Volume 15, Issue 5 · IJARST · ISSN 2319-1783 / 2320-1126

Comparative Thermo-Economic and Environmental Evaluation of Eco-Friendly Working Fluids Across Multiple Organic Rankine Cycle Configurations for Waste Heat Recovery

Comparative Thermo-Economic and Environmental Evaluation of Eco-Friendly Working Fluids Across Multiple Organic Rankine Cycle Configurations for Waste Heat Recovery is an open-access, peer-reviewed research paper by Ochuko Goodluck Utu, Okiemute Dickson OFUYEKPONE, Augustine Ben OKOUBULU, Oghenemaro Geraldine EDUVIERE and Yaabari NAENWI, published in Volume 15, Issue 5 of the International Journal of Advanced Research in Science and Technology (IJARST), a UGC-approved journal (Print ISSN 2319-1783, Online ISSN 2320-1126).

Author

Ochuko Goodluck Utu, Okiemute Dickson OFUYEKPONE, Augustine Ben OKOUBULU, Oghenemaro Geraldine EDUVIERE and Yaabari NAENWI

Abstract

This study compares the thermo-economic and environmental performance of eco-friendly fluids in various Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) configurations for waste heat recovery. Three working fluids carbon dioxide (CO2), isobutane, and a zeotropic mixture were analyzed under regenerative, transcritical, and dual-loop ORC configurations using a MATLAB-based simulation framework. Thermodynamic performance was evaluated over an evaporator temperature range of 80–160°C. Results showed that thermal efficiency increased with temperature for all fluids, with CO2 ranging from 0.50% to 0.80%, isobutane 0.54% to 0.82%, and the zeotropic mixture achieving the highest values of 0.58% to 0.84%. Similarly, exergy efficiency varied between 2.60% – 3.30% for CO2, Isobutane: 2.64% – 3.70%, and 2.62% – 3.41% for the mixture, indicating reduced irreversibility for the mixture. Net power output reflects same, with values of CO2: 20 – 90 kW, Isobutane: 25 – 112 kW, Mixture: 60 – 220 kW. Economic analysis revealed that the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) decreased with increasing performance, ranging from $0.09 – $0.17/kWh (CO2,), Isobutane $0.07 – $0.10/kWh and Mixture: $0.08 – $0.014/kWh. Environmental assessment showed that CO2 had the lowest Global Warming Potential (GWP = 1), followed by isobutane (GWP = 3) and the mixture (GWP ≈ 10), while all fluids had zero Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP = 0). While CO2 was the most environmentally friendly choice, the zeotropic mixture had the best thermo-economic performance. The study concludes that selecting the optimal Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) working fluid depends on specific design goals and performance priorities, which are essential for creating efficient and sustainable waste heat recovery systems.

DOI Link: https://doi.org/10.62226/ijarst20262693

Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/Comparative-Thermo-Economic-and-Environmental-Evaluation-of-Eco-Friendly-Working-Fluids-Across-Multiple-Organic-Rankine-Cycle-Configurations-for-Waste-Heat-Recovery

Europub: https://europub.co.uk/articles/789970

Indexcopernicus :https://journals.indexcopernicus.com/search/article?articleId=4879275

References:

1. Ononogbo, C., Nwosu, E. C., Nwakuba, N. R., Nwaji, G. N., Nwufo, O. C., Chukwuezie, O. C., Chukwu, M. M., & Anyanwu, E. E., 2023. Opportunities of waste heat recovery from various sources: Review of technologies and implementation. Heliyon, 9(2), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13590
2. Turek, V., Kilkovský, B., Daxner, J., Babička Fialová, D., & Jegla, Z., 2024. Industrial waste heat utilization in the European Union An engineering-centric review. Energies, 17(9), 2084. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17092084
3. Gonidaki, D., & Bellos, E., 2025. A detailed review of organic Rankine cycles driven by combined heat sources. Energies, 18(3), 526. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18030526
4. Sprouse, C. E., 2024. Review of organic Rankine cycles for internal combustion engine waste heat recovery: Latest decade in review. Sustainability, 16(5), 1924. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051924
5. Jiménez-García, J. C., Ruiz, A., Pacheco-Reyes, A., & Rivera, W., 2023. A comprehensive review of organic Rankine cycles. Processes, 11(7), 1982. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11071982
6. Zhang, H., et al., 2023. Recent progress in organic Rankine cycle targeting utilisation of ultra-low-temperature heat towards carbon neutrality. Applied Thermal Engineering, 231, 120903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2023.120903
7. Bellos, E., & Tzivanidis, C., 2019. A review of organic Rankine cycle (ORC) configurations for waste heat recovery. Energy Conversion and Management, 186, 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.02.032
8. Ziviani, D., Beyene, A., Venturini, M., & Braun, J. E., 2021. Advanced ORC architectures and working fluid selection: A review. Applied Energy, 294, 116951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116951
9. Mota-Babiloni, A., Navarro-Esbrí, J., Barragán-Cervera, Á., Molés, F., & Peris, B., 2020. Analysis of low-GWP refrigerants for organic Rankine cycle applications. Applied Thermal Engineering, 165, 114560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.114560
10. Yang, F., Dong, L., Wang, H., & Dai, Y., 2023. Environmental and thermodynamic assessment of working fluids for organic Rankine cycles. Energy, 263, 125709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.125709.
11. Tchanche, B. F., Papadakis, G., Lambrinos, G., & Frangoudakis, A., 2023. Fluid selection for a low-temperature solar organic Rankine cycle. Renewable Energy, 214, 118–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2023.05.021
12. Chen, H., Goswami, D. Y., & Stefanakos, E. K., 2010. A review of thermodynamic cycles and working fluids for the conversion of low-grade heat. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(9), 3059–3067.
13. Zhang, S., Liu, C., & Wang, E., 2024. Recent advances in environmentally friendly working fluids for organic Rankine cycle systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 188, 113921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113921
14. International Renewable Energy Agency., 2023. Renewable power generation costs in 2022. IRENA.
15. Quoilin, S., Broek, M. V. D., Declaye, S., Dewallef, P., & Lemort, V., 2013. Techno-economic survey of Organic Rankine Cycle systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 22, 168–186.
16. Bejan, A., 2016. Advanced engineering thermodynamics (4th ed.). Wiley.
17. Dincer, I., & Rosen, M. A., 2021. Exergy: Energy, environment and sustainable development (3rd ed.). Elsevier.
18. Turton, R., Bailie, R. C., Whiting, W. B., & Shaeiwitz, J. A., 2018. Analysis, synthesis, and design of chemical processes (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.
19. IEA., 2020. Projected costs of generating electricity. International Energy Agency.
20. IPCC., 2021. Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. Cambridge University Press.

DOI

https://doi.org/10.62226/ijarst20262672

PAGES : 1986-1992 | 10 VIEWS | 5 DOWNLOADS

How do you cite this paper?

Ochuko Goodluck Utu, Okiemute Dickson OFUYEKPONE, Augustine Ben OKOUBULU, Oghenemaro Geraldine EDUVIERE and Yaabari NAENWI — “Comparative Thermo-Economic and Environmental Evaluation of Eco-Friendly Working Fluids Across Multiple Organic Rankine Cycle Configurations for Waste Heat Recovery.” International Journal of Advanced Research in Science and Technology (IJARST), Volume 15, Issue 5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.62226/ijarst20262672.

Download Full Article