Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
1
Centre for Petroleum Energy Economics and Law (CPEEL), University of Ibadan, Nigeria
2
Directorate of Research, Innovation, Consultancy and Extension, Kampala International University, Uganda
3
National Engineering Design Development Institute Nnewi, Nigeria
ABSTRACT
The study proposed methods of determining the relative suitability of three major component/requirements of a hypothetical
100MW concentrated solar power plant in Malam-Fatori, a location in Borno State, northern Nigeria. The
component/requirements to be selected are solar concentrators, heat transfer fluid (HTF) and thermal energy storage (TES)
medium. The most suitable concentrator amongst three different variants; Sky Fuel Sky Trough 80-mm OD receiver (SF),
Siemens SunField 6 (SSF) and EuroTrough ET150 (ET), was selected by subjecting them to simulation at varying solar
multiples using the System Advisor Model (SAM). A comparative analysis of the simulated energy output, levelized cost of
electricity (LCOE) and total solar aperture area was used to determine the most suitable concentrator. For HTF, the study
compared the characteristics of Therminol VP-1 to that of Therminol 59, while for TES medium; HITEC Solar Salt, HITEC
XL (Eutectic), HITEC XL (low calcium) and ordinary HITEC Salt were subjected to comparative analysis based on the climatic
conditions of the location under review and the chemical composition of the various media. The study revealed that SF has
highest annual energy output and the lowest LCOE, while also competing favourably in terms of land requirement (< 3% more
land requirement than SSF and ET). It further revealed that Therminol VP-1 is preferable to Therminol 66 as HTF due to
higher maximum operating temperature and maximum field flow velocity. Additionally, HITEC Solar Salt is the most
preferred TES medium due to greater tolerance to high ambient temperatures and absence of corrosive calcium nitrates.
Key Words: Concentrated solar power, solar multiple, parabolic trough concentrator, heat transfer fluid, thermal
energy storage.
1. Introduction
Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) system is a solar thermal system that utilises mirrors or lenses to concentrate direct
solar radiation to produce heat energy that could subsequently be converted into electricity amongst other uses [1]. A
typical CSP plant used for power generation comprises concentrator, receiver, and 3 sub-systems namely the heat
transport, energy storage and power conversion sub-systems as highlighted in Figure 1.
CONCENTRATOR
SOLAR RECEIVER DIRECT
RADIATION CONNECTION ELECTRICITY
CONVERSION
ENERGY
TRANSPORT
HEAT LOSSES
ENERGY
STORAGE HEAT TO
ENVIRONMENT
The major types of CSP systems are the parabolic Trough Concentrator (PTC), Linear Fresnel Reflector (LFR), Power
Tower or Central Receiver System (CRS) Technology and the Dish Engine (DE) Technology [2]. CSP systems work
on two major principles: line-focussing and point-focussing. The CRS and DE technologies are categorised as point
focussing systems while the LFR and PTC fall under the line focussing systems. However, most commercially viable
type of CSP for large-scale on-grid electricity generation are the line-focussing systems. Furthermore, the PTC is the
most matured and widely deployed CSP technology, hence its adoption for this study [3], [4],[5]. A pictorial model and
partial snapshot of an existing PTC CSP plant are illustrated in Figures 2 and 3 respectively.
There are many variants of the component and requirements for operating a CSP plant. In order to ensure optimal
performance of a CSP system, it is essential to determine the most suitable component and/or requirements of the
system in a specific location. In this regard, the study devised a means of selecting 3 major component/requirements
for a parabolic trough CSP, which are the concentrator, heat transfer fluid (HTF) and thermal energy storage (TES)
medium. The most suitable concentrator for a specific location was determined through simulation of the outputs of
different types/makes of the PTC. In considering HTF and TES medium, the two candidates based on available
technology are oil and molten salt respectively. Oil is used as HTF due to its relatively lower freezing temperature
while salt is used as TES medium owing to its relatively higher stability at temperatures > 5000C [8],[9],[10]. The use
of molten salt as both HTF and TES medium could be feasible in the near future through the process of direct steam
generation which has potential for reduced TES cost and improved TES performance [11].
2. Methodology
Some locations in northern Nigeria were observed to have relatively high direct normal irradiation (DNI) of about 2000
kWh/m2, higher than the 1800 kWh/m2 minimum acceptable design DNI for CSP plants [11],[12],[13],[14]. In
anticipation of future deployment of CSP in northern Nigeria, a location with adequate DNI, Malam-Fatori in Borno
State, was selected for simulation using the System Advisor Model (SAM) Software of the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL), California USA. The DNI of Malam-Fatori was obtained from the European Union Photovoltaic
Geographical Information System (EU-PVGIS) Software and validated theoretically using Equations (1) – (9) in the
absence of pyrheliometer used for on-site measurement of DNI.
(1)
Where
The GHI data for the location, Gunn Bellanni readings (HGB) measured in millilitre, was obtained from Nigerian
Meteorological Agency (NIMET) and converted to MJ/ (m2.d) by a conversion factor of 1.1364 [15], [16]. The daily
average diffuse radiation , as highlighted in [17] is given as:
(2)
(3)
Where
( )
(4)
Where r = ratio of the total radiation for the hour to the total radiation for the whole day, given as:
(5)
b = 0.6609 - 0.4767
The hourly value of the diffuse solar radiation [18] could be obtained from:
] (6)
From Equation (1), we can deduce the equation for the total hourly solar radiation as follows:
(7)
Where
Hourly direct solar radiation on a normal surface relative to the direction of the beam is given as:
(8)
(9)
In a previous study analysing the performance of a 50MW CSP plant at solar multiples between 1-1.5, optimal
solar multiple was obtained as 1.16 [19]. In this study, the output energy, levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) and total
solar aperture area of a 100MW CSP plant were simulated using the SAM at solar multiples of 1.1-2.0 at intervals of
0.15. Adopting the design of the 100MW CSP Reference Plant in Dagett California USA for a similar plant in Malam-
Fatori Borno State northern Nigeria, and developing typical meteorological year (TMY) data for the location as
highlighted in [20], the most suitable concentrator was determined by simulating mentioned outputs from three
different variants of concentrators; Sky Fuel Sky Trough 80-mm OD receiver (SF), Siemens SunField 6 (SSF) and
EuroTrough ET150 (ET). Some design parameters of the solar collector assembly (SCA) of the respective concentrators
investigated are highlighted in Table 2.
For the HTF, the characteristics of two types: Therminol VP-1 and Therminol 59 were compared taking the climatic
condition of the proposed location into consideration. Four types of TES medium: HITEC Solar Salt, HITEC XL
(Eutectic), HITEC XL (low calcium) and HITEC were subjected to comparative analysis based on the climatic
conditions of the location under review.
It can be observed from Table 4 that SF has the highest annual output energy and the lowest LCOE amongst the three
concentrators at all investigated solar multiples. An inverse relationship between output energy and LCOE could also
be deduced from the results in Table 4. SF however requires more landmass (< 3%) relative to SSF and ET as
indicated in figures 6 - 8. Since cost of land is an input to LCOE, the independent size of the land becomes irrelevant
because its cost was catered for in the calculation of LCOE. SF is thus the preferred solar concentrator for a 100MW
CSP Plant in Malam-Fatori, Borno State Nigeria.
Figure 8: Required Solar Aperture Area per Concentrator at Different Solar Multiples.
The characteristics considered for the candidate HTF in the comparative analysis are highlighted in Table 5.
Table 4 indicates that Therminol VP-1 has higher maximum operating temperature and maximum field flow velocity
compared to Therminol 66. Thus, the former would operate at relatively higher temperatures without breakdown of its
chemical composition in comparison to the latter. Furthermore, the capacity of Therminol VP-1 to operate at relatively
higher temperatures is considered more significant than the relatively lower operating temperature of Therminol 66
since the location under review is in a temperate region where ambient temperatures are unlikely to fall to 00C.
Therminol VP-1 is therefore the preferred HTF for a 100MW CSP plant in the location under review. For the TES
Medium, the characteristics considered for the comparative analysis are highlighted in Table 6.
4. Conclusion
The need to ensure optimal performance of CSP plants necessitates the determination of the most suitable
component/requirements for such plants. This study revealed that SF is the most suitable concentrator for a 100MW
CSP plant in Malam-Fatori Borno State amongst the three concentrators investigated, while Therminol VP-1 and
HITEC Solar Salt are the most preferable HTF and TES medium respectively. These findings were derived through the
simulation of three different concentrators for a prospective PTC CSP plant in Malam-Fatori Nigeria, and the
comparative analysis of two variants of HTF and four types of TES medium.
REFERENCES
[1] K. Lovegrove and W. Stein, Introduction to concentrating solar power (CSP) technology. Concentrating solar
power technology: principles, developments and applications. K. Lovegrove and W. Stein. Eds. Cambridge:
Woodhead Publishing Limited, 2012, Chapter 1.
[2] K. Lovegrove and J. Pye, Fundamental principles of concentrating solar power (CSP) systems. Concentrating solar
power technology: principles, developments and applications. K. Lovegrove and W. Stein. Eds. Cambridge:
Woodhead Publishing Limited, 2012, Chapter 2: 16-45.
[3] Concentrating Solar Power Vol. 1 Power Sector Issue 2/5, Renewable Energy Technologies: Cost Analysis Series,
International Renewable Energy Agency, pp. 1-38, 2012 [online]. Available:
https://www.irena.org/documentdownloads/publications/re_technologies_cost_analysis-csp.pdf. [Accessed Apr. 14,
2016].
[4] M. Moser, F. Trieb and T. Fichter, “Potential of Concentrating Solar Power Plants for the Combined Production of
Water and Electricity in MENA Countries”, Journal of Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and
Environment Systems, Vol. 1 No.2, pp. 122-140, 2013.
[5] S.A. kalogirou, Solar Energy Engineering: Processes and Systems, 2nd ed, Oxford: Academic Press, 2014, Ch 3.
[6] H. M. Cekirge1, A. Elhassan, “A Comparison of Solar Power Systems (CSP): Solar Tower (ST) Systems versus
Parabolic Trough (PT) Systems”, American Journal of Energy Engineering Vol. 3 No. 3 pp. 29-36, 2015.
[7] Solar Thermal Energy News, HELIOSCSP, 2020 [online]. Available: http://helioscsp.com/current-status-of-
concentrated-solar-power-csp-globally/. [Accessed May 6, 2020].
[8] D. Kearney, U. Herrmann, P. Nava, B. Kelly, R. Mahoney, J. Pacheco and H. Price, “Assessment of a Molten Salt
Heat Transfer Fluid in a Parabolic Trough Solar Field”, Journal of Solar Energy Engineering Vol. 125 No.2, pp.
170-176, 2003.
[9] K. Vignarooban, X. Xinhai, A. Arvay, K. Hsu and A.M. Kannan, “Heat transfer fluids for concentrating solar
power systems – A review”, ScienceDirect: Applied Energy Vol. 146, pp. 383–396. 2015.
[10] Public Final Technical Report DE-FC36-08GO18038, Development of Molten Salt HTF for Parabolic CSP
Troughs, Abengoa Solar, pp. 4-35, 2013 [online]. Available: https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1090096.
[Accessed Jun. 17, 2019].
[11] C. Sharma, A.K. Sharma, S.C. Mullick and T.C. Kandpal, “Assessment of solar thermal power generation
potential in India”, ScienceDirect: Renewable and sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 42, pp. 902-912, 2015.
[12] M.E. Mashena and N.A. Alkishriwi, The economics of solar thermal electricity in Libya. Proceedings of the
international Conference on recent advances in Electrical system, Tunisia 2016. Bouktir, T. and Neji, R. Eds, pp.
56-61, 2016 [online]. Available:
https://journal.esrgroups.org/jes/icraes/CDICRAESFinal/ICRAES16ProcPaper10.pdf. [Accessed Feb. 22, 2016].
[13] O. Ogunmodimu and E.C. Okoroigwe, “Concentrating solar power technologies for solar thermal grid electricity in
Nigeria: A review”, ScienceDirect: Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, Vol. 90, pp. 104-119, 2018.
[14] S.L. Habib, N.A. Idris, M.J. Ladan and A.G. Mohammad, “Unlocking Nigeria’s Solar PV and CSP Potentials for
Sustainable Electricity Development”, International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Vol. 3 No. 5, pp.
1-8, 2012.
[15] O.S. Ohunakin, M. S. Adaramola, O.M. Oyewola and R. O. Fagbenle, “Correlations for Estimating Solar
Radiation Using Sunshine Hours and Temperature Measurement in Osogbo, Osun State, Nigeria”, Frontiers in
Energy Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 214-222, 2013 [online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11708-013-
0241-2. [Accessed Nov. 25, 2019].
[16] A.S. Sambo, “Solar radiation in Kano: A correlation with meteorological data”, Nigerian Journal of Solar Energy,
Vol. 4, pp. 59–64, 1985.
[17] N.M. Sawaqed, Y.H. Zurigat and H. Al-Hinai, “A step-by-step application of Sandia method in developing typical
meteorological years for different locations in Oman”, International Journal of Energy Research, Vol. 29. pp. 723–
737, 2005.
[18] J.A. Duffie and W.A. Beckman, Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes. 4th ed. New Jersey: Wiley, 2013.
[19] M.J. Montes, A. Abanades, J.M. Martınez-Val and M. Valdes, “Solar multiple optimization for a solar-only
thermal power plant, using oil as heat transfer fluid in the parabolic trough collectors”, ScienceDirect Solar Energy
Vol. 83 pp. 2165–2176, 2009.
[20] O.S. Ohunakin, M. S. Adaramola, O.M. Oyewola, R. O. Fagbenle, D.S. Adelekan, J. Gill and F.I. Abam,
“Photovoltaic performance prediction in Northern Nigeria using generated typical meteorological year dataset”,
African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development Vol. 10 No. 5 pp. 579-591, 2018.
[21] European Union Photovoltaic Geographic Information System, European Commission Joint Research Centre, 2019
[online]. Available: https://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvg_tools/en/tools.html#MR. [Accessed Mar. 25,2020].
[22] National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2017. System Advisor Model Version 2017.9.5 r4.
AUTHOR