Evaluation of dry cooling option for parabolic trough (CSP) plants including … · 2012-04-16 ·...

Ahmad Liqreina

16.03.2012

[email protected]

“Evaluation of dry cooling option for parabolic

trough (CSP) plants including related technical

and economic assessment” case study 50MW plant in Ma’an/Jordan

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Concentrated Solar Power CSP

3. Cooling options

4. Planning of Ma’an Plant

5. Simulation and optimization

6. Comparison between wet/dry plants

7. Conclusions.

In the next 25 minutes, you will be sure

that dry cooling is not a scare option

for solar thermal power

www.themegallery.com

Source: http://www.desertec.org/

CSP showed attractive features to be

installed in large scale. It secure the

dispatchability of power.

CSP direct normal irradiation (DNI) is

very high in deserts, but no water

for cooling.

1. Introduction

Previous studies done by NREL and

DLR showed that dry cooled plants

- Could save water(more than 90%)

- The overall performance is reduced

- Have bigger solar field

- Higher investment costs.

1.1 Objectives

Evaluate the use of dry cooled CSP parabolic plants.

Technical performance and the economics of the plant options.

Show that high DNI could compensate for the defects of a dry plant.

Assessment for a dry cooled plant in Ma’an/Jordan.

1.2 Methodology

Literature review:

Cooling options for parabolic trough CSP plants/ assessment of power plants/ site selection

/metrological data.

Simulation tools:

Greenius (DLR) ,SAM(NREL)

Three steps:

Simulation of Andasol design in Spain and in Jordan as a reference

Optimization of wet/dry that made the design suitable to Ma’an site

Assessment of dry cooled plant in this location is resulted.

Contents

1. Introduction


3. Cooling options




7. Conclusions.


Parabolic Trough (PSA) Solar Tower (SNL)

Linear Fresnel (Solarmundo) Parabolic Dish (SBP)

2.1 overview

2.2 Parabolic trough CSP plants-(Andasol)

Source: solar millennium

Andasol layout

Source: solar millennium

Table1: Andasol design parameters

Solar field

Aperture area ² m120,510

Solar multiplier 7.1

Collector Assembly (SKAL-ET 150)

Storage

Cold tank temperature 292 °C

Hot tank temperature: 386 °C

Flow rate 948 kg/s.

Hours 7.5

Size m diameter.38 m height, 14

Capacity tonnes500 .28=MWh 970

Power Block

Turbine SST-700

Nominal Capacity 50.0 MW

Conversion efficiency %38

Turbine Inlet Conditions

100 bar 370°C , reheat 16.5 bar 370°C

Nominal Steam Flow 59 kg/s

Cooling system wet

Design Back Pressure bar08 .0

Contents

1. Introduction


3. Cooling options




7. Conclusions.

wet cooling

Efficient

Cheap

Compacted

Consumes huge amounts of water

3 Cooling options

Dry cooling Lower performance at high

ambient temperature

Expensive

Require large area

High parasitics loads (fans)

Requires very few amounts of water

Hybrid cooling

Very expensive

Moderate performance

Require large area

Moderate water consumption

Suitable for locations with high ambient temperatures

Contents

1. Introduction


3. Cooling options




7. Conclusions.

4 Planning of Ma’an Plant 4.1 Location

Table2: Ma’an site characteristics Criteria Unit

Site name MDA

Region/Municipality Jordan/Ma'an

Latitude N 30.17°

Longitude E 35.78°

Elevation/altitude 1015 m

Time zone Hours GMT +3

Annual sum DNI 2802kWh/m²a

Topography Flat

Approx Land Size 7.5 km²

Soil sand and gravel

Land Ownership MDA

Flooding risk/Fire risk No

Armed/Social conflicts No

HV substation 33 kV

Availability of Water yes-few

Source of Water MDA-underground

Distance to source less than 1 km

Road/railway yes (highway)

Road/Railway 0.2km

Fossil Fuel Pipeline No

Telecom Yes

Minute ground data from the enerMENA high precision Meteo station in this site

4.2 Solar resource assessment

Diurnal of DNI, Meteonorm

Diurnal of DNI, enerMENA(DLR)

Ma’an is not an extremely hot area

It has very low probability of freezing hours

4.3 Study of Dry cooling option

Around 3050 hours with temperature 10-20 C

Around 2250 hours with temperature 20-30C

This situation is nearly excellent for the dry cooling option

Contents

1. Introduction


3. Cooling options




7. Conclusions.

5.1 Simulation Inputs(Greenius)

5 Simulation and optimization

Project Site Nation: Jordan/Spain Location R

em

un

eratio

n

Tariffs

type flat

Geo

grap

hic

al

locatio

n Name Ma'an- MDA

year 2011 latitude 30.17 N

Electricity Jordan 0.084 €/kWh

longitude 35.78 E Spain 0.27 €/kWh

Heat/cooling 0 Altitude 1015

fuel usage 0 Time zone 3

Taxes

Income tax rate 0

Pro

pertie

s o

f G

ro

un

d Ground structure Clay

Property tax rate 0 Roughness length 0.03

Tax holidays 0 Albedo factor 0.2

loss forwarded 0 Average slope 0

Discount Rate

investment cost 6% specific land cost Jordan0.5€/m²

Spain 2€/m²

running costs 6% Load curve

Pric

es o

f D

eliv

ery

Fuel price 0.05€/kWht

Water price 0.5€/m3

undefined-free load purchased from the grid

/ €084.0Jordan ]1kWh[

Spain 0.15 €/kWh

year 2011 Metrological input Escala

tion

R

ate

s

Electricity 0% Typical Metrological year

O&M 0% Ma’an Airport

( Meteonorm )

Replacement 0%

Fuel Jordan 0% Spain 12%

Sp

ecific

R

efe

ren

ce

Valu

es

levelized electricity costs

0.050€/kWh

CO2 emissions -electricity

]2[632.0 One year ground data

levelized Heat costs 0 DLR

CO2 emissions -Heat 0.3

Table2: Project site simulation inputs

Technology Part 1

Collector Assembly Collector Field

Ge

ne

ral in

form

atio

n a

nd

dim

en

sio

ns

Length 148.5 m

Ge

ne

ral a

nd

dim

en

sio

ns

Name Andasol

Aperture width 5.75 m land use ²m1900000

Aperture area 817.5 m² Reference irradiation 800w/m²

Focal Length 1.71 m Orie

nta

tion

Distance between rows 17.3m

HCE Diameter 0.0655m Distance between

collectors 1m

Nominal optical efficiency 77.00% Tracking axis tilt angle 0

Th

erm

al P

ara

me

ters

Tracking axis Azimuth 0

Fie

ld p

ara

me

ters

Number of rows 156

No. of collectors/loop 4

Field size 510120

Total header length m6823

mean header diameter 381.0

Header specific mass 60.29kg/m

length fraction cold header 0.5

pipe length in loops m6807

Inc

ide

nc

e

An

gle

Mo

difie

r

Coefficient a1 0.000525

Coefficient a2 2.86E-05 pipe diameter in loops 0.0525m

Coefficient a3 0

Table3: Simulation inputs for solar field

Technology Part2

Thermal storage Power block

Name Andasol 50 MW

Type Two Tank Molten Salts

Tech

nic

al D

ata

Table4: Simulation inputs for storage and power block

Economics

Costs Financing major equipment costs minimum internal rate of return 12%

No

n-

Co

nve

ntio

na

l

Co

sts

Reference year 2011 Financing sources

specific costs ²/m€ 320 Grant Funding

none conventional parts 0%

specific O&M costs ²/m€ 4 conventional parts 0%

specific replacement costs 0.2%/a Dept funding 70%

Guarantee period 0 Equity Funding 30%

specific insurance cost 0%/a Dept financing

Co

nve

ntio

na

l

co

sts

-Po

wer

Blo

ck

Reference year 2009

A lo

an

with

po

rtfolio

Share 60%

land use ²m10000 Interest rate 5.40%

specific costs /kW€ 950 Dept term 10 years

specific O&M costs 3 €/m² Upfront fee 0%

specific replacement costs 0.2%/a Commitment fee 0.4% of the amount drown

Guarantee period 0 grace period 0

specific insurance cost 0%/a bridge loan No

Sto

rag

e

Reference year 2009

B lo

an

with

po

rtfolio

Share 40%

land use 7500 Interest rate 6.00%

specific costs 35 €/kWth Dept term 12 years

specific O&M costs 1 €/m² Upfront fee 0%

specific replacement costs 0.2%/a Commitment fee 0.5% of the amount drown

Guarantee period 0 grace period 0

specific insurance cost 0%/a bridge loan No Oth

er C

osts

infrastructure costs 0 Timing-(Project Schedule)

Project development 5% Reference year of discounting 2012

insurance during construction 1% Construction period 2

supervision and Startup 3% First year of operation 2014

contingencies 5% Operation period 30

Depreciation type linear

Depreciation period 15

Cost distribution during construction 25% per half year

Table7: Economic Simulation inputs for Spain (Costs, Financing, Timing)

Andasol in Spain Andasol in Ma'an

This simulation step is not enough for comparison because the base design is oversized

5.2 Simulation of base design (Andasol)

5.3 Optimization of wet plant(base)

Table5: simulation steps of wet optimization

Wet optimization

# run #

loops

Effective

mirror

area

[m²]

Thermal output of

solar filed

[MWht]

Energy

yield

[MWhe]

Investment

cost

[€]

LCOE

[€/kWhe]

1 156 510120 5.644378 9.198497 272 336 160 1305.0

2 152 497040 627918.6 196043.3 269 940 951 0.1298

3 148 483960 611435.2 193448.8 262 755 322 0.1292

4 144 470880 594963.5 190553 257 964 903 0.1287

5 140 457800 578498.8 187345.5 253 174 483 0.1285

6 138 451260 570268.8 185598.4 250 779 274 0.1285

7 136 444720 562028.1 183879.4 248 384 064 0.1284

8 134 438180 553796.4 182043.9 245 988 855 0.1285

9 132 431640 545583.8 180200.7 243 593 645 0.1285

10 130 425100 537345.0 178186.3 241 198 435 0.1287

Before optimization After optimization

5.4 Optimization of dry plant

Table6: Simulation steps of dry optimization

Dry optimization

# run #

loops

Effective

mirror

area

[m²]

Thermal output of

solar filed

[MWht]

Energy

yield

[MWhe]

Investment

cost

[€]

LCOE

[€/kWhe]

1 136 444720 6.562803 0.163431 265 209 798 1525.0

2 140 457800 579262.3 167801.6 270 000 217 0.1512

3 144 470880 595709.3 171846.3 274 790 637 0.1502

4 148 483960 612171.0 175639.8 279 581 056 0.1496

5 152 497040 628603.9 179071.8 284 371 475 0.1492

6 154 503580 636834.5 180652 286 766 685 0.1491

7 156 510120 645061.7 182173.5 289 161 894 0.1491

8 158 516660 653296.5 183657.2 291 557 104 0.1492

9 160 523200 661515.3 185109.8 293 952 313 0.1492

10 164 536280 677988.6 187874.3 298 742 733 0.1494

Before optimization After optimization

LCOE

Nominal Solar Multiple

[c€/kWhe] 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3 3.25

Fu

ll load

hou

rs of T

ES

0 14.05 13.77 14.32 15.08 15.98 16.98 17.97 18.99 20.05 21.22

1.5 15.05 13.79 13.95 14.49 15.12 15.91 16.74 17.60 18.51 19.53

3 16.38 14.43 14.01 14.28 14.78 15.36 16.02 16.74 17.46 18.32

4.5 17.70 15.46 14.26 14.25 14.52 14.98 15.49 16.06 16.68 17.39

6 19.04 16.52 14.80 14.35 14.43 14.74 15.16 15.64 16.14 16.72

5.7 35.20 58.17 64.15 63.14 49.14 65.14 93.14 31.15 72.15 21.16

9 21.67 18.65 16.52 15.13 14.65 14.59 14.78 15.08 15.43 15.85

10.5 22.99 19.71 17.39 15.85 15.00 14.72 14.74 14.97 15.23 15.59

12 24.29 20.78 18.26 16.59 15.64 14.96 14.77 14.85 15.05 15.36

Table7: LCOE at different TES hours and solar multiple, for dry cooled plant in Ma’an(SAM software)

Contents

1. Introduction


3. Cooling options




7. Conclusions.

Optimized design for both plants

6.1 Technical Comparison between wet /dry power plants

Item Unit Wet Dry

General characteristics Direct normal irradiation [kWh/(m²·a)] 2802.2 2802.2

Annual Energy yield [GWhe] 183.8794 182.1735

Full load hours [h/a] 4162 4190

Capacity factor [%] 41.98 41.59

Plant area [m²] 1710000 2010000

Water consumption [m3/a] 717981 41820

Solar field Aperture area [m²] 444720 510120

Solar multiplier --- 1.74 2

Number of loops --- 136 156

Storage Cold tank temperature [C] 292 C 292 C

Hot tank temperature [C] 386 C 386 C

Full load hours hours 7.5 7.5

Capacity [MWht] 970 1100

Power Block Turbine --- SST-700 SST-700

Nominal Capacity [MW] 50.0 50.0

Conversion efficiency [%] 38 34

Design Back Pressure [bar] 0.08 0.144

Thermal Input [MWht] 129.2225 147.440

Table8: Technical comparison between expected plants in Ma’an

Number

of loops

Effective

mirror

area

Thermal

output of

solar filed

Energy

yield

Full load

hours

Capacity

factor

Investment

cost LCOE

------ [m²] [MWht] [MWhe] [Hours] [%] [€] [€/KWhe]

Optimized Wet/Ma’an

136 444720 1.562028 4.183879 4162 98.41 248 384 064 1284.0

Dry similar to Wet design/Ma’an

136 444720 563128.2 162310.3 3719 37.06 259 844 561 0.1514

Optimized Dry/Ma’an

156 510120 7.645061 5.182173 4190 59.41 289 161 894 1491.0

Andasol Wet/Spain

156 510120 3.442908 8.134715 3468 71.31 274 259 498 1967.0

Andasol Dry/Spain

156 510120 458833.01 126184.27 3175 28.81 282 859 352 0.2183

Andasol Wet/Ma’an

156 510120 625580.2 191999.2 4345 43.84 274 259 498 0.142

Andasol Dry/Ma’an

156 510120 626682.2 178232.3 4093 40.69 285 719 994 0.1587

Table9: Summary of the simulated cases

6.2 Economic Comparison between wet and dry power plants

Andasol in Spain Andasol in Ma'an Cooling type

Comparison element Wet Dry Wet Dry Unite

Electricity tariff Energy yield 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27

Minimum required IRR 12 12 12 12 % Simulation results

(IRR) on Equity 9.69 7.28 18.38 15.27 %

Net Present Value 109.11 59.32 295.79 238.68 €

Payback Period 12.35 13.96 6.31 8.33 yrs.

Minimum ADSCR 1.01 0.91 1.39 1.25

Required Tariff (LCOE) 0.301 0.341 0.211 0.236 €/kWh Calculation of LEC

Levelized Electricity Costs 0.2024 0.2293 0.142 0.1587 €/kWhe

NPV of Running Costs (OC) 74 320 528 75 473 190 74 320 528 75 856 614 €

Annuity of OC 0.0782 0.0782 0.0782 0.0782

Cooling type Comparison element

Wet Dry Unite

Electricity tariff 0.084 0.084 €/kWhe Minimum required IRR 6 6 %

Simulation results Internal Rate of Return (IRR) on Equity -0.31 -2.12 %

Net Present Value -109.41 -157.94 million € Payback Period 0 0 yrs.

Minimum ADSCR 0.35 0.28 Required Tariff (LCOE) 0.13 0.151 €/kWh

Calculation of LEC Levelized Electricity Costs (LEC) 0.1284 0.1491 €/kWhe

NPV of Running Costs (OC) 76 689 532 84 808 070 € Annuity of OC 0.0726 0.0726 O

pti

miz

ed

pla

nts

in

M

a’a

n w

ith

ou

t FIT

1. Minimum required tariff Cooling type

Comparison element Wet Dry Unite

Electricity tariff 0.152 0.170 €/kWhe

Minimum required IRR 6 6 % Dept term 15 15 years

interest rate 5.5 5.5 % Simulation results

Internal Rate of Return (IRR) on Equity 9.69 8.8 %

Net Present Value 57.91 51.26 million €

Payback Period 14.1 15.33 yrs.

Minimum ADSCR 1.05 1 Required Tariff (LCOE) 0.128 0.148 €/kWh

2. Minimum required grant Cooling type



Minimum required IRR 6 6 % Grant 123.81 163.2384 million €

Dept term 18 20 years






Suggestions to make the plant in Ma’an feasible

3.a. Tariff and grant Cooling type



Minimum required IRR 6 6 % Grant 50 50 million €



Internal Rate of Return (IRR) on Equity 10.17 8.73 % Net Present Value 52.17 41.33 million €



Cooling type Comparison element

Wet Dry Unite


Minimum required IRR 6 6 % Grant 100 100 million €


Interest rate 5.5 5.5 % Simulation results




Minimum ADSCR 1.01 1.08

Required Tariff (LCOE) 0.089 0.109 €/kWh

4.b. Tariff and grant

Investment cost and LCOE for different specific solar field cost

Specific solar filed

cost

Project

Period

Wet Dry

LCOE Investment cost LCOE Investment cost

[€/m²] years [€/kWhe] [€] [€/kWhe] [€]

320 Greenius 25 0.136 248 384 064 0.1580 289 161 894

320 This study 30 0.1284 248 384 064 0.1491 289 161 894

315 30 0.1273 245 839 154 0.1478 286 242 733

310 30 0.1261 243 294 244 0.1465 283 323 571

305 30 0.1249 240 749 334 0.1451 280 404 409

300 30 0.1238 238 204 423 0.1438 277 485 247

295 30 0.1226 235 659 513 0.1425 274 566 086

290 30 0.1214 233 114 603 0.1441 271 646 924

285 30 0.1202 230 569 693 0.1398 268 727 762

280 30 0.1191 228 024 783 0.1415 265 808 601

275 30 0.1179 225 479 872 0.1402 262 889 439

270 SAM 30 0.1167 222 934 962 0.1388 259 970 277

265 30 0.1156 220 390 052 0.1375 257 051 116

260 30 0.1144 217 845 142 0.1362 254 131 954

255 30 0.11.32 215 300 232 0.1348 251 212 792

250 30 0.1121 212 755 321 0.1335 248 293 630

245 30 0.1109 210 210 411 0.1322 245 374 469

240 30 0.1097 207 665 501 0.1308 242 455 307

237 DLR study(1) 30 0.1090 206 138 555 0.127 240 703 810

235 30 0.1085 205 120 591 0.1295 239 536 145

[1] EFCOOL- Wassereffiziente Kühlung solarthermischer Kraftwerke (p33)

Sensitivity

Investment cost Annual solar field

O&M costs Annual Energy Yield Percent

of base IC LCOE O&M LCOE EY LCOE

[€] [€/kWhe] [€] [€/kWhe] [MWhe ] [€/kWhe] [%]

346994272.8 0.1768 2448576 0.1514 218608.200 0.1290 120

332536178.1 0.1719 2346552 0.1508 209499.525 0.1361 115

318078083.4 0.1653 2244528 0.1503 200390.850 0.1411 110

303619988.7 0.1583 2142504 0.1497 191282.175 0.1433 105

289161894.0 0.1491 2040480 0.1491 182173.500 0.1491 100

274703799.3 0.1455 1938456 0.1486 173064.825 0.1528 95

260245704.6 0.1389 1836432 0.148 163956.150 0.1565 90

245787609.9 0.1323 1734408 0.1475 154847.475 0.1735 85

231329515.2 0.1257 1632384 0.1469 145738.800 0.1867 80

-5% change IC (-0.36c€/kWhe)

+/-5% change EY (+/-0.50c€/kWhe)

SWOT analysis table

Strengths:

•Clean energy at fixed costs

•Independent of fossil fuels

•Job creation

•Research and technology

•Development of Ma’an

•Low water consumption

Weaknesses:

•Low local know-how and operating

experience

•High electricity prices today

•Most products have to be imported

•2% lower efficiency than wet cooled plant

Opportunities:

•Development of new industry

•Reduction of imported energy

Threats:

•Cant compete with other alternatives now

•Can’t attract investors without feed in

tariff law

Conclusions The wet cooled plant in Ma’an :

- Effective solar field area 444720m²

- Annual energy yield 183.8794GWhe

- Operating hours 4162

- Annual mean overall efficiency 14.9%

- Capacity factor 41.98%

-Water consumption 717981m³/a.

-Investment cost 248 384 064 €

-Levelized cost of electricity 0.1284 €/kWhe

The Dry cooled plant in Ma’an : % of change

- Effective solar field area 523200m² (+17.64%)

- Annual energy yield 182.1735GWhe (- 0.93% )

- Operating hours 4190 (+0.67%)

- Annual mean overall efficiency 12.9% (- 2%)

- Capacity factor 41.59% (-0.39%)

-Water consumption 41820 m³/a (- 91% )

-Investment cost 289 161 894 € (+16.42%)

-Levelized cost of electricity 0.1491€/kWhe (+16.12%)

Comparison between Andasol and Dry cooled plant in Ma’an :

- Effective solar field area: same size

-Larger turbine /same capacity ,larger thermal storage/same full load hours

- Annual energy yield (+35.23%)

- Operating hours (+19.71%)

- Annual mean overall efficiency (+0.85% )

- Capacity factor (+31.16%)

-Water consumption (-91.00% )

-Investment cost (+10.17%)

From a technical point of view the dry cooling option in Ma’an is still very good, and high DNI compensated the defects of dry cooling

From the economical point of view the project is unfeasible without feed in tariff.

Different suggested financial incentives to make the project feasible

- Minimum required tariff 17 c€/kWhe

- Minimum required a grant 163.3 million €

- Tariff with grant (14.6 c€/kWhe ,50 million €), or ( 13 c€/kWhe ,100 million €).

Recommendations

Water availability is not a restriction factor against CSP in Ma’an

This results are site specific, for other locations with high ambient temperatures, improvements in the cooling system and re-optimization are essential.

Usage of soft loans and grants from international and regional donors

Sell electricity to neighbor countries that have high electricity prices

References 1. C.S. Turchi, M.J. Wagner, and C.F. Kutscher. Water Use in Parabolic Trough Power Plants: Summary Results

from WorleyParsons' Analyses:NREL,2010 [TP-5500-49468]

2. Joseph E. Kopp. Two-tank indirect thermal storage designs for solar parabolic trough power plants, 2004.

3. Ulf Herrmann, Paul Nava. Performance of the SKAL-ET collectors of the Andasol power plants, 2008.

4. M.J. Montes, A. Aba´nades, J.M. Martı´nez-Val, M. Valde´s. Solar multiple optimization for a solar-only thermal

power plant, using oil as heat transfer fluid in the parabolic trough collectors, 2009.

5. H. Broesamle, H. Mannstein, Ch. Schillings and F. Trieb. Assessment of solar electricity potential in north Africa based on satellite data and geographic information system, 2009.

6. SPX Cooling Technologies, Inc. Cooling tower fundementals,2nd edition, [Edited by John C. Hensley], 2009

7. M.W Larinoff, W.E. Moles and R. Reichhelm, Hudson Products Corporation. Design and Specification of Air-Cooled Steam Condensers. :Houston, Texas, 2009.

8. Solar Milennum. The parabolic trough power plants Andasol 1 to 3, 2008.

9. Kevin Ummel and David Wheeler. Desert Power: The Economics of Solar Thermal Electricity for Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East, (Dec,2008).

10. C. Turchi . Parabolic Trough Reference Plant for Cost Modeling with the Solar Advisor Model (SAM), .(July 2010)g

11. Messrs Abbasi & Co. NEPCO. Annual report, 2005.

12. DLR /CSP Services Company. enerMENA High Precision Meteo Station in Ma’an/Jordan.

13. Christoph Richter.EFCOOL-Wassereffiziente Kühlung solarthermischer Kraftwerk,: DLR, [FKZ:16UM0077]

14. DLR. enerMENA capacity building courses: [eM-CB01:U4].



17. UNEP. The GHG Indicator, 2000.

18. Meteotest. Meteonorm 6.1 user guide.

19. DLR. Greenius 3.7.0 ,library [Computer program]

20. DLR.Greenius user guide,2011.

21. NREL. Solar Advisor Model (SAM ),2011 [Computer program].

22. Google. Google earth

23. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fresnel_lens.svg [accessed12/08/2011].

24. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PS20andPS10.jpg [accessed12/08/2011].

25. Mr. Firas Rimawi, Director, Business Development for MDA (2011).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fresnel_lens.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PS20andPS10.jpg





Evaluation of dry cooling option for parabolic trough (CSP) plants including … · 2012-04-16 ·...

Documents

Transcript of Evaluation of dry cooling option for parabolic trough (CSP) plants including … · 2012-04-16 ·...