Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
net/publication/322111581
CITATIONS READS
10 1,569
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Mohsen Mandegari on 29 January 2018.
Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: The sugar industry is the second largest agro-industry in the world, with more than 80% of sugar
Available online 28 December 2017 produced from sugarcane. Sugar mills are energy-intensive and historically not designed to be energy
efficient, even though they may be energy self-sufficient. This study presents a comprehensive exergy
Keywords: analysis of cane sugar production processes to identify inefficient components for improvement. The
Sugarcane mill exergy analysis was based on rigorous mass and energy balances calculated from an Aspen Plus®
Exergy analysis
simulation of a typical 250 ton per hour sugar mill, along with an appropriate exergy methodology. The
Functional exergy efficiency
exergy analysis of the cogeneration system, which has been found to be the principal sugar mill exergy
Exergetic improvement potential
Grassmann diagram
destruction unit, is conducted separately and will be presented in a subsequent paper. The overall sugar
Aspen Plus® mill irreversibility and functional exergy efficiency were 217.3 MJ per ton of cane crushed and 9.7%,
respectively. The evaporation unit generated the highest irreversibility of 100 MJ/ton of cane, while
crystallization unit had the lowest functional exergy efficiency of 9.6% and the highest potential for
improvement of 47.0 MJ/ton of cane. The exergetic performance of the mill may be improved by adopting
a single stage crystallization with an integrated biorefinery.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.12.134
0360-5442/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
E.S. Dogbe et al. / Energy 145 (2018) 614e625 615
different processes to those used in traditional raw sugarcane 2. Materials and methods
processes, such as chemical clarification. Tekin and Bayramog lu
[16] applied exergy analysis to a factory producing white refined 2.1. Process description
sugar from beet and found that the steam power plant accounted
for 74.4% of the total plant exergy losses, mainly due to the Sugar production involves a series of physical processes
irreversible combustion reaction and waste exergy of combustion including juice extraction, clarification, evaporation, crystallization,
products. They suggested thermal recuperation in the steam and drying. In addition to the main process units, a typical sugar
power plant as a measure to improve the factory's exergetic mill has a cogeneration system where process steam and power are
performance. Bayrak et al. [17] conducted energy and exergy generated, and a cooling tower for cooling process warm water.
analyses on beet sugar production stages, comprising juice pro- Fig. 1 depicts a block diagram of the main production processes,
duction, clarification, concentration and crystallization. The juice with the main resource and products. Fig. 2 shows the process flow
production stage had the lowest exergy efficiency while the diagram (including the cooling tower).
crystallization stage recorded the highest exergy loss due to heat Juice extraction: Sugarcane from the farm is first cut and
transfer over high temperature differences. They concluded that shredded using knives and shredders to break the hard structure
minimizing energy loss and heat transfer temperature differ- and rupture sucrose cell for easy juice extraction [3,24]. Juice
ences will reduce process irreversibility, resulting in a more extraction is usually done either by compressing shredded cane in
efficient sugar production. Sahin et al. [18] also conducted exergy roller mills to squeeze out the juice (milling method), or by the
analysis on an old beet sugar factory in Turkey, with the aim of diffusion method through a counter-current hot water leaching
rebuilding the factory, and obtained similar results as that process at a suitable temperature (about 70e75 C) to keep a
obtained by Bayrak et al. The most recent beet sugar exergy study balance between maintaining low microorganisms growth and low
conducted by Taner and Sivrioglu [19] focused on optimizing the sucrose inversion [3]. Milling requires about 60e65% of sugar mill
power plant, which was the most inefficient component of the energy requirement, consequently, diffusion is preferred due to its
factory. lower energy consumption, even though it has higher imbibition
Few exergy studies of the sugarcane industry reported in water volumes than milling [24,25]. Fig. 2 (I) depicts a continuous
literature focused on either co-production of sugar and ethanol diffusion process [3,26] where extracted weak juice and imbibition
[20,21] with results showing the cogeneration unit as the least water are passed over the prepared cane in a counter-current
efficient in exergy terms, or a stand-alone cogeneration plant [11].
Recently, Garg, Sharma, and Sharma [22] evaluated the exergy
efficiencies of only the juice production (59.27%) and juice clari-
fication (71.23%) processes of a sugarcane plant, claiming both
have large exergy losses which should be minimized. To the
authors' best knowledge, no complete and simulation-based
exergy analysis of raw sugar production processes from sugar-
cane has been reported in open literature. Therefore, the aim of
this study is to conduct a comprehensive exergy analysis of a
typical sugarcane mill producing raw sugar based on an Aspen
Plus® simulation of the process.
This paper applies a comprehensive exergy methodology to
assess actual thermodynamic performances of raw cane sugar
production processes such as extraction, clarification, evapora-
tion, crystallization, and drying, as well as the water cooling
process, and to rank them for improvement. Cogeneration system
is not included in this paper since it has received considerable
attention as the major exergy destructive unit in a sugar mill
Fig. 1. Process block diagram of sugar mill.
[11,16,19,20,23].
616 E.S. Dogbe et al. / Energy 145 (2018) 614e625
Fig. 2. Process flow diagram of sugar mill process units; I e extraction; II e clarification; III e evaporation; IV e crystallization; V e drying; VI e cooling tower.
manner to ensure maximum juice extraction [27]. Two sets of in water or clarified juice) in the remelter or mingled to serve as
bagasse (dewatering) mills accompany the diffuser to help further seed in the vacuum pans, while A and B molasses are recycled to the
juice extraction and bring bagasse moisture to about 50% [28]. B and C vacuum pans [29]. Finally, C molasses comes out as a by-
Juice clarification: In the clarification unit shown in Fig. 2 (II) product and the moist and hot A sugar (raw sugar) is passed on
the draft juice is first heated and limed to enhance precipitation to the dryer [3].
and separation of some non-sucrose impurities and fine bagasse Sugar drying: Drying is the last process in raw sugar production
from the juice. Liming also provides a nearly neutral pH, suitable for [27], traditionally done in a rotary drum dryer tilted at an angle of
clarification and restricting sucrose inversion in subsequent evap- about 5 to the horizontal to allow continuous flow of the sugar
oration. Floc settling is enhanced by flashing juice in flash drums to through the drier (see Fig. 2 (V)). Hot air is fed into the dryer
remove dissolved air from the mixture, prior to clarifiers [27,29]. A counter current to the sugar flow and by continuously lifting and
suspension of precipitated impurities (mud) in clear juice settles at dropping the sugar crystals, they are cooled and dried [3].
the bottom of clarifiers and is filtered in a rotary vacuum filter to Cooling tower: Warm water from cooling crystallizers and
recover juice, leaving a filter cake. Alternatively, the filtration step barometric condensers is sent to the cooling tower shown in Fig. 2
could be eliminated by recycling the mud back to the diffuser, the (VI), where a portion of water is evaporated into the air passing
cane bed serving as a filter [26,30]. through the tower and escapes through the top of the tower.
Juice concentration (evaporation): Clarified juice contains Consequently, the rest of the water is cooled and recycled to the
about 85% (by weight) of water [31,32], most of which is removed process. Some cold water may be added to the warm water tank to
by boiling, to concentrate the sugar. The evaporation unit, shown in cater for the evaporative losses [33].
Fig. 2 (III) mainly comprises a heat exchanger to preheat clear juice
to about 110 C, a five-effect evaporator train and a barometric
2.2. Modelling and simulation
condenser. The heat exchangers and first-effect evaporator make
use of exhaust steam from steam turbines, while the remaining
The steady-state operation of a typical sugar mill was first
effects utilize vapour from preceding effects, to concentrate clari-
modelled in MATLAB computational tool based on steady-state
fied juice to approx. 65e68 Brix1 [27]. The evaporator train oper-
mass and energy balances of all process units and validated with
ates with decreasing pressure e from exhaust steam pressure of
simulations results of a sugar mill model developed by Sugars
about 2 bar in the first effect calandria (steam side) to about 0.15 bar
International Software Company (Sugars™) for the same input data
(vacuum) in the body (juice side) of the last effect, to prevent
of 250 tonnes of cane crushed per hour [34]. Later, some industry
sucrose inversion [27]. The reduced pressure in each successive
partners developed Aspen simulation models to complement the
effect allows the temperature differences required for evaporation
MATLAB model. The Aspen simulations provides the thermophys-
to be established [20]. Vacuum vapours from the last effect
ical properties of stream flows, necessary for exergy analysis and
evaporators are condensed in a barometric condenser, which also
validation of existing mass and energy balances.
maintains the vacuum in the system.
The authors of this work verified the mass and energy balances
Crystallization and centrifuging: The crystallization process
of the Aspen model using the industry-verified MATLAB model and
starts by boiling syrup (concentrated juice) in conventional batch or
modified it as much as possible to ensure that it adequately reflects
continuous vacuum pans while adding a slurry of fine sugar crystals
the sugar mill operations.
to seed crystals formation. The hot mixture of crystals and the
mother liquor (molasses), called massecuite is then discharged
from the vacuum pan into cooling crystallizers for further crystal- 2.3. Exergy analysis formulations
lization. Subsequently, the sugar crystals are filtered and washed
out of the liquor in centrifuges. Vapours produced in the vacuum Exergy calculations and analysis in this study were carried out in
pans are condensed in a barometric condenser, to maintain the Aspen plus and Excel. It is important to note that, exergy analysis
system vacuum. To ensure minimal loss of sugar in the final must be preceded by mass and energy balances of the system
molasses, the whole crystallization process is carried out in three accomplished in Aspen. Aspen stream results were exported to
stages (A, B and C), as shown in Fig. 2 (IV). Lower grade sugars Excel using Aspen simulation workbook in Aspen V8.6 [35].
produced from the B and C centrifuges are either melted (dissolved Subsequently, further exergy calculations and analysis were
completed in the Excel® spread sheet using external data (from
sugar industry and literature). Exergy calculations and analysis
1
Brix is juice concentration expressed as grams of solids per 100 g of water. were carried out based on the following assumptions [36]:
E.S. Dogbe et al. / Energy 145 (2018) 614e625 617
1. Each of the units was evaluated as a steady state flow process. below.
2. Changes in potential and kinetic energy and exergy of the
_ _
system were neglected. Ex work ¼ W (6)
3. Environmental temperature and pressure were assumed
Therefore, exergy of electricity input to each process unit was
constant.
taken as its energy value.
On the other hand, heat is however not entirely convertible to
Reference temperature and pressure of 25 C and 1.01325 bar,
work, according to the second law. Therefore, the exergy of heat
respectively, were considered for exergy calculations in Aspen.
flow is its useful work potential [46,47] as given in equation (7).
2.3.1. Exergy calculations _
Ex ¼ Q_ 1 To (7)
heat
T
Exergy is the maximum work possible obtained in a reversible
process, when a stream of matter or energy at a specified state is All heat transfers across the mill boundaries are heat losses to
brought to equilibrium with the environment with which it the environment. Since the environment is significantly larger than
interacts. The total exergy transfer through a flow system or across the system, the temperature at which heat is transferred, T is
a control volume (flow exergy) is carried out by material and considered to be the environmental temperature, To [48], resulting
energy (work and heat) streams [18] as expressed in equation (1). in zero exergy value [49] from equation (7).
_
_ system ¼ Ex _ _
Ex material þ Exheat þ Exwork (1) 2.3.2. Exergy performance indicators
Exergy of all material streams was determined according to Generally, exergy analysis is carried out to evaluate the ther-
equation (2). modynamic performance parameters of a process which include
process irreversibility, exergy efficiency, and exergetic improve-
_ _ _
material ¼ Exph þ Exch
Ex (2) ment potential.
Table 2
Equations of irreversibility calculation for sugar mill process units.
I I_I ¼ ðEx
_ þ Ex
_ þ Ex
_ þ Ex
_ þ Ex
_ 5 þ Ex
_ Þ ðEx
_ _ _ _ _ out a
1 2 3 4 6 2e þ Ex6c þ Ex7 þ Ex8 þ W I Þ
II I_II ¼ ðEx
_ þ Ex
_ þ Ex
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ in _ _ _w _ _ _
8 9 10 þ Ex11 þ Ex12 þ Ex13 þ Ex25 þ Ex26 þ W II Þ ðEx11c þ Ex12c þ Ex14 þ Ex15 þ Ex16 þ Ex25c Þ
III I_III ¼ ðEx
_ _ _ _ _ _ in _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
2e þ Ex16 þ Ex17 þ Ex18 þ Ex19 þ W III Þ ðEx17c þ Ex20 þ Ex21 þ Ex22 þ Ex22e þ Ex23 þ Ex24 þ Ex25 þ Ex26 þ Ex27 Þ
IV I_IV ¼ ðEx
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ in _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
27 þ Ex28 þ Ex29 þ Ex30 þ Ex31 þ Ex32 þ Ex33 þ Ex34 þ Ex35 þ Ex36 þ Ex37 þ W IV Þ ðEx31c þ Ex32c þ Ex33c þ Ex34h þ Ex35h þ Ex36h þ E 38 þ E 39 þ E40 Þ
V I_V ¼ ðEx
_
40 þ _
Ex 41 þ _ Þ ðEx
Ex 42
_
41c þ _
Ex 43 þ _ Þ
Ex 44
VI I_VI ¼ ðEx
_ þ Ex_ þ Ex _ þ Ex_ þ Ex _ þ Ex _ Þ ðEx
_ _
þ Ex _
þ Ex _
þ Ex _
þ Ex _ w þ Ex
þ Ex _wÞ
20 34h 35h 36h 38 45 19 34 35 36 37 46 47
_ and “w” denote exergy transferred by electricity and waste streams, respectively.
“W”
a
Due to the limitations of the Aspen model, the turbine electricity meant to drive knives, shredders and mills were modelled as outputs. The effect of this on the result is
discussed in the results and discussions section.
Table 3
Functional exergy efficiency formulations for sugar mill process units.
I _ _ _ _ _ _ _
jI ¼ ðEx7 þEx8 þðEx
ExElect out ÞðEx1 þEx3 þEx4 þEx5 Þ
_ Ex _ ÞþðEx _ Ex_ Þ
6 6c 2 2e
II ðEx_ 15 þEx
_ 16 ÞðEx
_ 8 þEx_ 9 þEx_ 10 þEx_ 26 Þ
jII ¼ ðEx _ 25c ÞþðEx
_ 25 Ex _ 11 Ex
_ 11c ÞþðEx _ 12 Ex_ 12c ÞþEx_ Elect in
III _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
jIII ¼ ðEx20 þEx21 þEx22 þEx22aðþEx_ Ex23þþ
Ex
Ex24 þEx25 þEx26 þEx27 ÞðEx16 þEx19 þEx34 Þ
_ Ex _ ÞþEx_ 2e 17 17c Elect in
IV _ 38 þEx
ðEx _ 39 þEx
_ 40 ÞðEx
_ 30 þEx_ 28 þEx _ 37 þEx_ 29 þEx_ 27 ÞþðEx
_ 34h Ex_ 34 ÞþðEx _ 35h Ex
_ 35 ÞþðEx
_ 36h Ex
_ 36 Þ
jIV ¼ ðEx_ 31 Ex_ 31c ÞþðEx _ 32 Ex_ 32c ÞþðEx
_ 33 Ex_ 33c ÞþEx_ Elect in
V _ _ _ _
jV ¼ ðEx43 þðEx
Ex
44 ÞðEx42 þEx40 Þ
_ Ex _ Þ
41 41c
Table 4
Description of sugar mill material streams, and their simulation and exergy results.
Stream tag Description m [kg/s] T [ C] P [bar] Physical Exergy [kW] Total Exergy [kW]
Stream 18 ¼ {6c, 11c, 12c, 25c, 31c, 32c and 33c}; Stream 21 ¼ {28 and 30}; Stream 22 ¼ {4 and 13}; Stream 23 ¼ {3, 5, 12, 31 and 32}; Stream 24 {6, 11, 29 and 33};
W_ ¼ electricity rate.
cooling air (34 C) in the air mixer also generates irreversibility. process water by other means such as using absorption heat pump
Therefore, isothermal mixing of the exit drying and cooling air [60] to make use of the process hot water exergy which is other-
would be necessary to minimize such irreversibility [58]. In order to wise, wasted in the cooling tower.
reduce temperature difference in air heat and hence reduce its
irreversibility, waste streams such as flash drum vapour could be 3.3. Exergy efficiency
used to pre-heat the drying air.
Fig. 8 (b) shows 98% cooling tower irreversibility is generated in In previous studies [16,17,20], the universal exergy efficiency
the cooling column due to direct contact heat and mass transfer (formulated in equation (9)) results for physical processes were
from process warm water to air passing through the tower. very high (over 90%) giving exaggerated performances [16] and
Equalizing temperatures of the various process water in the mixing might wrongly represent the system. Therefore in this study, only
tank contributes the remaining 2% to the cooling tower irrevers- the functional exergy efficiencies were evaluated. The functional
ibility. The only way to avoid cooling tower irreversibility is, to cool exergy efficiency gives a “rational” indication of the process
622 E.S. Dogbe et al. / Energy 145 (2018) 614e625
Sugarcane
0.01%
Live steam
30.34%
I
10.56%
Bagasse &
Lime, bagacillo & electricity electricity
0.04% 12.76%
33.80% III
Exhaust
steam & air 1.53% VI Cooling tower vapours
0.88% V 1.53%
0.70%
Condensates &
dry sugar
0.18%
Fig. 5. Overall Grassman diagram of sugar mill; (I) extraction, (II) clarification, (III) evaporation, (IV) crystallization, (V) drying, and (VI) cooling tower.
E.S. Dogbe et al. / Energy 145 (2018) 614e625 623
Fig. 8. Sources of irreversibility in (a) drying unit and (b) cooling tower.
physical material exergy only and (ii) the total material exergy, in
order to investigate the effect of the assumption on exergy effi-
ciency indication of such processes.
Fig. 9 shows that the results for each unit using both analysis
methods (physical and total exergy) are the same, except the clar-
ification unit with the highest functional exergy efficiency, as well
as the overall plant. Unlike in the irreversibility analysis, where
output streams include waste streams for which reason the dif-
ference in the chemical exergy of input and output streams is zero
and can be ignored, the output stream in exergy efficiency evalu-
ation does not include waste streams (in the clarification and
cooling tower) as products. The results is that, there is a small
difference in the chemical exergy of resources and product streams,
which is ignored in the physical exergy only analysis. Hence, the
exergy efficiency by total exergy analysis is the better representa-
tion of the system performance.
The functional exergy efficiency of the overall plant was 9.7%.
The efficiencies of clarification (58.1%) and evaporation (55.4%)
units reflect how effectively their input exergies were used in
raising the juice temperature and concentrating the juice, respec-
tively, thus producing high exergy products. Likewise, the extrac-
tion unit (45%) has relatively good exergy utilization. However, its
Fig. 7. Sources of irreversibility in (a) evaporation and (b) crystallization units. efficiency would be a little lower, if electricity produced by mill
turbines was coupled with the prime movers in the simulation. The
reason is that part of the electricity exergy would be expended on
because it is specific to each process and defines the purpose of the frictional irreversibilities in the prime movers.
process [42,51] as formulated in Table 3, and not just a general Crystallization unit has the lowest exergy efficiency of 9.6%
input-output formulation like the universal exergy efficiency. Even followed by the drying unit with 10.9%. These unusually low
though the exergy balances in Table 6 favours the assumption of functional exergy efficiencies may be due to relatively high exergy
neglecting chemical material exergy for physical processes, the demands of the processes and low exergy products. Complex
functional exergy efficiency was evaluated in two ways using (i) crystallization processes such as concentration, crystal nucleation,
624 E.S. Dogbe et al. / Energy 145 (2018) 614e625
re-melting, centrifuging [27], make the most use of the exergy improvements can be obtained to enhance the decision-making
resource, while the main exergy resource of the drying unit is process for improvement.
expended more on irreversibilities of air heating, rather than the
drying product - sugar. 4. Conclusion
Further analysis of crystallization unit revealed that B and
C-pans have lower functional exergy efficiencies than A-pans, even The study presented a comprehensive exergy analysis of raw
though their irreversibilities are far lower than that of the A-pans cane sugar production processes on the basis of Aspen simulation
(see Fig. 7 (b)). This may be due to higher boiling point elevation, of a typical sugar mill, and functional exergy efficiency formula-
requiring an additional exergy expended to evaporate water from tions for each process unit. The overall plant irreversibility and
the B and C-pans. Thus, a possible solution to the unusually low functional exergy efficiency were 15 MW and 9.7%, respectively. The
functional efficiency of the crystallization unit may be to produce evaporation unit had the highest irreversibility, representing 46% of
sugar in one stage sugar boiling and crystallization, while sucrose the global plant irreversibility due to indirect heat transfers over
remaining in the A-molasses could be used for a bio-refinery finite temperature differences and temperature equalization
product such as ethanol [63]. through mixing. Irreversibility was also found to depend on the
The cooling tower has no functional exergy efficiency because it process “size”, therefore the specific irreversibility may be a better
has no useful output to be expressed in terms of exergy [42]. Its performance indicator when comparing similar processes of
purpose is to release heat to the environment which has zero different plants. The crystallization unit of the sugar mill analysed
exergy. Therefore the exergy resource is expended on evaporating had lowest functional exergy efficiency of 9.6% due to process
vapours, which is of no exergetic use, leading to cooling of the complexity and was ranked first for improvement based on the
process water. exergetic improvement potential. As per literature, the study
Comparing irreversibility and functional exergy efficiency showed that chemical exergy may be neglected in exergy analysis
results, it is clear that prioritizing processes for improvement of physical processes. However, where there are a substantial
exclusively based on irreversibility and exergy efficiency becomes a amount of waste streams, the exergy efficiency obtained by phys-
difficult task. Ideally, the part of a system with the highest irre- ical exergy only analysis could overestimate the process perfor-
versibility should be considered first for improvement. This is, mance. Based on the results of the sugar mill exergy analysis, the
however, not always the case since the systems are interconnected following engineering solutions can be suggested for improving
and trade-offs may exist [54]. Therefore, the entire process exergy performance of the mill; vapour recompression to replace
improvement task requires a more tactical approach [52], which barometric condensers and cooling towers, one-stage crystalliza-
would result in significant cost reduction or profit rise, as well as tion with an integrated biorefinery, heat transfer over small
greater ease of operation. temperature differences and isothermal mixing of streams.
However, it is necessary to assess the economic implications of
these exergy solutions, through exergoeconomics studies for
3.4. Exergetic improvement potential
instance, prior to their implementation.
Evaluating exergetic improvement potential provides a distinct
Acknowledgement
factor for making improvement priority decisions, as it combines
the effects of both irreversibility and functional exergy efficiency in
The authors gratefully acknowledge the “Sugarcane Technology
the improvement process. Fig. 10 presents the exergetic improve-
Enabling Programme for Bioenergy (STEP-Bio)”, a public-private
ment potential of each process unit relative to its irreversibility. The
partnership between the South African Sugarcane processing
crystallization unit has the highest potential for improvement of
industry and the Department of Science and Technology's Sector
3.3 MW followed by the evaporating unit with 3.1 MW, represent-
Innovation Fund through the Sugar Milling Research Institute NPC
ing about 22% and 21% of the sugar mill's total irreversibility,
(SMRI) for providing the financial support and sugar mill models
respectively (compare Fig. 10 with Table 6). The drying unit has the
for this work, and Aspen Technology Inc. for providing the
least potential for improvement, less than 1% of mill's total irre-
academic licences for Aspen Plus®, a registered trademark of Aspen
versibility, indicating relatively no need to improve it. Usually, high
Technology Inc, used to perform this study.
exergetic improvement potential is associated with high irrevers-
ibility units [15,55] as can be seen in this study. Further studies
may be directed towards investigating the rate at which such References
sucrose, and molasses. Energy 2016;98:240e52. https://doi.org/10.1016/ [36] Wang Z, Fan W, Zhang G, Dong S. Exergy analysis of methane cracking
j.energy.2016.01.029. thermally coupled with chemical looping combustion for hydrogen produc-
[9] Luis P, Van der Bruggen B. Exergy analysis of energy-intensive production tion. Appl Energy 2016;168:1e12. https://doi.org/10.1016/
processes: advancing towards a sustainable chemical industry. J Chem Tech- j.apenergy.2016.01.076.
nol Biotechnol 2014;89:1288e303. https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.4422. [37] Querol E, Gonzalez-Regueral B, Perez-Benedito JL. Exergy concept and
[10] Atmaca A, Yumrutaş R. Thermodynamic and exergoeconomic analysis of a determination. In: Practical approach to exergy thermoeconomic analyses
cement plant: Part II e Application. Energy Convers Manag 2014;79:799e808. industrial processes., SpringerBriefs in energy; 2013. p. 9e28. https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.11.054. 10.1007/978-1-4471-4622-3_2.
[11] Kamate SC, Gangavati PB. Exergy analysis of cogeneration power plants in [38] Wall G. Exergetics. Bucaramanga: exergy, ecology, democracy. 2009.
sugar industries. Appl Therm Eng 2009;29:1187e94. https://doi.org/10.1016/ [39] Ojeda K, S anchez E, Kafarov V. Sustainable ethanol production from ligno-
j.applthermaleng.2008.06.016. cellulosic biomass - application of exergy analysis. Energy 2011;36:2119e28.
[12] Assari M, Basirat T, Najafpour E, Ahmadi A, Jafari I. Exergy modeling and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.08.017.
performance evaluation of pulp and paper production process of bagasse, a [40] Nebra SA. The exergy of sucrose-water Solutions : proposal of a calculation
case study. Therm Sci 2014;18:1399e412. https://doi.org/10.2298/ method. Proc. ECOS, Trondheim, Norway 2005:385e92.
TSCI110715141A. [41] Sohel MI, Jack MW. Thermodynamic analysis of lignocellulosic biofuel pro-
[13] Costa MM, Schaeffer R, Worrell E. Exergy accounting of energy and materials duction via a biochemical process : guiding technology selection and research
flows in steel production systems. Energy 2001;26:363e84. https://doi.org/ focus. Bioresour Technol 2011;102:2617e22. https://doi.org/10.1016/
10.1016/S0360-5442(01)00004-4. j.biortech.2010.10.032.
[14] Hosseini SS, Aghbashlo M, Tabatabaei M, Younesi H, Najafpour G. Exergy [42] Kotas TJ. The exergy method of thermal plant analysis. Reprint Ed. Florida,
analysis of biohydrogen production from various carbon sources via anaerobic USA: Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar; 1995. https://doi.org/10.1016/
photosynthetic bacteria (Rhodospirillum rubrum). Energy 2015;93:730e9. B978-0-408-01350-5.50003-9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.09.060. [43] Frangpoulos CA. Exergy, energy system and optimization. In: Exergy and
[15] Dowlati M, Aghbashlo M, Mojarab M. Exergetic performance analysis of an thermodynamic analysis, vol. 1. Oxford, United Kingdom: Eolss Publishers Co.
ice-cream manufacturing plant : a comprehensive survey. Energy 2017;123: Ltd.; 2009.
445e59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.02.007. [44] Cornelissen RL. Thermodynamics and sustainable development: the use of
[16] Tekin T, Bayramog lu M. Exergy analysis of the sugar production process from exergy analysis and the reduction of irreversibility. The Netherlands:
sugar beets. Int J Energy Res 1998;22:591e601. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI) University of Twente; 1997.
1099-114X(19980610)22:7<591::AID-ER360>3.0.CO;2-D. [45] Ghannadzadeh A. Exergetic balances and analysis in a process simulator: a
[17] Bayrak M, Midilli A, Nurveren K. Energy and exergy analyses of sugar pro- way to enhance process energy integration. Universite de Toulouse; 2012.
duction stages. Int J Energy Res 2003;27:989e1001. https://doi.org/10.1002/ [46] Çengel YA. Thermodynamics: an engineering approach. McGraw-Hill; 2004.
er.916. [47] Tekin T, Bayramog lu M. Exergy loss minimization analysis of sugar production
[18] Şahin HM, Acir A, Altunok T, Baysal E, Koçyig it E. Analysis of exergy and process from sugar beet. Trans IchemE 1998;76:149e54.
energy of sugar production process in sugar plant. J Energy Inst 2010;83: [48] Gutowski TG, Sekulic DP. Thermodynamic analysis of resources used in
178e85. https://doi.org/10.1179/014426010X12759937396911. manufacturing processes. In: Thermodyn. destr. resour. Cambridge University
[19] Taner T, Sivrioglu M. Energy-exergy analysis and optimisation of a model Press; 2011. p. 1e43.
sugar factory in Turkey. Energy 2015;93:641e54. https://doi.org/10.1016/ [49] Madlool NA, Saidur R, Rahim NA, Islam MR, Hossian MS. An exergy analysis
j.energy.2015.09.007. for cement industries: an overview. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:
[20] Ensinas AV, Modesto M, Nebra SA, Serra L. Reduction of irreversibility 921e32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.09.013.
generation in sugar and ethanol production from sugarcane. Energy 2009;34: [50] Rosen MA. Clarifying thermodynamic efficiencies and losses via exergy.
680e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2008.06.001. Exergy An Int J 2002;2:3e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1164-0235(01)00054-1.
[21] He ctor VI, Carolina Mesa M, Sergio GAA. Energy and exergy analysis of [51] Gourmelon S, Thery-Hetreux R, Floquet P, Baudouin O, Baudet P,
the combined production process of sugar and ethanol from sugarcane Campagnolo L. Exergy analysis in ProSimPlus® simulation software: a focus on
(a Colombia case study). Proc ECOS 2013:1e14. exergy efficiency evaluation. Comput Chem Eng 2015;79:91e112. https://
[22] Garg A, Sharma MP, Sharma V. Exergy and energy analyses of a sugarcane doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2015.02.014.
juice production and clarification unit. Int J Exergy 2016;19:78e90. [52] Gong M, Wall G. On exergetics, economics and optimization of technical
[23] Taner T, Sivrioglu M. A techno-economic & cost analysis of a turbine power processes to meet environmental conditions. Thermodyn Anal Improv Energy
plant: a case study for sugar plant. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;78: Syst 1997;10e13:453e61.
722e30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.04.104. [53] Moran MJ, Shapiro HN, Boettner DD, Bailey MB. Fundamentals of engineering
[24] Hugot E. Handbook of cane sugar engineering. second ed. Elsevier Science Ltd; thermodynamics. seventh ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2011.
1972. [54] Cleveland CJ, Ayres RU. Encyclopedia of energy. Energy 2004.
[25] Mbohwa C. Energy management in the South African sugar industry. Proc [55] Sogut Z, Ilten N, Oktay Z. Energetic and exergetic performance evaluation of
World Congr Eng 2013;I:3e8. the quadruple-effect evaporator unit in tomato paste production. Energy
[26] Gurumurthy BS. Advancement in sugar processing technologies in India 2010;35:3821e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.05.035.
emerging innovations. Sugar Technol 2011;13:378e93. https://doi.org/ [56] Tekin T, Bayramoǧlu M. Exergy and structural analysis of raw juice production
10.1007/s12355-011-0106-0. and steam-power units of a sugar production plant. Energy 2001;26:287e97.
[27] Rein P. Cane sugar engineering. Berlin. 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-5442(00)00068-2.
[28] Modesto M, Zemp RJ, Nebra SA. Ethanol production from sugar cane: [57] Ensinas AV, Nebra SA. Exergy analysis as a tool for sugar and ethanol process
assessing the possibilities of improving energy efficiency through exergetic improvement. In: Pelissier G, Calvet A, editors. Handb. exergy, hydrog.
cost analysis. Heat Tran Eng 2009;30:272e81. https://doi.org/10.1080/ hydropower res.; 2009. p. 125e60.
01457630802380386. [58] Ghannadzadeh A, Sadeqzadeh M. Exergy analysis as a scoping tool for cleaner
[29] Starzak M, Davis S. MATLAB® modelling of a sugar mill : model development production of chemicals : a case study of an ethylene production process.
and validation. Proc S Afr Sug Technol Ass 2016:517e36. J Clean Prod 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.018.
[30] Meadows DM, Schumann GT, Soji C. Farewell to filters: the recycle of clarifier [59] Pellegrini LF, de Oliveira S. Exergy analysis of different configurations of
mud to the diffuser. Proc S Afr Sug Technol Ass 1998;72:198e203. multiple-effect evaporators in sugarcane mills. In: Proc. 11th Brazilian congr.
[31] Higa M, Freitas a J, Bannwart a C, Zemp RJ. Thermal integration of multiple therm. sci. eng.; 2006.
effect evaporator in sugar plant. Appl Therm Eng 2009;29:515e22. https:// [60] Chouhan P. Performance enhancement of sugar mill by alternate cooling
doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2008.03.009. system for condenser. IOSR J Mech Civ Eng 2014;11:18e25.
[32] Ensinas AV, Nebra S a, Lozano M a, Serra L. Analysis of cogeneration systems in [61] Sciubba E, Wall G. A brief commented history of exergy from the beginnings
sugar cane factories - alternatives of steam and combined cycle power plants. to 2004. Int J Thermodyn 2007;10:1e26. https://doi.org/10.5541/ijot.184.
Proc. ECOS, Aghia Pelagia, Crete, Greece 2006:1177e84. [62] Reid BMJ, Rein PW. Steam balance for the new Felixton II mill. Proc South
[33] U.S. Department of Energy. Cooling towers : understanding key components African Sugar Technol Assoc 1983:85e91.
of cooling towers and how to improve water efficiency. 2011. [63] Diederichs GW, Mandegari MA, Farzad S, Go €rgens JF. Techno-economic
[34] Starzak M, Zizhou N. Biorefinery techno-economic modelling: sugar mill and comparison of biojet fuel production from lignocellulose, vegetable oil and
ethanol distillery process model. 2015. Durban. sugar cane juice. Bioresour Technol 2016;216:331e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/
[35] Finlayson BA. AspenTech. 2015. j.biortech.2016.05.090.