Energy Conversion,

Vol. 16. pp. 181-198.

Pergamon Press, 1977. Printed in Great Britain

SOLAR POWER SYSTEMS

JESSE C. D E N T O N
Energy Associates, P.O. Box 355, Belton, TX 76513, U.S.A.

(Received 15 October 1976)

Abstract--A review of the principal solar power systems is presented. The nature of the solar energy
source is discussed starting from the energy output of the sun and covering briefly the important
atmospheric effects to characterize the available solar energy on the earth's surface. The various methods
for capturing solar energy are presented: flat-plate, concentrating, photovoltaic, and other collectors.
Energy storage methods are presented briefly for thermal, chemical, electrical, and mechanical storage
approaches. An application of solar power systems in interaction with a conventional electrical utility
system is presented in terms of mode of operation (base, intermediate, and peaking), reliability, capacity
displacement, and energy displacement. An economic evaluation of selected solar power systems compared to conventional electrical generation plants is presented. Conclusions are drawn as to the conditions under which solar power systems may become economically competitive. A preliminary indication
of market capture potential is discussed.
Solar power systems Solar energy source Flat-plate collectors Concentrating collectors Photovoltaic
collectors Thermal energy storage Chemical energy storage Solar electric power Solar power economics
INTRODUCTION
The sun is a gigantic thermonuclear reactor in the
gravitational center of the solar system. The total
solar radiation energy emission is 3.86 1033 ergs
every sec, or a power level of 3.86 1023 kW. The
mean distance from the sun to earth is taken equal
to the semi-major axis of earth's orbit, which is
149.4 106 km. Thus the solar energy which would
be intercepted by a planar surface oriented at right
angles to the sun's rays outside the atmosphere of
the earth is 1.36kW per m z. Working backwards
from this latter number by applying the Stefan-Boltzm a n n Law, one can determine that the effective temperature of the sun's surface is 5750 K. The solar spectral intensity curve, however, does not agree with that
of a black body at 5750 K.
The total solar energy arriving in the vicinity of
earth is truly immense, yet its intensity is quite small.
Furthermore, the intensity may be severely attenuated
by the passage of the radiation through the earth's
atmosphere. The resulting low intensity of solar
energy on the earth's surface means that relatively
large areas of collector surface must be exposed to
the sun to capture the solar energy. The collector surface represents a major element of the cost of solar
energy systems.
Solar energy collectors do not operate continuously
because of several factors such as cloud cover, strong
winds, diurnal effects, etc. Furthermore, the output
of solar energy collectors cannot be expected to
match the demand schedule for energy that is
required to meet the society's needs. Thus, energy
storage systems are required to smooth the intermittent nature of the energy collection system and to
match the energy supply to the instantaneous energy
demand. The energy storage equipment represents a
significant element of the cost of solar energy systems.

It is pointless to think in terms of an electric power

system based entirely on solar power systems. It is,
therefore, necessary to investigate the ways in which
a solar power system can be operated in interaction
with a conventional electrical utility system without
adversely affecting the reliability of operation of the
utility system. Standard conversion equipment is
assumed for this purpose. Important questions are
concerned with the questions of capacity displacement (of conventional generating capacity) and energy
displacement (of conventional source forms of
energy). Several systems will be discussed in terms
of these factors.
Having defined the energy collection systems, the
energy storage systems, and how the solar power systems interact with a conventional electric utility system, one can estimate the state of economic competitiveness of solar power systems compared to conventional electrical generating plants. In this estimate the
cost of the energy conversion equipment is estimated
on the basis of available equipment, turbine-generators, etc. Finally, given an economically competitive
solar power system, one can speculate with respect
to the maximum market capture potential that such
a system could have.
Solar power systems research has expanded tremendously since 1970, and new proposed systems
appear frequently. This paper attempts to present
those systems that have been investigated extensively
as opposed to new systems with a limited history of
investigation.
SOLAR ENERGY SOURCE

The rate at which the sun emits energy is

3.86 1023 kW I-l], a truly immense number. Of this
amount 1.36 kW/m 2 can be intercepted by a planar
surface oriented at right angles to the sun's rays out181

182

DENTON:

SOLAR POWER SYSTEMS

side the atmosphere of the earth at a mean distance

from the sun of 149.4 106 km [2]. Although, by
applying the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, the effective ternperature of the sun's surface is 5750 K, the solar spectral intensity curve does not agree with that of a black
body at 5750 K. Figure 1 gives the solar spectral intensity curve. Furthermore, the solar flux varies seasonally up to 6.8~o due to the ellipticity of the earth's
orbit [3].
Although it is relatively easy to define a standard
solar spectrum outside the earth's atmosphere, even
considering the seasonal variation resulting from the
ellipticity of the earth's orbit, the spectrum at sea level
is quite another matter because of the variability of
the received radiation as a result of atmospheric
effects, reflection, absorption, and scattering. The
spectrum is altered as a result of the interaction of
the radiation with molecules in the atmosphere, principally ozone, water vapor, and carbon dioxide.
Ozone completely absorbs sunlight below 0.30/~m in
the ultraviolet and reduces the flux in the entire green
region. Water vapor absorbs the infrared in certain
regions below 2.7 #m and completely beyond 2.7 #m;
however, there is little energy beyond this wave
length. The spectrum is also affected by suspended
particles called aerosols, which do not absorb the
energy, but instead scatter it. The scattering by aerosols is approximately constant over a wide range of
wave lengths, as compared with the Rayleigh scattering by molecular oxygen and nitrogen, which produces the blue sky color. Nevertheless, it is possible
to define a standard atmosphere and determine a sea
level solar energy spectrum. Figure 2 compares the
spectrum of solar energy outside the atmosphere with
that at sea level with an atmosphere containing
20 mm of precipitable water. The net effect of the
atmospheric absorption is to remove much of the infrared energy. Nevertheless, after standard atmospheric effects are taken into account, c a . 2;/3 of the
solar energy entering the atmosphere at zenith
actually arrives at sea level, yielding about

2.0
~

Outside Atmosphere

~ z.s
/Se20L~vel20

SUporat Zenith

1.0

0.5

1.0

0.5

1,5

2.0

2.5

3,0

Wavelength - ~m

Fig. 2. Solar energy spectrum--sea level [4].

0.91 kW/m 2. Clearly, this amount varies with atmospheric conditions and with altitude.
The solar energy arriving at sea level also varies
with the time of day and with season. These diurnal
and seasonal variations are caused by geometrical factors and .the change in altitude of the sun and the
corresponding change in atmospheric path length traversed by the sunlight and, therefore, in the total
atmospheric absorption. When the standard sea level
data are converted to time of day for a 33 north
latitude, the curves shown in Fig. 3 result. These
curves are drawn for a "standard desert atmosphere"
in which 69.7~o of the normal incoming radiation
reaches the surface, i.e. the solar flux on a horizontal
surface at sea level is c a . 0.95 kW/m 2. The discussion
above has concerned the direct radiation from the
sun. As a result of atmospheric scattering, the total
hemispherical radiation received is larger than the direct radiation. Figure 4 shows the incident flux for
the total hemispherical radiation as a function of time
of day and season. The direct radiation is applicable
to concentrating collectors, whereas the total hemispherical radiation is applicable to planar collectors
[43.

2.5

Direct Radiation
33 N Latitude
Desert Atmosphere

2.0

1.0

1.5

0.8
1.0

x~

"\

0.6

0.2

....

J
l
0,5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

i
3.0

\\

',,\\

=x 0.4
0.5

.......Winter

",,,ix
',,. \ \

2
3
4
5
Hours from Noon

Wavelength ~ um

Fig. 1. Solar energy spectrum--above atmosphere [4].

Fig. 3. Diurnal and seasonal variation of solar flux-~lirect

radiation [4].

DENTON:

SOLAR POWER SYSTEMS

Visibility = 23 km
Water Vapor - mm

Total Hemispheric Radiation

33 N Latitude
Desert Atmosphere
b ~
1.0 ______~,~~~~----'~~

1.0

Equinox
S.....
Winter

\\

0.8

0.4
0.2
0

0.6
I

183

0.5

I
.

\,

2 3 4
5
Hours from Noon

Fig. 4. Diurnal and seasonal variation of solar flux--total

radiation [4].
The discussion above has indicated only an atmospheric impact on the quantity and variation of solar
flux at a sea level site. In fact, the situation is much
more complicated and, indeed, is only subject to an
empirical approach utilizing information which is extremely site-specific. The climatology of the site is
governing. Factors to consider include the various
cloud conditions, atmospheric haze (pollution) conditions, the geographical and annual distribution of
sunshine, and the seasonal distribution of rainfall and
diurnal cloudiness. Figure 5 presents calculated spectra for the solar flux on a clear day (visibility of
23 km) with two different values of precipitable water
vapor (0 and 51.5 mm) using a tropical atmospheric
model. Clearly the atmospheric water vapor content
plays a large role in modifying the ground level insolation spectrum. The range of precipitable water
vapor for the continental United States is from 5 to
c a . 50 mm. If one increases the aerosol concentration
near the surface, using the same size distribution, to
the point where the sea level visibility is reduced to
5 km then the curves presented in Fig. 6 apply.
In working with solar power systems which produce electrical energy from thermal energy, it is not

I
I
I
.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Wavelength - ~m

Fig. 5. Calculated insolation spectrum--clear day [5].

1.0
Visibility - 5 km
Water Vapor - mm
o 0.5

51.5

.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Wavelength- ~m

Fig. 6. Calculated insolation spectrum--hazy day [5].

necessary to have the detailed solar flux spectrum,
but all of the same considerations come into play
in determining the amount of energy reaching the collector. Figure 7 presents the annual mean daily solar
energy availability in the southwestern portion of the
United States. Aerospace Corporation [5,6] has done
a very complete analysis of the insolation characteristics of the southwestern United States. The average
daily total hemispherical and direct insolation is
Total Insolation

1.6

(A.... 1 Mean Daily)

/
5200 WATT-HRS/M2/DAY (215 WATTS/M2) - ~

Fig. 7. Solar energy availability--Southwestern United States [6].

184

DENTON:

SOLAR POWER SYSTEMS

LEGEND
-JUNE
..... A N N U A L
.... D E C E M B E R

ii

--]

zo

~9
;iii!

~7

:::=! h~

- i!iiiiii

iiiiiii~

iiiiii!i

-.--

ili[iiil
iiiiii

iiiiiiii
iiiiiiii

[![iiiii

iiiiiiii

-iiiiiiii

....

i!iii!!

i!iiii![

kia.

iiiiiiil

~iiiiiii
- ~iii

i!iiiill
!!Fi!!

iiiii!!!iiii
m~

oli

N~

ioii

<

~iii iii~i!
CALIFORNIA

ARIZONA

TEXAS

~ T A 4 N E V I NM 3OL 4

........

KA [NEB]

Fig. 8. Average daily total insolation (1963)[6].

shown in Figs. 8 and 9, respectively, for 1963 for 20
different locations in the Southwest based on their
study.
In summary, ground level insolation is not predictable from theory. Empirical data must be used and
the data must be site-specific. Even then, one must
expect that the actual insolation will be different from
that estimated at a particular time depending upon
the temporal variations in climatology and general
atmospheric conditions. Only the direct component
of the solar flux is focusable, whereas non-focusing
collectors utilize the total hemispherical solar flux.
The performance of photovoltaic devices is sensitive
to the wave length of the incoming radiation. Therefore, for working with the full gamut of collectors,
one needs three types of site-specific insolation data:
1. Spectral distribution of solar flux; 2. Total hemispherical radiation; 3. Direct radiation.

SOLAR ENERGY COLLECTION

The energy contained in the solar flux can be collected if it is allowed to fall on a suitable collector.
One must consider both thermal and non-thermal
collectors. The former group can be conveniently subdivided into focusing and non-focusing collectors.
Photovoltaic collectors are of the non-thermal type.
In addition, there are attempts to use a hybrid photovoltaic-thermal collector. Discussions of a limited
nature are also found dealing with electromagnetic
collectors, Winston collectors, thermoelectric collectors, Fresnel lens, etc. This review will cover only
focusing and non-focusing collectors of the thermal
variety and photovoltaic collectors of the non-thermal
variety on which a substantial literature exists.
Focusin9 thermal collectors. Generally, a tracking
mechanism is provided with focusing collectors; howLEGEND
-JUNE
..... A N N U A L
----- D E C E M B E R

11

~i0

9 -

4 E~

iii~iF !z~

i ~'~
i<

c~

":"

us

::~i

~,

=:=i

iiiii[

~i'~

ic

liii!ii)itl!ill

iiiiifil li!!!!i[l I~iii!ii i i]iiil

CALIFORNIA

iii!ii iiiili
ARIZONA

UTAH N E ~ NM ICOL d

Fig. 9. Average daily direct insolation (1963) [-6].

TEXAS

"AINEBI

DENTON: SOLAR POWER SYSTEMS

ever, in a trade-off between cost and performance,
some configurations have been proposed which do
not track the sun. Rotation may be accomplished
either by moving the reflecting surface or the energy
absorbing surface.
The University of Minnesota-Honeywell research
team have done extensive research on a cylindrical
parabolic trough focusing thermal collector [7],
which is rotated about the focal line of the concentrator in order to track the sun. The collector is composed of two cylindrical parabolic trough concentrators, each having an aperture of 1.2 x 2.1 m. The
collected sunlight is concentrated on a 2.54cm diameter absorber tube which is enclosed by a borosilicate glass envelope for protection. The space between
the absorber tube and the glass envelope can be evacuated to reduce the heat loss from the absorber. The
parabolic contour has a rim angle of 115, a focal
length of 19.4 cm, and an f number of 0.159. The reflecting surface is an Alzak anodized aluminum reflector sheet on a substrate which is a sandwich assembly
composed of two epoxy skins and an aluminum
honeycomb core. Three absorber tubes are employed.
The first is a black painted tube with water flowing
through it to evaluate calorimetrically the optical performance of the collector. The second absorber tube
is a heat pipe in which the evaporator section is
coated with an AlzO3-MoOx-A1203 (AMA) selective
solar absorber coating. The third absorber tube is a
heat pipe with its absorber section painted black. The
collector is designed to produce fluid temperatures
up to 300~C with the selective coating absorber.
Figure 10 presents the efficiency of this collector in
the east-west orientation versus the apparent solar
time as measured near Phoenix, Arizona. These data
were taken with the first absorber and represent a
calorimetric evaluation of the optical performance of
the concentrator. The efficiency was calculated as the
heat delivered to the cooling water divided by the
product of aperture area and incident flux measured
normal to the sun. The peak efficiency in Fig. 10 is

185

61.5% which is consistent with the product of the

efficiencies of the various processes which contribute
to the overall efficiency. The product of the component efficiencies is 63%. Figure 11 presents the
solar radiation intensity as a function of time of day
for 21 June, 1974 at the test site near Phoenix. The
data is from instantaneous readings taken at 10-rain
intervals during the day. The global radiation was
measured with a Spectrolab SR-75 pyranometer, and
the direct radiation was measured with an Eppley
NIP pyrheliometer. About one-half hour of early
morning measurements were blocked by the instrument trailer. A relatively dense cloud obscured the
sun at 0806 and the effect of thin broken cirrus clouds
can be seen in the data until about 1330. The sky
appeared clear from 1330 to sundown. The ratio of
the direct to hemispherical radiation intensity was
0.82 from 1200 to 1430, decreasing to 0.76 just prior
to sundown. On other days this ratio varied from
over 0.90 to less than 0.75 depending on humidity
and dust conditions.
The paraboloid of revolution focusing collector
operates like the cylindrical parabolic trough collector above except, of course, the theoretical focus is
a point rather than a line. Consequently, it is generally capable of higher temperatures with the same
aperture area. The Black and Veatch-Honeywell
research team has carried out an extensive analysis
of alternative solar thermal power systems [8], one
of which is a paraboloid of revolution circular mirror
mounted on a two-axis, gimbaled tracking system and
a fixed hemispherical receiver. The receiver can be
contained within a "bell jar" glass envelope with a
vacuum between the receiver and the inner glass surface. Figure 12 presents a view of this collector. The
collector was analyzed for a site at 33 north latitude
with insolation of 0.85kW/m 2 (15 June, 10:00a.m.)
which is characteristic of the Phoenix, Arizona area
for which cylindrical parabolic trough collector data
were provided above (see Fig. 11). The aperture area
chosen was 39m 2, the same as the aperture area
ca.

70

Collector
East-West

60

Oriented

Data

from

5-28-74

Data

from

6-4-74

Collector
=

--50

Pointing
.4 ~ 0 7 0 0

40
.~ 30
t~
~ 20

i0

0700

0800

i
0900

i
i000

i
ii00
Apparent

i
1200
Solar

i
1300

i
1400

i
1500

i
1600

i
1700

Time

Fig. 10. Efficiencyvs time of day for East-West collector orientation [7].

to

1200

186

DENTON:

1.0

SOLAR POWER SYSTEMS

o
Norma

0.9

0.8
0.7

i:

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.i
0

i
0400

i
0600

0800

i000

1200

1400

1600

Apparent

Solar

Time

- June

21,

1800

2000

1974

Fig. 11. Solar intensity as a function of time of day [7].

of a trough collector analyzed earlier by Honeywell
[9] similar to the one presented above, but with a
slightly lower ratio of width to length. The paraboloidal
collector has a six-in, wide slot from the rim to the
"center of the dish to accommodate the receiver
mounting as well as the shadow of the receiver support structure. The receiver is stationary and the dish
rotates to focus the sun's rays on the receiver surface
which was a fiat black surface with an emittance of
0.9 at all wave lengths. The collector was designed
to yield a receiver temperature of 537.8C with a 109
rim angle. The best concentration ratio is about 800
for the perfect optics case, 400 for a 0.25 rms uncertainty in the angular position of the mirror normal,
and 180 for a 0.50 rms uncertainty. The analysis
assumes a 0.25 rms tracking uncertainty. Figure 13
shows the load duration curve for this collector, i.e.
the absorbed thermal power versus the number of

hours annually for which the power output is at least

equal to the indicated power. This is a very useful
format of presentation for use by the power industry.
For comparison purposes Fig. 14 shows the load
duration curve for the cylindrical parabolic trough
collector with the same aperture area.
Another variation of the focusing collector
approach is one which utilizes a central receiver, onto
which the solar energy is reflected by an array of
independently steered flat mirrors, or heliostats. The
University of Houston research team has been investigating this concept since c a . 1970. An analogous sys!
0.4

0.9

Slope

~ 0.8
~0.7

~ 3
~ i

0.2 ~

0.5

21

0.4

2 is
~

Tracking

Error

= 0.25

Receiver
Temp.
= 1000
Flat
Black
Receiver

a=

? 0~

Brror
25

l:

~.9

i 0 . 1 - ~0.:
e
0 . ~

J
0

12

16

20

24

Duration

28

52

36

40

44

10 2 hrs

Fig. 13. Load duration curve paraboloid of revolution

collector [8].
East-West

Orientation

0.8
0.7

50

Tracking

Error

Ground

Cover

0.6
<

0.5

Ratio

0.4
0.3
0.2
o
0.1

i000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Hours

Fig. 12. Paraboloid of revolution collector [8].

Fig. 14. Load duration curve--cylindrical parabolic trough

collector [8].

DENTON:

SOLAR POWER SYSTEMS

187

. . . . . .

(450TmeWtr
rs--~)

~ ~ / <

$ H;Iio;ats ; ~ ~ / ~

i.8 km

;-[

Fig. 15. Cross-section of power tower configuration [11].

tem was investigated in the Soviet Union in 1956 by
Baum [10]. The configuration employs an array of
heliostats arranged so that the central receiver is illuminated without undue shading of one heliostat by
another or blocking the redirected radiation from
reaching the receiver. To accomplish this, one must
elevate the receiver 1/4-1/2 the diameter of the heliostat field. The University of Houston group chose to
study a central receiver of 450 m height placed in a
heliostat field of 2.5km 2 [11]. Figure 15 shows a
cross-section of the heliostat field. Each of the heliostats is to be individually steered, hydraulically or
electrically, to reflect the sun's rays onto a receiver
which is on top of the tower. Each heliostat is controlled separately with an optical guidance device. A
parabolic surface is approximated by positioning the
nominally flat mirrors. The heliostats are spaced to
shade c a . 45~o of the area of the heliostat field and
may range from 10 to 100m 2 in area. The mirrors
can be made of either silvered float process glass or
front surfaced aluminum or plastic sheet with a thin

protective coating. Figure 16 presents the solar energy

redirected by the field of heliostats per square meter
of mirror surface vs time of day for the solstices
and equinoxes. The incident flux is taken from Zaren
and Erway [12]. Also shown are curves of the intensity of solar radiation on a horizontal surface at
ground level in mid-winter and mid-summer. The
tower is offset from the center of the heliostat array
to improve winter performance and the array is
arranged to optimize performance at three hours on
either side of noon. Clearly, the mid-winter performance is improved at the expense of the mid-summer
performance (compare with the horizontal ground
level intensity). The performance is relatively constant
for three hours on either side of noon. Both of these
effects reduce the peak energy handling requirements
on the central absorber, thereby alleviating some of
its design problems. The optimized performance presented in Fig. 16 illustrates the results of procedures
employed to help match the solar power system to
the power demand requirements.

Configurationof Mirror Field

~i6~

= 0.45

800
i

1,.h

I/~--T
.... Height = h

~ N

~ 5 , " a'c e~
qe ~-

600

Mi.... A

6.8 h2

//

//

/~/O~

.//~
.</S

.-~-

.~ 400
i/

. ~e~"

/,'/

"~ ~

--"

+y

,/,?' /. i//

200

,i "1
7

~i
5

I
4

Hours from Noon

Fig. 16. Solar energy re-directed by heliostats [11].

188

DENTON: SOLAR POWER SYSTEMS

Non-Jbcusin9 thermal collectors. The fundamental

problem of non-focusing solar collectors is the attainment of a sufficiently high temperature in a collection
fluid to drive a thermal power conversion system. At
the present time these collectors do not deliver a temperature that makes them attractive for electrical
generating systems. There are techniques for improving the temperature performance of flat-plate collectors involving radiation selective coatings. The problem is one of simultaneously maximizing the solar
energy absorbed and minimizing the thermal energy
re-radiated. Because both the absorptivity and emissivity of surfaces are wave length dependent, it is possible to enhance the temperature performance of a flatplate collector by applying a coating which has a high
absorptivity in the wave length regions of interest in
the incident solar spectrum but has a low emissivity
in the wave length regions of interest in the spectrum
of re-radiated thermal energy. It will be recalled that
the solar spectrum is similar to the spectrum of a
black body radiator at 5750K, whereas the reradiated thermal energy spectrum is similar to the
spectrum of a black body radiator at the temperature
of the radiating surface, say 575 K, a factor of 10
lower. Selective coatings simply attempt to capitalize
on the spread between these two spectra.
The Honeywell-Black and Veatch research team
has analyzed simple flat plate collectors for absorbing
solar energy and employing pressurized water to
transport the collected energy from the solar collectors [-8]. Figure 17 illustrates the flat-plate solar collector which was analyzed. The analysis determined
the thermal performance of 10 serially connected flatplate collectors. The pressurized water flowed in series
through the collectors, each unit adding an incremental amount of energy to the water. The thermal efficiency was obtained as a function of the temperature
of the water leaving the last collector, which was
varied by altering the water flow rate. The thermal

Fluid

Tubes

Insulation
Absorber

Plate

Fig. 17. Flat plate solar collector [8].

70
T z =
60

50

~
0
-4

40

120

Fluid
Inlet
Temperature

150

180

210

30

240

2o

i0

0
i00
Fluid

150

200

250

300

Exit

Temperature

350
- F

Fig. 18. Thermal efficiencyof fiat plate solar collectors [8].

efficiency is the ratio of the net rate of heat leaving

the collector to the solar flux incident on the collector. The incident solar energy was taken as
0.98kW/m 2 and different inlet water temperatures
were assumed. Figure 18 presents the results of this
analysis for 1.22 m square collectors having 12 tubes
in an aluminum absorber plate coated with a material
having an absorptivity of 0.90 and an emissivity of
0.06. The collector was covered with one pane of glass
0.38cm thick and tilted at 33 with the horizontal.
Ambient conditions were taken at one atmosphere
pressure, a temperature of 21C, and a wind velocity
of 16km/h. With the low temperatures and correspondingly low pressures of water available from the
flat-plate system (maximum temperature of 150C),
vapor cycles are relatively inefficient for generating
electric power. Based on these results, the flat-plate
collector system is marginal for a solar power system.
Selective coatings research at the University of Arizona [4] has investigated optical thin-film coatings
that can absorb sunlight hut prevent heat loss in the
infrared. Figure 19 illustrates the technique of layering these films and the relationship between the performance of the thin-film and the physical behavior
of the selective coating. These coatings are only about
1/250,000 cm thick and are deposited on the substrate
within a vacuum tank or a chemical vapor deposition
furnace. In the selective coating shown in Fig. 19 the
absorbing layer is ordinary silicon, which is opaque
to sunlight but quite transparent in the infrared. If
a highly reflective metal coating is placed between
the silicon and the steel substrate, sunlight never penetrates to it because of the silicon. In the infrared,
both the silicon and the overlying non-reflecting
layers (added to improve collection efficiency) are invisible. Thus the metal coating attempts to emit as
if it were a highly reflective metal, and because bright
metallic coatings have very low infrared emissivities,
the surface traps the heat. The actual curve of reflectance as a function of wave length is shown in the
lower portion of Fig. 19. The effectiveness of a
selective coating is measured by the ratio of the solar

DENTON: SOLAR POWER SYSTEMS

189

X, ll/

Visible Region ~ O ~ _
Energy Incident
" ~
on Selective
//I \~
Coating
/~

,I

,,I

rh/,//..

Infrared Region
Energy Escape
Inhibited

~ , ~ N.... flecting Layers ~ [

I
I
,
I
Absorblng Layer ~ I

Transparent
~ > 1.5 ~m

,z >a

I ~i ghi y Re fle c ti ng

Metal Coating

// Z / tool

i io0
8o

~ 60
~ 40
2o
~o

0.4

0.6 1.0
2.0 3.0
Wavelength - ~m

i0.0

Fig. 19. Optical thin film coatings and performance [4].

absorptance to the infrared thermal emittance, ale.
System studies, such as the one quoted above [8],
have assumed that the state-of-the-art will provide an
ale of 15 at moderate temperatures, whereas the high
temperature system studies usually employ an ale of
10. The University of Arizona group estimates that
the limit of ale attainable by interference coating technology will be ca. 30 at 500C and 60 at 300C.
The limit by means of bulk absorption technology
is estimated to be 24 at 500C. In order to reach
an operating temperature of 500C, one needs an
effective ale of ca. 100. Clearly, these selective coatings
cannot provide such high values and one will have
to resort to optical concentration, of moderate values,
to reach 500C. A vital question concerns the operational lifetime of these coatings at high temperatures.
Photovoltaic collectors. The basic technologies for
photovoltaic solar energy conversion have been developed and applied extensively in space flight systems.
The question of large scale terrestrial use is one of
cost and life-time under terrestrial conditions. A photovoltaic collector is simply a flat array of solar cells
exposed to the sunlight and, normally, oriented perpendicular to the incoming rays. The solar cells may
be any one of a number of photovoltaic devices, such
as silicon or cadmium sulfide cells. Maximum performance is obtained with arrays that track the sun.
The efficiency of a photovoltaic device is simply the
ratio of the output power to the input power. Sometimes, a maximum efficiency under load is quoted,
in which case the output power is just the product
of the voltage and current for maximum power delivered. Of course the power is direct current rather
than alternating. In other cases, an ultimate efficiency
is quoted in which the output power is taken as the
product of the short-circuit current and the energy
gap (in V). As we have seen above, the solar energy
flux is wave length dependent (see Fig. 5). In addition,
the response of a photovoltaic device is wave length
dependent. Therefore, the electrical energy produced
by a solar cell is determined by the integral of the
spectral response curve of the cell combined with the

solar input spectrum. Figure 20 presents the silicon

spectral response curve and the solar cell output for
a clear day, tropical atmosphere with no water vapor
as a function of wave length. This figure also reproduces Fig. 5, in the case of no water vapor, which
shows the solar input spectrum. Of course, the power
produced is the integral of the solar cell output curve
over the wave length range of the silicon spectral response curve. Figure 21 presents the same information for a hazy day with no atmospheric water vapor.
Naturally, the presence of water vapor in the atmosphere decreases the solar cell output because of its
effect on the solar insolation spectrum. The literature
on photovoltaic devices discusses the output in terms
of the number of air masses between the device and
the solar rays as they enter the earth's atmosphere.
Thus, an air mass of zero (AMO) curve represents
the performance of the device outside the earth's atmosphere; an air mass of one (AMI) represents the
performance with the sun at zenith; and an air mass
larger than one is used when the sun is off-zenith.
In studies directed toward setting cost goals for silicon solar cell arrays for large scale terrestrial applications [13], an array efficiency of 10~o is used (with
no anti-reflective coating), which is realizable with
present day typical production cells. Cadmium sulfide
Visibility = 23 km
Water Vapor - 0
1.0

~~/~Spectral
r////~

i 0.5

Response
~[a~i~ n

In~ted)

Solar

Cell
Output

0.4

0.6

0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Wavelength - um

1.6

Fig. 20. Silicon solar cell output~lear day [5].

190

DENTON:

SOLAR POWER SYSTEMS

Visibility = 5 km
Water Vapor = 0

1.0

Insolation
o
0.5

Cell

0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

Wavelength - ~m
Fig. 21. Silicon solar cell output--hazy day [5].

cells that have been operating for about eighteen

months on a roof-top in Newark, Delaware have been
reported 1-14,15] to have an efficiency of ca. 2.5%.
The Delaware group predicts that they will attain efficiencies greater than 14% for their CdS/Cu2S cells
[14]. In the case of silicon solar cells, a reasonable
goal for efficiency is 17-20~o [14].
ENERGY STORAGE

The available energy from the sun is of low intensity and is both intermittent and variable in its instani taneous availability. In order to use solar energy as
a viable source of power, one must incorporate energy
storage into each solar power system in order to
match the power supply with the instantaneous power
demand. Even if this were not so, it would still be
necessary to accumulate the solar energy in a storage
unit in order to reduce the variability of operating
conditions required of the generating equipment.
Energy storage systems can be classified conveniently
as thermal, chemical, electrical, and mechanical. Each
of these will be discussed briefly.
Thermal energy storage. This mode of energy storage consists of using the thermal energy from the collectors to increase the thermal energy content of the
storage medium. Both sensible heat (temperature
change) and latent heat (phase change) storage media
are available.
Water is the most popular medium for sensible heat
storage because of its relative abundance, low cost,
and well-known properties. The stored energy is the
product of the specific heat and the temperature rise
of the water. Energy may be stored as sensible heat
in water in a temperature range from just above its
freezing point up to ca. 350C. At the higher temperatures the vapor pressure is high and the storage containment will require heavy equipment. Consequently,
water may be better suited for the lower temperature
range, say up to 230C. At the higher temperatures
one turns to liquid metals, molten salts, etc.
The steam accumulator has been used to store thermal energy in a combined sensible heat-latent heat
manner. High pressure steam is mixed with water and
allowed to condense in a pressure vessel. As more

steam is added, the mass of water eventually reaches

its boiling point at the charging pressure. To produce
steam from the storage unit the pressure is dropped
and the water flashes back to steam with the amount
of steam available being dependent upon the pressure
drop. Only saturated steam can be withdrawn from
the accumulator (corresponding to its pressure), thereby posing problems for the steam turbine.
An aquifer can be used for sensible heat storage
in water. One drills a number of pairs (one deep, one
shallow) of widely spaced holes into a suitable depth
aquifer. Water is withdrawn from the deeper holes,
heated by energy from the solar collectors, and injected into the shallow wells. Withdrawal of energy
is accomplished by taking hot water from the shallow
holes, cooling it by the energy conversion system, and
injecting the cooled water into the deeper wells. The
natural thermal stratification of large bodies of water
inhibits the mixing of the hot and cold water. Water
losses to the total volume of the aquifer present problems of containment of the stored energy. An alternative to aquifer storage which has been proposed is
to drill a deep well into hard, nonporous rock
(granite) and produce a large cavity by exploding a
100 kt atomic device in the well to fracture the rock
a , u proauce a cavity into which the hot water can
be injected. A second well is "slant" drilled into the
lower part of the cavity. The normal thermal stratification occurs and the operation is the same as for
the aquifer. The concept utilizes the natural insulation
and containment provided by the surrounding rock.
Latent heat storage is based upon the energy
absorbed or released upon a phase change of the storage medium, which occurs at a constant temperature
substantially. The energy stored is simply the heat
of fusion of the material for the particular phase
change. Generally, the phase change employed is a
liquid solid or solid-solid transition because of the
small volumetric changes which occur with these
changes of phase. A large variety of phase change
media have been proposed, eutectic salts, metals,
organic compounds, etc. For very high temperature
thermal storage, a combination of a molten salt and
a stratified tank of liquid metal is possible. Table l
presents pertinent data on some latent heat storage
media.
Table 1. Melting points of selected eutectics [18]
Eutectic

Melting
point (C)

Composition
(mole %)

AICIa-NaC1
FeC13-KC1
ZnC12 ZnSO4
KC~MnC12-NaCI
CaC12-NaC1
FeS-Na2S-PbS
KC1-KMnF3
Fe203-NaPO3
MgO~NaaA1F6
MgF2-NaF

112
202
300
400
500
600
700
800
905
1000

62-38
53~,7
90-10
37.7-37.3-25
52.847.2
25.5-52.921.6
88.5-11.5
15-85
3(~70
36-64

DENTON:

SOLAR POWER SYSTEMS

Chemical energy storage. This mode of energy storage involves using the output of the solar collectors
to produce a chemical which can be stored until the
energy is required. Upon demand for energy from
storage, the chemical is allowed to undergo a reaction
to release the energy. Depending upon the chemical
and the mode of use, the reaction may be of a combustion nature: it may occur in a fuel cell: or it may
be some other appropriate chemical reaction.
Hydrogen and oxygen may be produced by electrolysis of water with the electricity being provided either
by the output of a photovoltaic solar collector or the
operation of a thermal generating plant. Upon
demand the hydrogen and oxygen (or air) can be
recombined in a combustion reaction to drive a thermal generating plant or in a fuel cell to produce electricity directly.
There have been several chemical reaction systems
proposed to produce hydrogen. By using concentrating solar collectors which deliver very high temperatures, one could contemplate several of these systems.
In a study of a hydrogen-oxygen closed cycle MHD
system [16] several such multi-step thermochemical
decomposition processes are presented, e.g. Marchetti's Mark-I process (requiring a maximum temperature of 730 C) [17], the Mark-9 process requiring
650 C, and the G.E. Catherine process requiring
700C. Of course, any production of chemicals thermally, which can be recombined to yield high temperature products of reaction or in a fuel cell to produce electrical power directly, are possible candidates
for chemical energy storage applications.
Electrical energy storage. The storage of electrical
energy normally employs batteries, of which there are
numerous types. Most available batteries do not have
the high energy and power density characteristics
which are desirable, greater than say 0.2 kWh/kg and
0.2 kW/kg. Nevertheless, two types of batteries which
are presently under development, do have desirable
characteristics. The sodium sulfur battery has a theoretical energy density of 0.68 kWh/kg; the lithium sulfur battery has a theoretical energy density of
1.54kWh/kg: and the theoretical energy density for
34,000

the lithium-chlorine battery is 2.31 kWh/kg. Allowing

for severe degradation of the energy density in a practical battery, there is enough potential in each of these
batteries to make them attractive candidates for electrical energy storage in solar power systems.
Another system of electrical energy storage that has
been proposed is a superconducting magnet with aluminum conductors and epoxy insulation which would
be emplaced in native rock, probably granite.
Mechanical energy storage. This type of energy storage includes flywheels, compressed air, and pumped
hydroelectric systems. Among flywheels, only the new
superflywheels offer enough energy density to be
attractive. Compressed air systems would employ a
natural underground cavity, such as a depleted oil,
gas, or water reservoir. The compressed air is simply
pumped into the formation and withdrawn upon
demand. Loss of pressure and air presents a problem.
Pumped hydroelectric systems are presently employed
by electric utility firms in favorable locations.
ELECTRIC POWER UTILITY
CONSIDERATIONS
It appears futile to contemplate a stand-alone solar
powered electric utility system. At least for the foreseeable future it is necessary to integrate solar powered plants with an established electric utility system
involving a mix of different types of power plants and
several different modes of operation to meet its level
of demand for power. A given utility system may be
composed of fossil-fired, nuclear, and hydroelectric
facilities. In addition, it may supply steam to some
of its customers. The different generating plants may
operate as base, intermediate, or peak load generating
units in response to the instantaneous demand for
power by the customers.
The power demand for a utility varies markedly
over a daily period, a weekly period, and seasonally.
Figure 22 shows the forecasted electric power demand
in 1990 for the Southern California Edison Co. by
daily profile over three weeks of the year [6]. The
curves show the hourly variation for each day, the

--

30,000

~26,000

22,000

18,000

14,000

191

AprilwT,' F, si s M,TIw
TIAuust FJ sis IMIT'DecemberW'
I 'S I
Fig. 22. Electric power demand forcast [6].

192

DENTON:

SOLAR POWER SYSTEMS

daily variation through each week, and the weekly

variation for a typical week in April, August, and
December to illustrate the seasonal demands in the
spring (and fall), summer, and winter, respectively.
Clearly, these power demands will vary from company to company. In the conventional generation
model assumed for 1990, there were 18,000 MWe of
base load capacity (1000MWe unit plant size),
10,000 MWe of intermediate load capacity (500 MWe
units), and 9,000MWe of peak load capacity
(200 MWe units) [6].
An electric utility is vitally concerned with the reliability of its plants because it is required (by charter)
to serve its customers needs upon demand regardless
of the timing of the demand. In order to ensure that
the demand does not exceed its available generating
capacity, the utility builds its system capacity in
excess of the anticipated peak loads. This excess
generating capacity above peak load is the utility's
reserve, or margin, for meeting peak loads under conditions of forced outages at some of its generating
stations. The amount of reserve which is required to
insure a given level of reliability of service to the customers is determined by a margin analysis. Unscheduled outages for conventional plants are due to component failures; whereas, for solar plants one
encounters unscheduled outages both from component failures and from insolation outages. These
unscheduled outages are separate from scheduled
plant outages for maintenance or seasonal deratings
of plants.
When solar plants are substituted for conventional
plants into a total power grid, a margin analysis must
be made to ensure that the resulting system provides
service equally reliable as the conventional system.
If the increased outages of solar plants dictate backup
generating capacity to satisfy the reliability requirement, this backup capacity must be taken into
account when making comparative economic assess40
38
36

ments. Consequently, one seeks to establish the

potential of solar power plants to provide both generating capacity displacement and energy displacement
with the solar plants operating in a system which
functions with the required reliability of service. Margin analysis is probabilistic in nature and is based
on a loss-of-load probability on an hourly basis
extended over an entire year (because of seasonal
demand variations). By combining the total utility
system available generating capacity probability distribution with the projected electrical load distribution, a probability is developed that the load will not
exceed the available capacity (loss-of-load condition).
The system loss-of-load calculations are performed on
an hourly basis over the entire year of operation. By
varying the number of plants assumed in the grid,
the total generation capacity required to satisfy a
given reliability criterion, say a loss-of-load condition
of only one day in ten years (2.4 hr per yr), can be
established. Each generating unit contributes to the
total power grid as a function of its generating capacity and its outage rate. The forced outage rates for
conventional power plants are a function of type, size,
and age of the plant. The same behavior is expected
of solar power plants, but, in addition, insolation
outages at night or due to cloud cover will occur.
The effective insolation outage for the solar plants
is a function of the amount and type of energy storage
provided and must be determined hr-by-hr over an
entire year of operation. In addition, insolation
outages for a single utility system are expected to be
statistically dependent between solar plants located
at different points in the grid.
In order to determine the generating capacity displacement for solar power plants, it is necessary to
determine a conventional plant base-line generation
configuration of plants that provides the required
reliability of service. Figure 23 presents the baseline
generation capacity for Southern California Edison

Baseline Conventional
Installed Generation Capacity
(Margin
15.6%)

6!I!
I59~58:
~lO%scheduledplantMaint~
83 (Nr. of Plants)
......~

34
o

i * - -

32

~ ~

Generation

--

~52
~

52

58

46

Loss of Load:
1.78 Hrs/Yr
(Method l)
2.38 Hrs/Yr
(Method 2)

30
o

42
|

28

39

39

38

44

39

26

1 36 [

~ S C E P e a k
Load Profile
(1990)

22

Jan

F b

M r

A r Ma

Jun

J 1 A

Se

Oct

Nov

Dec

Fig. 23. Conventional plant base-line generation capacity [6].

DENTON:

SOLAR POWER SYSTEMS

193

Table 2. Margin analysis [6]

SCE peak demand (1990)--32,000 MW,.
Generation model--conventional (idealized)
Size
(MW~)

Plant type
Base load
I nterm ediate
Peaking
Total

No. of units

1000
500
200

Capacity
(MW,,)

(%)

18,000
10,000
9,000
37,000

49
27
24
100

18
20
45
83

Component
outage (o~)
4
4
4

Solar thermal plants (substituted for conventional units)

Plant type

Size
(MW~)

Nr. of units

500
250
100

2, 4, 6~ 8. 10
4, 8, 12, 16, 20
10. 20, 30, 40, 50

Intermediate
,~

Capacity Component
(MW~,) outage (%)
1000 5000

Solar*
outage (%)

0-100

,L

Reliability criterion.
Loss of load ~ 1 day/10 yr.
Conventional back-up capacity required.
* Determined from system simulation.

for 1990 [6]. The total capacity is sufficient to permit

a 5-week scheduled maintenance period for each
power plant and satisfy the reliability criterion that
loss of load periods will not exceed 2.4hr per yr.
Assuming a uniform 4% unscheduled outage at each
plant as a result of component failures, the margin
is 15.6%. Table 2 presents the data which was
employed in the margin analysis [6]. Different sizes
of solar plants (100-500 MWe) were substituted for
intermediate load conventional plants. The total conventional capacity which was displaced by solar
plants was varied between 1000 and 5000 MWe. Individual plant outage rates of 4% as a result of component failure were assumed for both solar and conventional plants. Insolation outages were determined

by simulations of alternative solar plant configurations. Because of the insolation outages the solar
plants require conventional plant backup capacity to
achieve the same overall system reliability of service.
The larger the capacity displacement, the smaller the
conventional plant backup capacity required for
equal system reliability as long as the total capacity
displacement is a relatively small fraction of the total
system capacity.
Figure 24 presents typical results of the margin
analysis to determine the potential capacity displacement of solar power plants and the conventional
plant backup capacity required as a function of solar
plant insolation outage [6]. The amount of backup
capacity required to maintain the system loss-of-load

32

TURBINE-GENERATOR
LOCATION

~ i00

RATING

INYOKERN,

MW e

(DT G

.36)

CALIFORNIA
o

DEMAND
TIME

DATA
PERIOD

~ SCE
~

16

1990

<
INTE~4EDIATE
22,000

22,100

SUN
1.00-

~ 0.80-

0.45 ~

0.36-[

/
!

0.60-

SAT

0.50

0.40

~o.29H 0.30

L ~ . . .l

\~_- - - . . . . .
i

0.40-

0.18 ~

MW e

0.20

Fig. 24. Intermediate solar thermal conversion power plant--ventral receiver [6].

194

DENTON:

SOLAR POWER SYSTEMS

reliability criterion depends on a number of parameters, such as order of substitution of plants, total
capacity of solar power plant penetration, size of solar
power plants employed, size of conventional plants
replaced, and size of the conventional backup plants.
For the case shown, ten individual 100MWe solar
plants were substituted for 1000 MWe of conventional
plant capacity. Three different conventional plant
sizes are shown to indicate the sensitivity of the solar
plant substitution to the size of the displaced conventional plant. Small insolation outages do not require
conventional backup capacity because the substitution of several small plants for a single plant spreads
the relative effect of component outages. For 100~'~,;
insolation outages, the conventional backup capacity
is not 1000MWe because the conventional backup
plants are of 100 MWe capacity or smaller.
The discussion above addresses an important consideration for utility firms contemplating the use of
solar power plants, the reliability of service. Other
important questions have to do with the technical
characteristics of the solar plant, its operational
characteristics, and the optimal use of the plant in
the total power grid. The Aerospace Corporation
group [6] has examined solar plants based on the
central receiver system, the parabolic cylindrical
trough collector, and the paraboloidal dish collector
for operation in an electric power grid as base load,
intermediate load, and peak load plants. On an overall basis the central receiver system operating as an
intermediate load plant appears to be best [6]; therefore, the discussion below will be restricted to this
case. Figure 22 presented the electric power demand
forecasted for 1990 for the Southern California
Edison Co. For this utility system the Aerospace
group studied the operation of a 100 MWe plant to
carry the system load in the range of 22,000 to
22,100 MWe, in the intermediate load range for the
system. The collector area was varied from 0.5 to
2.5 km 2 and the thermal storage capacity was varied
from 0 to 9 hr of capacity. The technical characteristics of the central receiver solar power plant are
shown in Table 3. Figure 24 presents parametrically
the technical performance characteristics for an intermediate load, central receiver solar power plant based
upon a full year of hourly simulation. For the
100MWe rated solar plant, the collector area was
varied from 0.5 to 2.5 km 2, and the thermal storage
capacity was varied from 0 to 9 hr of capacity. Shown
are the solar capacity factor, the plant capacity factor,
and the energy displacement when the 100MWe
plant is operated in the system intermediate demand
range between 22,000 and 22,100MWe. The solar
capacity factor is the actual turbine/generator energy
output, integrated over the entire year, divided by the
maximum theoretical total output for the year. The
plant capacity factor is 90,o of the solar capacity factor based on the assumption of a 5-week per year
scheduled maintenance period. The energy displacement within the 22,00(~22,100MWe intermediate-

Table 3. Central receiver plant subsystem

efficiencies and technical characteristics [6]
Collector
Tracking
Aiming
Shading
Blocking
First reflectivity
Receiver
Absorptivity
Emissivity
Thermal losses
Surface temperature
Distribution pump
Losses
Pump constant~
Distribution
Line thermal losses
Turbine/generator
Steam temperature
Efficiency<2~
Overall efficiency~

0.703
0.880
0.990
0.950
0.970
538C
0.985
66 x 10 3
1.000
0.360
482:C
0.360
0.192

~1~Pump constant = pump power x (collector area)2/(pump flow rate)3.

<2~Dry cooling.
<3~Does not include waste heat or storage
losses (0.1;]hr, input output efficiency
= 0.85).
demand range is the integrated turbine/generator
energy output divided by the integrated energy
demand within this range for the full year, which is
different from the solar capacity factor. The energy
displacement is a measure of the unscheduled outage
characteristics which, in turn, provides a measure of
the capacity displacement potential.
In the intermediate demand applications, for certain combinations of collector area and storage, there
may be situations where solar plant power is available
and storage is full during periods of low or zero
demand within the 22,00(~22,100 MWe range.
Because of the low marginal cost of solar energy, once
the solar plant has been built (because of zero fuel
cost), it was assumed to continue operating, displacing energy (but not capacity) in the base load region.
For certain combinations of large collector areas and
small storage capacity, the turbine/generator with a
rating of 100 MWe cannot handle all the insolation
energy available: consequently, this energy was
assumed to be lost [6]. The source and magnitude
of the energy losses in the central receiver solar power
plant are shown in Fig. 25 [6].
ECONOMICS AND MARKET POTENTIAL
The economic evaluation of solar power plants, of
course, depends heavily upon its technical performance and the mode of operation adopted. The Aerospace group [6] have carried out comparative economic evaluations on several concepts. The most nearly
economic system analyzed was the central receiver
solar plant; therefore, the discussion here is limited
to that case. In addition to the economic evaluation,

DENTON:

WINTER PERTURBED I ) R I E N I A T I O N
INTERblEDIATE DEHAND
COLLECTOR AREA - ] , 0 Kbl 2
STORAGE CAPACITY = 6 h r
TURBINE GENERATOR RAI'ING ~ 1 0 0 ~IB e
LOCATION ~ INYOKERN, C A L I F O R N I A
o DEblM~D DATA ~ SEE
I I M E PERIOD ~ 1 9 9 0

100%

i00

80

DIREC'I

SOLAR POWER SYSTEMS

LESS:
"

fNERGY A V M I , A B L E EOR BASE LOAD

FUEL D ISPLACEMEN'I

61.9%

'IRACK1NG
AIMING,
SHADING,

LESS:
REFLECq
I,OSSES

AND
BLOCKING
LOSSES

"

(rITE = ( I . 3 6 )

70.3%

INSOLATION
6R

195

55.7%

54.0%

53

2%
5 0 . 490

LESS :
ABSORP.
LOSSES

LESS:
RECEIVER
'['lIE RbLM
LOSSES

48.8%

~iz...F

lESS:

PUMP
IOSSI S

LESS:
SIORAGE
LOSSES

V/
4.;

4. ~..
~

I,ISS :
WASTE
IIEAT
I,OSSES

2(/

17.6%

LESS :
TURBINE
GENERATOR

Fig. 25. Central receiver system performance I-6].

the Aerospace group performed a cost sensitivity
analysis of those items which have either a large impact on the total cost or a substantial uncertainty
associated with their estimates.
Table 4 presents the basic economic data which
is employed in the Aerospace study [6]. It is recog-

nized that the 3% per year inflation rate may be too

low; however, since all of the escalation rates are consistently expressed in terms of the assumed inflation
rate, the comparative economic analyses (solar versus
conventional) remain valid even though the magnitudes may turn out to be incorrect. The capital structure, tax rate, and cost-of-capital used reflect values
representative of the electric utility industry. The
economic analysis is based on the discounted cash
flow method and the total methodology is shown in
flow chart form in Fig. 26 [6].
The total busbar energy costs for the 100 MWe central receiver solar power plant for intermediate load
application are shown parametrically in Fig. 27 [6]
in terms of collector area and thermal storage capacity. A collector cost of $30/m 2 and a thermal storage
cost of $15/kWhe are assumed. Included in the solar
plant busbar energy cost is an allowance for backup
capacity. This is the cost for maintaining sufficient
conventional backup capacity to achieve equal utility
system reliability as compared to the use of conven-

Table 4. Data standards [6]

Base year
1973
Inflation
3%/yr
Plant life
30 yr
Depreciation
Straight line
Cost of capital
7.4% (after tax)
Debt/equity
50%/500
Tax rate
40%
Land and solar
materials
Non-depreciable
Escalation rates
Investment costs
Operation and maintenance
Fuel
Revenues
Insurance/property tax

O-6.1%/yr
4.0%/yr
5.5-12.8%/yr
2%/yr
O%/yr

System
LI
Description ~

1972 Capital
Investme~ntCost

I
H EieS
.....
of
Scale

I Escalation to I
Start of Project

i
Determine
Cash Flows

1973 Capital
Cost
Data

11 EstiiateI

Determine H
Cost-of-Capital

i
H calcu1
te
H

Escalation
& IDC

Other
Fixed Charges

Determine
Total Busbar
Energy Cost

Determine ~
Fixed Charges
(DCF M e t h o d )

Transmission
&
Distribution

Capital
Investment Cost
@ Yr of Cumin
Operation

Fig. 26. Economic analysis methodology [6].

Retail
Energy
Cost

196

DENTON:

[I]RB0

GEMRAI0]~

] t ) f A I [{',~,

I}IfflANI]

l']Hl

COl

])\b\

P]RIOII
LICIOk

'[IIII~,IAI,

R,\I [NG -

[NYOKI P,X,
~

54l:1

199(I

ARfA
S'IORA(;I

(I)S'i
[:OS'l

SOLAR POWER SYSTEMS

b>O '.Ih e

(qlG

0.36)

CAl.] } O R ' ~ I A

$50/M 2

I N'I ERb!IiD IA'] [:

$15/ki~/hr

]2,000

(I SUNI

I I

II
L

~
[< 4{I - -

l
:

'

2 2 , 1{){] k~,' e
I
I
I
I
SAT

T
-

.-

20

--

Fig. 27. Intermediate solar thermal conversion power plant--central receiver [6].
tional plants. The backup capacity required was
determined by the margin analysis discussed above.
For intermediate load solar plants, in addition to the
added fixed charge for conventional backup capacity
required, an energy displacement credit is incorporated to account for the additional base load energy
displacement. No base load capacity displacement
was assumed. A solar plant with a 1.0 km 2 collector
area and a 6-hour thermal storage capacity, operating
in an intermediate load application, has the lowest
total busbar energy cost. The fossil fuel busbar energy
costs for intermediate load plants are shown by the
wide band across the bottom of Fig. 27. These costs
estimates were based on a 400 MWe combined-cycle
plant for intermediate load application assuming a
1991 fuel cost range of S1.65-~2.40 per MB,t.u.
(1990 dollars), with an escalation rate of 5L per year.
Comparing the busbar energy costs for a fossil-fired
combined-cycle plant and for a central receiver solar
plant, both operating as intermediate load generating
units, it appears that the solar plant with a collector
area of 1.0km 2 and a 6-hr thermal storage capacity

will be competitive in the 1990 time period, assuming

that the collector cost of $30/m 2 can be realized.
The total busbar energy cost is, of course, sensitive
to deviations in technical performance from the
values presented earlier as well as the component
costs of the solar plant. Table 5 presents the results
of a technical and economic sensitivity analysis for
deviations of the subsystem performance from their
nominal values. As can be seen from this table, the
system technical performance and the associated cost
performance is not overly sensitive to the anticipated
changes in subsystem characteristics. Table 6 presents
the results of a cost sensitivity analysis with respect
to the impacts of changes in heliostat unit collector
cost, thermal storage cost, operating and maintenance
costs, and conventional backup capacity costs on the
1991 total busbar energy cost. Clearly, the busbar
costs are quite sensitive to the heliostat cost and least
sensitive to the thermal storage cost.
One of the ever-pressing problems of utility companies is raising the capital for new generating facilities, thus the capital cost of a solar plant might pre-

Table 5. Technical and economic sensitivity analysis--central receiver system [6]

Intermediate demand
Collector area ~ 1.0 kM 2
Storage ~ 6 hr

Subsystem
Collector/receiver:
absorptivity*
Receiver:
surface temp:
Distribution
pump power
Storage
input efficiency
Turbine/generator
efficiency

Subsystem
nominal
performance
90/O
538C (1000F)
0.5 MW e (max)
85~o
36Yo

Subsystem
performance
variations
99yo(+ 10,o)
81%( - 10%0)
1200F( + 20~o)
800F(- 20~o)
1.0 MW~ ( + 100Yo)
o/
0.25 MWe (-50/0)
100~o(+ 18~[,)
70Yo(- 18yo)
39.6~0( + 10Yo)
32.4~o( - 107<)

System sensitivity
Capacity Busbar cost
factor 1991 mills/kWh
+ 1.9)[,
- 2.8~o
+ 0.4~o
+ 0.4/[,
+ 0.2/O
_ 0.2o,,;

+ 1.1~
- 1.37/o
+ 1.9%
- 2.87{

* Similar effects result from percent changes to collector efficiencies.

- 0.9
+ 1.3
- 0.2
+ 0.2
- 0.1
+0.1
-0.5
+0.6
- 0.9
+ 1.3

DENTON:

SOLAR POWER SYSTEMS

197

Table 6. Cost sensitivity analysis. Intermediate central receiver plant [6] (100 MW~)

Nominal value
(1973 dollars)

Category
Heliostat cost
Storage cost
Operating and
maintenance
costs
Conventional
backup capacity
required

$30/m 2
$15/Kwh

+$10/m 2
$15/Kwh

+7.2
+ 2.5

+ 14.9o
+ 5.2%

$7.5/KW~

+ $7.5/KW~

+ 5.3

+ 1t.0",,

0.0 MW~

+20 MW<

+6.6

+ 13.70~/,

clude its selection even though the ultimate busbar

energy costs might be competitive with other alternatives or even cheaper. Table 7 presents the estimates
of the 100 MWe central receiver solar plant capital
cost components [6]. The capital investment estimates are shown by the various accounts in 1973 dollars for a total capital investment of $776/kWe. When
these costs are escalated to the first year of commercial operation, the total cost becomes $1360/kWe in
1990 dollars. By comparison, the total capital investment for a 400 MWe combined-cycle conventional
plant is $179/kW e in 1973 dollars, or, when escalated
to the first year of commercial operation, the total
cost becomes $342/kWe.
Assuming the economic competitiveness of the intermediate load, central receiver 100 MWe solar plant
on the basis of total busbar energy costs as presented
above and that the utilities will be able to raise the
required additional capital, one can make some preliminary estimates of the market capture potential of
this solar power system. Figure 28 presents the Aerospace group's conclusions with respect to market capture potential. Factors contributing to this potential
market that were considered include the projected
growth in installed generation capacity, the allocation
of the load by operational mode (base, intermediate,
peak), manufacturing rate capabilities, construction

<?/

lOOi:

'[OIAL G[ NEKATION
[:APAC I TY

PEAK IIE?,b~NI,

100

'

/ /
10

~
/

i
1,
1930

CAPACITY. /
i NSTAI,[,I l) " ~ /
( ~nc I udila.t/

1000

I /

I
1970

400

320

~o

40

I 'I+ I
1990
YI:,\R

I
2010

I
2030

32
24

.~

-~o~ ~ 540(I

7OO

I).85

IH,000

1.32
2[.83

1-15 ,{lOll

SO.IR)

BBLS OIl,
(rail l i o n / y r )

~ - -

5.6

34

320 (]
1160.0

40O
t430

EN\ I RONbtt!NTAL IHPACT

LAND USE [1 sq mi/100 blWe)

NO POLLUTANTS
M:S I'HET I C

L,~ND
(sq m[]

43.2

,SI71N6 CONSFRAIN]
SUIFABIE AREA (SW US] - 21,500 sq mi
COOl ING WATER

16
8

IN]', C,\P.
I) ISPL.
(~)

1995
2005

blhc

~9ss
1990
20OO

t/i'r;

I NTI:RHFDI
: A'rE
SOLAR CAPACITY
rep] . . . . . ~u')
{#1' ~ ' z ' ~ g r o th
1 9 8 5 , / / f IOO ? , ~ e / /
i t~ ~
~ "~
"~u~/yrJ

1360

,C,~I'A{ 1"[~ ,, Fill I, 0 [SPI/',CL MI N'I

~E~.R

,~l

80
21
4
20
656
39
3
78
776
296
1072
119
169

,RE] AI'IVI ECONOMICS:

IO]M IgUSB,\R COST (1991 d o l l a r s )
SOLAR
8 mi t Is/kWh
CO"/VENFIO',IAL ~ 41) SO rail ls/kl~h

8[)(]

e!
~I

2
44
300
95
90

*PI AN'[ l i P } :
CINq P,AL REC} IVIR
IttLIOSFAT ~\REA/STORAGI: - 1 krllx/6hr
IN [ERHt L)IATII MODI

2400 i,

1.0
6

* Collector cost--$30/m 2.
~'Tower height 260m (3,2,1, 1 tower(s), respectively).
~.Thermal storage cost $15/kW/hr

(;ENERATION
~,
"II~{yON/~'~ AINTER IEDIATE
....
/'l~ ~e'- SOLAR CAPACITY
I NS'IAI { ED
I II
'
":

/AINTERHEDIATE
'"

I /

sl

Collector area (km 2)

Storage time (hr)
Account
Land
Structures and facilities
Heliostats*
Central Receiver/towerf/heat exch.
Storage/tanks+
Boiler plant
Turbine plant equipment
Electric plant equipment
Misc plant equipment
Allowance for cooling towers
Total direct cost
Contingency allowance
Spare parts allowance
Indirect costs
Total capital investment (19731
Escalation to start of construction
Total at start of construction
Interest during construction
Escalation during construction
Total cost at yr of comm'l opn.
(1990 dollars)

4O00

l'ibD, XI HU,1

# ' A]NTF-RMEDIATEl y ' "

A

$./kW~

8000

/TRAT';

///

//

Table 7. Central receiver capital cost estimates 100 MW,,

rated [6]

" N / / /

A1991 Busbar cost

(Mills/'kWh)
(1991 dollars)
%

Change
(1973dollars)

INS'I ITU'I IONM,

H[Gtl CAPI FAI, INVI!STNENT COS1

SOLAR
$1360/KW e
CON~,[N'[ I()NAL
$ 3~3/K~ e

198

DENTON:

SOLAR POWER SYSTEMS

lead times, siting constraints, relative economics, environmental factors, and conventional fuel availability. The major barrier to implementation appears
to be the comparatively high initial capital investment
requirements projected for solar power plants even
assuming that the cost goals for collectors, storage,
etc. can be met, which remains to be demonstrated.

REFERENCES
[1] G. P. Kuiper, The Sun, Vol. I of The Solar System.
Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago (1953).
[2] The American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac,
U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington (1957).
[3] A. B. Cambel, Energy R&D and National Progress,
U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington (1964).
[4] B. O. Seraphin, Solar Energy Conversion Study,
Univ. of Arizona, Tucson (1973).
[5] Mission Analysis of Photovoltaic Solar Energy Systems, Aerospace Corp., E1 Segundo (1975).
[6] Solar Thermal Conversion Mission Analysis, Volume
I. Aerospace Corp., El Segundo (1975).
[7] E. M. Sparrow, Research Applied to Solar Thermal
Power Systems, Report No. 4, Univ. of Minnesota,
Minneapolis (1974).
[8] J. C. Powell, Dynamic Conversion of Solar Generated Heat to Electricity, Honeywell, Inc., Minneapolis [1974}.

[9] E. M. Sparrow, Research Applied to Solar Thermal

[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]

[17]
[18]

Power Systems, Report No. 2, Univ. of Minnesota,

Minneapolis (1973).
V. A. Baum, High Power Solar Installations, Solar
Energy 1, 2 (1957).
Solar Thermal Conversion Workshop Proceedings,
Univ. of Maryland, College Park (1974).
A. M. Zaren and D. D. Erway, Introduction to the
Utilization of Solar Energy, McGraw-Hill, New York
(1963).
M. Wolf, Cost goals for silicon solar cell arrays for
large scale terrestrial applications--update 1974,
Energy Conversion 14, 2 (1975).
Summary Report of the Second Semi-Annual NSF
Photovoltaic Conversion Research Program Review,
Univ. of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (1975).
H. M. Windawi, Performance of CdS/Cu2S Solar
Cells Under Roof Top Insolation Conditions, Univ.
of Delaware, Newark (1975).
T. Nakamura and W. Riedmfiller, Hydrogen-Oxygen
Closed Cycle MHD Power Generation System Based
Upon Thermochemical Decomposition of Water,
Energy Conversion 15, 1/2 (1975).
G. de Beni and C. Marchetti, Proc. Symposium on
Non-Fossil Chemical Fuels, Boston, American
Chemical Society (1972).
P. V. Clark, Fused Salt Mixtures: Eutectic Compositions and Melting Points, Sandia Corp.
SC-R-68-1680, Albuquerque (1968).