Applied Thermal Engineering 67 (2014) 579e586

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apthermeng

Exergy analysis of parabolic trough solar receiver

Ricardo Vasquez Padilla a, *, Armando Fontalvo a, Gokmen Demirkaya b, Arnold Martinez a,
Arturo Gonzalez Quiroga a
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Universidad del Norte, Barranquilla, Colombia
b
Clean Energy Research Center, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Av., ENB 118, Tampa, FL 33620, USA

h i g h l i g h t s g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t

A comprehensive exergy balance of a

parabolic trough is performed.

The thermal and exergy efficiency
showed an opposite trend.

The highest exergy destruction takes
place at the absorber.

The highest exergy losses are due to
optical errors.

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

Article history: This paper presents an exergy analysis to study the effects of operational and environmental parameters
Received 15 November 2013 on the performance of Parabolic Trough Collectors. The exergy analysis is based on a previous heat
Accepted 22 March 2014 transfer model published by the authors. The main parameters considered for the analysis are: inlet
Available online 1 April 2014
temperature and mass flow rate of heat transfer fluid, wind speed, pressure or vacuum in annulus and
solar irradiance. The results showed that inlet temperature of heat transfer fluid, solar irradiance, and
Keywords:
vacuum in annulus have a significant effect on the thermal and exergetic performance, but the effect of
Solar receiver
wind speed and mass flow rate of heat transfer fluid is negligible. It was obtained that inlet temperature
Parabolic trough
Exergy analysis
of heat transfer fluid cannot be optimized to achieve simultaneously maximum thermal and exergetic
efficiency because they exhibit opposite trends. Finally, it was found that the highest exergy destruction
is due to the heat transfer between the sun and the absorber while for exergy losses is due to optical
error.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction transform it into useful energy by increasing the temperature of a

Solar Parabolic Trough Collectors (PTCs) are currently used for
electricity generation and applications with temperatures up to
400  C [1]. PTCs concentrate solar radiation onto a focal line to
* Corresponding author. CSIRO Energy Technology, PO Box 330, Newcastle, NSW
2300, Australia. Tel.: þ61 2 4960 6293.
E-mail addresses: Ricardo.Vasquezpadilla@csiro.au (R.V. Padilla), aefontalvo@
uninorte.edu.co (A. Fontalvo), gdemirka@mail.usf.edu (G. Demirkaya), arnoldg@
uninorte.edu.co (A. Martinez), arturoq@uninorte.edu.co (A.G. Quiroga).
Heat Transfer Fluid (HTF). The performance of PTCs depends on
the combination of several operation parameters under different
meteorological conditions. In this context, this paper presents an
exergy analysis to determine the performance of PTCs in terms of
work potential and location, type, and magnitude of exergy
losses.
This research is based on a detailed and validated heat transfer
model [2] that takes into account all heat transfer mechanism
among collector components and includes the thermal interaction
with the environment. Results of the heat transfer model are in

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2014.03.053
1359-4311/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
580 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 67 (2014) 579e586

Nomenclature Greek symbols

d Sun’s cone angle
Aa cross sectional area of absorber [m2] ho peak optical efficiency
Ib solar irradiance [W/m2] j maximum useful work available from radiation
Cp specific heat capacity [kJ/kg K] r heat transfer fluid density [kg/m3]
e specific exergy [kJ/kg] HCE heat collection element
h specific enthalpy [kJ/kg]
s specific entropy [kJ/kg K] Subscripts
v specific volume [m3/kg] a absorber
E exergy [kJ] cv control volume
E_ d exergy destroyed rate [kW] f heat transfer fluid
E_ loss Exergy loss rate [kW] e exit
E_ qj exergy of heat transfer rate [kW] i inlet, surface i
g gravity [m/s2] j surface j, Element j
m_ mass flow rate [kg/s] gain gained
P annulus gas pressure [Torr], heat transfer fluid o surroundings
pressure [bar] opt optical
Q_ heat transfer rate [kW] q heat transfer
T temperature [ C, K] sr solar radiation
t time [s]
V heat transfer fluid velocity [m/s] Superscripts
W _ cv work rate [kW] average
z height, axial length [m]

excellent agreement with experimental data obtained at Sandia for the temperature range of operation. Most of the incoming solar
National Laboratory [3], and also showed improvements when radiation has wavelengths below 3 mm which reduces the radiation
compared with prior models [4,5]. losses because of the emittance of the absorber [19]. The stainless
Most of the previous research on exergy analysis of PTCs has tube is covered by an evacuated glass tube (glass envelope) which
been focused on heat and power production systems. In these prevents oxidation and minimizes the heat losses to the environ-
systems, the exergy analysis is used either to find optimal operation ment. Glass to metal seals and metal bellows are employed to
conditions or to evaluate the performance of the system [6e13]. achieve the vacuum inside the envelope and compensate the
Some applications involve the optimization of the coupling condi- thermal expansion difference [20]. Bellows also allow extending
tions between the heat transfer fluid and the power cycle [6e8]. the absorber to extend beyond the glass envelope so that the HCE
Other applications have used the exergy analysis to minimize the can form a continuous receiver (see Fig. 1).
use of fossil fuels in polygeneration units [9e13]. Exergy analysis The heat transfer model is an energy balance between the heat
has also been used in desalination processes that rely on thermal transfer fluid and its surroundings. Fig. 2 shows the heat transfer
solar power obtained from PTCs [14,15]. It is important to highlight resistance model in a cross section of the HCE. Readers are
that in this last application, PTCs are only a component of the sys- encouraged to consult the details and assumptions of the heat
tem under analysis, and what it is optimized is the coupling be- transfer model developed by the authors in Ref. [2]. The heat
tween PTCs in the solar field with the thermal desalination system. transfer model was compared with experimental data obtained
Some studies on exergy analysis of PTCs have been focused on the from Sandia National Laboratory (SNL) [3] and compared with
performance evaluation of the collectors to maximize the use of the other solar receiver models [4,5]. Experimental results used in the
incoming solar energy. Previous studies have reported the depen- model validation were taken from LS-2 module placed at the
dence of exergy efficiency on the length of the collector and HTF AZTRAK rotating platform located at the SNL.
temperature [16]; the influence of mass flow of HTF, solar intensity
and concentration ratio on energy and exergy efficiencies [17]; and
the effect of the collector length, absorber tube diameter, working 3. Exergy analysis model
temperature and pressure on the energy and exergy efficiencies [18].
In this paper, a comprehensive exergetic balance of a PTC based An exergy balance was applied to the control volume shown in
on a control volume analysis is performed. This analysis is based on Fig. 1. It should be noted that the same assumptions of the heat
a previous heat transfer model developed by the authors [2]. This transfer model are used. The partial differential equation of the
analysis shows the effect of inlet temperature and mass flow rate of exergy balance is as follows [21]:
the heat transfer fluid, solar irradiance, annulus condition (vacuum
or air) and wind speed on the thermal and exergetic performance of dEcv X X X
the PTC. The exergetic balance is very useful to identify the irre- ¼ _ cv þ
E_ qj  W _ i efi 
m _ e efe  E_ d  E_ loss
m (1)
dt j i e
versibility sources which can be used to redesign and improve the
thermal performance of PTCs. with:
!
To _
2. Solar receiver model E_ qj ¼ 1 Qj (2)
Tj
The solar receiver consists of a heat collection element
composed of a stainless steel tube with a selective absorber surface, V2
ef ¼ h  ho  To ðs  so Þ þ þg z (3)
which has high values of absorptance and low values of emittance 2
 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 67 (2014) 579e586 581

Expansion Absorber tube with Vacuum between

Glass Envelope
bellows selective coating envelope and absorber

Fig. 1. Parts of a heat collection element (HCE) and control volume used for the heat transfer analysis. Adapted from [27].

3.1. Exergy input

 
4 To 1 To 4
The exergy input includes the exergy inflow rate coming from j ¼ 1 þ (5)
the heat transfer fluid and the exergy of the solar radiation. The 3 Ts 3 Ts
total exergy input is:
2 3 where Ts is the equivalent temperature of the sun as a black body
ZTi ZTi (w5800 K). Parrot [23] introduced the effect of the sun’s cone angle
Cp ðTÞ V 27
_6
E_ i ¼ m4 Cp ðTÞdT þ nðPi  Po Þ  To dT þ i 5 (d w 0.005 rad) on the limiting efficiency for utilization of solar
T 2 (4)
To To energy, the expression obtained was:
þ Ib Aa j

 
For an ideal process, the relative potential of the maximum 4 To 1=4 1 To 4
j ¼ 1 ð1  cosdÞ þ (6)
useful work available from radiation, j, is calculated with Petela’s 3 Ts 3 Ts
formula [22]:

(a)

(b)
Fig. 2. Heat transfer and thermal resistance model in a cross section at the heat collection element (HCE). (a) Heat transfer, (b) thermal circuit. Adapted from [3,4].
582 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 67 (2014) 579e586

!
3.2. Exergy output X To
E_ loss;q ¼ Q_ j;loss 1  (15)
j
Ta;j
The exergy output only includes the exergy outflow rate coming
from the heat transfer fluid exiting the solar receiver. The total
exergy output is as follows: 3.4. Exergy destruction

2 3 In the solar receiver, exergy destruction is caused by two

ZTe ZTe
Cp ðTÞ V 27
_6
E_ e ¼ m4 Cp ðTÞdT þ nðPe  Po Þ  To dT þ e 5 (7)
mechanism: friction of the viscous fluid (HTF) and heat transfer
T 2 from high to low temperatures [25]. The friction of the heat transfer
To To fluid generates a pressure drop through the solar receiver. The
The exergy gained by the heat transfer due to the incident ra- entropy generation (exergy destruction) during this process is as
diation on the solar collector is given by: follows [21]:
  
2 3 X DPj ln Te;j Ti;j
ZTe ZTe E_ d;DP ¼ To m
_f (16)
Cp ðTÞ
_6
E_ gain ¼ m4 Cp ðTÞdT  To
7
dT  nDP 5 (8)
rj Te;j  Ti;j
j
T
Ti Ti Exergy destruction due to heat transfer process is present on the
absorber surface. The first process is the heat transfer from the sun
where the first two terms represent the exergy gain as result of an to the absorber surface, in this case the entropy generation is given
increase in the heat transfer fluid temperature due to the solar by [26]:
insolation and flow friction and the last term represents the
decrease of mechanical energy due to flow friction. The exergy ef- !
X To
ficiency is defined as the ratio of gain exergy to solar radiation E_ d;q1 ¼ ho Ib Aa j  ho Ib0 DzAa 1 (17)
exergy: j
Ta;j

E_ The second heat transfer process is between the absorber and

hex ¼ gain (9) the HTF. The exergy destruction by heat conduction from the
E_ sr absorber to the fluid is [25]:
then: 2 3
ZTe ZTe;j
2 3 dT X 1
Z Te Z Te
_ f6
E_ d;q2 ¼ To m 4 Cp ðTÞ 
7
Cp ðTÞdT 5 (18)
Cp ðTÞ
_6 7 T Ta;j
m4 Cp ðTÞdT  To dT  nDP 5 Ti
j
Ti;j
Ti Ti T
hex ¼ (10) Then, the total exergy destruction is:
Ib Aa j
The last equation does not present the terms of loss and E_ d ¼ E_ d;DP þ E_ d;q1 þ E_ d;q2 (19)
destroyed exergy which are useful to identify the causes and
Replacing all terms Eq. (13)e(18), the exergy efficiency can be
location of thermal losses. The exergy losses include heat transfer 0
rewritten by introducing dimensionless exergy term (E_ ¼ E=_ E_ sr ):
losses to the surroundings while the exergy destruction is caused
by internal irreversibilities [24]. For steady state conditions
0
 0 0 0 0

(dEcv =dt ¼ 0), Eq. (10) can be rewritten as: hex ¼ 1  E_ d;DP þ E_ d;q1 þ E_ d;q2 þ E_ loss;opt þ E_ loss;q (20)

E_ d þ E_ loss
hex ¼ 1  (11) with:
Ib Aa j
0
E_ loss;opt ¼ ð1  ho Þ (21)
3.3. Exergy losses
P _  
Q j;loss 1  TTa;jo
In this paper exergy losses are due to optical error and heat 0
E_ loss;q ¼
j
transfer losses from the solar receiver to the ambient [25]. (22)
Ib Aa j

E_ loss ¼ E_ loss;opt þ E_ loss;q ; (12)

P DP j lnðTe;j =Ti;j Þ
The exergy leakage due to optical errors is as follows: rj Te;j Ti;j
0
E_ d;DP
j
_f
¼ To m (23)
E_ loss;opt ¼ ð1  ho ÞIb Aa j (13) I b Aa j

ho is defined as the optical efficiency of the solar collector. The 2 0 13

exergy loss due to heat transfer from absorber to the ambient is X To
1 D z
given by [25]:
0
Ed;q1 ¼ h o 41 þ @  1A5 (24)
j Lc j Ta;j

XZ
Ta;i
To Z Z
E_ loss;q ¼ Q_ i;loss 2 dT (14) Te
dT X 1 Te;j
i
T Cp ðTÞ  Cp ðTÞdT
To
0 Ti T Ta;j Ti;j
E_ d;q2
j
_f
¼ To m (25)
Ib Aa j
where Q_ i;loss are the thermal losses. Simplifying:
 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 67 (2014) 579e586
4. Results and discussion
A parametric study was performed by using a LS-3 parabolic
trough solar collector in order to study the effect of some operating
and environmental parameters on the collector efficiency and
collector exergy efficiency. The geometrical parameters of the LS-3
collector are listed in Table 1. The variations of exergy leakages and
exergy destruction with these parameters were also studied.
Table 2 shows the operating conditions used for the parametric
analysis.
Figs. 3e8 shows the effect of HTF inlet temperature (Ti), mass
flow rate ðmÞ_ and solar irradiance (Ib) on Collector Efficiency (hc)
and Collector Exergy Efficiency (hex). Collector Exergy Efficiency is
strongly dependent on HTF inlet temperature. This result may be
explained by the influence of exergy leakage due to thermal losses,
and exergy destruction due to heat transfer from the sun to the
absorber, which are strongly dependent of HTF temperature. Ac-
cording to Figs. 3e6, an increase in the HTF inlet temperature leads
to a significant increase in Collector Exergy Efficiency, but it causes
a reduction in Collector Efficiency. When HTF inlet temperature
increases, Collector Efficiency shows an average reduction of 15.5%
and 7.6% for irradiance levels of 250 and 500 W/m2 respectively
according to Figs. 3 and 4, whereas the average reduction of Col-
lector Efficiency for irradiances of 750 and 1000 W/m2 are 4.7% and
3.25% respectively, as it is shown in Figs. 5 and 6.
On the other hand, Figs. 3 and 4 showed an average increase of
6.9% and 7.9% in Collector Exergy Efficiency for solar irradiance
levels of 250 and 500 W/m2, respectively. For high solar irradiance,
according to Figs. 5 and 6, the average increase was 7.3% and 7.7%
for solar irradiance of 750 and 1000 W/m2, respectively. The
maximum Collector Exergy Efficiency, under vacuum condition,
was between 30.3% and 36.6%, for irradiance levels of 250 W/m2
and 1000 W/m2, respectively. Results described above allows to
conclude that in days with low irradiance levels (250500 W/m2)
the increase of HTF inlet temperature to achieve maximum Col-
lector Exergy Efficiency would significantly penalize the Collector
Efficiency, but in days with high irradiance levels (750e1000 W/
m2) the maximum or near maximum Collector Exergy Efficiency
can be achieved with a less severe impact on Collector Efficiency.
However, it is clear that a simultaneous maximization of both
efficiencies is not possible by just adjusting the HTF inlet temper-
ature. This opposite trend of Collector Efficiency and Collector
Exergy Efficiency is explained by the behavior of the exergy
destruction due to heat transfer between the absorber and the HTF,
and the thermal losses due to heat transfer from absorber to the
environment. An increase in HTF inlet temperature would increase
the thermal losses and a decrease in exergy destruction due to heat
transfer between the absorber and the HTF, as it can be seen in
Figs. 9 and 10, causing a decrease in Collector Efficiency and an
increase in Collector exergy efficiency.
The optimum operating conditions for PTCs can be assessed by
means of collector efficiency analysis and collector exergy effi-
ciency analysis. The common aim is to optimize the thermal
Table 1
Geometrical and optical data for the LS-3 parabolic trough col-
lector. Adapted from [20].
Parameter Value
Aperture width (m) 5.76
Focal length (m) 1.71
Length per element (m) 12
Length per collector (m) 99
Receiver diameter (m) 0.07
Geometric concentration 82:1
Peak optical efficiency (%) 80
583
Table 2
Summary of the parameters assumed for the analysis.
Parameters Values Units
HTF mass flow rate 4, 7, 10 kg/s
Solar irradiance 250, 500, 750, 1000 W/m2
Wind speed 0, 5 m/s
Vacuum in annulus P < 1 Torr (vacuum)
P  1 Torr (pressure in annulus)
efficiency of any collector, which is defined as the ratio of ‘useful
energy output’ to that of ‘incident solar energy’ during the same
time period. In this work, the performance of PTCs is examined
from the standpoint of exergy, which is a useful method to com-
plement, not to replace the energy analysis. Exergy analysis quan-
tifies the collection and useful consumption of exergy and
pinpoints the unrecoverable losses, leading the way to improve the
system. Results show that collector efficiency and collector exergy
efficiency are increasing functions of mass flow rate for a given
value of solar intensity. On the other hand, for low values of solar
intensity (I < 500 W/m2) and a given mass flow rate, collector
exergy efficiency exhibits a maximum as inlet temperature
increases. Collector efficiency is a decreasing function of inlet
temperature over the whole solar intensity range studied (100 W/
m2 < I < 1000 W/m2). However the influence of inlet temperature
on collector efficiency significantly diminishes at high solar
intensities.
The effect of wind speed and vacuum in annulus on both Col-
lector Efficiency and Collector Exergy Efficiency is shown in Figs. 7e
10. According to Figs. 7 and 8, results indicate that vacuum in
annulus reduces the effect of wind speed because both efficiencies
showed no significant variation with wind speed. However, in
absence of vacuum, the increase of wind speed leads to average
reductions of 5% and 4% for Collector Efficiency and Collector
Exergy Efficiency, respectively. According to Figs. 9 and 10, when
pressure in annulus is below 1 Torr, convective heat transfer inside
the annulus is not significant, consequently its contribution to the
exergy loss due to heat transfer from absorber to the surroundings
is also reduced. On the other hand, if pressure in annulus is above
1 Torr, convective heat transfer inside the annulus is increased
thereby increasing its contribution to the exergy loss due to heat
Fig. 3. Collector efficiency and collector exergy efficiency vs HTF inlet temperature for
different values of mass flow. I ¼ 250 W/m2.
584 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 67 (2014) 579e586
Fig. 4. Collector efficiency and collector exergy efficiency vs HTF inlet temperature for
different values of mass flow. I ¼ 500 W/m2.
transfer from absorber to the surroundings, which is the exergy
waste that can be affected by the wind speed.
For mass flow rate, Figs. 3e6 shows that both Collector Effi-
ciency and Collector Exergy Efficiency have small variations with
mass flow rate and the optimum value for both efficiencies was
practically the same for the three mass flow rates considered.
Figs. 11 and 12 show that exergy losses and exergy destruction are
almost independent from mass flow rate because exergy destruc-
tion due to the friction of the HTF and heat transfer between the
absorber and the HTF are the ones that have a noticeable variation
with mass flow rate, but their contribution to the total exergy losses
and destruction is less than 0.5%.
Figs. 9 and 10 illustrate the effect of HTF inlet temperature on
the exergy destruction due to heat transfer between the sun and
the absorber. This exergy destruction accounts for 35%e40% of the
total exergy wasted. When HTF inlet temperature increases, the
Fig. 5. Collector efficiency and collector exergy efficiency vs HTF inlet temperature for
different values of mass flow. I ¼ 750 W/m2.
Fig. 6. Collector efficiency and collector exergy efficiency vs HTF inlet temperature for
different values of mass flow. I ¼ 1000 W/m2.
exergy destruction diminishes because the temperature difference
is lower. However, the exergy losses to the surroundings increase as
the HTF inlet temperature raises as a consequence of the temper-
ature difference. The combine effect of exergy destruction due to
heat transfer between the sun and the absorber and exergy losses
to the surroundings is accountable for an optimum exergy effi-
ciency point. After this point is reached, exergy losses to sur-
roundings accounts for 5%e10% of the total exergy wasted and
increase more rapidly than the decrease of exergy destruction due
to heat transfer.
5. Conclusions
An exergy analysis of parabolic trough solar receiver was carried
out based on a heat transfer model proposed by the authors. The
performance of the solar receiver was simulated for a fixed values
Fig. 7. Collector efficiency and collector exergy efficiency vs HTF inlet temperature
with and without vacuum, for natural and forced convection. I ¼ 250 W/m2.
 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 67 (2014) 579e586
Fig. 8. Collector efficiency and collector exergy efficiency vs HTF inlet temperature
with and without vacuum, for natural and forced convection. I ¼ 750 W/m2.
of solar irradiance, HTF mass flow rate, HTF inlet temperature, with
and without vacuum in annulus, and with presence and absence of
wind. Based on the results obtained, the following conclusions are
proposed:

Current results are useful to improve the design of PTCs and
compare performances between PTCs options. However oper-
ating conditions are also determined by others factors beyond
exergy analysis of the collector like collector area, which impacts
capital costs as the fuel (sunlight is free), and pumping power at
increasing mass flow rates.

HTF inlet temperature has a significant effect on Collector Effi-
ciency and Collector Exergy Efficiency. HTF inlet temperature
affects the exergy leakage due to thermal losses, and exergy
destruction due to heat transfer from the sun to the absorber.
_ ¼ 7 kg=s;
Fig. 9. Dimensionless exergy losses vs inlet temperature. Conditions: m
Vair ¼ 0 m/s (natural convection); without vacuum.
585
_ ¼ 7 kg=s;
Fig. 10. Dimensionless exergy losses vs Inlet temperature. Conditions: m
Vair ¼ 5 m=s (forced convection); without vacuum.

Solar Irradiance has a significant effect on the performance of
the parabolic trough solar receiver. High solar irradiances allows
to work at higher HTF inlet temperatures, which leads to high
values of Collector Exergy Efficiency with a negligible reduction
of the Collector Efficiency.

The optimal performance of PTC is independent from the mass
flow rate, since exergy destruction due to friction of the heat
transfer fluid and heat transfer between the absorber and the
HTF depends on mass flow rate, but their contribution to the
total exergy wasted is less than 0.5%.

The performance of the solar receiver is strongly dependent on
vacuum in annulus. Vacuum in annulus mitigates the effect of
wind speed, but its absence increases the thermal losses to the
surroundings, which leads to a reduction of both Collector Ef-
ficiency and Collector Exergy Efficiency.
Fig. 11. Dimensionless exergy losses vs mass flow rate. Conditions: I ¼ 750 W/m2;
Vair ¼ 0 m/s (natural convection); without vacuum in annulus.
586 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 67 (2014) 579e586
Fig. 12. Dimensionless exergy losses vs mass flow rate. Conditions: I ¼ 750 W/m2;
Vair ¼ 5 m/s (forced convection); without vacuum in annulus.
References
[1] A. Fernández-García, E. Zarza, L. Valenzuela, M. Pérez, Parabolic-trough solar
collectors and their applications, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 14 (7)
(2010) 1695e1721.
[2] R.V. Padilla, G. Demirkaya, D.Y. Goswami, E. Stefanakos, M.M. Rahman, Heat
transfer analysis of parabolic trough solar receiver, Appl. Energy 88 (12)
(2011) 5097e5110.
[3] V. Dudley, G. Kolb, M. Sloan, D. Kearney, SEGS LS2 Solar Collector-Test Results,
Report of Sandia National Laboratories, SAN94e1884, 1994.
[4] R. Forristall, Heat Transfer Analysis and Modeling of a Parabolic Trough Solar
Receiver Implemented in Engineering Equation Solver, National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL), Colorado, 2003.
[5] O. García-Valladares, N. Velázquez, Numerical simulation of parabolic trough
solar collector: improvement using counter flow concentric circular heat ex-
changers, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 52 (3e4) (2009) 597e609.
[6] M. Kane, D. Favrat, K. Ziegler, Y. Allani, Thermoeconomic analysis of advanced
solar-fossil combined power plants, Int. J. Thermodyn. 3 (4) (2010) 191e198.
[7] Y. You, E.J. Hu, A medium-temperature solar thermal power system and its
efficiency optimisation, Appl. Therm. Eng. 22 (4) (2002) 357e364.
[8] N. Singh, S. Kaushik, R. Misra, Exergetic analysis of a solar thermal power
system, Renewable Energy 19 (1) (2000) 135e143.
[9] G. Song, H. Hongjuan, Y. Yongping, Optimize on the temperature of solar
collectors in solar aided coal-fired electric generation, in: Sustainable Power
Generation and Supply, 2009. SUPERGEN’09. International Conference on,
IEEE, 2009, pp. 1e4.
[10] H. Zhai, Y. Dai, J. Wu, R. Wang, Energy and exergy analyses on a novel hybrid
solar heating, cooling and power generation system for remote areas, Appl.
Energy 86 (9) (2009) 1395e1404.
[11] A. Baghernejad, M. Yaghoubi, Exergy analysis of an integrated solar combined
cycle system, Renewable Energy 35 (10) (2010) 2157e2164.
[12] V.S. Reddy, S. Kaushik, S. Tyagi, Exergetic analysis and performance evaluation
of parabolic trough concentrating solar thermal power plant (ptcstpp), Energy
39 (1) (2012) 258e273.
[13] F.A. Al-Sulaiman, I. Dincer, F. Hamdullahpur, Exergy modeling of a new solar
driven trigeneration system, Sol. Energy 85 (9) (2011) 2228e2243.
[14] A. Nafey, M. Sharaf, Combined solar organic rankine cycle with reverse
osmosis desalination process: energy, exergy, and cost evaluations, Renew-
able Energy 35 (11) (2010) 2571e2580.
[15] M. Sharafa, A. Nafeya, L. García-Rodríguez, Exergy and thermo-economic an-
alyses of a combined solar organic cycle with multi effect distillation (MED)
desalination process, Desalination 272 (1e3) (2011) 135e147.
[16] S.N. Trushevskii, R.T. Rabbimov, R.R. Avezov, Exergic efficiency of solar ther-
mal units with linear concentrators, Appl. Sol. Energy 41 (1) (2005) 24e28.
[17] S. Tyagi, S. Wang, M. Singhal, S. Kaushik, S. Park, Exergy analysis and para-
metric study of concentrating type solar collectors, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 46 (12)
(2007) 1304e1310.
[18] M. Montes, A. Abánades, A. nades, J. Martinez-Val, Thermofluidynamic model
and comparative analysis of parabolic trough collectors using oil, water/
steam, or molten salt as heat transfer fluids, J. Sol. Energy Eng. 132 (2) (2010).
[19] D.Y. Goswami, F. Kreith, J.F. Kreider, F. Kreith, Principles of Solar Engineering,
second ed., Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia, PA, 2000.
[20] H. Price, E. Lüpfert, D. Kearney, E. Zarza, G. Cohen, R. Gee, R. Mahoney, Ad-
vances in parabolic trough solar power technology, J. Sol. Energy Eng. Trans.
ASME 124 (2) (2002) 109e125.
[21] M.J. Moran, H.N. Shapiro, Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics,
Student Problem Set Supplement, fifth ed., Wiley, 2004.
[22] R. Petela, Exergy of undiluted thermal radiation, Sol. Energy 74 (6) (2003)
469e488.
[23] J. Parrott, Theoretical upper limit to the conversion efficiency of solar energy,
Sol. Energy 21 (3) (1978) 227e229.
[24] I. Dincer, M.A. Rosen, EXERGY: Energy, Environment and Sustainable Devel-
opment, Elsevier Science, 2007.
[25] A. Suzuki, General theory of exergy-balance analysis and application to solar
collectors, Energy 13 (2) (1988) 153e160.
[26] A. Bejan, G. Tsatsaronis, M. Moran, Thermal Design and Optimization, Wiley-
Interscience, 1996.
[27] F. Kreith, D.Y. Goswami, Handbook of Energy Efficiency and Renewable En-
ergy, first ed., CRC, 2007.