## 1 Introduction
Studies with advanced exergy analyses which took into account the recovery of waste heat in geothermal applications, low temperature solar applications, and the recovery of waste heat from exhaust gases of combustion engines, have shown that the exergetic efficiency of ORC improved by 20%, and have proposed that the evaporator, the expander, the pump and the condenser are equipment with significant improvement potential [37]. In addition, [PERSON] et al. [38] developed a thermal analyses of a geothermal recuperative ORC, and found that the first and second thermodynamic efficiency values were 16.37% and 48.8%, respectively, when the geothermal water rejection temperature ranged from 78.49 to 116.2 \({}^{\circ}\)C. [PERSON] et al. [39] considered as objective functions the first and second law efficiencies, and the total system cost rates. The results presented the highest irreversibility in the combustion chamber, followed by the steam heat exchanger and the turbine, respectively, with a full cycle exergy-economic factor of 10.59%, representing an exergy destruction cost value higher than the capital investment cost. Complementarily, [PERSON] et al. [40] showed the results of one primary and three modified ORCs and reported that the evaporator made an important contribution to the exergy destroyed, which was reduced by increasing the evaporation pressure. Then, the results corroborated that the combined ORC with the regeneration of the turbine had the highest thermal efficiency (22.8%) and exergy efficiency (35.5%), and the smallest exergy loss (42.2 kW) due to the reduction in cooling thermal demand and an increase in the power output. [PERSON] et al. [41] explored the thermal performance of ORC under source temperatures ranging from 100 to 70 \({}^{\circ}\)C, and found that with a temperature of 80 \({}^{\circ}\)C on the hot side, they were able to achieve a thermal efficiency of 7.4%, and an isentropic turbine efficiency of 68%. The total exergy efficiency of the system was approximately 40%. [PERSON] et al. [42] used energy storage systems (TESS) and the optimization increased the overall exergy efficiency ranging from 36% to 43%. However, they asserted that detailed exergy studies on the optimization potential and the influence of TESS were still lacking. Heat recovery from diesel engines by means of ORC systems has also aroused research interest. [PERSON] et al. [43] studied a combined heating, cooling, and power generation system for the recovery of waste heat from the exhaust gases of a diesel engine fed with different fuels and biofuels supplied to the engine at different speeds and loads to evaluate the energy system and exergetically. [PERSON] et al. [44; 45] developed studies for the recovery of waste heat from diesel engines in the marine industry. Their studies focused on the recovery of both the waste heat from engine exhaust gases and the waste heat due to the heating of engine cylinder liner cooling water. These two currents were used to evaporate and preheat the ORC working fluid, which they evaluated with the maximum net power output for different working fluids verifying the influence of the preheating temperature on the system performance. Focusing only on heat recovery from internal combustion engines, [PERSON] et al. [46] for example, conducted a technical and economic analysis of waste heat energy recovery from internal combustion engines using the organic Rankine cycle in order to increase the efficiency of electrical productivity. Although heat recovery from internal combustion engines by means of ORC systems has been studied, few advanced exergetic analyses have been developed for these systems. [PERSON] et al. [36] developed an advanced exergy analysis for an ORC coupled to an internal combustion engine. The parameters of the engine used were obtained from previous work [47] where they used an engine placed on a test bench with the necessary instrumentation to measure the operating parameters of the engine.