Environmental studies for various simple and hybrid solar still configurations: A comprehensive review

Abstract

In this review article the results for the last three years are given with regard to the energy payback time, the embodied energy, the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), conversion efficiency of life cycle, attenuation of the CO2 and the carbon credit earned (CCE). The study parameters are relatively difficult to follow their evolution according to the experimental prototype studied and the materials used. All depend on the nature of the design and the economic part. The findings demonstrated that embodied energy ranges from 30 to 100 percent of the total life cycle consumed. EPT typically depends on the location and the equipment used, and it has the least negative environmental effects when used in products with an average shelf life of 10 years or less, regardless of the type of solar still. Desalination methods attain their optimum efficiency very quickly in terms of sustainability, according to LCCE. CO2 mitigation is more likely to occur with active systems than with passive ones. The system (CSS + WM + PTC) with the highest embodied energy value among the systems under study has a value that is approximately 54% greater than that of CSS.

Keywords

• CO2 Mitigation
• Conversion Efficiency of Life Cycle
• Embodied Energy
• Energy Payback Time
• Environmental

References

1. [1] Chauhan PS, Kumar A, Nuntadusit C. Thermo-environomical and drying kinetics of bitter gourd flakes drying under north wall insulated greenhouse dryer. Solar Energy 2018;162:205–216. [CrossRef]
2. [2] Vijayan S, Arjunan TV, Kumar A. Exergo-environmental analysis of an indirect forced convection solar dryer for drying bitter gourd slices. Renewable Energy 2019;146:2210–2223. [CrossRef]
3. [3] Tiwari S, Sahdev RK, Kumar M, Chhabra D, Tiwari P, Tiwari GN. Environmental and economic sustainability of PVT drying system: A heat transfer approach. Environ Prog Sustain Energy. 2020;40:e13535. [CrossRef]
4. [4] Kumar M, Sahdev RK, Tiwari S, Manchanda H, Chhabra D, Panchal H, et al. Thermal performance and kinetic analysis of vermicelli drying inside a greenhouse for sustainable development. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 2021;44:101082. [CrossRef]
5. [5] Kumar G, Pal P, Agarwal P, Dev R, Chauhan AK. Embodied energy, pay-back period and cost analysis of triple slope solar still integrated with glass-glass PV module. J Energy Environ Sustain 2020;9:7–12. [CrossRef]
6. [6] Sahota L, Tiwari GN. Energy matrices, enviroeconomic and exergoeconomic analysis of passive double slope solar still with water-based nanofluids. Desalination 2017;409:66–79. [CrossRef]
7. [7] Reddy KS, Sharon H. Active multi-effect vertical solar still: Mathematical modeling, performance investigation and enviro-economic analyses. Desalination 2016;395:99–120. [CrossRef]
8. [8] BanyMousa O, Kara S, Taylor RA. Comparative energy and greenhouse gas assessment of industrial rooftop-integrated PV and solar thermal collectors. Appl Energy 2019;239:122060. [CrossRef]

9. [9] Dwivedi VK, Tiwari GN. Thermal modeling and carbon credit earned of a double slope passive solar still. Desalination Water Treat 2010;13:400–410. [CrossRef]
10. [10] Sharon H, Reddy KS. Performance investigation and enviro-economic analysis of active vertical solar distillation units. Energy 2015;84:794–807. [CrossRef]
11. [11] Bachu S. Screening and ranking sedimentary basins for sequestration of CO2 in geological media in response to climate change. Environ Geol 2003;44:277–289. [CrossRef]
12. [12] Al-Obaidi MA, Zubo RH, Rashid FL, Dakkama HJ, Abd-Alhameed R, Mujtaba IM. Evaluation of solar energy powered seawater desalination processes: A review. Energies 2022;15:6562. [CrossRef]
13. [13] Son H, Kim M, Kim JK. Sustainable process integration of electrification technologies with industrial energy systems. Energy 2022;239:122060. [CrossRef]
14. [14] Chen C, Yang A. Power-to-methanol: The role of process flexibility in the integration of variable renewable energy into chemical production. Energy Conver Manage 2021;228:113673. [CrossRef]
15. [15] Khanmohammadi S, Khanmohammadi S. Energy, exergy and exergo-environment analyses, and tri-objective optimization of a solar still desalination with different insulations. Energy 2019;187:115988. [CrossRef]
16. [16] Parsa SM, Rahbar A, Javadi D, Koleini MH, Afrand M, Amidpour M. Energy-matrices, exergy, economic, environmental, exergoeconomic, enviroeconomic, and heat transfer (6E/HT) analysis of two passive/active solar still water desalination nearly 4000m: Altitude concept. J Clean Prod 2020;261:121243. [CrossRef] [17] Bait O. Exergy, environ-economic and economic analyses of a tubular solar water heater assisted solar still. J Clean Prod 2019;212:630–646. [CrossRef]
17. [18] Pal P, Dev R, Singh D, Ahsan A. Energy matrices, exergoeconomic and enviroeconomic analysis of modified multi-wick basin type double slope solar still. Desalination 2018;447:55–73. [CrossRef]
18. [19] Rajaseenivasan T, Srithar K. Performance investigation on solar still with circular and square fins in basin with CO2 mitigation and economic analysis. Desalination 2016;380:66–74. [CrossRef]
19. [20] Joshua DR, Zachariah R, Anumod DM. Performance improvement in mixed-mode solar dryer with addition of paraffin-based thermal energy storage. J Green Engineer 2020;10:1403–1418.
20. [21] Singh P, Gaur MK. Environmental and economic analysis of novel hybrid active greenhouse solar dryer with evacuated tube solar collector. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 2021;47:101428. [CrossRef]
21. [22] Rahman A, Farrok O, Haque MM. Environmental impact of renewable energy source-based electrical power plants: Solar, wind, hydroelectric, biomass, geothermal, tidal, ocean, and osmotic. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2022;161:112279. [CrossRef]
22. [23] Gong J, Darling SB, You F. Perovskite photovoltaics: Life-cycle assessment of energy and environmental impacts. Energy Environ Sci 2015;8:1953–1968. [CrossRef]
23. [24] Thakur AK, Sathyamurthy R, Sharshir SW, Kabeel AE, Manokar AM, Zhao W. An experimental investigation of a water desalination unit using different microparticle-coated absorber plate: Yield, thermal, economic, and environmental assessments. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2021;28:37371–37386. [CrossRef]
24. [25] Yousef MS, Hassan H, Sekiguchi H. Energy, exergy, economic and enviroeconomic (4E) analyses of solar distillation system using different absorbing materials. Appl Therm Engineer 2019;150:30–41. [CrossRef]
25. [26] Treloar GJ. Energy analysis of the construction of office buildings. Master’s thesis. Deakin University; 1994.
26. [27] Mahboob M, Ali M, Rashid TU, Hassan R. Assessment of embodied energy and environmental impact of sustainable building materials and technologies for residential sector. Engineer Proc 2021;12:62. [CrossRef]
27. [28] Raturi A, Singh DB, Patil PP, Sharma AK. Sensitivity analysis of a solar still of a single slope type included with N similar evacuated tubular collectors having series connection. Desalination Water Treat 2021;234:309–323. [CrossRef]
28. [29] Shatar NM, Sabri MF, Salleh MF, Ani MH. Energy, exergy, economic, environmental analysis for solar still using partially coated condensing cover with thermoelectric cover cooling. J Clean Prod 2023;387:135833. [CrossRef]
29. [30] Jijakli K, Arafat H, Kennedy S, Mande P, Theeyattuparampil VV. How green solar desalination really is? Environmental assessment using life-cycle analysis (LCA) approach. Desalination 2012;287:123–131. [CrossRef]
30. [31] Nazari S, Najafzadeh M, Daghigh R. Techno-economic estimation of a non-cover box solar still with thermoelectric and antiseptic nanofluid using machine learning models. Appl Therm Engineer 2022;212:118584. [CrossRef]
31. [32] Nazari S, Daghigh R. Techno-enviro-exergo-economic and water hygiene assessment of non-cover box solar still employing parabolic dish concentrator and thermoelectric Peltier effect. Process Saf Environ Prot 2022;162:566–582. [CrossRef]
32. [33] Radomska E, Mika L, Sztekler K, Kalawa W. Experimental validation of the thermal processes modeling in a solar still. Energies 2021;14:2321. [CrossRef]
33. [34] Kalbasi R, Esfahani MN. Multi-effect passive desalination system, an experimental approach. World Appl Sci J 2010;10:1264–1271.
34. [35] Kalbasi R, Alemrajabi AA, Afrand M. Thermal modeling and analysis of single and double effect solar stills: An experimental validation. Appl Therm Engineer 2018;129:1455–1465. [CrossRef]
35. [36] Kumar S, Kurmaji KT. Carbon credit earned by some designs of solar stills. Desalination Water Treat 2013;51:4699–4708. [CrossRef]
36. [37] Sharon H, Reddy KS. Performance investigation and enviro-economic analysis of active vertical solar distillation units. Energy 2015;84:794–807. [CrossRef]
37. [38] Rajaseenivasan T, Srithar K. Performance investigation on solar still with circular and square fins in basin with CO2 mitigation and economic analysis. Desalination 2016;380:66–74. [CrossRef]
38. [39] Kumar R, Singh DB, Kumar N, Nirala AK, Tiwari GN. Effect of number of collectors (N) on the environment due to SS solar desalination unit coupled with N identical evacuated tubular collectors. Mater Today Proc 2020;28:2161–2165. [CrossRef]
39. [40] Dharamveer S. Comparative analysis of energy matrices and enviro-economics for active and passive solar still. Mater Today Proc 2021;45:6046–6052. [CrossRef]
40. [41] Al-Madhhachi H, Smaisim GF. Experimental and numerical investigations with environmental impacts of affordable square pyramid solar still. Sol Energy 2021;216:303–314. [CrossRef]
41. [42] Sun Z, Tu W, Fang S, Zhong W. Comparison between double slope solar still and fourfold slope solar still: Energy, exergy, exergoeconomic, and enviroeconomic evaluation. Water Suppl 2022;22:2929–2945. [CrossRef]
42. [43] Kumar G, Pal P, Agarwal P, Dev R, Chauhan AK. Embodied energy, pay-back period and cost analysis of triple slope solar still integrated with glass-glass PV module. J Energy Environ Sustain 2020;9:7–12. [CrossRef]
43. [44] Reddy KS, Sharon H. Energy and environmental analysis of multi-effect active vertical solar desalination unit for Indian conditions. In: Nizetic S, Papadoppoulos A, editors. The Role of Exergy in Energy and the Environment. Green Energy and Technology. New York: Springer; 2018. p. 339–350. [CrossRef]
44. [45] Reddy KS, Sharon H. Energy-environment-economic investigations on evacuated active multiple stage series flow solar distillation unit for potable water production. Energy Conver Manage 2017;151:259–285. [CrossRef]
45. [46] Sahota L, Tiwari GN. Exergoeconomic and enviroeconomic analyses of hybrid double slope solar still loaded with nanofluids. Energy Conver Manage 2017;148:413–430. [CrossRef]
46. [47] Yousef MS, Hassan H. Energetic and exergetic performance assessment of the inclusion of PCM (Phase Change Material) in a solar distillation system. Energy Conver Manage 2019;179:349–361. [CrossRef]
47. [48] Javadi DY, Saraei A, Mazaheri H, Jafari Mehrabadi S. Exergoeconomic, environmental, economic, and energy-matrices (4E) analysis of three solar distillation systems equipped with condenser and different heaters. J Therm Engineer 2021;7:1640–1653. [CrossRef]
48. [49] Kumar SA, Mohan Kumar PS, Sathyamurthy R, Manokar AM. A comparative analysis of the role of carbon dioxide in multi-slope solar stills. Int J Ambient Energy 2022;43:5595–5604. [CrossRef]
49. [50] Kumar SA, Mohan Kumar PS, Sathyamurthy R, Manokar AM. A study of life cycle conversion efficiency and CO2 role in the pyramid shape solar stills: Comparative analysis. Groundw Sustain Dev 2020;11:100413. [CrossRef]
50. [51] Rajaseenivasan T, Srithar K. Performance investigation on solar still with circular and square fins in basin with CO2 mitigation and economic analysis. Desalination 2016;380:66–74. [CrossRef]
51. [52] Ashby MF. Materials and the Environment. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2013.
52. [53] Hassan H, Yousef MS, Fathy M, Ahmed MS. Assessment of parabolic trough solar collector assisted solar still at various saline water mediums via energy, exergy, exergoeconomic, and enviroeconomic approaches. Renew Energy 2020;155:604–616. [CrossRef]
53. [54] Sahota L, Tiwari GN. Exergoeconomic and enviroeconomic analyses of hybrid double slope solar still loaded with nanofluids. Energy Conver Manage 2017;148:413–430. [CrossRef]
54. [55] Singh AK, Kumar P, Srivastava BK, Yadav RK, Singh M, Kumar A, et al. Comparative observation of energy matrix and enviro-economy for solar still systems. Mater Today Proc 2021;47:3730–3734. [CrossRef]
55. [56] Singh AK, Samsher. Material conscious energy matrix and enviro-economic analysis of passive ETC solar still. Mater Today Proc 2021;38:1–5. [CrossRef]
56. [57] Singh RV, Hasan MM, Khan ME, Tiwari GN. Performance of a solar still integrated with evacuated tube collector in natural mode. Desalination 2013;318:25–33. [CrossRef]
57. [58] Vijayan S, Arjunan TV, Kumar A. Exergo-environmental analysis of an indirect forced convection solar dryer for drying bitter gourd slices. Renew Energy 2019;146:2210–2223. [CrossRef]
58. [59] Chauhan PS, Kumar A, Nuntadusit C. Thermo-environomical and drying kinetics of bitter gourd flakes drying under north wall insulated greenhouse dryer. Solar Energy 2018;162:205–216. [CrossRef]
59. [60] Khanmohammadi S, Khanmohammadi S. Energy, exergy and exergo-environment analyses, and tri-objective optimization of a solar still desalination with different insulations. Energy 2019;187:115988. [CrossRef]
60. [61] Tiwari S, Tiwari GN. Exergoeconomic analysis of photovoltaic-thermal (PVT) mixed mode greenhouse solar dryer. Energy 2016;114:155–164. [CrossRef]
61. [62] Prakash O, Kumar A. Performance evaluation of greenhouse dryer with opaque north wall. Heat Mass Transf 2014;50:493–500. [CrossRef]