Applied Energy 242 (2019) 1134–1154

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Optimal integration of recompression supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle with T

main compression intercooling in solar power tower system based on
exergoeconomic approach
Yuegeng Maa,b, Tatiana Morozyukb, Ming Liuc, Junjie Yanc, Jiping Liua,
⁎

a
MOE Key Laboratory of Thermal Fluid Science and Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xianning West Road. 28, Xi’an 710049, PR China
b
Institute for Energy Engineering, Technische Universität Berlin, Marchstr. 18, Berlin 10587, Germany
c
State Key Laboratory of Multiphase Flow in Power Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xianning West Road. 28, Xi’an 710049, PR China

HIGHLIGHTS

• Exergoeconomic optimization is performed on the S-CO cycle based on SPT overall model.
• Total
2
unit exergy cost is lowered by 8.94% through exergoeconomic optimization.
• Reheating may not be justified in view of exergoeconomic performance of the SPT plant.
• Sensitivity analysis is performed on the effects of cost and design of solar components.
• Linear regression models are established for optimal c prediction.
p,tot

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Despite the emerging interest in applying the supercritical CO2 (S-CO2) Brayton cycle to solar power towers
Concentrated solar power plant (SPTs), its unique characteristics necessitates a specific thermoeconomic consideration in the integration of this
Supercritical carbon dioxide cycle cycle in SPT plants to obtain a competitive electricity generation cost. In this work, the exergoeconomic ap-
Exergoeconomic analysis proach is utilized to address the optimal integration of the recompression S-CO2 Brayton cycle with main
Global parameters optimization
compression intercooling in the SPT plant. Firstly, exergoeconomic optimization using a genetic algorithm is
Linear regression model
performed on six crucial variables of S-CO2 Brayton cycle to minimize the total unit exergy cost of the SPT
system (cp,tot). The results are then compared with those obtained by thermodynamic optimization aiming at
maximal SPT energetic efficiency. Secondly, a sensitivity analysis model is established, the effects of the cost and
design conditions of solar components on the optimal S-CO2 cycle integration are investigated with this model.
Finally, linear regression models are established to predict the optimal cp,tot under various conditions of solar
component capital cost and design with a deviation less than 2%. Results indicate that the optimal cp,tot is
reduced by 8.94% according to the exergoeconomic optimization relative to the conventional thermodynamic
optimization. The integration of reheating is not justified for the cycle due to the significant decreased tem-
perature change across the primary heat exchanger and the consequent reduction in the exergoeconomic per-
formance of the SPT plant. Sensitivity analysis highlights the effects of cost and design conditions of solar
components on the optimal integration of the S-CO2 cycle, and indicates that the optimal cycle layout may
degrade from the recompression cycle to the simple recuperating cycle under certain cost and design conditions
of solar components.

1. Introduction
Concentrated solar power (CSP) is a promising alternative to the
conventional fossil fuel energy given the rising concerns about global
warming and energy shortage [1]. Among various CSP technologies
available, the solar power tower (SPT) technology shows great com-
petitiveness due to its superior potential in performance improvement
and cost reduction associated with the development of the subsystems
of SPT plants [2]. However, the SPT technology is still not cost-effective
relative to the conventional power generation technology at the current

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: liujp@xjtu.edu.cn (J. Liu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.03.155
Received 1 September 2018; Received in revised form 10 March 2019; Accepted 15 March 2019
Available online 23 March 2019
0306-2619/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Y. Ma, et al. Applied Energy 242 (2019) 1134–1154

Nomenclature D destruction
F fuel
Symbol hel heliostat
A area of heat exchanger, m2 in inlet
C exergy cost rate, $/h is isentropic
c specific exergy cost, $/GJ L loss
Cp specific heat at constant pressure, kJ·kg−1·K−1 out outlet
E exergy rate, kW P product
e specific exergy, kJ·kg−1 p production
eff effectiveness of heat exchanger Rec receiver
f exergoeconomic factor, – recup recuperator
H height, m sol solar beam
h specific enthalpy, kJ·kg−1 Tow tower
m mass flow rate, kg·s−1
n plant lifetime Acronym
P,p pressure, MPa
Q heat transfer rate, kW CRF capital recovery factor, %
r relative cost difference, – CSP concentrated solar power
T temperature, K/°C; turbine DNI direct normal irradiance, W/m2
ta annual plant operation hours HM heat media
UA conductance, MW·K−1 HTF heat transfer media
V volume, m3 HTR high-temperature recuperator
W work rate, kW HTS high temperature side
Z capital cost, $ IC intercooler
Z capital cost rate, $/h LCOE levelized cost of electricity
Greek symbols LMTD logarithmic mean temperature difference, °C
α receiver solar absorptance LTR low-temperature recuperator
γ maintenance factor LTS low temperature side
ΔT temperature change, K MC main compressor
ε receiver thermal emittance; exergetic efficiency MCIC main compression intercooling
η efficiency PHX primary heat exchanger
π pressure ratio RC recompression compressor
ρ density, kg/m3 RPR ratio of pressure ratio
σ Stefan-Boltzmann constant, W·m−1 SPECO specific exergy costing
Ψ K4 dimensionless maximum useful work available from SPT solar power tower
radiation SR split ratio
TES thermal energy storage
Subscript

1,2… state point

stage [3]. Increasing the maximal temperature of the power cycle leads
to the elevation of the power cycle performance and may reduce the
cost of the SPT electricity generation [3]. Numerous efforts have been
made to develop high-temperature solar components for power gen-
eration via high-temperature power cycle [4,5]. However, previous
studies indicated that the performance improvement of the conven-
tional steam Rankine cycle is relatively insignificant with increased
cycle maximum temperature. Moreover, the relative complex config-
uration of the steam Rankine cycle entails large capital costs [6]. Hence,
the superior efficiency power cycles with low capital costs are still
being pursued to achieve low cost for SPT electricity generation [7].
In recent decades, the supercritical CO2 (S-CO2) Brayton cycle has
been regarded as a prospective power cycle technology for energy
conversion systems in various energy industries, including SPT plants
[4,8]. Previous research reported that the S-CO2 Brayton cycle shows
superior efficiency with the maximum temperature of 450–800 °C and
thus meets the application requirements of SPT technology [9]. Nu-
merous efforts have been made from the perspectives of cycle optimi-
zation, off-design performance analysis and control strategy develop-
ment to further investigate the feasibility of integrating S-CO2 Brayton
cycle in the SPT systems. Dunham and Iverson [6] reviewed different
high-efficiency power cycles in the context of CSP application, and
indicated that the S-CO2 recompression Brayton cycle has the highest
energetic efficiency according to their comparison of the system
optimization results. Al-Sulaiman and Atif [10] performed thermo-
dynamic comparisons among five S-CO2 Brayton cycles integrated in an
SPT plant, and conducted energy and exergy analyses on the SPT plants
integrated with recompression cycles in six different locations in Saudi
Arabia [11]. Wang et al. [12,13] compared different cycle layouts of the
S-CO2 Brayton cycle as a power block in the SPT plants from the per-
spective of cycle efficiency, specific work, and incorporation capability
with thermal energy storage. The authors indicated that the re-
compression cycle with main compression intercooling and partial
cooling cycle layouts were most prominent among different layout
candidates in the case of high compressor inlet temperature. Osorio
et al. [14] investigated the effects of multi-tank thermal energy storage,
recuperator effectiveness, and solar receiver conductance on the per-
formance of an SPT plant integrated with the S-CO2 Brayton cycle under
different seasonal conditions; they indicated that the recuperator, the
hot thermal energy storage and the solar receiver are the main sources
for exergy destruction and thus offered immense potential in design
optimizations. Ma et al. [15] proposed a novel power cycle concept for
an air-cooled SPT system, which utilized the residual heat in the cold
end of the S-CO2 Brayton cycle to drive an absorption chiller as an
enhanced cooler after the precooler; they reported a higher thermo-
dynamic and economic performance for the proposed cycle than for the
stand-alone S-CO2 Brayton cycle. Dyreby et al. [16] established off-
design and part-load models for the S-CO2 Brayton cycle, and

1135
Y. Ma, et al. Applied Energy 242 (2019) 1134–1154

(a) No-reheating cycle

(b) Reheating cycle

Fig. 1. Configuration of the molten salt solar power tower plant integrated with recompression S-CO2 Brayton cycle with MCIC.

investigated the effects of the design compressor inlet temperature
performance amid change in ambient temperature. Tse and Neises [17]
further updated Dyreby’s models by adding a detailed sub-model of a
primary heat exchanger (PHX), and then investigated the annual per-
formance of the S-CO2 Brayton cycle on the basis of the off-design
modeling. Calle et al. [18] established design and off-design models of
the S-CO2 cycle, and performed cycle optimal design for a concentrated
solar power station on the basis of the cycle performance under various
ambient conditions. Singh et al. [19] established dynamic simulation
models of a direct-heated S-CO2 Brayton cycle in a solar thermal power
plant and investigated the dynamic cycle behavior in various thermal
input and ambient conditions. Luu et al. [20] established dynamic
models and investigated the flexible operation of the S-CO2 Brayton
cycle integrated in the direct-heated SPT system; they then developed
and compared two control strategies for turbine inlet temperature
control. Furthermore, the authors [21] developed two control schemes,
namely inventory control and flexible recompressor control; and sug-
gested operational switching between the two schemes to ensure pro-
cess stability and performance. Iverson [22] modeled the transient
process of S-CO2 Brayton cycles integrated in SPT systems and com-
pared the results with experimental data, and indicated that the per-
turbation of the solar source appears manageable, especially for short
durations.
However, despite many studies outlined the thermodynamic char-
acteristics of the S-CO2 Brayton cycle in the context of SPT application,
limited research has investigated the optimal integration of the S-CO2
Brayton cycle in SPT systems with sufficient consideration of the
thermo-economic aspect. Since S-CO2 Brayton cycles are highly re-
cuperated and turbine expansion ratio is limited, the temperature
change of CO2 fluids across the primary heat exchanger (ΔTPHX) is
usually small, which leads to adverse effects on the thermoeconomic
performance of solar receiver and thermal energy storage (TES) system
[12,23]. With a smaller ΔTPHX, the required inventory of molten salt for
the TES and the average temperature of molten salt in the solar receiver
is more and higher. Consequently, the capital cost of the TES system
and solar receiver are increased. Few researchers presented preliminary
thermo-economic studies on the S-CO2 Brayton cycle for SPT system.
Crespi [24] presented a sensitivity analysis of each component cost
related to the change of cycle efficiency and ΔTPHX for two cycle lay-
outs, namely, transcritical simple recuperated cycle and partial cooling
cycle. Ho [25] investigated the effects of the performance (cycle effi-
ciency and ΔTPHX) of the S-CO2 Brayton cycle on solar components and
evaluated the total cost of the solar plants integrated with three dif-
ferent S-CO2 Brayton cycles. However, these studies did not involve the
overall thermoeconomic optimization of the S-CO2 Brayton cycle in-
tegrated in SPT system, thereby could not provide quantitative

1136
Y. Ma, et al. Applied Energy 242 (2019) 1134–1154

(a) No-reheating cycle

(b) Reheating cycle

Fig. 2. T-S diagram of recompression S-CO2 Brayton cycle with MCIC.

guidelines for the selection of the configuration and parameters of the
S-CO2 Brayton cycle for SPT application.
Exergoeconomics based on specific exergy costing (SPECO) is an
effective methodology for the thermoeconomic analysis of thermal
systems [26], and it has been applied in various energy industries
[27,28]. By combining the exergy analysis with an economic analysis,
this methodology provides the cost formation process and the flow of
costs of the thermal system to identify the inefficient cost and optimize
the specific variables of a single component and the overall system
[29]. Some recent researchers applied this methodology to the analysis
and optimization of the solar power plants. Elsafi [30] demonstrated
the exergy and exergoeconomic analysis of a commercial-sized direct
steam generation parabolic trough solar thermal power plant, and in-
vestigated the reheating effects on the plant from the perspective of

1137
Y. Ma, et al. Applied Energy 242 (2019) 1134–1154

Table B.1
Exergy and energy models of components of the solar power tower system integrated with recompression Brayton S-CO2 cycle with MCIC.
Component Energy Model Exergy Model Auxiliary Equation and Note

Solar beam Qin,hel = DNI · Ahel Ein,hel = Qin,hel· s

s =1
3
·( ) + ·( )
4 T0
Ts
1
3
T0 4
Ts
Heliostat Qout,hel = Qin,hel· hel Eout,hel = Ein,hel· hel hel = fc · r · fi · sb · aa
Receiver Qout,hel· rec = Qin,rec = m16·(h16 h15) Eout,hel = m16·(e16 e15) + Ed,rec + El,rec 4
· ·Fview·(T¯rec,wall T¯04 ) + fconv ·hconv ·(T¯rec,wall T¯0 )
rec =
hel,th·DNI ·C
T¯rec,wall = (T16 + T15)/2 + 100
TES m16· h16 = mhot,TES·hhot,TES + m13·h13 m16· e16 = mhot,TES ·e hot,TES + m13·e13 Well thermal insulated;
m15·h15 = mcold,TES·h cold,TES + m14 ·h14 m15·e15 = mcold,TES ·ecold,TES + m14 ·e14 Q TES = Wnet / cycle,th ·Hour TES = VTES· ¯
TES ·Cp HTF (T13 T14 )
T-1 WT - 1 = mCO2·(h7 h 8) mCO2 ·(e7 e8) = WT - 1 + Ed,T - 1 Adiabatic but non-isentropic expansion process;
T-2 WT - 2 = mCO2·(h9 h10) mCO2 ·(e9 e10) = WT - 2 + Ed,T - 2 is,T = (hin,T h out,T )/(hin,T his,out,T )
MC-1 WMC - 1 = SR ·mCO2·(h2 h1) WMC - 1 = SR ·mCO2·(e2 e1) + Ed,MC - 1 Adiabatic but non-isentropic compression process;
MC-2 WMC - 2 = SR·mCO2 ·(h 4 h3) WMC - 2 = SR· mCO2·(e4 e3) + Ed,MC - 2 is,C = (his,out,C hin,C)/(h out,C hin,C)
RC WRC = (1 - SR)· mCO2·(h5 h12) WRC = (1 SR)· mCO2·(e5'' e12) + Ed,RC
PHX1 m14 ·(h13 h14') = mCO2 ·( h7 h 6) m14'·(e13 e14') = mCO2·(e7 e6) + Ed,PHX1 Counter flow; well thermal insulated
n
PHX2 m14 ·(h13 h14') = mCO2 ·( h7 h 6) m14''·(e13 e14'') = mCO2 ·(e9 e8) + Ed,PHX2 i = 1 UAi ·LMTDi = mHTF·(hHTF,in hHTF,out )
HTR mCO2 ·(h10 h11) = mCO2·(h 6 h5) mCO2 ·(e10 e11) = mCO2·(e6 e5) + Ed,HTR Counter flow; well thermal insulated
n
LTR mCO2 ·(h11 h12) = SR·mCO2·(h5 h4 ) mCO2 ·(e11 e12) = mCO2·(e5 e4) + Ed,LTR i = 1 UAi ·LMTDi = mCO2·(hCO2,HTS,in hCO2,HTS,out )
PC QPC = SR ·mCO2·(h12 h1) El,PC = SR· mCO2·(e12 e1) Counter flow; well thermal insulated
n
IC QIC = SR· mCO2·(h2 h3) El,IC = SR ·mCO2·(e2 e3 ) i = 1 UAi ·LMTDi = mair ·(hair,out hair,in )
MV1 m14'·h14' + m14 · h14 = m14 · h14 m14'·e14' + m14 ·e14 = m14 ·e14 + Ed,MV1 –
MV2 m5'· h5' + m5 ·h5 = m5·h5 m5'· e5' + m5 · e5 = m5·e5 + Ed,MV2 –

Table 1 contribute to the cost-competitive electricity generation of CSP tech-

Input parameters for the design of the SPT plant integrated with S-CO2 cycle. nology. Moreover, the exergoeconomic approach is expected to be an
Input parameter Value Note effective tool to solve these two thermoeconomic problems and hence it
is adopted in the current work.
Design point DNI 950 W/m2 Given In this study, exergoeconomic analysis and optimization are per-
Solar multiple 2.4 Given
formed to investigate the optimal approach of integrating the S-CO2
Full load hours of storage 10 h Given
Cycle thermal power 220 MWh Given
cycle in the SPT system from the thermoeconomic perspective in this
Ambient temperature 30 °C Given study. Recompression cycle with main compression intercooling (MCIC)
Hot tank molten salt temperature 565 °C Ref. [43] is selected in this work because it was highlighted as one of the most
Cycle maximum temperature 550 °C Ref. [43] promising S-CO2 Brayton cycle layouts for the SPT plant integration
Cycle maximum pressure 25 MPa Ref. [43]
according to the previous studies [13,32]. The configuration of re-
Heat transfer temperature difference of cooler 15 °C Ref. [15]
Main compressor inlet temperature 45 °C Calculated heating is considered as an option for the cycle due to its potential to
Turbine isentropic efficiency 90% Ref. [15] improve cycle’s thermodynamic performance. However, the integration
Compressor isentropic efficiency 89% Ref. [15] of reheating tends to reduce ΔTPHX and may bring negative effects from
Pressure drop in the PHX 50 kPa Ref. [46]
an economic perspective. Therefore, both reheating and no-reheating
Pressure drop in the hot side of HTR 60 kPa Ref. [46]
Pressure drop in the cold side of HTR 30 kPa Ref. [46]
configurations are investigated and compared according to the ex-
Pressure drop in the hot side of LTR 20 kPa Ref. [46] ergoeconomic analysis in this work. The global optimization of the
Pressure drop in the cold side of LTR 40 kPa Ref. [46] cycle is first performed to achieve an optimal exergoeconomic perfor-
Pressure drop in the cooler 20 kPa Ref. [46] mance for the entire SPT system. Then, by comparing the ex-
Minimal pinch point temperature difference 5 °C Ref. [15]
ergoeconomic optimization case to the conventional thermodynamic
optimization case deep in a component-based level, the mechanism of
the improvement in exergoeconomic performances is clearly illustrated.
Moreover, sensitivity analyses are performed to obtain the optimal
exergoeconomics. Ertl [29] performed exergoeconomic analysis on an
parameters of the S-CO2 cycle under various design and cost conditions
SPT system with an open-air receiver technology to reveal the potential
of solar components. Finally, linear regression models are established to
improvements and weaknesses using such technology. Baghernejad and
easily predict the optimal exergoeconomic performance of the SPT
Yaghoubi [31] performed exergoeconomic analysis and optimization
plant integrated with the S-CO2 cycle under a range of capital cost and
using a genetic algorithm (GA) for an integrated solar combined cycle
design conditions of solar components.
system that produces 400 MW of electricity to minimize the investment
cost of equipment and the cost of the exergy destruction of the whole
2. Model development and implementation
system.
On the basis of these reviews, we can conclude that the thermo- 2.1. System description
economic studies on the optimal integration of the S-CO2 cycle in SPT
systems are not yet sufficient because of following. (1) The guidelines
Fig. 1(a) and (b) present a diagram of SPT plant integrated with
on the selection of the crucial parameters of the S-CO2 Brayton cycle to
MCIC recompression cycle without/with reheating, respectively. The
obtain an optimal thermoeconomic performance for SPT plants are still
SPT plant consists of three subsystems, namely, heliostat field, molten
scarce. (2) The effects of the design and cost of solar components on the
salt loop and power block. In the heliostat field, the sun’s rays are re-
optimal parameters of the S-CO2 Brayton cycle were not considered in
flected by the heliostats and concentrated to the central receiver on top
previous researches. The studies on these two aspects are expected to
of the solar tower. The molten salt loop consists of the solar tower and

1138
Y. Ma, et al. Applied Energy 242 (2019) 1134–1154

Fig. 3. Implementation of thermodynamic and exergoeconomic models of the SPT system.

Table 2
Key cycle variables to be optimized [8,13].
Parameter Expression Range for analysis

Pressure ratio of MC (πMC) MC =

2
=
2
(pout,MC - i /pin,MC - i ) [2,4]
i = 1 MC - i i=1
Ratio of pressure ratio of MC-1 (RPRMC-1) RPRMC - 1 = Ln ( MC - 1)/Ln ( MC) [0,1]
Ratio of pressure ratio of T-1 (RPRT-1) RPRT - 1 = Ln ( T - 1)/Ln ( T ) {0}∪(0,1]a
Split ratio in the MC side (SR) SR = mMC/(mMC + mRC) [0.5,1]
Effectiveness of HTR (effHTR) effHTR =
h10 h11 [0.85,0.95]
h10 h (t5, p11 )
Effectiveness of LTR (effLTR) h11 h12 [0.85,0.95]
, if (m ·C¯p ) HTS (m·C¯p )LTS
h11 h (t 4, p12 )
effLTR =
h11 h12
, if (m· C¯p ) HTS > (m· C¯p ) LTS
h (t5', p11 ) h 4

a
The optimization works under reheating (RPRT-1∈(0,1]) and no-reheating (RPRT-1 = 0) conditions are performed separately to investigate the re-
heating effects and avoid getting into the local optimal solution of the GA.

Table 3 Fig. 2(a) and (b) present the T-S diagrams of the no-reheating and re-
Main settings for GA optimization. heating recompression cycle with MCIC, respectively. It can be noted
Item Value
that the slopes of the nearly-isobaric processes curves, i.e., 4-5-6-7 and
8-9-10-1 in Fig. 2(a), varies significantly through the processes in the T-
Population size 200 S diagram, especially when it comes close to the critical region. This is
Crossover probability 0.8 due to the significant variation of the thermal properties of CO2 fluids
Mutation probability 0.2
near the critical region. The detail explanation is illustrated in
Elite count 15
Stop generation 400 Appendix A. Besides, as shown in the T-S diagrams, the two significant
characteristics of the recompression cycle compared with the conven-
tional simple recuperated cycle are the two-stage recuperator (LTR and
receiver, a two-tank molten salt TES system and PHXs. The molten salt HTR) and the additional recompression compressor (RC) used to bypass
from the cold tank of the TES absorbs the heat in the receiver and enters part of the working fluids from main compressor. Compared to the
the hot tank of the TES system. The molten salt then heats the CO2 simple recuperated cycle, these two modifications in the recompression
working fluids through the PHX or stores the thermal energy for peak cycle greatly alleviate the so-called “pinch point” problem, which de-
demand and no-solar heat conditions. Finally, the heated S-CO2 notes the inefficiency of heat exchange due to the mismatch of the CO2
working fluids expand in the turbine to output work in the power block. thermal capacity in the two sides of recuperator and the consequent

1139
Y. Ma, et al. Applied Energy 242 (2019) 1134–1154

Table 4
Optimization results for the SPT plant integrated with recompression cycle with MCIC.
Optimization Case Num. Optimization results

πMC RPRMC-1 RPRTC-1 SR εLTR εHTR cp,tot/[¢/(kW·h)] εSPT/%

Reheating Minimal cp,tot 1 3.73 0.32 0.44 0.73 0.96 0.95 12.16 27.10
Maximal εSPT 2 3.24 0.22 0.48 0.67 0.97 0.96 12.41 28.44
No-reheating Minimal cp,tot 3 3.09 0.23 0 0.73 0.96 0.92 11.30 26.47
Maximal εSPT 4 2.93 0.19 0 0.66 0.96 0.97 11.49 27.60

the physical exergy of the working medium are considered [35]. With
the changes in kinetic and potential exergies neglected, the physical
exergy of the working medium is expressed as:
e = (h h0) T0 (s s0 ) (2)

where T0 [K], h0 [kJ/kg] and s0 [kJ/(kg·K)] are the temperature, spe-

cific enthalpy and specific entropy under ambient conditions, respec-
tively.
The exergy balance of the control volume is expressed as:

min · ein + Eq,j = mout · eout + W + Ed + El

in j out cv (3)
where E d denotes the exergy destruction rate in the control volume
[kW]. E l denotes the exergy losses rate to the ambient condition from
the control volume [kW]. E q,j denotes the exergy transfer rate asso-
Fig. 4. Comparison of the Z k of each component (The case numbers corre-
ciated with the heat transfer between the control volume and the sur-
sponds to these in Table 5). rounding, and is calculated as follow.

T0
Eq,j = Qq,j 1
Tq,j (4)
where Q q,j is the heat transfer rate between the control volume and the
surrounding [kW]; T q,j is the temperature under which the heat transfer
happens [K].
The detail energy and exergy models for each component in the SPT
system integrated with recompression Brayton S-CO2 cycle with MCIC
are illustrated in Table B.1 of Appendix B. The exergetic efficiencies of
the S-CO2 cycle (εcycle) and the whole SPT system (εSPT) are evaluated
with Eqs. (5) and (6), respectively:

Wnet
cycle = 100 ×
Ein,PHX (5)

Wnet
SPT = 100 ×
Ein,sol (6)
Fig. 5. Comparison of the W net and ΔTPHX (The case numbers corresponds to
where W net denotes the net output power from the cycle, which equals
these in Table 5).
to the turbine output power minus the consumed compressor work
[kW].E in,PHX denotes the exergy released by the molten salt across the
inner pinch point of recuperator [33,34]. Besides, the main compressor PHX [kW]. E in,SPT denotes the exergy released by the solar beam [kW].
(MC) is divided into two stages and the MCIC is introduced between
them to reduce the compressor works. 2.3. Exergoeconomic model

2.2. Thermodynamic model The exergoeconomic model based on the SPECO approach is es-
tablished for each component in the SPT system. The exergoeconomic
Energy and exergy models for each component in the integrated SPT model defines and calculates the cost per unit exergy of product streams
system are established in this section. Each component in the entire by revealing the cost formation process. The general cost balance
system is treated as a control volume for modeling. The energy con- equations for each component in the SPT system are expressed as:
servation for the component is specified in Eq. (1)
Cout,k + Cw,k = Cin,k + Cq,k + Zk (7)
m in · h in + Q= mout · hout + W
in cv out cv (1) where C out,k and C in,k denote the cost rates associated with the exiting
and entering exergy streams, respectively [$/h], and C w,k and C q,k
where Q represents the heat transfer rate between the control volume denote the cost rates associated with the output power from the com-
and the environment [kW]. W represents the work transfer rate be- ponent and the input thermal energy to the component [$/h], respec-
tween the control volume system and the surrounding [kW]. tively. C out,k, C in,k, C w,k and C q,k can be evaluated with Eqs. (8)–(11).
In the absence of the effects of nuclear, electrical, and chemical
reaction, as well as magnetic and surface tension, only the changes in Cout,k = cout,k·Eout,k (8)

1140
Y. Ma, et al. Applied Energy 242 (2019) 1134–1154

Table 5
Component-level comparison of results between thermodynamic and exergoeconomic optimization (Case 2 and Case 3).
Component Case E l+E d [MW] cf [$/GJ] cp[$/GJ] C d+C l [$/h] Z k [$/h] Z k+C d+C l [$/h] rk [–] fk [–]

Solar component
Hel Max εSPT 135.38 0 4.36 0 3568.13 3568.13 0 1
Min cp,tot 134.45 0 4.36 0 3541.62 3541.62 0 1
Rec&Tow Max εSPT 89.89 4.36 11.32 1411.85 2025.18 3437.03 1.59 0.60
Min cp,tot 93.58 4.36 11.73 1468.99 2032.81 3501.80 1.69 0.59
TEShot Max εSPT 0 16.21 16.96 0 1533.66 1533.66 0.05 1
Min cp,tot 0 14.02 14.82 0 812.48 812.48 0.06 1
TEScold Max εSPT 0 16.97 17.77 0 1239.69 1239.69 0.05 1
Min cp,tot 0 14.82 16.03 0 656.75 656.75 0.08 1

Heat exchanger
PHX1 Max εSPT 1.13 16.96 19.59 69.13 715.96 785.08 0.16 0.91
Min cp,tot 1.96 14.82 17.49 104.64 1144.73 1249.37 0.15 0.92
PHX2 Max εSPT 0.80 16.96 19.76 48.65 477.48 526.12 0.17 0.91
Min cp,tot – – – – – – – –
HTR Max εSPT 6.06 26.99 28.87 588.75 401.34 990.09 0.07 0.41
Min cp,tot 7.77 24.36 26.68 681.45 194.02 875.47 0.10 0.22
LTR Max εSPT 2.45 26.99 31.83 238.19 521.93 760.12 0.18 0.69
Min cp,tot 3.85 24.36 29.16 337.36 361.62 698.98 0.20 0.52

Turbomachinery
T1 Max εSPT 3.38 27.81 30.44 338.37 388.09 726.46 0.09 0.53
Min cp,tot 0.00 – – – – – – –
T2 Max εSPT 3.63 26.99 29.57 352.52 405.77 758.28 0.10 0.54
Min cp,tot 6.87 24.36 26.70 602.44 591.61 1194.05 0.10 0.50
MC1 Max εSPT 0.69 29.99 40.45 74.26 167.14 241.40 0.35 0.69
Min cp,tot 0.69 26.70 36.83 66.06 166.66 232.72 0.38 0.72
MC2 Max εSPT 1.76 29.99 38.80 189.98 367.81 557.79 0.29 0.66
Min cp,tot 1.74 26.70 35.29 166.79 358.30 525.09 0.32 0.68
RC Max εSPT 1.97 29.99 37.39 212.65 503.63 716.28 1 0.70
Min cp,tot 1.46 26.70 34.31 140.62 389.46 530.08 0.29 0.73

Merge valve
MV1 Max εSPT 0.23 8.47 16.97 7.03 0 7.03 1.00 0
Min cp,tot – – – – – – – –
MV2 Max εSPT 0.01 16.35 29.49 0.47 0 0.47 0.80 0
Min cp,tot 0 16.00 26.55 0.00 0 0.00 0.66 0

Dissipative component
Precooler Max εSPT 6.81 26.99 0 661.28 232.37 893.64 – 1
Min cp,tot 6.46 24.36 0 566.35 237.42 803.78 – 1
Intercooler Max εSPT 5.26 27.56 0 521.45 253.46 774.92 – 1
Min cp,tot 5.83 24.85 0 521.47 280.95 802.42 – 1
Total Max εSPT 259.43 – – 4714.57 12801.65 17516.22 – –
Min cp,tot 264.65 – – 4656.17 10768.43 15424.60 – –

Cin,k = cin,k· Ein,k
Cw,k = c w,k·Wk
Cq,k = cq,k·Eq,k
where cout,k and cin,k are the specific costs associated with exiting and
exergy streams [$/(kW·h)]. cw,k and cq,k are the specific costs associated
with output power and heat transfer [$/(kW·h)]. E out,k denotes the
exergy exiting the control volume system, [kW]. E in,k denotes the ex-
ergy entering the control volume system, [kW].
The term Z k is the cost rate associated with the capital investment
and operation and maintenance expenses for the k-th component [$/h].
Z k is evaluated with the following equation:
(9) Once the cost rates of each stream in the system are obtained, the
cost rates associated with the fuel and product can be defined for each
(10) component for further component-based analysis according to the Fuel-
Product-Loss principle [35]. The detail exergetic fuel and product as
(11) well as the associated cost rates for each component in the CSP plant are
presented in Table C.2 of Appendix C. The specific cost of fuel and
product of each component in the system can be defined with Eqs. (13)
and (14).
cF,k = CF,k / EF,k (13)
cP,k = CP,k /EP,k (14)
where E F,k and E P,k are the exergetic fuel and product rates, respec-
tively [kW]; C F,k and C P,k are the associated cost rates of exergetic fuel

Zk =
CI
Zk +
OM
Zk with
CI
Zk = ( ) ·Z
CRF
ta k and product, respectively [$/h].
For the component-based analysis, the cost rate associated with the
= ( )· Z
OM
exergy destruction (C d,k) and exergy loss (C l,k) within the k-th com-
k
Zk
(12)
ta k
ponent [$/h], the relative cost difference (rk) and the exergoeconomic
where Z kCI
is the annual levelized capital investment rate of the k-th factor (fk) are defined with Eqs. (15)–(18) [35].
component [$/h], Z kOM is the annual levelized operating and main-
tenance cost rate of the k-th component [$/h]. CRF denotes the capital Cd,k = cF,k Ed,k (15)
recovery factor; γk denotes the maintenance factor; ta is the annual
plant operation hour [h]. The detailed exergoeconomic models for Cl,k = cF,k El,k (16)
obtaining the cost rate of each stream of the entire SPT system are il-
lustrated in Table C.1 of Appendix C.
r k = (cP,k cF,k )/c F,k (17)

1141
Y. Ma, et al. Applied Energy 242 (2019) 1134–1154

Table 6
The thermodynamic states, specific exergy, cost rates and specific exergy costs of the fluid streams of the lowest cp,tot case (Case 3).
State Fluids p/[kPa] T/[°C] m /[kg/s] h/[kJ/kg] s/[kJ/(kg·K)] e/[kJ/kg] Cost

C /[$/h] c/[$/GJ]

1 CO2 8076.19 45 718.47 420.38 1.71 225.17 14423.96 89.16

2 CO2 10440.19 64.49 718.47 430.22 1.72 234.04 15281.58 90.88
3 CO2 10420.19 45 718.47 336.15 1.43 227.36 14845.89 90.88
4 CO2 25,000 81.16 718.47 362.19 1.44 250.95 17032.70 94.47
5 CO2 24,960 195.92 987.43 576.96 1.97 304.70 29192.76 97.03
5_1 CO2 24,960 195.85 718.47 576.86 1.97 304.66 8009.42 36.59
5_2 CO2 24,960 196.11 268.97 577.24 1.97 304.79 21183.34 258.40
6 CO2 24,930 371.59 987.43 809.08 2.39 408.79 39255.59 97.25
7 CO2 24,880 550 987.43 1031.88 2.69 538.99 39255.59 73.76
8 CO2 24,880 550 987.43 1031.88 2.69 538.99 39255.59 73.76
9 CO2 24,880 550 987.43 1031.91 2.69 538.99 47443.98 89.16
10 CO2 8176.19 418.14 987.43 888.20 2.72 388.11 34168.75 89.16
11 CO2 8116.19 214.81 987.43 656.08 2.32 276.01 24299.94 89.16
12 CO2 8096.19 86.16 987.43 499.89 1.95 232.97 20510.91 89.16
12′ CO2 8096.19 86.16 718.47 499.89 1.95 232.97 5586.97 33.38
12″ CO2 8096.19 86.16 268.97 499.89 1.95 232.97 14923.94 238.17
13 Molten Salt 101.3 565 784.52 824.52 1.72 400.83 14887.54 53.95
13′ Molten Salt 101.3 565 784.52 824.52 1.72 400.83 14887.54 53.95
13″ Molten Salt 101.3 565 0 824.52 1.72 400.83 0 0
14 Molten Salt 101.3 386.59 784.52 544.09 1.34 223.13 7843.88 53.95
14′ Molten Salt 101.3 386.59 784.52 544.09 1.34 223.13 7843.88 53.95
14″ Molten Salt 101.3 565 0 544.09 1.72 400.83 0 0
15 Molten Salt 101.3 386.59 784.52 544.09 1.34 223.13 8500.63 58.47
16 Molten Salt 101.3 565 784.52 824.52 1.72 400.83 14075.06 51.00

Hence, Eq. (19) can be rewritten as Eq. (22) for the SPT system as:

(22)

2.4. Model implementation and validation

This section details the procedure of model implementation. The

input values for the design of the SPT plant integrated with the S-CO2
cycle are presented in Table 1. In this work, the cycle thermal power
instead of the net output power of the S-CO2 cycle is given for model
initialization. As a result, the optimal designs of the heliostat, tower,
receiver and TES are decoupled from the energetic efficiency of the S-
CO2 cycle. Nevertheless, the variation of the temperature change across
the PHX (ΔTPHX) still affects the thermal storage capacity per unit mass
and the wall temperature of solar receiver; hence, it may affect the
optimal designs of the heliostat, tower, receiver and TES. Therefore, the
Fig. 6. Sensitivity analysis of ΔTPHX on Z k of each solar component.
optimal designs of the SPT system with different ΔTPHX (60–240 °C
every 40 °C) are performed as the base cases. The design results for an
fk = Zk /(Zk + CD,k + CL,k ) (18) SPT plant with a certain ΔTPHX are obtained by interpolation with these
base cases. System Advisory Model (SAM) (Version 2017.9.5) is used
For the overall exergoeconomic performance evaluation of the SPT
for the optimal design of the solar components, namely the TES, he-
system, the total of unit costs of system production (cp,tot) is used [35]
liostat, receiver, and tower of the SPT plant [36,37]. The detailed
and calculated as:
thermodynamic model for the S-CO2 cycle and process integration of
NK
Zk + Cfuel the whole SPT system are implemented in the MATLAB 2015a succes-
k=1
cp,tot = NP sively. REFPROP is called to obtain the thermal properties of CO2 [38].
i=1
EP, i (19) The molten salt used in the SPT system is the commercialized “solar
where C fuel denotes the capital cost rate of the fuel [$/h]. For the SPT salt” (60%NaNO3 40%KNO3), and the necessary thermal properties of
system, the “fuel” is the solar beam and is deemed free. the solar salt are based on Ref. [24]. The economic data for each
component in the SPT system and the economic factors for analysis are
Cfuel = 0 (20) summarized in Table D.1 of Appendix D. The correlations for the cost
evaluation of the key components, namely, the heliostat, receiver, and
E p,i is the i-th exergy production rate [kW]. For the SPT system, the
tower are referenced from the SAM [39]. However, the cost of the TES
production is the net output work (W net).
in the SAM is simplified as the proportional function of the thermal
NP
storage capacity; the scaling effect and the variation of ΔTPHX on the
EP, i = Wnet cost of the TES are neglected. Therefore, a detailed correlation for cost
i=1 (21)
evaluation of the TES system is adopted to consider the variation of the

1142
Y. Ma, et al.
Fig. 7. Optimized πMC in different conditions of ksol_1 and ksol_2.
ΔTPHX of and the scaling effect, which is established on the basis of the
data provided in Ref. [40]. The adopted cost equations for the com-
ponents in the S-CO2 cycle are based on the updated data from different
vendor quotations [41]. Given these thermodynamic and economic
data, the exergoeconomic model for the SPT system is developed with
all exergy cost equations as a linear system with 33 equations and 33
unknown values and is solved by the Gauss-Seidel method in MATLAB
2015a. The implementation procedures of the thermodynamic and ex-
ergoeconomic models of the SPT system are presented in Fig. 3.
To validate the accuracy of the proposed model, we performed two
sets of validation on the proposed recompression S-CO2 Brayton cycle
model under no-reheating and reheating conditions, and then compare
the results with those reported results in [42] and [43], respectively.
The detailed comparisons of the results are presented in Appendix E.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Parameter optimization
3.1.1. Optimization model
Given the input parameters, six variable parameters of the re-
compression S-CO2 Brayton cycle with MCIC are left to be determined
as presented in Table 2. These parameters are expected to have
1143
Applied Energy 242 (2019) 1134–1154
apparent effects on the cycle energetic efficiency and temperature
change across the primary heat exchanger, which will then affect the
exergoeconomic performance of the whole SPT system. The effects of
these parameters on the exergoeconomic performance of the SPT
system could be non-monotonic. Hence, the optimal values for these
parameters are expected to be found within the available ranges for
engineering design. Therefore, the global parameter optimization is
performed on these parameters from the exergoeconomic perspective.
cp,tot is selected as the optimization objective for the exergoeconomic
optimization. Moreover, the thermodynamic optimization on εSPT,
which is usually selected as the optimization objective in previous
thermodynamic optimization studies of SPT plants [23,43], is also
performed for comparison. Hence, the optimization problem can hence
be expressed as follows:
minimize:
cp,tot = cp,tot ( MC, RPRMC - 1, RPRT - 1, SR, LTR, HTR) (23)
or maximize
SPT = SPT ( MC, RPRMC - 1, RPRT - 1, SR, effLTR , effHTR ) (24)
subjected to
Y. Ma, et al.
Fig. 8. Optimized RPRMC-1 in different conditions of ksol_1 and ksol_2.
2 MC 8 the comparison between the optimization results of reheating and no-
0.8 effLTR 0.97
0.8 effHTR 0.97
0 RPRMC 1 1
if reheated, 0 < RPRT 1 1; otherwise RPRT =0
1
0.5 SR 1
Pinch point temperature difference 5 °C (25)
GA is a stochastic global search method based on the Darwinian
survival-of-the-fittest principle [44], and has been widely used for
parametric optimization of numerous thermodynamic cycle systems in
the previous researches [43,45]. Hence, GA is adopted in this work to
solve the global optimization problem. The parameter settings for GA
optimization are listed in Table 3.
3.1.2. Optimization results
Table 4 presents the optimization results for the SPT plant in-
tegrated with the recompression cycle with MCIC. Table 4 shows that
the optimal values of the six variable parameters differ in the four
optimal cases. The maximal εSPT is obtained in Case 2, which aims for
the maximal εSPT using the reheating cycle; whereas the optimal cp,tot is
obtained in Case 3, which aims for minimal cp,tot using the no-reheating
cycle. A comparison of Cases 2 and 3 shows that the cp,tot is reduced by
8.94% from 12.41 ¢/(kW·h) to 11.30 ¢/(kW·h) using the proposed ex-
ergoeconomic models aiming for minimal cp,tot relative to the conven-
tional thermodynamic optimization aiming for maximal εSPT. Moreover,
1144
Applied Energy 242 (2019) 1134–1154
reheating cases indicates that the reheating configuration leads to
higher cp,tot of the SPT plants despite the enhancement of the εSPT.
Figs. 4 and 5 are presented to further illustrate the optimal results ac-
cording to the comparison of different optimal cases. Fig. 4 compares Z k
of each subsystem in the SPT plant in four optimization cases. Fig. 4
illustrates that the total capital cost rate of the SPT plant (Z tot) is ne-
gatively correlated with the ΔTPHX. Moreover, the most apparent
change in the capital cost rates occurs in Z TES and Z cycle in different
ΔTPHX conditions whereas the changes in Z k of the other solar com-
ponents (heliostat, receiver, and power tower) are mild with the var-
iation of ΔTPHX in these optimal cases. Fig. 5 compares W net and ΔTPHX
of the cycle in four optimization cases. It is found that W net is negatively
correlative to ΔTPHX. This is due to the reduction of ΔTPHX can lead to
higher average endothermic temperature given the maximal Tt,in
thereby higher energetic efficiency and W net. Hence, it can be con-
cluded that the choice of Tt,in plays an important role in the thermo-
economic optimization of the SPT system integrating the S-CO2 Brayton
cycle because of its impact in both thermodynamic performance and
capital costs of the SPT system. The lowest cp,tot is expected to be ob-
tained by adopting the cycle parameters leading to a large enough
ΔTPHX associated with relative low Z tot at the cost of slightly reduced
W net instead of pursuing the maximal εSPT by mere thermodynamic
optimization. Table 5 further illustrates the mechanism of performance
improvement obtained by exergoeconomic optimization relative to the
thermodynamic optimization by presenting the component-level
Y. Ma, et al. Applied Energy 242 (2019) 1134–1154

Fig. 9. Optimized RPRT-1 in different conditions of ksol_1 and ksol_2.

comparison between Cases 3 and 2. As shown in Table 5, the total cost each solar component (Z i) can be expressed as:
rates (Z k + C D + C L) decrease by 2091.61 $/h at the cost of mild
Zi = ki· Zori, i (26)
increase of total exergy destruction and losses (5.22 MW). The most
significant cost decrease comes from the TES system (from 2773.35 $/h where the subscript i represents each solar component including he-
to 1449.23 $/h). The thermodynamic states, exergy rates and cost rates liostat, receiver, tower and thermal storage tank.
of the fluid streams of Case 3 are presented in Table 6. As indicated in the Section 3.1, the capital costs of the solar com-
ponents under the designed cycle thermal power can still be affected by
3.2. Sensitivity analysis on the solar components the change of ΔTPHX. Hence, Eq. (26) can be further expressed as Eq.
(27) to introduce the effects by the variation of ΔTPHX under different
Sensitivity analysis is performed to investigate the effects of the design parameters of the S-CO2 cycle:
different design and cost conditions of solar components (including
Zi (X ) = ki· Zori,i [dTPHX (X )] (27)
heliostat, receiver, tower and TES) on the optimal integration of the S-
CO2 cycle. The optimal results of the key parameters in different design where X is the vector of the cycle variables as:
and cost conditions of the solar components are obtained with the
global optimization methods developed in the Section 3.1. Finally, the X =[ MC, RPRMC - 1, RPRT - 1, SR, LTR, HTR] (28)
maps of the optimal exergoeconomic performance and the corre-
Introducing the scaled Zi into Eq. (19), the equation of cp,tot can then
sponding optimization parameters are produced in various design and
be rewritten as:
cost conditions of the solar components.
Zi [dTPHX (X ), ki] + Zcycle (X )
cp,tot (X , K ) =
3.2.1. Sensitivity analysis model W (X )

The cost scaling factor (ki) is introduced to scale up/down the ori- =
ki·Zori,i [dTPHX (X )] + Zcycle (X )

ginal cost rate (Z ori,i) obtained by the cost equation. Hence, the cost of W (X ) (29)

1145
Y. Ma, et al. Applied Energy 242 (2019) 1134–1154

Fig. 10. Optimized SR in different conditions of ksol_1 and ksol_2.

where K is the vector of the scaling factor for each solar component and
is specified in Eq. (30) as:
K = [kTES , krec , k tow , khel] (30)
Then, the effects of ΔTPHX variation on each Z ori,i (Z ori,hel, Z ori,rec,
Z ori,tow and Z ori,TES) are investigated to recombine each Z ori,i and fur-
ther simplify Eq. (24). As shown in Fig. 6, Z ori,hel, Z ori,rec and Z ori,tow
present very low sensitivity to the change of ΔTPHX in the range of
40–240 °C. The maximal relative changes are less than 2% in the entire
range of ΔTPHX, which means Z ori,hel, Z ori,rec and Z ori,tow are extremely
weak functions of ΔTPHX. Hence, Z ori,hel, Z ori,rec and Z ori,tow are in-
dependent of the variation of ΔTPHX in the following work for simpli-
fication. Meanwhile, Z ori,TES is strongly affected by ΔTPHX, and accounts
for 16.8–50.5% of the total capital cost of the SPT plant. Therefore, the
effects of ΔTPHX on Z ori,TES should be considered in the following cal-
culation.
As indicated by the results of the sensitivity analysis of ΔTPHX on
each Z k, the sensitivity analysis model can be further simplified by
dividing the whole capital cost of solar components into two parts Z sol_1
and Z sol_2 according to whether they are ΔTPHX-dependent. Eq. (29) is
then simplified to Eq. (31) as:
cp,tot (X , k sol_1, k sol_2)
Zsol_1 + Zsol_2 + Zcycle (X ) Zsol_1 = ksol_1·Zori,sol_1 (dTPHX (X ))
= with
W (X ) Zsol_2 = ksol_2·Zori,sol_2
(31)
where Z ori,sol_1 is the Z ori,TES, which is the ΔTPHX-dependent part of the
solar component capital costs [$/h]. Z ori,sol_2 is the sum of the Z ori,hel,
Z ori,rec and Z ori,tow, which is the ΔTPHX-independent part of the solar
component capital costs [$/h]. ksol_1 and ksol_2 are the scaling factors for
the Z ori,sol_1 and Z ori,sol_2, respectively.
3.2.2. Sensitivity analysis results
Sensitivity analyses are performed to obtain the optimal parameters
of the S-CO2 cycle under different cost and design conditions of the
solar components. ksol_1 and ksol_2 vary respectively in the range of
0.4–2.8 and 0.8–2 to obtain different cost conditions of solar compo-
nents [3]. Moreover, three levels of turbine inlet temperature (TT,in),

1146
Y. Ma, et al.
Fig. 11. Optimized effHTR in different conditions of ksol_1 and ksol_2.
i.e., 550 °C, 700 °C, and 850 °C, are considered to map the performance
in different solar component design conditions. Figs. 7–12 present the
optimal results of the cycle variables in different conditions of ksol_1,
ksol_2 and TT,in. Figs. 8 and 9 present the optimal results of πMC and
RPRMC-1 in different conditions. Overall, the optimal values of πMC and
RPRMC-1 rise with the increase in ksol_1 and decrease in ksol_2 in all three
TT,in conditions and increase with the rise of TT,in. Fig. 9 presents the
optimal values of RPRT-1 with the changes of ksol_1, ksol_2 with different
TT,in. It is found that the optimal values of RPRT-1 is kept at zero under
all the conditions. Hence, the reheating cannot be justified for the S-CO2
cycle integrated in the SPT plant in the studied range of solar compo-
nent cost and design conditions in view of exergoeconomics. Fig. 10
shows that the optimal SR decreases with increased ksol_2 but stays re-
latively stable with the change of ksol_1 and TT,in, especially when ksol_2
is higher than 0.8. When TT,in = 550 °C and 700 °C, under the condi-
tions of relatively high ksol_1 and low ksol_2, the optimal SR surges to 1,
thereby the recompression cycle degrades to the simple recuperated
cycle. With this cycle deformation, the optimal values of εHTR and εLTR
fluctuate under conditions of relatively high ksol_1 and low ksol_2
1147
Applied Energy 242 (2019) 1134–1154
(Figs. 11 and 12).
Fig. 13 presents the optimal cp,tot under different cost and design
conditions of solar components. cp,tot decreases monotonously with the
decrease of ksol_1 and ksol_2 and increase of TT,in. A linear regressing
model is then established to predict cp,tot with different ksol_1 and ksol_2
under three TT,in conditions (see Table 7). The cp,tot can be easily esti-
mated with this regression model, which helps to preliminarily evaluate
the economic feasibility of integrating the S-CO2 cycle as the power
block in the SPT plant under various design conditions. As illustrated in
Fig. 14, the predicted optimal values show good coherence with the
original calculated optimal values, and the maximal deviation between
the original values and the predicted values using the regression models
is within 2%. Hence, the feasibility of the linear regressing model for
optimal cp,tot prediction is proven.
4. Conclusion
In this study, the optimal integration of the recompression S-CO2
Brayton cycle with MCIC in the SPT system is investigated with the
Y. Ma, et al.
Fig. 12. Optimized effLTR in different conditions of ksol_1 and ksol_2.
exergoeconomic approach. The thermodynamic and exergoeconomic
models of the SPT plant integrated with the recompression S-CO2
Brayton cycle with MCIC are established. A comprehensive ex-
ergoeconomic analysis and optimization for the integrated system has
been performed. The following conclusions are drawn:
• The comparison between the exergoeconomic optimization cases
and the thermodynamic optimization case indicates that the cp,tot of
the SPT plant obtained by exergoeconomic optimization using the
proposed models is reduced by 8.94% than that obtained by the
thermodynamic optimization from 12.41 ¢/(kW·h) to 11.30
¢/(kW·h). The total cost rates (Z k + C D + C L) of the ex-
ergoeconomic optimization cases decrease by 2091.61 $/h at the
cost of a mild increase in total exergy destruction and losses
(5.22 MW). The most significant cost decrease comes from the TES
system (from 2773.35 $/h to 1449.23 $/h) mainly due to the greater
ΔTPHX under minimal cp,tot cases relative to that under the maximal
εSPT.
1148
Applied Energy 242 (2019) 1134–1154
• The reheating for the recompression S-CO 2 cycle with MCIC de-
generate the exergoeconomic performance of the SPT plants due to
the decreased ΔTPHX and the consequent rise of Z tot of the entire SPT
plant despite the improved εSPT.
• Sensitivity analyses are performed on the costs of the solar compo-
nents scaled by ksol_1 and ksol_2 respectively for the ΔTPHX-dependent
and ΔTPHX-independent parts under three TT,in conditions. The op-
timal variable parameters of the recompression S-CO2 cycle with
MCIC and the optimal cp,tot of the SPT plant are apparently affected
by the variations of the cost of the solar components and the de-
signed TT,in. Under relatively high ksol_1 and low ksol_2 conditions
with relatively low TT,in, the optimal cycle layout degrades from the
recompression cycle to the simple recuperating cycle with SR of
zero.
• Linear regression models are established to predict the cp,tot with
different ksol_1 and ksol_2 values under three TT,in conditions. The
optimal cp,tot values can be easily predicted with the regression
models with the maximal deviation of less than 2%.
Y. Ma, et al. Applied Energy 242 (2019) 1134–1154

Fig. 13. Optimized cp,tot in different conditions of ksol_1 and ksol_2.

Table 7
Linear regressing model for optimal cp,tot prediction.
Model definition: z = p0 + p1 · x + p2 ·y (z—Optimal cp,tot; x—ksol_1; y—ksol_2)

TT,in/°C p0 p1 p2 Adjusted R2

550 3.8708 1.5309 5.8436 0.9995

700 3.3757 1.1528 5.0319 0.9998
850 3.0215 0.9186 4.5507 0.9999

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the National Key Research and

Development Program of China (No. 2016YFB0600105), the Joint
Funds of the Equipment department and Education Ministry for Young
Talents of China (Grant No. 6141A02033501) and Science and
Technology on Thermal Energy and Power Laboratory Open
Foundation of China (No. TPL2019AA001). The first author, Yuegeng
Ma, would also like to thank China Scholarship Council (CSC) for the Fig. 14. The results of comparison between predicted and original optimal
values.
financial support.

1149
Y. Ma, et al. Applied Energy 242 (2019) 1134–1154

Appendix A. Explanation of T-S diagrams

According to the Maxwell relations, the differential of enthalpy for an isobar process can be expressed as
dh = Tds = cp dT (A.1)
Therefore, the slope of the isobar (k) in the T-S diagram is
k = dT / ds = T / cp (A.2)
In the lower end of the cycle, the process occurs in lower temperature compared to these processes in the upper end; Besides, due to the
approximate of the pseudocritical point, the Cp of CO2 working fluids surge in the lower ends of the process as shown in Fig. A.1. Therefore, k = T/cp
are apparently smaller in the lower end than those in the upper ends for the same isobar processes in the T-S diagram of S-CO2 cycle.

Fig. A.1. cp-T diagram of CO2 at p = 10.4 MPa (data source: REFPROP [38]).

Appendix B. Thermodynamic model

There are some differences between the models of reheating and no-reheating cycle on the pressure calculation for turbine. The turbine pressure
calculation models of reheating and no-reheating are detailed as follow.

(1) Reheating turbine

The calculation of the outlet pressure of each stages of turbine is implemented with the inlet pressure and the pressure ratio. For the first stage of
the turbine, the inlet pressure is given as an initial parameter. For the second stage of the turbine, the inlet pressure is calculated as:
pin,T - 2 = pout,T - 1 dpPHX (B.1)
where dpPHX is the pressure drop in the primary heat exchanger.
For the i-th (i = 1 or 2) stages of the turbine, the outlet pressure is calculated as:
RPRT - i
pout,T - i = pin,T - i / T (B.2)
where πT is the total pressure ratio of the turbine unit; RPRT-i is the ratio of pressure ratio of i-th stage, which is defined as:
RPRT - i = Ln ( T - i )/ Ln ( T ) (B.3)

(2) No-reheating turbine

The no-reheating turbine only have one stage. The inlet pressure is given as the initial parameters. The turbine outlet pressure is determined as:
pout,T = pin,T / T (B.4)
During the actual modeling implementation, we incorporate the reheating and no-reheating turbine pressure models into one model by treating
the no-reheating as a special case of RPRT-1 = 0 and without PHX1. The detail process of model implementation is presented in Fig. B.1.

1150
Y. Ma, et al. Applied Energy 242 (2019) 1134–1154

Fig. B.1. Coding philosophy of pressure calculation in the turbine model.

Appendix C. Exergoeconomic model

Table C.1
Exergoeconomic model of components in the solar power tower system integrated with reheating recompression Brayton S-CO2
cycle with MCIC.
Component Exergy cost rate balance equation Auxiliary equation and Note

Heliostat Cin,rec = Cin,hel + Zhel Cin,hel/Ein,hel = 0

Receiver C16 = C15 + Cin,rec + (Zrec + Ztow ) –
TES C13 = C16 + Zhot,TES –
C15 = C14 + Zcold,TES
SV1 C13/E13 = C13'/ E13 = C13 /E13 –
MV1 C14 = C14' + C14 –
PHX1 C14' + C7 = C13' + C6 + ZPHX1 C14'/E14 = C13'/E13
PHX2 C14 + C9 = C13 + C8 + ZPHX2 C14 /E14 = C13 /E13
HTR C11 + C6 = C10 + C5 + ZHTR C10/E10 = C11/E11
LTR C12 + C5' = C11 + C4 + ZLTR C11/E11 = C12/ E12
SV2 C12/E12 = C12'/E12' = C12 /E12 –
MV2 C5 = C5' + C5 –
T-1 C8 + CW,T - 1 = C7 + ZT - 1 C8/ E8 = C7/E7
T-2 C10 + CW,T - 2 = C9 + ZT - 2 CW,T - 1/WT - 1 = CW,T - 2/WT - 2
MC-1 C2 = C1 + CW,MC - 1 + ZMC - 1 CW,MC - 1/ WMC - 1 = CW,T - 1/WT - 1
MC-2 C4 = C3 + CW,MC - 2 + ZMC - 2 CW,MC - 2/WMC - 2 = CW,T - 1/WT - 1
RC C5 = C12 + CW,RC + ZRC CW,RC/WRC = CW,T - 1/WT - 1
Precooler C1 + Cdif,PC = C12' + Cair,in,PC + ZPC C1/ E1 = C12'/ E12 ; Cair,in,PC = 0
Intercooler C3 + Cdif,IC = C2 + Cair,in,IC + ZIC C3/ E3 = C2/E2; Cair,in,IC = 0

1151
Y. Ma, et al. Applied Energy 242 (2019) 1134–1154

Table C.2
Exegertic fuel and product and associated cost rates for each component in the CSP plant [35].
Component Fuel Product

Exergetic Fuel Associated cost Exergetic Associated cost

of fuel Product of product

Heliostat Ein,hel Cin,hel Eout,hel Cout,rec

Receiver Eout,hel Cout,rec E16 E15 C16 C15
TES Hot E16 C16 E13 C13
Cold E14 C14 E15 C15
MV1 E14 + E14 C14' + C14 E14 C14
MV2 E5 + E5 C5' + C5 E5 C5
PHX1 E13 E14' C13' C14' E7 E6 C7 C6
PHX2 E13 E14 C13 C14 E9 E8 C9 C8
HTR E10 E11 C6 C5 E6 E5 C6 C5
LTR E11 E12 C11 C12 E5 E4 C5 C4'
PC E12 E1 C12' C1 – –
IC E11 E12 C2 C3 – –
T1 E7 E8 C7 C8 WT 1 CW,T - 1
T2 E9 E10 C9 C10 WT 2 CW,T - 2
MC-1 WMC 1 CW,MC - 1 E2 E1 C2 C1
MC-2 WMC 2 CW,MC - 2 E4 E3 C4 C3
RC WRC CW,RC E5 E12 C5 C12

Appendix D. Economic data for the SPT system

Table D.1
Economic data for the SPT system.
Item Unit Economic data

2
Heliostat field site improvement $/m 20
Heliostat field $/m2 145
Receiver $ 1.03 × 10 8·(ARec /1571)0.7 a
Tower $ 300·exp{0.0113·[HTow (HRec HHel )/2]} a
Thermal energy storage $
( )
0.8
284 284 Q b
50%·24·Q THS· + 50%·6.696·107· · TES
T HTF T HTF 2790·103
Compressor $ 6898·WC
0.7865 c

Turbine $ 0.6842 c
7790· WT
Primary heat exchanger $ * 3.5·UA c
CPHX
Recuperator $ *
CRecup ·1.25· UA c
Coolers $ *
CCooler ·2.75· UA c
Loan interest rate (ir) % 8d
Maintenance factor (γk) % 0.02e
Plant lifetime (n) year 30e
Annual plant operation hours (ta) h 4800a
Capital recovery factor (CRF) % [ir ·(1 + ir ) n]/[(1 + ir )n 1]

a
[39].
b
[40].
c
[41].
d
[47].
e
[48].

Appendix E. Model validation

Table E.1 shows that the deviation between the results obtained with the proposed model and those reported in the previous work is less than 1%
under no-reheating condition. The parameter settings for the validation under reheating condition is presented in Table E.2. The corresponding
results are shown in Fig. E.1. It can be found that the deviation between the results obtained by the proposed model and the two results reported in
Ref. [43] are within 3.5%. Hence, the feasibility of the model is validated.

1152
Y. Ma, et al. Applied Energy 242 (2019) 1134–1154

Table E.1
Computation case for model validation under no-reheating conditions.
Condition for comparison
Main compressor inlet temperature 40 °C
Turbine inlet temperature 680 °C
Main compressor outlet pressure 24.8 MPa
Turbine pressure ratio 3
Split ratio 75%
Heat exchanger effectiveness 0.95
Turbine isentropic efficiency 92%
Compressor isentropic efficiency 88%

Comparison results: cycle energetic efficiency

Reyes-Belmonte’s study [42] 48.25%
The present study 47.94%
Relative deviation 0.65%

Table E.2
Parameter settings for model validation under reheating condition relative to Ref. [43].
Main compressor inlet temperature 32 °C
Main compressor inlet pressure 7.38 MPa
Turbine inlet temperature 550–850 °C
Inlet pressure of the first stage 25 MPa
Turbine
Inlet pressure of the second stage 16.19 MPa
turbine
Heat exchanger effectiveness 95%
Turbine isentropic efficiency 93%
Compressor isentropic efficiency 89%
Split ratio Adjusted to obtain identical outlet
condition from two sub-streams

Fig. E.1. Results of model validation under reheating condition.

References development at Sandia National Laboratories. 2011 University Turbine Systems

[1] Philibert C. Technology roadmap: concentrating solar power. OECD/IEA; 2010.
[2] Behar O, Khellaf A, Mohammedi K. A review of studies on central receiver solar
thermal power plants. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;23:12–39.
[3] Mehos M, Turchi C, Vidal J, Wagner M, Ma Z, Ho C, et al. Concentrating solar power
Gen3 demonstration roadmap. Golden (CO), USA: National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL); 2017.
[4] Coventry J, Andraka C, Pye J, Blanco M, Fisher J. A review of sodium receiver
technologies for central receiver solar power plants. Sol Energy 2015;122:749–62.
[5] Ho CK, Iverson BD. Review of high-temperature central receiver designs for con-
centrating solar power. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;29:835–46.
[6] Dunham MT, Iverson BD. High-efficiency thermodynamic power cycles for con-
centrated solar power systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;30:758–70.
[7] Persichilli M, Kacludis A, Zdankiewicz E, Held T. Supercritical CO2 power cycle
developments and commercialization: why sCO2 can displace steam. Power-Gen
India & Central Asia; 2012.
[8] Ma Y, Liu M, Yan J, Liu J. Thermodynamic study of main compression intercooling
effects on supercritical CO2 recompression Brayton cycle. Energy 2017;140:746–56.
[9] Wright SA, Conboy TM, Rochau GE. Overview of supercritical CO2 power cycle
Research Workshop, Columbus, Ohio, October; 2011. p. 25–7.
[10] Al-Sulaiman FA, Atif M. Performance comparison of different supercritical carbon
dioxide Brayton cycles integrated with a solar power tower. Energy 2015;82:61–71.
[11] Atif M, Al-Sulaiman FA. Energy and exergy analyses of solar tower power plant
driven supercritical carbon dioxide recompression cycles for six different locations.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;68:153–67.
[12] Wang K, Li M, Guo J, Li P, Liu Z. A systematic comparison of different S-CO2
Brayton cycle layouts based on multi-objective optimization for applications in
solar power tower plants. Appl Energy 2018;212:109–21.
[13] Wang K, He Y, Zhu H. Integration between supercritical CO2 Brayton cycles and
molten salt solar power towers: a review and a comprehensive comparison of dif-
ferent cycle layouts. Appl Energy 2017;195:819–36.
[14] Osorio JD, Hovsapian R, Ordonez JC. Effect of multi-tank thermal energy storage,
recuperator effectiveness, and solar receiver conductance on the performance of a
concentrated solar supercritical CO2-based power plant operating under different
seasonal conditions. Energy 2016;115:353–68.
[15] Ma Y, Zhang X, Liu M, Yan J, Liu J. Proposal and assessment of a novel supercritical
CO2 Brayton cycle integrated with LiBr absorption chiller for concentrated solar
power applications. Energy 2018;148:839–54.
[16] Dyreby JJ, Klein SA, Nellis GF, Reindl DT. Modeling off-design and part-load

1153
Y. Ma, et al.
performance of supercritical carbon dioxide power cycles. ASME turbo expo 2013:
turbine technical conference and exposition. American Society of Mechanical
Engineers; 2013. p. V008T34A014–V008T34A014.
[17] Louis AT, Neises T. Analysis and optimization for off-design performance of the
recompression s-CO2 cycles for high temperature CSP applications. In: The 5th
international symposium-supercritical CO2 power cycles; 2016.
[18] de la Calle A, Bayon A, Soo Too YC. Impact of ambient temperature on supercritical
CO2 recompression Brayton cycle in arid locations: finding the optimal design
conditions. Energy 2018;153:1016–27.
[19] Singh R, Miller SA, Rowlands AS, Jacobs PA. Dynamic characteristics of a direct-
heated supercritical carbon-dioxide Brayton cycle in a solar thermal power plant.
Energy 2013;50:194–204.
[20] Luu MT, Milani D, McNaughton R, Abbas A. Analysis for flexible operation of su-
percritical CO2 Brayton cycle integrated with solar thermal systems. Energy
2017;124:752–71.
[21] Luu MT, Milani D, McNaughton R, Abbas A. Advanced control strategies for dy-
namic operation of a solar-assisted recompression supercritical CO2 Brayton power
cycle. Appl Therm Eng 2018;136:682–700.
[22] Iverson BD, Conboy TM, Pasch JJ, Kruizenga AM. Supercritical CO2 Brayton cycles
for solar-thermal energy. Appl Energy 2013;111:957–70.
[23] Padilla RV, Soo Too YC, Benito R, Stein W. Exergetic analysis of supercritical CO2
Brayton cycles integrated with solar central receivers. Appl Energy
2015;148:348–65.
[24] Crespi F, Sánchez D, Rodríguez JM, Gavagnin G. Fundamental thermo-economic
approach to selecting s CO2 power cycles for CSP applications. Energy Proc
2017;129:963–70.
[25] Ho Clifford K, Carlson Matthew, Garg Pardeep, Kumar Pramod. Cost and perfor-
mance tradeoffs of alternative solar-driven s-CO2 Brayton cycle configurations. In:
ASME 2015 9th International Conference on Energy Sustainability collocated with
the ASME 2015 Power Conference, the ASME 2015 13th International Conference
on Fuel Cell Science, Engineering and Technology, and the ASME 2015 Nuclear
Forum. American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2015. p.
V001T05A016–V001T05A016.
[26] Lazzaretto A, Tsatsaronis G. SPECO: a systematic and general methodology for
calculating efficiencies and costs in thermal systems. Energy 2006;31:1257–89.
[27] Hofmann M, Tsatsaronis G. Comparative exergoeconomic assessment of coal-fired
power plants–binary Rankine cycle versus conventional steam cycle. Energy
2018;142:168–79.
[28] Cavalcanti EJC, Motta HP. Exergoeconomic analysis of a solar-powered/fuel as-
sisted Rankine cycle for power generation. Energy 2015;88:555–62.
[29] Ertl F. Exergoeconomic analysis and benchmark of a solar power tower with open
air receiver technology. Master of Science Thesis. Stockholm(Sweden) Royal
Institute of Technology, Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan (KTH); 2012.
[30] Elsafi AM. Exergy and exergoeconomic analysis of sustainable direct steam gen-
eration solar power plants. Energy Convers Manage 2015;103:338–47.
[31] Baghernejad A, Yaghoubi M. Exergoeconomic analysis and optimization of an
Integrated Solar Combined Cycle System (ISCCS) using genetic algorithm. Energy
Convers Manage 2011;52:2193–203.
[32] Neises T, Turchi C. A Comparison of supercritical carbon dioxide power cycle
1154
Applied Energy 242 (2019) 1134–1154
configurations with an emphasis on CSP applications. Energy Proc
2014;49:1187–96.
[33] Crespi F, Gavagnin G, Sánchez D, Martínez GS. Supercritical carbon dioxide cycles
for power generation: a review. Appl Energy 2017;195:152–83.
[34] Son S, Heo JY, Lee JI. Prediction of inner pinch for supercritical CO2 heat exchanger
using Artificial Neural Network and evaluation of its impact on cycle design. Energy
Convers Manage 2018;163:66–73.
[35] Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran M. Thermal design and optimization. John Wiley &
Sons; 1996.
[36] Blair N, Dobos AP, Freeman J, Neises T, Wager M, Ferguson T. System advisor
model, sam 2014.1. 14: General description; 2014.
[37] Wagner MJ. Simulation and predictive performance modeling of utility-scale cen-
tral receiver system power plants PhD Thesis Madison: (WI USA) University of
Wisconsin-Madison (UM- Wisconsin); 2008
[38] Lemmon EW, Huber ML, Mclinden MO. NIST Standard Reference Database 23:
Reference Fluid Thermodynamic and Transport Properties-REFPROP. 9.0; 2010.
[39] Turchi CS, Heath GA. Molten salt power tower cost model for the system advisor
model (SAM). CO, Golden: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL); 2013.
[40] Mehos M, Turchi C, Vidal J, Wagner M, Ma Z, Ho C, et al. Concentrating solar power
Gen3 demonstration roadmap. Golden (CO), USA: National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL); 2017.
[41] Carlson MD, Middleton BM, Ho CK. Techno-economic comparison of solar-driven
SCO2 Brayton cycles using component cost models baselined with vendor data and
estimates. In: ASME 2017 11th International conference on energy sustainability
collocated with the ASME 2017 power conference joint with ICOPE-17, the ASME
2017 15th international conference on fuel cell science, engineering and tech-
nology, and the ASME 2017 Nuclear Forum. American Society of Mechanical
Engineers; 2017. p. V001T05A009–V001T05A009.
[42] Reyes-Belmonte MA, Sebastián A, Romero M, González-Aguilar J. Optimization of a
recompression supercritical carbon dioxide cycle for an innovative central receiver
solar power plant. Energy 2016;112:17–27.
[43] Wang K, He Y. Thermodynamic analysis and optimization of a molten salt solar
power tower integrated with a recompression supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle based
on integrated modeling. Energy Convers Manage 2017;135:336–50.
[44] Holland J. Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: an introductory analysis
with applications to biology, control and artificial intelligence. Q Rev Biol
1994;6:126–37.
[45] Wang X, Dai Y. Exergoeconomic analysis of utilizing the transcritical CO2 cycle and
the ORC for a recompression supercritical CO2 cycle waste heat recovery: a com-
parative study. Appl Energy 2016;170:193–207.
[46] Ahn Y, Lee JI. Study of various Brayton cycle designs for small modular sodium-
cooled fast reactor. Nucl Eng Des 2014;276:128–41.
[47] Li Y, Yang Y. Impacts of solar multiples on the performance of integrated solar
combined cycle systems with two direct steam generation fields. Appl Energy
2015;160:673–80.
[48] Hernández-Moro J, Martínez-Duart JM. Analytical model for solar PV and CSP
electricity costs: present LCOE values and their future evolution. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2013;20:119–32.