4.6 Article

Techno-economic assessment of technological improvements in thermal energy storage of concentrated solar power

期刊

SOLAR ENERGY
卷 157, 期 -, 页码 552-558

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.solener.2017.08.064

关键词

CSP plants; LCOE; sCO(2) cycle; Simulation; Steam cycle; Thermal energy storage

资金

  1. research program NK203D of Korea Institute of Machinery and Materials - National Research Council of Science and Technology
  2. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Education [2015R1D1A3A01015621]
  3. Priority Research Centers Program through NRF - Ministry of Education [2014R1A6A1031189]
  4. National Research Council of Science & Technology (NST), Republic of Korea [NK203D] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)
  5. National Research Foundation of Korea [2014R1A6A1031189, 2015R1D1A3A01015621] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The technological and economic impact of design changes in thermal energy storage of concentrated solar power (CSP) systems is assessed. It is shown that the system costs change with the types of storage tanks and also that the operation temperature is limited by the thermal properties of the thermal storage medium. In addition, the cost of energy can be substantially reduced by replacing the conventional power cycle with more advanced power cycles, such as a supercritical carbon dioxide power cycle. Using two types of thermal storage tanks and two thermal storage media, cases are generated incorporating combinations of the design options. A sensitivity analysis is used to investigate the impacts of each technological improvement. The results of this work will contribute to predicting the impact of research and improving the economics of the CSP system.

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

4.6
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