Solar Energy 183 (2019) 551–565

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Solar Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Design and comparative analysis of photovoltaic and parabolic trough based T

CSP plants
⁎
Ahmed Bilal Awana, , Muhammad Zubaira, R.P. Praveena, Abdul Rauf Bhattib
a
Department of Electrical Engineering, College of Engineering, Majmaah University, 11952 Majmaah, Saudi Arabia
b
Department of Electrical Engineering, Government College University Faisalabad, 38000 Faisalabad, Pakistan

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Solar energy can be exploited by two main methods to produce electrical energy, by means of photovoltaic (PV)
Photovoltaic panels to directly convert the sunlight into electrical energy and by using thermodynamic cycle with the help of
Concentrated solar power concentrated solar power (CSP) approach to convert the heat of the sun into electricity. The objective of this
Parabolic trough collector research is to design and evaluate the performance of these two main methods of electrical energy generation at
Levelized cost of energy
three different sites in Saudi Arabia. The parabolic trough CSP plant uses synthetic oil as heat transfer fluid and
CSP
PV
molten salt for the thermal energy storage system. Both CSP and PV plants have been designed for the same
nameplate capacity of 100 MW. The technical comparison is performed based on solar to electrical efficiency,
electrical output, capacity utilization factor, and land use factor while economic comparison includes net present
value (NPV), net capital cost (NCC), levelized cost of energy (LCOE), and payback period. CSP plants have better
electrical output and capacity utilization factor compared to PV plants while PV plants exhibit far better eco-
nomic performance. Tabuk site is proven to be the best location for both CSP and PV plants. The best case CSP
plant has 33.3% more electrical energy generation compared to the best-case PV plant. The capacity utilization
factor of the CSP plant is 45.4% vs. 30.2% for PV plant. The CSP plant has 4.5 times higher NCC compared to PV
plant. The LCOE of CSP plant is 2.73 times higher than that of PV plant. Overall CSP technology has better
technical performance while PV technology is economically more feasible than the CSP technology at the
proposed locations. This comparison between the two technologies could provide very useful guidelines for
policy maker to choose the appropriate technology for a project.

1. Introduction receivers by means of mirrors. The receiver collects the concentrated

The major part of energy demand in most of the countries is fulfilled
by fossil fuels which has catastrophic effect on our environment.
Therefore it is very important to explore alternative energy options
(Shezan et al., 2015). The abundance availability of solar energy makes
it one of the prime solutions to the problems associated with fossil fuels.
Solar energy is accessible in such a gigantic amount that converting less
than 1% of accessible sun energy into electric energy is sufficient to
satisfy the world’s energy requirements and achieve environmental
stability by reducing the hazardous emissions (Praveen et al., 2018).
Solar energy to electricity conversion can be achieved by two different
processes: photovoltaic (PV) conversion and thermodynamic cycle of
concentrated solar power (CSP) (Desideri et al., 2013). CSP environs
many distinct technologies which utilize the thermal energy to generate
electrical energy while PV, on the other hand, uses sunlight to produce
electricity. CSP technology reflects and concentrates solar radiations on
solar radiations and heats the heat transfer fluid (HTF) to very high
temperature. The HTF in the receiver carries that heat to a steam
generator. The superheated steam from steam generator moves the
steam turbine, which runs the electric generator just like fossil fuel
based conventional power plant. In both cases, i.e. CSP and PV plants,
the quantity of energy that is converted from solar to electrical energy is
not constant, which results in a discontinuity of electrical output. This
problem can be solved by adding a storage system both in CSP and PV
plants that can be designed to cover the peak load as well as base load
between sunset and sunrise. Batteries are used to store the surplus en-
ergy from the PV system. Similarly, the CSP plants can be armed with a
thermal energy storage (TES) technology to store the heat for electrical
power generation during the hours without sun (Desideri and Campana,
2014). Adding solar-based energy share in the present conventional
power generation system augments the initial capital cost but it curtails
the fuel consumption and emissions during the operation (Khan et al.,

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: a.awan@mu.edu.sa (A.B. Awan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.03.037
Received 21 December 2018; Received in revised form 7 March 2019; Accepted 11 March 2019
0038-092X/ © 2019 International Solar Energy Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.B. Awan, et al. Solar Energy 183 (2019) 551–565

Nomenclature DNI direct normal irradiance

NASA national Aeronautics and Space Administration
ASC total area of solar collectors (m2) APV total area of the PV panels (m2)
AT total area required for the installation of the plant (m2) ASF active area of the solar field, occupied by PV arrays or
ηOB optical efficiency of beam radiation (%) PTCs (m2)
XB (θ) Incidence angle modifier (°) CT _ sto storage capacity of the hot-tank (kW)
GB beam radiations (kW/m2) ET _ sto thermal energy stored in the hot-tank as HTF (kWht)
a1 temperature dependent part of the overall receiver heat hsto number of storage hours
loss coefficient (W/m3 K) Pelec electrical power produced by the turbine-alternator (MW)
a2 constant part of the overall receiver heat loss coefficient YPV PV Power output under standard testing conditions (kW)
(W/m3) fPV PV derating factor (%)
a3 pipelines heat loss coefficient (W/m3K) GT solar radiations incident on PV arrays (kW/m2)
Tmean mean temperature of HTF (°C) GT , STC incident radiations at standard test conditions (1 kW/m2)
Tamb ambient air temperature (°C) αTP temperature coefficient of power (%/°C)
θ radiation angle of incidence (°) TC PV cell temperature in the current time step (°C)
x incidence angle modifier coefficient (°) TC , STC PV cell temperature at standard test conditions (°C)
β hour angle (°) Tc, NOCT nominal operating cell temperature (NOCT) (°C)
α declination angle (°) Ta, NOCT ambient air temperature at which the NOCT is defined
θzen zenith angle (°) (20 °C)
γ collector surface slope (°) GT , NOCT solar radiation at which the NOCT is defined (0.8 kW/m2)
θazi surface azimuth angle (°) ηmp, STC maximum power point efficiency under standard testing
θsol _ azi solar azimuth angle (°) conditions (%)
ETU total useful thermal energy delivered by the solar field τ solar transmittance (%)
(kWht) αa solar absorbance
mf mass flow rate of HTF (kg/s) dopt optimal spacing between the parallel PV arrays (m)
HSFo enthalpy at the outlet of solar field (kJ/kg) β tilt angle of PV module (°)
HSFi enthalpy at the inlet of solar field (kJ/kg) h height PV module (m)
ET total incident solar energy collected by the collectors in C aperture width of the collector (m)
solar field (kWh) D spacing between the parallel solar trough collectors (m)
ηPB power block efficiency (%) Can annual cost of the project in year n (US$)
ηT _ sto thermal storage efficiency (%) Qan electricity produced in year n (kWh)
ηTA turbine-alternator set efficiency (%) N project lifetime (years)
ηsoil soiling effect (%) dnominal nominal discount rate with inflation (%)
ηsh mutual shading effect (%) dreal real discount rate without inflation (%)
Eaux electricity consumed by the auxiliaries in the power block Enet net annual electrical energy produced by the PV or CSP
and solar field (kWh) plant (kWh)
Ein total thermal energy input for the power block (kWht) ηplant overall energy efficiency of the CSP plant (%)
Es total exploitable solar energy available at the plant site for NCC net capital cost (US$)
the total area of PTC or PV (kWh)
NPV net present value (US$)
PPA power purchase agreement HTF heat transfer fluid
LCOE levelized cost of energy (US$/kWh) TES thermal energy storage
PTC parabolic trough collector GHI global horizontal irradiance
CSP concentrated solar power

2015). Plenty of research in current era focus on the improvement these
technologies, their efficiencies and decrease their cost.
Kumar and Sudhakar (2015) analyzed a 10 MW PV plant. The ca-
pacity utilization factor was found to be 17.68% with an annual energy
output of 15768.192 MWh/year. Sing et al. (2017) presented a com-
prehensive review of the large scale PV system and identified areas of
improvement in the existing works. Another study presented an as-
sessment of China’s large scale PV potential and identified several sites
for the installation of large scale PV installations (Huang et al., 2018).
Another study evaluated the PV system’s performance in Slovenia and
compared it with other countries (Seme et al., 2019). Bano and Rao
(2016) calculated LCOE of five PV plants having various sizes of 1 MW,
5 MW, 10 MW, 25 MW, and 151 MW. The LCOE of 151 MW PV plant
was almost half of the 1 MW PV plant. The authors in Rehman et al.
(2007) evaluated the energy production and calculated the cost of en-
ergy of 5 MW PV plants situated at Tabuk and Bisha, Saudi Arabia. S. A.
Shezan et al. developed a complete model of a hybrid renewable energy
system and performed cost and emission analysis (Shezan and
Narottam, 2017). The authors in another study evaluated a PV-wind-
diesel-battery system for an off-grid community and concluded that
proposed system is more economical and environment friendly as
compared to conventional diesel-based systems (Shezan et al., 2018).
Magnor et al. optimized the PV-battery systems by Genetic Algorithms
(Magnor and Sauer, 2016). Techno-economic analysis of a PV-battery
system for peak-load trimming was carried out by Lehmann et al.
(2016). Sani Hassan et al. (2017) developed an optimization model to
assess the advantage of using battery storage on the feed-in tariff for
new and existing PV plants. Sensitivity analysis was performed to de-
termine the influence of battery storage size on the cost. D. Tsuanyo
et al. proposed a new model for optimization of an off-grid battery-less
PV-diesel system. Variations in electrical load and solar irradiation
were taken into account in the proposed techno-economic model
(Tsuanyo et al., 2015). The study in Pilakkat and Kanthalakshmi (2019)
proposed a modified Perturb and Observe algorithm for a PV system
under partial shedding conditions. Authors in an another research work
Askarzadeh (2017) proposed a new approach for optimal sizing of PV-
diesel system using harmony search algorithm. Mariaud et al. (2017)
presented an optimization of distributed energy systems. The model
was concurrent optimization of the selection, operation, and size of
battery and PV system to assess technology investments. Authors in

552
A.B. Awan, et al.
Kazem et al. (2017) performed a techno-economic analysis to evaluate
the feasibility of a grid-connected 1 MW PV system in Oman. The
evaluation results depict that the proposed PV plant has a capacity
utilization factor of 21.7%, yield factor of 1875 and the energy cost of
0.2258 US$/kWh.
Ehtiwesh et al. (2016) presented life-cycle analysis of CSP plant.
Their research addressed the cost and environmental impact in the form
of exergy over the lifespan of the project to determine if the CSP plant is
capable of diminishing the cost and emissions. The authors in Lamnatou
and Chemisana (2017) presented a critical review which includes life-
cycle evaluation and environmental benefits of CSP systems. A com-
parative energy and costs analysis of wind, PV and CSP technologies is
presented in Dale (2013). Corona et al. (2016) investigated the appli-
cation of Full Environmental Life Cycle Costing method to assess the
performance of a natural gas and CSP hybrid 50 MW power plant in
southern Spain working at different input of natural gas between 0 and
30%. Another research study assessed the LCOE of various operational
CSP plants (tower CSP, dish CSP and parabolic trough CSP) in China
(Zhu et al., 2015). The LCOE for CSP plants was in the range of
0.19–0.43 US$/kWh. In Dowling et al. (2017), a detailed review of the
economic assessment of CSP technologies is presented. It is concluded
that economic metric basically dictates the choice between CSP and
Fig. 1. Solar resource at the three sites (a) DNI and GHI profile for a typical summer and winter day (b) Average temperature at the three sites (Awan et al., 2018;
K.A.CARE, 2017).
553
Solar Energy 183 (2019) 551–565
other power generation technologies (like PV, wind and fossil fuels). It
is very important that investment policy decisions should cautiously
consider time-varying impacts of the electricity market and meteor-
ological conditions. Xinhai Xu et al. presented the prospects and pro-
blems of CSP plants in the desert regions. It is concluded that in near
future, CSP systems would turn into reality in the Middle East and
North Africa regions thanks to high direct normal irradiation (DNI) in
these areas (Xu et al., 2016). Desideri et al performed a comparative
analysis of PV and CSP systems (Desideri et al., 2013). In the first year
of operation, the electrical output of the PV plant was more than the
CSP plant. Nonetheless, both of the plants were able to generate sub-
stantially equal amount of power by the end of their lifespan. However,
the PV plant achieved a reduction of 23% in the total occupied area.
The authors did not perform economic analysis and also they did not
consider TES system option. The TES system enables the plant to store
the surplus thermal energy during the day time for later use after the
sunset. A CSP plant equipped with TES option can cover the peak load
after the sunset. A performance analysis and comparison of PV and CSP
plants to supply a base load of 3 MW at two locations in Egypt and
southern Italy was carried out in Desideri and Campana (2014). It was
found that CSP plant with storage system has higher electricity output
as compared to a same size PV plant. The authors performed the
A.B. Awan, et al.
economic analysis based on cost of energy only without including the
NPV and payback period analysis. Cost of energy alone does not reflect
the economic feasibility of the project. The NPV is an important para-
meter which shows the feasibility of the plant if all the costs and rev-
enues are projected back to the beginning of the project.
Saudi Arabia is located in the solar belt, which has high level of
global horizontal irradiance (GHI) and DNI resources. Saudi Arabia has
wide open areas which are supportive for solar technology installation
(Awan and Khan, 2014). Saudi Arabia has already made a number of
efforts towards the replacement of fossil fuel based conventional power
generation with renewable energy (Ramli et al., 2017). According to
Vision 2030 (Vision 2030, 2017), the preliminary goal of Saudi Arabia
is to produce 9.5 GW renewable-based electricity. This massive de-
ployment of renewable energy projects needed an accurate real data.
The country has installed a Renewable Resource Monitoring and
Mapping (RRMM) network to acquire a precise data for solar radiations
(K.A.CARE, 2017; Zell et al., 2015).
In order to harness this sustainable source of the solar energy and
produce clean energy, Saudi Arabia has a massive plan to deploy both
CSP and PV power plants at various locations across the country (Baras
et al., 2012). This will lead to saving the hydrocarbon resources which
are being used in an enormous amount to produce electricity. The high
DNI is very useful for the CSP system but on the other hand, the high
daytime ambient temperature in summer season poses a serious chal-
lenge to the PV system. The efficiency of PV module decreases with
increase in temperature (Chander et al., 2015). The authors in Awan
et al. (2018), evaluated the performance of a 100 MW PV plant at 44
different places across Saudi Arabia and temperature effect on PV
performance was taken as in important factor for site selection of PV
plant. Some of the sites with very good GHI did not perform well for PV
system because of high ambient temperature at those locations. The
other factor affecting the output of PV and CSP power plant is dust
which affects both systems.
It is evident from the literature review that most of the research
work is carried out on the PV systems alone or CSP systems alone.
However, very little research is available on the comparative perfor-
mance analysis of these two technologies. The existing research pre-
sents a limited comparison of the two technologies without showing the
feasibility of the individual technology. Considering the rapid devel-
opment of these technologies and reduction in their costs in the recent
past, it is important to conduct a detailed comparative performance
analysis of these technologies and test their individual feasibility as
well. This paper is an effort to shrink this research gap and contribute to
the comparison of these technologies under given circumstances. Unlike
the existing research papers which compare the two technologies based
on energy output and cost of energy, the objective of this research work
is to design a 100 MW CSP and PV system, and carry out detailed
techno-economic comparison of the two technologies based on wide
range of parameters which include, electrical energy output, solar to
electric efficiency, land use factor, capacity utilization factor, net pre-
sent value, LCOE and payback period. CSP plant in this research work
consists of parabolic trough collectors (PTC) and PV plant consists of PV
modules with a single axis tracking system. This comparison of these
two technologies could provide very useful guidelines for policy makers
to choose the appropriate technology for a particular project especially
in the regions where a high value of both DNI and GHI are available like
Table 1
Characteristics of the selected locations (Awan et al., 2018; K.A.CARE, 2017).
Location Latitude & Elevation (m) Daily Average GHI (kWh/
Longitude m2/day)
Majmaah 25.86° N, 45.42° E 718 6.04
Najran 17.63° N, 44.54° E 1187 6.62
Tabuk 28.38° N, 36.48° E 643 6.31
Solar Energy 183 (2019) 551–565
Middle East and African countries. One of the prime examples is Saudi
Arabia with very good GHI and DNI level throughout the country.
2. Solar resource data
An appropriate selection of the site for installing PV and CSP plants
is of prime importance for harvesting maximal output from the plants.
The economic feasibility of the PV and CSP plants depend on the
available levels of DNI or GHI at the selected site (Awan et al., 2018;
Cac, 2013). Three representative sites (Majmaah, Najran, and Tabuk)
are selected in this research work for the performance investigation of
100 MW PV and CSP plants. All of these three sites offer high DNI and
GHI. Majmaah is located in the central region; Najran is in the southern
part while Tabuk is in the northern part of Saudi Arabia. The DNI and
GHI profile for a typical summer day (15th June) and typical winter day
(1st January) for the three sites is shown in Fig. 1(a).
The temperature at these locations is on the higher side in summer
months. Maximum daily average temperatures at Najran, Majmaah,
and Tabuk are recorded to be 34.6 °C (July), 36.6 °C (July) and 32.3 °C
(August) respectively. Similarly, maximum daytime average tempera-
tures at Najran, Majmaah, and Tabuk are recorded to be 36.5 °C (July),
38.4 °C (July) and 34.5 °C (August) respectively (Awan et al., 2018).
Monthly based temperature variations at the three representative sites
are shown in Fig. 1(b). The high temperature in the summer season
from April to October leads to very high electrical load. This high
temperature will increase the output of CSP system but on the other
hand, it will reduce the efficiency of PV system. The detailed char-
acteristics of the three representative locations are tabulated in Table 1.
The weather data for this research is obtained from King Abdullah City
for Atomic and Renewable Energy (K.A.CARE). K.A.CARE has estab-
lished a RRMM network at 46 locations across Saudi Arabia (K.A.CARE,
2017).
3. Modeling of the parabolic trough CSP plant
A layout model of the PTC CSP plant is shown in Fig. 2. This CSP
plant consists of three main parts, namely the solar field, TES system
and power block. The PTC in the solar field focusses the solar radiations
on to the receiver tubes containing the HTF. Synthetic oil is used here as
HTF, which could achieve a temperature of about 390 °C. The HTF
absorbs the solar radiation’s heat and carries it to the power block. The
thermal energy from the HTF is converted into electrical energy in the
power block through the Rankine cycle. The cost of synthetic oil is high;
therefore it is only used in the solar field and Hitec molten salt is used
for storage. This requires another heat exchanger for transferring heat
to the molten salt. The TES system selected for this study consists of two
tanks. In the daytime when high solar energy is available, the excess
heat energy is transferred to molten salt and stored in the hot tank. In
the night time, the high temperature molten salt transfers its heat to the
HTF through the intermediate heat exchanger and the low-temperature
molten salt at the outlet of the heat exchanger is transferred to the cold
tank. The HTF carries this heat to the power block where it transfers its
heat to water in the steam boiler heat exchanger which produces steam.
The high temperature, high pressure steam runs the steam turbine and
the exhausted steam from the steam turbine is condensed to water in
the condenser to shift it back to the boiler to complete the close cycle.
Daily Average DNI (kWh/ Daily Average Temperature Daytime Average Temperature
m2/day) (°C) (°C)
5.78 25.55 27.3
6.0 26.5 28.4
7.43 22.9 25
554
A.B. Awan, et al. Solar Energy 183 (2019) 551–565

Fig. 2. Parabolic trough collector CSP plant layout (Cac, 2013).

The generator converts mechanical energy of steam turbine to electrical E TU

ηSF =
energy. ET (8)

The net annual electrical energy output of CSP plant is given by

3.1. Parabolic trough collector solar field
following equation (Desideri and Campana, 2014)

The thermal energy garnered in the solar field is governed by the 8760

solar radiations intensity, optical efficiency of beam irradiance, and

Enet = ∑ (E T ηT _ sto ηPB ηTA ηsoil ηsh − Eaux )
h=1 (9)
receiver and pipelines thermal losses. The hourly thermal energy output
by the solar collectors is calculated as Duffie and Beckman (2006): Power block thermal efficiency of the is given by

E T = ASCηOB XB (θ)GB − a1 (Tmean − Tamb) − a2 (Tmean − Tamb )2 Enet

ηPB =
Ein (10)
− a3 (Tmean − Tamb )3 (1)
The overall energy efficiency of the concentrated power plant can
where XB (θ) is incidence angle modifier. It shows the influence of the
be calculated as
angle of incidence θ of radiations, which is given by Manzolini et al.
(2011), Mittelman and Epstein (2010): Enet
ηplant =
ET (11)
1
XB (θ) = 1 − x ⎛ − 1⎞
⎝ cosθ ⎠ (2) The capacity utilization factor of the CSP plant is given by equation
(12)
The angle of incidence of solar radiations θ for a PTC oriented in the
North-South axis is calculated as Duffie and Beckman (2006): Enet
Capacity utilization factor =
8760·Power plant capacity (12)
cosθ = (cos2θzen + cos2α sin2β )1/2 (3)
The collector surface slope γ for North-South oriented PTC is given
3.2. Thermal energy storage system
by Eq. (4)
tanγ = tanθzen |cos(θazi − θsol _ azi )| (4) The purpose of the TES system is to prolong the power generation
Similarly, the angle of incidence of solar radiations for East-West duration and prevent the shutdown of CSP plant in the hours without
orientation of PTC is given by Eq. (5) the sun. The storage system in the proposed CSP plant is comprised of
two tanks. The HTF collects heat from the solar field and transfers this
cosθ = (1 − cos2α sin2β )1/2 (5) heat to the boiler for generating steam. The excess thermal energy from
The collector surface slop is needed to be modified for the East-West solar field is shifted to the hitec molten salt through the intermediate
orientation because of the different angle of incidence of solar radia- heat exchanger. The molten salt acts as TES HTF. The high-temperature
tions in this case. The collector surface slope in this case, is given by Eq. molten salt is stored in the hot tank. After the sunset, molten salt
(6) transfers its heat to the HTF of solar field for generating the steam. The
low-temperature molten salt at the outlet of the heat exchanger is
tanγ = tanθzen |cosθsol _ azi| (6) transferred to the cold tank at a temperature of 260 °C (Alva et al.,
Total useful thermal energy delivered by the solar field to the power 2018). TES capacity of the hot tank is calculated from the following
block is given by the following relation (Praveen et al., 2018). relation (Desideri and Campana, 2014).

E TU = mf (HSFo − HSFi) (7) Pelec

CT _ sto =
ηPB ηT _ sto ηTA (13)
Solar field thermal efficiency is

555
A.B. Awan, et al. Solar Energy 183 (2019) 551–565

Following relation gives the thermal energy stored in the hot-tank as
HTF.
E T _ sto = CT _ sto h sto
where h sto is the number of storage hours and it indicates the timespan
for which the heat input for the thermodynamic cycle can be supplied
by the TES system.
4. Modeling of PV
The PV modules rarely operate under standard test conditions (STC)
(Horváth et al., 2018). The output power of the PV module mainly
mounted installation of parallel PV arrays. A proper spacing between
the parallel PV arrays should not cause mutual shading effect in the
morning and evening hours when the sun has low altitude, especially in
(14)
the winter solstice. In order to reduce the mutual shading losses, the
optimal spacing between the PV arrays is estimated by the 3D calcu-
lator in SAM software using the approach presented in Fig. 3. As the
position of the sun can be expressed by solar azimuth angle θsol _ azi and
solar altitude angle α s . The projected solar altitude angle α p is expressed
by the following equation (Desideri and Campana, 2014; Duffie and
Beckman, 2006)
tanα s
α p = tan−1 ⎛⎜
⎞⎟

depends on the GHI level and cell temperature (Chen et al., 2018). The
other factors that affect the PV output are PV derating factor and
ground reflectance. The output power of the PV plant is given by the
following relationship (Awan et al., 2018):
GT ⎞
PPV = APV YPV fPV ⎜⎛ ⎟ [1 − αTP (TC − TC,STC)]
⎝ G T,STC ⎠
The output power of PV is proportional to GHI hitting the PV panels.
PV derating factor shows the effect of real operating conditions, such as
shading, dust, and wiring losses etc, on the PV generated power. The
ambient temperature has a significant impact on PV output. As the color
of the solar cells is dark, therefore; they absorb more sun energy, as a
result, the operating temperature of the solar cells is very high com-
pared to the ambient temperature. The temperature coefficient of
power is a negative number, which shows that the rise of cell tem-
perature results in the fall in PV efficiency. The PV cell temperature is
given by the following relationship.
ηmp,STC (1 − α TP Tc,STC)
⎝ cos(θsol _ azi − θazi) ⎠ (18)
The optimal spacing d opt between the parallel arrays is given by the
following relation:
h
d opt = sin(180 − α p − β )
sinα p
(19)
(15)
The optimal spacing for minimum shading effect is calculated based
on the maximum tilt angle for early or late hour in a winter day. The
optimal spacing between the parallel rows is calculated to be 3.25 m.
The annual losses due to soiling and dirt are assumed to be 3.5%
(Thevenard and Pelland, 2013). The Canadian Solar CS6U-350 M PV
module is used for the proposed PV plant. Its characteristics are shown
in Table 3. The design parameters of the PV plant are presented in
Table 4 and the economics parameters are presented in Table 5.
5.2. Design of 100 MW CSP plant
The proposed CSP plant uses parabolic trough collector (PTC) to

TC =
Tamb + (Tc,NOCT − Ta,NOCT ) ( GT
) ⎡⎣1 −
G T,NOCT ταa
⎤
⎦ collect the energy of the sun. The longitudinal axis of the PTC is posi-
tioned in the North-South direction. This arrangement enables to re-
)( )( α P ηmp,STC
1 + (Tc,NOCT − Ta,NOCT
GT
G T,NOCT ταa ) ceive a greater amount of sun’s energy as compared to East-West di-
(16) rection. As the path of the sun varies during different months of the year
which causes mutual shading between the parallel rows of PTCs in the
The net annual energy output of PV plant is given by
early and late hours of the day, especially in the winter season when the
8760
sun has a low altitude. The optimal distance between parallel parabolic
Enet = ∑ PPV (n) troughs is determined to reduce mutual shading. The optimal distance
n=1 (17)
for a given shading efficiency is calculated as:
where n is the hour number.
D
ηshad = cosγ
C (20)
5. Plant design
As long shadows appear in the early and late hours of the day;
In order to have a fair comparison between PV and CSP technologies therefore, it is very difficult to achieve 100% shading efficiency. In
for the proposed locations, both types of plants are designed for the order to curtail the shading effect and, at the same time, to effectively
same nameplate capacity of 100 MW. use the occupied area of the plant, the optimal spacing is calculated for
a shading efficiency of 50% in the worst scenarios in the winter solstice.
5.1. Design of 100 MW PV power plant The parallel arrangement of the PTCs for the estimation of optimal
spacing between parallel rows is shown in Fig. 4. Based on this ap-
The average daily total GHI at Majmaah, Najran, and Tabuk are proach, the spacing between the adjacent collectors is estimated as
6.04 kWh/m2/day, 6.62 kWh/m2/day and 6.31 kWh/m2/day. Najran 15 m. The total solar field area of the proposed 100 MW plant is 587
shows 4.9% and 9.6% higher GHI as compared to Tabuk and Majmaah acres (2,375,500 m2) and the effective area of the collectors is
respectively. The position of the sun is expressed by its daily motion 877,000 m2, which is only 37% of the total solar field area.
around the horizon and its height above the horizon. The path of the The SkyFuel SkyTrough (with 80-mm OD receiver) solar collector
sun is high during the summer solstice and low during the winter sol- and ScottPTR thermal receiver are selected for the proposed CSP plant.
stice. The intensity of the incident solar radiations can be increased by The characteristics of the solar collector and thermal receiver are shown
positioning the PV panels in the direction of the sun; therefore, an in Table 6. The solar multiple for the design of this CSP plant is 2 and
azimuthal single-axis tracking system is included for better perfor-
mance. Similarly, the tilt angle of the PV module is adjusted on monthly Table 2
Tilt angle for the three PV plant sites.
basis to cope up the seasonal variations in the sun’s path height. The
optimum tilt angles for the three locations are obtained from NASA, Location Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
USA Surface meteorology and Solar Energy website (“NASA, USA
Majmaah 51° 43° 29° 13° 0° 0° 0° 6° 23° 39° 48° 53°
Surface meteorology and Solar Energy, 2018”). The monthly optimum
Tabuk 54° 46° 32° 15° 0° 0° 0° 8° 26° 42° 51° 56°
tilt angles of PV panels for the three sites are presented in Table 2. Najran 46° 36° 21° 5° 7° 14° 11° 0° 14° 31° 44° 49°
The typology of the PV plant in this research work is a ground-

556
A.B. Awan, et al. Solar Energy 183 (2019) 551–565

Fig. 3. PV arrays mutual shading estimation approach.

Table 3 Table 5
Characteristics of the PV module and inverter. Economic parameters of the PV system (International Renewable Energy
Agency (IRENA), 2018).
Description Specification
Parameter Cost Unit
PV Module Electrical Data at Standard Testing Conditions (STC)
Nominal efficiency 18.16% Module Cost 450 US$/kWdc
Max Power 350 Wdc Inverter 130 US$/kWdc
Max power voltage 38.3 Vdc Balance of System Equipment 100 US$/kWdc
Max power current 9.1 Adc Labor cost 150 US$/kWdc
Open Circuit Voltage 46.6 Vdc Installer Margin and Overhead 220 US$/kWdc
Short Circuit Current 9.7 Adc Land Cost 200 US$/acre
Temperature Coefficient of Power (αTP) −0.423/°C Sale Tax 5.0 %
Lifetime 25 years Total Installed Cost 1092.87 US$/kW
Operation and Maintenance Cost 10 US$/kW/year
Inverter Characteristics
Efficiency 98%
Max AC power 59.859 kW
Max DC power 61.1 kW thermal energy storage capacity is 6 h. Solar multiple represents solar
Nominal AC Voltage 400 V field area as a multiple of rated capacity of the power block. The design
Nominal DC Voltage 629.26 V
parameters of the 100 MW proposed CSP plant are detailed in Table 6
Max DC voltage 1000 V
Max DC current 110 A
and the economics parameters are presented in Table 7.
Min MPPT DC voltage 570 V
Max MPPT DC voltage 800 V 6. Results and discussions

In order to compare PV and CSP technologies, 100 MW parabolic

Table 4
trough-based CSP and PV-based power plants are designed in the
PV plant design parameters.
System Advisor Model (SAM). SAM estimates energy cost and makes
Parameter Value performance analysis of the grid-connected CSP and PV plants based on
operating and installation costs and design parameters of the plants that
Nameplate capacity of the plant 100 MW
PV Modules are specified by the user as input to the model. The performance of the
Number of PV modules 285,651 two types of power plants is analyzed based on NPV, LCOE, payback
Modules per string 17 period, annual energy production, capacity utilization factor, solar to
Strings in Parallel 16,803 electric efficiency, and land use factor for each plant. The performance
Total module area 550,449.5 m2
comparison between PV and CSP plants is carried out for three sites
String open Circuit Voltage 792.2 V
String maximum power voltage 651.1 V (Majmaah, Tabuk, and Najran) across Saudi Arabia.
Inverter
Total capacity (AC) 83,324 kW 6.1. Performance analysis of the PV plant
Total capacity (DC) 85,051 kW
Number of inverters 1,392 6.1.1. PV plant energy output analysis
Max DC voltage 1000 V
Min MPPT DC voltage 570 V
Hourly based monthly PV electrical output of the three sites is
Max MPPT DC voltage 800 V presented in Fig. 5. The total annual energy output and, maximum and
minimum hourly electrical output for the PV plants at the three sites are
Overall System
De-rating factor 80% tabulated in Table 8. Overall PV energy output for both Majmaah and
Ground reflectance 30% Tabuk sites is high in summer months (May to September) as compared
System performance degradation rate 0.5%/year to winter months. The maximum hourly electrical output for Majmaah
PV plant is harnessed in June while the minimum is generated in De-
cember. It can be observed in Fig. 5 that solar radiations at Majmaah
site are very high in summer solstice and low in winter. Ambient air
temperature is high in summer which affects the PV energy output.

557
A.B. Awan, et al. Solar Energy 183 (2019) 551–565

Fig. 4. Mutual shading estimation approach of parallel collectors in CSP Plant.

Table 6 Table 7
Design parameters of the proposed CSP plant. Economic parameters of CSP system (International Renewable Energy Agency
(IRENA), 2018).
Parameter Value
Parameter Cost Unit
Plant Capacity Nameplate 100 MW
Solar Collector Reflective aperture area 656 m2 Site Improvements 20 US$/m2
Width of aperture 6m Solar Field 120 US$/m2
Length of each module 14.375 m Balance of Plant 110 US$/kW
Number of modules per collector 8 Storage 60 US$/kWht
assembly Power Plant 1050 US$/kW
Collector assembly length 115 m HTF System 50 US$/m3
Mirror reflectance 0.94 Contingency 2 %
Surface to focal path length 2.15 m Land Cost 200 US$/acre
Optical efficiency 0.848 EPC and Owner Cost 11 % of the direct cost
Stow angle 170° Total Installed Cost 4950.62 US$/kW
Deploy angle 10° Sale Tax 5 %
Solar Field Total area of the solar field 2,375,500 m2 Operational and Maintenance Cost 20 US$/MWh
Field aperture area 877,000 m2
Aperture area of Single loop 5248 m2
Number of loops 181
Maximum temperature is recorded in July and minimum in January.
Spacing between parallel rows 15 m
Solar multiple 2 This high temperature in summer degrades the performance of the PV
Number of field subsection 2 system in these summer months. The maximum hourly electrical output
Thermal Receiver HTF Type Therminol VP-1 for Tabuk PV plant is recorded in June while the minimum is harnessed
Minimum operating temperature 12 °C
in October. Although, solar radiations and clearness index at Tabuk site
of HTF
Maximum operating temperature 400 °C
are minimum in December but the relatively higher temperature in
of HTF October has resulted in lower PV energy yield in October. Najran has
Design loop inlet temperature 293 °C relatively more distributed GHI during the whole year. This site does
Design loop outlet temperature 391 °C not have very high GHI in summer as compared to the other two sites.
Thermal Energy Storage TES full load storage hours 6h
The maximum GHI of 6.99 kWh/m2/day is recorded in June at Najran
(TES) Storage fluid Hitec Solar Salt
Storage Tanks 2 site as compared to 8.07 kWh/m2/day and 8.02 kWh/m2/day in Maj-
Storage volume 25304 m2 maah and Tabuk. Conversely, this site has relatively better solar ra-
TES thermal capacity 1870.8 MWht diation in the winter solstice. The minimum GHI level of 5.1 kWh/m2/
Storage HTF minimum operating 238 °C
day is observed in December as compared to very low GHI of 3.31 kWh/
temperature
Storage HTF maximum operating 593 °C
m2/day and 3.51 kWh/m2/day at Majmaah and Tabuk sites respec-
temperature tively. Therefore, PV energy output pattern at this site does not follow
Storage tank heater efficiency 0.98 the same trend as in Tabuk or Majmaah. PV energy output is relatively
Power Block Cycle conversion efficiency 0.356 higher in winter solstice as compared to summer solstice due to high
Design inlet temperature 391 °C
temperatures in summer and relatively competitive GHI in the winter
Design outlet temperature 293 °C
Cycle design HTF mass flow rate 1296 kg/s season.
Rankine Cycle Boiler operating pressure 100 bar
Condenser type Evaporative
6.1.2. Economic analysis
Turbine inlet pressure control Fixed pressure
Overall System System performance degradation 0.2%/year Annual after-tax cash flow diagram of the 100 MW PV plant for the
rate three sites is shown in Fig. 6. The value of after-tax cash flow at the end
of each year represents the income generated by the PV plant after
lessening the insurance cost, operational and maintenance cost, annual

558
A.B. Awan, et al. Solar Energy 183 (2019) 551–565

Fig. 5. PV electrical output, GHI, clearness index and temperature at Majmaah, Tabuk and Najran sites.

Table 8 Majmaah. The simple payback periods for PV plant at Tabuk, Najran,
PV Plant energy output for the three plants. and Majmaah are 4.9 years, 5 years and 5 years respectively. The pay-
Location Annual Energy Maximum Hourly Minimum Hourly
back period is the time in years taken by the project to return the NCC
(MWh/year) Electrical Output (kW) Electrical Output (kW) of the project.

Majmaah 259409.34 25741.27 (June) 17620.9 (December)

6.1.2.1. Levelized cost of energy. It represents the average cost per kWh
Tabuk 264907.3 26233.91 (June) 20519.3 (October)
Najran 260203.06 24514.52 (January) 20784.9 (August)
(US$/kWh). It is the ratio of total annual cost of the project and the
quantity of electrical energy produced in that year. LCOE is calculated
as
Total annual cost
LCOE =
Total energy generated (22)
N Can
∑n = 0 (1 + dnominal )n
LCOE = N Q
∑n = 0 (1 + dan )n (23)
real

The LCOE of Majmaah PV plant is 0.038 US$/kWh, Najran PV plant

is 0.037 US$//kWh and Tabuk plant is 0.036 US$/kWh. The LCOE of
the three PV plants is comparable with those reported in the literature
for the PV system in this region (0.047 US$/kWh) (Zubair et al., 2018).

Fig. 6. Annual after-tax cash flow of the PV plants at Majmaah, Tabuk, and
Najran.
installment of debt and tax money. The net capital cost (NCC) of the PV
project is US$ 109,285,832. The debt is 75% (US$ 81,964,376) of the
NCC and the equity (initial cash investment) is 25% (US$ 27,321,458)
of the NCC. The PV plant sells electricity to the grid at a rate decided
through a power purchase agreement (PPA). Although PV performance
degrades with every passing year and energy output of the plant de-
creases, the net positive cash flow is increasing (Fig. 6) every year due
to PPA price escalation. It is an annual escalation rate to determine the
PPA price from year two and onward.
PPA price in year n = PPA price in year 1
× (1 + PPA price escalation) n
The initial capital investment is same for the plants at the three
sites. The highest annual income, over the lifespan of the project, is
generated by the 100 MW PV plant at Tabuk followed by Najran and
6.1.2.2. Net present value. The net present value (NPV) of the project is
the measure of the economic feasibility of the project. It includes both
cost and revenue. Normally, a positive NPV demonstrate economic
feasibility of the project; conversely, a negative NPV shows economic
infeasibility of the project. The NPV represents all the cash flows
discounted to start of the project by employing a nominal discount rate.
N
Can
NPV = ∑ (1 + dnominal ) n
n=0 (24)
The NPVs of the Majmaah, Tabuk and Najran PV plants are US$
155,057,568, US$ 160,997,264 and US$ 155,759,936 respectively,
which indicate that all of these three projects are economically feasible.
6.2. Performance analysis of the parabolic trough CSP plant
6.2.1. CSP plant energy output analysis
(21)
The electrical output of the proposed 100 MW CSP plant at three
locations (Majmaah, Tabouk, and Najran) is shown in Fig. 7. The total
annual energy output of the 100 MW CSP plant at Majmaah is
355,187.81 MWh with a capacity utilization factor of 40.6%. The

559
A.B. Awan, et al. Solar Energy 183 (2019) 551–565

Fig. 7. DNI, temperature and hourly electrical output of the CSP plants at Majmaah, Tabuk, and Najran.

Fig. 8. Annual after-tax cash flow of the CSP plants at Majmaah, Tabuk, and Najran.

Fig. 9. Electrical load profile (a) Monthly hourly average (b) Hourly based yearly average.

560
A.B. Awan, et al. Solar Energy 183 (2019) 551–565

Fig. 10. Monthly hourly average grid sales, grid purchases and electrical load of PV energy systems at Majmaah, Tabuk, and Najran.

Fig. 11. Hourly based yearly average grid sales, grid purchases and electrical load of PV energy systems at Majmaah, Tabuk, and Najran.

561
A.B. Awan, et al. Solar Energy 183 (2019) 551–565

Fig. 12. Monthly hourly average grid sales, grid purchases and electrical load of CSP energy systems at Majmaah, Tabuk, and Najran.

Fig. 13. Hourly based yearly average grid sales, grid purchases and electrical load of CSP energy systems at Majmaah, Tabuk, and Najran.

562
A.B. Awan, et al.
Table 9
Solar to electric efficiency of CSP and PV plants.
Plant Solar to electric efficiency
CSP Majmaah 16.73%
CSP Tabuk 17.12%
CSP Najran 17.93%
PV Majmaah 16.17%
PV Tabuk 16.65%
PV Najran 16.14%
maximum electrical output of 55840 kW is harnessed in June and the
minimum of 19449.9 kW is generated in November. Overall more en-
ergy is available in summer solstice thanks to better DNI and high
temperature. The total annual energy output of the CSP plant at Tabuk
is 397,480.19 MWh with a capacity utilization factor of 45.4%. The
maximum electrical output of 63338.71 kW is generated in July and the
minimum of 24901.35 kW in December. It can be observed that the
electrical output of this CSP plant is very high in summer months,
which is very useful to supply the high electrical load in the summer
season. The annual energy generated by the proposed CSP plant at
Najran is 379,424.03 MWh and the capacity utilization factor of the
plant is 43.4%. It can be observed in Fig. 7 that the DNI in Najran is
quite randomly distributed as compared to Majmaah and Tabuk loca-
tions. The DNI in Najran is relatively high in the winter season as
compared to the summer season. The maximum renewable energy
output of 56002.84 kW is exploited in October and minimum of
30895.67 kW is harnessed in August. It is evident in Fig. 7 that the
highest DNI level is observed in October and lowest in August. The
annual energy output of all the three CSP plants is either comparable or
better than the annual energy output of the 100 MW CSP plants located
in Aswan, Egypt (392,587 MWh) and Abu Dhabi, UAE (353,690 MWh)
(Praveen et al., 2018).
6.2.2. Economic analysis
The NCC of the proposed CSP plant is US$ 494,567,264. The debt is
75% (US$ 370,925,440) and the equity is 25% (US$ 123,641,816) of
the NCC. The NCC, debt, and equity are same for the CSP plants at the
three locations. Annual after-tax cash flows of the three proposed CSP
plants, over the lifespan of the project, are shown in Fig. 8. The huge
negative cash flow in year zero represents the NCC of the project minus
debt. The negative cash flows in coming years show that the ex-
penditures are more than the income generated by the power plant.
Fig. 8 depicts that the cash flow of the CSP plant at Majmaah is negative
during the first ten years of the project, which shows that the plant
starts generating positive income after that period. The NPV of this CSP
power plant at this site is US$ −128,164,008. The negative value of
NPV indicates that the after-tax cash flow discounted to year one does
not return the NCC of the project. The simple payback period of this
project is 18.8 years and it does not achieve the discounted payback
period during its lifetime. The cash flow of the CSP plant at Najran is
negative for the first nine years of the project. The positive cash flow
starts from year ten onward. This project has a discounted payback
period more than its lifespan while its simple pays back period is
18.2 years. The negative NPV value of US$ −115,991,960 indicates
that the project does not return its NCC. It can be observed in Fig. 8 that
the CSP plant at Tabuk has a positive after-tax cash flow from year six
Table 10
Electrical energy output of the proposed CSP and PV plants.
Parameters CSP Majmaah CSP Tabuk
Year one electrical output (MWh) 355187.8 397480.2
Annual electrical output (MWh) 346792.6 374520.9
Lifetime electrical output (MWh) 8669814.6 9363024.1
563
Solar Energy 183 (2019) 551–565
Fig. 14. Cumulative energy produced by the CSP and PV plants at Tabuk site.
onward. This project has a simple payback period of 17.5 years and
discounted payback period of this CSP plant is not achieved during the
lifetime of the project. The NPV of this power plant at this site is US$
−95,710,064. Although Tabuk is a better option for a PTC CSP plant
yet the negative value of NPV poses serious question on the economic
feasibility of the project.
The LCOE of CSP plants at Majmaah, Najran, and Tabuk are
0.110 US$/kWh, 0.105 US$/kWh and 0.100 US$/kWh respectively.
From the above economic analysis, it is deduced that Tabuk is the best
case for a CSP plant. The LCOE of the three CSP plants is lower than the
one reported for Luxor, Egypt (0.162 US$/kWh) due to better solar
resources and lower cost of components (Desideri and Campana, 2014).
7. Grid sales and purchases
In order to have a fair comparison of grid sales and purchases, the
same electrical load profile is considered for both the CSP and PV plants
(Fig. 9). This load profile follows the same trend as the typical load
profile of the country. The grid sales and purchase depend on the
electrical load. The electric load increases in the summer and as a result
the grid sales are reduced. The monthly hourly average grid sales and
purchases of PV plants along with the electric load in Majmaah, Tabuk,
and Najran are shown in Fig. 10. The peak summer load of 29501.8 kW
is observed in August and corresponding grid sales are lowest. In win-
ters the electric load is low and gird sales are high. The comparison of
these three locations shows that Tabuk has relatively higher grid sales
compared to Majmaah and Najran. Tabuk has 3203 kW more grid sales
than grid purchases in the high load month of August. Hourly based
yearly average grid sales, grid purchases and electrical load for the PV
energy systems at Majmaah, Tabuk, and Najran are shown in Fig. 11.
The PV system is able to fulfill the load peak during the day while the
PV energy system is unable to cover the second load peak from 6 PM to
9 PM. The PV system has good grid sales during the daytime from 6 AM
to 4 PM.
The monthly hourly average grid sales and purchases along with the
electric load for CSP plants in Majmaah, Tabuk, and Najran are shown
in Fig. 12. The comparison of these three locations shows that Tabuk is
the clear winner compared to Majmaah and Najran. Hourly based
yearly average grid sales, grid purchases and electrical load for CSP
plants at Majmaah, Tabuk, and Najran are shown in Fig. 13. The CSP
output energy in the morning lags compared to the PV system. The PV
plant produces energy instantaneously while CSP has to raise the steam
temperature to start the turbine. On the other hand, the CSP storage
CSP Najran PV Majmaah PV Tabuk PV Najran
379,424 259409.3 264907.3 260203.1
357507.8 244425.4 249605.8 245173.2
8937694.1 6110633.9 6240144.5 6129330.5
A.B. Awan, et al. Solar Energy 183 (2019) 551–565

Table 11
Economics of CSP and PV plants.
Parameters CSP Majmaah CSP Tabuk CSP Najran PV Majmaah PV Tabuk PV Najran

Net Capital Cost (US$) 494,567,264 494,567,264 494,567,264 109,285,832 109,285,832 109,285,832
Net Present Value (US$) −128,164,008 − 95,710,064 − 115,991,960 155,057,568 160,997,264 155,759,936
LCOE real (US$/kWh) 0.11 0.10 0.105 0.0377 0.0369 0.0375
LCOE nominal (US/kWh) 0.14 0.128 0.133 0.0476 0.0466 0.0475
Simple payback periods (Years) 18.8 17.5 18.2 5 4.9 5

enables the system to cover the second load peak. Fig. 13 shows that the
Tabuk CSP plant is able to achieve grid sales from 6 AM to 12 AM which
makes Tabuk the top candidate for the installation of a CSP plant.
8. Comparison of CSP vs. PV plants
Following performance evaluation criteria are used for the com-
parison:
Solar to electric efficiency (ηSE ) is the ratio of total annual electrical
energy generated and available solar energy
Enet
ηSE =
Es
Solar to electric efficiencies of the CSP and PV plants at the three
locations are provided in Table 9.
8.2. Economic comparison
The details about the economics of CSP and PV plants are provided
in Table 11. The NCC of CSP technology is 4.5 times higher than the PV
technology. The NPV of all the three CSP plants is negative while all the
PV plants have a positive NPV. The negative value of NPV indicates that
the project does not return its NCC during its lifetime. Tabuk is the top-
ranked site for both technologies in terms of NPV. Similarly, PV plants
have much lesser LCOE as compared to CSP plants. Tabuk site is the
best case scenario for both CSP and PV plants. Comparing CSP and PV
technologies for the best case scenario of Tabuk reveals that LCOE of
CSP plant is 2.73 times higher than PV plant. The simple payback
(25) period of the best case CSP plant is 17.5 years compared to 4.9 years for
PV plant. This economic comparison clearly shows that PV technology
is economically far more feasible than CSP technology at the proposed
locations.

8.1. Electrical energy 9. Conclusion

The year one, annual and lifetime electrical energy generated by the
proposed CSP and PV plants are tabulated in Table 10. Tabuk CSP and
PV plants are the best cases from electrical energy output point of view
for both CSP and PV categories. A comparison of the best case CSP and
best case PV plants depicts that parabolic trough CSP plant at Tabuk
shows a 33.3% more annual electrical output as compared to the best
case PV plant. On the other hand, the CSP plant at Tabuk shows even
35.7% more total electrical output over the lifespan of the project
(25 years). This better lifetime performance of CSP vs. PV plant is due to
lower annual performance degradation of parabolic trough CSP system
because of aging (0.2%/year) as compared to PV system (0.5%/year)
(Desideri and Campana, 2014). The cumulative curves of the electrical
energy of the CSP and PV plants having the same name plat capacity of
100 MW at Tabuk site are shown in Fig. 14. The gap between CSP and
PV plants energy production increases with every passing year.
Land use factor (LF) is the ratio of the active area of solar fields to the
total area of the plant.
A techno-economic comparison of the parabolic trough CSP plant
and PV plant at three different locations in Saudi Arabia is carried out
in this research. Tabuk and Majmaah locations have high DNI and GHI
in summer months and low in winter solstice while Najran location has
more distributed DNI and GHI. Najran has better average GHI
(6.62 kWh/m2/day) as compared to Majmaah and Tabuk locations. On
the other hand, Tabuk has way better average DNI of 7.43 kWh/m2/
day. The parabolic trough CSP and PV plants have been designed for the
same nameplate capacity of 100 MW. The technical comparison of both
kinds of technologies is carried out based on the electrical output, solar
to electric efficiency, land use factor and capacity utilization factor. The
economic comparison is carried out based on NCC, NPV, LCOE and
payback period. Tabuk is found to be the best location for both CSP and
PV installations.
• The annual electrical energy output of the Tabuk CSP plant is
397480.2 MWh/year and Tabuk PV plant is 264907.3 MWh/year.

LF =
ASF
AT
The land use factors of CSP and PV plants are 0.263 and 0.2999
respectively. For the same nameplate capacity, the PV plant has 13.8%
better land use factor for collecting solar energy as compared to the CSP
plant.
The Capacity utilization factor is the ratio of the electrical output of
the plant to the amount of electrical energy the plant would generate if
it operates at its full capacity during the complete year.
annual energy generated
Capacity utilization factor =
plant nameplate capacity × 8760
Capacity utilization factors of the proposed CSP plants at Majmaah,
Tabuk, and Najran are 40.6%, 45.4% and 43.4% respectively. Similarly,
the capacity utilization factors of the proposed PV plants at Majmaah,
Tabuk, and Najran are 29.6%, 30.2% and 29.7% respectively. The CSP
plants have shown better capacity utilization factors as compared to PV
plants and Tabuk site has the best capacity utilization factors for both
PV and CSP technologies.
• A comparison of the best-case scenario CSP and best-case PV plants
(26) depicts that parabolic trough CSP plant generates 35.7% more
electrical energy over the lifespan of the project (25 years) com-
pared to the PV plant.
• On the other hand, the PV plant has 13.8% better land use factor for
collecting solar energy compared to the CSP plant.
• The capacity utilization factor of the CSP plant is 45.4% compared
to 30.2% for PV plant.
• The solar to electric efficiency of the best case CSP plants is 17.12%
compared to 16.65% for the PV plant.
• The NPV of all the three CSP plants is negative while all the PV
plants have a positive NPV. The NPV of the best case CSP plant is −
95,710,064 US$ compared to 160,997,264 US$ for PV technology.
• The LCOE of the three CSP plants are 0.110 US$/kWh, 0.100 US
$/kWh and 0.105 US$/kWh at Majmaah, Tabuk, and Najran re-
spectively. Conversely, the LCOE of the three PV plants at Majmaah,
Tabuk, and Najran are 0.038 US$//kWh, 0.036 US$/kWh and
0.037 US$/kWh respectively. Thus, the LCOE of the best case CSP
plant is 2.73 times higher than the best case PV plant.
• The simple payback period of the best case CSP plant is 17.5 years

564
A.B. Awan, et al.
compared to 4.9 years for PV plant.
CSP technology has much better technical performance while PV
technology is economically far more feasible than the CSP technology at
the proposed locations. This work provides useful guidelines for policy
makers for the future development of solar-based renewable energy
projects in the regions with high DNI and GHI.
Acknowledgements
This research work is supported by the Deanship of Scientific
Research, Majmaah University under the project number 1440-69.
References
Alva, G., Lin, Y., Fang, G., 2018. An overview of thermal energy storage systems. Energy
144, 341–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.12.037.
Askarzadeh, A., 2017. Distribution generation by photovoltaic and diesel generator sys-
tems: energy management and size optimization by a new approach for a stand-alone
application. Energy 122, 542–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.01.105.
Awan, A., Zubair, M.P.P., Abokhalil, A., 2018. Solar energy resource analysis and eva-
luation of photovoltaic system performance in various regions of Saudi Arabia.
Sustainability 10, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041129.
Awan, A.B., Khan, Z.A., 2014. Recent progress in renewable energy – remedy of energy
crisis in Pakistan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 33, 236–253. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.rser.2014.01.089.
Bano, T., Rao, K.V.S., 2016. Levelized electricity cost of five solar photovoltaic plants of
different capacities. Proc. Technol. 24, 505–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.
2016.05.086.
Baras, A., Bamhair, W., Alkhoshi, Y., Alodan, M., 2012. Opportunities and Challenges of
Solar Energy in Saudi Arabia. World Renewable Energy Forum 4721.
Cac, G., 2013. Concentrated solar power plants: review and design methodology. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 22, 466–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.01.032.
Chander, S., Purohit, A., Sharma, A., Nehra, S.P., Dhaka, M.S., 2015. Impact of tem-
perature on performance of series and parallel connected mono-crystalline silicon
solar cells. Energy Rep. 1, 175–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2015.09.001.
Chen, X.M., Li, Y., Zhao, Z.G., Ma, T., Wang, R.Z., 2018. General method to obtain re-
commended tilt and azimuth angles for photovoltaic systems worldwide. Sol. Energy
172, 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.06.045.
Corona, B., Cerrajero, E., Lopez, D., San Miguel, G., 2016. Full environmental life cycle
cost analysis of concentrating solar power technology: contribution of externalities to
overall energy costs. Sol. Energy 135, 758–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.
2016.06.059.
Dale, M., 2013. A comparative analysis of energy costs of photovoltaic, solar thermal, and
wind electricity generation technologies. Appl. Sci. 3, 325–337. https://doi.org/10.
3390/app3020325.
Desideri, U., Campana, P.E., 2014. Analysis and comparison between a concentrating
solar and a photovoltaic power plant. Appl. Energy 113, 422–433. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.07.046.
Desideri, U., Zepparelli, F., Morettini, V., Garroni, E., 2013. Comparative analysis of
concentrating solar power and photovoltaic technologies: technical and environ-
mental evaluations. Appl. Energy 102, 765–784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2012.08.033.
Dowling, A.W., Zheng, T., Zavala, V.M., 2017. Economic assessment of concentrated solar
power technologies: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 72, 1019–1032. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.006.
Duffie, J., Beckman, W., 2006. Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes, second ed. ASME.
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2930068.
Ehtiwesh, I.A.S., Coelho, M.C., Sousa, A.C.M., 2016. Exergetic and environmental life
cycle assessment analysis of concentrated solar power plants. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 56, 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.11.066.
Horváth, I.T., Goverde, H., Manganiello, P., Govaerts, J., Tous, L., Aldalali, B., Vörösházi,
E., Szlufcik, J., Catthoor, F., Poortmans, J., 2018. Photovoltaic energy yield model-
ling under desert and moderate climates: what-if exploration of different cell tech-
nologies. Sol. Energy 173, 728–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.07.079.
Huang, T., Wang, S., Yang, Q., Li, J., Pina, A., Ferrão, P., Fournier, J., Lacarrière, B.,
Corre, O. Le, 2018. A GIS-based of large-scale PV potential in China. Energy Proc.
152, 1079–1084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2018.09.126.
International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), 2018. Renewable Power Generation
Costs in 2017. URL < https://www.irena.org/publications > (accessed 10.15.18).
K.A.CARE, 2017. Renewable Resource Monitoring and Mapping (RRMM) network.
URL < https://rratlas.kacare.gov.sa > (accessed 10.10.18).
Kazem, H.A., Albadi, M.H., Al-Waeli, A.H.A., Al-Busaidi, A.H., Chaichan, M.T., 2017.
Techno-economic feasibility analysis of 1 MW photovoltaic grid connected system in
Oman. Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 10, 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CSITE.2017.
05.008.
565
Solar Energy 183 (2019) 551–565
Khan, N.A., Awan, A.B., Mahmood, A., Razzaq, S., Zafar, A., Sidhu, G.A.S., 2015.
Combined emission economic dispatch of power system including solar photo voltaic
generation. Energy Convers. Manage. 92, 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2014.12.029.
Kumar, B.S., Sudhakar, K., 2015. Performance evaluation of 10 MW grid connected solar
photovoltaic power plant in India. Energy Rep. 1, 184–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.egyr.2015.10.001.
Lamnatou, C., Chemisana, D., 2017. Concentrating solar systems: Life Cycle Assessment
(LCA) and environmental issues. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 78, 916–932. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.04.065.
Lehmann, C., Weeber, M., Böhner, J., Steinhilper, R., 2016. Techno-economical analysis
of photovoltaic-battery storage systems for peak-shaving applications and self-con-
sumption optimization in existing production plants. Proc. CIRP 48, 313–318.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.03.017.
Magnor, D., Sauer, D.U., 2016. Optimization of PV battery systems using genetic algo-
rithms. Energy Proc. 99, 332–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.10.123.
Manzolini, G., Giostri, A., Saccilotto, C., Silva, P., Macchi, E., 2011. Development of an
innovative code for the design of thermodynamic solar power plants part B: perfor-
mance assessment of commercial and innovative technologies. Renew. Energy 36,
2465–2473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.02.003.
Mariaud, A., Acha, S., Ekins-Daukes, N., Shah, N., Markides, C.N., 2017. Integrated op-
timisation of photovoltaic and battery storage systems for UK commercial buildings.
Appl. Energy 199, 466–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.04.067.
Mittelman, G., Epstein, M., 2010. A novel power block for CSP systems. Sol. Energy 84,
1761–1771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2010.06.004.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), USA Surface meteorology and
Solar Energy. URL < https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/sse/grid.cgi?email=luke.
s@wildmail.com > (accessed 3.24.18).
Pilakkat, D., Kanthalakshmi, S., 2019. An improved P & O algorithm integrated with arti
fi cial bee colony for photovoltaic systems under partial shading conditions. Sol.
Energy 178, 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.12.008.
Praveen, R.P., Awan, A.B., Zubair, M., 2018. Performance analysis and optimization of a
parabolic trough solar power plant in the Middle East Region. Energies 11, 741.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en11040741.
Ramli, M.A.M., Twaha, S., Al-Hamouz, Z., 2017. Analyzing the potential and progress of
distributed generation applications in Saudi Arabia: the case of solar and wind re-
sources. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 70, 287–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.
2016.11.204.
Rehman, S., Bader, M.A., Al-Moallem, S.A., 2007. Cost of solar energy generated using PV
panels. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 11, 1843–1857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.
2006.03.005.
Shezan, S.A., Saidur, R., Ullah, K.R., Hossain, A., Chong, W.T., Julai, S., 2015. Feasibility
analysis of a hybrid off-grid wind-DG-battery energy system for the eco-tourism re-
mote areas. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 17, 2417–2430. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10098-015-0983-0.
Shezan, S., Al-mamoon, A., Ping, H.W., 2018. Performance investigation of an advanced
hybrid renewable energy system in Indonesia. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 37,
1424–1432. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.12790.
Sani Hassan, A., Cipcigan, L., Jenkins, N., 2017. Optimal battery storage operation for PV
systems with tariff incentives. Appl. Energy 203, 422–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2017.06.043.
Seme, S., Sreden, K., Bojan, Š., Had, M., 2019. Analysis of the performance of photovoltaic
systems in Slovenia. Sol. Energy 180, 550–558.
Shezan, S., Narottam, A., 2017. Optimized hybrid wind-diesel energy system with feasi-
bility analysis. Technol. Econ. Smart Grids Sustain. Energy 9, 1–8. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s40866-017-0025-6.
Sing, C., Jia, Y., Lei, L., Xu, Z., Mcculloch, M.D., Po, K., 2017. A comprehensive review on
large-scale photovoltaic system with applications of electrical energy storage. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 78, 439–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.04.078.
Thevenard, D., Pelland, S., 2013. Estimating the uncertainty in long-term photovoltaic
yield predictions. Sol. Energy 91, 432–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2011.
05.006.
Tsuanyo, D., Azoumah, Y., Aussel, D., Neveu, P., 2015. Modeling and optimization of
batteryless hybrid PV (photovoltaic)/Diesel systems for off-grid applications. Energy
86, 152–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.03.128.
Vision 2030, 2017. A Renewable Energy Market, Saudi Arabia Vision 2030.
URL < http://vision2030.gov.sa/en/node/87 > (accessed 1.10.18).
Xu, X., Vignarooban, K., Xu, B., Hsu, K., Kannan, A.M., 2016. Prospects and problems of
concentrating solar power technologies for power generation in the desert regions.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 53, 1106–1131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.
09.015.
Zell, E., Gasim, S., Wilcox, S., Katamoura, S., Stoffel, T., Shibli, H., Engel-Cox, J., Subie,
M. Al, 2015. Assessment of solar radiation resources in Saudi Arabia. Sol. Energy 119,
422–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2015.06.031.
Zhu, Z., Zhang, D., Mischke, P., Zhang, X., 2015. Electricity generation costs of con-
centrated solar power technologies in China based on operational plants. Energy 89,
65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.07.034.
Zubair, M., Awan, A.B., Abo-khalil, A.G., 2018. NPC based design optimization for a net
zero office building in hot climates with PV panels as shading device. Energies 11,
1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11061391.