Design of a 240 MW

e
Solar Thermal Power Plant


D. Mills* , G.L. Morrison**, and P. Le Livre***

*School of Physics
University of Sydney
Sydney Australia.
E-mail: [email protected]

**School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering
University of New South Wales
Sydney Australia 2052
E-mail: [email protected]

***Solar Heat and Power Pty. Ltd. (SHP)
2 Chifley Square, Sydney NSW 2000, Australia
E-mail: [email protected]

In this paper, the general design philosophy for a large 240 MW
e
pure solar
storage plant is discussed. The proposed stand alone plant design will use the
same low cost Compact Linear Fresnel Reflector (CLFR) array system previously
reported (Mills et al, 2003; Hu et al, 2003) and currently being constructed for a
coal fired plant preheating project. In the stand-alone solar plant, the costs of
hybrisation with fossil fuel are found to be high, and lower temperature
operation seems more cost-effective. The advantage gained by low temperature
operation derives from an unusual combination of large low cost low
temperature turbines developed for the nuclear industry, and an inexpensive
storage concept which suits that particular temperature range. Should both
options be applicable, then this may be the most cost-effective solar thermal
electricity development path. Comparison of solar electricity cost against a
typical 400 MWe coal fired plant in the USA suggests similar cost/performance
without green incentives.

Introduction
There has been much emphasis placed in the past on the adaptation of high
temperature fossil fuel turbines to solar energy, with an attendant ability to utilise
fossil fuel for backup energy. However, there has been a recent shift of interest to
100% solar plants because of the strict incentives that have been set up in countries
like Spain, and Germany. Fully renewable operation is also advantageous in
tradeable renewables certificates programmes like that of Australia, because the
investment in the power block can be repaid at a higher rate.
In the past, it has been usually presumed that primary fossil fuel in large quantities is
cheaper than solar heat. We think of solar energy as expensive. Perhaps we should
be thinking that the handling of fossil fuel is also expensive. Recent results of a
Design of a 240 MWe Solar Thermal Power Plant Mills
Eurosun 2004 Conference
tender in Cyprus for a 120 MW oil fired fossil fuel plant were Turbines: 42.7%;
Boilers: 31.6%; Flue Gas Desulpherisation: 14.1%; Transformers: 11.6%. Boilers
and fossil fuel treatment are about 45% of the cost. The cost of 20 years of oil is
very similar to the avoided fossil fuel equipment. Perhaps 2/3 of the lifecycle cost of
this plant is directly related to either fossil fuel handling or fossil fuel price.
Hybridisation with fossil fuel is used to give solar more reliability in the absence of
storage. However, the price paid by a solar system for hybridisation is high, because
the solar system must be made compatible in output temperature with the fossil fuel
system, and because the actual cost of equipment to handle, combust and dispose
of fossil fuel waste is also surprisingly high. A turbine system and storage unit
optimally designed for pure solar heat may be very different from that which is
designed for a solar/fossil hybrid.

Low cost solar array design

In this paper, the general design philosophy for a large pure solar storage plant is
discussed. The proposed stand alone plant design will use the same low cost Compact
Linear Fresnel Reflector (CLFR) array system previously reported (Mills et al, 2003; Hu
et al, 2003) as is being constructed for a coal fired plant preheating project of 35 MWe
integrated with a coal-fired plant. This current coal saver project has been now been
re-estimated to be 40 MW
e
. The project, being built for Macquarie Generation, is
composed of three stages; a proving array of 1100 m
2
, an intermediate array of 20236
m
2
, and a final array of 134909 m
2
. After stage 3 is built, it will be the largest solar
electricity plant built since the last LS3 parabolic trough field built in California in 1990,
and will provide a solar electricity capacity about 3 times the current PV capacity of
Australia. The kWh cost of the first plant is expected to be similar to, or below, current
wind technology in Australia.

The array system is linear like a
parabolic trough collector, but it
has many advantages over
troughs which allow significant
cost reductions, such as a long
focal length with allows
elastically bent flat standard
glass reflector to be used.

Fig. 1. The Stage 1 array and
tower line produced by SHP at
the Liddell power plant site.

The array technology used in
this project is of the Linear Fresnel type and was originally developed at the University
of Sydney (Mills and Morrison,1999). It is called the Compact Linear Fresnel Reflector
(CLFR) technology. In this approach, ground level reflector rows aim solar beam
radiation at a downward facing receiver mounted on multiple elevated parallel tower
lines. The technology is innovative in that it allows reflectors to have choice of two
receivers so that a configuration can be chosen which offers minimal mutual blocking
Design of a 240 MWe Solar Thermal Power Plant Mills
Eurosun 2004 Conference
of adjacent reflectors and minimum ground usage. However, there are also many
supporting engineering innovations in the commercial product, including highly rigid
space frame mirror supports with 360 roatation capability, long horizontal direct
steam generation cavity receivers, and array fine tracking control electronics. The
design of the CLFR array design incorporates high volume production elements to
reduce engineering cost.

The authors have previously described some of the cost advantages of the CLFR array
system (Mills et al, 2003) of the current trough technology, but have not discussed the
general issue of overall stand-alone solar plant design. The traditional approach to the
design of a line focus solar plant is to use a parabolic trough system to the supply of
heat at between 320C and 400C to the main boiler and superheater of a
conventional turbogenerator (NREL, 2003). Some higher cost trough designs utilise
fossil fuel in off-solar hours, not only to increase the plant capacity factor, but to lower
the overall cost of delivered energy. The present CLFR design can also be
straightforwardly adapted in this direction. However, in trough and CLFR systems,
thermal losses can rise rapidly with array operating temperature, partially cancelling out
improvements in thermal conversion efficiency. In addition, the traditional path of using
a superheated turbine requires more highly efficient and durable selective coatings,
thicker-walled tubing for steam pressure containment, and the use of oil instead of
water as a heat transfer fluid if operating above the water triple point.

A 240 MW non-fossil power block

An alternative case can be made for a design which minimises array thermal losses
using low temperature (200C 300C) saturated steam Rankine cycle turbines.
Although some effort has been made to look at low temperature trough systems using
small organic rankine cycle turbines (NREL, 2002), in this temperature range, higher
efficiency demands a large turbine. The array cost of the CLFR is low enough that the
added cost of fossil hybridisation is relatively high. For low cost and reliability, one
needs a proven system stripped of expensive fossil fuel equipment.

Such systems exist. The nuclear power industry has spent many years and huge sums
developing non-fossil fuel turbines which, at about 31-33%, are more efficient than
smaller organic rankine cycle plants. These turbines operate from wet steam, using
steam separators to dry out the steam before entering the turbine, and they use
special turbine blade design. No superheating stage is required, so the solar array
needs only meet the main boiler operating temperature, which in the case of the VVET
is only 250C. If one were to design a turbine type to to suit a large solar direct steam
generation array like the CLFR, it would be something close to the VVER design,
although there might be a case for operating in the range 300C 350C to increase
thermodynamic efficiency. Operation at 250C allows significantly lower array losses
than operation at 450-500C as proposed for advanced trough systems (NREL, 2003)
and allows the use of a wider variety of air stable selective coatings on the receiver.
Steam pipes are also substantially cheaper at the lower temperature range.

However, the smallest nuclear turbines one can obtain are of about 240 MW
e
peak
capacity, which would lead to a solar plant larger than any yet built. The low
temperature turbine costs used in the paper are based upon approximate estimates
(VVER, 2003) supplied by JSC Atomstroyexport (Russia). The supply of a 240 MWe
Design of a 240 MWe Solar Thermal Power Plant Mills
Eurosun 2004 Conference
VVER steam turbine and steam separator and control equipment of about US$18
million for a single turbine, well below high temperature turbine cost. It is
conservatively assumed in this paper that an additional 1/3 will be added to the
turbogenerator price to cover delivery and installation. Several sites have been found in
Australia with excellent solar radiation and grid access. The most attractive of these
has enough spare grid capacity for a 240 MW
e
installation.

A low temperature low cost storage system

The proposed plant uses the concept of Underground Thermal Energy Storage
(UTES), which we will refer to in this paper as cavern storage. Pressurised water
cavern storage appears to have been first proposed by R&D Associates in 1977, but
the original reference is no longer available. The oldest extant major analysis is a
1983 report (Copeland and Ullman, 1983; Dubberly et al, 1983) from the Solar Energy
Research Institute SERI (which later became NREL). The SERI report was a study of
different storage options prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in the
early 1980s. Cavern storage involves storage of water under pressure in deep metal
lined caverns where the pressure is contained by the rock and the overburden weight.
There are no heat exchangers, and a low cost makeup water tank is provided on the
surface. The array supplies steam to the cavern water, and steam is flashed directly
from the cavern into the turbine, in a very similar manner as steam is evaporated from
a nuclear boiler vessel into a nuclear turbine. Fourteen organizations were involved in
deriving the comparative rankings, which indicated quite definitively that UTES for a
large system was the cheapest storage method.

Because costs have changed greatly in some areas, Tanner (2003) has produced, at
the suggestion of one of the authors, an engineering thesis report on cavern storage
applied to the case of the CLFR. This study investigates, using estimates supplied by
experienced engineering and excavation companies, the current costs of a steel lined
caverns at depths of 200m and 400m using modern excavation techniques. This report
indicates that cavern storage is now much cheaper than other currently proposed
storage methods at installed costs under US$3 per kWh
t
. This report is being
rewritten for publication. With low cost storage, there is a tendency for total system
delivered electricity costs to be reduced as the capacity factor increases.

Comparison against coal technology

In a recent U.S. regional power plan discussion document (North West Council, 2002)
the cost of a 400 MW
e
pulverised coal plant was found to be $1468/kW
e
in the North
West USA. This plant is used as a coal cost baseline for comparison costings against
two CLFR/cavern scenarios, one with 54% capacity factor and one with 68%. In Table
1, the coal plant is given an 80% capacity factor, within the normal range for capacity
factors in the USA. David and Herzog (2003), for example, use 75% in a study of
carbon sequestration. The coal plant IRR was held to 14%, assumed as a reasonable
payback for solar plants in NREL (2003), by adjusting the wholesale price for
electricity. premium charged for peaking sales, because as the capacity factor is
reduced, there is a greater opportunity to indulge in peak lopping, giving a higher
return per kWh
e
. The IRR for such trading can only be determined using a complex
grid pricing model not available to the authors.
Design of a 240 MWe Solar Thermal Power Plant Mills
Eurosun 2004 Conference

Table 1. Costs and IRR of coal and CLFR systems

2nd Year Example Revenue Sheet
400 MWe
Coal CLFR/Cavern CLFR/Cavern
Capacity Factor 0.80 0.54 0.68

Electricity Sale $/MWH 45.23 45.23 45.23
Environmental Support $/MWH 0.00 0.00
Total Revenue $ per MWh 45.23 45.23 45.23

Collector Area m
2
0 3,188,571 3,985,714
Array related cost $/kWe 0 1435 1744
Storage Cost $/kWe 0 68 92
Power block and BOP cost $/kWe 1468 281 281
Total Cost $ per kWe 1468 1784 2117

Annual Output MW(th) 14,038,462 3,620,800 4,526,000
Thermal to Electrical efficiency 39.0% 31.5% 31.5%
Online Status 0.98 0.98 0.98
Total Annual Equivalent MWH Output 2,522,880 1,117,741 1,397,176
Annual Gross Plant Revenue US$ 111,315,773 45,291,605 56,614,506

Coal cost 0.71 MMBTU 42,522,644 - -
Reflector Array Cleaning - 3,587,143 4,483,929
Operations and Maintenance 15,646,080 2,022,019 3,159,404
Debt Payment 28,146,027 20,522,963 24,359,041
Annual Gross Costs of Service US$ 58,168,724 26,132,125 32,002,373

Annual Net Plant Revenue US$ 53,147,049 19,159,481 24,612,133

Net Present Revenue per MWh $43.05 $43.05 $43.05
Net present cost per MWh -$28.97 -$24.43 -$23.84
Net present profit per MWh $14.07 $18.61 $19.21
CPI 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%
Debt cost 7.2% 7.2% 7.2%
Debt ratio 50% 50% 50%
25YR IRR 14.00% 13.87% 14.76%

The solar plants were then evaluated on this selling price and it was found that their
IRR is comparable to coal; slightly higher than coal for the 68% capacity factor plant
and slightly lower for the 54% plant. The optimal capacity factor depends upon the
pricing for electricity at different times of day and year.

In Fig. 2, the capacity factor of new pulverized coal plant is now varied to produce a
range of electricity wholesale prices which meet the desired IRR of 14%. This is
compared to the 68% CF CLFR/cavern storage solar plant which is also held to an IRR
of 14%. The graph shows that the coal fired plant is more costly up to about a CF of
Design of a 240 MWe Solar Thermal Power Plant Mills
Eurosun 2004 Conference
82%, and even at a CF of 90% is only $5 per MWh
e
less expensive than the 68% CF
solar plant. This suggests that minimal measures such as low priced carbon trading
would be sufficient to provide solar competitiveness against the cheapest baselaod
coal fired plant.


Wholesale Price of Electricity for 14% IRR
35
40
45
50
55
60
70% 80% 90%
Coal Plant Capacity Factor
400 MWe Coal Fired Plant
CLFR Solar at 68% Capacity Factor

Fig. 2. Cost of electricity in the second project year required to produce a 14% IRR in
high CF Coal and Solar scenarios. The Coal CF is allowed to vary while the CLFR
storage plant is held at a 68% CF, close to the higher range of solar CFs possible
using daily storage in mid-latitudes such as NSW and California.

Comparison against advanced trough and tower technology

The CLFR/cavern 2010 proposal of 54% CF at US$1784 per kW
e
, offers costs well
below 2020 estimates for both troughs at 56% CF (2225 3220 $/kW
e
) contained in a
NREL report (NREL, 2003) which use Hitec salt storage at up to 500C. The
CLFR/cavern proposals at 68% and 81% offer costs (2118 and 2486 $/kW
e
) much
below 2018 base case solar tower plants at 73% (3591 $/kW
e
) and comparable to the
revised Sunlab reference case of $2340 for the year 2018. It should be mentioned that
the CLFR/cavern 2010 proposal is far from optimised; Tanner (2003) suggests cavern
storage at 350C would be cheaper, and a US nuclear turbines or modern Kalina cycle
turbine operating at close to 300C would offer a 10% efficiency increase, but this
would have to be compared against turbine cost.

Conclusions

The potential cost advantage gained by low temperature operation derives from an
unusual combination of large low cost low temperature turbines developed for the
Design of a 240 MWe Solar Thermal Power Plant Mills
Eurosun 2004 Conference
nuclear industry, and an inexpensive storage concept which suits that particular
temperature range. Should both options be applicable, then this is likely to be the
most cost-effective and simple solar thermal electricity development path, using simple
solar collector technology already being installed, and a proven turbine from the
nuclear industry.

Cavern storage cannot be taken higher than about 360C and still has some
developmental uncertainty ahead of it, but two reports have now identified it as
potentially the lowest cost storage concept. Recent discussions that the authors have
had with geologists and mining companies suggest the concept is in the realm of
current mining technology and can be widely applied; suitable rock structures are
common. If suitable geological structures are not available, Caloria oil storage with a
CLFR array is a low risk option available for a cost which is still below the trough
collector systems. Environmentally, however, cavern storage would be safer than
either molten salt or oil solutions.

The electricity wholesale cost for the unoptimised CLFR/cavern in 2010 (the earliest
that one can be finished is about 2009) at 68% capacity factor, without the use of any
Green support mechanisms, is comparable to the cost of some current conventional
pulverised coal-fired (PC) generation in the USA. The cost advantage of coal appears
at high capacity factor, but even at a coal CF of 90%, the advantage is only about
US$5 per MWh
e
.

The CLFR/cavern approach is unoptimised and may benefit from slightly higher
operational temperatures should a suitable turbine be available. Such turbines may be
available in the USA or Europe. The coal fired plant referenced also has a larger
turbine than the solar 240 MW
e
. According to NREL, 2003, a 400 MW
e
power block
should be 25% cheaper per kWh delivered than a 240 MW
e
equivalent, which reduces
cost by about US$3 per MWh
e
. Furthermore, David and Herzog (2003) suggest that
pulverised coal plants could incur an additional cost of US$30 per MWh
e
for long term
cost carbon sequestration.

This brief discussion needs extensive elaboration and more detailed work within the
scope of a real project structure. The authors have begun site investigations for a 240
MW
e
plant of the type described, assisted by Australias largest utility.

Design of a 240 MWe Solar Thermal Power Plant Mills
Eurosun 2004 Conference
References

Copeland R.J. and Ullman J.(1983), Comparative Ranking of Thermal Storage
Systems, Volume I for Water/Steam, organic Fluid, and Air/Brayton Solar Thermal
Collector-Receivers, SERI/TR 631-1283, Solar Energy Research Institute, Golden,
Colorado.

David J. and Herzog H. (2003) The Cost Of Carbon Capture Herzog Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA, USA. Available from
[email protected]/pdf/David_and_Herzog.pdf

Dubberly et al (1983), Comparative Ranking of Thermal Storage Systems, Volume II
Cost and Performance of Thermal Storage Concepts in Solar Thermal Systems,
Phase I, SERI/TR 631-1283, Solar Energy Research Institute, Golden, Colorado.

Hu E., Mills, D.R., Morrison, G.L. and LeLievre P. (2003), Solar power boosting of
fossil fuelled power plants, Proc. International Solar Energy Congress, Goteborg,
Sweden, 2003.

Mills D.R and Morrison G.L.(1999). Compact linear Fresnel reflector solar thermal
powerplants, Solar Energy, 68, pp 263 283.

Mills D.R., Morrison G.L and Le Lievre,P.(2004), Multi-Tower Line Focus Fresnel
Array Project, Submitted to ASME Journal of Solar Energy Engineering.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory Report NREL/SR-550-3444, 1617 Cole
Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393, USA, October.

[NorthWest Council (2002), typical costing of a community power plant, 400Mwe size
http://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/powerplan/grac/052202/coalfireplants.htm

NREL (2003), Assessment of Parabolic Trough and Power Tower Solar Technology
Cost and Performance Forecasts. Edited by Sargent & Lundy LLC Consulting Group
Chicago, Illinois.

NREL (2002), Modular Trough Power Plant Cycle and Systems Analysis. Edited by
Hank Price and Vahab Hassani, National Renewable Energy Laboratory Report
NREL/TP-550-31240, 1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393, USA,
January.

Tanner A.R. (2003) Application of Underground Thermal Energy Storage for Solar
Thermal Power Generation in New South Wales. Engineering Thesis, School of
Aerospace, Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering, University of Sydney,
November.

VVER (2003), Estimate of cost by JSC Atomstroyexport (Russia) for a single 240 MW
VVER turbine and generator block.