Journal of Cleaner Production 89 (2015) 262e271

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Optimization of concentrating solar thermal power plant based on

parabolic trough collector
Nishith B. Desai, Santanu Bandyopadhyay*
Department of Energy Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400 076, India

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 21 May 2014
Received in revised form
31 October 2014
Accepted 31 October 2014
Available online 7 November 2014

Concentrating solar power (CSP) plant with parabolic trough collector (PTC) using synthetic or organic oil
based heat transfer uid is the most established and commercially attractive technology. In this paper,
extensive energy and economic analysis of PTC based CSP plants, without storage, are reported. Effects of
turbine inlet pressure, turbine inlet temperature, design radiation, plant size, and various modications
of Rankine cycle on overall efciency as well as levelized cost of energy are studied. Furthermore, the
variation in optimal turbine inlet pressure with turbine inlet temperature, design radiation, plant size,
and various modications of Rankine cycle are also analyzed. Energy and cost optimal turbine inlet
pressures for 1 MWe plant (with basic Rankine cycle) are about 4.5e7.5 MPa and 3.5e7.5 MPa, respectively. The optimum pressure is observed to be a weak function of design solar radiation. The overall
efciency increases and levelized cost of energy decreases with increase in turbine inlet temperature,
plant size and various modications of the Rankine cycle.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Concentrating solar power
Parabolic trough collector
Optimization
Cost of energy
Turbine inlet pressure
Efciency

1. Introduction
Concentrating solar power (CSP) is one of the viable options
among renewable energy technologies (Krishna Priya and
Bandyopadhyay, 2013). There are mainly four commercially available CSP technologies: parabolic trough collector (PTC), linear
Fresnel reector (LFR), solar power tower (SPT) and paraboloid
dish. Among these technologies, PTC with synthetic or organic oil
based heat transfer uid (HTF), is the most established and
commercially attractive technology (Purohit et al., 2013). In such a
plant, the temperature limit is about 400
C with a resulting steam
temperature, at turbine inlet, of about 370
C (Al-Soud and
Hrayshat, 2009). However, if molten salt is used as a working
uid then the steam temperature up to 540
C is achievable, which
may lead to higher steam turbine efciency (Zaversky et al., 2013).
Direct steam generation (DSG) in the PTC eld is also an economically viable option (Zarza et al., 2002).
The second most installed CSP technology after PTC is SPT
(Zhang et al., 2013). SPT plant uses DSG (Mller-Steinhagen and
Trieb, 2014) or molten salt as HTF (Caceres et al., 2013). Franchini
et al. (2013) have presented the comparative analysis of CSP

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 91 22 25767894; fax: 91 22 25726875.

E-mail address: santanub@iitb.ac.in (S. Bandyopadhyay).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.097
0959-6526/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

plants with PTC and SPT technologies. A detailed review on heliostat layout design (Collado and Guallar, 2013), central receiver
design (Behar et al., 2013), and SPT technology based CSP plants (Ho
and Iverson, 2014) have been reported in literature. LFR eld with
DSG has been proposed as a cheaper alternative because of at
mirrors and structural advantages (Nixon et al., 2013). However, it
has a lower optical efciency compared to PTC eld (Zhu et al.,
2014). Giostri et al. (2012a) and Morin et al. (2012) have presented the comparative analysis of CSP plants with PTC and LFR
technologies. A paraboloid dish system is the least applied CSP
technology for power generation (Sharma, 2011).
Heat storage is an important option to improve the stability and
reliability for a CSP plant. Analysis of CSP plant using molten salt
(Manenti and Ravaghi-Ardebili, 2013), molten salt and quartzite
rock (Flueckiger et al., 2014), and phase change materials (Roget
et al., 2013) based storage have been reported in literature. A
detailed review on thermal energy storage technologies for CSP
plants have been presented by Kuravi et al. (2013) as well as Tian
and Zhao (2013). Dynamic simulation model with thermal energy
storage has also been developed by Llorente Garca et al. (2011).
Selection of type and size of solar eld, power cycle parameters,
and sizing of power block are the most important aspects in
designing a CSP plant. Several studies on optimization of different
parameters for PTC based CSP plant are reported. Economic optimization of design radiation, the direct normal irradiance (DNI) at

N.B. Desai, S. Bandyopadhyay / Journal of Cleaner Production 89 (2015) 262e271

Nomenclature
Ap
C
d
E
h
I
m
n
P
Pr
Q
T
Ul
x

aperture area of the collector (m2)

Cost ($)
discount rate
annual electricity generation (kWh/y)
specic enthalpy (J/kg)
aperture effective direct normal irradiance (W/m2)
mass ow rate (kg/s)
life time (y)
power (W)
pressure (MPa)
heat owrate (W)
temperature (
C)
heat loss coefcient based on aperture area (W/
(m2$K))
dryness fraction

Greek symbols
difference
efciency
incidence angle (
)

D
h
q

Abbreviations
CSP
concentrating solar power
DNI
direct normal irradiance
DSG
direct steam generation

which plant produces the rated power output, has been presented
by Montes et al. (2009). Effects of design radiation on capacity
factor and dumped energy, for a PTC based CSP plant without hybridization and thermal storage, have been demonstrated by
Sundaray and Kandpal (2013). Recently, Desai et al. (2014) reported
a methodology to determine the optimum design radiation for CSP
plant without hybridization and thermal storage.
Garca-Barberena et al. (2012) have evaluated different operational strategies using SimulCET computer program. Reddy and
Kumar (2012) have presented modeling of PTC eld as well as
feasibility study of stand-alone PTC based CSP plant with HTF and
DSG for various places in India. Kumar and Reddy (2012) have
carried out energy, exergy, environmental, and economic analyses
of stand-alone DSG based CSP plant of different sizes. Giostri et al.
(2012b) have compared the PTC based CSP plants using conventional HTF, molten salt, DSG, DSG-HTF, and DSG-molten salt as
working uid and reported annual overall efciency of 15.3%, 16.2%,
17.9%, 16%, and 17.8%, respectively. Probabilistic modeling of PTC
based CSP plant has also been reported by Zaversky et al. (2012).
Conventional steam Rankine cycle is the most widely used power generating cycle in CSP plants. Many researcher have evaluated
the performance of steam Rankine cycle in PTC based CSP plants

ndez-Garca
(e.g., Manzolini et al., 2011; Desai et al., 2013). Ferna
et al. (2010) have presented a survey of CSP plants with steam
Rankine cycle for power generation. Kibaara et al. (2012) have
analyzed the dry and wet cooled steam Rankine cycle based CSP
plants and concluded that in case of a dry cooled plant, compared to
a wet cooled plant, the capital cost and the levelized cost of energy
(LCOE) are increased by 5% and 15%, respectively. Reddy et al. (2012)
have reported increase in energetic and exergetic efciencies by
1.49% and 1.51% with increase in turbine inlet pressure from 90 bar
to 105 bar, respectively. It may be noted that, the dryness fraction of
steam at the outlet of low pressure turbine (LPT) decreases with
increase in turbine inlet pressure. Subsequently, the isentropic efciency of the LPT also decreases. However, the isentropic

HTF
LCOE
LFR
LPT
PTC
SPT
TAC

263

heat transfer uid

levelized cost of energy
linear Fresnel reector
low pressure turbine
parabolic trough collector
solar power tower
total annualized cost

Subscripts
a
ambient
AR
annual replacement
CL
collector
D
design
HTF
heat transfer uid
hx
heat exchanger
in
inlet
is
isentropic
m
mean
max
maximum
min
minimum
o
optical
O&M
operation and maintenance
opt
optimum
out
outlet
th
thermodynamic
u
useful

efciency of turbine has been kept constant during the analysis

(Reddy et al., 2012). Al-Sulaiman (2013) has presented energy
analysis of a typical 50 MWe PTC based CSP plant using a steam
Rankine cycle as well as with steam Rankine cycle as a topping cycle
and an organic Rankine cycle as a bottoming cycle. The effects of
different design parameters on the size of solar eld have been
studied.
In this paper, extensive energy and economic analysis of a PTC
based CSP plant, without storage, is carried out. Effects of turbine
inlet pressure, turbine inlet temperature, design radiation, plant
size, and various modications of Rankine cycle on overall efciency as well as LCOE are studied. Variations in turbine isentropic
efciency with turbine inlet pressure, temperature and mass ow
rate as well as dryness fraction at the outlet of turbine are modeled
appropriately in this paper. There is no such analysis reported in the
literature. The analysis is useful for sizing of solar eld, sizing of
power block and deciding power cycle parameters.

2. Effect of turbine inlet pressure on overall efciency and

levelized cost of energy
Simplied schematic of a PTC based CSP plant is shown in Fig. 1.
PTC eld heats HTF to a high temperature using concentrated solar
radiation (from state 1 to state 2) and then high temperature HTF is
fed into a heat exchanger to produce steam (from state 4 to state 5).
The cold HTF coming out of heat exchanger (state 3) is re-circulated
back into the PTC eld using HTF pump. The high temperature and
high pressure steam is used to generate power through a conventional steam turbine (from state 5 to state 6). Finally, steam from
the turbine exhaust is condensed in a condenser (from state 6 to
state 7). The collector eld useful heat gain (Qu) and collector efciency (hCL) are given by,

Qu mHTF $h2  h1 hCL $I$Ap

(1)

264

N.B. Desai, S. Bandyopadhyay / Journal of Cleaner Production 89 (2015) 262e271

PD ho $ID  Ul $DT$Dhis $his;D

Ap
Dh

(9)

and the aperture specic power output at any aperture effective

DNI (I) can be given as,

P
h $I  Ul $DT$Dhis $his
o
Ap
Dh

(10)

The turbine isentropic efciency can be calculated using

following correlation (Mavromatis and Kokossis, 1998),

his
Fig. 1. Simplied schematic of a PTC based CSP plant.

hCL ho  Ul $




Tm  Ta
I




DT
DT
and hCL;D ho  Ul $
I
ID

(2)

(3)

where hCL,D and ID are collector efciency and aperture effective DNI
at design condition. Neglecting heat losses through pipes and power input to pumps,

Qu mHTF $h2  h1 m$h5  h7

(4)

(5)

Substituting the collector efciency from Equation (3) in Equation (5),

m$Dh


U $DT
$I$Ap
ho  l
I

m ho $I  Ul $DT
mD ho $ID  Ul $DT
and

Ap
Dh
Dh
Ap

(6)

(7)

where mD is steam mass ow rate at design condition, Dh is the

difference between h5 and h7 (see Fig. 1).
The aperture specic design power output can be calculated
from the relation given below,

PD mD

$Dhis $his;D
Ap
Ap

his;D





1
A
$ 1
B
Dhis $mD

(12)

where A and B are the isentropic efciency parameters, depend on

turbine inlet pressure and turbine size.

A a1 a2 $Tsat;in

(13)

B b1 b2 $Tsat;in

(14)

where a1, a2, b1, b2 are turbine regression coefcients, and Tsat,in is
turbine inlet saturation pressure. Values of these coefcients are
reported by Mavromatis and Kokossis (1998) for back pressure
turbines and by Shang (2000) for condensing turbines.
The net power output is calculated by subtracting power input
to pumps from turbine output. Therefore, the aperture specic net
power output at design condition can be calculated as,

Pnet;D PD  PHTF  PFeedWater

Ap
Ap

(15)

The overall efciency (solar to electric energy efciency) at

design condition is given as follows:

where m is mass ow rate of steam (kg/s).

From Equation (1) and Equation (4).

m$h5  h7 hCL $I$Ap

(11)

At design condition (m mD), the turbine isentropic efciency is

given as follows:

where ho is optical efciency of collector eld, Ul is heat loss coefcient based on aperture area of collector eld (W/(m2$K)), Tm
is mean temperature of collector eld (
C), Ta is ambient temperature (
C), I is the DNI corrected by cosine of incidence angle (i.e.,
DNI$cos q) which is also known as aperture effective DNI (Feldhoff
et al., 2012), mHTF is mass ow rate of HTF (kg/s), Ap is aperture area
of collector eld (m2), hi and Ti are specic enthalpy and temperature at i-th state point.
Denoting the difference between Tm and Ta as DT,

hCL ho  Ul $



 
6
A
m 
$ 1
$ 1 D
5$B
Dhis $mD
6$m

(8)

where Dhis is the isentropic enthalpy change in the turbine and his,D
is the isentropic efciency of the turbine at design condition. From
Equation (7) and Equation (8),

hoverall;D

Pnet;D
ID $Ap

(16)

The annualized cost (CAnnual) and levelized cost of energy (LCOE)

can be calculated as,

d$1 dn

CAnnual $=y CCapital $
1 dn  1
LCOE $=kWh

P
CAnnual CO&M CAR
EAnnual

(17)

(18)

where d is discount rate, n is lifetime (y), CO&M is annual operation

and maintenance cost ($/y), CAR is annual component replacement
cost ($/y), and EAnnual is annual electricity generation (kWh/y).
From Equation (9) it may be noted that, the aperture specic
design power output is directly proportional to the product of
enthalpy difference ratio and isentropic efciency of the turbine at
design condition (i.e., (Dhis/Dh)$his,D). Typical T-h diagrams for a PTC
based CSP plant for two different turbine inlet pressures are shown
in Fig. 2. It should be noted that the enthalpy difference ratio (i.e.,
Dhis/Dh) increases with increase in turbine inlet pressure. On the
other hand, the dryness fraction at outlet of the turbine decreases
with increase in turbine inlet pressure (see Fig. 2), resulting in

N.B. Desai, S. Bandyopadhyay / Journal of Cleaner Production 89 (2015) 262e271

265

Fig. 2. Typical T-h diagrams for a PTC based CSP plant for two different values of turbine inlet pressure.

lower turbine isentropic efciency. Typical variation in the product

of enthalpy difference ratio and isentropic efciency of the turbine
at design condition, as a function of turbine inlet pressure, is shown
in Fig. 3. It may also be noted that, the power input to HTF pump
and feed water pump increases with increase in turbine inlet
pressure. Moreover, the heat exchanger outlet temperature increases with increase in turbine inlet pressure (see Fig. 2) and the
collector outlet temperature is typically kept constant. This leads to
increase in the mean collector temperature difference (DT) and
subsequently the collector eld efciency decreases. This justies
the existence of a thermodynamically optimal turbine inlet pressure, for which the net design power output is the maximum.
Consequently, at that pressure the overall efciency at design
condition is also the maximum (Equation (16)).
For demonstration the simulations are carried out using Engineering Equation Solver (Klein, 2004). The data given in Table 1 are

used for simulations and the results are shown in Fig. 4. It may be
observed that the optimal turbine inlet pressure is about 7.5 MPa. It
may also be noted from Fig. 4 that the nature of the net design
power output curve is not very sharp near the maximum. The power output remains within 1% of the maximum, for the turbine
inlet pressure range 4.5e11 MPa. The total annualized cost per unit
aperture area of the collector increases with increase in pressure.
This implies that the cost optimal turbine inlet pressure should be
always lesser than the thermodynamically optimum. Therefore, the
thermodynamically optimal turbine inlet pressure is about
4.5e7.5 MPa. It may also be noted that, the aperture specic net

Table 1
Data used for the simulation.
Input Parameter

Value/Type

Reference

Collector eld
Collector eld efciency
model parameters
Collector tracking mode

Parabolic Trough Collector (PTC)

ho 0.7; Ul 0.1 W/(m2$K)

e
Desai
et al. (2013)
e

Collector eld HTF

Collector outlet
temperature
Ambient temperature
Turbine isentropic
efciency
model parameters

Fig. 3. Typical variation in the product of enthalpy difference ratio and isentropic efciency of the turbine at design condition ((Dhis/Dh)$his,D) as a function of turbine inlet
pressure.

Turn down ratio of the

turbine (Pmin/Pmax)
Temperature driving
force (DTmin)
Isentropic efciency
of the pump
Condensing pressure

Focal axis NeS horizontal

and EeW tracking
Therminol VP-1
390
C (controlled)

e
e

30
C (design value)
A a1 (a2$Tin,sat);
B b1 (b2$Tin,sat)
For turbine size  1.5 MW:
a1 0.0981 (MW);
a2 0.001 (MW/
C)
b1 1.2059; b2 0.0006 (1/
C)
For turbine size > 1.5 MW:
a1 0.0376 (MW);
a2 0.0014 (MW/
C);
b1 1.1718;
b2 0.0003 (1/
C)
0.2

e
Shang (2000)

10
C

0.6

0.1 bar

266

N.B. Desai, S. Bandyopadhyay / Journal of Cleaner Production 89 (2015) 262e271

Table 3
Financial parameters, operation and maintenance data for economic analysis.
Operation and maintenance
Annual solar eld component replacement cost
Annual operation and maintenance cost
Financial parameters
Discount rate (%)
Lifetime (years)

Fig. 4. Aperture specic net design power output as function of turbine inlet pressure
at different turbine inlet temperature.

design power output increases with increase in turbine inlet temperature (Tmax). This is expected because higher turbine inlet
temperature increases the Rankine cycle efciency. However, its
maximum value is limited by the maximum HTF temperature.
The effect of turbine inlet pressure on LCOE is studied using the
cost data given in Table 2 and Table 3. DNI data for the simulations
are taken from Ramaswamy et al. (2013) and the results are shown
in Fig. 5. Results show that the cost optimal turbine inlet pressure is
about 6 MPa which is lesser than the thermodynamically optimal
value (7.5 MPa), as explained. It may be observed that for turbine
inlet pressure within 3.5e10 MPa, the LCOE remains within 1% of
the maximum value. However, the higher pressure is limited by the
thermodynamically optimal value. Therefore, based on the assumptions of equipment characteristic parameters and cost data,
the cost optimal turbine inlet pressure is about 3.5e7.5 MPa.
3. Effect of design radiation on overall efciency and
levelized cost of energy
The effect of design radiation on aperture specic net design
power output as function of turbine inlet pressure is shown in
Fig. 6, which demonstrates that the power output increases with
increase in design radiation. This is expected because higher design
radiation decreases the collector aperture area, for the xed design
power output requirement. However, very high design radiation

2.5% of solar eld cost

4% of equipment cost
10
30

results in low capacity factor of the plant and very low design radiation results in excessive unutilized energy (Desai et al., 2014).
Therefore, there exists an optimal design DNI for a CSP plant which
minimizes the LCOE. Fig. 7 demonstrates the effect of design radiation on LCOE as function of turbine inlet pressure. It may be noted
that LCOE is the lowest for design radiation of 600 W/m2. It may
also be observed that, there is no signicant change in the thermodynamically as well as cost optimal turbine inlet pressure with
variation in design radiation.
4. CSP plant with regenerative Rankine cycle
Regenerative feed-water heating is commonly used for
increasing the thermal efciency of the steam Rankine cycle.
Simplied schematic of a PTC based CSP plant using regenerative
Rankine cycle is shown in Fig. 8. It should be noted that steam, at
some intermediate pressure, is withdrawn from the turbine (state
9). This is mixed directly with feed water (at state 8) in a direct
contact heater and the resultant mixture (at state 10) is fed to
second feed water pump. The other state points are same as
explained earlier.
Variations of net design power output and LCOE as function of
turbine inlet pressure, for basic and regenerative Rankine cycles,
are shown in Fig. 9. This gure demonstrates that the cycle modication increases the net design power output and decreases the
LCOE, as expected. In case of regenerative Rankine cycle, the thermodynamic and cost optimum range (for 1 MWe plant) is about
6.2e10 MPa and 4.5e10 MPa, respectively. It may also be noted that,
the thermodynamically optimal as well as cost optimal turbine
inlet pressure increases with regeneration. The increase in aperture
specic net design power output is about 7.9% with single regeneration (at Prth,opt 10 MPa) compared to CSP plant without
regeneration (at Prth,opt 7.5 MPa). Moreover, the decrease in LCOE
is about 3.9% with regeneration (at Prcost,opt 8 MPa) compared to
CSP plant without regeneration (at Prcost,opt 6 MPa).

Table 2
Equipment cost data for economic analysis.
Equipment

Cost correlation

PTC eld and HTF system

Turbine
Generator
Condenser
Boiler feed pump

e
a$kWb
a$kWeb
a$kWth b
FP $a b$kW c$kW2

Heat exchanger

a$Area0:65
HX $Fc 2:29
Fc Fd Fp $Fm

Civil works
Miscellaneous cost
Land and site development cost

a$kWe b$kWe2

Variable of cost correlation

2

280 ($/m )
a 31,093; b 0.41
A 2447; b 0.49
A 597; b 0.68
a 6607; b 485;
c 0.417; FP 2.12
a 533;
Fd 1.35 (kettle type),
0.85 (U-tube);
Fm 1 (CS/CS material);
Fp 0.25 (pressure 2.5 MPa),
0.52 (pressure 5.5 MPa),
0.55 (pressure > 6.9 MPa)
a 169; b 0.00053
183 ($/kWe)
20 ($/m2)

Parameters for cost correlations have been updated to 2014 using Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index.

Reference
Krishnamurthy et al. (2012)

rrez-Arriaga et al. (2014)
Gutie

rrez-Arriaga et al. (2014)
Gutie

rrez-Arriaga et al. (2014)
Gutie

rrez-Arriaga et al. (2014)
Gutie
Douglas (1988)

Krishnamurthy et al. (2012)

IIT Bombay (2012)
IIT Bombay (2012)

N.B. Desai, S. Bandyopadhyay / Journal of Cleaner Production 89 (2015) 262e271

267

Fig. 8. Simplied schematic of a PTC based CSP plant using regenerative Rankine cycle.

Fig. 5. Levelized cost of energy as function of turbine inlet pressure at different turbine
inlet temperature.

Fig. 6. Aperture specic net design power output as function of turbine inlet pressure
at different design DNI.
Fig. 9. Aperture specic net design power output and LCOE as function of turbine inlet
pressure for basic and regenerative Rankine cycles.

Fig. 7. Levelized cost of energy as function of turbine inlet pressure at different design
DNI.

Fig. 10. Aperture specic net design power output as function of turbine inlet pressure
for different plant size.

268

N.B. Desai, S. Bandyopadhyay / Journal of Cleaner Production 89 (2015) 262e271

Fig. 11. Aperture specic net design power output as function of turbine inlet pressure
for PTC based CSP plant using molten salt as HTF.

Fig. 14. Aperture specic net design power outputs as function of turbine inlet pressure for different plant size with reheat Rankine cycle.

5. Effect of plant size on overall efciency and levelized cost

of energy

Fig. 12. Levelized cost of energy as function of turbine inlet pressure for different plant
size.

Isentropic efciency of the turbine increases with the size of

turbine. The effects of plant size and resulting higher isentropic
efciency of the turbine on aperture specic net design power
output are shown in Fig. 10, which demonstrates that the power
output increases with increase in plant size. It may also be noted
that the optimal turbine inlet pressure increases with increase in
plant size. Increase in turbine inlet pressure increases the overall
thermal efciency of the Rankine cycle, and simultaneously, increases the moisture content of steam, at the outlet of the turbine,
to an unacceptable level (see Fig. 2). Typically, the minimum dryness fraction at the outlet of a turbine is kept around 80e90%. To
satisfy the minimum dryness fraction at outlet of turbine, the steam
at inlet of turbine should be superheated to high temperature.
However, in a PTC based CSP plant with synthetic or organic oil
based HTF, the temperature limit is about 400
C with a resulting
steam temperature at the turbine inlet about 350e370
C. Therefore, the optimal turbine inlet pressure is limited by the minimum
dryness fraction at outlet of turbine (a limit for 88% dryness fraction
is shown in Fig. 10).

Fig. 13. Simplied schematic of a PTC based CSP plant using reheat Rankine cycle.

N.B. Desai, S. Bandyopadhyay / Journal of Cleaner Production 89 (2015) 262e271

Fig. 15. Levelized cost of energy as function of turbine inlet pressure for different plant
size with reheat Rankine cycle.

269

Fig. 17. Aperture specic net design power output as function of turbine inlet pressure
for different plant size with reheat-regenerative Rankine cycle.

With the use of molten salt as HTF, the steam temperature (Tmax)
up to 540
C is achievable. As a result, higher steam turbine efciency, higher dryness fraction at the outlet of turbine, and lower
LCOE can be achieved. Fig. 11 shows the variation of aperture specic net design power output as function of turbine inlet pressure,
for PTC based CSP plant using molten salt as HTF. It may be
observed that, the thermodynamically optimal turbine inlet pressure increases with the plant size and typical operating pressure
(about 18 MPa) of a conventional steam power plant can be
achieved.
The effect of plant size on LCOE is shown in Fig. 12; LCOE decreases with increase in plant size. The cost optimal turbine inlet
pressure also increases with plant size. Typically, in larger plants
the steam is expanded in two stages, and reheating the steam in
between these two stages of the turbine helps in achieving the
minimum desirable dryness fraction at the outlet of the last stage of
the turbine.
Fig. 18. Levelized cost of energy as function of turbine inlet pressure for different plant
size with reheat-regenerative Rankine cycle.

Fig. 16. Simplied schematic of a PTC based CSP plant using reheat-regenerative Rankine cycle.

270

N.B. Desai, S. Bandyopadhyay / Journal of Cleaner Production 89 (2015) 262e271

Fig. 19. Levelized cost of energy as function of turbine inlet pressure for different
places with reheat-regenerative Rankine cycle.

schematic of a PTC based CSP plant using reheat-regenerative

Rankine cycle is shown in Fig. 16. All the state points are same as
explained earlier.
Fig. 17 demonstrates the variation of aperture specic net
design power output as function of turbine inlet pressure, for
different sizes of the plant. It may be noted that the thermodynamically optimal turbine inlet pressures for 5 MWe, 25 MWe
and 50 MWe plants are 9e13 MPa, 10.5e15 MPa and
10.5e15 MPa, respectively. Fig. 18 illustrates the variation of LCOE
as function of turbine inlet pressure, for different sizes of the
plant. The cost optimal turbine inlet pressures for 5 MWe,
25 MWe and 50 MWe plants are 7e13 MPa, 9e15 MPa and
9.5e15 MPa, respectively.
In case of a 50 MWe CSP plant with reheat-regenerative Rankine
cycle, increase in aperture specic net design power output is about
7% and decrease in LCOE is about 5.3% compared to reheat Rankine
cycle. Fig. 19 shows the comparison of LCOE as function of turbine
inlet pressure, for three different places in India. It may be noted
that the minimum LCOE of 11.3 Rs./kWh (18.8 /kWh) is estimated
for Jodhpur, India.

5.1. CSP plant with reheat Rankine cycle

Concentrating solar power plant with reheat Rankine cycle can
take the advantage of increased efciency as well as it avoids the
low-quality steam at turbine exhaust. Simplied schematic of a PTC
based CSP plant using reheat Rankine cycle is shown in Fig. 13. It
should be noted that steam is expanded up to some intermediate
pressure in the rst stage turbine (state 11). This is reheated in a
reheater (from state 11 to state 12), using a small fraction of HTF
(state 13) from outlet of the collector eld. The reheated steam (at
state 12) then expands in the second stage of turbine to the
condenser pressure. The HTF coming out of the reheater (state 14)
is mixed with the main line HTF and the resultant mixture (at state
15) is fed to HTF pump. The other state points are same as explained
earlier.
The effect of plant size and resulting higher isentropic efciency
of the turbine on aperture specic net design power output is
shown in Fig. 14. It may be noted that the thermodynamically
optimal turbine inlet pressures for 5 MWe, 25 MWe and 50 MWe
plants are 7.5e11.5 MPa, 9e13.5 MPa and 9e13.5 MPa, respectively.
Fig. 15 illustrates the variation of LCOE as function of turbine inlet
pressure, for different sizes of the plant. It may be noted that the
cost optimal turbine inlet pressures for 5 MWe, 25 MWe and
50 MWe plants are 6e11.5 MPa, 7.5e13.5 MPa and 8e13.5 MPa,
respectively.
5.2. CSP plant with reheat-regenerative Rankine cycle
Reheating and regeneration are the most commonly used
modications in the basic steam Rankine cycle. Simplied

6. Conclusions
In this paper, effects of turbine inlet pressure, turbine inlet
temperature, design radiation, plant size, and various modications
of Rankine cycle on overall efciency as well as LCOE for the PTC
based CSP plant, without hybridization and storage, are presented.
Moreover, the variation in optimal turbine inlet pressure with
turbine inlet temperature, design radiation, plant size, and various
modications of Rankine cycle are also determined. The important
observations are summarized in Table 4. In case of a PTC based plant
with basic Rankine cycle, thermodynamically and cost optimal
turbine inlet pressures for 1 MWe plant are about 4.5e7.5 MPa and
3.5e7.5 MPa, respectively.
The optimal turbine inlet pressure is a weak function of design
radiation. However, the optimum value increases with plant size
and various modications of Rankine cycle. The optimal turbine
inlet pressures for 5 MWe, 25 MWe and 50 MWe plants (with
reheat-regenerative Rankine cycle) are 7e13 MPa, 9e15 MPa and
9.5e15 MPa, respectively. The aperture specic net design power
output increases and LCOE decreases with increase in turbine inlet
temperature, plant size, and various modications of Rankine cycle.
Additionally, there is a cost optimal design radiation that minimizes
the cost of electricity generation.
The estimated minimum LCOE is about Rs. 11.3 per kWh (18.8 /
kWh). This cost is higher compared to coal (Rs. 2.5 per kWh), nuclear (Rs. 3 per kWh) as well as natural gas (Rs. 5.5 per kWh) based
thermal power plants in India (Nature, 2014). The LCOE for PTC
based CSP plant may further decrease with higher plant size,
multiple extractions from the steam turbine, thermal storage as

Table 4
Summary of results.

CSP plant with basic Rankine cycle

CSP plant with regenerative Rankine cycle
CSP plant with reheat Rankine cycle

CSP plant with reheat-regenerative Rankine cycle

Plant size (MWe)

Energy optimum
range (MPa)

Maximum aperture specic

net design power output (W/m2)

Cost optimum
range (MPa)

Minimum levelized
cost of energy (/kWh)

1
1
5
25
50
5
25
50

4.5e7.5
6.2e10
7.5e11.5
9e13.5
9e13.5
9e13
10.5e15
10.5e15

87.9
94.9
108.2
115.6
116.5
115.7
123.5
124.7

3.5e7.5
4.5e10
6e11.5
7.5e13.5
8e13.5
7e13
9e15
9.5e15

33.6
32.3
22.9
20.4
19.9
21.9
19.4
18.8

N.B. Desai, S. Bandyopadhyay / Journal of Cleaner Production 89 (2015) 262e271

well as clean development mechanism benets. Moreover, the use

of molten salt as HTF has the potential of decreasing the LCOE
signicantly.
Acknowledgments
Authors would like to thank the Ministry of New and Renewable
Energy (MNRE), Government of India for the nancial support
given to the Development of a Megawatt-scale Solar Thermal Power Testing, Simulation and Research Facility Project (15/19/200809/ST dated 07.09.2007).
References
Al-Soud, M.S., Hrayshat, E.S., 2009. A 50 MW concentrating solar power plant for
Jordan. J. Clean. Prod. 17, 625e635.
Al-Sulaiman, F.A., 2013. Energy and sizing analyses of parabolic trough solar collector integrated with steam and binary vapor cycles. Energy 58, 561e570.
Behar, O., Khellaf, A., Mohammedi, K., 2013. A review of studies on central receiver
solar thermal power plants. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 23, 12e39.
Caceres, G., Anrique, N., Girard, A., Degreve, J., Baeyens, J., Zhang, H.L., 2013. Performance of molten salt solar power towers in Chile. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy
5, 0531421e05314215.
Collado, F.J., Guallar, J., 2013. A review of optimized design layouts for solar power
tower plants with campo code. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 20, 142e154.
Desai, N.B., Bandyopadhyay, S., Nayak, J.K., Banerjee, R., Kedare, S.B., 2013. Simulation of 1 MWe solar thermal power plant. In: Proceedings of the ISES Solar
World Congress, Cancun, Mexico.
Desai, N.B., Kedare, S.B., Bandyopadhyay, S., 2014. Optimization of design radiation for
concentrating solar thermal power plants without storage. Sol. Energy 107, 98e112.
Douglas, J.M., 1988. Conceptual Design of Chemical Processes. McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Feldhoff, J.F., Ortiz-Vives, F., Schulte-Fischedick, J., Laing, D., SchnatbaumLaumann, L., Eck, M., Schmitz, K., 2012. Comparative system analysis of direct
steam generation and synthetic oil parabolic trough power plants with integrated thermal storage. Sol. Energy 86, 520e530.

ndez-Garca, A., Zarza, E., Valenzuela, L., Pe

rez, M., 2010. Parabolic-trough
Ferna
solar collectors and their applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14,
1695e1721.
Flueckiger, S.M., Iverson, B.D., Garimella, S.V., Pacheco, J.E., 2014. System-level
simulation of a solar power tower plant with thermocline thermal energy
storage. Appl. Energy 113, 86e96.
Franchini, G., Perdichizzi, A., Ravelli, S., Barigozzi, G., 2013. A comparative study
between parabolic trough and solar tower technologies in solar Rankine cycle
and integrated solar combined cycle plants. Sol. Energy 98, 302e314.

s, A.,
Garca-Barberena, J., Garcia, P., Sanchez, M., Blanco, M.J., Lasheras, C., Padro
Arraiza, J., 2012. Analysis of the inuence

of operational strategies in plant

performance using SimulCET, simulation software for parabolic trough power
plants. Sol. Energy 86, 53e63.
Giostri, A., Binotti, M., Silva, P., Macchi, E., Manzolini, G., 2012a. Comparison of two
linear collectors in solar Thermal plants: parabolic trough versus fresnel. J. Sol.
Energy Eng. 135, 0110011e0110019.
Giostri, A., Binotti, M., Astol, M., Silva, P., Macchi, E., Manzolini, G., 2012b. Comparison of different solar plants based on parabolic trough technology. Sol.
Energy 86, 1208e1221.

rrez-Arriaga, C.G., Abdelhady, F., Bamueh, H.S., Serna-Gonza

lez, M., ElGutie
Halwagi, M.M., Ponce-Ortega, J.M., 2014. Industrial waste heat recovery and
cogeneration involving organic Rankine cycles. Clean. Technol. Environ. Policy.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10098-014-0833-5 (in press).
Ho, C.K., Iverson, B.D., 2014. Review of high-temperature central receiver designs for
concentrating solar power. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 29, 835e846.
IIT Bombay, 2012. Solar Thermal Simulator Evaluation Version 1.0.
Kibaara, S., Chowdhury, S., Chowdhury, S.P., 2012. Analysis of cooling methods of
parabolic trough concentrating solar thermal power plant. In: IEEE International Conference on Power System Technology, pp. 1e6.
Klein, S., 2004. F-chart Software. Engineering Equation Solver-V7.027.
Krishnamurthy, P., Mishra, S., Banerjee, R., 2012. An analysis of costs of parabolic
trough technology in India. Energy Policy 48, 407e419.

271

Krishna Priya, G.S., Bandyopadhyay, S., 2013. Emission constrained power system
planning: a pinch analysis based study of Indian electricity sector. Clean
Technol. Environ. Policy 15, 771e782.
Kumar, K.R., Reddy, K.S., 2012. 4-E (energyeexergyeenvironmentaleeconomic)
analyses of line-focusing stand-alone concentrating solar power plants. Int. J.
Low Carbon Technol. 7, 82e96.
Kuravi, S., Trahan, J., Goswami, D.Y., Rahman, M.M., Stefanakos, E.K., 2013. Thermal
energy storage technologies and systems for concentrating solar power plants.
Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 39, 285e319.


Llorente Garca, I., Alvarez,
J.L., Blanco, D., 2011. Performance model for parabolic
trough solar thermal power plants with thermal storage: comparison to operating plant data. Sol. Energy 85, 2443e2460.
Manenti, F., Ravaghi-Ardebili, Z., 2013. Dynamic simulation of concentrating
solar power plant and two-tanks direct thermal energy storage. Energy 55,
89e97.
Manzolini, G., Giostri, A., Saccilotto, C., Silva, P., Macchi, E., 2011. Development of an
innovative code for the design of thermodynamic solar power plants part B:
performance assessment of commercial and innovative technologies. Renew.
Energy 36, 2465e2473.
Mavromatis, S.P., Kokossis, A.C., 1998. Conceptual optimisation of utility networks
for operational variations-I. Targets and level optimisation. Chem. Eng. Sci. 53
(8), 1585e1608.
Montes, M.J., Abanades, A., Martinez-Val, J.M., Valdes, M., 2009. Solar multiple
optimization for a solar-only thermal power plant, using oil as heat transfer
uid in the parabolic trough collectors. Sol. Energy 83, 2165e2176.
Morin, G., Dersch, J., Platzer, W., Eck, M., H
aberle, A., 2012. Comparison of linear
fresnel and parabolic trough collector power plants. Sol. Energy 86, 1e12.
Mller-Steinhagen, H., Trieb, F., 2014. Concentrated solar power. In: Quarterly of the
Royal Academy of Engineering (Ingenia, 2004).
Nature, 2014. Available from: http://www.nature.com/news/india-to-build-worlds-largest-solar-plant-1.14647.
Nixon, J.D., Dey, P.K., Davies, P.A., 2013. Design of a novel solar thermal collector
using a multi-criteria decision-making methodology. J. Clean. Prod. 59,
150e159.
Purohit, I., Purohit, P., Shekhar, S., 2013. Evaluating the potential of concentrating
solar power generation in Northwestern India. Energy Policy 62, 157e175.
Ramaswamy, M.A., Rao, B., Thirumalai, N.C., Suresh, N.S., 2013. Estimation of Hourly
Direct Normal Irradiance (DNI) for 22 Stations in India. Center for Study of
Science, Technology and Policy, Bangalore, India.
Reddy, K.S., Kumar, K.R., 2012. Solar collector eld design and viability analysis of
stand-alone parabolic trough power plants for Indian conditions. Energy Sustain. Dev. 16, 456e470.
Reddy, V.S., Kaushik, S.C., Tyagi, S.K., 2012. Exergetic analysis and performance
evaluation of parabolic trough concentrating solar thermal power plant
(PTCSTPP). Energy 39, 258e273.
Roget, F., Favotto, C., Rogez, J., 2013. Study of the KNO3eLiNO3 and
KNO3eNaNO3eLiNO3 eutectics as phase change materials for thermal storage
in a low-temperature solar power plant. Sol. Energy 95, 155e169.

Shang, Z., 2000. Analysis

and Optimisation of Total Site Utility Systems. Ph.D. Thesis.
UMIST, UK.
Sharma, A., 2011. A comprehensive study of solar power in India and World. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 15, 1767e1776.
Sundaray, S., Kandpal, T.C., 2013. Preliminary feasibility evaluation of solar thermal
power generation in India. Int. J. Sustain. Energy 1e9.
Tian, Y., Zhao, C.Y., 2013. A review of solar collectors and thermal energy storage in
solar thermal applications. Appl. Energy 104, 538e553.
Zarza, E., Valenzuela, L., Leon, J., Weyers, H.-D., Eickhoff, M., Eck, M., Hennecke, K.,
2002. The DISS project: direct steam generation in parabolic trough systems.
Operation and maintenance experience and update on project status. J. Sol.
Energy Eng 124, 126e133.
Zaversky, F., Garca-Barberena, J., S

anchez, M., Astrain, D., 2012. Probabilistic
modeling of a parabolic trough collector power plant e an uncertainty and
sensitivity analysis. Sol. Energy 86, 2128e2139.
Zaversky, F., Medina, R., Garca-Barberena, J., S

anchez, M., Astrain, D., 2013. Objectoriented modeling for the transient performance simulation of parabolic trough
collectors using molten salt as heat transfer uid. Sol. Energy 95, 192e215.
ve, J., Cace
res, G., 2013. Concentrated solar power
Zhang, H.L., Baeyens, J., Degre
plants: review and design methodology. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 22,
466e481.
Zhu, G., Wendelin, T., Wagner, M.J., Kutscher, C., 2014. History, current state, and future
of linear fresnel concentrating solar collectors. Sol. Energy 103, 639e652.