Renewable Energy 87 (2016) 666e675

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

A study of the effect of design parameters on the performance of

linear solar concentrator based thermal power plants in India
Chandan Sharma*, Ashish K. Sharma, Subhash C. Mullick, Tara C. Kandpal
Centre for Energy Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, 110016, India

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

Article history: The sizing of a solar thermal power plant directly affects its cost and also the annual electricity output
Received 26 March 2015 and hence its financial attractiveness. It involves deciding appropriate values of design DNI, solar mul-
Received in revised form tiple and hours of thermal storage to achieve high annual capacity utilization factor (CUF) with the least
25 August 2015
cost of electricity delivered. An analysis of the impact of these design parameters on the performance of
Accepted 2 November 2015
parabolic trough concentrator (PTC) and linear Fresnel reflector (LFR) based solar thermal power plants is
Available online xxx
presented using System Advisor Model for eight locations in India. Annual electricity output is estimated
using radiation data source of SEC-NREL. Levelized unit cost of electricity (LUCE) is estimated using
Keywords:
Solar thermal power generation
benchmark capital cost and other financial conditions specified by the Central Electricity Regulatory
Parabolic trough collector Commission of Government of India. For a design DNI of 950 W/m2, LUCE is minimum in solar multiple
Linear Fresnel reflector range of 1.4e1.6 for PTC based plants and of 1.8e2.0 for LFR based plants. With a solar multiple of 1.0,
Levelized unit cost of electricity LUCE is minimum in design DNI range of 550e700 W/m2 for PTC based plants and 450e550 W/m2 for
System Advisor model LFR based plants.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction of these technologies involves designing an appropriate solar field

Electricity generation using renewable energy technologies is
being promoted on a global scale to satisfy increasing demand in a
sustainable manner. Solar thermal power generation is one of the
important renewable energy technologies for electricity generation
that has minimal adverse impacts on the environment. Moreover, it
is possible to establish megawatt scale grid connected solar thermal
power plants that can provide electricity with high dispatch ability.
By the end of the year 2014, CSP plants of cumulative capacity of
4429 MW were operational across the world and plants of about
5684 MW capacity are under construction/development [1]. In
India, with the launch of Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission in
2010, activities towards large scale dissemination of solar thermal
power plants have attained considerable momentum. The country
has huge potential for solar thermal power generation [2e4]. Three
solar thermal power generation technologies have attained a sig-
nificant level of commercial maturity namely, parabolic trough
collector (PTC), central receiver system (CRS) and linear Fresnel
reflector (LFR). Designing a solar thermal power plant based on any
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sharmac1975@gmail.com (C. Sharma).
as it costs approximately 40e50% of the total project cost [5,6].
Typical cost breakup of a 50 MW PTC based plant in India is pre-
sented in Fig. 1 [7].
Optimal sizing of solar field is also important as it directly affects
annual electricity output of the power plant and hence the financial
attractiveness. While an oversized solar field, by selecting a lower
design value of direct normal irradiance (DNI) and/or higher solar
multiple, may produce more thermal energy than the amount that
can be used by the power block, a plant with undersized solar field
is likely to produce power at its nominal capacity only for a limited
period during the year and consequently have low annual capacity
utilization factor. Optimal sizing of solar field necessarily involves
deciding appropriate values of design DNI and solar multiple. The
solar multiple is defined as the ratio between the thermal power
produced by the solar field at the design DNI and the thermal po-
wer required by the power block at nominal conditions. The chal-
lenge of designing an optimal solar field for a solar thermal power
plant is that the plant should operate at its nominal capacity for the
maximum possible duration in a year and at the same time produce
electricity at minimum possible prices.
Some studies have attempted to analyze the effect of design and
operational parameters on the performance of PTC and LFR based
power plants. A comparison of the cost of electricity produced by

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.11.007
0960-1481/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 C. Sharma et al. / Renewable Energy 87 (2016) 666e675 667

different likely combinations of the values of solar multiple and

design DNI. To decide the values of solar multiple and design DNI,
50 MW solar thermal power plants based on PTC and LFR tech-
nology have been analyzed. To obtain annual electricity output and
the value of another performance metric, i.e. the amount of thermal
energy dumped, the System Advisor Model (SAM) [18] software
developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
USA has been used. SAM predicts performance and financial met-
rics for power plants based on various renewable energy technol-
ogies according to the weather data of the proposed location. A
schematic of the methodology adopted in the case of solar thermal
power plants is presented in Fig. 2 and each of the steps are
described in the following paragraphs.

Fig. 1. Typical cost breakup of a 50 MW PTC based plant. 2.1. Selection of potential locations to be considered for analysis

In a recent study, Sharma et al. [4] have presented estimates of

solar thermal power generation potential in India and identified
PTC and LFR based plants has been made by Morin et al. [8]. Giostri
considerable potential in the states of Rajasthan, Gujarat, Andhra
et al. [9] compared commercial Fresnel technology for direct steam
Pradesh and Maharashtra. Based on the above mentioned study, 8
generation with conventional parabolic trough technology based
districts have been selected for the present analysis. These districts
on synthetic oil heat transfer fluid and found that the optical effi-
satisfy two conditions for the installation of MW scale grid con-
ciency of Fresnel technology is less as compared to that of parabolic
nected solar thermal power plants: (a) sufficient wastelands in the
trough technology. The suitability of using a weighted average of
suitable categories and (b) high DNI. Details of the locations along
incident solar radiation at a location for designing collector field of
with annual DNI are shown in Table 1.
PTC based solar thermal power plants is presented by Wirz et al.
[10]. Influence of varying the value of design DNI on the size of the
collector field of PTC based plants has been studied by Quaschning
et al. [11]. Montes et al. [12] have presented a study pertaining to
economic optimization of the solar multiple for a solar only PTC
based plant using oil as heat transfer fluid. The effect of solar
multiple on the performance of a direct steam generation solar
thermal power plant has been presented by Montes et al. [13].
Izquierdo et al. [14] studied the effect of solar multiple, capacity
factor and storage capacity on the cost of electricity delivered by
solar thermal plants. A methodology to determine cost optimum
design radiation for solar thermal power plants without hybridi-
zation and storage has been proposed by Desai et al. [15]. Feasibility
analysis of solar thermal power plants for large scale dissemination
was undertaken by Reddy et al. [16]. The study analyzed the per-
formance and levelized electricity cost for PTC, LFR and power
tower technology. Very few studies have been reported in the In-
dian context that deal with the analysis of the impact of design
parameters on the performance of PTC and LFR based power gen-
eration systems. An attempt to identify combinations of design DNI,
solar multiple and hours of thermal storage for the least cost of
electricity generation by PTC based solar thermal power plants has
been reported by Sundaray and Kandpal [17]. This study used the
cost and other data inbuilt in System Advisor Model, although the
selected locations were in India. There is no study available in the
published literature that compares both the linear solar concen-
trator technologies viz. PTC and LFR for niche locations in India. This
paper presents the results of an analysis undertaken to study the
effect of the design DNI and solar multiple on the performance of
PTC and LFR based solar thermal power plants for 8 potential lo-
cations in India. Besides, effect of hours of thermal storage on the
annual electricity output and levelized unit cost of electricity
(LUCE) for a parabolic trough based power plant has also been
analyzed.

2. Methodology

This study essentially involves estimation of annual electricity

output as well as the levelized unit cost of electricity (LUCE) for Fig. 2. Methodology adopted for deciding values of solar multiple and design DNI.
668 C. Sharma et al. / Renewable Energy 87 (2016) 666e675
Table 1
Locations selected for the analysis along with corresponding annual values of the DNI.
State Location
Rajasthan Jaisalmer
Jodhpur
Barmer
Gujarat Kachch
Surendranagar
Maharashtra Satara
Sangli
Andhra Pradesh Anantpur
2.2. Creations of the typical meteorological year (TMY) files
In SAM, it is possible to import weather files in Typical Meteo-
rological Year (TMY) format that has hourly values of solar radiation
and other parameters for any desired location. Solar resource data
for the selected locations have been obtained from satellite imagery
maps developed by Solar Energy Centre (SEC), Ministry of New and
Renewable Energy (MNRE) [19], Government of India in collabo-
ration with NREL, USA. This solar radiation data source (referred to
as SEC-NREL subsequently in this paper) provides monthly average
daily values of solar radiation. To be able to use the radiation data
with SAM, TMY files are needed. A TMY file provide annual data set
that holds hourly meteorological values that typify conditions at a
specific location over a longer period of time. To have hourly data
set of meteorological data, synthetic hourly data generation tool of
software PVSyst [20] has been used. Synthetic generation of hourly
values from monthly averages is performed by PVSyst using sto-
chastic models that have been developed by Collares-Pereira in the
1980's. This model first generates a sequence of daily values, and
then a sequence of 24 hourly values per day, using Markov transi-
tion matrices. These matrices have been established such as to
produce an hourly sequence, with distributions and statistical
properties analogous to real hourly meteo data measured. Monthly
average daily values of global horizontal irradiation from SEC-NREL
and monthly average daily values of ambient temperature from
NASA-SSE for the selected locations have been used to generate
hourly data set of meteorological parameters such as DNI, diffuse
radiation, beam radiation, ambient temperature etc. Software SAM
has an option (TMY creator) that creates TMY files with the hourly
data set of meteorological parameters. Same has been used for
creation of TMY files of the selected locations and the files thus
created were imported in SAM for performing simulations.
2.3. Simulation using System Advisor Model (SAM)
Specifications of the plants considered in the study are pre-
sented in Table 2. The base values of design DNI was assumed as
950 W/m2 and that of solar multiple as 1. With the parametric
simulation tool of SAM, annual electricity output and the annual
amount of thermal energy dumped were obtained for different
values of solar multiple and design DNI.
In case of PTC based solar thermal power generation technology,
Table 2
Specifications of the solar thermal power plants considered in the study.
Parameter PTC LFR
Nominal capacity (MW) 50 50
Collector Solargenix SGX e 1 Fresnel mirrors
Receiver Schott PTR 70 Cavity
Heat Transfer fluid Therminol VP-1 Water
Solar multiple 1.0 1.0
DNI (W/m2) 950 950
Latitude ( N) Longitude( E) Annual DNI (kWh/m2)
26.91 70.95 2147
26.3 73.06 2237
25.75 71.41 2248
22.58 69.66 2143
22.71 71.71 2208
17.69 74.00 2085
16.85 74.56 2105
14.67 77.59 2139
it is possible to study the effect of provision of thermal storage
(with the flexibility to choose different hours of thermal storage in
the power plant) with the help of SAM. However the currently
available version of the software (2013.9.20) does not facilitate the
same for LFR based systems. One of the possible reasons for the
same could be the difficulty in the storage of steam produced in the
solar field of LFR technology. On the other hand, in a PTC plant,
synthetic oil and molten salt are being used as heat transfer fluid
and also as thermal storage media as it has attained commercial
maturity. In fact, several solar thermal plants in the USA and Spain
based on PTC technology are operational and have 6e10 h of
thermal storage. Thus, in order to analyze the effect of thermal
storage and deciding thermal storage hours for PTC based plants,
parametric simulations were also carried out for varying hours of
thermal storage and corresponding values of annual electricity
output were obtained.
2.4. Estimation of LUCE
The output provided by SAM also includes LUCE and other
financial metrics. However, their applicability to solar thermal po-
wer plants in India could be limited as the cost data as used by SAM
essentially pertains to locations in the USA. In the present analysis,
benchmark cost and other relevant financial data suggested by the
Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) [21] of India have
been used. Since a change in solar multiple, DNI and/or hours of
thermal storage will change the solar field and hence the capital
cost of the plant, it is necessary to internalize any such change in
the capital cost into the procedure used for estimation of LUCE. For
this purpose the effect of any change in one or more of these pa-
rameters (solar multiple, design DNI, hours of thermal storage) on
the capital cost of the solar thermal power plant has been taken
into account by using the corresponding changes as observed in the
cost estimates provided by SAM for the same changes in the pa-
rameter(s). This had to be resorted to, owing to the unavailability of
relevant information for the locations in India. Details of capital
cost and other financial conditions as prescribed by CERC are pre-
sented in Table 3. The benchmark capital cost of solar thermal
plants is suggested as Rs. 120 million/MW (US$ 1 ¼ Indian rupees
61.41 as on Jan 23, 2015) by CERC for the year 2014e15. Since CERC
has not specified the technology specific capital cost of solar ther-
mal power plants, in view of almost 90% of solar thermal power
plants being based on PTC technology, it is assumed that the
benchmark cost suggested by CERC is for PTC based systems. The
capital cost for LFR based systems have been estimated assuming
that the relative cost differentials amongst different solar thermal
power technologies would remain the same independent of their
location in the world. With this assumption, the capital cost of LFR
based systems was estimated at Rs. 102 million/MW.
Finally the LUCE was estimated using annual electricity output
provided by SAM for different values of solar multiple, design DNI
and hours of thermal storage and the capital cost and other
 C. Sharma et al. / Renewable Energy 87 (2016) 666e675 669

Table 3 leading to increase in capital cost. Consequently the solar field

Financing conditions and other requirements as suggested by CERC [21]. output also increases that led to the operation of power block at its
Parameter Description nominal capacity for longer durations. This results in increased
Capital Cost (per MW) Rs. 120 million for Parabolic trough, Rs. 102 million for
electricity output and correspondingly reduced LUCE. However,
LFR since the maximum allowable thermal energy input to the power
Useful Life 25 years block is fixed, further increase in the solar field output due to
Debt e Equity ratio 70% Debt and 30% Equity increased solar multiple cannot be utilized by the power block and
Interest rate on loan 12.7%
hence the surplus output (thermal energy) is dumped. LUCE will
Repayment Period 12 years
Return on Equity 20% for first 10 years; 24% from 11th year onwards decrease as long as incremental cost (in putting extra solar field) is
Discount rate 10.67% more than offset by incremental benefits (in the form of increased
Depreciation 5.83% for first 12 years; 1.54% from 13th year onwards electricity output), and then it will start increasing again. The effect
Working capital One month O&M, 15% of O&M for spares, two months
of varying solar multiple on electricity output and LUCE for PTC and
receivables
Interest on working 13.2%
LFR based plants is presented in Table 4 and Table 5 respectively. In
capital case of PTC based plants, for all the locations considered in the
O&M expenses Rs. 1.677 million per MW study, LUCE is minimum with solar multiple in the range of 1.4e1.6.
O&M expenses 5.72% per year The minimum value of LUCE for PTC based plants (Table 4) varies
escalation
from Rs. 12.20 per kWh (for the location of Barmer) to Rs. 13.95 per
kWh (for the location of Satara).
A 50 MW LFR based plant (Table 5) produces lesser annual
financial conditions as specified by CERC. LUCE was estimated using electricity output as compared to PTC based plants of the same
the following formula [22]: nominal capacity in the same location. The capital cost of LFR based
plants being reportedly estimated as somewhat lower than that of
X
25
UCEj equivalent capacity PTC based plants (assumed Rs. 102 million per
LUCE ¼  CRF (1)
j¼1 ð1 þ dÞj MW as against Rs. 120 million per MW for PTC based plants in this
study) the minimum value of LUCE delivered by the LFR based plant
Where UCEj represents the unit cost of electricity for jth year and is is lower than that of PTC based plants. For example, for the location
defined as of Barmer, estimated value of LUCE for LFR based plant is Rs. 11.18
per kWh whereas for PTC based plant it is Rs. 12.20 per kWh.
Total annual costfor jth year Another noteworthy observation of the results presented in Table 5
UCEj ¼ (2) is a relatively higher range (1.8e2.0) of solar multiple in which the
Net annual electricity delivered in jth year
LUCE is minimum in comparison to the range (1.4e1.6) for PTC
The total annual cost for a particular (jth) year comprises of (i) based plants. This may be attributed to the relatively lower cost of
the annual interest (IL) on the loan taken for the project (ii) the solar collector field in LFR based plants as compared to PTC based
return on equity (ROE) to be paid (iii) the principal amount (PP) of a plants. As expected the LUCE for LFR based plants also varies with
loan (iv) the interest (IWC) on the working capital, and (v) annual the choice of the location in the country. A graphical representation
expenditure (OM) for operation and maintenance of the plant, i.e. of the variation in LUCE with solar multiple is presented in Figs. 3
and 4 for PTC and LFR based plants respectively.
Annual cost ¼ IL þ ROE þ PP þ IWE þ OM (3) Such a large range for LUCE may be attributed to the fact that
CRF denotes the capital recovery factor and is defined as there is significant variation in the number of hours in a year when
DNI is more than a particular value amongst all the locations
dð1 þ dÞn (Table 6) and as a consequence, even though the total annual DNI
CRF ¼ (4) values at these locations do not differ by more than 10%, the annual
ð1 þ dÞn  1
amount of electricity produced varies considerably.
with d representing discount rate and n the useful life of the plant. For example, the number of hours with DNI value more than
Sample calculations for the levelized unit cost of electricity deliv- 450 W/m2 is 2491 h for Satara whereas in Barmer, DNI exceeds this
ered by solar thermal power plants based on PTC and LFR tech- value in 2822 h. It may also be noted from Table 6 that the location
nology are presented in Appendix-A and Appendix-B respectively. with maximum number of hours having DNI more than a stipulated
value may change if the chosen minimum value of the DNI is
changed. This explains the observed variation in LUCE and the
3. Results and discussion
range of values of solar multiple at which LUCE is minimum at
different locations.
Following the above mentioned methodology, values of the
levelized unit cost of electricity (LUCE) delivered by solar thermal
3.2. Effect of design DNI on LUCE
power plants of 50 MW capacity based on parabolic trough
concentrator (PTC) and linear Fresnel reflector (LFR) have been
In the base case scenario, solar multiple is assumed as 1.0 and
estimated for different values of solar multiple, design DNI (and
design DNI as 950 W/m2. Decreasing design DNI for the same
also hours of thermal storage for the PTC based system). A summary
nominal capacity of the power block essentially implies increasing
of typical results and a brief discussion on the same is presented in
the area of solar field resulting in enhanced thermal energy input to
the following paragraphs:
the power block. As a consequence, with an initial decrease in
design DNI, the electricity output of the plant increases as power
3.1. Effect of increase of solar multiple on LUCE block operates at its nominal capacity for longer duration during
sunshine hours. In case of further decrease in design DNI, the power
For a design DNI of 950 W/m2, solar multiple is increased from block may not be able to use the entire amount of thermal energy
the base value of 1.0 in steps of 0.1 for plants without storage. input provided by the solar field and consequently some thermal
Increasing solar multiple implies an increase in the collector field energy may have to be dumped. Though a decrease in design DNI
670 C. Sharma et al. / Renewable Energy 87 (2016) 666e675

Table 4
Effect of solar multiple on electricity output and LUCE for 50 MW PTC based plants.

Solar multiple Capital cost Jaisalmer Jodhpur Barmer Anantpur Kachch Surendranagar Sangli Satara

Million Rs./MW GWh Rs./kWh GWh Rs./kWh GWh Rs./kWh GWh Rs./kWh GWh Rs./kWh GWh Rs./kWh GWh Rs./kWh GWh Rs./kWh

1 120 70 15.51 72 15.08 74 14.68 73 14.88 69 15.73 73 14.88 70 15.51 69 15.73

1.1 128 78 14.74 81 14.20 83 13.87 82 14.03 78 14.74 82 14.03 79 14.56 78 14.74
1.2 134 86 13.93 88 13.62 90 13.33 89 13.47 85 14.09 89 13.47 85 14.09 84 14.26
1.3 142 94 13.43 96 13.16 99 12.77 96 13.16 93 13.57 97 13.02 92 13.72 90 14.02
1.4 150 102 13.01 104 12.76 106 12.53 102 13.01 100 13.26 104 12.76 98 13.53 95 13.95
1.5 156 108 12.73 110 12.50 112 12.29 106 12.97 104 13.21 109 12.62 102 13.46 98 14.00
1.6 164 114 12.62 116 12.41 118 12.20 110 13.07 109 13.19 114 12.62 106 13.55 101 14.21
1.7 172 119 12.62 121 12.42 123 12.22 113 13.28 113 13.28 118 12.73 109 13.76 104 14.40
1.8 178 123 12.64 125 12.42 126 12.31 115 13.46 115 13.46 120 12.91 111 13.93 106 14.58
1.9 186 127 12.70 128 12.60 129 12.51 116 13.88 118 13.65 123 13.10 113 14.24 107 15.02
2 194 130 12.89 131 12.79 132 12.70 118 14.17 119 14.06 124 13.50 114 14.66 109 15.32

Table 5
Effect of solar multiple on electricity output and LUCE for 50 MW LFR based plants.

Solar multiple Capital cost Jaisalmer Jodhpur Barmer Anantpur Kachch Surendranagar Sangli Satara

Million Rs./MW GWh Rs./kWh GWh Rs./kWh GWh Rs./kWh GWh Rs./kWh GWh Rs./kWh GWh Rs./kWh GWh Rs./kWh GWh Rs./kWh

1 102 51 18.44 52 18.09 55 17.12 57 16.53 52 18.09 55 17.12 54 17.43 54 17.43

1.1 108 59 16.77 61 16.23 64 15.48 65 15.25 60 16.49 63 15.72 62 15.97 61 16.23
1.2 116 70 15.06 71 14.85 75 14.08 76 13.89 71 14.85 74 14.26 72 14.65 72 14.65
1.3 122 78 14.14 79 13.97 84 13.15 84 13.15 79 13.97 82 13.46 80 13.79 79 13.97
1.4 128 85 13.55 87 13.24 92 12.54 91 12.67 87 13.24 90 12.81 87 13.24 85 13.55
1.5 134 93 12.91 95 12.64 99 12.14 97 12.38 94 12.77 97 12.38 93 12.91 91 13.18
1.6 140 100 12.49 102 12.25 106 11.79 103 12.13 100 12.49 103 12.13 99 12.61 96 13.00
1.7 146 107 12.12 108 12.01 113 11.49 108 12.01 106 12.23 109 11.90 104 12.46 101 12.83
1.8 152 113 11.90 114 11.80 119 11.32 112 12.01 111 12.11 114 11.80 108 12.44 104 12.91
1.9 158 119 11.71 120 11.61 124 11.25 115 12.11 115 12.11 119 11.71 111 12.53 108 12.92
2 164 123 11.72 124 11.62 129 11.18 119 12.10 118 12.20 122 11.81 115 12.51 110 13.07
2.1 170 127 11.72 128 11.63 133 11.20 121 12.29 121 12.29 125 11.9 117 12.7 113 13.14
2.2 176 131 11.73 132 11.64 136 11.31 124 12.37 124 12.37 128 12 120 12.78 115 13.32
2.3 182 134 11.82 135 11.73 139 11.40 126 12.55 126 12.55 130 12.17 122 12.95 117 13.50

implies an increase in solar field (thus leading to an increase in the
capital cost of the plant) a decrease in LUCE is still observed initially
as the electricity output also increases. However, beyond a certain
value of design DNI, the incremental cost of solar field necessitated
by a further decrease in design DNI may be larger than the incre-
mental benefits likely to accrue due to an increase in the amount of
electricity produced. As a result LUCE starts increasing with further
decrease in design DNI (Tables 7 and 8).
As expected the optimal value of design DNI corresponding to a
minimum value of LUCE varies with the location for both PTC and
LFR based plants (Tables 7 and 8). For example, in case of PTC based
plants, for the location of Barmer, the minimum LUCE of Rs. 12.17
per kWh is observed at a design DNI of 600 W/m2 whereas for
Satara, this minimum is Rs. 13.99 per kWh at a design DNI of 700 W/
m2. In case of LFR based plants (Table 8), range of the optimal
design DNI that corresponds to minimum LUCE is lower
(450e550 W/m2) in comparison to the corresponding range for PTC
based plants (550e700 W/m2). Similar to PTC based plants, for the
location of Barmer, the minimum LUCE of Rs. 11.23 per kWh is
observed at a design DNI of 500 W/m2 whereas for Satara, this
minimum is Rs. 12.88 per kWh at a design DNI of 550 W/m2. Var-
iations of LUCE with design DNI for PTC and LFR plants at all the
locations considered in the study are shown in Figs. 5 and 6.

Fig. 3. Variation of LUCE with solar multiple for PTC based plant.
 C. Sharma et al. / Renewable Energy 87 (2016) 666e675 671

Fig. 4. Variation of LUCE with solar multiple for LFR based plant.

3.3. Effect of thermal storage on LUCE for PTC based plants
In SAM (version 2013.9.20), there is an option of studying the
effect of thermal storage for PTC based plants. As explained earlier,
designing the solar field of solar thermal power plants for higher
solar multiple or lower design DNI essentially implies an increase in
the area of solar field and hence increased thermal energy input to
the power block. Since power block cannot utilize thermal energy
input beyond its nominal capacity, excess thermal energy produced
by the solar field may have to be dumped. Providing appropriate
hours of thermal storage can facilitate the use of any thermal
energy being dumped and consequently improve the capacity
utilization of the power block. Since the provision of thermal
storage involves incremental capital investment in heat transfer
fluid (Molten salt or synthetic oil) and required support structure
(including storage tanks and heat exchangers), the LUCE may often
increase due to the incremental cost (of thermal storage) being
more than incremental benefits (due to an increase in electricity
output).
To analyze the effect of hours of thermal storage on LUCE for PTC
based plants, plants designed for optimal design DNI at each
selected location (decided on the basis of the results presented in

Table 6
Number of hours in a year when DNI exceeds a particular value at different locations.

DNI (W/m2) more than Number of hours in a year when DNI exceeds a particular value at the location of

Jaisalmer Jodhpur Barmer Anantpur Kachch Sangli Satara Surendranagar

0 4352 4198 4327 4112 4254 4077 3938 4119

450 2760 2812 2822 2604 2628 2543 2491 2740
500 2496 2582 2610 2384 2436 2347 2330 2561
550 2166 2304 2329 2143 2208 2125 2120 2338
600 1728 1925 1916 1903 1955 1884 1863 2015
650 1285 1505 1502 1623 1610 1558 1640 1672
700 882 1179 1171 1317 1300 1265 1402 1363
750 531 883 841 995 996 1020 1172 1045
800 255 610 537 745 677 785 946 743
850 88 359 274 469 380 543 724 458
900 24 141 95 276 165 329 446 209
950 4 31 18 115 42 133 200 55
Annual DNI (kWh/m2) 2147 2237 2248 2139 2143 2105 2085 2208

Table 7
Effect of design DNI on electricity output and LUCE for 50 MW PTC based plants.

Design DNI Capital cost Jaisalmer Jodhpur Barmer Anantpur Kachch Surendranagar Sangli Satara

Million Rs./MW GWh Rs./kWh GWh Rs./kWh GWh Rs./kWh GWh Rs./kWh GWh Rs./kWh GWh Rs./kWh GWh Rs./kWh GWh Rs./kWh

450 208 132 13.52 131 13.62 135 13.22 117 15.22 119 14.97 123 14.49 113 15.75 107 16.62
500 191 128 12.90 128 12.90 132 12.52 116 14.21 117 14.09 122 13.53 112 14.71 106 15.53
550 177 122 12.64 124 12.44 126 12.24 113 13.62 114 13.50 119 12.95 109 14.11 104 14.78
600 165 114 12.69 117 12.37 119 12.17 110 13.14 109 13.26 114 12.69 105 13.75 101 14.29
650 156 107 12.85 110 12.50 112 12.29 105 13.09 104 13.21 108 12.73 101 13.59 97 14.14
700 147 99 13.16 102 12.78 104 12.54 100 13.03 97 13.42 101 12.90 96 13.56 93 13.99
750 141 92 13.63 95 13.21 97 12.94 95 13.21 92 13.63 95 13.21 91 13.78 89 14.08
800 134 86 13.93 88 13.62 90 13.33 89 13.47 85 14.09 89 13.47 85 14.09 84 14.26
850 129 80 14.47 82 14.13 85 13.64 84 13.80 79 14.65 83 13.96 80 14.47 79 14.65
900 124 74 15.10 76 14.71 78 14.34 78 14.34 74 15.10 78 14.34 75 14.90 74 15.10
950 120 70 15.51 72 15.08 74 14.68 73 14.88 69 15.73 73 14.88 70 15.51 69 15.73
672 C. Sharma et al. / Renewable Energy 87 (2016) 666e675

Table 8
Effect of design DNI on electricity output and LUCE for 50 MW LFR based plants.

Design DNI Capital cost Jaisalmer Jodhpur Barmer Anantpur Kachch Surendranagar Sangli Satara

Million Rs./MW GWh Rs./kWh GWh Rs./kWh GWh Rs./kWh GWh Rs./kWh GWh Rs./kWh GWh Rs./kWh GWh Rs./kWh GWh Rs./kWh

450 178 131 11.85 136 11.42 136 11.42 124 12.50 124 12.50 128 12.12 120 12.91 115 13.46
500 162 121 11.78 122 11.68 127 11.23 117 12.17 117 12.17 121 11.78 113 12.59 109 13.04
550 150 111 11.97 112 11.87 117 11.37 110 12.08 109 12.19 112 11.87 106 12.53 103 12.88
600 140 100 12.49 102 12.25 106 11.79 102 12.25 100 12.49 103 12.13 98 12.74 96 13.00
650 136 90 13.50 92 13.21 96 12.67 95 12.80 91 13.35 94 12.94 91 13.35 89 13.65
700 126 83 13.68 84 13.52 89 12.78 88 12.92 84 13.52 87 13.06 84 13.52 83 13.68
750 120 75 14.49 77 14.12 81 13.44 81 13.44 76 14.30 79 13.77 77 14.12 76 14.30
800 114 67 15.49 69 15.05 72 14.44 73 14.24 68 15.27 71 14.64 69 15.05 69 15.05
850 110 62 16.22 63 15.97 67 15.03 68 14.81 63 15.97 66 15.25 64 15.72 64 15.72
900 106 56 17.38 58 16.79 61 15.97 62 15.72 58 16.79 60 16.23 59 16.51 59 16.51
950 102 51 18.44 52 18.09 55 17.12 57 16.53 52 18.09 55 17.12 54 17.43 54 17.43

Table 8) have been considered as the base case design. For each of
these base case designs, the value of solar multiple is then
increased with each solar multiple being analyzed for different
hours of thermal storage. Since the cost of thermal storage was not
available for Indian locations, same cost differentials as provided by
SAM have been used. Variation of LUCE with hours of thermal
energy storage is presented in Table 9.
As expected, the efficacy of including storage component in a
PTC based solar thermal power plant is observed to be higher for
plants designed with higher solar multiple as the amount of ther-
mal energy likely to be dumped is more with such designs. Esti-
mates of annual electricity outputs for different combinations of
solar multiple and hours of thermal energy storage are presented in
Table 10.
It is observed that for a given solar multiple, inclusion of a
storage component in the system may help increase the amount of
electricity delivered during the year as the thermal energy being
dumped previously is being stored and used for electricity

Fig. 5. Variation of LUCE with design DNI for PTC based plant.

Fig. 6. Variation of LUCE with design DNI for LFR based plant.
 C. Sharma et al. / Renewable Energy 87 (2016) 666e675 673

Table 9
Variation of LUCE with hours of thermal energy storage and solar multiple.

Solar multiple Thermal LUCE (Rs./kWh) for 50 MW PTC based plant at

Storage hours
Jaisalmer Jodhpur Barmer Anantpur Kachch Surendranagar Sangli Satara

1.0 0 12.64 12.37 12.17 13.03 13.21 12.69 13.56 13.99

3 13.62 13.85 13.31 14.71 14.96 13.74 15.44 15.75
6 15.46 15.82 15.32 17.01 17.19 15.69 18.02 18.2
9 17.43 17.94 17.23 19.48 19.59 17.65 20.45 20.87
1.3 0 13.69 13.11 12.83 13.46 13.78 13.83 13.93 14.58
3 12.78 12.52 12.29 13.19 13.37 12.84 13.79 14.22
6 13.45 13.54 13.15 14.34 14.58 13.46 15.07 15.4
9 14.75 15.01 14.49 16.03 16.35 14.83 16.85 17.1
1.6 0 15.11 14.42 14.22 14.73 15.19 15.52 15.22 16.17
3 13.25 12.74 12.53 13.28 13.5 13.33 13.81 14.48
6 12.84 12.63 12.45 13.31 13.52 12.89 13.95 14.39
9 13.37 13.45 13.13 14.23 14.4 13.45 14.89 15.25
1.9 0 16.88 16.03 15.81 16.19 16.6 17.22 16.72 17.88
3 14.22 13.68 13.54 14.04 14.37 14.61 14.48 15.44
6 13.24 12.81 12.64 13.48 13.58 13.42 13.92 14.64
9 13.27 12.98 12.77 13.63 13.77 13.32 14.18 14.77
2.2 0 18.57 17.74 17.5 17.64 18.31 19.04 18.2 19.6
3 15.49 14.95 14.72 15.02 15.49 15.94 15.48 16.58
6 13.92 13.49 13.32 13.99 14.21 14.36 14.43 15.29
9 13.33 12.98 12.79 13.59 13.68 13.5 14.03 14.7

generation. However, a large increase in hours of thermal storage
for the same solar multiple may not be beneficial as the storage is
being increased in the same solar field. In fact, an arbitrary increase
in the storage component of the same solar field may even reduce
the electricity output due to increased losses from the storage
component. As the solar multiple is increased, it may be possible to
benefit from increased hours of thermal storage. For example, for
the location of Jaisalmer, annual electricity output is 264 GWh with
a solar multiple of 2.2 and provision of 9 h of thermal storage
whereas for the base case (no storage) annual electricity output is
only 122 GWh.
From the results presented in Table 9, it may be noted that for all
the combinations of solar multiple and hours of thermal storage,
LUCE is higher as compared to its value for the base case i.e. no
storage. Thus, without dispatch ability being the primary objective,
it may be better to have grid connected systems with minimal
storage of half an hour to an hour (to take care of variability and
intermittence in solar radiation availability). Variation in LUCE and
annual electricity output with varying hours of thermal storage and
solar multiple for the location of Jaisalmer is presented in Figs. 7
and 8.
A noteworthy observation from the above analysis is that the
estimated values of LUCE for CSP (PTC and LFR) based systems is
higher in comparison to the prevailing electricity tariff in four states
with considerable potential for solar thermal power generation. A
comparison of prevailing electricity tariff (in 2013e14) for various
consumption categories [23] and the obtained values of LUCE for
PTC and LFR based systems is presented in Table 11.
4. Concluding remarks
In the present study an attempt has been made to analyze the
impact of three design parameters (solar multiple, design DNI and
hours of thermal storage to minimize the energy dumped) on the
performance of two linear solar concentrators (PTC and LFR) at
eight niche Indian locations using System Advisor Model (SAM). It
is practically possible to obtain useful a-priori information with the
use of SAM regarding the feasibility of solar thermal power

Table 10
Variation of annual electricity output with hours of thermal energy storage and solar multiple.

Solar multiple Thermal Annual electricity output (GWh) for 50 MW PTC based plant at
Storage hours
Jaisalmer Jodhpur Barmer Anantpur Kachch Surendranagar Sangli Satara

1.0 0 122 117 119 100 104 114 96 93

3 131 122 127 105 108 123 100 98
6 131 122 126 105 108 123 99 98
9 130 121 126 104 107 123 99 97
1.3 0 135 132 135 115 118 125 111 106
3 164 158 161 136 140 154 130 126
6 174 164 169 142 145 165 135 132
9 175 164 170 142 144 166 135 133
1.6 0 143 139 141 121 124 129 117 110
3 182 177 180 153 158 169 147 140
6 207 198 201 171 176 194 163 158
9 217 204 209 177 182 204 169 165
1.9 0 146 143 145 125 129 133 121 113
3 191 186 188 162 167 174 157 147
6 224 218 221 187 195 208 181 172
9 242 234 238 203 210 228 195 187
2.2 0 149 145 147 128 131 135 124 115
3 195 189 192 167 171 177 162 151
6 235 228 231 197 204 214 191 180
9 264 256 260 221 230 246 214 204
674 C. Sharma et al. / Renewable Energy 87 (2016) 666e675

Fig. 7. Variation of LUCE with hours of thermal energy storage for PTC based plant at Jaisalmer.

Fig. 8. Variation of electricity output with hours of thermal energy storage for PTC plant at Jaisalmer.

generation at a chosen location in India. All the locations consid-
ered in the study are found to have considerable potential for solar
thermal power generation. Effects of change in the values of solar
multiple, design DNI and thermal storage hours on LUCE have been
analyzed for 50 MW nominal capacity PTC and LFR based power
plants at the locations considered in the study. For a design DNI of
950 W/m2, LUCE is minimum for values of solar multiple in the
range 1.4e1.6 for PTC and 1.6e1.8 for LFR based plants. Alterna-
tively, with a solar multiple of 1.0, minimum LUCE is observed in
the design DNI range of 550e700 W/m2 for PTC and 450e550 W/
m2 for LFR based plants. For PTC based plants, it is observed that
provision of hours of thermal storage (with appropriate solar
multiple) significantly improves capacity utilization factor although
the same does not lower LUCE. It is also observed that though the
annual electricity output of LFR based plants is lower as compared
to that of PTC based plants of the same nominal capacity in the
same location, a somewhat lower cost of LFR based systems may
more than compensate for the lower electricity output. It is worth
mentioning that the cost data used in the study for LFR based
systems as well as the cost differentials resulting from the envis-
aged changes in the values of solar multiple, design DNI and hours
of thermal storage have been estimated on the basis of simplifying
assumptions due to unavailability of data for the Indian locations.
Acknowledgment
Chandan Sharma acknowledges the encouragement provided
by the Department of Technical Education, Government of State of
Rajasthan (India), Government Engineering College, Ajmer and the
Quality Improvement Program at Indian Institute of Technology
Delhi.

Table 11
Comparison of prevailing electricity tariff (in 2013e14) and LUCE of CSP systems [23].

State Electricity tariff (Rs./kWh) Range of LUCE (Rs./kWh) of CSP

systems based on
Domestic Commercial

Up to 400 units Up to 600 units Up to 5 kW Up to 10 kW PTC LFR

Andhra Pradesh 5.72 6.54 8.89 9.21 13.03e13.62 12.08e12.80

Gujarat 5.12 5.44 5.69 5.69 12.69e13.21 11.78e12.17
Maharashtra 7.10 7.93 9.39 9.64 13.56e13.99 12.53e12.88
Rajasthan 5.72 5.79 7.23 7.54 12.24e12.64 11.23e11.78
 C. Sharma et al. / Renewable Energy 87 (2016) 666e675 675

Appendix-A

Table A1
Sample calculations of LUCE for a 50 MW PTC based plant (Capital cost Rs.120 million per MW)

At the end of year 1 2 3 10 11 12 13 23 24 25

Annual Output (GWh) 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70

Principal Remaining (Rs. million) 4200 3850 3500 1050 700 350 0 0 0 0
Interest on loan (Rs. million) 533.4 489 444.5 133.4 88.9 44.5 0 0 0 0
Depreciation (Rs. million) 350 350 350 350 350 350 92.5 92.5 92.5 92.5
Return on Equity (Rs. million) 360 360 360 360 432 432 432 432 432 432
Working Capital (Rs. million) 148 148.5 149 153.3 154 154.8 155.7 167.3 168.9 170.5
Int. on working capital (Rs. million) 19.5 19.6 19.7 20.2 20.3 20.4 20.5 22.1 22.3 22.5
O&M (Rs. million) 83.9 88.6 93.7 138.3 146.2 154.6 163.5 285.1 301.4 318.6
Annual Cost (Rs. million) 1347 1307 1268 1002 1038 1102 708 832 848 866
UCE (Rs/kWh) 19.24 18.67 18.11 14.31 14.821 14.31 10.12 11.88 12.12 12.36
LUCE (Rs/kWh) 15.51

Appendix-B

Table B1
Sample calculations of LUCE for a 50 MW LFR based plant (Capital cost Rs.102 million per MW)

At the end of year 1 2 3 10 11 12 13 23 24 25

Annual Output (GWh) 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51

Principal Remaining (Rs. million) 3570 3272.7 2975.3 894 596.7 299.4 0 0 0 0
Interest on loan (Rs. million) 453.4 415.6 377.9 113.5 75.8 38 0 0 0 0
Depreciation (Rs. million) 297.3 297.3 297.3 297.3 297.3 297.3 78.5 78.5 78.5 78.5
Return on Equity (Rs. million) 306 306 306 306 367.2 367.2 367.2 367.2 367.2 367.2
Working Capital (Rs. million) 110 110.5 111 115.3 116 116.8 117.7 129.3 131 132.5
Int. on working capital (Rs. million) 14.5 14.6 14.6 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 17.1 17.3 17.5
O&M (Rs. million) 83.9 88.6 93.7 138.3 146.2 154.6 163.5 285.1 301.4 318.6
Annual Cost (Rs. million) 1155 1122 1090 870 902 873 625 748 764 782
UCE (Rs./kWh) 22.65 22.00 21.36 17.07 17.68 17.11 12.25 14.66 14.99 15.33
LUCE (Rs./kWh) 18.44

References [12] M.J. Montes, A. Aba nades, J.M. Martínez-Val, M. Valde s, Solar multiple opti-
mization for a solar-only thermal power plant, using oil as heat transfer fluid
in the parabolic trough collectors, Sol. Energy 83 (2009) 2165e2176, http://
[1] SolarPACES. CSP Projects Around the World. Solar Power and Chemical Energy
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2009.08.010.
Systems (SolarPACES), Almeria, Spain. http://www.solarpaces.org/csp-
[13] M.J. Montes, A. Ab anades, J.M. Martínez-Val, Performance of a direct steam
technology/csp-projects-around-the-world.
generation solar thermal power plant for electricity production as a function
[2] I. Purohit, P. Purohit, S. Shekhar, Evaluating the potential of concentrating
of the solar multiple, Sol. Energy 83 (2009) 679e689, http://dx.doi.org/
solar power generation in Northwestern India, Energy Policy 62 (2013)
10.1016/j.solener.2008.10.015.
157e175, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.069.
[14] S. Izquierdo, C. Montan ~es, C. Dopazo, N. Fueyo, Analysis of CSP plants for the
[3] R. Mahtta, P.K. Joshi, A.K. Jindal, Solar power potential mapping in India using
definition of energy policies: The influence on electricity cost of solar multi-
remote sensing inputs and environmental parameters, Renew. Energy 71
ples, capacity factors and energy storage, Energy Policy 38 (2010) 6215e6221,
(2014) 255e262, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.05.037.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.06.009.
[4] C. Sharma, A.K. Sharma, S.C. Mullick, T.C. Kandpal, Assessment of solar thermal
[15] N.B. Desai, S.B. Kedare, S. Bandyopadhyay, Optimization of design radiation for
power generation potential in India, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 42 (2015)
concentrating solar thermal power plants without storage, Sol. Energy 107
902e912, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.059.
(2014) 98e112, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2014.05.046.
[5] P. Viebahn, L. Yolanda, F. Trieb, The potential role of concentrated solar power
[16] K.S. Reddy, K.R. Kumar, V.A. Devraj, Feasibility analysis of megawatt scale
(CSP) in Africa and Europe - A dynamic assessment of technology develop-
solar thermal power plants, J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 4 (2012), http://
ment, cost development and life cycle inventories until 2050, Energy Policy
dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4766891, 063111.
2011 (39) (2011) 4420e4430.
[17] S. Sundaray, T.C. Kandpal, Preliminary feasibility evaluation of solar thermal
[6] IEA, Technology Roadmap - Solar Thermal Electricity, International Energy
power generation in India, Int. J. Sustain. Energy 33 (2014) 461e469, http://
Agency (IEA), Paris Cedex 15, France, 2014, p. 75739.
dx.doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2013.770395.
[7] ESMAP, Development of Local Supply Chain: the Missing Link for Concen-
[18] SAM, System Advisor Model. Version, 9.20. National Renewable Energy Lab-
trated Solar Power Projects in India. The Energy Sector Management Assis-
oratory, 2013. https://sam.nrel.gov/content/downloads (accessed 20.01.15).
tance Program (ESMAP), 2012. World Bank, Washington D.C.
[19] SEC, MNRE. Solar Energy Centre, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy,
[8] G. Morin, J. Dersch, W. Platzer, M. Eck, A. H€ aberle, Comparison of Linear
Government of India. See: http://mnre.gov.in/sec/solar-assmnt.htm (accessed
Fresnel and Parabolic Trough Collector power plants, Sol. Energy 86 (2012)
25.12.14).
1e12, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2011.06.020.
[20] PVSyst. Photovoltaic software. Version 6.2.2. See: http://www.pvsyst.com/en/
[9] A. Giostri, M. Binotti, P. Silva, E. Macchi, G. Manzolini, Comparison of Two
software (accessed 28.12.14).
Linear Collectors in Solar Thermal Plants: Parabolic Trough Versus Fresnel,
[21] CERC. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, Government of India. http://
J. Sol. Energy Eng. 135 (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4006792, 011001.
www.cercind.gov.in/2014/orders/SO354.pdf (accessed 15.12.14).
[10] M. Wirz, M. Roesle, A. Steinfeld, Design Point for Predicting Year-Round
[22] T.C. Kandpal, H.P. Garg, Financial Evaluation of Renewable Energy Technolo-
Performance of Solar Parabolic Trough Concentrator Systems, J. Sol. Energy
gies, Macmillan India Ltd, 2003.
Eng. 136 (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4025709, 021019.
[23] CEA. Central Electricity Authority. Tariff and Duty of Electricity Supply in In-
[11] V. Quaschning, R. Kistner, W. Ortmanns, Influence of Direct Normal Irradiance
dia. http://www.cea.nic.in/reports/articles/eandc/tariff_2014.pdf (accessed
Variation on the Optimal Parabolic Trough Field Size: A Problem Solved with
18.08.15).
Technical and Economical Simulations, J. Sol. Energy Eng. 124 (2002) 160,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.1465432.