In the following section, this efficiency model will be applied to a commercially available HVFPC and various realizable versions of this collector, equipped with optimized selective solar absorbers having improved optical properties.
3.1. Application of Proposed HVFPCs Efficiency Model to MT-Power TVP-Solar Collector
In this work, the proposed efficiency model devised for HVFPCs will be validated by its application to the MT-Power collector produced by TVP- Solar company. The architecture of MT-Power and the thermal emittance curve of the selective absorber mounted in it are shown in
Figure 3a) and 3b), respectively.
The curve was experimentally obtained by averaging the thermal emittance measured with a calorimetric approach [
30,
31] .To withstand the pressure loading, the glass is supported by pillars that pass through holes in the absorber. The enclosure follows a ‘tray’ style design, employing a stainless-steel tray with a single cover glass on the front. Approximately 3% of the absorber area is occupied by the through holes, leaving 97% of the ‘absorber area’ to absorb heat. The MT-Power operates at a maximum temperature of 180 °C
and employs a commercial absorber with a multi-layer structure consisting of an aluminum substrate coated with an absorption layer and an anti-reflection layer. When deriving the thermal efficiency formula of MT-Power, the optical properties of the SSA, such as
absorptance α
and effective emittance ε
𝑒(𝑇), were obtained through calorimetric measurements following the procedure described in [
31]. The spectrally averaged absorptivity (𝛼) remains constant at 0.95 regardless of the absorber average temperature (𝑇𝑚). However, the ε𝑒(𝑇
m) exhibits a quadradic dependence on absorber plate temperature, as shown in
Figure 3 b). Given the known SSA optical properties, the unknown terms in equation (10) are the additional losses coefficient (k) and the exponent (z). To determine the value of k and z, equation (10) can be fitted to the certified efficiency data obtained using the standard efficiency formula of the collector. The standard efficiency coefficients to design the standard efficiency curve are obtained from a performance test performed indoors at controlled conditions (G= 950 W/m
2, IAM
θ = 1 and T
amb= 20 °C) where the maximum operating temperature
Tm was equal to 180 °C.
The standard efficiency curve is certified in the range between the minimum and the maximum tested temperature. The proposed efficiency model equation (eq. (10)) should accurately replicate the standard formula (eq. (2)) until Tm = 180 °C. Through the fitting procedure, it was determined that the exponent (z) of the additional losses function that reproduce the certified efficiency is 0.93 (+/- 0.08) with a χ2 value of 2.8E-05. This value confirms that dissipative effects other than radiation losses have a linear dependence on (Tm-Tamb), suggesting that they are due to thermal conduction. Since the fit result is compatible with the exponent 1 of the conductive loss, we fix the value of z at 1 to compute the coefficient of additional losses, k. The best fit was obtained for a k value equal to 0.258, and it returned a χ2 value of 2.8E-05, and identical to the previous ones. The low value of the additional losses’ coefficient is not surprising due to the presence of a high vacuum in the panel and to the advanced architecture of MT-Power, specially designed to minimize conductive losses.
The efficiency formula of the MT-power collector obtained from the best fit of the solar key mark data is reported here:
Figure 4 shows three curves: the standard efficiency curve (red line) extended up to the stagnation temperature (red dashed line), the optical efficiency curve (yellow line) representing radiative losses only, and the curve generated by Eq. 11 (blue line with dots). All curves are plotted for normal irradiance at an angle of incidence
of θ=0. The x-axis of
Figure 4 represents the average temperature
Tm because the optical efficiency curve and Eq. (11) depend on the fourth power of the ambient temperature
Tamb and the absorber temperature Tm separately. To plot a single efficiency curve, T
amb must be fixed. In this case,
Figure 4 uses the value at which the standard test was performed (indoor measurements),
i.e., Tamb = 20 °C.
It's important to highlight that, unlike the standard curve extrapolation (
Figure 1), Eq. (11) reaches zero efficiency at T
m = 302°C, which corresponds to the collector's stagnation temperature stated in the Solar Keymark certification
. Our proposed efficiency formula, Eq. (11), corrects the absence of the quartic temperature dependence
in the standard thermal efficiency formula. Using the standard formula, the power available at 250°C amounts to 525 W, while employing our proposed efficiency formula yields 464 W, resulting in a difference of 61 W. This discrepancy increases notably with higher operating temperatures
. Furthermore, the same fitting procedure for Eq. (10) can be applied to HVFPCs with different architectures, given that we know the absorber optical properties and the standard efficiency coefficients from the Solar Keymark certification. The fitting process will provide the additional losses coefficient '
k' and the efficiency equation that can be used to extrapolate the collector performance up to stagnation.
The stagnation temperature in the certification is a vital information to obtain the new efficiency equation. The fact that the obtained equation passes through this specific point serves as a significant validation of the efficiency extrapolation outside the temperature range explored by the certification.
3.2. Application of Proposed HVFPCs Efficiency Model to Collectors with New Optimized Solar Absorbers
The proposed model allows us to predict the efficiency of an HVFPC equipped with a new SSA with different optical properties. This feature is crucial because absorber properties can change over time due to aging. Additionally, there are ongoing developments of new types of selective solar absorbers that enable efficient operation at temperatures higher than 180 °C.
In this section, we apply the newly developed efficiency model to an MT-Power HVFPC architecture equipped with multi-layered SSA optimized for operating temperatures of 200 °C and 300 °C [
28]. To achieve maximum efficiency at the selected operating temperatures, the thickness of each layer was determined using a genetic algorithm [
28]. The optimized absorbers exhibit optical properties suitable to HVFPCs, ensuring a significantly low emittance at high temperature.
As illustrated in
Figure 5a), the optimization led to a significant reduction in thermal emittance, which is the primary source of heat loss for HVFPCs at elevated temperatures [
24]. However, this reduction came with a slight trade-off in absorptance, with values of α
comm=0.95, α
opt200 =0.925, α
opt300 =0.890.
In
Figure 5b), the curves labelled "this work" depict the MT-Power with commercial absorber (black continuous line) and the HVFPCs with the same structural characteristics as the MT-Power but equipped with SSAs optimized for 200 °C (green continuous line) and 300 °C (red continuous line). Due to the different value of α, HVFPCs equipped with the optimized SSAs exhibit zero-loss efficiencies (η
0) different from those of the HVFPCs equipped with commercial absorbers. The efficiency of the optimized SSA is consistently higher than that of the commercial absorber at temperature higher than 120°C since the last was not optimized to work in high vacuum. The optical efficiencies of the optimized cases [
28]
are also reported in Figure 5b) as dashed line to underscore the importance of accounting for conductive losses, especially at elevated temperatures.
3.3. HVFPCs Annual Energy Producibility Calculation
The thermal efficiency of a solar thermal collector is the crucial parameter for energy predictions and estimating the collector's production under specific climatic conditions.
Failing to account for radiative losses in the efficiency equation can led to inaccurancies in estimating the collector's performance especially at high operating temperatures.
Figure 6 presents the monthly energy production of the MT-Power at T
m=250 °C, calculated using 2019 irradiation data from the specific location (Il Cairo). The calculation considers the energy converted by a collector that is oriented to the south and tilted at 35 °.
Three distinct efficiency formulas were employed: Optical (illustrated by green line squares), This-Work (represented by blue line squares), and Standard (depicted by red line squares). It's apparent that relying on the Standard efficiency formula results in an overestimation of energy production. To be specific, for the year 2019, an annual energy production of 438 kWh/m2 would be projected In contrast, using the This-Work efficiency formula indicates a more conservative estimate of 383 kWh/m2, leading to a difference of roughly 13%.
Drawing from the MT-Power example,
Figure 7 underscores the importance of accounting for additional conductive losses in the efficiency calculations of HVFPCs. The figure highlights the variance in monthly energy production of an HVFPC fitted with a new absorber (optimized at 300°C) set at an operating temperature of 250°C.
The comparisons are drawn between results obtained using the optical efficiency and those derived from the proposed This-Work efficiency model. The estimated annual energy production, as per the optical efficiency formula, stands at 811 kWh/m2. In contrast, the This-Work efficiency formula suggests a value of 638 kWh/m2. These calculations, too, were based on the 2019 irradiation data from Il Cairo.