CSP Today Parabolic Trough Report 2014 - PDF

B U S I N E S S
I N TE L L I G E N C E
CSP Parabolic Trough Report

2014: Cost, Performance
and Thermal Storage
Strategically plan your commercial trajectory and optimize profitability in
the increasingly internationalized parabolic trough market
Comprehensive Cost Data
PPA Tariff Calculations
Trends and Development
Up-to-date, industry validated

cost data across the lifespan of
a plant from CAPEX to OPEX in 8
global CSP markets.
PPA Tariff calculations by market,

benchmarking emerging CSP
markets against the traditional key
markets and identifying viable cost
reduction strategies.
In-depth analysis of the latest

technological advancements
set to optimize the performance
and reduce the costs of parabolic
trough plants.
B U S I N E SS
I N T E L L I G E N C E
CSP Parabolic Trough Report

2014: Cost, Performance
and Thermal Storage
Strategically plan your commercial trajectory and optimize profitability in
the increasingly internationalized parabolic trough market
Disclaimer
The information and opinions in this report were prepared by CSP Today (FC Business
Intelligence) and its partners. FC Business Intelligence has no obligation to tell you
when opinions or information in this report change. CSP Today makes every eort to use
reliable, comprehensive information, but we make no representation that it is accurate or
complete. In no event shall CSP Today (FC Business Intelligence) and its partners be liable
for any damages, losses, expenses, loss of data, or loss of opportunity or prot caused by
the use of the material or contents of this report.
No part of this document may be distributed, resold, copied or adapted without CSP
Todays prior written permission.
Author
Groupe Reaction Inc.
Research Manager
Kerry Chamberlain
FC Business Intelligence Ltd 2013

BUSINESS
INTELLIGENCE
CSP Today Parabolic Trough Report
| 2
Thought leadership
B U S I N E SS
About CSP Today

CSP Today is the reference point for CSP professionals and a cornerstone for communications within the industry.
We have been a leading provider in this global market for the past 6 years.
We provide the industry with focused news, events, online up-to-the minute data, analysis, reports, updates and
information for the Concentrated Solar Thermal Power industry. CSP Todays mission is to be the hub of the CSP
community enabling dialogue throughout the industry ad driving CSP forwards and to provide its clients with the
most accurate and timely project and plant intelligence, based on the highest quality research.
CSP Today experts are on the phone everyday collecting and verifying global industry data and information direct
from EPCs, developers, suppliers, utilities and government bodies for you to have at your fingertips.
| 3
Welcome
B U S I N E SS
Welcome
Parabolic trough technology currently accounts for 95% of the global installed CSP share, totaling
2657 MW across 13 markets. Whilst the global project pipeline indicates that parabolic trough
will retain market dominance (with 70% of the MW capacity under construction and 55% of the
MW capacity under development), crucially, the spread of market activity is set to proliferate; the
collective reach of parabolic trough plants in operation, under construction and under development
will permeate 19 markets.
Indeed, the internationalization of CSP along with the more enduring pursuits to secure cost
reduction and performance optimization has widely been tipped as a key route to navigating the
challenges currently besetting the traditional CSP markets and to ultimately secure CSPs position as
a globally viable and competitive power generation source. Yet, for the CSP industry, the success of
the internationalization of parabolic trough technology alongside the growth of the technology in
established markets will be highly contingent upon a greater degree of transparency surrounding
market specific cost data from CAPEX to OPEX, and performance characteristics and capabilities.
For CSP industry stakeholders, a greater degree of cost and performance transparency is critical to
assessing market activity, strategizing commercial trajectories and optimizing profitability from the
most bankable of CSP technologies.
Through industry-validated cost information, localized techno-economic analysis and inter-market
benchmarking, this report brings unprecedented clarity on parabolic trough technology across
eight global markets, enabling you to separate the fact from the hype.
I hope you find this report and its insights valuable.
Best Regards,
Kerry Chamberlain
Business Research Manager | CSP Today
uk.linkedin.com/in/kerrychamberlain
kerry@fcbusinessintelligence.com
| 4
Thought leadersip
B U S I N E SS
Thought Leadership
CSP Todays Business Intelligence Portfolio:
CSP Today Global Tracker
Access current CSP market, policy, and project and supplier data at your fingertips.
CSP plants at every single stage across the globe Announced,

planning, development, construction, commissioned and in operation
In-depth CSP plant data Access all the plants details including
technology choice, technical specification, stakeholders, suppliers,
incentives and finance
Country by country policy - Understand each CSP market with data on
market size, policies & incentives, energy market structure and up to
date information on EPCs and developers operating in the market
Global CSP supplier list The most comprehensive component
supplier list serving every part of a CSP plant from heliostats to pumps
and valves
CSP Today Quarterly Update

The CSP Today Quarterly Update serves as a companion to the
Global Tracker, highlighting major trends in the industry and
collating information making it easily available for you to read at
a glance.
Previous editions have looked at:
The movement of Spanish companies abroad and the value of emerging
markets
The potential of hybrid CSP systems and forms of off-grid applications such as
enhanced oil recovery, direct steam generation and desalination
Revenue opportunities for CSP
CSP Markets Report 2014
This 200+ page report draws on the experience of local experts

from major markets and focuses on the in-depth analysis of major
CSP markets including detailed explanations of:
CSP project pipelines
Local CSP Ecosystems
Government policies and frameworks
Supportive local infrastructure for CSP
Major financing groups, developers, suppliers and consultants active in each
market
Markets forecast and scorecard
http://social.csptoday.com/csp-project-markets-technology-data-your-fingertips
| 5
CONTENTS
B U S I N E SS
Contents
About CSP Today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Welcome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Thought Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Parabolic Trough & Thermal Energy Storage Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.1. Parabolic Trough Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.2. Thermal energy storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.3. Market Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

1.3.1. Parabolic Trough Plants Under Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

1.3.2. Parabolic Trough Plants Under Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

1.3.3. Parabolic Trough Plants Under Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1.4. Thermal Energy Storage: Market Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

1.4.1. TES Market share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1.5. Industry Drivers and Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1.6. Technical Pros and Cons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2. Parabolic Trough Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.1. Key Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.2. Key components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

2.2.1. Solar Collector Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

2.2.2. Heat Transfer Fluid (HTF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3. Thermal Energy Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.1. Two-Tank Direct System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.2. Two-Tank Indirect System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.3. Single-Tank Thermocline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4. Cost and Performance Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.1. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

4.1.1. STEP 1: Plant Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

4.1.2. STEP 2: CAPEX and OPEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

4.1.3. STEP 3: Energy Yield Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

4.1.4. STEP 4: Financial model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

4.1.5. STEP 5: Techno-Economic Optimal Plant Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4.2. Cost and performance by market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

4.2.1. Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

4.2.2. India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

4.2.3. Morocco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

4.2.4. Saudi Arabia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
| 6
Contents
B U S I N E SS
5.
6.
7.

4.2.5. South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

4.2.6. Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

4.2.7. UAE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

4.2.8. USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
4.3. Market comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Trends and Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
5.1. Power Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
5.2. Collector Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

5.2.1. Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

5.2.2. Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

5.2.3. Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
5.3. Heat Transfer Fluids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

5.3.1. Compressed Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

5.3.2. Direct Steam Generation (DSG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

5.3.3. Molten Salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

5.3.4. Oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
5.4. Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

5.4.1. Graphite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

5.4.2. Phase Change Materials (PCM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

5.4.3. Solid TES materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

5.4.4. Nanofluids and nanoparticles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

5.4.5. Molten Salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

5.4.6. Saturated Steam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

5.4.7. Thermochemical storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

5.4.8. Ammonia and hydrogen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

5.4.9. Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

5.4.10. HOTTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

5.4.11. Predictions for TES in CSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
5.5. Plant Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
5.6. Cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
APPENDIX A List of parabolic trough plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
APPENDIX B Chiles reference Plant CAPEX Breakdown () . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
APPENDIX C Chiles reference Plant OPEX Breakdown () . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
APPENDIX D Indias reference Plant CAPEX Breakdown () . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
APPENDIX E Indias reference Plant OPEX Breakdown () . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
APPENDIX F Moroccos reference Plant CAPEX Breakdown () . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
APPENDIX G Moroccos reference Plant OPEX Breakdown () . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
APPENDIX H Saudi Arabias reference Plant CAPEX Breakdown () . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
APPENDIX I Saudi Arabias reference Plant OPEX Breakdown () . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
APPENDIX J South Africas reference Plant CAPEX Breakdown () . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
APPENDIX K South Africas reference Plant OPEX Breakdown () . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
APPENDIX L Spains reference Plant CAPEX Breakdown () . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
APPENDIX M Spains reference Plant OPEX Breakdown () . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
APPENDIX N UAEs reference Plant CAPEX Breakdown () . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
APPENDIX O UAEs reference Plant OPEX Breakdown () . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
APPENDIX P USAs reference Plant CAPEX Breakdown () . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
APPENDIX Q USAs reference Plant OPEX Breakdown () . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
| 7
List of Figures
B U S I N E SS
List of Figures
Figure 1:
Parabolic Trough Power Plant Process Flow Diagram (PFD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Figure 2:
Parabolic Trough installed and accumulated capacity as of July 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Figure 3:
Market share of CSP technologies under operation (in MW) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Figure 4:
Market share of CSP technologies under construction (in MW) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
Figure 5:
Market share of CSP technologies under development (in MW) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Figure 6:
Parabolic Trough Power Plants under operation in MW installed capacity . . . . . . . . .
Figure 7:
Industry application of operating Parabolic Trough plants as a percentage of MWs installed . . 25
Figure 8:
Industry application of operating Parabolic Trough plants in MWs installed . . . . . . . . . 25
Figure 9:
Market share of installed capacity of Parabolic Trough Power Plants under construction . . . . 26
25
Figure 10: Market share of expected installed capacity in MW of parabolic trough plants by the end of 2014
(plants under operation and construction) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Figure 11: Distribution of Parabolic Trough Power Plants under development . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Figure 12: Expected market share of parabolic trough in the next 5 years (plants under operation + under
construction + under development) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Figure 13: Share of Number of Operating Parabolic Trough Plants with and without TES . . . . . . . . 28
Figure 14: Share of Installed capacity in MW of Operating Parabolic Trough Plants with and without TES .
40
Figure 15: Share of Number of Parabolic Trough Plants Under Construction with and without TES . . . . 29
Figure 16: Share of Installed capacity in MWs of Parabolic Trough Plants Under
Construction with and without TES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Figure 17: Share of Number of Parabolic Trough Plants Under Development with and without TES . . . . 29
Figure 18: Share of Installed capacity in MWs of Parabolic Trough Plants Under Development with TES . . 29
Figure 19: Future Applications of CSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Figure 20: Annual DNI (kWh/m2/day) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34
Figure 21: Solar Collector Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Figure 22: Torque-Box Collector Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38
Figure 23: Torque-Tube Collector Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Figure 24: Space frame Collector Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Figure 25: Absorber Tube Schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Figure 26: Schematic of parabolic trough CSP plant with a two-tank indirect TES system . . . . . . . . 45
Figure 27: Thermocline test at Sandia National Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45
Figure 28: Methodology to determine the PPALCOE of the optimal parabolic trough power plant
configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Figure 29: Example of the optimization process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Figure 30: Chiles plant optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Figure 31: Chiles optimal plant PPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Figure 32: Chiles CAPEX and OPEX sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Figure 33: Chiles CAPEX structure sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
67
Figure 34: Chiles EPC cost sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
68
Figure 35: Chiles component cost sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
68
Figure 36: Indias plant optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
| 8
List of Figures
B U S I N E SS
Figure 37: Indias optimal plant PPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Figure 38: Indias CAPEX and OPEX sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Figure 39: Indias CAPEX structure sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
74
Figure 40: Indias EPC cost sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
74
Figure 41: Indias component cost sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
75
Figure 42: Moroccos plant optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Figure 43: Moroccos optimal plant PPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
79
Figure 44: Moroccos CAPEX and OPEX sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Figure 45: Moroccos CAPEX structure sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Figure 46: Moroccos EPC cost sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Figure 47: Moroccos component cost sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Figure 48: Saudi Arabias plant optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Figure 49: Saudi Arabias optimal plant PPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Figure 50: Saudi Arabias CAPEX and OPEX sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Figure 51: Saudi Arabias CAPEX structure sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
87
Figure 52: Saudi Arabias EPC cost sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
87
Figure 53: Saudi Arabias component cost sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
87
Figure 54: South Africas plant optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Figure 55: South Africas optimal plant PPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Figure 56: South Africas CAPEX and OPEX sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Figure 57: South Africas CAPEX structure sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Figure 58: South Africas EPC cost sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Figure 59: South Africas component cost sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Figure 60: Spains plant optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
95
Figure 61: Spains optimal plant PPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Figure 62: Spains CAPEX and OPEX sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Figure 63: Spains CAPEX structure sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Figure 64: Spains EPC cost sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Figure 65: Spains component cost sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Figure 66: UAEs plant optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Figure 67: UAEs optimal plant PPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Figure 68: UAEs CAPEX and OPEX sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Figure 69: UAEs CAPEX structure sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Figure 70: UAEs EPC cost sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Figure 71: UAEs component cost sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Figure 72: USAs plant optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Figure 73: USAs optimal plant PPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Figure 74: USAs CAPEX and OPEX sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Figure 75: USAs CAPEX structure sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Figure 76: USAs EPC cost sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Figure 77: USAs component cost sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Figure 78: PPA market comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
| 9
List of Figures
B U S I N E SS
Figure 79: PPA escalation impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Figure 80: Maturity of Renewable Energy Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Figure 81: Carnot Efficiency of Various Power Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Figure 82: Evolution of parabolic trough collector sizes over 3 development cycles at sbp (Eurotrough,
HelioTrough, Ultimate Trough) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Figure 83: Size comparison between SkyFuels SkyTroughDSP and SkyTrough . . . . . . . . . . 123
Figure 84: Specific characteristics of SkyFuels SkyTrough DSP and SkyTrough . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Figure 85: Production Losses due to U-Tube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Figure 86: Schematic diagram of DUKE project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Figure 87: Superheated Steam Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Figure 88: Saturated Steam Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Figure 89: Oil and Molten Salt HTF Parabolic Trough Schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Figure 90: Possible CSP Thermal Energy Storage Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Figure 91: Curtailment of PV due to Lack of Grid Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Figure 92: 15% PV Contribution and 10% Dispatchable CSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Figure 93: Alright Energy plant featuring packed-rocks TES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Figure 94: Thermochemical Energy Storage for CSP Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
| 10
List of Tables
B U S I N E SS
List of Tables
Table 1:
CSP Capacity Under Operation, Construction and Development (Q2-2013) . . . . . . . . . 23
Table 2:
Current and future installed capacity (in MW) of parabolic trough plants . . . . . . . . . . 24
Table 3:
Overview of Parabolic Trough Plants with and without TES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Table 4:
Parabolic Trough Pros & Cons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Table 5:
Parabolic Trough Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Table 6:
Renewable and Conventional Power Metrics Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 7:
Conventional Collector Loop Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Table 8:
Parabolic Collector Structure Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
35
Table 9:
Mirror Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Table 10:
Characteristics of the absorber Tube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Table 11:
Different HTF Type Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
Table 12:
Value of CSP with TES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Table 13:
DNI for all the markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Table 14:
Reference Plants Technical Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Table 15:
Local labor cost in EUR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Table 16:
Local manufacturing cost in EUR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Table 17:
Financing conditions for each market analyzed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Table 18:
CAPEX Breakdown Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
56
Table 19:
OPEX Breakdown Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Table 20:
Plant characteristics common in all the markets analyzed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 21:
Chiles country overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Table 22:
Chiles optimal plant configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Table 23:
Chiles optimal plant energy yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Table 24:
Chilesoptimal plant annual performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Table 25:
Chiles optimal plant CAPEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Table 26:
Chiles optimal plant OPEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Table 27:
Chiles loan conditions sensitivity (PPA tariff reduction) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 28:
Indias country overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Table 29:
Indias optimal plant configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Table 30:
Indias optimal plant energy yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Table 31:
Indias optimal plant annual performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 32:
Indias optimal plant CAPEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Table 33:
Indias optimal plant OPEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Table 34:
Indias loan conditions sensitivity (PPA tariff reduction) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 35:
Moroccos country overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Table 36:
Moroccos optimal plant configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Table 37:
Moroccos optimal plant energy yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Table 38:
Moroccos optimal plant annual performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Table 39:
Moroccos optimal plant CAPEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
61
69
71
75
78
| 11
List of Tables
B U S I N E SS
Table 40:
Moroccos optimal plant OPEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Table 41:
Moroccos loan conditions sensitivity (PPA tariff reduction) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Table 42:
Saudi Arabias country overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Table 43:
Saudi Arabias optimal plant configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Table 44:
Saudi Arabias optimal plant energy yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Table 45:
Saudi Arabias optimal plant annual performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
84
Table 46:
Saudi Arabias optimal plant CAPEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Table 47:
Saudi Arabias optimal plant OPEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Table 48:
Saudi Arabias loan conditions sensitivity (PPA tariff reduction) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 49:
South Africas country overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Table 50:
South Africas optimal plant configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Table 51:
South Africas optimal plant energy yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Table 52:
South Africas optimal plant annual performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Table 53:
South Africas optimal plant CAPEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Table 54:
South Africas optimal plant OPEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
92
Table 55:
South Africas loan conditions sensitivity (PPA tariff reduction) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
94
88
Table 56:
Spains country overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Table 57:
Spains optimal plant configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Table 58:
Spains optimal plant energy yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 59:
Spains optimal plant annual performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Table 60:
Spains optimal plant CAPEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Table 61:
Spains optimal plant OPEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Table 62:
Spains loan conditions sensitivity (PPA tariff reduction) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Table 63:
UAEs country overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Table 64:
UAEs optimal plant configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Table 65:
UAEs optimal plant energy yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Table 66:
UAEs optimal plant annual performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Table 67:
UAEs optimal plant CAPEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Table 68:
UAEs optimal plant OPEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Table 69:
UAEs loan conditions sensitivity (PPA tariff reduction) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Table 70:
USAs country overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Table 71:
USAs optimal plant configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Table 72:
USAs optimal plant energy yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Table 73:
USAs optimal plant annual performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Table 74:
USAs optimal plant CAPEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Table 75:
USAs optimal plant OPEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Table 76:
USAs loan conditions sensitivity (PPA tariff reduction) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Table 77:
Summary of performance results for all markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Table 78:
Summary of economic results for all markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Table 79:
Eurotrough to Ultimate Trough Component Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Table 80:
Molten Salt Multi-Component Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
97
| 12
Abreviations
B U S I N E SS
Abreviations
AUD
Australian Dollar
MENA
Middle East and North Africa
BOP
Balance of Plant
mm
Millimeter
BOOT
Build, Own, Operate, Transfer
m/s
Meters per second
BLM
Bureau of Land Management
MW
Megawatt
BSRN
Baseline Surface Radiation Network
MWe
Megawatt Equivalent
CAES
Compressed Air Energy Storage
MWh
Megawatt-hour
CAPEX
Capital Expenditures
MWth
Megawatt-hour Thermal
CCGT
Combined Cycle Gas Turbine
N/A
Not Available
CSP
Concentrating Solar Power
N/D
Not Disclosed
COD
Commercial Operation Date
NPV
Net Present Value
DCF
Discounted Cash Flow
NREL
DNI
Direct Normal Irradiance
National Renewable Energy Laboratory

(United States)
DoE
Department of Energy (United States)
NSM
National Solar Mission (India)
DSG
Direct Steam Generation
O&M
Operating and maintenance
EIA
Environmental Impact Assessment
OPEX
Operating Expenditures
EPC
Engineering, Procurement and

Construction
PCM
Phase Change Material
PFD
Process Flow Diagram
EUR
Euro ()
PPA
Power Purchase Agreement
FOA
Funding Opportunity Announcement
PV
Photovoltaic
FIT
Feed-in Tariff
R&D
Research and Development
GW
Gigawatt
RE
Renewable Energy
Ha
Hectare
REIPPPP
HCA
Heat Collection Element
HEX
Heat Exchanger
Renewable Energy Independent Power

Producer Procurement Program of South
Africa
HTF
Heat Transfer Fluid
SAM
System Advisor Model
HOTTS
Highest Operating Temperature Transfer

and Storage
SCA
Solar Collector Assembly
SEGS
Solar Energy Generating Systems
IPO
Initial Public Offering
TBD
To Be Decided
IRR
Internal Rate of Return
TCES
Thermochemical Energy Storage
ISCC
Integrated Solar Combined Cycle
TES
Thermal Energy Storage
kg
Kilogram
TMY
Typical Meteorological Year
kWh
Kilowatt-hour
TWh
Terawatt-hour
kWhth
Kilowatt-hour Thermal
UAE
United Arab Emirates
LCOE
Levelized Cost of Electricity
USD
US Dollar ($)
Meter
Watt
m2
Square meter
WACC
Weighted Average Cost of Capital
m3
Cubic meter
WMO
World Meteorological Organization
MATS
Multi-Purpose Applications by
Thermodynamic Solar
| 13
definitions
B U S I N E SS
Definitions
Project status:
This refers to the stage of completion of a CSP project. In this report projects have been classified into four
categories: Announced/Planned, Under Development, Under Construction, and Under Operation.
Announced/Planned:
For a project to be considered as announced or planned, it must be in a developers current pipeline. Any
government announcements or plans are not included in this category since they are considered merely as
deployment intentions.
Under Development:
For a project to be considered as under development, it must have been approved, or its environmental impact
assessment (EIA) must be under review by the relevant authority.
Under Construction:
A plant is under construction from when site preparation starts to the commissioning stage, during which the plant
is tested before starting commercial operation.
Operating:
A plant is listed as operating when it is connected to the grid or is fulfilling any other function for which it was built
(e.g. thermal energy generation (steam) for enhanced oil recovery, mining process, desalination, etc.).
CAPEX:
Capital expenditures (CAPEX) include all the expenses incurred during a project from the moment it is proposed
until a plants commercial operation date (COD), including the financial costs.
OPEX:
Operating expenditures (OPEX) include all a plants annual operation and maintenance expenses, including
insurance premiums.
| 14
Methodology
B U S I N E SS
Methodology
CSP Todays Parabolic Trough Report 2014: Cost, Performance and Thermal Storage responds to the
most critical needs of the CSP industry, representing 5 months of research (primary and secondary)
and culminating in over 200 pages of high-quality data and analysis, 95 figures and 80 tables.
Industry Research:
Identifying gaps in knowledge, defining focus
and refining content
At the crux of CSP Todays research process are the
25+ in-depth industry interviews conducted with a
cross-section of industry executives to identify:
Key industry trends

Challenges and opportunities currently facing the
industry
Significant information gaps
The precise data and analysis required by
companies to optimize success in CSP technology
In March 2013 the CSP Today Markets and Technology

Survey was completed by 306 industry stakeholders.
The information needs outlined by the survey
respondents were collated with the in-depth
interview findings, ensuring that the focus and scope
of the Parabolic Trough Report 2014 reflects and
answers to the most critical business needs of the
CSP industry at this juncture.
figures on the changing market size and share of

parabolic trough technology, the internationalization
of parabolic trough as played out in the global project
pipelines, and the growing reach of thermal storage.
Cost Validation Exercise: The cost data presented
within this report originate from an in-house database
containing the most up-to-date and accurate figures
on over 120 CAPEX and OPEX price points as shared
and verified by industry stakeholders (including
developers, suppliers, service providers, financiers, EPCs
and industry experts) between April and June 2013.
Localized Cost Data: In order to account for the
market specific costs associated with building and
operating a CSP Parabolic Trough plant, localized cost
data were sourced for the 8 markets analyzed in the
report, including local wage rates from plant manager
to mirror cleaner, the cost of steel per ton, and the
Expected Equity IRR.
Report Production
Methodological Approaches
The methodological approaches adopted over
the course of this report have been framed by the
pursuit to meet the information needs outlined in the
original 25+ in-depth industry interviews and 300+
survey responses.
Quantitative Analysis:
Market and Project Data: Over 7800 pieces of the
latest, industry verified markets and project data
extracted from the CSP Today Global Tracker to provide
the most comprehensive and digestible facts and
| 15
Methodology
B U S I N E SS
Cost and Performance Modeling: Understanding

the working principles of parabolic trough
technology in terms of cost structure, component
breakdown and overall plant performance is critical to
identifying the areas that offer the greatest room for
the cost and performance improvements needed to
secure the industrys long-term success.The National
Renewable Energy Laboratorys proprietary System
Advisor Model (SAM) in combination with a complex
techno-economic optimization tool developed
in-house have been used to conduct a cost and
performance study to determine the current PPA Tariff
LCOE of parabolic trough plants in todays market
conjuncture, and the opportunities that exist for
further reducing the LCOE and securing lowest PPA.
Qualitative Analysis:
Industry interviews and case studies: Interviews
with the leading thermal storage and heat transfer
companies providing unique insights into the
potential and commercial status of the latest research
endeavors tipped to reduce the cost and optimize
performance of Parabolic Trough technology.
Secondary Sources: Additional analysis includes
secondary research conducted by our expert analysts.
A comprehensive review of industry and academic
journals, conference presentations, online publications, news articles, government policy documents,
company press releases, and proprietary literature
and materials providing a strong foundation from
which to contextualize the report findings and
highlight points of corroboration and departure.
Where applicable, all secondary research resources
are appropriately cited within the report.
Expert Analysis: This report has been researched and
written by a team of highly-qualified and impartial
industry experts ensuring that only the highest
quality, most relevant and digestible analysis is
published.
| 16
Executive Summary
B U S I N E SS
Executive Summary
Since the first edition of CSP Todays Parabolic Trough

Report: Cost and Performance published in early
2011, the Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) industry
has seen tremendous changes on both technical and
commercial fronts. Indeed, ambitious roadmaps such
as the Indian Solar Mission (Jawaharlal Nehru National
Solar Mission) the Renewable Energy Independent
Power Producer Procurement Program (REIPPPP) in
South Africa and the future Saudi Arabia solar master
plan are now in effect or being implemented, whilst
the technologys levelized costof electricity (LCOE) has
reached an unprecedented low, as demonstrated by
the Ouarzazate bidding tariff of EUR 0.145/kWh.
New markets are broadening the reach of CSP
worldwide, and it is more critical than ever to focus
on increasing the parabolic troughs competitiveness
in a climate where alternative energy sources bottom
out prices. Cost-out strategies must be implemented,
system and component level improvements must be
achieved, plant reliability must be driven up, and the
LCOE must be further reduced for this industry to thrive
moving forward.
Currently, CSP plants have profited mainly from Spain
and the USA, as feed-in tariff and/or government
support mechanisms have been offered in such
markets. However, a significant pipeline of parabolic
trough projects is on the path to fruition in a variety
of new markets, which are supported by multiple
ambitious solar roadmaps that demonstrate
commitment and faith in the CSP industry, as is the
case of India, South Africa, the MENA region and
China. The report therefore examines in depth the cost
and performance of parabolic trough plants in eight

representative markets of the current CSP industry:
Chile, India, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain,
UAE, and USA.
Chapter 1 - Parabolic trough and thermal

energy storage overview
Amongst the CSP technologies currently in commercial
operation, the parabolic trough remains the most
widely-deployed and mature technology globally.
Unsurprisingly, it continues to be the solution most
favored by developers and financing institutions. Almost
three decades after the first commercial plants were
commissioned, nearly 2.7 gigawatts (GW) of installed
capacity is now under operation, whilst another 1.8 GW
will come online in the coming one to two years.
However, in spite of its proven track record, the
dominance of parabolic trough technology in the
utility-scale CSP market is now being challenged. The
parabolic trough remains too expensive at a time when
costs of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels have reached an
all-time low, while gas prices are also bottoming out.
Fortunately, new applications, new technologies and
new markets are boosting parabolic trough technologys potential and may provide sufficient lift to sustain
further growth.
With declining costs of wind energy and solar PV,
CSP technology is facing tough competition from
its renewable energy counterparts. However, all CSP
technologies in general have the main advantage and
ability over other renewable energy technologies to
store and dispatch energy as needed in a cost effective
| 17
Executive Summary
B U S I N E SS
manner due to the possibility of thermal energy storage

(TES) integration. There are currently 22 operational
parabolic trough CSP plants with TES; this represents
approximately 33% of the total plants as shown in
Figure 13. In other terms, around 900 MW of the current
installed capacity has TES, which is approximately 34%
of the current total installed capacity.
Chapter 2 - Parabolic trough technology

This report provides a technological overview of
state-of-the-art parabolic trough plants, along with an
analysis of the parameters having most influence over
performance and cost (solar resource, water usage, land
use, capacity factor, plant efficiency).
The various types of solar collector assembly used today
are also explored, along with their specific attributes.
The evolution of parabolic trough technology over
the previous decades has witnessed tremendous
achievements in terms of cost and performance.
Parabolic troughs are now stronger and more resilient
to wind loading, for example, owing tothe Torque-tube,
Torque-box and Space-frame designs. They also
have a larger aperture, and their designs have been
streamlined in order to facilitate logistics as well as their
erection on site. Such continued improvements are
paving the way to further cost reductions.
With thermal storage and new heat transfer fluid
solutions being considered and pursued by the
industry, it is feasible that greater cost savings and
added value can be gained to further drive the LCOE
downwards towards the SunShot Initiative target of
USD 0.06/kWh.
12 (43%) of the 28 parabolic trough plants currently

under construction. In terms of installed capacity, the
percentage is even higher, as 965 MW (52%) will be
constructed with TES, whereas the remaining 953 MW
(48%) will not boast TES.
There are mainly three types of storage systems:
Two-tank direct system, two-tank indirect system
and single-tank thermocline. Current TES technology
employed in commercial operating plants is based
on the two-tank indirect system consisting of one or
more pairs of tanks where, traditionally, molten salts
are stored at two temperature levels, providing a
temperature differential that is used to generate steam.
The molten salts are an eutectic mixture of 60% of
sodium nitrate and 40% of potassium nitrate that have
a melting point in the range of 230-240C. However,
molten salts are not the only storage material available
in the market: concrete and phase-change materials are
some example of alternatives for storing thermal energy
generated by the solar field.
Integrating TES into a CSP plant makes it easier to
manage the plants output and adapt it to demand.
When comparing CSP with TES to alternative renewable
technologies, there are several other aspects which
provide additional benefits, for example, lower system
integration costs, displacement of production of
electricity from storage to the highest value hours (peak
demand) across the operating day, higher capacity
credit compared with other RE technologies. The
latest CSP bidding process worldwide has outlined the
importance that dispatchability has for some emerging
markets such as Morocco and South Africa where
special pricing was set for the electricity generated
during the peak hours.
Chapter 3 Thermal energy storage

The thermal storage capability of a CSP plant is one of
the main features facilitating its integration into the
grid. Around 900 MW of the current installed capacity
includes TES, which is approximately 34% of the current
total installed capacity. However, the TES landscape
is set to change in the coming months and years as
evident in the portfolio of parabolic trough plants
currently under construction. TES is being installed in
Chapter 4 Cost and performance modeling

In spite of being the most mature and widely-deployed
of all CSP technologies, the limited availability and lack
of transparency of reliable and up-to-date information
regarding cost and performance of real parabolic
trough projects is crucial and constitutes one of the
most important hurdles to its development.
Although an increasing amount of data on parabolic
| 18
Executive Summary
B U S I N E SS
trough costs and LCOE estimates have been published

over the last few years, the truth is that most of these
studies and publications show quite different results,
giving the outside reader a misleading perspective of
the industry.
expenditure (OPEX), lifecycle cost and energy yield

were thereafter determined to evaluate the economic
influence of the following factors on the LCOE:
In order to overcome this lack of clear cost and

performance analysis in the market, CSP Today has
carried out a comprehensive and well-documented
study of parabolic trough technology in order to
present the most up-to-date and realistic cost and
performance data. A very detailed and sophisticated
cost modeling and techno-economic optimization
process was followed to achieve this. A key characteristic of the methodology employed was the
comprehensive industry validation process, allowing
cost input data and assumptions as well as the results
obtained to be verified.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratorys proprietary System Advisor Model (SAM), in combination
with a complex techno-economic optimization tool
developed in-house, have been used to conduct a
cost and performance study to determine the current
LCOE of parabolic trough plants in todays market
conjuncture, and the opportunities that exist for further
reducing the LCOE.
Compared with last years report where a reference
parabolic trough plant with 110 MW and 6 hours of TES
located in the MENA region was defined as the baseline
for the study, the present report adopts a local approach
where eight markets constituting potential hotspots for
parabolic trough deployment were individually studied
and a reference plant defined for each of them. These
markets were identified by market research and industry
calls and are: Chile, India, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, South
Africa, Spain, UAE and USA.
Power plant size (MW)

TES capacity (hours)
Solar resource impact (direct normal irradiance, DNI)
Technical parameters (parasitics, net energy output)
CAPEX structure
OPEX structure
Component costs
Financing assumption
Local conditions
Chapter 5 - Trends and development

Following on from the cost and performance modeling
carried out in the previous chapter, the current
parabolic trough research and development landscape
was further explored, given that the relatively early
maturity of the technology may lead to further progress
and greater cost savings.
Topics discussed include:
Power block technology and scaling
Collector design for performance, lower maintenance, ease of assembly and installation
Heat transfer fluids
TES (sensible, latent and thermochemical)
Plant layout
Cooling
Development cycle
Modularity
Plant characteristics and parameters representative of

the current or proposed market activity trends was used
for benchmarking against the sensitivity analyses results
where 500+ simulations were performed to define
the optimal techno-economic configuration for each
proposed case. Capital expenditure (CAPEX), operating
| 19
Parabolic trough and thermal

B U S I N E SS
1.
Parabolic trough and thermal energy storage
overview
Parabolic trough technology is still the most mature and

economically viable large-scale solar thermal power
generation technology to date. With almost 30 years
of operational history, the Solar Energy Generating
Systems (SEGS) plants in Californias Mohave Desert
have demonstrated and proven this technologys
viability. Since then, the technology has undergone
significant developments, and is rapidly evolving
and expanding towards new frontiers; i.e. improved
performance in new markets and applications.
This chapter sets the scene for the key discussions
addressed throughout the report by carefully detailing
the key working principles of parabolic trough
technology and TES; locating its position in todays
concentrated solar power (CSP) market and critically
assessing its mid-to-long term market share, as well
as highlighting the relative benefits and drawbacks of
parabolic trough technology. Finally, the technologys
performance characteristics are analyzed and key
comparisons are made between parabolic trough and
other forms of renewable energy.
1.1. Parabolic trough technology

The working principle of a parabolic trough power plant
is fairly straight forward. Solar energy is used to produce
steam to drive a conventional steam turbine that
generates electricity via a generator. Solar irradiation
is concentrated by parabolic trough-shaped collectors
which reflect sunlight onto an absorber tube running
along the focal axis of the trough. The reflective surfaces
are usually mirrors, although they can also consist of
thin aluminum foil. The concentrated irradiation is transferred to a heat transfer fluid (HTF) circulating within the
absorber tube, thereby achieving high temperatures.

The use of conventional mineral oil in current plants
limits the operating temperatures to 390-395C in
order to ensure chemical stability. However, other heat
transfer systems can also be employed, such as direct
steam generation and molten salt, allowing for higher
operating temperatures of up to 550C.
The HTF is thereafter either utilized directly in the case
of direct steam generation, or transferred to a heat
exchanger for steam production. The steam is then sent
to the turbine driving a generator, which subsequently
produces electricity. In some instances, thermal storage is
also added to the process, allowing for extended hours of
operation when there is no sunlight available. A diagram
showing the energy conversion and transfer processes in
a parabolic trough plant is depicted in Figure 1.
Whilst parabolic trough power plants already have a
proven and successful commercial track record, key
advancements are now being pursued in various areas
of the industry in order to maintain parabolic troughs
market share compared with newer CSP alternatives
such as solar towers and other forms of solar energy,
most notably PV.
1.2. Thermal energy storage

With wind energy and solar PV costs declining, CSP
technology is facing tough competition from its
renewable energy counterparts. However, all CSP
technologies main advantage over other renewable
energy technologies is their ability to store and dispatch
energy as needed in a cost-effective manner due to the
possibility of TES integration.
| 20

B U S I N E SS
Figure 1: Parabolic Trough Power Plant Process Flow Diagram (PFD)
Synthetic Oil
Super Heated Steam

HP Steam Turbine LP Steam Turbine Generator
PTC
PTC
Molten Salt
PTC
PTC
PTC
PTC
PTC
PTC
Cooling Towers
Condensator
Steam Generator
Oil
Salt
Hex
Warm Tank
Deaerator
Feed Water Heaters
Reheater
PTC
PTC
Cold Tank
Oil Expansion Tank
Source: CSP Today 2013
The concept of TES used in CSP plants is similar to hot

water storage used in low temperature solar thermal
collectors, wherein excess thermal energy produced
is stored in the hot water tank. In the case of TES used
in CSP plants, molten salts are typically used as the
storage medium instead of water (see Section 3.2 for
data on TES media in plants). Thermal energy is stored
by heating the molten salts and released by cooling
them to just above their freezing point. In the case of
currently operating CSP plants, two storage tanks are
typically used one being the cold storage tank and
the other the hot storage tank. Energy is stored and
dispatched from the tanks via charging and discharging
cycles between both storage tanks.
Recently, a National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) study [2] indicated that integration of TES in CSP
plants can add between USD 30/MWh to USD 51/MWh
to the capacity and operational value of the facility,
compared with USD 30/MWh to USD 40/MWh obtained
from solar PV and wind energy. The additional value
arises because thermal storage allows CSP to displace

more expensive gas-fired generation during peak loads,
rather than displacing lower-priced coal, and because
it can continue to flatten peak loads in the evenings
when solar PV is not contributing to the mix because
the sun has set.
The analysis also demonstrated several valuable
properties of dispatchable CSP, such as its considerable
ability to generate power when electricity demand is
high, and the fact it can be taken off line when demand
drops. There are strong cases proving that CSP makes
economic sense and is competitive when used with
TES. Although the initial investment costs are higher
when implementing a TES system, a plants overall LCOE
is reduced, making the CSP plant more economically
and technically attractive.
Governments around the world have realized the
relevance of CSP with TES as a potential ingredient to
their future electrical energy portfolio. With fluctuating
| 21

B U S I N E SS
Fresnel and dish. However, the plants must also boast a

minimum of three hours of storage at 85% load, in order
to guarantee the ability for dispatching. Again, in the
event bidders tie, with all other metrics being equal, the
tender committee will choose the plant with the largest
amount of storage [3] [5].
capacity inherent to most renewable energy

technologies addressing grid stability will become
capital. In addition to the allocation of capacity for the
development of CSP plants, many governments have
also included mandatory use of TES for this very reason.
For example, in February 2013, the King Abdullah City for
Atomic and Renewable Energy (K.A.CARE) announced
the launch of its Renewable Energy Competitive
Procurement Portal, releasing a White Paper outlining
how the procurement process will take place in Saudi
Arabia. During the introductory round, CSP plants will be
required to provide a minimum of four hours of storage.
In subsequent rounds, the minimum amount of storage
required may increase based on K.A.CAREs assessment of
technical and economic feasibility. If the event of multiple
CSP proposals being priced equivalently, the one
providing greater storage capacity will be selected.
Other countries, such as South Africa and India (where

CSP plant capacities are allocated based on the power
purchase agreement (PPA) prices offered by interested
bidders), CSP plant developers are considering the use
of TES in order to offer a competitive bid price, owing to
the resulting lower LCOE in comparison with CSP plants
without storage. This is the case for ACWAs CSP plant
and Abengoas Kaxu Solar One plant in Northern Cape,
South Africa.
1.3. Market status

Almost 30 years have passed since the first commercial
parabolic trough plants were connected to the grid in
California between 1984 and 1991. A subsequent hiatus
in the build-out of utility-scale CSP plants was observed
between 1991 and 2006 and after 15 years, a new wave
The Chilean government will take a similar approach with

TES being requested as part of the tender requirements
of the Chilean Economic Development Agency (CORFO).
Successful bidders can develop plants using any CSP
technology, including parabolic trough, solar tower, linear
Figure 2: Parabolic Trough installed and accumulated capacity as of July 2013

600
3000
500
2500
400
2000
300
1500
200
1000
100
500
Accumulated installed power (MW)
Installed power (MW)
n Installed MW
n Accumulated MW
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2005
2000
1995
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
Q2 2013
1985
1984
1983
| 22

B U S I N E SS
Table 1: CSP Capacity Under Operation, Construction and Development (Q2-2013)

Parabolic Trough (MW)
Solar Tower (MW
Fresnel (MW)
Operating
2657
95%
98
3%
54
2%
Under construction
1852
70%
603
23%
172
7%
Under development
1088
55%
871
44%
17
1%
of commissioning arrived starting in 2006, with Nevada

Solar One a parabolic trough plant in the USA, and the
PS-10 solar tower plant in Spain.
Todays parabolic troughs presence is shown in Figure 2,
where the sustained growth of the last six years appears
to be fading slightly as the project deployment rate was
reduced in 2011 with respect to 2010. However, around
560 MW of new parabolic trough capacity was installed
during 2012, reaching a new record of parabolic trough
plants installed within a year. India, UAE, Chile, Oman,
Spain and Italy primarily contributed to this increase
in installed capacity. Although the parabolic trough
market has recovered, it is believed that a notable
deployment slowdown will be seen by the end of
2013, as only about 250 MW of new capacity had been
commissioned by mid-2013.
Figure 3: Market share of CSP technologies under

operation (in MW)
Solar Tower 3%
Fresnel 2%
In terms of how the total CSP capacity breaks down

by technology, Table 1 shows how parabolic trough
technology is leading the CSP market, as it accounts
for the majority of operating plants and those under
construction and development.
Accounting for 95 % of operating CSP plants (see Figure
3), the parabolic trough is the big winner over the other
CSP technologies (solar tower and linear Fresnel).
However, a shift in technology is also underway as
developers become increasingly aware of and attentive
to the potential of other CSP technologies (such as
solar tower and linear Fresnel) in further reducing LCOE.
That said, Figure 4 shows how the technology mix in
the CSP market is shifting, giving some room to the
other technologies. Indeed, while the lower LCOE limit
of the parabolic trough continues to be pushed down
(as demonstrated in 2012 by the Ouarzazate project in
Morocco where a bidding tariff of EUR 0.145/kWh was
offered by the preferred bidder), solar tower and linear
Fresnel technology developers are also pushing and
improving their technologies in order to offer even an
lower LCOE.
Still, the future of the parabolic trough in the utility-scale
solar energy market remains strong, as seen in Figure 5,
showing that about 55% of plants in development are
earmarked to use parabolic troughs. However, challenging
market conditions and the need for further improvements
in parabolic trough technology could slow down the
deployment of this technology (see Section 1.5).
Parabolic Trough 95%

Currently, the CSP market has profited mainly from

the progress made in Spain and the USA, where
| 23

B U S I N E SS

construction (in MW)
Table 2: Current and future installed capacity (in MW) of parabolic trough
plants
Fresnel 7%
Under operation
Solar
Tower
23%
Parabolic Trough 70%


development (in MW)
Under
construction
Under
development
Algeria
25
Argentina
20
Brazil
Canada
Chile
14*
China
1.88
202.5
150
Egypt
21.33*
100
India
53
161
200
Iran
0.25
17
Israel
290
Italy
5.35
30
Kuwait
50
Mexico
12
Morocco
20
160
Oman
7*
Papua New Guinea
1.2*
Qatar
South Africa
100
150
1872.5
400
UAE
100
USA
532.16
815
100
Total
2657.47
1852.7
1088.0
Fresnel 1%
Solar Tower
44%
Parabolic
Trough 55%
feed-in tariff and/or government support mechanisms

have been offered. However, as demonstrated in
Table 2, there is a significant pipeline of parabolic
trough projects in a variety of new markets, which are
supported by numerous ambitious solar roadmaps
demonstrating the commitment to and faith in the CSP
industry, as is the case for India, South Africa, the MENA
region and China. That said, it will take some time before
the intense deployment rate currently experienced in
Spain and the US is matched by the growing activity in
emerging markets.
Spain
Thailand
(*thermal energy included)

| 24

B U S I N E SS
Figure 6: Parabolic Trough Power Plants under operation in MW installed capacity

UAE 3.8%
Algeria 0.9%
USA 20%
Chile 0.5%
China 0.1%
Egypt 0.8%
Other 3.7%
Italy 0.2%
India 2%
Morocco 0.8%
Oman 0.3%
Spain 70.5%
Thailand 0.2%
Figure 7: Industry application of operating Parabolic

Trough plants as a percentage of MWs installed
Figure 8: Industry application of operating Parabolic

Trough plants in MWs installed
Electricity 85.0%
Electricity 94.5%
Steam 1.0%
Steam 9.0%
Hybrid 4.4%
N.A. 0.1%
Hybrid 4.0%
N.A. 2.0%
1.3.1. Parabolic trough plants under

operation
electricity and are generally connected to the grid.

9% of them are being used to produce steam, and are
integrated into mining processes, desalination plants
or enhanced oil recovery plants. The remaining 4% of
the plants are bolted on to conventional coal-fired or
combined cycle (ISCC) power plants.
The current picture of the CSP industry shows around

67 parabolic trough plants under operation today. These
plants are spread throughout more than 10 countries,
as shown in Figure 6. From highest to lowest installed
capacity: Spain, the USA, the UAE, India, Algeria, Egypt,
Morocco, Italy, Thailand and China. Although Chile and
Oman also have parabolic trough plants under operation,
these plants are generating heat instead of electricity.
85% of these 67 parabolic trough plants are producing
In terms of MW installed, Figure 8 clearly shows

that almost 95% of installed capacity is being used
to produce electricity, and only 1.0% is for thermal
generation. Meanwhile, 4.4% are hybridized with
conventional sources of electricity.
| 25

B U S I N E SS

construction
Figure 9: Market share of installed capacity of

Parabolic Trough Power Plants under construction
As show in Figure 9, the geographical distribution of

installed CSP capacity will change in the coming years,
at least in terms of market development, with the
USA promptly becoming the market leader, given the
number of CSP plants under construction, followed by
Spain, China, India, Morocco and South Africa.
Brazil 0.1%
China 10.9%
India 8.7%
Mexico 0.6%
Morocco 8.6%
Although the USA currently has a bigger market share

of plants under construction, Spain will still possess the
largest fleet of CSP plants with about 2.2 GW of parabolic
trough plants expected to be under operation by the end
of 2014, in comparison with 1.3 GW in the USA. Figure 10
shows Spain having more than half of installed capacity
of parabolic trough plants, with the USA placed second,
followed by India, China, Morocco and South Africa.
South Africa 5.4%
USA 44.0%
Spain 21.6%
the CSP industry locally.

development
Emerging markets such as Israel, India, South Africa and
China have announced their CSP development plans as
shown Figure 11, whilst Spain is slowly moving out of
the spotlight in the CSP industry as no further parabolic
trough plants have been announced due to the current
moratorium on the feed-in tariff., whereas the new CSP
emerging markets before mentioned have started with
their national solar missions and are pushing forward
It is expected that over the next five years, the global

parabolic trough market will spread across more markets,
although Spain will still lead the parabolic trough
industry (with around 45% of the market share), followed
by USA with almost 20%, India, China, Israel, South Africa,
Morocco, Egypt, and the UAE, as seen in Figure 12.
Indeed, this information demonstrates the greater
internationalization of the CSP industry as the number
Figure 10: Market share of expected installed capacity in MW of parabolic trough plants by the end of 2014
(plants under operation and construction)
UAE 2.5%
Algeria 0.6%
USA 20.6%
Chile 0.1%
Other 1.9%
Egypt 0.5%
China 5.2%
Italy 0.1%
India 5.4%
Mexico 0.3%
Spain 57.4%
Morocco 4.5%
South Africa 2.5%
Thailand 0.1%
| 26

B U S I N E SS
Figure 11: Distribution of Parabolic Trough Power Plants under development
USA 9.2%
Canada 0.1%
China 13.8%
South Africa 13.8%

Egypt 9.2%
Kuwait 4.6%
Italy 2.8%
India 18.4%
Israel 26.7%
Iran 1.6%
Figure 12: Expected market share of parabolic trough in the next 5 years (plants under operation + under
construction + under development)
UAE 1.98%
USA 18.12%
Algeria 0.50%
Brazil 0.02%
Chile 0.07%
Canada 0.02%
Israel 5.74%
Spain 45.01%
Italy 0.69%
Other 3.0%
Mexico 0.24%
China 7%
Egypt 2.4%
India 8.2%
Oman 0.03%
Thailand 0.10%
Iran 0.34%
Kuwait 0.99%
South Africa 4.95% Morocco 3.57%
of countries boasting parabolic trough capacity is

expected to rise from 12 countries at present (with
Spain and USA leading the way) to 20 countries five
years from now, representing more than a 60% increase
from the current operating activity.
1.4. Thermal energy storage: market

status
The presence of TES in CSP plant is not something
new. Actually, one of the first parabolic trough plants
to boast thermal energy storage was the SEGS I plant
in California. The first Luz trough plant included a direct

two-tank thermal energy storage system with three
hours of full-load storage capacity. This system used
mineral oil (Caloria) as an HTF to store energy for later
use. It operated between 1985 and 1999 and was used
to dispatch solar power to meet the winter evening
peak demand period. Unfortunately, the storage system
was damaged by fire in 1999 and never replaced. It
was not until 2009, when TES came back to the market
that the first parabolic trough plant in Europe, Andasol
1, was commissioned, employing a tow-tank indirect
| 27

B U S I N E SS
Table 3: Overview of Parabolic Trough Plants with and without TES

Plants with TES
Plants without TES
MW
MW
899.3
34
22
32.8
1758
66
45
67.2
Under construction
965
52
12
43
887.7
48
16
57
Under development
560
51
41
528
49
10
59
Operating
TES system with 28,500 tons of molten salt that allows

running the turbine for up to 7.5 hours at full load
capacity. After this importat milestone, further plants
with similar TES capacities came online in Spain. Latest
projects has shown that the tendency in the market
is to increase the number of hours of thermal energy
storage (unless there is a limitation imposed by the local
regulation) in order to make the most of the economical
advantages of large TES systems. As an example,
Torresol commissioned a 50MW plant with 9 hours
storage and ACWA is about to start construction of the
Bokpoort CSP plant in South Africa that will employ a
little more than 9 hours of TES. Announcements in Chile
also shown that large TES systems are being planned by
developers.
present make use of molten salts as the thermal energy

storage medium. The current TES technology employed
in commercial operating plants consists of one or more
pairs of tanks where molten salts are stored at two
temperature levels, providing a temperature differential
that is used to generate steam.
The molten salts consist of an eutectic mixture of
60% of sodium nitrate and 40% of potassium nitrate
that have a melting point in the range of 230-240C.
However, there are other possibilities to store thermal
energy apart from molten salts, like heat transfer fluids
(synthetic oil), phase change materials, concrete,
pressurized air, etc.
It is of the utmost importance to note that all the

parabolic trough plants with TES that are in operation at
Like the changing geographical landscape, size and

technology design of parabolic trough plants, TES is
also undergoing some significant shifts and changes,
Figure 13: Share of Operating Parabolic Trough

Plants with and without TES
Figure 14: Share of Installed capacity in MW of

Operating Parabolic Trough Plants with and without TES
With TES 33%
With TES 34%
Without TES 67%
Without TES 66%
| 28

B U S I N E SS
Figure 15: Share of Parabolic Trough Plants Under

Construction with and without TES
Figure 16: Share of Installed capacity in MWs of Parabolic

Trough Plants Under Construction with and without TES
With TES 43%
With TES 52%
Without TES 57%
Without TES 48%
Figure 17: Share of Parabolic Trough Plants Under

Development with and without TES
Figure 18: Share of Installed capacity in MWs of Parabolic

Trough Plants Under Development with TES
With TES 41%
With TES 51%
Without TES 59%
Without TES 49%
driven by new national solar plans in emerging CSP

markets which stipulate TES integration into CSP plants
as a mandatory requirement, and also new technical
concepts. These possibilities are described in detail in
sections 2 and 5.4 of this report.
However, the TES landscape is set to change in the coming

months and years as evident in the portfolio of parabolic
trough plants currently under construction, which shows
a growing allocation of TES (Figure 15). The average of
installed MW with TES increases from the current 34% to
more than 50% for the plants under construction.
1.4.1. TES market share

There are currently 22 operational parabolic trough CSP
plants with TES, representing approximately 33 % of
the total plants as shown in Figure 13. In other terms,
around 900 MW of the current installed capacity has
TES, which is approximately 34% of the current total
installed capacity (Figure 14).
Indeed, TES is being installed in 12 (43%) of the 28

parabolic trough plants currently under construction.
In terms of installed capacity, the percentage is even
higher, as 965 MW (52%) will be constructed with TES,
whereas the remaining 953 MW (48%) will not boast TES
as shown in Figure 16.
| 29

B U S I N E SS
The importance of TES is further demonstrated by the

fact that of the 1088 MW of parabolic trough plants under
development, seven plants are considering TES, whereas
10 plants will not be equipped with TES (Figure 17).
In terms of installed capacity, Figure 18 clearly shows that
parabolic trough plants with TES would be the majority,
as 560 MW (51%) will have TES whereas the remaining
588 MW (49%) are being developed without TES.
imminently, alternative renewable energy solutions

such as PV and solar towers, significant advancements
are required to further drive down its LCOE.
On the other hand, the CSP industry in general is being
supported by different factors which are helping the
steady growth of this technology and offer possible
routes to lowering the LCOE of parabolic trough:
As shown in the last figures, it is clear that the

integration of TES into parabolic trough plants is
increasing, from a 34% of the current operating
parabolic trough to approximately 50% for current CSP
plants under development.
Emerging markets
Dispatchability
New applications
Technological advancements
Industry- and market-specific drivers and barriers are

examined in detail in the CSP Today Markets Report 2014.
1.5. Industry drivers and barriers

Even though the parabolic trough market is growing
due to different drivers such as technology improvements and government support, a number of barriers
are hindering parabolic troughs progress. In todays
economic conjuncture, challenges to the CSP industry
are omnipresent across the markets. Such hindering
circumstances include:
Challenging feed-in tariff environment (moratorium

in Spain)
End of Loan Guarantees in the USA, (Production Tax
Credit for Renewable Energy)
Low gas prices, especially in the USA as a result of
the shale gas book
Switch from CSP to PV globally, and specifically in the
USA
CSP-specific permitting challenges (indigenous groups
concerns and environmental issues in the USA)
Specifically affecting the parabolic trough segment,
the shift to currently more cost-effective CSP
technologies, mainly solar tower
Bankability of CSP projects
In the short term, the growth of the parabolic trough

segment will be underpinned by the increased
breadth of markets emerging today. That said, for the
technology to regain its competitiveness compared
with conventional power generation and, more
1.6. Technical pros and cons

Even with a proven track record, parabolic trough
technology is still evolving and there are several opportunities for improving performance and reducing cost. By
combining parabolic trough technologys cost reduction
and increased performance potential with its already
proven benefits, this technology will compete as the
leading CSP solution for utility-scale power generation.
Todays most pressing and promising parabolic trough
technological improvements are summarized below
but covered more extensively in Chapter 5.
Technological improvements:
The core solution to increasing efficiency, optimizing
material usage and lifecycle, streamlining construction
and achieving a lean assembly process is to improve
the components employed in parabolic trough plants.
Component standardization, where applicable, is also
a good practice, especially in a relatively young and
evolving industry. Standardization not only helps to
drive down cost, but also promotes quality.
System level considerations must also be taken into
account, i.e. how to address efficiency degradation
as a result of transient operation such as startup
and shutdown. Indeed, the optimal robustness and
reliability of parabolic troughs can only be achieved
| 30

B U S I N E SS
when both component and system-level considerations

are assessed, to optimize customer value.
Increased supplier base:
With a 95% CSP market share, parabolic troughs potential
over the next decade could be considerable when
considering that 18 to 20 GW of CSP capacity has been
earmarked for deployment by 2020 (under development
and expected cumulative capacity, respectively). In an
even more promising forecast, conducted as part of the
CSP Today Markets Report 2012-2013, the next decade (to
2022) could see global cumulative CSP capacity of 12 to
52 GW operating worldwide, a path during which a supply
chain strengthening will be capital to meet demand while
answering cost and quality requirements. Therefore, as
more and more projects are commissioned, supply chain
diversification may contribute considerably to ensuring
parabolic trough plants remain competitively priced.
Since local content (~60%) is often a prerequisite in the
project tendering process, it will be of paramount importance that local suppliers are used to source components
and local contractors hired to assemble collectors and solar
fields and perform civil and pipe works if the parabolic
trough is to position itself as a job-creating, socially and
economically-positive solution in emerging markets.
This focus on local content is evident in Saudi Arabia, for
example, where K.A.CARE, according to its Renewable
Energy Competitive Procurement Portal (White Paper),
has specified in that: Local content will be evaluated on
the basis of the total money spent on goods and services
provided by permanent establishments in the Kingdom
as approved by a certification body to be established
by K.A.CARE, as well as for training and research and
development activities performed in the Kingdom.
New applications:
Whilst ISCC power plants have been successfully
demonstrated with four operating plants worldwide
(Algeria, Morocco, Egypt and the USA), other applications are being developed for parabolic troughs.
Exploring these other applications will prove
critical at times when the price of natural gas is so
low. The four-year Multi-Purpose Applications by
Thermodynamic Solar (MATS) project, funded by the

European Union (Seventh Framework Program, FP7) is a
great example of identifying such new applications.
The project focuses on the combined production of
district heating/cooling, electricity and desalinationin
small and medium-sized solar thermal energy systems.
This project allows combined heat and power
production from solar source integrated with renewable
fuels, such as biomass, biogas, industrial residues, etc.
The potential of MATS are shown in Figure 19.
With electricity demand on an upward path in the
majority of CSP-related energy markets, the responsible
usage of energy becomes increasingly important.
Using parabolic trough technology for process heat
generation can offer a great opportunity for electricity
consumption displacement in industries requiring
moderate temperature ranges (100 to 400C), such as:
Food processing
Manufacturing
Pulp and paper
Textile
Desalination
In locations such as MENA, where tremendous solar

potential is present but fresh water resources are
scarce, seawater desalination using parabolic trough
plants may prove a timely solution to avoiding water
shortages. Of the several markets emerging today and
Figure 19: Future Applications of CSP
| 31

B U S I N E SS
possessing CSP deployment roadmaps, many may find

an opportunity for synergetic fresh water supply and
power generation. Under the MATS project, a 1-MWe
project has been devised to generate 250m33 of desalinated water per day. According to Maged Al-Sherbiny
(President of Egypts Academy of Scientific Research
and Technology), the potential for CSP is multiple since
MATS units could be used to exploit [Scidev.net, 2012]:
potential and undergo accelerated growth rates. In

the case of parabolic trough technology, the following
measures could help drive down fabrication costs:
Concentrated solar energy through small and middle

scale facilities, to fulfill local requirements of power,
heat, and desalinated water.
Reduced manufacturing cost:
Discussions about CSP and the parabolic trough
often present economies of scale as the ultimate
cost reduction path; however, technology diffusion
often requires time and a certain amount of inertia
for such savings to arise in reality. Consequently, lean
manufacturing and quality standards must be proactive
measures essential for enabling a technology such
as CSP parabolic trough, for example, to unlock its
Automated assembly
Design for manufacturing
Collector design simplification
Component standardization
Improved quality control
Waste reduction
Logistics
New technological solutions:

To further enhance the parabolic troughs competitiveness
across CSP markets, several betterment avenues are
currently being sought within the industry. From larger
aperture, thin-film reflectors and new HTF to new storage
mediums, the industry is actively working to put parabolic
trough technology back in the spotlight, where it belongs.
The benefits and drawbacks of parabolic troughs are
summarized in Table 4.
Table 4: Parabolic Trough Pros & Cons

Pros
Cons
Great Global potential that could allow parabolic trough

technology to cover a large share of global electricity
demand
Still more expensive that other renewable energy (RE)

technology and conventional power generation.
Proven technology with more than 25 years of

commercial track record.
Government support is required to make the technology

competitive in the market.
Storage capability and dispatchability offering good

Intermittency of solar resource which can be solved
features for grid integration and both base load and peak
implementing a thermal storage system
load generation
Hybridization possibilities with conventional fossil
fuel plants in order to reduce required investment and
reduced fuel consumption
Limited infrastructure in regions with adequate solar

resource for parabolic trough technology.
Utilization of conventional Rankine cycle process which

benefits from the experience and component supply
from this well-known technology
Relatively high land usage
Possibilities for Decentralized Power Generation
High fresh water consumption which can be reduced by

80-90% implementing a dry cooling
Potential for local manufacturing and cost reduction
High upfront investment required
Cost streamlining via economies of scales

| 32
CHAPTER NUMBER & HEADING
B U S I N E SS
2.
Parabolic trough technology
This chapter analyzes the performance characteristics of parabolic trough technology, comparing
it with other forms of renewable energy, followed
by a discussion regarding the key components of
a parabolic trough plant. The aim is to provide a
comprehensive picture of the technology and its
main components. Finally, the parabolic trough plant
design concepts that are currently available at a
commercial or pilot level will be introduced showing
the different possibilities available to a developer
when planning a parabolic trough plant.
2.1. Key parameters

The overall performance of a solar parabolic trough
power plant depends on several factors, such as: local
solar resource, plant design, power cycle efficiency,
collector efficiency, type of cooling system and storage
capacity. Table 5 summarizes the main parabolic trough
performance indicators.
Solar resource:
Solar resource is the most important performance
indicator for a parabolic trough project since it defines
the available energy at a given site, and therefore plays
Table 5: Parabolic Trough Performance Indicators

Performance factor
Value
Required DNI
>1,700 kWh/m2/annum
Capacity factor
20-40%1
Peak/annual efficiency2
25%/15%
Land use
2.5-4 Ha/MW3
Fresh water usage
3.5-4m3/MWh for wet cooling

0.3-0.6m3/MWh for dry cooling
CAPEX
3-6/MWh4
OPEX
15-40 MWh4
PPA tariff
12.0 - 25.0 /MWh4
1 Depending on solar resource and storage size. It can increase up to 60-70% if large storage systems are implemented
2 Efficiency defined as incident energy to electricity generated
3 Depending on solar resource and storage size
4 Depending on plant and storage size as well as local content in labor force and component suppliers. A more detailed description of these economic metrics
is shown in section 4 of this report
| 33
Cost and performance modeling
B U S I N E SS
a decisive role in the economics of the projected plant.

Owing to the working principle of this technology, DNI
is the only component of the incident sun irradiance
that can be concentrated and therefore utilized in a
parabolic trough plant. Therefore, DNI is the metric
used to quantify the solar resource at a specific site
available for used by a parabolic trough plant. As a
general lower threshold, a minimum DNI of 1900 kWh/
m2/year (approximately 5.2 kWh/m2/day) is preferred
for a parabolic trough plant to be considered viable.
Figure 20 shows a solar resource map of the entire
globe indicating those areas that comply with this
minimum DNI requirement.
When fresh water is readily available, wet cooling

towers are the best techno-economic, leading to a
total water use of 3.5 to 4 m3/MWh. However, some
locations where water scarcity is a challenge must
employ dry cooling technology. Although the watersaving potential of dry cooling is impressive, allowing
water consumption to be cut by 80 to 90%, it does
have its drawbacks with regards to annual energy yield
and capital investment, with an estimated increase in
CAPEX of 3 to 5% and a reduction of around 5 to 7% in
electricity output. As a consequence, dry cooling can
lead to an LCOE rise in the range of 4 to 8% depending
on the local ambient conditions at the site.
Water use:
Fresh water usage is an important requirement that
must be considered when planning a parabolic
trough project. The needs for water consumption are
associated with:
Land use:
Land use is one of the main issues affecting CSP applications. The extensive area necessary to collect sufficient
radiation to produce profitable amounts of energy can,
in some cases, be a limiting factor. In addition, parabolic
trough technology requires flat terrains with minimal
slope of no more than 1-2%. Land usage is very project
specific, depending highly on the solar resource and
rated thermal capacity of the TES employed. As a rule of
thumb, land use of 2.5 to 4.5 Ha/MW is a good reference
range for current parabolic trough projects. The low end
Condenser cooling for the thermal cycle

Make-up for the thermal cycle
Mirror cleaning
Other uses such as potable water, service water for
workshops and firefighting
Figure 20: Annual DNI (kWh/m2/day)
Source: GeoModel Solar, 2013
| 34
B U S I N E SS
of the range accounts for plant with no TES, while the

high end represents plants with large TES capacities.
Capacity factor:
The capacity factor of a parabolic trough plant is
defined as the ratio (%) of the average power produced
over the rated power (nameplate capacity) for a given
period of time, usually a year. It is an important factor in
eveluating the performance of a parabolic trough plant
and its ability to provide the grid with a constant and
reliable source of electricity. As an example, a capacity
factor of 30% means that the annual energy yield
of the plant is equivalent to the plant working at its
nominal capacity during 30% of the yea,r or to the plant
working during the 8760 hours in the year at a 30% of
its nominal capacity
The capacity factor is directly dependent of the hours
of plant operation and the overall performance of the
plant, which is ultimately dependent on the available
solar resource. Therefore, using TES increases the
capacity factor of a project. Keeping this in mind, the
capacity factor is a good metric for comparing different
plants.
generated to the incident solar energy.

Since water use and land requirements are currently
two of the main limiting factors, a comparison of
these metrics with other renewable energies and
conventional power generation technologies is shown
in Table 6. The capacity factor of various renewable
energy alternatives and conventional power generation
sources is also shown.
2.2. Key components

The key components of a parabolic trough plant in
terms of technology content and/or bearing on a
plants cost and performance are as follows:
Plant efficiency:
Plant efficiency is calculated as the ratio of electricity
Solar collector assembly (SCA) composed of the

following subsystems (Figure 21):
Collector structure
Reflector panels, usually mirrors
Heat collection element (HCE), commonly known
as absorber tube
Ball joint or flexible hose
Tracking control and drive system
Heat transfer fluid
Thermal energy storage
Cooling system
Table 6: Renewable and Conventional Power Metrics Overview

Technology
Land usage (Ha/MW)
Water usage (m3/MWh)
Capacity factor (%)
Wind farms
10-20
0.0
15-40
Geothermal
5.3
70-80
3-5
0.1
10-25
CSP parabolic trough
2.5-4
3.5-4
20-40
CPS solar tower
3.5-6
3-3.5
25-50
0.0
2.3
85-95
Natural gas turbines
0.4-2
0.7
80-90
Coal (including mine)
0.4-2
1.9
75-85
Solar photovoltaic
Nuclear
| 35
B U S I N E SS
Figure 21: Solar Collector Assembly

Absorber tube (HCE)
Ball joint
Collector
structure
Reflector panel
2.2.1. Solar collector assembly

The SCA is the central component of parabolic trough
solar thermal power plant. The solar field is made up of
a combination of many parallel rows of SCAs, normally
aligned on a north-south horizontal axis. However, any
other orientation is possible although in the latitudes
where parabolic trough plants are frequently being
deployed, the north-south configuration maximizes a
plants annual energy output.
Each SCA has a linear parabolic-shaped reflector
capable of concentrating the suns irradiation onto an
absorber tube along the focal line by tracking the sun
from sunrise to sunset.
An SCA is composed of the following subsystems:
Collector structure
Reflector panels (mirrors)
Linear absorber tube, also referred to as an HCE
HCE support
Tracking control and drive system
In the current parabolic trough plant configuration

of the majority of projects worldwide, a 600-meter
collector loop consisting of four SCAs is used. However,
other configurations with six or even eight SCAs per
loop have been used in the past and are currently being
analyzed for new large aperture collector designs. Table
7 shows the main characteristics of the conventional
solar loop configuration used in todays parabolic
trough plants.
2.2.1.1. Collector structure

The structural skeleton of a parabolic trough solar
collector is known as the collector structure and has
three main functions:
Support the mirrors and absorbers, maintaining

them in optical alignment
Withstand external forces, such as wind
| 36
B U S I N E SS
Table 7: Conventional Collector Loop Configuration

Parameter
Value
Number of SCAs per loop
Focal distance
1.71m
Aperture width
5.77m
Length of an SCA
150m
Aperture area of an SCA
817.5m2
Absorber tubes per SCA
36
Mirror facets per SCA

Mirrors average reflectivity
Concentration factor
Optical efficiency
Maximum operating wind speed
336
93.5-94%
80-82
There are currently three main types of solar collector

structure commercially available on the market:
Torque-box:
The origin of this type of collector is the EuroTrough
Collector. The central element of this collector is the
steel space-frame structures square cross section,
which holds the support arms for the parabolic mirror
facets. The box is built out of just four different steel
parts. This enables a simplified manufacturing process,
and decreases cost and assembly effort on-site.
Transportation costs are also kept down thanks to an
optimized packing configuration.
78-81%
4 m/s
Allow the collector to rotate, so the mirrors and

absorber can track the sun
During the design process of a collector, the main goals

are to achieve high performance, low cost, reliability
and durability. Rigidity is also essential, as the integrity
of the mirrors and the accuracy of the geometric
concentration are critical. The actuation mechanism
is most often ensured by hydraulic cylinders (usually
two single action cylinders). Aside from these main
objectives, the collector must also fulfill other important
requirements, as listed below (David W. Kearney, 2007):
The rotational axis is coaxial with the center of gravity a

few millimeters above the Torque-box. With the axis of
rotation positioned at the center of mass, the structures
mass moment of inertia is reduced, and minimal effort
is necessary to actuate motion.
The main characteristics of the Torque-box collector are
listed below:
Reduced field erection costs, without loss of optical

accuracy
Increased aperture area per SCA (reduced drive, control
and power requirements per unit reflector area)
High optical and tracking accuracy

Manufacturing simplicity
Reduced weight and cost
Increased torsional and bending stiffness under wind
loads
Reduced number of parts
Corrosion resistance
Compact transport methods
Minimal O&M issues and costs
Light steel structure of approximately 20 tons per

SCA (structure only, excluding mirrors and absorber
tubes)
Increased stiffness of collector structure
SCA length of approximately 150 meters
Reduced shading due to an improved absorber
support design
Design that optimizes logistics and transportation
issues
Few components
Low operation & maintenance requirement
(improved reliability)
Simplified manufacturing (reduced commissioning
costs)
Figure 22 shows a Torque-box collector structure where

the central steel space-frame structures square cross
| 37
B U S I N E SS
Figure 22: Torque-Box Collector Structure
sheet-stamping technology, a proven process that

delivers an overall reduction in fabrication cost.
According to current Torque-tube designers, this
solution offers the following advantages over other
collector types (Castaneda et al., 2006):
Square cross section
Collector pylon
Support arm
Mirror facet
section can be clearly identified as well as the support

arms where the mirror facets are attached.
Torque-tube:
The Torque-tube collector was the original design
developed and mounted on the first commercial plants
in California, designed by Luz International Ltd. The
concept, later abandoned in favor of the EuroTrough
design, has recently been re-introduced on the
parabolic trough scene by the Spanish company SENER
as a promising cost reduction alternative.
The central body of the structure is a rigid structural
support tube, referred to as the Torque-Tubet, which
supports the steel profiles to which the parabolic
mirrors are attached. This cylindrical tube with a high
torsional-stiffness is made of steel, the thickness
of which depends on wind load requirements. It is
galvanized after manufacturing and has plates welded
to it where the cantilever arms are fastened. These
arms, manufactured using pre-galvanized sheetstamping techniques, connect the mirrors to the central
Torque-tube (Castaneda et al., 2006).
The collector tube supports a set of cantilever beams
(arms) which constitutes the principal innovation
associated with this type of collector. Its manufacturing
process, inspired by the automotive industry, features
50% shorter assembly time

10% lower structural weight
Lower manufacturing, assembly and maintenance
costs
Simplified manufacturing (reduced commissioning
costs)
Robust manufacturing process
Increased torsional stiffness
High accuracy of manufactured components
Improved logistics (optimized packed configuration
for transport)
Space-frame:
The Space-frame collector was first introduced in the
SEGS plants under the acronym of LS-2. Several years
later, when deployment of parabolic trough power
plants was reignited, the American company Solargenix
Energy developed a collector inspired by this design,
with the objective of reducing costs and improving
performance.
This collector uses a Space-frame that is designed to be
field assembled, which in turn facilitates transportation
logistics. A corollary effect is to reduce manufacturing
and commissioning costs.
By using an extruded aluminum profile, improved
material usage may be achieved. It uses a unique
truss-like structure, originally developed for buildings
and bridges, and is superior in terms of shipping and
handling. Other advantages are its manufacturing
simplicity, convenience of field installation and
corrosion resistance. The main benefits offered by this
design are listed below (National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, 2010):
Lighter than a steel structure

Simple assembly (requires very few fastening joints)
No welding required
| 38
B U S I N E SS
Figure 23: Torque-Tube Collector Structure

Cantilever arm
Mirror facet
Torque-tube
Collector pylon
Improved assembly
No field alignment required
Figure 24: Space frame Collector Structure
Table 8 provides an overview of the parabolic collector

structures presently available on the market.
2.2.1.2. Reflective panels

The parabolic reflective panels receive the incident
direct irradiance and reflect it back to the focal line
where the sunlight is concentrated on the absorber
tube. These components must therefore have a high
reflectivity in order to maximize the proportion of the
suns rays hitting the absorber tube. The main characteristics of the reflective panels are as follows:
High reflectivity for the entire lifetime with little

degradation
High mechanical strength in order to withstand wind
loads
| 39
B U S I N E SS
Table 8: Parabolic Collector Structure Overview

SKAL-ET
SENER
Trough
ASTR
Flagsol
Sener
Abengoa Solar
Acciona Solar
Power
ENEA &
Archimedes
Solar Energy
Gossamer
Space Frame
Support Structure
Torque-Box
Torque-Tube
Torque-Tube
Space-Frame
Torque-Tube
Space-Frame Space-Frame
Material
Galvanized
Steel
Steel Tube,
Stamped Steel
Galvanized
Steel
Aluminum or
Steel Struts
Galvanized
Steel
Aluminum
SCA Length
150m
150m
150m
100m
100m
Collector Module
Length
12m
12m
12m
8m
Model
Company
Drive
Wind Speed Design
Basis
33 m/s
ENEA
LAT-73
SkyTrough
Albiasa
Trough
Flagsol
Albiasa
Torque-Tube
Torque-Box
Torque-Tube
Aluminum
Galvanized
Steel
Galvanized
Steel
Galvanized
Steel
200-250m
115m
150m
12.5m
12-16m
14m
12m
19.1m
12m
Hydraulic
Drive
Hydraulic
Drive
Hydraulic
Drive (SunLock Drive)
Rotary
Hydraulic
actuator
Hydraulic
Drive
Hydraulic
Drive
Hydraulic
Drive
33 m/s
33 m/s
59m/s
37.5m/s
50m/s
N/A
N/A
82
N/A
75-80
100
75
N/A
N/A
N/A
35.8 m/s
SkyFuel
SunField
HelioTrough
6.1
Siemens
Hydraulic
Hydraulic Drive Hydraulic Drive Drive/ Linear
Actuator
31.5 m/s
SGX 1-2
150m
Geometric
Concentration
82
Focal Length
1.71m
1.7m
1.7m
1.8m
1.8 m
1.7m
1.71m
2.17m
N/A
2.11m
Aperture Width
5.77m
5.76m
5.77m
5m
5.76m
7.3m
6m
5.77m
6.77m
5.77m
Aperture Area
817.5m2
817.5m2
430m2
470m2
540m2
N/A
656m2
817.5m2
1263m2
817.5 m2
Modules per SCA
12
12
12
12
N/A
N/A
12
10
12
Absorber Tubes
per SCA
36
36
36
24
24
N/A
24
36
40
24
Weight per m2 of
Aperture
33kg
N/A
17kg/m2
22kg/m2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Erection Method
Jig
Jig
Jig
In Situ
Assembly
In Situ
Assembly
In Situ
Assembly
N/A
Jig
Jig
Jig
Reference plants
Andasol 1,
2, and 3,
Astexol, /
Puertollano
Extresol 1,
2, and 3,
Manchasol 1
and 2, Valle 1
and 2, etc.
ENEA test
loop
Lebrija,
Arenales and
Borges
80
Nevada Solar
One, La Risca,
Solnova I, III
Palma del rio
and IV
1 and 2 and
Majadas
High durability
Abrasion resistant
Resistant to outdoor weather conditions
Lightweight
Low cost
Currently there are two main reflective panel technologies available on the market: regular mirror panels 3 to
4mm thick, and adhesive mirror film composed of thin
layers of aluminum or polymers. Most parabolic trough
projects developed worldwide use conventional mirror
panels, which have so far been the solution preferred
| 40
B U S I N E SS
by developers and financing institutions due to their

proven track record in commercial plants. However,
mirror film is gaining more attention due to its potential
for cost reduction and light weight, offering a promising
cost-effective alternative to regular mirror panels.
Table 9: Mirror Characteristics

Parameter
Value
Number of reflectors per SCA
336
Shape
Table 9 shows the main characteristics of the regular

mirror panel used in todays parabolic trough plants.
Parabolic
Thickness
3-4mm
2.2.1.3. Absorber tube
Inner reflector dimension
1700mm x 1641mm
The absorber tube is one of the central components of

the parabolic trough technology where the concentrated solar radiation is converted into heat. The main
characteristics of the absorber tube are as follows:
Outer reflector dimension
1700mm x 1501mm
High absorptivity
Reduced thermal losses
Resistant to high temperatures (up to 400C) and
high pressure (up to 40 bar)
High durability
High accuracy in terms of dimensions
High mechanical strength
Most commercial absorber tubes today consist of a

stainless steel tube with a diameter of 70 mm and a
Average reflectivity
93.5%-94%
glass envelope where a vacuum is preserved in order to

reduce thermal losses. The tube and the glass envelop
are connected using a metallic bellow that guarantees
the vacuum in the glass envelope and absorbs the
difference in thermal expansion between the hot
stainless steel tube (400C) and the cold glass envelope
(60-80C). The outer surface of the stainless steel tube
has a selective coating that maximizes absorption
of short wavelength solar radiation and minimizes
emissivity in the long wavelength spectrum in order to
Figure 25: Absorber Tube Schematic
Evacuation
nozzle
Steel absorber tube

Vacuum between
glass envelope
and metal tube
Glass envelope
Glass to
metal seal
Chemical sponges
(Getters) to maintain and
indicate status of vacuum
Bellows
| 41
B U S I N E SS
Table 10: Characteristics of the absorber tube

Parameter
Length
Aperture length
Value
Approximately
4060mm (20C)
>96% of the bulk
length at working
temperature
Outer diameter of absorber

tube
70mm
Average absorptivity factor
96% (for AM=1.5)
Emissivity factor
Outer diameter of glass
envelope
2.2.2. Heat transfer fluid

The selection of an appropriate HTF is an important
task since it determines the operating conditions of
the plant (temperature and pressure ranges) and other
important engineering aspects such as thermal storage
and material selection.
0.094 (400-C)
110-125mm
Transmissivity of coated glass

envelope
96.5% (for AM=1.5)
Maximum operating pressure
38-40 bar
Maximum operating
temperature
400-C
Vacuum pressure
Weight
act as chemical sponges to maintain the vacuum and

serve as an indicator of the vacuum level in the glass
envelope. Table 10 summarizes the main characteristics
of the standard commercial absorber tubes available in
the market.
103 mbar
The objective of the HTF is to absorb the concentrated

solar radiation that hits the absorber tube converting it
into thermal energy, thereby heating up the circulating
HTF. This HTF is then piped to the heat exchanger where
it exchanges its thermal energy with the incoming
feed water, producing steam that eventually drives the
turbine.
Three main types of HTF have been used so far in
parabolic trough plants:
Approx. 25kg
reduce thermal radiation losses.
A vacuum is created in the annulus gap between the

absorber tube and the glass envelope at approximately 10-3 mbar in order to reduce conduction and
convection between the absorber and the glass
envelope. Each tube also has so-called getters which
Synthetic oil: used in the majority of the parabolic

trough plants worldwide
Water/steam: in the so-called direct steam generation (DSG) plant configuration
Molten salts
Each of these options offers different characteristics

regarding pressure and temperature operating conditions
and anti-freeze protection as can be seen in Table 11.
Table 11: Different HTF Type Characteristics

Maximum operating
temperature
Maximum operating
pressure
Anti-freeze
requirements
Synthetic oil
400-C
40 bar1
Medium
Water/steam
500-C1
100 bar
Low
Molten salts
560-C1
N/A
High
HTF type
1 These values should be taken as a reference of what manufacturer and technology developers claim could be achieved
| 42
CHAPTER NUMBER & HEADING
B U S I N E SS
3.
The thermal storage capability of a CSP plant is one of the

main features facilitating the integration of CSP into the grid.
The objectives of having TES can be summarized as follows:
Provide dispatchable energy, extending the

operating hours beyond sunset when no solar
radiation is available
Avoid fluctuations associated with the intermittent
solar resource
Reduce dumped energy making the plant more efficient
The current TES technology employed in commercial

operating plants consists of one or more pairs of tanks
where molten salts are stored at two temperature levels,
providing a temperature differential that is used to
generate steam.
The molten salts are an eutectic mixture of 60% sodium
nitrate and 40% potassium nitrate that have a melting
point in the range of 230-240C. A molten salt TES
consists on the following main components:
Cold tank(s) where molten salts are store at a

temperature range of 290-300C
Hot tank(s) where molten salts are store at a
temperature range of 380-390C
Heat exchangers where the molten salts exchange
thermal energy with the HTF. This feature is not
required if the HTF is also molten salt
Pumps to move the molten salt between the cold
and hot tank(s)
During the charge mode of the TES, some hot HTF mass
flow leaving the solar field is sent to the TES where it
heats up the circulating molten salts from the cold

tank(s) to the hot tank(s). As a consequence, the cold
molten salt is heated up to 380-390C and is stored in
the hot tank(s) for later use. During the discharge mode
of the TES, the operating principle is reversed and the
molten salts stored in the hot tank(s) are sent to the
cold tank(s), passing through the heat exchangers
where they release thermal energy to heat up the HTF.
The capacity of TES is specified in terms of the equivalent full load hours, i.e. the amount of energy that is
sufficient to run the turbine at full load capacity for the
given number of hours. The typical TES capacity of CSP
plants until now has been seven to eight hours, rising
to as high as nine hours for the planned ACWA CPS
plant in South Africa and even 15 hours in the case of
Torresols GemaSolar solar tower power plant in Spain.
The solar field size increases proportional to a plants
TES capacity.
Several thermal energy storage technologies have been
tested and implemented since 1985. These include the
two-tank direct system, two-tank indirect system, and
single-tank thermocline system.
3.1. Types of storage systems

3.1.1. Two-tank direct system
In this system the same fluid used for collecting solar
energy is used as the storage medium. Two tanks
operating at two different temperatures one high
and one low temperature are used to store the fluid.
Fluid from the low-temperature tank flows through
the solar collector or receiver where solar energy
heats it to a high temperature. It then flows to the
| 43
B U S I N E SS
high-temperature tank for storage. Meanwhile, fluid

from the high-temperature tank travels through a steam
generation system where it generates steam for driving
a turbine to generate electricity. The fluid exits the heat
exchanger at a low temperature and returns to the
low-temperature tank in order to repeat the cycle [10].
Examples of two-tank direct storage can be found in
early parabolic trough power plants (such as SEGS I) and
at the Solar Two solar power tower in California. Mineral
oil was used as the heat transfer and storage fluid in the
trough plant, whereas molten salt was used as the heat
transfer and storage fluid in Solar Two [10].
In the first plant that employed direct two-tank thermal
energy storage, mineral oil (Caloria) was used as the
heat transfer and storage fluid. The capacity of the
TES was three full-load hours, which supplied power
in the evening to meet the peak demand period in
Southern California. The system worked well until 1999
when it was destroyed by a fire caused by a failure in
its tank blanketing system. The mineral oil HTF is very
flammable and could not be used at the later, more
efficient SEGS plants that operate at higher solar field
temperatures [11].
In the later stages of development of HTFs a new
higher temperature HTF (Therminol VP-1 or Dowtherm
A) was developed. As the vapor pressure of this fluid
is high (around 9-10 bar at operating temperatures
of 400C), very large pressurized storage tank system
must be used if this fluid is used as the storage fluid.
Pressurized storage tanks are expensive and cannot be
manufactured in large sizes as required for solar thermal
power plants. This, together with other technical and
economical reasons, means that these days only
molten salts are used as the heat transfer and storage
fluids in direct two-tank thermal storage plans under
commercial operation [11].
3.1.2. Two-tank indirect system

In some plants it might not be possible to use the HTF
as the storage fluid due to technical reasons, or in some
cases it might be just too expensive. In such instances,
a two-tank indirect thermal energy storage system is
therefore used. Two different fluids are used in these

systems, one for collecting the solar energy (the HTF)
and another known as the thermal storage fluid for
storing the thermal energy. This type of system was
developed after lessons learnt from the storage system
used at the Solar Two molten salt power tower demonstration project, and can be integrated into a parabolic
trough plant with a conventional HTF through a series
of heat exchangers.
The storage fluid from the low-temperature tank flows
through an extra heat exchanger where it is heated
by the high-temperature HTF. The high-temperature
storage fluid then flows back to the high-temperature
storage tank. The HTF fluid exits this heat exchanger at
a low temperature and returns to the solar collector or
receiver where it is heated back to a high temperature.
Storage fluid from the high-temperature tank is used
to generate steam in the same manner as the two-tank
direct system. However, the indirect system requires an
extra heat exchanger(s), which adds cost to the system.
Two-tank indirect thermal energy storage with molten
salt as the storage fluid is currently the most employed
type of storage system, most of them in parabolic
trough power plants in Spain. For solar tower power
plants employing a two-tank indirect system, molten
salts are also used as storage fluid in conjunction with
water-steam as an HTF. The heat transfer between these
two fluids takes place via a heat exchanger.
The need for extra heat exchangers and associated
pumps makes such systems relatively expensive, due to
the heat exchangers and the relatively small temperature
difference between the cold and hot fluid in the storage
tank [11].
3.1.3. Single-tank thermocline

Single-tank thermocline systems store thermal energy
in a solid media (located in the tank) such as silica
sand. During operation, a portion of the medium is at
high temperature, and a portion is at low temperature
separated by a strong thermal gradient which is referred
to as a thermocline. High-temperature HTF flows into
the top of the thermocline and exits the bottom at
| 44
B U S I N E SS
Figure 26: Schematic of parabolic trough CSP plant with a two-tank indirect TES system
Grid
Reheater
Hot tank
Superheater
Generator
Turbine
Storage
Vaporizer
Condenser
Solar collector field
Cold tank
Cooling tower
Economizer
HTF pump
Feedwater
pump
Source: The Energy Library 2002
Figure 27: Thermocline test at Sandia National Laboratories

Propane Salt Heater
TC
Hot pump
Cold pump
Salt to air cooler
Thermocline
tank
TC
TC
Drain sump
Source: NREL 2010
| 45
B U S I N E SS
low temperature. This process shifts the thermocline

down, filling the system with heat for storage. Reversing
the flow moves the thermocline upward by draining
thermal energy from the system to generate steam and
electricity. Buoyancy effects create thermal stratification
of the fluid within the tank, which helps to stabilize and
maintain the thermocline [10].
A thermocline storage system has the benefit that the
fluid can be replaced with a low-cost filler material.
Sandia National Laboratories has demonstrated a
2.5-MWh, backed-bed thermocline storage system with
binary molten salt fluid, and quartzite rock and sand
for the filler material, realizing significant cost savings
as long as thermal stratification can be maintained to
avoid normalization or homogeneity of the thermal
distribution within the tank. The use of solid storage
media renders this process feasible, by reducing mixing
interactions within the tank [10].
Depending on the cost of the storage fluid, the
thermocline can result in a substantially cheaper
storage system. However, the thermocline storage
system must maintain the thermocline zone in the tank,
so that it does not expand to occupy the entire tank.
Using a solid storage medium and only needing one
tank reduces the cost of this system relative to two-tank
systems. This system was demonstrated at the Solar One
power tower, where steam was used as the HTF and
mineral oil as the storage fluid [11].
Although some pilot projects using single-thermocline
storage systems have been deployed lately, the
two-tank indirect system with molten salt as storage
medium remains the favored solution for parabolic
trough plants due to its proven track record andrelatively easy integration. It is therefore the only TES system
implemented nowadays at commercial level. Based on
the outcome of the ongoing pilot projects and research
activities, future parabolic trough plants might consider
the use of new TES such as the single tank-thermocline
that offers important room for cost reduction. Also,
direct TES systems will most likely be deployed in
projects where molten salts is used for HTF eliminating
the need of additional fluids and expensive equipment.
3.2. Thermal energy storage media

3.2.1. Molten salt
Using molten salt in both the solar field and receivers
and TES system eliminates the need for expensive heat
exchangers. It allows the solar field or receivers to be
operated at higher temperatures than current HTFs
allow. This combination also drives down substantially
the cost of the TES system [11].
Unfortunately, molten salts freeze at relatively high
temperatures (120-220C or 250-430F), which means
that special care must be taken to ensure the salt does
not freeze in the solar field piping at night. Heat tracing
along the pipes can be installed to mitigate the risk
of freezing, at the detrimental drawback of increasing
parasitics [11].
The Italian research laboratory, ENEA, has proven the
technical feasibility of using molten salt in a parabolic
trough solar field with a salt mixture that freezes at 220C
(430F). And Sandia National Laboratories are developing
new salt mixtures with the potential for freeze points
below 100C (212F). At 100C, the freeze problem is
expected to be much more manageable [11].
3.2.2. Concrete
The German Aerospace Center (DLR) is exploring the
performance, durability and cost of using solid, thermal
energy storage media (high-temperature concrete or
castable ceramic materials) in parabolic trough power
plants using standard heat transfer media that passes
through pipes located within the solid storage material.
As previously stated, solid media provide considerable
saving potential, but also have issues which include
maintaining good contact between the concrete and
piping, and lower to the heat transfer rates into and out
of the solid medium.
At the Almeria Solar Platform in Southern Spain, Ciemat
and DLR performed initial testing to demonstrate that
both castable ceramics and high-temperature concrete
are suitable as solid media for sensible heat storage
systems. That said, the high-temperature concrete
would be preferable for its lower costs, higher material
strength, and easier handling as well as longevity.
| 46
B U S I N E SS
The modularity of concrete also constitutes a strong

incentive towards this material, also allowing for
perhaps better integration with the solar field and
power cycle [11].
3.2.3. Phase-change materials

Phase change materials are also highly-promising
materials for storing large amounts of energy in relatively
small volumes, and low cost. Such materials were initially
considered for use in conjunction with parabolic trough
plants using Therminol VP-1 in the solar field. Luz, and
later ZSW, proposed an approach that used a cascading
set of heat exchangers, where phase-changing materials
melting at different temperatures are used to transfer the
heat. To discharge the storage, the HTF flow is reversed.
This results in reheating of the HTF [11].
Although testing proved the technical feasibility of
this system, further development of the concept was
hindered due to the following reasons:
Complexity of the system

Thermodynamic penalty of going from sensible heat
to latent heat and back to sensible heat
Uncertainty over the lifetime of phase-change
materials.
More recently, DLR has evaluated a phase-changing TES

system for application with direct steam generation in
the parabolic trough solar field. This promises a better
thermodynamic match between the phase-changing
material and the phase-change of steam used in the solar
field. In such a system integration, a single phase-change
material can be used to generate superheated steam.
DLR has found that the cost of the system is driven not
only by the cost of the phase-change storage material,
but also by the rate at which energy can be charged or
discharged from the material [11].
Also, DLR has developed a graphite foil that is used to
sandwich the phase-change material for increasing
heat transfer rates. Lab scale tests of this approach have
demonstrated its feasibility, while future tests will be
integrated into the DISS facility at the Almeria Solar
Platform [11].
3.3. Value of CSP with thermal energy

storage
As mentioned at the beginning of this section, integrating
TES into a CSP plant makes it easier to manage the plants
output and adapt it to demand. When comparing CSP
with TES to alternative renewable technologies (including
CSP without storage), there are several other aspects
Table 12: Value of CSP with TES
Energy
Matching with energy schedules as per the grid needs (for example to fit with
peak and off peak hours)
Flexibility in the energy dispatch up to subhourly level
Capacity to compensate fluctuation and ramps events
Ancillary services (for

secondary frequency control)
Regulation
10-minute spinning reserves
Operating reserves on greater than 10 minute frames from Synchronized
Power quality and other

ancillary services
Voltage control
Frequency response
Blackstart
Capacity
Generic MW shifted to meet evolving system needs

Operational attributes
Integration and curtailment

costs compared with solar PV
and wind
Reduced production forecasts error and associated reserve requirements

Reduced cutailment due to grater dispatch without production losses
Ramp migration
| 47
B U S I N E SS
which provide additional benefits, as well as lower system

integration costs, as listed below [13]:
reserves are needed, as well as more substantial

ramping up of the available flexible resources.
Energy and ancillary services:

The majority of the CSP technologies, including the
parabolic trough, offer utility companies the capability
to displace the production of electricity from storage
to the highest value hours (peak demand) across the
operating day, and in principle, should also be able to
supply energy dispatch in real-time operations as well
as spinning reserves and regulation [13].
However, CSP with storage provides the capability to

reduce this variability, and perhaps also supply services
and options to integrate other renewable energy
resources, particularly by mitigating system ramps [13].
Ancillary services currently constitute a small segment

of utility power system costs, but potentially represent
a source of significant revenues for CSP plants with TES.
Nowadays, ancillary services are normally provided from
dispatchable resources, such as gas-fired generation or
hydro storage.
Depending on the number of hours of storage, a

CSP plant could be able to reduce (or event not pay)
integration costs at a plant level, giving it an average
avoided integration cost in comparison to other
renewable energy technologies. Moreover, the energy
from TES could be used to mitigate cumulative system
impacts, i.e., integration impacts not tied to individual
plant variability and forecast error but to the cumulative
impact on power system operations [13].
Capacity:
One of the most important economic benefits of solar
energy is the correlation of its production with both
daily peak demands and annual peak demands. In
comparison with other renewable energy technologies,
CSP without storage gets a similar or perhaps higher
capacity credit compared to tracking PV, whereas CSP
with storage obtains the highest capacity credit of any
solar resource (and any renewable energy technology)
as a function of location and storage capacity.
This capacity value is measured as the avoided cost of
alternative capacity, whether procured from existing
or new electricity generation sources (for example, in
the USA, the capacity value is typically based on the
avoided costs of combustion turbine generation) [13].
Integration and curtailment costs:
As renewable energy generation sources are variable
(such as wind and solar), which means that electricity
is only produced when the resource is available, the
forecast error could be very high in comparison with
conventional sources. These technologies normally
cannot be actively controlled or dispatched by system
operators without the loss of electricity production,
which is often called curtailment. As a result, additional
| 48
B U S I N E SS
4.
The limited availability of reliable and up-to-date

information regarding cost and performance of actual
parabolic trough projects is an important hurdle to the
development and growth of this technology. Reality
shows that most of the few developers, EPC companies,
component manufacturers, and financing institutions that are currently involved in parabolic trough
technology are reluctant to discuss and divulge the
true cost of their technology, making it difficult to find
accurate data about the investment required to set up
a parabolic trough power plant and the real cost of the
electricity generated from it.
Although an increasing amount of data on parabolic
trough costs and the levelized cost of electricity
(LCOE) of this technology have been published over
the last few years, the truth is that most of these
studies and publications show quite different results,
giving the public and potential investors a misleading
perspective on the industry. There is also a significant
amount of discrepancy between the different methods
of assessing such metrics, and therefore cost and
performance data on parabolic trough technology can
be quite inaccurate or at least confusing to discuss.
Furthermore, the methodology used to calculate cost
and LCOE is usually not as well-documented as it
should be in most publications, making it difficult to
draw significant and even valid comparisons between
sources. To add further confusion, LCOE can be
calculated either in nominal or real terms depending on
the discount factor used in the energy production term
of the LCOE equation. Usually, in most publications, it
is not clearly stated if the LCOE is real or nominal and
the difference between them can be quite important
depending on the inflation.

The lack of consistent, up-to-date and accessible
data has hindered the development of a positive and
transparent environment, vital to attracting prospective
investors from outside of the industry required to boost
further deployment of parabolic trough technology.
Indeed, amongst some external players, it is perceived
that the CSP industry is an obscure industry with
a lack of certainty and transparency regarding the
real costs of parabolic trough power plants and the
LCOE of this technology. This situation can certainly
discourage potential investors who may prefer to turn
their attention to alternative forms of renewable energy
whose costs are better known. This lack of insight into
the true cost of this technology is also an important
hurdle for suppliers, service providers and new players
wanting to enter the market who find an industry that
is controlled by a handful of developers and EPC players
that know the true cost of parabolic trough technology.
However, this reluctance is reasonable given the
competitiveness in the market and the fact that parabolic
trough technology employs several components which
require specific tailor-made technology development
by the EPC company and/or project developer in
comparison with other solar technologies such as solar
PV, where the main components are more standardized
and can be directly purchased on the open market.
Therefore, the objective of this chapter is to provide the
industry, investors, suppliers and policy-makers with a
comprehensive and well-documented analysis of the
current situation of the parabolic trough technology in
| 49
B U S I N E SS
terms of cost and performance data.

Compared with last years report where a reference
parabolic trough plant with 110MW and 6 hours of
TES located in the MENA region was defined as the
baseline for the study, the present report adopts a local
approach where eight markets that constitute potential
hotspots for parabolic trough deployment were
individually studied and a reference plant was defined
for each of them. The markets that were identified by
market research and industry calls were Chile, India,
Morocco, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, UAE and
USA. Although the Spanish market is no longer a viable
option for new CSP project developments owing to
the negative regulatory changes taking place, it was
included in the analysis to serve as a reference for the
comparison between different markets.
The reference plants were defined in a way so they are
representative of current and future market trend for
each particular market. To do so, data from projects
under construction and under development were
extracted from the CSP Today Global Tracker together
with the particular requirements established in the local
regulation applicable.
As a consequence of this new approach, local conditions were accurately reproduced in terms of solar
resource, plant size, local cost and local financing conditions. Therefore, the results obtained are representative
of the real situation that the CSP industry can expect
for new parabolic trough projects to be deployed in
each of these markets, reproducing with a high level of
accuracy the economics of those potential projects. The
fact that a very detailed local modelization was done in
the study represents a unique feature compared with
other studies and publications which gives the report
an important added value, presenting the reader with
accurate and realistic results regarding the cost and
performance that can be expected in the main markets
for parabolic trough deployment.
With this benchmark, several cost parameters and
financing assumptions were investigated through
sensitivity analysis.
4.1. Methodology
For each of the eight markets, a reference parabolic
trough plant was defined and the optimal plant
configuration determined using a techno-economic
optimization where the configuration with the lowest
cost of delivering electricity to the grid was identified.
In order to perform this assessment in each market,
a complex process that involves five main tasks was
adopted as follows:
1. STEP 1: Definition of the plant configuration (turbine
gross power, TES capacity and cooling system type),
financing conditions, local impact and TMY.
2. STEP 2: Determination of CAPEX (including all the
costs from project development to commissioning
of the plant) and OPEX.
3. STEP 3: Expected energy yield calculation for a
specific set of solar radiation and ambient conditions
data. A typical meteorological year (TMY) representative of each market was used for this undertaking.
4. STEP 4: Economic performance calculation of the
plant using a financial model. Although LCOE is
usually the reference metric used to determine
the cost of the electricity generated, the Power
Purchase Agreement (PPA) price was used along this
study since it represent the ultimate electricity cost
that is negotiated and signed between the plant
owner that sells the electricity and the utility or final
consumer that buys it.
5. STEP 5: Identification of the optimal technoeconomic plant configuration and sensitivity
analysis.
Figure 28 shows a flow chart of the methodology used
in this report to determine the PPA of the optimal
parabolic trough power plant configuration as well as
the sensitivities studies for each market.
An important feature of the methodology used in
this report is that the optimal plant configuration
yielding the lowest PPA is always sought, and
therefore all the results correspond to optimized
plant designs where the number of loops and other
parameters, such as row distance between loops and
HTF, mass were optimized. This was very time- and
| 50
B U S I N E SS
Figure 28: Methodology to determine the PPALCOE of the optimal parabolic trough power plant configuration
TMY
Plant technical
parameters
Component and
labor cost data
Local impact
Financial
assumptions
STEP 1
Industry validation process
Plant sizing & cost

estimation tool
STEP 2
Plant design
CAPEX
OPEX
SAM
(System Advisor Model)
STEP 3
Hourly energy results
Financial model
STEP 4
Economic metrics
(PPA, LCOE, NPV)
Optimization tool
STEP 5
Optimal plant
Sensitivities
computational-intensive and involved performing

hundreds of simulations and plant sizing until the
best configuration was found. As a result, this study
provides significant added value compared with
other reports and publications that adopt a much
simpler approach.
The following sections describe in more detail the five

steps involved in this methodology.
4.1.1. STEP 1: Plant configuration

The first step of the methodology requires determining
all the parameters that define a plants configuration.
| 51
Different types of parameters are needed:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
B U S I N E SS
TMY
Technical parameters
Component and labor cost data
Local cost impact
Financial assumptions
All these parameters have a direct influence on the following

steps of the methodology and therefore, were subject to
intense industry validation to ensure the assumptions were
consistent with current market standards, reproducing the
reality of the technology. Several industry experts were
consulted during this validation process, making the final
methodology very robust.
4.1.1.1. TMY
Hourly data on irradiation and ambient conditions are
needed as a main input for the model. Time series of
DNI, temperature, wind speed, wind direction, relative
humidity and atmospheric pressure are essential input
data to the simulation tool used in order to evaluate the
performance of the plant design considered.
The available solar resource, especially DNI, varies
considerably from one country to another and even
from one region to another in the same country. Under
such situations, CSP plants are generally built in regions
of a country where highest DNI resources are available.
However, it may not be possible to build CSP plants at
places with the highest DNI because they are inaccessible or protected areas, natural reserves, etc. Moreover,
solar resource is just one factor that leads to site selection
for the development of CSP plants. Other factors, such as
availability of infrastructure, the state of the transmission
grid and vicinity to load centers also affect CSP plant site
selection. For this report, sites have been chosen so as to
represent as closely as possible the solar resource of sites
where CSP plants are actually being developed in various
countries. Once the most representative sites had been
identified, weather data consisting of solar radiation and
other meteorological parameters were selected.
The input weather data used in this report are mainly
obtained from high quality ground measurements, i.e.
Table 13: DNI for all the markets

Accumulated annual
DNI (kWh/m2 year)
Chile
3,205
India
1,679
Morocco
2,515
Saudi Arabia
2,566
South Africa
2,760
Spain
2,080
UAE
1,978
USA
2,636
Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN). BSRN is a

network of high quality solar radiation measurement
stations, which is maintained by the World Meteorological
Organization (WMO). The instruments used in the BSRN
stations are of the highest quality possible, and are
maintained and calibrated thoroughly. Solar radiation and
weather data were obtained from the BSRN for various
sites around the world for long periods of time, and TMYs
were then created for each market using these long time
series for each site used in this study.
4.1.1.2. Technical parameters

Several technical parameters need to be calculated
and/or assumed in order to define a parabolic trough
plant. These parameters have a direct influence on the
following steps of the methodology. The main technical
parameters that define a parabolic trough plants
configuration are as follows:
Plant power output

Solar field configuration: number of loops, row
spacing, etc.
TES system characteristics: equivalent hours of
storage, temperatures, molten salt mass, number of
tanks, tank dimensions, etc.
HTF piping and HTF mass
| 52
B U S I N E SS
Parabolic trough collector: collector structure,

absorber tube, mirror, dimensions, etc.
Optical parameters: mirror reflectivity, absorber tube
absorptivity, etc.
Thermal parameters: thermal insulation
Cooling type
Parasitic consumption
was taken to build up the cost estimation based on

component costs and labor costs. To do so, the costs
of all components and systems comprising a parabolic
trough plant were defined based on benchmarking
and market knowledge using the latest projects under
construction worldwide as reference.
4.1.1.4. Local cost impact

Taking all these parameters into account, a reference
plant was defined for each of the markets analyzed
within this study. Table 14 shows the main technical
parameters of the reference parabolic trough plants
in different countries. The reference parameters have
been selected according to the country energy policy
limitations (e.g. Spain and South Africa where the CSP
plants are capped at 50 and 100 MW respectively) and
taking as reference the characteristics of operating
plants, plants under construction and plants under
development for each market. Therefore, the selected
parameters reflect current and projected parabolic
trough plants in each of the markets.
4.1.1.3. Component and labor costs

In order to avail of the required data for making a CAPEX
and OPEX estimation for different plant configurations
located in different countries, a bottom-up approach
Due to the location-specific approach followed in this

report, which aims to reproduce the exact real conditions the parabolic trough industry will face in eight
different markets, the impact of localized costs was
carefully assessed and included in the modelization
in order to accurately estimate potential PPA tariffs
assigned in each country. To do so, the impact of cost
localization was defined in terms of the possibilities
that each market offers for using local labor and local
manufacturing capacity. Local labor costs were also
defined according to average wages for different job
positions related to electricity generation power plant
erection and operation. To evaluate the impact of
employing local manufacturing capacity, a study of
each markets industrial base was performed, identifying
those components and systems that could be sourced
locally with the existing local industry. In the cases
where local manufacturing possibilities were identified,
Table 14: Reference Plants Technical Parameters

Plant gross
capacity (MW)
Turbine efficiency
TES capacity
(hours)
Cooling system
(wet/dry)
Chile
100
38.80%
10.5
Dry
India
110
40.26%
Wet
Morocco
220
41.00%
Wet
Saudi Arabia
115
38.90%
Dry
South Africa
115
38.90%
Dry
Spain
55
39.50%
Wet
UAE
115
38.90%
Dry
USA
170
39.25%
Dry
| 53
B U S I N E SS
Table 15: Local labor cost in EUR

Item
Chile
India
Morocco
Saudi
Arabia
South
Africa
Spain
UAE
USA
Plant Manager
74,000
29,000
76,000
104,000
79,000
68,000
101,000
84,000
Administration Manager
20,000
8,000
12,000
39,500
15,000
23,000
38,500
35,000
Security guard
12,000
4,100
6,300
12,800
5,800
19,000
12,000
26,000
Maintenance Manager/
construction manager
35,500
15,000
32,500
61,600
37,300
47,000
60,500
54,000
Operations Manager
33,000
13,300
30,000
59,000
34,200
42,000
58,000
50,000
Health & Safety Manager
35,000
15,000
32,500
61,600
34,500
46,000
60,500
56,000
Unskilled labor
11,000
4,000
6,000
12,300
5,500
18,000
11,600
23,000
Table 16: Local manufacturing cost in EUR

Item
Chile
India
Morocco
Saudi
Arabia
South
Africa
Spain
UAE
USA
Water for industrial

purposes (/m3)
1.50
0.57
0.64
1.20
1.00
0.70
1.00
0.35
Electricity for industrial

consumers (/MWh)
115
79
90
55
110
130
50
110
Gas for industrial

consumers (/m3)
0.60
0.12
0.22
0.06
0.32
0.45
0.07
0.10
the costs of the locally-sourced components were

estimated using data available from other developed
markets (mainly Spain) and adjusted taking into
account the cost of certain commodities and expenses
that has a direct impact on industry manufacturing
costs in each country. These data were gathered
through research calls to local industries in each market.
4.1.1.5. Financing assumptions

For the sake of consistency, it was important to properly
define the baseline financing conditions used in the
economic metric calculations. A specific analysis of
each of the markets was therefore performed, which
was then validated by industry experts. As a result, a set
of financing parameters was defined for each market
that are intended to represent realistic figures for a
commercial parabolic trough project to be developed

in each market. The aforementioned financial parameters (shown in Table 17 below) included bank interest
rates and tenors, as well as expected equity internal
rates of return (IRR) and corporate taxes.
4.1.2. STEP 2: CAPEX and OPEX

Calculating the investment cost and O&M expenses of
a parabolic trough plant proved to be one of the major
challenges in this study and, indeed, it was where most
time and effort was dedicated. As a result of an intense
benchmarking process, several different publications and
papers were analyzed which showed considerable variability
in the cost data which, as noted in the introduction to this
chapter, is one of the main issues surrounding the LCOE/PPA
calculation for parabolic trough plants.
| 54
B U S I N E SS
Table 17: Financing conditions for each market analyzed

Income
Tax
Construction
period
(months)
13.0%
18.5%
24
12
18.0%
30.0%
22
10.5%
15
14.0%
30.0%
30
10.0%
9.5%
14
14.5%
20.0%
26
1.0%
12.0%
11.5%
16
16.0%
28.0%
25
1.0%
0.5%
9.0%
8.5%
18
12.5%
30.0%
23
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
8.0%
7.5%
18
12.0%
0.0%
25
3.0%
1.0%
0.5%
8.5%
8.0%
19
13.0%
35.0%
28
Loan term Nominal

(years) Equity IRR
Inflation
Up-front
fee
Commitment
fee
IDC1
IDO2
Chile
3.0%
1.5%
1.0%
10.5%
10.0%
15
India
8.0%
1.5%
1.0%
12.5%
12.0%
Morocco
3.0%
1.5%
1.0%
11.0%
Saudi Arabia
4.5%
1.5%
1.0%
South Africa
6.0%
1.5%
Spain
2.5%
UAE
USA
1) IDC: Interest during construction

2) IDO: Interest during operation
Owing to the pivotal role these input data have to

the validity and credibility of the whole methodology
process, achieving accurate and realistic cost data
was identified as the main goal of this study. In order
to achieve this goal, a thoughtful validation process
was carried out involving the main industry players,
facilitating the incorporation of feedback from several
industry experts from all over the world.
4.1.2.1. CAPEX
Initial cost estimates were calculated using internal
experience and know-how combined with available
data from the market. A detailed cost breakdown
of CAPEX was proposed based on equipment costs
(including manufacturing expenses, transportation
and on-site erection costs), rather than the widely-used
general cost metrics per square meter of solar field or
per MW. By doing so, a more realistic cost breakdown
was obtained, making it possible to quantify the cost
of specific components. This approach allowed the
cost data to be more thoroughly validated by looking
at the price of individual components. This signals an
important improvement in the way cost estimates are
usually performed in studies of this nature.
Table 18 shows a summary of the expenses included in

the CAPEX breakdown. The complete cost breakdown can
be found in APPENDICES B, D, F, H, J, L, N and P. In order
to reproduce the typical cost structure of a real parabolic
trough project, CAPEX was divided into three main
expenses: EPC cost, developer cost and financing cost.
EPC cost:
This includes all the costs associated with the design
and engineering of the plant, component procurement
and transportation, plant construction and commissioning. This service is usually provided as a single
turnkey solution by a specialized EPC company via
an EPC contract. Generally, under EPC contracts,
the project developer pays the EPC company a
negotiated fee, while the EPC company guarantees
the construction of the plant according to a defined
schedule, and the plants performance thereafter
pursuant to certain criteria. However, it is also possible
to break down this EPC contract into smaller EPC
contracts, usually covering two parts of the plant: the
solar field and the power block.
In this year report, EPC costs were localized to reflect
| 55
B U S I N E SS
Table 18 CAPEX Breakdown Structure

1. EPC COST
1.1 Procurement and construction
1.1.1 Civil works and site preparation
1.1.2 Solar field
1.1.3 Power block island
1.1.4 Balance of Plant (BOP) and auxiliaries
1.1.5 HTF system
1.1.6 TES
1.1.7 Electric installation
1.1.8 Instrumentation and control
1.1.9 Miscellaneous
1.2 Engineering
1.2.1 Engineering
1.2.2 Project & construction management
1.2.2 Commissioning / start-up / training
1.2.3 EPC companys profit
2. DEVELOPER COST
2.1 Permitting, licensing, legal
2.2 Owners engineering
2.3 Project management & advisor fees
2.4 Insurances
2.5 Pre-construction cost
both the use of local labor and local component

manufacturing in order to reflect actual conditions in
each of the analyzed markets and to assess the impact
on the PPALCOE of using local cost data.
Developer cost:
This includes all the development costs incurred by
the project developer from the moment the project is
initially proposed until the plants commercial operation
date. This expense is assumed directly by the developer.
It should be noted that developer costs are highly
project-specific and difficult to generalize from project
to project.
Financing cost:
This includes the financing costs incurred during the
construction period until the plants starts to generate
income in the project companys cash flow. During the
plants construction (usually around two years for current
commercial projects in the range of those defined as the
reference plant for each market), an EPC payment schedule
is defined setting out the payments the project company
must make. In a typical project finance scheme, the money
needed to pay the EPC contractor comes from both
equity funds and debt. However, since the project is not
able to generate income until the plant starts commercial
operation,debt repayment, including interests, cannot be
serviced using income generating by the project typical of
a project finance scheme. Instead, interest payments during
project construction must be financed and these expenses
are included as part of the total CAPEX of the project. This
financing cost can only be reduced or eliminated only in
specific cases where a grace period coinciding with the
construction period is granted by the lenders.
2.6 Owners contingency

2.7 O&M mobilization costs
2.8 Land
3. FINANCING COST
3.1 Interest during construction
3.2 Commitment fee
3.3 Upfront fee
In this years report, assumed project finance conditions for each market were applied in order to provide
a good comparison between each of the markets.
As mentioned above, the financing parameters used
include: different bank interest rates and tenors, as well
as expected equity IRR and corporate taxes.
4.1.2.2. OPEX
A similar detailed approach as for the CAPEX was
followed to determine the OPEX of the plant as shown
| 56
B U S I N E SS
Table 19 OPEX Breakdown Structure

1. LABOR COST
2. UTILITIES
2.1 Water
2.2 Electricity
services and labor costs. Each market was comprehensively

researched to identify those components and tasks that
could be sourced locally, enabling the economic impact of
this localization to be included for each market.
The features described above make it a very powerful and
flexible tool for accurately estimating the CAPEX and OPEX
of different plant sizes located in a different markets.
2.3 Auxiliary fuel

3. SERVICE CONTRACTS
4. MATERIALS & MAINTENANCE
5. INSURANCES
in Table 19. The complete OPEX breakdown can be

found APPENDICES C, E, G, I, K, M, O and Q.
A comprehensive tool based on Microsoft Excel and Visual
Basic was constructed to estimate the CAPEX and OPEX
for the different plant configurations studied in this report.
This tool uses the industry-validated CAPEX and OPEX data
derived from Step 1 of the methodology as a reference,
and scales it up or down according to the unitary cost of
the equipment including transportation and site assembly.
This allows for accurate cost estimation.
Economies of scale are included in the model as follows:
1. Technical economies of scale associated with the fact
that bigger components tend to be proportionally
cheaper since material, component weight and
dimensions do not increase linearly with component
size. For example, a 100-MW steam turbine does not
cost twice as much as a 50-MW plant, but is maybe
just 60-70% more expensive
2. Purchase economies of scale associated with
discounts negotiated for large volume orders
3. Fixed expenses that do not change or increase very
little with plant size, such as permitting, project
management, engineering, consultancy fees, etc.
As mentioned beforehand, an important feature of this
tool is that it includes a detailed modelization of the impact
on CAPEX and OPEX of local manufacturing, erection,
4.1.3. STEP 3: Energy yield simulation

Predicting the energy output of a parabolic trough plant
with reasonable accuracy is a challenge. The behavior of
the thermal systems that comprise the plant depends
not only on the specific conditions to which the whole
system is exposed at a specific point in time, but also on
the recent history of its operation. This, together with the
fact that the input energy source (i.e. the suns irradiance)
is continuously changing over time, leads to the system
having a fluctuating state of operation with frequent
transient periods that are difficult to capture and model.
There are different approaches to modeling parabolic
trough plants, which is a very active, ongoing area
of research and development. The common trend
in the market is for industry players to develop their
own proprietary tools that are usually validated using
actual data from operating plants. These are often
very powerful tools that are kept in-house as they
incorporate the extensive know-how of the company. In
this study, the National Renewable Energy Laboratorys
publically-available System Advisor Model (SAM) was
used in conjunction with other proprietary tools. SAM
is a program developed by the NREL in the USA, which
periodically releases updated versions of the model.
This tool is one of the most respected and widelyused pieces of software in the industry for simulating
parabolic trough plant. During the course of this study,
the latest version available (SAM 2013.01.15) was used.
4.1.4. STEP 4: Financial model

Calculating the economic performance of a project is a
critical issue for industry players who wish to study the
economic viability of a project in order to make informed
decisions regarding potential investments. Economic
performance can be measured in a number of different
| 57
B U S I N E SS
ways with specific approaches and assumptions that lead

to diverse results, making it difficult to interpret result
comparisons. As such, the cost of electricity generated
is the key metric used to evaluate renewable energy
projects relying on a feed-in tariff (FIT) or PPA, as it is
the case for parabolic trough plants. This is commonly
referred to as the LCOE and is a measure of the cost of
each unit of electricity generated. However, the PPA tariff
was the metric used in this report since it represents
not just the cost of generating electricity, but the real
electricity selling price where tax payments and investors
returns have been factored in. It is therefore the real price
at which a parabolic trough plant could sell the electricity
meeting the equity investors targets.
into account financing costs, the LCOE is very much

related to the technology itself and is independent of
a developers expected IRR. LCOE is a fixed value that is
not escalated over time.
The LCOE can be calculated either in nominal or real
terms. The nominal LCOE is higher than the real LCOE
because the nominal LCOE represent a constant value
that is not adjusted for inflation, whereas the real LCOE
is an inflation-adjusted value.
Tariff:
This represents the selling price of electricity generated,
in EUR/kWh, required by the developer in order to meet
a specific equity IRR on the project. There are different
formulae to calculate the LCOE depending on the
The cost per installed capacity (EUR/W) is also a
cost items that are considered and the way the cost
very common parameter used to compare different
data and energy yield are discounted over time. The
technologies and projects. However, great attention is
approach used in this report is based on discounted
needed when comparing the cost per installed capacity
cash flow (DCF) analysis where all the financial flows
since this parameter does not account for the differover a projects lifetime are discounted to present value
ences in energy yield (or capacity factor), influencing
taking into consideration the time value of money.
the viability of a project, and configurations with
This is performed on a yearly basis. However, for the
higher EUR/W costs can result in lower LOCE/PPA tariffs.
construction period, a monthly cash flow is used.
Therefore, cost per installed capacity (EUR/W) should
Since the typical financing structure of a parabolic
not be used for comparison purposes, since it does
are project
discounted
present
value taking
into
consideration
the time value of money. This i
trough
is a to
project
finance
scheme
with
a
not include the whole picture and could put parabolic lifetime
lifetime are discounted to present value taking into consideration the time value of money. This is
performed
on
a
yearly
basis.
combination
of equity
and bank
theofweighted
trough technology in an unrealistically
lifetime are disadvantageous
discounted
to on
present
value
taking into
consideration
the loan(s),
time value
money. This is
performed
a yearly
basis.
performed
on a yearly basis. Since
average
costfinancing
of capital
(WACC)ofisaused
as the
discount
position compared with other
technologies.
the typical
structure
parabolic
trough
project is a project finance scheme with
Since the typical financing structure of a parabolic trough project is a project finance scheme with a
combination
of
equity
and
bank
loan(s),
the
weighted
average
cost of capital (WACC) is used as th
rate according to the following formula:
Since the typical
financing structure
a parabolic
trough
project
is a project
with a is used as the
combination
of equityofand
bank loan(s),
the
weighted
averagefinance
cost ofscheme
capital (WACC)
discount
rate
according
to
the
following
formula:
The economic approach used
in this study
is based
on
combination
ofdiscount
equity
and
bank
loan(s),tothe
rate
according
theweighted
followingaverage
formula:cost of capital (WACC) is used as the
two metrics:
discount rate according to the following formula:
The assumptions taken for the WACC calculation must be carefully evaluated since it can influenc
LCOE:
The assumptions taken for the WACC calculation must be carefully evaluated since it can influence
the investor decision towards one option or another.
Thecost
assumptions
taken
the WACC
calculation
must be
investor
towards
one option
or carefully
another. evaluated since it can influence
This represents the equivalent
of eachthe
unit
of for decision
the
investor
decision
towards
one
option
or
another.
The
formula
used
for
calculating
the LCOE
is:LCOE is:
The formula used for calculating
the
energy (in this case electricity) generated during the
The formula used for calculating the LCOE is:
lifetime of a project taking into
the initial
Theaccount
formula used
for calculating the LCOE is:
investment (CAPEX), operation and maintenance
costs (OPEX) and financing costs associated with
interest on any borrowings. It represents the cost of
Where,
producing electricity where revenues would
equal
Where,
Where,costs) excluding tax
Where,
costs (CAPEX, OPEX and financing
CAPEX in the initial investment
CAPEX in the initial investment
CAPEX
is the initial investment
payments. Therefore, the LCOE is notCAPEX
the selling
price
in the initial investment OPEXt is the O&M costs in year t
is
the
O&M
costs
year
t costs in year t
OPEX
t
OPEXt is in
the
O&M
that a developer aims at achieving in PPA negotiations,
OPEXt is the O&M costs in year tn is the lifetime of the project in years
costsinrepresent
the interest on loan
since it does not include tax payments and the equity
n is the lifetimeFinancing
of the project
years
n
is
the
lifetime
of
the
project
in
years
is
the
electricity
generated
in year t
E
t
repayments
IRR expected by the developer. Apart from taking
Et is the electricity generated in year t

t discount rate (as explained, due to the project finance structure assumed as
Et is the electricity generated in ryear
is the
r is the discount
rate (as WACC
explained,
due used
to the
project
finance
reference,
has been
as the
discount
rate)structure assumed as a
CSP
Today
Parabolic
Trough
reference,
has been
as the
discount
rate)structure
r is the discount
rate (asWACC
explained,
dueused
to the
project
finance
assumed
as a Report | 58
reference, WACC has been
used as
discount
rate)
It should
bethe
noted
that the
LCOE results presented in this report are calculated using a 5% envelop
It should be noted that the LCOE results presented in this report are calculated using a 5% envelope
instead of a discrete value in order to account for uncertainty.
B U S I N E SS
The assumptions taken for the WACC calculation must be carefully evaluated since it can influence
the investor decision towards one option or another.
The formula used for calculating the LCOE is:
Where,result of adding tax payments and a specific profit

n is the lifetime of the project in years
margin
the
calculated
LCOE. Therefore, all the
Et is the electricity generated in year t
CAPEX intothe
initial
investment
r is the discount rate (as explained, due to the project
comparisons and sensitivities carried out in this report
OPEXt is the O&M costs in year t
finance structure assumed, WACC was used as the
are based on the PPA tariff calculated taking into
discount rate)
account tax payments and specific equity IRR targets
Et is the electricity
defined
for each generated
market. in year t
PPA Tariff:
r is the discount rate (as explained, due to the project finance structure assumed as a
reference,
WACC of
hasthe
been
used
as the
rate)
This represents the selling price of electricity generated,
The
calculation
PPA
tariff
for discount
a specific
equity
It
should
be
noted
that
the
LCOE
results
presented
in
this
report
calculated using a 5% envelope
in /kWh, that is required by the developer in order to
IRR target and tax payment was performed solvingare
the
instead
of
a
discrete
value
in
order
to
account
for
uncertainty.
meet a specific equity IRR on the project. This value
discounted cash flow iteratively, leading to a net present
represents the PPA tariff required at Year 1 of the
value (NPV)
the for
project
equivalent
to target
the equity
IRRpayment was performed solving
The calculation
of theoftariff
a specific
equity IRR
and tax
cashformula
flow iteratively,
leading
to a net present
project to achieve the desired IRR over the lifetime the discounted
target. The
used for
calculating
the NPVvalue
is: (NPV) of the project equivalent to
of the project, and includes the same cost items as the equity IRR target. The formula used for calculating the NPV is:
the LCOE (CAPEX, OPEX and financing costs), plus the
cost associated with tax payments and the equity IRR

expected by the developer. Depreciation schemes areWhere,Where,
EQ is the initial equity contribution from the project
also included if applicable by regulation in the market.
EQ is the initial equity contribution from the project developer
developer
Usually, the PPA tariff is annually escalated using a
loanloan
payment
(including
principalprincipal
repayment and loan interest) in year t
LPLP
t ist the
is the
payment
(including
country-specific inflation rate or a negotiated rate with
is the tax payment
in year
t
Ttrepayment
and loan
interest)
in year t
an off-taker. Defining a PPA escalation factor is difficult
t
is
the
tax
payment
in
year
t
T
since it is very market-specific and can vary from one
It is the income in year t from selling the electricity under the PPA terms
It is the income in year t from selling the electricity
project to another, even within the same country.
under the PPA terms
However, for this study, an escalation factor equal to the
inflation rate was assumed for all the markets in order to
m is the loan term in years
capture the standard local conditions that are found in
r is the discount rate (as explained, due to the project
real projects. It should be noted that, in some cases, the
finance structure assumed, WACC was used as the
PPA tariff was not escalated at all (for example in India),
discount rate)
while in other projects an escalation factor higher than
the inflation was used.
The majority of studies exploring the LCOE and PPA
tariffs for renewable energy systems and CSP technolThe LCOE and PPA tariff are essentially interrelated,
ogies do not usually document the methodology and
given that the PPA tariff is usually above the LCOE,
assumptions used, leading to confusion regarding the
depending on the developers expected IRR and tax
results, and making the interpretation of such results
and depreciation schemes. However, based on the
very complicated and nebulous.
escalation factor of the PPA tariff, it is possible that the
PPA tariff might be lower than the LCOE during the first
In order to resolve this issue (facilitating the transyears of a project. A PPA tariff above the LCOE would
parency of the result and avoiding getting lost in
yield a greater return on equity than the assumed
complex financial models that ultimately are very
discount rate, while a lower PPA tariff would yield a
project-specific), this report adopted a simplified
smaller return or even a loss.
methodology but one that nevertheless includes the
main characteristics of a complex financing model
The LCOE and the PPA tariff, which are sensitive to
such as interest during construction, tax payments,
technical parameters and cost data, follow a similar
equity IRR target, minimum debt-service coverage ratio
pattern, since the PPA tariff can be understood as the
| 59
Since the typical financing structure of a parabolic trough project is a project finance scheme with a
combination of equity and bank loan(s), the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) is used as the
discount rate according to the following formula:
B U S I N E SS
requirements and depreciation schemes.

The assumptions forging the base case for each market
are as follows:
Project lifetime is assumed to be 25 years for all the

markets, which represents the typical PPA contract
length signed today in most countries.
The economic analysis includes the construction
period and the associated financing costs.
The financing model does not include any potential
salvage value or decommissioning cost at the end
of the lifetime of the plant. It is not clear what the
situation will be once the current projects reach
the end of their lifetime, which is why no potential
salvage value/decommissioning costs were included.
It should be noted that there are different opinions
within the industry and while some studies argues
a potential salvage value associated with the large
amounts of steel that could be sold for recycling (this
might be important for aluminum but not so much
for regular steel), others claim that the mandatory
requirement to restore sites to their original
condition would cancel out any potential salvage
value and would indeed lead to a decommissioning
expense.
The benefits associated with the sale of electricity
in the wholesale market after the assumed years
of PPA contract are not included in the financing
model. However, as it was proved in the SEGS plants

in California, parabolic trough plants can operate
beyond the PPA term, generating extra income
from the sale of the electricity even though the
PPA contract has expired, thereby increasing the
return on investment for developers. This situation
commonly referred to as the golden end is not
including in the analysis, meaning that no additional
operation time is considered beyond the PPA term.
A constant degradation of 0.10% is considered for
the annual net energy output calculated using SAM
over the whole lifetime of the project. This decline
intends to represent the degregredation of both the
solar field components and the power block.
Linear depreciation over 20 years, with the depreciation basis comprising all the equipment costs of
the project.
Loan repayment method: equal total payment with
constant debt repayment (principal + interest) over
the entire loan term.
Yearly escalation of annual O&M costs (OPEX) in line
with inflation.
Linear EPC payment schedule during construction
period.
PPA tariff indexed to inflation rate.
Furthermore, as a general rule, all the economic calculations performed in this report are based on real 2013
Euro rates where inflation was taken into account. All
Figure 29: Example of the optimization process

16.1
16.0
PPA (EUR cent/kWh)
15.9
15.8
15.7
Optimal
configuration
15.6
15.5
15.4
15.3
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
560
580
600
Number of loops
| 60
B U S I N E SS
Table 20: Plant characteristics common in all the markets analyzed

Item
Value
Unit
SOLAR COLLECTOR (SCA)

36
Mirrors per SCA
336
36
SCA aperture area
817.5
m2
Interception factor
97%
99.5%
94%
Absorber tube transmissivity
96.5%
Absorber tube absorptivity
95.5%
Absorber tube effective length
96.4%
Mirror cleanliness factor
97.5%
Absorber tube cleanliness factor
98.5%
Therminol VP-1 / DOW A
Solar field inlet temperature
297
Solar field outlet temperature
393
Freeze protection temperature
55
Molten salts
Indirect tank (pairs of hot and cold

pair of tanks)
Km
0.1%/year
97%
Tracking error
Mirror reflectivity
HTF fluid
HTF fluid type
TES
TES fluid
Configuration
ELECTRICAL
High-voltage line to connect to grid
GENERAL*
Plant annual degradation
Plant availability
*Not allowed the use of gas for electricity generation purpose
| 61
B U S I N E SS
local costs such as locally-manufactured components

and local wages have been converted into Euros. The
calculated metrics are therefore real LCOE and real tariffs
which represent the PPA tariff for Year 1, which increases
in line with the specific annual escalation rate.
4.1.5. STEP 5: Techno-economic optimal

plant configuration
As the final step of the methodology followed, a
techno-economic optimization process was required
to find the optimal plant configuration giving rise to
a minimum LCOE. This optimization was performed
for all the different cases for each market included
in the sensitivity analyses. Therefore, all the results
shown in this report correspond to techno-economic
plant configurations, which means this study provides
significant added value compared with other reports
and publications.
As an example, Figure 29 shows the results of a
techno-economic optimization process where a plant
configuration with 490 loops was found as the one
yielding the lowest PPA tariff.
4.2. Cost and performance by market

As indicated in the first step of the methodology
followed in this study, the technical parameters of the
reference plants were defined for each market. Due to
the local approach adopted, some plant characteristics
were specifically defined for each country (see Table 14),
while others were the same for all markets (see Table
20). The plant characteristics shared across all markets
are associated with using the same type of collector
structure, absorber tubes, mirrors and HTF fluid in order
to make the comparison more meaningful. Also, some
general features associated with plant operations such
as degradation, and the availability and use of gas were
kept constant for all markets.
Market standard components installed in current
parabolic trough plants worldwide were used to ensure
the technical parameters and efficiencies adopted
during the report represent real data that were found
and are guaranteed by the suppliers and/or EPCs today.
Therefore the definition of the parabolic trough plants
Table 21: Chiles country overview

Solar Resource
3300 kWh/m2/year
Population
17.2 million
GDP per capita
USD $ 17,211
Installed power capacity
17.6 GW
Annual electricity consumption

Expected annual electricity demand
Targets
60 TWh
100 TWh by 2020
13 GW renewable by 2020
for each market includes both common parameters, as

per current market standard components, and specific
features associated with local requirements and market
trends.
4.2.1. Chile
According to different measurement sources, satellite
estimations, and weather simulation models, northern
Chiles Atacama Desert is the best solar irradiated
place in the world with accumulated DNI values above
3,300 kWh/m2/year. Such high levels of solar radiation
and clearness indices place Chile in a prime position
to accommodate CSP plants. The potential of CSP in
Chile is further supported by the presence of strong
mining activity in the Atacama Desert consuming large
amounts of energy (both electricity and heat) which
currently represent around 80% of northern Chiles
electricity demand with an expected annual growth of
5% in the coming years.
As can be seen in Figure 30, a range of 280-300 loops
was identified as the optimal configuration for the
reference plant with 100 MW gross capacity and 10.5
hours of storage. Due to the excellent solar resource
found in Chile, small solar fields are required compared
with other CSP locations.
4.2.1.1. Energy yield results

The performance results for the optimal plant configuration defined for Chile (100 MW gross capacity with 10.5
| 62
B U S I N E SS
Table 22: Chiles optimal plant configuration

Item
Value
Unit
METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS
Accumulated annual DNI
3205
kWh/m2/year
Average ambient temperature
18.6
Average wind speed
2.4
m/s
948,300
m2
Number of loops
290
Row spacing
16.8
HTF mass
5,123
tons
Total HTF pumping power
10.6
MWe
50
Equivalent hours
10.5
hours
Energy capacity
2,761
MWh-t
Molten salts mass
81,587
tons
Number of tanks
4 (2 cold + 2 hot)
Tank diameter
44.19
Tank height
14.00
3 in each hot tank + 3 in each cold tank
360.6
MWth
Gross power
100
MWe
Net Power
90
MWe
38.8%
Min turbine load
10%
Cooling system
Dry
Auxiliary fuel boiler1
10
MWth
Land requirement
359
Ha
Construction period
24
months
SOLAR FIELD
Aperture area

TES
Number of pumps
HTF-molten salt HEXs thermal power
POWER BLOCK
Turbine nominal efficiency
GENERAL
1) Auxiliary fuel is only use for safety operation purposes and to speed up daily plant start-up. Therefore, auxiliary fuel is not used for electricity generation
purposes
| 63
B U S I N E SS
Figure 30: Chiles plant optimization

13.8
PPA (EUR cent/kWh)
13.6
13.4
13.2
13.0
Optimal
configuration
12.8
12.6
12.4
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
Number of loops
hours of TES, dry cooling and 290 loops) are shown in

Table 23 and Table 24. The high capacity factor (above
60%) that could be achieved by including a large TES
system and given the excellent solar resource conditions
should be noted. Also a high solar-to-electricity efficiency
of over 18% was found, some points above that of other
solar technologies. This would make this parabolic trough
plant suitable to supply base or mid load to the national
grid or provide continuous and dispatchable electricity to
mining activities in a stand-alone CSP mining integration

approach; a prominent alternative for the remote sites
where most mining activities are located.
4.2.1.2. Economic results

Table 25 shows the CAPEX estimation for the optimal
plant where a total investment of EUR 548 million was
estimated which represents 5.48 EUR/Wgross (4.75
EUR/Wgross for the EPC cost). As expected, the solar
Table 23: Chiles optimal plant energy yield

Energy flow
GWh/Year
Incident solar energy
2,948.6
Solar field thermal output
1,642.7
Thermal energy to TES

Total thermal energy to power block (TES + solar field)
Dumped energy
Gross energy
Online parasitics
Net energy
Offline parasitics
773.0
1,589.9
25.1(0.9% of incident)
607.2
65.04 (10.7% of gross)
542.1
1.5
| 64
B U S I N E SS
Table 24: Chiles optimal plant annual performance

Annual performance
Total operating hours
6,629
Equivalent full-load hours
5,421
Capacity factor
61.89%
Solar-to-electricity annual efficiency
18.39%
field represents the main expense due to the large

solar fields required for this CSP technology. However,
due to reduced solar field area need because of the
excellent solar resource and the fact that a very large
TES system is employed, the share of solar field in the

CAPEX breakdown is not as high as usual in parabolic
trough projects. An OPEX estimation is shown in Table
26 where a total of EUR 6.8 million was calculated (EUR
cent 1.3/kWh generated). The complete cost breakdowns can be found in APPENDIX B and APPENDIX C.
As a result of the techno-economic optimization, a PPA
tariff of EUR cent 12.58/kWh indexed to inflation (3%
annual escalation) was found for a nominal equity IRR
target of 13%, and EUR cent 15.58/kWh in the case of no
escalation. Figure 31 illustrates a detailed component-wise
PPA breakdown where it can be seen that the EPC cost is
the largest contributor followed closely by financing cost
(includes both financing cost during construction and loan
interest payment during operation).
Table 25: Chiles optimal plant CAPEX

EUR
EPC cost
475,495,542
86.8%
Procurement and construction
415,969,500
75.9%
Civil works
50,526,529
9.2%
Solar field
122,132,037
22.3%
Power block island
48,964,373
8.9%
BOP
8,629,344
1.6%
HTF system
63,336,195
11.6%
TES
94,204,417
17.2%
Electric installation
12,675,258
2.3%
DCS
1,931,238
0.4%
Miscellaneous
13,570,109
2.5%
Engineering (including EPC margin)
59,526,042
10.9%
Developer cost
23,021,587
4.2%
Financing cost
49,346,743
9.0%
TOTAL CAPEX
547,863,872
100.0%
| 65
B U S I N E SS
Table 26: Chiles optimal plant OPEX

EUR
Labor cost
1,456,000
21.3%
Utilities
1,231,379
18.0%
Electricity
176,751
2.6%
Backup fuel
644,786
9.4%
Water
409,842
6.0%
412,667
6.0%
Materials & maintenance
1,534,620
22.5%
Insurance
2,191,456
32.1%
TOTAL OPEX
6,826,122
100.0%
Service contracts
The net present value (NPV) of each of all the expenses

incurred during theprojects lifetime was calculated in
order to derive the PPA breakdown. By doing so, the
impact of the different expenses in the PPA was calculated.
4.2.1.3. Sensitivity analysis on cost data

To gain a greater understanding of the impact of
different cost items on the PPA tariff, a set of sensitivity
analyses of the reference plant was performed by
varying the main cost components of the project. The
results derived from this analysis provide an insight

into the potential PPA tariff reduction that could be
achieved, identifying those items with the highest
impact where the industry should focus its efforts.
Due to the complex methodology followed in this
report, an optimal plant configuration was determined
regressively for each case studied in the sensitivity
analysis to ensure the plant configuration with the
lowest PPA tariff is always selected, as would be the case
in a real life project.
Figure 31: Chiles optimal plant PPA

16
2%
14
EUR cent/kWh
12
2%
8%
10%
4%
n
n
n
n
n
n
10%
10
8
3%
7%
36%
35%
6
4
2
0
PPA indexed with inflation

Developer cost
Equity returns
Tax
OPEX
Financing cost
EPC cost
42%
41%
PPA w/o escalation
| 66
B U S I N E SS
Figure 32: Chiles CAPEX and OPEX sensitivity

120%
110%
Relative PPA change
100%
90%
80%
70%
n CAPEX
n OPEX
60%
50%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
Relative change of component
0%
10%
20%
Figure 33: Chiles CAPEX structure sensitivity

120%
110%
Relative PPA change
100%
90%
80%
70%
n EPC cost
n Developer cost
n Financing cost
60%
50%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
First, the impact of CAPEX and OPEX was evaluated. As

expected, CAPEX was identified as the expense with the
highest weight in order to reduce the PPA tariff. It offers
an almost linear relationship, where a 30% reduction in
CAPEX translates into a 26.9% reduction in the PPA tariff.
Once CAPEX was identified as the cost item with the
largest potential for PPA tariff reduction, a second level
of analysis was performed to study the impact of the
CAPEX structure. To do so, three different analyses were
performed, each at a greater level of detail going from the
main overall CAPEX expenses (EPC cost, developer cost
and financing cost) to the component cost level (mirror,
collector structure, HTF fluid, etc.). With a 41% contribution
in the PPA tariff, the EPC cost offers the greatest room
0%
10%
20%
for cost reduction, particularly in the solar field and TES

system, where a 30% cost reduction would translate into
an 8.3% and 6.4% PPA tariff reduction, respectively.
Looking at the component level, molten salts is the
item with the largest impact on the PPA tariff due to
the huge volume of salts required for such a large TES
storage capacity. Just a 30% reduction in the molten
salts cost would lead to more than a 4% reduction
in the PPA tariff. It should be noted that molten salt
is a commodity with notable price volatility, as has
been proved in the market during the last two years.
Collector structure is the second component followed
by HTF, the prices of which have notably increased
over the last two years.
| 67
B U S I N E SS
Figure 34: Chiles EPC cost sensitivity

110%
Relative PPA change
105%
100%
95%
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
90%
85%
80%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
Civil works
Solar field
Power block
BOP
HTF system
TES
Engineering
10%
20%
Figure 35: Chiles component cost sensitivity

104%
Relative PPA change
102%
100%
98%
n
n
n
n
n
n
96%
94%
92%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
Absorber tube
Mirror
Collector structure
Turbine
HTF
Molten salts
10%
20%
Since financing cost was identified as the second largest

contributor to the PPA tariff, a sensitivity analysis on the
project loan was performed by varying both the debt
fraction and the loan interest, maintaining a constant
loan term of 15 years. Interest during construction was
not modified for this analysis, although it is expected
that it would change in line with the loan interest.
Therefore, a further PPA tariff reduction could be
expected due to lower interest during construction.
4.2.2. India
With the second highest population in the world and
continuous economic growth, India has seen steadily
escalating energy demand. While India does not have the
best solar resources indeed, the DNI values found in the

country are at the low end for CSP technologies deployment
mainly due to the impact of the monsoon and the high
aerosol levels India remains a promising new market for
CSP. The country offers huge potential for low-cost local
manufacturing, the main driver for CSP deployment.
4.2.2.1. Optimal plant configuration

Table 29 shows the characteristics of the optimal plant
configuration found for India as a result of the technoeconomic optimization process performed for the
reference plant.
| 68
B U S I N E SS
Table 27: Chiles loan conditions sensitivity (PPA tariff reduction)
4.5%
5.5%
6.5%
Loan interest rate

7.5%
8.5%
9.5%
40%
-4.5%
-3.1%
-1.6%
-0.1%
1.5%
50%
-8.1%
-6.3%
-4.4%
-2.5%
60%
-11.8%
-9.6%
-7.3%
70%
-15.6%
-13.0%
80%
-19.5%
90%
-23.4%
10.0%
10.5%
11.5%
3.1%
3.9%
4.7%
6.4%
-0.5%
1.5%
2.6%
3.6%
5.8%
-5.0%
-2.6%
-0.1%
1.2%
2.5%
5.2%
-10.3%
-7.5%
-4.6%
-1.5%
0.0%
1.6%
4.7%
-16.4%
-13.2%
-9.9%
-6.5%
-2.9%
-1.1%
0.7%
4.4%
-19.8%
-16.1%
-12.3%
-8.3%
-4.3%
-2.2%
-0.1%
4.2%
Debt
The value in bold corresponds with the reference plant


reference plant with 110 MW gross capacity and 4 hours
of storage. It should be noted that a large number of
loops is required. Compared, for example, with the
case of Chile, where a similar plant power output was
defined but the storage capacity was almost three times
larger that in India, the plant in India needs 30% more
solar field area. The large solar fields needed in India are
associated with two facts:
1. Low solar resource that requires large solar field
aperture area to compensate the low incident energy.
2. Low manufacturing and labor costs that lead to a low
cost per installed loop. Therefore, it is attractive for
the economics of the project to increase the number
of loops since the cost per loop is so low that the
marginal increase in energy yield tends to be higher
than the increase in cost.
However, the fact that large solar fields are required can
lead to some issues when identifying potential sites
for a parabolic trough project since quite flat terrain
is needed unless a lot of money can be spent on civil
works (earth moving).

The performance results for the optimal plant configuration found for India (110 MW gross capacity with 4
hours of TES, wet cooling and 380 loops) are shown in
Table 30 and Table 31.

EUR/Wgross for the EPC cost). The relatively low loop
cost due to low manufacturing and labor costs in
India is offset by the large solar field required, making
the solar field the largest expense accounting for
more than 25% of total CAPEX. The OPEX estimation
is shown in Table 33 where a total of EUR 5 million
was calculated (EUR cent 1.5/kWh generated). The
Table 28: Indias country overview
Solar Resource
2000 kWh/m2 year
Population
1210 million
GDP per capita
USD $ 3,693
174 GW

Targets
724 TWh
2000 TWh by 2020
20 GW solar by 2022
| 69
B U S I N E SS
Table 29: Indias optimal plant configuration

Item
Value
Unit
1679
kWh/m2/year
26.6
Average wind speed
2.9
m/s
1,242,600
m2
Number of loops
380
Row spacing
17
5,348
tons
7.8
MWe
50
Equivalent hours
hours
Energy capacity
1,115
MWh-t
Molten salts mass
31,981
tons
Number of tanks
2 (1 cold + 1 hot)
Tank diameter
40.74
Tank height
13.44
278.8
MWth
Gross power
110
MWe
Net Power
100
MWe
40.26%
Min turbine load
10%
Cooling system
Wet
10
MWth
Land requirement
475
Ha
Construction period
22
months
SOLAR FIELD
Aperture area
HTF mass
TES
Number of pumps
POWER BLOCK

GENERAL
1) Auxiliary fuel is only use for safety operation purposes and to speed up daily plant start-up. Therefore, auxiliary fuel is not used for electricity generation purposes
| 70
B U S I N E SS
Figure 36: Indias plant optimization

18.8
18.6
PPA (EUR cent/kWh)
18.4
18.2
18.0
17.8
Optimal
configuration
17.6
17.4
17.2
17.0
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
Number of loops
Table 30: Indias optimal plant energy yield

Energy flow
GWh/Year
2,024.3
956.7
233.6
904.5
Dumped energy
36.2 (1.8% of incident)
Gross energy
358.8
Online parasitics
30.3 (8.4% of gross)
Net energy
328.5
Offline parasitics
3.6
Table 31: Indias optimal plant annual performance
complete cost breakdowns can be found in APPENDIX

D and APPENDIX E.
Annual performance
3,725
2,987
Capacity factor
34.09%
Solar-to-electricity efficiency
16.23%

tariff of EUR cent 17.16/kWh indexed to inflation (8%
target of 18% and EUR cent 28.15/kWh in the case of no
escalation. Figure 37 illustrates a detailed componentwise PPA breakdown where it can be seen that EPC cost
is the largest contributor followed closely by financing
cost (includes both financing cost during construction
| 71
B U S I N E SS
Table 32: Indias optimal plant CAPEX

EUR
EPC cost
376,771,459
86.2%
328,294,031
75.1%
Civil works
34,814,574
8.0%
Solar field
121,387,598
27.8%
Power block island
34,267,876
7.8%
BOP
10,411,545
2.4%
HTF system
60,496,255
13.8%
TES
42,241,508
9.7%
11,672,529
2.7%
2,149,014
0.5%
10,853,131
2.5%
48,477,428
11.1%
Developer cost
18,606,932
4.3%
Financing cost
41,775,401
9.6%
TOTAL CAPEX
437,153,792
100.0%
DCS
Miscellaneous
Table 33: Indias optimal plant OPEX

EUR
580,500
11.5%
1,016,516
20.1%
285,904
5.7%
76,201
1.5%
Water
654,411
12.9%
Service contracts
173,551
3.4%
1,317,536
26.1%
Insurance
1,967,192
38.9%
5,055,29
100.0%
Labor cost
Utilities
Electricity
Backup fuel
TOTAL OPEX
| 72
B U S I N E SS
and loan interest payment during operation).

incurred during theprojects lifetime was calculated
in order to derive the PPA breakdown. By doing so,
the impact of the different expenses in the PPA was
calculated.



Figure 37: Indias optimal plant PPA

30
2%
1%
9%
25
EUR cent/kWh
14%
20
2%
9%
15
10
2%
n
n
n
n
n
n
33%
15%
Developer cost
Equity returns
OPEX
Tax
Financing cost
EPC cost
32%
40%
5
39%
0
PPA w/o escalation

Figure 38: Indias CAPEX and OPEX sensitivity

120%
110%
Relative PPA change
100%
90%
80%
70%
n CAPEX
n OPEX
60%
50%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
| 73
B U S I N E SS

of analysis was performed in order to study the impact
of the CAPEX structure. To do so, three different analyses
were performed, each at a greater level of detail going
from the main overall CAPEX expenses (EPC cost,
developer cost and financing cost) to the component
cost level (mirror, collector structure, HTF fluid, etc.).
With a 39% contribution in the PPA tariff, the EPC cost
offers the greatest room for cost reduction, particularly
in the solar field, where a 30% cost reduction would
translate into a 10.6% PPA tariff reduction.
Looking at the component level, HTF is the item with
the largest impact on the PPA tariff due to the huge
volume of HTF required for such a large solar field. Just

a 30% reduction in the HTF cost would lead to 3.5%
reduction in the PPA tariff. It is important to note that
HTF prices are quite volatile and have notably increased
over the last two years.
fraction and the loan interest, maintaining a constant
not modified for this analysis although it would be
expected that it would change in line with the loan
interest. Therefore, a further PPA tariff reduction could
Figure 39: Indias CAPEX structure sensitivity

120%
110%
Relative PPA change
100%
90%
80%
70%
n EPC cost
n Developer cost
n Financing cost
60%
50%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
Figure 40: Indias EPC cost sensitivity

110%
Relative PPA change
105%
100%
95%
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
90%
85%
80%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
Civil works
Solar field
Power block
BOP
HTF system
TES
Engineering
10%
20%
| 74
B U S I N E SS
Figure 41: Indias component cost sensitivity

103%
102%
101%
Relative PPA change
100%
99%
98%
n
n
n
n
n
n
97%
96%
95%
Absorber tube
Mirror
Collector structure
Turbine
HTF
Molten salts
94%
93%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
Table 34: Indias loan conditions sensitivity (PPA tariff reduction)

Loan interest rate
7.5%
8.5%
4.5%
5.5%
6.5%
9.5%
10.5%
11.5%
12.0%
40%
0.6%
1.6%
2.6%
3.6%
4.6%
5.7%
6.8%
7.9%
8.5%
50%
-4.5%
-3.3%
-2.0%
-0.7%
0.6%
1.9%
3.3%
4.8%
5.5%
60%
-9.8%
-8.3%
-6.8%
-5.2%
-3.6%
-1.9%
-0.2%
1.7%
2.7%
70%
-15.2%
-13.4%
-11.6%
-9.7%
-7.6%
-5.5%
-3.4%
-1.1%
0.0%
80%
-20.8%
-18.7%
-16.4%
-14.0%
-11.6%
-9.1%
-6.4%
-3.7%
-2.4%
90%
-26.3%
-23.8%
-21.1%
-18.3%
-15.4%
-12.4%
-9.4%
-6.3%
-4.7%
Debt

be expected due to lower interest during construction.
4.2.3. Morocco
Morocco has one of the best solar resources in the North
of Africa, with regions of the interior reaching maximum
DNI values of 2,800 kWh/m2 per year. With almost no
fossil-fuel production capacity, Morocco is forced to import
all of its fuel requirements and is therefore vulnerable
to the fluctuating prices of these commodities. In order
to mitigate this, Moroccos government launched the
Moroccan Solar Plan, with the objective of pushing the
deployment of solar technologies. The result has been
intense CSP activity in the country, and the first parabolic
trough plant is currently under construction.
Table 35: Moroccos country overview

Solar Resource
2600 kWh/m2 year
Population
31.9 million
GDP per capita
USD 4,794
6.3 GW

Targets
23.7 TWh
46.6 TWh by 2020
2 GW solar by 2022
| 75
B U S I N E SS
Table 36: Moroccos optimal plant configuration

Item
Value
Unit
2515
kWh/m2/year
15.2
Average wind speed
3.3
m/s
1,635,000
m2
Number of loops
500
Row spacing
17
10,775
tons
17.7
MWe
50
Equivalent hours
hours
Energy capacity
2,190
MWh-t
Molten salts mass
65,397
tons
Number of tanks
4 (2 cold + 2 hot)
Tank diameter
39.7
Tank height
13.9
547.5
MWth
Gross power
220
MWe
Net Power
200
MWe
41%
Min turbine load
10%
Cooling system
Wet
20
MWth
Land requirement
621
Ha
Construction period
30
months
SOLAR FIELD
Aperture area
HTF mass
TES
Number of pumps
POWER BLOCK

GENERAL
| 76
B U S I N E SS

configuration found for Morocco as a result of the
techno-economic optimization process performed for
the reference plant.
The performance results for the optimal plant configuration found for Morocco (220 MW gross capacity with
4 hours of TES, wet cooling and 500 loops) are shown in

of storage.

Table 37: Moroccos optimal plant energy yield

Energy flow
GWh/Year
3,993.2
1,971.6
445.6
1,875.4
Dumped energy
Gross energy
744.9
Online parasitics
66.0 (8.9% of gross)
Net energy
678.8
Offline parasitics
6.6
Figure 42: Moroccos plant optimization

16.1
16.0
PPA (EUR cent/kWh)
15.9
15.8
15.7
Optimal
configuration
15.6
15.5
15.4
15.3
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
560
580
600
Number of loops
| 77
B U S I N E SS
Table 38: Moroccos optimal plant annual performance

Annual performance
4,000
3,086
Capacity factor
35.22%
17.00%
EUR/Wgross for the EPC cost). The solar field represents

the main expense due to the huge solar field required,
accounting for almost 25% of the total CAPEX. An OPEX
estimation is shown in Table 40 where a total of EUR 9
million was calculated (EUR cent 1.3/kWh generated).

The complete cost breakdowns can be found in
APPENDIX F and APPENDIX G.
As a result of the techno-economic optimization, a
PPA tariff of EUR cent 15.42/kWh indexed to inflation
(3% annual escalation) was found for a nominal equity
IRR target of 14%, and EUR cent 18.86/kWh in the
case of no escalation. This figure is in line with the
EUR cents 14.5/kWh that were signed in the 160MW
Ouarzazate project with 3 hours of storage. The lower
PPA tariff of this project compared with the results
obtained in this study are associated with the fact that
more favorable financing conditions were available
in Ouarzazate project compared with the reference
financing parameters defined for Morocco in this report.
Table 39: Moroccos optimal plant CAPEX

EUR
EPC cost
635,744,680
84.8%
560,275,691
74.7%
Civil works
60,078,683
8.0%
Solar field
186,112,268
24.8%
Power block island
63,176,896
8.4%
BOP
19,511,392
2.6%
106,572,567
14.2%
TES
82,290,144
11.0%
20,924,478
2.8%
3,258,733
0.4%
18,350,890
2.4%
75,468,989
10.1%
Developer cost
28,745,620
3.8%
Financing cost
85,524,440
11.4%
TOTAL CAPEX
750,014,740
100.0%
HTF system
DCS
Miscellaneous
| 78
B U S I N E SS
Table 40: Moroccos optimal plant OPEX

EUR
975,500
10.8%
2,404,834
26.7%
Electricity
589,258
6.5%
Backup fuel
290,045
3.2%
Water
1,525,531
16.9%
Service contracts
516,737
5.7%
2,106,162
23.4%
Insurance
3,000,060
33.3%
TOTAL OPEX
9,003,293
100.0%
Labor cost
Utilities
Figure 43 illustrates a detailed component-wise PPA

breakdown where it can be seen that EPC cost is the
largest contributor followed closely by financing cost
(including both financing cost during construction and
loan interest payment during operation).
incurred during theprojects lifetime was calculated in

Figure 43: Moroccos optimal plant PPA

20
2%
18
16
EUR cent/kWh
14
2%
7%
13%
9%
12
n
n
n
n
n
n
14%
10
8
5%
9%
35%
34%
Developer cost
Equity returns
OPEX
Tax
Financing cost
EPC cost
6
4
2
0

36%
35%
PPA w/o escalation
| 79
B U S I N E SS

largest potential for PPA tariff reduction a second level

were performed, each of them at a greater level of detail
going from the main overall CAPEX expenses (EPC cost,
in the solar field and HTF system, where a 30% cost
reduction would translate into a 9.8% and a 5.6% PPA
tariff reduction, respectively.
Looking at the component level, HTF and collector
structure are the two items with the largest impact on
the PPA tariff due to the huge solar field. Just a 30%
reduction in these two components would lead to a
Figure 44: Moroccos CAPEX and OPEX sensitivity

120%
110%
Relative PPA change
100%
90%
80%
70%
n CAPEX
n OPEX
60%
50%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
Figure 45: Moroccos CAPEX structure sensitivity

120%
110%
Relative PPA change
100%
90%
80%
70%
n EPC cost
n Developer cost
n Financing cost
60%
50%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
| 80
B U S I N E SS
3.6% and 3.1% reduction in the PPA tariff, respectively.

It is important to note that HTF prices are quite volatile
and have notably increased over the last two years.
fraction and the loan interest maintaining a constant
not modified for this analysis although it would be
expected that it would change in line with the loan
interest. Therefore, a further PPA tariff reduction could
be expected due to lower interest during construction.
4.2.4. Saudi Arabia

In May 2012, Saudi Arabia announced its national
energy target of 25 GW of CSP by 2032. Since then, the
country has attracted the attention of most industry
players. With almost no CSP activity in the country
until then, this announcement saw Saudi Arabia
becoming the most ambitious CSP player in the world.
Due to the economic growth of the country, Saudi
Arabia is experiencing a year-on-year rise in its power
consumption. The deployment of CSP in the country
will definitely help to meet future electricity demand,
and will eventually make the country independent of
fossil fuels.
Figure 46: Moroccos EPC cost sensitivity

110%
Relative PPA change
105%
100%
95%
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
90%
85%
80%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
Civil works
Solar field
Power block
BOP
HTF system
TES
Engineering
10%
20%
Figure 47: Moroccos component cost sensitivity

103%
102%
101%
Relative PPA change
100%
99%
98%
n
n
n
n
n
n
97%
96%
95%
Absorber tube
Mirror
Collector structure
Turbine
HTF
Molten salts
94%
93%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
| 81
B U S I N E SS
Table 41: Moroccos loan conditions sensitivity (PPA tariff reduction)

Loan interest rate
7.5%
8.5%
4.5%
5.5%
6.5%
9.5%
10.5%
11.5%
40%
-1.7%
-0.4%
0.8%
2.2%
3.5%
4.9%
6.4%
7.9%
50%
-5.9%
-4.4%
-2.8%
-1.1%
0.7%
2.5%
4.3%
6.2%
60%
-10.4%
-8.5%
-6.5%
-4.4%
-2.3%
-0.1%
2.1%
4.5%
70%
-15.0%
-12.7%
-10.4%
-7.9%
-5.4%
-2.8%
0.0%
2.9%
80%
-19.8%
-17.1%
-14.4%
-11.4%
-8.3%
-5.1%
-1.9%
1.5%
90%
-24.8%
-21.5%
-18.2%
-14.8%
-11.1%
-7.3%
-3.5%
0.5%
Debt


configuration found for Saudi Arabia as a result of the
Table 42: Saudi Arabias country overview

Solar Resource
2600 kWh/m2 year
Population
27.1 million
GDP per capita

reference plant with 115MW gross capacity and 4 hours
of storage. Due to the good solar resource found in
Saudi Arabia, moderate fields are required compared

The performance results for the optimal plant configuration found for Saudi Arabia (115 MW gross capacity
with 4 hours of TES, dry cooling and 290 loops) are
shown in Table 44 and Table 45.

plant where a total investment of EUR 495 million
was estimated which represents 4.31 EUR/Wgross
(3.71 EUR/Wgross for the EPC cost). The solar field and
TES system represent the main expense accounting
for 22.3% and 13.7% of the total CAPEX, respectively.
An OPEX estimation is shown in Table 47 where a
total of EUR 6.6 million was calculated (EUR cent 1.6/
kWh generated). The complete cost breakdowns can
USD $ 27,052
51.2 GW

Targets
231.3 TWh
383 TWh by 2020
25 GW solar by 2032
be found in APPENDIX H and APPENDIX I.

tariff of EUR cent 14.93/kWh indexed to inflation (4.5%
target of 14.5% and EUR cent 20.24/kWh in the case
of no escalation. These results give a good idea of the
expected PPA tariff ranges that could be achieved in the
coming bidding processes announced in Saudi Arabia.
breakdown where it can be seen that the EPC cost is the
(includes both financing cost during construction and
loan interest payment during operation).
| 82
B U S I N E SS
Table 43: Saudi Arabias optimal plant configuration

Item
Value
Unit
2,567
kWh/m2/year
23
Average wind speed
3.4
m/s
948,300
m2
Number of loops
290
Row spacing
17
4,875
tons
9.6
MWe
50
Equivalent hours
hours
Energy capacity
1,810
MWh-t
Molten salts mass
54,154
tons
Number of tanks
4 (2 cold + 2 hot)
Tank diameter
37.2
Tank height
13.0
301.6
MWth
Gross power
115
MWe
Net Power
100
MWe
38.9%
Min turbine load
10%
Cooling system
Dry
10
MWth
Land requirement
364
Ha
Construction period
26
months
SOLAR FIELD
Aperture area
HTF mass
TES
Number of pumps
POWER BLOCK
GENERAL
| 83
B U S I N E SS
Figure 48: Saudi Arabias plant optimization

15.7
15.6
PPA (EUR cent/kWh)
15.5
15.4
15.3
15.2
Optimal
configuration
15.1
15.0
14.9
14.8
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
Number of loops
Table 44: Saudi Arabias optimal plant energy yield

Energy flow
GWh/Year
2,362.3
1,243.7
362.1

Dumped energy
1,173.0
Gross energy
452.1
Online parasitics
48.8 (10.8% of gross)
Net energy
403.3
Offline parasitics
3.1
Table 45: Saudi Arabias optimal plant annual

performance
Annual performance
4,480
3,507
Capacity factor
44.04%
17.07%

calculated.

| 84
B U S I N E SS
Table 46: Saudi Arabias optimal plant CAPEX

EUR
EPC cost
427,219,609
86.3%
373,112,386
75.3%
Civil works
44,592,524
9.0%
Solar field
110,577,765
22.3%
52,443,082
10.6%
8,240,812
1.7%
HTF system
61,076,008
12.3%
TES
68,052,910
13.7%
14,000,016
2.8%
2,119,059
0.4%
12,010,210
2.4%
54,107,223
10.9%
Developer cost
21,814,610
4.4%
Financing cost
46,167,480
9.3%
TOTAL CAPEX
495,201,699
100.0%
Power block island

BOP
DCS
Miscellaneous
Table 47: Saudi Arabias optimal plant OPEX

EUR
2,033,600
31.0%
464,572
7.1%
172,417
2.6%
48,012
0.7%
Water
244,143
3.7%
Service contracts
700,544
10.7%
1,384,591
21.1%
Insurance
1,980,807
30.2%
TOTAL OPEX
6,564,114
100.0%
Labor cost
Utilities
Electricity
Backup fuel
| 85
B U S I N E SS
Figure 49: Saudi Arabias optimal plant PPA

20
2%
18
9%
16
EUR cent/kWh
12%
2%
14
3%
5%
9%
12
n
n
n
n
n
n
32%
11%
10
8
31%
Developer cost
Equity returns
OPEX
Tax
Financing cost
EPC cost
6
42%
4
41%
2
0

PPA w/o escalation
Figure 50: Saudi Arabias CAPEX and OPEX sensitivity

120%
110%
Relative PPA change
100%
90%
80%
70%
n CAPEX
n OPEX
60%
50%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%

expected, CAPEX was identified as the expense with
0%
10%
20%

largest potential for PPA tariff reduction a second
level of analysis was performed to study the impact
of the CAPEX structure. To do so, three different
analyses were performed, each at a greater level of
detail going from the main overall CAPEX expenses
(EPC cost, developer cost and financing cost) to the
component cost level (mirror, collector structure,
HTF fluid, etc.). With a 41% contribution in the PPA
tariff, the EPC cost offers the greatest room for cost
| 86
B U S I N E SS
Figure 51: Saudi Arabias CAPEX structure sensitivity

120%
110%
Relative PPA change
100%
90%
80%
70%
n EPC cost
n Developer cost
n Financing cost
60%
50%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
Figure 52: Saudi Arabias EPC cost sensitivity

110%
Relative PPA change
105%
100%
95%
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
90%
85%
80%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
Civil works
Solar field
Power block
BOP
HTF system
TES
Engineering
10%
20%
Figure 53: Saudi Arabias component cost sensitivity

103%
102%
Relative PPA change
101%
100%
99%
n
n
n
n
n
n
98%
97%
96%
Absorber tube
Mirror
Collector structure
Turbine
HTF
Molten salts
95%
94%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
| 87
B U S I N E SS
Table 48: Saudi Arabias loan conditions sensitivity (PPA tariff reduction)
Loan interest rate
7.5%
8.5%
4.5%
5.5%
6.5%
9.5%
10.5%
11.5%
40%
-0.5%
0.9%
2.2%
3.6%
5.0%
6.5%
8.0%
9.6%
50%
-4.5%
-2.8%
-1.1%
0.6%
2.5%
4.3%
6.3%
8.2%
60%
-8.7%
-6.7%
-4.6%
-2.4%
-0.2%
2.1%
4.5%
6.9%
70%
-13.0%
-10.6%
-8.1%
-5.5%
-2.8%
0.0%
2.9%
5.8%
80%
-17.4%
-14.5%
-11.6%
-8.5%
-5.4%
-2.0%
1.3%
4.8%
90%
-21.8%
-18.5%
-15.1%
-11.5%
-7.8%
-4.0%
-0.1%
3.9%
Debt

reduction, particularly the solar field, where a 30%

cost reduction would translate into an 8.3% PPA tariff
reduction.
Looking at the component level, molten salts, the HTF
and the collector structure are the items with the largest
impact on the PPA tariff due to the huge solar field
required. Just a 30% reduction in these components
would lead to around a 3% reduction in the PPA tariff.
Since financing cost was identified as the second
largest contributor to the PPA tariff, a sensitivity
analysis on the project loan was performed by
varying both the debt fraction and the loan interest,
maintaining a constant loan term of 15 years. Interest
during construction was not modified for this analysis
although it is expected that it would change in line
with the loan interest. Therefore, a further PPA tariff
reduction could be expected due to lower interest
during construction.

configuration found for South Africa as a result of the
As can be seen in Figure 54, a range of 260-280 loops was
identified as the optimal configuration for the reference
plant with 115 MW gross capacity and 4 hours of storage.
Due to the excellent solar resource found in South Africa,
small fields are required compared to other CSP locations.

The performance results for the optimal plant configuration found for South Africa (115 MW gross capacity
Table 49: South Africas country overview
Solar Resource
2800 kWh/m2 year
Population
4.2.5. South Africa
GDP per capita
An exceptional solar resource and the current

government support for and interest in renewable
energy technologies in South Africa make it one of the
best places worldwide for developing CSP projects.
Northern Cape Province experiences irradiation levels
exceeding 2,900 kWh/m2/year, which are among the
highest levels of DNI worldwide.
50.5 million
USD $ 10,973
44.1 GW

Targets
240.5 TWh
375 TWh by 2020
1200MW GW of CSP by 2020
| 88
B U S I N E SS
Table 50: South Africas optimal plant configuration

Item
Value
Unit
2,760
kWh/m2/year
19.8
Average wind speed
3.7
m/s
882,900
m2
Number of loops
270
Row spacing
17
4,733
tons
9.7
MWe
50
Equivalent hours
hours
Energy capacity
1207
MWh-t
Molten salts mass
34,480
tons
Number of tanks
4 (2 cold + 2 hot)
41.5
14
301.6
MWth
Gross power
115
MWe
Net Power
100
MWe
38.9%
Min turbine load
10%
Cooling system
Dry
10
MWth
Land requirement
344
Ha
Construction period
25
months
SOLAR FIELD
Aperture area
HTF mass
TES
Tank diameter
Tank height
Number of pumps
POWER BLOCK
GENERAL
| 89
B U S I N E SS
Figure 54: South Africas plant optimization

16.8
16.7
PPA (EUR cent/kWh)
16.6
16.5
16.4
16.3
Optimal
configuration
16.2
16.1
16.0
15.9
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
Number of loops
Table 51: South Africas optimal plant energy yield

Energy flow
GWh/Year
2,364.1
1,180.3
262.0
1,084.4
Dumped energy
Gross energy
411.5
Online parasitics
43.3 (10.5% of gross)
Net energy
368.2
Offline parasitics
3.3
with 4 hours of TES, dry cooling and 270 loops) are

shown in Table 51 and Table 52.
Table 52: South Africas optimal plant annual

performance
Annual performance

estimated which represents 4.07 EUR/Wgross (3.47 EUR/
Wgross for the EPC cost). The solar field and TES system
represent the main expense, accounting for 23.4%
and 10.4% of the total CAPEX, respectively. An OPEX
4,077
3,202
Capacity factor
36.55%
15.57%
| 90
B U S I N E SS
Table 53: South Africas optimal plant CAPEX

EUR
EPC cost
398,915,116
85.3%
347,643,986
74.3%
Civil works
40,725,950
8.7%
Solar field
109,385,901
23.4%
53,199,796
11.4%
8,771,750
1.9%
HTF system
60,191,755
12.9%
TES
48,447,069
10.4%
13,594,069
2.9%
1,974,926
0.4%
11,352,770
2.4%
51,271,130
11.0%
Developer cost
20,142,241
4.3%
Financing cost
48,580,633
10.4%
TOTAL CAPEX
467,637,990
100.0%
Power block island

BOP
DCS
Miscellaneous
estimation is shown in Table 54 where a total of EUR 5.6

million was calculated (EUR cent 1.5/kWh generated).
The complete cost breakdowns can be found in
APPENDIX J and APPENDIX K.
(6% annual escalation) was found for a nominal equity
IRR target of 16% and EUR cent 23.56/kWh in the
case of no escalation. Figure 55 illustrates a detailed
component-wise PPA breakdown where it can be seen
that financing cost (including both financing cost
during construction and loan interest payments during
operation) is the largest contributor even above the EPC
cost. This is due to quite demanding financing conditions in South Africa thus far.

calculated.

| 91
B U S I N E SS
Table 54: South Africas optimal plant OPEX

EUR
Labor cost
969,000
17.4%
Utilities
784,293
14.1%
Electricity
366,018
6.6%
Backup fuel
233,083
4.2%
Water
185,192
3.3%
Service contracts
408,636
7.3%
1,305,485
23.4%
Insurance
2,104,371
37.8%
TOTAL OPEX
5,571,785
100.0%
Figure 55: South Africas optimal plant PPA

24
2%
10%
22
2%
20
11%
EUR cent/kWh
18
16
14
2%
10%
12%
12
n
n
n
n
n
n
3%
37%
10
8
36%
Developer cost
Equity returns
OPEX
Tax
EPC cost
Financing cost
6
39%
4
2
38%


PPA w/o escalation

of analysis was performed to study the impact of the
CAPEX structure. To do so, three different analyses
With a 38% contribution in the PPA tariff, financing
| 92
B U S I N E SS
Figure 56: South Africas CAPEX and OPEX sensitivity

120%
110%
Relative PPA change
100%
90%
80%
70%
n CAPEX
n OPEX
60%
50%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
cost offers the greatest room for cost reduction,

followed quite closely by EPC cost. Within the latter,
the solar field is the component with the highest
impact, where a 30% cost reduction would translate
into a 9% PPA tariff reduction.
Looking at the component level, the HTF and the
collector structure are the items with the largest impact
on the PPA tariff, and just a 30% reduction in these three
components would lead to around a 3% reduction in
the PPA tariff.
0%
10%
20%
sensitivity analysis on the project loan was performed

by varying both the debt fraction and the loan interest,
maintaining a constant loan term of 16 years. Interest
during construction was not modified for this analysis
although it is expected that it would change in line with
the loan interest. Therefore, a further PPA tariff reduction
could be expected due to lower interest during
construction.
Since financing cost was identified as the largest

contributor to the PPA tariff even before the EPC cost, a
Figure 57: South Africas CAPEX structure sensitivity
120%
110%
Relative PPA change
100%
90%
80%
70%
n EPC cost
n Developer cost
n Financing cost
60%
50%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
| 93
B U S I N E SS
Figure 58: South Africas EPC cost sensitivity

110%
Relative PPA change
105%
100%
95%
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
90%
85%
80%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
Civil works
Solar field
Power block
BOP
HTF system
TES
Engineering
10%
20%
Figure 59: South Africas component cost sensitivity

103%
102%
Relative PPA change
101%
100%
99%
n
n
n
n
n
n
98%
97%
96%
Absorber tube
Mirror
Collector structure
Turbine
HTF
Molten salts
95%
94%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
Table 55: South Africas loan conditions sensitivity (PPA tariff reduction)
Debt
Loan interest rate

7.5%
8.5%
4.5%
5.5%
6.5%
9.5%
10.5%
11.5%
40%
-1.3%
-0.1%
1.2%
2.4%
3.8%
5.1%
6.6%
8.0%
50%
-6.6%
-5.0%
-3.5%
-1.9%
-0.2%
1.6%
3.4%
5.2%
60%
-12.0%
-10.2%
-8.3%
-6.3%
-4.2%
-2.1%
0.1%
2.5%
70%
-17.7%
-15.5%
-13.2%
-10.8%
-8.2%
-5.5%
-2.8%
0.0%
80%
-23.5%
-20.8%
-18.0%
-15.1%
-12.0%
-8.8%
-5.6%
-2.2%
90%
-29.2%
-26.1%
-22.7%
-19.3%
-15.7%
-12.1%
-8.2%
-4.3%

| 94
B U S I N E SS
4.2.6. Spain
Table 56: Spains country overview
The Spanish CSP sector has been going through hard

times since the FIT moratorium and other royal decrees
having a negative impact on the sector were passed by
the government over the last year. These circumstances
have placed the owners of the CSP plant in a complicated
situation where investors returns will be drastically cut
and, in some cases, debt repayments even put at stake.
Although the development of new CSP project has been
halted as a result, Spain was included in the study to serve
as a comparison with the emerging CSP markets.

configuration found for Spain as a result of the technoeconomic optimization process done for the reference plant.
Table 60 shows the CAPEX estimation for the optimal plant

where a total investment of EUR 333 million was estimated
which represents 6.05 EUR/Wgross (5.32 EUR/Wgross for
the EPC cost). The solar field and TES system represent the
main expense, accounting for 24.4% and 14.7% of the total
CAPEX, respectively. An OPEX estimation is shown in Table
61 where a total of EUR 4.7 million was calculated (EUR
cent 2.6/kWh generated). The complete cost breakdowns
can be found in APPENDIX L and APPENDIX M.

of storage. Due to the relatively low solar resource
found in Spain, large solar fields are required compared

The performance results for the optimal plant configuration found for Spain (55 MW gross capacity with 9
hours of TES, wet cooling and 190 loops) are shown in
Solar Resource
2100 kWh/m2 year
Population
46.2 million
GDP per capita
USD $ 30,626
106.3 GW
270.4 TWh

(2.5% annual escalation) was found for a nominal
equity IRR target of 12.5% and EUR cent 27.79/kWh in
the case of no escalation. It should be noted how the
figures obtained are just some cents below the FIT
Figure 60: Spains plant optimization

24.2
24.1
PPA (EUR cent/kWh)
24.0
23.9
23.8
23.7
23.6
23.5
Optimal
configuration
23.4
23.3
23.2
150
170
190
210
230
Number of loops
| 95
B U S I N E SS
Table 57: Spains optimal plant configuration

Item
Value
Unit
2080
kWh/m2/year
14.3
m/s
621,300
m2
Number of loops
190
Row spacing
17.5
HTF mass
2,533
tons
4.8
MWe
50
Equivalent hours
hours
Energy capacity
1,279
MWh-t
Molten salts mass
36,257
tons
Number of tanks
2 (1 cold + 1 hot)
Tank diameter
42.6
Tank height
14.0
202.7
MWth
Gross power
55
MWe
Net Power
50
MWe
39.5%
Min turbine load
10%
Cooling system
Wet
MWth
Land requirement
247
Ha
Construction period
23
months
Average wind speed

SOLAR FIELD
Aperture area
TES
Number of pumps
POWER BLOCK

GENERAL
| 96
B U S I N E SS
Table 58: Spains optimal plant energy yield

Energy flow
GWh/Year
1,258.6
559.3
212.3
521.3
Dumped energy
Gross energy
199.5
Online parasitics
18.0 (9.0% of gross)
Net energy
181.6
Offline parasitics
1.9
Table 59: Spains optimal plant annual performance

Annual performance
4,089
3,301
Capacity factor
37.69%
14.43%
included in the regulation prior to the FIT moratorium.

loan interest payments during operation).
calculated.

analysis to ensure that the plant configuration with the
largest potential for PPA tariff reduction, a second
level of analysis was performed in order to study
the impact of the CAPEX structure. To do so, three
| 97
B U S I N E SS
Table 60: Spains optimal plant CAPEX

EUR
EPC cost
292,507,195
87.9%
252,094,102
75.8%
Civil works
34,553,052
10.4%
Solar field
81,086,173
24.4%
Power block island
23,523,700
7.1%
9,344,768
2.8%
HTF system
36,367,723
10.9%
TES
48,941,784
14.7%
8,801,104
2.6%
DCS
1,309,293
0.4%
Miscellaneous
8,166,505
2.5%
40,413,093
12.1%
Developer cost
16,940,285
5.1%
Financing cost
23,267,087
7.0%
TOTAL CAPEX
332,714,565
100.0%
BOP
Table 61: Spains optimal plant OPEX

EUR
1,668,000
35.6%
858,502
18.3%
Electricity
252,598
5.4%
Backup fuel
158,928
3.4%
Water
446,976
9.5%
Service contracts
300,000
6.4%
1,029,251
22.0%
831,786
17.7%
4,687,539
100.0%
Labor cost
Utilities

Insurance
TOTAL OPEX
| 98
B U S I N E SS
Figure 61: Spains optimal plant PPA

30
2%
25
EUR cent/kWh
2%
20
6%
12%
7%
13%
11%
13%
15
31%
30%
n
n
n
n
n
n
Developer cost
Equity returns
OPEX
Tax
Financing cost
EPC cost
10
5
37%
36%

PPA w/o escalation
Figure 62: Spains CAPEX and OPEX sensitivity

120%
110%
Relative PPA change
100%
90%
80%
70%
n CAPEX
n OPEX
60%
50%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
different analyses were performed, each at a greater

level of detail going from the main overall CAPEX
expenses (EPC cost, developer cost and financing
cost) to the component cost level (mirror, collector
structure, HTF fluid, etc.). With a 36% contribution in
the PPA tariff, the EPC cost offers the greatest room
for cost reduction, particularly the solar field where a
30% cost reduction would translate into an 8.9% PPA
tariff reduction.
Since financing cost was identified as second largest

Looking at the component level, molten salts and the

on the PPA tariff due to the huge solar field required.
Just a 30% reduction in these components would lead
to around a 3.5% reduction in the PPA tariff.
4.2.7. UAE
With the recent inauguration of the first utility scale
CSP plant in the country, UAE represents a very
promising market for CSP deployment. The economic
and demographic growth has led to a rapid increase in
| 99
B U S I N E SS
Figure 63: Spains CAPEX structure sensitivity

120%
110%
Relative PPA change
100%
90%
80%
70%
n EPC cost
n Developer cost
n Financing cost
60%
50%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
Figure 64: Spains EPC cost sensitivity

110%
Relative PPA change
105%
100%
95%
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
90%
85%
80%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
Civil works
Solar field
Power block
BOP
HTF system
TES
Engineering
10%
20%
Figure 65: Spains component cost sensitivity

103%
102%
Relative PPA change
101%
100%
99%
n
n
n
n
n
n
98%
97%
96%
Absorber tube
Mirror
Collector structure
Turbine
HTF
Molten salts
95%
94%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
| 100
B U S I N E SS
Table 62: Spains loan conditions sensitivity (PPA tariff reduction)

Loan interest rate
7.5%
8.5%
4.5%
5.5%
6.5%
9.5%
10.5%
11.5%
40%
4.3%
5.8%
7.4%
9.0%
10.7%
12.5%
14.3%
16.1%
50%
-0.9%
1.0%
3.0%
5.1%
7.2%
9.4%
11.7%
14.1%
60%
-6.2%
-3.9%
-1.5%
1.0%
3.6%
6.3%
9.1%
12.0%
70%
-11.6%
-8.9%
-6.0%
-3.1%
0.0%
3.3%
6.7%
10.2%
80%
-17.1%
-14.0%
-10.6%
-7.0%
-3.3%
0.5%
4.5%
8.7%
90%
-22.6%
-18.8%
-14.9%
-10.7%
-6.4%
-1.9%
2.6%
7.4%
Debt

energy demand which is covered almost completely

with domestic oil and gas reserves. If sold as export
products, these resources would generate more
revenue for the country. Even though UAE has a poorer
solar resource than its neighboring countries due to
high aerosol concentrations and sand storms (as was
proved in the Shams project, where a 20% overestimation in the DNI was found in the satellite data), there
is a great desire to deploy solar technologies, and the
parabolic trough is gaining momentum as the first
commercial plant starts operation. Financing conditions
are also quite favorable and there is a good investor
environment for renewable energies.
Table 63: UAEs country overview

Solar Resource
2000 kWh/m2/year
Population
8.2 million
GDP per capita
USD $48,500
18.5 GW
34.6 TWh
Targets
7% renewables by 2020
Figure 66: UAEs plant optimization

15.2
PPA (EUR cent/kWh)
15.0
14.8
14.6
14.4
Optimal
configuration
14.2
14.0
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
Number of loops
| 101
B U S I N E SS
Table 64: UAEs optimal plant configuration

Item
Value
Unit
1978
kWh/m2/year
28.2
Average wind speed
3.4
m/s
1,373,400
m2
Number of loops
420
Row spacing
17
6,258
tons
9.3
MWe
50
Equivalent hours
hours
Energy capacity
1,810
MWh-t
Molten salts mass
54,178
tons
Number of tanks
4 (2 cold + 2 hot)
Tank diameter
37.2
Tank height
13.0
315.9
MWth
Gross power
115
MWe
Net Power
100
MWe
38.9%
Min turbine load
10%
Cooling system
Dry
10
MWth
Land requirement
524
Ha
Construction period
25
months
SOLAR FIELD
Aperture area
HTF mass
TES
Number of pumps
POWER BLOCK
GENERAL
| 102
B U S I N E SS
Table 65: UAEs optimal plant energy yield

Energy flow
GWh/Year
2,635.1
1,355.4
462.7
1,293.0
Dumped energy
Gross energy
501.1
Online parasitics
52.3 (10.5% of gross)
Net energy
448.7
Offline parasitics
3.1

Table 64 shows the characteristics of the optimal
plant configuration found for UAE as a result of the
techno-economic optimization process done for the
reference plant.
As can be seen in Figure 66, a range of 410-430 loops was
identified as the optimal configuration for the reference
plant with 115 MW gross capacity and 4 hours of storage.
Due to the relatively low solar resource found in UAE
(similar to the values found in Spain) mainly due to high
aerosol concentration, quite large solar fields are required
compared to other CSP locations in the neighbouring
countries. For example, the same reference plant located
in Saudi Arabia would require 30% less mirror area due to
higher DNI values found there.

The performance results for the optimal plant configuration found for UAE (115 MW gross capacity with 4

Table 66: UAEs optimal plant annual performance

Annual performance
4,813
3,902
Capacity factor
44.54%
17.03%

the main expense accounting for 27.1% of the total
CAPEX. An OPEX estimation is shown in Table 68 where
a total of EUR 7 million was calculated (EUR cent 1.6/
kWh generated). The complete cost breakdowns can be
found in APPENDIX N and APPENDIX O.
PPA tariff of EUR 14.11/kWh indexed to inflation (1.5%
target of 12% and EUR cent 15.71/kWh in the case
| 103
B U S I N E SS
Table 67: UAEs optimal plant CAPEX

EUR
EPC cost
506,551,346
88.8%
444,585,731
77.9%
Civil works
59,235,476
10.4%
Solar field
154,785,106
27.1%
52,268,515
9.2%
8,632,136
1.5%
HTF system
70,439,589
12.3%
TES
68,352,716
12.0%
14,095,539
2.5%
2,451,383
0.4%
14,325,271
2.5%
61,965,615
10.9%
Developer cost
24,919,057
4.4%
Financing cost
38,912,824
6.8%
TOTAL CAPEX
570,383,227
100.0%
Power block island

BOP
DCS
Miscellaneous
Figure 67: UAEs optimal plant PPA
EUR cent/kWh
16
2%
14
2%
12
12%
7%
6%
12%
34%
10
33%
8
n
n
n
n
n
Developer cost
Equity returns
OPEX
Financing cost
EPC cost
6
4
46%
46%
2
0

PPA w/o escalation
| 104
B U S I N E SS
Table 68: UAEs optimal plant OPEX

EUR
2,013,300
28.5%
441,450
6.2%
153,897
2.2%
62,078
0.9%
Water
225,475
3.2%
Service contracts
682,983
9.7%
1,655,013
23.4%
Insurance
2,281,533
32.3%
TOTAL OPEX
7,074,279
100.0%
Labor cost
Utilities
Electricity
Backup fuel
of no escalation. The low PPA values obtained are

mainly associated with the favorable financing and tax
conditions found in UAE that compensate the relatively
low solar resource. Figure 67 illustrates a detailed
component-wise PPA breakdown where it can be seen
that the EPC cost is the largest contributor followed
closely by financing cost (including both financing cost
during construction and loan interest payments during
operation).

calculated.

Figure 68: UAEs CAPEX and OPEX sensitivity

120%
110%
Relative PPA change
100%
90%
80%
70%
n CAPEX
n OPEX
60%
50%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
| 105
B U S I N E SS
Figure 69: UAEs CAPEX structure sensitivity

120%
110%
Relative PPA change
100%
90%
80%
70%
n EPC cost
n Developer cost
n Financing cost
60%
50%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
Figure 70: UAEs EPC cost sensitivity

110%
Relative PPA change
105%
100%
95%
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
90%
85%
80%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
Civil works
Solar field
Power block
BOP
HTF system
TES
Engineering
10%
20%


| 106
B U S I N E SS
Figure 71: UAEs component cost sensitivity

103%
102%
101%
Relative PPA change
100%
99%
98%
n
n
n
n
n
n
97%
96%
95%
Absorber tube
Mirror
Collector structure
Turbine
HTF
Molten salts
94%
93%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
Table 69: UAEs loan conditions sensitivity (PPA tariff reduction)

Loan interest rate
7.5%
8.5%
4.5%
5.5%
6.5%
9.5%
10.5%
11.5%
40%
-1.0%
1.0%
3.1%
5.2%
7.5%
9.8%
12.1%
14.6%
50%
-4.4%
-1.9%
0.8%
3.5%
6.4%
9.3%
12.2%
15.3%
60%
-7.8%
-4.7%
-1.5%
1.8%
5.2%
8.7%
12.3%
16.0%
70%
-11.3%
-7.7%
-3.9%
0.0%
4.0%
8.2%
12.4%
16.8%
80%
-14.9%
-10.7%
-6.3%
-1.8%
2.8%
7.6%
12.6%
17.6%
90%
-18.6%
-13.8%
-8.8%
-3.7%
1.6%
7.1%
12.7%
18.4%
Debt

Table 70: USAs country overview

the solar field where a 30% cost reduction would
Looking at the component level, the HTF, molten salts
and the collector structure are the items with the largest
impact on the PPA tariff due to the huge solar field
required. Just a 30% reduction in these components would
lead to around a 2.5-3.5% reduction in the PPA tariff.
Solar Resource
2700 kWh/m2 year
Population
312.9 million
GDP per capita
USD $ 48,387
1,139 GW


Targets
4,125 TWh
4,700 TWh by 2020
13 GW renewable by 2020
| 107
B U S I N E SS
Table 71: USAs optimal plant configuration

Item
Value
Unit
2636
kWh/m2/year
24.3
Average wind speed
3.5
m/s
1,438,800
m2
Number of loops
440
Row spacing
17.4
HTF mass
8,995
tons
16.3
MWe
50
Equivalent hours
hours
Energy capacity
2,651
MWh-t
Molten salts mass
78,628
tons
Number of tanks
4 (2 cold + 2 hot)
Tank diameter
43.4
Tank height
14.0
466.1
MWth
Gross power
170
MWe
Net Power
150
MWe
39.25%
Min turbine load
10%
Cooling system
Wet
15
MWth
Land requirement
561
Ha
Construction period
28
months
SOLAR FIELD
Aperture area

TES
Number of pumps
POWER BLOCK

GENERAL
| 108
B U S I N E SS
Table 72: USAs optimal plant energy yield

Energy flow
GWh/Year
3,680.1
1,792.1
532.7
1,726.2
Dumped energy
Gross energy
675.7
Online parasitics
71.1 (10.5% of gross)
Net energy
604.6
Offline parasitics
4.9
Table 73: USAs optimal plant annual performance

not modified for this analysis although it is expected
Annual performance
4.2.8. USA
With more than 1 GW of CSP capacity currently under
4,457
3,557
Capacity factor
40.60%
16.43%
Figure 72: USAs plant optimization

15.8
15.7
PPA (EUR cent/kWh)
15.6
15.5
15.4
15.3
15.2
Optimal
configuration
15.1
15.0
14.9
14.8
360
380
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
Number of loops
| 109
B U S I N E SS
construction, USA represents a very active CSP market.

However, the US market has shown significant signs of
weakness, and the future prospect of the CSP industry
is locally challenged by various factors such as competitive solar PV prices and low gas prices. It is therefore not
clear if this intense deployment activity will persist in
the short term, despite the numerous projects currently
under development.
reference plant with 170MW gross capacity and 6 hours

of storage. Due to the relatively low solar resource
found in USA, quite large solar fields are required
compared with other CSP locations. For example, the
same reference plant located in Saudi Arabia would
require 30% less mirror area due to higher DNI values
found there.

configuration found for the US as a result of the technoeconomic optimization process done for the reference plant.
The performance results for the optimal plant configuration found for USA (170 MW gross capacity with 6

Table 74: USAs optimal plant CAPEX

EUR
EPC cost
649,010,423
87.9%
572,052,086
77.5%
Civil works
66,525,499
9.0%
Solar field
184,456,660
25.0%
Power block island
75,271,656
10.2%
BOP
12,344,269
1.7%
HTF system
97,785,108
13.2%
TES
95,105,899
12.9%
19,196,813
2.6%
2,929,514
0.4%
18,436,668
2.5%
76,958,337
10.4%
Developer cost
30,356,321
4.1%
Financing cost
58,662,406
7.9%
TOTAL CAPEX
738,029,150
100.0%
DCS
Miscellaneous
| 110
B U S I N E SS

estimated, which represents 4.34 EUR/Wgross (3.82
the main expense accounting for 25% of the total
CAPEX. An OPEX estimation is shown in Table 75 where
a total of EUR 8 million was calculated (EUR cent 1.3/
kWh generated). The complete cost breakdowns can be
found in APPENDIX P and APPENDIX Q.

loan interest payments during operation).

tariff of EUR 14.87/kWh indexed to inflation (3% annual
escalation) was found for a nominal equity IRR target of
13% and EUR cent 18.39/kWh in the case of no escalation.

incurred during the projects lifetime was calculated in

Figure 73: USAs optimal plant PPA

20
18
2%
16
10%
2%
EUR cent/kWh
14
8%
9%
12
16%
16%
10
8
7%
31%
29%
n
n
n
n
n
n
Developer cost
Equity returns
OPEX
Tax
Financing cost
EPC cost
6
4
36%
35%
2
0

PPA w/o escalation
Figure 74: USAs CAPEX and OPEX sensitivity

120%
110%
Relative PPA change
100%
90%
80%
70%
n CAPEX
n OPEX
60%
50%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
| 111
B U S I N E SS


largest potential for PPA tariff reduction a second level
Table 75: USAs optimal plant OPEX

EUR
2,138,000
26.7%
736,778
9.2%
Electricity
510,766
6.4%
Backup fuel
119,591
1.5%
Water
106,421
1.3%
Service contracts
858,334
10.7%
2,057,811
25.7%
Insurance
2,214,087
27.7%
TOTAL OPEX
8,005,010
100.0%
Labor cost
Utilities
Figure 75: USAs CAPEX structure sensitivity

120%
110%
Relative PPA change
100%
90%
80%
70%
n EPC cost
n Developer cost
n Financing cost
60%
50%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
| 112
B U S I N E SS
Figure 76: USAs EPC cost sensitivity

110%
Relative PPA change
105%
100%
95%
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
90%
85%
80%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
Civil works
Solar field
Power block
BOP
HTF system
TES
Engineering
10%
20%
Figure 77: USAs component cost sensitivity

103%
102%
101%
Relative PPA change
100%
99%
98%
n
n
n
n
n
n
97%
96%
95%
Absorber tube
Mirror
Collector structure
Turbine
HTF
Molten salts
94%
93%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%

the solar field where a 30% cost reduction would
Looking at the component level, molten salts and the
on the PPA tariff due to the huge solar field required.
Just a 30% reduction in these components would lead
to around a 3.2% reduction in the PPA tariff.
Since financing cost was identified as second largest

4.3. Market comparison

After the results for the eight analyzed markets have
been presented and discussed, a cost and performace
comparison between them is shown in this section.
| 113
B U S I N E SS
Table 76: USAs loan conditions sensitivity (PPA tariff reduction)
4.5%
5.5%
6.5%
Loan interest rate

7.5%
8.0%
8.5%
9.5%
10.5%
11.5%
40%
9.1%
10.6%
12.1%
13.8%
14.6%
15.5%
17.3%
19.1%
21.0%
50%
2.8%
4.7%
6.7%
8.8%
9.9%
11.0%
13.2%
15.5%
17.9%
60%
-3.6%
-1.3%
1.2%
3.7%
5.0%
6.3%
9.1%
11.9%
14.8%
70%
-10.1%
-7.4%
-4.5%
-1.5%
0.0%
1.6%
5.0%
8.5%
12.1%
80%
-16.8%
-13.6%
-10.1%
-6.5%
-4.6%
-2.7%
1.3%
5.5%
9.8%
90%
-23.4%
-19.5%
-15.4%
-11.1%
-8.9%
-6.6%
-2.0%
2.8%
7.8%
Debt

Firstly, it is important to note that the local approach

adopted in this report where technical, cost and
financing parameters were specifically assessed and
defined according to real constraints and situation
found in each market, makes the comparison between
different countries not so straight forward if apples to
apples want to be compared. As a consequence, the
comparison between markets should not just look at
the PPA, but also at the underlying assumptions such as
the PPA escalation and the equity IRR target.
Contrary to last years report where a single reference
plant was defined in the study, the fact that this report
shows a different reference plant for each market
means that different plant sizes are being compared
and therefore the positive performance impact of larger
plants with larger TES systems should be taken into
account.
configuration found for each market are shown in Table

77. The high variability in the results can be associated
with the different solar resource and reference plant
characteristics found in each market. Some main
conclusions can be derived:
Also, local costs had been accurately reproduced in

the methodology, adding more complexity to the
comparison.
As a result, the PPA tariffs calculated for each market
intend to be representative of the real values that
parabolic trough plants could provide under the
specific local conditions found in those countries.
The performance results obtained for the optimal plant
The higher the DNI, the lower the solar field area
required for a same gross power and TES capacity.
However, this can be affected by low local costs
where increasing the solar field can be the best
economical approach.
The capacity factor depends mainly on the TES
capacity and also on the solar resource. High
capacity factors in the range of 60% can be found for
large TES sizes and good DNI, such as the case with
Chile.
The impact of the type of cooling system used is
somehow hidden in the net energy figures. However,
lower online parasitics in the range of 8-9% of gross
annual energy are estimated with wet cooling system
compared with 10-11% for dry cooling systems which
leads to higher relative net energy outputs in cases
where wet cooling towers are implemented.
Solar-to-electricity efficiency is not only related with
the solar resource, but mainly with the solar field
sizes derived from the economical optimization.
This is the case for the examples of South Africa and
India, where the notably higher DNI values found in
South Africa (approx 65% higher in than India) are
| 114
B U S I N E SS
not compensated with the solar field found as the

optimal configuration resulting in a lower solar-toelectricity efficiency than India.
Table 78 shows the main economic results of the
optimal plant configuration for the reference plants
obtained for each of the markets analyzed during this
report. It is important to highlight the impact of the
different financing conditions found in each market
and the different PPA escalations assumed which has
a critical impact in the calculated PPA tariff making the
comparison somewhat complicated. Some important
conclusions can be drawn:
Chile offers the lowest PPA tariff (12.63 EUR cent/

kWh) mainly because of the extraordinary solar
resource available in some regions of the country
and fair financial conditions.
Despite its relatively low solar resource, UAE is ranked
as the market with the second lowest PPA tariff
because of the favorable financing and tax conditions there.
Although different plant sizes and characteristics
were found to be representative in the USA, Saudi
Arabia, Morocco and South Africa, the PPA tariffs
estimated for these four countries are quite similar (in
the range of 15-16 EUR cent/kWh).
The case of India is interesting as the PPA tariff
estimated is quite high compared with the PPA
prices that were signed for the projects included in

the first phase of the Solar Mission. Nonetheless, low
manufacturing and labor costs in India offset the low
solar resource found in the country (compared with
the other analyzed markets), leading to moderate
PPA tariffs in the range of 17 EUR cent/kWh.
Spain comes out as the market with the highest PPA
tariff (23.24 EUR cent/kWh). This is quite an interesting finding since it proves there is little margin
between the estimated PPA tariff and the FIT of 26.8
EUR cents/kWh that CSP projects receive in Spain.
Consequently, the latest measures adopted by the
Spanish government that will notably cut project
revenues will eat into the estimated margin between
the calculated PPA tariff and the FIT, putting projects
in a very delicate position. Moreover, it should be
highlighted that the PPA tariff was calculated using
current market prices, meaning that the projects
built a couple of years ago would most likely have
higher energy costs closer to the FIT.
The metric EUR/W that is commonly used in the market

should be treated with care since there is not a direct
relation between EUR/W and PPA tariff. This can be seen
in Table 78, where the market with the lowest EUR/W
ratio (India with a 28% lower ratio than Chile) has a 5%
higher PPA tariff. The reason for this lies in the different
performance and financing conditions that make a
plant with a lower relative initial investment (EUR/W)
Table 77: Summary of performance results for all markets

Item
Chile
UAE
Saudi
Arabia
USA
Morocco
South
Africa
India
Spain
Number of loops
290
420
440
290
500
270
380
190
Gross power
100
115
170
115
220
115
110
55
TES capacity (hours)
10.5
Annual net energy

(GWh)
542.1
448.7
604.6
403.3
678.8
368.2
358.8
199.5
Capacity factor
61.9%
44.5%
40.6%
44.0%
35.2%
36.6%
34.1%
37.7%
Online parasitics
10.7%
10.5%
10.5%
10.8%
8.9%
10.5%
8.4%
9.0%
Solar-to-electricity
efficiency
18.4%
17.0%
16.4%
17.1%
17.0%
15.6%
16.2%
14.4%
| 115
B U S I N E SS
Table 78: Summary of economic results for all markets

Item
Chile
UAE
USA
Saudi
Arabia
Morocco
South
Africa
India
Spain
CAPEX (M EUR)
547.9
570.4
738.0
495.2
750.0
467.6
437.2
332.7
CAPEX (EUR/W)
5.48
4.96
4.34
4.31
3.41
4.07
3.97
6.05
6.8
7.1
8.0
6.6
9.0
5.6
5.1
4.7
12.63
14.11
14.87
14.93
15.42
15.98
17.16
23.24
3%
1.5%
3%
4.5%
3%
6%
8%
2.5%
35-40%
35-40%
80-90%
35-40%
40-45%
40-45%
45-50%
70-80%
OPEX (M EUR)
PPA (EUR cent/kWh)
PPA escalation
Estimated local content
have a higher cost of electricity.

Figure 78, below, shows a comparison of the results
obtained for each market. Both the PPA indexed to
inflation and without indexation (flat tariff ) are shown
together with the annual DNI. It can be seen that the
solar resource is not the only parameter influencing the
PPA tariff, with costs and financing conditions playing

a similar role as demonstrated in the cases of UAE
and India. It is therefore quite difficult, and not always
accurate to predict and compare PPA tariffs between
different markets by looking just at the solar resource.
Another important finding of the report was the large
Figure 78: PPA market comparison

30
3500
n PPA indexed with inflation
n PPA w/o escalation
n DNI
25
3000
PPA (Euro cent/kWh)
2000
15
1500
10
Annual DNI (kWh/m2 / year)
2500
20
1000
500
Chile
UAE
USA
Saudi Arabia
Morocco
South Africa
India
Spain
| 116
B U S I N E SS
valuable result for governments trying to define the

regulatory frameworks and for off-takers that could be
interested in signing a higher but constant PPA tariff
over certain years making it independent of rising
inflation rates (and therefore PPA tariffs) as it can be
the case of mining companies or self-consumption
approaches with large electricity consumers.
impact of PPA tariff escalation.

Although a PPA tariff indexation with inflation was
assumed for all the countries, no standard criterion in this
regard is set by governments and different approaches
can be adopted. Examples of this include India, where
during the first phase of the national solar mission,
indexation of the PPA tariff was not allowed, and South
Africa, where bidders are requested to offer two tariffs:
one fully indexed and another partially indexed.
The comparison between markets shows that several

markets already offer good opportunities for parabolic
trough technology to provide a relatively low electricity
cost below 16 EUR cent/kWh. This is a positive result that
should encourage further deployment of the technology.
Not only countries with excellent solar resource like Chile
offer good business opportunities for parabolic trough,
but also other countries with lower DNI values but with
reduced local costs (i.e. India) or more favorable financing
conditions (i.e. UAE) can represent good locations for
parabolic trough deployment.
In order to quantify the influence of the PPA tariff

escalation factor, a sensitivity analysis was performed
for all the countries, varying the PPA tariff escalation
from no escalation to 10%, as shown in Figure 79. In
general, the impact of PPA escalation in quite similar for
all countries and reduction of PPA tariffs in the range of
50% can be expected when going from a no indexed
situation to a 10% annual escalation.
However, it is important to note that although different
PPA tariffs are found depending on the PPA escalation,
the equity IRR for plant owner remains the same.
Therefore, looking at the overall economic picture of the
project, the PPA escalation does not impact the return
of the investment (it does however modify slightly the
NPV) since it is just a matter of price escalation.
The impact of the PPA escalation shown here is a
This market comparison, together with the results from

the sensitivity analysis performed on each country
gives this report an unique local approach showing the
real economic performance that could be expected
in each country using realistic parameters and local
impact, rather than general assumptions that cannot be
extrapolated from market to market. This represents an
important added value for this report compared with
other studies and publications found in the industry.
Figure 79: PPA escalation impact

30
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
PPA (EUR cent/kWh)
25
20
Chile
UAE
USA
Saudi Arabia
Morocco
South Africa
India
Spain
15
10
5
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
PPA escalation
| 117
Trends and Developments
B U S I N E SS
5.
Trends and developments
For parabolic trough technology to become more

competitive in the energy sector, special attention
will have to be given to driving down the LCOE and
reduce the large capital investment associated with this
technology, reflecting its inherent large manufacturing
and installation costs. Improvements will thus require
betterments at both component and system-level for the
solar field, HTF, TES, cooling technology and power block.
processes, several paths to LCOE reductions exist. The

path towards the maturity of parabolic trough is shown in
Figure 80, along with other renewable energy alternative.
Indeed, according to DLR, a potential 50% reduction in
LCOE is anticipated within the next 10 to 15 years.
Even though some of the core components of parabolic

trough power plant rely on fairly mature technologies
and on well understood systems and thermodynamic
5.1. Power block
The potential for cost reduction of such promising

avenues will be explored and analyzed in this section.
To better address the peculiarities of parabolic trough

applications, both the power island and the power
Anticipated cost of full-scale application
Figure 80: Maturity of Renewable Energy Technologies
Dish-Stirling STE
Biomass gasification
Central receiver STE

Geothermal
Wave
Tidal & river
turbines
Concentrating PV
Thin film PV
Offshore wind
Parabolic trough STE
Silicon PV
Cofired biomass
Direct-fired biomass
Nano structured PV
Research
Development
Demonstration
Deployment
Onshore wind
Hydro
Mature technology
Time
| 118
B U S I N E SS
block itself must be optimized to meet the daily startup

and shutdown cycles of the plant. Todays 100-MW
plant configuration, as selected for the reference plant,
may evolve to higher plant sizes up to 250 MW, where
the cost saving of the power block is expected to drop
at the 0.7th power as per following equation:
If dry-cooling is adopted as will be required in the
majority of the sites where parabolic trough plants
will be developed in the coming years it is expected
that a cost penalty will result from the oversized
air-cooled condensers currently employed, leading to
an increase in the CAPEX of 3 to 5% depending on plant
size and specific ambient conditions (cost penalties
from USD 1140/kW to USD 875/kW for 110MW and
280MW-turbines, respectively). When considering plant
optimization, due consideration should also be given
to the interfaces with the solar field and heat transfer
systems.
order to increase efficiency at part-load operation and

during transient periods, thereby optimizing plant
performance during such frequent operating modes
of a parabolic trough plant. Reducing start-up times is
also an important issue for a technology that experiments daily start-up and shutdown cycles. For hybrid
parabolic trough plants, this could be achieved using
aeroderivative turbines such as GEs LM gas turbine
series (other suppliers include Rolls Royce and Pratt &
Whitney), due to their rapid startup and load-following
capabilities.
In the case of steam turbines, annual energy production
will only be optimized if the high efficiency rates at
full-load operation can be matched at various part-load
power levels. This can be achieved by making custom
designed adjustments for parabolic trough applications,
e.g. rotor and stator blades designed for the specific
nature of transient load applications.
New applications may also prompt new design criteria,
based on the performance requirements for:
Since most utility-scale conventional power cycles

are designed to operate continuously at rated power
and have a narrow band of power load fluctuation,
improved power block designs must be sought in
Steam power cycle
Figure 81: Carnot Efficiency of Various Power Cycles

80%
Theoretical Carnot
Thermal conversion efficiency
70%
75% Carnot
60%
air-Brayton
combined
Ericsson
50%
Stirling
Power
tower
40%
Parabolic
trough
30%
300
400
500
600
S-steam
S-CO2
700
800
900
Temperature (C)
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
| 119
B U S I N E SS
Integrated solar cycle

Cycle combined cycle
Hybrid cycle
The overall efficiency of parabolic trough technology

could also be improved by considering other thermodynamic power cycles, as depicted in Figure 81, although this
may require entirely new designs capable of supporting
the elevated cycle temperature. In this regard, it is
noteworthy that the largest grant provided by the US
Department of Energy (DoE) under the SunShot initiative
has been awarded to design and build a supercritical CO2
(s-CO2)turbine under a closed-loop Brayton power cycle
in order to explore the increased thermal efficiency and
potential cost reduction that this power cycle can offer.
This proposed Brayton cycle system using s-CO2 has a
lower weight and volume with a lower thermal mass, and
features a less complex power block compared with the
conventional Rankine cycles in use today due to the higher
density of the fluid and simpler cycle design. Furthermore,
a lower thermal mass allows for a faster start-up and
turbine load change than an HTF/steam-based system.
trough applications has been in development by some

companies such as SkyFuel and 3M for some years now,
and promises improved reflectance performance with
reduced weight (ReflecTech aluminum laminated
film is 3.6 kg/m2 versus glass mirrors 10 kg/m2, the film
itself is 332g/m2) and cost while preserving ultra violet
stability and corrosion resistance. As an example, the
performance of 3Ms Mirror Film 1100 is as follows [14]:
Reflectivity: 94.5%
Hemispherical reflectance: >93% after 14 years
5.2. Collector design
Since the shadowing effect of parabolic troughs

influences plant yield, the answer to boosting system
efficiency may lie in simply increasing the aperture of
collectors, as proposed, among others, by Flagsol, or
the collaboration between Gossamer and 3M. Indeed,
the LAT 73 developed by Gossamer, which is todays
largest commercially available parabolic trough, offers a
7.3-metre aperture featuring 3Ms mirror film 1100 and
is fabricated from 70% recycled aluminum, leading to
remarkable weight and cost savings. Well exemplifying
the aforementioned factors, the LAT 73 claims to reduce
installation costs by over 25%.
The collector structure must not only support the

mirrors and absorbers, but it must also sustain the wind
driven loads which can induce buckling of the panels
and torsion within the collectors, while maintaining
highly-specific geometric dimensions and tracking of
the sun in order to ensure the concentrated sunlight
hits the absorber tube in the right way. The structural
design of the collectors must also ensure that fluctuating wind loads do not excite the natural modes of
the collector, which would lead to poor fatigue life.
Structural optimization of the collector must thus take
into account strength and fatigue life, but also harmonic
characteristics, as well as cost of manufacturing and
assembly.
Reducing the number of moving parts, by rotating

the trough about a stationary axis where the absorber
tubes are located, may also provide a means for solar
collector assembly design simplification, reduction in
joints and thus improved collector robustness, reliability
and cost. Furthermore, the used of fixed absorber tubes
allow all piping connections to be welded and flanged,
reducing leakage and aging issues associated with the
flexible joints in use today (ball joints or flex hoses). The
company Hittite Solar Energy is already working in this
direction and has applied for several patents for this
collector design, which it claims is very suitable for use
in combination with DSG.
Indeed, other than structural strength requirements,

particular effort must be given to the required assembly
time. By moving from thick glass reflectors (3 to 4mm
thick) to thin mirror films, not only can material be
saved, but reflectivity can be improved. The use of thin
reflective films (with adhesive backing) for parabolic
5.2.1. Manufacturing
For parabolic trough costs to fall, not only must they
provide cutting-edge performance with increased
efficiency, but they must also utilize material and local
labor resources efficiently. A lean approach to manufacturing is therefore essential in meeting this objective,
| 120
B U S I N E SS
also offers a further chance to make material savings as

shown in Table 79.
by focusing on customer value. The areas which can

contribute to generating customer value include:
5.2.1.1.Ultimate Trough:
Transportation
Inventory
Lead time
Over-processing
Over-production
Quality
The Ultimate Trough is a third parabolic trough

collector developed by Schlaich Bergermann und
Partner, SBP Sonne GmbH and other partners.
Each and every one of the aforementioned

improvement categories can apply to parabolic
troughs. Lean manufacturing, as a philosophy, aims
at streamlining processes, reducing waiting times as
well as defects. For parabolic trough costs to diminish,
attention to detail is paramount to adding customer
value. Trough designs must be in line with logistic
constraints, materials must be stored and transported
efficiently, assembly must be automated, lead time
must be reduced, and quality control measures must
be taken by adopting industry specific standards
where applicable. Diversity in the supply chain is also
an important factor to promote in order to maintain
competitive prices.
This is exemplified by the Ultimate Trough designed
by Flabeg, which has 50 to 60% fewer components, i.e.
drives, sensors, control boards, cabling, ball joints, valves
and piping, than an average parabolic trough. Reducing
the number of components not only promotes
increased reliability through system simplification, but
The Ultimate Trough collector was developed with

an aperture area of 1,689 m and an aperture width of
7.5 meters, suiting solar fields with an aperture area
of 500,000 to 2,500,000m2. A first prototype collector
was built in a German production hall in 2011. Detailed
photogrammetry and deflectometry measurements
have confirmed the excellent optical performance
of the collector, despite the increase in size, with a
purported net efficiency of 15.5% [15].
The Ultimate Trough is suited to large-scale solar thermal
power plants in the range of 50 to 250 MWe. Profiting
from economies of scale, such plants will further decrease
costs and possibly make solar power plants competitive
even with fossil fuel-fired power plants [15].
As depicted in Figure 82, the Ultimate Trough has gaps
across the reflector segments. Wind tunnel tests have
demonstrated reduced wind loading as a consequence
of the enlarged mirror gaps serving as venting gaps to
equalize wind-induced pressure above and below the
mirrors. On the other hand, very big gaps enlarge the
gross aperture significantly, thereby reducing optical
Table 79: Eurotrough to Ultimate Trough Component Comparison

Component
SCE
Drives/Sensor/Controls
Pylon Foundations
Swivel Joints
Cross Over Pipes
Eurotrough
Ultimate Trough
Saving
18,960
7,080
37%
1,580
708
45%
19,750
7,788
39%
3,160
1,416
45%
395
177
45%
| 121
B U S I N E SS
Figure 82: Evolution of parabolic trough collector sizes over 3 development cycles at sbp (Eurotrough,
HelioTrough, Ultimate Trough)
Source: Renewables Made in Germany, 2010
efficiency. An intermediate optimum was found when

designing the Ultimate Trough. The 200 mm-wide gaps
between the inner and outer mirror help to decrease
wind load factors by up to 30 % [15].
The evolution of SBPs parabolic trough collector dimensions in their three development cycles is shown in Figure
82. When doubling the aperture area per collector, a
reduction of 20% in specific costs is expected (compared
with Eurotrough technology). By doubling collector
aperture area, the number of drive units, sensors, control
elements, pylon foundations, loop specific piping, and
erection procedures is halved. A huge cost reduction can
be achieved by reducing solar field assembly costs: by
reducing the number of solar collector elements by 60%,
related labor costs are reduced by around 30% [15].
5.2.1.1. SkyTrough and SkyTroughDSP

In 2010, the DoE issued the Base-load Concentrating
Solar Power Generation funding opportunity
announcement (FOA) [16] to develop a low-cost
parabolic trough system for base-load concentrating
solar power generation [16]. Having been awarded
Phase One of this project, SkyFuel-manufacturer of s has
announced it has also been awarded the second phase
of the cost-shared US Energy DoE contract. The new
collector possesses a SkyTroughDSP design, building
on the innovative features pioneered and proven in

commercial operation of the SkyTrough since 2009.
During Phase One, research resulted in a preliminary
design of the parabolic trough subsystems, optimized for
cost and performance. The new collector features greater
sun concentration than the original SkyTrough, which
already presents a major improvement on traditional
glass mirror-based technology. The new collector will
also operate at higher temperatures, making thermal
storage more cost effective for dispatchable electricity
production after the sun sets. Most significantly, the
SkyTroughDSP will cut costs by 20% compared with the
original high-performance, low-cost SkyTrough[16].
Phase Two research will produce a detailed design and
a full-scale, single-module pilot using molten salt as the
HTF. Operation with molten salt permits thermal storage
at higher temperature, thereby reducing the storage
volume and cost [16].
SkyFuel is developing a commercial parabolic trough
collector with:
LCOE of 0.09 USD/kWhe in 2020

Capacity factor of 75%, suitable for baseload operation
A larger aperture than any trough in commercial
operation today
| 122
B U S I N E SS
Maximum operating temperature in excess of 500C

Ability to use molten salt directly as HTF
The rendered image below (Figure 83) shows SkyFuels

SkyTroughDSP (top) compared to the SkyTrough
(middle) and the Nevada Solar One trough (bottom),
shown inside a football stadium for scale. Meanwhile,
a detailed comparison of the characteristics of the two

SkyFuel troughs is provided in Figure 84.
5.2.2. Installation
As previously mentioned, collector assembly is a key
element to streamlining construction on site, and would
greatly benefit from an automated assembly process
Figure 83: Size comparison between SkyFuels SkyTroughDSP and SkyTrough
Source: CSP World, 2012
SkyTrough
SkyTrough DSP
Figure 84: Specific characteristics of SkyFuels SkyTrough DSP and SkyTrough
Aperture width
Maximum operating temperature
Heat transfer fluid
6m
~8m
400C
500C
Thermal oil
Thermal oil or molten salt
ReflecTech Mirror Film

ReflecTechPLUS

Abrasive resistant coating

Source:
G. Hoste, 2013
ReflecTech PLUS
advanced construction with:
Integrated abrasion resistant and
antisoiling coating
Increased specular and hemispherical
reflectance
Reduced cost
| 123
B U S I N E SS
as it is already possible with some parabolic trough

collectors that are quickly assembled on a temporary
production line and erected on site, reducing assembly
time and errors. With the cost of site assembly and
erection of the collector loops accounting for up to 30
to 40% of the total solar field cost, there is significant
room for cost reductions, mainly in those emerging
markets that can offer low labor costs. This is why
BrightSource is currently working on the development
of an automated collector-assembly platform under
the 2012 SunShot Concentrating Solar Power R&D FOA.
While this project aims to improve heliostat assembly
and field installation processes, it could very well apply
to or benefit parabolic troughs.
Their system features the following objectives
[BrightSource, 2012]:
Preliminary and partial assembly of the mirror units

at a centralized facility
Development of an automated, transportable
platform assembly devices
Delivery of a fully-completed assembly to the solar
field for final installation
Provision of a solar-field installation at 75 USD/m2
5.2.3. Maintenance
As is the case for most renewable energy technologies,
the cost of free energy comes in the form of high CAPEX
and annual O&M costs (OPEX). Indeed, as mentioned in
chapter 3C4, the contribution of OPEX to the lifetime
cost of a parabolic trough plant can be in the range of
13% - a share which should be far from neglected. As
a result, it is critical to improve component and system
level reliability not only to avoid repair expenditures,
but also to ensure high plant availability, and therefore
maximum plant energy yield.
Reliability constitutes a quintessential power plant
characteristic as it reflects directly upon availability,
and thus on the capacity factor. The critical nature of
reliability is well exemplified by the case of leakages in
the steam generator, which can result in half of a solar
field being shut down (as per current plant configurations where two 50% steam generation trains are
used) while the maintenance tasks are completed and
tubes plugged or gaskets replaced. With an estimated
mean repair time of four days, production losses can
Figure 85: Production Losses due to U-Tube failure

120
n Scenario 1
n Scenario 2
n Scenario 3
n Scenario 4
n Coll type
100
US$ (million)
80
60
40
20
10
15
20
25
Years
| 124
B U S I N E SS
be seriously damaged. With the concentration ratio

of todays parabolic troughs (>100), higher operating
temperature limits up to 500-550 C could be achieved.
At such temperatures, other HTFs such as DSG, molten
salt or supercritical CO2 may become more appropriate.
While molten salt promises great cost reductions by
improving thermal conversion efficiency, reduced TES
and other HTF costs, other problems, such as corrosion
and freezing, exist. Materials that are compatible with
molten salt, as well as lower melting-point HTFs, are
therefore being sought.
be significant and can hinder profitability [18]. Such

losses are illustrated in Figure 85. Pressure drops across
the collector field are also critical to a plants economy
throughout its service life.
Automation can not only be employed to reduce
assembly costs, but also for cleaning purposes, as is the
case in most existing parabolic trough plants. Automation
of the cleaning of the solar collector allows for:
Reduced cleaning times, which is translated into a

lower labor cost (lower OPEX)
A decrease in water consumption, which also drives
down OPEX
An increase in the efficiency of the cleaning process
Attempts to raise the operating temperatures of trough

systems by using molten salt as an HTF are complicated
by the fact that the salt is liable to freeze along the
extended stretches of horizontal tubing around CSP
plants. Nevertheless, there is a trend towards molten salt
in line-focusing systems such as parabolic troughs. In
parallel, water is used as an HTF in line-focusing systems
due to its lower freezing point compared with molten
salt. Furthermore, water offers an increased efficiency
due to the higher operating temperature [19].
5.3. Heat transfer fluids

Synthetic oils have traditionally been used as the
primary HTF in CSP because they are widely used for a
variety of different applications and are mass-produced.
As a result, their chemical and physical characteristics
are well understood and they are highly affordable. In
addition, they have the advantage over molten salt in
that their freezing point is very low.
In June 2013, CIEMAT, the Spanish Centre for Energy,

Environment and Technology Investigations Almeria Solar
Platform announced the launch of a joint program with
DLR to research into DSG parabolic trough technologies
[24]. The DUKE (for Durchlaufkonzept Entwicklung und
Erprobung) project will look at using superheated steam
The limiting temperature for parabolic troughs is driven

by the HTF. For synthetic oil, this corresponds to a
temperature of approximately 400C temperature, after
which degradation starts to be very high and oil can
Figure 86 Schematic diagram of DUKE project
Balance of
plant
North
LS-3 Collectors (9x50m/ 2x25m)

1
1b
1a
Eurotrough collectors (2x100m)
0b
0a
10
11
12
Solarlite SL4600+ collectors (3x100m)
Source: Platforma Solar de Almeria, 2013
| 125
to replace synthetic oils as the HTF. Elsewhere, companies

such as Airlight Energy (see below) are looking to use
atmospheric-pressure air for heat transfer.
5.3.1. Compressed gas

The SunShot program has secured funding for studying
the use of supercritical-CO2 in CSP operations using a
closed-loop recompression Brayton cycle, as opposed
to a traditional open-loop Rankine cycle. The motivation
for using compressed gas, or s-CO2, lies in the desire to
operate at higher temperatures [20]. According to CIEMAT,
compressed gas can be used to break the temperature
barrier of current parabolic trough designs [21]. Using
pressurized air on a tube or close volumetric absorber, it
is possible to drive a Brayton cycle (or a combined cycle)
on a solarized gas turbine at temperatures up to 1000C
(1832F), increasing the efficiency of the system compared
with typical Rankine cycles at 550C (1022F).
The Brayton cycle offers the potential for higher
efficiencies and greater power densities, which means
a smaller power block can be employed, while costs are
cut. According to Zhiwen Ma, senior engineer at NREL,
supercritical-CO2 has the potential to :
B U S I N E SS
Facilitate scalability and power range suitability of CSP

Achieve higher efficiencies at lower temperatures
Improve overall plant efficiency
Avoid freezing in pipes
Three of Sunshots initiatives exemplify the potential of

s-CO2 and its potential for reducing power block size (30
times smaller than a conventional steam-driven Rankine

cycle). As an objective, the program aims at designing,
fabricating and validating s-CO2 technology using a
10-MWe demonstration plant operating at up to 700C
[20]. Unfortunately, the high-pressure requirement of
supercritical CO2 renders its application to parabolic
trough limited, and at this early development stage, the
cost benefit of compressed air and s-CO2 technology
remain unclear.
5.3.2. Direct steam generation

As for compressed gas, the motive for pursuing DSG lies
in the potential for increasing operating temperature
and achieving higher efficiencies while simplifying
plant design by eliminating the need for complex and
expensive equipment associated with other HTFs (such
as the steam generator and the expansion and overflow
system in the case of synthetic oil). For process heat
applications, DSG constitutes the most bankable CSP
technology. An additional benefit of DSG as an HTF is
that it also reduces environmental risk when compared
to synthetic oil.
Under the European Direct Solar Steam (DISS) project,
the feasibility of DSG was proven in a pre-commercial
study for plant of 5-MW in Seville, Spain. This study
revealed that saturated steam would yield a 4%
higher annual energy output, at a cost 5% higher
than the superheated steam alternative. In both cases,
recirculation of steam within the solar field was used to
preserve single-phase superheated steam conditions as
shown in Figure 87 and Figure 88.
Figure 87: Superheated Steam Cycle
Figure 88: Saturated Steam Cycle
| 126
However, if single-phase flow is altered due to strong

gradients in solar radiation, uneven heat transfer will
result and lead to hot spots in the absorber tubes,
which can potentially cause damage to various
components [22].
With potentially uneven heat transfer in solar field components due to multi-phase flow, the design of robust rigid
and flexible joints and seals (graphite or other) becomes
critical to preserving plant reliability and avoiding leakage,
which is currently one of the main drawbacks restricting
further deployment of DSG technology.
5.3.3. Molten salt

Molten salt has been used as an HTF at Enels Archimede
demonstration plant on the island of Sicily, which features
a two 380-MWe combined-cycle gas turbines (CCGT)
and a 4.9-MWe ISCC with molten salt as a heat transfer
media. The molten salt (60% NaNO3 and 40% KNO3) has a
freezing point of 238C and a maximum operating point
of 600C. To avoid freezing of the pipelines, heat tracing
is used to keep the heat transfer media in liquid phase
using the joule and skin effect. The objectives of this pilot
project in Italy were as follows:
B U S I N E SS
Assessment of technology
Testing of enhanced performance
Validation of numerical models
Strategic planning of commercial application
The benefit highlighted by this alternative fluid are the

following:
temperature of 400C, the design of parabolic trough

systems remains bound by the intrinsic HTF properties
of this medium, ultimately constraining the efficiency of
the technology. Furthermore, with an ignition temperature of 615C, unusual fires are becoming largely
problematic in Spain, where auto-ignition problems
have been detected when certain thermal insulation
materials come into contact with the oil, drastically
reduce the ignition point of the oil to just 200C.
Conversely, the freezing point of mineral oil of approximately 12C can also be an issue at some specific sites
where temperatures can fall below this. However,
as explained by Craig Turchi, senior engineer at USA
NREL, in an interview with CSP Today: Piping is well
insulated and plants circulate the fluid during the night
to avoid potential cold spots. As long as the fluid is kept
circulating, there is little risk of freezing.
That said, the proven track record of this technology
remains, and insulation issues can be easily overcome.
Nonetheless, when choosing a technology, it is critical
to identify the risks and limitations to maximize
reliability and profitability.
5.4. Storage
As discussed already in this report, the incorporation of
energy storage into CSP plants gives solar thermal technologies a unique advantage over other renewable energy
technologies and in particular over solar PV at a time when
the latter is able to deliver highly-attractive LCOE values.
5.3.4. Oil
Thermal energy storage is nowadays essential to

parabolic trough plants to produce price-competitive
energy through dispatchability. This is indeed well
demonstrated by the SunShot Initiative, which sets
forth a goal of reaching an LCOE of USD 0.06/kWh by
2020, stressing the criticality of storage by establishing
a TES cost target of USD 15 to 20/kWhth [23]. Given
the increasing focus placed upon TES as a route to CSP
cost-competiveness, a great deal of research is being
carried out on TES medium advancement.
For the last two decades, synthetic oil has been the
HTF of choice in the CSP industry, all the way back
to the 1980s SEGS plant. With a maximum operating
There are strong cases to prove that CSP makes

No need for storage heat exchanger

Lower salt volume (two-thirds) due to higher
operating temperature
Lower storage tank and salt costs (30%)
Operating temperature closer to standard turbine
operating conditions
More environmentally friendly
| 127
B U S I N E SS
around the world have realized the relevance of

CSP with TES as a potential ingredient to their future
electrical energy portfolio. With fluctuating capacity,
inherent to most renewable energy technologies,
addressing grid stability will become capital. In addition
to the allocation of capacity for the development of
CSP plants, many governments have also included
mandatory use of TES for this very reason.
TES. Although the initial investment costs are increased

when implementing a TES system, the overall LCOE
of the plant is reduced, making the CSP plant more
economically and technically attractive.
The integration of TES is not only driven by the
reduction of LCOE and technology improvements,
but also by emerging solar policies: Governments
Figure 89: Oil and Molten Salt HTF Parabolic Trough Schematic
Oil
-390C
-375C
380C
Steam
turbine
Thermal
energy
storage
Heat
exchanger
Solar field
Steam
generator
290C
Condenser
Molten Salts
-550C
535C
550C
Steam
turbine
Solar field
Thermal
energy
storage
Auxiliary
Heater
Steam
generator
290C
Condenser
| 128
B U S I N E SS
Figure 90: Possible CSP Thermal Energy Storage Technologies

Thermal Energy Storage
Sensible
Latent
Thermochemical
Molten salt two tank
Salts
Metal oxide
Concrete thermocline
Metal alloys
Ammonia decomposition
Packed bed thermcline
Sulfur cycles
Sand-shifting two tank

The three storage technologies considered herein for

usage with parabolic trough are listed in Figure 90.
The chosen storage technology is highly dependent on
the HTF utilized in the plant. The constant remains that,
with PCMs, the complex heat-exchange mechanisms
at both nano and macro levels are difficult to model
and therefore their behavior is challenging to anticipate
in operation. New high-temperature, high-thermal

conductivity materials must therefore be developed
if cost reductions are to be achieved. The architecture
of the TES system is also an element to question, as a
single thermocline tank may provide the same storage
capacity at a lower storage cost. In this direction, the
Spanish company SENER has implemented a small scale
pilot thermocline single tank TES at its Valle 2 parabolic
Figure 91: Curtailment of PV due to Lack of Grid Flexibility

60
n Curtailed PV
n Usable PV
n Wind
50
n Conventionals
n Load
n PV
Generation (GW)
40
30
20
10
12
18
24
30
36
42
48
Hour
54
60
66
72
78
84
90
96
| 129
B U S I N E SS
trough plant where they are testing the performance

of the system. SENER claims to have achieved a 25%
TES cost reduction as well as increased energy yield,
as thermal losses are reduced by having just one tank
instead of two. Once this prototype is validated, SENER
expects to start applying it on a commercial scale.
The benefit of CSP dispatchability is shown in Figure 91
and Figure 92, demonstrating over four days (96 hours)
how the introduction of TES can operate closer to
base-load than other renewable energy technologies,
by better following demand.
widespread commercial operation as of the time of

writing, although they are all in development.
5.4.1. Graphite
Graphite energy storage has been investigated by Graphite
Energy of Australia, and Spains SENER. Graphite has the
following advantages as an energy storage medium:
Although a wide range of energy storage solutions has

been proposed, and several are at the developmental
stage, only molten salt and synthetic oils are currently
seeing serious commercial use.
That said, the limitations of synthetic oils and molten
salt have led to a number of developments in energy
storage involving the media described hereon, mainly
spurred on by the possibilities of plants operating at
higher temperatures.
None of the technologies detailed below are in
High energy density

High level of thermal inertia
Good relationship between heat input and output
Ease of working and shaping
Relatively low cost and high availability
Disadvantages include the fact that graphite glows

and oxidizes above 450C. This can be overcome by
encasing the material in an oxygen-free environment.
Another issue is weight. Graphite is heavy and so this
can limit scalability, particularly with power towers.
Using US DoE SunShot funding, SENER has carried out
research into a highly efficient, low-maintenance and
economical TES system using solid graphite modular
blocks for CSP plants [25]. This research program
ended in 2012 and neither SENER nor the DoE have
Figure 92: 15% PV Contribution and 10% Dispatchable CSP

60
n Curtailed PV
n Usable PV
n Wind
n Conventionals
n Load
n Dispatched CSP
n Non-dispatched CSP
50
Generation (GW)
40
30
20
10
12
18
24
30
36
42
48
Hour
54
60
66
72
78
84
90
96
| 130
B U S I N E SS
announced plans to develop it further.

Graphite Energy, meanwhile, has demonstrated
graphite storage technology at a plant in Lake
Cargelligo, Australia, which has been running under
test conditions for two years as of May 2013. This uses
a power tower configuration, however [19]. , with the
graphite TES integrated directly into the receiver. The
fundamental difference between the work done by
Graphite Energy and SENER is that Graphite Energy
has integrated the graphite directly into the receiver.
This direct-steam receiver utilizes heat exchanger
piping embedded within the graphite. As a result, the
graphite intermediates the high solar flux and provides
a consistent thermal transfer to the working fluid [19].
At present, there are no known functioning examples of
graphite TES in parabolic trough plants. This is because
trough plants typically operate at lower temperatures
than power towers, particularly if synthetic oils are used
as HTFs. If trough plants can attain higher temperatures,
however (for example, using superheated steam as in
the DUKE project highlighted above), then graphite TES
might become viable [19].
As noted above, graphite oxidizes at high temperatures,
so Graphite Energy has encased the TES block in an
atmosphere of argon gas. The high thermal inertia of
the system means it is able to continue functioning
at night, retaining one third of its heat through to the
evening (equivalent to four hours of storage after eight
hours of operation) [19].
The system at Lake Cargelligo has been running at up
to 600C for testing purposes, and temperature control
is simply managed by conventional de-superheating;
spraying down and holding turbine inlet temperature
conditions for up to 24 hours per day.
This value is driven through significantly reducing the

solar field investment, utilizing existing power island
investment and ensuring solar energy is deployed at the
most efficient point of the steam cycle, the super-heat
or re-heat section of the steam turbine [19].
5.4.2. Phase Change Materials

Current efforts to utilize phase changes are geared to
using tried-and-tested sodium and potassium nitrate
eutectics and leveraging the latent heat required to
melt the solid salt combination. The worlds largest PCM
pilot is in Carboneras, in the Almeria region of Spain.
The purpose of the 700-kWh project is to show whether
or not PCM could become a viable alternative to current
TES technologies [26]. The project began in May 2010
and, now operational, the projects PCM system uses
8.4 m3 of sodium nitrate with a boiling point of 306C,
linked to a 300-kWh super-heater module with 22 m3 of
concrete [19].
Those involved in the project report good results so
far, although commercialization is likely to be several
years away. One challenge to address was the insulating
properties of the solid salt in the heat exchanger
pipes. Researchers say they were able to get around
this problem by adding fins to the exchange tube,
increasing the heat transfer surface area.
The US company Terrafore, meanwhile, is working on
a way of overcoming the insulation problem of solid
salt by encapsulating the material in minute beads
to increase its surface area, and coating the heat
exchanger with a substance which discourages the
adhesion of freezing salt [27]. The company is planning
to test its material at temperatures between 300C and
600C, and its ability to withstand the thermal shock of
being re-used over thousands of cycles.
5.4.3. Solid TES materials

The graphite-based receiver is flexible and can function
as either a once-through boiler or as a super-heater,
increasing the temperature of steam. However, it is the
application of the receiver as a super-heater rather than
a self-contained power plant that provides the greatest
value.
As an alternative to concrete, as mentioned in section

5.4.1., a variety of solid materials have been proposed
and utilized for TES, including rocks, pebbles, slag, sand
and manufactured ceramic spheres. Rocks, pebbles
and sand often have the advantage of being locally
available, reducing transportation and purchase costs.
| 131
B U S I N E SS
However, different minerals have varying thermal

properties, so care must be taken in their selection.
Rocks or pebbles have been used in several pilot and
demonstration projects and are attractive for their
cheapness and the simplicity of technology.
One company that has developed such a system is
Airlight Energy, a Swiss developer that combines novel
inflated-mirror trough collectors with a packed-rockbed TES system. The Airlight CSP system uses air for
heat transfer, circulating it through a bed of pebbles
and heating them up to around 650C. Although the
medium itself is cheap and locally sourced, the casing
containing it is relatively sophisticated.
It is not sufficient for the casing to be a simple, single
layer of concrete to maximize thermal efficiency.
Stones undergo thermal expansion, so very rigid walls
are required. This means the walls themselves will be
good thermal conductors, which could not only mean
leakage of heat outside the system, but would corrupt
the heat stratification of the thermal storage unit. To
counter this, Airlight uses a thin layer of high-resistance
concrete on the inside of the casing, surrounded by a
more porous concrete for insulation the system, then
a microporous insulator layer, a foam glass layer and

finally a concrete outer structure.
5.4.4. Nanofluids and nanoparticles

Texas A&M University is currently engaged in research
into a range of potential TES media, including graphites,
carbon nanotubes and ceramic nanoparticles. In
addition, following a US DoE suggestion to investigate
ultra-high temperature storage media, the team has
investigated the use of chloride salts as an alternative to
existing nitrate compounds used for CSP [19].
These could enable heat storage beyond 1000C,
particularly when combined with ceramic nanoparticles. Current measuring devices cannot work at these
temperatures, but the Texas A&M team was able to
confirm that the specific heat capacity of chloride salts
were further enhanced by the addition of ceramic
nanoparticles at the 700C limit of its measurement
systems [26].
5.4.5. Molten salt

As of today, molten salt has been the sole technology
implemented for extended (multiple-hour) utility-scale
parabolic trough TES using either a single or dual-tank
Figure 93: Alright Energy plant featuring packed-rocks TES
Major innovations
n Concrete frame
n Pneumatic mirror and enclosure
n High-temperature (>600C) air receiver
n Packed-bed thermal energy storage
Source: Airlight Energy, 2010
| 132
B U S I N E SS
Table 80: Molten Salt Multi-Component Systems

Formulations
Liquidus temperature (TL, C)
Binary
307 to 500
Ternary
276 to 460
Quaternary
330 to 430
system and a mixture of 60% sodium nitrate (NaNO3)

and 40% potassium nitrate (KNO3). However, several
other multi-component eutectic compositions have
been investigated, the operating temperature ranges of
which are listed in Table 81.
Very few single-component salts exist which have
melting point within the 300 to 500C range, such
as sodium and potassium nitrates. While singlecomponent salts are more practical from an industrial
perspective, the scarcity of such salts limits their
application, and therefore, multi-component systems
are considered more practical for industrial applications.
To decrease the cost of molten salt TES systems, the
energy storage density of the fluid must either be
increased, or the storage temperature must be raised.
For the former to be achieved, new multi-component
formulations can be devised, or additives used.
Additives can also prevent solid freeze from occurring,
and ensure the solid-state salt remains as slush.
5.4.6. Saturated steam

For storage, DSG poses a limitation, as opposed to
molten salts and oil HTFs, since a combination of
sensible heat storage for preheating and superheating
and of latent heat storage for evaporation has to be
used. This could, however, be achieved using PCMs, or
two independent storage media. For sensible heat, the
same storage media can be used as for other HTFs, but
for latent heat, for example, sodium nitrate could be
used, as proposed by DLR.
There is also another type of heat storage, called Ruths
storage, which works as a steam accumulator.
5.4.3.1. Ruths storage

Ruths is a steam accumulator system that stores heat
using pressurized liquid water. Hot steam enters the
system and is then compressed, converting the steam
into superheated liquid water.
This technique has been used in the PS-10 and PS-20
plants near Seville, Spain. In the case of these deployments, energy storage is limited to just 50 minutes
and requires pressures of around 40 bar. It is also an
expensive way to store energy, with high capital costs,
and as a result has limited application for CSP.
5.4.7. Thermochemical storage

Further down the road to commercialization is
thermochemical storage. The benefits of such TES is the
very high energy densities achievable, the reversible
reaction inherent to the process, and the possibility
for storing reaction products at ambient temperature,
mitigating losses and further extending dispatchability
towards base-load power generation. This potential TES
technology is illustrated in Figure 94101.
Metallic alloys are also considered as PCMs for thermal
storage with temperature ranges above 500C and up
to 1200C. For sensible heat storage, solid media such
as castable ceramics and concrete could be used with
HTF temperatures of 400 to 500C. Graphite matrices are
also being considered by imbedding PCMs into them
for thermal storage, with a number of demonstration
modules already in operation today. SGLs ECOPHIT
storage system utilizes such a matrix, in which it claims
a minimum operating temperature as low as -20C.
Unlike sensible and latent approaches to energy storage,
thermochemical systems can retain their stored energy
for almost unlimited time periods. Although very much
in its early stages, thermochemical energy storage (TCES)
has been given a big boost by the US DoE.
In April 2013. the DoE launched a four-year, $20 million
program called Concentrating Solar Power: Efficiently
Leveraging Equilibrium Mechanisms for Engineering
New Thermochemical Storage (CSP: ELEMENTS) [31].
One early beneficiary of the ELEMENTS program (part of
| 133
B U S I N E SS
Figure 94: Thermochemical Energy Storage for CSP Application

AB
H > 0
BA
H < 0
Heat
exchangers
Power
generation
A
Storage
B
Source: CSP Today, 2013
the SunShot initiative) is General Atomics. The company

is proposing the use of reduced solid metal oxides to
store energy, using air for heat transfer.
Another is the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
which is developing a prototype solar thermochemical
reaction system. Binyamin Koretz, Director of Strategic
Planning and IP at BrightSource Energy, comments:
This is an interesting area that might someday yield
results in terms of lower costs for storage. He adds: If
TCES can be proven at some reasonable scale within
the next four or five years then you might be looking
at commercial deployment sometime after 2020. In
the meantime, the industry has to wring costs out of
existing, proven technologies.
5.4.8. Ammonia and hydrogen

Ammonia and hydrogen are alternative fuels that are
carbon-free and can be produced from any energy
source. Several advocates have suggested using CSP to
produce hydrogen and/or ammonia, then using the final
product as a fuel either to generate electricity, or more
commonly power vehicles, as a replacement for gasoline
or diesel [31]. The basic idea is to hydrolyze water to
hydrogen. Then, if ammonia is the required end product,

react the hydrogen gas with atmospheric nitrogen.
For hydrogen, the heat generated by CSP could be
used with a solid oxide electrolyzer cell to split water at
temperatures up to 900C with a higher efficiency than
conventional steam (alkaline) electrolysis at near-room
temperature.
Other ideas that have been discussed at various times
include solar thermolysis, requiring around 2200C, and
solar thermochemical cycles, operating at around 950C.
Ammonia, meanwhile, has been used periodically as a
fuel for the last 60 years or more.
With a calorific value about half that of diesel, it can be
used in current vehicle engines and fuel or gas power
plants with only minor modifications. Unlike hydrogen,
it can be distributed using existing gas and oil pipelines.
Ammonia also has an energy density two to four times
that of hydrogen.
5.4.9. Compressed air energy storage

Compressed air energy storage (CAES) has many
| 134
B U S I N E SS
potential applications for energy storage beyond CSP,

and is not a form of TES. Essentially, power is used to
compress air, which is later released to drive a turbine.
Compression heats the air, while decompression
cools it, so heat exchangers and possibly heaters
may be required to ensure temperatures stay within
an acceptable range, which of course has a negative
impact on the thermal efficiency of the process.
In the only two operating commercially-viable, largescale CAES facilities, this adiabatic process is used to
hold pressurized air in large underground caverns. This
places geographical constraints on the method. More
flexible approaches include those proposed by SustainX
Energy Storage Solutions and LightSail Energy, which
would store the compressed air in tanks, making it less
location-dependent than existing geological systems.
with the Solar Fuels Company, which has a requirement

to operate at above 1300C.
The company would not divulge exactly what the
material is, but claims it is earth abundant, manufactured and not dissimilar to ceramic compounds.
Trainham says HOTTS could be used in Brayton cycle
processes and the material employed could be used in
other heat transfer as well as TES applications.
He adds that it will require adaptations to current
receiver designs and is unlikely to be able to compete
with molten salt in terms of price, but could warrant a
higher capital cost because of its ability to support higher
operating temperatures. The value and use proposition
is you cannot store energy at very high temperatures
with molten salt, and so it is limited, he says.
5.4.11. Predictions for TES in CSP

LightSail uses a fine water spray to capture the heat
of compression, which is then used in the expansion
phase of the process. The company claims that the
roundtrip thermal efficiency is 90%, scalable up to 100
kW. LightSail has attracted funding from backers such as
Bill Gates and Peter Theil [32].
As CSP developers seek to increase operational

efficiency by increasing temperatures, synthetic oils
will have severe difficulties in maintaining stability
and market share. Molten salt can operate at higher
temperatures than oils, but is currently limited to a
maximum of around 650C.
The SustainX system, meanwhile, compresses and

expands the gas within hydraulic cylinders, which
allows the controlled transfer of heat with the ambient
surroundings during compression and expansion.
The company has demonstrated thermal efficiencies
greater than 90% for both compression and expansion.
According to the company, a US DoE-funded demonstration project is currently underway.
Doping with nanoparticles may prolong the working

life of molten salt by boosting this figure, and variations
of the basic mixtures used may enjoy a second life as
PCMs.
Using solid materials for TES seems to be a logical
choice given their cheapness, their modularity and
scalability, and the relative simplicity of the technology
involved.
5.4.10. HOTTS
The Research Triangle Solar Fuels Institute is currently
working on a patent-pending system called Highest
Operating Temperature Transfer and Storage (HOTTS).
Dr Jim Trainham, Executive Director of the Institute, says
this sensible heat storage system has demonstrated
material stability at 1100C so far, and he thinks it can
go higher. The company now wants to build a larger,
higher-temperature pilot facility, and has teamed up
Add to this the use of air as a heat transfer medium and

you appear to have a winning combination. But these
solutions are also limited by their thermal stability, which
is not substantially higher than that of molten salt. The
question also has to be asked: if solid material TES has so
many advantages, what is preventing its adoption?
Graphite seems to have proved its feasibility as a TES
medium, albeit one to be used as part of a hybrid
| 135
B U S I N E SS
system, for superheating steam, rather than in a standalone CSP power plant. Whether graphite could be used
for power generation only remains to be seen, however.
Meanwhile, the current interest that the US DoE has in
thermochemical processes may be an indication of one
direction energy storage may be headed in, although it
is too early to be certain.
Furthermore, if CSP starts operating at extremely high
temperatures, then exotic processes such as thermolytic production of hydrogen may become possible,
paving the way for either hydrogen or ammonia as an
energy storage product. This is highly speculative at
the moment, though, as is the idea that a hydrogen or
ammonia economy will gain widespread political and
corporate support, with the necessary funds to back it.
What is clear overall, however, is that there has never
been so much attention focused on the research and
development of TES. And while molten salt can be
expected to dominate the market for the foreseeable
future, there are significant drivers for the implementation of new, higher-temperature technologies. A
widening of the options for TES can only be a good
thing for the industry.
5.5. Plant layout

With developers considering increasingly larger
parabolic trough power plants, new plant layouts and
configurations will be required in order to find optimal
alternatives that allow the use of larger solar fields
without incurring high parasitic consumption penalties.
Indeed, the solar field configurations found in todays
commercial parabolic trough plants are getting close
to the maximum up-scaling limit potential, mainly
due to constraints surrounding the need for increased
operating pressure. The current design of absorber
tubes available on the market limit maximum operating
pressure in the collector loop inlet to 36 to 40 bar, which
in turn restricts the size of the solar field.
in order to move this optimal plant size up to larger

configurations, new pumping solutions and solar field
layouts should be analyzed in order to curb the increase
in parasitic consumption.
5.6. Cooling
Because the MENA region, Australia, South Africa and
other countries with ambitious solar power roadmaps
have limited fresh water supplies, the use of alternative
cooling methods over traditional evaporative watercooling could prove critical. Dry cooling has revealed
itself as a potential solution to reject the heat produced
in the steam cycle without the need for intensive
water usage. Nevertheless, its cost remains higher than
traditional wet cooling.
Although the water-saving potential of dry cooling
is impressive, allowing water use to be slashed by
80 to 90%, it does have its drawbacks with regards
to annual energy yield and capital investment. Air
cooled condensers are approximately four times more
expensive than traditional wet towers, which augments
CAPEX by 3 to 5%.
Incidentally, the use of larger fans increases parasitic
consumption notably. This, together with the thermodynamic limitations of this cooling technology, tends to
increase the condenser temperature and therefore the
turbine backpressure, leading to a 6 to 7% reduction
in a plants electricity output. However, the savings
associated with a lower water requirement outweigh
the intrinsic drawbacks, decreasing O&M costs.
Taking all these contradictory effects into account,
dry cooling gives rise to an increase in the LCOE in the
range of 4 to 8%, depending on local ambient conditions at the site.
Current plant layouts used in the industry set an optimal

power plant size of 200 MW, above which increased
parasitic consumption drives down the economic
benefits of further increasing plant size. Therefore,
| 136
Conclusions
B U S I N E SS
6.
Conclusions
As a pioneering technology in the field of CSP, the

parabolic trough has profited over almost three decades
from phenomenal development and growth. While the
industry is seeing new markets emerging around the
world, the global economic downturn, other competing
CSP technologies (solar tower and linear Fresnel), cheap
gas prices, the FIT moratorium in Spain, and the endof
the loan guarantee scheme in the USA are forcing
parabolic trough developers to further drive down costs.
Parabolic trough and TES industry overview
Todays parabolic trough industry features approximately 67 operating plants, spread across twelve
markets around the world (Spain, USA, Egypt, Morocco,
Algeria, Thailand, Italy, India, China, Chile, UAE and
Oman), and with a total installed capacity of 2.65 GW.
This represents 95%of total CSP installed capacity, while
plants under construction and under development
amount to 1.85 GW (70% market share) and 1.08 GW
(55% market share), respectively.
representing approximately 35% of total MW installed.

This figure will, however, rise in coming years as TES
will be integrated into almost half of the projects under
construction and development.
Parabolic trough technology
While featuring considerably more sophisticated
components and systems compared with the first utilityscale commercial plants, the parabolic trough technology
landscape is still made up of the same working principles
and thermodynamic process as back in the 1980s.
Nonetheless, new large-aperture solar collector
assemblies, lighter and higher reflectivity reflective
panels, more efficient absorber tubes and new HTFs
capable of operating at higher temperatures (>400C),
along with the benefits of extended TES using new
storage materials, will help this technology to remain a
dominant player in the CSP industry.
The LCOE of the parabolic trough has experienced an

important reduction as demonstrated in the Ouarzazate
Complex in Morocco, where a bidding tariff of 1.5979
MAD/kWh was offered (EUR 0.1448/ USD 0.1780), further
exemplifying the potentialfor pushing down the cost
envelope. While several challenges lay ahead for the
industry, the emergence of new markets and the industrys commitment to boost plant efficiency at lower costs
will certainly secure a golden seat for parabolic troughs in
tomorrow shining renewable energy market.

Thermal energy storage is nowadays essential to
parabolic trough plants to produce price-competitive
energy through dispatchability. This is indeed well
demonstrated by the SunShot Initiative, which sets
forth as a goal to meet an LCOE of 0.06 USD/kWh by
2020, stressing the criticality of storage by establishing
a TES cost target of 15 to 20 USD/kWhth. Given the
increasing focus placed upon TES as a route to CSP
cost-competiveness, a great deal of research is being
carried out on TES medium advancement.
In term of TES, there are currently 22 operational

parabolic trough plants with TES integrated,
There are strong cases to prove that CSP makes

| 137
Conclusions
B U S I N E SS
TES. Although the initial investment costs are increased

when implementing a TES system, the overall LCOE
of the plant is reduced, making the CSP plant more
economically and technically attractive.
and manufacturing costs..
The integration of TES is not only driven by the

reduction of LCOE and technology improvements,
but also by emerging solar policies: Governments
around the world have realized the relevance of
CSP with TES as a potential ingredient to their future
electrical energy portfolio. With fluctuating capacity,
inherent to most renewable energy technologies,
addressing grid stability will become capital. In addition
to the allocation of capacity for the development of
CSP plants, many governments have also included
mandatory use of TES for this very reason.

A sensitivity analysis of several cost and performance
drivers was conducted in this study using NRELs
proprietary System Advisor Model in combination
with a complex techno-economic optimization tool
developed in-house in order to investigate parabolic
trough PPA in eight different markets.
Local conditions in terms of technical requirements,
local cost and financing conditions were included
in the modeling which allowed obtaining results
that are representative of the real conditions and
techno-economic performance that parabolic trough
technology could offer in each country.
After analyzing each market, it can be seen that DNI
is not the only main factor that drives down final PPA
values. Financing and local cost conditions have a
strong impact on the economics of parabolic trough
plants. For example, in the case of UAE, even though its
solar resource is low in comparison with Chile (which
has the highest solar resource anywhere in the world),
UAEs PPA is the second lowest due to the expected
better financing and tax conditions. On the other hand,
India, which has the lowest DNI conditions among the
markets analyzed and challenging financing conditions,
offers a moderate PPA that is compensated by the great
potential for cost reduction due to localization of labor
The headline figures coming out of the analysis

conducted for this report are as follows:
Chile offers the lowest PPA tariff (12.63 EUR cent/

kWh) mainly because of the extraordinary solar
resource available in some regions of the country.
Despite its relatively low solar resource, UAE is ranked
as the market with the second lowest PPA tariff
because of the favorable financing and tax conditions there.
Although different plant sizes and characteristics
were found to be representative in USA, Saudi Arabia,
Morocco and South Africa, the PPA tariffs estimated
for these four countries are quite similar (in the range
of 15-16 EUR cent/kWh).
The case of India is interesting as the PPA tariff
estimated is quite high compared with the PPA
prices that were signed for the projects included
in the first phase of the Solar Mission. Nonetheless,
low manufacturing and labor costs available in India
offset the poor solar resource found in the country
(compared with the other analyzed markets), leading
to moderate PPA tariffs in the range of 17 EUR cent/
kWh.
Spain comes out as the market with the highest PPA
tariff (23.24 EUR cent/kWh). This is quite an interesting finding, since it proves there is little margin
between the estimated PPA tariff and the FIT of 26.8
EUR cents/kWh that CSP projects receive in Spain.
Consequently, the latest measures adopted by the
Spanish government that will notably cut project
revenues will eat into the estimated margin between
the calculated PPA tariff and the FIT, putting projects
in a very delicate position. Moreover, it should be
highlighted that the PPA tariff was calculated using
current market prices, meaning that the projects
built a couple of years ago would most likely have
higher energy costs closer to the FIT.
Trends and developments

Several opportunities exist for parabolic troughs to
provide added value within a CSP plant. Indeed, as
the market grows, the presence of an increasing pool
| 138
Conclusions
B U S I N E SS
of suppliers will further support cost savings in the

supply chain. New applications such as desalination,
hybrid power plants and process-heat plants will enter
the market, as well as new collector designs, HTF and
storage media.
LCOE forecast
With strong support from new emerging CSP
markets worldwide, if parabolic trough technology
can befurther improved in LCOE terms, to regain
competitiveness with other solar or CSP alternatives,
considerable new installed capacity will be rolled out
over the next decade.
To conclude, while parabolic trough technology is
facing hurdles to remain a leading CSP solution for
utility-scale power generation, it is also well positioned
to regain its dominance if leverage from its proven track
record can be combined with new technical solutions
offering added value for investors. Ultimately, as defined
by the SunShot Initiative, an incentive-free, low LCOE
is the answer to securing a strong market share at a
time when renewable energies are once again being
threatened by low gas prices. If this is achieved over
the next decade, never-before-seen deployments of
parabolic trough capacity will be witnessed in the
MENA region, Australia, South Africa and Asia.
| 139
References
B U S I N E SS
References
Groupe Reaction Inc. for CSP Today-FC Business Intelligence. 2012. CSP Parabolic Trough Report: Cost, Performance and Key Trends.
Denholm, P., Wan, Y. and Mehos, M. 2013. Analysis of Concentrating Solar Power with Thermal Energy Storage in a California 33%
Renewable Scenario. [e-book] Golden, Colorado, USA: Department of Energy. Available at: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/58186.
pdf [Accessed: 14 July 2013].
CSP Today Global Tracker. 2012. Market Tracker Overview | CSP Today. [online] Available at: http://social.csptoday.com/tracker/projects
[Accessed: 6 June 2013].
Unknown. 2013. Proposed Competitive Procurement Process for the Renewable Energy Program. [e-book] Saudi Arabia: King Abdullah
City for Atomic and Renewable Energy. p. 6. Available at: http://www.kacare.gov.sa/cpp/sites/default/files/K.A.CARE%20Proposed%20
Competitive%20Procurement%20Process%20for%20the%20Renewable%20Energy%20Program%20-%202013.pdf [Accessed: 14 July
2013].
CORFO - Chile. 2013. Concurso Planta de Concentracin Solar de Potencia (CSP) | Corfo. [online] Available at: http://www.corfo.cl/
programas-y-concursos/programas/concurso-planta-de-concentracion-solar-de-potencia-csp [Accessed: 14 July 2013].
Groupe Reaction Inc. for CSP Today FC Business Intelligence. (2012). CSP Markets Report 2012-13.
Halotechnics. (2012). Thermal Storage for the Next Generation of CSP. Available at: www.halotechnics.com/ technology/thermal_
storage.html. csp [Accessed: July 2012].
Solar-Institut Julich. (2012). Solar Thermal System. Available at: www.fh-aachen.de/en/research/solar-institut- juelich/solarthermischesysteme/. csp [Accessed: July 2012].
Turchi, C., Mehos, M., Ho, C.K., Kolb, G.J. (2010). Current and Future Costs for Parabolic Trough and Power Tower Systems in the US
Market. Available at: www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/49303.pdf. [Accessed: July 2012].
Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 1985. Energy Basics: Thermal Storage Systems for Concentrating Solar
Power. [online] Available at: http://www.eere.energy.gov/basics/renewable_energy/thermal_storage.html [Accessed: 14 July 2013].
10
NREL. 2010. NREL: TroughNet - Parabolic Trough Thermal Energy Storage Technology. [online] Available at: http://www.nrel.gov/csp/
troughnet/thermal_energy_storage.html?print [Accessed: 14 July 2013].
11
The Energy library. 2002. Solar thermal energy storage | The Energy Library. [online] Available at: http://www.theenergylibrary.com/
node/440 [Accessed: 14 July 2013].
12
Helman, U. 2012. The Economic and Reliability Benefits of CSP with Thermal Energy Storage: Recent Studies and Research Needs.
[e-book] CSP Alliance. Available at: CSP alliance http://www.csp-alliance.org/cspa-report/ [Accessed: 14 July 2013].
13
3M. (2012). 3M Solar Mirror Film 1100. Available at: http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/mediawebserver?mwsId=SS

SSSufSevTsZxtUOxtv5x_SevUqevTSevTSevTSeSSSSSS--&fn=31592-SolarBrochure.pdf. [Accessed July 2012].
14
Renewables made in Germany. 2010. ULTIMATE TROUGH - The next generation collector for parabolic trough power plants. [online]
Available at: http://www.renewables-made-in-germany.com/en/corporate-news/detail/article/ultimate-troughR-the-next-generationcollector-for-parabolic-trough-power-plants-first-demonstra.html [Accessed: 14 July 2013].
15
CSP World. 2012. SkyTroughDSP the largest trough for baseload low-cost CSP generation | CSP World | Concentrated Solar Power
News. [online] Available at: http://www.csp-world.com/news/20121102/00571/skytrough-dsp-largest-trough-baseload-low-cost-cspgeneration [Accessed: 14 July 2013].
16
Hoste, G. 2013. Development of an Advanced, Low - Cost Parabolic Trough Collector for Baseload Operation. [e-book] Phoenix, Arizona:
SkyFuel. Available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/sunshot/pdfs/csp_review_meeting_042413_hoste.pdf [Accessed: 14 July
2013].
17
| 140
References
B U S I N E SS
Aalborg CSP A/S. (-). Making CSP bankable through reducing leaks, tube plugging and related production loss. Available at: www.
AalborgCSP.com. Last accessed July 2012.
18
Stone, M., Deign, J. 2013. New directions in HTF and TES. Energy Storage Report. <www.energystoragereport.info>[Accessed: 14 July
2013].
19
SunShot Program. (2012). SunShot Research and Development Awards. Available at: www1.eere.energy.gov/ solar/sunshot/
csp_sunshotrnd.html. [Accessed: July 2012].
20
Muirhead, J. (2012). Revolutionary cost reductions for CSP Technology can NREL provide the solution? Available at: http://social.
csptoday.com/technology/revolutionary-cost-reductions-csp-technology- %E2%80%93-can-nrel-provide-solution. [Accessed: July
2012].
21
Jaques, N. and Stancich, R. (2010). Direct steam generation: Full steam ahead for grid parity. Available at: http:// social.csptoday.com/
technology/direct-steam-generation-full-steam-ahead-grid-parity. [Accessed: July 2012].
22
Leitner, A., 2013. Understanding the energy density of thermal storage. CSP Today, 8 April [online]. Available at: <http://social.csptoday.
com/technology/understanding-energy-density-thermal-storage> [Accessed: 7 June 2013].
23
Plataforma Solar de Almera, Centro de Investigaciones Energticas, Medioambientales y Tecnolgicas, 2013. Inauguracin de
nuevas instalaciones en la Plataforma Solar de Almera. 6 June. [Press release] Available at: <http://www.ciemat.es/recursos/notasPrensa/1972462909_66201314315.pdf> [Accessed: 7 June 2013].
24
US Department of Energy. High-Efficiency Thermal Storage System for Solar Plants. [Online] Available at: <http://www1.eere.energy.
gov/solar/sunshot/csp_baseload_sener.html> [Accessed: 11 June 2013].
25
Deign, J., 2012. CSP storage: Phase-change materials quest continues. CSP Today, 27 April [online]. Available at <http://social.csptoday.
com/technology/csp-storage-phase-change-materials-quest-continues> [Accessed: 11 June 2013].
26
Ibid.
27
Koll, G., Schwarzbzl, P., Hennecke, K., Hartz, T., Schmitz, M., Hoffschmidt, B., 2009. The Solar Tower Jlich - A Research and
Demonstration Plant for Central Receiver Systems [Online] Available at: <http://elib.dlr.de/60306/> [Accessed: 11 June 2013].
28
Deign, J., 2013. Tracking graphite storages progress. CSP Today, 4 April [online]. Available at: <http://social.csptoday.com/technology/
tracking-graphite-storage%E2%80%99s-progress> [Accessed: 11 June 2013].
29
Energy Storage Report, 2013. US funds thermochemical storage research [online] Available at: <http://energystoragereport.info/
us-funds-thermochemical-storage-research/> [Accessed: 11 June 2013].
30
Deign, J., 2011. Running on solar: When will CSP fill your petrol tank? CSP Today, 16 December [online]. Available at: <http://social.
csptoday.com/technology/running-solar-when-will-csp-fill-your-petrol-tank> [Accessed 11 June 2013].
31
Energy Storage Report, 2012. Bill Gates and Peter Thiel back energy storage [online] Available at: <http://energystoragereport.info/
bill-gates-and-peter-thiel-back-energy-storage/> [Accessed: 11 June 2013].
32
Alright Energy. 2010. AIRLIGHT ENERGY - Products. [online] Available at: http://www.airlightenergy.com/Cms?path=products
[Accessed: 15 July 2013].
33
Powell, K., Edgar, T. Modeling and control of a solar thermal power plant with thermal energy storage. Department of Chemical
Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. USA. 2012 Sciencedirect
34
| 141
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Appendix
Appendix A List of Parabolic Trough Plants
Title
Country
MWe
State/Region
Developer
Storage
Capacity
Cooling
HTF
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Parabolic trough plants in operation

Solana
USA
280
Arizona
Abengoa
SEGS VIII
USA
89
Harper Dry Lake, California
Luz International
Wet
Synthetic Oil
SEGS VII
USA
33
Kramer Junction, California
Luz International
Wet
Synthetic Oil
SEGS VI
USA
33
Luz International
Wet
Synthetic Oil
SEGS V
USA
33
Luz International
Wet
Synthetic Oil
SEGS IX
USA
89
Harper Dry Lake, California
Luz International
Wet
Synthetic Oil
SEGS IV
USA
33
Luz International
Wet
Synthetic Oil
SEGS III
USA
33
Luz International
Wet
Synthetic Oil
SEGS II
USA
33
Daggett, California
Luz International
Wet
Synthetic Oil
SEGS I
USA
14
Daggett, California
Luz International
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Saguaro Power Plant
USA
1.16
Arizona
Arizona Public Service

Company
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Nevada Solar One
USA
64
Nevada
Acciona
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Martin Next Generation Solar

USA
Energy Center
75
Florida
Florida Power & Light
Holaniku at Keyhole Point
USA
Hawaii
Sopogy
Shams 1
UAE
100
Madinat Zayed
Abengoa
Kanchanaburi
Thailand
Kanchanaburi
Thai Solar Energy Co
Valle 2
Spain
50
Cdiz
Masdar
7.5
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Valle 1
Spain
50
Cdiz
Masdar
7.5
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Termosol 2
Spain
50
Badajoz
Florida Power & Light
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Termosol 1
Spain
50
Badajoz
NextEra Energy Resources
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Soluz Guzman
Spain
50
Crdoba
Abantia
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Solnova 4
Spain
50
Sevilla
Abengoa
Wet
Synthetic Oil
0.5
Synthetic Oil
2
Synthetic Oil
Dry
Synthetic Oil
Synthetic Oil
| 142
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Title
Country
MWe
State/Region
Developer
Storage
Capacity
Cooling
HTF

Solnova 3
Spain
50
Sevilla
Abengoa
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Solnova 1
Spain
50
Sevilla
Abengoa
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Solacor 2
Spain
50
Crdoba
Abengoa
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Solacor 1
Spain
50
Crdoba
Abengoa
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Solaben III
Spain
50
Cceres
Abengoa
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Solaben II
Spain
50
Cceres
Abengoa
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Solaben I
Spain
50
Cceres
Abengoa
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Solaben 6
Spain
50
Cceres
Abengoa
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Puertollano Ibersol
Spain
50
Ciudad Real
Iberdrola Renovables
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Palma del Rio II
Spain
50
Crdoba
Acciona
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Palma del Rio I
Spain
50
Crdoba
Acciona
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Olivenza I
Spain
50
Badajoz
Iberelica Solar
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Morn
Spain
50
Sevilla
Iberelica Solar
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Manchasol 2
Spain
50
Ciudad Real
Cobra
7.5
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Manchasol 1
Spain
50
Ciudad Real
Cobra
7.5
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Majadas
Spain
50
Cceres
Acciona
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Lebrija 1
Spain
50
Sevilla
Siemens
Wet
Synthetic Oil
La Risca
Spain
50
Badajoz
Acciona
Wet
Synthetic Oil
La Florida
Spain
50
Badajoz
SAMCA Renovables
7.5
Wet
Synthetic Oil
La Dehesa
Spain
50
Badajoz
SAMCA Renovables
7.5
Wet
Synthetic Oil
La Africana
Spain
50
Crdoba
Grupo Magtel
7.5
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Helios 2
Spain
50
Ciudad Real
Abengoa
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Helios 1
Spain
50
Ciudad Real
Abengoa
Wet
Synthetic Oil
HelioEnergy 2
Spain
50
Sevilla
Abengoa
Wet
Synthetic Oil
HelioEnergy 1
Spain
50
Sevilla
Abengoa
Wet
Synthetic Oil
| 143
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Title
Country
MWe
State/Region
Developer
Storage
Capacity
Cooling
HTF

Extresol 3
Spain
50
Badajoz
Cobra
7.5
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Extresol 2
Spain
50
Badajoz
Cobra
7.5
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Extresol 1
Spain
50
Badajoz
Cobra
7.5
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Consol Orellana
Spain
50
Badajoz
Acciona
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Borges
Spain
22.5
Lleida
Abantia
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Astexol-2
Spain
50
Badajoz
Aries
7.5
Wet
Synthetic Oil
ASTE - 1B
Spain
50
Ciudad Real
Aries
Wet
Synthetic Oil
ASTE - 1A
Spain
50
Ciudad Real
Aries
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Andasol 3
Spain
50
Granada
Ferrostaal
7.5
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Andasol 2
Spain
50
Granada
Cobra
7.5
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Andasol 1
Spain
50
Granada
ANTIN
7.5
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Sahara Forest Project: Qatar
Qatar
Doha
Qafco
Petroleum Development
Oman CSP EOR Project
Oman
Ain-Beni-Mathar ISCC
Morocco
20
Oujda, Oriental
Abener
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Archimede
Italy
Sicily, Prioro Gargallo
ENEL
Wet
Molten Salt
Indian Institute of
Technology CSP Project
India
Haryana
Abengoa
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Godawari
India
50
Rajasthan
HIRA Industries
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Kuraymat ISCC
Egypt
20
Kuraymat
New and Renewable Energy

Authority
Minera el Tesoro
Chile
14
Atacama Desert
Abengoa
Wet
Water
Hassi-R'mel
Algeria
25
Hassi-R'mel
Abener
Dry
Synthetic Oil
Title
Country
MWe
State/Region
Developer
Cooling
HTF
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Synthetic Oil
Storage
Capacity
Parabolic trough plants in commissioing

Enerstar Villena
Spain
50
Alicante
FCC
Casablanca
Spain
50
Cceres
Cobra
7.5
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Arenales PS
Spain
50
Sevilla
STEAG
Wet
Synthetic Oil
| 144
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Title
Country
MWe
State/Region
Developer
Storage
Capacity
Cooling
HTF
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Parabolic trough plants in construction

Mojave Solar Project
USA
280
California
Abengoa
Keahole Solar Power
USA
Hawaii, Oahu
Sopogy
Genesis Solar 2
USA
125
California
Genesis Solar 1
USA
125
California
Cceres
Spain
50
Cceres
Cobra
KaXu Solar One
South Africa
100
Bokpoort
Abengoa
Bokpoort
South Africa
50
Northern Cape Province ACWA
Frabelle Micro-CSP plant
Papua New
Guinea
1.2
Morobe Province
Sopogy
Noor I
Morocco
160
Sousse Massa Draa
Acciona
Agua Prieta II
Mexico
12
Sonora
Abengoa
MNRE R&D Project
India
Gwal Pahari, Haryana
Megha
India
50
Andhra Pradesh
Gujarat Solar One
India
25
Kutch, Gujarat
Abhijeet (Corporate Ispat

India
Alloys)
50
Rajasthan
Corporate Ispat Alloys
CSP Pilot Plant
China
10
Gansu
Boading Tianwei
Corporation
Title
Country
MWe
State/Region
Developer
Synthetic Oil
NextEra Energy
Resources
NextEra Energy
Resources
Dry
Synthetic Oil
Dry
Synthetic Oil
7.5
Wet
Synthetic Oil
2.5
Dry
Synthetic Oil
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Water
Ministry of New and

Renewable Energy
Megha Engineering and
Infrastructure
Cargo Power and
9
Infrastructure
Dry
Synthetic Oil
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Synthetic Oil
Storage
Capacity
Cooling
HTF
Parabolic trough plants in development

Yazd ISCC
Iran
17
Luth Desert
MAPNA Group
Synthetic Oil
Victorville 2 Hybrid Power

Project
USA
50
California
Inland Energy Inc.
Synthetic Oil
Two Sigma CSP
Israel
60
Kibbutz Mashabei Sadeh Kugler
Synthetic Oil
Shneur
Israel
120
Kibbutz Zeelim, Negev
Shikun & Binui
Synthetic Oil
Shagaya Renewable
Energy Complex Project
Kuwait
50
Safat
KISR
10
Dry
Qinghai Delingha
China
50
Delingha Qinghaai
China Guangdong
Nuclear Power Group
Dry
50
California
City of Palmdale
Palmdale Hybrid Gas-solar

USA
Project
Wet
Synthetic Oil
| 145
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
MWe
State/Region
Developer
Storage
Capacity
Cooling
HTF
100
Askandra, Rajasthan
KVK Energy Ventures
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Kumba Solar Park Project South Africa
100
Northern Cape Province Kumba
Kom Ombo
Egypt
100
Aswan
New and Renewable

Energy Authority
Ilanga
South Africa
100
Upington
FG Emvelo
Helioterm
Brazil
Petrolina
CEPEL
Gansu, Jinta
China
50
Gansu
China Huadian
Wet
Erdos Project
China
50
Inner Mongolia
China Guangdong
Nuclear Power Group
Dry
Synthetic Oil
Diwakar
India
100
Jaisalmer, Rajasthan
Lanco Solar
Wet
Synthetic Oil
City of Medicine Hat

Concentrating Solar
Thermal Demonstration
Canada
Alberta
City of Medicine Hat
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Ashalim Plot A
Israel
110
Ashalim, Negev
Abengoa
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Archetype SW550
Italy
30
Catania, Sicily
ENEL
Molten Salt
Ain-Beni-Mathar ISCC 2
Morocco
125
Oujda, Oriental
ONE
Synthetic Oil
Title
Country
MWe
State/Region
Developer
Title
Country
Parabolic trough plants in development
KVK Energy Ventures
India
Synthetic Oil
Dry
Storage
Capacity
Cooling
HTF
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Parabolic trough plants in planning

Zeenni Trading Agency CSP
project
Lebanon
2.8
Bsarma El Koura
Valles Calchaquies Salta
Argentina
20
Valles Calchaquies
Harbine Turbine Company
Rajasthan Sun Technique

India
Energy
100
Rajasthan
Reliance Power
Rajasthan Solar One
India
10
Johdpur, Rajasthan
Entegra
Qinghai Golmud
China
10
Qinghai
China Power Investment
QEERI DohaSOL Solar

Desalination Project
Pirelli / Archimede CSP
Project
Pedro de Valdivia 4 (Phase
II)
II)
Qatar Environment &

Energy Research Institute
Qatar
Brazil
1.4
Feira de Santana
Chile
90
Antofagasta
Iberelica Solar
10.5
Chile
90
Antofagasta
Iberelica Solar
10.5
| 146
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Title
Country
MWe
State/Region
Developer
Storage
Capacity
90
Antofagasta
Iberelica Solar
10.5
Synthetic Oil
90
Antofagasta
Iberelica Solar
10.5
Synthetic Oil
Cooling
HTF
Parabolic trough plants in planning

Chile
I)
Pedro de Valdivia 1
Chile
(PhaseI)
Noor II
Morocco
200
Souss Massa Draa
Nama
Algeria
70
Naama
New Energy Algeria
Synthetic Oil
Meghaer
Algeria
70
El M'Ghair
New Energy Algeria
Synthetic Oil
Marsa Alam
Egypt
30
Red Sea
Canal Distribution
Company
Island Renewable
Portugal
Evora
Island Renewable Ltd
Hyder Valley Phase 2
USA
125
Arizona
Pacific Solar Investments
Hyder Valley Phase 1
USA
200
Arizona
Pacific Solar Investments
Hassi-R'mel II
Algeria
70
Hassi-R'mel
New Energy Algeria
Gujarat Solar Two
India
28
Kutch, Gujarat
Gansu Wuwei
China
50
Gansu
Gansu SETC
China
100
Gansu
SETC Tianjin Company
Gansu Jiuquan GDN
China
50
Gansu
China Guangdong
Nuclear Power Group
Gansu Jiuquan
China
10
Gansu
Datang Corporation
Enerstar Sierra Gorda ISCC Chile
160
Antofagasta
EnerStar
Enerstar Mara Elena ISCC Chile
160
Maria Elena
EnerStar
Elmed CSP Project
Tunisia
100
Chabei Project
China
64
Hebei
Beijing Guotoujunan
Investment Management
Company
Andhra Pradesh Project
India
50
Andhra Pradesh
NTPC
Al Abdaliyah Solar Plant
Kuwait
60
Al Abdaliyah, west
Kuwait
Ministry of Electricity and

Water
Akarit
Tunisia
50
Gabs
STEG
Acquasol 1 Desalination
Project
Australia
30
Port Augusta, South

Australia
Acquasol Infrastructure
Ltd.
Cargo Power and

Infrastructure
China Guangdong
Nuclear Power Group
Synthetic Oil
Synthetic Oil
9
Wet
STEG
Synthetic Oil
Synthetic Oil
Wet
Synthetic Oil
| 147
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Title
Country
MWe
State/Region
Storage
Capacity
Developer
Cooling
HTF
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Parabolic Trough Plants Announced

Mathania ISCC
India
35
Rajasthan
Huludao
China
50
Huludao
Huludao Ruixinda Industry

Co.
Synthetic Oil
Coremas
Brazil
50
Coremas
Brax Energy
Synthetic Oil
Title
Country
MWe
State/Region
Developer
Storage
Capacity
Cooling
HTF
Parabolic Trough Plants Cancelled

UA Tech Park
USA
Thermal Storage
Arizona
Bell Independent Power

Corp
Synthetic Oil
Suphanburi
Project
Thailand
10
Suphan Buri
Solarlite
Synthetic Oil
Puertollano 7
Spain
12.4
Ciudad Real
Renovalia
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Puertollano 6
Spain
10
Ciudad Real
Renovalia
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Puertollano 5
Spain
10
Ciudad Real
Renovalia
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Extremasol 1
Spain
50
Extremadura
ExtremaSol Kraftwerks
Wet
Synthetic Oil
El Reboso III
Spain
50
Sevilla
Bogaris
Wet
Synthetic Oil
El Reboso II
Spain
50
Sevilla
Bogaris
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Anta
India
15
Baran, Rajasthan
NTPC
Wet
Synthetic Oil
Andasol 4
Spain
50
Granada
Cobra
Wet
Synthetic Oil
7.5
7.5
*All data is correct as of this date: 19 November, 2013
| 148
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Appendix B Chiles reference Plant CAPEX Breakdown ()

Manufacturing &
transportation
Site assembly
& erection
EPC COST
TOTAL
475,495,542
389,016,718
26,952,782
415,969,500
45,231,889
5,294,641
50,526,530
Solar Field site preparation
1,737,084
202,418
1,939,502
Solar Field earth movement
10,422,505
2,024,182
12,446,687
Collector foundations
17,586,025
693,413
18,279,438
Solar Field roads
1,360,208
156,105
1,516,313
Solar Field drainage
2,723,866
416,809
3,140,675
Temporary facilities
2,605,823
870,943
3,476,766
Power Block civil works
5,737,360
678,668
6,416,028
Power Block roads and drainages
1,354,205
155,416
1,509,621
Evaporation ponds
376,168
43,171
419,339
Switchyard civil works
294,863
12,146
307,008
Power Block buildings
1,033,783
41,369
1,075,152
114,768,725
7,363,311
122,132,037
Collector structure
39,646,451
4,573,852
44,220,303
Mirrors
20,417,267
20,417,267
Absorber tubes
22,940,749
529,492
23,470,241
1,372,182
105,058
1,477,240
Civil works and site preparation
Solar field
Ball joints
Headers (Piping, Insulation, Valves, & Fittings)
16,500,829
637,866
17,138,695
Loop piping (Piping, Insulation, Valves, &

Fittings)
5,346,267
413,337
5,759,605
Instrumentation & controls
1,261,441
147,738
1,409,179
Electrical
4,424,827
518,227
4,943,054
Tracking systems including LOCs
2,858,712
437,741
3,296,453
44,706,126
4,258,249
48,964,373
17,740,175
739,803
18,479,977
7,954,941
922,533
8,877,474
Feedwater system
830,839
65,506
896,345
Condensate system
498,504
39,304
537,807
1,102,773
129,155
1,231,928
Power block island

Steam turbine and generator
Piping, insulation, valves & fittings
Blowdown system
| 149
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Manufacturing &
transportation
Cooling system
Site assembly
& erection
TOTAL
12,819,213
2,001,816
14,821,029
1,495,511
114,500
1,610,011
Gland steam
232,635
17,811
250,446
Deareator
249,252
19,083
268,335
1,782,284
208,738
1,991,021
Balance of Plant (BOP) and auxiliaries
7,786,059
843,286
8,629,344
Auxiliary fuel treatment plant
133,607
10,229
143,837
1,689,004
130,582
1,819,586
Water treatment system
1,643,366
251,641
1,895,007
Waste water system
404,401
61,924
466,325
Chemical dosage
134,280
5,140
139,421
Sampling system
348,548
13,343
361,891
HVAC
248,963
28,592
277,554
Compressed air
153,704
5,884
159,588
1,229,633
141,216
1,370,849
Nitrogen blanketing systems
351,775
26,933
378,707
Water collection
258,817
29,724
288,540
Water disposal
404,401
46,443
450,844
Auxiliary cooling system
161,760
18,577
180,338
623,799
73,058
696,857
60,838,096
2,498,100
63,336,195
Steam generator
7,669,718
630,941
8,300,660
2,969,893
459,224
3,429,118
HTF pumps
5,752,526
453,547
6,206,073
127,127
4,867
131,993
4,251,394
650,996
4,902,390
HTF recovery system
965,279
114,158
1,079,437
Auxiliary boiler
568,449
44,818
613,267
37,826,733
56,748
37,883,481
706,976
82,800
789,776
89,902,184
4,302,231
94,204,417
Pumps
3,700,799
308,662
4,009,462
Piping, Insulation, Valves, & Fittings
2,599,315
401,923
3,001,238
Tanks
6,753,022
1,331,074
8,084,096
493,833
98,293
592,125
LP/HP Preheaters
Fire protection system
HTF system
HTF filter
Expansion and overflow system
HTF
TES
Tanks insulation
| 150
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Manufacturing &
transportation
Tank foundation
Site assembly
& erection
TOTAL
2,893,842
581,694
3,475,537
61,558,178
452,870
62,011,048
HEX (Heat Exchangers)
6,470,683
539,682
7,010,366
HEXs structure
1,104,026
92,080
1,196,107
880,125
98,066
978,191
3,125,161
358,906
3,484,067
323,200
38,980
362,180
11,098,077
1,577,181
12,675,258
531,907
79,797
611,704
1,163,175
91,708
1,254,884
493,664
19,083
512,747
1,305,525
201,869
1,507,394
477,296
35,802
513,099
3,044,267
713,077
3,757,345
493,091
152,490
645,581
Motor control center
2,248,735
175,578
2,424,314
VFDs
1,340,416
107,775
1,448,191
1,643,939
287,300
1,931,238
1,643,939
287,300
1,931,238
Miscellaneous
13,041,623
528,486
13,570,109
Spares
5,522,121
5,522,121
Contingency
7,519,502
528,486
8,047,988
59,526,042
Engineering
4,693,923
Project & construction management
4,975,134
Commissioning / start-up/training
4,100,340
EPC profit
45,756,645
Molten salts
Electric Heaters
Melting station for commissioning
Instrumentation & Controls
Lighting
Main transformer
Auxiliary transformer
Medium-voltage cells
Auxiliary diesel generator
Switchgear
High-voltage line
Instrumentation and control

Distributed control system (DCS)
Engineering
DEVELOPER COST
23,021,587
Permitting, licensing, legal
1,280,742
Owner's engineering
3,201,856
Project management & advisory fees
1,215,131
Insurance
4,754,955
Pre construction costs
973,476
Owners contingency
7,132,433
| 151
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Manufacturing &
transportation
Site assembly
& erection
TOTAL
O&M mobilization costs
2,307,012
Land
2,155,982
FINANCING COST
49,346,743
Interest during construction
39,352,331
Commitment fee
4,241,841
Upfront fee
5,752,571
547,863,872
TOTAL CAPEX
| 152
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Appendix C
Chiles reference Plant OPEX Breakdown ()

Labor cost
1,456,000
Plant manager (1)
74,000
Finance & administration (1)
20,000
Security (5)
60,000
Maintenance
Maintenance manger (1)
35,500
Mechanical technician (4)
116,000
Electrical technician (2)
58,000
87,000
Warehouse (1)
24,000
Operation manager (1)
35,000
Operations
Shift leader (5)
165,000
Control room operator (10)
290,000
Field rounds operator (15)
435,000
H&S manager (1)
35,500
Mirror cleaning (3)
21,000
Utilities
1,231,379
Electricity
176,751
Auxiliary fuel
644,786
Water
409,842
Contract services
412,667
Spare parts
1,534,620
Civil works
151,580
Solar Field
488,528
BOP
34,517
HTF
316,681
TES
282,613
Turbine
Insurance
TOTAL
50,701
210,000
2,191,456
6,826,122
| 153
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Appendix D
Indias reference Plant CAPEX Breakdown ()

Manufacturing &
transportation
Site assembly
& erection
EPC COST
TOTAL
376,771,459
317,142,586
11,151,439
328,294,031
33,148,377
1,666,196
34,814,574
1,533,189
78,528
1,611,717
4,292,929
366,463
4,659,393
16,558,967
311,406
16,870,373
Solar Field roads
1,085,488
49,954
1,135,442
2,149,608
131,899
2,281,507
2,363,651
486,684
2,850,334
2,759,675
155,694
2,915,370
735,686
33,856
769,542
Evaporation ponds
653,943
30,094
684,037
221,125
5,308
226,433
794,116
16,310
810,427
117,181,726
4,205,872
121,387,598
Collector structure
34,662,641
2,858,495
37,521,136
Mirrors
25,947,287
25,947,287
Absorber tubes
29,154,255
320,940
29,475,194
1,743,838
63,678
1,807,516
Solar field
Ball joints
11,888,073
219,182
12,107,255

Fittings)
4,680,936
172,606
4,853,542
1,603,103
89,548
1,692,651
Electrical
3,868,598
216,096
4,084,695
3,632,995
265,327
3,898,322
32,977,400
1,290,475
34,267,876
19,054,713
540,265
19,594,977
5,728,261
316,838
6,045,100
Feedwater system
896,667
38,778
935,445
Condensate system
538,000
23,267
561,267
Blowdown system
794,094
44,357
838,452
Power block island

| 154
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Manufacturing &
transportation
Site assembly
& erection
TOTAL
Cooling system
1,880,406
140,050
2,020,456
LP/HP Preheaters
1,614,001
58,937
1,672,938
Gland steam
251,067
9,168
260,235
Deareator
269,000
9,823
278,823
1,951,191
108,992
2,060,183
9,839,874
571,668
10,411,545
89,146
3,255
92,401
1,227,880
45,277
1,273,157
3,722,440
271,859
3,994,299
Waste water system
770,504
56,272
826,776
Chemical dosage
187,936
3,431
191,368
Sampling system
232,559
4,246
236,806
HVAC
166,114
9,099
175,213
Compressed air
123,916
2,262
126,178
991,327
54,299
1,045,627
360,961
13,181
374,142
Water collection
513,670
28,136
541,806
Water disposal
642,087
35,170
677,257
128,417
7,034
135,451
682,917
38,147
721,064
59,342,545
1,153,709
60,496,255
Steam generator
8,198,876
437,341
8,636,217
2,084,117
153,701
2,237,818
HTF pumps
4,515,033
195,259
4,710,292
83,219
1,519
84,738
2,910,707
212,576
3,123,284
HTF recovery system
986,239
63,977
1,050,216
Auxiliary boiler
568,449
24,583
593,032
39,259,476
23,617
39,283,093
736,429
41,136
777,565
41,169,757
1,071,750
42,241,508
2,470,421
140,089
2,610,510
762,476
56,232
818,708
1,969,020
212,883
2,181,903
143,281
15,643
158,924
HTF system
HTF filter
HTF
TES
Pumps
Tanks
Tanks insulation
| 155
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Manufacturing &
transportation
Tank foundation
Site assembly
& erection
TOTAL
794,530
87,602
882,132
26,445,762
78,014
26,523,776
5,404,135
306,450
5,710,586
HEXs structure
615,215
34,887
650,102
Electric Heaters
235,863
10,538
246,401
2,167,454
118,721
2,286,175
161,600
10,691
172,291
10,945,615
726,915
11,672,529
372,224
22,392
394,615
1,255,334
54,289
1,309,623
532,777
9,823
542,600
1,294,684
95,481
1,390,165
343,696
10,338
354,033
2,990,351
334,076
3,324,427
329,002
48,527
377,529
2,450,145
91,242
2,541,387
VFDs
1,377,402
60,747
1,438,150
1,902,817
246,195
2,149,014
1,902,817
246,198
2,149,014
Miscellaneous
1,643,939
218,656
10,853,131
Spares
4,504,313
4,504,313
Contingency
6,130,162
218,656
6,348,818
48,477,428
Engineering
4,105,917
4,733,827
3,525,341
EPC profit
36,112,343
Molten salts

Lighting
Main transformer
Switchgear
High-voltage line

Engineering
DEVELOPER COST
18,606,932
1,128,916
Owner's engineering
2,822,291
1,122,430
Insurance
3,767,715
716,082
Owners contingency
5,651,572
| 156
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Manufacturing &
transportation
Site assembly
& erection
TOTAL
2,209,596
2,209,596
Land
1,188,330
1,188,330
FINANCING COST
41,775,401
34,043,630
Commitment fee
3,141,656
Upfront fee
4,590,115
437,153,792
TOTAL CAPEX
| 157
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Appendix E
Indias reference Plant OPEX Breakdown ()

Labor cost
580,500
Plant manager (1)
30,000
8,000
Security (5)
20,500
Maintenance
15,000
48,000
24,000
48,000
Warehouse (1)
11,000
14,000
Shift leader (5)
60,000
Operations
110,000
165,000
H&S manager (1)
15,000
Mirror cleaning (2)
12,000
Utilities
1,016,516
Electricity
Auxiliary fuel
Water
Contract services
654,411
1,317,536
Civil works
104,444
Solar Field
485,550
BOP
41,646
HTF
302,481
TES
126,725
Turbine
TOTAL
76,201
173,551
Spare parts
Insurance
285,904
46,690
210,000
1,967,192
5,055,295
| 158
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Appendix F
Moroccos reference Plant CAPEX Breakdown ()

Manufacturing &
transportation
Site assembly
& erection
EPC COST
TOTAL
635,744,680
528,991,971
31,284,083
560,275,691
55,026,593
5,052,091
60,078,683
2,421,660
241,061
2,662,722
10,655,305
1,767,783
12,423,088
25,357,160
863,829
26,220,989
Solar Field roads
1,582,333
153,309
1,735,642
3,050,600
394,090
3,444,689
2,776,442
835,315
3,611,757
4,785,928
489,119
5,275,047
1,309,052
126,832
1,435,883
Evaporation ponds
1,163,602
112,739
1,276,341
423,147
15,539
438,686
1,501,364
52,475
1,553,839
175,537,251
10,575,016
186,112,268
Collector structure
55,123,499
6,813,293
61,936,792
Mirrors
32,726,478
32,726,478
Absorber tubes
36,771,323
733,270
37,504,593
2,199,446
145,490
2,344,936
Solar field
Ball joints
28,516,182
952,398
29,468,579

Fittings)
7,444,026
497,239
7,941,264
2,021,942
204,595
2,226,538
Electrical
6,152,176
622,523
6,774,700
4,582,179
606,208
5,188,388
59,296,022
3,880,874
63,176,896
32,046,079
1,225,145
33,271,224
12,054,121
1,207,768
13,261,889
1,561,188
108,637
1,669,825
936,713
65,182
1,001,895
1,671,032
169,088
1,840,120
Power block island
Feedwater system
Condensate system
Blowdown system
| 159
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Manufacturing &
transportation
Site assembly
& erection
TOTAL
Cooling system
3,541,808
477,849
4,019,658
LP/HP Preheaters
2,810,139
185,886
2,996,025
Gland steam
437,133
28,916
466,048
Deareator
468,356
30,981
499,337
3,769,453
381,422
4,150,875
17,661,226
1,850,166
19,511,392
152,372
10,079
162,451
2,769,310
184,982
2,954,291
6,318,974
835,981
7,154,956
Waste water system
1,543,226
204,164
1,747,390
Chemical dosage
321,229
10,624
331,853
Sampling system
281,075
9,296
290,372
HVAC
200,768
19,921
220,689
Compressed air
181,487
6,003
187,490
1,451,899
144,061
1,595,960
549,535
36,351
585,886
Water collection
1,028,817
102,082
1,130,899
Water disposal
1,286,021
127,603
1,413,624
257,204
25,521
282,725
1,319,309
133,498
1,452,806
103,282,732
3,289,835
106,573,567
13,319,113
995,505
14,314,618
3,991,161
533,195
4,524,356
HTF pumps
8,663,006
602,825
9,265,831
110,276
3,647
113,923
5,355,782
708,554
6,064,336
HTF recovery system
1,399,895
146,120
1,546,015
989,727
68,871
1,058,598
68,021,103
86,150
68,107,253
1,432,669
144,968
1,577,637
78,915,822
3,374,322
82,290,144
Pumps
5,009,877
383,062
5,392,940
2,582,885
345,058
2,927,943
Tanks
4,707,465
818,936
5,526,401
340,156
59,755
399,911


HTF system
Steam generator
HTF filter
Auxiliary boiler
HTF
TES
Tanks insulation
| 160
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Manufacturing &
transportation
Tank foundation
Site assembly
& erection
TOTAL
1,916,220
339,957
2,256,177
50,888,534
316,058
51,204,591
8,667,826
662,754
9,330,580
HEXs structure
1,192,614
91,189
1,283,803
581,637
54,712
636,349
2,705,408
268,438
2,973,846
323,200
34,403
357,603
18,732,749
2,191,729
20,924,478
636,220
80,578
716,798
2,185,663
152,092
2,337,755
927,619
30,981
958,600
2,337,402
312,263
2,649,665
723,247
45,800
769,047
5,037,193
1,019,402
6,056,595
397,638
106,244
503,882
4,572,132
308,428
4,880,560
VFDs
1,915,635
135,941
2,051,576
2,802,099
456,637
3,258,373
2,802,099
456,637
3,258,373
Miscellaneous
17,737,477
613,413
18,350,890
Spares
7,512,387
7,512,387
10,225,090
613,413
10,838,503
74,468,989
Engineering
4,827,726
4,834,761
4,176,136
EPC profit
61,630,366
Molten salts
Electric Heaters
Lighting
Main transformer
Switchgear
High-voltage line

Contingency
Engineering
DEVELOPER COST
28,745,620
1,394,493
Owner's engineering
3,486,233
1,337,767
Insurance
6,357,450
823,745
Owners contingency
9,536,176
| 161
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Manufacturing &
transportation
Site assembly
& erection
TOTAL
2,703,796
Land
3,105,960
FINANCING COST
85,542,440
70,495,159
Commitment fee
7,154,122
Upfront fee
7,875,159
TOTAL CAPEX
750,014,740
| 162
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Appendix G
Moroccos reference Plant OPEX Breakdown ()

Labor cost
975,500
Plant manager (1)
76,000
12,000
Security (5)
31,500
Maintenance
32,500
85,000
34,000
85,000
Warehouse (1)
14,000
30,000
Operations
Shift leader (5)
100,000
170,000
255,000
H&S manager (1)
32,500
Mirror cleaning (2)
18,000
Utilities
2,404,834
Electricity
589,258
Auxiliary fuel
290,045
Water
Contract services
516,737
Spare parts
2,106,162
Civil works
180,236
Solar Field
744,449
BOP
78,046
HTF
532,863
TES
246,870
Turbine
Insurance
TOTAL
1,525,531
83,698
240,000
3,000,060
9,003,323
| 163
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Appendix H
Saudi Arabias reference Plant CAPEX Breakdown ()

Manufacturing &
transportation
Site assembly
& erection
EPC COST
TOTAL
427,219,609
337,226,593
35,885,788
373,112,386
37,736,482
6,856,043
44,592,524
1,376,140
247,833
1,623,973
9,632,978
2,891,385
12,524,363
14,360,552
854,496
15,215,048
Solar Field roads
1,072,713
194,887
1,267,599
2,147,931
520,305
2,668,236
2,328,001
1,068,855
3,396,856
4,349,830
776,484
5,126,314
998,206
181,351
1,179,557
Evaporation ponds
277,279
50,375
327,655
261,913
15,170
277,082
930,939
54,902
985,841
100,006,353
10,571,410
110,577,765
Collector structure
31,047,623
6,902,350
37,949,973
Mirrors
20,417,267
20,417,267
Absorber tubes
22,940,749
799,050
23,739,799
1,372,182
158,542
1,530,724
Solar field
Ball joints
12,450,489
726,315
13,176,804

Fittings)
4,192,754
489,180
4,681,934
1,261,441
222,949
1,484,391
Electrical
3,465,136
612,434
4,077,570
2,858,712
660,590
3,519,303
46,173,606
6,269,475
52,443,082
19,700,683
1,077,519
20,778,202
6,966,574
1,219,212
8,185,786
Feedwater system
929,128
105,446
1,034,574
Condensate system
557,477
63,268
620,744
Blowdown system
965,758
170,690
1,136,448
Power block island

| 164
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Manufacturing &
transportation
Cooling system
Site assembly
& erection
TOTAL
12,807,309
3,018,113
15,825,423
1,672,430
193,232
1,865,662
Gland steam
260,156
30,058
290,214
Deareator
278,738
32,205
310,944
2,035,353
359,732
2,395,085
7,068,093
1,172,721
8,240,812
104,630
12,089
116,718
1,499,971
175,005
1,674,976
1,607,778
371,525
1,979,303
Waste water system
374,308
86,495
460,803
Chemical dosage
112,768
6,515
119,283
Sampling system
272,952
15,768
288,720
HVAC
194,966
33,789
228,755
Compressed air
120,368
6,954
127,321
962,941
166,887
1,129,828
341,449
39,451
380,900
Water collection
239,557
41,518
281,074
Water disposal
374,308
64,871
439,179
149,723
25,948
175,672
712,374
125,906
838,280
57,822,835
3,253,171
61,076,008
Steam generator
8,458,004
933,883
9,391,888
2,260,603
527,501
2,788,104
HTF pumps
5,371,712
609,633
5,981,345
92,964
5,371
98,335
3,231,591
746,755
3,978,346
HTF recovery system
941,608
160,294
1,101,903
Auxiliary boiler
568,449
64,513
632,962
36,223,503
86,026
36,309,529
674,401
119,195
793,596
63,794,810
4,258,097
68,052,910
Pumps
3,164,205
346,129
3,510,334
1,861,758
434,432
2,296,191
Tanks
4,007,914
1,137,141
5,145,056
289,607
82,974
372,581
LP/HP Preheaters
HTF system
HTF filter
HTF
TES
Tanks insulation
| 165
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Manufacturing &
transportation
Tank foundation
Site assembly
& erection
TOTAL
1,597,388
462,192
2,059,580
43,028,174
501,104
43,529,278
5,710,666
624,684
6,335,350
HEXs structure
763,027
83,467
846,494
Electric Heaters
476,625
84,070
560,695
2,572,246
445,795
3,018,042
323,200
56,109
379,309
11,579,387
2,420,629
14,000,016
446,693
106,083
552,776
1,300,779
147,625
1,448,403
552,064
32,205
584,270
1,382,791
322,668
1,705,459
417,994
49,634
467,628
3,179,687
1,123,966
4,303,653
386,146
180,210
566,356
2,550,154
300,479
2,850,633
VFDs
1,363,079
157,759
1,520,838
1,738,460
380,599
2,119,059
1,738,460
380,599
2,119,059
Miscellaneous
11,306,567
703,643
12,010,210
Spares
4,788,167
4,788,167
Contingency
6,518,400
703,643
7,222,043
54,107,223
Engineering
4,424,419
4,817,861
3,822,581
EPC profit
41,042,362
Molten salts

Lighting
Main transformer
Switchgear
High-voltage line

Engineering
DEVELOPER COST
21,814,610
1,229,895
Owner's engineering
3,074,737
1,191,046
Insurance
4,272,196
805,719
Owners contingency
6,408,294
| 166
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Manufacturing &
transportation
Site assembly
& erection
TOTAL
2,288,181
Land
2,544,542
FINANCING COST
46,167,480
36,853,817
Commitment fee
4,114,045
Upfront fee
5,199,618
TOTAL CAPEX
495,201,699
| 167
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Appendix I
Saudi Arabias reference Plant OPEX Breakdown ()

Labor cost
2,033,600
Plant manager (1)
104,000
39,000
Security (5)
64,000
Maintenance
61,000
164,000
82,000
164,000
Warehouse (1)
36,000
59,000
Operations
Shift leader (5)
225,000
380,000
570,000
H&S manager (1)
61,000
Mirror cleaning (2)
24,600
Utilities
464,572
Electricity
Auxiliary fuel
Water
Contract services
244,143
1,384,591
Civil works
133,778
Solar Field
442,311
BOP
32,963
HTF
305,380
TES
204,159
Turbine
TOTAL
48,012
700,544
Spare parts
Insurance
172,417
56,000
210,000
1,980,807
6,564,114
| 168
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Appendix J
South Africas reference Plant CAPEX Breakdown ()

Manufacturing &
transportation
Site assembly
& erection
EPC COST
TOTAL
398,915,116
325,545,544
22,098,435
347,643,986
36,886,047
3,839,902
40,725,950
1,562,924
169,070
1,731,994
6,251,697
1,127,135
7,378,832
15,537,986
571,678
16,109,664
Solar Field roads
1,245,168
131,956
1,377,124
2,493,720
352,360
2,846,080
2,474,925
786,577
3,261,502
4,563,022
503,652
5,066,675
1,069,943
113,386
1,183,329
Evaporation ponds
297,206
31,496
328,703
307,576
11,993
319,569
1,081,880
40,599
1,122,478
103,077,533
6,308,369
109,385,901
Collector structure
34,685,616
3,973,568
38,659,184
Mirrors
19,136,501
19,136,501
Absorber tubes
21,501,687
463,081
21,964,768
1,286,106
91,881
1,377,987
Solar field
Ball joints
14,050,722
506,822
14,557,543

Fittings)
4,684,039
337,915
5,021,954
1,182,312
129,208
1,311,520
Electrical
3,871,163
423,056
4,294,219
2,679,387
382,838
3,062,225
48,862,833
4,336,965
53,199,796
19,700,683
787,929
20,488,612
8,359,389
904,592
9,263,981
Feedwater system
929,128
69,026
998,153
Condensate system
557,477
41,415
598,892
1,158,841
126,643
1,285,484
Power block island

Blowdown system
| 169
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Manufacturing &
transportation
Cooling system
Site assembly
& erection
TOTAL
13,910,638
2,026,948
15,937,585
1,672,430
119,481
1,791,910
Gland steam
260,156
18,586
278,742
Deareator
278,738
19,913
298,652
2,035,353
222,432
2,257,785
7,961,672
810,080
8,771,750
125,548
8,969
134,517
1,799,857
129,845
1,929,702
1,746,286
249,514
1,995,800
Waste water system
430,567
61,521
492,087
Chemical dosage
135,313
4,833
140,147
Sampling system
327,523
11,699
339,222
HVAC
233,945
25,070
259,015
Compressed air
137,385
4,908
142,293
1,099,084
117,780
1,216,864
335,433
23,964
359,396
Water collection
275,563
29,530
305,092
Water disposal
430,567
46,140
476,707
172,227
18,456
190,683
712,374
77,851
790,225
57,921,428
2,270,328
60,191,755
Steam generator
8,458,004
664,505
9,122,510
2,712,562
391,378
3,103,940
HTF pumps
5,384,156
399,994
5,784,150
111,809
3,994
115,803
3,809,357
544,291
4,353,648
HTF recovery system
927,763
103,387
1,031,149
Auxiliary boiler
568,449
42,231
610,679
35,293,644
48,892
35,342,536
655,684
71,656
727,340
46,212,012
2,235,057
48,447,069
Pumps
2,691,725
215,311
2,907,036
1,116,988
161,163
1,278,151
Tanks
2,924,340
543,130
3,467,469
212,255
39,808
252,063
LP/HP Preheaters
HTF system
HTF filter
HTF
TES
Tanks insulation
| 170
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Manufacturing &
transportation
Tank foundation
Site assembly
& erection
TOTAL
1,184,201
224,294
1,408,495
28,386,569
192,836
28,579,406
5,710,666
456,796
6,167,462
HEXs structure
915,578
73,237
988,815
Electric Heaters
355,448
36,571
392,019
2,552,642
273,546
2,826,188
161,600
18,365
179,965
12,015,089
1,578,978
13,594,069
535,999
74,251
610,250
1,300,779
96,636
1,397,415
552,064
19,913
571,978
1,438,504
207,552
1,646,056
501,563
34,740
536,304
3,307,796
722,979
4,030,775
463,347
133,707
597,054
2,550,154
185,794
2,735,948
VFDs
1,364,883
103,406
1,468,289
1,689,472
285,453
1,974,926
1,689,472
285,453
1,974,926
Miscellaneous
10,919,468
433,303
11,352,770
Spares
4,626,946
4,626,946
Contingency
6,292,522
433,303
6,725,824
51,271,130
Engineering
4,328,781
4,931,393
3,770,118
EPC profit
38,240,838
Molten salts

Lighting
Main transformer
Switchgear
High-voltage line

Engineering
DEVELOPER COST
20,142,241
1,149,368
Owner's engineering
2,873,420
1,138,473
Insurance
3,989,151
926,819
Owners contingency
5,983,727
| 171
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Manufacturing &
transportation
Site assembly
& erection
TOTAL
2,360,993
Land
1,720,290
FINANCING COST
48,580,633
39,903,190
Commitment fee
3,767,244
Upfront fee
4,910,199
TOTAL CAPEX
467,637,990
| 172
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Appendix K
South Africas reference Plant OPEX Breakdown ()

Labor cost
969,000
Plant manager (1)
79,000
15,000
Security (5)
29,000
Maintenance
37,300
54,000
36,000
72,000
Warehouse (1)
12,000
34,200
Operations
Shift leader (5)
105,000
180,000
270,000
H&S manager (1)
34,500
Mirror cleaning (2)
11,000
Utilities
784,293
Electricity
366,018
Auxiliary fuel
233,083
Water
185,192
Contract services
408,636
Spare parts
1,305,485
Civil works
122,178
Solar Field
437,544
BOP
35,087
HTF
300,959
TES
145,341
Turbine
Insurance
TOTAL
54,376
210,000
2,104,371
5,571,785
| 173
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Appendix L
Spains reference Plant CAPEX Breakdown ()

Manufacturing &
transportation
Site assembly
& erection
EPC COST
TOTAL
293,560,274
231,528,359
21,618,822
253,147,181
30,099,459
4,453,594
34,553,052
1,234,090
185,114
1,419,204
5,183,178
1,295,795
6,478,973
11,856,000
592,800
12,448,800
Solar Field roads
1,139,340
170,901
1,310,241
2,248,840
449,768
2,698,607
2,334,057
933,623
3,267,679
3,398,501
509,775
3,908,276
955,828
143,374
1,099,203
Evaporation ponds
849,625
127,444
977,069
200,000
10,000
210,000
700,000
35,000
735,000
75,023,225
6,062,947
81,086,173
Collector structure
26,866,000
3,800,000
30,666,000
Mirrors
13,824,815
13,824,815
Absorber tubes
15,533,500
454,639
15,988,139
929,123
90,206
1,019,330
8,453,478
414,386
8,867,865

Fittings)
3,628,057
355,692
3,983,749
854,140
126,852
980,992
Electrical
2,998,438
445,313
3,443,750
1,935,674
375,859
2,311,533
21,509,700
2,014,000
23,523,700
11,330,000
550,000
11,880,000
5,100,000
750,000
5,850,000
Feedwater system
515,000
50,000
565,000
Condensate system
309,000
30,000
339,000
Blowdown system
707,000
105,000
812,000
Solar Field
Ball joints
Power block island

| 174
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Manufacturing &
transportation
Cooling system
Site assembly
& erection
TOTAL
1,313,000
260,000
1,573,000
LP/HP Preheaters
927,000
90,000
1,017,000
Gland steam
144,200
14,000
158,200
Deareator
154,500
15,000
169,500
1,010,000
150,000
1,160,000
8,121,904
1,222,864
9,344,768
97,714
9,487
107,201
1,020,000
100,000
1,120,000
2,884,000
560,000
3,444,000
Waste water system
618,000
120,000
738,000
Chemical dosage
206,000
10,000
216,000
Sampling system
360,500
17,500
378,000
HVAC
257,500
37,500
295,000
Compressed air
118,244
5,740
123,984
945,949
137,759
1,083,708
230,497
22,378
252,875
Water collection
412,000
60,000
472,000
Water disposal
515,000
75,000
590,000
103,000
15,000
118,000
353,500
52,500
406,000
34,416,723
1,951,000
36,367,723
Steam generator
5,047,000
490,000
5,537,000
1,830,211
358,865
2,189,075
HTF pumps
3,227,135
313,314
3,540,449
122,938
5,968
128,906
2,881,212
559,459
3,440,671
HTF recovery system
678,662
98,834
777,496
Auxiliary boiler
326,488
31,698
358,186
19,941,079
39,100
19,980,180
361,998
53,762
415,760
46,085,658
2,856,126
48,941,784
Pumps
2,029,399
197,029
2,226,428
1,007,981
197,643
1,205,624
Tanks
3,326,438
807,388
4,133,826
242,169
59,355
301,524
HTF systems
HTF filter
HTF
TES
Tanks insulation
| 175
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Manufacturing &
transportation
Tank foundation
Site assembly
& erection
TOTAL
1,363,746
337,561
1,701,307
29,755,484
286,110
30,041,595
4,324,367
419,841
4,744,209
HEXs structure
763,124
74,090
837,213
Electric Heaters
409,338
59,612
468,950
2,702,012
393,497
3,095,508
161,600
24,000
185,600
7,415,554
2,438,629
9,854,183
Lighting
408,000
197,029
605,029
Main transformer
721,000
197,643
918,643
306,000
807,388
1,113,388
816,000
59,355
875,355
306,000
337,561
643,561
2,020,000
286,110
2,306,110
510,000
419,841
929,841
1,313,000
74,090
1,387,090
VFDs
1,015,554
59,612
1,075,166
1,092,881
216,412
1,309,293
1,092,881
216,412
1,309,293
Miscellaneous
7,763,255
403,250
8,166,505
Spares
3,287,953
3,287,953
Contingency
4,475,302
403,250
4,878,552
40,413,093
Engineering
4,097,462
5,000,000
3,585,280
EPC profit
27,730,351
Molten salts

Switchgear
High-voltage line

Engineering
DEVELOPER COST
16,940,285
1,036,770
Owner's engineering
2,591,925
1,024,366
Insurance
2,925,072
1,000,000
Owners contingency
4,387,608
| 176
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Manufacturing &
transportation
Site assembly
& erection
TOTAL
2,000,000
Land
1,974,544
FINANCING COST
23,267,087
19,703,735
Commitment fee
1,234,350
Upfront fee
2,329,002
TOTAL CAPEX
332,714,567
| 177
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Appendix M
Spains reference Plant OPEX Breakdown ()

Labor cost
1,668,000
Plant manager (1)
68,000
23,000
Security (5)
95,000
Maintenance
47,000
105,000
70,000
70,000
Warehouse (1)
30,000
42,000
Operations
Shift leader (5)
190,000
340,000
510,000
H&S manager (1)
40,000
Mirror cleaning (2)
38,000
Utilities
858,502
Electricity
252,598
Auxiliary fuel
158,928
Water
446,976
Contract services
300,000
Spare parts
1,029,251
Civil works
103,659
Solar Field
324,345
BOP
37,379
HTF
181,839
TES
146,825
Turbine
Insurance
TOTAL
35,204
200,000
831,786
4,687,539
| 178
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Appendix N
UAEs reference Plant CAPEX Breakdown ()

Manufacturing &
transportation
Site assembly
& erection
EPC COST
TOTAL
506,551,346
402,480,317
42,105,413
444,585,731
50,414,233
8,821,244
59,235,476
1,978,823
347,810
2,326,633
14,247,524
4,173,723
18,421,246
20,757,870
1,206,794
21,964,665
Solar Field roads
1,358,307
240,586
1,598,893
2,668,411
630,180
3,298,591
2,598,918
1,171,146
3,770,064
4,341,280
757,163
5,098,443
995,940
176,403
1,172,343
Evaporation ponds
276,650
49,001
325,651
261,369
14,841
276,209
929,141
53,597
982,738
140,034,050
14,751,055
154,785,106
Collector structure
44,858,431
9,766,967
54,625,398
Mirrors
28,282,467
28,282,467
Absorber tubes
31,778,053
1,081,447
32,859,500
1,900,778
214,573
2,115,351
Solar field
Ball joints
16,442,665
937,179
17,379,844

Fittings)
6,057,803
690,550
6,748,354
1,747,378
301,743
2,049,121
Electrical
5,006,521
864,543
5,871,064
3,959,954
894,053
4,854,007
46,141,571
6,126,943
52,268,515
19,700,683
1,060,097
20,760,780
6,949,982
1,188,380
8,138,362
Feedwater system
929,128
103,255
1,032,383
Condensate system
557,477
61,953
619,430
Blowdown system
963,458
166,373
1,129,831
Power block island

| 179
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Manufacturing &
transportation
Cooling system
Site assembly
& erection
TOTAL
12,794,166
2,945,785
15,739,951
1,672,430
188,795
1,861,225
Gland steam
260,156
29,368
289,524
Deareator
278,738
31,466
310,204
2,035,353
351,471
2,386,825
7,431,685
1,200,450
8,632,136
104,380
11,783
116,164
1,496,398
170,580
1,666,978
1,606,128
362,621
1,968,750
Waste water system
373,638
84,357
457,995
Chemical dosage
112,499
6,350
118,849
Sampling system
272,302
15,370
287,672
HVAC
194,501
32,935
227,436
Compressed air
155,622
8,784
164,405
1,244,973
210,812
1,455,784
396,649
44,776
441,426
Water collection
239,128
40,492
279,620
Water disposal
373,638
63,268
436,906
149,455
25,307
174,762
712,374
123,015
835,389
67,083,128
3,356,458
70,439,589
Steam generator
8,458,004
917,677
9,375,682
2,311,083
526,897
2,837,980
HTF pumps
5,107,446
567,597
5,675,043
110,225
6,221
116,447
3,745,089
845,542
4,590,632
HTF recovery system
1,066,854
177,841
1,244,695
568,449
63,172
631,621
44,860,983
103,868
44,964,851
854,995
147,643
1,002,638
64,144,312
4,208,406
68,352,716
Pumps
3,261,307
350,983
3,612,290
1,900,850
433,369
2,334,219
Tanks
3,999,611
1,111,205
5,110,815
289,007
81,081
370,088
LP/HP Preheaters
HTF systems
HTF filter
Auxiliary boiler
HTF
TES
Tanks insulation
| 180
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Manufacturing &
transportation
Tank foundation
Site assembly
& erection
TOTAL
1,594,159
451,673
2,045,832
43,045,462
488,738
43,534,200
5,898,898
634,841
6,533,739
HEXs structure
786,301
84,622
870,922
Electric Heaters
475,681
81,800
557,481
2,569,836
435,151
3,004,987
323,200
54,943
378,143
11,715,594
2,379,947
14,095,539
445,629
103,178
548,806
1,300,779
144,557
1,445,336
552,064
31,466
583,530
1,382,128
315,107
1,697,235
416,999
48,274
465,273
3,178,161
1,097,630
4,275,791
385,226
175,653
560,879
2,550,154
293,579
2,843,733
VFDs
1,504,454
170,503
1,674,956
2,016,069
435,314
2,451,383
2,016,069
435,314
2,451,383
Miscellaneous
13,499,675
825,596
14,325,271
Spares
5,720,062
5,720,062
Contingency
7,779,613
825,596
8,605,209
61,965,615
Engineering
4,423,374
4,816,509
3,821,302
EPC profit
48,904,430
Molten salts

Lighting
Main transformer
Switchgear
High-voltage line

Engineering
DEVELOPER COST
24,919,057
1,229,977
Owner's engineering
3,074,943
1,191,100
Insurance
5,065,513
804,276
Owners contingency
7,598,270
| 181
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Manufacturing &
transportation
Site assembly
& erection
TOTAL
2,287,314
Land
3,667,664
FINANCING COST
38,912,824
32,634,384
Commitment fee
2,285,757
Upfront fee
3,992,683
TOTAL CAPEX
570,383,227
| 182
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Appendix O
UAEs reference Plant OPEX Breakdown ()

Labor cost
2,013,300
Plant manager (1)
101,000
38,500
Security (5)
60,000
Maintenance
60,500
200,000
80,000
160,000
Warehouse (1)
35,000
58,000
Operations
Shift leader (5)
225,000
360,000
540,000
H&S manager (1)
60,500
Mirror cleaning (3)
34,800
Utilities
441,450
Electricity
Auxiliary fuel
Water
Contract services
225,475
1,655,013
Civil works
177,706
Solar Field
619,140
BOP
34,529
HTF
352,198
TES
205,058
Turbine
TOTAL
62,078
682,983
Spare parts
Insurance
153,897
56,382
210,000
2,281,533
7,074,279
| 183
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Appendix P
USAs reference Plant CAPEX Breakdown ()

Manufacturing &
transportation
Site assembly
& erection
EPC COST
TOTAL
649,010,423
518,382,733
53,669,358
572,052,086
56,984,745
9,540,755
66,525,499
2,495,759
452,799
2,948,558
11,979,641
3,622,394
15,602,035
24,884,577
1,491,195
26,375,772
Solar Field roads
1,678,418
307,287
1,985,705
3,274,855
799,421
4,074,276
2,837,336
1,310,146
4,147,482
6,189,240
1,112,661
7,301,900
1,447,943
265,092
1,713,035
Evaporation ponds
402,206
73,637
475,843
396,950
23,130
420,080
1,397,820
82,993
1,480,813
167,602,313
16,854,349
184,456,660
Collector structure
55,360,811
10,546,707
65,907,517
Mirrors
29,421,763
29,421,763
Absorber tubes
33,058,161
1,159,606
34,217,767
1,977,346
230,080
2,207,427
Solar field
Ball joints
28,170,765
1,655,018
29,825,783

Fittings)
7,497,566
880,956
8,378,522
1,817,767
323,551
2,141,318
Electrical
6,178,662
1,099,762
7,278,423
4,119,472
958,669
5,078,140
65,992,891
9,278,766
75,271,656
26,411,592
1,451,774
27,863,366
11,192,820
1,972,717
13,165,537
1,270,212
145,080
1,415,292
762,127
87,048
849,175
1,551,632
276,180
1,827,812
Power block island
Feedwater system
Condensate system
Blowdown system
| 184
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Manufacturing &
transportation
Cooling system
Site assembly
& erection
TOTAL
18,830,851
4,469,025
23,299,876
2,286,382
266,039
2,552,421
Gland steam
355,659
41,384
397,043
Deareator
381,064
44,340
425,403
2,950,552
525,179
3,475,731
10,587,833
1,756,434
12,344,269
150,598
17,523
168,121
2,505,983
294,450
2,800,433
2,229,336
518,803
2,748,139
Waste water system
579,123
134,771
713,895
Chemical dosage
161,132
9,374
170,506
Sampling system
320,779
18,663
339,441
HVAC
229,128
39,991
269,119
Compressed air
189,394
11,019
200,413
1,515,156
264,451
1,779,607
493,100
57,376
550,477
Water collection
370,639
64,690
435,329
Water disposal
579,123
101,079
680,202
231,649
40,431
272,081
1,032,693
183,813
1,216,506
92,584,940
5,200,170
97,785,108
11,119,715
1,234,346
12,354,061
4,608,626
1,083,017
5,691,643
HTF pumps
8,165,679
932,659
9,098,338
118,628
6,902
125,529
5,484,611
1,276,359
6,760,969
HTF recovery system
1,279,024
219,129
1,498,153
786,256
89,804
876,060
59,815,605
143,152
59,958,757
1,206,796
214,802
1,421,598
88,966,580
6,139,318
95,105,899
Pumps
4,449,885
489,196
4,939,081
2,719,757
639,137
3,358,895
Tanks
6,065,537
1,731,968
7,797,505
442,566
127,610
570,177
LP/HP Preheaters

HTF system
Steam generator
HTF filter
Auxiliary boiler
HTF
TES
Tanks insulation
| 185
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Manufacturing &
transportation
Tank foundation
Site assembly
& erection
TOTAL
2,576,189
750,178
3,326,366
59,665,174
700,230
60,365,404
7,744,068
851,341
8,595,409
HEXs structure
1,216,023
133,683
1,349,706
783,517
139,269
922,786
2,980,664
520,237
3,500,901
323,200
56,469
379,669
15,877,578
3,319,237
19,196,813
638,269
152,752
791,021
1,778,297
203,112
1,981,409
754,728
44,340
799,068
1,957,169
459,931
2,417,099
671,569
80,361
751,930
4,327,936
1,540,689
5,868,625
453,806
213,287
667,093
3,625,287
430,185
4,055,471
VFDs
1,670,517
194,580
1,865,097
2,401,525
527,989
2,929,514
2,401,525
527,989
2,929,514
Miscellaneous
17,384,328
1,052,340
18,436,668
Spares
7,364,360
7,364,360
10,019,968
1,052,340
11,072,308
76,958,337
Engineering
4,874,206
4,917,362
4,241,039
EPC profit
62,925,730
Molten salts
Electric Heaters
Lighting
Main transformer
Switchgear
High-voltage line

Contingency
Engineering
DEVELOPER COST
30,356,321
1,379,185
Owner's engineering
3,447,963
1,310,950
Insurance
6,490,104
911,853
Owners contingency
9,735,156
| 186
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Manufacturing &
transportation
Site assembly
& erection
TOTAL
2,593,427
Land
4,487,683
FINANCING COST
58,662,406
50,207,062
Commitment fee
3,289,140
Upfront fee
5,166,204
TOTAL CAPEX
738,029,150
| 187
Appendix
B U S I N E SS
Appendix Q
USAs reference Plant OPEX Breakdown ()

Labor cost
2,138,000
Plant manager (1)
84,000
35,000
Security (5)
135,000
Maintenance
54,000
205,000
82,000
164,000
Warehouse (1)
36,000
50,000
Operations
Shift leader (5)
215,000
380,000
570,000
H&S manager (1)
56,000
Mirror cleaning (3)
72,000
Utilities
736,778
Electricity
510,766
Auxiliary fuel
119,591
Water
106,421
Contract services
858,334
Spare parts
2,057,811
Civil works
199,576
Solar Field
737,827
BOP
49,377
HTF
488,926
TES
285,318
Turbine
Insurance
TOTAL
76,787
220,000
2,214,087
8,005,010
| 188

CSP Today Parabolic Trough Report 2014 - PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CSP Today Parabolic Trough Report 2014 - PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

B U S I N E S S

CSP Parabolic Trough Report

Comprehensive Cost Data

PPA Tariff Calculations

Trends and Development

Up-to-date, industry validated

PPA Tariff calculations by market,

In-depth analysis of the latest

CSP Parabolic Trough Report

FC Business Intelligence Ltd 2013

CSP Today Parabolic Trough Report

About CSP Today

CSP Today Parabolic Trough Report

CSP Today Parabolic Trough Report

CSP plants at every single stage across the globe Announced,

CSP Today Quarterly Update

CSP Markets Report 2014

This 200+ page report draws on the experience of local experts

CSP Today Parabolic Trough Report

CSP Today Parabolic Trough Report

CSP Today Parabolic Trough Report

Parabolic Trough Power Plant Process Flow Diagram (PFD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Parabolic Trough installed and accumulated capacity as of July 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Market share of CSP technologies under operation (in MW) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Market share of CSP technologies under construction (in MW) . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Market share of CSP technologies under development (in MW) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Parabolic Trough Power Plants under operation in MW installed capacity . . . . . . . . .

Industry application of operating Parabolic Trough plants as a percentage of MWs installed . . 25

Industry application of operating Parabolic Trough plants in MWs installed . . . . . . . . . 25

Figure 21: Solar Collector Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Figure 23: Torque-Tube Collector Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Figure 34: Chiles EPC cost sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 35: Chiles component cost sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 36: Indias plant optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

CSP Today Parabolic Trough Report

Figure 37: Indias optimal plant PPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Figure 40: Indias EPC cost sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 41: Indias component cost sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 42: Moroccos plant optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Figure 44: Moroccos CAPEX and OPEX sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Figure 52: Saudi Arabias EPC cost sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 53: Saudi Arabias component cost sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 54: South Africas plant optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Figure 61: Spains optimal plant PPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

CSP Today Parabolic Trough Report

Figure 79: PPA escalation impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

CSP Today Parabolic Trough Report

CSP Capacity Under Operation, Construction and Development (Q2-2013) . . . . . . . . . 23

Overview of Parabolic Trough Plants with and without TES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Parabolic Trough Pros & Cons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Parabolic Trough Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Renewable and Conventional Power Metrics Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conventional Collector Loop Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Parabolic Collector Structure Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Characteristics of the absorber Tube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Different HTF Type Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Value of CSP with TES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

DNI for all the markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Reference Plants Technical Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Local labor cost in EUR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Local manufacturing cost in EUR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Financing conditions for each market analyzed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

CAPEX Breakdown Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .