thermocline hormigon.pdf

Development of a Structured Thermocline Thermal Energy Storage System

University of Arkansas

R. Paneer Selvam (PI)

Matt Strasser (GRA)

Paper # 0074

1

2

Presentation Outline • Methods of Thermal Energy Storage • Benefits of a Structured Thermocline TES System • Numeric Model of a Structured Thermocline • Modeling Results and Summary • Conclusions • Acknowledgments • Questions

Goal: Develop a Thermal Energy Storage (TES) System to Increase Economic

Viability of Concentrating Solar Power Plants (CSPs)

INTRODUCTION

3

• Latent Heat (Material Phase Change) • (+) high energy storage density • (-) more complex heat transfer designs

• Chemical Storage (Material Chemical Change) • (+) very high energy storage density • (-) numerous health and safety concerns, including toxic and flammable

chemicals

• Sensible Heat Storage (Material Temperature Change) • (+) relatively simple heat storage/retrieval • (-) lower energy storage density

METHODS OF THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE

4

BENEFITS OF A STRUCTURED THERMOCLINE TES SYSTEM

• Thermocline TES vs. Two-Tank System • (+) Only 1 Stainless Steel Tank is Necessary • (+) Dual Media System Decreases Necessary Volume of

Expensive HTF • Estimated Cost of Packed Bed Thermocline TES is 35% Less

than Two Tank System Cost

• Structured Thermocline vs. Packed Bed Thermocline • (+) Issue of Thermal Ratcheting Avoided • (+) Filler Material Geometry can be Optimized for Optimum

Heat Transfer to and from HTF

5

NUMERIC MODEL OF A STRUCTURED THERMOCLINE

Cross Section of Populated Thermocline Tank: Axisymmetric (Left) and Parallel Plate (Right)

• Finite Difference-Based Numeric Model Developed to Optimize Structured Concrete Geometry

• Two Models Investigated: Axisymmetric and Parallel Plate

6

NUMERIC MODEL OF A STRUCTURED THERMOCLINE

• Model Parameters • Temperature: 300 C - 585 C • Length: 16 m • Number of Concrete Cells: 1 Cell

• Model Variables

• Inner/Outer Radius/Thickness • Heat Transfer Fluid Flow Rate • Charging/Discharging Cycle Time

Axisymmetric (Top) and Parallel Plate (Bottom) Cells Considered in Design (Note Hatched Region is Cell Considered in Parallel Plate Model)

7

NUMERIC MODEL OF A STRUCTURED THERMOCLINE

Boundary Conditions • Adiabatic Exterior Surfaces • Constant Inlet/Outlet HTF

Temperatures: • Inlet: T_hot • Outlet: T_cold

• No Heat Transfer in ‘Z’ Direction Outside of the limits of 0 < ‘Z’ < L

• Rate of Heat Convection to the Concrete Surface from the HTF Equals Rate of Heat Diffusion from the Concrete Surface into the Concrete

Illustration of Axisymmetric Model’s Boundary Conditions

8

MODELLING RESULTS AND SUMMARY

• Models Evaluated by 2 Criteria: • Thermal Stratification • Charge-Discharge Efficiency

• Numerous Trials of Each Model:

• 32 for Axisymmetric • 20 for Parallel Plate

• Optimized Charge-Discharge Efficiencies:

• 62.58% for Axisymmetric • 65.59% for Parallel Plate

Example of Thermocline Stratification During 5-Hour Charge Cycle (Axisymmetric Model)

9

MODELLING RESULTS AND SUMMARY

TES System Evaluation • Parameters in Evaluating TES System Performance

• TES System Volume Considered: 1 m x 1 m x 16 m (length x width x height) • Optimized 5-hr Charge and Discharge Cycles • TES Charged Until: THTF,out = 385 C • TES Discharged Until: THTF,out = 490 C

• Energy Retrieved from Unit Cross Section of Each Model

• Axisymmetric: 12.22 kWh • Parallel Plate: 16.41 kWh

10

CONCLUSIONS

• A Structured Thermocline TES is a Viable Option to Decrease TES Cost Compared to the Cost of a Two Tank System

• The Structured Filler Material’s Geometry Should be Optimized to Maximize Heat Transfer Between the HTF and Filler Material • A Parallel Plate Filler Material Model Provided Higher Discharge

Efficiency and Energy Storage Capacity than a Axisymmetric Model • Axisymmetric Model: 62.68 % and 12.22 kWh (Per Unit Cross

Section) • Parallel Plate Model: 65.59 % and 16.41 kWh (Per Unit Cross

Section)

11

FUTURE WORK

• Alternative Operating Temperature Limits Could be Considered

• Alternative Structured Filler Material Arrangements Could be Considered

• A Cost Evaluation Could be Conducted to Scale the Viability of a Structured Thermocline TES System Against Alternatives • Dual-Tank, Single Medium • Single-Tank, Packed Bed Thermocline

12

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research work was supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy (Grant # DE-FG36-o8G018147) through the University of Arkansas. The opinions expressed do not reflect those of the research sponsor.

13

QUESTIONS

14

MODEL VARIABLE RANGES AND OPTIMIZED MODELL VARIABLES

Variable Range

Inner Radius 0.0127 m - 0.03175 m

Outer Radius 0.04445 m – 0.0762 m

Time 4 hr – 6 hr

Velocity 0.0015 m/s – 0.01 m/s

Number of Tubes 1 tube

Length of the Thermocline 16 m

Temperature Range 300° C - 585° C

Variable Range

Inner Thickness 0.0127 m - 0.01905 m

Outer Thickness 0.0508 m – 0.0762 m

Time 4 hr – 6 hr

Velocity 0.001 m/s – 0.003 m/s

Number of Tubes 1 tube

Length of the Thermocline 16 m

Temperature Range 300° C - 585° C

Axisymmetric (TOP) and Parallel Plate (BOTTOM) Model Variables and Ranges

Model Axisymmetric Parallel Plate

RI or TI (m) 0.025 0.01905

RO or TO (m) 0.05 0.05715

0.0015 0.0015

5 5

ES (kWh) 0.153 1.43

0.0015 0.0012

5 5

ER (kWh) 0.0959 0.938

Eff. (%) 62.68 65.59

Optimized Variables for Each Model

15

PARALLEL PLATE CHARGE AND DISCHARGE

Parallel Plate Model Charge (LEFT) and Discharge (RIGHT) Cycles (Final Condition of Charge Cycle is Initial Condition of Discharge Cycle)

16

CURRENT WORK AT UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS

• Suitable Concrete Mixtures have been Designed • Thermal Cycling Tests: 300-600 C • Thermal Conductivity: 2 W/m^2 K • Specific Heat Capacity: 900 J/kg K • Cost: $0.78-$3.18/kWhtherm

• Large Scale Thermocline Test System Constructed

• Axisymmetric Model Being Tested: 4 in x 4 in x 36 in Beams • Operating Temperatures: 300-585 C • Testing is in Progress

17

THERMOCLINE TES SYTEM TESTING

Thermocline Test System (LEFT) and Populated Thermocline Tank (RIGHT)