de refroidissement par kg de re acteur, COP2 compare au volume du re acteur par kW de refroidissement (les COP2 compare de 65 l/kW 21 ne sont pas indique s), rendement thermodynamique compare a la THS. volumes au dela

12

M. Pons et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 22 (1999) 517

Fig. 4. Performance of the investigated systems for deep-freezing 1, either water-cooled or air-cooled. COP2 vs. SCP, COP2 vs. cooling power per kg of reactor, COP2 vs. reactor volume per kW cooling (volumes larger than 65 l kW 21 are not shown), thermodynamic efciency vs. THS. mes e tudie s dans l'application conge lation 1 (refroidissement a eau ou a air). COP2 compare a la SCP, COP2 Fig. 4. Performance des syste a la puissance de refroidissement par kg de re acteur, COP2 compare a au volume du re acteur par kW de refroidissement (les volumes compare de 65 l/kW 21 ne sont pas indique s), rendement thermodynamique compare a la THS. au dela

M. Pons et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 22 (1999) 517

13

Fig. 5. Performance of the investigated systems for deep-freezing 2, either water-cooled or air-cooled. COP2 vs. SCP, COP2 vs. cooling power per kg of reactor, COP2 vs. reactor volume per kW cooling (volumes larger than 65 l kW 21 are not shown), thermodynamic efciency vs. THS. mes e tudie s dans l'application conge lation 2 (refroidissement a eau ou a air). COP2 compare a la SCP, COP2 Fig. 5. Performance des syste a la puissance de refroidissement par kg de re acteur, COP2 compare a au volume du re acteur par kW de refroidissement (les volumes compare de 65 l/kW 21 ne sont pas indique s), rendement thermodynamique compare a la THS. au dela

14

M. Pons et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 22 (1999) 517

Fig. 6. Performance of the investigated systems for heat pumping 1, either water-cooled or air-cooled. COP2 vs. SHP, COP2 vs. heating power per kg of reactor, COP2 vs. reactor volume per kW heating (volumes larger than 40 l kW 21 are not shown), thermodynamic efciency vs. THS. mes e tudie s dans l'application pompes a chaleur 1 (refroidissement a eau ou a air). COP2 compare a la SHP, Fig. 6. Performance des syste a la puissance de chauffage par kg de re acteur, COP2 compare au volume du re acteur par kW de chauffage (les volumes au dela COP2 compare s), rendement thermodynamique compare a la THS. de 40 l/kW 21 ne sont pas indique

M. Pons et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 22 (1999) 517

15

Fig. 7. Performance of the investigated systems for heat pumping 2, either water-cooled or air-cooled. COP2 vs. SHP, COP2 vs. heating power per kg of reactor, COP2 vs. reactor volume per kW heating (volumes larger than 65 l kW 21 are not shown), thermodynamic efciency vs. THS. mes e tudie s dans l'application pompes a chaleur 1 (refroidissement a eau ou a air). COP2 compare a la SHP, Fig. 7. Performance des syste a la puissance de chauffage par kg de re acteur, COP2 compare au volume du re acteur par kW de chauffage (les volumes au dela COP2 compare s), rendement thermodynamique compare a la THS. de 40 l/kW 21 ne sont pas indique

16

M. Pons et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 22 (1999) 517

5. Interpretation of the results A few major points can be noted straightforwardly. Air-cooling always reduces performance compared to water-cooling. Generally, the authors chose higher heat source temperatures in the former case in order to partly compensate for this performance reduction. The systems with water as refrigerant are not present for the following applications: ice making, deep-freezing 1, deep-freezing 2 and heat pumping 2. The systems with methanol are not present for the last three applications. For these applications, only the systems with ammonia or hydrogen can compete. For air-conditioning and heat pumping 1, the liquid sorption systems use the LiBrH2O pair with watercooled heat sink (LS1, LD1 and LT1), and the hydroxideH2O pair with air-cooled heat sink (LS2, LD2 and LT2). The solid sorption systems are always the same for both cases. In general, the liquid sorption systems have the best performance. When looking at the graphs in more detail, it can be seen that the range in COPs is quite large for air-conditioning: the largest COP (1.6) is about ve times larger than the smallest value (0.3). About the same factor of 5 can be found in the case of heat pumping 1 when considering the quantity (COA-1): largest COA 2.63; lowest COA 1.37. In the case of ice making, the factor between the largest and the lowest COPs is only about 4, and it drops down to about 2 in the case of deepfreezing. As an example of how the results presented here can be used, let us focus our attention on the graphs for watercooled air-conditioning, see Fig. 2. The highest COP (which corresponds to the lowest operating cost for the system) is obtained with the LiBrH2O triple effect cycle LT1. But the highest specic cooling power per unit mass of sorbent and the highest thermodynamic efciency are obtained with the single effect LiBrH2O system LS1. In contrast, the system that yields the smallest reactor volume for a prescribed cooling power is HD, the metal hydride system with double effect cycle. It would be interesting to know which system presents the best efciency at low heat source temperature. There is one limit to this study, however, that, as indicated earlier, did not impose any constraint for the heat source temperature and therefore cannot answer the question. The same kind of analysis for deep-freezing applications leads to completely different conclusions. Now the liquid absorption pair would be waterammonia instead of LiBr water. This liquid absorption system LS3 again yields good performances in terms of COP versus SCP for deep-freezing 1 (evaporator at 2 258C) and for deep-freezing 2 (evaporator at 2 508C) when the heat sink is cooled by water. However, when the heat sink is cooled by air, the system

CD2, with ammonia salts and double effect cycle, yields the largest COP. In the case of heat pumping 2 (i.e. for a large temperature rise) with water-cooled heat sink, the adsorption system AW2 leads to the highest COA. This short development shows that the conclusions depend very much on the application and operating conditions with respect to the prescribed temperature levels. 6. Conclusions The networking group performed this study with the objective to get comparisons as fair as possible (for this reason experts in each technology were involved in this working group). In that sense, we consider that the conclusions that one can extract from the analysis of the gures presented in this paper are signicant. However, before drawing conclusions, one must be completely aware that they will be valid only in the frame of the operating conditions considered in the present study. For instance, a comparison for other applications, with other temperature levels, could lead to quite different conclusions. In the majority of the cases considered here, the liquid sorption systems have the best performance, in terms of COP, cooling/heating power or reduced volume. The exceptions correspond to the highest temperature rises when adsorption or chemical reaction systems take the advantage or in the case of compact units where metal hydride systems take the advantage. For liquid absorption, LiBrwater is the selected pair for evaporating temperatures about 08C while waterammonia is the selected pair for evaporating temperatures below 08C. The performance of adsorption systems depends highly on both the adsorption pair and process, while the performance of chemical reaction or hydride systems depends mainly on the process. Obviously, this comparative work needs a follow-up consisting rst of a comparison of experimental data. This is very difcult at present due to the lack of data for most solid sorption systems. Moreover, a comparison of numerical data taking into account the dynamic behaviour of the systems and including losses would be very useful. But this requires one to make sure, just as was performed in this study, that the models take into account the same effects so that the comparison can be fair.

Acknowledgements This work was supported by the European Union Contract No CHRX-CT93 0391. This work would not have been possible without the contributions of F. Poyelle (CNRSLIMSI), G. Restucia (CNR-TAE), P. Satzger (Technical University Munich), D. Stitou (CNRS-IMP), R. Thorpe (University of Warwick), E. Velo (UPC) and E. Willers t Stuttgart). (IKE, Universita

M. Pons et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 22 (1999) 517

17

References
[1] Billiard F. The Kyoto Protocol. Bulletin de l'Institut International du Froid 1998;98(2):VIXII. [2] Meunier F. Solid sorption: an alternative to CFSs. Heat Recovery Systems & CHP 1993;13(4):289295. [3] Alefeld G, Radermacher R. Heat conversion systems. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1994. [4] Herold KE, Radermacher R, Klein SA. Absorption chillers and heat pumps. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1996. rmepumpen. Forschungsberichte des [5] Ziegler F. Sorptionswa lte- und Klimatechnischen Verreins Nr. 57. Deutschen Ka Stuttgart, 1998. [6] Pons M, Poyelle F. Adsorptive machines with advanced cycles for heat pumping or cooling applications. Int J Refrigeration 1999;22(1):2737. [7] Critoph RE. Forced convection adsorption cycle with packed bed heat regeneration. Int J Refrigeration 1999;22(1):3846. [8] Willers E, Groll M. Evaluation of metal hydride machines for heat pumping and cooling applications. Int J Refrigeration 1999;22(1):4758. [9] Restuccia G, Cacciola G. Performances of adsorption systems [10]

[11] [12] [13]

[14] [15]

for ambient heating and air-conditioning. Int J Refrigeration 1999;22(1):1826. Stitou D, Goetz V, Spinner B. A new analytical model for solidgas thermochemical reactors based on thermophysical properties of the reactive medium. Chem Eng Proc 1997;36:2943. Palau A, Velo E, Puigjaner L. Use of neural networks and expert systems to control a gas/solid sorption chilling machine. Int J Refrigeration 1999;22(1):5966. Berlitz T, Satzger P, Summerer F, Ziegler F, Alefeld G. A contribution to the economic perspectives of absorption chillers. Int J Refrigeration 1999;22(1):6776. Nikanpour D, Hosatte S. Ab-Sorption 96Towards sustainable technologies. In: Proceedings of the International Ab al, Que bec, Canada, Sorption Heat Pump Conference, Montre September. IEA, 1996. Herold K et al. Proceedings of the International Absorption Heat Pump Conference, New Orleans, LA, January. AES, vol. 31. ASME, 1993. Meunier F. Solid sorption refrigeration. Proceedings of the IIF-IIR Symposium, Paris, France, September. IIF-IIR, 1992.