Power From The Sun :: Chapter 10

Singapore Office Rentals
Regus.com.sg/Office_Rentals Affordable + Flexible + Ready-To-Go Unbelievable Rates: SGD 25 per Day!

10.__________________________ Central Receiver Systems
The central receiver concept for solar energy concentration and collection is based on a field of individually sun-tracking mirrors (heliostats ) that reflect the incident sunshine to a receiver (boiler) at the top of a centrally located tower. Typically 80 to 95 percent of the reflected energy is absorbed into the working fluid which is pumped up the tower and into the receiver. The heated fluid (or steam) returns down the tower and then to a thermal demand such as a thermal electrical power plant or an industrial process requiring heat. The basic difference between the central receiver concept of collecting solar energy and the trough or dish collectors discussed previously is that in this case, all of the solar energy to be collected in the entire field, is transmitted optically to a small central collection region rather than being piped around a field as hot fluid. Because of this characteristic, central receiver systems are characterized by large power levels (1 to 500 MW) and high temperatures (540 to 840°C). Central receiver technology for generating electricity has been demonstrated in the Solar One pilot power plant at Barstow, California. This system consists of 1818 heliostats, each with a reflective area of 39.9 m 2 (430 ft2) covering 291,000 m 2 (72 acres) of land. The receiver is located at the top of a 90.8 m (298 ft) high tower and produces steam at 516°C (960°F) at a maximum rate of 42 MW (142 MBtu/h). System design for a central receiver application is performed in a manner similar to that when other types of collector are used. Basically, the thermal output of the solar field is found by calculating collection efficiency and multiplying this by the solar irradiance falling on the collector (heliostat) field. The balance of the system is then designed as discussed in the latter chapters of this book. In this chapter we describe the components of a central receiver system and how they interact in a particular field design. Then a computer model for collection efficiency is developed that can be used in conjunction with solar irradiance data and a system model such as SIMPLESYS to determine the system’s energy delivery capabilities.

System Description Heliostats Receiver / Tower Field Layout System Thermal Performance Energy Losses System Performance Models SCRAM
The reader should realize that the material presented below represents the state-of-the-art for central
www.powerfromthesun.net/Book/chapter10/chapter10.html 1/31


Power From The Sun :: Chapter 10

receiver systems in the early 1980’s. Since then there have not been any new central receiver power plants constructed, however the Solar One prototype power plant in Barstow underwent major modifications to test a different concept of central receiver design. Renamed Solar Two, the facility at Barstow, CA was modified to test the concept of using molten salt as the heat transfer fluid rather than water/steam. A completely new receiver was installed, and the storage was changed to a two-tank system. In addition a few newly designed heliostats were added. The Solar Two power plant was operated for over a year with generally positive results. The reader is referred to the U.S. Department of Energy SunLab web site; http://www.sandia.gov/csp/csp_r_d_sandia.html for current information on this technology. For international status of central receiver technology, the reader is encouraged to go to the International Energy Agency Solar PACES web site; http://www.solarpaces.org/CSP_Technology/csp_technology.htm. 10.1 System Description 10.1.1 Heliostats Design. The heliostat used in Solar One is shown in Figure 10.1. The reflecting element of a heliostat is typically a thin, back (second) surface, low-iron glass mirror. This heliostat is composed of several mirror module panels rather than a single large mirror. The thin glass mirrors are supported by a substrate backing to form a slightly concave mirror surface. Individual panels on the heliostat are also canted toward a point on the receiver. The heliostat focal length is approximately equal to the distance from the receiver to the farthest heliostat. Subsequent “tuning” of the closer mirrors is possible.




Power From The Sun :: Chapter 10

Figure 10.1 (a) Backside of the heliostat used at the Solar One central receiver pilot plant in Barstow, CA. (b) A photograph of the front of a Solar One heliostat (Both are courtesy of Southern California Edison Co.)

Another heliostat design concept, not so widely developed, uses a thin reflective plastic membrane stretched over a hoop. This design must be protected from the weather but requires considerable less expenditure in supports and the mechanical drive mechanism because of its light weight. Membrane renewal and cleaning appear to be important considerations with this design. The reflective surface is mounted or supported on a pedestal that permits movement about the azimuth and elevation axis. Movement about each axis is provided by a fractional-horsepower motor through a gearbox drive. These motors receive signals from a central control computer that accurately points the reflective surface normal halfway between the sun and the receiver. The equation for this half angle was developed in Chapter 8 as Equation (8.49). The elevation and azimuth angles of a heliostat are given in Equations (8.52) and (8.53), respectively. Heliostat Errors. A perfectly flat heliostat would produce an image on the receiver the size of the heliostat
www.powerfromthesun.net/Book/chapter10/chapter10.html 3/31

2. Also. Positioning errors may be caused by vertical and horizontal errors in the heliostat positioning or feedback mechanisms.7/29/13 Power From The Sun :: Chapter 10 (projected normal to the heliostat-receiver direction) increased by the approximately 0. In addition. The important heliostat performance parameter is the size of the isoflux contour containing 90 percent of the total reflected power. A more complete discussion of heliostat errors and error measurement may be found in King (1982). Mirror surface waviness is an important factor for heliostats as it is with parabolic collector surfaces. However. This last source of error can be amplified by the effects of differential thermal growth and gravity (heliostat position) on the heliostat frame. the gross curvature error of each mirror segment and the errors associated with accurate canting of each mirror segment on the heliostat frame further increase the image error.75 in. Probably the most important environmental design criterion that must be met by a heliostat design is the wind condition. A number of factors tend to increase the image size from a particular heliostat.5 degree of sunspread. causing position errors.2 Pattern of flux density arriving at the receiver from a typical heliostat. Typical requirements may be for the heliostat to meet its operating requirements in a 12 m/s (27 mph) wind. In addition to producing a high flux density. This produces a higher flux density at the aim point.net/Book/chapter10/chapter10. the flux contour and positioning errors are also critical for heliostats close to the tower because the projected area of the receiver is very small at that location. Environmental Considerations. A typical hail survival criterion is 19 mm (0. and to continue to operate or move to the stow position in a 40 m/s (89 mph) wind (a position usually horizontal with mirrors face-up or face-down). Figure 10. All of these errors add up optically to produce a flux profile at the aim point (receiver) which has a distribution pattern similar to that shown in Figure 10. In addition.) diameter hailstones impinging at 20 m/s (45 www. Most of the heliostat errors discussed become more significant (in terms of the flux “spilled” from the receiver).html 4/31 . the ability of the heliostat tracking system to position the centroid of the flux profile at the center of the receiver (aim point) is critical. the ability to survive hail is important for any flat surface exposed to the elements. wind can produce structural deflections. the farther the heliostat is located from the receiver. to survive a 22 m/s (49 mph) wind. For most applications.powerfromthesun. each mirror segment is concaved slightly and each mirror segment on a heliostat is canted toward a focal point.

an acceptable time to travel to this position from any other position would be a maximum of 15 minutes. The requirement for inverted stow is being questioned since it requires that the bottom half of the mirror surface be designed with an open slot so that it can pass through the pedestal. This space reduces not only the reflective surface area for a given overall heliostat dimension. Tracking and Positioning.transfer fluid. The receiver absorbs the energy being reflected from the heliostat field and transfers it into a heat . and at night. A typical minimum speed requirement would be that the entire field defocus to less than 3 percent of the receiver flux in 2 minutes.2 Receiver-Tower The receiver. 10.7 mm (1/2 in.1. consisting of 7012. The bottoms and tops of the vertical tubes are connected to headers that supply heat transfer fluid to the bottom of each tube and collect the heated fluid from the top of the tubes. placed at the top of a tower. There are two basic types of receivers: external and cavity. Six of these panels are for preheating the water and 18 for producing steam.) diameter tubes. The receiver used at the Solar One facility is of the external type and is shown in Figure 10. during hail storms. accurate. but also the structural rigidity of the mirror rack.7/29/13 Power From The Sun :: Chapter 10 mph). however. and powerful tracking motion. This produces a slow. each 13.powerfromthesun. External Receivers. These normally consist of panels of many small (20-56 mm) vertical tubes welded side by side to approximate a cylinder. Under emergency conditions. www.html 5/31 . However. is located at a point where reflected energy from the heliostats can be intercepted most efficiently.3. face-down stow does keep the mirror surface cleaner.1 m (253 ft) tower and comprises 24 panels. fractional horsepower motors with high gear rations are used to move the heliostat about its azimuth and elevation axes.7 m (45 ft) high. In order to keep parasitic energy use low. The tubes are made of Incoloy 800 and are coated on the exterior with high-absorptance Pyromark® black paint. It is located at the top of a 77. rapid movement is an important design criterion.net/Book/chapter10/chapter10. Since it is currently considered best to stow the heliostats face-down during high wind. This results in an overall receiver diameter of 7 m (23 ft).

powerfromthesun.net/Book/chapter10/chapter10. 198l). An example of a cavity receiver design (with four cavities) is shown in Figure 10. This is an external type receiver. thereby reducing the convective heat losses from the absorber. Typical designs have an aperture area of about one-third to one-half of the internal absorbing surface area. The flux from the heliostat field is reflected through an aperture onto absorbing surfaces forming the walls of the cavity.4. Therefore.7/29/13 Power From The Sun :: Chapter 10 Figure 10. External receivers typically have a height to diameter ratio of 1:1 to 2:1. or the heliostat field is limited to the view of the cavity aperture. 198l). or example.html 6/31 . either multiple cavities are placed adjacent to each other. Cavity Receivers. www. The lower limit is determined by the maximum operating temperature of the tubes and hence the heat removal capability of the heat transfer fluid. one design for a receiver using liquid sodium as the heat transfer fluid with peak output of 380 MW (1. Cavity receivers are limited to an acceptance angle of 60 to 120 degrees (Battleson. If the heat transfer fluid were water/steam or molten nitrate salt rather than sodium. an area about twice that size would be required for the same power output and temperature because of the lower heat transfer capabilities of these fluids (Battleson. some designs propose to place the flux absorbing surface inside of an insulated cavity. CA. In an attempt to reduce heat loss from the receiver. The area of the receiver is kept to a minimum to reduce heat loss.3 × 109 Btu/h) calls for a height of 15 m (49 ft) and a diameter of 13 m (41 ft).3 The receiver of the Solar One central receiver facility at Barstow.

without overheating the receiver walls or the heat transfer fluid within them. the aperture width for the largest of the four cavities (the north-facing cavity) is 16 m (52 ft).7/29/13 Power From The Sun :: Chapter 10 Figure 10.7 7/31 .5 1.2 0.powerfromthesun. 1981). Heat Flux Considerations.3 × 109 Btu/h) plant design. The average flux over the entire absorber wall is typically one-half to one-third of these peak values. giving a spillage of 1 to 4 percent. The primary limitation on receiver design is the heat flux that can he absorbed through the receiver surface and into the heat transfer fluid. For a 380 MW (1. It would operate in the 510 to 565oC (950 to 1050oF) temperature range with steam.1.7 0. The aperture is typically sized to about the same dimensions as the sun’s reflected image from the farthest heliostat. A survey of typical design peak values is given in Table 10. Table 10. The aperture size is minimized to reduce convection and radiation losses without blocking out too much of the solar flux arriving at the receiver. and the flux at the aperture plane is four times that reaching the absorbing surface inside.4 A cavity type receiver design incorporating four apertures. Two other important considerations are: (1) limiting the temperature gradients along the receiver panels and (2) the daily heatcycling of the receiver tubes.1 Typical Receiver Peak Flux Design Values Heat Transfer Fluid Liquid sodium Liquid sodium Molten nitrate salt Liquid water www.net/Book/chapter10/chapter10. molten salt or sodium (Battleson.html Configuration In tubes In heat pipes (transferring to air) In tubes In tubes Peak Flux (MW/m 2) 1.

5 0. Proposed tower designs are of either steel frame construction. These would be placed at the top of a 140 to 170 m (460 to 560 ft) tower if a surrounding heliostat field is used. They are coated with a diffusely reflecting white paint. These designs were made to withstand a 40 m/s (90 mph) wind and a ground acceleration of 0.5 Tower cost data for towers of different heights. using smokestack design techniques.powerfromthesun. The height of the tower is limited by its cost. and are not designed to receive the flux of more than one or two heliostats. 1981). Seismic considerations are also important in some locations. The results of such a cost analysis described in Sterns Roger Engineering (1979) are shown in Figure 10. These are beam characterization system (BCS) targets used to aid in periodic calibration and alignment of individual heliostats.500.html 8/31 .net/Book/chapter10/chapter10. Battleson (1981). Figure 10. The weight and size of a receiver are affected by the fluid choice as discussed previously. Cost analyses indicate that steel frame towers are less expensive at heights of less than about 120 m (400 ft) and that concrete towers are less expensive for higher towers.000 lb) for an external receiver using liquid sodium to 2. Beam Characterization Targets .25 g (Battleson. using oil derrick design techniques.500. or concrete. The band reflects use of different receivers having different windage and weight.000 lb) for a cavity air receiver. The weight and windage area of the receiver are the two most important factors in the design of the tower. Instrumentation within the target area is used to determine the centroid and flux density distribution of the beam from a www.000 kg (550.7/29/13 Power From The Sun :: Chapter 10 Steam vapor In tubes Air In metal tubes Source.3 × 109 Btu/h) receiver range from 250.5. Prominent on any photograph or drawing of a central receiver tower are the white targets located just below the receiver. 0. Typical weights for a 380 MW (1.000 kg (5.22 Tower Design.

However. If the centroid of the beam is not located where the field tracking program predicts it to be. making them an attractive heat transfer fluid candidate. The cost of nitrate salt mixtures is around $0.net/Book/chapter10/chapter10. They have a good storage potential because of their high volumetric heat capacity. The effective reflection area of the heliostat is reduced by the cosine of one-half of this angle. The heat transfer fluids with the lowest operating temperature capabilities are heat transfer oils. Both hydrocarbon and synthetic-based oils may be used. heat must be supplied to make most of these oils flow. Maximum temperature applications are around 540°C (1000°F) where the pressure must be about 10 MPa (1450 psi) to produce a high boiling temperature. Freeze protection must be provided for ambient temperatures less than 0°C (32°F). tracking program coefficients are modified appropriately.html 9/31 .40/lb). Note that the most efficient heliostats are located opposite the sun. We first discuss some of these loss mechanisms and then how they interact in shaping an optimum heliostat field. Although the cost of these gases would be low. The water used in the receiver must be highly deionized in order to prevent scale buildup on the inner walls of the receiver heat transfer surfaces. thereby requiring heating on shutdown. Operating temperatures of around 850°C (1560°F) at 12 atm pressure are being proposed. most mixtures currently being considered freeze at temperatures around 140 to 220°C (285 to 430°F) and thus must be heated when the system is shutdown.7/29/13 Power From The Sun :: Chapter 10 selected heliostat.77/kg ($0.15/lb). its cost is lower than that of other heat transfer fluids. they cannot be used for storage and require very large diameter piping to transport them through the system. Use of water as a high-temperature storage medium is difficult because of the high pressures involved.88/ kg ($0. 10. Cosine Effect. For high-temperature applications such as Brayton cycles. its vapor pressure is low. Steam has been studied for many central receives applications and is the heat transfer fluid used in the Solar One power plant. The primary choice criterion is the maximum operating temperature of the system followed closely by the cost-effectiveness of the system and safety considerations. but their maximum temperature is around 425°C (797°F). www. The heliostat is positioned by the tracking mechanism so that its surface normal bisects the angle between the sun’s rays and a line from the heliostat to the tower. Heat transfer oils cost about $0. However. in which costs and heliostat “loss” mechanisms are the variables.1.33/kg ($0. Heliostat A has a small cosine loss since its surface normal is almost pointing toward the receiver. Heliostat B has a larger cosine loss because of the position it must assume in order to reflect the sun’s rays onto the receiver. However. The cost of sodiumbased systems is higher than the nitrate salt systems since sodium costs about $0. their vapor pressure is low at these temperatures. The choice of the heat transfer fluid to be pumped through the receiver is determined by the application. Because sodium is liquid at this temperature. it is proposed to use air or helium as the heat transfer fluid. This efficiency depends on both the sun’s position and the location of the individual heliostat relative to the receiver.powerfromthesun. it solidifies at 98°C (208°F). Below temperatures of about -10°C (14°F). Heat Transfer Fluids. The major factor determining an optimum heliostat field layout is the cosine “efficiency” of the heliostat. Five heat transfer fluids have been studied in detail for application to central receiver systems. with a maximum operating temperature of 600°C (1112°F).35/lb).3 Field Layout Decisions regarding the best position for locating heliostats relative to the receiver and how high to place the receiver above the field constitute a multifaceted problem. thus allowing their use for thermal energy storage. They are discussed separately in the paragraphs which follow. Nitrate salt mixtures can be used as both a heat transfer fluid and a storage medium at temperatures of up to 565°C (1050°F). Oils have the major drawback of flammable and thus require special safety systems when used at high temperatures.6. However. This may be visualized by considering heliostats at two positions in a field as shown on Figure 10. Liquid sodium can also be used as both a heat transfer fluid and storage medium.

1) where α and A are the sun’s altitude and azimuth angles. calculated by using Equation (10. giving the east and west fields an average efficiency in between the high and the low. heliostats west of the tower will have a high efficiency and those east of the tower. e. An expression for calculation of the cosine of this half angle has been developed as Equation (8. Incorporating the appropriate tower and heliostat position coordinates defined in Figure 8. heliostat A in the north field has a much greater cosine efficiency than does heliostat B. we have (10.49).7/29/13 Power From The Sun :: Chapter 10 Figure 10. This figure also shows that the heliostats opposite the sun are the most efficient. and z.net/Book/chapter10/chapter10. a poorer efficiency. For the noontime sun condition shown. has been plotted in Figure 10.html 10/31 . The opposite occurs in the afternoon.7 for three sun altitude angles. respectively.powerfromthesun. and n are the orthogonal coordinates from a point on the tower at the height of the heliostat mirrors as depicted in Figure 8.20. www.20. In the morning. This is why most of the heliostats in a typical heliostat field (for an omnidirectional receiver) will be north of the tower. Field cosine efficiency.1).6 The cosine effect for two heliostats in opposite directions from the tower.

7/29/13 Power From The Sun :: Chapter 10 www.net/Book/chapter10/chapter10.html 11/31 .powerfromthesun.

In some de signs as Solar One in Barstow. 1978). www. the south field heliostats are used only to preheat the water.7 The cosine efficiency of heliostats at different field locations for three sun altitude angles. This is done because of the reduced flux being reflected to this part of the receiver.net/Book/chapter10/chapter10. which is subsequently turned into superheated steam in the rest of the receiver. Again the north field dominance can be seen. Averaged over the entire year.8.powerfromthesun.html 12/31 . Figure 10. the cosine efficiency of a field resembles that shown in Figure 10.8 Annual average cosine efficiency at Barstow. California.7/29/13 Power From The Sun :: Chapter 10 Figure 10. CA (Holl.

Blocking occurs when a heliostat in front of another heliostat blocks the reflected flux on its way to the receiver. thereby reducing the energy output of the shaded collector. some general field layout guidelines have been developed from these studies. 1979) and DELSOL2 (Dellin et al. www. Going out a long a radius. It is generally best to arrange heliostats in a radial stagger pattern as shown in Figure 10. however. The heliostats are tightly packed near the tower but must be sufficiently separated to prevent mechanical interference.7/29/13 Power From The Sun :: Chapter 10 Shadowing and Blocking. These programs study representative heliostats in a field and check them for both blocking and shadowing by the heliostats in the two rows in front of the heliostat in question. For heliostats located farther from the tower. Optimum field lay outs are made by use of ray tracing techniques in an extensive computer analysis. This pattern minimizes land usage as well as shadowing and blocking losses. the spacing increases in order to minimize blocking of the reflected beams. Therefore. 1981).powerfromthesun. For central receiver systems. Blocking can be observed in a heliostat field by noting reflected light on the backs of heliostats.9 Shadowing and blocking loss of solar flux. These are shadowing and blocking by adjacent heliostats. Two central receiver performance programs that have this capability are HELIOS (Biggs and Vittitoe. there are two such interaction processes that reduce the amount of energy reaching the receiver. Shadowing occurs at low sun angles when a heliostat casts its shadow on a heliostat located behind it. not all the incident solar flux is reaching the reflector. Figure 10. additional heliostats are added when spacing becomes too great and a new stagger pattern is established. Both processes are illustrated in Figure 10. and sun angle.html 13/31 .9.. In previous chapters we discussed the problem of one collector casting a shadow on an adjacent collector. The amount of shadowing and blocking in a particular field layout is a function of the heliostat spacing. tower height.net/Book/chapter10/chapter10. This type of analysis is beyond the scope of this book.10.

25 (Battleson.powerfromthesun.3) where HM and WM are the height and width of the heliostat. The average heliostat packing density from optimized ray trace analyses of shadowing and blocking is typically in the range of 0. al.net/Book/chapter10/chapter10. The radial spacing ΔR and the azimuthal spacing ΔA. The angle θL is the altitude angle to the receiver from the heliostat location of interest and may be calculated as www. 1981). 1978) have produced a means of determining spacing and average field density for preliminary field layouts. defined in Figure 10.2) and (10.7/29/13 Power From The Sun :: Chapter 10 Figure 10.10. respectively as depicted in Figure 10.10 The radial stagger heliostat layout pattern developed by the University of Houston. (1981) for highreflectance heliostats (about 90 percent) in large fields as (10.html 14/31 . Optimized heliostat layouts developed at the University of Houston (Lipps and Vant-Hull. Heliostat packing density is the ratio of mirror area to field area.9.2 to 0. are given by Dellin et.

html 15/31 . Figure 10. the radial spacing increases dramatically. it may not be possible to maintain the azimuthal spacing defined in Equation (10. is the ratio of mirror area to overall heliostat area. the mirror density. When this is the case.4) where r is the normalized distance from the tower to the heliostat location measured in “tower heights . The process of laying out a heliostat field consists of segmenting the land area around the tower into a number of concentric zones. Heliostats near the inner ring of the zone may produce mechanical interference or unacceptable blocking or shad owing. whereas the azimuthal spacing decreases to the point where the heliostats at a particular radial distance have one heliostat width between them (ΔA = 2).12 shows the decrease in local field density as distance from the tower increases.net/Book/chapter10/chapter10.3) are used to determine the average or central radial stagger pattern within these zones.5) where DM. If large zones are selected. This may be calculated as (10.5) is used to calculate the local field density. Note that for the heliostats farther from the tower. and Equation (10. Figure 10. every fourth heliostat is normally removed from a ring in what is called a slip plane and the radial stagger pattern is restarted.3). www.powerfromthesun. Equations (10.” The local field density is the ratio of mirror area to land area at a particular point in the field.7/29/13 Power From The Sun :: Chapter 10 (10.2) and (10.2) and (10.11 shows the spacing predicted by Equations (10.3) for all rings.

www.11 Heliostat spacing for a field using the radial stagger layout pattern.7/29/13 Power From The Sun :: Chapter 10 Figure 10.html 16/31 .net/Book/chapter10/chapter10.powerfromthesun.

12 Local heliostat density as predicted by Equation (10. For a clear day with 23-km visibility.7) Although these expressions were derived for a specific site altitude.powerfromthesun. larger fields are envisioned in the near future where atmospheric attenuation will be even more significant. www.7/29/13 Power From The Sun :: Chapter 10 Figure 10. the atmospheric transmittance is (10. Many factors in field layout suggest that the field should extend far to the north of a very high tower. however.44 km (1440 ft). Atmospheric transmittance has been approximated by Vittitoe and Biggs (1978) for a clear day (23-km visibility) and a hazy day (5-km visibility). Atmospheric Transmittance.net/Book/chapter10/chapter10. The effect of atmospheric attenuation is presented graphically in Figure 10. One major limitation on the distance a heliostat is placed away from the tower is the attenuation of the reflected beam as it travels from the heliostat to the receiver. the atmospheric transmittance is (10.html 17/31 .13. they are strongly dependent on the aerosol distribution at ground level (visibility) and only slightly dependent on site altitude. For a hazy day with only 5-km visibility.5) for radial-stagger field layouts.6) where S is the slant range from heliostat to receiver in kilometers. The maximum slant range for Solar One is 0.

Any increase in power would require heliostats to be farther away from the tower. These include spillage and receiver thermal loss as well as cost algorithms for the tower. A number of case studies have been performed that reflect optimum field layouts for the components studied (Battleson. Optimization Studies. The shape of the optimum field depends on the power level of the plant. The height of the receiver tower for these fields falls into a range such as that shown in Figure 10.net/Book/chapter10/chapter10.14. 1981). other performance tradeoffs are required to produce an optimum field. As the distance from heliostat to tower increases. This forces the placement of heliostats to the east and west of the tower in locations with lower cosine efficiency but less attenuation loss. atmospheric attenuation reduces the efficiency of the far-field heliostats. the optimum field layout becomes a field surrounding the tower. For large plants with power levels above 500 MW (thermal).13 Atmospheric transmittance for a clear and a hazy atmosphere. www. In addition to cosine loss and atmospheric attenuation.7/29/13 Power From The Sun :: Chapter 10 Figure 10. For small systems of less than 100 MW (thermal).powerfromthesun. The field designs resulting from these studies are shown in Figure 10.15.html 18/31 . piping. single or multiple north fields appear to be most economical. and receiver.

1981). atmospheric attenuation. and other system performance parameters (Battleson.15 Range of optimum receiver tower heights for systems with different power levels (Battleson. Figure 10. 1981).net/Book/chapter10/chapter10. www.html 19/31 . tower cost.7/29/13 Power From The Sun :: Chapter 10 Figure 10.powerfromthesun.14 Optimum field shape defined by cosine loss.

0 5.0 6.1 23.0 59. It is common to define this efficiency in terms of the beam (direct) normal solar irradiance Ib.0 41.0 9. These losses.7 42. cast in terms of efficiencies. and Ah is the total area of the heliostat (based on outside dimensions.2. The section concludes with the presentation of a simplified model for calculating system performance that includes most of the important design variables. Table 10.8 0.2 57. The overall energy collection efficiency of a central receiver system therefore is (10.0 6. Noon (%) Average 17. may be allocated to either a field efficiency or a receiver efficiency.2 lists the individual losses for a typical central receiver design and categorizes them either as part of the field efficiency or the receiver efficiency.0 45. In this section we discuss the modes of energy loss which make up the overall efficiency term ηcol and then discuss how they are predicted.8) where is the rate of energy addition to the working fluid (measured at the bottom of the receiver tower).1 Energy Losses There are ten important sources of loss in a central receiver system that combine together to form the overall system energy collection efficiency.html .0 20/31 Component Field losses: Source Cosine Shadowing & blocking Reflectance Attenuation Total field losses Total Receiver losses: Spillage Absorptance Radiation Convection & conduction Total receiver losses Total Total system losses Total system efficiency www.2 System Thermal Performance As with the solar collector modules discussed in the previous chapters. 10.8 5. not the reflective portion).2 9. the thermal performance of a central receiver system may be defined in terms of an overall system efficiency. detailed computer models available for performing such an analysis.5 1.6 10. Central Receiver Energy Collection Losses Percentage Loss Design Annual Point.n and the total surface area of all of the heliostats in the field.4 33.net/Book/chapter10/chapter10.2 2.7/29/13 Power From The Sun :: Chapter 10 10. Example values are shown so that the reader can see the relative influence of each individual efficiency on the overall system performance.0 2.2 14.0 2. Table 10. the percentage losses are shown. The values shown are representative of a large.powerfromthesun.3 0.2. n h is the total number of heliostats in the field. 380 MW (thermal) system in a mid-latitude desert climate using an external receiver and were taken from Battleson (1981). We then discuss the large. For clarity.4 0 10.

when the sun is low in the sky. Blocking and shadowing represent the next most important loss factor in central receiver system performance. 1979). Although at noon. 1981).2 are associated with the receiver.1. The remainder of the losses tabulated in Table 10. Most of these have been discussed in detail in the previous section. is a function of both the heliostat field (heliostat beam focus and distance from the tower) and the receiver (size of absorbing surface or aperture). shadowing. blocking.html 21/31 . Keeping the mirrors washed. especially in the winter.powerfromthesun. Field Losses. mirror reflectance. there is usually no blocking or shadowing for a well designed field. We have arbitrarily chosen to include this factor with the receiver loss rather than with the field loss. respectively. significant blocking and shadowing does take place in the mornings and afternoons. the annual average blocking and shadowing losses are also significant. atmospheric attenuation becomes significant for very large heliostat fields where the outer heliostats are far from the receiver. The energy losses associated specifically with the heliostat field include four of the five greatest sources of energy loss. receiver spillage. Defining each of these losses in terms of an efficiency. where the atmospheric attenuation losses are estimated to be around 3 percent (Coggi and Eden.16. and atmospheric attenuation losses. age and dust soon reduce this to an average value of about 90 per cent. As discussed in Section 10. we express the field efficiency as (10. One loss source. Following the cosine effect in importance is the mirror reflectance loss.9) where ηcos. Receiver Losses. they still represent the single most important loss mode. when the sun’s altitude is a maximum. The third most important loss factor for the losses listed in Table 10. Although new low-absorption glass mirrors can be made with a reflectance of about 94 percent..e. cosine losses may be minimized through proper field design.3. As discussed in the previous section. Because of this. The value listed represents a large field having about 10 times the area of Solar One. clean and in good repair is essential to maximize annual energy output.7/29/13 Power From The Sun :: Chapter 10 Source: Design study for a 380 MW (thermal) pow er plant (Sterns Rogers Engineering Company. The largest loss term is the cosine loss. ηrefl and ηatten are efficiencies (i. ηshadow. ηblock. www. The various modes of receiver loss are depicted in Figure 10.net/Book/chapter10/chapter10.2 is the atmospheric attenuation. however. 1 minus the fraction of energy lost in the process) based on cosine.

and its operating temperature.net/Book/chapter10/chapter10. Therefore. the rate of energy being lost from the receiver is essentially www.10) where ηspill. (1982) have performed experiments on large vertical surfaces in horizontal f low. The important energy loss for the receiver originates from convection and radiation heat transfer to the surroundings. Receiver efficiency may be defined as the product of each loss mode efficiency. Additional factors include the local wind velocity. ηabsorp. and the orientation of the receiver.powerfromthesun. For most currently conceived central receiver system designs. Studies have been made on the combined radiation. and conduction losses. ambient temperature. Clausing (1981) has developed a method for predicting the natural convective loss from cavity receivers. the receiver operates at a constant temperature. ηconv and ηcond are efficiencies based on receiver spillage. and their data are being used to predict losses from external receivers.16 Receiver heat loss modes. its heated (or aperture) area. These losses depend on the design of the receiver.7/29/13 Power From The Sun :: Chapter 10 Figure 10. Siebers et al. whether it is a cavity or external receiver.html 22/31 . ηrad. radiation. convection. A summary of these studies may be found in Siebers and Kraabel (1984). absorption. and tilted cavities. (10. respectively. free and forced-convection losses from large surfaces. Radiation and convection losses are primarily functions of the size of the receiver and the operating temperature of the system.

surface s lope errors. An important output is the flux density pattern (W/cm 2) at a grid of points on a surface (such as the receiver) and its integral over the surface. to incorporate the effects of other nondeterministic factors such as sun tracking errors. and tracking accuracy all have a major effect on the flux distribution at the receiver and. Since they all require large. and reflectance properties. This paint is formulated for high temperature surfaces and has an absorptance of approximately 0. HELIOS. Determination of the optimum receiver size requires numerous optimization studies with field receiver computer models. receiver absorptance is only a function of the type of coating on the absorbing surface. The system will operate only when the sun’s energy is sufficient to overcome the receiver heat loss. The theoretical foundations on which this model is based are described in detail in Biggs and Vittitoe (1979). Most of this heat is lost through the receiver supporting brackets that connect the receiver to the tower structure.html 23/31 . The heliostat surface accuracy. mirror canting accuracy. rapid computers for their operation. using a fast Fourier transform.2.powerfromthesun. This is normally a small fraction of the total receiver heat loss and is kept small by minimizing the number and size of receiver attach points and using low thermal conductance metals such as stainless steels in their construction.net/Book/chapter10/chapter10. Three generally available models of this type are discussed here. The receiver is normally made large enough to intercept most of the reflected irradiance from the heliostat field and to keep peak incident flux values low enough for the heat transfer fluid. The angular distribution of sun rays for the irradiance incident on a concentrator is modified by convolution. If the absorbing surface is inside a cavity.98. Spillage loss or energy directed toward the receiver that does not fall on the absorbing area is a parameter of both the heliostat field and the receiver design.95.2. the effective absorptance (based on reflection back through the cavity aperture) increases to about 0. it is necessary to define the flux profile produced on the receiver by a large number of representative heliostats throughout each day of a typical year. beam spread. This threshold usually occurs when the sun’s altitude angle is about 15 degrees. its size is limited because both radiation and convection heat losses are directly proportional to the receiver area. Spillage loss can be reduced by increasing the size of the receiver. This makes the annual average percentage loss greater than the design point (noon) loss as indicated in Table 10. Other analytical methods are used for beam statistics. The final receiver heat loss term represents the heat conducted away from the receiver. It is this constant receiver thermal loss rate that defines the operating threshold for the system. In contrast to spillage. These were selected for their generality and universal availability. This is done by the use of ray tracing and mathematical simulation techniques to determine the overall optical performance ηfield and the spillage ηspill . The Helios model follows the incident solar irradiance through the system (including the intervening atmosphere) and includes all the factors that influence the optical performance of the collector. off-axis reflecting optics. Many current designs use a high-absorptance paint commercially marketed as Pyromark®. www. on the spillage. of the central receiver system. Operation at sun angles below this is also constrained because of the rapid increase of heliostat blocking and shadowing. therefore. The Helios optical behavior model was developed at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque as a general simulation model for the optical behavior of reflecting concentrators. 10. only a brief description is given here with references for further information. and atmospheric effects.2 System Performance Models For accurate prediction of the thermal performance of a central receiver system.7/29/13 Power From The Sun :: Chapter 10 constant throughout the day (and year) and the percentage loss increases in the morning and evening. However.

powerfromthesun. but using a completely different optical modeling technique to perform its optical analyses. and/or canted heliostats and external cylindrical. computer codes that require the specification of many design variables. may be described in terms of the heliostat field efficiency and the receiver efficiency: (10. rapid.3 SCRAM . The overall thermal energy collection efficiency of a point focus central receiver system. data analysis problems. heliostat spacing. This computer model was developed to perform the same type of analyses as HELIOS.2.e.8). A polynomial function is found that is a good approximation to this surface over the range of parameters of interest. and the general understanding of solar concentrator technology. The code consists of a detailed model of the optical performance.html 24/31 .net/Book/chapter10/chapter10.7/29/13 Power From The Sun :: Chapter 10 An optical performance computer program called HELIOS uses the Helios optical behavior model to predict the performance of real systems and is de scribed in Vittitoe et al. safety studies. The program optimizes the tower height. 10. and a searching algorithm for determination of the best system design. This is done to simplify the mathematics and may be justified on the basis that the dominant www.11 ) where ηfield was defined in Equation (10. Description. An Approximation Model. called SCRAM. design tradeoffs. as defined by Equation (10. The SCRAM program then uses these polynomials along with field layout and solar irradiance data to predict overall system performance. may be used to perform many design tradeoff optimization studies such as storage sizing and load variation effects. MIRVAL. The approach used in developing this code was to make use of DELSOL2 to generate a large amount of data that can be pictured as a surface in a multi-parameter space. The overall thermal performance of a central receiver system can be predicted by using large. The SCRAM approximation model can be considered an adjunct to DELSOL2. Most of the computational effort is associated with calculating blocking and shadowing losses. The code can handle flat. The SCRAM model accurately predicts the field efficiency and uses simple algorithms to determine receiver efficiency. multi-aperture cavity and flat plate receivers.10). This program. The DELSOL2 computer program calculated collector field performance and performs field layout and optimal system design for solar thermal central receiver plants. and accurate. and a copy of the code is included in the Appendix. (1981). DELSOL2. a simpler model of the nonoptical performance. This program has been used for performance predictions. the TMY tapes discussed in Chapter 4). focused. The MIRVAL routine is described in Leary and Hawkins (1979). The latter two features are coupled to a cost model of central receiver components and an economic model for calculating energy costs. It is described in detail in Dellin et al. Bergeron and Chiang (1980) have developed a mathematical approximation procedure that relies on data generated by the DELSOL2 code to determine many of the field optical performance parameters but is simple. (1979). This gives it the potential to analyze very complex but well defined systems. an algorithm for field layout.9) and ηreceiver in Equation (10. rapid. and tower position at the user specified power levels subject to flux limits on the receiver and land constraints for field layout. receiver size.. The SCRAM algorithm has been reprogrammed in BASIC by the authors. specification and analysis of concentrator quality. It may also be used for predicting long-term system performance when combined with a system simulation mode l (such as SIMPLESYS developed in Chapter 2 of this text) and realistic weather data (i. The SCRAM model is simple enough for use on a microcomputer and is a useful tool for learning about the performance characteristics of a central receiver system. field layout.

Fixed Parameters.powerfromthesun. Figure 10. Modification of either of these would require multiple runs of DELSOL2 to generate a new set of surface fit coefficients Ci.17. which are specified in program statements 4020 through 4100.net/Book/chapter10/chapter10. SCRAM1.3 ft) × 7. The mirrors do not have to cover the entire heliostat area. A major simplification is introduced by recognizing that all the terms in the field efficiency. Program SCRAM1 needs to be run only once for a particular heliostat field. scale geometrically with tower height except for atmospheric attenuation. The heliostat specified in this model has a rectangular reflecting surface 7. which is treated separately.html 25/31 . Both the heliostat design configuration and the method of field layout are fixed for the SCRAM model presented here. Program SCRAM2 reads the data in XFILE along with sun angle and solar irradiance data to calculate the overall system performance.17 Program configuration for SCRAM. Therefore. canted mirrors. This sequence is shown in Figure 10.7/29/13 Power From The Sun :: Chapter 10 losses are contained in the field efficiency and that the assumptions used to evaluate receiver thermal efficiency are less reliable. receiver efficiency is computed directly and the algorithms used may be modified as a clearer understanding of receiver thermal losses develops. Program SCRAM has been divided into two parts for operational ease. Program SCRAM1 writes the values of this array on a disc naming the file XFILE. The first part. tower height is used as the unit length throughout the calculation until the final evaluation of the total power reflected toward the receiver is made. generates an array Xij that is done only once for a specific heliostat field.4 m (24. In the resulting model. Tracking errors and www.4 m with focused.k.j.

and mirror waviness and panel alignment errors are both assumed to be 1.75 mrad.0 mrad.3 gives the program locations of these variables. The size and shape of the field can be varied.net/Book/chapter10/chapter10. The field is divided into JMX segments with ANG(I) (in radians) specifying the azimuth of the center line of each segment from north. The size and shape of the heliostat field must be defined in SCRAM1 in terms of radial segments as shown in Figure 10. Table 10. SCRAM1 Input. For the field pictured. Figure 10.powerfromthesun. Table 10.3). (1981).18 Heliostat field definition scheme for program SCRAM. Input Parameters for Program SCRAM Variable SCRAM1 www.2) and (10. JMX =13. The canting and focusing values are the default values given in Section II of Dellin et al.html 26/31 Units Statement .7/29/13 Power From The Sun :: Chapter 10 foundation motion are both assumed to be 0. The field layout method specified for this model uses the radial stagger pattern with the University of Houston spacing parameters defined in Equations (10.18. The distance from the tower to the innermost ring of heliostats in tower heights is RI(I). The program variables defining a field are shown.3. and the distance to the outermost ring is RO(I).

12) where Ul.091 tower heights. This has been developed from DELSOL2 results of optimally designed fields. A representative value of 0. This portion of the program requires the input of receiver loss parameters. The reflectance of the heliostat mirrors is a variable and is specified as MR. Also. this model represents the terrestrial propagation loss for a clear day. The sun ‘s zenith angle is input as SPA. An approximate spillage model may also be used. the receiver heat loss may be estimated by (10. As noted. the azimuth zero is due south rather than due www. If the receiver surface area is not known. The optical attenuation model is that given in Equation (10. For angle SAA.Ta ) is the temperature difference between the fluid outlet temperature and the average daytime ambient temperature. is approximately 35 W/m 2 K (6. the receiver heat loss is assumed constant throughout the day. In addition to the heliostat field configuration. AM is the basic system sizing parameter and must be specified here. Because most receivers are designed to operate at constant temperature. The use of an atmospheric attenuation model and a receiver flux spillage model are both optional. The total mirror area contained in the heliostat field. and sun position data. An option is available (subroutine at statement 2000) to generate ANG(I). The receiver spillage model is described in Appendix C of Bergeron and Chiang (1980).87 is used in the listing of the program.powerfromthesun. zero azimuth is due south in SCRAM (rather than due north) for programming convenience. 1=yes --W degrees degrees W/m 2 210 260 300 340 180 190 200 160 170 1040 1050 1220 1240 1260 The dimension statement for JMX must be changed if more than 13 segments are used.6).html 27/31 .2 Btu/h ft2 F). Solar position and solar irradiance data are also input to SCRAM2. the ratio of mirror area to the full heliostat area may be varied by modification of DM. solar irradiance. receiver absorptance ROPT and total receiver heat loss rate RTHER. Receiver loss is characterized by two variables. As a first approximation. and (Tout . For programming convenience.net/Book/chapter10/chapter10. SCRAM2. Ar is the receiver surface area (or aperture area in the case of a cavity receiver). it may be roughly approximated by assuming that the system has a geometric concentration ratio of about 250. The receiver is a cylinder that has a diameter and height of 0. several variable characteristics of the heliostats must be defined in SCRAM1. RI(I) and RO(I) for an eccentric circle field. Receiver absorptance depends on the radiation characteristics of the surface or the cavity. and the azimuth as SAA.7/29/13 Power From The Sun :: Chapter 10 Number of field segments Field azimuth Inner radius Outer radius Total heliostat area Mirror reflectance Mirror density Attenuation model Spillage model SCRAM2 Receiver absorptance Receiver thermal loss Sun zenith angle Sun azimuth angle Direct normal solar irradiance Notes: · · · JMX ANG(I) RI(I) RO(I) AM MR DM A2TEN% SPILL% ROPT RTHER SPA SAA DN --radians tower heights tower heights m2 ----0=no. 1=yes 0=no.

The inner circle has a radius of 0. The total power reflected to the receiver (PWR) is simply the product of field efficiency.000 ft2). The heliostat field is defined by using the eccentric circle option with the outer circle having a radius of 5 tower heights.html 28/31 . and mirror coverage (density) is 89. www. The important parameter calculated by SCRAM2 is the field efficiency (ETA/AM). The input data for an example case are contained in the program listing in the Appendix.5 tower heights with its center displaced to the south by two tower heights. SCRAM2 Output.net/Book/chapter10/chapter10. The total power output (POUT) to the working fluid is then calculated by applying the receiver surface absorptance and total heat loss rate that had been input into the program.19. This field configuration is pictured in the insert to Figure 10. The case defined is for a heliostat field that has a total mirror area of 75. Example. This is defined as the ratio of the radiant power incident on the receiver to the solar power incident normal to an area equal to the mirror area. All of these parameters vary throughout the day and year.7 percent. therefore. SCRAM2 would read these solar input parameters from a large array. when configured for long-term performance calculations. the total reflective surface area. and the direct normal solar irradiance. A collection efficiency (ECOL) equivalent to that discussed for other collectors is calculated as the ratio of the power into the working fluid to the direct normal solar irradiance on the heliostats. The direct normal solar irradiance in W/m 2 is input as DN.7/29/13 Power From The Sun :: Chapter 10 north as used throughout the remainder of this book. but on the total heliostat aperture area.000 m 2 (246.powerfromthesun. It should he emphasized that this efficiency is not based on the land area covered. The heliostats have a reflectance of 89 percent.

www. As the sun comes around toward the west. The receiver’s absorptance was assumed to be 0.powerfromthesun. Data for three sun azimuths are shown.19.html 29/31 . that is. the field efficiency decreases. For each azimuth.5 MW/m 2. Variation of the field efficiency (neglecting receiver losses) as the solar zenith angle changes is shown in Figure 10. it is interesting that for the field shown. this peak occurs when the sun’s zenith angle is between 15 and 30 degrees.net/Book/chapter10/chapter10. The minimum field efficiency occurs at large sun zenith angles. the field efficiency remains high (50 percent for 270 degree azimuth) even when the sun is 15 degrees above the horizon. the peak field efficiency does not occur when the sun is directly overhead (SPA = 0).7/29/13 Power From The Sun :: Chapter 10 Figure 10. Both the atmospheric attenuation model and the receiver spillage model discussed previously were used in the calculations. The highest efficiencies occur when the sun is due south of the field (SAA = 0). however. However. when the sun is low in the sky and shadowing is significant.19 Performance of an eccentric circle central receiver field for the example above and calculated with the use of program SCRAM. and the limiting (impossible) case occurs when the sun is due north of the field. Instead.87 and its thermal loss was estimated to be 9.

Fish. 295.powerfromthesun. M. Chiang (1980). This is the most important issue for the system designer. In that case. M.net/Book/chapter10/chapter10. The rates of energy incident on the heliostats. Bergeron. L. Clausing. and C. New Mexico to illustrate the use of SCRAM1 and SCRAM2.7/29/13 Power From The Sun :: Chapter 10 The central receiver design described above was used along with typical meteorological year (TMY) data for Albuquerque.A. J. and entering the working fluid are shown. D. and C.(1979).” Solar Energy 27 (4)..” Sandia National Labs Report SAND81-8005. Biggs. “The HELIOS Model for the Optical Behavior of Reflecting Solar Concentrators. NM on June 20 using TMY solar irradiance data.com/Promo Book Now! Offer Ends 31 July. and H. K. F. A Source of Electricity and/or Process Heat. “Solar 10 Megawatt Pilot Plant Performance Analysis. A. J. “SCRAM: A Fast Computational Model for the Optical Performance of Point Focus Solar Central Receiver Systems. M.20.(1981). April. Performance for one day (June 20) near the summer solstice is shown in Figure 10. Report No. Eden (1981)." Sandia National Labs Report SAND76-0347. “Solar Power Tower Design Guide: Solar Thermal Central Receiver Power Systems. To Hong Kong From SGD 305 MalaysiaAirlines. K.T. April. References Battleson. ATR-81 (7747)-1.20 System performance calculated by SCRAM2 for a 75. Journey with Malaysia Airlines. Program SCRAM2 may also be used as a subroutine to SIMPLESYS.W. Field efficiency and system collection efficiency are also shown for this case. March. February. J.. Vittitoe. “A User’s Manual for DELSOL2: A Computer Code for www. Dellin.” The Aerospace Corporation..” Sandia National Labs Report SAND80-0433. Yang (1981). Coggi. Figure 10. “An Analysis of Convective Losses from Cavity Solar Central Receivers. the total yearly thermal energy delivered by the system will be computed. and C.000 m2 central receiver system located in Albuquerque. reflected to the receiver. (1981).html 30/31 . SCRAM2 would replace statements 420 through 550 of SIMPLESYS with QC (in SIMPLESYS) being set equal to POUT (in SCRAM2) and the final GOTO statement in SCRAM2 removed. If this computation is performed for every day of the year with the use of TMY solar irradiance data.

March. D. F.” Sandia National Labs Report SAND81-8237. D.powerfromthesun. August. Denver. S. pp. June. Munich. W..” Sandia National Labs Report SAND78 -8185. Sterns Roger Engineering Company (1979). Colorado.html 31/31 .” Solar Energy 30(6). Holl. 505. N. L. C.” paper presented at the American Section. L. E. J. August. “Experimental Mixed Convection From a Large. and L. King. April.. P. International Solar Energy Society Meeting. “Beam Quality and Tracking Accuracy Evaluation of Second Generation and Barstow Production Heliostats. Siebers. and J. “Estimating Convective Energy Losses from Solar Central Receivers. N. “A Cellwise Method for the Optimization of Large Central Receiver Systems. “Definition of Two Small Central Receiver Systems. and J. Lighthill (1979).” Sandia National Labs Report SAND82-0181. (1978). G. Schwind. Hawkins (1979).. and F. August. L. Vittitoe. C.. Moffat (1982). A Users Guide. L.” Sandia National Labs Report SAND778280. Biggs (1978).” Sandia National Labs Report SAND76-0346.” Sandia National Labs Report SAND78-7001. Vittitoe. 477-482. R.7/29/13 Power From The Sun :: Chapter 10 Calculating the Optical Performance and Optimal System Design for Solar Thermal Central Receiver Plants. April. and R. Vant-Hull (1978).” Sandia National Labs Report SAND84-8717.net/Book/chapter10/chapter10. 3. Vertical Plate in a Horizontal Flow. “A Users Guide for MIRVAL Computer Code for Comparing Designs of Heliostat Receiver Optics for Central Receiver Solar Power Plants.. February. R. “Tower Cost Data for Central Receiver Studies. Siebers. www. “HELIOS: A Computer Program for Modeling the Solar Thermal Test Facility. J. Biggs and R. Leary.” in Proceedings of the Seventh International Heat Transfer Conference.. September 6-10. Lipps. Kraabel (1984). D. “Terrestrial Propagation Loss. F. (1982). vol.