Influence of Direct Normal

Irradiance Variation on the

Volker Quaschning
e-mail: volker.quaschning@psa.es
Rainer Kistner
Winfried Ortmanns
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft und Raumfahrt e.V.,
Plataforma Solar de Almerı́a,
Apartado 39-E-04200 Tabernas, Spain
Optimal Parabolic Trough Field
Size: A Problem Solved with
Technical and Economical
Simulations
One of the main problems when designing a solar thermal power plant is finding the
optimal parabolic trough field size. Errors made in this context can easily lead to financial
disaster. Simulation tools that handle all aspects of a power plant (technical as well as
economical) treat such economical problems as a whole and can be very helpful during
the design process. However, even the smartest simulation tool depends significantly on
the input parameters, such as the solar irradiance. As a result of the given considerations,
a new method for estimating the optimized solar field size as a function of the solar
irradiance is proposed. Additionally, this paper demonstrates a path to simulate the com-
plexity of a parabolic trough power plant. 关DOI: 10.1115/1.1465432兴

1 Introduction
Nowadays, any project development of conventional as well
renewable power plants starts with computer-based simulation
runs. For large-scale solar thermal power plants with major invest-
ment requirements, this is even more crucial than for other instal-
lations. Hence, the engineer has to define the optimal design point
of the configuration, and the investors should understand the
quantity of the produced electricity over the entire project life-
time.
New remuneration terms for renewable energy in Spain and
World Bank funding promise good opportunities for the construc-
tion of new solar thermal power plants. Here, one of the most
part of the collected direct radiation that finally reaches the ab-
sorber兲, the mirror cleanliness factor f C , and the incidence angle
modifier K.
Q̇ abs⫽E col•A col• ␩ 0 •K• f C (2)
The solar irradiance E col is the direct normal irradiance E DNI pro-
jected on the collector area considering mutual collector shading
as well as collector end losses and gains. The incidence angle
modifier K 共which is defined as the efficiency at any given angle
divided by the efficiency at zero incidence angle兲 can be calcu-
lated with the angle of incidence ␪ in degrees and two empirical
constants a 1 and a 2 .

challenging tasks represents the determination of an economically
optimized project site and plant design. However, such multidi-
mensional problems can only be solved by means of specific
simulation software tools. Figure 1 shows a block diagram for the
parabolic trough plant modeling with the most important influence
parameters. In the following, the modeling approach for a para-
bolic trough plant applied within the used software will be ex-
plained. It will become obvious on the sample simulation runs that
the variation of the solar irradiance given by different sources for
a specific site has a high influence on the expected operation re-
sults of new power plants.
2 Simulation Of Parabolic Trough Power Plants
2.1 Trough Collector. The thermal output of a parabolic
trough collector depends on the absorbed solar radiation incident
on the collector reduced by the losses of the collector.
Q̇ col⫽Q̇ abs⫺Q̇ loss
冉 冊
␪ ␪2
K⫽max 1⫺a 1 • ⫺a 2 • ,0 (3)
cos␪ cos␪
The computation of the losses is based on an empirical model
which covers heat losses both due to convection and radiation.
The parameters b 1 to b 3 have been determined during several
collector tests,1 so that this formula can be applied to common
collectors depending on the temperature difference ⌬T of the
mean collector fluid temperature and ambient temperature.
Q̇ loss⫽ 共 b 1 •K•E col⫹b 2 ⫹b 3 •⌬T 兲 •A col•⌬T (4)
2.2 Trough Field. An analytical description of the heat losses
in the trough field is not easy to find, since all losses such as heat
transfer through the pipe isolations, losses in connections, fittings,
and other circuit components have to be considered. Empirical
equations deliver a sufficient description of the losses in the pipes2
(1) Q̇ pipe⫽c 1 •A field•⌬T f (5)

The absorbed power varies with the solar irradiance E col , the and the expansion vessel
effective mirror area A col , the optical efficiency ␩ 0 共which is the
1
Dudley et al. 关1兴 determined the parameters ␩ 0 ⫽0.733, a 1
Contributed by the Solar Energy Division of the American Society of Mechanical ⫽⫺0.000884/1°, a 2 ⫽0.00005369/(1°) 2 , b 1 ⫽0.00007276 K⫺1, b 2 ⫽0.00496
Engineers for publication in the ASME JOURNAL OF SOLAR ENERGY ENGINEER- Wm⫺2 K⫺1, and b 3 ⫽0.000691 Wm⫺2 K⫺2 by measurements at a LS-2 collector.
ING. Manuscript received by the ASME Solar Energy Division June 2001; final 2
The parameters c 1 ⫽0,0583 Wm⫺2K⫺1 and d 1 ⫽9345 WK ⫺1 are given by
revision Jan. 2002. Associate Editor: R. Pitz-Paal. Lippke 关2兴 for the 30 MWe SEGS VI power plant.

160 Õ Vol. 124, MAY 2002 Copyright © 2002 by ASME Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 13 Aug 2008 to 171.64.11.87. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig. 1 Influences and relations in a parabolic trough power
plant
Q̇ vessel⫽d 1 •⌬T f (6)
depending on the total solar field size A field and the mean solar
field temperature ⌬T f above the ambient. For a field with n col-
lectors, the field output becomes
Q̇ field⫽n•Q̇ abs⫺n•Q̇ loss⫺Q̇ pipe⫺Q̇ vessel . (7)
If the heat capacity of the heat transfer fluid, the absorber tubes,
and the connecting pipes is considered, a good description of the
behavior during heat-changes can be obtained. For best results,
the time steps for the calculations should be in the magnitude of 5
min or less. However, for most sites only hourly meteorological
data are available. Shorter time steps can be obtained by interpo-
lation.
2.3 Power Block and Operation. The conventional part of
the power plant 共i.e., the steam cycle and its components兲 is cal-
culated with a stationary heat balance, which is a group of equa-
tions describing the form of property changes of the affected
working fluid 共i.e., steam, gas, flue gas, air, water兲, representing
the cycle components such as turbines, heaters, and pumps.
The total number of equations can easily reach thousands de-
pending on the number of used components, the complexity of
their description, and their number of recursive dependencies,
which makes it nearly impossible to present the most important
here. The solution of such complex equation systems was done by
external professional software applications such as ISPEpro™ 关3兴
and GateCycle™ 关4兴.
One calculation with the above mentioned tools takes approxi-
mately 2– 4 sec, hence a typical operation year with 8760 calcu-
lation points 共h兲 needs between 7–9 hrs. To reduce this calculation
time and to find a common interface between a global calculation
tool and the different heat cycle programs, the resulting data is
stored in a n-dimensional matrix. n is the number of conditions
influencing the power block operation, i.e., the solar thermal heat
Journal of Solar Energy Engineering
Downloaded 13 Aug 2008 to 171.64.11.87. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
input, ambient conditions, and electric demand. Each result 共e.g.,
generated power, parasitics, emissions, backup heat兲 has its own
matrix or look-up table. These matrices or tables need to be cal-
culated only once. Real operational data will be available with an
n-dimensional interpolation, which take much less time than a full
cycle calculation. The precision of the results then only depends
on the resolution of the matrices. With this approach, a wide range
of power cycles can be used; even existing data can easily be
integrated.
2.4 Power Economics. A primary question about solar en-
ergy is how it compares economically with alternative sources of
energy. The purpose of any power economic analysis is to illus-
trate how economic methodologies can be used in the design,
sizing, and evaluation of different configuration alternatives of
parabolic trough systems. The assessment shall be done by means
of one or multiple power economic key figures. The selected fig-
ure of merit may allow an objective, general, and project-
independent evaluation of the different technical alternatives.
Therefore, the calculation of a financial figure of merit will not be
taken into account since financial methodologies never can be
project-independent 共e.g., interest rate and debt term are project
specific parameters兲. Consequently, the economic analysis by
means of a single figure of merit can only be one criterion among
others. The obtained results may only be valid for the later defined
conditions and may vary significantly from project 共site兲 to project
共site兲.
For the purposes of this study, the ‘‘Levelized Electricity
Costs’’ 共LEC兲 was selected as the main figure of merit for the
economic feasibility analysis. The LEC is the present value of the
life-cycle costs converted into a stream of equal annual payments
共⫽ levelized兲, and then divided by the amount of electrical energy
E gen,a to be supplied by the corresponding design configuration
each year. The result is a life-cycle cost per unit of energy deliv-
ered to the grid. The computed LEC values for a power generation
system can be significantly influenced by the methodology and
assumptions employed. The LEC methodology applied within this
study is based on the IEA methodology 关8兴, but has been slightly
enhanced. The LEC methodology of this study makes use of cash
flow analysis and is able to consider the time value of money,
mainly by means of present values 共PV兲 of the individual cost
components. This means that instead of the annual O&M or fuel
costs at reference year, the PV of all costs 共including tax pay-
ments兲 over the entire lifetime of the project will be considered.
For the LEC methodology applied within this study, the PV of
total initial capital investment C ii,pv , the PV of the O&M and
replacement costs C om,pv , the PV of the entire tax payments
C tax,pv and in case of hybrid operation the PV of the fuel costs
C fuel,pv are required.
共 C ii,pv⫹C om,pv⫹C fuel,pv⫹C tax,pv兲 •cr f
LEC⫽ . (8)
E gen,a
The key parameter is the capital recovery factor crf or respectively
the discount rate. The crf is reciprocal to the annuity factor and is
used to levelize the present value of the future costs into a annual
charges 共⫽ annuity兲. The crf includes the discount rate and the
economic lifetime of the plant. The discount rate, also known as
opportunity costs of capital, reflects the time value of money and
enables cash flows that are generated over a period of time to be
equated to amounts at a common point of view. The discount rates
are associated with the perceived risk of the project and include
the country specific and technology specific risk characteristic of
the project.
2.5 Implementation. The described models were imple-
mented in the simulation environment greenius 关5兴. The software
computes detailed simulations for technical and economical key-
parameters based upon hourly meteorological data. A validation of
the simulation results with real measured data from the SEGS
power plants has proven an acceptable correspondence. The
MAY 2002, Vol. 124 Õ 161
 Fig. 2 Screenshot of the greenius simulation software used for the sizing of the solar field

screenshot in Fig. 2 shows the simulation results for two days of a solar field size for a given electric capacity, but varying meteo
50 MWe plant using meteorological data with a direct normal data sets. The first data file with a H DNI of 1,800 kWh/共m2a兲 was
irradiation H DNI of 2,200 共kWh/m2a兲. obtained from the METEONORM software database 关6兴. The
other two files with 2,000 and 2,200 kWh/共m2a兲 are specific mea-
3. Sizing of the Solar Field sured years. The first is based on ground-measurements, the sec-
A fast and powerful computer tool is suitable when choosing a ond on satellite data. Figure 4 shows the annual electricity gen-
site, planning, and engineering a solar thermal power plant. Figure eration and the mean annual system efficiency for all three
3 shows the impact of the annual direct solar irradiation H DNI on meteorological data files for a 50 MWe solar parabolic trough
the annual power generation and the levelized electricity costs power plant with a variation of the solar field size. It is obvious
that the optimum system efficiency will be reached with a smaller
共LEC兲 of a 50 MWe SEGS type power plant with a 375,000 m2
solar field for location with a higher H DNI value than for project
solar field. The economical parameters 共e.g., discount rate of 8%,
site with a lower H DNI value. The results obtained with the syn-
solar field costs including heat transfer system of 210 Euro/m2 , thetic METEONORM meteo data show a noticeably large solar
power block costs of 1,000 Euro/kW and O&M costs of 2.4 mil-
lion Euro p.a.兲 have been kept constant. The use of a thermal
storage, even though possible, was avoided to keep the number of
influence parameters in a manageable range and to estimate a
clear correlation of the field size and the solar irradiance. The
decision process with the use and operation of a storage would be
an iterative one.
The annual electricity generation is approximately proportional
to H DNI . However, there are high variations of the results for the
same H DNI range caused by different meteo files and latitudes.
The reality is much more complex, thus the determination of an
economically optimized project site not only depends on the solar
irradiation but on many other parameters.
As soon as the project site has been selected, a detailed plant
design has to be developed. Choosing representative meteorologi-
cal data is the first hurdle to be taken in the planning and engi-
neering phase. The worldwide range of the annual direct normal
irradiation H DNI covers values below 800 kWh/共m2a兲 up to more
than 3,000 kWh/共m2a兲. To demonstrate influence of the irradia- Fig. 3 Annual electricity generation, efficiency, and LEC for a
tion, the following simulations will be run with three different 50 MWe trough plant with a 375,000 m2 solar field size in depen-
hourly meteo data files for the same site in southern Spain. The dence on the DNI „direct normal irradiation… for 50 random cho-
goal of the simulation is to determine the economic optimized sen sites

162 Õ Vol. 124, MAY 2002 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 13 Aug 2008 to 171.64.11.87. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig. 4 Annual electricity generation and mean annual system
efficiency in dependence on the solar field size of a 50 MWe
trough plant for three project sites with different irradiation
Fig. 5 Determination of the optimum solar field size by means
of the levelized electricity costs and the internal rate of return
for three different project sites
Fig. 6 Hours of direct normal irradiance values E DNI of three
different meteo data sets and of the direct irradiance E col in
collector area received by the collector
field size. The reason is not only the lower H DNI , but also the
different distribution of the direct normal irradiance values E DNI
within the file.
However, peak system efficiency does not coincide with the
economic or financial optimum solar field size. Figure 5 demon-
strates that it will be more economic to erect a large solar field and
thus to dump some thermal power from the solar field, but in-
crease the turbine utilization rate. Figure 5 shows in addition, that
Journal of Solar Energy Engineering
Downloaded 13 Aug 2008 to 171.64.11.87. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Fig. 7 Solar field size over the design collector irradiance and
the frequency distribution of the collector irradiance to esti-
mate the optimal solar field size
for the purpose of designing and optimizing the solar field size, it
is sufficient to make use of the LEC as the single figure of merit.
Therefore, the internal rate of return on the equity investment is
additionally inserted into the same graph. As expected before, the
economic and the financial figure of merit have the same results.
The differences in the distribution of the three different meteo
files can be pointed out when comparing the accumulated hours of
irradiance. Figure 6 demonstrates the different characteristic of the
METEONORM data compared to the satellite and ground mea-
surements, which have nearly the same form only with different
annual sums. The METEONORM data results not only in lower
annual sums but also have more hours of E DNI with lower values.
To make the considerations independent from the latitude, the
annual sum of direct irradiation H col received by the collector has
to be calculated. Therefore, the direct normal irradiance E DNI must
be projected into the collector area, and collector end losses and
mutual shading has to be considered for every hour of the year
8760
H col⫽ 兺E
t⫽1
DNI•cos␪ • ␩ endloss• ␩ shading•1h. (9)
Hereby, the angle of incidence ␪ 关7兴 is calculated in dependence
on the sun elevation ␥ S , the sun azimuth ␣ S , the tilt angle ␤ and
the azimuth angle ␥ of the tracking axis at the middle of each time
interval
␪ ⫽arccos共 冑1⫺ 共 cos共 ␥ S⫺ ␤ 兲 ⫺cos␤ •cos␥ S• 共 1⫺cos共 ␣ S⫺ ␥ 兲兲兲 2 兲
(10)
The accumulated hours of the collector irradiance E col are also
displayed in Fig. 6 for the METEONORM data. The irradiation
H col 共annual sum of E col兲 is lower than that of H DNI due to cosine
and shading losses.
The design solar field size A field depending on the design direct
irradiance E col,design can be obtained by solving Eq. 共7兲. The inter-
relation of both parameters is displayed as dotted line in Fig. 7.
The equation depends on the net efficiency of the power block
共thermal-to-electrical兲, the optical efficiency of the collector, the
mirror cleanliness and other parameters. For the underlying simu-
lation runs, the performance parameters of the SEGS VI plant
have been used. For instance, for a 50 MWe turbine with the
SEGS VI power block efficiency of 32.3% the solar field has to
deliver a thermal output of 155 MWth .
Now, the optimal design irradiance has to be found in order to
determine the optimal solar field size. By drawing A field and the
frequency distribution of the direct irradiance of different meteo-
rological data sets over the design direct irradiance in the same
diagram, it can be demonstrated that the value of frequency dis-
tribution for the design irradiance is nearly the same independent
of the meteo data. In the example calculations of this study the
optimal design direct irradiance E col corresponds to the value
MAY 2002, Vol. 124 Õ 163
 which has a frequency distribution between 55– 60% 共see Fig. 7兲 E col ⫽ irradiance received by the collector in W/m2
using the optimal field size A field obtained by Fig. 5. However, it E col,design ⫽ design collector irradiance in W/m2
should be noted that the specific value depends on the economic E DNI ⫽ direct normal irradiance in W/m2
and technical assumption. E Gen,a ⫽ annual generated electricity in kWhel
This knowledge will help to define the optimal solar field size fC ⫽ mirror cleanliness factor
for any specific project location. Assuming the economic and ther- H col ⫽ annual irradiation received by the collector in
modynamic parameters for a 50 MWe plant in another project site, kWh/m2
it is only necessary to prepare the frequency distribution curve of H DNI ⫽ annual direct normal irradiation in kWh/m2
the location-specific meteo data set. With this curve, the design IRR ⫽ internal rate of return in %
irradiance and the optimal field size can be easily determined. The K ⫽ incidence angle modifier
results could be reproduced with the same economical assump- =
LEC ⫽ levelized electricity costs in C/ kWhel
tions as well for other sites. Now for example with the gained n ⫽ number of collectors in the field
conclusion that a irradiation share of 55% leads to the economical n ⫽ number of matrixes for the power block calcula-
optimum, the above process can be done backwards. From a fixed tions
share of 55%– 60% with a sorted meteorological data 共site depen-
Q̇ abs ⫽ solar irradiance absorbed by the collector in W
dent兲 the optimal field size can be easily determined.
Q̇ col ⫽ thermal collector output in W
4 Conclusions Q̇ field ⫽ thermal field output in W
Q̇ loss ⫽ collector heat losses in W
These examples show clearly that powerful simulation tools are
essential for an efficient project development of any solar power Q̇ pipe ⫽ piping losses in W
plant. Accurate and well-validated algorithms have a high influ- Q̇ vessel ⫽ vessel losses in W
ence on the quality of the results. But, if there is a high uncer- t ⫽ time in hours
tainty of the used input parameters, especially the meteo data, the ⌬T f ⫽ mean temperature difference of fluid and ambient in
simulation tools can only deliver qualitative statements. The ex- K
pressiveness of the quantitative results corresponds to that of the ␣S ⫽ sun azimuth according to DIN 5034 共0° north,
input parameters. clockwise positive兲
The results of the solar field sizing have demonstrated that ␤ ⫽ tilt angle of collector tracking axis
simulation tools can be also used to figure out simplified descrip- ␥ ⫽ azimuth angle of collector tracking axis
tion for complex connections, such as the field size and the fre- ␥S ⫽ sun elevation 共0° horizontal, 90° zenith兲
quency distribution of the collector irradiance. In other words, ␪ ⫽ angle of incidence
computer simulation will be increasingly important for the engi- ␩0 ⫽ optical collector efficiency
neering of solar plants as well as finding general statements for ␩ endloss ⫽ collector end loss efficiency factor
simplified analysis. ␩ shading ⫽ mutual collector shading efficiency factor

Nomenclature References
关1兴 Dudley, V. E., Kolb, G. J., Sloan, M., and Kearney, D., 1994, ‘‘Test Results
a 1 ,a 2 ⫽ incidence angel modifier constants SEGS LS-2 Solar Collector,’’ SAND94-1884, Sandia National Laboratories,
A col ⫽ effective collector mirror area in m2 Albuquerque.
关2兴 Lippke, F., 1995, ‘‘Simulation of the Part-Load Behavior of a 30 MWe SEGS
A field ⫽ solar field size in m2 Plant,’’ SAND95-1293, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque.
b 1 ,b 2 ,b 3 ⫽ collector heat loss constants 关3兴 IPSEpro: SimTech GmbH, Graz, Austria.
c1 ⫽ piping loss constant 关4兴 GateCycle: Enter Software, Inc.
C om,pv ⫽ present value of the O&M and replacement costs 关5兴 Quaschning, V., Kistner, R., Ortmanns, W., and Geyer, M., 2001 ‘‘Greenius–A
= new Simulation Environment for Technical and Economical Analysis of Re-
in C
= newable Independent Power Projects,’’ Proc. of ASME Int. Solar Energy Conf.
C fuel,pv ⫽ present value of the fuel costs in C Solar Forum 2001, Washington, DC, 413– 417.
= 关6兴 METEONORM: http://www.meteotest.ch/products/meteonorm/index.html
C ii,pv ⫽ present value of total initial capital investment in C
= 关7兴 Stine, W. B., and Harrigan, R. W., 1985, Solar Energy Fundamentals and
C tax,pv ⫽ present value of the entire tax payments in C Design, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
crf ⫽ capital recovery factor 关8兴 International Energy Agency 共IEA兲, Guidelines for the Economic Analysis of
d1 ⫽ vessel loss constant Renewable Energy Technology Applications, 1991.

164 Õ Vol. 124, MAY 2002 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 13 Aug 2008 to 171.64.11.87. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm