Energy Conversion and Management 199 (2019) 112030

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

A new concept of solar thermal power plants with large-aperture parabolic-

trough collectors and sCO2 as working fluid
⁎
Mario Biencintoa, , Lourdes Gonzáleza, Loreto Valenzuelab, Eduardo Zarzab
a
CIEMAT, Plataforma Solar de Almería (CIEMAT-PSA), Av. Complutense 40, 28040 Madrid, Spain
b
CIEMAT, Plataforma Solar de Almería (CIEMAT-PSA), Ctra. Senés, km 4.5, 04200 Tabernas, Almería, Spain

ART I CLE INFO ABS T RACT

Keywords: The use of pressurized gases as working fluid in parabolic troughs has been proposed in recent works to avoid
Parabolic-trough collector environmental issues and reduce electricity costs in solar thermal power plants. However, such technology still
Solar thermal power plant poses great uncertainties regarding its efficiency and feasibility. To overcome the limitations of pressurized
Pressurized gas gases, this study proposes a new concept of solar thermal power plant with large-aperture parabolic-trough
Supercritical carbon dioxide
collectors using CO2 in supercritical state (sCO2) as working fluid and molten nitrate salts as thermal storage
Molten salt
medium. A modular design for the solar field, reducing the number of blowers and heat exchangers and mini-
Simulation model
mizing the molten salts hydraulic circuit, is also described. To assess the performance of the new concept, its
expected annual efficiency is compared to the efficiency of a reference solar thermal power plant using thermal
oil as heat carrier in the solar field. To that purpose, two simulation models are developed in the TRNSYS
software environment to reproduce the behaviour of both the new solar power plant with sCO2 and the reference
plant. In addition, a parametric study is carried out by means of the simulation model to optimize net annual
production as function of outlet temperature and collection area of the solar field. Besides, a preliminary eco-
nomic assessment is performed to predict expected costs of electricity generated with the new concept of plant.
The results of this work suggest that the new concept of solar plants proposed can achieve higher annual effi-
ciencies (about 0.5% increase) and lower electricity costs (around 6% savings) than conventional solar thermal
power plants with thermal oil.

1. Introduction
Solar Thermal Power Plants (STPPs) based on Parabolic-Trough
(PT) collectors are nowadays a successful technology with about
5000 MWe installed and in operation around the world [1]. Most of
them operate with synthetic oil as heat transfer medium in receiver
tubes installed in the solar field, but recently other working fluids, such
as water or pressurized gases, are being investigated in order to im-
prove the performance of PT technology and avoid the environmental
issues of synthetic oils [2].
The use of pressurized gases as working fluid in PT collectors [3,4],
and specifically CO2 [5,6], has been proposed and analysed in previous
works. Moreover, a test facility including a PT collectors’ loop with gas
as working fluid has been successfully erected and operated at the
Plataforma Solar de Almería, showing promising results [7]. Besides,
CO2 behaves as a supercritical fluid at temperatures and pressures
above its critical point (30.98 °C, 73.77 bar). Due to its increased
density and conductivity compared to its gaseous state, CO2 in super-
critical conditions (sCO2) provides further advantages for thermal-hy-
draulic systems in terms of heat transfer and required pumping con-
sumptions. In this way, sCO2 has been suggested to be used as coolant
in nuclear reactors [8] and to drive innovative thermodynamic cycles
[9], both Rankine [10] and Brayton-based [11] cycles. Additionally, the
integration of such advanced power cycles with solar thermal tech-
nologies has been investigated [12,13]. Such features have boosted the
interest of sCO2 to be used as HTF in tubular receivers of STPPs [14],
either for parabolic troughs [15] or central receiver systems [16,17]. To
this purpose, models to simulate the behaviour of sCO2 have been de-
veloped; for instance, a simplified 1D model is described and validated
in [18].
The main advantage of both pressurized gases and sCO lies in the
possibility of increasing fluid temperature at the outlet of the2 solar field,
thus involving a higher performance of the power block and a higher
efficiency of the thermal storage, per unit volume, with molten salts.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mario.biencinto@ciemat.es (M. Biencinto), lourdes.gonzalez@ciemat.es (L. González), loreto.valenzuela@psa.es (L. Valenzuela),
eduardo.zarza@psa.es (E. Zarza).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.112030
Received 11 July 2019; Received in revised form 4 September 2019; Accepted 5 September 2019
Available online 13 September 2019
0196-8904/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Biencinto, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 199 (2019) 112030

Nomenclature sCO2 supercritical CO2

SF solar field
2
Ac net collection area, m SG steam generator
F proportionality factor, – STPP solar thermal power plant
2
Gb direct normal solar irradiance, W/m TES thermal energy storage
K economic cost, €
K(θ) incidence angle modifier, – Greek symbols
L length, m
m mass, kg Δ increment or variation
m mass flow rate, kg/s η efficiency or performance factor, –
Nsubfields number of subfields, – θ incidence angle, °
P pressure, bar
Q thermal power, W Subscripts
T temperature, °C
W electric energy, kWh abs absorber tube
W electric power, W amb ambient
clean cleanliness
Acronyms dump energy dumping
fluid working fluid
CRF capital recovery factor, – fuel fossil fuel used
2
DNI direct normal solar irradiance (equivalent to Gb), W/m gross gross electric power
HTF heat transfer fluid invest investment
HX heat exchanger loss thermal or electric losses
IAM incidence angle modifier, – net net electric power
LCoE levelized cost of electricity, €/MWh opt,0° peak optical
LMTD log mean temperature difference out outlet
NTU number of transfer units ref reference value
O&M operation and maintenance salts molten salts
PSA Plataforma Solar de Almería sh shadowing
PT parabolic trough u useful
PB power block
RMSE root mean squared error

Nonetheless, pressurized gases also present some drawbacks when used
in PT collectors [19], such as higher thermal losses in the solar field due
to higher temperatures, what implies a lower solar field performance,
the necessity of higher pipe thicknesses to work at high pressures, great
power consumptions in gas pumping due to pressure losses, etc. There
are additional uncertainties related to molten salt circuits (heat tracing,
cold points, etc.) and the specific components required (gas blowers and
gas/salt heat exchangers) when considering STPPs using sCO2 in the
solar collectors and a molten salt thermal storage system.
Up to date, studies carried out for STPPs with pressurized gas and
standard PT collectors (EuroTrough-100 m, absorber steel tube with
70 mm outer diameter) have resulted in annual electricity yields that
may become similar [20] to the production of commercial STPPs using
thermal oil as heat transfer medium in the solar field. Besides, the
proposed modular design required a great number of blowers and gas/
salt heat exchangers to limit pressure losses and involves high piping
lengths in the molten salts circuit. The high cost and difficulties con-
cerning operation and maintenance of such components, together with
the expected problems (freezing, cold points, feasibility of components,
etc.) for large piping systems with molten salts [21] cast doubts on the
technical and economic viability of PT technology with pressurized
gases.
The recent development and commercialization of PT collectors
with larger aperture width [22] than conventional PTs enables the use
of receiver tubes with larger diameters. A larger diameter of receiver
tubes implies lower pressure losses, which in case of pressurized gases
as working fluid would allow the reduction of the number of blowers
and gas/salt heat exchangers and the minimization of the molten salts
circuit. Nevertheless, the use of receiver tubes with larger outer surface
involves an increase in thermal losses, thus leading to a lower efficiency
of the solar field. In order to analyse such uncertainties, a specific plant
configuration is proposed in this study to take advantage of the new
concept and two simulation models are developed to predict the be-
haviour of these plants with enough accuracy and flexibility.
In addition, a parametric study is performed in this work to find out
the optimal design temperature at the outlet of the solar field. To this
purpose, a STPP with PT collectors in the solar field is simulated using
CO2 as heat transfer fluid (HTF), with 100 bar working pressure and
design outlet temperature ranging from 473 to 523 °C. Such conditions
correspond to a supercritical fluid. To reduce pressure losses, receiver
tubes with larger outer diameter (around 89 mm, commercially avail-
able [23]) than standard tubes (70 mm) will be used. Besides, Iber-
Trough-type PT collectors of 100 m length will be considered for the
solar field, with 7.334 m aperture width instead of 5.76 m as used in
most of the existing commercial STPPs with PTs. Molten salts will be
employed as secondary transfer fluid and thermal storage medium. The
advantages of such improvements will be estimated by comparing the
annual electricity production of the new STPP to the output of a re-
ference plant using thermal oil and state-of-the-art PT collectors. Both
plants will include a power block with 55 MWe gross electric power,
equivalent to the gross output of most commercial STPPs in Spain.
The plant configuration with thermal oil is included as a reference
to compare the new technology with commercial STPPs, which are
supposed to be optimized, in terms of annual efficiency and preliminary
economic estimations. The evaluation of specific advantages and cost
savings of large-aperture PT collectors with thermal oil has been ad-
dressed in other studies [22,24] and is out of the scope of this work.
This article is structured as follows: Section 2 describes the new
concept of STPP and the reference plant; Section 3 explains the model
of the solar plants to be simulated, either with sCO2 or thermal oil; a
brief validation of such models using experimental data from a test
facility with CO2 and from a commercial STPP with thermal oil is

2
M. Biencinto, et al.
included in Section 4; Section 5 summarizes the comparison of results
between both plants, along with a parametric analysis of the optimal
working temperature for the new STPP; finally, overall conclusions are
presented in Section 6.
2. Description of the solar plants
The solar field of the reference STPP is composed of 156 loops with
6 units per loop of EuroTrough PT collectors 100 m long each that uses
thermal oil as HTF in the receiver tubes, similar to commercial STPPs in
Spain. The plant includes a two-tank thermal energy storage (TES)
system with 1 GWh of storage capacity (around 7.5 h of generation
capacity at nominal conditions) and molten salts as heat storage
medium. The power block consists of a reheat steam Rankine cycle with
6 turbine steam extractions, considering a wet cooling system.
On the other hand, the solar field (SF) in the new CO2 plant is
composed of 23 subfields (the number of subfields is modified during
the optimization process performed in this study). Each subfield in-
cludes 16 loops sharing the same blower and gas/salt heat exchanger
with 2 IberTrough-type collectors per loop, as shown in Fig. 1. Iber-
Trough-type PT collectors are 100 m long and have a parabola aperture
length of 7.334 m and a focal length of 2.172 m, and have been installed
and tested as a prototype at the PROMETEO test facility of the Plata-
forma Solar de Almería [25]. For this study, the solar collectors are
equipped with receiver tubes designed for high pressure and tempera-
ture conditions with an outer diameter of 88.9 mm, instead of con-
ventional 70 mm, to reduce fluid pressure losses. Such value has been
selected considering commercially available versions of receiver tubes
for large-size PT collectors [23].
Panas yang berguna yang diserap oleh CO2 dalam kolektor surya akan
ditransfer melalui gas / penukar panas garam di setiap sub-bidang ke
sirkuit garam cair, yang akan menghubungkan SF ke sistem TES dua
tangki. Blok daya (PB) dan generator uap (SG) yang dipertimbangkan
untuk pembangkit baru akan sama dengan yang ada di referensi STPP,
meskipun
meskipun karakteristik cairan spesifik mengenai suhu saluran masuk
dan titik beku harus diperhitungkan. Diagram umum bidang surya dengan
pipa distribusi dari sirkuit garam cair dan
pulau tenaga tengah, termasuk PB dan tangki penyimpanan, ditunjukkan
pada
Fig. 2.
Fitur utama dan parameter dari dua pabrik dirangkum dalam Tabel 1. Jarak
antara baris kolektor yang berdekatan sesuai kira-kira tiga kali lebar
aperture kolektor, sedangkan dimensi kolektor surya dan tabung penerima
diambil dari data pabrikan. [23]. Area pengumpulan bersih yang awalnya
dipilih untuk SF di pabrik sCO2 kira-kira sama dengan yang ada di pabrik
referensi.
Namun demikian, ukuran SF dimodifikasi dalam langkah selanjutnya dari
pekerjaan ini
mengoptimalkan desainnya. Variasi ini melibatkan perubahan dalam
jumlah sub-bidang yang menyusun SF dan ukuran sistem TES. Selain itu, a
kisaran 473 hingga 523 ° C dipertimbangkan untuk suhu keluaran kolektor
surya untuk menilai nilai yang dioptimalkan sesuai dengan kriteria tertentu.
Nilai-nilai yang ditunjukkan pada Tabel 1 untuk ukuran sistem TES dan
efisiensi bruto nominal PB di pabrik dengan CO2, diperoleh dengan
ekspresi dan metode analitik yang dijelaskan dalam Bagian 3, diberikan
dalam kisaran yang marjinnya terkait dengan suhu nominal
dipertimbangkan di outlet loop kolektor. Karena efisiensi PB adalah
diperkirakan meningkat dengan suhu, suhu terendah (473 ° C)
dikaitkan dengan nilai minimum efisiensi PB (41,3%). Di
Sebaliknya, karena kepadatan energi penyimpanan per satuan massa
meningkat dengan perbedaan termal yang lebih tinggi, ukuran penyimpanan
yang diperlukan akan berbanding terbalik dengan perbedaan suhu antara
outlet dan inlet. Di
dengan cara ini, suhu minimum (473 ° C) sesuai dengan jumlah media
penyimpanan terbesar (20000 t).
Mengenai operasi pabrik baru, garam cair di lapangan surya diharapkan
akan diresirkulasi melalui tangki penyimpanan dingin pada malam hari,
sementara sirkulasi CO2 dihentikan di sub-bidang dan
3
Energy Conversion and Management 199 (2019) 112030
gas / garam HX diisolasi di sisi gas. Saat matahari terbit, CO2 akan
disirkulasikan melalui pengumpul surya, memanaskan sub-bidang gas
sampai
suhu keseimbangan sekitar 290 ° C tercapai. Pada saat itu, sirkuit gas dan
garam akan dihubungkan melalui penukar panas untuk mentransfer panas
yang berguna yang diperoleh dalam pengumpul surya ke garam-garam cair.
Garam cair dari SF akan dibawa ke tangki penyimpanan panas ketika
suhunya melebihi nilai minimum tertentu (sekitar
430 ° C) atau ke tangki penyimpanan dingin sebaliknya. Garam akan
diedarkan dari tangki panas ke kereta pembangkit uap untuk memanaskan,
mengevakuasi dan memanaskan air yang dibutuhkan oleh blok tenaga uap.
Nilai suhu minimum untuk garam cair harus menjamin bahwa titik beku
atau dingin tidak terjadi di seluruh kereta pembangkit uap. Oleh karena itu,
nilai minimum tersebut akan ditentukan oleh suhu garam di outlet SG.
Untuk menghindari kondisi berbahaya, beban tinggi akan lebih disukai
untuk SG, menghasilkan outlet
Aliran garam cair dari tangki penyimpanan panas yang akan selalu dekat
ke nilai nominalnya.
To minimize the start-up time of the SF, the initial daily warm-up of
CO2 in the HX and piping of each subfield can be performed with the
help of a system of valves such as the one shown in Fig. 3.
In this way, opening valves 1 and 2 (see Fig. 3), keeping the rest
closed, allows fluid circulation only through the solar collectors’ loops
without going through the HX. This configuration enables the gas cir-
cuit warm-up avoiding thermal shocks in the HX due to temperature
differences between gas and molten salts. On the other hand, with
valves 4 and 5 opened (and the rest closed) CO2 is recirculated only
through the HX, enabling the prior heating of this component by means
of the molten salts. Finally, when CO2 circuit temperatures are high
enough, the normal operation of the subfield can be performed by
opening valves 2, 3 and 4 and closing valves 1 and 5, circulating the gas
through both the solar collectors’ loops and the HX.
In order to observe the behaviour of CO2 within the boundaries of
supercritical conditions, a temperature-entropy (T-s) diagram is de-
picted in Fig. 4, including the proposed ranges for nominal operation of
sCO2 and possible regions in which fluid conditions may be enclosed
during non-nominal operation (for instance, shutdown or start-up).
Blue lines in Fig. 4 (solid for the maximum range, dashed for the
minimum range specified in Table 1) show the nominal operating
conditions established for the collectors’ loop, which correspond to a
supercritical fluid since they are above the supercritical limit curve (in
dashed orange line). During shutdown and start-up processes of the
subfields, pressure and temperature are commonly lower than nominal
values and therefore CO2 falls below the supercritical limit, becoming
either a gas or a liquid (or even saturated fluid when it is below the
saturation line) according to its corresponding temperature and entropy
(which in turn depends on the fluid pressure). Although fluid circula-
tion with liquid CO2 may cause damage to blowers, those conditions
Fig. 1. Diagram of each subfield for the solar power plant using CO2 as HTF,
including solar collectors, heat exchanger and blower.
M. Biencinto, et al.
Fig. 2. Diagram of the solar field for the STPP using sCO2 as HTF, including subfields with gas (marked with dashed orange rectangles), distribution pipes with
molten salts (hot salt pipes in continuous red colour and cold salt pipes in continuous blue colour) and a central power island.
would appear only in cold nights of winter, when the fluid is stopped. In
any case, the experience at the PSA has shown [26] that the running of
blowers at minimum speed may provide the fluid with enough heat to
evaporate the remaining liquid, thus enabling a safe operation.
The geographical coordinates of the foreseen location of the SF for
both plants are 37°05′27.8″ N and 2°21′19″ W, corresponding to
Plataforma Solar de Almería [27] (Spain).
3. Simulation model
The simulation model for both plants has been implemented within
the TRNSYS software environment [28]. The model for the reference
STPP using thermal oil as HTF is based on the one considered in pre-
vious works [29,30,20]. Nevertheless, it incorporates several im-
provements and additional components to simulate in a more accurate
and flexible way some elements that will be used in both plants, such as
the power block, steam generation train and heat exchangers.
The basic algorithm for the calculations performed in the simulation
models, which can be applied to both the reference STPP with thermal
oil and the new one with sCO2, is summarized in the simplified flow
chart displayed in Fig. 5.
As seen in Fig. 5, weather data are read from the input file to per-
form the corresponding calculation of solar angles (zenith angle, in-
cidence angle on solar collectors, tracking angle). The available amount
of solar radiation (DNI), together with the previous state of the system,
determines the operation mode of the solar field (startup, shutdown,
regular operation, etc.). When the DNI is above a minimum value
(namely, 100 W/m ), the HTF is circulated through the solar field,
2
4
Energy Conversion and Management 199 (2019) 112030
establishing its required mass flow rate and calculating thermal and
hydraulic balances in the solar field for dynamic flow conditions.
Otherwise, there is no fluid circulation in the solar field and energy
balances are calculated accordingly (i.e., for static flow conditions).
The operation of the TES system and the power block is specified in
the following blocks of Fig. 5. If the mass flow rate and outlet tem-
perature in the solar field is equal to or higher than the reference mass
flow and minimum temperature required for the HTF to run the power
block, the PB is operated and the remaining mass flow is sent to charge
the TES system. In case that the TES is full, it cannot be further charged,
causing a partial defocusing of the solar field in the subsequent time
step. As a result, the corresponding thermal energy that cannot be used
is accounted as “dumped energy”. When fluid conditions are not suf-
ficient to operate the power block and there is enough storage load, the
TES system is discharged to complete the SF support and hence the
power block operates in storage mode. PB operation involves the cal-
culation of balances in the steam generator and the power block itself,
along with the evaluation of parasitic consumptions, which enables
obtaining net electric power from gross electric power. Parasitic losses
are also calculated when the PB is stopped.
The main results of the simulation (gross and net electric power,
outlet and inlet temperatures at significant points of the system, mass
flow rates, storage level, etc.) are recorded in an output file each time
step. When the last time step is attained, the simulation ends.
Otherwise, some relevant variables of the model are stored to sum-
marize the system state and the simulation continues by reading
weather data for the next time step.
The general layout of the TRNSYS model for the conventional solar
M. Biencinto, et al.
Table 1
Main features and parameters considered for each type of STPP.
Parameter/Type of plant
Working fluid in receiver tubes
Type of solar collector
Aperture width (m)
Focal length (m)
2
Net collection area for each collector (m )
Total length of receiver tube for each
collector (m)
Outer diameter of the metal receiver tube
(m)
Inner diameter of the metal receiver tube
(m)
Peak optical efficiency (%)
Cleanliness factor of the mirrors (%)
Distance between collector rows (m)
Number of collectors per loop/subfield
Number of loops/subfields in the solar field
Net collection area of the solar field (m2)
Nominal temperature at collectors’ loop
outlet (°C)
Nominal temperature at collectors’ loop
inlet (°C)
Nominal pressure at collectors’ loop inlet
(Pa)
Fluid in the thermal storage system
Size of the thermal storage system (t)
Efficiency of HXs and steam generator (%)
Nominal
(%) gross efficiency of the power block
Nominal gross electric power (MWe )
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of the system of valves for the operation of gas/salt
HX and blower of each subfield in the STPP using sCO2 as HTF.
plant with thermal oil is depicted in Fig. 6, including equation editors,
components from the standard TRNSYS library to read input data
(Type9a) or determine solar angles (Type16g) and components
Energy Conversion and Management 199 (2019) 112030
specifically developed to retain values from the previous time step
(type293) or to obtain thermo-physical properties of working fluids
Reference New concept (type220). Also, in Fig. 6 some macro-components such as the solar
collectors’ loop (‘Collectors Loop’) and the thermal energy storage
Therminol® VP-1 sCO2
EuroTrough IberTrough system (‘Storage System’) have been extended to show in detail the
5.76 7.334 components of the most relevant subsystems of the plant.
1.71 2.172 In a similar way, Fig. 7 shows the TRNSYS model for the new solar
548.35 698.2
plant with sCO2, also including extended diagrams for the subsystems
98.7 98.7 corresponding to the gas subfield (‘Collectors Subfield’) and the thermal
energy storage system (‘Storage System’).
0.07 0.0889
Both the solar collector loops in the reference plant model and the
subfields in the new solar power plant are basically built upon the
0.065 0.074
model of solar collector (type203), which enables the selection of the
75.5 75.5 type of solar collector, parameters and working fluid, and the model of
97 97
pipe (type202) with thermal insulation.
16.5 25
In general terms, the thermal model of PT collectors is performed by
6 2 / 32 evaluating the useful power gained by the fluid, Qu , with an energy
156 368 / 23
513255.6 513875.2
balance between solar power absorbed by the system and thermal losses
393 473…523 to the environment, Qloss . If the effect of kinetic energy due to the
variation in fluid velocity is neglected, the useful power can be obtained
298 310 with the following expression:
2.7·10
6
10
7
Qu = ηopt,0° ηclean ηsh K (θ) Gbcos (θ) A c − (1)
Qloss
Solar Salt Solar Salt
25500 15555…20000 In Eq. (1), Gb is the direct normal irradiance, Ac the net collector
99 99 aperture area, θ the incidence angle, K(θ) the incidence angle modifier,
39.5 41.3…42.5 ηopt,0° the peak optical efficiency, ηclean the cleanliness factor and ηsh the
55 55 shadowing factor between adjacent collector rows.
The incidence angle modifier (IAM) for EuroTrough-type collectors
was inferred from the experimental characterization of EuroTrough-II
concentrator at the PSA by Geyer et al. [31]. On the other hand, the
correlation applied for the IAM of IberTrough-type collectors using
88.9 mm outer diameter tubes (Eq. (2)) was obtained from optical si-
mulations with a ray-tracing tool [32] applying a similar procedure to
the one presented by Sallaberry et al. [33]:
K (θ) = 1 − (7.072∙10−4∙θ + 1.582∙10−5∙θ 2 − 1.169∙10−7∙θ3)/cosθ (2)
The comparison between IAMs for both solar collectors for different
values of incidence angle is represented graphically in Fig. 8. According
to this figure, a better optical behaviour (IAM closer to 1) is expected in
IberTrough-type collectors for high values of the incidence angle.
Standard receiver tubes SCHOTT PTR®70 from the first generation
have been considered for EuroTrough-II concentrators, whose thermal
losses have been experimentally evaluated from outdoor tests at the
PSA [34]. The resulting expression, in W, is given as function of ΔTfluid-
amb, the difference between the average temperature of the fluid and
ambient temperature, in °C, and Labs, the length of the absorber pipe
section to be considered, in m:
4
Qloss = (0.342∙ΔTfluid−amb + 1.163∙10−8∙ΔTfluid−amb ) ∙Labs (3)
Expression (3) is extrapolated for IberTrough-type collectors taking
into account that a larger outlet surface of the receiver tube, which is
directly proportional to its diameter, involves thermal losses that are
proportionally higher [35]. In this way, Eq. (3) is applied but multi-
plying by the diameter of the new tubes (88.9 mm) and dividing by the
diameter of standard tubes (70 mm). In this case the temperature dif-
ference ΔTfluid-amb between fluid and ambient is obtained by calculating
the heat transfer coefficients between receiver tube and fluid with the
Dittus-Boelter correlation [36] for thermal oil and for CO2. Then, the
corresponding temperature differences are subtracted and added, re-
spectively, to obtain the resulting ΔTfluid-amb to be applied in Eq. (3).
This assumption is supported by experimental tests performed at the
PSA [26], yielding similar efficiencies for CO2 to those expected for
thermal oil for the same temperatures.
The component for connecting pipes (type202) is based on a model
of thermal nodes composed of metal tube and thermal insulation (see
5
M. Biencinto, et al.
Fig. 4. Temperature-entropy diagram of the CO2 in each collectors’ loop for the STPP using sCO2 as HTF, including the selected range for nominal operation.
[30]) whose properties are known. Then, an energy balance is applied
to calculate thermal losses to the atmosphere due to convection and to
the sky due to radiation. Additionally, a mechanism is incorporated to
this model to simulate in an easy way the effect of thermal inertia by
means of exponential expressions, as described in previous works [20].
The hydraulic model, explained in [30], for both receiver tubes and
connecting pipes is based on the evaluation of pressure drop through
straight pipes and accessories using the Darcy-Weisbach equation [37],
establishing the friction factor according to the turbulence regime of the
fluid. The calculation of pressure losses enables the evaluation of
pumping consumptions, which are added to the rest of parasitic con-
sumptions of the plant.
The TES system in both plants is implemented by means of a com-
ponent (type240) that models each molten salt tank as a thermal energy
storage tank with variable volume (see [20]). The model of the TES
system is completed by including piping, associated operation me-
chanisms and, in the case of the reference plant, the oil/salt heat ex-
changer.
In the case of the new plant, since the storage energy efficiency per
unit volume is higher with increasing temperatures, and considering
that different sizes for the SF are expected to be analyzed, the TES
capacity is not constant for all cases, but it is established according to
the specific configuration to be simulated. In this way, a heuristic
correlation is applied to determine the total amount of salts for a given
nominal outlet temperature Tout,ref, in °C, and number of subfields
Nsubfields:
3.5·109 Nsubfields − 10
msalt,TES (kg) = · the levelized cost of electricity (LCoE), given by:
Tout,ref − 298 13 (4)
Eq. (4) was obtained considering that the amount of salts will be
inversely proportional to the nominal thermal difference in the energy
storage system (Tout,ref–298) and directly proportional to the part of SF
devoted to energy storage. In this way, since the nominal thermal
power required by the PB approximately corresponds to 10 subfields,
the second term in Eq. (4) reflects the quotient between the number of
subfields above 10 and the excess of subfields corresponding to the
reference size (23 subfields). Besides, the numerator in the first term
9
(3.5·10 ) was obtained by applying a correction coefficient (about
150%) to the equivalent value of msalt,TES·ΔT for the conventional plant
with thermal oil in order to take advantage of the higher storage
6
Energy Conversion and Management 199 (2019) 112030
efficiency of the new concept. In 9 this way, Eq. (4) also fits for the re-
ference plant but using 2.4·10 as numerator in the first term and
Nsubfields = 23.
The heat exchangers that transfer the useful energy from the solar
field to the TES system both in the reference plant (oil/salts) and in the
new plant (sCO2/salts) are modelled (type206) by using the Number of
Transfer Units (NTU) method [36]. On the other hand, the model to
simulate the performance of the steam generation train is implemented
with a new component (type255) that applies the Log Mean Tempera-
ture Difference (LMTD) method [36] to each of its elements: preheater,
evaporator, superheater and reheater. Such TRNSYS components pro-
vide the required flexibility in each plant model by enabling the se-
lection of parameters such as the working fluid.
The model of the PB is implemented in a new component (type250),
described in [38,39], that analyzes the system behaviour in both
nominal and part-load conditions using the Spencer-Cotton-Cannon
method [40]. Besides, each plant model estimates electric losses by
adding to the pumping consumptions a fixed value, which is different
for online and offline conditions, and a variable value depending on the
electric load. Those values are adjusted considering the experience [29]
in modelling and simulation of commercial STPPs using thermal oil as
heat carrier.
The main additional parameters assumed in the simulation model
for each type of plant are summarized in Table 2.
To assess the feasibility of the new STPP concept using sCO2 and to
analyse the expected impact of plant configuration on energy costs, a
preliminary economic analysis is performed based on the calculation of
CRF∙Kinvest + K O & M + Kfuel
LCoE =
Wnet (5)
In Eq. (5), Kinvest stands for the total investment cost of the STPP, KO
&M for the annual operation and maintenance cost, Kfuel for the annual
cost of the fuel used, Wnet for the net annual electricity production and
CRF for the capital recovery factor, which in turn depends on the an-
nual insurance rate, the effective interest rate and the depreciation
period according to the usual definition given in energy standards [41].
The specific costs and economic parameters used in the calculation
of LCoE are specified in Table 3. Those values have been obtained from
extrapolation of economic data applied in former studies, both to
M. Biencinto, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 199 (2019) 112030

Fig. 5. Simplified flow chart of the calculations performed in the simulation models for both the reference STPP using thermal oil as HTF and the new STPP using
sCO2.
determine electricity costs of the reference plant [42,43] and to eval- the new technology is expected to be similar to that of conventional PT
uate the expected savings in the SF due to the use of collectors with plants, applying the same specific O&M cost for both STPPs has been
larger aperture [22] or the increase of investment required by compo- considered as a reasonable assumption.
nents for the new technology using CO2 [44]. Specific costs of the SF, in
2
€/m , are referred to net collection area, whereas land specific cost, 4. Models’ validation
2
also in €/m , is referred to land area.
O&M costs in Table 3 are taken from [45], weighting the experience The validation of the CO2 model is performed by using experimental
in PT plants with thermal oil. No increases in O&M costs are expected data of the test facility at the PSA with 1 s time step, the same used in
associated to solar fields with large-aperture parabolic troughs or to the
the simulation. This test facility is provided with 100 m of EuroTrough
use of pressurized gases. Since the level of automation for plants with PT collectors using conventional receiver tubes with 70 mm outer

7
M. Biencinto, et al.
Fig. 6. Screenshot of the TRNSYS model for the reference STPP using thermal oil as HTF, showing details of the model of the solar collectors’ loop and the TES system
implemented.
diameter. Details on the collectors’ loop and instrumentation devices,
along with their uncertainty ranges, can be found in [7]. The day se-
lected for the validation is the 27th of October 2010, achieving nominal
conditions of 500 °C and 44 bar for the CO2. Even though such values of
pressure and temperature do not correspond to supercritical CO2, the
behaviour of the fluid is expected to be similar to sCO2, thus suggesting
a reasonable basis to prove the performance of the solar field model
with pressurized CO2 that may be extrapolated to supercritical condi-
tions.
The comparison between real data and simulated results is shown in
Fig. 9, including measured values of DNI, outlet and inlet temperature,
mass flow rate and pressure loss in the collectors’ loop, together with
the corresponding values of outlet temperature and pressure loss ob-
tained from the simulation.
As seen in Fig. 9, both temperature and pressure loss results of the
model closely follow the real data measured at the experimental loop,
even with transients in solar radiation resulting from the defocusing of
collectors at around 13 and 13:30 h. Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE)
values calculated throughout the operation period, i.e. with mass flow
rate higher than zero in the collectors’ loop, are 10.1 °C for the outlet
temperature and 0.03 bar for the pressure loss. Such figures suggest that
a good performance may be expected for the model to simulate the
behaviour of pressurized CO2 as working fluid in parabolic-trough
collectors.
Since the test facility at the PSA contains neither an energy storage
system nor a thermodynamic cycle for power generation, the behaviour
of such subsystems in the model with sCO2 relies on the validation of
8
Energy Conversion and Management 199 (2019) 112030
the reference STPP.
The validation of the reference plant model is carried out by using
real data of a commercial STPP in Spain with thermal oil as HTF in the
solar field. This STPP includes a two-tank TES system with molten salts,
providing around 1.3 GWh of storage capacity, and a power block based
on a conventional steam Rankine cycle with 55 MWe gross electric
power. Such plant presents similar features to those considered for the
reference STPP in Table 1.
Operation data from the STPP include DNI, inlet and outlet tem-
peratures from the solar field, mass flow rate of the HTF, gross and net
power generated and level of storage load for a cloudy day of spring,
the 24th of March, with significant solar transients in order to check the
model performance in non-favourable conditions. The data time step is
1 min, also the same as the step used by the simulation. In this case, the
model of the reference STPP simulates the control system and plant
operation procedures, as well as the behaviour of each subsystem. As a
result, mass flow rates and inlet temperatures are not taken from the
experimental data but obtained as outputs from the simulation, and
then compared to the actual data to validate the whole plant model.
The comparison between real data and simulation results is shown in
Fig. 10.
The results seen in Fig. 10 reflect the accuracy that can be expected
from the model in a typical cloudy day. RMSE values calculated
throughout the operation period of the solar field (with DNI and mass
flow rate higher than zero) are 18.4 °C for the outlet temperature and
154 kg/s for the mass flow rate (around 12% of the maximum flow).
Nevertheless, it should be remarked that the inputs for the mass flow
M. Biencinto, et al.
Fig. 7. Screenshot of the TRNSYS model for the new STPP using sCO2 as HTF, including details of a gas solar collectors’ subfield and the TES system implemented.
Fig. 8. Comparison between the incidence angle modifier of EuroTrough col-
lector with receiver tube of 70 mm outer diameter and IberTrough collector
with 89 mm tube, both 100 m long.
and inlet temperature in the simulation are obtained from the model
itself, not from real operation data, affecting in a significant way the
outlet temperature results and thus increasing the resulting RMSE va-
lues compared to simulations with common inputs (such as Fig. 9). In
the case of the electric output and storage load results shown in the
lower graphic of Fig. 10 considering the whole simulation period, the
corresponding RMSE are 4.1 and 4.2 MWe for the gross and net electric
power, respectively, and 1.55% for the TES load. Besides, the difference
9
Energy Conversion and Management 199 (2019) 112030
between simulation outputs and real data in terms of net electricity
production is lower than 2% for this period. Taking into account that
the day selected for the validation includes significant solar transients,
involving increased challenges for a STPP simulation model, these re-
sults can be considered accurate enough for the purposes of the pro-
posed study.
5. Results and discussion
A two-part study is performed using the simulation models de-
scribed in Section 3 and meteorological data of a typical year at the
PSA. In the first part of the study the net collection area for the plant
with sCO2 is the closest possible to the net collection area of the re-
ference plant using thermal oil as HTF, corresponding to 23 subfields.
This assumption enables the comparison of results between both tech-
nologies. In the second part, a parametric study is carried out regarding
the annual electricity production of the plant with CO2 as function of
the nominal temperature at the outlet of solar collectors and the SF size.
The plant location considered for both parts of the study is PSA,
Spain, and the meteorological data correspond to a typical year with an
2
annual DNI balance of 2071.46 kWh/m and 3658 h of sunlight, ap-
plying a time step of 5 min for both the simulation and input data.
In order to compare the daily operation of both STPPs, considering
the first part of the analysis with the same collection area, Fig. 11 re-
presents the results of net electric power, electric losses, thermal energy
storage load and DNI obtained with the thermal-oil plant model and the
sCO2 plant model (with 23 subfields and 493 °C outlet temperature) for
four days of spring with different profiles in terms of solar radiation.
As seen in Fig. 11, the daily behaviour of electric production with
the new STPP is different from the usual yield profile of a conventional
M. Biencinto, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 199 (2019) 112030

Table 2
Main additional parameters assumed in the simulation model for each STPP.

Assumed parameter/Type of plant Reference STPP New STPP concept

Minimum/maximum mass flow rate per loop in operation (kg/s) 2.5/9 0.4/5
Mass flow rate per loop during startup/antifreeze protection (kg/s) 3/1.28 1.2/0.3
Inner/outer diameter of connecting pipes between collectors with thermal oil or between loops in gas subfields (m) 0.0627/0.073 0.194/0.219
Inner/outer diameter of E-W distribution pipes (m) 0.428/0.457 0.22/0.25
Inner/outer diameter of N-S distribution pipes (m) 0.67/0.71 0.48/0.51
Insulation thickness in hot/cold connecting pipes of loops (m) 0.12/0.1 0.2/0.15
Insulation thickness in distribution pipes (m) 0.2 0.2
Nominal temperature difference in hot/cold side of HXs (°C) 6/5 7/7
Nominal temperature difference in hot side of SG (°C) 11 11
5 5 4 4
Nominal pressure drop in HTF/salt side of HXs (Pa) 2·10 /10 3·10 /6·10
Nominal efficiency of HTF pumps or gas blowers (%)
85 60
Nominal efficiency of salt pumps (%) 76 76
Nominal efficiency of water pumps in PB (%) 75 75
Fixed electric losses online/offline (kWe) 2000/850 2000/850
Variable electric losses at nominal load (kWe) 600 600

thermal-oil plant, reaching lower values of net electric power when the
solar radiation is high and showing maximum values at night. Such
behaviour is due to the effect of electric losses obtained for high values
of DNI, given the high electric consumptions for gas pumping in sub-
fields, and to the fact that the TES system is always discharged at
nominal flow rate. On the contrary, the TES discharge in conventional
STPPs is performed at lower mass flows and temperatures than the
values applied in nominal conditions. In this way, the strategy adopted
in the STPP with sCO2 involves higher net electric power during the
night.
On the other hand, Fig. 11 shows that, in this case, the storage load
reaches lower values in the STPP with sCO2 than in the reference plant,
despite the mass of molten salts is lower (see Table 1). As mentioned
above, such values occur because the higher thermal difference ex-
perienced by molten salts in the new plant concept increases the storage
efficiency per unit mass, taking a better advantage of a given amount of
storage medium. For instance, the last day represented in Fig. 11 shows
that the TES system for both plants is completely full at sunset, when
solar radiation is going down (hour 3834). In this case, the plant with
sCO2, in spite of having a lower amount of molten salts in the hot tank,
is capable of producing electricity during more hours than the reference
STPP.
In the second part of the study, both the net collection area and the
outlet temperature of the SF are varied. The variation in collection area
is carried out by increasing or decreasing the number of subfields, in-
cluding sets of 4 subfields arranged in additional rows in the diagram of
Fig. 2 in order to guarantee a reasonable symmetry in the SF. In this
way, the number of subfields will range from 24 to 40 in steps of 4,
involving about 90000 m2 of increase in the net collection area for each
step.
The results of gross and net annual electricity production of the new
STPP with sCO2 for different outlet temperatures and number of sub-
fields are shown in Figs. 12 and 13, respectively, also including in da-
shed line the production of the reference STPP with thermal oil, even
though it corresponds to an outlet temperature of 393 °C, not covered
by the x-axis range.
As expected, a higher number of subfields implies higher annual
electricity values, both gross and net results. Also, the gross annual
production of the new STPP with sCO2 is always higher than the pro-
duction of the reference plant with thermal oil. Seperti terlihat pada
Gambar. 12, the produksi listrik tahunan bruto untuk sejumlah sub-bidang
tertentu berkurang dengan suhu. Tren seperti itu mungkin menunjukkan
efisiensi keuntungan dalam PB tidak mampu menyeimbangkan peningkatan
kerugian termal di SF untuk suhu yang lebih tinggi ketika listrik kotor
dipertimbangkan. Namun, dalam hal produksi tahunan bersih yang
ditunjukkan pada Gambar. 13 maksimum muncul untuk setiap kurva karena
dampak kerugian parasit. Hasil dari, suhu keluaran kolektor surya yang
menyediakan jaring maksimum hasil tahunan berkisar dari 503 hingga 513 ° C
tergantung pada jumlah sub bidang.In order to assess the impact of
pumping consumption and corre-sponding parasitic losses on the
annual electricity yield, Fig. 14 re- presents the electric losses
factor, obtained as the ratio of annual electric losses to gross
electricity production (which is in turn the sum of net electricity
production and electric losses). Electric losses include pumping
consumptions for both HTF (thermal oil or sCO2) and molten salts,
together with the rest of parasitic losses considered in the model.
Since larger temperature differences between outlet and inlet in-
volve lower mass flow rates in the solar field for the same useful

Table 3
Specific costs and economic parameters considered in the calculation of LCoE for the two STPPs considered.

Element/Type of plant Reference STPP New STPP concept

2
Specific cost SF: solar collectors’ mirrors, structures, tracking systems, foundations (€/m ) 155 130
Specific cost SF: solar receivers (€/m2) 16 30
Specific cost SF: piping, insulation, connections (€/m2) 8 20
Specific cost SF: HTF system, boiler, ancillaries (€/m2) 30 2
Specific cost blowers/HTF pumps, salt/HTF HXs (€/m2) 10 45
Land specific cost (€/m2) 2 2
Specific cost PB + SG (€/kWe) 750 750
Specific cost TES: salts + tanks variable (€/kg) 1 1
Specific cost TES: salt pumps + tanks fixed (€/kWh) 10 10
Specific cost fossil fuel (€/kWh) 0.0232 0.0232
Cost of engineering, construction & contingencies (% of Kinvest) 20 20
Annual specific cost O&M (€/kWhe) 0.035 0.035
Annual insurance rate (%) 1 1
Effective interest rate (%) 7 7
Depreciation period (a) 25 25

1
0
M. Biencinto, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 199 (2019) 112030

Fig. 9. Comparison between the results of

the CO2 model and experimental data from
the test facility at the PSA for 27th October
2010: inlet (real) and outlet (real and si-
mulated) temperatures of the collectors’
loop in the upper graph; pressure loss in the
collectors’ loop (real and simulated) and
mass flow rate (real) in the lower graph;
including also the DNI in both graphs.

thermal power, parasitic losses are lower for higher values of the outlet temperature. This effect helps to explain the worse results of net annual
production observed in Fig. 13 for low temperatures. Selain itu, Gambar. 14 menunjukkan bahwa dampak relatif dari kerugian listrik berkurang dengan yang
lebih tinggi
jumlah sub-bidang, menunjukkan kinerja yang lebih baik untuk ukuran yang lebih besar
bidang surya dalam hal konsumsi parasit.
Untuk lebih baik menilai suhu optimal dalam hal listrik
produksi, menimbang hasilnya sehubungan dengan area pengumpulan bersih, akan berguna untuk membandingkan efisiensi tahunan bersih masing-masing pabrik,
yang didefinisikan sebagai
produksi listrik tahunan bersih dibagi dengan energi matahari radiasi yang tersedia untuk SF. Efisiensi tahunan bersih digambarkan pada Gambar. 15
untuk kasus yang sama dianalisis pada Gambar. 13.
Seperti yang terlihat pada Gambar. 15, untuk jumlah sub-bidang tetap, efisiensi tahunan bersih menunjukkan maksimum antara 503 dan 513 ° C, sesuai dengan
nilai suhu optimal yang diamati pada Gambar. 13. Alasan untuk perilaku tersebut terkait dengan keseimbangan antara efisiensi SF dan PB
yang bergantung pada ketergantungan suhu yang dijelaskan dalam Bagian 2 dan
3. Nilai suhu yang lebih rendah menghasilkan efisiensi PB yang lebih rendah, sedangkan
suhu yang lebih tinggi menyiratkan kehilangan panas yang lebih tinggi, sebagai akibat dari
Eq. (3), yang mengurangi efisiensi SF dan karenanya bersih keseluruhan

efisiensi pabrik.
Gambar. 15 menunjukkan bahwa nilai tertinggi dari efisiensi tahunan bersih adalah
dicapai dengan 28 sub-bidang dan sekitar 503 ° C pada suhu
outlet lektor. Selain itu, untuk suhu yang lebih tinggi dari 500 ° C kemiringan setiap kurva berkurang karena jumlah sub-bidang meningkat. Karena penyimpanan
energi termal lebih efisien untuk lompatan suhu yang lebih tinggi, efek ini mungkin disebabkan oleh proporsi yang lebih rendah dari energi yang dibuang
untuk ukuran SF yang lebih besar ketika suhu meningkat. Untuk menganalisis pengaruh tersebut, Gambar. 16 merupakan faktor dumping, didefinisikan sebagai
rasio energi yang dibuang ke energi termal yang berguna untuk kereta pembangkit uap, untuk setiap konfigurasi, juga termasuk dalam garis putus-putus
faktor pembuangan untuk pabrik referensi.
Faktor dumping terlihat pada Gambar. 16 meningkat dengan jumlah sub-bidang dan, pada gilirannya, menurun dengan suhu outlet. Meskipun
kurva sehubungan dengan suhu keluaran untuk sejumlah sub bidang tertentu tampaknya sejajar satu sama lain, kemiringan kurva lebih jelas ketika jumlah sub
bidang meningkat. Faktanya, perbedaan 1,2% dapat diamati dalam faktor dumping antara suhu tertinggi dan terendah untuk 40 sub-bidang sedangkan perbedaannya
adalah sekitar 0,5% untuk 23 sub-bidang dalam kisaran suhu yang sama.

1
1
M. Biencinto, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 199 (2019) 112030

Fig. 10. Comparison between the results of the reference plant model and real operation data of a commercial STPP with thermal oil for a cloudy day of spring (24th
March): inlet and outlet temperatures of the solar field and mass flow rate in the upper graph; gross and net electric power and storage load in the lower graph;
including also the DNI in both graphs.

1
2
M. Biencinto, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 199 (2019) 112030

Fig. 11. Results of net electric power, electric losses, storage load and DNI obtained with the model of the STPP using thermal oil and with the model of the new STPP
using sCO2 (with 23 subfields and 493 °C outlet temperature) for four days of spring.

Fig. 12. Gross annual electricity production of the reference plant, in dashed Fig. 14. Electric losses factor (annual electric losses divided by gross electricity
line, and the new plant for different values of outlet temperature and number of production) in the sCO2 plant for different values of outlet temperature and
subfields. number of subfields, including in dashed line the losses factor of the reference
plant with thermal oil.

Fig. 13. Net annual electricity production of the reference plant, in dashed line,
and the new plant for different values of outlet temperature and number of Fig. 15. Net annual efficiency of the reference plant, in dashed line, and the
subfields. new plant for different values of outlet temperature and number of subfields.

1
3
M. Biencinto, et al.
Fig. 16. Dumping factor (thermal energy dumped divided by thermal energy
useful to the steam generator) in the CO2 plant for different values of outlet
temperature and number of subfields, including in dashed line the dumping
factor of the reference plant with thermal oil.
Additionally, the expected savings in terms of startup time for the
power block when electricity production lasts for the whole night may
also have an influence on annual efficiencies. When the number of
subfields increases, the total amount of thermal energy that can be
stored in the storage tanks also increases, enabling more hours of daily
operation. As a result, for a high number of subfields there is no need to
stop the power block every day and its startup curve is avoided, hence
reducing the corresponding losses in electricity production.
In addition to the results obtained in terms of efficiency it is very
useful to consider the expected cost of electricity produced by means of
the LCoE calculation method described in Section 3. However, the
economic parameters considered in such study involve great un-
certainties regarding the cost of components. In this way, rather than
establishing accurate values of electricity costs, this analysis intends to
reflect the impact of varying the solar field size and outlet temperature
on final energy costs, and hence remark the advantages of the new
concept by adapting the plant configuration to the specific economic
values available at design phase.
Fig. 17 represents the relative values for LCoE in the new STPP
concept using sCO2 as HTF with respect to the reference STPP with
thermal oil. The LCoE obtained for the reference STPP (100% in the y-
axis of Fig. 17) using thermal oil as HTF corresponds to 205.6 €/MWhe,
similar to the figures obtained in previous works [43]. In Fig. 17, the
lowest cost is not given for the same parameters that provided the
highest annual efficiency, but it is achieved with a plant configuration
of 32 subfields and 523 °C temperature at the collectors’ outlet.
The results shown in Fig. 17 seem to reflect the behaviour of the net
annual efficiency observed for larger SF sizes in Fig. 15, together with
the impact of the TES cost reduction associated to the use of higher
temperatures. In this way, optimum temperatures in terms of electricity
cost are shifted to the right with respect to Fig. 15. The gains related to
a lower energy dumping proportion and lower parasitic losses for in-
creasing temperatures (Figs. 14 and 16) provide decreasing values of
LCoE within the range considered, except in the case of 24 subfields
which presents a minimum LCoE for 513 °C. Nevertheless, the optimum
temperature and number of subfields strongly depend on the specific
economic values considered and small changes in such parameters may
significantly affect the results. Hence, the values shown in Fig. 17
should be taken as an example of preliminary estimation to analyse
expected trends in LCoE variation.
The values in Fig. 8, along with the lower specific costs expected for
the solar field with large-size PTs considered in Table 3, may suggest
that the promising results obtained are exclusively due to the effect of
such collectors and are not related to the use of CO2 as working fluid.
The better annual efficiency of the new technology may be affected by
the higher IAM of large-size collectors, but using such PTs with the
same receiver tubes (89 mm) for thermal oil would involve higher
1
4
Energy Conversion and Management 199 (2019) 112030
thermal losses in the solar field than the reference STPP, thus reducing
the final efficiency obtained in Fig. 15 for a plant with thermal oil. On
the other hand, IberTrough-type collectors using standard receiver
tubes with 70 mm outer diameter are expected to show lower values of
IAM than the ones considered for 89 mm tubes [19]. Therefore, the
breakdown of each factor influencing the final results is not straight-
forward and it would require specific analyses, out of the scope of this
work, to be clearly determined.
6. Conclusions and further work
Dalam karya ini, konsep baru pembangkit listrik tenaga surya dengan
kolektor parabola-palung berapasitas besar diusulkan menggunakan CO
dalam keadaan superkritis sebagai fluida kerja primer dan garam cair
sebagai cairan transfer panas sekunder dan media penyimpanan energi termal.
Sebuah studi parametrik dilakukan dengan menggunakan model simulasi
untuk mengoptimalkan produksi tahunan yang diharapkan untuk tanaman
inovatif seperti fungsi suhu outlet dan area pengumpulan bersih bidang surya,
dibandingkan dengan produksi STPP konvensional menggunakan minyak
termal yang digunakan sebagai referensi. Hasilnya menjanjikan karena
efisiensi bersih tahunan 12,48% tahunan diharapkan untuk 503 ° C suhu outlet
kolektor, menerapkan area pengumpulan bersih yang sama untuk lapangan
surya (513875 m) di pabrik referensi dengan minyak termal, yang
menunjukkan 12,33%.
Meskipun demikian, efisiensi pabrik dapat ditingkatkan hingga 12,87%
memperbesar bidang surya, sesuai dengan area pengumpulan bersih
625587 m2. Selain studi kinerja, analisis ekonomi dasar dilakukan untuk
mendapatkan beberapa gambaran keseluruhan mengenai penghematan yang
diharapkan dari teknologi baru dibandingkan dengan STPP konvensional
menggunakan minyak termal. Akibatnya, sekitar 6% penghematan diramalkan
dalam hal biaya listrik standar (LCoE) untuk 714957 m2
dari area pengumpulan bersih dan 523 ° C suhu outlet kolektor. Namun,
mengingat ketidakpastian besar mengenai biaya komponen yang diperlukan
dan parameter keuangan pembangkit tenaga surya dengan teknologi inovatif
sCO, analisis ini hanyalah permulaan dan bermaksud untuk menunjukkan
perkiraan angka biaya listrik untuk konsep baru, menyarankan kemungkinan
penghematan dengan hormat ke a
pabrik referensi. Untuk mengatasi langkah selanjutnya dalam
pengembangan teknologi ini, beberapa ketidakpastian teknis dan ekonomi
harus diselidiki dan dipecahkan berkaitan dengan implementasi nyata: selang
fleksibel untuk interkoneksi, kemungkinan kebocoran gas, kemungkinan titik
dingin di sirkuit garam cair, gas blower, penukar panas gas / garam dan biaya
operasi dan pemeliharaan terutama.In addition to the performance study,
a basic economic analysis is carried out to obtain some overall figures
regarding expected savings of
the new technology compared to conventional STPPs using thermal oil.
As a result, about 6% savings are foreseen in terms of levelized cost of
2
electricity (LCoE) for 714957 m of net collection area and 523 °C of
collectors’ outlet temperature. However, given the huge uncertainties
concerning the cost of required components and financial parameters of
solar plants with the innovative technology of sCO2, this analysis is just
preliminary and intends to show an approximate figure of electricity
cost for the new concept, suggesting possible savings with respect to a
reference plant. In order to address the next step in the development of
this technology, several technical and economic uncertainties should be
investigated and solved with regard to a real implementation: flexible
hoses for the interconnections, possible leaks of gas, cold points in
molten salt circuits, gas blowers, gas/salt heat exchangers and opera-
tion and maintenance costs mainly.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
 M. Biencinto, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 199 (2019) 112030
Fig. 17. Relative value of the levelized electricity cost (LCoE) for the new STPP
with sCO2 for different values of outlet HTF temperature and number of sub-
fields in the SF with respect to the LCoE for the reference STPP with thermal oil,
in dashed line (205.6 €/MWhe).

1
5
M. Biencinto, et al.
influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Spanish government in the fra-
mework of the DETECSOL project [grant number ENE2014-56079-R]
with ERDF funds.
References
[1] SolarPACES. CSP Projects around the world, SolarPACES-Solar Power and Chemical
Energy Systems. IEA Technology Collaboration Programme, http://www.
solarpaces.org/csp-technologies/csp-projects-around-the-world/; 2017 [Accessed 5
July 2019].
[2] Fernández-García A, Zarza E, Valenzuela L, Pérez M. Parabolic-trough solar col-
lectors and their applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14(7):1695–721.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.03.012.
[3] Bellos E, Tzivanidis C, Antonopoulos KA, Daniil I. The use of gas working fluids in
parabolic trough collectors – an energetic and exergetic analysis. Appl Therm Eng
2016;109:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.08.043.
[4] Cipollone R, Cinocca A, Gualtieri A. Gases as working fluid in parabolic trough CSP
plants. Procedia Comput Sci 2013;19:702–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.
2013.06.093.
[5] Muñoz-Antón J, Rubbia C, Rovira A. Martínez-Val JM. Performance study of solar
power plants with CO2 as working fluid. A promising design window. Energy
Convers Manage 2015;92:36–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.12.
030.
[6] Benoit H, Spreafico L, Gauthier D, Flamant G. Review of heat transfer fluids in tube-
receivers used in concentrating solar thermal systems: properties and heat transfer
coefficients. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2016;55:298–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2015.10.059.
[7] Muñoz-Antón J, Biencinto M, Zarza E, Díez LE. Theoretical basis and experimental
facility for parabolic trough collectors at high temperature using gas as heat transfer
fluid. Appl Energy 2014;135:373–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.08.
099.
[8] Abram T, Ion S. Generation-IV nuclear power: a review of the state of the science.
Energy Pol 2008;36(12):4323–30.
[9] Persichilli M, Kacludis A, Zdankiewicz E, Held T. Supercritical CO2 power cycle
developments and commercialization: why sCO2 can displace steam. New Delhi:
Power-Gen India & Central Asia; 2012. p. 1–16.
[10] Shakar J. Review and future trends of supercritical CO2 Rankine cycle for low-grade
heat conversion. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;48:434–51. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.rser.2015.04.039.
[11] Cheng WL, Huang WX, Nian YL. Global parameter optimization and criterion for-
mula of supercritical carbon dioxide Brayton cycle with recompression. Energy
Convers Manage 2017;150:669–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.08.
055.
[12] Crespi F, Sánchez D, Rodríguez JM, Gavagnin G. A thermo-economic methodology
to select sCO2 power cycles for CSP applications. Renew Energy 2018. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.08.023. in press.
[13] Ma Z, Turchi CS. Advanced supercritical carbon dioxide power cycle configurations
for use in concentrating solar power systems. National Renewable Energy
Laboratories; 2011. Technical Report NREL/CP-5500-50787.
[14] Turchi CS. Supercritical CO2 for Application in Concentrating Solar Power Systems.
SCCO2 Power Cycle Symposium, Troy; 2009, p.1–5.
[15] Qiu Y, Li MJ, He YL, Tao WQ. Thermal performance analysis of a parabolic trough
solar collector using supercritical CO2 as heat transfer fluid under non-uniform
solar flux. Appl Therm Eng 2017;117:1255–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2016.09.044.
[16] Nithyanandam K, Pitchumani R. Thermal and structural investigation of tubular
supercritical carbon dioxide power tower receivers. Sol Energy 2016;135(374):85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.
[17] Silva-Pérez MA. Solar power towers using supercritical CO2 and supercritical steam
cycles, and decoupled combined cycles. In: Blanco MJ, Ramírez-Santigosa L, edi-
tors. Advances in Concentrating Solar Thermal Research and Technology. UK:
Woodhead Publishing; 2016. p. 383–402. ISBN: 978-0-08-100516-3 (printed), 978-
0-08-100517-0 (online).
[18] Aguilar R, Valenzuela L, Ávila-Marín AL, García-Ybarra P. Simplified heat transfer
model for parabolic trough solar collectors using supercritical CO2. Energy Convers
Manage 2019;196:807–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.06.029.
[19] Zarza E. Innovative working fluids for parabolic trough collectors. In: Blanco MJ,
Ramírez-Santigosa L, editors. Advances in concentrating solar thermal research
and technology. UK: Woodhead Publishing; 2016. p. 75–106. ISBN: 978-0-08-
100516-3 (printed), 978-0-08-100517-0 (online).
[20] Biencinto M, González L, Zarza E, Díez LE, Muñoz-Antón J. Performance model and
annual yield comparison of parabolic-trough solar thermal power plants with either
nitrogen or synthetic oil as heat transfer fluid. Energy Convers Manage
2014;87:238–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.07.017.
1
6
Energy Conversion and Management 199 (2019) 112030
[21] Rodríguez-García MM, Herrador-Moreno M, Zarza E. Lessons learnt during the
design, construction and start-up phase of a molten salt testing facility. Appl Therm
Eng 2014;62:520–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2013.09.040.
[22] Riffelmann K, Richert T, Nava P, Schweitzer A. Ultimate Trough® – a significant
step towards cost-competitive CSP. Energy Procedia 2014;49:1831–9. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.03.194.
[23] Rioglass. Rioglass UVAC 90-7G, http://www.rioglass.com/rioglass-uvac-90-htf/;
2019 [Accessed 17 May 2019].
[24] Marcotte P, Manning K. Development of an advanced large-aperture parabolic
trough collector. Energy Procedia 2014;49:145–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
egypro.2014.03.016.
[25] PSA. Plataforma Solar de Almería, Annual Report 2018. NIPO 693-19-004-9. Spain:
PSA-CIEMAT, http://www.psa.es/es/techrep/2018/AnnualReport2018.pdf; 2019,
p. 9-10 [Accessed 5 July 2019].
[26] Biencinto M, Zarza E. Lessons learnt about the use of CO2 as heat transfer fluid in
parabolic-trough solar collectors. SFERA-II Project [FP7 Grant Agreement 312643].
Deliverable D15.10; 2017. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1213131.
[27] PSA. Plataforma Solar de Almería. Spain: PSA-CIEMAT, http://www.psa.es/en/;
2019 [Accessed 17 May 2019].
[28] Klein SA, et al. TRNSYS 17: A Transient System Simulation Program. Madison, USA:
University of Wisconsin, Solar Energy Laboratory, http://sel.me.wisc.edu/trnsys;
2013 [Accessed 19 December 2016].
[29] Biencinto M, Bayón R, Rojas E, González L. Simulation and assessment of operation
strategies for solar thermal power plants with a thermocline storage tank. Sol
Energy 2014;103:456–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2014.02.037.
[30] Biencinto M, González L, Valenzuela L. A quasi-dynamic simulation model for direct
steam generation in parabolic troughs using TRNSYS. Appl Energy
2016;161:133–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.10.001.
[31] Geyer M, Lüpfert E, Osuna R, Esteban A, Schiel W, Schweitzer A, et al.
EUROTROUGH – parabolic trough collector developed for cost efficient solar power
generation Zurich, Switzerland Proceedings of the 11th SolarPACES international
conference. 2002.
[32] Valenzuela L. Modificador por ángulo de incidencia del captador IberTrough.
Project Report, Doc Id: DETECSOl-IN-CS-01. Spain: Plataforma Solar de
Almería–Concentrating Solar Systems Unit, 2017.
[33] Sallaberry F, Valenzuela L, Palacin LG. On-site parabolic trough collector testing in
solar thermal power plants: experimental validation of a new approach developed
for the IEC 62862–3-2 standard. Sol Energy 2017;155:398–409. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.solener.2017.06.045.
[34] Valenzuela L, López-Martín R, Zarza E. Optical and thermal performance of large-
size parabolic-trough solar collectors from outdoor experiments: a test method and
a case study. Energy 2014;70:456–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.04.
016.
[35] Blanco MJ, Miller S. Introduction to concentrating solar thermal (CST) technolo-
gies. In: Blanco MJ, Ramírez-Santigosa L, editors. Advances in concentrating solar
thermal research and technology. UK: Woodhead Publishing; 2016. p. 3–25. ISBN:
978-0-08-100516-3 (printed), 978-0-08-100517-0 (online).
[36] Incropera FP, DeWitt DP, Bergman TL, Lavine AS. Fundamentals of heat and mass
transfer. 6th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2006. p. 675–91.
[37] Crane CO. Flow of fluids through valves, fittings and pipe Metric Edition. Technical
Paper No. 410M New York: Crane Company; 1982.
[38] Biencinto M, Montes MJ, Valenzuela L, González L. Simulation and comparison
between fixed and sliding-pressure strategies in parabolic-trough solar power plants
with direct steam generation. Appl Therm Eng 2017;125:735–45. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.07.059.
[39] Biencinto M. Simulación y optimización de centrales termosolares de generación
directa de vapor con captadores cilindroparabólicos usando un modelo
cuasidinámico [Ph.D. thesis]. Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia
(UNED), Department of Energy Engineering. http://e-spacio.uned.es/fez/eserv/
tesisuned:ED-Pg-TecInd-Mbiencinto/BIENCITO_MURGA_Mario_Tesis.pdf; 2018.
[40] Spencer RC, Cotton KC, Cannon CN. A method for predicting the performance of
steam turbine-generators… 16,500 kW and larger Paper No. GER-2007C, Revision
of ASME Paper No. 62-WA-209 New York: General Electric Company; 1974.
[41] AENOR. Solar thermal electric plants, Terminology. Spanish Standard UNE
206009:2013. Madrid, Spain: AENOR; 2013.
[42] Montes MJ, Abánades A, Martínez-Val JM. Performance of a direct steam genera-
tion solar thermal power plant for electricity production as a function of the solar
multiple. Sol Energy 2009;83:679–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2008.10.
015.
[43] Zarza E, Simonot E, Martínez A, Winkler T, Pérez-Segarra CD, Crespo L, et al. Future
renewable energy costs: solar-thermal electricity. Eindhoven, Netherlands: KIC
InnoEnergy, http://www.innoenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/KIC_
InnoEnergy_STE_anticipated_innovations_impact.pdf; 2015 [accessed 21 May
2019].
[44] Díez LE. Comparación costes generación tecnología colectores solares refrigerados
por gas. Project ‘Gas-cooled solar collectors‘, Internal Report. Madrid, Spain:
CIEMAT; 2009.
[45] IRENA. Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2017. Abu Dhabi, United Arab
Emirates: International Renewable Energy Agency, https://www.irena.org/-/
media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2018/Jan/IRENA_2017_Power_Costs_
2018.pdf; 2018 [accessed 24 August 2019].