4.6 Article

Liquid sodium versus Hitec as a heat transfer fluid in solar thermal central receiver systems

Journal

SOLAR ENERGY
Volume 86, Issue 9, Pages 2293-2305

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.solener.2012.05.001

Keywords

Sodium; Hitec; Central receiver systems; Solar thermal; Heat transfer fluid

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Selection of an appropriate HTF is important for minimising the cost of the solar receiver, thermal storage and heat exchangers, and for achieving high receiver and cycle efficiencies. Current molten salt HTFs have high melting points (142-240 degrees C) and degrade above 600 degrees C. Sodium's low melting point (97.7 degrees C) and high boiling point (873 degrees C) allow for a much larger range of operational temperatures. Most importantly, the high temperatures of sodium allow the use of advanced cycles (e.g. combined Brayton/Rankine cycles). In this study, a comparison between the thermophysical properties of two heat transfer fluids (HTFs), Hitec (a ternary molten salt 53% KNO3 + 40% NaNO2 + 7% NaNO3) and liquid sodium (Na), has been carried out to determine their suitability for use in high-temperature concentrated solar thermal central-receiver systems for power generation. To do this, a simple receiver model was developed to determine the influences of the fluids' characteristics on receiver design and efficiency. While liquid sodium shows potential for solar thermal power systems due to its wide range of operation temperatures, it also has two other important differences - a high heat transfer coefficient (similar to an order of magnitude greater than Hitec) and a low heat capacity (30-50% lower than Hitec salt). These issues are studied in depth in this model. Overall, we found that liquid sodium is potentially a very attractive alternative to molten salts in next generation solar thermal power generation if its limitations can be overcome. (c) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available