P R E P R I N T – ICPWS XV

Berlin, September 8–11, 2008

A Concept for Future Parabolic Trough Based Solar Thermal Power Plants

Jürgen Birnbaum a, Markus Eck b, Markus Fichtner a, Tobias Hirsch b,

Robert Pitz-Paal c and Gerhard Zimmermann a
a
Siemens AG, Sector Energy, Erlangen (Germany)
b
German Aerospace Center (DLR), Institute of Technical Thermodynamics, Stuttgart
(Germany)
c
German Aerospace Center (DLR), Institute of Technical Thermodynamics, Cologne
(Germany)
Email: juergen.jb.birnbaum@siemens.com

After periods of stagnancy, the production of electricity from Concentrating Solar Power (CSP)
currently takes a clear turn towards technology improvement and market penetration. Already in
the 80’s a total plant capacity of 354 MWel has been installed in California’s Mojave Desert,
which has been successfully operated until today. Only broad subsidies as granted first of all by
the Spanish government or legal obligations initiated a recent boom in project development, and,
in the meantime, various plants are in erection phase or already in operation. They are mostly
based on parabolic trough collector technology with indirect steam generation. As one
alternative the direct steam generation is discussed, which has already been proven in a
demonstration loop on the Plataforma Solar de Almería in more than 6000 operating hours. In
the paper a brief overview over the current status of the direct steam generation is given and a
basic plant layout for a 50 MWel direct steam generating parabolic trough plant with a 6 h
thermal storage system is analyzed.

Introduction heat transfer fluid and heat exchanger equipment is

Current parabolic trough power plants are built
with indirect steam generation (ISG). Such plants
are using two cycles: solar field and power block.
In the solar field, synthetic oil is circulated and
heated up in absorber tubes by concentrating solar
irradiation. The oil is pumped to oil-water heat
exchangers and the heat is transferred to the water-
steam cycle of the conventional power block
(Rankine cycle). There, the steam is expanded in a
steam turbine. However, synthetic oils are only
chemically stable up to approx. 400 °C, which
limits the main steam temperature and consequently
the overall plant efficiency.
To overcome this restriction, alternative heat
transfer fluids are discussed [17]. One of the most
promising ones is the direct steam generation (DSG)
in the absorber pipes. Several R&D projects aimed
at component development, process improvement
and storage concepts for DSG, should bring the
technology to commercialization. In near term,
main steam temperatures of ~500 °C should be
reachable. Due to the usage of water as heat transfer
fluid in the solar field and the power block, the
system is operated with one cycle and the costly
not needed.
Current status of direct steam generation
Since the middle of the 90’s the research
activities in the field of direct steam generation in
parabolic troughs have been growing. After first
theoretical analysis and lab-scale testing of the
thermo-hydraulics and the thermo-mechanic stress
in horizontal absorber tubes [1][2] as well as
various operation strategies [3][4], a 700 m
demonstration loop was installed on the Plataforma
Solar Almeriá (Spain)
[5][6][7]. There, the different operation
strategies were tested and evaluated. Also the
functionality of the concept was proven. Today, the
test loop is used for component development, e.g.
high temperature absorber tubes [8] and water-
steam separators [9], as well as the development of
operation and control strategies to optimize the
dynamic behaviour of the DSG in parabolic
troughs [10].
A first step towards a demonstration plant was
taken with the pre-engineering of a 5MWel DSG
plant in the project INDITEP [18]. This pre-design
is now used as base for a 3 MWel demonstration two (three for 500 °C) ET-150 collectors with an
plant, which will be built by a Spanish Consortium injection cooler in front of the last collector to
at the Plataforma Solar de Almería until the end of stabilize the outlet temperature.
2009 [11]. Another consortium aiming at the
development of commercial parabolic trough plant
with DSG has already started with the development
of components for 500 °C application (e.g. absorber
tubes, storage system, flexible tube
connections) [12]. The next steps will be the
demonstration and qualification of the components
at the Litoral steam power plant in Carboneras and
afterwards the erection of a stand-alone
demonstration plant with 5 MWel [12]. Along with
this project, basic designs and operation strategies
for 50 MWel DSG power plants are
developed [12][13].
To enlarge the operation time range and the
flexibility of the power plant another essential
Figure 1: Solar field layout for the 400 °C
component for commercial DSG power plants is an configuration.
integrated thermal storage system. In several
projects the development and demonstration of such Contrary to ISG parabolic trough power plants,
a storage system is pursued. Most promising is a in which a sensible heat storage system such as
modular storage system based on a high molten salt is suited to store energy, in DSG power
temperature concrete for sensible heat storage and plants adapted storage systems for latent and
on a phase changing material for latent heat sensible heat storage (due to the evaporation of
storage [13][14]. This modular concept is now steam in the absorber tubes) are advantageous
tested in pilot storage systems [12][14][15]. (Figure 2).

Basic power plant layout

Within the German ITES project a 50 MWel

DSG power plant is pre-designed with a wet
cooling tower and a 6 h storage system, which
enables a more flexible operation of the plant. Two
basic concepts are analyzed one for a main steam
temperature of 400 °C (using state-of-the-art
absorber tubes) and a future 500 °C concept
(reachable with newly developed absorber tubes).
The main steam pressure depends on the chosen
storage concept and materials as explained later.
In previous studies the recirculation mode was
evaluated as the preferable operation mode for DSG
solar fields [2][4][7]. This operation mode was
therefore also taken for the layout of the solar field
in this study. The field is divided into four
preheating/evaporation sections and two
superheating sections with four centralized
water/steam separators in between the sections
(Figure 1). Each preheating/superheating section is
composed of parallel rows (optimized number of
rows depending on a techno-economical analysis)
each with four/six (six for 500 °C) Eurotrough-150
(ET-150) parabolic trough collectors. In the
superheating section, the parallel rows consist of
Figure 2: Basic thermodynamic aspects of
storage integration.
The adapted storage system consists of high
temperature concrete for the storage of sensible
heat (preheating and superheating) [14] and a phase
change material (PCM) for the storage of latent heat
(evaporation/condensation) [15]. For both
temperature levels mixtures of salts are selected as
PCM. During charging, the salt melts at its specific
melting temperature. In order to drive the process a
sufficiently high temperature difference (e.g. 10 K)
between the condensing steam and the salt is
needed. For this reason, the steam pressure for
charging has to be higher than the condensation
pressure at the salt melting temperature. The same

2
holds for discharging, where the same temperature pressure is maintained which allows solar field
difference is needed to get the heat out of the operation and storage discharge in parallel.
storage material. Due to this physical boundary
conditions the driving temperature gradients needed Power block layout
for each thermal storage system automatically cause
a corresponding pressure gradient between charge The design of the Rankine cycle is based on a
and discharge operation (Figure 3). For the generic turbine model of the Siemens SST-700
preheating and the superheating sections and the steam turbine, which today is used in all parabolic
storage system piping an additional pressure loss of trough power plants under construction worldwide
3 bar is assumed. (Table 1). Its advantages are high efficiency also in
part load, fast start-up, fast load changes and a good
price/performance ratio. The main steam
parameters for both cycles are defined as mentioned
before by the boundary conditions and the im-
plementation of the modular storage system. Hence,
the state-of-the-art concept is designed for
400 °C/110 bar and the concept for mid-term
application for 500 °C/156 bar.
Table1: Reference list of the Siemens SST-
700 for CSP applications.
Figure 3: Impact of the storage system on the Project Rated
main steam pressure. Site
Name Power
As a consequence, the storage system requires Nevada Solar Boulder City,
1x74 MW
One Nevada, US
steam at a high pressure level for charging (e.g.
Andasol I/II Guadix, Spain 2x50 MW
110 bar for the 400 °C concept). On the other hand
steam with significantly lower pressure (e.g. 78 bar Ibersol Puertollano,
1x50 MW
Ciudad Real Spain
for the 400 °C concept) can be delivered to the
ExtreSol I/II Spain 2x50 MW
power block during storage discharge. Along with
the reduced discharge pressure the turbine power is Solnova Sanlucar, Spain 2x50 MW
decreased. This means that the nominal power of Acciona I Spain 1x50 MW
the turbine cannot be reached during storage Helios I/II Spain 2x50 MW
operation. Because of the low main steam parameters a
reheat system is necessary to avoid unacceptable
110 bar fixed pressure mode high moisture content at the turbine outlet. The
solar field outlet pressure

reheat system should ensure a pressure loss as small

78 bar modified sliding
storage as possible and a reheat temperature as high or even
no storage
charge higher (e.g. fossil steam power plant) than the main
charge or
discharge steam temperature to increase the efficiency. For
sliding optional storage the solar plant concepts reheat from three different
min
discharge sources is considered: a separate reheat solar field,
a steam-steam heat exchanger and a fossil fired
reheat. Due to the low pressure of the reheat steam
min 1 and the additional headers the pressure loss in a
standardized power of turbine separate reheat solar field is expected to be ~10 bar.
Such a pressure loss dramatically reduces the
Figure 4: Operation mode of the solar boiler.
overall block efficiency. Considering hybrid solar
Figure 4 shows the modified sliding pressure plants, fossil fired reheat would be an option, but
mode which is chosen as a reference for the solar
due to the restriction of fossil co-firing in Spain and
heated “boiler”. During nominal operation at other countries it is not considered in this study.
110 bar the steam can be fed into the turbine and Another option is to use part of the main steam to
into the storage system in parallel. If irradiance
indirectly superheat the steam from the cold reheat,
goes down the solar field is operated in sliding which offers a considerable low pressure loss.
pressure mode down to 78 bar. From there on, the Because of this reasons the reheat system for the

3
concepts is designed with a steam-steam heat
exchanger.
The integration of the storage system is, due to
the above mentioned requirements for charging and
discharging of the PCM storage, not as easy as in
solar thermal power plants with ISG. With the
operation strategy described above (Figure 4)
pressure levels for the main steam are fixed for
solar-only (storage charging) and storage-only
operation. In parallel operation of the solar field
and the storage system the turbine and therefore
also the solar field is operated in sliding pressure
mode. Due to the pressure difference in parallel
operation (depending on the operating point)
between the steam from the solar field and the
storage steam the two flows cannot be mixed.
Possible solutions how to integrate both steam parts
are evaluated in the following chapter.
The complete layout of the DSG parabolic
trough power plant is shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Overall plant layout.
Optimization of the power block
Due to the different operation strategies - a CSP
plant follows the thermal heat input of the sun, a
fossil fired steam power plant follows the load
demand from the grid - the conventional cycle has
to be adapted and optimized for the stationary as
well as the dynamic behaviour. Optimization
parameters for the stationary layout are the final
feed water temperature (FFWT), the reheat system
and the integration of the storage system into the
power block.
4
The optimal FFWT is a compromise between
the thermodynamic efficiencies of the power block
and the solar field. It should be as high as possible
for highest thermodynamic efficiency of the power
block because the mean temperature of heat input is
risen and the conversion losses are minimized.
However, a high FFWT increases the thermal losses
in the solar field. For FFWT of 205 °C, 245 °C and
260 °C the overall plant efficiency (gross)
depending on the direct solar irradiance was
analyzed [13]. The result shows a slightly better
overall efficiency for a FFWT of 260 °C than for
the 245 °C and a noticeable better efficiency than
for the 205 °C. To finally determine the optimal
FFWT, the part load behaviour of the plant must be
considered, too, which means calculating the annual
electricity generation.
Following the basic considerations for the
reheat system a steam-steam heat exchanger with
condensation is proposed. Using the condensation
energy of the heating steam, it is thermo-
dynamically not possible to reach the temperature
level of the main steam. Therefore, the reheat
system cannot be used to increase the overall plant
efficiency as it is normally the target in fossil fired
steam power plants. To avoid an unacceptable high
moisture content at the LP-outlet a reheat
temperature of approx. 300-330 °C is sufficient
depending on the steam pressure at the LP-turbine
inlet. Hence the concepts are designed with a
parallel flow heat exchanger with a minimum
temperature difference of 12 K (Figure 6).
 power output in parallel operation because the main
steam mass flow from the solar field has not to be
limited due to the maximal pressure (storage). The
solar-only and storage-only operation is
characterized by a lower efficiency and lower
power output compared to option I because of the
layout of the turbine. Some exemplary cases are
shown in Table 2. Which option is to prefer
depends strongly on the size and the operation
strategy of the storage. Hence, the best solution can
only be determined by calculations of the annual
electricity generation.

Figure 6: Layout of a parallel flow steam-

steam heat exchanger.
The pressure levels for charging and
discharging the storage are fixed due to the use of a
PCM as storage material for latent heat storage. The
necessary inlet pressure of the storage system for Figure 7: Option I of the storage integration.
charging is taken as design pressure for the total
system. Hence, the defined charging pressure is
always ensured. The fixed discharge pressure has to
be considered in the design of the operation strategy
(here: the turbine is operated in fixed pressure mode,
if storage operation is necessary). For parallel
operation (steam from the solar field and the
storage) the turbine is operated in sliding pressure
mode till the main steam pressure reaches the
storage steam pressure level. Then the steam from
the storage can be mixed with the solar field steam
in front of the turbine (option I). Another option is
the integration of the storage steam in a turbine
stage with the adequate pressure level (option II).
Figure 8: Option II of the storage integration.
Both options (Figure 7 and 8) differ significantly in
the layout of the conventional cycle. In option I the The resulting thermodynamic layouts of the
turbine can be optimally designed for the main power block using a FFWT of 260 °C, a parallel
steam parameters in the design case. Whereas in flow steam-steam reheater with a minimal
option II the storage steam integration into the temperature difference of 12 K and a storage
turbine has to be considered. Therefore, one turbine integration with option I show a considerable
tapping cannot be used due to mechanical and efficiency gain for the 500 °C concept compared to
spatial problems. the 400 °C concept at design conditions (Table 3).
Option I is optimized for solar-only and storage- The overall plant efficiency for both concepts,
only operation. In parallel operation the maximal the superior storage integration and therefore the
main steam mass flow (till injectivity is reached) thermodynamically superior plant concept has to be
and therefore also the maximal power is limited due determined with the help of annual electricity
to the storage steam pressure. Over the whole generation calculations, which are discussed in the
operating area the efficiency of this option is higher following.
than the efficiency of option II. The main advantage
of option II is the significantly higher maximal

5
 operation under given boundary conditions only a
subset is necessary that reflects the storage
Table2: Exemplary performance data of the
operating strategy [13]. With the assumption of a
storage integration options.
fixed price for the electricity sold the operating
I II strategy simplifies to:
performance - design point - Storage is charged only when solar field
power (gross) [MW] 50 50
power exceeds turbine net power.
- Storage is discharged only when solar field
main steam [°C/bar] 400/110 400/110
power is lower than peak power during
η (gross) [%] 40,2 39,3 discharge operation.
performance - parallel operation In case the electricity is sold at the electricity spot
(54% of steam from solar field - 46% from storage) market an optimized storage management might
power (gross) [MW] 35,4 46,0 become advantageous [16]. For the storage system,
it is assumed that it operates with an overall
main steam [°C/bar] 390,8/78 400/82,9
efficiency of 80% that means 80% of the stored
storage steam [°C/bar] - 380/78 energy can later be used during discharge. The
η (gross) [%] 38,9 37,6 discharge steam temperature is 380 °C (480 °C for
performance – storage only operation (max.) the 500°C design). The steam mass flow from the
storage allows turbine operation at the discharge
power (gross) [MW] 35,25 35,28
pressure of 78 bar (116 bar for 500 °C design). The
main steam [°C/bar] 380/78 380/78 same maximum mass flow is assumed for charge
storage steam [°C/bar] 380/78 380/78 operation.
η (gross) [%] 38,74 38,06
Results for 400 °C reference configuration
Table3: Performance data of the two
concepts in the design point. Five solar fields with different sizes have been
designed for the annual calculations. For each of
400 °C 500 °C these configurations a variation in the storage
110 bar 156 bar capacity is simulated with a reference storage
performance - design point capacity of 687 MWh (6 hours). The net electricity
power (gross) [MW] 50 50 production is given in Figure 9. The two small solar
heat input [MW] 124.3 117.6 fields are not suited since the solar field excess
thermal energy is very small compared to the
η (gross) [%] 40.2 42.5
storage capacity.

140
General assumptions for the annual calculations
net electricity yield GWh/a

120
The results presented in this paper have been 100
obtained for the location of Tabernas (Spain) with 80
an annual irradiation sum of 2111 kWh/m2 which
60 532.000 m^2
represents a medium value for the Iberian peninsula.
40 401.000 m^2
Very good sites e.g. in California can reach up to 332.000 m^2
2600 kWh/m2. 20 276.000 m^2
The parabolic trough collectors have a peak 221.000 m^2
0
optical efficiency of 75% (this value is based on a 0 200 400 600 800 1000
mean cleanliness of the mirrors). An overall
storage capacity / MWh
availability of 85% is assumed that includes
availability of the components and start-up losses. Figure 9: Electricity yield for the 400 °C
Solar field operation is possible when the direct reference configuration.
normal irradiation of the collector field reaches a Figure 10 shows the weekly energy throughput
threshold of 300 W/m2. for different storage sizes. Due to the large
By inserting a thermal storage into the solar differences in irradiation between summer and
power plant the number of possible operating points winter season the thermal storage system is nearly
is significantly increased. For the practical not used in winter time. In summer time, solar

6
energy has to be dumped since the mass flow from Comparison of storage integration options
the solar field would exceed the sum of peak
turbine and charge mass flow. This loss of energy In case the steam generated in the thermal
can be reduced by enhancing the charge power of storage is mixed with the steam from the solar field
the storage system, see Table 4. The storage system the maximum turbine power is reduced since the
is assumed to operate with a thermal efficiency steam has a pressure of only 78 bar instead
of 80%. Table 4 gives also some numbers how this of 110 bar in solar-only operation. An option, as
efficiency influences the annual electricity yield. described in one of the last sections is to feed the
steam from the storage into the second high-
pressure stage of the turbine. The values of the
900 MWh annual electricity generation for both options are
687 MWh given in Table 5.
500 MWh
300 MWh When feeding the steam into the second turbine
0 MWh stage the thermal energy can be used more
efficiently and the maximum power during
combined solar and storage operation is increased.
Since the number of hours in this operation mode is
small, the benefit is compensated by the decrease in
turbine efficiency for the regular solar only
operation.
900 MWh
687 MWh
500 MWh Comparison of 400 °C and 500 °C plant
300 MWh
0 MWh The efficiency of the power block can be
improved by increasing the life steam temperature
from 400 °C to 500 °C. On the other hand the heat
losses in the solar field get larger with higher
absorber tube temperatures.
For the 400 °C reference plant the thermal
efficiency of the absorber tubes is based on the
Figure 10: Weekly storage and power block
Schott PTR-70 absorber tube with an outer
throughput for the 400 °C reference
configuration and a solar field size Table 5: Effect of storage steam integration
of 401.000 m2. for the reference storage capacity of
687 MWh
Table 4: Effect of storage parameters on the
electricity production (400 °C / 687 Annual net electricity yield
MWh). Solar Reference Option
Solar field size m2 331776 400896 532224 field 1. turbine 2. turbine Difference
Net annual electricity yield / GWh size stage stage
Reference 100.24 117.04 134.80 m2 GWh GWh %
Charge power 100% 221.184 66.75 65.58 -1.76
Efficiency 80%
276.480 84.29 82.81 -1.75
Charge power 50% 98.07 109.05 121.04
331.776 100.24 98.27 -1.96
Charge power 150% 100.24 117.44 137.40
Efficiency 60% 97.03 111.50 127.14
400.896 117.04 114.82 -1.90
Efficiency 100% 103.36 120.29 139.22 532.224 134.80 131.65 -2.34
Difference compared to reference diameter of 70 mm. Since the selective coating of
Charge power 50% -2.16% -6.82% -10.21% this tube is not stable for temperatures of 500 °C a
Charge power 150% 0.00% 0.34% 1.92% different absorber tube is used for the high
Efficiency 60% -3.20% -4.74% -5.68% temperature configuration. The coating was
Efficiency 100% 3.11% 2.78% 3.28% developed and evaluated within the DIVA project.
In addition to its higher temperature stability this
tube also has a better thermal efficiency. When
replacing the PTR-70 absorber tubes in the 400 °C
reference configuration with the more efficient

7
DIVA absorber tubes [8] the annual electricity yield
is increased according to Table 6. Table 8: Collector efficiency for 400 °C and
500 °C
Table 6: Effect of absorber tube efficiency for
the 400 °C reference configuration Solar field efficiency
(687 MWh) Irradiance 400 °C 500 °C Δ

Solar Annual net electricity yield % %

field size PTR-70 DIVA Difference 300 W/m 2
60.7 46.5 -23.4%
m2 GWh GWh % 500 W/m2 66.1 57.5 -13.0%
331.776 100.24 105.47 5.21 800 W/m2 69.1 63.7 -7.8%
400.896 117.04 121.69 3.97
532.224 134.80 139.03 3.13
140
The benefit is smaller for the large fields since

net electricity yield GWh/

only a part of the additional thermal energy from
the solar field can be used in the power block and
storage system during periods of high irradiation.
For the 500 °C plant layout, the solar fields have
to be re-designed taking into account the higher
pressure level of 156 bar. Two solar field designs
are defined with aperture areas of 331.776 m² and
497.664 m2. The result of the annual calculations is
shown together with the data of Table 6 in
Figure 11. It turns out that the step from 400 °C
to 500 °C for systems with the DIVA absorber tube
does not change the annual output. The data in
Table 7 reveal that the net efficiency of the 500 °C
power block is significantly larger than the one of
the 400 °C block. The highest gains are obtained in
part load and storage discharge operation. For large
solar fields, the power block is operated close to the
design point for most of the time. The improved
part load behaviour has only small impact on the
annual sum. In the solar field, the heat losses
significantly rise when operating at 500 °C, see
Table 8. This is, on the one hand, caused by the
higher temperatures in the superheater, and, on the
other hand, by the higher temperature in the
evaporator. There, the water boiling temperature is
increased due to the life steam pressure of 156 bar
instead of 110 bar. The latter effect could be
avoided if the 500 °C system is operated at 110 bar.
Taking into account this technical option is part of
current studies.
Table 7: Power block efficiency for 400 °C
and 500 °C
Net power block efficiency
Load 400 °C 500 °C Δ the start-up of a 500 °C plant will take longer. In
110 bar 156 bar
% %
Solar only 100 % 37.4 39.3 5.1%
Solar only 50 % 34.4 37.1 7.8%
Storage only 73 % 35.6 38 6.7%
130
120
110
100
90
400 °C, DIVA
80
400 °C, PTR-70
70 500 °C, DIVA
60
200000 300000 400000 500000
aperture area / m2
Figure 11: Electricity yield for the 400 °C and
500 °C configurations (storage
687MWh).
For the two systems defined here
(400 °C/110 bar and 500 °C/156 bar) the efficiency
effects from solar field and power block are
balanced and it is found that, from an energetic
point of view, the high temperature configuration
has no advantage compared to the low temperature
case (both using the same absorber tube). A recent
study [19] shows that the benefit for the step
from 400 °C to 500 °C also depends on the annual
irradiation available at a specific site. As Table 8
reveals the efficiency of the absorber tube is much
better for high irradiance. If the number of
operating hours with low irradiation is reduced, the
annual solar field efficiency gets higher. A site with
a large number of high irradiance operating hours
will therefore be in favour for a 500 °C system.
For this study, it is assumed that the same time
is needed for the start up of both systems. In reality,
winter time when the storage capacity is nearly not
used an operation with reduced steam temperature
of less than 500 °C might be possible to improve
the annual efficiency of the system. This has to be
carefully checked in detail since the balance

8
between evaporator and superheater is influenced
by the system pressure.
Conclusion and outlook
The study reveals the integration concept of a
thermal storage system into the overall plant as one
important difference between ISG and DSG
parabolic trough power plants. Because of the
characteristics of the PCM storage the superheated
steam generated there is lower in pressure level
compared to the main steam from the solar field.
Detailed analyses show that feeding the steam from
the storage into the main path of the HP turbine
(first stage) results in best integration and
performance. Compared to other concepts for
reheating the steam, heating with condensing main
steam turns out to be best. It doesn't improve the
performance, but is needed to avoid unacceptable
moisture in the LP turbine. Calculations of the
annual electricity generation demonstrate no
significant advantage of the DSG layouts where
500 °C main steam is generated compared to
400 °C layouts, although the efficiency of the
power block is significantly higher. The thermal
losses in the field, due to the higher mean
temperature, compensate the efficiency gain of the
power block. This result holds for the specific
configurations studied and cannot be generalized.
In the on-going project further calculations will be
performed to get a complete view of sensitivities of
the parameters assumed.
Literature
[1] W. Köhler, O. Herbst, W. Krätzer:
Grundlegende Untersuchungen zur Solaren
Direktverdampfung von Wasser nach dem
Einspritzkonzept, Abschlussbericht zum
BMBF Forschungsvorhaben Nr. 0329509A
(1996).
[2] O. Göbel: Wärmeübergang in Absorberrohren
von Parabolrinnen-Solarkraftwerken.
Fortschritts-Berichte VDI, Düsseldorf (1998).
[3] M. Eck, W.-D. Steinmann, A. Stryk, F. Yildirim,
S. Zunft: Untersuchungen zur Regelungs-
technik bei der solaren Direktverdampfung,
Abschlussbericht zum BMBF Forschungs-
vorhaben Nr. 0329711 (1999).
[4] M. Eck: Die Dynamik der solaren
Direktverdampfung und Überhitzung in
Parabolrinnenkollektoren. Fortschritts-
Berichte VDI, Düsseldorf (2001).
9
[5] M. Eck, W.-D. Steinmann: Direct Steam
Generation in Parabolic Troughs: First Results
of the DISS-Project. Journal of Solar Energy
Engineering, 124, 134-139 (2002).
[6] M. Eck, H.-D. Weyers, M. Eickhoff, K.
Hennecke, E. Zarza, L. Valenzuela, J. León:
The DISS-Project: Direct Steam Generation in
Parabolic Trough Systems. Operation and
Maintenance Experience and Update on
Project Status. Journal of Solar Energy
Engineering, 126, 126-133 (2002).
[7] E. Zarza, L. Valenzuela, J. León, K. Hennecke,
M. Eck, H.-D. Weyers, M. Eickhoff: Direct
steam generation in parabolic troughs: Final
results and conclusions of the DISS project.
Energy, 29, 635-637 (2004).
[8] N. Benz, W. Graf, Z. Hacker, Ch. Hildebrandt,
M. Möllenhoff, J. Schulte-Fischedick, K. Silmy:
Advances in Receiver Technology for
Parabolic Troughs. Proceedings 14th
International SolarPACES Symposium, Las
Vegas (2008).
[9] T. Hirsch: Dynamische Systemsimulation und
Auslegung des Abscheidesystems für die
solare Direktverdampfung in
Parabolrinnenkollektoren. Fortschritts-
Berichte VDI, Düsseldorf (2005).
[10] L. Valenzuela, E. Zarza, M. Berenguel, E.F.
Camacho: Control scheme for direct steam
generation in parabolic troughs under
recirculation operation mode. Solar Energy,
80, 1-17 (2006).
[11] E. Zarza, C. López, A. Cámara, A. Martinez, J.
I. Burgaleta, J. C. Martín, A. Fresneda:
Almería GDV: The First Solar Power Plant
with Direct Steam Generation. Proceedings
14th International SolarPACES Symposium,
Las Vegas (2008).
[12] M. Eck, C. Bahl, K.-H. Bartling, A. Biezma, M.
Eickhoff, E. Ezquierro, P. Fontela, K.
Hennecke, D. Laing, M. Möllenhoff, M. Nölke,
K.-J. Riffelmann: Direct Steam Generation in
Parabolic Troughs at 500°C: A German –
Spanish Project Targeted on Component
Development and System Design. Proceedings
14th International SolarPACES Symposium,
Las Vegas (2008).
[13] J. Birnbaum, M. Eck, M. Fichtner, T. Hirsch,
D. Lehmann, G. Zimmermann: A direct steam
generation solar power plant with integrated
thermal storage. Proceedings 14th International
SolarPACES Symposium, Las Vegas (2008).
[14] D. Laing, W.-D. Steinmann, M. Fiß, R. Tamme,
T. Brand, C. Bahl: Solid Media Thermal
Storage Development and Analysis of
Modular Storage Operation Concepts for
Parabolic Trough Power Plants. Proceedings
13th International SolarPACES Symposium,
Seville (2006).
[15] W.-D. Steinmann, D. Laing, R. Tamme: Latent
Heat Storage Systems for Power Plants and
Process Heat Applications. Proceedings 14th
International SolarPACES Symposium, Las
Vegas (2008).
[16] M. Wittmann, M. Eck, T. Hirsch: Theoretical
economic potential of the Spanish premium
tariff for solar thermal power plants.
Proceedings 14th International SolarPACES
Symposium, Las Vegas (2008).
[17] M. Eck, K. Hennecke: Heat transfer fluids for
future parabolic trough solar thermal power
plants. In: Goswami, D. Yogi; Zhao, Yuwen
[Ed.]: ISES Solar World Congress 2007, ISES
Solar World Congress, Beijing (China), S.
1806 – 1812.
[18] E. Zarza, M. E. Rojas, L. González, J. M.
Caballero, F. Rueda: INDITEP: The first pre-
commercial DSG solar power plant. Solar
Energy, 80, 1270-1276 (2006).
[19] M. Eck, N. Benz, F. Feldhoff, Y. Gilon, Z.
Hacker, T. Müller, K.-J. Riffelmann, K. Silmy,
D. Tislaric: The potential of direct steam
generation in parabolic troughs – results of the
German project DIVA. Proceedings 14th
International SolarPACES Symposium, Las
Vegas (2008).

10