A Dissertation Presentation

on
Techno-economic analysis of solar
thermal power plants in India

Under the Guidance of:

Dr. R. P. Saini
Associate Professor
IIT Roorkee

Presented By:
Raj Kumar Bairwa
M-Tech (AHES)
Enroll No.: 13512026

ALTERNATE HYDRO ENERGY CENTRE

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ROORKEE
(247667)

CONTENTS

Introduction
Energy scenario
Potential of solar energy in India
Techno-economic analysis
Solar thermal power plants
Literature review
Objectives of dissertation
Techno-economic analysis of Indian STP plants
Inputs for 3 CSP plants model for simulation
Results and Discussions
Conclusion
Future scope
References

INTRODUCTION
For economic development Energy is the basic requirement.
According to world bank, roughly 40% of residences in India are without electricity.
According to world bank, 1/3rd of Indian businesses believe that unreliable electricity is one of

their primary obstructions to doing business.

India is 3rd largest producer of electricity after US and China, even though suffers a major

shortage of electricity generation capacity.

Installed capacity of electricity is 249.49 GW as of end June 2014.
There was an increase of 33.74% in gross import and 33.63% in net imports of coal in 2012-13

over the previous year. However there was an increase of 40.10% in export of coal during the
same period.

ENERGY SCENARIO

Indias present energy consumption 1,71,926 MW, requirement

would be 4,00,000 MW by 2020 to meet GDP of 8% expected
9,50,000 MW by 2030
The total consumption of energy from conventional sources
increased from 46,958 petajoules during 2011-12 to 50,741
petajoules during 2012-13, showing an increase of 8.06%.
Per Capita annual energy consumption increased from 3,497.59
KWh in 2005-06 to 6748.61 KWh in 2012-13, a CAGR of
8.56%. The annual increase in PEC for 2012-13 over 2011-12
was 8.76%.

Source: MOSPI

POTENTIAL OF SOLAR ENERGY IN INDIA

Technical potential in India is About 5000 trillion kWh per year having 250300 clear and sunny

days in a year.
Most of India has solar insolation above 1800 kWh/ m2/ year and insolation 4 7 kWh/m2/day.

Highest annual global radiation is received in Rajasthan (5.5 6.8 kWh/m2/day) and Northern
Gujarat.
The average intensity of solar radiation received on India is 200 MW/km square (megawatt per

kilometer square). With a geographical area of 3.287 million km square, this amounts to 657.4
million MW.
Only 12.5% of the land area amounting to 0.413 million km square can, in theory, be used for

solar energy installations. Even if 10% of this area can be used, the available solar energy would
be 8 million MW, which is equivalent to 5 909 mtoe (million tons of oil equivalent) per year. 1%
of land area is sufficient to meet electricity needs of India till 2031.

TECHNO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
A feasibility analysis is also called a techno-economic analysis, in which the technical aspects of a project are
coupled to the economic aspects.

figure 1. working of solar thermal power plant

LITERATURE REVIEW
S.No
.

AUTHOR(S)

SYSTEM / PARAMETER(S)

Summarize

Naveen Kumar

the

availability,

current

RESULTS

status, 1.

strategies, perspectives, promotion policies, major

aim to make solar thermal electricity (STE)

Sharma et al. [1] achievements and future potential of solar energy

and central photovoltaic (CPV) a mainstream

options in India.

Discuss the various technologies, government

policies, incentives etc. for harnessing the solar

Major government and industry R&D efforts

Atul Sharma [7]

power in India and world. And Examines various

ways in which solar power is precisely such an

power source within the next decade.

1.

The economically exploitable potential of the

solar power technology of India is quite high.

2.

The development of solar thermal technology

is imperative in India.

opportunity.

Assess the potential, financial viability of CSP

3.

Ishan Purohit et
al. [8]

generation in the Northwestern (NW) regions of

India. Using Solar Advisor Model developed by
NREL, USA for four commercially available and
mature CSP technologies.

1.

It is possible to exploit over 2000 GW CSP

potential in the NW India.
7

Literature Review Continued

S.No.

AUTHOR(S)

SYSTEM / PARAMETER(S)

RESULTS

Study the main existing collection technologies

4.

J.D. Nixon et al.

[9]

and compared based on economical, technical

1.

Linear Fresnel lens with a secondary compound

parabolic collector, or the parabolic dish

and environmental criteria. This methodology is

reflector, is the preferred technology for north-

applied principally to a case study in Gujarat in

west India.

north-west India.
Case studies of typical 50 MW solar thermal

5.

V. Siva Reddy et
al. [10]

power plants in the Indian climatic conditions at 1.

parabolic dish concentrating solar Stirling

locations

is

engine power plant generate electricity at a

highlighted with the help of techno-economic

lower unit cost than the other two solar

model. Considering 30 years lifespan and 10%

technologies

such

as

Jodhpur and Delhi

interest rate on investment.

A test facility which would help in gaining

1.

parabolic troughs of a total of about 1,500

experience in design, operation and maintenance

6.

A.S. Pidaparthi
et al. [11]

meters in length and covering an area of 8,000

of large scale solar thermal power plants by IIT

BOMBAY.

This facility would also help in

facilitating research development in the solar

industry in India.
8

The solar field consists of three loops with

square meters.
2.

The solar field configuration of three loops of

four collectors includes 12 steel structures of 10
modules, 3,360.

LITERATURE REVIEW CONTINUED

S.No.

AUTHOR(S)

SYSTEM / PARAMETER(S)

They

determine

district-wise

potential

RESULTS

for

concentrating solar power (CSP) and centralized

7.

Richa Mahtta et
al. [12]

solar photovoltaic (SPV) technology based power 1.

There is more scope for SPV as

plants in India. The evaluation is based on remotely

compared to CSP in India.

sensed annual average global horizontal irradiance 2.

Jaisalmer, Bikaner and Jodhpur districts

(GHI) and direct normal irradiance (DNI) provided

of Rajasthan, Kachchh district of Gujarat

by National Aeronautics and Space Administration

show very high solar potential.

(NASA) surface meteorology and solar energy

program.

1.

Important parameters related to cost of

solar thermal power include location,

Pranesh
8.

Krishnamurthy
et al. [13]

A framework for calculating the cost of generated

availability of capital, thermal storage

electricity from a concentrated solar power (CSP)

and plant size.

plant and the internal rate of return on equity and 2.

A 20% drop in solar field and power

different factors like Plant size, solar insolation and

block costs combined with a 10%

discount rate also consider and effect of variation of

increase in collector efficiency and an

these are disused.

increase by 5% in overall plant efficiency

results in a generation cost of Rs.7 ($
0.15)/kWh.

Literature Review Continued

S.No.

AUTHOR(S)

SYSTEM / PARAMETER(S)

RESULTS
1.

The minimum and maximum average annual power

generation at Panaji and Tiruchirappalli are 7.25 GWh and

A techno-economic feasibility analysis

9.

K.S. Reddy et al.

of a 5MWe solar parabolic dish collector

[14]

field is carried out for entire India

12.68 GWh respectively.

2.

The minimum levelised electricity cost (LEC) for a standalone solar parabolic dish power plant with the clean
development mechanism (CDM) is found to be at Indore

covering 58 locations.

with payback period of 10.63 years with cost benefit ratio of

1.48.

T.V.
10.

Ramachandra et
al. [15]

They identify the solar hotspots based 1.

on the exploitable potential using high

Nearly 58% of the country receives annual average Global

resolution global insolation data from 2.

NASA SSE in India across federal

It creates an employment opportunities especially in the

1.

High Pay-back period is coming at top of the model.

2.

Lack of trained people and training institutes has been

of the barriers to implement solar power

Md. Fahim
Ansari et al. [16]

village level.

boundaries and agro-climatic zones.

They try to develop a structural model

11.

insolation of 5 kWh/m2/day.

installations in India. Thirteen relevant

barriers to implement solar power
installations have been identified and
interpretive structural modeling (ISM)
methodology
10 has been used.

identified as linkage barrier which is an unstable barrier.

3.

Need for backup or storage device, unavailability of solar

radiation data and lack of R&D work have been identified.

LITERATURE REVIEW CONTINUED

S.No.

AUTHOR(S)

SYSTEM / PARAMETER(S)

They

done

technical

and

economical

RESULTS

1.

CSP systems is financially feasible in most of

assessment of CSP technologies in India and to

the locations considered in three states viz.

analyze the techno-economic feasibility in Indian

12.

Ishan Purohit et

conditions two projects namely PS-10 (Power

al. [17]

technology) and ANDASOL-1 (parabolic trough

Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Madhya Pradesh.

2.

Indian locations.

The unit cost of electricity generated by these

two systems at Rajasthan and Gujarat states is

technology) have been taken as reference. These

two systems have been simulated at several

Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol the use of

lower.
3.

CDM benefits improve the values of financial

performance indicators of CSP systems.

1.

For both PV and CSP technologies, direct

investment

cost

was

highly

preferred

economical attribute, while the insurance cost

is least preferred.

13.

They identified the Parameters required for the 2.

Among technical parameters, location of the

M.S. Soni et al.

commissioning of solar power plants in India

site is given top priority and Fire alarm system

[18]

using solar PV and CSP technologies. And Forty

is given least favored.

one parameters are considered for the study.

3.

In CSP, the type of CSP technology used is

given top preference with slight variation in
perception for other parameters. The module
mounting structure is given last preference.

11

OBJECTIVES
Based on literature survey it is found that techno-economic analysis of the solar

thermal power plants is not done by anyone in India. On that basis my objectives are
as follows:
To identify the system and operating parameter for selected three CSP (PTC, LFR

and SPT) technologies.

To carryout techno-economic analysis Indian STPP.
To validate the simulation results with literature available.
To develop a ranking index for all three CSP (PTC, LFR and SPT) technologies

with respect to Indian conditions.

TABLE 1. LIST OF SOLAR THERMAL POWER PLANTS IN INDIA

Turbine
Description

Heat-Transfer
fluid
Type

Turbine
Capacity
(MW)

Sr.
no.

Project name

1.

Abhijeet Solar
Project

Rajasthan,
(Jaisalmer)

SST-700

Parabolic trough

Therminol VP-1

Net: 50.0
Gross: 50.0

2.

ACME Solar
Tower

Bikaner
(Rajasthan)

Power tower

Water/Steam

3.

Dhursar

Dhursar
(Rajasthan)

Linear Fresnel
reflector

4.

Diwakar

Askandra
(Rajasthan)

SST-700

Parabolic trough

5.

Godawari Solar
Project

Nokh
(Rajhastan)

SST-700

6.

Gujarat Solar
One

Kutch
(Gujarat)

7.

KVK Energy
Solar Project

8.

Location

Technology

Thermal
Storage

Status, Start year

Owner(s)

None

Under construction,
2013

Corporate Ispat
Alloys Ltd.
(100%)

Net: 2.5
Gross: 2.5

None

Operational, 2011

ACME Group
(100%)

Net: 125.0
Gross: 125.0

None

Operational, 2014

Reliance Power
(100%)

Synthetic Oil

Net: 100.0
Gross: 100.0

4 hours

Under construction,
2013

Lanco Infratech
(100%)

Parabolic trough

Dowtherm A

Net: 50.0
Gross: 50.0

None

Operational, 2013

Godawari
Green
Energy Limited
(100%)

Parabolic trough

Diphyl

Net: 25.0
Gross: 28.0

9 hours

Under construction,
2014

Cargo Solar
Power (100%)

Askandra
(Rajasthan)

SST-700

Parabolic trough

Synthetic Oil

Net: 100.0
Gross: 100.0

4 hours

Under construction,
2013

Megha Solar
Plant

Anantapur
(Andhra
Pradesh)

Parabolic trough

Synthetic Oil

Net: 50.0
Gross: 50.0

None

Operational, 2014

9.

National Solar
Thermal Power
Facility

Gurgaon

Parabolic trough

Therminol VP-1

Net: 1.0
Gross: 1.0

None

Operational, 2012

IIT Bombay
(100%)

10.

India One
solar thermal
power plant

Abu Road
(Rajasthan)

Paraboliedal
reflector

Water

1.0

16 hours

Under construction,
2011

WRST

KVK Energy
Ventures Ltd
(100%)
Megha
Engineering
and
Infrastructue
(100%)

13

LOCATION AND RESOURCES

TABLE 2: SOLAR RADIATION AVAILABILITY AT DIFFERENT LOCATION IN INDIA [15]
Annual solar radiation on
horizontal surface
(kWh/m2/year)

Geography
S.no

State

Annual direct solar radiation

(kWh/m2/year) availability over

Location
Latitude
(0N)

Longitude
(0E)

Altitude
(m)

Global

Diffuse

Beam

Latitude of
location

Single- axis
tracking

Double-axis
tracking

Uttar Pradesh

Agra

27.17

78.08

169

2016

712

1304

1420

1670

1720

2
3
4
5
6
7

Ahmadabad
Amritsar
Barmer
Baroda
Bellary
Bhavnagar

23.07
31.63
25.75
22.30
15.15
21.75

72.63
74.87
71.38
73.25
76.85
72.18

55
234
194
34
449
5

2110
2026
2289
2126
2142
2087

746
820
579
820
853
773

1364
1207
1710
1306
1289
1314

1468
1291
1826
1404
1330
1401

1756
1474
2241
1676
1555
1689

1816
1522
2326
1730
1591
1747

Bhopal

23.27

77.42

503

2039

700

1340

1454

1762

1822

9
10
11

Gujarat
Punjab
Rajasthan
Gujarat
Karnataka
Gujarat
Madhya
Pradesh
Orissa
Gujarat
Rajasthan

Bhubaneswar
Bhuj
Bikaner

20.25
23.25
28.00

85.87
69.67
73.30

26
80
224

2089
2135
2308

791
781
558

1298
1354
1750

1370
1458
1881

1607
1730
2332

1652
1787
2426

12

West Bengal

Calcutta

22.65

88.45

1814

836

978

1016

1151

1179

13

Chandigarh

Chandigarh

30.73

76.88

347

1944

846

1098

1162

1337

1376

14

Tamil Nadu

Chennai

13.00

80.18

16

2043

869

1174

1186

1326

1347

15

Tamil Nadu

Coimbatore

11.00

77.00

431

2078

878

1201

1214

1365

1387

16

Orissa

Cuttack

20.48

85.87

24

1997

825

1171

1232

1440

1480

17

Uttarakhand

Dehradun

30.32

78.03

683

1865

770

1095

1178

1359

1400

18

Assam
Madhya
Pradesh
Haryana
Andhra
Pradesh
Manipur
Gujarat
Rajasthan
Rajasthan

Dibrugarh

27.48

95.02

111

1651

975

676

710

836

858

Gwalior

26.23

78.25

207

2058

674

1384

1508

1802

1862

Hissar

29.17

75.77

221

2028

703

1325

1452

1705

1757

Hyderabad

17.45

78.47

545

2094

880

1214

1261

1478

1514

Imphal
Indore
Jabalpur
Jaipur

24.77
22.72
23.15
26.82

93.90
75.80
79.97
75.80

781
567
411
390

1870
2077
1927
2087

827
786
724
691

1043
1290
1203
1396

1120
1388
1292
1539

1307
1677
1531
1846

1345
1732
1576
1909

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Contd.
26

Jaisalmer

26.90

70.92

231

23560

466

1884

2022

2543

2650

Jammu

32.67

74.83

367

2012

821

1191

1263

1457

1509

28

Rajasthan
Jammu and
Kashmir
Gujarat

Jamnagar

22.47

70.00

21

2066

757

1310

1400

1675

1727

29

Rajasthan

Jobner

27.00

75.08

427

2195

712

1483

1626

1945

2010

30

Rajasthan

Jodhpur

26.30

73.02

224

2201

658

1543

1684

2020

2093

31

Tamil Nadu

Kanyakumari

8.08

77.50

37

2103

813

1289

1300

1444

1466

32

Tamil Nadu

Kodaikanal

10.23

77.47

2345

2034

999

1035

1049

1217

1240

33

Maharashtra

Kolhapur

16.70

74.23

570

2066

833

1233

1282

1528

1564

34

Rajasthan
Jammu and
Kashmir

Kota

25.18

75.50

257

2161

640

1521

1663

2023

2098

Leh

34.15

77.57

3514

2149

695

1454

1566

1902

1984

36

Uttar Pradesh

Lucknow

26.75

80.88

128

2031

745

1286

1396

1638

1689

37

Maharashtra

Mumbai

19.12

72.85

14

2016

740

1276

1343

1597

1641

38

Maharashtra

Nagpur

21.15

79.12

311

1985

729

1256

1340

1601

1651

Nellore

14.45

79.98

20

1977

897

1079

1094

1234

1254

27

35

40

Andhra
Pradesh
Delhi

New Delhi

28.58

77.20

216

1962

792

1170

1277

1477

1521

41

Gujarat

Okha

22.48

69.12

2037

688

1350

1440

1710

1760

42

Uttarakhand

Pantnagar

29.00

79.50

244

1943

864

1079

1153

1318

1357

43

Bihar

Patna

25.50

85.25

52

2041

888

1153

1222

1396

1437

44

Maharashtra

Pune

18.53

73.85

563

2067

816

1251

1273

1521

1561

45

Chhattisgarh

Raipur

21.27

81.60

289

1941

814

1127

1194

1400

1441

46

Gujarat

Rajkot

22.30

70.78

138

2140

744

1396

1484

1770

1824

47

Uttar Pradesh

Saharanpur

29.97

77.55

275

2012

835

1177

1264

1450

1494

48

Gujarat

Surat

21.20

72.87

11

2077

865

1212

1282

1517

1562

49

Rajasthan
Andhra
Pradesh

Udaipur

24.58

73.70

582

2186

726

1460

1590

1929

1997

Vishakhapatnam

17.72

83.23

2021

800

1221

1270

1483

1520

39

50

TABLE 3: CHARACTERISTICS OF CSP TECHNOLOGIES

Characteristics

Unit

DISH

PTC

LFR

CRS

Plant power
Focus type

MW
-

5-25
Point

Cycle

Sterling/Steam
Rankine/Brayton

30-300
Linear
Steam
Rankine/Organic
Rankine

1-100
Linear
Steam
Rankine/Organic
Rankine

100-200
Point
Steam
Rankine/Brayton
(Gas Turbine)

500:1-50:1

28:1

8:1

100:1

800

300-400

150-500

585

m2

92

34-550

40-120

> 0.95
Not possible

0.94-0.99
1-12

> 0.94
7-15

Annual capacity factor %

24-25

23-56

Annual net efficiency

12-32

Storage system

No storage for
Strilling dish,
Chemical storage
under
development

Short term
pressurized steam
storage (<10 min)

Direct two-tank
molten salt at
5500C (dT=1000 K)

Land requirement

m2/MW

16,000

11-16
Indirect two-tank
molten salt at
(dT=1000K) or
Direct two-tank
molten salt at
5500C (dT=1000 K)
40,000

0.94-0.99
1-12
20-25 (without
TES)
8-10

18,000

Water consumption

m2/MWh

0.05-0.1 (mirror
washing)

3.0 (wet cooling)

0.3 (dry cooling)

3.0 (wet cooling)

0.2 (dry cooling)

Application

On-grid/Off-grid

On-grid

On-grid

83,600
2.0-3.0 (wet
cooling)
0.25 (dry cooling)
On-grid

Optical Concentration
ratio (from collector)
Maximum cycle
temperature
Area
collector/heliostat
Receiver absorption
Thermal storage

Source: IEA roadmap 2014

20-78
7-20

TABLE 4: CSP TECHNOLOGIES AND THEIR SALIENT FEATURES

(UNITS IN %)
Collector and power cycle efficiency

Solar-electric aperture
related efficiency

Land-use factor

Land-use efficiency

Parabolic trough steam cycle

11-16

25-40

3.5-5.6

Central receiver steam cycle

12-16

20-25

2.5-4.0

Linear Fresenel steam cycle

8-12

60-80

4.8-9.6

Parabolic dish

19-33

1.9-3.3

Source: Trieb et al. [15]

TABLE 5. COMPANIES MAKING CONCENTRATING SOLAR POWER COMPONENTS

S.no. Component
1

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10

Collectors

Illustrative Companies

Location

European partners
Industrial Solar Technology
Luz/ Solel
Solargenix Energy
Solar Millennium AG
Sopogy
Alanod
Ausra Manufacturing

Europe
Golden, CO
Israel
Sanford, NC
Germany
Honolulu, HI
Germany
Las Vegas, NV

Boeing (formerly McDonald Douglas)

Chicago, IL

Cristaleria Espanola SA
Flabeg
Mirrors/ Reflectors
Glaverbel
3M Company
Naugatuck Glass
Paneltec corporation
Pilkington
SCHOTT North America
Alanod
Mirror/Reflector Film 3M Company
Reflec Tech.
Luz/Solel
Heat Collection
SCHOTT North America
Element

Steam Generator
System
Heat Storage
System
Central Control
System
Linear Receiver
Concentrator
Structure
Other Components

Source: Clixoo

Spain
Germany
Belgium
St. Paul, MN
Naugatuck, CT
Lafayette, CO
United Kingdom
Elmsford, NY
Germany
St. Paul, MN
Arvada, CO
Israel
Elmsford, NY

Siemens

New York, NY

Radco Industries

LaFox, IL

Abengoa Solar USA

Lakewood, CO

Luz/Solel Solar Systems

Israel

SCHOTT North America

European Partners (Euro Trough)
Solargenix

Elmsford, NY
Europe
Sanford, NC

Other components used in power plant production but not unique to concentrating solar include a natural
gas boiler, Stream turbine, steam generator, condenser, and cooling tower

TABLE 6. LIFE OF DIFFERENT COMPONENTS OF THE STPPS

S.no. Component

Life
(years)

Mirror

20

Receiver

20

Interconnection pipe

20

60

Drives

20

50

Header piping

20

40

Metal support structure

25

Electronics & control

20

Pylon foundation

25

Other civil works (related to

solar field)

25

10

Heat transfer fluid

15

11

Heat exchanger

25

12

Power block

25

13

Storage

20

14
15

Water treatment plants and

auxiliaries
Civil works (buildings,
supports, etc)

Source: Krishnamurthy P. et al. [13]

Life of different components of STPP

50

30

life in (years)

20
10
0

comopents of STPPs

30
figure 2. life of different components of stpps

50

TABLE 7. COST OF DIFFERENT COMPONENTS OF CSP PLANTS

S.no.

Name of component

Cost

Supplier

SCA (mirror collectors, vacuum tubes,

frames, sun tracker and controller)

USD 246/m2

Foshan Tengen Solar

Energy Technology Co., China (Mainland)
Ltd.

Equivalents Heat Transfer Oil Fluid

Dowtherm A

USD 4,350 - 4,400 / Metric Shenzhen Wellcam Co.

Ton
Ltd.

Heat transfer fluid

Sigma T H E R M K

Rs. 125 per ltr in 210 ltrs

Shreyas Petroleum
Additives Ltd

India
(Gujarat)

Heat transfer fluid

Sigma T H E R M A

Rs. 345 per kg in 220 kg

pack

Shreyas Petroleum
Additives Ltd

India
(Gujarat)

Steam turbines (100 MW)

75 crore rupees (approx.)

BHEL ltd.

India

Steam turbines (175 MW)

BHEL ltd.

India

Steam turbines (250 MW)

BHEL ltd.

India

Source: Bhel ltd., [26]

110 crore rupees(approx.)

250 crore rupees(approx.)

Country

China (Mainland)

CRITICAL PARAMETERS FOR TECHNO-ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS OF STPPS

Power plants nameplate capacity

Collector type
Receiver type
Power block
Heat transfer fluid (HTF)
Thermal storage
Capacity factor
Levelized cost of electricity (LCOE)
Net present value (NPV)
Life cycle

DEFINATIONS
Levelized cost- Levelized cost represents the total project

lifecycle costs. It is the present value of project costs

Net present value- is measure of a projects economic

feasibility that includes both revenue and cost.

expressed in Rs./kWh of electricity generated by the system

over its life.

Where,
Cn- after tax cash flow in year n
N- analysis period in years
dnominal-the nominal discount rate with inflation

Where,
Qn (kWh)- electricity generated by system in year n
N- analysis period in years
C0- the projects initial cost
Cn- the annual project costs in years n
dreal- the real discount rate without inflation
dnominal- the nominal discount rate with inflation

Capacity Factor = Net Annual Energy (kWh/yr) / System

Capacity (kWdc or kWac) / 8760 (h/yr)

TABLE 8. TECHNO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF INDIAN STPPS

Table 8.1 Ranking index of CSP technologies on technical analysis basis
Characteristics

Unit

Plant power

Ranking*
PTC

LFR

SPT

MW

Focus type

Peak Efficiency

Optical Concentration ratio (from collector)

Maximum cycle temperature

Area collector/heliostat

m2

Receiver absorption

Thermal storage

Annual capacity factor

Annual net efficiency

Land requirement

m2/MW

Water consumption

m2/MWh

Application (on-grid/off-grid)

*1=Best, 2=Good, 3=Worst

Ranking on technical basis

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
PTC
0.5
Ranking number

Figure 3 : Graph of ranking index based on technical analysis

LFR
SPT

TECHNO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF INDIAN STPPS

Table 8.2 Ranking index of CSP technologies on economic analysis basis

Ranking*
Characteristics

Unit

Annual energy generation

PTC

LFR

SPT

kWh

LCOE

Rs./kWh

NPV

Rs.

IRR

Lifecycle

years

Manufacturers available

Initial cost

Rs.

*1=Best, 2=Good, 3=Worst

Ranking on Economic Basis

3

2.5

2
PTC
LFR
Ranking number

SPT

1.5

0.5

0
Annual energy generation

NPV

Lifecycle

Figure 4. Graph of ranking index based on economic analysis

Initial cost

INPUTS FOR 3 CSP PLANTS MODEL FOR SIMULATION

Table 9.1 Input data for PTC model
S.n
o.
1.

Parameters

2.

Receiver

value
Collector

Solargenix SGX-1
Schott PTR70
2008

Direct Capital Costs

Site Improvements (Rs./m2)
1191.90
Solar field (Rs./m2)

17,207.10

HTF system (Rs./m2)

5098.40

3.

Condenser type

Evaporative

4.

Storage HTF fluid

Storage (Rs./kWht)

5098.40

Hitec solar salt

5.

Field HTF fluid

Fossil backup (Rs./kWe) Gross

0.00

Therminol VP-1

6.

Full load hours of TES

6 hours

Power plant (Rs./kWe) Gross

52,895.90

7.

Solar field aperture

510120 m2

Balance of plant (Rs./kWe) Gross

7010.30

8.

Number of SCA per loop

Contingency (% ) of subtotal

7%

9.

Actual number of loops

114

10.

Loop optical efficiency

0.744601

11.

400 C

12.

Field HTF max. Operating

temperature
Max. Field flow velocity

13.

Heat pump efficiency

0.85%

14.

0.7 L/m2,aper.

15.

Water usage per wash for

mirror
Washes per year

16.

Total land area (acres)

445

4.965 m/s

63

Indirect Capital Costs

EPC and Owner cost
11 % of direct
cost
Total Land cost
637300 Rs./acre
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Fixed cost by capacity
4142.45
(Rs./kW-yr)
Variable cost by generation
254.92
(Rs./MWh)

Distribution of Total cost for PTC model

Site Improvements (Rs./m2); 1%

Heliostat field (Rs./m2); 9%

Balance of plant (Rs./kWe) Gross; 19%
HTF system (Rs./m2); 2%
Storage (Rs./kWht); 1%

Power block (Rs./kWe) Gross; 67%

TABLE 10. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Table 10.1 Parabolic Trough Collector (PTC) results for locations
Location

LCOE (Rs./kWh)

Akola
Allahabad
Amritsar
Aurangabad
Barmer
Belgaum
Bhagalpur
Bhopal
Bhubneshwar
Bikaner
Chennai
Chitradurg
Dehradun
Dibrugarh
Goa
Gorakhpur
Guwahati
Gwalior
Hissar
Hyderabad
Imphal
Indore
Jabalpur
Jagdelpur
Jaipur

15.50
20.04
17.79
12.52
14.29
15.81
30.95
14.11
25.89
13.38
30.16
17.23
28.89
66.08
14.79
29.50
60.44
17.60
19.55
15.46
34.71
11.72
20.39
22.27
14.13

NPV(Million
Rupees)
123.94
124.00
123.97
123.88
123.92
123.94
124.07
123.91
124.05
123.90
124.07
123.97
124.06
124.14
123.93
124.07
124.14
123.97
123.99
123.94
124.09
123.85
124.00
124.02
123.91

Capacity
factor (%)
28.9
22.2
25.1
35.9
31.3
28.3
14.3
31.8
17.1
33.5
14.7
25.9
15.3
6.7
30.3
15
7.3
25.3
22.8
28.9
12.7
38.4
21.8
20.2
31.7

Annual energy
(GWh)
125.13
96.31
108.70
155.72
135.91
122.60
61.99
137.73
74.28
145.46
63.64
112.34
66.47
28.88
131.26
65.08
31.59
109.89
98.75
125.44
55.22
166.63
94.65
86.54
137.54

Jaisalmer
Jodhpur
jorhat
Kolkata
Kota
Kurnool
Lucknow
Mangalore
Mumbai
Nagpur
Nellore
New Delhi
Patna
Pune
Raipur
Rajkot
Ramagundam
Ranchi
Ratnagiri
Raxaul
Saharanpur
Shillong
Sholapur
Sundernagar
Surat
Tezpur
Tiruchirapalli
Trivandram
Veraval
Vishakhapatnam

13.25
12.20
49.70
50.86
15.81
15.13
19.21
28.79
37.91
15.28
30.09
18.58
26.01
18.72
19.45
12.26
22.80
18.74
44.31
31.12
18.43
52.14
16.40
23.82
29.14
62.97
13.58
11.09
34.43
28.00

123.89
123.87
124.12
124.12
123.94
123.93
123.99
124.06
124.10
123.94
124.07
123.98
124.05
123.99
123.99
123.87
124.02
123.99
124.11
124.07
123.98
124.13
123.95
124.03
124.06
124.14
123.90
123.83
124.09
124.06

33.9
36.9
8.9
8.7
28.3
29.6
23.2
15.4
11.6
29.3
14.7
24
17
23.8
22.9
36.7
19.5
23.8
10
14.2
24.2
8.5
27.2
18.6
15.2
7
33
40.7
12.8
15.8

146.90
159.95
38.46
37.57
122.63
128.24
100.53
66.71
50.52
126.99
63.80
103.99
73.92
103.21
99.29
159.14
84.49
103.09
43.17
61.66
104.86
36.65
118.12
80.82
65.90
30.31
143.23
176.42
55.67
68.59

continue

Figure 5. Graph of LCOE for Parabolic trough model for different locations

Figure 6. Graph of Annual energy generation for parabolic trough model for different locations

Table 9.2 Input data for LFR model

S.
no
.
1.

parameters
collector

2.

receiver

3.

condenser type

4.

storage HTF fluid

5.

field HTF fluid

6.

full load hours of TES

7.

solar field aperture

8.

Number of collector
modules in a loop
actual number of loops

9.

10. loop optical efficiency

11. field HTF max. operating
temperature
12. max. field flow velocity
13. heat pump efficiency
14. water usage per wash for
mirror
15. washes per year
16. total land area (acres)

value

Direct Capital Costs

Site Improvements (Rs./m2)

1274.60

Flat Mirror
Evacuated tube
model

Solar field (Rs./m2)

9559.50

HTF system (Rs./m2)

2549.2

Evaporative

Storage (Rs./kWht)

2230.55

Hitec XL

Fossil backup (Rs./kWe) Gross

0.00

Therminol VP-1

Power plant (Rs./kWe) Gross

59,906.20

Balance of plant (Rs./kWe) Gross

22,305.50

Contingency (% ) of subtotal

7%

6 hours
850000 m2
16
101
0.61177
400 C
3 m/s

Indirect Capital Costs

EPC and Owner cost

11 % of direct cost

Total Land cost

637300 Rs./acre

Operation and Maintenance Costs

85.00%

Fixed cost by capacity

(Rs./kW-yr)

0.2 L/m2,aper.

Variable cost by generation 254.92

(Rs./MWh)

120
300.482

3186.50

Distribution of total cost for LFR model

Site Improvements (Rs./m2); 1%

Heliostat field (Rs./m2); 9%

Balance of plant (Rs./kWe) Gross; 19%
HTF system (Rs./m2); 2%
Storage (Rs./kWht); 1%

Power block (Rs./kWe) Gross; 67%

TABLE 10. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Table 10.2 Linear Fresnel Reflector (LFR) results for locations
Location

LCOE (Rs./kWh)

NPV(Million Rupees)

Capacity factor
(%)

Annual energy (GWh)

Akola
Allahabad
Amritsar
Aurangabad
Barmer
Belgaum
Bhagalpur
Bhopal
Bhubaneswar
Bikaner
Chennai
Chitradurg
Dehradun
Dibrugarh
Goa
Gorakhpur
Guwahati
Gwalior
Hissar
Hyderabad
Imphal
Indore
Jabalpur
Jagdelpur
Jaipur

15.23
17.91
16.58
13.27
14.20
15.74
21.80
14.47
20.23
13.77
19.95
15.95
21.55
31.83
15.59
23.55
31.79
15.89
17.73
14.84
22.76
12.90
18.60
19.35
14.14

113.50
113.54
113.52
113.47
113.49
113.51
113.58
113.49
113.56
113.48
113.56
113.52
113.58
113.63
113.51
113.59
113.63
113.51
113.54
113.50
113.58
113.46
113.55
113.56
113.49

26.3
22.3
24.1
30.2
28.2
25.4
18.2
27.7
19.7
29.1
19.9
25.1
18.4
12.4
25.6
16.9
12.4
25.2
22.5
27
17.4
31.3
21.4
20.6
28.3

113.84
96.52
104.44
131.14
122.35
110.11
79.02
119.96
85.24
126.27
86.47
108.64
79.95
53.87
111.19
73.07
53.93
109.06
97.50
116.95
75.63
135.01
92.87
89.22
122.91

continue
Jaisalmer
Jodhpur
jorhat
Kolkata
Kota
Kurnool
Lucknow
Mangalore
Mumbai
Nagpur
Nellore
New Delhi
Patna
Pune
Raipur
Rajkot
Ramagundam
Ranchi
Ratnagiri
Raxaul
Saharanpur
Shillong
Sholapur
Sundernagar
Surat
Tezpur
Tiruchirapalli
Trivandrum
Veraval
Vishakhapatnam

13.55
13.24
27.14
28.26
15.11
14.45
16.93
21.06
24.15
14.98
19.98
16.12
21.65
18.01
18.30
13.52
18.25
16.68
27.53
21.27
16.54
31.93
15.51
20.20
21.52
33.33
13.90
13.24
23.03
20.10

113.47
113.47
113.61
113.62
113.50
113.49
113.53
113.57
113.59
113.50
113.56
113.52
113.58
113.54
113.55
113.47
113.54
113.53
113.61
113.57
113.52
113.63
113.51
113.56
113.58
113.64
113.48
113.47
113.59
113.56

29.6
30.3
14.6
14
26.5
27.7
23.6
18.9
16.4
26.7
19.9
24.8
18.4
22.1
21.8
29.7
21.8
23.9
14.4
18.7
24.1
12.4
25.8
19.7
18.5
11.9
28.8
30.3
17.2
19.8

128.34
131.41
63.30
60.76
114.80
120.16
102.20
81.88
71.24
115.81
86.36
107.46
79.59
95.98
94.46
138.60
94.67
103.77
62.38
81.02
104.69
53.70
111.74
85.43
80.10
51.42
125.05
131.45
74.76
85.84

Figure 7. Graph of LCOE for LFR model for different locations

Figure 8. Graph of Annual energy generation for LFR model for different locations

Table 9.3 Input data for SPT model

S.no
Parameters
.
1.
Collector
2.
Number of rows of
heliostat
3.
Receiver material
4.
Condenser type
5.
Thermocline filler
material
6.
Mirror reflectance and
soiling
7.
Number of heliostat
facets- X
8.
Number of heliostat
facets- Y
9.
Tower height
10.
Total land area
11.
Total Heliostat reflective
area
12.
Receiver height
13.
Receiver diameter
14.
HTF type
15.
16.
17.
18.

Rated cycle conversion

efficiency
Full load hours of TES
Rated cycle conversion
efficiency
Full load hours of TES

Value

Direct Capital Costs

Flat Mirror

Site Improvements (Rs./m2)

954.75

2533
stainless AISI316
Air-cooled

Heliostat field (Rs./m2)

10834.10

HTF system (Rs./m2)

2549.2

Storage (Rs./kWht)

1720.71

Fossil backup (Rs./kWe)

Gross
Power block (Rs./kWe) Gross

0.00

Balance of plant (Rs./kWe)

Gross
Contingency (% ) of subtotal

22,305.50

Quartzite
0.9
2
8
100.248 m
691 acres
365,701 m2
11.7832 m
8.77432 m
Slat
(60% NaNO3 40% KNO3)
0.412
6 hours
0.412
6 hours

76476

7%

Indirect Capital Costs

EPC and Owner cost
Total Land cost

11 % of direct
cost
637300 Rs./acre

Operation and Maintenance Costs

Fixed cost by capacity
(Rs./kW-yr)
Variable cost by generation
(Rs./MWh)

4142.45
254.92

Distribution of total cost for SPT model

Site Improvements (Rs./m2); 1%

Heliostat field (Rs./m2); 9%

Balance of plant (Rs./kWe) Gross; 19%
HTF system (Rs./m2); 2%
Storage (Rs./kWht); 1%

Power block (Rs./kWe) Gross; 67%

TABLE 10. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Table 10.3 Solar Power Tower (SPT) results for locations
Location

LCOE (Rs./kWh)

Akola
jorhat
Allahabad
Amritsar
Barmer
Aurangabad
Belgaum
Bhagalpur
Bhopal
Bhubneshwar
Bikaner
Chennai
Chitradurg
Dehradun
Dibrugarh
Goa
Gorakhpur
Guwahati
Gwalior
Hissar
Hyderabad
Imphal
Indore
Jabalpur
Jagdelpur
Jaipur

21.34
95.94
26.42
22.97
18.67
15.75
20.02
42.55
17.80
39.61
16.40
62.30
25.88
37.36
124.04
18.01
39.49
120.14
23.72
24.17
22.77
50.16
13.78
28.14
30.95
18.32

NPV(Million
Rupees)
116.11
116.04
116.10
116.11
116.13
116.15
116.12
116.07
116.13
116.07
116.14
116.05
116.10
116.07
116.04
116.13
116.07
116.04
116.11
116.10
116.11
116.06
116.17
116.09
116.09
116.13

Capacity factor
(%)
16.9
3.7
13.7
15.7
19.4
23.1
18.1
8.4
20.4
9.1
22.2
5.7
13.9
9.6
2.9
20.1
9.1
3
15.2
14.9
15.9
7.1
26.5
12.8
11.6
19.8

Annual energy (GWh)

74.92
16.47
60.35
69.54
85.81
102.11
79.95
37.29
90.11
40.08
97.96
25.41
61.61
42.52
12.73
89.04
40.20
13.14
67.31
66.04
70.15
31.60
116.95
56.62
51.41
87.49

continue
Jaisalmer
Kota
Jodhpur
Kolkata
Kurnool
Lucknow
Mangalore
Mumbai
Nagpur
Nellore
New Delhi
Patna
Pune
Raipur
Rajkot
Ramagundam
Ranchi
Ratnagiri
Raxaul
Saharanpur
Shillong
Sholapur
Sundernagar
Surat
Tezpur
Tiruchirapalli
Trivandram
Veraval
Vishakhapatnam

16.80
21.52
15.04
94.19
22.08
24.12
49.54
64.21
19.87
65.09
24.60
37.46
24.35
26.77
14.72
35.62
25.52
77.26
49.44
21.83
85.35
23.87
28.44
43.74
104.83
20.46
13.66
54.36
50.71

116.14
116.11
116.16
116.04
116.11
116.10
116.06
116.05
116.12
116.05
116.10
116.07
116.10
116.10
116.16
116.08
116.10
116.05
116.06
116.11
116.04
116.10
116.09
116.07
116.04
116.12
116.17
116.06
116.06

21.6
16.8
24.2
3.8
16.4
15
7.2
5.6
18.2
5.5
14.7
9.6
14.8
13.5
24.7
10.1
14.1
4.6
7.3
16.6
4.2
15.1
12.7
8.2
3.4
17.7
26.7
6.6
7.1

95.58
74.28
106.97
16.78
72.38
66.16
31.99
24.65
80.55
24.31
64.86
42.40
65.54
59.55
109.37
44.61
62.51
20.47
32.06
73.21
18.52
66.86
56.00
36.26
15.07
78.20
118.05
29.14
31.25

Figure 9. Graph of LCOE for SPT model for different locations

Figure 10. Graph of Annual energy generation for SPT model for different locations

Table 11. Ranking Index on the basis of LCOE (Rs./kWh)

Location
Akola
Allahabad
Amritsar
Aurangabad
Barmer
Belgaum
Bhagalpur
Bhopal
Bhubneshwar
Bikaner
Chennai
Chitradurg
Dehradun
Dibrugarh
Goa
Gorakhpur
Guwahati
Gwalior
Hissar
Hyderabad
Imphal
Indore
Jabalpur
Jagdelpur
Jaipur

PTC
2
2
2
1
1
2
3
1
3
1
3
2
3
3
1
3
3
2
2
2
3
1
3
2
1

Ranking of technology*
LFR
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2

SPT
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
2
2
3
1
2
3
3
3
2
3
1
3
3

Continue..

Jaisalmer
Jodhpur
jorhat
Kolkata
Kota
Kurnool
Lucknow
Mangalore
Mumbai
Nagpur
Nellore
New Delhi
Patna
Pune
Raipur
Rajkot
Ramagundam
Ranchi
Ratnagiri
Raxaul
Saharanpur
Shillong
Sholapur
Sundernagar
Surat
Tezpur
Tiruchirapalli
Trivandrum
Veraval
Vishakhapatnam
*1= Best, 2= Good, 3= Worst

1
1
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2

2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1

3
3
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

Figure 11. comparison between 3 csp technologies based on LCOE

locations for PTC on the basis

of LCOE having Ranking 1
S.no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Location

PTC

Aurangabad

Barmer

Bhopal

Bikaner

Goa

Indore

Jaipur

Jaisalmer

Jodhpur

Rajkot

Tiruchirapalli

Trivandrum

locations for SPT on the basis

of LCOE having Ranking 1
S.no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Location

SPT

Bhagalpur

Bhubaneswar

Chennai

Gorakhpur

Jabalpur

jorhat

Kolkata

locations for LFR on the basis of LCOE having

S.no.
Ranking
1
Location
LFR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36

Akola
Allahabad
Amritsar
Belgaum
Chitradurg
Dehradun
Dibrugarh
Guwahati
Gwalior
Hissar
Hyderabad
Imphal
Jagdelpur
Kota
Kurnool
Lucknow
Mangalore
Mumbai
Nagpur
Nellore
New Delhi
Patna
Pune
Raipur
Ramagundam
Ranchi
Ratnagiri
Raxaul
Saharanpur
Shillong
Sholapur
Sundernagar
Surat
Tezpur
Veraval
Vishakhapatnam

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

CONCLUSIONS
For Parabolic trough CSP model Trivandrum is found to be best locations for Parabolic trough
technology having a lowest LCOE 11.09 Rs./kWh and Highest annual energy generation as
176.5 GWh. This is due to high DNI on that location. NPV for all locations is approximately
123.9 million Rupees.
For Linear Fresnel CSP model Indore is found to be best locations for Linear Fresnel technology
having a lowest LCOE 12.90 Rs. /kWh and annual energy generation as 135.1 GWh. NPV for all
locations is approximately 113.4 million Rupees.
For Solar Power Tower CSP model Trivandrum is found to be best locations for Solar Power
Tower technology having a lowest LCOE 13.65 Rs./kWh and highest annual energy generation
as 118.1 GWh. NPV for all locations is approximately 116.1 million Rupees. This value is
approximately same those of Purohit I. et al. study [5].
From the techno-economic analysis performed, it is clear that Trivandrum, Jodhpur, Indore are
the favorable locations for CSP power plants in India and by analyzing the Table 11 it is
conclude that LFR is best suitable for 36 locations out of selected 56 locations, so LFR is found
to be best CSP technology for 50 MW solar thermal power plant in India.

Future scope
In the future CDM benefits can be consider in this techno-economic

analysis.
Solar parabolic dish technology is also consider for comparison.
Solar chimney is also consider for the techno-economic analysis with the
other CSP technologies in India.

REFERENCES
[1]

Sharma N.K, Tiwari P.K, Sood Y.R. Solar energy in India: Strategies, policies, perspectives and future potential.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16 (2012) 933 941.

[2]

Singh R, Sood YR. Transmission tariff for restructured Indian power sector with special consideration to promotion of
renewable energy sources. IEEE TENCON Conf. 2009:17.

[3]

Sood Y.R, Padhy N.P, Gupta H.O. Wheeling of power under deregulated environment of power system-a
bibliographical survey. IEEE Trans Power System 2002; 17(3):870880.

[4]

Ministry of New and Renewable Energy source (MNRE), http://www.mnre.gov.in/achievements.htm; 2014 [accessed
August 2014].

[5]

Purohit I, Purohit P. Techno-economic evaluation of concentrating solar power generation in India. Energy Policy
2010; 38:301529.

[6]

JNNSM. Mission document, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy Government of India. Jawaharlal Nehru
National Solar Mission; 2009, <http://mnre.gov.in/pdf/mission-document-JNNSM.pdf> [accessed 29.7.2014].

[7]

Sharma A. A comprehensive study of solar power in India and World. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15
(2011) 17671776.

[8]

Purohit I., Purohit P., Shekhar S., Evaluating the potential of concentrating solar power generation in Northwestern
India. Energy Policy 62(2013)157175.

REFERENCES CONTINUED
[9]

Nixon J.D., Dey P.K., Davies P.A., Which is the best solar thermal collection technology for electricity generation in
north-west India? Evaluation of options using the analytical hierarchy process. Energy 35 (2010) 5230-5240.

[10]

Reddy V.S., Kaushik S.C., Ranjan K.R., Tyagi S.K., State-of-art of solar thermal power plants-A review, Renewable
and sustainable Energy reviews 27 (2013) 258-273.

[11]

Pidaparthi A.S., Prasad N.R., Indias first solar thermal parabolic trough pilot power plant. SolarPACES 2013, Energy
Procedia 49 (2014) 1840 1847.

[12]

Mahtta R., Joshi P.K., Jindal A.K., Solar power potential mapping in India using remote sensing inputs and
environmental parameters. Renewable Energy 71 (2014) 255-262.

[13]

Krishnamurthy P., Mishra S., Banerjee R., An analysis of cost of parabolic trough technology in India. Energy Policy
48 (2012) 407419.

[14]

Reddy K.S., Veershetty G., Viability analysis of solar parabolic dish stand-alone power plant for Indian conditions.
Applied Energy 102 (2013) 908922.

[15]

Ramachandra T.V., Jain R., Krishnadas G., Hotspots of solar potential in india, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 15 (2011) 3178 3186.

[16]

Ansari M.F., Kharb R.K., Luthra S., Shimmi S.L., Chatterji S., Analysis of barriers to implement solar power
installations in India using interpretive structural modeling technique. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 27
(2013) 163174.

REFERENCES CONTINUED
[17]

Purohit I., Purohit P., Techno-economic evaluation of concentrating solar power generation in India. Energy Policy 38
(2010) 30153029

[18]

Soni M.S., Gakkhar N., Techno-economic parametric assessment of solar power in India: A survey. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 40 (2014) 326334.

[19]

IEA. Technology roadmap concentrating solar power; 2010. /<http://www. iea.org/papers/2010/csp_roadmap.pdf >.

[20]

Behar O., Khellaf A., Mohammedi K., A review of studies on central receiver solar thermal power plants. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews 23 (2013) 1239.

[21]

Deodhar PS. Dust can reduce energy output. In: Electronics for you; 2010. p. 42 www.efymagonline.com/pdf/SolarTips Dusting.pdf.

[22]

Bhattacharyya CS. An overview of problems and prospects for the Indian power sector. Energy 1999; 19:795803.

[23]

http://www.nrel.gov/csp/solarpaces/projects_by_status.cfm?status=Operational

[24]

http://www.india-one.net/abouttheproject.html

[25]

http://energybusinessdaily.com/power/dust-removing-technology-couldincrease- solar-panel-efficiency/.

[26]

http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Guangzhou-Parabolic-solar-concentrator_60018087978.html

Thank You

54