
Abstract The Linear Fresnel Collector (LFC) technology is currently being commercialised by several companies for the application in solar thermal power plants. This study compares the electricity generation costs for LFC and Parabolic Trough Collector (PTC). PTC is the most commercial CSP technology to date and is therefore regarded as the benchmark. For reasons of comparability, direct steam generation is assumed for both LFC and PTC. For the LFC, cost data comparable to typical CSP plant sizes are hardly available. Therefore, the break even cost – referring to aperture-specific collector investment – is determined, where cost-parity of the electricity generation with a PTC reference plant is reached. This study varies the assumptions on collector performance and operation and maintenance costs to reflect different designs of LFC technologies. The calculations were carried out using cost and hourly simulation performance models. Depending on the assumptions, the costs for a linear Fresnel collector solar field should range between 78 and 216 €/m 2 to reach cost-parity at assumed reference solar field costs of 275 €/m 2 for the PTC. The LFC principle of arranging the mirrors horizontally leads to lower aperture-related optical efficiency which must be compensated by lower cost per m 2 of aperture compared to PTC. The LFC is a collector with significant cost reduction potential, mainly due to cheaper mirrors and structural advantages.The presented cost and performance targets shown in this study must be met by LFC technology developers to reach the PTC benchmark.
Linear Fresnel, Concentrating Solar Power (CSP), Solar Thermal Power, Parabolic Trough, Comparison, Direct Steam Generation, Model
Linear Fresnel, Concentrating Solar Power (CSP), Solar Thermal Power, Parabolic Trough, Comparison, Direct Steam Generation, Model
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 310 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 1% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% |
