Journal Pre-proof

Solar thermal process heat in fishmeal production: Prospects for two South African
fishmeal factories

Dewald Oosthuizen, Neill Jurgens Goosen, Stefan Hess

PII: S0959-6526(19)34688-8
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119818
Reference: JCLP 119818

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 29 July 2019

Revised Date: 30 November 2019
Accepted Date: 19 December 2019

Please cite this article as: Oosthuizen D, Goosen NJ, Hess S, Solar thermal process heat in fishmeal
production: Prospects for two South African fishmeal factories, Journal of Cleaner Production (2020),
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119818.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Word count: 11,549

Solar thermal process heat in fishmeal production: prospects for two

South African fishmeal factories

Dewald Oosthuizena, Neill Jurgens Goosenb, Stefan Hessc

a
Department of Process Engineering, Stellenbosch University, South Africa. Email:

Oosthuizen.dewald@gmail.com

b
Corresponding author: Department of Process Engineering, Stellenbosch University, South Africa.

Private Bag X1, Stellenbosch, 7602, South Africa; Mobile: +27834735629; Fax: +27218082059;

Email: njgoosen@sun.ac.za

c
Department of Sustainable Systems Engineering – INATECH, Albert-Ludwigs Universität

Freiburg, Germany. Email: stefan.hess@inatech.uni-freiburg.de

Abstract

Fishmeal production may lend itself to integration of solar thermal heating due to favourable

heating temperature requirements, high heat demand, and production plants being located in high

solar irradiance areas for many countries, especially South Africa. Despite these potential

compatibilities, and the potential to reduce fossil fuel consumption by switching to a renewable

energy heating source, very little work has been done to determine the feasibility of solar thermal

heat integration into existing fishmeal production plants. This study focuses on fishmeal production

as a potential process for integrating industrial solar thermal heat, and aims to determine

preliminary feasibility of solar thermal heat integration into two existing South African fishmeal

plants. They differ according to scale of operation, production route, physical location, heating fuel,

1
and the type of raw material processed. The studied factories are a good representation of the

different locations and operating conditions that could be expected within the South African

fishmeal industry: Factory A produces fishmeal from lean-fish-processing by-products at a rate of

307 kg/h and requires 2,988 MJ from heavy fuel oil per 1,000 kg raw material, while Factory B

produces fishmeal from pelagic fish species at a rate of 6,276 kg/h and requires 1,796 MJ from

coal per 1,000 kg raw material. The method followed identifies areas of heating inefficiency and

opportunities for solar process heat integration, followed by preliminary economic analyses for

possible implementations to determine economic viability. The study shows that in both factories,

preheating the raw material stream to 70 °C is an attractive option that could utilise solar thermal

heating and noticeably reduce fossil fuel consumption. For Factory A, the most attractive option is

a solar thermal raw material preheating system with 384 m2 flat-plate collector area, resulting in a

solar fraction of 0.81 for this process. Factory A’s relatively constant monthly heat demand and the

high cost of heavy fuel oil being used were the greatest contributors to viability; indicated by a net

present value of R 3.3 million for this particular system. For factory B, none of the investigated

solar heating systems is found to be economically viable. This is due to the low cost of coal and

the seasonal heat demand profile, with no demand from November to January and a maximum

during winter months, when solar irradiation is at its lowest. The study concludes that fishmeal

production processes have potential for solar thermal heat integration, but suitability and viability

are greatly dependent on the specific framework conditions.

Keywords

Solar thermal; Process heat; Heat recovery; Fishmeal production; Energy efficiency

Declarations of interest: none

2
1 Introduction

Solar thermal heating is a promising renewable energy technology for the on-site provision of

process heat, and it has already found application in a range of industrial processes (Islam et al.,

2013; Kalogirou, 2003; Mekhilef et al., 2011). Globally, industrial heat demand is responsible for a

significant portion of energy consumption, and utilising renewable solar energy to supply process

heat can lead to significant reductions in non-renewable fossil fuel consumption (Farjana et al.,

2018; Kalogirou, 2003; Schnitzer et al., 2007). Solar thermal heating is particularly suited to

industrial applications where the required temperatures are in the range of 20 °C – 200 °C, and

even more so for temperatures below 100 °C; these temperature ranges are often encountered in

industries processing biological materials and foods (Schmitt, 2016; Schnitzer et al., 2007). The

integration of solar thermal heating into existing industries can play an important role in replacing a

portion of fossil fuel-derived industrial process heat (Baniassadi et al., 2018). By the end of 2018,

at least 741 solar thermal process heat plants were in operation worldwide, with an overall collector

area of 662,648 m² and a thermal power of 567 MW th (Weiss and Spörk-Dür, 2019). The relatively

low costs of fossil fuel-derived energy and high capital expenditures for installing solar thermal

heating systems are aggravating market deployment of solar process heat. Adding to that, a lack

of demonstration systems and best-practice examples has further hampered industrial uptake in

the past (Atkins et al., 2010; Mauthner et al., 2014; Schnitzer et al., 2007).

The fishmeal manufacturing industry is potentially well-suited for utilisation of solar thermal

technology for provision of process heat and thereby replacing a portion of fossil fuel-derived

process energy. The fishmeal production process is energy intensive due to high heat demand for

drying the water-rich feedstock, yet the majority of the heat demand occurs at temperatures well

within the range of solar thermal technology, with multiple unit operations that require heat at

temperatures below 150 °C (Weiss and Spörk-Dür, 2019; Windsor, 2001). Fishmeal manufacture

is also a large and geographically distributed industry with annual production of approximately five

million tonnes (IFFO), and much of the process heat is currently fossil fuel-based energy.

Particular opportunities may be present in some of the largest fishmeal producing countries which

3
are located along coastlines that receive high solar irradiance including Peru, Chile, Morocco and

South Africa. Despite the potential compatibilities between fishmeal production and solar thermal

heating technology, and the possibility to replace fossil fuels, there is a dearth of information on

this topic.

In the South African fishmeal production sector, the integration of solar thermal heating could offer

an important alternative to the use of fossil fuels for production of process heat, as the majority of

heating requirements for fishmeal production are supplied through the burning of coal. Solar

energy is the renewable resource with the greatest potential in South Africa, due to high levels of

irradiation over large parts of the country (Pegels, 2010; WWF, 2017). The annual global

horizontal irradiation can be well above 2,000 kWh/m2 in places, as shown in Figure 1. In South

African terms, the fishmeal industry is substantial with an annual fishmeal output which ranges

between approximately 40,000 and 100,000 tonnes, with output remaining fairly constant at 60,000

– 70,000 tonnes annually between 2006 and 2016 (DAFF, 2016; de Koning, 2005). The majority of

processing operations are located along the South African West Coast, which, as can be seen in

Figure 1, receives high solar irradiation throughout the year and relatively higher irradiation than

the rest of the South African coastline. Despite the potential compatibility of fishmeal

manufacturing operations with solar thermal heating technology in general, and the high-irradiance

location of the majority of South African fishmeal factories in particular, very little consideration

seems to have been given to integrating solar thermal heating into fishmeal production operations.

In light of the above, the current study aims to determine the feasibility of integrating solar thermal

technology for the provision of process heat into two operating South African fishmeal factories.

The two selected factories employ different production processes, utilise different raw materials

and heating fuels, and have significantly different annual production capacity and production rate.

The two factories, Factory A (FA) and Factory B (FB), are both situated along the western coast of

South Africa (cp. Figure 1), where the majority of the fishmeal industry is located (Hara et al.,

2008).

The specific objectives of this study are: i) to develop models describing the mass and energy flow

within the two factories using actual production data collected from the factories; ii) to identify

4
energy inefficiencies within each process, and potential solar thermal integration points; iii) to

quantify the impact of implementing solar thermal technology on the energy and fuel requirements

of the factories and iv) to investigate the economic feasibility of solar thermal technology in the two

specifically studied factories by performing a preliminary economic analysis for different solar

thermal systems. From this, a first general assessment of solar process heat for the South African

fishmeal industry is derived.

2 Methods

The study is based on actual plant data collected from two South African fishmeal factories that

differ according to scale of operation, production route, physical location, heating fuel, and the type

of raw material processed. The particular factories are chosen to represent the different operating

conditions and locations that could be expected within the South African fishmeal industry. The

use of real plant data for the investigation is viewed as beneficial, as it decreases the uncertainty in

process performance compared to a purely theoretical modelling approach, it provides the

opportunity to validate plant performance against accepted industry-specific performance,

potentially making the results of the study relevant to fishmeal operations outside of South Africa,

and because accurate knowledge of the heat load for which solar thermal systems are designed is

crucial to predict the performance of solar thermal heating systems (Lauterbach et al., 2014).

The study is approached as follows: each fishmeal plant is described and characterised using real

plant data to establish base case material and energy balance models, after which opportunities for

heat recovery and/or integration of solar thermal process heat into existing operations is

investigated by simulating the applicable heating system and changes to production parameters,

and the potential impacts on base case operations are quantified. The performance of solar

process heat systems with different solar collector field sizes is then assessed, and finally a

preliminary economic analysis is performed to estimate the economic feasibility of the identified

heat integration options.

5
2.1 Defining and characterising the base case processes

Development of a base case process is required to study energy efficiency aspects of existing

operations in order to have a reference against which to compare different process modifications,

and is the first step of this investigation. Base case processes need to reflect the current process

configuration, and should contain the relevant process information (Mateos-Espejel et al., 2011).

During the study, base case processes were developed following factory site visits where

information on operating schedules were obtained, and relevant data were collected. Data

included production volumes, heating fuel consumption, and composition of raw material and

product in terms of ash, crude lipid, crude protein and moisture contents. Process flow diagrams

(PFD’s) for each factory were constructed, and mass and energy balances set up using Microsoft

Excel 2016. Energy requirements for heating the raw material were calculated according to the

polynomial model for specific heat of food components by Choi and Okos (1986) as presented in

ASHRAE (2014). The steam production system for each process was simulated using Aspen Plus

V8.8 software.

The combined mass and energy balances and steam system simulation represented the base

case process of each factory. The base case process of FA consists of a preheating stage from

8 °C to 45 °C, followed by a single cooking and drying stage where the product exits at 117 °C.

The base case process of FB consists of a cooking stage where materials exit at 99 °C, followed

by screens, presses and centrifuges that separate the solids, water, and oil. The dissolved solids

in the separated water is concentrated in a multi-effect evaporator and then added back to the

main stream before the first and second drying stages, with exit temperatures of 90 °C and 97 °C

respectively. Steam at 176 °C is used as energy carrier in both factories, and is supplied with

boilers that consume heavy fuel oil (HFO) in FA and coal in FB. Block flow diagrams of the base

case processes are shown in Appendix Figure 1 and 2, and the results of defining and

characterising the base case processes are presented in section 3.1. These base case processes

were used to quantify the effect of altering operating conditions within each process, or when

altering the process for heat recovery and/or solar thermal heat integration.

6
2.2 Identification of heat recovery and solar thermal integration

opportunities

In industrial processes, it is important to determine suitable integration points for solar thermal

heat, as there could be substantial differences between requirements of industrial process heat

and that of more conventional domestic or commercial heating applications (Atkins et al., 2010).

This is accentuated in cases where solar thermal heating systems need to be retrofitted to existing

operations, as there may be inherent incompatibilities between the new system and existing

equipment, or a significant amount of additional equipment and control strategies would need to be

implemented (Schmitt, 2016). A systematic approach of identifying opportunities for solar heat and

heat recovery in non-standard processes was employed in this study, where a non-standard

process was defined as one where information on stream properties or equipment may be

unavailable, or where there are significant constraints on which streams and equipment may be

considered for heat exchange. Based on this definition, the fishmeal and fish oil production

process was classified as a non-standard process, and traditional energy efficiency and heat

integration methods such as pinch analysis were not suitable to determine energy integration

(Atkins et al., 2010; Kemp, 2006).

Subsequent to a preliminary on-site assessment of each factory, during which it was determined

that some roof- and/or surrounding ground-level area was available for a solar thermal installation,

and in accordance with the method as proposed by Schmitt (2016), the study progressed to

identifying potential for improving energy efficiency and solar thermal integration points. A three-

step method was employed to aid in identifying heating inefficiencies and opportunities for solar

thermal heat in non-standard production processes. Throughout this process, particular attention

was paid to identify streams and operating units that have temperatures specifically suitable for

solar thermal applications, i.e., those below 150 °C but preferably also below 100 °C, in

accordance to Schmitt (2016).

i. The first step concerned the equipment used in the process. The method identified

equipment units within the process that acted as heat sinks, determined the operating

7
 temperature of the units, and whether there are any constraints on how heat is to be

delivered to the unit, i.e., where the equipment was specifically designed to operate using

e.g. high-pressure steam. Finally, it was determined whether solar thermal technology

would be suitable to provide heat to the particular unit, keeping in mind the limitations of the

technology and the requirements of the unit.

ii. The second step identified all streams in the process that could potentially be preheated, as

a means of identifying potential energy integration points and/or integration points for solar

thermal heat into the process. Any stream that entered a unit at a temperature lower than

the operating temperature thereof was labelled as a stream which could potentially be

preheated.

iii. The third step identified streams that exit the process at relatively high temperatures, as

thermal energy could potentially be recovered from these streams. Any streams which exit

the process at temperatures which are at least 10 °C higher than any stream that requires

heating could be used for heat recovery, provided that the physical properties and physical

location on the processing plant allows for heat recovery.

The advantages of the above method are that it can be employed fairly rapidly, and that it can be

performed with only a basic understanding of the process flow and the operating temperatures of

unit operations and streams. It is not comprehensive and would be inadequate for more complex

production processes, however, for fairly small facilities and for obtaining preliminary information

on the potential for integration of solar process heat into a facility, it provides useful initial

information.

2.3 Choosing and preliminary sizing of solar process heat systems

Subsequent to collecting process data and identifying potential solar thermal integration points,

further general and site-specific information and constraints were considered for choosing which

type of solar thermal collector technology to employ. A major consideration which became

apparent was the reluctance by the operations studied to consider high-cost heating systems

which may add complexity to the factories’ operation and control, or those requiring the

establishment of substantial new infrastructure, or requiring additional specialized skills to operate,

8
factors which have previously also been identified (Fuller, 2011). Solar thermal heating for

industrial applications is a relatively new approach in South Africa, with little technical experience in

operation of these systems and only few local suppliers.

Generally, solar process heat can be integrated into a production facility at heat supply level (i.e.

into the steam network) or at process level (i.e. into selected production processes via heat

exchangers). The efficiency of solar thermal collectors decreases with increasing operating

temperature. Collectors that enable steam production have to track the sun (one-axis or two-axis

tracking) and they can only convert beam irradiance into useful heat. They are more complex to

install and have a higher operation and maintenance effort than flat-plate collectors (Horta, 2015).

It is therefore desirable to apply non-tracking collectors and operate them at the lowest possible

temperatures to maximise the efficiency (Schnitzer et al., 2007). Low temperature collectors have

already reached a high stage of development, being regarded today as commercially available

technologies, and flat-plate collectors specifically are regarded as low maintenance, inexpensive

and mechanically simple equipment (Horta, 2015; Weiss and Spörk-Dür, 2019). Adding to that,

steam producing collectors usually do not have steam storage due to the high costs, so the

generated steam can only be utilized when the processes consume steam, i.e. if the steam

demand profile matches solar steam generation well. In contrast, hot water storage tanks with

temperatures up to 95 °C are standard components, allowing for a certain mismatch of solar heat

generation and process heat demand. Due to these reasons, coupled with space constraints at

the existing facilities, the decision was taken to limit the investigation to using flat-plate collectors

for both factories, and not to consider solar steam generation for the current study. Flat-plates

were chosen due to their simplicity of design and operation, their lower costs compared to

alternative systems and the fact that glazed and unglazed flat-plate collectors are the most often

employed collectors in South Africa (Weiss and Spörk-Dür, 2019).

Solar thermal system sizing was based on the expected solar irradiation resources available at the

respective locations of the facilities studied, as determined using a typical meteorological year

(TMY). A TMY is a generated dataset that is representative of the meteorological events of a

location over several years, and is well suited to planning a solar process heat system (Kalogirou,

9
2003). TMY data were obtained from Meteonorm 7 (V7.1.11.24422), and the total radiation per

month on a specified plane was obtained from the TMY file and used to calculate the possible

performance from the solar process heat system.

The total heat produced by the solar thermal system in a specific month (Qdelivered,j), was obtained

by multiplying the solar irradiation of that month (Gtotal,j) with the total solar thermal collector gross

area (Acoll) and an average monthly solar thermal system efficiency (ηsys), see Equation 1. The

solar thermal system efficiency accounts for thermal and optical losses in the collectors and for

heat losses in the hydraulic and storage system. It is the fraction of solar irradiation which is

converted into useful heat, i.e. the share of solar radiant energy converted and transferred to the

process. For this first preliminary study a constant, overall system efficiency of 45 % was

assumed, in accordance with the results of Joubert et al. (2016) for solar thermal process heat

generation with flat-plate collectors in South Africa at similar system operation temperatures. A

constant efficiency throughout the year will underestimate the performance of the system in

summer compared to winter. The higher irradiation and ambient temperatures of summer result in

lower heat losses to the environment and greater efficiency.

, [ ℎ] = , [ ℎ/ ]× [ ]× [−] Equation 1

Two different methods of estimating the solar thermal collector area gross were used in this study:

Option A) minimized the difference between solar heat supply and solar heat demand over an

entire year, and Option B) ensured no excess heat was produced during months when fishmeal

production takes place at the studied facilities. During these estimations, it was assumed that

thermal storage was available, enabling all solar heat produced during a particular month to be

utilised within the same month. Excess energy was not carried over to any of the following months

as it was assumed that thermal storage would only be sufficient to store energy for a few of hours,

in order to avoid excessive costs.

The absolute total difference between heat supply and demand (Qtotal difference) was calculated by

taking the sum of the absolute values of the difference between solar heat delivered and solar heat

demand (Qdemand,j) for each month (j), see Equation 2. The total collector gross area for Option A

was determined using the GRG Nonlinear solving method (Microsoft Excel 2016) to find the value
10
which minimised the absolute total difference. For Option B, the solar collector area which resulted

in no excess heat being produced during months of fishmeal production was used.

[ ℎ] = ! | , [ ℎ] − # , [ ℎ]| Equation 2
%$
The solar fraction (SF) is the fraction of required heat that is provided by the solar heat system.

The SF was calculated using the annual heat demand from solar (Qdemand) and the total auxiliary

heat that was additionally required from fossil fuels (Qaux), see Equation 3.

# [ ℎ] − () [ ℎ]
&'[−] = Equation 3
# [ ℎ]

2.4 Preliminary economic study

Any feasibility study on solar thermal heating implementation must include an economic study

(Kalogirou, 2004). The feasibility of solar thermal technology for process heat depends on the

initial cost of the system, the cost of the fuel replaced (Kalogirou, 2003) and the change in fuel cost

over the expected life of the project (Joubert et al., 2016). The profitability of a solar thermal

installation is dependent mainly on the investment costs, which in turn are mostly determined by

the total solar thermal collector area (Schnitzer et al., 2007).

A preliminary economic study for each of the identified scenarios was performed, with the

parameters used in this study shown in Table 1. The system lifetime was taken as 20 years, with

annual inflation taken to be constant at 6 %, equal to the upper bound of the South African

Reserve Bank’s inflation target, which is considered to be a conservative estimate of the long-term

local inflation rate. All capital expenditures were assumed to be paid in year zero, and consisted

only of the solar process heat system costs, calculated with an average specific cost of

603 EUR/m2, which is the average cost calculated by Joubert et al. (2016) from consolidated cost

data for 47 large scale solar heating systems (total solar collector area > 10 m2) installed in South

Africa. This average price is based on a variety of system configurations and includes the cost of

components, commissioning, the planning performed by the solar thermal system supplier, and

maintenance plans. Future maintenance is only a small contribution to the total system cost

(Joubert et al., 2016). When using the equivalent of 700 W thermal power per m2 of gross collector

11
area (Weiss and Spörk-Dür, 2019), this results in investment costs of 0,86 EUR/W of solar thermal

heating power installed.

The South African solar process heat industry is still in its development stage and specific system

costs may vary significantly between different applications, and even between different tenders for

the same application (Joubert et al., 2016). As such, barring a detailed design and costing to

determine a definitive system-specific cost, this value is assumed to be representative of South

African solar thermal installation costs. The cost data of Joubert et al. (2016) is still considered to

be the most accurate, since it is the most recent study of large and industrial scale solar thermal

installations in South Africa.

For the purposes of this study, the only annual income considered was the cost saved due to

reduced fossil-fuel consumption. The HFO price per litre was acquired from local suppliers, and

that of coal from GEM Commodities World Bank Group (2017). The expected annual cost

increases for the fossil fuels were obtained from Joubert et al. (2016). Annual operating and

additional maintenance costs were not considered. Accurate estimates of these would require

detailed system designs, while they are typically not major factors in determining economic

viability. Decommissioning and end-of-life costs were ignored due to insufficient information for the

South African solar process heat systems. The Euro to Rand exchange rate was R 14.03 for FA

and R 15.20 for FB at the specific times when the costs for the different factories were calculated.

Table 1: Parameters used in the preliminary economic study.

Parameter Value
Inflation (d) 6.00 %
System lifetime (N) 20 years
HFO cost per litre R 7.41
HFO annual cost increase 10.0 %
Coal cost per metric ton R 998.81
Coal annual cost increase 8.80 %

The net present value (NPV) is defined as the cumulative discounted cash position at the end of

the lifetime of a specific project (Turton et al., 2013). The NPV is calculated by taking the sum of

the annual cash flows (Cn) discounted to time zero at a specific inflation rate (d) over the life of the

project (N) see Equation 4. The internal rate of return (IRR), another parameter used to evaluate
12
the economic viability of a project, is also calculated with Equation 4. The IRR is that discount rate

(d) at which the NPV of an investment is zero, if the IRR is greater than the internal discount rate

acceptable to a specific company, then a project is deemed profitable (Joubert et al., 2016; Turton

et al., 2013).

5
. [-]
*+, [-] = ! Equation 4
(1 + 2[−]) [4]
%6

The levelized cost of heat (LCOH) is a parameter that provides an estimate of the cost of heat

supplied by a heating system over its lifetime and is commonly used in the description of potential

solar process heat systems. The LCOH is only dependent on the cost of the system, therefore,

costs savings resulting from the reduced fuel consumption are not included (Joubert et al., 2016).

The LCOH is calculated as the ratio of the discounted system costs and the discounted solar heat

produced — only the solar heat utilised by the specific factory was considered in the calculation.

Only capital costs were included as system costs since the economic model used in this study

lumped all costs with the capital cost paid at the start. The resulting LCOH equation is shown with

Equation 5.

- .:;<=:> ?@A= [-]

7.89 [ ]=
ℎ , −
Equation 5
# (),
∑5%6 [ ℎ]
(1 + 2)

3 Results and discussion

The results are presented in this section as follows: the base case processes of both factories are

presented first, then identified opportunities for heat recovery and solar thermal integration, a

preliminary sizing of possible solar thermal systems follows, and finally the economic viability of the

proposed systems is presented.

3.1 Description and comparison of base case processes

The facilities studied each had unique features in terms of production throughput, annual operating

hours, process layout, raw material processed, and the type of fuel used. FA employs a unique
13
production method producing fishmeal mostly from by-products from white-fish processing, and it

has a low annual throughput (approximately 6,900 tonnes of raw material). FB has a much higher

throughput relative to FA (60,000 tonnes of raw material processed per annum) and produces both

fishmeal and fish oil using exclusively pelagic fish caught off the West Coast of South Africa. The

high production volume requires considerable energy for cooking and drying and is supplied

through fossil fuel combustion (mainly coal) in the current process. Reductions in fuel consumption

could result in significant cost savings for the factory since fossil fuels constitute a large portion of

the production costs of FB. The process description and calculations for FA are based on data for

production from September 2015 to September 2016, and the 2016 production period from 15

January 2016 to 16 December 2016 for FB.

The production method used by FA is similar to the ‘production without cooking method’ described

by the FAO (1986), with the further simplification that only a single dryer is employed. No oil

separation is performed in the FA process since the raw material utilised contains low levels of

lipids due to the origin of the raw material. The production mode at FA is operated in semi-batch

mode, with each production run being a continuous, 24 hour per day operation which lasted

approximately 5 days (occurring roughly on a weekly basis), depending on the amount of raw

material stored over the preceding week. Once all stored raw material was processed, production

was terminated and the factory shut down.

An illustration of the production process of FA under base case operating conditions is shown in

Appendix Figure 1. Raw material enters the production area at 8 °C (stream 1) and is screened for

metal, macerated and preheated to 45 °C before entering the dryer (stream 2). Condensate

exiting the dryer at 128 °C (stream B) is used for preheating the raw material. Dry fishmeal exits

the dryer at 117 °C and a moisture content of 5 % (stream 3), after which it passes through a

hammer mill before final packaging. The vapour stream from the dryer (stream 4) travels through a

seawater condenser and is treated in a chlorine dioxide scrubber, along with airborne dust from the

hammer mill.

FB implements the conventional wet-pressing method (FAO, 1986) of fishmeal and fish oil

production. An illustration of the production process of FB under base case operating conditions is

14
shown in Appendix Figure 2. Pelagic fish species are received directly from the fishing vessels

and transported to storage, from where the raw material is sent to the cookers at ambient

temperature (stream 1), to be heated to 99 °C. Cooked materials (stream 2) are strained and

pressed by twin-screw presses to remove liquids liberated during cooking from the solids, and

solids continue to the dryers (stream 5) while the liquid portion is centrifuged to remove suspended

solids, followed by a further centrifugation step to separate the oil from the aqueous portion. This

aqueous liquid stream (stream 8), known as stickwater, contains proteins which are concentrated

by evaporating a fraction of the water in multiple-effect evaporators. The stickwater concentrate is

sent to a tank before it is mixed with the press cake and decanter grax, and dried. Drying is

performed in two stages consisting of three dryers in parallel for each stage. The press cake,

decanter grax and 60 % of the stickwater concentrate (streams 6 and 10) are dried in the first

drying stage and exits at 90 °C. The product of the first drying stage (stream 11) and the

remainder of the stickwater concentrate (stream 13) are dried in the second stage and exit at 97 °C

and a final moisture content of 7 % (stream 14). The dry fishmeal is milled using hammer mills to

ensure a uniform particle size, then packaged in either 20 kg or one-tonne bags before being

despatched.

The total energy requirement per unit raw material processed was largely dependent on the

production process of the particular facility. In the case of FA, due to the non-typical production

process which employs no heat recovery from the vapour exiting the dryer and evaporates all

moisture using only a single-stage dryer, the calculated energy requirements of FA of 2,988 MJ per

1,000 kg of raw material were relatively high overall, and substantially higher than for FB. The

value is noticeably higher than the typical maximum value of 2,406 MJ per 1,000 kg raw material

required by Peruvian plants producing ‘fair average quality’ (FAQ) fishmeal (Fréon et al., 2017).

The energy requirements for FAQ meal are higher than that produced using the wet-pressing

method, as direct air dryers are typically used during final drying, which increases energy

requirements. In the case of FB which employs a typical wet-pressing fishmeal production process

with heat recovery, the energy requirements of 1,796 MJ per 1,000 kg of raw material fell between

1,498 MJ per 1,000 kg raw material reported for a Peruvian plant (Fréon et al., 2017), and

15
1,890 MJ per 1,000 kg raw material for a Norwegian plant (Myrvang et al., 2007), both producing

the same class of fishmeal.

The annual production parameters for the base cases of FA and FB are shown in Table 2. Due to

the different raw materials used and the differences in seasonal availability, the two factories had

very different production schedules and, by extension, heat demands. FA is based on the

processing of by-products which are available almost year round (albeit in smaller quantities), and

was in operation for a large proportion of the year (a total of 5,240 hours), with its heat demand

remaining fairly constant between months. The operations of FB are based on processing of

freshly landed pelagic species, for which there is a tightly regulated fishing season in South Africa

and hence the total production hours of FB are much lower than for FA, at a total of 1,888 hours

during 2016. Heat demand at FB has a strong seasonal dependence, resulting from the volumes

of fish caught within the stipulated fishing season.

Total fishmeal production rates and fishmeal yields at each facility were in line with expectations

and were a function of the amount and composition of raw materials processed. FA produced a

total of 1,610 tonnes of fishmeal at a yield of 23 %, which compares well to the average yield of

South African fishmeal factories (de Koning, 2005). FB had a much larger total production of

11,850 tonnes of fishmeal (plus 2,849 tonnes of fish oil), but achieved a lower fishmeal yield of

20 %. The lower overall fishmeal yield of FB is explained by raw material composition, as the raw

material fed to FB had a lower protein content (15.5 % for raw material fed to FA compared to

13.1 % for that of FB), coupled with the production method where FA only produced fishmeal as

product, while a portion of the raw material of FB also resulted in the production of fish oil.

Table 2: Summary of annual production parameters of FA and FB according to the base case
processes based on the year 2016.

Parameter Unit FA FB
Total production time Hours 5,240 1,888
Fishmeal produced Tonnes 1,610 11,850
Raw material consumed Tonnes 6,952 60,057
3
FA [m ]
Fuel consumed 525.0 3,922
FB [Tonnes]
Live steam produced Tonnes 7,652 24,907

16
The hourly production parameters for the base cases of FA and FB are shown in Table 3. Average

hourly fishmeal production rates differed substantially and amounted to 307 kg/h and 6,276 kg/h for

FA and FB respectively. Even though FA had overall higher energy requirements per amount of

raw material processed, energy efficiency was better in FA than in FB. Based on the average

hourly values shown in Table 3, FA utilised 72 % of the energy released from combusting HFO,

effectively transferring 2,837 MJ/h of the 3,964 MJ/h released to the raw material, while FB only

utilised 50 % of the energy derived from coal by effectively transferring 28,316 MJ/h of the

57,132 MJ/h released. Upon closer scrutiny, the lower energy efficiency of FB was found to be

due to a less efficient steam recycling system compared to FA, where low amounts of condensate

(28.3 mass %) are recovered and recycled within FB’s production process, leading to high energy

losses. Despite better energy efficiency and higher fishmeal yields, the inherently less-energy

efficient design of FA’s production process resulted in higher steam requirements per 1,000 kg

fishmeal produced: 4,753 kg steam per 1,000 kg fishmeal for FA, vs. 2,102 kg of steam per

1,000 kg fishmeal for FB. The major factor to which this difference can be attributed, is that FB

uses the evaporate from the fishmeal dryers to concentrate the stickwater, recovering a large

amount of heat, a philosophy which is not implemented in the single-pass production process of

FA.

Table 3: Summary of production parameter rates at FA and FB according to the base case processes.

Parameter Unit FA FB
Fishmeal produced kg/h 307 6,276
Raw material consumed kg/h 1,327 31,810
Water removed kg/h 1,019 24,025
[FA] litre/h
Fuel consumed 100 2,078
[FB] kg/h
Live steam produced kg/h 1,460 13,192
Energy transferred to fish material MJ/h 2,837 28,316
Energy from fossil fuels MJ/h 3,964 57,132

This discrepancy between the two facilities’ steam requirements and their energy efficiency, where

FA requires more steam but is more efficient by utilizing a larger proportion of the heat released

from fossil fuel combustion than FB, highlights two important considerations: firstly, that certain
17
process choices and designs are inherently more energy efficient than others, and secondly that

even within inherently efficient processes, large inefficiencies can still occur. It is generally

accepted that one of the cheapest and fastest methods of decreasing environmental impacts of an

operation is to increase efficiency of energy utilisation (Sorrel, 2015), which would in this case, lead

to decreased overall fossil fuel utilisation. Improved energy efficiency can also make significant

contributions to improved competitiveness (Sturm et al., 2015); in this particular case FB could

benefit significantly from improving steam condensate recovery, which would decrease fossil fuel

consumption and make-up water requirements. It is possible that substantial benefits can be

realised through process optimisation and integration (Mauthner et al., 2014; Sturm et al., 2015),

even before solar thermal heating is implemented.

3.2 Heat recovery and solar thermal integration

To decrease industrial fossil fuel-based energy consumption in the long term, both energy

efficiency improvement and substitution of fossil fuel-based energy needs to be addressed (Atkins

et al., 2010). The profitability of solar thermal energy systems are determined mainly by their size,

which drives the initial investment costs (Schnitzer et al., 2007). For this reason and those

mentioned in the previous section, energy efficiency studies were performed on each production

facility, after which solar thermal integration points were identified subsequent to the particular

facility’s constraints.

In the case of FA, three cases were investigated (please also refer to the block flow diagram

Appendix Figure 1) Case A1) drying without preheating, Case A2) preheating fish materials to

70 °C using only solar heat, and Case A3) increased preheating of fish materials to 70 °C with

steam condensate. The biggest heat sink in FA’s production process is the dryer, it operates using

medium pressure steam, and solar steam production, for the reasons previously discussed, was

not considered. The warm evaporate stream from the dryer was also not considered for heat

recovery since manipulating it would undermine efficient operation of the condenser and was not

allowed by FA. Although drying without preheating does not improve the energy efficiency of FA, it

was investigated since the current preheating system used within the facility employs steam

18
condensate exiting the dryer, but this conflicts with the efficient operation of the dryer since it

requires a large volume of condensate within the dryer, which decreases heat transfer efficiency

and increases the power required to rotate the dryer. The maximum temperature of the preheating

step was set as 70 °C, as the raw material generally starts cooking at approximately 75 °C (FAO,

1986), which creates complications for material handling.

Table 4 shows the different energy requirements for FA for each of the investigated cases. Case

A1 required 100 kg/h more steam compared to the base case — which incorporates pre-heating

using condensate — and 3 litre/h more HFO, showing that the existing preheating system does

contribute to energy efficiency. Case A2 corresponds to maximum steam reduction and

condensate (and thus energy) recovery from the dryer, and also resulted in the lowest HFO

consumption rate of 92 litre/h. Case A3 resulted in marginally lower HFO consumption compared

to the base case (99 litre/h), but higher consumption than Case A2, since the condensate return

temperature to the boiler was lower, requiring higher energy input to produce steam from the

returning condensate.

Table 4: Energy and fuel requirements for different heat recovery and solar integration scenarios for
FA.

Energy from Energy from Steam required HFO consumed

Scenario
steam [MJ/h] solar [MJ/h] [kg/h] [litre/h]
Base case process 3,320 0 1,460 100
Case A1: No
3,547 0 1,560 103
preheating
Case A2: Preheating
3,169 303 1,394 92
with solar heat
Case A3: Preheating
with steam 3,169 0 1,394 99
condensate

For FB, no further conventional energy recovery could be performed between any streams due to

physical plant layout and distance between locations. Providing solar heat to the cookers or dryers

directly was not possible since they operate using medium pressure steam. The evaporate from

the dryers were also not considered since sufficient heat recovery from it already occurs in the

multi-effect evaporators to concentrate the stickwater. Following the method resulted in

investigating a set of options where, in each case, a specific stream was identified in the process

19
for heating with energy obtained from a solar thermal heat source: Case B1) preheating raw

material to 70 °C before cooking, Case B2) reheating stickwater concentrate to 75 °C prior to

mixing with the solids stream, and Case B3) preheating the make-up water to the hot well tank to

75 °C.

The energy requirements for FB for each of the cases are shown in Table 5. Case B1 resulted in

the largest amount of energy obtained from solar thermal sources and the lowest coal and steam

requirements (5,547 MJ/h solar heat, 1,689 kg/h coal consumed, and 10,733 kg/h steam required),

and coal consumption was decreased by 18.7 % relative to the base case process. Both cases B2

and B3 resulted in negligible impacts on the steam produced and only minor impacts on overall

coal consumption (decreases of 1.1 % and 6.4 % in coal consumption respectively).

Table 5: Energy and fuel requirements for different solar integration scenarios for FB.

Coal
Energy from Energy from Steam required
Scenario consumed
steam [MJ/h] solar [MJ/h] [kg/h]
[kg/h]
Base case 28,316 0 13,192 2,078
Case B1: Raw
22,769 5,547 10,733 1,689
material preheating
Case B2: Stickwater
concentrate 28,010 306 13,047 2,054
reheating
Case B3: Make-up
28,316 2,197 13,192 1,945
water preheating

For both FA and FB, significant physical and technical constraints were experienced regarding

which heat recovery and solar thermal integration options were practically implementable.

Although these considerations will be specific to each industrial facility, technical challenges and

costs associated with retrofitting existing industrial operations to allow solar thermal heat

integration can be a large barrier to successful implementation of the technology (Fuller, 2011;

Sturm et al., 2015), as was experienced in the current investigation. Despite these constraints,

and assuming that the solar thermal solutions can be implemented successfully, meaningful

reductions in fuel consumption and therefore greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can be realised:

8 % for FA and 19 % for FB. From the perspective of the production facilities, the final choice

20
whether to implement solar thermal heating will not lie with fuel savings and GHG emission

mitigation alone, but will be also strongly influenced by the economics of the solution (Fuller, 2011;

Lauterbach et al., 2014; Sturm et al., 2015), as will be discussed below.

3.3 Sizing of solar process heat systems

Solar heating systems were sized for different options for each production facility. For FA this was

Case A2, which was the only option which incorporated solar thermal heating, while for FB all

options were investigated.

For FA, a solar thermal system which minimised the difference between heat demand for raw

material preheating and solar heat supply (Option A) resulted in a total collector area of 384 m2

and had a SF of 0.81, while a system resulting in no excess heat being produced (Option B) had a

total collector area of 337 m2 and a SF of 0.73. These values were based on the available roof

area, with the highest incident radiation at FA being one facing 46 degrees East of North with a

slope of 30 degrees, the annual total irradiation on this plane was 2,130 kWh/m2. The sizing of

both of these options are within realistic ranges for South Africa — meaning that there are already

existing and installed systems that have similar or larger total collector areas (Joubert et al., 2016).

The monthly heat demand and output of the proposed solar thermal systems for preheating the

raw material stream in FA are shown in Figure 2. The heat demand was calculated from the

production schedule and the solar output calculated using solar irradiance and the two methods for

estimating collector area. The heat delivered by Option A was slightly greater than demand during

the beginning and end of the year due to solar irradiation reaching a minimum in June and the heat

demand remaining fairly constant throughout the year. The other proposed solar heating system,

Option B, delivered less heat than the solar heat demand during all months, except January when

it was equal to the solar heat demand.

From the results it is apparent that the difference in total collector areas for Options A and B do not

differ to a large extent, and can be explained by the fairly evenly distributed nature of the monthly

heat demand in FA. This relatively even heat load makes it possible to size the solar thermal

heating system in such a way as to contribute a large proportion of the required heat for the

21
specified duties during months of high solar irradiation, while having a predictable shortfall during

low irradiation months (typically May to September). Also, for Option A, there is a small excess

amount of heat produced, which could be employed elsewhere within the process during such

times. Even heating load distribution is advantageous for implementing of solar thermal heating

systems, as it is easier to analyse the required system and to size it such that relatively high SF-

values can be achieved.

The solar collector areas calculated for FB according to the method stated in section 2.3 are shown

in Table 6. Solar thermal system performance was based on the solar irradiation on a plane facing

due North with a slope of 35 degrees, at FB’s location, which had an annual irradiation of

2,258 kWh/m2. The SF’s for Options A and B for the different applications at FB were lower than

that of FA, owing to the heat demand reaching a maximum during April to June when solar

irradiation is low, as can be seen in Figure 3.

Table 6: Total solar thermal collector areas and solar fractions of the proposed solar heat systems
for the different applications in FB. Option A minimises the difference between solar heat demand
and supply, and Option B produces no excess heat in any of the months of production.

Proposed system: Option A Option B

Solar fraction: 0.38 0.12
2 2
Application Area [m ] Area [m ]
Case B1: Raw material preheating 1,751 503
Case B2: Stickwater concentrate reheating 96 28
Case B3: Make-up water preheating 694 199

The solar heat demand for preheating the raw material stream at FB, as well as the heat supplied

by the proposed solar heat systems, and the available solar irradiation are shown in Figure 3.

Preheating of the raw material stream in FB with solar heat (Case B1) was used to show the solar

heat demand and supply since it resulted in the greatest reduction in coal consumption (refer to

Table 5). The misaligned nature of available seasonal solar irradiation versus the peak heat

demand at FB is clearly visible in Figure 3, and this disparity contributes significantly to the

constraints in implementing solar thermal technology at FB. In the case of Option A, the solar

thermal collector field will be oversized from October through February, correctly sized for March

22
and undersized for the remainder of the year. In the case of Option B, the solar thermal system

will be undersized during all months of production except during October, and oversized only

during months when no production takes place.

Seasonality of heat demand is known to be an important factor when considering solar thermal

system implementation, and even if seasonal heat demand and irradiation are aligned, some

additional challenges may remain (Müller et al., 2014; Sturm et al., 2015). In this particular case,

the difficulty in determining a method of sizing a system for a seasonal industry has been

highlighted, where different optimisation criteria (Options A and B) lead to vastly different total

installed collector fields and solar fractions. For example, optimising a combined solar system for

preheating both the raw material and make-up water streams in FB according to Option A resulted

in an area of 2,314 m2 and a SF of 0.38, with an area of 665 m2 and a SF of 0.12 for Option B.

Both of these options yield solar thermal systems larger than what industry normally would

consider installing (Fuller, 2011), and the large collector areas is likely to require significant on-

plant optimization, and design to optimize the hydraulic transport and thermal storage associated

with the overall solar thermal heating system.

3.4 Preliminary economic analysis

Results of the preliminary economic analysis for FA are shown in Table 7, where 3 options were

investigated: Solar heating Option A and Option B of Case A2, and Case A3 where heat recovery

from steam condensate was increased, as described in previous sections. Based on the particular

case study data for FA, all the heat integration options proposed for FA were economically viable

with positive NPV’s. Options A and B exhibited comparable performance for all parameters, and

based on economic performance it would be difficult to distinguish between these two options,

especially taking into account the potential long-term uncertainty in a project costed over a period

of 20 years. The major distinguishing feature would be the amount of annual HFO savings realised

by the different solar thermal systems, where Option A saved significantly higher amounts

(32,061 litres versus 27,790 litres for Option B, or an increase of 15 % in HFO savings). These

higher HFO savings by Option A can become particularly important in an uncertain fossil-fuel

23
market, where fossil fuel price volatility could represent a significant business risk and especially in

cases where fossil fuels are used directly for heat generation (Philibert, 2006). The reduced HFO

consumption has an important and direct reduction in carbon emissions; within the context of the

recently instated carbon tax in South Africa, this is an additional consideration which would favour

solar thermal system installation. When compared to the option of recovering heat from

condensate, installing solar thermal systems was clearly superior to not installing them, both from

an economic return standpoint (IRR values of 13.2 % and 13.0 % for Options A and B respectively,

versus only 7.8 %) and from an HFO savings viewpoint (32,061 litres and 27,790 litres HFO

savings for Options A and B respectively, versus only 6,694 litres for heat recovery from

condensate). The capital cost of Case A3 included two pumps, insulated piping, modifications to

the current steam sleeves and the necessary control equipment. A first estimate of R 1.1 million is

based on the cost of the pumps, predicted by Aspen Economic Analyser (Aspen Plus V8.8).

One of the potential negative aspects arising from the economic analysis was the relatively long

payback periods, which ranged from 11.8 years (Option A) to 17.4 years (heat recovery from

condensate) — since Industry prefer shorter payback periods of typically less than 5 years. The

current finding is in line with typical industrial solar thermal heating systems as these are known to

have relatively long payback periods due to high initial capital costs (Joubert et al., 2016; Philibert,

2006).

Table 7: Results of the preliminary economic study on proposed heat recovery and solar heat
integration systems for FA. Option A minimises the difference between solar heat demand and
supply, and Option B produces no excess heat in any of the months of production.

Scenario Levelized Volume

Net present Internal Payback
Capital cost cost of HFO
(collector value rate of period
[R millions] heat saved
area) [R millions] return [years]
[R/kWh] [Litres]
Case A2:
Option A 3.2 3.3 13.2 % 11.8 0.79 32,061
(384 m2)
Case A2:
Option B 2.8 2.8 13.0 % 11.9 0.77 27,790
(337 m2)
Case A3:
Condensate
1.1 0.2 7.8 % 17.4 0.22 6,694
heat
recovery

24
The results of the preliminary economic analysis for solar heat integration in FB are shown in Table

8, and show that the NPV’s for all the scenarios analysed were negative regardless of the solar

collector area, and were viewed as not being economically viable. The main contributor for poor

economic viability of solar thermal heating systems for FB is the fact that the main current energy

source for heating is coal, with the consequence that the initial capital expenditure to install a solar

thermal system can never be recovered through offsetting of coal costs, due to the low cost of the

coal that the solar heat will replace. Relatively low fossil fuel prices are known to be one of the

systemic constraints preventing wider uptake of solar thermal heating (Frein et al., 2014; Fuller,

2011; Joubert et al., 2016) — and has been clearly demonstrated also in the current case. To

determine at which combination of conditions solar thermal heating systems for FB would become

economically viable, further economic analyses were performed for the Option B systems (since

these were nearest to breaking even) and evaluated against historical data to estimate the viability

that such conditions could occur.

Table 8: Net present values and amounts of coal saved for the proposed solar heat systems of the
different applications in FB. Option A minimises the difference between solar heat demand and
supply, and Option B produces no excess heat in any of the months of production.

Option A Option B

Application Coal saved Coal saved

NPV NPV
per year per year
[R millions] [R millions]
[tonnes] [tonnes]
Case B1: Raw material
-9.2 280 -2.4 92
preheating
Case B2: Stickwater
-0.4 18 -0.1 7
concentrate reheating
Case B3: Make-up water
-4.0 96 -1.0 32
preheating

An additional analysis was performed to determine the required efficiencies (instead of the

assumed 45 %), and by implication the size of the solar thermal system, that will result in the

NPV’s of the different scenarios in Table 8 to break even if everything else remained constant.

The Option B systems had the lowest required efficiencies: 93 %, 68 % and 105 % for cases B1,

B2 and B3 respectively, under the assumed economic conditions (see Table 1). The required

efficiency for case B3 of > 100 % is obviously impossible and the 93 % for case B1 is also

physically not achievable under actual operating conditions. Even though the 68 % required

25
monthly system efficiency for case B2 to break even is theoretically possible with very low-

temperature pre-heating systems, it is also regarded to not be achievable for current operating

conditions. Here, detailed system design and dynamic simulations of the solar heating system

would be required to assess whether this is in fact the case or not.

When evaluating the impact of coal prices on system viability, it was found that the Option B solar

heat systems for preheating raw material and boiler make-up water in FB would become viable if

the cost of coal were to rise above R 2,053 and R 2,320 per metric ton, respectively. Although

these prices for coal have not been attained during the last 20 years, there is a possibility that coal

prices could rise to these levels within the next decade if it is assumed that the estimated annual

price increase of 8.8 % is maintained over this period (Joubert et al., 2016).

When evaluating the impact of total installed cost on solar thermal system viability, it was found

that a maximum installed system cost of 293 EUR/m2 was required for the raw material preheating

system, and 260 EUR/m2 for the make-up water preheating, before these systems will have

positive NPV’s and become economically viable. Such specific costs have been reported for other

systems installed in South Africa (Joubert et al., 2016). The corrosive operational environment at

the site of FB will require high-cost materials of construction (e.g. stainless steel) for piping and

other equipment, which will drive up cost of installation and hinder achieving these specific costs.

The proposed systems are relatively large, and economy of scale (specific cost decreasing as the

system size increases) will aid in realising these costs. Also, as the South African solar thermal

industry matures and more solar process heat systems are installed, the prices are expected to

decrease, as can be seen in other countries (Weiss and Spörk-Dür, 2019). While flagship projects

may be eligible for co-funding from a variety of sources, there is no coherent local South African

incentive scheme to assist in reducing the investment cost of solar process heat systems. Solar

thermal installations do however qualify for accelerated depreciation of the capital cost for income

tax purposes (WWF, 2017). The effects of this can only be assessed with an overall economic

analysis of the company and will be case specific.

26
Two major factors that affect the viability of a solar thermal heat installation are the cost of the fuel

being replaced, and the amount of unused heat due to increasing the size of the solar thermal

collector field. This is illustrated in Figure 4, where the NPV’s for systems sized to deliver certain

solar fractions at a specified constant efficiency are shown, when either HFO or coal are being

replaced. Also plotted on Figure 4 is the proportion of total heat produced with solar thermal

heating which cannot be utilised by FB over a year of operation, owing to overproduction of heat

during high-irradiation months that coincide with periods when FB is not operational. The

calculations are based on case B1: raw material preheating at FB (seeing that this is the largest

heat consumer identified which is suitable for solar thermal integration in the process). The

analysis for the system replacing heat from HFO is based on totally replacing coal with HFO for

FB’s operations, and then integrating a solar thermal system into the plant for raw material

preheating only. Total replacement of coal with HFO at the particular facility is unlikely in the

immediate future, but this scenario is realistic given national South African coal supply constraints

surrounding the national coal-based power utility, and FB also has an already-installed HFO-fired

boiler capable of supplying the facility’s heating needs.

In cases where HFO (an expensive fuel) is replaced, the NPV generally increases initially with

increasing solar fraction, since the cost savings of replacing a greater amount of the fuel are

greater than the increased costs of a larger solar thermal system. Eventually a point is reached

where the system is so large, that the cost savings of reduced fuel consumption is no longer

sufficient to offset the capital cost of the solar thermal system, and the NPV starts to decrease and

may become negative. The location of this point and the exact shape of the NPV curve will be

case specific as it will be influenced by the heat demand, solar irradiation, and efficiency of the

system, among others. Compared to the scenario where coal (a cheap fuel) is used as heating

fuel, the difference is immediately apparent, as NPV’s values become increasingly negative for the

systems that provide greater solar fractions, since the cost savings of reduced fuel consumption do

not offset the additional capital cost of the larger solar thermal system. Lines of constant

(assumed) efficiency are also shown on Figure 4 to illustrate the effect of efficiency on NPV: more

efficient systems will be smaller and have reduced capital costs while producing the same amount

27
of heat. The assumed constant efficiencies employed for this analysis are only suitable for

preliminary studies, and dynamic modelling is required to obtain more accurate efficiency values.

Systems designed for low solar fractions tend to have greater efficiencies since they tend to

operate at lower temperatures. Also apparent is the increasing amount of heat wasted as the SF

(and thus overall solar thermal system size) increases, owing to increased levels of heat which

cannot be used during months that no production takes place.

4 Conclusions

The current work performed a preliminary investigation regarding the feasibility of integrating solar

thermal heating systems into two existing South African fishmeal factories that differed with regard

to location, raw material processed, seasonal operation and the process employed for production.

Findings clearly indicated that no general conclusion about suitability of solar thermal heat for

fishmeal production can be made, but that each production facility needs to be evaluated

separately. In this particular study, solar thermal heat integration proved to be economically viable

for different options for Factory A, under current economic and market conditions. For Factory B,

no solar thermal heating systems were economically viable under current market conditions, and

one of the main constraints to this was the use of relatively low-cost coal as heating fuel. Under

conditions of significantly higher coal prices, significantly reduced system installation costs or in a

scenario where the facility starts using heavy fuel oil as heating fuel instead of coal, solar thermal

heating may become viable. The two main factors identified which makes Factory A more suitable

for solar thermal integration than Factory B, are the more even distribution of the annual heating

requirement, and the fact that Factory A employs heavy fuel oil as main heating fuel which is

higher-priced than the coal used as heating fuel by Factory B. The work has shown that solar

thermal heating can be feasible for integration into certain fishmeal operations, depending on site-

specific conditions and the particular facility’s production methods and schedule. It has also

highlighted some of the significant constraints to implementation of solar thermal heating into

already existing operations, which include the relatively low cost of currently-used fossil fuels,

physical plant and equipment constraints, and case-specific seasonal production patterns.

28
5 Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Wilhelm Frank Trust for bursary funding for Mr. Dewald

Oosthuizen during his studies.

6 Funding sources

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or

not-for-profit sectors.

7. References

ASHRAE, 2014. Thermal Properties of Foods, 2014 ASHRAE Handbook - Refrigeration (SI
Edition). American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.,
www.ashrae.org.

Atkins, M.J., Walmsley, M.R.W., Morrison, A.S., 2010. Integration of solar thermal for improved
energy efficiency in low-temperature-pinch industrial processes. Energy 35, 1867 -1873.

Baniassadi, A., Momen, M., Amidpour, M., Pourali, O., 2018. Modeling and design of solar heat
integration in process industries with heat storage. Journal of Cleaner Production 170, 522 - 534.

Choi, Y., Okos, M.R., 1986. Effects of temperature and composition on the thermal properties of
foods., in: Le Maguer, M., Jelen, P. (Eds.), Food Engineering and Process Applications: Transport
phenomena. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London, pp. 93-101.

DAFF, 2016. Status of the South African Marine Fisheries Resources 2016. The South African
Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.

de Koning, A.J., 2005. Properties of South African fish meal: A review. South African Journal of
Science, 21 - 25.

FAO, 1986. The production of fish meal and oil, FAO Fisheries technical paper - 142. Fisheries and
aquaculture department, FAO corporate document repository, p. 63.

Farjana, S.H., Huda, N., Mahmud, M.A.P., Saidur, R., 2018. Solar process heat in industrial
systems – A global review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82, 2270 - 2286.

Frein, A., Calderoni, M., Motta, M., 2014. Solar thermal plant integration into an industrial process.
Energy Procedia 48, 1152 - 1163.

Fréon, P., Durand, H., Avadí, A., Huaranca, S., Orozco Moreyra, R., 2017. Life cycle assessment
of three Peruvian fishmeal plants: Toward a cleaner production. Journal of Cleaner Production 145,
50-63.

Fuller, R.J., 2011. Solar industrial process heating in Australia - Past and current status.
Renewable Energy 36, 216 - 221.
29
Hara, M., de Wit, M., Crookes, D., Jayiya, T., 2008. Working Paper 6: Socio-economic contribution
of South African fisheries and their current legal, policy and management frameworks. Institute for
Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), http://www.plaas.org.za.

Horta, P., 2015. Process heat collectors: State of the art and available medium temperature
collectors. Technical Report A.1.3, IEA SHC Task 49: Solar process heat for production and
advanced applications. International Energy Agency.

IFFO, Production: Processing. International Fishmeal and Fish Oil Organisation, London, United
Kingdom.

Islam, M.R., Sumathy, K., Khan, S.U., 2013. Solar water heating systems and their market trends.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 17, 1 - 25.

Joubert, E.C., Hess, S., Van Niekerk, J.L., 2016. Large-scale solar water heating in South Africa:
Status, barriers and recommendations. Renewable Energy 97, 809-822.

Kalogirou, S., 2003. The potential of solar industrial process heat applications. Applied Energy 76,
337-361.

Kalogirou, S.A., 2004. Solar thermal collectors and applications. Progress in Energy and
Combustion Science 30, 231-295.

Kemp, I.C., 2006. Pinch Analysis and Process Integration: A user guide on process integration for
the efficient use of energy, Second Edition ed. Elsevier.

Lauterbach, C., Schmitt, B., Vajen, K., 2014. System analysis of a low-temperature solar process
heat system. Solar Energy 101, 117 - 130.

Mateos-Espejel, E., Savulescu, L., Paris, J., 2011. Base case process development for energy
efficiency improvement, application to a Kraft pulping mill. Part I: Definition and characterization.
Chemical Engineering Research and Design 89, 742 - 752.

Mauthner, F., Hubmann, M., Brunner, C., Fink, C., 2014. Manufacture of malt and beer with low
temperature solar process heat. Energy Procedia 48, 1188 - 1193.

Mekhilef, S., Saidur, R., Safari, A., 2011. A review on solar energy use in industries. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15, 1777 - 1790.

Müller, H., Brandmayr, S., Zörner, W., 2014. Development of an evaluation methodology for the
potential of solar-thermal energy use in the food industry. Energy Procedia 48, 1194 - 1201.

Myrvang, M., Strømman, A.H., Jonassen, O., 2007. Utilization of excess refinery heat in
dehydration processes. Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

Pegels, A., 2010. Renewable energy in South Africa: Potentials, barriers and options for support.
Energy Policy 38, 4945-4954.

Philibert, C., 2006. Barriers to technology diffusion: the case of solar thermal technologies.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and International Energy Agency.

Schmitt, B., 2016. Classification of industrial heat consumers for integration of solar heat Energy
Procedia 91, 650 - 660.

Schnitzer, H., Brunner, C., Gwehenberger, G., 2007. Minimizing greenhouse gas emissions
through the application of solar thermal energy in industrial processes. Journal of Cleaner
Production 15, 1271-1286.

30
Sorrel, S., 2015. Reducing energy demand: A review of issues, challenges and approaches.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 47, 74 - 82.

Sturm, B., Meyers, S., Zhang, Y., Law, R., Siqueiros Valencia, E.J., Bao, H., Wang, Y., Chen, H.,
2015. Process intensification and integration of solar heat generation in the Chinese condiment
sector – A case study of a medium sized Beijing based factory. Energy Conversion and
Management 106, 1295 - 1308.

Turton, R.A., Bailie, R.C., Whiting, W.B., Shaeiwitz, J.A., Bhattacharyya, D., 2013. Analysis,
synthesis and design of chemical processes, Fourth ed. Pearson Education.

Weiss, W., Spörk-Dür, M., 2019. Solar Heat Worldwide: Global market developments and trends
2018, Solar Heating and Cooling Programme. International Energy Agency, Gleisdorf.

Windsor, M.L., 2001. Fish meal, Torry advisory note no. 49. Torry research station, FAO corporate
document repository.

WWF, 2017. Industrial scale solar heat in South Africa: Opportunities in agri-processing and
textiles. WWF-SA, South Africa.

31
8 Figure captions

Figure 1: Map of global horizontal irradiation on South Africa, including positions of Factory A (FA)

and Factory B (FB). Map obtained from the Global Solar Atlas 2.0, a free, web-based application

is developed and operated by the company Solargis on behalf of the World Bank Group, utilizing

Solargis data, with funding provided by the Energy Sector Management Assistance Program

(ESMAP). For additional information: https://globalsolaratlas.info. The original image has been

cropped and elements added.

Figure 2: Solar heat demand for preheating the raw material stream in FA, solar heat supplied by

various solar heat systems, and the solar irradiation profile at FA’s location for a plane facing

46 degrees East of North at a slope of 30 degrees. The total collector areas were: 384 m2 for

Option A and 337 m2 for Option B.

Figure 3: Solar heat demand for preheating the raw material stream in FB, solar heat supplied by

various solar heat systems, and the solar irradiation profile at FB’s location for a plane facing North

with a slope of 35 degrees. The total collector areas were: 1,751 m2 for Option A and 503 m2 for

Option B.

Figure 4: Net present value of different solar thermal system sizes for the raw material preheating

case B1 at Factory B plotted over the resulting solar fraction. Results are shown both for the

replacement of coal or heavy fuel oil as main fuel sources. The fraction of the total solar heat

produced that is not used is indicated within the diagram. Simplified calculation for assumed

constant solar thermal system efficiencies of 25 %, 45 % and 65 %, with constant specific

investment costs of 603 EUR/m2 (no economy of scale) and neglecting the operation and

maintenance costs of the systems.

32
Appendix Figure 1: The base case process of FA, showing stream temperatures and mass flow

rates.

Appendix Figure 2: The base case process of FB, showing stream temperatures and mass flow

rates. Stream A is the make-up water stream, stream B is recovered condensate at 50 kPa

(gauge) and stream C is live steam at 800 kPa (gauge).

9 Footnotes

Abbreviations: Factory A (FA), Factory B (FB), Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO), Internal Rate of Return

(IRR), Levelized Cost of Heat (LCOH), Net Present Value (NPV), Solar Fraction (SF), Typical

Meteorological Year (TMY).

33
Appendix A: Block flow diagrams of the base case processes for

the different fishmeal operations

34
 60,000 300

Solar irradiation [kWh/m2]

250
Heat [kWh]

40,000 200
150
20,000 100
50
0 0

Month

Heat demand Option A Option B Solar irradiation

 8,00,000 250

Solar irradiation (kWh/m2)

7,00,000
200
6,00,000
Heat [kWh]

5,00,000 150
4,00,000
3,00,000 100
2,00,000
50
1,00,000
0 0

Month

Heat demand Option A Option B Solar irradiation

• Two different fishmeal factories simulated based on actual production data
• Preheating to 70 °C shown to be an attractive option for solar thermal heating
• A 384 m2 flat-plate collector system with 0.81 solar fraction economically viable
• Substantial reductions in fuel consumption predicted when using solar thermal heat
• Economic viability of solar thermal systems depends on the cost of fuels replaced
Dewald Oosthuizen: Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - Original Draft,
Writing - Review & Editing, Visualization

Neill Jurgens Goosen: Conceptualization, Validation, Resources, Writing - Review & Editing,
Supervision, Project administration

Stefan Hess: Conceptualization, Validation, Writing - Review & Editing, Supervision

Declaration of interests

☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered
as potential competing interests: