6 - Efficiency of A CSP Plant - From Receiver To Power Cycle - V2

Master 2 « Énergie et matériaux avancés - Énergie
renouvelable »
CSP plants: Efficiency from the

Irradiation Impacting the
Receiver to the Heat
Transmitted to the Power Cycle
Frédéric Siros
Univ. de Cergy-Pontoise - M2 « Énergie et matériaux avancés - ENR » - Frédéric Siros 1

Thermal Efficiency of a
Molten Salt Central Receiver
(i.e. the Receiver of a Molten Salt Solar Tower)

Pros and Cons of Increasing the Temperature
• Higher temperatures mean higher conversion of the heat into work,

then electricity
• Same idea expressed with different words:
Higher temperatures mean lower exergy destruction (i.e. second
principle losses) at receiver level
But
• Higher temperatures cause more thermal (first principle) losses at
receiver level
How can I reduce the consequences of this dilemma?

Exercise
Treceiver = Taverage + 100 K
Tambient = 300 K
Electric
Taverage
Power
Receiver Storage Power Cycle
• Receiver % losses = 0,4 . 10-12 . Treceiver4 (radiant losses)

• Conversion efficiency = 0,75 x [Carnot Efficiency based on Taverage]
Questions:
• What is the optimal Taverage?
• What is the corresponding compound (i.e. receiver & cycle) efficiency?
Answer
Let us write T for Taverage for the sake of readibility
•Receiver efficiency = 1 – 0,4.10-12.(T+100)4 (↓ when T ↑)
•Conversion efficiency = 0,75 . (1 – Tambient/T) (↑ when T ↑)
•Compound efficiency = [1 – 0,4.10-12.(T+100)4 ] . 0,75 . (1 – 300/T)

Numerical result
• The optimal Taverage is: ~440°C
• The corresponding compound efficiency is: ~35,85%

What happens with half the thermal losses
of the previous receiver?
•Receiver efficiency = 1 – 0,2.10-12.(T+100)4
•Instead of (previously) 1 – 0,4.10-12.(T+100)4

Numerical result
• The optimal Taverage is: ~540°C Up from 440°C
• The corresponding compound efficiency is: ~40,75% Up from 38,85%

Why Concentrating the Solar Irradiation?
If the thermal losses of the receiver are proportionally reduced, I can work
with higher temperatures and I am rewarded by higher compound
efficiencies
How can I reduce the thermal losses of a receiver working at a given

temperature?
• By covering it with selective coatings (high absorptivity – low
emissivity), OK…
• But, above all, by decreasing its illuminated area for a given incoming
irradiation
• In other terms, by increasing the concentration ratio

To Summarize
• Θglobal (Plant Efficiency) proportional to Θcapt x ΘCarnot
• One optimal T° for each concentration ratio (α) and vice-versa
• Higher optimal T° and corresponding efficiency for higher concentration ratios
Courtesy: Muriel Alaphilippe 10

External vs. Cavity Receivers
External Cavity
External Receivers have obviously more
thermal losses than cavity receivers…
Crescent Dunes (~650 MWth) Ivanpah (~300 MWth)
Order of
magnitude
of thermal
losses:
~10%
Aiming
panels for
heliostat
periodic
calibration
12
… but they are quite necessary with big tower
than need surrounding fields
Khi Solar One (50 MWth): an attempt to do otherwise with 3 cavity receivers:
not that easy, and 50 MWth with a 2 hour storage is not that big
PLUS: cavity receiver are trickier to

operate in the morning and late
afternoon, when the sunrays enter the
cavity obliquely  Slower plant to start
in the morning, more production lost
13
Second Principle Efficiency of a
Central Solar Receiver

Exercise: Molten Salt Solar Central Receiver
The solar receiver of a Molten Salt Solar Tower uses the usual molten
salt as Heat Transfer Fluid (HTF). The salt is an eutectic composed of
60% of NaNO3 and 40% of KNO3 in weight. The HTF must be used
between 290°C and 565°C to keep safety margins from decomposition
at ~600°C and freezing at ~230°C.
The molten taken from

the “cold” tank at 290°C
enters the receiver
where it is heated.
The mass flow is
controlled so that the
salt exits the receiver
at 565°C; it is then
stored in the hot tank.

Question
• To sum up, the HTF enters the receiver at 290°C and exits it at
565°C.
• We suppose that the Cp (kJ/kg/K) of the HTF is constant between

290°C and 565°C.
• What is the “Thermodynamic Average Temperature” (Taverage) of the

HTF going through the Solar Receiver?
Reminder: A isothermal heat addition at Taverage would result in the

same Entropy gain S for the same heat transferred.

Answer
Taverage is defined by: Taverage S12 = ∫12T.dS (“1” = entry, “2” = exit)
That is: Taverage = Q12 / S12 (1)
δQ = m . Cp . dT T 2
Q12 = m . Cp . (T2 – T1) (2) dT
T . dS = δQ = m . Cp . dT
dS = m . Cp . dT/T 1
S12 = m . Cp . ∫12 dT/T S

 S12 = m . Cp . Ln(T2/T1) (3) dS
(1), (2) & (3) Taverage = (T2–T1) / Ln(T2/T1) = Log Mean (T1,T2)

Numerical Result
Taverage = (T2–T1) / Ln(T2/T1) = Log Mean (T1,T2)
With: T1 = 290°C = 563 K
and T2 = 565°C = 838 K
Taverage = 691,4 K = 418,4°C
Taverage ~ 420°C

BTW: About Log Mean T° / Log Mean T° Difference
When heat additions or transfers take place with fluid(s) with a constant
heat capacity, the Log Mean always pops up some time or another
Anyone who deals with Heat Exchangers uses the Log Mean routinely:
Courtesy:
19
Question
We have seen before that the heat addition to the HTF of a typical
Molten Salt Solar Tower is equivalent to an isothermal heat addition at
about 420°C (“equivalent” meaning that the heat added has the same
exergetic value). This is the best we can do with current molten salt (and
we do not take into account further irreversibilities that take place during
the heat transfer from the salt to the water-steam).
The surface of the sun is at about 6000 K.
Taking into account an ambient temperature (= ultimate heat sink) of

300 K, what is the exergetic value of:
• 1 kJ of solar irradiation?
• 1 kJ of heat transferred to the molten salt?

Answer
Reminder : Tamb = 300 K

• 1 kJ of solar irradiation at 6000 K is “worth”: 1 – Tamb / T
1 – 300 / 6000
0.950 kJ
Solar radiation is 95% Exergy
• 1 kJ of heat transferred to the molten salt

at Taverage = 420°C = 693 K is “worth: 1 – 300 / 693
0.567 kJ
The heat caught by the molten salt caught is only 57%

Exergy. Only 60% of the incoming Exergy was harnessed.

From the Irradiation Impacting the
Solar Receiver to the Electric Output,
where do I really lose the battle?

Sankey Diagram of a typical Molten Salt
Solar Tower Power Plant
Energy accounting:
Heat to Shaft Work Electric output

Radiant Working
energy to Fluid of
Solar Thermo.
Receiver Cycle
Mechanical &
Generator
Losses
Solar Receiver
Thermal
Losses
+ some marginal Thermal
thermal losses Losses from
from solar loop and
storage system Condenser
23
Does the condenser really have to take
most of the blame?
Energy accounting:
Heat to Shaft Work Electric output

Radiant Working
energy to Fluid of
Solar Thermo.
Receiver Cycle
Thermal
Losses from
Condenser
24
No!
Exergy accounting:
Heat to
Shaft Work Elec. output
Thermo.
Radiant Cycle
energy
to Solar
Receiver Mechanical &
Generator
Losses
Solar
Receiver
Condenser
Turbine
25
Remember:
Most of the efficiency battle in a heat engine is lost at

the first step, i.e. heating the working fluid:
• Burning the fuel in the furnace of a coal plant;
• Harnessing the sun’s irradiation with the solar

receiver of a Concentrated Solar Power plant.

First Principle thermal losses
outside the Receiver
• All the piping linking the Solar Receiver, the Storage System and the
Steam Generator is carefully insulated  Very limited losses.
• Same for the Steam Generator.
• The Storage of a typical Molten Salt Tower like Crescent Dunes (110
MWe, 10 hour storage) uses ~30,000 tons of molten salt. Relative
thermal losses decrease with size (e.g. x8 on storage  x4 only on
external area of tanks). Besides, the tanks are well-insulated.
 Limited losses (maybe 1 or 2 K per day, the ΔT between hot and
cold tank being ~270K. This is less than 1% per day.

Selective coating on the receiver
• Durability is still a problem for coatings applied on a receiver that works

in ambient air (i.e. unlike an evacuated tube receiver of a Parabolic
Trough plant)
• However, the central receiver of new solar tower plants are coated with
selective coatings
• The coating can be replaced several times in a plant’s lifetime, during

maintenance shutdown
• It is applied like paint and the solar field can be used to cure it
• High temperature selective coatings are being studied and improved

Second Principle thermal losses
in the Steam Generator
Reminder: First principle losses correspond to heat leaving the system.

Second principle losses (aka exergetic losses) correspond to
losing heat quality, i.e. temperature.
A well-insulated train of Heat Exchangers (like a Steam Generator) has

negligible first principle losses but may have significant second principle
losses due to temperature differences between both fluids.

Heat Exchanger with latent or sensible heat
on both sides
T
An exchanger exchanging latent

heat on both sides can work with a
small T° difference and therefore
limited exergetic losses: Exergetic losses
T Heat exchanged
The same applies if sensible

heat is exchanged with
sensible heat, provided the
m.Cp are equal on both sides
Heat exchanged
30
Sensible vs. latent heat in a Steam Generator:
the pinch problem
A (virtual) evaporator with an infinite exchange area would reduce the
pinch ΔT to zero but significant T° differences are unavoidable
The T° of the water entering the Steam Generator must be ~210°C only,
in order to extract all heat from the molten salt
T
565°C
Exergetic losses
Pinch
Evaporation
290°C
Feedwater T°~210°C
Heat exchanged

Power Cycle of a
Molten Salt Solar Tower
It is very similar to that of a subcritical pulverized coal power plant
See Lesson dedicated to Power Cycles
Main characteristics:
• Main steam T° ~550°C, reheat steam T° ~550°C (dictated by the
565°C maximum of the molten salt)
• Main steam pressure ~160 bar, reheat steam pressure ~30 bar
• Feedwater temperature ~200-210°C (see previous slide)
• Dry cooling (i.e. air-cooled condenser) in most cases, because water is
scarce in the desert areas with good direct irradiation
• Typical gross cycle efficiency: 42%
Gross = without auxiliary power consumption
32
What about Parabolic Trough
plants?

Direct Molten Salt storage on PT plants?
The medium storage used on Parabolic Trough plant is the same as that
used on Solar Towers. (Lower T°  Less corrosion  Lower purity required)
This is the Direct Storage architecture.
However, carrying molten salt that
crystallizes at ~230°C through kilometers
of linear receivers would not be a good
idea (1 MWe  roughly 1 km of receivers).
The Archimede demonstration plant
(5 MWe, located in Priolo Gargallo in
Sicily) has a Direct Storage architecture.
It works, but preventing salt
Boost to
crystallization is too painful steam
for the operators cycle of a
combined Archimede
Bottom line: Forget it! cycle demonstration
plant 34
Architecture of a PT plant: indirect storage,
HTF = synthetic oil, T° limited to 400°C max
Oil = Diphenyl/Diphenyl oxide
Oil Steam
Molten Salt
Solar Field Storage System Thermodynamic cycle 35

Why not using the oil as
direct storage medium?
This architecture was adopted on plant SEGS I (14 MWe) . It has major
drawbacks, taking into account the amount required for a decent storage:
• Synthetic oil is much more expensive than the molten salt used for
storage.
• It is a fuel than can burn

easily. Oil fires already
occurred in PT plants.
The quantity required for
storage would be too big
a risk. A major fire
occurred on SEGS I in
1999 (see photo) and the
storage system was not
replaced.
36
So the steam T° is limited to ~370°C…
Taking into account the T in the heat exchangers:

390°C max for the oil (to keep a safety margin below 400°C)
 ~380°C max for the molten salt
 ~370°C for the steam of the power cycle in discharge mode
The daytime production may be performed with steam at a slightly higher

T°: ~380°C because one heat exchange is avoided
BUT the production in discharge mode (i.e. shifted production) is the one
that we are interested in, because it has sufficient value to justify the
LCOE of Solar Thermal

… But it may not be such a pity
The Concentration Ratio (CR) of linear concentrators – including

Parabolic Troughs – is much lower than that of point-focus concentrators
such as solar towers.
Anyway, due to the sun’s apparent
diameter (4,65 mrad), the CR of a PT
with cylindrical receiver is limited to
~68,5
We will see that in greater detail later
if we have time
So (see figure for orders of magnitude)
an HTF at ~400°C seems fairly
adequate regarding overall efficiency
38
Tube Absorber: harnessing as much heat as possible
from the incoming concentrated irradiation
Courtesy:
Günther 2011 Schott PTR 70 Tube Absorber
Length of Tube Absorber = 4 m

3 Tube Absorbers per SCA
39
Quiz: Why is the Tube Absorber evacuated?
To avoid any convective heat transmission between the steel

tube and the glass envelope (only infrared radiative emission
occurs and the glass envelope blocks most of it)
Yes, but high-vacuum is not needed for this

purpose. Why then high-vacuum Tube
Receivers?
Because the high-vacuum preserves the performances of the
selective coating during the plant’s lifetime.
“Getters”, i.e. chemical sponges, help keep this vacuum
despite the migration of oil’s hydrogen atoms through the
tube
How? Cermet layer on Tube Absorber
+ Evacuated glass envelope
Courtesy: Archimede Solarenergy

Solar spectrum
Reflexivity of Cermet
layer
Emission spectrum
of Blackbody at
400°C
Courtesy: Esposito et al., 2009
41
Tube Absorber
SOLEL UVAC Tube Absorber
42
Steam Generator of a PT plant
Same function as that of a Molten Salt Tower, with the following differences:
• The primary fluid is oil

instead of molten salt
• The temperatures are

lower, the main steam
pressure also
(~100 bar)
• The feedwater is a bit Corresponds to Psat~100 bar

more preheated
Courtesy: Barigozzii et al., ASME 43

Power Cycle efficiency on a PT solar plant with wet
Cooling: about 38%. Not great, but not so bad either
• Would be about 43% for a Molten Salt Power Plant with similar cooling.
• The layout of the Power Cycle is quite similar to that of a Molten Salt Tower,
e.g. separator at HP turbine exit because the main steam is less
superheated (~370°C, 100 bar)  some moisture appears at HP turbine
discharge.

Incoming energy on
Sankey 1st principle mirror aperture = 100
Diagram of a
Parabolic Trough
Power Plant
Thermal losses of
receiver tubes: 8,6 Optical losses:
44,3
Solar-to-electric efficiency
~15%, accounted for in Piping losses:
yearly energy produced 1,3
Thermal losses of
power block: 30,6 Solar field
auxiliaries: 0,5
Electricity output: Courtesy: Manzolini

45 14,8 et al., ASME
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
frederic.siros@edf.fr

6 - Efficiency of A CSP Plant - From Receiver To Power Cycle - V2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

6 - Efficiency of A CSP Plant - From Receiver To Power Cycle - V2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Master 2 « Énergie et matériaux avancés - Énergie

CSP plants: Efficiency from the

Univ. de Cergy-Pontoise - M2 « Énergie et matériaux avancés - ENR » - Frédéric Siros 1

Univ. de Cergy-Pontoise - M2 « Énergie et matériaux avancés - ENR » - Frédéric Siros 2

• Higher temperatures mean higher conversion of the heat into work,

How can I reduce the consequences of this dilemma?

Univ. de Cergy-Pontoise - M2 « Énergie et matériaux avancés - ENR » - Frédéric Siros 3

Receiver Storage Power Cycle

• Receiver % losses = 0,4 . 10-12 . Treceiver4 (radiant losses)

Let us write T for Taverage for the sake of readibility

•Receiver efficiency = 1 – 0,4.10-12.(T+100)4 (↓ when T ↑)

•Conversion efficiency = 0,75 . (1 – Tambient/T) (↑ when T ↑)

•Compound efficiency = [1 – 0,4.10-12.(T+100)4 ] . 0,75 . (1 – 300/T)

Univ. de Cergy-Pontoise - M2 « Énergie et matériaux avancés - ENR » - Frédéric Siros 5

• The corresponding compound efficiency is: ~35,85%

Univ. de Cergy-Pontoise - M2 « Énergie et matériaux avancés - ENR » - Frédéric Siros 6

•Receiver efficiency = 1 – 0,2.10-12.(T+100)4

•Instead of (previously) 1 – 0,4.10-12.(T+100)4

Univ. de Cergy-Pontoise - M2 « Énergie et matériaux avancés - ENR » - Frédéric Siros 7

• The corresponding compound efficiency is: ~40,75% Up from 38,85%

Univ. de Cergy-Pontoise - M2 « Énergie et matériaux avancés - ENR » - Frédéric Siros 8

How can I reduce the thermal losses of a receiver working at a given

• In other terms, by increasing the concentration ratio

Univ. de Cergy-Pontoise - M2 « Énergie et matériaux avancés - ENR » - Frédéric Siros 9

Courtesy: Muriel Alaphilippe 10

PLUS: cavity receiver are trickier to

Univ. de Cergy-Pontoise - M2 « Énergie et matériaux avancés - ENR » - Frédéric Siros 14

The molten taken from

Univ. de Cergy-Pontoise - M2 « Énergie et matériaux avancés - ENR » - Frédéric Siros 15

• We suppose that the Cp (kJ/kg/K) of the HTF is constant between

• What is the “Thermodynamic Average Temperature” (Taverage) of the

Reminder: A isothermal heat addition at Taverage would result in the

Univ. de Cergy-Pontoise - M2 « Énergie et matériaux avancés - ENR » - Frédéric Siros 16

S12 = m . Cp . ∫12 dT/T S

Univ. de Cergy-Pontoise - M2 « Énergie et matériaux avancés - ENR » - Frédéric Siros 17

Taverage = (T2–T1) / Ln(T2/T1) = Log Mean (T1,T2)

With: T1 = 290°C = 563 K

and T2 = 565°C = 838 K

Taverage = 691,4 K = 418,4°C

Univ. de Cergy-Pontoise - M2 « Énergie et matériaux avancés - ENR » - Frédéric Siros 18

The surface of the sun is at about 6000 K.

Taking into account an ambient temperature (= ultimate heat sink) of

Univ. de Cergy-Pontoise - M2 « Énergie et matériaux avancés - ENR » - Frédéric Siros 20

Reminder : Tamb = 300 K

• 1 kJ of heat transferred to the molten salt

The heat caught by the molten salt caught is only 57%

Univ. de Cergy-Pontoise - M2 « Énergie et matériaux avancés - ENR » - Frédéric Siros 21

Univ. de Cergy-Pontoise - M2 « Énergie et matériaux avancés - ENR » - Frédéric Siros 22

Heat to Shaft Work Electric output

Heat to Shaft Work Electric output

Most of the efficiency battle in a heat engine is lost at

• Burning the fuel in the furnace of a coal plant;

• Harnessing the sun’s irradiation with the solar

Univ. de Cergy-Pontoise - M2 « Énergie et matériaux avancés - ENR » - Frédéric Siros 26

• Same for the Steam Generator.

Univ. de Cergy-Pontoise - M2 « Énergie et matériaux avancés - ENR » - Frédéric Siros 27

• Durability is still a problem for coatings applied on a receiver that works

• The coating can be replaced several times in a plant’s lifetime, during

• High temperature selective coatings are being studied and improved

Univ. de Cergy-Pontoise - M2 « Énergie et matériaux avancés - ENR » - Frédéric Siros 28

Reminder: First principle losses correspond to heat leaving the system.

A well-insulated train of Heat Exchangers (like a Steam Generator) has

Univ. de Cergy-Pontoise - M2 « Énergie et matériaux avancés - ENR » - Frédéric Siros 29