FEASIBILITY STUDY OF 100 MWe SOLAR POWER PLANT
Dan Sagie
Rotem Industries Ltd.
P.O. Box 9046
Beer-Sheva, ISRAEL 84190
dsagie@bezeqint.net
ABSTRACT
This study was undertaken for the Israeli Government and
includes an updated cost evaluation, configuration
optimization, and mode of operation, for a 100MWe solar
power plant, the first of five similar plants to be erected at
one location.
Regarding the preferred technology, the central receiver
concept, although potentially more efficient then trough
since it fits into a combined cycle plant - is neither
technologically mature enough nor proven for commercial
application. The Fresnel concept is in a similar development
stage. The trough technology, used for the SEGS plants, is
the only mature and proven technology ready for application
today.
The current trough plants use the solar steam to directly
drive the turbine at 371oC, due to the thermal oil limitations.
This paper analyzes the option of further superheating the
steam to 540oC - the optimal temperature for commercial
steam turbine. Higher cycle efficiency improves the plant
cost effectiveness, since a smaller solar field is required.
Solar fraction reduction can be compensated by thermal
storage.
The power cost is evaluated as a function of the solar
fraction, for several operational modes. High solar fraction
would increase the power cost significantly.
Since the solar plant power generation largely overlaps the
hours of high demand, and consequently high power cost -
the plant becomes marginally economical for Israel at its
present power cost level. The expected increase in power
cost would make thus plant even more economically
attractive. With the environmental and location premium,
the plant becomes economical at the current power tariff.
Located away from water resources, an air-cooled
condenser was chosen instead of a cooling tower. Wet
cooling would add 7% to annual power generation,
however, for the specified location, would hardly
compensate for the expenses of pumping and desalinating
brackish water, as well as the disposal of the concentrates.
1. INTRODUCTION
The solar-thermal power plants operating in the Mohave
Desert in Southern California (SEGS) are proof positive of
the technological and economical potential of the trough
solar collector technology. With a combined generation
capacity of 354 MWe, these plants, built by Luz Industries
between 1984 and 1991, have been operating successfully
up to the present. They have already provided over 8 billion
kWh of electricity, unparalleled to other solar technologies.
The technological developments since the erection of these
plants, together with the renewed interest worldwide in
Renewable Sources for electricity, triggered the Israeli
Ministry of National Infrastructure to carry out an updated
feasibility study, in order to evaluate the techno-economical
potential of this technology as compared to other renewable
sources. The study is especially pertinent to the Middle East
where wind and tidal resources are limited, and solar
radiation is readily available.
The study included an updated, detailed cost evaluation, and
optimization for configuration and mode of operation, for a
100MWe solar power plant, the first of five similar plants to
be erected at the same location.
2. THE PREFERRED TECHNOLOGY
As mentioned above wind and tidal resources are not
available for the region in consideration, solar photovoltaic
and solar thermal are then the optional technologies.
Tender study shows that photovoltaic technologies are still
too expensive to apply. MST of Israel’s approach [1], even
with the most optimistic estimate still suggests a minimum
total plants capacity of 10 GWp in order to be economically
feasible, and there are many other technological issues that
remain unsolved. The cogeneration approach by Millennium
Electric [2] demands that the thermal energy consumer will
consume 600 GWhth annually all supplied as water at 65oC
to 70oC. This does not seem to be realistic. International
Corporations would build a plant for a total installation cost
of about 4$/Wp. Large grid connected PV plants operating
today have a nominal installed power of 20 to 30kW and
total annual energy generation of 40MWh/year, still only
1:5000 fraction of the required power and energy for the
plant. "Multi-MW" PV plants are still on the drawing desk,
with no solid data for their real performance and power cost.
The conclusion remains that PV technology is not
economically mature for commercial application in a full-
scale power plant.
With regard to solar thermal technology, the central receiver
concept is potentially more efficient than the trough
concept, since it fits into a combined cycle plant. However,
being well acquainted with the Rotem Industries central
receiver, which was tested at the Weizmann Institute during
the early 90's [3,4], and even relating to the DLR receiver
recently tested at Almeria, Spain [5]- the technology is still
not mature enough nor is it proven for commercial
application.
Concentrating dish is yet another dual-axis tracking
technology. Although a few companies, Governmental
institutes, and academic institutes have been developing this
approach for many years – it does not appear that any
commercial product is available on the market. The largest
dishes, manufactured in Australia, have effective reflecting
area of 400 m2, which possibly could provide the best
available heat engines up to 75 kW. Typical efficiency is
about 30% for these small engines. About 1350 units would
be required for the first 100MWe plant, with no potential for
breakthrough for the following plants. An array of dishes
generating steam also makes no better economy [6]. The
benefits of mass production are not going to reduce the cost
enough for a large field of dishes to come down to an
economically feasible scale.
Being left with single-axis tracking, we note that only three
solar collectors vendors are available on the market. All
propose trough technology similar to the original LUZ
International collector. Solel Solar Systems of Israel is the
LUZ legal successor. Solel acquired Luz technology, and
most of its professional staff came originally from Luz.
Other companies now active in the field are Solargenix
Energy (N.C., USA) and Solar Millennium (Germany).
It is doubtless that the SEGS Plants are the leading example
of a commercial solar plant. Luz Industries built the nine
solar plants in the Mohave Desert, in Southern California
between 1984 and 1991. These plants have been operating
successfully for almost 20 years, providing over 8 billion
kWh of electricity to half a million residents in the region,
and are still operating economically to date. The plants
displace the need for 1.5 million barrels of heavy fuel oil a
year and about 500,000 Tons of CO2 and NO2.
For the Fresnel concept, Solar Heat and Power Pty of
Sydney, Australia, claims to have plans to erect a 36 MWe
Plant [7]. At the time of submitting the report to the Israeli
government (early 2004) - the available data still point to
the conclusion that this technology is not mature, not proven
technology.
The trough technology, used for the SEGS plants, is the
only mature and proven technology ready for application
today. The 350MWe total installed power, with
accumulating energy production of over 8 billion kWh of
electricity, and a continuous reliable power supply up to
date - are solid proof for the maturity of this technology.
3. METHODOLOGY
Since the design of the SEGS Plants is available to Solel
down to the final details, and the performance is known as
well - installation and operational cost data are all available.
The last to install, SEGS IX was defined as the "basic"
plant, and analyzed component by component. Based on the
original design drawings and specifications, an updated cost
was given. For the more expensive components the price
was set by a bid. Then the cost of the modifications as
compared to the "basic" plant was evaluated.
Performance and operational costs were also estimated
based on SEGS IX data with adjustment for the
improvements.
The power cost was evaluated as a function of the solar
fraction, for several operational modes. Realistic
assumptions were taken for longevity, interest rate and
financing cost.
.
4. THE "BASIC" SOLAR PLANT
Going with the above methodology we choose the last
80MWe SEGS Plant as the "basic" solar plant design for
reference. With updated collector efficiency, only 8.8% field
extension was required to achieve the 100MWe nominal
power to the grid.
Table 1 shows the basic design plant parameters
A schematic view of the solar plant is shown in Fig. 1. The
plant constitutes of three main subsystems: The solar field
including the heat transfer fluid system, the power block
system, and the condenser cooling system. For the cost
evaluation the balance of plant installation cost is also
included. The solar field delivers the solar thermal energy to
the power block when the solar energy is available and after
the HTF is heated up to its working temperature range.
Oil heaters are used as a-back up and operate according to
the defined operating strategy. The plant is designed to
operate along the entire range from only solar to only fuel
up to the full power.
The turbine operates with constant pressure with variable
steam flow according to its partial working load. The
minimum partial load for turbine start up is 10% from its
nominal capacity.
Blanketing for the steam pipeline and turbine is done for no
operating mode, as a maintenance operation.
TABLE 1: BASIC PLANT DESIGN PARAMETERS

Site Southern
Electrical Conversion efficiency (%)
Location Israel
Solar Mode 37.6
Land area (sq. km) 1.8
Gas Mode 37.6
Annual water consumption (m3) 1,000,000 Solar Field
Power block SCA: Solel #1 (281 m²) 1876
Turbine Generator Output (gross MWe) 112 Field Aperture (collectors) Area (m²) 527,000
Output to Utility (net MWe) 100 Field Inlet Temperature (ºC) 297
Solar Reheater Capacity (gross MWt) 45 Field Outlet Temperature (ºC) 391
Turbine-Generator Set Annual Thermal Efficiency (%) 50
Solar Steam Conditions Peak Optical Efficiency (%) 80
Inlet Pressure (Bara) 101 System Thermal Losses (% of peak) 15
Maximum steam flow (Ton/h) 460 Heat Transfer Fluid
Reheat Pressure (Bara) 17.7 Type VP-1
Inlet/Reheat Temperature (ºC) 371 Inventory (gal) 500,000
Gas Mode Steam Conditions Thermal Storage Capacity (MMBtu) ---
Identical to solar steam Nominal design thermal output (MWt) 297.1

Fig. 1: A schematic view of the solar plant

4.1 The Solar Field

4.1.1 Solar Collector Assembly

The basic component of Solar Field is the Solar Collector
Assembly (SCA). Each SCA has its own parabolic trough
solar collector, positioning system, and local control system.
The parabolic trough solar collector is a mirrored glass
reflector, which focuses direct solar radiation on an efficient
evacuated receiver, or heat collection element (UVAC). The
other primary components of an SCA are the metal support
structure, the heat collection element, and the tracking
system (drive, sensors, controls).
Solel the owner of LUZ technology has continued the line
of development of Solar Collectors and developed a new
generation of collectors, which combine key features of both
the LS-2 and LS-3.
4.1.2 The Reflector Panels
The reflector is made up of hot-formed mirrored glass
panels, supported by a truss system that gives the SCA its
structural integrity. The glass is produced by the
conventional float-glass method in which molten glass is
conveyed onto a bath of molten metal, such as tin. The high
temperature of the molten metal smoothes out irregularities
on the surface, resulting in a flat, even sheet. As the glass
floats on top of the bath, the temperature of the molten
metal is gradually reduced until the glass solidifies.
Ceramic pads for attaching to the collector structure are
installed with a special adhesive. The precision shape of
selected glass panels is tested for accuracy with a laser test
device.
4.1.3 The heat collection element (UVAC)
Solel’s UVAC Vacuum collector is a technologically
advanced heat-collecting element for parabolic troughs. The
collector is composed of a coated stainless steel tube
enclosed within an evacuated glass tube. The UVAC
achieves very high levels of thermal energy output. This
output is a result of unique selective coatings, as well as
improved anti-reflective coatings on the glass tube that
allow more effective solar radiation transmission.
Additionally a new patented radiation heat shield system
improves the glass to metal connection. The UVAC tube is
successfully implemented at the Kramer Junction power
plants in Southern California. See Fig 2.
Fig. 2: The UVAC Vacuum Collector
The UVAC incorporates glass-to-metal seals and metal
bellows to achieve the vacuum-tight enclosure. This
enclosure serves primarily to reduce heat losses at the high
operating temperatures and to protect the selective surface.
4.1.4 Tracking System
Solar tracking is achieved through a closed loop tracking
system which relying on a sun sensor for the precise
alignment required to focus the sun on the UVAC in
operation, periodically sending commands to a hydraulic
drive system or to a gear motor to position the SCA.
The reflector panel structure and drive system are designed
for normal operation in winds, complying 50 years of local
wind data. During high winds or during other times when
the solar field is not operating the SCAs are stowed in a
face-down position at -30° for protection. The SCAs
withstand a maximum wind velocity of 50% over the
maximum operating wind speed while in the stow position.
4.2 Field Control System
The solar field control system consists of a field supervisory
controller (FSC) located in the central control building and
local microprocessor controllers (LOCs) located on each
SCA. The FSC monitors insolation, wind velocity, and HTF
pump/flow status, and communicates with all of the LOCs.
When the appropriate conditions exist, the FSC initiates the
commands to send the SCAs to track the sun, and at the end
of the day stows the solar field. If major alarm conditions
occur during operation, the FSC or LOCs automatically take
action to protect the Solar Field equipment. From the FSC,
the operators can monitor the status of each SCA in the solar
field. Once the FSC sends an appropriate command to the
solar field, the LOCs take over and control the actions of the
individual SCAs. The LOC utilizes positioning components
to accurately focus its SCA. Interactive screens and graphics
make the system operator-friendly and responsive
4.3 Heat Transfer Fluid (HTF) System
The HTF system is a closed loop through which the Heat
Transfer Fluid, a eutectic mixture of diphenyl and diphenyl
oxide, is used as in previous operational Solar Power
Stations.
The loop begins at the HTF expansion vessel, which allows
for thermal expansion of the HTF. A nitrogen service unit
maintains a 165 psia inert atmosphere above the fluid level
in the expansion vessel. HTF degradation gases are removed
from the expansion vessel through the Ullage venting
system. The HTF pumps draw fluid from the expansion
vessel for circulation to the cold headers in the solar field.
During the flow through a single loop of the Solar Field, the
HTF is heated up to 391º C, then transported via the hot
headers to two parallel identical trains heat exchangers. The
HTF flows counter-current to the feed water flow of the
turbine steam-water system. First the HTF passes through a
heat exchanger that superheats the inlet steam to the turbine.
The HTF then flows through a steam generator and lastly to
the preheater, respectively generating saturated steam and
preheating the feed water to the steam generator.
In parallel with these trains of heat exchangers, a portion of
the HTF flows to two heat exchangers that reheat the steam
that is flowing from the high-pressure to the low pressure
stage of the turbine. The HTF temperature drops from 391ºC
to 297ºC as its energy is transferred to the steam cycle in the
heat exchangers.
The HTF flow can bypass the heat exchangers through a
bypass line. The bypass is used during warm-up operation
until the solar field heats the HTF to a temperature sufficient
to generate turbine steam. The bypass also opens after a
turbine trip while in solar mode in order to shut off the
supply of turbine steam.
The HTF then flows from the heat exchangers to the
expansion vessel to repeat the cycle.
Fixed orifices or manual flow control valves accomplish
flow balancing of HTF in the solar field loops. Engineering
analysis shows that good flow balance will be achieved over
the operating flow rate range, and that loop-specific factors
influencing temperature misdistributions will have little
effect on performance.
4.4 Non Solar Plant Subsystems
The other main subsystems of the plant include steam
Fig. 3 demonstrates the coupling of steam superheating
system with the steam cycle. By a cautious thermodynamic
balance we were able to release the flew gases to the
atmosphere at 165oC, and thus to achieve a 90% efficiency
of the boiler. Another approach replaces the boiler with a
small gas turbine; its waste gases are used to superheat the
steam. The coupling of the steam cycle is still required in
order to maintain high a recovery of the heat in the flew
gases.
Steam to condesator

generation equipment; a steam turbine, and generator; a

cooling water system; a cooling tower; and a water supply Turbine L.P.

and treatment system. Additionally, the electrical and the

control systems as well as siteworks, buildings, roads, gas, o
540 C
water, and power interfaces to the country infrastructure, 125oC
etc. were all included. Since all these are basically similar to ReHeater

conventional power plant this paper will not discuss them in o

165 C 179oC
o
365 C
detail.
More information concerning the field design is available
from Solel Solar Systems [8]. Turbine H.P.
o
125 C
Condensate inlet
540oC
5. PLANT MODIFICATIONS o
125 C
SuperHeater
Two major modifications were considered in order to 165oC 371oC
improve the solar plant performance:
ƒ Superheated steam Solar Field
ƒ Air-cooled condenser
5.1 Superheated steam o
125 C 240oC
Economizer

Current trough technology is limited to a thermal oil o

165 C
temperature of not over 400oC, mostly due to the thermal oil
o
179 C

limitations. With the steam generator essential temperature
gradient the practical highest steam temperature out of the
solar field reaches about 370oC. The SEGS plants use the
solar steam directly to drive the turbine at that temperature.
Current available steam turbines at the 100 MWe power
range use steam at 540oC with a significantly higher
efficiency. (Carnot’s Law). Those turbines are also cheaper,
being on standard high volume supply, while the low
temperature turbine needs special custom-made
manufacturing. For these plants we analyzed the option of
further superheating the steam to 540oC - the optimal
temperature for a commercial steam turbine. The higher
cycle efficiency improves the plant cost effectiveness, since
a smaller solar field is required, while only 7% additional
energy is required to superheat the steam. On the other hand
this approach inherently reduces the solar fraction, and fuel
backing is required even at the peak solar hours.
For the long run we are developing a heat storage system, to
increase the solar fraction back to 70%, as required by the
valid regulations.
Efficient superheating of the solar steam required non-
standard design. Since the solar steam is supplied at 370oC
any standard boiler would throw away the flew gases to the
atmosphere at about 400oC, with a large waste of energy.
Fig. 3: Superheating Flow sheet
5.2 Air-cooled condenser
The site is located away from the sea, with only brackish
water resources available in the close vicinity. Brackish
water is available but is quite deep (800m) and sited within
a porous rock, requiring significant power to pump it up to
ground level. On the ground we must spend about 0.3$/m3
to desalinate the water in order to allow water evaporation
in the cooling tower with no excess precipitation/scaling on
the tubes. (Other chemical options like Ion exchange have
been found to be even more expensive). Still any solid
precipitation removal requires disposal of the brines back to
the sea, again with substantial expense.
We have therefore analyzed the option of an air-cooled
condenser as a replacement for the cooling tower, saving all
the process of brackish water pumping and desalination, and
brine disposal.
For the given location with dry and wet bulb temperatures
of 31oC and 25oC respectively, commercial dry cooling
could maintain a condensing temperature of 55oC. For the
same power block this temperature would increase from
42oC for wet cooling to the 55oC for the dry cooling,
reducing the output power from the turbogenerator by 3-4%
An hour-by-hour analysis of the condensing temperature for
the average temperature at each hour, and the outcome
power, results in an annual energy loss of about 22GWeh
for the planed 100MWe plant. Since the solar energy is
supplied during the sunny, high rate hours - the total losses
in annual income reaches a value of about 1.5M$, quite
similar to the water cost. For our specific case we chose dry
cooling, however a small variation in the water supply or
brine disposal cost, as well as revenue by power cost - may
invert the picture. A combination of dry and wet cooling is
also a viable option.
operating modes with the well proof Solel simulation code
had verified the model. Solel’s simulation program was and
is qualified through comparison to the on line - hourly /
yearly data of the solar electric generation system (SEGS
Plants) - with accuracy of +/ - 3%.,
For 371oC plant and 70% solar fraction the major
performance parameters are presented in table 3.
TABLE 3: Major Performance Parameters (371oC, 70% solar)

6. INSTALLATION AND OPERATIONAL COSTS

The installation and operational cost for 370oC turbine inlet

steam, air cooled condenser is shown in table2

TABLE 2: Installation and operational Costs

7. PERFORMANCE

In order to analyze the performance of the plant, a model

simulating the operating modes of the power plant, which
including the power block and the solar field was
developed. Heaters and turbine efficiencies were taken for
the momentary load, and parasitic energy losses were
included. The model considers transient condition and
startups, for the whole year. The operating strategy

Note: The parasitic losses used to be 16% with while flex

hoses were used for SCA thermal connections. Now with
ball joints connections the losses dropped down to about
11% at nominal operating conditions.

8. POWER COST

For the plant economical balance the revenue of the plant is

evaluated. Since the power cost is time dependent – its
yearly average value has a minor significance. Instead, the
time dependent tariff (TOU) was used. A factor named
"Cost Factor" was introduced to express in how much
percentage this TOU tariff must increase, in order to make
the plant economically balanced.
The plant might operate always at the full nominal load of
100MWe. This requires fuel to compensate for the input
according to time dependent electricity prices (“T.O.U.” for
thermal power when not available from the sun. The
power producers), fuel cost, and the maximum yearly limit
demand to improve the solar fraction, dictates plant
of gas usage were defined. The model’s results are given in
operation at partial load, with lower cycle efficiency.
yearly hourly values. Comparing the results at similar
8.1 Assumptions and Definitions
The following power cost results are based on the following
assumptions:
- Power sale to the National grid at "Producers" T.O.U.
tariff
- Cost factor is defined as the factor over the T.O.U. tariff
required for economical balance of the plant.
- Longevity - 30 years
- Financing terms 6.5% for 30 years (Government
guaranties) for the entire investment. (Detailed cost
variation with financial terms was evaluated)
- Cost values are given for an air-cooled condenser.
TABLE 4: COST FACTOR FOR SOME OPERATIONAL MODES
All investment financing at 6.5% rate for 30 years
- The fuel for backing is natural gas at 3.2$/MMBtu
- Some reasonable modes of operation were selected to
demonstrate cost results, since real operation mode is
generated by the control system accordingly to the
weather condition, and power momentarily cost.
8.2 Cost Results
Table 4 presents the cost factor for a few operational modes.
For each one data is given for both full and partial power
operation, either for the 371oC (SEGS like), and 540oC
plant. Partial power operation improves the solar fraction on
the expense of a lower solar fraction and cost- effectiveness.
Since the solar fractions are typically around 50% the
specific fuel consumption is given as well.

o o
Solar steam temperature & pressure 371 C, 100bar 371 C, 120bar
Turbine inlet temperature & pressure 371oC, 100bar 540oC, 120bar
Theoretical cycle efficiency 37.3% 42.6%
Effeciency @ 75% solar available 36.3% 41.2%
Natural Gas Cost 3.2$/MMBtu 3.2$/MMBtu
Generated Generated ∆solar
mode of operation Solar Cost factor specific fuel Solar Cost factor specific fuel
energy energy fraction for balance consumption
Load Fraction for balance consumption Fraction
days/week; hours/year (net) approx.net (371−540)
MWeh/y kg/MWh MWeh/y kg/MWh
1
7days/week nominal 50.6% 411041 23.2% 0.106 42.5% 554906 8.1% 1.4% 0.109
4018 partial 57.5% 354030 34.4% 0.094 48.2% 477940 9.3% 10.2% 0.101
2
7days/week 8 -20 nominal 46.2% 448074 19.4% 0.116 38.8% 604900 7.4% -1.5% 0.117
4380 partial 53.0% 381170 30.7% 0.104 44.5% 514579 8.5% 7.4% 0.109
3
6days/week 8 -22 nominal 40.3% 438253 11.8% 0.130 33.9% 591642 6.4% -8.1% 0.127
4284 partial 46.2% 372229 23.3% 0.120 38.8% 502509 7.4% 0.9% 0.120
For conventional power plant with efficiency of 40% 0.185

Power Relative Cost vs. Solar Factor Specific Fuel Consumption

0.135
40%
0.130
35%
Specific Fuel Consumption Kg/kWh

0.125 o
30% o 371 C
371 C 0.120
25% o
540 C
20% 0.115
Cost Factor

15% 0.110

10% 0.105
o
540 C
5% 0.100
0% 0.095
30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60%
-5% 0.090
-10% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60%
Solar Factor - % Solar Factor - %

Fig 4: Power cost factor vs. Solar fraction Fig 5: Specific fuel consumption vs. Solar fraction

Fig 4 and 5 present the cost factor and specific fuel
consumption as a factor of the solar fraction respectively,
for the 371oC and 540oC plants.
Fig. 6 presents the yearly average power cost in US$/kWeh
for three operational modes, at full and partial power, both
for the 371oC and the 540oC plants, with the resulting solar
fraction. The 540oC plant operating 4018h/y can reach a solar
fraction of 50% at 6.5¢/kWeh. Even lower solar electrical
power is achievable with a lower solar fraction.
 Power Cost for Balance - $/kW eh and operation of these 100MWe plants. In that specific case
0.080
o
371 C,4284h, 6d/w
the financing cost will be higher, however this would be
0.075
o
371 C,4380h, 7d/w compensated by the premium for renewable energy, and for
o
distribution savings.
371 C,4018h, 7d/w
0.070 Extensive work is carried out in Rotem Industries to develop
a cost effective storage system that would dramatically
Power Cost $/kWh

0.065 o
540 C,4284h, 6d/w improve the solar fraction. Details are left for future reports.
kWh o
540 C,4018h, 7d/w
- $/
0.060
CONCLUSIONS
0.055 o
540 C,4380h, 7d/w
Steam superheating significantly improves plant economy,
0.050 with minor fuel addition.
30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60%
Solar Factor - %
Dry cooling is a viable option where water is not available.
Fig. 6: Power cost for balance for several operational modes A solar thermal trough plant could operate at power cost not
exceeding the current prices, at the hour of supply. Some
The yearly average power cost as a function of the annual support is still required, for example as an RE premium,
hours of operation is given in Fig. 7 and Fig 8 for 371oC and which the Israeli Government is willing to grant.
540oC plants respectively. The solar fraction is given as well. Storage system should be included where a goal of 70%
Due to time delay in the natural gas pipeline arrival to the site, solar fraction has been set.
the power cost for the temporary option of 3%S heavy oil
(Mazot), with the appropriate environmental protection, was ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
also considered.
- The study was supported by the Israeli Ministry of
Electrical power cost vs Annual hours, 371oC Turbine
National Infrastructure.
Solar Factor: 40 % 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% - Data from Solel Solar Systems of Beit-Shemesh, Israel,
11
was extensively used for this study.
10

9
REFERENCES
N. gas
(1) Raviv D., MST, A Paradigm Change in Replacing
Cost cent

8 Fossil Fuel with Soar Energy, Solar Energy Sde Boker

H. Mazot

7
Conference, Israel, 2004
(2) Elazary A., Millennium Electric, Building integrated
6
Multi PV/t/a Solar System Roof Tiles, The 12th
5 International Photovoltaic Science and Engineering
6000 5500 5000 4500
Annual hours
4000 3500
Conference, June 2001, Korea
Fig. 7: Power cost vs. annual operational hours 371oC plant (3) Sagie D., Rotem Industries, The Development of a
Volumetric Solar Receiver - An Overview, Israel
Electrical power cost vs Annual hours, 540 C Turbine
o Atomic Energy Commission Annual Report,. IAEC
1994, IA- 1490
Solar Factor:32.4% 40.6% 48.8% 57% 65.3% 74.5% 82%
11 (4) Karni J., Kribus A., Doron P., Sagie D., The DIAPR: A
10
High-Pressure, High-Temperature Solar Receiver,
ASME J. of Solar Energy Engineering, Vol. 19, 1997.
9
(5) Buck R. Heller P., DLR and Sugermen C. Ring A.,
Ormat, Tellez F., CIEMAT, Enrile J., SOLUCAR,
Cost cent

8
Solar-Hybrid Gas Turbine Plants: Status and
7
H. Mazot
Perspective, EuroSun 2004
N. gas
6 (6) Kaneff S., ANUTECH Australia, A 20 Dish Solar
Thermal Array Providing 2.6MWe via an Existing
5
6000 5500 5000 4500 4000 3500 Coal-fired Steam-Driven Turbogenerator System, ISES
Annual hours
1999 Solar World Congress, Jerusalem, Israel, 1999
Fig. 8: Power cost vs. annual operational hours 540oC plant (7) Mills D. Morrison G.L., Le Lievre P., Solar Heat and
Power, Design of a 240 MWe Solar Thermal power
Since the power is supplied to the grid during daytime it Plant, EuroSun 2004
overlaps the hours of high power cost. Therefore power cost (8) Solel Solar Systems, PO Box 811, Beit-Shemesh,
of 7 to 8 ¢/kWeh is certainly acceptable. The Government is ISRAEL 99107, eli@solel.com
considering issuing an international tender for the erection