Historical Assessment of CRS Plant Performance and Operational Experience

  • Neil Gregory
  • Pierre Wattiez
  • Manolo Blanco
  • Mats Andersson
  • Jonas Sandgren
  • S. W. Amacker
  • Juan Ramos
  • Carlos Lopez
  • Antonio Cuadrado
  • Sevillana

Abstract

The following specific evaluation reports address the actual performance of the CRS in the years 1981 through 1984. The performance is reviewed, analyzed, then summarized, using the operator’s daily and monthly logbooks, the daily/monthly meteo reports, and the data tapes that were available and useable. The report, PLANT HISTORY, by N. Gregory, P. Wattiez and M. Blanco, documents this evaluation and lists outage statistics, major causes of outage, weather and operation data, energy collected and delivered. It also presents a discussion of the time taken to heat up the receivers to operating temperature, based on a statistical analysis of the recorded operational data. The consideration of operational procedures, which have a dramatic effect on the system heat-up time was considered late in the evaluation, causing some modification in the conclusions. Consequently, reading this report and comparing this evaluation to the specific evaluations of receiver performance, which is topic Section 5 — RECEIVER BEHAVIOR, brings out the differences between what a subsystem can do and what system mismatch and operating procedures allow it to do.

Keywords

Fatigue Argon Steam Boiling Tral 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. (1).
    Neil Gregory, “An Operational Usage Factor for the CRS Plant,” SSPS Technical Report R-44/84 NG, October 1984.Google Scholar
  2. (2).
    Neil Gregory and Heinz Jacobs, “Available Data and Approximation of the Average CRS Start-up Time,” SSPS Technical Report R-45/84 NGHJ, October 1984.Google Scholar
  3. (3).
    Mats Loosme, “Expected and Actual Meteorological Conditions on the Plant Site,” SSPS Technical Report 1/83, DCS - Midterm Workshop Proceedings.Google Scholar
  4. (4).
    Manuel Pescatore, “Comparison of Cavity Receiver and the External Receiver,” SSPS Technical Report R-27/84 MP, May 1984.Google Scholar
  5. 1.
    H. Fricker, “Steam Generator for CRS Solar Power Plant Almería”, Sulzer report, TA-2/0012, 13. 3. 80.Google Scholar
  6. 2.
    INTERATOM letter, Zipper/8110, May 3, 1978.Google Scholar
  7. 3.
    MIXOU, Sizing program for steam generators.Google Scholar
  8. 4.
    S. Amacker, “Part Load Characteristic and Stability of the CRS Almería Steam Generator”, Sulzer report, TA-3490, 28. 1. 80.Google Scholar
  9. 5.
    M. Pescatore, private communication.Google Scholar
  10. 6.
    S. Amacker, Part Load Characteristic with Reduced Steam Pressure, Sulzer report, TA-2/0426, 28.8.82.Google Scholar
  11. 7.
    DISTEMP, Part load program for steam generators.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neil Gregory
  • Pierre Wattiez
    • 1
  • Manolo Blanco
    • 2
  • Mats Andersson
    • 3
  • Jonas Sandgren
    • 3
  • S. W. Amacker
    • 4
  • Juan Ramos
  • Carlos Lopez
  • Antonio Cuadrado
  • Sevillana
  1. 1.ITETBelgium
  2. 2.ITETSpain
  3. 3.ITETSweden
  4. 4.Sulzer Brothers Ltd.Switzerland

Personalised recommendations