Techno-economic assessment of effervescent tablet-based nanofluids

Abstract

The techno-economics of producing effervescent tablet-based nanofluids in start-up industries was investigated. The thermophysical properties, equipment costs, consumables, and operational expenditures for the production methods were determined. Electrical costs for running the devices were assessed based on the lowest, average, and highest prices worldwide. Key financial metrics, including accumulated project cost, interest, annual cost, operating expenses, production cost, payback and discounted payback periods, and internal rate of return (IRR) were calculated for different interest rates and amounts of sold products. The thermal performance under laminar and turbulent flow conditions and cost effectiveness were determined. The results showed that the effervescent tablet-based nanofluid was more favourable than its conventional counterpart. This is because of the lower equipment cost for the effervescent tablet process compared to its counterpart. The interest rate showed significant influence on the annual and product costs for both types of projects. Electrical cost had a minimal impact on the previous costs for both project cases. In addition, the effervescent tablet-based project outperformed its counterpart in terms of payback period, discounted payback period, IRR, and thermal performance, making it an optimal choice for investors and decision-makers.

Fig 1. Illustration of the conventional two-step and effervescent tablet nanofluid production methods.

Fig 2. Effervescent tablet fabrication for nanofluid production, where (a) shows powders measuring, (b-c) illustrate the mixing tools and device, (d) shows the consolidation of the as-mixed powders into tablets, and (e) presents the final product.

Fig 3. Thermophysical properties of conventional and effervescent tablet-based nanofluid, where (a–d) illustrate the value of the density, specific heat capacity, thermal conductivity, and viscosity, respectively, from 20 °C to 40 °C.

Fig 4. Accumulated cost for the conventional two-step and effervescent tablet-based nanofluid production project at different interest rates.

Fig 5. Accumulated interest cost for the conventional two-step and effervescent tablet-based nanofluid production project at different set of interest rates.

Fig 6. Total OPEX cost per year for the different nanofluid production projects based on the electrical cost.

Fig 7. Changes in total annual cost for the different nanofluid production projects based on the electrical cost and employed interest rate.

Fig 8. Nanofluid production cost based on the method of production, electrical cost, and interest rate.

Fig 9. Project payback period based on the nanofluid method of production, electrical cost, interest rate, and product quantity per year.

Fig 10. Effect of TIC error percentage on the NFPC when employed (a) one-time payment, and (b–d) 10%, 20%, and 30% interest rates, respectively.

Fig 11. Effect of TIC error percentage on the IRR when employed (a) one-time payment, and (b–d) 10%, 20%, and 30% interest rates, respectively.

Fig 12. Effect of electricity cost error percentage on the fabrication cost of the nanofluids when employed (a) one-time payment, and (b–d) 10%, 20%, and 30% interest rates, respectively.

Fig 13. Effect of electricity cost error percentage on the IRR when employed (a) one-time payment, and (b–d) 10%, 20%, and 30% interest rates, respectively.

Fig 14. Variation of (a) C_μ/C_λ, (b) Mo, and (c) FOM_{Heat losses} with respect to temperature and nanofluid type.

Fig 15. PPF_C variation with temperature and electrical cost for the conventional and effervescent tablet-based nanofluids when considering (a) one-time payment, (b–d) 10%, 20%, and 30% interest rates, respectively.

Fig 16. PPF_Mo variation with temperature and electrical cost for the conventional and effervescent tablet-based nanofluids when considering (a) one-time payment, (b–d) 10%, 20%, and 30% interest rates, respectively.