Energy Conversion and Management 101 (2015) 450–459

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Optimization, selection and feasibility study of solar parabolic trough

power plants for Algerian conditions
T.E. Boukelia a,⇑, M.S. Mecibah a, B.N. Kumar b, K.S. Reddy b,⇑
a
Laboratory of Mechanics, Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Technology Sciences, University of Constantine 1, Constantine 25000, Algeria
b
Heat Transfer and Thermal Power Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600036, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the present study, optimization of two parabolic trough solar thermal power plants integrated with
Received 18 December 2014 thermal energy storage (TES), and fuel backup system (FBS) has been performed. The first plant uses
Accepted 31 May 2015 Therminol VP-1 as heat transfer fluid in the solar field and the second plant uses molten salt. The opti-
Available online 14 June 2015
mization is carried out with solar multiple (SM) and full load hours of TES as the parameters, with an
objective of minimizing the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) and maximizing the annual energy yield.
Keywords: A 4E (energy–exergy–environment–economic) comparison of the optimized plants alongside the Andasol
Parabolic trough power plant
1 as reference plant is studied. The molten salt plant resulting as the best technology, from the optimiza-
Optimization
Energy–Exergy–Environment–Economic
tion and 4E comparative study has been chosen for the viability analysis of ten locations in Algeria with
analyses semi-arid and arid climatic conditions. The results indicate that Andasol 1 reference plant has the highest
Feasibility analysis mean annual energy efficiency (17.25%) and exergy efficiency (23.30%). Whereas, the highest capacity
factor (54.60%) and power generation (236.90 GW h) are exhibited by the molten salt plant. The molten
salt plant has least annual water usage of about 800,482 m3, but demands more land for the operation.
Nevertheless the oil plant emits the lowest amount of CO2 gas (less than 40.3 kilo tonnes). From the eco-
nomic viewpoint, molten salt seems to be the best technology compared to other plants due to its lowest
investment cost (less than 360 million dollars) and lower levelized cost of electricity (LCOE)
(8.48 ¢/kW h). The viability study proposes Tamanrasset, as the best location for erection of a parabolic
trough solar thermal power plant with a low LCOE of 7.55 ¢/kW h, and a high annual power generation
(more than 266 GW h). According to the feasibility analysis, the semi-arid and arid Algerian sites are suit-
able for realization of PTSTPP with integrated TES and FBS; especially the southern locations (19°N–32°N,
8°W–12°E).
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Algeria is one of the most important players in African and

Algeria is located in north-west Africa, between 19° and 38°
north latitudes and 8° west and 12° east longitudes, with a total
area of 2,381,741 km2. The country is by far the largest African
country and has significant variations in its climatic, topographic
and socio-economic characteristics [1]. Algeria, with a total popu-
lation of 37.9 million inhabitants (till January 2013), from more
than 8.68 million in 1948, has experienced a growth of over
250% in population during the last 50 years [2].
⇑ Corresponding authors at: Laboratory of Mechanics, Mechanical Engineering
Department, Faculty of Technology Sciences, University of Constantine 1,
Constantine 25000, Algeria. Tel.: +213 7 7659 4647; fax: +213 31801009
(T.E. Boukelia), Heat Transfer and Thermal Power Laboratory, Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600036,
India. Tel.: +91 44 2257 4702 (K.S. Reddy).
E-mail addresses: taqy25000@hotmail.com (T.E. Boukelia), ksreddy@iitm.ac.in
(K.S. Reddy).
world energy markets, both as a significant hydrocarbon producer
and as an exporter. According to the International Energy Agency
(IEA) statistics for 2011, Algeria has produced a total amount of
energy of 145,846 kTOE (1,696,188 GW h). The main sources of this
energy production are from crude oil (52.10%), followed by gas
(44.80%). The energy needs have increased due to population
growth and economic development over the last decades. The
energy consumption of Algeria was 41,852 kTOE (486,739 GW h)
in 2011 with CO2 emissions more than 123,475 kilo tonnes [3].
Algeria is experiencing a continual increase in population,
energy consumption, gases emissions, and major changes in eco-
nomic trends in the last decades. In view of these factors and abid-
ing the Kyoto Protocol, the Algerian government has launched the
renewable energy and energy efficiency program. This program
was launched in 2011, with a total cost of 120 billion USD [4].
The program leans on a strategy focused on developing and
expanding the use of inexhaustible energy resources, such as solar

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.05.067
0196-8904/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 T.E. Boukelia et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 101 (2015) 450–459 451

Nomenclature

A collector’s aperture area (m2) S sunshine duration (hr).

C env environmental cost according to CO2 rejected (US$) S0 maximum possible sunshine duration (day length) (hr).
CF capacity factor sSFi entropy at the inlet of the SF (kJ/kg °C)
C inv total investment cost (US$) sSF0 entropy at the outlet of the SF (kJ/kg °C)
C O&M annual operating and maintenance costs (US$) T amb ambient temperature (K)
crf capital recovery factor T sun temperature of the sun (K)
dr relative earth–sun distance wdes design cycle thermal requirement (kW)
_i
Ex exergy received by the SF (kW h) d declination angle (°)
_ in
Ex total exergy received by the PB (kW h) xs sunrise hour angle (°)
_u
Ex useful exergy delivered by the receiver (kW h) u latitude (°)
f dilution factor (1.3 ⁄ 105) [30] gcyclesdes design point cycle efficiency
f backup fossil fill fraction (0 < f backup < 1) gI;O overall energy efficiency of the plant
hSFo enthalpy at the outlet solar field (kJ/kg) gI;PB energy efficiency of the PB
hSFi enthalpy at the inlet of the SF (kJ/kg) gI;SF energy efficiency of the SF
H0 monthly mean daily extraterrestrial solar irradiance on gII;O overall exergy efficiency of the plant
a horizontal surface (kW/m2) gII;PB exergy efficiency of the PB
HBN monthly mean daily direct normal irradiance (kW h/m2) gII;SF exergy efficiency of the SF
HBN monthly direct normal irradiance (kW/m2) h angle of incidence (degree)
Dtes total number of desired storage hours (h)
HBN annual direct normal irradiance (kW/m2)
HD monthly mean daily diffuse solar irradiance on a hori-
zontal surface (kW/m2) Abbreviation
HG monthly mean daily global solar irradiance on a hori- 4E energy–exergy–environmental–economic
zontal surface (kW h/m2) FBS fuel back-up system
IBH monthly mean hourly direct solar irradiance on a hori- CSP concentrating solar power
zontal surface (kW/m2) DNI direct normal irradiance
IBN monthly mean hourly direct normal irradiance (kW/m2) DSG direct steam generation
Isc solar constant (kW/m2) HPT high pressure turbine
ID monthly mean hourly diffuse solar irradiance on a hor- HTF heat transfer fluid
izontal surface (kW/m2) IEA international energy agency
IG monthly mean hourly global solar irradiance on a hori- kTOE kilotonne of oil equivalent
zontal surface (kW/m2) LCOE levelized cost of electricity
kd annual discount rate LPT low pressure turbine
m_ PB mass flow rate of the HTF in the PB (kg/s) NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
m_ SF mass flow rate of the HTF in the SF (kg/s) PB power block
N depreciation operation time of the system (years) PTC parabolic trough collector
ND number of the days in a year PTSTPP parabolic trough solar thermal power plant
PGnet net power generation (kW h) SAM Solar Advisor Model
Q_ backup thermal energy must be supplied in the FBS (kW h) SF solar field
Q_ i total incident solar energy received by collector’s aper- SM solar multiple
ture area (kW h) STEC solar thermal electric components
Q_ in total thermal energy received by the PB (kW h) TES thermal energy storage
Q_ u total useful energy delivered by the SF (kW h) TMY typical meteorological year
Q_ total the total energy needed to reach the thermodynamic
state (kW h)

energy in order to diversify energy sources and prepare Algeria for
tomorrow. The strategic choice is motivated by the enormous
potential of solar energy, in which it is one of the most important
sources in the world.
The geographic location in the Sunbelt region, climatic condi-
tions such as low precipitation, plenty of unused flat land in prox-
imity to transmission grids, road networks, and the abundant
sunshine in Algeria are conducive for the production of electricity
from concentrating solar thermal power [5]. The concentrating
solar power (CSP) technology incorporates four different alterna-
tives: parabolic trough power plants, linear Fresnel power plants,
solar power towers and dish-Stirling systems. The parabolic trough
power plant is considered as one of the most proven, mature and
commercial concentrating solar power for implementation in arid
and semi-arid regions [6]. It focuses sunlight onto a solar receiver
by using mirrors, which is finally converted to heat or electricity.
This technology ranges from remote power systems of few kilo-
watts to grid-connected power plants of hundreds of megawatts
[5]. In general parabolic trough solar thermal power plant
(PTSTPP) consists of a solar field, power block, and thermal energy
storage (TES). In addition to these systems, a fuel back-up system
can be used for enhancing the plant’s potential [7]. The levelized
cost of electricity (LCOE) is a decisive parameter for feasibility
analysis of solar thermal power plants [8]. The LCOE depends on
plant configuration, working fluid, performance of the plant, and
capital, operation and maintenance costs of the plant. Large num-
ber of researchers and academicians across the globe are working
in this direction. Most of these studies and projects are based on
oil or water-steam as heat transfer fluids in the solar field. Reddy
and Kumar [6] analyzed a design for a solar parabolic trough field
for power generation using oil and water as working fluids, and
studied the feasibility of this technology under Indian climatic con-
ditions. A comparative study in terms of design, yield and invest-
ment analyses between plants using oil and water as heat
transfer fluid (HTF) with integrated solar thermal storage has been
conducted by Feldhoff et al. [9]. According to them, the main
452 T.E. Boukelia et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 101 (2015) 450–459
disadvantage of the plant based on oil as HTF is the limitation on
maximum temperature in the solar field. While for direct steam
generation (DSG) plant, the storage system would be a main cost
driver. While García et al. [10] developed a simulation model that
recalculates the performance of 50 MWe parabolic trough power
plant with integrated thermal energy storage and using
Therminol VP-1 as heat transfer fluid in the solar field. They com-
pared the model results to the experimental data from a power
plant operating in Spain. Moreover, Montes et al. [11] described
the influence of solar multiple on the annual performance, natural
gas consumption and levelized cost of electricity of a 50 MWe
direct steam generation parabolic trough thermal power plant.
The plant is integrated with thermal energy storage and auxiliary
natural gas-fired boiler.
Kearney et al. [12] carried out an investigation on the feasibility
of using molten salt as HTF in the solar field and thermal energy
storage in a parabolic trough solar thermal power plant to improve
system performance and to reduce the LCOE. The investigation
favors the use of molten salt as HTF to minimize LCOE. Martín
and Martín [13] presented the year-round optimization of the
operation of a concentrated power plant based on molten salt tech-
nology for Almerían (Spain) conditions. Poullikkas [14] studied the
economic feasibility of a parabolic trough solar thermal plant for
power generation in the Mediterranean region, with Cyprus as a
case study. He carried out a parametric cost-benefit analysis for
different parameters such as capacity, capital investment and oper-
ating hours of the plant, to identify the feasible option with the

least cost. Larraın et al. [26] presented a thermodynamic model
to estimate the performance of a 100 MW hybrid parabolic trough
solar thermal power plant and its fossil fuel backup fraction
needed. Four locations in north Chile based on the minimum fossil
fuel backup fraction were selected using the thermodynamic
model.
Kalogirou [15] analyzed a 50 MW solar thermal power plant in
Cyprus with respect to technical characteristics, cost of electricity
produced and the land area required. He suggests parabolic trough
system as the best technology owing to its industrial maturity and
advantages. Abbas et al. [16] presented an energetic-economic
assessment of a solar parabolic trough power plant of 100 MW
capacity for four typical sites in Algeria. Ruegamer et al. [17] dis-
cussed the technical developments of parabolic trough solar power
plant with molten salt as HTF and presented the potential of using
this technology to reduce LCOE. A study combining optimization,
4E comparison of PTSTPPs using thermic oil and molten salt as pri-
mary HTFs in the solar field, and feasibility analysis for different
locations is not found in the literature. The present work aims to
compare the optimized PTSTPPs and carry out a feasibility study
with the best technology to assist in recognizing locations con-
ducive for commissioning PTSTPPs in Algeria. The objectives of this
study are: (i) optimization of two parabolic trough solar thermal
power plants (PTSTPP) using synthetic oil and molten salt tech-
nologies as HTFs, with integrated thermal energy storage (TES)
and fuel backup system (FBS) based on two main parameters; solar
multiple and full load hours of TES, (ii) 4E (energy–exergy–environ
ment–economic) comparative study of the two optimized plants.
(iii) Viability analysis with the best technology emerging from
optimization and 4E comparative study for sites with semi-arid
and arid climates in Algeria.
2. Parabolic trough solar thermal power plant
A parabolic trough solar thermal power plant has different con-
figurations depending on many parameters such as overall plant
concept, heat transfer fluid (HTF) in the solar field, solar
field-power block connection, and presence or absence of other
auxiliaries such as thermal energy storage (TES) and fuel backup
enhancing systems. The thermodynamic, economic and environ-
ment analyses of these concentrating solar power systems are
required to identify effective and viable configuration. The
methodology adopted in the present work comprises the following
steps:
U Generation of meteorological data, collecting technical and eco-
nomical data [9,18–20].
U Simulation and optimization of two parabolic trough power
plants with integrated TES and FBS, the first plant uses synthetic
oil as HTF in the solar field, and the other uses molten salt; the
optimization is based on two main parameters; solar multiple,
and full load hours of TES.
U 4E (energy–exergy–environment–economic) comparative study
of the two optimized plants, to choose the best technology for
the viability analysis.
U Viability analysis with the best technology for ten different
locations in Algeria with semi-arid and arid climates.
3. Configurations of solar power plant’s under study
Two configurations of large-scale PTSTPP of 50 MWe capacity,
with integrated thermal energy storage (TES) and fuel backup sys-
tem (FBS) have been considered for the study. The configurations
of the plants are based on two primary working fluids in the solar
field; Therminol VP-1 and solar salt (60% NaNO3 + 40% KNO3) with
temperature ranges of 296–393 °C and 286–550 °C respectively at
the inlet and the outlet of the solar field. These two fluids represent
the more conventional fluids among the synthetic oils and solar
salts for solar applications dedicated to power generation [21].
The solar field consists of parabolic trough collector assemblies of
Solargenix SGX-1 type with ‘‘H’’ layout. Each solar collector assem-
bly is of 100 m length, 5 m of width aperture and consists of 12
modules. Four solar collector assemblies are arranged in a row,
along north–south horizontal axis and track the sun from east to
west [22]. The analyzed PTSTPPs are installed in Bechar (latitude
31.38°N, longitude 2.15°W, altitude 806 m), Algeria. Bechar has
been chosen due to its high direct solar irradiation (more than
2500 kW h/m2).
The solar multiple (SM) is defined as the ratio between thermal
power obtained by the solar field at design point and thermal
power required by the power block at nominal conditions [23],
and expressed as:
Q_ th SF
SMdesign point ¼ ð1Þ
Q_ th PB
The hot HTF is transported to a conventional reheat steam
regenerative 50 MW Rankine cycle, whereas the HTF passes
through a series of heat exchangers; super-heater, evaporator
and finally a pre-heater to feed the turbine/generator to produce
electricity. The schematic layout of the power block is illustrated
in Fig. 1. The common assumptions and nominal values of the main
parameters at the design point for the power cycles of the two
plants are listed in Table 1.
In order to achieve rated power output during low or non-solar
times and to enhance the potential and efficiency, the PTSTPPs
have been incorporated with thermal energy storage (TES) and fuel
backup system (FBS) [24].
Therminol VP1 cannot be used as a TES medium due to its cost
and high vapor pressure, whereas molten salt is a stable mixture
with low vapor pressure, and has desired technical characteristics
for sensible heat usage, moderate specific heat, low chemical reac-
tivity and low cost [25]. Therefore, in the present study the TES sys-
tem with two tanks of solar salt (60% NaNO3 + 40% KNO3) is
 T.E. Boukelia et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 101 (2015) 450–459 453

Fig. 1. Scheme of the investigated power block for the oil and salt plants.

Table 1
Q_ backup ¼ mðh
_ in turbine  hout;SF Þ ð3Þ
The common assumptions and nominal values at the design for the main parameters
in the two power cycles. Q_ backup
f backup ¼ ð4Þ
Parameter/HTF Therminol VP1 Solar salt Q_ tot
Inlet HTF conditions to power block The energy yield and economic feasibility of the two studied
U Temperature (°C)/pressure (bar) 393/20 550/3.7
U Mass flow rate (kg/s) 567.10 303.42
plants are modeled using Solar Advisor Model (SAM) [27], devel-
Outlet HTF conditions from power block oped by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and
U Temperature (°C)/pressure (bar) 296/15 286/1 EBSILON professional 10.06 [28]. The results obtained are exported
U Mass flow rate (kg/s) 567.10 303.42 to Excel spreadsheets to perform additional calculations for exergy
Inlet steam conditions to HP turbine
and environmental analyses. SAM uses TRNSYS software combined
U Temperature (°C)/pressure (bar) 371/100 528/100
U Mass flow rate (kg/s) 57.55 43.295 with the Solar Thermal Electric Components (STEC) model library
Inlet steam conditions to LP turbine as a transient simulation code [27]. The model used in the software
U Temperature (°C)/pressure (bar) 370/16.50 527/16.50 was previously validated by Price [29].
U Mass flow rate (kg/s) 46.01 36.01
Outlet steam conditions from LP turbine
U Temperature (°C)/pressure (bar) 45.01/0.096 45.01/0.096 4. Thermodynamic analysis
U Mass flow rate (kg/s) 38.35 30.33
Thermal efficiency of the power block (%) 0.3726 0.4110 The thermodynamic analysis of each component of the plant is
performed assuming steady state operating conditions, and negli-
gible kinetic and potential energy changes.
considered, this indicates the use of indirect TES for the PTSTPP
with Therminol VP1 as HTF, and direct TES for the plant with solar 4.1. Energy analysis
salt.
The full load hours of the TES indicates the number of hours The total incident solar energy received by solar field aperture
thermal storage can supply energy for the operation of the power area is given as:
block at the designed input level, and is given as [18];
Q_ i ¼ Ib  A  cos h ð5Þ
wdes Dtes
Etes ¼ ð2Þ While the total useful energy delivered by the solar field is pre-
gcycles des sented as:
While, the backup system provides energy whenever the ther- Q_ u ¼ m
_ f  ðhSF0  hSFi Þ ð6Þ
modynamical state required at the turbine inlet is not achieved.
As the solar field and TES contributions fall below the design point Therefore, the energy efficiency of the solar field is given as:
requirement, the fuel auxiliary heater supplies energy up to the
Q_
design point requirement while maintaining a total auxiliary con- gI;SF ¼ _ u ð7Þ
tribution less than fossil fill fraction, which is defined as [26]: Qi
454 T.E. Boukelia et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 101 (2015) 450–459

The energy efficiency of the power block is calculated as: Table 2

Global CO2 gas emissions generated during the life cycle of the plant.
PG
gI;PB ¼ _ net ð8Þ kg CO2 eq/MW h
Q in
Construction and decommissioning
The overall energy efficiency of the plant is given as: U Solar field 7.88
U Power block 0.50
PG U TES 14.60
gI;O ¼ _ net ð9Þ
U Buildings 0.40
Qi
U Construction 0.34
While the net capacity factor of the 50 MW design PTSTPP is U Decommissioning 0.0198
given by: Operation and maintenance
U Electricity consumption from the grid. 48.50
PGnet U FBS with natural gas
CF ¼   ð10Þ
h
ND  24 day  50 MW  Combustion 95.00
 Provision 16.60

4.2. Exergy analysis from previous studies and databases [18,19]. The economic assess-
ment is performed using the software SAM, where the LCOE is cal-
The exergy received by the solar field is given by [30,31]: culated as follows:
 
_ i ¼ Q_ u : 1  4T amb ð1  0:28lnf Þ crf  C inv þ C O&M  C env
Ex ð11Þ LCOE ¼ ð16Þ
3T sun Q_ el;Net
where f is the dilution factor (1.3 * 105), which is a measure of the where
mixing ratio of solar radiation from the sun (T sun ) and radiation N
from the surroundings [30]. kd  ðkd þ 1Þ
crf ¼ N
ð17Þ
The useful exergy delivered by the receiver is presented by [32]: ½ðkd þ 1Þ  1
_ u¼m
Ex _ SF0  Ex
_ SF ðEx _ SFi Þ ¼ m
_ f ½ðhSF0  hSFi Þ  T amb ðsSF0  sSFi Þ ð12Þ
6. Estimation of hourly direct solar irradiation
Therefore, the exergy efficiency of the solar field is given as:
_
Ex Accurate and high-quality time series solar radiation data at
gII;SF ¼ _ u ð13Þ location of interest are necessary to provide an accurate input to
Exi
determine the optimum design and operation of any solar energy
The exergy efficiency of the power block is presented by: conversion system throughout the day, the month or the year.
PG Indeed, for accurately predicting the output energy gain of para-
gII;PB ¼ _ net ð14Þ bolic trough solar thermal power plants, hourly data over Typical
Exin
Meteorological Year (TMY) are required [35]. The best TMY data
The overall exergy efficiency of the studied plants is given as: at the place of interest would be that measured at the specific site
PG continuously and accurately over a long term. Unfortunately, for
gII;O ¼ _ net ð15Þ Algeria, TMY data based on measurements are not easily available
Exi
due to financial or/and technical limitations. Therefore, it is so
important to elaborate these data based on high performance mod-
5. Environmental impacts and economic analysis els or satellite data.
The meteorological data of the studied sites, such as dry bulb
5.1. Environmental impacts temperature, dew point temperature, relative humidity, wind
speed and ambient pressure are generated using Meteonorm.
It is necessary to study the environmental impacts (water con- While for solar radiation data, it is necessary to apply a methodol-
sumption, land use, and life cycle gas emissions) of using solar ogy based on empirical models due to their low computational cost
thermal energy for power generation, to determine the potential and accessible inputs [36]. This methodology is based on simple
benefits of these plants and which stage of energy production equations proposed by several researchers and follows these steps:
needs to be improved [20]. Therefore, to evaluate the environmen-
tal impacts of the technologies studied in the present work, some I. Estimation of solar declination, and sunrise hour angles [37]:
published papers [20,33,34] are reviewed and their results are  
ðND þ 284Þ360
taken as inputs for determining the life cycle gas emissions d ¼ 23:45 sin ð18Þ
365
(CO2). Table 2 presents the CO2 emissions generated during the life
cycle of the plant. xs ¼ arc cos½ tanðuÞ tanðdÞ ð19Þ
The calculations of water consumption and land usage of these
II. Estimation of daily extraterrestrial irradiance H0, maximum
plants are performed by using the software SAM.
possible sunshine duration S0, and can be calculated from
the following equations [37]:
5.2. Economic analysis   h
24  3600  Isc
H0 ¼ dr cosðuÞ cosðdÞ sinðxs Þ
The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is the most commonly p
used parameter for the economic analysis of a solar thermal power p xs i
þ sinðuÞ sinðdÞ ð20Þ
plant [8]. The economic analysis of the present PTSTPPs has been 180
carried out in terms of the total investment costs and LCOE.  
360
These two indicators can be significantly affected by the assump- dr ¼ 1 þ 0:033 cos J ð21Þ
tions and inputs, therefore the inputs of our analysis were taken 365
 T.E. Boukelia et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 101 (2015) 450–459 455

2xs
S0 ¼ ð22Þ
15
III. Estimation of daily global irradiance on horizontal surface
HG [38]:
   2 !
S S
HG ¼ 0:57089 þ 0:01028  0:00005  H0
S0 S0
ð23Þ
IV. Estimation of daily diffuse irradiance on horizontal surface
HD [39]:
   2  3 !
HG HG HG
HD ¼ 0:337  0:068 þ 0:025  0:002  HG
H0 H0 H0
ð24Þ
V. Estimation of hourly global solar irradiance on a horizontal
surface [40]:
IG ¼ r t  HG ð25Þ
 
p cos x  cos xs
rt ¼ ða þ b  cos xÞ ð26Þ
24 sin xs  ðpxs =180Þ cos xs

With : a ¼ 0:4090  0:5016 sinðxs þ 1:047Þ ð27Þ

b ¼ 0:6609 þ 0:4767 sinðxs þ 1:047Þ ð28Þ

VI. Estimation of hourly diffuse solar irradiance on a horizontal
surface [41]:
ID ¼ r d  HD ð29Þ Fig. 2. The variations of annual energy generation and LCOE with solar multiple for:
(a) oil plant and (b) salt plant.
 
p cos x  cos xs
rd ¼ ð30Þ
24 sin xs  ðpxs =180Þ cos xs
VII. Estimation of hourly direct solar irradiance on a horizontal
surface:
IBH ¼ IG  ID ð31Þ
VIII. Estimation of hourly direct normal irradiance:
IBH
IBN ¼ ð32Þ
sin d  sin u þ cos d  cos u  cos x

7. Optimization of the plants

The optimization procedure is based on considering the lowest

value of LCOE with a high amount of annual power generation. In
this regard, two main parameters were chosen as inputs for the
optimization; the solar multiple and full load hours of the TES.
The annual performances of the two studied plants have been sim-
ulated on the basis of a reference typical meteorological year data
of Bechar (Algeria), with one-hour interval data (8760 h) corre-
sponding to one year simulation. For all solar multiples and full
load hours of TES considered, yearly power generation and LCOE
have been calculated. The variations in annual energy generation
and LCOE of the two plants with the solar multiple and full load
hours of TES are presented in Figs. 2 and 3, respectively.
The size of solar field has a direct influence on annual power
generation and LCOE. An increase in solar multiple results in the
increase of annual energy generation. This increase in annual
energy generation is due to increase in the solar field aperture,
and therefore in the header pipes length. As a consequence, the
steam outlet temperature from the solar field is slightly greater.
Moreover, there is an increase in thermal power from the solar Fig. 3. The variations of annual energy generation and LCOE with full load hours of
field at nominal conditions to the power block with more power TES for: (a) oil plant and (b) salt plant.
456 T.E. Boukelia et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 101 (2015) 450–459

to operate during a longer time interval. It can be observed from
Fig. 2(a) and (b), that LCOE decreases, as solar multiple increases
up to the value of 2.5 and LCOE slowly increases again for both
oil and salt plants. The increase in LCOE for the plants with a solar
multiple greater than a value of 2.5 may be attributed to the esca-
lation in the investment cost with maximum net capacity of the
plant fixed at 50 MWe. Hence, a considerable amount of energy
is wasted as the solar field is greater. The average LCOE value is
minimum with a high amount of energy production for a solar field
size corresponding to the solar multiple of 2.5 for both oil and salt
plants with 10.18 and 8.51¢/kW h respectively.
The annual power generation and LCOE are plotted against the
full load hours of the thermal storage in Fig. 3. Annual energy gen-
eration is greater for higher thermal storage capacities, in addition
it delivers the power block with more energy during low or
non-solar times, thus enhancing its potential and efficiency to
operate for longer time intervals. As illustrated in
Fig. 3(a) and (b), LCOE decreases with the increase in load hours
of TES to a minimum value of 10.03 ¢/kW h for the oil plant and
8.48 ¢/kW h for salt plant and increases again. The minimum val-
ues of LCOE correspond to 5 h of TES for oil plant and 11 h of TES
for salt plant. The LCOE increases for both plants after a further
increase in the hours of TES. The reason for this increase in the
LCOE for higher load hours is due to higher investment cost of
TES and majorly due to the short duration usage of the huge poten-
tial of TES system compared to its designed capacity. Therefore, a
considerable portion of the TES potential is not utilized, making
the plants less economic. The difference in the values of optimized
capacities of the TES systems is due to the direct storage mode in
the molten salt plant and indirect mode in the oil plant. The direct
storage mode is more economically attractive with a lower invest-
ment cost in comparison to the indirect storage mode used in the
oil plant. The indirect storage system requires more amount of
storage medium and a heat exchanger, adding up to a higher
investment cost.
8. Comparison of the optimized plants
A 4E (energy–exergy–environment–economic) comparative
study is carried for the two optimized plants along with Andasol 1.
Andasol 1 is located in Guadix (Spain) with an annual DNI of
about 2136 kW h/m2, the reference plant with the same capacity
has been considered in Béchar (Algeria) to have a common ground
for comparison. Detailed results of the 4E (energy–exergy–environ
ment–economic) comparative study of the two optimized plants
and Andasol 1, are summarized in Table 3.
The two optimized plants and Andasol 1 have same conditions
of net capacity of 50 MWe at the design irradiation conditions.
However, due to different design and efficiencies, there are obvious
differences in results of design, yield, economical, and environmen-
tal parameters and these differences are presented in Table 3.
The working temperature range of oil and Andasol 1 plants is
296–393 °C, and it is 286–550 °C for the salt plant. Furthermore,
there are significant variations of the solar field aperture areas
because of the fact that the size of the solar field depends on the
solar multiple required to meet the requirement of the 50 MWe
capacity of the power block. The aperture area of the oil plant is
5.84% greater, and salt plant is 10.51% greater compared to the
Andasol 1 plant.
The storage volumes are 44.80% and 121.76% lower compared
to Andasol 1 plant, for oil and salt plant respectively. The oil plant
and Andasol 1 use indirect storage mode, while the salt plant uses
direct storage mode. The difference in storage volume is due to the
different in the storage modes and the full load hours. The salt
plant consumes less fuel due to the high dispatch of the TES com-
pared to oil and the Andasol 1 plants, as the salt plant has the high-
est potential storage system with 11 h of operation.
The major disadvantage of using molten salt as a HTF is the rel-
atively high freeze-protection temperature (220 °C) compared to
Therminol VP-1 (less than 15 °C) [18]. The salt plant requires a
huge amount of energy for freeze protection of the heat transfer
fluid in the solar field as illustrated in Table 3. Higher mean annual
energy and exergy efficiencies are obtained by Andasol 1 plant,
since the present optimization of the studied oil and salt plants
is based only on LCOE and annual energy yield as objective param-
eters. Nevertheless, the salt plant with a capacity factor of 54.60%
and annual power generation of 236.90 GW h are the highest in
comparison to the other plants.
In terms of annual water usage, the molten salt plant utilizes
800,482 m3 of water. The annual water usage by molten salt plant
is 5.53% less than the Andasol 1 plant. Moreover, the oil plant gen-
erates the lowest amount of CO2 gas emissions with less than 40.3
kilo tonnes. The least CO2 gas emission by the oil plant is due to the
lower annual power generation of this plant in comparison to other
plants. The molten salt plant requires more land for operation due
to the increase in the solar field size. Indeed, the molten salt plant
land usage is 10.60% greater than the Andasol 1 plant.
From the economic viewpoint, molten salt seems to be the best
technology compared to other plants due to its lower investment
costs (less than 360 million dollars) and most importantly the low-
est LCOE (8.48 ¢/kW h).
9. Feasibility of the optimized plant for Algerian conditions
The operation of selecting solar thermal power plant is contin-
gent upon the identification of sites well suited to the technology.
Required conditions for the feasibility of the optimized plant based

Table 3
4E comparative analyses of the studied plants.

Andasol 1 Oil plant Oil-Andasol 1 Diff (%) Salt plant Salt- Andasol 1 Diff (%)
Aperture area (m2) 510,120 541,786 5.84 570,004 10.51
Storage volume (m3) 16,108.70 11,121.90 44.84 7,263.90 121.76
Annual fuel consumption (MMBtu) 225,978 267,728 15.59 174,217 29.71
Energy for freeze protection (MW h) 238.38 172.70 38.03 21,635.89 9076.22
Mean energy efficiency of the plant (gI,o) 17.25 15.72 9.73 16.41 5.12
Mean exergy efficiency of the plant (gI,o) 23.30 21.20 9.91 21.36 9.08
Capacity factor (%) 52.10 50.50 3.17 54.60 4.58
Annual power generation (GWh) 225.98 218.82 3.27 236.90 4.61
Annual water usage (m3) 844,722 822,466 2.71 800,482 5.53
Annual gas emissions (CO2 tonnes) 41,568.61 40,251.44 3.27 43,577.41 4.61
Land use (acres) 529 562 5.87 592 10.64
Total capital cost ($) 419,991,268 398,949,722 5.27 359,052,834 16.97
Nominal LCOE (¢/kW h) 10.13 10.03 1.00 8.48 19.46
 T.E. Boukelia et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 101 (2015) 450–459 457

Fig. 4. Locations of the site considered for the viability study.

on molten salt as HTF, for Algerian conditions can be summarized U Water resources availability.
as follows: U Availability of fuel back-up (natural gas).

U An average annual DNI P 1800 kW h/m2 [42]. The feasibility analysis in terms of 4E (energy–exergy–environ
U Flat topography of the used land. ment–economic) for the optimized salt plant has been carried
U Access to electric transmission network (110/220 kV grid) [43]. out for ten Algerian locations with semi-arid and arid climate

Table 4
The viability analysis of the optimized plant for Algerian conditions.

Batna Setif Djelfa Ghardaia Hassi R’mel

(35.76°N, 6.32°E) (36.11°N, 5.24°E) (34.66°N, 3.25°E) (32.36°N, 3.81°E) (33.11°N, 2.18°E)
Annual fuel consumption (MMBtu) 202,801 197,898 185,428 189,223 156,562
Mean energy efficiency of the plant (gI,o) 14.41 14.31 15.16 14.42 14.74
Mean exergy efficiency of the plant (gI,o) 19.40 19.33 20.06 20.65 20.81
Capacity factor (%) 36.10 35.60 42.60 44.30 48.00
Annual power generation (GWh) 156.64 154.20 184.64 192.23 208.15
Annual water usage (m3) 594,162 585,403 655,366 635,145 701,428
Annual gas emissions (CO2 tonnes) 28,814.30 28,365.60 33,964.30 35,361.00 38,289.20
Nominal LCOE (¢/kW h) 12.71 12.88 10.81 10.40 9.61
Adrar Bechar Tamanrasset In Amenas In Salah
(27.82°N,0.18°W) (31.38°N, 2.15°W) (22.78°N, 5.51°E) (28.03°N, 9.31°E) (27.14°N, 2.30°E)
Annual fuel consumption (MMBtu) 150,174 174,217 143,116 151,700 153,994
Mean energy efficiency of the plant (gI,o) 16.24 16.41 16.95 16.91 16.57
Mean exergy efficiency of the plant (gI,o) 20.86 21.36 21.40 21.10 20.81
Capacity factor (%) 51.60 54.60 61.50 54.30 57.40
Annual power generation (GWh) 219.34 236.90 266.66 235.33 248.96
Annual water usage (m3) 770,260 800,482 866,960 797,381 842,255
Annual gas emissions (CO2 tonnes) 40,347.00 43,577.40 49,053.10 43,289.00 45,796.20
Nominal LCOE (¢/kW h) 9.13 8.48 7.55 8.53 8.10
458 T.E. Boukelia et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 101 (2015) 450–459
(Fig. 4). These locations have been chosen due to the satisfaction of
the physical requirements mentioned above.
As it can be seen in Table 4, the lowest fuel backup requirement
is for Tamanrasset location, with a value of 143,116 MMBtu , and
reaching the maximum of 202,801 MMBtu for Batna location.
This difference in fuel consumption between sites is because of
the difference in solar resource potentials, which influence the
operation of the plants during low or non-solar time. The plant
at Setif has the lowest annual energy efficiency of 14.31% and low-
est exergy efficiency of 19.33%, while Tamanrasset gives the high-
est energy efficiency of 16.95% and 21.40% for exergy efficiency.
The highest capacity factor of 61.50%, and annual power generation
of 266.66 GW h are found for the plant at Tamanrasset, and the
lowest for that at Setif.
These differences can be attributed to the variations in day
lengths and their potential. As illustrated in Table 4, the water con-
sumption is ranged from the lowest value of 585,403 m3 for Setif to
the highest value of 866,960 m3 for Tamanrasset. In terms of
annual CO2 gas emissions, Tamanrasset presents the highest
amount of CO2 gas emissions with more than 49,053 tonnes, while
Setif presents the lowest value of annual CO2 gas emissions with
less than 28,366 tonnes. The water consumption and CO2 gas emis-
sion trends are anticipated owing to the differences in annual
power generation.
The economic analysis in the present study is based only on the
LCOE. Since all plants in the ten locations have the same invest-
ment costs, the LCOE depends totally on the annual energy gener-
ation. The plant at Tamanrasset presents the lowest LCOE
(7.55 ¢/kW h), while the one at Setif presents the highest LCOE
(12.88 ¢/kW h).
10. Conclusion
The parabolic trough solar thermal power plants using two dif-
ferent heat transfer fluid; therminol VP-1 and solar salt, with inte-
grated thermal energy storage and fuel back-up system are
designed for 50 MWe energy output. The optimization based on
parametric analysis of solar multiple and full load hours is carried
for the two PTSTPPs alongside Andasol 1 reference plant. Though
higher mean annual energy and exergy efficiencies are presented
by Andasol 1 plant, while the capacity factor (54.60%) and annual
power generation (236.90 GW h) are higher for molten salt plant.
The molten salt plant requires less water annually (800,482 m3)
but requirement in terms of land usage (392 acres) is higher com-
pared to the other plants. Moreover, the oil plant generates the
lowest amount of CO2 gas emissions of about 40.3 kilo tonnes.
From the economic view point, molten salt plant seems to be the
best technology compared to other plants due to its lower invest-
ment costs (less than 360 million dollars) and LCOE (8.48 ¢/kW h).
Finally, the feasibility study is carried with optimized molten salt
plant for ten sites in Algeria. According to the study, Tamanrasset
is the best location for erection of a parabolic trough solar thermal
power plant with lowest LCOE of 7.55 ¢/kW h, and a high annual
power generation of about 266 GW h. Furthermore, the highest
value of LCOE of 12.88 ¢/kW h with a low power generation of
about 154 GW h are obtained for Setif. The feasibility study sug-
gests that the semi-arid and arid Algerian sites are suitable for real-
ization of PTSTPP with integrated TES and FBS; especially for
southern locations.
The study presents an optimization based on parametric analy-
sis of solar multiple and full load hours of thermal energy storage
to minimize LCOE. The techno-economic performance of a solar
thermal power plant is influenced by other parameters such as;
solar radiation, ambient temperature at design, row spacing
between parallel collectors, inlet temperature, outlet temperature
and boiler pressure. The present optimization study may hold
good, when all the above mentioned parameters are considered.
However, a rigorous study including the above mentioned param-
eters can improve the accuracy of the results obtained. As a part of
future work, an optimization study using artificial neural network
and genetic algorithm is being carried by our research group and
the results will be further communicated.
References
[1] Boudries R, Dizene R. Potentialities of hydrogen production in Algeria. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2008;33(17):4476–87.
[2] National Office of Statics (Algeria). <www.ons.dz> [last accessed 05.09.14].
[3] International Energy Agency (IEA). <www.iea.org> [last accessed 05.09.14].
[4] Ministry of Energy and Mines. Renewable energy and energy efficiency
program. <www.mem-algeria.org> [last accessed 05.09.14].
[5] Boukelia TE, Mecibah MS. Parabolic trough solar thermal power plant:
potential, and projects development in Algeria. Renew Sust Energy Rev
2013;21:288–97.
[6] Reddy KS, Kumar KR. Solar collector field design and viability analysis of stand-
alone parabolic trough power plants for Indian conditions. Energy Sustain Dev
2012;16(4):456–70.
[7] Zhang HL, Baeyens J, Degrève J, Cacères G. Concentrated solar power plants:
review and design methodology. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2013;22:466–81.
[8] Dersch J, Geyer M, Herrmann U, Jones SA, Kelly B, Kistner R, et al. Trough
integration into power plants—a study on the performance and economy of
integrated solar combined cycle systems. Energy 2004;29(5):947–59.
[9] Feldhoff JF, Schmitz K, Eck M, Schnatbaum-Laumann L, Laing D, Ortiz-Vives F,
et al. Comparative system analysis of direct steam generation and synthetic oil
parabolic trough power plants with integrated thermal storage. Sol Energy
2012;86(1):520–30.
[10] García LI, Álvarez JL, Blanco D. Performance model for parabolic trough solar
thermal power plants with thermal storage: comparison to operating plant
data. Sol Energy 2011;85(10):2443–60.

[11] Montes MJ, Abànades A, Martınez-Val JM. Performance of a direct steam
generation solar thermal power plant for electricity production as a function of
the solar multiple. Sol Energy 2009;83(5):679–89.
[12] Kearney D, Kelly B, Herrmann U, Cable R, Pacheco J, Mahoney R, et al.
Engineering aspects of a molten salt heat transfer fluid in a trough solar field.
Energy 2004;29(5):861–70.
[13] Martín L, Martín M. Optimal year-round operation of a concentrated solar
energy plant in the south of Europe. Appl Therm Eng 2013;59(1):627–33.
[14] Poullikkas A. Economic analysis of power generation from parabolic trough
solar thermal plants for the Mediterranean region-a case study for the island of
Cyprus. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2009;13(9):2474–84.
[15] Kalogirou SA. Solar thermoelectric power generation in Cyprus: selection of
the best system. Renew Energy 2013;49:278–81.
[16] Abbas M, Belgroun Z, Aburidah H, Merzouk NK. Assessment of a solar parabolic
trough power plant for electricity generation under Mediterranean and arid
climate conditions in Algeria. Energy Procedia 2013;42:93–102.
[17] Ruegamer T, Kamp H, Kuckelkorn T, Schiel W, Weinrebe G, Nava P, et al.
Molten salt for parabolic trough applications: system simulation and scale
effects. Energy Procedia 2014;49:1523–32.
[18] Blair N, Dobos A, Freeman J, Neises T, Wagne M, Ferguson T et al. System
Advisor Model, SAM 2014.1.14, General description.19 pp.; NREL Report
No.TP-6A20-61019. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), USA.
[19] NREL. System Advisor Model (SAM) Case study: Andasol-1. <sam.nrel.gov/
sites/sam.nrel.gov/files/content/case_studies/sam_case_csp_physical_trough_
andasol-1_2013-1-15.pdf> [last accessed 21.09.14].
[20] Lechón Y, de la Rúa C, Sáez R. Life cycle environmental impacts of electricity
production by solar thermal power plants in spain. J Sol Energy Eng
2008;130(2):021012.
[21] Giostri A, Binotti M, Astolfi M, Silva P, Macch E, Manzolini G. Comparison of
different solar plants based on parabolic trough technology. Sol Energy
2012;86(5):1208–21.
[22] Boukelia TE, Mecibah MS. Estimation of direct solar irradiance intercepted by a
solar concentrator in different modes of tracking (case study: Algeria). Int J
Amb Energy; 2013 [in press]. doi: 10.1080/01430750.2013.864587.
[23] Montes MJ, Abánades A, Martinez-Val JM, Valdés M. Solar multiple
optimization for a solar-only thermal power plant, using oil as heat transfer
fluid in the parabolic trough collectors. Sol Energy 2009;83(12):2165–76.
[24] Kariuki SK, Machinda GT, Chowdhury S. Solar multiple optimization and
dispatch analysis of a potential parabolic CSP plant in Kenya. In: Transmission
and distribution conference and exposition (T&D); 2012 IEEE PES: p. 1–6.
[25] Fernandes D, Pitié F, Cáceres G, Baeyens J. Thermal energy storage: how
previous findings determine current research priorities. Energy
2012;39(1):246–57.
[26] Larraín T, Escobar R, Vergara J. Performance model to assist solar thermal
power plant siting in northern Chile based on backup fuel consumption.
Renew Energy 2010;35(8):1632–43.
[27] Solar Advisor Model SAM 2014.1.14. National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) 2014. <sam.nrel.gov/> [last accessed 22.10.14].
[28] EBSILON Professional. Evonik Energy Services GmbH; 2011.
 T.E. Boukelia et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 101 (2015) 450–459
[29] Price H. A parabolic trough solar power plant simulation model. In: ASME 2003
international solar energy conference, Hawaii; 2003. p. 665–73.
[30] Kumar KR, Reddy KS. 4-E (energy–exergy–environmental–economic) analyses
of line-focusing stand-alone concentrating solar power plants. Int J Low-
Carbon Tech 2012;7(2):82–96.
[31] Winter CJ, Sizmann RL, Vant-Hull LL. Solar power plants: fundamentals,
technology, systems, economics. 6th ed. Berlin (Germany): Springer-Verlag;
1991.
[32] Singh N, Kaushik SC, Misra RD. Exergetic analysis of a solar thermal power
system. Renew Energy 2000;19(1):135–43.
[33] Piemonte V, Falco MD, Tarquini P, Giaconia A. Life cycle assessment of a high
temperature molten salt concentrated solar power plant. Sol Energy
2011;85(5):1101–8.
[34] Klein SJ, Rubin ES. Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions, water
and land use for concentrated solar power plants with different energy backup
systems. Energy Policy 2013;63:935–50.
[35] Pérez-Higueras PJ, Rodrigo P, Fernández EF, Almonacid F, Hontoria L. A
simplified method for estimating direct normal solar irradiation from global
horizontal irradiation useful for CPV applications. Renew Sust Energy Rev
2012;16(8):5529–34.
[36] Yang K, Koike T, Ye B. Improving estimation of hourly, daily, and monthly solar
radiation by importing global data sets. Agr For Meteorol 2006;137:43–55.
459
[37] Duffie JA, Beckman WA. Solar engineering of thermal processes. 2nd ed. New
York: Wiley; 1991.
[38] Mecibah MS, Boukelia TE, Tahtah R, Gairaa K. Introducing the best model for
estimation the monthly mean daily global solar radiation on a horizontal
surface (Case study: Algeria). Renew Renew Sust Energy Rev
2014;36:194–202.
[39] Boukelia TE, Mecibah MS, Meriche IE. General models for estimation of the
monthly mean daily diffuse solar radiation (Case study: Algeria). Energy
Convers Manage 2014;81:211–9.
[40] Collares-Pereira M, Rabl A. The average distribution of solar radiation
correlations between diffuse and hemispherical and between daily and
hourly insolation values. Sol Energy 1979;22(2):155–64.
[41] Liu B, Jordan R. The interrelationship and characteristic distribution of direct,
diffuse and total solar radiation. Sol Energy 1960;4(3):1–19.
[42] Cohen G, Skowronski M, Cable R, Morse F, Jaehne CH, Kearney D et al. Solar
thermal parabolic trough electric power plants for electric utilities in
California PIER final project report. California Energy Commission. www.
energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-500-2005-175/CEC-500-2005-175.pdf.
Last accessed 23/10/2014.
[43] Zhao M, Liu Z, Zhang Q. Feasibility analysis of constructing parabolic trough
solar thermal power plant in inner Mongolia of China. In: Power and energy
engineering conference, APPEEC; 2009. Asia-Pacific (p. 1–4). IEEE.