Comparison of line focusing solar concentrator fields considering shading and blocking

Abstract The performance of line focusing solar collectors [Parabolic Trough Concentrator (PTC), Linear Fresnel Reflector (LFR) and Compact Linear Fresnel Reflector (CLFR)] is affected by many factors. Due to end effect, inter-row shading and blocking (for LFR and CLFR), the complete aperture of the collector cannot be utilized. Besides, the cosine effect, reflectivity of reflectors, intercept factor, transmissivity of receiver cover, absorptivity of absorber tube and thermal losses are the other major contributors to the energy losses. In the current work, PTC, LFR and CLFR fields are compared in terms of energy losses, net energy collection by fluid, electricity generation and cost of electricity. The ratio of collector aperture area to land area is named as land coverage ratio. The appropriate values of land coverage ratio are found out corresponding to minimum cost of electricity for different technologies. The corresponding annual energy collection by fluid and the annual electricity generation have also been calculated. It is seen that there is no significant difference in the performance of LFR and CLFR fields. For low values of receiver height to collector width ratio, the LFR field results in the largest levelised cost of electricity and the PTC field results in the lowest.

[1]  M. Valdés,et al.  Solar multiple optimization for a solar-only thermal power plant, using oil as heat transfer fluid in the parabolic trough collectors , 2009 .

[2]  Ennio Macchi,et al.  Comparison of Two Linear Collectors in Solar Thermal Plants: Parabolic Trough Versus Fresnel , 2013 .

[3]  Masud Behnia,et al.  Performance evaluation of solar thermal electric generation systems , 2003 .

[4]  Raymond W. Harrigan,et al.  Solar energy fundamentals and design : with computer applications , 1985 .

[5]  Ennio Macchi,et al.  Comparison of different solar plants based on parabolic trough technology , 2012 .

[6]  Julio Chaves,et al.  Etendue-matched two-stage concentrators with multiple receivers , 2010 .

[7]  Jan Fabian Feldhoff,et al.  Energetic Comparison of Linear Fresnel and Parabolic Trough Collector Systems , 2012 .

[8]  Roberto Grena,et al.  Solar linear Fresnel collector using molten nitrates as heat transfer fluid , 2011 .

[9]  Rainer Kistner,et al.  Influence of Direct Normal Irradiance Variation on the Optimal Parabolic Trough Field Size: A Problem Solved with Technical and Economical Simulations , 2002 .

[10]  Ari Rabl,et al.  Active solar collectors and their applications , 1985 .

[11]  G. Morrison,et al.  Compact Linear Fresnel Reflector solar thermal powerplants , 2000 .

[12]  G. Morin,et al.  Comparison of Linear Fresnel and Parabolic Trough Collector power plants , 2012 .

[13]  J. K. Nayak,et al.  Shading and available energy in a parabolic trough concentrator field , 2013 .

[14]  Daniel Feuermann,et al.  Analysis of a two-stage linear Fresnel reflector solar concentrator , 1991 .

[15]  M. Conti,et al.  Shadows' effect in a large scale solar power plant , 1977 .

[16]  Vashi Sharma.  Hourly and Monthly Variation in Shading and Blocking of Aperture Area in a Linear Fresnel Reflector Field , 2014 .

[17]  J. K. Nayak,et al.  Effects of shading and blocking in linear Fresnel reflector field , 2015 .

[18]  Ennio Macchi,et al.  A numerical model for off-design performance prediction of parabolic trough based solar power plants , 2012 .

[19]  Philip Davies,et al.  Cost-exergy optimisation of linear Fresnel reflectors , 2012 .