Annual comparative performance and cost analysis of high temperature, sensible thermal energy storage systems integrated with a concentrated solar power plant

•The power generation potential of storage units should be used as the performance metric.•The discharging cut-off temperature affects the viability of dual-media storage systems.•The shell-and-tube system have 20% lower power generation capacity than a 2-tank system.•The NCOTES was introduced as a techno-economic metric for comparison of TES systems.•Dual-media thermocline system had 55% lower NCOTES than a 2-tank system. The present study conducts a comprehensive comparative techno-economic analysis of some near-term sensible thermal energy storage (TES) alternatives to the ‘standard’ two-tank molten salt system for concentrated solar power (CSP) plants. As such, we conducted detailed, relative annual transient simulations for single-medium thermocline (SMT), dual-media thermocline (DMT), and shell-and-tube (ST) systems. To be consistent with recent literature, the DMT and ST systems use concrete with a porosity of 0.2 (e.g. where concrete occupies 80% of the system) as their low cost filler material. The systems were integrated into a validated 19.9MWe Gemasolar CSP model, which has a solar multiple of 2.5. For a relative analysis, the storage capacity of each TES alternative was fixed at 722MWhth (15 h storage) for all TES alternatives. Based on this capacity, a geometric optimization was performed on DMT and ST systems to maximize the discharged power and minimize the pressure drop. Using the optimum designs, it was found that a CSP plant with a two-tank molten salt system enables the highest amount of electricity generation in a year followed by the SMT and DMT systems, which resulted in 7% and 9% less electricity generation, respectively. As the worst performer, a CSP plant integrated with a ST system generates 20% less electricity over a year. This implies that despite having the same theoretical capacity, the real performance is not same for the alternatives. While these losses may seem egregious at first, large TES cost reductions are made possible in these alternatives due to the fact that a single tank or concrete can be used (noting that concrete is