nd

Proceedings of ECOS 2009 22 International Conference on Efficiency, Cost, Optimization

Copyright © 2009 by ABCM Simulation and Environmental Impact of Energy Systems
August 31 – September 3, 2009, Foz do Iguaçu, Paraná, Brazil

A COMBINED SOLAR-BIOMASS RANKINE CYCLE CONCEPT FOR

SMALL-SIZE COGENERATION

Domenico Borello, domenico.borello@uniroma1.it

Alessandro Corsini, alessandro.corsini@uniroma1.it
Franco Rispoli, rispoli@dma.ing.uniroma1.it
Dipartimento di Meccanica e Aeronautica, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”; Via Eudossiana 18, I00184 Roma, Italy.

Eileen Tortora, eileen.tortora@uniroma1.it

Facoltà di Ingegneria, sede di Latina, Università di Roma ”La Sapienza”, Via Andrea Doria 3, I04100, Latina, Italy.

Abstract. The present work proposes an advanced small scale Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Rankine cycle plant,
conceived for a fully renewable energy sources (RES) power input. The steam generator system has been defined with
the design target of constant CHP outputs. This is made possible by combining modular parabolic trough solar
technology, equipped with concrete thermal storage, and a biomass fed furnace compensates the solar field hot
thermal fluid flow (HTF) drop related to the solar radiation changes. The Rankine cycle electric power output is given
by a reciprocating steam engine, while the thermal power output is collected at the condenser. The power plant design
and its operating behaviour have been modelled and investigated by using transient simulations with an hourly
distribution data during a one-year period and climate data have been referred to the latitude of Rome. Furthermore,
the assessment of the proposed RES power technology has been carried out by comparing its energy and
environmental performance against solar-alone or biomass-alone plants of identical power outputs. The main
objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of the solar-biomass combination against the solar-alone and the biomass-
alone configurations. The combined CHP plant has been designed to supply an output power share of 14% electric and
86% thermal, with the possibility to use the latter either for heating or cooling purposes. When compared to the
biomass-alone solution, the combined CHP plant was found to gain 14,1% saving in biomass consumption. While with
respect to the solar-alone plant, keeping constant power outputs, it is found that the solar field foot-print was reduced
by a factor 1:7.75. The above findings confirm the effectiveness of solar-biomass combination in terms of power-
density pay-off for small size CHP concepts.

Keywords: cogeneration, CSP, biomass, Rankine, TRNSYS

1. INTRODUCTION

Parabolic trough devices are currently the most proven technologies among the Concentrated Solar Power (CSP)
systems for the generation of electric power in solar thermodynamic generators. The maturity of this technology is
primarily indicated by the operation of nine large commercial-scale solar power plants, the first of which started-up in
the California Mojave Desert since 1984 (SEGS I). On duty SEGS power plants range from 14 to 80 MW with a total of
354 MW of installed electric generating capacity (Sargent & Lundy LLC Consulting Group Chicago, 2003).
Although a number of advantages, i.e. the diversity of solar concentration devices, the CSP still need further
research to overcome some barriers toward the possible downsizing.
The main effort is intended to minimize the plant footprint, maximizing the solar heat collection density per unit
area, and consequently reducing the investment costs. State of the art CSP plant size ranges from 1 MWe for parabolic
dish installations to 10 MWe for central receiver systems or 50 MWe for parabolic trough systems. In terms of power
density the Andasol projects in Spain have an average footprint of about 12 m2/kW, while the SEGS plants range
between 9.29 and 6.26 m2/kW (FLABEG, 2008), remarkably higher than those of conventional power generation
schemes, i.e. 4 times the micro-turbine generator footprint in the range 0.15-1.5 m2/kW (Aspen Systems Corporation
Applied Management Sciences Group, 2000). To improve the power density, at present, the investigation areas target
the up-grade of the optical and thermal efficiency of the solar components as well as the use of direct generation of
steam (DSG) in the receivers (Eck et al., 2003, Eck and Zarza, 2006).
When scaling down the power plant dimension a second critical aspect of CSP power generation, common to other
RES, is given by the un-predictable nature of solar radiation which typically leads to the mismatch with respect to the
power demand and problems in the grid-connection.
In view of the above mentioned technical bottlenecks, the present paper proposes a generator set which combines
CSP parabolic trough and biomass technologies to obtain a Rankine cycle (RC) power plant for micro-cogeneration.
The novelty of the proposed micro-cogeneration system is given by the exploitation of a fossil-fuel-free energy
generating process. The integrative use of biomas, in a hybrid CSP scheme, is a feasible solution to the solar power
production unevenness related to the meteorological fluctuations and to the day and night alternation. The RC power
plant features a thermal peak input power of 1˙200 kW for the solar trough field, and a gross thermal input power of

1203
1˙163 kW for the biomass furnace, to drive a reciprocating steam engine of 130 kW. The thermal output is obtained in a
back-pressure scheme at 134 °C and 300 kPa using hot water as the primary heat distribution medium.
When considering the power modulation, it has been tackled in a twofold way. First, as it is conventional, the
problem implementation of a Thermal Energy Storage (TES) device, conceived to maximize the energy conversion in
the day-light period shaves peaks in the solar power curve. Secondly, the hybridization of the HTF heat input with a
small-size (about 1 MW) biomass direct combustion furnace. It is worth noting that state-of-the-art bio-power plant
feature an average size in the range 10-20 MW (i.e. the largest plant 75 MW) (Franco and Giannini, 2005). In this
respect, TES facilitate the integration of solar thermal power plants into electrical grids by smoothing out fluctuations
caused by variances in irradiation, thus avoiding the need of fossil-fuel fed backup capacity. Furthermore, the TES
reduces the thermal transient effects extending the life expectancy of components (Laing et al., 2006).
As far as the water/steam Rankine cycle is concerned, low enthalpy saturated steam expands in a reciprocating
engine, chosen to cope with the small-size turbine limitations in terms of operating flexibility and insensitivity to
modest saturated steam quality, i.e. wet steam (Muller, 2005, Molinari and Bonfà, 2005).
The objective of this paper is to demonstrate the performance of the proposed small-scale combined solar-biomass
micro-cogeneration plant, by studying the annual electric and thermal energy outputs in a grid-connected configuration.
The simulation model was developed in the TRNSYS environment (Klein et al., 2000), using the component model
library STEC (Schwarzbözl et al., 2002) and two in-house made types, i.e. biomass furnace and reciprocating steam
engine. To the best of the author knowledge few studies have appeared to date in the open literature, that propose the
use of TRNSYS-framed models for complex energy systems. Some of the exceptions deal with studies on RES
penetration in small-islands stand alone power systems (Corsini et al., 2006, Corsini et al., 2009), SEGS-like CSP
simulation (Jones et al., 2001), the analysis of storage systems behaviour for solar trough plants (Kolb and Hassani,
2006) and the investigation of DSG systems (Siangsukone and Lovegrove, 2002).
In order to give additional hints the performance of the proposed plant are compared against those of a solar-alone
and a biomass-alone power plants of similar size, by taking into account several energy and environmental bench-
markers.

2. SYSTEM AND MODEL DESCRIPTION

The proposed CHP concept has been defined with the design goal of keeping constant the power outputs, by the
hybridization of a CSP-based cycle with a biomass-fed heat source. The solar-biomass hybridization allows an
improved power output modulation and permits to operate the CSP modules close to design duty-point (Beyene and
Erpelding, 2007 , Lund and Anderson, 2005, Strachan and Farrel, 2006).
The studied system, described in Fig. 1, can be divided in two main subsystems: the RES energy capture and
conversion system, and the RC system. The transfer of heat between the RES and RC subsystems employs, as Heat
Transfer Fluid (HTF), a diathermic oil, which is heated as it circulates through the solar system and the biomass furnace
and returns to a steam generator. The choice of a diathermic oil system in place of a DSG system allows low HTF duty
pressure values, i.e. about 1˙000 kPa vs. 10˙000 kPa of DSG (Zarza et al., 2004), ensuring safer work conditions and
less onsite staff needs.
Table 1 provides a brief description of the systems components together with the data concerning their nominal size.
The RES system includes a 2˙580 m2 solar trough field and a 1˙163 kW biomass furnace. Despite the changes in the sun
intensity, an automatic control maintains a specified set point for the collector outlet temperature by adjusting the
volume flow rate of the HTF (Stuetzle et al., 2004). The solar section is equipped with a concrete TES unit, which
receives the excess energy collected by the solar field, determined by the difference between the flow derived from the
field itself and the evaporator design flow, to extend solar input after sunset. The biomass section is operated according
to the global constant power output target to compensate the solar field and TES HTF flow drop. The combustion
exhaust gas heat from the biomass furnace is used to feed the economizer.

Table 1. Components description and nominal size

Component description Size

Solar parabolic trough field 2˙580 m2, 1˙200 kWp,h
Biomass furnace 1˙163 kWh
Reciprocating steam engine 130 kWe
Condenser 1˙240 kWp,h

The converted thermal energy is supplied by the HTF to the RC in order to produce saturated steam at 230 °C and
2˙800 kPa, which is then expanded in a 130 kW reciprocating steam engine fitted with an electric generator to produce
electric energy. The expanded wet steam is then condensed at 134 °C and 300 kPa, producing a thermal power output
available at a constant temperature of 80 °C, that typically matches with the temperature demand of district heating
networks.

1204
 Renewable energy sources
Diathermic oil
Solar Exhaust gas
Biomass
radiation
Water/Steam

Biomass furnace Parabolic trough

field

Solar field Thermal

Control
control storage

Evaporator Steam engine

~
Economizer Condenser

Rankine cycle

Figure 1. Basic plant flow chart

2.1. Model control logic

In order to evaluate the time-dependent behaviour and performance of the proposed system a transient simulation
was developed in the TRNSYS framework (Klein et al., 2000) integrated with the STEC library (Schwarzbözl et al.,
2002) and two in-house made components, i.e. the biomass furnace and the reciprocating steam engine. The subsets are
linked and managed using the logical structure described by the flow diagram in Fig.2.

Solar
radiation

Parabolic trough
Biomass field

PCSP
Pb35 PCSP > Pd-Pb35 PTESc
Biomass furnace Energy Thermal
System storage
PTES+PCSP+Pb35<Pd Pb+35 Control PTESd PCSP < Pd-Pb35

Pd
Peg P e, P h
Steam Rankine End users
cycle

Figure 2. Energy conversion system flow diagram

1205
 The adopted control logic aims to convert the maximum available solar energy contribution either by sending it to
the RC sub-system or by storing it in case of instantaneous surplus. To avoid power output deficits and furnace start-up
problems, in conjunction with sun intensity off-hand variations, the biomass furnace is constantly on duty at a minimum
power level of 35% of its maximum power (i.e. 407 kW).
Every time-step interval, the control system matches the target power demand against the actual solar and the
biomass thermal power input. In case of a the implemented logic i) check for the stored thermal energy and ii) biomass
furnace duty point is moduled.

3. ANNUAL PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

3.1. Input data

The input data have been distributed over a year period, with an hourly distribution and are referred to Rome’s
latitude, i.e. 41°54'39"24 N, as indicative of a central Italian location.
The solar monthly and daily direct normal irradiance (DNI) data (SEL, 2003), shown in Tab. 2, show a maximum
value in the month of July, with 733.68 MJ/m2 and a minimum value of 253.04 MJ/m2 in December. The annual DNI
for Rome is 5˙760 MJ/m2.

Table 2. Monthly and daily DNI for Rome (SEL, 2003)

Monthly DNI Daily DNI

Month
[MJ/m2] [MJ/(m2 d)]
January 254.84 8.21
February 312.73 11.16
March 442.80 14.29
April 497.23 16.56
May 601.96 19.40
June 648.36 21.60
July 733.68 23.65
August 707.47 22.82
September 560.09 18.68
October 475.09 15.34
November 318.60 10.58
December 253.04 8.17

As far as the biomass is concerned, the thermo-chemical characteristics are showed in Tab. 3. The values are typical
of short rotation forestry derived woody pellet, with a lower heating value of about 17 MJ/kg and high carbon and
oxygen ratios.

Table 3. Lower Heating Value (LHV) and chemical characteristics of woody biomass

LHV C H O S Cl Humidity
[kJ/kg] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
16˙944.86 46.92 5.32 38.55 0.04 0.02 8

3.2. RES system

The energy share produced by the solar trough field and the biomass furnace, as given in Tab. 4 and Fig. 3, offers an
overlook on the energy behaviour of these devices. First of all, the solar field contribution is available only for 2018 h/y,
i.e. 23% of the annual duty period. Nevertheless, its contribution permits the biomass furnace to be on minimum duty,
i.e. 35% of maximum generating power, for 956 h/y that is 11% of the annual duty period. In these conditions, the
biomass consumption amounts to 1˙897.23 ton/y.

Table 4. RES technologies performance

RES Total energy Power setting Duty time

[GJ/y] [-] [h/y]
Solar field 4˙062.38 46.56% of peak power 2˙018
Biomass furnace 25˙417.30 86.66% of nominal power 8˙760
100% of nominal power 6˙555
35% of nominal power 956

1206
 The HTF receives a thermal energy input of about 4˙060 GJ/y from the solar field combined with an input of about
25˙400 GJ/y from the biomass furnace, for a total amount of 29˙479.68 GJ/y.
While, the solar contribution is nearly absent in winter, with a minimum share of 0.8% in December, in July it
reaches a peak contribution of about 29%, as shown in Fig. 3. The annual mean solar share is 13.65%.

100% Total Solar Biomass

available trough furnace
90% Month energy field share
80% share
[GJ] [%] [%]
70% January 2˙481.12 1.20 98.80
60% February 2˙251.69 4.18 95.82
March 2˙503.44 9.77 90.23
50% April 2˙454.77 15.42 84.58
40% May 2˙565.14 22.07 77.93
June 2˙492.10 26.04 73.96
30% July 2˙586.89 28.98 71.02
20% August 2˙577.60 25.69 74.31
September 2˙449.12 16.27 83.73
10% October 2˙495.63 8.41 91.59
November 2˙411.39 2.50 97.50
0%
December 2˙491.06 0.80 99.20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Solar trough field share [%] month

Biomass furnace share [%]

Figure 3. Available energy share from solar trough field and biomass furnace

3.3. TES unit

The performance of thermal energy storage system are first described by means of the annual power charge-
discharge cycle, shown in Fig. 4. As illustrated in Fig. 4.a, the charge period is concentrated in the period of the year
with a solar DNI above the threshold value of 14.4 MJ/m2 d. The overall stored energy surplus from the CSP field is
477.72 GJ which is charged in 704 h. A remarkable time shifting in the discharge of thermal energy to the HTF is also
evident, Fig. 4.b, confirming the effectiveness of TES is supporting CHP plant operation.

600
PTESc
500
[kW]
400

300

200

100

a) 0
2000 4000 6000 8000

600
PTESd
500
[kW]
400

300

200

100

0
b) 2000 4000 6000 8000
hours
Figure 4. TES annual performance, a) charge cycle (PTESc) and b) discharge cycle (PTESd)

1207
 In order to provide additional hints about the storage performance, Fig. 5 shows the charge-discharge transient
behaviour on a typical summer day-time, i.e. 5 August. When the power from the CSP (PCSP) attains the design power
input to the evaporator (Pev,sol), the surplus heat (PTESc)is stored during a charging sub-cycle that lasts about 10 hours.
When the DNI decrease, the TES discharge cycle is switched on. The cycle takes place over a time interval of 8 hours,
beginning at 3 p.m., when the DNI undergoes the value of 3000 kJ/m2. The behaviour of the power input from TES
(PTESd) is shown in Fig. 5 by the grey area. It is remarkable that the TES is able to establish a buffer of the solar thermal
input. It is also worth noting that PTESd doesn’t reach the Pev,sol value, because the minimum HTF output temperature
allowed from the concrete storage is 280 °C instead of 300 °C as required by the solar field. This temperature difference
causes the storage to be discharged more frequently.

kW
PCSP
Pev,sol
PTESc
PTESd

hours
Figure 5. Storage charge-discharge behaviour on typical summer day time

3.4. Rankine cycle system performance

The RC operating parameters are summarised in Tab.5. With a mass flow rate of 0.513 kg/s, the RC system provides
16˙356.5 ton/y of saturated steam, at 230 °C and 2˙800 kPa. The steam is produced by the contribution of the exhaust
gas in the economizer and the solar and biomass HTF in the evaporator. The reciprocating steam engine converts
3˙837.60 GJ/y of electric energy, with the available electric power ranging from 119.9 kW and 148.0 kW.
At the RC condenser, which is operated at 134 °C and 300 kPa, an overall thermal energy of 32˙144.69 GJ/y is
recovered which is able to produce 256˙334.6 ton/y of hot water at 80 °C available to district heating.

Table 5. Rankine cycle operating parameters

Operating parameters
Maximum/minimum pressure 2˙800/300 kPa
Maximum/minimum temperature 240/134 °C
Water/steam mass flow rate 0.513 kg/s
Expansion enthalpy drop 274 kJ/kg
Electric power 130 kW
Thermal power 1˙100 kW

Table 6. System efficiency indices

Efficiency %
Net electric efficiency = Eel/Eg 7.27
Net thermal efficiency = Eh/Eg 60.86
Global efficiency = (Eel+Eh)/Eg 68.12
Electric index = Eel/Eh 11.94

1208
 Table 6 shows the efficiency indices for the RC. The global efficiency amounts to 68.12%, with an net electric
efficiency of 7.27% and a net thermal efficiency of 60.86%.

3.5. Validation of combined CSP plant

In order to validate the proposed solar-biomass powered CHP plant, its annual performance are compared
respectively with those of solar-powered and biomass-powered plants. The comparison criterion has been based on the
requirement of identical power outputs for the three different systems.
Under this working hypothesis the ensuing modifications to the solar-powered scheme have been considered. First,
the solar field is to be extended by a factor 8.7:1, corresponding to a parabolic trough field of 22˙500 m2. Furthermore,
it is worth noting that in the solar-alone plant, due to the biomass furnace absence, the economizer is no more fed by the
exhaust gases, but directly by the evaporator HTF flow output, leading to lower oil input temperatures in the solar field.
For the biomass-powered plant, i) the furnace size of the biomass-powered plant is kept constant, moreover,
according to the changeless duty condition, ii) the TES is not present.
The energy performance of the CHP schemes under exam are summarised in Tab. 7, in terms of power output to the
users and inputs from the renewable energy sources. The only remarkable difference is the evidence of a reduction of
12.5% of the biomass consumption in the solar-biomass powered plant as a consequence of a 19.57% solar fraction
contribution.

Table 7. Combined CHP, solar-alone and biomass-alone plants performance comparison

Plant Ee Eh SF Bc
[GJ/y] [GJ/y] [%] [ton/y]
solar-biomass CHP plant 3˙837.60 32˙144.69 19.57 1˙897.2
solar-alone plant 3˙701.16 31˙122.36 100 -
biomass-alone plant 3˙805.92 31˙882.68 - 2˙164.5

Figure 6 compares the electric energy output monthly behaviour. The combined CHP and the biomass-alone plants
feature coincident trends with a mean value of 316.8 GJ/month, matching with the established operating conditions.
When looking at the solar-alone plant performance, even if the annual energy target is gained and although the TES, the
lack of any support from RES switching leads to seasonal dependent energy output ranging from a peak production of
669.46 GJ in August to a minimum value of 19.80 GJ in December. Similar oscillations are registered at the condenser
in terms of thermal energy output from the RC.
The underlined differences demonstrate that the combination of RES power inputs in the proposed combined CHP
plant effectively permits to control the unpredictability of solar radiation exploiting a fossil-fuel-free energy generating
process more network-friendly.
Combined Biomass- Solar-
200
Solar-alone plant Month CHP alone alone
Pel Combined CHP and
biomass-alone plant [GJ] [GJ] [GJ]
[MW]
150 January 323.64 323.71 30.02
February 291.96 292.00 88.67
100 March 323.71 323.28 231.12
April 316.19 312.84 342.07
May 328.43 323.28 513.25
50
June 319.07 312.84 585.11
July 330.80 323.28 669.46
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 August 329.62 323.28 601.16
month September 315.40 312.84 365.04
October 323.24 323.28 198.94
November 312.80 312.84 56.41
December 322.78 322.85 19.80
Mean 319.79 317.20 308.41

Figure 6: Electric power output (Pe) comparison

The monthly biomass consumption for both the combined CHP and biomass-alone plants is given in Fig. 7, clearly
shows the obviously higher consumption for the biomass-alone plant and the solar radiation dependency for the
combined CHP plant. The combined CHP-plant globally pays-off a 267.23 ton/y saving in biomass, that is the 12.34%
with respect to the biomass-alone plant.

1209
 200
Bc 180
[103 kg] 160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
month
Combined CHP plant Biomass‐alone plant

Figure 7: Monthly biomass consumption

3.5.1. Brief on economical aspects

To complete the plant evaluation, capital costs and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs are estimated and
compared for the three fossil-fuel-free generating scheme, Table 8. In particular, the capital cost of a solar trough field
with thermal storage has been evaluated in 4˙820 $/kW with O&M costs of 66 $/kW/y for the reference year 2006
(Sargent & Lundy LLC Consulting Group Chicago, 2003), that is 6˙052 €/kW with O&M costs of 83 €/kW/y. It is
worth noting that these data refer to large CSP technologies and must be considered only as a rough estimate of the
present CSP device. With respect to the biomass O&M cost it refers to the use of pellet.

Table 8: Economic comparison

Capital cost O&M

Plant
[€] [€/y]
Combined solar-biomass plant 3˙813˙000 367˙200
Biomass-alone plant 500˙000 367˙965
Solar-alone plant 28˙784˙000 394˙000

The economic data show that, though the demonstrated technical feasibility and validity of the proposed small scale
combined micro-cogeneration plant, its actual cost is 7.6 times greater than that of the biomass-powered plant as a
consequence of the solar sub-system specific capital cost.

3. CONCLUSIONS

The transient simulation model has shown the advantages of the proposed combined solar-biomass CHP concept,
conceived for a fully renewable energy sources based thermal input, by the comparison with a solar-alone and a
biomass alone power plant of similar size.
In particular, the comparison has highlighted that the proposed plant permits to save 19˙920 m2 of solar field with
respect to the solar-alone plant, and 267,23 ton/y of biomass with respect to the biomass-alone plant. From this point of
view, the combined CHP plant appears to be an interesting midway between a solar-alone and a biomass-alone plant,
allowing solar radiation employment with reduced foot-print, with respect to the solar-alone plant, and biomass savings,
with respect to the biomass-alone plant.
Furthermore, allowing a production of 3˙837.60 GJ/y of electric energy and 32˙144.69 GJ/y of thermal energy, an
important effect of the system application are the entailed GHG emission savings. In fact, using energy emission
factors1 of 0.0861 kgCO2/MJh and 0.1475 kgCO2/MJe the global emission saving amounts to 3˙334 tonCO2/y.

NOMENCLATURE

Bc Biomass yearly consumption

CHP Combined Heat and Power
CSP Concentrated Solar Power
DNI Direct Normal Irradiation
DSG Direct Steam generator
Ee Yearly electric energy output
Eg Global energy input from biomass and solar radiation

1
GU n.205 of 01/09/2004, AEEG deliberation n.177/2005.

1210
Eh Yearly thermal energy output
FA Solar trough field area
HTF Heat Transfer Fluid
Pb35 Biomass furnace power at 35% of duty
Pb+35 Biomass furnace power at more than 35% of duty
PCSP CSP derived power
Pd Design global RES power
Pe Electric power output
Peg Exhaust gas power
Pev,sol Solar power directly sent to the evaporator
PTESc Storage charge power
PTESd Storage discharge power
Ph Thermal power output
RC Rankine Cycle
RES Renewable Energy Source
SF Solar Fraction

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are indebted to Mr Giuseppe Masci for his contribution to the development of in-house made TRNSYS
types. The support of AiresTech Srl is also acknowledged.

REFERENCES

Aspen Systems Corporation Applied Management Sciences Group, U.S. Department of Energy Federal Energy
Management Program Washington DC, Combined Heat & Power: A Federal Manager’s Resource Guide - Final
report, March 2000.
Beyene, A. and Erpelding, B., 2007, “Sizing, part-load operation, and system performance of combined heat and
power”, IMECE2007-42035.
Corsini, A., Gamberale, M., and Rispoli F., 2006, “Assessment of renewable energy solutions in an Italian small island
energy system using a transient simulation model”, ASME Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 2006;128:237–44.
Corsini, A., Rispoli, F., Gamberale, M., and Tortora, E., 2009, “Assessment of H2- and H2O-based renewable energy-
buffering systems in minor islands”, Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 279–288.
Eck, M., Zarza, E., Eickhoff, M., Rheinlander, J. and Valenzuela, L., 2003, “Applied research concerning the direct
steam generation in parabolic troughs”, Solar Energy 74 (2003) 341–351.
Eck, M. and Zarza, E., 2006, “Saturated steam process with direct steam generating parabolic troughs”, Solar Energy 80
(2006) 1424–1433.
FLABEG, 10 October 2008, Track Record Solar Mirrors 1983–2010. FLABEG Holding GmbH. 13 November 2008
<http://www.flabeg.com/en/02_05_trackrecord.html>.
Franco, A. and Giannini, N., 2005, “Perspectives for the use of biomass as fuel in combined cycle power plants”,
International Journal of Thermal Science 44 (2005) 163-177.
Jones, S.A., Pitz-Paal, R., Schwarzboezl, P., Blair, N. and Cable R., 2001, “TRNSYS modelling of the SEGS VI
parabolic trough solar electric generating system”, Proceedings of Solar Forum 2001: Solar Energy: The Power to
Choose, April 21-25, 2001, Washington, DC.
Klein, S.A., Beckam, W.A., Mitchell, J.W., Braun, J.E., Evan,s B.L., Kummert J.P., et al., 2000, “TRNSYS – a
transient system simulation program. Version 15.1”, Madison: Solar Energy Laboratory, University of Wisconsin;
2000.
Kolb, G.J. and Hassani, V., 2006, Performance of thermocline energy storage proposed for the 1 MW saguaro solar
trough plant, ISEC2006-99005.
Laing, D., Steinmann, W.D., Tamme, R. and Richter C., 2006, “Solid media thermal storage for parabolic trough power
plants”, Solar Energy 80 (2006) 1283–1289.
Lund, H. and Anderson, A.N., 2005, “Optimal designs of small CHP plants in a market with fluctuating electricity
prices”, Energy Conversion and Management Vol 46: 893-904.
Molinari, G. and Bonfà, F., 2005, “Utilizzazione di biomasse per alimentazione di gruppi cogenerativi con motori a
vapore alternativi per utenze piccole e medie”, Conf. Nazionale Politica Energetica in Italia, 2005, Bologna, Italy.
Muller, M.R., 2005, “The Return of the Steam Engine”, 2005 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Industry.
Sargent & Lundy LLC Consulting Group Chicago, Illinois, 2003, “Assessment of Parabolic Trough and Power Tower
Solar Technology Cost and Performance Forecasts”, NREL/SR-550-34440, October 2003.
Schwarzbözl, P., Eiden, U., Pitz-Paal, R., Jones, S., 2002, “A TRNSYS model library for solar thermal electric
components (STEC). A reference manual.” Release 2.2.
SEL, 25 July 2003, Generated Hourly Weather Data. Solar Energy Laboratory, University of Wisconsin-Madison. 12
November 2008 <http://sel.me.wisc.edu/trnsys/weather/generate.htm>.

1211
Siangsukone, P. and Lovegrove, K., 2002, “Modelling of a steam based paraboloidal dish concentrator using the
computer source code TRNSYS”, Proceedings of Solar 2002 - Australian and New Zealand Solar Energy Society.
Strachan, N. and Farrel, A., 2006, “Emission from distributed vs. centralized generation: The importance of system
performance”, Energy Policy Vol 34: 17 pp 2677-2689.
Stuetzle, T., Blair, N., Mitchell, J.W. and Beckman, W.A., 2004, “Automatic control of a 30 MWe SEGS VI parabolic
trough plant”, Solar Energy 76 (2004) 187–193.
Zarza, E., Valenzuela, L., Leon, J., Henneck,e K., Eck, M., Weyers, H.-D. and Eickhoff, M., 2004, “Direct steam
generation in parabolic troughs: Final results and conclusions of the DISS project”, Energy 29 (2004) 635 -644.

RESPONSIBILITY NOTICE

The authors are the only responsible for the printed material included in this paper.

1212