EVALUATION OF A PROTOTYPE INTEGRATED SOLAR COMBINED CYCLE

USING LINEAR FRESNEL REFLECTOR

45 A Thesis submitted to the faculty of

San Francisco State University
Z(f
In partial fulfillment of
the requirements for
the Degree

•MS
Master of Science
In

Engineering: Energy Systems

by
Fernando Altmann
San Francisco, California

May 2016
 Copyright by
Fernando Altmann
2016
 CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL

I certify that I have read Evaluation of a Prototype Solar Combined Cycle Using Linear Fresnel

Reflector by Fernando Altmann, and that in my opinion this work meets the criteria for approving

a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree Master of Science in

Engineering: Energy Systems at San Francisco State University.

A. S. (Ed) Cheng, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Mechanical
Engineering

Ahmad Ganji,
Mechanical Engineering Program Head &
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
 EVALUATION OF A PROTOTYPE INTEGRATED SOLAR COMBINED CYCLE
USING LINEAR FRESNEL REFLECTOR

Fernando Altmann
San Francisco, California
2016

A hybrid concept integrating concentrated solar power (CSP) plants and conventional
power plants has recently been introduced with the potential to reduce fossil fuel usage and
the costs of generating electricity from solar energy. With extensive available land and
favorable weather, Brazil is an interesting place for solar energy utilization. This thesis
aims to evaluate an Integrated Solar Combined Cycle using a prototype Linear Fresnel
Reflector (LFR) for a specific site in Brazil. The solar system works as a Direct Steam
Generator contributing to the main steam produced in the heat recovery steam generator.
A thermodynamic model is developed to perform an hourly simulation of a reference year
and assess thermo-economic parameters. At simulated conditions the LFR system had a
yearly solar energy efficiency of 33.5% and solar-to-electricity efficiency of 14.5%,
producing electricity at a marginal cost of 0.0954$/kWh.

I certify that the A bstract is a correct representation o f the content o f this thesis.

A. S. Cheng, Associate Professor ojP'Mechanical Engineering

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude to my parents, Werner and Doris, for being my first

and eternal professors and for providing support and encouragement during my research. I

would also like to thank Dr. Ed. Cheng and Dr. Ahmad Ganji, as my academic mentors

from the beginning to the end of my graduate program, for sharing their knowledge and for

their patience and attention. Finally, I would like to thank the financial support from the

“Coordenagao de Aperfeigoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior” - CAPES, Ministry of

Education of Brazil.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of figures............................................................................................................................vii
List of tables............................................................................................................................ viii
List of abbreviations................................................................................................................ix
Chapter 1 - Introduction...........................................................................................................4
Objectives............................................................................................................................... 8
Chapter 2 - Literature review.................................................................................................10
Solar Hybrid system s.......................................................................................................... 10
Power Cycles........................................................................................................................ 18
Integrated Solar Combined Cycle - ISCC........................................................................ 26
Concentrated Solar Power technologies............................................................................ 31
Brazilian scenario................................................................................................................ 42
Chapter 3 - Methodology........................................................................................................51
Ambient data and solar resource........................................................................................ 52
CSP system characterization.............................................................................................. 53
Optical and thermal performance model;.......................................................................... 56
Studied configurations.........................................................................................................60
Performance assessment......................................................................................................65
Chapter 4 - Results................................;................................................................................ 71
Chapter 5 - Conclusion and Recommendations...................................................................77
References................................................................................................................................ 81
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Comparison between PTC and LFR. Adapted from Baharoon et al. (2015) and
Muller-Steinhagen and Trieb (2004).....................................................................................39
Table 2 - PTC and LFR comparison by Peterseim et al. (2013)......................................... 39
Table 3 - Studied location and ambient details.....................................................................52
Table 4 - Geometrical and optical characteristics of LFR system...................................... 55
Table 5 - Thermodynamic properties of steam and air streams in the reference cycle.... 62
Table 6 - Design conditions for the reference combined cycle...........................................63
Table 7 - Economic parameters used in the study................................................................69
Table 8 - Performance parameters for the reference cycle and ISCC................................ 71
Table 9 - Levelization and escalation parameters and final costs for solar system...........72

vii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - Schematic diagram of a hybrid solar thermal - gas turbine cycle (Brayton Cycle).
Source: Heller et al.., 2006 12
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Figure 2- Schematic diagram of a hybrid solar thermal - steam cycle (Rankine Cycle) using
feedwater pre-heating. Source: Hu et al.., 2012.................................................................................. 12
Figure 3 - Schematic diagram of a hybrid solar thermal - combined cycle using direct steam
generation. Source: Montes et al.., 2011..............................................................................................13
Figure 4 - Two operation modes of SAPG. Source: Yan et al., 2010...............................................15
Figure 5 - (a) T-s diagram of the Carnot cycle, (b) T-s diagram of the ideal Rankine cycle 20
Figure 6 - Schematic of a Rankine cycle..............................................................................................21
Figure 7 - Schematic of a reheat Rankine cycle.................................................................................. 22
Figure 8 - Schematic of a regenerative Rankine cycle with open and closed feedwater heaters....23
Figure 9 - Schematic of a Brayton cycle.............................................................................................. 24
Figure 10 - Schematic of a combined cycle with a Brayton cycle topping a Rankine cycle 26
Figure 11 - Solar thermal integration for both parallel steam generation and feedwater preheating
in a typical combined cycle. Source: Petrov et al., 2012....................................................................27
Figure 12 (a) PTC schematic (Kalogirou, 2004) (b) Actual PTC plant at Kramer Junction,
California (Mills, 2004).........................................................................................................................33
Figure 13 - Linear Fresnel Reflector schematic................................................................................. 35
Figure 14 - Cross section schematic of a multi and single tube trapezoidal receiver of a Linear
Fresnel Reflector system....................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 15 - Schematic diagram showing interleaving of mirrors in a CLFR with reduced shading
between mirrors. (Mills & Morisson, 2000)........................................................................................ 37
Figure 16 - Electricity generation matrix. Source: BEN, 2015.........................................................42
Figure 17 - Annual average solar radiation in Brazil. Source: Martins et al., 2012........................45
Figure 18 - Distribution of solar resource monitoring station. Source: Pereira et al., 2006...........46
Figure 19 - Suitable areas for CSP projects in Brazil. Source: Burgi, 2013....................................49
Figure 20 - Overall view of the Fresnel demonstration collector erected at the Plataforma Solar
de Almen'a. Source: Bernhard et al., 2008a......................................................................................... 55
Figure 21 - Transversal and longitudinal incidence angle modifier for Fresdemo design. Source:
Mertins, 2009..........................................................................................................................................59
Figure 22 - Schematic of studied reference combined cycle power plant....................................... 62
Figure 23 - Schematic of studied Prototype Integrated Solar Combined Cycle..............................64
Figure 24 - Daily averages of thermal energy output and incremental power boost from the LFR
system......................................................................................................................................................72
Figure 25 - Solar marginal cost as a function of relative reduction in initial investment cost.......75
Figure 26 - Solar marginal cost as a function of relative reduction in O&M cost........................... 76
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CC - Combined Cycle

CCGT - Combined Cycle Gas Turbine

CLFR - Compact Linear Fresnel Reflector

CSP - Concentrated Solar Power

DSG - Direct Steam Generator

DNI - Direct Normal Irradiance

FWH - Feedwater Heater
HRSG - Heat Recovery Steam Generator

HTF - Heat Transfer Fluid

IAM - Incident Angle Modifier

LCOE - Levelized Cost Of Electricity

LFR - Linear Fresnel Reflector
ISCC - Integrated Solar Combined Cycle

PTC - Parabolic Trough Collector

SCR - Solar Central Receiver

SD - Solar Dishes

STTP - Solar Thermal Power Plant

SEGS - Solar Energy Generating Systems
STE - Solar Thermal Electricity
 4

Chapter 1 - Introduction

Renewable energy has attracted a lot of attention in the last few decades for different

reasons, and international efforts are being made to augment its penetration in the global

energy matrix. Wind and solar energy are the main alternatives to do so, but while the first

can compete with traditional sources, the latter still suffer to reach parity in costs. Among

solar technologies, Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) systems have gained attention, and

its performance is very attractive when hybridized with conventional power plants.

Global warming has been well evidenced and release of carbon dioxide resulting from

human activities, especially from burning fossil fuels, has been pointed as the major cause,

and the energy sector plays a big role in this scenario. (IPCC, 2013)

The prediction of severe consequences from global warming has motivated discussions all

over the world, and the possibility of critical outcomes promoted the discussion from a

scientific debate to a strategic topic for all nations.

As an important force to drive us away from global warming is the claim to decrease the

usage of fossil fuels and raise the share of renewable sources in the energy matrix.

However, as a matter of fact, this change is not being very effective - overall fossil fuel

usage is actually not decreasing. More than 85% of world’s energy still comes from fossil

fuels, and since 1972 this percentage was reduced by only 2 points. (IEA, 2010)
 5

Current trends in energy supply are unsustainable - economically, environmentally and

socially. (IEA, 2014)

Even though the consequence of a global warming is seen as the biggest force to justify a

transition to a cleaner energy matrix, different reasons justify this change:

• Environment forces - besides the well-known environmental issue that

arises from the relation between greenhouse effect and carbon dioxide

emissions, environmental issues that come along with the extraction of

fossil fuels are also a big concern.

• Cost of traditional fuels - Historically proven, the oscillation of world’s fuel

prices is highly related to oscillations in world’s economy. Thus, reducing

the dependence on fuel would result in economic stability improvement.

However, fossil fuels are the most inexpensive and most convenient of all

energy resources, and although costs of renewables are decreasing

(Wtistenhagen and Menichetti, 2012) its prices are still higher than fossil

fuels due to economic barriers.

• Dependence on fuel producers - The most used fuel (petroleum in its

different forms) has around 40% of its production concentrated in just a few

producers (OPEC members). This concentration leads to political and

economic instabilities, well evidenced in the last fifty years by wars

 6

(especially in the middle-east region) and economic crisis (as the 1973 oil

crisis).

• Fossil fuel availability - Fossil fuels have a limited availability. Even

though a complete depletion is questionable and/or far ahead in time, the

limited availability is a fact. Moreover, given that reserves are not always

technically easy to explore, depletion of resources will result in technical

and economic challenges.

• Energy matrix diversification - More as a consequence of the previous

forces, the diversification of the energy matrix is recognized as mandatory

for all non-producer’s countries and should be encouraged in a broad

context.

Wind and solar energy are still proving their potential as alternative sources of energy.

Besides gaining more and more attention as a clean, free, and non-depleting source, solar

energy is the one facing most difficulties to prove its worthiness; solar energy has struggled

to be deployed and its implementation has essentially happened along with government

incentives and/or especial policies. Solar energy can be used to generate electricity using

thermal energy or photovoltaic panels. Currently, the most mature and employed solar

technology is based on the photovoltaic effect. These devices generate electricity directly

from the sunlight, via a natural process that occurs in certain materials. Electrons absorb

part of the electromagnetic radiation from the sun and become free of their atomic bonds,

flowing along the semiconductor material creating an electrical current. Although solar
 7

panels are widespread in the world the technology still faces challenges like environmental

issues related to its manufacturing and efficiency ratings.

Future electricity generation will involve multiple energy production technologies and

those based on renewable energy will play an important role. Among them, Solar Thermal

Power Plants (STPPs) are one of the most promising systems and, at present, installation

of this kind of power plants is spreading widely. However, although the first STPPs were

constructed in the 80s (California’s SEGS), STPP still does not represent a big share within

the energy scenario. At present time and in the medium term, Solar Thermal Power Plants

will exist alongside with conventional energy generation technologies, like fossil and

nuclear. (Rovira, 2013)

Concentrating solar power is positioned to become a major source of renewable electricity

generation in the United States. (NREL, 2010) Concentrated solar power is the most likely

candidate for providing the majority of this demand in renewable energy. (Muller-

Steinhagen & Trieb, 2004) Solar thermal electricity (STE) generated by concentrating solar

power (CSP) plants is one of those technologies. It has witnessed robust growth in the last

four years. (IEA, 2014)

The reason that limits solar deployment is mainly its cost-effectiveness. As an attempt to

overcome this barrier, a new strategy has been developed in recent decades, trying to

integrate fossil fuel power plants with renewable energy sources in a hybrid concept.
 8

Despite the fact that the concept still utilizes fossil fuel, it contributes to the research and

development of solar technology.

In such a context, Integrated Solar Combined Cycles (ISCCs) may be an interesting choice

since integrated designs may lead to a very efficient use of the solar and fossil resources.

(Rovira, 2013)

Although Solar Thermal Power Plants and hybrid concepts are not new, the technology is

not mature and is still in its learning curve. Brazil has not implemented any STPP project

and evaluating its implementation using the most efficient configuration could make the

beginning of the learning curve more attractive, or at least less costly.

Given the different reasons for increasing the share of renewable energy sources in the

energy matrix, the small number of studies and initiatives regarding STPP in Brazil, and

the initial stage of development of such technology in the country, the present work was

motivated by the possibility of contributing to the learning curve of Brazilian national

technology.

Objectives

The main objective of this study is to perform a thermo-economic evaluation of a

prototype-scale Linear Fresnel Reflector system integrated with a combined cycle power

plant for a specific location in Brazil.

The secondary objectives of this work are to:

 9

• Conduct a literature review on CSP technology and identify prominent systems;

• Conduct a literature review on hybrid concepts for electricity production and

identify best practices;

• Develop a mathematical model based on thermodynamic analysis to simulate

an Integrated Solar Combined Cycle using Linear Fresnel Reflector under

Brazil weather conditions;

• Identify and apply thermodynamic and economic performance metrics in order

to assess the thermo-economic performance of the proposed configuration;

• Estimate the levelized cost of electricity and marginal cost of electricity

produced by the solar system;

• Estimate costs for installation and maintenance of a prototype-scale Linear

Fresnel Reflector.

• Contribute to Brazilian national technology as an initial reference for future

studies.
 10

Chapter 2 - Literature review

Solar Hybrid systems

While the concept of a power plant operating totally on solar energy does have a certain

purist appeal, it may not be the most practical or cost effective scheme. A better proposition

may be to integrate solar energy systems with alternative systems with a view to obtain

overall benefits at present levels of available technology. (Pai, 1991)

Hybridization, as the integration of two primary energy sources into a single power unit,

often leads to a more improved utilization of the primary energy input when compared to

two stand alone units of similar type and scale. Nevertheless, the improved performance of

the integrated unit should be measured against the increased complexity and the more

intricate control strategy of the hybrid configuration. (Petrov et al., 2012)

The hybridization of a power plant is the integration of solar thermal energy with

conventional ways of producing electricity (Rankine cycle, Brayton cycle and combined

cycle). The strategy is to use solar energy to provide a fraction of the total demanded

energy, either aiming savings on fuel and emissions or boosting the electricity production.

The idea is not new; the first relevant studies were motivated by the oil-crisis in the

beginning of the 1970s, and the first publication on the subject is attributed to Zoschak and

Wu (1975), who studied several hybrid arrangements at different temperatures. Little

progress was seen in the 1980s. With a stable oil market and not-well established

environmental forces, the development of the hybrid concept didn’t get much attention.
 11

The next decade, on the other hand, had a huge surge of interest, mainly due to the

successful stand alone concentrating power solar power (CSP) pilot projects (Lotker, 1991)

that entered commercial operation in the first years of that decade.

Schematics of different ways of integration solar energy with conventional power cycles

are presented below.

 12

Figure 1 - Schematic diagram o f a hybrid solar thermal - gas turbine cycle (Brayton

Cycle). Source: Heller et al.., 2006

Figure 2- Schematic diagram o f a hybrid solar thermal - steam cycle (Rankine Cycle)

using feedwaterpre-heating. Source: Hu et al.., 2012

 13

Figure 3 - Schematic diagram o f a hybrid solar thermal - combined cycle using direct

steam generation. Source: Montes et al.., 2011

There are several ways to combine solar thermal energy with fossil fuels and also different

degrees of integration, but a minimum set of components is needed for such integration:

• A solar collector (normally consisting of a concentrator and a solar receiver) -

which harvest and concentrate solar energy, transferring the energy to a medium

fluid in the form of thermal energy;

• A fossil fuel subsystem to convert chemical energy from fossil fuels to thermal

energy;

• A subsequent heat engine, that will transform the thermal energy of the working

fluid in electricity.

Two major integration schemes to hybridize solar thermal energy with fossil fuel power

plants (coal fired or natural gas fired in combined cycles) have been extensively explored:

• Aiding feedwater preheating for the steam cycle, thus saving the extracted

steam otherwise bled from the turbine for that purpose;

• Assisting with parallel steam generation at the necessary pressure level, while

the solar produced steam can further be superheated and expanded in the

conventional steam cycle.

 14

The potential benefits of solar-fossil hybrid steam cycles have been recognized and several

feasibility studies carried out. (Behar et al., 2014) (Jamel et al., 2013) (Petrov et al., 2012)

For example, Pai (1991) proposed a new concept of integration of a solar concentrator field

with a modem thermal power station. His proposal was to pre-heat the feedwater using a

solar concentrator; reducing the steam extraction and thus, saving on fuel and emissions.

Among his results he indicates fuel savings of up to 24.5%.

Further developing this concept, Hu et al. (2010) proposed to call it Solar Assisted Power

Generation - SAPG. He points that the extracted bled steam that would normally be used

to preheat the feedwater before it enters the boiler increases the thermal efficiency of the

cycle, but at a cost of reducing work output of the turbine generator due to reduced steam

mass flow. Alternatively, by using solar thermal energy to supply heat to the feedwater,

high-grade energy of the normally extracted bled stem is preserved to carry out more useful

work within the turbine generator. In a different operation mode, the amount of fuel to the

boiler could be reduced, while maintaining the same generation output capacity, resulting

in a proportional reduction of CO2 emissions (Hu et al., 2010).

These two different modes of operation are called “solar augmentation” (or solar boost)

and “fuel saver”. The first mode uses solar energy to produce a surplus of electrical energy

while the latter produces the same amount of electricity but saves on fuel and CO2

emissions.
 15

fjf. \

1=1 E S olar
c g
1
a,
1
£
Fuel
Fuel

0 6 12 18 24 (Hours) 0 6 12 18 24(Houre)
Power boosting mode Fuel saving mode

Figure 4 - Two operation modes ofSAPG. Source: Yan et al., 2010.

Hu et al. (2010) also performed energy and exergy analysis, addressing that both

efficiencies are improved with the implementation of the concept. They conclude that solar

assisted power generation is a superior energy system and is a new approach for the solar

energy power generation.

Even though many studies have been developed, a more systematic approach for proper

evaluation of efficiency gain is necessary, for several representative types and sizes of

conventional utility steam plants. More straightforward optimization studies are also

required for finding the optimum penetration of solar power in the fossil-fired steam cycle,

taking into account both technological and economy values. (Petrov et al., 2012)

Use of solar energy in combination with large-scale utility plants benefits of their

intrinsically high efficiency of energy conversion and established infrastructure. Moreover,

hybrid concepts can be incorporated in operating power plants or into the development of

new projects.
 16

General advantages of a hybrid system combining solar thermal energy with steam cycles

can be summarized as follows:

• Utilization of large-scale energy conversion equipment and steam cycle

operation at high temperatures allow for higher efficiencies when compared to

stand alone solar plants;

• Utilization of the existing switchyard, electrical power conditioning equipment

and grid connection, which can in many cases be a considerable part of the

initial investment for stand alone solar projects;

• Allowance for gradual but wider deployment of solar thermal power while

preserving the job positions in an already established locality;

• Land usage in an already industrialized location, avoiding issues related to land

and habitat disturbance attributed to large stand alone solar fields.

Due to the variety of possible hybridization schemes, Peterseim et al. (2014) have proposed

a classification for the different levels, in order to better assess the degree of dependence

between CSP and the combining power system:

Light hybridization - The lowest level of synergy, light hybrids, combine a

CSP system with another power plant sharing minimal plant infrastructure, but

keeping each operation independent of the other. In this level of hybridization, both

systems can share components like switchyard and substation. Although it’s an

interesting approach, this level of hybridization results in a minimal cost savings,

 17

unless the concept is carried since the beginning of the project, reflecting in cost share

of the new transmission infrastructure (capital intensive).

Medium hybridization - One level up, medium hybrid synergies are

characterized by the share of major equipment, such as steam turbines and condensers,

and by a physical connection between them. In this setup the host power plant is

normally much larger than the CSP system, and it can operate independent of the CSP

operation. On this level, cost reductions can be significant due to the joint use of capital

intensive plant infrastructure. Solar energy input in these cases is typically below 15%

of the installed plant capacity.

Strong hybridization - In the highest degree of hybridization the CSP system

is always physically connected with the combining system and the solar fraction of the

total energy input can be higher than 30%. This level of synergy can significantly

reduce specific plant investment, increasing solar energy cost-effectiveness.

There are several different systems available to harvest the sun energy and convert into

thermal energy, however concentrating the solar energy is highly recommended in order to

achieve interesting results. The following types of CSP systems have been studied in hybrid

schemes (Hirsch et al., 2010), (Jamel et al., 2013):

• Parabolic trough collector (PTC);

• Linear Fresnel Reflectors (LFR);

• Solar central receiver (SCR);

 18

• Solar dishes (SD).

Although all of them could be integrated within a standard steam cycle, SCR and SD don’t

represent a relevant role in the CSP scenario. The reason for the small uptake are likely to

be the high uncertainties related to their costs and reliability, along with the premature stage

of the technologies. PTC and LFR technologies will be further discussed in this work.

It should be emphasized that solar integration with conventional power plants relies on the

availability of land next to the plant and, of course, on a considerable solar insolation.

In this work, only hybrid systems integrating solar energy with combined cycle power

plants will be further discussed. This configuration is called Integrated Solar Combined

Cycles.

Power Cycles

Before discussing hybrid systems that will work integrating solar and Rankine cycles, it is

useful to review key aspects of the Carnot cycle and its modifications that result in the

Rankine cycle. Also, a brief description of the Brayton cycle will be provided as well as

the combination of both Rankine and Brayton cycles in a combined cycle power

generation.

Carnot and Rankine cycle

The Carnot cycle is a theoretical description of a heat engine composed of four reversible

processes - two isothermal and two adiabatic. Heat engines are cyclic devices that produce
 19

work through the expansion of a working fluid, result from a combination of heat addition

and compression, in which the working fluid returns to its initial state. Reversible cycles

cannot be achieved in practice because the irreversibilities associated with each process

cannot be eliminated. However, the evaluation of those cycles provide a reference and

upper limits for real cycles. (Cengel & Boles, 2004)

In theory any working fluid could be used in these cycles, but generally water/steam is used

and this is the fluid that will be considered in this work.

One of the impracticalities of such cycle is that even though the isentropic expansion

process (2-3 in figure 5) can be closely approximated, the steam will decrease in quality

during the process (water droplets will be formed) and that can result in serious damages

to the turbine blades. Another major issue lays in the compression process (4-1), that

involves the compression of a two phases mixture to a saturated liquid: it is not practical

to design a compressor to handle two phases mixtures. Figure 5a shows a temperature-

entropy (T-s) diagram of the Carnot cycle.

Those impracticalities can be overcome by superheating the steam in the boiler and

condensing it completely in the condenser, as shown schematically in Fig. 5b. These

modifications result in what is called the ideal Rankine cycle.

 20

Figure 5 - (a) T-s diagram o f the Carnot cycle, (b) T-s diagram o f the ideal Rankine

cycle.

These changes in the Carnot cycle address the major impracticalities; by superheating the

steam (point 3 at figure 5b) the expansion process happens only in the steam phase, and by

completely condensing the water (point 1) the pump is not required to deal with two phases

mixture, reflecting in great reduction in energy consumption.

The actual Rankine cycle differs from the ideal as a result of irreversibilities in various

components. Fluid friction and heat loss to the surroundings are the two common sources

of irreversibilities. (Cengel & Boles, 2004) To account for these irreversibilities (mainly in

the pump and turbine), isentropic efficiencies are included.

 21

Figure 6 Schematic o f a Rankine cycle.

-

These irreversibilities have a major impact, reducing the overall thermal efficiency of the

cycle. In order to address this loss, different measures and/or modifications can be

implemented to the cycle to improve its efficiency. Basic measures include increasing the

boiler pressure (and thus outlet steam temperature), decreasing condenser pressure and

superheating the steam. However, these modifications also have drawbacks. For example,

if the steam is superheated, more exotic materials must be used to handle high

temperatures, and if the boiler pressure is increased (at a fixed maximum temperature) the

moisture content is also increased.

Therefore, in practice, two major modifications of the basic Rankine cycle are extensively

used in steam power plants: reheating and regenerating.

The reheat process in a Rankine cycle has as its main objective reduce the moisture content

in the expansion process, consequence of the increase in boiler pressure. This is done by
 22

expanding the steam in two stages and reheating the fluid after the first expansion process.

This modification assures that the expansion process will occur only at the vapor phase and

increase the efficiency by somewhat around 5% (Cengel & Boles, 2004).

Figure 7- Schematic o f a reheat Rankine cycle.

Regeneration increases the efficiency of the cycle by increasing the average temperature at

which heat is added, which is achieved by increasing the temperature of the liquid that

leaves the pump and enters the boiler (feedwater). The regeneration is the process of

preheating the feedwater. In order to do that, a portion of the steam that goes into the turbine

is extracted (also named turbine bleeding) and diverted to a device, called regenerator or

feedwater heater (FWH), where the heat transfer will occur.

 23

A feedwater heater is basically a heat exchanger in which heat is transferred from the steam

to the feedwater either by mixing the two fluid streams (open feedwater heaters) or without

mixing them (closed feedwater heaters). (Cengel & Boles, 2004)

Figure 8 - Schematic o f a regenerative Rankine cycle with open and closed feedwater

heaters.

Bray ton Cycle

In gas power cycles the working fluid remains in the form of a gas throughout the whole

cycle. A gas turbine engine is an example of a device operating on a gas cycle - more

specifically, the Brayton cycle.

Fresh air at ambient conditions is drawn into the compressor, where its temperature and

pressure are raised. The high pressure air proceeds into the combustion chamber, where the

fuel is burned at constant pressure. The resulting high-temperature gases then enter the
 24

turbine, where they expand to the atmospheric pressure while producing power. The

exhaust gases leaving the turbine are exhausted (not recirculated), causing the cycle to be

classified as an open cycle. (Cengel & Boles, 2004)

Figure 9 - Schematic o f a Brayton cycle.

Gas-turbine cycles typically operate at considerably higher temperatures than steam cycles.

The use of higher temperatures in gas turbines is made possible by recent developments in

cooling the turbine blades and coating the blades with high-temperature-resistant materials

such as ceramics. Because of the higher average temperature at which heat is supplied, gas-

turbine cycles have a greater potential for higher thermal efficiencies. However, the gas-

turbine cycles have one inherent disadvantage: The gas leaves the gas turbine at very high

temperatures (usually above 500°C), which erases any potential gains in the thermal

efficiency. (Cengel & Boles, 2004)

For the purpose of this work is important to understand that the exhaust gases that leave

the turbine after the expansion process are still in a very high temperature. This is a key
 25

feature that lead to the development and implementation of combined cycles, which is

described as follows.

Combined cycles

In the search for more efficient ways of generating electricity, modifications of Rankine

cycles like reheat and regeneration were developed. Yet, the greatest results came with the

development of combined cycle (CC), that involves a topping gas-power cycle in

conjunction with a bottoming steam-cycle. The most important CC is the Brayton cycle

topping a Rankine cycle achieving efficiencies higher than either of the cycle operated

individually.

The key idea is to take advantage of the characteristics of the gas-turbine at very high

temperatures and to use this high temperature at the exhaust as the energy source for the

lower temperatures required by the steam cycle. In this cycle, the energy that would be

otherwise lost in exhaust gases is recovered by transferring it to the steam in a heat

exchanger that serves as the boiler, leading to an overall high thermal efficiency, well over

40%, while Rankine and Brayton cycle hardly reach the 40% value. The heat exchanger is

normally called Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG).

 26

Figure 10 - Schematic o f a combined cycle with a Brayton cycle topping a Rankine cycle.

Integrated Solar Combined Cycle - ISCC

The operation of an integrated solar combined cycle plant requires the operation of a CSP

system in combination with a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) system. In fact, most

hybrid CSP systems in operation in the world are configured as ISCC. (Peterseim, 2013)

Examples of plants operating as ISCC plants are found in the U.S. (FPL, 2010), Morocco

(The World Bank, 2010), Egypt (Brakmann et al., 2010) and Italy (Falchetta et al., 2009).

The approach in this configuration is to use the CSP component to contribute with

additional saturated steam to the high pressure drum of the HRSG. Although feedwater

preheating could be an option for ISCC, different studies showed that the most efficient

scheme is to integrate the solar energy in the highest temperature point.

 27

The concept can be applied to new CC power plants or even in a retrofit application, and

the solar contribution can reach values higher than 50%. (Turchi & Erbes, 2011)

Figure 11 - Solar thermal integration fo r both parallel steam generation and feedwater

preheating in a typical combined cycle. Source: Petrov et al., 2012.

A technical literature review shows an agreement between different authors regarding the

advantages of the integration of combined cycles and concentrating solar power (Allani et

al., 1997) (Dersch et al., 2004) (Behar et al., 2014) (Baghemejad & Yaghoubi, 2011) This

consensus suggests that integrating solar-fossil fuel in combined cycles may be an

 28

interesting choice, since integrated designs may lead to synergies and to an efficient use of

the solar and fossil resources.

As advantages of this concept, over a stand alone solar plant, Montes et al. (2011) mention:

• Higher overall solar-to-electric conversion;

• Integration arrangements overcome thermal losses associated to the daily

start-up and shutdown processes;

• Incremental costs of replacing the steam turbine by a greater one are lower

than the overall unit cost in a solar-only plant;

• Configuration does not require thermal storage.

Although different collectors can be used for this integration concept, the most studied CSP

system for this application is the parabolic through collector using a synthetic oil as the

working fluid; this particular scheme is called heat transfer fluid technology. HTF

technology is distinct from Direct Steam Generation (DSG), in which water is used as the

working fluid and the steam is generated directly in the solar system, being superheated

afterwards in the HRSG. Straightforward advantages of DSG systems are the absence of a

heat exchanger and lower environmental risks associated with handling oil.

Generating steam by solar energy, which is consequently superheated in the conventional

steam cycle, is more thermodynamically advantageous than feedwater preheating. The

 29

parallel steam generation configuration offers higher shares of solar penetration into the

integrated hybrid combined cycle. (Petrov et al., 2012)

In his studies, Kelly et al. (2001) simulated an ISCC plant performance and the results

pointed that the most efficient point of integration for the CSP is to produce high-pressure

steam in addition to the HRSG component. They also concluded that the solar-to-electricity

efficiency is higher in ISCC than in stand alone systems, and that its contribution can

increase the Rankine cycle overall thermal efficiency.

Montes et al. (2011) proposed the utilization of a DSG technology using PTC operating in

an ISCC, justifying that not using a heat exchanger would result in lower investment and

eliminate the energy and exergy losses associated to the component, thus improving overall

efficiency. In this arrangement, DSG was used to produce high pressure steam aiming to

couple the solar resource at the highest exergy level. The selected pressure was proved to

reduce pressure drop in the collector, which guarantees the highest temperature level and

consequent highest efficiency.

Rovira et al. (2013) studied four different configurations for ISCC plants, using both HTF

and DSG technology, all with PTC technology. In all configurations solar energy was used

to augment steam production to feed the bottoming cycle (steam cycle). The first

configuration considered solar heat only to evaporate the steam, the second incorporated a

preheating section, the third incorporated superheating instead of preheating and the last

one incorporated both preheating and superheating besides evaporation. All of them were
 30

investigated by mean of exergy analysis and figures of merit comparison, revealing that

the only-evaporative DSG configuration is the best choice, benefiting from low

irreversibility at the HSG and high thermal efficiency at the solar field.

In their most recent study (Rovira et al., 2016), the authors compared two different CSP

systems (PTC and LFC) in two different locations, and concluded that the evaporative

integration scheme performs better than feedwater heater, stating that the latter is not even

feasible for one of the studied locations. They also stated that LFR was able to supply steam

successfully to the system, obtaining promising economic results in both optimistic and

conservative scenarios.

For new plants the combination of CSP and natural gas has the potential to reduce the

levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) from US$243/MWh to US$175/MWh. And for

retrofits of CSP to existing combined cycle power plants the LCOE can go even lower, as

US$150MWh. (Peterseim et al., 2014)

 31

Concentrated Solar Power technologies

Concentrating Collectors

Solar energy collectors can be compared to a heat exchanger. The collector absorbs the

incoming solar radiation, converts it into heat, and transfers this heat to a fluid (usually air,

water, or oil) flowing through the collector.

The term collector is used for the whole system, which includes the receiver and the

concentrator. The concentrator, or optical system, is the part of the collector that directs

radiation onto the receiver, and the receiver is the device where the radiation is absorbed

and converted to other form of energy.

The collectors can be classified into two main categories: non-concentrating (or stationary)

and concentrating. A non-concentrating collector has the same area for intercepting and for

absorbing solar radiation, whereas concentrating solar collector usually has concave

reflecting surfaces to intercept and focus the sun’s beam radiation to a smaller receiving

area, thereby increasing the radiation flux. (Kalogirou, 2004) The ratio between the

aperture area and the receiving area is called the concentration ratio and the higher this

value, higher the delivered temperature. (Duffle & Beckman, 2013)

For power system applications it is desirable to deliver energy at high temperatures, given

that the efficiency of a power cycle increases with the increase in temperature. Thus,

concentrating collectors are preferable for those applications. Many designs have been

proposed for concentrating collectors and the concentration ratio can vary over several
 32

orders of magnitude. Increasing concentration ratio increases working temperature.

However, it also increases requirements for precision in optical quality and positioning of

the optical system. Therefore, the cost of delivered energy from this type of collector is a

function of the temperature at which it is available. (Duffie & Beckman, 2013)

CSP technologies will definitely play a major role helping to solve current and future

electricity challenges, due to their higher capacity of harvesting the sun’s energy in

comparison to non-concentrating technologies and relative simplicity and lower costs in

comparison to solar tower technologies. (Bariev et al., 2011)

Among the different concentrating collectors used in hybrid systems, this work will discuss

parabolic trough collectors (PTC) and linear fresnel reflectors (LFR). While PTC is the

most used CSP system, and therefore the most mature technology, LFR has attracted lots

of attention in the recent years, due to its potential lower cost and simplicity of construction.

There are a number of operative CSP projects in the world, in both hybrid and stand alone

configurations. Examples are the SEG power plants (stand alone), Puerto Errado power

plant (stand alone) and Kuraymat (hybrid configuration). (NREL, 2016)

Parabolic trough collectors

This technology consists of parallel lines of reflectors (reflective materials, mirrors) curved

around one axis using a linear parabolic shape, which collect parallel rays along a single
 33

line focusing the sun’s rays. A long pipe receiver can be placed at the focus for heating a

heat transfer fluid (HTF technology) or even pressurized water (DSG technology).

PTCs normally operate with one-axis technology, and the receiver and mirrors array can

be more than 90 meters long. The receiver (receptor, absorber tubes) is made of stainless

steel black pipes coated with a selective surface, insulated in an evacuated glass envelope.

The coating allows pipes to absorb high levels of solar radiation while emitting very little

infra-red radiation. (IEA, 2010) (Mills, 2004) (Baharoon et al., 2015)

Figure 12 (a) PTC schematic (Kalogirou, 2004) (b) Actual PTC plant at Kramer

Junction, California (Mills, 2004).

The collector can be orientated in an east-west direction, tracking the sun from north to

south, or orientated in a north-south direction and tracking the sun from east to west. The

advantage of the former tracking mode is that very little collector adjustment is required

during the day and the full aperture always faces the sun at noon time. However, the
 34

collector performance during the early and late hours of the day is greatly reduced.

(Kalogirou, 2004)

PTCs are currently the most mature solar technology to produce high temperature heat (up

to 400° C), with a few companies producing them in a reasonable commercial scale; e.g.,

Eurotrough and Solargenix. The technology has been proved through many solar power

plants around the world, including the pioneering Southern California power plants, known

as solar electric generating systems (SEGS).

Linear Fresnel Reflectors

Linear Fresnel Reflector technology is quite similar to PTC technology, sharing common

principles in arrangement and operation. LFR systems incorporate long arrays of mirrors

(reflectors) strips that concentrate the sun energy onto a linear receiver mounted on a tower.

The LFR field can be imagined as a broken-up parabolic trough reflector. (Kalogirou,

2004)

The concentrator (or reflector) consists of slightly bent, or elastically curved, mirrors

mounted on a one- or two-axis tracking devices. However, they don’t need to be as curved

as in PTC. The use of flat or elastically curved reflectors reduces the cost, as they are

cheaper than the curved mirrors used in PTC systems. Additionally, they are also mounted

close to the ground, saving on structural equipment.

 35

Figure 13 - Linear Fresnel Reflector schematic.

The central receiver, in contrast to PTC, is mounted separately from the collectors (mirrors)

and is fixed (instead of moving along with the collectors) in 10-15 meter tall towers, not

requiring to be coupled with a tracking device. The technology of the receiver causes major

impact in the system as a whole, influencing the optical design of the solar field. The main

companies that develop LFR technology seem to prefer a cavity trapezoidal receiver

design, although there is no consensus about the absorber in terms of using a single or

multi-tube configuration.

Trapezoidal cavity receivers are suitable for solar applications because hot air is mainly

found near the top surface of the cavity, which can be properly insulated. In addition, there

is no direct radiation heat loss to the sky, as tubes are facing to the ground. The drawback

of these receivers is that, due to the width of the flat window, they cannot be evacuated,

which implies first a convection component in heat transfer from the tubes to the window,
 36

and second the impossibility to use selective coating on the tubes if air (oxygen) is in

contact with it. (Abbas et al., 2013)

Linear Fresnel Reflector system.

In comparison to PTC technology, LFR has lower capital costs due to light structural

support (reflectors close to the ground), flat reflectors and fixed receiver without moving

joints. Losses in optical efficiency are caused by: (1) blocking of reflected solar radiation

by adjacent mirrors and shading of incoming solar radiation at low sun positions; (2)

mirrors on horizontal plane cannot act as an ideal parabola; and (3) shading by the fixed

receiver. (Mills, 2004) (Baharoon, 2015) (Kalogirou, 2004)

In order to increase the optical efficiency, a different LFR system has been developed,

specifically to deal with the light blocking between adjacent reflectors. A solution to

increase efficiency could be either to increase spacing between reflectors rows, which has

a higher land demand as a consequence, or to increase the receiver tower height, which has

a cost increment as a consequence. In order to avoid both negative consequences a novel

solution is discussed by Mills and Morisson (2000). This new design features adjacent
 37

mirrors oriented towards two separate receivers in opposite directions. This solution avoids

the higher land demand and is called Compact Linear Fresnel Reflectors (CLFR).

Reflectors near the base of a receiver are always oriented towards it. Yet, when reaching

an early equidistant point between two separate receivers, the mirrors from each will

reverse their orientation, allowing them to come very close together without blocking one

another. (Bariev, 2011)

shading between mirrors. (Mills & Morisson, 2000)

As it can be seen, LFR systems have many degrees of freedom and an optimal design has

not yet been defined. Several geometric parameters like seize of mirrors, number of rows,

spacing between rows, can vary between different designs. The receiver can be have single-

or multi-tube absorber, the geometry of the receiver can change, the use of a secondary

concentrator can be adopted or not, the cavity can be in vacuum or not, different coating
 38

can be applied to the absorber and different materials can be used. Only further advances

in the learning curve will dictate the most suitable design for operation.

Linear fresnel reflectors appear as a technology with very high potential to reduce costs.

They do not suffer from the mentioned trough disadvantages such as oil leakages, receiver

failures and heavy structures, thanks to a fixed receiver and smaller slightly bent mirrors.

In addition, they have the advantages of linear collectors. Despite the general belief that

LFR achieve very low concentration factors, and that such concentration varies along the

day importantly, experiments have shown that concentration factors are much higher than

suspected at first glance, in fact as high as in PTC systems. (Abbas et al., 2013)

Linear Fresnel collectors have the potential to reduce levelized electricity costs of solar

thermal power plants and thus accelerate sustainable market penetration of solar thermal

power plants. (Bernhard et al., 2008)

Different companies are currently developing LFR systems - e.g., Novatec Solar

(Germany), Areva Solar (France/USA), MAN/Solar Power Group (Germany), Industrial

Solar (Germany), Fera (Italy) and CNIM (France). The first, early-commercial

demonstration plants are already in operation.

PTC and LFR comparison

Both PTC and LFR are linear concentrating collectors that work with sun-tracking devices.

Besides being classified in the same class of CSP technologies, PTC and LFR have
 39

fundamental differences in design and performance parameters. The table below

summarizes a simple comparison between them:

Table 1 - Comparison between PTC and LFR. Adapted from Baharoon et al. (2015) and

Muller-Steinhagen and Trieb (2004)

PTC LFR
Mirrors Parabolic shape Flat or elastically curved
Coupled with tracking device,
Fixed and separated from
Receiver moving around center of
reflector system
mass
Light, no need for big
Support structure Heavy, with solid foundation
foundation, close to ground
Piping system Need flexible connections Non-flexible connection
On-site installation Complex and takes long time Fast and easy
Wind loads on collector High Low
Optical efficiency High Low
Land use High Low
Capacity unit, MW 10-200 1 0 -2 0 0
Concentration 70-80 25-100
Peak solar efficiency, % 21 20
Annual solar efficiency,
10-15 9-11
%

In a comprehensive study Peterseim et al. (2013) tried to compare and determine which

technologies were best suited for hybridisation. For this comparison authors used an 80

MW of thermal energy (MWth) solar field integrated with a 200 MW of electrical power

(MWe) combined cycle gas turbine. Some of the findings are presented in the table below.

Table 2 - PTC and LFR comparison by Peterseim et al. (2013).

PTC LFR
 40

Synthetic Water- Saturated Superheated

oil steam steam steam
Peak solar to electricity efficiency, % 21 22.6 16.9 24
Steam temp of hybrid plant, °C 380 400 270 450
Land use, m2/MWh/a 8 7 6 4
Water consumption, 1/MWhe 75 70 15 10

In this study the hybridization of CSP steam generators with different Rankine cycle host

plants was assessed using the Analytical Hierarchy Process with quantitative and

qualitative data inputs, and the results they found were in line with the hybrid plants in

operation/under construction worldwide. For the case of CSP technologies being coupled

with coal fired power plants, with steam in the range of 380-450 °C, the LFR scored better,

mainly due to land use and cleaning water consumption, while the overall good

performance of PTC is attributed to its technology maturity.

Morin et al (2012) conducted a study to evaluate and compare both technologies in terms

of electricity generation costs using Direct Steam Generators (DSG). He pointed that the

optical collector efficiency is a crucial influencing factor, showing that different

assumptions would lead to different scenarios. His study made comparisons using a

sensitivity analysis, evaluating LFR parameter changes in order to identify break-even

costs for PTC. In his base case scenario, for instance, LFC should cost 53-55% of the PTC

value in order to achieve the same LCOE, whereas with a 25% reduction in optical

efficiency this value would decrease to 32%.

Another study carried by Rovira et al. (2016) simulated the integration of both CSP

technologies with a combined cycle, showing that both can achieve feasible results. In this
 41

simulations, PTC has performed better in terms of energy production, while LFR has a

better economic result, mainly due to its implementation costs and land use.
 42

Brazilian scenario

Current and prospective electricity generation

The Brazilian electricity generation is historically based on hydroelectricity, being

complemented by thermoelectric power plants (from different energy sources) and with

wind energy contributing in the last decade with an impressive expansion, even though it

is still a small share.

Brazil has an installed capacity of 134 GW and in 2014 the country produced 590 TWh of

electricity, with 74.6% from renewable sources. The electricity matrix was composed of

65% by hydroelectricity, 13% from natural gas, 7% from oil, 7.5% from biomass. The

remaining was shared by coal, nuclear and wind energy. (BEN, 2015)

Figure 16 - Electricity generation matrix. Source: BEN, 2015.

As a reference, the renewable energy share in the world’s generation is 23% (Enerdata,

2016), while in United States it is approximately 10% (EIA, 2016).

 43

Hydroelectric power is responsible for the majority of the electricity produced in Brazil,

and it will see expansion during the next decade. However, the remaining potential for

hydroelectric growth is concentrated in regions that are environmentally sensitive, which

has justified investments in run-of-river plants, as well as the greater environmental costs

associated with the successive stages of environmental licensing. (Malagueta et al., 2013)

Despite of being considered a renewable and clean source of energy, the hydroelectric

power plants cause an impact on the environment not yet fully assessed, due to the flooding

of vast agricultural or pristine forested areas. Moreover, the main hydrographic basins

suitable for high-density hydroelectric power generation have practically been used up,

especially the ones near to the main Brazilian consumption centers. (Pereira et al., 2006)

As a basic premise of its expansion plan, the government claims to prioritize the usage of

renewable energy, aiming a safe grow in electricity consumption from an economic and

environmental point of view. (PDE, 2015)

In this plan, an expansion of 55% in installed capacity is expected until end of 2024, which

reflects additional 74 GW in the grid. From that, 35 GW will come from renewable source

of energy other than hydropower, 28 GW from hydropower and 10 GW from

thermoelectric power. (PDE, 2015)

It is interesting to note that the thermoelectric expansion is based only in natural gas plants,

with coal as the next option in case of fuel scarcity or prices increase. This is of great
 44

importance when considering advances in the solar thermal learning curve based on

combined cycles power plants.

Brazilian solar energy resource

Potential investors and stakeholders in the energy sector do not have information, or a solid

scientific basis, about available options with regards to renewable sources of energy in

Brazil. As a result, economic and financial risks associated with solar projects are

increased, diminishing new investments in the sector. In general, the required scientific

information consists of a high resolution space survey of the solar energy resource and

representative time series of ground data with adequate temporal and spatial resolutions.

(Pereira et al., 2006)

As an answer to the lack of this kind of information, the Brazilian Atlas for Solar Energy

was produced, aiming to provide a portion of the demand for information. This work was

a result of a bigger project called “ Solar and Wind Energy Resource Assessment”

(SWERA). The main objective of this project was to provide a reliable, free and online

database of the solar and wind resource, aiming to support the work of policy makers to

promote solar and wind projects, as well to attract investments to the renewable energy

field. (SWERA, 2016) The SWERA project was an international project financed by

GEF/UNEP, which aimed at providing a consistent and accessible database to foster the

insertion of renewable energies on the energy matrix of developing countries. (Martins et

al., 2008)
 45

The Atlas was generated using a radiation transfer model fed by climate data and 10 years

of information extracted from geostationary satellite images and validated by data collected

from ground stations. (Pereira et al., 2006)

,15 3.50 J.*5 4.20 4,55 4.90 5.2J 5,60 $.95 6.30 6,65 kWtyitv* ■> m> «*> «m «W
> t.tmK*> cmmwcwo

3,15 3,50 3,85 4.20 4,55 4.W 5.25 5.M) 5.95 6.30 6.65 kWh/m2

Figure 17 - Annual average solar radiation in Brazil. Source: Martins et al, 2012.

Brazil lacks a broad network of solar resource monitoring stations. In fact, there are only

20 Brazilian stations registering and monitoring the solar resource in detail and for a
 46

relevant period of time. The data from these stations were used in the SWERA project to

correlate and verify the radiation transfer model used to produce the Brazilian Solar Atlas.

Figure 18 - Distribution o f solar resource monitoring station. Source: Pereira et al.,

2006.

The analysis and validation of this datasets resulted in the production of typical

meteorological year (TMY) datasets, which are now available for public download at no

cost. This database is currently available via the SWERA website. (SWERA, 2016)

A TMY consists of months selected from individual years and concatenated to form a

complete year. The intended use is for computer simulations of solar energy conversion

systems and building systems. A TMY provides a standard for hourly data for solar
 47

radiation and other meteorological elements that permit performance comparisons of

system types and configurations. It represents conditions judged to be typical over a long

period of time, such as 30 years. (SWERA, 2016)

In an effort to enlarge and enhance the quality of solar and wind resources database in

Brazil the government launched in 2004 the SONDA (National system for organizing

ambient weather data) project. The data from these stations are currently available for

download, representing over ten years of measurements for some stations. The whole time

series is available but the data is not converted into a TMY file. Therefore, its utilization

for engineering purposes is subjected to a specific analysis, which is not the scope of the

present work.

Concentrated Solar Power Generation in Brazil

Since Brazil has most of its territory in the inter-tropical region, it has a great potential to

make use of solar energy during the entire year. There is a variety of possibilities on the

medium and long term for the use of solar energy in Brazil; ranging from small

photovoltaic systems up to large plants using concentrated solar power, or even hydrogen

generating systems to be used in fuel cells. This form of energy currently plays an

insignificant role in the Brazilian energy matrix. Only solar thermal energy for water

heating has attracted national market interest so far. (Pereira et al., 2006)
 48

Even though CSP technology is not new, there are not many studies evaluating the

technology and its implementation in Brazil. The most remarkable ones regarding specific

technologies were published by Malagueta et al. (2013), Lodi (2011) and Burgi (2013),

and were all products of research conducted by the Planning Center for Electric Energy

Production (COPPE). Other studies were published regarding the resource assessment and

the solar thermal scenario outlook by Martins et al. (2012, 2008).

Malagueta (2013) claimed that although the direct normal irradiance in several Brazilian

states is higher than 6 kWh/m2/day (or 2000 kWh/m2/year), described as the minimum

recommended for the technical and economic viability of CSP plants, there were no

specific studies of the CSP potential for centralized generation in Brazil until his

publication. He evaluated different integration schemes using PTC technology, and

concluded that the plants are still not commercially competitive and would require specific

incentives to prove themselves feasible.

Lodi (2011) used SAM advisor (a software package developed by NREL) to simulate a 30

MW plant using PTC with no hybridization or energy storage, and concluded that the

technology is still not competitive but that the potential exists, especially if the technology

was to be nationalized.

Burgi (2013) conducted a study trying to identify and measure potential areas for CSP

projects in Brazil. Using Geographical Information Systems and specific criteria he

identified and mapped different areas in the Brazilian territory that could be suitable for
 49

CSP projects. One of his findings was that Brazil has a potential of at least 346 GW in

installed capacity for plants using the technology.

Figure 19 - Suitable areas fo r CSP projects in Brazil. Source: Burgi, 201 S.

Martins et al. (2008) verified that all Brazilian territories receive larger solar irradiance

than many of the European countries where a large number of solar energy projects are

being implemented, mainly as a result of good energy regulation for renewables and

valuable government incentives.

In their following publication, Martins et al. (2012) assessed the outlook for solar thermal

applications. Although their focus relied more on small scale low temperature projects than

CSP applications, their results were in accordance with other researchers, pointing the

Brazilian Northeastern semi-arid region as the best area for such projects.
 50

The small number of studies in Brazil that investigates CSP applications could be seen as

a lack of interest in these technologies. The opposite logic could also be assumed, the lack

of interest being a result of few initiatives to investigate these technologies. In light of this

relies the importance of the present work, contributing to the investigation and discussion

of CSP technologies that could be used in Brazil to augment the share of solar energy in

the national matrix.

 51

Chapter 3 - Methodology

As previously stated, the main objective of the present work is to perform a thermo-

economic evaluation of a prototype scale Linear Fresnel Reflector system integrated with

a combined cycle power plant for a specific location in Brazil.

For that, a thermodynamic simulation model was developed in a Matlab environment,

integrating the solar technology with the combined cycle, to estimate annual electrical

output and calculate the LCOE and marginal cost of electricity produced by the solar

system.

The model was built to perform mass and energy balances for each component of the cycle,

based in an hourly operation with 8760 hours per year, and describes the thermal

performance of the solar system, the reference combined cycle and the combination of

both. The hourly simulation is especially important for the solar system since the sun

position, and therefore its energy contribution, is a function of time throughout the year.

Further discussion about the solar system performance as a function of time is presented in

the following section. Another important parameter that varies with time is the ambient

temperature, which affects the performance of two main systems in the proposed model:

the CSP system, by affecting the heat losses from the absorber, and the gas turbine, by

affecting the work required for the compressor. As a consequence, not only the individual

systems are affected but also the whole plant output, thus justifying an hourly operation

model.
 52

The thermodynamic model is based on the first law of thermodynamics using energy

balance equations for each component in the power plant. The following assumptions are

made: each component is modelled as a single control volume at steady-state conditions;

heat losses and pressure drop on the lines are not considered; steam loss is neglected;

negligible changes in fluid state between the outlet of one component and the inlet of the

next are assumed; kinetic and potential energy are neglected.

The following sections will describe the developed model and input data used in the study.

Ambient data and solar resource

The studied location is Bom Jesus da Lapa, located in the north-east region of Brazil, state

of Bahia, with an average insolation of 750 W/m2. As discussed previously, Brazil doesn’t

have a wide network of monitoring stations that can provide reliable and representative

data. Among the available datasets, Bom Jesus da Lapa is the location with highest Direct

Normal Irradiance (DN1).

The ambient conditions for the site is represented by a typical meteorological year (TMY)

obtained from SWERA (SWERA, 2016) with 8760 hourly values representative of

different ambient conditions.

Table 3 present some of those conditions.

Table 3 - Studied location and ambient details.

City Bom Jesus da Lapa

Country Brazil
 53

State Bahia
Direct Normal Irradiance, kWh/(m2.day) 6.02
Difuse Irradiance, kWh/(m2.day) 1.84
Average temperature, °C 26.1

CSP system characterization

The CSP system chosen for this study is the Linear Fresnel Collector, this choice is justified

for different reasons. The technology was presented, described and discussed in the

previous chapters of this study. In her study, Peterseim et al. (2013) classified this

technology as the most suited for solar hybridization of power plants. Several studies

(Rovira et al. (2016), Cau & Cocco (2014), Sait et al. (2015)) compared and showed a

better overall performance for this technology over Power Trough Collectors.

Implementation costs for LFC are lower than PTC mainly due to the reflectors support

foundation, non-curved mirrors and absence of flexible joints. (Rovira et al., 2016) The

manufacturing process is also simpler in relation to PTC (Bernhard et al., 2008a), which

could facilitate the development of a prototype in a future project.

Given the high number of degrees of freedom in the design of a LFR system the present

work adopted the geometrical layout of a system that was already studied and optimized.

This work adopted the Fresdemo design, due to the availability of its performance data

(Bernhard et al., 2008b) and to the number of studies carried under this design (Rovira et

al. (2016), Morin et al. (2012)), which make for a good comparison database.
 54

The Fresdemo design results from a project that erected a LFR prototype at the Plataforma

Solar de Almeria in Spain to provide reliable information about the technology. This

project was conducted by a German consortium, formed and led by MAN-Ferrostaal Power

Industries in collaboration with its technology partner Solar Power Group GmbH, and

scientifically supported by the German Aerospace Center (DLR), the Fraunhofer Institute

of Solar Energy Systems (ISE) and PSE GmbH, with the aim of design, construction,

operation and assessment of linear Fresnel collectors. (Bernhard et al., 2008a)

The LFR is a linear focusing system which, due to its high concentration, is capable of

producing steam for use in solar thermal power plants. It consists of a steel construction

that contains primary mirrors and a receiver unit, containing secondary mirrors and the

absorber tube.

The primary mirrors are several slightly elastically curved mirrors that concentrate the

direct solar radiation to the receiver unit.

The receiver consists of a secondary reflector and a selective coated single-tube absorber

and is placed several meters from the ground in a stationary structure. While portion of the

rays hits directly the absorber tube, the remaining portion hits the secondary mirror that

redirects the sunrays to the absorber tube. The bottom of the receiver which forms a cavity

is covered by a glass plate to reduce thermal losses.

The solar field also requires specific auxiliary power for tracking and for water pump

operation.
 55

Figure 20 - Overall view o f the Fresnel demonstration collector erected at the

Plataforma Solar de Almerla. Source: Bernhard et al., 2008a.

The table below summarizes the geometrical and optical characteristics of the chosen

system.

Table 4 - Geometrical and optical characteristics o f LFR system.

Length of module, m 100

Width of module, m 21
Receiver height, m 10
Absorber tube diameter, m 0.14
Number of mirrors row per module 25
Number of mirrors per row 48
Mirror width, m 0.58
Mirror height, m 2.08
Collector area per module, m2 1450
Focal length, m 8.25
Specific land requirement 1.6
 56

Land requirement per module, m 2320

Design optical efficiency 0.705
Cleanliness 0.97
Availability 0.99
Specific auxiliary power of solar 0.004
field, kW/m2
Specific thermal losses of field 5
piping, W/m2_________________

Optical and thermal performance model;

In order to determine the thermal annual output from the solar system the sun position at

respective hour of the year is required, as well as an optical and thermal efficiency

evaluation.

The sun position for each hour is calculated using Solpos algorithm (Sun Positions

Algorithm Solpos, 2011) developed by NREL and among other parameters two angles are

calculated as a function of location and time: the azimuth angle (ys North = 0°, East =

+90°, West = -90°) and the elevation angle of the sun (as Horizon = 0°, Zenith = +90°).

These solar angles are required to calculate two other angles, the longitudinal incidence

angle (0i) and the transversal incidence angle (0t), which are the components of the

incoming radiation. They are calculated from:

= arcsin [cos (ys) cos(as)]

 57

The useful thermal output of the solar field is calculated from the difference of the

incorporated power and the thermal losses:

Q fie ld ~ Qinc ~ Qloss

The total absorbed power can be calculated from:

Qinc = tjopt * Vendloss * IAM * Cl * Xf i e l d * DNI * ASF

Where:

rjopt = Design optical efficiency;

Vendioss = Relative end loss;
IAM = Incident Angle Modifier = Kt * Kt,
(transversal and longitudinal components);
Cl = Mean cleanliness factor, %;
x fie ld = Availability o f solar field, %;
DNI = Direct normal irradiation, W / m 2;
Asf = Collector aperture a r e a .m 2.

The relative end loss factor is calculated from:

b o c a l tan(0j)
IJendloss ~ 1 /
coll

Ifocai = Focal lenght;

lCoii = Collector lenght;
Oi = Angle o f incidence in the transversal plane.

The design optical efficiency is defined for normal solar irradiation. However, when

incident angle of radiation is not normal to the collector surface the optical efficiency is

affected. The incident angle modifier (IAM) describes how the optical efficiency of the
 58

collector changes as the incident angle changes. The effect can be represented by biaxial

incidence angle modifiers, in the transverse and longitudinal planes, but in general they are

not simply expresses as analytic functions, it is not possible to write general equations for

overall effects of the angles of incidence in the longitudinal and transverse planes. As a

first approximation the overall incidence angle modifier can be taken as the product of the

transverse and longitudinal components, and the specific incidence angle modifier as a

function of incoming radiation can be determined experimentally. (Kalogirou, 2004)

(Duffie & Beckman, 2013)

During the development of Fresdemo design Mertins (2009) determined the IAM

coefficients experimentally, and showed that this approximation of using two one­

dimensional functions results in plant yield deviations of less than 0.5%. His experiment

values for incidence angle modifier were adopted in this model, his results are shown in

the figure below.

 59

Figure 21 - Transversal and longitudinal incidence angle modifier fo r Fresdemo

design. Source: Mertins, 2009.

The thermal losses will be calculated from:

Qioss = Asf * 0.072351 * (-0 .3 8 9 * AT + 0.0108 * AT2) + ASP * qfploss

Where:

Qioss = total thermal losses ,W;

Asf = Area o f solar field, m 2;
AT = Temperature d iff er en ce between fluid and ambient;
Qfploss = Specific thermal losses o f f ie ld piping, W / m 2.

The thermal loss coefficients in the equation above were determined experimentally by

Solar Power Group during Fresdemo development and are valid in the range of 0° to 500°
 60

C (Berger et al., 2006). They were scaled to the modified pipe diameter (14 cm instead of

15 cm) and the results comply very well with the heat loss tests that were carried out in the

Fresdemo field (Bernhard et al.., 2009). The first term of the equation represents the losses

through conduction in the absorber pipe headers and losses through convection and

radiation from the trapezoidal receiver, while the second term represent convection and

radiation losses that occur in the piping system from and to the solar field. Given that the

LFR system is operating only as an evaporator, there is no temperature gradient between

inlet and outlet of the system, the thermal energy input will only increase the steam quality

(fraction of vapor content). The temperature difference between the fluid and ambient will

vary hourly, according to the weather file.

Studied configurations

The combined cycle power plant, without any solar input, is the reference case and the

solar integration will be performed on this reference power plant.

The reference system is a conventional combined cycle gas turbine power plant, a

schematic of the system is presented in figure 22, with one gas turbine and one steam

turbine, and a nominal power of approximately 110 MW. The gas turbine follows a single

Brayton cycle and produces about 73MWe, with a pressure ratio of 16:1, an air mass flow

of 210 kg/s and inlet and exhaust turbine temperature of 1450 K and 828 K respectively.

The gas turbine efficiency is 34.3% and whole system thermal efficiency is 50.8%. Data

were obtained from Rovira et al. (2013).

 61

The exhaust gases from the gas turbine are directed to the HRSG, where steam at high (90

bar) and low (5 bar) pressure is produced. The HRSG consists in a dual pressure level one

without reheating. The high pressure line delivers steam at 818 K while the low pressure

line delivers steam at 566 K.

The steam streams are directed to the steam turbine at different pressure sections. The low

pressure section includes an extraction line (1.2 bar) that feeds the deaerator. The steam is

condensed in a water cooled condenser with inlet water at 293 K and approach temperature

of 15 K. At the condenser temperature, the saturation pressure of water is 56 mbar.

Condensed water is then pumped to the deaerator and the saturated liquid from the

deaerator is pumped back to the HRSG in two different pressures. A schematic of the

reference cycle is presented below.

 62

Figure 22 - Schematic o f studied reference combined cycle power plant.

The results for the reference and modified cycles are achieved by means of mass and energy

balances applied to every component of the cycle. The whole model was developed in

Matlab, implementing efficiency analysis to build energy and mass balances based on

enthalpy changes. Steam properties were calculated using the IAPWS IF97 (International

Association for the Properties of Water and Steam) standard formulation, through a Matlab

implementation developed by Holmgren (2006). The results are the thermodynamic

properties of the steam and the gas at every point of the cycle, the power and overall thermal

efficiency.

Table 5 - Thermodynamic properties o f steam and air streams in the reference cycle.

Stream Temperature, K Pressure, bar Enthalpy, kJ/kg Mass flow, kg/s

1 298 1.01 298.2 210
2 703 16.21 718.9 210
3 1450 16.21 1626.5 214
4 828 1.03 862.3 214
5 380 1.01 364.9 214
6 545 90.00 3499.6 22.2
7 232 5.00 2923.7 14.9
8 105 1.20 2682.2 4.3
9 35 0.06 2303.5 32.8
10 35 0.06 146.6 32.8
11 35 1.20 146.8 32.8
12 105 1.20 439.3 37.1
13 106 90.90 451.8 22.2
14 105 5.05 439.8 14.9

Design conditions of the reference cycle are presented below.

 63

Table 6 - Design conditions fo r the reference combined cycle.

Ambient conditions 298 K, 1 bar

Compression ratio 16:1
Air mass flow, kg/s 210
Fuel mass flow, kg/s 4
Turbine inlet temperature, K 1450
Turbine outlet temperature, K 828
Gas turbine nominal power, MW 73
Gas turbine efficiency, % 34.3
Compressor isentropic efficiency, % 85
Gas turbine isentropic efficiency, % 90
Natural gas lower heating value, MJ/kg 48
High pressure steam temperature, K 818
High pressure, bar 90
Low pressure steam temperature, K 566
Low pressure, bar 5
Steam turbine isentropic efficiency, % 87
Pump efficiency, % 75
Reference combined cycle power, MW 109
Reference combined cycle efficiency, % 0.51

The ISCC plant configuration (modified cycle) is based on the reference CCGT and its

schematic is presented in figure 23, it uses the same gas turbine and the same HRSG and

steam cycle layouts. While the gas turbine cycle performance is exactly the same (not

affected by the solar field), the HRSG and the steam cycle slightly differ due to the extra

steam generated by the solar energy contribution.

The solar integration occurs in the high pressure steam drum of the HRSG, using the solar

energy only to water evaporation, with no contribution to preheating or superheating, as

advised by Rovira et al. (2013). The solar system operates in solar dispatch mode, in which
 64

the system operates in parallel with the host plant, boosting overall power output when

solar energy is available, without the need of auxiliary fossil-fueled boiler or thermal

storage.

Figure 23 - Schematic o f studied Prototype Integrated Solar Combined Cycle.

Given the fact that Brazil lacks initiatives for CSP projects this study adopted a prototype

scale ISCC system.

LFR can be considered modular, and small units can be readily erected in order to prove

the technology and contribute to the learning curve. Novatec Solar, for instance, offer a

scalable line of product where multiple modules can be arranged to form a bigger solar

field.
 65

In this study the solar resource design condition was taken as 750 W/m2. Aiming at 1 MWe

of energy production and assuming design conditions to calculate the system efficiency

lead to a required area of approximately 9000 m2. As each Fresdemo module has 1440 m2

of surface area, 6 modules are required to meet the desired demand, summing 8640 m2 of

collectors. Findings from Rovira et al (2016) corroborate this choice, insimilar solar

radiation conditions they state that 3modules are required toproduce steam with 30%

quality.

Performance assessment

Different parameters were used to assess the performance of both configurations, as well

as the annual production of energy. The thermal efficiency of the ISCC is calculated as the

ratio of the produced power to the thermal power supplied by the fuel and the solar field:

Pgt + Psc
r] = —----------------;------------
Tlif * LHV + Q n e t-so la r

Where:
PGT = Gas Turbine power, kW
Psc = Steam Cycle Power, kW ;
nif = Fuel mass flow, k g / s ;
LHV = Low Heating Value, k j / k g ;
Q n e t-s o la r = Thermal power, kW

Thermal efficiency of ISCC power plants decreases with the increase of solar share,

because the solar thermal contribution is converted into electricity in the bottoming cycle,

which has lower efficiency than the topping cycle. Therefore, overall thermal efficiency is
 66

not the best parameter to evaluate the performance of ISCC. Despite of resulting in lower

thermal efficiency, solar energy contributes to save fossil fuel since it increases generation

without fuel consumption.

Instead of thermal efficiency, ISCC plants performance are better assessed using a heat rate

(HR) ratio, which is the inverse of efficiency and express the amount of fuel energy

required to produce one unit of electricity.

rnf * LHV
HR = -r1-----= -
Pgt + Psc

Solar net incremental efficiency:

( P GT + P s c ) lS C C ~ (? G T + P.SC)CCGT
V net _inc_solar ~ a
Vn e t- s o la r

Solar field efficiency:

Q n e t-s o la r
Vsolar field - DNI * Acol
.

Solat to electricity efficiency:

(P GT + Psc)lSCC ~ (PgT + PsC^CCGT

Vsolar_to_elec ~ DNI * Acol

Where:

DNI = Direct Normal Irradiance, k W / m 2

Acoi = Area o f collectors, m 2
 67

And finally the Levelized Cost of Electricity, which is a composition of the levelized cost

of investment, operation & maintenance and fuel over the annual electricity production

(Bejan et al., 1996)(Rovira et al., 2016):

i n r\ r1 ^^inv
LCOE = ------------------
+ ^0>&M + LCfuel
--
^annual

For hybrid solar energy systems, it is interesting to assess the solar marginal cost related to

the solar contribution, defined as:

„ _ (LCinv "f" + LCfUei)iSCC —( LCinv + LC08lM + LCfUe{)Ref

L rj
annual ' mar9 AE

With:

annual = Difference in energy production between configurations, kWh

The nominal costs part of above equations are calculated as:

LCinv = Cinv * CRF

LC0&m = Co&m * CELF
LCfuel = Cfuel * CELF

The capital recovery factor (CRF) and the constant-escalation levelization factor (CELF)

are calculated from:

r RF _ [eff * (1 + te//)n
(1 + ief f r ~ 1
 68

k * ( 1 —k n)
CELF = 7 — -— - * CRF
1 - k

With:

1 + r„
k =
1 + h ff

ief f = interest rate;

rn = escalation r a te ;

n = years o f operation.

The specific costs are a composition of solar field cost and the reference combined cycle

cost and are calculated from the following equations. No solar field is included to calculate

the LCOE for the reference situation.

Q n v — S F in v~ ^C C inv ~ (A c o l * * f l a n d ) ) * (1 + / e p c ) "I" C C p ra te d * CCC

Co&M ~ S F c o 8iM~^~CCco8iM ~~ ( . f s F s t a f f * A c o l * C s t a f f fw a ter * a n n u a l “I" f s p a r e

* CF i x C * C C p m t g "H V a r C C c o & .M * E a n n u a l _ c c )

Cfuel C ng * E f UeI

With:

ACoi = Area o f collector,m2

Ccoi = Cost o f collector, %/m2

SFimp = Area improvement f o r solar field, %/m 2

 69

fiand = Specific land r e q u i r e m e n t ^ 2/ m 2o f collector

fEPC
= Surcharge f o r engineering, procurement, construction management and risk,%

CCprate = Combined cycle ra ted power, MW

CPB = Combined cycle investment cost, $ / MW

fsFstaff = Number o f Solar f ie ld s t a f f f o r maintenance, 1/1000 m 2

C staff = S t a f f cost per year, %/year

fwater —Specific wa ter consumption, %/MWh

fspare = Annual replacement cost (as % o f investment), %

FixCCCo8lM = Combined cycle fix e d cost f o r O&M,%/M W.year

VarCCCo8lM = Combined cycle variable cost f o r O&M, %/MWh. year

Cng = Natural gas cos t,$/kW h

Efuei = Energy consumption f r o m natural gas, k W h / y e a r

The economic parameters considered in the base scenario are presented in the table below:

Table 7 - Economic parameters used in the study.

Interest rate, % (1) 8.00

Escalation rate (fuel), % (1) 2.50
Escalation rate (O&M), % (1) 1.00
Surcharge for engineering, EPC, project management and risk, % (1) 20.0
Combined cycle rated power, MW 110
Combined cycle initial investment cost, $/kW (2) 1023
Combined cycle fixed cost for O&M, $/(kw.year) (2) 13.17
Combined cycle variable cost for O&M, $/MWh (2) 3.6
Natural gas cost, c$/kWh (3) 2.97
 70

Area of collector, m2 8640

Cost of collector, $/m2 (1) 184
Area improvement cost for solar field, $/m2 (1) 20.0
Specific land requirement, m2/m2 (1) 2
Number of solar field staff for maintenance, l/(1000.m2) (1) 0.03
Staff cost, $/year (1) 55200
Specific cost for water consumption, $/MWh (1) 1.49
Annual replacement cost (% of investment) (1) 1
(1) -Rovira et al., 2016.
( 2 ) - ElA, 2013.
(3) -A N P , 2016.

It is usual in studies with emerging technologies to predict different scenarios due to the

lack of actual data and a small number of operative plants. In regards to that, scenarios

evaluating the sensitivity of main results is performed.

 71

Chapter 4 - Results

The table below shows the main results obtained from the simulation of both

configurations. As expected, energy production in the solar augmented configuration is

higher due to the increase in steam production.

Table 8 - Performance parameters fo r the reference cycle and ISCC.

Reference cycle ISCC

E fuel, GWh 1868.33 1868.33
Energy produced, GWh 948.95 951.71
Thermal Efficiency, % 0.508 0.507
HR 1.969 1.963
Net solar electric energy produced, GWh 2.760
Increment in power, % 0.003
Solar thermal energy, GWh 8.25
Net incremental solar energy efficiency, % 0.335
Solar field efficiency, % 0.434
Solar to electricity efficiency, % 0.145
LCOE, U$/kWh 0.0911 0.0911
Solar marginal cost, U$/kWh 0.0954

The results show an agreement with the results presented by Rovira et al. (2016), indicating

that the methodology is consistent with other technical studies. Daily averages of thermal

energy output and electrical power boost are shown in the figure below.
 72

Figure 24 - Daily averages o f thermal energy output and incremental power boost from

the LFR system.

The thermal energy added to the system averaged 941 kW in a daily basis, with highest

contributions occurring in February and minimum contributions in June. The incremental

power output follows the same trend showing a daily average of 314 kW.

Economic parameters that were calculated for levelization and escalation, as well as final

costs for the LFR system are presented below.

Table 9 - Levelization and escalation parameters and final costs fo r solar system.

Capital Recovery Factor 0.0937

O&M constant-escalation levelization factor 1.0985
 73

Cost of Investment, $ 2,322,432

Levelized cost of Investment for LFR, $/year 217,563
Cost of O&M, $/year 41,659.66
Levelized Cost of O&M, $/year 45,764.83

Parameters like energy production, thermal efficiency and LCOE are very similar for both

simulations because most of the energy production comes from the combined cycle. Solar

contribution for electricity production was less than 0.5% yearly. For the purpose of this

study, it is not advisable to use the LCOE to evaluate a potential Linear Fresnel prototype

project. Instead, it makes sense to look at the marginal cost of production, which represents

the cost for electricity production only for the solar system disregarding costs of the main

power system.

Different than U.S. electrical system, Brazil has an energy auction system to expand its

generation park. Any technically qualified company can participate in these auctions, as

long as their projects are certified in terms of compliance with quality standards and energy

production, offering their services for the cheapest possible price. This system was created

to stimulate the opening of the market and the competition, as well as to reduce electricity

prices. In order to stimulate alternative sources of energy that cannot compete with

conventional sources, exclusive auctions were created for different sources.

Looking only at a marginal cost of $95 per MWh, in the case of a power plant retrofit, one

can realize that the cost is not very far from prices practiced in specific auctions for solar

technologies in Brazil. For example, in the last auction specific for solar energy that
 74

happened in Brazil (2015) the average cost paid by MWh was approximately $85 (MME,

2016).

The marginal cost composition is essentially a function of the solar collector price and costs

for operation and maintenance. Considering that LFR technology is not well stablished and

still in its learning curve, it is reasonable to assume that it will see cost reductions. In

regards to that two different scenarios were modeled, evaluating the effect on marginal cost

as a consequence from reductions in costs for initial investment and for operation and

maintenance.

In its review about CSP technology, IEA (2014) pointed to approximately 42% of reduction

in investment cost for LFR systems until 2020 and around 51% until 2050, claiming that

reductions are likely to happen due to evolution in the learning curve. Main features

responsible for reduction in investment are optic and receiver design, as well as new mirror

materials. Also, scaling up plants and greater standardization as market matures would

reduce development costs.

Figure 25 shows the evolution of marginal cost for the simulated system following a

reduction of investment cost in the range of 42% (outlook up to 2020) in relation to the

base scenario adopted in this work.

 75

Figure 25 - Solar marginal cost as a function o f relative reduction in initial investment

cost.

These results show that if a reduction in initial investment of around 15% occur in the next

years a prototype LFR system could even be profitable if a retrofit project is accepted to

participate in exclusive solar energy auctions.

In regards to operation and maintenance, Morin et al. (2012) point that expenses for O&M

will depend strongly on the required replacement of components but also on the operation

and mirror cleaning concept, suggesting that reductions of up to 75% can be taken as the

lower limit for sensitivity analyses. This reduction would be a result of technology cost

reduction, which reflect in components replacement cost, and automation of mirror

cleaning.
 76

The figure below shows the evolution of marginal cost for the simulated system following

a reduction of O&M cost up to 75%, in relation to the base scenario adopted in this work.

Figure 26 - Solar marginal cost as a function o f relative reduction in O&M cost.

Given that O&M costs count for around 20% of the marginal cost it was expected that its

influence in marginal cost would have less impact than initial investment. For this scenario

a prototype would only compete in auctions if a reduction in O&M of around 65%

occurred.
 77

Chapter 5 - Conclusion and Recommendations

This work proposed a thermo-economic evaluation of a prototype scale Linear Fresnel

Reflector system to be integrated with a combined cycle for a specific location in Brazil.

Given the stage of development of such technology and lack of initiatives in Brazil to

thoroughly investigate the concept it was considered reasonable that a prototype scale is

studied in a first moment.

The evaluation was considered successful, the costs for implementing such system were

estimated to be U$ 2,322,432 with an annual operation and maintenance cost of U$

41.659.66 in the first year. The proposed ISCC plant produced 951.71 GWh of electricity

at a levelized cost of 0.0911 U$/kWh and the LFR contributed with 2.76 GWh at a marginal

cost of 0.0954 U$/KWh.

A technical literature review was conducted, assessing the hybrid concept and CSP

technologies, identifying a prominent power system using solar energy and best practices.

A thermo-economic model was successfully developed to perform an annual simulation of

an Integrated Solar Combined Cycle in Brazil. In order to do that, all components of the

system were modeled using thermodynamic relations and applying energy and mass

balance, and later integrated to assess the behavior of the whole system during different

ambient conditions that were represented by a weather file.

 78

Thermo-economic performance metrics were identified and incorporated to the model,

allowing the assessment of a potential implementation of a prototype LFR system in Brazil.

Results show that implementing a prototype LFR system as a retrofit for an operating

combined cycle power plant is not far from being economically feasible in the Brazilian

scenario. Moreover, the proposed integration scheme and operation was not optimized in

this study for the lowest cost, suggesting that improvements are to be expected. It should

be noticed though, that the marginal cost doesn’t take in consideration the host plant costs

and, therefore, this scenario is only plausible if the solar system is assumed as an add-on

to an existing project or as a parallel project in combination with a CCGT power plant.

The modular nature of the LFR system suggests that the share of solar energy in the plant

can be increased with little changes in thermal performance. The limit for increase in solar

share is limited by the off-design operation of components like the HRSG and the steam

turbine. This work didn’t consider changes in performance due to increase in steam mass

flow because the change in flow was always less than 1%. However, if a bigger share is

proposed the steam side components must be verified for off-design conditions.

Implementation costs, as well as operation and maintenance, are expected to decrease with

a gain in scale by using multiple modules. Moreover, the modular nature of LFR systems

will allow for a gradual penetration of solar thermal power systems, thus reducing risks for

implementation.
 79

Given the fact that Brazilian government promotes specific auctions for solar energy, the

presented concept could make use of those proceeds in addition to research & development

funds in order to be implement LFR technology. A prototype project could be used to

promote the technology and attract more attention to the concept.

Brazil has a considerable potential for solar projects since a major part of its territory is

close to Equator. Besides promoting exclusive auctions for solar energy, Brazilian

government provides some tax incentives to augment solar share in the energy matrix.

Thus, in a long term analysis, and considering reduction in initial investment costs and in

operation and maintenance, solar energy can be considered as a feasible alternative to help

supply the growing demand of electricity in the country, as well as to maintain the high

share of renewable energy.

However, if Brazil is to incorporate solar energy to its energy matrix there is a critical need

to expand the solar resource measurement network, in order to provide a more accurate and

reliable assessment to increase the confidence of potential investors.

As a future work for this innovative configuration, it is recommended to perform an

analysis to identify technical issues from the integration and operation of the systems, as

well as the change in performance due to the integration.

Another suggestion is to perform a more detailed cost analysis, identifying manufacturing

costs and technology availability to produce the solar system as a national technology, and
 80

as a comparison identify import tariffs and associated costs and barriers if using foreign
technology.
 81

References

Abbas, R., Munoz-Anton, J., Valdes, M., Martinez-Val, J.M. (2013) High concentration
linear Fresnel reflectors, Energy Conversion and Management, Volume 72, August 2013,
Pages 60-68, ISSN 0196-8904.

Allani, Y., Favrat, D., & Von Spakovsky, M. R. (1997). CO 2 mitigation through the use
of hybrid solar-combined cycles. Energy conversion and management, 38, S661-S667.

ANP - Agenda Nacional do Petroleo e Gas Natural. (2016) Natural Gas historical data.
Available:
http://www.anp.gov.br/?pg=41527&m=&tl=&t2=&t3=&t4=&ar=&ps=& 146263743871
9. Accessed 05/07/2016.

Baghemejad, A., Yaghoubi, M. (2011) Multi-objective exergoeconomic optimization of

an Integrated Solar Combined Cycle System using evolutionary algorithms, Int. J. Energy
Res. 35 (2011) 601e615.

Baharoon D. A., Rahman H. A., Omar W. Z. W., Fadhl S. O. (2015) Historical

development of concentrating solar power technologies to generate clean electricity
efficiently - A review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 41, January
2015, Pages 996-1027, ISSN 1364-0321,

Bariev D., Vidu R., Stroeve P. (2011) Innovation in concentrated solar power, Solar Energy
Materials and Solar Cells, Volume 95, Issue 10, October 2011, Pages 2703-2725, ISSN
0927-0248

Berger, M., Tovar, D., Heimsath, A., Hildebrandt, C., 2006. Receiver-Warmeverluste und
Temperaturbestandigkeit. Published Project Report of BMU-funded Project Fresnel2.
<http://edok01.tib.unihannover.de/edoks/e01fb08/57206649X.pdf> Accessed 05/07/2016.
 82

Behar, O., Khellaf, A., Mohammedi, K., Ait-Kaci, S. (2014) A review of integrated solar
combined cycle system (ISCCS) with a parabolic trough technology, Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 39, November 2014, Pages 223-250, ISSN 1364-
0321

Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran M. (1996) Thermal design and optimization. 1st ed. USA:
John Wiley & sons; 1996.

BEN - Balango Energetico Nacional 2015; Ano base 2014, Relatorio Sintese (2015)

Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Energetica. Rio de Janeiro: EPE, 2015.

Bernhard, R., Laabs, H., De LaLaing, J., Eck, M., Eickhoff, M., Pottler, K., et al.. (2008a)
Linear Fresnel collector demonstration on the PSA. Part I - Design, construction and
quality control. In: 14th International solarPACES symposium on solar thermal
concentrating technologies. Las Vegas, USA; 2008.

Bernhard, R., Hein, S., de LaLaing, J., Eck, M., Eickhoff, M., Pfander, M .,... & Haberle,
A. (2008b). LINEAR FRESNEL COLLECTOR DEMONSTRATION ON THE PSA
PART II-COMMISSIONING AND FIRST PERFORMNCE TESTS. In 14th International
Symposium on Concentrated Solar Power and Chemical Energy Technologies.

Brakmann, Georg, et al.. "Construction of the ISCC Kuraymat." International SolarPACES

Conference, Berlin, Sept. 2009.

Burgi, A. S. (2013) Avalia^ao do potencial tecnico de geragao eletrica termossolar no

Brasil a partir de modelagem em SIG e simulagao de plantas virtuais. Master’s thesis. Rio

de Janeiro: UFRJ/COPPE, 2013

Cau, G., & Cocco, D. (2014). Comparison of medium-size concentrating solar power plants

based on parabolic trough and linear Fresnel collectors. Energy Procedia, 45, 101-110.
 83

Cengel, Y.A. & Boles, M.A. (2004) Thermodynamics: An engineering approach 5th
edition, McGraw Hill Publishers.

Dersch, J., Geyer, M., Herrmann, U., Jones, S.A., Kelly, B., Kistner, R., Ortmanns, W.,
Pitz-Paal, R., Price, H. (2004) Trough integration into power plants d a study on the
performance and economy of integrated solar combined cycle systems, Energy 29 (2004)
947e959.

Duffie, J.A. & Beckman, W.A. (2013) Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes. Fourth
Edition. 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2013 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

El A - U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2016) How much U.S. energy

consumption and electricity generation comes from renewable energy sources? Available:
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=92&t-4. Accessed 05/07/2016.

EIA - U.S. Energy Information Administration. Updated Capital Cost Estimates for Utility

Scale Electricity Generating Plants.(2013) US Energy Inf. Adm (2013).

Enerdata. (2016) World Electricity production. Available:

https://vearbook.enerdata.net/world-electricitv-production-map-graph-and-data.html.

Accessed 05/07/2016.

Falchetta, M., Mazzei, D., Crescenzi, T., & Merlo, L. (2009). Design of the Archimede 5
MW molten salt parabolic trough solar plant. In Proc. 15th SolarPACES Conf., Berlin,
Germany, 15-18 September 2009, paper 11608.

FPL - Florida Power & Light Company. FPL’s Martin next generation solar energy center
[Online]. Available: www.fpl.com/environment/solar/pdf/Martin.pdf. Accessed 05/07/2016.
 84

Heller, P., Pfander, M., Denk, T., Tellez, F., Valverde, A., Fernandez, J., Ring, A. (2006).
Test and evaluation of a solar powered gas turbine system. Solar Energy, Volume 80, Issue
10, October 2006, Pages 1225-1230, ISSN 0038-092X,

Hirsch T, Eck M, Buck R, Dersch J, Feldhoff JF, Giuliano S et al.. (2010) Modelling,
simulation and assessment of solar thermal power plants: a first step towards definition of
best practice approaches. ASME Conference Proceedings 2010.p. 649-57

Holmgrem, Magnus. (2006). X Steam for Matlab. Available: www.x-eng.com. Accessed

05/07/2016.

Hu, E., Yang, Y., Nishimura, A., Yilmaz, F., & Kouzani, A. (2010). Solar thermal aided
power generation. Applied Energy, 87(9), 2881-2885.

Hu, E., Yang, Y. and Nishimura, A. (2012) Solar Aided Power Generation: Generating
“Green” Power from Conventional Fossil Fuelled Power Stations, Thermal Power Plants,
Dr. Mohammad Rasul (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-307-952-3, InTech, Available:
http://www.intechopen.com/books/thermal-powerplants/solar-aided-power-generation-

generating-green-power-from-conventional-fossil-fuelled-power-stations. Accessed
05/07/2016.

IEA - International Energy Agency. (2010), Technology Roadmap: Concentrating Solar

Power, OECD/IEA, Paris, France
IEA - International Energy Agency. (2014), Technology Roadmap: Solar Thermal
Electricity. 2014 Edition. OECD/IEA, Paris, France. Available:
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/technologyroadmapsolartherma
lelectricitv 2014edition.pdf. Accessed 05/07/2016.

IPCC. (2013): Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution ofWorking
Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y.
 85

Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)].Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp, doi: 10.1017/CB09781107415324.

Jamel, M., Rahman, A., & Shamsuddin, A. (2013). Advances in the integration of solar
thermal energy with conventional and non-conventional power plants. Renewable &
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 20, 71-81.

Kalogirou, S. A. (2004) Solar thermal collectors and applications, Progress in Energy and
Combustion Science, Volume 30, Issue 3,2004, Pages 231-295, ISSN 0360-1285.

Kelly BUH., Hale, MJ. (2001) Optimization studies for integrated solar combined cycle
systems. Proceedings of Solar Forum 2001. Solar energy: the power to choose.
Washington, DC:ASME; 2001.

Larsen, S.F., Altamirano, M., Hernandez, A. (2012) Heat loss of a trapezoidal cavity
absorber for a linear Fresnel reflecting solar concentrator. Renew Energy 2012;39(1):198-
206. ISSN 0960-1481.

Lodi, C. (2011) Perspectivas para a Gera9 ao de Energia Eletrica no Brasil Utilizando a

Tecnologia Solar Termica Concentrada / Cristiane Lodi - Rio de Janeiro: UFRJ/COPPE,
2011 .

Lotker, M. (1991). Barriers to commercialization of large-scale solar electricity: Lessions

learned from the LUZ experience. United States, doi: 10.2172/10108287

Malagueta, D. C. (2013) Avaliagao de Altemativas para Introdu9 ao da Gera^ao Eletrica

Termossolar na Matriz Energetica Brasileira . Rio de Janeiro: UFRJ/ COPPE, 2013.

Martinez-Val J, Valdes M, Abanades A, Amengual R, Piera M, Montes M, Rovira A,

Munoz J. (2011) Linear receiver for concentrated solar radiation, patent number ES 2 345

759 B2, Spain; 2011.

 86

Martins, F. R., Pereira, E. B., Silva, S. D. A. B., Abreu, S. L., & Colle, S. (2008). Solar

energy scenarios in Brazil, Part one: resource assessment. Energy Policy, 36(8), 2853-

2864.

Martins, F. R., Abreu, S. L., & Pereira, E. B. (2012). Scenarios for solar thermal energy

applications in Brazil. Energy Policy, 48, 640-649.

Mertins, M. (2009). Technische und wirtschaftliche Analyse von horizontalen Fresnel-

Kollektoren (Doctoral dissertation, Karlsruhe, Univ., Diss., 2008).

Mills D. (2004) Advances in solar thermal electricity technology, Solar Energy, Volume
76, Issues 1-3, January-March 2004, Pages 19-31, ISSN 0038-092X

Mills, D. R., & Morrison, G. L. (2000). Compact linear Fresnel reflector solar thermal
powerplants. Solar energy, 68(3), 263-283.

MME - Ministerio de Minas e Energia do Brasil. (2016) www.mme.gov.br. Accessed

05/07/2016.

Montes M.J., Rovira A, Munoz M, Martinez-Val JM. (2011) Performance analysis of an

Integrated Solar Combined Cycle using Direct Steam Generation in parabolic trough
collectors. Appl Energ 2011; 88:3228-38.

Morin G, Dersch J, Platzer W, Eck M, Haberle A. (2012) Comparison of Linear Fresnel

and Parabolic Trough Collector power plants. Sol Energy 2012;86:1-12.

Muller-Steinhagen H, Trieb F. (2004) Concentrating solar power: a review of the

technology. Ingenia Inform QR Acad Eng 2004;18:43-50. Available:
http://www.dlr.de/Portaldata/41/Resources/dokumente/institut/svstem/publications/Concentr

ating Solar Power Part l.pdf. Accessed 05/07/2016.

 87

NREL - National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2010) Concentrating Solar Power.

Golden, Colorado. Available: http://www.nrel.gov/csp/pdfs/48658.pdf. Accessed
05/07/2016.

NREL - National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2016) Concentrating Solar Power

Research Website, http://www.nrel.gov/csp. Accessed 05/07/2016.

Pai BR. (1991) Augmentation of thermal power stations with solar energy. Sadhana
1991;16:59-74.

PDE. (2015) Plano Decenal de Expansao de Energia 2024 / Ministerio de Minas e Energia.
Empresa de Pesquisa Energetica. Brasilia: MME/EPE, 2015

Pereira, E. B., Martins, F. R., Abreu, S. L., Ruther, R. (2006) Atlas Brasileiro de Energia
Solar. Sao Jose dos Campos: INPE, 2006.

Peterseim, J. H., White, S., Tadros, A., & Hellwig, U. (2013). Concentrated solar power
hybrid plants, which technologies are best suited for hybridisation?. Renewable Energy,
57, 520-532.

Peterseim, J.H., White, S., Tadros, A., Hellwig, U. (2014) Concentrating solar power
hybrid plants - Enabling cost effective synergies, Renewable Energy, Volume 67, July
2014, Pages 178-185, ISSN 0960-1481

Petrov, M. P., Salomon Popa, M., & Fransson, T. H. (2012). Solar augmentation of
conventional steam plants: From system studies to reality. In World Renewable Energy
Forum, WREF 2012, Including World Renewable Energy Congress XII and Colorado
Renewable Energy Society (CRES) Annual Conference, 13 May 2012 through 17 May
2012, Denver, CO (pp. 2682-2689). American Solar Energy Society.
 88

Rovira, A., Barbero, R., Montes, M. J., Abbas, R., & Varela, F. (2016). Analysis and
comparison of Integrated Solar Combined Cycles using parabolic troughs and linear
Fresnel reflectors as concentrating systems. Applied Energy, 162, 990-1000.

Rovira, A., Montes, M. J., Varela, F., & Gil, M. (2013). Comparison of heat transfer fluid
and direct steam generation technologies for integrated solar combined cycles. Applied
Thermal Engineering, 52(2), 264-274.

Sahoo, S. S., Singh, S., & Banerjee, R. (2012). Analysis of heat losses from a trapezoidal
cavity used for Linear Fresnel Reflector system. Solar Energy, 86(5), 1313-1322.

Sait, H. H., Martinez-Val, J. M., Abbas, R., & Munoz-Anton, J. (2015). Fresnel-based
modular solar fields for performance/cost optimization in solar thermal power plants: a
comparison with parabolic trough collectors. Applied Energy, 141, 175-189.

Sun Positions Algorithm Solpos, 2011.

<http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/codesandalgorithms/solpos/> Accessed 05/07/2016.

SWERA - Solar and Wind Energy Resource Assessment. (2016) Available:

http://en.openei.org/wiki/SWERA. Accessed 05/07/2016.

The World Bank. (2010) Nurturing low carbon economy in Morocco. Available:
http://go.worldbank.org/KIN4DEUC70; 2010. Accessed 05/07/2016.

Turchi, C. S., Ma, Z., & Erbes, M. (2011). Gas turbine/solar parabolic trough hybrid
designs. In ASME 2011 Turbo Expo: Turbine Technical Conference and Exposition (pp.
989-996). American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

Wiistenhagen, R., Menichetti, E. (2012). Strategic choices for renewable energy

investment: Conceptual framework and opportunities for further research. Energy Policy
40 (2012) 1-10.
 89

Yan Q, Hu E, Yang Y, Zhai R. (2010) Evaluation of solar aided thermal power generation
with various power plants. International Journal of Energy Research 2011 ;35:909—22.

Ying, Y., Hu, E. Thermodynamic advantage of using solar energy in the conventional
power station. Applied Thermal Engineering. 1999; 19(11): 1173—80.

Zoschak, R.J., Wu, S.F. (1975) Studies of the Direct Input of Solar Energy to a Fossil-
Fueled Central Station Steam Power Plant, Proceedings of the International Solar Energy
Society’s U.S. Section Meeting, Fort Collins, Colorado, August 1974. Published also by
Pergamon Press in Solar Energy, Vol. 17, 1975, pp.297-305.