ABSTRACT

BIOMASS SUPPORTED SOLAR THERMAL HYBRID POWER PLANT
2019
A Technical Seminar Report

On
A seminar report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the

award of the degree of
BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY
In
ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING
By
SHAIK SHAHEEDA
15KA1A0220
Under the Guidance of

K S PRATAP
DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING

JNTUA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
KALIKIRI – 517234
2018 - 2019.
Dept.of,EE,JNTUACEK 2
2019
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY ANATHAPURAM

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING KALIKIRI
KALIKIRI - 517234.
DEPARTMENT OF
ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING
CERTIFICATE
Certified that this is a bonafide record of the dissertation work entitled, “BIOMASS SUPPORTED SOLAR
THERMAL HYBRID POWER PLANT”, done by SHAIK. SHAHEEDA bearing Admission no. 15KA1A0220 submitted
to the faculty of Electrical and Electronics Engineering in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree
of BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY from Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Ananthapur College of
Engineering, Kalikiri.WS
SEMINAR GUIDE HEED
2019
ABSTRACT
The environmental, economic and strategic reasons are behind the rapid impulse in the
deployment of renewable energy sources that is taking place around the world. In addition to overcoming
economic and commercial barriers, meeting the ambitious objectives set by most countries in this field will
require the development of novel technologies capable of maximizing the energy potential of different
renewable sources at an acceptable cost. The use of solar radiation and biomass for power generation is
growing rapidly, particularly in areas of the globe where these resources are plentiful, like Mediterranean
countries. However, solar energy plants necessarily suffer from the intermittency of day/night cycles and
also from reduced irradiation periods (winter, cloudy days, short transients). Biomass power plants have to
confront the logistic problems associated with the continuous supply of very large amounts of a relatively
scarce and seasonal fuel. Hybrid systems may provide the solution to these limitations, maximizing the
energy potential of these resources, increasing process efficiency, providing greater security of supply and
reducing overall costs.
This work provides a practical introduction to the production of electricity from conventional
Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) and biomass power plants, which is used as the basis to evaluate the
technical and economic benefits associated with hybrid CSP-biomass energy systems. The paper initially
analyses alternative configurations for a 10 MWE hybrid CSP- biomass combustion power plant. The Solar
Advisor Model (SAM) was used to determine the contribution of the solar field using quasi-steady
generation conditions. The contribution of the biomass and gas boiler to the power plant was estimated
considering the available radiation throughout the year. An economic assessment of a 10 MWE power
plant based on conventional CSP, biomass combustion and hybrid technology is calculated. The results
show that investment costs for hybrid CSP- biomass power plants are higher than for conventional CSP
and biomass combustion plants alone. However, owing to the shared use of some of the equipment, this
value is significantly lower (24% saving) than a simple addition of the investment costs associated with the
two standard technologies. In contrast, effective operating hours and, therefore, overall energy generation,
are significantly higher than in conventional CSP (2.77 times higher) and avoids the need for highly
expensive heat storage system. Owing to the lower biomass requirements, hybrid plants may have larger
capacities than standard biomass combustion plants, which implies higher energy efficiencies and a
reduced risk associated with biomass supply. Universidad Politechnica de Madrid (UPM) is currently
2019
collaborating with a consortium of private companies in the development of a first commercial hybrid
CSP-biomass combustion power plant that is expected to start operating in 2012.
TITLE PAGE.NO
CONTENTS
1. Abstract
2. Index
INDEX
CHAPTER-1
1. Introduction
CHAPTER-2
2.1. Technology Assessment of CSP and Biomass Combustion
2.2. CSP plant
2.3. Biomass combustion plant
2.4. Common Equipment
CHAPTER-3
3.1. Alternative Configurations of a CSP-Biomass hybrid system
3.2. Substitution of the backup natural gas boiler for a Biomass boiler
3.3. Connecting the solar field and Biomass boiler in parallel
CHAPTER-4
4.1. Technology assessment of CSP-Biomass hybrid technology
4.2. Modelling and Methodology
4.2.1. Solar field thermal production.
4.2.2. Methodologies used
4.2.3. Natural gas heaters and biomass boilers
4.2.4. Rankine cycle : Electrical output
CHAPTER-5
5.1. Economic Assessment
3. Conclusion
4. References
2019
CHAPTER-1
1. INTRODUCTION
Most governments in the world are adopting measures aimed at facilitating the deployment of
renewable energy sources. Spain has often been cited as an example in this field owing to the efficiency of
its regulatory framework in the development of alternative energy technologies (del Río, 2008). As a result,
this country has become the world leader in solar thermoelectric technology, with six commercial plants
currently in operation and 27 plants under construction for a total capacity of 1,037 MWE (San Miguel et
al., 2010).
In Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) plants, electricity is generated by heating a fluid (synthetic
oil) to high temperatures (typically over 375ºC) using solar radiation that has been concentrated using
mirrors or lenses. The hot fluid is used to produce superheated steam (370-375 ºC, 90-100 bar depending
on the characteristics of the Rankine cycle) (Montes et al., 2009) that drives a Rankine cycle steam turbine
connected to an electricity generator. Different technologies have been developed to concentrate the solar
radiation, depending on the required fluid temperature, plant size and capacity. The most widely used are
power towers and parabolic trough (Wolff et al., 2008). A key drawback in CSP plants relates to the
intermittence of its power generation, due to the day/night cycles and also the periods of reduced
irradiation (winter, cloudy periods). To overcome this problem, research is being conducted to develop
efficient heat storage systems (molten salts, concrete, latent heat) and other energy storage alternatives
(pumped hydroelectricity, hydrogen, etc). However, these technologies have been reported to be expensive
and/or not sufficiently proven (Palgrave, 2008).
In contrast, biomass combustion is a mature technology with a large number of power plants in
operation worldwide. However, the energy efficiency of this technology is limited and the operating and
investment costs are high, resulting in low financial returns (Caputo et al., 2005). Biomass power plants
have been adapted to different fuels (agriculture and industrial by-products, energy crops), with plant
capacities typically ranging between 2-50 MWE. The larger plants benefit from comparatively higher
energy efficiencies (usually up to 22-23 %) but have to face the challenge of meeting a demand for large
amounts of biomass, a resource characterized for its increasing scarcity, high cost and seasonality (López-
González et al., 2007).
2019
CHAPTER-2
2.1. TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT OF CSP AND BIOMASS COMBUSTION

Both CSP and biomass combustion plants are based on the Rankine cycle where thermal energy is
used to generate superheated steam and obtain electricity in a turbine-generator set. Below are described
the main elements that make up conventional CSP and biomass power stations and the different
specifications.
2.2. CSP-Plants
In Concentration Solar Power (CSP) plants, moving mirrors track the movement of the sun in order
to concentrate the solar radiation onto the heating fluid. Different designs have been developed, the most
common being parabolic troughs. As illustrated in Figure 1, the energy contained in the heat transfer fluid
(HTF) is transferred to a water feed to generate superheated steam in a multiple stage heat exchange
system. This steam is directed onto a turbine generator.
The most important elements in CSP plants are the following:
• The Solar collectors are made up of a supporting structure (to withstand elements), mirrors (where the
solar beams are reflected and directed to the absorber tube), absorber tubes (containing the heat transfer
fluid - HTF), and the driving systems (to track sun path). The solar system is usually backed up by a
Natural gas boiler that operates at different rates depending on the degree of solar irradiation.
• The Heat recovery boiler is where heat from the HTF is used to generate superheated steam (370-
375ºC, 90-100 bar). Most heat recovery boilers consist of several heat exchange stages, including an
economizer, an evaporator and a superheater. Depending on the type of plant and cycle optimization, a
preheater may be also included.
• Auxiliary Equipment: Pumps used in CHP plants need to be specially designed to operate with HTF.
Variable Frequency Drives (VFD) are used to control the pumping force that is exerted at every
moment, in order to adjust HTF flows to the plant requirements. To keep production during cloudy
weather and facilitate the operation and starting off of the solar field at low temperatures, natural gas
boilers are used to ensure optimum temperature of the transfer fluid.
2019
2.3. Biomass combustion plant

Figure 2 illustrates the flow diagram of a conventional biomass combustion power plant. The main
component in this system is the boiler, which is where biomass is burnt to generate superheated steam.
Energy generated in the combustion process is used to heat the feed water (economizer), generate steam
(evaporator) and superheat the steam to its final temperature and pressure (superheater). All the
components regarding biomass storage and preparation area need to be considered in a technical and
economic evaluation of a biomass power plant. However, for ease of discussion and reduce complexity,
these will not be specified in this document.
2.4. Common equipment

The thermal nature of the energy employed in both CSP and biomass combustion power plants
make these two processes compatible and complementary (Chasapis et al., 2008), as described below:
• Turbine-Generator Set, where thermal energy is transformed first into mechanical energy and finally
into electricity by means of a power generator. Since the working fluid is the same in both technologies
(superheated steam), a unique turbine-generator set may be shared by a hybrid solar-biomass system.
• Common elements in the Rankine cycle: Including not only pipes, valves and control devices, but also
the condenser, cooling towers and the deaerator.
• Common Services: Feed water, compressed air and gas supplies, electrical devices and infrastructures
are necessary both in CSP and biomass combustion plants.
2019
Figure 1: Basic process flow diagram of a CSP Power Plant
CHAPTER-3
3.1. ALTERNATIVE CONFIGURATIONS OF A CSP-BIOMASS HYBRID

SYSTEM
In CSP and biomass power plants, heat is produced as an intermediate source of energy that is
driven to the turbine-generator set for the generation of electricity. This compatibility can be used to design
a power plant that uses CSP during the day and biomass during periods of reduced irradiation (night,
cloudy periods, transients). Hence, CSP- Biomass combustion hybrid technology relies on the effective
integration of a solar collector into the water/steam cycle of a biomass power plant.
2019
Figure-2: Basic process flow diagram of a biomass combustion power plant
As will be described below, the combination of these two technologies benefits from increased
overall energy efficiency of the system, reduced investment per unit of power capacity (compared to CSP
with molten salts heat storage), and longer operating hours (24 hours a day without the need for relevant
heat storage) (Chasapis et al., 2008). The biomass and the solar thermal Rankine cycles may be
interconnected using one of two configurations: substituting the backup natural gas boiler for a biomass
boiler; or connecting the solar field and biomass boiler in parallel. These alternatives are discussed below.
3.2. Substitution of the backup natural gas boiler for a Biomass boiler
In this configuration, shown in Figure, the biomass boiler is designed to heat the HTF coming from
the solar field instead of water. As it happened with the original natural gas boiler, this kind of design
requires the biomass boiler to have a very efficient dynamic response in order to adapt its working point to
the variability of solar irradiation conditions. For this purpose, the biomass boiler usually includes a rapid
response natural gas backup system.
3.3. Connecting the solar field and biomass boiler in parallel

In this case (Figure 4), both the solar and the biomass systems have the capacity to generate
superheated steam. Both streams are connected together for increased energy generation. In order to
maintain appropriate steam conditions, the volume of water fed through the biomass boiler is adjusted
2019
depending on the solar irradiation and the steam generated by the solar field. The biomass boiler operates
at different capacities, depending on the solar contribution, to produce a constant electricity output.
Figure-3: CSP-biomass hybrid configuration where the natural gas boiler has been substituted by a
biomass boiler
Figure-4: Solar-biomass hybrid configuration with CSP and biomass units set in parallel
CHAPTER-4
2019
4.1. TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT OF CSP-BIOMASS HYBRID TECHNOLOGY

The first parameter that needs to be considered in the design of the power plant is power capacity, as
both the economics and the energy performance of the plant are sensitive to scale factors. In general terms,
larger plants benefit from higher energy efficiencies and take advantage of increasing economies of scale.
However, large plants encounter difficulties to ensure a sustainable and stable supply of biomass feedstock.
For the purpose of this analysis, a 10MW power plant has been selected as an optimum balance between
performance and biomass supply. Although optimum working pressure may be in the order of 90-100 bar
for a 50MW power plant, 63 bar were chosen for this 10MW power plant to minimize expenses and
technical difficulties.
The plant configuration based on the substitution of the back-up natural gas boiler for a biomass
boiler (see Figure) benefits from easier operation control and also from reduced construction costs, owing
to the fact that no natural gas boiler is required. On the other hand, the main disadvantage for this option is
the lower performance of the biomass cycle, due to the need to use heat exchangers for the HTF fluid. The
boiler substitution configuration will be analysed in this work. From a conceptual standpoint, the key
operating conditions of this hybrid plant would involve:
• Whenever possible, the power generation should be based on the CSP cycle, since the fuel (solar
radiation) is free and the operating costs are minimized.
• Natural gas will be used in the biomass boiler to provide primary energy during short transients, such as
cloudy weather or transitions between biomass and CSP cycles.
• Biomass combustion will be used during longer periods when solar resource is unavailable, as for
example during nights and winter days.
2019
4.2. Modelling and methodology

To estimate electric production and simulate the conditions given above, a simplified model has
been developed. Thermal production in the solar field has been simulated using the Solar Advisor Model
(SAM) from NREL (2008). A quasi-steady model was used to calculate solar field production on an hourly
basis. Depending on the thermal production values produced for the solar field, the power required from
the natural gas heaters and the biomass boiler were calculated for a steady generation in the Rankine cycle
of 10MWe. Differences of production along the year depend on parasitics loads and threshold values for
minimum operation of the biomass boiler and auxiliary heaters, which are stated at 25% of nominal
operation.
Dynamic responses of the different primary energy resources are not considered in this analysis.
Also, full-load operation is considered for all the hours of the year, and performance losses due to partial-
load operation should be included in future simulations. Table describes the system inputs, as considered
for the simulation the model.
Table 1. Input values for the simulation of the solar-biomass hybrid plant
Metheorological data: TMY artificially generated
DNI: 2,000 kWh m-2*year
Solar Field:
Number of loops: 30
Aperture length of solar 5.75 m
collectors:
Loop length: 600.00 m
Collector type: ET-150
Solar Receiver: Schott PTR70
Auxiliary gas heaters:
Performance: 88%
LHV (natural gas): 10,500 kcal kg-1
Biomass boilers:
Performance: 88%
LHV (biomass): 2,800 kcal kg-1
Heat exchangers:
Performance: 100%
Parasitic loads: Defined hourly by SAM
Turbine Steam input: Model
Temperature: 375 ºC
Pressure: 63 bar
Flow at nominal point (100%): 44.52 Ton h-1
2019
4.2.1. Solar field thermal production

An hourly calculation has been done for a model year with a DNI = 2000 kWh m-2. SAM can
export a file with the hour production of the solar field. To close the circuit and check the heat and mass
balances in the model , the volumetric flow is determined using the following expression:
Q́ sf ∗Asca∗Lloop∗Nloop
V́ HTF =
∆ hHTF∗ρ(Tlm)
 Qsf : Heat collected in the solar field, based on hourly data. It has been calculated using
SAM program from NREL, and using the same parameters as a conventional solar thermal
power plant.
 Asca : Aperture length of the solar collector. This value is 5,75m.
 Lloop : Loop length. Value: 600m.
 Nloop : Number of loops. This value needs to be optimized depending on the ratio
production/cost. For this model, 30 loops have been considered.
 ∆hHTF : HTF Increase of enthalpy.
 (Tlm) : HTF density at the mean logarithmic temperature in the Solar Field.
The configuration of the solar field is divided into several loops, which are arrays of solar collector
units. Technical details can be seen in (Montes et al., 2009) and (Richter et al., 2009). Loop length is the
optimal length needed to increase the temperature of the oil from 292ºC to 392ºC in a loop. Number of
loops has been oversized in order to maximize solar field production and to compensate the decrease of the
Rankine performance cycle.
2019
4.2.2. METHODOLOGIES USED

 Parabolic trough collector system
 Parabolic dish focus system
 Central Receiver system
a. PARABOLIC TROUG COLLECTOR SYSTEM
A parabolic trough is a type of solar thermal collector that is straight in one dimension and curved
as a parabola in the other two, lined with a polished metal mirror. The sunlight which enters the mirror parallel
to its plane of symmetry is focused along the focal line, where objects are positioned that are intended to be
heated. In a solar cooker, for example, food is placed at the focal line of a trough, which is cooked when the
trough is aimed so the Sun is in its plane of symmetry.
2019
For other purposes, a tube containing a fluid runs the length of the trough at its focal line. The
sunlight is concentrated on the tube and the fluid heated to a high temperature by the energy of the sunlight. The
hot fluid can be piped to a heat engine, which uses the heat energy to drive machinery, or to generate electricity.
This solar energy collector is the most common and best known type of parabolic trough.
When heat transfer fluid is used to heat steam to drive a standard turbine generator, thermal efficiency
ranges from 60-80%. The overall efficiency from collector to grid, i.e. (Electrical Output Power)/(Total
Impinging Solar Power) is about 15%, similar to PV (Photovoltaic Cells) but less than Stirling dish
concentrators. Large-scale solar thermal power plants need a method for storing the energy, such as a
thermocline tank, which uses a mixture of silica sand and quartzite rock to displace a significant portion of the
volume in the tank. It is then filled with the heat transfer fluid, typically a molten nitrate salt.
As of 2014, the largest solar thermal power systems using parabolic trough technology include the
354 MW SEGS plants in California, the 280 MW Solana Generating Station with molten salt heat storage,
the 250 MW .
b. PARABOLIC DISH COLLECTOR
Using parabolic dishes is a well-tested approach to concentrate solar radiation, and was an early
experimental tool at many locations worldwide. The optical efficiency of parabolic dishes is considerably higher
than that of trough, LFR or power tower systems because the mirror is always pointed directly at the sun,
whereas the trough, LFR and power tower have a reduction in projected area due to a frequent low angle of
incidence of the solar radiation. A schematic is shown Figure.
A typical Parabolic dish collector system
2019
c. Central Receiver Systems

The central receiver concept for solar energy concentration and collection is based on a
field of individually sun-tracking mirrors (heliostats) that reflect the incident sunshine to a receiver (boiler)
at the top of a centrally located tower. Typically 80 to 95 percent of the reflected energy is absorbed into
the working fluid which is pumped up the tower and into the receiver. The heated fluid (or steam) returns
down the tower and then to a thermal demand such as a thermal electrical power plant or an industrial
process requiring heat.
The basic difference between the central receiver concept of collecting solar energy and the
trough or dish collectors discussed previously is that in this case, all of the solar energy to be collected in
the entire field, is transmitted optically to a small central collection region rather than being piped around a
field as hot fluid. Because of this characteristic, central receiver systems are characterized by large power
levels (1 to 500 MW) and high temperatures (540 to 840°C).
Central receiver technology for generating electricity has been demonstrated in the Solar
One pilot power plant at Barstow, California. This system consists of 1818 heliostats, each with a reflective
area of 39.9 m2 (430 ft2) covering 291,000 m2 (72 acres) of land. The receiver is located at the top of a 90.8
m (298 ft) high tower and produces steam at 516°C (960°F) at a maximum rate of 42 MW (142 MBtu/h).
System design for a central receiver application is performed in a manner similar to that when
other types of collector are used. Basically, the thermal output of the solar field is found by calculating
collection efficiency and multiplying this by the solar irradiance falling on the collector (heliostat) field.
The balance of the system is then designed as discussed in the latter chapters of this book.
In this chapter we describe the components of a central receiver system and how they interact
in a particular field design. Then a computer model for collection efficiency is developed that can be used
2019
in conjunction with solar irradiance data and a system model such as SIMPLESYS to determine the
system’s energy delivery capabilities.
System Description
Heliostats
Design :.The heliostat used in Solar One is shown in Figure 10.1. The reflecting element of a heliostat is
typically a thin, back (second) surface, low-iron glass mirror. This heliostat is composed of several mirror module
panels rather than a single large mirror. The thin glass mirrors are supported by a substrate backing to form a
slightly concave mirror surface. Individual panels on the heliostat are also canted toward a point on the receiver.
The heliostat focal length is approximately equal to the distance from the receiver to the farthest heliostat.
Subsequent “tuning” of the closer mirrors is possible.
2019
Figure : (a) Backside of the heliostat used at the Solar One central receiver pilot plant in Barstow, CA.
(b) A photograph of the front of a Solar One heliostat (Both are courtesy of Southern California Edison
Co.)
Another heliostat design concept, not so widely developed, uses a thin reflective plastic
membrane stretched over a hoop. This design must be protected from the weather but requires considerable
less expenditure in supports and the mechanical drive mechanism because of its light weight. Membrane
renewal and cleaning appear to be important considerations with this design.
The reflective surface is mounted or supported on a pedestal that permits movement about the
azimuth and elevation axis. Movement about each axis is provided by a fractional-horsepower motor
through a gearbox drive. These motors receive signals from a central control computer that accurately
points the reflective surface normal halfway between the sun and the receiver. The equation for this half
angle was developed in Chapter 8 as Equation (8.49). The elevation and azimuth angles of a heliostat are
given in Equations (8.52) and (8.53), respectively.
Heliostat Errors : A perfectly flat heliostat would produce an image on the receiver the size of
the heliostat (projected normal to the heliostat-receiver direction) increased by the approximately 0.5 degree
of sunspread. For most applications, each mirror segment is concaved slightly and each mirror segment on
a heliostat is canted toward a focal point. This produces a higher flux density at the aim point.
A number of factors tend to increase the image size from a particular heliostat. Mirror surface
waviness is an important factor for heliostats as it is with parabolic collector surfaces. In addition, the gross
curvature error of each mirror segment and the errors associated with accurate canting of each mirror
segment on the heliostat frame further increase the image error. This last source of error can be amplified by
the effects of differential thermal growth and gravity (heliostat position) on the heliostat frame. All of these
errors add up optically to produce a flux profile at the aim point (receiver) which has a distribution pattern
similar to that shown in Figure . The important heliostat performance parameter is the size of the isoflux
contour containing 90 percent of the total reflected power.
2019
Figure 10.2 Pattern of flux density arriving at the receiver from a typical heliostat.
In addition to producing a high flux density, the ability of the heliostat tracking system to
position the centroid of the flux profile at the center of the receiver (aim point) is critical. Positioning errors
may be caused by vertical and horizontal errors in the heliostat positioning or feedback mechanisms. In
addition, wind can produce structural deflections, causing position errors.
Most of the heliostat errors discussed become more significant (in terms of the flux “ spilled”
from the receiver), the farther the heliostat is located from the receiver. However, the flux contour and
positioning errors are also critical for heliostats close to the tower because the projected area of the receiver
is very small at that location. A more complete discussion of heliostat errors and error measurement may be
found in King (1982).
Environmental Considerations : Probably the most important environmental design criterion that must be
met by a heliostat design is the wind condition. Typical requirements may be for the heliostat to meet its
operating requirements in a 12 m/s (27 mph) wind, to survive a 22 m/s (49 mph) wind, and to continue to
operate or move to the stow position in a 40 m/s (89 mph) wind (a position usually horizontal with mirrors
face-up or face-down). Also, the ability to survive hail is important for any flat surface exposed to the
elements. A typical hail survival criterion is 19 mm (0.75 in.) diameter hailstones impinging at 20 m/s (45
mph).
2019
Tracking and Positioning : In order to keep parasitic energy use low, fractional horsepower motors with
high gear rations are used to move the heliostat about its azimuth and elevation axes. This produces a slow,
accurate, and powerful tracking motion. Under emergency conditions, however, rapid movement is an
important design criterion. A typical minimum speed requirement would be that the entire field defocus to
less than 3 percent of the receiver flux in 2 minutes.
Since it is currently considered best to stow the heliostats face-down during high wind, during
hail storms, and at night, an acceptable time to travel to this position from any other position would be a
maximum of 15 minutes. The requirement for inverted stow is being questioned since it requires that the
bottom half of the mirror surface be designed with an open slot so that it can pass through the pedestal.
This space reduces not only the reflective surface area for a given overall heliostat dimension, but also the
structural rigidity of the mirror rack. However, face-down stow does keep the mirror surface cleaner.
Receiver-Tower
The receiver, placed at the top of a tower, is located at a point where reflected energy from the heliostats can
be intercepted most efficiently. The receiver absorbs the energy being reflected from the heliostat field and
transfers it into a heat .transfer fluid. There are two basic types of receivers: external and cavity.
External Receivers : These normally consist of panels of many small (20-56 mm) vertical tubes welded
side by side to approximate a cylinder. The bottoms and tops of the vertical tubes are connected to headers
that supply heat transfer fluid to the bottom of each tube and collect the heated fluid from the top of the
tubes.
The receiver used at the Solar One facility is of the external type and is shown in Figure 10.3. It is
located at the top of a 77.1 m (253 ft) tower and comprises 24 panels, each 13.7 m (45 ft) high, consisting
of 70-12.7 mm (1/2 in.) diameter tubes. Six of these panels are for preheating the water and 18 for
producing steam. This results in an overall receiver diameter of 7 m (23 ft). The tubes are made of Incoloy
800 and are coated on the exterior with high-absorptance Pyromark® black paint.
2019
Figure : The receiver of the Solar One central receiver facility at Barstow, CA. This is an external type
receiver.
External receivers typically have a height to diameter ratio of 1:1 to 2:1. The area of the receiver
is kept to a minimum to reduce heat loss. The lower limit is determined by the maximum operating
temperature of the tubes and hence the heat removal capability of the heat transfer fluid. or example, one
design for a receiver using liquid sodium as the heat transfer fluid with peak output of 380 MW (1.3 × 109
Btu/h) calls for a height of 15 m (49 ft) and a diameter of 13 m (41 ft). If the heat transfer fluid were
water/steam or molten nitrate salt rather than sodium, an area about twice that size would be required for
the same power output and temperature because of the lower heat transfer capabilities of these fluids
(Battleson, 198l).
2019
Cavity Receivers : In an attempt to reduce heat loss from the receiver, some designs propose to place the
flux absorbing surface inside of an insulated cavity, thereby reducing the convective heat losses from the
absorber. An example of a cavity receiver design (with four cavities) is shown in Figure 10.4. The flux
from the heliostat field is reflected through an aperture onto absorbing surfaces forming the walls of the
cavity. Typical designs have an aperture area of about one-third to one-half of the internal absorbing
surface area. Cavity receivers are limited to an acceptance angle of 60 to 120 degrees (Battleson, 198l).
Therefore, either multiple cavities are placed adjacent to each other, or the heliostat field is limited to the
view of the cavity aperture.
Figure : A cavity type receiver design incorporating four apertures. It would operate in the 510 to 565oC
(950 to 1050oF) temperature range with steam, molten salt or sodium (Battleson, 1981).
The aperture size is minimized to reduce convection and radiation losses without blocking out too
much of the solar flux arriving at the receiver. The aperture is typically sized to about the same dimensions
as the sun’s reflected image from the farthest heliostat, giving a spillage of 1 to 4 percent. For a 380 MW
(1.3 × 109 Btu/h) plant design, the aperture width for the largest of the four cavities (the north-facing
cavity) is 16 m (52 ft), and the flux at the aperture plane is four times that reaching the absorbing surface
inside.
Heat Flux Considerations : The primary limitation on receiver design is the heat flux that can he absorbed
through the receiver surface and into the heat transfer fluid, without overheating the receiver walls or the
2019
heat transfer fluid within them. A survey of typical design peak values is given in Table 10.1. The average
flux over the entire absorber wall is typically one-half to one-third of these peak values. Two other
important considerations are: (1) limiting the temperature gradients along the receiver panels and (2) the
daily heat-cycling of the receiver tubes.
Table Typical Receiver Peak Flux Design Values
Heat Transfer Configuration Peak Flux

Fluid (MW/m2)
Liquid sodium In tubes 1.5
Liquid sodium In heat pipes 1.2
(transferring to
air)
Molten nitrate In tubes 0.7
salt
Liquid water In tubes 0.7
Steam vapor In tubes 0.5
Air In metal tubes 0.22
Tower Design : The height of the tower is limited by its cost. The weight and windage area of the receiver
are the two most important factors in the design of the tower. Seismic considerations are also important in
some locations. The weight and size of a receiver are affected by the fluid choice as discussed previously.
Typical weights for a 380 MW (1.3 × 109 Btu/h) receiver range from 250,000 kg (550,000 lb) for an
external receiver using liquid sodium to 2,500,000 kg (5,500,000 lb) for a cavity air receiver. These would
be placed at the top of a 140 to 170 m (460 to 560 ft) tower if a surrounding heliostat field is used.
Proposed tower designs are of either steel frame construction, using oil derrick design techniques, or
concrete, using smokestack design techniques. Cost analyses indicate that steel frame towers are less
expensive at heights of less than about 120 m (400 ft) and that concrete towers are less expensive for higher
towers. The results of such a cost analysis described in Sterns Roger Engineering (1979) are shown in
Figure.
2019
Figure : Tower cost data for towers of different heights. The band reflects use of different receivers
having different windage and weight. These designs were made to withstand a 40 m/s (90 mph) wind and
a ground acceleration of 0.25 g
4.2.3. Natural gas heaters and biomass boilers

To simplify the modelling of the natural gas boilers, it has been considered that they will only be
used during summer, where the solar field produces most of the output power, and the needs of auxiliary
heaters to keep working temperatures are minimum. Biomass boilers are used in the same way as natural
gas heaters, but since the dynamic response is slower, they will be used during periods of reduced solar
irradiation.
The thermal energy produced in these systems is calculated as the difference between the solar field
production and the full-load needs, and set to meet the Spanish legislation requirements. The fuel required
to obtain the energy calculated with the previous consideration can be calculated assuming a performance
of 88% for both systems at the full-load points. The needs for auxiliary fuel are given by the following
expression:
´ ´
´
Qfl−Qsf
ḿ f =
ἠr ∗LHVf
where:
 Q⸱ fl : Heat needed for full/load production.
2019
 Q⸱ sf : Heat collected in the solar field.

 ἠr : Performance of auxiliary heating system. Value set to 88% for natural gas heaters and
biomass boiler.
 LHVf : Lower heating value of the fuel. The value for biomass is 2800 kcal kg -1 and for
natural gas is 10500kcal kg-1.
This value is needed to estimate the fuel consumption needed to heat the HTF that cannot be heated in the
Solar Field.
4.2.3. Rankine cycle: electric output
All performance considered is based on steam balances, and the following formula is applied
(Kiameh, 2003):
Ep
ἠR =
´
ms∗(hs−he)
 Ep : Electrical power produced. The calculated value resulted in 10296 kW.

 m⸱ s : Steam flow in the heat recovery boiler.
 hs : Enthalpy of the steam at the heat recovery boiler outlet.
 hᶿ : Enthalpy of the steam at the heat recovery boiler inlet.
 ἠR : Rankine cycle performance. The calculated value for the nominal point (100% load) is
30.6%.
The results obtained from these calculations are given in Figure-5 and Table-2 .
Figure-5: Detailed process flow diagram for CSP energy production, Biomass energy production and
2019
Rankine cycle of a 10 MW hybrid CSP-biomass combustion plant
The Rankine cycle conditions for the CSP, biomass and hybrid configurations are illustrated in Figure 5
and the estimated monthly electrical generation is shown in Table 1. Based on standard irradiation
conditions, the results in Table 1 show a maximum CSP capacity during the summer period (3218 kWh in
July), during which time the biomass unit is completely stopped. In contrast, the biomass reaches over 91
% of the energy contribution during the winter months. The overall energy output would remain relatively
stable throughout the year at between 5500-7000 kWh.
Table : Estimated monthly electrical production (kWh) based on biomass combustion, CSP, and
naturals for a 10 MW hybrid plant
CSP Biomass Natural Gas Total
January 43 5811 0 6245
4
February 71 5061 0 5773
1
March 196 4806 0 6769
3
April 194 4629 0 6571
2
May 260 4417 0 7021
4
June 306 1750 1485 6299
4
July 321 0 2415 5634
8
August 292 0 2558 5485
7
September 212 4514 0 6634
0
October 110 5409 0 6519
9
November 39 5630 0 6021
1
December 95 2869 0 2964
2019
ANNUAL 2057 44897 6459 71934

9
CHAPTER-5
5.1. ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

This economic assessment is based on reference values provided in the Spanish Plan de Energíse
Renewables (Renewable Energy Plan 2005-2010) (MITYC, 2005). The investment costs have been
calculated for a 10 MWE power plant based on CSP, biomass combustion and hybrid technology.
Table 3:Initial investment costs of the different technologies for a 10 MW plant

CSP Plants Biomass combustion plants Hybrid biomass-CSP plants
Biomass treatment 40 €/M Biomass treatment 40 €/M
plant 0 W plant 0 W
Biomass boiler 80 €/M Biomass boiler 80 €/M
0 W 0 W
Solar Field 230 €/k Solar Field 230 €/kW
0 W 0
Heat recovery €/k Heat recovery 20
200 €/kW
boiler W boiler 0
Heat transfer €/k Heat transfer 20
200 €/kW
system W system 0
Turbogenerator set 750 €/k Turbogenerator set 75 €/kW Turbogenerator set 75 €/kW
W 0 0
Heat storage 300 €/k Heat storage 30 €/kW
W 0
BOP 450 €/k BOP 45 €/kW BOP 45 €/kW
W 0 0
Evacuation line 50 €/k Evacuation line 50 €/kW Evacuation line 50 €/kW
W
Civil Works 400 €/k Civil Works 40 €/kW Civil Works 40 €/kW
W 0 0
2019
Assemb. 350 €/k Assemb. 35 €/kW Assemb. 35 €/kW

+Commiss. W +Commiss. 0 +Commiss. 0
TOTAL 5.00 €/k TOTAL 320 €/kW TOTAL 620 €/kW
0 W 0 0
The results in Table show that investment costs per unit power installed are higher for the hybrid
plant (6200 €/kW) than for the CSP (5000 €/kW) or biomass (3200 €/kW) technologies. However, the
synergies discussed above lead to a 24 % saving from the simple addition of the two standard technologies.
Table 4 illustrates that biomass combustion plants have the highest operating costs, owing primarily to the
cost of the biomass fuel and labour requirements. In contrast, operating costs in CSP plants are one fifth of
biomass combustion plants, due to the free nature of the solar resource. However, equivalent hours and,
consequently, energy generation values are significantly lower in CSP plants.
Considering the Levelised Cost of Electricity (LCOE) values calculated for each plant design, it
may be concluded that biomass power plants provide the cheapest alternative, with 116, 05 €/MWH.
However, this alternative relies on the sustainable supply of large amounts (estimated 75000 t year 1) of a
biomass whose price and availability is not always secure. Biomass market prices have been growing in the
last years, and it is expected that this trend will continue in the future. LCOE values for the hybrid plant
(153,56 €/MWH) have been calculated to be 32 % higher than the biomass power plant but 36 % lower
than the conventional CSP.
Table-4. Comparative economic and performance assessment of three 10 MWE power plants based
on CSP, biomass combustion and hybrid technologies
CSP Plants Biomass combustion plants Hybrid biomass-CSP plants
Investment Investment Investment
50000000 € 32000000 € 62000000 €
costs costs costs
Operating Operating Operating
1102400 € 5329425 € 4641310 €
costs costs costs
Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent
hours 2600 ha hours 7500 h hours 7193.4 h
Production 26000 MWH Production 75000 MWH Production 71934 MWH
238.69 116.05 153.56
LCOE: €/MWH LCOE: €/MWH LCOE: €/MWH
LCOE = Levelised Cost of Electricity
2019
CHAPTER-6
6. CONCLUSION
A technical and economic assessment of Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) and biomass
combustion evidences the complementarity of these two technologies in the generation of electricity. Solar
energy plants benefit from the use of a freely available source of energy but suffer from the intermittency of
the day/night cycles and also from periods of reduced irradiation (winter, cloudy days). In contrast, biomass
power plants are comparatively less expensive to build but have to confront the higher cost and risks
associated with the continuous supply of large amounts of a seasonal and increasingly expensive biomass
fuel.
This paper provides a preliminary technical and economic analysis of hybrid CSP-biomass
combustion plants, as an alternative to conventional CSP and biomass power technology. The results show
that investment costs for hybrid CSP- biomass power plants are higher than for conventional CSP and
biomass combustion plants alone. However, owing to the shared use of some of the equipment, this value is
significantly lower (24% saving) than a simple addition of the investment costs associated with the two
standard technologies.
2019
In contrast, effective operating hours and, therefore, overall energy generation, have been
calculated to be is significantly higher than in conventional CSP (2.77 times higher). Hybridisation of
biomass also avoids the need for highly expensive heat storage system in conventional CSP. The main
advantages in comparison with a biomass plant are: the increase of renewable energy which may be
produced in an area and the fact that around 1/3 of total output relays on a free reliable source of primary
energy, thus reducing the risk associated with biomass supply.
Finally, the use of common equipment and the combined performance of the two technologies
leads to a lower Levelised Cost of Electricity (LCOE) in hybrid plants than the simple addition of the
weighted LCOE values obtained from independent biomass and CSP output contributions.
Two critical factors need to be further investigated in order to have a better understanding of the
efficiency of hybrid power plants: firstly, the dynamics of the combined system need to be understood and
adjusted in order to optimise the functioning of the hybrid plant; secondly, losses derived from the partial-
load operation of individual system units need to be determined in order to calculate real energy
efficiencies.
REFERENCES
1. Caputo A.C., Palumbo M., Pelagagge P.M., Scacchia F. (2005), Economics of biomass energy utilization
in combustion and gasification plants: effects of logistic variables, Biomass and Bioenergy, 28(1), 3551.
2. Chasapis D., Drosou V., Papamechael I., Aidonis A., Blanchard R. (2008), Monitoring and operational
results of a hybrid solar-biomass heating system, Renewable Energy, 33(8), 1759-1767
3. Kiameh P. (2003). Power generation handbook: selection, applications, operation, and maintenance.
New York: McGraw-Hill, cop. 2003.
4. López-González L.M., Sala J.M., Mínguez-Tabarés J.L., López-Ochoa L.M. (2007), Contribution of
renewable energy sources to electricity production in the autonomous community of Navarre (Spain): A
review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11(8), 1776-1793
5. MITYC (2005), Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio (MITYC). Plan de Energías Renewables
2005-2010, Servicio de Publicaciones del Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio (MITYC),
Madrid, 2005
2019
6. Montes M.J., Abánades A., Martínez-Val J.M., Valdés M. (2009), Solar multiple optimization for a
solaronly thermal power plant, using oil as heat transfer fluid in the parabolic trough collectors, Solar
Energy 83, 2165–2176.
7. NREL (2008), Solar Advisor Model 2.5.0.2. Available on line at: https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sam/.
8. Palgrave R. (2008) Innovation in CSP, Renewable Energy Focus, 9(6), 44-49
9. Del Río P. (2008) Ten years of renewable electricity policies in Spain: An analysis of successive feed-in
tariff reforms. Energy Policy, 36, 2917– 2929
10. Richter C., Blanco J., Heller P., Mehos M., Meier A., Meyer (R.2010), SolarPACES Annual Report
2009. On line at:
http://www.solarpaces.org/Library/AnnualReports/documents/AnnualReport2009Final_web.pdf
11. San Miguel G., del Río P., Hernández F. (2010), An update of Spanish renewable energy policy and
achievements in a low carbon context. Journal of Sustainable and Renewable, 2(3) 1-17
12. Wolff G., Gallego B., Tisdale R., Hopwood D. (2008), CSP concentrates the mind, Renewable Energy
Focus, 9(1), 42-47

ABSTRACT

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

ABSTRACT

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

BIOMASS SUPPORTED SOLAR THERMAL HYBRID POWER PLANT

A Technical Seminar Report

BIOMASS SUPPORTED SOLAR THERMAL HYBRID POWER PLANT

A seminar report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the

Under the Guidance of

DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY ANATHAPURAM

ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING

SEMINAR GUIDE HEED

2.1. TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT OF CSP AND BIOMASS COMBUSTION

The most important elements in CSP plants are the following:

2.3. Biomass combustion plant

2.4. Common equipment

Figure 1: Basic process flow diagram of a CSP Power Plant

3.1. ALTERNATIVE CONFIGURATIONS OF A CSP-BIOMASS HYBRID

Figure-2: Basic process flow diagram of a biomass combustion power plant

3.3. Connecting the solar field and biomass boiler in parallel

4.1. TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT OF CSP-BIOMASS HYBRID TECHNOLOGY

4.2. Modelling and methodology

4.2.1. Solar field thermal production

4.2.2. METHODOLOGIES USED

b. PARABOLIC DISH COLLECTOR

A typical Parabolic dish collector system

c. Central Receiver Systems

Table Typical Receiver Peak Flux Design Values

Heat Transfer Configuration Peak Flux

4.2.3. Natural gas heaters and biomass boilers

 Q⸱ sf : Heat collected in the solar field.

 Ep : Electrical power produced. The calculated value resulted in 10296 kW.

Rankine cycle of a 10 MW hybrid CSP-biomass combustion plant

ANNUAL 2057 44897 6459 71934

5.1. ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Table 3:Initial investment costs of the different technologies for a 10 MW plant

Assemb. 350 €/k Assemb. 35 €/kW Assemb. 35 €/kW

Potrebbero piacerti anche