Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

SASEC 2012 1

EFFICIENCY AND COSTS OF DIFFERENT SOLAR POWER PLANT


CONFIGURATION FOR SITES IN GAUTENG AND
THE NORTHERN CAPE; SA
Thomas Telsnig
1
, Ludger Eltrop
1
, Hartmut Winkler
2

1
University of Stuttgart, Institute of Energy Economics and the Rational Use of Energy (IER); tt@ier.uni-stuttgart.de;

2
University of Johannesburg, Department of Physics; hwinkler@uj.ac.za;

Abstract
CSP plants can play a major role in the future South African electricity mix. Today the IPP procurement programme
aims to facilitate independent power producers access to the South African energy market. Beside this prize
competition programme, the future role of CSP plants in South Africa has to be defined. The paper presents a
methodology to calculate the expected yield of different parabolic trough plant configurations at sites in Gauteng
and the Northern Cape. It also presents costs and an economic assessment and can therefore be used to demonstrate
the feasibility of solar thermal power projects at various sites in South Africa. The analysis presented in this paper
shows that the configuration as well as the resulting cost of electricity are heavily dependent on the location of the
power plant and the demand structure that should be satisfied. Results show that levelised electricity costs for a CSP
plant without storage are between 87.9 and 137.7 ZARcent
2010
/kWh
el
assuming a flexible electricity demand
structure. The CSP configuration with a limited storage option shows electricity costs between 123.7 and
173.5 ZARcent
2010
/kWh
el
whereas the configuration with an extended storage lies between 175.0 and
224.9 ZARcent
2010
/kWh
el
.
Keywords: Solar thermal power plants, performance model, cost analysis, location
1. Introduction
Due to the high solar irradiance in South Africa concentrating solar thermal power plants can play a prominent role
in the future South African energy mix. First commercial scale solar thermal power plants have been built in other
parts of the world e.g. Spain and USA. Despite the excellent conditions, the deployment of this technology is
lagging behind in South Africa. One of the reasons is the low cost of electricity mainly generated from coal. Since
2009 the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA) calculated the Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariffs
(REFIT) on basis of levelised cost of electricity to support renewable energy technologies in South Africa. In March
2011, a review of the tariff scheme was introduced resulting in the following tariffs for CSP plants:
1.836 ZAR
2011
/kWh for parabolic trough with 6 hours storage, 1.938 ZAR
2011
/kWh for parabolic trough without
storage and 1.399 ZAR
2011
/kWh for solar tower with 6 hours storage [1]. Currently, ESKOM (the state owned
energy utility) plans to build a 100 MW solar tower project near Upington in the Northern Cape, which should be
commissioned in 2016 [2]. Additionally, the Department of Energy (DoE) initiated the Renewable Energy IPP
Procurement Programme to facilitate independent power producers the access to the South African energy market.
In the first round, 28 preferred renewable energy projects were selected by the help of a bidding process which
represent an overall capacity of 1415.52 MW [3]. Moreover, the prices of the generated electricity have been capped
for each renewable energy project. In case of CSP, a relatively high value of 285 ZARcent/kWh was set [4]. Two
concentrated solar power projects were chosen to be build, firstly the Khi Solar One 50 MW solar tower system with
storage at Upington, Northern Cape and secondly the KaXu Solar One 100 MW parabolic trough plant at Paulputs,


SASEC 2012 2
Northern Cape. The start of construction for both systems will be in the second half of 2012 and both are developed
by Abener Energa, S.A. [5].
2. Capacity and cost development of parabolic trough power plants
Large scale CSP plants are commercially known since 1980s when the first unit of the Solar electric generating
station (SEGS) in the USA /California went into operation using parabolic trough technology with a supplementary
natural gas fired boiler [6]. Since then no additional CSP capacity was deployed until 2006 when the construction of
large scale power plants in the USA and Spain started (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Worldwide new build CSP capacity until 2012
Depending on the targeted supply duty of a CSP plant, its configuration can vary significantly. Today CSP plants in
the USA generally supply the increased peak demand during hot summer days and therefore storage options are not
considered, whereas the majority of the power plants build in Spain show high capacity factors provided by molten
salt storage systems [7] [8]. Although solar tower projects will play a prominent role in the future South African
CSP market, this study focuses on the costs and technical performance of a parabolic trough power plant at the two
South African locations.
The investment costs of a solar thermal power plant are dependent on the chosen configuration. A high capacity
factor, thus a high availability, can only be achieved by the use of an adequate storage system and a collector field
big enough to provide sufficient thermal heat to feed the storage. To find the minimal costs for a given collector
field size (see Chapter 4), the first step is to determine the specific investment costs for each power plant component.
This study is following the approach of Trieb et al. 2009 by splitting up the power plant in the three main
components: solar field, storage system and power block [9]. The costs of solar field include solar collecting
elements, mirrors, heat transfer fluid, receiver tubes and solar field piping. Moreover, specific investment costs for
the storage option covers tanks, heat exchangers and pumps, whereas the cost of the power block consists of the
steam turbine, steam generator and balance of plant. The cost assessment is based on cost data from different case
studies of realised power plants and publications of projections on future cost data [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. To
obtain a possible future trend of the specific investment costs of each component a regression analysis was made and
a bandwidth of specific investment costs for each component was defined. The assumed bandwidths of specific
investment costs are 20% for the solar field, 30% for the storage option and 10% for the power block.
Table 1 shows the specific cost data for each power plant component and its reference unit. Based on this cost data
the later described performance model defines the optimal configuration for a given collector field area. Labour
costs for the 28 employees vary between 445674 ZAR
2010
/a for the plant manager to 124272 ZAR
2010
/a for an


SASEC 2012 3
unskilled employee [15] [16]. Co-firing of fossil fuel becomes necessary when the demand cannot be satisfied by the
collector or the storage option. For all configurations, a diesel-fired heat transfer fluid (HTF) boiler is considered
with a diesel price of 174.7 ZARcent
2010
/GJ [17]. The daily co-firing ratio is capped with 12% of the solar electricity
production which is equal to the co-firing ratio in Spanish CSP plants. Moreover the connection to the grid is taken
into account by calculating the grid connection costs with 18.7 MZAR
2010
/km of transmission line [18]. The
distances to the grid are assumed to be 10 km from the Pretoria plant site and 20 km from the Upington plant site.
The lifetime of the CSP plant is assumed to be 20 years. To calculate the levelised electricity costs an interest rate of
8% and insurance costs of 0.5%/a of the investment costs are considered.

Table 1: Specific investment costs (upper range) of parabolic trough power plant components 2010
3. System description and performance model (model description)
In this chapter the basic assumptions and the methodology to calculate the optimal configuration of a parabolic
trough power plant under different demand structures is introduced. To show the interactions between solar
irradiation, demand structure, power plant components and resulting costs two different power plant sites,
Pretoria/GP and Upington/NC, are investigated.
3.1 Site specific assumptions and solar measurements
Only the direct component, the direct normal irradiance (DNI), of the solar irradiance can be used for concentrating
solar technologies. It can be obtained by measurements of the global and diffuse radiation. Data sets of the two sites,
Pretoria and Upington, were used with measurements of hourly global and diffuse radiation using thermopile
pyranometers. The solar irradiation measurements were originally collected by the South African Weather Bureau
(now referred to as South African Weather Services), and have been analysed and reported on by Eberhard (1990),
Power and Willmott (2001), Tsubo and Walker (2003). The data set for Pretoria covers the years 1957 to 1997 for
Upington the period of measurements is from 1964 to 1992 [19] [20] [21]. To consider the system behaviour of the
different power plant components and to know which part of the plant is operating, an hourly time resolution of the
irradiation data is necessary. Moreover, the latitude of the power plant site influences the incidence angle of
radiation and thus affects the geometric loss factors. The geometric and thermal losses were calculated using the
methodology described in Trieb et al. 2004 to get the resulting radiation that can be used at the collector field
aperture [22].
3.2 CSP Performance Model and the demand structure
The generated electricity of a solar thermal power plant is influenced by several factors. Firstly, it has to be defined
to which extent the power plant should satisfy the electricity demand. This could be the supply of peak demand
during daytime or the implementation of base-load power into the grid. There are several methods to determine the
availability of solar thermal power plants by using insolation data with differing data depth. Trieb et al. 2009
outlined an equation to calculate the full load hours as a function of the average yearly insolation and the Solar
Multiple of the plant, which was derived from hourly time series of different power plants with different insolation
levels [23]. The use of energy storage or co-firing during periods of lower insolation requires a higher resolution of
insolation data, otherwise a proper prediction of the generated energy would not be possible. Moreover, the size of
each power plant component such as the storage can only be obtained by using long time series of hourly data of the
DNI at a specific location. To calculate the expected energy yield from hourly insolation data, several performance
models have been developed. Generally, this performance models can be divided into two groups: firstly system
Component Unit Reference unit 2010
Solar Field ZAR2010/m! m! aperture area 2785
Power Block ZAR2010/kW kW capacity 10543
Storage ZAR2010/kWhth kWhth storage capacity 552


SASEC 2012 4
performance models based on existing empirical values and secondly performance models which use a bottom-up
approach calculating the energy balances on basis of the physical and geometric properties of the investigated
system [24]. The performance model in this study is assessing the performance with the second approach. Stine et al.
2001 describes a solar energy system model (SIMPLESYS) with a control logic that determines the appropriate
mode of operation for every time step. It distinguishes between seven different modes that can occur to satisfy the
demand that takes into account the operation from the collector field, the storage and from an auxiliary heater [25].

Figure 2: Control Logic of CSP Performance Model
Wagner et al. 2011 developed the so-called Physical Trough model which is used in the NREL Solar Advisor Model.
He provides a more complex control logic which chooses between four operating modes. This modes indicate if the


SASEC 2012 5
operation of the turbine can be ensured and determine the defocusing parameter of the solar field. Moreover, the
model considers part load behaviour when energy is below the design power point [24].
The presented control logic in this study is based on Stines model and enlarged his basic control logic with
additional decision nodes regulating the amount of co-firing for the plant. Another additional feature of the
presented control logic is given by introducing termination conditions in case that a storage option is not available
and in the consideration of additional transition modes. The transition modes ensure that within a time step more
than one mode is meeting the actual demand. This can be the case for instance during night-time if the storage runs
out of thermal energy and additional energy is supplied by co-firing fossil fuel in the heat transfer fluid heater.
Figure 2 illustrates the control logic used in this study and the main parameters which define the appropriate mode
of operation. The heat flows can be expressed by the following equation:
!
!"##
! !
!"#
! !
!"#$
! !
!"#$%!
! !
!"#$
(Equation 1)
where !
!"##
is the thermal energy of the collector field, !
!"#
is the heat from the auxiliary boiler, !
!"#$
is the heat
load at the steam generator that should be satisfied by the system, !
!"#$%!
is the thermal energy that has to be
dumped because it exceeds the actual load and the storage capacity, !
!"#$
is the heat which is fed into or from the
storage.
For the entire power plant system the heat flow equation (Equation 1) is solved every hour. This main heat fluxes
depend on diverse input parameters that determine the capacity of the different components:
Maximum storage size
Actual thermal energy in storage
Storage loss rate (per time step)
Thermal energy to heat HTF to operation temperature
Cumulated daily co-firing (per time step)
Maximum amount of co-firing per day
Moreover, these input parameters limit the time of operation per day of the respective component. The collected
energy from the solar field !
!"##
is mainly influenced by the size of the solar field and the aforementioned resulting
radiation on the collector field.
To get a realistic bandwidth for the generated electricity of the investigated power plants the best and worst year of
irradiance is taken from the two data sets. The co-firing of the auxiliary boiler is ensured by using diesel and the
amount of co-firing is capped with 12% of the daily generated electricity. A major role for an appropriate
configuration of the power plant is the definition of the demand and, thus, the heat load !
!"#$
, the system should
fulfil. In this investigation, two different demand structures are considered. Firstly, it is assumed that the demand
that should be satisfied is constant (50 MW constant demand) and secondly it is assumed that all generated
electricity can be fed into the grid even if it exceeds or falls below the demand (50 MW flexible demand). Finally
three different types of power plant configurations are defined: The first configuration (SOLAR ONLY) has a
collector field aperture area of 600000 m! and operates without a storage option.

Table 2: Investigated power plant configurations
best year worst year
Pretoria 1997 1990
Upington 1981 1974
Pretoria 1997 1990
Upington 1981 1974
Pretoria 1997 1990
Upington 1981 1974
EXTENDED STORAGE 1800000 m! YES Constant (50MW)
LIMITED STORAGE 600000 m! YES Constant (50MW)
Storage
Demand structure
(capacity)
Location
Irradiation data
SOLAR ONLY 600000 m! NO Flexible (50MW)
Configuration Aperture area


SASEC 2012 6
In this case it is assumed that the power plant should satisfy the flexible demand structure. For the SOLAR ONLY
option a simplifying assumption has been made. It has been assumed that the steam turbine is able to follow the
heavy fluctuations of the irradiance during a day. The second configuration (LIMITED STORAGE) has the same
collector field size but a storage option and delivers constant electricity to the grid. The third configuration
(EXTENDED STORAGE) consists of an aperture area of 1800000 m! and a large storage and delivers constant
electricity to the grid. Table 2 summarizes the investigated configurations and the underlying assumptions.
4. Results
To find the appropriate storage size for the last two configurations, a cost optimisation is done based on the
determined cost data in chapter 2. This is made by running the performance model for a given collector field size
and varying storage sizes. For each model run the levelised electricity costs are calculated and the storage size at the
minimum can be obtained. Figure 3 shows the costs of electricity for the different investigated configurations at
Upington calculated with low irradiation data. It can be seen that by calculating the levelised electricity costs of the
two configurations, which include a storage option, a cost minimum (grey marks) can be found. The dotted orange
line indicates the price cap of 285 ZARcent/kWh
el
which was set for CSP projects in the Renewable Energy IPP
Procurement Programme. For each of the investigated power plant configurations at the two locations the minimal
costs were calculated. Moreover, the best and the worst year of irradiation data at the site were used. Following this
approach, a bandwidth of storage sizes and the plants levelised electricity costs are obtained (see Figure 4).


Figure 3: Levelised electricity costs and storage size
of different plant configurations
(Upington, low irradation year)
Figure 4: Levelised electricity costs 2010 for the optimal
storage size
(bandwidth represents the higher and lower irradiance)

The share of power block costs decreases from 15-17% for SOLAR ONLY and 14% for LIMITED STORAGE to
7% for the EXTENDED STORAGE option. As previously shown the size of the storage plays a significant role for
the total generation costs. The LIMITED STORAGE option accounts for 14-16% whereas the EXTENDED
STORAGE has for both plant locations a share of 17% of total electricity generation costs. The fixed operation and
maintenance costs (FOM) remain constant for all configurations at 7%. The SOLAR ONLY option leads to lowest
levelised electricity costs with 112.6 to 137.7 ZARcent
2010
/kWh
el
at Pretoria and 87.9 to 116.4 ZARcent
2010
/kWh
el
at
Upington. The LIMITED STORAGE configuration shows increased costs with 151.2 to 173.5 ZARcent
2010
/kWh
el
at
Pretoria and 123.7 to 167.6 ZARcent
2010
/kWh
el
at Upington. The main reason for this can be found in the
implemented storage option and the changed demand structure that should be satisfied. In case of the EXTENDED
STORAGE option the highest costs can be found with 186.2 to 210.6 ZARcent
2010
/kWh
el
at Pretoria and 175.0 to


SASEC 2012 7
224.9 ZARcent
2010
/kWh
el
at Upington. The calculated optimal storage sizes for the LIMITED STORAGE option
range from 560 to 940 MWh
th
in Pretoria respectively 940 to 1090 MWh
th
for Upington. The EXTENDED
STORAGE option ranges from 2360 to 2370 MWh
th
in Pretoria respectively 2360 to 2380 MWh
th
for Upington.

Figure 5: Split of major cost components of different plant configurations 2010 (high irradiation year)
The costs for co-firing heavily depend on the storage size of the plant. The cost share of the SOLAR ONLY option
ranges between 16-19% followed by 12-14% for the LIMITED STORAGE configuration. Especially the
EXTENDED STORAGE option shows a low share of co-firing costs with 1-2% of the generation costs as a
consequence of the high capacity factor of this configuration. The different sites require a separate consideration of
the grid connection. For this reason the calculation of grid connection costs was added to the electricity generation
costs of the power plant. The share of grid connection costs decreases from 6-11% for the SOLAR ONLY and 5-
10% for the LIMITED STORAGE to 2-5% for the EXTENDED STORAGE option (see Figure 5).

Table 3: Duration of operation modes and capacity factors
The presented performance model allows to analyse at what time the different components are in operation. The
system performance of the cost optimised configuration at a specific site can be observed. The model gives
information about the system behaviour during different seasons and the capacity factor can be calculated by
summarizing the different modes of operation occurring in the course of a year. The different operation modes for
each configuration have been analysed on an hourly basis to find the duration of each operation mode. At time steps
when two or more modes are working at the same time the respective share is accounted to the different operation
!"##$%&"' (&"')*$ +,-.#.)'/ 011
!"# $%$$ & %$' ()** &+,,
-./- $0%1 & (,0 (,'1 &+,)
!"# $%0& & (&0 (''$ &+,%
-./- ,,$( & ',& %'&1 &+%1
!"# $%(( 10' ,$* ($)' &+%&
-./- $001 *$*& %,) %$$( &+($
!"# $(&& **1' ,(' %',1 &+%1
-./- ,,(1 *'(( %0% ,*11 &+1%
!"# $0&( %**% $*0 *1$, &+0*
-./- ,$(& %()1 *)1 '*) &+)$
!"# $'(* %&%' $,) *'$$ &+0&
-./- ,1&$ %'($ 0) ,*( &+)1
23425626 849:;<2
=>?@">.A
BC.D/@"D
89E;: 95EF
=>?@">.A
BC.D/@"D
EGHG426 849:;<2
=>?@">.A
BC.D/@"D
!"23.*,')&."2 4"%)&."2 6'')7.)2%$
089:+;60< =0>9( ?@A)B !)C)%.&/
3)%&"'


SASEC 2012 8
modes. It can be observed that the EXTENDED STORAGE option is characterised by an enlarged storage operation
mode than the LIMITED STORAGE option, which leads to a reduced demand for co-firing. Moreover, the co-firing
periods for the SOLAR ONLY configuration are of a larger magnitude due to the flexible demand which was
assumed for this configuration. In a second step the capacity factor of each configuration is calculated (see Table 3).
5. Discussion and conclusion
CSP plants can play a major role in the future South African electricity mix. Today the IPP procurement programme
aims to facilitate the independent power producers the access to the South African energy market. Beside this prize
competition programme, the future role of CSP plants in South Africa has to be defined. The analysis presented in
this paper shows that the configuration as well as the resulting cost of electricity are heavily dependent on the
location of the power plant and the demand structure that should be satisfied. Results show that levelised electricity
costs for a CSP plant without storage are between 87.9 and 137.7 ZARcent
2010
/kWh
el
assuming a flexible electricity
demand structure. It has to be mentioned that this case would not be feasible as a stand-alone power plant due to the
strong fluctuations of irradiation. However it can be seen as a benchmark and option for hybridisation of fossil-fired
power plants. The CSP configuration with a limited storage option shows electricity costs between 123.7 and
173.5 ZARcent
2010
/kWh
el
whereas the configuration with an extended storage lies between 175.0 and
224.9 ZARcent
2010
/kWh
el
. The results are comparable to other actual cost studies. Hinkley et al. 2011 who examined
the costs of a 100 MW CSP plant with 6 hours of storage capacity calculated 149.9 ZARcent
2010
/kWh
el
[14]. Turchi
et al. 2010 investigated different current and future power plant configurations for cost reduction and found
levelised electricity costs between 72.4 and 131.0 ZARcent
2010
/kWh
el
[13]. Telsnig et al. 2012 compared different
renewable electricity generating technologies at locations in Gauteng and Southern Africa and found costs for
photovoltaics between 145 and 163 ZARcent
2010
/kWh
el
, wind power plants between 49 and 109 ZARcent
2010
/kWh
el

[26]. The costs of photovoltaics are in the range of the calculated CSP costs, whereas those of wind converters show
significant cost benefits. The future cost development of CSP and renewable generation technologies will be the
topic of future work.
Acknowledgements
This research is part of the larger Megacity Research Project, EnerKey, which is a German-South African
collaboration to develop an integrated energy and climate change concept for Gauteng Province in South Africa,
funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research. The solar irradiation data was compiled by the South
African Weather Bureau.
References
[1] NERSA, (2011). NERSA Consultation Paper Review of Renewable Energy Feed - In Tariffs. NERSA-Website. [Online] 23 3 2011. [Cited: 15
1 2012.] http://www.nersa.org.za/.
[2] AFDB, (2012). ESKOM Renewable Energy Invest. Project. African Developement Bank Group-Website. [Online] 2012. [Cited: 03 02 2012.]
http://www.afdb.org/en/projects-and-operations/project-portfolio/project/p-za-f00-002/.
[3] DoE, (2011). Department of Energy - List of IPP Preferred Bidder. Department of Energy-Website. [Online] 13 12 2011. [Cited: 30 01 2012.]
http://www.energy.gov.za/files/events_frame.html.
[4] T. Creamer, (2011). SA unveils the names of first 28 preferred renewables bidders. Engineering News Online. [Online] 7 12 2011. [Cited: 15
12 2011.] http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/sa-unveils-the-names-of-first-28-preferred-renewables-bidders-2011-12-07.
[5] ABENER, (2012). Abener Solar plants. Abener-Website. [Online] 2012. [Cited: 19 01 2012.]
http://www.abener.es/colab/web/en/negocio/solar/solares/.


SASEC 2012 9
[6] NEXTera Energy. Factsheet Solar electric Generating Systems. Nextera energy resources. [Online] 2012. [Cited: 15 01 2012.]
http://www.nexteraenergyresources.com/pdf_redesign/segs.pdf.
[7] Torresol Energy. Teorresol Energy. Gemasolar - Connected to the sun. [Online] 2011. [Cited: 16 02 2012.]
http://www.torresolenergy.com/EPORTAL_DOCS/GENERAL/SENERV2/DOC-cw4e88b3bb57c8f/folleto-gemasolar.pdf.
[8] NREL. Solarpaces - Concentrating Solar Power Projects. NREL SOLARPACES. [Online] 25 07 2011. [Cited: 16 01 2012.]
http://www.nrel.gov/csp/solarpaces/project_detail.cfm/projectID=58.
[9] F. Trieb, M. OSullivan, T. Pregger, C. Schillings, W. Krewitt. Characterisation of Solar Electricity Import Corridors from MENA to
Europe - Potential, Infrastructure and Costs. Stuttgart, Germany : German Aerospace Center (DLR), Institute of Technical Thermodynamics,
2009.
[10] Sargent & Lundy LLC Consulting Group. Assessment of Parabolic Trougjh and Power Tower Solar Technology Forecasts. Chicago
Illinois : NREL, 2003. NREL/SR-550-34440.
[11] Neij, L. Cost development of future technologies for power generationa study based on experience curves and complementary bottom-up
assessments. Energy Policy. 2008, 6.
[12] BMU. Leitstudie 2010 - Langfristszenarien und Strategien fr den Ausbau der erneuerbaren Energien in Deutschland bei Bercksichtigung
der Entwicklung in Europa und global. s.l. : BMU, 2010. BMU - FKZ 03MAP146.
[13] C. Turchi, M. Mehos, C.K. Ho, G.J. Kolb. Current and Future Costs for Parbolic Trough and Power Tower Systems in the US Market.
NREL website. [Online] 10 2010. [Cited: 25 01 2012.] http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/49303.pdf. NREL/CP-5500-49303.
[14] Hinkley et al., J. Concentrating solar power - drivers and opportunities for cost competitive electricity. Garnaut Climate Change Review
Update 2011. [Online] 03 2011. [Cited: 20 01 2012.] http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/commissioned-work/concentrating-solar-
power-drivers-opportunities-cost-competitive-electricity.pdf.
[15] OMV Gas & Power. G. Maier Presentation IEA - Netzwerktreffen 24. November 2009: Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) - facts and
opportunities. 2009.
[16] OSEC Business Network Switzerland. Personalkosten Sdafrika. OSEC Business Network Switzerland website. [Online] OSEC, 2009.
[Cited: 01 03 2010.] : http://www.osec.ch/internet/osec/de/home/ipssa/destination/rm/location_factors/costs/human.html .
[17] J. Tomaschek, E.D. zdemir, U. Fahl, L. Eltrop. Greenhouse gas emissions and abatement costs of biofuel production in South Africa.
GCB Bioenergy. 2012, Vol. article in press.
[18] ESKOM. Transmission Development Plan 2010-2019 Revision I. Johannesburg : ESKOM Transmission Division, 2010.
[19] Eberhard, A. A Solar Radiation Handbook for Southern Africa. Cape Town : Elan Press, 1990.
[20] M. Tsubo, S. Walker. Relationships between diffuse and global solar radiation in southern Africa. South African Journal of Science. 2003,
99.
[21] H.C. Power, C.J. Willmott. Seasonal and interannual variability in atmospheric turbidity over South Africa. Intenational Journal of
Climatology. 2001, 21.
[22] F. Trieb, S. Kronshage, V. Quaschning, J. Dersch, H. Lerchenmller, G. Morin, A. Hberle. SOKRATES-Projekt Solarthermsiche
Kraftwerkstechnologie fr den Schutz des Erdklimas. 2004.
[23] F. Trieb, M. OSullivan, T. Pregger, C. Schillings, W. Krewitt. Characterisation of Solar Electricity Import Corridors from MENA to
Europe Potential, Infrastructure and Cost. Stuttgart : Report prepared in the frame of the EU project Risk of Energy Availability: Common
Corridors for Europe Supply Security (REACCESS), 2009.
[24] M.J. Wagner, P.Gilman. Technical Manual for the SAM Physical Trough Model. s.l. : NREL, 2011. NREL/TP-5500-51825.
[25] W. Stine, M. Geyer. Power from the Sun. Power from the Sun website. [Online] 2001. [Cited: 01 06 2011.] www.powerfromthesun.net.


SASEC 2012 10
[26] T. Telsnig, E.D. zdemir, J. Tomaschek, L. Eltrop. EnerKey Technology Handbook - A guide of technologies to mitigate greenhouse
gases towards 2040 in South Africa. Stuttgart : Institute for Energy Economics and the Rational Use of Energy (IER), University of Stuttgart,
2012.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen