Applied Energy 202 (2017) 377–385

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage:

Efficient solar power generation combining photovoltaics and mid-/low-
temperature methanol thermochemistry
Wenjia Li a,b, Yong Hao a,b,⇑
Institute of Engineering Thermophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, PR China
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, PR China

h i g h l i g h t s 

A PVT system integrating PV and thermochemistry is proposed, for the first time. 
High efficiency, energy storage ability and temperature insensitivity are achieved. 
Net solar-electric efficiency of 43% and overall efficiency of 55% are obtained. 
Solar energy storage via syngas enables stable power supply all day long.

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

Article history: A hybrid solar power generation system integrating a solar photovoltaic (PV) module and a solar thermo-
Received 1 February 2017 chemical module is proposed based on methanol thermochemistry. Sunlight is concentrated by trough
Received in revised form 13 April 2017 mirror collectors and partially converted to electricity by PV cells overlain on the surface of a solar ther-
Accepted 9 May 2017
mochemical reactor. An endothermic chemical process of methanol (e.g., decomposition) within the reac-
Available online 1 June 2017
tor then absorbs the ‘‘waste heat” of the PV cells and simultaneously cools the cells. During this process,
the low-level thermal energy from the sunlight is upgraded to high-level chemical energy in syngas,
which is stored and burned to generate electricity when necessary. Analysis indicates that the theoretical
net solar-electric efficiency of the hybrid system could be as high as 45% and relatively insensitive to
Methanol thermochemistry operation temperature and pressure. Additionally, the system exhibit a good potential in solar energy
Hybrid storage, and capable of providing stable electricity supply around the clock. The PV–thermochemical
Power generation hybrid system might suggest a promising approach for efficient and stable power generation from solar
Efficiency energy.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction (PV) cells is relatively low. Take crystalline silicon solar cells for
example, although the entire visible part of the solar spectrum
Drastic increase in fossil fuel consumption and the consequen- and some parts of the infrared spectrum fall well within their con-
tial worldwide climate change have lead to a pressing demand on version capability, efficiency of commercially available silicon cells
low-cost, large-scale utilization technologies of renewable energy is usually 10–20% [1], while the majority of solar irradiation is
to gradually phase out fossil fuels in a foreseeable future. Renew- wasted in the form of low-temperature (e.g., 100 °C or lower)
able energy sources that are commensurate with or far beyond thermal energy [2]–longer wavelength radiation that falls below
the scale of human energy demand, such as solar energy, are rare the band gap of silicon does not carry enough energy to excite elec-
and yet carry particularly important historical missions. trons and thus entirely turns into dissipated heat; shorter wave-
Solar energy utilization still faces a major cost barrier that par- length radiation with photonic energy higher than the band gap
tially results from the relatively low conversion efficiency of sun- can only be partially converted to electricity by quantum principles
light to power. Among a portfolio of current solar power underlying photoelectric effects [3] and the rest is still converted to
technologies, the efficiency of practically applicable photovoltaic heat. Although much higher efficiencies have been achieved
through advances in materials and configuration of solar cells
⇑ Corresponding author at: Institute of Engineering Thermophysics, Chinese (e.g., 46.0% cell efficiency for III–V multi-junction solar cells [4]),
Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, PR China. waste heat still accounts for more than half of the solar energy
E-mail address: (Y. Hao). input. Moreover, not only PV cells are practically used as modules
0306-2619/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

the exergy loss of the collection and conversion pro. transport (e. are both than being converted directly to heat at a much lower energy level. 1).29].g. By comparison.6 Syngas combustion: C combining a heat engine and a photovoltaic module was put for. Fresnel lens. the concept of a hybrid power generation system 0. 12. however.40) of ters [18. PVT system) utilizes dissipated thermal energy term instabilities of solar irradiation through energy storage in from PV modules to supply heat.or nol decomposition system [33] is as high as 35% at a temperature water-heating [13.g. [27] and analyzed by other researchers later [6. but high-efficiency PV cells commonly ORC (due to the low temperature of the heat source. significantly impacts the which means that nearly two-thirds of the incident solar energy is performance of the system. A photovoltaic/thermal hybrid smooth out influences by both transient fluctuations and long- solar system (i. Heat at 200 ciency was enhanced from 9. (15% for solar thermal power generation systems with a central Primary reasons for modest efficiency enhancement of PVT sys- tower receiver concentrator [7]) because significant losses (i.81% to 11. and exergy efficiency.e. a power generation module cesses could be reduced. however. the module factor and optical as high as 45%. Theoretical and experimental studies on PVT systems were DH200 C ¼ 97 kJ/mol) with a gas and steam combined cycle (GSCC) reported as early as the 1970s [11. Energy level 0. PV cells are used as the thermal absorbing terized by high solar-electric efficiency and energy storage capac- layer [9]..e. D Syngas C cient power generation as energy output.. cooling fluid temperature [23]. The high efficiency is mainly due to the compre- modeling studies [17] on PVT systems were performed and verified hensive utilization of physical and chemical energy (Fig. The relatively low efficiency is mainly due to the low efficiency of the PV module Fig. meet the requirements.g. methanol decom- out on the influences of PV cooling channel geometrical parame. which. B To this end. In this study. PVT collector orientation [20]. system energy effi- ciency. we propose a hybrid PVT system. cooling fluid flow rate solar thermal energy is converted to the high energy level (0.16] and numerical of merely 230 °C. nario by combining the two technologies.95) [21–23].12]. ity. CSP generation might achieve a synergistic effect between the stable power output is essential for solar energy utilization tech- two approaches. poses at 200 °C and above.g. with the capability of generating electricity while collect. . Most importantly.8 space.378 W.. from the perspective of the second law of thermodynam. heat [33–35].83% [30].19]. time). For the former. The basic rationale is that thermal respect due to the lack of an energy storage component. but conventional PVT systems often fall short in this of using either one alone. The (e.28. mid-temperature (200 °C) endothermic DH decomposition reaction of methanol (CH3OH ? CO + 2H2. which typically undermines solar PV generation due to PVT system that is not only capable of delivering high energy con- adverse temperature effect of solar cells [8]. From the perspective of the ther. aiming at higher efficiencies beyond the reach nologies. and conversion engines at low temperatures (e. Simulation of a hybrid system combining Si-based CPV 0. The net solar-electric (NSE) efficiency of the solar metha- rejected from PV modules serves as a heat source for space. 140 °C). the low-energy level (0. If we took these factors into consider- dissipated to the ambient. but the energy level of PV-rejected thermal energy Heat at 1300 A is also quite low. In such systems. indispensable for the hybrid system. 1.. Y. Hao / Applied Energy 202 (2017) 377–385 (instead of single cells). The photonic energy of sunlight (at a rela.22] on PV temperature. from heat to work) processes of solar energy. frame shadow [24]. GaAs PV cells therefore.. but can also driving various thermal processes. absorber) into account. Methanol combustion: D ward by Chubb et al. From by experiments. from sunlight temperature coefficient of solar cells [8] and low efficiency of heat to heat). However. losses of the solar collector (including solar concentrator and cient single cells [4] then translates to 35. it must be pointed the efficiency of a PV module to be 90% of that of a single cell [6]. the promotion of the hybrid system efficiency would be less power (CSP) exhibits similarly low or even lower efficiencies than 5% (rather than 11%). Methanol decomposition: A. A new energy. System efficiencies based on the first law of thermodynamics could reach as high as 60–80% [25. it would be much more desirable for such systems to have effi. high-efficiency PV module and a ing heat from the sun.. A temperature-tolerant. Tourkov et al. lead to a clear distinction between of the system combining a triple-junction PV cell and an ORC is cell efficiency and system efficiency. and solar irradiation [21.g. Theoretical and experimental studies were carried the perspective of physical energy utilization.4 with organic Rankine cycle (ORC) was carried out and the effi. for the latter. Energy levels of methanol chemical energy.g.0% effi.36–0.2% (practical efficiency). out that the efficiency of 45% did not take the optical and heat the efficiency of a concentrated PV system consisting of 46. it combines a solar ther- DE A¼ ð1Þ mal driven.0 B Methanol ics. if the optical efficiency of solar collection is 0. concentrated solar ation. potential contribution to efficiency promotion by heat engines is Cascaded utilization of solar energy integrating solar PV and partially offset by the decline in PV efficiency. with heat transfer fluid). Li. tively high energy level) is first converted to electricity rather which is also capable of easily storing thermal energy. a significant improvement compared with the effi- loss become inevitable factors that must be taken into account. However. The energy level is defined as the ratio with solar methanol decomposition might be an appropriate of the enthalpy change (Delta_H) to the exergy change (Delta_E) choice.3% for 150 °C [32]). high-efficiency solar thermal power module. [31] expanded this concept aiming at the best sce- CPV) to enhance power generation performance and lower gener. efficiency ation cost. Analytical studies [15. tems that combine PV modules and heat engines include negative irreversibilities) typically occur during capture (e. of a process [10]: The idea of power generation with solar methanol decomposi- tion was first proposed by Hong and Jin. As a result. low-temperature. 1. work in conjunction with concentrating optics (e. For ciency of 34% of triple-junction PV cells at a solar concentration example.85 [5] and ratio of 200 and temperature of 25 °C. syngas chemical energy and (Si solar cells with a cell efficiency of 12% at 25 °C) and that of the thermal energy at 200 °C and 1300 °C.. because not only the applicability of thermal energy is limited by many factors (e.. or to drive thermal power cycles.14]. These facts. either for direct heating purposes an appropriate form would be much more desirable. which is charac- mal utilization module. could be utilized for version efficiency at relatively low temperatures.26].

the latter is closer to (and yet still above) the energy respectively. The major difference between the hybrid and refer- level of thermal energy at combustion temperature and the exergy ence systems is that the absorbers of the former are covered by loss during combustion is reduced by up to 7%. Li.cell is the individual InP/InGaAs/Ge triple-junction PV cell Fig. Sunlight is first concentrated by a trough solar concentrator. Thermodynamic hybrid and reference systems. internal combustion engines. The GSCC operates at rated operation conditions feature very important for addressing the instability issue of solar unless the syngas supply is used up. in which a part of the methanol is incurred during key steps such as collection. 0. and con. the hybrid sys- posed above could use syngas-driven power generation tem might be suitable for a large-scale. can tolerate temperatures up to 250 °C [41].95). ð2Þ where dQ tot ðT i Þ is the total solar energy input of the point before concentration and gopt is the collector optical efficiency. which however was usually not emphasized or even in this system could be replaced by internal combustion engines.37] leads to significant exergy losses due to the difference cussed shortly. direct combustion of methanol for power generation efficiency..PV . 2. 0.g. efficiency at Ti. For comparison. W. integrating a GaAs PV module and a power genera. heat exchanger B. products as well as unreacted methanol. system with internal combustion engines/fuel cells.. One part of the absorbed sunlight is converted to electricity by the PV mod- ule. Methanol is heated and/or solar thermal energy to be upgraded to and utilized at an elevated vaporized by dissipated heat from PV modules and heat of reaction energy level and to generate power at a significantly higher effi. absorption. Note that the GSCC employed energy. The absorber tube is discretized into control volumes (Fig. in which power generation. As for chemical energy lead to a win-win situation in terms of comprehensive generation utilization. Implications of key features of the novel system are dis- [36.03 [33]) and thermal energy level (e.e. fuel cells or other devices fueled by syngas. Due to optical losses during concentration. centralized power genera- approaches (e.cell  gmod . Hao / Applied Energy 202 (2017) 377–385 379 chemical energy of syngas.81) of the combustion products (at 2. tion module with solar methanol decomposition. To ensure the the low-efficiency dilemma of heat engines driven by PV-rejected storage capacity of the hybrid system. Trickling out from heater ciency. 1. ignored in previous PVT systems.g. the electrical power output is given as: dW PV ðT i Þ ¼ dQ abs ðT i Þ  gT i . [33]. Y.. version of solar energy.g. Description of the system 1300 °C). 4) and a random one is selected for study. a for up to 24 hours. Schematic diagram of the hybrid system.PV is the PV module efficiency at Ti. and heater B. Major differences between them include the PV module and recycling of unreacted Thermodynamic modeling and simulation are carried out on the methanol in the system proposed in this study. In the end. 2 and 3a) hybrid system are InP/InGaAs/Ge triple-junction PV cells. methanol is sequen- up to 23. which is the largest exergy loss in power generation sys- tems [38]. sunlight is focused onto the or whenever needed. The efficiency of the InP/InGaAs/Ge triple-junction PV module used in this study is given as [6]: gT i ..6% of the exergy loss during methanol combustion [39]. the system is so designed heat directly. Analytical methodology is introduced as a reference system (Fig. the integration of thermochemistry into that syngas generated during daytime can last GSCC consumption a PVT system essentially adds energy storage capability as well. 3a). In addition. Reducing the irreversibility during such The mixture of methanol and syngas is cooled in heat exchangers processes is important to further improve the efficiency of solar A and B and finally flows into the syngas storage tank. ð3Þ where gT i . and gmod is the ratio between the total PV module .PV ¼ gT i . considerable irreversibility might still be B. methanol flows to the reactor. Splitting methanol into syngas before combustion can The schematic diagram of the hybrid system and flow diagrams degrade the methanol energy level to the syngas energy level of the hybrid and reference systems are shown in Figs. methanol decomposition in the hybrid system is 150–250 °C. (e. which accounts for PV modules. 3b). 1300 °C with the PV and thermochemical power generation components could energy level of 0. 2 and 3. a solar thermochemical system similar to the system in Ref. decomposed into syngas by the dissipated heat from PV modules.. In the hybrid system (Fig. which in this study. tially pumped from its storage tank into heat exchanger A. we hereby propose a hybrid PVT system (Figs. One possible approach would be revisiting the the mixture is cooled to ambient temperature and methanol is con- idea of PVT but replacing ‘‘thermal” with ‘‘thermochemical” for densed and recycled to the methanol tank. The solar thermal energy is then analysis of the hybrid system shows that the synergy between released at the syngas combustion temperature (e.g. Thus. the chemical components with respect to temperature and energy same as that in Ref. only a part of the sun- light is absorbed by the PV modules. or fuel cells) to tion plant with a GSCC and/or a distributed power generation quickly offset fluctuations in PV outputs during daytime [40]. [33] 3. However. it is given as: dQ abs ðT i Þ ¼ dQ tot ðT i Þ  gopt . the syngas in the ‘‘T” part to help the thermal module of PVT systems out of the tank is compressed and fed into the GSCC as fuel. surface of PV modules by trough concentrators. its temperature is denoted as Ti. ð4Þ where gT i . while completely rely on syngas power generation at nighttime In the heaters (A and B) and reactor. heater Methanol solar thermochemistry makes it possible for low-level A. The conceptual PVT system pro. between chemical energy level of methanol (i. Temperature for Given the complementary characteristics of PV and thermo. the PV component employed in the storage.81) for power generation.

Flow diagrams of (a) the hybrid system. [4.380 W.389 150 0.294 225 0. the radiative heat loss. and DT is the temperature difference between PV where Ta is ambient temperature.266 50 0.257 75 0. 3. Vwind is velocity of wind. Li. Y.298.333 75 0. Diagram of energy transfer processes and energy balance on a selected control volume.275 25 0. efficiency and individual PV cell efficiency (0.0 is the individual PV cell efficiency at a temperature of vective heat loss is given as [42]: 25 °C and concentration ratio of 1 (0. and DNI modules and flowing methanol. is given as [42]: Table 1 Table 2 Efficiencies of the PV cell in Ref.238 125 0.9) [6]. and (b) the reference system.313 175 0. As a part of the dissipated solar energy. calculated by Eq.304 200 0. (4) at different temperatures.351 250 0.314 125 0. [4] at different temperatures. T i þ DT  T a 71:4 which is a default option in the following discussion if not men. the rest is lost to the environment via convection and thermal radiation.loss ðT i Þ ¼ dQ tot ðT i Þ  ða þ c  V wind Þ  . The PV efficiencies of the PV cell is direct normal irradiance. ð7Þ DNI C tioned or 0.0 þ 0:0142 ln C þ ð0:000715 þ 6:97  105 ln CÞ A part of the dissipated solar heat is absorbed by the flowing  ðT i þ DT  25Þ C 6 200. [4]).323 100 0. Efficiencies of the PV cell in Ref.cell ¼ gT i .380 175 0.322 150 0. The rest of the absorbed sun- PV cell efficiency at Ti is given as [6]: light is dissipated in the form of heat.304 . 4.6]. and is given as: dQ diss ðT i Þ ¼ dQ abs ðT i Þ  ð1  gT i . according to Ref. Hao / Applied Energy 202 (2017) 377–385 Fig. The individual shown in Tables 1 and 2. the con- where gT i .342 50 0. respectively. Another part of the dissipated solar in Refs.285 250 0. [6]. [6] at different temperatures.247 100 0. Temperature (°C) PV efficiency Temperature (°C) PV efficiency Temperature (°C) PV efficiency Temperature (°C) PV efficiency 25 0. C is solar con- centrating ratio. Fig. ð5Þ methanol.361 225 0.PV Þ ð6Þ gT i .372 to approximate the PV cell in Ref. are energy.370 200 0. dQ con.

A and Tin.loss ðT i Þ ¼ dQ tot ðT i Þ  eab  b   . C P.P where Wref is the overall work output of the reference system with dQ ðT i Þ ¼ n_  r fT v. 5.B are outlet temperatures of methanol in W PV þ W ME heaters A and B. ð17Þ verse individual points of the system.T i  dT þ n_  DHP. the reference systems is defined as the exergy difference between total thermal energy absorbed by methanol is given as: (R the electricity and exergy of waste heat during sunlight collection. W PVþME  W PV  W ME rincr ¼ . A0 and A are the areas of the ref- ence system (Fig. ð18Þ 8 Q 0tot _ < n  C P. methanol recycling. The schematic diagram of the simulation T sky ¼ T a  8. and LHV is the lower heating value of methanol. ð20Þ Q tot ¼ dQ tot ðT i Þ ð13Þ DNI  C  A0 A where Exheat is the exergy part of the thermal energy absorbed by When the same amount of methanol flows through the refer- methanol in the reference system. Y. nol temperature and vaporizes methanol in the heaters or decom. the energy absorbed by methanol and the erence and hybrid systems that absorb solar energy for the same power produced by the GSCC are the same as that of the hybrid amount of methanol flow through the system (symbolized by n).T i  dT þ n_  DHP.T i is heat capacity of metha- defined as: nol when methanol is at Ti.B fT out. 3a). ð16Þ between the dissipated solar energy and the heat loss. the total solar energy input before concentrating.02  109 W K4 m2.B.loss ðT i Þ ð10Þ which is the sum of the electricity from the PV modules and GSCC.T out. The power generation efficiency of the hybrid system is defined The heat loss parameters are: a = 1. the exergy loss reduction ratio is defined as: Q me ¼ R R Z    dQ ðT i Þ ¼ n_  C P.B Þ T a þ 273:15  1 W PV ðT i Þ  1  1  ð12Þ Exheat T i þ 273:15 rlos. including methanol DNI C warm-up. T out. gse.B þ n_  r ðT v. which is given as [43]: using Aspen Plus [44].A . _ system. R dQ ðT i Þ ¼ n_  C P.B ðT v. dQ ðT i Þ ¼ dQ diss ðT i Þ  dQ con. T ¼  DNI  C  A0 DNI  C  A Accordingly. The GSCC employed in the Z simulation is a combination of a gas turbine. the NSE efficiency is utilized by the PV modules and methanol at one point with tem. The thermal energy absorbed by methanol is the difference W PVþME ge ¼ . Tout. To compare the perfor- n  DHP.A Þ [ ðT in.B is enthalpy change when same as that of the hybrid system). syngas where eab is the emissivity of the absorber and Tsky is the sky tem- storage. a triple-pressure heat Q 0tot ¼ dQ 0tot ðT i Þ ð15Þ recovery steam generator (HRSG).T i  dT > ðT in.B Þ Furthermore.P g .B Þ=T v.T out. methanol as the input. where W ME is the work output of GSCC with the same amount of The thermal energy absorbed by methanol either raises metha. energy absorbed by methanol in the reference system is directly obtained from sunlight. The only difference between them is that the thermal respectively.P 6 T out. B) and reactor. not the PV cells. methanol decomposes and reaches an equilibrium at pressure P To explore the reason for NSE efficiency promotion in the and temperature Tout. ð9Þ is shown in Fig. ð11Þ > :_ the same amount of methanol as the input. defined as [45]: perature Ti. and (2) the reaction products are CO The total solar energy input in the reference system is given as: and H2 only (at stoichiometric ratio). To describe how the sunlight is utilized in the entire W PVþME  W ME hybrid system. W. and DHP. which is Q tot þ n_  LHV given as: where WPV+ME is the overall work output of the hybrid system. the thermal energy absorbed by methanol is given as: W ref  W ME gse. When the thermal energy absorbed that of the reference system (Fig. 2 1 as: b = 2. T v. the electricity increment ratio is where n_ is molar methanol flow rate. Z   T a þ 273:15 when methanol flows through the system.PVþME ¼ . methanol decomposition. The whole process. 3b) and poses methanol in the reactor.loss ðT i Þ  dQ rad.P > T out.B . ð8Þ stored in the syngas. The next analysis is based on Q tot methanol flowing through the whole system.P is vaporization temperature of where WPV is the work output of the PV-only system (its area is the methanol at pressure P. Key param- eters for the simulation are summarized in Table 3. and a steam turbine.B and Tout. hybrid system. The relation between the solar energy input and thermal energy absorbed by methanol 4. the point-wise analysis stated above is taken to tra. Tin. and c = 6.loss ðT i Þ ð14Þ methanol decomposition: (1) thermodynamic equilibrium is reached within the reactor. .T out.B g mance of the hybrid system with that of the PV-only and methanol- only power generation systems.61  103 J K1 m3 [42]. is given as:  1 dA  gopt  gPV ðT i Þ  Z Exheat T i þ 273:15 ¼  . syngas combustion. the NSE efficiency of the ref- by methanol raises the methanol temperature from Ti to Ti + dT in erence system is also defined: heaters A and B.T out.ME ¼ . 2a). Hao / Applied Energy 202 (2017) 377–385 381 ðT i þ DTÞ4  T 4sky 71:4 These equations describe how solar energy is absorbed and dQ rad. the exergy loss reduction between the hybrid and When methanol flows through heaters (A. ð19Þ respectively. r is latent heat of methanol vaporization.loss ðT i Þ  dQ rad. To compare the performance of the hybrid system (Fig. respectively. Results and discussion for at a control volume is given as: The following assumptions are made for the simulation of dQ ðT i Þ ¼ dQ 0tot ðT i Þ  gopt  dQ con. and power generation is simulated perature.92  10 W K m2. Li. The above-mentioned analysis describes how the sunlight is Similar to other solar hybrid power plants.B are inlet temperatures of methanol in heaters A and B.

the seemingly marginal difference between the Turbine inlet temperature 1250 °C NSE efficiency of 45. The NSE effi- Absorptivity of PV modules (a) 1 ciency of 40. Li.38 0. the hybrid system is more than one-quarter higher than the PV- eters described above.9 and an optical efficiency of 0. Hao / Applied Energy 202 (2017) 377–385 Fig.9% and the system electricity efficiency of up to 54. a PV-only system and a Methanol methanol-only system arranged in parallel). The NSE efficiency of the hybrid system first increases and erence system is mainly due to the fact that the absorber in the then declines as the reaction pressure increases. The significant promotion in efficiency compared with the ref- put. Net solar-to-electric efficiency of the hybrid and reference systems.9% to Reaction temperature 225 °C 45. a comparison between the Emissivity of PV modules (eab) 0.32 Solar PV hybrid system and parallel system (i.00 0. 1) of the latter.2–42.30 3 7 11 15 19 23 collector and amount of methanol being the same. temperature is 225 °C and the reaction pressure is 7 bar. methanol).g. indicating that the hybrid system generates more composition of electricity of the hybrid system. savings in 0.40 Compared with the PV-only system.1.1.85 [5] (both multiplied to single-cell efficiency). PV cells have to work Exhaust temperature from HRSG 85 °C as modules and multi-junction cells have to work together with Temperature of syngas storage tank 15 °C solar concentration systems.1.2%.5  106 Pa Ambient temperature (Ta) 15 °C achievable efficiencies at the system level. 6 shows the NSE efficiency of the hybrid only system efficiency of 35. This is mainly due to two reasons: . Table 3 are achieved using the PV cells from Ref. Schematic diagram of the simulation model in Aspen Plus. the 45.3  106 Pa ciency of the hybrid system could be further boosted from 42.4% of Numerical simulation is carried out with the model and param.e.4%.05 0. the exergy loss reduction 0. hence.382 W. is also carried out. According to Eq. (20). [6] when the reaction Summary of key parameters. However.0  105–2. we reach a practically achievable (i. and 4. The NSE efficiency hybrid system is covered by PV modules. 6.75 0.0% efficiency PV cell [4] were used instead. which inevitably incurs a modular Minimum heat transfer temperature difference (DT) 10 °C efficiency coefficient of 0. the effi- Concentrating ratio (C) 80 Reaction pressure 3. if a 46. Parameters Value To evaluate the benefits of the concept of integration between DNI 800 W/m2 the PV-only and reference systems.0% of the PV cells disguises the real difference in practically Fuel inlet pressure 2. system-level) efficiency of 35. When taking both factors into account. the electricity increment ratio (Eq.36 the ‘‘leverage” effect (Fig.5 hybrid system and the reference system is performed. Performance of the hybrid system single-cell efficiency.. the improvement is 0.9% of the hybrid system is approximately one- Collector optical efficiency (gopt) 0.15 between the PV modules and solar thermochemical module and 0.0–35.73 fifth higher than that of 32. For the same amount of solar energy input.9% of the reference system Velocity of wind (Vwind) 4 m/s (Fig. and reference systems and various components of electricity out.46 ratio reaches up to 49%. from 3 to 23 bar. syngas) Methanol 0.80 0.g.44 system. Solar thermal A comparison of the electricity generation between the tandem 0. with the area of the 0. Fig.34 at the cost of even higher-level chemical energy (e.e.70 obtained by taking advantage of the complementary nature 0.5% verted into electricity first and only the rest degrades to low- energy level heat.. 6). 5. indicating that the hybrid system obtains PV[4]+Methanol almost one half more exergy from solar energy than the reference Net solar-electric efficiency PV[6]+Methanol 0. electricity than the parallel one.. which promotes low- 0.4% of the hybrid system and the efficiency of Pressure ratio of gas turbine 17 46. On the other hand. Selected as the indicator. which results in the alleviation of exergy loss during sunlight collection and thus efficiency promotion in the hybrid system. sunlight is con- of up to 42. Y.0% 4.42 exergy always lead to more electricity output and thus higher Electricity ratio efficiency.. 0. Efficiency promotion resulting from integration the true difference therefore is that the NSE efficiency of 45.2% for the PV cells with 46. Pressure/bar (19)) is in the range of 17–18% while the reaction pressure varies Fig.10 level thermal energy to high-level chemical energy (e.4% peak efficiency of the hybrid system already takes both factors into account.

375 11 0. to generate the same amount of electricity.3–76. pressure. Thus. By comparison. opposed to being only used in a cascaded way by the PV module As can be observed from the dashed lines in Figs. Hao / Applied Energy 202 (2017) 377–385 383 (1) the solar energy in the hybrid system is utilized by the solar PV an optimization function of both parameters. .e. When pressure is in the range of 15–23 bar. but other types of solar cells as engines was not explicitly considered. (2) the methanol in the hybrid system is optimal NSE efficiencies for different reaction temperatures/pres- decomposed before combustion. 42. Fossil fuel saving and energy storage reaction temperature for lower reaction pressure is also lower due Analysis of the electricity composition reveals that the majority to heat absorption and volume expansion during methanol decom- of the electricity originates from methanol. Furthermore.. Y. the storage thermal(chemical) hybrid concept presented to be widely applica- of solar energy in previously described PVT systems based on heat ble with not only III-V solar cells. an optimum NSE efficiency is observed in both parameters on system performance and determine optimum the range of 175–250 °C and the optimum remains virtually operating conditions.9%). the optimal 4. It could therefore be envisaged that electricity by solar energy all day could be achieved by using solar with advances in materials science and chemical engineering.. ciency. efficiency of the hybrid system stable even though temperature ity from solar energy accounts for approximately one quarter of the and pressure both change. To reveal the impact of the range of 2–11 bar. the in the PV-only system. [47] demon- while syngas power generation could be completely relied on at strated decomposition of methanol at a respectable rate with 2% nighttime or whenever needed. the NSE effi- influence methanol conversion rate to syngas. from solar thermal energy. 7. For example. the NSE efficiency of the hybrid system. the share of which var. On the other hand. 6). ence of temperature variation can be offset by changing the tion system. Li. This implies that the influ- loss during combustion compared with direct methanol combus. 7). which might inspire approaches (e.g. 7 and 8.28 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 150 175 200 225 250 Pressure/bar Temperature/ Fig. the electricity from solar energy in requirements on system operation. which results in a lower exergy sures remains quite stable (i. 3b) only accounts for 16% of the total to solar energy collection) and pressure (related to pump work). it is possible to keep the maximum NSE ies around three-quarters (73. with PV cells operating at 200 °C for 1320 h. 8. 7 is presented in a different manner in Fig.36 r ba 0.44 Optimal efficiency Net solar-electric efficiency 0. Thus. The same data set as in Fig.429 Net solar-electric efficiency Optimal efficiency 0. and released when it is needed. the solar energy stored in temperature for methanol decomposition to occur at respectable syngas is relatively stable.32 19 150 r 0.275 0. the latest studies by Ma et al.325 ba 0. no significant that the electricity from the PV modules approximately equals that influences on the GaAs structure and PV efficiency are observed.2. as well as the tem. This means that syngas-driven power generation would then primarily shift to the kinetic side.300 175 225 ba 23 200 250 0. ciency increases as temperature increases. the goal of steadily supplying Pt/a-MoC catalyst at 150 °C. which implies that the solar energy can rates could be further lowered. while the efficiency curves start to peak at appropriate 4. the efficiency of the hybrid system at the lowest temperature of 150 °C monotonically declines with the increase of pressure (Fig. solar well.425 ar 3b 0. position. as 0. Impact of reaction pressure and temperature pressures in the temperature range of 175–250 °C. The major limiting factor of the system performance tion. the energy storage via syngas. Net solar-to-electric efficiency of the hybrid system at different reaction temperatures versus reaction pressure.2. PV temperature in the range of 150–200 °C is reasonable syngas carrying sufficient solar energy can be stored first during for present PV cells and PV temperature in the range of 200– daytime (while the PV module simultaneously supplies electric.. It is also noteworthy [46]. According to Leest et al. internal combustion engines or fuel cells) could further studies on materials (e. electricity. The developments of PV cell and be stored for a relatively long time. pressures versus the reaction temperature. W. Net solar-to-electric efficiency of the hybrid system at different reaction Fig. the energy is later released (e. In other words. nisms.450 0. which makes it possible to lower the total electricity. In contrast. This indicates that in the hybrid system.350 15 r 0. including reaction pressure and temperature. while the electric. catalysts) and reaction mecha- be used to quickly offset fluctuations in PV outputs during daytime.. 250 °C might also be reasonable considering advancement in PV ity).6% in Fig.40 ar 2bar 0. even if considered.1. transported to where it is catalyst shall provide a broader and more solid basis for the PV- needed. when pressure is in perature of the heaters and the reactor. which is essentially a system operation strategy to coun- teract solar irradiation fluctuation. respectively.e.. 7 module and thermal module (i. by GSCC) for power genera.400 7b ar 1bar b 0.g. methanol decomposition) as and 8. technologies. energy storage in the form of low-level explicit or latent heat might A close inspection on the influence of temperature shows that be inefficient and uneconomic.g. including temperature (related the reference system (Fig. This means that the hybrid system needs less fossil fuel without sacrificing system performance. 8 in order Major thermodynamic parameters for methanol decomposition to better illustrate the impact of reaction temperature on effi- in the hybrid system. is plotted in Figs.

Hao / Applied Energy 202 (2017) 377–385 unchanged with respect to variations in temperature.5%. pump and syngas compressor. 10 to illustrate individual defined as the difference between the power consumption and combined influences of major irreversible factors on the sys- of the pumps/compressors and the exergy increase of the tem performance. 1. 0. The PV electricity loss in Fig.4 tion has been proposed and analyzed. pump and syngas compressor. PV electricity loss. but also dissipates a considerable tion pressure increases from 3 bar to 23 bar.41 heaters. the pump and compressor (P & C) tion. which in turn lowers the PV and Pressure/bar solar collector efficiencies. The exergy loss of the pumps/compressors is plotted versus reaction pressure in Fig. selected reaction pressure.01 Heat exergy loss ture of methanol. Because evaporation heat accounts for a P&C Ex loss large part of the methanol-absorbed heat (30%). On the other hand.g. exergy loss increases from 0% to 3. while the ratio of P & C the heat transfer temperature difference in the heat exergy loss decreases from 1. 10. As a result. higher reaction pres.03 sure on system performance. the major exergy losses are are opposite. Li..384 W. 9.2 ing conditions of the hybrid system. On one hand. which then results in more exchangers leads to exergy loss. In brief. therefore.04 Ratio to solar energy input Net solar-electric efficiency Net solar-electric efficiency 0. Compared with the compressor exergy loss varia. PVT systems and thermochemical-only systems Pressure/bar (e. Methanol recycling not only loss to solar energy input increases from 0% to 0. Fig. such a combination significantly Fig. 0. thus poses a negative impact on system performance. The first reason is pressure at reaction temperature of 225 °C.40 0. and when the pressure is as low as 1 bar. for it directly influences the vaporization tempera.1%. Fig. and the heat exergy loss is defined nes with increasing pressure. which results from the work thermal energy of the mixture is lost to the environment. With respect to the latter. as the reaction pressure increases. increas- compression work. the out- methanol flowing through the pump for the production of let temperature of the mixture of heat exchanger A is higher the same amount of syngas and thus the increase in both than the ambient temperature (e.6 A novel hybridization between solar PV and solar thermochem- ical power generation modules integrating methanol decomposi- 0.43 Ratio to solar energy perature increases. Theoretical net solar- 0.6 peratures are similar to that presented in Fig.4% at operating temperature 0.02 Sum of all losses (a) Reaction pressure influences the average temperature of 0.e. changes of methanol pump exergy loss can be ignored. the ‘‘cascaded” utilization of solar energy. Exergy losses in methanol pump and syngas compressor versus reaction enhances the efficiency for two major reasons.2 electric efficiency of the hybrid system (after taking all major losses into account) reaches up to 45.g. the efficiency declines as the tem. 15 °C). Our simula- tion results further show that the curve trends at all studied tem- 1. by combining all analyses. further analysis is carried out on 0. On the other hand. The optimal reaction temperature is deter- mined to be 225 °C and the optimal reaction pressure is 7 bar.. Ratio to net solar electricity/% Pump exergy loss 1.4% when the reac- consumes pump work. the ratio of heat amount of heat to the ambient. ing reaction pressure leads to the rise of energy (specifically sure leads to lower pressure ratio of the syngas compressor exergy) loss during the mixture heat recycling process and and thereby to less work consumption and less exergy loss. Conclusions 0.42 components of the system: 0. Y. exergy loss is defined as the sum of the exergy loss in the methanol The sum of exergy losses of the pump and compressor decli. P&C exergy loss and heat exergy loss versus reaction (b) Reaction pressure affects the performance of methanol pressure at reaction temperature of 225 °C. To reveal the underlying reason of the impact of reaction pres. Fig.4% to 0. higher pressure leads to higher pressure ratio of methanol pump and lower methanol conversion rate. the pump work and exergy loss. the changing trends of the pump exergy loss and compressor exergy loss Lastly. Compared with conventional PV- 3 7 11 15 19 23 only systems. which results in the .00 PV electricity loss of the vaporization temperature has a considerable effect on the average temperature of the heaters. as the exergy loss due to the temperature difference between the (c) Reaction pressure affects the degree of heat recovery in heat temperature of the cooled mixture of heat exchanger A and the exchangers. more methanol is recycled ambient temperature. This means that 3 7 11 15 19 23 higher methanol vaporization temperature leads to higher PV module temperature. the maximum PV electricity of this study) and that at changes.8 5. 10 (at 225 °C). the difference between the PV electricity at reaction pressure of ation of the pump and compressor as the reaction pressure 3 bar (i.0 0. 9 shows comparison between the exergy loss vari. 10 shows that the ratio of PV electricity at higher reaction pressures. difference between the actual compression work and ideal which leads to energy (exergy) loss.0 of 225 °C and pressure of 7 bar. the change 0. In other words. 10 is defined as fluid. 0. As mentioned before. the reference system).. the sum of these losses exhibits a minimum at 7 bar and the shape of the curve is nearly opposite to that of the NSE efficiency.4 thereby establishing the universality of the analysis methodology Compressor exergy loss and validity of the conclusions within the primary range of operat- Sum of them 1.

Jürgen P. Keith E. 2017. power generation). Ji J. Experimental study of cooling level during methanol decomposition. An active cooling system for photovoltaic modules. Dubey S.185(Part 2):1031–9. Vanslambrouck B. Ge Y.18 of PV/T hybrid air collector. chemical energy. [33] Hong H. Jin H. Macchi E. Sol [2] Makki A.31(10):1554–66. Advancements in hybrid photovoltaic systems for Energy 2005. The potential role of solid biomass for rural Energy 2010. performance evaluation of solar and other thermal power generation systems: [38] Hong H. Tiwari GN. Appl production from water and methanol using Pt/a-MoC catalysts. and ET solar collectors: a novel transient simulation model. p. Appl Energy 2010. van den Broek M. Hong H.130(1):555–67. Ji J. Philadelphia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015. Inc. Ji J. methanol) and low energy level thermal energy [21] Chow TT.86 (12):2592–7.124 electrical efficiencies of thin film BIOPVT systems. Appl Energy 2012. An improved thermal [47] Lin L. Solar heating and cooling systems by CPVT Energy 2017.87(2):365–79. Qiu Z. [34] Hong H. Panwar NL. Mazón R.22 ture..177:187–95.90(1):57–67.16(1):79–90. Hao / Applied Energy 202 (2017) 377–385 385 decrease of exergy losses during solar energy collection and con. unregulated emissions from a methanol-fueled vehicle and its [7] Gupta MK. Cai R. Sol Energy 1998. thermochemical reactions for effectively utilizing wider solar irradiance. Warta W. fossil fuel (i. Cheun H. In: Proceedings of the 22nd promising approach for effective solar energy utilization in the intersociety energy conversion engineering conference. Dunlop ED. W. Adeli MM. Papadakis G. Gao Rui. [1] International Energy Agency. [45] Buck R. Ma X. Sol Energy 2005.41:658–84. Manolakos D. Simulation and economic analysis 51236008. which brings tremendous [25] Coventry JS. Morrison GL. Solar-hybrid gas [15] Gaur A. Astolfi M. J Appl Phys 1960.31(3):571–8. Reddy VS. et al.62(6):395–406. et al. benefits in system design and system operation.60 (4):460–9. Sensitivity analysis of key operation parame. low-temperature thermal>. Exergy analysis of ply due to the combination of solar PV cells (for daytime power integrated photovoltaic thermal solar water heater under constant flow rate generation) and solar energy storage through syngas (for nighttime and constant collection temperature modes. Agui T. exhibits its capability of uninterrupted and stable electricity sup. Chana ALS. Appl Energy 2017. operation pressure and temperature.. [6] Kribus A. [4] Green MA. Behzadmehr A. [9] Chow TT. Donald. Zhang L. version 8. Experimental investigation of a solar driven direct-expansion heat pump system employing the novel PV/micro- version by way of both the power generation of solar cells and channels-evaporator modules. Mechanism of upgrading low-grade solar thermal a review. et al.21(4):690–5. Omer S. Hawlader MNA. Performance analyses of combined heating and photovoltaic power solar cells based on experimental solar cell’s characteristics and field-test systems for residences. Effect of temperature on photovoltaic solar energy [39] Jin H. endothermicity of methanol decomposition. De KK. Appl Energy 2012. Behnia M. et al. Prog Photovolt Res Appl 2014. Lee PS. Ju X. [19] Zhou J.544(7648):80–3. Ranjan KR.24(7):905–13. Hong H. [28] Vorobiev Y. Vorobiev P. Zhou W. Bauhuis GJ. Thermodynamics investigation on integrating mid-temperature solar [13] Sun W. photovoltaic/thermal heat pump system. Ji J. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2006.103(1):588–606.87(7):2328–39. Calise F. Energy 2006. Performance of a concentrating photovoltaic/thermal solar collector. partially by the Chinese Academy of Sciences Innovative of a CPV/thermal system coupled with an organic Rankine cycle for increased and Interdisciplinary Team Award. Appl Energy 2016. (4):427–39. Sui J. due to opposite [26] Henning H. Aspen technology. Farahat S. [24] Wang Y. The hybrid system also BIPV modules by forced convection in the air channel. The second reason is [20] Kostić LT. Appl Energy [36] Olah GA. Zhang C. Xiong Y. Low-temperature hydrogen and electrical model for a solar photovoltaic thermal (PV/T) air collector. (4):361–6.]. Science Foundation of China under award number 51590904 and [30] Kosmadakis G.130:326–32. J Sol Energy Eng 2002. Denk T. Yao S. photovoltaic and thermal systems.90(1):137–41. and partially by the Chinese power generation. Pfänder M. Fong KF. Ekins-Daukes NJ.44 2013. (18):2636–9. [29] Han X.86(3):310–6. Lina Z. [17] Sarhaddi F. Fundamental losses in solar cells. J Sol Energy Eng 2008. Nature Energy 2010. Energy 2015. Zhao X. Pei G. A review on photovoltaic/thermal hybrid solar technology. Pavlović ZT. Energy and exergy analysis of a chemical process Appl Energy 2016.22 generation solar collectors. Appl [5] Buonomano A. .85(2):308–24. Appl Energy (1):2–9. regulated. Bräuning T. Anward SI. Luo C. [14] Chen H. Appl Energy 2009. at the cost of the decrease of methanol energy [22] Kaiser AS. Effects of frame shadow on the PV character of a ters of the hybrid system indicates its relative insensitivity to the photovoltaic/thermal system. Tan J. the PV–thermo. Schwarzbözl P.86(5):697–705.178:484–95. Zhang L. Thermal-photovoltaic solar hybrid system for efficient solar energy conversion. <http://www. Performance characteristics of a combination solar chemical hybrid system proposed in this work could provide a photovoltaic heat engine energy converter.47:448–61. Sandhu GS. et al. Ind Eng Chem Process Des Develop 1982. University of Chinese with south façade design. Angew Chem 2005. Performance study of heat-pipe solar [44] Aspen PlusÒ. Kawamura K. Thermodynamic ozone forming potential. Energy analysis of a hybrid solar concentrating This study is partially supported by the National Natural photovoltaic/concentrating solar power (CPV/CSP) system. Tiwari GN. Paepe MD. Technology Roadmap: Solar Photovoltaic Energy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015. Degradation mechanism [16] Dubey S.aspentech. Yang Y. Kaushik SC. Jin H. Sci Bull 2015. Solar thermal power cycle with integration of 2014. Appl Energy from solar cells. Prog Photovolt Res parabolic trough mid-temperature solar receiver/reactor for hydrogen Appl 2011. Ajam H. Sol Energy 1979. 10–14 near future. Performance evaluation of a PVT/ORC (photovoltaic Government Award of the Recruitment Program of Global Experts. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015.19(3):286–93. et al. electrification: a techno economic analysis for a hybrid microgrid in India. Academy of Sciences.130(2):247–66. Optimal design of orientation of PV/T the ‘‘leverage” effect of energy levels between high energy level collector with reflectors. Kaneiwa M. Effects of engine misfire on photovoltaic systems. Sandhu GS. García JR. Jin H.78(2):211–22. [18] Teo HG. Xu C. Y. Sol Energy 2011. González-Hernández J.50:567–82. meteorological data. system with distributed parameters based on the enthalpy-direction factor [41] Takamoto T. Potential of polygeneration with solar thermal and [37] Wang X. Sabir H. Based on all above-mentioned advantages. Cai R. Prog Photovolt Res Appl 2016. [43] Zhao Y. Appl Energy 2011. Sol Energy 2006. Appl Energy 2009. Appl Energy 2014. photovoltaic systems using high-efficiency InGaP/InGaAs/Ge triple-junction [11] Wolf M. 2012. Vera F. Beyond oil and gas: the methanol economy. Appl [40] Mazzola S. Phys Chem Chem Phys 2016. Jin H. J Sol Energy Eng 2008. Mittelman KG.2.169:370–83.78(1):49–58. He W. Huisseune H.80 Acknowledgments (2):170–6. [46] Leest RH. [27] Chubb L. production. et al. Zhang X.87(10):3023–9. [31] Tourkov K. Mid-temperature solar fuel process combining dual (Version 48). Pavlović TM.e. References [32] Lecompte S.88(1):224–31. Bett AW. [10] Ishida M. Appl Energy 2014. Rappaport P. Du Z. Energy Convers 1976. Jie P. the latter is upgraded to the energy level of syngas 2009. methanol decomposition and middle-temperature solar thermal energy. Liu Q. Li. Performance of PV-Trombe wall in winter correlated thermal energy and coal-fired power system [diss. A chemically intercooled gas turbine cycle for recovery of conversion. Energy and exergy analysis of photovoltaic–thermal collector with and without glass cover. Pei G. Wang Z.190:960–80. Carsten A. Solar cell efficiency tables [35] Liu X. 2015. Modeling of concentrating responses of PV cells and methanol thermochemistry to tempera. King DL. Palombo A. Xu P. [8] Wysocki JJ. Modelling of parabolic trough direct steam combined photovoltaic/thermal flat plate collectors. [12] Florschuetz LW. Appl Energy 2016. 254–63. August 1987.135:88–97. Analytical expressions for temperature dependent turbine-based power tower systems (REFOS). Sodhac MS. thermal/organic Rankine cycle) system with optimization of the ORC and evaluation of several PV (photovoltaic) materials. Review of organic Rankine cycle (ORC) architectures for waste heat recovery. (15):10232–40. energy and experimental validation. Hao L. [23] Tiwari A. Mulder P. Analytical expression for electrical efficiency (s) of GaAs solar cells with Cu contacts.90(1):309–15. Schaefer L. et al. enhanced solar cells performance. Bulat L. Operational performance of the development of a 15 kW [3] Hirst LC. Extension of the Hottel-Whillier model to the analysis of [42] Odeh SD.82:839–49. Annual output estimation of concentrator diagram.146:442–52. Zamora B.