This study presents a comparison between thermal oil and molten salt parabolic trough power plants as well as molten salt solar towers. Although higher temperature differences in solar towers enable higher power cycle efficiencies, the necessity of large solar fields for increasing turbine capacities and capacity factors pose a limitation through increased attenuation losses. This effect is amplified when unfavourable atmospheric conditions with visibilities of e.g. 15 km are present to the extent where 200 MW parabolic trough power plants with molten salt as heat transfer fluid can achieve lower levelised costs of electricity and higher capacity factors than solar towers. Additionally, solar towers require a significantly larger solar field and thus land area as compared to molten salt parabolic through power plants. Moreover, both molten salt parabolic troughs and solar towers outperform thermal oil parabolic trough systems in terms of LCOE and capacity factors.

1.
Guédez
,
R.
 et al. 
A Methodology for Determining Optimum Solar Tower Plant Configurations and Operating Strategies to Maximize Profits Based on Hourly Electricity Market Prices and Tariffs
.
Sol. Energy Eng.
138
,
021006
(
2016
).
2.
Ferruzza
,
D.
,
Topel
,
M.
,
Basaran
,
I.
,
Laumert
,
B.
&
Haglind
,
F.
Start-up performance of parabolic trough concentrating solar power plants
.
AIP Conf. Proc.
1850
, (
2017
).
3.
Pan
,
C. A.
 et al.
Identification of Optimum Molten Salts for Use as Heat Transfer Fluids in Parabolic Trough Plants. A Techno-Economic Comparative Optimization
.
SolarPACES 2017
(
2017
).
4.
Matino
,
F.
&
Maccari
,
A.
Molten Salt Receivers Operated on Parabolic Trough Demo Plant and in Laboratory Conditions
.
Energy Procedia
69
,
481
486
(
2015
).
5.
Pan
,
C. A.
,
Dinter
,
F.
&
Harms
,
T. M.
Validation of a Molten Salt Parabolic Trough Receiver Model Based on an Empirical Heat Loss Model
. in
SASEC 2018
(
2018
).
6.
Riffelmann
,
K.
,
Richert
,
T.
,
Nava
,
P.
&
Schweitzer
,
A.
Ultimate Trough® – A Significant Step towards Cost- competitive CSP
.
Energy Procedia
49
,
1831
1839
(
2014
).
7.
Guédez
,
R.
 A Techno-Economic Framework for the Analysis of Concentrating Solar Power Plants with Storage. (
KTH Royal Institute of Technology.
Stockholm, Sweden
,
2016
).
8.
Balz
,
M.
 et al. 
Stellio – development, construction and testing of a smart heliostat
.
AIP Conf. Proc.
1734
,
20002
(
2016
).
9.
Schwarzbözl
,
P.
A TRNSYS Model Library for Solar Thermal Electric Components (STEC).
(
2006
).
10.
Meteonorm
.
Meteonorm V7.1.3.19872 (TMY3)
. (
2014
).
11.
NREL
.
SAM 2010 Parabolic Trough Cost Model.
(
2013
). Available at: https://sam.nrel.gov/cost. (Accessed: 13th July 2018)
12.
NREL
.
SAM 2013 Solar Tower Cost Model.
(
2013
). Available at: https://sam.nrel.gov/cost. (Accessed: 13th July 2018)
13.
Payaro
,
A.
,
Naik
,
A. A.
,
Guedez
,
R.
&
Laumert
,
B.
Identification of Required Cost Reductions for CSP to Retain Its Competitive Advantage as Most Economically Viable Solar-Dispatchable Technology
.
SolarPACES 2017
(
2017
).
14.
Dieckmann
,
S.
 et al. 
LCOE reduction potential of parabolic trough and solar tower CSP technology until 2025
.
AIP Conf. Proc.
1850
, (
2017
).
15.
Chemical Engineering
.
Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI)
. (
2018
).
16.
Industry Sources
.
CIF based estimate from industry sources.
(
2018
).
17.
Tilley
,
D.
,
Kelly
,
B.
&
Burkholder
,
F.
Baseload Nitrate Salt Central Receiver Power Plant Design Final Report.
(
2014
). doi:
This content is only available via PDF.