## 3 Results and Discussions
### Thermo-Economic Analysis  
The thermo-economic analysis of the SORC system was performed by calculating the exergy destroyed by equipment, and the input cost, to determine the exergy destruction cost, the exergo-economic factor, and the relative cost difference per component of the system. Table 7 shows the exergy destruction rates of each of the system components, where the highest exergy destruction rates occur in the ITC1 heat transfer units (shell and tube exchanger), the ITC2 evaporator (plate heat exchanger), and the ITC3 condenser (plate heat exchanger). The Appendix A shows the thermo-economic data for the toluene (Table A3) and cyclohexane (Table A4).  
These three system components represent 81.25% of the total destroyed exergy cost of the system, due to the presence of irreversibility in the heat transfer processes that occur inside the device, as a consequence of the temperature differences between the thermal oil and the organic fluid, which leads to increased exergy destroyed. Following is the turbine with a value of 20.16 kW (17.53%), and  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Stream**} & **F** & **T** & **P** & **h** & **E** & \(\dot{C}\) & \(c\) \\  & **[kg/s]** & [\({}^{\circ}\)C] & **[kPa]** & **[kJ/kg]** & **[kW]** & **[10\({}^{-3}\) USD/s]** & **[USD/GJ]** \\ \hline  
& 13.32 & 56.17 & 101.30 & 235.24 & 71.72 & 1.20 & 16.69 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 6: Thermodynamic properties and cost rate for SORC with Acetone.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Component**} & \(\dot{\mathbf{E}}_{\mathbf{D}}\) & \(\dot{\mathbf{C}}_{\mathbf{D}}\) & \(\dot{\mathbf{C}}_{\mathbf{L}}\) & \(\mathbf{Z}_{\mathbf{K}}\) & & & \\  & **[kW]** & **[USD/s]** & **[USD/s]** & **[USD/s]** & **[USD/s]** & & & \\ \hline ITC1 & 43.10 & 0.38 & 2.61 & 7.38\(\cdot 10^{-4}\) & 0.63 & 0.66 & 8.82 & 8.50 \\ B1 & 0.32 & 0.012 & - & 8.08\(\cdot 10^{-5}\) & 38.54 & 0.86 & 42.17 & 1667.37 \\ ITC2 & 30.17 & 0.27 & - & 5.50\(\cdot 10^{-4}\) & 0.53 & 0.67 & 8.98 & 13.76 \\ T1 & 20.16 & 0.31 & - & 2.54\(\cdot 10^{-3}\) & 1.77 & 0.89 & 15.22 & 42.17 \\ ITC3 & 20.14 & 0.82 & 2.93 & 4.44\(\cdot 10^{-4}\) & 1.062 & 0.35 & 40.83 & 15.22 \\ B2 & 1.081 & 0.05 & - & 1.03\(\cdot 10^{-4}\) & 0.93 & 0.69 & 42.17 & 81.49 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: Exergies destroyed by component, exergy destruction costs, difference of relative cost, and exergo-economic factor by a system component (Acetone).  
finally, the pumps, representing only 1.22% of the total cost of exergy destroyed from the system, these equipment being the ones that present low values with respect to the others due to the changes of temperature between the inlet and the outlet that do not exceed 2%.  
On the other hand, the exergo-economic factor plays an important role in this type of analysis, since it is a criterion that makes it possible to evaluate the relative importance of the destruction of exergy and capital investment costs. In that sense, the values of the exergo-economic factor greater than 0.5 shown in Table 7 reveal that the operation and maintenance costs are more effective with respect to the exergetic product costs of the system inefficiencies. Therefore, in the case of B1 and T1, which have the highest values of factor f in the cycle, the possibility of acquiring more economical ones by sacrificing the exergetic efficiency of the equipment must be evaluated.  
Finally, for all components of the system, a reduction in operation and maintenance costs is suggested to avoid low exergetic efficiencies and high destruction costs. On the other hand, the sum of the C values \(\dot{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{D}}+\dot{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{L}}+\ Z_{\mathrm{k}}\) is high for ITC1, suggesting a component with an improvement potential from the exergo-economic point of view.