4.5 Article

Design and performance investigation of modified Hybrid Parabolic Linear Fresnel Collector

期刊

ENERGY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
卷 76, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.esd.2023.101273

关键词

PTC; LFC; Hybrid solar collector; Optical efficiency; HPLFC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Researchers have improved the optical and thermal performance of solar thermal concentrators, particularly by adding flat plates to the parabolic mirror to create a hybrid collector called HPLFC. Optical and thermal modeling estimates that HPLFC has an average optical efficiency of 49% and overall efficiency of 39%. During winter, HPLFC has a lower efficiency than PTC but performs better than LFC.
The Parabolic Trough Collector and Linear Fresnel Collector are the two established solar thermal concentrator technologies. While both technologies have their own advantages, current research focus in on alternate designs to improve optical and thermal performance of the collectors. The optical modifications by changing the primary reflector design have been one of the areas of research. One such modifications is the discretization of the parabolic mirror with flat plates. A hybrid collector combing the flat plates and stationary absorber of LFC with the parabolic profile of a PTC is investigated. A Hybrid Parabolic Linea Fresnel Collector (HPLFC) is designed based on optical analysis with ray tracing analysis and the collector tested experimentally. The average yearly energy production of PTC, LFC and modified HPLFC has been studied with optical and thermal modelling. The optical and thermal modelling estimates that HPLFC has an average optical efficiency of 49 % and overall efficiency of 39 %. The HPLFC efficiency is lower than PTC and performs better than LFC during winter. The HPLFC has been investigated experimentally at Coimbatore, India. The efficiency of HPLFC has been found to be 35 & PLUSMN; 2 %. This can be improved with better manufacturing and optimization of operating conditions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据