enerMENA CSP Teaching Materials

Chapter 8
Solar Tower Technology

Authors
Johannes Sattler11 
Bryan O’Connell1 
1 
Daniel Norton
 
 
Reviewers
Spiros Alexopoulos1 
Anette Anthrakidis1 
Reiner Buck2 
Christian Faber1 
Joachim Göttsche1 
1,3
Bernhard Hoffschmidt  
Hichem M‘Saad4 
Peter Schwarzbözl3 
Ralf Uhlig2 

1
Solar-Institut Jülich (SIJ), FH Aachen, Aachen University of Applied Sciences, Heinrich-
Mußmann-Str. 5, 52428 Jülich, Germany
2
German Aerospace Center (DLR)-Institute of Technical Thermodynamics, System Analysis,
Pfaffenwaldring, 38-40, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
3
German Aerospace Center (DLR) - Solar Research, Linder Höhe 51147 Cologne, Germany
4
Solarta Solar, 1053 Tunis, Tunesia
Table of Contents
NOMENCLATURE................................................................................................. 3
SUMMARY............................................................................................................. 6
KEY QUESTIONS.................................................................................................. 6
8 SOLAR TOWER TECHNOLOGY ................................................................... 7
8.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 7
8.2 Solar Field ........................................................................................................................................ 8
8.2.1 Heliostat Types ............................................................................................................................ 9
8.2.2 Heliostat Shapes.......................................................................................................................... 9
8.2.3 Heliostat Sizes ........................................................................................................................... 13
8.2.4 Heliostat Field Losses............................................................................................................... 17
8.2.5 Heliostat Field Design ............................................................................................................... 24
8.2.6 Heliostat Aiming Strategies ...................................................................................................... 33
8.2.7 Heliostat Field Size and Tower Height ................................................................................... 39
8.3 Receiver Technology................................................................................................................... 40
8.3.1 Direct Absorption Receiver – Falling Particle or Molten Salt Liquid Film .......................... 40
8.3.2 External Tube Receiver ............................................................................................................ 41
8.3.3 Cavity Receiver .......................................................................................................................... 50
8.3.4 Air Receiver ................................................................................................................................ 56
8.3.5 Comparison of the open and closed volumetric receiver with the external tube receiver67
8.3.6 Hybridisation of Solar Tower Power Plants ........................................................................... 68
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................... 73
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ 74
REFERENCE LIST .............................................................................................. 75
EXERCISE PROBLEMS ...................................................................................... 81

2
Nomenclature
Symbol Meaning Unit

Latin letters
A area m²
azimuthal angle °
Aeff effective area m²
Amirr mirror area m²
ASF,i mirror area of a single heliostat m²
ASF mirror area of a heliostat field m²
Avol Volume specific surface area of porous receiver m2/m3
D diameter m
G& D direct normal irradiance W/m²
Gr Grashof number -
G& thPow mean flux density W/m²
h,h convection heat transfer coefficient W/(m2K)
H height m
k thermal conductivity W/(m K)
m& air air mass flow kg/s
n number of mirrors
Nu Nusselt number -
P power W
Prad radiant power W
q&conv Convective heat loss W/m2
q&loss area specific power loss W/m2
q&rad reradiative heat loss W/m2
q& refl reflection loss W/m2
q&use useable energy flux W/m2
Q& cond
conducted power W
Q& conv convected power W
Q& in
thermal power on the receiver W
Q& rad reradiated power W
Q& refl
reflected power W

Q& use thermal power to the heat transfer fluid W

Q& use , SF
usable radiative power W
R radial distance m
Re Reynolds number -
T temperature °C or K
Tair air temperature °C or K
Tamb ambient air temperature °C or K
Tamb,m mean ambient air temperature °C or K
Trec receiver surface temperature °C or K
Tw wall temperature °C or K
Tw,m mean wall temperature °C or K
va,m mean wind velocity m/s
x distance m

3
y height, m; distance m
yhel distance from the ground to the pivot point of the heliostat m
ytow distance from the ground to the centre of the receiver m
zs mirror height m
zT tower height m

Greek letters
α absorptivity -
angle °
angle between the reflected sun rays and the horizontal °
β volumetric thermal expansion coefficient 1/K
angle °
Δ difference operator
ε emissivity -
elevation angle °
η efficiency -
η B, S blocking and shading loss effect -
ηC cosine loss effect -
η cos cosine efficiency -
ηF mirror surface errors and tracking inaccuracies loss effect -
η Fail heliostat fault rate loss effect -
ηs efficiency of converting the incident energy from the -
heliostat field into heat
η SF overall efficiency of the heliostat field -
η SF ,i overall efficiency of a single heliostat -
ηW ,T wind load and tower movement loss effect -
ν kinematic viscosity m²/s
ρ reflectivity -
ρ = ηR reflection loss effect -
σ Stefan-Boltzmann constant W/(m2K4)

Subscripts
abs absorber
amb ambient
B blocking
C cosine
conv convection
cos cosine
dir direct
e electric
eff effective
hel heliostat
HF heliostat field
in inlet
input
m mean
mirr mirror
nat natural
out outlet
output

4
R reflection
rad radiant
reradiation
rec receiver
refl reflection
S shading
SF solar field
T tower movement
th thermal
tow tower
use useable
w wall
W wind load

Overbar
– average condition time mean

Acronyms
ATS Advanced Thermal Systems
CatRec Catalyst Receiver
CC combined-cycle
CNRS Centre national de la recherche scientifique
CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organisation
CSP Concentrating Solar Power
DAPS Dynamic Aim Processing System
DLR Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (German
Aerospace Center)
EADS European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company
GAST Gas Cooled Solar Tower
HGM Heliostat Growth Method
HiTRec High Temperature Receiver
HTF heat transfer fluid
ISEGS Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System
IEA International Energy Agency
KAM Kraftanlagen München
MED Multi-Effect Distillation
MOO Multi-Objective Optimiser
NSTTF National Solar Thermal Test Facility
PCM Phase Change Material
PSA Plataforma Solar de Almería
REFOS Receiver for Solar-Hybrid Gasturbine and CC Systems
PS10 Planta Solar 10 (Spanish->English: Solar Power Plant 10)
PS20 Planta Solar 20 (Spanish->English: Solar Power Plant 20)
R&D research and development
SAPS Static Aim Processing System
SiC silicon carbide
SIJ Solar-Institut Jülich
SM stretched membrane
SSPS Small Solar Power Systems
STJ Solar Tower Jülich
SWJ Stadtwerke Jülich (local utility of town Jülich)
UV ultraviolet
YNES yearly normalized energy surfaces

5
Summary
This chapter discusses the solar tower technology which includes the solar field, the receiver
technology as well as examples of existing solar tower power plants. The solar field of a solar
tower power plant is called heliostat field. It consists of individual sun-tracking mirrors which
reflect and focus the direct solar irradiation at high concentration onto an absorption area, called
receiver, which is located atop of a tower. The heliostat technology is described in more detail
regarding the available types, shapes and sizes, and details on the field losses, field design, aiming
strategies are given. The available receiver technologies as well as the working fluid they employ
are described.

Key questions
• What types of heliostats exist?
• What types of heliostat fields exist?
• What types of receivers exist?
• What is hybridisation?

6
8 Solar Tower Technology
8.1 Introduction
Parabolic trough and linear Fresnel technologies are line concentrating systems, which means that
the direct solar irradiation is concentrated along the length of a receiver tube. This inclines that the
concentration ratio is not as high as if the radiation were concentrated onto a single point.
Dish/Stirling systems and the solar tower technology are classed as point concentrating systems.
Both achieve very high concentration ratios (Dish/Stirling systems the highest) and therefore the
two systems have more potential for achieving very high working fluid temperatures than line
concentrating systems. A high working fluid temperature, however, is not the only criterion that
decides whether a solar system will be successful on the market or not. Parabolic trough power
plants are the solar systems which have been built the most in the world and are in commercial
operation the longest time of all. In comparison, far less solar tower power plants have been
constructed. However, many solar tower concepts employing different receiver types and working
fluids have been demonstrated and, for example, the works first commercial tower power plant
using molten salt as heat transfer fluid, Gemasolar, has been constructed recently.Table 1 compares
the characteristics of the four current concentrating solar power technologies. Please note that the
name central receiver is another name that can be used for solar tower, and PCM is an acronym for
phase change materials.

A solar tower power plant consists of a large number of sun-tracking mirrors which focus highly
concentrated solar irradiation onto an absorber, called receiver, which is located atop of a tower.
The type of focussing is “point focus” or “point concentration”. Different receiver technologies
exist and various working fluids have been applied in the past years. General working method: The
receiver transforms the concentrated radiation into heat and transfers the heat to a working fluid.
The working fluid can either be a heat transfer fluid, which, being an intermediate medium, is used
for evaporating water in a boiler of a steam cycle or the working fluid can be water from the steam
cycle directly, which is then evaporated in the receiver. The generation of electricity is the main
goal of the solar tower technology. Secondary applications of CSP are also of great interest, such as
hydrogen production or seawater desalination (using the energy released by the condenser). In the
first part of this chapter the solar field is described, followed by the description of four receiver
technologies.

7
Table 1: Characteristics of current concentrating solar power technologies, edited from [1]

Concentration Method line concentrating system point concentrating system

Technology Parabolic Linear Central Parabolic
Trough Fresnel Receiver Dish
State of the Art commercial pre- demonstrated demonstrated
commercial and first
commercialisati
on
Cost of Solar Field (€/m²) 200 – 250 150 – 200 250 – 300 > 350
Typical Unit Size (MW) 5 – 200 1 – 200 10 – 100 0.010
Construction Requirements demanding simple demanding moderate
Operating Temperature 390 – 550 270 – 550 550 – 1000 800 – 900
Heat Transfer Fluid synthetic oil, synthetic oil, air, molten salt, air
water/steam water/steam water/steam
Thermodynamic Power Cycle Rankine Rankine Brayton, Stirling,
Rankine Brayton
Power Unit steam turbine steam turbine gas turbine, Stirling engine
steam turbine
Experience high low moderate moderate
Reliability high unknown moderate high
Thermal Storage Media molten salt, molten salt, molten salt, molten salt,
concrete, PCM concrete, PCM ceramics, PCM ceramics, PCM
Combination with Desalination simple simple simple Simple
Integration to the Environment difficult simple moderate Moderate
Operation requirements demanding simple demanding Simple
Land Requirement high low high Moderate

8.2 Solar Field

A solar field of a solar tower power plant is made up of heliostats, which are mirrors equipped with
a two-axes tracking system in order to track the sun’s path. A heliostat field provides thermal
energy ("fuel") for a solar tower power plant (also referred to as a central receiver system).
Heliostats are named after the Greek words helio meaning “sun” and stat meaning stationary,
because it describes the heliostat’s function which is to reflect the sun’s image and to focus it on a
fixed position on a tower-mounted absorber, called receiver. In order to do so the heliostats must
track the sun’s position over the course of the day. As many hundreds or thousands of heliostats
with altogether a lot of mirror area reflect the solar image onto a comparatively small area of the
receiver, high sunlight concentrations are reached. The furthest distance that a heliostat can be
located away from the tower is approximately 1000 metres [2].

The heliostat field of a solar tower power plant makes up roughly 50% of the investment costs. As
a result, it is important to press on reducing the cost of heliostats as far as accomplishable in order
to improve and strengthen the economic viability of the solar power tower technology [3]. A large
fraction of costs is caused by the stiffness requirements of the steel structure, typically resulting in
~20 kg/m2 steel per mirror area. The typical cost figure of heliostats is currently in the area of
150 €/m² caused by the increasing price of the necessary raw materials [4].

8
► Exercises
– What is a heliostat?
– What is the furthest distance from the tower that a heliostat can be placed?
– With how many percent does the cost of the heliostat field contribute to the total cost of a solar
tower power plant?
–
8.2.1 Heliostat Types
Several different types of heliostat mirrors exist, which can be differentiated, for example,
according to the size, shape, basic design concept, composition of the mirror material or even
according to their tracking systems. Each heliostat type has its own characteristics in terms of
wind-performance (and tracking during windy conditions), costs and complexity of control.
Moreover, maintenance costs are higher for a heliostat field with small heliostats because of the far
greater number of control systems required compared to a heliostat field of the same size with large
heliostats. Large heliostats have the advantage that they are more cost efficient than small ones (on
a $/m2 basis). Improvements in controllability may cause this to change, however, and several
companies (such as eSolar and Practical Solar) are attempting the strategy of using many small
heliostats as opposed to fewer large heliostats [3], [4].

One of the first distinguishing points of heliostats is the material of the mirror. Usually a
combination of two materials is used in order to maximise the coefficient of reflection, as shown in
Table 2.

Table 2: Composition of materials for mirrors and the coefficient of reflection (solar spectrum) [5]
Composition of Materials for Mirrors Coefficient of reflection ρ
Glass with a layer of aluminium 0.76
Teflon with a layer of aluminium 0.79
Acryl glass with a layer of aluminium 0.80
Teflon with a layer of silver 0.86
Glass with a layer of silver 0.87
Low-iron glass with a layer of silver 0.95

In addition it is also possible to use plastic or sheet metal foil stretched into a membrane (simply
called stretched membrane, or SM)

8.2.2 Heliostat Shapes

a) Canted-glass mirror heliostat
In order to build large size heliostats that still produce small sun’s images on the receiver, the
canted-glass mirror technology is widely used. A canted-glass mirror heliostat is often a single
large heliostat that is divided into a number of sub-mirrors, as shown in Figure 1. The focus is
achieved by placing the mirror facets (sub-mirrors) at an angle to one another such that the sun’s
rays reflected by each facet converge to the same aiming point on the receiver aperture. Canting
can therefore be regarded as an approximation of focusing with a Fresnel mirror. The problem
associated with using a canted-glass mirror heliostat is that unless the angles of the individual sub-
mirrors can be adjusted mechanically, the canting will never be optimal with exception of one or
two times during the year where the sun’s position in the sky is optimal. This is because the angles
between the heliostat, the sun and the receiver change throughout the day and year and hence the
focal point will also vary. Thus, most of the time of the year the sun’s image from the heliostat will

9
have off-axis aberration, which is a distortion of the ideal image [6]. This effect increases with
increasing heliostat size.

Figure 1: Canted heliostat, edited from [6]

b) Stretched-membrane focused and non-focused heliostat

The reflector of a focused stretched-membrane (SM) heliostat is made of either stretched polymer
(plastic) or metallic foil. Figure 2 shows how the image from a stretched-membrane heliostat is
focused:

Figure 2: Focused SM heliostat, edited from [6]

McDonnell Douglas, a former major American aerospace manufacturer and defence contractor,
calculated that a 20% cost reduction could be achieved with developing heliostats with a mirror
area of at least 100 m2. Sandia National Laboratories (USA) proposed a circular SM heliostat with
a size of 150 m2 in an attempt to further lower the heliostat production costs. The proposed SM
heliostat was lighter and simpler (i.e. requiring fewer parts) than a heliostat constructed of glass
and metal. Moreover, predictions showed that larger sized heliostats are more cost effective [3, p.
28].

The following two figures show different SM heliostat designs.

Figure 3: Planar multi-facet stretched membrane heliostat,

tested at NREL and Sandia National Labs [2]

10
 Figure 4: ASM-150 SM full-carousel heliostat built by Babcock Borsig
Power Environment [2]

c) Flat or nearly flat single or multiple mirror heliostats

The Solar Tower Jülich concentrator field consists of 2150 heliostats. A single heliostat has a
reflective surface area of 8 m2 of. Altogether the heliostat field has a reflective area of about
18,000 m2.

Figure 5: Flat type heliostat [7]

A larger heliostat with multiple mirror facets is shown in Figure 6 (shown from the back, the
typical parts of the heliostat are illustrated).

11
 Figure 6: Parts of a Heliostat, edited from [7]

d) Heliostat with hexagonal-shaped mirrors

An example of a heliostat with hexagonal-shaped mirrors (built by SHAP) is shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Hexagonal-shaped heliostat built by SHAP [8]

Heliostats of rectangular shape have maximum ground coverage of 58%. If a solar tower power
plant is built with more than one tower, i.e. in a Multi Tower Solar Array, then its solar fields may
be required to have a ground coverage of more than 90%. With a new type of hexagonal heliostat,
which is specifically shaped, ground coverage is claimed to be up to 100% [9]. Figure 8 shows
three examples of specifically shaped hexagonal heliostat designs (mirrors depicted in grey colour)
for up to 100% ground coverage for the application in multi tower solar arrays.

12
 Figure 8: Three examples of specifically shaped hexagonal heliostat designs for
up to 100% ground coverage for the application in multi tower solar arrays [9]

► Exercises
– Name four heliostat shapes.

8.2.3 Heliostat Sizes

The reflective mirror area of heliostats varies between 1 m2 and 150 m2. The advantage of having
larger sized heliostats is that since fewer heliostats are installed, fewer step motors are required and
fewer units need to be maintained. The disadvantage, however, is the more difficult installation and
maintenance of large heliostats, e.g. replacement of actuators or broken mirrors. In order to
withstand the high wind loads, the pylon, foundation, crossbeam and the cantilever arm must be
designed a lot larger than for small heliostats.

Figure 9: Heliostats used in solar tower power plants and their costs [10]

13
The cost of a heliostat field constitutes approximately 50% of the entire plant’s investment cost. To
make the central receiver system technology more competitive, investigations were undertaken in
the 1980’s with the aim to minimise the heliostat production costs (cost/m²). The heliostat field
focuses light at high concentration on a receiver area. Very high concentration intensities of the
light can be achieved by means of using smaller-sized heliostats (e.g. mirror areas of 20 m²). On
the other hand, central receiver systems requiring only lower concentrations of light could profit
from lower specific heliostat costs (cost/m2) if the heliostats dimensions are ≥ 150 m2, which is the
result of an analysis conducted by Sandia National Laboratories (USA). Tests at the NSTTF
(National Solar Thermal Test Facility) in Albuquerque, USA, running for two decades are claimed
to have been very successful. Tested was the 148 m2 glass/metal Advanced Thermal Systems
(ATS) heliostat which had been subject to multiple high wind events with wind speeds in the range
of 144 km/h without suffering significant beam degradation [3, p. 16].

A lighter design was the stretched membrane (SM) heliostat design with 150 m2 mirror area,
weighing approximately 830 kg less than the ATS heliostat. Moreover it proved to be simpler to
align in the field. However, the cost of stainless steel in the membrane and supporting ring
eventually made the SM heliostat more expensive than the ATS heliostat. In addition, the SM
heliostat faced several problems which included hail forming dents in the membrane when the
heliostat was left in stow position (face-up) and ultraviolet (UV) light degrading the polymer mirror
in a short time (note that the polymer mirror is glued to the metal membrane). Improvements were
made on the design as a result of recommendations made by Sandia National Laboratories which
led to the SM heliostats being designed with a thin-glass film rather than the polymer film. The
new design was tested at the Solar Two solar tower near Barstow, USA, and in Spain back in the
mid 1990s [3, pp. 16, 18].

Through ongoing research several adaptations of the above-mentioned heliostat designs were made.
A heliostat design similar to the ATS heliostat was favoured as it was cheapest to produce from all.
This type of heliostat, which has a mirror area of 121 m2, was installed at the PS10 and PS20
central receiver plants in the years 2006 – 2007. In total, mirror areas exceeding 200 000 m2 were
erected [3, p. 16].

The concept of the "mega-heliostat" could lead to the production of the largest heliostats in the
world. Arizona Public Service (in the USA) currently operates several large-area two-axis
photovoltaic concentrators using Fresnel lenses to concentrate the light onto the photovoltaic cells.
The largest of these concentrators has an area of approximately 320 m2 (see Figure 10) and could
be converted to a heliostat [3, p. 20].

14
Figure 10: Some 320 m2 PV trackers at APS with hydraulic drives [3]

A recent development towards using small heliostat sizes was realised by the company eSolar,
which built the Sierra SunTower. The heliostat field consists of 24,000 heliostats, each with a
1.14 m² mirror area. The advantage of using such small mirrors is that they are easily and quickly
mountable (no cranes are required, see Figure 11) and that the heliostats can be mass manufactured.
The mirror and 2-axes tracking system is deployed on a frame, as shown in Figure 12 [11].

Figure 11: Deployment of mirror field [11]

Figure 12: 2-axes tracking system [11]

15
Current research on innovative small-mirror systems is also being conducted by the Solar-Institut
Jülich (SIJ) and German Aerospace Center (DLR) in Germany. A possible option to reduce costs
lies in a heliostat design where all moving parts are protected from wind loads. In this way, drives
and mechanical layout may be kept less robust thereby reducing material input and costs. In order
to keep the heliostat at an appropriate size, small mirrors (approximately 10 cm × 10 cm) are used.
These are placed in a box with a transparent cover with anti-reflective coating. Several designs
have been examined concerning the drive system and the mechanical structures of the mirror array
in order to develop a cost-effective design. A 0.5 m × 0.5 m demonstration unit is shown in the
following figure. Research on this topic is continuing [4].

Figure 13: Schematic view of the mini-mirror array [12]

► Exercises
– What is the trend of heliostat sizes? Explain your answer.
– What is the reflective area of the (i) smallest heliostat (ii) largest heliostat that has been
installed in a heliostat field of a solar tower power plant?
– What are advantages and disadvantages of large heliostats?
– What are advantages and disadvantages of small heliostats?

16
8.2.4 Heliostat Field Losses
When laying out a heliostat field there are several types of losses that must be considered. These
are the optical losses, namely the cosine losses and losses due to shadowing, blocking, spillage and
atmospheric attenuation, but also technical considerations, i.e. the mirror reflectivity, mirror
surface defects, tracking accuracy, wind load and tower oscillations (due to wind load) as well as
the heliostat fault rate. Some of these terms are explained in more detail below.

a) Cosine loss
The normal to the heliostat mirror surface is practically never facing the sun, except at the days in
the year when at solar noon the sun’s position is directly behind the receiver (in that case the
particular heliostat would be covered in shade from the tower shadow). Over the course of any day
the heliostat’s azimuth and zenith angle orientation is changed every few seconds in order to
guarantee accurate tracking of the sun’s path. Hence, mathematically, the effective mirror area is
less than the actual mirror area. The reduction in effective mirror area is proportional to the cosine
angle of the angle of incidence [5, p. 141].

The equation for the loss due to the cosine is given by:
cosine loss = 1 - cos β (1)

The radiant power is calculated with the equation:

Prad = I dir Aeff (2)

Figure 14 shows the effect that the cosine loss has on the radiant power, which is reflected by a
heliostat.

Figure 14: Effect of cosine loss on radiant power reflected by heliostat [4]

In the illustration the example heliostat is positioned directly north of a solar tower. The equation
for the cosine loss, however, is valid for heliostats in any location in a heliostat field.

17
b) Blocking loss
Blocking is an effect which occurs for any heliostat which has neighbouring heliostats in front and
front sideways of it. Blocking means that a rear heliostat cannot reflect a portion of the light rays
onto the receiver surface because a front heliostat blocks some of it, i.e. some of the backside of the
front heliostat is illuminated. The lower the sun elevation angle and the further a heliostat is located
away from the tower, the more blocking will occur.
The following graph illustrates the mechanism of blocking:

Figure 15: Heliostat blocking, edited from [5]

Blocking can be avoided as much as possible by increasing the distance between the heliostats Δx
as shown in Figure 16.

18
Figure 16: Blocking of neighbouring heliostats, edited from [5]

To eliminate blocking completely, Δx has to take a value such that a line (here illustrated in orange
colour) can be drawn from the centre of the receiver to the upper tangent of the mirror’s swivel
circle of heliostati and in continuation to the lower tangent of the mirror swivel circle of heliostati+1.

As an approximation, Δx can be calculated as follows:

z s zT
≈ (3)
Δx x

Rearranging for Δx:

zs
Δx ≈ x (m), (4)
zT

where x is the horizontal distance of the heliostat pivot point to the centre of the surface of the
receiver. With growing distance x from the tower and with increasing ratio of z s zT the distance
between the consequent heliostats must be increased. The distance between the heliostats must not
be chosen bigger than necessary because otherwise both losses (cosine and atmospheric
attenuation) and land requirement will increase too much [5, p. 141].

c) Shadowing loss
Shadowing is similar to blocking except that here a front heliostat casts a shadow on the heliostat
behind or sideways behind it. Figure 17 shows the partial shadowing of a mirror.

19
Figure 17: Shadowing loss, edited from [5]

d) Spillage loss
The heliostat field reflects and directs the direct normal irradiance on the receiver surface.
Depending on factors such as the angle of incidence on the receiver, the mirror quality and tracking
system accuracy a portion of radiation may miss the receiver surface – this is called spillage. Figure
18 illustrates the spillage loss for a solar tower with north-only field. Spilled radiation is the
radiation which does not hit the receiver surface.

Figure 18: Spillage loss [4]

20
e) Loss due to the atmospheric attenuation
The overall loss due to the atmospheric attenuation depends on the distances of the heliostats to
receiver. The attenuation on the other hand is a function of the visibility2, which, of course, can
vary during the course of the day. As an example for the test location Barstow (USA), the visibility
of a clear day is defined to be 23 km and for a hazy day 5 km [6].

f) Mirror reflectivity
How good a mirror reflects depends not only on the quality of the reflective surface, but also on the
degree of mirror degradation and soiling (in certain time intervals the heliostat mirrors need to be
washed to increase reflectivity).

g) Overall efficiency of the heliostat field

The overall efficiency of a single heliostat is the product of the individual optical loss factors,
according the following equation:

η SF ,i = η B ,Sη Cη FηW ,Tη Rη Fail (5)

Depending on the location of the individual heliostats, the overall efficiency of a single heliostat
varies between 0.45 ≤ η SF ,i ≤ 0.85 . A heliostat located closer to the tower generally has a higher
efficiency than a heliostat located at the edge of the field or far away from the tower.

A typical range of values for the various heliostat field loss effects is given in Table 3.

Table 3: Various heliostat field losses with typical ranges of values [5, p. 143]
Heliostat Field Loss Effect Symbol Typical Range of Values
Blocking and Shadowing η B ,S 0.98…0.99
Cosine ηC 0.70…0.95
Mirror surface errors and tracking inaccuracies ηF 0.90…0.99
Wind load and tower movement ηW ,T 0.93…0.97
Reflection ρ = ηR 0.80…0.95
Heliostat fault rate η Fail 0.98…1.00

For computing the overall efficiency of the heliostat field η S , F , the following weighted equation is
valid:
n

∑η SF ,i ASF ,i
η SF = i =1
(6)
ASF

Where n is the number of mirrors, ASF,i the mirror area of a single heliostat (m²) and ASF the mirror
area of the entire heliostat field.

2
The term visibility describes the greatest distance under given weather conditions that an ob-
server can see without the aid of optical instruments.

21
Typical values of the efficiency of heliostat fields lie in the range of

(0.55 ≤ η SF ≤ 0.80)

The heliostat field reflects and directs a usable radiative power Q& use, SF to the receiver, which is
calculated with the following equation:

Q& use, SF = ASFη SF G& D (W) (7)

where G& D [W/m2] is the direct normal irradiance [5, p. 143].

Figure 19 shows the computed efficiency lines of the heliostat field of the 20 MWe solar tower
plant project GAST with a cavity receiver. In the project GAST, the concept of a 20 MWe plant
with air-cooled receiver was investigated and several components of the plant such as heliostats
and receiver panel were tested at the Plataforma Solar de Almería3 (PSA) in Spain [13]. An actual
plant with 20 MWe was, however, never built.
Heliostats with identical efficiency are connected with one another with lines. The highest
efficiencies are found near the tower (77-81%). The lowest heliostat efficiencies occur at the field
edge at a distance of about 500 m away from the tower (48-51%). The interesting feature of this
heliostat field design is the layout. The cavity receiver has two openings in an angle of 120°. This
had the effect that the heliostat field layout is more circular rather than elliptical (the elliptical form
is usual for cavity receiver with a single receiver opening).

Figure 19: Computed efficiency lines of the heliostat field of the 20 MWe solar
tower plant GAST (according to GAST, 1989) [5, p. 144]

3
The Plataforma Solar de Almeria, which belongs to the Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas
Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), is the largest European centre for research, devel-
opment and testing of concentrating solar technologies [14].

22
Calculating the optical losses for the entire heliostat field only makes sense with the aid of a
computer code. The calculations are done for a selection of sun positions during the day and also
for different days during the year in order to get an annual average. There are several computer
codes that are able to perform these computations, such as WinDelsol (based on DELSOL3) and
HFLCAL. Other codes used for optical calculations are FIAT FLUX, SolTRACE, MIRVAL and
HELIOS [15].

► Exercises

♦ Optical losses – theory

– Name the optical losses of a heliostat field.
– How is the overall efficiency of a single heliostat calculated?
– What is the range of overall efficiency of a single heliostat?
– What is the range of typical values of the efficiency of heliostat fields?
– Write the formula of the overall efficiency of the heliostat field η SF .
– Explain the meaning of blocking loss. Make a sketch to support your answer.
– Explain the meaning of shadowing loss. Make a sketch to support your answer.
– Explain the meaning of cosine loss. Make a sketch to support your answer.
– Explain the meaning of spillage loss. Make a sketch to support your answer.

♦ Cosine loss – Calculation task

A heliostat of a surround heliostat field is located x = 1000 m south of a tower (surround field). The
receiver is located at ytow = 100 m at the top of the tower (measured from the ground to the centre
of the receiver). The sun’s elevation angle is ε = 84° (nearly vertical). The distance from the ground
to the pivot point of the heliostat is yhel = 2 m. β is the angle between the normal of the mirror and
the incident as well as reflected direct solar irradiance. α is the angle between the reflected sun rays
and the horizontal. An illustration of the problem is given in Figure 20.

Task: Calculate the cosine efficiency η cos and the cosine loss.

Figure 20: Illustration for cosine loss calculation, edited from [16]

23
Solution:
η cos = cos( β )
2β = 180° − ε − α
180° − ε − α
β=
2
⎛ y⎞ ⎛ y tow − y hel ⎞ ⎛ 100m − 2m ⎞
α = tan −1 ⎜ ⎟ = tan −1 ⎜ ⎟ = tan −1 ⎜ ⎟ ≈ 6°
⎝x⎠ ⎝ x ⎠ ⎝ 1000m ⎠
180° − 84° − 6°
β= = 45°
2

η cos = cos(45) = 0.707 = 70.7%

Cosine loss = 1 - cos( β ) = 1 - 0.707 = 0.293 = 29.3%

8.2.5 Heliostat Field Design

The layout of the heliostat field is a complex topic. “Decisions regarding the best position for
locating heliostats relative to the receiver and how high to place the receiver above the field
constitute a multifaceted problem, in which costs and heliostat “loss” mechanisms are the
variables” [17].

Figure 21 shows the various basic field positions according to the location of the power plant on
the earth. In the northern hemisphere, the sun’s position is to the south of the plant and the field
must be placed to the north of the tower i.e. the field type is a northern field [4]. In the southern
hemisphere the opposite holds true. The general terminology for this position would be the "polar
side" of the tower, which can be applied to towers in both the northern and southern hemispheres.
The opposite side of the tower is the "equatorial side" [18]. With a field on only one side of the
tower, a cavity receiver is usually used. In latitudes close to the equator, where the sun has very
high elevation angles, a surround heliostat field can be used which reflects the concentrated light
onto an external receiver. The external receiver is hence also of surround-type. A further
configuration can be a two-field arrangement, one on either side of the tower. The tower could
then, for example, be equipped with a dual cavity receiver, one for each field side. A tower using
secondary concentrators requires an elliptical heliostat field, as light reflected from wider-angled
positions in the field would not enter the secondary concentrators. The light must enter the
secondary concentrator. The elliptical shape comes about by theoretically extending a cone from
the secondary concentrator until it cuts the plane of the ground, as shown in Figure 22 [4].

24
Figure 21: Heliostat field design in dependence of the location, edited from [16]

Figure 22: Elliptical field form [4]

The aim in the designing of a heliostat field is to reliably produce the power required by the power
block whilst keeping land usage and total costs to a minimum. The calculation of the field layout,
the optical losses and the optimisation of the field is an iterative process and there are many
computer programs which have been designed over the last 30 years to perform this task. A
detailed analysis of these computer programs is beyond the scope of this text. A brief introduction
to some of the programs is given in the following pages. More details on the various programs can
be found in the quoted sources. Moreover, different methods for laying out a heliostat field are
presented as well.

The early design and simulation programs were Fortran codes developed in the 1970’s and 80’s.
These included programs such as HELIOS, DELSOL, MIRVAL and SOLERGY, among others.
These early programs had several disadvantages such that they were difficult to use. However,
much software development has taken place again in recent years. Some tools include a graphical
user interface for easy handling and also have the ability to portray 3D views. Object-oriented

25
programming and the implementation of modular structures can nowadays be realised with high-
level programming languages such as C++, MatLab and Delphi 5 [19]. To name an example, the
DELSOL3 code from 1986 has been much improved through the release of WinDelsol 1.0 in the
year 2002. It features graphical user interfaces which help reduce the possibility of making input
errors to a minimum and lead the user through the different calculation stages.

Table 4 from the year 2008 summarises some codes which were developed for the calculation of
solar fluxes and for performing field layouts. The information gathered in this table was compiled
by researchers from the French "Centre national de la recherche scientifique" (CNRS) with the
purpose of determining which tool is best suited to the specific objectives of the simulation to be
carried out. According to this study, modelling tools for central receiver systems can be divided
into two main categories: system optimisation tools and optical-performance analysis tools [20].

Table 4: Summary of computer codes for heliostat field layout [20]

Different programs also make use of differing categories of heliostat arrangements. The most
common category originated from research performed by the University of Houston in the 1970's.
It was determined that it is generally best to arrange the heliostats in a radial stagger pattern as
shown in Figure 23:

26
 Figure 23: Radial stagger heliostat layout pattern developed by the
University of Houston, showing the spacing, "ΔR" and "ΔA" [17]

This pattern was found to minimise land usage as well as blocking and shading losses. The
heliostat packing density (the ratio of mirror area to field area) is higher near to the tower but the
heliostats are sufficiently spread out to prevent mechanical interference. The spacing between the
heliostats (ΔR and ΔA – radial and azimuthal, respectively) increases along with the distance from
the tower, in order to minimise the blocking effect. When this spacing becomes too great, more
heliostats are added and a new stagger pattern is established [17].

The radial staggered pattern for a surround field was realised for the Solar Two tower power plant
near Barstow, USA (Figure 42) and the PS10 and PS20 tower plants in Spain.

A newer concept is the arrangement of heliostats in straight rows. Two examples of possible
arrangements are briefly presented:
I. North and south facing heliostat field
This concept was realised by the US American company eSolar for their Sierra SunTower plant
(Figure 24) which was completed in the summer of 2009. The rows of heliostats are erected
staggered to one another. The rows are densely packed and the spacing between the rows is
identical for all rows.

II. North facing heliostat field

The north facing (in northern hemisphere latitudes) field was chosen for the Solar Tower Jülich,
Germany (Figure 25). The solar tower power plant was built by the general contractor Kraftanlagen
München and was completed in the winter of 2008. The rows of heliostats are erected aligned (non-
staggered) to one another. The spacing between the heliostat rows increases with the distance from
the tower.

27
Figure 24: eSolar’s multiple north and south facing straight-row heliostat fields [11]

Figure 25: Heliostat field of the Solar Tower Jülich, Germany, showing a straight-row field pattern
(North of the tower) [21]

Regardless of the category of heliostat arrangement chosen, an optimum field layout is made by an
iterative analysis using ray tracing techniques or cone optics. These programs study so-called
"representative" heliostats in a field and check them for both blocking and shadowing by the
neighbouring heliostats. The number of neighbouring heliostats ranges from 15 (a 4 × 4 group), in
the earliest programs, to 576 (a 24 × 24 group), in the latest programs [6], [19].

The following questions provide the basic guidelines for the positioning of the heliostats in the
field [22, p. 119]:
1. “How much power is delivered to the receiver over the course of a typical year?”
2. “What is the instantaneous flux density distribution on the receiver from the whole heliostat
field?”
3. “What is the flux density distribution from a single heliostat on the receiver and how does it
depend on the contour (e.g. concavity) of the mirror?”
4. “How do neighbouring heliostats affect each other in terms of shading and blocking?”
5. “What is the effect of heliostat size and shape on points 3 and 4?”
6. “How should the heliostats be spaced in the field to achieve the most cost-effective
design?”
7. “How tall should the tower be, and how large a surface area should the receiver have,
depending on the nominal design power?”

28
In order to answer these questions, a combination of ray tracing (to determine angles or intersection
points) and analysis, to determine interactions, flux densities and so forth is required.

Apart from the programs presented in Table 4 several other methodologies/codes for the optimised
placement of heliostats in the field have been developed by researchers in the past years. Five of
these shall now be introduced:

I. In 2005 a method was presented for the design of heliostat layout based on yearly normalised
energy surfaces (YNES), which produces an irregular layout pattern. This method is known as the
Heliostat Growth Method (HGM), which iteratively calculates the annual efficiency of the
heliostats during the design and optimisation stage. The iterative method is rather time-consuming,
but already proves to be worth the time if the computation output results either in the increase of
the solar plant’s efficiency or a reduction in the capital costs. The YNES-based layout generation
method has the advantage that it is more flexible than codes that use pre-determined gridding
strategies (e.g. DELSOL) [19]. In Figure 26, the irregular pattern computed by the HGM is shown.

Figure 26: Field layout with the Heliostat Growth Method (HGM) [19]

Although field performance may be optimized, increased costs are expected with respect to the
installation and cleaning of the field as no straight or nearly straight routes for construction or
cleaning machines are available in the central field section.

II. A new code for the design and analysis of the heliostat field layout was developed in 2010 (note:
the code was not given any name). In the “new code”, a method for the heliostat field layout has
been proposed, which is based on the edge ray principle of non-imaging optics. “The heliostat field
boundary is constrained by the tower height, the receiver tilt angle and size and the heliostat
efficiency factor which is the product of the annual cosine efficiency and the annual atmospheric

29
transmission efficiency.” The new method places the heliostat with a higher efficiency and obtains
a faster response speed in the design and optimisation stage [23].

Figure 27: Heliostat field layout for the PS10 plant proposed by the New Method [23]

III. In 1990, a mathematical model for the "minimum radial spacing for no blocking and no
shadowing condition" was published. The no-blocking method is based on the idea that “in order to
fully utilise the total heliostat reflected area and collect the maximum solar radiation for central
receiver plants, one should minimise the heliostat shaded and blocked areas” [24].

IV. In the study “Multi-objective thermoeconomic optimisation of the design of heliostat fields of
solar tower power plants”, published in 2007, researchers had the aim to design a heliostat field
such that the lowest specific energy cost is obtained. Moreover, the “impact of field size on the
energy obtained” was investigated. The field layout was based on the radial staggered field layout
method. The optimisation of the field was carried out with a multi-objective optimiser (MOO)
which is based on the two objectives specific energy cost versus investment cost. Comparisons
with test results from other publications show that with the MOO lower specific costs could be
obtained. The lowest specific energy cost was calculated for different field sizes from small to large
[25].

30
 Figure 28: Heliostat field layout with the lowest specific energy cost [25]

V. The idea of arranging heliostats in straight rows (aligned or staggered) is rather new, as was
explained earlier. Hence, most of the existing solar tower power plants have heliostat fields
designed according to the radial staggered arrangement. In 2005, a small solar tower was built at
the CSIRO Energy Centre in Newcastle, Australia. The heliostat field was designed as a close-
packed heliostat field, which has the heliostats arranged in straight rows at a very high density (i.e.
they stand very close to each other) [18]. In a publication in 2009, Schramek, Mills et al [18]
describe the concept. The idea came about due to the fact that a radial staggered pattern heliostat
field is limited in ground coverage (i.e. a lot of the available land area remains unused) as they are
placed in such a way that the blocking and shading losses are kept low. Designing a densely packed
heliostat field has the advantage that more reflector area can be erected in the most favourable
regions of the field. In such a region a “freestanding single focusing heliostat without shading and
blocking achieves the best performance for a given aperture because a heliostat in this region can
take advantage of the most beneficial combination of low cosine losses, low astigmatism4, and
short distance to the receiver aperture”. The heliostats located in this region produce the “smallest
and densest focal spot on the aperture”. The disadvantage identified with closely packed heliostat
fields is that the mutual blocking and shading losses increase when the distance between heliostats
is decreased [18]. In addition, if packed too closely, heliostat may collide with each other. The
minimum required distance to avoid collision depends on the mirror size and shape as well as the
orientation of the heliostat axes of rotation. For standard heliostats the distance must be at least as
large as the mirror diagonal.

Next shall be discussed the installation of the heliostat field on sloped land:
Among the further factors to be considered in the original siting of the power plant is the lay of the
land. A heliostat field can be erected on a slope, if the slope is suitable. Figure 29 shows a
photograph of the Thémis solar tower power plant in the Eastern Pyrenees of Southern France,
which is situated on a sloping site. The field is ascending from left to right away from the tower.

4
Astigmatism: off-axis aberration

31
 Figure 29: Thémis solar tower power plant [26]

Figure 30: A view from within the Thémis heliostat field [26]

The question of how strongly sloping or how uneven a site may be acceptable cannot be simply
answered since every location has a different combination of characteristics. If a landscape slopes
towards the tower (as in the photographs above) the consecutive rows or arcs of heliostats can be
placed closer to each other than if they were at the same elevation. Of course, if the landscape
slopes away from the tower, the opposite is true if blocking is to be avoided. It is also important to
differentiate between the general slope of the landscape and its roughness or "waviness". A "wavy"
landscape can also be used; however the spacing of the heliostats will be inconsistent, depending
on whether two rows of heliostats are located on a "wave" facing toward or away from the tower.

In studies on the subject of potential sites for tower power plants (e.g. the DLR study MED-CSP of
2005), specific values for the acceptable slope of the land (in percent) have had to be assumed. In
this case the assumed acceptable slope was 4%. However, due to the fact that the grid spacing for
the study was 1km2, it was not possible to consider the roughness (waviness) of the terrain on a
smaller scale. In order to solve this problem, an acceptable slope value of 2% was decided upon,
which would encompass all smaller areas (smaller than the 1 km2) with a slope of less than 4%.
This methodology was sufficient for the purpose of the study, which was to identify the most

32
suitable regions for CSP tower sites in Spain and North Africa. Such a method is, however, not
sufficient for the actual layout of a heliostat field.
Since there is little experience with the layout of sloped and uneven fields, investigations are
required into the actual planning and layout of fields on different terrain types. In order to achieve
this different terrain types must be classified by the roughness of their terrain, and heliostat fields
need to be designed for each different class. Finally, the expected optical losses need to be
calculated for each heliostat depending on its position in the field and the field's position on the
earth [27].

For the planning of individual fields, very detailed terrain maps will have to be attained. As
mentioned before, such detailed data do not yet exist. However, the first ever globally standardised
3D digital elevation model of Earth will be created during the next three years in a cooperative
project between the DLR and EADS (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company). The
European satellite pair TerraSAR-X, in space since 2007, and TanDEM-X, launched in 2010, is
imaging the terrain below them simultaneously, from different angles. These images are processed
into accurate elevation maps with a 12-metre resolution, that is (12 × 12) m2, and a vertical accuracy
better than 2 metres [28].

► Exercises
– Name 3 heliostat field types?
– What is the difference between a north field and a south field?
– What is the ideal region for a surround fields?
– Name the advantages and disadvantages of closely packed heliostat fields.
– Parabolic trough power plants require flat land for installing the troughs. Is this also the
case for solar tower heliostat fields? Yes/No

8.2.6 Heliostat Aiming Strategies

Aiming strategies serve the purpose of distributing the irradiation as evenly as possible on the
receiver.
Introduction: The heliostat field reflects the solar irradiation onto the receiver, which absorbs it.
The “absorbed radiation is transformed into heat and must be removed by a heat transfer
medium”. The “resulting temperature of the absorber material of the receiver depends on the mass
flow of the heat transferring fluid”. If the temperature of the fluid is to be kept as high as possible,
the “mass flow cannot be increased arbitrarily”. The “allowable flux density is fixed indirectly by
the allowable temperature of the absorber material of the receiver”. “Only one (central) aim point
in the receiver plane is not applicable in the most cases”. Along with this, “high temperatures
result in higher-than-average radiative losses”. A uniform temperature distribution is desired for
optimal receiver performance [29].

Aiming options: There are several options for aiming the heliostats at different points on a receiver.
Many of the computer programs for laying out the heliostat field are also designed to control the
aiming strategies of the heliostat field as well as measure and control the flux density distribution
on the receiver. This is very important, since the flux density incident upon the receiver is a direct
result of the layout and aiming strategies of the heliostat field. As with the heliostat field layout
programs, a detailed analysis of these programs is also beyond the scope of this text and
mathematical details can again be found in each of the quoted sources.

33
The flux density on the receiver depends on several factors [29]:
– sun position, sun shape (daytime and season)
– number, size and optical quality of the heliostats
– focal length and the canting of the heliostats
– distribution of the individual aim points of the heliostats (this is the most important
influence of all)

The following aiming options (A to G) can be used in DELSOL3, which is an early computer code
(completed in 1984) for calculating the optical performance and optimal system design for solar
thermal central receiver plants. Different aiming strategies (or options) can be optimised for various
receiver types. The receiver types which will be mentioned here are:
– External (cylindrical)
– Cavity with single aperture
– Single flat plate
– Rectangular aperture or flat plate
– Elliptical aperture or flat plate

“The aiming options are time dependent, i.e. the number of aim-points can change over the year if
the image changes.” Some aiming options are described with reference to Figure 31 [6].

(A) Single Aim Point:

– All sun’s images reflected by the heliostats concentrate on a single aim point on the
receiver surface
– Most basic aiming option
– Maximum flux density from all aiming options

(B) One-Dimensional “Smart” Aiming:

– The smaller and best focused sun’s images reflected by the heliostats located closer to the
tower are aimed along the vertical of the receiver
– The above point is also true for heliostats located further away from the tower – however,
these heliostats produce larger sun’s images which are also focused less well
– As there are multiple aiming points, the peak flux as well as the flux gradients on the
receiver’s surface will be lower than for aiming option (A)
– Aiming option (B) is suitable for external receivers as well as cavity or flat plate receivers
of elliptical shape
– “Since the size of the images from the heliostats can change with time, the one-dimensional
smart aiming also changes with time, so that both the number and position of the aim
points may change”

(C) Two-Dimensional “Smart” Aiming:

– Option (C) is similar to (B) with the difference that the sun’s images are spread two-
dimensionally in the vertical as well as horizontal direction on the receiver surface
– The peak fluxes are smaller compared to (B)
– Best suitable for rectangular cavity apertures or rectangular flat plates
– Higher spillage if this aiming option is used for elliptical receivers

34
 – “Furthermore, if used with external cylinders much of the flux will be incident on the
receiver at grazing angles where the absorption is poor, and the flux normal to the receiver
(as calculated by DELSOL3) will not be representative of the actual peak flux that could be
incident on a single tube of the receiver.”

“(D) Single Aim Point at the Lower Part of the Receiver:

– Sun’s images are aimed “as close to the bottom of the receiver as possible without
increasing spillage significantly”
– The heliostat control system varies the aim points with time in order to counterbalance the
change in sun’s image size (which changes with time) with the result being that the spillage
remains fairly constant
– “There are several reasons for considering this strategy. First, if the fluid enters from the
bottom of the receiver the peak fluxes will occur near the colder (and presumably stronger)
end of the piping. The penalty is increased radiation and convection losses in real life,
since the average receiver temperature is increased. However, if the fluid enters from the
top of the receiver the radiation and convection losses are minimized, but the peak flux
occurs near the hot end of the tube. Typically, peak fluxes will be close to those levels
resulting from the single aimpoint strategy.”

(E) One-Dimensional Aiming at the Lower Part of the Receiver:

– Similar to (D) with the difference that the sun’s images are spread horizontally at the
bottom of the receiver
– Best suitable for rectangular cavity apertures or rectangular flat plates (due to the same
reasons as given in (C))

35
(F) User Defined Aiming Strategy

Figure 31: Basic heliostat aiming strategies of computer code "DELSOL 3" [6]

36
Examples of solar tower power plants for which aim strategy systems have been applied are the
Solar Two plant and CESA1 tower [29]:

I. Solar Two Plant at Barstow, California:

The Solar Two tower power plant has a cylindrical salt-receiver. To avoid damage to the
receiver, the full system experiment required a 3-level aim point strategy.

The receiver was protected with an “Excess Flux Density Protection System”, which could
be used for a static or dynamic calculation of the aim points to obtain an optimal flux
density distribution:
– SAPS (Static Aim Processing System): With this system, the aim point strategy is
changed only every 10 min and therefore does not take immediate action if the salt
temperature in the receiver varies greatly in temperature. On recalculation of a new
aim point distribution, the results for the aim points are transmitted to the heliostat
field control system, which distributes the data to all 1926 heliostats. Hence, every
10 minutes the optimal flux density distribution is updated.
– DAPS (Dynamic Aim Processing System): The flux density distribution is
recalculated for real-time operation conditions. The real-time allowable flux
density distribution is calculated in dependence of the salt temperature at that time
instant at each measuring point. In the event that the local flux limit is exceeded as
a result of abnormal operating conditions, then the heliostat that is causing this will
be driven out of the focus into stand-by position.

II. PHOEBUS-Receiver system on CESA-1-Tower at Almería, Spain:

To avoid damage to the PHOEBUS (open volumetric meta-wire-mesh) receiver as a result
of excessive temperatures when performing full system experiments, it was necessary to
implement an aim point strategy. The aiming strategy used 5 aim points.

Flux density calculation and control programs are consistently being further developed. An
example of a modern program is STRAL, which has been developed by DLR. This ray tracing
program can be used in conjunction with HFLCAL in order to produce very accurate flux density
distributions, as shown in Figure 32 (one central aim point, extremely high flux density peak) and
Figure 33 (one central and seven surrounding aim points in circular pattern, flux density peaks
significantly lower than previous example):

37
 Figure 32: Flux density distribution with 1 central aim point [29]

Figure 33: Flux density distribution with 8 aim points [29]

The solar thermal power plant manufacturer BrightSource Energy, Inc. is currently constructing a
solar tower power plant called Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS), located in
Ivanpah, California, USA. Construction of the 370 megawatt nominal solar tower power plant
began in October 2010. It deploys a novel heliostat aiming control system software (patent
pending) which “accounts for the light flux intensity and distribution required on the boiler’s
receiver, and various other conditions such as sun radiation, wind, air pressure and the number of
heliostats available for tracking” [30].

► Exercises
– What are the four factors the flux density on the receiver depends on?
– Name and sketch 3 aiming options for focusing concentrated irradiation onto a receiver.

38
8.2.7 Heliostat Field Size and Tower Height
The following graph shows the tower height (m) vs. the heliostat field size (mirror area, in km²) of
solar tower power plants that are out of commission, in operation and under construction.

Figure 34: Tower height vs. heliostat field size [4]

Note: The construction phase of the Gemasolar tower has been completed and the plant is currently
in the start-up and commissioning phase [31]. The heliostat field area of the Gemasolar power plant
is by far larger than that of all other power plants. One reason is that Gemasolar has a very large
storage capacity (approximately 15 hours), allowing round-the-clock operation for many months of
the year [31].

39
8.3 Receiver Technology
The function of a receiver is to absorb the concentrated solar irradiation energy impinging from the
heliostat field and transfer it to the working fluid. Four concepts for receivers described in this
section.

8.3.1 Direct Absorption Receiver – Falling Particle or Molten Salt Liquid Film
Falling particle or molten salt liquid film receivers fall in the category of direct absorption
receivers, which is a concept where the heat transfer medium is directly exposed to and heated by
concentrated solar irradiation. This concept is a very interesting and promising option as the
medium of either of the two technologies has the ability to handle high temperatures up to 2000°C
as well as high fluxes up to 2 MW/m², or more. Moreover, no walls, but merely a containment is
required. The design with particles as a heat transfer medium has the advantage that the particles
have a selective behaviour [22, p. 189]. A basic receiver concept for a falling particle receiver is
shown in Figure 35.

Figure 35: Falling particle receiver [22, p. 166]

A concept for a molten salt liquid film receiver was worked out by researchers who developed a
beam-down receiver design, as shown in an energy flow diagram in Figure 36. The receiver is
designed cone shaped and is located near the ground. The incident concentrated solar irradiation
from the heliostat field is reflected by a central reflector and directed onto the receiver. The design
includes a hot and a cold heat storage system. When the plant is in operation, molten salt is pumped
from the cold storage and fed to the receiver’s salt distribution system. After the molten salt is
heated by the receiver it is passed to the hot storage and, when the design temperature has been
reached, from there is passed to a steam generator (not shown in diagram). The molten salt
transfers its heat to the steam cycle and is pumped to the cold storage.
The advantage of this receiver design is that all components but the central reflector are located on
the ground, hence the pumping power requirement is lower as no media are pumped to high
altitudes. The disadvantages are the optical losses associated with the central reflector. These
optical losses are the beam dilution issues due to a longer beam path and the increased number of
reflections [32].

To date, only studies on the concept of falling particle or molten salt liquid film receivers exist.
Such studies were conducted in Germany (German Aerospace Center – DLR) and in the USA
(SANDIA, SERI, LBL).

40
 Figure 36: Energy flow diagram for a beam-down system for solar power generation [32]

► Exercises
– Describe the direct absorption receiver technology.

8.3.2 External Tube Receiver

A tube receiver consists of a large number of vertically arranged pipes through which the HTF is
pumped in upward direction as shown in the following illustration.

Figure 37: Tube receiver concept and HTF flow

direction, edited from [22, p. 166]

41
The heat transfer fluids that have been deployed in the past decades are molten salt5, water for
direct steam generation6, and sodium7. Sodium in its metallic form, however, is no longer used as
heat transfer fluid in solar tower designs.

In the following two sections, a solar tower power plant with a water/steam receiver (Solar One)
and molten salt receiver (Solar Two) are described.

Solar One
The Solar One power plant had a nominal power of 10 MWe. It was built in 1982 and was located
in Barstow (USA) and served as an experimental power plant. The heliostat field consisted of 1818
heliostats and had a total heliostat field area of 71,000 m² (39.13 m2 per heliostat). The silvered
glass had a reflectivity of 0.9.
The cylindrical receiver had a height of 13.7 m and a diameter of 7 m, and was located atop of a
tower with a total height of 90 m, as shown in Figure 38. Its absorptivity was 0.96. The receiver
used water/steam was the HTF and functioned as steam generator.

Figure 38: Solar One receiver [17]

Each hour 50,900 kg of steam at a temperature of 516°C were generated. Although rated at
10 MWe the solar tower managed to produce 11.7 MWe. The average annual plant factor (ratio of
the annual electrical net energy output to the annual direct solar irradiation) was between 4.1 and

5
e.g. Solar Two solar tower
6
e.g. Solar One solar tower
7
e.g. Advanced Sodium Receiver at the Plataforma Solar de Almería, tested by the German Aero-
space Center – DLR

42
5.8%. The maximal monthly plant factor was 8.7% [33]. The Solar One tower in operation is
shown in Figure 39.

Figure 39: Solar One solar tower power plant [34]

43
 Figure 40: Solar One solar tower plant [35]

A system diagram of the Solar One experimental plant is shown in Figure 41. The water/steam
receiver is located at the top left corner of the diagram. Water enters the receiver and the generated
steam can be directed to a steam turbine or storage. Instead of using a steam accumulator for
storage, a thermocline rock/oil storage tank was used. To charge the storage, steam from the
receiver is passed though an oil heater, through which cold oil was pumped. The heated oil is then
stored in the thermocline storage tank. For discharging the storage, hot oil was pumped from the
thermocline storage tank to an oil/steam generator. The generated steam was then passed to the
steam turbine, where it entered at a lower pressure stage.

44
 Figure 41: System diagram of the Solar One pilot solar tower power plant [22, p. 240]

The plant Solar One was renamed to Solar Two after some modifications were made, which
included the installation of a new external tube receiver which used molten salt as HTF.

Solar Two
This section describes the Solar Two plant which used molten salt as HTF. The solar tower power
plant was located near Barstow, California, and operated from 1996 – 1999.

Figure 42: Solar Two power plant [36]

45
 Figure 43: Solar Two molten salt
receiver, Barstow, USA [27, p. 210]

The molten salt, which was a salt-mix of 60% sodium nitrate and 40% potassium nitrate salt, was
heated while travelling in upward direction though the receiver tubes. From the receiver, the molten
salt was pumped and fed into a hot-salt storage tank where it had a temperature of approximately
565°C. From there the molten salt was passed through a steam generator where the heat was
transferred onto the steam cycle. After the molten salt had passed its heat to the steam it still had a
temperature of minimum 290°C at which it was pumped into a cold-salt storage tank. The molten
salt was kept to a minimal temperature of 290°C at all times to prevent the salt from solidifying.
Altogether, the system contained 1500 tonnes of molten salt. Figure 44 shows the schematic of the
Solar Two power plant.

The receiver, which was installed at the top of an 85 m high tower, had a diameter of 5.1 m and a
height of 6.2 m. Its thermal power capacity was 43 MWth, sufficient for generating up to 10 MWe
[37]. The thermal storage tank has a capacity of 3 hours.

46
Figure 44: Solar tower power plant ‘Solar Two’, edited from [7]
One of the latest developments is the eSolar Sierra SunTower’s external receiver, manufactured by
Babcock & Wilcox (B&W).

Figure 45: eSolar Sierra SunTower with external receiver [38]

► Exercises

♦ Tube receiver ─ theory

– Sketch and explain the schematic of the Solar Two power plant. Include in your
explanation why the Solar Two power plant requires two thermal storage tanks.

♦ Calculation Problem ─ Tube Receiver

The following calculation example for a tube receiver is taken from [22, pp. 194-195].
At the Solar One tower power plant in Barstow, California, heliostats reflect and concentrate the
sun’s radiation onto a heat exchanging receiver. The mean flux density at the cylindrical receiver
can be assumed to be G& thPow = 160 kW/m2. The absorptivity α (= ε) is estimated with 0.94. The

47
mean wall temperature is Tw,m = 447°C (720K) while the mean ambient air temperature is
Tamb,m = 17°C (290K), and the mean wind velocity is va,m = 5 m/s. The receiver is a cylindrical type
external receiver with surface area of the receiver Arec = 296.42 m2 ( Arec = π ⋅ D ⋅ H with D = 7.01
m, H = 13.46 m).

The following two figures illustrate the tube receiver design and the receiver losses.

Figure 46: “Solar One” steam receiver, Barstow, California [22, p. 180]

Figure 47: Tube receiver losses [22, p. 167]

Task:
Determine the
a) thermal power on the receiver Q& in
b) reflected flux Q& refl
c) reradiated flux Q& rad

48
 d) convected flux Q& conv
e) thermal flux to the heat transfer fluid Q& use (Note that the conduction can be assumed to
be negligible)
f) receiver efficiency, η

Solution:
a)
kW
Q& in = G& thPow Arec = 160 2 ⋅ 296.42 m 2 = 47.43 MWth
m

b)
ρ = 1 - α = 1 - 0.94 = 0.06
& =Q
Q & ⋅ ρ = 47.43 MW ⋅ 0.06 = 2.85 MW
refl in th th

∫
c) with the assumption that Tw4 dA = Tw4, m dA, ∫
W
Q& rad =Arec ⋅ ε ⋅ σ ⋅ (Tw,m
4 4
-Tamb,m ) = 296.42 m 2 ⋅ 0.94 ⋅ 5.67 × 10 -8 2 4
⋅ ( 720 4 - 290 4 )K 4= 4.13 MWth
m K

d)
&
To calculate the convected flux Q conv , the Reynold’s and Grashof’s numbers must be determined

first:
Tw + Tamb
Tm = = 232 °C = 505 K
2 where Tm is the average temperature of the
absorber and ambient temperature.

From data tables:

k m=41.16 × 10 -3 W/mK; ν m=38.93 × 10 - 6 m 2 /s; β = 1.99 × 10 -3 1/K

(v a,m ⋅ D) 5 m/s ⋅ 7.01 m

Re = = =0.9 ⋅ 10 6
νm 38.93 × 10 m /s
-6 2

m 1
g ⋅ β ⋅ (Tw,m - Tamb,m ) ⋅ H 3 9.81 2
⋅ 1.99 × 10 - 3 ⋅ (720 − 290 ) K ⋅ ( 13.46 m)3
Gr= = s k =1.35 × 1013
ν m2 ( 38.93 × 10 m /s)
-6 2 2

Using the Reynold’s and Grashof’s numbers, the Nusselt numbers for natural (abbreviated nat) and
forced convection must be calculated:

Nu forced =0.00239 ⋅ Re 0 .98 + 0.000945 ⋅ Re 0 .89 =1823

π
For the rough tube wall
h=
2 ⋅ hsmooth , thus

49
 π Nu forced ⋅ k m π 1823 ⋅ 41.16 × 10 -3 W/mK W
h forced = ⋅ = ⋅ = 16.81 2
2 D 2 7.01 m m K
0 .14
⎛ T ⎞ 0 .14

Nu nat=0.098 Gr 0 .333
⋅ ⎜⎜ ∞ ⎟
⎟ (
= 0.098 ⋅ 1.35 × 1013 )
0 .333 ⎛ 290K ⎞
⋅⎜ ⎟ = 2033
⎝ Tw,m ⎠ ⎝ 720K ⎠

π Nu nat ⋅ k m π 2033 ⋅ 41.16 × 10 −3 W/ (mK ) W

hnat= ⋅ = ⋅ =9.77 2
2 H 2 13.46 m m K

The overall heat transfer coefficient due to convection is calculated according to:
1 W
3.2
h =(h forced + hnat
3.2
) 3.2
=17.68
m2 K

Finally, the calculation for Q& conv :

W
Q& conv = Arec ⋅ h ⋅ (Tw,m -Tamb,m ) = 296.42 m 2 ⋅ 17.68 2 ⋅ ( 720- 290 ) K = 2.25 MWth
m K

e)
Remembering that the conduction can be assumed to be negligible, hence
Q& cond = 0 MWth . Calculating for Q& use ,

Q& use= Q& in -Q& refl -Q& rad -Q& conv -Q& cond = (47.43 - 2.85 - 4.13 - 2.25 - 0 ) MWth = 38.2 MWth

f)
Q& use 38.20 MW
η= = = 0.81
Q& in 47.43 MW

8.3.3 Cavity Receiver

A cavity receiver consists of a cavity with a small opening (inlet aperture). The concentrated solar
irradiation is aimed at the small opening where inside it impinges on tubes carrying the working
fluid. Cavity receivers can have the same working fluids as external tube receivers, but also work
with a gas. The idea behind the cavity receiver is to minimise the radiation losses. From the
radiation entering the inlet aperture, only small amounts are reflected back into the atmosphere
through the inlet aperture. A major energetic loss prevented by this technology is the thermal
radiation loss, which is minimised due to the small inlet aperture of the cavity.

50
 Figure 48: Basic cavity receiver concept, edited from [22, p. 166]

In the 20 MWe industrial Gas Cooled Solar Tower project GAST, which the German Aerospace
Center (DLR) participated in, air was the designated heat transfer fluid (HTF) flowing inside a
tubular panel air-cooled receiver. As mentioned before, several components of the plant such as
heliostats and receiver panel were tested at the Plataforma Solar de Almería (PSA), Spain. In
particular a metallic-tube receiver was tested in 1985 – 1986 which produced 2.45 kg/s hot air at
9.5 bar and 800°C outlet temperature. In 1987, further tests were conducted with a second panel
with ceramic SiC tubes. The mass flow rate was0.48 kg/s at 9.3 bar and 1000°C. However, the high
estimated investment costs and the low incident solar fluxes permitted by the tubes (lower than
200 kW/m2) made it unpractical to pursue the construction of the plant [13].

The 20 MWe reference concept features about 2000 heliostats with a mirror area of about 52 m2
each and two side-looking cavity receivers on top of a 170 m high tower. Each receiver was
designated to deliver 28 MWth of power for a subsequent Brayton cycle. The gas turbine cycle was
foreseen to be bottomed by a Rankine cycle [22, pp. 181-182]. With the advent of volumetric
receivers, the air-cooled solar towers gained real interest [13]. Volumetric receivers will be
introduced in the following section.

51
 Figure 49: GAST-20 test panel mounted atop of the tower of the
solar tower power plant test facility CESA-1 [22, p. 186]

Figure 50 shows a concept drawing of the GAST cavity receiver and Figure 51 shows an
interaction model of tubes and back wall for flux computations (GAST-20).

52
Figure 50: Concept of a 2 × 28 MWth gas cooled receiver (GAST-20) for a
20 MWe solar tower power plant. Losses are: Emissions = 5.7%,
reflection = 1.5%, convection = 6.1%, and conduction = 1.7% [22, p. 185]

Figure 51: Interaction model of tubes and back wall for

flux computations (GAST-20) [22, p. 185]

53
The test data for the GAST metallic-tube and ceramic SiC tube receivers are given in Table 5.

Table 5: Metallic and ceramic test data [22, p. 186]

Metallic Ceramic
Inlet temperature, °C 625 350
Inlet pressure, bar 9.3 9.3
Outlet temperature, °C 800 1000
Mass flow, kg/s 2.45 0.36
Outer tube diameter, mm 42 41
Tube wall thickness, mm 2.1 5
Number of tubes 18 10
Material of tubes X 10 Ni Cr Al Ti 3220H RBSC (SiC)
Irradiated length, m 8 4.1
Power output, kW 489 270

Figure 52 shows the front side and inside view of a cavity receiver, which was tested together with
the Advanced Sodium Receiver (ASR), an external receiver, as part of the IEA small solar power
systems (SSPS) project in the years 1982 – 1986. The working fluid was sodium. The picture from
inside the cavity shows the arrangement of the working fluid tubes. The sodium was flowing in six
horizontal parallel tubes (outside diameter: 38 mm; inside diameter: 25 mm), which wound in a
serpentine from the inlet header on the bottom of the cavity to the outlet heater at the top [22, p.
180]. Figure 53 shows a drawing of the IEA-SSPS sodium test receiver [22, p. 182].

Figure 52: Views of the IEA-SSPS sodium cavity receiver (Interatom/Sulzer) [22, p. 183]

54
 Figure 53: IEA-SSPS sodium test receiver [22, p. 182]

Table 6 shows the specifications of the IEA-SSPS cavity sodium receiver [22, p. 182].

Table 6: IEA-SSPS cavity sodium receiver specifications [22, p. 182]

Specification Cavity sodium receiver
No. of tubes 6
Tube diameter 38 mm
Tube wall 1.5 mm
Tube material AISI 304 H
Aperture area 9.7 m2
Single flow path length 87 m
Active surface 17 m2
Total tube weight 710 kg
Coating: Pyromark© 2500
Peak heat flux 0.63 MW/m2
Average heat flux 0.16 MW/m2
Inlet/outlet temperature 270/530°C
Mass flow (design) 7.3 kg/s
Pressure 2.6 bar
Input/output power 2.8/2.4 MW

One of the latest developments is the eSolar Sierra SunTower cavity receiver, manufactured by
Victory Energy (altogether the Sierra SunTower has two towers, of which the other is an external
tube receiver).

55
 Figure 54: eSolar Sierra SunTower dual cavity receiver [38]

► Exercises
– Sketch and explain the basic cavity receiver concept.
– What is the purpose of the cavity?
– Which heliostat field type cannot be used for cavity receivers?

8.3.4 Air Receiver

There are two types of air receivers, the open volumetric and pressurised volumetric receiver.
These are discussed below:

a) Open Volumetric Receiver

The open volumetric receiver technology is best described taking the Solar Tower Jülich, Germany,
as an example as it is the first tower using this technology:

The Solar Tower Jülich (STJ) is a research and demonstration plant for central receiver systems,
which has been built in only 9 months construction time and was completed in the winter of 2008.
The STJ with high temperature air receiver (HiTRec) has been built to demonstrate this technology
as a complete system in 1.5 MWe scale [39]. It started its first solar-only operation in spring 2009,
feeding electricity to the grid.

The HiTRec technology works with a porous absorber material that absorbs concentrated radiation
inside the volume of the structure and transfers the absorbed heat to a fluid passing through the
structure. This allows the use of air as heat transfer medium despite its low heat transfer coefficient.
This so-called volumetric receiver technology has been developed since the early 1990’s in various
R&D projects with major contribution of the German Aerospace Center (DLR). The plant
construction and operation is accompanied by a research program conducted by the DLR and the
Solar-Institut Jülich (SIJ). The general contractor is the German company Kraftanlagen München
(KAM) and the plant is operated by the local utility Stadtwerke Jülich (SWJ) [39].

56
The solar tower was designed according to the PHOEBUS concept (see Figure 55). A power tower
of this concept consists of the concentrator system (heliostat field), a hot gas cycle and a steam
cycle. The gas in the hot gas cycle is ambient air at ambient pressure.
The Solar Tower Jülich has a heat storage system, which is described in more detail in the section
describing the packed-bed thermal energy storage in chapter 9 Thermal Energy Storage.
The north-only heliostat field consists of 2150 heliostats with a total reflective mirror area of
18 000 m². The heliostats are positioned in straight-line rows.

Figure 55 shows the schematic of the Solar Tower Jülich. The basics involving the air receiver and
the tower are given in the subsequent descriptions.

Figure 55: Schematic of the Solar Tower Jülich (PHOEBUS concept) [40]

The heliostats track the sun’s path and reflect the light in highly concentrated form onto the
receiver surface, which consequently heats up. The heat is then transferred to ambient air, which is
sucked through the porous receiver. The average temperature is regulated by varying the overall air
mass flow such that a constant temperature of approximately 680°C is obtained in the hot piping
behind the receiver [4].

The hot air is passed though a steam generator and/or a heat storage system. The Solar Tower
Jülich is equipped with a shell-type heat recovery steam generator, which produces superheated
steam. The steam drives a steam turbine which is coupled to a generator [4].

After the air has passed the boiler and/or storage system it will have cooled down to a low
temperature. The warm air is then recirculated and blown back into the environment in front of the
receiver, where it mixes with the colder ambient air. This has two advantages: Firstly, the warm air
is passed around each absorber module providing the necessary exterior cooling of the structure.
Secondly, the air mix temperature reaches a higher-than-ambient temperature before it is returned
to the hot gas cycle [4].

Figure 56 shows a cut through three absorber modules. The incident solar flux heats the absorber
modules. A mix of ambient and recirculated cooling air is sucked through the absorber structure
and is heated on its passage through it:

57
Figure 56: Absorber modules, edited from [7]

A very important component of the solar tower is, unquestionably, the heat storage system. Its
purpose is to buffer cloud passages, i.e. the times of direct irradiation interruption, but it also allows
the operation of the power plant at times after sunset or before sunrise. The heat storage system of
the Solar Tower Jülich allows nominal load operation for approximately 1 hour. The charging and
discharging of the heat storage is realised with the so-called boiler and receiver blowers by means
of blower speed variation [4].
The major components and their locations inside the Jülich tower are shown in Figure 57.

Figure 57: 3-dimensional view of the Solar Tower Jülich (tower is shown without
walls), edited from [7]

58
The following figure shows the Solar Tower Jülich in solar operation.

Figure 58: The Solar Tower Plant Jülich (STJ) in operation [41]

Receiver Components
The receiver is an assembly that is made up of several so-called sub-receivers, which are fitted with
absorber modules (see Figure 59). At first, the receiver module chassis are fixed onto a receiver
body without the absorber modules. The receiver body is equipped with hot air tubes for each of
the absorber modules. Behind each of the sub-receivers the hot air from each of the absorber
modules is collected in a large hot air pipe [4].

The term absorber is sometimes incorrectly used to describe the term receiver. As described, the
absorber, or correctly, absorber module is merely one small component of the entire receiver [4].

59
Figure 59: Receiver components [4]

Volumetric effect
The open volumetric receiver is designed in such a way that it offers a very high absorption area in
the spatial dimension given by the porosity (i.e. the channels through which the air is sucked in).
The sun rays that enter the channels of the absorber module are multi-reflected and absorbed
further inside the structure. The enlargement of the heat transfer area compensates the
comparatively poor heat transfer between the HFT (air) and the porous absorber material compared
to steam, sodium or molten salt in pipe bundles. The large temperature difference between HTF
and absorber material at the entry of the absorber lowers the material temperatures of the
volumetric absorber (see Figure 60), which leads to a reduction of the thermal reradiation losses. If
the temperature of the front of the absorber sinks below the HTF outlet temperature, then this is
described as the ‘volumetric effect’ [42].

Figure 60 shows the reradiation temperatures for a tube and volumetric receiver. The reradiation
temperature for a volumetric receiver is lower than for a tube receiver, hence the volumetric
receiver has lower reradiation losses.

60
Figure 60: Heat transfer of a tube receiver and ideal volumetric receiver, edited from [16]
Several types and designs of porous absorber structures have been developed in the past years, such
as the mesh wire or foam absorber, which are described in the upcoming chapters [42].

Absorber design types

Several design concepts of absorbers exist nowadays that have been tested and will be developed
further in future. The current available types are grouped into three categories [42]:
• Ceramic or metal parallel channel monolith absorber
• Ceramic or metal wire-mesh absorbers
• Ceramic foam absorbers
The receiver of the Solar Tower Jülich has been fitted with the so-called HiTRec (abbreviation for
High Temperature Receiver) absorber type (Figure 61), which is a ceramic parallel channel
monolith absorber. Between all the available absorber designs the HiTRec best meets the high
demand in the application of a solar tower power plant i.e. the ability to withstand high
temperatures and offering high stability. The HiTRec is made of recrystallised silicon carbide (SiC)
[4], [42].

Figure 61: HiTRec (High Temperature Receiver) absorber module [4]

61
The following images show absorber designs of the other two mentioned categories:

CatRec (metallic foil absorber) Wire-mesh absorber

Figure 62: CatRec (Catalyst Figure 63: Wire-mesh absorber [42]

Receiver) absorber [42]

Foam absorber (silicon carbide, SiC)

Figure 64: Foam absorber (ceramic foam) [42]

b) Pressured Volumetric Receiver

The pressurised volumetric receiver was developed within the project REFOS (Receiver for Solar-
Hybrid Gas Turbine and CC Systems) and offers new opportunities for solar towers. A CC system
is a combined-cycle system.

The closed volumetric receiver has a quartz window in front of the absorber modules separating
them from the ambience. The absorber is a wire mesh. An air compressor sucks in ambient air and
builds up the air pressure to 15 bar, the pressure at which the air enters the receiver (see Figure 65
and Figure 66).

62
Figure 65: Pressurised volumetric receiver and secondary concentrator [16]

In the receiver, the air is heated to 800°C. Due to the high pressure the hot air can be directly
expanded in a gas turbine.

Figure 66: Solar air preheating system [13]

The hot air is passed through a gas turbine which expands it. The exhaust gas is then passed
through a steam generator and afterwards leaves the system through a chimney (see Figure 67). In
the steam generator, steam that drives a steam-cycle process is produced [43, pp. 154-156].

The receiver has a secondary concentrator in front of the quartz glass window. The secondary
concentrator restricts the shape of the heliostat field to an elliptical shape.

63
 Figure 67: Schematic of a solar tower with pressurised volumetric receiver with
combined gas and steam cycle [43, p. 155]

Using a closed volumetric receiver together with a combined gas and steam turbine process can
lead to a high efficiency of over 50% in converting heat into electricity compared to only 35% of a
conventional steam turbine process. Moreover, overall efficiencies of over 20% in the conversion
of solar irradiation into electricity are possible [43, pp. 154-156].

This concept could be applied to a wide range of power levels from 1 – 100 MWe. At the smaller
power levels, highly efficient recuperated gas turbine cycles can be used instead of CC [13].

► Exercises

♦ Volumetric receivers ─ theory

– What are the main differences between an open and closed volumetric absorber?
– Name all main components that make up a volumetric receiver.
– What compensates the poor heat transfer between the HFT (air) and the porous absorber
material in a volumetric receiver?
– Explain in one sentence what the volumetric effect is.
– What are the two important characteristic dimensions of the volumetric absorber?
– Adding a gas turbine to a solar tower power plant has many advantages. Which volumetric
receiver type is more suitable for operating with a gas turbine? Why?

64
Calculation problems:
♦ Reradiation loss calculation for an open volumetric receiver [16]
During the operation of a solar tower, the open volumetric receiver looses energy to the ambience
due to reradiation and convection. The task is to calculate the reradiation power.

Given:
Area of the receiver: A = 10 m²
Emissivity of the receiver: ε = 0.90
Surface temperature of the receiver: Trec = 727°C (= 1000.15K)
Ambient temperature: Tamb = 27°C (= 300.15K)
Stefan-Boltzmann-constant: σ = 5.67 × 10 -8 W/(m2K4)

Solution:
P = σ ε Α (Τ rec
4
− Τ amb
4
)
= 5.67 × 10 -8 W/(m 2 K 4 ) × 0.90 × 10 m 2 [( 727 + 273.15 ) 4 - ( 27 + 273.15 ) 4 ] K 4
= 506167 Wth ≅ 506 kWth

♦ Energy balance calculation for an open volumetric receiver:

The very simple energy balance presented here is valid for the open volumetric receiver, such as
the Solair3000 receiver that was tested at the Plataforma Solar de Almería, Spain (Figure 68). This
type of receiver, only in larger scale, is also used in the Solar Tower Jülich, Germany.

Figure 68: Open volumetric receiver Solair3000 (3 MWth) at the Plataforma Solar de Almería,
Spain [16]

The equations are best set up with aid of the following illustration:

65
Figure 69: Energy flow in an open volumetric absorber, edited from [16]

Energy balance for steady state operation [16]:

G& thPow=q& rad + q& refl + q& conv + q& use (8)

The efficiency of the receiver is given by [16]:

q& use ⎛ q& rad + q& refl + q& conv ⎞
η= = G& thPow − q& rad − q& refl − q& conv = 1 − ⎜⎜ ⎟ (9)
⎟
G& thPow ⎝ G& thPow ⎠

Simplification of the equations [16]:

The receiver has an open porosity < 80% and, having characteristics like a cavity radiator, is
therefore similar to a blackbody (light trap). Hence it can be taken that:

α abs = ε abs = 1 (10)

According to the radiation balance for opaque media (no transmission) α abs + ρ abs = 1 .
Rearranging for the reflectivity ρ abs = 1 − α abs . As for the receiver α abs = ε abs = 1 , the reflectivity
ρ abs = 0 . This concludes that the reflection losses can therefore be neglected.
In addition the convective heat losses q& conv are very small and can also be neglected.
q& refl=ρabs ⋅ G& thPow ≅ 0
(11)
q& conv ≅ 0
(12)

66
As due to the volumetric effect the absorber temperature is nearly equal to the outlet air
temperature the simplification Tair,out = Tabs can be made.

The efficiency of the receiver can therefore be simplified to:

q& ⎛ q& ⎞
η = & use = G& thPow − q& rad = 1 − ⎜⎜ & rad ⎟⎟ (13)
G thPow G
⎝ thPow ⎠

(
With q& rad = εσ Tabs
4
− Tamb
4
)
, ε=1 and Tair,out = Tabs, this yields to:

⎜
η = 1− ⎜
(
⎛ σ Tair4 ,out − Tamb
4
) ⎞⎟ (14)
G& thPow ⎟
⎝ ⎠

8.3.5 Comparison of the open and closed volumetric receiver with the external
tube receiver
For the receiver types introduced so far, this section compares the pipe, open volumetric and
pressured volumetric receiver, with regard to their advantages and disadvantages. It should be
noted, however, that it does not lead to conclusions as to which technology might be “better” than
the other.
In Figure 70 an overview of the above mentioned receiver types is given:

Figure 70: Different receiver concepts, edited from [16]

There are three main disadvantages associated with the tube receiver: high reradiation losses
because of the high tube surface temperatures, temperature limitations in heating molten salt and
water, and the limited radiation absorption area (light impinges only on a portion of the entire
tubes’ surface area). In comparison, the open and closed volumetric receivers have a much higher
absorption surface area because the sun rays are mostly absorbed within the porous structure (the
increased absorption area also allows the use of air as HTF despite its low heat transfer coefficient).
Moreover, the surface temperature of volumetric receivers is lower than for tube receivers, thus the

67
reradiation losses are lower. Lastly it should be noted that air could be heated to far higher
temperatures than 800°C, but the limitations lie in the receiver material and other components of
the plant.

The closed volumetric receiver has the great advantage that when used in conjunction with a gas
turbine and steam turbine cycle, the air, which is pressurised to 15 bar and is heated to 800°C, can
be expanded directly in the gas turbine.

Like the tube receiver, the open volumetric receiver can also be designed as a surround receiver,
thus a surround heliostat field can be used with both receiver types. When designing a large solar
tower with a closed volumetric receiver it is basically also possible to use a surround heliostat field.
However, as the closed volumetric receiver uses a secondary concentrator, only reflected radiation
from restricted angles in the field can be utilised. Hence, only elliptically shaped fields can be used
for this type of receiver. In a surround field design, several elliptically shaped fields could therefore
be installed in a surround arrangement.

A general advantage of the open volumetric and closed volumetric receivers is that the HTF air is
clean, non-poisonous, cost-free and always available.

For both the open and the closed volumetric receiver there is the possibility of hybridising the
power plant, for example, with a gas turbine. Solar tower power plants using tube receivers can
theoretically also be hybridised, however no such plans have been realised to date.

► Exercises
– What is the advantage and disadvantage of a closed volumetric receiver?
– What are the advantages of an open volumetric receiver?
– What are the three main disadvantages associated with the tube receiver?

8.3.6 Hybridisation of Solar Tower Power Plants

This section deals with the hybridisation of solar tower systems using air receiver and molten salt
receiver technology

Hybridisation of solar towers with air receiver technology

(a) Solar tower with open volumetric receiver:
For the hybridisation a gas turbine or a burner is placed in the solar cycle before the heat recovery
steam generator (HRSG). The gas turbine is in a parallel position to the receiver and the burner
may be located after the solar receiver. As been pointed out in Alexopoulos et al. (2008) burning
fuel might be natural gas or biogas and after the HRSG the exhaust gas is recirculated to the
receiver or can be passed to a stack [44].
The concept of a hybrid tower plant with a gas turbine is shown in Figure 71.

68
 Figure 71: Schematic diagram of the Solar Tower Jülich demonstration plant
hybridized with a gas turbine [44]

The exhaust gas of the gas turbine is mixed with the air from the receiver to get the nominal mass
flow at a high temperature but it can be also operated separately. In the second case the gas turbine
is only switched on, for example, in the night [44].

A schematic of an upgrade to a hybrid system by combining the Solar Tower Jülich demonstration
plant with a channel burner is shown in Figure 72.

Figure 72: Schematic diagram of the Solar Tower Jülich demonstration plant
hybridized with a channel burner [45]

If the solar energy is not sufficient for achieving nominal air temperatures, then the burner heats up
the (solar) preheated air to the desired temperature. The burner or gas turbine can be operated
parallel or in turn with the solar air receiver [46]. Parallel means that on a day with less solar
radiation both components can provide the heat for the HRSG at the same time. In the other
operation mode the hybrid component is only switched on in the night or at times of no solar
radiation.

(b) Solar tower with closed volumetric receiver:

Referring to the REFOS (Receiver for Solar-Hybrid Gas Turbine and CC Systems) concept (Figure
65 to Figure 67), the following additional advantages can be put forward.

69
In the closed volumetric receiver technology, the compressor discharge air is solar preheated before
it enters the combustor of the gas turbine. This means that solar energy is introduced into the gas
turbine of combined cycle (CC) systems. Solar air preheating offers superior performance because
the solar energy absorbed in the heated air is directly converted with the high efficiency of the CC
plant. For a certain annual solar share, this results in a reduced heliostat field size, which therefore
means a lower overall investment cost for the solar part as compared to solar steam generation.
Hence, solar air preheating offers high potential for cost reduction of solar thermal power [13].

Hybridisation of solar towers with molten salt receiver technology

The approaches to hybridising a molten-salt solar tower power plant are discussed in this section
and are based on a study, source [47]. There are two basic configurations that both lead to the solar
tower being hybridised to base-load fossil plants. These are “fuel saver” and “power booster”. The
daily power profile is shown in Figure 73 [47].

Figure 73: Daily power profile for hybrid power tower plants. If storage were added to the fuel
saver (left), the solar contribution could look rectangular. In the power-booster profile (right), it can
be seen that storage is used to meet an afternoon and early evening need, edited from [47].

The fuel saver configuration, as shown in Figure 74, works as follows: whenever solar energy is
available the use of fossil fuel is reduced. The electricity output is controlled such that it is
constant. When a combined-cycle application is used, the heat in the molten salt is used for
preheating the inlet air of the gas turbine. For doing so, a molten salt-air heat exchanger is used. It
should be noted, however, that the operating temperature of molten salt is limited to below 600°C.
As modern gas-turbines require an inlet air temperature near 1400°C, the maximum of fuel savings
that can be achieved (using an intercooled turbine similar to the Westinghouse WR-21) is about
27% [47].

70
 Figure 74: Hybridised molten-salt power tower: combined-cycle fuel saver [47]

In the second mode, the power booster, as shown in Figure 75, the plant is operated with constant
fuel input. Whenever solar energy is available, additional electricity is produced. This, inevitably,
requires the operation of an oversized steam turbine. The steam turbine must be located in the
steam Rankine cycle or alternatively the bottoming portion of a combined cycle, so that it is
possible to operate the plant with full fossil fuel input, and at the same time allowing solar input
[47].

Figure 75: Hybridised molten-salt power tower:

combined-cycle power booster [47]

Shown in Figure 76 is a coal fuel saver or power booster configuration.

71
 Figure 76: Hybridised molten-salt power tower: coal fuel
saver or power booster [47]

In studies on the power booster mode, the steam turbine was typically oversized by 25-50%
compared to the plant being operated entirely by fossil fuels. Further it is recommended not to
oversize the steam turbine beyond 50% as this would lead to a degradation of the thermal-to-
electric conversion efficiency when the plant is operated in fossil-fuel-only mode [47].

There are two advantages of the fuel saver (Figure 74) over a power booster (Figure 75) plant [47]:
• a given amount of solar energy can be added to the grid for less cost because additional
steam turbine capacity does not have to be built
• when performing the fuel saving at the entrance to the gas turbine within a combined cycle
(Bechtel, 1979; Bohn et al., 1995), the solar energy is converted at a higher efficiency than
when adding a power boost to a pure Rankine cycle (e.g. 53% vs 40%)

The power booster mode has a further significant primary advantage which is that “the economic
value of the solar energy to the utility grid is greater than the fuel saver. Thus, even though the cost
of adding solar energy to the grid is greater for the booster, the increased value of the solar energy
more than compensates for the increased cost” [47].

72
List of figures
Figure 1: Canted heliostat, edited from [6]............................................................................................... 10 
Figure 2: Focused SM heliostat, edited from [6] ..................................................................................... 10 
Figure 3: Planar multi-facet stretched membrane heliostat, tested at NREL and Sandia National
Labs [2]........................................................................................................................................................... 10 
Figure 4: ASM-150 SM full-carousel heliostat built by Babcock Borsig Power Environment [2] ..... 11 
Figure 5: Flat type heliostat [7] .................................................................................................................. 11 
Figure 6: Parts of a Heliostat, edited from [7].......................................................................................... 12 
Figure 7: Hexagonal-shaped heliostat built by SHAP [8]....................................................................... 12 
Figure 8: Three examples of specifically shaped hexagonal heliostat designs for up to 100%
ground coverage for the application in multi tower solar arrays [9]....................................................... 13 
Figure 9: Heliostats used in solar tower power plants and their costs [10]......................................... 13 
Figure 10: Some 320 m2 PV trackers at APS with hydraulic drives [3] ............................................... 15 
Figure 11: Deployment of mirror field [11]................................................................................................ 15 
Figure 12: 2-axes tracking system [11] .................................................................................................... 15 
Figure 13: Schematic view of the mini-mirror array [12] ........................................................................ 16 
Figure 14: Effect of cosine loss on radiant power reflected by heliostat [4]........................................ 17 
Figure 15: Heliostat blocking, edited from [5] .......................................................................................... 18 
Figure 16: Blocking of neighbouring heliostats, edited from [5]............................................................ 19 
Figure 17: Shadowing loss, edited from [5] ............................................................................................. 20 
Figure 18: Spillage loss [4]......................................................................................................................... 20 
Figure 19: Computed efficiency lines of the heliostat field of the 20 MWe solar tower plant GAST
(according to GAST, 1989) [5, p. 144]....................................................................................................... 22 
Figure 20: Illustration for cosine loss calculation, edited from [16]....................................................... 23 
Figure 21: Heliostat field design in dependence of the location, edited from [16] ............................. 25 
Figure 22: Elliptical field form [4] ............................................................................................................... 25 
Figure 23: Radial stagger heliostat layout pattern developed by the University of Houston, showing
the spacing, "ΔR" and "ΔA" [17] ................................................................................................................. 27 
Figure 24: eSolar’s multiple north and south facing straight-row heliostat fields [11] ....................... 28 
Figure 25: Heliostat field of the Solar Tower Jülich, Germany, showing a straight-row field pattern
(North of the tower) [21]............................................................................................................................... 28 
Figure 26: Field layout with the Heliostat Growth Method (HGM) [19] ................................................ 29 
Figure 27: Heliostat field layout for the PS10 plant proposed by the New Method [23].................... 30 
Figure 28: Heliostat field layout with the lowest specific energy cost [25] .......................................... 31 
Figure 29: Thémis solar tower power plant [26]...................................................................................... 32 
Figure 30: A view from within the Thémis heliostat field [26] ................................................................ 32 
Figure 31: Basic heliostat aiming strategies of computer code "DELSOL 3" [6]................................ 36 
Figure 32: Flux density distribution with 1 central aim point [29].......................................................... 38 
Figure 33: Flux density distribution with 8 aim points [29]..................................................................... 38 
Figure 34: Tower height vs. heliostat field size [4].................................................................................. 39 
Figure 35: Falling particle receiver [22, p. 166] ....................................................................................... 40 
Figure 36: Energy flow diagram for a beam-down system for solar power generation [32] ............. 41 
Figure 37: Tube receiver concept and HTF flow direction, edited from [22, p. 166].......................... 41 
Figure 38: Solar One receiver [17]............................................................................................................ 42 
Figure 39: Solar One solar tower power plant [34] ................................................................................. 43 
Figure 40: Solar One solar tower plant [35]............................................................................................. 44 
Figure 41: System diagram of the Solar One pilot solar tower power plant [22, p. 240]................... 45 
Figure 42: Solar Two power plant [36] ..................................................................................................... 45 
Figure 43: Solar Two molten salt receiver, Barstow, USA [27, p. 210] ............................................... 46 
Figure 44: Solar tower power plant ‘Solar Two’, edited from [7]........................................................... 47 
Figure 45: eSolar Sierra SunTower with external receiver [38] ............................................................ 47 
Figure 46: “Solar One” steam receiver, Barstow, California [22, p. 180]............................................. 48 
Figure 47: Tube receiver losses [22, p. 167] ........................................................................................... 48 
Figure 48: Basic cavity receiver concept, edited from [22, p. 166]....................................................... 51 
Figure 49: GAST-20 test panel mounted atop of the tower of the solar tower power plant test
facility CESA-1 [22, p. 186] ......................................................................................................................... 52 
Figure 50: Concept of a 2 × 28 MWth gas cooled receiver (GAST-20) for a 20 MWe solar tower
power plant. Losses are: Emissions = 5.7%, reflection = 1.5%, convection = 6.1%, and
conduction = 1.7% [22, p. 185] ................................................................................................................... 53 

73
Figure 51: Interaction model of tubes and back wall for flux computations (GAST-20) [22, p. 185]53 
Figure 52: Views of the IEA-SSPS sodium cavity receiver (Interatom/Sulzer) [22, p. 183] ............. 54 
Figure 53: IEA-SSPS sodium test receiver [22, p. 182]......................................................................... 55 
Figure 54: eSolar Sierra SunTower dual cavity receiver [38]................................................................ 56 
Figure 55: Schematic of the Solar Tower Jülich (PHOEBUS concept) [40]........................................ 57 
Figure 56: Absorber modules, edited from [7] ......................................................................................... 58 
Figure 57: 3-dimensional view of the Solar Tower Jülich (tower is shown without walls), edited from
[7] .................................................................................................................................................................... 58 
Figure 58: The Solar Tower Plant Jülich (STJ) in operation [41].......................................................... 59 
Figure 59: Receiver components [4]......................................................................................................... 60 
Figure 60: Heat transfer of a tube receiver and ideal volumetric receiver, edited from [16]............. 61 
Figure 61: HiTRec (High Temperature Receiver) absorber module [4]............................................... 61 
Figure 62: CatRec (Catalyst Receiver) absorber [42] ............................................................................ 62 
Figure 63: Wire-mesh absorber [42] ......................................................................................................... 62 
Figure 64: Foam absorber (ceramic foam) [42] ...................................................................................... 62 
Figure 65: Pressurised volumetric receiver and secondary concentrator [16] ................................... 63 
Figure 66: Solar air preheating system [13]............................................................................................. 63 
Figure 67: Schematic of a solar tower with pressurised volumetric receiver with combined gas and
steam cycle [43, p. 155]............................................................................................................................... 64 
Figure 68: Open volumetric receiver Solair3000 (3 MWth) at the Plataforma Solar de Almería,
Spain [16]....................................................................................................................................................... 65 
Figure 69: Energy flow in an open volumetric absorber, edited from [16]........................................... 66 
Figure 70: Different receiver concepts, edited from [16]........................................................................ 67 
Figure 71: Schematic diagram of the Solar Tower Jülich demonstration plant hybridized with a gas
turbine [44]..................................................................................................................................................... 69 
Figure 72: Schematic diagram of the Solar Tower Jülich demonstration plant hybridized with a
channel burner [45]....................................................................................................................................... 69 
Figure 73: Daily power profile for hybrid power tower plants. If storage were added to the fuel
saver (left), the solar contribution could look rectangular. In the power-booster profile (right), it can
be seen that storage is used to meet an afternoon and early evening need, edited from [47]. ........ 70 
Figure 74: Hybridised molten-salt power tower: combined-cycle fuel saver [47]............................... 71 
Figure 75: Hybridised molten-salt power tower: combined-cycle power booster [47] ....................... 71 
Figure 76: Hybridised molten-salt power tower: coal fuel saver or power booster [47] .................... 72 

List of tables
Table 1: Characteristics of current concentrating solar power technologies, edited from [1] ............. 8 
Table 2: Composition of materials for mirrors and the coefficient of reflection (solar spectrum) [5].. 9 
Table 3: Various heliostat field losses with typical ranges of values [5, p. 143] ................................. 21 
Table 4: Summary of computer codes for heliostat field layout [20]..................................................... 26 
Table 5: Metallic and ceramic test data [22, p. 186] ............................................................................... 54 
Table 6: IEA-SSPS cavity sodium receiver specifications [22, p. 182] ................................................ 55 

74
Reference list
[1] Dr. Franz Trieb
Final Report: AQUA-CSP – Concentrating Solar Power for Seawater Desalination
German Aerospace Center (DLR)
Institute of Technical Thermodynamics
Section Systems Analysis and Technology Assessment
Published in November 2007
http://www.dlr.de/tt/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-2885/4422_read-10813/
http://www.dlr.de/tt/Portaldata/41/Resources/dokumente/institut/system/projects/aq
ua-csp/AQUA-CSP-Full-Report-Final.pdf

[2] SolarPACES Technical Report No. III - 1/00

Catalogue of Solar Heliostats
June, 2000
IEA-Solar Power and Chemical Energy Systems
Task III: Solar Technology and Applications
http://www.fika.org/jb/resources/Heliostat%20Catalog.pdf

[3] Greg Kolb1, Scott Jones1, Matt Donnelly1, Dave Gorman2, Robert Thomas2
Roger Davenport3, Ron Lumia4
Heliostat Cost Reduction Study
1
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, gjkolb@sandia.gov
2
Advanced Thermal Systems, Larkspur, CO
3
Science Applications International Inc., San Diego, CA
4
INControl, Albuquerque, NM
SAND2007-3293
Unlimited Release
Printed June 2007
http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/access-control.cgi/2007/073293.pdf

[4] Solar-Institut Jülich

Heinrich-Mußmann-Str. 5
D-52428 Jülich
www.sij.fh-aachen.de

[5] M. Kleemann, M. Meliß

Regenerative Energiequellen (Zweite, völlig neubearbeitete Auflage)
Published by Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1988 and 1993
ISBN 3-540-55085-2

[6] B. L. Kistler
A User's Manual for DELSOL3: A Computer Code for Calculating the Optical
Performance and Optimal System Design for Solar Thermal Central Receiver
Plants
November 1986
Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, CA, USA.

[7] Prof. Dr.-Ing. B. Hoffschmidt, Dr.-Ing. M. Schmitz

75
 Lecture notes
Energy Conversion Processes for the different Energy Carriers – High-
Temperature Solar Systems
Aachen University of Applied Sciences, April 8, 2009

[8] Hexagonal-shaped heliostat built by SHAP

http://www.shap.it/index.html
Shap. All rights reserved.
Last updated: no information

[9] Philipp Schramek a,*, David R. Mills b

Heliostats for maximum ground coverage
a
Mühlbergstr. 26, 82319 Starnberg, Germany
b
Department of Applied Physics, University of Sydney, 2006 Sydney, Australia
© 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.sciencedirect.com
April-May 2004

[10] Markus Peter, Prof. Dr.-Ing. Christian Faber

Lecture notes
Concentrating Collectors from the lecture Renewable Energy Technologies I
Aachen University of Applied Sciences

[11] Mounting of mirror field (Sierra SunTower by eSolar)

http://www.esolar.com/
© Copyright 2007-2010 eSolar, Inc.

[12] Joachim Goettsche, Bernhard Hoffschmidt, Stefan Schmitz, Markus Sauerborn:

Solar-Institute Jülich/Aachen University of Applied Sciences
Reiner Buck, Edgar Teufel: German Aerospace Center (DLR)
Solar concentrating systems using small mirror arrays
Christian Rebholz: Fraunhofer Institute for Reliability and Microintegration (Fh-
IZM)
Proceedings of ES2008, Energy Sustainability 2008
August 10-14, 2008, Jacksonville, Florida USA

[13] Manuel Romero1, Reiner Buck2, James E. Pacheco3

1
Centro de Investigaciones Energe´ticas, Medioambientales y Tecnolo´gicas, Avenida
Complutense, 22, E 28040 Madrid, Spain. e-mail: romero@ciemat.es
2
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt, Institut fuer Technische Thermodynamik,
Pfaffenwaldring 38-40, D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany. e-mail: reiner.buck@dlr.de
3
Sandia National Laboratories, Solar Thermal Technology Department, PO Box 5800, M/S 0703,
Albuquerque, NM 87185-0703. e-mail: jepache@sandia.gov
An Update on Solar Central Receiver Systems, Projects, and Technologies
May 2002
http://web.mit.edu/teresab/Public/SolarPaper/Romero_SolarCentralReceiverSystem
sUpdate.pdf

[14] http://www.psa.es/webeng/index.php

[15] Pierre Garcia a,*, Alain Ferriere a, Jean-Jacques Bezian b

Published paper: “Codes for solar flux calculation dedicated to central receiver

76
 system applications: A comparative review”
a
CNRS-PROMES Laboratory, 7 rue du four solaire, 66120 Font-Romeu, France
b
CNRS-LGPSD Laboratory, Campus Jarlard, 81013 Albi Cedex 9, France
Received 4 July 2006; received in revised form 23 April 2007; accepted 11 August
2007
Available online 18 September 2007
www.sciencedirect.com

[16] Prof. Dr.-Ing. B. Hoffschmidt, Dipl.-Ing. Johannes Sattler, M.Sc.

Lecture notes on the topic Concentrating Collectors
Aachen University of Applied Sciences, November 9, 2009 and November 16,
2009. Revision 25 October 2010.
Website link to revised lecture notes:
http://www.fh-aachen.de/uploads/media/RE3_Konz_Koll_Teil_1_js.pdf
or via http://www.fh-aachen.de/hoffschmidt.html
Aachen University of Applied Sciences, October 25, 2010

[17] Central Receiver Systems

http://www.powerfromthesun.net/Book/chapter10/chapter10.html

[18] Schramek P., Mills, D. R., Le Lièvre, P.

Design of the Heliostat Field of the CSIRO Solar Tower
Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, May 2009, Volume 131

[19] Marcelino Sánchez, Manuel Romero

Methodology for generation of heliostat field layout in central receiver systems
based on yearly normalized energy surfaces
Available online 27 July 2005
http://infolib.hua.edu.vn/Fulltext/ChuyenDe/ChuyenDe07/CDe112/54.pdf

[20] Pierre Garcia a,*, Alain Ferriere a, Jean-Jacques Bezian b

a
CNRS-PROMES Laboratory, 7 rue du four solaire, 66120 Font-Romeu, France
b
CNRS-LGPSD Laboratory, Campus Jarlard, 81013 Albi Cedex 9, France
Codes for solar flux calculation dedicated to central receiver system applications:
A comparative review, August 2007

[21] Heliostat field of the solar tower Jülich (STJ) in Jülich, Germany
http://www.dlr.de/media/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-4987//8424_read-14655

[22] Winter, Sizmann, Vant-Hull

Solar Power Plants – Fundamentals, Technology, Systems, Economics
Springer-Verlag, 1991

[23] Xiudong Wei a, Zhenwu Lu a, Weixing Yu a, Zhifeng Wang b

a
Changchun Institute of Optics, Fine Mechanics and Physics of Chinese Academy
of Sciences, Changchun 130033, China
b
The Key Laboratory of Solar Thermal Energy and Photovoltaic system, Institute
of Electrical Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China
A new code for the design and analysis of the heliostat field layout for power tower
system
Available online since 17 February 2010

77
[24] Omar M. Al-Rabghi and Moustafa M. El Sayed
Heliostat minimum radial spacing for no blocking and no shadowing condition
Thermal Engineering Department, King Abdulaziz University, P.O. Box 9027,
Jeddah 214I 3. Saudi Arabia
Available online since 1 July 2003

[25] Hongli Zhang a,b, Isabelle Juchlia a, Daniel Favrata a, Xavier Pelet
a
Industrial Energy Systems Lab., Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
(EPFL), Switzerland
b
Shenyang Institute of Engineering, China
c
Holcim SA, Switzerland
Multi-objective thermoeconomic optimisation of the design of heliostat fields of
solar tower power plants
Year of publication: 2007
http://www.aetec.org.br/conferencia_internacional/trab31.htm

[26] Centrale solaire Thémis

http://fr.academic.ru/dic.nsf/frwiki/306560

[27] Werner Vogel, Henry Kalb

Large-Scale Solar Thermal Power – Technologies, Costs and Development
Published by WILEY-VCh Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
ISBN: 978-3-527-40515-2

[28] TanDEM-X – the Earth in three dimensions

http://www.dlr.de/eo/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-5727/10086_read-21046/
http://www.dlr.de/eo/en/Portaldata/64/Resources/dokumente/TanDEM-X_web.pdf

[29] B. Belhomme
Development of Optimized Aim Point Strategies for Central Receiver Systems
SOLLAB Doctoral – Colloquium
German Aerospace Center, Institute of Technical Thermodynamics
Linder Hoehe, 51147 Cologne, Germany

[30] Heliostat Control System for the BrightSource Energy’s LPT 550 energy system
(solar tower)
http://www.brightsourceenergy.com/technology/how_lpt_works
©2010 BrightSource Energy, Inc.

[31] Technical Data on the Gemasolar Solar Tower Power Plant

http://www.torresolenergy.com/TORRESOL/gemasolar-plant/en
Copyright © 2010

[32] Yutaka Tamaura1, Motoaki Utamura2, Hiroshi Kaneko3, Hiroshi Hasuike4,

Miguel Domingo5, Sergio Relloso6
1
Professor, Doctor of science, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Research Center for Carbon Recycling
and Energy
2
Visiting professor, Doctor of engineering, Professional engineer of Japan, Tokyo Institute of
Technology, Research Center for Carbon Recycling and Energy

78
 3
Assistant professor, Doctor of science, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Research Center for Carbon
Recycling and Energy
4
Senior Researcher, Doctor of engineering, The Institute of Applied Energy
5
M.S. Mechanical Engineering, M.B.A. Project Manager, SENER Ingeniería y Sistemas S.A.
6
M.S. Mechanical Engineering, Project Engineer, SENER Ingeniería y Sistemas S.A.
A NOVEL BEAM-DOWN SYSTEM FOR SOLAR POWER GENERATION WITH
MULTI-RING CENTRAL
REFLECTORS AND MOLTEN SALT THERMAL STORAGE
http://www.fundacionsener.es/EPORTAL_DOCS/GENERAL/FILE-
cw7646d431b8c543d7b45a/ANOVELBEAM-DOWNSYSTEM.pdf

[33] Nikolai V. Khartchenko

Thermische Solaranlagen
Grundlagen, Planung und Auslegung
Published by: Pringer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995
ISBN 3-540-58300-9

[34] Solar tower power plant Solar One

http://zimtstern.wordpress.com/
23 January 2007

[35] Solar tower power plant Solar One

http://www.sciencephoto.com/image/341143/530wm/T1520224-
Receiver_tower_of_Solar_One_power_station-SPL.jpg
Last updated: no information

[36] Photograph of the Solar Two power plant

http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/csp.htm
Last updated: 23 December 2009

[37] Information on the Solar Two tower power plant

http://www.uclm.es/area/amf/Antoine/Fusion/SolarTwo.pdf
Produced for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) by Sun♦Lab, March 2000

[38] eSolar Dual Cavity Receiver

http://guntherportfolio.com/2010/06/esolar-sierra-suntower-project-offline-
clarified/
June 15, 2010

[39] Koll1, Gerrit and Schwarzbözl2, Peter and Hennecke3, Klaus and Hartz4, Thomas
and Schmitz5, Mark and Prof. Hoffschmidt5, Bernhard
THE SOLAR TOWER JÜLICH – A RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION PLANT
FOR CENTRAL RECEIVER SYSTEMS
1
KAM, 2DLR, ITT, 3DLR, ITT, 4Stadtwerke Jülich, 5FH Aachen, SIJ
In: Proceedings . SolarPACES 2009, 15-18 September 2009, Berlin, Germany

[40] German Aerospace Center (DLR)

[41] Photograph of the Solar Tower Jülich in Operation

Kraftanlagen München GmbH

79
[42] Bernhard Hoffschmidt
Comparison and evaluation of different concepts of volumetric radiation receivers
(Doctoral Thesis RWTH Aachen)
Pubished by: Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V.(German Aerospace
Centre), Abteilung Unternehmensorganisation und –information, 51170 Köln,
Germany
Year of publication: 1997

[43] Volker Quaschning

Regenerative Energiesysteme (Technologie – Berechnung – Simulation)
(6., neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage)
Published by Hanser Verlag München, 2009
ISBN 978-3-446-42151-6
Website: http://www.volker-quaschning.de/articles/fundamentals2/index.php

[44] S. Alexopoulos, C. Helsper, B. Hoffschmidt, C. Rau

Simulation tool including a transient smoke tube boiler model for the calculation of
small hybrid solar power tower plants.
Twentieth International Conference on Systems Engineering Proceedings, pp. 28-
33, 8-10 September 2009,
ICSE2009 Coventry University 2009

[45] Spiros Alexopoulos1, Bernhard Hoffschmidt2, Christoph Rau2, Peter Schwarzbözl3

1
University of Applied Sciences Aachen, Solar Institut Juelich (SIJ), Juelich (Germany)
phone: +49 (0)241 6009 53551, e-mail: alexopoulos@sij.fh-aachen.de
2
University of Applied Sciences Aachen, Solar Institut Juelich (SIJ), Juelich (Germany)
3
German Aerospace Center (DLR), Institute of Technical Thermodynamics, Cologne (Germany)
SIMULATION RESULTS FOR A HYBRIDIZATION CONCEPT OF A SMALL
SOLAR TOWER POWER PLANT
SolarPACES 2009

[46] S. Alexopoulos, B. Hoffschmidt, J. Göttsche, C. Rau, P. Schwarzbözl: First

simulation results for the hybridization of small solar power tower plants, 1st
International Conference on Solar Heating, Cooling and Buildings, Lisboa,
Portugal, 7-10 October 2008

[47] Gregory J. Kolb

ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF SOLAR-ONLY AND HYBRID POWER
TOWERS USING MOLTEN-SALT TECHNOLOGY
Solar Thermal Technology Department, Sandia National Laboratories, MS 0703,
Albuquerque,
NM 87185-5800, U.S.A.
Received 7 January 1997; revised version accepted 27 June 1997
Communicated by Lorin Vant-Hull

[48] W. Shepherd, D.W. Shepherd

Energy Studies: Problems and Solutions
Published in 2008 by Imperial College Press
ISBN-13 987-1-84816-176-4
ISBN-10-1-84816-176-X

80
Exercise Problems
Problems 1 to 2 are taken from [48] and partly edited.

Problem 1:
A solar tower power plant receives an effective average direct solar irradiance of
G& = 1000 W/m 2 from its concentrator from its concentrator collectors. The efficiency of
D

converting the incident energy from the heliostat field into heat is η s = 0.53% . The plant’s
thermal efficiency is η real = 0.7 η Carnot .
If the plant fluid operates at 600°C and the sink temperature is 100°C, calculate the area in
km2 of heliostats and the land area required to generate 100 MW of thermal power.
Assume land requirement to be Alandsite = 4 AHF .

Solution:
TC (100 + 273) K
η Carnot = 1 − = 1− = 0.5727
TH (600 + 273) K

Let the realistic thermal efficiency be

η real = 0.7 η Carnot
η real = 0.7 ⋅ 0.5727 = 40%

In this approximation, the thermal power P is calculated by P = G& D ⋅η real ⋅η s ⋅ AHF , where
the unit of P is Watts and AHF is the heliostat field mirror area.
The heliostat mirror area required for generating 100 MW of thermal tower is
P
AHF =
G& D ⋅η real ⋅η s
100 × 10 6 W
AHF =
W
1000 2 ⋅ 0.4 ⋅ 0.53
m
AHF = 471,698,1 m 2

AHF = 0.4717 km 2

Land requirement Alandsite :

Alandsite = 4 AHF = 4 ⋅ 0.4717 km 2

Alandsite = 1.8868 km 2

81
Problem 2:
In a solar power tower plant, the radiant energy loss from the receiver
(
is Ploss = σεArec Trec
4
)
− Tamb
4
. What would be the numerical effect on the energy loss if the
absorber absolute temperature reduced to 90% of its original value?

Solution:
Approximately, Ploss ∝ Trec
4

If T reduces to 0.9T then

Ploss ( 90%) ( 0 .9 ) 4
∝ = 0.656
Ploss (100%) 1

Problem 3:
An open volumetric receiver with the following properties
• solar absorptivity α = 93%, emissivity ε = 0.87, receiver area: Arec = 20 m2
has an efficiency of η = 77% (with respect to the ambient temperature of Tamb = 25°C) at
the nominal operating point (irradiation on the receiver: G& thPow = 800 kW/m2).

Calculate (a) the surface temperature of the absorber under the assumption that solely
thermal radiation losses occurs (b) the thermal radiation loss Ploss associated with (a).
Note: Stefan-Boltzmann constant, σ = 5.67 × 10 −8 W /( m 2 K 4 ) ; The ambient temperature
Tamb is negligible.

Solution:
(a) Area specific power loss: q&loss = G& thPow (α − η ) = 800 kW/m2*(0.93–0.77) = 128 kW/m2
q&loss
T4 =
εσ
4
T = 128,000 W/m²/(εσ) = 2.595 × 1012 K 4
T = 996°C

(b) Ploss = 128 kW/m2* Arec = 128 kW/m2*20 m2 = 2.5 MWth

82