Research Papers

Technoeconomic Analysis of Alternative Solarized s-CO2 Brayton Cycle Configurations

[+] Author and Article Information
Clifford K. Ho

Sandia National Laboratories,
Albuquerque 87185-1127, NM
e-mail: ckho@sandia.gov

Matthew Carlson

Sandia National Laboratories,
Albuquerque 87185-1127, NM

Pardeep Garg, Pramod Kumar

Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore 560012, India

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 September 18, 2015; final manuscript received March 22, 2016; published online July 12, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Carlos F. M. Coimbra.The United States Government retains, and by accepting the article for publication, the publisher acknowledges that the United States Government retains, a nonexclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this work, or allow others to do so, for United States government purposes.

J. Sol. Energy Eng 138(5), 051008 (Jul 12, 2016) (9 pages) Paper No: SOL-15-1313; doi: 10.1115/1.4033573 History: Received September 18, 2015; Revised March 22, 2016

This paper evaluates cost and performance tradeoffs of alternative supercritical carbon dioxide (s-CO2) closed-loop Brayton cycle configurations with a concentrated solar heat source. Alternative s-CO2 power cycle configurations include simple, recompression, cascaded, and partial cooling cycles. Results show that the simple closed-loop Brayton cycle yielded the lowest power-block component costs while allowing variable temperature differentials across the s-CO2 heating source, depending on the level of recuperation. Lower temperature differentials led to higher sensible storage costs, but cycle configurations with lower temperature differentials (higher recuperation) yielded higher cycle efficiencies and lower solar collector and receiver costs. The cycles with higher efficiencies (simple recuperated, recompression, and partial cooling) yielded the lowest overall solar and power-block component costs for a prescribed power output.

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


Ho, C. K. , Conboy, T. , Ortega, J. , Afrin, S. , Gray, A. , Christian, J. M. , Bandyopadyay, S. , Kedare, S. B. , Singh, S. , and Wani, P. , 2014, “ High-Temperature Receiver Designs for Supercritical CO2 Closed-Loop Brayton Cycles,” ASME Paper No. ES2014-6328.
Iverson, B. D. , Conboy, T. M. , Pasch, J. J. , and Kruizenga, A. M. , 2013, “ Supercritical CO2 Brayton Cycles for Solar-Thermal Energy,” Appl. Energy, 111, pp. 957–970. [CrossRef]
Turchi, C. S. , Ma, Z. W. , Neises, T. W. , and Wagner, M. J. , 2013, “ Thermodynamic Study of Advanced Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Power Cycles for Concentrating Solar Power Systems,” ASME J. Sol. Energy Eng., 135(4), p. 041007. [CrossRef]
Neises, T. , and Turchi, C. , 2014, “ A Comparison of Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Power Cycle Configurations With an Emphasis on CSP Applications,” Solarpaces 2013 International Conference, Vol. 49, pp. 1187–1196.
Wright, S. A. , Pickard, P. S. , Fuller, R. , Radel, R. F. , and Vernon, M. E. , 2009, “ Supercritical CO2 Brayton Cycle Power Generation Development Program and Initial Test Results,” ASME Paper No. POWER2009-81081.
Frutschi, H. U. , 2005, Closed-Cycle Gas Turbines: Operating Experience and Future Potential, ASME Press, New York, p. 283.
U.S. DOE Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee and Generation IV International Forum, 2002, “ A Technology Roadmap for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems,” U.S. DOE Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee and the Generation IV International Forum, Washington, DC, No. GIF-002-00.
Feher, E. G. , 1968, “ The Supercritical Thermodynamic Power Cycle,” Energy Convers., 8(2), pp. 85–90. [CrossRef]
Kacludis, A. , Lyons, S. , Nadav, D. , and Zdankiewicz, E. , 2012, “ Waste Heat to Power (WH2P) Applications Using a Supercritical CO2-Based Power Cycle,” Power—Gen International 2012, Orlando, FL, Dec. 11–13, pp. 11–13.
Persichilli, M. , Held, T. , Hostler, S. , and Zdankiewicz, E. , 2011, “ Transforming Waste Heat to Power Through Development of a CO2—Based Power Cycle,” Electric Power Expo 2011, Rosemount, IL, pp. 10–12.
Persichilli, M. , Kacludis, A. , Zdankiewicz, E. , and Held, T. , 2012, “ Supercritical CO2 Power Cycle Developments and Commercialization: Why s-CO2 Can Displace Steam,” Power-Gen India & Central Asia 2012, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi, India, Apr. 19–21.
Held, T. J. , Hostler, S. , Miller, J. D. , Vermeersch, M. , and Xle, T. , 2013, “ Heat Engine and Heat to Electricity Systems and Methods With Working Fluid Mass Management Control,” U.S. Patent No. US8613195B224.
Angelino, G. , 1968, “ Carbon Dioxide Condensation Cycles for Power Production,” ASME J. Eng. Power, 90(3), pp. 287–295. [CrossRef]
Dyreby, J. , Klein, S. , Nellis, G. , and Reindl, D. , 2014, “ Design Considerations for Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Brayton Cycles With Recompression,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 136(10), p. 101701.
Gavic, D. J. , 2012, “ Investigation of Water, Air, and Hybrid Cooling for Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Brayton Cycles,” Masters thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
Hoffmann, J. R. , and Feher, E. G. , 1971, “ 150 Kwe Supercritical Closed Cycle System,” ASME J. Eng. Power, 93(1), pp. 70–80. [CrossRef]
Angelino, G. , 1967, “ Perspectives for Liquid Phase Compression Gas Turbine,” ASME J. Eng. Power, 89(2), pp. 229–236. [CrossRef]
Angelino, G. , 1967, “ Liquid-Phase Compression Gas Turbine for Space Power Applications,” J. Spacecr. Rockets, 4(2), pp. 188–194. [CrossRef]
Angelino, G. , 1969, “ Real Gas Effects in Carbon Dioxide Cycles,” ASME Paper No. 69-GT-102.
Angelino, G. , 1971, “ Real Gas Effects in Carbon Dioxide Cycles,” Atomkernenergie, 17(1), pp. 27–33.
Angelino, G. , 1978, “ Use of Liquid Natural-Gas as Heat Sink for Power Cycles,” ASME J. Eng. Power, 100(1), pp. 169–177. [CrossRef]
Dostal, V. , Hejzlar, P. , and Driscoll, M. J. , 2006, “ High-Performance Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Cycle for Next-Generation Nuclear Reactors,” Nucl. Technol., 154(3), pp. 265–282. [CrossRef]
Kimzey, G. , 2012, “ Development of a Brayton Bottoming Cycle Using Supercritical Carbon Dioxide as the Working Fluid,” Electric Power Research Institute, University Turbine Systems Research Program, Gas Turbine Industrial Fellowship, Palo Alto, CA.
Garg, P. , Sriram, H. K. , Kumar, P. , Conboy, T. , and Ho, C. , 2014, “ Advanced Low Pressure Cycle for Concentrated Solar Power Generation,” ASME Paper No. ES2014-6545.
Driscoll, M. J. , and Hejzlar, P. , 2004, “ 300 MWe Supercritical CO2 Plant Layout and Design,” Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems, MIT Nuclear Engineering Department, Cambridge, MA, Topical Report No. MIT-GFR-014.
Schlenker, H. V. , 1974, “ Cost Functions for HTR-Direct-Cycle Components,” Atomkernenergie, 22(4), pp. 226–235.
ESDU, 1994, “ Selection and Costing of Heat Exchangers,” Engineering Sciences Data Unit, London, UK, No. ESDU 92013.
Peters, M. S. , Timmerhaus, K. D. , and West, R. E. , 2003, Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers, 5th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, p. 988.
Siegel, N. P. , Ho, C. K. , Khalsa, S. S. , and Kolb, G. J. , 2010, “ Development and Evaluation of a Prototype Solid Particle Receiver: On-Sun Testing and Model Validation,” ASME J. Sol. Energy Eng., 132(2), p. 021008.
Kolb, G. J. , Ho, C. K. , Mancini, T. R. , and Gary, J. A. , 2011, “ Power Tower Technology Roadmap and Cost Reduction Plan,” Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, Report No. SAND2011-2419.
Falcone, P. K. , Noring, J. E. , and Hruby, J. M. , 1985, “ Assessment of a Solid Particle Receiver for a High Temperature Solar Central Receiver System,” Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, CA, Report No. SAND85-8208.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic of a solar-driven, indirectly heated, closed-loop supercritical CO2 Brayton power cycle

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

A flow diagram of a SCBC configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

A flow diagram of a supercritical CO2 RCBC

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

A flow diagram of the first CCBC analyzed by Kimzey[23]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Schematic of a CBI cycle [24]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

T–s diagram of CBI cycle [24]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

CBI cycle efficiency versus turbine inlet pressure for various turbine outlet pressures. Legend: ◻ p4 = 10 bar, Δ p4 = 15 bar, ○ p4 = 20 bar, × p4 = 26 bar, ⋄ p4 = 75 bar. (1bar = 100 kPa).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Heat exchanger material selection curves from the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel code

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Thermal storage cost as a function of temperature difference across the heat source to the power block (ΔTHTR)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Receiver cost as a function of thermal-to-electric efficiency

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Heliostat cost as a function of thermal-to-electric efficiency

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Mass flow rate of heat-transfer/storage media and required thermal input as a function of temperature difference across the heat source to the power block (ΔTHTR)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Thermal-to-electric efficiency of various s-CO2 closed Brayton cycle configurations as a function of temperature difference across the primary heat source to the power block (ΔTHTR)



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