energies

Article
An Advanced Exergoeconomic Comparison of
CO2-Based Transcritical Refrigeration Cycles
J. M. Belman-Flores 1 , V. H. Rangel-Hernández 1,2, * , V. Pérez-García 1 , A. Zaleta-Aguilar 1 ,
Qingping Fang 2 and D. Méndez-Méndez 1
1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Engineering Division, Campus Irapuato-Salamanca, University of
Guanajuato, Guanajuato 36885, Mexico; jfbelman@ugto.mx (J.M.B.-F.); v.perez@ugto.mx (V.P.-G.);
azaleta@ugto.mx (A.Z.-A.); d.mendez.mendez@ugto.mx (D.M.-M.)
2 Institute of Energy and Climate Research, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, 52425 Jülich, Germany;
q.fang@fz-juelich.de
* Correspondence: v.rangel-hernandez@fz-juelich.de; Tel.: +49-2461-61-3774




Received: 4 November 2020; Accepted: 3 December 2020; Published: 6 December 2020


Abstract: CO2 -based transcritical refrigeration cycles are currently gaining significant research
attention, as they offer a viable solution to the use of natural refrigerants (e.g., CO2 ). However, there are
almost no papers that offer an exergoeconomic comparison between the different configurations of
these types of systems. Accordingly, the present work deals with a comparative exergoeconomic
analysis of four different CO2 -based transcritical refrigeration cycles. In addition, the work is
complemented by an analysis of the CO2 abatement costs. The influences of the variation of the
evaporating temperature, the gas cooler outlet temperature, and the pressure ratio on the exergy
efficiency, product cost rate, exergy destruction cost rate, exergoeconomic factor, and CO2 penalty
cost rate are compared in detail. The results show that the transcritical cycle with the ejector has the
lowest exergetic product cost and a low environmental impact.

Keywords: exergoeconomics; transcritical refrigeration; exergy destruction; product cost

1. Introduction
Carbon dioxide (CO2 ) is a natural refrigerant that in past decades has been widely used in
compression refrigeration systems due to its low cost, low global warming potential, zero ozone
depletion potential, and non-flammability. Carbon dioxide can be used in refrigeration processes
such as cascade systems and in transcritical systems. When transcritical CO2 is operated at high
ambient temperatures, its energy performance is low by comparison to conventional hydrofluorocarbon
refrigerants due to its thermodynamic properties. As a result, several researchers have conducted
studies in an effort to improve the energy performance [1,2], considering that the throttling phase
through which a refrigerant passes causes the greatest loss of work [3], amongst other factors. Therefore,
in order to reduce the irreversibilities in the expansion of a refrigerant, a common modification is the
use of a turbine or an ejector as a throttling device instead of a conventional valve. This has been shown
to increase the energy performance in a cycle, either through an increase in the cooling capacity or by a
decrease in the compressor’s power consumption. Elbel and Hrnjak [4] experimentally evaluated a
transcritical CO2 refrigeration system with an ejector and achieved improvements in the coefficient of
performance (COP) for a basic cycle with an expansion valve. The increase in the COP obtained in the
study was 7%, which also reduced the irreversibilities in the throttling to about 14.5%. Kursad and
Nagihan [5] evaluated the irreversibilities in a transcritical cycle with an ejector and compared them
to the turbine cycle and expansion valve systems. The results showed that the irreversibilities of the
ejector system were reduced to 39.1% and 5.46% in comparison to basic and turbine–expander systems,

Energies 2020, 13, 6454; doi:10.3390/en13236454 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2020, 13, 6454 2 of 15

respectively. A variety of reviews in the literature summarize the use of ejectors as expansion devices
in the transcritical cycle [6,7]. Therefore, various papers show that energy improvements are produced
by an ejector when it is included in the transcritical refrigeration cycle.
The use of a turbine as an expansion device produces a reduction in the compressor’s energy
consumption. For example, Yang et al. [8] found that when using a turbine, the respective COP and
exergy efficiency were, on average, 33% and 30% superior to those obtained with an expansion valve.
In this regard, most of the studies on transcritical CO2 refrigeration systems have used a turbine and
have reported improvements in the COP of greater than 30% [9]. Another common modification to
the refrigeration cycle is the integration of an internal heat exchanger (IHX), the purpose of which
is to increase the energy performance of the cycle by improving its cooling capacity. For instance,
Boewe et al. [10] conducted an experimental study consisting of 178 tests for a prototype transcritical
refrigeration system and found a substantial improvement of 25% by incorporating an IHX into the
cycle. Meanwhile, Wang et al. [11] used an IHX in the transcritical refrigeration cycle and concluded
that the IHX produced relatively low power in the compressor when the high-pressure side was over
100 bar and the evaporation temperature was under 0 ◦ C. Nilesh et al. [12] experimentally determined
that through the use of an IHX in a transcritical cycle, the COP and exergy efficiency could be increased
by 5.71% and 5.05%, respectively, at a room temperature of 45 ◦ C and an evaporation temperature of
−5 ◦ C.
On the other hand, exergoeconomic analysis, based on thermodynamic analysis, is a tool intended
to diagnose, improve, and optimize the design and operation of an energy system [13,14]. In the case
of refrigeration systems, the exergoeconomics is used to estimate the total cost of cold production,
and can also be used to optimize energy systems [15]. Various studies can be found in the literature
on transcritical systems in which exergy and exergoeconomic analyses were conducted [16–18].
For example, Gullo and Cortella [19] conducted a comparative study of different configurations
in supermarkets, with an emphasis on the use of an ejector as an expansion device. Their results
showed that implementing an ejector reduced the final cost of the product by 22.7% in comparison
to the basic cycle, which traditionally utilizes an expansion valve. This result was achieved for
medium-temperature refrigeration in the range of 30–42 ◦ C. Nilesh et al. [20] conducted a comparative
study of five transcritical configurations and found that the highest annual energy saving was 22.16%
for a parallel compression configuration when using an expander in the throttling stage.
On the basis of the above, several studies have proposed improvements in the COP of transcritical
refrigeration systems and have carried out exergy and exergoeconomic analyses with certain
configurations of the transcritical cycle. In this article, a broader and more representative exergy and
exergoeconomic study are shown by including four transcritical cycle configurations. The objective is
to define the exergy destruction cost, exergy efficiency, unit exergy cost of the product, CO2 cost rate,
and exergoeconomic factor for a basic cycle, ejector cycle, turbine cycle and internal heat exchanger
cycle. The analysis was performed by varying the parameters, namely the gas cooler outlet temperature,
evaporating temperature and pressure ratio. An in-depth discussion of the results is then provided to
support the conclusions of the study.

2. System Configurations and Assumptions

2.1. Description of the Configurations

As noted above, four different configurations of the CO2 -based transcritical refrigeration cycles
were analyzed, namely: (a) the basic cycle; (b) a cycle with an internal heat exchanger; (c) a cycle with
a turbine; (d) a cycle with an ejector. Table 1 presents the operating conditions under which the four
mentioned configurations were simulated. Most of the operating conditions were drawn from [1] and
represent the conditions in refrigeration applications at medium temperatures.
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 15
Energies 2020, 13, 6454 3 of 15

Table 1. Proposed operating conditions for the transcritical cycle in the simulation.
Table 1. Proposed operating conditions for the transcritical cycle in the simulation.
Parameter Value
Evaporating
Parameter temperature 263 K
Value
Gas cooler temperature
Evaporating temperature 263308
K K
2 𝑃
Gas cooler efficiency
Isentropic temperatureof the compressor 𝜂𝑐 = 1.003
308−K0.121
  ( ) [21]
𝑃1
Isentropic efficiency of the compressor ηc = 1.003 − 0.121 PP21 [21]
Isentropic efficiency of the turbine 0.75
Isentropic efficiency of the turbine 0.75
Internal heat exchanger effectiveness
Internal heat exchanger effectiveness 0.5
0.5
Nozzle efficiency
Nozzle efficiency 0.850.85
Diffuser efficiency
Diffuser efficiency 0.850.85
Cooling capacity
Cooling capacity 7 kW7 kW
Pressure drop in the suction nozzle 0.03 MPa [22]
Pressure drop in the suction nozzle 0.03 MPa [22]
298 K
Environmental state 298 K
Environmental state 1.01 MPa
1.01 MPa

The basic
The basic transcritical
transcritical refrigeration
refrigeration cycle
cycle layout
layout is
is depicted
depicted inin Figure
Figure 1. The Ph
1. The Ph diagram
diagram shows
shows
the thermodynamic
the thermodynamic states
statesthrough
throughwhich
whichthe theCO
CO2 2passes
passesacross
acrossthe
theentire
entire cycle.
cycle. The
The components
components of
of the
the basic
basic configuration
configuration areare primarily
primarily thecompressor,
the compressor,thethegas
gascooler,
cooler,thetheexpansion
expansion valve,
valve, and
and the
the
evaporator. In
evaporator. In addition,
addition, aa liquid
liquid container
container guarantees
guarantees saturated
saturated vapor
vapor at at the
the compressor’s
compressor’s inlet.
inlet.

3 2 P
3 2s 2
Gas cooler

Expansion Compressor
Valve
4 5 1
1
Evaporator

4
h
5 Liquid
receiver

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of a basic transcritical CO2 refrigeration cycle (model 1: base cycle).
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of a basic transcritical CO2 refrigeration cycle (model 1: base cycle).
Amongst the most modern configurations used to improve the COP of a refrigeration cycle is a
Amongst the most
configuration using modern
an IHX. This configurations
has a dual effectused
in thetocycle,
improve
on thetheone
COP of aincreasing
hand refrigeration cycle isof
the degree a
configuration using an IHX. This has a dual effect in the cycle, on the one hand increasing
subcooling at the exit of the gas cooler, while on the other hand increasing the degree of superheating the degree
of subcooling
at the exit of theatevaporator,
the exit ofas the gas cooler,
is shown while
in Figure on results
2. This the other
in anhand increasing
increase the degree
in the cooling of
capacity
superheating at the
of the cycle, and exit of an
therefore theimprovement
evaporator, asinisits
shown
COP. in InFigure 2. This
the current results insome
literature, an increase
authorsinhave
the
cooling capacity of the cycle, and therefore an improvement in its COP.
shown the thermodynamic advantages of having an IHX in a transcritical cycle [23]. In the current literature, some
authors have alternative
Another shown the that
thermodynamic
can be used toadvantages
improve the of COP
havingof aan IHX in a transcritical
refrigeration cycle is thecycle [23].
replacement
of the common expansion device with a turbine, which results in an increase in the COP by taking
advantage of the work generated during the expansion of the working fluid, reducing the energy
consumption of the compressor, as long as the system allows the turbine and compressor to be coupled
to the same shaft. Another advantage of the use of a turbine is the reduction of the irreversibility
enabled by the common expansion valve, which affects the COP. The main disadvantage of the inclusion
of the turbine in the cycle relates to its high investment cost, as proportionally the cost is relatively high
compared to expansion devices. The scheme for a cycle involving the incorporation of an expansion
turbine is shown in Figure 3.

3
 Compressor
IHX
1
5 6, 7 1
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 15
Energies 2020, 13,
4 6454 4 of 15
7
Expansion Evaporator h
Valve P
3 Liquid
5 6 2 4 3 2
receiver
Gas cooler

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of a Compressor

transcritical CO2 cycle with an internal heat exchanger (model 2:
internal heat exchanger (IHX) cycle).
IHX
1
Another alternative that can be used to improve the COP 5 of a refrigeration
6, 7 cycle
1 is the
replacement of the common expansion device with a turbine, which results in an increase in the COP
4
by taking advantage of the work generated during 7 the expansion of the working fluid, reducing the
energy consumption of Evaporator
Expansion the compressor, as long as the system allows the turbine and compressor h to
be coupled
Valve to the same shaft. Another advantage of the use of a turbine is the reduction of the
irreversibility
5
enabled by the common 6
expansion
Liquid valve, which affects the COP. The main
receiver
disadvantage of the inclusion of the turbine in the cycle relates to its high investment cost, as
proportionally the costdiagram
Figure 2. Schematic is relatively high compared
of a transcritical to expansion
CO2 cycle devices.
with an internal heat The scheme
exchanger for a2: cycle
(model
Figure
involving 2.
the
internal Schematic
heat diagram
incorporation of
of an
exchanger (IHX) a transcritical CO cycle with an internal
expansion turbine is shown in Figure 3.
cycle). 2 heat exchanger (model 2:
internal heat exchanger (IHX) cycle).

3Another alternative that can be used to2 improve Pthe COP of a refrigeration cycle is the
3 2
replacement of the common expansion device with a turbine, which results in an increase in the COP
by taking advantage ofGas
thecooler
work generated during the expansion of the working fluid, reducing the
energy consumption of the compressor, as long as the system allows the turbine and compressor to
be coupled Turbine Compressor
to the same shaft. Another advantage of the use of a turbine is the reduction of the
irreversibility enabled by the common expansion valve, which affects the COP. The main
4 4s 5, 1
disadvantage of the inclusion of the turbine in the cycle relates to its high investment cost, as
4 the cost is relatively high compared to expansion devices. The scheme for a cycle
proportionally
1
involving the incorporation of an expansion turbine is shown in Figure 3.
Evaporator h

3 5 Liquid
2 P
receiver 3 2
Gas cooler of the transcritical CO2 cycle with a turbine (model 3: turbine cycle).
Figure3.3.Schematic
Figure Schematicdiagram
diagram of the transcritical CO2 cycle with a turbine (model 3: turbine cycle).

FigureTurbine
4 shows the schematic diagram of a transcritical refrigeration cycle with an ejector and its
Compressor
Figure 4 shows the schematic diagram of a transcritical refrigeration cycle with an ejector and
corresponding Ph diagram. Besides having the same components as the basic cycle, this configuration
its corresponding Ph diagram. Besides having the same components as the basic cycle, this
has a liquid–vapor separator and an ejector as the main expansion 5, 1 is a device
4 device. The ejector
configuration has a liquid–vapor separator and an ejector as the main4sexpansion device. The ejector
comprising4three fixed elements. A nozzle accelerates the mass flow rate from the gas cooler, creating a
is a device comprising three fixed elements. A nozzle accelerates the mass flow rate from the gas
pressure drop below the evaporation pressure.1In turn, a mixing chamber mixes the two streams at a
cooler, creating a pressure drop below the evaporation pressure. In turn, a mixing chamber mixes the
Evaporator
constant pressure, whereas a diffuser decelerates the final mixture with increasing pressure [24].h
two streams at a constant pressure, whereas a diffuser decelerates the final mixture with increasing
The entrainment ratio is one of the most important parameters used to describe the ejector’s
pressure [24]. 5 Liquidof this parameter varied according to the operating
performance. In this study, the characterization
receiver
conditions. Additionally, some considerations were considered to reduce the complexity of the model:

(1) TheFigure 3. Schematic

compressor, diagram
ejector, andofturbine
the transcritical
have fixedCO2isentropic
cycle with aefficiencies;
turbine (model 3: turbine cycle). 4

(2) The refrigerant at the evaporator outlet is saturated vapor;

Figure 4 shows the schematic diagram of a transcritical refrigeration cycle with an ejector and
(3) The pressure drops and heat losses in the gas cooler and evaporator, as well as in the piping
its corresponding Ph diagram. Besides having the same components as the basic cycle, this
systems, are negligible;
configuration has a liquid–vapor separator and an ejector as the main expansion device. The ejector
(4) A constant cooling capacity for the system.
is a device comprising three fixed elements. A nozzle accelerates the mass flow rate from the gas
cooler, creating a pressure drop below the evaporation pressure. In turn, a mixing chamber mixes the
two streams at a constant pressure, whereas a diffuser decelerates the final mixture with increasing
pressure [24].

4
Energies 2020, 13, 6454 5 of 15

Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 15

3 2
P
Compressor 2s 2
Gas cooler 3
Ejector
1
4 5 6 Vapor-Liquid
10 Separator
7 7 6s 6 1
8 9
Expansion 4s 4 5 10s 10
Evaporator
Valve
h
9 8
Figure4.4.Schematic
Figure Schematicdiagram
diagramofofthe
thetranscritical
transcriticalCO
CO2 2cycle
cyclewith
withan
anejector
ejector(model
(model4:4:ejector
ejectorcycle).
cycle).

2.2. Mathematical Modelsratio is one of the most important parameters used to describe the ejector’s
The entrainment
performance. In this study, the characterization of this parameter varied according to the operating
2.2.1. Exergy Model
conditions. Additionally, some considerations were considered to reduce the complexity of the
model:
Exergy (also called availability) is the maximum useful work that can be obtained in a specified
state and environment condition. The total exergy of a system consists of four components: physical,
(1) The compressor, ejector, and turbine have fixed isentropic efficiencies;
chemical, kinetic, and potential exergy [25]:
(2) The refrigerant at the evaporator outlet is saturated vapor;
. . PH . CH . KN . PT
(3) The pressure drops and heatElosses
sys = Ein the
+ Egas +
cooler
E + andE evaporator, as well as in the piping
(1)
systems, are negligible;
However, as there are no velocity or level changes in the system, only the physical and chemical
(4) A constant cooling capacity for the system.
components of exergy are considered:
2.2. Mathematical Models . . PH . CH
Esys = E +E (2)
2.2.1. Exergy Model
Therefore, the physical exergy can be calculated with the following equation:
Exergy (also called availability) is the maximum useful work that can be obtained in a specified
. PH .
state and environment condition. The E total = mexergy
[(h − h0of
) −aTsystem consists of four components: physical,
0 (s − s0 )] (3)
chemical, kinetic, and potential exergy [25]:
Furthermore, assuming that the fluid’s
𝐸̇𝑠𝑦𝑠 = chemistry
𝐸̇ 𝑃𝐻 + 𝐸̇ 𝐶𝐻does not+change
+ 𝐸̇ 𝐾𝑁 𝐸̇ 𝑃𝑇 as it passes through the different
(1)
equipment, it is also neglected. The exergy balance of the total system becomes:
However, as there are no velocity or level changes X . in the. system, only the physical and chemical
. .
components of exergy are considered: EF,tot = EP,tot + ED,k + EL,tot (4)
k
𝐸̇𝑠𝑦𝑠 = 𝐸̇ 𝑃𝐻 + 𝐸̇ 𝐶𝐻 (2)
The exergy balance for each component is:
Therefore, the physical exergy can be calculated with the following equation:
. . .
𝐸̇ 𝑃𝐻 =E𝑚̇ [(ℎ
F,k =− ℎ0+
EP,k ) −ED,k
𝑇0 (𝑠 − 𝑠0 )] (3)
(5)
Furthermore, assuming that the fluid’s chemistry does not change as it passes through the
The exergy efficiency is given by the following equation:
different equipment, it is also neglected. The exergy balance of the total system becomes:
.
𝐸̇𝐹,𝑡𝑜𝑡 = 𝐸̇𝑃,𝑡𝑜𝑡 EP,tot ̇ ̇
ε = +. ∑ 𝐸𝐷,𝑘 + 𝐸𝐿,𝑡𝑜𝑡 (4)
(6)
EF,tot
𝑘

The exergy balance for each component is:

𝐸̇𝐹,𝑘 = 𝐸̇𝑃,𝑘 + 𝐸̇𝐷,𝑘 (5)
The exergy efficiency is given by the following equation:

5
Energies 2020, 13, 6454 6 of 15

2.2.2. Exergoeconomic Model

According to the premise of thermoeconomics, all costs are associated with their corresponding
exergy streams [16]. Therefore, the exergy-based cost balance equation for any component is given as:
. . .
CP,k = CF,k + Zk (7)
. .
where CP,k and CF,k stand for the cost rate associated with the product and fuel of the k-th component,
respectively, or alternatively in terms of average costs per unit of exergy (cp and cF ):
. .
CP,k = cP,k EP,k (8)
. .
CF,k = cF,k EF,k (9)

For the evaluation of the unit cost of the product, the following equation is used:
. .
cF,k EF,k + Zk
cP,k = . (10)
EP,k

The levelized investment cost rate associated with the investment (CI), operation, and maintenance
.
(OM) of the k-th component can be given as Zk :
. . CI . OM
Zk = Zk + Zk (11)
. CI
where the levelized capital investment rate, Zk , is given by:

. CI CRF·∅
Zk = ∗ ICC (12)
τop

where τop is the yearly operating time (7000 h), ∅ denotes the maintenance factor with a value of
1.06 [26], and ICC stands for the investment capital cost of the equipment. The capital recovery factor
(CRF) can be calculated [27–29] as:
ir ·(1 + ir )n
CRF = (13)
( 1 + ir ) n − 1
Here, ir stands for the interest rate (15%) and n is the expected lifetime of the plant (20 years) [27–29].
Table 2 provides the equations used for the calculation of the ICC values for each equipment setup.
Moreover, in order to identify the relative significance of non-exergy-related costs (i.e., capital
investment, operational, and maintenance costs) and irreversibility costs (i.e., exergy destruction),
the exergoeconomic factor for the k-th component can be calculated [30] as:
.
Zk
fk = . . (14)
Zk + cF,k ED,k
. .
where Zk is the total cost rate ($/h), cF,k the unit cost of fuel ($/kJ), and ED,k stands for the exergy
destruction rate (kJ/h).
Energies 2020, 13, 6454 7 of 15

Table 2. Cost function equations of the equipment considered in the refrigeration cycles.

Equipment Cost Function Equations Reference Values Ref.

. 0.46
Compressor ICC = 10167.5·W [31]
 0.6 ICCref = 16000
Evaporator ICC = ICCre f AAre f [32]
Aref = 100 m2
 0.6 ICCref = 8000
Gas cooler ICC = ICCre f AAre f [32]
Aref = 100 m2
 0.6 ICCref = 12000
Internal heat exchanger ICC = ICCre f AAre f [32]
Aref = 100 m2
Ejector ICC = 0
Expansion valve ICC = 133

Additionally, it should be noted that the cost of the equipment is given for a reference year,
and therefore it is necessary to update it to the considered year with the following equation:
" #
cost index o f the original year
Original cost = re f erence cost· (15)
cost index o f the re f erence year

For this study, the reference year for the cost of the equipment was 2010, and so these values were
updated to 2020. Finally, Table 3 summarizes the exergy and exergoeconomics equations for each piece
of the equipment that was part of the different refrigeration cycles.

Table 3. Summary of the exergy and exergoeconomic equations for all refrigeration cycles.

Component Exergy Analysis Exergoeconomic Analysis

. . . . . .
Compressor EF,comp = W comp Co − Ci = Ccomp + Zcomp
. . . . .
EP,comp = Eo − Ei Ccomp = W comp ∗ Celec
. . . . . . .
EF,gasc = Ei − E o CP,gasc = Ci − Co + Z gasc
Gas cooler . . . .
T0
EP,gasc = 1 − T gasc Q gasc CP,gasc = EP,gasc ∗ CP,gasc
. . . . . . .
Expansion valve EF,expval = Ei , EP,expval = Eo Co = Ci + Zexpval
. . . . . . .
EF,evap = Ei − Eo CP,evap = Ci − Co + Zevap
. .
Evaporator .  .
CP,evap = EP,evap ∗ CP,evap
EP,evap = 1 − TTevap
0
Qevap
Co = Ci
. P.
Ejector EF,e jec = Ei
. . . P . .
EP,e jec = Eo Cp, e jec = Ci + Ze jec
. . . . . . .
EF,turb = Ei − Eo CP,turb = Ci − Co + Zturb
. . . .
aTurbine EP,turb = W turb CP,turb = EP,turb ∗ Cp,turb
Co = Ci
. . .
CP,IHX = CF,IHX + ZIHX
. . . . .
Internal heat EP,IHX = Ec,o − Ec,i CP,IHX = EP,IHX ∗ CP,IHX
exchanger . . . . .
EF,IHX = Eh,i − Eh,o CF,IHX = EF,IHX ∗ CF,IHX
Ch,o = Ch,i

2.2.3. Environmental Model

To complement this study, an environmental analysis is included that considers a simple model to
determine the CO2 penalty cost rate related to the electricity consumption of the compressor. Thus,
the equation used is:
. .
Cenv = mCO2 ·CCO2 (16)
Energies 2020, 13, 6454 8 of 15

.
where Cco2 is the cost of avoided CO2 , which takes the value of 0.09 $/kg of CO2 [33], and mCO2 is the
annual amount of emitted CO2 , which can be calculated as:
. .
mCO2 = µCO2 ·Eannual (17)

kg .
where µCO2 = 0.968 kWh and Eannual is the annual electrical energy consumption of the system in kWh.

3. Results
This section analyzes the influences on the exergy and exergoeconomic parameters of three of the
main operating variables in the refrigeration cycles, namely the evaporating temperature, gas cooler
outlet temperature, and compressor pressure ratio. The particular conditions under which the results
were obtained are indicated in the graphs. For the sake of comparison, the same cooling capacity
(Qevap = 7 kW) was considered in each of the refrigeration cycles cases.

3.1. Exergy Analysis

Figure 5 illustrates the variation in the exergy efficiency with the evaporating temperature, the gas
cooler outlet temperature, and the compressor pressure ratio for each of the transcritical refrigeration
cycles selected herein. As per Figure 5a, the lowest exergy efficiency was revealed by the basic cycle,
as expected.
Energies 2020, 13,This was
x FOR followed
PEER REVIEWby the IHX cycle, then the turbine cycle, and finally by the ejector 9cycle
of 15
with the highest exergy efficiency.

Variations in exergy efficiency due to the: (a)

Figure 5. Variations (a) evaporating
evaporating temperature; (b) gas cooler outlet
temperature; (c) pressure ratio.

The maximum Analysis

3.2. Exergoeconomic difference in exergy efficiency between the basic cycle and that with the ejector was
approximately 59% at −10 ◦ C. In all cases, decreasing the evaporating temperature had a slight positive
effectFigure
on the6system’s
reveals the variations
exergy in the
efficiency. Thisproduct costcaused
effect was rate asbya the
function of (a)
reduction in the evaporation
the evaporating
temperature, (b) the cooler gas outlet temperature, and (c) the pressure ratio in the compressor.
Referring to Figure 6a, the reduction in the evaporating temperature causes the product in the
refrigeration system to be slightly more economical. When comparing this trend to that of the exergy
efficiency (see Figure 5a), it can be seen that they are opposites. Increasing the exergy efficiency
results in a reduction in the product cost. The maximum costs for the refrigeration cycles turn out to
be 0.65 $/h for both the basic cycle and the cycle with IHX, 0.38 $/h for the cycle with the turbine, and
finally 0.3 $/h for the cycle with the ejector.
Energies 2020, 13, 6454 9 of 15

temperature and the exergy in the cooling chamber increasing (although the work of the compressor
increased), which caused the efficiency of the cycles to decrease.
On the contrary, Figure 5b reveals a significant effect of the gas cooler outlet temperature on
the exergy efficiency. It can be observed that by increasing the temperature of the gas cooler outlet
from 25 ◦ C, the exergy efficiency of the basic cycle, as well as that of the cycles with IHX and the
turbine, gradually decrease shortly before 35 ◦ C, after which a more rapid decrease can be observed.
An increase of 5 ◦ C beyond this point represents a drop in exergy efficiency of about 40% for the basic
cycle and the one with a turbine, and 36% for the cycle with the IHX. In the case of the cycle with the
ejector, the impact is not as remarkable. For instance, prior to 35 ◦ C, a 5 ◦ C increase in temperature
represents a negative impact of no more than 3% on the exergy efficiency. Beyond that point, the same
difference in temperature has an influence of approximately 18% on the exergy efficiency.
Figure 5c shows the effect of the compressor pressure ratio on the exergy efficiency rates of the
four cycles for evaporating and gas cooler outlet temperatures of −10 ◦ C and 35 ◦ C, respectively. It is
interesting to note how the exergy efficiency curve of the ejector refrigeration cycle differs significantly
from those of the other refrigeration cycles. It falls slowly over the entire range of pressure ratios
considered herein, within which its maximum drop is approximately 9%. In the case of the other
refrigeration cycles, the exergy efficiency increases substantially in the first range, going from 2.8 to
the optimum pressure ratio of 3.3 (value with which the simulations are performed in this study).
This increase is approximately 240% for the basic cycle, 150% for the refrigeration cycle with the IHX,
and finally 125% for the refrigeration cycle with the turbine. Beyond this point, the exergy efficiency of
the refrigeration cycles decreases.
This finding can be explained by the fact that by increasing the pressure ratio, the pressure at the
compressor inlet is lower (at the constant outlet pressure), which causes an increase in the work of the
compressor and in the exergy of the evaporator. Below the optimum pressure ratio, the increase in the
evaporator’s exergy is greater than the increase in the compressor work, which causes the increase
in exergy efficiency. Beyond the optimum point, the increase in compressor performance is greater,
and therefore the exergy efficiency decreases.

3.2. Exergoeconomic Analysis

Figure 6 reveals the variations in the product cost rate as a function of (a) the evaporation
temperature, (b) the cooler gas outlet temperature, and (c) the pressure ratio in the compressor.
Referring to Figure 6a, the reduction in the evaporating temperature causes the product in the
refrigeration system to be slightly more economical. When comparing this trend to that of the exergy
efficiency (see Figure 5a), it can be seen that they are opposites. Increasing the exergy efficiency results
in a reduction in the product cost. The maximum costs for the refrigeration cycles turn out to be 0.65 $/h
for both the basic cycle and the cycle with IHX, 0.38 $/h for the cycle with the turbine, and finally 0.3 $/h
for the cycle with the ejector.
Figure 6b illustrates a marked influence of the gas cooler outlet temperature on the product cost
rate for the refrigeration cycles at 35 ◦ C, with a constant evaporating temperature and a pressure ratio
of 2.67. For all refrigeration cycles, except for that with the ejector, the reduction in the gas cooler outlet
temperature leads to a fairly significant cost reduction. In the particular case of the basic cycle, lowering
the temperature from 45 ◦ C to 35 ◦ C implies a cost reduction of at least 75%. This trend is primarily due
to the reduction in the exergy efficiency of the cycle, as is shown above in Figure 5b. In addition, it can
be seen that below 35 ◦ C, the cost of the product virtually remains constant. In contrast, the product
cost rate of the refrigeration cycle with the ejector is slightly reduced by increasing the temperature of
the gas cooler outlet. This finding may be explained by the fact that the use of the ejector reduces the
irreversibilities in the refrigeration cycle.
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 15
Energies 2020, 13, 6454 10 of 15

Figure 6. Variations in the product cost rate due to the: (a) evaporating temperature; (b) gas cooler
outlet
Figuretemperature;
6. Variations(c)
inpressure ratio.cost rate due to the: (a) evaporating temperature; (b) gas cooler
the product
outlet temperature; (c) pressure ratio.
The effect of the pressure ratio is also important for the product cost rate, as is shown in Figure 6c.
In the case of the basic cycle, the production cost rate falls by approximately 73%, whereas for the cycle
Figure 6b illustrates a marked influence of the gas cooler outlet temperature on the product cost
with the IHX, the drop is only 60%. For the turbine, the impact of the pressure ratio is still important.
rate for the refrigeration cycles at 35 °C, with a constant evaporating temperature and a pressure ratio
In the case of the refrigeration cycle with the ejector, the change in the pressure ratio does not have a
of 2.67. For all refrigeration cycles, except for that with the ejector, the reduction in the gas cooler
major effect; in fact, it remains fairly constant throughout the selected pressure ratio range. The same
outlet temperature leads to a fairly significant cost reduction. In the particular case of the basic cycle,
behavior can be observed for the subsequent refrigeration cycles after the optimal pressure ratio has
lowering the temperature from 45 °C to 35 °C implies a cost reduction of at least 75%. This trend is
been reached. At a pressure ratio of 4.8, the maximum cost difference between the basic or exchanger
primarily due to the reduction in the exergy efficiency of the cycle, as is shown above in Figure 5b. In
cycle and the ejector cycle is given, which is approximately 0.35 $/h.
addition, it can be seen that below 35 °C, the cost of the product virtually remains constant. In
The destruction of the exergy also incurs a cost generated by internal or external irreversibilities
contrast, the product cost rate of the refrigeration cycle with the ejector is slightly reduced by
in the system, which must be taken into account in any exergo-economic analysis, as it is part of the
increasing the temperature of the gas cooler outlet. This finding may be explained by the fact that the
cost of the final product [28]. Figure 7a, for example, reveals a slight variation in the ratio of the cost
use of the ejector reduces the irreversibilities in the refrigeration cycle.
of the exergy destruction. In this scenario, the refrigeration cycle with the IHX is the one that shows
The effect of the pressure ratio is also important for the product cost rate, as is shown in Figure
the highest exergy destruction cost out of all cycles within the considered evaporating temperature
6c. In the case of the basic cycle, the production cost rate falls by approximately 73%, whereas for the
range. The maximum cost is 1 $/h at −10 ◦ C and the minimum cost is 0.85 $/h at −2 ◦ C. As expected,
cycle with the IHX, the drop is only 60%. For the turbine, the impact of the pressure ratio is still
the minimum cost is revealed by the refrigeration cycle with an ejector, which is 0.13 $/h on average
important. In the case of the refrigeration cycle with the ejector, the change in the pressure ratio does
over the entire temperature range.
not have a major effect; in fact, it remains fairly constant throughout the selected pressure ratio range.
In contrast, the cost trend for the exergy destruction is to increase when the exit temperature of
The same behavior can be observed for the subsequent refrigeration cycles after the optimal pressure
the cooler gas increases (see Figure 7b). However, it is noteworthy that the cost of exergy destruction
ratio has been reached. At a pressure ratio of 4.8, the maximum cost difference between the basic or
decreases in the ejector cycle as the gas cooler outlet temperature increases. This is because the use of
exchanger cycle and the ejector cycle is given, which is approximately 0.35 $/h.
an ejector in the refrigeration cycle reduces the compression work as the temperature of the gas cooler
The destruction of the exergy also incurs a cost generated by internal or external irreversibilities
outlet increases, and so the exergy destruction, and therefore its cost, is reduced. It is important to note
in the system, which must be taken into account in any exergo-economic analysis, as it is part of the
that the change in the costs of the exergy destruction occurs at a gas cooler outlet temperature of 35 ◦ C.
cost of the final product [28]. Figure 7a, for example, reveals a slight variation in the ratio of the cost
The exergy destruction cost of the cycle with the IHX is about 89% higher than that of the refrigeration
of the exergy destruction. In this scenario, the refrigeration cycle with the IHX is the one that shows
cycle with the ejector.
the highest exergy destruction cost out of all cycles within the considered evaporating temperature
range. The maximum cost is 1 $/h at −10 °C and the minimum cost is 0.85 $/h at −2 °C. As expected,
the minimum cost is revealed by the refrigeration cycle with an ejector, which is 0.13 $/h on average
over the entire temperature range.

10
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15
Energies 2020, 13, 6454 11 of 15

Figure 7. Variations in the exergy destruction cost due to the: (a) evaporating temperature; (b) gas
Figureoutlet
cooler 7. Variations in the(c)exergy
temperature; destruction
pressure ratio. cost due to the: (a) evaporating temperature; (b) gas
cooler outlet temperature; (c) pressure ratio.
Moreover, the variation in the exergy destruction cost with respect to the compressor pressure ratio
for eachIn contrast, the cost trend
of the refrigeration for is
cycles the exergy
shown in destruction
Figure 7c. The is tomost
increase when the
remarkable exitto
result temperature
emerge from of
the is
this cooler gasthe
that for increases
basic cycle(seeatFigure 7b). However,
the lowest it is noteworthy
pressure ratio, the cost is asthat muchtheascost of exergy
4 $/h, destruction
which represents a
decreases in the ejector cycle as the gas cooler outlet temperature increases.
fairly significant economic loss compared to either a turbine or an ejector cycle. The exergy destruction This is because the use of
an ejector
cost in the
inflection refrigeration
occurs cycle reduces
at the optimum pressurethe compression
ratio, from which workitasremains
the temperature
virtuallyof the gas for
constant cooler
all
outlet at
cycles increases,
pressureand so higher
ratios the exergy
than destruction,
this. and therefore its cost, is reduced. It is important to
noteWith
that respect
the change to theinexergoeconomic
the costs of thefactor,
exergyFigure
destruction
8 reveals occurs
how theat avariations
gas cooler in outlet
(a) the temperature
evaporating
of 35 °C. The(b)
temperature, exergy
the gas destruction
cooler outlet cost of the cycleand
temperature, with(c)the
the IHX is about
pressure ratio89%
in thehigher
compressorthan that of the
influence
refrigeration cycle with the ejector.
its behavior according to the conditions considered in each particular case. In the first case, the variation
in theMoreover,
evaporating thetemperature
variation in doesthe exergy destructionaffect
not significantly cost with respect to the compressor
the exergoeconomic factor of any pressure
of the
ratio for eachcycles.
refrigeration of the Itrefrigeration
is importantcyclesto note is the
shown fact in
thatFigure 7c. The most remarkable
the exergoeconomic factor of the result
cycletowith
emergethe
from this is that for the basic cycle at the lowest pressure ratio, the cost
turbine is on average slightly higher than that of the cycle with the ejector. This is primarily due to theis as much as 4 $/h, which
represents acost
investment fairly significant
of the turbine,economic loss compared
which is higher than thattoofeither a turbine
the ejector. Theor an ejector cycle.
exergoeconomic The
factor
exergy
of destruction
the basic cycle is 0.3costunits
inflection
below occurs
the cycles at the optimum
mentioned pressure
above, ratio,the
whereas from
cyclewhichwith theit remains
IHX is
virtually
0.45 units constant
below. This forimplies
all cycles at these
that pressure
two ratios
cycles higher
are lessthan this. as their exergy efficiency decreases,
efficient,
With respect
as is discussed to the
in Figure 5a.exergoeconomic
A possible explanation factor, isFigure
that by8 increasing
reveals how the variations
the evaporation in (a) the
temperature,
evaporating temperature, (b) the gas cooler outlet temperature, and
the irreversibilities increase, which makes the exergoeconomic factor decrease. Otherwise, to increase (c) the pressure ratio in the
compressor influence its behavior according to the conditions considered
the exregoeconomic factor of the two cycles, internal or external irreversibilities would have to be in each particular case. In
the first which
reduced, case, could
the variation
possibly be in achieved
the evaporating
with more temperature does not significantly affect the
efficient equipment.
exergoeconomic factor of any of the refrigeration cycles.
In the case of the variations in the gas cooler’s outlet temperature, as shown It is important to note
in Figurethe fact
8b, athat the
greater
exergoeconomic
effect factor of thefactor
on the exergoeconomic cycle with
can be the turbine
seen. Theistrend
on average slightly higher than
for the exergoeconomic factor that of thewhen
values cycle
with the ejector. This is primarily due to the investment cost of the turbine,
increasing the temperature is downward, except for in the case of the cycle with the ejector. This trend which is higher than that
of the ejector. The exergoeconomic factor of the basic cycle is 0.3 units
is consistent with that observed previously in the exergy efficiency analysis. Above 35 C, the drop below the cycles ◦ mentioned
above,
in whereas
the factor the cycle
is more with the
noticeable. OnIHX theisother
0.45 hand,
units below. This implies that
the exergoeconomic factortheseof two cycleswith
the cycle are less
the
efficient, as their exergy efficiency decreases, as is discussed in Figure
ejector tends to increase as the exit temperature of the gas cooler does. Therefore, the thermodynamic 5a. A possible explanation is
that by increasing the evaporation temperature,
gain of the refrigeration cycle is evident when the ejector is included. the irreversibilities increase, which makes the
exergoeconomic factor decrease. Otherwise, to increase the exregoeconomic factor of the two cycles,

11
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 15

internal or external irreversibilities would have to be reduced, which could possibly be achieved with
more efficient equipment.
Energies 2020, 13, 6454 12 of 15

Figure 8. Variations of the exergoeconomic factor, f, due to: (a) the evaporating temperature; (b) the
Figure
gas 8. Variations
cooler of the exergoeconomic
outlet temperature; factor,
(c) the pressure ratio.f, due to: (a) the evaporating temperature; (b) the
gas cooler outlet temperature; (c) the pressure ratio.
Figure 8c shows that the exergoeconomic factor values of the cycles, except for the ejector, grow as
the pressure
In the caseratioofincreases.
the variationsThis finding
in the gasis associated
cooler’s outletwith an increase in as
temperature, theshown
exergyinefficiency,
Figure 8b, i.e.,a
the reduction
greater effectofonirreversibilities.
the exergoeconomic At the optimum
factor canpressure
be seen.ratioThe (3.3),
trendthe forfactor remains constantfactor
the exergoeconomic until
the end when
values of the increasing
considered the range is reached; is
temperature however,
downward, it canexcept
be seenfor thatin for
thethecaseturbine
of thecycle,
cyclethe factor
with the
tends downwards.
ejector. This trend is Inconsistent
the case ofwith the cycle with the ejector,
that observed previously the exergoeconomic
in the exergy efficiency factor increases
analysis.slightly
Above
as
35the
°C,pressure
the dropratio in thedoes.
factorForisthese
moretwo cases in On
noticeable. particular,
the other this finding
hand, theisexergoeconomic
mostly due to the increased
factor of the
cost
cycleofwith
the exergy destruction
the ejector tends tounderincreasetheseas same
the exit conditions.
temperature of the gas cooler does. Therefore, the
As far as thegain
thermodynamic environmental analysiscycle
of the refrigeration is concerned,
is evident when Figurethe 9a ejector
shows is a included.
comparison of the CO2
cost rate (i.e., the penalty cost rate) calculated for each
Figure 8c shows that the exergoeconomic factor values of the cycles, except of the refrigeration cycles as aejector,
for the function grow of
the evaporating
as the pressure ratio temperature.
increases. This This finding
cost particularly
is associated considers
with anthe CO2 emissions
increase in the exergy emitted into the
efficiency, i.e.,
environment
the reduction because of the consumption
of irreversibilities. At the optimumof electrical
pressure energy. Accordingly,
ratio (3.3), the factorthe penalty
remains cost rate
constant is
until
decreased by increasing the evaporating temperature. Moreover, the
the end of the considered range is reached; however, it can be seen that for the turbine cycle, the higher and lower penalty cost
rates
factorbelong to the basic cycle
tends downwards. In the(0.28
case$/h on cycle
of the average)withand the that with
ejector, thethe ejector (0.10 $/h),
exergoeconomic respectively.
factor increases
Note that
slightly as these correspond
the pressure ratio todoes.systems withtwo
For these lowercasesand higher exergy
in particular, this efficiencies (see Figure
finding is mostly due to5a). the
Figure
increased9b illustrates
cost of the the increase
exergy in the penalty
destruction under thesecost rate
sameasconditions.
the outlet temperature of the gas cooler
increases
As far forasthe
the cases of the basic
environmental cycleiswith
analysis IHX and
concerned, the turbine.
Figure 9a showsIn the particular
a comparison case
of the CO of2 cost
the
basic cycle, the penalty cost rate increases from 0.25 to 1.12 $/h at a temperature difference of 20 ◦ C.
rate (i.e., the penalty cost rate) calculated for each of the refrigeration cycles as a function of the
In contrast, thetemperature.
evaporating penalty cost ratioThis in the particularly
cost ejector refrigeration
considers cyclethetends
CO2toemissions
be reducedemitted
within the intosame the
temperature
environmentdifference.
because of the consumption of electrical energy. Accordingly, the penalty cost rate is
Finally,
decreased bythe variations
increasing theinevaporating
the penalty temperature.
cost rate due Moreover,
to changesthe in the
highercompressor
and lower pressure
penaltyratio cost
are shown
rates belong in to
Figure 9c. Itcycle
the basic is interesting
(0.28 $/h to onnote that as
average) and thethat
pressure
with the ratio increases
ejector (0.10 until
$/h), it reaches its
respectively.
optimum
Note thatvalue,these the penalty cost
correspond of the refrigeration
to systems with lower cycle decreases,
and higher exergyexcept for the cost
efficiencies (seeof Figure
the ejector
5a).
cycle.
FigureThis last segment
9b illustrates theincreases
increaseby in only 2% in the
the penalty selected
cost rate asrange. Beyond
the outlet the optimum
temperature pressure
of the rate,
gas cooler
the cost of for
increases thetheother cycles
cases increases
of the by about
basic cycle with2% IHX as and
well.the Hence,
turbine.from Inan theenvironmental
particular case point
of theof view,
basic
the most
cycle, thepreferable
penalty cost refrigeration
rate increasescycle from
is that0.25
withtothe 1.12ejector.
$/h at a temperature difference of 20 °C. In

12
 Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 15

contrast, the penalty cost ratio in the ejector refrigeration cycle tends to be reduced within the same
temperature difference.
Energies 2020, 13, 6454 13 of 15

Figure 9. Variations of the CO2 penalty cost rate due to the: (a) evaporating temperature; (b) gas cooler
outlet
Figuretemperature;
9. Variations(c)
ofpressure ratio. cost rate due to the: (a) evaporating temperature; (b) gas cooler
the CO2 penalty
outlet temperature; (c) pressure ratio.
4. Conclusions
InFinally, the variations
this study, an advanced in the penalty cost method
exergoeconomic rate duewasto changes in the compressor
used to compare pressure
in detail the behaviorratio
of
are shown
four in Figure
transcritical 9c. It is interesting
refrigeration to note that
systems, namely: as the
a basic pressure
cycle, a cycleratio
with increases
an internaluntil
heatitexchanger,
reaches its
optimum
one with avalue, theand
turbine, penalty cost of
one with anthe refrigeration
ejector. Balancecycle decreases,
equations wereexcept for the
developed forcost
theof the ejector
exergy and
cycle. This last segment
exergoeconomics of each ofincreases by only in
the components 2%the
indifferent
the selected range.
cycles. TheseBeyond
equationsthe were
optimum pressure
programmed
rate, the
using EEScost of the (v9,
software other cycles increases
Madison, WI, USA). by Additionally,
about 2% as well. Hence, from
the abatement anofenvironmental
cost CO2 was includedpoint
of view, the most preferable refrigeration cycle is that with the ejector.
to extend the analysis and was based on a comparison through a parametric analysis. The varied
parameters were the evaporating temperature, the gas cooler outlet temperature, and the compressor
4. Conclusions
pressure ratio. The performance indices were the exergy efficiency, the product cost rate, the exergy
destruction
In thiscost rate,
study, anthe exergoeconomic
advanced factor, and
exergoeconomic the CO
method 2 penalty
was used tocost rate. The
compare main the
in detail conclusions
behavior
of this study are summarized as follows:
of four transcritical refrigeration systems, namely: a basic cycle, a cycle with an internal heat
•exchanger, one with
The highest exergya turbine,
efficiencyand oneachieved
was with an for
ejector. Balance
the ejector equations
cycle, were
reaching an developed
average valuefor the
of
exergy and exergoeconomics of each of the components in the different cycles. These
33%. As expected, the basic cycle had the lowest exergy efficiency. In the exergy efficiency equations were
programmed using
behavior, it EES software
was observed (v9,evaporation
that the Madison, WI, USA). Additionally,
temperature the abatement
was the variable that least cost of CO2
influenced
wasthe
included to extend
measurements; the analysis and was based on a comparison through a parametric analysis.
The varied parameters were the evaporating temperature, the gas cooler outlet temperature, and the
• Regarding the cost rate product variation, the basic and IHX cycles were the configurations that
compressor pressure ratio. The performance indices were the exergy efficiency, the product cost rate,
presented the highest cooling costs. For example, for an evaporation temperature of −2 ◦ C, costs of
the exergy destruction cost rate, the exergoeconomic factor, and the CO2 penalty cost rate. The main
0.65 $/h were observed. This same behavior was reflected in the exergy destruction cost;
conclusions of this study are summarized as follows:
• With respect to the exergoeconomic factor, the cycles with the ejector and turbine were those that
 showed
The highest exergy efficiency
the greatest wasranging
factor values, achieved for 0.7
from the to
ejector cycle,
0.8. The reaching
lowest average an average
value of value
0.53 onof
33%.shown
was As expected,
by the IHX thecycle;
basic cycle had the lowest exergy efficiency. In the exergy efficiency
• behavior,
The variationit inwas observed
the penalty costthat
wasthe evaporation
another temperature
of the behaviors wasin the
analyzed; variable
this case, that cycle
the basic least
influenced
was the measurements;
the configuration with the most CO2 emissions emitted due to energy consumption. For high
gas cooler outlet temperature conditions (45 ◦ C), a value of 1.12 $/h was obtained, whereas for the
same conditions, the cycle with an ejector gave a value of 0.05 $/h;
13
Energies 2020, 13, 6454 14 of 15

• Finally, it can be concluded that according to the results discussed here, the transcritical cooling
cycle with the ejector turned out to be the most efficient method from an exergo-economic point of
view. However, it still requires further technological development to decrease its production cost.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, investigation, V.H.R.-H. and J.M.B.-F.; refrigeration,

model validation, data curation, V.P.-G. and D.M.-M.; writing of first draft, V.H.R.-H., J.M.B.-F., and V.P.-G.; review
and editing, A.Z.-A. and Q.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Pérez-García, V.; Rodríguez-Muñoz, J.L.; Ramírez-Minguela, J.J.; Belman-Flores, J.M.; Méndez-Díaz, S.
Comparative analysis of energy improvements in single transcritical cycle in refrigeration mode. Appl. Therm.
Eng. 2016, 99, 866–872. [CrossRef]
2. Llopis, R.; Cabello, R.; Sánchez, D.; Torrella, E. Energy improvements of CO2 transcritical refrigeration cycles
using dedicated mechanical subcooling. Int. J. Refrig. 2015, 55, 129–141. [CrossRef]
3. Fazelpour, F. Energetic and exergetic analysis of carbon dioxide transcritical refrigeration systems for hot
climates. Thermal Science 2015, 19, 905–914. [CrossRef]
4. Elbel, S.; Hrnjak, P. Experimental validation of a prototype ejector designed to reduce throttling losses
encountered in transcritical R744 system operation. Int. J. Refrig. 2008, 31, 411–422. [CrossRef]
5. Kursad, E.H.; Nagihan, B. Performance characteristics of ejector expander transcritical CO2 refrigeration
cycle. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part A J. Power Energy 2014, 226, 623–635.
6. Brian, T.A.; Sumathy, K. Transcritical carbon dioxide heat pump systems: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 2011, 15, 4013–4029.
7. Elbel, S.; Lawrence, N. Review of recent developments in advanced ejector technology. Int. J. Refrig. 2016, 62,
1–18. [CrossRef]
8. Yang, J.L.; Ma, Y.T.; Li, M.X.; Guan, H.Q. Exergy analysis of transcritical carbon dioxide refrigeration cycle
with an expander. Energy 2005, 30, 1162–1175. [CrossRef]
9. Murthy, A.A.; Subiantoro, A.; Norris, S.; Fukuta, M. A review of expanders and their performance in vapour
compression refrigeration systems. Int. J. Refrig. 2019, 106, 427–446. [CrossRef]
10. Boewe, D.E.; Bullard, C.W.; Yin, J.M.; Hrnjak, H.S. Contribution of Internal Heat Exchanger to Transcritical
R-744 Cycle Performance. HVAC&R Res. 2011, 7, 155–168.
11. Wang, Z.; Gong, Y.; Wu, X.H.; Zhang, W.H.; Lu, Y.L. Thermodynamic analysis and experimental research
of transcritical CO2 cycle with internal heat exchanger and dual expansion. Int. Air Cond. Refrig. 2013,
21, 1350005. [CrossRef]
12. Nilesh, P.; Dileep, K.G.; Mani, S.D. Experimental investigation of a CO2 trans-critical cycle with IHX for
chiller application and its energetic and exergetic evaluation in warm climate. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2018, 136,
617–632.
13. Mehrdad, S.; Dadsetani, R.; Amiriyoon, A.; Leon, A.S.; Safaei, M.R.; Goodarzi, M. Exergo-economic
optimization of organic rankine cycle for saving of thermal energy in a sample power plant by using of
strength pareto evolutionary algorithm II. Processes 2020, 8, 264. [CrossRef]
14. Dadsetani, R.; Sheikhzadeh, G.A.; Safaei, M.R.; Alnaqi, A.A.; Amiriyoon, A. Exergoeconomic optimization of
liquefying cycle for noble gas argon. Heat Mass Transf. 2019, 55, 1995–2007. [CrossRef]
15. Rangel-Hernández, V.H.; Belman-Flores, J.M.; Rodríguez-Valderrama, D.A.; Pardo-Cely, D.;
Rodríguez-Muñoz, A.P.; Ramírez-Minguela, J.J. Exergoeconomic performance comparison of R1234yf
as a drop-in replacement for R134a in a domestic refrigerator. Int. J. Refrig. 2019, 100, 113–123. [CrossRef]
16. Fazelpour, F.; Morosuk, T. Exergoeconomic analysis of carbon dioxide transcritical refrigeration machines.
Int. J. Refrig. 2014, 38, 128–139. [CrossRef]
17. Nemati, A.; Nami, H.; Yari, M. A comparison of refrigerants in a two-stage ejector-expansion transcritical
refrigeration cycle based on exergoeconomic and environmental analysis. Int. J. Refrig. 2017, 84, 139–150.
[CrossRef]
Energies 2020, 13, 6454 15 of 15

18. Megdouli, K.; Sahli, H.; Tashtoush, B.M.; Nahdi, E.; Kairouani, L. Theoretical research of the performance
of a novel enhanced transcritical CO2 refrigeration cycle for power and cold generation. Energy Convers.
Manag. 2019, 201, 112139. [CrossRef]
19. Gullo, P.; Cortella, G. Comparative exergoeconomic analysis of various transcritical R744 commercial
refrigeration systems. In Proceedings of the ECOS 2016, Portorož, Slovenia, 19–23 June 2016.
20. Nilesh, P.; Dileep, K.G.; Mani, S.D. Energetic and economic analysis of trans-critical CO2 booster system for
refrigeration in warm climatic condition. Int. J. Refrig. 2017, 80, 182–196.
21. Liao, S.M.; Zhao, T.S.; Jakobsen, A. A correlation of optimal rejection pressures in transcritical carbon dioxide
cycles. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2000, 20, 831–841. [CrossRef]
22. Li, D.; Groll, E.A. Transcritical CO2 refrigeration cycle with ejector expansion device. Int. J. Refrig. 2005, 28,
766–773. [CrossRef]
23. Sarkar, J.; Bhattacharyya, S.; Ram Gopal, M. Optimization of a transcritical CO2 heat pump cycle for
simultaneous cooling and heating applications. Int. J. Refrig. 2004, 27, 830–838. [CrossRef]
24. Huashan, L.; Fei, C.; Xianbiao, B.; Lingbao, W.; Xianlong, W. Performance characteristics of R1234yf
ejector-expansion refrigeration cycle. Appl. Energy 2014, 121, 96–103.
25. Bejan, A.; Tsatsaronis, G.; Moran, M. Thermal Design and Optimization; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY,
USA, 1996.
26. Nemati, A.; Nami, H.; Yari, M.; Ranjbar, F.; Kolvir, H.R. Development of an exergoeconomic model for
analysis and multi-objective optimization of a thermoelectric heat-pump. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 130,
1–3. [CrossRef]
27. Ghaebi, H.; Parikhani, T.; Rostamzadeh, H. A novel trigeneration system using geothermal heat source and
liquiefied natural gas cold energy recovery: Energy, exergy and exergoeconomic analysis. Renew. Energy
2018, 119, 513–527. [CrossRef]
28. Ghaebi, H.; Parikhani, T.; Rostamzadeh, H. Energy, exergy and thermoeconomic analysis of a novel combined
cooling and power system using low-temperature heat source and LNG cold energy recovery. Energy Convers.
Manag. 2017, 50, 678–692. [CrossRef]
29. Parikhani, T.; Gholizadeh, T.; Ghaebi, H.; Sadat, S.M.S.; Sarabi, M. Exergoeconomic optimization of a novel
multigeneration system driven by geothermal heat source and liquefied natural gas cold energy recovery.
J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 209, 550–571. [CrossRef]
30. Tsatsaronis, G. Thermoeconomic analysis and optimization of energy systems. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci.
1993, 19, 227–257. [CrossRef]
31. Misra, R.D.; Sahoo, P.K.; Sahoo, S.; Gupta, A. Thermoeconomic optimization of a single effect water/LiBr
vapour absorption refrigeration system. Int. J. Refrig. 2003, 26, 158–169. [CrossRef]
32. Farschi, L.G.; Mahmoudi, S.S.; Rosen, M.A. Exergoeconomic comparison of double effect and combined
ejector-double effect absorption refrigeration systems. Appl. Energy 2013, 103, 700–711. [CrossRef]
33. Mosafia, A.H.; Farschi, L.G.; Ferreira, C.I.; Rosen, M.A. Exergoeconomic and environmental analysis of
CO2 /NH3 cascade refrigeration systems equipped with different types of flash tank intercoolers. Energy
Convers. Manag. 2017, 117, 442–453. [CrossRef]

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).