53 - 2006 Concentrating Solar Thermal PDF

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR COAL IN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Established and supported under the Australian Government’s Cooperative Research Centres Program
SYNERGIES WITH RENEWABLES:

CONCENTRATING SOLAR THERMAL
TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT REPORT 56
Authors:
L. Wibberley 1
A. Cottrell 1
P. Scaife 2
P. Brown 1
1
CSIRO Energy Technology
2
The University of Newcastle
October 2006
QCAT Technology Transfer Centre, Technology Court

Pullenvale Qld 4069 AUSTRALIA
Telephone (07) 3871 4400 Facsimile (07) 3871 4444
Email: Administration@ccsd.biz
This page is intentionally left blank
DISTRIBUTION LIST
CCSD
Chairman; Chief Executive Officer; Research Manager, Manager Technology; Files
Industry Participants
Australian Coal Research Limited ............................................................. Mr Mark Bennetts

BHP Billiton Mitsubishi Alliance.............................................................. Mr Ross Willims
.................................................................................................................... Mr Ben Klaassen
.................................................................................................................... Dr Andre Urfer
CNA Resources.......................................................................................... Mr Ashley Conroy
CS Energy .................................................................................................. Dr Chris Spero
Delta Electricity ......................................................................................... Mr Greg Everett
Queensland Natural Resources & Mines ................................................... Mr Bob Potter
Rio Tinto (TRPL)....................................................................................... Dr Jon Davis
Stanwell Corporation ................................................................................. Mr Howard Morrison
Tarong Energy ........................................................................................... Mr Dave Evans
The Griffin Coal Mining Co Pty Ltd ......................................................... Mr Jim Coleman
Verve Energy ............................................................................................. Mr Ken Tushingham
Wesfarmers Premier Coal Ltd ................................................................... Mr Peter Ashton
Xstrata Coal Pty Ltd................................................................................... Mr Colin Whyte
.................................................................................................................... Mr Barry Isherwood
Research Participants
CSIRO ……............................................................................................... Dr David Brockway

Curtin University of Technology …………………………………. ......... Prof Linda Kristjanson
Macquarie University ................................................................................ Prof Jim Piper
The University of Newcastle ..................................................................... Prof Barney Glover
The University of New South Wales ......................................................... Prof David Young
The University of Queensland ................................................................... Prof Don McKee
Cooperative Research Centre for
Coal in Sustainable Development
QCAT Technology Transfer Centre
Technology Court
Pullenvale, Qld 4069
Telephone: (07) 3871 4400
Fax: (07) 3871 4444
Feedback Form
To help us improve our service to you may I ask you for five minutes of your time to complete this
questionnaire. Please fax or mail it back to me, or, if you would prefer, give me a call.
ATTENTION MANAGER TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
FAX NO 07 3871 4444 DATE ...............................................................................
FROM NAME: ..................................................................................................................................

COMPANY:............................................................................................................................
REPORT TITLE: SNERGIES WITH RENEWABLES: CONCENTRATING SOLAR THERMAL

AUTHORS: L. WIBBERLEY, A. COTTRELL, P. SCAIFE, P. BROWN
Would you please rate our performance in the following areas by ticking the appropriate box:
The Research Agree Neutral Disagree Don’t

Know
This work has achieved its research objectives
This work has delivered to agreed milestones
This work is relevant to my organisation
Communication of progress has been timely & useful
The Report
The report is well presented

The context of the report is clear
The content of the report is substantial
The report is clearly written and understandable
This product is good value
Any further comments which would assist us in better serving your future requirements?:
…………………………….……………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………….……………………………………………
Are there any people you would like to add to our distribution list?:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….......
Thank you for your response
Disclaimer
Use of the information contained in this report is at the user’s

risk. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy
of that information, neither Australian Black Coal Utilisation
Research Limited (ABCUR) nor the participants in the CRC for
Coal in Sustainable Development make any warranty, express or
implied, regarding it. Neither ABCUR nor the participants are
liable for any direct or indirect damages, losses, costs or
expenses resulting from any use or misuse of that information.
Copyright
© Australian Black Coal Utilisation Research Limited 2004
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be

reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any
form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of Australian Black Coal Utilisation Research
Limited.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Wes Stein from CSIRO Energy Technology for his assistance
with providing information on solar reforming, and in reviewing the draft report, and both Allen
Lowe and Trevor Gleeson (Stanwell) as external reviewers - comments and suggestions have
been greatly appreciated.
Revision: 7 Nov 2005 i

ABSTRACT
This report summarises the status of concentrating solar thermal technology (CST) for the
generation of electricity, the synergies and integration with fossil fuel-based generation, and for
reforming of natural gas. The report covers information up to September 2005.
Overall, CST technology has lagged in development and application, in comparison with other
renewable technologies, such as wind and photovoltaics, but it has been predicted that, if the higher
rate of commercial application is achieved, the technology will play a significant role in base-load
generation for Australia and other countries which have high levels of direct solar insolation.
These predictions show that CST technologies could be capable of meeting the requirements of two
major electric power markets: large-scale dispatchable markets comprised of grid-connected
peaking and base-load power, and rapidly expanding distributed markets, including both on-grid
and remote/off-grid applications. The solar thermal energy to meet Australia’s entire current power
demand would require a 35 x 35 km square area in a high irradiance, low cloud cover location (21-
24 MJ/m2.day). However, a high level of CST in Australia’s grid system is not possible with
current storage technology, and would require large backup fossil fuel capacity to meet the required
grid security.
There is also an opportunity to use solar thermal energy for natural gas reforming, which results in
26% of embodied solar energy in the product gas. In Australia, the large quantities of natural gas,
and coal seam gas, and the well developed gas and electricity grids, coupled with large areas with
high solar insolation, provide an opportunity for using this approach to make a significant reduction
in greenhouse emissions per unit of electricity, and in the amount of fossil energy consumption.
CSIRO has a major research program in this area.
The attractive environmental attributes of CST, combined with the inherent capability of the
technology to meet dispatchable and distributed market needs, form a forceful argument for
continued development of the technology. Thermal storage technology is available and readily
connected to CST plants.
Siting is restricted to regions with the best solar resources, but globally the potential is significant.
In the IEA countries, this includes Australia, the Mediterranean region and southwest United States.
There are currently 354 MWe of parabolic troughs in commercial operation in California, and there
are many solar thermal demonstration plants in Australia, Europe and the United States. The most
recent stand alone project, Andasol in Spain, will provide very useful engineering and operating
data, following its commissioning in late 2006, as it uses the new EuroTrough collector technology,
and molten nitrate thermal storage (a commercial first).
The current plants in operation are achieving costs of about US$0.12/kWh which are the lowest of
any solar technology. The technology can also be combined in hybrid form (solar thermal plants
coupled with fossil fuel-fired boilers), achieving costs of about US$0.08/kWh.The CLFR CST plant
attached to the Liddell power station in the Hunter Valley is a very interesting development, and
could position Australia well in CST technology markets, if projected capital and operating costs
are achieved. It is encouraging that an expansion to 20,000 m2 of collector area was announced in
mid 2005, with the heat to be used to generate 5 MWe.
There is a concerted international effort (Global Marketing Initiative) to develop the technology
through installations, to benefit from scale and the learning rate. It is predicted by the GMI, that the
cost of CST will become equal to coal fired generation when the CST installed capacity is
5000 MW worldwide; the GMI target is to achieve this by 2013.
Revision: 7 Nov 2005 ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i
ABSTRACT ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
GLOSSARY iv
Technology summary 1
1. Introduction 4
1.1. Australian potential 5
1.2. Recent international developments 6
2. Solar Thermal Technologies 8
2.1. Parabolic troughs 9
2.2. Tower Technology 12
2.3. Fresnel collector 14
2.4. Parabolic dish 16
2.5. Solar Chimney 18
2.6. Comparison of different solar collector technologies 20
3. Thermal Storage 21
3.1. Integration of storage systems 22
4. Heat utilisation 27
4.1. Electricity production 27
4.1.1 Rankine cycle 28
4.1.2 Brayton cycle 31
4.1.3 Stirling cycle 33
4.1.4 Comparison of electricity cycles 34
4.2. Direct integration - heat for power generation 34
4.3. Direct integration – heat for post combustion capture 36
4.4. Indirect integration – heat for reforming 37
5. Economics 40
5.1. Parabolic trough technology 40
5.2. Tower technology 42
5.3. Fresnel collector technology 43
5.4. Impact of a Carbon Tax 43
5.5. Impact of water use 44
6. Conclusions 45
7. References 46
Revision: 7 Nov 2005 iii

GLOSSARY
AUD Australian dollars
bar absolute pressure expressed as multiples of atmospheric pressure (100
kPa). Note, 1 MPa (gauge) = 11 bar.
Capacity factor is the amount of electricity produced annually by a plant divided by
the potential electricity production from the same plant operating
continuously at full power
Carnot limit defines the maximum thermodynamic efficiency for converting heat to
electricity, and is equal to 1-Tcold/Thot. Tcold is the temperature of the
cold reservoir (eg cooling water), and Thot is the temperature of the hot
reservoir (eg, combustion)
CCSD Cooperative Research Centre for Coal in Sustainable Development
CHAPS Combined Heat and Power Solar; uses concentrated solar to provide
electricity (via PV), and heat; an ANU development
CLFR compact linear Fresnel reflector
CO2-e carbon dioxide equivalents
COE cost of electricity; basically synonymous with LEC
Concentration ratio ratio of collected to incident solar radiation intensity
CSP concentrating solar power, ie conversion to electricity
CST concentrating solar thermal
Direct radiation radiation which is received from the sun without being scattered or
reflected by atmospheric constituents
EU European Union
Eurotrough A parabolic trough design developed by a European consortium with
EU funding support
GEF Global Environment Fund
GGE greenhouse gas emissions
GHG greenhouse gas
GMI Global Marketing Initiative; an international group formed to support
the commercial development of CSP
GRA Global Research Alliance; a group of research organisations,
including CSIRO, CSIR (RSA and India), Battelle (USA), TNO
(Netherlands), Fraunhofer (Germany)
GW giga(109)watts
GWh gigawatt-hours
Heliostat a device that tracks the movement of the sun; typically used to orient a
mirror, throughout the day, to reflect sunlight in a consistent direction,
eg for reflecting solar thermal energy onto a central receiver
HRSG heat recovery steam generation
HTF heat transfer fluid
HX heat exchanger
IGCC integrated gasification combined cycle
Insolation the incoming solar radiation that reaches earth and its atmosphere
Revision: 7 Nov 2005 iv

ISCCS integrated solar combined cycle system
kW kilo(103)watts
LCA life cycle analysis; in this context, considers emissions over the chain,
from materials in the ground to a unit of sent out electricity
LEC levelised electricity cost; takes into account all costs over life of plant
Load shifting the ability to transfer a load associated with electricity use from a
period of high demand to a period of lower demand
m3 cubic metres
methane reforming converting methane to CO and hydrogen (endothermic)
MJ mega(106)joules
Mt megatonnes
Mtpa megatonnes per annum
MTSA multi tower solar array
MW megawatts
NGCC natural gas combined cycle electricity generation
NOx nitrogen oxides – Nitrogen oxide (NO), Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
NRC National Research Council (USA)
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory (USA)
NSETC National Solar Energy Technology Centre, based at CSIRO Energy
Centre in Newcastle
PBMR pebble bed modular reactor (nuclear)
PCC post combustion capture; the carbon dioxide is captured after
combustion
PCM phase change material; used in thermal storage systems, with the
benefit of providing latent heat associated with the phase change
PEM proton exchange membrane; a fuel cell suitable for converting
hydrogen to electricity
PJ peta(1015)joules
pf pulverised fuel
PV photovoltaics
RSA Republic of South Africa
SEGS Solar Electric Generating Station; Californian solar thermal trough
plant
Sent out basis net electricity output after parasitic loads
Sequestration long-term storage of carbon in the terrestrial biosphere, underground,
or the oceans
SHP Solar Heat and Power; an Australian company commercialising CLFR
and MTSA
Solar 1 and 2 a 10 MWe power tower in Southern California
Solargas CSIRO process for reforming methane with solar thermal energy
SolarH2 CSIRO process for generating hydrogen from methane using solar
thermal energy
Solarmundo Belgian company developing Fresnel collector technology
SOx sulfur oxides – Sulfur dioxide (SO2), Sulfur trioxide (SO3)
Revision: 7 Nov 2005 v

Solar Tres solar tower power project in Spain
Sunlab a virtual laboratory created between NREL and Sandia National
Laboratories in the USA
t tonnes
Thermocline in the context of thermal energy storage, a liquid with a large
temperature gradient from top to bottom
TJ tera(1012)joules
tpd tonnes per day
UNEP United Nations Environment Program
USC ultra supercritical; steam temperatures greater than 566oC, and
pressures greater than 23.1 MPa
WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, 1992)
Revision: 7 Nov 2005 vi

TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY
Scope Concentrated solar thermal used for electricity generation either
integrated with thermal power stations, or as stand alone grid connected
plants.
KPIs
Capex 2005 US$4.5M/MW (trough, with 12 h of storage)
Capex 2015 US$3.0M/MW (trough, with 12 h of storage)
Cost of electricity (2005) US$100/MWh (trough)
US$140/MWh (tower)
Cost of electricity (2015) US$54/MWh (trough)
US$55/MWh (tower)
Abatement cost (2015) US$30/t CO2 avoided
Abatement potential 900 kg/MWh compared to current grid.
Implementation issues
Staged implementation Staged possible if integrated into fossil fired plant, else complete unit
plants are required.
Parabolic dish technology is more readily staged, as heat is higher
grade.
CST can be implemented now at large scale using current technology,
with cost reductions being achieved from plant scale up, volume
production, and technological development.
Unit scale Trough: 80 MWe (existing); 200 MWe proposed
Tower: 30-400 MWe (proposed)
Parabolic dish: 2 MWe (proposed)
CLFR: 240 MWe (proposed)
Retrofit aspects
Retrofit potential Highly favourable retrofit option for a coal or gas fired station, although
there are imbalance issues if more than ~5% of thermal input is
provided. The amount of thermal input can be increased if the host
plant is adapted for solar augment.
Stand-alone units can provide power, or heat generated can be used for
discretionary loads, eg CO2 capture.
Asset life extension No direct impact on asset life, but could enable an asset to achieve an
incremental greenhouse reduction target, and thereby prolong its
economic life.
Flexibility-adaptability
Operating flexibility If used directly as a large component of grid generation, there could be
intermittency problems (which could lead to instability of the grid), as
with many other renewable sources. However, this can be reduced by
energy storage as heat with some technologies well developed.
Integration with renewables High potential to integrate with stand-alone biomass, as these plants
will have lower steam conditions.
The largest potential synergy with fossil fuel power is using CST to
Revision: 7 Nov 2005 Page 1 of 47

provide low grade heat for post combustion capture.
Synergies with renewables Highly synergistic with biomass, providing heat to distributed power
stations, and maintaining high capacity factors without storage.
Water consumption If integrated into an existing coal fired generator, the water use can be
considered to be the same as that for the overall plant, ie around 1.8 to
2.0 t/MWh. For a stand alone plant with a steam cycle, the water
consumption is significantly higher (for Andasol plant, projected to be
4t/MWh). If a Stirling engine or recuperated Brayton turbine with air
cooling is used (easier than for steam plants), water consumption would
be negligible.
Future developments Developments in Brayton turbines at 2-200 MW scale, especially the
high efficiency He turbines being developed for nuclear PBMR, will
greatly assist the development of more efficient tower and dish systems.
R&D requirements Mostly engineering development to design cost effective processes for
different situations.
Australian resources Australia has excellent solar insolation, with around 75% of land area
receiving >18 MJ/m2.day of direct radiation.
Stand alone large scale plants could be built in the extensive areas of
higher insolation, relatively close to existing grids. All Australia’s
electricity currently could be supplied from an area of 35x35 km
square, in an area of high insolation.
High risk attributes None identified.
Overall
Best features Renewable energy technology suitable for large scale application in
Australia, if costs can be reduced by a factor of 2-3 through scale up
and learning; likely within 10-15 years, under the strong impetus from
the GMI.
Lesser impacts, environmentally or socially (cf wind turbine siting
controversy); impacts are related to land use requirements. The need to
site away from the coast (in areas of high insolation) may help social
acceptance.
Local effects are unknown, and will depend heavily on location; eg the
effect on ground cover.
A big advantage of CST is that energy storage can be thermal (the
lowest cost energy storage), in comparison with technologies which
produce electricity, and then either store this directly (eg in a battery) or
indirectly (eg use the electricity for pumped hydro or compressed air
storage). CST is unique in that energy storage actually reduces slightly
the overall cost of electricity, as well as achieving a better price by
meeting the requirements of the grid.
Worst features CST is restricted to a maximum of 8-10 hours of operation each day,
and can only utilise direct sun light (PV can also use diffuse radiation).
High efficiency conversion of heat energy requires high temperature –
however, this lowers the conversion of solar radiation to heat due to
increased losses from the receiver.
Towers are likely to cause unacceptable visual impact (and danger)
within (say) 10 km of residences, and under the approaches to air fields.
However, siting in such locations is unlikely.
Plant scale for the higher efficiency tower and dish options so far are
small, for most technologies; next 10 years should see significant
adoption of CST plants in south western USA, and southern Europe.
Summary comments CST technologies could be capable of meeting the requirements of two
major electric power markets: large-scale dispatchable markets
comprised of grid-connected peaking and base-load power, and rapidly
expanding distributed markets, including both on-grid and remote/off-
grid applications.
In Australia, the large quantities of natural gas, and coal seam gas, and
the well developed gas and electricity grids, coupled with large areas
with high solar insolation, provide an opportunity to use solar thermal
energy for methane reforming, which results in 26% of embodied solar
energy in the product gas. CSIRO has a major research program in this
area.
Water use is likely to become of increasing importance in areas of high
solar insolation, suitable for CST plants. While all technologies can be
operated with air cooling (with a loss of efficiency for steam cycles),
Stirling engines and Brayton cycle units would be particularly attractive
from a water use perspective.

1. INTRODUCTION
CST involves concentrating the sun’s radiation to produce heat that can produce electricity directly,
or to increase the chemical energy of natural gas via reforming, or to provide heat for other
processes where heat would normally be provided by fossil fuel. A simple diagram showing the
paths of energy conversion for solar thermal technologies is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Solar thermal energy conversion paths
In this report, concentrating solar thermal is assessed separate to other forms of renewable energy, as
it is considered to have the greatest potential for supplying electricity in Australia, and has the
greatest synergy with a fossil fuel-based grid. These advantages are summarised in the following
key attributes of the technology:
• Approximately 1.7x108 GW of solar energy hits the outer surface of the earth’s atmosphere
reducing to an average (continuous) of 170 W/m2 and peak of about 1000 W/m2 at the
earth’s surface.
• Solar radiation is the largest renewable resource on earth, and if harnessed by existing
technology, approximately 1.5% of the world’s desert area could generate the world’s entire
electricity demand – if storage was not required.
• This energy source is more evenly distributed in the sun-belt of the world than wind or
biomass, allowing for more site locations. It is also abundant in many developing countries,
including the Republic of South Africa, and most of India and China.
• Solar thermal electricity plants can be installed in large centralized units, and, given the area
intensity of this technology, it has the potential to make deep cuts in greenhouse gas
emissions.
• Although currently more costly than hydro, wind and waste biomass, at US$100-200/MWh,
the expected scale up and technology developments are projected to lead to an electricity
cost of US$50-55/MWh by 2015. This would position CST as one of the lowest cost

sources of renewables based electricity. It is by far the lowest cost option for solar
electricity. Recent detailed studies by others predict cost competitiveness with fossil-fuel
plants in the future.
• CST is a well-proven and demonstrated technology, with over 100 years of accumulated
operating experience since 1984 from the nine solar thermal power plants (up to 80 MWe)
of the parabolic trough type (total installed capacity of 354 MWe). Note, the main
disadvantage of this is that the rate of application of CST is relatively low, which has
impacted on the rate of cost reduction. CST is not highly dependent on break through
technologies in its current form, as CST requires no exotic materials and comprises thermal
processes which are well-understood. However, there remains considerable scope for
obtaining cost reductions through large scale manufacturing, as well as through some
technological innovations.
• Solar thermal integrates well with other thermal processes, thermodynamic cycles and
conventional power generation equipment, and can be used to add chemical energy via
reforming.
• Operation and maintenance issues are able to be undertaken relatively easily and without
specialist skills, increasing its suitability for installation in more remote locations.
• Solar plants can be designed to be dispatchable, as in the Californian experience.
With these advantages also come a number of significant hurdles:
• Energy intensity of solar thermal is low compared to conventional power stations (kW/m2
max vs MW/m2)
• Cyclic and intermittent nature of solar radiation. (ie night and day, weather conditions etc)
• Solar radiation cannot be stored directly. It needs to be converted immediately to other
energy forms for storage (ie heat, electrical, chemical)
1.1. Australian potential

Australia is one of the regions of the world with excellent solar insolation, defined as those regions
with greater than 18 MJ/m2 day of direct radiation, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2 World regions with direct normal insolation of >18 MJ/m2.day.
The potential for solar thermal power in Australia is shown in more detail in Figure 3, noting that
this figure shows total solar insolation (both direct and indirect) – CST uses only direct radiation
which is approximately 65% of the total. Also note that, in this regard, CST is different to non-
concentrated PV which can utilise both direct and indirect radiation.
Figure 3 Solar irradiation map for Australia (includes both direct and indirect) with dots indicating regions
with coal fired stations[ 1 ]
Both stand-alone, and integration with fossil power plant, configurations have received considerable
interest in Australia, with research and development programs at the University of Sydney, ANU
and the CSIRO. An alternative form of solar thermal (with non-optical concentrator) is the proposal
for a solar chimney by Enviromission. These are briefly discussed in the following technology
section.
1.2. Recent international developments

The most significant recent development in progressing the technology was the First International
Executive Conference on CSP (Concentrating Solar Power) in June 2002 in Berlin. Strategies to
achieve the rapid and large-scale market introduction of the technology were defined and
summarized in the Declaration of Berlin, which was registered as a UNEP Market Facilitation
WSSD Type-II Partnership for CSP Technologies.
At the Second International Executive CSP Conference held in October 2003 in Palm Springs,
California, a Global Market Initiative was developed. It was concluded that:
• Solar thermal power plants, which make use of the CSP technology, have the capability to
meet a significant percentage of the future global electricity demand, without technological,
economic, or natural resource limitations.
• Many economic and environmental benefits will accrue from developing this resource.
• Due to the fuel-saving solar field investment, the initial capital costs for CSP plants are
higher than the initial cost of conventional power plants which purchase their fuel over time
at uncertain prices.
• Independent studies predict that the cost of CSP power could be fully competitive with
fossil-based power once 5,000 MW of new CSP capacity has been installed.

•
CSP addresses many of the world’s most pressing issues: energy security, energy
independence, climate change, air and water quality and long term price stability. This
Global Market Initiative is aimed at levelling the playing field for CSP technologies.
Based on these conclusions, the participants agreed to form a collaborative effort to be known as the
CSP Global Market Initiative with the objective of deploying 5,000 MW of CSP power by 2013.
The purpose of this initiative is to expedite the deployment of new CSP power plants, from
identification of CSP project opportunities to project commissioning.
A joint report by Greenpeace and ESTIA, the European Solar Power Industry Association[ 2 ], has
made projections for the world solar thermal power market up to 2040. It predicts an installed
capacity of 6 GW by 2015, 22 GW by 2020, 106 GW by 2030, and 630 GW by 2040. On this basis,
solar thermal will only supply 5% of the total expected electricity requirement in 2040. However, if
this rate of capacity growth is achieved, coupled with the predicted learning rate, CST will produce
electricity at a cost very competitive with coal based generation. It is of note that the same report
projects Australian installed capacity to be: 50 MW by 2010, 250 MW by 2015, and 2250 MW by
2020.
A recent study by the Global Research Alliance[ 3 ] has produced a histogram (Figure 4) showing the
“probable to firm” installed capacity, the GEF projects, and the additional annual capacity
installations required to reach the GMI target by 2015.
1600
Probable to firm based on present status
1400 GMI prediction to reach 5000MW by 2015
GEF projects
1200
MW installed each year
1000
800
600
400
200
0
85
87
89
91
13
05
15
17
19
07
09
11
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Figure 4 Short-term and possible medium to long-term development of CST technology world-wide
(yearly installed MWe).
Note, the gap between the early 1990’s and present, indicates a pause in development which has
delayed learning and cost reduction. With this rate of installation projected by the GMI, the total
installed capacity in 2020 would be around 12 GW, only around 0.3% of the world’s electricity
production. However, it is very significant that, even with this limited amount of learning,
generation costs (with short term storage) are predicted to approach those for coal.
2. SOLAR THERMAL TECHNOLOGIES
All concentrating solar thermal (CST) technologies have four basic components; concentrator,
receiver, energy transfer/storage, and conversion to useful energy source. The concentrator captures
and concentrates solar radiation, which is then delivered to the receiver. The receiver absorbs the
concentrated sunlight, transferring its heat energy to a working fluid. The energy transfer/storage
system passes the hot fluid from the receiver to the heat conversion system, and in some solar-
thermal plants a portion of the thermal energy is stored for later use.
Although there has been considerable interest in the past for stand-alone CST power systems, the
main interest is now to use CST in a hybrid configuration with fossil fuel power stations. This
integration is being used to decrease the overall cost by piggy-backing onto existing steam power
plants (either pf or IGCC, or in combined cycle NG). Such hybrids are eligible for green power
schemes. Hybridisation of up to 25% in a coal-fired boiler not only ensures reliability and
dispatchability of CST power, but can improve overall solar-electricity conversion efficiency. It
also increases the capacity factor of the energy conversion section of the plant (turbine, boiler, etc),
thereby increasing the return on capital.
There are a number of solar thermal technologies that are in various stages of development, and
which involve concentrating solar energy to some extent[ 4 ]. Solar thermal technologies can be split
into two groups:
• High concentration, high temperature solar thermal technology
− parabolic trough
− central receiver (“power tower”)
− parabolic dish
− Fresnel collector
− multi-tower solar array (MTSA)
• Zero to Low concentration, low temperature solar thermal technology
− solar chimney
− solar pond
− solar water heaters
Each of these approaches to concentration has a typical ratio of collected radiation intensity to
incident solar radiation intensity, termed the “concentration ratio”. Table 1 summarises the options
discussed and lists typical concentration ratios, the resultant operating temperatures and the
consequent thermodynamic limiting efficiency with which electricity could be produced. The
limiting conversion efficiency arises from the second law of thermodynamics. The maximum
efficiency for conversion of heat from a constant high temperature source given by;
Maximum conversion efficiency = 1- Tcold/Thot
This is the “Carnot limit”. In real solar thermal power systems, conversion efficiencies around one
third or less of the ideal maximum are typically achieved
Clearly higher concentration ratios give higher efficiency; however they also lead to potentially
higher complexity and cost. The ultimate challenge with solar thermal power systems is to produce
the desired output as economically as possible. This invariably means a trade off between system
efficiency and capital investment drives the design process.

Table 1 Typical temperature and concentration range of the various solar thermal collector technologies.
Technology T [°C] Concentration ratio Tracking Max Conversion

Eff. (Carnot)
Flat plate collector 30 – 100 1 - 21%

Evacuated tube collector 90 – 200 1 - 38%
Solar pond 70 – 90 1 - 19%
Solar chimney 20 – 80 1 - 17%
Fresnel reflector 260 – 400 8 – 80 One-axis 56%
technology
Parabolic trough 260 – 400 8 – 80 One-axis 56%
Heliostat field + Central 500 – 800 600 – 1000 Two-axis 73%
receiver
Dish concentrators 500 - 1200 800 - 8000 Two-axis 80%
For this report, the focus will be on the parabolic trough, central tower and Fresnel collector
technologies, since they are commercially available, or proven at a significant scale, and are likely to
be the technologies on which the expansion of solar thermal energy for large scale electricity
generation will be based. The parabolic dish and solar chimney technologies will also be briefly
considered.
2.1. Parabolic troughs

The collector field in the trough technology consists of a large field of single-axis tracking
collectors. Each solar collector has a linear parabolic shaped reflector that focuses the sun’s direct
beam radiation onto a linear receiver located at the focus of the parabola. The troughs can be
aligned either East-West or North-South, depending upon site latitude, and rotate about the linear
axis during the day to ensure that the sun is continuously focused on the linear receiver. The solar
field is modular and is composed of many parallel rows of solar collectors.
The receiver at the focal point of the trough is tubular and is used to pass a heat transfer fluid
through the centre. The tubes are usually coated with a special multi-layer surface to improve the
solar collection efficiency and can also be surrounded by an evacuated glass tube to further
minimise heat losses.
A heat transfer fluid (HTF) is heated as it circulates through the receiver and returns to a series of
heat exchangers in the power block, where the fluid is used to generate high pressure superheated
steam. The superheated steam is then fed to a conventional reheat steam turbine/generator to
produce electricity. The spent steam from the turbine is condensed in a standard condenser and
returned to the heat exchangers via condensate and feed water pumps to be transformed back into
steam. After passing through the HTF side of the solar heat exchangers, the cooled HTF is
recirculated through the solar field. Figure 5 shows a process flow diagram for the trough
technology.

Figure 5 Schematic of parabolic trough generation.
The most recent trough collector, stand alone, solar thermal technology is the Andasol project [ 5 ] in
the Granada Province of southern Spain. This project involves the sequential installation of two
50 MWe solar thermal trough plants, which will have integrated thermal storage; the first unit is
scheduled for start up in late 2006. The economics of the development are improved by the 18
eurocents premium (over the pool price, currently 4 eurocents/kWh) being received for each kWh
produced for the first 25 years of the project, with the premium reducing by 20% after that time.
Each plant is expected to cost 260 M Euros.
It is the first commercial project using EuroTrough solar collectors (shown in Figure 6), and the first
application of molten salt based thermal storage with parabolic trough collectors. The EuroTrough
collectors, developed with EU funding support, have an optical concentration of 82:1, and can
operate at around 400oC with a synthetic heat transfer fluid. A 14% cost reduction is claimed,
compared to previous designs of trough collectors. Details of the design and its performance are
available [ 6 ].

Figure 6 EuroTrough collector
Each 50 MWe plant will have 510,000 m2 of collectors, and will generate 157,000 MWh (equivalent
to 18 MW continuous) of sent out electricity annually, with a solar to electricity efficiency of 14.7%
(average). The savings in GHG emissions (cf coal fired generation) have been calculated to be
152,000 t CO2 per annum. The annual consumption of water is expected to be 612,000 tpa (ie 4t
H2O/MWh – cf 1.8-2.0 t for a coal fired pf plant). The power block consists of a condensing steam
turbine (inlet conditions: 100 bar, 370oC) with a single reheat stage and six steam extractions, and
has an efficiency of 37.5%.
A key feature of the project is the type of thermal storage being used: a 2 tank molten salt system
(60% sodium nitrate, and 40% potassium nitrate). This mixture has a melting point of 221oC, and
the system operates with a hot tank temperature of 384oC, and a cold tank temperature of 292oC.
With a salt mass of 25,000 t, the thermal storage capacity is 880 MWh. The impact of this storage
system on sent out electricity, as a function of the time of day (typical of Summer) is shown in
Figure 7.
Figure 7 Energy transfers during a typical Summer’s day

The Figure shows the expected transfers of energy into, and out of, storage, and that the planned
level of storage will enable the generation of 50 MWe for those hours of the day which are the
highest consumption periods. However, even with this level of thermal storage capacity,
considerable quantities of thermal energy will be dumped.
The most recent Australian experience with trough collectors has been with the School of Physics at
the University of Sydney. The group developed a selective surface with improved characteristics for
use in evacuated tube collectors. The prototype collector arrays have been installed on several
buildings around Sydney with the largest installation at Campbelltown District hospital. The
University has a license agreement with Shiroki Corporation of Japan. The University of Sydney
has since moved away from trough type concentration systems to focus more on Compact Linear
Fresnel Reflector (CLFR) and Multi Tower Solar Array (MTSA) designs as well as collector tube
improvement.
2.2. Tower Technology

Solar power towers generate high temperature thermal energy from sunlight by focusing
concentrated solar radiation (concentrated up to 1000 suns and higher) onto a tower-mounted heat
exchanger (receiver). The system uses hundreds of sun-tracking mirrors (heliostats) to reflect the
incident sunlight onto the receiver, as shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8 Schematic of the power tower.
These plants are best suited for utility-scale applications in the 30 to 400 MWe range. In a molten-
salt solar power tower, molten salt at 290°C is pumped from a “cold” storage tank through the
receiver where it is heated to 565°C and then on to a “hot” tank for storage. When power is needed
from the plant, hot salt is pumped to a steam generating system that produces superheated steam for
a conventional Rankine-cycle generator system. From the steam generator, the salt is returned to the
cold tank where it is stored and eventually reheated in the receiver. A molten salt power tower
system is shown schematically in Figure 9 below. The molten salt storage system used at Solar One
enables 6-13 hours of operation without the sun, thereby increasing the capacity factor of the power
plant (but not the collector-receiver), albeit with additional capital costs and complexity.

Figure 9 Process schematic of the power tower with molten salt storage.
Because no commercial power tower plants have been built and are less mature than parabolic
trough systems, there is more uncertainty in the cost, performance, and technical risk of this
technology.[ 7 ] However, a number of component and experimental systems have been field tested
around the world in the last 15 years, demonstrating the engineering feasibility and economic
potential of the technology. Of the CST technologies, the power tower has most materials issues
due to the very high heat fluxes falling on the receiver.
To date, the largest power towers ever built are the 10 MWe Solar One and Solar Two plants in
southern California (Figure 10). The first incarnation, Solar One, was built in 1982 by the U.S.
Department of Energy, Southern California Edison, the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power,
and the California Energy Commission. It operated through to 1988, and in 1995 was retrofitted to
become Solar Two. A ring of larger heliostats, each 95 m2, was added to the perimeter of the field,
and the plant was converted to heat molten nitrate salt (60 percent NaNO3 and 40 percent KNO3)
from 260°C to 565°C. This offered several advantages, most notably that the plant could still
generate power during the night and in periods of cloud cover. It ceased operation in 1999
generating 10 MW of power, enough to power 10,000 homes, and successfully showing that its
technology could be scaled up to the cost-efficient size of 100 MW.

Figure 10 Aerial view of Solar One/Two power tower.
2.3. Fresnel collector

The technology uses a fixed elevated absorber line and separate, almost flat, reflector strips which
are mounted close to the ground. The reflector strips operate with single-axis tracking of the sun
with a north-south axis of rotation. Light is focused onto the absorber from collectors below. An
example of the Solarmundo Fresnel collector is shown below in Figure 11.
Figure 11 Principle of Solarmundo Fresnel collector[ 8 ]
Two types of absorbers can be used, depending on the required temperature of the working fluid and
the amount of concentration; for higher temperatures (say 350-375°C), the absorber is composed of
more costly horizontal evacuated tubes which are mounted over stainless steel boiler tubes in which
water is turned directly into steam. For lower temperatures (say 275-325°C) the absorber comprises
a steel boiler tube that is shielded from the wind by an upper cover and a glass covered lower

aperture. In both systems the collectors can be independently controlled to maximize the energy
falling onto the absorber line. The Australian variant of this is CLFR[ 9 ], which interleaves the
collectors as shown in Figure 12 below. Interleaving enables a slightly more compact system,
though not achieving the highest production of electricity per unit area due to the moderate
temperatures achieved – compared to dish systems. CLFR systems can be used as stand-alone,
retrofitted to existing power plants, or for combined heat and power applications.
The main advantage of the technology is that it has the lowest equipment cost, and the optics allow
the use of inexpensive elastically curved reflectors (the mirrors naturally sag onto supports), as
opposed to the costly bowed glass reflectors used in the Luz parabolic troughs. As the collectors are
mounted close to the ground, structural requirements are reduced.
The temperatures that are expected to be generated in CLFR technology applications are lower than
those for other solar thermal technologies as the concentration ratio is lower (around 200-400x
suns), thus for stand-alone plants the cycle efficiency will be lower. Fresnel collector systems are
therefore more suited for integration with fossil fuel power stations where they can contribute
thermal input into the feedwater preheating circuits.
In Australia, this technology is being commercialised by Solar Heat and Power (SHP), an Australian
company based on the CLFR technology developed at the University of Sydney. The first pilot
facility has been installed at Liddell Power station in the Hunter Valley - with 1350 m2 of collector
area installed as Stage 1.[ 10 ] This equates to around 1 MW thermal peak[ 11 ]. The second phase of
this development commenced on 1 June 2005, and will add 19392 m2 of mirrors by 2007; this will
add 5 MWe to the Liddell output [ 12 ]. A proposed Phase 3 will ultimately lead to a 40 MWe increase.
Figure 12 Schematic of compact linear Fresnel reflector (CLFR) solar array, showing the interleaving of
adjacent collectors to maximize the energy directed to the absorber lines.
The main technical obstacles appear to be providing low cost horizontal absorber lines that avoid
slugging flow, that do not sag due to differential heating of the underside, and that are protected
from the wind without significant absorption of beam energy. The main impediment to
implementation would appear to be that the technology is best suited to direct integration. This
limits suitable locations – high insolation, with relatively flat available land surrounding the host
power plant. Note, the latter issue can be overcome with stand-alone plants; however, the relatively
low operating temperature (ie low stand alone efficiency) of the technology will offset its lower
installation cost. The low efficiency issue can be improved with different cycles (eg organic
Rankine, Kalina, or He-Brayton), but these cycles are more costly.

2.4. Parabolic dish
Parabolic dish systems are primarily designed to operate as stand-alone systems, with highly
concentrated heat energy (Figure 13) being used in a range of engines – steam, gas turbine or
Stirling engines. The systems use either a single mirror, or an array of parabolic dish-shaped mirrors
(stretched membrane or flat glass facets), to focus solar energy onto a receiver located at the focal
point of the dish (see Figure 14). In the case of water being the working fluid, superheated steam is
generated in the receiver (a flash steam generator) at 600-750°C. This high grade steam can be used
to generate electricity in a small turbine attached to the receiver, or provide steam to a nearby steam
power plant. Small Brayton (non-combustion gas turbines) and Stirling engines are particularly
suited for location behind the receiver. The technology could also provide steam to a host fossil fuel
power plant.
Figure 13 Schematic of parabolic dish technology.
Engines currently under consideration include Stirling and Brayton cycle engines. High optical
efficiency and low startup losses make dish/engine systems the most efficient (29.4% record solar to
electricity conversion) of all solar technologies. In addition, the modular design of dish/engine
systems make them a good match for both remote power needs in the kilowatt range, as well as
hybrid end-of-the-line grid-connected utility applications in the megawatt range.

Figure 14 Stand-alone solar thermal power unit using a Stirling engine located at the focus.
A plant with a peak capacity of 25 kW supplied electricity to the community of White Cliffs in the
north west of NSW from 1983 to 1989[ 13 ]. This installation was relatively successful, with the
biggest technical issue being thermal cycling of the receiver. The station has since been converted
to photovoltaic cell technology by the electricity distributor, Australian Inland Energy, to provide
capacity for their green power scheme.
Since the White Cliffs project the ANU has further developed the paraboloidal dish
technology[ 14 , 15 ], which includes a “big dish” unit at that university (see Figure 15). Despite several
proposals for demonstration plants based on the big dish, the technology has not received
subsequent support. One proposed demonstration was at Tennant Creek in the Northern Territory,
with support from electricity generation companies from the Northern Territory, Queensland, NSW,
and South Australia.[ 16 ] Solar collectors were proposed to provide 2 MW, with a 4 MW natural gas
boiler as back-up. Studies concluded it would be technically feasible, but during the course of the
project, deregulation of the electricity industry and other factors caused some companies to
withdraw and the project was put on hold.
Among other factors, the new interest in solar thermal use in conjunction with existing power
stations has led to the commissioning of two major consultancy reports by Sinclair Knight Merz
(SKM). One report covers the ANU big dish technology while the other concerns the CLFR
technology being developed at the University of Sydney. The SKM report concluded that the
technology shows innovation, is “leading edge”, and is currently at the prototype/pilot plant stage,
but requires some further development by industry to achieve commercial status. A second, higher
concentration version has been constructed in Israel[ 17 ]. Steam can be generated at sufficiently high
temperature and pressure in a cheaper, lower concentration “power dish” to be useful in electric
power generation. ANU and a large NSW generator have proposed a hybridised retrofit of an
existing power station using the dish, but this has not been progressed.
Overall the technology appears most suitable for distributed generation, especially using the Brayton
cycle based on micro turbine technology, with the higher cost of the 2-axis tracking dish being offset
by the higher efficiency (small collector area). At larger scale, a supercritical steam variant may
prove suitable (supercritical conditions would avoid the thermal cycling issues that occurred in the
receivers at the White Cliffs project).

Figure 15 ANU “Big Dish” in Canberra.
Recent work at the ANU has focussed on a PV thermal concentrator system [ 18 ], based on Combined
Heat and Power Solar (CHAPS) collector technology, rather than on dish technology for CST
electricity generation.
In the USA, Stirling have proposed[ 19 ] the building of a 1 MW test facility using 40 of the
company’s 37-foot-diameter dish assemblies, each with 25 kW Stirling engines. If the test facility is
successful, a larger 500 MW (20,000 dish) facility will be built near Victorville, California, with the
potential of being expanded to 850 MW (34,000 dishes). The test facility is expected to be
completed in the first quarter of 2007, with the 500 MW installation taking 4 years from 2008 and
the 350 MW expansion taking an extra 2 years from 2012. This development has important
ramifications for Australia (the Stirling engines are air cooled), and should be kept under review.
In Australia, CSIRO and CTI have developed a hybrid solar Stirling and wind turbine micro-power
system which can produce up to 3 kW peak, and provide enough energy to supply an average home.
It is proposed to link larger dishes with molten salt storage. A demonstration project is being set up
on Fraser Island.[ 20 ]
2.5. Solar Chimney

This technology involves using solar radiation to heat air over a large area, which generates an up-
flow of air via a chimney. Heating is achieved by covering an area which is exposed to sunshine
with a transparent material, such as clear plastic or glass, which causes the air underneath to heat up
(a large greenhouse). This heated air can rise through a chimney installed at the centre, causing a
continuous natural draft. This air drives a vertical axis wind turbine, placed in the base of the
chimney.
The bigger the temperature difference between the heated air underneath the collector and the
ambient air at the top of the chimney, the greater the pressure drop over the height of the chimney,
and the greater the potential to convert kinetic energy to electrical energy. Increasing the height of
the chimney also increases the generation of energy as shown in Figure 16. The heat absorption
capacity of the ground can also be important. The technology has inbuilt thermal storage, and it is
anticipated that it could generate electricity continuously for several days without sunlight.
10000
Chimney height
1500m 1000m 800m 600m 445m
1000
Electricity production (GWh/a)
100
Double glazing
Single glazing
10
1
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Collector radius (m)
Figure 16 Simulated electricity production of solar chimneys versus collector radius and chimney height.[ 21 ]
A 50 kW demonstration plant was operated near Manzaneres, Spain. A 200 MW solar chimney has
been proposed by EnviroMission (see Figure 17), for Victoria. The heated skirt is 5 km in diameter
(covers an area of 2000 ha), with a chimney height of 1000 m, and has been costed at AUD$670 M.
Figure 17 Impression of the proposed Enviromission solar chimney power generation plant.
In February 2005, a 10,000 ha site was purchased by Enviromission[ 22 ] at Buronga, 25 km northeast

of Mildura. Construction is scheduled for completion by the end of 2009. However, it is now
understood that the company has changed the scale of the project to 50 MW (still a major scale up
from the demonstration plant in Spain), with a tower height of 400 m, and is seeking government
support from the Low Emissions Technology Development Fund (LETDF).
The major investor is SolarMission Technologies (SMT) from the USA, the owner of the solar
thermal technology. A group of Chinese investors has formed a JV with SMT, with a view to
building solar chimneys in China.
The main feature of this technology is its inherent energy storage and very low thermal efficiency –
the Buronga plant has an output of only 0.01 kW/m2, though this can be sustained on a continuous
basis.
2.6. Comparison of different solar collector technologies

Table 2 show the typical solar to thermal efficiency for each technology. The solar to thermal
efficiency is the measure of thermal energy contained in the transfer fluid compared to the solar
energy incident on the collector field aperture.
Table 2 - Solar-to-thermal (Collector) efficiency (peak)
Efficiency (%) Collector Fluid temperature (oC)

CLFR 60 Evacuated tube 200
Trough[31] 70 Evacuated tube 220 (oil)
Dish[30] 75-80* Heater tubes 700 (H2)
Tower[ 23 ] 80+ Salt HX 565 (molten salt)
* Reflectance (94%), intercept fraction (0.95), receiver efficiency (90%)
The thermal energy in the transfer fluid is then converted into electrical energy, using an appropriate
conversion technology. This introduces further energy losses, resulting in the overall peak and
annual efficiencies (incident solar energy converted to electricity) shown in Table 3. Note that the
peak efficiency corresponds to a clear sky, at the time of the day with maximum insolation, while
the annual efficiency is the efficiency averaged over the period of operation during a year. This is
also an issue with heat storage.
Table 3 – Peak and annual efficiencies[30]
Unit Trough Trough Power Dish/Engine

Tower
Storage N Y Y N
Operating Temperature °C 390 390 565 750
Peak efficiency % 20 20 23 29.4
Annual efficiency % 11 16 20 12
It can be clearly seen that the temperature at the receiver impacts highly on the peak efficiency
which reinforces the point that the collectors ideally need to be located in high insolation areas with
minimal cloud cover.

3. THERMAL STORAGE
In order to produce electricity at times when direct solar energy is not available (eg nights, heavy
overcast days), or when the level is less than required (high cloud cover), it is necessary to include
thermal storage capability as part of the solar thermal installation. For a solar thermal plant which is
connected directly to a gas or coal fired power plant, or which is used to supply a discretionary load,
thermal storage is either not required, or a lower level of storage can be used.
For parabolic trough technology, the only CST technology used on a significant scale at this time,
thermal storage technologies have been well reviewed at an NREL Workshop held in 2003[ 24 ]. The
presentations to this Workshop form much of the basis for this section.
For solar thermal power plants, thermal storage has a number of key advantages:
• Enables despatchability without supplementary fossil fuel generation
− reduces the cost associated with uncertainty surrounding power production; and
− reduces concerns regarding electrical interconnection fees, regulation service charges,
and transmission tariffs.
• Provides load shifting,
− decouples collection of thermal energy from electricity production.
• Increases revenue from plants,
− during periods of low hourly power prices, the operator can forgo generation and dump
heat into storage; and at times of high prices, the plant can run at full capacity even
without sun.
• Increases plant utilisation
− solar plants equipped with heat storage have the ability to increase overall annual
generation levels by averaging solar radiation to better match plant capacity.
The storage significantly increases the cost of capital, and the economic justification for storage is
site specific. For example, the electricity price profile will have a major impact on the economics of
the combined solar power plant and storage system. Ultimately, simulation and scenario analysis
are required to arrive at a defensible figure for an individual plant. Also, plant-level storage options
must often be considered within the context of an entire portfolio of generation assets.
There are a number of technical requirements for storage systems.
• a high energy density (per-unit mass or per-unit volume) in the storage material.
• good heat transfer between the heat transfer fluid (HTF), used in the collectors, and the
storage medium.
• that the storage material is mechanically and chemically stable, and that it will not change
properties over a large number of “charge/discharge” cycles.
• chemical compatibility between the HTF, the heat exchanger and the storage medium.
• the storage system must have low thermal losses, and be easy to control.
Thermal energy is stored in a number of ways; as sensible heat (relies on the heat capacity of the
material), as latent heat (uses the large amounts of energy associated with changes of phase), or as
chemical energy (eg the dissociation/association of ammonia). Neither phase change materials
(PCMs), nor chemical storage, have been applied at a commercial scale.
Table 4 provides a listing of relevant properties for a range of heat storage materials.[ 25 ]

Table 4 Properties of heat storage materials
Storage medium Temperature Density Thermal Average Volume heat Media cost
conductivity heat capacity capacity
Cold Hot
°C °C (kg/m3) (W/mK) (kJ/kgK) (kWht/m3) (US$/kWh)

Solids
Sand-rock 200 300 1,700 1 1.3 60 4.2
Reinforced
200 400 2,200 1.5 0.85 100 1
Concrete
NaCl (solid) 200 500 2,160 7 0.85 150 1.5
Liquids
Mineral oil 200 300 770 0.12 2.6 55 4.2
Synthetic oil 250 350 900 0.11 2.3 57 43
Nitrate salts 265 565 1,870 0.52 1.6 250 3.7
Carbonate salts 450 850 2,100 2.0 1.8 430 11.0
Liquid sodium 270 530 850 71.0 1.3 80 21.0
Phase change materials
KNO3 333 2,110 0.5 - 156 4.1
NaCl 802 2,160 5 - 280 1.2
Na2CO3 854 2,533 2.0 - 194 2.6
As can be seen from the table, apart from synthetic oil, liquid sodium and carbonate salts, all
materials are comparatively low cost, compared to the balance of system costs. Of the liquids,
nitrate salts have a good combination of properties.
PCM storage can only be applied commercially if heat transfer limitations can be solved [ 26 ]. There
are a number of approaches to overcoming these, including:
• Direct contact heat exchange, ie no solid heat exchanger wall
• Microencapsulation of the PCM, to achieve a high specific surface area
• Protection of heat exchanger surface against formation of solid PCM
• Influencing the melting/solidification process of the PCM
One of the new classes of storage media which is at an early development stage is ionic organic
liquids. These have the advantages of high density, wide liquid temperature range, low viscosity,
high chemical stability, non-volatility, high heat capacity, and high storage density. Based on
laboratory studies, ionic liquids could be excellent liquid thermal storage media and heat transfer
fluids in solar thermal power plant. As an example, for one of these, the liquid temperature range is
from –75oC to 459oC.
3.1. Integration of storage systems

Thermal storage can be integrated into a solar plant, in one of two ways:
• Directly
− heat transfer fluid is the same as the storage media
− examples: SEGS 1 (mineral oil), Solar Two (molten salt)

• Indirectly
− heat transfer fluid is transferred to another media
− example: synthetic oil transfers heat to molten salt in a two tank system – proposed for
SEGS plant.
Direct storage, using the HTF as the sensible storage medium, represents the simplest approach,
since it eliminates a heat exchange step, and avoids the inefficiencies of transferring heat to the
storage medium. This kind of direct storage system has been demonstrated on a large scale for
power towers using molten nitrate salts as both the HTF and storage medium, while mineral oil has
been used as the HTF and storage medium in parabolic trough systems. However, both types of
fluid have their limitations: molten inorganic nitrate salts of the type used in power towers have
freezing points above 200°C, while mineral oils have an upper temperature limit of about 300-350°C
that significantly limits the thermal conversion efficiency of the power cycle (especially when heat
exchanger inefficiencies are included).
A key difference between power towers and parabolic troughs lies in the specifications of the
HTF/thermal storage fluid. Current and anticipated designs for trough systems cannot effectively
reach the temperatures currently considered for power tower systems for electricity generation. This
relaxes requirements on the upper temperature limit of the HTF, but a low freezing point is critical.
Unlike power towers, that have a compact, elevated solar receiver system that requires only simple
drainage for freeze protection, parabolic trough power plants have long runs of exposed receiver
tubes that cannot be easily drained. Raising the operating temperature in a trough system to 450°C
or greater would raise the efficiency of the power cycle. However, the only fluids that have been
identified to date that can meet, or exceed, the 400°C limit are inorganic nitrate salts. Due to their
ionic nature, they exhibit negligible vapour pressures at elevated temperatures, but they also possess
freezing points of 120°C or greater, which poses serious challenges for the design, operation and
maintenance of trough plants. Current organic heat transfer fluids for trough plants limit the
maximum operating temperature of a storage system to about 300°C.
Since the majority of plants are currently trough based, all further comments will relate to storage
for these systems. The Andasol project described earlier will use indirect thermal storage: a
synthetic oil HTF, with a 2 tank molten nitrate storage system (25,000t of nitrate salt, with the tanks
being 13m high and 38m in diameter, providing 880 MWht of storage which is equivalent 22 MW
load for 12 hours). This is shown schematically in Figure 18[25].

Figure 18 Indirect system with 2 tank molten salt thermal storage
Since this system is that being incorporated into the most recent stand alone solar thermal trough
plant, it can be considered “state-of-the-art”.
To reduce the costs of the tank system, thermocline systems are under development. These use a
single tank to store energy, with a thermal gradient used to separate the hot fluid from the cold. A
low cost filler material (such as concrete or quartzite) is used to displace higher cost molten nitrate
salt. A schematic is given in Figure 19 [25].
Figure 19 Indirect system with Thermocline thermal storage

Experiments at Sandia Laboratories[ 27 ] have proven the feasibility of a nitrate molten-salt
thermocline system for thermal storage on a pilot system (2.3 MWht). Isothermal and thermal
cycling tests showed that silica sand and quartzite rock as well as taconite were compatible with
nitrate salts. The economics of storage with a thermocline were compared with a 2 tank nitrate
molten salt system, and the results are given in Table 5
Table 5 Cost comparison of thermocline with two tank molten salt
Component Unit Two-tank molten Thermocline with

salt quartzite
Nitrate salt $k 11800 3800

Filler material $k 0 220
Tanks $k 3800 2400
Heat exchanger $k 5500 5500
Total $k 21100 13900
Specific cost $/kWhth 31 20
From Table 5, it can be seen that a thermocline system has the potential to reduce the costs of
thermal storage significantly, mainly because of the reduced cost of the nitrate salt (which more than
offsets the cost of the quartzite), together with the reduction in tank cost.
1
The costs of thermal storage were compared in the overview presentation[25] to the NREL
Workshop in 2003, and the results are shown in Figure 20.
140
Balance of plant
Storage material
120
Heat exchanger
Specific costs (US$/kWh)
Oil
100
80
60
40
20
0
Concrete Solid salt 2-tank liquid Thermocline LUZ 5PCM INITEC PCM SGR 3 PCM
salt liquid salt
Figure 20 Cost comparison of storage technologies
Figure 20 shows that there are a number of storage options which enable costs of US$25-40/kWht to
be achieved: salt storage (2-tank and thermocline), concrete and the LUZ phase change material. Of
1
The costs are typically expressed as $ per unit of heat energy storage in kWht.
these, the 2-tank molten salt storage seems to be the most advanced system and ready for
commercialisation (note the planned use for the Andasol project mentioned earlier).

4. HEAT UTILISATION
4.1. Electricity production

In converting the collected and/or stored thermal energy into electricity, there are a number of
technologies which can be used. The efficiency of the conversion of thermal energy into electricity
depends on the temperature of the stored energy, which is in turn related to the efficiency of
collection of the solar radiation as thermal energy. These efficiency trade offs are shown generically
in Figure 21 below.
Figure 21 Collection and generation efficiency trade offs
As the required temperature of the collected energy increases, the efficiency of the collector
decreases. Conversely, the efficiency of the “engine” used for power generation increases as the
temperature increases. There is therefore a trade-off, which will depend on the relative costs of
collector and engine, and this trade off will be different for each collector/engine combination. It
should also be noted that, if thermal storage is involved, this will also contribute to the trade off; for
example, if a low temperature Brayton cycle is used, the heat transfer fluid used in the collector
system can be used as the heat storage medium in a parabolic trough plant.
Modularity is key factor and is mainly dependant on the collector type. For parabolic trough and
central receiver applications, a single power cycle is generally used. For parabolic dish collectors
either a single power cycle could be used for an entire field of collectors or a small engine could be
used at the focus of each collector. The advantage of using small engines is that it is easier to
transport electricity than heat with fewer losses. It is also beneficial for the moving dishes as
electrical cabling is generally more flexible than piping and ductwork. Modularity also gives
flexibility in terms of maintenance and down time, and it is also easier to add extra generation
capacity for growth. The drawback of having many small size engines is that the efficiencies and
cost benefits of larger power cycles can’t be realised and that thermal storage becomes impractical.
The choice of working fluid for the power cycle is key in deciding whether or not an intermediate
heat transfer fluid is used. The use of an intermediate heat transfer fluid (HTF) adds extra capital
and complexity to the solar power system, though it can have advantages. Some advantages of
using an intermediate heat transfer fluid include:
• Reduction in size and weight of the receiver – lower vapour pressure of the HTF enables
higher temperatures to be achieved at lower pressures.
• No need for high pressure field piping.
• Reduction of heat loss from large ducting required for gaseous working fluids.

The interactions between collector efficiency, thermal storage and power generation are complex
and require modelling to assess the overall system which will provide the best performance for a
specific situation. Other factors such as modularity and working fluid type also play a part in the
decision as to what combination of technologies should be used.
The following technologies are considered as candidates for the conversion of solar thermal energy
to electrical energy;
• The Rankine Cycle
• The Brayton Cycle
• Stirling Engines
Generally, the use of these cycles depends on the temperature of the thermal energy produced from
the collector. As a guide, lower temperatures use Rankine cycles, intermediate temperatures are
required for Stirling engines, and high temperatures are used for Brayton cycles, as shown in Figure
22. The concentration ratio is the solar concentration, which is related to the temperature.
1200
1000
Brayton
Temperature (°C)
800
Stirling
Rankine
600
400
200
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Concentration ratio
Figure 22 Operating temperature range for different power cycles
Each of these cycles will be discussed briefly below.
4.1.1 Rankine cycle

In the Rankine cycle[ 28 ], superheated steam is generated in a boiler, and then expanded in a steam
turbine. The steam turbine drives a generator, to provide electricity. The remaining steam is then
condensed and recycled as feed-water to the boiler. A figure showing a simple Rankine cycle is
shown in Figure 23.

Figure 23 Simple Rankine cycle
A disadvantage of using the water-steam mixture is that superheated steam has to be used, otherwise
the moisture content after expansion might be too high, which would erode the turbine blades. In
conventional plants, the heat required to change water into superheated steam is typically derived
from coal or natural gas. Solar energy can be used to perform this task, in high concentration solar
applications. Typical steam cycle efficiencies are between 35% and 40%.
A number of additional stages, such as reheat and feedwater pre-heating, can be used to reduce the
amount of superheat initially required in the working fluid, and in turn increase the cycle efficiency.
The Rankine cycle is not limited to using water/steam as its working fluid. Other working fluids
may be used depending on the requirements of the solar plant. There are a number of considerations
that need to be made in order to choose an appropriate working fluid. The working fluid chosen
should be able to meet as many of the following criteria as possible:
• Heat capacity of the fluid should be small
• Critical point should be above the highest operating temperature to allow all heat to be
added at that temperature
• Vapour pressure at highest operating temperature should be moderate for safety reason and
to reduce the cost of equipment
• The vapour pressure at the condensing temperature should be above atmospheric pressure to
prevent air leakage into the system
• For low power turbine applications the fluid should have a high molecular weight to
minimise the rotational speed and/or the number of stages and to allow for reasonable mass
flow rates and turbine nozzle areas
• The fluid should be a liquid at atmospheric pressure and temperature for ease of handling
and containment
• The freezing point should be lower than the lowest ambient operating temperature
• The fluid should have good heat transfer properties, be inexpensive, thermally stable at the
highest operating temperature, non-flammable, non corrosive and non toxic
Some of the most likely working fluids to be used in the Rankine cycle are shown in Table 6.

Table 6 Properties of Rankine cycle working fluids
Property Unit Water Methanol Fluorinol 85 Toluene Freon R-113
Molecular weight kg/kmol 18 32 88 92 187

Boiling point (1atm) °C 100 64 75 110 48
Liquid density kg/m3 999.5 749.6 1370 856.9 1565
3
Specific volume of m /kg 1.69 0.8 0.31 0.34 0.14
vapour (@BP)
Maximum stability °C - 175-230 290-330 400-425 175-230
temperature
Heat of vaporisation kJ/kg 2256 1098 442 365 146
Isentropic enthalpy kJ/kg 348-1160 162-302 70-186 116-232 23-46
drop across turbine
Benefits of using working fluids other than water in the Rankine cycle include:
• Lower boiling point enabling use of Rankine cycle at lower temperatures. In the case of
parabolic trough technology, this makes it possible to reduce the cost of the receiver tubes,
as they may no longer need to be evacuated, and results in less water consumption due to
dry cooling[ 29 ].
• Higher molecular weights result in simpler, more efficient low power turbine expanders
• Low freezing point and no expansion on freezing
• High vapour pressure at low temperature reduces air leakage contamination
• Heat addition characteristics can be closely matched to the heat source characteristics
The main disadvantages of these fluids is their relatively low thermal stability and potential material
compatibility problems. Examples of demonstrated and developing solar Rankine cycles are shown
in Table 7.

Table 7 Comparison of power cycles using different working fluids
Unit Coolidge Shenandoah Dish ORC Solar One
Concentrator type trough parabolic parabolic central

dish dish receiver
High temperature °C 268 382 400 516
Condenser temperature °C 40.5 110 45 43
Shaft power kW 240 430 26 12,900
Working fluid toluene steam toluene steam
Working fluid heating HTF HTF Receiver Receiver
Ideal efficiency % 42.1 41.5 53.3 60.3
Rankine cycle efficiency % 24 17 24 35
Excess superheat °C 50 117 103 198
Regeneration Regenerator 1 feedwater Regenerator 4 feedwater
heater heaters
Rotational speed rpm 9,300 42,480 60,000 3,600
Mean blade diameter cm 58.7 10.2 12.5 64.5-115.3
Turbine stages 1 4 1 17
4.1.2 Brayton cycle

The Brayton cycle is used predominantly in gas turbines. Air is compressed, heated and expanded
through a turbine to generate electricity. Typically, the heating of the air is achieved by the
combustion of a fuel gas such as natural gas. Solar energy can be used to provide this heat and thus
reduce or eliminate the need for fossil fuel consumption. The Brayton cycle is most likely to be
used in solar dish applications, as most Brayton cycles are not self sustaining at operating
temperature below 480°C, although there is potential for applications in power tower and parabolic
trough technologies. Predicted thermal to electric efficiencies for Brayton engines in Dish/engine
applications are over 30%.[ 30 ]
The Brayton cycle benefits from low maintenance requirements and can operate at relatively low
pressures, but this requires large hot gas receivers. A simple open Brayton cycle is shown in Figure
24. In this format, the cycle utilises atmospheric air as the working fluid. The air is compressed,
heated, expanded through the turbine and dumped back to the atmosphere. To improve efficiency a
recuperator can be used, and this reduces the optimum compression ratio.

Figure 24 Simple open Brayton cycle
Other working fluids, such as helium, argon or neon, can be used to increase the efficiency of the
cycle, but a closed cycle is required to prevent the loss of the valuable working fluid as shown in
Figure 25.
Figure 25 Simple closed Brayton cycle
Some examples of Brayton cycles used for solar thermal power generation are the solar advanced
Brayton cycle (SABC) solar engine and the solar advanced gas turbine (SAGT) solar engine. Some
of the key properties of the solar engines are shown in Table 8.

Table 8 Brayton cycle engines developed for solar applications
Property SABC SAGT
Cycle type closed open

Recuperation yes yes
Working fluid air air
High pressure (MPa) 0.1 0.5
Low pressure (MPa) 0.045 0.1
Turbine inlet temperature (°C) 871 1371
Rotational speed (rpm) 71,000 87,000
Peak output (kW) 11 75
Peak efficiency (%) 27 47
4.1.3 Stirling cycle

In the Stirling cycle, the working gas, (typically hydrogen or helium), is alternately heated and
cooled by constant-temperature and constant-volume processes. Stirling engines usually incorporate
an efficiency-enhancing regenerator that captures heat during constant-volume cooling and replaces
it when the gas is heated at constant volume. The Stirling engine is only considered useful in solar
dish applications: typically small scale engines, making them suitable for remote power generation.
However, the modularity of solar dish technology allows a large number to be assembled in close
proximity, creating a utility scale output. The best Stirling engines have thermal to electric
efficiencies of 40%. A cross section of a Stirling engine (alpha-type) is shown in Figure 26, which
shows the heater section at the top, the cold and hot pistons, and the interconnected crankshafts
below.
Heater
Figure 26 Stirling engine

4.1.4 Comparison of electricity cycles
Table 9 shows typical thermal to electric efficiencies of the power cycles for each CST technology
where applicable. These values are an indication of the electrical energy produced relative to the
energy contained in the hot thermal fluid. It is important to note, that in comparing efficiencies, it is
necessary to consider the overall system efficiency; ie the sun-to-electrical efficiency, which
includes the sun-to-thermal and the thermal cycle efficiency below. At present, there are a number
of trade-offs, and the optimum collector-power cycle combination will depend on site selection and
technology risk.
Table 9 - Thermal-to-electric efficiency (peak) (%)
Power Cycle Trough Dish Tower
Rankine 37.5[ 31 ] NA 42/w reheat turbine[30]

33/w out reheat turbine
Organic Rankine[29] 20 NA 20
[30]
Brayton NA 32 NA
[30]
Stirling NA 40 NA
4.2. Direct integration - heat for power generation

Because of their thermal nature, solar thermal technologies can be “hybridised,” or coupled with
fossil fuel technologies, whether it be via a steam cycle or a gas turbine cycle. The advantage of
hybridisation is that the solar thermal plant can be augmented with fossil fuel power during periods
of cloud cover and at night, maximising the availability of the power plant as a whole. If the solar
thermal plant can be integrated into an existing steam or gas cycle, the cost would be significantly
reduced.
The Integrated Solar Combined Cycle System (ISCCS) was initially proposed as a way of
integrating a parabolic trough solar plant with modern natural gas combined-cycle power plants.
The approach reduces the effective cost of the conventional power plant equipment, leveraging
O&M and project development costs over a much larger plant and potentially increasing the solar-
to-electric conversion efficiency. The initial concept was simply to increase the size of the steam
turbine, use solar energy to generate steam, and use the waste heat from the gas turbine to preheat
and superheat the steam. The general concept called for doubling the size of the steam turbine in the
bottoming cycle (ie which uses waste heat from the main power cycle). The ISCCS plant would
operate at the combined-cycle output during non-solar periods, and then the output would increase
by up to one third when solar energy was available (referred to as the solar increment). However, if
the combined-cycle plant is operated in a base load operating profile, the annual solar fraction
(percent of electric generation from solar) will only be about 10%.
ISCCS plants are being considered for all four of the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) grant
projects (India, Egypt, Morocco, and Mexico) based on NGCC. A process flow schematic of a
parabolic trough ISCCS plant concept is shown below.

Figure 27 Schematic of solar thermal integrated with NGCC.
CST can also provide a supplementary source of energy for a coal fired plant, at the same time
supporting the development of the technology (collectors, piping). A 12 MWth (peak) pilot plant
was considered for integration into the Stanwell power station in 1999-2000. This plant was to be
based on CLFR technology from the University of Sydney, and 6 methods of integration into the
feed water circuits were evaluated; the cost of generation of the CST electricity was estimated to be
around $150/MWh (for this pilot plant)[ 32 ]. The project engineering for the phase 1 study was
completed by Austa Energy[ 33 ]. The same technology is being applied at Liddell power station, with
the CLFR collector system shown in Figure 28.
Figure 28 CLFR pilot plant under construction alongside Liddell power station.
Overall, in Australia the potential for integration of solar thermal technologies with existing plants is
disadvantaged by the location of the existing coal-fired plants. Most of the existing plants with the
capacity to integrate significant amounts of solar thermal (>1000 MW, allowing a maximum of
100 MW at 10% of capacity) are located within 150 km of the coast, with a lower quality of direct
normal insolation, compared to areas further inland. In Figure 3, it can be seen that the majority of
large power stations are located in the areas below 18 MJ/m2day - the exceptions being the
Queensland stations and Collie (WA).
Although direct solar-coal integration is limited by the location of existing power stations, CST still
has large potential to contribute to Australia’s generation by stand alone systems that are connected
to the grid in areas of high solar insolation, or via stand-alone CST that reforms natural gas for
transmission to coastal power stations.
4.3. Direct integration – heat for post combustion capture

Post combustion capture (PCC) is a new technology for combustion power stations that is designed
to capture CO2 from the flue gases so that it can be liquefied and placed in permanent storage. The
concept of PCC of CO2 from a pf power station for the purposes of sequestration involves selective
capture of CO2 from flue gases, after combustion, in a suitable sorbent, followed by dehydration,
compression, liquefaction and pumping for transmission and storage. The PCC process is shown
schematically in Figure 29. The diagram shows the following key components:
1. FD fan and precooler, deSOx unit
2. High moisture gas pretreatment unit
3. Absorber (with wash) unit
4. Regenerator unit
5. Amine processing unit
6. Dehydration unit
7. Liquefaction unit
Majority of thermal energy

required in reboiler
Figure 29 Schematic of post combustion capture plant

Approximately 2/3 of the energy required for PCC is for sorbent regeneration (for current amine
sorbents) and this can be provided by low grade heat at 115-120°C. The technology will therefore
be very suitable for integration with concentrating solar thermal energy.
If solvent-based PCC was used on a power station, it would most likely utilise low pressure
extraction steam to provide the heat needed to regenerate the sorbent (around 3 GJ/t CO2), which
would reduce the amount of electricity generated. In addition, 150-175 kWh/t CO2 of electricity is
required for the capture plant pumps, fans and compressors (cooling of the latter could provide some
regeneration heat). These energy requirements would result in an overall reduction in sent out
electricity of 300-400 kWh/t CO2 (depending on the technology used), and is equivalent to a loss of
around 9% points in efficiency for the power station. Solar thermal energy can be used to reduce
these losses by reducing the amount of low pressure steam extraction, and by providing additional
feedwater preheating to offset other electrical loads due to the capture plant. With direct heat
integration this would only occur during sunny periods, but heat storage could significantly extend
the operating period.
4.4. Indirect integration – heat for reforming

One additional promising use for solar thermal technology is to use this energy source to reform
methane (natural gas), according to the flow chart shown in Figure 30.
Figure 30 Solar reforming of methane
Reforming of CH4-containing gases is very endothermic, and this energy can be provided by solar
energy; this generates a mixture of CO, CO2 and H2. This gas is suitable without further treatment
for use as a fuel (for industrial heating, or for electricity generation), a metallurgical reducing gas or
a chemical feedstock, e.g. for methanol production. An option is to process the gas further to
produce hydrogen - a water gas shift reaction can convert the mixed gases to CO and H2, allowing
the CO2 to be separated for geosequestration, and the H2 to be used for greenhouse gas free
electricity generation, or for chemicals production.
From an energy perspective, solar energy reforming increases the energy in the product gases,
compared to the original methane, by 26%, and is effectively a way of storing solar energy. Stated
another way, there is 26% embodied energy in the gas due to solar reforming.
In Australia, the large quantities of natural gas, and coal seam gas, and the well developed gas and
electricity grids, coupled with large areas with high solar insolation, provide an opportunity for
using this approach to make a significant reduction in greenhouse emissions per unit of electricity,
and in the amount of fossil energy consumption. The relationship between the solar and gas
resources is shown in Figure 31 below. The gas pipelines, and proposed extensions, are also
included.

Darwin
Brisbane
Perth
Sydney
Adelaide
Canberra
21-24 Melbourne
Daily solar 18-21

insolation 15-18 NG basins
(MJ/m2) 12-15 Existing NG pipelines
9-12 Hobart
Proposed NG pipelines
Figure 31 Map of Australia showing solar insolation (direct and diffuse) in relation to gas field and
pipelines
It is interesting to note that there is also considerable storage of natural gas in pipelines. For
example, the Karratha to Perth pipeline is 1300 km in length, with a diameter of 660mm, and the
pressure of the gas is 8.48 MPa. At any given time there is therefore 1.4 PJ of gas in the pipeline,
compared to a daily delivery of around 600 TJ (residence time of around 2 days). This can be
supplemented with gas storage in underground reservoirs near the point of use, eg the Mondarra gas
storage facility can currently deliver 10 TJ/day, with potential to increase to 150 TJ/day[ 34 ].
CSIRO has established an integrated research and development program on solar reforming, in 3
stages:
• Stage 1 – solar reforming of natural gas, using a parabolic dish (44 kW thermal) at the
Lucas Heights solar facility; Figure 32. This has been a $7M investment by CSIRO, and
has produced hydrogen of a quality suitable for Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel
cells.
• Stage 2 – has commenced with a 3 year, $6M commitment by CSIRO to construct and
operate the National Solar Energy Technology Centre (NSETC) at the CSIRO Energy
Centre in Newcastle. The infrastructure, shown schematically in Figure 33, consists of:
− a 500 kW high concentration solar mirror array and tower, to reform, shift and react
methane to syngas/H2, and
− a linear concentrator solar array that generates hot fluid at around 250°C to power an
organic Rankine cycle turbo-generator.
• Stage 3 – this will involve a first-of-kind demonstration plant to provide commercial
quantities of syngas (SolarGas) and/or hydrogen (SolarH2). There are a number of suitable
sites in Australia, having natural gas supply, abundant solar energy, high technology
industries, and commercial customers.
Figure 32 CSIRO Solar Thermal Reactor at Lucas Heights.
Figure 33 Solar Thermal Facility under construction at CSIRO Energy Centre, Newcastle
The overall research program will include the development of an innovative collector (with input
from ANU and SHP), thermal energy storage, solar thermolysis (to produce H2 and O2 directly),
direct methane splitting with solar energy, solar spectrum beam splitting, and the development,
building and demonstration of small Brayton or Stirling engines.

5. ECONOMICS
The present study has not involved detailed techno-economic modelling. The key source of
information related to economics is a report commissioned by NREL and undertaken by Sargent and
Lundy (S&L) in 2003[7]. NREL arranged for this work to be reviewed by the National Research
Council (NRC), which provides the results and conclusions with a high degree of credibility. In this
report, reference is frequently made to results from the SunLab at Sandia Laboratories, on the
evaluation of trough and tower technology for CST.
One of the key issues with renewable energy systems relates to the ability to supply electricity on a
more continuous and reliable basis. This is being addressed with CST, since heat energy can be
stored as heat in technologically simple systems. More complex chemical systems eg reformed gas,
dissociated ammonia, or hydrogen, can be used to provide heat energy when required.
5.1. Parabolic trough technology

The cost of electricity (levelised) for trough technology, as a function of time for both the SunLab
and S&L estimates, with and without 12 hours of energy storage, is given in Figure 34.
0.12
Levelised energy cost ($/kWhe)
0.10
S&L no storage
0.08
S&L with storage

0.06
SunLab with storage

0.04
0.02
0.00
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Year
Figure 34 LEC as a function of time for trough technology.
Both sets of estimates assumed a plant size of 100 MW in 2004, 150 MW in 2010, and 400 MW in
2020. The NRC committee recommended that the best cost estimates were between S&L’s and
Sunlab’s projections, assuming that the rate of deployment was achieved.
The curves highlight the impact of the annual net efficiencies on LEC. In the Sunlab study, the
annual net solar to electricity efficiency progressively increased from 14.3% in 2004, to 17.2% in
2020. For the S&L study, the corresponding values were 14.0%, and 15.5%, resulting in a higher
LEC than for Sunlab.
The curves also indicate that additional cost reductions above and beyond the more conservative
S&L values, due to technology improvements, reduced heat collection element replacement rates,
and increased deployment rates, will result in further convergence of the LEC toward the projected
SunLab values.
The projected contributions to component cost savings by 2020 are:
• 20-37% through plant scale-up.
• 42-54% through technology development
• 27% through production volume and competition.
An earlier analysis by Price, based on a cost reduction scenario by Sargent & Lundy in 2002[ 35 ]
showed a similar LEC cost, as shown in Figure 35.
0.18
1989 30 MW SEGS
0.16
0.14
COE (2002) US$/kWh
2003 Technology 50 MW, optimum location

0.12
0.10
Future cost
0.08 reduction
over 2004-12
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Cumulative Installed Capacity (MWe)
Figure 35 Electricity cost as a function of installed capacity for trough technology.
Capital cost projections are shown in Figure 36; these are based on the sun-electrical conversion
efficiencies in Figure 37. Although storage increases the capital requirement, the cost of electricity
is slightly lower, since the capital cost is offset by the larger capacity factor, the use of a smaller
power plant and the ability to operate the plant at full load for longer.

6
4
U S$ M/MW
Average of S&L and SunLab projections with storage

3
2
Average of S&L no storage
0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Construction year
Figure 36 Current and projected installation costs for solar thermal, with no storage and with 12 hours of
salt storage.
18
SunLab
Average solar to electric efficiency (%)
16
S&L
14
12
10
0
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Year
Figure 37 Projected improvements in average solar to electrical conversion efficiency for tough
concentrators.
5.2. Tower technology

The NREL study produced the electricity costs shown in Table 10. The scales of plant chosen for
the various future times are different to the trough technology cases. Note that Solar Tres is a
13.6 MW facility. The costs include 13-17 h of storage at full load.
Table 10 Summary of cost projections for tower technology.
2004 2010 2020

US$/MWh US$/MWh US$/MWh
Variant Solar Tres USA Solar 100 Solar 200
Scale 14 MW 100 MW 200 MW
Cost estimates
Capital 87 45 35
Fixed O&M 42 13 10
Variable O&M
Cost of electricity 129 58 45
5.3. Fresnel collector technology

[ 36 ]
Mills has compared CLFR technology costs with those for trough systems, based on the NREL
analysis[7], shown above in Figure 35. His estimates for the total system cost for CLFR systems,
including storage, are given in Table 11. Mills notes that the predominant factor in the cost
reduction is the reduced collector costs compared with the trough case; estimated to be AUD$88/m2
for near term plants.
Table 11 Total system costs for CLFR systems in US$/ kW in 2008 for a capacity factor of 56%.
CLFR System 300°C CLFR 300° CLFR

Caloria storage Cavern storage
Array 898 898

Power Block + BOP 207 207
Storage 674 90
Total 1779 1195
These estimates are for a 240 MWe plant (sized to match the smallest low pressure steam turbines
used for the nuclear industry), with 12 hours of storage. The higher cost storage system, the Caloria,
is based on oil and is well proven. The cavern, or underground thermal energy, storage system has
not been proven, but is based on mining technology. It involves storage of water under pressure in
deep metal lined caverns where the pressure is contained by the surrounding rock and the
overburden weight.
A financial analysis of a plant of this scale in Australia, with only a buffer storage (short term, up to
6 hours), gives a COE of $0.05/kWh, and Mills concludes that dispatchable solar thermal electricity
will become competitive with fossil fuel in Australia during the next five years. This is regarded by
the authors as overly optimistic, although it is acknowledged that the technology has considerable
potential.
5.4. Impact of a Carbon Tax

While the current costs of CST generation are around 3 times the cost of coal fired generation in
Australia, the future potential impact of a price for carbon emissions needs to be considered.
From a Life Cycle Analysis carried out by the authors, 14 kg CO2-e are emitted per MWh for solar
thermal power generation. In comparison, conventional pf generation based on coal has a life cycle
emission of 930 kg, and for ultrasupercritical pf generation, 720 kg. For the purposes of making a
simple comparison, the differences between coal based generation and solar thermal generation, per
MWh, will be taken to be:
• 900 kg CO2 for conventional, and
• 700 kg CO2 for ultrasupercritical generation
If a carbon tax, or the value placed on carbon emissions by the market, is $20/t CO2, or $50/t CO2
(values in European trading over the past year), then the additional cost of coal based generation
becomes:
• Conventional: $18–45/MWh
• Ultrasupercritical: $14-35/MWh
Even with this additional charge, the cost of coal based generation is still far lower, at least until
after 2010. However, as the cost of solar thermal generation is reduced below $40/MWh, the impact
of a price being placed on carbon emissions will become very significant.
5.5. Impact of water use

For countries which have concerns about the availability of fresh water resources, such as Australia,
it is instructive to consider the impact of water use. All CST power generation technologies require
cooling (except the open Brayton cycle, which is less efficient), and the degree of cooling affects the
efficiency of conversion of thermal energy to electricity. Because of the low efficiency of
conversion, solar thermal generation can require more cooling water than for coal fired generation;
for example, as noted in Section 2.1, the steam cycle Andasol plant it is projected to require at least
double the water compared to a coal fired plant.
If adequate water is not available at the power plant site, an air condenser-cooling system can be
used, with a reduction in water consumption of up to 90%. However, if air cooling is used,
efficiency is reduced, resulting in an increase in LEC of at least 10%.
Since the favoured sites for CST power plants are away from the coast, there will not be
opportunities for salt water cooling, and these plants will compete for the limited water resource
with other uses for water. If the water consumption figures announced for the Andasol plant are
confirmed in operation, 4t H2O/MWh, a 200 MWe CST power plant, producing around 600 GWh of
sent out electricity annually, would require 2.4 Gl of water. If water is priced at an irrigation value
of $100/Ml, the total water consumption would be equivalent to around $0.25M. While this is a
small cost, less than an additional $0.5/MWh, there will be increasing pressure to reduce fresh water
consumption in many inland areas, and price may not be the determinant of water availability for a
power generator.

6. CONCLUSIONS
The review has shown that CST has the significant potential to contribute to electricity generation in
Australia, particularly through synergies and integration with fossil fuel-based generation, and for
reforming of natural gas.
However, concentrating solar thermal (CST) technology has only been commercialised to a limited
extent, with the SEGS plant in California remaining the largest installation. As CST is the lowest
cost solar technology for electricity generation, there is now an international push to increase the use
of the technology (the Global Marketing Initiative), with the aim of achieving a total installed
capacity of 5000 MWe by 2015. It is projected by the GMI that the associated technology learning,
and the scale factors, will enable CST to be competitive with coal for base load electricity
generation when this is achieved. The current plants in operation are achieving costs of about
US$0.12/kWh which are the lowest of any solar technology. The technology can also be combined
in hybrid form (solar thermal plants coupled with fossil fuel-fired boilers), achieving costs of about
US$0.08/kWh.A big advantage of CST, over other renewable energy systems, is that energy storage
can be thermal (the lowest cost energy storage), in comparison with technologies (such as PV and
wind) which produce electricity, and then either store this directly (eg in a battery) or indirectly (eg
use the electricity for pumped hydro or compressed air storage). CST is unique in that energy
storage actually reduces slightly the overall cost of electricity, as well as achieving a better price by
meeting the requirements of the grid.
Of the technologies, parabolic troughs are under the most active development, with the Andasol
plant in Spain being the most recent example and with several novel features (collectors, and
thermal storage system). The CLFR technology being applied at Liddell power station is also an
interesting approach, and the recently announced expansion of collector area, and integration into
the steam cycle, will provide important engineering and operating information.
All components of the technology, collectors, turbines and thermal storage, are under active further
development and refinement, and significant cost reductions are expected. Collector developments
are driven by the application opportunities: use of thermal energy for electricity generation, for
methane reforming, or the concentration of photons for lower cost PV. The conversion of collected
thermal energy to electricity will benefit from Brayton cycle gas turbine developments in the nuclear
industry, and there is scope for Stirling engines to be applied for distributed generation. While the
state-of-the-art storage system for trough collector based plants is by molten salts, thermocline
systems are capable of reducing thermal storage costs substantially. These are currently at the pilot
stage. New ionic liquids, that could be used as both HTF and thermal storage medium, are also
under development. Cavern thermal storage has been proposed as a low cost alternative, but has yet
to be demonstrated.
The interaction with coal based electricity generation can be through direct input of solar thermal
energy into the steam cycle (as at Liddell power station), or through use of the thermal energy to, for
example, regenerate sorbents in a post combustion CO2 capture plant associated with a power
station. This latter approach reduces the parasitic power losses from the power station.

7. REFERENCES
1 The Australian Bureau of Meteorology Website, www.bom.gov.au

2 Greenpeace, 2003, “Solar Thermal Power 2020”, a report by Greenpeace and the European
Solar Power Industry Association, 2003
http://archive.greenpeace.org/docs/SolarThermalPower.pdf
3 “Assessment of the World Bank/GEF Strategy for the Market Development of Concentrating
Solar Thermal Power”, Global Research Alliance, May 2005.
4 Markvart, 2000., “Solar Electricity – Second Edition”, John Wiley and Sons, Baffins Lane,
Chichester, West Sussex, England, 2000.
5 “The Andasol Project”, FLABEG Solar International GmbH, Solar Millenium AG, 2002
http://www.eere.energy.gov/troughnet/pdfs/uh_anda_sol_ws030320.pdf
6 Geyer et al, “EuroTrough – Parabolic Trough Collector Family Developed and Qualified for
Cost Efficient Solar Power Generation”;
http://www.solarpaces.org/EuroTroughPaperZurich2002-04-01.pdf
7 “Assessment of Parabolic Trough and Power Tower Solar Technology Cost and Performance
Forecasts”, Sargent and Lundy Consulting Group, NREL/SR-550-34440, October 2003
8 Häberle, A., et al, “The Solarmundo line focussing Fresnel collector. Optical and thermal
performance and cost calculations”, PSE GmbH, 2002
9 “Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Solar Thermal Concentrating
Technologies”, Sydney, Australia, 8-10 March , 2000.
10 SHP, 2005; www.solarheatpower.com
11 Mills, D.R., Le Lievre P., Morrison G.L., 2004, “First Results from Compact Linear Fresnel
Reflector Installation”,
http://solarheatpower.veritel.com.au/MILLS_CLFR_ANZSES_FINAL.pdf
12 Solar Heat and Power, personal communication
13 NSW Office of Energy, 1991, “The White Cliffs Project – Overview of the Period 1979-89”,
1991.
14 Lovegrove and Luzzi, 1997, “Bottling the Sun at ANU”, Australian Institute of Energy News
Journal, 15 (6), 1997.
15 Lovegrove et al, 1999, “A Solar Driven Ammonia Based Thermochemical Energy Storage
System”, ISES 1999 Solar World Conference, Jerusalem, Israel, 4-9 July 1999.
16 Pacific Power, 1994, “Solar Thermal Electricity a Technology Survey Status and Trends”,
June 1994.
17 Redding Energy Management, 1999, “+2% Renewables Target in Power Supplies”, January
1999.
18 Smeltink, J, Blakers, A and Coventry, J, “A 40kW Roof Mounted PV Thermal Concentrator
System”, 20th EC PV Solar Energy Conference, Barcelona, June 2005
19 Allan, S.D., “World's largest solar installation to use Stirling engine technology”, Aug 2005,
http://pesn.com/2005/08/11/9600147_Edison_Stirling_largest_solar/
20 Glynn, P and Slade, J, “A Stirling Idea”, ECOS, April-May 2005, p28.
21 “Solar thermal electricity: A technology survey, status and trends”, Pacific Power, 1994
22 Environmission; http://www.enviromission.com.au/

23 “SCE Report on Solar Two Central Receiver Project” California Energy Commission , 1999,
http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/2002-01-10_600-00-017.PDF
24 “Workshop on Thermal Storage for Trough Power Systems”, NREL February 2003;
http://www.eere.energy.gov/troughnet/documents/thermal_energy_storage.html
25 Herrmann, U, Geyer, M, and Kistner, R, “ Overview on Thermal Storage Systems”, Workshop
on Thermal Storage for Trough Power Systems, NREL, Golden, February 2003;
http://www.eere.energy.gov/troughnet/pdfs/uh_storage_overview_ws030320.pdf
26 Tamme, R, “Phase Change Storage Systems”, Workshop on Thermal Storage for Trough
Power Systems, NREL February 2003;
http://www.eere.energy.gov/troughnet/pdfs/tamme_phase_change_storage_systems.pdf
27 Pacheco, J, Showalter, S, and Kolb, W, “Development of a Molten-salt Thermocline Thermal
Storage System for Parabolic Trough Plants”, Sandia National Laboratories Forum 2001: Solar
Energy: The Power to Choose, April 24, 2001
28 http://www.cogeneration.net/Rankine_Cycle.htm
29Hassani, V., Price, H., “Modular Trough Power Plants”, Sandia National Laboratories.
30 “Overview of Solar Thermal Technologies”, Sandia National Laboratories, 1997.
31 Herrmann, U., “The AndaSol Project”, Presented at workshop on thermal storage for trough
power systems, February 2002.
32 Mills, D, private communication, 2002.
33 Austa Energy, 1999, Report on Phase 1 study, Stanwell Solar Power Project, Austa Energy,
March 1999.
34 King, D A, “An Owners Perspective of the Pipeline Industry in WA –
Implications of Gas Storage Implications of Gas Storage”, APIA Seminar, Perth
24 June 2005;
http://www.pipelinetrust.com.au/2/pdf/APIA%20Seminar%20-%20Perth%20050624.pdf
35 Brenmiller, A.,“CSP Industry Outlook”, Presented at the International Executive Conference
on Expanding the Market for Concentrating Solar Power, October 2003
36 Mills, 2005, Submission to NSW Energy Directions Green Paper, February 2005;
http://www.deus.nsw.gov.au/energydirections/Solar%20Heat%20and%20Power%2004-03-
05.pdf

53 - 2006 Concentrating Solar Thermal PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

53 - 2006 Concentrating Solar Thermal PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR COAL IN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

SYNERGIES WITH RENEWABLES:

TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT REPORT 56

QCAT Technology Transfer Centre, Technology Court

Chairman; Chief Executive Officer; Research Manager, Manager Technology; Files

Australian Coal Research Limited ............................................................. Mr Mark Bennetts

CSIRO ……............................................................................................... Dr David Brockway

ATTENTION MANAGER TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

FAX NO 07 3871 4444 DATE ...............................................................................

FROM NAME: ..................................................................................................................................

REPORT TITLE: SNERGIES WITH RENEWABLES: CONCENTRATING SOLAR THERMAL

The Research Agree Neutral Disagree Don’t

The report is well presented

Use of the information contained in this report is at the user’s

© Australian Black Coal Utilisation Research Limited 2004

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be

Revision: 7 Nov 2005 i

Revision: 7 Nov 2005 ii

Revision: 7 Nov 2005 iii

Revision: 7 Nov 2005 iv

Revision: 7 Nov 2005 v

Revision: 7 Nov 2005 vi

Revision: 7 Nov 2005 Page 1 of 47

Revision: 7 Nov 2005 Page 3 of 47

Figure 1 Solar thermal energy conversion paths

Revision: 7 Nov 2005 Page 4 of 47

1.1. Australian potential

Figure 2 World regions with direct normal insolation of >18 MJ/m2.day.

1.2. Recent international developments

Revision: 7 Nov 2005 Page 6 of 47

Revision: 7 Nov 2005 Page 8 of 47

Technology T [°C] Concentration ratio Tracking Max Conversion

Flat plate collector 30 – 100 1 - 21%

2.1. Parabolic troughs

Revision: 7 Nov 2005 Page 9 of 47

Revision: 7 Nov 2005 Page 10 of 47

Figure 7 Energy transfers during a typical Summer’s day

2.2. Tower Technology

Figure 8 Schematic of the power tower.

Revision: 7 Nov 2005 Page 12 of 47

Revision: 7 Nov 2005 Page 13 of 47

2.3. Fresnel collector

Figure 11 Principle of Solarmundo Fresnel collector[ 8 ]

Revision: 7 Nov 2005 Page 14 of 47

Revision: 7 Nov 2005 Page 15 of 47

Figure 13 Schematic of parabolic dish technology.

Revision: 7 Nov 2005 Page 16 of 47

Revision: 7 Nov 2005 Page 17 of 47

2.5. Solar Chimney

In February 2005, a 10,000 ha site was purchased by Enviromission[ 22 ] at Buronga, 25 km northeast

2.6. Comparison of different solar collector technologies

Efficiency (%) Collector Fluid temperature (oC)

Unit Trough Trough Power Dish/Engine

Revision: 7 Nov 2005 Page 20 of 47

Revision: 7 Nov 2005 Page 21 of 47

°C °C (kg/m3) (W/mK) (kJ/kgK) (kWht/m3) (US$/kWh)

3.1. Integration of storage systems

Revision: 7 Nov 2005 Page 22 of 47

Revision: 7 Nov 2005 Page 23 of 47

Figure 19 Indirect system with Thermocline thermal storage

Component Unit Two-tank molten Thermocline with

Nitrate salt $k 11800 3800

Figure 20 Cost comparison of storage technologies