Link to document:
Status
Electronic Resource
Call number
Publication
JPL 5105 105; Report; April 1982.
Language
Library's review
ABSTRACT:
A critique has been made of a study prepared by Sandia National Laboratory, Livermore (SNLL) titled "Design, Cost and Performance Comparisons of Several Solar Thermal Systems for Process Heat." SNLL performance and cost estimates for thermal transport piping networks employed by parabolic
Differences in methodologies were apparent when, using identical SNLL cost input for field piping, insulation, and fluid, the JPL piping optimization code predicted lower costs and better performance than the SNLL published results. The cost model differences are primarily attributed to SNLL's assumption of conventional labor-intensive techniques for field installation of the piping network. The values used by JPL are predicated on use of labor-saving methods, encompassing automated factory fabrication of piping network components and semi-automated field installation, which are projected to achieve thermal transport cost reductions of as much as 40% compared to conventional methods. These major differences between SNLL and JPL in the approach to fabrication of piping networks obviously alters SNLL's comparison of central receivers, parabolic troughs and parabolic dishes, where the central receiver was favored since it did not require collector field piping. Since the DOE parabolic dish development program, being managed by JPL, is based on technology development such as low-cost piping to enhance penetration into thermal markets, the SNLL comparison based on high-cost piping is not applicable to the systems being developed.
A critique has been made of a study prepared by Sandia National Laboratory, Livermore (SNLL) titled "Design, Cost and Performance Comparisons of Several Solar Thermal Systems for Process Heat." SNLL performance and cost estimates for thermal transport piping networks employed by parabolic
Show More
dish systems for the production of process heat are shown to yield significantly lower performance and higher costs than published results from recent Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) analyses. These significant differences in the JPL and SNLL results for the energy transport costs are thought to be due, in part, to less than optimal field layouts used by SNLL, differences in the piping optimization methodologies, and the installed, insulated piping cost models. An independently run study by Ford Aerospace and Communications Corp. (FACC) has indicated good agreement with the JPL results. Differences in methodologies were apparent when, using identical SNLL cost input for field piping, insulation, and fluid, the JPL piping optimization code predicted lower costs and better performance than the SNLL published results. The cost model differences are primarily attributed to SNLL's assumption of conventional labor-intensive techniques for field installation of the piping network. The values used by JPL are predicated on use of labor-saving methods, encompassing automated factory fabrication of piping network components and semi-automated field installation, which are projected to achieve thermal transport cost reductions of as much as 40% compared to conventional methods. These major differences between SNLL and JPL in the approach to fabrication of piping networks obviously alters SNLL's comparison of central receivers, parabolic troughs and parabolic dishes, where the central receiver was favored since it did not require collector field piping. Since the DOE parabolic dish development program, being managed by JPL, is based on technology development such as low-cost piping to enhance penetration into thermal markets, the SNLL comparison based on high-cost piping is not applicable to the systems being developed.
Show Less