A Reviewof Studies On Central Receiver Solar Thermal Power Plants

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 23 (2013) 1239
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser
A review of studies on central receiver solar thermal power plants

Omar Behar a,n, Abdallah Khellaf b, Kamal Mohammedi a
a
b
L.E.M.I Laboratory, University of Mhamed Bougara, UMBB, Boumerdes, Algeria

Centre de Developpement des Energies Renouvelables, CDER, Bouzareah, Algeria
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 16 September 2012
Received in revised form
31 January 2013
Accepted 3 February 2013
Available online 19 March 2013
The use of central receiver system (CRS) for electricity production promises to be one of the most viable
options to replace fossil fuel power plants. Indeed, research and development activities on its basic
subsystems have been booming rapidly since 1980s. This paper reviews the most important studies on
the major components of central receiver solar thermal power plants including the heliostat eld, the
solar receiver and the power conversion system. After an overview of Concentrating Solar Power (CSP)
technology, current status and applications of the CRSs are highlighted. Next, a detailed literature
survey of existing design comprising optical, thermal and thermodynamic analysis, and techniques
used to assess components have been arranged. This is followed by experimental investigations in
which design concepts are established. The last section contains recent subsequent improvement of
such key components as heliostat, receiver and hybrid solar gas turbine that are boosting in many R&D
activities merging international collaboration during the past 30 years.
& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Central receiver system
Heliostat eld
Solar receivers
Power conversion system
Concentrating solar power
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
Inroduction: Why concentrating solar power (CSP)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.1.
Concentrating solar power (CSP): Historic and current status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.1.1.
Historic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.1.2.
Basic concept and current status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.1.3.
Factors boosting CSP technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2.
Central receiver system (CRS): Current status and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2.1.
Basic concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2.2.
Central receiver solar thermal pilot plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.2.3.
Central receiver solar thermal power plants in operation [32,59,7780] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.2.4.
Central receiver solar thermal power plants under construction [32,7880] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.2.5.
Central receiver solar thermal power plants in the planning [32,7880,84] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.3.
Recent R&D activities in central receiver technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Heliostat eld. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.1.
Heliostat and layout. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.1.1.
Basic concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.1.2.
Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.1.3.
Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.1.4.
Enhancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.2.
Tracking and control system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2.1.
Basic concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2.2.
Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2.3.
Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2.4.
Enhancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Solar receiver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Corresponding author. Tel.: 213 555 82 71 29.

E-mail addresses: beharomar@yahoo.fr, beharomar@gmail.com (O. Behar).
1364-0321/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.02.017
O. Behar et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 23 (2013) 1239
13
4.1.
Volumetric receiver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.1.1.
Basic concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.1.2.
Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.1.3.
Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.1.4.
Enhancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.2.
Solar cavity receiver. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.2.1.
Basic concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.2.2.
Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.2.3.
Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.2.4.
Enhancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.3.
Solar particle receiver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.3.1.
Basic concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.3.2.
Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.3.3.
Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.3.4.
Enhancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5. Power conversion system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.1.
Solar central receiverBrayton cycle (SCR-BC) system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.1.1.
Basic concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.1.2.
Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.1.3.
Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.1.4.
Enhancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.2.
Solar central receiverRankine cycle (SCR-RC) system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.2.1.
Basic concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.2.2.
Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.2.3.
Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.2.4.
Enhancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.3.
Solar central receiverCombined cycle (SCR-CC) system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.3.1.
Basic concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.3.2.
Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.3.3.
Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.3.4.
Enhancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6. Analysis and outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
1. Inroduction: Why concentrating solar power (CSP)?

It is obvious that the origin of climatic change is CO2, and at
least 90% of its emission amount results from fossil fuels burning
for power generation and transport sector [14]. Recent studies
and technology roadmaps published by the International Energy
Agency (IEA), the German Aerospace Center (DLR) and the
European Union (EU) have projected that 80% of the CO2 emissions, by 2035, will be from current industry-based economy; so
that changes in the climate will intensify if no decisive actions are
undertaken [1,46]. The progressive build up of CO2 in the
atmosphere is the undisputed cause for temperature rise accentuation, the melting of the polar ice caps and the increase in
extreme weather events worldwide [1,46]. As a result, many
people around the World, mainly in Africa, face an increasing risk
of hunger, water shortages, ooding, desertication, and severe
environmental pollutions that are expected to cause about
150,000 additional deaths every year [3]. It has to be though
stated that the fossil fuel era have resulted in an unparalleled
standard of living and an increased life expectancy for part of the
worlds population [1,5,7].
Meanwhile, petroleum and natural gas prices are projected to
move forward in the next 20 years (from $125/barrel in 2011 to
over $215/barrel in 2035 [1]). This is due to increased demand
which set to grow by over 50%; from 87.4 mb/d in 2011 to
99.7 mb/d in 2035 [1]. Cconsequently, energy-related CO2 emissions will then more than double by the year 2050 and concerns
over supply security will surely heighten [1,6,8]. More than
7 billion people consume far more fossil resources and produce
far more pollution than the Earth can accommodate [4,5].
For instance, in the Mediterranean region energy consumption

is raised by a factor of three between 1980 and 2005, and a
further doubling is intended by 2020 [9].
Furthermore, catastrophic events such as those at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, in March 2011, and the turmoil
in parts of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) have forced
many countries around the world to review their policies
and retreat from nuclear power. This is particularly true for
Germany. As a consequence, the nuclear energy share in the
global electricity mix is dropping down and the global energy
map changing [1,2].
For these reasons, more and more countries are mandating
that a part of the electric power be from renewable origin, in
particular solar energy. [1028]. According to IEA, 50% of the new
power infrastructures will base on clean-sustainable energies. As
a result, renewable energy will become the worlds second-largest
source of power generation by 2015; delivering about 30% of the
electricity needs by the year 2035 [1].
Nowadays, concentrating solar power (CSP) technology implantation is growing faster than any other renewable technology.
This is because, as shown in Figs. 13, it offers an integrated
solution to the coming decades global problems, i.e., climate
change and associated shortage of energy, water and food
[1,5,12,2732]. For instance, a one megawatt of installed CSP
avoids the emission of 688 t of CO2 compared to a combined cycle
system and 1360 t of CO2 compared to a coal/steam cycle power
plant. A one square mirror in the solar eld produces 400 kW h
of electricity per year, avoids 12 t of CO2 emission and contributes
to a 2.5 t savings of fossil fuels during its 25-year operation
lifetime. [33,34]
14
2. Background
2.1. Concentrating solar power (CSP): Historic and current status
2.1.1. Historic
Concentrating solar power (CSP) is not an innovation of the
last few years. Records of its use date as far back as 212 BC when
Archimedes used mirrors for the rst time to concentrate the
Suns rays [35]. In the early seventeenth century, Salomon De
Caux developed in 1615 a small solar powered motor consisting
of glass lenses and an airtight metal vessel containing water and
air [35]. More than a century later, in 1774, Lavoisier and Joseph
Priestley developed the theory of combustion by concentrating
solar radiation on a test tube for gas collection [36]. Next,
Augustin Mouchot has devised a solar steam machine to run a
printing press [37]. After that, in 1878, a small solar power plant
made up of a parabolic dish concentrator connected to an engine
was exhibited at the Worlds Fair in Paris [38]. In the early 1900s,
although interest in solar power was then lost due to advances in

internal combustion engines and increasing availability of low
cost fossil fuel, the rst CSP-plant, powered by a parabolic trough
solar eld, was installed at Al Meadi (Egypt)[39,40]. This rst CSPplant, installed in 1913, was used for pumping water for irrigation
[39,40]. In the 1960s, with the focus on photovoltaic for the space
program, interest in solar energy began to arise again. During
1970s the oil crisis boosted R&D activities on CSP and numerous
pilot plants were built, tested and bringing CSP technology to the
industrial and commercial level [41]. As a result, the rst
commercial plants had operated in California (USA) over the
period of 19841991, spurred, more particularly, by federal and
state tax incentives and mandatory long-term power purchase
contracts. A drop in oil and gas prices has though driven many
countries to retreat from the policy that had supported the
advancement of CSP, and thus, no new plants have been built
between 1990 and 2000. It was not until 2006 that interest was
once again rekindled for the development of large scale CSPplants. The market re-emerged more particularly in Spain and the
United States, again in response to government measures such as
the feed-in tariffs (Spain) and the policies requiring a share of
Fig. 1. CSP offers an integrated solution to global problems of the coming decades.
Fig. 3. installed solar thermal power plants since the 1980s [32].
Receiver
Receiver
Heliostat
Concentrator
Secondary
Concentrator
Receiver
Receiver
Dish
Reflector
Fig. 2. Basic concept of the four CSP families: (A) central receiver, (B) parabolic trough, (C) linear Fresnel, (D) dish.
solar power in their energy mix. As of 2011, have been worldwide

1.3 GW of CSP plants in operation, 2.3 GW under construction,
and 31.7 GW in the planning stage [33].
Nowadays, in 2013, 2.136 GW are operating, 2.477 GW under
construction and 10.135 GW are announced mainly in the USA
followed by Spain and China [32]. According to reference [34],
about 17 GW of CSP projects are under development worldwide,
and the United States leads with about 8 GW. Spain ranks second
with 4.46 GW in development, followed by China with 2.5 GW.
2.1.2. Basic concept and current status

As shown is Fig. 4, a typical CSP-plant consists of three main
subsystems: solar collector eld, solar receiver and a power
conversion system. In a hybrid plant, back-up and/or storage
systems are added to enhance performance and increase capacity
factor [13,39,42]. The solar receiver absorbs the concentrated
solar radiation by collectors and transfers it to the heat transfer
uid (HTF) which is used to feed high-temperature heat to a
power conversion system. The subsystems are linked together by
radiation transfer or uid transport. There are four CSP families
depending on the two major solar subsystems, i.e., the collector
and the receiver: parabolic trough, solar tower also known as
central receiver, linear Fresnel and dish Stirling [6]. They are
classied according to the manner they focus the suns rays and
the receiver technology [17,28,33]. A brief comparison between
these families is illustrated in Table 1. For each technology the
15
overall efciency of the whole system varies with the location, the
time of day and the day of the year [4345].
In each CSP family, a variety of options is possible for solar
eld layout, tracking system, receiver type, heat transfer uid
(HTF), storage technology and power conversion system. North
South and EastWest orientations equipped with single tracking
mechanism are usually applied in trough solar eld [29]. For
central receiver, surrounded and North eld congurations are
the most proven technologies, while MTC (Micro Tower Conguration) is now under development [4650]. Whereas linear
receivers are used for parabolic trough and Fresnel technologies,
various congurations exist for power tower concept. These
congurations, for some of them under design, test or improvement, include the volumetric receiver, the particle receiver and
the cavity receiver [5154]. Concerning heat transfer uids (HTF),
molten salt is widely used as HTF in commercial plants. Synthetic
oil and saturated steam are also currently used as HTFs in
commercial plants. Superheated steam has been recently introduced as HTF [5559]. Pressurized air and other gases, in
particular CO2 and N2, nano-uids, concrete and circulating
particles are under development for both trough and tower, while
helium or hydrogen is used in dish Sterling [6062].
Concerning storage, liquid molten salt is already proven
storage medium for long time whereas steam is typically reserved
for short time storage [63,64]. Phase change materials and
compact heat storage (chemical reactions) are under development [6365]. Power conversion systems (thermodynamic cycles)
Storage
System
Solar
CollectorField
Radiation
transfer
SolarReceiver
Power
Conversion
System
Fluid
transfer
Back-up
system
Fig. 4. Flow diagram for a typical CSP-plant.
Table 1
Comparison of the four CSP families.
CSP technology
Parabolic trough
Central receiver
Linear Fresnel
Dish
Solar collector [6]

Solar receiver [6]
Power conversion cycle
Concentration ratio [11]
Solar eld slope (%) [11]
Working temperature (1C)
Current efciency (%) [35]
Plant peak efciency (%) [11]
Typical capacity (MW) [11,29]
Annual capacity factor (%)[11]
Development status [29,33]
Technology development risk [11,29]
Outlook for improvements [6]
Efciency with improvements [33]
Relative rise of efciency after
improvements (%) [33]
Line focus
Mobile
RC, CC
7080
o 12
Medium
1516
1420
10300
2528 ( without storage) 2943 ( with 7 h storage)
Point focus
Fixed
RC, BC, CC
41 000
o24
Higher
1617
2335
10200
55 (with 10 h storage)
Line focus
Fixed
RC
460
o4
Relatively lower
0810
18
10200
2224 (without storage)
Point focus
Mobile
RC, SC
4 1 300
10 or more
Highest
2025
30
0.010.025
2528 (without storage)
Commercial proven
Low
Limited
18
Commercial
Medium
Very signicant
2528
Pilot project
Medium
Signicant
12
Demonstration stage
Medium
Via mass production
30
20
4065
25
25
16
are at present Rankine cycles (RC), Brayton cycles (BC), combined

cycles (CC) for trough, tower and Fresnel types, and Stirling cycles
(SC) for parabolic dish technology [42]. Advanced Brayton cycles
with pressurized air heated by volumetric solar receiver are
nowadays an important issue [3]. Furthermore, supercritical
steam and carbon dioxide cycles, air Brayton cycles are well
positioned and promise to enhance solar power tower technology
[17,50,66].
2.1.3. Factors boosting CSP technology

Besides activities in R&D and test and prototyping, numerous
supports in various forms of incentives are playing a major role in
the development of power generation through CSP. Incentives in
the form of feed-in-tariff, tax relief, capital cost grants encouraging electricity export rates for CSP-plants during recent years, in
a lot of countries (Algeria, Egypt and Morocco in North Africa;
Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece in Europe; USA in North
America; and India, China and Australia in Asia), has caused a
rapid growth of these future power options. Likewise, other
countries are in initiation phase or in the planning to set a
favourable policy support for encouraging the development of
CSP. [1025]
Concepts such as Desertec, TRANS-SCP, MED-CSP, SolarPaces
and ESTELA that aim to set up CSP technologies in EU-MENA
regions are very promise to open the door for solar thermal power
plants to be more competitive [4,5,6769]. National and international organisations (Banks, Agenciesy) support also the development of CSP. For instance, in 2000, the Global Environment Facility
Bank (GEF) provided 50 million US$ grant for four CSP projects in
India, Egypt, Morocco and Mexico. This grant is to be used to cover
its incremental costs, and therefore support market introduction of
hybrid congurations in developing countries [15].
The overall experience in CSP technology development has been
positive and new opportunities are opening. At the R&D and
demonstration level, many projects have been carried out. At the
congurations and component development projects, one can
name DISS, SOLAIR, EURODISH and ECOSTAR projects. SOLGATE,
SOLASYS and SOLHYCO are among the projects that have been
carried out for the hybrid concepts implementation. DISTOR is a
project worth citing for storage systems development [70,71].
At the pilot and demonstration level, the projects PS10, PS20
and SOLAR TRES among others have provided valuable information for the development of the CSP technology. They have offered
excellent pattern to move CSP technology forwards [17,71].
Building on this experience, new pilot projects are underway or
in the planning stage (ALSOL in Algeria).
At the industrial and commercial plants of 50 MW to 400 MW
power are underway or in operation in Spain, USA, Algeria, Egypt,
Morocco, Mexico, Greece, Iran, India and China. The exploitations
of these plants have been conclusive that there is a move to the
deployment of large scale CSP plants [1028]. Up to the year
Generator
Turbine
2030, the market potential is estimated at least at 7 GW in the

EU-MENA. This offers the opportunity to CO2 reduction prospective of up to 12 million tons per year. These plants represent also
a cost fall potential of 20% compared to the last built 80 MWe
SEGS IX plant in USA. According to ECOSTAR, there are three main
drivers for cost reduction: scaling up, volume production and
technology innovations. About 50% of the intended reductions in
costs of CSP-plants will be from technology developments, and
the other half from scale up and volume production [71].
In this context solar thermal power plants will be capable of
delivering efciently more than 3% of the EUs electricity by 2020,
and at least 10% by 2030 [67]. Moreover, it offers the opportunity
to generate about 50% of the electricity needs of the EU-MENA
region [4,5] and supply over 10% of the worlds electricity by
2050 [6]. Advanced scenario by IEA, EU and DLR has anticipated
that global CSP capacity will reach 1.5 TW at this year [4,6,11,33].
2.2. Central receiver system (CRS): Current status and applications
Of all CSP technologies available today the CRS is moving to
the forefront and it might become the technology of choice
[11,72]. This is mainly due to the expected performance improvements and cost reductions associated with technology innovations of the three main subsystems, i.e., the heliostat, the receiver
and the power block within the near future. Compared with other
CSP options, the central receiver system could not only provide
cheaper electricity than trough and dish systems but also better
performance [3,11]. As shown in Table 1, CRS offers:
o Higher temperatures (up to 1000 1C) and thus higher efciency

of the power conversion system [11,71];
o Easily integrated in fossil plants for hybrid operation in a wide
variety of options (see Section 5.3) and has the potential for
generating electricity with high annual capacity factors (from
0.40 to 0.80 [11]) through the use of thermal storage [11,29];
o Greater potential for costs reduction and efciency improvements (4065%) [11,29,71].
2.2.1. Basic concept

As shown in Figs. 57, a typical central receiver system,
also known as a solar tower power, consists of three major
subsystems, namely the heliostat eld, the receiver and the power
conversion system. The solar eld consists of numerous
computer-controlled mirrors that track the sun individually in
two axes and reect the solar radiation onto the receiver located
on the top of the tower. The receiver absorbs the heliostat
reected solar radiation and converts it into heat at high temperature levels. Depending on the receiver design and the heat
transfer uid nature, the upper working temperatures can range
HRSG
Condenser
Power Conversion System
Solar Receiver
Heliostat Field
Fig. 5. The three main subsystems of central receiver solar thermal power plant.
17
Fig. 6. Examples of CRS power plants in operation, underway or in the planning; from Left to right. (A) PS10 PS20 (front) in operation nearby Seville, Spain [79]. (B) Ivanph
plant under construction, 75% completion, CA, USA [32]. (C) Artists design of Rio Mesa solar project (planned) [84].
Fig. 7. Advanced research projects; from left to right. (A) SOLUGAS project at the Solucar Platform in Seville, Spain [32]. (B) Variable Geometry Central Receiver Solar Test
Facility at CTAER [32].
from 250 1C to 1000 1C [11,71]. A power conversion system is

used to shift thermal energy into electricity in the same way as
conventional power plants [11,29].
The heliostat eld is the main subsystem and its optical
efciency has a signicant impact on the performance of the
power plant; it represents about 50% of the total cost [73] and its
annual energy losses are around 47% [74].The receivers are made
up of material which withstands high temperature changes and
high energy density such as ceramic and metal alloys. There are
different types of receivers that can be classied into three groups
depending on their functionality and geometric congurations.
The three groups are the volumetric receivers, the cavity receivers
and the particle receivers. In a power conversion system thermal
energy can be converted into electricity with higher efciency in
Rankine cycle, Brayton cycle or combined cycle.
2.2.2. Central receiver solar thermal pilot plants

The tower technology has since the early 1980s attracted
worldwide a lot of interest. It has then been thoroughly studied
and successfully tested in numerous pilot projects such as the
American Solar Two (upgrade Solar One) [3], the Spanish CESA
1 and TSA, and the French THEMIS [41,75,76]. The most relevant
CRS tested in the 20th century are reported in Table 2. These
demonstration power plants have proved the feasibility and the
economical potential of the tower technology. They have also
permitted the improvement in the design and performance of the
tower power, mainly its components, its hybrid concepts, its heat
transfer uids and storage system.
2.2.3. Central receiver solar thermal power plants in operation

[32,59,7780]
Concerning the heat transfer uids (HTF), water/steam has
initially been adopted in some solar towers such as PS10, PS20,
Beijing Balading, Sierra and Yanqing. Molten salt is also a very
commonly used HTF. It has been used for example in Gemasolar
thermo-solar plant. Lately, there has been a big interest in
Table 2
Central receiver solar thermal pilot plants in the 20th century [29,32,7880].
Project acronym
Capacity MW
Country
Starting year
SSPS
TSA
CESA-1
Solar one
MSEE/Cat B
Solar Two
THEMIS
EURELIOS
SUNSHINE
SPP-5
0.5
1
1
10
1
10
2.5
1
1
5
Spain
Spain
Spain
USA
USA
USA
France
Italy
Japan
Russia
1981
1993
1983
1982
1984
1996
1984
1981
1981
1986
developing air as a HTF. Julich

solar tower is an example of
this case.
Depending on the receiver design and the heat transfer uid,
the working temperatures of the power conversion system range
from 250 1C, for water/steam cycles, to around 600 1C with
current molten salt design. The development of Direct Steam
Generation (DSG), which is currently in its early stage, as HTF is
very promising for reducing costs and enhancing thermal efciency by eliminating the heat exchangers network [59,77].
In 2006, the 11 MWe CRS power plant PS10 was built by
Abengoa Solar in Sevilla Spain. It has been followed by the
20 MWe power tower plants PS20 in the same location, the
5 MW Sierra Sun Tower (in Lancaster, USA) and the 1.5 MW in
Julich
Germany in 2009. Since 2011, the Gemasolar power plant,
built in Spain as large as the PS 20 power plant, but with
surrounded heliostat eld and15 h storage, has been operating
and delivering power around the clock [77]. After the three
pioneer CSP countries, i.e., the USA, Germany and Spain, China
have entered the CSP market by implementing, in 2010, the
Beijing Yanqing solar power plant. It has been then followed by
Beijing Badaling Solar Tower in 2012.The most important central
receiver power plants in operation throughout the world are
reported in Table 3.
18
Table 3
Central receiver solar thermal power plants in operation [32,7883].
Name
Country, location
Beijing
China Beijing
Badaling
Gemasolar Spain, Andaluca
(Sevilla)
Julich
Germany, Julich
Planta
solar 10
Planta
solar 20
Sierra
Yanqing
Spain, Sanlucar la
mayor (Sevilla)
Spain, sanlucar la mayor
(Sevilla)
United States lancaster
California
China, yanqing county
Owners
Capacity
(MW)
1.5
Break
ground date
Starting
year
July 2009
August
2012
April 2011
Academy of
sciences
Torresol
energy
DLR
19.9
Abengoa solar
11.0
2005
Abengoa solar
20.0
2006
1.5
February
2009
July 31, 2007
eSolar
5.0
July 2008
December
2008
June 25,
2007
April 22,
2009
July 2009
Academy of
sciences
2006
July 2011
Heliostat eld
area (m2)
Receiver
type
Power
cycle
Storage
Type
10,000
Cavity
Rankine
1h
304,750
Cavity
Rankine
15 h
17,650
Volumetric Rankine
1.5 h
75,000
Cavity
Rankine
1h
150,000
Cavity
Rankine
1h
27,670
Cavity
Rankine
10,000
Cavity
Rankine
Two-stage heat
storage
Fossil
solar
Fossil
solar
Fossil
solar
Fossil
solar
Fossil
solar
Solar
only
() not available.
2.2.4. Central receiver solar thermal power plants under

construction [32,7880]
Nowadays many power tower projects are underway worldwide and most of them will be operational in 2013. In Spain,
about 700 MW of CSP-plants are being commissioned this year.
For the USA, a total of 1.2 GW CSP power installations are
underway and should be in operation in 2013. Near San Bernardino County, California, the largest plant Ivanpah has reached
around 75% completion. This power tower is the result of a close
collaboration between BrightSource and the pioneer corporation
Google. Africa is a very promising market for CSP. For example,
near the Kaxu Solar One parabolic trough power station, the
largest 50 MW Khi Solar One plant is under construction in South
Africa. Details about underway solar towers are presented in
Table 4.
Table 4
Central receiver solar thermal power plants underway [32,7880].
Name
Capacity (MW)
Country location
Expected
completion
Ivanpah
facility
(3 units)
Crescent
dunes
Khi solar
one
Delingha
e-Cube 1
THEMIS
377
USA, San Bernardino

county, CA
2013
110
USA, Nye county, NV
2013/14
100
South, Africa Upington
2014
China, Delingha
China, Hainan
France, PyreneesOrientales
2013
2013
50
1
1.4
() not available.
2.2.5. Central receiver solar thermal power plants in the planning

[32,7880,84]
More than 10.135 GW CSP power installations are announced
mainly by the USA and Spain but also by China [79]. Projects in
the eld are also under consideration in the Sun Belt countries
such as Algeria, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and India [80]. Saudi
Arabia has recently announced an enormous deployment of CSP
technology in over the next 20 years, with a target of 25 GW by
2032 [32]. Table 5 illustrate the announced CRS to be operational
before 2020 [32,79]. The main planned CRS power plants to be
operational by 2020 are listed in Table 5. In the USA, a large part
of the projects are for the 200500 MW CRS power plants. For
instance, BrightSource Energy has taken over the Palen Solar
Power project after Solar Millennium bankruptcy in 2012. However, the concept is expected to switch from the parabolic trough
technology to the CRS one.
The Palen project includes two 250 MW adjacent power plants
similar to Ivanpah technology. Each plant is designed with about
85,000 heliostats for sunlight reection to the receiver located on
the top of a 228 m tower. Expected to be operational by June
2016, this project realisation is projected to start by the end of
2013. Likewise, BrightSource is developing another two 500 MW
projects named Rio Mesa and Hidden Hills. These two projects are
still in the certication process.
On the other hand, in Arizona, Crossroads Solar Energy Project
that includes a 150 MW tower technology and a 65 MW solar
photovoltaic (PV) technology is being developed by SolarReserves. The Crossroads central receiver technology is a molten
salt heat transfer uid and storage medium technology. It is the
same technology that has been adopted for the Crescent Dunes
which is underway by the same company in Tonopah, Nevada.
Intended to be operational two years after breaking ground, the
power facilities are expected to supply more than 500 GW h per
year of green electricity to Arizona or California.
2.3. Recent R&D activities in central receiver technology
Recent R&D activities in particular, ECOSTAR, have focused on
the most important factors and actions that contribute signicantly to achieve a cost reduction in tower concept. Scaling up
and mass production can contribute to about 50% in LEC reduction, while the other half in LEC reduction is the result of R&D
efforts, according to these studies [11,29,71].
The ECOSTAR study pointed out that the lowest LEC for large
scale CSP-plants would be for solar tower concept with pressurized air and molten salt technology [71]. These results are
conrmed by latest studies [40].
Over the last decade, R&D efforts have been growing sharply in
the USA (SNL, NREL) and the Europe (DLR and CIEMAT); China,
India and Australia are starting momentous R&D activities, while
other developing countries have expressed interest, in particular
Algeria, Morocco and UEA [1028,32,80,85]. Progress in R&D, and
so, performance improvements of the three major components
can achieve very signicant costs reduction [3,7,8,11,71].
After a stagnation period that extended from 1996 to 2000, several
R&D projects have been launched mainly in Europe and the USA to
investigate the solar tower technology under real solar conditions. As
a result, many pilot plants have been erected and their O&M methods
19
Table 5
Planned Central receiver solar thermal power plants [32,7880].
Name
Country
Capacity (MW)
Location
Rio mesa solar project

BrightSource PPA5
BrightSource PPA6
BrightSource PPA7
Rice solar energy project
Crossroads solar energy project
Suntower
eSolar 1
eSolar 2
AZ 20
Alcazar Solar Thermal Power Project
Almaden Plant
Unknown
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
Spain
Spain
Spain
China
500
200
200
200
150
150
92
84
66
50
50
20
2000
Riverside county, California

Mojave, California
Mojave, California
Mojave, California
Riverside County, California
Maricopa County, Arizona
a Ana County, New Mexico
Don
Los Angeles County, California
Los Angeles County, California
Sevilla
Alcazar de San Juan
Albacete
Mongolian desert, China
Table 6
Recent and announced R&D projects of CRS.
Research project
Country Location
Main Developer
HTF
Budget
Main subsystem focus
ConSolar [29,86,70]
Israel
Israel
WIS
Pressurized air
SOLAIR [70]
Spain
Almeria
DLR, SIEMAT
Air
Volumetric receiver hybrid

Brayton cycle
Volumetric receiver
SOLHYCO [70]
Spain
DLR
Pressurized air
SOLASYS [70]
EU
Algeria
EU
Israel
DLR
Pressurized air
SOLGATE [29,70,87]
EU
Spain
ORMAT
Pressurized air
SOLUGAS [29,32]
EU-SOLARIS [32]
Spain
EU
Seville
EU
Abengoa
CTAER
Pressurized air
Various
Variable geometry test facility [32]
Spain
CTAER
Various
Particle receiver integrated with a uidized [32]
USA
Tabernas,
Almeria
USA
h3.3
million
h3,088,218 Hybrid Brayton cycle
cogeneration
h2,536,077 Syngas hybrid Brayton
cycle
h3.2
Volumetric receiver hybrid
million
Brayton cycle
h6 million Receiver Heliostat eld
h4,45 M
The three main
subsystems
h5 million Advanced concepts
NREL
Temperature falling-particle receiver [32]
USA
USA
SNL and DLR
Small-particle solar receiver for high-temperature USA

Brayton power cycles [32]
10 MW s-CO2 turbine[32]
USA
s-CO2 turbo-expander and heat exchangers [32]
USA
USA
San Diego State

University (SDSU)
NREL
Southwest research
institute (SWRI)
Brayton energy LLC
Gas/solid, twophase ow
Recirculation
Particles
Air a and carbon
particles
CO2
CO2
CO2
$3.8
million
$4.4
Million
$3.8
millions
$8 million
$6.8
million
SNL
Molten salt
New solar receiver that uses s-CO2 as transfer uid USA

[32]
Molten salts loop test facility [32,85]
USA
USA
USA
USA
Albuquerque,
New Mexico
Particle receiver
Particle receiver
Particle receiver Brayton
cycle
Brayton cycle
Power conversion cycle
Particle receiver Brayton
cycle
HTF
() not available.
and components optimized. With special focus on the hybrid congurations and with the aim of developing the three main subsystems
of the central receiver concept, ConSolar, Solair and Solgate have
conrmed the viability of the full-scale application of central receiver
technology [70].
More recently, the US department of Energy has announced
the SunShot program. In order to achieve signicant costs reduction and to develop some innovative concepts such as the use of
supercritical CO2 as heat transfer uid for Brayton cycle plants or
falling particle receiver [32]. More than 21 R&D projects (totaling
$56 million over three years) have been launched. In order to
enhance the falling particle receiver technology performance and
reduce costs, four important R&D projects in the eld have been
awarded to NREL, SNL, Brayton Energy LLC and the University of
Colorado. These R&D projects are outlined in Tables 610.
Likewise, Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) has announced
the commissioning of its Molten Salt Test Loop (MSTL) at National
Solar Test Facility (NSTF) in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The MSTL

consists of 3 parallel test platforms with 38 t of melting salts.
The tests have been successively meeting, or even exceeding all of
the design requirements in plant-like conditions by achieving
temperature range of 300585 1C. [32,85]
In Europe, besides the pioneering Solar Platform of Almeria, an
innovative research project named the Variable Geometry Central
Receiver Solar Test Facility has been launched by the Spanish
research center CTAER (Advanced Technology Center for Renewable Energy). In this demonstration plant, the heliostats are
replaced by the so-called helio-mobiles. These helio-mobiles are
placed over a mobile platform which moves over rails around the
tower. The receiver, located at the top of a xed tower, is housed
in a rotating platform [32,88].
In order to demonstrate the feasibility and examine the thermal
performance of a CRS- hybrid Brayton cycle plants, Abengoa have
been built a SOLUGAS facility at the Solucar Platform in Seville,
20
Table 7
Expected improvements for the three main subsystems of CRS [33,71,93].
Heliostats eld
Solar receiver
Power conversion system
Enhancements
Benets (%)
Enhancements
Heliostat and layout Efciency: 3 [93]
Multi-tower conguration
Cost reduction: 1726 [93]
LEC reduction: 917 [71]
Tracking system
Benets (%)
Efciency: 5 [93]
Enhancements
Central receiver- Brayton cycle
system (up to 50 MW)
Central receiver-rankine cycle
system (current Efciency)
Efciency: 4060 [93] Central receiver -combined
LEC reduction: 17 [71] cycle system
Higher operating
temperature
Benets (%)
Supercritical: 2226 [33]
Superheated: 1617 [33]
Table 8
Heliostat eld design data of operational solar power towers [32,7886].
Name/Type
Beijing Badaling solar tower/

demonstration
Gemasolar thermosolar plant/
commercial
Julich
solar tower/
demonstration
Planta solar 10/commercial
Planta solar 20/ commercial
Sierra suntower/
demonstration
Yanqing solar power/
demonstration
Latitude,
longitude
Solar radiation
(kW h/m2/yr)
Land
area
Field area
(m2)/ Type
Area-N of
Helios
Heliostat
manufacturer
Heliostat Design
401400 North,
1151900 East
371330 North,
51190 West
Rhineland
1290
Sener
17 ha
2012
55 ha
Abengoa
Solucar 120: Glass-metal
2012
80 ha
Abengoa
Solucar 120: Glass-metal
2629
eSolar
208
acres
100 m2
N 100
120.0 m2
N 2,650
8.2 m2
N 2,153
120.0 m2
N 624
120.0 m2
N 1,255
1.136 m2
N 24,360
100 m2
N 100
64 facets, each facet

1.25 1.25 m2
Sheet metal stamped facet
902
100,000 North
eld
304,750
surrounded
17,650 North
eld
75,000 North
eld
150,000 North
eld
27,670
Himin solar
2172
13
acres
195 ha
Himin solar
371260 North,
61140 West
371260 North,
61140 West
341460 North,
118180 West
401400 North
1151400 West
10,000
() not available.
Table 9
Solar receiver data of operational solar power towers [32,7886].
Name
Tower height
Receiver manufacturer
Receiver type
HTF
Inlet temp. (1C)
Outlet Temp. (1C)
Beijing Badaling
Gemasolar
Julich
Planta solar 10
Planta solar 20
Sierra
118 m
140 m
60 m
115 m
165 m
55 m
Dongfang Boiler Group Co.,Ltd

Sener
Kraftanlagen Munchen
Tecnicas reunidas
Tecnicas reunidas
Babcock & Wilcox victory energy
Water/Steam
Molten salts
Air
Water/ steam
Water/ steam
Water
104
290
80100
218
400
565
680
250300
250300
440
Yanqing
100 m
Cavity
Cavity
Volumetric
Cavity
Cavity
Dual-cavity receiver &
tubular external
Cavity
Superheating steam
390
Table 10
Power conversion cycle design of operational solar power towers [32,7886].
Name
Turbine capacity
gross/net
Turbine
manufacturer
Power cycle
Cooling system
Fossil
back-up
Beijing Badaling
1.5 MW/1.5 MW
Steam rankine 400 1C,4 MPa
Wet cooling
Gemasolar
19.9 MW/19.9 MW
Hangzhou steam
turbine
Siemens
Wet cooling
Julich
Planta solar 10
1.5 MW/1.5 MW
11.02 MW/11.0 MW
Siemens
GE
Planta solar 20
20.0 MW/20.0 MW
GE
SST-600 2-cylinder Reheat

steam turbine
Steam Rankine 480 1C, 26bar
Steam Rankine 40 bar 250 1C,
2 Pressures
Steam Rankine 45.0 bar
Oil-red
Two stages; saturated
boiler
steam/oil
Natural gas Tow tank; Molten salt
Sierra
5.0 MW/5.0 MW
Steam Rankine
Yanqing
1 MW/1 MW
Steam Rankine 2.35 MPa
() not available.
() not available.
Dry cooling
Wet cooling, refrigeration
towers
Wet cooling, Refrigeration
towers
Wet cooling, Cooling
towers
Thermal storage
Ceramic heat sink

Natural gas
Natural gas
None
two-stage heat storage

system
Spain. The R&D plant consists of a modied gas turbine located

close to a 351 inclined receiver collecting solar radiation reected
by a 69 heliostat eld. It has been a truly close collaboration
between all of the participants with DLR, Turbomach, GEA Technika Cielpina, New Energy Algeria being the developers and
Abengoa the constructor [32,8991].
Another important European project is EU-SOLARIS, the European CSP research Mega-facility. The project is very promising. In
addition to ESTELA, Germany, Spain, Greece, Italy, France, Cyprus,
Portugal, Turkey and Israel are collaborating in this project [32,92].
The following sections review the most important R&D activities
and published papers on the major components of the central
receiver solar thermal power plants. The R&D studies and their
results are reported and classied into three groups according to
the subject treated, namely heliostat eld, solar receiver and power
conversion system. In each group the analysis of existing design,
experiments and suggested development and expected improvements are presented in order to make the article more helpful for
future research.
3. Heliostat eld
The performance of CRS depends strongly on the solar eld
efciency which in its turn is related to the heliostat design, the
eld layout, the tracking system and control system. In this
section, the published studies focused on the heliostat eld are
reviewed and their results are briey reported. Also, methods and
techniques used or proposed for enhancing the heliostat and the
heliostats eld performance are sketched out.
3.1. Heliostat and layout
The solar eld consists of a large number of tracking mirrors,
called heliostats. A single heliostat includes a set of mirrors,
21
a tracking system, a frame, a structure foundation and control

system. The basic design of single heliostat is illustrated in Figs.
817. Heliostat eld performance is a function of the optical
efciency. Cosine effect, shadowing effect, blocking effect, mirror
reectivity, atmospheric attenuation, and receiver spillage are the
main factors affecting a heliostat optical efciency [29]. It is well
known that the half of the total investment cost and 40% of total
energy losses are attributed to the heliostat eld. It is then
essential to optimize its design to reduce the capital cost and to
improve the overall efciency of the power plant [36,29].
3.1.2. Design
Siala and Elayeb [94] have presented the mathematical modeling of a graphical method for no-blocking radial stagger heliostats layout. In the proposed method, the eld is divided into
certain groups of heliostats to increase its density and the Authors
reported that the method is simple compared to cell-wise
procedure.
For positioning the heliostats, Sanchez and Romero [95] have
proposed a new procedure, named Yearly Normalized Energy
Surface (YNES). In this method, the heliostats positioning is
determined using the yearly direct solar radiation available at
any location. The inferred results agree closely with that that of
WinDelsol and SOLVER codes; nevertheless, the annual optical
efciency needs to be calculated by ray tracing method, and thus,
the procedure is time consuming.
Wei et al. [96] have coupled the ray tracing technique with the
parametric search algorithm to estimate the optical efciency and
to optimise the heliostat eld layout. Using this method they have
investigated four different layout types, i.e., NorthSouth corneld, NorthSouth stagger, Radial corneld and Radial staggered,
and found that NorthSouth corneld layout is the most suitable
for 1 MWe solar tower power plant in China.
Mirrors
Frame
Tracking
Control
Foundation
Fig. 8. Basic concept of heliostat (left); radial staggered layout for positioning heliostats (right).
Fig. 9. Field density and optical efciency of radially staggered layout (left) and phyllotaxis spiral layout (right). Spiral layout respectively enhances optical efciency and
reduces land area by 0.36% and 15.8%, compared with radial layout [112].
22
Azimuth Axis
Azimuth Axis
Target
Target
Spinning
Axis
Elevation Axis
Fig. 10. Spinningelevation (left) and Azimuthelevation (right) tracking methods.
Temperature
Porous Structure
Structure
Hot Air
Air
Concentrated
Direct
Radiation
Absorber
thickness
e
Inlet
Outlet
Fig. 11. Volumetric effect of volumetric receiver.
Fig. 12. Volumetric receiver used in HiTRec and Solair projects (left), solar receiver at PSA (right) [53] (experiments).
Wei et al. [97] have developed a new method and a faster code
called HFLD (Heliostat Field Layout Design) for heliostats layout.
In this method the heliostat eld optimization is based on the
receiver geometrical aperture and an efciency factor. Applying
their technique to the PS10 power plant, they proposed a new
layout for PS10 eld as good as that is already implanted.
Furthermore; the Authors introduced a new methodology based
on sunshine duration to investigate the possibility of framing
under heliostats.
Wei et al. [98] have detailed the mathematical formulations of
tracking and ray tracing techniques for the target-aligned heliostat. To this end they have created and incorporated in the HFLD
code a new module to analysis such heliostat with asymmetric

surface and compared the simulated results with the well known
software Zemax with good agreement.
Wei et al. [99] have implemented in the HFLD code a module
for design and analyze of aspherical toroidal heliostat eld. They
found that the toroidal heliostat eld has higher performance
than that of spherical heliostat if the design and tracking system
are ideal. They have also recommended the selection of crop
according to the distribution map of the sunshine duration when
framing under heliostats.
Wei et al. have developed and incorporated into the HFLD code
a new module for the beam-down central receiver system based
Cold Air
Volumetric
Receiver
Concentrated
Direct
Radiation
Hot
Air
Porous
Material
Tubular
Receiver
Water/
Steam
Fig. 13. Top view of dual volumetric-tubular receiver (suggested enhancement).
Air jet
Panel
Aperture
Heliostat Field
Fig. 14. Basic design of a cavity receiver made of ve panels, an aperture and an
aerowindow for the protection.
23
on the ray tracing method. The selected power plant for the study
has consisted of 3 heliostats and a hyperboloid reector. They
have found good agreement between their results and that
obtained by the well-known software Zemax. [100]
Zhang et al. [101] have dened a new factor named available
land efciency. This factor is function of the cosine effect, atmospheric attenuation and the intercept efciency. It has been used
to position in an optimum way the heliostats of 1 MW solar tower
power plant and found that their technique grants an annual
efciency of 71.36% when incorporated in the HFLD code.
Augsburger and Favrat [102] have studied the thermoeconomic of heliostat eld to nd design parameters of solar tower
power plant that offers better performance, in particular, efciency, investment costs and environmental benets.
Collado [103] has developed a simplied model to be used for
preliminary studies of surrounding heliostat eld and successfully
compared its performance to Solar Tres demonstration plant data.
Utamura et al. [104] have proposed a methodology to get an
optimal layout of group of heliostats in beam-down central
receiver. They found that, due to spillage effect, the optical losses
become signicant at heliostats located at a distance from the
tower farther than four times the tower height.
Wang and Wei have proposed a layout of 100 heliostats for
1 MW solar tower power plant in China. [105]
Lopez-Martinez et al. [106] have predicted the cloud passage
by computing heliostat eld cover factor. They have suggested
turning off some heliostats to bring down the receiver temperature before the cloud covers, and therefore, prevent the receiver
from thermal stress.
3.1.3. Experiment
Wang et al. [107] have experimentally measured the effects of
wind on a 100 m2 area Dahan heliostat under various operating
conditions of vertical and horizontal wind direction. They have
found that the maximum wind pressure at each test point and
blockage is obtained in the wind speed of 14 m/s. This latter have
been used to estimate the maximum displacement and strain of
the heliostat structure.
Chen et al. [108] have designed, constructed and tested the
rst prototype of a 4 m2 non-imaging focusing heliostat. They
have reported that a solar furnace system using this prototype has
successfully reached in access of 3400 1C.
Schell [109] has reported the design, the realisation, the
testing-calibration, and performances measurement of esolar
heliostat elds which focuses on low-cost design, high-volume
manufacturing and ease of installation.
Fernandez-Reche [110] has carried out a statistical analysis of
the reectance in the heliostat eld at the Plataforma Solar de
Inlet, Cold particles

Concentrated
solar radiation
Outlet, Hot particles

Heliostat
Fig. 15. Basic concept of solid particle receiver; a cylindrical receiver where particles are injected from the top-center to be heated up and returned from the bottom.
24
Combustor
Pressurized Receiver
Heliostat Field
Turbine
Compressor
Air Intake
To stack
Fig. 16. Solar central receiver Brayton cycle (SCR-BC) system.
SteamTurbine
Steam Drum
Storage System
Wet Cooling
Tower-Receiver
Heliostat Field
Fig. 17. Solar power tower with saturated steam cavity receiver and storage system (PS 10-like plant).
Almeria (PSA) in order to determine nd the minimum number of

measurements necessary to provide a total reectance and
pointed out that the methodology is useful in other solar thermal
systems such as parabolic trough and dish collectors.
Collado [111] has examined the accuracy of UNIZAR and
HFCAL analytic ux density models by comparing their performance to measured ux densities sent by 10 off-axis aligned
heliostats onto a vertical receiver plane at PSA. They concluded
that both HFCAL and UNIZAR are efcient tools to simulate the
energetic images from heliostats, although the UNIZAR is less
simple and slightly less accurate than the former HFCAL.
3.1.4. Enhancement
Noone et al. [112] have proposed a new pollytaxis spiral eld
layout based on heliostats discretization approach. They have
compared the results of the proposed layout approach with
current PS10 eld arranged in a radially staggered conguration,
as well as, with the simulated results of Wei et al. [97]. They
concluded that the spiral layout allow placing heliostats in high
efciency eld positions, and thus, offers higher optical efciency
and signicantly reduce land area and Levelized Energy Cost LEC.
Leonardi and Aguanno [113] have developed a code named
CRS4-2 to evaluate the optical performance of solar eld made up
of both square and circular heliostats of diverse geometrical
parameters. They have then introduced a new factor called the
characteristic function that depends on the zenith and the
azimuth angles. This factor has been applied to estimate the total
energy collected by the eld; while the shading-blocking effects
have been determined by a tessellation of the heliostats.
In addition to the comparisons of concentrating solar thermal
systems, the code going to be extended to the analysis of MultiTower conguration, Beam-Down and Multi-Apertures concepts.
Danielli et al. [114] have introduced a new concept named
Concatenated Micro-Tower CMT. They have compared its performance with that of larger conguration and have revealed that
CMT with a dynamic receiver allocation can improve the annual
optical efciency by 1219%.
Pitz-Paal et al. [115] have coupled genetic algorithm with
NelderMead algorithm to design heliostat eld for high temperature thermo-chemical processes for fuels production. They
have found that the selected chemical process has a strong impact
on the eld design and performance.
Collado [116] has developed a simplied radial staggered
method for surrounded heliostat eld that uses only two parameters for the optimisation, i.e., a blocking factor and an additional
security distance, required for installation and maintenance. He
has conrmed that the Houston cell-wise method (UHC-RCELL)
needs some improvements to nd optimum mean radial and
azimuth spacing of the heliostat eld.
Collado and Guallar have partially described a new code, called
campo. This code is meant to be used to solve the complex
problem of the optimized design of heliostat eld layouts, by
performing accurate evaluation of the shadowing and blocking
factor for heliostats placed in radial staggered conguration. They
have compared the resulting optimized layout to that of the
Gemasolar plant with good agreement. [117]
Chen et al. [118] have developed and constructed a second
generation of non-imaging heliostat, which is three times larger
than the rst generation. They have then applied the new
heliostat prototype for potato peeling and results have been very
promising.
Vazquez [119] has analyzed the mechanical structure and

tracking of SENER heliostat. He has been developed the SENSOL
code that could be used for design of heliostat structure taking
into account the wind loads, and proposed a new lighter design
for SENER heliostat equipped with cheaper tracking system.
Augsburger and Favrat [120] have focused on the effects of
cloud passage, over of the heliostat eld, on the receiver ux
distribution. They have then proposed a strategy for the progressive start-up/shut-down of the heliostats to ensure regular
transients. The study is applied to the case of a Gemasolar-like
circular heliostat eld with a cylindrical receiver.
Ballestrin and Marzo [122] have been interested in the solar
radiation attenuation loss between the heliostats and the receiver. They have compared the results of three simulation software,
i.e., MODTRAN, DELSOL and MIRVAL, to that obtained by the
Pitman and VantHull model [121]. They have considered two
atmosphere types, i.e., the rural atmosphere (visibility 23 km) and
poor atmosphere (visibility 5 km), and concluded that the MODTRAN software is more accurate and more versatile than the
DELSOL and the MIRVAL under various climate types.
25
the solar zenith and azimuth angles with a 0.052 mrad precision,
taking into consideration the errors occurring during the heliostats installation.
Badescu [127] has investigated the heliostat tracking error
distribution of concentrated solar radiation on the receiver. He
has compared the obtained results with the measurements data
of Kosuke Aiuchi et al. [131]. He has deduced that some empirical
probability distributions models such as Gaussian and the Uniform Distribution Approaches have many advantages in practice.
Jones et al. [128] have developed the so-called V-shot measurement system for measuring the local slopes of a heliostat
mirror by scanning it with a laser beam, detecting the point of
incidence of the reected beam and calculating the resulting
surface normal.
Chen et al. [129] have reported the algorithm and the methodology of residual aberration analysis of non-imaging focusing
heliostat.
Moeller et al. have presented a control strategy for the
detection of cloud passage. The control system turns the heliostats to standby position, and then returns them automatically to
their original orientation after could passage [130].
3.2. Tracking and control system

In the solar eld, each heliostat tracks the sun to minimize the
cosine effect, and therefore maximize the solar energy collection
through positioning its surface normal to the bisection of the
angle subtended by sun and the solar receiver. Heliostat sun
tracking can be classied either as Open loop system or as closed
loop system [14]. The open loop system is based on astronomic
formulae relating the suns position to the system geometry. This
system is reliable-low cost and it is recommended for larger solar
eld because the heliostat is under computer control. On the
other hand, the closed loop system uses sensor to track the sun.
This system is then more accurate and very useful for small
heliostat elds. However, this system suffers from lower performance during cloudy period. Two sun-tracking methods are
usually applied in CRS, i.e., the AzimuthElevation (AE) and
SpinningElevation (SE) [28]. Compared with AE the SE
tracking method allows more solar energy collection at the
receiver and reduces spillage losses by 1030% [28].
3.2.2. Design
Chen et al. [123] have analyzed the optical performance of two
different sun tracking methods at the level of a single heliostat
and at that of a heliostat eld. They have been considered the case
of a xed geometry non-imaging focusing heliostat using
SpinningElevation (SE) axis and the case of a spherical geometry heliostat using AzimuthElevation (AE) axis are considered.
They have found that the SE tracking system can reduce the
receiver spillage losses by 1030%; moreover, the SE tracking
provides much more uniform concentrated sunlight at the receiver without huge variations with the time of day compared to the
AE system.
Chong and Tan [124] have detailed in a comparative study on
the range of motion of an AE and an SE tracking systems for
both single heliostat and heliostat eld. They have concluded that
the annual power consumption of SE tracking method is lower
than AE method.
Chen et al. [125] have derived a new sun tracking formulas for
a non-imaging focusing heliostat that has no xed optical geometry based on the non-imaging optical concept to focus the
direct solar irradiation on the receiver.
Liang et al. [126] have proposed an open loop control system
for heliostat tracking based on astronomic formulae to calculate
3.2.3. Experiment
Aiuchi et al. [131] have designed, constructed and tested the
accuracy of a photo-sensor sun tracking system for controlling
heliostat using an equatorial mount in addition to two Aidedsensors to maintain stable tracking in a cloudy sky. They have
achieved sun-tracking with an error of 0.6 mrad in clear weather.
Nevertheless, the error is larger during cloudy periods and hence
the larger are the energy losses.
Kribus et al. [132] have tested, at the Weizmann Institute
heliostat eld, a closed loop control system. This control system
automatically corrects the tracking error though a dynamic
measurement of spillage, detection of aiming errors, and feedback
of a correction signal to the tracking algorithm that can reach the
precision of 0.1 mrad.
Ulmer et al. [133] have designed, implemented and tested, at
CESA-1 heliostat eld, an automatic measurements system of
heliostat slope deviation which based on the reection of regular
patterns in the mirror surface and their distortions due to mirror
surface errors. The method offers signicant gain in speed and
handling and provides better predictions of the heliostat eld
performance with high resolution of about 1 million points per
heliostat and measurement time of 1 min/heliostat. Furthermore,
it can be used to measure other solar concentrators such as dish
and parabolic trough.
3.2.4. Enhancement
Arqueros et al. [134] have suggested the use of star reection
on the mirror at night to move the heliostat in order to get
enough information for determining the local surface normal at
various points on the reector.
Berenguel et al. [135] have used articial vision technique and
a B/W CCD camera to correct and control heliostat positioning
offset in an automatic way. The proposed control system allows
the elimination of the manual regulation.
Mehrabian and Aseman [136] have developed a computer
programming algorithm for evaluating the typical angles of
individual heliostats. The algorithm can be used for open loop
control and to predict blocking and shading effect of the
heliostat eld.
Bonilla et al. [137] have coupled the hybrid heliostat eld
model and a wrapped model to handles the real-time simulation
and communication between the heliostat eld simulator and
26
Heliostat Field Control software HelFiCo. The Authors has also

reported some techniques to improve simulation performance.
Roca et al. [138] have designed, simulated and tested an
automatic controller that employs the mean hydrogen reactor
temperature as feedback and selects the heliostats to be focused
or taken out of focus, to make the CRS-hydrogen reactor within
the margins of safety and for eliminating the manual control of
heliostats. The ensuing experimental results of Hydrosol facility at
CIEMATPSA have been very promising.
4. Solar receiver
In a CRS, the solar receiver is the heat exchanger where the
solar radiation is absorbed and transformed into thermal energy
useful in power conversion systems. There are different classication criteria for solar receivers, depending on the geometrical
conguration and the absorber materials used to transfer the
energy to the working uid. In this survey, receivers are classied
into three groups widely employed in central receiver system, i.e.,
volumetric receivers, cavity receivers and particle receivers. The
results of numerous articles concerned with receivers design,
experiments and improvements are presented in this part.
4.1. Volumetric receiver
Volumetric receivers consist of porous wires or either metal or
ceramic. A good volumetric receiver produces the so-called
volumetric effect, which means that the irradiated side of the
absorber is at a lower temperature than the medium leaving the
absorber [29]. The porous structure acts as convective heat
exchanger where the HTF (in particular air) is forced to absorb
the direct solar irradiation by convection heat transfer mode [29].
4.1.2. Design
Avila-Marn [53] has presented a detailed review of more than
twenty volumetric receivers including their design, material and
performance and then classied them into four groups based on
air pressure and type of material: two open-loop receiver groups
(Phoebus-TSA and SOLAIR), and two closed-loop receiver groups
(DIAPR and REFOS).
Sani et al. [139] have investigated the use of ceramic zirconium carbide samples as absorbers in solar power plants. They
have concluded that ZrC-based ultrahigh temperature ceramics
has lower emissivity than SiC already used in volumetric solar
receiver.
Kribus et al. [140] have dealt with unstable gas ow in
volumetric receiver to nd out overheating regions that cause
local failures such as melting or cracking.
Becker et al. [141] have studied theoretically and numerically
the ow behaviour in porous material and indicated that volumetric receivers with a high heat conductivity, a quadratic
pressure drop and high ratio of viscous permeability coefcient
to inertial permeability coefcient lead to stable ow.
Marcos et al. [142] have studied the effect of geometrical
parameters on the Air Return Ratio ARR in volumetric receiver
and obtained a higher average value of 70%. They have concluded
that further improvements in design should take into account
receiver edge, lateral wind and air injection angle.
Villafan-Vidales [143] has numerically analysed the heat
transfer into volumetric receiver made of porous ceramic foam
and applied in a thermo-chemical solar reactor for hydrogen
production. He has validated the simulated results with experimental data of a reactor tested at a solar furnace. The Author has
also reported that the receiver length has a weak inuence on the
temperature distribution of the uid and solid phases. Moreover,

he has found that the foam cell size does not affect considerably
foam and uid temperature distributions.
Wu [145] has developed a steady state macroscopic model for
temperature distribution in a ceramic foam volumetric receiver.
He has examined the effect of numerous design parameters and
material proprieties on the temperature distribution of the uid
and solid phases by comparison to experimental data of [144]. He
has concluded that the heat ux is strongly related to uid media
and appropriate distribution is obtained for thin ceramic foam
sizes of 13 mm.
He et al. [148] have introduced a new method and unied
Monte Carlo Ray-Trace (MCRT) code for calculating the solar
energy ux density distribution in volumetric solar receiver with
secondary concentrator. They have applied the proposed method
to predict photo-thermal conversion process of solar energy. They
have then found an error of 10% when comparing the numerical
results with the measured data and the simulation results of Buck
et al. [146,147].
Wu [150] has numerically investigated the convective heat
transfer coefcient between the air ow and porous ceramic foam
in volumetric receiver. He has proposed a new correlation as a
function of cell size valid for porosity in the range of
0.66oeo0.93 and Reynolds number in the range 70 oRe o800.
His results were in good agreement with the experimental data of
Younis et al. [149].
Fricker [151] has proposed a thermal storage system to protect
solar receiver during transient conditions by feeding hot heat
transfer uid into the receiver when quick change in radiation
intensity occurs.
4.1.3. Experiment
Sciti et al. [152] have conducted experiments to examine the
potential of Ceramics, hafnium and zirconium diborides when
used in high-temperature solar receivers. They have measured the
room-temperature hemi- spherical reectance spectra from the
ultraviolet (UV) to the mid- infrared (MIR) wavelength regions.
They have concluded that diboride family has a very high solar
absorber performance because of higher absorbance over emittance ratio compared with SiC.
Fend et al. [144] have made comparative studies between the
thermo-physical and heat transfer properties of six porous materials used in volumetric solar receivers. They have concluded that
combining materials of high specic surface and porosity with
good thermal conductivity (eg. SiC catalyst carrier) improves
receiver performance although ceramic-based materials are are
still offers better solution.
Fend et al. [153] have analyzed two high porosity materials
that are suitable for volumetric receivers. The metal foam of
different cell density has been investigated. The obtained results
have shown that double layer silicon carbide metal foam has
better performance than single layer.
Albanakis et al. [154] have experimentally compared the heat
transfer and pressure drop of nickel and inconel metal foams
when used as volumetric solar receiver and revealed that the
pressure drop and the heat transfer of nickel foam are higher than
those of inconel metal.
Wu et al. [155] have experimentally and numerically investigated the pressure drop in ceramic foam employed in volumetric
receiver considering ten sorts of ceramic foam structures. They
have derived a new pressure drop correlation that is more
accurate than the existing ones.
Garcia-Martin et al. [156] have developed and implanted, at
the Plataforma Solar de Almeria (PSA), an automatic control
system that allows appropriate distribution of temperature in a
volumetric receiver, based on a heuristic knowledge-based heliostat control strategy. They have also reported the tests details and
the results.
4.1.4. Enhancement
Lenert and Wang [157] have presented a combined modeling
and experimental study to optimize the performance of a cylindrical nano-uid volumetric receiver. Their results suggest that
optimized nano-uids have signicant potential as receivers for
CSP systems because their efciencies are expected to exceed 35%
when coupled to a power conversion cycle.
Cheng et al. [158] have developed a general numerical modelling method and homemade unied code with the MCRT to
simulate the thermal conversion process of REFOS-SOLGATE
pressurized volumetric receiver. They have pointed out to the
fact that the non-uniformity of the radiation ux density distribution is very signicant; it could reach the maximum at the
center-left area near the symmetry axis, and the minimum near
the pressure vessel wall, with the order of magnitude of 8 and 3,
respectively. The proposed design-simulation tool is very powerful for simulating other CSP systems and it is capable of providing
behaviour information on many parameters and phenomena
difcult to study experimentally.
Cheng et al. [159] have combined the Finite Volume Method
(FVM) and the Monte Carlo Ray Tracing (MCRT) method to
examine the effects of geometric parameters of the compound
parabolic concentrator (CPC) and the properties of the porous
absorber on the performance of solar conversion process in
pressurized volumetric receiver (PVR). He has concluded that
CPC exit aperture has much larger effects on the characteristics
and the performance of the PVR than that of the CPC entry
aperture with a constant acceptance angle.
Veeraragavan [160] has developed an analytic model through the
combination of radiative and convective losses coefcients to evaluate the effect of design features and solar radiation on the performance of volumetric receiver with nano-particle-HTF. He has selected
the heat transfer uid VP-1 suspended graphite nano-particle as a
case study. The obtained results have been very interested. He has
then pointed out that the proposed model is a good tool to optimise
the efciency of various receiver congurations.
Arai et al. [161] have considered transient radiative heating of
a semi-transparent liquid suspension in taller solar receivers.
They have found that volumetric receiver with such uid media
would have higher performance.
Buck et al. [162] have developed a hybrid receiver made up of a
tube absorber and an open volumetric receiver. They have compared
its performance with that of PS10 saturated steam receiver. The
Authors have indicated that the new concept offers many advantages;
in particular, the reduction of thermo-mechanical stress induced by
variations in the extent of the evaporation section during transients
as occurred it has occurred in Solar One plant. They have indicated
that the proposed receiver could improve the net annual energy by
27% compared with the solar air heating system.
Garcia-Casals et al. [164] have studied the possibility of
enhancing duct volumetric receiver performance by analyzing
the effect of numerous design parameters, in particular selectivity
mechanisms. Unlike A. Kribus et al. [140] and Pitz-Paal et al.
[163], they have shown that modular absorber design with small
sizes is not necessary because the duct receiver appears to be
inherently stable.
Pritzkow [165] has simulated the dynamic behavior of volumetric receiver during cloudy periods. He has then proposed an
attenuator to protect the receiver from transient conditions and
clouds.
27
4.2. Solar cavity receiver

In a cavity receiver, the radiation reected from the heliostats
passes through an aperture into a box-like structure before
impinging on the heat transfer surface.
4.2.2. Design
James and Terry [166] have investigated the thermal performance of ve cavity receivers of different geometries comprising
spherical, hetero-conical, conical, cylindrical and elliptical. They
have found that the rim angle and cavity geometry have a strong
effects on the energy absorption efciency.
Zhilin et al. [167] have provided a quick overview of the basic
design of cavity air receiver. They have also reported the design
data of the rst demonstrative hybrid solar gas turbine of 70 kW
in Nanjing, China.
Yu et al. [168] have evaluated and simulated the dynamics
performance of solar cavity receiver for full range operation
conditions using combined model which mainly couples the
radiationheat conversion process and three heat transfer parameters. They have also tested the effect of wind and DNI on the
performance of DAHAN receiver. Their results show that wind
angle or velocity can obviously inuence the thermal losses.
Fang et al. [169] have described a methodology for evaluating
thermal performance of saturated steam solar cavity receiver
under windy environment. To this end, the MonteCarlo method,
the correlations of the ow boiling heat transfer and the calculation of air ow eld were coupled to assess absorbed solar energy.
They have concluded that the air velocity attained the maximum
value when the wind came from the side of the receiver and the
thermal loss of receiver also reached the highest value due to the
side-on wind.
Yang et al. [170] have used Computational Fluid Dynamics
(CFD) to look into the distributions of temperature, heat ux and
the heat transfer characteristics of a molten salt tube receiver of a
central receiver system. They have concluded that temperature
distribution of the tube wall and HTF is irregular and the heat ux
of the exposed surface rise with the rise of molten salt velocity.
Sobin et al. [171] have considered the design of the receiver
thermal cyclic life. They have found that asymmetrical shapes of
the receiver caused by expected ux by suitable sensing and
controlling the energy intensity.
Li et al. [172] have performed a steady-state thermal model for
100 kW t molten salt cavity receiver. They have analyzed the
effect of optical parameters on the design of such a receiver.
Hinojosa et al. [173] have presented the numerical results of
natural convection and surface thermal radiation for open cavity
based on Boussinesq approximation.
Gonzalez et al. [175] have numerically analyzed the heat
transfer by natural convection and surface thermal radiation in
a two-dimensional square cavity receiver with large temperature
gradients. Comparing their results to those of Hinojosa et al. [173]
and Chakroun et al. [174], they have concluded for larger
Temperature gradients, i.e., between 200 K and 400 K, the radiative heat transfer is more important that convective heat transfer.
Yang and Yang [176] have considered the relation between the
heat transfer performance and the efciency of a molten salt tube
receiver. They have found that the Nusselt number of the spiral
tube is on average about three times larger than that of the
smooth tube.
Paitoonsurikarn and Lovegrove [177] have numerically examined three different cavity geometries. They have then established
a correlation of the Nusselt number for natural convection.
28
Dehghan and Behnia [178] have developed a model mixing the

three heat transfer modes in an open-top vertical cavity receiver.
They have obtained that natural convection is the major mode of
heat transfer.
Boehm and Nakhaie [179] have developed a ux-on method
for predicting the heat losses of molten salt receiver. They have
the new method with other numerical methods, as well as, with
experimental data of National Laboratories molten salt electric
experiment (MSEE) with good agreement.
Carasso and Becker [180] have proposed a ux-off method to
estimate the heat loss of receiver. They have obtained that this
latter is equal to the change in enthalpy of the working uid when
outlet uid temperature is in a steady state condition.
Kumar and Reddy [181] have developed a 2-D model to predict
the natural convection heat loss of cavity receiver. They have
found that convection heat loss is the maximum at 01 and
declines monotonically with a rise in angle up to 901.
Clausing [182] has presented an analytical model for convective heat loss of a large cavity receiver based on the energy
balance between the hot receiver and the energy transfer across
the aperture. He has divided the internal area of cavity receivers
into a convective zone and a stagnant zone, to compute the
convection heat losses, examined the effect of the geometric
design of the aperture on the heat transfer coefcient.
Clausing [183] has compared the results between analytical
predictions [182] and experimental results of cubical cavity
receiver with good agreement.
Taumoefolau et al. [184] have carried out a theatrical study of
natural convective loss of an electrically heated cavity receiver
with different inclination angles varying from 901 to 901 and
temperature ranging from 450 1C to 650 1C and ratios of aperture
to cavity diameter between 0.5 and 1. Their results were in good
agreements with the experimental results.
Li [185] has developed a steady model that easily estimates
the heat losses from cavity receivers.
Ferriere and Bonduelle [186] have proposed a lumped parameter model for the solar receiver of France Themis plant. They
have simulated the time-dependent parameters involved in the
energy balances.
Fang [187] has proposed an iterative method, based on
MonteCarlo Ray Tracing technique, to determine surface temperature and to investigate the performance of cavity receiver
under windy conditions.
4.2.3. Experiment
Kribus. et al. [188] have experimentally developed and tested a
multistage solar cavity receiver to reduce the heat losses by
dividing the aperture into separate stages according to the
irradiance distribution levels. They have been able to get an air
exit temperatures of up to 1000 1C.
Melchior et al. [189] have designed, fabricated, and tested a
5 kW cylindrical cavity receiver comprising a tubular absorber, for
performing thermo-chemical reaction. The reactor has been
modeled using a 2D steady-state model coupling the three heat
transfer modes to the chemical kinetics, and solved using Monte
Carlo and nite difference techniques. The prototype has achieved
solar-to-chemical energy conversion efciency of 28.5% at a
reactor temperature of 2300 K for an input solar power per unit
length of absorber of 40 kW/m.
Hahm et al. [190] have fabricated and tested a cone concentrator combined with a solar cavity receiver at the solar furnace in
Cologne for comparison to that of single cavity. They have found
that the optimum cone geometry strongly depending on the
cavity model.
Yeh et al. [191] have reported an experimental technique of

modeling with water as a HTF having different densities. They
have found that the ows inside the cavity receiver were laminar
when Grashof number in the order of 107, other than, a transition
to turbulent when the Grashof number exceeded 107.
Chakroun et al. [174] have reported the experimental Nusselt
numbers for a tilted open cavity receiver with polish
aluminum walls.
Zhang et al. have performed experiments to investigate the
transient thermal performance (incident power and ow rate) of a
100 kWt molten salt cavity receiver that use electric source as
incident radiation. They have obtained that the instantaneous
efciency of the receiver in pro-steady state is affected by input
power but is not by changes in the ow rate; however, the closer
the input power is to the design value, the less the efciency
variation. [192]
Taumoefolau et al. [193] performed experiments, using electric heat source, to investigate the performance of cavity receivers. They have then established a relationship between the
natural convection heat loss and the inclination of the receiver.
Quere et al. [194] have performed experiments to look into
laminar natural convection in an open cubical cavity with
isothermal sides. They found that the convection heat loss is
strongly dependent on the cavity inclination.
Reynolds et al. [195] have numerically and experimentally
estimated the heat loss from trapezoidal cavity with hot plate for
ow visualization. He has found that the heat loss estimated by
FLUENT was under-predicted, i.e., about 40% less than the
experimental results.
Prakash et al. [196] have experimentally and numerically
investigated the steady-state convection heat loss from a cylindrical cavity receiver with greater aperture diameter to the cavity
diameter ratio. They have then proposed Nusselt number correlations based on the receiver aperture diameter.
Baker and Faass [197] have described the CESA-1 cavity
receiver including receiver controls, cold and warm receiver
start-ups and the receiver transient response to cloud passage
during operation.
Zhang et al. [198] have applied the transfer function method
(TFM) to estimate the outlet temperature of molten salt cavity
receiver and several experiments were conducted to verify the
method. The authors obtained a relative error of 14.69% when
sharp variation in the input power accrued. Consequently, they
suggested some enhancements in the model for reducing the
inuence of ow rate variation on the thermal performance test
results.
Wu et al. [199] have performed experiments to examine the
heat transfer characteristics of molten salt in a circular tube. They
found a good agreement between the experimental data of
molten salt and numerical correlations.
4.2.4. Enhancement
Montes et al. [55] have put forward a new design for the active
absorber surface of cavity receivers. In this new design the uid
ow pattern has been divided according to the radiation ux map
symmetry. It can then provide uniform temperatures of HTF at
the receiver outlet. Irreversibility can also be decreased by
circulating the uid from the lower temperature region to the
higher temperature region of the absorber surface.
Hischier et al. [200] have proposed a new receiver design, for
combined cycle power plants, consisting of two concentric cylinders. To analyze the temperature distribution and thermal efciency as a function of the geometrical and operational
parameters, they have developed a 2D-steady state model combining the three heat transfer modes. They have been able to
attain an outlet air temperature of 1000 1C at 10 bars; and

consequently a thermal efciency of 78%.
Teichel et al. [203] have developed a semi-gray radiation
model based on a method originally proposed by Beckman
[201] and Gebhart [202], and using extended view factor called
F-hat. This method has been used to investigate the effect of
surface emissivity on the performance of solar cavity receiver. The
results have revealed that optimal distribution of emissivities into
a two-band selective surface can improve the receiver efciency
by 0.7% compared with that of 0.95 emissivity for all wavelengths.
In order to improve the receiver design and efciency, Boerema et al. [56] have compared the thermophysical properties of
liquid Sodium to that of Hitec heat transfer uid using a simple
tubular receiver model. Hitec is a 53% KNO3 40% NaNO2 7%
NaNO3ternary molten salt. The results indicates that the use of
Sodium offer the possibility of reducing the absorption area by
57% and rising the absolute efciency by 1.1%; this is in addition
to its wide range operation temperature (from melting point
97.7 1C to boiling point 873 1C).
Behnia et al. [204] have investigated the radiation and natural
convection in a rectangular cavity lled with a non-participating
uid. They have concluded that external convection weakens the
internal circulation, while radiation strengthens the ow.
Wu et al. [205] have conducted a 3-D numerical study to
examine the effect of geometric design of heat pipe receiver on
natural convection characteristics. They have then proposed a
new accurate correlation of Nusselt number that can estimate
natural convection heat losses.
Leibfried and Ortjohann [206] have focused on the heat losses
of cavity receivers at various inclination angles. They have
proposed new correlations based on correlations suggested by
Clausing and Stine.
Fang et al. [207] have developed a computational model to
simulate the start-up performance of a saturated steam solar cavity
receiver. The selected receiver in their study consists of six-side prism
of absorber tubes with inclined top and bottom faces. They have
examined three starting strategies including cold start-up, warm
start-up and hot start-up and have founded that the convective heat
loss very signicant in this phase; even at the end of start-up, the
convection heat loss is1.5 times more than the radiative heat loss.
Balaji and Venkateshan [208] have considered natural convection in combination with surface radiation in a rectangular
enclosure of a different aspect ratio lled with a nonparticipating medium. They have found that, for aspect ratios
greater than or equal to 2, the convection and radiation mode of
heat transfer could be decoupled. They have then proposed
separate correlations for the convection and radiation Nusselt
number were proposed.
Maffezzoni and Parigi [209] have investigated the dynamic
and control of the solar receiver under ux variations. They have
proposed the control of steam pressure to avoid material thermal
stresses that may lead to receiver failure.
Ben-Zvi et al. [210] have proposed and analyzed a hybrid
concept for solar receiver that consists of two parts, i.e., external
for boiling the steam and a cavity for its superheating; the tow
sections can be work separately and facing different parts in a
surrounding heliostat eld (170 MWth) of larger solar tower
power plant producing superheated steam at 550 1C and pressure
of 150 bars, and therefore, have achieved thermal efciency of
85% at the design point.
4.3. Solar particle receiver
Particles receivers is perhaps less known than others solar
receiver applied in power towers, but not less interesting. The
29
particle receiver, as its name indicated, uses solid particles to

absorb concentrated direct solar irradiation that serve as HTF and
storage medium. This type of solar receiver can achieve high
temperature since solar ux is directly absorbed by the heat
transfer uid and heat exchangers are then not needed [61].
4.3.2. Design
Tan and Chen [54] have reviewed the solid particle receivers
used in water-splitting thermo-chemical process for hydrogen
production. They have consequentially described the conceptual
design, mathematical formulation, experimental and numerical
studies. They have also analyzed the effect of common factors
that affect the receiver performance.
Grena [213] has simulated the temperature distribution in 3 m
fall solar particle receiver. He found that his results are in to good
agreement with that of Chen et al. [211] and Evans et al. [212].
The results have shown that the local temperature can have a
non-uniform distribution depending on the size of the particles
and the exposition time.
Meier [215] has used CFD to simulate combined convective
and radiative heat transfer in falling particle receiver of 1.5 MW
hybrid (solar-fossil) cement plant, He has compared his results
with that of Hruby [214]. He has found that particles with a
diameter smaller than 300 lm can be affected by convective air
streams, thus he proposed air and transparent windows to reduce
convective losses
4.3.3. Experiment
Kim et al. [216] have carried out experiments on small scale
solid particle curtain receiver to determine the variation of
velocity, solids volume fraction, curtain thickness, and curtain
opacity over a drop height of 3 m. They have also simulated the
characteristics of the solid particle by MFIX code. Their simulation
results were in good agreement with the experimental results in
terms of falling particle velocity and solid fraction.
Kim et al. [217] have experimentally and numerically analyzed
the wind effect on particle loss in small solar particle receiver. For
that, they have considered three factors, namely, the wind
velocity, the angle of the attack, and the depth of the cavity. They
have found that a 45 deg angle of attack, less than 0.46 m of the
cavity depth, and a 6.5 m/s wind velocity can induce 10% particle
loss, whereas the wind with 90 deg angle of attack do not affect
signicantly particle curtain.
Bertocchi et al. [218] have experimentally investigated the
outlet temperature of a solar particle receiver of 80 mm diameter
aperture. They have been able to attain 2100 K using nitrogen,
1900 K using CO2, and 2000 K using air as uids media. They have
then achieved an 80% thermal efciency at the highest mass ow
rates without any major failures.
4.3.4. Enhancement
To determine the radiation characteristics of suspended carbon particles solar receiver, Klein et al. [219] have developed a
model that uses improved Mie theory, taking into account
molecule collisions in the energy transfer region. They have found
good agreement between the simulated results and the experimental data. They have come to the conclusion that particles
whose effective radius is between 100 nm and 1000 nm are
optimum in absorbing solar radiation.
Tan et al. [220] have numerically investigated the performance
of solid particle solar receivers with and without the protection of
aerowindow, under different wind conditions. They have concluded that the aerowindow signicantly reduces energy losses.
Jafarian et al. [223] have introduced a novel hybrid chemical
looping combustion (CLC) process, that use the oxygen carrier
30
particles in a CLC system to provide diurnal thermal energy

storage for cavity receiver CRS. The performance of the SCRCLC
hybrid system have been performed using ASPEN PLUS software
with the compositions of products being taken into account by
the Gibbs minimization method with the assumption of ideal gas
behavior. Their results have been validated by data of Hong et al.
[221,222] with a relative error of 6%.
5. Power conversion system

In the power conversion system thermal energy produced at
the receiver is converted into electricity with an efciency that
depends on the thermodynamic cycle and components performance. The three mostly used thermodynamic cycles are: the
Brayton cycle (SCR-BC), the Rankine cycle (SCR-RC) and the
combined cycle (SCR-CC). However, it must be noted that hybrid
operations are used to improve performance. In this part, a review
of the studies carried out on SCR-BC, SCR-RC and SCR-CC, as well
as, control strategy is presented.
5.1. Solar central receiverBrayton cycle (SCR-BC) system
The basic concept of SCR-Brayton cycle consists of a heliostats
eld, a high tower with volumetric air receiver atop and an
adapted gas turbine that is usually installed close to the receiver
to reduce additional energy losses at interconnections (at the
compressor outlet and combustor inlet). The concentrated solar
radiation in the receiver will heat the air, which ows at high
pressure coming from the compressor of a gas turbine, up to
100 1C. This air feeds the combustion chamber of the gas turbine,
which increases the temperature to more than 1000 1C. The main
advantages of this technology are a greater efciency due to the
high operating temperature and an efcient hybridization.
5.1.2. Design
Using both TRANSYS-STEC and Thermoex softwares, Barigozzi et al. [224] have simulated the real off-design performance
of a commercial solar hybrid gas turbine. They have come to the
conclusion that the hybridization increases pressure losses and
reduces compression ratio, and thus, lowering then the overall
performance.
Considering the actual location of the rst solar thermal power
plant (SPP1), Behar et al. [225] have developed a mathematical
model to evaluate the behavior of large scale solar hybrid gas
turbine of 50 MW, under Algerian desert climate conditions. The
simulation of annual performance has shown that the overall
efciency and the solar electricity ratio could reach 32% and 85%,
respectively. Moreover, such a hybrid concept is able to save
about 2000 t/year of fossil fuel.
Sinai et al. [226] focused their work on the hybrid mode of
CRS-GT and concluded that hybrid gas turbine has numerous
merits including potential for reducing costs, higher efciency,
and high land utilisation efciency, sensitivity to load uctuations, friendly environmental, easy start, and more effective
equipment utilization than any other CSP technology.
Buck et al. [228] have tested and modied a hybrid GT with a

pressurized volumetric air receive. They have examined the
concept at several congurations and the potential of such
technology to become competitive with conventional plants.
Fisher et al. [229] have experimentally examined the performance of CRS- hybrid GT in both hybrid and fossil fuel only
modes. They concluded that solar hybrid gas turbine operation is
technically ready for commercial applications.
Dickey [230] has performed experiments and simulations of a
micro solar only CRS-GT. He has been able to therefore conrm
that such a concept has a potential to produce power from solar
energy without back-up.
Korzynietz et al. [89] have reported the design concept of
Solugas research project. They have also presented simulation
studies of the three main subsystems of the demonstration plant.
5.1.4. Enhancement
Livshits and Kribus [231] have analyzed the thermodynamic
performance of steam-injection hybrid solar gas turbine. The low
cost solar collectors have been proposed to generate steam. They
have used a simplied model implanted in Honeywell Unisim
process software to simulate the performance of the hybrid cycle.
The results were higher overall conversion efciency of 4055%
due to the injected water that provides an incremental efciency
of 2237% and solar electric efciency of 1524%.
Bhon et al. [232] have introduced the technique of solar
preheating-Brayton cycle and evaluated its effects on the system
performance. They have found that the proposed design provides
higher efciency. The solar fraction is has nevertheless to be
limited if higher performance to be attained.
Pak et al. [233] have suggested a hybrid solar fossil system that
employs a CO2 as working uid. This CO2 has been recovered
using the method of oxygen combustion. They have found that
solar conversion efciency becomes signicantly higher than that
of conventional hybrid solar gas turbines that utilize air as
working uid.
Pak et al. [234] have introduced a solar hybrid GT that recovers
the CO2 resulting from burning fossil fuel in the combustor. They
have then recommended CO2-capturing power process to energy
saving and for reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
Schmitz et al. [235] have suggested the use of pressurized air
solar receiver with secondary concentrator and an elliptic heliostat eld design for hybrid solar gas turbine systems of 50
200 MW. They reached the conclusion that the single design is
suitable for small power plants while the multiple elliptic elds
are better suited for larger power plant.
Garcia et al. [236] have developed an advanced model for
performance prediction of hybrid solar GT. The model takes into
consideration climatic conditions and technical data of the major
components including solar eld, solar receiver and turbine.
Behar et al. [237] have numerically simulated the performance
of commercial solar hybrid gas turbine. Their results have been
very interested. They have then proposed the modication of gas
turbine in Algerian desert into hybrid solar-natural gas
power plant.
5.2. Solar central receiverRankine cycle (SCR-RC) system
5.1.3. Experiment
Heller et al. [227] have reported on the system conguration,
the components efciency and the operation experiences of
SOLGATE project. In this project, the aim was to develop a solar
receiver cluster for hybrid solar gas turbine and to demonstrate
the operational ability of such a system. They have found that the
cluster solar receiver can heat up pressurized air up to 1000 1C
without major problems.
5.2.2. Design
Zoschak and Wu [238] have examined seven congurations
that integrate concentrated solar radiation by CRS into solar
hybrid steam cycle of 80 MW, including feed-water heating,
water evaporation, steam superheating, combined evaporation

and superheating, steam reheating, air preheating, and combined
air preheating and feed-water heating, and the energy balance for
each hybrid cycle. Applying the energy balance, they have found
that the scheme that uses solar heat for both evaporation and
superheating is the most suitable for converting solar energy into
electricity.
Chen et al. [239] have reported the design and the engineering
of 1.5 MWsolar tower plant in China. They have anticipated that
such a solar system is able to save about 3.92E 08 GJ and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by 4.17E 04 t of CO2 compared to
conventional power plants.
Yang et al. [240] have estimated the energy cost, the electricity
production, and the GHG emissions of 1.5 MW solar tower power
during a period of 20 years. They have found that an energy cost
intensity of 1.21 MJ/MJ and have indicated that such a plant is
able to reduce 0.31E06 t of CO2 compared to conventional coalred power plants.
Yu et al. [241] have combined the collector and receiver
models using STAR-90 software to simulate the steady and
dynamic performance of DAHAN solar tower power. Their results
have suggested some improvements in receiver components
design.
Xu [242] has applied a modular modeling method to develop
the dynamic simulation models of Dahan plant, based on STAR-90
simulation software.
Yao et al. [243] have described the basic ow calculation of the
key components in CRS and their integration to be a whole plant
model. In this work the heliostat eld has been designed using
HFLD code and the total power plant simulated using TRNSYS
software.
Yao et al. have presented a simulation model to be use for
predicting the performance of the DAHAN solar plant that uses
the Rankine cycle to convert solar energy into electricity. In this
model the optical ray tracing method and CFD approaches have
been combined to grant accurate results [244].
Wang and Yao [245] have reported the design and data of
DAHAN power plant.
Yebra et al. [246] have developed a dynamic model for the
simulation and the control of the CESA-I power plant taking into
consideration typical operation cycle with a real perturbation
introduced by start-up, shutdown and passing cloud.
Moon et al. [247] have developed a program using Visual Basic
6.0 to predict the performance of Dahan solar thermal power plant.
Alexopoulos and Hoffschmidt [248] have overviewed the solar
tower technologies. They have indicated that such technology
offers many benets for both power generation and environment.
They have then suggested the implantation of central receiver
system in Greece and Cypru.
Gall et al. [249] have used a linear predictive controller to
regulate the receiver outlet temperature in volumetric air tower
Steam Turbine
Steam
power plant. They have found that the model is capable for
predicting future behaviour of the plant with regard to changes
in actuating variables.
Honeywell [250] has developed a mathematical model to
simulate the dynamic performance of solar tower pilot plant
during clouds passage.
5.2.3. Experiment
Hennecke et al. [251] have reported the technical data about
the engineering and the development of the Solar Power Tower
Julich.
The Julich
central receiver is used atmospheric air as the
heat transfer uid to generate a steam that used to drive a
Rankine cycle. The basic design of this power tower is represented
in Fig. 18.
Lowrie [252] has conducted experiments on a pilot central
receiver system. They have focused on the effect of cloud passage
on the performance of central receiver system, in particular its
key subsystem, the receiver.
McDonnell [253] has experimentally studied the performance
of 10 MW central receiver.
5.2.4. Enhancement
McGovern and Smith [254] have investigated the effect of
thermal conductance and receiver irradiance on the optimal
receiver temperature and the solar conversion efciency of ve
power cycles, i.e., Rankine cycle, solar parabolic-trough, solar
central-receiver, direct-steam and molten-salts power plant. they
have concluded that, for maximum efciency and optimum
receiver temperatures, sub-critical Rankine cycles is preferred
for parabolic trough power plants, while super-critical Rankine
cycles is suitable for central receiver systems.
Coelho et al. [255] have analyzed numerous possibilities of
hybridising biomass and volumetric receiver CRS power plants.
They have used Ebsilon Professional software to design and
optimise the power conversion system, while the solar subsystems, i.e., heliostat eld and volumetric receive have been
designed and optimised in HFLCAL software. The control strategy
and power plant economics have been analyzed using a mathematical program implanted in Excel. The authors have selected
the Portuguese Algarve region for their study. They have found
that the larger the hybrid plant, the better are the performance;
for instance, 10 MWe power plant can have LEC of 0.108 h/kW h
with twice the annual efciency and lower costs than solar only
tower system of 4 MWe. The proposed concept could reduce
biomass consumption by 17% compared with conventional power
plant of similar capacity.
Xu et al. [256] have focused on the energy and exergy analysis
of the solar tower power plant that uses molten salt as the heat
transfer uid. The aim has been to identify the source and regions
of energy and exergy losses. They have found that the power
Volumetric Receiver
HRSG
Hot Air
31
Heliostat Field
Cold Air
Storage
Water
Dry Cooling
Pump
Blower
Fig. 18. Solar power tower with atmospheric air volumetric receiver (Julich-Like
plant).
32
conversion system accounts for more than half of energy losses

(53.3%) while major part of the exergy losses take place in the
receiver (44.2%), followed by the heliostats eld (33.1%). The
Authors have then proposed advanced power cycles to improve
energy and exergy efciencies such as reheat Rankine cycle
(exergy efciency rises from 24.5% to 25.6%) and supercritical
Rankine cycle (exergy rise up to 27.4% compared with simple
Rankine cycle).
Alvarez et al. [257] have proposed the use of Mixed Logical
Dynamical (MLD) approach, instead of classical approach, transfer
functions, to model the TSA hybrid system located in the CESA at
PSA. They found that their results are in good agreement with
experimental data.
Ahlbrink et al. [258] have coupled three simulation environments, i.e., STRAL, LabView and Dymola software, to investigate
transient performance of solar tower power plants. The start-up,
the failures and the case of cloud passage are investigated. They
have then created a module of an open volumetric air receiver for
transient performance and implanted it in the Modelica software
library.
Grifth and Brandt [259] have developed a mathematical
model to investigate the thermal performance and the costs of
CRS- hybrid fossil power plant with storage. Their results have
been shown the capability of the proposed model for estimating
the hourly solar energy collected and the amount of fuel consumption. They have found that when the capital investment of
the CRS-hybrid plant is 2.5 times lower than that of only fossil
plant, the CRS-Hybrid fossil plants become competitive to conventional thermal power stations.
Hu et al. [260] have developed a powerful software called
THERMOSOLV. This software has been used to evaluate the
technical and economic feasibility of solar aided-steam cycle, for
diverse congurations, for CSP families and different locations.
Tora et al. [261] have introduced a new methodology to nd
out the optimal mix between solar and fossil energy that allow
stable power output from hybrid power plants.
Xu et al. [262] have developed a dynamic simulation model for
thermal energy storage of larger central receiver system. They
have simulated the recharge and discharge processes based on
the heat exchanger model and steam accumulator model. The
results have been indicated that during operation, the steam
outlet temperature decreases sharply at the rapid opening of
the regulating valve.
5.3. Solar central receiverCombined cycle (SCR-CC) system
5.3.2. Design
Schwarzbozl et al. [263] have carried out a theoretical investigation on the performance of three prototypes of hybrid solar
Steam Turbine
To stack
gas turbine under two different climates: Intercooled recuperated

two shafts, reheat recuperated single shaft and combined cycle
power plants of 1.4 MW, 4.3 MW and 16.1 MW, respectively. In
this work, the HFLCAL software has been applied to evaluate solar
system, and the TRANSYS-STEC used to predict the thermal
performance of the power block. The eld efciency matrix tool
is used to link the software and the simulation results showed
that solar to electric efciency of 1419% is feasible.
Kribus et al. [264] have studied the feasibility of solar hybrid
combined cycle with beam down optical central receiver. They
have developed a software tool to evaluate its performance. Their
results have indicated that solar gas turbine combined cycle offers
a lot of advantages compared to other solar power concepts.
Moreover, it can be competitive with fossil power plants.
Kolb [265] has economically compared various congurations
of hybrid and solar only CRS- power plants. He has found that
CRS-CC and CRS-Coal- red plants are more competitive than
solar only systems.
Horn et al. [266] have technically and economically compared
two technologies of CSP for integration into CC: HTF-trough and
volumetric air receiver. Their ndings have been that the hybrid
CC with air tower is as efcient as hybrid plant with trough
technology. They have also indicated that such a concept presents
an attractive option for renewable electricity in Egypt.
Garcia et al. [267] have compared six simulation environments
for solar tower power investigation: UHC, DELSOL, HFLCAL,
MIRVAL, FIAT LUX and SOLTRACE. They have then classied them
into two groups. The rst one comprises optimization codes
HFLCAL, UHC-RCELL, and DELSOL. The second group includes
performance analysis codes such as FIAT LUX, MIRVAL, UHC-NS,
and SOLTRACE.
Lippke et al. [268] have presented the thermodynamic designs
SCR-RC and SCR-CC; both used a PHOEBUS air volumetric receiver. They have compared the tow power cycle and found that
SCR-CC offers better performance than of SCR-RC system, if it is
well designed.
5.3.3. Experiment
No experiments until now.
5.3.4. Enhancement
Bonadies et al. [269] have proposed the use of thermal storage
to enhance the availability of CRS-CC. The operation duration for
this new hybrid cycle can therefore be extended to 17 h using
storage and with less running time for the GT compared with
CRS-CC without storage.
Heide et al. [270] have introduced new concept of CRS-CC that
integrate concentrated solar radiation directly into the GT,
between the compressor outlet and the combustor inlet. Such a
conguration is illustrated in Figs. 19 and 20. The results have
indicated that higher share of solar energy is possible in this
concept.
Combustor
Pressurized Receiver
Gas Turbine
Air Intake
Wet Cooling
Steam Generator
Fig. 19. Solar hybrid gas turbine combined cycle.
Heliostat Field
Steam
Pressurized
Receiver
To stack
Steam HRSG
33
Combustor
Cold Air
Hot Air
Wet Coolin
Duct Burner
Fig. 20. Combined cycle with solar air tower and gas turbine.
Rheinlander et al. [271] have carried out the performance and

cost calculation for SCR-RC and SCR-CC that used for both power
generation and water desalination. They have compared their
performance to those of conventional fossil plants. Their results
indicated that that the costs of fresh-water are close to or even
lower than those of conventional cogeneration plants.
Ramos and Ramos [272] have introduced a new parametric
optimisation procedure for optimizing a central receiver system.
The procedure has been based on eleven design variables, seven
design parameters and insolation data. They have checked their
proposed method on two typical plant, i.e., one with 900 heliostats and the other equipped with 3000 heliostats, using three
state of the art algorithms, i.e., NSPOC, MINUIT and Genetic
algorithms. The results has been shown that the three algorithms
provide the same basic plant design with different values of some
of additional parameter, Nevertheless, essential parameters for
the plant design are approximately the same.
Spelling et al. [273] have focused on the thermodynamic and
economic performance of solar only SCR-CC with volumetric receiver. They have used a population-based evolutionary algorithm for
optimization, and obtained that the combined cycles ranging from
318 MWe can achieve efciencies in the range of 1824%, with
Levelized electricity costs in the order of 1224 UScts/kW he.
Price et al. [274] have proposed the use of Air-CRS to power a
combined cycle. Their results have been indicated the solar
energy can be converted into electricity, at higher exergy level
into a Brayton cycle, especially, when high concentration ratio
and high temperature are possible.
Jamel et al. [42] have presented a review of studies and
published papers on hybrid solar thermal power plants, for the
last three decades. They have classied the power conversion
systems into three groups, i.e., hybrid-BC, Hybrid-RC and HybridCC. The Authors reported the percentages of using different types
of CSP technologies for hybridization into power conversion
cycles.
6. Analysis and outlook

The present review indicated that research on the central
receiver technology is growing rapidly. Four countries, namely,
the USA, Spain, China and Germany, have launched enormous
R&D projects. They are also installing many commercial power
plants. This is particularly true for the case of the USA that is
already operating and announcing many projects based on power
tower concept.
The reviewed published papers and studies are focused on the
three main subsystems of the central receiver solar thermal
power plants, i.e., the heliostat eld, the solar receiver and
the power conversion system. For the heliostats eld layout,
the existing designs have been optimised and some advanced
in layout such as spiral conguration are proposed to improve
land utilization and efciency. Furthermore, the Micro Tower
Conguration introduced recently is very promising and it is still

under development. In order to increase the accuracy of the
control and tracking system, two sun-tracking methods are
usually applied in CRS: the AzimuthElevation (AE) and
SpinningElevation (SE). However, this latter allows more solar
energy collection at the receiver and reduces spillage losses by
1030% [28].
The number of published papers interested on the solar
receivers is very important because it is the key elements of the
power tower plant. About 26% of the total papers have focused on
the cavity receiver followed by volumetric receiver 15%. For
Particle receiver, there has been little interest; nevertheless, three
momentous research projects very recently announced in USA
with more than 11.6 $ million would bring such a concept to the
forefront. A detailed analysis of published papers is presented in
Fig. 21.
For a power conversion system many improvements have
been suggested. However, the lack of commercial experience for
some congurations, in particular combined cycle gear down this
attractive concepts which prove their potential in fossil fuels
power plants.
7. Conclusion
Concentrating solar power technology has been lately attracting a lot of attention. A sustainable effort is underway to develop
its technology. Tough it has been reached the commercial maturity, there are still a lot of activities at different levels to improve
its performance.
At the commercial levels the installed capacity has skyrocketed. Examination of the available data has shown that there
has been an exponential increase in the installed power. At this
level Spain and the USA followed by China are setting the place
for a viable development of a CSP economy. At the regional level,
Desertec initiative has been recently advocating and taking steps
for the development of CSP in the Mediterranean region.
Though most of the installed CSP is of parabolic trough
technology, the central receiver system (CRS) technology is
gaining ground and is under consideration worldwide for many
projects.
Besides the efforts is commercial development of CRS technology the action taken encompassed R&D activities for better
understanding of the basic phenomena, design activities for the
design of more efcient plants and prototyping and testing
activities for improving the performance of the subsystems and
of the systems.
The actions have not only been in improving the existing
concepts but also in proposing innovative ideas.
The present study has reviewed in details the central receiver
solar thermal power plants. This work shows that the World
energy demand, energy costs and climate change are the main
drivers of R&D activities. In other words, the market realities are
34
Fig. 21. Analysis of reviewed studies and published papers.
Fig. 22. Comparison of the fraction of published papers according to their subject, and purpose. R&D activities are strongly related to experiments (gure right).
strong drivers of R&D; and new technologies can progress rapidly

from the laboratory, through pilot and demonstration scales, to
commercial application.
For the heliostat eld, most design studies were based on
Monte-Carlo Ray Tracing Method and numerous codes, such as
HFLD, have been developed to simulate the optical performance,
and some Authors have suggested enhancements, such as farming
under heliostats, to optimize land use and improve efciency by
using for example spiral layout.
About half of the reviewed studies have been focused on solar
receiver. On this topic, about 26% of the review has dealt with cavity
receivers, while 14% with volumetric receivers and only 5% with
particle receivers. As indicated in Fig. 22, enhancements are strongly
dependent on the number of experiments because tests have proven
to be the best way for locating weakness and inefcient subsystems.
It has been this way that many improvements have been possible.
This is the case of Solar One that has been upgraded to Solar Two.
That has been also the case of the additional steam Drum at the
PS10 that has reduced thermal stress in the receiver and advanced
their performance.
In this work, we have found that there has been a little interest
in the particle receivers. This might be due to a lack of experience.
This could also be due to the difculties of integrating it into
power conversion systems as the employed HTF is mostly
particles (power cycles usually used water/steam or air).
For a power conversion cycles, about 30% of this review has dealt
with this subject. A lot of congurations, hybrid systems and
advanced concepts, have been investigated and analyzed in-depth
using simulation tools and experimental data to validate the results.
The SCR-RC with cavity receiver, such as in the case of PS10 and
PS20, has been well designed and tested and recent studies have
conrmed that supercritical and ultra-supercritical cycles are very
promising for the improvement of efciency. The SCR-BC has also
been designed, tested and enhanced together with volumetric
receiver, such as Solgate and Consolar. This conguration appears
to be more promising as there is an increase interest in it in the
recent years. Simulation studies have shown higher performance for

larger Brayton cycle and this is in support of the implantation of the
rst commercial hybrid gas turbine. According to the existing
literature, the combination of Brayton and Rankine cycles is also
very promising. There seems to be as much interest in this concept
as there is in SCR-BC (8% for SCR-CC vs. 7% for SCR-BC); nevertheless
no demonstration plant has so far been implanted.
One option for further research is the supercritical steam, or
carbon dioxide, cycles such as those used in modern coalred
power plants. With supercritical and ultra-supercritical designs,
these power plants can reach thermal-to-electric efciency levels
of 42% to 46%. The application of this technology to solar towers,
requires however more in-depth R&D activities. For the solar
subsystems, the Micro Tower Conguration (MTC) appears to be
one of the most promising options to reduce investments costs
induced by higher tower and enhance optical efciency as it is
recently conrmed by simulation tools. Indeed, the larger the
power plant, the higher is the tower and the highest are the
investments costs. Such a concept appears to be quite attractive
particularly in association with Brayton cycle.
To meets these targets, increase in research funding and a
stronger integration of fundamental and applied research,
together with demonstration programmes and market incentives
are required to speed up the innovation stage. Fundamental
research on solar radiation assessment, solar subsystems, heat
transfer uids and storage technology are needed for taking some
advanced CRS concepts from laboratory-scale prototype systems
out to commercial scale applications.
References
[1] World Energy Outlook. Executive summary; 2012, www.worldenergyout
look.org/.
[2] World Energy Outlook. Executive summary; 2011, www.worldenergyout
look.org/.
[3] An Overview of CSP in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East, CSP Today,
October; 2008.
[4] Steffen, Erdle, The DESERTEC Initiative-Powering the development perspectives of southern Mediterranean countries? Discussion paper, December; 2010.
[5] An overview of the desertec concept. Red paper, 3rd ed.
[6] IEA. Technology roadmap concentrating solar power; 2010. /http://www.
iea.org/papers/2010/csp_roadmap.pdfS.
[7] Greenpeace. Energy revolution report. EREC January; 2007. Online available
at: www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/energy-r
evolution-a-sustainab.pdf.
[8] Deploying renewables in southeast Asia trends and potentials. Executive
summary. Working paper; 2010.
[9] Resources and logistics. Identication mission for the Mediterranean Solar
Plan. Final report of FWC beneciaries Lot 4 No. 2008/168828, January;
(2010).
/http://ec.europa.eu/energy/international/international_coopera
tion/doc/2010_01_solar_plan_report.pdfS.
[10] Evaluating policies in support of the deployment of renewable power,
IRENA 2012.
[11] Renewable energy technologies: cost analysis series. Volume 1: power
sector issue 2/5, Concentrating solar power. IRENA, June; 2012.
[12] Himri YY, Malik S, Boudghene Stambouli A, Himri S, Draoui B. Review and
use of the Algerian renewable energy for sustainable development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2009;13:158491.
[13] Jun Li. Scaling up concentrating solar thermal technology in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2009;13:205160.
[14] Solangi KH, Islam MR, Saidura R, Rahimb NA, Fayaz H. A review on global solar
energy policy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2011;15:214963.
[15] Ummadisingu Amita, Soni MS. Concentrating solar powertechnology,
potential and policy in India. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
2011;15:516975.
[16] Timilsina Govinda R, Kurdgelashvili Lado, Narbel Patrick A. Solar energy:
markets, economics and policies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 2012;16:44965.
[17] Py Xavier, Azoumah Yao, Olives Regis. Concentrated solar power: current
technologies, major innovative issues and applicability to West African
countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2013;18:30615.
[18] Yogi, Goswami, Teaming up for RE, refocus July/August 2005, Available at:
www.sciencedirect.com.
[19] del Sol Felipe, Sauma Enzo. Economic impacts of installing solar power
plants in northern Chile. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
2013;19:48998.
35
[20] Macroeconomic impact of the solar thermal electricity industry in Spain.

Protermo solar, October; 2011. www.protermosolar.com.
[21] Keles S, Bilgen S. Renewable energy sources in Turkey for climate change
mitigation and energy sustainability. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 2012;16:5199206.
[22] Devabhaktuni Vijay, Alam Mansoor, Reddy Depuru Soma Shekara Sreenadh,
Green II Robert C, Nims Douglas, Near Craig. Solar energy: trends and enabling
technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2013;19:55564.
[23] Besarati M, Padilla Ricardo Vasquez, Goswami D Yogi, Stefanakos Elias. The
potential of harnessing solar radiation in Iran: generating solar maps and
viability study of PV power plants. Renewable Energy 2013;53:1939.
[24] Bhutto Abdul Waheed, Bazmi Aqeel Ahmed, Zahedi Gholamreza. Greener
energy: issues and challenges for Pakistansolar energy prospective.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2012;16:276280.
[25] BoudgheneStambouli A, Khiat Z, Flazi S, Kitamura. Y. A review on the
renewable energy development in Algeria: current perspective, energy
scenario and sustainability issues. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 2012;16:444560.
[26] Nzihou Ange, Flamant Gilles, Stanmore Brian. Synthetic fuels from biomass
using concentrated solar energy: a review. Energy 2012;42:12131.
[27] Tsikalakis Antonis, Tomtsia T, Hatziargyriou ND, Poullikkas A, Malamatenios Ch, Giakoumelos E, et al. Review of best practices of solar electricity
resources applications in selected Middle East and North Africa (MENA)
countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2011;15:283849.
[28] Kadir Mohd Zainal Abidin Ab, Rafeeu Yaaseen, Adam Nor Mariah. Prospective scenarios for the full solar energy development in Malaysia. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2010;14:302331.
[29] Romero-Alvarez Manuel, Zarza Eduardo. Concentrating solar thermal
power. energy conversion (19). LLC: Taylor & Francis Group; 2007.
[30] El-Ghonemy AMK. Future sustainable water desalination technologies for
the Saudi Arabia: a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
2012;16:656697.
[31] Li Chennan, Goswami n Yogi, Stefanakos Elias. Solar assisted sea water
desalination: a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
2013;19:13663.
[32] www.cspworld.com.
[33] Concentrating solar power: its potential contribution to a sustainable
energy future. The European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC)
policy report 16, November; 2011.
[34] /http://www.renewableenergyworld.comS.
[35] European research on concentrated solar thermal energy. Directorate-general
for research sustainable energy systems. European Union (EU); 2004.
[36] Goswami D Yogi, Kreith Frank, Kreider F. Principles of solar engineering.
2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis; 2000.
[37] Pifre A. A solar printing press. Nature 1882;21:5034.
[38] Kryza Frank. The power of light. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2003.
[39] Dufe A, Beckman A. Solar engineering of thermal processes. 2nd ed.
New York: Wiley; 1991.
[40] Samir Rafaat, Maadi 1904-1962, Society and historic in a Cairo suburb,
Using the suns force, Al alhram Newspaper, July 9, 1913, Maadi introduces
solar energy to the World in 1913, /http://www.egy.com/maadi/S.
[41] Winter CJ, Sizmann RL, Vant-Hull LL, editors. Solar Power Plants. Berlin:
Springer; 1991.
[42] Jamel MS, AbdRahman A, Shamsuddin AH. Advances in the integration of
solar thermal energy with conventional and non-conventional power
plants. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2013;20:7181.
[43] Behar Omar, Kellaf Abdallah, Mohammedi Kamal, Belhamel Maiouf. Instantaneous performance of the rst integrated solar combined cycle system in
Algeria. Energy Procedia 2011;6:18593.
[44] Behar omar, Kellaf Abdallah, Mohammedi Kamal. Prediction of the annual
performance and perspective of Hassi RMel solar thermal power plant
SPP1, ICRE12. Algeria: Bejaia; 2012.
[45] Behar omar, Kellaf Abdallah, Mohammedi Kamal. Scaling up hybrid solar
gas turbine: simulation and results, SEN2012. Algeria: Alger; 2012.
[46] Mustafa MA, Abdelhady S, Elweteedy AA. Analytical study of an innovated
solar power tower (PS10) in Aswan. International Journal of Energy
Engineering 2012;2(6):2738.
[47] /http://www.google.org/pdfs/google_heliostat_project.pdfS.
[48] /http://www.sollab.eu/psa.htmlS.
[49] /http://www.dlr.deS.
[50] Reiner, Buck, Andreas Pfah,Thomas H Roos. Target aligned heliostat eld
layout for non-at terrain. SASEC; 2012. Available at: /http://research
space.csir.co.za/dspace/bitstream/10204/5944/1/Buck_2012.pdfS.
[51] Gong Guangjie, Huang Xinyan, Wang Jun, Hao Menglong. An optimized
model and test of the Chinas rst high temperature parabolic trough solar
receiver. Solar Energy 2010;84:223045.
[52] Yaxuan Xiong, Yuting Wu, Chongfang Ma, Traore Modibo Kane, Yeqiang Zhang.
Numerical investigation of thermal performance of heat loss of parabolic
trough receiver. Science China Technological Science 2010;53(2):44452.
[53] Antonio LAvila-Marn. Volumetric receivers in solar thermal power plants with
central receiver system technology: a review. Solar Energy 2011;85:891910.
[54] Tan Taide, Chen Yitung. Review of study on solid particle solar receivers.
[55] Montes MJ, Rovira A, Martnez-Val JM, Ramos A. Proposal of a uid ow
layout to improve the heat transfer in the active absorber surface of solar
central cavity receivers. Applied Thermal Engineering 2012;35:22032.
36
[56] Boerema Nicholas, Morrison Graham, Taylor Robert, Rosengarten Gary.

Liquid sodium versus Hitec as a heat transfer uid in solar thermal central
receiver systems. Solar Energy 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.
2012.05.001.
[57] DeLaquil P, Kelly B, Lessley R. Solar one conversion project. Solar Energy
Materials 1991;24:15161.
[58] Herrmann U, Kearney DW. Survey of thermal energy storage for parabolic
trough power plants. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 2002;124:14552.
[59] Steinmann W-D, Eck M. Buffer storage for direct steam generation. Solar
Energy 2006;80:127782.
[60] Tamme R, Laing D, Steinmann W-D. Advanced thermal energy storage
technology for parabolic trough. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering
2004;126:794800.
[61] Zanganeh G, Pedretti A, Zavattoni S, Barbato M, Steinfeld A. Packed-bed
thermal storage for concentrated solar powerpilot-scale demonstration
and industrial-scale design. Solar Energy 2012;86:308498.
[62] Mahian Omid, Kianifar Ali, Kalogirou A, Pop Ioan, Wongwises Somchai.
A review of the applications of nanouids in solar energy. International
Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 2013;57:58294.
[63] Watanabe T, Kikuchi H, Kanzawa A. Enhancement of charging and discharging rates in a latent heat storage system by use of PCM with different
melting temperatures. Heat Recovery Systems and CHP 1993;13:5766.
[64] Gil A, Medrano M, Martorell I, Lazaro A, Dolado P, Zalba B, et al. State of the
art on high temperature thermal energy storage for power generation. Part
1Concepts, materials and modellization. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 2010;14:3155.
[65] Medrano M, Gil A, Martorell I, Potau X, Cabeza LF. State of the art on hightemperature thermal energy storage for power generation. Part 2Case
studies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2010 2010;14:5672.
[66] Singh Rajinesh, Miller A, Rowlands S, Jacobs A. Dynamic characteristics of a
direct-heated supercritical carbon-dioxide Brayton cycle in a solar thermal
power plant. Energy 2013;50:194204.
[67] EUROPEAN Solar Thermal Electricity Association Solar Thermal Electricity
European Industrial Initiative (Ste-Eii) Implementing Plan; 2010-2012./
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/technology/initiatives/doc/implementation_pla
n_2010_2012_eii_solar.pdfS.
[68] Trans-Mediterranean interconnection for concentrating solar power.
German Aerospace Center (DLR), Institute of Technical Thermodynamics.
Section systems analysis and technology assessment. /http://www.dlr.de/
tt/trans-cspS.
[69] Richter, C, Blanco, J, Heller, P, Mehos, M, Meier, A, Meyer, R.Solar power and
chemical energy systems SolarPACES. Annual Report 2009.
[70] Concentrating solar power: from research to implementation. European
Communities; 2007.
[71] Pitz-Paal, R, Dersch, J Milow, B (2005). European Concentrated Solar Thermal
Road-Mapping (ECOSTAR): roadmap document. SES6-CT-2003-502578.
/http://www.promes.cnrs.fr/uploads/pdfs/ecostar/ECOSTAR.Summary.pdfS.
[72] Soteris AKalogirou. Solar thermoelectric power generation in Cyprus:
selection of the best system. Renewable Energy 2013;49:27881.
[73] Kolb, GJ, Jones, SA,Donnelly, MW, et al., 2007. Heliostat cost reduction
study, SAND2007-3293. Available from: /http://www.prod.sandia.gov/cgibin/techlib/access-control.pl/2007/073293.pdfS.
[74] William, BS, Micheal, G, 2001. Power from the sun. Available from: /http://
www.powerfromthesun.net/book.htmS.
[75] Romero M, Buck R, Pacheco JE. An update on solar central receiver systems,
projects, and technologies. International Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 2002;124:98108.
[76] Meinecke W, Bohn M, Becker M, Gupta B, editors. Solar energy concentrating systems, p. 1819. Heidelberg: CF Miller Verlag; 1994. p. 68.
[77] Tian Y, Zhao. CY. A review of solar collectors and thermal energy storage in
solar thermal applications. Applied Energy 2013;104:53853.
[78] /http://csptoday.comS.
[79] /http://www.wikipedia.comS.
[80] /http://www.nrel.govS.
[81] /http://www.himin.com/english/news/showarticle.asp?articleid=116S.
[82] /http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.
1007%2F978-3-540-75997-3_354?LI=trueS.
[83] /http://aceii.org/EventAgendas/CSP%20in%20China_EN%20Summary.pdfS.
[84] /http://www.brightsourceenergy.comS.
[85] /http://energy.sandia.gov/?page_id=11934S.
[86] /http://magnet.consortia.org.il/ConSolar//Gideon/ConnclusionReview.
htmlS.
[87] SOLGATE: solar hybrid gas turbine electric power system, European
Commission Available at: /http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/pdf/solga
te_en.pdfS.
[88] /http://www.ctaer.com/sites/default/les/les/
Ficha%20instalacion%20GV_ENpdfS.
[89] Roman korzynietz1, manuel quero ralfuhlig. SOLUGASfuture solar hybrid
technology. Available at: /http://cms.solarpaces2012.org/proceedings/
paper/7ee7e32ece8f2f8e0984d5ebff9d77bS.
[90] /http://www.abengoa.es/htmlsites/boletines/en/junio2008/solar.htmlS.
[91] /http://www.abengoa.es/export/sites/abengoa_corp/resources/pdf/en/
gobierno_corporativo/informes_anuales/2010/2010_Volume1_AR_8.pdfS.
[92] /http://www.scoop.it/t/csp-concentrated-solar-power/p/3637239964/eusolaris-the-european-csp-research-mega-facility-kicks-off-csp-world-con
centrated-solar-power-newsS.
[93] Kearney, AT and ESTELA (2010). Solar thermal electricity 2025. ESTELA,
June; 2010./http://www.estelasolar.eu/leadmin/ESTELAdocs/documents/
Cost_Roadmap/2010-06_-_Solar_Thermal_Electricity_2025_-_ENG.pdfS.
[94] Siala FMF, Elayeb ME. Mathematical formulation of a graphical method for a
no-blocking heliostat eld layout. Renewable Energy 2001;23:7792.
[95] Sanchez Marcelino, Romero Manuel. Methodology for generation of heliostat eld layout in central receiver systems based on yearly normalized
energy surfaces. Solar Energy 2006;80:86174.
[96] Xiudong Wei, Zhenwu Lu, Zi Lin, Zhang Hongxin, Zhengguo NI. Optimization procedure for design of heliostat eld layout of a 1 MWe solar tower
thermal power plant. Proceedings of SPIE 2007;6841(684119):110.
[97] Wei Xiudong, Lu Zhenwu, Wang Zhifeng, Yu Weixing, Zhang Hongxing, Yao
Zhihao. A new method for the design of the heliostat eld layout for solar
tower power plant. Renewable Energy 2010;35:19705.
[98] Wei Xiudong, Lu Zhenwu, Yu Weixing, Zhang Hongxin, Wang Zhifeng.
Tracking and ray tracing equations for the target-aligned heliostat for solar
tower power plants. Renewable energy 2011;36:268793.
[99] Wei Xiudong, Lu Zhenwu, Yu Weixing, Wang Zhifeng. A new code for the
design and analysis of the heliostat eld layout for power tower system.
Solar Energy 2010;84:68590.
[100] Wei Xiudong, Lu Zhenwu, Yu Weixing, Xu Wenbin. Ray tracing and
simulation for the beam-down solar concentrator. Renewable Energy
2013;50:1617.
[101] Zhang Hongli, Wang Zhifeng, Wei Xiudong, Lu Zhenwu. Design of heliostats
eld for scale of 1 MW solar power tower plant. Procedia Environmental
Sciences 2011;11:116470.
[102] Augsburger, G, Favrat, D Thermo-economic optimisation of the heliostat
eld of solar tower thermal power plants. In: ECOS 201023rd international conference on efciency, cost, optimization, simulation and environmental impact of energy systems, EPFLLENI, Lausanne, Switzerland; 2010.
p. 18.
[103] Francisco JCollado. Preliminary design of surrounding heliostat elds.
Renewable Energy 2009;34:135963.
[104] Utamura, Motoaki, Tamaura, Yutaka, Yuasa, Minoru, Kajita, Rina, Yamamoto, Takashi. Optimal heliostat layout for concentrating solar tower
systems. In: International conference on power engineering, October 23
27, Hangzhou, China; 2007. p. 1196201.
[105] Wang RT, Wei XD. Shadow of heliostat eld in the solar tower power plant.
Acta Photonica Sinica 2009;38(9):24148.
[106] Lopez-Martnez, M, Vargas, M, Rubio, F Advances in articial intelligence
IBERAMIA 2002. In: Garijo, FJ, Riquelme, JC, Toro, Meditors, Lecture notes in
computer science, vol. 2527/2002.
[107] Zhifeng Wang, Zhiyong Wu, Xiaobin Liu, Zhengnong Li. Wind dynamics
testing on Dahan heliostat. In: Proceedings of ISES solar world congress
2007: Solar energy and human settlement; 2007. p. 19349.
[108] Chen YT, Chong KK, Lim CS, Lim BH, Tan KK, Omar Aliman, et al. Report of
the rst prototype of non-imaging focusing heliostat and its application in
high temperature solar furnace. Solar Energy 2002;72(6):53144.
[109] Schell Steve. Design and evaluation of esolars heliostat elds. Solar Energy
2011;85:6149.
[110] Fernandez-Reche Jesus. Reectance measurement in solar tower heliostats
elds. Solar Energy 2006;80:77986.
[111] Francisco JCollado. One-point tting of the ux density produced by a
heliostat. Solar Energy 2010;84:67384.
[112] Noone J, Torrilhon Manuel, Mitsos Alexander. Heliostat eld optimization: a
new computationally efcient model and biomimetic layout. Solar Energy
2012;86:792803.
[113] Leonardi Erminia, DAguanno Bruno. CRS4-2: a numerical code for the
calculation of the solar power collected in a central receiver system. Energy
2011;36:482837.
[114] Danielli Amos, Yatir Yossi, Mor Oded. Improving the optical efciency of a
concentrated solar power eld using a concatenated micro-tower conguration. Solar Energy 2011;85:9317.
[115] Pitz-Paal Robert, Botero Nicolas Bayer, Steinfeld Aldo. Heliostat eld layout
optimization for high-temperature solar thermochemical processing. Solar
Energy 2011;85:33443.
[116] Francisco JCollado. Quick evaluation of the annual heliostat eld efciency.
[117] Collado FJ, Guallar Jesus. A review of optimized design layouts for solar
power tower plants with campo code. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 2013;20:14254.
[118] Chen YT, Chong KK, Lim CS, Lim BH, Tan BK, Lu YF. Report on the second
prototype of non-imaging focusing heliostat and its application in food
processing. Solar Energy 2005;79:2809.
[119] Vazquez Jorge, Relloson Sergio, Domingo Miguel, Valverde Antonio, Monterreal Rafael, Garca Gines. SENER heliostat design and testing, A6S4. In:
SolarPACES. Spain: Sevilla; 2006.
[120] Augsburger Germain, Favrat Daniel. Modelling of the receiver transient ux
distribution due to cloud passages on a solar tower thermal power plant.
[121] Pitman CL, Vant-Hull LL. Atmospheric transmittance model for a solar beam
propagating between a heliostat and a receiver. ASES Progress in Solar
Energy 1982:124751.
[122] Ballestrn Jesus, Marzo Aitor. Solar radiation attenuation in solar tower
plants. Solar Energy 2012;86:38892.
[123] Chen YT, Kribus A, Lim BH, Lim CS, Chong KK, Karni J, et al. Comparison of
two sun tracking methods in the application of a heliostat eld. Journal of
Solar Energy Engineering 2004;126(1):63844.
[124] Chong KK, Tan MH. Range of motion study for two different sun-tracking
methods in the application of heliostat eld. Solar Energy 2011;85:183750.
[125] Chen YT, Chong KK, Bligh TP, Chen LC, Jasmy Yunus, Kannan KS, et al.
Nonimaging focusing heliostat. Solar Energy 2001;71(3):15564.
[126] Wenfeng, Liang, Zhifeng, Wang. Research on tracking precision of the
heliostat. In: Proceedings of ISES Solar World congress 2007: solar energy
and human settlement, vol. 5; 2007. p. 17647.
[127] Badescu Viorel. Theoretical derivation of heliostat tracking errors distribution. Solar Energy 2008;82:11927.
[128] Jones, SA, Neal, DR, Gruetzner, JK, Houser, RM, Edgar, RM, Kent, J, et al. VSHOT:
a tool for characterizing large, imprecise reectors. In: International symposium on optical science engineering and instrumentation, Denver, CO; 1996.
[129] Chen YT, Chong KK, Lim BH, Lim CS. Study of residual aberration for nonimaging focusing heliostat. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells
2003;79:120.
[130] Eugene Moeller C, Brumleve TD, Grosskreutz C, Seamons LO. Central receiver
test facility Albuquerque, New Mexico. Solar Energy 1980;25:291302.
[131] Aiuchi Kosuke, Yoshida Kazuo, Onozaki Masaki, Katayama Yukuo, Nakamura Minoru, Nakamura Katsushige. Sensor-controlled heliostat with an
equatorial mount. Solar Energy 2006;80:108997.
[132] Kribus A, et al. Closed loop control of heliostats. Energy 2004;29(56):90513.
[133] Ulmer Steffen, Marz Tobias, Prahl Christoph, Reinalter Wolfgang, Belhomme
Boris. Automated high resolution measurement of heliostat slope errors.
Solar Energy 2011;859(04):61388.
[134] Arqueros F, Jimenez A, Valverde A. A novel procedure for the optical
characterization of solar concentrators. Solar Energy 2003;75:13542.
[135] Berenguel M, et al. An articial vision-based control system for automatic
heliostat positioning offset correction in a central receiver solar power
plant. Solar Energy 2004;76(5):56375.
[136] Mehrabian, MA, Aseman, RD. Computer programming to calculate the
variations of characteristic angles of heliostats as a function of time and
position in a central receiver solar power plant. In: Proceedings of ISES solar
world congress: solar energy and human settlement; 2007.
[137] Javier, Bonilla Lidia, Roca Yebra, J Sebastian, Dormido. Real-time simulation
of CESA-I central receiver solar thermal power plant. In: Proceedings 7th
Modelica conference, 2022 Sep; 2009.
[138] Roca Lidia, de la Calle Alberto, Yebra J. Heliostat-eld gain-scheduling
control applied to a two-step solar hydrogen production plant. Applied
Energy 2013;103:298305.
[139] Sani E, Mercatelli L, Francini F, Sans J-L, Sciti D. Ultra-refractory ceramics for
high-temperature solar absorbers. Scripta Materialia 2011;65:7758.
[140] Kribus A, Ries H, Spirkl W. Inherent limitations of volumetric solar receivers.
Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 1996;118:1515.
[141] Becker M, Fend Th, Hoffschmidt B, Pitz-Paal R, Reutter O, Stamatov V, et al.
Theoretical and numerical investigation of ow stability in porous materials
applied as volumetric solar receivers. Solar Energy 2006;80:12418.
[142] Marcos MJ, et al. Analysis of air return alternatives for CRS-type open
volumetric receiver. Energy 2004;29(5-6):67786.
[143] Villafan-Vidales HI, Abanades Stephane, Caliot Cyril, Romero-Paredes H. Heat
transfer simulation in a thermochemical solar reactor based on a volumetric
porous receiver. Applied Thermal Engineering 2011;31:337786.
[144] Fend Thomas, Hoffschmidt Bernhard, Pitz-Paal Robert, Reutter Oliver,
Rietbrock Peter. Porous materials as open volumetric solar receivers:
experimental determination of thermophysical and heat transfer properties.
Energy 2004;29:82333.
[145] Wu Zhiyong, Caliot Cyril, Flamant Gilles, Wang Zhifeng. Coupled radiation
and ow modeling in ceramic foam volumetric solar air receivers. Solar
Energy 2011;85:237485.
[146] Buck, R, Abele, M, Kunberger, J, Denk, T, Heller, P, Lupfert,

E Receiver for
solar hybrid gas turbine and combined cycle systems. In: Proceedings of 9th
solar PACES international symposium on solar thermal concentrating
technologies, June 2226, Font-Romeu, France; 1998. p. 53744.
[147] Buck, R, Lupfert,

E, Tellez F Receiver for solar-hybrid gas turbine and CC
systems (REFOS). In: Proceedings of 10th SolarPACES international symposium on solar thermal 2000, Sydney, Australia,; 2000. p. 95100.
[148] He YL, Cheng ZD, Cui FQ, Li ZY, Li D. Numerical investigations on a
pressurized volumetric receiver: solar concentrating and collecting modelling. Renewable Energy 2012;44:36879.
[149] Younis LB, Viskanta R. Experimental determination of the volumetric heat
transfer coefcient between stream of air and ceramic foam. International
Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 1993;36(6):142534.
[150] Wu Zhiyong, Caliot Cyril, Flamant Gilles, Wang Zhifeng. Numerical simulation of convective heat transfer between air ow and ceramic foams to
optimise volumetric solar air receiver performances. International Journal
of Heat and Mass Transfer 2011;54:152737.
[151] Fricker H. Regenerative thermal storage in atmospheric air system solar
power plants. Energy 2004;29:87181.
[152] Sciti Diletta, Silvestroni Laura, Mercatelli Luca, Jean-Louis Sans, Sani Elisa.
Suitability of ultra-refractory diboride ceramics as absorbers for solar
energy applications. Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 2013;109:816.
37
[153] Fend T, Paal R-P, Reutter O, Bauer J, Hoffschmidt B. Two novel high-porosity
materials as volumetric receivers for concentrated solar radiation. Solar
Energy Materials and Solar Cells 2004;84:291304.
[154] Albanakis C, Missirlis D, Michailidis N, Yakinthos K, Goulas A, Omar H, et al.
Experimental analysis of the pressure drop and heat transfer through metal
foams used as volumetric receivers under concentrated solar radiation.
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 2009;33:24652.
[155] Wu Zhiyong, Caliot Cyril, Bai Fengwu, Flamant Gilles, Wang Zhifeng, Zhang
Jinsong, et al. Applied Energy 2010;87:50413.
[156] Garcia-Martin FJ, Berenguel M, Valverde A, Camacho EF. Heuristic knowledgebased heliostat eld control for the optimization of the temperature distribution in a volumetric receiver. Solar Energy 1999;66(5):35569.
[157] Lenert Andrej, Wang N. Optimization of nanouid volumetric receivers for
solar thermal energy conversion. Solar Energy 2012;86:25365.
[158] Cheng ZD, He YL, Cui. FQ. A new modelling method and unied code with
MCRT for concentrating solar collectors and its applications. Applied Energy
2013;101:68698.
[159] Cheng ZD, He YL, Cui FQ. Numerical investigations on coupled heat transfer
and synthetical performance of a pressurized volumetric receiver with
MCRT-FVM Method. Applied Thermal Engineering 2013;50:104454.
[160] Veeraragavan Ananthanarayanan, Lenert Andrej, Yilbas Bekir, Al-Dini Salem,
Wang N. Analytical model for the design of volumetric solar ow receivers.
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 2012;55:55664.
[161] Arai N, Itaya Y, Hasatani M. Development of a volume heat-trap type solar
collector using a ne-particle semitransparent liquid suspension (FPSS) as a
heat vehicle and heat-storage medium. Solar Energy 1984;32:4956.
[162] Buck Reiner, Barth Christian, Eck Markus, Steinmann Wolf-Dieter. Dualreceiver concept for solar towers. Solar Energy 2006;80:124954.
[163] Pitz-Paal R, Hoffschmidt B, Bohmer M, Becker M. Experimental and
numerical evaluation of the performance and ow stability of different
types of open volumetric absorbers under non-homogeneous irradiation.
Solar Energy 1997;60(3/4):13550.
[164] Garcia-Casals Xavier, Ajona Jose Ignacio. The duct selective volumetric
receiver: potential for different selectivity strategies and stability issues.
Solar Energy 1999;67(46):26586.
[165] Pritzkow WE. Pressure loaded volumetric ceramic receiver. Solar Energy
Materials 1991;24:498507.
[166] James A, Terry G. Thermal performance of solar concentrator cavity receiver
systems. Solar Energy 1985;34(2):13542.
[167] Fan, Zhilin, Zhang, Yaoming, Liu, Deyou, Wang, Jun, Liu, Wei. Discussion of
mechanical design for pressured cavity-air-receiver in solar power tower
system. In: Proceedings of ISES Solar World congress 2007: solar energy and
human settlement, vol. 5; 2007. p. 186972.
[168] Yu Qiang, Wang Zhifeng, Xu Ershu. Simulation and analysis of the central
cavity receivers performance of solar thermal power tower plant. Solar
Energy 2012;86:16474.
[169] Fang JB, Wei JJ, Dong XW, Wang YS. Thermal performance simulation of a
solar cavity receiver under windy conditions. Solar Energy 2011;85:12638.
[170] Yang Xiaoping, Yang Xiaoxi, Ding Jing, Shao Youyuan, Fan Hongbo. Numerical simulation study on the heat transfer characteristics of the tube
receiver of the solar thermal power tower. Applied Energy 2012;90:1427.
[171] Sobin A, Wagner W, Easton C. Central collector solar energy receivers. Solar
Energy 1976;18:2130.
[172] Li Xin, Kong Weiqiang, Wang Zhifeng, Chang Chun, Bai Fengwu. Thermal
model and thermodynamic performance of molten salt cavity receiver.
[173] Hinojosa JF, Cabanillas RE, Alvarez G, Estrada CA. Numerical study of transient
and steady-state natural convection and surface thermal radiation in a horizontal square open cavity. Numerical Heat Transfer 2005;48:17996 Part A.
[174] Chakroun W, Elsayed MM, Al-Fahed SF. Experimental measurements of heat
transfer coefcient in a partially/fully opened tilted cavity. Journal of Solar
Energy Engineering 1997;119:298302.
[175] Gonzalez Moises Montiel, Palafox Jesus Hinojosa, Claudio AEstrada. Numerical study of heat transfer by natural convection and surface thermal
radiation in an open cavity receiver. Solar Energy 2012;86:111828.
[176] Yang XP, Yang XX, Ding J, Shao YY, Fan HB. Numerical simulation study on
the heat transfer characteristics of the tube receiver of the solar thermal
power tower. Applied Energy 2012;90:1427.
[177] Paitoonsurikarn, S, Lovegrove, K A new correlation for predicting the free
convection loss from solar dish concentrating receivers. In: Proceedings of
44th ANZSES conference, Australia; 2006.
[178] Dehghan AA, Behnia M. Combined natural convectionconduction and
radiation heat transfer in a discretely heated open cavity. Transactions of
the ASME 1996;118:5664.
[179] Boehm R, Nakhaie H. A ux-on method for determining thermal losses from
solar central receivers. Solar Engineering 1987.
[180] Carasso M, Becker M. Solar thermal central receiver systems.Performance
evaluation standards for solar central receivers, vol. 3. New York: SpringerVerlag; 1990.
[181] Sendhil Kumar N, Reddy KS. Numerical investigation of natural convection
heat loss in modied cavity receiver for fuzzy focal solar dish concentrator.
[182] Clausing AM. An analysis of convective losses from cavity solar central
receiver. Solar Energy 1981;27:295300.
38
[183] Clausing AM. Convective losses from cavity solar receivers - comparisons
between analytical predictions and experimental results. Journal of Solar
Energy Engineering 1983;105:2933.
[184] Taumoefolau T, Paitoonsurikarn S, Hughes G, Lovegrove K. Experimental
investigation of natural convection heat loss from a model solar concentrator
cavity receiver. Journal of solar energy engineeringtransactions of the ASME
2004;126(2):8017.
[185] Li X, Kong WQ, Wang ZF, Chang C, Bai FW. Thermal model and thermodynamic performance of molten salt cavity receiver. Renewable Energy
2010;35:9818.
[186] Ferriere A, Bonduelle B. Development of an optical control strategy for the
Themis solar plant: Part IThemis transient model. Journal of Solar Energy
Engineering 1989;111:298303.
[187] Fang JB, Wei JJ, Dong XW, Wang YS. Thermal performance simulation of a
solar cavity receiver under windy conditions. Solar Energy 2011;85:12638.
[188] Kribus A, Doron P, Rubin R, Karni J, Reuven R, Duchan S, et al. A multistage
solar receiver: the route to high temperature. Solar Energy 1999;67:311.
[189] Melchior Tom, Perkins Christopher, Weimer W, Steinfeld Aldo. A cavityreceiver containing a tubular absorber for high-temperature thermochemical processing using concentrated solar energy. International Journal of
Thermal Sciences 2008;47:1496503.
[190] Hahm T, SchmidtTraub H, Lemann. B. A cone concentrator for hightemperature solar cavity-receivers. Solar Energy 1999;65(l):334.
[191] Yeh, KC, Hughes, G, Lovegrove, K Modeling the convective ow in solar
thermal receivers. In: Proceedings of the 43rd conference of the Australia
and New Zealand solar energy society (ANZSES), New Zealand; 2005.
[192] Qiangqiang Zhang, Xin Li, Chun Chang, Zhifeng Wang, Hong Liu. An
experimental study: Thermal performance of molten salt cavity receivers.
Applied Thermal Engineering 2013;50(1):33441.
[193] Taumoefolau T, Paitoonsurikarn S, Hughes G, Lovegrove K. Experimental
investigation of natural convection heat loss from a model solar concentrator cavity receiver. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering e Transactions of
the ASME 2004;126:8017.
[194] Quere, PL, Penot, F, Mirenayat, M Experimental study of heat loss through
natural convection from an isothermal cubic open cavity. Sandia National
Laboratories report SAND81-8014; 1981.
[195] Reynolds DJ, Jance MJ, Behnia M, Morrison GL. An experimental and
computational study of the heat loss characteristics of a trapezoidal cavity
absorber. Solar Energy 2004;76(1-3):22934.
[196] Prakash M, Kedare SB, Nayak JK. Investigations on heat losses from a solar
cavity receiver. Solar Energy 2009;83(2):15770.
[197] Baker AF, Faas SE, Radosevich LG, Skinrood AC. U.S-Spain evaluation of the
solar one and CESA-1 receiver and storage systems. Sandia National
Laboratories; 1989.
[198] Zhang Qiangqiang, Li Xin, Wang Zhifeng, Changa Chun, Liu Hong. Experimental and theoretical analysis of a dynamic test method for molten salt
cavity receiver. Renewable Energy 2013;50:21421.
[199] Yu-ting Wu, Bin Liu, Chong-fang Ma, Hang Guo. Convective heat transfer in
the laminar-turbulent transition region with molten salt in a circular tube.
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 2009;33:112832.
[200] Hischier I, Hess D, Lipinski W, Modest M, Steinfeld A. Heat transfer analysis
of a novel pressurized air receiver for concentrated solar power via
combined cycles. Journal of Thermal Science and Engineering Applications,
ASME paper. 1-041002-1; 2009.
[201] Beckman, WA, In: Proceedings of 1968 aviation and space conference
(ASME), New York; 1968.
[202] Gebhart, B Unied treatment for thermal radiation transfer processes. ASME
paper No. 57-A-34; 1957.
[203] Teichel H, Feierabend Lukas, Klein A, Douglas TReindl. An alternative
method for calculation of semi-gray radiation heat transfer in solar central
cavity receivers. Solar Energy 2012;86:1899909.
[204] Behnia M, Reizes JA, Davis GD. Combined radiation and natural-convection
in a rectangular cavity with a transparent wall and containing a nonparticipating uid. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids
1990;10(3):30525.
[205] Wu SY, Xiao L, Li YR. Effect of aperture position and size on natural
convection heat loss of a solar heat-pipe receiver. Applied Thermal Engineering 2011;31:278796.
[206] Leibfried U, Ortjohann J. Convective heat loss from upward and downward
facing cavity solar receivers: measurements and calculations. Journal of
Solar Energy Engineering 1995;117:7584.
[207] Fang JB, Tu N, Wei JJ. Numerical investigation of start-up performance of a
solar cavity receiver. Renewable Energy 2013;53:3542.
[208] Balaji C, Venkateshan SP. Interaction of surface radiation with freeconvection in a square cavity. International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow
1993;14(3):2607.
[209] Maffezzoni C, Parigi F. Dynamic analysis and control of a solar power plantI:
Dynamic analysis and operation criteria. Solar Energy 1982;28:10516.
[210] Ben-Zvi R, Epstein M, Segal A. Simulation of an integrated steam generator
for solar tower. Solar Energy 2012;86:57892.
[211] Chen H, Chen Y, Hsieh HT, Siegel N. Computational uid dynamics modeling
of gasparticle ow within a solidparticle solar receiver. ASME Journal of
Solar Energy Engineering 2007;129:16070.
[212] Evans, G, Houf, W, Grief, R, Crowe, C Numerical modeling of a solid particle
solar central receiver. Sandia report SAND85-8249; 1985.
[213] Grena Roberto. Thermal simulation of a single particle in a falling-particle

solar receiver. Solar Energy 2009;83:118699.
[214] Hruby, JM A technical feasibility study of a solid particle solar central
receiver for high-temperature applications, Report SAND-868211, SANDIA
National Laboratories, Livermore; 1986;.
[215] Meier A. A predictive CFD model for a falling particle receiver/reactor
exposed to concentrated sunlight. Chemical Engineering Science
1999;54:2899905.
[216] Kim Kibum, Siegel Nathan, Kolb Greg, Rangaswamy Vijayarangan, Moujaes
F. A study of solid particle ow characterization in solar particle receiver.
Solar Energy 2009;83:178493.
[217] Kim Kibum, Moujaes F, Kolb J. Experimental and simulation study on wind
affecting particle ow in a solar receiver. Solar Energy 2010;84:26370.
[218] Bertocchi R, et al. Experimental evaluation of a non-isothermal high
temperature solar particle receiver. Energy 2004;29(5-6):687700.
[219] Klein Hanna Helena, Karni Jacob, Ben-Zvi Rami, Bertocchi Rudi. Heat
transfer in a directly irradiated solar receiver/reactor for solidgas reactions. Solar Energy 2007;81:122739.
[220] Tan Taide, Chen Yitung, Chen Zhuoqi, Siegel Nathan, Kolb J. Wind effect on
the performance of solid particle solar receivers with and without the
protection of an aerowindow. Solar Energy 2009;83:181527.
[221] Hong H, Jin H. A novel solar thermal cycle with chemical looping combustion. International Journal of Green Energy 2005;2:397407.
[222] Hong H, Jin H, Liu B. A novel solar-hybrid gas turbine combined cycle with
inherent CO2 separation using chemical-looping combustion by solar heat
source. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 2006;128:27584.
[223] Jafarian Mehdi, Arjomandi Maziar, Nathan J. A hybrid solar and chemical
looping combustion system for solar thermal energy storage. Applied
Energy 2013;103:6718.
[224] Barigozzi G, Bonetti G, Franchini G, Perdichizzi A, Ravelli S. Thermal
performance prediction of a solar hybrid gas turbine. Solar Energy 2012 in
presshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2012.04.014.
[225] Behar omar, et al. Scaling up hybrid solar gas turbine: simulation and
results, SEN2012. Algeria: Algiers; 2012.
[226] Sinai JCS, Fisher U. Adaptation and modication of gas turbines for solar
energy applications. In: ASME Turbo Expo 2005: power for land, sea and air.
Reno-Tahoe, NV, USA: ASME; 2005.
[227] Heller Peter, Pfander Markus, Denk Thorsten, Tellez Felix, Valverde Antonio,
Fernandez Jesus, et al. Test and evaluation of a solar powered gas turbine
system. Solar Energy 2006;80:122530.
[228] Buck R, Brauning T, Denk T, Pfander M, Schwarzbozl P, Tellez F. Solar-hybrid
gas turbine-based power tower systems (REFOS). Journal of Solar Energy
Engineering 2002;124:29.
[229] Fisher U, Sugarmen C, Ring A, Sinai J. Gas turbine solarization-modications
for solar/fuel hybrid operation. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering
2004;126:8728.
[230] Dickey, B Test results from a concentrated solar micro turbine Brayton cycle
integration. In: ASME conference proceedings; 2011. p. 10316.
[231] Livshits Maya, Kribus Abraham. Solar hybrid steam injection gas turbine
(STIG) cycle. Solar Energy 2012;86:1909.
[232] Bohn MSWTA, Price HW. Combined-cycle power tower. In: Proc ASME/JSME
Int solar energyconf. New York: ASME Press; 1995 p. 597606.
[233] Pak PS, Hatikawa T, Suzuki Y. A hybrid power generation system utilizing
solar thermal energy with CO2 recovery based on oxygen combustion
method. Energy Conversion and Management 1995;36:8236.
[234] Pak PS, Suzuki Y, Kosugi TA. CO2-capturing hybrid power-generation system
with highly efcient use of solar thermal energy. Energy 1997;22:2959.
[235] Schmitz Mark, Schwarzbozl Peter, Buck Reiner, Pitz-Paal Robert. Assessment
of the potential improvement due to multiple apertures in central receiver
systems with secondary concentrators. Solar Energy 2006;80:11120.
[236] Garcia P, Ferriere A, Flamant G, Costerg P, Soler R, Gagnepain B. Solar eld
efciency and electricity generation estimations for a hybrid solar gas turbine
project in France. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 2008;130:0145023.
[237] Behar, omar, Abdellah, Khellaf, Kamal, Mohammedi. 50 MW Hybrid solar
gas turbine: simulation and performance, ICRE2012; 2012, Bejaia.
[238] Zoschak RJ, Wu SF. Studies of the direct input of solar energy to a fossilfueled central station steam power plant. Solar Energy 1975;17:297305.
[239] Chena GQ, Yanga Q, Zhaob YH, Wang ZF. Nonrenewable energy cost and
greenhouse gas emissions of a 1.5 MW solar power tower plant in China.
[240] Yang Q, Chen GQ, Zhao YH, Chen B, Li Z, Wang ZF. Energy cost and
greenhouse gas emissions of a Chinese solar tower power plant. Procedia
Environmental Sciences 2011;5:7780.
[241] Yu Qiang, Wang Zhifeng, Xu Ershu, Li Xin, Guo Minghuan. Modeling and
dynamic simulation of the collector and receiver system of 1 MWe DAHAN
solar thermal power tower plant. Renewable Energy 2012;43:1829.
[242] Xu, Ershu, Yu, Qiang, Wang, Zhifeng, Yang, Chenyao. Modeling and simulation of 1 MW DAHAN solar thermal power tower plant. Renewable Energy
201; 136: 848-857.
[243] Yao Zhihao, Wang Zhifeng, Lu Zhenwu, Wei Xiudong. Modeling and
simulation of the pioneer 1 MW solar thermal central receiver system in
China. Renewable Energy 2009;34:243746.
[244] Yao, Zhihao, Wang, Zhifeng, Kang, Yong-Heack, Jong-Kyu Kim, Wei, Xiudong. Theoretical simulation investigation of the pioneer 1 MW solar power
tower system in china. In: Proceedings of ISES Solar World congress 2007:
solar energy and human settlement, vol. 5; 2007. p. 1733937.
[245] Wang, Zhifeng, Yao, Zhihao, Dong, Jun, Jin, Hongguang, Han, Wei, Lu,
Zhengwu, et al.. The design of a 1 MW solar thermal tower plant in Beijing,
China. In: Proceedings of ISES Solar World congress 2007: solar energy and
human settlement; 2007. p. 172932.
[246] Yebra, LJ, Berenguel, M, Dormido, S, Romero, M. Modelling and simulation of
central receiver solar thermal power plants. In: Proceedings of the 44th IEEE
conference on decision and control, and the European control conference;
2005. p. 741015.
[247] Moon, Myung-Hoon, Kim, Yong, Kang, Kyung-Moon, Ko, Jo Han, Seo,
Tae Beom. System performance estimation for a solar tower power plant.
In: Proceedings of ISES Solar World congress 2007: solar energy and human
settlement, vol. 5; 2007. p. 1899903.
[248] Alexopoulos Spiros, Hoffschmidt Bernhard. Solar tower power plant in
Germany and future perspectives of the development of the technology in
Greece and Cyprus. Renewable Energy 2010;35:13526.
[249] Gall, Jan, Abel, Dirk, Ahlbrink, Nils, Pitz-Paal, Robert, Andersson, Joel, Diehl,
Moritz, et al.. Optimized control of hot-gas cycle for solar thermal power
plants. In: Proceedings 7th Modelica conference, 2022 Sep.; 2009.
[250] Honeywell. Solar pilot plant, phase I. Preliminary design report. vol. II, Book
3. Dynamic simulation model and computer program descriptions. CDRL
Item 2. [SPP dynamics simulation program]. Technical report. Honeywell,
Inc., Energy Resources Center. Minneapolis, MN, USA; 1977.
[251] Hennecke, K, Schwarzbozl,

P, Hoffschmidt, B, Gottsche,
J, Koll, G, Beuter, M,
et al. The solar power tower Julicha

solar thermal power plant for test and
demonstration of air receiver technology. In: Proceedings of ISES Solar
World congress 2007: solar energy and human settlement, vol. 5; 2007. p.
1749953.
[252] Lowrie, A SRE Receiver Subsystem Experiment: solar test procedure.
Technical report. Martin Marietta Corp. Denver, CO, USA; 1979.
[253] McDonnell. 10-MWe pilot-plant-receiver-panel test-requirements document: solar thermal test facility. Technical report. McDonnell Douglas
Astronautics Co., Huntington Beach, CA, USA; 1978.
[254] McGovern K, William J Smith. Optimal concentration and temperatures of solar
thermal power plants. Energy Conversion and Management 2012;60:22632.
[255] Coelho Bruno, Schwarzbozl Peter, Oliveira Armando, Mendes Adelio. Biomass and central receiver system (CRS) hybridization: volumetric air CRS
and integration of a biomass waste direct burning boiler on steam cycle.
Solar Energy 2012;86:291222.
[256] Xu Chao, Wang Zhifeng, Li Xin, Sun Feihu. Energy and exergy analysis of
solar power tower plants. Applied Thermal Engineering 2011;31:390413.
[257] Alvarez JD, Guzman JL, Yebra LJ, Berenguel M. Hybrid modeling of central
receiver solar power plants. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory
2009;17:66479.
[258] Ahlbrink, Nils, Belhomme, Boris, Pitz-Paal, Robert. Modeling and simulation
of a solar tower power plant with open volumetric air receiver. In:
Proceedings 7th Modelica conference, 2009 20-22 Sep.
39
[259] Grifth LV, Brandt H. Solarfossil hybrid system analysis: performance and
economics. Solar Energy 1984;33:26576.
[260] Hu E, Baziotopoulos C, Li Y. Solar aided power generation from coal red
power stations: THERMSOLV software. In: Duke R, editor. Australasian
Universities power engineering, Melbourne, Vic, Australia. Melbourne,
Australia: MonashU niversity; 2002. p. 17.
[261] Tora E, El-Halwagi M. Optimal design and integration of solar systems and
fossil fuels for sustainable and stable power outlet. Clean Technologies and
Environmental Policy 2009;11:4017.
[262] Xu Ershu, Wang Zhifeng, Wei Gao, Zhuang Jiayan. Dynamic simulation of
thermal energy storage system of Badaling 1 MW solar power tower plant.
[263] Schwarzbozl Peter, Buck Reiner, Sugarmen Chemi, Ring Arik, Crespo Jesus
Marcos, Altwegg Peter, et al. Solar gas turbine systems: design, cost and
perspectives. Solar Energy 2006;80:123140.
[264] Kribus A, Zaibel R, Carey D, Segal A, Karni. J. A solar-driven combined cycle
power plant. Solar Energy 1998;62(2):1219.
[265] Kolb GJ. Economic evaluation of solar-only and hybrid power towers using
molten-salt technology. SolarEnergy 1998;62:5161.
[266] Horn M, Fuhring H, Rheinlander J. Economic analysis of integrated solar
combined cycle power plants: a sample case: the economic feasibility of an
ISCCS power plant in Egypt. Energy 2004;29:93545.
[267] Garcia Pierre, Ferriere Alain, Bezian Jean-Jacques. Codes for solar ux
calculation dedicated to central receiver system applications: a
comparative review. Solar Energy 2008;82:18997.
[268] Lippke, F, Schmitz-Goeb, M and Finker, A PHOEBUS power tower processes
with the open volumetric air receiver. In: 8th International. symposium on
solar thermal concentrating technologies, Oct. 611, Cologne, Germany;
1996.
[269] Bonadies MF, Mohagheghi M, Ricklick M, Kapat JS. Solar retrot to
combined cycle power plant with thermal energy storage. ASME conference
proceedings 2010:92131.
[270] Heide S, Gampe U, Orth U, Beukenberg M, Gericke B, Freimark M, et al.
Design and operational aspects of gas and steam turbines for the novel solar
hybrid combined cycle SHCC [sup[registered sign]]. In: ASME conference
proceedings; 2010. p. 46574.
[271] rheinlander jurgen, lippke frank. Electricity and potable water from a solar
tower power plant. Renewable Energy 1998;14(I-4):238.
[272] Ramos A, Ramos F. Strategies in tower solar power plant optimization. Solar
Energy 2012;86:253648.
[273] Spelling, James, Favrat, Daniel, Martin, Andrew, Augsburger, Germain. Thermoeconomic optimization of a combined-cycle solar tower power plant.
[274] Price, HWWDD, Beebe, HI. SMUD Kokhala power tower study. In: Proc.
of the 1996 international solar energy conference, San Antonio, TX; 1996.
p. 2739.

A Reviewof Studies On Central Receiver Solar Thermal Power Plants

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Reviewof Studies On Central Receiver Solar Thermal Power Plants

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Reviewof Studies On Central Receiver Solar Thermal Power Plants

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 23 (2013) 1239

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

A review of studies on central receiver solar thermal power plants

L.E.M.I Laboratory, University of Mhamed Bougara, UMBB, Boumerdes, Algeria

Inroduction: Why concentrating solar power (CSP)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Corresponding author. Tel.: 213 555 82 71 29.

O. Behar et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 23 (2013) 1239

1. Inroduction: Why concentrating solar power (CSP)?

For instance, in the Mediterranean region energy consumption

O. Behar et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 23 (2013) 1239

although interest in solar power was then lost due to advances in

O. Behar et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 23 (2013) 1239

solar power in their energy mix. As of 2011, have been worldwide

2.1.2. Basic concept and current status

Solar collector [6]

O. Behar et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 23 (2013) 1239

are at present Rankine cycles (RC), Brayton cycles (BC), combined

2.1.3. Factors boosting CSP technology

2030, the market potential is estimated at least at 7 GW in the

o Higher temperatures (up to 1000 1C) and thus higher efciency

2.2.1. Basic concept

Power Conversion System

O. Behar et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 23 (2013) 1239

from 250 1C to 1000 1C [11,71]. A power conversion system is

2.2.2. Central receiver solar thermal pilot plants

2.2.3. Central receiver solar thermal power plants in operation

developing air as a HTF. Julich

O. Behar et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 23 (2013) 1239

2.2.4. Central receiver solar thermal power plants under

USA, San Bernardino

USA, Nye county, NV

South, Africa Upington

2.2.5. Central receiver solar thermal power plants in the planning

O. Behar et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 23 (2013) 1239

Rio mesa solar project

Riverside county, California

Main subsystem focus

Volumetric receiver hybrid

Variable geometry test facility [32]

Particle receiver integrated with a uidized [32]

Temperature falling-particle receiver [32]

SNL and DLR

Small-particle solar receiver for high-temperature USA

San Diego State

New solar receiver that uses s-CO2 as transfer uid USA

Solar Test Facility (NSTF) in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The MSTL

O. Behar et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 23 (2013) 1239

Power conversion system

Cost reduction: 40 [93]

Beijing Badaling solar tower/

Solucar 120: Glass-metal

Solucar 120: Glass-metal

64 facets, each facet

Inlet temp. (1C)

Outlet Temp. (1C)

Dongfang Boiler Group Co.,Ltd