2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.solener.2011.06.020
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of Linear Fresnel and Parabolic Trough Collector power plants

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
94
0
3

Year Published

2012
2012
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 315 publications
(134 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
2
94
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…A steady state model for the CSP plant was developed according to literature [24,25,26] and by taking into account the technical data provided by the manufacturers of the different equipments. The model allows to predict the hourly thermal production profiles of the solar field on the basis of the weather forecasts and by considering the effect of collector optical efficiency, incident angle modifiers, collector end losses, cleanliness factor and the thermal losses in the receiver and in the piping.…”
Section: Preliminary Simulation Results On Small Scale Csp the Simulamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A steady state model for the CSP plant was developed according to literature [24,25,26] and by taking into account the technical data provided by the manufacturers of the different equipments. The model allows to predict the hourly thermal production profiles of the solar field on the basis of the weather forecasts and by considering the effect of collector optical efficiency, incident angle modifiers, collector end losses, cleanliness factor and the thermal losses in the receiver and in the piping.…”
Section: Preliminary Simulation Results On Small Scale Csp the Simulamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, the fixed nature of the receiver assembly provides considerable design freedom. Linear Fresnel collectors have lower optical/thermal efficiency than parabolic troughs because the combination of a fixed receiver and the one-axis tracking mirror panels in a horizontal plane results into greater cosine losses than troughs [60][61][62][63]. The lower cost collector components are often required to compensate this optical penalty.…”
Section: Linear Fresnelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although LF has better opportunities for large scale power plant development in terms of land use, but lacks with overall efficiency. A different research found that LF requires 35% smaller solar field due to smaller row-to-row distance when it compares with PT [19,117,120,121,[124][125][126]. ST can reach up to 27% efficiency at its peak at higher cost in terms of land use.…”
Section: Comparison Of Optionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The number of staff required for the solar field and rest of the plant is assumed to be 2 persons/hectare and 10 employees respectively (control, hauling ice, repairs, security, etc.) The cost of the water consumption is taken to be 1.73 $/MWh [30]. And the annual part replacement and plant insurance cost are both assumed to be 1% of the total capital cost.…”
Section: 2mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(29) where A r is the receiver's absorber area and C p is the specific heat capacity of the HTF. The useful heat gain, Q u , is determined from: (30) where, (31) and T in and T a are the receiver inlet temperature and ambient temperature. The fluid temperature rise, ∆T, for a given mass flow rate is calculated from: (32) The receiver sections which act as a pre-heater, evaporator and boiler have to be treated individually.…”
Section: 2mentioning
confidence: 99%