Advanced power cycles and configurations for solar towers: Techno-economical optimization of the decoupled solar combined cycle concept

Sorbet, Fco. Javier; Iñigo, María; García-Barberena, Javier; Bernardos, Ana M.

doi:10.1063/1.5067073

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The efficiency of the CSP thermodynamic cycle (power block)

\left(\eta\right)_{\text{CSP}}

is assumed to be 40%. [ 43,44 ] While cell efficiency of the AZUR SPACE 3C44 is ≈40% as well, the module efficiency

\left(\eta\right)_{\text{CPV}}

is assumed to be 32%. [ 45 ] The resulting hybrid PV production from the CPV

$a_{\text{SCPV}} = \left(\right.

…”

Section: Energy Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated Concentrating Solar/Photovoltaic Hybrid Concepts—Technological Discussion, Energy Yield, and Cost Considerations

Ruhwedel,

Gehrke,

Lüpfert

et al. 2024

Energy Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concentrating solar thermal (CST) technologies are a sustainable way to produce high‐temperature heat. Four concepts of integrating photovoltaics (PV) into CST plants, namely Rear‐PV, PV‐Mirror, bifacial PV‐Mirror and Spillage‐concentrating PV (CPV), are compared and the technological and economic outcome is discussed. The concepts are presented for the use with solar tower systems, but can also be applied to other configurations. In this work, parameters for each concept to quantify annual energy production and investment costs are derived. It is determined that implementing Rear‐PV, PV‐Mirror, bifacial PV‐Mirror, and Spillage‐CPV in a concentrating solar power tower plant leads to an additional energy yield as high as 23%, 29%, 40%, and 36%, respectively, on the same mirror aperture size. For the concepts of the Rear‐PV, PV‐Mirror, and bifacial PV‐Mirror, maximum allowable cost per aperture area can be 3.0, 4.8, and 5.7 times the cost of conventional mirrors, to reach a break‐even of the specific investment cost per annually produced energy. Such values are considered to be achievable for PV‐Mirror and bifacial PV‐Mirror, but not for Rear‐PV. For Spillage‐CPV, a break‐even of investment cost can be achieved if installed in areas with spillage radiation flux exceeding ≈350 kWm−2 at peak.

show abstract

“…The efficiency of the CSP thermodynamic cycle (power block)

\left(\eta\right)_{\text{CSP}}

is assumed to be 40%. [ 43,44 ] While cell efficiency of the AZUR SPACE 3C44 is ≈40% as well, the module efficiency

\left(\eta\right)_{\text{CPV}}

is assumed to be 32%. [ 45 ] The resulting hybrid PV production from the CPV

$a_{\text{SCPV}} = \left(\right.

…”

Section: Energy Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated Concentrating Solar/Photovoltaic Hybrid Concepts—Technological Discussion, Energy Yield, and Cost Considerations

Ruhwedel,

Gehrke,

Lüpfert

et al. 2024

Energy Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Reducing CO2 emissions in the copper smelting process by using high-temperature solar heat: Tecno-economic assessment

Cruz-Robles

Islas-Samperio

Alonso

et al. 2023

Applied Thermal Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Levelized Cost of Heat of the CSPth Hybrid Central Tower Technology

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Process heating represents about two-thirds of the energy that the industry sector consumes worldwide; this energy comes primarily from burning fossil fuels. There is a wide variety of processes for which solar technologies can supply energy. Within these technologies, the CSPth Central Tower produces heat at temperatures about 600 °C, making it suitable for high-temperature processes. A CSPth Central Tower can be combined with a fuel-based system to form a CSPth Hybrid Central Tower system, which results in a high-reliable energy source with low rates of CO2 emissions. In this work, the levelized cost of heat (LCOH) of the CSPth Hybrid Central Tower technology was calculated. SolarPILOT was used to design and evaluate the CSPth Central Tower; fuel consumption was calculated using a steady-state energy balance. The LCOH was evaluated considering the CO2 prices recommended by the High-Level Commission on Carbon Pricing. The analysis shows that this technology can be highly competitive and, in certain cases, shows lower LCOH than fuel-based systems. However, these cases depend on reasonable CO2 prices, low costs of capital (≈5%), and efforts to reduce the capital expenditure, which can nowadays be possible for CSPth Hybrid Central Tower systems designed with large solar multiples.

show abstract

Advanced power cycles and configurations for solar towers: Techno-economical optimization of the decoupled solar combined cycle concept

Cited by 3 publications

References 3 publications

Integrated Concentrating Solar/Photovoltaic Hybrid Concepts—Technological Discussion, Energy Yield, and Cost Considerations

Integrated Concentrating Solar/Photovoltaic Hybrid Concepts—Technological Discussion, Energy Yield, and Cost Considerations

Reducing CO2 emissions in the copper smelting process by using high-temperature solar heat: Tecno-economic assessment

Levelized Cost of Heat of the CSPth Hybrid Central Tower Technology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About