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 Models 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 Materials 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)