Thermal Performance Improvement of Derna Electric Power Station ( unit 5 ) Using Solar Energy

The use of fossil fuels should be reduced in near future due to their limited resources and increasing ecological impacts. Therefore, increased interest and incentives have been created for developing electricity supply utilizing renewable energy such as solar energy, which has long-range potential and is applicable in most geographical regions. The objective of this paper is to perform thermodynamic and economic analysis of the proposed integrated solar Derna steam turbine power plant (unit 5) based on the parabolic trough system. Two modes of operation are considered: power boosting mode in which solar energy is used to preheat the feed water in the low and high-pressure preheaters and fuel saving mode in which a fraction of saturated steam is generated by the solar collector field. A simulation mathematical model has been developed for each component of the plant. Also different thermodynamic performance parameters at all points of the plant are considered in the calculations. This study shows that the maximum increasing of overall efficiency of the integrated solar steam power plant (ISSPP) are 5.9% for fuel saving mode and 3.2% for power boosting mode for 21 July at 12:00 with DNI 810 W/m. During 25 years operating period of solar field, the fuel saving mode saves approximately 121 million $ and reduces about 125,000 ton in fuel consumption and approximately 390,000 ton in CO2 emissions while the augmentations of electrical energy for the power boosting mode are about 360,879 MWh. The study also shows that the paybacks of the solar field cost for the power boosting and fuel saving modes of operation are approximately 15.7 and 11.5 years, respectively.


Nomenclatures
Electricity production using solar thermal energy is one of the main research areas at present in the field of renewable energies.With levelized electricity costs (LEC) of 0.10-0.12$US/kWh the well-known SEGS (Solar Electric Generating Systems) plants in California are presently successful solar technology for electricity generation (Eck et al., 2003).The SEGS plants apply a two-circuit system, consisting of the collector circuit and the Rankin cycle of the power block.These two-circuits are connected via a heat exchanger.In the case of the Direct Steam Generation (DSG) in the collector field, the two-circuit system turns into a single-circuit system, where the collector field is directly coupled to the power block.This renders a lower investment and higher process temperatures resulting in higher system efficiency.Due to the lower investment and the higher efficiency a reduction of the LEC of 10% is expected when the DSG process is combined with improved components of the solar collectors (Valenzuela et al., 2006).Eck et al. (2003) investigated a direct steam generation (DSG) solar thermal power plants.The paper investigated the advantages, disadvantages, and design considerations of a steam cycle operated with saturated steam for the first time.Two types of plants were analyzed and compared in detail: a power plant with synthetic oil and a DSG power plant.It is found that the LEC of a DSG plant could be higher than those of a synthetic oil plant.When considering a plant without solar thermal storage on the other hand, the DSG system could reduce the LEC.Garcia et al. (2011) paper describes a simulation model of parabolic trough solar thermal power plants with a thermal storage system.Model results for a 50 MWe power plant are presented and compared to real data from an equivalent power plant currently operated by the ACS Industrial Group in Spain.Garcia-Barberena et al. (2012) analyzed the influence of operational strategies on the performance of parabolic trough (PT) solar power plants with the aid of SimulCET a computer program for the simulation of the energy behavior of PT plants developed by the National Renewable Energy Centre of Spain.Comparing with experimental data it showed good agreement among daily averaged estimates and the corresponding measured energy values with mean deviation of ± 3.14%.Montes et al. (2009) presented an economic optimization of the solar multiple for a solar-only parabolic trough plant.Five parabolic trough plants have been considered, with the same parameters in the power block but different solar field sizes.Thermal performance for each solar power plant has been featured, both at nominal and part-load conditions.Once annual electric energy generation is known, LEC for each plant was calculated, yielding a minimum LEC value for a certain solar multiple values within the range considered.A mathematical model of 30-MW SEGS solar power plant was established by Abdel Dayem et al. (2013).Annual performance of the plant was presented under weather conditions of Makkah 21.4 °N.Direct steam generation plant was studied with higher power generated.The power was highly improved by about 45% along the year.Solar energy is often available in abundant quantities in the vicinity of conventional steam or combined power plants, where the need for clean add-on power is substantial.Fossil-fuel based power units can be augmented with solar thermal power for feed water preheating or parallel steam generation.Integrated Solar-Fossil Power Plants (ISFPP) represent, both economically and energetically, a promising alternative for the conversion of solar energy while offering a guarantee of a minimum power supply independent of the level of solar radiation (Wood, 2008;Torres et al., 2013;Khaldi, 2011;Peterseim et al., 2012).(Zarza et al., 2004) 2. Outer diameter of absorber tube 70 mm (Zarza et al., 2004) 3. Inner diameter of glass cover 85 mm (Zarza et al., 2004) 4. Outer diameter of glass cover 90 mm (Zarza et al., 2004) 5. Aperture presented by one collector 5.76 m (Zarza et al., 2004) Physical characteristics of the materials used in the construction of the collectors 6. Transmissivity of glass cover 0.85 (Sukhatme et al., 2008) 7. Emissivity of absorber tube 0.05 (Sukhatme et al., 2008) 8. Emissivity of glass cover 0.88 (Sukhatme et al., 2008) 9. Absorptivity of absorber tube 0.95 (Sukhatme et al., 2008) Plant design parameters 14.Mass flow rate of water/steam for one loop 0.8 kgs -1 (Zarza et al., 2004) 17.Concentration ration PTC 25.87 To harness the maximum amount of solar radiation, the orientation and tracking of a Parabolic Trough System (PTS) is of paramount importance.A PTS is oriented with its focal axis pointed either in the east-west (E-W) or north-south (N-S) direction.In the E-W orientation, the focal axis is horizontal, while in the N-S orientation, the focal axis may be horizontal or inclined.According to Aldali et al. (2011) five modes of parabolic trough collectors can be used according to their orientation and sun tracking capabilities.
Five different modes of tracking are discussed herein.
 Mode 1 offers a horizontal focal axis along the east-west plane.The collector is rotated about a horizontal east-west axis with a daily adjustment required to ensure that noon beam irradiation is normal to the collector aperture. Mode 2 is similar to mode 1, but with a continuous adjustment of the collector such that the beam irradiation is incident on the collector aperture with a minimum angle throughout the day. Mode 3 is similar to mode 2, but with a horizontal focal axis along the north-south plane.
 Mode 4 is similar to mode 3, but with the focal axis being at a fixed inclination that is equal to the latitude of the location.The collector is rotated about an axis parallel to earth's axis at an angular velocity that is equal and opposite to the earth's rotational rate. Mode 5 is similar to mode 4, but with the collector now subjected to a two-dimensional motion, i.e., the collector is rotated about the focal axis as well as about a horizontal axis perpendicular to this axis.The beam irradiation is thus always normal to the collector aperture.
In this study a substantial energy gain from mode 3 of operation as opposed to mode 2 and hence the former was selected for the present design study.

Steam Power Plant
The Derna steam power plant, as shown in Figure 2, consists of a single pressure boiler, 65MW steam turbine, a condenser, a condensate pump, a low-pressure feed water heater, a deaerator, a feed water pump, and a high-pressure feed water heater.The design parameters are listed in Table 2.The pinch point temperature difference of 15 °C is considered and a design stack temperature of 130 °C was selected which is higher than the dew point temperature (125 °C) of the combustion product. www.ccsen

Mathem
For the pu ISSPP is tr

According properties practical c design col requiremen
In this stu properties,

Steam
The perfor     T g,out with the fixed value of stack gas temperature of 130 °C and repeat the calculations with assuming another value of  unit the calculated T g,out approaches the value of 130 °C.

Full Load Results
Table 3 displays the power generation, oil fuel consumption, overall efficiency of energy conversion, and the mass flow rate of CO 2 emissions for the two considered modes of operation at full load compared to the conventional steam cycle plant.The results are given for 21 st March with DNI 490 W/m 2 , 21 st July with DNI 810 W/m 2 , and 21 st December with DNI 487 W/m 2 at 12:00.As indicated in Table 2, for 21 st July, the fuel saving mode results in reduction of fuel consumption and emission of CO 2 by approximately 15.3% and increasing in overall efficiency of approximately 5.9%, while the power booster mode results in increasing of electrical power by about 9.7% and 3.2% increasing in overall efficiency compared to the conventional steam cycle operating at full load.For 21 st March, the fuel saving mode results in reduction of fuel consumption and CO 2 emission by approximately 8.6% and increasing in overall efficiency by approximately 3.1%, while the power booster mode results in improvement of electrical power by approximately 6% and 1.2% increasing in overall efficiency compared to the conventional steam cycle operating at full load.For 21 st December, the fuel saving mode results in reduction of fuel consumption and CO 2 emission by approximately 2.3% and increasing in overall efficiency by approximately 0.9%, while the power booster mode results in improvement of electrical power by about 2.7% and 0.7% increasing in overall efficiency compared to the conventional steam cycle operating at full load.

Economic and Environmental Benefits
For economic evaluation of the ISSPP, it is relevant to compare the cost of the solar field and resulted cost of fuel savings estimated in Table 3 together with the evaluated CO 2 reduction cost for the fuel saving mode or revenues for solar augmenting the capacity of producing electricity in the power plant for the power boosting mode.For doing the economic study we will assume that the steam turbine plant is already built and currently in operation and due to the development of the solar technologies we want to equip the present steam turbine cycle with a solar field for power boosting mode or fuel saving mode.The economic and environmental analysis was best determined by calculating the outputs of the ISSPP on an hourly basis, and summing the results over the course of a year.For simplicity, all of the annual performance calculation is based on 10 hours per day of usable sunlight during the whole year, and a 25 years collector lifetime.

Solar Field Costs
The collector surface area needed for reaching the amount of solar heat required are 38572.32m 2 for power boosting mode and 77709.24m 2 for fuel saving mode.The collector surface is the mirrored surface needed for absorbing the radiation, which is different from the total surface of the solar field.The rows of collector have to keep a distance between them because of the shading effects for low incident angles.This distance is approximated as three times the aperture of the collectors and it allows to determine the land surface necessary for installing the solar field.Assuming that the land use factor is 3.5, the total surface required for installing the solar field is: For the study we assume estimated specific costs for the PTC technology of around 300 $/m 2 (Da Rocha, 2010).By multiplying the collector price per square meter and the square meters of collector surface we can calculate the capital expenditure (CAPEX): That is the required initial investment for building the solar field at the beginning of the construction.But for paying the construction during the period of operation of the solar field we have to calculate the annuity.The annuities are the fixed payments which have to be done every year during the predicted life of operation of the solar field for payback of the initial investment.The annuity includes the price of the construction and the increase of interest rate every year.Considering a period of operation of 25 years (T) and an interest rate of 8% (r), the annuity is calculated as (Da Rocha, 2010): And the yearly payment is: Payment/year = CAPEX  a $/year (14) which in 25 years makes a total of: Total Payment = Payment/year  25 $ The total payment for the solar field for power boosting mode is approximately 27.2 million $ and for fuel saving mode is approximately 54.8 million $.

Power Boosting Mode
Figure 4 shows the monthly augmentations of electrical energy.The largest augmentations of electrical energy are in July (approximately 2057 MWh) while the smallest augmentations of electrical energy are in January (approximately 376 MWh).The economic strategy based on solar augmented is dependent on the surplus that is being produced at the generator, that is, the capacity to boost the electricity production compared to the conventional steam power plant.The expected revenue R power boosting is calculated by multiplying the summation of the monthly augmentations of electrical energy, W elec , shown in Figure 4, to the electricity tariff T elec .
where N is the number of hours of usable sun per day (10 hours).With respect to T elec , the average 2013 tariffs for the very high voltage production of electricity of T elec = 120 $/MWh will be considered.The expected annual revenues for solar augmenting the capacity of producing electricity in the power plant are approximately $US3.87 million.During 25 years operating period of solar collectors, the power boosting mode increases the electrical energy produced by the steam power plant by approximately 360,879 MWh.

MWh
Months generated from the solar field, the operation of fuel saving mode reduces total CO 2 emissions.The avoided emissions can be set in relation to the incremental cost in order to calculate the avoidance costs in US$ per ton of CO 2 avoided.Therefore, economic strategy underlying the fuel saving mode is based on two different prices.Firstly, the national price of fuel oil, FS, concerns the fuel savings derived from the operation of reducing boiler's heat load.Secondly, 2

CO
C the credit support due to equivalent CO 2 emissions avoidance shall be taken into account for the calculations.The sum of the two parameters will give the expected revenue using a fuel saving approach.

 
$/year days/month of No.

Dec
where m fuel saved and m co2 saved are the reduction of the fuel consumption and CO 2 emissions per hour of usable sun.
The FS in 2013 is approximately 935 $/ton while the value of 2 CO C which is presently applied by the World Bank is approximately 11 US$/ton (El-Sayed, 2005).Then the expected annual revenues for fuel saving mode are 4.84 million $.During 25 years operating period of solar collectors, the fuel saving mode saves 121 million $ and reduces approximately 125,000 ton in fuel consumption and 390,000 ton in CO 2 emissions.
Depending on above analysis, the paybacks for the power boosting and fuel saving modes of operation are approximately15.7 and 11.5 years, respectively.
As solar thermal energy is the cleanest renewable energy of zero emission, its utilization performs a reduction of greenhouse gas emission and meets with the policy of governments to promote measures against global warming.For fuel saving mode, the greenhouse gas (CO 2 ) emission is reduced by approximately 15600 tons/year in comparison with a conventional steam turbine power plant.
Figure 5. Monthly Fuel and CO 2 saving for fuel saving mode

Conclusions
An integrated solar steam power plant (ISSPP) was thermodynamically and economically studied.Both power boosting and fuel saving modes were considered in this study.The computer code developed enabled matching the solar collectors with the steam power plant.The main conclusions of this task are:  For 21 st July at 12:00, the fuel saving mode results in reduction of fuel consumption and emission of CO 2 by approximately 15.3% and increasing in overall efficiency of approximately 5.9%, while the power booster mode results in improvement of electrical power by about 9.7% and 3.2% increasing in overall efficiency compared to the conventional steam cycle operating at full load.For 21 st December at 12:00, the fuel saving mode results in reduction of fuel consumption and CO 2 emission by approximately 2.3% and increasing in overall efficiency by approximately 0.9%, while the power booster mode results in improvement of electrical power by about 2.7% and 0.7% increasing in overall efficiency compared to the conventional steam cycle operating at full load.

Months
Fuel saving CO2 saving  The collector surface area and total payment for the solar fields are approximately 38572 m 2 and US$ 27.2 million for power boosting mode and 77709 m 2 and US$ 54.8 million for fuel saving mode. For power boosting mode, largest augmentations of electrical energy are in July (approximately 2057 MWh) while the smallest augmentations of electrical energy are in January (approximately 376 MWh).
For fuel saving mode, the largest amount of fuel saving and CO 2 emissions are in July (approximately 685 and 2141 tons, respectively) while the smallest amount of fuel saving and CO 2 emissions are in January (approximately 165 and 515 tons, respectively). During 25 years operating period of solar field, the fuel saving mode saves approximately US$ 121 million and reduces approximately 125,000 ton in fuel consumption and 390,000 ton in CO 2 emissions while the augmentations of electrical energy for the power boosting mode are approximately 360,879 MWh. The paybacks of the solar field cost for the power boosting and fuel saving modes of operation are approximately 15.7 and 11.5 years, respectively. Figure

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Monthly augmentations of electrical energy for power boosting mode

Table 1 .
Parabolic trough collector system specifications

Table 3 .
Output data for different modes of operation