Applied Energy 148 (2015) 348–365

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Exergetic analysis of supercritical CO2 Brayton cycles integrated with

solar central receivers
Ricardo Vasquez Padilla a,⇑, Yen Chean Soo Too a, Regano Benito b, Wes Stein a
a
CSIRO Energy Technology, PO Box 330, Newcastle, NSW 2300, Australia
b
CSIRO Energy Technology, PO Box 136, North Ryde, NSW 2113, Australia

h i g h l i g h t s g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t

 A comprehensive exergy analysis of

four solar S-CO2 Brayton cycles was
performed.
 Recompression cycle with
intercooling showed the best
thermodynamic performance.
 The highest exergy losses of the solar
S-CO2 systems were due to solar
components.
 High receiver pressure drop affected
adversely the solar system
performance.

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

Article history: Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) is a promising alternative for generating renewable energy. One of the most
Received 13 January 2015 prominent CSP technologies is the central receiver tower with heliostat field, which has received attention
Received in revised form 16 February 2015 in the last decade due to its high achievable temperatures and potential cost reduction. In order to make this
Accepted 18 March 2015
technology economically viable, research has been focused on the solar field, solar receiver, energy storage
Available online 3 April 2015
and power block. The power block is one of the important components since improving system efficiency
leads to reductions in the storage, solar field and receiver sizes and costs. Recently, supercritical CO2 Brayton
Keywords:
cycles have emerged as an alternative for power block with central receiver tower systems due to higher
Power block
Concentrated solar power
thermal efficiencies and compactness compared to traditional steam Rankine cycles. In this paper, detailed
Optimisation energy and exergy analysis of four different supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle configurations (Simple Brayton
cycle, Recompression Brayton cycle, Partial cooling with recompression and Recompression with main
compression intercooling) were performed with and without reheat. Prior the compressor inlet, dry air
cooler is used for all supercritical Brayton cycles studied in this paper. A solar receiver, replacing the heater
and reheater for conventional Brayton cycles, is also used to provide heat input to the cycles. The sim-
ulations were carried out for Alice Springs (Australia) solar conditions and optimum operating conditions
of the supercritical cycle were obtained by optimising the first law thermodynamic efficiency.
The effect of turbine inlet temperature and the cycle configuration on the thermal performance and
exergy destruction was analysed.
The results showed that the thermal efficiency of the supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle increases monotoni-
cally with the temperature of the cycle. The recompression cycle with main compression intercooling
achieved the best thermal performance (gI ¼ 55:2% at 850 °C). The detailed exergy analysis also showed
that the solar receiver has the highest exergy destruction (>68%) while turbines and compressors have
minimal contribution (less than 3%). Furthermore, it is noted that the exergy efficiency has a bell shaped
curve, reaching at maximum value between 700–750 °C depending on the cycle configuration.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 4960 6293.

E-mail addresses: Ricardo.Vasquezpadilla@csiro.au (R.V. Padilla), Yenchean@csiro.au (Y.C. Soo Too), Regg.Benito@csiro.au (R. Benito), Wes.Stein@csiro.au (W. Stein).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.03.090
0306-2619/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Energy 148 (2015) 348–365 349

Nomenclature

b specific exergy (kJ/kg) Greek symbol

C concentration ratio a receiver solar absorptance
CO2 carbon dioxide d sun’s cone angle
s specific entropy (kJ/kg K)  receiver thermal emittance, heat exchanger effec-
EDNI direct normal irradiance (W/m2) tiveness
E_ d exergy destroyed rate (kW) gexergy exergy efficiency
E_ loss exergy loss rate (kW) gfield heliostat field efficiency
E_ qj exergy of heat transfer rate (kW) gI first law efficiency
E_ exergy rate (kW) gth thermal efficiency of the solar receiver
E_ 0 dimensionless exergy w dimensionless maximum useful work available
f conv convective heat loss multiplier from radiation
F v iew radiative view factor from the receiver to the
surroundings Subscripts
h specific enthalpy (kJ/kg) air air
hconv convective heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 K) CO2 carbon dioxide
HTR high thermal recuperator comp component
ITD initial temperature difference (°C) conv convection
LTR low thermal recuperator cv control volume
m_ mass flow rate (kg/s) d; comp destruction by component
P heat transfer fluid pressure (kPa) d; cooler destruction in coolers
DP rec pressure drop in the solar receiver d; rec destruction in the receiver
Po reference ambient pressure (kPa) d; recup destruction in recuperators (HTR+LTR)
Q_ heat transfer rate (kW) gain; air gained by air
SR split ratio gain; air gained by cooling air
T temperature (°C, K) i inlet
T air dry ambient temperature (K) input input
T in;comp compressor inlet temperature (°C) j source
To reference ambient temperature (K) losses; comp losses by component
TR receiver surface temperature (K) losses; field losses in the solar field
W_ net;compressor net input power to compressors (kW) losses; rec losses in the receiver
W_ cv work rate (kW) o outlet
W_ net;turbine net power output from turbines (kW) rec solar receiver
opt optimum

1. Introduction  Better temperature glide, since CO2 is a single phase during

Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) systems have the potential to
generate electricity particularly in places with high insolation
levels. In order to be competitive with conventional power plants,
further development of this renewable technology is necessary,
such as [1] the use of more efficient power cycles and solar compo-
nents, increasing deployment, reducing manufacturing cost and
integration of thermal energy storage to improve dispatchable
power on demand. Central solar receiver systems have received
great attention in CSP applications, since it is possible to achieve
high temperatures [2] which leads to higher thermal cycle efficien-
cies. Recently, the Supercritical carbon dioxide (S-CO2) Brayton
power cycle has been proposed as a power cycle for a central solar
receiver system due to the following advantages:
 Non-toxic and non-flammable (Group A1) [3].
 Lower capital cost compared to other thermodynamic cycles
[4].
 High efficiencies at high temperatures [4].
 CO2 can be used as direct heat transfer fluid (HTF) in the solar
receiver [4].
 Compactness and less complexity than Rankine cycles [4].
 Scale advantage for modular S-CO2 tower rceiver/generator in
terms of maintenance and cost [1].
 Compatibility with thermal energy storage [1].
heating and cooling process [5].
In the 1960s, Feher [6] proposed a supercritical thermodynamic
power cycle by using CO2 as a working fluid. The Feher cycle
achieved a thermal efficiency of 55% under ideal conditions and
due to its thermodynamic performance it was proposed as a com-
pact and portable electric power generator. In 2004, Dostál [7] pro-
posed that the S-CO2 Brayton cycle was suitable for nuclear
applications. Later, Kulhánek and Dostál [8] and Moisseytsev and
Sienicki [9] conducted a study of different S-CO2 Brayton cycle con-
figurations. They found that S-CO2 Brayton cycle with partial cool-
ing and recompression has the highest thermal efficiency.
compared to S-CO2 simple Brayton cycle. Sarkar [10] carried out
energy and exergy analysis of S-CO2 recompression Brayton cycle
integrated with a nuclear reactor and performed a sensitivity
analysis to investigate the effect of cycle parameters on exergy effi-
ciency. He found that the irreversibilities of the heat exchangers
are higher than those obtained in the compressor and the turbine.
Sarkar and Bhattacharyya [11] performed a sensitivity analysis to
optimise the thermal performance of a S-CO2 recompression
Brayton cycle with reheating under different operating and design
conditions for nuclear power application. Kao et al. [12] performed
a dynamic simulation of a S-CO2 Brayton cycle. They implemented
a control strategy by employing a reactor power controller in order
to avoid the regions of instability.
350 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Energy 148 (2015) 348–365
CO2 has been also proposed as a working fluid for transcritical
cycles integrated with solar systems [13] and ORC (Organic
Rankine Cycle) in waste heat applications [14,15]. For solar central
receiver applications, Turchi et al. [16] performed simulations of
the S-CO2 Brayton cycle for different configurations with and with-
out reheating and dry cooling condenser. Based on the first law
efficiency, their simulation results showed that the S-CO2
Brayton cycle has higher thermal performance than the conven-
tional steam Rankine cycle and they also found that recompres-
sion, partial cooling and main compression intercooling achieved
almost the same thermal efficiency, 50%, at turbine inlet tem-
peratures above 650 °C. Seidel [17] developed a S-CO2 Brayton
cycle model in EES [18] (Engineering Equation Solver) with con-
stant overall heat transfer coefficient ðUAÞ. He found that the
recompression Brayton supercritical cycle has the best thermal
performance over a wide range of pressure ratios. Gavic [19] stud-
ied the effect of different condenser alternatives (water cooling,
dry cooling and hybrid) on the thermal performance of the S-CO2
Brayton cycle. He found that the hybrid cooling condenser does
not penalise the thermal efficiency while water usage and capital
cost can be minimised. Singh et al. [20] developed a dynamic
model of a S-CO2 Brayton cycle direct heated by a parabolic trough
solar field and concluded that an active control system is required
to maintain supercritical conditions for the CO2. Harvego and
McKellar [21] performed the optimisation of a S-CO2 recompres-
sion Brayton cycle for direct and indirect heating processes and
found that the direct configuration has higher efficiency and power
output. Iverson et al. [22] presented a S-CO2 Brayton cycle facility
at Sandia National Laboratory. The thermodynamic cycle produces
around 250 kWe and it is able to operate under transient condi-
tions similar to those expected in a CSP plant.
Besarati and Goswami [23] proposed an improvement of the S-
CO2 Brayton cycle by adding a bottoming Organic Rankine Cycle
(ORC). Their results showed an increase of 3–7% points over the
thermal cycle efficiency and the best thermal performance was
obtained in the recompression cycle. Chacartegui et al. [24] per-
formed a thermodynamic analysis of simple and recompression
S-CO2 Brayton cycles with and without bottoming cycle. Their
results showed that a standalone recompression Brayton cycle
and simple Brayton cycle with a bottoming cycle achieved the
highest thermal efficiency, 42.48 and 43.96% at 1000 K respec-
tively. Khaliq and Kaushik [25] demonstrated that the exergy effi-
ciency of an air Brayton cycle with a bottoming steam Rankine
cycle can be improved by adding reheat at pressure ratios below
32. Hu et al. [26] studied the integration of hybrid coal-solar sys-
tems with regenerative steam Rankine cycles for production of
electricity and found that this hybridisation is attractive, since
the overall exergy efficiency can be improved when solar energy
replaces the extracted stream from turbines to heat up feed
waters.
The literature showed that many thermodynamic analysis have
been carried out for S-CO2 ORCs for waste applications and S-CO2
Brayton cycles integrated with nuclear and CSP systems.
However, system performance evaluation of S-CO2 Brayton cycle
incorporating CSP has only focused on first law efficiency, without
taking into account the thermodynamic impact of the CSP compo-
nents on the overall performance of the solarised system. This
thermodynamic impact can be performed through a detailed
exergy analysis. Exergy analysis is useful to find causes and loca-
tions of thermodynamic losses in the system and optimum operat-
ing conditions to reduce energy consumption and environmental
impacts of the energy systems [27–29].
In this paper, a comprehensive energy and exergy analysis of
four S-CO2 Brayton cycle configurations: Simple Brayton cycle,
Recompression Brayton cycle, Partial cooling with recompression
and Recompression with main compression intercooling, is
performed with and without reheat. Dry cooling is used for the
supercritical Brayton cycles and a solar receiver, replacing the hea-
ter and reheater for conventional Brayton cycles, is used to provide
heat input to the cycles.
The model for the four S-CO2 Brayton cycle configurations was
validated with numerical results obtained from literature [8,16].
Then, thermal and exergetic performance of the supercritical cycles
were evaluated at Alice Springs, which is a site with high annual
direct solar radiation in Australia [30]. Although the solar system
does not operate under steady state conditions due to the intermit-
tence of solar radiation throughout the day, the aim of this paper is
to obtain optimum thermodynamic operating conditions at design
point conditions. Optimum operating conditions of the S-CO2
cycles were obtained based on the first law efficiency. The effect
of high temperature of the cycle, cycle pressure ratios
(Phigh =P low ; Phigh =Preheat ; P high =P intercooling ) and cycle layout on the ther-
mal efficiency and exergy destruction of each component was
analysed.
2. S-CO2 Brayton cycle configurations
In this paper, four closed loop configurations of S-CO2 Brayton
cycle are studied and a solar receiver is used to provide heat input
to the cycle through the heater and reheater. These configurations
are based on modifications proposed to improve the thermal effi-
ciency of S-CO2 Brayton cycle [31]: multiple recompression, inter-
cooling between compressor and reheating. The description of
each configuration (Fig. 1) is presented below. Fig. 2 shows the
typical temperature-entropy diagrams for the four S-CO2 Brayton
cycle layouts with reheating at a turbine inlet temperature of
700 °C.
Simple Cycle (Simple). The simple configuration is based on a
simple Brayton cycle incorporating a recuperator (Fig. 1a). In this
cycle, CO2 at high temperature and high pressure (state 1) is
expanded at intermediate pressure through a primary turbine (first
stage, T1). The exit stream (state 2) is reheated at high temperature
(state 3) and subsequently expanded at lower pressure through a
secondary turbine (T2). A recuperator (HTR, High thermal
regenerator) is used to recover energy from the exit stream (state
4) leaving the secondary turbine and preheat the stream that is
going to the solar receiver (state 8). In order to increase the pres-
sure (state 6), the stream leaving the regenerator (state 5) is cooled
(state 6) prior to the compressor (C1). Part of the work produced by
the turbines is used to drive the compressor (C1).
Recompression Cycle (RC). Due to the rapid variation of
thermophysical properties of CO2 near critical conditions [7] the
Simple cycle configuration is limited by temperature pinch point
problems in the HTR due to the difference in the heat capacity rate
between the hot and cold side [16]. Therefore, a S-CO2 recompres-
sion Brayton cycle configuration (Fig. 1b) is proposed. In this con-
figuration, two recuperators are used (LTR, Low thermal
recuperator and HTR, high thermal recuperator). The stream leav-
ing the LTR (state 6) is split into two streams; the first stream
enters the main compressor (C1) and the second stream is diverted
to the recompressor, which is a secondary compressor operating at
the exit pressure and temperature of the low thermal recuperator
[16]. This split flow reduces cold fluid capacitance and therefore
avoids pinch point problems. The stream leaving the main com-
pressor (state 8) is preheated in the LTR and then mixed with the
stream (state 10) leaving from the recompressor (C2). The mixed
stream (state 11) recovers energy though the HTR prior to the solar
receiver. In this configuration, part of the work produced by the
turbines is also used to drive both compressors (C1 and C2).
Partial Cooling Cycle (PC). In order to reduce the work input
during the compression process, intercooling between different
 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Energy 148 (2015) 348–365
Fig. 1. S-CO2 Brayton cycle layouts. (a) Simple Brayton cycle with reheat (b) Recompression Brayton cycle with reheat (c) Partial cooling with recompression and reheat (d)
Recompression with main compression intercooling and reheat. Adapted from Ref. [8,16].
compression stages can be incorporated [32]. In the partial cooling
configuration (Fig. 1c) the stream exiting from the low thermal
recuperator (LTR) is cooled (state 6) and compressed (state 8) in
the first stage of the main compressor (C1). Then, the stream (state
8) is split into two; one stream is cooled (state 9) and recom-
pressed to the high pressure of the cycle (state 10) before is pre-
heated (state 11) in the low thermal recuperator (LTR), whereas
the other stream is directly compressed at the high pressure of
the cycle (state 12) and mixed with the stream exiting the LTR
(stream 11). The mixed stream (state 13) recovers heat in the high
thermal recuperator (HTR) prior to entering the heater, with the
remaining flow path similar to the recompression cycle described
previously.
Recompression with Main Compression Intercooling (MC).
This configuration is similar to the recompression cycle, except
that an intermediate intercooling stage is introduced in the main
compression process (C1 and C2).
3. Energy model and validation
In order to perform the energy analysis of the different S-CO2
Brayton cycle configurations, mass and energy balance were ini-
tially carried out in all heat exchangers and turbomachinery
devices i.e. compressors and turbines. Due to the rapid variation
of thermophysical properties of CO2 near critical conditions [7], it
is necessary to discretize the heat exchangers [12,33,17] and cor-
roborate if a pinch point problem occurs. For all configurations,
the high temperature recuperator was modelled by assuming heat
exchanger effectiveness. In the case of the configurations with LTR,
an effectiveness factor is considered for the total hot stream [23].
h4  h6
hot;stream ¼
h4  h6@T c
351
The enthalpy h6@T c is the enthalpy at state 6 calculated based on
the minimum temperature that the hot stream leaving the LTR
could reach [32] (T 8 for recompression cycle and T 10 for partial
cooling and recompression with main compression intercooling).
This effectiveness factor is used for calculating the thermodynamic
state of stream 6 of each configuration with LTR, but the effective-
ness of the low temperature recuperator (LTR) has to be deter-
mined. Another important parameter used to model S-CO2 cycles
with LTR is the split ratio (SR), which is defined as the ratio of
the mass flow rate of the cold stream entering the low thermal
recuperator and the total mass flow rate of the S-CO2 Brayton cycle.
The SR is determined by applying an energy balance on the LTR:
h5  h6
SR ¼ ð2Þ
h11  hc
where hc is the enthalpy of the cold stream entering the LTR. For
recompression cycle, hc is equal to h8 , and for partial cooling and
recompression with main compression intercooling, hc is equal to
h10 .
The first law efficiency of the cycle is calculated as:
_ net;turbine  W
W _ net;compressor
gI;cycle ¼ ð3Þ
Q heater þ Q_ reheater
_
The energy, mass and exergy balance were written in Python
3.2 [34] and REFPROP 9.1[35] was used to obtain the thermody-
namic properties of carbon dioxide (CO2) under supercritical con-
ditions based on the model developed by Span and Wagner [36].
In order to optimise the first law efficiency, optimum operating
conditions were obtained by Sequential Least SQuares
Programming (SLSQP) [37]. The assumptions used for this sim-
ð1Þ
ulation are [16,23]:
352 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Energy 148 (2015) 348–365

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 2. Temperature – Entropy diagram for different S-CO2 Brayton cycle configurations with reheat. High temperature of the Brayton cycle 700 °C. (a) Simple configuration.
(b) Recompression. (c) Partial Cooling. (d) Main compressor with partial cooling.

 Pressure losses in the pipes and heat exchanger are neglected. The results obtained from the proposed model agreed well for both
 All components of the cycle are well insulated. numerical models to within 2.0% for all configurations. The slight
 Expansion and compression processes are adiabatic. differences could be due to the thermodynamic properties data-
 The cycle operates under steady state conditions. base used in the published models and the optimisation approach
 Carbon dioxide always achieves the minimum and maximum (sensitivity analysis [8] and the ‘‘variable metric’’ optimisation
temperature and pressure of the cycle. method in EES [16]). Hence, the proposed model is extended to
an exergy analysis for the S-CO2 Brayton cycle integrated with a
The energy model was validated with other numerical models solar receiver.
proposed by Kulhánek and Dostál [8] and Turchi et al. [16]. The
parameters used for the validation are shown in Table 1. Fig. 3 4. Exergy model
showed the thermal efficiency for the different layouts studied.
The exergy balance for each component of the S-CO2 Brayton
Table 1 cycle is calculated as follows [32]:
Input parameters used for the validation of the proposed model. Data taken from Ref.
[16]. dEcv X _ _ cv þ
X X
¼ Eqj  W _ i bi 
m _ o bo  E_ d  E_ loss
m ð4Þ
Parameters Value dt j i o

Turbine efficiency 93%a

with:
Compressor Efficiency 89%
 
Heat exchanger effectiveness 95% To _
Turbine inlet temperature 500–800 °C Eqj ¼ 1 Qj ð5Þ
Cycle high pressure 25 MPa
Tj
Minimum pinch point temperature 5 °C V2
b ¼ h  ho  T o ðs  so Þ þ þgz ð6Þ
a
90% is used to match recompression cycle. 2
 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Energy 148 (2015) 348–365 353

In this paper S-CO2 Brayton cycle configurations are integrated useful work available from radiation, w, is calculated by Petela’s for-
with a central solar receiver, therefore the exergy input includes mula [39,40]:
the exergy of the incoming solar radiation to the solar receiver  4
which can be approximated as: 4 To 1 To
w¼1 þ ð8Þ
3 Ts 3 Ts
 
Q_ heater þ Q_ reheater where T s is the equivalent temperature of the sun as a black body
E_ input ¼ w ð7Þ (5800 K). Parrot [41] introduced the effect of the sun’s cone angle
gth gfield
(d  0:005 rad) on the limiting efficiency for utilisation of solar
where gth is the thermal efficiency of the solar receiver, gfield is the energy, the expression obtained was:
heliostat field efficiency [38] (including cosine losses, reflectance  4
4 To 1 To
losses, and spillage) and w is the dimensionless maximum useful w¼1 ð1  cos dÞ1=4 þ ð9Þ
3 Ts 3 Ts
work available from solar radiation. Eq. (7) assumes that the total
heat input of the S-CO2 Brayton cycles is supplied by the solar recei- The thermal efficiency of the central receiver is calculated as fol-
ver. For an ideal process, the relative potential of the maximum lows [38]:

(a)

(b)
Fig. 3. Validation of the propose model. (a) No reheat. (b) Reheat. Kulhánek and Dostál [8], Turchi et al. [16]. Input data are given in Table 1.
354 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Energy 148 (2015) 348–365

 r F v iew T 4R þ f conv hconv ðT R  T air Þ In this case, the exergy losses are associated with irreversibili-
gth ¼ a  ð10Þ ties due to heat transfer to the environment and solar field losses,
gfield EDNI C
while the exergy destruction is associated with internal
In order to calculate the receiver heat losses, the surface tempera-  
irreversibilities. The dimensionless exergy losses E_ 0losses;comp and
ture of the solar receiver is approximated as:  
T R ¼ T in;turbine þ DT R ð11Þ dimensionless exergy destruction E_ 0d;comp for each component
are defined as:
where DT R is the solar receiver temperature approach, which is
assumed to be 150 °C [42,43]. Typical parameters used for calculat- E_ 0losses;comp ¼ E_ losses;comp =E_ input ð15Þ
ing thermal efficiency of central receivers are presented in Table 2.
E_ 0
d;comp ¼ E_ d;comp =E_ input ð16Þ
The reference values of EDNI (Direct Normal Radiation) and T amb
were determined by selecting a CFD (Cumulative Frequency For the solar receiver, the exergy losses and destruction can be cal-
Distribution) of 95% [44,45]. The thermodynamic simulation was culated as:
performed for a thermodynamic cycle located in Alice Springs
  a 
To

(Australia), since this location has high insolation levels. E_ losses;rec ¼ Q_ heater þ Q_ reheater 1 1 ð17Þ
As centralised solar receiver systems are located in areas with gth TR
shortage of water, a dry cooler is proposed in this paper. The com- E_ d;rec ¼ E_ input g  E_ losses;rec þ m
field
_ CO ðbi  bo Þ
2
þm_ CO ðbi  bo Þ
heater 2 reheaterð18Þ
pressor inlet temperature is calculated as:
and the dimensionless exergy losses and destruction are deter-
T in;compressor ¼ T amb þ ITD ð12Þ mined as:
where ITD is the initial temperature difference, which is typically in   
gth gfield a To
the range of 14–33.3 °C [46,47]. In order to be conservative, in this E_ 0losses;rec ¼ 1 1 ð19Þ
w gth TR
paper, ITD is assumed to be 20 °C, therefore the compressor inlet
_E0 _ 0 _ 0
temperature is set to 55 °C. The input parameters and the standard d;rec ¼ gfield  Elosses;rec  Egain;cycle ð20Þ
environmental state ðT o ; Po Þ used for the exergy analysis are shown
On the other hand, the exergy losses and dimensionless exergy
in Table 3. The overall exergy efficiency, gexergy , is calculated as:
losses of the heliostat field are calculated by:
_ net;turbine  W
W _ net;compressor  
gexergy ¼ ð13Þ Q_ heater þ Q_ reheater  
E_ input E_ losses;field ¼ w 1  gfield ð21Þ
gth gfield
Eq. (13) can be also expressed in term of the exergy losses  
    E_ 0losses;field ¼ 1  gfield ð22Þ
E_ losses;comp and exergy destruction E_ d;comp as follows:
P_  As mentioned above, dry cooling is proposed for coolers and
Elosses;comp þ E_ d;comp therefore air is used as the cooling fluid. For coolers, part of the
gexergy ¼ 1  ð14Þ
exergy input coming from CO2 is transferred to the cooling air
E_ input
and an increment of exergy in the air takes place during this heat
transfer process. The exergy gained by the cooling air can be
approximated as follows:
Table 2
Input parameters used for thermal analysis of the central receiver. Data taken from
E_ gain;air ¼ m
_ air ½ðho  hi Þ  T o ðso  si Þair ð23Þ
Ref. [38].
The exergy destruction in the coolers is calculated as:
Parameters Value
E_ d;cooler ¼ m
_ CO2 ðEi  Eo ÞCO  E_ gain;air ð24Þ
Absorptance, a 0.95 2

Thermal emittance, e 0.85

Radiative view factor, F v iew 1
Convective heat loss factor, f conv 1 5. Results and discussion
Convective heat transfer coefficient, hconv 10 W/m2 K
Annual heliostat field efficiency, gfield 0.6
In order to compare the exergetic performance of each S-CO2
Concentration ratio, C 900
Solar receiver temperature approach, DT R [42,43] 150 °C
Brayton cycle configuration, the dimensionless total exergy losses
(internal and external) for each configuration were calculated,
and a comprehensive exergy analysis of each component was also
carried out by optimising only the first law efficiency.
Table 3
Input parameters used for exergy analysis. Location: Alice Springs, Australia.
5.1. Overall cycle performance
Parameters Value Reference
Direct normal irradiance, EDNI 980 W/m2 [51] The cycle first law and exergy efficiency for S-CO2 Brayton cycle
Ambient temperature, T amb 35.5 °C configuration at different turbine inlet temperatures are shown in
Turbine efficiency 93% [16] Fig. 4. The recompression with main compression intercooling
Compressor efficiency 89% (MC) with reheat has the highest cycle thermal efficiency
Heat exchanger effectiveness 95% (42:6%@T¼500  C – 55:2%@T¼850  C ), which agrees with the results
Turbine inlet temperature 500–800 °C
obtained by Turchi et al. [16], whereas the Simple configuration
Cycle high pressure 25 MPa
Minimum pinch point temperature 5 °C without reheating has the lowest thermal efficiency
(35:1%@T¼500  C – 47:8%@T¼850  C ). This demonstrates that combined
Initial temperature difference, ITD 20 °C [46,47]
modifications of intercooling, recompression, recuperator and
Reference temperature, T o 25 °C [52]
reheating introduced to the S-CO2 simple Brayton cycle can
Reference pressure, P o 101.325 kPa
achieve thermal efficiencies higher than ultra-supercritical (USC)
 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Energy 148 (2015) 348–365 355

(a)

(b)
Fig. 4. Thermodynamic efficiencies for different S-CO2 Brayton cycle configurations. (a) Cycle first law efficiency. (b) Overall exergy Efficiency.

plant (gI  47% operating at 732/760 °C and 35 MPa [48]), making
this cycle an attractive alternative for CSP applications.
Apart from the cycle first law efficiency, Fig. 4(b) showed the
comparison of the exergy efficiency for each cycle configuration
studied in this paper. The results show that the exergy efficiency
has a bell shaped curve with a maximum value at turbine inlet
temperatures of 700–750 °C. The optimum exergy efficiency and
optimum temperature of the solarised S-CO2 Brayton cycle are
affected by the input parameters of the solar field and the thermal
efficiency of the solar receiver, since this system is strongly depen-
dent on the exergy losses of the solar system, particularly in the
solar receiver.
As shown in Fig. 4(b), the highest overall exergy efficiency cor-
responds to MC with reheat (gexery;opt ¼ 24:0% at 700 °C) and the
356 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Energy 148 (2015) 348–365

Table 4 average improvement of the thermal and exergy efficiency for dif-
Average efficiency improvement respect to Simple configuration in percentage points ferent configurations, showing MC has the highest improvement
for different S-CO2 Brayton cycles.
followed by RC and PC.
Cycle Cycle first law efficiency Overall exergy efficiency
(%) (%)
5.2. Total exergy losses
No reheat Reheat No reheat Reheat
RC 4.57 4.13 2.19 1.98 Figs. 5 and 6 showed the dimensionless total exergy losses com-
PC 4.38 4.75 2.08 2.26 bined of both internal irresversibilities and external losses to the
MC 6.23 6.19 2.97 2.95
environment for each configuration at different turbine inlet tem-
peratures. For all S-CO2 Brayton cycle configurations, the results
showed that the dimensionless total exergy losses for cycles with
lowest exergy efficiency to the Simple configuration without reheat are consistently lower than those without reheat config-
reheat (gexery;opt ¼ 20:4% at 750 °C). For all configurations, at lower uration. The average decrease in percentage points for each config-
turbine inlet operating temperature (<700 °C), the overall exergy uration with reheat with respect to the same configuration without
efficiency tends to increase gradually as a function of temperature, reheat are: Simple configuration (Simple) 0.66%, Recompression
since higher exergy is gained by the power cycle and radiation configuration (RC) 0.45%, Partial cooling with recompression
losses in the solar receiver are not the dominant heat transfer (PC) 0.84% and Recompression with main compression intercool-
mechanism. In contrast, the overall exergy efficiency decreases ing (MC) 0.64%. In practice, systems with reheat introduce some
dramatically at higher turbine inlet operating temperatures above additional exergy losses, however under certain pressure ratios,
750 °C in which radiation heat losses from the solar receiver to the the reheat configuration allows increased power output from the
environment are dominant. For comparison, Table 4 showed the turbine, resulting in higher exergy gained.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Fig. 5. Dimensionless exergy losses by component for different S-CO2 Brayton cycle configurations without reheat.
 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Energy 148 (2015) 348–365
(a)
(c)
Fig. 6. Dimensionless exergy losses by components for different S-CO2 Brayton cycle configurations with reheat.
As noted in Figs. 5 and 6, the Simple configuration with and
without reheat has the highest dimensionless exergy losses (inter-
nal and external), while the MC configuration with reheat has the
lowest dimensionless total exergy losses due to better performance
in the compression stages and energy recovery. The results also
indicated that the turbine inlet temperature has a significant influ-
ence on the dimensionless total exergy losses, with a minimum
value at turbine inlet temperatures ranging between 700–750 °C.
As the turbine inlet temperature reaches temperatures above
750 °C, the dimensionless total exergy losses increases subse-
quently due to significant losses from the solar receiver.
For all configurations, the major exergy losses of the system are
caused by the solar field and receiver, air cooler and recuperators.
As shown in Fig. 5, adding a second recuperator decreases the
dimensionless total exergy losses and therefore improves the over-
all exergy efficiency of the S-CO2 cycle. In the same way, adding
intercooling not only decreases the power input to the compres-
sors but also improves the thermal and exergy performance of
the recuperators (HTR and LTR) by providing lower input tempera-
tures on the cold side. Fig. 6 showed that adding reheat improves
the exergy gained by the S-CO2 configurations and therefore less
357
(b)
(d)
dimensionless exergy losses take place in the solar receiver and
more net power output can be obtained. The dimensionless exergy
losses in the field and solar receiver are in agreement with those
results obtained by Bejan et al. [49], who concluded that for a well
insulated thermal collector around 25% of the exergy input can be
delivered to the power cycle.
5.2.1. Solar field and receiver
For all configurations the major exergy losses take place in the
solar field and solar receiver. Given a solar field efficiency of 60%
used in this paper, the dimensionless exergy losses in the solar
field (Eq. (22)) represent 40% of the total exergy input to S-CO2
Brayton cycles. For the solar receiver, the total exergy losses can
be divided into internal exergy losses (exergy destruction) due to
change in entropy and external exergy losses (exergy losses to
the environment) via heat convection and radiative losses from
the absorber. The dimensionless exergy destruction and exergy
losses to the environment in the solar receiver for the S-CO2
Brayton cycle configurations are presented in Fig. 7. It is seen in
Fig. 7(a) that for both reheat and no reheat configuration, the par-
tial cooling configuration (PC) has the highest dimensionless
358 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Energy 148 (2015) 348–365

(a)

(b)
Fig. 7. Dimensionless exergy destruction (internal exergy losses) and exergy losses to the environment (external exergy losses) in the solar receiver for different S-CO2
Brayton cycle configurations. (a) Dimensionless internal and external exergy losses. (b) Dimensionless total exergy losses (internal and external).

exergy destruction in the solar receiver, while the recompression
configuration (RC) has the lowest dimensionless exergy destruc-
tion. Fig. 7(a) also showed the dimensionless exergy losses from
the solar receiver to the environment. These external exergy losses
depend on the solar field efficiency, thermal performance of the
solar receiver and the turbine inlet temperature. As the turbine
inlet temperature increases, higher solar receiver temperatures
are required to meet the turbine requirements. This causes a dra-
matic increase in the external exergy losses in the solar receiver,
in which radiation heat losses dominate, and the exergy input
required by the cycle. In contrast, the increase in turbine inlet tem-
perature leads to a decrease in the dimensionless exergy
 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Energy 148 (2015) 348–365 359

Fig. 8. Dimensionless exergy gained by CO2 in the central receiver for different S-CO2 Brayton cycle configurations.

Fig. 9. Dimensionless exergy destruction in coolers for different S-CO2 Brayton cycle configurations.

destruction in the solar receiver, since the rate at which the inter- cycle, increases. Fig. 7(b) showed the dimensionless total exergy
nal exergy destroyed increases in the solar receiver is much less losses (exergy destruction and exergy losses to the environment)
than the rate at which the exergy input, required by the power in the solar receiver. The results showed that dimensionless total
360 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Energy 148 (2015) 348–365

Fig. 10. Dimensionless exergy gained by cooling air for different S-CO2 Brayton cycle configurations.

Fig. 11. Dimensionless exergy destruction in turbines for different S-CO2 Brayton cycle configurations. Main turbine (T1) and turbine after reheat (T2).
 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Energy 148 (2015) 348–365
exergy losses in the solar receiver decrease when reheat is added
for all configurations due to the increase in the turbine work out-
put; the average decrease in percentage points is: Simple 0.85%,
RC 0.61%, PC 0.97% and MC 0.73%. The results also showed
that the solar receiver losses were between 27.8–31.3% of the
exergy input depending on the S-CO2 Brayton cycle configuration.
In addition, the dimensionless total exergy losses in the solar recei-
ver reached a minimum value at a turbine inlet temperature of
650 °C. This optimum temperature matches the maximum dimen-
sionless exergy gained by the S-CO2 Brayton cycle (Fig. 8). The
maximum dimensionless exergy gained by the power cycle is a
function of the cycle configuration, operating conditions and
thermodynamic properties at the inlet and outlet of the heater
and reheater. Fig. 8 shows that reheat improves the exergy gained
in the S-CO2 Brayton cycle since more heat input is provided by the
solar receiver and Simple and MC configurations have the highest
exergy gained by the power cycle.
5.2.2. Coolers and intercoolers
As mentioned in the previous section, coolers and intercoolers
were modelled by using air as the cooling fluid. This implies that
apart from the exergy destruction due to the internal heat transfer
process, air also increases its exergy through the heat transfer with
CO2. Fig. 9 showed the dimensionless exergy destruction in coolers
and intercoolers. The highest exergy destruction in the cooler takes
place in the simple configuration (Simple) with and without
reheat, while the lowest exergy destruction takes place in the
Fig. 12. Dimensionless exergy destruction in compressors for different S-CO2 Brayton cycle configurations.
361
Recompression with main compression intercooling (MC) with
reheat. For the case of the intercooler, the highest dimensionless
exergy destruction takes place in the Recompression with main
compression intercooling (MC) without reheat at turbine inlet
temperatures above 550 °C. Fig. 12 also showed that for both
cooler and intercooler, the dimensionless exergy destruction
decreases when reheat is added for all configurations, however this
difference is less noticeable at turbine inlet temperatures higher
than 700 °C. In overall, the addition of coolers and intercoolers in
the compression stages of the S-CO2 Brayton cycles contributes
minimal dimensionless exergy destruction which are between
0.41–1.1% and 0.27–0.69% of the exergy input respectively.
Fig. 10 showed the dimensionless exergy gained by cooling air
in coolers and intercoolers. The highest exergy gained takes place
in the cooler of the Simple configuration and reheating increases
the dimensionless exergy gained by air, although this is less notice-
able for coolers and intercoolers in MC and PC configurations. Air
gains up to 5.6% of the exergy input; to enhance the power cycle,
the S-CO2 Brayton cycle can be also coupled with a bottoming cycle
[23]. The bottoming cycle uses as heat input the waste heat from
the coolers to produce more work output and the overall efficiency
of the combined cycle can be improved.
5.2.3. Turbines and compressors
As shown in Fig. 11, the maximum dimensionless exergy
destruction takes place in the main turbine (T1) for all cycles with-
out reheat, whereas for configurations with reheat, dimensionless
362 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Energy 148 (2015) 348–365
exergy destruction in the main turbine (T1) decreases due to the
higher pressure stream exiting the main turbine (reheating pres-
sure) which is able to drive a secondary turbine (T2) to increase
the work output. The total exergy destruction from turbines
(T1+T2) contributes less than 1.2% of the exergy input and these
losses decrease as the high temperatures of the cycle increases.
Although, the modifications made to the simple configuration
(i.e. RC, PC and MC configurations) slightly increase the dimension-
less total exergy destruction in turbines, (T1+T2), this increase is
less noticeable at higher turbine inlet temperatures.
Fig. 12 showed the effect of the turbine inlet temperature on the
dimensionless exergy destruction of the compressors for different
S-CO2 Brayton cycle configurations. The highest dimensionless
exergy destruction in compressors corresponds to the simple con-
figuration (C1). The total dimensionless exergy destruction from
compressors (C1+C2+C3) contributes less than 1.2% of the exergy
input and these losses decrease as the high temperatures of the
cycle increases as in the turbines case. Overall, the modifications
made to the simple configuration (i.e. RC, PC and MC config-
urations) have an insignificant increase in the dimensionless total
exergy destruction in compressors (C1+C2+C3).
5.2.4. Recuperators
The results showed that adding a second recuperator (LTR), in
RC, PC and MC configurations, decreases the total dimensionless
exergy destroyed (HTR+LTR) as compared to the Simple config-
uration (Figs. 5 and 6). In practice, these configurations (RC, PC
and MC) also helps to avoid pinch point problems present in the
simple configuration. Fig. 13 showed that the dimensionless exergy
destruction in the HTR decreases by adding reheating to the S-CO2
cycles and when the turbine inlet temperature increases. For the
Fig. 13. Dimensionless exergy destruction in recuperators for different S-CO2 Brayton cycle configurations.
case of LTR, the dimensionless exergy destruction reaches a maxi-
mum value in the range of 650–750 °C depending on the cycle and
reheating condition. This tendency is explained by the fact that the
entropy production and the exergy destruction in this component
depend on the thermodynamic inlet and exit conditions and mass
flow rates. In this paper, the effectiveness of LTR is not a fixed
parameter and decreases as the inlet turbine temperature
increases.
5.3. Pressure drop
A sensitivity analysis was carried out (Fig. 14) in order to inves-
tigate the effect of pressure drop on the cycle thermal and exergy
efficiencies for the MC configuration. In this sensitivity analysis a
total pressure drop in recuperators and coolers of 50 kPa [50] is
assumed and pressure drops of 1.0 and 2.5% [50] are assumed in
the solar receiver. The average decrease in efficiencies resulting
from these values are presented in Table 5. As shown in Fig. 14,
cycle thermal and overall exergy efficiencies are adversely affected
by pressure drop. For the pressure drops in the solar receiver stud-
ied in this paper (1.0 and 2.5%), adding reheat to the cycle has a
slight improvement compared to the cycle without reheat.
However, at higher pressure drops (>2.5%), the results showed that
by adding reheat the cycle’s performance in terms of energy and
exergy efficiencies is dramatically reduced, since less net power
output can be obtained due to the cycle operating at lower opti-
mum turbine pressure ratios, P 1 =P 2 (T1) and P3 =P4 (T2) and more
power input to the compression process is required. Fig. 15 shows
the effect of the pressure drop in the solar receiver on the optimum
turbine pressure ratios. Pressure drop in the solar receiver
decreases the optimum turbine pressure ratios for both reheat
 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Energy 148 (2015) 348–365 363

(a)

(b)
Fig. 14. Effect of receiver pressure drop on the cycle first law and overall exergy efficiencies. Pressure drop in heat exchangers: 50 kPa, pressure drop in solar receiver: 0.0%,
1.0% and 2.5%. Configuration: recompression with main compression intercooling (MC).

Table 5
and no reheat cases, which means than less power by the turbines Effect of pressure drop on average decrease of the cycle first law and overall exergy
is generated. Fig. 14(a) also showed that as the pressure drops in efficiencies in percentage points. Reference case: MC without pressure drop.
the solar receiver increase, higher temperatures in the solar recei- DP rec (%) Without reheat With reheat
ver are required in order to achieve cycle thermal efficiency greater
gcycle;I (%) gov erall;exergy (%) gcycle;I (%) gov erall;exergy (%)
than 47% as compared to the case without pressure drop. In addi-
tion, the optimum turbine inlet temperature corresponding to the 1.0 0.90 0.43 1.24 0.59
2.5 1.35 0.64 2.13 1.02
maximum overall exergy efficiency increases a few degrees
364 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Energy 148 (2015) 348–365
Fig. 15. Effect of receiver pressure drop on the optimum turbine pressure ratios. Pressure drop in heat exchangers: 50 kPa, pressure drop in solar receiver: 0.0%, 1.0% and 2.5%.
Configuration: recompression with main compression intercooling (MC).
(<10 °C) as the pressure drop in the solar receiver increases, show-
ing that for the conditions studied, pressure drop has a negligible
effect on the optimum turbine inlet temperature.
6. Conclusions
Energy and exergy analysis of different S-CO2 Brayton cycles
were performed. Four configurations were analysed: Simple
Brayton cycle (Simple), Recompression Brayton cycle (RC), Partial
cooling with recompression (PC) and Recompression with main
compression intercooling (MC). Based on the results obtained,
the following concluding remarks are proposed:
 The results showed that the overall exergy efficiency has a
maximum value and it does not increase monotonically with
the turbine inlet temperature. This tendency is a function of
the dimensionless exergy losses in the solar receiver and
dimensionless exergy gained by the S-CO2 Brayton cycle.
 Recompression with main compression intercooling (MC) had
the best thermal and exergetic performance. This configuration
improves the RC performance by introducing an intercooling
stage in the main compressor and therefore increasing net
power output from the cycle.
 Simple Brayton cycle (Simple) has the lowest thermal and exer-
getic efficiency among the S-CO2 Brayton cycles studied in this
paper. However, due to its simplicity and compactness it is still
an attractive option for central solar receiver systems.
 Adding reheat to the S-CO2 Brayton cycle improves the thermal
and exergetic performance, however this improvement can be
limited by the pressure drops of the power cycle and the solar
receiver.
 The solar field, (E_ 0 ¼ 40%), the solar receiver (E_ 0
losses;field > losses;rec
28%) and recuperators (E_ 0d;recup < 3:0%) are the components with
the highest dimensionless exergy losses of the S-CO2 Brayton
cycle.
 The theoretical results showed that S-CO2 Brayton cycle is a
promising option for central solar receivers systems due to high
thermal efficiencies compared to conventional steam Rankine
cycles.
Acknowledgement
This paper was produced with funding support from ARENA.
ARENA was established by the Australian Government as an
independent agency on 1 July 2012 to make renewable energy
technologies more affordable and increase the amount of renew-
able energy used in Australia. ARENA invests in renewable energy
projects, supports research and development activities, boosts job
creation and industry development and increases knowledge about
renewable energy.
Authors would like to thank Dr. Andrew Beath for his comments
and suggestions during the elaboration of this manuscript.
 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Energy 148 (2015) 348–365 365

References [26] Hu E, Yang Y, Nishimura A, Yilmaz F, Kouzani A. Solar thermal aided power
generation. Appl Energy 2010;87(9):2881–5.
[27] Dincer I, Ratlamwala T. Importance of exergy for analysis, improvement,
[1] Ma Z, Turchi C. Advanced supercritical carbon dioxide power cycle
design, and assessment. Wiley Interdisc Rev: Energy Environ 2013;2(3):
configurations for use in concentrating solar power systems. In: Proceedings
335–49.
of supercritical CO2 power cycle symposium; 2011.
[28] Rocco M, Colombo E, Sciubba E. Advances in exergy analysis: a novel
[2] Tian Y, Zhao C-Y. A review of solar collectors and thermal energy storage in
assessment of the extended exergy accounting method. Appl Energy
solar thermal applications. Appl Energy 2013;104:538–53.
2014;113:1405–20.
[3] ASHRAE. ASHRAE 15-2013, ASHRAE; 2013.
[29] Soundararajan K, Ho HK, Su B. Sankey diagram framework for energy and
[4] Turchi C, Ma Z, Dyreby J. Supercritical CO2 for application in concentrating
exergy flows. Appl Energy 2014;136(0):1035–42. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.
solar power systems. In: Proceedings of supercritical CO2 power cycle
1016/j.apenergy.2014.08.070.
symposium; 2009.
[30] Australian Government. Bureau of Meteorology, Average daily solar exposure.
[5] Persichilli M, Kacludis A, Zdankiewicz E, Held T. Supercritical CO2 power cycle
<http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/climate_averages/solar-exposure/index.
developments and commercialization: why SCO2 can displace steam. In:
jsp?period=an#info>.
Power-Gen India & Central Asia, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi, India; 2012.
[31] Moisseytsev A, Sienicki J, et al. Performance improvement options for the
[6] Feher EG. The supercritical thermodynamic power cycle. Energy Convers
supercritical carbon dioxide brayton cycle. Tech. rep., Argonne National
1968;8(2):85–90.
Laboratory (ANL). Funding organisation: USDOE Office of Science; 2008.
[7] Dostál V. A supercritical carbon dioxide cycle for next generation nuclear
[32] Moran MJ, Shapiro HN. Fundamentals of engineering thermodynamics. 5th
reactors. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2004.
ed. Wiley; 2004.
[8] Kulhánek M, Dostál V. Thermodynamic analysis and comparison of
[33] Hoang HT, Corcoran MR, Wuthrich JW. Thermodynamic study of a
supercritical carbon dioxide cycles. In: Proceedings of supercritical CO2
supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle concept. In: Proceedings of supercritical CO2
power cycle symposium; 2011.
power cycle symposium; 2009.
[9] Moisseytsev A, Sienicki JJ. Investigation of alternative layouts for the
[34] Lutz M. Programming python. O’Reilly Media, Inc.; 2006.
supercritical carbon dioxide brayton cycle for a sodium-cooled fast reactor.
[35] Lemmon EW, Huber ML, McLinden MO. NIST standard reference database 23:
Nucl Eng Des 2009;239(7):1362–71.
reference fluid thermodynamic and transport properties-REFPROP, version 9.1.
[10] Sarkar J. Second law analysis of supercritical CO2 recompression Brayton cycle.
Tech. rep., National Institute of Standards and Technology, Standard Reference
Energy 2009;34(9):1172–8.
Data Program, Gaithersburg; 2013.
[11] Sarkar J, Bhattacharyya S. Optimization of recompression S-CO2 power cycle
[36] Span R, Wagner W. A new equation of state for carbon dioxide covering the
with reheating. Energy Convers Manage 2009;50(8):1939–45.
fluid region from the triple-point temperature to 1100 K at pressures up to
[12] Kao SP, Gibbs J, Hejzlar P. Dynamic simulation & control of a supercritical CO2
800 MPa. J Phys Chem Ref Data 1996;25(6):1509–96.
power conversion system for small light water reactor applications. In:
[37] Kraft D. A software package for sequential quadratic programming. Tech. rep.,
Proceedings of supercritical CO2 power cycle symposium; 2009.
DLR German Aerospace Center Institute for Flight Mechanics, Koln, Germany;
[13] Song Y, Wang J, Dai Y, Zhou E. Thermodynamic analysis of a transcritical CO2
1988.
power cycle driven by solar energy with liquified natural gas as its heat sink.
[38] Ho CK, Iverson BD. Review of high-temperature central receiver designs for
Appl Energy 2012;92:194–203.
concentrating solar power. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;29:835–46.
[14] Wang J, Sun Z, Dai Y, Ma S. Parametric optimization design for supercritical
[39] Boehm R. Maximum performance of solar heat engines. Appl Energy
CO2 power cycle using genetic algorithm and artificial neural network. Appl
1986;23(4):281–96.
Energy 2010;87(4):1317–24.
[40] Petela R. Exergy of undiluted thermal radiation. Sol Energy 2003;74(6):
[15] Wang J, Zhao P, Niu X, Dai Y. Parametric analysis of a new combined cooling,
469–88.
heating and power system with transcritical CO2 driven by solar energy. Appl
[41] Parrott J. Theoretical upper limit to the conversion efficiency of solar energy.
Energy 2012;94:58–64.
Sol Energy 1978;21(3):227–9.
[16] Turchi CS, Ma Z, Neises TW, Wagner MJ. Thermodynamic study of advanced
[42] Delussu G. A qualitative thermo-fluid-dynamic analysis of a CO2 solar pipe
supercritical carbon dioxide power cycles for concentrating solar power
receiver. Sol Energy 2012;86(3):926–34.
systems. J Sol Energy Eng 2013;135(4):041007.
[43] Soo Too YC, Benito R. Enhancing heat transfer in air tubular absorbers for
[17] Seidel W. Model development and annual simulation of the supercritical
concentrated solar thermal applications. Appl Thermal Eng 2013;50(1):
carbon dioxide brayton cycle for concentrating solar power applications. Ph.D.
1076–83.
thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison; 2011.
[44] National Renewable Energy Laboratoty (NREL). Solar advisor model CSP reference
[18] Klein SA, Alvarado F. EES: engineering equation solver for the microsoft
manual for version 3.0; July 2009. <http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sam>.
windows operating system, F-Chart software; 1992.
[45] Serth R. Process heat transfer: principles and applications. Academic Press;
[19] Gavic DJ. Investigation of water, air, and hybrid cooling for supercritical carbon
2007.
dioxide brayton cycles. Master’s thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madinson;
[46] Kelly B. Nexant parabolic trough solar power plant systems analysis, task 2:
2012.
comparison of wet and dry rankine cycle heat rejection. Tech. rep., NREL/SR-
[20] Singh R, Miller SA, Rowlands AS, Jacobs PA. Dynamic characteristics of a direct-
550-40163, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL); 2006.
heated supercritical carbon-dioxide brayton cycle in a solar thermal power
[47] Wilber K, Zammit K. Development of procurement guidelines for air-cooled
plant. Energy 2013;50:194–204.
condensers. In: Advanced cooling strategies/technology conference,
[21] Harvego EA, McKellar MG. Optimization and comparison of direct and indirect
Sacramento, CA, USA; 2005.
supercritical carbon dioxide power plant cycles for nuclear applications. In:
[48] Viswanathan R, Coleman K, Rao U. Materials for ultra-supercritical coal-fired
ASME 2011 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition,
power plant boilers. Int J Pressure Vessels Piping 2006;83(11):778–83.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2011. p. 75–81.
[49] Bejan A, Kearney D, Kreith F. Second law analysis and synthesis of solar
[22] Iverson BD, Conboy TM, Pasch JJ, Kruizenga AM. Supercritical CO2 brayton
collector systems. J Sol Energy Eng 1981;103(1):23–8.
cycles for solar-thermal energy. Appl Energy 2013;111(0):957–70.
[50] Dunham MT, Iverson BD. High-efficiency thermodynamic power cycles for
[23] Besarati SM, Goswami DY. Analysis of advanced supercritical carbon dioxide
concentrated solar power systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;30(0):
power cycles with a bottoming cycle for concentrating solar power
758–70.
applications. J Sol Energy Eng 2014;136(1):010904.
[51] U.S. Department of Energy. EnergyPlus energy simulation software. <http://
[24] Chacartegui R, Muñoz de Escalona J, Sánchez D, Monje B, Sánchez T.
apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/cfm/weather_data3.cfm/region=
Alternative cycles based on carbon dioxide for central receiver solar power
5_southwest_pacific_wmo_region_5/country=AUS/cname=Australia>.
plants. Appl Thermal Eng 2011;31(5):872–9.
[52] Wark K. Advanced thermodynamics for engineers. New York: McGraw-Hill;
[25] Khaliq A, Kaushik S. Second-law based thermodynamic analysis of brayton/
1995.
rankine combined power cycle with reheat. Appl Energy 2004;78(2):179–97.