Comparison of Shell and Tube Heat Exchangers for CO2 and CO2+SiCl4 Mixtures Transcritical Cycles
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52825/solarpaces.v3i.2331Keywords:
Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger, sCO2, CO2+SiCl4 Mixture, Trans-Critical Cycle, EMbaffle, No Tube in WindowAbstract
Concentrated solar power (CSP) plants have great potential for clean energy production, but their electricity cost is higher than that of noncontrollable renewable energy sources. The main ways to lower the electricity cost are equipment cost reduction and plant efficiency increase. Looking at the power unit, the closed supercritical CO2 (sCO2) cycles offer the efficiency advantage over both the steam Rankine and helium Brayton cycles at high turbine inlet temperatures. Further improvement could be achieved by increasing the critical temperatures using mixtures, allowing condensation at temperatures typical for air-cooled condensers. The sCO2 and CO2 mixture cycles are significantly affected by the performance of the recuperative system and require high pressures (comparable to steam cycles). An increase in efficiency compensates for higher complexity in the design and construction of the plant, according to the authors. High thermal power together with high pressures and temperatures demand customized CO2 heat exchanger designs, which makes them a major part of power cycle specific cost. This paper provides a robust technological solution for the implementation of the above cycles in an industrial setup based on shell-and-tube heat exchangers. Based on the thermohydraulic and mechanical design of EMbaffle® Technology, heat exchangers weight reduction can be quantified in the range of 30 to 60% depending on the application, with additional advantages in terms of logistics and installation (footprint, foundations, etc…). Using the CO2+SiCl4 mixture instead of pure sCO2 leads to a lower weight of primary and high-temperature heat exchangers, while the weight of low-temperature heat exchanger increases.
Downloads
References
[1] “Renewable power generation costs in 2021,” IRENA, Abu Dhabi, 2022.
[2] V. Dostal, M. J. Driscoll, P. Hejzlar, and Y. Wang, “Supercritical CO2 Cycle for Fast Gas-Cooled Reactors,” in Volume 7: Turbo Expo 2004, Vienna, Austria: ASMEDC, Jan. 2004, pp. 683–692. doi: 10.1115/GT2004-54242.
[3] F. Crespi et al., “Thermal efficiency gains enabled by using CO2 mixtures in supercritical power cycles,” Energy, vol. 238, p. 121899, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2021.121899.
[4] M. Nakayama et al., “Thermal decomposition of tetrabromosilane and deposition of crystalline silicon,” Materials Science in Semiconductor Processing, vol. 23, pp. 93–97, Jul. 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.mssp.2014.02.045.
[5] M. Doninelli et al., “Experimental investigation of the CO2+SiCl4 mixture as innovative work-ing fluid for power cycles: Bubble points and liquid density measurements,” Energy, p. 131197, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2024.131197.
[6] S. E. Quiñones-Cisneros, C. K. Zéberg-Mikkelsen, and E. H. Stenby, “One parameter friction theory models for viscosity,” Fluid Ph. Equilib., vol. 178, no. 1–2, pp. 1–16, Mar. 2001, doi: 10.1016/S0378-3812(00)00474-X.
[7] S. E. Quiñones-Cisneros, S. Pollak, and K. A. G. Schmidt, “Friction Theory Model for Thermal Conductivity,” J. Chem. Eng. Data, vol. 66, no. 11, pp. 4215–4227, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1021/acs.jced.1c00400.
[8] G. Manzolini et al., “Adoption of CO2 blended with C6F6 as working fluid in CSP plants,” presented at the SOLARPACES 2020: 26th International Conference on Concentrating Solar Power and Chemical Energy Systems, Freiburg, Germany, 2022, p. 090005. doi: 10.1063/5.0086520.
[9] N. T. Weiland, B. W. Lance, and S. R. Pidaparti, “sCO2 Power Cycle Component Cost Correla-tions From DOE Data Spanning Multiple Scales and Applications,” in Volume 9: Oil and Gas Applications; Supercritical CO2 Power Cycles; Wind Energy, Phoenix, Arizona, USA: Ameri-can Society of Mechanical Engineers, Jun. 2019, p. V009T38A008. doi: 10.1115/GT2019-90493.
[10] B. Lariviere et al., “sCO2 power cycle development and STEP Demo pilot project,” Conference Proceedings of the European sCO2 Conference4th European sCO2 Conference for Energy Sys-tems: March 23-24, vol. 2021, p. 352, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.17185/DUEPUBLICO/73979.
[11] “Doctoral Network | TOPCSP.” Accessed: Apr. 24, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://topcsp.eu/
[12] F. D. Andalucia, “System advisor model (SAM) case study: Gemasolar,” Nrel, Case Report, pp. 1–10, 2013.
[13] H. Benoit, L. Spreafico, D. Gauthier, and G. Flamant, “Review of heat transfer fluids in tube-receivers used in concentrating solar thermal systems: Properties and heat transfer coeffi-cients,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 55, pp. 298–315, Mar. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.059.
[14] R. Span and W. Wagner, “A New Equation of State for Carbon Dioxide Covering the Fluid Region from the Triple‐Point Temperature to 1100 K at Pressures up to 800 MPa,” J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 1509–1596, Nov. 1996, doi: 10.1063/1.555991.
[15] D.-Y. Peng and D. B. Robinson, “A New Two-Constant Equation of State,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Fund., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 59–64, Feb. 1976, doi: 10.1021/i160057a011.
[16] M. Rottoli, T. Odry, D. Agazzi, and E. Notarbartolo, “EMbaffle® Heat Exchange Technology,” Innovative Heat Exchangers, pp. 341–361, 2018.
[17] R. C. Byrne, “Standards of the Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association, Tenth Edition,” TEMA.
[18] “Xist.” Accessed: Mar. 21, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.htri.net/xist
[19] “Investigation of thermal storage and steam generator issues,” SAND--93-7084, 10189397, ON: DE94001558, Aug. 1993. doi: 10.2172/10189397.
[20] “PV Elite®,” Hexagon. Accessed: Apr. 05, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://hexagon.com/it/products/pv-elite
[21] B. A. Pint, R. Pillai, and J. R. Keiser, “Defining Temperature Limitations for Steels in sCO2 Applications”.
[22] K. Li, Z. Zhu, B. Xiao, J.-L. Luo, and N. Zhang, “State of the art overview material degradati-on in high-temperature supercritical CO2 environments,” Progress in Materials Science, vol. 136, p. 101107, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.pmatsci.2023.101107.
[23] R. Moore, N. Siegel, G. Kolb, M. Vernon, and C. Ho, “Design considerations for concentrating solar power tower systems employing molten salt.,” SAND2010-6978, 1008140, Sep. 2010. doi: 10.2172/1008140.
[24] M. Taal, “Cost estimation and energy price forecasts for economic evaluation of retrofit pro-jects,” Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 23, no. 14, pp. 1819–1835, Oct. 2003, doi: 10.1016/S1359-4311(03)00136-4.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Conference Proceedings Volume
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Vladimir Naumov, Marta Mantegazza, Michele Doninelli, Gioele Di Marcoberardino, Paolo Iora, Marco Rottoli

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Accepted 2025-04-24
Published 2025-11-21
Funding data
-
HORIZON EUROPE Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions
Grant numbers 101072537