Gregory J.

Kolb
Distinguished Member of Technical Staff, Sandia National Laboratories, MS1127, Albuquerque, NM 87185 e-mail: gjkolb@sandia.gov

Evaluation of Annual Performance of 2-Tank and Thermocline Thermal Storage Systems for Trough Plants
A study was performed to compare the annual performance of 50 MWe Andasol-like trough plants that employ either a 2-tank or a thermocline-type molten-salt thermal storage system. TRNSYS software was used to create the plant models and to perform the annual simulations. The annual performance of each plant was found to be nearly identical in the base-case comparison. The reason that the thermocline exhibited nearly the same performance is primarily due to the ability of many trough power blocks to operate at a temperature that is signicantly below the design point. However, if temperatures close to the design point are required, the performance of the 2-tank plant would be signicantly better than the thermocline. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4004239] Keywords: parabolic trough, thermal storage, thermocline, molten salt, performance

Introduction

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) recently completed a study of molten-salt thermocline energy storage systems for application within trough and tower solar power plants. The results suggest that the capital cost of a thermocline storage system could be 33% less than an equivalent amount of storage using the traditional 2-tank approach [1]. This cost advantage should lead to a signicantly lower levelized energy cost (LCOE) if it can be shown that the annual performance of the thermocline-plant does not degrade relative to a 2-tank plant. Thus, in support of the EPRI study, Sandia compared the annual performance of a trough plant utilizing 2-tank and thermocline salt storage systems.

50 MWe) a similar empirical model developed for the SEGS VI power block [4]. The minimum oil-inlet temperature to the steam generator is shown in Fig. 3 to be 300  C. This is based on actual experience at SEGS VI; near noontime in the winter, the eld outlet temperature is dropped from the design value of 390  C to 300  C, and the Rankine cycle temperature and pressure are dropped to maintain 50  C of superheat (called sliding pressure operation). The Kramer Junction plant staff and Sandias evaluation have found that this operating approach maximizes the overall solar-toelectric efciency [5]. (Establishing the minimum oil operating temperature is very important for the evaluation of thermocline storage, as described later.)

Analysis of 2-Tank Plant

The 2-tank system represents todays baseline technology as demonstrated at the 50 MWe Andasol plant now operating in Spain. Since the solar multiple of Andasol is 2, the excess collector eld energy is stored within a 2-tank molten-salt system for later use by the steam turbine. A simplied schematic and some key design parameters [2] are shown in Fig. 1. TRNSYS 16 was used to simulate the annual performance of this 2-tank plant. A combination of standard-TRNSYS components, STEC-TRNSYS [3] components, and some new system-control components were used to create the model. The logic model is depicted in Fig. 2. The important model parameters are listed in Figs. 1 and 2. Rather than developing a detailed model of all components in the steam-Rankine power block, the system was represented by two transfer functions; the inputs to the functions were HTF ow rate and exit temperature, and the outputs were HTF return temperature and turbine-generator power output. The transfer functions depicted in Fig. 3 were developed by scaling up (from 30 to

NAL OF

Contributed by the Solar Energy Division of ASME for publication in the JOURSOLAR ENERGY ENGINEERING. Manuscript received January 3, 2011; nal manuscript received April 7, 2011; published online August 17, 2011. Assoc. Editor: Rainer Tamme.

Fig. 1

Andasol-type parabolic trough plant

Journal of Solar Energy Engineering

AUGUST 2011, Vol. 133 / 031023-1

Downloaded 03 Oct 2012 to 131.175.12.86. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig. 2 TRNSYS model of an Andasol-type power plant with 2-tank storage

The 2-Tank TRNSYS model was run using a 3-min time step and the hourly TMY le for Tucumcari, New Mexico.1 This weather le was chosen, because the annual DNI is similar to southern Spain, i.e., 2.3 MWh/m2-yr. The model predicted an annual gross
1 The hourly DNI values were used at each 3-min time step. No interpolation was performed.

electricity output of 152 GWh. This value is similar to the values predicted for Andasol prior to plant startup [6],2 so the model appears to be reasonable.

2 Andasol is predicted to operate 3589 full load hours with 12% from fossil. Thus, solar-only performance 0.88 49.9 MWe 3589 157.6 GWh.

031023-2 / Vol. 133, AUGUST 2011

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 03 Oct 2012 to 131.175.12.86. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig. 3

Empirical model of a 50 MWe steam-Rankine power block

Analysis of Thermocline-Plant

The next step in the analysis was to replace the 2-Tank model with a thermocline model. The thermocline chosen for study was dened by Black and Veatch, under a contract to EPRI [1]. Tank design parameters and a simplied schematic are shown in Fig. 4. The TRNSYS logic model for this plant is depicted in Fig. 5. Only the storage portion of the model is shown, since the remainder is the same as the 2-tank model. The basis of the thermocline tank model was the STEC Type 502 developed by Sandia; it is a variation of the standard TRNSYS Type 10 component. The tank is divided into several equally sized control volumes (23 stacked cylinders used here), and a rst-order differential equation describes the energy balance of each. Conduction between adjacent control volumes is modeled and so are thermal losses to the environment. The thermocline model was previously validated with experimental data [7] obtained during the test of the180 MWh thermocline at Solar One.3 The thermocline-plant TRNSYS model was run using the same time step and the hourly TMY le as for the 2-tank. The model predicted an annual gross electricity output of 149 GWh. The predicted thermocline proles for several charge and discharge cycles on days near the summer solstice are depicted in Fig. 6.

example, see Ref. [8]). As discussed previously, the SEGS VI power block is designed to operate up to 90  C below the design value, i.e., 300  C versus 390  C. It appears that previous analyses have not taken the SEGS experience into account. Thermocline-plants would not perform as well as a 2-tank plant if the degradation in temperature was not allowed. To estimate the effect, the TRNSYS models were rerun assuming a minimum temperature of 340  C and 360  C. The results of this investigation are depicted in Table 1.

Closing Remarks

The potential cost advantage for the thermocline is the use of 1 tank (20,600 m3) versus 2 tanks (16,300 m3 each) and a much lower volume of solar salt (5000 m3 for thermocline and 18,000 m3 for the 2-tank). This cost advantage has been

4 Comparison of 2-Tank and Thermocline Performance

The predicted annual performance of the thermocline-plant (149 GWh) is virtually identical to the 2-tank plant (152 GWh). Other previous analyses of thermoclines seem to be at odds with this conclusion since they show a signicant drop in efciency if the exit temperature is not maintained near the design value (for
3 A small salt thermocline (2.3 MWh) was also tested at Sandia [9]. However, the dimensions of the Solar One tank are more representative of a commercial system.

Fig. 4 Andasol-type plant with a 1000 MWh thermocline storage system. The single tank is 12.2 m tall and 46.3 m diameter.

Journal of Solar Energy Engineering

AUGUST 2011, Vol. 133 / 031023-3

Downloaded 03 Oct 2012 to 131.175.12.86. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig. 5 TRNSYS model of thermocline storage system. The void fraction of the tank is assumed to be 24% based on experience at the Solar One thermocline tank. The density of the rock is 1940 kg/m3 and the specic heat is 880 J/kg-C.

Fig. 6 Prediction of temperature prole throughout the thermocline tank on days near the summer solstice. Node N23 is at the bottom of the tank and node N4 is near the top.

independently estimated by EPRI [1] and Sandia [9] to reduce the capital cost of thermal storage for trough plants by 33%. An issue called thermal ratcheting has been identied that could potentially lead to failure of the thermocline tank. The worry is that thermal expansion and contraction of the tank will lead to slumping of the gravel bed which will further lead to exTable 1 Annual electricity produced by an Andasol-type plant as a function of storage type and minimum power block operating temperature Min oil T to power block 300  C 340  C 360  C 2-Tank plant electricity 152 GWh 149 GWh 146 GWh Themocline plant electricity 149 GWh 135 GWh 125 GWh

cessive pressures on the tank walls. Sandia is hopeful that thermal ratcheting will not be a show stopper for three reasons: (1) the 180 MWh thermocline at the Solar One power tower did not fail due to thermal ratcheting, (2) the structural analysis of thermal ratcheting of the Solar One tank suggested the design was acceptable [10], and (3) although the average temperature of the Solar One tank is 100  C lower than the tank analyzed here, the delta T between the top and bottom of the tanks is the same (90  C). In the future, Sandia will perform a detailed evaluation of the thermal ratcheting phenomena. If the thermal ratcheting issue can be resolved, the thermocline holds great promise for reducing the capital cost of thermal energy storage and lowering the LCOE of parabolic trough plants.

Acknowledgment
Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Transactions of the ASME

031023-4 / Vol. 133, AUGUST 2011

Downloaded 03 Oct 2012 to 131.175.12.86. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Lockheed Martin Corporation, for the U.S. Department of Energys National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000.

References
[1] Electric Power Research Institute, 2010, Solar Thermocline Storage SystemsPreliminary Design Study, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, Project 1019581. [2] Sergio, R., and Gutierrez, Y., 2008, Real Application of Molten Salt Thermal Storage to Obtain High Capacity Factors in Parabolic Trough Plants, SENER, SolarPACES, Las Vegas, NV. [3] STEC components can be downloaded from http://sel.me.wisc.edu/trnsys/ trnlib/stec/stec.htm [4] Patnode, A., 2006, Simulation and Performance Evaluation of Parabolic Trough Solar Power Plants, M.Sc. thesis, University of Wisconsin.

[5] Frank, L., 1995, Simulation of the Part-Load Behavior of a 30 MWe SEGS Plant, SAND95-1293. [6] Geyer et al., 2006, Dispatchable Solar Electricity for Summerly Peak Loads from the Solar Thermal Projects Andasol 1 Y Andasol 2 (sic), Solar Millennium, SolarPACES, Seville, Spain. [7] Kolb, G., and Hassani, V., 2006, Performance Analysis of Thermocline Energy Storage Proposed for the 1 MW Saguaro Solar Trough Plant, Proceedings of the ISEC 2006 ASME International Solar Energy Conference, July 813, Denver, CO. [8] Yang, Z., and Garimella, S., 2010, Thermal Analysis of Solar Thermal Energy Storage in a Molten-salt Thermocline, Solar Energy, 84, pp. 974985. [9] Pacheco, J., Showalter, S., and Kolb, W., 2002, Development of a Molten-Salt Thermocline Thermal Storage System for Parabolic Trough Plants, J. Sol. Energy Eng., 124, pp. 153. [10] Faas, S., Thorne, L., Fuchs, E., and Gilbertsen, N., 1986, 10 MWe Solar Thermal Central Receiver Pilot Plant: Thermal Storage Subsystem Evaluation Final Report, SAND86-8212, Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, CA.

Journal of Solar Energy Engineering

AUGUST 2011, Vol. 133 / 031023-5

Downloaded 03 Oct 2012 to 131.175.12.86. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm