banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Applicability of nanofluids in high flux solar collectors
Rent this article for
View: Figures


Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

(a) Conceptual design of a nanofluid concentrating collector with glazing. (b) Conceptual design of a nanofluid concentrating collector without glazing. (c) Conceptual drawing of a conventional power tower solid surface absorber.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Thermal resistance network—comparison between a conventional solar thermal plant and a nanofluid solar thermal plant. , , , , and refer to the thermal resistance of solid surface absorption, conduction, convection, fluid-to-fluid heat exchange, and volumetric solar absorption heat transfer steps, respectively.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Extinction coefficient over the visible range for copper, graphite, silver, and gold— , . The “Pure VP-1_ EXP” is an experimental result for the pure base fluid, Therminol VP-1—as found with a Jasco V-670 spectrophotometer.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

Reflectivity as a function of the wavelength of copper, graphite, silver, and gold (20 nm) nanofluids with a volume fraction of 0.1% and (w/ and w/o) glazing as compared to that of a conventional selective surface absorber (Ref. 27 ).

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Schematic of conditions used in the numerical model with a characteristic temperature field shown.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

Modeled system efficiencies of graphite, copper, aluminum, and silver nanofluids with the system efficiency of Abengoa’s PS10 solar power tower for comparison (Ref. 30 ).

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Modeled receiver efficiency as a function of concentration ratio, with , : Single points—published values (Ref. 30 ).

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

(a) Laboratory-scale single-axis tracking, reflective dish. (b) Aluminum machined receiver with instrumentation ports.

Image of FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

Normalized steady-state efficiencies for conventional collectors (lines) compared to our outdoor laboratory-scale dish experiments (data points).

Image of FIG. 10.
FIG. 10.

(a) Comparison of yearly electricity generation for a plant rated at . (b) Comparison of the estimated revenues for a commercial scale plant.


Article metrics loading...


Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Applicability of nanofluids in high flux solar collectors