sustainability

Article
Thermodynamic Performance and Water
Consumption of Hybrid Cooling System
Configurations for Concentrated Solar Power Plants
Faisal Asfand 1 , Patricia Palenzuela 2 , Lidia Roca 2 , Adèle Caron 3 ,
Charles-André Lemarié 3 , Jon Gillard 1 , Peter Turner 1 and Kumar Patchigolla 1, *
1 Centre for Thermal Energy Systems and Materials, School of Water Energy and Environment,
Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire MK43 0AL, UK; [email protected] (F.A.);
[email protected] (J.G.); [email protected] (P.T.)
2 CIEMAT – Plataforma Solar de Almería, Ctra. De Senés s/n, 04200 Tabernas, Almería, Spain;
[email protected] (P.P.); [email protected] (L.R.)
3 Hamon D’Hondt, Fresnes-sur-Escaut, 59970 Hauts-de-France, France; [email protected] (A.C.);
[email protected] (C.-A.L.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +44-(0)-1234754124




Received: 22 May 2020; Accepted: 3 June 2020; Published: 10 June 2020


Abstract: The use of wet cooling in Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) plants tends to be an unfavourable
option in regions where water is scarce due to the high water requirements of the method. Dry-cooling
systems allow a water consumption reduction of up to 80% but at the expense of lower electricity
production. A hybrid cooling system (the combination of dry and wet cooling) offers the advantages
of each process in terms of lower water consumption and higher electricity production. A model of a
CSP plant which integrates a hybrid cooling system has been implemented in Thermoflex software.
The water consumption and the net power generation have been evaluated for different configurations
of the hybrid cooling system: series, parallel, series-parallel and parallel-series. It was found that the
most favourable configuration in terms of water saving was series-parallel, in which a water reduction
of up to 50% is possible compared to the only-wet cooling option, whereas an increase of 2.5% in the
power generation is possible compared to the only-dry cooling option. The parallel configuration
was the best in terms of power generation with an increase of 3.2% when compared with the only-dry
cooling option, and a reduction of 30% water consumption compared to the only-wet cooling option.

Keywords: hybrid cooling systems; concentrated solar power; power block; water consumption

1. Introduction
Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) plants are gaining global acceptance due to their potential to
efficiently use and store solar thermal energy, making this renewable energy source more dispatchable
and avoiding the use of fossil fuels to produce electricity. To achieve higher efficiency and longer
operation periods, CSP plants are best located in areas with high Direct Normal Irradiance (DNI).
These locations, however, are typically arid and often preclude the use of substantial quantities of
water by wet cooling systems to condense the exhaust steam from the power block. Although wet
cooling towers are more effective than dry coolers as the cooling depends on the wet bulb temperature,
they consume large quantities of water due to evaporation (mainly), blowdown, drift and leakages,
which require a continuous supply of makeup water to cope with such water losses. For instance, for a
100 MWe plant with a wet-cooling system in place and operating at base load, water consumption is
around 1.4 × 106 m3 /year, out of which 94% is due to water losses through evaporation [1]. It is also
important to highlight that the water requirements of a Parabolic Trough (PT) CSP plant have been

Sustainability 2020, 12, 4739; doi:10.3390/su12114739 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 4739 2 of 19

found to be higher than for Solar Tower (ST) CSP plants, in comparison 3 m3 /MWh and 1.5 m3 /MWh,
respectively [2]. Air-Cooled Condensers (ACC) could be used to enable the plant to work without
consuming water for cooling. However, as the cooling depends on the dry-bulb temperature, when the
ambient temperature reaches its maximal values during the summer, the ACC performance decreases
considerably leading to a lower steam turbine efficiency. It becomes more relevant in arid regions
where the installation of CSP plants is more suitable. As a matter of fact, it has been published in the
literature that an ACC used in PT CSP plants located in arid regions can cause an annual reduction
of 7% in electricity production and about 10% increase in the cost of electricity, being the efficiency
reduction lower in the case of ST CSP plants [2].
Hybrid cooling systems can provide a solution in order to overcome the disadvantages of either
only-dry or only-wet cooled plants. According to Colmenar-santos et al. [3], these systems allow
a reduction in water consumption of 60–80% at an expense of 3–5% increase in the capital cost.
In addition, these systems also enhance the performance in warm weather compared to dry-cooled
plants since they can maintain the turbine performance close to design conditions, even at high ambient
temperatures [4,5], and reduce the energy penalty to below that of conventional air coolers [6].
Several research works that evaluate the impact of hybrid coolers on the performance of power
plants (both CSP and conventional ones) and the water reduction achieved against conventional
cooling systems can be found in the literature. Williams and Rasul [7] evaluated the efficiency of
a coal-fired steam power plant using a hybrid cooling system composed of an Air-Cooled Heat
Exchanger (ACHE) and an evaporative wet cooling tower that operated in two modes: series and
parallel. They found that the parallel operation mode was more efficient from a thermodynamic point
of view (i.e., less coal consumption) than the series one, although the latter option led to a lower water
consumption. Zhai and Rubin [8] performed a techno-economic assessment of a hybrid cooling system
for coal and natural-gas-fired power plants. The hybrid cooling system comprised of a wet-cooled
condenser and an ACC connected in parallel. They observed that the total water consumption can
be reduced from 1 m3 /MWh to 0.1 m3 /MWh when a hybrid cooling system is used in the natural
gas combined power plant, in comparison with an only-wet cooling system. Whereas, in the case
of pulverized coal, it was found that the total water consumption was reduced from 2.1 m3 /MWh to
0.2 m3 /MWh. However, the reductions in water consumption come with an increase of 3−5% in overall
plant Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) for coal and natural-gas-fired power plants without carbon
capture system. They reported that during hot periods (26–28 ◦ C ambient temperatures), the operation
of the wet cooling tower at the 30% of the total cooling load would minimise the overall system costs.
Rezaei et al. [9] developed a numerical model of a hybrid cooling system and built a pilot setup to
investigate experimentally the water losses considering the series and parallel operation modes in an
industrial plant. The hybrid cooling system was composed of an ACHE and an evaporative wet-cooled
section which could be either connected in parallel or series configuration. They observed that in the
case of a parallel configuration, the hybrid cooling system had lower water losses but it required a
larger area for heat transfer in the dry cooler because of a lower thermal efficiency. A reduction in
water consumption from 243 m3 /h to 61.2 m3 /h and from 213.8 m3 /h to 57 m3 /h in summer and winter,
respectively, was obtained in this configuration, when the dry cooling fraction (i.e., the percentage
of cooling water flow rate going to the dry cooler) was varied from 0.2 to 0.8. In the case of series
configuration, water consumption decreased from 252.6 m3 /h to 89.6 m3 /h and from 220.8 m3 /h to
77 m3 /h in summer and winter, respectively, when the dry cooling fraction was varied from 0.2 to
0.8. Ashwood and Bharathan [10] investigated the use of hybrid cooling systems to enhance the net
power output of an air-cooled geothermal power plant during hot ambient conditions using minimal
amounts of water. They considered two schemes of hybrid cooling system: a water-cooled condenser
connected in parallel or series with the ACC and a water-cooled condenser connected in parallel with
an ACHE. They reported that the overall water consumption of the plant can be restricted to 3.5% of
the total water used in a fully wet-cooled power system if the duration of the operation of the wet
cooling in the hybrid system is limited to 1000 h during a year.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4739 3 of 19

Benn et al. [11] investigated hybrid cooling systems from a theoretical point of view, for thermoelectric
power plants in which a conventional wet cooling tower was connected to a direct dry thermosyphon
steam condenser in parallel and a dry indirect thermosyphon cooling tower in parallel and series
configurations. They observed that the coefficient of performance was two times higher in the case
of hybrid system with direct dry thermosyphon steam condenser when compared to a hybrid system
with dry indirect thermosyphon cooling tower in parallel. In addition, the effectiveness was 25%
higher in the case of hybrid parallel configuration with direct dry thermosyphon steam condenser
compared to a hybrid system with dry indirect thermosyphon cooling tower connected in parallel or
series. Bustamante et al. [12] developed a numerical model to evaluate the performance of a conventional
steam power plant with a hybrid cooling system composed of a wet cooling tower and an ACC connected
in parallel. They found that a water saving of 22–89% was achievable at ambient temperatures of 0–50 ◦ C
compared to an only-wet cooling system. Wagner and Kutscher [13] evaluated the performance of a
CSP plant with a hybrid cooling system composed of an ACC connected in parallel with a wet-cooled
condenser. They considered two designs of the hybrid cooling system with a wet cooling capacity of
15% and 50% and compared the results with the base case of an only-wet cooling system. The results
showed that the hybrid cooling system offers a significant reduction in water consumption, 85% and
52% in the case of 15% and 50% wet cooling capacity, respectively. However, this reduction in water
consumption took place at the expense of the CSP plant performance, resulting in a reduction of 2.33%
and 1.67% in the conversion efficiency in the case of 15% and 50% wet cooling capacity, respectively.
Petrakopoulou and Olmeda-Delgado [14] performed simulations of a hybrid cooling system to investigate
water consumption in natural gas combined cycle and an integrated solar combined cycle. The hybrid
cooling system was comprised of a wet cooling system and an ACC connected in parallel. They reported
that the cooling water consumption was reduced by half when a hybrid cooling system was used in
comparison to a wet-only cooling system in both cycles. However, water consumption in the case of
integrated solar combined cycle was more than two times compared to natural gas combined cycle
because of a higher steam mass flow passing through the cooling.
Despite the special need to reduce the water requirements by the cooling system in CSP plants,
especially located in arid areas, there are limited research works that provide exhaustive analyses focused
on this topic. Under the framework of an European project called ‘Water Saving for Concentrated Solar
Power’ (WASCOP) [15], a hybrid cooling system, consisting of a dry and wet cooling towers has been
designed and modelled using the Thermoflex simulation tool and an exhaustive evaluation in terms of
water saving and thermal efficiency when integrated into a CSP plant has been carried out. The aim of
this study is to identify the best configuration of the hybrid cooling system in terms of power generation
and water reduction in a CSP plant. In addition, another objective of this study is to investigate the
effect of cooling tower capacities on specific water consumption in a CSP plant. The parabolic trough
technology has been selected for the CSP plant, since it covers 60 to 70% of the CSP applications and
also because the commercial 50 MWe PT CSP plant ANDASOL-1, the operating conditions of which
are available in the literature, can be taken as reference for input data and model validation.
The present paper is arranged as follows: Section 2 gives a description of the hybrid cooling
system, including a detailed explanation of the operation of all analysed configurations. Section 3
deals with the modelling of each component: power block, dry cooling tower and wet cooling tower
and provides detail of the general assumptions taken for the simulations. Section 4 is dedicated to the
validation of the power-block model in on- and off-design conditions with the data of the commercial
CSP plant ANDASOL-1. Section 5 presents the results obtained from a sensitivity study that has
been performed to evaluate the performance of several configurations of the hybrid cooling system at
variable ambient temperature, wet/dry cooling fraction and relative humidity. Moreover, the cooling
capacity of the cooling towers has been varied in the different hybrid cooling configurations in order to
evaluate its impact on the specific water consumption at variable ambient conditions. The last section
gives some conclusions drawn from the sensitivity analysis and further developments to be considered
for future works.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4739 4 of 19

2. Description of the Hybrid Cooling System

A scheme of the CSP plant integrating the hybrid cooler is shown in Figure 1. The CSP plant
includes a conventional steam power block and a cooling system, whereas a solar field provides the
heat source. A thermal energy storage is integrated into the solar field to store the surplus thermal
energy in order to improve the dispatchability during the absence of solar energy. The power block is a
regenerative, reheat Rankine cycle that converts the thermal energy from the solar field into electrical
energy by the use of several turbines stages. Finally, the condenser removes the ‘latent’ heat from
the discharged steam and enables the resultant condensate to be pressurised and recirculated to the
boiler via the feed-water pump. The cooling system rejects the heat removed by the condenser to
the environment.
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 19

Figure 1. Simplified process flow diagram of a Concentrated Sola Power (CSP) plant with a hybrid
Figure 1. Simplified process flow diagram of a Concentrated Sola Power (CSP) plant with a hybrid
cooling system.
cooling system.
3. Model Development
The hybrid cooling system investigated in this paper consists of both a wet- and a dry-cooling
tower in The suchThermoflex
a way thatthermodynamic
the cooling water simulation
mass toolflowwas rateused
thatfor the to
goes model
eachdevelopment.
element canThe be split
model was used in design and off-design modes in order to
by control valves (split valves in Figure 1) in any ratio between 0 and 1; 0 being no flowdetermine the performance both at
whereas
nominal and
1 corresponds topartial
100% loadflow.conditions.
Thus, each For cooling
this purpose,
tower heat andwork
can mass at
balances wereno
full load, firstly
loadperformed
or part load.
in a ‘thermodynamic design’ mode whereby the physical size and characteristics of the plant
The pressure head losses are overcome by pumps. The hybrid cooler system can be operated in different
components were derived and estimated from its nominal operating point. Then, using the in-built
operation modes: series, parallel or a combination of both, by adjusting the split valves (see Figure 1).
mathematical models and other system modelling features, the performance of that system or its
It is important
componentstowere notesimulated
that the dry cooling
at other system
operating considered
conditions in an in‘off-design’
this studymode.
is an indirect-dry
Notice that thecooler,
ACHE, so the steam is firstly condensed through a conventional wet-cooled
solar field was not modelled, but it was considered that ‘Dowtherm A’ thermal oil (as the Heat condenser (which is shared
with the wet cooling
Transfer tower)
Fluid (HTF)) and thenatthe
is delivered thewater is cooled
designed through the
inlet temperature of dry cooling
393 °C to thetower.
power block. It
In
wasthe
alsoseries configuration,
assumed that the HTFthe cooling
is split water
between theflows
steam firstly
generatorthrough
and thethe dry cooling
reheater tower
in parallel at by
90% and
adjusting the10%,
splitrespectively,
valve (SV1)inwhereall scenarios.
its temperature is reduced by rejecting the heat to air at the
dry-bulb temperature. Then, the cooling water leaving the dry cooling tower is pumped to the wet
3.1. Model Assumptions
cooling tower by adjusting the split valve (SV2) where it is sprayed and evaporation takes place to
dissipate Thethe following assumptions were
heat of condensation. considered
In this case, asinthe the cooling
simulations:water temperature is reduced in the
dry cooling
 tower before
Steady-state entering the wet cooling tower, the evaporative water losses are minimised.
conditions.
However,
 as thespeed
Wind wholeis cooling waterfactor
an important circulates through
affecting both dry and
the performance ofwet
dry cooling
and wettowers,
coolingthe auxiliary
towers.
energy consumption
However, indue this to pumping
study is higher
the focus has beenin this
on theoption. In the parallel
performance configuration,
comparison the cooling
of several hybrid
water comingcooling configurations
from the condenser and itishas notinto
split beentwo
donestreams
for a particular
by thesite.
splitTherefore, the effect
valve (SV1), withofpart
windof the
speed on the performance of the wet or dry cooling tower has not
flow diverted to the dry cooling tower and the remaining flow being sent to the wet cooling tower. been considered.
Then,the A 100% relative
cooling humidity
water stream has been
coming outassumed
from the fordrythecooling
air leaving the wet
tower section. to
is directed Although the (M2)
the mixer air by
leaving the wet cooling tower may not be saturated in some cases, this study follows the Merkel
the split valve (SV2) where it is mixed with the cooling water stream leaving the wet cooling tower and
method [16], which assumes that the air leaving the tower is saturated (100% relative humidity).
finally sent back to the condenser by the pump (P1).
As this study is a comparative one on a like-for-like basis, it has been considered that this value
In thewill
series-parallel configuration,
not have an impact the cooling water coming from the condenser is firstly sent to
on the conclusions.
the dry cooling tower by the split valve (SV1) and then, one part of the cooling water leaving the dry
In this study, the hybrid cooling configurations have not been optimised based on operating
cooler goes to mixer (M2) by the split valve (SV2) and the other part is pumped to the wet cooling
strategies i.e., the ambient conditions and/or economic benefits and annual performance analysis
towerwould
by pump (P2) to further reduce the temperature through evaporation. The cooling water is then
be required to do so. Although economic benefit is one of the elements when considering a
hybrid cooling system, it requires annual performance analysis which is crucial to better understand
the trade-off between the cost and performance. Economic analyses are strictly dependent on the
location and can vary in different scenarios. As this study has been focused on the comparative
performance assessment of different hybrid cooling configurations and the analysis has been carried
out for a range of ambient temperatures and relative humidities and not for a specific location or a
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4739 5 of 19

mixed with the outlet of the dry cooling tower in mixer (M2) and finally sent back to the condenser
by the pump (P1). In the parallel-series configuration, part of the cooling water coming from the
condenser is firstly sent to the dry cooling tower and the rest is sent to the wet cooling tower by the
split valve (SV1). Then, the cooling water leaving the dry cooling tower is mixed with the part of the
cooling water going to the wet cooling tower by split valve (SV2) being mixed in mixer (M1) before
entering the wet cooling tower. Finally, the cooling water collected at the basin of the wet cooling
tower is sent back to the condenser.

3. Model Development
The Thermoflex thermodynamic simulation tool was used for the model development. The model
was used in design and off-design modes in order to determine the performance both at nominal
and partial load conditions. For this purpose, heat and mass balances were firstly performed in a
‘thermodynamic design’ mode whereby the physical size and characteristics of the plant components
were derived and estimated from its nominal operating point. Then, using the in-built mathematical
models and other system modelling features, the performance of that system or its components were
simulated at other operating conditions in an ‘off-design’ mode. Notice that the solar field was not
modelled, but it was considered that ‘Dowtherm A’ thermal oil (as the Heat Transfer Fluid (HTF)) is
delivered at the designed inlet temperature of 393 ◦ C to the power block. It was also assumed that the
HTF is split between the steam generator and the reheater in parallel at 90% and 10%, respectively,
in all scenarios.

3.1. Model Assumptions

The following assumptions were considered in the simulations:

• Steady-state conditions.
• Wind speed is an important factor affecting the performance of dry and wet cooling towers.
However, in this study the focus has been on the performance comparison of several hybrid
cooling configurations and it has not been done for a particular site. Therefore, the effect of wind
speed on the performance of the wet or dry cooling tower has not been considered.
• A 100% relative humidity has been assumed for the air leaving the wet section. Although the air
leaving the wet cooling tower may not be saturated in some cases, this study follows the Merkel
method [16], which assumes that the air leaving the tower is saturated (100% relative humidity).
As this study is a comparative one on a like-for-like basis, it has been considered that this value
will not have an impact on the conclusions.

In this study, the hybrid cooling configurations have not been optimised based on operating
strategies i.e., the ambient conditions and/or economic benefits and annual performance analysis
would be required to do so. Although economic benefit is one of the elements when considering a
hybrid cooling system, it requires annual performance analysis which is crucial to better understand
the trade-off between the cost and performance. Economic analyses are strictly dependent on the
location and can vary in different scenarios. As this study has been focused on the comparative
performance assessment of different hybrid cooling configurations and the analysis has been carried
out for a range of ambient temperatures and relative humidities and not for a specific location or a
Typical Meteorological Year data, the economic analysis would not give precise results. Therefore,
the economic benefits have not been evaluated in this paper.

3.2. Power Block Model

The power block was modelled considering the Siemens SST-700 steam turbine used at the
Andasol 1 CSP plant. The scheme of the power block model developed in Thermoflex simulation
tool is shown in Figure 2 and described below. The steam turbine was modelled as seven stage
blocks, with two high-pressure stage blocks before the reheater, then one intermediate-pressure and
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4739 6 of 19

four low-pressure stage blocks. Steam is extracted from the turbine at each stage block to regenerate
feed-water in three low-pressure closed feed-water heaters, one open feed-water heater/deaerator and
two high pressure closed feed-water heaters. Steam pressure losses between each turbine extraction
and its feed-water heater have been accounted for but it has been assumed that thermal losses are
negligible. Governing equations behind the proposed cycle and water consumption calculations are
shown in Supplementary Materials.
The off-design performance of the steam turbine is calculated using Stodola’s ellipse law [17],
which allows a turbine to be divided into stage groups between steam extraction points and treats
each of these as a single nozzle [18]. Steam pressure, temperature, mass flow rate and the relationship
between pressure ratio and enthalpy drop are used to determine the performance of a steam turbine at
off-design conditions. The turbine isentropic efficiency (ηi ), which is set at each turbine stage based on
the steam conditions at the design point, is determined by the following equation.

actual stage enthalpy drop h − hout

ηi = = in (1)
isentropic stage enthalpy drop hin − hout,s

where hin and hout are the specific enthalpy at the inlet and outlet, respectively and hout, s is the ideal
specific enthalpy at the outlet.
On the other hand, the steam generator has been modelled using the standard Thermoflex heat
exchanger components for each of the economiser, evaporator and super-heater stages. Similarly,
the reheater has been modelled using a standard heat exchanger component block and incorporated in
parallel to the entire steam generator. A fixed flow split of the HTF between the steam generator and
the reheater has been adopted. Finally, the surface condenser has been modelled as a conventional shell
and tube type. The performance of all heat exchangers in off-design conditions have been modelled
using the “Thermal Resistance Scaling” method [19].
The principal parameters and input variables used for the model development in Thermoflex are
shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of main parameters and input variables used in Thermoflex to match 50 MWe
Andasol 1 CSP plant at base load.

Input Variables/Parameters Value Units

HTF outlet temperature from Solar field 393 ◦C

HTF mass flow 618.1 kg/s

HTF mass flow split to Reheater 10 %
Superheated steam temperature 381 ◦C

Superheated steam outlet pressure 105 bar(a)

Boiler pinch temperature 1.3 ◦C

Turbine gross output 55 MWe

Turbine net output 50 MWe
Fan power (Dry-cooling tower) 2500 kWe
Fan power (Wet cooling tower) 500 kWe
Cooling water pump power 630 kWe
Condenser pressure 0.065 bar(a)
Feed-water Heater Terminal Temperature Difference 1.7 ◦C

Feed-water Heater Drain Cooler Approach temperature 5 ◦C

Cooling water mass flow rate 2502 kg/s

Indicated efficiency of turbine: HP stage 1 80.59 %
HP stage 2 89.02 %
IP stage 76.57 %
LP stage 1 87.97 %
LP stage 2 90.66 %
LP stage 3 92.57 %
LP stage 4 89.44 %
Sustainability
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4739
2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 77 of
of 19
19

Figure 2. Thermoflex flowsheet of a 50MWee CSP

CSP plant
plant with
with hybrid
hybrid cooling
cooling system.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4739 8 of 19

3.3. Cooling System Model

The hybrid cooling system has been integrated into the power block so that the impact of different
cooling strategies on the power block performance can be directly assessed. In order to model the
four configurations in Thermoflex, both the dry cooler and the wet cooler have been firstly modelled
independently in the design mode at full-load Maximum Continuous Rating (MCR) (55 MWe gross
output, equating to a 50 MWe net output at 100% MCR) at their respective design ambient conditions.
After designing both coolers, they were then combined using splitters and mixers to achieve the
different configurations (series, parallel, series-parallel and parallel-series). Two split valves (SV1 and
SV2 in Figure 1) have been used to control the cooling water mass flow rate across each cooling tower.
The position of such split valve (split ratio) can be adjusted in Thermoflex in such a way that any of the
four hybrid cooling configurations are achievable. In addition, a cooling water circulating pump (P1)
and an internal pump (P2) were used to overcome the pressure head losses across the system.

3.3.1. Dry Cooling Tower Model

An ACHE model has been developed in thermodynamic design mode considering that the full
load of the total heat is rejected in the condenser. The design parameters of the ACHE are based on
the design data provided by the French company Hamon D’Hondt, which are summarised in Table 2.
The ACHE designed by Hamon D’Hondt consists of 22 bays, each bay having three fans. At the design
point, the ACHE is able to dissipate 84 MWth of heat for a 50 MWe plant at full load whereas the fan
power consumption is estimated to be 37.2 kWe per fan.

Table 2. Design parameters used for the ACHE system.

Parameters Value
Design point approach to dry-bulb ambient temperature 6.75 ◦ C
Design point ambient dry-bulb temperature rise in dry section 8.25 ◦ C
Air temperature at design point 20 ◦ C
Fan efficiency 75%
Fan static efficiency 59%
Volumetric air flow rate 151.08 m3 /s
Pressure drops on air side 146.8 Pa
Pressure drops on water side 57.23 kPa
Height of the cooling tower 9m
Cooling water inlet temperature 35 ◦ C

3.3.2. Wet Cooling Tower Model

As in the case of the dry cooler, the wet cooling tower has been designed in thermodynamic
design mode to dissipate the full load of the heat rejected in the condenser. The design parameters of
the wet cooling tower have been based on the design data available in the literature [20], summarised
in Table 3. At the design point, the wet cooling tower is able to dissipate 84 MWth of heat for a 50 MWe
plant at full load whereas the total fan power consumption is estimated to be 500 kWe . Thermoflex
uses a constant value of outlet air relative humidity in its calculations for cooling tower performance.
In this study, a value of 100% relative humidity for the air leaving the wet cooling tower has been
considered, equivalent to the Merkel method [16].
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4739 9 of 19

Table 3. Design parameters considered for the wet cooling tower.

Parameters Value
Pressure of the thermodynamic environment 1 bar
Wet bulb temperature of ambient air 20 ◦ C
Relative humidity of ambient air 60%
Cooling tower approach temperature 5 ◦C
Cooling tower range 10 ◦ C
Air relative humidity leaving the wet section 100%
Concentration factor 3
Fan efficiency 75%
Cooling water inlet temperature 35 ◦ C
Design point air draft loss 1.25 mbar
Height of the cooling tower 9m

4. Validation Approach
The power block model of the CSP plant has been validated against the 50 MWe Andasol 1 power
block flowsheets at both design and off-design conditions reported in Dias de la Fuente [21]. Notice that
these flowsheets do not include a cooling system but indicate the cooling water temperatures at the
inlet and outlet of the condenser at several operating conditions (100%, 90%, 75%, 50% and 25% MCR).
For the validation of the thermodynamic model at design conditions, the ambient temperature and
humidity were not taken into account and the temperature at the inlet of the condenser and the cooling
water mass flow rate were established at 27 ◦ C and 2502 kg/s, respectively. Table 4 shows the results
from the comparison for the variables: temperatures, pressures, mass flow rates and specific enthalpies
of the main streams. Moreover, the heat duties of boiler, reheater and condenser and the gross power
generated by the steam turbine have been also compared. As can be seen, the simulation results are
in good agreement with the Siemens flowsheet data with a mean absolute percentage error of below
0.52% (see Table 5).

Table 4. Comparison of simulation results with Siemens data [21].

SIEMENS Andasol 1 Flowsheet Thermoflex Model

· ·
T P h m T P h m
Stream/Variable
(◦C) (bar) (kJ/kg) (kg/s) (◦C) (bar) (kJ/kg) (kg/s)
Inlet of HP steam turbine 381.0 104.98 3020.2 60.935 381.0 105.0 3023.6 60.767
Outlet of HP steam turbine 214.2 20.72 2728.1 54.880 214.1 20.68 2729.8 54.749
Inlet of LP steam turbine 380.0 18.29 3207.2 49.905 380.0 18.23 3207.4 49.962
Outlet of LP steam turbine 38.0 0.065 2305.9 38.902 38.1 0.067 2313.2 38.727
Outlet of condenser 38.0 0.065 159.3 47.805 38.1 0.067 159.4 47.943
Discharge of LP feed-water pump 39.2 13.00 165.3 47.805 39.6 13.00 167.2 47.943
Outlet of LP feed-water heater 1 73.9 13.00 310.6 47.805 74.1 13.00 311.4 47.943
Outlet of LP feed-water heater 2 104.7 13.00 439.7 47.805 104.9 13.00 440.9 47.943
Outlet of LP feed-water heater 3 144.7 13.00 609.7 47.805 144.9 13.00 610.6 47.943
Outlet of deaerator 180.1 10.04 763.5 61.550 180.1 10.05 763.6 61.381
Discharge of HP feed-water pump 182.5 129.00 780.8 61.550 184.4 129.0 788.6 61.381
Outlet of HP feed-water heater 4 210.9 129.00 905.5 61.550 211.0 129.0 906.5 61.381
Outlet of HP feed-water heater 5 250.4 129.00 1087.5 61.550 250.5 129.0 1088.5 61.381
Cooling water at condenser inlet 27.0 2502 27.0 2495
Cooling water at condenser outlet 35.0 2502 35.0 2495
Boiler heat duty (kWt ) 118,958 118,780
Reheater heat duty (kWt ) 21,479 21,423
Condenser heat duty (kWt ) 83,597 83,832
Gross power (kWe ) 55,000 54,999
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4739 10 of 19

Table 5. Mean absolute percentage errors.

Parameter Mean Absolute Percentage Error

Temperature 0.26%
Pressure 0.52%
Enthalpy 0.28%
Mass flow rate 0.28%
Boiler heat duty 0.15%
Reheater heat duty 0.26%
Condenser heat duty 0.28%
Gross power 0.00%

For the validation of the power block model at off-design operating conditions, the operation of
the plant at 90%, 75%, 50% and 25% of MCR (which corresponds to a variation in the HTF mass flow
rate from 61.8 to 618.1 kg/s) was considered. Differences in power output and heat rate (which is the
amount of thermal energy required to produce one kilowatt hour of electricity) between the Siemens
flowsheets data [21] and Thermoflex model at off-design conditions are shown in Table 6. It can be
observed that the Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) in the gross power generation and heat
rate was 0.5% and 1.1%, respectively, proving the accuracy of the model.

Table 6. Comparison of gross power generation and heat rate in the off-design mode.

Gross Power Generation (MWe ) Heat Rate (kJ/kWh)

Nominal
%MCR Siemens Thermoflex Siemens Thermoflex
Error (%) Error (%)
Data Model Data Model
100 55 55 0.0 9114 9099 0.2
90 50 49.54 0.9 9210 9150 0.6
75 41.25 41.21 0.1 9320 9265 0.6
50 27.50 27.41 0.3 9666 9576 0.9
25 13.75 13.58 1.2 10,741 10,413 3.1
MAPE (%) 0.5 1.1

5. Results and Discussions

As mentioned before, a sensitivity analysis was performed to investigate the effect of relative
humidity, the ambient temperature, and the split ratio on the performance of the hybrid cooling
system on the basis of the water consumption and net power generated by the power block for all
hybridisation configurations (series, parallel, series-parallel, parallel-series). Moreover, the specific
water consumption (m3 /MWh), which is the water consumption per unit power generation, has been
considered as the performance indicator for the hybrid cooling system performance at different ambient
temperatures and split ratios. Notice that the split ratio is the wet fraction in the case of parallel and
series-parallel configurations and the dry fraction in the case of parallel-series configuration.
The sensitivity study was performed firstly taking into account cooling towers with 100% cooling
capacity and then varying this cooling capacity to evaluate its impact on the performance indicator at
variable ambient conditions.

5.1. Effect of Relative Humidity

The first study was performed by varying the relative humidity between 10% and 90% while
keeping all the input variables and other parameters constant at the wet cooling tower design point
conditions (see Table 3). In addition, for all the hybrid cooler configurations a split ratio of 50% was
considered. The specific water consumption was determined in all cases and the results are shown in
Figure 3. A linear decrease in the specific water consumption has been observed when the relative
humidity is varied from 10% to 90%. This is because the ability of the wet cooling tower is limited by the
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4739 11 of 19

relative humidity to evaporate more water. At higher relative humidity, the air saturation conditions
are achieved quickly and no further evaporation can take place and hence water consumption is lower.
This reduces the overall water consumption but at the expense of a slightly higher cooling water return
temperature, which consequently causes a higher pressure in the condenser of the power block and
thus a lower power generation. It can also be seen that the specific water consumption is higher in the
case of the only-wet cooling tower when compared with the hybrid cooling configurations since wet
cooling towers are based on the wet bulb temperature due to its evaporative principle whereas dry
cooling towers are based on the ambient dry-bulb temperature. Moreover, the percentage decrease
in the specific water consumption is higher in the case of parallel and series-parallel hybrid cooling
configurations because of the lower wet cooling fraction in hybrid mode. In other words, although
the wet cooling tower is designed for 100% capacity, a 50% split ratio in the case of parallel and
series-parallel hybrid cooling systems means that only 50% of the cooling water flows through the wet
cooling tower. Moreover, it can be noticed that the specific water consumption by only-wet cooling
tower and hybrid cooling systems vary linearly when the relative humidity increases from 10% to 90%,
at a certain 2020,
Sustainability operating condition.
12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Effect
Effect of
of relative
relative humidity
humidity on
on the
thespecific
specificwater
waterconsumption.
consumption.

5.2.
5.2. Effect
Effect of
of Ambient
Ambient Temperature
Temperatureand
andSplit
SplitRatio
Ratio
In
Inthis
thissection,
section,the
theperformance
performanceofofhybrid hybridcooling
coolingsystems
systemsisisinvestigated
investigated for foraarange
rangeof ofambient
ambient
temperatures
temperatures and split ratios of 25%, 50% and 75%. It is worth noting that based on the Andasol11site
and split ratios of 25%, 50% and 75%. It is worth noting that based on the Andasol site
location, an average relative humidity of 60% has been considered as an input in
location, an average relative humidity of 60% has been considered as an input in this sensitivity study.this sensitivity study.
Figure
Figure 44 shows
shows the effect of
the effect of ambient
ambient temperature
temperatureon onthethecooling
coolingwaterwatertemperature
temperatureatat the
the exit
exit of
of the hybrid cooler (cooling water return temperature). A 50% split ratio is
the hybrid cooler (cooling water return temperature). A 50% split ratio is considered in all hybridconsidered in all hybrid
cooling
cooling configurations
configurations where applicable. These
where applicable. Theseresults
resultsshow
showthat thata alower
lowertemperature
temperature is is achieved
achieved in
in
the case of series and parallel-series configurations compared to only-wet cooling and the other
the case of series and parallel-series configurations compared to only-wet cooling and the other
hybrid
hybrid cooling
cooling configurations.
configurations. The The lower
lower cooling
cooling water
water return
return temperature
temperature in in the
the case
case of
of series
series and
and
parallel-series
parallel-series configurations is because of a higher wet fraction (100%) and due to the fact that the
configurations is because of a higher wet fraction (100%) and due to the fact that the
dry
dry cooling tower dissipates
cooling tower dissipatespartpartofofthethecooling
cooling water
water heat
heat before
before entering
entering the the
wetwet cooling
cooling tower.tower.
The
The lower
lower cooling
cooling water
water return
return temperature
temperature lowersthe
lowers thesaturation
saturationpressure
pressure in in the
the condenser
condenser and and
consequently a high pressure ratio is achieved in the steam turbine leading
consequently a high pressure ratio is achieved in the steam turbine leading to greater to greater power generation.
power
However,
generation. at However,
higher ambient temperatures,
at higher the performance
ambient temperatures, of the dry coolers
the performance of theisdrypoor, which
coolers is leads
poor,
to an insignificant change in the temperature at the inlet of the wet cooling
which leads to an insignificant change in the temperature at the inlet of the wet cooling tower and tower and hence the
performance of the only-wet cooling tower is almost similar to that of the
hence the performance of the only-wet cooling tower is almost similar to that of the series and series and parallel-series
hybrid cooling configurations.
parallel-series The impact of the
hybrid cooling configurations. cooling
The impact water
of thereturn
coolingtemperature
water returnon the actual power
temperature on
the actual power produced is analysed and shown in Figure 5. It was found that the net power
exhibits an almost steady decrease with the increase in the cooling water return temperature. It can
be seen that the power output decreases roughly by 3% for every 5 °C temperature rise.
dry cooling tower dissipates part of the cooling water heat before entering the wet cooling tower. The
lower cooling water return temperature lowers the saturation pressure in the condenser and
consequently a high pressure ratio is achieved in the steam turbine leading to greater power
generation. However, at higher ambient temperatures, the performance of the dry coolers is poor,
which leads to an insignificant change in the temperature at the inlet of the wet cooling tower and
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4739 12 of 19
hence the performance of the only-wet cooling tower is almost similar to that of the series and
parallel-series hybrid cooling configurations. The impact of the cooling water return temperature on
produced
the actualispower
analysed and shown
produced in Figure and
is analysed 5. It shown
was found that the5.net
in Figure It power exhibits
was found thatanthe
almost
net steady
power
decrease
exhibits an with the increase
almost in the cooling
steady decrease with thewater return
increase in temperature. It can
the cooling water be seen
return that the power
temperature. It can
output ◦
be seendecreases roughly
that the power by 3%
output for everyroughly
decreases 5 C temperature rise. 5 °C temperature rise.
by 3% for every

Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 19

Figure 4. Effect of ambient temperature on the cooling water return
return temperature.
temperature.

Figure 5. Effect of the cooling

Figure 5. cooling water
water return
return temperature
temperature on
on the
the power
power output.
output.

Table
Table 77 summarises
summarises the the effect
effect of
of the
the ambient
ambient temperature
temperature and and split
split ratio
ratio on
on the
the cooling
cooling water
water
return temperature, net power generation and water consumption. It can
return temperature, net power generation and water consumption. It can be observed that the coolingbe observed that the cooling
water
waterreturn
returntemperature
temperature is is
lower
lowerwhen
when the the
wet wet
fraction is high.
fraction This isThis
is high. because, as commented
is because, before,
as commented
the wet bulb temperature is lower than the dry-bulb temperature, which
before, the wet bulb temperature is lower than the dry-bulb temperature, which allows higher heatallows higher heat dissipation
through
dissipation the wet cooling
through thetower and hence
wet cooling tower a lower coolinga water
and hence lowerreturn
cooling temperature
water return is obtained.
temperature In theis
case of a parallel-series configuration, a slightly higher cooling water
obtained. In the case of a parallel-series configuration, a slightly higher cooling water returnreturn temperature was found
when the splitwas
temperature ratiofound
was varied
when from 25%ratio
the split to 75%.
wasThis is due
varied fromto the
25%fact that aThis
to 75%. higher splittofraction
is due the factleads
that
to a higher dry fraction and therefore the cooling water leaving the dry cooling
a higher split fraction leads to a higher dry fraction and therefore the cooling water leaving the dry tower and entering the
wet cooling tower will be at a lower temperature, minimising the evaporation
cooling tower and entering the wet cooling tower will be at a lower temperature, minimising the in the wet cooling tower.
In the case
evaporation in of
thethe parallel
wet cooling configuration,
tower. it was observed that at lower ambient temperatures (below
the wetIn the case of the parallel configuration, it was see
cooling tower design point temperature, Table that
observed 3) the cooling
at lower water temperatures
ambient return temperature
(below
decreases when the split ratio is increased up to 50% whereas
the wet cooling tower design point temperature, see Table 3) the cooling water return it increases at split ratiostemperature
over 50%.
This is because
decreases whenthe thewet
splitand dry
ratio is cooling
increased towers
up to are
50%designed
whereasto take the full
it increases loadratios
at split of heat rejected
over at the
50%. This is
because the wet and dry cooling towers are designed to take the full load of heat rejected at the condenser.
When the split ratio is increased from 25% to 50%, the cooling water return temperature decreases because
of a higher wet fraction and due to the fact that the cooling tower is oversized for the 50% coolant flow.
However, at higher split ratios less heat transfer area is available compared to the case of 50% flow, which
leads to a higher cooling water temperature although the wet fraction is higher.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4739 13 of 19

condenser. When the split ratio is increased from 25% to 50%, the cooling water return temperature
decreases because of a higher wet fraction and due to the fact that the cooling tower is oversized for the
50% coolant flow. However, at higher split ratios less heat transfer area is available compared to the
case of 50% flow, which leads to a higher cooling water temperature although the wet fraction is higher.
As expected, it was found that a maximum net power is generated in the case of only-wet cooling
system whereas a minimum net power generation is observed in the case of only-dry cooling system.
In the hybrid cooling system, higher net power generation was obtained when the wet cooling fraction
was increased which allows a lower cooling water return temperature. It is important to highlight that
the lowest cooling water return temperature was found in the case of a series configuration. However,
in this case, the net power generation was lower compared to only-wet cooling due to the high parasitic
load caused by the fans of the dry and wet cooling towers. Notice that the fan power consumption
resulting from the simulations in the case of dry cooling system was approximately 5% of the total
power generation. Moreover, it has been observed that the performance of the only-dry cooling tower
is better at lower ambient temperatures and higher net power generations are obtained compared to the
hybrid cooling systems. This is because in the case of a hybrid cooling system, the operation of the wet
cooling tower and additional pump (P2 in Figure 1) increases the parasitic load and hence a lower net
power is generated at lower ambient temperatures compared to only-dry cooling system. Regarding
the water consumption, as expected, this was the highest in the case of only-wet cooling. Additionally,
in the case of hybrid cooling systems, water consumption increased when the wet fraction was higher.
Moreover, it can be observed that at a given relative humidity, the water consumption increased
when the ambient dry-bulb temperature increased in all cases studied. In the case of series-parallel
configuration, the water consumption was the lowest of all hybrid configurations. However, this was
at the expense of a decrease in net power generation. This reduction in water consumption is due to a
lower cooling water temperature at the inlet of the wet cooling tower caused by a pre-cooling effect
through the dry cooling tower, which reduces the evaporation losses in the wet cooling tower. It is
worth noting that this effect is more visible in the case of a 100% series configuration compared to
only-wet cooling system. This gap decreases when the ambient temperature increases due to the fact
that the efficiency of the dry cooler drops at higher temperature. Consequently the temperature of the
cooling water is higher at the inlet of wet cooler.
Figure 6 shows the trends of the specific water consumption at variable ambient temperatures
and split ratios of 25%, 50% and 75%. It can be seen that amongst all the hybrid configurations,
the minimum specific water consumption was observed in the case of series-parallel configuration.
Specific water consumption as low as 1.21 m3 /MWh, corresponding to a split ratio of 25% and ambient
temperature of 12 ◦ C was found in the case of series-parallel configuration. Moreover, it can be noticed
that the specific water consumption increases with the increase in ambient temperature and wet
fraction. The highest specific water consumption was obtained in the case of only-wet cooling system
with 5.71 m3 /MWh water consumption corresponding to the ambient temperature of 45 ◦ C. However,
the percentage increase in the specific water consumption was less in the case of only-wet cooling
system compared to the hybrid cooling system. This is because both cooling towers are designed for
100% load, being oversized in the hybrid mode, which allows a higher evaporation. In the case of the
hybrid cooling configuration, the specific water consumption increased at higher ambient temperatures
due to the poor performance of the dry cooler that supply cooling water to the wet cooling tower at a
higher temperature which allows higher evaporation rate and consequently higher water consumption.
Specific water consumption increased by a factor of 1.5 in the case of wet cooling tower when the
ambient temperature was increased from 15 to 45 ◦ C, whereas in the case of hybrid cooling systems
with a 50% split ratio, the specific water consumption increased by a factor of 2.2, 2.5 and 2.6 in the
case of parallel, parallel-series and series-parallel configurations, respectively.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4739 14 of 19

Table 7. Effect of ambient temperature and split ratio on the cooling water return temperature, net power generation and cooling tower water consumption.

Series-parallel Configuration Parallel-series Configuration Parallel Configuration

Tambient Series
Dry Only (Split Ratio) (Split Ratio) (Split Ratio) Wet Only
(◦C) Configuration
25% 50% 75% 25% 50% 75% 25% 50% 75%
15 21.72 17.86 16.56 16.02 16.12 16.77 18.23 16.75 15.92 17.01 15.72 20.81
Cooling Water

Temperature

21 27.88 23.47 21.72 20.99 20.83 21.34 22.33 22.34 20.95 21.44 20.57 23.97
27 34.08 29.14 26.85 25.86 25.48 25.78 26.41 28.0 26.0 25.96 25.30 27.49
Return

33 40.30 34.87 32.01 30.66 30.02 30.21 30.55 33.72 31.13 30.55 29.91 31.19
(◦ C)

39 46.55 40.66 37.24 35.49 34.53 34.65 34.83 39.51 36.36 35.23 34.46 35.07
45 52.81 46.51 42.57 40.35 39.10 39.14 39.23 45.35 41.73 40.08 39.08 39.35
15 50.10 49.62 49.67 49.65 49.64 49.64 49.56 49.95 50.01 49.91 49.62 52.22
21 49.24 49.14 49.29 49.30 49.31 49.31 49.25 49.52 49.66 49.60 49.29 51.87
Generation
Net Power

27 47.91 48.24 48.63 48.74 48.79 48.80 48.73 48.72 49.07 49.06 48.77 51.31
(MWe )

33 46.29 46.97 47.61 47.85 47.99 47.99 47.97 47.51 48.10 48.23 47.96 50.54
39 44.46 45.46 46.34 46.75 46.99 47.01 47.01 46.03 46.87 47.17 46.95 49.61
45 42.47 43.76 44.90 45.48 45.83 45.87 45.90 44.37 45.44 45.91 45.79 48.46
15 0 18.78 22.74 24.45 26.88 30.18 37.40 24.88 31.87 39.03 25.41 54.18
Consumption

21 0 22.84 28.58 31.11 34.28 37.32 44.38 29.37 38.04 45.59 32.59 59.21
27 0 26.92 34.84 38.43 42.15 45.23 51.63 33.74 44.25 52.04 40.54 63.82
33 0 30.83 41.23 46.3 50.64 53.31 58.81 37.91 50.39 58.49 49.2 68.38
Water

(kg/s)

39 0 34.55 47.55 54.28 59.55 61.49 65.66 41.92 56.38 64.8 58.43 72.84
45 0 38.08 53.50 62.36 68.21 69.67 72.45 45.66 61.77 70.76 67.41 76.90
ambient temperatures due to the poor performance of the dry cooler that supply cooling water to the
wet cooling tower at a higher temperature which allows higher evaporation rate and consequently
higher water consumption. Specific water consumption increased by a factor of 1.5 in the case of wet
cooling tower when the ambient temperature was increased from 15 to 45 °C, whereas in the case of
hybrid cooling systems with a 50% split ratio, the specific water consumption increased by a factor
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4739 15 of 19
of 2.2, 2.5 and 2.6 in the case of parallel, parallel-series and series-parallel configurations, respectively.

Figure
Figure 6.
6. Effect
Effect of
of ambient
ambient temperature
temperature on the specific water consumption.

5.3. Effect of the Cooling Tower Capacity

In this section, the effect of the cooling tower capacity on the specific water consumption is shown.
A hybrid cooling system with variable design capacity of both cooling towers was considered. Based on
the results obtained in Section 5.2, the parallel and series-parallel configurations have been selected
for this analysis as they have already shown to have the lowest specific water consumption of all the
configurations examined.
In the case of the series-parallel configuration, a dry cooling tower with a design capacity of 100%
of the total heat rejection load was considered whereas the design cooling capacity of the wet cooling
tower was varied in line with the split ratio. For instance, in the case of 25% split ratio, the wet cooling
tower is designed with a cooling capacity of 25% of the total power plant cooling load whereas the dry
cooling tower would have a designed cooling capacity of 100% of the total power plant cooling load.
The results were compared to the base case in which the hybrid cooling system was designed with
a 100% cooling capacity dry and 100% cooling capacity wet cooling towers. As expected, a slightly
higher power was generated in the case of a hybrid cooling system with each cooling tower designed
for 100% cooling capacity. This is because more heat can be dissipated in the cooling towers because of
the higher heat transfer area. However, the higher evaporation taking place in the wet cooling tower
leads to a higher water consumption which increases the total water consumed per unit of electricity
generated. For instance, at an ambient temperature of 30 ◦ C and a split ratio of 50%, the net power
generated for the base case was 48.16 MWe compared to 48.00 MWe in the case of hybrid system
with reduced capacity cooling tower whereas the water consumption was 38.16 m3 and 26.35 m3 ,
respectively. Figure 7 shows the specific water consumption of this hybrid cooling configuration at
different ambient temperatures. It can be seen that the specific water consumption was higher in the
case of the hybrid cooling system with 100% cooling capacity in both cooling towers. For instance,
at an ambient temperature of 30 ◦ C, the specific water consumption decreased approximately by 50%,
30% and 15% in the case of 25%, 50% and 75% cooling capacity for the wet cooling tower, respectively,
compared to 100% cooling capacities towers.
was 38.16 m3 and 26.35 m3, respectively. Figure 7 shows the specific water consumption of this hybrid
cooling configuration at different ambient temperatures. It can be seen that the specific water
consumption was higher in the case of the hybrid cooling system with 100% cooling capacity in both
cooling towers. For instance, at an ambient temperature of 30 °C, the specific water consumption
decreased approximately
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4739 by 50%, 30% and 15% in the case of 25%, 50% and 75% cooling capacity
16 offor
19
the wet cooling tower, respectively, compared to 100% cooling capacities towers.

Figure 7. Effect of cooling tower capacities on the specific water consumption at different ambient
temperatures (series-parallel configuration).
configuration).

In
In the case of
the case of the
the parallel
parallel configuration,
configuration, the
the cooling
cooling capacities
capacities of
of the
the wet
wet and
and dry
dry cooling
cooling towers
towers
were varied in line with the split ratio and the results were compared to a hybrid cooler
were varied in line with the split ratio and the results were compared to a hybrid cooler with 100% with 100%
cooling
cooling capacity
capacity in
in both
both cooling
cooling towers
towers (base
(base case).
case). For
For instance,
instance, in
in the
the case
case of
of 25% split ratio,
25% split ratio, the wet
the wet
cooling tower is designed with a cooling capacity of 25% of the total power plant
cooling tower is designed with a cooling capacity of 25% of the total power plant cooling loadcooling load whereas
the dry cooling
whereas the drytower would
cooling have
tower a designed
would have acooling capacity
designed of 75%
cooling of theoftotal
capacity 75%power
of theplant
totalcooling
power
load. In the case of a hybrid cooling system with the cooling tower designed at reduced capacity,
a slightly higher power can be generated by the CSP plant because of the lower parasitic losses due to
a lower number of fans operating in both cooling towers. Interestingly, the impact of the cooling tower
capacity is higher on the water consumption than on power generation. For instance, at an ambient
temperature of 30 ◦ C and a split ratio of 50%, the net power generated for the base case was 48.63 MWe
compared to 49.22 MWe in the case of a hybrid system with reduced capacity cooling tower whereas
the water consumption changed from 47.38 m3 to 41.96 m3 . Figure 8 shows the effect of the ambient
temperature on the specific water consumption for the parallel hybrid cooling system with reduced
cooling capacity cooling towers. It can be observed that the specific water consumption was lower in
the case of a hybrid cooling system where the wet cooling capacity is reduced in line with the split
ratio rather than for a wet cooling capacity of 100%. This is because less water is evaporated in the wet
cooling tower due to the lower cooling capacity. For instance, at a temperature of 30 ◦ C, the specific
water consumption decreased approximately by 35%, 13% and 2.5% for the hybrid cooling system
with 25%, 50% and 75% cooling capacity for the wet cooling tower, respectively, compared to a hybrid
cooling system with 100% cooling capacity in both cooling towers.
It is worth noting that in any hybrid cooling system, a reduction in the wet cooling capacity can
make a significant reduction in water consumption with only a small impact on the power generation.
For instance, in the case of the series-parallel hybrid system with a wet cooling tower with 50% cooling
capacity, the decrease in the power generation is only 0.7% whereas a reduction of 40% in the water
consumption is possible when compared to a series-parallel hybrid system with each cooling tower
designed for 100% cooling capacity.
water consumption was lower in the case of a hybrid cooling system where the wet cooling capacity
is reduced in line with the split ratio rather than for a wet cooling capacity of 100%. This is because
less water is evaporated in the wet cooling tower due to the lower cooling capacity. For instance, at a
temperature of 30 °C, the specific water consumption decreased approximately by 35%, 13% and 2.5%
for the hybrid
Sustainability 2020, cooling
12, 4739 system with 25%, 50% and 75% cooling capacity for the wet cooling tower,
17 of 19
respectively, compared to a hybrid cooling system with 100% cooling capacity in both cooling towers.

Figure 8. Effect of cooling tower capacities on the specific water consumption

consumption at different ambient
temperatures (parallel configuration).

6. Conclusions
It is worth noting that in any hybrid cooling system, a reduction in the wet cooling capacity can
makeIna significant
this study, reduction
a hybrid in water system
cooling consumption withintegrated
has been only a small impact
into on the
a 50 MW powerblock
e power generation.
(with
For instance,
the same in the caseasofthe
configuration theCSP
series-parallel hybridand
plant Andasol-1) system withmodelled
has been a wet cooling
usingtower with 50%
the Thermoflex
cooling capacity,
simulation tool to the decrease
assess in the power
its performance generation
in different is only 0.7%
configurations whereas
under a reduction
different of conditions.
operating 40% in the
water
The consumption
evaluation is possible
has taken when
the water comparedper
consumption to aunit
series-parallel hybrid
power generated as system with eachindicator.
the performance cooling
tower
The designed
main for 100%
conclusions cooling
obtained capacity.
from the evaluation are detailed below:

• Conclusions
6. The most favourable configuration in terms of water consumption is the series-parallel
configuration in which a water reduction up to 62% is possible compared to the only-wet
In this study,
cooling optiona at
hybrid coolingtemperature
an ambient system has been
of 40integrated intoan
◦ C, whereas a 50 MWe power
increase block
of 2.5% (with
in the the
power
samegeneration
configuration as the compared
is obtained CSP planttoAndasol-1) and has
only-dry cooling been modelled using the Thermoflex
system.
simulation tool to assess its performance in different configurations under different operating
• The parallel configuration has shown better performance in terms of power generation. An increase
conditions. The evaluation has taken the water consumption per unit power generated as the
of 3.2% in power generation is obtained when compared with only-dry cooling option with a
performance indicator. The main conclusions obtained from the evaluation are detailed below:
reduction of 30% water consumption compared to only-wet cooling option.
• The
A 40%most favourable
of reduction configuration
in water in terms
consumption can beofachievable
water consumption
with a power is generation
the series-parallel
penalty
configuration
of only 0.7% ininthe
which
caseaof
water reduction
a hybrid upwith
system to 62%
wetiscooling
possibletower
compared
with to the only-wet
a 50% cooling
cooling capacity
when compared to a hybrid system with a wet cooling tower with a 100% cooling capacity.

Further Developments and Economic Consideration

It is important to highlight that all the theoretical analyses must be validated by tests in either
pilot or demonstration plants to push the industry towards the use of this technology. Currently,
there are no CSP plants that integrate this cooling technology, but Plataforma Solar de Almería has
recently installed a test bench facility to evaluate the efficiency and water consumption of a hybrid
cooler composed of a wet cooling tower and an Air-Cooled Heat Exchanger that can be operated at
different configurations. This test facility can be used to complete the annual simulations that would
allow us to complement the theoretical results to obtain more accurate conclusions.
Despite the fact that the CAPEX of a hybrid cooling system is higher compared to a conventional
wet or dry cooling system, the higher power generation compared to only-dry cooling system and the
lower water consumption compared to only-wet cooling system would provide an economic benefit
depending on the electricity and water prices and the location. This work can be very useful for further
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4739 18 of 19

studies in terms of the best configuration based on the operating strategies. Annual performance
analysis of a hybrid cooling system integrated into a CSP plant could not only provide a better
understanding of water consumption but will also allow an economic evaluation of the system.

Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/11/4739/s1.

Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, software, writing—Original draft preparation, F.A.; supervision, P.P.,
K.P.; writing—Review & editing P.P., L.R., A.C., C.-A.L., J.G., P.T., K.P. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under grant agreement No 654479, project WASCOP. The APC was funded by MDPI.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviation
ACC Air-Cooled Condenser
ACHE Air-Cooled Heat Exchanger
CAPEX Capital Expenditure
CSP Concentrated Solar Power
DNI Direct Normal Irradiance
HTF Heat Transfer Fluid
HP High Pressure
IP Intermediate Pressure
LP Low Pressure
LCOE Levelized Cost Of Electricity
MAPE Mean Absolute Percentage Error
MCR Maximum Continuous Rating
PT Parabolic Trough
ST Solar Tower
SV Split Valve
WASCOP Water Saving for Concentrated Solar Power

References
1. Wagner, M.J.; Gilman, P. Technical Manual for the SAM Physical Trough Model; National Renewable Energy
Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2011.
2. Zhang, H.L.; Baeyens, J.; Degrève, J.; Cáceres, G. Concentrated solar power plants: Review and design
methodology. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 22, 466–481. [CrossRef]
3. Colmenar-Santos, A.; Borge-Diez, D.; Molina, C.P.; Castro-Gil, M. Water consumption in solar parabolic
trough plants: Review and analysis of the southern Spain case. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 34, 565–577.
[CrossRef]
4. Barigozzi, G.; Perdichizzi, A.; Ravelli, S. Wet and dry cooling systems optimization applied to a modern
waste-to-energy cogeneration heat and power plant. Appl. Energy 2011, 88, 1366–1376. [CrossRef]
5. Kotb, A. Determination of optimum height for counter flow cooling tower. Asian J. Appl. Sci. Eng. 2013, 2,
33–47.
6. Tang, T.; Xu, J.-Q.; Jin, S.-X.; Wei, H.-Q. Study on operating characteristics of power plant with dry and wet
cooling systems. Energy Power Eng. 2013, 5, 651–656. [CrossRef]
7. Williams, C.R.; Rasul, M.G. Feasibility of a Hybrid Cooling System in a Thermal Power Plant. In Proceedings
of the 3rd IASME/WSEAS International Conference on Energy & Environment, Cambridge, UK, 23–25
February 2008.
8. Zhai, H.; Rubin, E.S. A Techno-Economic Assessment of Hybrid Cooling Systems for Coal and
Natural-Gas-Fired Power Plants with and without Carbon Capture and Storage. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016,
50, 4127–4134. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Rezaei, E.; Shafiei, S.; Abdollahnezhad, A. Reducing water consumption of an industrial plant cooling unit
using hybrid cooling tower. Energy Convers. Manag. 2010, 51, 311–319. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4739 19 of 19

10. Ashwood, A.; Bharathan, D. Hybrid Cooling Systems for Low-Temperature Geothermal Power Production;
NREL/TP-5500-48765; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2011.
11. Benn, S.P.; Poplaski, L.M.; Faghri, A.; Bergman, T.L. Analysis of thermosyphon/heat pipe integration for
feasibility of dry cooling for thermoelectric power generation. Appl. Eng. 2016, 104, 358–374. [CrossRef]
12. Bustamante, J.G.; Rattner, A.S.; Garimella, S. Achieving near-water-cooled power plant performance with
air-cooled condensers. Appl. Eng. 2016, 105, 362–371. [CrossRef]
13. Wagner, M.J.; Kutscher, C. The impact of hybrid wet/dry cooling on concentrating solar power plant
performance. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Energy Sustainability, Phoenix, AZ,
USA, 17–22 May 2010.
14. Petrakopoulou, F.; Olmeda-Delgado, M. Studying the Reduction of Water Use in Integrated Solar
Combined-Cycle Plants. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2085. [CrossRef]
15. Water Saving for Concentrated Solar Power. Available online: http://wascop.eu (accessed on 15 May 2020).
16. Kloppers, J.C.; Kroger, D.G. Cooling tower performance evaluation: Merkel, Poppe, and e-NTU methods of
analysis. J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 2005, 127, 1–7. [CrossRef]
17. Weir, C.D. An analytical approach to the estimation of the performance of steam turbine cycles off-design.
Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part A: Power Process Eng. 1985, 199, 33–43. [CrossRef]
18. Cooke, D.H. On Prediction of Off-Design Multistage Turbine Pressures by Stodola’s Ellipse. Trans. ASME
1985, 107, 596–606. [CrossRef]
19. Thermoflow Inc. Thermoflex. 2015. Available online: https://www.thermoflow.com/products_
generalpurpose.html (accessed on 5 June 2020).
20. Blanco-Marigorta, A.M.; Sanchez-Henríquez, M.V.; Peña-Quintana, J.A. Exergetic comparison of two different
cooling technologies for the power cycle of a thermal power plant. Energy 2011, 36, 1966–1972. [CrossRef]
21. Dias de la Fuente, E. Estudio y simulación de una planta termosolar de colectores cilindro parabólicos.
Master’s Thesis, Universidad Pontificia de Comillas, Madrid, Spain, 2011.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).