0
Research Papers

S-Ethane Brayton Power Conversion Systems for Concentrated Solar Power Plant

[+] Author and Article Information
Luis Coco Enríquez, Javier Muñoz-Antón

Department of Energy Engineering,
Technical University of Madrid—UPM,
Madrid 28040, Spain

José María Martínez-Val Peñalosa

Professor
Department of Energy Engineering,
Technical University of Madrid—UPM,
Madrid 28040, Spain

Contributed by the Solar Energy Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF SOLAR ENERGY ENGINEERING: INCLUDING WIND ENERGY AND BUILDING ENERGY CONSERVATION. Manuscript received June 12, 2015; final manuscript received November 23, 2015; published online December 29, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Mary Jane Hale.

J. Sol. Energy Eng 138(1), 011012 (Dec 29, 2015) (12 pages) Paper No: SOL-15-1180; doi: 10.1115/1.4032143 History: Received June 12, 2015; Revised November 23, 2015

The objective of this investigation is the comparison between supercritical ethane (s-ethane, C2H6) and supercritical carbon dioxide (s-CO2) Brayton power cycles for line-focusing concentrated solar power plants (CSP). In this study, CSP are analyzed with linear solar collectors (parabolic trough (PTC) or linear Fresnel (LF)), direct molten salt (MS), or direct steam generation (DSG) as heat transfer fluids (HTF), and four supercritical Brayton power cycles configurations: simple Brayton cycle (SB), recompression cycle (RC), partial cooling with recompression cycle (PCRC), and recompression with main compression intercooling cycle (RCMCI). All Brayton power cycles were assessed with two working fluids: s-CO2 and s-ethane. As a main result, we confirmed that s-ethane Brayton power cycles provide better net plant performance than s-CO2 cycles for turbine inlet temperatures (TITs) from 300 °C to 550 °C. As an example, the s-ethane RCMCI plant configuration net efficiency is ∼42.11% for TIT = 400 °C, and with s-CO2 the plant performance is ∼40%. The CSP Brayton power plants were also compared with another state-of-the-art CSP with DSG in linear solar collectors and a subcritical water Rankine power cycle with direct reheating (DRH), and a maximum plant performance between ∼40% and 41% (TIT = 550 °C).

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

MS SF with SB cycle

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

MS SF partial cooling with recompression (PCRC)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

DSG SF with recirculation mode

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

DSG SF and subcritical Rankine power cycle with DRH

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Line-focusing solar power plant efficiency1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Line-focusing solar power plant efficiency (see footnote no. 1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Line-focusing solar power plant efficiency2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Line-focusing solar power plant efficiency (see footnote no. 2)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Line-focusing solar power plant efficiency (see footnote no. 2)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Line-focusing solar power plant efficiency (see footnote no. 2)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

SB s-ethane plant efficiency and pressure drop in power cycle HXs (see footnote no. 2)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

RC s-ethane plant efficiency and pressure drop in power cycle HXs (see footnote no. 2)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

PCRC s-ethane plant efficiency and pressure drop in power cycle HXs (see footnote no. 2)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

RCMCI s-ethane plant efficiency and pressure drop in power cycle HXs (see footnote no. 2)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

SB s-ethane plant net efficiency versus compressor inlet temperature (see footnote no. 2)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

RC s-ethane plant net efficiency versus compressor inlet temperature (see footnote no. 2)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

PCRC s-ethane plant net efficiency versus compressor inlet temperature (see footnote no. 2)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

RCMCI s-ethane net efficiency and CIT (see footnote no. 2)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

LF effective aperture area (m2) versus TIT, fixed 50 MWe net power output3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

PTC effective aperture area (m2) versus TIT, fixed 50 MWe net power output (see footnote no. 3)

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