PROJECT REPORT ON SOLAR THERMAL POWER

SUBMITTED BY: RUPESH BRAMECHA RUSHABH GALA RISHABH JAIN 306 308 311

NIKUNJ ASHOK LOYA 313 SIDDHANT SANGAL GAURAV MANN 317 321

1 |Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.ABSTRACT..4 2. INTRODUCTION...5 2.1 TURNING SOLAR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY.............. 5 2.2 WHY CONCENTRATE SOLAR POWER .......................... 6 3. GLOBAL MARKET POTENTIAL7 3.1 THE GLOBAL SOLAR THERMAL MARKET.................. 7 3.2 India ....................................................................................... 8 4. COMMERCIAL FEASIBILITY9 5. BUSINESS PLAN.13 5.1 SOLAR PARABOLIC TROUGH....................................... 13 5.1.1 Plant Overview ............................................................. 14 5.2 Integrated Solar Combined Cycle System (ISCCS)............ 15 5.3 COMPARISON BETWEEN DIFEERENT TECHNOLOGIES:.................................................................... 17 5.4 CURRENT ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST: .................... 18 5.5 Capital costs of parabolic trough and solar power plant ..... 19 5.6 SOLAR TOWER V/S PARABOLIC TROUGH: ............... 20 5.7 Cost breakdown for parabolic troughs: ............................... 20 5.8 Breakdown of the investment cost of a 50 MW power plant .................................................................................................... 22 5.9 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST: .................. 23 6. COST REDUCTION POTENTIAL.24 6.1 COST REDUCTION OF CSP COMPONENTS AND PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENTS ..................................... 25 2 |Page

6.2 Plant Performance Innovation ............................................. 26 6.3 The solar field: Mirrors, receivers and support structures .. 26 6.4 Heat transfer fluids............................................................... 27 6.5 Thermal energy storage ....................................................... 28 6.6 OVERALL CAPITAL COST REDUCTION POTENTIAL .................................................................................................... 28 6.7 O&M COST REDUCTION POTENTIAL ......................... 29 7. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES30 8. APPLICATIONS, BENEFITS AND IMPACTS..31 8.1 Applications......................................................................... 31 8.2 Benefits ................................................................................ 31 8.3 Impacts ................................................................................. 32 8.4 Hybridization ....................................................................... 33 9. RESULTS..33 10. SUMMARY.36 11. REFERENCES37

3 |Page

1. ABSTRACT

In this project, we have done a comparative study of various cost effective solar thermal power technology and then evaluated as to which method is most suitable for industrial application. Trough technology was considered to be the best approach for solar thermal power generation. After analyzing the best method, the next step was to define the commercial feasibility with respect to Indian as well as the global market. Currently existing projects have been thoroughly analyzed and studied upon and various conclusions have been made based on them. Cost reduction potentials in different departments have been looked into. Innovation in terms of technological aspects has been done by improving the financial costs. The improvisation of hybridization which involves the use of fossil fuels to reduce the running risk factors has been considered. The concept of Integrated Solar Combined Cycle (ISCC) has been effectively involved in innovative commercial application of the respective technology. The advantages, benefits and impacts have been analyzed so as to bring out the best results of the implication of solar thermal technology.

4 |Page

2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 TURNING SOLAR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY

Producing electricity from the energy in the suns rays is a straightforward process: direct solar radiation can be concentrated and collected by a range of Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) technologies to provide medium- to high- temperature heat. This heat is then used to operate a conventional power cycle, for example through a steam turbine or a Stirling engine. Solar heat collected during the day can also be stored in liquid or solid media such as molten salts, ceramics, concrete or, in the future, phase-changing salt mixtures. At night, it can be extracted from the storage medium thereby continuing turbine operation. Solar thermal power plants designed for solar-only generation are ideally suited to satisfying summer noon peak loads in wealthy countries with significant cooling demands, such as Spain and California. Thermal energy storage systems are capable of expanding the operation time of solar thermal plants even up to base-load operation. For example, in Spain the 50 MWeAndaSol plants are designed with six to 12 hours thermal storage, increasing annual availability by about 1,000 to 2,500 hours. During the market introduction phase of the technology, hybrid plant concepts which back up the solar output by fossil co- firing are likely to be the favoured option, as in commercially operating parabolic trough SEGS plants in California where some fossil fuel is used in case of lower radiation intensity to secure reliable peak-load supply. Also, Integrated Solar- Combined Cycle (ISCC) plants for mid- to base-load operation are best suited to this introduction phase. Combined generation of heat and power by CSP has particularly promising potential, as the high-value solar energy input is used to the best possible efficiency, exceeding 85%. Process heat from combined generation can be used for industrial applications, district cooling or sea water desalination.

5 |Page

 Current CSP technologies include parabolic trough power plants, solar power towers, and parabolic dish engines (see Part Two). Parabolic trough plants with an installed capacity of 354 MW have been in commercial operation for many years in the California Mojave desert, whilst solar towers and dish engines have been tested successfully in a series of demonstration projects.

2.2 WHY CONCENTRATE SOLAR POWER

Concentrating solar power (CSP) to generate bulk electricity is one of the technologies best suited to helping to mitigate climate change in an affordable way, as well as reducing the consumption of fossil fuels. Life-cycle assessment of the emissions produced, together with the land surface impacts of CSP systems, shows that they are ideally suited to the task of reducing greenhouse gases and other pollutants, without creating other environmental risks or contamination. Each square metre of CSP concentrator surface, for example, is enough to avoid annual emissions of 200 to 300 kilograms (kg) of carbon dioxide, depending on its configuration. The energy payback time of concentrating solar power systems is of the order of just five months. This compares very favourably with their lifespan of approximately 25 to 30 years. Most of the CSP solar field materials can be recycled and used again for further plants.

6 |Page

3. GLOBAL MARKET POTENTIAL

3.1 THE GLOBAL SOLAR THERMAL MARKET

Progress in developing the market has been further hampered by the worldwide liberalisation of the electricity sector. This has significantly affected the viability of large, capital-intensive generating plants. Lack of either firm market prices or long- term power purchase agreements has increased uncertainty and lowered the depreciation times for capital investments. The result has been a shift towards low capital cost plant like combined cycle gas firing, with quick build times, installed costs falling to below $ 500/kW and generation efficiencies of over 50%. In this climate, solar thermal plant will need to scale up to larger unit capacities in order to compete successfully for the generation of bulk electricity. Even so, new opportunities are opening up as a result of the global search for clean energy solutions. Some of the main sponsors of energy investments in the developing world, including the World Banks Global Environment Facility (GEF), the German KreditanstaltfrWiederaufbau (KfW) and the European Investment Bank (EIB), have recently been convinced of the environmental promise of and economic prospects for solar thermal. Funding has also been made available for demonstration and commercialisation projects. In other countries with a large solar thermal potential, especially in the Middle East, Southern Africa and South America, interest is being shown by both governments and national utilities. The attraction comes both from the availability of post-Kyoto clean energy funding and, for countries with oil-based electricity production, the desire to exploit indigenous renewable resources. These factors have led to recent and significant interest in constructing plants in the sun belt regions from private-sector turnkey suppliers. In addition, interest rates and capital costs have fallen drastically worldwide, increasing the viability of capital-intensive renewable projects.

7 |Page

Overall, it is clear that parabolic trough plants are the most economic and most mature solar thermal technology available today, although there are still significant areas for improvement and cost cutting. Central receivers, with low-cost and efficient thermal storage, promise to offer dispatchable, high-capacity factor solar-only plants in the near future, with the first commercial plants coming on line in Spain. Whilst the modular nature of parabolic dish systems will allow them to be used in smaller high-value and off-grid remote applications for deployment in the medium to long term, further development and field testing is still needed, but with significant potential for cost cutting through mass production.
3.2 India

The technical feasibility of a 35 MW demonstration project was first established in the early 1990s by Fichtner, a German engineering consultant, with assistance from the KfW. Following further evaluations, together with Engineers India Ltd, an Indian engineering consultant, Fichtner came up with the option of integrating the solar thermal unit with a gas-fired combined cycle power plant with a total capacity of 140 MW. The project cost was estimated at around US$ 200 million. Eventually, an agreement was reached between the World Bank/GEF and the German KfW development bank to co-fund the project. The GEF commitment is US$ 50 million (to cover the additional solar costs), KfW wanted to provide a 128 million loan, whilst the Indian and Rajasthan governments wanted to contribute about $10 million each. Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation (RREC) published a Request for Proposals in June 2002 for a combined cycle of about 140 MW incorporating a parabolic trough solar thermal field of some 220,000m2 equivalent to 30MWe solar capacity. Limited competition, high risks, uncertain fuel supply and administrational disputes delayed the project. The sponsors of the Global Environmental Facility are now seeking a firm commitment of all Indian participants to continue the project.

8 |Page

4. COMMERCIAL FEASIBILITY
In global market India is potential market emerging for the solar energy harvesting. The feasibility of Integrated Solar Combined Cycle Systemis discussed now:
1) Electric Power Sectors

The electrical power demand in India has been almost doubled in these ten years and the power supply situation is becoming more serious nowadays. Furthermore, in India, there has been observed an extreme peak load in summer season. The peak load occurs every year and the figure tends to increase in relation to the size of increasing population. Stable power supply is essential for development of India and the government is accelerating establishment of a stable power supply system. MEW, monopolizing and controlling the power supply in India, is planning and constructing several new power projects. MEW is adopting the combined cycle power generating system of higher efficiency for new installations as well as replacement and revamping with aims of flexible operation, reducing fuel consumption and reducing greenhouse gas emission. 2) Power Generation by Utilizing Solar Energy as Renewable Energy: It is generally known that renewable energies available for power generation are, wind, biomass, photo voltaic, geothermal, hydropower, solar thermal and others. Solar thermal energy among these is the most suitable to India for power generation by utilizing renewable energies because of the following reasons. 9 |Page

 Due to geographical location of India, solar thermal energy is so abundantly usable for being profitably converted to electrical power on a commercial basis. Solar thermal energy is cost-free energy with giving a preferable influence to an operation cost. Solar thermal energy can be used freely without any restriction of political, social and environmental. 3) The necessity of New ISCC Power Plant: The ISCC technology is a more innovative power generating system by utilizing solar thermal energy as a substitute energy than conventional power generating systems operating on fossil fuels. It matches with the energy strategy of MEW and the application of a new ISCC power plant will satisfy the future power generation planning by MEW. The ISCC technology has the following technical advantages. Enhancement of Efficiency of Combined Cycle Power Plant (CCPP): The steam generated by a heat exchanger depending on solar thermal energy is added to another steam being generated at a heat recovery boiler (HRSG). The combined steam drives steam turbine and increases its output power. Thereby, without increasing fuel supply, the total power output is increased owing to solar thermal energy and hence realizing better efficiency (). 4) Effect of New ISCC Power Plant Effects of applying a new ISCC power plant in India are as follows. Rational Solution against Increasing Power Demand and Peak Load: 10 | P a g e

The power demand curve in India has an extraordinary high peak load during daytime in summer season. Presumably, air conditioners are turned on one after another as the temperature starts to increase, while the solar thermal energy covering the ground also reaches to its peak. Catching simultaneously the increasing solar thermal energy and converting it to electricity by applying the ISCC technology is the most effective and the most rational method for compensating the peak demand; if solar thermal energy is a main reason for the peak demand, it can also be a decisive solution to compensate the peak demand. Rationalization of Fuel Consumption: Utilization of solar thermal energy as a substitute energy for power generation saves fossil fuels and contributes for rationalization of fuel consumption. Reduction of Green House Gas Emission: As solar thermal energy is the cleanest renewable energy of zero emission, its utilization performs a reduction of greenhouse gas emission and meets with the policy of Indian government to promote measures against global warming. Formation of Electricity Market by Renewable Energy: India is located at the most suitable area for utilizing solar thermal energy. With making the best of the advantage, it is possible to build a new ISCC power plant of a commercial size and specifications. The new ISCC power plant planned in this study, as the first largest-scale ISCC power plant in the world, creates a new power market based on a renewable energy in the region. In India, solar thermal energy is inexhaustibly available for power generation, and it is possible to establish an energy11 | P a g e

sustained power supply system depending on the inexhaustible energy.

5) Economical Feasibility of New ISCC Power Plant In case of the new 280 MW ISCC power plant utilizing costfree solar thermal energy together with firing natural gas, the fuel consumption on natural gas base is assumedly reduced by 21,100,000 Nm3/year in comparison with the conventional natural gas-firing GT CCPP owing to solar contribution. Furthermore, in case that the new 280 MW ISCC power plant using solar thermal energy as well as a liquid fuel (gas-oil), the fuel consumption on gas-oil base is assumedly reduced by 146,000 barrel/ year in comparison with the conventional gas-oil firing GT CCPP owing to solar contribution.

As we can see from the analysis done above the solar power plant are commercially feasible throughout the globe.

12 | P a g e

5. BUSINESS PLAN
5.1 SOLAR PARABOLIC TROUGH

Parabolic trough technology is currently the most proven solar thermal electric technology. This is primarily due to nine large commercial-scale solar power plants, the first of which has been operating in the California Mojave Desert since1984. These plants, which continue to operate on a daily basis, range in size from 14 to 80 MW and represent a total of 354 MW of installed electric generating capacity. Large fields of parabolic trough collectors supply the thermal energy used to produce steam for a Rankine steam turbine/generator cycle.

13 | P a g e

5.1.1 Plant Overview

It shows a process flow diagram that is representative of the majority of parabolic trough solar power plants in operation today. The collector field consists of a large field of single-axis tracking parabolic trough solar collectors. The solar field is modular in nature and is composed of many parallel rows of solar collectors aligned on a north-south horizontal axis. Each solar collector has a linear parabolic-shaped reflector that focuses the suns direct beam radiation on a linear receiver located at the focus of the parabola. The collectors track the sun from east to west during the day to ensure that the sun is continuously focused on the linear receiver. A heat transfer fluid (HTF) is heated as it circulates through the receiver and returns to a series of heat exchangers in the power block where the fluid is used to generate high-pressure superheated steam. The superheated steam is then fed to a conventional reheat steam turbine/generator to produce electricity. The spent steam from the turbine is condensed in a standard condenser and returned to the heat exchangers via condensate and feed water pumps to be transformed back into steam. Condenser cooling is provided by mechanical draft wet cooling towers. After passing through the HTF side of the solar heat exchangers, the

14 | P a g e

cooled HTF is re circulated through the solar field. Historically, parabolic trough plants have been designed to use solar energy as the primary energy source to produce electricity. The plants can operate at full rated power using solar energy alone given sufficient solar input. During summer months, the plants typically operate for 10 to 12 hours a day at full-rated electric output. However, to date, all plants have been hybrid solar/fossil plants; this means they have a backup fossil-fired capability that can be used to supplement the solar output during periods of low solar radiation. In the system shown, the optional natural-gas-fired HTF heater situated in parallel with the solar field, or the optional gas steam boiler/reheater located in parallel with the solar heat exchangers, provide this capability. The fossil backup can be used to produce rated electric output during overcast or nighttime periods. It also shows that thermal storage is a potential option that can be added to provide dispatchability.

5.2 Integrated Solar Combined Cycle System (ISCCS)

The ISCCS is a new design concept that integrates a parabolic trough plant with a gas turbine combined-cycle plant.

15 | P a g e

 The ISCCS has generated much interest because it offers an innovative way to reduce cost and improve the overall solar-toelectric efficiency. A process flow diagram for an ISCCS is shown below. The ISCCS uses solar heat to supplement the waste heat from the gas turbine in order to augment power generation in the steam Rankine bottoming cycle. In this design, solar energy is generally used to generate additional steam and the gas turbine waste heat is used for preheat and steam superheating. Most designs have looked at increasing the steam turbine size by as much as 100%. The ISCCS design will likely be preferred over the solar Rankine plant in regions where combined cycle plants are already being built.

16 | P a g e

5.3 COMPARISON BETWEEN DIFEERENT TECHNOLOGIES:

17 | P a g e

5.4 CURRENT ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST:

Unlike power plants fired by fossil fuels, the LCOE of CSP plants is dominated by the initial investment cost, which accounts for approximately four-fifths of the total cost. The rest is the cost for operation and maintenance of the plant and for plant insurance. The current CSP market is dominated by the parabolic trough technology. More than 80% of the CSP power plants in operation or under construction are based on this technology. As a consequence, most of the available cost information refers to parabolic trough systems. The cost data for parabolic trough systems are also the most reliable, although uncertainties still remain, because it is the most mature CSP technology. The current investment cost for parabolic trough and solar tower plants without storage are between USD 4 500/kW and USD 7 150/kW .8 CSP plants with thermal energy storage tend to be significantly more expensive, but allow higher capacity factors, the shifting of generation to when the sun does not shine and/or the ability to maximize generation at peak demand times. The cost of parabolic trough and solar power plants with thermal energy storage is generally between USD 5 000 and USD 10 500/Kw. These cost ranges from the literature are not inconsistent with estimates of recent plant that have been commissioned in 2010 and 2011, or that are under construction. The data for parabolic trough systems without storage are at the higher end of the range identified in the literature, while that for plants with storage match quite closely data from the literature. Although CSP plants with thermal energy storage have higher specific investment costs (USD/kW) due to the storage system and the larger solar field, the greater electricity generation will generally result in a lower electricity generation cost. Energy storage should therefore be looked at carefully, as it can reduce the cost of electricity generated by the CSP plant and increase electricity production (capacity factors). These plants have very similar total capital investments of USD 914 million for the parabolic trough system and USD 978 million for the solar tower system. The capital costs for the solar field and receiver system are a larger percentage of the total costs in solar tower systems, while the thermal energy storage and power block costs are a smaller percentage.

18 | P a g e

5.5 Capital costs of parabolic trough and solar power plant

19 | P a g e

5.6 SOLAR TOWER V/S PARABOLIC TROUGH:

5.7 Cost breakdown for parabolic troughs:

Looking at a wider range of parabolic trough projects, based on data from four sources, highlights that the solar field is by far the largest cost component and accounts for between 35% and 49% of the total installed costs of the projects evaluated. However, care must be taken in interpreting these results, as the cost breakdown depends on whether the project has thermal energy storage or not. The share of the thermal energy storage system varies from as low as 9% for a plant with 4.5 hours storage, to 20% for a plant with 13.4 hours storage. The heat transfer fluid is an important cost component and accounts for between 8% and 11% of the total costs in the projects examined. The price of a solar collector is mainly determined by the cost of the metal support structure (10.7 % of the total plant cost), the receiver (7.1 %), the mirrors (6.4 %), the heat transfer system (5.4 %) and the heat transfer fluid (2.1 %).

20 | P a g e

 The thermal energy storage system accounts for 10% of total costs, with the salt and the storage tanks being the largest contributors to this cost. Labor represents 17% of the project cost and is an area where local content can help reduce costs in developing countries. Based on experience, the site improvements, installation of the plant components and completion of the plant will require a workforce of around 500 people. There are opportunities for local manufacturing and services all along the value chain. The most promising components that could be locally manufactured or provided by developing countries are support structures, mirrors and receivers. While the key services that could be provided range from assembling and EPC to O&M.

21 | P a g e

5.8 Breakdown of the investment cost of a 50 MW power plant

22 | P a g e

5.9 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST:

The operating costs of CSP plants are low compared to fossil fuelfired power plants, but are still significant. The O&M costs of recent CSP plants are not publically available. The replacement of receivers and mirrors, due to glass breakage, are a significant component of the O&M costs. The cost of mirror washing, including water costs, is also significant. Automation has reduced the cost of other O&M procedures by as much as 30%. As a result of improved O&M procedures (both cost and plant performance), total O&M costs of CSP plants in the longer run are likely to be below USD 0.025/kWh. TRENDS It is currently estimated that a parabolic trough system in the United States would have O&M costs of around USD 0.015/kWh, comprised of USD 70/kW/year fixed and around USD 0.003/kWh in variable costs. However, this excludes insurance and potentially other costs also reported in other O&M cost estimates, so care should be taken in interpreting this value. Given that insurance alone typically adds 0.5% to 1%, a figure of USD 0.02/kWh to USD 0.03/kWh seems a robust estimate of the total O&M costs, including all other miscellaneous costs. For solar towers, the fixed O&M costs are estimated to be USD 65/kW/year The O&M costs of two proposed parabolic trough and solar tower projects in South Africa have estimated O&M costs (including insurance) of between USD 0.029 and USD 0.036/kWh. The parabolic troughs and solar tower plants experience important economies of scale in O&M costs relative to the level of thermal energy storage when moving from 4.5 hours to 9 hours storage, but adding more storage does not yield any significant reductions. The variable costs USD 1.2 million per year are dominated by miscellaneous consumables, which at USD 0.7 million, account for more than half of the total variable costs . In developed countries, personnel costs will be higher. For instance, personnel costs for a 100 MW parabolic trough plant in the United States would account for 45% of the total O&M costs.

23 | P a g e

6. CSP COST REDUCTION POTENTIALS

The opportunities for cost reductions for CSP plant are good. The commercial deployment of CSP is in its infancy and as experience is gained, R&D advances, plants get bigger, mass production of components occurs and increased competition in technology providers develops, costs will come down. However, significant investment in further R&D and deployment will be required to realise these cost reductions. The key areas where cost reductions need to be achieved are in: 1) The solar field: Mass production and cheaper components, as well as improvements in design, can help to reduce costs. 2) The heat transfer fluid: New heat transfer fluids and those capable of higher temperatures will help to improve storage possibilities and reduce costs. Direct steam generation is also a possibility, but requires further research. 3) The storage system: This is closely tied to the heat transfer fluid, as higher temperatures, notably from solar towers, will reduce the cost of thermal energy storage. 4) The power block: There is still room for cost reductions, although these will be more modest than for the other components. 5) The balance of costs, including project development costs. There are also areas where cost reductions will help improve the performance of CSP plants, helping to further reduce the LCOE of CSP plants. This is the case for the use of higher temperature HTF and cost reductions in thermal energy storage, which will allow higher solar-toelectric efficiencies and boost the capacity factors of plant by allowing more storage at a reasonable cost. This section focuses on capital cost reductions, but also discusses the importance of pursuing performance improvements.

24 | P a g e

6.1 COST REDUCTION OF CSP COMPONENTS AND PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENTS

The LCOE from CSP plants can be reduced by improving performance (efficiency) and reducing capital costs. There are specific capital cost reduction opportunities, while improvements in the performance of the CSP plant will reduce the fuel cost, for instance by reducing the size of the solar field for a given capacity. Although CSP plants have a similar basic component breakdown (e.g. solar field, HTF, power block), the reality is that many of these components are materially different for each CSP technology. However, some of the cost reduction potentials are more generic, for instance from scaling up plant size and increased competition among technology suppliers. The following sections discuss the generic and technology-specific cost reduction opportunities. Increasing plant size CSP is only just beginning to be deployed at scale and, for a variety of reasons, many of the installed plant are relatively small. Increasing the scale of plants will be an important cost reduction driver and this is already happening in the United States. Current parabolic trough CSP projects under development in the United States have capacities of 140 MW to 250 MW (Ernst & Young and Fraunhofer, 2010), while solar tower projects are in the 100 to 150 MW scale for individual towers. One artificial constraint in Spain has been the fact that the Spanish feed-in tariff law (RD-661/2007) stipulates a maximum electrical output of 50 MW for eligibility. However, in terms of economies of scale, 50 MW is not the optimal plant size. The specific costs of a parabolic trough power plant with 7.5 h of storage can be cut by 12.1% if the plant size is increased from 50 MW to 100 MW and by 20.3% if it is increased from 50 MW to 200 MW. A similar analysis identified that increasing plant size from 50 MW to 120 MW could reduce capital costs by 13% (Nieto, 2009). The largest cost reductions come from the balance of plant, grid access, power block and project management costs. The project development and management are almost constant for each project size, so the specific costs decline significantly as the plant capacity increases. In contrast, the costs of the solar field and storage are directly related to

25 | P a g e

the plant size, so only small economies can be expected.

6.2 Plant Performance Innovation

Increasing the performance of the solar collectors and power plant are one of the primary opportunities for reducing the cost of trough technology. Collector performance improvements can come from developing new more efficient collector technologies and components but often also by improving the reliability and lifetime of existing components.

6.3 The solar field: Mirrors, receivers and support structures

Key components to reduce the solar field cost are support structures, including foundations, mirrors and receivers. These costs will tend to decline over time as the overall volume increases. For the support structures, developers are looking at reducing the amount of material and labour necessary to provide accurate optical performance15 and to meet the designed survival

26 | P a g e

wind speed. Given that the support structure and foundation can cost twice as much as the mirrors themselves, improvements here are very important. For mirrors, cost reductions may be accomplished by moving from heavy silver-backed glass mirror reflectors to lightweight frontsurface advanced reflectors (e.g. flexible aluminium sheets with a silver covering and silvered polymer thin film). The advantages of thin-film reflectors are that they are potentially less expensive, will be lighter in weight and have a higher reflectance. They can also be used as part of the support structure. However, their long-term performance needs to be proven. Ensuring that the surface is resistant to repeated washing will require attention. In addition to these new reflectors, there is also work underway to produce thinner, lighter glass mirrors.
6.4 Heat transfer fluids

Higher operating temperatures will allow an increase in the electrical efficiency of CSP plants, reduce the cost of the thermal storage system (as a smaller storage volume is needed for a given amount of energy storage) and achieve higher thermal-to-electric efficiencies. Most current commercial plants use synthetic oil as the heat transfer fluid. This is expensive and the maximum operating temperature is around 390C. The use of molten salt as the HTF can raise the operating temperature up to 550C and improve thermal storage performance. In the solar towers, the higher concentration ratio could enable even higher operating temperatures. A temperature level of 600-700C is compatible with commercial ultra-supercritical steam cycles that would allow the Rankine cycle efficiency to increase to 48%, compared with perhaps 42% to 43% for todays designs (Kolb, 2011). Super-critical carbon- dioxide is also being explored as a HTF to enable higher operating temperatures. Higher temperatures than this would require the use of gas-based cooling and thermodynamic cycles. A number of design options (coolants, such as water, steam, salts, air, gases and various thermodynamic cycles) are being considered to exploit this potential.

27 | P a g e

6.5 Thermal energy storage

Todays state-of-the-art thermal energy storage solution for CSP plants is a two-tank molten salt thermal energy storage system. The salt itself is the most expensive component and typically accounts for around half of the storage system cost (Kolb, 2011), while the two tanks account for around a quarter of the cost. Improving the performance of the thermal energy system. Its durability and increasing the storage temperature hot/cold differential will bring down costs. For solar towers, increasing the hot temperature of the molten salt storage system should be possible (up to 650C from around 560C), but will require improvements in design and materials used. The development of heat transfer fluids that could support even higher temperatures would reduce storage costs even further and allow even higher efficiency, but it remains to be seen if this can be achieved at reasonable cost. If direct steam towers are developed, current storage solutions will need to be adapted, if the capacity factor is to be increased and some schedulable generation made available. The cost reduction potential for thermal energy storage systems, when combined with increases in the operating temperature and hence temperature differential in the storage system, is significant. Thermal energy storage costs could be reduced by 38% to 69% by 2020.

6.6 OVERALL CAPITAL COST REDUCTION POTENTIAL

Recent analysis of cost reduction and deployment potential for CSP technologies has identified significant overall cost reduction potentials (IEA, 2010; Turchi, 2010a; Kutscher, 2010, Kolb, 2011). Figure 5.2 shows the expected reductions achievable for trough plants by 2017 and for solar tower plants by 2020. The various cost components are based on results from NRELs Solar Advisor Model (SAM) for a 100 MW plant located in Queensland (Hinkley, 2011). This reference plant has six hours of storage and uses dry cooling. Also shown at the top of the columns are the O&M costs (in USD/kW/year), which are likewise projected to decrease significantly. For troughs, significant reductions are expected for thermal energy

28 | P a g e

storage and the HTF system. This is expected to result from operating troughs at higher temperatures. This will allow a larger difference between the hot and cold fluid temperatures for both the HTF and storage medium, which will reduce HTF pumping requirements and also the volume and cost of the thermal storage system. Taking into account reductions in other areas, an overall reduction of 41% in the capital cost is projected. For towers, the greatest reductions are expected in the cost of the solar field, which is predicted to fall by 40%. The overall reduction in capital cost projected for the generic plant solar tower plant is around 28%.

6.7 O&M COST REDUCTION POTENTIAL

The opportunities to reduce O&M costs are good. There is currently little long-term experience in operating CSP plants. It is only now that the lessons learned in California since the 1980s are beginning to be applied in todays designs. The key areas to address are: 1) Broken mirrors 2) Receiver failure; 3) More automation of maintenance activities/ better preventive maintenance; and plant designs that reduce O&M costs. Overall cost reduction potentials for O&M costs could be in the range of 35% by 2020 for parabolic trough plant and 23% for solar towers (Turchi, 2010a). Given these figures, it is assumed that O&M costs could be reduced by between 5% and 10% by 2015.

29 | P a g e

7. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

30 | P a g e

8. SYSTEM APPLICATION, BENEFITS, AND IMPACTS

8.1 Applications

1) Large-scale Grid Connected Power: The primary application for parabolic trough power plants is large-scale grid connected power applications in the 30 to 300 MW range. Because the technology can be easily hybridized with fossil fuels, the plants can be designed to provide firm peaking to intermediate load power. The plants are typically a good match for applications in the U.S. southwest where the solar radiation resource correlates closely with peak electric power demands in the region. 2) International Markets: With the high demand for new power generation in many developing countries, the next deployment of parabolic troughs could be abroad. Many arid regions in developing countries are ideally suited for parabolic trough technologies. India, Egypt, Morocco have expressed interest in trough technology power plants. Many of these countries are already planning installations of combined cycle projects. For these countries, the trough ISCCS design may provide a cheap and low risk opportunity to begin developing parabolic trough power plants.

8.2 Benefits

1) Least Cost Solar Generated Electricity: Trough plants currently provide the lowest cost source of solar generated electricity available. They are backed by considerable valuable operating experience. Troughs will likely continue to be the least-cost solar option for another 5-10 years depending on the rate of development and acceptance of other solar technologies. 2) Daytime Peaking Power: Parabolic trough power plants have a proven track record for providing firm renewable daytime peaking generation. Trough plants generate their peak output during sunny periods when air conditioning loads are at their peak. Integrated

31 | P a g e

natural gas hybridization and thermal storage have allowed the plants to provide firm power even during non-solar and cloudy periods. 3) Environmental: Trough plants reduce operation of higher-cost, cycling fossil generation that would be needed to meet peak power demands during sunny afternoons at times when the most photochemical smog, which is aggravated by NOX emissions from power plants, is produced. 4) Economic: The construction and operation of trough plants typically have a positive impact on the local economy. A large portion of material during construction can generally be supplied locally. Also trough plants tend to be fairly labor-intensive during both construction and operation, and much of this labor can generally be drawn from local labor markets.
8.3 Impacts

1) HTF Spills/Leaks: The current heat transfer fluid (Monsanto Therminol VP-1) is an aromatic hydrocarbon, biphenyl-diphenyl oxide. The oil is classified as non-hazardous by U.S. standards but is a hazardous material in the state of California. When spills occur, contaminated soil is removed to an on-site bio-remediation facility that utilizes indigenous bacteria in the soil to decompose the oil until the HTF concentrations have been reduced to acceptable levels.In addition to liquid spills, there is some level of HTF vapor emissions from valve packing and pump seals during normal operation. Although the scent of these vapor emissions is often evident, the emissions are well within permissible levels. 2) Water: Water availability can be a significant issue in the arid regions best suited for trough plants. Water consumption is nominally the same as it would be for any Rankine cycle power plant with wet cooling towers that produced the same level of electric generation. Dry cooling towers can be used to significantly reduce plant water consumption; however, this can result in up to a 10% reduction in power plant efficiency. Wastewater discharge from the plant is also an issue. Blow down from the steam cycle, demineralizer, and cooling towers must typically be sent to a evaporation pond due to the high mineral content or due to chemicals that have been added to the water. 3) Land: Parabolic trough plants require a significant amount of land that typically cannot be used concurrently for other uses. Parabolic troughs require the land to be graded level. One opportunity to

32 | P a g e

minimize the development of undisturbed lands is to use parcels of marginal and fallow agricultural land instead. A study sponsored by the California Energy Commission determined that 27,000 MWe of STE plants could be built on marginal and fallow agricultural land .A study for the state of Texas showed that land use requirements for parabolic trough plants are less that those of most other renewable technologies (wind, biomass, hydro) and also less than those of fossil when mining and drilling requirements are included. 4) Hybrid Operation: Solar/fossil hybrid plant designs will operate with fossil fuels during some periods. During these times, the plant will generate emissions consistent with the fuel.
8.4 Hybridization

Hybridization: Hybridization with a fossil fuel offers a number of potential benefits to solar plants including: reduced risk to investors, improved solarto-electric conversion efficiency, and reduced levelized cost of energy from the plant [14]. Furthermore, it allows the plant to provide firm, dispatchable power. The decision on type of hybridization has been primarily an economic decision. However, it is clear from the past experiences that hybridization of the plants has been essential to the operational success of the projects.

9. RESULTS The alternative ISCCS design offers a number of potential advantages to both the solar plant and the combined cycle plant. The solar plant benefits because 1) the incremental cost of increasing the size of the steam turbine in the combined cycle is significantly less than building a complete standalone power plant. 2) O&M costs are reduced because the cost of operation and maintenance on the conventional portion of the plant is covered by the combined cycle costs. 3) Also, the net annual solar-to-electric efficiency is improved because solar input is not lost waiting for the turbine plant to start up, and

33 | P a g e

because the average turbine efficiency will be higher since the turbine will always be running at 50% load or above. The combined cycle benefits because 1) The fossil conversion efficiency is increased during solar operation since the gas turbine waste heat can be used more efficiently. 2) Solar output will also help to offset the normal reduction in performance experienced by combined cycle plants during hot periods. 9.1 KEY FINDINGS 1) Concentrating solar power (CSP) plants are capital intensive, but have virtually zero fuel costs. Parabolic trough plants without thermal energy storage have capital costs as low as USD 4 600/kW, but low capacity factors of between 0.2 and 0.25. Adding six hours of thermal energy storage increases capital costs to between USD 7 100/kW to USD 9 800/kW, but allows capacity factors to be doubled. Solar tower plants can cost between USD 6 300 and USD 10 500/kW when energy storage is between 6 and 15 hours. These plants can achieve capacity factors of 0.40 to as high as 0.80. 2) Operations and maintenance (O&M) costs are relatively high for CSP plants, in the range USD 0.02 to USD 0.035/kWh. However, cost reduction opportunities are good and as plant designs are perfected and experience gained with operating larger numbers of CSP plants savings opportunities will arise. 3) The levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) from CSP plants is currently high. Assuming the cost of capital is 10%, the LCOE of parabolic trough plants today is in the range USD 0.20 to USD 0.36/kWh and that of solar towers between USD 0.17 and USD 0.29/kWh. However, in areas with excellent solar resources it could be as low as USD 0.14 to USD 0.18/kWh. The LCOE depends primarily on capital costs and the local solar resource. For instance, the LCOE of a given CSP plant will be around one-quarter lower for a direct normal irradiance of 2 700 kWh/m2/year than for a site with 2 100 kWh/m2/year. 4) Cost reductions will come from economies of scale in the plant size and manufacturing industry, learning effects, advances in R&D, a more competitive supply chain and improvements in the performance of the solar

34 | P a g e

field, solar-to-electric efficiency and thermal energy storage systems. By 2020, capital cost reductions of 28% to 40% could be achieved and even higher reductions may be possible. 5) Solar towers might become the technology of choice in the future, because they can achieve very high temperatures with manageable losses by using molten salt as a heat transfer fluid. This will allow higher operating temperatures and steam cycle efficiency, and reduce the cost of thermal energy storage by allowing a higher temperature differential. Their chief advantage compared to solar photovoltaics is therefore that they could economically meet peak air-conditioning demand and intermediate loads (in the evening when the sun isnt shining) in hot arid areas in the near future.

35 | P a g e

10.

SUMMARY:

The technology case presented above shows that a significant increase in performance and reduction in cost is possible for parabolic trough solar thermal electric technologies. It is significant to note that the majority of the cost reduction opportunities do not require any significant technology development. Conversely, significant progress must be made in these non- technology areas if parabolic troughs are to be competitive with conventional power technologies and make any significant market penetration. Hence the solar trough technology has been found to be most suitable for industrial application because it provides a number of future improvisations as well. Industrial implications in this area seem to be most profitable for huge companies like L&T because for a long running period, Breakeven Point can be easily achieved. In the long run, the project will be economically sustainable and viable for the company. India being a tropical country, provides huge scope for solar energy utilization. So investments done by L&T in this area will be rewarded in future.

36 | P a g e

11.

REFERENCES

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy http://www.areva.com/EN/operations-3641/compact-linear-fresnelreflector-technology.html http://www.areva.com/EN/operations-415/concentrated-solar-powertechnology.html http://www.areva.com/EN/operations-415/concentrated-solar-powertechnology.html http://www.aprekh.org%2Ffiles%2FSolarThermalPowergeneration_Fi nal.pdf&h=EAQFqbE8p http://www.solar-thermal.com%2Fsolar-thermal.pdf&h=EAQFqbE8p http://www.thermaxindia.com/Power-Generation/Our-

Offerings/Solar-Thermal.aspx http://www.solar-reserve.com/

37 | P a g e