G Model

ENB-2833; No. of Pages 8 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Energy and Buildings xxx (2010) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings

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

Analysis and optimization of the use of CHP–ORC systems for small

commercial buildings
Pedro J. Mago a,∗ , Anna Hueffed a , Louay M. Chamra b
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Mississippi State University, 210 Carpenter Engineering Building, P.O. Box ME, MS 39762-5925, United States
b
School of Engineering and Computer Science, Oakland University, 248 Dodge Hall, Rochester, MI 48309, United States

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

Article history: The use of combined heating and power (CHP) systems is increasing rapidly due to their high potential of
Received 31 August 2009 reducing primary energy consumption (PEC), cost, and carbon dioxide emissions (CDE). These reductions
Received in revised form 18 March 2010 are mainly due to capturing the exhaust heat to satisfy the thermal demand of a building. However, when
Accepted 19 March 2010
the CHP system is operated following the electric load, the recovered exhaust heat may or may not be
sufficient to satisfy the thermal demand of the facility. When the recovered exhaust heat is more than
Keywords:
the heat required, the excess is usually discarded to the atmosphere. An organic rankine cycle (ORC) can
CHP
be used to recover the surplus exhaust heat to generate extra electricity. Therefore, combining the ORC
ORC
CHP–ORC
system with the CHP system (CHP–ORC) reduces the electricity that has to be produced by the CHP sys-
Primary energy reduction tem, thereby reducing the total PEC, cost, and CDE. The objective of this paper is to study the energetic,
Benchmark buildings economical, and environmental performance of a combined CHP–ORC system and compare its perfor-
mance to a standalone CHP system and a reference building for different climate zones. A comparison of
a CHP–ORC system operating 24 h with a system operating during typical office hours is also performed.
© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The Annual Energy Outlook [1] reported that about 87% of the
total energy consumption in the U.S. is due to fossil fuel (coal, nat-
ural gas and liquid fuels) combustion. Lately, increasing debates
about global climate change, energy security and sustainability are
driving forces that put focus on novel strategies to improve exist-
ing energy utilization, conversion and production technologies.
In addition, increased world-wide demand for energy (especially
electricity), rising energy costs, and heightened environmental con-
cerns are factors that continually press for the improvement and
development of new technologies to promote energy savings and
emissions reduction. Some of these technologies include combined
cooling, heating, and power (CCHP) systems, combined heating and
power (CHP) systems, and organic rankine cycles (ORC). CCHP and
CHP systems deliver electricity on-site through the use of a prime
mover, such as a spark or compression driven combustion engine
or a turbine engine, which delivers useful mechanical power to an
electrical generator, which in turn creates useable electrical power
in order to satisfy a given electrical demand. The difference between
these systems and power plant electricity generation is the utiliza-
tion of the exhaust heat rejected from the prime mover in order to
satisfy the thermal demand of a facility. Traditional power plants
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 662 325 6602; fax: +1 662 325 7223.
E-mail address: mago@me.msstate.edu (P.J. Mago).
convert about 30% of the fuel’s available energy into electric power.
The majority of the energy content of the fuel is lost at the power
plant through the discharge of waste heat. Further energy losses
occur in the transmission and distribution of electric power to the
individual user. Inefficiencies and pollution issues associated with
conventional power plants provide the impetus for developments
in “on-site and near-site” power generation.
The performance of CHP and CCHP systems has been studied by
several authors such as Moran et al. [2], Possidente et al. [3], Cao
and Liu [4], Ren and Gao [5], Malico et al. [6], Khan [7,8], Li et al. [9],
Mago et al. [10], Mago and Chamra [11], Cardona and Piacentino
[12,13], Cho et al. [14], and Fumo et al. [15], among others. Moran
et al. [2] presented results from micro-CCHP systems simulations
following the electric load using natural gas and diesel internal
combustion engines as prime movers. The system efficiency for
cooling months was found to reach values up to 80% with eco-
nomic feasibility highly dependent on fuel prices. Possidente et al.
[3] analyzed and evaluated the performance of a small-scale cogen-
eration based on energetic, economic and environmental impact
and compared it to the same parameters of the conventional sys-
tem for the separate production of heat and electricity. They found
that the micro-cogeneration using reciprocating internal combus-
tion engine allows obtaining primary energy savings up to 25% and
a polluter emissions reduction up to 40%. Cao and Liu [4] studied
the performance of a typical building cooling, heating and power
generation (BCHP) system using thermodynamic and thermoeco-
nomic analyses based on the simulation of off-design operation

0378-7788/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.03.019

Please cite this article in press as: P.J. Mago, et al., Analysis and optimization of the use of CHP–ORC systems for small commercial
buildings, Energy Buildings (2010), doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.03.019
G Model
ENB-2833; No. of Pages 8 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 P.J. Mago et al. / Energy and Buildings xxx (2010) xxx–xxx

and minimum-emission operation. They reported that the fuel cell

Nomenclature system gives better results than the gas engine for the examined
residential building from both economic and environmental points
a coefficient for PGU thermal efficiency curve of view reducing the annual energy cost by about 26%.
b coefficient for PGU thermal efficiency curve Similarly, Malico et al. [6] designed a CCHP system that used a
c coefficient for PGU thermal efficiency curve high temperature fuel cell to meet the electric load of a hospital
CDE annual carbon dioxide emissions (ton) coupled with an absorption cycle and supplemental boiler to meet
CCHP combined cooling, heating and power the cooling and heating demand, respectively. Khan [7,8] presented
CHP combined heating and power modeling, experimentation, and optimization of a novel CCHP sys-
cost cost ($/kW h) tem that combined a semi-closed Brayton cycle with pressurized
E electric energy (kW h) recuperation, integrated with a vapor absorption refrigeration sys-
ECFCDE carbon dioxide emission conversion factor for elec- tem for power, water extraction, and refrigeration. Li et al. [9]
tricity (ton/kW h) presented a static calculation methodology for evaluating the pri-
ECFPEC site-to-primary energy conversion factor for elec- mary energy consumption for CCHP and separate productions. In
tricity addition, they introduced the use of the term fuel energy saving
Epgu,nominal power generation unit nominal power (kW h) ratio (FESR). They found that the systems with the larger electric
Em electric energy registered at the meter (kW h) power have the higher energy saving potential. Mago et al. [10] per-
Epgu PGU electricity (kW h) formed an analysis of CCHP and CHP systems operation following
Enet net electricity (kW h) the thermal load and following the electric load based on primary
Fm fuel energy registered at the meter (kW h) energy consumption, operation cost, and carbon dioxide emissions
Fpgu PGU fuel energy consumption (kW h) for different climate conditions. In another study, Mago and Chamra
Fb boiler fuel energy consumption (kW h) [11] evaluated and optimized CCHP systems operated following the
FCFCDE carbon dioxide emission conversion factor for fuel electric load and following the thermal load strategies based on:
(ton/kW h) primary energy consumption, operational cost, and carbon diox-
FCFPEC site-to-primary energy conversion factor for fuel ide emissions. In addition, their study included the analysis and
m organic fluid mass flow rate over an hour (kg) evaluation of an optimized operational strategy in which a CCHP
PEC annual primary energy consumption (kW h) system follows a hybrid electric–thermal load during its operation.
PGU power generation unit They found that for the evaluated city, the optimum primary energy
Qe evaporator heat for each hour (kW h) reduction and cost reduction are 7.5% and 4.4%, respectively, when
Qb heat that has to be provided by the boiler (kW h) the system was operated following the thermal load. The optimum
QR recovered exhaust heat (kW h) CDE reduction was 14.8% when the system was operated follow-
QR,available heat available to the ORC (kW h) ing the electric load. Cardona and Piacentino [12,13] also modeled
Qhw heat required to produce hot water (kW h) CHP systems following the electric load and following the thermal
Qhc heat required to handle the heating load (kW h) load. The choice between these two operation strategies is usually
Qh building heating load (kW h) governed by the loading of the prime mover as well as a few extra-
Qw building hot water demand (kW h) neous circumstances including the ability to sell back electricity to
VCS vapor compression system the grid or store it on site for later use via some battery system.
Wp pump energy for each hour (kW h) Cho et al. [14] presented an energy dispatch algorithm that min-
Wt turbine energy for each hour (kW h) imizes the cost of energy based on energy efficiency constraints
for each component using a deterministic network flow model of
Symbols
a typical CHP system. The algorithm provides the operational sig-
 efficiency level, ratio between useful output and
nals to the CHP system that results in minimum energy cost for the
input amount
scenario considered. Fumo et al. [15] studied the analysis of hybrid-
 evaporator effectiveness
cooling, heating, and power systems that have an absorption chiller
and a vapor compression system to handle the cooling load. They
Subscripts
analyzed the effect of the size of both cooling mechanisms in con-
b boiler
junction with the PGU size and efficiency when the system follows
building building
the electric load.
conventional reference building
In general, CHP systems are operated either following the elec-
electricity electricity
tric load or following the thermal load. When the CHP system is
fuel fuel
operated following the electric load, the recovered exhaust heat
HVAC heating, ventilation and air-conditioning
may or may not be sufficient to satisfy the thermal demand of the
hc heating coil
facility. When the recovered exhaust heat is more than the heat
hw hot water
required, the excess heat is usually discarded to the atmosphere.
ORC organic rankine cycle
An organic rankine cycle (ORC) can be used to recover the surplus
pgu power generation unit
heat from the CHP system to generate extra electricity. Therefore,
rec recovered heat
combining the ORC system with the CHP system (CHP–ORC) has
the potential to reduce the electricity that has to be produced by
the CHP system (prime mover), thereby reducing the total primary
and the performance optimization of the system. In their optimiza- energy, cost, and emissions. The performance of ORCs have been
tion, they used two objective functions: exergetic efficiency and recently evaluated by Chacartegui et al. [16], Dai et al. [17], Schuster
gross benefit of the whole BCHP. Their results showed that only et al. [18], Mago et al. [19,20], among others. Chacartegui et al. [16]
with enough high load rates the system operation gives positive studied a low temperature ORC as bottoming cycle in medium- and
benefits. Ren and Gao [5] analyzed two typical micro-CHP alter- large-scale combined cycle power plants. Their analysis aimed to
natives: a gas engine and a fuel cell for residential building under illustrate how an ORC can be used with high efficiency, heavy-duty
two different operating modes including minimum-cost operation gas turbines using different organic fluids: R113, R245, isobutene,

Please cite this article in press as: P.J. Mago, et al., Analysis and optimization of the use of CHP–ORC systems for small commercial
buildings, Energy Buildings (2010), doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.03.019
G Model
ENB-2833; No. of Pages 8 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P.J. Mago et al. / Energy and Buildings xxx (2010) xxx–xxx 3

toluene, cyclohexane and isopentane. Dai et al. [17] evaluated and

optimized the use of ORCs for low-grade heat recovery using dif-
ferent working fluids. Their results showed that the cycles with
organic working fluids are much better than the cycles with water
in converting low-grade heat to useful work. Schuster et al. [18]
presented an energetic and economic investigation of ORC appli-
cations. In their paper, ORC applications were presented together
with innovative systems. The results of the simulations such as
efficiencies, water production rates, or achievable electricity pro-
duction were presented and discussed. Mago et al. [19] presented
a second-law analysis for the use of an ORC to convert unused
energy to power from low-grade heat sources. The working fluids
under investigation were R134a, R113, R245ca, R245fa, R123, and
isobutene. They performed a combined first- and second-law anal-
ysis by varying system operating parameters at various reference
temperatures. The results demonstrated that an ORC using R113
showed the maximum efficiency among the evaluated organic flu-
ids. In another investigation, Mago et al. [20] presented an analysis
of a regenerative ORC using the dry organic fluids R113, R245ca, Fig. 1. Schematic of a CHP system.
R123, and isobutene.
Other researchers have reported studies on CHP plants based to satisfy the heating load and hot water load of the buildings. In
on an ORC. Investigations on a biomass-fired CHP plant based on this study, the small office benchmark building for each location
an ORC process have been performed by [21]. The biomass-fired was simulated in EnergyPlus and used as the reference case. For a
CHP plant had a nominal electric capacity of 400 kW and a thermal typical year, the hourly simulation results for the building’s elec-
capacity of 2.25 MW. The ORC was connected with a biomass-fuel tric, cooling, and heating loads for each location were used for the
furnace via a thermal oil cycle and a thermal oil boiler. Similarly, an CHP–ORC system analysis.
evaluation of a 1000 kWel ORC process integrated in the biomass
CHP plant in Lienz, Austria was presented by Obernberger et al.
3. CHP–ORC system model
[22]. They used two-biomass combustor plants to power the ORC.
In general, all the studies performed in this area are for medium-
This section presents the analysis used to model the CHP–ORC
to large-scale applications.
system operation. As can be seen in Fig. 1, fuel, in this case natural
Although several studies have been performed on CHP systems,
gas, is supplied to the power generation unit (PGU) to produce the
standalone ORCs, and CHP plants based on an ORC, the use of an
required electricity. The electricity is used for lights, equipment,
ORC as a supplement of CHP systems to produce extra power from
cooling (via a vapor compression unit), and fans. Then, the exhaust
any unused heat produced by the CHP for small-scale applications
heat from the PGU is used to provide heating or hot water if needed.
is subjected to further investigation. Therefore, the objective of this
Common operation strategies of CHP systems are following the
paper is to study the energetic, economical, and environmental
electric load and following the thermal load. Since the main objec-
performance of a combined CHP–ORC system that is operated fol-
tive of this investigation is to use a combined CHP–ORC system, the
lowing the electric load for a small office building. Also, the ability
operational strategy of the CHP system evaluated in this investiga-
of the CHP–ORC system to reduce the amount of electricity that
tion is to follow the electric load. Under this operational strategy,
must be generated by the CHP system prime mover and the effect
sometimes the CHP system produces more exhaust heat than that
on total fuel consumption are evaluated
required by the building. This does not happen when the CHP sys-
tem is operated to follow the thermal load. For the cases when the
2. Reference buildings
recovered exhaust heat is more than the heat required to satisfy the
thermal demand of the facility, the excess heat can be used by an
The U.S. Department of Energy has developed several com-
ORC system to generate extra electricity. On the other hand, when
mercial building benchmark models. The main benefit of the
the recovered exhaust heat is not enough to satisfy the thermal
standardized benchmark models is that they form a common point
demand, a boiler is required to provide the additional heat needed.
of comparison between research projects [23]. Sixteen types of
The equations that follow are performed for each hour of the
commercial buildings (small, medium, and large offices, hotels,
simulation using the hourly load data obtained from the EnergyPlus
hospitals, etc.) in 16 different locations across three vintages (new,
results. The total electric energy, E, that has to be supplied by the
pre-1980, and post-1980 construction) were developed and mod-
CHP–ORC system and/or the grid is the electricity needed by the
eled [24] using EnergyPlus software [25]. These buildings represent
building, Ebuilding (lights and equipment), and the electricity needed
approximately 70% of the commercial building stock in the U.S. [24].
by the HVAC system, EHVAC (vapor compression system and fans):
This study focuses on new small office buildings with a 511 m2 floor
area that are located in regions with varying climate conditions. The E = Ebuilding + EHVAC (1)
reference building uses a package air-conditioning unit for cooling
The CHP system will provide the bulk of the generated electricity
and a furnace for heating. The COP of the package air-conditioning
and the thermal energy recovered from the PGU dictates whether
unit is 3.05 and the overall heating efficiency is 80%. The air distri-
the boiler or ORC are needed. The recovered exhaust heat from the
bution is a single zone constant volume. The locations are chosen
PGU, QR , can be estimated as
based on the U.S. climate zones map from ASHRAE Standard 90.1
 
[26]. The selected cities and the climate zone of each city are: Miami, 1
FL (1A), Houston, TX (2A), Atlanta, GA (3A), Los Angeles, CA (3B), QR = Epgu rec −1 (2)
pgu
Duluth, MN (7), and Fairbanks, AK (8). In the benchmark models,
electricity imported from the grid is used for lights, equipment, and where Epgu is the electric output of the PGU, rec is the heat recovery
HVAC components. In addition, natural gas is supplied to a boiler system efficiency, and pgu is the PGU thermal efficiency described

Please cite this article in press as: P.J. Mago, et al., Analysis and optimization of the use of CHP–ORC systems for small commercial
buildings, Energy Buildings (2010), doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.03.019
G Model
ENB-2833; No. of Pages 8 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 P.J. Mago et al. / Energy and Buildings xxx (2010) xxx–xxx

The turbine energy can be determined as

Wt = Wt,ideal t = m(h3 − h4s )t (9)
where Wt,ideal is the ideal energy of the turbine for each hour, t is
the turbine isentropic efficiency, and h3 and h4s are the enthalpies
of the working fluid at the inlet and outlet of the turbine for the
ideal case.
The ORC will reduce the electricity load that would otherwise
be met solely by the PGU of the CHP system. Therefore, the net
electricity that has to be supplied by the PGU of the CHP system
and or the grid is given by
Enet = Ebuilding + EHVAC − EORC (10)
and the electric energy produced by the PGU can be obtained by
Fig. 2. Schematic of the ORC system.
replacing E with Enet in Eq. (4):
by the following second-order polynomial (as suggested by manu- Epgu,net = 0 if Enet < 0.25 · Epgu,nominal (11a)
facturer specifications)
2
Epgu,net = Enet if 0.25 · Epgu,nominal ≤ Enet < Epgu,nominal (11b)
pgu = aEpgu + b Epgu + c (3)
Epgu,net = Epgu,nominal if Enet ≥ Epgu,nominal (11c)
As the electric output for the PGU decreases, the efficiency also
decreases. Therefore, it is assumed that the minimum PGU output Using the newly calculated value for Epgu,net , Eqs. (2)–(7) must be
is 25% of the full load. For electricity requirements below quarter recalculated until the solution for Epgu,net converges.
load, the PGU is off and electricity is imported from the grid. The The PGU fuel energy consumption can be estimated as
electric output of the PGU depends on the electric output of the Epgu,net
ORC, but as an initial approximation Fpgu = (12)
pgu
Epgu = 0 if E < 0.25 · Epgu,nominal (4a) Given the electric energy produced by the PGU, the electricity
Epgu = E if 0.25 · Epgu,nominal ≤ E < Epgu,nominal (4b) needed from the grid, equal to the amount of electricity recorded
by the meter, is
Epgu = Epgu,nominal if E ≥ Epgu,nominal (4c)
Em = E if Enet < 0.25 · Epgu,nominal (13a)
For the cases when the thermal energy recovered from the PGU is
higher than the thermal energy needed to handle the thermal load, Em = 0 if 0.25 · Epgu,nominal ≤ Enet < Epgu,nominal (13b)
an ORC can be employed to generate electricity using the excess Em = Enet − Epgu,nominal if Enet ≥ Epgu,nominal (13c)
recovered thermal energy. Therefore, the amount of heat available
to the ORC is The CHP system has to be able to provide enough heat to meet
the building’s heating demand and hot water needs at any time.
QR,available = QR − (Qhc + Qhw ) if QR > (Qhc + Qhw ) (5) Therefore, if the recovered thermal energy is not enough to handle
where Qhc and Qhw are the heat required by the heating coil to han- the total thermal load, heat has to be supplemented by the boiler
dle the heating load and the heat needed to produce the required and EORC = 0 (or Enet = E). Thus,
hot water, respectively. The heat required by the heating coil can Qb = 0 if QR ≥ (Qhc + Qhw ) (14a)
be determined by dividing the heating load (Qh ) by the heating coil
efficiency (hc ). Similarly, the heat needed to produce hot water Qb = (Qhc + Qhw ) − QR if QR < (Qhc + Qhw ) (14b)
is the hot water demand (Qw ) divided by the hot water system
The boiler fuel energy consumption is computed as
efficiency (hw ).
The recovered thermal energy remaining from the CHP system Qb
Fb = (15)
(QR,available ) is used to heat the organic working fluid in the evapo- b
rator of the ORC as shown in Fig. 2. For each hour, the evaporator where b is the boiler thermal efficiency. The fuel energy consump-
heat can be determined from tion registered at the meter is estimated as
Qe = QR,available ·  = m (h3 − h2 ) (6) Fm = Fpgu + Fb (16)
where  is the evaporator effectiveness, h3 and h2 are the enthalpies When the CHP–ORC system is off, electricity will be imported from
of the organic working fluid at the exit and inlet of the evaporator, the grid to satisfy the electric demand and the boiler will solely
respectively (Fig. 2), and m is the organic working fluid mass flow satisfy the thermal demand.
rate over an hour.
The net electric energy from the ORC is 3.1. Performance metrics
 
EORC = Wt + Wp generator (7)
The performance of the CHP–ORC system can be evaluated
where Wt and Wp are the turbine and pump energies, respectively, through primary energy consumption (PEC), operational cost, and
and generator is the electric generator efficiency. carbon dioxide emissions (CDE). Unlike site energy, which is energy
The pump energy can be evaluated as usage recorded by the meter, primary energy is defined as the
Wp,ideal m (h1 − h2s ) amount of site energy plus losses that occur during the genera-
Wp = = (8) tion, transmission, and distribution of energy [27]. PEC represents
p p
the total amount of raw fuel that is used to operate the building.
where Wp,ideal is the ideal energy of the pump, p is the isentropic Therefore, the building PEC is determined according to
efficiency of the pump, and h1 and h2s are the enthalpies of the
working fluid at the inlet and outlet of the pump for the ideal case. PEC = Em ECFPEC + Fm FCFPEC (17)

Please cite this article in press as: P.J. Mago, et al., Analysis and optimization of the use of CHP–ORC systems for small commercial
buildings, Energy Buildings (2010), doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.03.019
G Model
ENB-2833; No. of Pages 8 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P.J. Mago et al. / Energy and Buildings xxx (2010) xxx–xxx 5

Table 1 no specific building will be credited or penalized for the relative

Input values for CHP–ORC system simulation.
Variable
Heat recovery system efficiency, rec
CHP boiler efficiency, b
Heating coil efficiency, hc
PGU efficiency coefficientsa
A −0.0004
B 0.0175
C 0.0652
Organic working fluid
Evaporator pressure
Condenser temperature
Turbine efficiency
Pump efficiency
Generator efficiency
a
Kholer residential generator sets [29].
Table 2
Site-to-primary energy conversion factors [28].
Fuel type Conversion factor
Electricity 3.339
Natural gas 1.047
a
Values obtained in March 2009.
where ECFPEC and FCFPEC are the site-to-primary energy conversion
factors for electricity and natural gas, respectively.
The operational cost can be determined as:
cost = Em costelectricty + Fm costfuel
where costelectricity and costfuel are the cost for electricity and nat-
ural gas, respectively.
The amount of carbon dioxide emissions, CDE, per year can be
determined using the emission conversion factors for electricity
and natural gas as follows
CDE = Em ECFCDE + Fm FCFCDE
where ECFCDE and FCFCDE are the emission conversion factors for
electricity and natural gas, respectively.
4. Results
The CHP–ORC analysis is used to evaluate the variation of cost,
PEC, and CDE with respect to the reference case (benchmark build-
ing). Table 1 provides the parameters used to simulate the CHP–ORC
system operation. The site-to-primary energy conversion factors
are presented in Table 2, while the cost and emission conversion
factors are presented in Table 3. The conversion factors were taken
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Energy Star
program [28], which uses national averages for the site-to-primary
energy conversion factors and regional values for the emission con-
version factors. This is because primary energy is the basis for
calculating the Energy Star rating, and the aim of the Energy Star
rating system is to rank building energy performance relative to its
peers. Therefore, the EPA has determined that it is the most equi-
table to employ national-level source-site ratios to guarantee that
efficiency of its utility provider. Regarding the cost, since this study
Value is performed for a small commercial office (area = 511 m2 ), a flat
0.8 electricity rate can be considered for this application. For applica-
0.8 tions with a larger electric demand, a more complex rate schedule
0.8 can be considered.
During the ORC operation, the working fluid leaving the evapo-
rator was assumed to be saturated vapor. For the analysis presented
in this paper, R113, which is a dry fluid, was selected as the working
R113 fluid since it has been shown to be a good candidate for ORC appli-
3 MPa cations [19,20]. One of the reasons dry fluids show better thermal
25 ◦ C
efficiencies over wet fluids is that they do not condense after the
82%
80% fluid goes through the turbine, therefore, they do not need to be
85% superheated.
4.1. PEC, cost, and CDE
Initially, the CHP–ORC system was operated continuously
a throughout the day. For this operation, Fig. 3 shows the variation
of the PEC, cost, and CDE for the CHP–ORC systems with respect
to the reference case. It is important to mention that a negative
number implies a reduction from the reference case while a pos-
itive number implies an increase from the reference case. Results
of a CHP system simulation are also presented for comparison
purposes. The use of the CHP–ORC system in Fairbanks and Los
Angeles reduces costs by 51% and 11%, respectively, from the
reference case. Although the cost to operate the CHP–ORC system
remains higher than the reference case for the remaining cities,
(18)
the cost is always lower than that obtained to operate the CHP
system. Operation of the CHP–ORC system reduces the PEC below
the reference case for all the evaluated cities, while the CHP system
increases the PEC between 19% (Duluth) and 41% (Los Angeles). The
maximum reduction in PEC for the CHP–ORC system operation was
obtained for Duluth, 13.3%. Implementing the CHP–ORC system
helps to reduce the CDE for all the evaluated cities from the levels
(19)
obtained by operating the CHP system alone. The cities of Houston,
Duluth, Atlanta, and Miami show a reduction of CDE with respect
to the reference case. Although Fairbanks and Los Angeles pro-
duces more CDE than the reference case, it is significantly reduced
compared with the CDE obtained during the CHP operation. For
the city of Los Angeles, the CDE produced by the CHP systems is
almost 150% greater than the reference case. This is due to the
low electricity emission conversion factor for this city. Therefore,
replacing electricity from the grid with electricity generated by
natural gas is not beneficial. These results highlight that, for all
the evaluated cities, the use of a CHP–ORC system reduces the
cost, PEC, and CDE for the same building operating solely with a
CHP system. The average cost, PEC, and CDE reductions are 25.9%,
26.1%, and 26.5%, respectively. However, according to the result
presented in Fig. 3, the system is generally not beneficial when
compared to the reference benchmark building.
In order to determine how the operation time affects the perfor-
mance of CHP–ORC system, the system was only operated during
typical office hours. Small office buildings usually only operate 11 h
or 12 h a day, and not 24 h a day. Therefore, the CHP–ORC system

Table 3
Carbon dioxide emissions conversion factors and cost for electricity and natural gas [28].

Representative city ECFCDE a (ton/kW h) FCFCDE a (ton/kW h) costelectricty a ($/kW h) costfuel a ($/kW h)

Miami, FL 0.000601 0.0002 0.097 0.0465

Houston, TX 0.000603 0.0002 0.100 0.0343
Atlanta, GA 0.000601 0.0002 0.097 0.0465
Los Angeles, CA 0.000330 0.0002 0.130 0.0347
Duluth, MN 0.000831 0.0002 0.074 9.98
Fairbanks, AK 0.000560 0.0002 0.119 4.49
a
Values obtained in March 2009.

Please cite this article in press as: P.J. Mago, et al., Analysis and optimization of the use of CHP–ORC systems for small commercial
buildings, Energy Buildings (2010), doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.03.019
G Model
ENB-2833; No. of Pages 8 ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 P.J. Mago et al. / Energy and Buildings xxx (2010) xxx–xxx

Fig. 3. Variation of the cost, PEC, and CDE for the CHP system and CHP–ORC operating 24 h a day for the selected cities.

was simulated to operate between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. Outside
of these hours, building loads were met by the grid and boiler. For
this operation, Fig. 4 illustrates the variation of the cost, PEC, and
CDE for the CHP–ORC and CHP systems with respect to the refer-
ence case. Similar to Fig. 3, a negative number implies a reduction
from the reference case while a positive number implies an increase
from the reference case. In general, by comparing Figs. 3 and 4, it
can be observed that operating during business hours, as opposed
continuously, provides greater benefits for both systems. While the
CHP system reduces the operational cost for the cities of Houston,
Duluth, Fairbanks, and Los Angeles, the CHP–ORC reduces the cost
for all the evaluated cities; and, when compared to the CHP sys-
tem, the operation cost is reduced by an average 19%. Operating
both systems for 12 h a day reduces the PEC for all the evaluated
cities, but the CHP–ORC PEC is always lower than the consumption
resulting from the CHP system’s operation by an average of 19%.
The highest PEC reduction from the reference case for the CHP–ORC
system was obtained for the city of Miami (34.4%) while the low-
est reduction was obtained for Duluth (28.5%). Regarding the CDE,
with the exception of Los Angeles, operating the CHP–ORC system
from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm reduces the CDE for all the cities and again
yields better results than the CHP system by an average of 20%. In
Los Angeles the CDE increased by only 3.8%, but when compared to
the CHP system the CDE was reduced by 26%.
As mentioned before, running the CHP–ORC system during
office hours improves the performance of the system when com-
pared to the case when the CHP system runs for the whole day.
This can be explained since when the CHP system operates during
night time, the electric load is generally low and the PGU has to
run at low efficiencies therefore consuming more fuel. In addition
if heating is needed, since the electric load is low, the recovered
heat from the PGU is not enough and natural gas has to be sup-
plied to the boiler to complement the heat required. Therefore, it is
cheaper to just import electricity from the grid and buy natural gas
if needed for heating than operating the CHP–ORC system at very
low efficiencies.

Fig. 4. Variation of the cost, PEC, and CDE for the CHP system and CHP–ORC operating 12 h a day (from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm) for the selected cities.

Please cite this article in press as: P.J. Mago, et al., Analysis and optimization of the use of CHP–ORC systems for small commercial
buildings, Energy Buildings (2010), doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.03.019
G Model
ENB-2833; No. of Pages 8 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P.J. Mago et al. / Energy and Buildings xxx (2010) xxx–xxx
Fig. 5. Comparison of the fuel energy consumption for the operation of CHP and CHP–ORC for the selected cities.
4.2. Fuel energy consumption
Fig. 5 presents a comparison of the fuel energy consumption for
the CHP and CHP–ORC systems operating continuously (24 h a day)
and during office hours (12 h a day). This figure illustrates that the
CHP–ORC operation consumes less fuel than the CHP operation. For
both cases, 24 h and 12 h operation, the maximum reduction was
achieved for Los Angeles, 34.7% and 33.5%, respectively. For 24 h,
the minimum reduction was obtained for Fairbanks, 27%, while the
minimum reduction for 12 h operation was obtained for Duluth,
22.8%. The average fuel consumption reduction for the 24 h and 12 h
operation was 29.9% and 28.3%, respectively. These results demon-
strate the benefits of using an ORC together with a CHP system since
it helps to reduce the amount of fuel needed by the PGU of the CHP
system while still satisfying the electric and thermal demand of the
building.
5. Conclusions
This paper analyzed the performance of a CHP–ORC system
using a vapor compression system to satisfy the cooling demand
of a small commercial office building. Operational cost, PEC, and
CDE for a CHP–ORC system were determined and compared to a
reference building and a CHP system for different climate zones.
A comparison of both systems operating 24 h a day with the sys-
tems operating during typical office hours was also performed. The
results demonstrate that, in general, the use of CHP–ORC reduces
the cost, PEC, and CDE for all the evaluated cities as compared with
the CHP operation. However, the use of both systems operating 24 h
is not favorable when compared to the reference benchmark build-
ing; and, in general, it is more beneficial to operate the systems
during typical office hours. The results highlight that, for all the
evaluated cities, the use of a CHP–ORC system reduces the cost, PEC,
and CDE for the same building operating solely with a CHP system.
For the 24 h a day operation, the average cost, PEC, and CDE reduc-
tions are 25.9%, 26.1%, and 26.5%, respectively. For the 12 h a day
operation, the average cost, PEC, and CDE reductions are 19%, 19%,
and 20%, respectively, and the fuel energy consumption is reduced
by an average of 30%. Also, results showed that the CHP–ORC system
performance strongly depends on the location where it is installed.
This is due to the variations of the building’s thermal load, which is
a result of the different weather conditions that the cities experi-
Please cite this article in press as: P.J. Mago, et al., Analysis and optimization of the use of CHP–ORC systems for small commercial
buildings, Energy Buildings (2010), doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.03.019
7
ence. In addition, the cost of electricity and natural gas along with
the CDE factors vary with location. Also, if a CHP–ORC system pro-
vides some economic benefits from the operational point of view, a
more detailed economic analysis that includes capital costs should
be performed to determine the payback period and feasibility of
the system.
The use of an ORC for waste heat recovery can also be imple-
mented in a combined cooling, heating, and power (CCHP) system,
where exhaust heat is also used for cooling purposes through, for
example, an absorption chiller. Under 24 h a day operation, a CCHP
system will perform better than a CHP system operating under
the same strategy because the CCHP system is able to utilize more
waste heat during the summer months for cooling the building. This
would leave less surplus heat for an ORC cycle than that would be
available for an ORC cycle combined with a CHP system. Therefore,
the use of ORC to recover the unused exhaust heat should be more
beneficial to a CHP system. However, further research is needed to
determine if the addition of an ORC makes the CHP–ORC system
more beneficial than the CCHP–ORC system during continuous and
non-continuous operation.
References
[1] Annual energy outlook with projections to 2030, Report No. DOE/EIA-0383.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html, 2006 (retrieved 26.06.06).
[2] A. Moran, P.J. Mago, L.M. Chamra, Thermoeconomic modeling of micro-CHP
(micro-cooling, heating, and power) for small commercial applications, Inter-
national Journal of Energy Research 32 (July (9)) (2008) 808–823.
[3] R. Possidente, C. Roselli, M. Sasso, S. Sibilio, Experimental analysis of micro-
cogeneration units based on reciprocating internal combustion engine, Energy
and Buildings 38 (2006) 1417–1422.
[4] J. Cao, F. Liu, Simulation and optimization of the performance in the air-
conditioning season of a BCHP system in China, Energy and Buildings 40 (2008)
185–192.
[5] H. Ren, W. Gao, Economic and environmental evaluation of micro CHP systems
with different operating modes for residential buildings in Japan, Energy and
Buildings (2010), doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.12.007.
[6] I. Malico, A.P. Carvalhinho, J. Tenreiro, Design of a trigeneration system using
a high-temperature fuel cell, International Journal of Energy Research (2008),
doi:10.1002/er.1430.
[7] J.R Khan, Modeling and experimentation of a novel pressurized CHP system
with water extraction, International Journal of Energy Research 32 (11) (2008)
1030–1046.
[8] J.R. Khan, Modeling and optimization of a novel pressurized CHP system with
water extraction and refrigeration, International Journal of Energy Research 32
(8) (2008) 735–751.
[9] H Li, L. Fu, K. Geng, Y. Jiang, Energy utilization evaluation of CCHP systems,
Energy and Buildings 38 (2006) 253–257.
G Model
ENB-2833; No. of Pages 8 ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 P.J. Mago et al. / Energy and Buildings xxx (2010) xxx–xxx
[10] P.J. Mago, N. Fumo, L.M. Chamra, Performance analysis of CCHP and CHP sys-
tems operating following the thermal and electric load, International Journal
of Energy Research 33 (2009) 852–864.
[11] P.J Mago, L.M. Chamra, Analysis and optimization of CCHP systems based on
energy, economical, and environmental considerations, Energy and Buildings
41 (2009) 1099–1106.
[12] E. Cardona, A. Piacentino, A methodology for sizing a trigeneration plant in
Mediterranean areas, Applied Thermal Engineering 23 (2003) 1665–1680.
[13] E. Cardona, A. Piacentino, Matching economical, energetic, and environmental
benefits: an analysis for hybrid CCHP–heat pump systems, Energy 31 (March
(4)) (2006) 490–515.
[14] H Cho, R. Luck, S. Eksioglu, L.M. Chamra, Cost-optimized real-time operation of
CHP systems, Energy and Buildings 41 (2009) 445–451.
[15] N. Fumo, P.J. Mago, L.M. Chamra, Hybrid-cooling, combined cooling, heat-
ing, and power systems, Journal of Power and Energy 223 (5) (2009) 487–
495.
[16] R. Chacartegui, D. Sánchez, J.M. Muñoz, T. Sánchez, Alternative ORC bottoming
cycles FOR combined cycle power plants, Energy 86 (2009) 2162–2170.
[17] Y. Dai, J. Wang, L. Gao, Parametric optimization and comparative study of
organic rankine cycle (ORC) for low grade waste heat recovery, Energy Con-
version and Management 50 (2009) 576–582.
[18] A Schuster, S. Karellas, E. Kakaras, H. Spliethoff, Energetic and economic inves-
tigation of organic rankine cycle applications, Applied Thermal Engineering 29
(2009) 1809–1817.
[19] P.J. Mago, L.M. Chamra, C. Somayaji, Analysis and optimization of organic rank-
ine cycles, IMechE Journal of Power and Energy 221 (3) (May 2007) 255–263.
Please cite this article in press as: P.J. Mago, et al., Analysis and optimization of the use of CHP–ORC systems for small commercial
buildings, Energy Buildings (2010), doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.03.019
[20] P.J. Mago, L.M. Chamra, K. Srinivasan, C. Somayaji, An examination of regen-
erative rankine cycles using dry fluids, Applied Thermal Engineering 28 (June
(8–9)) (2008) 998–1007.
[21] STIA-Holzindustrie Ges.m.b.H., Biomass-fired CHP Plant Based on an ORC,
Project ORC-STIA-Admont, Admont, March 2001.
[22] I. Obernberger, P. Thonhofer, E. Reisenhofer, Description and evaluation of the
new 1,000 kWel organic rankine cycle process integrated in the biomass CHP
plant in Lienz, Austria, Euroheat & Power 10 (2002).
[23] Department of Energy (DOE), Commercial Building Benchmark Models,
Washington, DC, April 2009, 2008, Available from: http://www.eere.energy.
gov/buildings/highperformance/benchmark.html.
[24] P. Torcellini, et al., DOE commercial building benchmark models, in: ACEEE
2008 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, NREL Confer-
ence Paper NREL/CP-550-43291, 2008, Available from: http://www.nrel.gov/
docs/fy08osti/43291.pdf.
[25] EnergyPlus, Energy Simulation Software, March 2009. Available from:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/.
[26] American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE), Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Build-
ings, ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007, Atlanta, GA, 2007.
[27] U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Glossary,
March 2009. Available from: http://www.eia.doe.gov.
[28] U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, Energy Star Pro-
gram, Target Finder, March 2009. Available from: http://energystar.gov/.
[29] Kohler Company, April 2009. Available from: http://www.kohlerpower.com/
residential.