Sun 12 Aug

Feasibility analysis of megawatt scale solar thermal power plants
K. S. Reddy, K. Ravi Kumar, and Vikramaditya A. Devaraj
Citation: J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 4, 063111 (2012); doi: 10.1063/1.4766891

View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4766891
View Table of Contents: http://jrse.aip.org/resource/1/JRSEBH/v4/i6
Published by the AIP Publishing LLC.
Additional information on J. Renewable Sustainable Energy

Journal Homepage: http://jrse.aip.org/
Journal Information: http://jrse.aip.org/about/about_the_journal
Top downloads: http://jrse.aip.org/features/most_downloaded
Information for Authors: http://jrse.aip.org/authors
Downloaded 13 Aug 2013 to 129.219.247.33. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://jrse.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
JOURNAL OF RENEWABLE AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY 4, 063111 (2012)
Feasibility analysis of megawatt scale solar thermal power

plants
K. S. Reddy,a) K. Ravi Kumar, and Vikramaditya A. Devaraj
Heat Transfer and Thermal Power Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600036, India
(Received 27 June 2012; accepted 25 October 2012; published online 13 November 2012)
In this article, feasibility analysis of solar thermal power plants is carried out for
large scale power generation. Three different configurations of concentrating solar
power technologies such as linear Fresnel reflector collector (LFRC), parabolic
trough collector (PTC), and power tower (PT) are analyzed for power generation in
stand-alone mode and various plant capacities such as 1 MWe, 5 MWe, 10 MWe,
30 MWe, and 50 MWe. The maximum achievable steam conditions in LFRC system
has been considered for all the power plant capacities as 55 bar and 270 C. In case
of parabolic trough and power tower, the steam parameters have been considered as
60 bar, 370 C for 1 MWe, 65 bar, 400 C for 5 MWe, 65 bar, 410 C for 10 MWe,
100 bar, 410 C for 30 MWe, and 100 bar, 410 C for 50 MWe. The feasibility of
stand-alone solar power plants (SASPPs) is compared with coal fired power plant
(CFPP) and solar aided coal fired power plant (SACFPP). The feasibility analysis in
terms of performance and levelised electricity cost (LEC) is carried out for various
technologies with capacities. It is observed that the LFRC power plants are
relatively less efficient than others due to lower optical and thermal efficiency. The
energy and exergy efficiencies of a 50 MWe LFRC power plant are found as
12.17% and 17.21%, respectively. The efficiency of 50 MWe solar PTC power
plants is found as 23.16% which is higher than other technologies. The net exergy
efficiency of PTC power plants increases from 23.14% to 32.76% for the plant
capacity increases from 1 MWe to 50 MWe. It is observed that the exergy efficiency
decreases from 22.57% to 19.65% as plant capacity increases from 1 MWe to
10 MWe due to shading and blocking for PT power plants and then increases to
maximum of 23.33% for the 50 MWe power plant. The exergy efficiencies of
50 MWe CFPP and SACFPP have been estimated as 28.17% and 28.21%,
respectively. The environmental benefits of stand-alone solar power plants
are estimated in terms of CO2 mitigations and compared with CFPP. The LEC of
CFPP, SACFPP, and SASPP is found as INR 3.56/kWh, INR 3.60/kWh, and
INR 8.48/kWh, respectively. The discounted payback period, benefit-to-cost ratio,
and net present value of all the power plants are also estimated. V C 2012 American
Institute of Physics. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4766891]
I. INTRODUCTION
India has an expansive tract of wasteland approximately 1.58 million km2, out of which
about 320 000 km2 is located in Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Haryana receive annual global solar
radiation of 2100 kWh/m2 to 2350 kWh/m2.1 Thus, solar power generation is an attractive option
for India. The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) set target of 20 000 MWe solar
power generation by 2020, 100 000 MWe by 2030 and 200 000 MWe by 2050.2 Solar thermal
power plants of different technologies and capacities have been established at various locations
a)
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Electronic mail: ksreddy@iitm.ac.in. Tel.: þ91-44-22574702. Fax:
þ91-44-22574652.
1941-7012/2012/4(6)/063111/23/$30.00 4, 063111-1 C 2012 American Institute of Physics

V
063111-2 Reddy, Ravi Kumar, and Devaraj J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 4, 063111 (2012)
around the world. Low plant capacity factors and high investment costs appear to hinder the
commercialization of solar thermal power generation systems. Another factor to be considered
is the large seasonal variation in solar radiation and climatic conditions of India. Thus, it is nec-
essary to establish in detail the performance characteristics as well as the economics of each
technologies, across different capacity ranges.
Several researchers made an attempt to evolve energy/exergy efficiencies and power gener-
ation cost of concentrated solar power plant. Trieb et al.3 carried out the comparison of per-
formance, cost, and environmental impact of various solar power generation technologies such
as parabolic trough, power tower (PT), parabolic dish, solar chimney, solar pond, and photovol-
taic cells. Singh et al.4 carried out the energy and exergy analyses of parabolic trough based
solar thermal power system. Dersch et al.5 carried out the performance and economic analysis
of parabolic trough technology based integrated solar combined cycle power plants. Suresh
et al.6 studied the energy, exergy, environmental, and economic analyses for solar aided feed
water heating of coal fired power plants (CFPPs) to establish their techno-economic viability.
Based on the analysis, it was found that 62 000 ton and 65 000 ton of CO2 could be reduced
annually from 500 MWe subcritical and 660 MWe supercritical solar aided coal fired power
plants (SACFPPs). Yan et al.7 evaluated the performance of solar aided thermal power plants
with different capacity. Baghernejad and Yaghoubi8 analyzed the energy and exergy destruction
of an integrated solar combined cycle plant using parabolic trough collector (PTC).
Gupta and Kaushik9 carried out energy and exergy analyses for the different components
of direct steam generation solar thermal power plant. The study was extended for further
improvement of plant efficiency by optimizing the bleed pressures and mass fraction of the
bleed steam. Feldhoff et al.10 analyzed the economic potential of solar parabolic trough power
plants with direct steam generation for different plant capacity and compared with heat transfer
fluid based plants. Purohit and Purohit11 carried out techno-economic analysis of parabolic
trough and power tower based concentrating solar power technologies for Indian conditions.
Laing et al.12 carried out economic analysis and life cycle assessment of concrete thermal
energy storage system for parabolic trough power plants. Burkhardt et al.13 analyzed the expan-
sion of parabolic trough power plant located in California in terms of life cycle, greenhouse gas
emissions, water consumption, cumulative energy demand, and payback time.
Most of the studies were carried out based on the parabolic trough power plant but only
few studies were focussed on performance evaluation and economic analysis of linear Fresnel
reflector collector (LFRC) and PT power plant. Mills and Morrison14 analyzed the performance
of compact linear Fresnel reflector and cost effectiveness of the plant for large scale applica-
tions. Collado and Turegano15 presented the methodology for calculation of field efficiency
based on the position, dimensions, and the layout of heliostats. Xu et al.16 carried out the
energy and exergy analysis of solar power tower system using molten salt as the heat transfer
fluid. Based on the analysis, it is found that the overall energy and exergy efficiencies of the
solar tower system may be improved by using reheat and supercritical Rankine cycles.
Though the power generation cost of solar thermal power plant is solely dependent
on performance of the plant, most of the studies dealt with either performance or economic
analyses. Thermodynamic and enviro-economic analyses of various components of the stand-
alone solar power plants (SASPPs) have been carried out by Kumar and Reddy.17,18 Only
few studies were focused on stand-alone solar power plants. Therefore, extensive techno-
economic feasibility analyses of stand-alone concentrating solar power plants and solar aided
coal power plants are carried out with environmental benefits for various plant capacities in
this study.
II. MODELING OF SOLAR THERMAL POWER PLANTS

A. Solar collector field configurations
The concentrating stand-alone solar power plant mainly consists of solar field and power
block. Three concentrating solar power technologies (a) linear Fresnel reflector collector, (b) par-
abolic trough collector, and (c) power tower has been considered for power generation of various
capacities such as 1 MWe, 5 MWe, 10 MWe, 30 MWe, and 50 MWe. The schematic of LFRC,
PTC, and PT is shown in Fig. 1. The LFRC system comprises of array of long parallel curved/
flat mirrors and focal cavity receiver. The reflectors are equipped with single axis tracking to
focus the solar radiation onto the focal cavity receiver. The receiver is placed in centre of the
reflector module and at the focal distance to absorb maximum solar radiation. The receiver con-
sists of bank of parallel high-pressure boiler grade tubes coated with selective absorptive coating
and encased in an insulated inverted trapezoidal cavity. The cavity aperture is covered with glass
shield to allow concentrated solar radiation and to reduce heat losses from the cavity. The paral-
lel receiver tubes are placed very closely in the cavity to absorb the maximum concentrated solar
radiation. In this study, it is considered that the LFRC system consists of 12 reflectors of 12.2 m
long and 2 m wide. The reflectors are spaced 0.15 m apart from each other. The receiver consists
of 8 tubes with internal diameter of 27 mm and outer diameter of 33.4 mm.19
The solar parabolic trough collector uses linear concentrators of highly reflective parabolic
surfaces. The PTC requires single axis tracking to focus reflected radiation on the linear
receiver. The solar parabolic trough collector module is considered as concentrator aperture of
5.77 m aperture and 12 m long. The receiver is made of 70 mm tube and it is enclosed with
evacuated glass tube to reduce heat losses. The typical length of one solar field row is about
600 m which consists of four solar collector assemblies.20 The technical details of LFRC and
PTC considered for the analyses are illustrated in Table I.
The power tower uses heliostats to focus the solar radiation on to the receiver located at
the top of the tower. The concentrated solar radiation absorbed by the receiver is transmitted
to a circulating heat transfer fluid. A heat transfer fluid heated in the receiver is used to gener-
ate steam, which in turn, used for power generation. The heliostat dimensions are chosen based
on the receiver surface area, and tower height is assumed as 100 m.21 The heliostats are
arranged radially (minimum radius of about 75 m) in northern side of the tower in a sector of
angle 120 . The attenuation factor, the cosine factor, and shading-blocking factor are calcu-
lated for each heliostat based on position of the heliostat and it is surrounding heliostats.
Based on the above factors, the optical efficiency of each heliostat is determined. Heliostat
size and optical efficiency of the PT power plant are calculated for different capacities and it
is given in Table II.22 The analytical model has been developed to calculate the collector area,
efficiency of the collector, and annual power generation from the solar collector field using
MATLAB 7.0.1.
The efficiency of the solar thermal power plant (gp) depends on the incident solar radiation,
efficiency of the solar collector field, turbine, and generator. The efficiency of the solar power
plant is given as
gp ¼ gsf gPB ; (1)
where gPB is power block efficiency and gsf is solar field efficiency and is given as
Qu
gsf ¼ ; (2)
Ibn Ac
where Qu is useful thermal energy supplied to the power block of given capacity (Pint). The
useful thermal energy supplied to the power block is given as
Qu ¼ ½Ibn Ac gopt gr SM ¼ mf ðhf o hf i Þ; (3)
where SM is solar multiple and is considered for the analysis as 1.16.22 The SM is defined as
the ratio of thermal power produced by the solar field at design point to the thermal power
required by the power block at nominal conditions. The solar multiple has been considered to
design the solar collector field in order to avoid part load working conditions of the turbine dur-
ing long cloudy or non-insolation periods.
The net power generation of the solar power plant is given as
FIG. 1. Schematic of CSP systems (a) LFRC, (b) PTC, and (c) PT.
TABLE I. Technical details of solar LFRC and PTC system.
Specifications
Parameter LFRC (Ref. 19) PTC (Ref. 20)
Aperture of the reflector (m) 2 5.76

No. of rows in the module 12 1
Length of the collector module (m) 12.2 12
Receiver tube inner diameter (m) 0.027 0.05
Receiver tube outer diameter (m) 0.033 0.07
Concentration ratio 52.32 81.5
Reflectivity of the concentrator 0.88 0.94
Transmissivity of the glass shield 0.94 0.96
Absorptivity of the receiver 0.93 0.96
Intercept factor of the collector 0.87 0.92
Optical efficiency 0.67 0.8

PCaux
PGnet ¼ Pint 8760 1 CF tplant ; (4)
100
where CF is capacity factor of the plant and tplant is life time of the plant.
B. Modelling of solar thermal power plants

The thermodynamic performance of CFPP, SACFPP, and SASPP with different capacities
is estimated by a component-wise modelling followed by a system simulation. A flow-sheet
computer program, “Cycle-Tempo”23 is used for the study. It is designed for the steady state
thermodynamic (energy and exergy) modelling and analysis of systems for the production of
electricity, heat, and refrigeration. The following assumptions are made in the simulation of so-
lar power plant cycles:
• Ambient pressure and temperature of the reference environment: 1.013 bar and 33 C (Indian
climatic conditions24).
• The relative humidity of the ambient air is taken as 60%.24
• The chemical composition of the reference-environment model constitutes (in mole fraction)
N2: 0.7562, O2: 0.2030, H2O: 0.0312, CO2: 0.0003, and others: 0.0093.24
• The excess air is considered as 20%.24
• Energy loss in coal-fired steam generator (due to the combustibles in ash, radiation, convection
losses, and unaccounted losses) is assumed as 1.5% of energy in the input fuel (coal).24
• Ash constitutes 70% SiO2 and 30% Al2O3 (by weight) and the bottom to fly ash ratio is assumed
to be 20:80.24
• Condenser pressure is assumed to be 10.3 kPa (Indian climatic condition) and temperature gain
of the condenser cooling water is considered as 10 C.24
TABLE II. Heliostat size and heliostat field optical efficiency for PT power plants.22
Plant capacity (MWe) Heliostat area (m2) Optical efficiency (%)
1 19.2 79.72
5 19.2 70.98
10 69.3 66.51
30 122.1 62.66
50 122.1 59.77
• Isentropic efficiency of fans is taken as 80%.24

• Isentropic efficiency of recirculation pump is taken as 80%.24
• Auxiliary power consumption is assumed to be 8% for all power plants.
• Solar radiation is considered to be available for 8 h/day and 300 days in a year.
• Puerto Errado 1 is 1.4 MWe LFRC based power plant which is developed by Novatec Biosol
and is operating in Southern Spain. The maximum achievable steam conditions in LFRC system
are 55 bar and 270 C.25 Novatec Biosol is installing Puerto Errado – 2, capacity of 30 MWe in
Spain which consists of two 15 MWe turbines. Therefore, in the present analysis, the maximum
capacity of power block for LFRC based power plant is considered as 15 MWe.
In the present analysis, Jodhpur is considered as reference location due to its perennial
sunny weather. The year-round average direct normal solar radiation for Jodhpur is considered
as 660 W/m2.26 The year-round direct normal solar radiation is defined as the average of solar
radiation from January to December 2 h after sunshine and before sunset and it is given as
2t 3
Xss2
6 Ibn 7
X 4 tsrþ2 5
m¼12
m¼1
N4
Ibn ¼ ; (5)
12
where N is number of sunshine hours.
The configurations of 1 MWe and 5 MWe power plant are based on the power plant pro-
posed by Zarza et al.27 Reheat is not used in this configuration due to the lower plant capacity
and turbine inlet pressure. The configuration for 10 MWe power plant is based on the power
plant proposed by Chavez et al.28 The configurations of 30 MWe and 50 MWe power plant are
based on the power plant cycle detailed in Montes et al.22 and has been adapted to Indian cli-
matic conditions.
The schematic of LFRC based SASPP with steam parameters of 5 MWe plant capacity is
shown in Fig. 2. The configurations of LFRC based power plants are almost same irrespective
of the capacities because it is considered as the saturated steam at 55 bar and 270 C is gener-
ated by solar LFRC field. Two feed water heaters have been considered for 1 MWe and 5 MWe
cycles where as three feed water heaters for 10 MWe and 15 MWe cycle. The schematic of
5 MWe PTC and PT power plants with steam parameters is shown in Fig. 3. The steam temper-
ature is considered as 370 C, 400 C, and 410 C for 1 MWe, 5 MWe, and 10 MWe,
FIG. 2. Schematic of 5 MWe stand-alone solar linear Fresnel reflector collector power plant.
FIG. 3. Schematic of 5 MWe stand-alone solar PTC and PT power plant.
respectively. The schematic of 50 MWe for PTC and PT is shown in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively.
The cycle configurations of PTC and PT power plants are different because in PTC power
plant, steam from the HP turbine is reheated in the parabolic trough collector field and fed into
the LP turbine but PT power plant reheating is not considered. In both PTC and PT power
plants, three low pressure feed water heaters and two high pressure feed water heaters have
been used. The steam pressure and temperature for 30 MWe and 50 MWe are considered as
100 bar and 410 C, respectively, for both PTC and PT power plants. The schematic of 50 MWe
SACFPP is shown in Fig. 6. The Rankine cycle parameters remain same for 50 MWe CFPP,
SACFPP, and SASPP. The parabolic trough collector is considered for feed water heating of
SACFPP.
III. TECHNO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF STAND-ALONE SOLAR POWER PLANTS

Energy, exergy, economic analysis, along with environmental impact are carried out for
various plant capacities ranging from 1 to 50 MWe.
FIG. 4. Schematic of 50 MWe stand-alone solar parabolic trough collector power plant.
FIG. 5. Schematic of 50 MWe stand-alone solar power tower plant.
A. Thermodynamic analysis
Performance analyses are carried out in terms of energy and exergy analysis. Energy and
exergy analyses give a better understanding to determine the availability and utilization of
energy resources. Exergy is the maximum work potential that can be obtained from energy and
it is associated with work transfer and irreversibility. Energy analysis gives the quantitative
energy losses involved in various components of the system, whereas exergy analysis gives the
qualitative energy losses. Exergy analysis is a method that uses the conservation of mass and
conservation of energy principles together with second law of thermodynamics. The perform-
ance of stand-alone solar thermal power plant is analyzed in terms of energy and exergy
efficiencies.
1. Energy analysis
Energy efficiency of the plant is defined as the ratio of net electricity output to the energy
received by the concentrator. Energy received by the concentrator is given as9
Qi ¼ Ibn Ac : (6)
Energy absorbed by the receiver is given as
Qr ¼ Qi gopt : (7)
Energy efficiency (gI) of the concentrator is given as
FIG. 6. Schematic of 50 MWe SACFPP.
Qr
gI;c ¼ : (8)
Qi
Energy efficiency of the receiver is given as
Qu
gI;r ¼ : (9)
Qr
Energy efficiency of the solar field is given as
Qu
gI;sf ¼ : (10)
Qi
Energy efficiency of the power block is given as
PGnet
gI; PB ¼ : (11)
Qu
Overall energy efficiency of the solar power plant is given as
PGnet
gI;o ¼ : (12)
Qi
2. Exergy analysis
Exergy efficiency of the plant is defined as the ratio of net electricity output to the exergy
received by the concentrator. Exergy received by the concentrator is given as29

4Tamb
Exi ¼ Qi 1 ð1 0:28ln f Þ ; (13)
3Tsun
where f is the dilution factor (1.3 105) and it is a measure of the mixing ratio of solar radia-
tion from sun and radiation from the surroundings.
Exergy absorbed by the receiver is given as9

Tamb
Exr ¼ Qr 1 : (14)
Tr
Exergy efficiency (gII) of the concentrator is given as
Exr
gII;c ¼ : (15)
Exi
Useful exergy delivered by the receiver is given as
Exu ¼ mf ðExo Exi Þ ¼ mf ½ðhf o hf i Þ Tamb ðsf o sf i Þ: (16)
Exergy efficiency of the receiver is given as
Exu
gII;r ¼ : (17)
Exr
Exergy efficiency of the solar field is given as
Exu
gII;sf ¼ : (18)
Exi
Exergy efficiency of the power block is given as
PGnet
gII; PB ¼ : (19)
Exu
Overall exergy efficiency of the solar power plant is given as
PGnet
gII;o ¼ : (20)
Exi
B. Environmental impacts and economic analysis

Economic analysis is carried out by considering carbon mitigation benefits.
1. Environmental impacts
The concentrating stand-alone solar thermal power plant may not emit any pollutants or
there is no impact on environment during their operation unlike conventional fossil fuel power
plants. The concentrating stand alone solar thermal power plant has negative impact on environ-
ment during production of materials for solar field, power block, and other components of the
power plant, construction activities, operation and maintenance, as well as decommissioning of
the power plant and the disposal of all the waste materials. Sub-critical coal power plant in
India emits 840 g CO2, 5.8 g of SO2, 2.9 g of NOx, and 0.46 g of particulate matter for unit
power generation (kWh).24
The clean development mechanism (CDM) is an element under the Kyoto Protocol for pro-
moting the technology transfer and investment from industrialized countries to the developing
countries to reduce the emissions of green house gases. Such technologies can earn saleable
certified emission reduction (CER) credits, each equivalent to one ton of CO2. The CER are cli-
mate credits (or carbon credits) issued by the CDM executive board for emission reductions
achieved by CDM projects.30 The CO2 emission mitigation benefit depends on the amount of
electricity generated. The amount of carbon credits of grid connected power plant is product of
number of units generated (kWh) by the plant and the emission coefficient.
2. Economic analysis
Economic analysis of the stand-alone concentrating solar thermal power plants has been
carried out in terms of levelised electricity cost (LEC), discounted payback period (DPP), bene-
fit to cost ratio (BCR), and net present value (NPV) for different plant capacities. The LEC is
estimated based on the fixed capital cost and operation & maintenance (O & M) costs of the
plant. The fixed capital cost includes infrastructure, solar field, power block, land, and other
indirect costs. The O & M cost includes the administration, solar field spare parts, equipments,
service contracts, water treatment, and labors for operation of the plant and maintenance.
The input parameters used in the economic analysis of LFRC,31 PTC,32 and PT33 are given in
Table III. The levelised tariff for electricity produced by solar thermal power plant is
INR 13.45.34 In the present analysis, 1e is considered as INR 69 and 1 $ is considered as INR
45. The LEC is given as6
LEC ¼ CFCap þ CLOM : (21)
Fixed capital cost is given as
CCap
CFCap ¼ : (22)
PGnet
Net power generation (PGnet) is given as
TABLE III. Input parameters considered for the economic analysis of the concentrating solar thermal power plant.
Value
Parameter LFRC (Ref. 31) PTC (Ref. 32) PT (Ref. 33)
Solar field/m2 (INR) 10 695 14 540 …

Heliostat cost/m2 (INR) … … 5000
Tower cost (INR) … … 26650000 x e ð0:011Htower Þ
Receiver cost (INR) … … 2 756 000
Power block/MWe (INR) 52 958 000
Construction and contingencies/MWe (INR) 68 901 093 10% of CCap
Operating & maintenance cost/kW/yr (INR) 1052 2746
Land cost/ac (INR) 300 000
Life of the power plant (yr) 20 30 20
Discount rate (%) 0.1
Auxiliary consumption (%) 8 10
Variable operating & maintenance cost (%) 0.1
Escalation rate (%) 0.05
Levelised electricity tariff for solar thermal 13.45
power plant (INR/kWh)
PGnet ¼ PGtot –PCaux : (23)
The auxiliary power consumption for tracking and feed water pumping is considered as 8%
of the total power generation. The levelised O & M cost (CLOM) is given as6
CLOM ¼ LFðCFOM þCVOM Þ: (24)
The levelising factor (LF) is given as

" #" #
ð1 þ dre Þlt 1 drð1 þ drÞlt
LF ¼ ; (25)
dre ð1 þ dre Þlt ð1 þ drÞlt 1
where dr is the discount rate and dre is the equivalent discount rate with escalation
ðdr eÞ
dre ¼ : (26)
ð1 þ eÞ
The fixed O & M cost is given as
COM
CFOM ¼ : (27)
PGnet
The variable O & M cost includes the additional O & M cost other than the fixed O & M and
it is given as
CVOM ¼ 0:1CFOM : (28)
The DPP for the solar collector is given as35
lnðBj Cj Þ lnfðBj Cj Þdr CCap g

DPP ¼ : (29)
lnð1 þ drÞ
The benefit to cost of the parabolic trough plant is given as35

" #
B 1 X lt
Bj Cj
¼ : (30)
C CCap j ð1 þ drÞj
The net benefit accrued to the investigator (Bj Cj) is assumed uniform throughout the life of
the plant. The net present value of the system is given as35
" #
X
lt
B j Cj
NPV ¼ CCap : (31)
j ð1 þ drÞj
The salvage value of the plant at end of its life time is assumed to be negligibly small. The
cost of the power plant varies time to time. The present cost of the plant is calculated as
follows:
CEPCIpresent
Present Cost ¼ Reference Cost : (32)
CEPCIreference
The capital cost of solar power plant is expected to decrease with increase in plant capacity.
This is accounted by expressing the capital cost in terms of the reference capital cost and a
scaling factor is given as36
Cost2 ¼ ðC2 =C1 Þ 0:7 x Cost1 : (33)
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The energy and exergy analyses may be used to determine the component-wise irreversibil-
ities of the solar power plants and its deviation. The energy and exergy efficiencies of the
SASPP for different plant capacities have been evaluated using CYCLE TEMPO.23 The CYCLE TEMPO
software has been validated with 50 MWe stand-alone solar parabolic trough power plant pro-
posed by Montes et al.22 The energy efficiency of present 50 MWe stand-alone solar parabolic
trough power plant deviates maximum of 0.53% with Montes et al.22 Therefore, the CYCLE
TEMPO software simulates the power plant configurations accurately.
A. Energy analysis
The energy efficiencies of LFRC, PTC, and PT power plants are estimated for different
plant capacities (Fig. 7). The net energy efficiency of LFRC power plants increases from a
minimum of 11.52% to a maximum of 12.17% for the plant capacity increases from 1 MWe to
30 MWe. This is due to change in cycle configurations of the power plants. The net energy effi-
ciency does not increase as capacity increases from 30 MWe to 50 MWe because cycle configu-
ration remains same for both 30 MWe and 50 MWe power plant. The energy losses in collector
field and power block for 1 MWe solar LFRC power plant are found as 54.16% and 34.32%,
respectively. The maximum energy losses for 1 MWe LFRC power plant occur in condenser
(34.325%) followed by receiver (30.72%), concentrator (23.44%), and then other losses
(1.59%). Other losses include energy required for feed pump, concentrator tracking, and losses
in pipe. It is observed that parabolic trough power plants offer the highest net energy efficiency
among the other technologies. As the plant capacity increases from 1 MWe to 50 MWe, the net
energy efficiency increases by 6.8 percentage points, from 16.36% to 23.16%. The energy
losses of solar field and power block for 1 MWe PTC power plant is estimated as 36.06% and
47.58%, respectively.
The energy analyses of stand-alone LFRC, PTC, and PT power plant components are
shown in Table IV for 50 MWe plant capacity. The heliostat field optical efficiency of PT
FIG. 7. Variation of energy efficiency of SASPP with plant capacity.
plants decreases with increase in field size. This is due to the use of different size heliostats for
different plant capacities, and as the effects of cosine efficiency factor, attenuation, shading, and
blocking. In addition, the Rankine cycle efficiency increases with increase in steam parameters
of the cycle. This is reflected in the variation of net energy efficiency of PT plants with plant
capacity. The net energy efficiency of the PT plants decreases from 15.90% to 13.86% as plant
capacity increases from 1 MWe to 10 MWe due to decrease in field. The net energy efficiency
of PT plants increases with capacity beyond 10 MWe and reaching a maximum of 16.49% for
the 50 MWe power plant. This is mainly due to increase in the number of feed water heaters for
regenerative heating, leading to a significant increase in Rankine cycle efficiency.
Details of heliostat size for different plant capacities are illustrated in Table II, along with
the optical efficiency of heliostat field. The consistent decrease in field efficiency with increase
in capacity is due to increase in the size of the heliostat field, which leads to higher cosine
losses, shading, and blocking. The increase in heliostat size with capacity reduces the increase
in solar field complexity in terms of number of heliostats required and reduces the shading and
blocking losses encountered. The 50 MWe PTC technology based SASPP energy efficiency is
compared with 50 MWe of CFPP and SACFPP. The energy analyses of 50 MWe CFPP and
SACFPP are carried out and is shown in Tables V and VI, respectively. The net energy effi-
ciency of 50 MWe CFPP, SACFPP, and SASPP is found as 32%, 30.71%, and 23.16%, respec-
tively. The energy efficiency of 50 MWe CFPP is lower compared to conventional CFPP due to
low steam inlet temperature and pressure.
B. Exergy analysis
The total exergy input is directly proportional to total energy input of the given power
plant. The net exergy efficiencies of various SASPP for different capacities are shown in Fig. 8.
The net exergy efficiency graph shows similar trend of the net energy efficiency. For LFRC
power plants, net exergy efficiency increases from 16.29% for the 1 MWe power plant to
17.21% for 30 MWe and 50 MWe power plants. The exergy losses in concentrator, receiver,
turbine, condenser and feed water heaters, and others are estimated as 55.47%, 17.26%, 6.66%,
2.04%, and 2.28%, respectively, for 1 MWe LFRC power plant. The exergy efficiency of para-
bolic trough power plants increases from 23.14% to 32.76% as capacity is increased from
1 MWe to 50 MWe. The exergy losses of 1 MWe PTC power plant components such as concen-
trator, receiver, turbine, condenser and feed water heaters and others are found as 45.97%,
15.06%, 9.45%, 2.73%, and 3.65%, respectively. In case of PT plants, the net exergy efficiency
decreases from 22.57% to 19.65%, as capacity increases from 1 MWe to 10 MWe.
TABLE IV. Energy and exergy analyses 50 MWe SASPP.
Energy (kW) Exergy (kW)
Energy Energy Exergy Exergy

loss efficiency loss efficiency
Technology Plant components Received Loss (%) (%) Received Loss (%) (%)
LFRC Solar field Concentrator 380 160 89 110 23.44 268 733 149 296 55.56
Receiver 291 050 113 969 29.98 119 438 44 963 16.73
Total 380 160 203 078 53.42 46.58 268 733 194 259 72.29 27.71
Power block Turbine 222 335 0 0.00 82 347 18 341 6.82
Condenser 129 443 126 003 33.14 5640 5557 2.07
Feed water 44 597 4827 1.27 8775 4326 1.61
heaters
and others
Total 177 082 130 830 34.41 26.12 74 475 28 223 10.50 62.10
Total power plant 380 160 333 908 87.83 12.17 268 733 222 481 82.79 17.21
PTC Solar field Concentrator 194 184 25 621 13.19 137 268 52 539 38.27
Receiver 168 563 38 744 19.95 84 729 23 025 16.77
Total 194 184 64 365 33.15 66.85 137 268 75 564 55.05 44.95
Power block Turbine 182 485 0 0.00 75 262 7452 5.43
Condenser 81 631 79 606 41.00 3374 3326 2.42
Feed water 52 666 5249 2.70 15 157 5963 4.34
heaters
and others
Total 129 819 84 855 43.70 34.64 61 704 16 741 12.20 72.87
PT Solar field Concentrator 271 987 122 426 45.01 192 234 86 527 45.01
Receiver 149 562 22 434 8.25 105 706 44 901 23.36
Total 271 987 144 860 53.26 46.74 192 234 131 429 68.37 31.63
Power block Turbine 127 127 1020 0.38 60 805 10 805 5.62
Condenser 77 017 77 017 28.32 2050 2050 1.07
Feed water 44 525 4240 1.56 5943 3100 1.61
heaters
and others
Total 127 127 82 278 30.25 35.28 60 805 15 955 8.30 73.76
As capacity increases further to 50 MWe, the net exergy efficiency of the PT plant
increases to a maximum of 23.33%. The exergy analyses of 50 MWe SASPP (LFRC, PTC, and
PT), CFPP, and SACFPP are carried out and are shown in Tables IV–VI, respectively. The
exergy analyses of 50 MWe CFPP and SACFPP are also studied. The net exergy efficiency of
50 MWe CFPP, SACFPP, and SASPP is found as 28.17%, 28.21%, and 32.76%, respectively.
The exergy losses are higher in the solar field compared to that of power block for all three
concentrating solar power (CSP) technologies. The exergy losses of all the LFRC plant compo-
nents are higher compared to that of PTC power plant. But exergy losses in the collector field
are very high compared to power block for both LFRC and PTC power plants due to the loss
of high grade solar energy. Exergy losses in the power block are less as the amount of work
that can be produced from heat rejected to the condenser is very less. The exergy efficiencies
of power plant components may be improved by improving the reflectivity of the concentrator,
optical efficiency, concentration ratio, receiver conversion efficiency, and steam outlet condi-
tions. Therefore, in the solar thermal power plant, more efforts have to be focused on the solar
collector field (concentrator and receiver) to reduce the exergy loss.
TABLE V. Energy and exergy analyses 50 MWe CFPP power plant.

Plant components Received Loss loss (%) efficiency (%) Received Loss loss (%) efficiency (%)
Fuel-air system Combustor 143 737 2500 1.74 163 242 54 520 33.40
Steam generator 132 458 0 0.00 39 387 39 387 100.00
Total 143 737 2500 1.74 98.26 163 242 93 907 57.53 42.47
Condenser 82 531 82 531 57.42 2196 2196 1.35
Feed water 35 012 12 400 8.63 4342 4342 2.66
heaters
and others
Total 141 237 96 694 67.27 31.54 39 226 13 207 8.09 66.33
C. Environmental impacts
The CO2 emissions of 50 MWe CFP is determined to be about 1.06 kg/kWh of power gen-
eration. For the equivalent SACFPP, CO2 emissions are reduced by about 33%. Ash production
for the SACFPP is found to be reduced by almost 11 000 tons annually. Sub-critical coal power
plants in India emit 840 g of CO2, 5.8 g of SO2, 2.9 g of NOx, and 0.46 g of particulate matter
for unit power generation (kWh).24 Based on the above values, 50 MWe SASPP saves annually
90 650 tons CO2, 626 tons SO2, 311.5 tons NOx, and 49 tons of particulate matter compared to
that of Indian subcritical coal power plant. But global warming gases emitted during develop-
ment of SASPP are 24 g CO2 equivalent/kWh.37
D. Economic analysis
The economic analysis predicts the suitability of different concentrator technologies in dif-
ferent power plant capacity ranges. The LCE of different technologies with CDM benefit has
been estimated for various plant capacities and is shown in Fig. 9. Based on the present
TABLE VI. Energy and exergy analyses 50 MWe SACFPP power plant.

Plant components Received Loss loss (%) efficiency (%) Received Loss loss (%) efficiency (%)
Fuel-air system Combustor 133 801 2500 1.87 151 958 50 898 33.49
Steam generator 123 133 0 0.00 36 579 36 579 24.07
Stack 200 729 15 334 11.46 6164 6164 4.06
Total 133 801 2500 1.87 98.13 151 958 87 477 57.57 42.43
Solar field Concentrator 16 412 3077 18.75 11 601 2175 1.43
Receiver 13 335 2000 12.19 9426 5219 3.43
Total 16 412 5077 30.94 65.00 11 601 7394 4.87 95.13
Condenser 83 782 83 782 62.62 2230 2230 1.47
Feed water heaters
and others 63 664 2830 2.12 10 091 10 091 6.64
Total 123 133 87 633 65.49 28.83 56 672 18 993 12.50 66.49
FIG. 8. Variation of exergy efficiency of SASPP with plant capacity.
analysis, it is found that LEC decreases with increase in power plant capacity from 1 MWe to
50 MWe for the given steam parameters.38 LEC of LFRC power plant is estimated as
INR 14.77/kWh for 1 MWe and it reduces to INR 10.19/kWh for 50 MWe power plant. Simi-
larly, for parabolic trough power plants, the LEC decreases from INR 14.7/kWh to INR 8.48/
kWh as capacity increases from 1 MWe to 50 MWe. The decrease in LEC with increase in
capacity is due to increase in net energy efficiency, with very little change in capital cost
incurred per unit of power generation. A different trend is observed in case of PT plants due to
the influence of capital cost, optical efficiency, and Rankine cycle efficiency. The receiver cost
is assumed as constant irrespective of plant capacities. The heliostat field cost increases with
plant capacity. The optical efficiency decreases with increase in plant capacity which leads to
larger heliostat field size and increases the capital cost. Thus LEC of PT plant decreases from
INR 20.61/kWh to INR 12.52/kWh for plant capacity increases from 1 MWe to 5 MWe and
increases to INR 12.94/kWh for 10 MWe power plant. As power plant capacity increases to 30
MWe, LEC decreases to a minimum of INR 11.29/kWh, and then increases to INR 12.76/kWh
for 50 MWe power plant. The LEC of 50 MWe CFPP and SACFPP is found as INR 3.56/kWh
and INR 3.60/kWh, respectively. The LEC of SASPP is very high compared to that of CFPP
FIG. 9. Variation of levelised electricity cost of SASPP with plant capacity.
FIG. 10. Variation of discount payback period of SASPP with plant capacity.
and SACFPP. Therefore, more attention needs to be focussed on solar collector design in order
to reduce the material consumption and improve the performance of the SASPP.
In addition to LEC, DPP, and BCR have also been estimated for all capacities of power
plants and is shown in Figs. 10 and 11, respectively. The DPP for LFRC and PTC power plants
decreases from 25.71 years to 10.29 years and 32.74 years to 7.3 years as power plant capacity
increases from 1 MWe to 50 MWe. The DPP of PT plants decreases from 52.63 years to 12.09
years for plant capacity increases from 1 MWe to 5 MWe and increases to 12.80 years as plant
capacity is increased to 10 MWe. It then decreases to a minimum value of 10.16 years for the
30 MWe power plant and increases again to 12.49 years for the 50 MWe power plant. This
follows the same trend as that of the LEC of power tower plants with capacity, for the same
reasons. The abnormally high DPP of the 1 MWe power tower plant is caused by high capital
cost incurred per unit of power generation.
The BCR of LFRC power plants increases from 1.103 to 1.51 as plant capacity increases
from 1 MWe to 50 MWe. A similar trend is observed for PTC power plants, with BCR values
increasing from 0.99 to 1.88 for 1 MWe to 50 MWe plant. For PT power plants, BCR increases
from 0.772 to 1.297 as plant capacity is raised from 1 MWe to 5 MWe and then decreases to
1.253 for the 10 MWe power plant. The BCR increases again to a maximum value of 1.448 as
FIG. 11. Variation of benefit-cost ratio of SASPP with plant capacity.
capacity is increased to 30 MWe and decreases to 1.272 for plant capacity of 50 MWe. The
NPV of the SASPP has been analyzed. NPV of the LFRC plant is varied from INR 8546 to
INR 80 087 for plant capacities varied from 1 MWe to 50 MWe. NPV of 1 MWe PTC and PT
plants are negative and increases with plant capacity and reaches INR 122 988 and INR 93
523, respectively, for 50 MWe plant capacity.
FIG. 12. Sensitivity analysis of 50 MWe power plant: (a) LFRC, (b) PTC, (c) PT, (d) CFPP, and (e) SACFPP.
FIG. 12. (Continued.)
E. Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis is carried out for SASPP, CFPP, and SACFPP to determine the effect of
capital cost, O & M cost, plant life, capacity factor, and discount rate on LEC (Fig. 12). The pa-
rameters are varied from 80% to 80% in order to analysis the LEC for extreme better and worse
conditions. The capital cost of SASPP is expected to reduce at least 50% of present cost in
2020.39 Capacity factor of SASPP may be reduced during long cloudy days and rainy seasons.
Also, capacity factor of the plant may be increased using thermal storage. The plant life may be
reduced due to poor weather conditions and location of the plant. In case of CFPP, there is a scope
to increase in capital and O & M cost due to shortage of coal and continuous increase in demand
for coal. The variation of LEC is represented in terms of non-dimensional form, i.e., variation of
LEC with change in plant parameters against LEC at 0% variation of plant parameters.
LEC of SASPP increases with increase in capital cost, O & M cost, and discount rate. LEC
decreases with increase in capacity factor and plant life. At lower plant capacity factor, LEC is
very high due to lower annual power generation. The LEC is highly sensitive to capacity factor,
plant life, and capital cost. Among the SASPP, PT plant is more sensitive followed by LFRC
and then PTC. Influence of O & M cost on LEC for SASPP is less as compared to the other
FIG. 13. Sensitivity analysis of total cost for 50 MWe solar thermal power plant.
plant parameters. But in case of CFPP, LEC is sensitive to O & M cost and plant capacity fac-
tor. The O & M cost of CFPP is higher than that of SASPP. Apart from sensitive analysis,
comparison of LEC for SASPP and CFPP is carried out (Fig. 13). Total cost (capital and O &
M cost) is varied from 80% to 40% to study the variation of LEC. The increase in total cost
of the plant is considered as 40% due to the increase in forecasting of coal cost in 2015 is
around 35% to 40%.40 Total cost of SASPP is reduced up to 80% because there is lot of
scope to reduce capital cost by designing low weight, high performance system. But in case of
CFPP, the total cost is not varied in negative direction due to saturation of CFPP technology
and continuous increase in coal cost. LEC of SASPP meets CFPP when the total cost reduces
to 60% of its present value. The SASPP power plant becomes commercially feasible when the
total cost of SASPP is reduced to 40% of its present value and coal cost increases to 40% of its
present value. In order to commercialize the solar power plants, efficiency of the plant has to
be improved and cost of the plants should come down.
V. CONCLUSIONS
Techno-economic analyses of large scale solar thermal power plants have been carried out.
Based on the analyses, it was found that the parabolic trough power based solar plants have the
best performance, followed by power tower systems and LFRC power plants. While it is
expected that power tower systems will have higher efficiencies, it is observed that the optical
efficiency of the parabolic trough collector is higher than that of the power tower heliostat field.
Also, in power tower systems, the optical efficiency decreases as the solar field size increases.
The economic analysis shows explicitly the suitability of each concentrator systems in specific
ranges of power plant capacity. Based on the DPP calculations, power tower plants and para-
bolic trough power plants of capacity 1 MWe are not economically feasible in India at present.
For capacities greater than or equal to 10 MWe, power tower systems have the highest DPP of
all three concentrator technologies. LFRC power plants offer the best BCR in the 1 MWe to
5 MWe range. For power plants with capacity more than 10 MWe, parabolic trough collectors
offer the best techno-economic performance. It is to be noted that for 10 MWe, power tower
plants offer almost the same BCR as parabolic trough power plants. The LEC of SASPP was
found to be significantly high as compared to that of CFPP and SACFPP. Therefore, more
attention has to be focussed on solar collector design in order to reduce the material consump-
tion, cost and improve the performance of SASPP.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The financial support provided by the Department of Science and Technology (DST), Govern-
ment of India, New Delhi, through the research project is duly acknowledged.
NOMENCLATURE
Ac concentrator area of the solar collector (m2)
B annual benefits accrued (INR)
BCR benefit-to-cost ratio
C cost (INR)
CF capacity factor
CEPCI chemical engineering plant cost index
Cost1 cost of the equipment at reference capacity C1 (INR)
Cost2 predicted cost of the equipment at desired capacity C2 (INR)
dr discount rate (%)
dre equivalent discount rate (%)
DPP discounted payback period (yr)
e escalation rate
Ex exergy (W)
h enthalpy (J kg1)
Htower height of the tower (m)
Ibn normal solar beam radiation (W m2)
LEC levelised electricity cost (INR)
LF levelising factor
LOM levelised operating and maintenance
m mass flow rate (kg s1)
n number of plant operating hours (h)
N number of sunshine hours
NPV net present value (INR)
Pint installed plant capacity (W)
PCaux auxiliary power consumption (kWh)
PG power generation (kWh)
Qu useful thermal energy supplied to the power block (W)
s entropy (J kg1 K1)
S absorbed flux on the receiver (W m2)
SM solar multiple
T temperature (K)
tplant plant operating time (h)
g efficiency (%)
Suffix
amb ambient
c concentrator
Cap capital
f fluid
FCap fixed capital
fi fluid inlet
fo fluid outlet
FOM fixed operating and maintenance
i incident
j year
LOM levelised operating and maintenance
lt life time
o overall
opt optical
O&M operating and maintenance
p plant
PB power block
r receiver
sf solar field
tot total
u useful
VOM variable operating and maintenance
1
S. Beerbaum and G. Weinrebe, “Solar thermal power generation in India – A techno-economic analysis,” Renewable
Energy 21, 153–174 (2000).
2
JNNSM (Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission), Govt. of India, 2009.
3
F. Trieb, O. Langnib, and H. Klaib, “Solar electricity generation – A comparative view of technologies, costs and envi-
ronmental impact,” Sol. Energy 59(1–3), 89–99 (1997).
4
N. Singh, S. C. Kaushik, and R. D. Misra, “Exergetic analysis of a solar thermal power system,” Renewable Energy 19,
135–143 (2000).
5
J. Dersch, M. Geyer, U. Herrmann, S. A. Jones, B. Kelly, R. Kistner, W. Ortmanns, R. Pitz-Paal, and H. Price, “Trough
integration into power plants – A study on the performance and economy of integrated solar combined cycle systems,”
Energy 29, 947–959 (2004).
6
M. V. J. J. Suresh, K. S. Reddy, and A. K. Kolar, “4-E (Energy, Exergy, Environment, and Economic) analysis of solar
thermal aided coal-fired power plants,” Energy Sustainable Dev. 14, 267–279 (2010).
7
Q. Yan, E. Hu, Y. Yang, and R. Zhai, “Evaluation of solar aided thermal power generation with various power plants,”
Int. J. Energy Res. 35, 909–922 (2011).
8
A. Baghernejad and M. Yaghoubi, “Exergy analysis of an integrated solar combined cycle system,” Renewable Energy
35, 2157–2164 (2010).
9
M. K. Gupta and S. C. Kaushik, “Exergy analysis and investigation for various feed water heaters of direct steam genera-
tion solar-thermal power plant,” Renewable Energy 35, 1228–1235 (2010).
10
J. F. Feldhoff, D. Benitez, M. Eck, and K. J. Riffelmann, “Economic potential of solar thermal power plants with direct
steam generation compared with HTF plants,” J. Sol Energy Eng. 132, 041001(1-9) (2010).
11
I. Purohit and P. Purohit, “Techno-economic evaluation of concentrating solar power generation in India,” Energy Policy
38, 3015–3029 (2010).
12
D. Laing, W. D. Steinmann, P. F. Viebahn, F. Grater, and C. Bahl, “Economic analysis and life cycle assessment of con-
crete thermal energy storage for parabolic trough power plants,” J. Sol. Energy Eng. 132, 041013(1-6) (2010).
13
J. J. Burkhardt, G. A. Heath, and C. S. Turchi, “Life cycle assessment of a parabolic trough concentrating solar power
plant and the impacts of key design alternative,” Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 2457–2464 (2011).
14
D. R. Mills and G. L. Morrison, “Advanced Fresnel reflector power plants – Performance and generating costs,” in
Proceedings of Solar’97 – Australian and New Zealand Solar Energy Society (1997), pp. 1–9.
15
F. J. Collado and J. A. Turegano, “Calculation of the annual thermal energy supplied by a defined heliostat field,” Sol.
Energy 42(2), 149–165 (1989).
16
C. Xu, Z. Wang, X. Li, and F. Sun, “Energy and exergy analysis of solar power tower plants,” Appl. Therm. Eng. 31,
3904–3913 (2011).
17
K. R. Kumar and K. S. Reddy, “Thermodynamic and enviro-economic analyses of stand-alone solar power plants,” in
10th Int. Conference in Sustainable Energy Technologies (SET 2011), Kumburgaz, Istanbul, Turkey, 4-7 September
(2011), pp. 1–7.
18
K. R. Kumar and K. S. Reddy, “4-E (energy-exergy-environmental-economic) analyses of line-focusing stand-alone con-
centrating solar power plants,” Int. J. Low-Carbon Technol. 7(2), 82–96 (2012).
19
D. R. Mills, G. Morrison, J. Pye, and P. L. Lievre, “Multi-tower line focus Fresnel array Project,” J. Sol. Energy Eng.
128, 118–120 (2006).
20
H. Price, E. Lupfert, D. Kearney, E. Zarza, G. Cohen, R. Gee, and R. Mahoney, “Advances in parabolic trough solar
power technology,” J. Sol. Energy Eng. 124, 109–125 (2002).
21
T. R. Mancini, Catalog of Solar Heliostats, SolarPACES Technical Report No. III-1/00.
22
M. J. Montes, A. Abanades, and J. M. Martinez-Val, “Performance of a direct steam generation solar thermal power plant
for electricity production as a function of the solar multiple,” Sol. Energy 83, 679–689 (2009).
23
Cycle-Tempo, Cycle-Tempo release 5.0, Delft University of Technology, 2007.
24
M. V. J. J. Suresh, K. S. Reddy, and A. K. Kolar, “3-E analysis of advanced power plants based on high ash coal,” Int. J.
Energy Res. 34, 716–735 (2010).
25
PE 1- World’s first Fresnel solar power plant in commercial operation, available from: http://www.novatecsolar.com/,
accessed on March 10, 2011.
26
ISHRAE weather data are # 2005. Indian Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, New Delhi,
India, available from: http://www.ishrae.in/, accessed on March 10, 2011.
27
E. Zarza, M. E. Rojas, L. Gonzalez, J. M. Caballero, and F. Rueda, “INDITEP: The first pre-commercial DSG solar
power plant,” Sol. Energy 80, 1270–1276 (2006).
28
J. M. Chavez, H. E. Reilly, G. J. Kolb, B. Gould, A. Zavoico, and P. Sutherland, “The solar two power tower project: A
10 MWe power plant,” in Proceedings of the 30th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference (1995), pp.
469–475.
29
C. J. Winter, R. L. Sizmann, and L. L. Vant-Hull, Solar Power Plants: Fundamentals, Technology, System Economics
(Springer-Verlag, New York, 1991).
30
P. Purohit, “Small hydro power projects under clean development mechanism in India: A preliminary assessment,”
Energy Policy 36(6), 2000–2015 (2008).
31
S. Bockamp, T. Griestop, M. Fruth, M. Ewert, H. Lerchenmuller, M. Mertins, G. Morin, A. Haberle, and J. Dersch, “Solar
thermal power generation,” in Int. Conference Power-Gen Europe, Germany, 2003.
32
R. Pitz-Paal, J. Dersch, B. Milow, F. Tellez, A. Ferriere, U. Langnickel, A. Steinfeld, J. Karni, E. Zarza, and O. Popel,
“Development steps for parabolic trough solar power technologies with maximum impact on cost reduction,” J. Sol.
Energy Eng. 129, 371–377 (2007).
33
M. Schmitz, P. Schwarzbozl, R. Buck, and R. Pitz-Paal, “Assessment of the potential improvement due to multiple aper-
tures in central receiver systems with secondary concentrators,” Sol. Energy 80, 111–120 (2006).
34
Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, New Delhi, India, available from http://www.cercind.gov.in/, accessed on
November 15, 2011.
35
T. C. Kandpal and H. P. Garg, Financial Evaluation of Renewable Energy Technologies (Macmillan India Ltd., New
Delhi, 2003).
36
H. Price, “A parabolic trough solar power plant simulation model,” in Int. Solar Energy Conference, Hawaii, 16-18
March, 2003.
37
Y. Lechon, C. D. L. Rua, and R. Saez, “Life cycle environmental impacts of electricity production by solar thermal power
plants in Spain,” J. Sol. Energy Eng. 130, 021012(1-7) (2008).
38
DOE (Department of Energy), “Assessment of potential impact of concentrating solar power for electricity generation,”
Report No. DOE/GO – 102007 – 2400, 2007.
39
R. P. Charles, K. W. Davis, and J. L. Smith, “Assessment of concentrating solar power technology cost and performance
forecasts,” Electr. Power 2005, 1–25.
40
M. Festic, S. Repina, and R. Olcjak, “Estimating coal price dynamics with the principal components method,” Rom. J.
Econ. Forecast. 2, 188–212 (2010).

Sun 12 Aug

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Sun 12 Aug

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feasibility analysis of megawatt scale solar thermal power plants

K. S. Reddy, K. Ravi Kumar, and Vikramaditya A. Devaraj

Citation: J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 4, 063111 (2012); doi: 10.1063/1.4766891

Additional information on J. Renewable Sustainable Energy

Feasibility analysis of megawatt scale solar thermal power

Institute of Physics. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4766891]

1941-7012/2012/4(6)/063111/23/$30.00 4, 063111-1 C 2012 American Institute of Physics

II. MODELING OF SOLAR THERMAL POWER PLANTS

gp ¼ gsf gPB ; (1)

Qu ¼ ½Ibn Ac gopt gr SM ¼ mf ðhf o hf i Þ; (3)

TABLE I. Technical details of solar LFRC and PTC system.

Parameter LFRC (Ref. 19) PTC (Ref. 20)

Aperture of the reflector (m) 2 5.76

B. Modelling of solar thermal power plants

Plant capacity (MWe) Heliostat area (m2) Optical efficiency (%)

• Isentropic efficiency of fans is taken as 80%.24

FIG. 3. Schematic of 5 MWe stand-alone solar PTC and PT power plant.

III. TECHNO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF STAND-ALONE SOLAR POWER PLANTS

FIG. 5. Schematic of 50 MWe stand-alone solar power tower plant.

Energy absorbed by the receiver is given as

Energy efficiency (gI) of the concentrator is given as

FIG. 6. Schematic of 50 MWe SACFPP.

Energy efficiency of the receiver is given as

Energy efficiency of the solar field is given as

Energy efficiency of the power block is given as

Overall energy efficiency of the solar power plant is given as

Exergy efficiency (gII) of the concentrator is given as

Useful exergy delivered by the receiver is given as

Exu ¼ mf ðExo Exi Þ ¼ mf ½ðhf o hf i Þ Tamb ðsf o sf i Þ: (16)

Exergy efficiency of the receiver is given as

Exergy efficiency of the solar field is given as

Exergy efficiency of the power block is given as

Overall exergy efficiency of the solar power plant is given as

B. Environmental impacts and economic analysis

LEC ¼ CFCap þ CLOM : (21)

Fixed capital cost is given as

Net power generation (PGnet) is given as

Parameter LFRC (Ref. 31) PTC (Ref. 32) PT (Ref. 33)

Solar field/m2 (INR) 10 695 14 540 …

PGnet ¼ PGtot –PCaux : (23)

CLOM ¼ LFðCFOM þCVOM Þ: (24)

The levelising factor (LF) is given as

The fixed O & M cost is given as

The DPP for the solar collector is given as35

lnðBj Cj Þ lnfðBj Cj Þdr CCap g

The benefit to cost of the parabolic trough plant is given as35

Cost2 ¼ ðC2 =C1 Þ 0:7 x Cost1 : (33)

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

FIG. 7. Variation of energy efficiency of SASPP with plant capacity.

TABLE IV. Energy and exergy analyses 50 MWe SASPP.

Energy (kW) Exergy (kW)

Energy Energy Exergy Exergy

TABLE V. Energy and exergy analyses 50 MWe CFPP power plant.

Energy (kW) Exergy (kW)

Energy Energy Exergy Exergy

Energy (kW) Exergy (kW)

Energy Energy Exergy Exergy

FIG. 8. Variation of exergy efficiency of SASPP with plant capacity.

FIG. 9. Variation of levelised electricity cost of SASPP with plant capacity.

FIG. 11. Variation of benefit-cost ratio of SASPP with plant capacity.

FIG. 12. (Continued.)

You might also like