Energy and sizing analyses of parabolic trough solar collector

integrated with steam and binary vapor cycles

Fahad A. Al-Sulaiman
Mechanical Engineering Department, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM), P.O. Box 1445, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 27 February 2013
Received in revised form
16 May 2013
Accepted 18 May 2013
Available online 19 June 2013
Keywords:
Parabolic trough solar collectors
Binary vapor cycle
Organic Rankine cycle steam turbine
Aperture area sizing
Heat transfer uid
a b s t r a c t
In this study, solar eld sizing and overall performance of different vapor cycles are examined. The
systems considered are parabolic trough solar collectors integrated with either a binary vapor cycle or a
steam Rankine cycle (SRC). The binary vapor cycle consists of an SRC as a topping cycle and an organic
Rankine cycle as a bottoming cycle. Seven refrigerants are examined for the bottoming cycle: R600,
R600a, R134a, R152a, R290, R407c, and ammonia. This study reveals that signicant reduction in the
solar eld size is gained due to the performance improvement when the binary vapor cycle is considered
as compared to a steam Rankine cycle with atmospheric condensing pressure; however, SRC with vac-
uum pressure has the best performance and smallest solar eld size. It further reveals that the R134a
binary vapor cycle has the best performance among the binary vapor cycles considered and, thus, re-
quires the smallest solar eld size while the R600a binary vapor cycle has the lowest performance.
Finally, optimization shows that lowering the mass ow rate of the heat transfer uid (HTF) per each
solar collector row, within the range considered, results in a reduction of the required number of solar
collector rows and, thus, in savings.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The improvement of power plants based on solar energy is
becoming ever more crucial, especially with fossil fuel depletion
and increasing CO
2
emissions. Therefore, there is a need to improve
existing technologies powered by solar energy. Parabolic trough
solar collector (PTSC) technology is considered the most estab-
lished solar thermal technology for power production. This tech-
nology has been used in large power plants since the 1980s and
shows a promising future. Therefore, this technology has been
selected for this study.
A number of studies examined the performance of PTSC inte-
grated with steamRankine cycles, e.g. [1e3]. Niknia et al. [1] carried
out a simulation to examine the performance of a power plant in-
tegrated with PTSC and an auxiliary boiler. In addition, they dis-
cussed the advantages of their system as compared to a fossil fuel
based system. Montes et al. [2] studied the effect of changing the
solar multiple on the performance of PTSC combined with SRC.
Zarza et al. [3] presented the conceptual design of a solar power
plant using direct steam generation in a PTSC eld. In a different
study, Wang et al. [4] studied a regenerative organic Rankine cycle
to utilize the solar energy over a low temperature range using at-
plate solar collectors. Their study illustrated that increasing turbine
inlet pressure and temperature or lowering the turbine back
pressure could improve system performance.
A number of studies examined the performance of an organic
Rankine cycle (ORC) under different operating conditions [5e7]. Li
et al. [5] studied thermodynamic performance of an ORC at low
heat source temperature and found that the maximum thermal
efciency was 8.2%. In another study, Roy and Misra [6] conducted
thermodynamic parametric study of an ORC using R-123 and
considering intermediate heat source temperature. They found that
the best thermodynamic performance of the cycle can be obtained
at a turbine inlet pressure of 2.7 MPa. In a different study, Lee et al.
[7] examined the effect of changing the amount of the cooling
water to the condenser on the performance of an ORC using R245fa
as a working uid. They observed that there is a signicant per-
formance change as the cooling energy source varies.
Montes et al. [8] performed a simulation that showed that the
integrated solar combine cycle system operates better in Las Vegas
as compared to the same system that operates in Almera. This
result is owing to the solar hybridization with the combined cycle
gas turbine power plant in the frequent days with the high solar
radiation and high temperatures in Las Vegas. In a different study,
Yang et al. [9] compared the performance of a 200 MW coal-red E-mail address: fahadas@kfupm.edu.sa.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Energy
j ournal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ energy
0360-5442/$ e see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.05.020
Energy 58 (2013) 561e570
thermal power plant with the same power plant using solar energy
to assist its performance. It was shown that using solar energy
would result in fuel savings; however it would add capital cost.
Simulation of a direct-heated and closed supercritical CO
2
cycle
driven by solar system was conducted by Singh et al. [10]. It was
concluded that active control of the power conversion system is
needed to attain CO
2
in supercritical operation range and, hence,
maintaining relatively high efciency. Wang et al. [11] studied the
effect of selected parameters on the net power output and surface
areas of the heat recovery vapor generator and the condenser. It
was demonstrated that the ORC systemwith isobutene has the best
system performance as compared to R123 or R245fa.
On the other hand, there is no detailed study that has examined
the performance and sizing of a PTSC integrated with a binary vapor
cycle (combinedSRCandORC). Therefore, the results fromthis study
are considered of signicant importance. Solar thermal energy can
be utilized to supply heat to steam Rankine cycles (SRC). For such a
system, the heat from the condenser of the SRC is wasted. The
temperature of the waste heat is high enough to operate another
Rankine cycle that can operate at relatively low temperature. An
organic Rankine cycle (ORC) is a type of a Rankine cycle that can
operate at a mediumor lowtemperature with reasonable efciency.
Hence, the ORC can be used as a bottoming cycle for an SRC.
In this study, the solar eld sizing and performance of two
systems, in which both are integrated with parabolic trough solar
collectors, are compared in detail. These two systems are a binary
vapor cycle and an SRC. Key solar eld sizing and performance
operating parameters are examined. These parameters are elec-
trical power output, thermal efciency, total aperture area of the
solar collectors, number of the solar collector rows, thermal energy,
and mass ow rate of the synthetic oil (HTF) in the solar collectors.
2. System descriptions
In this study, two systems are considered. The rst system is a
PTSC integrated with an SRC, as shown in Fig. 1. The second system
is a binary vapor cycle, which is the same as the rst; however, an
ORC is integrated with a steam Rankine cycle operating under at-
mospheric condensing pressure (SRC-A) as a bottoming cycle, as
shown in Fig. 2. The binary vapor cycle is integrated with an SRC-A
since there is a reasonable amount of waste heat that can be uti-
lized from this SRC-A, which is not the case with a steam Rankine
cycle operating under vacuum condensing pressure (SRC-V). In
addition, the binary cycle considered in this study has another two
major advantages as compared to a single steamRankine cycle with
a vacuum condensing pressure (SRC-V). The SRC-V design is com-
plex because: a) The pressure in the condenser is at vacuum and
this increases the capital and operating &maintenance costs; b) The
specic volume of the steam in the condenser is high and, hence,
requires a large size condenser. Two SRCs are considered: SRC-V
and SRC-A, in which they are considered as a reference for the bi-
nary vapor cycle for comparison.
The solar collector eld consists of hundreds of solar collector
rows. Each collector row consists of ten modules of collectors. The
length of each module is 12.27 m [2,3]. The receiver is the pipe
carrying the heat transfer uid. Outside this receiver is vacuumed
annulus to reduce heat losses. The geometric data of the solar col-
lectors are giveninTable 1. The type of the collector selectedis anLS-
3 collector. This collector is selected since it is the latest collector
design in SEGS plants, which has proven performance in the eld.
The temperature at the exit of the solar collector is 663K (390

C)
[12]. This temperature is considered the maximum practical oper-
ating temperature of the selected oil in the PTSC. The oil selected is
Thermonil-VP1. This oil has goodheat transfer properties anda good
temperature control [13], and, hence, it is used in many different
power plants driven by PTSC, [2,14]. The characteristics of this uid
can be found at [13]. The mass owrate of the HTF per single rowof
solar collectors is 0.35e0.8 kg/s [15]. It should be noted that this
mass ow rate is for a single solar collector row without looping.
The SRC considered is integrated with the solar eld through an
evaporator. The pinch point temperature of the evaporator is
assumed to be 10 K [16]. For the binary vapor cycle, seven re-
frigerants were selected. These refrigerants were R600, R600a,
R134a, R152a, R290, R407c, and ammonia. They were selected
based on the recommendation of Tchanche et al. [17], in which they
recommended these refrigerants for a low temperature organic
Rankine cycle, which is the operating temperature condition for the
bottoming cycle in the binary vapor cycles considered.
3. Mathematical modeling
The mathematical modeling of the system is presented in this
section. The equations developed were programmed using Engi-
neering Equation Solver (EES). The input data used in the code are
given in Table 1. The energy analysis of the PTSC in this section is
based on the equations presented in Refs. [18,19]. This energy
analysis is validated with these two references and with the
experimental study by Dudley et al. [20]. The validation is
7
5
4 6
Parabolic
trough
solar
collectors
field
Electrical
generator
Electrical
power
Steam
turbine
2
1
3
9
8 Steam
pump
Solar
pump
Evaporator
Condenser
Fig. 1. Schematic of the parabolic trough solar collectors integrated with steam Rankine cycle.
F.A. Al-Sulaiman / Energy 58 (2013) 561e570 562
presented later in this section. The modeling of the solar system is
presented rst. Then the performance assessment equations for the
overall systemare presented. It is assumed that both systems are at
steady state. The pressure change is negligible except in the pumps
and turbines. The useful energy rate from the collector is dened
as:
_
Q
u
_ m
r
Cp
ro
T
ro
Cp
ri
T
ri
(1)
where _ m
r
is the mass ow rate in the receiver, Cp is the specic
heat, and T is the temperature. The subscripts ro and ri refer to the
receiver inlet and the receiver outlet, respectively. The useful en-
ergy can also be calculated from:
_
Q
u
A
ap
F
R
_
S
A
r
A
ap
U
L
T
ri
T
0

_
(2)
where A
ap
is the aperture area, A
r
is the receiver area, F
R
is the heat
removal factor, S is the heat absorbed by the receiver, and U
L
is the
solar collector overall heat loss coefcient. The heat absorbed by
the receiver is dened as:
S G
b
h
r
(3)
where G
b
is the direct radiation heat and h
r
is the receiver efciency
which is dened as [19]:
h
r
r
c
gsaK
g
(4)
where r
c
, g, s, a, and K
g
are the reectance of the mirror, intercept
factor, transmittance of the glass cover, absorbance of the receiver,
and incidence angle modier, respectively and their values are
given in Table 1. The aperture area is dened as:
A
ap
w D
co
L (5)
where L, w, and D
co
are collector (module) length, collector width,
and receiver cover outer diameter, respectively. The heat removal
factor is dened as:
F
R

_ m
r
Cp
r
A
r
U
L
_
1 exp
_
A
r
U
L
F
1
_ m
r
Cp
r
__
(6)
where _ m
r
is the mass ow rate through the receiver and F
1
is the
collector efciency factor and dened as:
F
1
U
o
=U
L
(7)
The solar collector heat loss coefcient between ambient and
receiver is dened as:
7
5
4 6
ORC
turbine
Parabolic
trough
solar
collectors
field
Condenser
Electrical
generator
Electrical
power
Steam
turbine
Electrical
generator
Electrical
power
2
1
3
13
12
11
10
9
8
Heat
Exchagner ORC
pump
Steam
pump
Solar
pump
Evaporator
Fig. 2. Schematic of the parabolic trough solar collectors integrated with the steam and organic Rankine cycles.
Table 1
Input values to the system.
Steam and Rankine cycles
Steam and ORC turbine efciency 85%
Steam and ORC pump efciency 80%
Baseline mass ow rate of the steam Rankine Cycle 94 kg/s
Baseline steam turbine inlet pressure 12.0 MPa
Baseline steam turbine inlet temperature 663 K
Pinch point temperature of the evaporator/condenser 10 K
Electrical generator efciency 96%
Electrical motor efciency 96%
Solar collectors [3] and [21]
Single collector width 5.76 m
Single collector length 12.27 m
Receiver inner diameter 0.066 m
Receiver outer diameter 0.07 m
Cover inner diameter 0.115 m
Cover outer diameter 0.121 m
Emittance of the cover 0.86
Emittance of the receiver 0.15
Reectance of the mirror 0.94
Intercept factor 0.93
Transmittance of the glass cover 0.96
Absorbance of the receiver 0.96
Incidence angle modier 1
Number of collectors in series 10
Ambient conditions
Ambient temperature 298.15 K
Ambient pressure 101.3 kPa
F.A. Al-Sulaiman / Energy 58 (2013) 561e570 563
U
L

_
A
r
_
h
c;ca
h
r;ca
_
A
c

1
h
r;cr
_
1
(8)
The radiation heat coefcient between ambient and the cover is
dened as:
h
r;ca

cv
sT
c
T
a

_
T
2
c
T
2
a
_
(9)
where
cv
is the emittance of the cover and s is StefaneBoltzmann
constant. The radiation heat coefcient between the receiver and
the cover is dened as:
h
r;cr

s
_
T
c
T
r;av
_
_
T
2
c
T
2
r;av
_
1
r

Ar
Ac
_
1
cv
1
_ (10)
where
r
is the emittance of the receiver and the subscript av refers
to average. The convection heat loss coefcient between the cover
and ambient is dened as:
h
c;ca

_
Nusk
air
D
c;o
_
(11)
where Nus is the Nusselt number and K
air
is the thermal conduc-
tivity of the air. The overall heat coefcient from the surroundings
to the uid is dened as:
U
o

_
1
U
L

D
r;o
h
c;r;in
D
r;i

_
D
r;o
2k
r
ln
_
D
r;o
D
r;i
___
1
(12)
where h
c,r,in
is the heat loss coefcient between the cover and the
receiver and is dened as:
h
c;r;in

Nus
r
k
r
D
r;i
(13)
The subscript r refers to the receiver. The temperature of the
cover can be calculated using this equation:
T
c

h
r;cr
T
r;a

Ac
Ar
_
h
c;ca
h
r;ca
_
T
0
h
r;cr

Ac
Ar
_
h
c;ca
h
r;ca
_ (14)
The amount of the solar radiation that shines upon the collector,
considered as heat into the system, is dened as:
_
Q
solar
A
ap
F
R
SCol
r
Col
s
(15)
where Col
r
and Col
s
are the total number of the collector rows
(parallel) and total number of modules in series. The validation of
the PTSC model is presented next.
The solar collector model is validated by the experimental study
by Dudley et al. [20], as shown in Fig. 3. The model shows good
correlation with the experimental work. The small deviation in the
current model as compared to [20] is due mainly to the approxi-
mation used to calculate the heat loss coefcients.
The performance equations of the overall system are presented
next. The power produced by the steam turbine is dened as:
_
W
st
_ m
st
h
5
h
6
(16)
where h is the enthalpy and the subscript st indicates steam. The
net power of the steam Rankine cycle is dened as:
_
W
st;cyc
h
g
_
W
st

_
W
sp
=h
mo
(17)
where the subscripts g, st, sp, and mo indicate generator, steam
turbine, steam pump, and motor, respectively. Similarly, the net
power of the organic Rankine cycle is dened as:
_
W
ot;cyc
h
g
_
W
ot

_
W
op
=h
mo
(18)
where the subscript ot indicates organic turbine and the subscript
op refers to the pump in the ORC. The net power produced from the
steam Rankine cycle is dened as:
_
W
st;net

_
W
st;cyc

_
W
solp
=h
mo
(19)
where the subscript solp indicates the pump in the solar eld. The
net power for the binary vapor cycle is dened as:
_
W
net

_
W
st;cyc

_
W
ot;cyc

_
W
solp
=h
mo
(20)
The net electrical efciency for the non-combined system,
considering only SRC, is dened as:
h
el;st

_
W
st;net
_
Q
solar
(21)
The net electrical efciency of the binary vapor cycle is dened
as:
h
el

_
W
net
_
Q
solar
(22)
4. Results and discussion
The effects of steam turbine inlet pressure, net electrical power,
and solar irradiation intensity on key selected solar eld sizing and
overall system performance parameters were examined. These
parameters include net electrical efciency, net electrical power,
mass ow rate of the heat transfer uid (HTF) in the receiver, total
aperture area of the solar collectors, number of solar collector rows,
Fig. 3. Validation of solar collector model.
F.A. Al-Sulaiman / Energy 58 (2013) 561e570 564
and useful thermal energy from the parabolic trough solar collec-
tors. The systems considered were examined in detail under solar
irradiation intensity e G
b
0.8 kW/m
2
e as an average peak value
in which the thermal power plant is operated. To have a compre-
hensive understanding of the effect of the solar irradiation variation
during daytime on the systems considered, the systems were
furthermore examined under a wide solar irradiation intensity
range, G
b
0.5e0.9 kW/m
2
. The thermodynamic properties for the
baseline conditions for the solar irradiation intensity G
b
0.8 kW/
m
2
case for both systems are given in Tables 2e4. As discussed
above, the results are presented for three cases in which all were
integrated with the PTSC. These cases are the steam Rankine cycle
under vacuum condensing pressure (SRC-V), the steam Rankine
cycle under atmospheric condensing pressure (SRC-A), and a binary
vapor cycle operated through steam and a refrigerant in which the
exit pressure of the steam turbine is atmospheric pressure for the
reasons discussed before. For the binary vapor cycle, seven re-
frigerants were investigated.
4.1. Effect of steam turbine inlet pressure
The effect of steam turbine inlet pressure on key selected pa-
rameters is shown in Figs. 4e8. In these gures, the solar irradiation
intensity is 0.8 kW/m
2
and the systems are designed to produce
50 MW of net electrical power. For all cases in this subsection,
minimizing the number of the solar collectors was an optimization
objective, in which the constraint was the mass owrate of the HTF
per single collector row. The range of this constraint was 0.35e
0.8 kg/s [15]. Optimization shows that lowering the mass ow rate
of HTF per each solar collector row results in a reduction of the
required number of solar collector rows and, thus, in savings.
Fig. 4 illustrates the effect of turbine inlet pressure on the net
electrical power produced. This gure demonstrates how much
electrical efciency improvement can be gained when a binary
vapor cycle is used as compared to only the SRC-A. It can be noticed
that the efciency increment is relatively signicant which varies
from3 to 6.5% when a binary vapor cycle is used as compared to the
SRC-A. However, for the SRC-V, the efciency further increases by
7.5% as compared to SRC-A. Alternately, the R134a binary vapor
cycle has the highest efciency while the R600a binary vapor cycle
has the lowest efciency. Furthermore, the R290 binary vapor cycle
has the second highest efciency among the binary vapor cycles.
The R134a binary vapor cycle is only 1% less efcient than the SRC-
V. Therefore, the R134a binary vapor cycle could be recommended
for simpler SRC design and operation, avoiding the complexity
associated with vacuum steam turbine exit pressure and vacuum
pressure at the condenser. Moreover, it is observed that under high
turbine inlet pressure, the difference in the electrical efciency
decreases between the SRC-V and all the binary vapor cycles. This
decrease is expected because more waste heat from the steam
Rankine cycle is available to run the bottoming cycle.
Now, what is the effect of these different cycles on the solar
eld? The answer to this question is detailed in the remaining
gures and discussions as presented below. Fig. 5 demonstrates the
effect of steam turbine inlet pressure on the overall useful thermal
energy collected from the solar eld. This useful thermal energy is
the energy absorbed by HTF in the receivers from all parabolic
trough solar collectors assuming the net electrical power equals
50 MWe. This gure illustrates that the overall thermal energy
Table 2
Thermodynamic properties of the stations for the PTSC integrated with SRC-A
system.
State number m (kg/s) T (K) P (kPa) h (kJ/kg)
1 156.7 334.2 17254.06 557.2
2 156.7 663 23544.66 1718.1
3 156.7 334.2 17254.06 557.2
4 71.52 374.33 12,000 433
5 71.52 653 12,000 2977.2
6 71.52 372.78 101.3 2278.2
7 71.52 372.78 101.3 417.5
8 2977 298.15 101.3 104.8
9 2977 308.84 101.3 149.5
Table 3
Thermodynamic properties of the stations for the PTSC integrated with SRC-V
system.
State number m (kg/s) T (K) P (kPa) h (kJ/kg)
1 156.7 334.2 17254.06 557.2
2 156.7 663 23544.66 1718.1
3 156.7 334.2 17254.06 557.2
4 71.52 309.19 12,000 161.6
5 71.52 653 12,000 2977.2
6 71.52 308.15 5.627 2000.8
7 71.52 308.15 5.627 146.6
8 2213 298.15 101.3 104.8
9 2213 308.84 101.3 149.5
Table 4
Thermodynamic properties of the stations for the PTSC integrated with binary vapor
cycle system.
State number m (kg/s) T (K) P (kPa) h (kJ/kg)
1 134.8 334.2 17254.06 557.2
2 134.8 663 23544.66 1718.1
3 134.8 334.2 17254.06 557.2
4 61.5 374.33 12,000 433
5 61.5 653 12,000 2977.2
6 61.5 372.78 100 2278.2
7 61.5 372.78 100 417.5
8 591.8 309.55 2678.94 102.8
9 591.8 362.78 2678.94 296.1
10 591.8 315.48 887.473 277
11 591.8 308.15 887.473 100.9
12 2331 298.15 101.3 104.8
13 2331 308.84 101.3 149.5
Fig. 4. Net electrical efciency versus turbine inlet pressure for a net electrical power
of 50 MWe.
F.A. Al-Sulaiman / Energy 58 (2013) 561e570 565
decreases as the turbine inlet pressure increases. This decrease in
the thermal energy is due to the increase in the efciency as turbine
inlet pressure increases as shown in Fig. 4. It should be noted again
that the net electrical power produced is considered constant. The
thermal energy varies from 205 MW for the SRC-A at an operating
steam turbine inlet pressure of 8 MPa while this thermal energy is
just above 150 MW for the SRC-V and at an operating turbine inlet
pressure of 150 MPa. In addition, as shown in Fig. 5, the SRC-A
requires the largest thermal energy from the solar eld because
this cycle has the lowest electrical efciency as shown in Fig. 4.
Consequently, it requires the largest solar eld. On the other hand,
the SRC-V requires the least thermal energy because it has the
highest electrical efciency. The binary vapor cycles with different
refrigerants have thermal energies between these two cases. The
R134a binary vapor cycle requires the lowest thermal energy
among the binary vapor cycles considered because it has the best
efciency among them. By contrast, the R600a binary vapor cycle
has the highest thermal energy need among the binary vapor cycles
because it has the lowest electrical efciency among them.
The HTF that circulates through the receivers of the parabolic
trough collectors is an expensive uid and, therefore, it is important
to identify how much is needed. Fig. 6 illustrates how much total
mass ow rate of the HTF is needed for each cycle as turbine inlet
pressure varies. It can be observed that the cycle with higher
electrical efciency requires less HTF. The R134a binary vapor cycle
requires the lowest HTF among the binary vapor cycles. The
maximum total mass ow rate of HTF needed for this cycle is
140 kg/s while the minimummass owrate needed is 136 kg/s. It is
important to note that the range of variation of the mass ow rate
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
.
Q
u
,
o
(
k
W
)
7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000
140000
150000
160000
170000
180000
190000
200000
210000
220000
R600,BinaryCycle
R600a,BinaryCycle
R134a,BinaryCycle
R152a,BinaryCycle
R290,BinaryCycle
R407c,BinaryCycle
Ammonia,BinaryCycle
SteamCycle,P
6
=6kPa
SteamCycle,P
6
=101kPa
x
Steam turbine inlet pressure (P
5
(kPa))
Fig. 5. Overall thermal energy collected from the PTSC versus turbine inlet pressure for
a net electrical power of 50 MWe.
Fig. 6. Total mass ow rate of HTF versus turbine inlet pressure for a net electrical
power of 50 MWe.
Fig. 7. Total aperture area versus turbine inlet pressure for a net electrical power of
50 MWe.
Fig. 8. Total number of solar collector rows versus turbine inlet pressure for a net
electrical power of 50 MWe.
F.A. Al-Sulaiman / Energy 58 (2013) 561e570 566
of the HTF is relatively small for the efcient cycle and relatively
large for the less efcient cycle. For example, as the pressure at the
turbine inlet varies, the range of variation of the total mass owrate
of the HTF in the R134a binary vapor cycle is 4 kg/s while it is
around 11 kg/s for the SRC-A. The main reason is due to the range of
the variation of the electrical efciency as depicted in Fig. 4. This
reason is further explained in the next paragraph.
The solar eld is the most expensive part of the systems
considered. Hence, reducing its size will have a signicant impact
on the overall cost of the systems considered. A major component
of the solar eld is the parabolic trough solar collector. The size of
the solar collector is characterized by the aperture area. The aper-
ture area of each collector module is the multiplication of its length
and the net width. The variation of the total aperture area of each
cycle as the turbine inlet pressure varies trends similarly to the total
mass ow rate of the HTF as demonstrated in Fig. 7. In each system
producing a net electrical power of 50 MW, the required total
aperture area for the systems considered varies from around
259,000 m
2
to 350,000 m
2
. Observation shows that variation of the
total aperture area at low turbine inlet pressure is more signicant
than variation at the high pressure range. This behavior is associ-
ated with the variation of the net electrical efciency as depicted in
Fig. 4. The lowest total aperture area for each cycle is at the highest
turbine inlet pressure considered, 15 MPa. The aperture area is
259,000 m
2
for the SRC-V and slightly more, 262,500 m
2
, for the
R134a binary vapor cycle. Because the vacuum pressure at the
turbine exit of the steamRankine cycle case is very lowand close to
the lowest practical pressure for such a cycle, such a cycle is rela-
tively expensive. On the other hand, the 134a binary vapor cycle
requires cheaper condenser for the SRC; however, it requires
another Rankine cycle (organic) and slightly more aperture area.
That is, the binary vapor cycle needs two turbines with a simpler
design while the SRC-V needs one turbine with a more complicated
design. The R290 binary vapor cycle requires slightly more total
aperture area than the R134a binary vapor cycle. The other binary
vapor cycles require more aperture area.
The number of collector rows is a direct function of the aperture
area; however, more solar collector rows are needed to work when
more electrical load is needed and/or the solar irradiation intensity
drops. Moreover, each collector row has its own piping and valves
subsystem. Therefore, it is important to know the number of rows
needed from both an operating and cost point of view. Fig. 8 pre-
sents the number of collector rows needed for each cycle and the
effect of turbine inlet pressure. The collector rows needed decrease
fromaround 500 at 8 MPa to 470 at 15 MPa for the SRC-A. However,
they are less for all other cycles. The minimum number of rows
needed is 373 for the SRC-V and it is slightly more for the R134a
binary vapor cycle which is 380, both at steam turbine inlet pres-
sure of 15 MPa.
4.2. Effect of net electrical power
The solar eld is the most expensive part for the systems
considered and, hence, it is important to know, in detail, the rela-
tion between it and the net electrical power produced. Figs. 9e12
present the effect of net electrical power load variation on key
solar eld parameters which include overall thermal energy pro-
duced from the parabolic trough solar collectors, total HTF mass
ow rate, total aperture area, and the number of solar collector
rows. All these gures are for the average peak solar irradiation
intensity, G
b
0.8 kw/m
2
.
Fig. 9 depicts the variation of the overall thermal energy
collected from the parabolic trough solar collectors versus the net
electrical power produced. For the cycles considered, the minimum
thermal energy needed at a net electrical power of 50 MWe is
around 155 MWt while the maximum is around 195 MWt, which is
a difference of 40 MWt. However, this difference increases as the
net electrical power produced increases, reaching 85 MWt at
100 MWe. For example, this gure demonstrates that the R600a
binary vapor cycle requires the most thermal energy whereas the
R134a binary vapor cycle requires the lowest thermal energy both
among the binary vapor cycles considered. In addition, it can be
noticed that the thermal energy needed for the binary vapor cycles
of R152a, R407c, R600, and ammonia are close. These behaviors for
all the binary vapor cycles are a reection of their net electrical
efciencies.
The total mass ow rates of HTFs for all cycles increase linearly
as the required net electrical power increases, as illustrated in
Fig. 10. It can be observed from this gure that at 50 MWe the
minimum total mass ow rate of the HTF is 132 kg/s while the
Fig. 9. Thermal energy collected from the solar eld versus the net electrical power
produced.
Fig. 10. Mass ow rate of HTF versus the net electrical power.
F.A. Al-Sulaiman / Energy 58 (2013) 561e570 567
maximum is 168 kg/s; however, the total mass ow rates increase
for all cycles to between 262 kg/s and 335 kg/s at 100 MWe. In
addition, the R600a binary vapor cycle needs the most HTF while
the R134a binary vapor cycle needs the least HTF among the binary
vapor cycles considered. The variation of the HTF is a reection of
the variation of the net electrical power produced fromthe systems
considered.
The change of the total aperture area as the net electrical power
varies is presented in Fig. 11. The gure shows that the total aperture
area at 50 MWe is 265,000 m
2
for the R34a binary vapor cycle while
it is 300,000 m
2
for the R600a binary vapor cycle. In addition, this
gure reveals that the total aperture area increases to reach
535,000 m
2
for the R134a binary vapor cycle and 600,000 m
2
for the
R600a binary vapor cycle, both at 100 MWe. The total aperture areas
of the other binary vapor cycles are in between the two aforemen-
tioned binary vapor cycles. Alternately, the SRC-A requires the
highest total aperture area which reaches 660,000 m
2
at 100 MWe.
The increase in the net electrical power has a signicant effect
on the number of solar collector rows needed as presented in
Fig. 12. This gure illustrates that the minimum number of solar
collector rows at 50 MWe is between 380 and 480, depending on
the cycle, and this number increases signicantly to between 750
and 960 at 100 MWe. This gure demonstrates that the number of
solar collector rows needed for the R600, R152a, R407c, and
ammonia binary vapor cycles are very close. Moreover, the number
of collector rows needed for the SRC-V is the lowest while for the
binary vapor cycle 134a is slightly more. In addition, it is revealed
that the R290 binary vapor cycle needs slightly more solar collector
rows than the 134a binary vapor cycle.
4.3. Effect of solar irradiation intensity
The variation of solar radiation has a direct effect on the thermal
energy collected and, consequently, on the power produced. Figs. 13
and 14 illustrate the effect of solar irradiation intensity on the solar
eld for a net electrical power of 50 MWe produced from the sys-
tems considered. The binary vapor cycle presented in these two
gures is for R134a. This binary vapor cycle is selected since it has
the best performance among the other binary vapor cycles. Further,
two cases for this cycle are presented for two different mass ow
rates of HTF along single collector rows. These cases are for mass
ow rates equaling 0.35 kg/s and 0.8 kg/s. As a reference, a steam
cycle at condensing vacuum pressure and another one at atmo-
spheric pressure are also presented.
Fig. 13 demonstrates the effect of changing solar irradiation in-
tensity on the collected thermal energy from a single collector row
as in the left y-axis and on the total mass ow rate of HTF as in the
right y-axis. The collected thermal energy for the binary vapor cycle
is around 235 kW at solar irradiation intensity of 0.5 kw/m
2
and
increases linearly to around 450 kW at 0.9 kW/m
2
. It can be
observed that for the binary vapor cycle R134a with a mass ow
rate of 0.8 kg/s the total thermal energy collected is less than that
for the other binary vapor cycle R134a with a mass ow rate of
0.35 kg/s. However, considering the total mass ow rate of HTF for
this binary vapor cycle, as in the second y-axis, it is signicantly less
for the binary vapor cycle with _ m
r
0.35 kg/s than the other binary
Fig. 11. Total aperture area versus the net electrical power produced.
Fig. 12. Total number of solar collectors versus the net electrical power produced.
Fig. 13. Thermal energy absorbed by the HTF in a single solar collector row and the
total mass ow rate of the oil in all solar collector rows versus variation of solar
irradiation intensity.
F.A. Al-Sulaiman / Energy 58 (2013) 561e570 568
vapor cycle with _ m
r
0.8 kg/s. The difference in the total mass ow
rate of the HTF between these two cases decreases from190 kg/s at
G
b
0.5 kW/m
2
to reach around 160 kg/s at G
b
0.9 kW/m
2
. This
gure illustrates that lowering the mass owrate per solar collector
row reduces the needed total mass ow rate of the HTF and,
consequently, the operating cost. The main reason of this decre-
ment is due to the reduction in the required total aperture area as
discussed in the next paragraph.
Variation of the total aperture area as the solar irradiation in-
tensity varies is illustrated in Fig. 14. For the reference SRC-A, the
total aperture area is relatively large due to the lowefciency of this
cycle. It varies from580,000 m
2
at G
b
0.5 kW/m
2
to 290,000 m
2
at
G
b
0.9 kW/m
2
. More importantly, it can be observed that the
required number of solar collector rows and, consequently, the total
aperture area for the R134a binary vapor cycle with _ m
r
0.35 kg/s
is less as compared with the same cycle with _ m
r
0.8 kg/s. This
difference is around 20,000 m
2
.
5. Conclusions
In this study, sizing and performance analyses of different bi-
nary vapor cycles as compared to steamRankine cycles all operated
by PTSC are presented. The study considers seven refrigerants for
the bottoming cycle: R600, R600a, R134a, R152a, R290, R407c, and
ammonia. In this study, different electrical power load re-
quirements, 50e100 MWe, and the effect of that on the solar eld
are examined. In addition, the effect of solar irradiation intensity
variation on the solar eld for a xed electrical power load,
50 MWe, is assessed. Further, this study examined the relation
between the parabolic trough solar collectors and the electrical
power needed for different vapor Rankine cycles. The study reveals
that signicant electrical power increment can be gained when a
binary vapor cycle is used as compared to the SRC-A. Nonetheless,
the SRC-V has the highest performance. The R134a binary vapor
cycle has the best performance among the binary vapor cycles
considered and, hence, requires the smallest solar eld size.
Moreover, the R290 binary vapor cycle has the second best per-
formance and, thus, requires the second smallest solar eld size
while the R600a binary vapor cycle has the lowest performance
among the binary vapor cycles examined. Furthermore, the R152a,
R407c, R600, and ammonia binary vapor cycles have similar per-
formance and solar eld size requirements. Moreover, optimization
shows that lowering the mass ow rate of HTF per each solar col-
lector row, within the range considered, results in a reduction of the
required number of solar collector rows and, thus, in savings.
Acknowledgment
The author acknowledges the support of King Fahd University of
Petroleum & Minerals (KFUPM), Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, for this
work through project # JF-101013.
References
[1] Niknia I, Yaghoubi M. Transient simulation for developing a combined solar
thermal power plant. Appl Therm Eng 2012;37:196e200.
[2] Montes MJ, Abnades A, Martnez-Val JM. Performance of a direct steam
generation solar thermal power plant for electricity production as a function
of the solar multiple. Sol Energy 2009;83:679e89.
[3] Zarza E, Rojas ME, Gonzlez L, Caballero JM, Rueda F. INDITEP: the rst pre-
commercial DSG solar power plant. Sol Energy 2006;80:1270e6.
[4] Wang M, Wang J, Zhao Y, Zhao P, Dai Y. Thermodynamic analysis and opti-
mization of a solar-driven regenerative organic Rankine cycle (ORC) based on
at-plate solar collectors. Appl Therm Eng 2013;50:816e25.
[5] Li Jing, Pei Gang, Li Yunzhu, Wang Dongyue, Jie Ji. Energetic and exergetic
investigation of an organic Rankine cycle at different heat source tempera-
tures. Energy 2012;38:85e95.
[6] Roy JP, Misra Ashok. Parametric optimization and performance analysis of a
regenerative Organic Rankine Cycle using R-123 for waste heat recovery.
Energy 2012;39:227e35.
[7] Lee Yuh-Ren, Kuo Chi-Ron, Wang Chi-Chuan. Transient response of a 50 kW
organic Rankine cycle system. Energy 2012;48:532e8.
[8] Montes MJ, Rovira A, Muoz M, Martnez-Val JM. Performance analysis of an
integrated solar combined cycle using direct steam generation in parabolic
trough collectors. Appl Energy 2011;88:3228e38.
[9] Yang Y, Yan Q, Zhai R, Kouzani A, Hu E. An efcient way to use medium-or-low
temperature solar heat for power generation e integration into conventional
power plant. Appl Therm Eng 2011;31:157e62.
[10] 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 1 February 2013;50. ISSN: 0360-5442:194e204. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.11.029.
[11] WangJ, YanZ, WangM, MaS, Dai Y. Thermodynamicanalysis andoptimizationof an
(organic Rankinecycle) ORCusinglowgrade heat source. Energy1January2013;49.
ISSN: 0360-5442:356e65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.11.009.
[12] LUZ International Limited. Solar electric generating system IX technical
description. LUZ, International Limited; 1990.
[13] Price H, Lpfert E, Kearney D, Zarza E, Cohen G, Gee R, et al. Advances in para-
bolic trough solar collectors technology. ASME, J Sol Energy 2002;124:109e25.
[14] Therminol. Heat transfer uids by Solutia Inc., Therminol VP-1. www.
therminol.com/pages/products/vp-1.asp; Aug. 2012.
[15] Valenzuela Loreto, Zarza Eduardo, Berenguel Manuel, Camacho Eduardo F.
Control concepts for direct steam generation in parabolic troughs. Sol Energy
February 2005;78(2):301e11.
[16] Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran M. Thermal design and optimization. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc.; 1996.
[17] Tchanche Bertrand Fankam, Papadakis George, Lambrinos Gregory,
Frangoudakis Antonios. Fluid selection for a low-temperature solar organic
Rankine cycle. Appl Therm Eng August 2009;29(11e12):2468e76.
[18] Kalogirou S. Solar energy engineering: processes and systems. Elsevier; 2009.
[19] Dufe J, Beckman W. Solar engineering of thermal processes. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.; 2006.
[20] V.E. Dudley, G.J. koib, A.R. Mahoney, T.R. Mancini, C.W. Matthews, M. Sloan,
et al., SEGS LS-2 solar collector test results, Report of Sandia National Labo-
ratories, SANDIA941884. http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/pdfs/segs_ls2_
solar_collector.pdf.
[21] NREL. Heat transfer analysis and modeling of a parabolic trough solar receiver
implemented in EES. NREL; 2003.
Nomenclature
A
ap
: aperture area, m
2
A
c
: area of the receiver cover, m
2
A
r
: area of the receiver, m
2
Cp: specic heat, kJ/kg K
Col
s
: total number of solar modules per single row (in series)
Col
r
: total number of solar collectors rows
D: diameter, m
F
R
: heat removal factor
Fig. 14. Total aperture area versus variation of solar irradiation intensity.
F.A. Al-Sulaiman / Energy 58 (2013) 561e570 569
F
1
: collector efciency factor
G
b
: solar radiation intensity, W/m
2
h: enthalpy, kJ/kg
HTF: heat transfer uid
h
c
: convection heat coefcient, kW/m
2
K
h
r
: radiation heat coefcient, kW/m
2
K
k: thermal conductivity, kW/m
_ mr : mass ow rate through the receivers in one row, kg/s
_ mrt : total mass ow rate though all receivers in parallel, kg/s
_ mst : mass ow rate in the steam Rankine cycle, kg/s
Nus: Nusselt number
ORC: Organic Rankine cycle
P: pressure, kPa
Pv: vapor pressure, kPa
_
Q: heat rate, kW
_
Q
u;o
: overall useful heat rate through all the collectors, kW
SRC: steam Rankine cycle
SRC-A: steam Rankine cycle with atmospheric condensing pressure
SRC-V: steam Rankine cycle with vacuum condensing pressure
T: temperature, K
U
o
: overall heat loss coefcient, kW/K
U
L
: solar collector heat loss coefcient between the ambient and receiver, kW/K
w: collector width, m
_
W: power, kW
_
Wot;cyc: net power from the organic Rankine cycle, kW
_
Wst;cyc: net power from the steam Rankine cycle, kW
_
Wnet : net power from the binary vapor cycle, kW
_
Wst : power from the steam turbine, kW
Greek letters
a: absorbance of the receiver
h: efciency
cv: emittance of the receiver cover
r : emittance of the receiver
g: intercept factor
K
g
: incidence angle modier
s: StefaneBoltzmann constant, kW/m
2
K
4
r
c
: reectance of the mirror
s: transmittance of the glass cover
Subscripts
0: atmospheric conditions
el: electrical power
ev: evaporator
g: generator
i: inlet
j: property value at state j
o: organic
op: ORC pump
ot: ORC turbine
r: receiver
rt: all the receivers (collectors in parallel)
st: steam
u: useful
F.A. Al-Sulaiman / Energy 58 (2013) 561e570 570