Grid connected in

Rangan Banerjee Department of Energy Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Bombay

Presentation at TU Delft on May 23rd 2012 Renewable installed capacity and generation

Installed Estimated Estimated Capacity* Generation (MW) (GWh) Wind 14% 16179 19842 Biomass Power 70% 1143 7006 Bagasse 60% 1953 10262 Small Hydro 40% 3300 11564 Waste to Energy 50% 20 88 Solar PV 20% 481 844 Total 23076 25% 49607

*as on 31.01.2012 MNRE website: www.mnre.gov.in Renewable Share in Power

12.0

10.0 Renewable Installed Capacity

8.0

Renewable Generation 6.0

Share of total(%) of Share 4.0

2.0

Nuclear generation Nuclear Installed Capacity 0.0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year 3 3 Annual PV module / cell Production

250 PV modules PV cells 200

150

100 Production (MW)

50

0 1986 1991 1996 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Year

4 PV production capacity

5 Solar Mission- JNSM Targets

S.No. Application Target for Target for Target for segment Phase I Phase II Phase III (2010-13) (2013-17) (2017-22) 1. Solar collectors 7 million sq 15 million 20 million meters sq meters sq meters 2. Off grid solar 200 MW 1000 MW 2000 MW applications 3. Utility grid 1000-2000 4000-10000 20000 MW power, MW MW including roof top

6 Megawatt size grid solar power plants – India

Project Project site Capacity PV Operation Generation Developer (MW) Technology in Days in MWh

WBGEDCL* Jamuria, 1 Crystalline 614 1879.9 Asansol, Silicon (365) 12.29% Sept.09 - Aug. 10

Azure Power Awan, 1 Crystalline 577 3312 Amritsar, Silicon (365) 16.92% Punjab Dec.09 to Nov.10

Mahagenco Chandrapur, 1 a-Si Thin 448 1654.2 Films (365) 15.39% May 10 to Apr.11 Reliance Nagaur, 5 Crystalline 352 7473.3 Industries Silicon, Thin July 10 to 18.8% Films, CPV June 11

Saphhire Sivaganga, 5 a-Si Thin 190 4271.3 Industrial Films

Sri Power Chittoor, 2 Crystalline 92 901.9 Andhra Silicon Pradesh CdTe Thin Film 7 Source: 32/54/2011-12/PVSE, MNRE Challenges

Source: World Energy Outlook – 2008, International Energy Agency 1. Limited experience in CSP in the country Solar Insolation and area required 2. Need for cost reduction = 2500 sq.km 3. Need for indigenous technology, system = 625 sq.km development 4. Need for demonstration, public domain 8 information Concept/Objectives

Import  National Completely Complete Test Prototype Indigenous plant Facility 

0% 50 % 100 %

• 1MW Solar Thermal Power Plant - Design & Development of a 1 MW plant. - Generation of Electricity for supply to the grid. - Development of technologies for component and system cost reduction.

• National Test Facility - Development of facility for component testing and characterization. - Scope of experimentation for the continuous development of technologies.

• Development of Simulation Package - Simulation software for scale-up and testing. - Compatibility for various solar applications. 9 Functioning Mode

KG DS Achieved Outputs

Interdisciplinary Project Team Rajkumar Nehra Faculty other than PI: Materials Manager

Prof. M.Bhushan : Dept. of Chem. Engg. Prof. S. Bharatiya : Dept. of Chem. Engg.

Prof. S. Doolla: Dept. of Energy Science and Engg. Desai, Nishith Karnik, Kalpesh Yadav, Deepak Project Engineer Project Engineer Project Engineer Prof. U.N. Gaitonde: Dept. of Mech. Engg. Prof. U.V. Bhandarkar: Dept. of Mech. Engg. Prof. S.V. Prabhu: Dept. of Mech. Engg. Prof. B.P. Puranik: Dept. of Mech. Engg. Prof. A. Sridharan: Dept. of Mech. Engg. Kumar Satish Amutha Shiva Vikalp Sachan Research Engineer Software Engineer Software Engineer Prof. B.G. Fernandes : Dept. of Elect. Engg. Prof. K. Chaterjee : Dept. of Elect. Engg. Prof. A.M. Kulkarni : Dept. of Elect. Engg.

Pranesh Krishnamurthy Shinde Tejas NGR Kartheek Bhalerao Ranjeet Research Engineer Research Engineer Research Engineer Research Engineer Collector Fields Specified in Tender Evolving PFDs Final (Simplified) Process Flow Diagram

40 bar, 350˚C Turbine 1.93 kg/sec Generator Storage

1 MWe 16 bar, 390˚C 0.1 bar, 45˚C 8.53 kg/sec

Solar Field 44 bar, 256.1˚C Cond Heat 0.84 kg/sec enser (oil) Exchanger 3.2 MW

12 bar, 231˚C Solar Field Cooling (DS) Tower 2 MW

Expansion Vessel De-aerator 45 bar, 105˚C 1.09 kg/sec Water Treatment Plant R P

P L T O T A K P L A N

15 Foundation stone: 10 January, 2010 Tree cutting permission: August 5, 2010

Soil Testing: October, 2010 Land levelling: November, 2010 Site Photos – PTC Field

Equipment area for HTF

PTC Solar Field

CLFR HTF Area Site Photos – LFR Field

HTF Area CLFR Steam Drum Steam Generation: 28 Sept., 2011 18 Site Photos – Power Block

DM Storage tanks

TG Building construction Heat Exchangers

Heat Exchangers T u r b i n e

Generator Cooling Tower Schematic of Solar Power Plant Simulator General User Inputs site data – lat., long., insolation, temperature, wind speed, rainfall

Solar Models Data library, interpolation modules, empirical models

Fluid properties – water, thermic fluids, etc. Fluid Models Library of fluid properties

Characteristic models – solar collectors, pumps, Equipment Models heat exchangers, turbines, etc.

[e.g., collector  = f (min, Tin, IT/B, Vwind)]

Flow sheeting User defined connectivity for equipment through GUI. Alternative configurations can be studied.

Equation builder & Based on user defined PFD – mathematical models Solver User defined time steps, time horizon. Pseudo steady State simulation – sequential modular approach

Simulation output System performance including cost of overall system Simulator Development Steps Prototype Simulator

Modeling & Validation of different components and models

System Simulation Validation based on test-runs

Simulator:  - version

Reliability etc. study

Scale-up study Consortium β-version members

Final version

Optimization Achieved Outputs: Simulator Facility

Preliminary Version : released on 25th, July 2011 Achieved Outputs: Simulator Facility

 The key features of the Preliminary Version:

• Simulation of fixed configurations of the systems • Graphical user interface for data input and output • Manual as well as database entry of climatic and equipment parameters • User defined time step and time horizon for the simulation • Display of the results in tabular form • output of all equipment for each time step, annual power generation, capital cost, cost of energy • Parametric study by changing the system parameters • location, equipment model parameters, stream parameters, control variables Distribution of user category No. of users Institute and University 380 Industry and Organisation 560 Others 90 Total (as on 16th May 2012) 1030

Summary: • 22 different countries (other than India): • Austria, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Cameroon, China, Cyprus, Denmark, Germany, Iran, Ira q, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Pakistan, Palestine, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, UAE and USA • 140 different Institutes and Universities • In India-> IITs, IIM, NITs, Amity University, ANNA University, BITS, University, Indian School of Mines, Institute for Plasma Research, JADAVPUR UNIVERSITY, JNTU, Hyderabad, Mewar University, Nirma University, NITIE Mumbai, P.S.V college of Engg. and Tech., Panjab University, PDPU , PSG College of Tech., University, Vellore Institute of Technology, and Others • Outside India-> Austrian Institute of Technology-Austria, Carnegie Mellon University-USA, McMaster Uni.-Canada,Chinese Academy of Sciences-China, University of Illinois-USA, Universidad de Valladolid- Spain, University of Copenhagen-Denmark, and Others Distribution of user category

• 155 different Industries and Organisation :

• In India-> Abener Engineering, Adani Infra India Ltd., BARC, BHEL, Brahma Kumaris, Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, Central Power Research Institute, Clique Developments Ltd., Cummins Research & Technology, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Ltd., Entegra Ltd., GAIL, GM, GERMI, Godavari Green Energy Ltd., KG Design Services Pvt. Ltd, Lanco Pvt . Ltd., L & T, Maharishi Solar Technology Pvt. Ltd., Mahindra & Mahindra, Maxwatt Turbines Pvt. Ltd., MNRE, MWCorp, National Power Training Institute, NPCIL, Pryas, Reliance Industries, SAIL, Siemens Ltd., Solar Energy Center, SPRERI, Sujana Energy, , Thermax Ltd., Vedanta Resources, Welspun, and Others

• Outside India-> DLR-Germany, Dubai Electricity and Water Authority-UAE, Eco Ltd.- Belgium, ELIASOL-USA, Fichtner-Germany, International Agency- UAE, Shell Global Solutions International–Netherlands, Sol Systems-USA, Suntrace GmbH- Germany, and Others Added Features of α-version

 Scope for user defined plant configurations • Flexibility to simulate user defined small subset of a complete plant or a complete plant

 Addition of equipment like pipe element, auxiliary boiler, pressure reducing valve and storage vessel

 Database as well as manual entry of cost co- efficient

 Facility of exporting results to MS Excel file Potential users are identified for the α-version Simulation of user defined Process Flow Diagram

Plant: Solnova (Abengoa Solar) Location: Spain Capacity: 50MW

Ref.: http://www.abengoasolar.com Steps to be followed for the Simulation

• Select any of the six PFD for the simulation or Open/Create Process Flow Diagram • How to Create Process Flow Diagram Step 1: Select equipment to be entered from the equipment list Step 2: Equipment will appear on PFD generation area which can be dragged to desired location

• Input node: Green colour

• Output node: Pink colour

• The option of deleting the equipment and reversing the node is available on right click

Note: In case of heat exchanger, orange node is hot stream input node and blue node is cold stream input node • How to Create Process Flow Diagram Step 3: The equipment can be linked through stream and any PFD can be generated for the simulation

Note: Different configurations of the stream will be listed on right click of stream node Process Flow Diagram of Solnova Plant for 100% Solar Load • Double click the equipment to enter its parameters and to make changes • Double click the stream node to specify the guess values of stream parameters • Location can be entered/changed from ‘Location’ Input Window • Database or Manual entry • Climatic Parameters can be changed from ‘Climatic Parameters’ Input Window: Database or Manual entry • Enter Simulation Inputs: User defined Time Step and Time Horizon for the simulation • Save the file clicking ‘Save PFD’ • Click ‘Run Simulation’ for getting results • The results (output parameters of all the equipments) will be displayed in tabular format • Results can be exported to MS Excel file Heat and Mass Balance Diagram of Solnova Plant at 100% Solar Load Comparison of different simulators with Solar Thermal Power Plant Simulator of IIT Bombay

System Advisor Model TRNSYS [3-4] THERMOFLEX [5] Solar Thermal Power Plant (SAM) [1-3] Simulator 1 Developed By National Renewable University of Wisconsin Thermoflow, Inc. Indian Institute of Energy Laboratory Technology Bombay 2 Renewable Energy Generic, includes Generic, includes Generic, Focus on Generic, Focus on Solar System different renewable different renewable Solar Thermal Thermal System only systems other than solar systems other than solar System only thermal (e.g. thermal (e.g. Photovoltaic, Photovoltaic, Geothermal Geothermal Power, Power, Wind) Small Scale Wind) 3 Concentrating Includes following Includes following system Includes following Current version includes: Solar Power system only: PTC, Power only: PTC, LFR, Power system only: PTC, PTC, LFR, Paraboloid Dish Tower, Dish Stirling Tower LFR Next version: Power Tower 4 Power Block Six fixed configurations Simulation of any Simulation of any Simulation of any configuration configuration configuration 5 Simulation of User NO YES YES YES Defined PFDs 6 Cost Analysis YES NO YES YES (with database as well as manual entry of cost co- efficient) 7 Results reporting YES YES YES Current version includes: through tables and Tabular form graphs Next version: Graphs 8 Weather Data Manual, Library Manual, Library Manual, Library, Current version includes: (Radiation, Amb. Model for Radiation Manual, Library. Temp. etc.) Data Next version: Model for Radiation Data Schematic of the Proposed Test Rig Achieved Outputs: Test Facility

 Methodology for tests developed  Test loops finalized  Test rigs designed  Lab testing at IITB in progress  Procurement of test equipment and instruments done  Test centre building plan finalized  Provisional Patent is filed on

• Flux mapping system for receivers used in concentrating solar collectors Methodology - Cost Analysis

Solar Field Turbine Loss % Solar Efficiency Efficiency Insolation

Solar Field Area

Plant Efficiency Operating Land Area Solar Hours Plant Output Field Storage Size Land Cost Cost

HTF quantity HTF Cost Plant Size Collector HX Cost Power Block Capacity Size Factor Cost Capital Cost Receiver Size Storage Cost

Replacement Life Costs Annualised Discount O&M Cost Rate

Cost of Generation Annual Plant Annual Revenue output Annual O&M Expenses Feed-in tariff Annual Working Capital MAT Rate EBITDA Interest Rate

Interest EBT Total Debt Loan repayment Annual Taxes period Debt to equity Depreciation ratio

Net repayment upto ith year Depreciation Capital Cost Rate Net Profit Net annual repayment Salvage Value

Free Cash Flow Free cash flow to to Firm equity

IRR Equity Assumptions – Cost Analysis

Equipment Cost (Rs.) Per Unit Remarks

HX 10 Million MWe

PT cost 15000 m2

CLFR cost 10000 m2

HTFcost 150 kg

Mirrors 0.5 % Annual Replacement

HTF 1 % Annual Replacement

Receivers 2 % Annual Replacement

O&M 3 % Of Equipment Base Case

 50 MWe Solar Thermal

 7.5 Hour Thermal Storage

 Oil Loop 2  Design Solar Insolation = 650 W/m

 Location - New Delhi

 PT and CLFR comparison Results – PT vs CLFR

Capital Cost = Rs. 1164 Crores Cost Breakup – PT Power Capital Cost = Rs. 233 Million / MWe Plant CGE = 10.54 Rs/kWh Power IRR = 17% Block 7% Storage 12% Capacity Factor = 0.36 Heat Exchanger 4% Heat transfer Solar Field Fluid 2% 64% Cost Breakup – CLFR Power Civil Costs Plant Power Balance of 3% Block 8% Storage Plant 6% 13% Heat Exchanger Capital Cost = Rs. 1045 Crores 5% Heat Capital Cost = Rs. 209 Million / MWe transfer CGE = 9.69 Rs/kWh Fluid 3% IRR = 20% Solar Field Civil Costs Capacity Factor = 0.35 60% Balance of 4% Plant 8% Energy Analysis

Embodied Energy

Energy O&M Energy Consumed

Energy Disposal Analysis Energy

Energy Annual Power Produced Generation Configuration

Plant Configurati on

Technolo Operatio Fluid gy n

Parabolic CLFR Trough

Water/ Only Thermic Direct Storage Buffer Fluid Steam Storage Schematic of Solar Thermal Power Plant Thermal Storage Generator Turbine

Condenser Solar Heat Cooling Field (Oil) Exchanger Water Circuit

Expansion Balance Vessel Component Pump Pump s Methodology – Oil Loop

Collector Design T Fluid Inlet Fluid Outlet Characteristic ambient Temp. Temp. s Collector Ibn Hour Efficiency Angle Tracking T DA exit Declinatio Angle Solar h DA exit n Field O/P HX Latitud h Pressure e Superheat T Field Superheat Area m steam h Steam exit T Steam exit

Iterat

e P o/p A

η Turbine Loss % η Generator Methodology – Oil Loop

Storage Storage A Field Hours Mirror Area Embodied Energy Weight Module Module Total Factor for Materials Receiv Length Width Field er Area Weight Solar Field Structure No. of Embodied Weight Modules Energy Piping Volume Piping O&M & Mass Oil Disposal Receiv Volume EPP Energy er EROI Annual o/p Volume Exp. Exp. Energy Vessel Vessel Volume Exp. Mass Transport Vessel Exp. Exp. BOP Energy Vessel Vessel HeightIterat Embodied Diameter Thickness e Energy Methodology – Direct Steam

Collector Design T Fluid Inlet Fluid Outlet Characteristic ambient Temp. Temp. s Collector Ibn Hour Efficiency Angle Tracking Declinatio Angle Solar h DA exit n Field O/P HX Latitud h Pressure e Superheat Field Area m steam h Steam exit T Steam exit

Iterat

e P o/p B

η Turbine Loss % η Generator Methodology – Direct Steam

Storage Storage B Field Hours Mirror Area Embodied Energy Weight Module Module Total Factor for Materials Receiv Length Width Field er Area Weight Solar Field Structure No. of Embodied Weight Modules Energy Piping Volume Piping O&M & Mass Disposal EPP Energy EROI Annual o/p Steam Energy Accumulat or Size Transport Plant Energy Size BOP Embodied Energy Assumptions – Energy Analysis

Factor Value Unit Remarks

Plant Size 5 - 100 MWe Range Turbine Efficiency 50 % Assumed Constant

Generator Efficiency 98 % Assumed Constant Piping and Heat loss 25 % For Oil Loop Configuration 20 % For Direct Steam Configuration

Life of Plant 25 Years Disposal Energy 5 % Of Total Embodied Energy Auxiliary Consumption 10 % Of Annual Power Generation

o Tamb 25 C Collector Transport distance 200 km By truck average Material Use – Solar Collectors

2 Parabolic Trough – Per Module(69 m ) CLFR – Per MWe (@650 W/m2) Weigh Compone t/ nt Area Unit Material Compone Weight Glass nt / Area Unit Material Mirrors 76.6 m2 Float Glass Borosilicate Steel 44000 kg Steel 8.6 kg Glass Float HCE 39.4 kg Steel Glass 12545 m2 Glass Torque Box 597 kg Steel Concrete 64 m3 Concrete End Plate 186 kg Steel Cantilever Arms 384 kg Steel HCE Supports 113 kg Steel Torque Transfer 32 kg Steel BOP Material Use – Oil Loop

Material kg/MWe Aluminum 255 Chromium 122 Concrete 74257 Copper 454 Manganese 112 Molybdenum 42 Nickel 10 Steel 39681 Stainless Steel 612 Vanadium 4 BOP Material Use – Direct Steam

Component Material MJ/MWe Foundation Concrete 400000 Steel 700000 TG 649333 Boiler 2246667 Cooling Tower 151333 De-Aerator 576000 Steam Seal Heater 138667 Condenser 126667 Transformer Silica 12240000 Steel 252000 Copper 134400 Cost Analysis

 Solar Thermal – Sustainable from energy input

 EPP = 3 to 5 years

 EROI = 4 to 7

 Effect of variation in parameters

 Cost effectiveness of technology

 Material variation

 Framework for sustainability analysis

 Comparison of Technologies LFR Technology

Cavity Receiver

Concentrated Solar Flux

Solar Flux

Fresnel Reflectors

Ground Forced convection boiling

61 Experimental setup Inlet

Thermocouples arrangement Absorber pipe layout inside the LFR cavity receiver

Fluid 0.282m

Exit Surface

48 m

LFR set up

62 Specifications of setup

63 Data Reduction

qnet hloc  TTw,, i f i

do qdnet. o .ln di TTw,, i w o 2kw

qnet q in  U() T w, o  T a

q DNI   Acos     n    D  L in g r n    t outer  ii x  f i fg . m C T m C T mC T   c,,,, final p c f c initial p c i p in 64 DNI Ar Results

Recorded operational data Fluid and surface temperature distribution

65 Results

Steam quality variation in two phase region Local heat transfer coefficient variation along the flow direction

66 Results

60

50

40

30

Efficiency, % Efficiency, 20

10

 0 640 660 680 700 720 740 DNI, W/m2

Efficiency of LFR sytem 67 Cavity receiver ICAER, 2011

Schematic layout and modes of heat loss from it

T

D ε tubes H

ε cover,in ρ inside walls ε cover, out W

Wind speed, V

Ambient Temperature 68 Experimental approach ICAER, 2011

Wtc

Insulation

H 1 G1

D H Absorber tubes G2

Wbc

Schematic sketch of the cavity under consideration

Geometrical dimensions of the cavity

Items Dimensions d NPS 1

Wbc 15 d

Wtc 9d H 2.25d

D1 6d

G1 1.44d G 0.36d Model of the proposed Cavity 2 69 Experimental setup ICAER, 2011

Power supply

UPM

Solid state array

Thermocouples

Data logger Cavity receiver Tubes with heater inside

Thermocouples Computer

70 Data Reduction (Experimental) ICAER, 2011

Q VI

Where Q= heat input=heat loss V= Voltage I=Ammeter

Uncertainity in the elctric power of heat loss is:

22 QQ 22   QVI      VI   

Uncertainities considered are:

Voltage=0.25% Current=0.25% Temperature= 1.25%

71 Results ICAER, 2011

Depth of cavity= 100mm Depth of cavity= 100mm 240 1200  =0.25  =0.25 tubes tubes  =0.9  =0.9 cover cover 220 1000

200

800

) C

 180 (

600

cover 160

T Total heat loss (W) 400 140

200 120 Total heat loss,Q Cover glass temperature 200 250 300 350 400 100 200 250 300 350 400 Ttubes(C) Ttubes(C)

Total heat loss from the LFR test rig Glass cover temperature of the LFR test rig 72 Computational approach ICAER, 2011

Typical grid generation for the cavity.

Boundary conditions are:

Tubes: T = Th , ε = 0.25 Top wall: u = 0, v = 0 , φ = 0, εi = 0.1 Side walls: u = 0, v = 0, φ = 0, εi = 0.1 2 Bottom wall: u = 0, v = 0, εinner =εouter = 0.9, hext = 5W/m K

Atmospheric temperature= 30°C 73 Results ICAER, 2011

1000 2400  0.25 tubes 2 2200 hext=5W/m K 800 2000 2.152 2 yExpt=0.005x (R =0.998) 1800 2.06 2 yCFD=0.009x (R =0.998) 600 1600

1400 Q 1200 400 convection Q  0.25 radiation 1000 tubes

Total heat loss (W/m) Q

Total heat loss (W/m) 2 total h =5W/m K 800 ext 200

600 Experimental results 400 CFD results 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 200 250 300 350 400 Ttubes-Tatm (K) Absorber tube temperature (C) . Comparison of heat loss between . Comparison of convective and Experimental and CFD data radiative heat loss from cavity h_ext 5 W/m2K 10W/m2K ΔT (K) Convection Radiation Convection Radiation 40 9.86 90.14 15.45 84.55 90 8.1 91.9 12.6 87.4 140 6.7 93.3 9.95 90.05 190 5.67 94.33 8.1 91.9 240 4.48 95.52 6.13 93.87 Percentage heat loss coefficient of convective and radiative component with 74 variation in external convective heat transfer coefficient Summing up

 Solar Thermal – Test facility – MW scale – enable future cost effective plants

 Framework for cost and energy analysis

 Modelling for cavity receiver losses, hydrothermal modelling, etc…

 New concepts, materials, storage Acknowledgment

Suneet Singh S. B. Kedare J. K. Nayak Santanu B. Pranesh K. Faculty Faculty Faculty Faculty (M.Tech.)

Sudhansu S. S. Desai Nishith Balkrishna Surve (Ph.D.) Project Engineer Project Assistant Project team MNRE: J. K. Nayak, Santanu B., S. B. Kedare, Suneet Singh, M.Bhushan, S. Bharatiya, S. Doolla, U.N. Gaitonde, U.V. Bhandarkar, S.V. Prabhu, B.P. Puranik, A.K. Sridharan, B.G. Fernandes, K. Chaterjee, A.M. Kulkarni, Rajkumar Nehra, Kalpesh Karniik, Deepak Yadav, Satish Kumar, Vikalp Sachan, Pranesh K, Tejas Shinde, Kartheek NGR, Ranjeet Bhalerao, Nishith Desai

76 References

. Desai N.B. and Bandyopadhyay S., Solar Thermal Power Plant Simulator, SOLARIS, Varanasi, India, Feb. 7-9, 2012. . Krishnamurthy P. and Banerjee R., "Energy analysis of solar thermal concentrating systems for power plants“. The International Conference on Future Electrical Power and Energy Systems, 2012 . China . Sahoo S.S., Singh S. and Banerjee R., "Parametric studies on parabolic trough solar collector", WREC, Abu Dhabi, UAE, Sep. 25-30, 2010. . Sahoo S.S., Varghese S.M., Ashwin Kumar, Suresh Kumar C., Singh S., Banerjee R., " experimental and computational investigation of heat losses from the cavity receiver used in linear Fresnel reflectors", ICAER, Mumbai, Dec. 9-11, 2011. . Sahoo S.S., Singh S., Banerjee R.," Hydrothermal analysis of the absorber tubes used in linear Fresnel reflector solar thermal system", 10th ISHMT- ASME Heat and Mass transfer conference, Chennai, India, Dec. 27-30, 2011. . Sahoo S.S., Varghese S.M., Suresh Kumar C., Viswanathan S.P., Singh S., Banerjee R., " Experimental investigation of convective boiling in the absorber tube of the linear Fresnel reflector solar thermal system", SOLARIS, Varanasi, India, Feb. 7-9, 2012 . National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), System Advisor Model (SAM) software, Version 2011.5.4, 2011.

 P. Gilman, Solar Advisor Model User Manual, Technical report, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, USA, 2010.

 K. H. Clifford, Software and Codes for Analysis of Concentrating Solar Power Technologies, SANDIA Report SAND2008-8053, 2008.

 Solar Energy Laboratory, TRNSYS, A Transient Simulation Program, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Demo Version 17.00.0018, 2010.

 Thermoflow Inc., THERMOFLEX User Manual, Version 19, 2009. . Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, New Delhi, website: www.mnre.gov.in Email: [email protected] Thank you Parabolic Trough Collector Field:

Collector Area: 8179 m2

2 Field Output at designed condition (DNI = 640 W/m ) = 3.2 MWth

Field Efficiency at designed condition (DNI = 640 W/m2) = 61.1 %

Total Number of Loops: 3

Number of Rows per Loop : 2

Number of Collectors in each Row: 2

Number of Module/Unit in each Collector: 10

1 Module/Unit Aperture Area: (5.68 m * 12 m)

Total Aperture Area = (5.68* 12) * 10 * 2 * 2 * 3 = 8179 m2 Linear Fresnel Reflector Field:

Collector Area: 7019 m2

2 Field Output at designed condition (DNI = 640 W/m ) = 2.25 MWth

Field Efficiency at designed condition (DNI = 640 W/m2) = 50 %

Operating Pressure = 45 bar

Receiver Height: 13 m

Total Number of Loops: 2

Number of Reflectors in Each Loop: 8 (Four on either side of Receiver)

Centre to Centre Distance Between Two Reflectors: 2.378 m

Each Reflector : 20 units

1 unit : (1.828 m * 12 m)

Total Aperture Area = (1.828 * 12) * 20 * 8 * 2 = 7019 m2 Heat Exchanger: Total Heat Duty at Rated Condition = 3.17 MWth

Super Heater: Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger (Shell Side – Oil, Tube Side – Water)

Heat Dutyrated: 0.56 MWth

Steam Generator: Kettle Type Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger

Heat Dutyrated: 2 MWth

Preheater: Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger (Shell Side – Oil, Tube Side – Water)

Heat Dutyrated: 0.61 MWth Turbine:

Maximum Continuous Rating: 1 MWe

Peak Power: 1.1 MWe Isentropic Efficiency of Turbine at Rated Condition = 51%

Rankine Cycle Efficiency at Rated Condition = 18 %