Article

Investigation of Different Storage Systems for

Solar-Driven Organic Rankine Cycle
Evangelos Bellos * , Ioannis Sarakatsanis and Christos Tzivanidis
Thermal Department, School of Mechanical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Zografou,
Heroon Polytechniou 9, 15780 Athens, Greece; gian.sarak@gmail.com (I.S.); ctzivan@central.ntua.gr (C.T.)
* Correspondence: bellose@central.ntua.gr




Received: 26 October 2020; Accepted: 23 November 2020; Published: 26 November 2020


Abstract: The objective of the present work is the study of different thermal storage systems for
a solar-fed organic Rankine cycle (ORC) system that operates with parabolic trough collectors.
The conventional design with sensible thermal oil storage is compared with a storage configuration
with thermal oil and ceramic rocks, as well as the use of latent storage with phase change materials
(PCMs) is investigated. The initial system is studied parametrically, and it is properly designed to
order for the cycle to have high performance. Different organic fluids are studied in the organic
Rankine cycle and different rocks are investigated as storage materials. Toluene is found to be the
best candidate in the cycle and ceramic rocks are found to be the best candidate energetically and
financially. The final results proved that both the thermal oil–ceramic rocks and the PCM are better
technologies than the simple sensible thermal oil storage. For the design with a 180 m2 collecting area
and 8 m3 storage tank volume, the thermal oil–ceramic rocks design leads to 13.89% system efficiency
and net present value (NPV) to 129.73 k€, the PCM storage to 13.97% and 128.66 k€, respectively,
while the pure thermal oil case leads to 12.48% and 105.32 k€, respectively. Moreover, it is useful to
state that when the collecting area is varied from 160 m2 to 200 m2 with the tank volume at 8 m3 ,
the efficiency enhancement with ceramic rocks compared to pure oil ranges from 8.99% up to 12.39%,
while the enhancement with PCM ranges from 7.96% to 13.26%. For the same conditions, the NPV is
improved with ceramic rocks from 18.35% to 25.79%, while with PCM from 14.17% to 25.29%.

Keywords: solar concentrating power; parabolic trough collector; phase change materials; ceramic rocks;
organic Rankine cycle

1. Introduction
Solar concentrating power is an alternative way in order to produce clean electricity production
at a reasonable cost and to face critical problems such as the increasing energy demand [1] and the
global warming issue [2]. There are different solar concentrating systems that can be used in the
solar thermal power units, such as parabolic trough collector (PTC), linear Fresnel reflector, solar dish
concentrator, and solar central system (tower) [3]. Among them, PTC seems to be the most developed
and mature technology for various scale applications [4]. The most common power block that is
combined with PTC is the organic Rankine cycle (ORC) [5] because this cycle uses organic fluid
with critical temperatures up to 300 ◦ C, and so these fluids are ideal candidates for oil-based PTC,
which operates up to 400 ◦ C [6].
The solar-driven ORCs are common in the literature. Quoilin et al. [7] optimized a PTC-based
ORC and they put the emphasis on the working fluid investigation, as well as on the proper design of
the separate components. Finally, they found that the system efficiency can be 8%. Ashouri et al. [8]
optimized a double-stage ORC driven by PTC with a sensible storage tank included in the system,
and they found approximately 23% exergy efficiency. In another work, Tzivanidis et al. [9] optimized

Appl. Syst. Innov. 2020, 3, 52; doi:10.3390/asi3040052 www.mdpi.com/journal/asi

Appl. Syst. Innov. 2020, 3, 52 2 of 22

a regenerative ORC, which is fed by PTC and a sensible storage tank with thermal oil. They found
that cyclohexane is the best working fluid, which leads to a yearly efficiency of 15% and a payback
period of around nine years. Another dynamic approach with TRNSYS software was conducted by
He et al. [10] and also an overall 15% efficiency was found. In a comparative study between solar–ORC
and photovoltaic, Patil et al. [11] found that the solar–ORC leads to a lower levelized cost of electricity
(LCOE) compared to photovoltaics, which is 0.19 USD/kWh. Another comparative study by Al-Nimr
et al. [12] showed that the combination of a concentrating thermal photovoltaic with ORC is about 18%
more efficient than the use of a single concentrating thermal photovoltaic.
An important advantage of the solar thermal ORC is the storage of thermal energy and not the
storage of electricity as in photovoltaic systems, something that offers the possibility of not using
batteries, which are associated with the high cost and environmental issues. In the literature, there are
various storage techniques. The most usual is the use of a sensible storage tank that can store sensible
heat by increasing the temperature of the stored thermal oil [6,9]. An alternative choice is the use of
two tanks with molten salts in order to store thermal energy in an efficient way. Bassetti et al. [13]
found that this technique enhances the yearly performance by about 19%. In another approach,
Rodriguez et al. [14] found that the use of a single thermocline tank has a similar performance to a
two-tank design but it has a 30% lower investment cost.
The use of latent heat storage systems is also common in the literature in order to keep the system
temperature at lower levels and to reduce the system’s thermal losses. Manfrida et al. [15] found that
the use of phase change material (PCM) for storage in a solar–ORC system is able to make the system
operate for 80% of the day. Lakhani et al. [16] found that the discharging efficiency of a solar PCM–PTC
system is about 83%. In another work, Alvi et al. [17] stated that the use of a direct system is more
efficient than an indirect system in a solar PCM–PTC unit. Moreover, Lizana et al. [18] calculated that
the use of latent storage in a system with the ORC for heat and power production can lead to an 18%
performance enhancement compared to other conventional systems. Freeman et al. [19] compared the
use of PCM and water storage tank for an ORC, and they found a 20% performance improvement with
PCM design.
Another interesting idea is the use of pumped thermal energy storage, which was studied by
Eppinger et al. [20]. They found that the power to power storage system has a conversion efficiency of
80%, while the respective sensible storage leads to 62% storage efficiency. The concept of chemical
storage is a new one in solar-driven power systems, and it was studied by Gambini et al. [21].
They compared different metal hybrids for storage in low and high temperatures, and they found that
this idea is promising energetically and financially. Furthermore, Scapino et al. [22] found that the
sorption thermal storage system in an ORC is able to increase the investment profit by up to 41%.
The aforementioned literature review indicates that there is a lot of interest in the solar-driven
ORC and in the storage configurations in order to enhance efficiency and to reduce cost. The storage
issue is very important because the solar potential is stochastic and the proper storage system is able to
provide continuous supply in the grid, something extremely important for grid stability. However,
the storage system adds an extra cost in the total configuration and there is a need for a proper and
careful design in order to optimize the system financially and to make it viable and competitive. In this
direction, this work compares three different storage configurations of a solar-fed ORC. The examined
storage techniques are the conventional sensible storage with thermal oil, the sensible storage system
with thermal oil and rocks inside the tank, while the last examined storage system is the use of a tank
with phase change materials inside it. These three storage systems are usual and promising choices
and their comparison has high importance for the science and the future design of solar-driven power
systems. To our knowledge, there is a lack of detailed comparative studies in the literature, and so
this work comes to fill a scientific gap. The thermodynamic analysis of the ORC was conducted with
a created mathematical thermodynamic model in Engineering Equation Solver (EES) [23], while the
dynamic investigation was done with a homemade program developed in MATLAB. The analysis was
conducted in energy and financial terms for different storage tank scales and different collecting areas.
 2. Material and Methods

2.1. The Basic Examined Unit

In this work, the basic examined unit is depicted in Figure 1. It was a solar-driven ORC with
PTC and a storage tank. Three different storage systems were examined in this work, while the other
Appl. Syst. Innov. 2020, 3, 52 3 of 22
parameters remained the same. The working fluid in the solar field was Therminol VP-1 [24], which
can operate in the range of 12 to 400 °C without any issues. The ORC was a regenerative cycle and
the main different
Moreover, parameters of the basic
working unit
fluids inare
thesummarized
ORC were in Table 1.
studied and different rock types. The results
of this The
workheatcanrecovery
be used system
in order(HRS) was modeled
to estimate by using
the system the pinch
performance andpoint analysis and
to determine the the
most
minimum pinch point was set at 5 K. The recuperator was modeled in order to have
effective storage techniques in energy and economic terms. The knowledge of the most effective storage a minimum
temperature
techniques is adifference
key parameterat 10 K,
for while there was
the suitable superheating
design in the of
and evaluation turbine
futureinlet at 20 K.thermal
renewable The
isentropic
energy efficiency of the turbine was 85% and the pump was 70%, while the electromechanical
systems.
generator efficiency was 98% and the motor efficiency that moves the pump was 80%. Moreover, it
2. is important
Material and toMethods
state that electricity production was set at 10 kW.
The nominal selected solar beam irradiation was at 700 W/m2 and the respective equivalent solar
2.1.angle
The was
Basic20°.
Examined
These wereUnitrepresentative values for estimating the yearly system performance for the
climate conditions of Athens (Greece) [25,26]. The condenser temperature of the system was selected
In this work, the basic examined unit is depicted in Figure 1. It was a solar-driven ORC with
at 40 °C and the default ambient temperature at 25 °C, which are reasonable values. In the preliminary
PTC and a storage tank. Three different storage systems were examined in this work, while the other
studies of the system, the solar collecting area was 160 m2 and the storage tank volume was 10 m3.
parameters remained the same. The working fluid in the solar field was Therminol VP-1 [24], which can
These values were selected after some tests in the created program in order to provide a proper
operate in the range of 12 to 400 ◦ C without any issues. The ORC was a regenerative cycle and the
operation with a reasonable yearly operating capacity factor.
main parameters of the basic unit are summarized in Table 1.

Figure 1. 1.The
Figure Theexamined
examinedsystem
systemwith
with parabolic troughcollector
parabolic trough collector(PTC),
(PTC),storage
storagesystem
system and
and thethe organic
organic
Rankine cycle (ORC).
Rankine cycle (ORC).

Table 1. Basic parameters of the solar-driven ORC unit.

Parameter Symbol Value

Nominal electricity production Pel 10 kW
Turbine isentropic efficiency ηis,T 85%
Electromechanical efficiency in the generator ηmg 98%
Pump isentropic efficiency ηis,P 70%
Motor-pump efficiency ηmotor 80%
Pinch point in the heat recovery system (HRS) PP0 5K
Default collecting area Ac 160 m2
Default storage tank volume V 10 m3
Default solar irradiation Gb 700 W/m2
Default solar angle θ 20◦
Storage tank thermal loss coefficient UT 0.5 W/m2 K
Default ambient temperature Tamb 25 ◦ C
Superheating degree in the turbine inlet ∆Tsh 20 ◦ C
Minimum temperature difference in the
∆Trec 10 ◦ C
recuperator
Condenser temperature Tcon 40 ◦ C
Appl. Syst. Innov. 2020, 3, 52 4 of 22

The heat recovery system (HRS) was modeled by using the pinch point analysis and the minimum
pinch point was set at 5 K. The recuperator was modeled in order to have a minimum temperature
difference at 10 K, while there was superheating in the turbine inlet at 20 K. The isentropic efficiency of
the turbine was 85% and the pump was 70%, while the electromechanical generator efficiency was
98% and the motor efficiency that moves the pump was 80%. Moreover, it is important to state that
electricity production was set at 10 kW.
The nominal selected solar beam irradiation was at 700 W/m2 and the respective equivalent solar
angle was 20◦ . These were representative values for estimating the yearly system performance for
the climate conditions of Athens (Greece) [25,26]. The condenser temperature of the system was
selected at 40 ◦ C and the default ambient temperature at 25 ◦ C, which are reasonable values. In the
preliminary studies of the system, the solar collecting area was 160 m2 and the storage tank volume
was 10 m3 . These values were selected after some tests in the created program in order to provide a
proper operation with a reasonable yearly operating capacity factor.

2.2. Mathematical Formulation Part

In Section 2.2, the basic equations that describe the present problem are given and they are the
basic core of the developed program.

2.2.1. Solar Collector Modeling

The thermal efficiency of the solar collector (ηcol ) is described by the next equation [27]:

(Tc,in − Tamb )2
!
Tc,in − Tamb
ηcol = 0.7408·K(θ) − 0.0432 − 0.000503 . (1)
Gb Gb

The incident modifier (K) of the system is given below [26]:

K(θ) = cos(θ) − 5.25097·10−4 θ − 2.859621·10−5 θ2 . (2)

The solar angle (θ) is calculated for a single-axis tracking mechanism with the collector axis in the
south-north direction.
The thermal properties of the Therminol VP-1 are given below. More specifically, the density (ρ)
and the specific heat capacity (cp ) are given [24]:

ρ = 1083.25 − 0.90797·T + 0.00078116·T2 − 2367·10−6 T3 , (3)

cp = 1.498 + 0.002414·T + 5.9591·10−6 ·T2 − 2.9879·10−8 ·T3 + 4.4172·10−11 ·T4 . (4)

The useful heat production of the solar collector (Qu ) can be calculated as:

Qu = Qsol ·ηcol , (5)

where the solar irradiation is calculated according to the next equation:

Qsol = Ac ·Gb . (6)

Moreover, the thermal oil outlet temperature from the collector (Tc,out ) is found as follows:

Qu
Tc,out = Tc,in + . (7)
mcol ·cp
Appl. Syst. Innov. 2020, 3, 52 5 of 22

2.2.2. ORC Modeling

The efficiency of the ORC (ηorc ) is defined as the ratio of the net electricity production (Pel ) to the
heat input in the heat recovery system (Qhrs ):

Pel
ηorc = . (8)
Qhrs

The heat input in the heat recovery system is written according to the next equation:

Qhrs = mhrs ·(Ts,in − Ts,out ). (9)

Moreover, the energy balance in the heat recovery input by the organic fluid side gives the
next formula:
Qhrs = mORC ·(h4 − h3 ). (10)

More details about the mathematical modeling of the HRS can be found in Ref. [28].
The ORC net power production (Pel ) is calculated by reducing the pump work by the
turbine production:
h2 − h1
Pel = ηmg ·mORC ·(h4 − h5 ) − mORC · . (11)
ηmotor
The turbines’ isentropic efficiency (ηis,T ) is defined according to the next equation:

h4 − h5
ηis,T = . (12)
h4 − h5,is

The pumps’ isentropic efficiency (ηis,P ) is defined according to the next equation:

h2,is − h1
ηis,P = . (13)
h2 − h1

The minimum temperature difference in the recuperator can be written as:

∆Trec = T6 − T2 . (14)

2.2.3. Storage Modeling

In this work, three different storage systems were investigated as they are presented in Figure 2.
Figure 2a shows a typical storage system with thermal oil as the sensible heat storage material. Figure 2b
shows a system with thermal oil and rocks inside the tank in order to increase the tank’s thermal
capacity. The last examined system (Figure 2c) is the one with phase change material (PCM) inside
the tank. There are tubes in the storage tank where the thermal oil flows and exchanges heat with
the filling material, which is the PCM. These tubes have fins in order to increase the heat transfer
rates between oil and PCM. It is also useful to state that there are different tubes for charging and
discharging processes.
The system with pure thermal oil (Figure 2a) is modeled by using the following formulas. The
general energy balance can be written as:

Qst = Qu − Qhrs − Qloss , (15)

where the stored heat (Qstor ) can be written by the energy balance in the fluid-volume:

dTst
Qstor = ρst ·cp,st ·V· . (16)
dt
 2b shows a system with thermal oil and rocks inside the tank in order to increase the tank’s thermal
capacity. The last examined system (Figure 2c) is the one with phase change material (PCM) inside
the tank. There are tubes in the storage tank where the thermal oil flows and exchanges heat with the
filling material, which is the PCM. These tubes have fins in order to increase the heat transfer rates
between
Appl. Syst. Innov.oil and
2020, PCM. It is also useful to state that there are different tubes for charging and 6 of 22
3, 52
discharging processes.

Figure 2. Storage
Figure tank
2. Storage technologies
tank technologies(a)
(a)Storage tankwith
Storage tank withpure
purethermal
thermal
oil oil
(b) (b) Storage
Storage tanktank
with with
rocksrocks
and thermal oil (c)
and thermal oil Storage tank
(c) Storage with
tank withPCM
PCMandand finned tubeswith
finned tubes withthermal
thermal oil.oil.

The storage tanks’ thermal losses (Qloss ) are estimated as follows:

Qloss = AT ·UT ·(Tst − Tamb ). (17)

For a cubical tank, its outer area (AT ) is calculated as:

2
AT = 6·V 3 . (18)

The system with the thermal oil–rocks can be modeled by using the Equations (15)–(18) but by
modifying the density and the specific heat capacity as follows [29,30]:

ρst = ε·ρoil + (1 − ε)·ρsolid , (19)

ε·ρoil ·cp,oil + (1 − ε)·ρsolid ·cp,solid

cp,st = , (20)
ε·ρoil + (1 − ε)·ρsolid
where the subscript “solid” indicates the rock and the “oil” the thermal oil, while the “st” is the total
system. Moreover, the void fraction (ε) is defined as follows:

Voil V
ε= = oil . (21)
Voil + Vsolid Vst

In this work, the void fraction was selected at 40%, which is a usual value in the literature [31,32].
In this work, different materials were studied as possible rocks of the storage system. Table 2 includes
the examined materials and their properties (density and specific heat capacity) [33]. More specifically,
the studied materials were quartzite, basalt, concrete, bricks, and ceramic.

Table 2. The examined storage materials as the solid material (rocks) [33].

Material ρ (kg/m3 ) cp (J/kg K)

Quartzite 2600 850
Basalt 2900 900
Concrete 2200 850
Bricks 3200 800
Ceramic 3550 900

The last examined storage system is the use of phase change materials. In this work, a proper
material with a high melting temperature was selected in order to operate the ORC in high temperatures
and to give the possibility for high exergetic performance. For this reason, the NaNO3 material was
selected with melting temperature at 308 ◦ C and latent heat at 174 kJ/kg [34]. In this work, the PCM
Appl. Syst. Innov. 2020, 3, 52 7 of 22

was assumed to have its melting temperature and its exchanges heating with the thermal oil by using
the following equations [35]:
Tc,out − Tc,in
nhex,charge = , (22)
Tc,out − Tpcm
Tc,out − Tc,in
nhex,charge = . (23)
Tc,out − Tpcm
This work used a finned configuration and so a high efficiency of 90% was assumed for both
charging and discharging efficiencies.

2.2.4. Financial Investigation

The financial analysis of the present system was conducted by using various indexes in order to
perform a multilateral analysis. Table 3 includes the general input of the financial analysis and Table 4
includes especially the costs for the different examined storage cases.

Table 3. Basic financial parameters of this work [6].

Parameter Symbol Value

Collector specific cost Kcol 250 EUR/m2
ORC specific cost KORC 3000 EUR/kWel
Electricity cost Kel 0.285 EUR/kWhel
Yearly operation and maintenance costs KO&M 1% of capital cost
Project life time N 25 years
Discount factor r 3%

Table 4. Specific cost of the storage cases.

Storage Case Ktank (EUR/m3 ) Reference

Pure thermal oil 1000 [25,26]
Thermal oil–Quartzite 850 [36–38]
Thermal oil–Basalt 900 [36–38]
Thermal oil–Concrete 800 [36–38]
Thermal oil–Bricks 850 [36–38]
Thermal oil–Ceramic 850 [36–38]
Tank with PCM 1100 [36–39]

The yearly electricity production (Eel ) is calculated as follows:

Z 8760
Eel = Pel ·dt. (24)
0

The yearly solar beam energy input in the solar field (Esol ) is given as:
Z 8760
Esol = Qsol ·dt. (25)
0

The system capital cost (C0 ) is calculated as:

C0 = Korc ·Pel + Kcol ·Ac + Ktank ·V. (26)

The yearly cash flow (CF) is presented by the next equation [6]:

CF = Kel ·Eel − KO&M . (27)

Appl. Syst. Innov. 2020, 3, 52 8 of 22

The yearly operating and maintenance cost (KO&M ) is selected to be the 1% of the investment
capital cost [6]:
KO&M = 0.01·C0 . (28)

The investment simple payback period (SPP) can be found with the next equation [6]:

C0
SPP = . (29)
CF
The investment payback period (PP) can be found according to the next equation [6]:
h i
CF
ln CF−C0 ·r
PP = . (30)
ln(1 + r)

The investment net present value (NPV) can be found by using the next formula [6]:

NPV = −C0 + R·CF, (31)

where the parameter (R) is the equivalent project life [6]:

(1 + r)N − 1
R= . (32)
r·(1 + r)N

The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is calculated by using the following expression [6]:

C0 + N·KO&M
LCOE = . (33)
N·Eel

2.3. Modeled Methodology

In this work, a thermodynamic model in EES was developed in order to simulate the organic
Rankine cycle. The basic analysis was conducted for the configuration of Figure 1 for sensible storage
with pure oil. The data of Table 1 were used in this initial analysis. Different organic fluids were
studied such as toluene, cyclohexane, isohexane, MDM, n-pentane and isopentane. The best candidate
was determined by a simple parametric analysis that used the dimensionless pressure parameter (α).
This parameter is defined as the ratio of the high pressure in the turbine inlet (Phigh ) to the critical
pressure of every working fluid (Pcrit ):
Phigh
α= . (34)
Pcrit
The results proved that toluene was the most appropriate candidate and thus this fluid was
examined in the remaining analysis. Different saturation temperatures in the HRS were studied with
toluene and the optimum value that maximized the yearly system efficiency was selected as the best
one. At this point, it has to be said that the yearly analysis was conducted for the weather of Athens
(Greece). For every month, the mean monthly day was used and the respective weather data can be
found in Ref. [40]. The proper number of sunny days for Athens [6] was used for every month in order
to simulate only the days with the potential of adequate solar direct beam irradiation. The dynamic
investigation was done with a homemade model in MATLAB.
The next step was the investigation of different rocks in the storage system and different materials
were studied. The material that led to higher system efficiency was selected to be evaluated as the
proper one. The last stage was the investigation of different collecting areas and two storage tank
volumes (8 and 10 m3 ) with the three studied storage systems. The results were evaluated financially
and economically.
Appl. Syst. Innov. 2020, 3, 52 9 of 22

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Initial Analysis of the Organic Rankine Cycle

The first part of the results section is a parametric investigation of the basic system with sensible
storage with pure oil and the ORC. Figure 3 illustrates a comparison of different working fluids in
the ORC. The analysis was performed for different values of the pressure parameter, which was a
dimensionless parameter associated with the pressure in the turbine inlet. The results showed that
the toluene was the best candidate with MDM, cyclohexane, isohexane, n-pentane, and isopentane to
follow, respectively. So, toluene was selected as the most appropriate organic fluid in the ORC and this
fluid Appl.
wasSyst.
used in 2020,
Innov. the following
3, x FOR PEERanalysis.
REVIEW 9 of 23

Figure 3. Investigation
Figure of of
3. Investigation different
differentorganic
organicfluids for the
fluids for theORC
ORCasas a function
a function of different
of different pressure
pressure levelslevels
in the turbine inlet.
in the turbine inlet.

FigureFigure 4 shows
4 shows thethe yearly
yearly systemefficiency
system efficiency with
with toluene
toluenefor fordifferent
different saturation
saturation temperature
temperature
levels in the HRS. The results showed that the maximum system efficiency
levels in the HRS. The results showed that the maximum system efficiency was found for saturation was found for saturation
temperature
temperature at ◦279
at 279 °C where
C where the yearly
the yearly systemsystem efficiency
efficiency waswas 14.36%
14.36% andandthethe
ORC ORC efficiency
efficiency at
at 31.02%.
31.02%. These results were found for collecting area at 2160 m2 and sensible storage tank volume with
These results were found for collecting area at 160 m and sensible storage tank volume with pure
pure thermal oil 3 at 10 m3. Practically, the increase of the saturation temperature increased the ORC
thermal oil at 10 m . Practically, the increase of the saturation temperature increased the ORC efficiency,
efficiency, as it is also given in Figure 4, but the very high temperatures in the system increased the
as it is also given
thermal lossesininFigure
the PTC 4, butandthein very high Therefore,
the tank. temperatures afterina the system
limit, increased
the increase the saturation
of the thermal losses
in thetemperature
PTC and in was the
nottank. Therefore,
beneficial for the after
system,a limit,
the factthe increase
that of theefficiency
led to system saturation temperature
maximization at was
not beneficial for thetemperature
an intermediate system, thelevel. fact Figure
that led5 to system
is the efficiency maximization
temperature–specific at an intermediate
entropy depiction of the
temperature
optimized level.
system Figure
for a5saturation
is the temperature–specific
temperature of toluene entropy
at 279depiction of the
°C in the HRS. It optimized
is interesting system
to see for a
that the temperature (T ) was ◦
significantly lower than the temperature (T ), something
saturation temperature of toluene at 279 C in the HRS. It is interesting to see that the temperature (T6 )
6 5 that indicated
the high importance
was significantly lower of using
than thea temperature
recuperator in (T order to have a high ORC efficiency.
5 ), something that indicated the high importance of
using a recuperator in order to have a high ORC efficiency.

3.2. Parametric Investigations of the Storage with Pure Thermal Oil and with Thermal Oil–Rocks
Firstly, the storage system with thermal oil-rocks is studied in this section. For the optimized
system with toluene, different rocks were examined for the configuration with a collecting area at
Appl. Syst. Innov. 2020, 3, 52 10 of 22

160 m2 and storage tank volume at 10 m3 . In all the examined rocks, the void fraction was 40%. Figure 6
shows that the highest system efficiency was found for ceramic material with 14.63%, while basalt
and bricks were the next candidates with 14.59%, quartzite with 14.56%, and concrete with 14.36%.
So, energetically the ceramic rocks were the best materials for the storage system. Figure 7 illustrates
the NPV of these cases. The ceramic material led to 119.17 k€, the bricks to 118.57 k€, the quartzite to
118.16 k€, the basalt to 118.04 k€ and to 115.86 k€. So, the financial analysis indicated that the ceramic
rocks led to the maximum NPV. The financial and economic results made clear that the ceramic rocks
have toAppl.
be selected
Appl.Syst.
Syst.Innov.
as
Innov.2020,
the most
2020,3,3,x xFOR
appropriate
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW
candidate. 1010ofof2323

15.0%
15.0% System
Systemefficiency
efficiency ORC
ORCefficiency
efficiency 35%
35%

30%
30%
14.5%
14.5%

25%
25%
14.0%
14.0%
Efficiency
System Efficiency

efficiency
ORC efficiency
20%
20%
13.5%
13.5%
System

15%
15%

ORC
13.0%
13.0%
10%
10%

12.5%
12.5% 5%
5%

12.0%
12.0% 0%
0%
200
200 210
210 220
220 230
230 240
240 250
250 260
260 270
270 280
280 290
290 300
300 310
310
Saturation temperature(o(C)
Saturationtemperature oC)

FigureFigure 4.4.Investigation ofofthe ORC and the

thesystem
systemefficiency with pure thermal oil
oil[Ac= =160 c=
mm 160Vm2 and
2 2and V
4. Investigation
Figure of the
Investigation ORC
the ORCand
andthe system efficiency
efficiency with
with purepure thermal
thermal [Acoil [A
160 and
V = 10 m
= 10 m
3 3]3 for different toluene saturation temperatures.
= 10 m ] different
] for for different toluenesaturation
toluene saturation temperatures.
temperatures.

Figure
FigureFigure5.5.Temperature–specific
5. Temperature–specific
Temperature–specificentropy
entropydepiction
entropy depictionofofof
depiction the optimum
the
the design
optimum
optimum for
forthe
design
design ORC.
for
the the ORC.
ORC.
 yearly operating time is depicted in the same figure and its curve has the same trend as electricity
production. The yearly operating time ranged from 2693 h up to 5226 h, which meant that the system
operating capacity also ranged from 30.7% up to 59.7%.
Lastly, Figure 10 shows the NPV and the payback period for different collecting areas. The NPV
Appl.I maximized in the
3, 52range of 180 to 220 m , while the payback period was minimized close to 16011mof. 22
2 2
Syst. Innov. 2020,
The maximum NPV was about 120 k€, while the minimum payback period was about eight years.

14.65% 14.63%
14.59% 14.59%
14.60%
14.56%
14.55%
System efficiency

14.50%

14.45%

14.40%
14.36%
14.35%

14.30%

14.25%
Quartzite Basalt Concrete Bricks Ceramic
Appl. Syst. Innov. 2020, 3, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 23
Figure 6. System efficiency for different rocks in the storage tank for Ac = 160 m22 and V = 10 3.m3.
Figure 6. System efficiency for different rocks in the storage tank for Ac = 160 m and V = 10 m
120
119.17
119
118.57
118.16 118.04
118
NPV (k€)

117

116 115.86

115

114
Quartzite Basalt Concrete Bricks Ceramic
Figure 7. Net present value for different rocks in the storage tank for Ac = 160 m22 and V = 10 3.m3.
Figure 7. Net present value for different rocks in the storage tank for Ac = 160 m and V = 10 m

The next part regarded a parametric analysis for different collecting areas and storage tank volume
at 10 m316%
with pure thermalηsysoil. Figure 8 shows thatEnhancement
the optimum with Ceramic
system 7% close to
efficiency was
2
m efficiency with pure Thermal oil

140–160 m . High collecting areas reduced the ability of the system to exploit efficiently all the useful
14% because the electricity production was set at 10 kW. Moreover, the low values
heat product 6% of the
collecting area made the system not able to reach easily the proper temperature limits in order to start
Enhancement with Ceramic

the ORC12%operation, and so the efficiency was not maximized in the smallest examined collecting areas.
Moreover, Figure 8 shows that the system with thermal oil–ceramic rocks presented higher 5% system
efficiency than the respective cases of the pure thermal oil for all the collecting areas. The efficiency
10%
enhancement was higher in higher collecting areas and it ranged from 0.28% at 100 m2 4% to 5.86% at
300 m .2
8%
3%
6%

2%
4%
 114
Quartzite Basalt Concrete Bricks Ceramic
Appl. Syst. Innov. 2020, 3, 52 12 of 22
Figure 7. Net present value for different rocks in the storage tank for Ac = 160 m2 and V = 10 m3.

16% ηsys Enhancement with Ceramic 7%

System efficiency with pure Thermal oil
14% 6%

Enhancement with Ceramic

12%
5%

10%
4%
8%
3%
6%

2%
4%

2% 1%

0% 0%
100 150 200 250 300
Collecting area (m2)
Figure System
8. 8.
Figure Systemefficiency
efficiencywith
withpure
purethermal
thermal oil
oil for
for different collecting
collectingareas
areasand
andthe
therespective
respective
enhancement
enhancementin in
thethe
thermal
thermaloil–rocks
oil–rockscase.
case.

Figure 9 exhibits the electricity product for different collecting areas with pure thermal oil. It is
clear that a higher collecting area led to greater electricity yield, but the increasing rate had a reducing
trend. This fact was justified by the reduction in the system efficiency after the 160 m2 . Moreover,
the yearly operating time is depicted in the same figure and its curve has the same trend as electricity
production. The yearly operating time ranged from 2693 h up to 5226 h, which meant that the system
operating
Appl. Syst.capacity
Innov. 2020,also ranged
3, x FOR PEERfrom 30.7% up to 59.7%.
REVIEW 13 of 23

60000 Electricity Time 6000

Yearly operation time (hours)
Electricity production (kWh)

50000 5000

40000 4000

30000 3000

20000 2000

10000 1000

0 0
100 150 200 250 300
Collecting area (m2)
Figure 9. 9.Electricity
Figure Electricityproduction
production and
and yearly operating time
yearly operating timefor
fordifferent
differentcollecting
collecting areas
areas with
with pure
pure
thermal oil.oil.
thermal

140 NPV Payback period 14

120 12
 20000 2000

Yearly o
Electric
10000 1000

Appl. Syst. Innov. 2020, 3, 52 13 of 22

0 0
100 150 200 250 300
Collecting area (m 2)
Lastly, Figure 10 shows the NPV and the payback period for different collecting areas. The NPV I
maximized 2 , while the payback period was minimized close to 160 m2 .
Figurein9.the range production
Electricity of 180 to 220
andmyearly operating time for different collecting areas with pure
The maximum NPV was about 120 k€, while the minimum payback period was about eight years.
thermal oil.

140 NPV Payback period 14

120 12

Payback period (years)

100 10
NPV (k€)

80 8

60 6

40 4

20 2

0 0
100 150 200 250 300
Collecting area (m2)
Figure 10.Net
Figure10. Netpresent
presentvalue
value and
and payback period
periodfor
fordifferent
differentcollecting
collectingareas
areaswith
with pure
pure thermal
thermal oil.oil.

3.3. Final
3.3. FinalComparison
Comparisonofofthe
theThree
ThreeExamined
Examined Storage Systems
Storage Systems
The
Thelast
lastpart
partofofthe
theresults
results section
section is
is devoted to the
devoted to the direct
directcomparison
comparisonofofthe the three
three examined
examined
storage
storagesystems.
systems.The
Theprevious
previous results in Sections
results in Sections3.1
3.1and
and3.2
3.2were
wereimportant
important inin order
order to to select
select thethe
proper
proper organic fluid, the proper rock material, and the proper ORC saturation temperature and to to
organic fluid, the proper rock material, and the proper ORC saturation temperature and
determine
determine the
themost
mostinteresting
interestingcollecting
collecting areas. According
Accordingtotothetheresults
resultsofofSection
Section 3.2,
3.2, thethe collecting
collecting
area has to be in the range of 160 to 200 m2 in order to have both high system efficiency and high
NPV. Two storage tank volumes were examined and they were 8 m3 and 10 m3 . It has to be said
that this volume was the total volume of the device, which included inside the tubing and all the
stored materials.
Figure 11 shows the system efficiency for the six examined designs and the three different storage
systems (total of 18 scenarios). It has to be said that in all the examined cases, the pure thermal oil case
was less efficient than the PCM and the thermal oil–ceramic rock cases. The use of ceramic rocks was
found to be the best of the three cases and the PCM for the other three cases, so it is obvious that both
these techniques can enhance efficiently the system performance compared to the operation with pure
thermal oil storage. The maximum system efficiency was found for the designs with 160 m2 (with 8 or
10 m3 ) and in these cases, the thermal oil–ceramic rock was the best design. The global maximum
system efficiency was found to be 14.79% for the cases [Ac = 160 m2 − V = 8 m3 ], while the case with
the PCM was 14.65% and with pure thermal oil was 13.57%.
Figures 12–14 present the financial indexes of the examined system for all the scenarios. Figure 12
shows the results of the NPV, Figure 13 the payback period, and Figure 14 the LCOE. Figure 12 indicates
that the overall maximum NPV was found for [Ac = 200 m2 − V = 8 m3 ] with thermal oil–ceramic
rocks and it was 132.36 k€. It is important to state that the pure thermal oil led to the minimum NPV in
all the cases, and thus it was not a financially attractive choice.
 rocks was found to be the best of the three cases and the PCM for the other three cases, so it is obvious
that both these techniques can enhance efficiently the system performance compared to the operation
with pure thermal oil storage. The maximum system efficiency was found for the designs with 160
m2 (with 8 or 10 m3) and in these cases, the thermal oil–ceramic rock was the best design. The global
maximum
Appl. Syst. Innov.system efficiency was found to be 14.79% for the cases [Ac = 160 m2 − V = 8 m3], while14the
2020, 3, 52 of 22
case with the PCM was 14.65% and with pure thermal oil was 13.57%.

PCM Thermal oil-Ceramic rock Pure thermal oil

Ac=200m²-V=10m³

Ac=180m²-V=10m³

Ac=160m²-V=10m³

Ac=200m²-V=8m³

Ac=180m²-V=8m³

Ac=160m²-V=8m³

10.0% 10.5% 11.0% 11.5% 12.0% 12.5% 13.0% 13.5% 14.0% 14.5% 15.0%
System efficiency
Figure System
11.11.
Figure Systemefficiency
efficiencyfor
fordifferent
different collecting
collecting area values
values and
and storage
storagetanks
tankswith
withthe
thethree
three
examined storage
examined systems.
storage systems.
Appl. Syst. Innov. 2020, 3, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 23

Figures 12–14 present the financial indexes of the examined system for all the scenarios. Figure
PCM of the NPV,
12 shows the results Thermal oil-Ceramic
Figure 13 the payback rock Pure14
period, and Figure thermal oil Figure 12
the LCOE.
indicates that the overall maximum NPV was found for [Ac = 200 m2 − V = 8 m3] with thermal oil–
Ac=200m²-V=10m³
ceramic rocks and it was 132.36 k€. It is important to state that the pure thermal oil led to the
minimum NPV in all the cases, and thus it was not a financially attractive choice.
Figure 13 indicates that the overall minimum payback period was found for [Ac = 160 m2 − V = 8
Ac=180m²-V=10m³
m ] with thermal oil–ceramic rocks, and it was 7.56 years. Moreover, Figure 13 indicates that the
3

overall minimum LCOE was found for [Ac = 160 m2 − V = 8 m3] with thermal oil–ceramic rocks and it
Ac=160m²-V=10m³
was 0.0891 EUR/kWh. Tables 5–7 include the aforementioned data in order to be clear. Table 5
includes results for the case of pure thermal oil, Table 6 for the case of thermal oil–ceramic rocks, and
Table 7 for PCM.
Ac=200m²-V=8m³

Ac=180m²-V=8m³

Ac=160m²-V=8m³

100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135

NPV (k€)
Figure Net
12.12.
Figure present
Net presentvalue
valuefor
fordifferent
differentcollecting
collecting area values and storage
values and storagetanks
tankswith
withthe
thethree
three
examined storage
examined systems.
storage systems.

Figure 13 indicates
PCM that theThermal
overall minimum
oil-Ceramic payback
rock period wasPurefound oilc = 160 m2 −
for [A
thermal
V = 8 m ] with thermal oil–ceramic rocks, and it was 7.56 years. Moreover, Figure 13 indicates that the
3

overallAc=200m²-V=10m³
minimum LCOE was found for [Ac = 160 m2 − V = 8 m3 ] with thermal oil–ceramic rocks and it
was 0.0891 EUR/kWh. Tables 5–7 include the aforementioned data in order to be clear. Table 5 includes
resultsAc=180m²-V=10m³
for the case of pure thermal oil, Table 6 for the case of thermal oil–ceramic rocks, and Table 7
for PCM.
Ac=160m²-V=10m³

Ac=200m²-V=8m³

Ac=180m²-V=8m³
 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135
NPV (k€)
Figure
Appl. Syst. Innov. 12. 3,
2020, Net52 present value for different collecting area values and storage tanks with the three 15 of 22
examined storage systems.

PCM Thermal oil-Ceramic rock Pure thermal oil

Ac=200m²-V=10m³

Ac=180m²-V=10m³

Ac=160m²-V=10m³

Ac=200m²-V=8m³

Ac=180m²-V=8m³

Ac=160m²-V=8m³

7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5

Payback period (years)
Figure 13. Payback
Figure period
13. Payback for different
period collecting
for different area values
collecting and storage
area values tankstanks
and storage with the
withthree
the examined
three
Appl. Syst. Innov.
examined
storage systems. 2020, 3,
storage x FOR PEER
systems. REVIEW 16 of 23

PCM Thermal oil-Ceramic rock Pure thermal oil

Ac=200m²-V=10m³

Ac=180m²-V=10m³

Ac=160m²-V=10m³

Ac=200m²-V=8m³

Ac=180m²-V=8m³

Ac=160m²-V=8m³

0.080 0.085 0.090 0.095 0.100 0.105

LCOE (€/kWh)
14. Levelized
FigureFigure costcost
14. Levelized of electricity
of electricity(LCOE)
(LCOE)for
for different collectingarea
different collecting area values
values andand storage
storage tankstanks
with the three examined storage systems.
with the three examined storage systems.

Table
Table 5. Summary
5. Summary ofof theresults
the resultsfor
for storage
storage with
withpure
purethermal oil.oil.
thermal
NetPresent
Net PresentValue
Value LCOE
LCOE PaybackPeriod
Payback Period(PP)
V3(m
V (m ) ) AcA(m
3 c (m
2 )2) ηη sys
sys (NPV) (k€)
(NPV) (k€) (EUR/kWh)
(EUR/kWh) (PP) (Years)
(Years)
8 160 13.57% 104.37 0.0987 8.55
8 160 13.57% 104.37 0.0987 8.55
8 180 12.48% 105.32 0.1015 8.85
8 180 12.48% 105.32 0.1015 8.85
8 8 200
200 11.54%
11.54% 105.22
105.22 0.1047
0.1047 9.19
9.19
10 10 160
160 14.36%
14.36% 113.48
113.48 0.0957
0.0957 8.23
8.23
10 10 180
180 13.41%
13.41% 118.10
118.10 0.0967
0.0967 8.35
8.35
10 10 200
200 12.44%
12.44% 118.91
118.91 0.0994
0.0994 8.63
8.63

Table 6. Summary of the results for storage with thermal oil–ceramic rocks.

V (m3) Ac (m2) ηsys NPV (k€) LCOE (EUR/kWh) PP (Years)

8 160 14.79% 123.52 0.0891 7.56
8 180 13.89% 129.73 0.0900 7.63
8 200 12.97% 132.36 0.0919 7.84
Appl. Syst. Innov. 2020, 3, 52 16 of 22

Table 6. Summary of the results for storage with thermal oil–ceramic rocks.

V (m3 ) Ac (m2 ) ηsys NPV (k€) LCOE (EUR/kWh) PP (Years)

8 160 14.79% 123.52 0.0891 7.56
8 180 13.89% 129.73 0.0900 7.63
8 200 12.97% 132.36 0.0919 7.84
10 160 14.63% 119.17 0.0921 7.87
10 180 13.79% 126.10 0.0923 7.89
10 200 12.95% 130.05 0.0938 8.04

Table 7. Summary of the results for storage with PCM.

V (m3 ) Ac (m2 ) ηsys NPV (k€) LCOE (EUR/kWh) PP (Years)

8 160 14.65% 119.16 0.0923 7.89
8 180 13.97% 128.66 0.0915 7.81
8 200 13.07% 131.83 0.0932 7.99
10 160 14.32% 111.89 0.0970 8.38
10 180 13.77% 122.81 0.0953 8.20
10 200 12.98% 127.56 0.0963 8.30

The previous analysis proved that only the single-optimization criteria indicated the use of the
thermal oil–ceramic rock as the most suitable design, while the use of the pure thermal oil was the
less efficient choice. However, it is important to state that the optimum designs (Ac , V) were different
among the examined criteria, and so there was not a global maximum choice that was the best one with
all the criteria. Therefore, there was a need to conduct a more detailed analysis with a multi-objective
depiction of energy and financial criteria together. The system efficiency and the NPV were selected
to be used in a two-dimensional depiction, which is given in Figure 15. The goal was to determine
the choices that maximized both these criteria. So, a Pareto front was created with five design points:
three points with thermal oil–ceramic rock and two points with PCM. Table 8 summarizes the optimum
points of the Pareto front and also includes the symbols of these cases that correspond to the depiction
of Figure 15. It can be said that every point in the Pareto front had a better index than the others;
so there was not any point among them that had the same two indexes as the other point. So, all these
five designs were optimum and the selection of one of them was based on extra criteria, such as the
availability and the long-term reliability of every technology. It can be said that the use of ceramic
rocks presented more optimum points in the Pareto front, and also it was the best design according
to the single-criterion, and therefore it seemed to have precedence in the final selection. Generally,
the results were better for the cases with 8 m3 , and thus these results are explained in detail below.
For the design with the 160 m2 collecting area and 8 m3 storage tank volume, the thermal
oil–ceramic rocks design led to 14.79% system efficiency and net present value to 123.52 k€, the phase
change material storage to 14.65% and 119.16 k€, respectively, while the pure thermal oil case led to
13.57% and 104.37 k€, respectively. So, in this case, the electricity production enhancement with ceramic
rocks compared to the pure thermal oil was 8.99%, while the enhancement with PCM compared to the
pure oil was 7.95%.
For the design with a 180 m2 collecting area and 8 m3 storage tank volume, the thermal oil–ceramic
rocks design led to 13.89% system efficiency and net present value to 129.73 k€, the phase change
material storage to 13.97% and 128.66 k€, respectively, while the pure thermal oil case led to 12.48%
and 105.32 k€, respectively. So, in this case, the electricity production enhancement with ceramic rocks
compared to the pure thermal oil was 11.3%, while the enhancement with PCM compared to the pure
oil was 11.9%.
For the design with a 200 m2 collecting area and 8 m3 storage tank volume, the thermal oil–ceramic
rocks design led to 12.97% system efficiency and net present value to 132.36 k€, the phase change
material storage to 13.07% and 131.83 k€, respectively, while the pure thermal oil case led to 11.54%
Appl. Syst. Innov. 2020, 3, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 23
indicated the 2020,
Appl. Syst. Innov. trends among
3, x FOR PEERthe examined cases, and they were able to show the most effective
REVIEW 18 of 23
techniques
indicated
Appl. in 2020,
the
Syst. Innov. every
trends3, case.
among
x FOR PEERthe examined cases, and they were able to show the most effective
REVIEW 18 of 23
indicated
techniques
Appl. the trends
in 2020,
Syst. Innov. every among
3, xcase.
FOR PEERthe examined cases, and they were able to show the most effective
REVIEW 18 of 23
indicated the trends
techniques in every case. Pure oil
among (Ac=160m²-V=8m³)
the examined cases, and they were able to show the most effective
Appl. Syst.135
indicatedInnov.
techniques the 2020,
trends3, 52 oil (Ac=180m²-V=8m³)
Pure among (Ac=160m²-V=8m³)
the examined cases, and they were able to show the most effective 17 of 22
135in everyPure case.
oil
techniques in everyPure case.oil (Ac=200m²-V=8m³)
(Ac=180m²-V=8m³)
(Ac=160m²-V=8m³)
135
Appl. Pure
Pure oil
Syst. Innov. Pure
2020, oil
3, x (Ac=160m²-V=10m³)
(Ac=200m²-V=8m³)
oil (Ac=160m²-V=8m³)
(Ac=180m²-V=8m³)
FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 23
and 118.91,
130 k€ respectively.
135 Pure oil In this case, the electricity production enhancement with ceramic rocks
(Ac=180m²-V=10m³)
Pure oil
Pure (Ac=160m²-V=10m³)
oil (Ac=180m²-V=8m³)
(Ac=200m²-V=8m³)
(Ac=160m²-V=8m³)
compared 135
130to thethe
indicated pure thermal
trends
Pure
Pure oilamong
oil oil the
wasexamined
12.4%, while
(Ac=200m²-V=10m³)
(Ac=180m²-V=10m³)
(Ac=160m²-V=10m³)
(Ac=180m²-V=8m³) cases,the enhancement
and with
they were able toPCM
showcompared to the pure
the most effective
Pure oil (Ac=200m²-V=8m³)
oil wastechniques
13.3%.
130 in Ceramic
every
Pure oil case.
oil (Ac=160m²-V=8m³)
(Ac=200m²-V=10m³)
(Ac=180m²-V=10m³)
(Ac=200m²-V=8m³)
Pure (Ac=160m²-V=10m³)
125
130 Ceramic
Pure oil
Pure (Ac=180m²-V=8m³)
(Ac=160m²-V=8m³)
oil (Ac=180m²-V=10m³)
(Ac=200m²-V=10m³)
(Ac=160m²-V=10m³)
130 CeramicPure(Ac=200m²-V=8m³)
oil (Ac=160m²-V=8m³)
125 135 Pure Ceramic oil (Ac=180m²-V=8m³)
(Ac=160m²-V=8m³)
(Ac=180m²-V=10m³)
(Ac=200m²-V=10m³)
Pure oil (Ac=180m²-V=8m³)
125 Ceramic
Ceramic
Pure
Ceramic (Ac=160m²-V=10m³)
(Ac=200m²-V=8m³)
(Ac=180m²-V=8m³)
oil (Ac=200m²-V=10m³)
(Ac=160m²-V=8m³)
Pure oil (Ac=200m²-V=8m³)
120
125 Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic (Ac=180m²-V=10m³)
(Ac=160m²-V=10m³)
(Ac=200m²-V=8m³)
(Ac=160m²-V=8m³)
Pure(Ac=180m²-V=8m³)
(k€)(k€)

oil (Ac=160m²-V=10m³)
120 130 Ceramic
125 Ceramic
Ceramic (Ac=200m²-V=10m³)
(Ac=180m²-V=10m³)
(Ac=160m²-V=10m³)
(Ac=180m²-V=8m³)
Pure(Ac=200m²-V=8m³)
oil (Ac=180m²-V=10m³)
PCM (Ac=160m²-V=8m³)
(Ac=200m²-V=10m³)
NPV

120 Ceramic
CeramicPure (Ac=180m²-V=10m³)
(Ac=200m²-V=8m³)
oil (Ac=200m²-V=10m³)
(Ac=160m²-V=10m³)
(k€)

PCM
Ceramic (Ac=180m²-V=8m³)
(Ac=160m²-V=8m³)
Ceramic (Ac=160m²-V=8m³)
(Ac=200m²-V=10m³)
(Ac=160m²-V=10m³)
NPV

115
120 Ceramic (Ac=180m²-V=10m³)
(k€)

125 Ceramic
PCM
PCM (Ac=200m²-V=8m³)
Ceramic (Ac=180m²-V=8m³)
(Ac=180m²-V=8m³)
(Ac=160m²-V=8m³)
(Ac=180m²-V=10m³)
(Ac=200m²-V=10m³)
120
NPV

115
(k€)

PCM
CeramicCeramic (Ac=200m²-V=8m³)
(Ac=160m²-V=10m³)
(Ac=200m²-V=8m³)
PCM (Ac=160m²-V=8m³)
(Ac=180m²-V=8m³)
(Ac=200m²-V=10m³)
PCM
NPV

115 PCM Ceramic (Ac=160m²-V=10m³)

(Ac=180m²-V=10m³)
(Ac=160m²-V=10m³)
PCM (Ac=180m²-V=8m³)
(Ac=200m²-V=8m³)
(Ac=160m²-V=8m³)
110 120 PCM
NPV

115 Ceramic
PCM (Ac=200m²-V=8m³)(Ac=180m²-V=10m³)
(Ac=200m²-V=10m³)
NPV (k€)

PCM (Ac=180m²-V=10m³)
(Ac=160m²-V=10m³)
(Ac=180m²-V=8m³)
115
110 Ceramic (Ac=200m²-V=10m³)
PCMPCM
PCM (Ac=200m²-V=10m³)
(Ac=180m²-V=10m³)
(Ac=200m²-V=8m³)
(Ac=160m²-V=10m³)
(Ac=160m²-V=8m³)
110 (Ac=200m²-V=10m³)
PCMPCM (Ac=160m²-V=10m³)
(Ac=180m²-V=10m³)
(Ac=180m²-V=8m³)
105 115
110 PCMPCM (Ac=180m²-V=10m³)
(Ac=200m²-V=10m³)
(Ac=200m²-V=8m³)
110
105 PCMPCM (Ac=200m²-V=10m³)
(Ac=160m²-V=10m³)
105 PCM (Ac=180m²-V=10m³)
100 110
105 PCM (Ac=200m²-V=10m³)
105
10010% 11% 12% 13% 14% 15%
100 10%
105 11% 12%
System efficiency 13% 14% 15%
100 10% 11% 12%
System efficiency 13% 14% 15%
100 10%
Figure 11%
15. Depiction of the 12%
examined systems in terms 13% efficiency 14%
of system 15%for
vs. net present value
System efficiency
the
Figure 10%
100
18 studied scenarios.
15. Depiction 11% 12% 13% 14% 15%for
of the examined systems in terms of system efficiency vs. net present value
System efficiency
the 18 studied
Figure 10%scenarios.
15. Depiction 11%
of the examined systems12%in terms
System efficiency 13% efficiency14%
of system vs. net present15%
value for
the 18 studied
Figure Table
scenarios.
15. Depiction 8. Summary of System
the Pareto efficiency
front points of Figure 15.
of the examined systems in terms of system efficiency vs. net present value for
Figure
the 15. Depiction
18 studied Table
of
scenarios. 8. Summary
the examined of thein
systems Pareto
termsfront pointsefficiency
of system of Figure vs.
15. net present value for
15.Storage Type V (msystems
15. Depiction of the 3) Ac (m ) terms
2terms Symbol ηsys NPV (k€)
FigureFigure Depiction of examined
the examined systems inin ofofsystem efficiency
system efficiency vs.net
vs. net present
present value
value for for
the 18 studied scenarios. Table 8. Summary of the Pareto front points of Figure 15.
the 18 the
studied scenarios.
Storage
18 studied Type V (m ) Ac (m ) Symbol
scenarios. 3 2 ηsys NPV (k€)
Table 8. Summary
Ceramic 8 3 of the200 Pareto front points12.97% of Figure 15.132.36
Storage Type
Table 8. V (m
8. Summary ) A c (m2) Symbol
Pareto front
front points η sys
points12.97%
of Figure NPV
Figure 15.
15. (k€)
Table
Ceramic
Storage Type 8 of the
Table 8. Summary
V (m3) A
Pareto
200of the Pareto
c (m2)
of 132.36
front points of Figure 15.
Symbol ηsys NPV (k€)
Storage
Ceramic
StoragePCM Type
Type Type V (m
38 3) 3 Ac (m
V (m V) (m )Ac A
200
(m 2 2)2 Symbol
) ) Symbol
12.97%
13.07%
η ηsys NPV
sys 132.36
131.83
NPV
NPV (k€)
(k€)
Storage c (m Symbol ηsys (k€)
Ceramic
PCM 88 200
200 12.97%
13.07% 132.36
131.83
Ceramic
Ceramic
PCM Ceramic 8 8 8 200
200 200
200 12.97%
12.97%
12.97%
13.07% 132.36 132.36
132.36
131.83
Ceramic 8 180 13.89% 129.73
PCMPCM
Ceramic 8 88 200
200
180 13.07%
13.07%
13.89% 131.83
131.83
129.73
PCM PCM 8 8 200200 13.07%
13.07% 131.83
131.83
Ceramic
Ceramic
PCM 8 8 8 180
180
180 13.89%
13.89%
13.97% 129.73
129.73
128.66
Ceramic
PCM 8 180 13.89% 129.73
PCM Ceramic 8 8 8 180
180 180 13.97%
13.97% 129.73
13.89% 128.66
128.66
Ceramic
PCM 88 180
180 13.89%
13.97% 129.73
128.66
Ceramic
Ceramic 8 8 160
160 14.79%
14.79% 123.52
123.52
PCM
CeramicPCM 88 8 180
160
180 13.97%
14.79% 128.66
13.97% 128.66
123.52
PCM
Ceramic 88 180
160 13.97%
14.79% 128.66
123.52
Furthermore,
Comparing the it found
is important
results to with note that from
others whenthe the collecting
literature, areabe
it can was
said varied
that the from found m2 to
160results
Ceramic
Ceramic 8 8 160160
2 with the tank volume at 8 m3 , the efficiency enhancement with ceramic rocks compared to 14.79%
14.79% 123.52
123.52
200 mComparing
accorded with other the studies.
found
Ceramic For example,
results with8 others the160use
from oftherocks inside
literature, the tank
it can
14.79% bewas
saidfound
123.52 that the to lead
found toresults
a 30%
pure oil ranged
improvement within
Comparing
accorded from
other 8.99%results
the financial
found
studies. up
For toexample,
12.39%,
indicators
with others while
of the from
use the
system,oftheenhancement
according
inside to
literature,
rocks itwith
the Rodriguez
can
tank PCM
be saidranged
was et
that
foundal. the tofrom
[14]. The7.96%
found
lead topresent
results
a 30%to
13.26%.
work
accorded For
found
improvement Comparing
Comparing the same
around
with other
in the found
conditions,
the afound results
results
25% improvement,
studies.
financial For the with
NPV
with others
example,
indicators others
was
which
of the use from
improved
the from the
the
is aofsimilar
system, rocksliterature,
with
literature,
result. to
inside
according it
ceramiccan
it can
Moreover,
the be
tank
Rodriguez said
rocks
bewas
said that
from
that
thefound
et the
al.the
studies found
18.35%
to found
[14]. results
to
[18,19]
lead 25.79%,
results
found
Thetopresent
a 30%
accorded with
workComparing
while
accordedwith
performance
improvement
found PCM
with theother
the
from
other afound
enhancement
in
around
studies.
14.17%
studies.
financial
25% results
to
atFor
18% For example,
with
25.29%.
example,
and
indicators
improvement, others
20%,
of thethefrom
use
while
the
which
use of
is aof
system, the
this rocks
rocks
work inside the
literature,
inside
according
similar result. the
indicated
to tankbe
it can
tank
13%.
Rodriguez
Moreover,
was
wasfound
said
The
the that
found
et al.tothe
other
studies
lead to a 30%
found
tostudies
[14]. lead
The
[18,19] results
topresent
afound
30%
[18,19]
improvement instudies.
the financial indicators of the system, according to Rodriguez etfound
al. [14].toThe present
accorded
had
work bit with
About
improvement
a found
performance the
higher other
inpayback
around the
enhancement
enhancement 25% atFor
period,
afinancial example,
for
indicators
because
improvement,
18% the 20%,
and case the
ofwhich
they [A
the use =aof
system,
regarded
whilec is 160 rocks
m 2− inside
according
small-scale
similar
this work = 8to
result. the
Vindicatedm 3tank
] it13%.
Rodriguez
systems
Moreover, was
was 7.56
where
the
The years
etstudies
al.
other [14].
there lead
for
The
were
[18,19]
studies topresent
afound
ceramics,30%
higher
[18,19]
work found around a 25% improvement, which is a similar2 result. Moreover, the studies [18,19] found
improvement
7.89
had for
work PCM,
afound
enhancement
performance
bit higher
performance
in
and
around the
8.55
margins
enhancementfinancial
a 25%for
duepure
enhancement
enhancement
to indicators
the
at 18% and
atbecause
18%
of
oil;non-optimized
improvement, for the
20%,
and
the
caseregarded
which
20%,while
they while
a=this
system,
[Aisc design. according
180small-scale
similar mOn
thiswork
V =other
result.
the
work indicated
to
−indicated 3
Rodriguez
8 systems
m ]hand,
Moreover, it was
13%.
13%.
the
the
The
where
The
et
7.63 al.
studies
other
[14].
years
baseline
other
there The
for
[18,19]
case
studies
studies were present
ceramics,
found
of this
[18,19]
higher
[18,19]
work
7.81 afound
for
performance
enhancement
had PCM,
bit around
higherand a 25%
8.85
enhancement for
enhancement improvement,
pure
at 18% oil;and
because and 20%,which
for
they the
while iscase
regardedathis
similar
[A
work = result.
200 m 2 −V =8m
Moreover,
indicated
had a bit higher enhancement because they regarded small-scale systems where there were higher this
margins due to the non-optimized design. On
small-scale
c the other 13%.
hand,
systems the
The 3 ] studies
the
where it was
other
baseline
there [18,19]
7.84
studies years
case
were foundfor
[18,19]
of
higher
performance
ceramics,
had bit 7.99
enhancement enhancement
a enhancement
higherfor PCM,
enhancement
margins and
due at
to 18%
9.19 forand
because
the pure20%, oil.
they
non-optimized while
regarded this
design. work indicated
small-scale
On the 13%.
systems
other
margins due to the non-optimized design. On the other hand, the baseline case of this hand, The
where
the other
there
baseline studies
were
case [18,19]
higher
of this
had aFinally,
bit higher
enhancement canenhancement
it margins
be said duethat
to the because
the use of theyPCMregarded
non-optimized candesign.
enhance small-scale
Onmore systems
the electricity
other hand, where
production there
the baseline than werethe higher
case usethis
of of
enhancement
ceramics, margins
but the use ofdue to theisnon-optimized
ceramics more beneficial design. On the
financially, other hand,
according to allthe
thebaseline
criteria.case of this
Generally,
both PCM and ceramic rocks have similar behavior, and they are clearly better choices than the use of
Appl. Syst. Innov. 2020, 3, 52 18 of 22

pure thermal oil. Another point that has to be stated regards the relatively small differences between
the efficiency and the financial parameter values. These small differences indicated the trends among
the examined cases, and they were able to show the most effective techniques in every case.
Comparing the found results with others from the literature, it can be said that the found results
accorded with other studies. For example, the use of rocks inside the tank was found to lead to a 30%
improvement in the financial indicators of the system, according to Rodriguez et al. [14]. The present
work found around a 25% improvement, which is a similar result. Moreover, the studies [18,19] found
performance enhancement at 18% and 20%, while this work indicated 13%. The other studies [18,19]
had a bit higher enhancement because they regarded small-scale systems where there were higher
enhancement margins due to the non-optimized design. On the other hand, the baseline case of this
work was an already optimized scenario so the 13% enhancement (maximum value) was an acceptable
and promising one.

4. Conclusions
The objective of this work is the energy and financial comparison of three different storage
systems in a solar-driven ORC. Parabolic trough collectors coupled to a storage system fed the ORC,
which operated with toluene and was a regenerative cycle. The examined storage systems were of
sensible and latent heat storage ways. More specifically, the conventional sensible tank with pure
thermal oil was compared with the use of thermal oil–rocks and the use of PCM inside the tank.
An analysis was conducted for the weather data of Athens with a developed dynamic model. The most
important conclusions of the present study are summarized in the following bullets:

• Among the examined working fluids for the ORC, toluene was found to be the best candidate.
The saturation working fluid temperature in the heat recovery system that optimizes the system
efficiency was found to be at 279 ◦ C. Moreover, the investigation of different rock types for the
storage system proved that the use of ceramic rocks was the best choice, according to both energy
efficiency and net present value criteria.
• The parametric analysis for different collecting areas proved that the use of rocks inside the tank
was always energetically beneficial, compared to the pure thermal oil design.
• The single-objective optimization proved that the optimum storage technique was with thermal
oil–ceramic rocks, according to all the examined criteria. The PCM storage was the second-best
technique, while pure thermal oil storage was the less attractive choice.
• The multi-objective evaluation methodology proved that there were five Pareto front points that
were optimum cases (see Table 8). These cases regarded three designs with ceramic rocks and two
designs with PCM. Generally, the use of ceramic rocks was a better choice financially, while the
PCM was a more efficient choice, especially for higher collecting areas.
• For the design [Ac = 180 m2 − V = 8 m3 ], the ceramic rock design led to 13.89% system efficiency
and NPV to 129.73 k€; the PCM to 13.97% and 128.66 k€, respectively, while the pure thermal oil
led to 12.48% and 105.32 k€, respectively. The efficiency enhancement was found to be 11.3% with
ceramic rocks and 11.9% with PCM, compared to the pure thermal oil case.

In the future, there is a need for investigating extra storage techniques such as chemical storage and
storage with molten salt in order to perform a deeper and more detailed analysis. About the chemical
storage, there are options for sorption processes and processes with reactions. The energy and financial
indicators will have to be calculated in every case in order to find the best global storage scenario.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, writing—review and editing, writing—original draft

preparation, E.B.; conceptualization, methodology, investigation. I.S.; supervision, writing—review and
editing, writing—original draft preparation, C.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appl. Syst. Innov. 2020, 3, 52 19 of 22

Nomenclature
Ac Area of the solar field, m2
AT Outer area of the tank, m3
cp Specific heat capacity, kJ/kg K
C0 Investment capital cost, EUR
CF Yearly cash flow, EUR/h
E Yearly energy yield, kWh
Gb Solar direct beam irradiation, W/m2
h Specific enthalpy, kJ/kg
K Incident angle modifier, -
Kcol Specific cost of the collector, EUR/m2
Kel Cost of electrical energy, EUR/kWhel
Korc Organic Rankine cycle-specific cost, EUR/kWel
KO&M Operating and maintenance cost for one year period, EUR
Ktank Storage tank specific cost, EUR/m3
LCOE Levelized cost of electricity, EUR/kWel
m Mass flow rate, kg/s
N Project life, years
NPV Net present value, EUR
P Pressure level, bar
Pel Net electricity production, kW
PP Payback Period, years
PP0 Pinch point in the heat recovery system, ◦ C
Q Heat rate, kW
Qloss Tank thermal loss rate, kW
Qstor Stored heat rate, kW
r Discount factor, %
R Equivalent investment lifetime, years
SD Sunny days, days
SPP Simple payback period, years
t Time, hours
T Temperature, ◦ C
Tam Ambient temperature, ◦ C
UT Thermal loss coefficient of the tank, W/m2 K
V Storage tank volume, m3
Greek Symbols
∆P Pressure difference, bar
∆Tsh Superheating degree in the turbine inlet, ◦ C
∆Trec Temperature difference in the recuperator, ◦ C
ε Void fraction, %
ηcol Collector thermal efficiency, -
ηis,T Isentropic efficiency of the turbine, -
ηg Generator efficiency, -
ηhex,charge PCM tank charge efficiency, -
ηhex,discharge PCM tank discharge efficiency, -
ηm Mechanical efficiency, -
ηmotor Motor efficiency, -
ηorc Efficiency of the power block, -
ηsys System efficiency, -
θ Incident solar angle, ◦
ρ Fluid density, kg/m3
Subscripts and Superscripts
col Collector
c,in Inlet
c,out Outlet
con Condenser
is Isentropic
Appl. Syst. Innov. 2020, 3, 52 20 of 22

in Inlet
hrs Heat recovery system
oil Thermal oil
orc Organic Rankine cycle
out Outlet
P Pump
s Heat source
s,in Heat source inlet
s,out Heat source outlet
sat Saturation in the heat recovery system
sol Solar
solid Solid part in the tank (rocks)
st Storage tank
T Turbine
u Useful
Abbreviations
EES Engineering Equation Solver
HRS Heat Recovery System
ORC Organic Rankine Cycle
PCM Phase Change Material
PTC Parabolic Trough Collector

References
1. Rafique, M.M. Evaluation of Metal–Organic Frameworks as Potential Adsorbents for Solar Cooling
Applications. Appl. Syst. Innov. 2020, 3, 26. [CrossRef]
2. Eshraghi, A.; Salehi, G.; Heibati, S.; Lari, K. An assessment of the effect of different energy storage technologies
on solar power generators for different power sale scenarios: The case of Iran. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess.
2019, 34, 62–67. [CrossRef]
3. Bellos, E.; Said, Z.; Tzivanidis, C. The use of nanofluids in solar concentrating technologies: A comprehensive
review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 196, 84–99. [CrossRef]
4. Bellos, E.; Tzivanidis, C. Alternative designs of parabolic trough solar collectors. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci.
2019, 71, 81–117. [CrossRef]
5. Sami, S. Analysis of Nanofluids Behavior in Concentrated Solar Power Collectors with Organic Rankine
Cycle. Appl. Syst. Innov. 2019, 2, 22. [CrossRef]
6. Bellos, E.; Tzivanidis, C. Financial Optimization of a Solar-Driven Organic Rankine Cycle. Appl. Syst. Innov.
2020, 3, 23. [CrossRef]
7. Quoilin, S.; Orosz, M.; Hemond, H.; Lemort, V. Performance and design optimization of a low-cost solar
organic Rankine cycle for remote power generation. Sol. Energy 2011, 85, 955–966. [CrossRef]
8. Ashouri, M.; Ahmadi, M.H.; Pourkiaei, S.M.; Astaraei, F.R.; Ghasempour, R.; Ming, T.; Hemati, J.H. Exergy
and exergo-economic analysis and optimization of a solar double pressure organic Rankine cycle. Therm. Sci.
Eng. Prog. 2018, 6, 72–86. [CrossRef]
9. Tzivanidis, C.; Bellos, E.; Antonopoulos, K.A. Energetic and financial investigation of a stand-alone
solar-thermal Organic Rankine Cycle power plant. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 126, 421–433. [CrossRef]
10. He, Y.-L.; Mei, D.-H.; Tao, W.-Q.; Yang, W.-W.; Liu, H.-L. Simulation of the parabolic trough solar energy
generation system with Organic Rankine Cycle. Appl. Energy 2012, 97, 630–641. [CrossRef]
11. Patil, V.R.; Biradar, V.I.; Shreyas, R.; Garg, P.; Orosz, M.S.; Thirumalai, N. Techno-economic comparison of
solar organic Rankine cycle (ORC) and photovoltaic (PV) systems with energy storage. Renew. Energy 2017,
113, 1250–1260. [CrossRef]
12. Al-Nimr, M.d.A.; Bukhari, M.; Mansour, M. A combined CPV/T and ORC solar power generation system
integrated with geothermal cooling and electrolyser/fuel cell storage unit. Energy 2017, 133, 513–524.
[CrossRef]
13. Bassetti, M.C.; Consoli, D.; Manente, G.; Lazzaretto, A. Design and off-design models of a hybrid
geothermal-solar power plant enhanced by a thermal storage. Renew. Energy 2018, 128, 460–472. [CrossRef]
Appl. Syst. Innov. 2020, 3, 52 21 of 22

14. Rodríguez, J.M.; Sánchez, D.; Martínez, G.S.; Ikken, B. Techno-economic assessment of thermal energy
storage solutions for a 1 MWe CSP-ORC power plant. Sol. Energy 2016, 140, 206–218. [CrossRef]
15. Manfrida, G.; Secchi, R.; Stańczyk, K. Modelling and simulation of phase change material latent heat storages
applied to a solar-powered Organic Rankine Cycle. Appl. Energy 2016, 179, 378–388. [CrossRef]
16. Lakhani, S.; Raul, A.; Saha, S.K. Dynamic modelling of ORC-based solar thermal power plant integrated
with multitube shell and tube latent heat thermal storage system. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2017, 123, 458–470.
[CrossRef]
17. Alvi, J.Z.; Imran, M.; Pei, G.; Li, J.; Gao, G.; Alvi, J. Thermodynamic comparison and dynamic simulation of
direct and indirect solar organic Rankine cycle systems with PCM storage. Energy Procedia 2017, 129, 716–723.
[CrossRef]
18. Lizana, J.; Bordin, C.; Rajabloo, T. Integration of solar latent heat storage towards optimal small-scale combined
heat and power generation by Organic Rankine Cycle. J. Energy Storage 2020, 29, 101367. [CrossRef]
19. Freeman, J.; Guarracino, I.; Kalogirou, S.A.; Markides, C.N. A small-scale solar organic Rankine cycle combined
heat and power system with integrated thermal energy storage. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2017, 127, 1543–1554.
[CrossRef]
20. Eppinger, B.; Zigan, L.; Karl, J.; Will, S. Pumped thermal energy storage with heat pump-ORC-systems:
Comparison of latent and sensible thermal storages for various fluids. Appl. Energy 2020, 280, 115940.
[CrossRef]
21. Gambini, M.; Stilo, T.; Vellini, M. Selection of metal hydrides for a thermal energy storage device to support
low-temperature concentrating solar power plants. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2020, 45, 28404–28425. [CrossRef]
22. Scapino, L.; de Servi, C.; Zondag, H.A.; Diriken, J.; Rindt, C.C.M.; Sciacovelli, A. Techno-economic
optimization of an energy system with sorption thermal energy storage in different energy markets.
Appl. Energy 2020, 258, 114063. [CrossRef]
23. F-Chart Software. Engineering Equation Solver (EES). 2015. Available online: http://www.fchart.com/ees
(accessed on 15 September 2020).
24. Available online: https://www.therminol.com/products/Therminol-VP1 (accessed on 15 September 2020).
25. Tzivanidis, C.; Bellos, E. A Comparative Study of Solar-Driven Trigeneration Systems for the Building Sector.
Energies 2020, 13, 2074. [CrossRef]
26. Bellos, E.; Tzivanidis, C. Parametric Investigation of a Trigeneration System with an Organic Rankine Cycle
and Absorption Heat Pump Driven by Parabolic Trough Collectors for the Building Sector. Energies 2020,
13, 1800. [CrossRef]
27. EuroTrough II: Extension, Test and Qualification of EUROTROUGH from 4 to 6 Segments at Plataforma Solar
de Almeria. Project Cooordinator: Instalaciones Inabensa, S.A. April 2003. Available online: https://cordis.
europa.eu/docs/projects/files/ERK6/ERK6-CT-1999-00018/66682891-6_en.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2020).
28. Bellos, E.; Tzivanidis, C. Parametric analysis and optimization of a solar driven trigeneration system based
on ORC and absorption heat pump. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 161, 493–509. [CrossRef]
29. Pacheco, J.E.; Showalter, S.K.; Kolb, W.J. Development of a Molten-Salt Thermocline Thermal Storage System
for Parabolic Trough Plants. ASME J. Sol. Energy Eng. 2002, 124, 153–159. [CrossRef]
30. Lugolole, R.; Mawire, A.; Okello, D.; Lentswe, K.A.; Nyeinga, K.; Shobo, A.B. Experimental analyses of
sensible heat thermal energy storage systems during discharging. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2019,
35, 117–130. [CrossRef]
31. Klein, P.; Roos, T.H.; Sheer, T.J. Experimental Investigation into a Packed Bed Thermal Storage Solution for
Solar Gas Turbine Systems. Energy Procedia 2014, 49, 840–849. [CrossRef]
32. Meier, A.; Winkler, C.; Wuillemin, D. Experiment for modelling high temperature rock bed storage.
Sol. Energy Mater. 1991, 24, 255–264. [CrossRef]
33. Esence, T.; Bruch, A.; Molina, S.; Stutz, B.; Fourmigué, J.F. A review on experience feedback and numerical
modeling of packed-bed thermal energy storage systems. Solar Energy 2017, 153, 628–654. [CrossRef]
34. Zalba, B.; Marín, J.M.; Cabeza, L.F.; Mehling, H. Review on thermal energy storage with phase change:
Materials, heat transfer analysis and applications. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2003, 23, 251–283. [CrossRef]
35. Mawire, A.; Taole, S.H. A comparison of experimental thermal stratification parameters for an oil/pebble-bed
thermal energy storage (TES) system during charging. Appl. Energy 2011, 88, 4766–4778. [CrossRef]
36. Tang, D.; Zhang, X.; Hu, S.; Liu, X.; Ren, X.; Hu, J.; Feng, Y. The reuse of red brick powder as a filler in
styrene-butadiene rubber. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 261, 120966. [CrossRef]
Appl. Syst. Innov. 2020, 3, 52 22 of 22

37. Martin, C.; Bonk, A.; Braun, M.; Odenthal, C.; Bauer, T. Investigation of the long-term stability of quartzite and
basalt for a potential use as filler materials for a molten-salt based thermocline storage concept. Sol. Energy
2018, 171, 827–840. [CrossRef]
38. Jacob, R.; Saman, W.; Bruno, F. Capital cost expenditure of high temperature latent and sensible thermal
energy storage systems. AIP Conf. Proc. 2017, 1850, 080012.
39. Liu, M.; Saman, W.; Bruno, F. Review on storage materials and thermal performance enhancement techniques
for high temperature phase change thermal storage systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 2118–2132.
[CrossRef]
40. Bellos, E.; Tzivanidis, C.; Belessiotis, V. Daily performance of parabolic trough solar collectors. Sol. Energy
2017, 158, 663–678. [CrossRef]

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).