Trough integration into power plants—a study on the performance and economy of integrated solar combined cycle systems

Dersch, Jürgen; Geyer, Michaël; Herrmann, Ulf; Jones, Shannon; Kelly, Bruce; Kistner, Rainer; Ortmanns, Winfried; Pitz‐Paal, Robert; Price, Henry

doi:10.1016/s0360-5442(03)00199-3

Cited by 205 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…......... 28 10 The thermal resistance network for the "intact" receiver model shown in Figure 9. Energy is absorbed at T 3 …”

Section: Prefacementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other specified values for the model are summarized in Table 5. Cross-sectional area of the absorber tube D 2 Absorber tube internal diameter D 3 Absorber tube external diameter D 4 Glass envelope internal diameter D 5 Glass envelope external diameter…”

Section: Modeling Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Internal flow plug diameter ε 3 Absorber surface emittance ε 4 Glass surface emittance α abs Absorber surface absorptance α env Glass envelope absorptance η col,i Collector optical efficiency at node i τ env…”

Section: Modeling Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For utility-scale CSP systems, this most often entails a conventional steam Rankine cycle and electric generator, though a number of other approaches are possible. For example, CSP systems can generate power with a stand-alone power cycle unit or can be integrated as a combined cycle into a fossil-fired plant to offset fuel use [3]. Electricity is not always the end goal, as some work has been done on incorporating the field thermal output directly into various industrial applications [1].…”

Section: The Power Cyclementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Technical Manual for the SAM Physical Trough Model

Wagner¹,

Gilman²

2011

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PrefaceThis technical manual was developed by the authors to document the engineering principles and methodology underlying the Physical Trough model in the System Advisor Model (Version 2011.5.4). The Physical Trough model was designed to provide performance analysis capability for the parabolic trough concentrating solar power technology using system geometry and physical properties as input. This allows the modeler to assess performance without (always) requiring pre-existing empirical formulations for the system that may not be available for all systems of interest.This model is intended to supplement existing trough modeling tools such as the System Advisor Empirical Trough model that -as the name implies -approaches system performance modeling from a "top-down" empirical perspective. Users may find different modeling approaches useful throughout the various stages of the feasibility analysis and project development process. An empirical modeling approach works best for systems with well-known performance curves, or when detailed subsystem models are available and can be correlated and rolled into simplified relationships.Alternatively, the first-principles or "physical" modeling approach can be better suited for systems where performance is unknown a priori. Accordingly, the authors emphasize that both modeling approaches are equally viable, although empirical and physical models answer fundamentally different questions and should be used within their inherent constraints. The authors also note that this document only presents one possible model formulation for parabolic troughs; many alternative and equally valid modeling solutions exist, and the approach selected here does not necessarily represent the best possible one.A complex engineering system such as the parabolic trough technology requires correspondingly complex performance modeling tools, and with complexity comes an opportunity for misunderstanding or misuse on the part of the modeler. The authors have developed this technical manual to provide model transparency for the SAM user and to document the motivation and justification for the various performance equations used in the Physical Trough model. This manual presents equations, formulations, coding logic, and system descriptions as they appear in the performance model,

show abstract

“…......... 28 10 The thermal resistance network for the "intact" receiver model shown in Figure 9. Energy is absorbed at T 3 …”

Section: Prefacementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Modeling Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Modeling Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Power Cyclementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Technical Manual for the SAM Physical Trough Model

Wagner¹,

Gilman²

2011

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In [11], a comparison is made between several topologies of hybrid plants, including solar fields with storage. Combined cycles (CC) operate in a broad range of temperatures and, thus allow integrating a wide variety of solar technologies [12], from solar air towers [13] to Fresnel collectors. Many studies focus on hybridization in the bottoming cycle, generally a subcritical water-steam Rankine, because the most developed solar technologies adapt better to its usual temperature range, in particular parabolic troughs with oil as HTF and Fresnel-type collectors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thermoeconomic Evaluation of Integrated Solar Combined Cycle Systems (ISCCS)

Martín

Rodríguez

Paniagua

et al. 2014

Entropy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three alternatives for integrating a solar field with the bottoming cycle of a combined cycle plant are modeled: parabolic troughs with oil at intermediate and low cycle pressures and Fresnel linear collectors at low cycle pressure. It is assumed that the plant will always operate at nominal conditions, using post-combustion during the hours of no solar resource. A thermoeconomic study of the operation of the plant throughout a year has been carried out. The energy and exergy efficiencies of the plant working in fuel only and hybrid modes are compared. The energy efficiencies obtained are very similar; slightly better for the fuel only mode. The exergy efficiencies are slightly better for hybrid operation than for fuel-only mode, due to the high exergy destruction associated with post-combustion. The values for solar electric efficiency are in line with those of similar studies. The economic study shows that the Fresnel hybridization alternative offers similar performance to the others at a significantly lower cost.

show abstract