You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Entropy
  • Article
  • Open Access

30 September 2021

Bibliometric Analysis on Supercritical CO2 Power Cycles for Concentrating Solar Power Applications

,
and
1
Department of Chemical and Energy Technology, School of Experimental Sciences and Technology (ESCET), Rey Juan Carlos University, 28933 Madrid, Spain
2
Department of Energy Technology, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Brinellvägen 68, 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
3
E.T.S. Ingenieros Industriales-UNED, C/Juan del Rosal 12, 28040 Madrid, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
This article belongs to the Special Issue Supercritical Fluids for Thermal Energy Applications

Abstract

In recent years, supercritical CO2 power cycles have received a large amount of interest due to their exceptional theoretical conversion efficiency above 50%, which is leading a revolution in power cycle research. Furthermore, this high efficiency can be achieved at a moderate temperature level, thus suiting concentrating solar power (CSP) applications, which are seen as a core business within supercritical technologies. In this context, numerous studies have been published, creating the need for a thorough analysis to identify research areas of interest and the main researchers in the field. In this work, a bibliometric analysis of supercritical CO2 for CSP applications was undertaken considering all indexed publications within the Web of Science between 1990 and 2020. The main researchers and areas of interest were identified through network mapping and text mining techniques, thus providing the reader with an unbiased overview of sCO2 research activities. The results of the review were compared with the most recent research projects and programs on sCO2 for CSP applications. It was found that popular research areas in this topic are related to optimization and thermodynamics analysis, which reflects the significance of power cycle configuration and working conditions. Growing interest in medium temperature applications and the design of sCO2 heat exchangers was also identified through density visualization maps and confirmed by a review of research projects.

1. Introduction

The use of supercritical carbon dioxide (sCO2) as a working fluid for electricity generation systems, based on fossil fuel, nuclear power, or concentrating solar power (CSP), offers several advantages compared to other conventional schemes [1,2,3]. For nuclear or fossil energy, sCO2 is employed in the power cycle, yielding different supercritical Brayton layouts. In the case of CSP, sCO2 can perform as the working fluid in the power block, the heat transfer fluid (HTF) in the solar field, and/or in the thermal storage system. Thus, this introduction analyzes these possibilities, in addition to their integration in different schemes of solar thermal power plants (STPPs).
According to IRENA, the amount of globally installed CSP power has significantly increased since 2010, translating into a reduction in the levelized cost of electricity (LCoE) from 0.346 USD/kWhe to 0.182 USD/kWhe [4]. Nevertheless, this cost is still far from the 0.06 USD/kWhe target established by the SunShot Initiative from the US Department of Energy (DOE) [5]. In addition, it is important to note that the decrease in LCoE during the past decade has been mainly motivated by a reduction in the solar field cost (which represents 40% of the STPP investment cost), due to a greater economy of scale. Although the LCoE can be reduced by lowering costs, a second approach to improving CSP competitiveness is via increasing the global thermal performance of the STPPs. This is the pathway established by the Gen3 CSP Roadmap [6] and the Australian Solar Thermal Research Initiative (ASTRI) [7], in which the use of sCO2 is a key driver.
In the following sections, the current state of STPP subsystems employing sCO2 are reviewed. First, sCO2 power cycle layouts that are best integrated into CSP are described, second, sCO2 solar receivers are reviewed, and finally, integration schemes and thermal energy storage systems are proposed.

1.1. Supercritical CO2 Brayton Cycles

Supercritical CO2 power cycles based on a closed recompression layout present higher thermal efficiency than those of superheated or supercritical steam Rankine cycles at the temperature range of STPPs. This high efficiency is based on the peculiar thermophysical properties of CO2 in the region near the critical point (7.38 MPa, 31 °C). The sCO2 density close to and above the critical pressure is extremely high, so the compressor power is reduced [8]. This also involves reducing the turbine inlet temperature for the same thermal efficiency, and global conversion efficiencies from 40% to above 50% can be achieved for turbine inlet temperatures of 500 and 700 °C, respectively [9,10].
In addition, sCO2 cycles exhibit other technological advantages compared to conventional steam Rankine cycles. For example, the turbomachinery size is smaller when operating near to the critical point, which implies good operational flexibility and the possibility of a lower LCoE; in addition, the sCO2 is less corrosive than steam at high temperature. Significant technological challenges also apply, including development of components capable of withstanding the demanding supercritical working conditions, such as the design of the primary heat exchanger needed when coupling the solar field and the power block for indirect configurations. Another challenge is the impact of the compressor inlet temperature on the power cycle efficiency [11]. When the ambient temperature becomes higher than the cooler design conditions, the power cycle efficiency can be significantly penalized. Thus, it is a challenge to integrate sCO2 power cycles into the STPPs, particularly for dry configurations [12,13]. To address this limitation, some researchers have proposed a modified working fluid whereby CO2 is blended with certain additives to enable condensation at higher ambient temperatures, enabling required peak temperatures to be withstood without penalizing the power cycle efficiency, thus resulting in large reductions in LCoE [14].
Although sCO2 cycles were mainly developed for nuclear applications, a growing interest in the integration of sCO2 into STPPs has recently arisen. Turchi et al. [15] presented a supercritical STPP scheme based on modular towers and a conventional recompression supercritical layout. From the perspective of the power cycle, this configuration does not present new features; however, it is discussed below because it presents a complete integration scheme in a supercritical plant. In a later work, Neises and Turchi [16] undertook detailed analysis of the partial cooling and the recompression configurations, concluding that the partial cooling configuration offers important advantages for CSP applications, such as a large temperature difference in the primary heat exchanger, which implies a smaller size of the solar receiver and higher efficiency. Finally, in [17], sCO2 turbine efficiency at the scale of operational CSP projects was assessed to promote this technology at commercial levels.
Subsequently, two important review works were published. In [2], a general evaluation of sCO2 cycles for power generation was presented. Wang et al. [18] identified and analyzed six possible supercritical layouts that can be indirectly coupled to a molten salts central receiver, i.e., simple recovery cycle, recompression cycle, precompression cycle, intercooling cycle, partial-cooling cycle, and split expansion cycle. This analysis identified different parameters for the comparison, and highlighted the thermal efficiency; the complexity of the cycle compared to the simplest (i.e., the recompression cycle); and the temperature difference of the sCO2 in the primary heat exchanger which, as seen above, determines the molten salt temperatures and can result in lower investment in the coupled solar subsystem. This study concludes that no one layout is better than the others. The final choice depends on the specific operating and ambient conditions, and should account for the annual performance of the STPP.
A later work of NREL [19] analyzed two sCO2 cycles—the recompression and partial-cooling cycles—based on the global STPP performance. The authors concluded that the partial-cooling cycle has lower investment costs and generates more net electricity based on the larger temperature difference in the primary heat exchanger.
Finally, it is important to note that one of the key elements for the feasibility of this technology is that the design of the primary heat exchanger connects the solar field and the power block because, in general, the fluids are not the same (indirect integration schemes). This is the case of a molten salt central receiver coupled to an sCO2 layout. Several designs have been proposed in the literature for molten salt-to-CO2 heat exchangers, for both nuclear and CSP applications [20,21,22,23], and sCO2-to-liquid sodium compact heat exchangers for sodium-cooled fast reactors [24]. The simplest design is the Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger (STHX), in which the molten salt flows through the shell while the sCO2 circulates through the tubes. For this type of heat exchanger, a new sCO2 layout is proposed in [25], in which the primary thermal energy is supplied through the low-pressure side of the layout, downstream of the turbine (approximately 85 bar). Different proposals for particle-to-sCO2 heat exchangers include using a moving packed-bed [26], fluidized-bed [27,28], or shell-and-plate heat exchanger [29,30].

1.2. Supercritical CO2 Solar Receivers

As in the case of the supercritical CO2 cycles for CSP, the research on sCO2 solar receivers is relatively new, although there now appears to be a growing interest. The review presented in this section is focused on sCO2 solar central receivers (CRs). As noted in [15], due to the high pressure required for sCO2, its application to parabolic trough (PT) fields is difficult, although theoretical studies have been conducted [31].
A previous study reviewed compact heat exchanger (CHE) structures and the possibility of integrating them in pressurized solar receivers [32]. Although the authors claimed that their work may be the starting point for further research, few additional studies have been based on their conclusions, as discussed below.
One of the first supercritical CO2 central receivers proposed was based on the external tubular receiver concept [33,34]. This design is intended to heat the air to 800 °C with a pressure of 5–7 bar; however, the adaption of this receiver to enable direct coupling to a sCO2 power cycle working at 200 bar and 700 °C has also been considered. In this case, additional requirements would be necessary to withstand the high pressure and temperature, and to enhance the heat transfer to the supercritical phase.
In the study presented in [35], the CHE concept was used in a 3 MWth cavity receiver for sCO2. This receiver consists of several plates joined by diffusion, with rectangular fins between them, in such a manner that square-shaped channels are formed. The optimal geometry of this CHE structure was selected through an optimization process, as explained in the same work.
Another interesting configuration was proposed in [36]. In this case, an intermediate fluid, i.e., pressurized air, directly receives the radiation, affecting a cavity receiver provided with a quartz window and a porous structure. This working fluid transfers its thermal energy to the sCO2 that circulates through ducts embedded in the porous matrix itself.
Finally, a recent work by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) presented two concepts for sCO2 central receiver designs [37]. The first is a cavity receiver for a 2 MWe power cycle, and the second is a surround external receiver for a 10 MWe cycle. In both designs, the sCO2 circulates through a compact structure consisting of two attached plates with a wavy fin structure between them, which acts as the absorber surface for the concentrated solar radiation. The main difference is that the absorber plates are arranged to form a cavity in the first case, whereas they are arranged to form an external cylindrical receiver in the second. Because radiation losses would be very high in this last case, a radiation trap was designed, consisting of small quartz cylinders perpendicular to the wall, which reduce radiation and convection losses. In this manner, the receiver thermal efficiency remains high (80%) when working at temperatures of approximately 750 °C. In both designs, the objective of 0.06 USD/kWhe established by the SunShot Initiative is attained.

1.3. Integration Schemes for sCO2 STPPs

Most supercritical STPP layouts use indirect coupling because the HTF in the solar field and the working fluid in the power cycle are different. This is the configuration selected by the above-mentioned Gen3 CSP Roadmap [6] and ASTRI programs [7], in which the power cycle is a sCO2 cycle, and different schemes are defined depending on the HTF in the central receiver: liquid sodium [38] or molten salt, and solid (single-phase particles) or gas. In these schemes, it is necessary to incorporate a primary heat exchanger between both subsystems. The design of this heat exchanger is a key issue for the technological feasibility of these plants, and several proposals are found in the literature, for reducing both particles-to-sCO2 and molten salt-to-sCO2 [22,23,39]. A brief description of each of the above schemes is given in the following paragraphs.
The molten salt receiver scheme coupled to a sCO2 cycle is the most conventional approach, and there are several works in the literature about this configuration. In this scheme, the molten salts also perform as the thermal storage fluid, and the proposed configuration is usually a direct two-tank TES, although a thermocline can also be used [18,23,40]. To achieve the objectives of the SunShot and ASTRI programs, it is necessary to work at a higher temperature than achieved at commercial STPPs; the HTF temperature at the outlet of the solar receiver should reach 700 °C, which also implies the use of advanced ternary salts [41].
An integration scheme in which a liquid metal solar receiver is coupled to a sCO2 cycle is analyzed in [42], where a tubular sodium receiver, high-temperature phase-change material (PCM) storage system, and sCO2 power block are considered.
The STPP based on a particle receiver coupled to a sCO2 cycle is represented in few works in the technical literature, although a global integration scheme is presented in [6,34], and several models have been developed for the falling particle receiver [43], the bladed particles receiver [44], the thermal storage system in particles [45], and the primary heat exchanger between the solar field and the power block [39].
Regarding the pressurized air receiver coupled to a sCO2 cycle, the works of Li et al. [46] and Trevisan et al. [47] can be highlighted. A design and simulation model of a sensible-packed bed thermocline (PBT) for pressurized air was proposed in both works.
All the schemes described above match the indirect coupling. To conclude this section, we discuss the direct integration schemes between the solar field and the power block where sCO2 is used both as the HTF and working fluid. Turchi et al. [15] presented a scheme for a supercritical STPP based on modular towers. Each modular tower is provided by its sCO2 power block, and, because of the turbine/compressor compactness, it is possible to allocate them in the tower. As a result, the piping is reduced, thus also decreasing the pressure and heat loss, and improving the transient response.
Although most of these direct integration schemes are intended to be coupled to indirect thermal storage in molten salts [15], it should be noted that the cascaded PCM storage system, proposed in [48], is specifically targeted at the efficient operation of high-temperature sCO2 cycles. Other studies proposed a direct coupling using a thermocline system. In this manner, Kelly et al. [49] presented a thermocline system based on a matrix of individual vessels with reduced dimensions to avoid a large wall thickness. A more theoretical model of the charge/discharge operation was presented in [50].
To summarize this introduction, the use of sCO2 in CSP is a recent but promising topic of investigation that is currently supported by several research programs. The number of research areas and new proposals has grown rapidly in recent years, aimed at developing more efficient and competitive STPPs. As a result, it is a challenge to undertake a review of the existing literature on supercritical CO2 power cycles for CSP applications. Bibliometrics tools can provide insights into the main researchers and institutions engaged in the topic, and the manner in which they are connected. This approach can also identify the main research trends and popular research topics that provided the motivation for this review article [51].
Table 1 presents similar bibliometric analyses related to power cycle technologies and concentrating solar power applications. As can be observed, two bibliometric research works have been recently published about supercritical CO2 power cycles [52,53]. However, both of these works covered the topic from a general perspective rather than analyzing the potential of the technology when coupled to concentrating solar power applications. In addition, it can be noted that most of the existing bibliometric studies reviewed the literature related to power cycles or solar energy, but not the combined application of both technologies.
Table 1. Related bibliometric analysis publications.
Despite recent interest in supercritical CO2 for power generation, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there are no specifical bibliometric studies regarding CSP applications from a global approach, which represents the novelty of this work. The objective of this study was to evaluate sCO2-CSP global research trends quantitatively and qualitatively through bibliometric techniques. The study’s conclusions will not only provide a better understanding of popular sCO2-CSP research areas, but may also influence scholars’ and scientists’ future research. To succeed in this ambitious enterprise, this paper is organized as follows: in the next section, the working methodology is presented; Section 3 discusses bibliometric indicators; Section 4 applies text mining techniques to identify research trends; and the project discussion in Section 5 connects current research trends and future topics for sCO2 in CSP.

2. Materials and Methods

Table 2 summarizes the number of supercritical CO2 related publications that were retrieved based on different question queries and consulted databases. Both Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus databases were consulted and publications including each query (whether regarding publication title, abstract, keywords, or KeywordPlus®) were retrieved. To account for most publications within the field, different expressions and search combinations were considered and the logical operator “or” was introduced to combine all of them, thus resulting in the total corpus data of the study. It can be seen that the number of indexed publications relating to sCO2 power cycles that also included the keyword “solar” was similar among Web of Science (441 publications) and Scopus (468) databases. In both cases, those publications accounted for one-third of total sCO2 power cycle publications, which indicates the relevance of CSP applications within sCO2 technologies.
Table 2. Question query used for corpus data collection (1990–2020).
The data set retrieved from the Web of Science (WOS) was preferred because it is claimed to contain journals with higher impact [63] and no previous studies covered sCO2 power cycles using this database [52,53]. Under that assumption, corpus data comprised 441 WOS indexed publications whose metadata (including full record and cited references) were exported for processing and network mapping visualization using the VOSviewer 1.6.16 software tool [64,65].

3. Results

In this section, several bibliometric indicators are presented and discussed to analyze the main researchers in sCO2 research with a focus on CSP applications, and to provide insights into technology trends.
Figure 1 shows the publishing evolution of sCO2 power cycle publications (sCO2) between 1990 and 2020 according to the WOS. As shown, the first WOS sCO2 power cycle publication was indexed in 1993, but the first publication related to CSP applications appeared in 2005. Subsequently, the relevance of sCO2 solar-related publications has continued to grow and now accounts for one-third of the annual sCO2 publications. Furthermore, 70% of the total number of publications were published after 2015. It can also be noted that the contribution of solar-related publications to the existing sCO2 literature is around 30%. During 2020, the number of sCO2 publications reached its maximum despite the slight decrease in solar-related publications compared to previous years.
Figure 1. Publication evolution in sCO2 for CSP and sCO2.
In terms of the number of citations, the contribution of sCO2-CSP-related publications is slightly higher compared to the publication ratio shown in Figure 1 because it accounts for almost 40% of the total citations, which indicates the growing relevance of CSP applications for sCO2 technologies. It can also be observed in Figure 2 that 80% of sCO2 power cycle citations were received after 2016.
Figure 2. Citations’ evolution in general sCO2 publications and for CSP applications.

3.1. Main Publishing Countries

As shown in Figure 3, the most productive countries in terms of WOS-indexed publications are the United States and China, which combined account for 43% of all sCO2-CSP documents.
Figure 3. Publishing distribution for the topic of sCO2 for CSP applications (cumulative distribution until 2020).
Table 3 shows that the 10 most productive countries in sCO2-CSP account for 82.6% of publications in cumulative terms. A closer look at the scientific production during 2020 indicates a clear growth in Chinese and Spanish publications, and the cumulative production of the 10 most productive countries increased slightly, to 86.5% of the annual publications.
Table 3. Global publishing distribution for the topic of sCO2 for CSP applications.
Figure 4 shows a clearer picture regarding the most productive countries in terms of publishing evolution. As shown, Chinese production has grown quickly during the past 3 years, whereas the production of Japan has decreased gradually, despite being the most productive country before 2010. The growing relevance of Italy, Iran, and Saudi Arabia in recent years can also be observed.
Figure 4. Publishing evolution of the most productive countries.

3.2. Main Publishing Institutions

Table 4 shows the most productive organizations regarding the number of indexed publications on sCO2 power cycles for concentrating solar power applications. Research institutions are ranked according to the number of publications. The number of authors that have published in the sCO2-CSP topic under the organization affiliation is reported, in addition to the accumulated number of citations (including self-citations). The publishing ratio (PC ratio) is determined as the ratio between the number of citations and publications for a given organization. The h-index of the institution is also provided considering only the number of publications and citations for the analyzed topic [66]. As shown, the ten most productive organizations are consistent with the most productive countries, with a clear dominance of United States which has four institutions in the top 10 rankings (United States Department of Energy, Sandia National Laboratory, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and State University System of Florida). Regarding the number of citations received by the total publications, higher PC ratios are found for Xi’an Jiaotong University (China) and Doshisha University (Japan).
Table 4. Most productive organizations in sCO2-CSP-related publications.

3.3. Main Publishing Authors

Table 5 gathers the 10 most productive authors in sCO2-CSP topics in terms of the number of publications. It also shows the number of citations received in this topic, the PC ratio, and the equivalent h-index considering only sCO2-CSP publications. The authors with the most common affiliations of those publications are also shown. As shown, most of the relevant authors belong to the most productive organizations (shown in Table 4) and most productive countries (gathered in Table 3), with the exceptions of Zhang, XR. from Peking University who exhibits the highest PC ratio, and Liu, M. from University of South Australia and Sanchez, D.; the latter two each have 10 research publications on sCO2-CSP. It can be observed that the most productive authors are located in Australia and United States, which is consistent with the location of large funding schemes, such as the SunShot and ASTRI initiatives [7].
Table 5. Most productive authors in sCO2-CSP.

3.4. Most Cited Publications in sCO2-CSP

Table 6 shows the most cited publications in sCO2-CSP topics, with the publishing source, first author, country, and year of publication. Other relevant indicators, such as the total number of citations and the average citations per year, are included for comparison purposes. It is relevant that the most cited publications on this topic are recent review papers, which translates into a high average number of citations per year and indicates the research significance of sCO2-CSP topics. This is also supported by numerous research projects, as discussed in Section 4.2.
Table 6. Most cited publications in sCO2-CSP.
As shown, all publications are associated with the most productive countries and institutions, with the exception of the most cited publication from Korea Advanced Institute [1] and two publications from the University of Seville [2,70]. Despite the recent publication of these studies, their number of citations exceeds 50 per year.

3.5. Publication Distribution by Publishing Source

Regarding the document type distribution, Figure 5 shows that most sCO2-CSP publications are articles (63%) followed by proceedings papers (31%), with the two categories combined accounting for 94% of corpus data.
Figure 5. Document type distribution for sCO2-CSP publications.
Within article publications, the most relevant publishing sources for sCO2-CSP are Energy Conversion and Management and Energy journals, with 40 publications each, followed by Applied Thermal Engineering with 30, as shown in Figure 6. Among the 10 most common publishing sources for sCO2-CSP publications, it can be seen that dedicated solar-related sources, such as Solar Energy and the Journal of Solar Energy Engineering Transactions of the ASME. The figure also shows the sources for proceedings papers, such as those of the SolarPaces conference, which were published in Energy Procedia until 2014 and have been collected under AIP Conference Proceedings since the 2015 edition.
Figure 6. Most relevant publishing sources for sCO2 CSP publications.
Figure 7 shows the contribution of open-access publications within the existing sCO2-CSP literature. As indicated by the cumulative values, both sources followed the same trend in terms of publication records. This translated into an average contribution of open-access sources of around 20% in recent years, where the spike in 2005 corresponds to one open-source publication of the two publications that year.
Figure 7. Publication source of sCO2-CSP publications.

3.6. Authorship Networking Map

Table 7 shows the number of authors from the retrieved publications who obtained a minimum number of citations and publications for the sCO2-CSP topic. As can be observed, 1006 authors have published at least once on this topic, regardless of the number of citations received. This number falls significantly to 208 authors who have two sCO2-CSP-related publications and 10 citations.
Table 7. The number of authors meeting citation and publication criteria.
Figure 8 shows the authorship networking map for those authors fulfilling the two sCO2-CSP publications and 25 citations requirement. This criterion resulted in 152 authors; however, only 66 were connected in terms of collaborative publications that also met the minimum number of publications and citations criteria. For representation purposes, only connected authors are represented to explore their collaborations. A thesaurus was used to avoid duplications in authors’ names.
Figure 8. Network mapping of authors who met the minimum publication and citation criteria.
As can be noted in the map, authors are grouped under different clusters that indicate common collaboration. Furthermore, a repulsion representation scheme was chosen, which implies authors appearing closer to each other in the map have a closer relationship (in terms of collaborative publications) compared to those who appear more distant in the map. In addition, the size of the nodes is directly related to the number of authors’ publications. Table A1 in the Appendix A presents author clusters from Figure 8, indicating their affiliation.
Table 8 shows the number of institutions that have met the minimum number of citations and documents criteria attending to sCO2-CSP-related publications.
Table 8. The number of institutions meeting citation and publication criteria.
Figure 9 shows the authorship networking map for the institutions affiliated with at least two co-authored publications related to the studied topic and a minimum of five citations. This criterion resulted in 107 institutions, but only 47 were connected and are represented on the map. The sizes of the nodes indicate the number of documents for each represented institution, the existence of connecting lines indicates collaborative publications among connected institutions, and the line thickness designates the number of collaborative publications. Table A2 in the Appendix A lists the organizations forming each cluster.
Figure 9. Authorship network mapping in terms of affiliation of authors who met the minimum publication and citation criteria.

3.7. Publishing Sources Networking Map

Regarding publishing sources and their connections, Table 9 summarizes the number of sources relating to the minimum number of hosted publications and received citations. As shown, sCO2-CSP-related publications have been published in 105 different sources, but only 11 sources gather 10 or more publications on this topic, as also shown in Figure 6.
Table 9. The number of publishing sources meeting citation and publication criteria.
For representation purposes, Figure 10 shows network mapping connections among publishing sources having at least two publications on this topic and at least 10 citations. The sizes of the nodes indicate the number of documents of each journal, and the line thickness represents the strength in terms of citations between publications from connected journals. As shown, the journals are not all connected, which indicates that sCO2-CSP documents did not cite the other journal documents. A thesaurus was used to avoid duplications among different publishing sources, particularly for those from conference proceedings, which are grouped regardless of the year and edition. Table A3 presents the publishing sources of each cluster.
Figure 10. Publication sources’ connection networking map (at least 2 publications and 10 citations).

3.8. Bibliometric Summary Data

Table 10 summarizes the main bibliometric indicators presented in this section.
Table 10. Main bibliometric indicators for sCO2-CSP WOS indexed publications.

4. Discussion

In this section, technology trends for supercritical CO2 power cycles within concentrating solar power (CSP) applications are addressed, both from a semantic perspective (relating to the most common keywords extracted from publications) and the manner in which they are connected to the most recent research projects, both in Europe and in the United States.

4.1. Technology Trends

Text mining analysis was applied by extracting documents’ keywords from publication titles and abstracts, and those provided by authors from the retrieved sCO2-CSP publications. Table 11 shows the number of keywords relative to its number of occurrences. As shown, the 100 most common keywords appeared in at least five different publications.
Table 11. The minimum number of occurrences of a keyword.
Figure 11 shows how the 100 most common keywords within sCO2-CSP publications relate to each other. A similar repulsion and clustering scheme was followed in keywords representation, and can be summarized as follows:
Figure 11. Keywords networking mapping with minimum of 5 occurrences.
  • Keywords located in the center of the map are the most relevant and general within the retrieved publications because they are highly connected to other topics in the network (in this case “supercritical CO2”, “concentrating solar power”, “performance” and “system”).
  • Keywords located in the peripheral area of the networking map are secondary within the topic of study because they are located far from the core of the network and with fewer connecting lines (as is the case of “heliostat field”, “combined cycle”, solid particles”, “phase-change materials”, “natural draft dry cooling tower” or “exergoeconomic analysis”).
  • The size of nodes indicates the keyword relevance in terms of the number of occurrences; in this case, the most common are presented in Table 12.
    Table 12. Most common keyword ranking.
  • Keywords are grouped into clusters to indicate the frequency of their joint appearance in publications, denoting that they refer to similar research areas. In this study, keywords are organized in seven clusters dominated by “supercritical CO2”, “concentrating solar power”, “system”, “Brayton cycle”, “generation”, “optimization” and “designs” keywords.
Table 12 summarizes the most common keywords within the networking map related to the number of appearances and connections to other keywords in the network. The cluster number and the corresponding color is indicated for identification purposes within Figure 11.
Figure 12 shows the density visualization map, which combines text mining extraction with the number of occurrences for each keyword. As shown, popular areas in the map are located around terms such as “optimization”, “thermodynamic analysis”, “efficiency”, “exergy analysis”, and “system”, which reflects the significance of thermodynamic studies for sCO2-CSP applications. However, most of those analyses relate to “performance analysis” and “multi objective optimization” according to the central areas of the map, whereas “off-design performance” studies remain in the periphery, indicating its lower relevance in terms of the number of publications. The incipient relevance of medium low-temperature applications within sCO2-CSP can also be observed as mild colored areas, including keywords such as “Rankine cycle”, “transcritical cycle”, “organic Rankine cycle”, “parabolic trough collector” and “waste heat recovery”. In addition, the growing relevance of “energy storage” can also be seen through common keywords of “thermal energy storage” and “phase-change materials”. Finally, “heat transfer” analysis and “heat exchanger” designs have gained relevance and are approaching the central area of the map.
Figure 12. Density visualization of publication text mining analysis.

4.2. Technology Prospectives: On-Going R&D Projects Combining CSP and sCO2 Applications

Table 13 and Table 14, below, summarize all of the main ongoing R&D projects which explicitly refer to CSP and sCO2 systems in their objectives, in the EU and the USA, respectively. The tables present the name of the project, its general objective, and the project coordinator and participants, in addition to its duration, funding received, and funding agency. As of 2021, ongoing projects combining CSP and sCO2 can be divided into two groups: one focused on the system integration of sCO2 cycles with state-of-the-art CSP technologies; and the other focused on new systems, components, and materials at higher temperatures with lower maturity. Among the demonstration group of projects, SOLARSCO2OL and TESTBED can be highlighted, in EU and USA, respectively, which both aim at a MW-scale pilot to show the technical and economic viability of integrating a conventional CSP molten salt system with a novel sCO2 cycle, and are therefore limited to a turbine inlet temperature of approximately 565 °C. This is also the case of the pilot plant being developed by EDF in China, which involves the retrofitting of Shouhang’s 10 MWe concentrated solar power plant that is operating at a maximum temperature of molten salt of 530 °C with a supercritical CO2 power cycle [72].
Table 13. Selected ongoing projects in the EU specifically referring to CSP and sCO2 in their objectives (as of July 2021) [73,74,75,76,77,78].
Table 14. Selected ongoing R&D projects in the USA specifically referring to CSP and sCO2 in their objectives (as of July 2021) [79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95].
Other demonstration projects not included in the tables below, but of high relevance for CSP and sCO2, are the STEP project and Phase 3 of the US DOE Gen3 CSP program. The STEP project aims at demonstrating the technical viability of a 10 MW sCO2 cycle operating at 700 °C, at different configurations, with heat provided by natural gas. Phase 3 of the US DOE Gen3 CSP program, by comparison, focuses on demonstrating a new particle-based CSP system able to collect useful heat up to 900 °C, which can potentially enable high-temperature CSP-sCO2 systems in the future. In both the EU and the USA, particle-based systems appear to be the preferred path for future high-temperature CSP applications, at 700 °C or above. Considering that the maturity and commercial viability of such particle-based systems is yet to be proven, it can be estimated that, if sCO2 systems enter the CSP sector, then projects in the near term (i.e., up to 2030) will focus on using proven molten salt technology, thus indicating that most of the risk will relate to the sCO2 system itself.
As shown in the tables, most research projects involve significant optimization and system analysis activities, which reflects the significance of thermodynamic analysis for sCO2-CSP applications. It can also be observed that some recent research projects (CARBOSOLA and DESOLINATION) focus on the medium temperature applications of sCO2-CSP, as also shown in the text mining analysis in Figure 12. Also relevant are the growing number of research projects (SOLARSCO2OL SOLAR, and COMPASsCO2, and SETO 2018, SETO 2019, and SETO 2020) that are focusing on efficient heat exchanger designs, which is the key element connecting the solar field and the sCO2 power cycle; this corresponds to the identification in Figure 12 of popular topics such as “heat transfer” and “heat exchanger”. It may be argued that a direct relationship exists between popular areas of research that can be detected through literature text mining techniques, and the research project activities and pilot plant developments.

5. Conclusions

Research activities on supercritical CO2 (sCO2) for concentrating solar power (CSP) applications have gained significant attention in recent few years. This recent interest is based on high conversion efficiency predictions, which exceed 50% for the moderate temperature range, and the technology’s suitability for solar energy integration. This interest is also reflected in the large scientific bibliography (441 WOS indexed publications since 1993) and publicly funded research projects (24 projects in Europe and the United States since 2019). The main conclusions derived from the bibliometrics analysis conducted in this study are as follows:
  • One-third of the existing sCO2 literature relates to solar energy applications;
  • Rapid growth in sCO2 scientific publications has been observed, as 70% of the total number of documents were published after 2015 and 80% of citations were received after 2016;
  • The most productive publishing countries during 2020 were China and Spain, which combined accounted for almost 50% of the total publications, and the top 10 most productive countries contributed a combined 86.5% of the total
  • Considering the whole publishing timeframe, institutions from the United States, China, and Australia still dominate in terms of publishing and citations; this was confirmed by the high number of interactions among authors and institutions from these countries;
  • Despite the large number of publishing sources (105), most documents were retrieved from 10 general energy-related sources, which are also the most connected in terms of citations;
  • Regarding text-mining techniques applied to the indexed publications, the most common keywords referred to cycle optimization, system analysis, and performance studies; growing interest was observed for medium-low temperature applications through related keywords, such as Rankine cycle, organic Rankine cycle, and waste heat recovery;
  • Areas of research related to heat exchanger design and energy storage solutions were detected through a density visualization map, which is consistent with the objectives of ongoing projects in Europe and the United States.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.A.R.-B., R.G. and M.J.M.; methodology, M.A.R.-B., R.G. and M.J.M.; software, M.A.R.-B.; validation, R.G. and M.J.M.; formal analysis, M.A.R.-B., R.G. and M.J.M.; investigation, M.A.R.-B., R.G. and M.J.M. resources, M.A.R.-B., R.G. and M.J.M.; data curation, M.A.R.-B., R.G. and M.J.M.; writing—original draft preparation, M.A.R.-B., R.G. and M.J.M.; writing—review and editing, M.A.R.-B., R.G. and M.J.M.; visualization, M.A.R.-B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

This work has been developed in the frame of the ACES2030-CM project, funded by the Regional Research and Development in Technology Programme 2018 (ref. P2018/EMT-4319).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Authors’ distribution by cluster (from Figure 8).
Table A1. Authors’ distribution by cluster (from Figure 8).
AuthorAffiliationAuthorAffiliation
Cluster #1 (red) Cluster #2 (green)
Bell, S.Queensland University of TechnologyDuniam, S.University of Queensland
Belusko, M.University of South AustraliaEhsan, M.University of Queensland
Bruno, F.University of South AustraliaGuan, Z.University of Queensland
Liu, J.Xi’an Jiaotong UniversityGurgenci, H.University of Queensland
Liu, M.University of South AustraliaHooman, K.University of Queensland
Ma, Y.Xi’an Jiaotong UniversityKlimenko, A.University of Queensland
Sarvghad, M.Queensland University of TechnologySun, Y.North China Electric Power University
Steinberg, T.A.Queensland University of TechnologyVeeraragavan, A.University of Queensland
Tay, N.H.S.University of South AustraliaWang, J.Xi’an Jiaotong University
Will, G.Queensland University of Technology
Yan, J.Xi’an Jiaotong University
Zhang, X.Peking University
Cluster #3 (red) Cluster #4 (red)
Guo, J.Xi’an Jiaotong UniversityDai, Y.Xi’an Jiaotong University
He, Y.Xi’an Jiaotong UniversityLi, X.North China Electric Power University
Li, M.Xi’an Jiaotong UniversityLiu, C.North China Electric Power University
Li, P.University of ArizonaSun, Z.Xi’an Jiaotong University
Liu, Z.Xi’an Jiaotong UniversityWang, J.F.Xi’an Jiaotong University
Qiu, Y.Xi’an Jiaotong UniversityWang, X.Chinese Academy of Sciences
Wang, K.Xi’an Jiaotong UniversityXu, X.University of Arizona
Xu, J.North China Electric Power University
Zhu, H.Xi’an Jiaotong University
Cluster #5 (red) Cluster #6 (red)
Bayon, A.CSIROJacobs, P.The University of Queensland
Benito, R.CSIROJan, I.The University of Queensland
De la calle, A.CSIROKearney, M.The University of Queensland
Padilla, R.V.CSIROMiller, S.CSIRO
Stein, W.CSIRORowlands, A.The University of Queensland
Too, Y.S.CSIROSingh, R.The University of Queensland
Cluster #7 (red) Cluster #8 (red)
Besarati, S.University of South FloridaBai, Z.Chinese Academy of Sciences
Chen, H.Suzhou Adv Mat Res InstJin, H.Chinese Academy of Sciences
Goswami, D.University of South FloridaLei, J.North China Electric Power University
Rahman, M.University of South FloridaLiu, Q.Chinese Academy of Sciences
Stefanakos, E.University of South FloridaWang, X.Chinese Academy of Sciences
Cluster #9 (red) Cluster #10 (red)
Abbas, A.University of SydneyLi, X.Chongqing University
Mcnaughton, R.CSIROXu, C.North China Electric Power University
Milani, D.University of SydneyYang, Y.North China Electric Power University
Minh, T.University of Sydney
Table A2. Organization distribution by cluster (from Figure 9).
Table A2. Organization distribution by cluster (from Figure 9).
OrganizationCountryOrganizationCountry
Cluster #1 (red) Cluster #2 (green)
Georgia Inst TechnologyUnited StatesBeijing UniversityChina
Hunan UniversityChinaChinese Academy of SciencesChina
King Saud UniversitySaudi ArabiaNorth China Electric Power UniversityChina
MITUnited StatesTechnical University BerlinGermany
Oak Ridge National LabUnited StatesTsinghua UniversityChina
Purdue UniversityUnited StatesUniversity of ArizonaUnited States
Saudi Electricity CoSaudi ArabiaUniversity of Chinese Academy of SciencesChina
University of WisconsinUnited StatesXi’an Jiaotong UniversityChina
Cluster #3 (blue) Cluster #4 (yellow)
Cyprus Int UnivCyprusColorado School of MinesUnited States
Mirpur UniversityPakistanIndian Institute of SciencesIndia
MustPakistanNRELUnited States
Natl Univ Sci & TechPakistanSandia Natl LabsUnited States
University of CaliforniaUnited StatesUniversidad Carlos IIISpain
Virginia TechUnited StatesUniversity of Western AustraliaAustralia
Zhejiang UniversityChina
Cluster #5 (purple) Cluster #6 (light blue)
GE Global ResUnited StatesHenan UniversityChina
Hanwha TechwinSouth KoreaShahrood UniversityIran
Montana State UniversityUnited StatesUniversity of QueenslandAustralia
Southwest Res InstUnited StatesUniversity of TehranIran
SW Res InstUnited StatesWuhan UniversityChina
US DOEUnited States
Cluster #7 (purple) Cluster #8 (light blue)
Australian National UniversityAustraliaQueensland UniversityAustralia
CSIROAustraliaUniversity of South AustraliaAustralia
Southern Cross UniversityAustralia
University of SydneyAustralia
Univ Tech Federico Santa MariaChile
Table A3. Publishing sources’ distribution by cluster (from Figure 10).
Table A3. Publishing sources’ distribution by cluster (from Figure 10).
Publishing SourcePublishing Source
Cluster #1 (red)Cluster #2 (green)
8th International Conference on Applied Energy4th International Seminar on ORC power systems
Applied Thermal EngineeringApplied Energy
Energy Conversion and ManagementApplied Sciences
International Journal of Heat and Mass transferEnergies
Journal of cleaner productionEnergy
Journal of energy resources technology—Transactions of the ASMEJournal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power—Transactions of the ASME
Proceedings of the SolarPacesProceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo
Renewable Energy
Cluster #3 (blue)Cluster #4 (yellow)
International Journal of Energy ResearchInternational Conference on Concentrating Solar Power and Chemical
Oxidation of MetalsInternational Journal of Exergy
Renewable & Sustainable Energy ReviewsJournal of Supercritical fluids
Solar EnergyProceedings of the ASME International Conference on Energy
Solar Energy Materials and Solar CellsProceedings of the ASME Power Conference
Cluster #5 (purple)Cluster #6 (light blue)
Journal of Solar Energy Engineering—Transactions of the ASMEInternational Journal of Hydrogen Energy
Journal of Thermal ScienceJournal of Energy Engineering
Processes
Cluster #7 (orange)
Advances in Concentrating Solar Thermal

References

  1. Ahn, Y.; Bae, S.J.; Kim, M.; Cho, S.K.; Baik, S.; Lee, J.I.; Cha, J.E. Review of supercritical CO2 power cycle technology and current status of research and development. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 2015, 47, 647–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Crespi, F.; Gavagnin, G.; Sánchez, D.; Martínez, G.S. Supercritical carbon dioxide cycles for power generation: A review. Appl. Energy 2017, 195, 152–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Brun, K.; Friedman, P.; Dennis, R. (Eds.) Fundamentals and Applications of Supercritical Carbon Dioxide (sCO2) Based Power Cycles; Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy: Cambridge, UK, 2017; ISBN 978-0-08-100804-1. [Google Scholar]
  4. International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2019; International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA): Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2020; ISBN 978-92-9260-040-2. [Google Scholar]
  5. US Department of Energy. SunShot Vision Study; U.S. Department of Energy: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
  6. Mehos, M.; Turchi, C.; Vidal, J.; Wagner, M.; Ma, Z.; Ho, C.; Kolb, W.; Andraka, C.; Kruizenga, A. Concentrating Solar Power Gen3 Demonstration Roadmap; National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  7. ASTRI. Australian Solar Thermal Research Institute, Public Dissemination Report; ASTRI: Hong Kong, China, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  8. Dostal, V. A Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Cycle for Next Generation Nuclear Reactors; Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2004; pp. 1–317. [Google Scholar]
  9. Chen, R.; Romero, M.; González-Aguilar, J.; Rovense, F.; Rao, Z.; Liao, S. Design and off-design performance comparison of supercritical carbon dioxide Brayton cycles for particle-based high temperature concentrating solar power plants. Energy Convers. Manag. 2021, 232, 113870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Reyes-Belmonte, M.A.; Sebastián, A.; Romero, M.; González-Aguilar, J. Optimization of a recompression supercritical carbon dioxide cycle for an innovative central receiver solar power plant. Energy 2016, 112, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. de la Calle, A.; Bayon, A.; Soo Too, Y.C. Impact of ambient temperature on supercritical CO2 recompression Brayton cycle in arid locations: Finding the optimal design conditions. Energy 2018, 153, 1016–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dyreby, J.; Klein, S.; Nellis, G.; Reindl, D. Design Considerations for Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Brayton Cycles With Recompression. J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 2014, 136, 101701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Dyreby, J. Modeling the Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Brayton Cycle with Recompression. Doctor’s Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  14. Di Marcoberardino, G.; Invernizzi, C.M.; Iora, P.; Ayub, A.; Di Bona, D.; Chiesa, P.; Binotti, M.; Manzolini, G. Experimental and analytical procedure for the characterization of innovative working fluids for power plants applications. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2020, 178, 115513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Turchi, C.S.; Ma, Z.; Dyreby, J. Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Power Cycle Configurations for Use in Concentrating Solar Power Systems. In Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo 2012: Turbine Technical Conference and Exposition, Copenhagen, Denmark, 11–15 June 2012; Volume 5, pp. 967–973. [Google Scholar]
  16. Neises, T.; Turchi, C.S. A comparison of supercritical carbon dioxide power cycle configurations with an emphasis on CSP applications. Energy Procedia 2014, 49, 1187–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Turchi, C. 10 MW Supercritical CO2 Turbine Test; National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  18. Wang, K.; He, Y.L.; Zhu, H.H. Integration between supercritical CO2 Brayton cycles and molten salt solar power towers: A review and a comprehensive comparison of different cycle layouts. Appl. Energy 2017, 195, 819–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Neises, T.; Turchi, C. Supercritical carbon dioxide power cycle design and configuration optimization to minimize levelized cost of energy of molten salt power towers operating at 650 °C. Sol. Energy 2019, 181, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Iverson, B.D.; Conboy, T.M.; Pasch, J.J.; Kruizenga, A.M. Supercritical CO2 Brayton cycles for solar-thermal energy. Appl. Energy 2013, 111, 957–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Sun, X.; Zhang, X.; Christensen, R.; Anderson, M. Compact Heat Exchanger Design and Testing for Advanced Reactors and Advanced Power Cycles; The Ohio State University: Columbus, OH, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  22. Montes, M.J.; Linares, J.I.; Barbero, R.; Moratilla, B.Y. Optimization of a new design of molten salt-to-CO2 heat exchanger using exergy destruction minimization. Entropy 2020, 22, 883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Montes, M.J.; Linares, J.I.; Barbero, R.; Rovira, A. Proposal of a new design of source heat exchanger for the technical feasibility of solar thermal plants coupled to supercritical power cycles. Sol. Energy 2020, 211, 1027–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wang, H.; Kissick, S.M. Modeling and simulation of a supercritical CO2-liquid sodium compact heat exchanger for sodium-cooled fast reactors. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2020, 180, 115859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Linares, J.I.; Montes, M.J.; Cantizano, A.; Sánchez, C. A novel supercritical CO2 recompression Brayton power cycle for power tower concentrating solar plants. Appl. Energy 2020, 263, 114644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Albrecht, K.J.; Ho, C.K. Heat Transfer Models of Moving Packed-Bed Particle-to-sCO2 Heat Exchangers. J. Sol. Energy Eng. 2017, 141, 031006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ma, Z.; Martinek, J. Analysis of a Fluidized-Bed Particle/Supercritical-CO2 Heat Exchanger in a Concentrating Solar Power System. J. Sol. Energy Eng. 2021, 143, 031010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Yu, Q.; Yang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Zhu, H. Modeling and parameter sensitivity analysis of fluidized bed solid particle/sCO2 heat exchanger for concentrated solar power plant. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2021, 197, 117429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Albrecht, K.J.; Ho, C.K. Design and operating considerations for a shell-and-plate, moving packed-bed, particle-to-sCO2 heat exchanger. Sol. Energy 2019, 178, 331–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Fang, W.; Chen, S.; Xu, J.; Zeng, K. Predicting heat transfer coefficient of a shell-and-plate, moving packed-bed particle-to-sCO2 heat exchanger for concentrating solar power. Energy 2021, 217, 119389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wang, K.; Zhang, Z.D.; Li, M.J.; Min, C.H. A coupled optical-thermal-fluid-mechanical analysis of parabolic trough solar receivers using supercritical CO2 as heat transfer fluid. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2021, 183, 116154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Li, Q.; Flamant, G.; Yuan, X.; Neveu, P.; Luo, L. Compact heat exchangers: A review and future applications for a new generation of high temperature solar receivers. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 4855–4875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ho, C.K.; Iverson, B.D. Review of high-temperature central receiver designs for concentrating solar power. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 29, 835–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Ho, C.K.; Conboy, T.; Ortega, J.; Afrin, S.; Gray, A.; Christian, J.M.; Bandyopadyay, S.; Kedare, S.B.; Singh, S.; Wani, P. High-Temperature Receiver Designs for Supercritical CO2 Closed-Loop Brayton Cycles. In Proceedings of the ASME 2014 8th International Conference on Energy Sustainability collocated with the ASME 2014 12th International Conference on Fuel Cell Science, Engineering and Technology, Boston, MA, USA, 30 June–2 July 2014; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  35. Besarati, S.M.; Goswami, D.Y.; Stefanakos, E.K. Development of a solar receiver based on compact heat exchanger technology for supercritical carbon dioxide power cycles. J. Sol. Energy Eng. 2015, 137, 031018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Teng, L.; Xuan, Y. A novel solar receiver for supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle. Energy Procedia 2019, 158, 339–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sullivan, S.D.; Kesseli, J.; Nash, J.; Farias, J.; Kesseli, D.; Caruso, W. High-Efficiency Low-Cost Solar Receiver for Use in a Supercritical CO2 Recompression Cycle; Brayton Energy, LLC: Portsmouth, NH, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  38. Coventry, J.; Andraka, C.; Pye, J.; Blanco, M.; Fisher, J. A review of sodium receiver technologies for central receiver solar power plants. Sol. Energy 2015, 122, 749–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Fernández-Torrijos, M.; Albrecht, K.J.; Ho, C.K. Dynamic modeling of a particle/supercritical CO2 heat exchanger for transient analysis and control. Appl. Energy 2018, 226, 595–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wang, K.; He, Y.L. Thermodynamic analysis and optimization of a molten salt solar power tower integrated with a recompression supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle based on integrated modeling. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 135, 336–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Turchi, C.S.; Vidal, J.; Bauer, M. Molten salt power towers operating at 600–650 °C: Salt selection and cost benefits. Sol. Energy 2018, 164, 38–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. de la Calle, A.; Bayon, A.; Pye, J. Techno-economic assessment of a high-efficiency, low-cost solar-thermal power system with sodium receiver, phase-change material storage, and supercritical CO2 recompression Brayton cycle. Sol. Energy 2020, 199, 885–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ho, C. A review of high-temperature particle receivers for concentrating solar power. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2016, 109, 958–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Ortega, J.D.; Christian, J.M.; Ho, C.K. Design and Testing of a Novel Bladed Receiver. In Proceedings of the ASME 2017 11th International Conference on Energy Sustainability collocated with the ASME 2017 Power Conference Joint With ICOPE-17, the ASME 2017 15th International Conference on Fuel Cell Science, Engineering and Technology, and the ASME 2017 Nuclear Forum, Charlotte, NC, USA, 26–30 June 2017; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zhang, H.L.; Benoit, H.; Gauthier, D.; Degrève, J.; Baeyens, J.; López, I.P.; Hemati, M.; Flamant, G.; Pérez Lópezb, I.; Hemati, M.; et al. Particle circulation loops in solar energy capture and storage: Gas–solid flow and heat transfer considerations. Appl. Energy 2016, 161, 206–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Li, M.J.; Li, M.J.; Ma, Z.; Yuan, F. Comparisons of thermal performance and cost for three thermal energy storage systems utilized in supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle. Energy Procedia 2019, 158, 4696–4701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Trevisan, S.; Guédez, R.; Laumert, B. Supercritical CO2 Brayton Power Cycle for CSP with Packed Bed TES Integration and Cost Benchmark Evaluation. In Proceedings of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Power Division (Publication) POWER, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 15–18 July 2019; Volume 2019. [Google Scholar]
  48. Bayon, A.; Liu, M.; Sergeev, D.; Grigore, M.; Bruno, F.; Müller, M. Novel solid–solid phase-change cascade systems for high-temperature thermal energy storage. Sol. Energy 2019, 177, 274–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kelly, B.; Izygon, M.; Vant-Hull, L. Advanced Thermal Energy Storage for Central Receivers with supercritical coolants. SolarPaces Conf. 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Johnson, E.; Bates, L.; Dower, A.; Bueno, P.C.; Anderson, R. Thermal energy storage with supercritical carbon dioxide in a packed bed: Modeling charge-discharge cycles. J. Supercrit. Fluids 2018, 137, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Reyes-Belmonte, M.A. The energy and environment connection, research trends based on a bibliometric analysis. Energy Ecol. Environ. 2021, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sultan, U.; Zhang, Y.; Farooq, M.; Imran, M.; Akhtar Khan, A.; Zhuge, W.; Khan, T.A.; Hummayun Yousaf, M.; Ali, Q. Qualitative assessment and global mapping of supercritical CO2 power cycle technology. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assessments 2021, 43, 100978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Yu, A.; Su, W.; Lin, X.; Zhou, N. Recent trends of supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle: Bibliometric analysis and research review. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 2020, 53, 699–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Reyes-Belmonte, M.A. A Bibliometric Study on Integrated Solar Combined Cycles (ISCC), Trends and Future Based on Data Analytics Tools. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Calderón, A.; Barreneche, C.; Hernández-Valle, K.; Galindo, E.; Segarra, M.; Fernández, A.I. Where is Thermal Energy Storage (TES) research going?—A bibliometric analysis. Sol. Energy 2020, 200, 37–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. David, T.M.; Silva Rocha Rizol, P.M.; Guerreiro Machado, M.A.; Buccieri, G.P. Future research tendencies for solar energy management using a bibliometric analysis, 2000–2019. Heliyon 2020, 6, e04452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Saikia, K.; Vallès, M.; Fabregat, A.; Saez, R.; Boer, D. A bibliometric analysis of trends in solar cooling technology. Sol. Energy 2020, 199, 100–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Islam, M.T.; Huda, N.; Abdullah, A.B.; Saidur, R. A comprehensive review of state-of-the-art concentrating solar power (CSP) technologies: Current status and research trends. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 91, 987–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Imran, M.; Haglind, F.; Asim, M.; Zeb Alvi, J. Recent research trends in organic Rankine cycle technology: A bibliometric approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 552–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. De Paulo, A.F.; Porto, G.S. Solar energy technologies and open innovation: A study based on bibliometric and social network analysis. Energy Policy 2017, 108, 228–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Du, H.; Li, N.; Brown, M.A.; Peng, Y.; Shuai, Y. A bibliographic analysis of recent solar energy literatures: The expansion and evolution of a research field. Renew. Energy 2014, 66, 696–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Dong, B.; Xu, G.; Luo, X.; Cai, Y.; Gao, W. A bibliometric analysis of solar power research from 1991 to 2010. Scientometrics 2012, 93, 1101–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Aghaei Chadegani, A.; Salehi, H.; Md Yunus, M.M.; Farhadi, H.; Fooladi, M.; Farhadi, M.; Ale Ebrahim, N. A comparison between two main academic literature collections: Web of Science and Scopus databases. Asian Soc. Sci. 2013, 9, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 2010, 84, 523–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Centre for Science and Technology Studies—Leiden University VOSviewer—Visualizing Scientific Landscapes. Available online: https://www.vosviewer.com/ (accessed on 27 August 2020).
  66. Molinari, J.F.; Molinari, A. A new methodology for ranking scientific institutions. Scientometrics 2008, 75, 163–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Turchi, C.S.; Ma, Z.; Neises, T.W.; Wagner, M.J. Thermodynamic study of advanced supercritical carbon dioxide power cycles for concentrating solar power systems. J. Sol. Energy Eng. 2013, 135, 041007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Yamaguchi, H.; Zhang, X.R.; Fujima, K.; Enomoto, M.; Sawada, N. Solar energy powered Rankine cycle using supercritical CO2. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2006, 26, 2345–2354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wang, J.; Sun, Z.; Dai, Y.; Ma, S. Parametric optimization design for supercritical CO2 power cycle using genetic algorithm and artificial neural network. Appl. Energy 2010, 87, 1317–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Chacartegui, R.; Muñoz De Escalona, J.M.; Sánchez, D.; Monje, B.; Sánchez, T. Alternative cycles based on carbon dioxide for central receiver solar power plants. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2011, 31, 872–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Padilla, R.V.; Soo Too, Y.C.; Benito, R.; Stein, W. Exergetic analysis of supercritical CO2 Brayton cycles integrated with solar central receivers. Appl. Energy 2015, 148, 348–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Moullec, Y.L.; Qi, Z.; Zhang, J.; Zhou, P.; Yang, Z.; Chen, W.; Wang, X.; Wang, S. Shouhang-EDF 10MWe Supercritical CO2 Cycle + CSP Demonstration Project. In Proceedings of the 3rd European sCO2 Conference, Paris, France, 19–20 September 2019. [Google Scholar]
  73. ACES2030 Project. Project Website. Available online: https://aces2030.es/ (accessed on 1 July 2021).
  74. SCARABEUS Project. Project Website. Available online: https://www.scarabeusproject.eu/ (accessed on 1 July 2021).
  75. SOLARSCO2OL Project. Project Website. Available online: https://www.solarsco2ol.eu/ (accessed on 1 July 2021).
  76. COMPASsCO2 Project. Project Website. Available online: https://www.compassco2.eu (accessed on 1 July 2021).
  77. CARBOSOLA Project. Project Website. Available online: https://app.dimensions.ai/details/grant/grant.8660680 (accessed on 1 July 2021).
  78. DESOLINATION Project. Project Website. Available online: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101022686 (accessed on 1 July 2021).
  79. US DOE SETO 2020—Small Innovative Projects in Solar (SIPS)—Enabling Robust Compressor Operation under Various sCO2 Conditions at Compressor Inlet. Project Website. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/seto-2020-small-innovative-projects-solar-sips (accessed on 1 July 2021).
  80. US DOE SETO 2020—Small Innovative Projects in Solar (SIPS)—Enhancing Particle-to-sCO2 Heat Exchanger Effectiveness Through Novel High-Porosity Metallic Foams. Project Website. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/seto-2020-small-innovative-projects-solar-sips (accessed on 1 July 2021).
  81. US DOE SETO 2018—Mechanically, Thermally, and Chemically Robust High-Temperature Ceramic Composites. Project Website. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/project-profile-purdue-university-2-fy2018-csp (accessed on 1 July 2021).
  82. US DOE SETO 2018—740H Diffusion Bonded Compact Heat Exchanger for High Temperature and Pressure Applications. Project Website. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/project-profile-comprex-llc-fy2018-csp (accessed on 1 July 2021).
  83. US DOE SETO 2018—Development of a High-Efficiency Hybrid Dry Cooler System for sCO2 Power Cycles in CSP Applications. Project Website. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/project-profile-southwest-research-institute-1-fy2018-csp (accessed on 1 July 2021).
  84. US DOE SETO 2018—Reduced Levelized Cost of Energy in CSP Through Utilizing Process Gas Lubricated Bearings in Oil-Free Drivetrains. Project Website. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/project-profile-general-electric-2-fy2018-csp (accessed on 1 July 2021).
  85. US DOE SETO 2018—High-Temperature Dry-Gas Seal Development and Testing for sCO2 Power Cycle Turbomachinery. Project Website. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/project-profile-southwest-research-institute-2-fy2018-csp (accessed on 1 July 2021).
  86. US DOE SETO 2018—Additively Manufactured Molten Salt-to-Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Heat Exchanger. Project Website. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/project-profile-university-california-davis-fy2018-csp (accessed on 1 July 2021).
  87. US DOE SETO 2018—Additively Manufacturing Recuperators via Direct Metal Laser Melting and Binder Jet Technology. Project Website. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/project-profile-general-electric-1-fy2018-csp (accessed on 1 July 2021).
  88. US DOE SETO 2018—Narrow-Channel, Fluidized Beds for Effective Particle Thermal Energy Transport and Storage. Project Website. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/project-profile-colorado-school-mines-fy2018-csp (accessed on 1 July 2021).
  89. US DOE SETO 2020—Integrated TESTBED. Project Website. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/seto-2020-integrated-testbed (accessed on 1 July 2021).
  90. US DOE SETO 2019—Oxidation-Resistant, Thermomechanically Robust Ceramic-Composite Heat Exchangers. Project Website. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/nepa/downloads/cx-101724-oxidation-resistant-thermomechanically-robust-ceramic-composite-heat (accessed on 1 July 2021).
  91. US DOE SETO 2019—Vertically Aligned Carbon Nanotube Arrays as Novel, Self-Lubricating, High-Efficiency Brush Seal for CSP Turbomachinery. Project Website. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/seto-fy2019-concentrating-solar-thermal-power (accessed on 1 July 2021).
  92. US DOE SETO 2019—Near-Net-Shape Hot Isostatic Press Manufacturing Modality for sCO2 CSP Capital Cost Reduction. Project Website. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/nepa/downloads/cx-101687-near-net-shape-hot-isostatic-press-manufacturing-modality-sco2-csp-capital (accessed on 1 July 2021).
  93. US DOE SETO 2019—Advanced Compressors for CO2-Based Power Cycles and Energy Storage Systems. Project Website. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/seto-fy2019-concentrating-solar-thermal-power (accessed on 1 July 2021).
  94. US DOE SETO 2019—Creep and Fatigue Characterization of High-Strength Nickel Alloys Thin Sections in Advanced CO2 Heat Exchangers. Project Website. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/nepa/downloads/cx-101720-creep-and-fatigue-characterization-high-strength-alloy-thin-sections (accessed on 1 July 2021).
  95. US DOE SETO 2019—Economic Weekly and Seasonal Thermochemical and Chemical Energy Storage for Advanced Power Cycles. Project Website. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/nepa/downloads/cx-101700-economic-weekly-and-seasonal-thermochemical-and-chemical-energy-storage (accessed on 1 July 2021).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.