See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223608778

Two-Tank Molten Salt Storage for Parabolic

Trough Solar Power Plants

Article in Energy April 2004

DOI: 10.1016/S0360-5442(03)00193-2

CITATIONS READS

259 4,303

3 authors, including:

Ulf Herrmann
Fachhochschule Aachen
26 PUBLICATIONS 977 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ulf Herrmann on 07 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Two-Tank Molten Salt Storage
for Parabolic Trough Solar Power Plants

Ulf Herrmann a*, Bruce Kelly b, Henry Price c

a
FLABEG Solar International GmbH, Mhlengasse 7, D-50667 Kln, Germany
b
Nexant, Inc., 45 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-2210, USA
c
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado, USA
Abstract - The most advanced thermal energy storage for solar thermal power plants is a 2-tank-
storage system where the heat transfer fluid (HTF) also serves as storage medium. This concept was
successfully demonstrated in a commercial trough plant (13.8 MWe SEGS I plant; 120 MWht storage
capacity) and a demonstration tower plant (10 MWe Solar Two; 105 MWht storage capacity).
However, the HTF used in state-of-the-art parabolic trough power plants (30-80 MWe) is expensive,
dramatically increasing the cost of larger HTF storage systems. An engineering study was carried out
to evaluate a concept, where another (less expensive) liquid medium such as molten salt is utilized as
storage medium rather than the HTF itself. Detailed performance and cost analyses were conducted to
evaluate the economic value of this concept. The analyses are mainly based on the operation
experience from the SEGS plant and the Solar Two project. The study concluded that the specific cost
for a two-tank molten salt storage are in the range of US$30 to 40/kWhth depending on storage size.
Since the salt storage was operated successfully in the Solar Two project, no major barriers were
identified to realize this concept in a first commercial parabolic trough power plant.

1. Introduction
Parabolic trough solar technology is the most proven and lowest cost large-scale solar power technology available
today, primarily because of the nine large commercial-scale solar power plants that are operating in the California
Mojave Desert. These plants, developed by Luz International Limited and referred to as Solar Electric Generating
Systems (SEGS), range in size from 1480 MW and represent 354 MW of installed electric generating capacity.
These plants have been operating daily for up to 18 years, and as the year 2001 ended, these plants had accumulated
127 years of operational experience. These plants sell power to Southern California Edison, the local power utility;
through standard offer power purchase contracts. One of the key features of these contracts is the ability of these
plants to produce energy during the period when the utility has the highest demand for power. Thus a key feature of
the SEGS plants is the ability of the plants to dispatch power to help meet the utilitys peak electricity demand. In
southern California, the peak energy demand is during the summer afternoon and early evening, corresponding to the
air conditioning load. The winter peak load is lower but more pronounced and occurs in the early evening and
corresponds to an evening lighting load.
The first SEGS plant (SEGS I), built in 1984, included three hours of thermal storage that allowed the plant to shift
electric generation from periods when solar energy is available to the periods when the utilitys peak electric demand
occurs. The plant used a mineral oil HTF and a two-tank thermal storage system; one tank held the cold oil and a
separate tank held the hot oil once it had been heated to about 300 C. This system successfully helped the plant
dispatch its electric generation to meet the utility peak loads during the summer afternoons and winter evenings. The
mineral oil HTF is very flammable and could not be used at the later, more efficient SEGS plants that operate at
higher solar field temperatures (approximately 400C). For these plants the two-tank storage system used at SEGS I
is not feasible because cost of the synthetic HTF is higher, and the high vapor pressure of biphenyl-diphenyl-oxide
would require pressurized storage vessels. As a result the later SEGS plants used fossil fuel fired backup to allow the
plants to dispatch power to peak electric demand periods when solar energy is not available. Although no new SEGS
plants have been built in the last ten years, there is growing interest in the development of new trough power plants.
The availability of a thermal energy storage system that would allow these plants to dispatch power and increase the
plant annual capacity factor is a potential economic plus for the technology over other renewable options.
This paper reviews an engineering study that was carried out to evaluate the feasibility of using molten-salt storage in
parabolic trough power plants [1]. This storage concept was successfully tested in the Solar Two project, a solar
tower plant that uses molten salt as the HTF [2]. No major technical barriers were identified in this study, and thus
the concept appears to have low technical risk and could easily be used in near-term trough projects. The paper
describes the proposed storage concept and the results of an economic evaluation. The calculations were done for a
50 MW Rankine cycle and for different storage sizes ranging from 0 to 15 hours of equivalent full capacity
operation.

*
ulf.herrmann@flabeg.com
2. Description of Plant Concept
Parabolic trough power plants consist of large fields of parabolic trough collectors, a heat transfer fluid/steam
generation system, a Rankine steam turbine/generator cycle, and optional thermal storage and/or fossil-fired backup
systems. The collector field is made up of a large field of single-axis-tracking parabolic trough solar collectors. A
heat transfer fluid (HTF) is heated up as high as 393C as it circulates through the collectors and returns to a series of
heat exchangers (HX) in the power block, where the fluid is used to generate high-pressure superheated steam (100
bar, 371C). The superheated steam is then fed to a conventional reheat steam turbine/generator to produce
electricity. The existing parabolic trough plants have been designed to use solar energy as the primary energy source
to produce electricity. Given sufficient solar input, the plants can operate at full-rated power using solar energy
alone. During summer months, the plants typically operate for 1012 hours a day on solar energy at full-rated
electric output. To enable these plants to achieve rated electric output during overcast or nighttime periods, the
plants have been designed as hybrid solar/fossil plants; that is, a backup fossil-fired capability can be used to
supplement the solar output during periods of low solar radiation. Alternatively, thermal storage can be integrated
into the plant design to allow solar energy to be stored and dispatched when power is required.
Figure 1 shows a process flow schematic for a typical large-scale parabolic trough solar power plant with a two-tank
molten salt storage. In this configuration, HTF from the solar field is diverted through a heat exchanger that is used
to charge the thermal storage system,
heating salt from the cold storage up to
385C and storing it in the hot salt storage
tank. When the storage system is
discharged, salt from the hot storage tank is
sent back to the HTF to salt heat exchanger
and is used to heat cold HTF. The heated
HTF is then send to the power plant. The
cooled salt is returned to the cold storage
tank. The temperature of the cold salt is
about 300C.

Figure 1: Schematic flow diagram of a

parabolic trough power plant
with 2-tank molten salt storage.

3. Storage System
The thermal storage system consists of the following principal elements: the nitrate salt inventory; the nitrate salt
storage tanks; the oil-to-salt heat exchangers; and the nitrate salt circulation pumps. All main components, except of
the heat exchanger, were tested in large scale in the Solar Two project. Beyond it, new pumps for large salt storage
tanks were developed and tested by the US company Nagle Pumps [3].

3.1 Description of Components

Nitrate Salt Inventory
Inorganic nitrate salt mixtures are the preferred storage media because the salts offer a very favourable combination
of density (1880 kg/m3), specific heat (1500 J/kg-K), chemical reactivity (very low), vapor pressure (<0.01 Pa), and
cost ($0.40 to $0.90/kg). The three principal candidate salts include the following: Hitec, a ternary mixture of
NaNO2, NaNO3, and KNO3, with a freezing point of 120 C; Hitec XL, a ternary mixture of Ca(NO3)2, NaNO3, and
KNO3, with a freezing point of 130 C; and a binary salt mixture of NaNO3 and KNO3, with a freezing point of 220
C. The later salt was selected because its cost is the lowest of the three, and the minimum inventory temperature is
at least 80 C above the freezing point.
Nitrate Salt Storage Tanks
The low vapour pressure of the nitrate salts allows vertical, field-erected tanks to be used. The large tanks, which
operate at atmospheric pressure, are similar to commercial oil storage tanks. The tanks are fabricated from carbon
steel, and use self-supporting roofs.
The walls and roof of the tanks are insulated with mineral wool batts and calcium silicate block insulation,
respectively. The insulated foundation consists of the following layers (moving up from the soil): 1) concrete slab,
2) thermal foundation, 3) foamglass insulation, 4) insulating fire bricks, 5) thin steel plate liner, and 6) sand. A
perimeter ringwall of insulating firebricks supports the weight of the tank walls and roof.
Oil-to-Salt Heat Exchangers
The oil-to-salt heat exchangers must be designed with very small approach temperatures, in the range of 3 to 10 C,
to minimize the performance penalty of the Rankine cycle during thermal storage discharging, and to maintain
reasonable heat transport fluid supply temperatures to the collector field during thermal storage charging. In
addition, the vapour pressure of the heat transport fluid is approximately 10 bar at the normal collector field outlet
temperature of 390 C. Thus, the heat exchanger must accommodate a differential pressure between the collector
field fluid and the thermal storage fluids of 15 to 20 bar. The most economical heat exchanger which provides these
features is a conventional shell and tube design. The high pressure heat transport fluid is placed on the tube side, and
the nitrate salt is placed on the shell side. The tubes are rolled and seal welded to the tubesheet to improve the
reliability of the exchanger.
Nitrate Salt Circulation Pumps
Mechanical pump seals, suitable for the oxidizing characteristics of the nitrate salts, have not been identified. Thus,
nitrate salt pumps are vertical turbine designs. The pump seal is provided by the combination of 1) a throttle bushing
downstream of the last stage, and 2) gravity, which returns bushing leakage to the pump reservoir. The pumps draw
suction from the bottom of the thermal storage tanks, and use an extended shaft which allows the pumps to be
supported by, and the motors to be located on, a support structure above the tanks.
The principal characteristics of the thermal storage equipment are shown in Table 1 for the range of investigated
storage capacities.
Storage Capacity [hours]
Item 1 3 6 9 12 15
Active salt inventory 4,778 14,096 28,192 42,288 56,384 70,480
[tons]
Thermal storage tanks dimensions, Height x Diameter [m x m]
Cold tank 12 x 16.6 14 x 26.3 14 x 37.2 14 x 45.5 14 x 37.2 1 14 x 41.6 1
Hot tank 12 x 16.8 14 x 26.7 14 x 37.7 14 x 46.2 14 x 37.7 1 14 x 42.2 1
Oil-to-salt heat exchangers
Number of HX 3 3 3 4 5 6
Exchanger area [m2] 8,635 2 8,635 2 8,635 2 8,419 3 9,067 3 9,499 3
Nitrate salt pumps
Flow rate [kg/sec] 1,189 4 1,189 4 1,189 4 1,546 5 2,081 5 2,616 5
4 4 4
Head [m] 19.2 19.2 19.2 25.6 5 32.0 5 38.4 5
4 4 4
Power [kWe] 316 316 316 547 5 921 5 1,389 5
Notes: 1) 2 cold tanks and 2 hot tanks required
2) Oil-to-salt heat exchanger duty sized for discharging of storage
3) Oil-to-salt heat exchanger duty sized for charging of storage (Charging capacity is higher than discharging capacity)
4) Hot salt pump power rating
5) Cold salt pump power rating

Table 1: Thermal Storage Equipment Characteristics

3.2 Safety Aspects

The thermal storage fluid is a mixture of sodium nitrate and potassium nitrate, both of which are oxidizing agents.
When nitrates are in contact with organic materials at temperatures above the ignition temperature, reactions may
proceed quickly enough to cause ignition, combustion, or explosion.
The heat transport fluid is a synthetic organic oil, with a nominal composition of 75 percent by weight diphenyl
oxide/ether and 25 percent biphenyl. Thus, a leak in the oil-to-salt heat exchanger allows oxidizing materials to mix
with a hydrocarbon oil, and the potential exists for a chemical reaction or combustion.
The most relevant reaction data between nitrate salts and hydrocarbons are probably from a molten salt safety study
conducted by Sandia National Laboratories in 1980 [4]. Liquid gasoline was introduced into an inventory of nitrate
salt at a temperature of 600 C. The hydrocarbons vaporized when exposed to the nitrate salt, and burned at the
surface of the inventory when exposed to ambient air. However, the hydrocarbons did not react with the nitrate salt
below the surface of the salt inventory. In other words, a temperature of 600 C was not high enough to initiate a
theoretical reduction reaction in which an oxygen atom was removed from a nitrate molecule.
In the event of a tube or weld rupture in the oil-to-salt heat exchanger, a combustion reaction is believed to very
unlikely, for the following reasons:
The heat transport fluid has flammability ratings of 1 from the National Fire Protection Agency, while
gasoline has a rating of 3. As a result, it is highly unlikely the heat transport fluid will have a more energetic
reaction with nitrate salt than gasoline.
The highest temperature in the oil-to-salt heat exchanger is 390 C, which is 210 C below the exposure tests
conducted by Sandia, and 220 C below the auto ignition temperature of the heat transport fluid.
Oxygen is not present in the heat exchanger.

3.3 Cost estimation

Storage system costs are summarized in Table 2 for each of the cases listed in Table 1. The system costs include
material, installation labour, and overhead costs associated with field construction, but exclude costs for engineering,
procurement, construction management, and interest during construction. The values in the table were developed
from the following:
 Storage Capacity [hours]
Item 1 3 6 9 12 15
Nitrate salt inventory 2,208 6,512 13,025 19,537 26,049 32,562
Storage tanks 838 2,405 4,638 6,842 9,275 11,484
Tank insulation 300 608 974 1,300 1,947 2,280
Tank foundations 518 984 1,653 2,273 3,216 3,823
Oil-to-salt heat exchanger 4,195 4,195 4,195 5,453 7,340 9,228
Nitrate salt pumps 692 812 1,383 1,647 2,063 2,629
Balance of system 875 1,551 2,587 3,705 4,989 6,201
Total 9,626 17,066 28,453 40,757 54,880 68,206
Unit cost, $/kWht $65.63 $38.79 $32.33 $30.88 $31.18 $31.00
Table 2 Thermal Storage System Costs in US$1000
Nitrate salt inventory and nitrate salt pump costs were derived from supplier information on the 15 MWe Solar
Tres central receiver project in southern Spain
Storage tank, insulation, and foundation costs were derived from construction cost estimates on the 10 MWe
Solar Two central receiver projects in southern California
The oil-to-salt heat exchanger unit cost was estimated to be $147/m2 [5]
The balance of system includes piping, valves, instruments, electric heat tracing, thermal insulation, electric
power and control wiring, and structural steel. The costs were estimated to be 10 percent of the identified
component costs above.
The unit storage cost for the 1-hour case is very high because the high cost of the oil-to-salt heat exchanger must be
borne by a small storage capacity. For the remaining 5 cases, the cost of the oil-to-salt heat exchanger becomes
progressively less important.

4. Performance Modelling

4.1 PCTrough Performance Model

To determine the electricity production from solar power plant with and without storage annual performance
calculations of the considered configurations were done using the program PCTrough. PCTrough was developed by
Flabeg Solar based on the experience gained from similar programs such as SOLERGY and the LUZ model for
plants of the SEGS type. It has been significantly extended to include plant configurations with combustion turbine
combined cycles, thermal energy storage and dry cooling. The computer model output has been validated with
measured data from performance reports of SEGS plants (Price et. al [6]).
From the given meteorological input values of insolation and ambient temperature, the performance model calculates
hourly performance values of HTF mass flow and temperatures, collected solar thermal energy, thermal energy fed
into the storage, thermal energy taken from the storage, heat losses of solar field, piping and storage, dumped energy,
and electric gross and net power. The model also considers thermal inertia of the solar field, storage, and the HTF
system under transient insolation conditions.
The energy output of the solar field is calculated, taking the following into account: radiation, ambient temperature,
condition of solar field, shadowing caused by other collector rows, cosine losses, end losses of collectors, shadowing
by bellows, reflection losses, dirt and alignment losses, transmissivity of glass tube, absorption of selective layer on
absorber tube, incident angle effects on the above factors and, of course, the thermal losses by radiation, convection
and conduction. For this study the performance model was extended to account for the specific characteristics of a
molten salt two-tank storage.

4.2 Performance modleling of SEGS pants with thermal storage

In plant configurations with integrated thermal storage the solar field will be oversized compared to configurations
without storage. The solar multiple of the solar field depends on the storage capacity and also the local weather
conditions. The operation strategy of the storage and the whole plant can vary with the local weather conditions and
the local electricity demand and tariff structure. For the analyses presented here, the following operation strategy was
applied: Priority in operation always has the steam turbine; turbine operation comes before storage charging. Only if
the thermal energy collected by the solar field exceeds the design value of the steam generator of the Rankine cycle,
the surplus energy is fed into the thermal storage. If, on the other hand, the thermal energy collected by the solar field
is lower than the design value, additional energy will be taken from the storage, provided that enough energy was
stored. By this means the turbine can be operated at full load with high efficiency even under low radiation
conditions. Discharging of the storage and operation of the turbine continues after sunset until the storage is
discharged again. No specific operation or discharge profile was assumed for the storage. The storage is used in a
way that the turbine can be operates at full load as much as possible. However, storage discharging can easily be
shifted to periods with higher revenues, if there are any.
The storage model also considers heat losses of the cold and hot storage tanks. Heat loss measurements of the salt
storage tanks were done at Solar Two [2]. From the results a heat loss equation was derived which was used for the
performance analyses:
qloss = 0.00315 ( 0.0304 TSalt + 2.781) in [kW/m],
where Tsalt is the temperature of the salt in the hot and in the cold tank respectively.
The heat loss calculation is not only necessary to determine the efficiency of the storage, but also to determine if and
when freeze protection operation is required. The freezing point of the salt is about 220C, and it has to be
guaranteed that during bad weather periods or plant outages the salt temperature stays always well above this point
Figure 2 shows the result of a calculation for the
300 cooling of the cold storage tank, if it is out of
290
operation for several weeks. The calculation shows
Cold Tank Temperature [C]

280
T = 28 K
that after 6 weeks without charging and discharging
270
the storage the storage temperature will still be over
260
250C and hence well above the freezing point.
250
240
Such a long standstill period of the system is not
230
expected during normal operation. Consequently no
220 risk of freezing of the salt exists during normal
210 operation of the storage.
200
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Figure 2: Cooling curve of cold storage tank during
Days
standby over a period of 6 weeks

This was also demonstrated in the operation of the storage tanks of the Solar Two project [2]. No danger of freezing
of the tank inventory occurred in the 1 year of system testing. The Solar Two tanks were considerably smaller than
the tanks considered here, which leads to higher specific heat losses. The operation temperature of the cold tank of
Solar Two was 290C, which is similar to the temperature used here.
Nevertheless, freezing of salt has to be avoided under all circumstances when unexpected operation conditions or
plant outages will occur. Therefore, heat trace cable will be installed at the salt pipes and the salt-to-oil heat
exchanger, and immersion heaters will be installed in the tanks, to prevent the salt from freezing in emergency
situations. It is not expected to use the electrical heating in normal operation. Thus no auxiliary electricity
consumption of the heating is considered in the performance analyses. But the investment cost for the electrical
heating system is taken into account in the cost estimation.
The performance calculation also takes into account that the live steam temperature is lower during storage operation
than during daytime, when steam is generated directly by the solar field. This leads to a slight decrease of power
block efficiency. The results of the performance calculation are presented below in Table 3.

5. Economy of concept
The economic value of the molten salt storage concept was assessed by a Levelized Electricity Cost (LEC)
calculation. The cost were developed using the following equation:
(Investment cost)(Fixed charge rate) + Fuel cost + O & M cost
LEC [$/MWhe] =
Net electric output
The fixed charge rate is an economic factor, which converts the capital cost to an equivalent annual expense. A
representative value of 0.104 is used for this study. The input data and the results of the performance and LEC
calculation are presented in Table 3. The main result of the analysis is depicted in Figure 3. The plot shows the LEC
and the number of full load hours for different storage capacities and for a reference configuration without storage.
According to Figure 3, 2-Tank molten salt storage systems are economically attractive, if the storage system has a
minimum size. Already the cost estimation of
160 5600 the storage system itself (section 3.3) showed
4900 that the specific cost for a small storage
system is relatively high because of the high
120 4200
cost of the heat exchanger. Only storage
Annual full load hours
LEC [US$/MWh]

3500 system with a capacity bigger than 3 hrs can

achieve LECs, which are lower than for a
80 2800
trough plant without storage. The lowest
2100 LEC was calculated for a plant with a storage
40 1400
capacity of 12 hrs. The reduction in LEC is
about 10% compared to the reference system.
700
LEC Full load hours

0 0
0 1 3 6 9 12 15 Figure 3: Levelized electricity cost for trough
Storage capacity [hours] plants with molten salt storage
 Case 50MW / 0h 50MW / 1h 50MW / 3h 50MW / 6h 50MW / 9h 50MW/12h 50MW/15h
Site Barstow Barstow Barstow Barstow Barstow Barstow Barstow
DNR [kWh/ma] 2717 2717 2717 2717 2717 2717 2717
Nominal Power [MW] 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Storage Size [hr] 0 1 3 6 9 12 15
Solar Field Size [m] 305,200 340,080 374,960 479,600 584,240 619,120 654,000
Power Block Gross Efficiency 37.5% 37.5% 37.5% 37.5% 37.5% 37.5% 37.5%
Plant Performance
Operating Scenario solar only solar only solar only solar only solar only solar only solar only
Solar Thermal [GWh/a] 378 421 484 602 718 789 817
Steam Turbine, Gross [GWh/a] 119 133 154 196 238 267 278
Parasitics [GWh/a] 8 9 12 16 20 25 27
Total Fuel [106 m/a] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Full Load Hours [h/a] 2235 2480 2836 3607 4361 4840 5019
Capacitiy Factor [%] 26 28 32 41 50 55 57
Net Electric [GWh/a] 111.8 124.0 141.8 180.4 218.0 242.0 250.9
Economy
Total Project Cost 118,774 138,360 155,564 192,726 229,786 253,882 277,365
Annual O&M cost 3,514 3,652 3,843 4,181 4,498 4,710 4,877
LEC [USD/MWh] 141.7 145.2 140.9 134.0 129.9 128.2 134.0

Table 3 Results of performance and economic analyses of the 2-Tanks molten salt storage concept
Larger storage systems lead again to higher LECs. The reason for that is not only the again raising specific cost (see
Table 2). The main reason is the lower utilzation period of such big storages. On good days in summer the turbine
can be operated about 12 hrs directly from the solar field. Hence, the storage can only be used in the remaining 12
hrs and the hot tank cannot be discharged completely. A portion of about 20% of the storage capacity cannot be used,
which makes the system less economic.
In addition to the economic improvement, also the capacity factor of the plant increases considerably. For a 9 hr
storage the full-load hours are already doubled compared to a plant without storage, and for a 15 hr storage the plant
can operate at full load for almost 5000 hr.

6. Conclusion
Thermal storage can improve considerably the attractiveness of solar thermal power plants. It allows to extend or to
shift the operation of the plant from sunny periods to periods with a high peak demand. Thus the plant can operate
much more flexible and times of mismatch between energy supply by the sun and energy demand can be reduced. In
the presented study the technical and economical feasibility of a two-tank molten salt storage was assessed. No major
technical barriers were found to realize this concept. The LEC calculation has shown that this concept can improve
the economy of parabolic trough plants, provided that the storage is big enough. A storage of 12 hrs full load
capacity reduces the LEC about 10%. Hence, storage systems do not only improve the flexibility of solar power
plants but also helps to reduce the specific electricity cost and thus can support market introduction of this
technology.
References
[1] Kelly B.D., Herrmann U., Kearney D.W., Evaluation and Performance Modelling for Integrated Solar
Combined Cycle Systems and Thermal Storage System, Final Report Prepared for NREL, Contract Number RAR-
9-29442-05, 2000
[2] Pacheco J.E., Gilbert R., Overview of Recent Results of the Solar Two Test and Evaluations Program,
Renewable and Advanced Energy Systems for the 21st Century, Proceedings of the 1999 ASME International Solar
Energy Conference, Maui, HI, April 11-14, 1999
[3] Barth D.L., Pacheco J.E, Kolb W.J., Development of a High-Temperature, Long-Shafted, Molten-Salt Pump for
Power Tower Applications, Proceedings of the Solar Forum 2001, Washington, DC, April 21-25, 2001
[4] Martin Marietta Corporation (Denver, Colorado), Molten Salt Safety Study, Sandia National Laboratories
Report SAND80-8179, June 1980
[5] Nexant Inc. (San Francisco, California), Thermal Storage Oil-to-Salt Heat Exchanger Design and Safety
Analysis, Task Order Authorization Number KAF-9-29765-09, March 22, 2001
[6] H. Price, P. Svoboda, D. Kearney, Validation of the FLAGSOL Parabolic Trough Solar Power Plant
Performance Model, Proceedings of the ASME/JSME/JSES International Solar Energy Conference, Maui, Hawaii,
March 1995.

View publication stats