See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258517850

Simulation of GEMASOLAR-based solar tower plants for the Chinese energy

market: Influence of plant downsizing and location change

Article  in  Renewable Energy · July 2013

DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2012.12.022

CITATIONS READS

35 900

4 authors, including:

Carlo Alberto Amadei Giulio Allesina

Harvard University Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia
20 PUBLICATIONS   443 CITATIONS    60 PUBLICATIONS   398 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Paolo Tartarini
Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia
135 PUBLICATIONS   1,313 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

LENS Compendium on nanoscale research View project

Wettability of graphitic surfaces View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Carlo Alberto Amadei on 07 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 (This is a sample cover image for this issue. The actual cover is not yet available at this time.)

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached

copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

Renewable Energy 55 (2013) 366e373

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Simulation of GEMASOLAR-based solar tower plants for the Chinese

energy market: Influence of plant downsizing and location change
C.A. Amadei a, *, G. Allesina a, P. Tartarini a, Wu Yuting b
a
Department of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Via Vignolese 905, 41125 Modena, Italy
b
Key laboratory of Enhanced Heat Transfer and Energy Conservation, College of Environmental and Energy Engineering, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100124, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In many countries that are experiencing a steep increase of energy demand, there is a growing challenge
Received 7 August 2012 of responding to this demand by investing in renewable technologies for new power plants. Solar energy
Accepted 8 December 2012 seems to be one of the best solutions to reduce the fossil fuels consumption for energy production
Available online
purposes. In terms of high-power solar plants, concentrating towers are characterized by high effi-
ciencies, but the investment costs are high as well. For this reason, a fundamental issue consists in
Keywords:
simulating the solar tower behavior in different locations, in order to provide a precise estimation of both
Solar tower power (STP)
annual energy production and return of the investment. Among these types of solar plants, GEMASOLAR
China
Simulation
has been recently (2011) put in operation in Andalusia, Spain, and the data that have been obtained by
Heliostat this plant allow one to study its potential for application in different locations. The present work is aimed
Efficiency at simulating the GEMASOLAR plant behavior in some Chinese areas suitable for such a technology. All
Hybridization the simulations proposed here have been obtained through a Solar Advisor Model (SAM). Some of the
simulations of the original plant have been modified forcing the plant to run without fossil fuel hy-
bridization or changing its nominal power. After model validation, results have shown encouraging
perspectives for the exploitation of this technology in China, with annual overall efficiencies of 14% for
the 20 MW power plant (GEMASOLAR nominal power). In addition, the down-scaled plants have been
optimized through native SAM software algorithm focusing on geometrical parameters. This procedure
has been proved to be able of maintaining a high efficiency (14.97%) even for a 10 MW power plant. The
focus has been on pilot plants, since they could represent the first step towards a deep exploitation of
concentrating solar thermal power in China, with a relatively low capital risk.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction For every renewable technology available, any country should

China’s primary energy demand grew more from 2002 to 2006
(13% annual average growth) than in the previous two decades (4%
annual average growth from 1980 to 2002) [1]. However, in 2006
China has become the biggest greenhouse gasses emitter, over-
taking the United States [2]. Most of the Chinese electrical power is
produced by thermal plants, and coal in particular is still the most
important fossil fuel for this country. In order to reduce environ-
mental pollution and energy import dependency, renewable en-
ergy sources, such as solar power, are going to play an outstanding
role [3e5].
Abbreviations: CSP, concentrating solar power; DNI, direct normal irradiation;
STP, solar tower plants; HTF, heat transfer fluid; SAM, Solar Advisor Model; FFF,
fossil fill fraction.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: carloalberto.amadei@gmail.com (C.A. Amadei).
consider if it involves a resource conveniently exploitable and
profitable. This work is focused on the potentiality of concentrating
solar power (CSP) plants in the new born Chinese green energy
market.
As far as solar technologies are concerned, a rapid development
both in basic research and in economic policies has occurred
worldwide. This has been carried on for all the technologies
exploiting solar power, even those that undergo thermodynamic
cycles such as concentrating solar plants (CSP) including parabolic
trough, solar tower, and dish/engine, through commercial and pilot
plants [6]. Concentrating technologies achieve high temperatures
and high efficiencies of the whole plant by concentrating a large
amount of direct normal irradiation (DNI) on a relatively small
collection area (Fig. 1).
This can be obtained by interposing an optical device (reflector,
Fig. 1A) between the source of radiation and the energy absorbing
device (Fig. 1B). In particular, in solar tower plants (STP) (or “central
receiver systems”), mirrors called heliostats (Greek term for

0960-1481/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2012.12.022
 Author's personal copy
C.A. Amadei et al. / Renewable Energy 55 (2013) 366e373
Fig. 1. STP layout. With letters A, B, C, D, E are respectively indicated: reflectors, absorber, heat exchangers, steam turbine/generator group, HTF storage tanks.
“immobile Sun”) track the Sun course by two-axes movements.
This tracking reflects the DNI onto a receiver, positioned centrally
on a tower. In the receiver the solar radiation is converted in order
to increase the temperature of a heat transfer fluid (HTF). HTF cir-
culates through the receiver, and once it is properly heated, it
returns to a series of heat exchangers (Fig. 1C) connected to the
power block. Here the HTF releases its heat to the water passing
through the exchanger. This generates a high-pressure superheated
steam feeding a conventional reheat steam turbine/generator
(Fig. 1D) in order to produce electrical power. An HTF storage
(Fig. 1E) and a secondary heat exchanger fed with fossil fuels burner
can be incorporated to ensure constant conditions and constant
flow of the working fluid, even in case of solar radiation variations.
Plants using both heats coming from solar radiation and fuel
burning are called hybrid plants.
In 2011, the 20 MW power plant GEMASOLAR (Fig. 2) was in-
augurated Fuentes de Andalusia (Spain). It represents the first
commercial central tower plant equipped with a molten nitrate salt
thermal energy storage [7,8], and its location has been chosen very
carefully, since that municipality, placed in one of the warmest
areas of the Iberian peninsula, records one of the highest radiations
rate in Europe. In addition, Fuentes de Andalusia belongs to the so
called ‘World Sunbelt’, characterized by optimum conditions for the
solar energy production. As shown in the DNI world map (Fig. 3,
[9]), there are many locations with high level of DNI, allowing one
to consider the exploitation of this technology, even though its
Fig. 2. GEMASOLAR plant, owned by Torresol Energy (Ó Torresol Energy).
367
installation costs are fairly high (e.g. GEMASOLAR installation costs
about $300 million [10]).
The aim of this work is to study, through software simulations,
the potential of STP technology in China, through a hypothetical
relocation of GEMASOLAR in different Chinese regions, verifying
where it is possible to achieve the highest energy production re-
sults. Moreover, a GEMASOLAR downsizing (10, 5 and 3 MW) will
be simulated, finding optimal geometric parameters, in order to
reduce demonstrative plants installation costs.
2. Model and simulations
All the simulations have been obtained using the Solar Advisor
Model (SAM, [11]). This software has been developed thanks to the
joint efforts of NREL (U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory),
Sandia National Laboratory, and the U.S. Department of Energy.
Since 2006, when it was released, SAM has been constantly
improved. The present work has been carried out using the June
2011 release and as reference the most important model parame-
ters for GEMASOLAR plant are listed in Table 2.
2.1. Parameters set-up
Before starting the simulations, all the information regarding
GEMASOLAR plant and other parameters required by SAM had been
collected. Since GEMASOLAR is a recent project, some of its pa-
rameters were hard to find, due to the level of confidentiality sur-
rounding the project. When some data were not available, they
were taken from literature review on Solar Two STP [12], which
represents the most similar plant that has been fully studied up-to-
date (Table 3).
Solar Two literature reviews have been valuable when the
receiver thermodynamic characteristics had to be modeled: for
instance, the tube wall thickness of the GEMASOLAR receiver heat
exchanger has been set to the same value of Solar Two (1.25 mm,
[12,13]). Other geometrical parameters, such as receiver dimension
or number of panels, were directly measured from available
GEMASOLAR plant layouts [14].
2.2. Hybridization
The natural gas hybridization was set to 15% of the annual power
output of the plant, as reported by the GEMASOLAR datasheet [7].
In fact, the SAM software has not a specific option for defining the
hybridization along the year. It is just possible to set the amount of
heat delivered every hour from the burner exchanger, when there is
 Author's personal copy

368 C.A. Amadei et al. / Renewable Energy 55 (2013) 366e373

Fig. 3. World DNI annual mean.

insufficient energy coming from the solar field or the thermal increase from the not-hybridized one, providing a good analogy
storage for running the plant at fixed power output. If the related with what reported in GEMASOLAR datasheet. Moreover, the
parameter (fossil fill fraction, FFF) is set to less than 1.0, e.g. 0.5, the declared GEMASOLAR hybridized net annual power output is
burner starts to work only if the thermal storage and the solar 110 GWh [7], and this confirms a good basis of the model (see also
energy are not able to supply the 50% of the design power output. Table 1).
When the FFF is set to 1.0, the system consumes all the fossil fuel
necessary to maintain the power output at design value. 2.3. Location change
In order to obtain an annual hybridization of 15%, three condi-
tions were maintained: Once all the plant parameters were set and the software was
tested, some suitable Chinese areas for GEMASOLAR relocation
1. Analogy with reported cases in the SAM example files: SAM were chosen, based on the maximum values of DNI provided by the
designers suggest to fix a 1.05 turbine output fraction during worldwide available weather data [15].
the best irradiance conditions (summertime, daytime). This The 15% hybridization has been used only for model validation,
allows the plant to produce a power output higher than the simulating the original GEMASOLAR power plant in Andalusia. In
design specifications in these periods.
2. From April to September the FFF has been set to zero during the
central hours of the day (12 pme4 pm), supposing that a hy- Table 2
bridization is not needed during this period, as suggested by Principal model parameters for GEMASOLAR plant.
the DNI trend.
Category Parameter Value
3. During the night and in winter, FFF was chosen according to the
Climate DNI [kWh/m2] 2089
literature in order to guarantee a correct turbine operation Latitude [
] 37.42
[12]: the power block cannot operate properly when it is forced Longitude [
] 5.9
to produce an amount of energy lower than the 25% of the Annual average ambient temperature [
C] 18.3
design one. Therefore, the fossil fill fraction has been set to Heliostat field Heliostat area [m2] 120
Ratio of reflective area to profile 0.96
0.25, which guarantees a minimum power output of about
Number of heliostat 2650
5 MW for the entire system. Mirror reflectance and soiling 0.93
Heliostat stow deploy angle [
] 10
The plant simulations under these conditions yielded a net Tower and receiver Tower height [m] 147
Coating emittance 0.1
annual power output of 103 GWh/year, which corresponds to a 15%
Coating absorptance 0.95
Max receiver flux [kWt/m2] 1000
Receiver design thermal power [MWt] 9.11
Table 1 Power block Design turbine output [MWe] 19.9
Model validation. Rated cycle conversion efficiency 0.375
Design HTF inlet Temp. [
C] 595
Parameter GEMASOLAR Scenario 1 Design HTF outlet Temp. [
C] 290
(simulated) Boiler operating pressure [bar] 100
DNI (kWh/m2 y) 2172.0 [13] 2089.7 Thermal storage Full load hours of TES [h] 15
Hybridization 15.00% 14.98% Storage HTF volume [m3] 3819
Variability Unknown 96% Parasitic losses Piping loss coefficient [Wt/m] 55
Net energy production (GWh/year) 110.00 103.06 Tracking power for a single heliostat [kWe] 0.055
Net energy production difference 6.3% Receiver HTF pump efficiency 0.85
 Author's personal copy

C.A. Amadei et al. / Renewable Energy 55 (2013) 366e373 369

Table 3 2.4. Power plant scale-down: pilot plant

Chinese locations [14].

Location Region DNI Latitude Longitude Altitude The location which showed the highest energy production
(kWh/m2 year) (m) (Lhasa) was chosen for a second simulation campaign with the goal
Lhasa Tibet 2513.8 29.67
N 91.12
E 3650 of pointing out the best geometrical parameters for three sizes of
Daqaidam Qinghai 2392.5 37.85
N 95.37
E 3173 solar tower pilot plants (3, 5 and 10 MW). In particular, the aspect
Linxi Inner 2202.2 43.60
N 118.07
E 799.5
ratio (length/width) of the heliostats was set at 5/6 according to the
Mongolia
GEMASOLAR heliostat ratio.
The pilot plants are designed following a GEMASOLAR layout:
order to obtain more valuable data for the new location simula- the optical and thermal properties of the heliostats, the receiver,
tions, all the plants have been considered “full-solar” power the thermal storage and the power block are the same as the
plants, turning FFF to 0. This allows one to compare results GEMASOLAR plant. Parameters that were changed are the follow-
obtained by the change of the location neglecting the fossil fuel ing: location, number and size of heliostats (fixing the aspect ratio),
fraction influence, which, if the energy production changes, can receiver tower height, receiver and heliostats layout [16].
vary from the 15% obtained in the simulation of the GEMASOLAR An optimization wizard tool (a feature of SAM software [17],)
plant. has been run for every simulation in order to determine the best
All weather data, relative to a single specific year, were gathered number, dimension and layout of heliostats, tower height and
from the U.S. Department of Energy database [15]. China is a large receiver dimension. During the simulations, SAM has been bound
country with a total surface of 9.6 million km2; regions with high to choose characteristics and dimensions of components according
values of DNI are spread in the South-West and in the Northern part to the ranges reported in Table 4.
of the country (Fig. 4). Most of those regions are characterized by Every simulation has been run fixing the heliostat size 5, 10, 20,
high altitude, which is fundamental in order to reach high values of 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110 and 120 m2. The product of the
DNI. In these locations sun rays pass through a thinner atmosphere diameter and the height of the receiver is set to be at least the same
layer, hence they are less attenuated due to scattering. as the heliostat size dimension, in order to keep the energy flux to
Three different locations were chosen for GEMASOLAR the receiver within an acceptable range; high energy flux might
simulation: have negative effects on the tube absorber inside the receiver.
Other constrains for the solar field were set: the maximum and
- Lhasa, Tibet; minimum ratios between tower height and heliostat distance were
- Daiqiadam, Qinghai; 6 and 1 respectively. Every simulation has been repeated for the
- Linxi, Inner Mongolia. three chosen power outputs.
Results show that the average plant efficiency (Eq. (1)) increases
Information on locations is reported in Section 3 [15]. as the power output is increased.

China
Russia Direct Normal
Solar Radiation
Kazakhstan Annual

kWh/m²/day
>9
Mongolia
8.5 - 9.0
8.0 - 8.5
North 7.5 - 8.0
Kyrgyzstan Korea 7.0 - 7.5
6.5 - 7.0
6.0 - 6.5
South 5.5 - 6.0
Tajikistan Korea
5.0 - 5.5
4.5 - 5.0
Pakistan 4.0 - 4.5
3.5 - 4.0
3.0 - 3.5
2.5 - 3.0
2.0 - 2.5
<2

Nepal 0 220 440 880

Bhutan Kilometers

Bangladesh
India
Myanmar
Vietnam
Model estimates of monthly average daily total radiation using inputs
derived from satellite and surface observations of cloud cover,
aerosol optical depth, precipitable water vapor, albedo, atmospheric
pressure and ozone sampled at a 40km resolution.
Philippines
Laos
Thailand
April 2005

Fig. 4. China DNI annual mean.

 Author's personal copy

370 C.A. Amadei et al. / Renewable Energy 55 (2013) 366e373

Table 4
Components range for pilot projects.

Parameter Range
Number of heliostats Unlimited
Heliostat lay-out Free
Receiver dimension At least the same
size of heliostat;
height  1.2 diameter
(same aspect ratio of
the heliostats)
Tower height (m) 30e80


kWh
Year energy production
year
hyear ¼

 
(1) Fig. 5. Scenario 1, monthly energy production.
kWh
DNI reflective area m2
m2 y
could be caused by some factors that are discussed in the following
3. Results and discussion paragraphs.
In the first scenario an availability factor of 96% has been
The performed simulations may be divided in four scenarios: introduced. This follows what is suggested by the SAM user guide.
The availability factor considers downtimes due to forced and
1) GEMASOLAR simulated in Andalusia, 15% hybridization with scheduled outages. SAM multiplies the calculated electrical AC
natural gas; the simulation outputs of this scenario are com- output of every hour times the system availability factor. Simulat-
pared with the technical data from Ref. [7] in Table 1 to validate ing a 100% plant availability, the system can easily reach 107 GWh/
the model. year of net electricity production. However, these data cannot be
2) The second scenario, similar to the first, consists of a non- considered practically acceptable because they do not take routine
hybridized power plant; this was used as a basis for the maintenance operations into account.
change of location simulations. The heliostats field layout designed in SAM is not the same as
3) The third scenario consists of the experimental campaign for the actual one, due to the lack of flexibility of the software; this may
change of location. have some influences on the optical losses of the plant.
4) The fourth scenario consists of power downsize optimization Without any information about the receiver (confidential data),
assuming that the plant is located in Lhasa, Tibet. it was modeled like the Solar Two’s receiver, which is based on
a technology from the 90’s and could be less energy efficient than
the newer GEMASOLAR receiver.
3.1. Scenario 1 and model validation
The electricity production is lower during winter due to the
reduced amount of DNI (being almost half as compared to summer
Table 5 and Fig. 5 show the monthly energy production for the
time [9]), which is correlated to Sun position and amount of solar
first scenario. Both gross energy production and net energy pro-
hours.
duction are reported; differences between these two values are due
to parasitic losses from electric loads in the solar field and power
block for pumps, cooling equipment and heliostats movement. 3.2. Scenarios 2 and 3
Difference values around 5% find correspondence in literature [18].
The value of the obtained net annual energy production The second scenario, without hybridization, does not represent
(103.06 GWh/year) is similar to the expected value declared by the real GEMASOLAR case, but it is worth presenting and discussing
Torresol: 110 GWh/year as reported in Table 1. Differences between its results, in order to receive a deeper insight into the possibility of
these results are acceptable, justifying the use of SAM software for employing this technology without external power sources, espe-
simulating the next scenarios. However, the lower production cially in the case-studies of China locations.
The energy productions in the new locations, compared to the
GEMASOLAR in Andalusia, are reported in Table 6 and Fig. 6.
Table 5
From the result of annual energy production, the most suitable
Scenario 1, monthly energy production.
location appears to be in the region of Tibet, with an increase of
Month Gross energy Net energy more than 23% compared to the full-solar production in Andalusia,
production (GWh) production (GWh)
due to the high annual value of DNI. In summer, Tibet DNI values
January 6.90 6.62 are comparable to the DNI values in Spain, but during winter
February 6.87 6.59
March 8.79 8.41
months it is observed that DNI values almost in Tibet are almost
April 8.25 7.86 double of those in Spain.
May 10.02 9.55 The trend in Fig. 6, is probably linked with the Tibetan climate
June 10.69 10.16 [19], which presents a wet season during the last part of the
July 12.38 11.79
summer; in fact, the DNI value in October is higher than in August.
August 12.03 11.45
September 8.96 8.51 However the data of DNI in March seems to be particularly low,
October 9.11 8.68 compared to those in February, possibly due to measurement
November 7.32 7.00 errors.
December 6.71 6.44 Not only does Tibet have favorable conditions for solar energy
Total 108.04 103.06
Difference 4.6%
(better than many locations in the Sahara desert), but also a low air
temperature. With the benefit of cool air, the power block heat sink
 Author's personal copy

C.A. Amadei et al. / Renewable Energy 55 (2013) 366e373 371

Table 6 a plant could be located in the region 500 km North-West of Beijing,

Energy production for different locations. exploiting the already existing transport systems and transmission
Month Net energy production (GWh) lines.
Scenario 2 Scenario 3
According to all previous considerations, the best region to be
chosen seems to be Tibet, achieving an efficiency (according to (Eq.
Lhasa Daqaidam Linxi Fuentes de
(1))) of 14.1% over the course of a year. The increase of efficiency
(Tibet) (Qinghai) (Inner Mongolia) A. (Andalusia)
compared to Scenario 2 is due to the different latitude which de-
January 7.93 6.71 5.20 4.17
February 7.75 6.87 5.87 4.48
termines a decrease of cosine losses (Eq (2)); on the other hand, the
March 6.57 9.09 7.48 6.47 lower temperatures in this region increase the heat losses espe-
April 8.26 10.18 9.24 7.23 cially in the receiver:
May 9.46 12.67 11.57 9.24
June 10.11 11.52 12.01 10.14 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
July 9.93 10.75 11.36 11.79 1 þ sin as sin ar þ cos as cos ar cosðgr  gs Þ
August 9.41 10.85 7.93 10.95
cosðqi Þ ¼ pffiffiffi (2)
2
September 9.43 8.69 7.48 7.74
October 10.15 8.15 6.39 6.79
November 9.56 6.60 4.63 4.76
where:
December 9.48 5.90 3.86 3.86
Total 108.05 107.99 93.03 87.62 qi : incidence angle (
)
Differences þ23.3% þ23.2% þ6.2% e as : azimuth solar angle (
)
from scenario 2
ar : azimuth receiver angle (
)
Efficiency 14.02% 14.73% 13.77% 13.67%
gr : zenith normal vector angle (
)
gs : zenith solar angle (
)
can be switched from water to dry cooling, characterized by
a negligible use of water [20]. Cosine losses are the biggest term of the optical efficiency,
The aim of this simulation is to show the advantages of a CSP in which is given by:
Tibet, which could possibly compensate for some of this region
drawbacks, such as: hopt ¼ rcosðqi Þhatt hsp hsb (3)

- availability of transportation: transport routes must be pro- where:

vided to reach the often isolated sites of solar plants; there is
a rail connection between Lhasa and the North, but roads need
to be constructed or improved [21];
- ground condition: only the inter-mountain wide valley could
be exploited, excluding the mountain area; a possible freezing
of the ground down to a depth of 3 m during the winter should
be taken into account [22];
- problems concerning the construction of transmission lines.
Qinghai could also be a suitable location for a concentrating
solar plant due to the high level of DNI that lead to an annual en-
ergy production of almost 108 GWh. However, as a Tibetan region,
problems regarding the construction of a plant on isolated high
plateau have to be solved first.
The Inner Mongolia area shows lower level of energy produc-
tion, and that region is characterized by strong wind and sand
storms [23]. These phenomena are likely to have a negative impact
on the energy production (low mirror cleanliness), requiring more
heliostat-washing and accelerating the aging and degradation of
the mirrors. The advantage of Inner Mongolia lies in its location;
r: mirror reflectivity
hatt : atmospheric attenuation losses
hsb : shading and blocking losses
hsp : spillage losses
Optical losses together with the efficiency of the transformation
from radiation to thermal energy and the power block efficiency
form the overall efficiency of an STP:
ht ¼ hopt *hradiation/thermal energy *hpb : (4)
Generally speaking, annual efficiency (solar to electricity)
greater than 15% represents a very satisfactory result [24]. More-
over, one should consider that it was achieved just by changing the
plant location, without any optimization concerning the solar field
layout or the insulation technology, which can have a deep influ-
ence in a cold climate such as in Tibet.
Finally, the energy production trend over the whole year ap-
pears to be more stable in Tibet than compared with Spain, which
facilitates to better supply the energy demand. For all the reported
reasons, this location has been selected for possible pilot projects.

3.3. Scenario 4

Results of the 39 simulations of scenario 4 are summarized in

Fig. 6. Energy production for different locations.
Table 7 and Fig. 7.
Fig. 7 demonstrates how the efficiencies increase with increas-
ing nominal power of the plant. With the optimization of the solar
field and heliostat dimension, an efficiency close to 15% was
reached for the 10 MW plant along the year. It may also be seen
how the efficiency for the 3 and 5 MW plants decrease strongly
after having reached the optimum heliostat dimension; accord-
ingly, choosing the wrong size of heliostat dimension can have
a deep influence on the optical efficiency, and thus on the overall
efficiency. In fact, with wrong size of heliostats, the losses due to
shading and spillage increase drastically (Eq (3)).
 Author's personal copy

372 C.A. Amadei et al. / Renewable Energy 55 (2013) 366e373

Table 7
Pilot project characteristics.

Power Heliostat Number of Reflective Receiver Receiver Tower Energy production Efficiency
(MW) dimension (m2) heliostats area (m2) diameter (m) height (m) height (m) (GWh/y) (%)
3 5 6504 32,520 2.77 3.45 36.32 10.24 12.53
10 3220 32,200 2.89 3.59 37.89 11.25 13.90
20 1650 33,000 4.08 4.90 37.89 11.98 14.44
30 1153 34,590 6.00 5.00 37.89 12.40 14.27
40 888 35,520 6.92 5.77 39.47 12.61 14.12
50 728 36,400 7.74 6.45 39.47 12.97 14.18
60 627 37,620 8.48 7.07 41.05 12.81 13.55
70 571 39,970 9.17 7.64 41.05 13.50 13.44
80 492 39,360 9.79 8.16 42.63 13.10 13.24
90 458 41,220 10.39 8.66 42.63 13.35 12.89
100 431 43,100 10.96 9.13 44.21 13.73 12.68
110 414 45,540 11.48 9.57 44.21 14.00 12.23
120 350 42,000 12.00 10.00 45.79 13.32 12.62
5 5 11,277 56,385 2.72 5.20 47.37 16.96 11.97
10 5655 56,550 2.89 5.05 47.37 18.57 13.06
20 2700 54,000 4.90 4.08 47.37 19.49 14.36
30 1799 53,970 6.00 5.00 47.37 19.87 14.64
40 1374 54,960 6.92 5.77 48.95 20.19 14.61
50 1154 57,700 7.74 6.45 48.95 21.04 14.50
60 960 57,600 8.48 7.07 50.53 20.71 14.30
70 823 57,610 7.64 9.17 50.53 21.02 14.52
80 757 60,560 8.16 9.79 50.53 21.41 14.07
90 671 60,390 8.66 10.39 52.11 21.20 13.97
100 631 63,100 9.13 10.96 52.11 21.81 13.75
110 583 64,130 9.57 11.48 52.11 21.99 13.64
120 551 66,120 10.00 12.00 53.68 22.15 13.33
10 5 21,925 109,625 4.98 6.18 65.26 35.05 12.72
10 11,111 111,110 4.27 7.10 67.37 37.45 13.41
20 5751 115,020 4.08 7.30 67.37 39.19 13.55
30 3689 110,670 5.00 6.42 67.37 39.82 14.31
40 2751 110,040 5.77 6.92 67.37 40.24 14.55
50 2200 110,000 6.45 7.74 67.37 41.13 14.87
60 1864 111,840 7.07 8.48 67.37 41.01 14.59
70 1554 108,780 7.64 9.17 69.47 40.95 14.98
80 1379 110,320 8.16 9.79 69.47 40.96 14.77
90 1256 113,040 8.66 10.39 69.47 41.58 14.63
100 1149 114,900 9.13 10.96 69.47 42.21 14.61
110 1053 115,830 9.57 11.48 69.47 42.21 14.50
120 984 118,080 10.00 12.00 71.58 42.96 14.47

For the 3 MW plant the optimal size of the heliostats is
approximately 20 m2; such a small size of heliostats could have
negative influence on the economic results, requiring higher cost of
manufacturing. However, an efficiency more than 14% for the year
was reached.
The 5 MW simulation reaches the best efficiencies for heliostat
size around 30 m2, while 10 MW simulations show the best plant
performance for heliostat size around 70 m2, which already has
a feasible manufacturing cost [25].
Fig. 7. Efficiencies for pilot plants.
Fig. 7 also shows that the three trends do not have a linear
progression. This is due to the algorithm that was used; the non-
linear trends highlight the change in the tower height for a specific
heliostat size, which takes place when the slope of the trend
changes.
4. Conclusions
The energy results regarding Chinese locations show bright
future for the concentrating solar technology in the Chinese energy
market. Re-locating GEMASOLAR plant (without hybridization) in
Tibet implies a 23% increase of the annual energy production with
an overall efficiency above 14%. With pilot projects, efficiencies
close to 15% were reached by optimizing the solar field and helio-
stats dimension; the result also depends on the dry climate and
lower latitude. The choice of focusing on heliostat dimensions de-
pends on their high cost; the heliostats account for about 40% of the
cost of the solar components of such a power plant [22].
Higher efficiencies could be reached through optimization of
other components of the plant involved in the global efficiency of
the system, i.e. thermal insulation or maximum temperature of the
receiver.
Simulations have also outlined that the efficiency of the plant
increases with scale. For these reasons, in Tibet a plant scale-up and
an optimization of the insulation technologies can provide the
highest energy production of the whole country.
 Author's personal copy
C.A. Amadei et al. / Renewable Energy 55 (2013) 366e373
Since in China there are no incentives for CSP yet, the economic
results have not been investigated; however, Eric Wang, the Senior
Vice President for International Business development at Penglai
Electric, declared that manufacturing mirrors, turbines, towers and
other equipment in China instead of the United States could cut
costs by at least half. That could allow concentrating solar power to
become more competitive when compared with other forms of
power generation around the world [26].
The drawback of this technology is the availability of high level
of DNI, which is mostly found in deserted areas. In such regions the
access to water for the condensation stage could prove extremely
difficult. Possible future developments could include dry cooling
technology.
Another issue could be the washing of the reflectance surface, in
absence of water. In this case, the design of an anti-dust layer
applied on the top of the mirror, without compromising optical
efficiency, can be a solution.
DNI sources can have broad fluctuations from one year to the
other. Studies of global horizontal irradiation and solar radiation
distributions in the United States typically show a variability of 8e
10% [27]. For this reason, future developments can be characterized
by a multi-year analysis to strengthen the validation of the results.
References
[1] Kahrl F, Roland-Holst D. Growth and structural change in China’s energy
economy. Energy 2009;34(7):894e903.
[2] Analysis. E.I.S. International Energy Statistics. Available from: http://www.eia.
gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid¼90&pid¼44&aid¼8; 2011.
[3] Liu T, Xu G, Cai P, Tian L, Qili H. Development forecast of renewable energy
power generation in China and its influence on the GHG control strategy of
the country. Renewable Energy 2011;36(4):1284e92.
[4] Liu W, Lunde H, Mathiesen BV, Zhang X. Potential of renewable energy sys-
tems in China. Applied Energy 2011;88(2):518e25.
[5] Peidong Z, Yanli Y, Jin S, Yonghong Z, Lisheng W, Xinrong L. Opportunities and
challenges for renewable energy policy in China. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 2009;13(2):439e49.
[6] Ummadisingu A, Soni MS. Concentrating solar power e technology, potential
and policy in India. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2011;15(9):
5169e75.
View publication stats
373
[7] TorresolEnergy. Gemasolar. Available from: http://www.torresolenergy.com/
TORRESOL/gemasolar-plant/en; 2010.
[8] Sener. Case study: GEMASOLAR central tower plant; 2010.
[9] OpenEI. Solar: monthly and annual average direct normal irradiance GIS data
at one-degree resolution of the world from NASA/SSE. Available from: http://
en.openei.org/datasets/node/538; 2012.
[10] Laboratory, N.R.E. Gemasolar thermosolar plant. Available from: http://www.
nrel.gov/csp/solarpaces/project_detail.cfm/projectID¼40; 24 Oct 2011.
[11] Blair N, Mehos M, Christensen C, Janzou S. Solar advisor model user guide for
version 2.0. National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2008.
[12] Bradshaw RW, et al. Final test and evaluation results from the solar two
project, in other information: PBD; 1 Jan 2002. Medium: ED; Size: 288 pages.
[13] Pacheco JE, Hugh ER, Gregory JK, Craig ET. Summary of the solar two test and
evaluation program; 2000. Medium: P; Size: 11 pages.
[14] Energy T. Central-tower technology. Available from: http://www.torresolenergy.
com/TORRESOL/central-tower-technology/en; 2010.
[15] DOE U.S. EnergyPlus energy simulation software. Available from: http://apps1.
eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/cfm/weather_data3.cfm/region¼2_
asia_wmo_region_2/country¼CHN/cname¼China.
[16] Sánchez M, Romero M. Methodology for generation of heliostat field layout in
central receiver systems based on yearly normalized energy surfaces. Solar
Energy 2006;80(7):861e74.
[17] Kistler BL. A users manual for Delsol 3; 1987.
[18] DOE, U.S. Concentrating solar power commercial application study: reduc-
ing water consumption of concentrating solar power electricity generation;
2001.
[19] OpenEI. Solar: hourly global horizontal (GHI) and direct normal (DNI) data for
select China sites from DLR. 204; Available from: http://en.openei.org/w/
index.php?title¼File:SWERA-asiaDIRnrel-211.pdf&page¼1.
[20] Dersch J, Richter C. Water saving heat rejection for solar thermal power
plants. DLR Institute of Technical Thermodynamics; 2007.
[21] Sciences, C.f.C.E.T.C.A.o.. The feasibility and policy study on developing con-
centrating solar power in China; 2010.
[22] Zhongguo Kexueyuan, Di li yan jiu s. The National Physical Atlas of China/
institute of geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences. National Atlas of
China. ed. y. Zhongguo ke xue, s. Zhongguo di tu chu ban, and G. Chinese
Academy of Sciences. Institute of 1999, Beijing: China Cartographic Pub-
lishing House.
[23] Gao T, Xu Y, Li H, Yu X, Xiao S. The dust storm: historical evolution of Inner
Mongolia and the impacts of the climate change. Beijing 100029, China:
Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences; 2006.
[24] IRENA. Renewable energy technologies: cost analysis series. In: Concentrating
solar power; 2012.
[25] Kusek S. Low cost heliostat development. Available from: http://www1.eere.
energy.gov/solar/pdfs/csp_pr2011_hitek_services.pdf; 2011.
[26] Bradsher K. China tries a new tack to go solar. New York Times 2010.
[27] Office S.E.C. Energy efficiency: Texas’ newest energy resource. Available from:
http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/.