0
Research Papers

Energetic Comparison of Linear Fresnel and Parabolic Trough Collector Systems

[+] Author and Article Information
Heiko Schenk

German Aerospace Center (DLR),
Institute of Solar Research,
Wankelstraße 5,
Stuttgart 70563, Germany
e-mail: Heiko.Schenk@dlr.de

Tobias Hirsch

German Aerospace Center (DLR),
Institute of Solar Research,
Wankelstraße 5,
Stuttgart 70563, Germany
e-mail: Tobias.Hirsch@dlr.de

Jan Fabian Feldhoff

German Aerospace Center (DLR),
Institute of Solar Research,
Wankelstraße 5,
Stuttgart 70563, Germany
e-mail: Jan.Feldhoff@dlr.de

Michael Wittmann

German Aerospace Center (DLR),
Institute of Solar Research,
Wankelstraße 5,
Stuttgart 70563, Germany
e-mail: Michael.Wittmann@dlr.de

Contributed by the Solar Energy Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF SOLAR ENERGY ENGINEERING. Manuscript received May 24, 2013; final manuscript received May 22, 2014; published online June 20, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Wojciech Lipinski.

J. Sol. Energy Eng 136(4), 041015 (Jun 20, 2014) (11 pages) Paper No: SOL-13-1144; doi: 10.1115/1.4027766 History: Received May 24, 2013; Revised May 22, 2014

In recent years, linear Fresnel (LF) collector systems have been developed as a technical alternative to parabolic trough (PT) collector systems. While in the past, LF systems focused on low- and medium-temperature applications, today, LF systems are equipped with vacuum receivers and, therefore, can be operated with similar operating parameters as PT systems. Papers about the technical and economical comparison of specific PT and LF systems have already been published (Dersch et al., 2009, "Comparison of Linear Fresnel and Parabolic Trough Collecor Systems—System Analysis to Determine Break-Even Costs of Linear Fresnel Collectors," Proceedings of the 15th International SolarPACES Symposium, Berlin; Giostri et al. 2011, "Comparison of Two Linear Collectors in Solar Thermal Plants: Parabolic Trough vs. Fresnel," ASME 2011 5th International Conference on Energy Sustainability, Washington, DC; and Morin et al., 2012, "Comparison of Linear Fresnel and Parabolic Trough Collector Power Plants," Sol. Energy, 86(1), pp. 1–12). However, the present paper focuses on the systematic differences in optical and thermodynamic performance and the impact on the economic figures. In a first step the optical performance of typical PT and LF solar fields (SFs) has been examined, showing the differences during the course of the day and annually. Furthermore, the thermodynamic performance, depending on the operating temperature, has been compared. In a second step, the annual electricity yield of typical PT and LF plants has been examined. Solar Salt has been chosen as the heat transfer fluid. Both systems utilize the same power block (PB) and storage type. Solar field size, storage capacity, and PB electrical power are variable, while all examined configurations achieve the same annual electricity yield. As expected for molten salt systems, both systems are the most cost-effective with large storage capacities. The lower thermodynamic performance of the LF system requires a larger SF and lower specific SF costs in order to be competitive. Assuming specific PT field costs of 300 €/m2 aperture, the break-even costs of the LF system with Solar Salt range between 202 and 235 €/m2, depending on the site and storage capacity. In order to confirm the major statements, within a sensitivity analysis, it is shown that a variation of SF and storage costs does not have a significant impact on the relative break-even costs of the LF system.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Cosine of incident angle and IAM of the PT collector

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Annual distribution of DNI, IAM-corrected DNI, and area-specific optical input for Seville

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

DNI and sun elevation αs Mar. 20, June 21, and Dec. 12 for Daggett

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Longitudinal and transversal IAM of the LF collector

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Optical efficiency of PT and LF system including field losses (shading and end losses)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Annual distribution of DNI, IAM-corrected DNI, and area-specific optical input for Daggett

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Optical power (q·solar) of a PT and LF system on Mar. 20, June 21, and Dec. 12 for Daggett

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Specific heat losses of the collector systems

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Thermal efficiency of collector field at DNI = 850 W/m2 and 500 W/m2 (perpendicular irradiation)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Cost-optimal SM of a PT plant for each category of storage capacity with storage costs varying from 20 to 50 €/kWhth, Wnet = 220 GWh, Daggett

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Sensitivity of cost assumption of TES on the break-even costs of the LF system, Wnet = 220 GWh, Daggett

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Plant configurations of PT and LF, Wnet = 220 GWh, Daggett

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Solar multiple optimization for the PT system, Wnet = 220 GWh, Daggett

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

CI of both systems for 2 FLH, Wnet = 220 GWh, Daggett

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

CI of both systems for 12 FLH, Wnet = 220 GWh, Daggett

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Plant configurations of PT and LF, Wnet = 220 GWh, Seville

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Solar multiple optimization for the PT system, Wnet = 220 GWh, Seville

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

CI of both systems for 2 FLH, Wnet = 220 GWh, Seville

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

CI of both systems for 12 FLH, Wnet = 220 GWh, Seville

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Cost-optimal SM of a PT plant for each category of storage capacity with SF costs varying from 200 to 320 W/m2, Wnet = 220 GWh, Daggett

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Sensitivity of cost assumption of PT field on the break-even costs of the LF system, Wnet = 220 GWh, Daggett

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In