12th Sede Boker symposium on Solar Energy Production 2004

SOLAR OPERATED ORGANIC RANKINE CYCLE UNITS

FOR 0.2 TO 10 MWe SYSTEMS

Uriyel Fisher, Arik Ring, Chemi Sugarmen

ORMAT Industries Ltd., P.O.B 68, Yavne 81100, Israel
Phone: 972-8-9433777, Fax: 972-8-9439901, ormat@ormat.com
Abstract - This paper presents the solar operated organic Rankine cycle (ORC) for 200 kWe to 10 MWe
systems. The paper includes discussions of the technical and economical aspects of the solar ORC design.
The nine SEGS power plants located at three sites in the Mojave Desert in California; currently produce
about 90% of the world's solar thermal electric power and about 60% of all solar electricity ever generated
worldwide. However, between 1991 and 2004 no new SEGS-type commercial systems were
commissioned. Currently, ORMAT is supplying a 1 MWe on grid unit, scheduled for commissioning in
early 2005, which is considered the first commercial solar thermal power plant since 1990. As a developer
and manufacturer of ORC systems, ORMAT evaluates the technical combination of the solar trough
technology and ORC power generation systems. Advantages such as unattended work, low maintenance
cost and operation in a wide range of temperatures give this combination a lead over other thermal systems
®
in the range of 200 kWe to 10 MWe. The combination of the well-proven ORMAT Energy Converter
(OEC) organic cycle unit with a parabolic trough or other medium temperature collectors such as the linear
Fresnel collector represent an attractive alternative to photovoltaic cells and to solar steam Rankine cycle
plants. Hybridization is possible with this technology to improve solar to electricity overall conversion
efficiency and provide base load power or peaking capacity. Future promising paths for this technology are
combining the solar ORC with a biomass backup boiler, achieving an all renewable solar-biomass package
or utilizing the excess heat to drive an absorption chiller.

1. INTRODUCTION 2. ORMAT’S EXPERIENCE WITH ORC

The utilization of solar thermal energy for power
generation has been very well demonstrated by the
trough technology, which is used in the Solar Electric
Generation Systems (SEGS) in California. Those nine
plants were commissioned by LUZ from 1984 to 1990,
totaling 354 MW and are now producing more power
than nameplate capacity indicates. A typical 30 MWe
LS-2 type collector field in the Kramer junction
generated 43 MW gross peak capacity in 2003. The
SEGS design, implementing a steam Rankine cycle
suitable for larger plants, is not feasible for smaller
power plants of only a few MW. This is due to the
high-pressure steam plant that becomes uneconomical,
particularly its auxiliaries, the boiler and water make-
up, including the unreasonable number of onsite
employees. Because of operational advantages and
reliability, ORMAT considered the combination of its
highly reliable ORC units with 160-400°C thermal
fluid temperature solar collectors, for power plants of
up to 10 MWe. This option has also been considered
by Arizona Public Service (APS), a Pinnacle West
Capital Corp. subsidiary, for installation under the
Arizona law for renewable power production. See also
Price and Hassani, 2002. This paper introduces the
ORMAT design and considerations, including
comparison with PV systems in power ranges of 0.2 to
10 MWe.
The Rankine cycle is a closed loop
thermodynamic cycle in which the operating fluid is
heated by an external heat source that vaporizes the
working fluid. The pressurized heated vapor in the
vaporizer expands through a turbine and is condensed
in a water- or air-cooled condenser. Then it is pumped
back to the vaporizer to re-start the cycle. The
operating fluid is selected according to the
temperatures that can be maintained in the vaporizer
and the condenser and is also affected by the heating
method, whether hot gas, hot liquid or direct fire.
Compared with the steam Rankine cycle, the ORC
operates at lower pressures, O&M costs are lower and
in many locations ORMAT’s ORC units are operating
unattended.
ORMAT uses the organic Rankine cycle for utility-
scale power generation from geothermal energy
sources and also from waste heat or direct fuel
combustion in small communication units.

o:ida/papers/solar/4255 Page 1 of 5 February 23, 2004

12th Sede Boker symposium on Solar Energy Production 2004
Turbine
Production Wells
Evaporator
Condenser
Pre-heater
Underground water
flow direction
Recuperator
Re-injection Wells Organic Fluid Pump
Fig. 1: Typical ORC geothermal power plant
A typical schematic of a water-fed geothermal plant is
given in Fig. 1. A well designed geothermal field can
supply heat at an almost constant temperature. In such
case the variations in the produced power are mainly
subject to variations in the temperature of the cold,
temperature resource, whether it is air or water that
cools the organic fluid in the condenser. Because of lack
of cooling water at many sites and because of
environmental legislation, most recent plants are based
on air-cooled condensers, resulting in a relatively high
condensation temperature.
ORMAT has experience with several Organic fluids,
matching the appropriate fluid to the heat source.
Most OEC units operate one or two turbines coupled
directly to an electric generator without a gearbox.
Enforcing synchronized turbine wheel speeds of
3,000/3,600 rpm that may lead to uncommon blade
design is nevertheless worth the effort in most cases.
The OEC is adapted for high temperature operation
in waste heat or direct firing applications:
Buffer tank
Solar Field
High
temp.
Storage
Expansion
tank
Low Temp.
Field Circulating
Pump
Fig. 2: Solar operated ORC by thermal fluid with supplementary firing
o:ida/papers/solar/4255
• Different motive organic fluids designed for higher
evaporation temperatures.
• Use forced circulation of the motive fluid, to reduce
risk of decomposition of the organic fluid.
• Use an intermediate heat transfer liquid from the
family of thermal oils.
Use of intermediate liquid reduces the danger of over-
heating and decomposition of the hydrocarbons.
Nevertheless, ORMAT’s extensive experience in the
operation of ORC units shows that longer material
lifetime requires limiting the design evaporation
temperature of the pentane to 2100C.
3. SOLAR ORC TECHNOLOGY
A typical solar ORC power plant with built-in
storage and option for supplementary firing of biomass
or another heat source is shown in Fig. 2. Whenever
the intermediate thermal liquid is not hot enough, the
supplementary firing system adds additional heat to
reach a specific pre-set evaporation temperature and
keep the power production at the desired rate.
This design differs from the LUZ design that enables
solar or natural gas operation. Installing the
supplementary boiler in line after the solar field allows
for topping, thus for better conversion efficiencies and
more accumulated solar power generation, since the
unit is operated longer at peak efficiency range.
The solar ORC design demonstrated in Fig. 2 allows
for many operational options such as:
• Charging the storage without operating the power
unit.
• Pumping the thermal fluid directly to the power unit
and bypassing the storage tank
Biomass. heater or other
supplementary firing method
Turbine/
Evaporator Generator
w/super-heater
Pre-heater
Recuperator
Storage
Organic
Fluid Pump
Page 2 of 5 February 23, 2004
12th Sede Boker symposium on Solar Energy Production 2004

• Charging the storage in parallel to operation of the

power unit.
• Using the stored heat, for example during the night.
• Using the supplementary firing when the thermal fluid is
not sufficiently hot, or bypassing it.
• Sending the thermal fluid to the solar field or storing it
in low temperature storage tanks.

The supplementary-firing unit can operate the power

plant regardless of the solar field conditions, provided it
is designed for this.

The buffer and expansion tanks are necessary for cases

without storage or when the storage tanks are by-passed.
Storage management is necessary when a multi-tank
facility is used for optimization of charging and
discharging processes, unless salt-mixture latent heat is
used to maintain specific storage temperatures. Fig. 4: Annual production in kWh/year,
Plant cost in $, Energy cost $/kWh

5. COMPARISON WITH PV COST AND LEC

Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) has taken a back

seat in recent years while Photovoltaic systems are a
common site in many countries. Photovoltaic systems are
excellent for small off-grid systems especially in
applications that require no storage, like a small PV array
powering a water pump for irrigation, shown in fig. 5 in
the rural part of Mato Grosso Brazil.

Fig. 3: 1 MW OEC for Arizona

4. LEC (LEAST ENERGY COST) AND O&M

Decisions on storage size and field multiples should
be made according to financial evaluation based on the
cost of components. We have added the cost of storage,
varying between $150/MWh thermal for large capacity,
to $250/MWh for small capacity. Adding this to the cost
of ORC assumed as $1,500/kW installed, collector field
at $200/m2 and O&M at 2.5% of investment, we reached
the results given in Fig. 3. Plant cost is in US$.
Production is given in kWh per year and cost of energy in
$/kWh. Energy cost is about $0.23/kWh and drops for
higher area multiples because the production increases in
comparison to the area, while the cost of the basic ORC
unit remains constant. In Fig. 4 the cut-off is 200 kWe
with storage.
Fig. 5: Photovoltaic cells powering water pump
without batteries, Mato Grosso Brazil.
The currently available photovoltaic systems are unable
to compete with on and off grid solar ORC systems when
comparing cost per kW/h supplied.
Regarding long-term operation, solar cell performance
suffers from degradation of output during the first few
years. This is known and is considered by the designers.
Physical durability of base materials, connections and
wiring is not proven for many new types of cells. The
inverters used to suffer from a short lifetime while the
control system, switches and relays are widely used and
can be considered as proven technology for long term
operation.

o:ida/papers/solar/4255 Page 3 of 5 February 23, 2004

12th Sede Boker symposium on Solar Energy Production 2004
The huge battery banks have made off-grid MW sized PV
systems totally unacceptable, while for on-grid systems
PV’s offer the electricity without any possibility of
control on the output over time, while solar ORC
technology offers heat storage options or hybridization to
achieve power by demand that would constitute real,
dependable capacity. Utilities deploying either on-grid
PV systems or wind turbines would be compelled to
install backup power units (usually a gas turbine) for
times when demand peaks. Considering the total cost of
the PV system or wind turbine, this extra cost should be
taken into account.
For gradual change in PV plant prices see (Strong &
Scheller, 1993), (Renewable Energy World, 2002-2003),
(IEA Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme, 2002) and
other sources. The price of solar cells has dropped over
the years, due to improved materials and production
methods. This causes a continuous drop of system prices
but there are still size effects. Using the above references
we found that small PV systems are priced between
$6,000 to $10,000 per kW installed, while for large plants
of 1 MW and larger, the figures are closer to $5,000 per
kW installed, including the inverters and control panel,
but without storage.
Since the specific investment varies so much and the
power output results from the site values, fig. 9 gives a
range of electricity costs per kWh, for different
investments and for solar insolation between 1,500 to
2,750 kWh/m2/year. The cost is based on the assumption
that O&M is 1% of the investment per year. This is
considered reasonable for PV auxiliaries, but since
financial evaluations consider plant lifetime to be
15 years, an option for unforeseen expenditures for
replacement parts is added. Fig. 10 shows results for two
high radiation cases (2,500 and 2,750 kWh/m2/year)
considering a 15-year lifetime and another curve that
considers cells and other parts replacement every five
years, assuming the replacement in five years is about
one third of the total cost. This is equivalent to a 6%
increase of annual maintenance costs.
The reduced lifetime adds some 10 to 22 cents per kWh,
depending on the initial investment. While in the 15-year
system O&M contributes about 1 cent per kWh, the
whole addition mentioned above is due to the increase in
annual expenditure i.e. increase in O&M.
The fact that in a large PV system there is no storage at
all is significantly important. Therefore, in spite of the
good annual production, the momentary production can
fluctuate, which makes it relevant only to grid connected
systems in which buffering is done by the grid while the
customers are unaware of it.
Even though PV cells are produced at a rate of about 500
MW peak installed per year and no solar ORC power
plant has ever been commissioned, installation costs of
o:ida/papers/solar/4255 Page 4 of 5
solar ORC compare favorably with PV systems for
systems of installed capacity in the megawatt range.
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The paper presents the solar ORMAT Energy
Converter Rankine cycle units especially in combination
with parabolic trough collector solar thermal system with
one axis tracking.
In most references, the road map to lowering the LEC of
concentrated solar power links plant size and costs. Solar
ORC technology currently offers an alternative,
deploying several solar OEC units of 200 kW to 10 MW
with parabolic troughs or linear Fresnel collectors which
will reduce costs also for the larger power plants in the
future.
The system and methods presented can operate as a solar
only plant or as one supported by external heat by
supplementary firing. Fossil fuel or biomass, or any other
available fuel, can be used in such a supplementary
heating system. The system can be operated with or
without heat storage and the influence on energy costs
and the amount of energy produced is presented.
Supplementary firing can be considered as an alternative
for long-term storage in specific cases.
Fig. 6: Influence of Cut-Off on annual power
production, energy and O&M costs.
Investment and O&M have a substantial role in the cost
of electricity from solar systems and efforts must be made
to reduce this share of the cost. The paper shows that
there is a direct relationship between the field size and the
length of storage time. Storage of extra heat helps reduce
the sensitivity to short term radiation fluctuations, and
utilize it at a later time.
The paper also shows the influence of cut-off before
initial start of operation and in such cases where the
energy supply is too low. High area multiples, i.e. larger
February 23, 2004
12th Sede Boker symposium on Solar Energy Production 2004

fields with the same power plant installed, produce
cheaper electric power. Such options must be examined
per site based on specific financial data.
2.
Although accurate comparison with PV could not be
made due to continuous changes in cost and technical
properties of the PV cells, the paper gives parametric
curves that can help in comparing electricity production
and costs, once the system characteristics are known. The
great advantage of the thermal system over PV in large 3.
systems is the storage option that is not possible in large
PV systems, and the option of external supplementary
heating so that thermal systems also have the off-grid or
base load options. Today the solar thermal receivers are 4.
still the most expensive items in a solar thermal system
compared to the PV cells, which are already about 30-
50% of the PV system cost. While there is not enough
accumulated information on experience with MW size
PV power plants, the ORC lifetime has been proven in
many geothermal and other applications worldwide. 5.
However, despite the ongoing developments in the design
of parabolic collectors since the first SEGS plants were
built, prices are still high.
NREL Report SR-550-34440, October 2003,
Chicago Illinois.
Uriyel Fisher, Chemi Sugarmen, Arik Ring,
Solar Operated Organic Rankine Cycle For 1
TO 5 MW Grid Connected Systems,
Proceedings ISES Solar world Congress 16-19
June 2003, Goteborg Sweden.
DOE troughnet at ;
http://www.eren.doe.gov/troughnet/deployed.
html.
Geyer M. et al. Eurotrough-Parabolic Trough
collector Developed for Cost Efficient Solar
Power Generation. 11th Solar Paces
Symposium Sept 4-6 2002 .Zurich,
Switzerland.
IEA Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme,
Statistics, System Prices at http://www.oja-
services.nl/iea-pvps/isr/home.htm , December
2002.

The increased solar market brought about 500 MW peak
PV installations per year, while no new commercial
parabolic trough plants were built since the SEGS IX was
commissioned in 1991.
As a result, the trough collectors require new design and
inexpensive methods of production to reduce the
investment and O&M cost, as discussed by (Price et al,
2002), (Geyer et al, 2002) and (Price and Kearney, 1999),
and the linear Fresnel collector has not been sufficiently
tested. Unfortunately, this is the typical head and tail
case, since mass production is a result of massive sales of
installations and sales depend on price. The circle can be
broken by institutional aid to reduce the cost of collectors
by new designs and the development of mass production
methods. It can also be done by reducing financial risks
through securing alternative heat supply to the power
system by supplementary firing, as suggested in the
paper.
PV systems enjoy such high profile and excellent public
relations, solar thermal systems should be pushed towards
public awareness. With public awareness and appropriate
funding different CSP technologies are very promising,
including solar ORC units for 200 kW to 10 MW or off-
grid in developed as well as in developing countries.
REFERENCES
1. Sargent & Lundy LLC, Assessment of
Parabolic Trough and Power Tower Solar
Technology Cost and Performance Forecasts,
6. NREL Solar Data at:
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/
7. Price H. and Hassani V. Modular Trough
Power Plant Cycle and system analysis.
NREL/TP-550-31240. January 2002.
8. Price H. and Kearney D. Parabolic Trough
Technology Roadmap A Pathway for
Sustained Commercial Development and
Deployment of Parabolic Trough Technology.
NREL/TP-550-24748. January 1999.
9. Price H. et al Advances in Parabolic Trough
Solar Power Technology. Journal of Solar
Energy Engineering May 2002. vol
124/pp109-125.
10. Renewable Energy World. Review Issue
2002-2003 vol5 No 4.July Aug.2002 James &
James (Science Publishers) Ltd.
11. Strong & Scheller, The Solar Electric House,
Sustainability Press. 1993 ISBN 0-963783-2-1
12. http://www.energylan.sandia.gov/sunlab/Snap
shot/TROUGHS.HTM
13. http://www.energylan.sandia.gov/sunlab/PDFs
/solar_trough.pdf

o:ida/papers/solar/4255 Page 5 of 5 February 23, 2004