In the 1980s, the Utility Study [Hilesland, T., Jr., and Weber, E. R., 1988, “Utilities’ Study of Solar Central Receivers,” Fourth Int. Symp. on Research, Development, and Applications of Solar Thermal Technology, Santa Fe, NM] identified the external cylindrical molten-salt-in-tube receiver with a surround heliostat field as the most cost effective and practical design for commercial applications. Such designs typically require 50–1000 MW of design-point thermal power at outlet temperatures around 1050°F (565°C). Using computer codes such as RCELL [Lipps, F. W., and Vant-Hull, L. L., 1978, “A Cellwise Method for the Optimization of Large Central Receiver Systems,” Solar Energy, 20(6) pp. 505–516.] or DELSOL [Kistler, B. L., “A Users Manual for Delsol 3,” Sandia National Laboratories Livermore, SAND86-8018, 1987.] it is straightforward to design an optical system to meet these requirements, defining the smallest receiver (lower cost and thermal losses) and the most cost effective heliostat field. As the performance of heliostats in the anti-sun locations is better, such fields tend to be biased (in the northern hemisphere) to the north side of the receiver, and produce very high flux densities there; typically 2–5 MW/m2. However, the receiver is typicaly limited to a salt velocity and temperature dependent allowable flux density (AFD) of about 1 MW/m2. Design methods to reduce this peak flux to a nominally acceptable value in a cost effective manner are presented. Residual excess flux events under non-nominal conditions are handled by a real-time processor which selects specific heliostats for removal from track. This same processor is used to preheat the receiver, using a special algorithm to define the required flux density.

1.
Pitman, C. L., and Vant-Hull, L. L., 1988, “Houston Solar Central Receiver Code System: Concepts, Updates, and Start-up Kits,” Technical Report, SAND 88-7029 (SNLA).
2.
Lipps
,
F. W.
, and
Vant-Hull
,
L. L.
,
1978
, “
A Cellwise Method for the Optimization of Large Central Receiver Systems
,”
Solar Energy
20
(
6
), pp.
505
516
.
3.
Vant-Hull, L. L., and Pitman, C. L., 1988, “Central Receiver System Optimization Under An Allowable Flux Constraint,” Proc. 4th Int. Symp. on Solar Thermal Technology-Research, Development, and Applications, Santa Fe, NM, B. P. Gupta and W. H. Traugott (eds.), Hemisphere Publishing Corp., New York, pp. 51–60.
4.
Vant-Hull, L. L., Izygon, M. E., and Pitman, C. L., 1993, “Results of a Heliostat Field: Receiver Analysis for Solar Two,” Solar Engineering 1993, A. Kirkpatrick and W. Worek (eds.), ASME Book No. H00785, pp. 413–419.
5.
Walzel
,
M. D.
,
Lipps
,
F. W.
, and
Vant-Hull
,
L. L.
,
1977
, “
A Solar Flux Density Calculation for a Solar Tower Concentrator Using a Two-Dimensional Hermite Function Expansion
,”
Sol. Energy
,
19
(
3
), pp.
239
253
.
6.
Smith, D. C., 1992, “Design and Optimization of Tube-Type Receiver Panels for Molten Salt Applications,” 1992 ASME Solar Energy Conf., Maui, HI, ASME, New York, NY.
7.
Smith, D. C., via Burds, A. J., 1994, Private Communication from the receiver designer, Rocketdyne Division of Boeing.
8.
Vant-Hull, L. L., Izygon, M. E., and Pitman, C. L., 1996, “Real Time Computation and Control of Solar Flux Density on a Central Receiver (Solar Two) (Protection Against Excess Flux Density),” Solar 96, R. Campbell-Howe and B. Wilkins-Crowder (eds.), Proc. of 1996 Annual Conf., American Solar Energy Society, Asheville, NC., pp. 88–97.
9.
Vant-Hull, L. L., Izygon, M. E., and Pitman, C. L., 1996, “Real Time Computation and Control of Solar Flux Density on a Central Receiver (Solar Two-Preheat),” Solar Engineering 1996, J. H. Davidson and J. Chavez (eds), presented at 1996 ASME Int. Solar Energy Conf., San Antonio, TX, pp. 139–142.
10.
Giedt
,
W. H.
,
1949
, “
Investigation of Variation of Point Unit-Heat-Transfer Coefficient around a Cylinder Normal to an Air Stream
,”
Trans. ASME
,
71
, pp.
375
381
.
You do not currently have access to this content.